u

lhg5Z

A LETTER

\ \ "TO THE

RIGftT REVEREND FATHER IN, GOD , '
RICHARD,
LORD i BISHOP OF OXFORD,

CONTAINING

STRICTURES

UPON CERTAIN PARTS OF

DR. PUSEY'S I^ETTER TO HIS LORDSHIP.

BY A CLEBGT^i&iQE TH-^&rocESE,
AND A RESIDENT MEMBER 0?/'TB!E, UNIVERSITY.

" We mate not our appeals sometimes* from our own to foreign Churches,
sometimes from; both, unto Churches ancienter than both are, in effect always
from all btners to our own selves,, but, as beeometh them that follow with all
humility the ways of peaee,-we honour, reverence, and obey, in the very next \,
degree unto God. the voice of the Church of God wherein we live." • t"
' , 'Hooker, Eecl. Poi:\>.v.§. /f *:¦''

'OXFORD,
JOHN. HENRY PARKER;
3. ii. tf. AND J. BIVINGTON, LONDON,
1840.

STRICTURES

UPON CERTAIN PAKT5.0F

DR. PUSEY'S LETTER

BISHOP OF OXFORD.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

A LETTER

RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
RICHARD,
LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,

CONTAINING

STRICTURES

UPON CERTAIN PARTS OF

DR. PUSEY'S LETTER TO HIS LORDSHIP.

*-N-c

¦cXcC\<-

.-'Ato
BY A CLERGYMAN OF THE DIOCESE,
AND A RESIDENT MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY.

" We make not our appeals sometimes from our own to foreign Churches,
sometimes from both unto Churches ancienter than both are, in effect always
from all others to our cwn selves, but, as becometh them that follow with all
humility the ways of peace, we honour, reverence, and obey, in the very next
degree unto God. the voice of the Church of God wherein we live."
Hooker, Eccl. Pol. b. v. §. 71.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER;
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON,
1840.

INTRODUCTION.
The Author of the following pages thinks
it desirable to assign his reasons for publish
ing them without his name. He has been
induced to do so by the consideration,
I. That it was unnecessary to give it, inas
much as he has scrupulously abstained from
using any expression which could be con
sidered personally disrespectful to Dr. Pusey
or his friends. II. That by the choice of his
present designation, he is enabled to inform
the public in the very title of his work, of
what his name would have made known to
few beyond a small circle of friends and
acquaintance, that he is ' a Clergyman of the
Diocese of Oxford, and a Resident Member
of the University.'

CONTENTS. Page
1 Erroneous impressions produced by Dr. Pusey's
Letter ....... 1
2. On the Justification of Man . . . . '27
3. On Sin after Baptism . . . . .52
4. On Reserve in Communicating Religious
Knowledge ...... 76
5. Conclusion , . . . • . .103

A
LETTER,

' True we find it, by experience of all ages in the Church of God, that the
teacher's error is the people's trial, harder and heavier by so much to bear,
as he is in worth and regard greater that mispersuadeth them.' Hooker,
Eccl. Pol. b. v. §. 61.

My Lord,
In a Letter addressed to your Lordship by the
Rev. Dr. Pusey, of which a third edition has some
time since been given to the public, it has been
asserted in reference to the Charge delivered by
your Lordship in the summer of the year 1838,
that you have pronounced judgment upon the
Authors of the Tracts for the Times, and that
while * acquitting those of them who are parochial
ministers of any breach of discipline,' you have
also ' acquitted' them of ' having put forth any
such doctrine or in such spirit as would call for
the admonitions of those who have authority in the
Lord's Vineyard.'
Now the effect of these statements has been to
produce an impression upon the public mind", (not
" This strange notion has actually found its way into foreign
countries. ' Une lettre de I'Eveque Anglican d'Oxford auquel
B

that this was the object of Dr. Pusey's Letter,) that
the views in question have the high sanction of
your Lordship, which, together with other erroneous
impressions, it will be the first object of the following
pages to remove. It will also be attempted to show,
that the Authors of the Tracts for the Times have
been guilty of one or more serious violations of
Discipline, and have advanced Novel and Confused
views of Doctrine.
1. Your Lordship will bear with me, if, for the
sake of those who are in danger of being led
astray by the views in question, I endeavour to
show, that, whether right or wrong, they have not
your Lordship's sanction ; and further, that the
authors, or at least some of the authors, of them
are not consistent in their professions of respect for
Episcopal Authority.
Your Lordship's Charge contains the following
passage. " I have spoken of increased exertions among us,
and of an increasing sense of our Christian respon
sibilities ; and therefore you will probably expect
that I should say something of that peculiar deve-
lopement of religious feeling in one part of the
Diocese, of which so much has been said, and
on reprochoit les doctrines et les pratiques qu'il laissoit intro-
duire, Justine les unes et les autres.' L'Ami de la Religion,
Aout 13, 183.9.
Aristotle somewhere observes, that the multitude never can
be taught to make distinctions.

which has been supposed to tend immediately to a
Revival of several of the Errors of Romanism. In
point of fact, I have been continually (though
anonymously) appealed to in my official capacity
to check breaches both of doctrine and discipline,
through the growth of Popery among us.
" Now as regards the latter point, breaches of
discipline namely, on points connected with the
public services of the Church, I really am unable,
after diligent enquiry, to find any thing which can
be so interpreted. I am given to understand, that
an injudicious attempt was made in one instance,
to adopt some forgotten portion of the ancient
Clerical dress ; but I believe it was speedily aban
doned, and do not think it likely we shall hear of a
repetition of this or similar indiscretions. At the
same time, so much of what has been objected to,
has arisen from minute attention to the Rubric ;
and I esteem uniformity so highly, (and uniformity
never can be obtained without strict attention
to the Rubric,) that I confess I would rather follow
an antiquated custom (even were it so designated)
with the Rubric, than be entangled in the modern
confusions which ensue from the neglect of it.
" With reference to errors in doctrine, which
have been imputed to the series of publications
called the Tracts for the Times, it can hardly be
expected that, on an occasion like the present, I
should enter into, or give a handle to any thing,
which might hereafter tend to controversial dis-
b 2

cussions. Into controversy I will not enter. But,
generally speaking, I may say, that in these days
of lax and spurious liberality, any thing, which
tends to recall forgotten truths, is valuable: and
where these publications have directed men's minds
to such important subjects as the union, the disci
pline, and the authority of the Church, I think they
have done good service : but there may be some
points in which, perhaps, from ambiguity of ex
pression, or similar causes, it is not impossible but
that evil rather than the intended good may be
produced on minds of a peculiar temperament.
I have more fear of the Disciples than of the
Teachers. In speaking therefore of the Authors
of the Tracts in question, I would say, that I think
their desire to restore the ancient discipline of the
Church most praiseworthy ; I rejoice in their at
tempts to secure a stricter attention to the Rubrical
directions in the Book of Common Prayer ; and I
heartily approve the spirit which would restore a
due observance of the Fasts and Festivals of the
Church : but I would implore them, by the purity
of their intentions, to be cautious, both in their
writings and actions, to take heed lest their good be
evil spoken of; lest in their exertions to re-establish
unity, they unhappily create fresh schism ; lest in
their admiration of antiquity, they revert to practices
which heretofore have ended in superstition."
Appended to this last paragraph is the following
note.

"As I have been led to suppose that the above
passage has been misunderstood, I take this oppor
tunity of stating, that it never was my intention
therein to pass any general censure on the Tracts
for the Times. There must always be allowable
points of difference in the opinions of good men,
and it is only where such opinions are carried into
extremes, or are mooted in a spirit which tends to
schism, that the interference of those in authority
in the Church is called for. The authors of the
Tracts in question have laid no such painful neces
sity on me, nor have I to fear that they will ever
do so. I have the best reasons for knowing that
they would be the first to submit themselves to that
authority, which it has been their constant exertion
to uphold and defend. And I feel sure, that they
will receive my friendly suggestions in the spirit in
which I have here offered them."
Now here, my Lord, no notice is taken of any of
the numerous publications of Dr. Pusey and his
friends, with the single exception of the Tracts for
the Times, and upon these you have stated that it
was not your intention to pass any general censure.
Undoubtedly not. Some of them are reprints of
valuable old Tracts, and not original compositions ;
and others that have the merit of originality, have
certainly also the merit of having been instrumental
in ' recalling forgotten truths,1 and ' directing men's
minds to such important subjects as the union, the
discipline, and the authority of the Church,' which

had been too little thought of among us of late
years. But Dr. Pusey has, no doubt uninten
tionally, stretched your Lordship's words beyond
their legitimate application, and made a general
verdict, if such it may be called, and not rather an
acquittal from the particular charge of Popery, passed
exclusively in favour of the. Tracts for the Times,
serve for the other publications'1 of his party0.
Now this is a very grave inadvertence. Im
mersed, as your Lordship must needs be, in the
engagements of your high office, it is probable that
you may not have found time to read the other
publications in question. And this probability
amounts to certainty in the case of one of them,
namely, Mr. Froude's Remains ; for had you ever
cast your eye over that gentleman's correspondence,
you would never have complimented its publishers,
two of the leading writers of the Tracts for the
Times, upon their respect for Episcopal Authority.
Allow me to call your attention to the following
extracts. In a letter, dated Barbados, St. Stephen's Day,
1834, and addressed to a friend who had just been
ordained, Mr. Froude observes,
'' See Letter, p. g, 10.
c This term is not applied to Dr. Pusey and his friends in
any offensive sense. They are, what Dr. Johnson defines a
' party' to be, ' A number of persons confederated by similarity
of designs or opinions in opposition to others,' i. e. to the
advocates of what they term ' modern views' of doctrine,

" Some months ago, before I had repented of my
radicalism, I was devising a scheme for you, which
was knocked on the head by my finding, from the
British Magazine, that you were ordained by the
Bishop of  . For my part, / had rather have had
my Orders from a Scotch Bishop, and I thought of
suggesting the same to you. The stream is purer*."
Vol. i. p. 385.
Again :
Aug. 16, 1831. " Nothing yet is so painful as
the defection of the heads of the Church". I hear
that the Bishop of Ferns is dying; spes ultima."
Vol. i. p. 250.
These remarks require no comment. They are
both dated subsequently to your Lordship's conse-
¦' It is rather dangerous to attempt an interpretation of the
statements of these writers, where enough. appears upon the
surface to justify the conclusion drawn from them. Probably
Mr. Froude refers to the days of the Nonjurors, when, accord
ing to the author of No. 80. of the Tracts for the Times, our
Church ' threw as it were out of her pale the doctrine of Christ
crucified, together with Ken and Kettlewell.' (p. 77.) Some
Bishops were then deprived, who were succeeded by others un
lawfully consecrated to supply their places. These subsequently
laid their hands upon other Bishops, and these upon others, and
so (in Mr. Froude's opinion) a taint was introduced into the
succession of perhaps all the Bishops of the Anglican Church.
But the Author hazards this interpretation, with the fear of the
charge of misrepresentation before his eyes.
« Mr. Froude was born March 25, 1803, consequently he
was little more than 28 years of age when he allowed himself
to make this remark.

8
cration, and the one contains an attack upon your
office, the other upon your character, in connection
with that of all your Episcopal brethren of the
United Church of England and Ireland.
But it will be asked, Why charge Mr. Froude's
sentiments upon the Authors of the Tracts for the
Times? The answer is, Because he was one him
self; and because, as has been already observed, his
Remains are edited by two of the leading contri
butors to those publications, who have given them
to the world as containing the sentiments of ' a
witness to Catholic views.' Moreover, they have
published not the whole of Mr. Froude's corre
spondence, but only certain portions of it ; and not
whole letters, but only certain extracts from them.
Why then did they publish the above extracts, if they
did not approve of them ?
Moreover, the letters in question were not given
to the world in haste, but, on the contrary, not until
two years after the death of the writer ; and the
compilation was not made at random, but, on the
contrary, great care was taken by the editors in the
choice of their materials. If they thought it neces
sary to publish Mr. Froude's censure of his eccle
siastical superiors, consistently with their resolution
of ' inserting nothing which did not tell, indirectly
perhaps but really, towards filling up the outline of
his mind and character, which seemed requisite to
complete the idea of him as ' a witness to Catholic
views,' (Preface, p. xxii.) and of ' keeping nothing

back, but what it was judged would be fairly and na
turally misunderstood,' (Preface, p. xxi.) might they
not have expressed their disapprobation of his sen
timent in a note ? A single reference to Scripture
might have answered the purpose ; either Acts
xxiii. 5. ' Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler
of thy people ;' or 2 Pet. ii. 10. ' Presumptuous are
they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of
dignities.' It must be remembered, that there was no
necessity for publishing the work at all, and in the
opinion of ninety-nine out of every hundred who
have read it, it never ought to have been published ;
but the circumstance of the editors having given it
to the world, and published the passages objected
to without note or comment, proves the point,
which it has been attempted to make out, that
some at least of the Authors of the Tracts for the
Times are not consistent in their professions of
respect for Episcopal Authority.
But, my Lord, I shall endeavour to prove, that the
writers in question do not all of them show respect
for Episcopal Authority in their practice, any more
than in their publications.
I shall not ground my charge upon their custom
of turning to the East in Public Prayer, or, as
Mr. Froude expresses it, ' kneeling with their backs
to the people.' Their view of its importance is
thus stated in a recently-published Tract for the
Times, No. 86."
" There is a circumstance which may serve to

10
illustrate or characterize our present position, that
it is spoken of as if it were a principle recognized
by the Church itself, which it decidedly is not,
(although it found a place in the second Book of
Edward,) that in our devotions we are to look to
the people, and not to the altar. What does this
imply, but that even in our religious worship we are
to turn not to the East, the place where God has
shown his countenance, but to the West ; not to
the light of the ancient Church, but to the eyes of
the world ; not to Angels assembled round the.
altar, but to the great men of our congregation ;
not to the place of Paradise, our lost inheritance,
but to the flock in whose hands our interest lies ;
not to the Cross of Christ, but to that supposed
utility which worldly wisdom suggests ; not to our
Judge coming from thence, but to the judgment of
the world." p. 76.
Perhaps the popular practice may not involve in
your Lordship's eyes the baneful consequences con
templated by this writer. But the simple question
is, Is the practice of turning to the East in prayer
Rubrical? On the contrary, a Bishop of our
Church informed the writer of these pages, that
he considered it a violation of the Rubric.
Asimilar sentiment has been expressed by another
very high authority, the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval,
in the last May number of the British Magazine',
' Mr. Perceval observes, that ' the Communion Office is the
only one in which directions are given as to the Priest's position.
In the commencement of that Office, he is directed to " stand

11
and it does not follow that it is an erroneous one,
as Dr. Pusey seems to intimate, (Letter, p. 11.)
because the practice may chance to prevail in cer
tain Cathedrals. The same precedent would justify
the singing of the Litany by the parish clerk s.
But at all events, the utmost that could be con
ceded is, that it is a doubtful question, and one
therefore for the settling of which our Church has
made the following special provision in the Preface
to the Prayer Book :
on the North side of the table;'' when he offers the angelic
hymn, he is directed to " turn to the Lord's table," on the
North side of which he had been standing— i. e. surely, he is
to turn to the South. When he makes the acknowledgment
of un worthiness, he is directed to kneel down al (not before) the
Lord's table — i. e. I presume, at the North side of it, where he
had been standing, again looking South ; while ordering the
Bread and Wine preparatory to consecration, he is indeed to
stand before the table, but he is to ' break the Bread before'
(i. e. in the sight of) ' the people;' which he cannot do if he
stands between it and them : therefore I conceive that the
Rubric requires him to return to his appointed place at the
North side, and there to consecrate — i. e. again looking South
It seems to me that " turning to the East in prayer," as the
posture of the officiating Minister, is so far from being "implied
in our Church," that in the most sacred Office the letter and
meaning of the Rubric preclude him from adopting that
position.'' Brit. Mag. No. 87, p. 538, Q.
s ' The singing of this Office by Laymen, as practised in
several Cathedrals and Colleges, is certainly very unjustifiable,
and deservedly gives offence to all such as are zealous for
regularity and decency in divine worship.' Wheatly on the
Common Prayer, chap. iv.

