H

Dok

H7

b oSix^ c^Uec^ l&^-Y-^^

A CALL TO UNIO]<f

ON THE PRINCIPLES OP THE

ENGLISH EEFjm]\IATION

A SERMON

PREACHED AT THE PRIDIAtlT VISITATION OF

CHARLES THOMAS, LORD BISHOP OF BIPON^
BY
WALTER- PAI^aUHAR HOOK, D. D.
VIOAK OP LEEDS
ANB- CHAPLAIN IS ORDINARY TO THE QBEEV.
^1 iWITH NOTES AND AN APPENDIX,
CONTAININO
COPIOUS EXTKAOTS FROM THE REFORMERS,
FUBLISHED AT THE RIXlUEaT OP THE CLERGY.

FTO.W

THE SIXTH LONDON EDITION.

NEW-'YORK:
f...^. REDFIEXX), CLINTON HALL.
B|rj£iESS & ^TRINSer, 233 BROADWAY,
1843.
_^ —  ..._, - ij^^,jyT» — ^-,., ,^ 11,1 -¦.¦  •  ¦ g '^  r—^  — r^  ¦ '' J ¦¦¦'-
Tribime Prmt, 160 I^Tassat^gand 7 Spruce-Street, J. A.. Fraetas, Printer.

A CALL TO UNION
ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
ENGLISH EEFOEMATION:
A SERMON,
PREACHED AT THE PRIMARY VISITATION OF
CHARLES THOMAS, LORD BISHOP OF RIPON,
BY
WALTER FARaUHAR HOOK, D. D.
VICAR or LEEDS
AND CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE QUEEV.
WITH NOTES AND AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING
COPIOUS EXTRACTS FROM THE REFORMERS,
PUBLISHED AT THE REaUEST OF THE CLERGY.

rRO.V THE SIXTH lONCON EDITION.

NEW-YORK:
J. S. REDFIELD, CLINTON HALL.
BURGESS & STRINGER, 223 BROADWAY,
1843.

TO THE
EIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD,
CHARLES THOMAS LORD BISHOP OF RIPON,
HIS RESPECTED AND ESTEEMED DIOCESAN,
AND TO THE REVEREND THE CLERGY WHO ATTENDED THE VISITATION
AT LEEDS,
THIS SERMON,
HONORED BY THEIR APPROBATION, AND PUBLISHED
AT THEIR REQUEST,
IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED
BY THE AUTHOR.
MDCCCXXXVIII.

SERMON &c.

ACTS, VII. 26.
SIRS, YE ARE BRETHREN ; V*rUY DO YE WRONG ONE TO
ANOTHER?
It would be a work of supererogation if, in ad
dressing such a congregation as the present, I were to
insist on the important duty incumbent upon all who are
commissioned to preach the Gospel, and to act as the
governors of the Church of Christ, of maintaining the
truth and the whole truth as it is in Jesus — of declaring all
the counsel of God. By the injunction of this duty, the
highest of our mental faculties and the most vigorous of
our intellectual energies are all enlisted on the side of reli
gion, and our hfetime is to be employed either in ascer
taining the will of the Almighty, or in vindicating his ways
to man. But so long as differences shall exist in the capa-,
biUties and powers of different minds, it will be scarcely
within the circle of possibility to avoid, in the discharge of
this duty, some diversity of opinion, and, in consequence,
occasional discussion and debate ; nor has it ever been the
wish of the Church to silence such discussion or to proscribe
all difference of opinion. Coincidence of opinion, even in
points which are not fundamental, is, of course, desirable,
but it is not to be laid down as one of the necessary terms
of communion. It is to a wish and endeavor to secure a
perfect coincidence of opinion that we may trace the forma
tion of many religious sects ; and on this account it is that
the persons composing each separate sect are comparatively
few in number, while the sects themselves have, like me-

teors, glared for a time and then sunk into nothingness.
The system of the Church has, on the contrary, always
been to preserve the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace,
by insisting, not on an identity of subordinate opinion, but
simply on an identity of principle. Within certain pre
scribed limits she has always permitted a considerable lati
tude of opinion. Beyond those limits are the regions of
heresy ; within them she permits her children piously to
inquire and fearlessly to discuss. Unless this latitude were
permitted, one of two things would inevitably follow ; either
all discussion would cease, and the result would be a spiri
tual stagnation and apathy, than which few things can be
more injurious to the cause of truth, or discussion would
always lead to a breach of communion and split us into
factions and sects. By those who agree in principle, cer
tain data are assumed as indisputable, and so long as those
data are honestly acknowledged, much difference of opinion
is allowable, but in either advocating or refuting an opinion
under these circumstances, no one has a right to speak of
bis opponent, as a heretic, since heresy means, in fact, the
denial of the acknowledged data.
Much confusion has been caused in the minds of men by
their supposing that the religionists of England are to be
divided, so far as principles are concerned, into two classes
only, whereas in point of fact, we are divided into three ; —
the Churchman, who may, from his avoiding the errors of
the two opposite extremes, be called both a Protestant and
a Catholic ; the Romish Dissenltir or Papist ; the Protestant
Dissenter or Ultra-Protestant. And union among these can
never be expected, by wise and practical men, until, as dis
tinct classes, two of them become extinct by merging into
the third ; that is, until their distinct and distinguishing prin
ciples cease to exist.
The origin of this threefold division is to be traced to the
Reformation, and to the manner in which that gi-eat move
ment was conducted in this country.
No view can be more erroneous than that which would
regard the English Reformers as men, who, having devised

7
a peculiar system of theology, were determined to supplant
the established system that they might put their own in its
place. Their object was simple, intelligible, and practical ;
it was to correct abuses in the existing Catholic Church,
which had come down to them from their ancestors, and of
which they were themselves the bishops and spiritual pas
tors. Those abuses, — deviations from the real principles of
the Church, — were gradually discovered, and, as from time
to time they were brought to light, it was the endeavor of
'OUT Reformers gradually, and as opportunity occurred, to
supply a remedy by regular and canonical means. From
the commencement to the conclusion of their holy work,
they indignantly repudiated the idea of their wish to overturn
one Church and to establish another; a charge continually
brought against them by the advocates of Popery.* For
example, in the reign of Henry VIII. it was enacted that
neither the King, his successors, nor his subjects should
apply to the Bishop of Rome for any dispensation, faculty., or
•delegacy. This was the first blow at the Papal usurpations
in this country: but, anticipating the kind of attack which
would be made by the partizans of Rome, and to prevent
misconstruction and misrepresentation, it is expressly pro
vided that " nothing in this act shall be interpreted as if the
King and his subjects intended to decline or vary from the
congregation of Christ's Church in any thing concerning the
very articles ofthe Catholic faith f in Christendom, or in any
other things declared by Holy Scripture and the word of God
necessary for their salvation."' In the orders for regulating
the pulpit in 1535, the clergy are directed to pray forthe
Catholic Church of Christ ; and of this our Catholic Church
of England, our Sovereign Lord King Henry VIII. is de
clared to be immediately under God the supreme head.^ Aud
* Our Prayer Book identifies the Church before the Reformation with
the Church after the Reformaiion, in a singular manner :— " And more
over, whereas St. Paul would have such language spoken in the ChurcTi
as they might understand and have profit by hearing the same; the ser
vice in THIS Church of England, these many years, hath ibeen read ia
Latin," &c. — Preface to Prayer Book.
i Note A. 1 Collier, Eccles. Hist. ii. 84, 85. 2 Collier, ii. 108.

8
Tonstal, in his Letter to Cardinal Pole, explains very clearly
the intention which at this period ofthe Reformation existed.
To the charge of the King's departing from the Catholic
communion, he says, " His Highness is much injured by the
imputation ; for it has all along been his practice to adhere
to the unity of the Catholic Church, to maintain the ancient
doctrine, and to conform to the worship and ecclesiastical
government of the rest of Christendom." " It is true," he
continues, "that he has rescued the English Church from the
encroachments of the Court of Rome, but if this be singu
larity, he deserves commendation, for the King has only re
duced matters to their original state, and helped the English
Church to her ancient freedom."^ At the trial of Lambert,
in 1538, the Reformation had considerably advanced, but
still on the same principle ; for Day, Bishop of Chichester, in
the speech bj' which the trial was opened, observed that the
King had thrown off the usurpations of the See of Rome,
discharged some idle monks, renounced the idolatrous regard
for images, published the Bible in English, and made some
lesser alterations in the Church, but that he was nevertheless
resolved to keep constant to the Catholic faith and cus
toms.'^ And in the spring of 1543, the act for the advance
ment of true religion and the abolishment of the contrary,
declared it to be expedient to " ordain and establish a cer
tain form of pure and sincere teaching, agreeable to God's
word and the true doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic
Church."* The facts here stated are sufficient to show that the holy
work of Church Reformation, if gradual, had still been great
and effectual even in Henry's reign ; in that of Edward, our
Reformers proceeded more rapidly and did some things, per
haps, inconsiderately, but still the same principle was pro
fessed. In his speech at the opening of the Convocation we
find the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cranmer, exhorting the
Clergy to advance further in the Reformation, — but how ?
by throwing off some unprinitiw, remains.j And by the
3 Collier, Eccles. Hist. ii. 136. 4 Collier, ii. 15L
? Jcnkyii's Cranmer, i. 36. 5 Collier, ii. 233.

statue of 1547, which sanctioned the giving ofthe Eucharist
in both kinds, a reference is made, in justification of the pro
ceeding, to the common use and practice both of the Apos
tles and of the primitive Christians by the space of 500
years.^ In the King's injunction against images, it is stated
as a reason, that " the Catholic Church made use of no
representations of this kind for many years.'" In the Act of
Uniformity, after alluding to the various Rituals and Litur
gies at that time used in England, it is affirmed that his Ma
jesty appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury, with several
others of the most learned Bishops and Divines, to draw up
an office for all parts of divine service, and that in doing so
they were to have regard to the directions ofthe Holy Scrip
ture and the usages of the primitive Church.^ In reply to
the demands ofthe Devonshire rebels. Archbishop Cranmer,
acting authoritatively, partcularly insisted to them " that the
practice and belief of the Church of England was agreeable
to the decisions of the general Councils, while the decrees
they ( he rebels) talked of, were mere stretches of the Court
of Rome to enslave the rest of Christendom."' Again, in
the answer of the King's Council to the Princess, afterwards
Queen Mary, in 1651, penned most probably by the Arch
bishop of Canterbury and by Ridley Bishop of London, it is
averred " that the English Reformation had recovered the
worship to the directions of Scripture, and the usage of the
primitive Church."^° And when the Prayer Book was trans
lated and corrected and brought to its present form, it was
recommended by the Clergy to the laity in these words :
" Here you have an order of Prayer, and for the reading of
Scripture, much agreeable to the mind and purposes of the old
fathers ;* and as such it was received by the laity it was re
ceived as " a very godly order agreeable to the word of God
a7id the primitive Church."^^ In Queen Mary's reign Cran
mer offered to justify the English Communion Service both

6 Collier, ii. 236. 7 Collier, ii. 241. 9 Collier, ii. 263.
9 Collier ii. 271. 10 Collier, ii. 311.
? Preface to this Prayer Book.
U Collier, ii. 320.
2

10
from the authority of Scripture and the practice ofthe primi
tive Church.i^ What, indeed, was his defence of our Com
munion Service? What his objection to the Mass ? Ofthe
first he asserted, " it is conformable to the order which our
Saviour Christ did observe and command to be observed,
and which his Apostles and the primitive Church used many
years ; whereas the Mass in many things hath not only no
foundation of Christ's Apostles or the primitive Church, but
is manifestly contrary to the same, and containeth many hor
rible abuses in it." " And when they, the Papists, boast of
the faith which has been in the Church these thousand years,
we will join them on this point : for that doctrine and usage
is to be followed which was in the Church fifteen hundred
years past. And we shall prove that the order ofthe Church
set out at this present by act of Parliament is the same that
was used in the Church fifteen hundred years past. And so
shall they never be able to prove theirs."* In hke manner
the imprisoned clergy, in that reign of terror, made a similar
but more extensive offer to justify the reformed doctrine and
worship by scripture and antiquity, and this under the high
est penalties. Their expressions, indeed, are as striking as
they are strong — " If they failed in maintaining the homilies
and service set forth in the late reign, or in proving the un
lawfulness of the Popish liturgie forms, and that by Catholic
principles and authority, they were willing to be burnt atthe
stake, or to submit to any other death of ignominy or tor-
ture."'3 On the accession of EUzabeth in 1559, a public and
authorised disputation was held between the abettors of
Popery and the upholders of a Reformation. On the side of
the Reformers the most prominent was Horn, Dean of Dur
ham, and he commenced by professing at once the deference
which his friends acknowledged to be due to the auth rity of
the Catholic Church, declaring the wiUingness of the English
Reformers to refer the whole controversy to the Holy Scrip-

12 Collier, ii. 347.
? Archbishop Cranmer's " Declarations concerning the Maas."
Works, IV. p. 2, 3, Jenkyn's Edit,
13 Collier, ii. 378.

11
tures and the Catholic Church, but maintaining at the same
time that by the Word of God they meant only the canoni
cal Scriptures, and by the custom of the primitive Church,
the general practice of Catholics for the first five centuries.i*
In the same sentiment did the laky concur when, in a sub
sequent act of Parliament, the authority of the first four gen
eral Councils was recognised.ie We have heard already the
declaration of one sovereign at the commencement of our
Reformation, that it was not intended to set up a new reli
gion, but merely to correct abuses in the Church, — and pre
cisely the same assertion was made, at its completion, by
Queen Elizabeth. In her reply to the Roman Catholic
Princes she proclaimed " that there was no new faith pro
pagated in England ; no religion set up but that which was
commanded by our Saviour joraciisetf by the primitive Church,
and approved by the Fathers of the best antiquity. ''^^ More
over the very convocation of 1571, which originally enjoin
ed subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, confirmed at the
same time the principle of the English Reformation, by de
creeing that nothing should be taught as an article of faith,
except what is supported by the authority of Scripture and
Catholic tradition,!'' .^hich principle is again authoritatively
proclaimed in our 30th Canon, wherein it is affirmed that "it
was not the purpose of the Church of England to forsake or
reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any
such like Churches, in all things which they held and prac
tised, and that therefore it doth with reverence retain those
ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God
nor offend the minds of sober men ;— and only departed from
them in those particular points wherein they were fallen
both from themselves in their ancient integrity and from the
Apostolical Churches which were their first founders."*
14 Coll. ii. 416, Conf. Strype's Annals, Appendix, 1465. Burnet's Records,
ii. 474. 15 1. Eliz. c. 1. sec. 36, A. D., 1558.
16 Coll. ii. 436.
17 Can. de Concionatoribus. Wilkin's Concilia, iv. 267.
? Canon 30. See note B.

12
I shall not detain you by pointing out how that principle
was still avowed and acted on when, in the reigns of James
I. and Charles II., some further reformations were effected
in our Church, but I proceed to show how another principle
was introduced among the English Protestants.
The foreign Reformers were not placed under the same
advantageous circumstances as favored the proceedings of
those who conducted the reformation of the English Church.
They were not generally the rulers and governors of their
respective churches. As abuses were discovered they pro
tested against them, they called for reform, yet had no wish
or intention to separate. But in most of the foreign churches,
the Bishops, instead of correcting, defended the corruptions,
and in process of time the anti-reformation party succeeded
in driving from their communion the friends of a Reforma
tion. Thus the Protestants were obliged, by circumstances,
to form for themselves separate and independent religious
communions. But in doing so they devised no regular system,
for they seem to have regarded the measure to which they
were compelled, as one of only a temporary nature, and
having solemnly appealed to a general council, they hoped
that the time would come when the Western Church would
reform itself and receive once again into its bosom those
whom it had unjustly expelled for advocating its true princi
ples.* But it was not long before, among the less enlighten
ed friends of the Reformation, a spirit of fanaticism was ex
cited ; and acting, like the man who continued to whet and
whet his knife until at last there was no steel left in it, they
wished to abscind every ordinance, phraseology, and doctrine
which might seem to connect them even indirectly with
Rome, and desired new ceremonies, a new system of theo
logy, a new theological vocabulary, a new Church. And
they were not long without a leader in a man of vast mental
powers and of ardent piety, but of an austere temper and
strong personal ambition, John Calvin. Instead of compar
ing, like our own Reformers and the early Protestants of
Germany, the existing system of theology with Holy Writ
* Note C.

13
and the traditional doctrine of the early Church, he inventec
an entirely new system of his own, to which, with more thai
papal intolerance, he called for a prostration of the judgment
and he proceeded to the length of shedding human blood t(
support it. Instead of seeking to reform the Church, he wa
ambitious to build up a sect which might serve as a mode
to all other religious communions, and over which he seemei
wilUng to usurp such authority as to render it doubtfu
whether he did not intend to divert to Geneva the appeal
which had been formerly made to Rome.
When the persecutions of Queen Mary's reign drove s^
many of the English abroad, there were some of our coun
trymen who, first at Frankfort and afterwards at GenevE
were prepared to decry the English Reformation for no
having proceeded far enough, and to embrace the foreig
system of the Swiss sect.* By Calvin our Prayer Book wa
denounced as containing fooleries, only tolerable from th
exigency of the times, and it was determined to supply it
place by a ritual less accordant with the ancient form c
worship, and more conformable to the Genevan model. Ir
stead of coinciding with our English Catholic reformers i
their deference to antiquity, they referred, when Scriptur
was ambiguous or doubtful, to the writings of Calvin, an
regarded as heretical all who refused to receive his dogm
as truth. And thus when the persecuted Protestantsf returned t
England, on the accession of Elizabeth, the English Churc
was composed of three distinct parties, all animated by dii
tinct principles : those who wished not to adopt any foreig
system of theology, but merely to complete the Reforme
tion of their ancient national Church, by doing what wa
absolutely necessary for the purpose, and nothing mor(
those who were enamoured of the Helvetic Reformatioi
and complained that our reformers had not gone far enough
and those who, complaining that they had gone too fa
were adverse to the Reformation altogether.
? Note D. t Note E.

14
Many and bitter were the disputes that arose, and it was
not long before the bolder and more consistent of the fol
lowers of Calvin separated from the Church, which they
regarded as semi-papistical, and formed independent con
venticles. As persons assuming to be the supporters of a
purer system of Reformation than that which had been
adopted by our English Reformers, they were known by the
designation of Puritans.* Their example was soon after
followed by those of the opposite extreme, who were the
advocates of the discarded corruptions. These persons en
tered clandestinely into a correspondence with the Pope of
Rome, who sent some Spanish and Italian Priests to officiate
among them ; and adopting another foreign system, that
established at the Council of Trent, they formed that schis-
matical sect from which the present English Romanists or
Papists are descended.!
This is a short sketch of the origin of those three distinct
classes of Christians, subject, of course, to a variety of sub
divisions, which we find in this country. But although the
bolder, more consistent, and perhaps more conscientious of
the Puritans quitted the Church, a large party who embraced
their principles still conformed, some from timidity, some
from worldly considerations, and some because they thought
that the Church of England, being only comparatively cor
rupt, i. e. less pure than some of the foreign sects, they
were not obliged to secede, and might eventually cause their
own principles to triumph in the Church itself. These per
sons, assisted by the Puritans from without, were continually
urging our Rulers spiritual and temporal, to greater mea
sures of reform ; and, complaining of the remnants and rags
of Popery still preserved in our rites, ceremonies, and eccle-
* The name was probably given to them, in the first instance, as a
nick-name, by their opponents, and they afterwards gloried in it, and .so
assumed it to themselves. In a puritan libel, A. D. 1574, " A Letter of
Robert Johnson, to Goodman, Dean of Westminster," he calls the Dean
" a Papist, a Schismatic, and a Puritane," printing the last word in cap
itals, as if it were a term of reproach, which he retorted.
t Note F.

15
siastical habits, they " inveighed against the established dis
cipline of the Church, and accounted every thing from Rome
which was not from Geneva."*
A contest between parties disagreeing in principle is
always a contest of life and death, a war of extermination, —
for principles may be broken, but can never be bent — may
be silenced but can never yield. And so was it with the
Protestants of England. The contest was whether the
country should adhere to the principles of the English or to
those of the foreign Reformers, and the war was carried on
unremittingly from the accession of Elizabeth to the fatal
terinuiation of the reign of Charles, who died a martyr for
the principles of the English Reformation, or (which is the
same thing) for the principles of the Cathohc Church. Du
ring the great rebellion the advocates of the foreign system
triumphed, and the Church, with the Crown, was laid pros
trate in the dust. But at that period a modification of their
principle was introduced among those who, in opposing the
system of Enghsh Reformation, had till then been united.
Hitherto the question had been whether the Bible was to be
received according to the interpretation of the ancient
Church, or according to the interpretation of the Genevan
Sect. But when the descendants of the original Puritans
endeavored to force their system upon the country as the
one to be exclusively established, they in their turn were
opposed by founders of new sects who regarded their own
interpretations of Scripture to be as irrefragable as that of
Calvin. It was then, and under such circumstances, that
the real ultra-protestant principle, which has ever since pre
vailed, as contrasted with the principles of the Church of
England, was brought to light ; — that principle being not
merely that the Bible and the Bible only ought to be our
religion, but also that the Bible is to be understood by each
person in that sense which he is persuaded by argument to
regard as the true sense ; and that he is then to unite himself
with that society of Christians with whom the same or simi
lar arguments have been productive ofthe same effect. This
* Note G.

16
principle is, of course, subversive of union. For on these
grounds the only difference between the coldest Sociman
who acknowledges the truth of Scripture, and the highest
supra-lapsarian Calvinist, is a difference in their logic or
their powers of biblical criticism, — and while both parties
may argue, neither may consistently censure.* And thus
the Ultra-protestant party gradually split into various hostile
factions, and their divisions led eventually to the restitution of
the Church with the restoration of the Monarchy.
At the same time a change took place in the policy of the
Dissenters from the Church. The attempt had been to sup
plant the Church and to supply her place by the establish
ment of the Genevan system. The experiment was made
and it had failed. And the demand was now, for what they
had themselves, in times past vehemently protested against,
a civil toleration. They asked for themselves that tolera
tion which, when dominant,! they refused to extend to the
Church, and a toleration was obtained ; — a toleration which,
just in itself, has been peculiarly advantageous to the Church ;
for it has enabled her to do what before she was unable to
do — without breach of charity to insist upon the observance
of her principles, and to proclaim the most unwelcome
truths ; it has introduced that moral discipline among us
which no external powers tould enforce. In vain did our
Reformers appeal to the strong arm of the law to compel
that conformity to the regulations of the Church which is
now rendered, according to the best of his understanding and
ability, b}^ every clergyman of common honesty and honor :
the Church is now able to say, without any spirit of persecu
tion, "Assent to my fundamental doctrines, and adhere to
my internal regulations, or depart from my communion.
However blameworthy I may think your conduct, for such a
departure, you are no longer subjected to temporal penalties,
and, therefore, as a man not merely of religion but of honor,
depart."t Our principle is thus reduced within a very narrow
compass, intelligible to the least enlightened mind. Every
?NoteH. tNotel. t Note K.

17
conscientious English Clergyman acts on the principle, that
while Scripture and Scripture only is his rule of faith, he is,
in his interpretation of Scripture, to defer to the Ritual,
Liturgy, Articles, and Formularies ofthe Church of England ;
he is to promote the glory of God in the highest, peace upon
earth, and good will among men, but to do so, not in the
way which he may imagine to be the wisest, but according
to the Regulations, Canons, Rubrics, Customs of his Church.
To these he is bound by vows the most solemn to con
form. And where are we to look for unity and union, if we find
it not here 1 And what terms of reprobation can be suffi
ciently strong to designate the conduct of those who, by
causing discord among brethren who in principle are united,
would thereby make music for our enemies ? Alas ! in
every community such persons are found to exist, whose
element is strife, who live by faction, who, mistaking party
spirit for Christian zeal, in their contest for what they al
lege to be truth, forget that Christianity is also a religion of
Peace and Love. At the present time such persons are
busy among ourselves ; they avow their wish to prevent
a union among the Clergy ; in the bitterness of their spirit
they conceive that the cause of truth can only be supported
by the foi mation of hostile confederacies within the Church ;
they glory in their unholy endeavors to arm brother against
brother, and in the hope of waging a worse than civil war
with the deadly weapons of theological hatred. Few in
number, they would scarcely be deserving of notice, if, by
anonymous misrepresentations, which ought never to be
credited until they have been fully examined, and by exag
gerations which, from their very absurdity, ought to excite
the scepticism of charity, they had not partially succeeded
in inflaming the passions and exciting the prejudices of
many good and zealous, but ill-judging and mistaken men^
who, instead of regarding measures, respect persons ; who
confound opinions with principles, and, in their attachment
to phrases, forget the truth of things.
Now, such being the case, let us rip open the apple of
3

18
discord which the enemies of peace would throw among us
and see what it actually contains ; let us briefly advert to
the subjects most freely discussed among us, and sure I am
that when we perceive how the case really stands, all mode
rate men, all who are not far gone in party spleen, will be
ready to admit that, if in opinion upon several points we may
some of us differ, there can be no just ground, — I do not say
for the rancour which is sometimes exhibited in these dis
cussions, for this can under no circumstances be justifiable,
— but for the disturbance of that unanimity and christian
harmony by the existence of which we are commanded
to give proof that we are the Disciples of the Prince of
Peace. Let us take, in the first place, the subject of Tradition,
and only assume, in charity, that the disputants on both sides
are in their intention honest and conscientious Churchmen ;
men, that is to say, desirous of holding opinions in conformity
with the principles of the English Church.
On the two great points which involve our common prin
ciple we are all agreed. We all of us hold, on the one hand,
" That holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to sal
vation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, 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 ;* and we all of us hold,
on the other hand, that in all cases of difficulty or doubt we
are to take for our guide the Ritual, Liturgy, Articles and
Formularies of the Church of England. But here we are
met by those who impugn our principle of interpretation, the
Dissenters, whether Romish or Protestant, who very fairly
demand why more deference should be paid to the Enghsh
Church than to any of their own sects ; to the English than
to the foreign reformers ; to Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker,
than to Zuinglius, Calvin, or Beza : to this objection other
answers may be given, but I only know of one which is of
any weight, and which has always been adduced ever since
the Reformation by all the divines who have adhered to the
* Article vi.

19
principles of the Enghsh Reformers.* Looking to the prin
ciples upon which the Reformation of the Church of England
was conducted, to the strict regard our reformers paid to the
voice of antiquity, to their avowed determination to adhere
to the unquestioned and unquestionable tradition of doctrine
universally received, they contend, and affirm their readiness
to prove, that in our Ritual, Liturgy, Articles, and Formula
ries, is embodied all that is essential of the traditional doc
trine of the Universal Church ; and that, therefore, in defer
ring to them, we defer not to the decision of a few indivi
duals, but to the tradition universally received in those early
ages, when, on all subjects relating to doctrine or to disci
pline, a strict correspondence was kept up between all the
branches of the Church Universal. And this tradition they
regard, not as the Romanists regard their falsified traditions,
as supplementary to Scripture, as conveying doctrines which
are not contained in Scripture (for they subscribe to the 6th
of our articles,) but merely as confirmatory of the true mean
ing of Scripture, whenever Scripture is ambiguous or doubt
ful. Now this is, very possibly, in the minds of some, a bad
answer to the Dissenter, an untenable defence, and any one
has a perfect right to supply us with a better if he can. But
surely there is no ground for division, no ground here for
our splitting into parties and factions, no ground for those
fears which the wicked would suggest, and by which the
weak are irritated. If those who contend for the authority
of tradition contend at the same time that all necessary tra
dition is preserved in our Church, the very summit of their
offending, so far as those who are in the Church are con
cerned, can only be an error in judgment, a mistake in
* To those who are desirous of seeing how invariably this rule has been
observed by our great standard writers, I may recommend " The Judgment of
the Anglican Church, posterior to the Reformation, on the suiEciency ofthe
Holy Scripture and the authority of the Holy Catholic Church, in matters of
faith, by John F. Russel, B. C. L. of St. Peter's College, Cambridge." See
also the incomparable Appendix to Bishop Jebb's Sermons ; Churton's "Church
of England a Witness and Keeper of the Catholic Tradition ;" Poole's very
learned Sermons on the Creed ; an admirable Discourse on Tradition, by Mr.
Cartwright, Minister of the Jews' Episcopal Chapel; and Keble's Visitation
Sermon.

20
opinion. By all parties within the pale, the ssime principle
is recognised and acted upon ; and the real debate is with
those who are without the pale, who ridicule, as inconsistent
and absurd, the deference which all clergymen acknowledge
themselves bound to pay to the authoritative documents of
the Church of England.
So again with respect to the Sacraments.* On this sub
ject all must admit that the language of the Church of Eng
land is peculiarly strong. In her holy jealousy for the two
divine ordinances of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord,
she withholds the title of Sacrament, in the sense she applies
it to them, from all other religious rites, however sacred, how
ever apostolical in their institution, however much the sub
ordinate means of grace. She declares the Sacraments to
be generally necessary to salvation, and she defines a Sacra
ment thus necessary to salvation, as "an outward and
visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us,
ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive
the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof," — a means to
convey grace, a pledge to assure the worthy recipient of its
illation. Of Baptism she states the inward grace, of which
it is the means, to be " a death unto sin and a new birth unto
righteousness."t She quotes the 3rd chapter of St. John,J
in which the necessity of a new birth is asserted, as a chapter
* Note L.
t There is a very strong single proof of the doctrine of the Church of Eng
land on Baptism pointed out by the present learned and pious Bishop of Bangor,
that in Article IX. where tho English is, " there is no condemnation to them
that believe and are baptized," the Latin runs, "renatis et credentibus."
I Bishop Kaye, in his Tertullian, p. 483, observes that the aadents uniformly
interpreted our Lord's address, in this chapter, to Nicodemus, as relating to
baptism. This is also shewn by Wall, in his history of Infant Baptism. Bishop
Beveridge, as quoted by Bishop Mant, observes, " What Christ means of being
born of Water and of the Spirit, is now made a question : I say now, for it was
never made so till of late years. Por many ages together none ever doubted
it, but the whole Christian world look it for granted that our Saviour meant
only by these words, that except a man be baptized according to his institution
he cannot enter the kingdom of God ; this being the most plain and obvious
sense of the words, forasmuch as there is none other way of being born again
of Water as well as of the Spirit, but only in tho Sacrament of Baptism.—
Bishop Beveridge's Works, i. 304.

