Oakele

y

Oa't

THE

SUBJECT OF TRACT XC.

EXAMINED,

IN CONNECTION WITH THE

HISTORY OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES,

STATEMENTS OF CERTAIN ENGLISH DIVINES.

TO WHICH IS ADDED,

THE CASE OF BISHOP MOUNTAGUE,
IN THE REIGN OF KING JAMES I.

BY THE
REV. FREDERICK OAKELEY, M.A.
FELLOW OF BALLIOL COLLEGE, OXFORD,
PREBENDARY OF LICHFIELD,
AND MINISTER OF MARGARET CHAPEL, ST. MARY-LE-BONE.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. Paul's church yard,
AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.

Mhgt5

1841.

LONDON :
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The original design, in this publication, was to
make the Testimonies of the Divines its principal,
and the remaining observations merely its subor
dinate feature. But the introductory remarks have
grown, in the progress of the attempt, to a length,
and some of the facts on which they are founded,
appear to the writer to assume an importance, on
which he did not originally reckon. He has accord
ingly altered the wording of the title page, while the
sheets were passing through the press. This infor
mation is given to account for the prominence as
signed to the Testimonies in the opening of the In
quiry ; an inconvenience which could not have been
obviated without the reconstruction of the whole.

THE

SUBJECT OF TRACT XC.
Sfc.

Among other objections which have been made to
No. 90. of the Tracts for the Times, it is said to pro
pound a view of the Thirty-nine Articles, which is
unprecedented in the Church of England. The pre
sent collection of extracts is brought forward for
the purpose of showing that such is not the case.
One of two conclusions seems plain from them ;
either, that the divines from whose writings they
are taken, had been at pains to reconcile certain
opinions, which they both held and taught, with
the terms of the Articles ; or, at least, that they
did not consider subscription to those Articles to
present a bar to the promulgation of those opinions.
And, since no view of subscription, however lax, goes
the length of justifying persons in teaching, as well as
holding, doctrines, which the Articles preclude, we are
left to the inference, that, unless these divines re
garded the Articles as a mere dead letter, they must

have been of opinion, that such doctrines were not
precluded by them.
Nothing is as yet said of the case of Bishop
Mountague, (appended to the extracts,) which
amounts to far more than this ; amounts, in fact, to
something very like an authoritative decision, on the
part of the then Church of England, in favour of the
consistency of certain very close approximations to
Roman doctrine, with the language of her formularies ;
such decision having been pronounced, after a careful
deliberation, by a committee of Bishops, appointed
by the king to represent the national Church.
For the present, however, I waive the case of
Bishop Mountague, and confine myself to the extracts.
And, in the first place, it is necessary to state, how
much, and how much only, these citations are intended
to prove. This necessity results from a prevailing
tendency to mistake the nature of the proof to which
what are called " Catenae," and all testimonies of that
description, are directed. Persons have sometimes
appeared to think, that they could overthrow the
evidence of " Catenae " from the works of our divines,
by producing counter " Catenae " from the same
sources ; which would indeed be the case, were such
evidence adduced to prove that the doctrines, which
it accredits, are true ; or, again, have been uniformly
taught in our Church. But all that " Catenae "
necessarily show, and all that, as a matter of fact, they
are generally intended to show, is, that certain doc
trines are not new. This is said in anticipation of an

objection which may possibly be made to the proof
now attempted. It may be called a " one-sided" view
of the question. Persons may speak of the possibility
of overwhelming such quotations as those now ex
hibited, with quotations, also from the works of English
divines, of a directly opposite tenour.
Now such possibility is not merely admitted, but
asserted. To what, however, does it amount ? Plainly
to no more than this ; that the later Church of England
(whether happily or not,) has ruled, or at least acqui
esced in the presumption, that her Articles permit a
very great latitude on both sides. It has never been
maintained, that I know of, on the side of the Tract,
assuredly not by its author himself, that all the doc
trines, in behalf of which he pleads at least the nega
tive testimony of the Thirty-nine Articles, are impera
tive upon the Clergy of the Established Church, as
such ; but simply that they are compatible with honest
subscription. Now, this is distinctly denied on the
other side. The doctrines in question, (at least in
the extent intimated in the Tract,) are not merely,
in the judgment of the objectors, excluded by the
terms of the Articles, but have, it is farther urged,
always been considered, in the later English Church,
to be so excluded by them. This, then, and this only,
is the point in question.
Again, it is not to the purpose to urge, as is some
times done in objection to evidence like that now
produced, that English divines are often inconsistent,
not only with one another, but with themselves ;
b2

and thus that little, after all, is to be gathered from
their statements on any one side. For the object, in
these cases, is not to justify the divines, any more than
to ground particular doctrines upon their authority,
but merely to show what they have felt themselves
at liberty to say, and been actually able to say
without protest. And this fact has its own weight,
whatever these divines may chance to have said else
where. Of course I do not here speak of reserves
and qualifications made in the neighbourhood of the
several passages.
Now it is by no means admitted of the present
quotations, that they serve merely as precedents.
Considering that they involve the judgment, upon
certain subjects, of men like Andrewes and Thorndike,
(not to speak of others) men not merely of profound
learning, but of eminent piety, and known moderation,
they must, with many persons, carry weight far beyond
the very subordinate use now made of them. But
there is no occasion to press them into our service
beyond the point for which they are here claimed.
It is enough that the authors of those passages are
divines and bishops of our Church. And this being
so, the question then is, not so much, who these
divines and bishops were, as, what they maintained.
But there is yet another conceivable objection
to the present line of defence, against which it is
well to provide. It may be said, that, besides being
unfair to our Church to represent her as a witness
to doctrines so very much above the average pitch of

her theology, and so entirely at variance with her oc
casional teaching, it is also highly inexpedient, and
especially at a time when many of her members are
known to be tending in the direction of Rome, to
select exclusively, and exhibit synoptically, the avow
edly strongest statements which her annals any where
supply, in favour of doctrines commonly thought to
be characteristic of the Churches in the Roman
obedience. But this objection must be at once met by saying,
that persons are driven upon this course in spite of
themselves. It has been one result of the turn
which the present controversy has taken, as observed
by Mr. Ward, in a passage of his pamphlet quoted by
Dr. Pusey ', (a result, no doubt ordered for the best,
however, with many, a subject of regret,) to provoke
developments, or put upon modes of defence, which
would otherwise have been premature, at least, if not
positively objectionable. Mr. Newman speaks of
having been deterred from certain explanations, in
the first instance, by the fear of tempting persons "to
go as far" as they legitimately might. And such, no
doubt, is the tendency of the present argument, though
framed with a view to quite a different object.
All that can be said is, that, as things are, persons
are exposed to a choice of difficulties. And, as we
' "Through the course which Mr. Newman has been obliged to
take, the Ora pro nobis has been brought before persons who
would otherwise have never thought of it." — A Few More Words,
&c. page 84.

all know, the apprehension of possible results, though,
(in the estimate of many) disastrous, must not deter
us from a course manifestly right in itself. And
such seems to be this course of obviating, if so be,
great misapprehensions which are moving well-inten
tioned persons to adopt measures, and to use words,
from which perhaps they would shrink, if they knew
all, or bethought themselves, at the moment, of all
they know. And in the responsibility of such (hy-
pothetically) rash measures, and random words, any
one would certainly in a degree be involved, who
should, on whatever grounds of mere expediency,
omit, where he feels himself able, to throw light
on the subject. This, then, is one very plain Chris
tian reason for the present publication ; more shall
presently be added. And, on the other hand, in
stating, as has here been done, to how very little,
after all, the present argument pretends, (the ques
tion being simply, whether that little be enough for
the immediate purpose) it is hoped that all is done,
which is possible under the circumstances, towards
hindering persons from taking any undue advantage
of it.
One inducement, then, to the present undertaking,
is the earnest desire of promoting peace and unity,
by throwing out for the consideration of persons, of
whom the writer of these remarks is bound to speak
with respect, and into whose difficulties he trusts he
is not unable to enter, a view which may not have
occurred to them, but which seems to make it at least

doubtful whether, by the course they feel it their
duty to take, they be not fomenting needless divi
sions, and encouraging a spirit which, in its fullest
developments (out of any man's power to arrest) they
would be among the first to deprecate. Is it not
that they are seeking to oppose, as at variance with
the doctrine of the Church of which they are mem
bers, views, concerning which it is, at all events, a
doubtful question, whether they have not in past ages
been assumed, or even pronounced, compatible with that
doctrine ; and those, too, the very ages to which
many of these persons are accustomed to appeal
against the tone of teaching prevalent in our Church
both at an earlier, and a later, period ? and would
it not seem that, in thwarting the present move
ment in favour of " more catholic views than satis
fied the last century," they are rather siding with the
Puritans of former times, than with the moderate
party in the Church of England which they wish to
represent ? The case of Bishop Mountague is perti
nent to this point. If the value of the evidence
about to be produced be not greatly overrated, it
would certainly tend to the conclusion, that, not
they are introducing " a new era" in the Church of
England, who endeavour to reconcile certain doc
trines, however now, as of old, unpopular, with the
language of the Articles, but rather they, who speak
of subjecting to penalties, or placing under incapaci
ties, the persons who are but claiming liberty to hold
what English divines of former times claimed, and

8
were allowed, liberty to teach. This, rather than the
other, would seem, if it may be said with all respect,
to be the line of " innovation." No one questions
the absolute right of the Church of this, as of any
other day (properly represented), to impose new
Articles, or a new sense upon her present ; nor,
again, the right and, what is more, the obligation,
of individuals, whether in the University or else
where, to act for themselves, either in the matter of
Testimonials, or in whatever other way, according to
their conscientious notion of the words " doctrine
and discipline of the Church of England." Only,
inasmuch as the imposition of restrictions upon
liberty of conscience, if it be not a duty, is certainly
a sin, in that, (to omit other considerations) it is an
injustice to individuals to set a mark upon them
without reason, and an injustice to the Church, of
which we are members, to deprive her of the ser
vices of Ministers who, not being (upon the hypo
thesis) disqualified for their functions, may, on other
grounds, become instruments for the promotion of
God's glory, and the edification of their brethren ;
it should certainly be a grave question with any one,
who may feel inclined to debar, as far as he is able,
certain persons from ecclesiastical or quasi-eccle
siastical privileges, whether he may not be laying up
for himself materials of future repentance, while be
lieving himself, in his heart, to be "doingGod service^.''
To avoid all possibility of misapprehension, I will say that
I am not here disputing the prerogative of Heads of Colleges to

But it is not merely that we are bound in duty to
the Church of Christ to do what we can towards heal
ing her "unhappy divisions," and to individuals, (not to
deprecate, on our own account, the exercise of a power
which may affect ourselves, for this is a mere trifle,
or rather such temporary hardship as may be the
result of it, is likely to be a benefit to ourselves, but)
out of very tenderness towards our brethren, to press
on them the duty, as well as the immense im
portance at this critical juncture, of calm religious
reflection. We are likewise under especial obliga
tion to our Bishops, to aid them (as, in a measure,
the humblest has the power) in the course of mode
ration and forbearance which they have hitherto
maintained, amid many temptations to deviate from
it, under the excitement of this anxious controversy.
It becomes us, where we think we have the means,
to strengthen, if it may be said, their hands, by
putting before a party which is endeavouring, by
clamour, to provoke them to some authoritative
interference, the adequate vindication (may it not
rather be said the true grounds ?) of their past and
continued forbearance. For, who can doubt, that
order all matters connected with education in their respective
Societies, according to their own view of the interests of those
entrusted to their care. I refer only to cases in which the
" doctrine of the Church of England" is directly in question.
And both the general tone of conversation in Oxford, and the tenor
of recent publications, are enough to protect me, in what has
now been said, from the charge of harbouring merely ideal appre
hensions.

10
the pointed avoidance of all allusion to doctrine, in
the only instance in which any of our Prelates has
hitherto felt it necessary to interpose publicly, in con
sequence of the Tract, as well as the great reluctance
manifested by the Bishops generally to interpose at
all, have arisen from a disinclination, on their parts,
even to appear to rule, (at least without very great
caution,) that a certain construction of a Formulary,
so avowedly comprehensive as the Thirty-nine Articles,
is absolutely inconsistent with the obligations imposed
by subscription ; and thus to run risk of a schism in
our Church, the effects of which it is impossible to
calculate ?
Again, it is a plain duty of justice and charity
towards individuals, lying under grievous imputa
tions on the score of unscrupulousness, if not posi
tive dishonesty, to show what can be shown in their
defence ; and this, quite irrespectively of any claims
which they may have upon this or that person on
more private grounds ; though, of course, the tie of
affection, or the sense of obligation for services felt
to be inestimable, will increase, in particular cases,
the desire of coming forward, at all hazards, and with
how little soever hope of success, in their behalf.
In a public document, the production of grave and
experienced persons, holding high and responsible
situations in the country, and almost proverbial for
caution, the view of the Tract has been pronounced,
not merely dangerous (which is a mere expression of
opinion upon it), but " evasive," which involves also a

11
very serious reflection upon its author. Under these
circumstances, it seems but common justice to the
writer of the Tract, to show, if it can be shown, that he
has done no more than others have done, without re
proach, before him ; or rather that, with great can
dour, and at the risk of much odium, he has gone
out of his way to adjust with the terms of the Articles,
statements which our older divines seem rather to
have advanced without scruple; thus challenging in
vestigations which they felt themselves strong enough
to defy, and providing against objections, which
they would not even imagine. Many, probably,
who cannot bring themselves to think the author of
the Tract right, would be equally, or even more, un
willing, to think some of our older divines wrong,
which, in such measure as his statements are borne
out by their authority, is the virtual effect of con
demning him. And, after all, even if this farther
consequence be not feared, or lamented, still, (as has
been already said,) the plea of precedent would be
thus made good on the side of the Tract.
In the way of introduction to the following
extracts, I will observe, that the result of recent
enquiries into our ecclesiastical annals of the three
last centuries, has been to convince me, that the
later Church of England has been, from first to
last, remarkably unwilling to protest, as a Church,
against the doctrines of Rome. Her authoritative
protests, when she has thought it riglit to make

12
them, have been directed, almost, if not quite,
without exception, against a far different school
of theology. This remark appears to me to apply
even to the period of the Reformation itself; when,
if at any time, the Church of England might
have been expected to declare herself strongly and
unambiguously on the Protestant side. And, of
course, there are very many who consider that she
has so declared herself in the Thirty-nine Articles.
But if this fact be not certain from the language of
the Articles themselves, (and that it is not certain
seems to be admitted at least by those who resort to
the private opinions of the Reformers to determine
the question,) certain it is, that history gives no
countenance whatever to the opinion that, the Articles
were drawn up with the view of excluding Catholics.
With respect to the original Articles of 1552, it
seems doubtful, whether they were ever enforced;
if at all, it was but in few instances ^. After the
revision of 1562, they were enforced; but, as it
appears, against Non-Conformists, and not Roman
Catholics. The question with Rome was then, as in
after times, regarded in a merely political point of
view. " Against Papists (says Fuller, who certainly cannot
be suspected of any 'Romanistic' bias,) it was exacted
that, to write, print, &c. that the Queen was a
" He (Cranmer) laboured to have the clergy subscribe them ;
but against their will he compelled none." Strype's Cranmer,
p. 272. Cf. Bp. Short's Hist, of the Church of England, § 484.