12
" And forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly
set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and
practice of the same ; to appease all such diversity,
(if any arise,) and for the resolution of all doubts
concerning the manner how to understand, do, and
execute, the things contained in this Book ; the
parties that so doubt, or diversly take any thing,
shall alway resort to the Bishop of the Diocese,
who by his discretion shall take order for the
quieting and appeasing of the same ; so that the
same order be not contrary to any thing contained
in this Book. And if the Bishop of the Diocese be
in doubt, then he may send for the resolution
thereof to the Archbishop."
May I venture to ask, whether your Lordship has
been consulted upon the practice of turning to the
East in Public Prayer, and whetherthe parties in ques
tion, if they have neglected to consult your Lordship,
are entitled to the praise which, in your anxiety to put
the most favourable construction upon the proceed
ings of all the Clergy of your Diocese, you have
bestowed upon them, for their " attempts to secure
a stricter attention to the Rubrical directions of the
Book of Common Prayer ?"
But I have another point, of much more serious
importance, to bring before your Lordship. Mr.
Newman at St. Mary's, and. his Curate at Little-
moor, have been in the habit of mixing water with the
wine at the Eucharist.
In this as in the last-mentioned case the question

13
is, not whether the practice is primitive, but whether
it is Rubrical. So far from being so, it is almost
needless to show that it is a clear violation of the
Rubric. The Rubric in King Edward's first Book stands
thus ;
" Then shall the Minister take so much Bread
and Wine as shall suffice for the persons appointed
to receive the Holy Communion . . . and putting the
Wine into the Chalice, or else in some fair and
convenient Cup, prepared for that use, (if the
Chalice will not serve,) putting thereto a little pure
and clean water, and setting the Bread upon the
Altar," &c.
In King Edward's second Book the order for
mixing the water with the Wine is omitted, and
the Rubric in our present Prayer Book stands
thus; " And when there is a Communion, the Priest
shall then place upon the table so much Bread and
Wine, as he shall think sufficient. After which
done, &c."
And Wheatly observes upon the alteration, that
" as every Church has liberty to determine for
herself in things not essential ; it must be an
argument sure of a very indiscreet and over-hasty
zeal, to urge the omission of ijt as a ground for
separation." But, my Lord, the Clergymen whom I have
named conceive no such alternative to be neces-

14
sary ; and although they can produce no precedent
for such a departure from the Rubric subsequently
to the Act of Uniformity11, are making one them
selves, and one likely to be followed by still more
objectionable innovations.
To refer again to your Lordship's Charge. Dr.
Pusey acknowledges his obligations to your Lord
ship for ' the warning which you have given to- those
especially, who have learned' of him and his friends,
in the words, ' I have more fear of the Disciples
than of the Teachers.' Now if Mr. Newman and
his Curate depart from the Rubric in the par
ticulars above referred to, what may we not expect
from their followers ? Accordingly, I have heard
of one if not two instances of Clergymen crossing
themselves in different parts of the service ; another
dating a letter to his Diocesan the Vigil of some
Roman Catholic Festival, and appearing before
him at a Visitation in some ' forgotten portion of
the ancient clerical dress ;' and a layman has been
known in leaving St. Mary's Church to make

b Prior lo the Act of Uniformity, the Clergy of whatever
party do not appear to have considered themselves bound to a
stric tobservance of the Rubric. The Puritan Clergy occasion
ally would put aside the Liturgy altogether. Bishop Andrews
mixed water with the wine at the Eucharist in the reign of
James I. ; and Bishop Overal thought himself at liberty to 'use
the first prayer in the Post-Communion Office, between the Con
secration and the Administering, even when it was otherwise
ordered by the Public Liturgy.' \\ heatly, chap. vi. sect. xxv.

15
three genuflections towards the altar. If it be
pleaded by the ' Teachers' that it is not a departure
from the Rubric to mix water with the wine at the
Eucharist because the direction to do so is simply
omitted, and not the practice forbidden, then what
is to prevent the ' Disciples' from reviving any
other primitive practices, i. e. which can be traced
to the third and fourth centuries, (and they are
very many, although some of them have been
abandoned by the entire Church Catholic for many
centuries previous to the Reformation,) which may
chance to stand in the same predicament ; e. g. if
not the administration of the Eucharist to Infants1,
at all events the use of Trine Immersion, of Oil,
Milk and Honey, the White Garments, the Kiss of
Peace, Lights and Tapers, &c. &c. at Baptism, and
other practices, not only which are primitive, but which
each individual Clergyman may conceive to be so ?
Surely such a precedent may lead to endless con
fusion, the remedy against which is to be found in
that wise provision of our Church, in the Preface
1 This practice is very ancient. Bingham (Christian Anti
quities, book xii. chap. i. sect. 6.) observes upon it, that " as no
Church now thinks herself under any obligation to give the
Eucharist to Infants, because the primitive Church for eight
hundred years did so, so neither does any Church judge
herself bound to give Confirmation to Infants from the same
example. Though some learned persons have pleaded for
both, as Bishop Bedel among the Protestants for the Com
munion of Infants, and Matthew Galen among the Papists for
giving them Confirmation.''

16
to the Prayer Book already referred to, viz. that
where ' doubts arise in the use and practice of the
same,' reference is to be made to the Bishop of the
Diocese, in neglecting which I must needs think
that Mr. Newman has again been deficient in
respect for Episcopal authority.
2. But Dr. Pusey's Letter is calculated to pro
duce another erroneous impression k upon the
public mind, viz. that a tendency to Popery is the
only charge which has been brought against the
Authors of the Tracts for the Times, and that they
have been assailed exclusively by what is commonly
called the Low Church party.
Indeed, on examining the references in the foot
notes to his work, in vain will the reader look for
the name of any distinguished writer whatever, who
has attacked the controverted opinions. Anonymous
contributors to Newspapers and Magazines, and
the authors of ' Essays on the Church,' the ' Pas
toral Epistle of the Pope,' &c. are nearly the only an
tagonists which he will find noticed by Dr. Pusey.
He will also learn from certain extracts, given in
the Appendix, from the writings of the Author and
his friends, the object of which is to show, that ' to
k It is not intended here, or in any part of this Letter, to
charge so eminent a Christian character as Dr. Pusey with
wilful unfairness. The most part of his assailants had charged
him and his friends with Popery, and it is their objections only
which he professes to refute But the impression produced on
the public mind is the same.

17
oppose ultra-Protestantism is not to favour Popery,'
that Dr. Pusey has written an answer to a Mr.
Townsend, and Mr. Newman to a Mr., it may be,
or Dr. Faussett. But nobody unacquainted with
the history of the controversy would learn from Dr.
Pusey's Letter, that the Mr. Townsend referred to
is the well-known Prebendary of Durham, and
author of an ' Historical and Chronological ar
rangement of the Old and New Testament,' or that
Dr. Faussett is the Lady Margaret Professor of
Divinity in the University of Oxford ; or that any
part had been taken in the controversy by Dr.
Shuttleworth, author of a popular Paraphrase upon
St. Paul's Epistles, and Warden of New College.
Much less would he dream, that some of the most
important of the views in question had been ob
jected to both by the British Critic and British
Magazine, (neither of them conducted by Low
Churchmen,) and had drawn down upon their advo
cates the censures of two distinguished members of
the Episcopal Bench.
The ingenious and learned editor of the British
Magazine merely observes in general terms, that
there are ' points, and those of some importance,'
upon which he thinks the writers of the Tracts for
the Times mistaken ; and the more specific ob
jections of the British Critic will be adverted
to in a subsequent chapter. I shall also have
another opportunity of inviting your Lordship's at
tention to the objections of another writer, whom

18
Dr. Pusey must have found himself still more
reluctant to notice in connection with his professed
respect for Episcopal authority, inasmuch as he
was not only a most distinguished Theologian, and
one of his predecessors in the Hebrew Chair,
but likewise an Archbishop, — the Most Reverend
Richard Laurence, late Archbishop of Cashel k.
3. There remains to be considered but one more
point in connection with the subject of this chapter,
and that not an erroneous impression produced
upon the public mind by Dr. Pusey's Letter, but
one of which the Letter proves the existence upon
his own, viz. that ' no extravagance has hitherto
connected itself with the doctrines advocated by
himself and his friends.' (p. 234.) Surely, to every
body who has ever heard of Mr. Froude's Remains,
this must appear a somewhat extravagant sup
position. In citing some further extracts from the above-
mentioned work, it may be well to repeat the
assertion of the Editors in the Preface, viz. that, as
it is 'a compilation professing simply to recommend
their principles,' in choosing their materials they
' kept back nothing' from the public ' but what it
was judged would be fairly and naturally mis
understood,' and ' inserted nothing which did not
k The Strictures of the Bishops of Exeter and Calcutta, and
of the Dean of Salisbury, have appeared subsequently to the
publication of Dr. Pusey's Letter. Many other able writers
have attacked this party.

19
tell, indirectly perhaps but really, towards filling up
that outline of Mr. Froude's mind and character,
which seemed requisite to complete the idea of him
as a witness to Catholic views.' To this they add,
as it may be fair to observe, ' what the name of
Editor implies, that while they of course concur in
his sentiments as a whole, they are not to be
understood as rendering themselves responsible for
every shade of opinion or expression.'
" You will be shocked at my avowal, that I am
every day becoming a less and less loyal son of the
Reformation. It appears to me plain, that in all
matters that seem to us indifferent, or even
doubtful, we should conform our practices to those
of the Church, which has preserved its traditionary
practices unbroken1." Remains, vol. i. p. 336.
" I hate the Reformation and the Reformers
more and more." p. 389.
" The Reformation was a limb badly set ; it must
be broken again, in order to be righted." p. 433.
" The Church can never right itself without a
blow up." p. 250.
" There is more in becoming an Ecclesiastical
Agitator, than in ' At nos hinc alii.' " p. 258.
1 What Church is that? The Church of Rome has aban
doned, together with many other primitive practices, that
of administering the Eucharist to Infants, which prevailed in
the Church, according to Bingham, for no fewer than eight
centuries, as has been already observed.
c2

20

" Do you know that I fear, that you and  and
• are going to back out of the conspiracy, and leave

me and  to our fate ? I mean to ally myself to
him in a close league, and put as much mischief
into his head as I can." p. 337.
" Aug. 28, 1831. The fate of the poor King of
France, whose only fault seems to have been his
ignorance how far his people were demoralized,
will give spirit to the rascals in all directions ;
though / sincerely hope the march of mind in France
may yet prove a bloody one." p. 244.
" I have now made up my sage mind, that
the country is too bad to deserve an Established
Church." p. 246.
" I don't feel with you on the question of Tithes.
They cannot be a legal debt and a religious offering
at the same time. When the payment began to be
enforced by civil authority, the desecration took
place. I don't like — 's want of candour about the
Voluntary System, as if there was only one Volun
tary System, that of pew rents, &c." p. 407.
N. B. The Editors observe in a note at p. 385,
that ' the necessity of holding by the union of
Church and State' is one of the embarrassing
engagements, which, in Mr. Froude's opinion, a
Clergyman subjects himself to in receiving Orders
at the hands of an English Bishop.
" One must not speak lightly of a Martyr, so I
do not allow my opinions to pass the verge of
scepticism. But I do feel sceptical, whether

21
Latimer was not something in the Bulteel line."
p. 252.
"Also why do you praise Ridley? Do you
know sufficient good about him to counterbalance
the fact, that he was the associate of Cranmer,
Peter Martyr, and Bucer ra ?" p. 293, 294.
"As to the Reformers, I think worse and worse
of them. Jewel is what you would call in these
days an irreverent Dissenter." p. 379.
I am sorry to be obliged, for the sake of my
argument, again to cite the two following.
" Nothing yet is so painful as the defection of
the Heads of the Church. The Bishop of Ferms is
dying ; spes ultima." p. 250.
" Some months ago, before I had repented of
my radicalism, I had devised a scheme for you,
which was knocked on the head by my finding
from the British Magazine, that you had been
Ordained by the Bishop of  . For my part,
I had rather have had my Orders from a Scotch
Bishop. The succession is purer." p. 285.
" Suppose a conscientious Layman to enquire,
on what grounds the Prayer Book, &c. are called
the teaching of the Church, how are we to answer
him ? Shall we tell him that they were formerly
enacted by Convocation in the reign of Charles II ?
"' Dean Jackson speaks of this Reformer as ' the learned and
religious Bucer ;' Works, t. i. p. 759- Bishop Hall of Jewel,
as ' the precious Jewel.' Works, ix. 444.

22
But what especial claim had this Convocation", &c.
to monopolize the name and authority of the
Church ? . . . I can see no other claim, which the
n The following passage, taken from No. 86 of the Tracts for
the Times, is calculated in like manner to shake our deference
for the authority of our own Church, and lower our value for
the Prayer Book. " Some might be disposed to think, that the
changes in the second Book of King Edward, brought about
through the advice and influence (though perhaps not the open
instrumentality) of foreigners, were opposed to the spirit of the
previous declaration intended against Rome, that each Church
was to regulate its own internal affairs ; that it had not so much
the free and spontaneous concurrence of the Church itself; and
that therefore this Book had not the high sanction of the former.
Or it might be supposed that any innovation at all on the
ancient forms of worship savoured of irreverence, for it is
written, " Remove not the ancient landmarks which thy fathers
have set," and that it therefore endangered the Church's forfeit
ing the blessing attached to the fifth Commandment, which
promises the strength of earthly inheritance to honour paid to
parents ; for it is a kind of parental authority which sacred
antiquity claims over us. It is an easy matter now to think
thus ; but, considering the state of the times, it should rather
be ever remembered as the interference of a most merciful
Providence, that any thing ancient was retained through those
convulsions." P. 33.
Here it will be observed, that the Author of the Tract
sets before his reader two objections to our Liturgy, without
furnishing him with the answers to them, which however are
sufficiently simple and obvious. If an Act of Parliament relating
to a question of Finance would not be the less binding upon us,
because Government in preparing it had consulted some foreign
Financier, no more would the Act of Parliament which sanc
tioned the second Book of Edward, because those who had
been entrusted with the revisal of the first Book had consulted

23
Prayer Book has on a Layman's deference as the
teaching of the Church, which the Breviary and
Missal have not in a far greater degree." pp. 402, 3.
" Pour moi, I never mean, if I can help it, to use
any phrase, which can connect me with such a set,
(i. e. as Cranmer, Peter Martyr, and Bucer.) I shall
never call the Holy Eucharist " the Lord's Supper,"
nor God's priests " ministers of the Word," or the
Altar " the Lord's Table," &c. &c. Innocent as
such phrases are in themselves, they have been
dirtied ; a fact of which you seem oblivious on
many occasions." pp. 394, 5.
Obs. Mr. Froude appears to be himself
' oblivious' of the fact, that all these expressions
are to be found not only in the Communion
Service, but " Ministers of God's Word," Luke i.
2. " The Lord's Supper," 1 Cor. xi. 20. and " The
Lord's Table," 1 Cor. x. 21.
And now to return to Dr. Pusey's assertion. If
there be no Extravagance in all Mr. Froude's talk
about Ecclesiastical Agitation, Blowings up, Con
spiracies, Righting the Reformation, in favour of
a foreign Divine ? And to the second objection it may be as
readily replied, that if our Church at the Reformation had not
the right to part with any ceremonies which can be traced to
the third or fourth centuries, then the whole Church Catholic
was in error in setting her the example, by abandoning the
practice of administering Confirmation and the Eucharist to
infants, which the Authors of the Tracts have not as yet (qu ?)
ventured to say.

24
the Voluntary System, and against the Established
Church, is there none in his wish, as a Christian
Clergyman, for the shedding of the blood of his
fellow-Christians in developement of a principle?
If there be no extravagance in his vituperation of
Jewel, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, is there
none in his attacks upon their modern repre
sentatives the Archbishops and Bishops of his own
time? If there be no Extravagance in his wishes
for the separation of Church and State, is there
none in his assertion, that the Prayer Book has no
claim upon the deference of a Layman, which the
Breviary and Missal have not in a greater degree ?
Lastly, if it be no Extravagance to pronounce ' the
Communion Service a Judgment upon the Church'
(see Remains, vol. i. p. 410.) on account of what
the Reformers omitted0, is it no Extravagance to
censure even what they have retained, viz. language
authorized not only by Primitive Antiquity, but by
the Word of God itself?
But before I conclude this chapter, I would beg
leave to call your Lordship's attention to one more
Extravagance still greater than any already cited
from Mr. Froude, viz. one contained in the apologyp
of his Editors for him, I mean, for a very strange
0 See Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Faussett.
p I hardly know how to notice the apology for this writer
prefixed to the second part of his Remains, . The remark which
I have heard made upon it is, that it would justify any thing.

25
feature of his Private Journal, in the following
words :
" The reader's attention should be called to one
peculiarity of the foregoing Journal, from which
instruction may be gained, viz. the absence of any
distinct mention of our Lord and Saviour in the
Prayers and Meditations it contains. That the
author's faith in His grace and merits was most
implicit and most practical when he wrote it, can
be most amply testified, &c. Yet it is remarkable,
that though petitioning for the grace of the Third
Person in the Blessed Trinity, he does not intro
duce the name of Him, from and by whom the
Holy Ghost is vouchsafed to us ; and this circum
stance may be a comfort to those who cannot bring
themselves to assume the tone of many popular
writers of this day, yet are discouraged by the
peremptoriness with which it is exacted of them."
Remains, vol. i. p. 68, note.
Now, my Lord, where is the ' distinctive mention
of our Lord and Saviour' more ' peremptorily
exacted from us,' if the public devotions of the
Church are in any way to be regarded q£ models
for our private Prayers, than in our own Prayer
Book, which in this respect, if I mistake not,
resembles every other Liturgy in the world, that
nearly every prayer contained in it concludes with
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ ? But Dr. John
son is a high authority with these writers, so high
an one, that they have quoted him as a witness for

26
the Apostolical Succession*1. Will they then allow
any weight to his opinion, as expressed in the
following extract from BoswelPs Life r of him, in
opposition to that of Mr. Froude ?
" He reproved me once for saying grace without
mention of the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
hoped in future I would be more mindful of the
Apostolical injunction."
I shall make no further remark upon this strange
passage, than that it were enough if there were
nothing else to disprove Dr. Pusey's assertion, that
' no extravagance has hitherto connected itself
with the doctrines advocated by himself and his
friends. i Tracts for the Times, vol. iii.
' Vol. ii. p. 114.