21
implying, on that account, " the great necessity of Baptism
where it can be had ;"* in the Baptismal offices she expressly
connects the regeneration of infants always, and of adults
duly qualified, with Baptism; in the office for Confirmation
she does the same ; in the Homilies, the Font is designated
as " the Fountain of our Regeneration,"-)- while it is insinu
ated that by Baptism we are justified ; J and she teaches our
children in the Catechism that they were at Baptism made
members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the
Kingdom of Heaven. With reference to the other sacra
ment, she asserts that the body of Christ is "given, taken,
received, and eaten in the Supper ;"§ the Eucharist she styles
the Communion, (that is the communication,) ofthe body and
blood of Christ our Saviour.y And we are told, that those
who are duly qualified, spiritually eat therein the flesh of
Christ and drink his blood.TI We are directed when we re
ceive the Eucharist to pray to God to grant that we may
" so eat the flesh of his dear son Jesus Christ and drink his
blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body,
and our souls washed through his most precious blood ;"**
and " that receiving the creatures of bread and wine we may
be partakers of his most blessed body and blood."f f And
after communicating, we thank God for that he doth "vouch
safe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious
body and blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ."J J In
the catechism, mention is made of the " outward and visible
form" of a sacrament, and in the homilies we find an allusion
to our " receiving our Lord's most blessed body and blood
? Office for Adult Baptism.
t Homily for Repairing and Keeping Clean of Churches. See also Homily
on Fasting. t After that we are baptized ob justified."— Srd Part of Homily on Salva
tion. § Article xxviii. "The body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the
supper, only after an heavenly and sphitual manner. And the mean whereby
the body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper is Faith."
II Ezhortat. Com. Office. H Ibid. «* Prayer of Humble Access.
tt Consecration Prayer. tt Post Communion.

22
under the form of bread and wine ;"* and in the homilies,
we are also exhorted to hold that " in the Supper of the
Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue
figure of a thing absent ;"t and we are told that the faithful
" receive not only the outward sacrament, but the spiritual
thing also, not the figure but the truth, not the shadow but
the body ;"J finally, our children are taught that the inward
part of the Eucharist is " the body and blood of Christ which
are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in
the Lord's Supper."§ Now these expressions are so strong
that many pious and well-meaning men have regarded them
as sufficient to justify their secession from our communion ;
while more violent controversialists have not hesitated to
denounce the English Church for retaining them, as semi-
popish, if not absolutely papistical. They both censure our
baptismal office and affirm that our doctrine of the Eucha
rist differs little, if at all, from the transubstantiation of the
Romanist, or, at all events, from the consubstantiation ofthe
Lutheran, — dogmas equally unphilosophical and unscriptural.
The English Churchman, then, is here placed on the defen
sive, and the defence is conducted in two ways. Some''persons
admit (without questioning) the accuracy of our opponents in
their notions of sacramental efficacy ; and, seeing the mani
fest and glaring inconsistency between our services and those
notions, regret that our reformers retained the expressions
objected to, but at the same time contend that they do not
of necessity bear the construction which is generally placed
on them, but admit of a restricted meaning, more conforma
ble with the view of the objector. Others there are who
receive these expressions in all the simplicity and fulness of
their meaning, and, thinking that they are amply borne out
by Scripture, maintain that the English Reformers, in the
retention of them, used a wise discretion, and acted consis
tently on those Catholic principles to which they professed to
adhere. These assume the offensive against our common
• Advertisement at the end of the First Book of Homilies.
t Hom. xxviii. t Ibid. § Catechism.

23
objectors, and shew that, in confounding, as do the foreign
reformers, regeneration with renovation,— a change of spiri
tual state, circumstances, and relations, and an election to
grace, with a subsequent change of disposition, heart, and
temper, — the objectors are themselves in error; and are
equally unscriptural in the very low notions they entertain
of the grace conveyed to the faithful in the other Sacrament.
And thus, since no one but a man equally void of integrity,
and regardless of the sanctity of an oath, would presume to
alter our baptismal office or the Liturgy, to make them
square with his private views ; the only question among
Churchmen is, whether the words we use in common will,
or will not, by fair construction, bear the interpretation which
some persons put upon them. If, after fair discussion, it is
found they cannot, — of course, those who think that the ex
pressions used in our offices are anti-scriptural will quit our
communion, and the discussion will then be one relating to
principle, and the debate will be as to the meaning of the
words of Scripture. Until it comes to this, — our differences
of opinion ought surely not to lead to disunion among our
selves. Come we now to the doctrine ofthe Apostolical Succes
sion. On this subject no controversy existed at the time of
the Reformation. It was, at that time, as it had been for
1500 years, taken for granted that no man might presume to
minister in sacred things, unless he were first appointed to
the office by persons having authority to make the appoint
ment by their regular succession from the apostles. Upon
this point no one is more eloquent or more decided than our
reforming Archbishop, Dr. Cranmer.* Accordingly, when
in the reign of Elizabeth the Thirty-nine Articles were
agreed upon in a convocation of our clergy, the doctrine was
assumed : " It is not lawful for any man to take upon him
the office of public preaching or administering the Sacra
ments in the congregation before he be lawfully called and
sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge
* Note M.

24
lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this
work by men who have public authority given unto them in"
— not by, but in — " the congregation to call and send minis
ters into the Lord's vineyard."* But the point being settled
that there are some persons in the congregation or Church
who have powers to ordain, the question is who those persons
are 1 This was the question in debate at the Reformation,
and it is easily answered so far as the Church of England is
concerned, since it was settled, before the Thirty-nine Ar
ticles were received, in the ordinal in which it is affirmed :
"It is evident to all men diligently reading the Scriptures
and the ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there
have been these three orders of ministers in Christ's Church,
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."f In the order for consecra
ting Bishops, as well as in the Ordination Service, she speaks
of the offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as offices
divinely instituted ; and, if instituted by God, of course they
cannot be lawfully aboUshed. But it is a point not contro
verted, that wherever these officers exist, the power of
ordination rests with the first, assisted by the second. And
accordingly, in legislating on this subject, the Church of Eng
land ordains that " no one shall be accounted and taken to be
a lawful Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, among us, or be suffered
to execute any of the ministerial functions, except he be
called, tried, examined, and admitted thereunto, according to
our form of episcopal ordination, or hath had formerly epis
copal consecration or ordination."^ A more complete
answer to the question. Who are they that have authority in
the congregation ? could not be given by a Church which
reverences Scripture and the ancient authors. And hence
it is, that while a Minister of the Roman Church officiates
among us, upon the renunciation of his errors, without a fur
ther ordination, a converted Presbyterian Minister is unable
to do so. The one has had, the other has not had, episcopal
ordination. • Article xxiii. t Pref. to the Ordinal.
X Pref. to Ordinal.

25
Now this regulation very naturally offends the various
self-appointed ministers and teachers, who have of late years
abounded in the land. They accuse the church of intole
rance, bigotry, and illiberality, since they conclude that she
implies by this regulation the invalidity of all but episcopal
ordination : and in this conclusion they are the rather confirmed
when they find our canons, denouncing, as ipso facto ex
communicated, not only those who affirm that the Church of
England is not a true and apostolical church,* or that the
form of God's worship in the church of England is corrupt.f
but also those who, not being of the church of England,
challenge to themselves, in England, the name of true and
lawful churches.J Under such a reproach some of the
members of our church are impatient, and deny that the
conclusion must of necessity be drawn. Others, rejoicing
in every thing to bear the scandal of the cross, admit the
justness of the conclusion, but contend that the church is no
more to be blamed for this than a mirror for the wrinkles or
deformities it may bring to view. The church injures no
one by asserting the fact, for, if it be a fact, a fact it is whe
ther she asserts it or not. It either is a fact that a society of
believers, organized without the episcopal order, is not a
church, but merely a sect not organized according to apos
tolical and scriptural rule, as our church insinuates ; or it is
not a fact. It is open to discussion whether it be a fact ;
there is no want of charity in our declaring what we believe
to be such. As maintainors of God's truth we are to de
clare it in this as in every other instance, and in God's good
time the truth will be known and recognized, and those who
have deserted it will perceive that christian unity is to be
restored, not by our yielding to them, but by their returning
to us. As we may preach that faith in the Lord Jesus is
necessary to salvation, without denying the salvability of the
heathen ; so none will refuse to admire and reverence and
love the pious and consistent christian of every communion,
whether Romish or Protestant ; none — God forbid — will
doubt of his being capable of salvation, though we may still
* Can. ii. t Can. iv. t Can. xi.
4

26
believe that in many respects he may have fallen short of
gospel truth. But be this as it may — it is a principle to be
discussed with those who are in principle separated from us
— it is certainly no just cause of angry dispute among our
selves, who have declared our unfeigned assent and consent
not only to our Articles, but to our ordination offices — the
first of which declare that those only may minister in sacred
things who are duly ordained, and the second that those only
are to be considered by us as duly ordained who have re
ceived episcopal orders. The only legitimate subject of dis
cussion among us is, how are we to meet the objection to our
principle as urged by Dissenters — a mere matter of opinion,
not a fair plea for division.
I will only advert to one point more, and hasten to a
conclusion. I allude now to the angry debates which
contentious men would raise among us with reference to the
ceremonies of the Church. On this subject, too, we are in
principle united. We all agree that forms and ceremonies
are in themselves things indifferent, unless they have been
divinely prescribed, as in the case of the sacraments, and
some of the sacramentals. We are all of us also agreed in
admitting that when we have solemnly vowed as bishops,
priests, and deacons ofthe Church of England to adhere to
the forms and ceremonies, rubrics, usages, and regulations
ofthe Church of England, these ceremonies, relatively to us,
cease to be things indifferent. If we make a vow, we are,
of course, bound to keep it, and they, therefore, if such there
be, who think that they show their wisdom by a studied dis
regard of the decent ceremonies of the church, do, in reality
only show the little respect they have for their declarations
and oaths. But it is notorious, from whatever circumstan
ces, that since the reformation, the ceremonies ofthe Church
of England have been, in several respects, altered, either by
the introduction of new practices, or by the neglect of old
ones. For example, we find that metrical Psalms are now
sung as a regular part of our service, of which they origi
nally formed no portion.* This innovation is one of ancient
» Note N.

27
date, and I am not complaining of it, but still it is an innova
tion, and hke most innovations it has gradually led to another
of a very questionable character ; I allude to the introduc
tion of unauthorised hymns of human composition. Another
innovation since the time of our reformers is the use of ex
tempore prayer before or after the sermon. Now these are
very serious innovations, since they afford to an individual
minister more Uberty than the Church allows, and enable
him to blend his private opinions with the acknowledged
principles of the Church in such a manner as to confound
the one with the other. Many other innovations of minor
importance might easily be pointed out, such as the prevail
ing practice for the minister to turn in prayer to the people :*
in the days of the reformers, and for some time after, the
minister turned /row tiie people in prayer, to them in exhor
tation, so that even by his action the people could distinguish
between his address to them, and his address for them and
with them to God ; — they were continually reminded, by
outward circumstances, of the holy duty in which they ought
to be engaged. The innovation in this respect has likewise
led to another, in that unsightly novelty a second pulpit,
which is now adopted in some sanctuaries, instead ofthe
ancient fald-stool or low desk.f Among omissions, we may
note that the people (in consequence, perhaps, of former in
novation,) too generally sit, instead of kneeling, at prayer,
and seldom bow at the name of the Lord Jesus ; J while in
some places we find that the clergy no longer say the Com
munion Service standing at the communion table, and the
table is deprived of the candlesticks with which it is directed
that it should be adorned. § Anthems are frequently discon
tinued, even in places where they sing; except when there
is a Communion the offertory and prayer for the Church
Militant are generally omitted, and several portions of the
clerical habihments|| have fallen into disuse.
There are more serious omissions to which I will not
now refer : such as the omission ofthe daily prayers, though
» Note O. t Note P. t Note Q. § Note R. II Note S. ,

28
every clergyman is directed to have them solemnized in his
Church ; such as the neglect of weekly Communions ; such
as the omission, when the Eucharist itself is administered, on
the part of some of the clergy, to place the bread and wine,
with their own hands, as an oblation on the altar, although at
the last review of the Liturgy, a rubric was expressly and
deliberately introduced to compel this observance ; such as
the neglect, on the part of others, to give that Sacrament
with the words addressed to each individual communicant ;
for these are omissions of too serious a nature to come under
the head of mere ceremonies. With respect to the other
matters to which I have referred, I am perfectly ready to
admit that many of them are, in themselves, of very little
moment ; but when we are solemnly pledged to conform
to the ceremonies of the Church of England, the tender con
science will be apt to inquire what those ceremonies are to
the observance of which they are thus bound. Now some
are of opinion that they act sufficiently up to their vow,
when they observe such ceremonies as they find handed
down to them in the congregation over which they are
appointed to preside. Others may be of opinion that the cere
monies ought to be observed precisely as they were originally
appointed. A third party are of opinion, to which I myself
incline, that they act in perfect consistency with their pledges
if they take things as they find them, merely guarding against
further innovations ; and if, as occasion offers, they return
more nearly to the practice of the reformers, which they
rejoice to think is the practice also of the primitive Church.
But here again the Protestant Dissenters are prepared to
upbraid us. Our ceremonies and our ecclesiastical habits,
and m great part our services themselves, are the same as
those which are used by the Church of Rome, and therefore
they accuse us of being papistical for retaining them. Here,
then, we are again placed on the defensive, and how are we
to defend ourselves? Some persons regret that so many of
the old ceremonies were retained by our reformers, but
defend them on the ground that they are not actually sinful,
that in practice they have been much simplified, and they

29
very properly conclude that it is better to observe them,
since they are enjoined, than to commit schism. Others, on
the contrary, defend us by acting again on the offensive :
they accuse the sectarians in general of a want of due reve.
rence for things sacred, a forgetfulness of the majesty of the
deity, who is approached too often in terms of ecstatic
familiarity, amounting almost to profaneness ; they appeal to
the Scriptures which, while reveahng to us the loving-kind
ness of our God, would at the same time impress our minds
with a mysterious awe of Jehovah ; and instead, therefore,
of apologizing for our observances, they express their satis
faction that, by the solemnity of our services and the deco-
rum of our ceremonies, the devotions of the Church are
discriminated from the ranting and raptures of most modern
sects. They may at the same time reverence our particular
ceremonies as the relics of primitive devotion, and regard,
with a sentiment akin to piety, what acts as one of the con
necting links between us and our forefathers.* At the same
time they carry out the principle of the English reformers,
and perceive how the retention of the ancient ceremonies
disarms the Romanist of one of his arguments. We tell the
Romanist that ours is the old Catholic Church of England —
his, a new sect. And when he points to his ceremonies, as
a badge of his antiquity, we can defy him to the proof ; for,
(more especially if our rubrics be duly observed,) we have
in common with him the ancient ceremonies of the primitive
Church, and where he differs from us, he almost always dif
fers on matters subsequently introduced.
Now here is certainly room for some diversity of opinion,
but surely, my brethren, there can be no room for that fierce
ness of controversy with which this subject is sometimes
* Thus our great reformer. Archbishop Parker, in his speech to the Convo
cation, speaks of our ceremonies :— " He had for exerting himself not only the
precedent of the late martyrs of the Reformation, but of saints of the earliest
antiquity ; that some of these in the first centuries arrived in this island, and have
left us noble remains of their piety and success; and notwithstanding the in
structions they left, and the usages they settled, are partly worn out by time
and superstition, yet many of them have had a more happy conveyance, and
reached down to the present age; and that it appears our constitutions and
ceremonies are little difierent from what was then established."— CoiKe?, ii. 537.

30
approached. For whether we estimate the value of our cere
monies too highly or too meanly, in principle we are all
united ; — the ceremonies of the Church of England must be
observed because we are pledged to observe them, and the
ceremonies ofthe Church of England only.
I am far from intending to say that in these differences
of opinion there is nothing of importance. If we were
assembled in Convocation, empowered to make further
reforms in our Church, or to discuss the need of them, our
opinions with respect to the value of tradition would be im
portant in the extreme ; so would be our opinions concern
ing the efficacy of the Sacraments, and the relative value of
primitive Ceremonies, if we were reconstructing our Baptis
mal and Liturgical offices : nor of less importance would be
our opinions on the Apostolical Succession, if the decision
were to rest with us whether the Church should recognize
the ministerial functions of men not episcopally ordained.
But happily for us the.se questions have been decided for us
by the Church, and to the decision of the Church, by the
very fact of our being Churchmen, we unanimously bow ;
we receive her decisions as our common principle. The
principles of the Church, as we have seen, form an insur
mountable barrier between us and the Dissenter, both Ro
mish and Protestant, and render union with either of those
parties impossible. But to us Churchmen, surely our com
mon principles — if we be not carnal men cherishing in our
hearts bitter envying and strife — must be a common bond of
union. But how can this union be preserved, unless, like
the Church itself, while we are firm to our principles, we are
tolerant towards the opinions of our brethren? The rule of
the Church is indeed admirable. If any clergyman, either
by his teaching or by his conduct, violate any principle of
the Church, he ought to be accused to the Bishop, — to re
ceive such accusations is indeed one of the purposes for
which our Diocesan holds his court among us on such occa
sions as the present, — and if, after trial, the accused be found
guilty, he may be excommunicated and deposed. But the
Church does not permit one preacher to pronounce a judg-

31
Tnent, as it were ex cathedra, on another, to anathematize
his opinions when he cannot canonically prove him to be
guilty of heresy, or even officially to attempt the refutation
of them ; for our 53rd Canon enacts, " If any preacher shall,
in the pulpit, particularly or namely, of purpose, impugn or
confute any doctrine delivered by any other preacher in the
same Church, or in any Church near adjoining, before he
hath acquainted the Bishop of the diocese therewith, and
received order from him what to do in that behalf,"— he shall
be liable to suspension ;* a regulation, this, obviously just
and wise. We may descend from our official situation, and
appear in the arena on equal terms as controversiaUsts, if in
opinion we unfortunately differ ; but in this case, the one
controversiaUst is not more infallible than the other, and if,
pendente lite, one party takes upon him officially to give sen
tence on the other, what is this but a petitio principii as
absurd as it is intolerant ? In very truth, if each individual
preacher were permitted thus to erect himself into an infalli
ble Pope, fulminating his anathemas to the right hand and to
the left, we should live for a time in a state of Ishmaelitish
discord, when our hand would be against every man, and
every man's hand against us, and at last we should subside
into a despotism and tyranny worse than Rome ever invent
ed or Geneva contemplated.
Needful it is to make these observations, since as I have
hinted before, the worst part of the periodical and (so called)
religious press, are by their misrepresentations inflaming the
passions of weaker brethren in the ministry, and are calling
upon them, under the pretence of speaking out for the truth,
to violate the laws of the Church, and by turning it into the
platform of angry contention, thus to desecrate the pulpit.
Remember, brethren, that if the propagation of evangeUc
truth be one portion of our duty, it is no less our duty, by
the sacrifice of all personal considerations, by the humiliation
of our proud, the restraint of our angry, the denial of our
selfish passions— by the due control even of our better
emotions — to preseve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of
• Note T.

32
peace Remember, brethren, that our enemies are many
and mighty ; the two extremes of Romanism and Ultra-
Protestantism are banded, together with InfideUty, against us,
and if, like Sampson's foxes, they are pulling different ways,
the brands which are attached to them have one and the
self-same object — our destruction. And is this a time to di
vide our house, and to form parties and factions ? Is this the
season for discord ? Remember, brethren, the ties, the sac
red ties, which bind us to one another : as men, we are all
under the same condemnation, we are all heirs of the same
corrupted nature, equally one and all children of wrath : as
Christians, we seek for reconciliation with an offended Maker,
through the atoning merits and the all-prevailing interces
sion of the same crucified, the same glorified Saviour, through
the sanctification of the same Blessed Spirit : we worship
the same God, the Trinity in Unity. We are brethren of
the same household, with one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
one God and Father of us all ; ministers of Christ acting
under the same apostoUcal commission, pledged all to walk
by the same rule, and to speak the same thing ; bound all
by the same vows, with interests and pursuits, and duties
and privileges identical ; where, I ask again, can Christian
unanimity and harmony be found if we find it not here ?
" Sirs, ye are Brethren," Oh wrong not one another. Sirs,
ye are brethren, and your Master is praying in heaven that
ye may be one even as he is one with the Father. Oh seek
not by your passions to frustrate his work. Sirs, ye are
Brethren, as brethren let us act cordially together, and gradu
ally our differences will lessen, our agreements will extend.
Then shall we stand a holy army, closely embodied together,
prepared with redoubled vigor to prosecute our warfare
against the powers of darkness, — and then we shall find how
sweeter than the ointment with which Aaron was anointed,
how refreshing as the dews of Hermon, it is for brethren to
dwell together in unity ; — then the peace of God will rest
upon us ; that peace which the world can neither give nor
take away.

APPENDIX.

Note A, page 8.
" Although the word Ka^o'Xixos properly signifies universal,
yet they [the ancient fathers] commonly used it in the same
sense as we do the word orthodox, as opposed to an heretic,
calling an orthodox man a Catholic, that is a son of the Catho
lic Church ; as taking it for granted that they, and they only,
which constantly adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic or
Universal Church, are truly orthodox ; which they could not
do, unless they had believed the Catholic Church to be so.
And besides that, it is a part of our very creed that the Catho
lic Church is holy, which she could not be, except free from
heresy, as directly opposite to true holiness."
Bp. Beveridge. Works ii. 197.

Note B, p. 12.
ON DEFERENCE TO TRADITION AND RESPECT FOR THE FATHERS.
Since a charge the most preposterous, of deviating from
the principles of the Reformation is brought against those of
our divines who defer to tradition, and, in interpreting Scrip
ture, have more respect for the consent of the fathers who
lived in and near to the apostolic age, than for such commen
tators as Henry, Scott, &c. when opposed to the ancient inter
pretation, it may be well to refer to some other documents
in addition to those alluded to in the body of this discourse.
Reference is there made to the act of parliament which our
5

84
Reformers* obtained to enable them, with the civil sanction,
to condemn, as heretics, those who propounded doctrines con
trary to the canonical Scriptures, and to the decisions of the
first four general councils. Andwe find that, on the authority
here given, and with express reference to the first four gene
ral councils, our Church anathematized Socinianism in the
year 1640 : —
" Whereas, much mischief is already done in the Church
of God, by the spreading of the damnable and cursed heresy
of Socinianism, as being a complication of many ancient here
sies, condemned by the four first general Councils, and contra-
rient to the articles of religion, now estabUshed in the Church
of England — itis therefore decreed," &c. — Can.iv. Sparrow's
Collection. How wisely our Reformers made use of tradition and the
Fathers may be seen also by a reference to the rules laid down
for the conference with the Romish priests and Jesuits, among
which we find the following :
" If they should shew any ground of Scripture, and wrest
it to their sense, let it be shewed hy the interpretation of the
old doctors, such as were before Gregory I. For that in his
time began the first claim of the supremacy by the Patriarch
of Constantinople, and shortly after was usurped by the Bishop
of Rome, the first founder of the Papacy and supremacy of
that see, by the authority of Phocas, the traitor and murderer
of his Lord.
" And as for the testimony of the latter Doctors, if they
bring any, let them refuse them ; for that the most part of the
writers of that time, and after, yielded to the authority of the
Emperor and the Bishop of Rome.
"If they can shew no Doctor that agreed with them in
their said opinion before that time, then to conclude that they
have no succession in that doctrine from the time of the Apos
tles, and above four hundred years after, (when doctrine and
religion were most pure.) For that they can shew no prede
cessor whom they might succeed in the same. Quod primum
verum. Tertull.
" ^''?J' 1^ fiV^"^ of the English Reformers, I mean those great men who
were publicly, and by authority, concerned in the Reformation of the Church
ot England and no* every private Englishman who happened to write against
Popery in the 16th century. = rt- b

35
"If they allege any Doctor of that antiquity, then to view
the place ; and to seek the true meaning ex pracedentibus et
consequentibus ; or of other places out of the same Doctor.
And to oppose other Doctors likewise writing of the same
matter, in case the sentence of the said old Doctor shall seem
to make against us." — Strype's Whitgift, vol. i. p. 197.
Well, indeed, would it be for the cause of truth, if the self-
appointed disputants in favour of the Reformation, in their
challenges to the Papists, would be guided by these rules.
The, so called, " Reformation Society" would then be less in
jurious to the cause of the Reformation than it now is, and the
Papists, with the worst cause, would less frequently come off"
triumphant. We may now proceed to shew how, in regulating her prac
tice and defending her conduct, the Church of England, when
ever she has spoken authoritatively, has followed the example
of her illustrious reformers, and shewn her deference to an
tiquity. It is well known that there were persons who were
weak and foolish enough to scruple at our use of the sign
of the cross. It is thus that in the 30th Canon, the Church of
England vindicates her retention of that ceremony : —
"Following the steps of our most worthy King, because
he therein followeth the rules of the Scriptures, and the prac
tice of the primitive Church, we do commend to all true mem
bers of the Church of England these our directions and obser
vations ensuing : The honor and dignity of the name of the
cross begat a reverend estimation even in the apostles' time
(for aught that is known to the contrary) of the sign of the
cross, which the Christians shortly after used in all their ac
tions. The use of this sign in Baptism was held by the primi
tive Church, as well by the Greeks as the Latins, with one
consent and great applause. This continual and general use of
the sign of the cross is evident by the testimonies ofthe ancient
fathers. " It must be confessed that, in process of time, the sign of
the cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome. But the
abuse of a thing does not take away the lawful use of it. Nay,
so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to
forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Ger
many, or any such like Churches in all things which they held
and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of England

36
confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies
which do neither endamage the Church of God, nor offend the
minds of sober men ; and only departeth from them in those
particular points wherein they were fallen both from themselves
in their ancient integrity, and from ihe Apostolical Churches
which were their first founders.
" The sign of the cross in Baptism being thus purged from
aU Popish superstition and error, and reduced in the Church
of England to the primary institution of it, upon those rules
of doctrine concerning things indifferent, which are consonant
to the Word of God, and the judgments of all the ancient
fathers, we hold it the part of every private man, both minister
and other, reverently to retain the true use of it prescribed by
public authority."- — Canon xxx.
The Apology of the Church of England referred to in this
canon, is the celebrated work of Bishop Jewell, than which no
book, excepting the Common Prayer and the Books of Homi
lies, has received a greater share of public sanction and autho
rity in the English Church. The whole plan of this work is
an appeal to Catholic tradition and primitive consent against
the innovations of the Church of Rome, and any selection of
passages rather diminishes the force of his whole train of
reasoning. This is plainly seen from the outset of his work,
where he states the kind of charges brought against the
Reformers by the Romanists :
" That we have made a tumultuous defection from the
Catholic Church ; that we despise the authority of the primitive
fathers and ancient councils : that we have imprudently and
insolently abrogated the ancient ceremonies. . . . and by our own
private authority, without the consent of a holy and general coun
cil, we have introduced new rites into the Church,. . . .but that
they have retained all things as they were delivered to them
by the apostles, approved by the ancient fathers, and have been
kept ever since, through all the intermediate ages to this
day." Chap. i. sect. v. Translation by a Person
of Quality. A.D. 1685.
In answer to which he undertakes to prove "that not
obscurely and craftily, but bond fide, before God, truly, ingenu
ously, clearly, and perspicuously, we teach the most holy
gospel of God, and that the ancient fathers and the whole pri-

37
mitive Church are on our side, and that we have not without
just cause left them, the Romish divines, and returned to the
apostles, and the ancient Catholic Fathers."— Sect. 12. Accord
ingly every point of the Apology is illustrated by quotations of
the words, and proofs of the practice of the fathers. In a latter
part of his work, not far from the middle, he returns to this
point more specifically :
" Though they, the Papists, have not the Scriptures on their
side, perhaps they will pretend they have the ancient doctors
and holy fathers, for that they have ever boasted that all anti
quity and the perpetual consent of all times is for them, and
that all our pretences are novel, and were never heard of till
within the course of a very few years last past." — Chap. v.
sect. i.
The way in which he enters upon his answer to this, is
very remarkable, as showing the depth of principle which he
perceived to be involved in this adherence to antiquity : "Now
certainly there can nothing of more weight be said against
rehgion than that it is new." — Ibid. In what follows there are
several challenges to the Romanists on this very ground, prov
ing, as the very learned writer of " Letters from a reformed
Catholic"* says, how "the Modern Protestant and Romanists
have shifted positions."
" Our doctrine, which we may much better call the Catho
lic doctrine of Christ,f is not so new as but that it is commen
ded to us by the Ancient of Days, the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, in most ancient monuments, the prophets, and
gospels, and writings of the apostles. . . . But, then, as to their
religion, if it be so ancient as they pretend, why do they not
prove it so from ihe examples of the primitive Church, from the
old fathers, and ihe ancient councils ? Why doth so ancient a
* These plain and powerful Letters are pubhshed by Messrs. Rivington, price
¦3d. They are generally attributed to the liev. Edward Churton, M. A. Rector
of Crayke, and they are worthy of his high reputation.
t It was not because their doctrine was protestant, hut because it was cath
olic, that our Reformers and such Divines as Jewell, Nowell, Hooker and An
drews defended the doctrines of the English Reformation. And in the declara
tion of faith which our Reformers directed to be made by ministers, they were
requu-ed to say ofthe Book of Common Prayer, " that it is catholic, apostolic,
and most for the edifying of God's people."- - Strype's Annals, vol. 1. pt. i. p.
327.

38
¦ cause lie desolate and without a patron for so long a time 1
Indeed, they — the Romanists, never want fire and swords ; but
then, as to the ancient fathers and councils, there is with them a
deep silence." — Ibid, sect. 3.
Again :
" Why, then, should we trust them in relation to what they
pretend concerning the fathers, the ancient councils, and the
Scriptures 1 They have not, 0 good God ! they have not, on
their side, what they pretend to have ; they have neither
antiquity, nor universality, nor the consent of either all times
or all nations :* and of this they are not ignorant themselves,
though they craftily dissemble their knowledge ; yea, at times
they will not obscurely confess it ; and, therefore, they — the
Romanists — sometimes will allege that the sanctions of the
ancient councils and fathers are such as may lawfully be
changed ; for different decrees, they say, will best suit the dif
ferent state of the Church in different times." What follows
is most important in the present state of the Romish contro
versy : — " And so they hide themselves under the name of a
Church, and by a wretched sham delude mankind." Ibid.
" Thus," says Bishop Jewell, when defending the English
Reformers, "have we been taught by Christ, the apostles, and
BY THE HOLY FATHERS, and wc do faithfully teach the children
of God the same things ; and for so doing are we to be called
heretics by their great high priests If Oh! immortal God!
Have Christ and his apostles, and so many fathers, all erred 1
What, are Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, Chrysostom, Gelasius,
and Theodoret, apostates from the Catholic faith"? Was the
consent of so many bishops and learned men nothing but a
conspiracy of heretics 1 Or that which was commendable in
them, is it now blameable in us 1 Or that which was once true
is it now, because it displeaseth them, become false 1
Chap. iii. sect. 2.
He elsewhere afiirms : —
" When they, the Papists, have thus left nothing unsaid
which can possibly be, though never so falsely and slanderously
objected against us, yet at least they cannot pretend that we
have forsaken the word of God, or the apostles of Christ, or
the primitive church." — Chap. iv. sect. 18.
• He evidently alludes here to the Rule of Vincentius.
t Ultra-Protestants in these days, humbly imitating the high priest of
Rome, the Pope, have gone so far as to call those who do, as Jewell tells us the
English Reformers did, who teach the doctrine of Christ, of the apostlas, and
of the holy fathers, heretics. It may be well for them to see in whose steps
they are treading, while an interesting work might be published on the Popery
of Ultra-protestantism.

