j tl \

:l •!)

Mi'

li^i^ilii;

1 1,1

,?\ ' sir , 11. '» ,>''.! . .1
. 'H f.t^' •'"* * -i - '

N't
," :/
••'mw ''¦r't '(' ' ', . i' ^ '
.* "Jfff. f '11 4 I 'I I l. ) t
!/•„"•'; '. '' •'
''MM
J
FEW WORDS

IN SUPPORT OF No. 90

OF THE

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES,

PABTtT WITH REFEKKNCE TO

MR. WILSON'S LETTER.

U ¦ '' ' d (¦ -. '^

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER;
J. a. V. AND J. KIVINGTON, LONDON.
1841.

BAXTER, PBINTEB, OXFORD.

A
FEW WORDS,
&!C.

Acquiescing as I do in the general principles
advocated in Tract XC, and deeply grateful to its
author for bringing forward in it a view of our
formularies, full of comfort to myself and many
others with whom I am acquainted, I am induced
to say a few words with regard to Mr. Wilson's
recently published Letter ; not as being unmindful
of the great evils to which direct theological contro
versy, unless great care be used on both sides, is
apt to lead, but still considering that in the present
case a view of part of our Articles, new in great
measure at least to the present generation, will-
hardly meet with general acceptance till after full
and fair discussion, and that those who feel diffi
culties in that view have a fair claim on those who
advocate it that their objections shall at least be
considered. I should not do justice to my own
feelings if I did not add, that another reason which

would less disincline one to controversy on the
present occasion than on raost others, is the most
remarkably temperate and Christian tone of the
paper to which Mr. Wilson was a party, and which
began the contest: a tone which may well encourage
in us sanguine hopes, that the beginning having
been made in such a spirit, whatever may be said
on either side may be said on the whole in a temper
not unworthy of the grave importance of the sub
ject. Mr. Wilson begins with considering the use of
the word ' authoritative teaching' in the Letter of
the Four Tutors. On this point I do not deny that
Mr. Newman seems to have misunderstood them,
but still they also appear first to have misunderstood
him. I think the Tract did imply, that on the
points mentioned in their Letter, the Articles do
not condemn the decrees of the Council of Trent,
and that in point of fact there is no necessity for
any Roman Catholic either then or at the present
day to hold on these points opinions which the
Articles condemn. And this view of what the Tract
implied is made certain by the following passage of
Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf, ' The simple
' question is, whether taken by themselves in their
' mere letter, they (the decrees of Trent) express it,
' (the present corrupt teaching of the Church of
' Rome,) whether in fact other senses short of the
' sense conveyed in (her) present  teaching
' will not fulfil their letter, and may -not even now in

' point of fact be held in that Church.' On the other
hand, when the Four Tutors consider that the
Tract ' suggests' that the XXXIX Articles ' do not
' contain any condemnation of the doctrines of
• Purgatory &c., as they are taught authoritatively
' by the Church of Rorae, but only of certain absurd
' practices and opinions which intelligent Romanists
' repudiate as much as we do,' they seem to have
misunderstood the Tract which actually says, as
quoted by Mr. Newman in his Letter, p. 10.
' What is opposed is the received doctrine of the day
' and unhappily of this day too, or the doctrine of the
' Roman Schools.' As things have turned out, it is
perhaps to be lamented that Mr. Newman did not
repeat this caution in each head of Art. xxii. and he
says himself, (Letter, p. 9.) ' this distinction ....
' would have been raade in far stronger terms had I
' not often before spoken against the actual state of
' the Roraan Church, or could I have anticipated the
' sensation which the appearance of the Tract has
' excited.' And in the second edition, the Tract seems
as explicit on the subject as can possibly be desired.
Let me quote successively its statement on the first
four of the five subjects mentioned in the Tutor's
Letter. ' Let it be considered then, whether on the whole the
' Romish doctrine of purgatory' which the Article condemns,
and which was ge-nerall-y believed in the Roman Church
three centuries since as well as now, viewed in its essence,
be not the doctrine that the punishment of unrighteous

6
Christians is temporary not eternal, and that the purifi
cation of the righteous is a portion of the same punish
raent : together with the superstitions and impostures,
for the sake of gain, consequent thereupon.' p. 28.
' The doctrine then of Pardons spoken of in the Article
is the doctrine maintained and acted on in the Roman
Church, that remission of the penaltie? of sin in the next
life may be obtained by the power of the Pope, with such
abuses as money-payments consequent thereupon \' p. 31.
' On the whole, then, by the Romish doctrine of the
veneration and worshipping of images and relics, the
Article means all maintenance of those idolatrous honours
which have heen and are paid them so commonly through
out the Church of Rome, with the superstitions, pro
fanities, and impurities consequent thereupon.'' p. 36.
' By the doctrine of the Invocation of Saints, then, the
Article means all maintenance of addresses to them which
entrench upon the incommunicable honour of God alone,
such as have heen, and are in the Church of Rome, and
" This would seem one of the passages alluded to in Mr.
Newman's Postscript, in which the apparent vagueness arose
' from the circumstance, that, the main drift of the Tract being
' that of illustrating the Articles from the Homilies, the doc-
' trines of the Articles are sometimes brought out only so far
' as the Homilies explain them, which is in some cases an
' inadequate representation.' In the first edition it stood, ' the
' pardons then spoken of in the Article are large and reckless
' indulgences from the penalties of sin obtained on money-
' payments :' which not unnaturally seems to have given many
persons the impression, that the Tract did not consider the
doctrine of the Pope claiming power to remit the penalties
of sin in the next life, condemned by the Article, when such
remission was not ' obtained on money-payments.'

such as equally with the peculiar doctrine of purgatory,
pardons, and worshipping and adoration of images and
relics, as actually taught in that Church, are unknown
to the Catholic Church.' p. 42.
Mr. Newman's opinion then is, that the
doctrines on these subjects condemned by the
Articles are mt taught authoritatively by the
Church of Rome in the sense of being obligatory on
the belief oi each individual member of the Church,
or so that that Church is irrevocably bound to them ;
they are taught authoritatively in that they are not
merely ' practices and opinions which intelligent
' Romanists repudiate as much as we do,' but,
' maintained and acted on in the Roman Church,'
' actually taught in that Church,' ' an existing
' ruling spirit and view in the Church,' which is ' a
' corruption and perversion of the truth,' and,
' against which I think the XXXIX Articles
' speak.' (Letter, p. 10.) The whole passage in
Mr. N.'s Letter, p. 26. from ' for instance,' to
' actually have done,^ would make all this still more
clear if there were room to quote it. Authoritative
teaching may naturally mean the teaching of those in
authority : but then individuals, members of the
Roman Church, are not bound to believe such
teaching, except so far as it is borne out by tliat
Church's authoritative statements: the Tract con
siders the Articles as directed against the authorita
tive teaching so lamentably prevalent throughout
the Ronian Church, not the authoritative statements
of that Church herself.