13
heretic, &c., should be adjudged treason. Against
Non-Conformists, it was provided that every Priest
or Minister should, before the Nativity of Christ
next following, declare his assent, and subscribe, to
all the Articles of Religion agreed on in the Convo
cation of 1562, under pain of deprivation*."
And accordingly it appears, that Roman Catholics
continued in the communion, and even in the
Ministry, of the Church of England, for several years
after the first promulgation of the Articles.
"Hitherto" (^¦. e. till a.d. 1570), "Papists generally
without regret repaired to the places of divine
service, and were present at our prayers, sermons,
and Sacraments  In which sense, one
may say, that the whole land was of one language
and one speech  Hitherto the English
Papists slept in a whole skin, and so might have con
tinued, had they not wilfully torn it themselves ^."
It farther appears, that many members of the
Lower House of Convocation, who were Roman
Catholics, subscribed the Articles upon the revision
in 15621
* Fuller, p. 98. Eliz.
' Fuller, p. 98. Eliz. See also Strype's Grindal, p. 98. " Of the
subscribers (to Queen Eliz. injunctions for conformity)  there
were many, who had said Mass in Queen Mary's time, and such
as would not change their custom of old Pater Noster." Vide
Short's Hist, of the Church. of England, § 437.
" Strype, (Ann. of Ref. c. xxviii.) gives their names ; and, among
them, we find that of the celebrated John Bridgwater, (called in
Latin, Aquapontanus) who, in 1582, published the Treatise called

14
The term " Recusant," by which the Roman Ca
tholics of this country were formerly designated, at
once denotes the ground, and fixes the date, of their
separation from the national Church. It was not
upon the promulgation of the Articles, nor upon any
other measure of the Church of England, but upon
the political regulations which arose out of the formal
excommunication of Elizabeth, in 1569, that Roman
Catholics withdrew from the communion of our
Church. Before that time, not even the Oath of
Supremacy was a bar, as a general rule, to their
admission even to civil, far less to ecclesiastical, pri
vileges; the majority of them understanding this
oath as a mere test of loyalty \
But as to the Articles, never, that I can find, were
they urged, or felt, as a ground of disunion between
the Churches ; and this fact, as I must consider it, is
" Concertatio Ecclesiae Catholicse in Anglia adversus Calvino-
Papistas et Puritanos,'' being an account of the sufferings of
English Roman Catholics in the time of Elizabeth.
' See a Tract called the " Execution of Justice in England,"
(1583.) " These seditious acts . . . have made them traitors
. . . not their books, nor their words, no, nor their cakes of wax
which they call Agnus Dei," &c. (p. 45.)
Again, the Jesuits, addressing Queen Elizabeth, said, " In the
beginning of thy kingdom thou didst deal something more gently
with Catholics : none were then urged by thee, or pressed either
to thy sect, or to the denial of their faith." Again, " none were
ever vexed that way, simply for that he was either Priest or
Catholic, but because they were suspected (of disloyalty)." — Im
portant Considerations written by the Secular Priests against the
.Tesuits, 1001.

15
farther attested by the statement so commonly made,
that Rome withdrew herself and not was driven, from
our communion ; and again by the plea, upon which
the penal enactments, carried out from time to time
in this country against Roman Catholics, have always
been defended ; viz. that they were enforced upon
merely civil, and in no wise upon religious, grounds.
And if the " unscrupulousness of Roman Catholics "
in respect of oaths, and other similar obligations, be
urged as the ground of the insufficiency of our formu
laries as means of excluding them, then it must be
shown, why they were eventually excluded. For that
they did refuse some tests, is undeniable.
But to return to the Articles. There would seem
to have been reasons, both of necessity and of policy,
which would be likely to influence the English
Reformers in favour of a very great latitude of
expression upon subjects which other Protestants,
or they, under other circumstances, might have been
apt to determine with far greater precision.
It is much to be considered, in the first place, that,
with the English Reformers, Protestantism was, as I
may say, an qfler-thought. The English Reformation,
upon whatever theological grounds it may eventually
have been based, was, undoubtedly, in the first in
stance, a mere political movement ; being (so far)
unfavourably distinguished from the continental
struggle, which, though it ultimately issued in
excesses from which we have been providentially
kept, was, in its origin, far more than the English

16
Reformation, of the nature of an indignant protest
against existing corruptions ^ I do not at all deny
that corruptions of a like crying enormity, though
perhaps of a different kind, existed in this country
also. All I say is, that, not the scandal of these
corruptions, but the influence of the Pope, and
especially as it pressed inconveniently upon Henry,
was the gravamen, to which, in this country, the
quarrel with Rome owes its origin. This, of
course, is not stated as a discovery, but merely ad
duced as an evidence to the point in hand. But
the question with the See of Rome being thus opened,
(no otherwise upon ecclesiastical, than as they were
subservient to political, grounds,) it rapidly assumed
a theological shape ; and the English divines of the
time were forced upon the necessity of treating, and,
what is far harder, of legislating, on various and ab
struse points of doctrine, under all the disadvantages
of persons who had been educated in the system they
were now obliged to oppose, and been rather led by
circumstances, than moved by any spontaneous im
pulse, to adopt that, into which they were suddenly
required to throw themselves.
Now this consideration, I cannot but think, will
account, in a great measure, for the inconsistencies
which are to be found in the writings of the English
" This unfavourable feature of our Reformation was observed
by the foreigners ; ' HXflt Se Trpds r}jj.aQ ^evoq tiq, Tr£fx(j)deiQ eic rije
Bptravtae, jioi'ov StaXeyofxevoe w epi tov Sevrepov ydfJ-ov tov
(i a (T iX i (o c' Twv Se rrje kicKXriiriag Trpayfidrwv, ov (ue'Xei, wg

17
Reformers, as well as for the (presumed) indecisive
character of the Formulary which we owe to them.
How was it possible, that men, of whatever ability,
who had no thoughts, but for external and accidental
occurrences, of originating formal declarations on the
subject of Catholic doctrine, should come to the task
with that maturity of reflection, and extent of fore
sight, which are absolutely necessary, (except where
the want of long previous preparation is supplied in
some degree by strong single-hearted earnestness,) to
the statement of precise and definite views of theology?
The divines of our own country took up Protestantism
in details and by degrees, not like Luther and Calvin,
as a comprehensive system \ We find, accordingly,
that, when pressed to declare themselves formally
upon the great doctrinal questions which agitated
Europe at the time, they " beat about," if I may use
the expression, for assistance in more experienced
quarters ^ Now, the idea thus thrown out, if it do
0i)ert, Tw liaaiXe'i. — -Melanchthon, quoted in Cardwell's Preface
to the Two Books of Edward VI.
The Greek Church, of the present day, is said to sympathize
more with the Foreign Protestant communities, than with the
Church of England, from esteeming the Foreign a more con
scientious act than the English Reformation.
' Hence the doctrinal incongruities discoverable in the works,
for instance, of Cranmer, who was chiefly concerned in drawing
up the Articles.
^ " The communication with those eminent men" (the foreign
Reformers) " which had been opened, in the first instance, at the
desire, and for the private purposes, of Henry, and had been dis-
C

18
not seem improbable, would precisely explain their
adoption in the Formulary which they actually put
out, of terms rather than definitions, and vague defini
tions rather than those more precise ; and, again, for
their practice (observed by Mr. Newman) of com
bating popular views, rather than authoritative state
ments, of doctrine, and protesting against apparent
practices, rather than embarrassing themselves with
minute theological distinctions. This is just the course
of persons who do not feel themselves "at home"
in a subject, as I suppose it is no injustice to the
English Reformers to say that they could not have
continued, from a mutual feeling of distrust, during the latter
portion of his reign, was resumed, at the death of that prince,
and carried to the greatest possible extent. Hooper, Home, Cox,
Traheron, and others, who became conspicuous in the history
of the English Church, were frequent correspondents, and some
of them intimate friends, of Bullinger and the Reformers of
Zurich. Bucer wrote a gratulatory letter to the Church of Eng
land in praise of its homilies, and with the view of recommending
farther alterations ; Calvin dedicated a part of his Commentary
to the Protector Somerset, and urged him to carry on the great
work in which he mas engaged; Cranmer repeated his earnest
invitations to Melanchthon, Hardenburg, and other distinguished
Reformers, and John a Lasco, &c. &c. were received in England
in the most favourable manner, and many of them placed in
situations of trust and influence." Dr. Cardwell's Preface to
Two Prayer Books of Edward VI. p. ix.
Dr. Short shows (Hist, of Ch. of Eng. § 483) how much as
sistance the English reformers derived in the Articles from foreign
sources ; and he vindicates them (§ 343) on the ground of the
difficulty of their task.

19
been, in the great controversies of their time. They
neither came to their work, like the divines of Trent,
as persons who had been long familiar with the system
they were required to develope and secure ; nor, again,
like the framers of the German or Swiss Confessions,
with that almost intuitive perception of their subject,
which is well known to be the result of deep interest
in any matter, and which is no inadequate substitute
for long study and laborious research. The contrast,
in point of precision, between the earlier and later
among the Thirty-nine Articles, which Mr. Ward
has observed in the "Appendix" to his Pamphlet, is
a confirmation of the view now suggested.
But another consideration, quite sufficient to ex
plain the very remarkable difference, in respect of
stringency, between the Thirty-nine Articles and
Continental Formularies, on whichever side, is that of
the peculiar circumstances, under which the Articles
were constructed. The divines of Trent, or, again,
of Switzerland, drew up their several Confessions
of Faith with the freedom and fearlessness of
persons who knew that the Churches and countries
which they represented, were "with them I" The
' Compare, for instance, sweeping statements, like the follow
ing in the Helvetic Confession, with the declarations of the
Thirty-nine Articles : — " Caeteras (prseter Eucharistiam) csere-
moniarum ambages inutiles ac innumerabiles, vasa, vestes, vela,
faces, aras, aurum, argentum, quatenus pervertendse religioni
serviunt, idola praesertim .... ac id genus omnia profana, a
sacro nostro coetu procul arcemus." Again :
c2

20
English Reformers, on the contrary, were hampered
in their work by the most conflicting and embar
rassing influences. They were kept, willing or unwil
ling, in the orbit of neutrality by the effect of opposite
forces. On the one hand, there were the foreign Pro
testants, clamouring for a sanction, on the part of the
" first of Reformed Churches," of their extreme pro
ceedings *. On the other, there were the known senti
ments of the English nation, any thing but ripe for
a radical change of religion, if not the prospect of
difficulties in Convocation, many members of which
were in favour of the old system ; and the consequent
necessity of not making the Articles unacceptable to
those to whom they were to be submitted ^
Again : " Proinde ccelibatum, ritum monasticum, et totum hoc
ignavum vitse genus, superstitiosorum hominum abominabile com-
mentum, procul rejicimus, aeque et Ecclesiae, et reipublicae, re-
pugnans," * The English Reformers applied for help to Melanchthon, as
the most moderate of the continental Protestants, and so the
fittest to aid them in their difficult work. But, for this very
reason, the ultra party abroad kept him back ; " quod mollitiem
animi ejus suspectam haberent." See Dr. Cardwell's Preface to
the Two Books of Edward VI. p. v.
' Strange indeed is it, that history should make it doubtful
whether the Forty-two Articles were ever submitted to Convoca
tion at all, considering the title which they originally bore. If
they were not, their profession misrepresents them in a way which
involves something more than disingenuousness in the parties con
cerned in promulgating them. Yet the respected author of the
History of the Church of England thus writes, and substantiates
his observation by reference to documents of the time. " From the
6

21
Mr. Ward^ appears to have stated this point
somewhat drily and technically, when he imputes
(as I understand him,) to the English Reformers, a
deliberate and disingenuous purpose, throughout their
task, (for in places they can hardly be screened from
the imputation,) of adjusting the claims of these rival
title under which the Articles weie originally published *, it might
be supposed that they derived their authority from the sanction of
Convocation ; but if they were ever submitted to the Upper
House, which is very questionable, it is indubitable that they were
never brought before the Lower ; while all the original mandates
which remain, prose that they were promulgated by Royal autho
rity alone." Short's History of the Church of England, § 48.
Heylin (Hist, of the Reformation, p. 126, a. d. 1552,) con
siders this supposition too monstrous to be entertained, and
accordingly supposes that Convocation delegated its power to a
Committee, (nominated, according to Dr. Short, by the king.)
He argues, rather strangely, that the profession of the title is
justified by his view, as though a Committee of one House of
Convocation were equivalent to the whole body of the two.
The whole story, like all else connected with the annals of the
English Reformation, is, to say the least, very uncomfortable.
But whether or not Cranmer drew up the Articles for the Con
vocation, (if so, the proof to the present point is so much the
stronger ; and even the fact, if true, that he did not ultimately
submit them, does not show that he had no intention of submitting
them to one or both Houses,) still it is certain that he both
designed, and attempted, to obtain the subscription of the Clergy
(Strype's Cranmer, p. 27) which would alone oblige the course of
moderation. " A Few More Words, &c. p. 43.
* Articuli de quibus in Synodo Londinensi, &c.