39
Again : —
" We, the English Reformers, have approached, as nearly
as possibly we could do, the Church of the apostles, and the
ancient Catholic bishops and fathers, which we know was yet
a perfect, and, as Tertullian* saith, an unspotted virgin, and
not contaminated with any idolatry, or any great or public
error. Neither have we only reformed our doctrine, and made
it like theirs, but we have also brought the celebration of the
Sacraments and the forms of our public rites and prayers to
an exact resemblance with their institutions or customs. Chap. vi. 15.
Nothing can be more clear than this statement of the
intention of our Reformers, and of their principles of the
Reformation. I need hardly remind the learned reader that all this is
perfectly in accordance with the memorable challenge of
Bishop Jewell to the advocates of Romanism. After enume
rating the chief points of difference between the friends of the
Reformation and the advocates of the Romish corruptions, he
boldly says, " If any man alive were able to prove any of these
articles by any one clear or plain clause or sentence, either of
the Scriptures, or of the old doctors, or of any old general coun
cil, or by any example of the primitive Church, I promised them
that I would give over and subscribe unto him." And be
repeats the challenge : " If any one of our adversaries be able
to avouch any one of all these articles by any sufRcient autho
rity of Scripture, doctors or councils, as I have required, as I
said before, so say I now again, I am content to yield to him
and subscribe." — Sermon on 1 Cor. at Paul's Cross, 1560.
We find a similar challenge made by Archbishop Cranmer^
a very short time before his death : — " Wherefore by your
own description and rule of a Catholic faith, your doctrine and
teaching in these four articles cannot be good and Catholic,
except you can find it in plain terms in Scripture, and old
Catholic doctors, which when you do I will hold up my hand at
» It is observable that what Bishop Jewell here quotes as a dictum of Ter
tullian is in fact from Hegesippus apud Euseb. Hist. iii. 32.

40
the bar and say guilty. And if you cannot, then it is reason
that you do[the like, per legem talionis." — (Answer to Gardyner.
Works, iii. 42.^
I may observe, by the way, that the principle on which
Cranmer acted was well understood by his contemporaries
as appears, for instance, by the following verses, by J. Park
hurst, prefixed to the edition of this work, published in 1580 :
Accipe praeclarum, lector studiose, libellum,
Quem tibi Cranmerus scripeerat ante rogos.
Hic docta sanctam tractat ratione synaxiu,
Insistens, patres quas doaiere, viis.
We find our divines still influenced by the same principle
in the reign of James I. when certain commissioners were
appointed by the King to examine into the conduct of Antonio
de Dominis, Archbishop of Spalatro. Among other things, in
the course of the debate, the Archbishop complained "that
we had made a schism, and set up a new altar against an old
altar. We answered," say the episcopal divines, in their
account of what took place,
" That our altar was an old altar, conformable to that of
the primitive Church, and that all innovations were from them,
(the Papists,) and that herein we were content to be judged
concerning those offices which we execute at the altar by the
writings of the fathers, the first general councils and ancient
liturgies, unto which we did constantly adhere." — M. Ant. de
Dominis, Abp. of Spalatro, his shifiings in religion, 1624i.
But to return to the canons. The observance of the ember
days is enjoined in the 31st canon, because of "the holy and
religious example of ihe ancient fathers ofthe Church." In the
32d canon the office of deacon is regarded as " a step or degree
in the ministry according to the judgment of the ancient fathers
and the practice of the primitive Church."
The Homilies so abound with references to the Fathers
that I shall only quote from them one passage : —
Before all things this we must be sure of especially, that
this Supper be done and ministered, as our Lord and Savionr

41
did and commanded to be done, as the holy apostles used it,
and the good fathers ofthe primitive Church frequented it."
Hom. concerning ihe Sacrament, part iii.
We may observe, further, that on this same principle of
deference to the Fathers our present authorized translation of
%e Scripture was conducted : one of the rules laid down for
the observance of the translators being : —
"When any word has several significations, that which has
been commonly used by the most celebrated fathers should be
preferred." — Collier, Eccles. Hist. ii. p. 694.
Allusion is made in the preceding discourse to the Hamp
ton Court and Savoy conferences. The reader has only to
refer to the proceedings of the former conference in Collier
ii. 674, to see how the English Bishops, true to the principles
of the English Reformation, defended all our usages before
King James on the authority of the fathers and primitive
practice. And in the commission for the Savoy conference,
in 1661, the commissioners are appointed "to advise upon and
revise the said Book of Common Prayer; comparing the same
with the most ancient Liturgies which have been used in the
Church in the primitive and purest times." — Collier ii. p. 877.
At the conference itself, to that part of the proposal that
prayers may consist of nothing doubtful, or questioned by
pious, learned, and orthodox persons, the episcopal divines
reply, that
" Since it is not defined and ascertained who those orthodox
persons are, they must either take all those for orthodox per
sons who have the assurance to affirm themselves such, and
if so the demand is unreasonable. For some who deny the
divinity of the Son of God will style themselves orthodox, and
yet there is no reason we should part with an article of our
creed for their satisfaction. Besides, the proposal requires
an impossibility. For there never was, nor ever will be, any
prayers couched in such a manner as not to be questioned by
some people who call themselves pious, learned, and orthodox.
But if by ortliodox is meant only those who adhere to Scripture
and the Caiholic consent of antiquity, they are not of opinion
6

42
that any part of the English Liturgy has been questioned by
such." — Collier, ii. p. 880.
It was from this respect for tradition that by the Puritans
the Church of England was called " The Church of the
Traditioners." Thus, in the celebrated " Protestation of the
Puritans," in 1573, the Puritan is made to protest : — "I have
now joined myself to the Church of Christ" — meaning a sect
of Puritans —
" Which if I should now again forsake and join myself with
their traditions, I should forsake the union wherein I am knit
to the body of Christ, and join myself to the discipline of
Antichrist. For in the Church of the Traditioners (i. e. the
Church of England) there is no other discipline than that
which hath been maintained by the Antichristian Pope of
Rome, whereby the Church of God hath always been afflicted,
and is until this day. For the which cause I refuse them."
Strype's Life of Abp. Parker, ii. p. 284.
I am well aware that some persons venture to assert that
the Reformers had no such deference themselves for tradition,
but only employed tradition as a useful kind of argument
against the Romanists. Not to mention that this is a gratui
tous assertion, borne out by no one single fact, and not to
insist upon the proof already given that a deference to tradi
tion and to the fathers has been always manifested in all our
authorized documents and debates, I will now direct the atten
tion of the reader to the private writings of our reformed
divines. Those writings are, indeed, of no more authority than
the writings of any other author not publicly recognized by
the Church, but they are useful as serving to throw light on
the sense in which our services were understood by them-
Even Latimer and Hooper affirmed that "they never advanced
any thing but what is agreeable to Holy Scripture and the
Catholic faith." — Collier ii. 277. Whh respect to Archbishop
Cranmer, the difficulty is to make a selection from his works,
which abound with references to the Fathers. In his cele
brated answer to Smyth's preface, he thus announces his rule
of faith : " As for me I ground my beUef upon God's Word,
wherein can be no error, having also the consent of the primi
tive Church." — Works, vol. iii. p. 3.

43
These were among his last words: —
" Touching my doctrine of the Sacrament, and other my
doctrine of what kind soever it be, I protest that it was never
iny mind to write, speak, or understand any thing contrary to
the most holy Word of God, or else against the holy Catholic
Church of Christ, but purely and simply to imitate and teach
those things only which I bad learned from the sacred Scrip
tures, and of the holy Catholic Church of Christ from the
beginning, and also according to the exposition of the most holy
and learned fathers and martyrs ofthe Church.
"And if any thing hath peradventure chanced otherwise
than I thought, I may err ; but heretic I cannot be, forasmuch
as I am ready in all things to follow the judgment of the most
sacred Word of God, and of the holy Catholic Church, desiring
none other thing than meekly and gently to be taught, if any
where (which God forbid) I have swerved from the truth.
"And I profess and openly confess, that in all my doctrine
and preaching, both of the Sacrament, and of other my doctrine
whatsoever it be, not only I mean and judge those things, as the
Catholic Church and the most holy fathers of old with one accord
have met and judged, but also I would gladly use the same
words that they used, and not use any other words, but to set
my band to all and singular their speeches, phrases, ways, and
forms of speech, which they do use in the treatises upon the
Sacrament, and to keep still their interpretation. But in this
thing I only am accused for a heretic, because I allow not the
doctrine lately brought in of the Sacrament, and because I
consent not to words not accustomed in Scripture and unknown
to the ancient fathers, but newly invented and brought in by
men, and tending to the destruction of souls, and overthrow
of the old and pure religion."
Appeal from the Pope to the next General Council.
Works, vol. iv. pp. 126, 127.
It may indeed be shrewdly suspected that had these words
been uttered in these days, by any of those high churchmen
who are the representatives of the English Reformers, they
would have caused the press to groan with various anathema
tizing protests, and the platform to echo with eloquent decla
mations on the revival of Popery, deviation from the principles
of the Reformation, &c. Sec* But let us turn from one of our
* The absurdity of these uncharitable platform denunciations must be ap
parent to every one. The Rev. Mr. A. arrogantly denounces the opinions of
the Rev. Mr. B. as popish, or tending to Popery. Mr. B. repels the charge, and
why should Mr. A. be more infallible than Mr. B. when Mr. B. in his turn de
nounces the opinions of Mr. A. as Socinian or tending to infidelity 1 For my

44
martyr-reformers to another, to that unfiinching high-church
man Bishop Ridley : —
" In that the Church of God is in doubt, I use herein the
wise counsel of Vincentius Lirinensis, whom I am sure you
will allow, who giving precepts how the Catholic Church may
be in all schisms and heresies known, writeth in this manner :
' When,' saith he, ' one part is corrupted with heresies, then
prefer the whole world before that one part ; but if the greatest
part be infected, then prefer antiquity.' In like sort now,
when I perceive the greatest part of Christianity to be infected
with the poison of the see of Rome, I repair to the usage of
the primitive Church." — Ridley's Life of Ridley, pp. 613, 614.
Again :
" For we have, (high praise be given to God therefore,) most
plainly, evidently, and clearly on our side, all the prophets, all
the apostles, and undoubtedly all the ancient ecclesiastical writers
which have .written until of late years past (usque and tempora
neotericorum.") — Translation of a Letter to his Brethren in
Captivity, Martyrs' Letters, pp. 29, 30.
What indeed was it that recommended Ridley in the first
instance to Cranmer '! " His well known acquaintance %vith
Scripture and the fathers." — Soame's Hist, of Ref. iii. 28.
And the "result of this honorable perseverance in his studies
was a gradual but firm conviction that Popery was the religion
neither of Scripture nor of ecclesiastical antiquity." — Ib. iii. 28.
Nay, why were our reformers burnt 1 Let Bradford give
the answer : "To believe as the word of God teacheth, the
primitive Church believed, and all the Catholic and good holy
fathers taught for five hundred years at least after Christ, will
not serve, and therefore I am condemned and burned out of
hand."— Martyrs' Letters, p. 270.
Mr. Churton, in his very learned and judicious Visitation
Sermon, from which this quotation is taken, observes that
" similar declarations are to be found in the Letters of the
part, I am free to confess that I am opposed to the opinions maintained by
those who call themselves Low Churchmen, on this very ground ; I believe it
to be only on account of their being bad logicians, that they are not Socinians :
I believe that they ought to be, if consistent, both Dissenters and Socinians.
If they accuse Church-principles of tending to Popery, we think that their opin
ions must lead logical and unprejudiced minds to Socinianism.

45
Martyrs, Laurence Saunders to Stephen Gardiner, p. 202-3
Robert Glover, a layman, p. 535, and Cariless, p. 614." —
Churton's Visitation Sermon, p. 25.
To this I wiU add the following very useful remarks by
Bishop Cheny; whose character was aspersed most fiercely by
the Puritans, but is defended by Strype. (^Annals i. i. 422.)
Cheny was one of the six reformers who, in the first convoca
tion of Queen Mary's reign, being then Archdeacon of Here
ford, " undertook boldly the cause of the gospel in a disputa
tion against almost the whole synod." The following extracts
are from a sermon delivered when he was Bishop of Glouces
ter and Bristol, in Bristol Chathedral : —
" These new writers in matters of controversy, as Mr. Cal
vin and others, agree not together, but are at dissention among
themselves, and are together by the ears. Therefore take
heed of them. Yet read them : for in opening the text, they
do pass many of the old fathers. And they are excellently
well learned in the tongues : but in matters now in controversy
follow them not, but follow the old fathers aud doctors, although
Mr. Calvin denietb some of them." " Scriptures, Scriptures,
do you cry 1 Be not too hasty : for so the heretics always
cried, aud bad the Scriptures. I would ask this question ; I
have to do with an heretic ; I bring Scripture against him:
and he will confess it to be Scripture. But he will deny the
sense that I bring it for. How now 1 How shall this be tried 1
Marry, by consent of Fathers only, and not by others." " Good
people, I must now depart shortly. Keep therefore, this les
son with you. Believe not, neither follow this city, nor yet 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ; but follow you the Catholic and universal con
sent."— Strype's Annals, i. pt. 2, pp. 278-280.
For preaching thus, certain puritan Aldermen of the city
of Bristol complained of their Bishop, but the fact that their
complaint was disregarded only serves to shew that in preach
ing thus, he only preached, when in prosperity, the doctrines
of that Reformation, which, in adversity and at peril of his
life, he had maintained vnth such boldness.
From this circumstance we may see that the High-Church
English Reformers and their disciples did not in those days,
any more than in these, escape the reproaches of Ultra-pro-
testants, and what follows will shew that the temper of Ultra-

46
protestantism was not one whit more tolerant or Christian
than it is now.
" There came unto Bernard Gilpin" (a confessor though
not a martyr of the Reformation) " a certaine Cambridge man,
who seemed a very great scholler, and hee dealt earnestly with
Mr. Gilpin touching the discipline and reformation of the
Church."* Mr. Gilpin tould him that he could not allow that
an human invention should take place in the Church instead
of a divine institution. ' And how 1 Doe you thinke,' saith the
man, ' that this form of discipline' (that of the Ultra-protestants
or Puritans) ' is a human invention V ' I am,' saith Mr. Gil
pin, ' altogether of that mind. And as many as shall have
turned over the writings of auncient fathers will be of mine
opinion. I suspect that form of discipline which appeareth not
to have been received by any auncient Church." " ' But yet,'
saith the man, ' latter men do see many things which those
auncient fathers saw not ; and the present Church seemeth
better provided of many ingenious and industrious men.' Mr.
Gilpin seemed somewhat moved at that word, and replied ;
' I for my part do not hould the virtues of the latter men wor
thy to be compared with the infirmities of the fathers.' The
other man made answer that he supposed Mr. Gdpin to be in
error in that point." — Life of Gilpin. Wordsworth. Biog.
iv. p. 122.
Many men may at the present time be of " the other man's
opinion," and despise " the auncient fathers,"-^of course, I
mean, after deep study of them ; but they ought not to accuse,
as popish, and inimical to the principles of the English Refor
mation, those who tread in the steps of Gilpin, and Ridley,
and Cranmer, and a host of others who might be named. On
the passage above quoted. Dr. Wordsworth makes the follow
ing note, which, as elucidating our subject, I shall uow trans
cribe : —
" The Puritans seem to have been very little scrupulous in
exalting themselves and their partizans to the disparagement
of former ages, ' I have heard it credibly reported,' says Dr.
Bancroft, ' that in a certain college at Cambridge, when it hap
pened that ill their disputations the authoritye either of St.
Augustin, or of St. Ambrose, or of St. Jerome, or of any other
of the ancient fathers ; nay, the whole consent of them alto
gether is allcdged: it is rejected with very great disdain; as
* This is an instance of what will be shewn in a future citation to have been
the prevalent opinion of the Ultra-protestants from the time when our Refor
mation was completed, that the Reformation had not gone far enough.

47
what tell you me of St. Augustine, or St. Ambrose, or of the
rest! I regard them not a rush.' Were they not meni
Whereas at other time when it happeneththat a man of another
humour doth answere, if it fall out that he being pressed with
the authority either of Calvin or Beza shall chance to deny it ;
you shall see some begin to smile in commiseration of such
the poor man's simplicity ; some grow to be angry in regard
of such presumption ; and some will depart away, accounting
such a fellow not worthy the hearing.' Survey of the pre
tended Holy Discipline, p. 64, compare p. 329. And Sir Fran
cis Bacon, speaking of the same mal-content party tells us,
that they no more scruple to set themselves above the first re
formers and martyrs, than they did over the ancient fathers, " as
in affection they challenge the virtues of zeal and the rest ; so
in knowledge they attribute unto themselves light and perfec
tion. They say the Church of England in King Edward's
time, and in the beginning of her Majesty's reign, was but in
the cradle : and the bishops of those times did somewhat grope
for day break; but that maturity and fullness of light pro-
ceedeth from themselves.". — Of Ch. Controversies. Works, ii.
p. 384. Edit. 1753.
Such and so multiplied being the testimonies to the princi
ple on which our Reformation was conducted, and so easily
accessible to the student, as contained in the public documents
of the Church, and the most popular records and memorials of
the time, it does appear somewhat astonishing that there
should be found professed members of the Church of England
who think that they can consistently declaim against the use
of tradition, decry the appeal to antiquity, and depreciate the
Fathers ; nay more, that they should go the length of denounc
ing those who defer to the rule of primitive doctrine and pri
mitive practice, as persons who have departed from the princi
ples of the English Reformation. The want of information
betrayed by these accusers, discreditable as it is, is still more
offensive when it is found, as too frequently is the case, accom
panied with a want of candour and a tone of insult towards
those whom they cannot or will not understand.* Such con
troversialists are best characterised in the following extract
* An instance of this may be given in a work just advertised under the title
of " Revelation not Tradition." This title is evidently assumed to imply that
the advocates of the English Reformation elevate tradition above the Bible, or
that they place tradition" on an equality with it— thereby insinuating a gross
and uncharitable falsehood.

48
from Mr. Palmer's Treatise on the Church. Strong as it is,
it is not too strong a protest against the practices of which I
complain; and its statements of the true position of the
English Church are otherwise clear and important.
" The various methods which these men employ in endea
vouring to prevent any appeal to the tradition of the Church
may be classed under the following heads : —
" 1. Systematic misrepresentation.
" We do not appeal in proof of Christian doctrine, to the
ancient Christian writers as in any way infallible. Our sen
timents on this head are well known : they have been repeatedly
explained. We hold that the doctrine of any father, however
great and learned he may have been, e. g. that of Augustine,
Athanasius, Ambrose, or Basil, is to be rejected in any point
where it contradicts Scripture. We consider all these writers
as uninspired men, and therefore liable to mistakes and errors
like other theologians.* Therefore it involves a studied mis
representation of our meaning and principle, wheuAve are met
by assertions or proofs that particular fathers have taught
errors in faith or morality ; that they were credulous ; that
their writings are in some points obscure ; that their criti
cisms or interpretations of Scriptm'e are sometimes mistaken ;
that they invented scholastic doctrines, and were tinged with
false philosophy ; that the later fathers were better theologians
than the earlier ; that there are fathers against fathers, and
councils against councils, on some points. This is all calcu
lated merely to excite prejudice against an appeal to the doc-
* This shows the useless trouble that some persons take, in these times, who
think that they can set aside the principle of deference to antiquity, if, by
chance, they can detect any absurdity in the writings of any of the fathers.
The depth of scriptural learning and scriptural piety to be found in tho pages
of the primitive fathers and martyrs of the Christian Church will always excite
the admir.ation, as it did that of the English reformers, of all who consult their
writings without prejudice. Their excellence is, if possible, still more strongly
attested by the fact, that when they were assailed in the seventeenth century,
by some Protestants of real learning but perverted judgment, no charge of any
importance could be substantiated against them, and the attempt to set aside
their usefulness in deciding controversy was so triumphantly refuted, that it
has never been revived by any name respectable for learning or talent. Tlie
appeal to their writlnifs ca)i nei^er, in fact, be dispensed with, unless it can be
shewn, not only that they abound in erroneous private interpretations, but that
they are incompetent moral evidence to a question of fact, and cannot be con
sidered as e.r:hibitinf; to us the faith and practice of the Church in their time.
Such books as have lately appeared in depreciation of the Fathers, written by
men ignorant of the languages in wha-h the Fathers wrote, and utterly unac
quainted with Ecclesiastical History, are, indesd, fit only to be regarded as
jest-books m the learned world ; but the spirit of slavish mockery which they
breathe, sUll finds acceptance, as every thing else does, which flatters the pride
of reason and favours the indolence of man.

49
trine ofthe Church, by misrepresenting our design and princi-
pie m makmg it. Our answer to all these arguments is, that
we do not appeal to the Fathers as inspired and authoritative
writers, but as competent witnesses of the faith held by Chris
tians m their days. If they are not to be trusted in this, they
are not to be trusted in their testimony to the facts of Chris-
tianity, and the external evidence of revelation is subverted.
" 2. Pretended respect for Religion.
"Under this head may be classed that mode of argument
which rejects any appeal to the doctrine of the Christian
Church, under pretence that the word of God alone ought to
be the rule of our faith in opposition to all the doctrines of
man ; that the Scripture constitutes a perfect rule of fahh,
needing nothing else ; that it must necessarily be plain in all
essential points, and that it is hs own interpreter. The end of
all this pretended reverence for Scripture is, to obtain an un
limited liberty of interpreting it according to our own reason
and judgment, even in opposhion to the behef of all Christians
from the beginning. But in asserting this liberty to all men,
it follows inevitably that no particular interpretation of Scrip
ture is necessary to salvation ; that Scripture has no divine
meaning ; that it is not a revelation. In short, tradition is
thrown aside, under pretence of veneration for the Scripture,
in order that men may be enabled to distort or misinterpret,
and to destroy that very Scripture.
" The same may be observed of that pretended zeal for the
defence ofthe reformation, which infidels, unitarians, and other
enemies of the doctrine and discipline of the Church allege as
a plea for rejecting all appeal to the doctrines of the universal
Church. " The doctrines of the Reformation," they say, " can
not be defended if this appeal is allowed : Popery must triumph."
Excellent men ! They will maintain the Eeformation at all
hazards : all evidence shall be pronounced worthless if it be
opposed to the interests of that sacred cause. But what is the
end sought by all this pretended devotion 1 It is, that every
man may be permitted, without any check, to interpret Scrip
ture in such a manner as to subvert all the doctrines of the Re
formation, whether positive or negative, to prove the Reforma
tion itself needless, erroneous, bigoted, equally absurd as the
system to which it was opposed, and more inconsistent. I
charge these men with the grossest hypocrisy. Never was
there a more daring attempt to palm an imposture on the credu
lous and unthinking, than this effort of deists and heretics to
set aside tradition under pretence of zeal for the Reformation.
They are the opponents of the Reformation. They are the
7

50
representatives of those whom the Reformation condemned.
They reject its doctrines, tbey charge it with ignorance,
bigotry, intolerance, errors as gross as those of Popery. They
have separated from its reformed institutions, as anti-christian,
and only exist by a perpetual attack upon them. The Refor
mation has no connexion with these men ; its defence belongs
exclusively to those who maintain its doctrines, and adhere to
its institutions; and tbey alone are proper judges of the mode
of argument suited to its interests.
" 3. Statements directly untrue,
" Under this head may be included the palmary argument
employed by all sects against any appeal to the tradition of
the Church Universal, namely, that it was the principle of the
Reformation to reject any such appeal; and its principle was
'the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants.' Nothing can
be more untrue than this assertion : the Reformation as a
whole acknowledged and appealed to the authority of Catholic
tradition, though it denied the infallibility of particular fathers
and councils. With equal veracity it is asserted that the
Church of England rejects tradition by her sixth article of re
ligion, when it is manifest that her object is simply to main
tain the necessity of scriptural proof for articles of faith ;
while our canons, our ritual, and the whole body of our theo
logians, have so notorio,usly upheld the authority of tradition,
that it is a subject of unmeasured complaint on the part of
those who disbelieve the doctrines of the church.
" The nature of those various arguments testifies sufficiently
that the doctrine of the Universal Church is opposed to those
who employ them. It could be nothing but a feeling of des
pair on this point, which could hare induced men to resort to
perpetual misrepresentation, to false pretences, and to untruths.
The employment of those weapons by all sects, in order to
prevent any appeal to universal tradition, proves two points.
First, as the sole fundamental principle on which they all agree
is, the rejection of an appeal to the doctrines of the Church
as a check on the interpretation of Scripture, and the asser
tion of an unlimited right of private interpretation ; this prin
ciple is the source of all their divisions and contradictions,
and therefore must be radically false. Secondly, the doctrine
*v!^ ^^^e ^^"^^^""^^l Church from the beginning must condemn
that of all modern sects in every point in which they differ
from our Catholic and ApostoHc Churches ; and therefore on
every such point they are in error and misinterpret Scripture,
and the Church is in the right."— PaZmer ; Treatise on the
Church, 11. 55.

51
To this I cannot refrain from appending the following spir
ited remarks from another celebrated modern author, the Rev.
George Stanley Faber, whose learned work " On Election"
ought to be in the hands of every one who wishes to distin
guish Scriptural truth from both Calvinistic and Arminian
error. "The principle, for which I contend, is so thoroughly
rational and so perfectly intelHgible, that, to every honestly
investigating mind, it cannot fail most amply to approve itself.
Yet a member of the Anglican Church may be additionally
satisfied, when he learns that the principle before us is the
very principle adopted by that truly apostolic community.
" Renouncing the self-sufficient licentiousness of that mis
called and misapprehended right of private judgment, which
dogmatically pronounces upon the meaning of Scripture from
a mere insulated inspection of Scripture, and which rapidly
decides that such must be the sense of Scripture, because an
individual thinks that such is the sense of Scripture : renounc
ing this self-sufficient and strangely unsatisfactory licentious
ness, the church of England, with her sober and modest
judiciousness, has always professed to build her code of
doctrine, authoritatively, indeed, upon Scripture alone, but
her meneutic ally upon Scripture as understood and explained
BY primitive Antiquity.
" Herein she has judged well and wisely.
" Scripture and Antiquity, are the two pillars upon which
all rationally-established faith must ultimately repose.
" If we reject Scripture, we reject the very basis of
theological belief. If we reject Antiquity, we reject all his
torical evidence of soundness and interpretation.
"When in our inquiries after revealed truth the two are
combined, we attain to moral certainty: and in matters
which by their very nature admit not of mathematical proof,
moral certainty is the highest point to which we can possibly
attain. — Faber on Election, pp. 11, 13.
Again he says in another place :
" Amono- unread or half-read persons of our present some
what confident age, it is a not uncommon saying : That they
disregard the early Fathers : and that they will abide by nothing
save the decision of Scripture alone.
" If by a disregard of the early Fathers, they mean that
they allow them not individually that personal authority in
exposition which the Romanists claim for them, they certainly
will not have me, at least for an opponent: And, accordingly,

52
I have shewn that, in the interpretation of the Scripture terms,
Election and Predestination, I regard the insulated individual
authority of Calvin.
" But, if, by a disregard of the early Fathers, they mean
that they regard them not as evidence to the fact of what
doctrines were or were not received by the Primitive Church,
and from her were not delivered to posterity ; they might just
as rationally talk of the surpassing wisdom of extinguishing
the light of history by way of more effectually improving and
increasing our knowledge of past events; for, in truth, under
the aspect in which they are specially important to us, the
early Fathers are neither more nor less than so many historical
witnesses. "Again: if, by An abiding solely by the decision of Scrip
ture, they mean that, as a binding or authoritative rule of faith,
they will receive nothing save what is contained in Scripture ;
no person, I suppose, who rejects that idle supplemental tra
dition which the Council of Trent invites us to receive with
the same confidence as Holy Scripture itself, will think of dif
fering from them : for the Bible, and the Bible alone, is doubt
less the rule of faith with all Protestants.
"But, if, by An abiding solely by the decision of Scripture,
they mean that, utterly disregarding the recorded doctrinal
system of that primitive Church which conversed with and was
taught by the apostles, they will abide by nothing save their
own crude and arbitrary private expositions of Scripture ; we
certainly may well admire their intrepidity, whatever we may
think of their modesty : for, in truth, by such a plan, while
they call upon us to despise the sentiments of Christian anti
quity so far as we can learn them upon distinct historical tes
timony, they expect us to receive, without hesitation, and as
undoubted writers, their own mere modern upstart speculations
upon -the sense of God's holy word; that is to say, the evi
dence of the early Fathers and the hermeneutic decisions of
the primitive Church we may laudably and profitably contemn,
but themselves we must receive (for they themselves are con
tent to receive themselves) as well nigh certain infallible
expositions of Scripture."
Faber on the Primitive Doctrine of Election, p. 184,

Note. C. page 13.
LUTHERANS.
On this subject see Palmer's Treatise on the Church of
Christ, p. i. ch. xii. sec. 2. Having produced a variety of proof

53
to shew the principle on which the early Lutherans acted, he
says, " All these things prove that the Lutherans did not volun
tarily separate from the Church ; and that, at all events, for a
long time, they desired to be re-united to its full communion."
No small number of Protestants, in succeeding ages, considered
them as having gone to very unjustifiable lengths, and made
much too large concessions for the sake af peace ; but the
truth is, they were deeply and duly impressed with the evils of
separation, and its contradiction to the divine will ; and felt
that no obstacles, except those which arose from certain, clear,
and irrefragable necessity, ought to prevent union.
" It is clear that the Lutherans did not wish to separate
from the Church, and that they were ready to make conces
sions to regain its communion. It would be, also, a great mis
take to suppose that Luther, or his party, designed to effect a
reformation of the Church :* they were driven entirely by the
force of circumstances to adopt the course they did ; it was
not premeditated nor desired by them. They would have
widely altered the Lutheran system, which was a merely tem
porary arrangement if by so doing tbey could have recovered
the communion of the Church. But the opposition of the
Roman see thwarted these designs, the Council of Trent ren
dered them still more difficult ; and, in time, the Lutherans
forgot that their system was merely provisional, pretended to
justify it as ordinary and sufficient, and lost their desire for
accommodation with the Roman and German Churches.
Palmer, i. pp. 370, 371.

Note D. p. 14.
THE PURITANS AND ULTRA-PROTESTANTS ATTACHED TO THE
FOREIGN REFORMATION, ANO DISCONTENTED WITH THE
ENGUSH REFORMERS FOR NOT GOING FAR ENOUGH.
As it is natural to suppose, there was a party in England
who, from the beginning, wished to force the English Refor
mers to extreme measures, and in the Marian persecution,
* That is to say, they did not intend, as individuals, to reform the Church,
for which they could have no authority, but only to suggest to the consideration
ofthe Church the reformation which was unquesnonably required, and which
was accordingly efTected iu our own country by the Church itself.