8
And now for the more important part of Mr.
Wilson^s Letter. The point which most people
will perhaps feel to be brought out most forcibly in
Mr. Wilson's Letter, he has expressed as follows ;
' I am not inclined either to restrain or to expand the
sense of the Articles, as men may think the Homilies
expound them ; nor do I recognise the Homilies as the
sole or best interpreter of their sense, though they are
most valuable historical documents, and contain a doctrine
necessary for the times when they were composed. But
Mr. N. undertook to make out his principles as applied
to the XXII. and XXXI. Articles, chiefly by a reference
to them as representing the sense of the Articles. " The
Homily and therefore the Article," p. 26. He rested his
case on ground chosen by himself; his own ground even
betrays him.' p. 17.
And we are thus led to two topics for discussion;
first. Are the Homilies legitimate interpreters of
these Articles ? and, secondly, Has the Tract fairly
represented the teaching ofthe Homilies with respect
to them ? and 1 will take the two Articles (the twenty-
second and thirty-first), to which Mr. Wilson confines
his observations, separately.
Before proceeding however with the subject,
let me beg persons to consider, that the mere
fact of an interpretation appearing at first to
them a forced interpretation, is no argument
whatever that it is really so, but only that it is
new to them. I suppose many of us may re
member doctrines or opinions on various subjects
which when first broached appeared to us quite ex-

9
travagant, and which we now hold almost as first
truths. Any thing which takes us quite by surprise
appears forced. I am not denying that in parts of
the Tract interpretations are given which to me do not
seem the most obvious, (see post, p. 26.) but I can
not consider that of the twenty-second Article as
in the number. On the contrary, it does seem
that nothing but long habit could have made
us imagine, e. g. that ' doctrina Romanensium de
' Purgatorio' means all teaching of Purgatory, or
' doctrina Romanensium, de invocatione Sanctorum'
means all invocation of Saints. I have heard it
said in the last fortnight, that the same principles
which reconcile subscription to the twenty-second
Article with the opinions maintained in the Tract,
might reconcile subscription to the second Article
with the Socinian heresy. Now I would almost stake
the whole case on the fair issue of that question.
Can any thing be more dissimilar in manner and tone
than those two Articles ? The second contains an
accurately drawn up dogmatic positive statement
of the high mystery on which it treats, such as
the Church has ever had recourse to for the preserv
ation of the Faith committed to her, and such as
it is the tendency of the present day to consider
subtle and overstrained. The twenty-second con
tains no one positive statement : it puts together four
or five topics, which cannot be said to be all very
closely connected with each other, and declares
that 'doctrina Romanensium' on those topics is

10
a fond thing, &c. Would not any one naturally
infer from this opposition what Mr. Newman does
infer ? that the framers of the Articles see two
things before their eyes, the Creeds which have
come down to them frora the early ages of the
Church, and the corrupt system in existence practi
cally to a great extent overlaying these Creeds ; that
the former they hand down as they have received
them, the latter they protest against, as they see
it, generally and in the raass : not being careful
to draw up accurate statements of those true prin
ciples which are contradictory to the existing abuses,
nor again tracing up the latter to their ultimate
principles and condemning them ; but without busy
ing themselves with such investigations, requiring
as they would leisure, accuracy of thought, and
unity of opinion, condemning what they saw as they
saw it, energizing and practically active through
out the Church. Such would, I feel convinced,
be the natural impressions made on our minds by
this Article, but for long habit of viewing it in a
different light. Still did statements of a different
character exist in the Homilies, serious doubt
would be thrown over such a conclusion. The
Homihes are the sole contemporary document re
cognised by our Church in addition to the Prayer
Book and Articles ; and did they contain, what
the Articles do not, carefully drawn up dogmatic
statements on the subjects mentioned in this twenty-
second Article, we might well consider them as our

11
Church's authoritative explanation of her words
' doctrina Roraanensium.' These are wo rds so general
and indeterminate, as to compel us to resort for an
explanation of them elsewhere : were there no other
contemporary document sanctioned by our Church,
then to history ; but there being such, to that docu
ment. Such then is the force as regards this Article
of an appeal to the Homilies : not of course that we
are bound to every sentence and paragraph in them,
(see Tract, p. 66.) but that the general scope and
tone of them on this subject will give us at least the
nearest approach to our Church's authoritative
explanation of what has absolutely no meaning
without such explanation, the words ' doctrina
' Romanensium.' And that on the whole the tone
of the Homilies is precisely what we should k
priori have expected from the wording of the
Article, I think few will deny : we find there long and
detailed protests against the existingpractical system,
but no attention given to the task of drawing up a
consistent antagonist view : their tone is as negative
as that of the Article.
Nor does Mr. Wilson on the whole seem to deny
this, for he rather joins issue on detached sentences
from the quotations in the Tract, than on the
general tendency ofthe teaching of the Homilies\
Still I cannot agree in his criticisms on the parti
cular passages he does criticize. Let us first take
'' There is one exception in p. 16, to which I shall presently
allude

12
his extract from the quotation in the Tract on the
subject of purgatory.
' Where is, then, the third place which they call pur
gatory ? or, where shall our prayers help and profit the
dead ? S. Augustin doth only acknowledge two places
after this life, heaven and hell. As for the third place,
he doth plainly deny that there is any such in all
Scripture.' p. 8.
Now even taking this sentence by itself, surely
it is rather straining it to imply that the writer
disbelieved any intermediate state in which the
souls of the just should remain between death
and the day of judgment. Yet if it do not mean
this, it can raean nothing to Mr. Wilson's purpose ;
for if the wording of it will admit the belief of any
intermediate state for those who die in God's faith
and fear, it will admit the belief of a state of
gradual purification, whether with pain or without:
and if it be supposed to deny any intermediate state
whatever, we must impute to the homilist not only
a strange ignorance of what is so comraonly con
nected with St. Augustine's name, viz. his advocacy
of a doctrine very much resembling the received
Roman doctrine of purgatory, but also we must
suppose that his own belief was (for I can think of
no other alternative) that the soul is in a state of
insensibihty, from the time of its leaving the mortal
body until the Great Day : a behef far from being
common surely in our Church from that day to

13
this, and formally condemned in the Articles put
forth in the time of Edward the Sixths But
whatever comes of the criticism on this sentence
by itself, take the whole passage together, and
the account given of it by the Tract will I really
think commend itself to most minds as a very fair
account. We need not of course suppose, that the
homilist kept distinctly before his mind from first to
last any definite doctrinal view : see p. 1 1 . But the
very words which follow, ' Chrysostom likewise is of
this mind, that unless we wash away our sins in this
present world, we shall find no comfort afterward :
and St. Cyprian saith, &;c.' shew what the writer
had in his mind in the sentence before us. Here
then shall follow the quotation from the Homily as
made in the Tract, and the Tract's comment upon
it : the summing up in the second edition of the
Tract, as to the doctrine concerning purgatory
which it is supposed the Articles condemn, has
been already introduced.
" Now doth St. Augustine say, that those men which are cast
into prison after this life, on that condition, may in no wise be
holpen, though we would help them never so rauch. And why?
Because the sentence of God is unchangeable, and cannot be re
voked again. Therefore let us not deceive ourselves, thinking
that either we may help others, or others may help us, by their
good and charitable prayers in time to come. For, as the
preacher saith, ' When the tree faileth, whether it be toward the
south, or toward the north, in what place soever the tree faileth,
¦= ' Qui^animas defunctorum praedicant usque ad diem judicii
absque omni sensu dormire, aut illas asserunt una cum corpo-
ribus mori . . . . ab orthodox^ fide . . . prorsus dissentiunt.'