22
parties, the foreign Protestants on the one side, and
the old English Catholics on the other. Mr. Ward
seems to think, that they set out, and acted all along,
with the intention of reconciling, as a kind of ma
thematical problem, the maximum of Protestantism
with the minimum of offence. It is not, perhaps,
necessary to go this length ; and if it be not neces
sary, one is bound, in charity, to stop short of it.
That the English Reformers were anxious to give
many of the Articles as Protestant an air, as they
thought it prudent to risk, this I cannot but appre
hend. And yet it may be questioned whether, on
the whole, they acted with any direct and systematic
disingenuousness ; and not rather in some such way
as the framer of a petition to Parliament (for in
stance) who wishes to make a striking manifesto of
opinion, without losing more signatures than he can
help ; or, again, as a somewhat too compromising
preacher, who, under the influence of anticipated
objections, puts saving, (which are, in fact, neutra
lizing,) clauses into his sermon. Of course such pro
ceedings are quite inconsistent with strong, earnest,
and distinctly realized, views ; but these it is, I will
say, quite certain, that Archbishop Cranmer, for one,
did not possess either way ; at least when he drew
up the Articles. That he did not possess them, is
sufficiently shown by the fact of his writings being
cited on completely different sides of a theological
controversy. It may seem unfair to the Reformers to represent

23
their course in respect of the Articles under any
other character than that of a wise and commendable
moderation. But it is to be considered, whether
many of the points which they have left indetermi
nate, be not points, if not of necessary faith, at least
of necessary deduction from the ground-work of all
faith, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, upon which
we thankfully acknowledge that the Articles are
unambiguous. I may mention the subject of the
" Holy Catholic Church," as one among many others,
upon which a precise Formulary would not merely
allow of the orthodox, but preclude the erroneous,
view.' There are points of Catholic belief, only not
condemned in the Articles (such e. g. as the Eucha-
ristic Sacrifice,) the denial of which, if it appear strong
to call it actual heresy, is, at least, of a directly hereti
cal tendency ; and want of explicitness on these, if
intentional, implies unworthy compromise ; if unin
tentional, culpable short-sightedness. It must not be
complimented with the name of moderation. It is
moderation only when its subject matter is unessen
tial; but the differences between Catholicism and
Protestantism are so fundamental and irreconcileable,
that, if the Articles (as I have all along supposed,)
give free scope for near approximations to the ex
tremes on both sides, they must involve the com
patibility with honest subscription, of what, in the
judgment of one, or the other party, is serious error.
This consequence of the present argument may as
well be frankly acknowledged at once, since it cannot

24
be avoided. But then it must be borne in mind, that
our Clergy (as Mr. Ward reminds us) not merely
subscribe the Articles, but declare their assent to the
Prayer-book, which must, accordingly, be regarded as
our Church's standard commentary upon several of
those points which the Articles have left in doubt '.
But, on what may be called the Protestant side of
the question, there is no corresponding interpreter
of the Articles. The Homilies tell as much one
way as the other; which cannot certainly be said
of the Prayer-book.
To pass now from the composition of the Articles
in 1552, to their revision and republication in 1562.
If it be highly probable, both on a prioo-i, and on his
torical, grounds, that their original framers drew them
up with a studied reference to the views of those who
retained their prepossessions in favour of the old
Religion, this fact appears to be historically certain, in
the case of Archbishop Parker, and the divines who
remodelled them. Of these Dr. Heylin says,
" Their moderation is no less visible in declining
all unnecessary determinations, which rather tended
to the multiplying of controversies, and engendering
of strifes. ... So that they seem to have proceeded
by those very rules which King James so much ap
proved of in the Conference at Hampton Court.
First, in not separating farther from the Church of
' See "A Few More Words," &c. by the Rev. W. G. Ward,
p. 21.

25
Rome, than that Church had separated from what
she was in her purest times ; 2dly, in not stuffing the
Articles with conclusions theological, in which a latitude
of judgment was to be allowed, as far as was consistent
with peace and charity. As they omitted many whole
Articles in King Edward's book, and qualified the
expressions in some others, so were they generally
very sparing of anything which was merely matter of
modality, or de modo only. . . . which rules being care
fully observed by all the bishops, it was no wonder that
they passed their votes without contradiction.
"But in taking the subscription of the Lower
House, there appeared more difficulty. For, though
they all testified their consent unto them, yet, when
subscription was required, many of the Calvinian or
Zuinglian Gospellers, possibly ' some also which were
inclined rather to the old Religion, and who found
themselves unsatisfied in some particulars, had de
murred to it "." He adds, that at length all subscribed.
This appears doubtful '"; however, very many, at all
events, subscribed, including Roman Catholics.
From all this it would appear, that the object,
both of the original framers, and subsequent revisers,
" This is remarkable. He speaks as if the objections had come
rather from the other quarter. The passage is likewise important,
as intimating that the Catholics (for it is a fact (vid. sup. p. 13) that
many were in the Convocation,) demurred to the terms of the
Articles; did not, I mean, regard them as a mere unmeaning
declaration of conformity ; yet they eventually yielded.
' Hist, of Ref. Eliz. p. 159.
" Strype, A. of R. c. xxviii.

26
of the Articles, was to form a National Church upon
the most comprehensive basis ; consisting of all who
could by any means be brought to subscribe its cha
racteristic Formulary. Had they wished to exclude
Roman Catholics, as persons holding views dangerous
to the National Church, it is quite inconceivable why
they should present (as they did,) the Articles, again
and again, to the members of Convocation, (many of
whom had offices in the Church in the preceding
reign,) until all, or nearly all, had subscribed them.
Had their purpose in the Articles been what the
modern view supposes ; as soon as any Roman Catholic
refused to sign, it would have been answered. They
had framed their test, and it was successful. What
then remained, but that the objectors should quit the
Ministry ? Instead of which, they took the best
means in their power to overcome the scrupled
This certainly looks as if our divines did not try,
like Luther and Calvin, to create a new Protestant
community ; but sought rather to remodel the existing
and long-established, English Church. And, though
it be true, that they made a grievous mistake in ad
mitting into it the elements (as proved by subsequent
events,) of certain disunion, still, on the other hand,
they seem to have acted in a Catholic spirit towards
the representatives of the ancient Faith ; not seeking
to dispossess them of their place in the Church, pro
vided only they were content to remain in it as Eng
lish, not as Roman, Catholics ; to give up their adhe-
' See Heylin, p. 159.

27
sion to the Pope, so far as it was inconsistent with
the claims of the National Head, retaining, the while,
their belief in other points of the common Catholic
Faith ^ And so matters remained for several years ;
and so they might have continued, but for later
events, which brought on a crisis: and though, in
themselves, (like the original differences with Rome
under Henry VIII.,) of a political, rather than a
religious, nature, produced an immediate, and most
material, change in the visible relations of the
Churches. It does not fall within the scope of these observa
tions, to pursue, what may be called the history of
the Catholic doctrine in the later Church of England,
beyond the period of the Reformation, as finally set
tled under Elizabeth. It is hereafter to be shown, that
this view of the Articles, which it has been attempted
to establish on historical grounds, and by which
they are presumed to be (except where they refer to
the direct subject of the Creeds,) a mere declaration
against certain existing abuses, couched, occasionally,
in highly Protestant language, but, in truth, clear of
the doctrines which they appear to infringe, is. if not
the very view, at least not materially unlike the view,
upon which certain of our divines must be thought to
have proceeded. For otherwise, we must accuse these
divines of running wilfully counter to the doctrine of
' The Roman Catholics, of former times, who took the Oath of
Supremacy, appear to have understood it, according to the inter
pretation proposed in Dr. Pusey's pamphlet on Tract 90, as a
mere disclaimer of the Pope's temporal authority in this kingdom.

28
theirChurch, or that Church of most deplorable remiss
ness, in not vindicating her own doctrine ; of remiss
ness, indeed, to which she could not have yielded,
without knowing for certain, that she was thereby pre
cluding future generations from all hope of recovering,
(at least without a second Reformation,) that (sup
posed) anti-catholic sense of the Articles, which she
was thus suffering to escape.
But, before coming to this latter point, I may add,
that the study of our later ecclesiastical annals will
also furnish many indications of a like providential
care exercised in the preservation of our Church from
a committal, by any formal act, to uncatholic error.
The one exception to the truth of this remark,
which, after some attention, I have been able to dis
cover (if indeed it be, as for my own part I am cer
tainly disposed to think that it is, an exception) is in
what are called the Canons of Archbishop Laud,
because ratified by a synod of the Church of England
in his primacy. This, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, is the only document of the nature of an
ecclesiastical decision, (and the observation may be
extended to political enactments, between the periods
of the Reformation and Revolution of 1688 ^) which
condemns any doctrine of Rome, as distinct from the
Papal claim of jurisdiction in this realm ^ In the
Canons of 1603, there is no hint of apprehension from
^ See Appendix.
' Such acts as that of the Seven Bishops, in 1688, not being
acts of the Church of England, but of individuals, do not interfere
with the above statement.

29
the influence of foreign Churches, except in the single
injunction for the presentment oi " Recusants" to the
ordinary, to be by him reported to the Bishop, and
so on to the king. Again, the synodical acts of our
Church in 1604 and 1661, were both of them in a
more Catholic direction than the proceedings at the
time of the Reformation *. The case of Bishop Moun
tague involves a strong declaration on the Catholic
side. On the other hand, the State of England, till
the Revolution, did not attempt to meddle with the
doctrinal profession of Roman Catholics, provided
only it could obtain a guarantee for their loyalty '.
* The re-introduction of the explanation at the end of the
Communion Service, made on the latter of these occasions, may,
at first sight, appear to be at variance with this remark ; as it is,
indeed, the only other instance I have observed of Roman doc
trine being even glanced at by our Church during the above-
mentioned interval. On consideration, however, it will be found
even to support the view now taken ; as the substitution of the
term " corporal presence" for " real presence" was plainly an act
"in a more catholic direction," and seems to fall in with the
general habit of our Church, by condemning, not formal state
ments of doctrine, but popular corruptions*. Our assent to the
Prayer-book of course involves no judgment as to the advisable-
ness of this commentary upon our Service. Mr. Newman, how
ever, has contended, in his Tract, that it may be understood in a
sense altogether innocent.
* The following are important testimonies, on both sides,
to this fact. The first is from the work of a Protestant,
(supposed to be Bishop Barlow,) published shortly before the
Revolution. " It
* Cf. Dr. Cardwell's Hist, of Conferences, &c., p. 35. Note.
(See Appendix.)

30
And it is remarkable that the time which the
State chose for an innovation upon her ancient
policy in this respect, should have been the begin
ning of an epoch, during which, more than at any
other period since the Reformation, the Church of
England was disposed to act independently of the
State. And a memorable fact it is, that the ex
piring energies of Convocation were directed, not
against any high Mystery of the common Faith,
under the name of superstition, but, contrariwise,
" It is certain that these oaths" (of Supremacy and Allegiance)
" were primarily designed to be a sufficient test to distinguish
Papists from others. And yet in either of them there is no
mention of doctrine, but only those which concern government,
that is, the external government both of Church and State. . . .
I may add the constant profession and answer of all Protestant
writers. Whensoever any complaint has been made of the
severity used to Roman Catholics, it has been always said
that they suffered not for religion, but for treason, &c." — " Con
siderations on the true way of suppressing Popery," p. 35. See
also pp. 47. 53. 73. 115.
On the other hand, the Secular Priests urged against the Jesuits
in 1601 :—
" If we at home, all of us, both Priests and people had pos
sessed our souls in meekness and humility, honoured her Ma
jesty, borne with the infirmities of the State, suflTered all things,
and dealt as true Catholic Priests . . . assuredly the State would
have loved us, or, at least, borne with us : where there is one
Catholic, there would have been ten . . .for none were ever vexed
that way simply, for that he was either Priest, or Catholic, but
because they were suspected ... of traitorous designments." —
" Important Considerations," in a Collection of Tracts on the
Penal Laws. London, 1675.

31
against the heresy, which passes through a degrada
tion of the Sacraments into a dishonouring of Him
who is their Life ^.
But the Canons of 1640 present, as I may be
allowed to say of an act of the then Church, in no
way binding upon us, a somewhat perplexing combi
nation of Catholic regulations, of an external kind,
with strong disclaimers of the doctrine, which alone
gives to such usages, as are therein enjoined, any
value, or even any meaning. It would be a curious
question, which this is not the place to pursue,
whether much of the odium which our Church has,
at different times incurred, on the ground oi formal
ism, may not have been, in great measure, due to the
want of a clearer recognition, on the part of her
divines, of the intimate connexion subsisting between
the forms and the spirit of true Religion; or, in other
words, a fuller development of the Sacramental theory
of the Church. Certainly, I would not be thought to
defend the conduct of the Puritans ; and yet, without
referring more to one age than another, it seems both
due to others, and salutary for ourselves, to consider,
whether the opposition which our Church has, at dif
ferent times, encountered from serious, although mis
taken, persons, may not have arisen, in some degree,
from a tendency, on the part of her members, to sub
stitute mere outward conformity for vital unity, and
to lay stress upon externals, without a clear enuncia-
' Bishop Hoadly has been declared, on high authority, a
Sccinian.

32
tion of the principles upon which they depend'. But,
to return to the Laudian Canons. I will not avail
myself of the argument ad hominem, by which this
document might be disposed of, on the ground of its
alleged want of authority. These Canons, though
not, I believe, an act of Convocation, were certainly
the act of a synod. I admit also, that, as far as they
go, they appear to me to be at variance with the
moderation of tone characteristic of the later Church
of England. I am glad, for the sake of our Church,
that she has renounced them. I am glad, for the sake
of Christian unity, that, in subscribing the Articles,
we are not required to declare assent to these, or any
other. Canons. It is well known, that a Bishop of our
Church suffered himself to be put under arrest rather
than subscribe them. But Bishop Goodman, it is
urged by many, was a Roman Catholic ; and so, they
would say, his objection to the Laudian Canons, is not
to the point. Now if, when it is said that Bishop
Goodman was a Roman Catholic, it be meant, that
he formally joined the communion of Rome, this cer
tainly was not the case. If he were a Roman Catholic
in any other sense, then may such a Roman Catholic
' And, surely, considering the very imperfect and ambiguous
development of Catholic principles generally, even in the very
best days of the Church of England since the Reformation, (not
to speak of the painfully unecclesiastical character of proceedings
in that aera itself,) we seem bound, in justice as well as charity,
to make the largest allowance for those, who, in these latter
days, have failed to recognize, in our Church, their appointed
Mother in the Faith.