54
" Some of these going to Geneva, and other places, which
had embraced the model of Reformation settled by Calvin,
they became fond of those foreign novelties, and some of them
at Prankford, in the year 1554, began an alteration of the
Liturgy, aud did what they could to draw others to them ; and
to these men Knox, the great incendiary of Scotland, after
wards joined himself; and not long after one Whitehead, a
zealous Calvinist, but of a much better temper than Knox : not
contented with this alteration, the fifteenth of November,
1554, they writ letters in open defiance of the English Liturgy
to them of Zurick, who defended it in a letter of the 28th of
the same month."
" Grindal and Chambers were sent from Strasburg to Frank-
ford to quiet these innovators, but to no purpose ; so returning
back again, the English at Strasburgh, wrote to them the 13th
of December, all which procured no other regard for them,
but only to obtain Calvin's judgment of it, which being suita
ble to their own, as there was no wonder it should, things con
tinued thus till the 13th of March following, when Dr. Richard
Cox entered Frankford, drove Knox out, and re-settled the
Liturgy there. Whereupon, in the end of August following.
Fox, with some few others, went to Basil ; but the main body
followed Knox and Goodman to Geneva, their mother city (as
Dr. Heylyn styles it), where they made choice of Knox and
Goodman for their constant preachers ; under which ministry
they rejected the whole frame and fabric of the Reformation
made in England in King Edward's time, and conformed them
selves wholly to the fashions of the Church of Geneva," &c.
Life of Jewell, Wordsworth's Biography, iv. 37.
In answer to an address from the English at Frankfort Cal
vin wrote thus in condemnation of the English Reformers :
" I cannot always think it profitable to comply with the
foolish waywardness of some few men," (i. e. the English Re
formers) " who are resolved to remit nothing of their ancient
customs. I cannot but observe many tolerable fooleries in the
English Liturgy, tolerabiles ineptias, such as you have described
it to me. By which two words, tolerable fooleries, I mean
only this, that there is not such purity and perfection as was
to be desired in it : which imperfections, notwithstanding,
not being to be remedied at first, were to be borne with for a
time, in regard that no manifest impiety was retained in them.
Tt was therefore so far lawful to begin with such beggarly
rudiments that the learned, grave, and godly ministers of Christ
might be encouraged for proceeding further in setting out
somewhat which might prove more pure and perfect. If true

religion had flourished tid this time in the Church of England,
it had been necessary that many things in that book" (the
Book of Common Prayer) "should have been omitted and
others altered to the better." He afterwards expresses his
dislike of those who by being attached to the Book of Common
Prayer " are so much delighted with the dregs of Popery."
The answer and Judgment of that famous and
excellent learned man Mr. John Calvin, the
late pastor of Geneva, touching the Book of
England, after he had perused the same
faithfully translated into Latin by Mr. Whit
tingham.
See also Heylyn's History of the Presbyterians,
pp. 15, 16.
" Some of the English exiles, who had been friendly en
tertained in Switzerland and Geneva, came home preposses
sed in favour of the model of these Churches; and thus being
disaffected to our Book of Common Prayer, they would have
gladly set up a foreign establishment." — Collier. Eccles. Hist. ii.
417. " Upon Queen Elizabeth's accession to the throne, the
English exiles at Geneva seemed willing to make up the old
differences with their brethren, and moved towards a recon
ciliation. But then their proposals are somewhat narrow and
reflecting ; they called the ceremonies trifles, they proposed the
best reformed Churches, that is, Calvin's Congregation, for the
measure of agreement." — Collier, ii. 412.
Hence arose the two parties alluded to in the sermon, whom
we may designate Protestants and Ultra-protestants, meaning
by Protestants those who were attached to the system of the
English, and by the Ultra-protestants those who were attach
ed to the system of the foreign or Swiss Reformers, from
whom may be said to be legitimately descended the whole
body of Ultra-protestants, who reject all Church authority, and
put forth, on every occasion, the maxim that " the Bible only
forms the religion of Protestants;" whilst, in fact, they inva
riably adhere to the modern interpretation of some favourite
commentator ; such as Calvin or Beza, or, in later times,
Scott or Henry ; or (what is yet more convenient) to the ex
position of Scripture by some popular preacher of the day.
The Puritans continued to be supported by foreign influence,

56
for Beza proposed to Archbishop Grindal, " that the Church
of England should unite with the reformed Churches of France,
Geneva, and Switzerland in a common confession of faith.
But the English hierarchy thought it more advisable to stand
on their own bottom, than to incorporate their belief with
foreign systems, and make themselves responsible for every
thing defined by the reformed abroad." — Collier, ii. p. 512.
Beza mentions, in a letter to Bullinger, that the English
Church was, according to his notions, in a lamentable condi
tion ; that, as he was informed from some of the brethren there.
Popery was never thrown out, but rather transferred from his
Holiness to her Majesty ; he formerly hoped that the dispute
had only been about caps and surplices, but now to his great
grief, he finds the controversy goes much further. " After
wards he takes notice that Queen Elizabeth had so strong an
aversion to the Genevan Church, that she received the present
of his Annotations without the least sign of its being wel
come." — Collier, ii. p. 503. Beza was perfectly correct in
stating that the dispute was more than a mere dispute about
caps and surplices : the dispute in reality involved a principle,
that principle being whether the Church of England should
" conform to the government" of the ancient Church, or to
that of the Genevan sect : that point once conceded, other
alterations would follow as a matter of course. Hence the
zeal on the part of the Puritans to urge, and the determination
on the part of the English Reformers to resist, alteration in
the ecclesiastical habits and ceremonies. This was clearly
perceived at the time. In 1562 the question relating to the
rites and ceremonies was debated in convocation. Among
those who voted for the retention of the old Catholic rites
still in use, Strype mentions the Dean of Westminster and
the chaplains of the Archbishop (our great reformer. Arch
bishop Parker,) Peerson and Ithel, who were themselves
afterwards Bishops.
. '"These," he says, " had a great deference for the reforma
tion of rehgion, as it was settled under King Edward ; and so
were for a strict and unakered observation of the Liturgy and
orders of it as it then stood. But those who were for altera-

57
tions, and stripping the English Church of her usages then
retained and used, were such (as I find by their names sub
scribed) as had lately lived abroad in the reformed churches
of Geneva, Switzerland, or Germany ; and so out of partiality
to them, endeavored to accommodate this Church nf England to
their model. But the divines on the other side reckoned the
wisdom, learning, andpiety of Cranmer and Ridley, and the other
reformers -of this Church, to be equal, every way, with those
of the foreign reformers." — Strype's Annals, vol. i. pt. i. p. 504.
" Soon after another sort or rank of the same sort arose,"
i. e. the Puritans, " that were not satisfied with the Reformation
of this Church, but would have it reformed again by the Word
of God, as they urged, disliking the discipline and government,
and ceremonies thereof; so far forth as it is varied from the
Churches" (i. e. Protestant sects,) " abroad ; and out of great
admiration, chiefly of that of Geneva, crying out to have our
Church framed according to their model."
Strype's Annals, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 349.
" These men," says the Biographer of the Reformers in
another place, alluding again to the Puritans, " were especially
angry with the bishops and their order because they were the
chief opposers of their new discipline and preservers of King
Edward's Reformation, and therefore they did what they could
to pull up this hierarchy by the roots, asserting it to be Anti
christian and utterly unlawful to be exercised in the Christian
Chmch."— Strype's Parker, ii. 285.
Hitherto I have adduced a few out of the many passages
which might be quoted to show the foreign origin and foreign
partialities of the Ultra-protestants. I shall now proceed to
show, what has already been made partially apparent, that the
complaint against the Church of England has been, from the
beginning, that it did not go far enough,^ — ^that, in other words,
the English Reformers were distinguished from the foreign
Reformers, by being High-Churchmen. Strype asserts that
the Piiritajis refused to conform " unless there were a further
reformation." — Life of Grindal, p. 65.* And we find the work
of our illustrious Reformers thus described by the historian
of the Puritans :
? See also Annals, vol. ii. pt. 1, p. 274, where they are spoken of as " per
sons laboring for a siill further reformation.' '
o

58
" The service performed in the Queen's Chapel, and in
sundry cathedrals, was so splendid and showy thai foreigners
could not distinguish it from the Roman, except that it was
performed in the English tongue. By this method most of
the Popish laity were deceived into conformity, and came
regularly to Church for nine or ten years, till the Pope, being
out of all hopes of an accommodation, forbad them, by
excommunicating the Queen, and laying the whole nation
under an interdict." Jfeal's Hist, ofthe Puritans, i. 156.
This writer had discernment enough to see the object ofthe
English Reformers, though he bad not the wisdom to approve
it, when he remarked that, " the English Reformers wished to
depart no further from the Church of Rome than she from the
primitive Church." — J^eal, i. 56.
He was correct in this assertion for " sodeine chaunges,"
said our Martyr-Reformer, Bishop Ridley, without substantial
and necessary causes, and the heady setting forth of extremities,
I did never love." — Martyrs' Letters, p. 40. ed. 1564.
To the wisdom of the course adopted by the English
reformers ample testimony was borne by Monsieur Rognie, the
French Ambassador, who declared, upon a view of our solemn
service and ceremonies, " if the reformed Churches in France
had kept on the same advantage of order and decency, I am
confident there would have been many thousand Protestants
in that country more than there is." — Collier, ii. 677. But the
via media of the English Reformers was the great cause of
offence to the Genevan sect in England. For instance, in
1573 we find our great Reformer, Matthew Parker, Archbishop
of Canterbury, under whose primacy our present Ritual and
Liturgy were arranged and the Thirty-nine Articles dra^vn up,
writing, in conjunction with the Bishop of London, to some
absent Bishop, to this effect : —
" Sal. in Christo. These times are troublesome. The
Church is sore assaulted; but not so much of open enemies, as
of pretended favourers and false brethren, who under colour of
reformation seek the ruin and subversion both of learning and
religion." Str^jpe's Parker, ii. 280.
"The refusers of the orders of the Church, who by this
time were commonly called Puritans, were gro«Ti now into two

59
factions. The one was of a more quiet and peaceable demea
nour, who, indeed, would not use the habits or subscribe to the
ceremonies enjoined ; as kneeling at the Sacrament, the cross in
baptism, the ring in marriage, but held the communion ofthe
Church, and willingly and devoutly joined in the Common
Prayers. But another sort there was who disliked the whole
constitution of the Church lately reformed, chargiug upon it
many gross remainders of Popery, and that it was still full of
corruption not to be borne with and anti-christian, and espe
cially the habits which the clergy were enjoined to use in their
conversation and administration." — Strype's Grindal, p. 169.
That the same feeling continued to exist till the reign of
Charles I. may be seen from the Letter addressed by order of
the'House of Commons, to " the reformed Churches" of Zealand
and Holland by the assembled divines,' wherein it is admitted
that then "the contest was for a more thorough Reformation."
And the adherents of the English Reformation are described
as an " anti-christian faction who have all along made it their
business to check the Reformation and cherish Popery." They
add, in order to inflame the Dutch against the exiled English,
" To make their aversion to you still more demonstrable,
abundance of these men have refused to own any of you as a
Christian Church, for being not prelatically constituted they
conceive your ministrations want a lawful mission, which is
essential to Church Governors. And as for ourselves we are
sadly sensible that in all these kingdoms they, («i. e. the clergy
ofthe Church of England) have prevailed so far in promoting
Popery and discouraging religion that it would require a
volume, rather than a letter to relate all particulars."
Rushworth's Collections, part iii. page 391.
In short, we may cite the authority of no less a person than
Henderson, who, in his controversy with Charles I., asserts
" that the Laodicean lukewarmness in the English Reformation
had been the constant complaint of many of the godly in this
kingdom." — Collier, ii. 842.
Let this suffice to shew that whatever charges may be
brought against those against whom, under the name of High-
Churchmen, an attempt is now made to raise a moral persecu
tion, they cannot, with propriety, be accused of deviating from
the principles of the English Reformation. Of the English
Reformers they are, in fact, the representatives, and it is pre-

60
cisely on the principles of the English Reformers that they
oppose the errors both of Romanists and Ultra-protestants, and
uphold " The Church of the Traditioners."
Note E. page 14.
PROTESTANTS.
The designation of Protestant is used in England as a
general term to denote all who protest against Popery. Such,
however, was neither the original acceptation ofthe word, nor
is it the sense in which it is still applied, on the continent. It
was originally given to those who protested against a certain
decree issued by the Emperor Charles V. and the Diet of Spires
in 1529. — Mosheim, Book iv. 26. On the continent it is applied
as a term to distinguish the Lutheran communions. The
Lutherans are called Protestants ; the Calvinists, the Reformed.
The use of the word among ourselves in a sense different from
that adopted by our neighbors abroad has sometimes led to
curious mistakes. The late Mr. Canning, for instance, in his
zeal to support the Romanists, and not being sufficiently well
instructed in the principles of the Church of England, assumed
it as if it were an indisputable fact that, being Protestants, we
must hold the doctrine of consubstantiation. Having consulted
probably, some foreign history of Protestantism, be found that
one of the tenets which distinguishes the " Protestant" i. e.
the Lutheran from the "Reformed" i. e. the Calvinist, is
that the former maintains, the latter denies the dogma of
consubstantiation. It is evident that in our application of the word it is a
mere term of negation. If a man says that he is a Protestant,
he only tells us that he is not a Romanist, at the same time he
may be what is worse, a Socinian, or even an Infidel, for these
are all united under the common principle of protesting against
Popery. The appellation is not given to us, I believe, in any
of our formularies, and has chiefly been employed in poHtical
warfare as a watchword to rally in one band all who, whatever
may be religious differences, are prepared to act politically

61
against the aggressions of the Romanists. In this respect it was
particularly useful at the time of the Revolution, and, as politics
intrude themselves into all the considerations of an Englishman
either directly or indirectly, the term is endeared to a powerful
and influential party in the State. But on the very ground that
it thus keeps out of view distinguishing and vital principles, and
unites in apparent agreement those who essentially differ,
many of our divines object to the use of the word. They con
tend, with good reason, that it is quite absurd to speak of the
Protestant Religion, since a rehgion must of course, be distin
guished not by what it renounces, but by what it professes :
they apprehend that it has occasioned a kind of sceptical habit
of inquiring not bow much we ought to believe, but how much
we may refuse to believe; of looking at what is negative
instead of what is positive in our religion ; of fearing to inquire
after the truth lest it should lead to something which is held
by the Papists in common with ourselves, and which, therefore,
as some persons seem to argue, no sound Protestant can hold;
forgetting that on this principle we ought to renounce the
Liturgy, the Sacraments, the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity
and atonement of Christ, — nay, the very Bible itself. It is on
these grounds that the writers of the Oxford Tracts have
scrupled to use the word, aud hence they have brought down
upon themselves the outpourings of the vials of wrath, from
all who are weak enough to prefer words to things, and
especially from political divines, and men who would make
religion merely an instrument to serve their political purposes.
I make these observations the more freely because I differ in
this respect from the writers of the Oxford Tracts. It is
certainly absurd to speak of the Protestant religion — i. e. a
negative religion, but there is no absurdity in speaking of the
Church of England, or of the Church of America, as a
Protestant Church — the word Church conveys a positive idea,
and there can be no reason why we should not have also a
negative appellation. If we admit that the Church of Rome is
a true though a corrupt Church, it is well to have a term by
which we may always declare that, while we hold in common
with her all that she has which is catholic, scriptural and pure,

62
we protest for ever against her multiplied corruptions. Besides,
the word, whether correctly or not, is in general use, and is in
a certain sense applicable to the Church of England; it is
surely, therefore, better to retain it, only warning our congre
gations, that when we call ourselves Protestants, we mean no
more to profess that we hold communion with all parties who
are so styled, than the Church of England, when in her creeds
and formularies she designates herself not as the Protestant
but as the Catholic Church of this country, intends to hold
communion with those Catholic Churches abroad which have
infused into their system the principles of the Council of Trent.
Protestant is our negative, Catholic our definitive name. We
tell the Papist that with respect to him we are Protestant ; we
tell the Protestant Dissenter that with respect to him we are
Catholics ; and we may be called Protestant or Protesting
Catholics, or, as some of our writers describe us, Anglo-
Catholics. Note F. p. 15.
the ROMISH SCHISM.
Of this schism the following is a succinct and interesting
account :
" Now at such a time as Button, Billingham, and the rest of
the Puritan faction had first made the schism, Harding and
Saunders, and some others of the Popish fugitives, employed
themselves as busily in persuading those of that religion to
the like temptation. For being licensed by the Pope to exercise
Episcopal jurisdiction in the realm of England, they take upon
them to absolve all such in the Court of Conscience, who
should return to the communion of the Church of Rome ; as
also to dispense in causes of irregularity, except it were
incurred by wilful murther ; and finally, from the like irregu
larities incurred by heresie, if the party who desired the
benefit of the absolution, abstain'd from ministering at the
holy altar for three years together, by means whereof, and the
advantages before mentioned, which were given them by the
Fur/tan fartion, they drew many to them from the Church,
both priests and people ; their numbers every day increasing,
as the scandal did. And finding how the secretaries enlarged
their numbers by erecting a French Church in London, and

63
that they were upon the point of procuring another for the use
and comfort of the Dutch, they thought it no ill piece of
wisdom to attempt the like in some convenient place near
England, where they might train up their disciples, and fit
them for employment upon all occasions. Upon which around
a seminary is established for them at Douay, in Flanders, anno
1568; and another not long after at Rhemes, a city of
Ckampaigne, in the realm of France. Such was the benefit
which redounded to the Church of England by the perverseness
of the brethren of this first separation, that it occasioned the
like schism betwixt her and the Papists, who till that time had
kept themselves in her communion, as before was said. For
that the Papists generally did frequent the Church in these
first ten years, is positively affirmed by Sir Edward Coke, in
his speech at the arraignment of Garnet, the Jesuite, and
afterwards at the charge which was given by him at the
general assizes held in Norwich. In both of which he speaks
on his o\vn certain knowledge, not on vulgar hearsay ; affirming
more particularly that he had many times seen Bendenfield,
Cornwallis, and some other of the leading Romanists, at the
divine service of the Church, who afterwards were the first
that departed from it. The like is averred by the most learned
Bishop Andrews, in his book called Tortura Torti,p. 130, and
there asserted undeniably against all opposition. And which
may serve instead of all, we find the like affirmed also by the
Queen herself, in her instructions given to Walsingham, then
being her Resident with the French King, anno 1570. In
which instructions bearing date on the ll^A August, it is
affirmed expressly of the heads of that party, and therefore
we may judge the like of the members also, that they did
ordinarily resort, from the beginning of her reign, in all open
places, to tlie C/iurclies, and to divine service in the Church,
without any contradiction or shew ofmisliking.
" The parallel goes further yet. For as the Puritans were
encouraged to this separation by the Missals and Decretory
Letters of Theodore Beza, whom they beheld as the chief Pa
triarch of their Church ; so were the Papists animated to
their defection by a Bull of Pope Pius V. whom they acknow
ledged most undoubtedly for the head of theirs. For the Pope
being thrust on by the importunity of the House of Guise, in
favor of the Queen of Scotts, whose title they preferred before
that of Elizabeth, and by the Court of France, in hatred to
the Queen herself, for aiding the French Hugonots against
their King, was drawn at last to issue out this Bull, against
her, dated at Rome, Feb. 24, 1569. In which Bull he doth not
only excommunicate her person, deprive her of her kingdoms,
and absolve all her subjects from their oaths of allegiance j

64
but commands all her subjects, of what sort soever, not to
obey her laws, injunctions, ordinances or acts of state. The
defection of the Papists had before been voluntary, but is now
made necessary ; the Pope's command being superadded to
the scandal whicli had before been given them by the Puritan
faction. For after this the going or not going to Church was
commonly reputed by them for a sign distinctive, by which
a Roman Catholick might be known from an English heretick.
And this appears most plainly by the preamble to the act of
parliament against bringing or executing of Bulls from Rome — ¦
13 Eliz. 2. Where it is reckoned amongst the effects of
those Bulls and writings, that those who brought them, did by
their lewd practices, and subtile persuasions, work so far forth,
that sundry people and ignorant persons have been contented
to be reconciled to the Church of Rome, and to have withdrawn
and absented themselves from all divine service most godlily ex
ercised in this realm. By which it seems, that till the roaring
of those Bulls, those of the Popish party did frequent the
church, though not so generally in the last five years (as our
learned Andrews hath observed) as they did the first, before
tbey were discouraged by the innovations of the Puritan
faction. Heylin' s History of the Presbyterians.
Lib. vi. p. 260.

Note G.p. 16.
ON THE CHARGE OF POPERY BROUGHT AGAINST THE ENG
LISH REFOR-WERS A;^D THE FRIENDS OP THE ENGUSH
REFORMATION. Against those divines who uphold the system of the Eng
lish, as distinguished from the Foreign Reformation, it is
sought to excite the odium of the ignorant, by designating
them as semi-papists, if not actually Papists in disguise.
Doubtless they will rejoice to bear the scandal of the Cross,
and to escape the woe denounced upon those of whom all
men speak well. Luke, vi. 26. See also John, xv. 19. They
remember our Lord's prophecy. .Matt. x. 22. They care
little if men " shall hate them, and separate them from their
company, and reproach them, and cast out their name as evil."
Luke, vi. 22. They know that, "if the world hate them, it
hated their master before them." John, xv. 18; and they

65
" marvel not." 1 John, iii. 13. But some consolation it is
to know that they share these reproaches with the Enghsh
Reformers themselves, of whom some of their opponents say
that tbey are their masters. W e call no man master ; but
certainly, if history be not an old almanac, the persecution
which persons styled High-Churchmen have to undergo, is
inflicted merely because tbey act towards both the Romish
and Protestant Dissenters, precisely as the English Reformers
did, seeking neither unnecessarily to offend, nor, by sacrifice
of principle, to conciliate.
In notes B and D many passages are adduced, which fully
substantiate the assertion that the charge of Popery was
brought as vehemently against the English Reformers as it
is now against their representatives, the High Churchmen.
We have seen how they were thus accused by Calvin, and
that Beza declared that " Popery was never thrown out of the
English Church, but rather transferred from his Holiness to
her Majesty." In the same letter, he remarks "that those
few ministers who come up to the purity of the gospel are either
thrown into prison or deprived both, unless they solemnly
eno^age to go to the utmost lengths of conformity, and resem
ble Baal's priests, in their square caps, tippets, and such sort
of equipages." — Collier, ii. p, 503. The authorized version
of Scripture was, as Ave have seen before, conducted on a
principle of deference to the primitive Church. But the fol
lowers of the foreign Reformers not only translated the Scrip
ture on different principles, but so far were they from wish
ing to circulate the Bible without note or comment, that they
published one in the early part of Elizabeth's reign, with notes,
intending to inculcate the system of Calvin instead of that of
the English Reformation. In 1560, says Colher, " the English
translation of Scripture, commonly called the Geneva Bible,
was published at Geneva. There are two epistles prefixed to
the work ; one to the Queen, the other to the reader. These
addresses charged the English Reformation with remains of
Popery, and endeavored to prevail with the Queen to strike off
several ceremonies."— CoZ/ter, ii. 471. The fact that they
omitted these addresses in a subsequent edition, only shows
9

66
that they found it impolitic to publish such charges, not that
they intended to withdraw them : for the Popery of our
Reformers was the very plea urged by the Puritans out of the
Church to justify their secession, and by the Puritans in the
Church for disobeying her regulations. The Protestation of
the Puritans against the English Reformation thus com
mences : —
" Being thorough persuaded in my conscience by the work
ing of the word of the Almighty, that these relics of Antichrist
be abominable before the Lord our God ; and also, for that by
the power, mercy, strength, and goodness of the Lord our
God only I am escaped from the filthiness and pollution of
these detestable traditions .... I have joined in prayer and
hearing God's word with those that have not yielded to this
idolatrous trash, notwithstanding the danger for not coming to
my parish church, &c. therefore I come not back again to the
preaching, &c. of them that have received these marks of the
Romish beast." " They (the English Reformers) are glad to
strengthen the Papists in their errors, and grieve the godly."
" These popish garments are now become very idols indeed,
because they are exalted above the word of the Almighty ....
I come not to them (the English Reformers) because they
should be ashamed, and so leave their idolatrous garments."
Strype's Life of Abp. Parker, ii. 283, 284.
So also among the demands of the (so called) millenary
petition, one was that " no popish opinion should be any more
taught or defended ; no ministers charged to teach their peo
ple to bow at the name of Jesus." — Strype's Life of Arbp.
Whitgift, ii. 480. In " The plea of the Innocent," those who
adhered to the doctrines of English Reformation, as distin
guished from the Puritans, are called " sycophantizing Papists,
statizing Priests." — Ibid. 479. In the " Prayer of the Refusers
of the Habits," they assert that " those in power neglected
that they ought to have done, to the hindrance of the
course of the gospel ; and that the relicts of Romish idolatry
were stoutly mnintained." Strype's Annals, vol. i.pt. 2, p. 168
In a work by Bcnle, which expressed the sentiments of the
Puritans, Queen Elizabeth is spoken of as " a defendresse of
beggarly, popish., and anti-christian rites," and the ceremonies
of the church are styled " beggarly, popish, and anti-chris-

67
tmn."— strype's Whitgift, iii. 87. We may barely give the
titles of some of the books which were published at the
completion of the EngHsh Reformation against our Eng
Hsh Reformers; one was styled "A view of Anti-christ,
his laws and ceremonies in our English Church unreformed ;
a clear glass wherein may be seen the dangerous and des
perate diseases of our English Church, being utterly ready
to perish, unless she speedily have a corrosive of the whole
some words of God, his word, laid every whot to her heart, to
expulse those colds and deadly infections of Popery which the
tainted Poticaries of Anti-christ have corrupted her withal." In
this book there is a table " of the displaying of the Pope and
Popery in our Church of England. The Pope of Rome wri
teth himself Father of Fathers, and Head of the Church.
The Pope of Canterbury writeth himself, reverend Father,
Matthew of Canterbury, by the sufference of God," &c. An
other book was styled " A brief discourse against the outward
apparel and ministering garments of the Popish Church, i. e.
the Church of England." Another book was named " A
view of the Popish abuses yet remaining." Thomas Cartwright
seems to have set the example in thus calling the English
Reformers Papists, for he and his brethren " in dispute of the
hierarchy, now begun commonly to call these Popes, and the
Archbishops of Canterbury, Popes of Lambeth." — Strype's
Parker, ii. 203. In 1572 a committee of the House of Com
mons, desirous of furthering the views of the Puritans,
" thought it advisable that some of them should repair with
their bills to the Archbishop, and perhaps other ofthe Bishops
too .... The Archbishop (our great Reformer Archbishop
Parker,) signified his dislike of it: since the ordinary course
of redressing matters amAss in the Church did properly belong
to the Bishops and Clergy in Convocation." After some dis
cussion, the Archbishop replied, "Surely you mistook the
matter : you will refer yourselves wholly to us therein." To
which Mr. Wentworth, whom Strype describes as a hot gen
tleman, exclaimed, "No, by the faith I bear to God, we will
pass nothing before we understand what it is. For that were
to make you Popes. Make you Popes who list, for we will

68
make you none." Strype's Parker, ii. 202. But perhaps the
reader would like to know what were the deeds of Popery
for which our high church Reformers were styled, like their
present representatives Papists, and he will probably be sur
prised to hear that the charge of Popery was then made
against almost every thing which a Churchman in these days
reveres. Does the Churchman revere the Book of Common
Prayer 1 " It is patched for the most part out of the Pope's
Portuise : it is an imperfect book, culled and picked out of
the Popish dunghill, the Mass Book fuH of abominations."
Admonition to Parliament. Strype's Annals, Vol. ii. pt. 2. 478.
" The public prayers and worship of God, as it is by law in
the Church of England established, is false, superstitious, and
Popish." Strype, Ibid. iv. 202. The Communion Service is
spoken of in the same language ; and the reading of the
epistle and gospel in that office is " utterly misliked and
called a Popish introit." Strype, ii.^ff. 2. 479. " For newly
married persons to receive the communion is pronounced to
be Popish, because in Popish times they had a mass." Ibid.
480. Is confirmation valued as a holy ordinance 1 It was
called " superstitious, Popish, and peevish." Ibid. Are Ca
thedrals now supported 1 They come under the same cate
gory. Ibid. 477. There are no Churchmen in these days
who do not consider episcopacy to be at least an apostolical
ordinance. But it has been held that the names of Arch
bishops, Archdeacons, and Bishops, Chancellors, &c. are drawn
out of the Pope's shop, together with these offices. And it
was urged against our Reformers, "that the government of
the Church of England, as it is now established, is no lawful
government, but Anti-christian and Popish." Strype, iv. 202.
The same charge of Popery was brought against the Church
of England and her Reformers at the Hampton Court Confer
ence. Among other marks of Popery was our retention of
the sign of the cross.
"Whereunto the King's Majesty answered divers ways: —
First, quoth he, tho I be suflrciently persuaded of the cross in
Baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so
long ; yet if there were nothing else to move me, this very
argument were an inducement to me for the retaining of it, as

69
it is now by order establish'd. For inasmuch as it was abused,
so you say, to superstition in time of Popery, it doth plainly
imply, that it was well used before Popery. I will tell you. I
have lived among this sort of men [speaking to the Lords and
Bishops] ever since I was ten years old; but I may say of
myself, as Christ did of himself, tho ' I lived among them, yet,
since I had ability to judge, I was never of them ; neither did
any thing make me more to condemn and detest their courses
than that they did so peremptorily disallow of all things which
at all had been used in Popery. For my part, I know not how
to answer the objection of the Papists, when they charge us
with novelties ; but truly to tell them, that their abuses are
new, but the things which they abused we retain in their
primitive use, and forsake only the novel corruption. By this
argument we might renounce the Trinity, and all that is holy,
because it was abused in Popery ; and [speaking to Dr. Reynolds
merrily] they used to wear hose and shoes in Popery, therefore
we shall now go barefoot.
" ' Secondly, quoth his Majesty, what resemblance is there
between the brazen serpent, a material visible thing, and the
sign of the cross made in the air 1
" ' Thirdly, I am given to understand by the Bishops, and I
find it true, that the Papists themselves did never ascribe any
power or spiritual grace to the sign of the cross in Baptism.
"'Fourthly, you see that the material crosses, which, in
the time of Popery, were made for men to fall down before
them, as they passed by them, to worship them (as the idola
trous Jews did the brazen serpent) are demolished as you
desire.' " The next thing which was objected was the wearing of
the surplice, a kind of garment which the priests of Isis used
to wear. 'Surely,' saith his Majesty, 'till of late I did not
think it had been borrowed from the heathen, because it is
commonly term'd a rag of Popery, in scorn ; but were it so,
yet neither did we border upon heathenish nations, neither
are any of them conversant with us, or commorant amongst
us, who thereby might take just occasion to be strengthen'd
or confirm'd in Paganism ; for then there were just cause to
suppress the wearing it : but seeing it appear'd out of antiquity,
that in the celebration of divine service, a different habit
appertainetb to the ministry, and principally of white linen,
be saw no reason, but that in this Church, as it had been for
comeliness and for order sake, it might still be continued.
This being his constant and resolute opinion, that no Church
ouo-bt further to separate itself from the Church of Rome,
either in doctrine or ceremony, than she had departed from