14
there it lieth :' meaning thereby, that every mortal man dieth
either in the state of salvation or damnation, according as the
words of the Evangelist John do plainly import, saying, ' He
that believeth on the Son of God hath eternal life; but he that
believeth not on the Son, shall never see life, but the wrath of
God abideth upon him,' — where is then the third place, which
they call purgatory? Or where shall our prayers help and
profit the dead.? .St. y^ugustine doth only acknowledge two
places after this life, heaven and hell. As for the third place,
he doth plainly deny that there is any such to be found iu all
Scripture. Chrysostom likewise is of this mind, that, unless we
wash away our sins in this present world, we shall find no comfort
afterward. And St. Cyprian saith, that, after death, repentance
and sorrow of pain shall be without fruit, weeping also shall be
in vain, and prayer shall be to no purpose. Therefore he coun-
selleth all men to make provision for themselves while they may,
because, when they are once departed out of this life, there is no
place for repenta-nce, nor yet for satisfaction." — Homily concern
ing Prayer, pp. 282, 283.
" Now it would seem, from this passage, that the
Purgatory contemplated by the Homily, was one for which
no one will for an instant pretend to adduce even those
Fathers vifho most favour Rome, viz. one in which our
state would he changed, in whicb God''s sentence could be
reversed. ' The sentence of God,' says the writer, ' is un
changeable, and cannot be revoked again ; there is no place
for repentance^.' "
On the subject of pardons, the introduction
made in the 2d edition of the Tract as quoted
(p. 6.) will perhaps be a sufficient explanation of
the author's meaning.
On the subject of ' worshipping and adoration as
¦^ See Appendix.

15
well of images as of rehcs,' Mr. Wilson com
plains of the Tract as doing the same thing I had
just now occasion to complain of him for doing,
taking a passage apart from its context, and so
laying undue stress upon it. But it will still
perhaps appear to many people, that the additional
passages quoted by Mr. Wilson do not really alter
the state of the case. To do justice to both sides,
it will be necessary to make rather a long extract
from Mr. Wilson's Letter, (p. 14, 15.)
" Here I wish to draw your attention to the passage
referred to, with the quotations from the Homilies.
Tract, p. 23. " And a verification of such an under
standing of the Article is afforded us in some sentences in
the Homily on Peril of Idolatry, in which, as far as
regards relics, a certain ' veneration' is sanctioned by its
tone in speaking of them, though not of course the Romish
veneration. " The sentences referred to run as follows : —
" In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the Ninth Book,
and Forty-eighth Chapter, is testified, that ' Epiphanius, being
yet alive, did work miracles : and that after his death, devils,
being expelled at his grave or tomb, did roar.' Thus you see what
authority St. Jerome (who has just been mentioned) and that
most ancient history give unto the holy and learned Bishop
Epiphanius." " Here the quotation in the Tract ends, but the Homily
goes on.
" Thus you see what authority St. Jerome, and that most
ancient history, give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epipha
nius, whose judgment of images in churches and temples, then
beginning by stealth to creep in, is worthy to be noted."

16
" His judgment having been shewn in
" That when he entered into a certain church to pray,
he found there a linen cloth hanging on the church door
painted, and having in it the image of Christ as it were, or
of some other saint; therefore when I did see the image of
a man hanging in the Church of Christ, contrary to the
authority of the Scriptures, I did tear it, and gave counsel
to the keepers of the church that they should wind a poor
man that was dead in the said cloth, and so bury him."
Hom. ib.
Again : —
" St. Ambrose, in his Treatise ofthe Death of Theodosius the
Emperor, saith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on it.
She worshipped the King, and not the wood, surely (for that is
an heathenish error and the vanity of the wicked) but she wor
shipped Him that hanged on the Cross, and whose Name was
written on the title,' and so forth. See both the godly empress's
fact, and St. Ambrose's judgment at once; they thought it had
been an heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked, to have wor
shipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our Saviour
Chuist's own precious blood.^' — Peril of Idolatry , part 2, circ.
init. " In these passages the writer does not positively com
mit himself to the miracles at Epiphanius''s tomb, or the
invention of the true Cross, but he evidently wishes the
hearer to think he believes in both. This he would not
do, if he thought all honour paid to relics wrong." —
Tr. p. 24.
But if the latter passage is finished to the end of its
paragraph, it stands thus : —
" They thought it had been an heathenish error to have
worshipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our
Saviour Christ's own precious blood. And we fall down before
every cross piece of timber, which is but an image of that cross."
— Hom.

17
" This is but an argument a fortiori, by no means
shewing that the writer wished the hearer to think he
believes in the invention of the true Cross, but — if they
who thought they had found it would not worship even
that, rauch less, &c. Neither does the Homilist at all
concern himself as to his hearers believing in the miracle at
Epiphanius's tomb. The miracles (he says) were believed
of old, which shows in what great estimation he was held.
And if he of so great estimation tore a cloth painted with
an image &c. neither of the passages bear upon the
question of relics, much less convey any judgment of the
Homilist. " This is a very small matter in itself, that in extracting
a quotation, a line or two of the succeeding context should
have escaped the eye ; but in this case these few lines
would give a totally different character to the passages
taken, and to the thread of the argument of the writer.
The inference from these citations was very material ; an
inference which depends solely on the places, and which I
do not believe could be derived from any other extracts
from the Homilies, unless equally incomplete.'"
But ' the thread of the argument of the writer' in
these passages is surely of no importance. Who
denies that it is an a fortiori argument ? The plain
question is, would he have expressed himself in the
course of it as he did in tbe two passages quoted
by the Tract, had he considered all veneration of
relics forbidden by the Church of England, ' as a
fond thing .... rather repugnant to the word of
God?' Few surely will think so. As to the first
quotation, what veneration of relics can the Tract
be supposed to advocate as lawful, beyond that

18
implied in a belief that relics may work rairacles :
' that most ancient history' professes such belief,
and, as all must feel, is not spoken of in a tone
which would be adopted in speaking of a venera
tion forbidden by the Church of England. As
to the second quotation, not to lay stress on the
miracle by which tradition reports the discovery
of the true cross to have been made, (which would
make the case stronger,) at all events, to feel
an interest in such discovery shews a certain
' veneration of relics.' Nay what force in saying
they did not worship the true Cross unless they
paid it some veneration. Are St. Ambrose then and
the ' godly empress' spoken of as if entertaining
a feeling condemned by our Articles ? rather as
the continuation cited by Mr. Wilson makes still
more clear, they are spoken of as authorities to be
deferred to. Consider too the very tone of the
passage, ' the cross which was embrued with our
Saviour Christ's own precious blood.'
Mr. Wilson's next quotation from the Homihes
is the following, (p. 17.) cited by hira to
shew ' that the homihst would deem even the
' having of images if not Popish, unlawful:' but
of course the enquiry is, what light do the
Homilies throw on the phrase in the Articles
' doctrina Romanensium ?' and therefore the only
pertinent question is, what veneration of images
they consider ' Popish ?' But indeed the passage
shews plainly, that what the writer considers doc-