33
be in the communion, and even in the highest office,
of the Church of England ; which is very much to the
present point. The higher we set Bishop Goodman's
Catholicism, the more striking is the fact, that one
who was conscientious enough to suffer penalties
rather than subscribe the Laudian Canons, should not
have stumbled at the Articles. How strange a pheno
menon in the history of any Church, or, rather, (may
we not say?) how wonderful a token of the Provi
dence which has watched over ours, that catholic
minds, perplexed by the inconsistencies of a catholic
age, should be able to fall back upon the Articles,
" the offspring of an uncatholic " one ; and, again,
that Protestants of a later time should have been
the parties to extricate Catholics from obligations of
which they are glad to be relieved, and even to
contend for the Formulary, by which they are willing
to be tried !
Whether it have arisen from the unwarrantable
conduct of the Roman party in England, or from
the recollection of ancient grievances, or from the
desire of obviating, at any rate, the suspicion of
Popery, or from an inadequate estimate of the im
portance of Catholic unity, or from whatever other
cause ; certain it is, that some even of our greater
divines are accustomed to speak of the Roman Church
in terms which it is hard to reconcile with their very
close approximation, in parts of their writings, to
Roman doctrine. And one reason, perhaps, why
persons are startled by attempts, such as that inci-
D

34
dentally made in Tract 90, to harmonize parts of
the Articles with the Decrees of Trent, is, that they
derive their idea of our Church's position in respect
of other branches of the Church Catholic, from the
harsh and exclusive tone upon which many of her
divines have been forced by circumstances, rather
than from the actual amount of their testimony to
Catholic Truth. It has not been unusual with us to
speak almost as if independence were, per se, a greater
boon to a Church, than oneness with the Catholic
body; a sentiment, which appears to savour rather
of Judaism, than of the gracious and comprehensive
dispensation under which we live. With the inti
mations of our own Church, at least, (not to mention
the explicit declarations of Scripture,) it would seem
most agreeable, to consider that the especial work
of the Holy Spirit in the Body Catholic is to make
the " whole earth," which the author of confusion
has split into parts, "of one language, and of one
speech I"
But the stronger has been the temptation, whether
arising out of our national peculiarities, or the pressure
of external circumstances, to glory in our isolation,
as a Church, instead of mourning for the sins of
which it is the penalty ; the deeper should be our
gratitude to those of our divines, who, with Andrewes
in England, and Forbes in Scotland, have made the

' First Lesson for the morning of the Monday in Whitsun
week.

35
restoration and re-union of Christendom, the object
of their efforts, and of their prayers.
It may not be uninteresting, nor altogether irrele
vant to the object of the present publication, to give
some account of two remarkable attempts, (among
others,) which have been made in different ages, and
(as there is reason to suppose,) on different sides, of
the Church, in this country, of a character somewhat
similar to the Essay which has lately attracted so
much notice and censure. The more recent of these
very curious and striking dissertations it falls imme
diately within my present object to notice. The
other is well worthy of the attentive consideration
of English Churchmen, as the testimony of an im
partial witness to the orthodoxy and catholicity of
our own communion. I begin with the latter.
" Francis a Sancta Clara, a Dominican friar, of
great learning and moderation, whose real name is
Christopher Davenport, was chaplain to Queen Hen
rietta" (to whose influence we are indebted for one
of the most catholic books in our Church, the
" Hours of Devotion," of Bishop Cosin,) " and after
wards to Catharine, Queen of Charles II. He was
much noticed by the learned men of his day *. This
ecclesiastic entertained the idea of the possibility of
reconciling the Churches of England and Rome ;
* He appears to have lived on terms of familiarity with Laud
and Goodman. D 2

36
and, with this view, had composed a short Treatise,
in which he endeavoured to show that the Articles
of the Church of England were in accordance with
the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, support
ing his position from the wi'itings of Bishop Andrewes,
Bishop Mountague, Dr. White, and other learned
Protestants ^"
The Treatise to which the above extract refers, is
called " Expositio Paraphrastica Confessionis Angliae,"
and is appended to a work on the subject of the
Calvinistic controversy ^. Although written with a
somewhat different object from Tract 90, it will
be found to suggest an interpretation of the Thirty-
nine Articles, in many respects strikingly similar to
that put forward by Mr. Newman. As this fact has
been publicly urged in objection to the Tract, I will
at once admit the accuracy of the statement. This
expositor speaks in the strongest language of the
general catholicity of the English Articles. The great
majority, including those on " Predestination," " on
Ministering in the Congregation," and " on Baptism,"
he characterizes in terms such as the following. —
"Omnino catholicus," "optimam continet doctrinam,"
" conformis SS. Scripturis, doctrinae sanctorum Pa-
• Brewer's Preface to " the Court of King James I., by Dr.
Godfrey Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester."
° The title of the work is " Deus, Natura, Gratia, sive Trac-
tatus de Praedestinatione, &c. Auctore Francisco a Sancta Clara,"
&c., published in 1634.

37
trum, et praxi Universalis Ecclesiae." In some very
few cases (especially Art. xxxi. and xxxvii.) he
admits a great apparent difficulty; but maintains
that it is apparent only. In the case of others, (e. g.
the Articles on the " Sacraments," the " Marriage of
Priests," and the " Communion in both kinds") he
contends that there is hardly a colour for the objec
tions which some Catholics had made to them. But
it may not be amiss to give the view which this
remarkable writer takes of some of those Articles,
which have been recently so much canvassed. I
will begin with that " on General Councils," in which
Sancta Clara sees none of that " prima, facie Pro
testantism " which so perplexes Mr. Ward ; but
rather considers, with Dr. Pusey, that the very word
ing of the Article is strictly catholic. He thus com
ments. —
Art. XXI. " General Councils may not (non possunt) be
gathered together without the commandment and will of
princes.'" " These words '," he observes, " seem to be confirmed
by the authority of Jerome, who asks (Apol. 2. cont.
Ruffin.) in objection to a certain Council, what emperor
commanded (jussit) ' the assembling of this Synod f as if
meaning, that the ' commandment' of the Emperor was
necessary. And thus in the case of all the ancient Councils
(to make a general statement) this rule was observed 
' My readers are probably aware that Sancta Clara's work is
in Latin. The translation here given is rather free, but will, I
believe, be found accurate.

38
Speaking abstractedly, (that is to say, viewing the matter
as a question of divine right,) Councils mai/ be gathered
together without the interference of Princes, as Jerome
would not have denied. But per accidens, (that is to say,
taking into account the circumstances of time, place, &c.)
the consent, and even the command, of Princes is a pre
liminary requisite.
"Again" (he continues) " the words which follow, present
no greater difficulty. ' Things pertaining to God,' is an
expression of great latitude. That General Councils may
err in things not necessary to salvation (quae fidem aut
mores ad salutem necessaries non concernunt) is the common
judgment of our doctors  Let none, then, quarrel
with this clause " even in things," &c. That General
Councils can err in things necessary to salvation, the Article
does not assert. That they may err in minor matters.
Catholics do not deny.
" The last words of the Article express the judgment of
the Church in modern, as well as ancient, times. For
Councils cannot make a proposition heretical, which before
was otherwise ; neither can they coin (cudere) an Article
of Faith. Their province is, to give an explicit force to
the implicit sense of Scripture and the Apostolic words,
(ex abditioribus SS. locis et Apostolorum dictis, veritatem
eruere) that so (as Lirinensis has it) a later generation
may more clearly understand what a former more indis
tinctly believed  This is all the Church proposes,
when she is said to determine (definire) certain truths.
For she rests (innititur) not on any fresh revelations, but
on those of the ancient time, which are involved (latitan-
tibus) in the Scriptures, and words of the Apostles," &c.
The view which this acute and learned divine takes
of Art. xxii. is as follows :

39
Art. " The Romish doctrine concerning  the
Invocation of Saints is a fond thing," &c.
" Words," (proceeds the expositor) " doubtless of a very
severe aspect. But observe ; what the terms of this Article
condemn, is not Invocation of Saints simply in itself, (as is
evident,) but the Bomish doctrine of Invocation 
" What then is this Romish doctrine ? or rather, what is
the Protestant account of the Roman doctrine !  For
the question is, not what the so-called 'Romanists,' have said,
but what Protestants have supposed them to say. Calvin
(Inst. 1. iii. c. 20) affirms, that we invoke the Saints as gods.
Andrewes, in his answer to Cardinal Perron, supposes that
our prayers are directed to the Saints as ultimate objects of
worship, and without any qualification (ultimatas et abso-
lutas) and, as it were, to so many divinities. And this he
tries to show from the harmmiy, not of our doctors, but of
our hymns (concentu, non consensu).
" On the whole, then, the Anglican Confession determines
nothing against the Catholic Faith, but rather condemns a
profane and heathen doctrine, with which the Church is not
fairly chargeable."
Here this commentator has certainly overlooked
important considerations connected with the subject,
to which Mr. Newman has drawn attention ; espe
cially the value of our Article as a protest against actual
abuses, and as a warning against "peril of idolatry."
So far, however, as this interpretation considers that
" not every doctrine, but only the Romish doctrine,"
of Invocation, is condemned by the Article, it agrees
with that of the Tract. The question, upon which
Mr. Newman and Sancta Clara appear to differ, is

40
that of the extent to which the Church, in whose
communion certain abuses exist, is committed, by
non-interference, to the virtual sanction of what she
formally disavows.
This Roman Catholic interpreter takes the same
view with Mr. Newman, of expressions in our
Articles, which, denying of certain practices or in
stitutions, that they are Scriptural, in the sense of
being ordained in Scripture, do not deny, that they
may be, and are, obligatory, as matters of ecclesiasti
cal regulation. Speaking of Art. xxviii., towards
the close of which are the words " by Chrisfs ordi
nance,'' he observes,
" What is not by Christ formally commanded, may yet
by the Church be rightly instituted."
Again, with reference to Art. xxxii.
"Bishops, priests, and deacons, are not commanded to
vow celibacy ; they are not required, jure divino, to abstain
from marriage ; therefore, as far as ' divine right' is con
cerned, they may marry, both lawfully and validly. This is
the more common opinion in the schools, and the Article
makes no farther assertion."
The important connexion between the two parts
of Art. XXXI. "on the One Oblation," is clearly
pointed out in this commentary.
Art. " The Offering of Christ once made, is that perfect
redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for the sins of the
whole world . . . loherefore the sacrifices of masses," &c.

41
Obs. " The former part, so far as it relates to the affirma
tive proposition, is no subject of controversy. And, where
the Article proceeds to a denial of all satisfaction for the
guilt of sin, the Oblation of the Cross excepted ; we must
understand that the whole of that which is affirmed of
Cheist, is denied to any other ; in other words, that none,
except Chkist, can, by any action or suffering, wash away
sm, that is, to the exclusion of Cheist," (prsescindendo
Cheistum). Hence he concludes, that the Article does not con
travene the doctrine of those English divines, who
consider that the Eucharistic Ordinance involves a
true, although a commemorative Sacrifice.
The other work, to which I have referred, as bear
ing upon the subject of Mr. Newman's Tract, is called
" An Essay towards Catholic Communion, by a
Minister of the Church of England." It was pub
lished in 1715; and, being avowedly an attempt
towards reconciliation with Rome, attracted, as was
natural at that particular time, the notice of the
government. A warrant appears to have been issued
from the Secretary of State's office for the seizure of
the author's papers, and the arrest of his person;
under a suspicion, apparently, that he was in league
with the Pretender. It was more than insinuated by
adverse parties, that he was actually in commu
nion with Rome at the time ; but the internal
evidence of his book, is, in the opinion of competent
and most impartial judges whom I have consulted, so

42
strongly the other way, that I am bound, in honesty,
as well as charity, to give him credit for his pro
fessions. The object of this writer is to show, by quotations
from the works of approved divines of the Church of
England, especially Bishops Andrewes, Forbes, and
Mountague, the coincidence between the statements
of our own theologians, and the authoritative decla
rations of the Council of Trent, upon various points
of doctrine and practice ; as, for instance, the Real
Presence, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Intermediate
State, Intercession for tbe Dead, and the Reverence
due to Images and Relics. A ccordingly, this Essay is
alone enough to take from the present undertaking
all pretension to originality. However, my object, so
far, falls short of that of this writer, that, while he
seems to consider that the Church of England teaches
certain doctrines, all at which I aim, is to show, that
she cannot be proved to repudiate them. And of this
Essay, ingenious and (on the whole,) conclusive as it
is, I am ready to admit, that it seems to me, for the
reason I have just given, partial, if not disingenuous.
Also, I will add, that, in the extracts which the writer
has made from the works of English theologians, (the
most important of which, I have verified, and find
correct,) he has not always been sufficiently observant
of collateral qualifications in the context of what he
cites. Altogether then, I will say of this very curious
book, that, while no person ought to take any decisive
step in the present controversy, till he has carefully
12

43
read, and fairly weighed it ; I am, for my own part,
inclined to dispense with the evidence which it fur
nishes to the point of these observations, from feeling,
not so much, I may sincerely say, that it is question
able, as that it is superfluous.
The extract, which, among others, I am about to
make in support of the statement to the proof of
which these observations are directed, shall come from
a quarter which there can be no difficulty in admit
ting. It shall come, not from this Catholic Essay,
but from the Anglican Reply to it. Of this, then, I
will now say a few words. The Essay, in question, is
accompanied by Observations intended (according to
the profession of the title-page,) to " detect the mys
tery, and to expose and defeat the design, of the
original work." The writer of these Observations
evidently supposed, that the author of the Essay
was a Roman Catholic in disguise, and, accordingly,^
does not spare him. He, then, at least, must be con
sidered an impartial witness. Yet we shall presently
see, how far even he goes on the side of the Tract.
The "Observations" in question I have been enabled
to trace to Nathaniel Spinckes, A. M., Rector of
Peakirk cum Glynton, in the county of Northampton,
and diocese of Peterborough and of St. Martin,
Sarum, and also Prebendary of that Cathedral ; of
which dignity he was deprived, in the episcopate of
Bishop Burnet, a.d. 1690, on the ground of his
refusal to take the oaths to King William III.
Of the remaining divines, by whose writings I

44
have profited in the present attempt, there is but
one of whom I feel it necessary to say any thing in
this place.
William Forbes, D.D., flourished in the times of
James I. and Charles I., and was appointed first
Bishop of Edinburgh in the reign of the latter.
He was a native of Aberdeen, and entered the
Marischal College in that city at the age of
twelve. After completing his academical career, he
visited the continent of Europe, and studied, for
some time, in the German universities. He was
deeply versed in the theology of the early Church,
and accurately acquainted with the original languages
of Holy Scripture, especially Hebrew. It is needless
to add, that he was master of Latin. Upon his re
turn to Scotland, he entered the sacred Ministry,
and laboured in his calling with extraordinary zeal.
King James I. being at Aberdeen, Forbes was chosen,
with others, to confer with that monarch on matters
of academical privilege ; and received the degree of
D.D., by royal mandate. He was afterwards, suc
cessively. Principal of the College, and Rector of the
University. On the visit of King Charles I. to
Scotland in 1 633, Forbes was nominated to fill the
See of Edinburgh, endowed by that monarch. Im
mediately after his consecration, he was attacked by
serious illness, which ended mortally in the third
month of his episcopate, and forty-ninth year of his
age. His principal work, to which I am now indebted,