70
herself, when she was in ber flourishing and best estate, and
from Christ her Lord and head."
Barlow's account of the Hampton Court Conference
in the Phenix, i. 166
The mode of reasoning on this matter, adopted by his
Majesty, was referred to, and has received the sanction of the
Church of England in the 30th canon before quoted.
This charge has, indeed, always been adduced to persecute
into silence those of our divines who have endeavoured to up
hold the principles of the English Reformers, which, they con
tend, are equally the principles of sound reasoning, Catholicism,
and Scripture. Of honoured names the Church of England holds
none more highly in honour than that of the judicious Hooker.
"Hooker may justly be regarded as the genuine lineal
descendant of the most enlightened English Reformers, and
possessing learning equal to that of any of them, with more
opportunities for meditation, and the accumulated advantage
of their labours and experience, be may, perhaps not improperly,
be considered as exhibiting in his writings a model of the true,
settled, most improved, mature, and Catholic principles of the
English Reformation. But these virtues did not screen him
from having many adversaries. At the time when Hooker
wrote, Calvinism, doctrinal as well as disciplinarian, had made
considerable progress in England ; and Hooker's, unhappily
for his OAvn peace of mind, were almost the only works of
great extent which were calculated to arrest the progress of
the doctrinal Calvinists. In the year 1509 a tract was published
in 4to, entitled A Christian Letter of certain English Protestants,
unfaigned favourers of the present state of religion, authorised
and professed in England, unto thai reverend and learned man
Mr. R. Hooker, requiring resolution in certain matters of
doctrine, {which seeme to overthrow the foundation of Christian
religion, and of the Church among us) exprsslie contained in
his five books of Ecclesiasticall Polity. This book is one of
the earliest productions of those mal-contents who were
afterwards called doctrinal Puritans. It is the doctrines of
Hooker with which they quarrel ; and they profess (in contra
distinction to the abettors of the Geneva discipline) an unfeigned
attachment to the external establisliment of the Church of
England. The work is further deserving of notice as exhibiting,
I believe, the earliest example, both in the matter and manner
of the argument, of those numerous publications in which

71
some Calvinistic writers have thoughtlessly and intemperately
indulged themselves, from the days of this Christian letter,
and from Prynne, and Hickman, downwards, to Edwards, and
Toplady, and Bowman, and Sir Richard Hill, and Overton.
Can it be believed, the authors of the letter in question tax the
meek, the Avise, the virtuous, the saint-like Richard Hooker
with betraying and renouncing the doctrines to which he bad
solemnly subscribed 1 They charge him with designs of bring
ing back Popery. They accuse him of a wanton attack on the
memory of Calvin. They condemn him of unsoundness of
doctrine respecting grace, and freewih, and justification and
predestination, and the conditions of the Christian covenant,
and the sacraments of the Christian Church. It is curious to
see the Thirty-nine Articles, the Liturgy, the Homilies, Bishop
Jewell's Apology, Dean Nowell's Catechism, and the writings
of many others of Hooker's Protestant predecessors, solemnly
cited against him, and confronted in due form with extracts
from the Ecclesiastical Polity, for the purpose of convicting
him of deserting and denying the principles of that'Church of
which he was a minister, in whose cause he toiled day and
night, and in defence of which, I believe, it may truly be
said, that it was God's good pleasure that he should die."
Wordsworth's Biography, iv. 269.
From the performance here referred to, we may give the
following extracts very much in the temper and spirit of our
own times.
"In all your books — reason is highlie sett up against Holie
Scripture, and reading against preaching, the Church of Rome
favourablie admitted to be the House of God : Calvin with the
Reformed Churches full of faults, and most of all they which
endeavoured to be most reformed from conformity with the
Church of Rome : allmost all the principal points of our EngHsh
creede greatly shaken and contradicted. If you do not sin
cerely, plainlie, and truly answer all these our necessary doubts
and demandes, what shall we have cause to think of these your
tedious and laborious writings'! Shall we do you wrong to
suspect you as a privie and subtile enemy of the English
Church, and that would have men to deeme ber Majesty to
have done ill in abolishing the Romish Religion, and banishing
the Pope's authority. Will you bring us to Atheisme or
Popery 1 — P. 43. " You make it — the Sacrament,- — a means
conditional and no less required than faith itself. And herein
we are suitors unto you to tell us, whether the condition of
Sacraments make not for the additamsnt of works unto faith,

72
in that which the English Church holdeth to be only and
properHe oi faith." — P. 28.
Even good Bishop Hall did not escape the charge. San
derson, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, in that part of the
famous Preface to his Sermons, bearing date July 13, 1657, in
which he shews the advantages which the Puritan writers gave
to the Romish party by the unsoundness of their reasonings
and their extreme intolerance, and the much greater progress
which Popery was making in England towards the latter end
of the commonwealth, through their incapacity, than it had
ever done before, remarks that
" They promoted the interest of Rome, and betrayed the
Protestant cause, partly by mistaking the question, (a very
common fault among them,) but especially through the neces
sity of some false principle or other, which, having once
imbibed, they think themselves bound to maintain. Among
those false principles it shall suffice for the present to have
named but this one, That the Church of Rome is no true Church.
The disadvantages of which assertion to our cause in the
dispute about the visibility ofthe Church (besides the falseness
and uncharitableness of it) their zeal, or prejudice, will not
suffer them to consider. With what outcries was Bishop Hall,
good man, (who little dreamt of any peace with Rome) pursued
by Burton and other Hotspurs for yielding it a Church! who
had made the same concession over and over again before he
was Bishop, (as Junius, Reynolds, and our best controversy
writers generally do,) and no notice was taken, no noise made
about it." Page 79, edit. 1689. Wordsworth's
Biography, v. 305.
Bishop Hall himself says,
" I adventured to set my pen on work ; desiring to rectify
the opinions of those men whom an ignorant zeal had trans
ported, to the prejudice of our holy cause, laying forth the
damnable corruptions of the Romish Church, yet making our
game of the outward visibility thereof, and by this means
putting them to the probation of those newly obtruded
corruptions which are truly guilty of the breach betwixt us;
the drift whereof, being not well conceived, by some spirits
that were not so wise as fervent, I was suddenly exposed to
the rash censures of many well affected and zealous Protest
ants, as if I had, in a remission to my wonted zeal to the truth,

73
attributed too much to the Roman Church, and strengthened
the adversaries' hand, and weakened our own. This envy I
was fain to take off by my speedy Apologetical advertisement,
and after that by my Reconciler, seconded with the unanimous
letters of such reverend, learned, and sound divines, both
bishops and doctors, as whose undoubtable authority was able
to bear down calumny itself. Which done, I did by a seasonable
moderation provide for the peace of the Church, in silencing
both my defendants and challengers, in this unkind and illraised
quarrel." — Wordsworth's Biography, v. p. 305.
The name of Bishop Sanderson reminds me of a passage
from his works appHcable to this subject with which I wiU
conclude this note. Bishop Sanderson is the author of " The
General Thanksgivings" in the Prayer Book, and therefore
advice from him wiU be favourably received.
" But their opinion is, that the things enjoyned are Popish
and superstitious, and consequently urdawful to be used: and
this they render as the reason of their non-conformity. And
the reason were certainly good if the opinion were true. For
the Popishness first ; unless we should sue out a writ definibus
regendis, it wiU be hard to find out a way how to bring this
controversie to an issue, much less to an end ; the term hath
been so strangely extended, and the limits thereof (if yet it
have any) so uncertain. If they would be intreated to set
bounds to what they mean by Popish and Popery, by giving
us a certain definition of it, we should the sooner either come
to some agreement ; or, at least, understand ourselves and one
another the better, wherein and bow far we disagreed. In the
mean time it is to me a wonder, that if reason would not
heretofore, yet the sad experience of the ill consequents, so
visible of late time, should not have taught them all this while
to consider what infinite advantage they give to the Romish
party to work upon weak and wavering souls ; by damning so
many things under the name of Popery, which may to their
understandings be sufficiently evidenced, some to have been
used by the ancient Christians long before Popery was hatched,
or but in the egg; and all to have nothing of Superstition or
Popery in them, unless every thing that is used in the Church
of Rome become thereby Popish and superstitious. Nor what
great advantage they give to our newer sectaries, to extend the
name yet farther ; who, by the help of their new lights, can
discern Popery, not only in the ceremonies formerly under
debate, but even in the Churches and pulpits wherein they
used to preach against Popery, and the bells wherewith they
10

74
used to call the people together to hear them. These are by
some of them cryed down as Popish, with other things very
many, which their Presbyterian brethren do yet both allow and
practise ; though how long they wih so do, is uncertain, if they
go on with the work of Reformation they have begun, with as
quick dispatch, and at the rate tbey have done these last tvio
seven years. The having of godfathers at Baptism, churching
of women, prayers at the burial of the dead, children asking
their parents' blessing, &c. which whilome were held imwoccK^ ;
are now by very many thrown aside as rags of Popery. Nay, are
not some gone so far already, as to cast into the same heap,
not only the ancient hymn Gloria Patri (for the repeating
whereof, alone some have been deprived of all their livelihoods)
and the Apostles' Creed ; but even the use of the Lord's Prayer
itself 1 And what will ye do in the end thereof 1 And what
would ye have us do in the mean time, when ye call hard upon
us to leave our popery, and yet you would never do us the
favour to let us know what it is % It were good, therefore,
both for your own sakes, that you may not rove in infinitum;
and in compassion to us, that you would give us a perfect
boundary of what is Popery now ; with some prognostication or
ephemerides annexed (if you please) whereby to calculate
what will be Popery seven years hence."
Bp. Sanderson, 'ind Preface to his Sermons.
" It is not my purpose, nor is this a place for it, to make
any large discovery of the cause of the mistake, the unsound
ness of the tenent itself, and bow pernicious it is in the con
sequents. Yet I cannot but humbly and earnestly entreat them,
for the love of God and the comfort of their own souls : as
they tender the peace of the Church and the honour of our
religion ; and in compassion to thousands of their Christian
brethren, who are otherwise in great danger to be either misled
ox scandalized : that they would think it possible [ox themselves
to be mistaken in their principle, as well as others, and possible
also for those principles they rest upon to have some frailties
and infirmities in them, though not hitherto by them adverted,
because never suspected ; that therefore they would not hasten
to their conclusion before they are well assured oi the premises,
nor so freely bestow the name of Popish or superstitious upon
the opinions or actions of their brethren as tbey have used to
do, before they have first and thoroughly examined the solidity
of their own grounds. Finally and in order thereto, that they
would not therefore, despise the offer of these few things to
their consideration, because tendered by one that standeth
better affected to their persons than their opinions." — Bp.
Sanderson's First Preface to his Sermons.

75
Note H. p. 17.
SOCINIANS.
Of a truth, the Socinian, or " Unitarian," as he denomi
nates himself, meets with hard measure from his brethren
among the Ultra-protestants. He protests most loudly against
Popery. He takes the Bible and the Bible only for his guide.
He affirms that in the Bible, interpreted according to the best
of his ability, he cannot discover those great doctrines which
we of the Church of England know to be the fundamental
doctrines of Christianity. He is wrong, and we of the Church
of England anathematize him and refuse to regard him as a
Christian. And so do many of the Ultra-protestant sects who
bold, in fact, with us, the great fundamentals of Christianity.
But on their own principles, what right can they have to do so 1
Of what crime bas he, on their principles, been guilty 1 At
the very most, he can only be guilty, as is stated above, of an
obtuseness of intellect which has led to bad logic or to bad
criticism. But, after all, for the Ultra-protestant to assert
that the Socinian interprets Scripture wrongly is only to beg
the very point in dispute. The Socinian says, " I receive
Scripture in what I believe to be the true sense, and so do
you ; — we differ as to what the true sense is, but this is only
a difference of opinion, and you have no right to blame me
than I have to blame you." We of the Church of England,
while we defer to Scripture only, profess to receive Scripture
as the Church always understood it, and by public documents
in general councils, asserted its belief. We therefore have
an arbiter to decide, when two meanings can be attached to
one passage of Scripture, which to adopt, our object being
not to ascertain what Scripture can be made to say, but what
the Lord our God actually means. But for this, Ultra-
protestants denounce us as papistical and call our Church the
Church of the Traditioners. Tbey therefore are ex hypoihesi
excluded from this mode of arguing. We rejoice to find that
they agree with us whenever they do agree. But we marvel
when we hear them joining with us in censuring " Unitarian
ism" as a heresy.

76
Note I. p. 17.
PERSECUTION BY ULTRA-PROTESTANTS.
A violent and popular outcry has often been raised against
the Church because, at the Restoration, those of the clergy
who refuse to conform were ejected from their benefices.
But it will be well to see how the case really stands. Seven
thousand English clergymen, having refused to take the Cove
nant at the great Rebellion, were ejected from their livings,
their places being supplied by dissenting teachers. This
most honorable testimony to the clergy of the Church of Eng
land at that period ought never to be forgotten. At the Resto
ration it was required that all those persons who had thus
become possessed of the property of the English Church
should either conform to the regulations of the Church or
resign. Of all the puritan clergy then in possession, only
two thousand thought fit to resign rather than comply. And
these two thousand were ejected from what 1 From their
rights 1 No, but from their usurpations. Five thousand con
formed and still retained possession of the Church property,
so that many ofthe previously ejected clergy of the Church
of England, who hoped, at the Restoration, to be restored to
their own, were sorely disappointed and cruelly used. The
treatment of the English clergy by the Presbyterians is worthy
of notice. " The taking of the Covenant was now pressed close
through all the parliament quarters, which brought a terrible
persecution upon the loyal clergy. Those who refused to
comply were turned out of their houses, and not suffered to
compound either for personal or real estate. This rigour
forc'd great numbers of the clergy to quit their benefices, and
retire to places under the King's protection. These vacancies
were partly supply'd by those Presbyterians who had formerly
been lecturers or chaplains ; partly by young unqualified students
from the Universities. To which we may add, some refugees
from Scotland and ffew England ; who came in for their share
of preferment. And some of those Puritans, who had formerly
declaimed so much against pluralities, were now reconcil'd to
the holding tAvo or three livings. As to the honest clergy,
who refus'd to joyn the rebelHon, or revolt from the church,

77
they were sequester'd and imprison'd ; and almost every way
harrass'd and undone. From the year 1641 to six years
forward, there were an hundred and fifteen clergymen turn'd
out of their livings within the bills of mortality ; most of them
were plunder'd, and their wives and children set in the streets.
By these barbarities at London, the reader may conjecture the
greatness of the calamity in the rest of the kingdom.
" They had another way of reaching the orthodox clergy
beside the Covenant : some of them were sequester'd and
ejected upon pretence of scandal and immorality. But to
shew the iniquity of their proceedings upon this head, it may
be observ'd first, that some of the crimes charg'd upon them
were capital : and therefore, since the forfeiture of their lives
was not taken, we may reasonably believe the proof was
defective. Secondly, the depositions against them were sel
dom taken upon oath, but bare affirmation went for evidence
Thirdly, many ofthe complainants were apparently factious men
who had deserted the Church, and profess'd an aversion to the
hierarchy. Fourthly, many of these pretended criminals were
ignorantly if not maliciously charg'd with delivering false
doctrine : For instance, some were prosecuted for preaching
that Baptism washes away original sin : And lastly, many were
outed for malignancy ; that is, for being true to their allegi
ance. In short, 'tis observ'd there were more turn'd out of
their livings by the Presbyterians in three years, than were
depriv'd by the Papists in Queen Mary's reign; or had been
silenc'd, suspended or depriv'd by all the bishops from the first
year of Queen Elizabeth to the time we are upon. — Collier,
ii. 828. The Independents, who burned some hundreds for witch
craft, and hanged the Quakers in Massachusetts, " proposed
more massacres than they executed. There was one of all
the Royalists or Presbyterians in the true Marat style of
taking two hundred thousand heads off at one stroke." —
D'Israeli's Charles I. iii. 295.
I do not refer to these things to revive angry and useless
disputes; and I am perfectly aware that no Dissenters,
whether Romish or Protestant, would wish to revive a spirit
of persecution, now that the principle of toleration is fully
understood: but when attempts are so frequently made, by
stating only one side of the question, to make it appear that
Dissenters were hardly used by Churchmen in times past, it

78
becomes necessary to shew that we have it in our power, by
an appeal to history, to exhibit the other side of the picture,
and to make it known that the little finger of an Ultra-protest
ant is thicker than a Churchman's loins. I believe the first
declarations in favor of a toleration are to be found in Chil
lingworth and Jeremy Taylor.

Note K. p. 18.
THE OXFORD TRACTS.-.
That the simplification of our principle alluded to in the
text, has sometimes tended to narrow the mind, and that men
have been inclined to support the Church of England on
grounds and with feelings purely sectarian, may be lamented,
but can scarcely be denied. But still, generally speaking, the
simplicity of our principle has worked well, and in every con
troversy its tendency is to bring Churchmen to an agreement.
For instance, at the commencement of the last century, the
tendency of Ultra-protestantism was to Socinianism. The
Ultra-protestant sects in Germany, and' even in Geneva, had
become Socinian. Under the influence of Hoadley and the
then liberal party in England, an attempt was made to gain
a footing for this God-denying heresy in the English Church.
To believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, to worship the
Saviour or to regard the sacraments as any thing more than
mere ceremonies, was represented as "flat Popery;" to
condemn those who protested against these doctrines was
considered " a renunciation of the fundamental principles of
the Reformation." But the attempt failed, for every man
endowed with common honesty could understand the argu
ment, " You may, if you like it, leave the Church, but you
cannot as an honest man continue to act therein as a minister
if you deny the truth of her doctrines, and it is impossible to
doubt as to what her doctrines are with reference to the Holy
Trinity and the Deity of our Lord." However liberal a man
may be in the present day, he would not dare to avow Socinian

79
opinions, (knowing them to be such,) and retain any official
situation in the Church.
The tendency of the principle mentioned above to promote
unanimity and concord among the Churchmen may be seen in
another instance. In the middle of the last century it is not
to be denied that a reHgious apathy prevailed, both in the
Church and among the Sectarians, to a very considerable
extent. We know, both from their writings and their biogra
phies, that there were a vast number of orthodox clergymen
steadily performing their duty in their respective cures, but,
from a variety of circumstances, there was a vast number
also too inactive. Discipline, too, had relaxed. Bishops had
been appointed whose political sentiments accorded ill with
those of the great body of the Clergy, by whom they were
regarded with suspicion and jealousy. The episcopal govern
ment is paternal, and where, from any cause, it cannot be
administered with a paternal spirit, any legal powers with
which our Bishops may be invested, as they cannot be exercised
without harshness, can scarcely be exercised at all. At this
juncture, a zeal almost amounting to enthusiasm was kindled
in the bosoms of many devout and excellent men, who felt
called upon to blow the trumpet in Zion, and to awaken the
sleeping world around them to a sense of their spiritual wants.
The movement was simultaneous, or nearly so, in the Church
and among the sectarians.* But the churchmen, uniting with
the sectarians, and thinking that excitement was the thing
most needed, became attached to the system of the foreign
rather than to that of the English Reformation. Many of the
early Evangelicals, of whom it is impossible to speak without
feelings of affection, veneration, and respect, were certainly
guilty of many irregularities, erring only from their not
having duly considered the subject of church discipline.
These irregularities they gradually corrected, and the next
generation of " Evangelicals" assumed another attitude ; they
contended against the " orthodox," as the great body of the
' It is clearly shewn by Mr. Venn, (preface to Venn's Life,) that the early
"Evangelicals" in the Church were not indebted, even indirectly, as it has
been sometimes misrepresented, to the Wesleys or Whitfields for the sentiments
by which they were influenced.

80
clergy were styled, that their views were strictly those of the
English Church and the English Reformation.* The contro
versy thus assumed a definite and tangible form, according to
the principle already alluded to. The appeal to this principle
led, of course, to various explanations and various modifica
tions of extreme opinions. The spirit of deference to the
authoritative decisions of the Church of England was in his
later years encouraged by Mr. Wilberforce, when that highly-
gifted, amiable, and pious man had become virtually the leader
of the "Evangelical" party: and at length the moderate of
that party were found to be disputing with those who pro
fessedly adhered to the principles of the English Reformers
and the Catholic Church, which had been consistently main
tained by such men as Jones of Nayland, Bishop Home, and
their successors, merely about words. At such a time, when
all parties, having admitted that Church principles ought to be
carried out and uniformly acted upon, were led to inquire,
' what are Church principles 1 is any party acting consistently
upon them V' — at such a time, the celebrated Oxford Tracts
made their appearance. The reputed Avriters of the Tracts
were men of ardent piety, who had been attached to the
"Evangelical" school, and it was among the young men who
had been educated in that school that they created a strong
sensation. Hence, perhaps, the bitterness with which they
are assailed by some of the older partizans of that section in
the Church. To those who, like the present -writer, had been
educated strictly in the principles of the English Reformation,
and belonged to the old orthodox school, they brought forward
nothing new ; and though we may have demurred to some of
their opinions, and have thought that, in some things, they are
in an extreme, we rejoiced to see right principles advocated
in a manner so decided, and in a spirit so truly Christian.
Against some of the pious opinions supported in these Tracts,
* In the first two editions of this Sermon I stated that Mr. Venn had
sometimes officiated in Dissenting Meeting Houses; having so understood the
expression of his Biographer, who speaks of his having preached in unconse-
crated places. I have been informed by his excellent grandson, that in making
this statement I misunderstood the words of his Biographer. 1, therefore, take
this opportunity to correct my mistake.

81
objections may occasionally be raised, for perfect coincidence
of opinion is not to be expected. I do not, myself, accord
with all the opinions expressed in them, or always admit the
deduction attempted to be drawn from the principles on which
we are agreed. I think, too, that while manfully vindicating
the principles of the English Reformation, in their fear lest
they should appear to respect persons too highly, the writers
of the Tracts do not appreciate highly enough the character
of some of our leading Reformers, or make due aUowance
for the difficulties in which they were placed. I mention
these things the rather, since I am sure the writers in ques
tion have no wish to form a party ; they have no wish to
check freedom of opinion within the boundaries prescribed
by the Church ; — their object is only to imbue the public
mind with those Catholic principles by the maintenance of
which the English Reformation was gloriously distinguished.
This cannot be done, unless on those principles opinions are
formed, and from them conclusions drawn ; and at the very
time that we may combat a particular opinion, if we admit
the truth of the principle on which it was 'built, we only
confirm the principle, and impress it more deeply on men's
minds. I am not one of those who would say, "Read the
Oxford Tracts, and take for granted every opinion there
expressed," but I am one of those who would say, "Read and
digest those Tracts well, and you will have imbibed principles
which will enable you to judge of opinions." Their popularity
will increase, since their arguments are not answered, or
their statements refuted: — tbey are opposed simply by railing.
And those who judge of such things only by second-hand
reports, and garbled quotations, and anonymous misrepre
sentations in newspapers, will, of course rail on.* May the

* Perhaps there never was devised, by men who professed to call them
selves Chribiians, a system of attack more wicked than that which is
adopted by many who assail these Tracts. Of the persons who are supposed
to write them, lies the most ridiculous are invented, mdustiiously circulated,
and willingly believed. And when an attempt is made to refute the Tracts
themselves, false extracts are made, and they are represented as asserting the
very errors which they, in express words, reprobate I This is actually diuie by
men who not only call theuiselvts ChrisUaus, but profes.-, to be of the straitest
11

82
day come when they may be awakened to a sense of the
danger of thus violating the golden rule of charity ! In the
mean time, the wise, the candid, those who are not the mere
partisans of religion, but really religious, will themselves read
the Tracts, — and if tbey do read they will commend. They
may censure particular opinions, but they will commend the
whole. At all events, the Scriptural Christian will be preju
diced in favour of the writers of the Oxford Tracts, on seeing
the fruits of the Spirit beautifully exhibited in their conduct,
love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meek
ness ) it would be well, indeed, if their assailants, in various
magazines and newspapers, would remember of Avbat emula
tions, wrath, strife, seditions, are the signs. The temper
manifested by their opponents is as impolitic as it is too often
profane. Fully aware that it is not by reviling again, that
they are to maintain the cause of a reviled and crucified
Master ; fully aware that it is by well-doing that they are
" to put to silence the ignorance of foolish men," the writers
of the Oxford Tracts, when assailed as " popish fanatics," &c.
when their doctrines, instead of being refuted, are declaimed
against as " figments of the darkest ages of Papal superstition,"
&c. calmly reply, "Brave words, surely. Well and good,
take your fill of them, since you choose them for your portion.
It does but make our spirits rise cheerily and hopefully to be
thus encountered. Never were such words on one side, but
deeds were on the other. We knoAV our place and our for
tunes ; to give a witness and to be contemned ; to be ill-used
and to succeed. Such is the law which God has annexed to
the promulgation of the truth ; its preachers suffer, but its
cause prevails. Be it so. Joyfully will vce consent to this
compact. And the more you attack us personally, the more,
for the very omen's sake, we will exult in it."
sect of our religion. To those who consult the Tracts to verify the quotations,
the inference 13 obvious: lies would not be told unless it were impossible to
substantiate the .lOLUsation by telling the truth. It would be well, indeed, if
our brethren would rcnicmbcr that to speak falsely, even for religion, is both
popish and unacriptural.

83
Note L. p. 22.
ON THE SACRAMENTS.
" In all ages the devil bath stirred up some light heads to
esteem the sacraments but lightly, as to be empty and bare
signs." — Bp. Latimer in Ridley's life of Ridley, p. 453.
1. Baptism. — So evidently does the Church connect Bap
tism and Regeneration that the Puritans in Queen Elizabeth's
time and the Nonconformists in the reign of Charles II. justified
their secession on the ground that '¦'¦the Church clearly teaches
the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration." — J^onconformist' s
Memorial. Introduct. p. 39.
The Puritans particularly objected to our services for
applying John iii. 5, to " the baptizing in the font, thai being
spoken, as they said, only ofthe operation of the spirit. Puritan
Register, p. 97. They cavilled also " at these words used in
baptism, that Jesus Christ did sanctify the flood Jordan and all
other waters to the mystical washing away of sin ; as though
we should attribute that to the sign which is proper to the
word of God in the blood of Christ ; and that virtue were in
the water to wash away sin." — "A view of Popish abuses yet
remaining." Strype's Annals, vol. \i.pt. 2, p. 480.
Allusion is here evidently made to our baptismal service
where it is expressly said that water is sanctified to the mystical
washing away of sin. The Puritans also objected to the Church
for teaching each baptized child to speak of himself as
" sanctified," which is done in the catechism.
Among the eight things at the Savoy conference charged
upon the Church as " flatly sinful and contrary to the word of
God " the fourth was " that ministers are obliged to pronounce
all baptized infants regenerate by the Holy Ghost." Collier, ii.
885, The Rev. Thomas Scott observes,
" Indeed, the Fathers, as they are called, (that is the
teachers of the Christian Church during some ages after the
apostles,) soon began to speak on this subject in unscriptural
language"— (i. e. according to Mr. Scott's idea of what scrip-

84
tural language is, but he is no more infallible than the Fathers,
who were deep students of Scripture) : " and our pious
reformers, from an undue regard to them and to the circumstances
of the times, have retained a few expressions in the Liturgy
which not only are inconsistent with their other doctrine, but
also tend to perplex men's minds and mislead their judgment
on this important subject. It is obvious, hoAvever, from their
words above cited, and many other passages, (particularly the
articles on the sacraments) that they never supposed the mere
outward administration of baptism to be regeneration, in the
strict sense of the Avord." — Essays by the late Rev. Thomas
Scott. Essay 12, p. 137.
This is certainly a curious sentence to be Avritten by one
who had subscribed his unfeigned assent and consent, to the
Prayer Book ; and Mr. Scott's ideas of piety must have been
peculiar. According to his statement, our Reformers did not
believe baptism to be regeneration, but yielding to "the
circumstances of the time" and " undue regard to the Fathers :"
they suffered what they did not believe to remain as the
doctrine of the baptismal office, though leading, as Mr. Scott
would consider, to errors the most pernicious and fatal. This,
a High Churchman, who true to the principles of the English
Reformation, has a due regard for the Fathers, would, I
sbreAvdly suspect, call impiety. From this charge I should be
happy to vindicate our great reformers : and first of Cranmer.
That his private vieAvs Avere not, as Mr. Scott suspects,
different from those Avhich be publicly avowed, may be seen
from the ensuing extract from one of his last and most elabo
rate Avorks, the very title of Avhich betrays a respect, whether
due or undue, for the Fathers, sufficient to shoAV, in addition
to what has before been produced, that Avhatever anathemas
they deserve A^rbo in these days have respect to the Fathers, it
is presuming rather too much on the ignorance and credulity
of the public to accuse them of deviating from the principles
of the Reformation.
"A Defence of the true and Catholic Doctrine ofthe Sacra
ment of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, Avith a
Confutation of sundrv errors concerning the same, grounded
and stablishcd upon God's Holy Word, and approved by the
consent of the most ancient doctors oi the Church, made by

85
the most Reverend Father in God Thomas Archbishop of
Canterbury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan.
" Although our carnal generation and our carnal nourish
ment be knoAvn to all men by daily experience and by our
common senses ; yet this our spiritual generation and our
spiritual nutrition be so obscure and hid unto us, that we can
not attain to the true and perfect knowledge and feeling of
them, but only by faith, which must be grounded upon God's
most holy Avord and sacraments.
" And for this consideration our Saviour Christ hath not
only set forth these things most plainly in his holy Avord, that
we may bear them Avith our ears ; but he hath also ordained
one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and
another visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and
wine, to the intent that, as much as is possible for man, we
may see Christ with our eyes, smell him at our nose, taste
him AA'ith our mouths, grope him with our bands, and perceive
him with all our senses. For as the word of God preached
putteth Christ into our ears, so likewise the elements of water,
bread and wine, joined to God's word, do after a sacramental
manner put Christ into our eyes, mouths, hands, and all our
•senses. " And for this cause Christ ordained Baptism in water, that
as sure as we see, feel, and touch water with our bodies, and be
washed with water ; so assuredly ought we to believe, when we
be baptized, that Christ is verily present with us, and that by
him we be newly born again spiritually, and washed from our
sins, and grafted in the stock of Christ's own body, and be
apparelled, clothed, and harnessed with him in such wise, that
as the Devil hath no power against Christ, so hath he none
against us, so long as we remain grafted in that stock, and be
clothed with that apparel, and harnessed with that armour."
Cranmer's Works, ii. 302.
Of the force of this passage Ave have indirect evidence in
the fact that when the Religious Tract Society undertook the
repubHcation of the greater part of the " Defence," the passage
just quoted was carefully omitted. "Their extracts," says
Mr. Jenkyns, " are much too imperfect to convey a full and
fair view of Cranmer's tenets, especially as they do not include
a remarkable passage in his first book, illustrative of his opinions
on Baptism." The passage aUuded to is the one quoted above.
Now it cannot be supposed that the Religious Tract Society,
&CC. pubhshed the Tract in question, antiquated in style and

86
controversial in manner, as being in itself peculiarly adapted
to those whom the Society is intended to benefit. The object
was, of course, to insinuate that the principles of the Society
are in accordance Avith those of the English Reformers. But
on one of the most important points, the principles of the Tract
Society, and those of Archbishop Cranmer, are very decidedly
at variance. On what principle, then, can such an unnoticed
omission be justified ; an omission that leads the reader to
infer that the Archbishop and the Society are perfectly in
union 1 When Bishop Sanderson's advice is followed, and
we have a clear definition of Avbat Popery is, perhaps we shall
find this noted as a Popish transaction. For although I am
quite sure that truly pious Romanists Avould disdain such an
artifice as this, yet of similar offences some of their most
distinguished controversialists have been guilty.
But if a yet stronger passage from Archbishop Cranmer is
wanted, it can easily be produced.
" And when you say that in baptism we receive the spirit of
Christ, and in the sacrament of his body and blood we receive his
very flesh and blood, this your saying is no small derogation to
baptism, Avherein we receive not only the spirit of Christ, but
also Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead,
unto everlasting life, as Avell as in the holy communion. For
St. Paul saith, Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum
induistis. As many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ upon
them. Nevertheless this is done in diA-ers respects ; for in
baptism it is done in respect of regeneration, and in the holy
communion in respect of nourishment and augmentation."—
Works iii. 65.
That they against whom, under the name of High-Church
men, an attempt is made to excite the Avrath of the irritable,
and the indignation of the ignorant, are influenced by the Spirit
of our English Reformers no better proof can be given than
their desire to circulate the authoritative documents of the
Reformation. Some tracts of great importance, under the
title of "Tracts of the Anglican Fathers," have been lately
published, and ought to be Avidely circulated. From Arch
bishop Cranmer's sermon on Holy Baptism, the foUoAving
extracts are made : —