19
trinally forbidden \s idolatry, and gives as his opinion
that to have images in churches is (not in itself
wrong, but) most dangerous for the peril of
idolatry. ' Wherefore the images of God, our Saviour Christ, the
Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles, Martyrs, and others of
notable holiness, are, of all other images, most dangerous
for the peril of idolatry, and therefore greatest heed to be
taken that none of them be suffered to stand in Churches
and Temples." — Peril Idol. 3rd part.
In the last passage Mr. Wilson has quoted,
he has pointed out that Mr. Newman's tran
scriber or printer has made a mistake ; but the
introduction of the words omitted only makes the
summing up in the Tract more closely accurate.
The passage in the Homily, which had been ac
cidentally mutilated in the Tract, when read in full
is this : ' Is not this stooping and kneeling before
' them, adoration of them, which is forbidden so
' earnestly by God's word?' ^nd the summing up in
the Tract is as follows ; ' Now the veneration and
' worship condemned in these and other passages
' are such as these, kneeling before them, &;c.' p. 36.
' Kneehng before them' is mentioned in the Tract as
being part of that adoration of them condemned by
the Article.
It should be added in fairness, that there
remains a passage quoted by Mr. Wilson in p. 14,
against which nothing has been said : let it have
its weight : it seems certainly to speak of having
¦ b2

20
images as ' contrary to the authority of the
Scriptures.' But let me also cite a passage from
the Homilies quoted by Mr. Wilson in a different
connexion, but drawing the same distinction we
have seen before between ' having' them and
' worshipping' them. p. 30.
« And thus you see how, from having of images privately,
it came to public setting of them up in churches and
temples, although without harm at the first, as was then
of some wise and learned men jut.ged: and from simply
having them there, it came at the last to worshipping of
them.' On the whole then, does not the case seem
made out by the ' four close pages from the
Homilies' quoted by the Tract, that the main
tendency of their teaching is a vehement protest
against the corruptions they saw around them,
not the assertion of any one systematic view in
opposition ? Nay, let it be asked, who is there
among us all in any degree religiously-minded, who
having in his possession a piece of sculpture on a
religious subject, would treat it as though it were a
common ornament? and if not, what does he
shew but a certain ' veneration of images,' ' though
' of course not the Romish ?'
The last subject under the twenty-second Article
is the Invocation of Saints. And in this too the
quotations from the Homilies introduced in the
Tract do seem to shew, that the writers had not in
view the task of assigning the exact limits within

21
which the realizing of our Communion with
departed Saints may be lawful to the spiritually-
minded Christian, but, as before, that of bearing
witness against the practical corruptions they found
actually in existence ". As to the three first quota
tions, any reader must surely grant this ; and as to
the fourth from which Mr. Wilson has introduced an
extract, (p. 20.) an attentive perusal of the whole
will, I think, lead to the conclusion expressed in
the Tract : that the idea in the mind of the writer
as to what he was attacking, was what he saw in
men's practice on all sides of him : a habit of
addressing Saints in such a manner as to make
them at the time the ultimate object of thought. The
passages put in italics in the Tract would seem
to my mind to put this beyond fair doubt. Of
course it is not necessary to maintain that the
Catholic Christian will readily go along with the line
of argument adopted in the Homily ; the mere
question is, what was the religious practice against
which he was writing as corrupt and ' Romish ?'
Mr. Wilson has introduced another quotation from
the Homilies which shall here be inserted, (the
italics are not Mr. Wilson's :) p. 21.
' For it is evident, that our image-maintainers have the
same opinion of saints which the Gentiles had of their
false gods, and thereby are moved to make them images,
as the Gentiles did. If answer be made, that they make
saints but intercessors to God, and means for such things
as they would obtain of God ; that is, even after the
' See also p. 30.

22
Gentiles' idolatrous usage, to rhake Ihem of saints, gods,
called Dii Medioximi, to be mean intercessors and
helpers to God, as though he did not hear, or should be
toeary if he did all alone. So did the Gentiles teach,
that there was one chief power working hy other, as
means; and so they made all gods subject to fate or
destiny ; as Lucian in his Dialogues feigneth, that
Neptune made suit to Mercury, that he might speak
with Jupiter. And therefore 'in this also, it is most
evident, that our image-maintainers be all one in opinion
with the Gentile idolaters.'' Against Peril of Idolatry, -^art 3.
Now does the drift of this passage seem fairly
applicable to the case of any holy and self-denying
man whose thoughts are in Heaven, ever resting
upon God his Suprerae Good, and who may feel him
self drawn to the practice of asking the prayers of
departed Saints to that God, as he does the prayers of
his living brethren ? does the idea of such a person
seem to have been for a moraent present to the mind
of the writer ? On the other hand, to one kind
of error (which certainly exists, perhaps to a very
great extent, as matter of opinion in the Roman
Church at the present day, and most probably at
that day also,) it is remarkably applicable : viz.
such as the opinion that the Blessed Virgin is
appointed by our Lord the sole necessary channel
through which His grace shall flow to His Church,
so that in fact addresses to her are more immediate
apphcations for a supply of grace than to our Lord
Himself : and opinions which are far from going to
¦* The following passages, taken from Archbishop Ussher's
answers to a Jesuit, have been shewn me since the above was

23
this shocking extent, but which tend in the same
direction, may well be aimed at in this passage ; as
written ; and they will serve both to make my meaning clearer,
and also to shew the existence at that period (S. Bernardinus
lived in the 15th century) of writings which would be altogether
adequate objects for the strictures in this passage of the
Homily. The quotations are given on the authority of the
Cambridge edition of Ussher, 1 835.
A tempore enim quo Virgo mater concipit in utero Verbum
Dei, quandam, ut sic dicam, jurisdictionem seu auctoritatem in
omni Spiritus sancti processione temporali, ita quod nulla
creatura aliquam a Deo obtinuit gratiam vel virtutem, nisi
secundum ipsius pise matris dispensationem. Bernardin.
Senens. Serm. Ixi. Artie, i. cap. 8.
Et quia talis est mater Filii Dei qui producit Spiritum
sanctum, ideo omnia dona virtutis et gratiae ipsius Spiritus
sancti, quibus vult, quando vult, quomodo vult, et quantum
vult, per man us ipsius administrantur. Id. ibid.
Nulla gratia de coelo nisi ea dispensante ad nos descendit.
Hoc enim singulariter officium divinitus ab seterno adepta est,
sicut Proverb, viii. ipsa testatur, dicens, Ab aeterno ordinata
sum ; scilicet dispensatrix cselestiura gratiarum. Id. ibid. Artie,
iii. cap. 3.
In Christo fuit plenitudo gratiae sicut, in capite influente, in
Maria vero, sicut in collo transfundente. Unde Cantic. vii. de
Virgine ad Christum Salomon ait, CoUum tuum sicut turris
eburnea. Nam sicut per collum vitales spiritus a capite
descendunt in corpus, sic per Virginem a capite Christo vitales
gratiae in ejus corpus mysticum transfunduntur. Id. ibid.
Artie, i. cap. 8. Artie, ii. et cap. 10. ex Pseudo-Hieronymi
Sermone de Assumpt. Mariae. Sicut enim a capite, mediante
collo, descendunt omnia nutriraenta corporis, sic a Christo per
beatam Virginem in nos veniunt omnia bona et beneficia quae
Deus nobis confert. Nam ipsa est dispensatrix gratiarum et
beneficiorum Dei. Joan. Herolt. in Sermon. Discipuli de