45
is entitled " Considerationes modestse et pacificse
Controversiarum," and is avowedly an attempt to
effect a reconciliation with Rome, on the basis of
the common Catholic Faith. It was found among his
papers, and published after his decease. The follow
ing is the testimony of an intimate acquaintance to
the usefulness and excellence of his Ministerial life.
*' Inter alios eminebat Gulielmus Forbesius ex opere
quodam posthumo, Considerationes modestce et pacificce Con
troversiarum, 4"c. inscripto, erudite orbi cognitus, inter
primos sui sevi erudites. — Vir, vitse sanctimonia, humilitate
cordis, gravitate, modestia, temperantia, orationis et jejunii
frequentia, bonorum operum praxi, industria pauperum cura,
clinicorum crebra visitatione et consolatione, et omnifaria
virtute Christiana, inter optimos primitivse Ecclesiae Patres
annumerandus. In concionando ad populum fervens adeo
ut auditorum mentes et affectus raperet ; doctrina et eru-
ditione insignis, sublimato pollens judicio, memoria etiam
tenacissima (de quo vulgo dictum, quod ignoraret quid sit
oblivisci), Veritatis et pacis araantissimus, ac proinde, rerum
controversarum momentis acutissime expensis et pensitatis,
nulli parti addictus, partium lites componere, saltem miti-
gare, satagebat." Geo. Garden in vita R. V. Job. Forbesii,
p. 19. inter Forbesii opera, vol. 1.
Having now, as I hope, sufficiently cleared the
way for the following extracts, I will add a few con
cluding words in explanation.
If, in the preceding remarks, there be any ex
pression which seems even so much as to imply

46
the desire of reflecting upon past transactions, or
needlessly reviving exhausted discussions; if any,
which can be thought to betoken a defective appre
ciation of the difficulties of others, or an intention of
throwing obstacles in the way of their conscientious
discharge of duty, I heartily lament such expression,
and wish it recalled.
Much, surely, there is, both in the actual appear
ances of the Church at this time, and in the position
and circumstances of those who, in their endeavours
to defend her, have drawn upon themselves the op
position of zealous men, to create mutual sympathy,
even where, unhappily, there can be but little agree
ment. It is impossible any longer to shut our eyes,
even where we may wish it, to the fact, that certain
views of theology have gained an influence in this
country, which may well alarm those who think them
essentially wrong, and must needs make all anxious,
but those who think them essentially right. So far
as any person sees in these views, not a mere for
tuitous collection of opinions, some true, others false,
others indifferent ; but a compact, harmonious, and
living system, which, if it be not divine (as its
upholders maintain) must be the antagonist of what
is divine, I cannot but admire that person's sagacity,
however I may deplore his conclusion. There is
neither wisdom, nor fairness, in denying that a cer
tain course of teaching does tend to what the parties
who make the assertion mean by " Popery," that is,
to the full and consistent carrying out of the Sacra-

47
mental theology ; the doctrine, namely, that the
Church Catholic, as the Instrument of the Holy Spirit,
and the Representative of our Lord in His Kingly,
Priestly, and Prophetical Offices, is the one (ordained)
channel of blessing from God to man, and means of
access from man to God. And, no doubt also, so far
as the impressive and consolatory idea of a Visible
Church is more fully realized in Rome, than among
ourselves, the craving, which this course of instruc
tion has been chiefly instrumental in awakening,
tends even to Rome; which, however, is very dif
ferent from saying, or necessarily implying, either
that it ought to terminate there, or that it will. But
if by " Popery" be meant, some form of supersti
tion and idolatry, then not they only, who seek to
advance, but they also, who do not actively resist, the
present movement, (being supposed conscientious
men,) must be understood to intimate, by the very
fact of such advocacy, or acquiescence, their belief
that it tends to no such result, except in the way of
perversion or abuse.
Again, on the other hand, although the defenders
of the Tract imply, by the very circumstance of de
fending it, that they consider the difficulties greater
on the side of those who oppose its interpretation of
the Articles, than on their own, yet few of them, I
imagine, go so far as to say, that their own side is
altogether without difficulty. Mr. Newman, for one,
has never intimated that he regards the construction
for which he pleads, as the obvious one ; quite the

48
reverse. Now the confession of prima facie difficulty
on the one side, is a virtual admission of the claim
to sympathy and forbearance on the other. At all
events, I will express my own firm persuasion, that
in points such as those upon which the present con
troversy has chiefly turned, there is no side in the
Church of England, at this moment, the representa
tives of which are, under existing circumstances, in
any situation to dogmatize or condemn. It is one
thing to feel, that there is no safety but in the con
sistent following out of one line of doctrine, to the
exclusion of all others ; and, again, that our Church,
fairly considered, presents no insurmountable barrier
to the pursuit of Truth, even in its remoter bearings,
in that direction ; and quite another, to deal hardly
with those, be they without, or within, the pale of the
Church established, who, whether from the prejudices
of education, or the prevalence of traditionary impres
sions, coinciding with the absence of any unambigu
ous witness on the other side, on the part of our
Church herself, are bent on carrying out, with greater
or less consistency, the principles which it has all
along been assumed that the English Reformers
themselves were not unwilling to encourage.
So little, happily, does sympathy, in the present
instance, depend on perfect agreement in opinion,
that, rather, where there is the less agreement, there
is, for some reasons, the greater sympathy. It is
easier, I mean, to understand, and, so far, to feel with,
those who, looking at the present movement in its

49
true character, as part of a consistent whole, regard
it as simply evil, than with those who view it with
mixed feelings, or with no feelings at all. Wherein
such persons esteem it a deep philosophy, and not
a mere interesting literature ; an absorbing principle,
and not a mere transient excitement ; and wherein
they look below its superficial appearances, into its
solid grounds, and beyond its present manifestations,
to its undeveloped capabilities, they take, as I must
think, a truer and more earnest view of the subject,
than those who pronounce a hesitating and qualified
sentence upon certain parties and proceedings ; much
more than those who seek to talk the matter off, as
a mere ephemeral topic, or hush it up, as a mere in
convenient disturbance. On the other hand, and
in the way of compensation, it must be remem
bered, that where there seems less of consistency
and reality to command our admiration, there is
also less of what we must consider serious error
to excite our sorrow. And again, when it is said
that we may not understand how this or that per
son is able to reconcile certain opinions, or courses,
which seem to us contradictory, still this is very dif
ferent from charging him with culpable inconsistency.
Which of us is any judge of another, or can attempt
to try his mind by any known rule ? It is most cer
tain, indeed, that truth and falsehood, and, therefore,
consistency and inconsistency, have a nature of their
own, independent of the mind to which they are ac
cidentally subjected ; but, important as it is to recol-
E

50
lect this, for the purposes of faith, it is, for the pur
poses of charity, equally important to consider, that,
as respects the moral probation of individuals, this
essential nature admits of incalculable modification
from unknown varieties of circumstance. At all
events, so it is, that, among the opponents of the
doctrine in question, the vast majority are, if I may
not say happily inconsistent, at least happily unpre
pared, to oppose it without reluctance or reserve.
Few, comparatively, are ready to say of the Catholic
movement, that it is simply evil, and so to throw
themselves, heart and soul, into the antagonist sys
tem. And those, who are not so disposed, but who,
I really believe, were they required to make their
choice, would at once close with mere Catholicism
rather than mere Protestantism, I ask, with every dis
trust of myself, but none of my cause, to try and realize
their position, and their objects ; what they dread,
and what they believe ; and why so believing, they so
dread ; and what, above all, it is, that they mean to
build upon the ruins of what they seek to cast down ;
and what is the amount of their agreement with
those whom they join for a present purpose ; and
how, except there be indeed some vital bond of union
among them, they can hope to replace a doctrine
which is certainly real, certainly influential, certainly
productive of the fruits of holiness, charity, self-
denial, and all that seems like the religion of the
Gospel, by any thing equally real, equally influential
equally (may I say it without offence ?) evangelical?

51
Let it be considered, that the great religious system
which, for a long time, bore, and, so far as it compre
hended portions (as suriely it did) of essential truth,
deserved, that sacred name; which, in what it con
tained of high and holy, was, no doubt, God's instru
ment for awakening us to a sense of our respon
sibilities, and of infusing life and warmth, where
before, it may be feared, was too often the mere cold
profession of orthodoxy; let it be considered that
this system, once to all appearance so compact, and
beyond question so popular and attractive, is now, as
a system, manifestly breaking to pieces. What of it
is earthly, is finding its level. What of it is earnest,
self-denying, and affectionate, is uniting itself with the
doctrine of the Catholic Church, which alone, in its
completeness, (such as I am far from saying has yet
been realized amongst ourselves, and which, when
realized, will draw to its side whatever of good
amongst us is now kept back by the want of such
due developement,) provides an adequate scope, and
a reverential direction, for the feelings of devotedness
and brotherly love.
Considerations such as these do not, of course,
hold good upon the supposition that the Church of
England is unambiguous in her witness against the
theology in question, and imposes upon her members
a clear obhgation to withstand it. But to those,
who are doubtful upon this point, they may fitly be
suggested, in the way, not of an adequate motive,
but of a restraining scruple ; and not as reasons of
e2

52
mere expediency, but rather as providential intima
tions, which, though they cannot avail to overthrow
a settled, and fully realized, conclusion, may well
create a presumption against an ill-defined view, or
come in arrest of a headlong judgment, or remove
(which is rather their bearing upon the subject of
these remarks) a preliminary obstacle to the exami
nation of the proper evidence.

I will only add, that the following extracts by
no means pretend to be more than specimens of the
teaching of English divines upon the points in ques
tion. And, again, that, while taking to myself the
undivided responsibility of the present publication,
I desire to express my sincere thanks to the Rev.
J. S. Brewer, of King's College, for the assistance
I have received from him in collecting materials;
and to my much-esteemed coadjutor in the ministra
tions of Margaret Chapel, the Rev. W. U. Richards,
for the advantages I have derived through his official
connexion with the British Museum.
London,
July 8, 1841.

It being quite beyond the scope of the present
undertaking to bear out the interpretation of the
Tract upon any other subjects, than those in which
it has been most generally questioned, the following
extracts will be found to refer chiefly to the doctrines
brought forward in the Protest of the Four Tutors,
and most frequently dwelt upon in the progress of
the controversy, by opponents of the Tract.

I.

THE EUCHAEIST A COMMEMOEATIVE SACEIFJCE FOE
aUICK AND DEAD.
Bishop Andrewes. Answer to XVIIIth chapter of Card.
Perron.
"The Eucharist ever was, and by us is considered, both
as a Sacrament, and as a Sacrifice. 2. A Sacrifice is proper
and apphable only to divine worship. 8. The Sacrifice
of Christ's death did succeed to the sacrifices of the Old
Testament. 4. The Sacrifice of Christ's death is available
for present, absent, living, dead, (yea, for them that are yet
imborn). 5. When we say the dead, we mean, it is avail
able for the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors, and all, (be
cause we are all members of one Body) : these no man will
deny.

54
"In a word, we hold with Saint Augustine in the very same
chapter which the Cardinal citeth, 'quod hujus Sacrificii
caro et sanguis, ante adventum Christi, per victimas simili-
tudinum promittebatur ; in Passione Christi, per ipsam veri
tatem reddebatur ; post adventum Christi, per Sacramentum
memorise celebratur'.'"
Farther on :
" If we agree about the matter of Sacrifice, there will be
no difference about the Altar. The holy Eucharist being
considered as a Sacrifice, (in the representation of the break
ing the Bread, and pouring forth the Cup,) the same is fitly
caUed an Altar : which again is as fitly called a Table, the
Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing
else, but a distribution and an application of the Sacrifice to
the several receivers. The same Saint Augustine, that, in
the place alleged, doth term it an Altar, saith in another
place, ' Christus quotidie pascit. Mensa ipsius est iUa in
medio constituta. Quid causae est, 6 audientes, ut mensam
videatis, et ad epulas non accedatis^T The same Nyssen, in
the place cited, with one breath calleth it 9v(Tia(TTripiov, that
is, an Altar ; and hpa Tpairitia, that is, the Holy Table.
" Which is agreeable also to the Scriptures. For, the
altar in the Old Testament, is, by Malachi, called ' mensa
Domini '.' And of the Table in the New Testament, by the
Apostle it is said, ' habemus Altare *.' Which, of what
matter it be, whether of stone, as Nyssen '; or of wood, as
Optatus, it skills not. So that the matter of Altars makes
no difference in the face of our Church ^."
' Aug. de Civitate, lib. 17- c. 20.
^ Horn. 46, de Verbis Domini secundum Joannem.
' Mai. i. 7. * Heb. xiii. = Nyssen. de Bapt.
' For additional testimonies of English divines on this subject,
see Tracts for the Times, No. 81,

55
Again, ibid. ix.
" For offering and prayer for the dead, there is little
to be said against it. It cannot be denied, that it is
ancient." Thorndike. Just Weights and Measures, pp. 106, 107.
" But the practice of the Church in interceding for them
(the Dead) at the celebration of the Eucharist, is so gene
ral, and so ancient, that it cannot be thought to have come
in upon imposture ; but that the same aspersion will seem
to take hold of the common Christianity."
Then, after saying (so far with Mr. Newman) that
such practice does not imply the " Romish doctrine
of Purgatory," he proceeds : —
" In the meantime, then, what hinders them to receive
comfort and refreshmmt, rest and peace, and light, (by the
visitation of God, by the consolation of His Spirit, by His
good Angels), to sustain them in the expectation of their
trial, and the anxieties they are to pass through, during
the time of it ? And though there be hope for those that
are most soHcitous to live and die good Christians, that they
are in no such suspense, but within the bounds of the
heavenly Jerusalem; yet, because their condition is u/ncer-
tain, and where there is hope of the better, there is fear of the
worse ; therefore the Church hath always assisted them with
the prayers of the living both for their speedy trial, (which
aU blessed souls desure), and for their easy absolution and
discharge with glory before God, together with the accom-
pHshment of their happiness in the receiving of their bodies.
Now aU members of the Church Triumphant in heaven,
according tothe degree of their favour with God, abound
also with love to his Church MiUtant on earth. And though
they know not the necessities of particular persons, without