87
"And the second birth is by the water of Baptism, which
Paid calleth the bath of regeneration, because our sins be
forgiven us in Baptism, and the Holy Ghost is poured into us
as into God's beloved children, so that by the power and working
of the Holy Ghost we be born again spiritually, and made new
creatures. And so by Baptism we enter into the kingdom of
God, and are saved for ever, if we continue to our lives' end
in the faith of Christ."— P. 1.
" When we are born again by Baptism, then our sins are
forgiven us, and the Holy Ghost is given us, which doth make
us also holy, and doth move us to all goodness." — P. 7.
To this we may add the following paraUel passage from
one of our Homilies : —
" We must trust only in God's mercy, and that sacrifice
Avhich our High Priest and Saviour Jesus the Son of God once
offered for us on the Cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and
remission, as well of our original sin in Baptism, as of all
actual sin committed by us after our Baptism, if we truly
repent and turn unfeignedly to him again."
The second part of the Sermon of Salvation. See also
The first Homily of the Passion.
But to return to Cranmer,
" Baptism is not water alone, and nothing else besides, but
is the water of God, and hath his strength by the word of God,
and is a seal of God's promise. Wherefore, it doth work in
us all those things vA'bereunto God hath ordained it. For our
Lord Jesus Christ saith, " Go and teach all nations, and baptize
them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Ghost." This God commanded his disciples to do. Where
fore, by the virtue of this commandment, which came from
heaven even from the bosom of God, Baptism doth work in us
as the work of God. For when we he baptized in the name of
God, that is as much [as] to say, as God, himself should baptize
us. Wherefore we ought not to have an eye only on the water,
but to God rather, which did ordain the Baptism of water, and
commanded it to be done in his name. For he is almighty,
and able to work in us by Baptism forgiveness of our sins,
and all those wonderful effects and operations for the which
he hath ordained the same, although man's reason is not able
to conceive the same. Therefore, consider, good children,
the great treasures and benefits whereof God maketh us par
takers when we are baptized, which be these. The first is,
that in Baptism our sins be forgiven us, as Saint Peter wit-

88
nesseth, saying, 'Let every one of you be baptized for the
forgiveness of his sins.' The second is, that the Holy Ghost
is given us, the which doth spread abroad the love of God in
our hearts, whereby we may keep God's commandments
according to this saying of Saint Peter, 'Let every one of you
be baptized in the name of Christ, and then you shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost.'
" The third is, that by Baptism the whole righteousness of
Christ is given unto us that we may claim the same as our
own. For so Saint Paul teacheth, saying, ' As many of ye as
are baptized in Christ have put upon you Christ." — P. 8.
" By this which I have hitherto spoken, I trust you under
stand, good children, wherefore Baptism is called the bath of
regeneration, and how in Baptism we be born again, and be made
new creatures in Christ." — P. 9.
"But peradventure some will say, how can water work
such great things 1 To whom I answer, that it is not the water
that doeth these things, but the almighty AA'ord of God (which
is knit and joined to the water) and faith Avhich receiveth God's
word and promise. For Avithout the Avord of God, water is
water, and not Baptism. But Avhen the word of the living God
is added and joined to the Avater, then it is the bath of regen
eration, and Baptism water, and the lively spring of eternal
salvation, and a bath that washeth our souls by the Holy Ghost,
as Saint Paul calleth it, saying, " God has saved us through
his mercy, by the bath of regeneration and reneAving of the
Holy Ghost, whom he hath poured upon us plenteously by
Jesus Christ our Saviour, that we being made righteous by his
grace may be heirs of everlasting life.' This is a sure and
true word."— Pp. 11, 12.
"And when you shall be asked, 'What availeth Baptism 1
you shall ansAver, Baptism worketh forgiveness of sin, it
delivereth from the kingdom of the devil and from death, and
giveth life and everlasting salvation to all them that believe
these Avords of Christ, and promise of God, Avhich are Avritten
in the last chapter of Saint Mark, his Gospel, ' He that avUI
believe and be baptized shall be saved, but he that Avill not
believe shall be damned.' "¦ — Page 30.
We all know that Bishop Ridley Avas recommended to the
notice of Cranmer by certain high-church qalifications, Avhich
would in these days have had, Avith some parties, a very contrary
effect ; "his aveII knoAvn acquaintance Avith the Scriptures and
the Fathers." — Soame's Reformation, iii. 28. In his great and
learned work against Transubstantiation, we find him arguing
thus : " Now on the other side, if, after the truth shaU be truly

89
tried out, it be found that the substance of bread is the
material substance of the Sacrament, although for ihe change
of the use, office, and dignity of the bread, the bread indeed,
sacramentally is changed into the body of Christ, as the water
in baptism is sacramentally changed into the fountain of regene
ration, and yet, the material substance thereof remaineth all
one as before, &c." — Enchiridion, vol. i. p. 72. Indeed, all
who are but slightly acquainted with the works of our Refor
mers must be aware that this was their favourite argument
against Transubstantiation : " There is no need to hold
the dofrma of Transubstantiation in order to believe that
O
Christ is imparted in the Eucharist, because he is equally
imparted in baptism, and yet no one contends that the Avater
is transubstantiated." This great martyr declares, "As the
body is nourished by the bread and wine at the communion,
and the soul by grace and spirit with the body of Christ ; even
so in Baptism, the body is washed Avith the visible water, and
ihe soul cleansed from all filth by the invisible Holy Ghost,
and yet the water ceaseth not to be water, but keepeth the
nature of water stiU. In like sort in the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper, the bread ceaseth not to be hread."— Words
worth's Life of Ridley iii. p. 238. See also Ridley's Life of
Ridley, pp. 684, 669, 620.
" Like as Christ was born in rags," says Bishop Latimer,
"so the conversion of the whole world is by rags, by things
which are most vile in this world. For what is so common as
water "^ Every foul ditch is full of it : yet we wash out re
mission of our sins by Baptism, for like as he was found in
rags, so we must find him by Baptism. There Ave begin ; we
are washed with water, and then the words are added; for -^e
are Baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the
Holy Ghost, whereby the Baptism receiveth its strength.
NoAV this Sacrament of Baptism is a thing of great weight : for
it ascertaineth and assureth us that like as the water Avasheth
the body and cleanseth it, so the blood of Christ our Saviour
cleanseth and Avasheth it from aU filth and uncleanness of
sin." — Latimer's Sermons, ii. 779.
" As therefore in Baptism," says Bradford, "is given to us
ihe Holy Ghost and pardon of our sins, which yet he not lurking
in the Abater ; so in the Lord's Supper is given unto us the Com-
12

90
munion of Christ's body and blood, without transubstantiation,
or including the same in the bread. By Baptism the old man
is put off, the new man is put on, yea Christ is put on without
transubstantiating the water. And even so it is m the Lord s
Supper." .
Bradford's Sermon on the Lord's Supper, quoted in
Wordsworth's Life of Latimer, in. 236.
Dr. Wordsworth gives a simUar quotation from Cranmer's
ansAver to Gardyner, one of his latest works : " I mean that he
is present in the ministration and receiving of that Holy
Supper according to his own institution and ordinance, like
as in Baptism, Christ and the Holy Ghost be not in the water
or font, but be given in ministration, or to them that be duly
baptized in the water."— Crowraer's Answer to Gardyner, p. 172.
In the Tracts of the Anglican Fathers, quotations to the same
effect are given from Bishop Hooper, page 15.
And now having vindicated our pious Reformers from the
insinuation of Mr. Scott, that they sought the propagation of
doctrines which they did not believe, and having shewn what
High Churchmen they are in this respect, I shaU call before my
reader a witness Avhose testimony is valuable to the facts, —
that baptismal regeneration is the doctrine of the Church of
England, that it is the doctrine of our Reformers, that the
doctrine is scriptural, and that it is burdensome to some, — but
not to those who believe with the Church of England that the
Scriptures teach that regeneration is the iuAvard grace of
baptism. " In the baptismal service, we thank God for having
regenerated the baptised infant by his Holy Spirit. Now from
hence it appears that in the opinion of our Reformers, regene
ration and remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in
Avhat sense did they hold this sentiment 1 Did tbey maintain
that there Avas no need for the seed then soAvn in the heart of
the baptised person to groAv up and to bring forth fruit ; or
that he could be saved in any other way than by a progressive
renovation of his soul after the divine image 1 Had they
asserted any such doctrine as that, it Avould have been impos
sible for any enlightened person to concur Avith them. But
nothing can be conceived more repugnant to their sentiments
than such an idea as this ; so far from harbouring such a

91
thought, they have, and that too in this very prayer, taught us
to look to God for that total change both of heart and life
which long since their days has begun to be expressed by the
term regeneration. After thanking God for regenerating the
infant by his Holy Spirit, we are taught to pray 'that he
being dead unto sin and living unto righteousness may crucify
the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin,' and
then declaring the total change to be the necessary mean of
his obtaining salvation, Ave add, ' so that finally with the residue
of the holy Church he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting
kingdom.' Is there (I Avould ask) any person that can require
more than thisl or does God in bis word require more 1 There
are tAvo things to be noticed in reference to this subject, the
term regeneration and the thing. The term occurs but twice in
the Scriptures ; in one place it refers to Baptism, and is dis
tinguished from the renewing ofthe Holy Ghost ; which,however
is represented as attendant on it : and in the other place it has a
totally distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. Now
the term they use as the Scripture uses it, and the thing they
require as strongly as any person can require it. They do not
give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be
saved Avithout experiencing all that modern divines \_Ultra-
protestant divines^ have included in the term regeneration ; on
the contrary, they do both there and in the Liturgy insist upon
a radical change of both heart and Hfe. Here, then, the only
question is not ' Whether a baptised person can be saved by
that ordinance without sanctification,' but whether God does
alAvays accompany the sign Avith the thing signified 1 Here is
certainly room for difference of opinion ; but it cannot be
positively decided in the negative ; because we cannot know or
even judge respecting it in any case whatever except by the
fruits that foUow : and therefore in aU fairness it may be con
sidered only as a doubtful point ; and if he appeal, as he ought
to do, to the holy Scriptures, they certainly do, in a very
remarkable way, accord with the expressions in our Liturgy.
St. Paul says, ' By one Spirit we are all baptized into one
Body, Avbether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond
or free ; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.'
And this he says of aU the visible members of Christ's Body,
(1 Cor. xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole nation of
Israel, infants as weU as adults, he says, ' They were all bap
tized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat
the same spiritual meat ; and did all drink the same spiritual
drink ; for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed
them; and that rock was Christ.' (1 Cor. x. 1,4.) Yet, behold,
in the very next verse be teUs us that, 'with many of them
God was displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.

92
In another place he speaks yet more strongly stiU: ' as many
of you,' says he, ' as are baptized into Christ, have put on
Christ.' Here we see what is meant by the expression 'bap
tized into Christ' : it is precisely the same expression as that
before mentioned of the Israelites being ' baptized unto Moses' :
the preposition ei; is used in both places ; it includes all that
had been initiated into his religion by the rite of baptism ; and
of them UNIVERSALLY does the Apostle say, ' they have put on
Christ.' Now I ask, have not the persons who scruple the
use of that prayer in the baptismal service equal reason to
scruple the use of these different expressions 1
"Again — St. Peter says, 'Repent and be Baptized every
one of you /or the remission of sins' — (Acts, ii. 38, 39.) And
in another place, ' Baptism doth noAv save us.' — (1 Pet. iii. 21.)
And speaking elsewhere of Baptized persons who were
unfruitful in the knoAvledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says,
^ He hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.' — (2
Pet. i. 9.) Does not this very strongly countenance the idea
WHICH OUR Reformers entertained. That the remission of our
SINS, and the regeneration of our souls, is attendant on the
Baptismal rite 1 Perhaps it Avill be said that the inspired
Avriters spake of persons who had been Baptized at an adult
age. But if they did so in some places, they certainly did not
in others ; and Avhere they did not, they must be understood
as comprehending all, whether infants or adults ; and therefore
the language of our Liturgy, which is not a Avhit stronger than
theirs, may be both subscribed and used without any just
occasion of offence.
" Let me, then, speak the truth before God : though I am
no Arminian, / do think the refinements of Calvin have done
great harm in the Church ; they have driven multitudes from
the plain and popular way of speaking used by the inspired
writers, and have made them unreasonably and unscripturally
squeamish in their modes of expression ; and I conceive that
the less addicted any person is to systematic accuracy, the
more he will accord Avith the inspired Avriters, and the more
be Avill approve the vicAvs of our Reformers. I do not mean,
hoAvever, to say that a slight alteration in two or three instances
Avould not be an improvement, since it would take off a burthen
from many minds, and supersede the necessity of laboured
explanations: but I do mean to say that there is no such
objection to these expressions as to deter any conscientious
person from giving his unfeigned assent and consent to the
Liturgy akogether, or from using the particular expressions
Avbich Ave have been endeavoring to explain."
Simeon's Works, vol. u. p. 259.

93
Whether Mr. Simeon may have written differently in other
parts of his voluminous Avorks, I am not sufficiently acquainted
with those Avorks to be able to say, but I venture to quote this
as one of the most lucid expositions and one of the most
scriptural vindications of the doctrine of regeneration as held
by our English Reformers, and for holding which so much
abuse is heaped upon those AA'ho are designated High Church
men, that has fallen under my notice. Mr. Simeon shows that
our services do unequivocally assert that regeneration takes
place at Baptism, that they are scriptural in doing so, and that
those absurd consequences which some persons would suppose
to be connected with the doctrine do not of necessity follow.
He teUs us that some persons find this, the unquestionable
doctrine of the Church, such a " burthen" that they require
some " slight alteration in one or two places" : and that in
default of these alterations they are obliged to have recourse
to "laboured explanations." Against these persons I wish to say
nothing — if they can conscientiously remain in the Church I
rejoice to consider them as brethren. But they generally
assume an exclusive respect for Scripture ; yet, according to
Mr. Simeon's shoAving, the expressions of Scripture, for he
proves the expressions of our Baptismal Service and those of
Scripture to be identical, are a burthen to them. In this
instance, then, we, who want no alteration, are more scriptural
than they are. If they can conscientiously adopt their
" laboured explanations," they are perfectly welcome. But
what those persons have a right to complain of, who receive
the expressions of the Liturgy in their plain and simple sense,
who labour after no " explanations," complain of no "burthen,"
would resolutely resist any "alteration," is this, that an
attempt is made to make it appear that they are the persons
innovating in the Church; that they are opposed to the
Reformers ; that they are unscriptural. Mr. Simeon perceived
how the quarrel commenced. By those attached to the foreign
school of Reformation, regeneration is used in a sense
different from that which prevaUs among those who are
attached to the principles of the English Reformation. He
would propose that we should yield to the advocates of foreign

. 94
Reformation, or Ultra-protestants. To such a proposition we
shall never assent, for our phraseology is that of the Church
Universal, the other that merely of a sect or party compara
tively small. The distinction between regeneration and
renovation is clearly preserved by those divines who are
attached to the English Reformation, as may be "seen from the
following quotations from Bishop Bethell's Avork on Regene
ration, — a work which has long been regarded as a standard
on this subject. FoUoAving and referring to Waterland, he
remarks :
"Regeneration is the joint work of water and the Spirit,
or te speak more properly, of the Spirit only ; renovation is
the joint work of the Spirit and the man. Regeneration
comes only once in or through Baptism. Renovation exists
before, in, and after Baptism, and may be often repeated.
Regeneration, being a single act, can have no parts, and is
incapable of increase. Renovation is in its very nature pro
gressive. Regeneration, though suspended as to its effects
and benefits, cannot be totally lost in the present life. Reno
vation may be often repeated and totally lost."
Afterwards he illustrates this doctrine by applying it to
four separate cases.
" 1. Grown persons coming to Baptism properly qualified,
receive at once the grace of Regeneration ; but however well
prepared, they are not regenerate Avithout Baptism. After
wards renovation groAvs more and more AA'ithin them by the
indAvelling of the Spirit.
" 2. As to infants, their innocence and incapacity are to
them instead of repentance, Avhich they do not want, and of
actual faith, which they cannot have : and they are capable of
being born again, and adopted by God, because they bring no
obstacle. They stipulate, and the Holy Spirit translates them
out of a state of nature into a state of grace, favour, and
acceptance. In their case, regeneration precedes, and renova
tion foUows after, and they are the temple of the Spirit, tiU
they defile themsehes with sin.
" 3. As to those AA'ho fall off after regeneration, their
covenant state abides, but Avithout any saving effect, because
Avithout present renovation : but this saving effect may be
repaired and recovered by repentance.
" 4. With respect to those Avho receive Baptism in a state
of hypocrisy or impenitency, though this Sacrament can only
increase their condemnation, stUl pardon and grace are con-

95
ditlonally made over to them, and the saving virtue of regen
eration, which had been hitherto suspended, takes effect
when they truly repent and unfeignedly believe the gospel.
" This clear statement of the learned author contains an
accurate representation of the grace conferred, and the
change Avhich takes place in Baptism ; and this is what is
meant by those Divines who maintain that regeneration is, in
the strict sense of the word, the inward and spiritual grace of
Baptism. The identity, if I may so express myself, of Bap
tism and Regeneration, is a doctrine which manifestly pervades
the Avritings of the Fathers. It is moreover evident that they
did not imagine that Baptism produces any saving effect
in adults AAdtbout faith and repentance, or, in other words,
without some previous renewal of the inward frame. Nor do
they appear to have supposed any positive or active renewal
ofthe soul takes place in infants. Hence it follows that they
must have maintained this distinction between regeneration
and renovation or conversion, Avhich, in the present day, has
been styled, by a strange fatality, a novel contrivance. Suffi
cient proofs, however, of a positive kind may be collected
from their own writings, that they maintained this distinction."
Bp. Bethell on Regeneration,
pp. Ui, 16.
2. Eucharist. — In producing the opinions of our Reformers
on the Sacrament of Baptism, I have accidentally brought
forward their opinions on the Eucharist, and sbcAvn that as
private controversialists they held in both instances the
doctrines which as Reformers they propagated. The Com
mons, in 1549, broke out into a dangerous rebellion, and to their
articles of complaint Cranmer wrote the answer. To the
seventh article he makes reply, (shewing that his notion of
superstition and idolatry was somewhat different from that
which now prevails in certain quarters,)
" 0 superstition and idolatry ! bow they prevaU among
you I The very true heavenly bread, the food of everlasting
life-, offered you in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, you
refuse to eat but only at Easter ! and the cup of the most holy
blood, wherewith you were redeemed and washed from your
sins, you refuse utterly to drink of at any time. And yet
instead of these you will eat often of the unsavoury and
poisoned bread of the Bishop of Rome, and drink of his stink
ing puddles, Avhich he nameth holy bread and holy water."
Cranmer's Works, ii. 26.

96
The language of Cranmer, it is admitted, is not always so
strong as that of Ridley, but still it would be considered by
many in these days as savoring of Popery, in their undefined
use of that expression. In 1548 he published his translation
of Justus Jonas's Catechism, with some alterations and cor
rections by himself. To the statements therein made he
professed to the very last to adhere, and repudiated the idea
of his having deviated from the doctrine therein propounded
(see his Works, n. 440, iu. 13, 297, 344.) From this Cate
chism, therefore, I select the following passages.
" Christ saith of the bread, ' This is my body' ; and of the
cup he saith, ' This is my blood.' Wherefore we ought to
believe that in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and
blood of Christ. For God is Almighty (as ye heard in the
creed.) He is able, therefore, to do all things what he will.
And as Saint Paul writeth, he calleth those things AA^bich be
not as if they were. Wherefore, when Christ taketh bread
and saith, ' Take, eat, this is my body,' Ave ought not to doubt
but we eat his very body. And when he taketh the cup and
saith, ' Take, drink, this is my blood,' we ought to think
assuredly that we drink his very blood."* And this Ave must
believe, if we will be counted Christian men.
" And whereas in this perilous time certain deceitful persons
be found in many places, Avho of very frowardness wiU not
grant that there is the body and blood of Christ, but deny the
same, for none other cause but that they cannot compass, by
man's blind reason, bow this thing should be brought to pass ;
ye, good children, shall Avith all diligence beware of such
persons, that ye suffer not yourselves to be deceived by them.
For such men surely are not true Christians, neither as yet
have they learned the first article of the creed, Avhich teacheth
that God is Almighty, AA'hicb ye, good children, have already
perfectly learned. Wherefore eschcAv such erroneous opin
ions, and believe the words of our Lord Jesus, that ye eat and
drink his very body and blood, — although man's reason cannot
comprehend how and after what manner the same is there
present. For the Avisdom of reason must be subdued to the
obedience of Christ, as the Apostle Paul teacheth." — Tracts af
Anglican Fathers, p. 38.
" Again,
" Christ saith, do this in remembrance of me. Here also
it is our duty to obey the word of Christ, and to do the thing
• ' The body and blood of Christ which are vebily and indeed taken and
received by the iailhful in the Lord's Supper."— CAurcA Catechism.

97
which he hath commanded us to do. Wherefore, good chil
dren, doubt not, but there is the body and blood of our Lord,
which we receive in the Lord's Supper. For he hath said so,
and by the power of his Avord hath caused it so to be.
Wherefore, seeing Christ saith, 'Do this as often as ye do it
in remembrance of me ; it is evident hereby that Christ
causeth, even at this time, his body and blood to be in the
Sacrament after that manner and fashion as it was at that
time Avhen he made his Maundy* Avith his disciples. For else
we could not do that thing which his disciples did. But
Christ hath commanded us to do the selfsame thing that his
disciples did, and to do it in the remembrance of him, that is to
say, to receive his body and blood, even so as he himself did
give it to his disciples. And let not the foolish talk of unbe
lievers move you, Avho are wont to ask this question, how can
the priest or minister make the body and blood of Christ 1 To
the which I answer, that the minister doth not this thing of
himself [alone] ; but Christ himself doth give unto us his flesh
and blood, as his words doth evident declare. Neither let
their arguments or reasons persuade you which say that the
Sacrament ought not to be received under both kinds, but
under one kind only. For Christ gave to his disciples both
kinds, and hath bid us that we also should do the same. And
when he gave the cup to bis disciples, he added thereto this
commandment, in these express and plain AVords, saying,
' Drink ye aU of this,' Now we ought to obey God more than
men ; we ought, therefore, to receive the Sacrament under
both kinds, as Christ commanded us : and regard not the
gaggling of them that speak against the use of the Sacrament
of both kinds, saying, it maketh no great matter, Avhether ye
receive it under both kinds, or one alone, and that it pertaineth
not to salvation to receive it under both kinds. But what
shall I dispute long in this matter 1 Take this for a conclu
sion, that it is only laudable and good to do that thing
which Christ hath commanded, and not to swerve from the
same. — P. 40.
" Furthermore, if any man ask ye, what availeth it, thus to
eat and drink 1 ye shall answer, these AVords do declare what
profit we receive thereby, ' My body which is given for you' —
' My blood which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.'
By the which words Christ declareth, that by his Sacrament
and words of promise are given to us remission of sins, life,
and salvation ; for where forgiveness of sin is, there is also
life and salvation. Again, if a man avUI go further with you,
and ask you, how can bodUy eating and drinking have so great
» The Thursday before Good Friday.
13

98
strength and operation 1 Ye shall answer, to eat and to drink
doth not work so great things, but this word and promise of
God, 'My body which was given for you,' — 'My blood which
was shed for you, for the remission of sins.' This Avord of
God is added to the outward signs, as the chief thing in the
Sacrament. He that believeth these words, he hath that
thing which the Avords promise, that is to say, forgiveness of
his sins.
" Besides this, if a man ask of you, who be they who do
worthily receive this Sacrament 1 ye shall ansAver, that fasting,
abstinence, and such other like, are profitable for an outward
discipline and chastisement of the body ; but he receiveth the
Sacrament Avorthily that hath faith to believe these words,
'My body Avhich was given for you' : — 'My blood Avhich Avas
shed for you, for the remission of sins.' But he that believeth
not these words or doubted them, he receiveth the Lord's
Supper unworthily. For this word, ' given for you,' doth
require a faithful and believing heart." — Pp. 43, 44.
To Bishop Ridley Archbishop Cranmer was indebted for
the alteration which took place in bis opinions Avith respect
to the doctrine of transubstantiation ; the learned Ridley having
discovered from the writings of Bertram that it AA'as no primi
tive doctrine. The opinions of Ridley are therefore worthy
of consideration. Of Ridley bis biographer states —
He ahvays belieA^ed and maintained a real presence by grace
to faith, and not a mere figure only : and although there were
some English fanatics, such as John Webb, George Roper,
and Gregory Paske, Avbo beHeved that the Sacrament was
only a bare sign of Christ's body, and nothing more than a
remembrance of it ; yet this Avas not the opinion of our
martyrs." — Wordsworth's Biography. From Foxe and Rid
ley, Hi. 147.
What Avas the opinion of our blessed martyr, Ridley, may
be stated in his oAvn Avords :
" This remembraunce thus ordeined, as the author thereof
is Christ both God and man ; so by the almighty power of
God, farre passeth all kind of remembraunces that any other
man is able to make, either of himself or of any other thing,
for AA'hosoevcr receiveth this holye Sacrament thus ordeyned
in remembrauufc of Christ, he receiveth thereAvith either death
or lyfe. In this I doo trust we aU aajree. For Sainte Paule

99
saith of the godlie recevers in the tenth chapter of his first
epistle to the Corinthians : The cuppe of blessing which Ave
blesse, is it not the partaking or fellowship of Christes bloud ?
And also be saieth : The bread which we breake (and meaneth
at the Lord's table), is it not the partaking or fellowshippe of
Christes bodie 1 Noav the partaking of Christes bodie and
of his blonde unto the faithfuU and godlie, is the partaking or
fellowship of life and of immortalitie. Enchiridion, p. 69.
" The controversie no doubte whiche at thys day troubleth
the churche, (wherein anye meane learned man eitheir olde or
ncAve doth stand in,) is not whether the holie Sacrament ofthe
bodye and bloud of Christ is no better than a piece of common
breade or not 1 Or AA'bether the Lorde's table is no more to bee
regarded than the table of any earthlye man or noe % Or
whether it is but a bare signe or figure of Christ and nothing
elles or noe 1 For all do graunt that St. Paules words do
require, that the breade AA'hich we breake, is the partaking of
the body of Christ. And all also doe graunt him that eateth
of that breade or drinketh of that cuppe unworthilie, to be
giltie of the Lorde's death, and to eate and drinke his OAvne
damnation, because he esteemeth not the Lordes bodie. All
doe graunt that these Avords of St. Paule AA'lien he saith (if we
eate it avantageth us nothing, or if we eate not, we want
nothing therebye) are not spoken of the Lordes table, but of
other common meates." — Enchiridion, p. 71.
Most clearly and unequivocally does he declare the truth
as it is StiU held in the Church of England, at his last trial :
"My Lord, you know that Avhere any equivocation (which
is a word having two significations) is, except distinction be
given, no direct answer can be made : for it is one of Aristotle's
fallacies, containing two questions under one, thcAvhich cannot
be satisfied AAdth one answere. For both you and I agree
herein, that in the Sacrament is the A'ery true and naturall
bodie and bloud of Christ, even that Avhich Avas borne of the
Virgine Mary, Avhich ascended into heaven, AA'hicb sittetb on
the right hand of God the Father, Avhich shall come from
thence to judge the quicke and the deade, only we differ in
modo in the Avay and manner of being ; we confess all one
thing to be in the Sacrament, and dissent in the manner of
being there, I, being fuUy by God's word thereto perswaded,
confess Christ's naturall bodie to be in the Sacrament indeede
by spirit and grace, because that whosoever receiveth wor-
thiUe that bread and wine, receveth effectuously Christ's body

100
and drinketh his bloud, that is, he is made effectually partaker
of his passion : and you make a grosser kinde of being,
enclosing a naturall, a lively, and a moving bodie under the
shape or forme of bread and wine.
" Now this difference considered, to the question thus I
answere ; that in the Sacrament of the Aultar is the naturall
bodie and bloud of Christ ver6 et realiter, indeed and really, if
you take these tearmes in deede and really for spiritually by
grace and efficacie ; for so everie worthie recover receveth
the verie true bodie of Christ ; but if you meane really and
indeed, so that thereby you would include a lively and a move
able bodie under the formes of bread and Avine, then in that
sense is not Christ's body in the Sacrament really and indeed.
Wordsworth's Biography, iii. 237.
Such, too, are the opinions held by those divines who
have always upheld the doctrines of the English Reformation,
under the conviction that they are, happily, those of the
Catholic Church.
"I wish that men would more give themselves to meditate
in silence what we have by the Sacrament [of the Holy
Eucharist] and less to dispute of the manner how. * * * *
' This is my body,' and ' this is my blood,' being words of
promise which Ave all agree that by the Sacrament Christ doth
really and truly in us perform his promise, Avhy do Ave vainly
trouble ourselves with so fierce contentions, whether by con
substantiation, or else by transubstantiation, the Sacrament itself
be first possessed Avitb Christ or no 1 A thing AA'hich no way
can either further or hinder us hoAvsoever it stand, because
our participation of Christ in this sacrament dependeth on the
co-operation of his omnipotent poAver, which maketh it his
body and blood to us, whether with change or Avithout altera
tion of the element such as they imagme, we need not greatly
to care or inquire." Hooker's Eccl. Pol. book v. ch. Ixvii. 3 and 6.
"As to the manner of the presence of the body of our Lord
in the blessed Sacrament, Ave that are Protestant and Reformed
according to the ancient Catholic Church, do not search into
the manner of it Avith perplexing inquiries ; but, after the
example of the primitive and purest Church of Christ, aa'b leave
it to the poAver and Avisdom of our Lord, yielding a full and
unfeigned assent to his AA'ords. Had the Romish maintainors
of transubstantiation done the same, they Avould not have
determined and decreed, and then imposed' as an article of

101
faith absolutely necessary to salvation, a manner of presence,
ncAvly by them invented, tmder pain of the most direful curse,
and there would have been in the Church less wrangling, and
more peace and unity, than noAV is."
Bishop Cosin's History of Transubstantiation.
In Tracts for the Times.
I may also here make a citation from Nowell's Catechism
to shoAV how the subject Avas understood by him, who, when
the Reformation Avas completed, took what was then regarded
as a very moderate, if not a Ioav vicAV of the subject.
" Master. — ^It is very true that thou sayest. Now tell me
the order ofthe Lord's supper.
" Scholar. — It is even the same Avbich the Lord Christ did
institute, who, in the same night that he was betrayed, took
bread, &c. This is the form and order of the Lord's supper,
which we ought to hold, and holily to keep, till he come.
" Mast. — For what use 1
" Scho. — To celebrate and retain continually a thankful
remembrance of the Lord's death, and of that most singular
benefit which we have received thereby ; and that as in baptism
we were once born again, so Avith the Lord's Supper Ave be
always fed and sustained to spiritual and everlasting life.
" Mast. — ^Thou sayest, then, that it is enough to be once
baptized, as to be once born : but thou affirmest that the Lord's
Supper, like as food, must be often used.
" Scho. — Yea, forsooth, master.
" Mast. — Dost thou say that there are two parts in this
Sacrament also, as in Baptism 1
" Scho. — Yea, the one part the bread and wine, the outward
signs, Avhich are seen with our eyes, handled with our hands,
and felt Avith our taste ; the other part Christ himself, with
whom our souls, as with their proper food, are inwardly
nourished. " Mast. — And dost thou say that all ought alike to receive
both parts of the Sacrament 1
" Scho. — Yea, verily, master, for sith the Lord bath expressly
so commanded, it were a most high offence in any part to
abridge his commandment.
" Mast. — ^Why would the Lord have here two signs to be
used^

102
" Scho. — First, be severally gave signs both of his body
and blood, that it might be the more plain express image of his
death, AA'hich he suffered, his body being torn, his side pierced,
and all his blood shed, and that the memory thereof so printed
in our hearts should strike the deeper. And moreover, that
the Lord might so provide for and help our weakness, and
thereby manifestly declare, that as the bread for nourishment
of our bodies, so his body hath most singular force and efficacy
spiritually to feed our souls : and as Avith Avine men's hearts
are cheered, and their strength confirmed, so with his blood
our souls are relieved and refreshed ; that certainly assuring
ourselves that he is not only our meat, but also our drink, we
do not any Avhere else but in him alone seek any part of our
spiritual nourishment and eternal life.
" Mast. — Is there, then, not an only figure, but the truth
itself, of the benefits that thou hast rehearsed, delivered in the
Supper 1
" Scho. — ^What else 1 For sith Christ is the truth itself, it
is no doubt but that the thing Avhich he testifieth in words,
and representeth in signs, he performeth also in deed, and
delivereth it unto us ; and that he as surely maketh them that
believe in him partakers of his body and blood, as they surely
knoAV that they have received the bread and wine Avith their
mouth and stomach. JVowell's Catechism.
I may add in conclusion, that in one of our highest and
holiest offices, the Communion Service of our Church, as
administered to the Sovereign at bis coronation, prayer is
made that God would bless the bread and wine, through Avhich
the oblation is made, that by them, when thus blessed, we may
be made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ. The
rubric and prayer are as foUow : —
" THE QUEEN OFFERS BREAD AND WINE.
"And first the Queen offers Bread and Wine for the Com
munion, Avhich being brought out of King Edward's
Chapel, and delivered into her hands, the Bread upon
the Paten by the Bisliop that read the Epistle, and the
Wine in the Chalice by the Bishop that read the Gospel,
are by the Archbishop received from the Queen, and
reverently placed upon the altar, and decently covered
Avitb a fair linen cloth, and the Archbishop first saying
this prayer:
"Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, these thy Gifts, and

103
sanctify them unto this holy use, that by them we may be made
partakers of the Body and Blood of thine only begotten Son
Jesus Christ, and fed unto everlasting life of Soul and Body :
And that thy Servant Queen Victoria may be enabled to the
discharge of her weighty Oflice, AA'hereunto of thy great good
ness thou hast caUed and appointed her. Grant this, 0 Lord,
for Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate.
Amen."
This may be Avrong and Popish in the opinion of some
persons, is true, — but then we have to bear the charge in com
mon with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and all the Bishops
who took part in the service.