24
certainly no one will doubt that to whatever extent
they did exist, to whatever extent Saints were
allowed to obscure in the mind the vision of the
one God, such opinions would be part of the
' doctrina Romanensium' condemned by the
Article. On the subject of the thirty-first Article, I hardly
know what to say. If Mr. Wilson considers that
the doctrine is condemned in it of the Eucharist
Tempore, Serm. clxiii. Per collum Virginis apud Deum
gratia et intercessio intelligitur, ita ut ejus intercessio sit
veluti collum, per quod a Deo omnes gratiae prsesidiaque
in homines transfunduntur. Bias. Viegas in Apocalyps.
cap. xii. Comment, ii. sect. 10. num. 1. Collum enim dicitur,
quia per Virginem uni versa in nos a Deo, tanquam a capite,
beneficia derivantur. Id. ibid. num. 2.
Quasi sublato Virginis patrocinio, perinde atque halitu
intercluso, peccator vivere diutius non possit. Viegas, ibid.
sect. ii. num. 6.
Tot creaturae serviunt gloriosae Virgin! Marise, quot serviunt
Trinitati. Omnes nempe c'etturae, quemcunque gradum
teneant in creatis, sive spirituales ut angeli, sive rationales ut
homines, sive corporales ut corpora coelestia vel elementa, et
omnia quae sunt in coelo et in terra, sive damnati sive beati,
quae omnia sunt divino imperio subjugata, gloriosae Virgini
sunt subjecta. Ilie enim qui Dei Filius est et Virginis
benedictae, volens, ut sic dicam, paterno principatui quodam-
modo principatum aequiparare maternum, ipse qu Deus erat
matri famulabatur in terra. Unde Lucae ii. scriptum est de
Virgine et glorioso Joseph, Erat subditus illis. Praeterea haec
est vera, Divino imperio omnia famulantur et Virgo ; et iterum
haec est vera, Iraperio Virginis omnia famulantur et Deus.
Id. ibid. cap. 6.

25
being an offering for the quick and dead, he must
condemn some of our most respected Divines almost
from that day to this. But the whole scope of the
Article, as is plain from both its title and wording,
is to vindicate the soleness and all-sufficiency of
the One Sacrifice.
Of the one Oblation of Christ finished upon the Cross.
" The Ofitring of Christ once made is that perfect
redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins
of the whole world, both original and actual ; and there is
none other satisfaction for sin, but that alone. Wherefore
the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly
said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and the
dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous
fables, and dangerous deceits."
The ' sacrifices of masses' are only introduced as
bearing upon this point : they saw that practically
' masses as observed in the Church of Rome
' actually impaired or obscured the doctrine of the
' one Atonement ;' (Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 27.) and
condemned them as so doing '' : they considered
most justly any thing which did so as a ' blas-
• phemous fable,' and we find frora the Homilies as
well as other sources that the particular observances
which had this effect, were also so full of other
shameful abuses, as to deserve the name of ' per-
nicios^ imposturse' as well. With regard to Mr.
Wilson's quotation from Bishop Jewel, it is only
necessary to remark that no one has maintained
'' See page 30.

26
that belief in the Eucharistic Sacrifice is required
of those who subscribe our formularies ; and that
Bishop Jewel's writings have never been recognized
by our Church as of authority.
I trust I have now succeeded in vindicating the
Tract's interpretation of the twenty-second and
thirty-first Articles from the difficulties which have
prevented Mr. Wilson from receiving it. As my
object in writing is to support the Tract, not to
engage in controversy with him, no further remarks
on his Letter seem necessary : but I am naturally
led on to consider what seems certainly to me a
more difficult question than those which Mr.
Wilson has raised, and which has been alluded
to in a very unassuming and pleasing spirit, by
' one who owes much to the Tracts for the Times:'
I mean the Article on General Councils. I fear
that what may be said on it may possibly displease
some whom it is most painful to displease ; I raean
that most highly respected class of our living
divines, who consider the spirit in which the Enghsh
Reformation was carried on by its human agents not
to have been on the whole uncatholic. Such persons
do not feel the difficulty which sorae others may
feel : they would join issue with those who claira
the Articles as ruling matters on the Protestant
side, by denying that any powerful party at the
tirae could have wished so lo rule them : to them it
wdl have never occurred to doubt, I quote the words
used in a private letter by one deeply venerated

27
person, ' that General Councils were never meant to
include (Ecumenical.' Sorae will probably carry this
principle still further, and consider our Articles
to exclude the adherents of Protestantism, (or as
they would rather call it ultra Protestantism,) such
as we find thera at the present day.
But still as several persons remain who, with all
their anxiety to follow such revered authorities, can
not bring themselves to acquiesce in this view of the
case, and as their feelings have met with sanction not
less high than that of the editors of Mr. Froude's
Remains, (see preface to the 2d part of that work,)
it seems no wanton outrage on feelings which must
ever command our highest respect, but direct
necessity which compels them in self-defence to
express their view of our formularies, and of the
ground on which such as they consider they may
honestly subscribe them. They cannot deny, that to
them there appears an obvious leaning to Protestant
ism in the wording of some few of the Articles ; the
point on which they join issue being, whether this
leaning has actually been allowed to have its full
effect. Two alternatives are open to them : either
we may consider, that those who drew up the
Articles had before their minds all through their
task the thought of an opposite party in the Church
whom they must not offend, and whose views if
they actually contradicted in the Articles, the sanc
tion of Convocation (the sole Church authority of
the time) was not to be expected, (Tract, p. 82.

28
second edition): or it remains that God's merciful
providence watched over this branch of His Church,
(favoured as she has ever been far beyond our
deserts, and all the dearer to us her faithful children
from her present captivity, and from the imminent
dangers which have threatened her,) so watched over
her, I say, amidst all the excesses of that period, as
without the intervention of human agency to protect
her frora herself, and graciously save her frora any
formal adraission of the unhappy errors then preva
lent. But I think that without falling back on the
latter of these suppositions, there is abundant
internal evidence in our formularies theraselves
(without going to the historical question which
well deserves an attentive investigation) to convince
us of the former. If persons will not reject this
notion at once as forced and sophistical, but allow
themselves to carry it with them as they look at
the Articles, I am persuaded they will see more
and more probability of its truth ; they will see in
the Articles in dispute (which at last are but few) a
remarkable attempt on the part of the framers to
present an imposing external appearance of Protest
antism, while nothing is really decided which might
prevent those who deferred more really than they
did to priraltive authority from subscribing. This
of course is the meaning of the last paragraph in
the Tract, and it well deserves our careful attention.
For instance (see Tract, p. 44.) the passage in
the 28th Article, ' The Sacrament of the Lord's Sup-

29
per was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried
' about, lifted up, or worshipped;' in the 25th, 'the
* Sacraments were not ordained by Christ to be gazed
' upon or to be carried about ;' and in the 32d,
' Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are not commanded by
God's law, either to vow the estate of single life
' or to abstain from marriage;' would bear an appear
ance to Foreign Protestants of a spirited protest
against what they considered corruptions, (part of
them of course really were so); but. when those at
horae who were more nearly concerned, as having
to sign them, came to look more closely, they would
find nothing asserted beyond the very plain truth,
that such ordinances were not ordained by Christ,
and so might lawfully (even the question of expedi
ency being waived) be discontinued by the Church.
And so again the 14th Article, while it bears on
its surface the mark of a loud protest against Rome,
as actually worded is barely more than a truism:
the question of course being, not whether we can
do more for His sake than of bounden duty is required,
which no orthodox believer ever dreamt of holding,
(God forbid !) but whether it is possible for His sake
to do more, to make higher advances in holiness,
than the least which in His great mercy for the
merit of Christ's death, He will accept as sufficient
to salvation. And to deny this, seeras necessarily
either to deny that holiness as such is required for
salvation, (I mean independently of that degree of
holiness which will in the judgment of some neces-