OF THE JUSTIFICATION OF MAN.
" The scope of Christian Doctrine is the comfort of those whose hearts
are overcharged with the burden of sin.'' Hookeb, Discourse of Justification.
In the foregoing chapter, an attempt has been
made to obviate certain erroneous impressions which
Dr. Pusey's Letter is calculated to produce on the
public mind, and to prove, that some at least of the
Authors of the Tracts for the Times have been
guilty of serious violations of Discipline, and of
disrespect for Episcopal Authority. I shall now
endeavour to prove, that they have advanced Novel
and Confused views of Doctrine ; and first, with
respect to the all-important article of Justification
by Faith, as treated of in Dr. Pusey's Letter.
Dr. Pusey's view of the doctrine is, as he informs
us, (Letter, p. 64.) ' very concisely and clearly
expressed' in the following extract from a work of
Mr. Newman's3. ' Justification comes through the
Sacraments, is received by Faith, consists in God's
inward presence, and lives in obedience.' And it is
the account given here and in other parts of the
Letter of what Justification is, against which it will
" Lectures on Justification.

28
be attempted to make out the charge of Confusion
and Novelty.
L That Dr. Pusey's view of the Doctrine is a
Confused one, appears from the very remarkable
fact, that at an interval of two pages only from that
in which the foregoing extract occurs, he cites from
one of the Homilies a different and repugnant defi
nition of Justification.
He commences his chapter on the subject by
quoting the words of the eleventh Article ; ' We
are accounted righteous before God only for the
merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by
Faith, and not for our own works and deservings.
Wherefore that we are justified by Faith only is a
most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort,
as more largely is expressed in the Homily of
Justification.' Now here we are not told what
Righteousness or Justification is, but only how it is
to be obtained, and for further information are
referred to the Homily ; from which it is certainly
not a little surprising that Dr. Pusey, citing it as
authority for another purpose, should have himself
presented his reader with the following passage :
' Because all men be sinners, and offenders against
God, and breakers of his Law and Commandment,
therefore can no man by his own acts, works, and
deeds, (seem they never so good,) be justified, and
made righteous before God, but every man of
necessity is constrained to seek another Righteous
ness or Justification to be received at God's hands,

29
that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses
in such things as he hath offended.' In short, the
writer of the Homily asserts, that Justification con
sists in the forgiveness of sins, in opposition to
Dr. Pusey, who asserts, that it ' consists in God's
inward presence.'
2. But if his view of the essence of Justification
is Confused, it is equally easy to prove it Novel.
A few pages further, Dr. Pusey repeats his ori
ginal definition. " The Anglican doctrine, or that
which we conceive to have been the teaching of the
majority of our Church, differs from the Roman, in
that it excludes Sanctification from having any
place in our Justification ; from the Lutheran, in
that it conceives Justification to be not imputation
merely, but the act of God imparting his Divine
Presence to the soul through Baptism, and so
making us the temples of the Holy Ghost." p. 70.
Now here is no reference to the testimony of
antiquity. Dr. Pusey asserts, that his statement
expresses the Anglican doctrine, or (what is not
necessarily the same thing) that which he conceives
to be the teaching of the majority of our Churchb,
b The Letter professes to take this line on all main points.
' In the main outlines, the views which we have put forth
as those of our Church, will be familiar to your Lordship as
those of the standard divines of our Church : we wish to set
forth no new Doctrines ; we would only revive what circum
stances connected with the sin of 1688 have thrown into a
partial oblivion ; tve appeal to ike formularies of our Church as

30
and makes no appeal to the opinions of the Fathers ;
perhaps assenting to the truth of the following
remarks of Mr. Newman's able reviewer in the
British Critic, reported to be Mr. Le Bas.
" Our impression is, that the Romanist and the
Protestant might assail each other with sayings and
sentences from the Fathers to the end of time,
without much prospect of a decisive victory on
either side. And the reason is intelligible enough.
In their days no formal controversy had arisen
upon the subject of Justification, at all similar
to that by which Christendom was agitated in the
sixteenth century. And therefore they frequently
expressed themselves in a manner comparatively
artless and untechnical. Relative to one matter,
indeed, they were clear and decided, that we are
debtors for every spiritual blessing to the free grace
and unbought mercy of God. But as Barrow
observes, ' they did consider distinctly no such
point as Justification ; looking upon that word
as used in Scripture for the expression of points
more clearly expressed in other terms. Wherefore
they do not make much use of the word as some
divines now do.' "
If then the Protestant and Romanist may
with equal plausibility appeal to the testimony
of the Fathers in behalf of their respective
interpreted by our standard divines, and agreeing with the best
and purest ages.' p. 1 82.

31
views of Justification, Dr. Pusey could hardly
maintain that his own, which differs from each of
them, has the exclusive benefit of their support.
It only then remains to be considered, first,
whether it be the teaching of the Anglican Church
that Justification consists in the presence of God in
the soul ; and next, whether this be the teaching of
the majority of Anglican divines.
I. The teaching of the Church is of course to be
looked for exclusively in the Church's formularies,
from which the eleventh Article has been already
cited, as well as the definition of Justification, con
tained in the Homily to which it refers ; ' Righte
ousness or Justification. . .i. e. the forgiveness of our
sins and trespasses in such things as we have
offended ;' to which the writer of the Homily has
appended the following observation. ' And this
Justification or Righteousness, which we receive of
God's mercy and Christ's merits, embraced by faith,
is taken, accepted, and allowed of God for our per
fect and full c Justification/ If then it be the An-
c It is remarkable, that Archbishop Cranmer's great enemy,
Bishop Gardiner, laid his finger upon this very expression,
when endeavouring to prove, that the doctrine contained in the
Homilies was contrary to that of another work previously put
forth by authority of Parliament. " The Boke of Homyles
hath in the Homilie of Salvation, how Remission of synne is
taken, accepted, and allowed of God for your perfect Jus
tification. The doctrine of the Parliament teacheth Justification
for the fullness and perfection thereof, to have more parts than

32
glican doctrine, that our perfect and full Justifi
cation consists in the forgiveness of our sins, how can
we with Dr. Pusey conceive it to be the Anglican
doctrine that it ' consists in the presence of God in
the soul ?'
The same account of Justification is given in
several other parts of the same Homily. Our faith
is said to ' put us from itself and remit or ap
point us unto Christ, for to have only by Him
Remission of our sins, or Justification.' Again,
* Truth it is that our own works do not justify us, to
speak properly of our Justification, that is to say,
our own works do not merit or deserve remission of
our sins, and make us of unjust just before God ;
but God of his own mercy, through the only merits
and deservings of his Son Jesus Christ, doth
justify us.' And in no part of the Homily what
ever do we find the slightest trace of Dr. Pusey's
opinion, that ' Justification consists in the presence
of God in the soul.'
It cannot then with justice be called the An
glican doctrine : and the only remaining ques
tion is,
II. Whether it be the doctrine of the majority of
Anglican divines.
And here I must first call your Lordship's atten-
Remission of sinne, as in the same appereth. And althowght
Remission of sinne be a Justification, yett it is not a full and
perfite." Bishop of Winton to the Duke of Somerset, Strype's
Cranmer, t. ii. p. 786.

33
tion to the singular fact, that the Letter passes over
in total silence a very important consequence
of the view in question, viz. that it has led Mr.
Newman at all events, for whose work it professes
to apologize, to confound Sanctification with Jus
tification. Dr. Pusey indeed, in a passage already
cited, recognizes the distinction himself, and ob
serves, that the view which he holds in common
with Mr. Newman, differs from the Roman in this
very particular, that it ' excludes Sanctification
from having any place in our Justification.' But
how is this assertion to be reconciled with the
following statement of Mr. Newman's, in his second
Lecture ? " I do not understand how a man can read
this most important Psalm, i. e. the fifty-first,
without perceiving that we are forgiven by being,
or" — a very different thing — " while we are renewed,
and that the present broad separation of Justifi
cation and Sanctification, as if they were two gifts,
is technical and unscriptural." p. 44.
Indeed, this is a favourite opinion of Mr. New
man's, and he urges it upon his reader with great
boldness and vehemence, as will appear from the
following extracts.
" It is usual at the present day to lay great stress
on the distinction between deliverance from guilt and
deliverance from sin ; to lay down as a first principle
that they are two coincident indeed and contem
porary, but altogether independent benefits, to call
them Justification and Renewal, and to consider that

34
any confusion between them argues serious and
alarming ignorance of Christian truth. Now, in
opposition to this, it may surely be maintained, that
Scripture itself blends them together as intimately
as any system of theology can do ; and that such a
system is not thereby dark and ignorant, unless
Scripture is also. In truth, Scripture speaks of but
one gift, which it sometimes calls Renewal, some
times Justification, according as it views it; passing
to and fro from one to the other so rapidly, so
abruptly, as to force upon us irresistibly the in
ference that they are really one. In other words, I
would say, that this distinction, so carefully made
at present, is not Scriptural." p. 42.
At the close of the same chapter in which the
foregoing extract occurs, Mr. Newman expresses
himself as follows :
" When then divines, however great, ' who seem
to be pillars,' come to me with their visionary
system, an unreal righteousness, and a real cor
ruption, I answer, that the law is past, and that I
will not be brought into bondage by shadows.
' Shadows of religion,' (to use an expression of one
of our own great Bishops d,) these things may fitly
be called, like the Jewish new-moons and sabbaths,
which the Judaizers were so loth to part with. Re
puted Justification was the gift of the Law; but Grace
and Truth came by Jesus Christ. Away then with
this modern, this private, this arbitrary, this tyran-
d Bishop Wilson, Family Prayers.

35
nical system, which, promising liberty, conspires
against it ; which abolishes Sacraments, to introduce
barren and dead ordinances ; and for the real par
ticipation of Christ, and Justification through His
Spirit, would at the very marriage-feast feed us on
shells and husks, who hunger and thirst after
righteousness. It is a new Gospel, unless three
hundred years stands for eighteen hundred ; and if
one must at this day be seduced from the faith, let
them look out for a more specious error, a more
alluring sophism, a more angelic tempter than
this/' p. 61.
Now among the ' great divines,' ' seeming to be
pillars,' condemned by the writer in this passage,
are the following, from whom, at the end of this
chapter, I shall shew strong reason for supposing
that a ' majority of our Church' do not differ. It
will be seen, by the references in the foot-notes, that
every author referred to, with the exception
of the present archbishop of canterbury, has
been cited in the tracts for the times as
authority for other views, and as a link of a
catena patrum. Hooker6.
" There is a glorifying Righteousness of men in
the world to come, as there is a Justifying and Sancti-
fying Righteousness here. The Righteousness, where
with we shall be clothed in the world to come, is
c Cat. Patr. Tracts for the Times, vol. iv.
D 2

36
both perfect and inherent. That whereby here we
are Justified is perfect and not inherent. That
whereby we are Sanctified is inherent and not per
fect." On Justification, sect. 3.
Again :
" St. Paul doth plainly sever these two parts
of Christian Righteousness one from another. For in
the sixth to the Romans thus he writeth ; ' Being
freed from sin, and made servants to God, ye have
your fruit in holiness, and the end everlasting life.'
' Ye are made free from sin, and made servants unto
God,' this is the Righteousness of Justification. ' Ye
have your fruit in holiness ;' this is the Righteousness
of Sanctification. By the one we are interested in
the right of inheriting, by the other we are brought
to the actual possession of eternal bliss, and so the
end of both is everlasting life." Ibid. sect. 6.
Again :
" We have already shewed that there be two
kinds of Christian Righteousness; the one without
us, which we have by imputation ; the other in us,
which consisteth of faith, hope, and charity, and
other Christian virtues : and St. James doth prove
that Abraham had not only the one, because the
thing believed was imputed unto him for righteous
ness ; but also the other, because he offered up his
Son. God giveth us both the one justice, and the
other ; the one by accepting us for righteous in
Christ ; the other by working Christian righteous
ness in us." Ibid. sect. 21.

37
In the foregoing extracts, we find the ' broad
separation of Justification and Sanctification,' which
Mr. Newman pronounces to be ' unscriptural and
technical ;' in the following, the same definition of
Justification as that already cited from the Homily,
as repugnant to the definition given by Dr. Pusey.
Jackson:.
" About the use or importance of this term
Justification, in St. Paul's writing, we (i. e. Pro
testants and Romanists) dissent. They contend it
implies as much as to be inherently just or righteous.
Many learned Protestants have copiously shewed
it to be a law phrase equivalent to ' absolution from
the sentence of justice,' ' acquittal,' or the like."
Again :
" Justification, taken [as we do it) for remission of
sins, not by inherent righteousness, or ought within
us immediately incompatible with them, but by the
external merits of Christ, is a form or entity as
simple as any formal cause can be." Works, torn. i.
book iv, c. 7.
Bishop Andrews g.
" In the Scripture there is a double Righteous-
1 Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol iv.
e Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv. The following is an entry in the
Journal of Laud, Abp. and Martyr, (so styled, Tracts for the
Times, No. 81.)
" Sept. 25, 1626. About four o'clock in the morning died
Lancelot Andrewes, the most worthy Bishop of Winchester, the
great light of the Christian world."

38
ness set down, both in the Old and New Testa
ment. " In the Old, and in the very first place that
Righteousness is named in the Bible : ' Abraham
believed, and it was accounted unto him for righte
ousness.' Gen. xi. 19. A Righteousness accounted.
And again (in the very next line) it is mentioned,
' Abraham will teach his house to do righteous
ness.' A Righteousness done. In the New likewise.
The former in one chapter (even the fourth to the
Romans) no fewer than eleven times; Reputatum est
illi ad justitiam ; a reputed Righteousness. The latter
in St. John ; ' My beloved, let no man deceive you;
he that doeth righteousness is righteous, iii. 7.
A Righteousness done. Which is nothing else but our
just dealing, upright carriage, honest conversation.
" Of these, the latter the Philosophers themselves
conceived and acknowledged ; the other is proper
to Christians only, and altogether unknown in
philosophy. The one is a Quality of the Party, the
other an Act of the Judge. The one ours by Influ
ence or Infusion, the other by Account or Imputa
tion." Sera, on Jer. xxiii. 6.
Abp. Usher'1.
" Q. What is Justification ?
"A. Justification is that sentence of God, whereby
he of his grace, for the Righteousness of his own
h Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv.

39
Son, by him imputed unto us, and thrpugh faith
apprehended by us, doth free us from sin and death,
and accept us as Righteous unto life. Rom. viii. 30,
33, 34. 1 Cor. i. 30. Phil. iii. 9. For hereby we
both have a deliverance from the guilt and punish
ment of all our sins ; and being accounted Righteous
in the sight of God, by the Righteousness of our
Saviour Christ imputed unto us, are restored to a
better Righteousness than ever we had in Adam.
" Though there is a power purging the corrup
tion of sin, which folio weth upon Justification, yet it
is to be carefully distingui shed from it.
" Q. So much of the first main benefit which
Christians receive by their communion with Christ,
viz. Justification. Now what is the second benefit,
which is called Glorification and Sanctification ?
"A. It is the renewing of our nature according to
the Image of God in righteousness and true holi
ness: which is but begun in this life, and called Sanc
tification ; and perfected in the life to come, which
therefore is most strictly called Glorification.
" Q. How doth Sanctification differ from the for
mer grace of Justification ?
" A. In many main and material differences; as,
"1. In the Order ; not of time, wherein they go
together, (Rom. viii. 30.) nor of knowledge and
apprehension, wherein the latter hath precedency,
(1 Cor. vi. 11.) but of nature, wherein the former is
the ground of the latter. 2 Cor. v-ii. 1.
"2. In the Subject ; the Righteousness whereby

40
we are Justified being inherent in Christ for us ; but
this of Sanctification in ourselves from Him. Rom.
viii. 10.
" 3. In the Cause ; our Justification following
from the merit, our Sanctification from the efficacy,
of the death and life of Christ. Eph. i. 19. ii. 5.
"4. In the Instrument ; Faith which in Justifica
tion is only as an hand receiving, in Sanctification
is a co- working virtue.
"5. In the Measure ; Justification being in all
believers, and at all times, alike ; but Sanctification
wrought differently and by degrees. 2 Cor. iii. 18.
2 Pet. iii. 18.
" 6. In the End : which being in both eternal life,
(Rom. vi. 23, 24.) yet the one is among the causes
of reigning, the other only as the high-way unto the
kingdom." Body of Divinity.
Abp. Bramhall'.
" Concerning Justification, we believe that all good
Christians have true inherent justice, though not
perfect, according to a perfection of degrees, as
gold is true gold, though it be mixed with some
dross. We believe that this inherent justice and
1 Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv. where he is styled Abp. and
Confessor. N. B. It is not intended here or in any other reference to
throw ridicule upon the claims of any of these divines to the
titles of Martyr or Confessor, but simply to note, that whatever
weight is due to their opinions on that account, when in Dr.
Pusey's favour, is due to them also, when opposed to him.

11
sanctity doth make them truly just and holy. But
if the word Justification be taken in sensu forensi for
the acquittal of a man from former guilt, to make an
offender just in the eye of the law, as it is opposed
to condemnation, ' It is God that justifieth ; who
is he that condemneth?' then it is not our inherent
righteousness that justifieth us in this sense, but the
free grace of God for the merits of Jesus Christ."
Ans. to M. de la Militiere.
Hammond1.
" Q. What is Justification ?
" A. It is God's accepting our persons, and not
imputing our sins, his covering or pardoning our
iniquities, his being so reconciled unto us sinners,
that he determines not to punish us eternally.
" Q. What now is Sanctification?
" A. The word may note either a gift of God's,
his giving of grace to prevent and sanctify us ; or
a duty of ours, our having, i. e. making use of, that
grace ; and both these considered together either
an act or a state." Pract. Catechism.
Bishop Hall1.
" But some perhaps may think this a mere strife
of words, and not hard to be reconciled ; for that,
which to the Papists is Inherent Justice, is no other
to the Protestants than Sanctification ; both sides
hold this equally necessary ; both call for it equally.
k Presbyter and Confessor, Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv.
1 Bishop and Confessor, Ibid.