Note M. p. 23.
The words of Cranmer are :¦ — ¦
" The holy Apostle Saint Paul, good children, in the tenth
chapter of his epistle to the Romans, Avriteth in this fashion,
'Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. But how shall they call on him on Avhom they believe
not 1 How shall they believe on him of Avhom they have not
heard 1 How shaU tbey hear without a preacher 1 How shall
they preach except they be sent V By the which words Saint
Paul doth evidently declare unto us two lessons.
" The first is, that it is necessary to our salvation to have
preachers and ministers of God's most holy Word to instruct
us in the true faith and knowledge of God.
" The second is, that preachers must not run to this high
honour before they are called thereto, but they must be
ordained and appointed to this office, and sent to us by God,
For it is not possible to be saved, or to please God, Avithout
faith ; and no man can truly beheve in God by his own wit
(for of ourselves we knoAV not Avhat we should believe), but
we must needs bear God's Avord taught us by others.
" Again, the teachers, except they be called and sent,
cannot fruitfully teach. For the seed of God's Word doth
never bring forth fruit, unless the Lord of the harvest do give
increase, and by his Holy Spirit do work Avith the sower. But
God doth not work with the preacher whom he hath not sent,
as St. Paul saith.
" ' How shall they preach if they be not sent V Wherefore
it is requisite that preachers should be called and sent of God ;

104
and they must preach according to the authority and commis
sion of God, granted unto them, whereby they may strengthen
men's belief, and assure their consciences that God hath
commanded them to preach after this or that fashion. For
else every man should still be in doubt and think after this
sort ; Who knoweth whether this be true which I hear the
preacher say 1 Who can tell whether God hath commanded
him to preach these things or no 1 And in case he preacheth
nothing but truth, yet I am not sure that God avUI work Avith
me, as the preacher promiseth 1 Perchance these promises
pertain to other, and not to me 1 These doubts, in the time of
temptation, might trouble men's minds, if we Avere not assured
that our Lord Jesus Christ himself bath both ordained and
appointed ministers and preachers to teach his holy word,
and to minister his Sacraments ; and also hath appointed them
what tbey shall teach in his name, and what they shall do unto
us. Therefore he called them and sent them, and gave them
instructions what they should do, and speak to us in his name
to the intent that we should give sure credence unto their
words, and believe that God will AA'ork Avith us according to
his Avords by them spoken. And be bath promised, therefore,
that whatsoever they should bind upon earth should be bound
in heaven ; and whatsoever they should loose upon earth,
should be loosed in heaven. Wherefore, good children, to the
intent you may steadfastly believe aU things AA^hich God by his
Ministers doth teach, and promise unto you, and so be saA'cd
by your faith, learn diligently, I pray you, by AA'bat Avords our
Lord Jesus Christ gave this commission and commandment to
his Ministers, and rehearse them here, word for Avord, that so
you may print them in your memories, and recite them the
better when you come home. The words of Christ be these :
" ' Our LORD JESUS CHRIST breathed on his Apostles,
AND SAID, Receive the HOLY GHOST : whose sins ye for
give, THEY ARE FORGIVEN UNTO THEM ; AND WHOSE SINS YOU
RESERVE, THEY ARE RESERVED.'
" Noav, good children, you shall employ yourselves not
only to rehearse these Avords Avithout book, but also to under
stand Avbat our Lord Jesus Christ meant by them ; that when
you shall be asked any question herein, you may make a
direct ansAver, and that also in time to come you may be able
to instruct your children in the same. For what greater shame
can there be, either in the sight of God or of man, than to pro
fess thyself to be a Christian man, and yet to be 'ignorant
in what place of Scripture, and by what words, Christ
commanded faith and forgiveness of sins to be preached 1
seeing that a Christian man ought to believe nothing as an

105
article of his faith, except to be assured that either it is God's
commandment or his Avord.
" Now, good children, that you may the better understand
these Avords of our Saviour Christ, you shall knoAv that our
Lord Jesus Christ, when he began to preach, he did call and
choose his twelve Apostles; and afterwards, besides those
twelve, he sent forth three score and ten disciples, and gave
them authority to preach the gospel. And a Httle before his
death and passion he made his prayer to his heavenly father
for them, and for all those that should believe through their
preaching as it is declared in the Gospel of St. John. Now
it is not to be doubted but that Christ's prayer was heard of
his heavenly father : Avherefore it foUoAveth, that as many as
believed the preaching of Christ's disciples, were as surely
saved as if they had heard and believed Christ himself. And
after Christ's ascension the Apostles gave authority to other
godly and holy men to minister God's word, and chiefly in
those places Avhere there were Christian men already, Avhich
lacked preachers, and the Apostles themselves could no longer
abide with them : for the Apostles did walk abroad into divers
parts of the world, and did study to plant the gospel in many
places. Wherefore Avhere they found godly men, and meet
to preach God's word, they laid their hands upon them, and
gave them the Holy Ghost, as they themselves received of
Christ the same Holy Ghost, to execute this office.
" And tbey, that Avere so ordained, were indeed, and also
were caUed the Ministers of God, as the Apostles themselves
were, as Paul saith unto Timothy. And so the ministration
of God's word (which our Lord Jesus Christ himself did first
institute) was derived from the Apostles unto others after
them, by imposition of hands and giving the Holy Ghost, from
the Apostles' time to our days. And this was the consecration,
orders, and unction of the Apostles whereby they, at the
beginning, made Bishops and Priests, and this shall continue
in the Church, even to the world's end. And whatsoever rite
or ceremony hath been added more than this cometh of man's
ordinance and policy, and is not commanded by God's word.
" And on the other side, you shaU take good heed and
beware of false privy preachers, which privily creep into
cities, and preach in corners, having none authority, nor being
caUed to this office. For Christ is not present with such
preachers, and therefore doth not the Holy Ghost work by
their preaching ; but their Avord is without fruit or profit, and
they do great hurt in CommonAvealths. For such as be not
called of^God, they, no doubt of it, do err, and sow abroad
heresy, and naughty doctrine. And yet, you shaU not think,
good chUdren, that preachers which be laAvfulIy caUed, have
14

106
authority to do or teach whatsoever shall please them. But
our Lord Jesus Christ hath given them plain instructions,
what they ought to teach and do. And if they preach or do
any other thing than is contained in their commission, then it
is of no force, nor we ought not to regard it [nor ought we
to regard it.] And for this cause our Saviour Christ did
breathe into his disciples, and gave them the Holy Ghost.
For where the Holy Ghost is, there he so worketh that he
causeth us to do those things which Christ hath commanded.
And Avben that is not done, then the Holy Ghost is not there.
Wherefore all things which we shall so speak or do, can take
none effect." Cranmer's Sermon on the Apostolic Succession
and Power ofthe Keys. Anglican Fathers,
Pp. 19, 23.
To this Ave may add the following from Bishop Jewell : —
" Therefore, the ancient Father Irenaeus giveth us this good
counsell : ' Eis qui sunt in ecclesia presbyteris, obaudire opor-
tet, qui successionem habent ab apostolis, qui cum episcopatus
successione, charisma veritatis certum, secundum beneplacitum
Patris acceperunt' : it becometh us to obey those Priests in
the Church which have their succession from the Apostles, and
together with the succession of their bishoprics according to
the good will of God the Father have received the undoubted
gift of the truth." — Defence of Apology, part ii. chap. 5. Mr.
Vogan, from whose able and argumentative visitation sermon
I have taken this quotation, observes that " though Bishop
Jewell in his Defence sometimes appears to make little of
the succession, this was only in comparison with right faith,
and under the view of the succession being unaccompanied
by right faith."
" One of the falsehoods propagated in these days is, that
the Reformers did not bold the divine right of episcopacy,
but that this doctrine was subsequently introduced. That
our Reformers were very generally of opinion, that where
episcopacy could not be had, ordination by Presbyters
might, as a temporary measure, be tolerated — just as grace
wiU be given to those AA'ho desire to receive the Sacraments,
but from circumstances are unable to do so,— is not to be

107
denied: and I am not aAvare that any Churchman of the present
day Avould disagree with them in the opinion, although, among
the Protestants abroad, there is not noAv the same excuse for
their want of episcopacy as there was in the time of the
Reformation. But the episcopal succession was assumed as a
necessary doctrine of the Reformed Church of England, on the
very first public occasion when our Reformers appeared in
defence ofthe Reformation, after the accession of Elizabeth.
At the authorised conference between the friends of the
Reformation and the advocates of Romanism, to Avhich allu
sion has before been made. Dean Horn, in the name of the
Reformers, observes, " The Apostles' authority is derived upon
after ages, and conveyed to the Bishops, their successors."
Hence he contends for their apostolical authority to reform
their Churches, 'without reference to the See of Rome, the
Bishop of that See being only the equal of other Bishops. —
Collier ii. 418. The Puritans did not at first declare them
selves hostile to episcopacy, but as soon as tbey did so, the
English Reformers asserted the authority of Bishops as of
divine right. Bishop Hutton maintained the doctrine, before
Lord Burghley and Sir Francis Walsingham, Avith precisely
the same arguments as those which are now employed. —
See Strype's Life of Archbishop Whitgift, iii. 224. Dr. Ban
croft, too, defended the doctrine that Bishops Avere,jMre divino,
superior to the other Clergy, even though the Puritans
attempted to sUence him by craftily bringing in political
considerations, and by contending that it was inconsistent
with the Queen's supremacy. — Strype's Whitgift, i. 559. In
short, the divine right of episcopacy was asserted before it
was questioned, for men did not question at first what for
1500 years had been undisputed ; and as soon as ever it was
questioned, it was immediately defended on scriptural grounds
by a Bishop, and by the Archbishop's Chaplain.
Note N. p. 26.
The use of the metrical Psalms was a concession made to
the feelings of the Ultra-protestants at an early period. They

108
form no part of our appointed services according to the rubric,
but by one of Queen Elizabeth's injunctions, permission was
given to those of the Parishioners who chose to assemble
before service commenced, or to stay after it was concluded,
to sing Psalms. It is curious that we can name the precise
period when the singing of a Psalm between the end of the
Litany and the commencement of the Communion Service was
introduced as an innovation into the Parish Church of Leeds.
Under the date 1708, Thoresby in his Diary says,
" October 3. — Was much interrupted in family course,
partly by guests and partly by a most severe cold which has
so absolutely taken away my voice that I was perfectly
disabled from some duties, as particularly singing, a new order
of which was begun this day in the Parish Church, to sing a
stave betwixt the daily Morning and Communion Service (as
has been long done in London, &c.) and is more agreeable,
making a greater distinction, as there ought to be, betwixt the
several parts." — ii. p. 10.
The innovation was noted and complained of at an early
period. " At the Reforming of this Church," says Heylin, " not
onely the Queen's Chappel, and all Cathedrals, but many Paro
chial Churches, also had preserved their Organs ; to AA'hich
they used to sing the appointed Hymns ; that is to say, the
Te Deum, the Benedictus, the Magnificat, the Jfunc Dimittis,
&c., performed in an Artificial and Melodious manner, with
the addition of Cornets, Sackbuts, and the Hke on the Solemn
Festivals, for Avhich as they bad ground enough from the holy
Scripture, if the practice and authority of David be of any
credit ; so were they Avarranted thereunto by the godly usage
of the primitive times, after the Church was once restored to
her peace and freedom. Certain I am, that St. Augustine
imputes no small part of bis conversion to that heavenly
melodic which he heard very frequently in the Church of
Mtllainc, professing that it did not only draw tears from him,
though against bis avUI, but raised his soul unto a sacred
meditation on spiritual matters. But Beza having turn'd so
many of the Psalms into metre, as had been left undone by
Marot, gave an example unto Sternhold and Hopkins to attempt
the like. Whose version being left unfinished, but brought
unto an end by some of oar Enghsh exiles Avhich remained at

109
Geneva, there was a purpose of imposing them upon the
Church by little and little, that they might come as close as
might be in all points to their mother city. At first, they sung
them onely in their private houses, and afterwards (as before-
said) adventured to sing them also in the Church, as in the
way of entertainment, to take up the time till the beginning of
the service, and afterwards to sing them as a part of the ser
vice itself. For so I understand that passage in the Church
Historian in Avhich he tells us that Dr. Gervis being then
warden of Merton CoUedge, had abolished certain Latine super
stitious hymns Avbich had been used on some of the festivals,
appointing the Psalms in English to be sung in their place ;
and that as one Leech was ready to begin the Psalm, another
of the fellows called Hall, snatched the book out of his hands
and told him that they could no more dance after his pipe. But
whatsoever Hall thought of them, Beza and his disciples
were perswaded otherwise. And that he might the better cry
doAvn that melodious harmony AA'hich Avas retained in the
Church of England, and so malce way for the Genevian fashion,
even in that point also ; he tells us in the same letter to
Bishop Grindal, That the artificial musick then retained in the
Church of England,* was fitter to be used in masks and dancings,
than religious offices, and rather served to please the ear than
move the affections. Which censure being passed upon it by
so great a Rabby, most wonderful it was how suddenly some
men of good note and quality, who otherwise deserved well
enough of the Church of England, did bend their wits and
pens against it ; and with what earnestness they laboured to
have their OAvn tunes publickly introduced into all the churches,
Avhich, that they might the better do, they procured the
Psalms in English metre, to be bound in the same volume with
the Public Liturgie, and sometimes with the Bible also setting
them forth, as being allowed, (so the title teUs us) to be sung
in all Churches before and after Morning and Evening Prayer,
as also before and after Sermons ; but with what truth and
honesty, we have heard before."
Heylin's Hist, of Presbyterians, pp. 254, 255.
I am not contending for the discontinuance of the metrical
Psahns, for I delight in congregational singing, though I
regret that, in our parochial Churches, they have superseded
the antiphonal chanting of the Psalms of the day. We might
speak more strongly of the very novel introduction of unau
thorized Hymns, which, as the present Bishop of Peterborough
* Alluding to chanting and to our Cathedral Service.

110
remarks, " if they do not directly impugn our Liturgy and Ar
ticles, may inculcate sentiments which are at variance with
every fair conclusion which may be draAvn from our Liturgy
and Articles": on these grounds their use may certainly be
deprecated. But I intend not noAV to condemn the practice,
but merely to notice the fact. I feel that I have no right to
condemn, but I may notice an innovation, if it be only to shew
who are the innovators, and to request them, while living in a
glass house, not to pelt so piteously, as is frequently done,
those of their brethren, who in regulating the services of the
sanctuary, are desirous of attending as strictly as possible to
the Rubric, although they may reverence the Rubric not the
less for its retention of so much of primitive usages.

Note 0. page 27.
TURNING PROM THE PEOPLE IN PRAYER.
Among the things complained of by the Puritans in the
Convocation of 1562, this Avas one. They petitioned "that in
all parish churches the minister in Common Prayer might turn
his face towards the people.'' Strype's Annals, i. pt. 1. p. 502.
A petition to the same effect had been previously made, and
both petitions Avere refused. What makes this the more
remarkable, is, that as will be seen in the next note, the
change had been made at the end of EdAvard the Sixth's
reign ; and, in order to please certain foreigners, orders had
been given to turn towards the people in prayer. The order
was reversed in Elizabeth's reign, and we see from the above
quotation that the practice of turning from the people, i. e.
towards the East, Avas instituted by the Reformers Avho com
pleted our Reformation. Of those Avho petitioned that the
minister might be compelled to turn to the people, Strype
remarks : " By the foregoing Articles we may plainly perceive
hoAV much biassed those divines (i. e. those who petitioned
that the minister might turn his face towards the people)
were (most of Avhich seem to have been exiles,) toAvards those
platforms Avhich Averc received in the reformed churches where

Ill
they had a little before sojourned," thus again shewing the for
eign prejudices of Ultra-protestants. Other passages to the
same effect might be produced if it were worth Avhile. The
following extract is made, because it relates to several points
alluded to in this part of the discourse. In his preface to the
Cyprianus Anglicus, Heylin thus describes the customs of the
Church of England before the Rebellion : —
"In the officiating of which acts of God's divine service,
the Priest or Presbyter is enjoined to Avear a surplice of Avhite
linen cloatb, to testifie the purity of doctrine, and innocency
of life and conversation, AA'hich ought to be in one of that holy
profession. And this St. Jerome tells us in the general,
Religionem Divinum alterum habitum habere in ministerio, alte-
rum in usu vitaque communi : that is to say, that in the act of
ministration, they used a different habit from what they used
to wear at ordinary times. And what this different habit was,
he tells us more particularly in his reply against Pelagius, who,
it seems, disliked it, and asked him Avhat offence he thought it
could be to God, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, or those
of any inferiour order, in Administratione Sacrificiorum candidi
veste processerint, did in the ministration of the Sacrament
bestir themselves in a white vesture ; so he, advers. Pelag. Lib.
2, with which compare St. Chrysostom in his 83d Homily on St.
Matthew's gospel, for the Eastern churches ; and hereunto the
Cope was added in some principal Churches, especially in the
celebration of the blessed Eucharist. Both which appear most
evidently by the first Liturgy of King Edward VI. compared
with one of the last clauses of the Act of _ Parliament, 1 Eliz.
c. 2, in which it is provided, that such ornaments ofthe Church
and of the Ministers shall be retained and be in use, as were in
the Church of England by authority of Parliament, in the
second year ofthe reign of King Edward VI. But this vesture
having been discontinued, (I know not by Avhat fatal negli
gence,) many years together, it pleased the Bishops and Clergy
in the Convocation, Anno. 1603, to pass a Canon to this purpose,
viz. " That in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the Holy
Communion shall be administered upon principal Feast dayes,
sometimes by the Bishops, &c. and that the principal Minister
using a decent Cope, &c." — Canon 24.
"In that part of divine service which concerns the offering
of the people's prayers to Almighty God, it was required of
the Priest or Presbyter, first, that in all the dayes and times
appointed, he used the prayers prescribed in the PubHc Liturgy
according to the Act of ParUament 1 Eliz. c. 2. And many

112
subsequent Canons and Constitutions, made in that behalf.
Secondly, " That he conformed himself to those rites and cere
monies, which were prescribed in that book, and unto such as
should be afterwards ordained by the Queen's Majesty, with
the advice of her Commissioners, appointed and authorised
under the great Seal oi England, for Causes Ecclesiastical, or
of the Metropolitan of this Realm, as may be most for the
advancement of God's glory, the edifying of his Church, and
the due reverence of Christ's holy mysteries and sacraments.
And thirdly, and more particularly, " That in his reading of
the Prayers and Psalms he turn his face toward the east, and
toward the people in the reading of the lessons or chapters,"
as appears plainly by the Rubrick Avhich directs him thus,
"That after the reading of the Psalms, the Priest shall read
two lessons distinctly, that the people may hear ; the Priest
that reads the two lessons standing, and turning himself so as
be may be best heard of all such as be present." The Psalms
or Hymns to be indifferently said or sung at the will of the
Minister ; but the Hymns for the most part sungAA'ith organs, and
sometimes with other musical instruments ; both in the Royal
Chapels and Cathedral Churches. Fourthly, " That he makes
use of no other Prayers in the Congregation (and therefore
neither before nor after Sermon) than those which are pre
scribed in the said Book of Common Prayer ; it being specially
provided in the act aforesaid, that no Priest nor Minister shaU
use any other rite, ceremony, order, form, or manner of
celebrating the Lord's Supper openly, or privately, or Mattins,
Evening Song, Administration of the Sacraments, or other
open Prayers, (that is to saj', such Prayers as are meant for
others to come unto, or bear, either in common churches, or
private chappels, &c.) than is mentioned or set forth in the
same book. Fifthly, " That all Priests and Deacons, shall be
bound to say daily the Morning and Evening Prayer, either
privately or openly, except they be lett by preaching, studying
of divinity, or some other urgent cause." And Sixthly, " That
the Curate that ministereth in every Parish Church or Chappel,
being at home, and not being otherwise reasonably letted, and
shall say the same in the Parish Church or Chapel where he
ministereth, and shall toll a bell thereto at convenient time,
before be begin, and that such as are disposed, may come to
hear God's word, and pray Avith him : so as in some cases it
may be said of the Priest, as the Father doth of Christ, that
he is OS ipsum per quod loquimur, the very mouth by which
Ave speak unto our Father Avhich is in heaven."
Heylin's Cyprianus Anglicus, p. 8.

113
As I have said before, the subject as to the Clergyman's
position during the prayers is of very little importance. But
since an outcry of Popery has been raised, because one cler
gyman in a noAV church has made his arrangements so as to be
able to comply with this regulation of the church, it is as well
to shcAv that in this kind of Popery our Pious Reformers were
very obstinate, and that in observing this ceremony, we should
be following not only the Fathers of whom some persons seem
to think that tbey can have done nothing right, but also the
Reformers, whom the same persons regard as if they had
been incapable of doing wrong. The action as a significative
action might be useful. When men see the officiating minister
comfortably supported by his cushions on his elevated pulpit,
and from his easy position, to all appearance, reading to them
instead of praying to God, many of them avUI naturally think
that if cushions be not at hand on which to kneel, they may
make themselves as comfortable as they can without kneeling,
attending to the words he reads to them, if he reads well, and
forgetting that he is engaged in the awful duty of prayer, if
he reads ill. Note P. p. 27.
READING DESK.
In the royal injunctions stiU in force (Injunct. 22, EdAv. VI.
and 18 of Elizabeth, A. D. 1559) it is enjoined " that the Litany
shall be sung or said in the middle of the Church, before the
chancel door, at a low Desk," commonly called the fald-stool.
It is so styled in the Coronation Service.
The use of the reading pew is itself pecuHar to the English
Church, and was introduced, not by choice, but necessity. In
the churches of the primitive Christians, it is true that the
ambon or /35i(xa yvtoCTuv, is described as a reading desk, but
it corresponds rather with our pulpit, and is called pulpitum
by St. Cyprian. The prayers were offered in the chancel ; the
ambon was used for the reading of the epistles and gospels,
and the presbyters preached from it. The bishop generally
15

114
preached from the steps ofthe altar. St. Chrysostom appears
to have been the first bishop Avho mounted the pulpit, perhaps
owing to the inconvenient situation of the chancel at Constan
tinople. The singers also used to ascend the ambon Avhen
they took part in the service. The origin of our reading pew,
or reading desk, is given in Wheatley, and I shall transcribe
his account. The first book of Edward VI. ordered " the
priest, being in the choir, to begin the Lord's Prayer, called
Paternoster (Avith which the morning and evening service then
began,) with a loud voice. So that then it was the custom
for the minister to perform divine service, i. e. the morning
and evening prayer, as well as the communion office, at the
upper end of the choir, near the altar ; towards which, whether
standing or kneeling, he always turned his face in the prayers :
though whilst he was reading the lessons he turned to the
people. Against this, Bucer, by the direction of Calvin, most
grievously declaimed, urging that 'it was a most antichristian
practice for the priest to say prayers only in the choir, as a
place peculiar to the clergy, and not in the body ofthe church
among the people, Avho had as much right to divine worship
as the clergy themselves !' He, therefore, strenuously insisted
that ' the reading divine service in the chancel AA'as an insuf
ferable abuse, and ought immediately to be amended, if the
whole nation Avouldnot be guilty of high treason against God.'
This terrible outcry, however senseless and trifling, prevailed
so far that Avhen the Common Prayer Book Avas altered in the
5th year of King Edward, the following rubric Avas placed in
room of the old one : viz. ' the morning and evening prayers
shall be used in such places of the church, chapel, or chancel,
and the minister shall so turn him as the people may best hear.
And if there be any controversy therein, the matter shall be
referred to the ordinary, and he or his deputy shall appoint the
place.' This alteration caused great contentions, some
kneeling one Avay and some another, though still keeping in
the chancel ; while others left the accustomed place, and
performed aU the services in the body of the Church amongst
the people. For the appeasing of this strife and diversity, it
was thought fit, when the English service Avas again brought

115
into the Church, at the accession of Queen Elizabeth to the
throne, that the rubric should be corrected, and put into the
same form in which we now have it, viz. that ' the morning and
evening prayers shaU be used in the accustomed place of the
church, chapel, or chancel' ; by which, for the generality, must
be meant the choir or chancel, which was the accustomed
place before the second Prayer Book of King Edward. For
it cannot be supposed that this second book, which lasted only
one year and a half, could establish a custom. However, a
dispensing power Avas left with the ordinary, who might deter
mine it otherwise if he saAV just cause. Pursuant to this
rubric, the morning and evening service was again, as formerly,
read in the chancel or choir. But because in some churches
the too great distance of the chancel from the body of the
church, occasioned sometimes by the interposition of a belfry,
hindered the minister from being heard distinctly by the
people, therefore the Bishops, at the solicitations of the
inferior clergy, allowed them in several places to supersede
their former practice, and to have desks or reading pews in
the body of the church, where they might, Avith more ease to
themselves, and greater convenience to the people, perform
the daily morning and evening service. Which dispensation,
begun first by some fcAv ordinaries, and recommended by them
to others, grcAv by degrees to be more general, till at last it
came to be an universal practice ; insomuch that the convo
cation, in the beginning of King James the First's reign,
ordered that in every church there should be a convenient
seat made for the minister to read service in." — Wheatley on
Common Prayer, p. 113.
Such is the history of our reading desks. The chancels
in the old churches were so inconvenient that the Bishops
tolerated the use of a reading pew. But in building new
churches, our care, surely, ought to have been so to build the
chancels, that such inconvenience should no longer e.xist, and
that we might return to our proper place. And the fact is,
that, in most of the nev/ churches, the clergyman is better
heard from the chancel than from the reading desk. Why
then give us a second pulpit 1 why not send us back to

116
the chancel 1 I believe that the answer will be found to be
nothing more than that the Papists, who still retain a portion
of our Liturgy, officiate always at the altar, and that, conse
quently, Ave should be accused of symbolizing with Popery, —
an argument as valid against the use of the Scripture.
Let it not be said that this is a subject of no importance.
I have already remarked that, confined in a narrow box, the
officiating minister cannot perform his various offices as he
ought to do. With his face always turned to the people, —
most of the people, listlessly lolling in their seats, seem to
think he is reading to them. Our Liturgy (including under
that designation the morning and evening service) is regarded
as one long prayer, to be read by the clergyman, whereas it
really consists of a great variety of services. If considered
as one long prayer, such as dissenting teachers utter before
they deliver their discourses, many faults may be found with
our Prayer Book ; but when regarded as a diA-ine serA'ice of
praise as well as of prayer, of exhortation on the part of the
minister, and of acclamation on the part of the people, it is
equally instructive and sublime. That it is, however, in fact,
if not in theory, regarded as merely one long prayer, may be
inferred from the circumstance, that we are accustomed to
speak, not of a clergyman's solemnizing divine service, but of
his reading prayers. And, indeed, in the rival pulpits a cler
gyman does appear rather to be reading prayers than praying.
Note Q. p. 27.
BOWING AT THE NAME OF JESUS.
The foUoAving is our 18th Canon.
" A Reverence and attention to be used in the church in time
of Divine Service.
" In the time of Divine Service, and of every part thereof, all
due reverence is to be used ; for it is according to the Apos
tle s rule, Let all things be done decently, and according to
order ; ansAverably to Avbich decency and order, we judge
these our directions following : No man shall cover his head
in the Church or Chapel, in the time of Divine Service, except

117
he have some infirmity ; in which case let him wear a night
cap or coil. AU manner of persons then present shall rever
ently kneel upon their knees, when the General Confession,
l^itany, and other prayers are read ; and shall stand up at the
saying of the Behef according to the rules in that behaff
prescribed m the Book of Common Prayer: And likewise
when m time of Divine Service the Lord Jesus shall be men
tioned, due and lowly reverence shall be done by all persons
present as it hath been accustomed ; testifying, by these outAvard
ceremonies and gestures, their inward bumiUty, Christian
resolution, and due acknowledgment that the Lord Jesus Christ
the true eternal Son of God, is the only Saviour of the world,
in whom alone all the mercies, graces, and promises of God
to mankind, for this life, and the life to come, are fully and
wholly comprised. None, ehher man, woman, or chUd, of
Avhat calling soever shaU be otherwise at such times busied in
the Church, than in quiet attendance, to hear, mark, and under
stand that which is read, preached, or ministered ; saying in
their due places audibly with the Minister, the Confession,
the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed ; and making such other
ansAvers to the Public Prayers, as are appointed in the Book
of Commom Prayer : neither shaU they disturb the Service
or Sermon, by walking or talking, or any other way ; nor depart
out of Church during the time of Service or Sermon, without
some urgent or reasonable cause."
So does the Church of England authoritatively decide, and
that her decision is strictly in accordance Avith that of her
Reformers is evident, because the Canon is based on the fol-
loAving Injunction, Avbich our pious Reformers advised Queen
Elizabeth to issue in this behalf: —
" Although Almighty God is all times to be honored with
all manner of reverence that may be devised ; yet of all other
times in time of Common Prayer the same is to be most
regarded. Therefore it is to be necessarily received that in
time of the Litany, and all other Collects and Common Sup
plications to Almighty God, all manner of people shall devoutly
and humbly kneel upon their knees and give ear thereunto,
and that whensoever the name of Jesus shall be in any Lesson,
Sermon, or otherwise in the Church pronounced, that due rever
ence be made of all persons, young and old, with lowness of
courtesy and uncovering the heads of mankind," (alluding to
sermons out of doors at Paul's Cross, &c.) " as thereunto doth
necessarily belong and heretofore hath been accustomed."
Injunctions by Queen Elizabeth, 1559.
Bp. Sparrow's Collections, 81.