30
sarily result from the news of forgiveness, appre
hended by faith,) or to assert that the least faihng
short of holiness, attainable by us through the in
dwelling of the Holy Spirit, will entail on us eternal
ruin. Now on all these Articles if persons of different
sentiments protested, they might be triumphantly
challenged to point out the statement to which
they objected : they could find none, any more
than we can at the present day. Indeed it is
worth the consideration of any person studying
the Homilies, especially as illustrating part of the
Articles, whether there is not in a large number
of passages a remarkable union of truth in point of
doctrine, and error in point of fact, (of course on such
points they have no claim upon us) : truth of doctrine
in declaring certain opinions condemnable, error in
fact in considering them held by the more religious
Roman Catholics". Great part of what appears to
have struck some persons as disingenuousness in
' Even as to the Articles there is nothing to interfere with
the supposition (not an impossible one) that both in the 14.th
and 31st the framers were mistaken as to the matter of fact,
what was the doctrine held by serious Roman Catholics. .Such
a mistake would seera a natural result, from their apparent
tendency to view religious opinions from mlkoitl, rather look
ing at them in their effects on the mass of men, than applying
themselves to the enquiry, what might be their meaning, and
what place they raight legitimately hold in the mind of the
more religious. Of course mistakes of this sort no more pre
vent subscription, than their ascribing the Athanasian Creed to
St. Athanasius, or a passage to St. Augustine in the 29th Article,
which Porson pronounces spurious.

31
portions of the Tract, is I am persuaded referable to
this cause.
Accordingly, to come nearer our present raore
immediate purpose, notwithstanding the strong pro
tests made in favour of Holy Scripture in the sixth and
twentieth Articles, as well as the one before us, a very
remarkable silence is maintained on the question, who
is to be judge ofthe scripturalness ofa doctrine alleged
as necessary : a silence which there seems absolutely
no way of accounting for, except sorae such desire
of comprehension as I have spoken of. Another
thing very much to be observed, and perfectly in
explicable on the hypothesis of Protestant principles
having had their full freedom in the reconstruction
of our formularies, is, that the necessity of proof
from Scripture is every where confined to truths
necessary to salvation: this is so not only in the
sixth, twentieth, and twenty-first Articles, but also
in the Ordination Service ; so that it cannot
possibly be the result of accident.
The Bishop. ' Are you persuaded that the Holy
' Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrines required
' of necessity for eternal salvation .... and are you
' determined out of the said Scriptures to instruct
' the people committed to your charge, and to
' teach nothing as required of necessity to eternal
' salvation, but that which you shall be persuaded
' may be concluded and proved by the Scrip-
' ture ?' It is needless to point out how very
unlike such a form as this is to what would
be the free and unrestrained expression of

32
persons, who held either that the individual
or that the local Church had no authority to
guide them on doctrinal points, except the letter
of Scripture. The qualification as to truths ' ne-
' cessary to salvation' would have actually no
meaning in the mouths of such persons. On the
other hand, the result has been that the later
English Church, as distinguished frora other
Churches, has borne a most remarkable witness to
the truth which appears to have been altogether
Catholic, that all points of necessary faith are con
tained (whether on the surface or latently) in
Scripture, and that it is the duty of the Church to
draw them from thence for the edification of her
children : not merely to say to them, ' believe this
' for the Church believes it,' but ' believe this, for the
' Church has ever seen it in the.se certain passages of
' Scripture; dwell on them carefully and reverently
' yourselves, that you may go on more and raore to
' see it there too.'
For the proof of the Catholicity of this doc
trine the reader is referred to the thirteenth
of Mr. Newman's Lectures on the Prophetical
Office of the Church : and it is one which it seems
to have been the peculiar office of the English
Church to preserve in these later ages. To say so,
it may be hoped, involves no uncharitableness to
other Churches ; it is consistent with a full and
grateful acknowledgment, that on other Catholic
truths they have borne a more explicit testimony
than we have, nor is it meant to iraply that they

33
have formally denied this, (of course we are speak
ing of the formal statements of each Church, not
of the practical corruptions in either) : but has there
nol been a tendency in the later Roman Church,
arising naturally from the absence of a full and
prominent statement on her part of this truth, to
teach saving truth more exclusively on her own
authority than the example of the early Church
would warrant, and so to be remiss in the duty of
encouraging in the laity the reverent study of the
Sacred Volurae ? and may we not by the way
allude to this as one out of the numberless marks
we have on us of being a living branch of Christ's
Church, that the Roman Church and ours together^
make up so far more an adequate representation
of the early Church, (our several defects and
practical corruptions as it were protesting against
each other,) than either separately"?
Having then so far cleared our way, let us
enter upon the consideration of the twenty-first
Article ; and see whether any thing more Pro-
' The Greek Church is not mentioned, because its practice
on such matters is understood to be much the same with the
Roman. ' It is much to be wished that Roman Catholic writers
would remember that it is not incumbent on any member of
our Church to maintain our superiority to them either in
formal statement or in practice. We do not deny iheir Com
munion to be part of the Universal Church, though they deny
ours to be so.

34
testant has really been introduced into it than
this characteristic, and most honourable feature
of the English Church ? I suppose most people on
reading it first are struck with this impression, that
it is contrasting the authority of General Councils
with that of Scripture ; and saying that the former
being composed of fallible men, are themselves
fallible; and therefore claim at our hands, or else at
the hands of the local Church, no deference beyond
the point to which we can see that Scripture bears
out their decrees ; nor is it necessary to deny either
that this would be the private opinion of the
framers, or that they wished it should at first sight
convey this impression.
' General Councils may not be gathered together without
the commandment and will of princes. And when they be
gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men
whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of
God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in
things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained
by them have neither strength nor authority, unless it may
be declared (nisi ostendl possint) that they be taken out
of holy Scripture.'
Perhaps most readers will agree, that this cer
tainly at first sight seems to run very smoothly
according to the purport I have mentioned ; but
I have omitted a few words, which when introduced
spoil the natural course of the argument altogether;
nay it is not too much to say make it irapossible

35
to construct the argument out of the Article as it
really stands.
* Things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have
neither strength nor authority, &c.'
Now as these words are just the introduction of
what has been mentioned as the characteristic
excellence of the later English Church, so on the
other hand have they not every appearance of
being introduced in consideration of the wishes
of men more Catholicly minded than the framers ?
That they found their way there accidentally, no
one will for an instant think, who observes the
very same clause in the sixth and twentieth Articles,
and also in the Ordination Service. Yet on what
Protestant principle, on what principle denying
authority on religious doctrines to all General
Councils, have they any meaning whatever ? No
one will maintain that all religious truths are
necessary to salvation; why then on those not neces
sary have General Councils authority independ
ently of Scripture, according to the words of the
Article, and not on others ? No ! I feel persuaded
that fair minded men will see in this Article the
result of a coraproraise with the opposite party,
and an intentional abstinence frora deterraining the
question whether some General Councils have given
them authority by Christ to determine religious doc
trine with infallible truth ; ruling at the same time
so much as this, that any General Council which
c2