42
True ; but do both require it in the same manner,
do both to the same end ? I think not. Yea, what
can be more contrary than these opinions to each
other ? The Papists make this inherent righteous
ness the cause of our Justification, the Protestants
the effect thereof. The Protestants require it as
the companion or page, the Papists as the usher,
yea rather as the parent, of Justification." No
Peace with Rome.
Bishop Pearson10.
" The redemption or salvation which the Messias
was to bring, consisteth in the freeing of a sinner
from the state of sin and eternal death into a state
of righteousness and eternal life. Now a freedom
from sin in respect of the guilt could not be
wrought without a sacrifice propitiatory, and there
fore there was the necessity of a Priest ; a freedom
from sin in respect of the dominion could not be
obtained without a revelation of the will of God,
and of his wrath against all ungodliness, therefore
there was also need of a Prophet ; a translation
from the state of death into eternal life is not to be
effected without absolute authority and irresistible
power, therefore a King was also necessary. The
Messias then, the Redeemer of Israel, was certainly
Anointed for that end, that he might become
Prophet, Priest, and King." On the Creed.
m Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv.

43
Obs. Here is the distinction which Mr. Newman
complains of, as made at the present day, (v. supra
p. 33.) between ' deliverance horn guilt, and deliver
ance from sin.'
Bishop Bull".
" Pro certo statuatur, vocabulum Justifications in
bac mat eri a for ensem significationem obtinere, atque
actionem designare Dei, more Judicis, ex lege Christi
gratiosa absolventis accusatum, justum pronunciantis,
atque ad prsemium justitise, i. e. vitam aeternam
acceptantis." Harmonia Apost.
Bishop Beveridge0.
" The Scriptures plainly distinguish between Justi
fication and Sanctification. Sanctification being God's
act in us, whereby we are made righteous in our
selves, but Justification is God's act in Himself,
whereby we are accounted righteous by Him, and
shall be declared to be so at the Judgment of the
Great Day." Serm. on Rom. iv. 25.
Obs. Here the writer refers to the Scriptures for
that ' broad separation' between Justification and
Sanctification, which Mr. Newman pronounces ' un-
scriptural and technical.'
11 Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv.
" Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv. Dr. Pusey and his friends have
lately republished Bishop Beveridge's Sermons on ' the Min
istry and Ordinances of the Church of England.'

44

Waterland".
" By renovation, I understand the inward renewing
of the heart and mind, the same that commonly goes
under the name of the inward sanctification of the
Spirit. This is necessarily presupposed in some
measure or degree q with respect to adults in their
Justification ; because ' without holiness no man
shall see the Lord,' no man shall be entitled to
salvation, i. e. no man justified. But though this
consideration sufficiently proves that Sanctification
and Justification are near allied, yet it does not prove
that they are the same thing, or that one is properly
part of the other. An essential qualification for any
office, post, "dignity, or privilege, must be supposed
to go along with that office, post, &c. But still
the notions are very distinct, whilst the things them
selves are in fact connected of course." Summary
View of Justification.

i Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv. Dr. Pusey (Letter, p. 64.) observes,
that this writer was in his day a ' pillar of the Church against
heresy.' i Hooker explains the point thus; ' Since no man is justified
except he believe, and no man believeth except he hath faith,
and no man, except he hath received the Spirit of adoption,
hath faith, forasmuch as they do necessarily infer Justification,
and Justification doth of necessity presuppose them, yet we
must needs hold that imputed righteousness in dignity being
the chiefest, is notwithstanding in order the last, of all these.'
Discourse of Justification.

45
Bishop Vanmildert1.
" Surely such instructions as these (i. e. 2 Pet. i. 5.
2 Pet. i. 10. Phil. ii. 12.) must convince us, that
when Christ is said to be ' our righteousness,' the
expression can only mean that for his sake, and in con
sideration of his merits and sufferings, our sins shall be
remitted to us; but that to render them effectual to
that purpose, our own co-operation is indispensably
necessary." Serm. on Jer. xxiii. 6.
Abp. Howley.
" In respect to the duties of the pulpit, let your
discourses be scriptural, illustrating the doctrines of
the Gospel, and enforcing its precepts, from the
sacred text, explaining the grounds of Justification
through the Cross of Christ, of Sanctification through
the aid of the Holy Ghost, the true nature of
Christian holiness, and its absolute necessity to
salvation." Charge, 1832.

Thus far then, my Lord, I have cited the testi
mony of Anglican divines, surely neither few in
number nor inconsiderable in weight, whose views
of Justification cannot be quoted as agreeing with
those of Dr. Pusey and Mr. Newman. Have I
misapprehended the views objected to ? If I have,
Mr. Newman's able Reviewer before referred to
has erred with me, and betrayed his error by the
following remarks. ' Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv.

46
" The things which Christ has promised to do
for us in the Protestant nomenclature, are generally
denoted by the term Justification ; those which he
has promised to do in us, by the term Sanctification.
It does not follow from this that the Protestant
contemplates these blessings as things, which,
though they may be formally different, are separa
ble from each other in the mind and counsels of
the Deity. Neither is it to be supposed that he
denies that both these gifts are essential to our
ultimate acceptance. But then, to say the least,
he finds the above distinction convenient ; and he
moreover believes it to be eminently useful. It is
a permanent, serviceable, and compendious testi
mony against the Romish error, that tempts us to
merge the remembrance of absolving mercy in the
triumphs of infused, inherent, and truly meritorious
righteousness. And it really does appear to us,
that some very cogent reasons indeed ought to be
produced, before we attempt to deprive him of
whatever benefit or aid he can derive from this
mode of statement.
" That such cogent reasons may be produced, is
obviously enough the persuasion of Mr. Newman.
The Scriptures, — the primitive Christian writers, —
the Romish divines, — the Protestant divines, — 'all
have been painfully examined by him, — and the
result has been a firm conviction on his part, that the
above Protestant statement is a vicious statement."
British Critic, July, 1838.

47
But anxious to show that I have not taken alarm
without reason at the view objected to, I shall
adduce the testimony of three of your Lordship's
brethren, who have also examined and reprobated it,
two of them writers who had previously published
their own views on this aud kindred subjects.
And first, the zealous and munificent Bishop of
Calcutta, who thus describes the impression made
upon him by his first glance at Mr. Newman's
work. " The fearful mysticisms of Mr. Newman's new
theory of Justification, I will not dwell on, as the
book has only just reached me. (Dec. 1838.) He
seems however to hold, that Justification consists in
the presence of the Saviour Himself within us ; in
our being accounted righteous in the sight of God,
because there is within us after Baptism the very
Author and Finisher of our salvation. — This is far
worse than Popery." Charge, 1839.
Nor was the Bishop of Chester's opinion very
different, after a more leisurely examination. But I
shall pass on to the testimony of a venerable Pre
late before referred to, as of more importance than
either of these to the present question, I mean the
late Archbishop of Cashel5, inasmuch as he had
not only devoted a great deal of time and attention
to the particular subject in dispute, but likewise in
his welhknown Bampton Lectures had so far fought
¦ Archbishop Laurence, Visitation of the Saxon Church.
Appendix.

48
on the same side with Mr. Newman, that the object
for which he wrote them was to prove, that the
Articles of the Church of England were not Calvin-
istic. He begins by describing the view of Justification
entertained by Osiander, a German Reformer of
character and talent, but of whom little is known in
this country beyond the fact, that Archbishop
Cranmer married his niece. Osiander thought, that
' the essential righteousness of God, which is God
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is our righteous
ness, when by the word of God it flows into and
dwells in us who believe.' And whereas in the
writings of Luther and Melancthon, with reference
to different causes, and in different forms of words,
but still with substantial agreement, Justification
had been defined to be either ' the remission of our
sins for Christ's sake,' or ' the imputation of
righteousness,' or ' the non-imputation of sin,' or
' reconciliation through Christ our Mediator,' or
' the obedience, passion, and death of Christ,' or
' faith in Christ;' Osiander, on the contrary, most
obstinately maintained, that our righteousness be
fore God, properly speaking, meant none of these,
but ' the essential righteousness of God, or the
righteousness of the Divine nature in Christ, which
is common to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,
which flows into, and dwells in us, when we are
grafted by means of the word into the body of
Christ.'

49
After this description, the Archbishop goes on to
remark, that " the doctrine of Osiander soon died
away in the Lutheran Church," but that " an
attempt had been made to revive it, or something
which appeared to him very much like it, in our
own. I allude," he observes, " to a recent pub
lication, entitled * Lectures on Justification, by
John Henry Newman, B.D. Fellow of Oriel
College, and Vicar of St. Mary the Virgin,
Oxford.' The talents, learning, and piety of this
writer want not my eulogium ; but he must
excuse me, if I think the argument which he ad
vances, and the opinions he grounds upon it, a little
singular, and much too refined." . . .
" Justification, according to him, consists in the
' habitation in us of God the Father, and the Word
Incarnate through the Holy Ghost.' ' This is to
be Justified, to receive the divine Presence within us,
and be made a temple of the Holy Ghost.' " p. 160.
After a more particular account of Mr. Newman's
view, which he criticises severely, he adds, that
" after all, the principal point in controversy may
be a mere logomachy," but that Mr. Newman has
" affixed a peculiar sense to the word Justification*,
which, with the exception of Osiander, no Protestant
had ever affixed before" and remarks, that "although
» It must be borne in mind, as Dr. Waterland remarks, that
" from abuse of words very frequently arises some corruption of
doctrine." What should we think of a divine who affixed a new
sense to the word Trinity ? E

50
Mr. Newman had asserted that the opinion of
Osiander bore no more relation to his, than ' the
Manichsean blasphemies concerning the union of
the substance of God with the natural world bear
to the scriptural truth, that ' in Him we live, and
move, and have our being,' he had descended to no
particulars." " In conclusion," he adds, " I must freely confess,
that I esteem the piety and zeal of Mr. Newman
more highly than I do his judgment ; persuaded, as
he takes the liberty of differing so widely from others,
that he will permit me to use the privilege of
differing from him ; and of thinking, that as he
sometimes, perhaps ineffectually, endeavours by
illustrations to render doctrines plain, which are
in themselves obscure ; so does he at other times
certainly render doctrines obscure, which, as gene
rally understood, are in themselves sufficiently plain
and obvious."
And now, my Lord, to return to the point at
issue. To prove a negative is a notoriously difficult
task, and yet am I wrong in supposing, that I have
done something very like it in the present instance?
For whether is easier, to believe with Dr. Pusey, the
judge in his own cause, that a majority of our
Church agree with him in his view of Justification,
and differ from Hooker, Bishop Andrews, Jackson,
Archbishop Bramhall, Archbishop Usher, Bishop
Hall, Hammond, Bishop Bull, Bishop Pearson,
Bishop Beveridge, Waterland, Bishop Vanmildert,

51
and Archbishop Howley, or with the clear, calm,
able, and learned Archbishop Laurence, that Mr.
Newman has been the unconscious reviver of an
old exploded German error ? At all events, have I
not shown strong reason for supposing, that the
view maintained by him and Dr. Pusey has not the
support of the majority of Anglican divines P

e 2

OF SIN AFTER BAPTISM.
" What? fall'n again? yet cheerful rise,
u Thine Intercessor never dies.''
Christian Year. Holy Communion.
XiAiaxij HETCtvOYjcra; e1cre\8e.
Chbysostom, ap. Socr. Hist. 1. vi. u. 21.
In charging Dr. Pusey, my Lord, with Confused
and Novel views of doctrine, Justification, I need
hardly say, was not the only point on which I
conceived him to be in error. In the following
pages I shall endeavour to show, that the same
objections apply to his view of Sin after Baptism.
In the chapter of his Letter which relates to the
subject (pp. 92, 93.) he observes, that the charac
teristic difference between the Anglican system,
and the systems of Romanism and Ultra-Protestant
ism, he conceives to be this, that whilst the two
latter ' consult readily for man's feverish anxiety
to be altogether at ease,' the Anglican ' sets him
indeed in the way in which God's peace may
descend upon him, but forestalls not his sentence ;'

53
that ' the Church has no Second Baptism to give,
and therefore cannot pronounce him altogether
free" from past sin ;' and finally, that ' there are
but two periods of Absolute cleansing, Baptism and
the Day of Judgment.'
Now, I . To make out against him the charge of Con
fusion ; it had been quite enough in the case of
any other writer to have referred to his statement
already cited in a former chapter, that ' Justifica
tion comes through the Sacraments,' i. e. through
the Lord's Supper as well as through Baptism ; for
if Justification be communicated to us through the
Lord's Supper, how can Baptism be said to be the
only period in this world of ' Absolute Cleansing'
from sin ? But Dr. Pusey having followed Mr.
Newman in affixing, according to Abp. Laurence,
' a sense to the word Justification, which no Pro
testant, with the exception of Osiander, ever affixed
before,' it is necessary to take another course.
Still the Apostle observes, that ' being Justified
by faith, we have peace with God,' (Rom. v. 1.)
which few Christians, whatever they meant by
* What is the difference between this view and that of the
Novatians, ' who were not so rigorous as to assert that God
could not pardon those sinners, whom they refused to receive
into communion when they had once lapsed after Baptism :
for they encouraged them to repent, and hope for mercy from
God, though they denied that the Church had any power to
receive them ?' Bingham, vol. viii. p. 453.

54
Justification, would think that they could be unless
' absolutely cleansed from sin.'
But the point is proved by another extract from
the same chapter. (Letter, p. 67.) By a singular
fatality Dr. Pusey has been again led, whilst
quoting the Homilies as authority for another
purpose, to present his reader with an extract from
them which directly contradicts his view, and not
only so, but to cite a passage to the same effect
from the writings of Dr. Heylyn.
The following is the extract from the Homily.
" By the Sacrifice of Christ, infants being bap
tized and dying in their infancy are washed from
their sins, brought to God's favour, and made his
children, and inheritors of his kingdom of heaven.
And they which in act or deed do sin after their
Baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly,
they are likewise washed from their sins in such sort,
that there remaineth not any spot of sin, which shall
be imputed to their damnation."
And after two or three sentences, Dr. Pusey
adds ;
" So again Dr. Heylyn sums up this same
statement of the Homily. ' There we find, that by
God's mercy, and the virtue of that Sacrifice which
our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son
of God, once offered for us upon the Cross, we do
obtain God's grace and remission, as well of our
original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sin com
mitted by us after Baptism, if we truly repent, and

55
turn unfeignedly unto Him again. Which doctrine
of the Church of England, as it is consonant to the
Word of God in Holy Scripture, so is it also most
agreeable to the common and received judgment of
Antiquity.' "
Now in these two passages, cited by Dr. Pusey
himself, from writers referred to by himself as
authorities, here is distinct mention made of the
pardon of sin committed after Baptism, ' when we
do turn again to God unfeignedly,' as well as of
sin committed before, and the former as complete
as the latter. How is this to be reconciled with
his own assertion, that Baptism and the Day of
Judgment are the ' only two periods' of ' absolute
cleansing' from sin ?
If by the absolute cleansing or perfect pardon of
our sins be intended our own knowledge that we
are pardoned, this is not the legitimate meaning of
the words, and the two things are essentially dis
tinct. To be pardoned is one thing, to have an
infallible assurance of our pardon is another. In
this sense there is no absolute cleansing from sin
even at Baptism in the case of an adult. Accord
ing to the doctrine of our Church, he is not
pardoned then except he repent, and he can feel
certain that he is pardoned only to the same extent
that he can feel certain that he has repented. And
upon the same evidence he is entitled to the same
assurance, whenever he turns to God unfeignedly at
any subsequent period of life.

56
Surely, my Lord, Dr. Pusey's view of Sin after
Baptism is as Confused as his view of Justification.
I shall proceed in like manner to show,
II. That it is Novel.
And here, as in the foregoing chapter, the point
to be considered is, not what was the view main
tained by the Fathers b, a question not touched
upon in the Letter to your Lordship, but simply
what is the Anglican doctrine, and that of the
majority of Anglican divines. Dr. Pusey it may be
presumed, in citing the authority of Dr. Heylyn,
assents to his remark, that the doctrine of our
Church is ' consonant' not only to ' the Word of
God in Holy Scripture,' but also to ' the common
and receive'd judgment of Antiquity.'
I shall endeavour then to show,
1. That it is not the Anglican doctrine, that
Baptism is the only period in this world of absolute
cleansing from sin.
6 The testimony of Cyprian, however, is very remarkable.
" Primus felicitatis gradus est non delinquere, secundus
delicta agnoscere. Illic currit innocentia integra et illibata
quae servet, hie succedit medela quae sanel. Quod utrumque isti
offenso Deo perdiderunt, et ut amissa sit gratia quae de Baptismi
sanctificatione percipitur, et non subveniat posnitentia, per
quam culpa curatur." Upon which the Benedictine commen
tator remarks ; ' Videtur Cyprianus Pwnitenliam osquare cum
Baptismo, quia abluit peccata commissa post baptisma, sicut
baptisma abluit peccata ante baptismum.'
Can we conceive this venerable Father to have supposed
with Dr. Pusey, that Baptism is the only period in this life of
' absolute cleansing' from sin?