118
To kneel in prayer, and to bow at the name of Jesus, is
not, therefore. Popish, unless our Martyr-Reformers were
Papists.

Note R. p. 27.
CANDLES ON THE ALTAR.
"And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the
Church and of the Ministers thereof at all times of their
ministration shall be retained and be in use, as were in this
Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second
year of the Reign of Edward VI." — Rubric in Common Prayer
Book. Upon this Bishop Mant, in a note taken from Bishop Cosins
and Wheatley, remarks : — ¦
" As to the ' ornaments of the Church,' mentioned in this
rubrick, it may be observed, that among others then in use,
there were ' two lights' injoined by the injunctions of King
EdAvard the Sixth, AA'hich injunctions Avere also ratified by the
Act of Uniformity that passed soon after the Reformation, to
be set upon the Altar, as a significant ceremony to represent
the light Avhich Christ's Gospel brought into the world. And
this, too, Avas ordered by the A'cry same injunction Avhich
prohibited all other lights and tapers that used to be supersti
tiously set before images or shrines, &c. And these lights,
used time out of mind in the Church, are still continued in
most, if not all, Cathedral and Collegiate Churches and Chapels,
so often as divine service is performed by candle light ; and
ought also, by this rubrick, to be used in all Parish Churches
and Chapels at the same time."
Some Clergymen have due regard for these ancient and
decent ornaments of the altar, in the hope that they may lead
the people to look with more reverence on the Sacrament of
the altar, and excite a spirit of thankfulness for the glorious
and heavenly light of Avhich they arc emblematical. They
mtty be in error, but they can hardly be charged Avith Popery,
except by those Ultra-protestants Avho regard the EngHsh
Reformers, Avho inserted this rubric, as Papistical, and a true
son of the Church of England AviU gladly bear the charge ii
it be applied equally to our Martyr-Reformers.

119
I speak of the Communion Table as an Altar, finding that
it is repeatedly so spckea of in the coronation ofiice, Avhich,
having been sanctioned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and
his Suffragans, will not be considered papistical by any true
members of the Church of England. It appears from the
foUowing passage, that our great Reformers did not foresee
the revival of Popery by the retention of this word.
" The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, they (the Reformers)
caUed the Sacrament of the Akar, as appears plainly by the
statute, 1 EdAA'ard VL, intituled ' an Act against such as speak
unreverently against the Sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ, commonly caUed the Sacrament of the Altar': for
which, consult the body of the Act itself ; or, secondly, by
Bishop Ridley, one of the chief compilers of the Common
Prayer Book, who doth not only caU it the Sacrament of the
Altar, affirming thus, that in the Sacrament of the Altar, is the
natural body and blood of Christ, &c., but in his reply to an
argument of the Bishop of Lincoln, taken out of St. CyrU, he
doth resolve it thus, viz. 'The Avord Altar in Scripture
signifieth as Avell the altar AA'hereon the Jews were wont to
offer their burnt sacrifice as the table of the Lord's Supper ;
and that St. Cyril meaneth by this AA'ord altar, not the Jewish
altar, but the table of the Lord, &c. Acts and Mon. part 3,
p.p. 492 and 497. Thirdly, by Bishop Latimer, his fellow
martyr, who plainly grants ' that the Lord's table may be
called an Altar, and that the Doctors called it so in many
places, though there be no propitiatory sacrifice but only
Christ,' part 2. p. 85. Fourthly, by several affirmations of
John Lambert and Jolm Philpot, two learned and religious
men, whereof the one suffered death for religion, in the reign
of Henry VIII., and the other in the fiery time of Queen Mary.
This sacrament being called by both the Sacrament of the
Altar, in their several times; for which consult the Acts and
Monuments, commonly called the Book of Martyrs."
Heylin. Cyprianus Anglicus, Pref.

Note S. p. 27.
CLERICAL HABILIMENTS.
In the advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, we find that our
Reformers applied to the civil authority to enforce the regula
tion' of the Church thus :

120
" In the ministration of the Holy Communion in Cathedral
and Collegiate Churches, the principal Minister shall use a
Cope with Gospeller and Epistoler agreeably."
Queen Elizabeth' s Advertisements.
Bp. Sparrow's Collection, p. 124.
And thus it is ordained in the 24th Canon :
" Copes to be worn in Cathedral Churches by those that
administer the Comm.union. In all Cathedral and Collegiate
Churches, the Holy Communion shall be administered upon
principal feast days, sometimes by the Bishop, if he be present,
and sometimes by the Dean, and at sometimes by a Canon or
Prebendary, the principal J\Iinister using a decent Cope, and
being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistoler agreeably,
according to the advertisements published Anno. 7 Eliz."
The use of the cope would doubtless be considered "flat
Popery," — Avhy more so than that of the surplice, it is difficult
to say. Both were placed under the same category in the
days of our Reformers, and the surplice equally with the
cope was declared to be " a patch of papistry." — Strype's
Parker, i. 330.
Our Reformers contended for and insisted on the use of
both, — " the cope in the ministration of the Lord's Supper,
and the surplice in all other ministrations." — Strype's Annals.
i. pt. i. p. 320. When these habits fell into disuse I know not,
but so late as the year 1681, we find the foUoAA'ing entry in
Thoresby's Diary, Thoresby then being a Non-conformist.
"Die Dom. In the forenoon Avent to the Minster (Durham) ;
was somcAvhat amazed at their ornaments, tapers, rich embroi
dered copes, vestments, &c." — Diary, i. 75, I need scarcely
remark that if in other Minsters and Cathedrals this canon
is transgressed, it AA'as strictly observed at Westminster by
the Archbishop of Canterbury, the officiating Bishops, and the
Prebendaries, at the coronation. Why they should offend
against the canon by not using their copes, on ordinary occa
sions, it is difficult to say, for it cannot be more popish or
superstitious to use them at one time than at another. But
my object in alluding to the circumstance is not to advocate

121
the revival of what might offend Aveaker brethren, but to shew
that a due attention to the decent and orderly cerem.onies of
the sanctuary, as it is, certainly, not unscriptural, so it is
strictly in accordance with the principles and practice of
our Church and her Reformers.
The mention of Durham reminds me of a transaction which
occurred Avith respect to that Cathedral in the reign of Charles
I., so very Hke what is almost daily occurring in our OAvn
times, that I wiU extract the account given of it by CoUier, as
it will at the same time let the reader see what ceremonies
were in use before the great RebeUion. The exaggerations
in the charges made against the Dean of Peterborough are
such that one might almost suppose oneself to be reading a
paragraph in some popular religious newspaper of the day.
" One Smart, a Prebendary of Durham, complained to the
parliament, against Dr. Cosins, Prebendary of the same Church,
and Dean of Peterborough. Cosins was charged with super
stition and illegal proceedings against the complainant. The
Articles of Superstition suggested that Cosins set up a marble
altar, Avith cherubins, in the Cathedral of Durham ! That this,
with the appurtenances, cost two thousand pounds. That
this ornamental furniture, which he calls appurtenances, was
a cope, the representation of the Trinity, and God the Father
in the figure of an old man. There was likewise said to be a
crucifix, AAdth a red beard and blue cap. The Dean was further
accused for lighting two hundred wax candles about the altar
on Candlemas-day ; for forbidding the singing of any psalms
before and after sermons ; for making an anthem to be sung of
the Three Kings of Cologne, Gaspar, Balthazar, and Melchior ;
and for procuring a consecrated knife only to cut the bread at
the communion. That Smart, above mentioned, declaimed
'with some vehemence in the pulpit against these innovations.
His text was, I hate all those that hold of superstitious vanities,
but thy law do I love. That for this freedom he Avas imprisoned
by the High Commission at York, and kept under durance four
months, before any articles were exhibited against him. That
from hence he was removed to the High Commission at Lambeth :
and that after having been harass'd a long time, he was remanded
to York, fined five hundred pounds, and ordered to recant ;
and that refusing to make this submission, he was further
fined, excommunicated, degraded, and deprived. This com
plaint formed into a bill, was laid before the House of Commons,
and afterwards carried up to the House of Lords. That Smart
16

122
was called the Proto-Martyr oi England, in these latter days
of persecution by Rouse, who carried up the Bill to the Lords,
and that a large reparation was made to the complainant.
Thus far Fuller. But that this Historian was mis-informed,
appears by his own letter to Dr. Cosins, in which he OAvns his
mistake, and promised to make the Dean satisfaction in his
next print.
"I shall give the Reader matter of fact from Dr. Cosins
his letter upon this subject. To be brief. When Smart's Bill
oi Complaint Avas carried up by Rouse, a Member of the Com
mons, to the House of Lords, Cosins put in full answer upon
oath : That his answer was entered upon the rolls of Parlia
ment, made good before the Lords, both by himself, and by
the very witness that Smart and his son-in-law produced
against him. That upon this. Glover, Smart's LaAAfyer, told
him at the Bar of the House of Lords, be Avas ashamed of
his complaint, and could in conscience plead no longer for
him : That after this the cause came on no more : That many
of the Lords declared publickly that Smart had abused the
House of Commons with a groundless complaint against
Cosins : And that by an order from the Lords delivered to
him by the Earl of Warwick, he had the liberty to go where
he pleased, and never heard any more from them. The answer
Cosins gave in upon oath, and made good before the Lords,
was to this effect :
" (1st.) That the Communion Table in the Church of
Durham, which the Bill of Complaint calls the Marble Altar,
with Cherubins, was not set up by Cosins, but by the Dean
and Chapter many years before he Avas Prebendary of that
Church : And that Smart Avas then one of that Chapter.
(2ndly.) That by the public accounts standing upon the
Register, the charge did not amount to above the tenth part
of what was pretended. (3rdly.) That the Copes used in that
Church were furnished long before Cosins his time : And that
Smart, the complainant, Avas Prebendary when they were
bought, and allowed bis share of the charge. (4thly.) That
Cosins never approved the Picture of the Trinity, or the
Image of God the Father, in any figure : And that to his
knoAvledge there AA'as no such representation in the Church of
Durham. (5thly.) That the Crucifix, Avith a Blue Cap, and a
Golden Beard, mentioned in the Bill of Complaint, AA'as nothing
but the Top of Bishop Hatfield's Tomb, which had stood in
the Church above tAvo hundred and fifty years : and that there
Avas no such figure upon any of the Copes, as is reported in
Fuller^ s History. (6thly.) That by the Statutes of that Church,
to which Smart was sworn no less than Cosins ! by these local

123
statutes, the treasurer was to provide a sufRcient number of
wax lights for the service of the quire during the winter
season. That there was never above two fair candles set
upon the Communion Table. That there is no more candles
used upon a Candlemas night, than in the Christmas Holidays :
And that the number of them was lessen'd or increased in
proportion to the congregation. (7thly.) That Cosins never
forbad singing the Metr e-Psaims in the Church, but us'd to
smg them himself Avith the people at Morning Prayer. (8thly.)
That he was so far from directing the singing an Anthem to
the three Kings of Cologne, that at his first coming to Durham
Cathedral he ordered this superstitious hymn to be cut out of
the Old Song Books belonging to the Choristers School.
That no such anthem had been sung in the quire during his
being there, nor so far as his enquiry could reach for three
score years before, and upwards. (9thly.) That the Knife
used for cutting the Bread at the Communion was never
consecrated. (lOtbly.) That in Smart's Sermon there are
several propositions, not to be reconciled either to the Laws
of God, or his Church, or the Statutes oi the realm. That
Cosins reported some of these passages, and appeal'd to the
Lords for the justice of the censure pass'd upon him. And
lastly, that the complainant had swelled the account of what he
suffer'd ; that he never paid his fine : that the value of bis Church
preferments, lost by his obstinacy, was over and above made
good to him by the contributions he received upon the score
of his lying under censure. But that the Parliament gave him
no damages, nor ordered Cosins, or any other person Smart
complained of, to pay him a farthing by way of reparation."
Collier, ii. 798.
It is, indeed, very evident to the student of ecclesiastical
history, that there were many ceremonies, of which there was
a traditional observance in the Church, though enforced by no
rubrical directions, from the period of the reformation to that
ofthe rebellion, which, because merely traditional observances
could not be revived at the restoration, the ceremonies of the
Church having been suspended for so many years. I do not
know that the revival of them was to be desired, but I am only
speaking of the fact. For instance, at the Hampton Court
Conference, the Bishop of Winton alludes to certain common
practices, such as " kneeling on the ground, and lifting up of
our hands, the knocking of our breasts," which he says are
"ceremonies significant, the first of our humUity coming

124
before the mighty God; the second of our confidence and
hope ; the other of our sorrow and detestation of our sins."
— Phenix, i. 165. When young Prince Charles was going to
Madrid, the decencies of religion were carefully attended to,
and the directions given to the chaplains, even at a time Avhen
Abbot was Archbishop, who was inclined to Puritanism, were
as follows : —
" 1. That there be one convenient room appointed for
prayer, the said room to be employed, during their abode, to
no other use.
" 2. That it be decently adorned Chapel-wise, with an
Altar, Fonts, Palls, Linen Coverings, Demy-Carpets, Four
Surplices, Candlesticks, Tapers, Chalices, Pattens, a fine
Towel for the Prince, other Towels for the Household, a
Traverse of Waters for the Communion, a Bason and Flaggons,
two Copes.
" 3. That Prayers be duly kept twice a day. That all
reverence be used by every one present, being uncovered,
kneeling at due time, standing up at the Creeds and Gospel,
bowing at the name of Jesus.
" 4. That the Communion be celebrated in due form, with
an oblation of every communicant, and admixing Avater with
the wine, the Communion to be as often used as it shall please
the Prince to set down : smooth Avafers to be used for the
Bread. " 5. That in the Sermons there be no polemical preachings
to inveigh against them, or to confute them, but only to confirm
the doctrine and tenets of the Church of England by all possi
ble arguments either in fundamental or moral points ; and
especially to apply themselves in moral lessons to preach Christ
Jesus crucify'd.
" 6. That they give no occasions (or rashly entertain any)
of conference or dispute, (for fear of dishonour to the Prince,
if upon any offence taken, be should be required to send away
one of them :) But if the Lord Ambassador or Mr. Secretary
wish them to hear any that desire some information, then they
may safely do it.
" 7. That they carry the Articles of our Religion in many
copies, the Books of Common Prayer in several languages,
store of EngHsh Service Books, &c. Collier, ii. 726.

125
I merely quote this passage in confirmation of what I have
said, that there Avere many traditional observances received
from our Reformers, which, after the restoration, fell into
disuse. It is certain that if a young prince were in these days
to go into foreign parts, no such directions for divine wor
ship among his household would be given, and perhaps some
may think that such splendor is better omitted. There is no
doubt but that attention to outward circumstances may often
render men mere formalists. And it is lamentable when such
is the case. But sometimes, too, it happens, that, by the neg
lect of externals, principles are themselves forgotten. It is
not quite certain in these days whether if a young prince
went abroad he would be attended by any chaplain, or be
directed to worship God at all. Neither the English Reform
ers nor the Lutherans, (the Protestants strictly so called,)
were hostile to the ancient ceremonies, or to the ancient orna
ments ofthe Church. Of the Lutherans it has been remarked,
"that all their Churches, and especially their Cathedrals, are
not to be distinguished from many in the midst of Rome, on
account of their various paintings, exalted crucifixes, and
frequent images. All veneration, however, is absolutely for
bidden to be paid to them, which they strictly observe, though
they own that they look upon them as convenient for notices
and remembrances of our Saviour's Passion, and of the devo
tions of the Saints ; and, in short, use them no otherwise than
we do our prints and pictures, in our Bibles and Common Prayer
Books." Js'orthleigh'sTopegr.p.ll^. It is, indeed, notorious,
that although the mob at our Reformation, instigated by reli
gious demagogues, did much injury to our Churches, the
images of the saints Avere removed from them, not by our Eng
lish Reformers, but by Cromwell and his partizans. This sort
of fanaticism is to be traced entirely to the Calvinists, Anabap
tists, and sectaries of that class. " It is a matter of fact,"
saith a late ingenius author, "that crosses and pictures of our
Saviour were left standing, when there was no such apparent
hazard of their being abused ; as appears from the paintings
of our windows in many of our Churches. We are not against
the historical use, but the idolatrous abuse of images."

126
Britons no converts to Popery. Even at the present time, in
many Lutheran Churches, candles are lighted, and a crucifix
placed, on the altar. Queen Elizabeth retained a silver
crucifix on the communion table, in her chapel, until, at the in
stigation of Sir Francis KnoUys, it was broken by Peach, her
fool. Against her retention of this ornament, several of our
Reformers in my opinion wisely, protested. The use of the
crucifix is not of ancient date, and it is very easily abused to
purposes of superstition ; I am glad, therefore, that we are well
rid of it, — but this was entirely effected before the great Rebel
lion. Archbishop Williams was the bitter opponent of Laud,
and yet of his chapel we find the following description : — " Be
sides his altar, most richly furnished, there are to be seen
goodly pictures, Avhich cannot but strike the beholders with
thoughts of piety and devotion at their entrance ; as the pic
ture of the Passion, and likewise of the Holy Apostles, together
with a fair crucifix set up in painted glass, in the East window,
just over the holy table." — Pocklington's Altar, Christ, p. 83.
To these facts I simply refer to shew that when men in these
days declaim against, not the erection of a crucifix, but even
the ornament of a cross, as proofs of a spirit hostile to that of
our Reformers, and of an inclination to Popery, they speak in
utter ignorance of history. All these things maybe wrong, and
let them so be proved, but against the authority of our Refor
mers cannot be quoted, — ^no — nor even that of the Lutheran
Reformers.

Note T. p. 31.
The 53d Canon runs thus :
" If any preacher shall, in the pulpit particularly, or
namely of purpose, impugn or confute any doctrine delivered
by any other preacher in the same Church, or in any Church
near adjoining, before he hath acquainted the Bishop of the
Diocese therewith, and received order from him what to do in
that case, because upon such public dissenting and contradict
ing there may grow much offence and disquietness unto the
people ; the churchwardens or party grieved, shaU forthwith

127
signify the same to the said Bishop, and not suffer the said
preacher any more to occupy that place which he hath once
abused, except he faithfully promise to forbear all such matter
of contention in the Church, until the Bishop hath taken
further order therein ; who shall Avith all convenient speed so
proceed therein, that public satisfaction may be made in the
congregation where the offence was given. Provided, that if
either of the parties offending do appeal he shall not be
suffered to preach pendente lite."
In the former Editions of this Sermon I thought it neces
sary to notice a breach of Canonical Discipline in a quarter
where we should expect to find the observance of the Canons
impressed upon the minds of young men preparing for Holy
orders. The sentiments there expressed, I do not retract ;
but as my wish is to call to union, it seems unnecessary to
continue, in subsequent Editions, a reference to an unfortunate
controversy, which, it is my hope, will never be revived.

In concluding these notes I wish to observe that my inten
tion has not been to bring charges against those who may
differ from me in opinion, and yet are united with me in a
desire to adhere to the principles of the Church. But I have
been desirous of pointing out the erroneous position in which
we are at present placed by those who would divide us into
High Churchmen and Low-Churchmen. I have shoAvn that
the English Reformers contended for the principles, and
resolutely maintained the practices, for defending and main
taining which those who are now styled High-Churchmen are
assaUed as Papists. If they, then, were to assaU their opponents
as persons hostile to the spirit and principles of the English
Reformation ; as persons who, with respect to baptism espe
cially, are wont to use a language which they acknowledge to
be different from the language of the prayer book, however
much we might regret the circumstance, it would not be a
matter of much surprise to any one. But it is notorious that
such, at the present time, is not the case. Those who are

128
called Low-Churchmen are the assailants, and in assailing
High-Churchmen, they are in fact assailing our High-Church
Reformers, and fighting the battles against them in favour of
their old enemies, the Puritans. Surely, then, it is not much
to ask, for the sake of peace, that if those who are on the
strong side refrain from attacking, those who are, confessedly,
so far as the Church and the English Reformers are concerned,
on the weak side, should be equally forbearing. There are
among them many pious and good men, whose only fault is
that they take without examination, the premises afforded
them in the falsehoods invented by certain newspapers and
magazines, and then hastily draw conclusions Avhich would
not be false were the premises correct. But Avith whom are
these persons uniting in order to defame the representatives
of our High-Church Reformers 1 Let them look to the cold,
worldly theologians, who are seeking to inflame their passions,
merely to further the party purposes of Avorldly policy. I
will not name them. But it is notorious that against those
whom they are pleased to denominate High-Churchmen, are
joined in one band the most cold and calculating of our
divines, who regard the Church as little more than a state
engine, together with others whose truly evangelical views
ought to unite them with the very men to whom they are
opposed, even though on some points of opinion they may
differ. With respect to such combinations aa'c may truly say
with an old AArriter, " if such public mischiefs be presaged by
astrologers frorn the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, though
the first of these be a planet of most sweet and gentle influ
ence, what dangers, what calamities may not be feared from
these political conjunctions !"
For my part, I hate party names, which often make a
distinction between persons Avhere there is no difference. I
believe that, in real principle, a more united body of men
never existed than the Clergy of England at the present time,
and the attempt to make them suppose themselves at variance
cannot certainly be of God. But if men will divide us — ^be
it so. And if I am ranked among the High-Churchmen, I
shall be perfectly contented. I am content to be what the

129
fathers of the Church Universal Avere ; I am content to be
what our pious Reformers were ; and if the opprobrious
epithets which were applied to them be applied to us, we shall
glory in the tribulation, and rejoice to bear the scandal of the
cross. Only let it be clearly understood Avbat a High-
Churchman, according to the present signification of the term,
is; let it be understood that AvbUe the LoAv-Churchman is
contending for the temporalities of an Establishment, the High-
Churchman looks to the spiritualities of the Church ; that
AvhUe the Low-Churchman is a mere EstabHsbment-man, the
High-Churchman is prepared to sacrifice aU the advantages of
an estabUshment, rather than compromise an iota of God's
truth ; that AA'hile the LoAV-Churchman defers to acts of the
English Parliament,* the High-Churchman defers to the
Church in Council ; that AA'hile the LoAv-Cburchman interprets
Scripture according to the tradition of men, — a tradition
* Otrr's is sometimes, wickedly, called by the Papists "An Act of Parlia
ment Church," and it is to be feared that the principles of some High-Estab-
lishment^men and Low-Churchmen, in this respect, assist the cause of Popery.
Not long ago, I saw the announcement of a sermon to be preached in a Chiireh
in behalf of the Moravian missions. The preacher seems to have had some
Uttle doubt in his mind whether he could, consistently, plead, in Church, the
cause of a dissenting Institution, and certainly, in doing so, he violated the
canons ofthe Church of England. But to satisfy his own mind, and to antici
pate objections, he stated in the advertisement that " the Moravians are
declared by Act of Parliament to be a true Protestant Episcopal Church !"
It would not be to Acts of Parliament that a High-Churchman would refer on
Buch a subject, but to the Gospel. And certainly the Irish members will rejoice
to find that the Parliament, in which they have such influence, is invested, in
the opinions of some Protestants, with authority to decide on what are, or are
not, true Protestant Episcopal Churches. They will, perhaps, wonder to find
the EngUsh Parliament invested with a power similar to that which is exercised
by the Pope, and will wonder the more at finding those persons who thus defer,
in Ecclesiastical matters, to Parliament, complaining, when Parliament taxes
us to support the College at Maynooth. and constitutes the Romish Church as
the Established Church of Canada. But supposing, for the sake of argument,
that an Act of Parliament is, in matters ecclesiastical, an infallible authority,
and that the respectable society of the Moravians is " a true Protestant Episco
pal Church" — StiU this does not prove that it is entitled to the support of Church
men; for this "true Protestant Episcopal Church" niay be herein England
in a state of schism, and it is in a state of schism if it sets up altar
against altar. If it be pretended that the Moravians, because pronounced
by an Act of Parliament to be a true Protestant Episcopal Church, do
not essentiaUy differ from us, that very circumstance only renders their
schism the more unjustifiable. And a Scriptural Christian, or High-Church
man, will fear to handle the word of God deceitfully, or to speak of
schism, as anything but a sin. It is not with any feeliug of unkindness towards
the quiet and respectable denomination of Moravians that I write thus, 1 would
only refer them, not to Acts of ParUament, but to the unadulterated Scriptures,
where they will find that as there is one Spirit, so also there is one body. I
would refer them to John xvii. 21, 23 ; to 1 Cor.l 10, 13 ; Col. iii. 15 j Ephes'
iv. 4 ; and to Churchmen I must add Pom. xvi. 17.
17

130
which can be traced back only to a Calvin or an Arminius,
the High-Churchman interprets Scripture according to the
tradition which maybe traced back to the Apostles themselves,
Avhich the Church Universal has regarded as, in its origin,
divine, and for adhering to which our Church Avas called, in
the time of our Reformers the Church of the Traditioners.
In short let me conclude Avith the words of Bishop Horsley : —
"Upon these topics," says that great divine, alluding to
the Apostolical Succession, &c. "the clergy of late years
have been more silent than is perfectly consistent with their
duty, from a fear, as I conceive, of acquiring the name and
reputation of High-Churchmen. But, my brethren, you aa'UI
not be scared from your duty by the idle terror of a mere
name, artfully applied in A'iolation of the true meaning of the
word to entrap the judgment of the many, and bring the
discredit of a folly long since eradicated, upon principles
which have no connexion Avith it. You promote the stratagem
of your enemies, you are insisting in the fraud upon the
public, and you are accessaries to the injury to yourselves, if
you give AA'ay to a dread of the imputation. To be a High-
Churchman, in the only sense Avhich a AA'ord can be alloAved to
bear as applicable to any in the present day, God forbid that
this should ever cease to be my public pretension, my pride,
my glory ! To be a High-Churchman in the true import in
the English language, God forbid that I should deserve the
imputation. A High Churchman in the true sense of the
word, is one that is a bigot to the secular rights of the Priest
hood ; one AA'ho claims for the Hierarchy, upon a pretence of
a right inherent in the sacred office, all those poAvers, honours,
and emoluments, Avhich they enjoy under an establishment ;
which are held indeed by no other tenure than at the avUI of
the Prince or by the law of the land. To the Prince, or to
the law, Ave acknoAvledge ourselves indebted for all our secular
possessions ; for the rank and dignity annexed to the superior
order of the clergy ; for our secular authority ; for the juris
diction of our courts, and for every civil effect Avhich folloAA's
the exercise of our spiritual authority. All these rights and
honours with Avbich the priesthood is adorned by the piety of
the civil magistrate, are quite distinct from the spiritual com
mission which Ave bear for the administration of our Lord's
proper Kingdom. They have no necessary connexion with
it ; they stand merely on the ground of human laAV, and vary,
like the rights of other citizens, as the laAvs which create them
vary. And in every Church, connected like our Church, with
the state by an establishment, even spiritual authority cannot

131
be conferred without the consent of the supreme civil Magis
trate. But in the language of our modern sectaries, every one
is a High-Churchman, Avho is not unAvilling to recognise so
much as the spiritual authority of the Priesthood; every one,
who denying AA'bat avc ourselves disclaim, anything of a divine
right to temporalities, acknoAA'ledges, hoAvever, in the sacred
character, somcAvhat more divine than may belong to the
mere hired servants of the state, or the laity, and regards
the service, which Ave are thought to perform for our pay, as
something more than a part to be gravely played in the drama
of human politics. My reverend brethren, Ave must be content
to be High Churchmen according to this usage of the word,
or Ave cannot at all be Churchmen. For he who thinks of
God's ministers as the mere servants ofthe state, is out of the
Church, — severed from it by a kind of self-excommunication.
Much charitable alloAvance is to be made for the errors of the
laity upon points to which it is hardly to be expected they
should turn their attention of their OAvn accord, and upon
which, for some time past, they have been very imperfectly
instructed. Dissenters are to be judged with much candour,
and Avitb every possible alloAvance for the prejudices of
education. But for those Avbo have been nurtured in the
bosom of the Church, and have gained admission to the
ministry, if from a mean compliance Avitli the humour of the
age, or ambitious of the fame of liberality of sentiment, (for
under a specious name, a profane indifference is made to pass
for an accomplishment,) they affect to join in the disavoAval
of the authority which they share, or are silent when the
validity of their divine commission is called in question; for
any, I hope they are few, Avho hide this Aveakness of faith, this
poverty of religious principle, under the attire of a gown and
cassock, they are, in my estimation, little better than infidels
in masquerade." Bp. Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of St. David's,
in the year 1799, jt)j). 34, 37.

XJxVivERSiTY Press— John F. Thow, Peinteh,
114 Nassau-Street, New- York.

PERIODICAL DEPOT AND AGENCY

s*s

1^^ ^ ^i
222 BROADWAY,

i^

^MEm©hm m^§E^m BmLmm&.

Offer for Sale, wholesale or retail, at the -lowest prices,

ALL THE POPULAR PERIODICALS,
AND
OF THE DAY !
The following of which we are appointed by the Publishers sole Agents :
GODEY'S LADY'S BOOK, GRAHAM'S MAGAZINE,
LADY'S MUSICAL LIBRARY, MISS LESLIES' MAGAZINE,
LAW REPORTER, MERRY'S MUSEUM,
LADY'S NATIONAL MAGAZINE,
BOYS' AND GIRLS' MAGAZINE.

fits

^fi^

V

.n^^JV

:o^^^.x.#

c,V>?'