36
determined that to be a point of necessary faith
which should not be contained and able to be pointed
out (ostendi possint) in Holy Scripture, would err
in so doing, and therefore would not be so far
such infallible Council. And if it be asked, what
remains in that case as the force of the Article at
all? an obvious answer is found in the very general
opinion, that the Roman Church had considered
those to be CEcumenical Councils which were not
so ; and with regard to which one mark of their
not being so was, that they seemed to rule as points
necessary to salvation, what they did not even
profess to see in Scripture ; while on the other hand
practically doctrines which the Reformers desired to
oppose were grounded (with or without reason) on
the decrees of such General Councils : against which
they declare ' General Councils may err and have
erred, &c.' For the importance of this test of the
Catholicity of a General Council, see Newman's
Prophetical office of the Church, Lect. viii. where he
brings out the fact, that the first General Council
' which professed to ground its decrees not on
' Scripture sanction but mainly on tradition,' was
' the first which framed as an Article of faith what
' was beside and beyond the Apostles' Creed,' was
• the Council which decreed the worship of images,'
and was the first which took place certainly after
the schism had taken place between the East and
West. It will perhaps be hardly cogent in arguing

37
on this subject to bring forward the names
of our divines who have held the infallibihty of
some General Councils, as they will only be in
cluded in the charge of inconsistency with their
subscription : but it will be very cogent to intro
duce the canon of the Convocation of 1571, the
very same Convocation which sanctioned our
Articles, as shewing that that assembly was httle
hkely to have assented to formularies which
taught the Protestant rule of Private Judgment.
' Preachers shall be careful that they never teach
' ought in a serraon to be religiously held aud
' believed by the people except that which is
' agreeable to the doctrine of the Old and New
' Testaraent, and which the Catholic Fathers and
' Ancient Bishops have collected from that very
* doctrine.' It may be added, that in the second
edition of the Tract the writer has made more
clear his method of reconciling the wording of the
Article with those opinions which I have just been
arguing were intended to be admitted by it, by
introducing into the passage which follows the
words in brackets, ' General Councils then raay
' err [as such — may err] unless in any case it is
' promised,' &c.
Before leaving the subject of this Article, it
may be as well to add, that the first clause so
congenial in its wording with the prevalent
Erastianism of that day, is nevertheless strictly
in accordance with primitive usage, as the Tract

38
observes; and with regard to a difficulty felt
by the anonymous writer of the few pages to
which I have before alluded, it will be seen by an
attentive reader, that when the Tract speaks of
those General Councils which are gathered together
in the name of Christ, it plainly does not mean
those Councils which profess to be so gathered
together, but which are really so ; for as it implies
afterwards, it is an important question and not an
easy one ' to determine — ivhat [those conditions are
' which fulfil the notion of a gathering in the name
' of Christ.' p. 22.
The same writer has found a difficulty in the
Tract's explanation of the twenty-eighth Article,
and considers that the Article ' denies that the
' elements are altered at all.' Controversy is not
necessary on the word ' altered,' if he will bear in
mind that the following paragraph was added in the
XXXIX Articles, not having been in the fortv-
two, and must therefore be taken as explanatory
of the former. ' The Body of Christ is given, taken,
' and eaten, &c.' the inference from which is
obvious. Again, this paragraph about transub
stantiation, as urged I think quite successfully in
the Tract, is plainly of the same nature with the
twenty-second Article, and directed in a general
way against the existing superstitions ofthe time.
On the thirtieth Article (to which however I am
not aware of objection having been as vet ex
pressed) the Tract has not altogether satisfied tne ;

39
' The Cup of the Lord is not to be denied to the Lay-
people : for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, by
Christ''s ordinance and commandment, ought to be minis
tered to all Chi-istian men alike.'
This certainly seeras to contain a protest against
the habit in the Roman Church of denying the cup
to the laity, in the indiscriminate and unnecessary
manner she has adopted for so raany years ; so that
if a person considered that point of discipline in
her communion a legitimate or justifiable use of
that power which the Church of course has,
I should have doubts of his being able to sign
the Article •». It is very comforting to know,
that it is a raere point of discipline which she
might revoke at any moment : nor on the other
hand does the Article seem to determine the
question whether there may not be individual
cases in which administration in one kind would be
a pious procedure. Persons of infirm health (to
whom the wine might be seriously prejudicial)
afford one example; the ancient solitaries, to whom
the Consecrated Bread was carried out, afford
another ; a case where the danger of profanation
from the Wine becoming corrupted, had the Cup
also been brought them, is obvious '. And indeed
"" At the same time it is certainly possible to take the first
clause of the Article in a sense parallel to Art. XXXII, ' non
'est denegandus, as ihing.i are in our Cliurch, since (without
'judging others) we prefer having it according to Christ's
• ordinance and commandment.'
' ' As to the other part of the question, — whether the

40
this latter, recognized as it was in the Church in
the ages which the Convocation of 1571 must
certainly have contemplated when it speaks of the
Ancient Fathers and Bishops, cannot be considered
as condemned in the Articles which that Convoca
tion sanctioned.
Before concluding, it may be as well to add a
few words in explanation of such expressions as
the following in the Tract ; ' in such a sense Scrip-
' ture is not on Anglican principles a rule of faith,'
p. 11. the Article is ' as it were pointing to the
' Catholic Church diffused throughout the world,
' which being but one cannot be mistaken,' &c.
p. 18. ' Another of these conditions,' (viz. of a
General Council being Catholic) the Article goes on
to mention, p. 22. ' Therefore,' as the Article
' logically proceeds,' p. 64 ; and so a still stronger
expression in Tract 82, (the same Tract from which
a large quotation is made in Tract 90, p. 66.) ' I
' look forward to success not by compelling others
' to take my view of the Articles, but by convinc-
' ing them that mine is the right one.' vol. iv. p. xxxi.
' ancients did not in some private or extraordinary cases
' administer the Sacrament in one kind, we have no dispute
' with Bona.' ' Bona himself tells us that there are .lome
' instances of the Communion being carried in both kinds to
' hermits and recluses.' ' As to the other instances ofthe sick,
• or infants, or men in a journey, who communicate only in one
' kind, (ifthey were never so true, as we see many of them are
' false,) they are private and extraordinary cases,' &c. Bingham,
book XV. chap. 5.

41
Many persons seera to consider that such stateraents
imply that persons, who subscribe the Articles in a
different sense, do what in point of fact (of course
dishonesty is not supposed to be imputed to them)
they are not warranted in doing. And such further
ways of speech as ' the Church of England teaches'
certain doctrines, or ' we hold against the Roman
' controversialist such a point,' are often considered
to iraply, that our formularies as we have them
really are sufficient, if people would take them
fairly, to witness this alleged truth. But these
expressions need not be taken to imply so much ;
and if they need not be, it is important to state this,
not only from the great desirableness that persons
of opposite opinions should not consider their con
duct to be spoken against when it is not, (the one
great hope of our Church's well doing at the present
time and escape from her ' unhappy divisions,' is
a loving and temperate consideration of the points
at issue with as little as may be of reproach and
imputation on either side,) but also frora the light
it throws on such parts of Mr. Newraan's Letter to
Dr. Jelf, as the following : ' I should rejoice if the
' raerabers of our Church were all of one mind, but
' they are not ; and till they are, one can but submit
' to what is at present the will or rather the chas-
' tiseraent of Providence.' p. 29.
Such stateraents then as the preceding do not
necessarily (I believe do not in the mind of the
writer really) mean more than this : that if our