56
particular revelation from God ; yet they know there are
such necessities, so long as the Church is militant on earth.
Therefore it is certain, both that they offer continual prayers
to God for their necessities, and that their prayers must
needs be of great force and effect with God, for the assist
ance of the Church Militant in this warfare. Which if it be
true, the Communion of Saints will necessarily require that
all who remain solicitous of their trial, be assisted by the
prayers of the living, for present comfort and future rest."
Bishop Forbes. (Considerationes Modestce, t^c. p. 460. et
seq. ed. 12mo. 1658.)
" Missam non tantum esse Sacrificium Eucharisticum et
honorarium, sed etiam propitiatorium, sano sensu dici posse,
recte affirmant Romanenses moderatiores ; non quidem ut
efficiens propitiationem, et remissionem peccatorum (quod
Sacrificio Crucis proprium est) sed ut earn jam factam
impetrans quomodo oratio, cujus hoc Sacrificium species
est, propitiatoria dici potest."
Again, (p. 463.)
" Sacrificium autem hoc Ccense non solum propitiatorium
esse, ac pro peccatorum quse a nobis quotidie committun-
tur, remissione, oflerri posse modo prsedicto Corpus Domini-
cum, sed etiam esse impetratorium, omnis generis benefi-
ciorum, ac pro iis etiam rite oflerri, licet Scriptures diserte
et expresse non dicant, Patres tamen unanimi consensu
Scripturas sic intellexerunt, quemodmodum ab ahis fuse
demonstratum est, et Liturgise omnes veteres, non semel
inter ofFerendum, orandum prsecipiunt pro pace, pro copia
fructuum, et pro aliis id genus temporalibus beneficiis, ut
nemini ignotum est."
Also, (p. 465.)
" Quod toties hoc cap. Sacrificium quod in Coena peragi-

57
tur, non tantum Eucharisticum esse, sed etiam sano sensu
propitiatorium, et plurimis non solum viventibus, sed etiam
defimctis, prodesse, quomodo scilicet oratio, cujus hoc Sacri
ficium species est, propitiatoria, &c. dici potest, confirmat
Bellarm. ipse de Missa, 1. ii. c. 5. Sacrificium, inquit, simile
est orationi, quod attinet ad efiicientiam ; oratio enim non
solum prodest oranti, sed etiam iis, pro quibus oratur. Unde
manducatio Eucharistise quae fit a Sacerdote, ut est Sacrar
menti susceptio, soli sumenti prodest, ut autem est Sacrificii
consummatio, prodest ilhs omnibus, pro quibus oblatum est
Sacrificium." Again, {ib. p. 267.)
" Mos orandi et offerendi pro defunctis antiquissimus et in
universa Christi Ecclesia ab ipsis ferme Apostolorum tempo-
ribus receptissimus, ne ampUus a Protestantibus ut illicitus,
vel saltem ut inutilis, rejiciatur," &c.
And (on the especial subject of Prayers for the
Dead.) ;
Spinckes. Observations on Essay towards Catholic Commu
nion, p. 103.
" Having already written and published a ' Discourse of
Prayers for the Dead' ... and I think sufficiently proved
the practice and tradition thereof in the Church, truly
Cathohc, I shall here only add to what I before and this
author here have written, that, besides the authors men
tioned already, the learned and devout Bishop Andrewes
was of the same opinion, as appears by his ' Private Devo
tions,' printed at the Theatre at Oxford, in Greek and
Latin, hcensed by Dr. Bathurst, Vice-chancellor, 1673, and
commended in the Epistle to the reader as having in it no
heresy or dangerous opinion, but that he may safely read it
all, and repeat it as his own a thousand times before God.
Wherein besides what may be observed elsewhere, he prays

58
in this manner, ' Thou who art Lord, both of the living and
of the dead  Give to the living mercy and
grace, and to the dead rest and light perpetual °.'
" To censure prayers for the dead, because not expressly
enjoined in the Scriptures, is inconsistent with the doc
trine of the Scriptures themselves (2 Thess. ii. 15. 1 Cor.
vii. 17, &c.) and with reason, because the Christian religion
being planted in all places by word, order, and practice, and
no where by writing, and planted by so many several per
sons, in so many several places, and all agreeing in the use
of it in the most solemn part of the Christian worship from
the beginning, and so unanimously, that I never yet could meet
with any competent evidence of any one Church which ever
received it after their first foundation, or from any other than
their founders. So that it stands upon equal evidence with the
Scriptures themselves.'"

IL
INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
Bishop Mountague. Invocation of Saints, p. 58.
" It is true, and must not be denied, the Roman Church
in her doctrine (for, and concerning practice, it is other-
" These, it need hardly be observed, are the words of the
Breviary, " Requiem setemam dona eis, Domine, et Lux perpe-
tua illuceat eis."
The following prayer for departed benefactors, in whose kind
offices we constantly participate, (from the " Benediction of the
Board" in the Roman Breviary, where its meaning is illustrated
by the context,) is still kept up in one of our Colleges : —
" Retribuere dignare, Domine, omnibus, nobis bona facientibus,
propter Nomen Tuum vitam aeternam." 3

59
wise) doth not impair, or impeach the sure, firm, and fastest
mediation, the peculiar work of Christ Jesus, or appoint
propitiators in his place, who alone, as Allsufficient, paid
the price of our redemption, and made up without assist
ants or concurrents, the alone, absolute Atonement, by His
real and perfect Satisfaction, betwixt God and man 
It is false which is imputed, if yet it be imputed, and
laid unto their charges, that they have many gods, or many
lords. That they call upon Saints, as upon God, to help
them. That they mention not Christ, but Saints, in their
devotions. They do not deny Call upon me. In their
doctrine and opinion. Invocation is peculiar unto God alone,
as a part of the eternal moral duty which man ever doth
owe unto God, his Maker and Protector in all his ways.
Invocation, I mean, in a proper sense ; it is Advocation
and Intercession only which they give unto Saints ; which
act is sometimes called Invocation in a large extent, as it
passeth, and is directed, from man to them. Their help,
with David, only standeth in the Name of the Lord, who
hath made both heaven and earth.
" For better evidence in this point, the question contro-
versed inter partes, may be hmited, or rather explained,
thus. — Invocation, as was touched, is a word of ambiguous
signification ; as most words are, because there are more
things than words, subsistances than names to call them
by. It is taken specially for to call upon Me, as Him upon
whom we absolutely rely : at least ultimate ' in that kind.
It is also used for to call unto, as to helps, assistants, or
advocates in suit, when in time of trouble and necessity we
have cause to come and call on God, directing our prayers
ever prima intentions unto Him. When, therefore, we talk
of Invocation of Saints, and dispute concerning Praying
' Cf. Sancta Clara, ut sup. p. 39.

60
tmto Saints, we must understand Invocation so, as directed
unto them only, as assistants, and mediators only of inter
cession ; and therefore not to be invocated, or called upon,
in the same sense and terms as God Almighty is, the
Author and Donor of every good giving : nor to be im
plored as Christ Jesus is, the only Mediator of redemption
and Meritorious Advocate of intercession. Therefore,
having occasion and cause to call Me in tims of trouble, they
employ not te ad me, man unto God, immediately, but do it
secundario, and by mediators. This is not unlawful in
itself. Bishop Forbes, (ut supra, p. 299, 230J.
" Nudam angelorum et sanctorum compellationem qua
moneantur et invitentur, ut nobiscum, et pro nobis, Deum
orent, (quomodo a piis hie viventibus petimus, ut pro nobis
apud Deum intercedant, suas preces nostris conjungant, iis-
demque nostram salutem sedulo commendent,) cum Protes
tantibus iis, qui paulo cautius et distinctius aliis in hoc
argumento loqui amant, Advocationem potius quam Invoca-
tionem [a calling umto, rather than a calling upon ',] appel-
lamus. . . . Advocationem appellare malunt R. Montacutus,
[vid. sup. J J. Usserius, Arch. Armach. cont. Jesuit., ut
alios omittam. Alioqui, in significatione vocis lata, nihil
vetat Invocationem appellari."
Again (quoting Bishop Montague), p. 327.
" R. Montacutus respondens ad factum Justinae Virginis
a Nazianzeno (orat. in Cyprianum) memoratum, ' Si illi
(Rom. sc.) hoc facerent ipsimet, et proselytos 
docerent facere quod fecit virgo haac, ad Deum scilicet, et
Christum prime confugere, et deinceps ex abundanti sive ad-
' His own words.

61
juverit, sive non adjuverit, in auxilium vocare B. V. Mariam,
S. Petrum, &c. u tiq aitrOt^mg, ut loquitur Naz. &c. non
contenderemus. In Eccl. Rom. praxi res longe aliter se
habet'.'"

III.
KEVEBENCE DUE TO IMAGES AND RELICS.
Bishop Mountague.
" PiNGiTE, sequemur. Sculpite, suspicimus ; Abrahami
sacrificaturientis imaginem, Christi in Cruce pendentis
Passionem, typum, ilium, hoc, complementum. Quis negat ?
' The following words in the Morning Prayer of Bishop An
drewes border very closely upon Invocations to Angels and Saints
for aid, and spiritual strength.
Angelum pacis, fidum ducem,
Custodem animarum et corporum
Castrametantem in circuitu meo
Et mihi salutaria semper suggerentem.
Concede, Domine.
To this may be added Bishop Ken's prayer (quoted in the 2nd
edition of Tract 90), that the guardian angel may
" His love angelical instil."
But too much stress ought not to be laid upon the words of
metrical Hymns on either side.
To go to quite a different subject, what Roman Catholic would
express himself more strongly than the judicious and popular
George Herbert on the subject of the Real Presence ?
" At Communion times the Priest is in great confusion, as being
not only to receive God, but to break and administer Him." —
Country Parson, C. xxii.

62
nos imitamur in Ecclesiis nostris ; intuemur Hbenter, et
usurpamus oculis ; ex intuitu ad avfiwaOuav commovemur,
et ad detestationi conjunctam avvvv%iv de peccatis nostris,
in Judaeos vehementius inflammamur ; Christi passionum
tormentis compatimur, et simul in memoriam revocamus non
fuisse dolorem sicut dolorem Ejus ; Cujus ilia, ut Grgeci in
suis liturgicis loquuntur, ayvwara Tra9r\iiaTa, vocem iUam
dolorificam expresserunt, ' Deus mens, Deus mens, ut quid
Me dereliquisti r atque hinc ab intuitu isto invitati ad
amandum amore nostro amorem Illius excitamur. Qui prop
ter amorem nostri, ut Augustinus loquitur, semetipsum
sKivwaev, exinanivit  Haec et hujuscemodi nemo
nostrum negat, saltem negare nemo potest, ex intuitu efiicacius
ad animum et intimos cordium affectus descendere, eoque
magis commendantur, in usu posita quotidiano, quo, tar-
diores cum simus ad haec magnalia Dei recolenda, pluribus
indigemus et efficacissimis adjuijientis." — Orig. Eccles. vol.
ii. p. 102.
" The Church of England condemneth not the historical
use of Images. The Homily that seems to condemn all
making of Images is to be understood with a restriction of
making them to an unlauful end."" — Appello Csesarem,
p. 258.
" Oivilem usum [imaginum] ac moralem statuo ad intui-
tum ac invitationem, nullum religiosum ad adorationem ; an
vero ad intuitum et invitationem constituerentur in locis
sacris et sacratis conventibus destinatis, sunt qui negant, ex
Origene, Arnobio, Minutio Fehce ; sed non persuadent. Suc-
cesserunt tempera, cum frequentius in templis locarentur ; sed
tantum ad intuitum et invitationem. Tempora ilia laudamus,
et imitamur. Admiramur ingentes illas ^imas quae, ceu
luminaria, orbem ecclesiasticum illustrarunt, et cum Carolo
Magno ad Hadrianum primum, 'permittiraus Sanctorum
Imagines, quicunque eas formare voluerit, tam in Ecclesia

63
quam extra, propter amorem Dei, et Sanctorum Ejus;
adorare prohibemus; frangere vel destruere eas etiamsi
quis voluerit, non permittimus.' Haec ille Carolus Magnus.
Haec iUe, ita nos." — Origines Ecclesiasticse ', vol. ii.
p. 102. Thorndike.
" Now, granting that Epiphanius and the Council of
Elvira did hold all Images in churches dangerous for ido
latry, (of which there is appearance,) it is manifest that
they were afterwards admitted all over. And there might
be jealousy of offence in having Images in churches before
idolatry was quite rooted out, of which afterwards there might
be no appearance''. But no manner of appearance that
images in history should occasion idolatry to those Images
in them that hold them the Images of God's creatures, such
as are those Images which represent histories of the Saints,
out of the Scriptures, or other relations of unquestionable
credit. Tbe second Council of Nice seems to have brought
in, or authorized, addresses to solitary Images of Saints,
placed upon pillars for that purpose ; whereof there is much
mention in the records of it. But to the Images of Saints,
there can be no idolatry, so long as men take them for
Saints, that is God's creatures, much less to the Images of
' This was his last work, published several years after his ac
quittal by the Bishops.
° This view, (intimated also by Bishop Mountague in the pre
ceding passage) seems to meet the objection which has been
drawn against the use of Images in later times of the Church,
from the disuse of them in the earlier. Surely the Church has
power to order all such matters according to circumstances, and,
in such cases, her practice at any one particular time (though,
accidentally, more ancient) will be no guide whatever for other
times.

64
our Lord. For it is the honour of our Lord, and not of
His image.
" For indeed and in truth, it is not the Image, but the
Principal, that is honoured, by the honour that is said to be
done to the Image, because it is done before the Image. The
fountain and utensils of the Church were honoured, in the
spotless times of the Church, as consecrated to God's ser
vice ; though the honour of them, being incapable of
honour for themselves, was manifestly, and without any
scruple, the honour of God. But Images, so long as they
were used to no farther intent than the ornament of
churches, the remembrance of holy histories, and the rais
ing of devotion ; thereby, (as at the first they were used by
the Church,) came in the number of things consecrated
to God's service. And that Council was never of force in
the West till the usurped power of the Pope brought it in
by force. Nor did the Western Church, when it refused
the Council, discharge the having of Images in churches
upon those reasons, and to those purposes which I have
declared. So far they remain still justifiable. For he that
sees the whole Church on the one side, and only Calvin on the
other side, hath he not cause to fear, that they who make
them idolaters without cause will themselves appear schisma
tics in the sight of God for it ? For what are they else,
who please themselves in a strange kind of negative supersti
tion, that they cannot serve God, if they serve Him with
visible signs of reverence ? Who hate the Images because
they hate the Saints themselves and their Christianity 2
And, therefore, that it be not thought that we are tied to
those terms of distance, which ignorant preachers drive
their factions with ; it is necessary to declare the grounds
of truth, though it displease." — " Just Weights and Mea
sures," p. 127.

65

Bishop Andrewes.
" For these Relics (were we sure they were true and un-
counterfeit) we would carry to them the regard that becometh
us. But the Cardinal himself will not say, that St. Hierome
ever meant to adore the ashes of St. John the Baptist. St.
Jerome opposed Vigilantius, that used reproachful terms
to the ashes and relics of Martyrs, calHng them ' vilem
pulvisculum,' &c., for which he was, and was to be, justly
censured. " And (even) the carrying them about in Hnen cloths
and kissing them  we would rather bear with, and
excuse, as proceeding from popular and private devotion, than
commend." — " Answer to XVIIIth Chapter of Cardinal
Perron." No. vii. Bishop Mountague.
" Reliquias ipsorum, lipsana, cimelia, deposita, si quae
sint, quae ad nostram notitiam pervenerint, si quae nancisci
poterimus genuina, non fucata, Hbenter suscipimus, et vene-
ratione sua debita, congrua, honoramus ; constet autem hoc, et
facile conveniet inter nos de Sanctorum Reliquiis venerandis."
— Orig. Eccl. vol. i. p. 39.
" Magnam certe gratiam ab Ecclesia Christi et partibus
inter se contendentibus is vel iUi inirent, qui docerent, quo-
usque progredi in hoc Sanctorum cultu et lipsanodoulia possi-
mus, sine justo scandalo, animae periculo, naufragio pietatis
et religionis." — Ibid. p. 40.
" Ossa Sanctorum, cineres, reHquias, vase aureo, velamine
pretioso, convolvebant. Ego certe cum Constantino illas
Reliquias fasciis involvam, auro includam, circumgestandas ;
admovebo labiis, ac coUo suspensas, manibus oculisque crebro
usurpatas intuebor." — "Antidiatriba," p. 17.

66
IV.
INTERMEDIATE STATE OF PURIFICATION.
Bishop lories.
" Ad controversiam banc toUendam, vel saltem minuendam,
Romanenses opinionem suam de Purgatorio punitivo quum
nullis certis fundamentis, nee in Scripturis, nee in primorum
seculorum Patribus, nee in priscis conciliis, nitatur, ut supra
demonstratum est, pro fidei articulo nee habeant ipsimet,
neque ahis obtrudant. Protestantes etiam, quibus opinio
ista improbatur, et quidem jure meritoque, hsereseos tamen,
aut impietatis, apertfe eandem ne damnent. Sententiae autem
communi Graecorum, atque etiam quorundam virorum doc-
torum in Latina Ecclesia de Purgatorio expiatorio, (quod
solum Purgatorii nomen proprie loquendo meretur,) in quo,
sine poenis gehennalibus, animae Sanctorum, quorum quasi
media quaedam conditio est, in coelis quidem, sed in coelorum
loco, soli Deo noto, magis magisque usque ad diem visionis
Dei clarae fruentes conspectu et consortio humanitatis
Christi et sanctorum angelorum, perficiunt se in Dei chari-
tate per fervida et morosa suspiria, ut supra dictum est,
neutri pertinaciter obluctentur. Sua enim, atque ea quidem
baud exigua probabilitate minime destituitur." — Consid.
Mod. &c. p. 266.

V.

the SEVEN SACRAMENTS.

Bishop Andrewes.
" We deny not but that the title of Sacrament hath some
times been given by the Fathers unto all the Five in a larger

67
signification. But so also to many things more ; the whole
matter is a mere Xojofiaxia.'" — Answer to Card. Perron.
Thorndike.
" But for the justifying of ceremonies, why should I allege
any thing but those Offices of the Church which the Fathers
have called Sacraments, as well as Baptism and the Eucha
rist ? . . That which I am to say of them here, consists of two
points. That they are offices necessary to be ministered to
all Christians concerned in them ; and that they are to be
solemnized with those ceremonies, for which they are, with
out any cause of offence, called Sacraments by the Fathers
of the Church." — Just Weights and Measures, p. 118.
Then he proceeds :
" 1. (Confirmation.) The gift of the Holy Ghost
which Baptism promiseth, dependeth upon the Bishop's
blessing. " 2. (Orders.) If the profession of Christianity infer
the grace of Baptism, shall not the profession of that Chris
tianity which the state of the Clergy in general, or that
particular degree to which every man is ordained, importeth,
infer the grace which the discharge of it requireth ?
" 3. (Penance.) If a Christian, after Baptism, fall into
any grievous sin, voiding the effect of Baptism, can it fall
within the sense of a Christian to imagine, that he can be
restored by a Lord have mercy upon me ? No ; it must cost
him hot tears, &c., with fasting and alms, to take revenge
upon himself, to appease God's wrath, and to mortify his
concupiscence  if his sin be notorious he must
then satisfy the Church, that he doth what is requisite to
satisfy God; that is, to appease His wrath, and to recover
f2

68
His grace, &c. . . . . . If it be tbe Power of the Keys that
makes the Church, it will be hard to show the face of a
Church, where the blessing of the Church, and the Com
munion of the Eucharist is granted, and yet no Power of
the Keys at aU exercised. Nay, it wiU appear a lamentable
case, to consider, how simple innocent Christians are led on
till death in an opinion, that they want nothing requisite for
the pardon and absolution of their sins, when it is manifest
that they want the Keys of the Church, as it is manifest,
that the Keys are not used for that purpose.
" 4. (Extreme Unction.) St. James ordaineth that
the Presbyters of every Church pray for the sick with a
promise of pardon for their sins  He requireth
them also to anoint the sick with oil, promising recovery upon
it  Neither is there any cause why the same
benefit should not be expected, but the decay of Chris
tianity in the Church  So the unction of the sick
is to recover health, not prepare for death, (as the Church
of Rome now useth it,) but supposing the health of the soul
restored by the Keys of the Church.
6. "(Marriage.) As for Marriage, the solemnity of the
blessing, the ring, the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which,
according to the custom of the whole Church, it ought to be
ministered with, will easily make it a Sacrament."
BisJiop Mountague.
" Bellarmine saith that Calvin admitteth Ordination for a
Sacrament. And BeUarmine doth not beHe Calvin, for he
doth so indeed  Impositionem manuum Sacra
mentum esse concede. (1. iv. c. xix. s. 31.) How that is
 he expresseth himself, (ib. c. iv. s. 20.) 
non invitus patior vocari Sacramentum  inter
ordinaria Sacramenta, non numero. No Papist living, I
think, will say, or desire, more. It is not for all, but for

69
some. Which saying of his is semblably expressed in that
short, smaU, but perfect. Catechism in our Communion
Book, where  is said  Two only, as
generally necessary, 8fc. not excluding others from that name
and designation, though from the prerogative and degree.'" — ¦
AppeUo Caes. c. xxxiii. — (Points of Popery.)
general councils.
Bishop Mountague.
" The Church of England may seem to have been of a
contrary mind in her determinations ; and to have taught,
and prescribed to be so taught, that such General Councils,
true and lawful, not only may err for possibility, but
also have erred in reality. For Article xxi. we read thus :
" General Councils may not be gathered together without
the commandment and will of princes. And when they be
gathered together, for as much as they be an assembly of
men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word
of God, they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in
things appertaining unto God." Which decision of the
Article is not home to this purpose. First, The Article
avoucheth, that General Councils have erred : which can
not be understood of my limitation, fundamentals ; be
cause there is no such Extat of any General Council, true
and lawful. Secondly, things appertaining unto God are
not all fundamentals ; but points of piety, God's service,
and religion, which admit a very large interpretation. For
many things appertain unto God, that are not of necessity
unto salvation, both in practice and speculation. In these
haply General Councils have erred ; in those other, none can
err. The Council of Nice determined the controversy of
Easter : it was not fundamental. I put the case, that in
it they erred. It was a thing appertaining unto God, in
His service : this may come under the sense and censure

70
of the Article ; but this toucheth not my opinion concern
ing only Fundamentals. Thirdly, The Article speaketh at
large concerning General Councils, both for debating and
deciding. I only spake of the determination : wherein it
may be possibly they nor can, nor shall err, that may and
have erred in the discussing. In that very Council of Nice,
it was an error in debating, though not fundamental,
touching that yoke of single life, which they had meant
once to have imposed upon the Church : but in conclusion
they erred not. Paphnutius gave better advice, and they
followed it. The Article may very well have aimed at this
difference in Prosecution and Decision, in saying, AU are
not governed with the Spirit and Word of God, which is
most true ; but some are : and those some, in all proba
bility, ever may prevail, as ever hitherto in such Councils
in those cases they have prevailed, against the greater part
formerly resolved otherwise. Again, The Article speaketh
of General Councils indefinitely, without precisely deter
mining which are General, which not ; what is a General
Council, what not : and so may, and doth include reputed
or pretended General Councils, univoci General, though
not exactly and truly indeed (such as was the Council
of Ariminum) whereof I did not so much as intend to speak ;
my speech being Hmited with true and lawful: of which
sort are not many to be found. Lastly, The Article speak
eth of things that are controversw fidei and contentiosi juris.
I speak of things plainly delivered in Holy Scripture : for
such are the fundamental points of our faith. And that it
is so, the ensuing words of the Article do insinuate ; things
necessary unto salvation, must be taken out of Scripture
alone. Councils have no such over-awing power and autho
rity, as to tie. men to believe, upon pain of damnation,
without express warrant of God's Word, as is rightly re
solved in the Article. They are but interpreters of the law ;

71
they are not absolute to make such a law. Interpretation
is required but in things of doubtful issue : our funda
mentals are no such. Councils are supposed not to exceed
their commission, which warranteth them to debate and
determine questions and things litigiosi status. If they do
not hoc agere sincerely, if they shall presume to make laws
without warrant, and new articles of faith, (who have no
farther authority than to interpret them,) laws without
God's Word, that shall bind the conscience, and require
obedience upon life and death ; our Chm-ch will not justify
their proceedings, nor do I." — Appello Caes. (Points of
Popery.)

the case of bishop mountague in the reign of
king james i.
The following account of the proceedings against
Bishop Mountague is taken from the "Biographia
Britannica," vol. v. p. 3188.
"In 1622, some Romanists having attempted to pros
elyte one of his parishioners at Stamford-Rivers, to that
Faith ; not being able to procure a conference, he sent them
three propositions in writing by way of challenge, in defence
of the doctrine of the Church of England. In return to
these, about eighteen months after, receiving a piece with
this title, 'J. Gagg for the Gospel,'' he wrote an answer to
it, which being published in 1624, some tenets therein
advanced raised such a flame against him among the Cal-
vinistical Puritans, that two of the most zealous preachers
in that way, at Ipswich, drew up several Articles, charging
him with Popery and Arminianism, in order to present
them to the Parliament. But our author having procured
a copy of that paper, with an information of their design,
immediately applied to the King for protection ; who gave
him leave to defend himself, and also to print his defence, if
Dr. White, Dean of Carlisle, should approve his doctrine,
as agreeable to that of the Church of England. Under
these cautions, his famous treatise, entitled, '¦Appello
Ccesarem,'''' or a ' Just Appeal from two unjust Informers,^
was published in 1625, soon after the accession of king
Charles the First to the throne. But the Calvinistical

73
rinciples being stiU warmly espoused, his book was taken
nder examination by the House of Commons, and several
roceedings there were held against him in the two first
arHaments of that reign. The divines also published a
reat number of answers thereto. However, he found
leans to defeat the attempts of all his opponents ; and,
pon the death of one of them. Dr. George Carleton,
Hshop of Chichester, in 1628, he was nominated by his
ilajesty to that see. In which he was confirmed (though
ot without an extraordinary opposition,) on Friday, August
;2nd, that year, and consecrated the Sunday following at
Croydon. He was aUowed to hold the rectory of Petworth,
f which he had been possessed some years in commendam ;
nd having obtained a special pardon from his Majesty, he
ppHed himself closely to his favourite study of Church
.ntiquities, and first pubHshed his ' Originum Ecclesiasti-
arum Apparatus,'' at Oxford, 1635 ; which was followed in
.636 by his ' Originum Ecclesiasticarum tomus primus.''
n 1638, upon the promotion of Dr. Matthew Wren to
31y, our author was translated to Norwich."
In the notes to the above passage is contained a
)articular account of the several tenets objected to
Bishop Mountague, with the grounds of the objection.
't is as follows :
" Those [objectionable statements] touching popery were,
. That the Church representative cannot err, p. 45. 2.
That the Fathers did not any way fail, nor did darkness
lossess their clear understandings, chap. viii. p. 113. 3.
le calleth the doctrine of the invisibility of the Church a
irivate opinion, no doctrinal decision of the Protestants.
'. That the Bishop of Rome personally is not Antichrist,
lor yet the Bishops of Rome successively are that Anti-

74
Christ, magnus ille Antichristus. 5. That a sinner is justified
when he is made just, that is, translated from a state of nature
to a state of grace, which act is motion, as they speak, between
two terms, consisting in forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace
infused secondarily, in which doctrine of Justification he
accordeth fully with the Council of Trent, (Sess. vi. chap.
37.) and contradicteth the doctrine of the Church of England
in the book of Homilies, (Sermon of Salvation,) and aU other
reformed Churches. 6. ^e so exiendiS msritum ex condigno,
that he would make men believe there is no material difier-
ence betwixt us and the Papists, in this point. 7. That
touching evangelical counsels, he saith, ' I know no doctrine
of our English Church against them.' 8. That howsoever
in words he denieth limbus patrum ; yet thus he writeth,
' The Patriarchs, Prophets, and Fathers, that Hved and
died before Christ, the Scripture resolvetb they were not
there, where now they are, in the highest heavens, there
where the glorified body of Christ is now residing, at the
right hand of God.' chap. xli. p. 27. 9. Touching Images
he writeth thus : ' Images have three uses assigned by
your schools ; stay there, go no farther, and we charge you
not with idolatry. Institutionem rudium, commonefactionem
histories, et exercitationem devotionis, you and we also give
unto them. (chap. xlui. p. 300, 301.) Images in Gregory's
times were very much improved, to be books for the simple
and ignorant people ; hold you there, and we blame you not:'
and a little after, ' Images are not utterly unlawful unto
Christians in aU manner of religious employment. The
pictures of Christ, the Blessed Virgin, and Saints, may be
made, and had in houses, and set up in churches. The
Protestants have them, they despight them not ; respect and
honour may be given unto them. Protestants do it, and
use them for helps of piety,' (which directly contradicteth the
doctrine of the Church of England in the book of HomiHes )
8

75
10. Of signing our children only in Baptism with the sign
of the cross, he speaketh very superstitiously. ' We use
signing with the sign of the cross, both on the forehead, and
elsewhere. Caro signatur ut anima muniatur, said Tertul-
lian, and so we. Chap. 46, he citeth and approveth the
testimony of one of them,' (Athanas. de Incarn. Verbi,
p. 61.) ' By the sign of the cross of Christ all magic spells
are disappointed, witchcraft and sorcery cometh to nothing;
aU idols are confounded and forsaken.' ' He professeth that
he knoweth no cause of such distraction and disaffection
betwixt us and the Papists, for the reverent use of signing
with the sign of the cross.' Chap. viii. p. 60. He saith,
'Joshua prevailed against Amalek through the sign of
the cross, rather than by the sword.' 11. Of the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, he writeth very popishly ;
for first he calleth the Supper of the Lord, in express terms,
the Sacrament of the Altar, and afterwards, more fully : ' But
that you were bred up,' says he, ' in a faction, otherwise you
would acknowledge there need be no difference betwixt the
Papists and us in the point of Real Presence,' p. 253.
And again, ' No man denieth a change, an alteration, a trans
mutation, a transelementation, as they speak.' 12. Touching
confession, ' We require,' says he, ' men to make special
Confession, if they find their consciences troubled with any
matter, either when they be sick, or before receiving of the
Lord's Supper;' his words are, ' in the case of perplexity, for
the quieting of men disturbed in their consciences.' 1 3. He
taketh no exception to his adversary for calling it [Ordina
tion] the Sacrament of Holy Orders. But denieth our
Church to hold any such opinion, as that no inferior grace is
given by imposition of hands in the Sacrament of Holy
Orders, chap, xxviii. p. 269. 14. Touching the power of
the Priest to forgive sins, ' this is the doctrine,' saith he, ' of
our Communion book, and the practice of our Church

76
accordingly, that the Priests have power not only to pro
nounce, but to give, remission of sins, chap. xi. p. 78, 79.
And it is confessed, that aU Priests, and none but Priests
have power to forgive sin.' "
Then follow the several heads of allegation.
" After a preamble containing the charge in general
from his three books, ^ An Answer to the late Gagg of the
Protestants,'' ' A Treatise of the Invocation of Saints,'' and
' Appello CcBsarem,'' as contrary to the Articles of 1662, it
begins thus : ' Article 1. Whereas in the thirty-fifth of the
Articles abovementioned, it is declared that the second book
of the Homilies doth contain a godly and wholesome doc
trine, in the tenth homily of which book it is determined,
that the Church of Rome, as it is at present, and hath been
for the space of nine hundred years and upwards, is so far
gone from the nature of a true Church, that nothing can be
more ; he, the said R. Mountague, in several places of his
said book, called ' An Answer to the Gagger,' chap. v.
p. 49. and in his other book, called ' Appello,' &c. doth
advisedly maintain and af&rm, that the Church of Rome is,
and ever was, a true Church since it was a Church. Arti
cle 2. Whereas in the said homily, it is likewise declared,
that the Church of Rome is not built upon the foundation
of the Prophets and Apostles ; and in the twenty-eighth of
said Articles, that Transubstantiation overtbrovs'eth the
nature of a Sacrament ; and in the twenty-fifth of the said
Articles, that Five other reputed Sacraments of the Church
of Rome are not to be accounted Sacraments : yet contrary,
and repugnant hereunto, he, the said Richard Mountague,
doth maintain and affirm in his book aforesaid, called the
' Answer to the Gagg,' p. 50, that the Church of Rome
hath ever remained firm upon the same Foundation of
Sacraments and Doctrine instituted by God. Article 3.

77
Thirdly, in the nineteenth of the same Articles, it is further
determined, that the Church of Rome hath erred, not only
in their use and manner of ceremonies, but also in matter
of faith. He, the said Richard Mountague, speaking of
those points which belong to faith and manners, hope and
charity, doth in the same book, called the ' Gagger,' p. 14,
affirm and maintain, that none of those are controverted inter
partes, meaning the Protestants and the Papists ; and that
notwithstanding, in the thirty-fourth Article it is resolved,
that the sacrifices of masses, in which, as is commonly said,
the Priests did offer Christ for the quick and dead, to have
remission of pain and guilt too, are blasphemous folHes and
dangerous deceits: this being one of the points contro
verted between the Church of England and the Church of
Rome ; the said Richard Mountague, in his book called the
' Gagger,' p. 14, doth affirm and maintain, that the contro
verted points are of a less and inferior allay : of them a
man may be ignorant, without any danger of his salvation ;
a man may resolve, or oppose this, or that, or any, without
peril of perishing for ever. Article 4. Whereas, in the
third homily, intitled, ' Against peril of Idolatry,' it is de
clared that Images read no good lesson neither of God nor
godliness, but all error and wickedness ; he, the said
Richard, in the book aforesaid, called the ' Answer to the
late Gagger,' p. 38, doth affirm and maintain, that Images
may be used for the instruction of the ignorant, and excita
tion of devotion. Article 5. That in the same it is plainly
expressed, that the attributing the defence of some coun
tries to Saints, is a spoiling God of his honour, and that
such Saints are but as Dii Tutelares of the Gentile idolaters,
the said Richard Mountague, hath, notwithstanding, in the
book aforementioned, affirmed and maintained, that Saints
have not only a memory, but a more peculiar charge of
their friends, and that it may be admitted, that some Saints

78

have a peculiar patronage, custody, protection, and power,
as Angels also have over certain persons and countries, by
especial deputation, and that it is no impiety so to believe.

" Item. ' The scope and end of the said Richard Mountague
in the books aforementioned, is to give encouragement to
Popery, and to withdraw his Majesty's subjects from the
true religion estabHshed to the Roman superstition ; and,
consequently, to be reconciled to the see of Rome. All
which he laboureth by subtle and cunning ways ; whereby
God's true religion hath been much scandalized ; and those
mischiefs introduced, which the wisdom of many laws hath
endeavoured to prevent, to the great peril and hazard of
our sovereign lord the king, and of all his dominions and
loving subjects. Lastly, that the aforesaid Richard Moun
tague hath, in the aforesaid book, called the ' Appeal,'
divers passage dishonourable to the late king and his Ma
jesty's father, of famous memory ; fuU of bitterness, raiHng,
and injurious to several other persons ; disgraceful and con
temptuous to many worthy divines, both of this Church of
England, and other reformed Churches beyond the seas ;
impious and profane in scoffing at preaching, meditating,
conferring, pulpits, lectures, bibles, and aU show of religion :
all which do aggravate his former offences, as having
proceeded from malicious and envenomed hate against the
peace of this Church, and sincerity of the reformed religion
pubHcly professed, and by law established in this kingdom,
" 'All which offences being to the high dishonour of
Almighty God, and of most mischievous effect and conse
quence against the good of His Church and common weal
of England, and of all his Majesty's realms and dominions ;
The Commons assembled in parliament do hereby pray,
that the said Richard Mountague may be punished accord
ing to his demerits, in that exemplary manner as may deter

79
others from attempting so presumptuously to disturb the
peace of Church and State, and that the books aforesaid
may be suppressed and burnt.' "
In reference to the foregoing history, it is im
portant to observe : 1. That the persons who brought
these charges against Bishop Mountague were Puri
tans ; and that the whole proceeding was one of the
earlier stages of a movement which issued in the Great
Rebellion. 2. That, accordingly, it was Arminianism,
as well as, and rather than, " Popery,' ' which was
objected. 3. That the proceedings were instituted not
by the Church, but by the House of Commons. 4.
That the allegations were founded in part upon a
book (the Appello Csesarem,) written by Bishop
Mountague in his own vindication, and consequently
with peculiar caution, and with the utmost degree of
qualification which he could conscientiously make.
In this treatise, so far from retracting, or explaining
away, previous statements, he is found, (like the writer
of Tract 90., in his explanations to Dr. Jelf and
the Bishop of Oxford,) to repeat, and maintain, them.
5. That contrariety to the Articles and Homilies is the
ground of charge.
It remains only to narrate the result. The king,
at the instance of the House of Commons, laid the
whole matter before a Committee of the Bishops,
consisting of the following :
George Montaigne, Bishop of London.
Richard Neyle, Bishop of Durham.

80
Launcelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester.
John Buckeridge, Bishop of Rochester, (Pre
sident of St. John's College, Oxford.)
William Laud, Bishop of St. David's, (after
wards Archbishop of Canterbury.)^
The letter containing the judgment of this body
of representative Prelates, is preserved in the British
Museum, (Hari. MS. 7000. Art. 104.) The follow
ing is an exact copy : —
" To the Right Honourable, our very good Lord, the
Duke of Buckingham, his Grace.
" May it please your Grace,
" Upon your late Letters, directed to the Bishop of
Winchester, signifying his Majesties pleasure, that taking
to Him the Bishops of London, Durham, Rochester, Oxford,
and St. David's, or some of them. He and They should
take into consideration the busines concerning Mr. Moun-
tagu's late Booke, and deliver their opinions touching the
same, for the preservation of the truth and the peace of the
Church of England, together with the safetie of Mr. Moun-
tagu's person ; We have met and considered, and for our
particulars doe think that Mr. Mountagu, in his Booke,
hath not affirmed any thing to be the doctrine of the
Church of England, but that which in our opinions is the
doctrine of the Church of England, or agreeable thereunto.
And for the preservation of the peace of the Church, wee
' It is remarkable that the decision in the case of Bishop
Mountague was pronounced by a body, constituted precisely in
the same way with that which originally sanctioned the Thirty-
nine Articles ; viz. a Committee of Bishops, nominated by the
king.

81
in humilitie doe conceive, That his Majestic shall doe most
gratiously to prohibite all parties members of the Church
of England any further controverting of those questions
by publick preaching, or writing, or any other way, to the
disturbance of the peace of this Church, for the time to
come. And for any thing that may further concerne Mr.
Mountagu's person in that busines, we humbly commend
him to his Majesties gratious favour and pardon. And
so we humbly recommend your Grace to the protection of
the Almightie, resting
" Your Grace's faithfull and humble Servants,
(Signed) " Geo. London.
R. DUNELM.
La. Winton.
Jo. ROFFENS.
GoiL. Meneve."
" From Winchester House,
January 16, 1625."

[addenda.

G

ADDENDA.

Page 14. Note.
The words in this extract, which declare that Roman Catholics
were not pressed at the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth to
"join" her "sect" or " deny their Faith," undoubtedly intimate
the writer's opinion, that the former of these acts would have
been tantamount to the latter, and so far make against the
present view. However, the fact was not as he states, for, as is
shown farther on, the Roman Catholics were pressed to subscribe
the Articles, and did subscribe them.
Page 20.
It has been customary with writers who have been offended
by the Catholic tone of the Prayer-book (e. g. the Athanasian
Creed, or parts of the Baptismal service) to contend that the
Reformers yielded, in such matters, to the " prejudices of their
time." This view has been put forth, especially, by the late
Mr. Scott, of Aston Sandford. Again, a Clergyman of the
Established Church, in our own days, whose zeal all must
respect, has proposed to bracket certain expressions in the office
for the Visitation of the Sick, &c., as at least " equivocal,"
" unwise," &c. (See Brit. Mag., No. cxvi. July 1841.) All this
is to the present point. Page 27.
It may be observed that Mr. Newman, in his view of the subject
of the Papal Supremacy, does not deny, that union with the rest
of Christendom under one visible government is the most perfect
state of the Church, but only that it is essential to the very being

83
of a Cliurch. The distinction is clearly pointed out in a very
interesting and striking letter, which has lately appeared in
r Univers, with the signature, " Un jeune membre de L' Univer-
site d'Oxford." The genuineness of this letter has, I believe, been
questioned, but, I may add, without the slightest foundation.
" La Papaute ... est plutot la forme accidentelle, que la
forme essentielle, de I'Eglise ; c' est k dire, elle ressemble plutot
a la chaleur, qu' a la vie, de I'Eglise."
Page 28.
Tn saying that there is no instance of any political enactment,
bearing upon Catholic doctrine, " between the Reformation and
Revolution," I have named too wide an interval. The first
attempt made, on the part of the State, to interfere with doctrine,
was, I believe, in 1673, when the Test Act, and Declarations
against Transubstantiation and Invocation of Saints, on the
ground of idolatry, were introduced as a qualification for offices of
trust. These securities, as Mr. Hallam observes in his " Consti
tutional History of England," were added in consequence of the
Oath of Supremacy being found ineffectual ; not, then, from re
ligious, but from 'puvely political motives ; the State thus venturing
to tamper with the holiest of subjects for its own subordinate
ends. The new restrictions were forced upon the court by
what is called the " country party," termed, as Mr. Hallam
tells us, (vol. ii. p. 525.) by the court, factious, fanatical, and
republican. In 1679 the same declaration was imposed upon
members of both Houses of Parliament, at the time of taking their
seats. Between these two periods, Mr. Hallam says, " the
clergy in their sermons, even the most respectable of their order,
Sancroft, Sharpe, Barlow, Burnet, Stillingfleet, called for the
severest laws against Catholics " (in consequence of Titus Gates's
plot). On the other hand, however, the essay noticed in this
pamphlet (" Considerations on the True Way of suppressing
Popery, &c.") was published during this interval, with the view
of opposing the attempt to put any restriction at all upon loyal
12

84

Roman Catholics. This essay is commonly attributed to Bishop
Barlow, although the name of that prelate is in Mr. Hallam's
list. But, whatever may have been the sentiments of the clergy,
certain it is that the measures of 1679 emanated from no quarter
in which they exercised influence, but, as Mr. Hallam tells us,
(p. 580.) from the " popular party '." Nothing more was done
till the year 1700, when an attempt was made to enforce the
above-mentioned Declaration upon the children of Roman
Catholics, at the age of 18, as a condition of the tenure of landed
property. Page 29. Note.
" The fate of this rubric is worthy of notice. It was excluded
by Queen Elizabeth in 1559 ; and its removal clearly shows, that
the Church could not then be brought to express an opinion adverse
to the Real Presence. It was restored in 1661, on the revision of
King Charles II. ; and its reappearance may likewise be employed
to show, that the Church, at that time also, was unwilling to make
any declaration on that important tenet. To prevent misappre
hension on this jmnt, the words ' real and essential ' . . . . were
altered into the very different expression, ' corporal.' " — Dr. Card-
well, " History of Conferences," p. 35, note.
' It is curious that Mr. Hallam, in a note on this subject, draws the same
distinction, for which Mr. Newman has been so much blamed, between the
Roman doctrine and practice, and seems to justify assent to the Declaration
then imposed on the part of an individual, prepared to condemn the latter
alone. " Invocation of Saints," he says, " as held and explained by that
Church in the Council of Trent, is surely not idolatrous, with whatever
error it may be charged ; but the practice at least of uneducated Roman
Catholics seems /m% to justify the Declaration; understanding it to refer to
certain superstitions, countenanced, or not eradicated, by their Clergy."

THE END.

GiLDEiiT & lliviNGTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 8644

'f^'(

t

.* i.

^k