57
Any ordinary enquirer would be satisfied with
the testimony of the Sixteenth Article, which con
demns those who ' deny the place of forgiveness to
such as truly repent ;' i. e. of such sin as they have
committed subsequently to ' grace given' at Bap
tism. By forgiveness he would understand a re
storation to that state of favour with God, in which
his Baptism had placed him. But this Dr. Pusey
would deny. We may be forgiven in this life, but
not absolutely forgiven, not to the same extent that
we were forgiven at our Baptism. In order then
to disprove his statement, it will be necessary
to examine the other formularies of our Church ;
and in citing the Homilies, I shall avail myself of
this opportunity of expressing my concurrence in a
remark of Mr. Newman's0, that " it is to be regretted
that a book, which contains ' doctrine' so ' godly
and wholesome for these times' as well as for the
sixteenth century, should popularly be known by
only one or two extracts."
The strongest statement is that which has been
already referred to, as cited by Dr. Pusey himself
from the Homily on Salvation. "By the sacrifice
of Christ, infants, being baptized and dying in their
infancy, are washed from their sins, brought to
God's favour, and made his children, and inheritors
of his kingdom of heaven. And they which in act
or deed do sin after their baptism, when they turn
L Twelfth Lect. on Justification, note.

58
again to God unfeignedly they are likewise washed
by this sacrifice from their sins in such sort, that
there remaineth not any spot of sin, which shall be
imputed to their damnation." And the following are
to the same effect from the Homilies on Faith and
Repentance. " Now unto all them that will
return unfeignedly unto the Lord their God, the
favour and mercy of God unto forgiveness of sins
is liberally offered. x Whereby it folio weth, that
although we do, after we be once come to God, and
grafted in his Son Jesus Christ, fall into great sins,
(for there is no righteous man upon the earth that
sinneth not ; and ' if we say we have no sin, we
deceive ourselves,') yet if we rise again by repent
ance, and with a full purpose of amendment of
life do flee unto the mercy of God, taking sure
hold thereupon, through faith in his Son Jesus
Christ, there is an assured and infallible hope of
pardon and remission of the same, and that we shall
be received again into the favour of our heavenly
Father," and this " whensoever we, repenting truly,
do return to him with our whole heart, stedfastly
determining with ourselves through his grace to
obey and serve him in keeping his commandments,
and never to turn back again into sin." Now how
can we be said to be pardoned whensoever we
repenting truly return to God with our whole
heart, and to be washed from our sins in such
sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin, which
shall be imputed to our damnation, if Baptism be

59
the only period in this world of 'absolute cleansing'
from sin ?
Again, in the Homily ' Of Common Prayer and
Sacraments,' Baptism and the Lord's Supper are
described as the two visible signs, ' whereunto is
annexed the promise of free forgiveness of our sin,
and of our holiness and joining in Christ.' Not a
hint is given, that the pardon conveyed to us at the
one Sacrament is less complete than at the other.
And this brings us to the testimony of another of our
Church's formularies, the Book of Common Prayer.
Here however a very singular objection has been
urged by Dr. Pusey, which applies to the Com
munion Office, as well as to that for the Visitation
of the Sick. He observes, that ' even whilst hold
ing out her most solemn form of Absolution, as a
means of relieving the troubled conscience of the
penitent, our Church confesses the incompleteness
of her own act, in that she subjoins a prayer for
pardon of those sins, from which she had just
absolved him.'
But to this argument the following reply has
been made by the able writer, whom Dr. Pusey
describes as having been ' in his day a pillar of
the Church against heresy.' Referring to the
Thanksgiving Prayer which follows the Absolution
at the Eucharist, and in which we beseech the
Divine Majesty not to ' weigh our merits but
pardon our offences,' Dr. Waterland observes"1, that
d Doctrine of the Eucharist, chap. ix.

60
" although it is an undoubted truth that the
Eucharist confers remission to the faithful com
municant, yet it is right to leave the determination
of our faithfulness (since all depends upon our
being meet partakers) to God the Searcher of hearts,
and in the mean time to beg forgiveness at his
hands. Add to this, that were we ever so certain
that we are actually pardoned upon receiving the
Eucharist, yet as remission is a continued act, and
always progressive, (which I before noted,) it can
never be improper to go on with our petitions for
it, any more than to make use of the Lord's
Prayer every hour of our lives. It was so used
anciently after e plenary remission : [i. e. as con
ferred at Baptism:] and in like manner we now
make use of it, immediately after our having
received the Communion ; without the least ap
prehension that such usage interferes at all with
e Dr. Waterland observes in a note, ' Jerome's remark upon
this case, when Baptism and the Eucharist went together, and
perfect remission was supposed to have been just granted, is
worth noting.
" De Baptismatis fonte surgentes, et regenerati in Dominum
Salvatorem; statim in prima communione corporis Christi,
dicunt : et dimitte nobis debita nostra, quae illis fuerant in Christi
confessione dimissa. Quamvis sit hominum perfecla conversio,
et post vitia atque peccata virtutum plena possessio; numquid
possunt sic esse sine vitio, quomodo illi qui statim de Christi
fonte procedunt ? Et tamen jubentur dicere, dimitte nobis debita
nostra, §c. Non humilitaiis mendacio, at tu interpretaris ; sed
pavore fragililalis humanm, suam conscientiam formidantis.
Hieronym. Dialog, adv. Pelag. 1. iii. p. 543.

61
the principle that I have been maintaining, as
indeed it does not. Nothing is more frequent in
the ancient Liturgies, than to ask forgiveness
immediately after receiving, though the doctrine of
present remission is fully expressed and inculcated
in the same Liturgies."
It will be seen then, that Dr. Pusey's argument, if
it proves any thing, proves too much. If our
Church attest her inability to assure us that our
sins are absolutely forgiven at the Eucharist, by
directing us to continue to pray that they may be,
the early Church attests in the same manner her
inability to assure the penitent that his sins were
absolutely forgiven at Baptism. And then what
becomes of the assertion so often referred to, that
Baptism is the only period in this world of
' absolute cleansing' from sin ?
Surely then, my Lord, the view objected to of
Sin after Baptism is not that of the Church of
England. It remains to be considered,
2. Whether it be that maintained by the
majority of Anglican divines.
And here it may be observed, that no notice
is taken in the Letter to your Lordship of a
distinction made in the Tracts upon Baptism, of
which Dr. Pusey has acknowledged himself the
author, between venial and mortal sinf, an omission,
however, which has not preserved him from the
following censure of one of the most friendly of his
f Preface, pp. xiv, xv.

62
opponents, the Bishop of Exeter s. " Still more,"
observes his Lordship, after objecting to other
sentiments advocated by Dr. Pusey and his friends,
" still more, do I lament to read in one of the
' Tracts,' which in the main is worthy of the highest
estimation, — I mean, ' Scriptural Views of Holy
Baptism,' — much of what is there said of the effects
of Sin after Baptism : for instance, that if after
having been then washed, once for all, in Christ's
blood, we again sin, there is no more such complete
ablution in this life, no restoration ' to the same
state of undisturbed security, in which God had by
Baptism placed us.'
" These, and passages like these, however they
may be explained, tend to rob the Gospel of the
blessed Jesus of much of that assurance of the
riches of the goodness and mercy of God in Christ,
which is its peculiar message, its glad tidings of
great joy. Nor may we forget the tendency of such
language to encourage the pernicious and perilous
habit of distinguishing between such sins, as may
destroy our state of grace, and such as we may think
still leave that state secure. Let it never be absent
from our minds, that every wilful sin is deadly ;
and let us beware of hardening our own hearts, and
corrupting the hearts of our brethren, by whispering
to ourselves or them which sin is more or less
deadly than others. That which we may deem the
least, will be deadly enough if unrepented to work
5 Charge, 1839.

63
our perdition : those which we deem the most
deadly, will, if repented, have been thoroughly
washed away in the blood of our Redeemer."
But to proceed to the testimony of other Divines
of our Church. Confining myself, as in the fore
going chapter, to such as have been quoted by the
AUTHORS OF THE 'TRACTS' THEMSELVES AS AUTHORITY
for other views, I shall begin with the judicious
Hooker.
" Christ hath merited righteousness for as many
as are found in Him. In Him God findeth us, if we
be faithful ; for by Faith we are incorporated into
Christ. Then although in ourselves we be altogether
sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man which is
impious in himself, full of iniquity, full of sin ; him,
being found in Christ through Faith, and having
his sin remitted through Repentance ; him God
beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin
by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punish
ment due thereunto by pardoning it, and accepteth
him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous as if he had
fulfilled all that was commanded him in the Law;
shall I say, more perfectly righteous than if himself
had fulfilled the whole Law ? I must take heed
what I say : but the Apostle saith, ' God made
Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that
we might be made the righteousness of God in
Him.' Such are we in the sight of God the Father,
as is the very Son of God Himself. Let it be

64
counted folly, or frenzy, or fury, whatsoever, it is
our comfort and our wisdom ; we care for no
knowledge in the world but this, that man hath
sinned, and that God hath suffered ; that God hath
made himself the sin of man, and that men are
made the righteousness of God." Discourse of
Justification. Upon examining the context, the reader will
perceive, that the author is not speaking only of our
first Justification at Baptism, but of our Justifi
cation ' when we do turn again to God unfeignedly'
as well ; at which time surely, if God ' accept us as
perfectly righteous in Christ Jesus,' we must needs
be ' absolutely cleansed' from sin.
In the following passage, mention is made of the
Remission of our sins at the Eucharist.
Jackson.
" Remember, that as the second Resurrection
unto glory must be wrought by virtue of Christ's
Resurrection from the dead ; so the first Resur
rection from the dead works of sin unto newness of
life must be wrought by the participation of his
Body which was given, and of his Blood which
was shed for us. Remember, that by his death
and passion, he became not only the ransom, but
the sovereign medicine of all our sins ; a medicine
for our sins of wilfulness and commission, to make
us more wary not to offend ; a medicine for our
sins of negligence and omission, to make us more

65
diligent in the works of piety ; and the time and
place appointed for the receiving of the Body and
Blood of Christ, is the time and place appointed by
Him for our cure." Works, vol. iii. p. 466.

Bp. Andrews'.
" Out of Dimitte \ arise three things for our
comfort.
"1. That even those sins which we commit after
Baptism, after our calling, and when we are come
to the knowledge of the truth, are remissible. In
teaching the Apostles to pray, he assureth them of
this favour, that the same party that saith, ' peccata
nostra,' ' our sins,' is taught to say ' Pater noster,'
' Our Father.' Our comfort therefore is, that still
we are the children of God, though great sinners ;
for though we lose the dutiful affection of children,
yet God cannot lose ' viscera Patris,' ' the tender
bowels of a Father.' David to a rebellious son
could not but show a fatherly affection ; ' Do
good to the young man Absalom,' 2 Sam. xviii. 5.
So though the prodigal son had offended heinously1,
yet the father is ready to receive him, Luke xv.
* ' The great light of the Christian world.' v. supra, p. 31.
k Alluding to the words ' Forgive us our trespasses,' Dimitte
nobis debita nostra, in the Lord's Prayer.
1 See a masterly sermon on this parable by Archdeacon W'il-
berforce. — According to Dr. Pusey's view, the father of the
returning prodigal ought not to have ' absolutely forgiven' him
F

66
"2. Another comfort is, that albeit we commit sin
daily, yet he will daily forgive us ; for God should
mock us, saith Augustine, if, bidding us pray for
forgiveness, he should for all that shut up the
bowels of his mercy ; he bids us pray for pardon of
our sins, putting no difference whether they be
penny-debts or talents ; whether fifty or a thousand ;
if we ask for forgiveness, he tells us he is ready daily
to remit them.
" 3. That, be our sins never so great, so great as
cannot be satisfied by us, yet he will forgive them,
propter seipsum, for his own sake. Is. xiv. Christ

at once. He should have taken him at his word, ' Make me as
one of thy hired servants,' or at all events given him a stern and
distant reception, laboured to bring him to a deeper sense of
his sin, put him in the way in which his forgiveness might be
obtained, and have abated the severity of his treatment of him
only in proportion to the earnestness and continuance of his
repentance. But what a contrast this to the course actually
taken by him, as described by our blessed Saviour ! ' When he
was yet a great way off, his fattier saw him, and had compassion,
and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. And the son said
unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and in thy
sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the
father said unto his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it
on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feel; and bring
hither the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and be merry : for
this my son was dead, and is alive again, and was lost, and is
found.' See Chrysostom's allusion to the parable of the Prodi
gal Son, Horn. x. in Rom. sect. 5. where he distinctly applies
it to the case of those who have sinned subsequently to
baptism.

Q7
hath made himself a satisfaction' for the sins of the
world." Serm. xiv. on Prayer.
Again :
" God is so highly well pleased with Him, [i. e.
with Jesus Christ,] as at the very contemplation of
Him, but turning to Him, and beholding Him, He
lays down all his displeasure, and is pleased to accept
us and our poor weak obedience ; and further to be
so pleased with it, as even to reward it also," ' In
quo complacitum est.'
" Complacitum est ; and here Baptism leaves us,
and would God there we might hold us ; and it
might never be but ' complacitum est.' But when
we fall into sin, specially some kind of sin, we put
it in hazard ; for He is not, He cannot then be well
pleased with us. How then ? His favour we may
not finally lose, and to Baptism we may not come
again. To keep this text in life, complacitum est,
it hath pleased the Holy Ghost, as he applied
Christ's blood to us in Baptism one way, so out
of it to apply it to us another way, as it were
in supplement of Baptism. In one verse m they be
both set down by the Apostle ; ' In uno Sp. Bapti-
zati, In uno Sp. Potati.' And whom he receiveth
so to his Table to eat and drink with him, (and every
one that is well prepared so he receiveth,) with them

' He adds, that ' among the means of applying the satisfac
tion of Christ to ourselves, prayer is one.'
m 1 Cor. xii. 13.
f2

68
he is ' well pleased' again certainly. On this day
of the Spirit, every benefit of the Spirit is set forth
and offered us ; and we shall please him well in
making benefit of all ; specially of this the only
means to renew his complacency, and restore us
thither, where our Baptism left us." Serm. on Luke iii.
21, 22.

Bishop Hall.
" Oh! what a blessing have I received to-day!
(i. e. at the Holy Eucharist :) no less than my Lord
Jesus, with all his merits ; and in and with him
the assurance of the remission of all sins, and ever
lasting salvation !" Devout Soul, §. 3.
Again :
" Pardons do both imply and presuppose that
known distinction of mortal and venial sin °, which
° The Bishop of Exeter observes respecting the Authors of
Tracts for the Times, that, " defending themselves against the
charge of leaning towards Popery, they confidently affirm,
that ' in the seventeenth century the theology of the body of
the English Church was substantially the same as theirs ;' and,
in proof of this, they profess, in stating the errors of the Church
of Rome, to follow closely the order observed by Bishop Hall,
in his treatise on ' the Old Religion/ ' whose Protestantism
they add is unquestionable,' and is claimed therefore as a
voucher for their own. But, looking to particulars, I lament
to see them ' following indeed the order of Bishop Hall,' but
widely departing from his truly Protestant sentiments on more
than one important article." Charge, 1839-

69
neither hath God ever allowed, neither while he
gainsays it, will ever the Protestants.

It will be observed, that his Lordship is not afraid of using
the term Protestant, any more than his venerable predecessor in
the see of Exeter, Bishop Hall. The author of an interesting
article in the Quarterly Review, (June 1839,) remarks, that
" a desire to retain the venerable appellation of Catholic, does
not compel us to renounce the equally sacred name of Protestant
A higher Churchman than the great Archbishop Laud can
hardly be named, and yet he was not ashamed to defend the
name of Protestant, or to protest against the Popish calumny
which represents Protestantism as a bare negation.
" The Protestants,' says he to Fisher, ' did not get that name
by protesting against the Church of Rome, but by protesting
(and that when nothing else would serve) against her errors
and superstitions. Do you but remove them from the Church of
Rome, and our protestation is ended, and the separation too.
Nor is protestation itself such an unheard-of thing in the very
heart of religion. For the Sacraments both of the Old and
New Testament are called by your own school visible signs pro
testing the faith. Now if the Sacraments be proteslantia, signs
protesting, why may not men also, and without all offence, be
called Protestants, since by receiving the true Sacraments, and
by refusing them which are corrupted, they do but protest the
sincerity of their faith against that doctrinal corruption which
hath invaded the great Sacrament of the Eucharist, and other
parts of religion ? Especially, since they are men which must
protest their faith by these visible signs and sacrameiits.' Con
ference, edit. 1639, p. 135.
" And again, he says:
' A mere calumny it is, that we profess only a negative reli
gion. True it is, and we must thank Rome for it, our confession
must needs contain some negatives. For we cannot but deny
that images are to be adored. Nor can we admit maimed sacrar

70
" That there are certain degrees of evil, we both
acknowledge and teach.
" Some offences are more heinous than other : yet
all in the malignity of their nature deadly: as of
poisons, some kill more gently and lingeringly,
others more violently and speedily ; yet both
kill. " Moreover, if we have respect unto the infinite
mercy of God ; and to the object of this mercy, the
penitent and faithful heart ; there is no sin, which,
to borrow the word of Prudentius, is not venial ;
but, in respect of the anomy [uvopict] or disorder,
there is no sin, which is not worthy of eternal death."
No Peace with Rome.

Bishop Pearson.
" Being therefore we are assured that the preach
ing remission of sins belongeth not only certainly,
but in some sense peculiarly, to the Church of
Christ, it will be next considerable how this
remission is conferred upon any person in the
Church.
menls. Nor grant prayers in an unknown tongue. And in a
corrupt time and place, it is as necessary in religion to deny
falsehood, as to assert and vindicate the truth. Indeed, this
latter can hardly be well and sufficiently done but by the
former : an affirmative verity being ever included in the nega
tive to a falsehood.' Ibid. p. 155."

71
" For a full satisfaction in this particular, two
things are very observable ; one relating to the
initiation, the other concerning the continuation of a
Christian. For the first of these, it is the most
general and irrefragable assertion of all, to whom
we have reason to give credit, that all sins what
soever any person is guilty of are remitted in the
Baptism of the same person. For the second, it is
as certain that all sins committed by any person after
Baptism are remissible ; and the person committing
those sins, shall receive forgiveness upon true repent
ance at any time, according to the Gospel.
" And therefore the Church of God, in which
remission of sins is preached, doth not only promise
it at first by the laver of regeneration, but afterwards
also upon the virtue of true repentance ; and to deny
the Church this power of absolution is the heresy of
Novation." On the Creed.

Bingham11.
" Beside Baptism, we have a double method of
obtaining pardon of sins, according to their different
quality and greatness. Which pardon is confirmed
and sealed to us in the Holy Communion, as it were
by a visible demonstration, which gives us, as it were by
a deed of conveyance, the body and blood of Christ,
i' Cited Cat. Patr. Tracts, vol. iv.

72
and all the expiation and atonement that attends
them. So that a sinner needs not complain of God
for want of mercy, since there are so many ways of
dispensing pardon to us after Baptism." Discourse
on the Mercy of God.

Such, my Lord, are the views of some at least of
the leading divines of the Church of England upon
the subject of sin after Baptism, not certainly in
accordance with that maintained by Dr. Pusey, that
Baptism is the only period in this world of absolute
cleansing from sin. That the opinions of these
eminent writers should be at variance with those of
' a majority of our Church' would hardly be con
ceivable in any case, and in the present is rendered
inconceivable, in consequence of the censure of so
acute and well-informed a theologian as the Bishop
of Exeter, who would never have condemned as an
error in an individual a view maintained by the
greater number of Anglican divines ; and Dr. Pusey
has brought forwyard no authorities on the other
side. But to cite the testimony of another acute
and well-informed, though equally friendly, op
ponent. " With what I conceive," observes Mr.
A. P. Perceval, in a periodical before referred toq,
"to be the general object of the ' Tracts for the
Times,' viz. the upholding the scriptural doctrines
of baptismal regeneration ; of the real though
'i British Magazine, May 183.Q.

73
spiritual communion in the body and blood of
Christ in the Eucharist ; of the commemorative
oblation made to God in that Sacrament ; of the
Apostolical succession ; and of the testimony of
the Church regarded as a providentially-furnished
guide and safeguard for the right understanding of
the sacred Scriptures ; I entirely and heartily
concur. I conceive these doctrines to be unques
tionable portions of the religious system of the
Church of England  It is therefore with the
more regret that, agreeing with the writers of the
Tracts in these objects, I find myself constrained,
by a sense of duty to them and to others, to offer
exception to some of their positions. I will not
allude to the paper ' On Reserve in communicat
ing Religious Knowledge,' nor to what has more
than once been put forward concerning the indelible
nature of sin after Baptism, further than to say, that
it was with regret and alarm that I read those
papers, not only as considering the positions in them
to be unnecessary deductions from Scripture, but as
fearing, that the practical effects of them (if any)
may be such as the writers would deeply lament :
the latter being calculated {I fear) to ' break' many
a ' bruised reed,' and the former to lead to rash
judgment, and withholding the means of grace."
Surely then, my Lord, I have shown strong
reason for supposing, that the view maintained by
Dr. Pusey of the nature of sin after Baptism is

74
neither that of the Church of England, nor of a
majority of her divines. But at the close of his
chapter upon the subject, he has attempted to draw
an argument from Scripture, which must not be
passed over unnoticed. ' Peace,' he urges, is
uniformly represented by the sacred writers as the
' direct gift of God.' ' The peace of God, which
passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and
minds,' « the Lord give you peace always,' God is
the ' God of peace,' our Lord ' is our peace ;' and
hence he infers, that it is to be sought ' not from
men's declarations,' but ' directly from God,' and
that the Christian teacher is not to ' cut short God's
work' in the soul of the penitent, either ' by the
Sacrament of Penance, or inward persuasions, or
misapplied promises of the Gospel, but to direct him
to God's mercies in Christ.' But how is this to be
done, but by directing him to God's promises in
Christ ? e. g. either to that of the Evangelical pro
phet, appealed to by our Church' in her Commination

' This promise is likewise appealed to by Chrysostom (Horn.
viii. in 1 Cor. iii.) for the comfort of those who have sinned
subsequently to Baptism. " The disposition of the wicked it
is which causes them to despair, not the multitude of their
sins. Therefore though guilty of all iniquity, yet say within
thyself, ' God is good to us, and willeth us to be saved.' For
* although, saith he, your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white
as snow.' " And the promise 1 John ii. 2. by Cyprian for the
comfort of those who had denied the faith through fear of
persecution, (the libellatici and sacrificati. ) " John also proveth,

75
Service ; ' Come now, and let us reason together, saith
the Lord ; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be
white as snow ; though they be red like crimson, they
shall be as wool;' (Is. i. 18.) or to that of the
beloved Apostle in the Communion Service, ' If
any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father,
Jesus Christ the Righteous ; and he is the pro
pitiation for our sins;' (1 John ii. 2.) promises which
are never misapplied when held out as encourage
ments to true repentance. Of course it is admitted,
that all is the work of God. Who ever denied that
God is the God of peace, any more than that he is
the ' God of all grace ?'
" Non hasc hurnanis opibus, non arte magistra
" Proveniunt. —
" Major agit Deus."
But as the one consideration does not warrant us in
withholding the precepts of the Gospel, because he
alone can enable us to perform them, so neither does
the other in withholding the promises of the Gospel,
because he alone can enable us to avail ourselves of
them. The Ministry of the Gospel is a ' Ministry of
Reconciliation.' It is the office of the Ambassador
in God's stead to come ' preaching peace by Jesus
that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Advocate and Intercessor for
our sins, saying, ' My little children, &c.' " And he adds, " St.
Paul also hath determined in his Epistle, ( If when we were
yet sinners Christ died for us, much more being now justified
by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him.'
Rom. v. 9."

76
Christ.' ' The scope of Christian doctrine is the
comfort of those whose hearts are overcharged with
the burden of sin.' The encouragement of the
Christian to walk ' in holiness and righteousness'
before God is, that his ' feet have first been guided
into the way of peace.' But I am trespassing upon
the subject of the ensuing chapter.

ON RESERVE IN COMMUNICATING RliLIGIOUS
KNOWLEDGE.

" I have not kept back thy loving-mercy and truth from the great congre
gation." Pa. xl. 13.
" I determined not to know any thing among you but Jesus Christ, and
Him Crucified." 1 Cor. ii. 2.

Were there not to be found in Dr. Pusey's
Letter to your Lordship other indications of an
unconscious desire to ' put the best foot of a lame
cause foremost,' it would be matter of surprise to
an attentive reader to find, that it makes no men
tion whatever of the subject of this chapter beyond
a passing allusion to it in a note". And this is
the more remarkable, in a work professing to vindi
cate the Tracts for the Times from the charge of a
tendency to Romanism, no one of which publications
has been more generally objected to, (and by one
of its most distinguished assailants on this parti
cular ground,) than that which professes to treat
of ' Reserve in communicating Religious Know
ledge.' It may be pleaded indeed, that it had attracted
little or no attention at the time of the delivery of
aP. 183.

78
your Lordship's Charge, and that as it had been
published only at the beginning of the same year,
it had probably never come under your Lordship's
eye, and could not therefore be entitled to the
benefit of your acquittal. But this consideration, as
has been already shown, (supr. p. 6.) did not pre
vent Dr. Pusey's claiming the same favourable
verdict in behalf of a more obviously objectionable
publication. In the year preceding the appearance
of his Letter, the Tract in question had been
strongly reprobated by Mr. Townsend in his Charge
to the Clergy of the Peculiar of Allerton, and about
the same period by the Bishop of Chester, who
animadverted upon what he conceived to be its
tendency to Romanism in the following words :
" Many subjects present themselves, towards
which I might be tempted to direct your thoughts.
One more especially concerns the Church at pre
sent, because it is daily assuming a more serious
and alarming aspect, and threatens a revival of the
worst errors of the Romish system. Under the spe
cious pretence of deference to antiquity and respect
for primitive models, the foundations of our Pro
testant Church are undermined by men who dwell
within her walls, and those who sit in the Re
formers' seat are traducing the Reformation. It is
again becoming matter of question, whether the
Bible is sufficient to make men wise unto salvation:
the main article of our national confession, Justifi
cation by Faith, is both openly and covertly assailed:

79
and the stewards of the mysteries of God are instructed
to Reserve the truths which they have been ordained to
dispense, and to hide under a bushel those doctrines,
which the Apostles were commanded to preach to every
creature." Charge, 1838.
The view maintained in the Tract was probably
suggested to the writer by the account given in
Mr. Newman's work on ' the Arians of the Fourth
Century,' of ' the Discipline of the Secret,' as prac
tised for a time in the early Church ; and, in a
second part of his publication, (Tracts, No. 87.)
now just given to the world, he treats upon the
same subject himself.
And here I would respectfully invite your Lord
ship's attention to the fact, that both these writers, and
Mr. Newman while actually referring to Bingham,
have omitted to inform the reader, that they differ
from that eminent writer on Christian Antiquities
in two ' main and material' points.
1. Bingham maintains, and with him the other
two authorities '' upon the subject cited by Mr.
Newman, that this system was made use of by the
early Church for the instruction not of the Baptized,
but of Candidates for Baptism, one of its objects
being to conceal from such, until they were nearly
ready for admission into the Christian Church, some
of the leading peculiarities of the Gospel, and among
^ Suicer. Thesaur. in verb, kbtd^m ; Ceillier Apol. des Peres,
chap. ii.

80
them the doctrine of the Trinity, the Creed* and
the Lord's Prayer.
On the other hand, while the Author of the Tract
observes vaguely, that the object of the system was
to ' keep back in reserve the higher doctrines of
our faith until persons were rendered fit to receive
them by a long previous preparation c,' Mr. New
man, without a shadow of support from any of his
own authorities, maintains, that the Catechumens,
even up to the period of their Baptism, ' were granted
nothing beyond a formal and general account of the
Christian faith ; the exact and fully developed doc
trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and still more
the doctrine of the Atonement, as once made upon the
Cross and commemorated, and appropriated in the Eu
charist, being the exclusive possession of the serious
and practised Christian.'
That such a supposition is utterly untenable
appears from the fact, that it was the practice of the
Primitive Church to admit men to a participation
of the Eucharist immediately after Baptism. " For
this," Bingham observes, " was to TiXeiov, the perfec
tion or consummation of a Christian, to which he
c Irenasus observes, (Adv. Haeres. 1. iii. c. 3.) " Etenim si
recondita mysteria scissent Apostoli, qua? seorsim et labenter ab
reliquis perfeclos docebant, his vel maxime traderent ea, quibus
etiam Ecclesias committebant." But this was not the case; and
he remarks elsewhere, (c. 15.) that the doctrine of the Apostles
was, " manifesta et firma et nihil subtrahens, neque alia qui-
dem in abscondito, alia vero in aperto docentium."

81
was entitled by virtue of his Baptism*1." Now is it
conceivable that a Catechumen should have been
admitted to the Eucharist, without having been
made fully acquainted with the all-important doc
trine of the Atonement commemorated and appro
priated in it ? — But there is another point if possible
of still more material importance, on which the
writers, whose statements have been objected to,
totally differ from Bingham.
2. Mr. Newman observes, that ' there are vari
ous reasons for limiting the strict enforcement of
the system to the end of the second century,' but
never intimates to his reader, that in Bingham's
opinion" it had no existence during the First. And it
is the more remarkable, because this point had been
conceded by a learned Prelate of the Romish com
munion, who argued against the antiquity of the
Apostolical Constitutions, that " they could not
have been written' in the First Age, because the
Christians of the First Age did never make any
scruple of publishing their mysteries, as appears from
the writings of Justin Martyr." Bingham adds, that
others have observed the same of the writings of
Tatian and Athenagoras, viz. that they publish the
d Bingham, book xii. chap. iv. sect. 9.
e Book x. chap. v. sect. 2.
' " Postrema verba, quibus cavetur, ne octo libri Constitutio-
num Apostolorum publicentur, aperte indicant eas primis sseculis
factas non esse, cum Primi Sseculi Christiani sua lubentes mys-
teria, ut vel ex Justino constat, enuntiarent." Albaspin. Obss.
1. i. c. 13. G

82
mysteries of the Gospel to the whole world ; and
remarks himself upon the writings of the Apostles,
that " when they speak of the mysteries of Baptism
and the Eucharist, they do it with the greatest
freedom, without any fear or apprehension of giving
offence to the Catechumens."
On the contrary, the writers referred to maintain,
that the system was acted upon in the first age ;
and the writer of the Tract8, that ' the very silence'
of that period is ' in favour of this supposition ! !'
Mr. Newman, in reply to the argument of Bing
ham, (though without any mention of his name,)
that the mysteries of the Gospel are taught without
reserve in the Scriptures, urges, that still we could
never learn them from Scripture, without the Church
for our guide ; and upon the early Apologists remarks
that they were frequently laymen, and some.asTatian,
tainted with heretical opinions ; and after all, that it
is ' not the actual practice of the Primitive Church
that he is concerned with, so much as its principle.'
But he surely forgets, that this is the very question
at issue ; and that in the absence of all proof in
favour of the existence of the principle in the first
age, the contrary practice of the Church is well nigh
conclusive against it.
Now if the Discipline of the Secret began and
ended with the second century, and was applied, as
Mr. Newman's authorities maintain, exclusively
k No. 87- p. 12.

83
to the instruction of Candidates for Baptism, it is
hard to see how the Christian minister is to make
any use of it for the instruction of baptized persons
now. But if it be his duty to do so, then is it also
his duty to adopt another part of the system of the
early Church, which Mr. Newman calls the Economy,
and which differs, according to his account, from the
Discipline of the Secret in this, that while the latter
system may be considered ' as withholding the truth,'
the former' sets it out to advantage^.'
" The Alexandrian father," he observes, (i. e.
Clement,) " who has already been referred to, ac
curately describes" [I beg to invite your Lordship's
very particular attention to this expression] " the
rules which should guide the Christian in speaking and
acting economically." " Being ever persuaded of
the omnipresence of God," he says, " and ashamed
to come short of the truth, he is satisfied with the
approval of God, and of his own conscience.
Whatever is in his mind, is also on his tongue;
towards those who are fit recipients, both in speak
ing and living, he harmonizes his profession with
his opinions. He both thinks and speaks the truth,
except when consideration is necessary, and then, as a
physician for the good of his patients, he will be false,
or utter a falsehood, as the Sophists say. For in
stance, the great Apostle circumcised Timothy,
while he cried out and wrote down,. ' Circumcision
h Arians of the fourth century, p. 72.
G 2

84
availeth not ;' and yet, lest he should so suddenly
tear his Hebrew disciples from the Law, as to un
settle them, accommodating himself to the Jews, he
became a Jew, that he might make his gain of
all. . . . Nothing, however, but his neighbour's good
will lead him to do this. He gives himself up for
the Church, for the friends whom he has begotten
in the faith, for an example to those who have the
ability to undertake the high office (o'lKovopiuv) of
a teacher, full of love to God and man ; and so,
while he preserves the sincerity of his words, he at
the same time displays the work of zeal for the
Lord1." And of the application of this system we have
the following illustration in St. Chrysostom's work
on the Priesthood, in which he apologizes to a
friend, whom he had induced to take Orders by an
artifice, in the following terms:
" O excellent and admirable man, I have already
observed to you, that not in war only and against
enemies, but sometimes even in peace and towards
intimate friends, deceit (««^) is to be made use
of. For that you may learn that this is useful not
only to the deceiver but to the deceived, go and
ask the physicians how they recover the sick from
their diseases, and you will learn from them that
they do not rely on medicine only, but sometimes
calling to their aid deceit as well, they restore their
patients to health. For when the unmanageable-
' Clem. Strom, vii, 8, 9.

85
ness of the patient, and the obstinacy of the disease,
do not give scope to the skill of the physician,
then it is necessary to put on the mask of deceit,
that they may disguise the truth as though they
were acting upon the stage. Now allow me to
mention one trick, which I have heard of a physi
cian's making use of. A certain man fell into a
raging fever, and refused to take any thing which
could allay the violence of the disease, and on the
other hand besought every one who came near him
to bring him wine, and procure him the means of
indulging this pernicious desire. Now this would
not only have increased the fever, but thrown him
into a state of phrensy ; and consequently the medi
cal art being altogether at a loss, deceit stepped in
and accomplished the wonders which I proceed to
narrate. For the physician, bringing an earthen
vessel fresh from the furnace, after soaking it in
wine, and then emptying it, filled it with water
instead, and after darkening the room with curtains
that the light might not betray the artifice, gives it
the patient to drink, as though it were a cup of
wine. He, on the other hand, deceived by the smell
before he took it into his hand, never stayed to
examine what was given him, but drank it off
eagerly, and so got rid of his feelings of suffocation,
and escaped a pressing danger. You see then the use
of fraud. But I must not prolong my argument by
going through all the tricks of physicians. I shall
only observe, that those who labour for the cure of the

86
diseases of the' soul make useof this remedy as well. Thus
the blessed Paul converted many myriads of the Jews;
with this object also he circumcised Timothy, while
threatening the Galatians, that if they were circum
cised, Christ would profit them nothing. For this
reason he submitted to be under the Law, although
he counted the righteousness which wasbytheLawloss
after believing in Christ. Great then is the power
of deceit ; only let it not be practised with a deceitful
intention. Yea I should not call it deceit so much
as a kind of economy, and wisdom, and an art capa
ble of rendering us much aid in difficulty, and of
healing the defects of the soulk."
Now here we find the same principle in operation,
(no other in plain English than that of pious frauds,)
k Jligt 'isgas, 1. i. c. 9- The writer has no wish whatever to
disparage the Fathers, for most of whom he entertains a very
profound reverence. He fully assents to the remark of Bishop
Fell, in his Preface to the Oxford Edition of Cyprian. " Minime
mihi placet illorum industria, qui in naevis Patrum ostentandis
operam collocant, non sine insigni Religionis damno orthodox®.
Rectius illi pietatem colunt, qui verenda? Patrum nuditati non
tantum tergum obvertunt, sed etiam pallium injiciunt, et erro-
res humanitus admissos, benigna humanitate dissimulant simul
et amoliuntur." But when there is danger lest the authority of
those venerable writers should be adduced to favour the intro
duction of error, he must needs maintain with Mr. Newman,
(Arians, p. 71-) that " God has given us rules of right and
wrong, which we must not be afraid to apply in estimating the
conduct of even the best of mere men," and as little hesitate in
blaming Chrysostom, as Hooker in blaming Tertullian, or St.
Bernard Origen.

87
which Mr. Newman remarks upon as accurately
laid down by Clement. He calls it by the same
name, an economy, he brings forward the same ex
ample of it from Scripture, viz. St. Paul circumcising
Timothy, and makes use of the same illustration,
viz. a physician lying for the good of his patients,
and the rule of Clement is that which is to ' guide
the Christian in speaking and acting economically.'
Woe worth the Church of England in the day that
shall see this system adopted either into the teach
ing or the conduct of her ministers ! " Non tali
auxilio, nee defensoribus istis." Perhaps one of
the least evils of its introduction will be the de
sertion of our churches by their congregations,
who will betake themselves to those who profess to
teach them ' not walking in craftiness, nor handling
the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation
of the truth commending themselves to every
man's conscience in the sight of God1.'
The question, however, to be considered, is in
reference to Dr. Pusey's apology for the publica
tions of his party ; not what were the opinions of
the Primitive Church, and of the early Fathers,
but what is the doctrine of the Church of England,
and of the majority of Anglican divines.
Mr. Newman in treating of the Disciplina Arcani
observes, that ' the secret tradition soon ceased to
exist even in theory. It was authoritatively divulged,
1 2 Cor. iv. 2.

88
and perpetuated in the form of symbols, according
as the successive innovations of heretics called for
its publication. In the Creeds of the early Councils
it may be considered to have come to light, and so
ended. Now is not the Church of England pre
cisely in this position ? Has she not published to
the world her Creeds and Articles ? And if the
system ended in the early Church with the pub
lication of her formularies, how, after a similar
publication, should it make a beginning in our
own ?
But in order to show that the views maintained
by the writer of the Tract are not in accordance
with those of our own Church, it will be necessary
to consider his application of his principle to the
teaching of the Christian minister of the present
day. In the Continuation of his Tract recently pub
lished, (p. 3.) he remarks, that no argument has
been adduced which militates against the principle
itself of Reserve in religious teaching, but in lieu
of argument, ' much vague declamation, and strong
alarms expressed ;' by whom, he has omitted to
say, but in using this language, he had forgotten
apparently that two of his censurers were Bishops.
But it may be asked, How could his principle be
objected to ? If by Reserve, be simply meant dis
crimination, this must needs characterize the
teaching of every Christian minister who has com
mon sense for his guide. What Clergyman, for

89
instance, in approaching the sick bed of a drunk
ard or a prostitute, would commence his exhort
ations with an explanation of the doctrine of the
Trinity, or of the Eucharist ? It is not his principle
which has been censured, so much as the application
of it, and, among many other able writers, by the
Bp. of Exeter, in the following words :
" I lament, and more than lament, the tendency
at least, if not the direct import, of some of the
views of the writers of the Tracts for the Times
' On Reserve in communicating religious knowledge,'
especially, their venturing to recommend to us to
keep back from any who are baptized the explicit
and full declaration of the doctrine of the Atone
ment. I know not how such reserve can be
made consistent, not only with the general duty
of the Christian Minister, to be able at all times
to say with St. Paul, that he ' has not shunned to
declare all the counsel of God ;' but also with the
special and distinct requirement of our own Church,
that every child be taught the Catechism : for I
need not remind you, that in the Catechism this
great Article of our faith holds a most prominent
place ; that it is there taught both by plain impli
cation, in saying, that God the Son hath redeemed
us ; again in the inward grace of each Sacrament ;
and more explicitly and expressly in the reason,
" Why the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was
ordained," namely, " for the continual remem
brance of the Sacrifice of the Death of Christ, and

90
of the benefits which we receive thereby." How
is the meaning of these passages to be taught,
without also teaching the doctrine of the Atone
ment?" Charge, 1839.
The passages in the Tract here objected to are
probably the following :
" The prevailing notion of bringing forward the
Atonement explicitly and prominently on all occa
sions, is evidently quite opposed to what we con
sider the teaching of Scripture." Tract, No. 80.
p. 72.
Again :
" To require, as is sometimes done, from both
grown persons and children, an explicit declaration
of a belief in the Atonement, and the full assurance
of its power, appears equally untenable." Ibid. p. 78.
Now both these statements, it will be easy to
show, condemn the teaching alike of our own
Church, and of the majority of Anglican divines;
but in the Continuation of his Tract the writer has
gone further, and attributed sentiments to his
opponents which they never held. Thus :
" The system of which I speak is characterized
by these circumstances, an opinion that it is ne
cessary to obtrude and ' bring forward prominently
and explicitly on all occasions the doctrine of the
Atonement.' This one thing it puts in the place of
all the principles held by the Church Catholic, drop
ping all proportion of the faith," &c. Tract, No. 87.
p. 47, 48.

91
Again :
" With regard to the notion, that it is necessary
to ' bring forward the doctrine of the Atonement on
all occasions, prominently and exclusively,' it is
really difficult to say any thing in answer to an
opinion, however popular, when one is quite at a
loss to know on what grounds the opinion is
maintained." Ibid. p. 51.
Now it might reasonably be doubted, whether
a single Clergyman could be found in all England,
who makes the doctrine of the Atonement the
exclusive subject of his preaching. But if the
writer of the Tract is of a different opinion, let him
do as every other controversialist does, who wishes
not, to be contradicted, viz. name the writers who
advocate this principle, and give references to
their works. How would he feel, if an opponent
in the same vague way were to charge him and
his friends with Popery, and with recommending
the worship of the Virgin Mary ? Would he not
say that he was guilty, if not of actual unfair
ness, at all events, ' of not a little carelessness,'
(Letter, p. 217,) and bring forward passages to
prove, that instead of advocating such errors, they
had condemned them ? It is equally easy to do
this in the present case.
The following are extracts from the publications
of the party whom the writer is attacking :
" The cardinal doctrine of free and full Justifi
cation, through faith in the atoning blood and

92
meritorious righteousness of the Redeemer, the
holy nature and evidences of this faith, the imme
diate agency of the Holy Spirit in the work of
regeneration, progressive sanctification, and in all
his offices of holy and heavenly consolation, con
vincing, enlightening, comforting, and assuring the
heart of the sincere Christian, and enduing him
with a meetness for the inheritance of the saints
in light, that these are great and fundamental doc
trines, will be very generally allowed by all denomina
tions in the Church of God. But to affirm that this
is all the Gospel, is, in the writer's view, to put a
part (a very considerable part indeed, but still only
a part) for the whole." Bridges on the Christian
Ministry*, part iv. c. 4. sect. 1.
Here the Christian teacher, so far from being
recommended to preach the doctrine of the Atone
ment ' exclusively,' is reminded of the duty of
insisting upon several of the other more important
doctrines of Christianity as well, and even then
is told, that if he confine himself to these, he will
be putting a part of the Gospel for the whole. But
the writer, whom I shall next cite, goes further.
" Many preachers are not directly Antinomian
in doctrine, who yet dwell so fully and constantly
a This work has gone through several editions, and is very
popular with the class of clergy whom the writer of the Tract
is principally attacking. It may be studied by a discrimi
nating reader with great advantage; but the author is a low
Churchman.

93
on doctrinal points, and give the several parts of
the Christian temper and conduct in all its
branches and ramifications so little prominency,
that after all their ' hearers are never taught the
particulars of their duty in the several relations to
God and man, in the improvement of their talents,
the redemption of their time, &c. They are told,
in a few words, that they should be holy, and do
good works, but they are left ignorant in what
genuine holiness and good works consist ; and
often live in sin, or neglect of duty, for want of
knowing this or the other thing to be sin or duty.
As a Minister who had preached very strongly in
this way, but afterwards saw his mistake, observed,
when the conduct of his people towards him was
censured, ' I ought not,' said he, ' to wonder that
they fail of their duty to me, for I never taught
them their duty either to God or man with any
particularity." Life of the Rev. Thomas Scottb,
p. 210.
Now from these passages it will be seen, that
the authors of them, both popular, one of them
perhaps the most popular writer of the party
against which the Tract is directed, condemn
instead of advocating the error attributed to that
b The popularity of this writer may be estimated from the
fact, that the sale of his Commentary alone produced no less
than £200,000 during his own lifetime. Probably of no other
author could as much be said, with the exception of his name
sake the novelist.

94
party, viz. that it is the duty of the Christian
teacher to ' preach the doctrine of the Atonement
exclusively,' ' dropping all proportion of faith.'
But it is not a little singular, that in opposing
writers of this school of Theology, the Author of
the Tract joins hands with them in advocating a
peculiar, and surely your Lordship will consider it
an erroneous, opinion.
It is this : we are to begin as Christian teachers
in the application of the Disciplina Arcani,^ with
" insisting first of all, if need be, on natural piety, on
the necessity of common honesty, on repentance,
on judgment to come, and without any mode of
expression that excepts ourselves from that judg
ment, by urging those assistances to poverty of
spirit which Scripture recommends, and the Church
prescribes, such as fasting and alms, and the ne
cessity of reverent and habitual prayer. These may
be the means of bringing persons to the truth as it is
in Jesus Christ, with that awe and fear, which our
Lord's own teaching and that of his Apostles would
inspire." Tract, No. 87. p. 50.
Or, as Mr. Newman expresses it,
" It is the uniform method of Scripture to con
nect the Gospel with natural religion, and to mark
out obedience to the moral law as the ordinary
means of attaining to a Christian faith, the higher
truths, as well as the Eucharist, which is the visible
emblem of them, being reserved as the reward and
confirmation of habitual piety." Arians, p. 51.

95
Now what is this but to fall into the very error
condemned (and surely very justly) by a pious and
able writer in the teaching of the opposite party?
'I cannot forbear,' observes the excellent Mr.Millerp,
' from expressing an unequivocal dissent from the
prevailing practice among Christian preachers, of
separating their hearers in their discourses into
two broad classes, which can only be described
virtually as the Christians of the flock and the
unchristianized. I think that we should listen with
very great jealousy to such a manner of instruction ;
and that no method (directed in sincerity to the
object of enforcing Christian truth) can present
itself to my mind (I speak, of course, individually)
as less Scriptural, or less deducible from any pattern
set by the Apostles, look to which of their Epistles
we will.' Surely, to apply the system of the Dis
cipline of the Secret to the instruction of a baptized
congregation, to withhold from the more ignorant
and careless among them the doctrine of the Atone
ment, and the mystery of the holy Eucharist, and
to endeavour to bring them to the knowledge of the
truth as it is in Jesus through natural religion and
the law, is virtually to unchrislianize them, and, as
has been already urged, to join hands^ with the
opposite party. And now it will be easy to see,
I. How far this is the system of the Anglican
Church. To begin with the Homilies, which may be re-
» Sermons, Preface.

96
garded as models of pastoral instruction. ' The
first coming to God,' we read, is not through natural
religion and the performance of moral duties, but
' by faith,' and that ' not a mere belief of all things
relating to God contained in Holy Scripture, but
also an earnest trust and confidence in God, that he
doth regard us, and that he is careful over us, as
the father is over the child whom he doth love, and
that he will be merciful unto us for his Son's
sake, and that we have our Saviour Christ our
perpetual Advocate and Priest, in whose only merits,
oblation, and suffering, we do trust that our offences
be continually washed and purged ; whensoever we,
repenting truly, do return to him with our whole
heart, stedfastly determining with ourselves through
his grace to obey and serve him in keeping his
commandments, and never to turn back again to
sin.' Here surely we are taught that a belief in
Jesus Christ as our High Priest and Saviour is the
very first step in religion, and the doctrine of the
Atonement so far from being kept back from any
baptized person whatsoever, is set before him ' ex
plicitly and prominently ;' and it will be impossible
to look through any number of the Homilies with-.
out seeing, that this is done, in further opposition to
the doctrine of the Tract under review, ' on all
occasions.' In one of the Homilies for Rogation
Week we read, that God reconciled the world unto
himself, ' by no less a mean than his only-be
gotten Son, whom he spared not from any pain or

97
travail that might do us good. For upon him he put
our sins, him he made our ransom ; him he made
the mean betwixt us and himself, whose mediation
was so acceptable to God the Father, through his
absolute and perfect obedience, that he took his act
for a full satisfaction of all our disobedience and
rebellion, whose righteousness he took to weigh
against our sins, whose redemption he would have
stand against our damnation.' And even in a dis
course upon a particular branch of Christian duty,
i. e. the Homily on Fasting, we are reminded, that
' it is of the free grace and mercy of God, by the
mediation of the blood of his Son Jesus Christ,
without merit or deserving on our part, that our
sins are forgiven us, that we are reconciled and
brought again into his favour, and are made heirs
of his heavenly kingdom.' How, it may be asked,
could the doctrine of the Atonement be brought
forward more ' explicitly and prominently,' than
we find it in these expressions, or in the following
from another of our Church's formularies, the Com-
mination Service ? ' Turn ye (saith the Lord) from all
your wickedness, and your sin shall not be your
destruction. Cast away from you all your ungodli
ness that ye have done. Make you new hearts and
a new spirit. Wherefore will ye die, O ye house of
Israel, seeing that I have no pleasure in the death
of him that dieth, saith the Lord God. Turn ye
then, and ye shall live. Although we have sinned,
we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ
H

98
the righteous ; and he is the propitiation for our
sins. For he was wounded for our offences, and
smitten for our wickedness.'
The argument to be drawn from the Church
Catechism has been anticipated in the extract
from the Bishop of Exeter's Charge, and it need
only therefore be observed further, that the in
struction there given to children respecting the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is utterly at
variance with Mr. Newman's theory, that the
knowledge of the Eucharist is to be ' reserved as
the reward and confirmation of habitual piety.'
But it is time to consider,
II. Whether the teaching of the Author of the
Tract be in accordance with that of the majority of
Anglican divines.
Now it is obvious that it would be wearisome,
and indeed almost impracticable, to show by a
series of quotations however numerous, that it has
been the practice of Anglican divines to bring
forward the doctrine of the Atonement explicitly
and prominently in their discourses on all oc
casions. But it is remarkable, that in the work
objected to, and that by no means a short one, the
writer who recommends this application of the
principle of Preserve in communicating religious
knowledge, has not produced a single testimony of
this description in favour of his own view. Ap
pended, however, to each of the Tracts of the
'limes which have been published separately, is

99
to be found a list of writers, who, more or less, (!)
to quote the words of the Authors, uphold or
elucidate the general doctrines contained in them;
a wide, but not on that account a safe, assertion,
as I shall attempt to prove in the present
instance. One of the works referred to is Herbert's Coun
try Parson, which, as it contains rules for the
guidance of the Clergy in the composition of their
Sermons, as well as their general intercourse with
their flocks, might be expected rather than any
other to contain a recommendation of the appli
cation objected to of the principle of Reserve, if
such recommendation could be found. But so far
from it, his evidence is decisive on the other side;
and in his Prayer before his Sermon, to be found at
the end of the volume, and which we may presume
he made use of before every Sermon, we find the fol
lowing testimony to the propriety of ' bringing for
ward the doctrine of the Atonement explicitly,
prominently, and upon all occasions.'
" O Almighty and ever-living God ! Majesty
and Power, and Brightness and Glory ! How shall
we dare to appear before thy face, who are con
trary to thee in all we call thee ! For we are
darkness, and weakness, and filthiness, and shame.
Misery and sin fill all our days. But thou, Lord,
art all patience, and pity, and sweetness, and love ;
therefore we sons of men are not consumed.
Thou hast exalted thy mercy above all things, and
h 2

100
hast made our salvation, not our punishment, thy
glory ; so that where sin abounded, not death, but
grace superabounded. Accordingly when we had
sinned beyond any help in heaven or earth, then thou
saids'f, Lo, I come ! Then did the Lord of life,
unable himself to die, contrive to do it. He took
flesh, he wept, he died ; for his enemies he died; even
for those that derided him then, and still despise him.
Blessed Saviour ! many waters could not quench
thy love, nor no pit overwhelm it. But though the
streams of thy blood were current through dark
ness, grave, and hell ; yet by these thy conflicts,
and seemingly hazards, didst thou rise triumphant,
and therein madest us victorious.
" Neither did thy love yet stay here. For
this word of thy rich peace and reconciliation thou
hast committed, not to thunder, or angels, but to
silly and sinful men ; even to me, pardoning my
sins, and bidding me go feed the people of thy
love." From this extract, if we may judge of the degree
of support to be looked for from thedivines of thebest
ages of Anglican theology who are supposed more or
less to favour the writer's application of his principle,
it need hardly be wondered at, that he has not
thought proper to make a more distinct appeal
to their testimony, and I might confidently ven
ture to challenge him to produce a single authority
for keeping back in Reserve the doctrine of the
Atonement, from the writings of theologians of the

101
reigns of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I. And
if at a later period there arose a School of Theology,
little in favour with the writer or his friends, (see
Mr. Newman's Lects. on Justification, p. 12,)
who thought that Jesus Christ might be said to
be truly preached, whenever his will and laws, and
the duties enjoined by the Christian religion, were
inculcated, they are rebuked in the following cha
racteristic terms by Bishop Horsley, (with which I
shall conclude this part of my subject.)
" There are two maxims which I never hear
without extreme concern from the lips of a divine,
either in the pulpit, or in familiar conversation :
namely, that Practical Religion and Morality are
one and the same thing ; that moral duties con
stitute the whole, or the better part, of practical
Christianity. " Both these maxims are erroneous. Both, as
far as they are received, have a pernicious influence
on the ministry of the word. The first most absurdly
separates practice from the motives of practice, the
second, adopting that separation, reduces practical
Christianity to heathen virtue  The system
chiefly in request with those who seem most in ear
nest in this strain of preaching is the strict, but im
practicable, unsocial, sullen, moral of the Stoics.
Thus, under the influence of these two pernicious
maxims.it too often happens, that we lose sight of that
which is our proper office, to publish the word of
Reconciliation, to propound the terms of peace and

102
pardon to the penitent, and we make no other use of
the high commission that we bear, than to come
abroad one day in seven, dressed in solemn looks,
and in the external garb of holiness, to be the apes of
Epictetus." And he exhorts the Clergy, " Pray ear
nestly to God to assist the ministration of the word
by the secret influence of His Holy Spirit on the
minds of your hearers ; and nothing doubting that
your prayers are heard, however mean and il
literate the congregation may be, in which you
exercise your sacred function, fear not to set
before them the whole counsel of God. Open the
whole of your message without reservation ; that
every one of you may have confidence to say when
he shall be called upon to give an account of his
stewardship, ' Lord, I have not hid thy righteous
ness within my heart ; I have not concealed thy
loving-kindness and truth from the great con
gregation.' "

conclusion.
" The simple believeth every word, but the prudent man looketh well to his
going." Prov. xiv. 15.
Such, my Lord, are the arguments, upon the
strength of which the writer of these pages has
thought it his painful duty to bring against the
Authors of the Tracts for the Times the charge of
Novel and Confused views of Doctrine, of one
or more serious violations of Discipline, and of
disrespect for Episcopal Authority ; a duty pain
ful, under any circumstances, but more espe
cially so to one of the writer's sentiments, enter
taining as he does a very high respect for the
personal character of the authors in question, and
conceiving them to have been the instruments of
recalling public attention to much valuable but
neglected truth.
In the year 1833, when the Tracts for the Times
first made their appearance, the need of some
such publication was deeply felt. For nearly six
months a measure introduced into Parliament
had been before the country, founded upon a most
unheard stretch of authority on the part of the
Civil Power, which proposed to annihilate no less
than ten of the Bishoprics of the United Church

104
of England and Ireland, in the teeth of the remon
strances of the great majority of the Irish Bishops
and Clergy. And their brethren in England wire
silent. An eloquent Irish Clergyman indignantly
observed to the writer, ' The Church of England
has left the Church of Ireland to her fate, and who
shall help her in the day of adversity ?' And the
cause of this strange apathy was no doubt mere
ignorance — ignorance of the very first principles of
Church Discipline forgotten in days of comparative
ease and security. Nor can it be questioned, that
the Sacraments had been too little thought of,
especially that of Baptism, to which the phrase
ology of the day had virtually denied the name of a
Sacrament, by appropriating that title to the other.
Other subjects of great importance had likewise
fallen into comparative neglect, the evil of schism
was lightly thought of, the merits of the Liturgy were
not adequately appreciated, the claims of Episcopal
Authority not duly regarded. Still a manifest
revival of religion had been going forward among
us for many years, and was making itself felt in
the remotest corners of the British empire, in India
especially exciting astonishment, and awakening
reflection even among the heathen themselves.
Many moreover of the Clergy, disappointed in their
efforts to conciliate sectarians by compromise and
concession began to feel their need of recovering
the strength which had been imperceptibly depart
ing from them, whilst engaged in such unlawful

105
attempts, and of cultivating a more exact acquaint
ance with Church principles than they had hitherto
attained. Under these circumstances, the writer of these
pages became one of he presumes several sub
scribers to a fund for setting on foot the Tracts for
the Times; and though warned by Mr. Newman that
they might be found to contain sentiments in which
he could not concur, paid his subscription very
cheerfully, under the conviction, that exact agree
ment in every particular of religious opinion was
unattainable, and that the tendency of the publi
cation on the whole would be beneficial, as filling
up a gap in the then state of Anglican Theology.
For a time all went on comparatively well, and he
believes that there is little in the first volume to
object to. But when he came to Dr. Pusey's
second Tract on Baptism, and that which has been
considered in the foregoing pages on Reserve in
communicating Religious Knowledge, he cannot
express his own feelings better than in the words of
Mr. Perceval, already cited from the British
Magazine, that it was ' with regret and alarm that
he read those papers,' of which he believes with
him that " the former is calculated to break many
a ' bruised reed,' and the latter to lead to rash
judgment, and withholding the means of grace."
And he is further of opinion, that the tendency of
the views of the authors on these and kindred subjects
is materially to interfere with the character of the

106
Gospel as a message of Reconciliation, and to throw
clouds and darkness around the path of the sinner
returning to his God.
When will these writers remember, that it is love
rather than terror that melts the sinner's heart, and
that he is less readily moved by the threats of the
Law than by the encouragements of the Gospel ?
" To threats the stubborn sinner oft is hard,
" Wrapped in his crimes, against the storm prepar'd ;
" But when the milder beams of mercy play,
" He melts, and throws the cumbrous cloak away.
" Lightning and thunder, heaven's artillery,
" As harbingers before th' Almighty fly ;
" These but proclaim his style, and disappear ;
" The stiller sound succeeds, and God is there."
It is indeed some consolation to the writer to
believe, that the doctrinal views animadverted upon
in this Letter have found little favour in the eyes of
the great body of the Parochial Clergy. Perhaps
not a single instance could be adduced, beyond the
circle of Dr. Pusey's personal friends, of their
adoption by any Clergyman of thirty years of age,
who had not changed his opinions several times
before. But it is in the bosom of our Universities
that the evil is most severely felt, among; the young
and ignorant, the ardent and romantic, beginners in
religion, with favourable dispositions indeed, but un
formed views, who ask, How can men of so much
talent, learning, and piety be mistaken ? and who
are too little acquainted either with the history of

107
the controversy, or with the world around them, to
perceive, that all excellence is not confined to that
side, nor all defects to the opposite.
Never perhaps did there exist a theologian, whose
personal character was calculated to give greater
weight to his opinions than is Dr. Pusey's. The
heavenly and uniformly edifying nature of his
conversation is an excellence, which can be
appreciated only by those who enjoy the' advantage
of his society ; but his munificence, the sacrifice
which he has made of his personal comfort in
receiving young men into his house, and so
defraying the greater portion of their expenses
during their residence in the University, and his
great meekness in controversy, are known and read
of all men. But it would be vain to deny, that, as
far as human eye can see, equal excellence is to be
found among those who differ from him. Does not
the Bishop of Calcutta, in the very Charge in which
he condemns Mr. Newman's view of Justification,
announce his own intention of giving £20,000 for the
erection of a Cathedral ? Did not Bp. Tomline say
of Mr. Scott the Commentator, that his answer to his
' Refutation of Calvinism' was the work of a scholar,
a Christian, and a gentleman ? And what brighter
instance of self-devotion has been exhibited in
modern times, than by a Fellow of a College in our
own University, who, with sentiments widely dif
fering from Dr. Pusey's, has given up home and

108 .
country, and the certain prospect of preferment in
England, to go forth and labour as a Missionary in
a foreign land ?
And as all excellence is not confined to one side,
neither are all defects to the opposite. The authors
of the Tracts for the Times have some of them
indeed been treated shamefully. The writer of
these pages gave up a Periodical, which he had
taken in for many years, on reading in it a gross
and slanderous attack upon the conduct of Mr.
Newman. But what is to be said in excuse for the
author of a work recommending the Revival of the
Monastic system in England, who, in a letter to the
editor of the ' Record,' pronounced his newspaper a
' pestilential rag?' Or for the following equally
objectionable notice in the British Critic ?
" The attack upon the Tracts for the Times
begun by Dr. Faussett, Margaret Professor, and
continued by the Sun and Standard newspapers,
seems gently drawing to its end. It has travelled
eastward. The controversy is at present in
the hands of Sir Peter Laurie, who has ad
dressed a letter to Mr. Cator upon the subject of
Puseyism." The writer had forgotten apparently, that the
controversy had also travelled westward, and had
been taken up by the Bishop of Exeter, and crossed
St. George's channel, and been taken up by the
Archbishop of Cashel. But it is the unchristian

109
tone and temper of the passage which is here
objected to, the bitter satire contained in it, a
weapon which should no more be made use of in
controversy between Christian Theologians, than
poisoned arrows in war between civilized nations.
" Haec est in ecclesia noscenda simplicitas, hsec
caritas obtinenda, ut columbas dilectio fraternitatis
imitetur, ut mansuetudo et lenitas agnis et ovibus
aequetur. Quid facit in pectore Christiano luporum
feritas, et canum rabies, et venenum lethale ser-
pentum, et cruenta ssevitia bestiarum" ?"
Still, the editor of the British Critic can be very
gentle and courteous, — and Dr. Pusey remarkably
so. It may be doubted, whether, in the whole
compass of his writings, a single sarcasm is to be
met with. Few authors have written more con
sistently, as though under the influence of Hooker's
impressive admonition; " There will come a time,
when three words uttered with charity and meek
ness shall receive a far more blessed reward, than
three thousand volumes written with disdainful
sharpness of wit." But Dr. Pusey's fault is that
which he has charged upon his opponents, namely,
' not a little carelessness' in attributing to them
opinions, without examining by whom they are
held, whether by the ' disciples' or the ' teachers,'
as a consequence of their system, or in spite of it.
How, for instance, could he bring himself to say",
" Cyprian de Unitate Eccl. b Letter, p. 84.

110
that, according to ' a modern popular theology,'
' to revert to past sin is to doubt of Christ's mercy,
to bear a painful recollection of it is to be under the
bondage of the law;' that the system in question ' has
but two topics, " repent, and believe the Gospel ;"
but these so narrowed, that repentance is to precede
faith, faith to supersede repentance?' My Lord,
although I do not belong to the party here attacked,
or indeed to any party whatsoever, I must say that
I feel exceedingly indignant at finding attributed to
any number of my fellow-Christians such senti
ments as these ; and you will bear with me if I
endeavour to make manifest the injustice of Dr.
Pusey's observations, by another appeal to a very
valuable piece of biography before referred to, I
mean, the life of Mr. Scott the Commentator by his
son. " There is a point, which it is of much greater
importance to place in a just light : I mean, the
severe judgment, as many will think it, which my
father passes upon himself and his own conduct.
This extends itself to every part' of his life; to his
early days at school ; to his apprenticeship ; to his
conduct while subsequently resident with his father ;
and to no period, nor to any event, more remarkably
than to his taking upon him the sacred office of
the Ministry. We read here nothing of the levities
or indiscretions of youth, where real immoralities
are intended ; nothing of simple improprieties, and
the want of greater consideration, and more serious

Ill
thought. The offences of the school-boy are sins
against God; undutifulness to a parent, even though
the conduct of that parent be marked by some degree
of harshness, is regarded as a crime : and, above all,
tampering with solemn subscriptions, and intruding
into the sacred office from ambitious, self-indulgent,
and other unhallowed motives, is felt as an impiety,
which no words are strong enough to describe.
Yet, after all, some may be ready to ask, and not
without a degree of justice, What was there, at least
if one or two exceptions be made, worse than is
found in thousands, who are never troubled with
any such apprehensions of the enormity of their
conduct ? Now I feel that I proceed entirely upon
principles, which he, whose case gives occasion to
the enquiry, would sanction, and, what is still
more important, upon the principles of Scripture
itself, when I return the following answer to this
question. Every thing depends upon the standard
by which we judge. If the current opinions of
mankind be our standard, then it will be easy for
us to ' make light of sin ;' our own sins, and those
of others. But if, with the holy character before
us — for such he had become before, he wrote either
of his narratives — we " enter into the sanctuary
of God," and judge by the standard of his holy
law, especially as it is explained by our blessed
Saviour in his Sermon on the mount ; and if
withal the Holy Spirit of God perform his promised
office, by " convincing us of sin ;" then the purest

112
and most blameless among us will find reason to
cry, even with anguish of spirit, ' God be merciful
to me a sinner.' If we thus obtain some glimpses
of the majesty and glory of the " holy, holy, holy,
Lord God Almighty," then, far from shining in our
own eyes, or comparing ourselves to our own
advantage with our fellow sinners, we shall be
prepared with Job, and David, and Isaiah, and
Daniel, and St. Peter, and St. Paul, and Augustine,
and a thousand others who have obtained ' a good
report' in the annals of the Church, to exclaim,
' I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.' ' Wo
is me, I am undone !' ' Remember not against me
the sins and offences of my youth.' ' I am ashamed,
yea, even confounded, because I did bear the re
proach of my youth.' And this is the true expla
nation of the judgment which my father passes
upon his own character and conduct."
Now Mr. Scott was a leader, and his biographer
another leader, of the party alluded to by Dr. Pusey,
and the work from which the foregoing extract has
been taken had reached an eighth edition fifteen
years ago. If the errors attributed to that party
be as ' popular' as they are represented, how can
these writers which condemn them be popular too ? —
But the injustice manifested in this instance by
Dr. Pusey is obvious, and not confined to a single
chapter of his work.
The truth is, and the remark has so often been
made that one is almost ashamed to repeat it, that

113
great excellencies and great defects are to be found
in the professors of nearly all religious opinions.
Novatian was what would be called in popular
language an excellent man, so was Cardinal Bel-
larmine, to name no more. And to those who
remember our Saviour's injunction to ' call no
man master,' and set themselves to perform the
duty of private judgment, this circumstance will
sometimes occasion a degree of temporary per
plexity. Indeed such perplexity is perhaps the
great trial of the day\ And why should we
wonder at it ? If amid the fiery trial of outward
persecution, it were necessary that there should
be divisions in the Church, ' that they which were
approved might be made manifest"1,' their charity
tested, their humility, their zeal for the truth, the
sincerity, the constancy of their faith, shall we
think it strange that in these days of comparative
ease and security, this particular species of trial
should come upon us with redoubled force ? Still,
in the use of the means which Scripture points out
to us, the humble and persevering enquirer will be
guided aright. ' The meek shall he guide in
judgment, the meek shall he learn his way.' ' If
c And yet, better the divisions which prevail in the present
century than the indifference of the last. ' Melius est ut
scandalum oriatur quam Veritas relinquatur.' St. Bernard,
Epist. 78. ' Where no oxen are, the crib is clean, but much
increase is by the strength of the ox.' Prov. xiv. 4.
* 1 Cor. xi. 18, 19. I

114
any man lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who
giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and
it shall be given him.' ' Trust in the Lord with all
thine heart, and lean not to thine own under
standing : in all thy ways acknowledge him, and
he shall direct thy paths.'
I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient servant,
A Clergyman of the Diocese, and a Resident
Member of the University.
Oxford, May 19, 1840.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

POSTSCRIPT.
The Author, in deference to Dr. Pusey's wishes,
to whom he had forwarded a copy of his Letter
together with his name, thinks it right to append
the following paragraph, (given in Dr. Pusey's own
words,) to the copies which have not yet been sold.
He must at the same time, however, observe,
that he conceives the insertion to be unnecessary,
as he had himself remarked, in the page referred to,
that it was ' no doubt unintentionally' that Dr.
Pusey had ' stretched his Lordship's words beyond
their legitimate application.'
" In reference to the statement made p. 6, the Author has
been informed by Dr. Pusey, that he had no thought whatever
of claiming the benefit of the sentence of his Diocesan for
any publications, except those of which His Lordship was
speaking, the 'Tracts for the Times; nor as to those, to any
extent beyond His Lordship's own words ; ' the Authors
of the Tracts in question had laid no such painful necessity
[of interference] upon me, nor have I to fear that they
ever will;' on the contrary, Dr. Pusey informs the Author,
that it was his anxious desire, scrupulously to adhere to
the Letter of His Lordship's Charge, that he took pains to
do so, and that he had no other works in his mind."

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08561 7109