42
Church be looked upon as a branch of the Church
Catholic, (in our sense of the words,) she must
be considered to mean certain doctrines when
she uses certain statements. It is not imphed
that our formularies rule it that we are a branch
of the Church Catholic in this sense : many
persons it is well known consider the English
Church to be a Protestant Establishment, dating
from the time of Edward VI. : and of these, some
lay great stress on our being governed by Bishops ;
others consider the form of ' Church Government'
to be a matter of very small importance : there is
no necessity for denying that either class may sub
scribe our formularies, that is a point fbr their serious
consideration, on which we are not called on to
form an opinion''. If they do so, they will receive
them in a very different sense from that to which
they give utterance in our ears. To us they come
as the words of soine old and revered friend, whom
we have known long and well, and who has long
f It is much to be wished that persons, who, from the apolo
getic air which to them the Tract may appear to wear, are led
to consider it a sophistical attempt at explaining away our
formal statements of doctrine, would consider the appearance
which would be presented in their own case if ihey placed on
paper one after another the pas.iages in our formnlarics (whether
Prayer Book or Articles,) which give them difficidiies, without
explicit allusion to the many parts which seem to them to be
of an opposite tendency, and then put down in words the
explanation of them in which they acquiesce, and by help
of which they subscribe.

43
taught us high and holy lessons ; and if after such
long experience we hear from him words which at
first sound strangely, we interpret them if possible
in accordance with his well-known spirit. If they
absolutely refuse to be so explained, we recognise
with sorrow that we have mistaken his character ;
but in proportion to our experience of the precious
ness of his former counsels, in proportion to our
perception of the plain traces he still bears upon
him of his former self, are we unwilhng to believe
that any of his expressions may not be so inter
preted. This of course is Mr. Newman's meaning
when he speaks of giving the Articles ' the most
Catholic sense they will admit.' Tract, p. 80. In a
word then, we raise no question about others who
interpret our formularies by the spirit of Cranmer
and Jewel, why are they found fault with who
interpret thera by St. Gregory aud St. Augustin'?
or why are we to be suspected of lukewarmness
in affection for our own Church, because, to
gether with far higher feelings of the awfulness
of privilege entrusted lo it than others have, we
' If ever there were a point not determined by our Church,
it is that she takes her date from the Reformation. The very
name Protestant is nol once used in our rvhole Services or Articles.
The Prayer Book, no insignificant part of our formularies,
dates for the most part from a far earHer .period. The temporal
rights of our Bishops, of our Chapters, the external framework
of our Church, the divisions of our Dioceses, &c. &c. all
call us back to St. Angustin rather than to Cranmer.

44
also add a far longer train of sympathies with
her, and give her a far raore extensive catalogue
of saints ?
One reason in addition may be mentioned, why
to remain in our own Church, and by God's
help endeavour to elevate its tone, cannot be
looked on by the Catholic Christian as the cold
perforraance of a duty, (though a plain duty of
course it is,) but a labour of love. Many persons,
who have been by God's grace led into what they
deem the Truth, are most deeply sensible, that in the
number of those who think otherwise, are still very
many persons, so much their superiors in religious
attainment, that the idea of even a comparison is
most painful. Yet religious truth is the especial
inheritance of such persons, who nevertheless, whe
ther by the prepossessions of education, or the
inadequate way in which that Truth has been
brought before them, have hitherto failed to recog
nise God's mark upon it. Can there be a task
more full of interest and hope, than in all possible
ways, especially by the careful ordering of our own
fives and conversations, to do what in us lies to set
before such persons in a manner which may over-
corae their adverse irapresslons, that one image of
the Catholic Church, which, could they but see it,
is the real satisfaction for their restless cravings,
and the fit reward for their patient continuance in
well doing ? yet such a task is exclusively ours as
members of the English Church, and may well

45
add one to the many associations and bonds of
love which binds us to that Holy Mother, through
whom we received our new-birth. May we all have
grace to labour worthily in the pious task of
building her up in truth and purity, with loving
tenderness indeed towards all branches of the
Catholic Church, but with an especial and dutiful
attachment to her. W. G. V^.
Balliol College.

APPENDIX.

An additional quotation of Mr. Wilson's on purgatory
from the Homilies, p. 24. escaped my notice in writing
what goes before. In the Homily it immediate'y follows
the quotation in the Tract: a few further extracts frora the
same passage, while they seem to require some little modi
fication of the argument I had grounded on the previous
passage, still on the whole will tend perhaps to shew more
clearly the points I have insisted on : first, that the homihst
was not writing with a determined and accurate view of his
own any way ; and secondly, that the general drift of the
passage is to deny a ' place of repentance' for those who
die in sin ; though incidentally he takes up several positions
the soundness of which we may well doubt. And let it
never be forgotten, that the more inconsistency of general
view we find in the Homihes, the stronger becomes the
argument urged in the foregoing pages : viz. that the
Reformers did not occupy themselves with the investigation
of principles on these subjects, but with vigorous attacks
on the existing corrupt creed of the mass of men '.
' Let these and such other places be sufficient to take away
the gross error of purgatory out of our heads ; neither let us
dream any more that the souls of the dead are any thing at all
holpen by our prayers : but, as the Scripture teacheth us, let
us think that the soul of man, passing out of the body, goeth
siraighltvays either lo Heaven, or else lo Hell, whereof the one
needeth no prayer, and ihe other is rvilhoul redemption. The
¦ See p. 30.

48
only purgatory wherein we must trust to be saved is the death
and blood of Christ, &c  This then is that purgatory
wherein all Christian men put their whole trust and confidence,
nothing doubting, but if they truly repent them of their sins,
and die in perfect faith, that then they shall forthwith pass
from death to life. If this kind of purgatory will not serve
them, let them never hope to be released by men's prayers. . . .
. . . He that cannot be saved by faith in Christ's Blood, how shall
he look to be delivered by man's intercessions.''  But we
must talce heed that we call upon this Advocate while we have space
given us in this life, lest when rve are once dead, there be no
hope of salvation left unto us. For as every man sleepeth with
his own cause, so every man shall rise again with his own
cause' [[compare ' goeth slraighlways either to Heaven or to
Hell' just before,] ' and look in what state he dieth, in the
same state he shall be also judged, whether it be to salvation or
damnation. Let us not therefore dream either of purgatory, or
of prayer for the souls of thera that be dead,' &c.
In this short passage then the writer is in a formal
contradiction with himself, on a subject not less closelv
connected with purgatory, than the question whether
there is any intermediate state: he first states, and
afterwards denies, that the soul goes at once to Heaven
or Hell. The former statement being in positive contra
diction to the doctrine ofa Day of Judgment. He waives
the question as to those who die in imperfect faith ; he
seems to speak of a purgatory, the believers in which so far
renounce their trust in Christ's Atonement, &c. &c. At
the same time the other words in Italics, especially the
final « therefore,' seem to shew what is all the time the
current of his thoughts. THE END.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 07802 1350

;.!:*'.f;;:!';;J';

'.I' C'! , , }«m"i8Ji f, I'll I.
f »t ty. ,'fffl.'Wi£S IS ! • '

i<

j*.\: i^"^)VlM';lK.v; ;

ll

/S:'a?l|lil''

•is ' a^'

" ¦:'*

' '5l ) '
<• '1
\
i/^: