IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

^ A

1.0

1.1

■so ^^ ■■■

?* 124

■u

140

IL25 III 1.4

1.6

6" —

Hiotographic

Sciences

Corporation

23 WiST MAIN STMIT

W»STIR,N.Y. U5W

(716) •72-4503

CIHM/ICMH

Microfiche

Series.

CIHIVI/ICIVIH
Collection de
microfiches.

Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques

Technical and Bibliographic Notat/Notat tachniciuaa at bibliographiquaa

Tha Inatituta haa attamptad to obtain tha baat
original copy avaiiabia for filming. Faaturaa of thia
copy which may ba Mbliographlcally unlqua.
which may altar any of tha Imagaa In tha
raproduction, or which may aignif Icantly changa
tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow.

D
D

Colourad covara/
Couvartura da coulaur

rn Covara damagad/

Couvartura andommagia

Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/
Couvartura raatauria at/ou palliculia

Covar titia miaaing/

La titra da couvartura manqua

Colourad mapa/

Cartaa gAographiquat an coulaur

Colourad inic (l.a. othar than biua or blacic)/
Encra da coulaur (l.a. autra qua blaua ou noira)

|~~1 Colourad piataa and/or iiluatraticna/

Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an coulaur

Bound with othar matarial/
RalM avac d'autraa documanta

Tight binding may causa shadow* or distortion
along intarior margin/

La rsliura sarrAa paut causar da I'ombra ou da la
diatortion la long da ia marga IntAriaura

Blank laavas addad during rastoration may
appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibla. thasa
^.ava baan omittad from filming/
II sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanches aJoutAas
lors d'una rastauration epparaissant dans la taxta.
mais, lorsqua cala Atait poaaibia, cas pagas n'ont
pas «t« fiim«ss.

Additional comments:/
Commantairas supplAmantairas:

L'Inatitut a microfilm* ia mailiaur axamplaira
qu'll lui a At* poaaibia da aa procurer. Lea dAtaila
da cat axemp'aire qui sent peut*Atrc uniques du
point de vue bibllographlque, qui peuvent modifier
une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une
modification dene ia mAthode norrnale de f ilmege
aont indiquAa ci-daaaoua.

r~n Coloured pagea/

Pages de couleur

Peges demaged/
Pages endommagAes

Pages restored and/oi

Pages restaurAes et/ou peiliculAes

|~~| Peges demaged/

pn Pages restored and/or laminated/

Pages diacoloured, atained or foxed/
Pages dAcolorAes, tachatAea ou piquAes

Pages detached/
Pages dAtachAes

0ShO¥Vthrough/
Tranaparence

□ Quality of print varies/
QualltA InAgaia de I'impression

□ Includes supi*iem»ntary material/
Comprend du matAriei supplAmentaire

□ Only edition available/
Seule Aditlon disponible

Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata
sKps. tissues, etc., have been refiimed to
ensure the best possible image/
Lea pages totalement ou partiellii.;ment
obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure,
etc., ont AtA filmAes A nouveau de fa9on A
obtenir la meiiieure image possible.

This item is filmed at the reduction ratio chacited below/

Ce document est filmA au taux de rAduction IndiquA ci-dessous

10X 14X 18X 22X

26X

30X

12X

16X

aox

24X

2SX

32X

The copy filmed here hes been reproduced thanks
to the generosity of:

D.B.WtldonUbnry
University of Wtitem Ontario

L'exempiaire film* fut reproduit grice i la
g6n4rosit* de:

D.B. Wtldon Library
Univtraity of Wtttam Ontario

The images appearing here are the best quality
possible considering the condition and legibility
of the original copy and in Iceeping with the
filming contract specifications.

Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed
beginning with the front cover and ending on
the last page with a printed or illustratad impres-
sion, or the bac(( cover when appropriate. All
other original copies are filmed beginning on the
first page with a printed or illustrated impres-
sion, and ending on the last page with a printed
or illustrated impression.

The last recorded frame on each microfiche
shall contain the symbol ^^ (meaning "CON-
TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"),
whichever applies.

Les images suivantes ont tt€ reproduites avec le
plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at
de la nettetA de rexemplaire filmA, et en
conformity avec les conditions du contrat de
filmage.

Les exemplrires originaux dont la couverture en
papier est imprimAe sent filmis en commenpant
par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la
derniire page qui comporte une empreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second
plat, selon (e cas. Tous les autres exemplaires
originaux sont film^i en commenpant par la
premiere page qui comporte une umpreinte
d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par
la dernkire page qui comporte une telle
empreinte.

Un des symboles suivants apparattra sur la
dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le
cas: le symbols — »• signifie "A SUIVRE", le
symbols y signifie "FIN".

Maps, plates, cherts, etc.. may be filmed et
different reduction ratios. Those too large to be
entirely included in one exposure are filmed
beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to
right and top to bottom, as many frames as
required. The following diagrams illustrate the
method:

Les cartes, planches, tebleaux. etc., peuvent Atre
filmds t des taux de riduction diff6renfs.
Lorsque le document es* trop grand pour Atre
reproduit en un seul clishA, 11 est film* A partir
de Tangle supArieur gauche, t^^ gauche i droite.
et de haut en bee, en prenant le nombre
d'imeges ntcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants
illustrent la mAthode.

.'*is ?;:

r;^

4 It "

fK: ■

Tr©»snrc Raom Cb!Tec!rou

UNIVERSITY OF
WESTERN ONTARIO

LIBRARY

3v5

mimmm

' ■'■v. '>>vV'''.'^T* '■'■*"

'-■.\ " ;■?''':'■";■■

, ••>•■■■ .

This

Book

may

be used

only

within

the Library.

«/-Ni*"-.

1 - ^;

i.if'-

■^'jSiiia

''-u'^X

/.£<

NO POPERY

^ ■•

OR A

DEFENCE OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER

THE

N'*:-

FALSE CHARGES

OF THE SO-CALLED

REFORMED EPISCOPAL CHURCH

EXAMINED

AND

FULLY REFUTED

RQE

HENRY FREDERICK MELLISH,

Incumbent of St. PauVs Church, Caledonia^ Diocese of Niagara, Ont.

Religion hath so great, an influence upon the felicity of man, that It
ought to be upheld, not only out of a dread of divine vengeance In another
world, but ought of regard to temporal prosperity.— 2't{fof<07i.

--, li - 1

C AL EDON I A:
WM. T. SAWLE, MACHINE PRINTER, " SACHEM " OFFICE.

1878.

H ^k

> 1,

* H

u K

:'■' - - ih- W

Iit3b5-;

'• '■ '4 I.

< /' t *■

.'i

INTRODUCTION.

.«,

f"f

My object in placing this work before the public, is, to
furnish the members of the Church of England, and all other
persons who really value truth and order, and are desirous of
upholding the same, with some necessary information whereby
they may obtain a correct knowledge of the things contained in
our Book of Common Prayer and other foimularies, that in times
past have been objected unto. And why, notwithstanding all these
objections made and persisted in, by dissatisfied persons, for some
hundreds of years, the general order thereof has been cctotinued
without change. And further; why we of the present time,
ought still to retain these things, and maintain them in all their
integrity. Seeing also that these same objections are now renewed,
and urged upon us as reasons why some changes ought to be
made : before yielding to popular clamour, it would be as well to
ascertain whether such changes can be made with safety or not.
By what objections I have considered and here present, it will be
seen that there are certain principles involved in the statements
we make, and the foims we use : essential to truth, oi-der, and
profit : that we are asked to give up.

Some particulars having been yielded on former occasions to
satisfy tha scrupulous, this is now urged as a reason for the like
being done again. But, if, as I believe, and am prepared to shew,
our Book of Common Prayer — as it is — is an embodiment of the
necessary doctrines and practices of the Christian religion and

nothing more ; then there can be no real necesHity for such changes
being made as those asked ibr, unless to satisfy the mere whim
and caprice of the fastidious ; who would not even be pleased when
the changes were made. By the evidence that I shall adduce and
the remarks I purpose to make, I intend to shew, that the charges
brought against the Book of Common Prayer are not only false,
and all v/ho maintain them in the wrong : but, also, that we
ourselves are neither deceived nor obstinate ; but only hold fast
with faithfulness, the form of sound words committed to our trust
Being pledged to teach these doctrines and use these forms, and
none other ; and seeing that tliey were prepared as a means for
the edification of true Christians, that they might be built up in
the true faith of Jesus ; and guided and guarded in the way of
obtaining eternal life through Him; this subject becomes of so
much importance, our interest in the decision of the matter so
great, we cannot permit it to remain even liable to suspicion, much
less to be charged with error, but must try and make it manifest
that we have the truth. So, the object I desire to attain, is, to be
useful, by giving the truth ; and by plain statements of facts, to
be understood. , ,

. It may be, that some persons will consider it a great
assumption on my part to engage in such a work without being
authorized to do so. Or that it would have been better to have
come from some one of higher position in the Church. Perhaps so.
But as I am not aware that we have any one in the Church set
apkrt for such work, whose peculiar duty it is to meet and reply to
objections. And believing it to be a duty ep.ch Clergyman owes to
the Church, to defend her doctrines and order, in the way I now
do : therefore free to all : I neither usurp the place of another, nor
prevent any one else, feeling so disposed, from engaging in \hci
work. I . 't'"'-.. . '■ ■ ' V. 'ii' ■('.■•■ivt ' ; >' I . I:. i

My remarks therefore must be considered as " expository ; "
as giving advice or instiniotion tha^: may be acted upon or rejected,
as found to be true or not. I shall not pi-eaume to give an

authoritative deciHion of these matters, and say they can 1.^
"none other or otherwise." I only desire to perform the work I
have undertaken in a proi)er spii'it, not refusing to bo con-ected if
in error. I am not conscious of being swayed by any feeling of
prejudice. Neither am I actuated or influenced by any other
motive than tliat which should influence or actuate a Christian
teacher, viz : a sincere desire to be guided and governed by the
truth only. So that, whatever words of censure may be found on
the following pages, are intended to apply to the erroneous things
actually said and done, and thought worthy of record and attention
by the objectors themselves.

I have no desire to give unnecessary pain to any one by what
I say or write. Still, I fear that it will be difficult to expose erroi-s
and ibfute false statements so big with mischief, as these I now
treat of, unless I write with a certain degree of earnestness and
zeal. Be it therefore remembered ; that I by no means wish to
censure those persons who thought it necessary to engage in the
work of depraving our Book of Common Prayer, and striving to
counteract its influence ; or determine whether they be good and
honest men or not. But to shew that they were mistaken in the
opinions they had formed and publicly expressed with respect to
its contents.

Fearing the evil consequences likely to ensue from such false
charges, and misrepresentations, unless met and refuted : I have
assumed the duty and responsibility of rei)lying to them. Many
reasons have combined to urge upon me the necessity of the work
being done by some one, some of which I will hei*e name.

1. Truth is an essential part of the Christian religion,
without which, it is wortliless. Therefore, truth requires that
these charges brought against our Formularies be looked into.

2. I could not keep silence, and let that pass for tinith,
without contradiction, which I know to be false.

3. Seeing that very few persons are well acquainted with
the thills upon which these objections are grounded ; information

must be given by some one, or, error would prevail, and deceive, by
means of such one-sided statements. It may be said, records exist
whereby these matters may be fully known, at least by the Clergy.
True ; but few have facilities for investigation ; and fewer still, an
inclination ; so that the great majority would accept these things
as represented to them.

4. Anything in religion that can be cleared and explained,
ought not to be suffered to remain in doubt and obscurity : teachers
wore given to the Church for that purpose : therefore, accurate
information on the subjects disputed being obtainable, it is hereby
offered.

5. To refuse to i*eply to these objections, would afford a
presumption that the objector's representation of the subject was a
correct one. Although it does not necessarily follow that it is so :
yet silence is generally considered as giving consent, or, a tacit
confession of weakness : of wliich those interested do not fail to
take advantage,

6. The unfairness of the manner in which these objections
are preferred. Being by an appeal to those who have not
any correct knowledge of the matters in dispute, and a refusal
to abide by the decision of others who are able to determine them.
Based upon what is only supposed, or inferred ; garbled quotations,
so wrought up, as to make believe, and pass for facts. As this
mode of procedure involves a state of things that cannot by any
means be profitable, being the very opposite of what is just and
true, it ought to be exposed.

7. Mere denunciation would not suifice. It would provoke
more opposition, and tend to confirm the error.

8. To effect any good purpose, these objections, whether wise

or foolish, true or false, must be examined and dealt with on their
own merits. To say they are beneath criticism, or express pity for
such weakness and ignorance, might pass the matter over, but
would fail to satisfy. •

I do not see why such a manifestation of presumptions
ignorance, should be allowed to assort itself and pass unreproved,
when it becomes, as in this case, aggressive and delusive.

The vanity and ignorance of pretenders, muat be dealt with in
the way laid down by St. Paul — by sound doctrine, both to convince
and exhort the gainsayers. I puqwse, then, to follow them in the
way of their own choice. To deal with the things they have
selected as objectionable, and shew, that their objections have no
other foundation to rest upon, than the vanity and conceit of their
own minds.

In consequence of the members of the Christian Church being
divided into so many separate parties, works of this nature are
frequently viewed with suspicion ; many supposing, that at best, it
can be no more than an attempt to make gain for one party by
depressing another.

I will here state, that I am persuaded no one can bo more
deeply impressed with a sense of the numerous evils, caused by
these divisions, than I am myself ; nor can any one regret them
more. So that I shall be very far from assisting any party, as a
party, to make gain. But I will do my best to remove some causes
of strife; and so serve the whole body of Christ, by true
statements of facts and honest expositions. I ask, therefore, that
my work may be impartially considered by those that read it. And
that God may be pleased to give it influence, only so far as its
contents may be found to be truth, and in agreement with His own
Resign for the peace and welfare of His Church,

••>•

II.

»V'

Tho Chuich in aj^aiii troublod by a rosuucitation of a iiunib^n*
of objections, that were UHcd by uisaiTected pei'souH in England
fioine two or three hundi'od yoai's ago. And although they were
fully met and answered at tho time, and ought to liave been
considered as dead and buried ; yet these modern Puntans — the
self styled Refonned Episcopal Church — ha < i laid claim to them,
and think they still possess sufficient force to serve once more, the
same evil pui'pose of schism that they formerly served. And
nothing more suitable presenting itself, they have placed them as a
foundation upon which to build up, and gather in, an assembly of
the disaffected in the present day. Being desirous to give what
help I can to remove, or silence objections raised against the sei*vices
of our Church j in order to employ my time usefully, I shall only
deal with such as have a permanent foim. Because being piinted,
they fumisli me with something more substantial and reliable than
mere hearsay, or floating rumour.

I therefore ask your attention to a review of matters of this
nature contained in a pamphlet by the Rev. M. Gallagher; and
entitled " Revision a Duty and Necessity."

The Rev. Mason Gallagher, who styles himself a " Presbyter
of the Reformed Episcopal Church," some time ago, delivered a counse
of Lectui'es at different places in Canada, viz : — Ottawa, Toronto,
Brantford, dtc. The substance of which he gives in a pamphlet as
named above. I saw a brief report of these Lectures in the
l^ewspapers at the time, and gave a general reply thereto, which

was iuserted in tlie Brantford "Courier." I promised, and propai-ed,
a more particular refutation ; but before publishing what I had
then prepared, I met with a copy of the work now being noticed
and reviewed, which caused me to withhold it for a time. I saw
that the entire substance of his Lectures was formed from a gross
misconception of the subject spoken against That it was wrought
into specific charges of erroneous doctrines and sui)erstitious practices
being taught and done, by means of the Book of Common Prayer.
Also, that the characters and motives of the compilers of it, were
misrepresented and maligned So I concluded the best course to
adopt in repelling and refuting the same, would be by preparing
specific answers thereto, in the most accurate manner possible. That
there was great need for some one to undertake this, will be seen
by the quotations shortly to follow. A request that the Lecturer
would permit his Lectures to be published, and a notice of the
support given to the schism by certain persons in Brantford. For
when persons supposed to be well informed and observant in such
matters, can be imposed upon with such trashy stuff as the garbled
statements the Lecturer sets forth, and unable to detect its fallacy ;
but rather give their support and encouragement, commending it as
" information of the most valuable nature," wc may conclude the
power for evil is much more wide-spread than at first would be
8upi)0sed.

It is high time some one who knows better should give a true
account of such things, or, what is to become of the "general
public," who are supposed not to know 1

" To the Rev. Mason Gallagher :

Dear Sir: — We, the undersigned, having listened with the
greatest interest to the able and exhaustive lectures delivered by
you on the 12th and 19th instant, concerning the " Revision" and
" Unprotestantizing " of the Book of Common Prayer, do most
earnestly request that you will, at a very early day, have the same
published in pamphlet form for general distribution and perusal.
We do feel that the said lectures contain much information of the
most valuable natui'e, which is practically hidden from the general

Iii *

public, and their publication, therefore, cannot but serve a good
purpose. , .,

:, .Ottawa, 20th April, 1874.

Alexander Burritt, \ ^, , -itt i
A. RowE, I *^*"'"='' Wardens.

Thomas H. Kirby and nine other Yestiymen.

The Hon. D. Ciihistie,

President o^ the Senate,

Dominion of Canada.
The Hon. K B. Dickey, I s » t •

The Hon. Alexander Vjdal, j ^ ^ "^

James Johnson,

Assistant Commissioner of Customs."

In the " Brant Union," October 1st, 1874, with the report of
a lecture by the same jierson, entitled " Various Revisions of the
Book of Common Prayer," will be found as follows :

" The Rev. Mr. McCall, a Congregational Minister, proposed a
vote of thanks to the lecturer for his veiy able exposition of the
principles of the " Reformed Episcopal Churcii," and in a very neat
and intelligent speech, ai)proved of their })rinciples. The Rev. Mr.
John Alexander, Pastor of the Second Baj)tist Church, in a short
speech, seconded the resolution.

"The Chaii-man (The Rev. Mi*. Porter, Pastor of the First
Baptist Church,) in a few well-timed remarks, put the resolution to
the meeting, and it was caiTied unanimously."

:o:

Having diligently examined and compared each statement
contained in these lectures, said to be " information of the most
valuable nature," with authenticated copies of the original
documents : truth rciquires me to declare the " information," the
^•everse of " valuable " : — worthless. And not only so, but being
filse — dangerous and destructive. Opposed to the religious welfare
of all persons influenced by it. The statements made, are contraiy
to facts. The inferences, false, and unwarranted. The lectures
furnish abundant evidence themselves, that they were " got up to
serve . n occasion," That they are the work of some one half -read '^

hasty in asserting, rasli in concluding. Whoever compiled them
must have had more boldness than judgment ; more conceit than
sound learning.

With respect to those persons who conmiended and SMj)ported
them, there may ))e no re?,son to doubt, that thtjy thought "they
were doing God service." But their zeal was not tempered with
discretion, neither was their work according to knowledge.

It is veiy much to be regreted, that su(;h pei'sons, who are in
eveiy way worthy of our esteem ; and qualilied to do good service
for Christ's Church, under i)roper guidance ; should suffer themselves
to be so deceived by vain talkers. We find a veiy large class of
pious men and women, keenly desirous to do something for the
spiritual good of their fellow creatures ; but who are impatient of
control, and irregulai* in their doings. Wlio want to take the lead
in matters where they ought to follow. Who are very ready at
devising plans for the guidance of othei's ; ])ut, " thinking of
themselves more highly than they ought to think," will follow
nothing but the devices and desiies of their own heaits. If such
persons would be persuaded to exercise a little more care and
prudence in such matters ; and first obtain the requisite knowledge
to form a correct idea of the nature of the work they undertake to
do, and the manner in which it should be done ; they would meet
with more real success. Too frequently their labour is bestowed in
vain ; they are disapj)ointed in their expectations ; which brings
discouragement, and ends by the work being given up altogether.
I have not written these stiictures with any design to hinder any
one from engaging in a good work ; but to desti-oy fanciful absurd
theories, and to stimulate enquiry ; so as to urge objectors generally,
to the obtainment of more accurate knowledge of these subjects,
which they — not we — think necessary to be brought before " the
general public."

But if by means of these things, the truth is brought to lighti
the mouth of the ignorant oaviller, or presumptuous objector,
stopped ; and the good purpose served, which they profess to desire :
although in a diflferent way from what is expected : there will be
nothing for any good man to regret, but much to rejoice over.
Because the way will be found so much smoother for those, who,
with honest purpose and truthful words, seek to advance the cause
of trua^eligion.

CHAP. I.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS.

Before I examine, and classify, the particular objections these
people have made a;/ainst the different services of the Church of
England, I intend first to notice, and remark upon, some general
statements, made in reply to the " address ;" as also some things
contained in the preface. Because, in them, we find the professed
cause of their discontent, and the purpose they seek to accomplish
by their separation. I shall give the statements they make, in their
own words.

Objection 1. " The issue to-day is not between the Ritualists
and the Reformed Episcopalians, but it is between the Romanizing
tendencies of the present Prayer Book and the Reformers. The
crushing out of a few prominent Ritualists would be as effective in
removing the spreading evil as lopping off some of the taller stalks
would successfully rid a field of Canada thistles."

Answer. The objector here boldly asserts, that the Book of
Common Prayer is the sole cause of offence, and the reason for
their new schism being begun ; which will biing the controversy
within certain definite limits. I accept the "issue," and will
examine the specified charges of " Romanizing tendencies " to see
whether they be true or false.

Objection 2. "The roots of error are in the Prayer Book,
and Ritualism and kindred errors are the legitimate and necessary
outgrowth. These roots must be grubbed up,, and that work the
Reform Episcopal Church has attempted.

" The present crop of Puseyism, Ritualism, Sacerdotalism, and
Sftcramentarianism, which has startled the Protestant Episcopal
Cl^urqh, is ^he ^atiu^l, legitimate, a^d n^oessaiy re^\^t of theiju^vpf

1 I

lii

Hj! I
I I

a Liturgy and offices intentionally Romanized ; and the crop will
flourish as long as the seed is sown, even by professedly Protestant
hands."

Answer. The Book of Common Prayer is made up of words,
which, from good authority, may be called "seed." Now every seed
has ITS OWN body, gei-m, and roots. And this book of " seeds," like
other books, is a definite and fixed fonn — which gives the
substance, and rule, of what is to be said and done in the Church of
England. Like the Bible, it must be one and the same thing to
each and every one professing to be governed by it. Therefore, if
honestly and intelligently used, would make all men of one mind.

The doctrine of the Church, is strictly confined to what has
been gathered from the Canonical Scriptures, and nothing else
urged as necessaiy to salvation. Bishop Pilkington, in reply to the
Romish assailants of 1559, says: "our Service hath nothing in it
but what is wiitten in God's book, the Holy Bible (where no lie can
be found), saving Te Deum, and a few collects and prayers ; which,
although they be not contained in the Scriptures, yet, differing in
words, they agree in sense and meaning with the Articles of the
Faith, and the whole body of the Scriptures."

In addition, we have certain Rites and Ceremonies to be
observed, which are simple in their nature, and necessary for
decency, and order, in conducting Public Worship. But, we believe
that our mode of worship and service, is, in every thing agreeable
to the order of Christ's Church, and in nothing, contraiy to God's
word written.

Each particular office has certain selected Sentences, Prayers,
etc., to be said ; certain fixed Rites and Ceremonies, to be observed
and done ; so that what is said and done, may be done properly,
I. E. in accordance with truth, order, and decency.

Now each of these offices, has its limit of word and action
><5arefully defined : to be " none other, or otherwise." Therefore, so

To?

long as nothing but the teaching of the Scriptures, is allowed to be
said ; and nothing contrary to the order of Christ's Church, required
to be done ; these " germs — roots — and seeds of eiTor," must be
brought into the Cliui-ch, (if such tliere be) by some other means
than the Book of Common Prayer.

It is not improbable, men are not infallible, but that these
very persons who say, " the roots of error " are in the Prayer Book,
may find them in their own hearts. And by their tongues may be
planting roots of error, and sowing the seeds of strife and division
themselves. I expect to be able to prove, even to their own
satisfaction, that such is the case, before I complete my work.

That diverse practices and opinions^ have been, and may still
be found in our Church, we do not deny. But they were not
CAUSED by anything contained in the Book of Common Prayer.
Tliey spring from the wilfulness, or ignorance, of individuals, who
mistake the sense of the words and jjurpose of the Book, and give, or
serve their own instead. Who leave undone and unsaid, things
that ouglit to be said and done ; and who do and say things that
ought not to b(i said and done.

Our Church has ever been harassed with " foreign opinions ;"
and these "germs — roots — and seeds — " causing dissension, and
diveise practices, ai'e the " foreign opinions " imported from Rome,
Geneva, and elsewhere. They have been sown, or planted by such
as have been influenced by them, with the " good seed " of the
word. And successive " crops " will spring up, and flourish — until
all persons entrusted with the Ministry, honestly discharge their
" dut) •'! that state of life in which it has pleased God to call
them," viz : in the Church of England. And not in that of Rome,
Geneva, or any other.

The use of such ambiguous terms as, Puseyism, Ritualism,
Hierarcliical pressure, Romanizing tendencies, etc., which always
piore or less abound in such charges, can only be intended tq

ill 't

iiifluence those who are more easily caught by sound than sensa
To utilise a remark of Jerome's, " they weave a web, which can
catch small and light animals, as flies and gnats, but is broken by
stronger ones."

In addition to these charges, will be found some complimentary
remarks on the " intelligence and earnestness " of his admirers ;
who had the wisdom, grace, and courage to engage in the work.
Some " railing accusations " against " three ungodly Monarchs and
a degenerate Clergy." The conduct of Queen ^Elizabeth, with
respect to the Book of Common Prayer, specially censured. A
SUPPOSITION, that few of the Clergy and Laity are aware that the
Catechism of Edward VI. has been practically suppressed in the
Church of England. An assertion, that the Book of Common
Prayer, has "a history that will not bear investigation." I
venture to hope, that should they possess the "intelligence and
wisdom " ascribed to them ; after reading this work, their
"earnestness and courage" will impel them to say — we were
greatly mistaken and deceived.

It will readily be perceived from the foregoing remarks, that
the whole work of defence and clearance from these charges, vnll
turn upon the truth or falsity of the assertion, that our Prayer Book
contains within it, some of the erroneous practices and doctrines of
the Church of Home. But I must take another and a shorter way,
than that of following the objector in all his vagaries ; because it
would be both tedious and endless, and serve no good purpose when
done. His charges are unconnected, and carelessly arranged. As
there appears to have been no purpose of truth or order to serve in
what he undertook ; but a foregone conclusion that the Book was
" intentionally Romanized," and therefore must be suppressed ; so
any, and every objection that could be found to cast odium upon
what they do not want, was hastily adopted. And these selected
objections are so blended together, that they may well be called —
a gatl^^ring together of numerous crude misrepresentations into a

paob.

/?':

•

Tliere in not any (>bj(jcfci(^u mji<l(! to forms of praytM*, or
Episcopal regimen : at least not in name : but certain pp^rticulars
are excepted against, which are to be found in the different offices
and forms, contained in the Prayer Book. To select a few instances.
The Baptismal services are said to )>e contiary to Scripture,
corrupted by many errors, and to agree with the Church of Komo
in doctrine.

But as a sp('.ciiu<'-n of tl»o self com]»litc<in(?y and arrogancy of the
objnctoi', he says : " It was h>ft to our generation to construct a
Baptismal OlHce in strict accoi'dance with Holy wiit. This has been
done in the recent Council of tlie Kefornied Episcopal Church."

The Catechism, is said to have been " altered to intensify the
Sacramental prineijjle of tlie book." Although the additions were
made in the time of Jas. i. at the request of the Puritans. So
difficult is it to please tliose persons whose will and pleasure it is,
not to be pleased with anything but what is done by themselves.

The Commiuiion Service, they allege, has been altered at different
times, and each time made less Protestant in its character. The
Articles, it is asserted, were "tampered "'with, some things added
and others suppressed ; and the publication of them held back until
Queen Elizabeth had broken with Rome. All of which was done,
lest the Poi)e and members of the Church of Rome should take
offence.

* The Ordination Seivice is severely condemned, on account
of the exclusive spiiit manifested by it.

Tlie use of the Apocrypha, Tradition, and some other things
olyected unto, will be found noticed in the body of the work.

All these charges are gross assumptions, have no foundation

in fact ; but a collection of objections gathered from any

source, as if the sole pur[)ose, was, to condemn and destroy by

any means, a foi-m of doctrine and worship, the truth and pui'ity of

which has never been disproved ; and tJiat has not an equal in any
branch of the Christian Church. Then lest these things objected
against in the Book itself, sliould not bo found sutRcient for the
utter condemnation of it : we find the usual amount of abuse thia
class of writers delight to indulge in and pour out upon those who
differ from tliem. So the character of fiach of the Monarchs, and
some of the Clergy, who were engaged . in the several Revisions, is
asserted to be such, that it would be an impossibility for the book
to be found pure after passing through such " filthy hands."

Such meaningless and reckless assertions jire the natural refuge
of a man who does not understand his subject, or even know his own
mind. But with the help of a few illustrations, I hope to shew that
the book is neither " the outgrowth of man's wisdom," nor yet a
compilation " to serve certain purposes of state," but that it has
a CHARACTER of its own. Although I have no intention of setting
it up as a " Liturgical Idol ;" still, I think it has only to be known
and understood, in order to be valued for its own intrinsic excellence,
and the good purpose it is intended to serve.

Notwithstanding that " it is left to our generation to
CONSTRUCT Services, etc.," the objector has somewhat mistrusted
his position ; and tried to fortify it, by assuming that his.
opinions are in pei-fect acccd with such writers as Jerome,
Cranmer, Grindal, and other names of good repute and
authority in the Church. But in every quotation made, it is
evident that he has misrepresented the matter ; garbled the
quotations to serve a purpose ; and that his witnesses, when allowed
to speak in their own words, testify against him. The main charges,
those expected to have the most influence with the general public,
are these : — that the worship of our Church even when reformed,
had from the first a close resemblance to that of Rome. But
subsequently that the Book was " unprotestantized." So the
difiereiio alterations made in the Rubrics, Forms of Prayer, etc.,
are said to be '' steps in the directipn of Rome." Queen Elizabett\

is said to have taken at least seven steps in that direction ;
and by each su})se(juont revision, the number was increased.
Seeing that so many " sto[»s " are said to have been taken, and
Rome yet very far off, our opimnents ought at least to give up
the "paper wall" fallacy as it should not take so many steps
to pass through a ])apt'r wall : unless they intcMid by that
paper wall — tlu; Bible — in the language of the pooi)le. For
that is the real dividing wall between the two Churches. But this
foolish notion, that ev r} thing done by the Church of Rome,
whether good or bad, ought to be avoided ; is by no means a modei-n
one. It has been a i)ocidiar of the Puritans from the earliest
Reformation times, and a cause of much hindrance and vexation.
For in the time of Jas. i. at the Hampton Court Conference, Doctor
Reynolds desired tliat the custom of making the sign of the cross on
the forehead, in baptism, sliould be abandoned ; because, IN THE
TIME OF pofi:ry, it had been sui)erHtitiously abused. King James
in answering said, " Tliough I be sufficiently persuaded of the cross
in baptism, and the commendable use thereof in the Church so long ;
yet, i* there were nothing else to move me, this very argument were
an inducement to me for the retaining of it, as it is now by order
established : for inasmuch as it was abused, so you say, to
superstition in the time of popery, it doth plainly imply that it was
well used before popery. I will tell you, I have lived among this
Bort of men — Puritans — (speaking to the lords and bishops) ever since
I was ten years old, but I may say of myself as Christ did of himself,
though I lived amongst them, yet since I had ability to judge, I was
liever of them ; neither did any thing make me more to condemn and
detest their'courses, than that they did so peremptorily disallow of
all things which at all had been used in popery. For my part I
know not how to answer the ol)jection of the pajnsts when they
charge us with novelties, but truly to tell them, that their abuses
are new, but the things which they abused we retain in their
primitive use,, and forsake only the novel coiTuption. By this
argument we might renounce the Trinity, and all that is holy,

1-^ H

ii4

I! I

because it was abused in popery ! (and speaking to Dr. Reynoldd
merrily) they used to wear hose and shoes in popery, therefore you
shall now go barefoot."

But to be brief : you may find in the Church of Rome, evoiy
truth and ordinance of the Christian Church, as used by the
Apostles and their immediate successors in the earliest age& ; any
one of which no right thinking person would wish to
part with or to see abolished. But in addition, you will find
the first foundations so overlaid with the superstitious rubbish of
after nges, that it would bo a life-long labour to come at any one
of them in its purity. Those who wish to speak truthfully of the
Church of England in these matters, should say, that we desire to
agi'ee with the Church of Rome in every thing, where Rome is
found to have Christian truth. But not in anything wherein
Rome has corrupted that truth. No other ]iosition than this, could
be taken and held with safety ; for to act otherwise, would be to
destroy the foundations, and build our house upon the sand.

We may permit the " railing accusations " of " ungodly
Monarchs, and a degenerate Clergy," to pass for what they may
be worth to those who value them. We ought not to be contentious
for a good name ; let those who use opprobrious names, look to it
for themselves. " Idki words " are rosei-vcd for the judgment of the
great day.

But we ARE contentious for the truth of our doctrine, and
purity of our Service, and wo follow good examples. When our
blessed Saviour was called a Galilean, a winebibber, a friend of
publicans and sinners — when He was reviled. He answered not
again ; but when they said " He hath a devil," He replied " I have
not a devil." Again : a certain follower of Christ, when persecuted
and slandered, let all personal charges pass without reply. But
when called a heretic, he said " I am a sinner, but I am not a
heretic." When asked why he answered to the one rather than the

)

any
to

find
^h of

one
f the

other : he said, he learned of Christ his Master to suffer lies, Imt
not His doctrine to be touched ; for heresy separates a man from
God."

I may be excuH(»(l for quoting the following words of Canon
Stowoll, seeing they fully moot the objection of " filtliy hands."

" Tt would be Utopian to look for a faultless branch of the visible
Church, at least in the })resent dispensation. Those who go an
ecck^siastical voyage of discovery in search of such a Churcli, are
becking on earth what they ought to look for in Heaven — expecting
in the Church militant, what they ought to anticipate in the Church
triumi)hant. If a man tell nu) he cannot be contented till he find
a perfect Church, where no tares commingle with the wheat, I just
ask him — are you sinless end perfect yourself 1 And if he know
ought of his own heart he will assuredly answer — No. Then I
rejoin — J'2 you are not siidess yourself, what right have you to
demand a sinless Church ? For were you to find the siidess Church
of which you dream, by joining it, you would nuike it sinful — you
would mar the perfection which you had coveted. The state of the
Church of England, liowever her discipline may be raised and
revised, will still be, and cannot fail to be, a mixed stkte. Does
this oft'end any 1 Such was the state of the Church of Corinth ; Such
was the state of the Church of Rome ; such was the stjite of the
Church of Philippi ; and at the very time when the Apostle
inspired by the Spii'it of God, addressed the general body of
ostensible believers in those Churches as " holy brethren, called to
be saints, elect of God." He designated them thus, in accordance
with their profession, and in consonance with that charity which
* belie veth all tilings, and hopeth all tilings.' At the same time,
from what follows in these very e})istles, it is clear, that in those
Churches, as in all visible Churches, the tares grew beside the
wheat, and the j)recious were not sejiarated from the vile. * Let
both grow together until the harv(!st,' is the ordinance of God ; and
let us not be more intolerent of the mixture than He is, whose
holiness must be infinitely more offended ))y it than our imperfection
can be."

I will next laoceed to an examination of tlie particulars
charged against us, and shew in what our forms of doctrine are
supposed to be corrupted. I will endeavour to point out distinctly,
the tilings the objector has mistaken and misrepresented, and make
plain the fallacy of his objections."

CHAP. II.

BAPTISM.

M 'I:

In treating oit this subject, i think it will he necessiity first to>
^ive the reader an intimation of caution, and state what part of it
is objected unto. The objections are made against what is ordered
to be said and done in the Book of Common Prayer, as set forth in
the Offices of Baptism. It is alleged that some of the things
ordered, are not Scriptural. I would also desire it to be borne in
mind, that the baptism of Infants, and mode we uce in baptizing,
have not been called in question , so that these subjects will not be
discussed at all hera

Objection I. (a) "The office for Infant Baptism is not a
Scriptural office."

Answer. As to the " office " being a Sci-iptural one ; the
Scripture gives no other fixed form for Baptism, than that it is to
be with water, and the words we use in baptizing, viz : — I baptize
thee In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, Amen." All the other parts of the " office," as Exhoi-tation,
Prayer, Thanksgiving, etc., follow from the need we have of
instruction, help from God, and gratitude for benefits vouchsafed.

Obj. I. (b) " It begins with tlie proposition that the subject is
dead in sin, the water is sanctified to the mystical washing away of
sin ; the subject is baptized, and a thanksgiving is offijred for the
regeneration which has just taken place."

Ans. This is the only statement giving the substance of the
assertion, that our Baptismal sei'vices are not Scriptural. But why
these four things should be selected as " not Scriptural," appears to

m« RtrRngo indoe*!. Sc<uii^ ihvy wholly follow tlii! vt^ry hittrr of t In?-
Scripture. Y«t before I muko it iiianifoHt, that tlioy are in
accortlance with Horiptinv, I iiiUHt coireot hi« falwi HtatemoutH of
our won Ih. There in not any '• pi-oposition " that the Hul»j<'ct is
DKAI) in Hin, wn th(^ ol»j(^ctor Btat(5H ; hut tlie Churcli Hy her MiniHt<T
afHinis, that "all men are conceived and born in Hin; and that our
Haviour Chrint waith, None can enter into the kingdom of God
except h(» ))e regenerate and horn anew of Water and of fcJio Holy
GhoHt." No one head in Hcri})ture, would say this declaration was.
not Scriptural. Such l>eing tlie deplorable state of all mankjul by
nature, was doubtles.'* that which moved God to send his Son' into-
the world, and institute the Christian religion ; which is Hiju
appointed, and sole remedy for the evil.

Obj. I. (n) " The water is sanctified to the mystical washing
away of sin."

Ans. Truth and candour would require it to be statoil thus —

Prayer is made to (iod to sanctify the water. Seeing that water is
the element Christ appointed to be used in Baptism, and can only
be efficacious when accompanied with God's blessing, we do well to
make tin; ncknowledgment that He is the Author and Giver of all
good things, to ask in prayer, and to believe " that if we ask
anything according to His will He heareth us." We follow thei
scripture very closely in this matter, as may be seen from ActSi
xxii. 16, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins>
calling on the name of the Lord."

Obj. I. (d) "The subject is bai)tized."

Ans. In obedience to the command of Christ, who said, " Go
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them, <fec.," this
certainly agrees with Scripture.

Obj. I. (e) " A thanksgiving is offered for the regeneration
^hich has just taken place."

»'

fit

i '{

Ans. This statuinent is only a part of the truth. Thanks
are given for " these benefits," viz : — Kegeneration with the Holy
Spirit, made thine own child by adoption, and incorporated into
thy Holy Church. Our Saviour on one occasion found it necessary
to administer words of sti^rn reproof ; because, having healed ten
lepers, nine out of the ten did not return to give thanks. He
commended the one that did so, saying, that he gave Glory to God.
St. Paul says, " In everything give thanks : for tliis is the will of
God in Christ Jesus concerning you."

Seeing then that it is in accordance with the " mind of Christ,"
and declared by St. Paul to be " the will of God," that we should
return thanks for benefits received, we must teach the people to
observe the custom, and continue it without change. This, also, is
Scriptural.

Obj. II. (a) " Tli(5 Ri^formers of Edward were never able to
divest themselves of the Roman error which confounds Baptism
with Regeneration."

Ans. I am fully prei)iired to maintain, that the Reforraei's
had very clear perceptions of the purpoj^^ iind use of Baptism, which
I could very readily point out if this objection requii'ed me to do so.
But it is only necessary for me to shew, that they did not confound
Baptism with Regeneration, as populaiiy understood, and were not
influenced by Roman error : to shew the first, I will give a
quotation from the Homily for Whitsunday, a work of those
Reformers, in which the author, speaking of Nicodemus, says : —

"If he had known the great power of the Holy Ghost in this
behalf, that it is he which inwakdly worketh the regeneration
AND new birth OF MANKIND, he v/ould never have marvelled at
Christ's words, but would rather have taken occasion thereby to
praise and glorify God. * * * * * It is the

office of the Holy Ghost to sanctify and regenerate. Whereof the
last, the more it is hid from our understanding, the more it ought
to move all men to wonder at the secret and mighty working of
(jod's Holy Spirit which is within us. For it is the Holy Ghost

)

•^ite

AND NO OTHER THiNd tluit (lotli quicken the minds of men, stinincr
up good and godly motions in their hearts, which are agreeable to
the will and commandments of God ; such as otherwise of their own
crooked and perverse nature they should never have."

And for fui-ther coi-roboration, I will add a quotation from
Abp Cranmer's writings on this subject : —

'• Learn diligently, I j)ray you, the fruit and oj.eraticn of
baptism. For it worketb forgiveness of sins, it delivereth from
(h^ath and the power of the Devil, it giveth salvation and everlasting
life to all them that believe, as tiie wortls of Christ's jn'omise doth
evidently witness. But ])erad venture some will say : how caii
WATKii work so great things 'i To M-hom 1 answei-, that it is not the
WATER that doth these things, but the almighty word of (jod
(which is knit and joined to the water) and faith, which receiveth
God s word and promise. For without the word of God water is
water, and not baptisni. But when the word of the living God is
added and joined to the; water, then it is the bath of Regeneration,
and baptism watei', and the lively spring of eternal salvation, an<l a
bath, that washeth oui- souls by the Holy Ghost."

That the B« 'formers were not able to divest themselves of
Roman error, may mean anything or nothiiig, at the pleasure of the
objector. They certainly freed the Service Book from all private
o})inion,s, and were scrupulous in their desire to form every Service
of the Church in accordance with God's word. One of Abp
Cranmer's latest statements, ought to satisfy even the most
sceptical.

"If the Queen's Highness (Mary) will grant it, I, with Mr.
Peter Martyr, and other foui- or five Vhich I will choose, will }>y
God's grace take u})on us to defend, that not only the Common
Prayers of the Church, the ministration of the sacraments, and
other rites and cerenumies, but also all the doctrines and
RELIGION set forth Ijy our sovereign lord King Edward the Sixth, is
more pui-e and according to God's word than any other that hath
been used in England these thousand years : so that god's word
MAY BE THE JUDGE, and that the reason and })roof upon both
parties may be set out in writing."

fi! y

! !!

They were not influenced by Roman error in the compilation
of the Baptismal Services ; for the Church of Eome had not any
doctrine, or office for Baptism, that could be said to be peculiarly
hers before the council of Trent. It is a fact well known, that the
worship of that Church as now used, was not defined or authoiized
before that time. Now, the decrees of that council were not
confirmed, or promulgated, bt^fore January 26th, 1564. Avd were
to be held as obligatory from the 1st of May, same year. Therefore,
the Reformers of Edward could not be influenced in 1549, or 1552,
by what was set forth in 1564.

Obj. II. (b) " The doctrine of Baptism in the offices of the two
churches is the same. This is made clear by the fact that when
Stapleton, another Roman conti'oversialist in 1565, presented a very
careful exposition of the points of difference between his own
Church and that of England, among his twenty-two points, he
makes no allusion to the subject of Baptism."

Ans. The objector has assumed that silence gives consent. As
there are no charges in this objection, I must follow him in his
conjecture, and answer by another, but with better ground. There
Avas no need for Stapleton to have brought forward the subject of
baptism in his controversy. Not because the doctrine " of the two
churches is the same," but, for another reason, that will be new to
most persons.

The Church of Rome assumes the position of being the mother
and mistress of all Cliurches. Every baptized person, by
WHOMSOEVER BAPTIZED, is claimed as a subject of the Pope. The
members of the so-called Reformed Episcopal Church amongst the
number. It matters nothing whether we ai-e willing or
unwilling to acknowledge his authority, the claim is set up and
persisted in. The maintaining and asserting the Pope's supremacy
is the CHIEF article of the religion of Rome, and the last to be given
up. Let any church but acknowledge the Pope to be God's
vicegerent on earth, and it would readily obtain permission from
Rome to regulate doctrines and qere^ionies in any way that would

**?* t

npilation
not any
eculiarly
that the
ithoiized
v^re not
r^cl were
lerefore,
n- 1552.

the two
it when
I a very
is own
nts, he

lit. As
in his
There
ject of
le two
EW to

lothei*

•n, by

The

it the

? or
) and

nacy

?iven

jrod's

from

ould

he pleasing to it. I will now give some specimens of the authorized
doctrine of the Chva^ch of Rome on the subject of Baptism, which will
explain why there was no necessity to compare their teaching witli
ours, on this subject.

Council of Trent. " Socon'l part of the Decree concerning
Baptism. Canon iv. — Whoever shall affirm that baptism, when
administered by heretics, in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy (Ihost, with intention to do what the Church does,
is not true baj>tism ; let him be accursed."

Cardinal Bellarmine expounds it thus: "by 'the church ' is
not meant the Roman Church, but the true Church, as understood
BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ; SO that when a minister of the Church of
Geneva ; foi" instance-baptizes any one : he intends to do what the
Church does, tliat is, the Cliurch of Geneva, which he holds to RE
the true Church."

Again ; these that follow, are words from another Decree of
the same council.

" Penance. Chap. II. It is very plain that the minister of
baptism cannot be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment

only ON THOSE WHO have FIRST ENTERED INTO HER BY THE GATE

OP BAPTISM. For what have I to do, saith the Apostle, ' to judge them
who are without X 1 Cor. v. 1 2. But it is otherwise with those who
are of the household of faith whom Christ the Lord hath made
members of his body in the laver of baptism. For if these
afterwaj'ds defile themselves by any transgression, it is not his will
that they should be cleansed by the repetition of baptism, which is
on no account lawful in the Catholic Church, but they should
be placed as offenders before the tribunal of penance, that they may
be absolved by the sentence of the priests, not once only, but as
often as they penitently flee thereto, confessing their sins."

And from the Catechism of the Council of Trent — " Yet it is
not to be denied, but that they (heretics and schismatics) are in the
power of the Church, as those who may be judged by her, and
condemned with an anathema."

Thus it will be plainly seen, Borne has nothing to gain or lose
by any particular form of words to be used, or mode adopted. All

S' ''

I ^ '

liiipiized persons, witlioiit. rofcrcnco to tlio office, doctrino, or mode.
ur(! liable to ])o coinpolled by puniHliiiK^nt, to be Christians ; which
bj Iloiuan Csitholic divinity, nieaiis s])iritnal subjects of the Pope.
Tlui policy of that Church has never Ix^en one of persuasion, but
i!0(M'cioii. 'i'iiey do not trouble themselves much about opinions,
save aud except as such opinions might forward or hinder them in
obtaining tlunr prime object- sole jurisdiction

There is a dilTerence between the Church of England and that
of Home, in i\w. doctrine's and ceremonies each uses in Baptism.
About the same dilKerence as would be found between the woi-d of
(lod in its purity, and the same word, obscured and corrupted by
many sujterstitious notioMs and pViVctitH's. If any one is contentious,
or desirous to assert tlu* contrary, and has any regard for truth : let
him first m;ister the subject, and understand whereof he affirms,
and M htM'cin he denies.

cuax(;ks in Till-: offices for hattism.

Obj. Til. (a) "What did they do with the offices for Baptism?
'Plu'v restored the words ' sanctifv this water to the mvstical washing
awav of sin ;' words which, while in the original service book of
1') p.), were carefullv excluded from that of lo.'rj.''

A US. This objection also, is onlv a part of the truth.

SeU'cted and supported by statemelits of other objeetoi-s whicli

convev a false idea of what i- intended bv the words beinc placed
there.

Previous to l')"J2, the water to be used in Baptism was
•'pro[>ared" ready for use beforehand. By this I mean, that
theiv was not anv praver made to God, to sanctifv the water, on
EVERY occasion when Baptism was administered, as is now done.
And that it did not, necessarily, form a part of the public service.

1 i>urpose to shew tliis by the Rubric, and some of the prayers
oi"vlv»rtHl to be said, taken from the book of 1.M9 :—

^*fjf

*'Tlu' Widvv ill tJu' fold s]i;ill ].(> (.•]iaii;,MMl ovcrv iiiontli once at
loast; jukI at'oi-e any child 1k> l)a]>tiz('(l in tin' watci* so cliaii.Lr^'d, tlie
Pi-iest .shall say at the font thesf jtrMVt'rs follow iii<>' :

***** Sanctify f this fountain of Itaptisni, tliou
tliat art the sanctiKer of all tliin;,'s, tJiat hy the jKiwer of thy ^\n\d
all those that khall he baptized therein may he s])irituallv
regenerated, and made the children of everla.stino- adoj)tion. Anien.

merciful dod, ^i^raut that the old Adam in tliem that shall
pa: nAPTiZKi) in this fountain, may he >^o ijuried, etc."" Avitli sex en
others and the following one : —

" Almighty (>verlasting (lod, ^\'hose most deai-ly heloved Son
Jesus (Uirist, for t\w the fo)-giveness of our sins, t'tc./ * * •>^ *
liegai-d, we beseech thee, the sujtplications of thy cf)ngregatioii, and
grant that all thy ser\a7its wiiirn shall in-: [!Aptized ix thls
WATEK, prefarkd for the miinstnition of thy liolv S:i;^ram<'nt, may
receive the fulness c^i thy gr.'u.e, etc."

Th<^ [)rayers and the lluhrio al)OV(> (luoted, form a part, and
may he found at the (Mid of the oliice for Private Ba])tism, as at
first set forth in the time of Edwju-d vi. In l.")52, the places of
some of these prayers were changed ; tluy- wer<> made part of the
office for Puldic r),ii)tism and others were left out alto<'ether.

But the prayer containing the words " Sanctifv tliis water, etc."
WAS in each book from the first. TJu^ plac^e it now holds, was wiven
to it in 1552. The woi'ds objected unto, did not form part of it
before 1662 ; but a good reason why they were not in it, and what
caused them to be added to it, will be given in ans\\'er to a following'
part of this objection.

Obj.^ III. (n) " In their po-esent connection the words became a
prayer of consecration with respect to the element of water."

Ans. The ol>jector failed to perceive the purpose these words
were intended to serve, in consequence of his " ^iew " beinr/ a
superficial '^ue, and his knowdtnlge of the subject not extending to
]>articuhi)-K.

Tlio " clement of water," embraces a vast expanse of ocean,
river, etc., with which the words have no ** present connection,"
although they had such a connection previously to 1662. But the
place they now hold, was given to them at that time, in order that
they might be special; "Sanctify this water, etc.," not the
element of water — "the flood Jordan and all other waters."

The following quotations will shew how this objection is
supjioi-ted.

Obj. III. (c) " Jacob, in his admirable Lecture on Prayer Book
Revision, p. 15, says : ' The consecration prayer was omitted, on
the ground, as we learn from the Scripta Anglicana of Bucer, that
it implied a recognition of the superstitious, unscriptural, and
essentially Pagan notion of a magical transmutation (magicas rerum
mutationes) of the material element employed in this Sacrament."

Ans. In order to know the whole truth of this matter, we
must pass by the Rev. M. Gallagher and other Lecturers, whose
objections he has selected to strengthen his own, and gather
information from the facts themselves.

With respect to this subject, the sanctification of the water,
in BOTH books of Common Prayer, as set forth in the reign of
Edward vi. the following form of words was ordered to be used,
and may be found in the office for Public Baptism : — " By the
baptism of thy well-beloved Son Jesus Christ, didst sanctify the
flood Jordan, and all other waters, to the mystical washing
AWAY OF sin, (fee." In addition to this there was in the first book
a special prayer, part of which has been already quoted. Bucer
" censured " the practice of blessing and consecrating inanimate
things ; because, he thought that in blessing such things as the water in
baptism, and the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper ; they might
be so used (sint detortae) as to persuade men of a magical change
having taken place in them ; and that in so great Gospel light he
saw no necessity for such practices being retained. He also
objected to the statement, that all water was sanctified by the
baptism of Christ.

-* m

80 in 1552, the prayer of consecration as found in the first
book, was omitted ; but the words " didst sanctify the flood Jordan
and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin," were
retained. Still, I should say the prayer was not omitted because
censured by Bucer ; nor yet, that the Reformers were convinced
that there were any superstitious notions likely to be fostered by
its use ; or that on account of so gi-eat Gospel light it was
unnecessary. But if they held, which they did — as is manifest,
the words being retained — that all water was sanctified by the
baptism of Christ, " to the mystical washing away of sin : " then
there could be no necessity for a special form of consecration, as
ANY water might be used for baptism without prayer for
consecration. Therefore, th: / transferred from the office of Private
to that of Public Baptism, the very prayer that -is now objected
unto ; save and except that it had not the words " sanctify this
water to the mystical washing away of sin," and omitted " prepared
for the ministration of thy holy sacrament." Thus making the
service conformable to the staten.wiit, that " all water is sanctified
by the baptism of Christ, etc."

In this form it was continued without change from 1552 until
1662, and might have been so to this day, but for the "exceptions"
of the Presbyterians, for they were the cause of the change being
made.

THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE PRESBYTEPvIANS.

" It being doubtful whether either the flood Jordan or any
other waters were sanctified to a sacramental use by Christ's
being baptized, and not necessary to be asserted, we desire this may
be otherwise expressed."

THE ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS.

" If Jordan and all other waters be not so far sanctified by
Christ, as to be the matter of baptism, what authority have we to
baptise? A.nd sure his baptism was ' dedicatio baptismi.'"

:)-2

'1^

ill 11

Till) HiiHvvoi- of tho Jii.sliops appears to b<) in favour of the
woi'ds being retained without change, but the full disposal of the
mattoi' was not for their decision. The Houses of Convocation took
up the woi-k, anil causinl it to be " otherwise expressed," I. E. as it is
V3W to be found in the Prayer Book.

In consequ(MU'(' of this i-hange, that wliicli ])efore was general,
lieeaiue special in its aj)plioation, and necessitated an addition to
the Rubric; wliieli orders, tliat at every administration "The
Font is THKN to be filled with pure water." So that instead of
declaring, as l)efore was done, tliat " all ^^ater is sanctified," it is
" otherwise expressed." A special prayer is made to God to
" sanctify Tins water," viz : the pure water, then put in the font.

Neither were the words " I'ostored," but wjiat before, in each
book, was a declaration- -became a special reipiest in prayer.

Nor yet are su})erstitious, or Pagan notions of magic encoui-aged,
the whole work l)eing done openly, in the presence of the
congregation, who may see if they desire to do so, the pure water
poured into the foiit, and hear the words of consecration spoken in
their own toni'iu^.

Obj. 111. (d) " Yet tiiis ]>rayer, as it stands now in our Prayer
Book, is worse than the one which appeared in Edward vi. first
book. That piayer had, indeed, the words, ' who hath ordained the
(element of water for the regeneration of thy faithful people,' but
this expression l-ende^-ed less objectionable by the addition of * the
FAiTHFi'L people,' is still further qualified by the concluding words
' that by the power of thy word all those who shall be ba])tized
therein may be spiritually i-egenerated ;' while the pi'ayer now in
our Liturgy savs, witliout any qualifications : ' Sanctify this watei*
to the mystical washing away of sin ;' thereby leading us back to
the gross superstition attached to Baptism in the fourth and
following centuries, when prayer was made to God to SANCTIFY
the water, and to give it tJRACE AND POWER, ETC, ; and when,
by a number of ceremonies, men were taught that the water was
TUANSELEMATED and obtained an inlierent power to wash away sin."

eju'Ii

Ans. TIkj i>rayci- now objected uiitOj is the one appointed to
be said when consecrating tlie water to be used in baptizing. These
objectors have compared it with one of those that may be found in
the book of 1549, as used for alike jmrpose, and declared it to be
the " worse " one of tlie two. But the reason they give to shew
why it is worse, is one of the most dishonest quotations and
perversions that I have ever seen.

It is very much to be feared, that worse evils may follow, than
that of suj)erstition, when men believe, love, and commend a lie.

I find, in examining the form given as used in the first
centuries, that instead of " sanctify the water, and to give it grace
and ])ower, etc," it should be quoted — " Him (God) therefore, let
the priest even now implore at the baptism, and let him say, Look
down from heaven and sanctify this water ; and bestow grace
and power, so that he who is to be baptized, according to the
command of thy Christ, may be crucified with him, and may be
buried with him, and may rise with him, to the adoption which is
in him, by being made dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto
righteousness."

So the words — to — and — it — are not in the original document !
And yet these ai-e the strong points of this objection. But not
being there, tlie whole sense is changed, and the objection amounts
to — nihil.

Instead of give it — the water — gi-ace and power : the request
is, "bestow grace and power" upon the baptized person — that
the command of thy Christ may be fulfilled, etc. The Christian
dispensation, is one of grace and power ; grace and truth came by
Jesus Christ. We are saved, by grace. "To as many as received
Him, to them ua\e He power to become the sons of God." Grace
and power, are indispensible requisites for salvation ; they are
promised gifts : therefore, seeing that men cannot be saved without
them, and knowing that God will give good thiiigs to them that ask

' 1

I.I

in His Sou'h name : tlity ai'(; pioper nMjiu'Hts in pmyor, ami cannot,
IN TRUTH, be charged with "leading us back to gross superstition."

The Lecturer (M. (jaUaghei) calls the; sanctification of the
water, "amedireval doctrine." Dr. Jacob, his quoted authority,
says it is a gross superstition of the rouRTii and following
centuries.

I supfjose aniphi space will Ix; found for a vai'iety of oi)inions
in their modern Utopia : " they agree to differ ;" but fail to speak
the truth ; such testimony is ecjual to — yea, and nay.

Now that it was the custom of the Church, in the first
centuries, to pray that the water used in Iwiptism might be sanctified,
may be demonstrated by the testimony of Tertullian, born A.D.
160 — died, in 220. Prayer being made to God, **Supervenit-enim
statim spiritus de co'lis et aquis superest, sanctificans eas de semet
ipso." And Cyprian says, tliat the water must be first purified and
sanctified by the priest, that it may wash away the sins of the
person who is to be baptized. These testimonies will be sufHcient
to shew, that we have very ancient autliority for our practice, and
that the doctrine is not mediieval.

Obj. III. (e) " Here we have, says Fisher, " the very basis of
the ' opus operatum ' — a remnant, too, of the old tenet of
* Transelementation,' already repeatedly noticed, and which on
account of its close alliance to the dogma of Traiisubstantiation,
both Bucer and Cranmer were at so much pains to exi)unge from
the Liturgy of 1552."

Ans. The " o])Us oi>ei'atum,'' being only incidentally mentioned,
I might let it pass for the present. But in order to connect the
consecration of the water used in baptism with it, it ought to have
been shewn that we assert such a transelementation to have taken
place. Now the term la foreign to the Church of England, and has
never yet found a home in her Book of Common Prayer. The
different " offices " always speak of water, as water, and no other

Ciinnot,

•J

tition."

of tJio

tlioritj,

iloNving

►iuioiiM

> siK3ak

3 first

stifled,

A.D.

•

i-enim

seniofc

I and

f the

cient

and

8 of

i of

■■ !.,':<!

ion,

I'oni

ed,

blie

ive

element; no ehango said to ))e madc^ of one element to any other.
Still the "element of vvatei-/' as the Bisho}»s of 1G02 truly say, in
answer to the ohjet^tion of the Pi'('sl)vtei-ian (Joinmissioners, is so
FAR sanctifie<l hy Christ, as to become the mattkh of })ai)tism. But
the Puritans tliemselvM^s were aecustomcd to " sanctifv inanimate
things.'' In the " Directory for the Puhlicjue Worship of God,"
when ba])tism whs to be administered, pmyer was to follow " for
the sanctifying the water to this spiritual use." As also there is an
instruction for the sauctitication of the Lord's day.

" Trausubstajitiation " we strongly prottsst against, saying, tliat
it ovei-throvveth the natin*e of a Sacrament.

With rcispect to the things said to hav(» been expunged by
Cranmer from the Liturgy of 1552, the very opposite is tlie truth ;
it was retained without any material alteration for many years after
his death. 1 suppose they mean the book of 1549, but these objectors
so confuse the subjects, and confoiuid the dates, tliat it is no wonder
we are troubled with their objections. If these persons would take
more time for a f ullj consideration of such things, it would not be
found necessary to trouble the Christian C/hurch with so many of
their crude notions.

But some men appear to be afflicted with a pi'opensity to cavil,
and to suffer from contracted " views." For, as to this very subject,
"sanctifying the water," it is oidy one of many necessary and like
tilings constantly being done by the veiy persons who object to it.
As in " Grace before meat," they themsehes would not scniple to
say, over such " inanimate things " as their meat and drink
" Sanctify, O Lord, we beseech Thee, these Thy good creatm'es TO
OUR USE, AND US TO Thy SERVICE, ctc." Or, in obedience to the
conuuandment of God, to " sanctify " the Sabbath day by prayer
and observance of it. The water used in Baptism may surely be
called holy, consecrated, or sanctified, in the same sense as the
Sabbath day is called lioly, I. E. when it is devoted to, and used in

■I

tlio w^rvico of Cod. Wo Iwivo tlio siiino warrant for ol>H(!rviii«^ tlio
ono, tiR w(i havo for tlio obHorvano(^ of tUo otluM*, viz : — (lod'H wor<l.
Which tolls lis tliat tlio Hovonth (Uiy is tlio Lord'H, and a hallowod
day ; and that water is to be iisod in l)a]>tiHni, an holy ordinanco of
Christ's own appointing. Koth mv holy, wln^n pi-oporly (5ni})loyod
in tho Lord's sorvico, and at no othfM* tinio, and in no othor way
doth tho Church call tlieni so. Whon ho und(*rHtood, I can scio no
cause for ofKnice, or any reason why the i)ractico should he given up,

Ohj. IV. (a) "A Rubric was added to tho office for Infant
Baj)tism, in these words : * It is certain, by God's word, that
children which are lurTiZKD, dying l)cfor(5 they commit actual sin,
are undoubtedly saved.' Hero Baptism is made, und(uual>ly, tho
ground of the salvation of infants,"

Ans. False ! both in tho fact alleged, and inference drawn
therefrom. The Rubric here said to be " added," has formed a part
of EVERY edition of the Prayer Book, from its first issue to the
present time. It is in both books of Edward vi., in that of Jas. i.,
also in the one now authorized. It has, however, experienced a
slight change with respect to place. Until 16G2, it preceded the
Catechism and order of Confirmation ; and now it is placed at the
end of the office of Public Baptism of Infants.

This Rubric has been an innocent occasion of causing much
trouble and difficulty to many persons, both within and without
our Church. Not from anything ccatained in it, or that it ought
not to be there; for it is the most Protestant of all the Rubrics in
the book, and when understood, those who have condemned it and
fought against it to destroy it, will feel the more sorry to think
they should have been so deceived with respect to it. Now observe
particularly, the purpose it was intended to serve, and why it was
placed in the book ; afterwards, you will leave to the Romanist, the
trouble of objecting.

It was first placed in the book as a protest against the necessity
of any other Rite or Sacrament than Bai>tiRm being administered to

"1>.

tho

cliiMroii, Ix'forc tlicy cnn\c to vf^irs of (liHcn.tiou ami wore h1>1(5 to
f^ive an account of their faith. I»ut with Hi»«'t;ial rcfcnMicti to
Coiifinnation, on whicli account, it at firnt pn-ccchMl tliat service.

Oui" ( *ontiiiiiution sei'vi<'e in l.*)40 wms Itrou^ilit hack to tho
ancient niannec of it, and tlie Ilnhnc phicod foi- jirotest; hecause it
had hecn much misused hofoi-e th(! Ileforniation, heinj; a(hninistored
as a Suoramont to vary younju; diihlren. The following (juotation
will show this — " Instead of tliis most i>iofital»l(^ and ancient
confirmation, they convt'y(>d a device of tlieir own, that is, that tho
hishop should not examine childr(Mi, wheth((r th(»y wen; skilled in
the. precepts of leli^Mon or no, but that they should anoint youno
INFANTS L'NAHLE VKT TO si'KAK, much l(;ss to give any account of
thoir faith ; adjoining also other cerem(mies unknown unto the
Holy Scripture and the prin)itive Church. Tliis invention of theirs
they would needs have to l»e a sacrament, and accounted it in
manner equal in dignity with ])aptism ; yea, some of them preferred
it also before baptism. By all means they would that this their
confirmation should be taken for a cei-tain supplying of l)aptism,
that it should thereby be finished and brought to perfection, as
though baptism else were unperfect, and as though children who
in baptism had put upon them Christ with his benefits, without

TIIKIR confirmations WERE BUT HALF CHRISTIANS ; than wl'lcll

injury no greater could be done against the divine k^acrament, and
Jigainst God himself, and Christ our Saviour, the author and
founder of the holy Sacrament of baptism."

Thus it will be seen that the statement in the Rubric, is equal
to saying, that in Baptism, Infants — -as Infants — have all that they
are cajiable of leceiving while in infancy, or that the Church can
give ; and that if they should die before they commit actual
transgression, they are undoubtedly saved, even if not confirmed.

My -first illustration is given in the words of one who was
contemporay with the men who com})iled our Prayer Book ; the

next will show that it was understood in this way in 1662, both by
Churchmen and Puritans.

EXCEPTIONS OF PRESBYTERIAN COMMISSIONERS.

' ill

" Although we charitably suppose the meaning of these words
was ONLY to exclude the necessity of any other sacrament to
baptized infants ; yet these words are dangerous as to the misleading
of the vulgar, and therefore we desire they may be expunged."

EXPLANATION AND DEFENCE BY THE BISHOPS.

" It is EVIDENT that the meaning of the words, is, that children
baptized, ' and dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly
saved, though they be not confirmed ;' wherein we see not what
danger there can be of misleading the vulgar, by teaching them
truth ; but there may be danger in this desire of having the words
expunged, as if they were false ; for St. Austin says : ' he is an
Infidel that denies them to be true.' "

Query, for the objector to answer : If this Rubric was added
in 1662, how came it to be quoted in 1661 1 I think I may claim
to have demonstrated clearly and satisfactorily, that the charge of
having been inserted in 1662 is " undeniably " false.

Obj. IV. (b). The Inference. " Here Baptism is made,
undeniably, the ground of the Salvation of infants."

Ans. Jeremy Taylor says, it is "a baseness of nature by
which we take things by the wrong handle, and expound
things always in the worst sense." The objector's assertion
that the Rubric was added, must, at least, have been made
in total ignorance of the subject. And now, his inference by which
he expounds it in the worst sense, proves to be " undeniably "
false also.

The Rubric is merely a declaration of the state of baptized
children^ dying in infancy. There is not even an allusion to the
« ROUND of their salvation. Noitlior should the faith and doctrine

®b

¥^'

of our Church be sought for in tlie Rubrics. We have two Books
of Homilies, which have as much authority as any Rubric ; before
any man would undertake to impugn and deprave the Book of
Common Prayer, he should know this, and be aware of their
contents. It will be seen from the following quotation that the
objector has not spoken the truth.

"The salvation of mankind, by only ciirist our saviour,
from sin and death everlasting. * * * * Inasmuch that
infants being baptized, and dying in theii* infancy, are, by this
SACRIFICE, washed from their sins, brought to God's favour, and
made his children and inheritors of his kingdom of heaven. And
they which in act or deed, do sin after baptism, when they turn
again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise washed by this
SACRIFICE from their sins, in such sort that there remaineth not any
spot of sin, that shall be imputed to their damnation."

Thus it is sufficiently plain to be seen — that in the Church of
England, the sacrifice of the death of Christ is placed as the only
ground of salvation for all her members, and not Baptism.

This kind of ignoiance ought to be considered without excuse,
because there are ample facilities for knowing better. I hope this
exposure of it will have sufficient influence to make men more
cautious in future.

Obj. V. (a) " If it be said that the Church has not pronounced
ui)on the condition of children unbaptized, and therefore does not
deny the possibility of their salvation, why, then, did the revisers
of 16G2 append this Rubric to the Burial Service? Here it is to be
noted, that the office ensuing il not to be used for any that die
unbaptized, or excommunicated, or have laid violent hands upon
themselves.

A.x^8. The work that Christ entrusted to His Church, is that
which should be done, and none other. We are not to spend time
and labour in proi)agatiiig idle dreams of possibilities, or the vague
fancies of men who would be wise above that which is written.
Our work is clearly stated and briefly expi-essed in these words — to
preach the Gospel to eveiy creature^, and to baptize all nations,

»e, and forbid them not : for of .1 1" ?'"r *" ""'"'' ""*«

"""^ '« the kingdom of God."
Tho Church receives all that wi]J «„.„. ,
Sacrament, and in no other ^-yy r, ■ , ' ^^ ""^^"^ ^ this
. to the institution of Christ " L. * "'"''" '° ''« " agreeable

-^ " -. - in infi;:: .:=i;^ri "'"^-'•

Church then to leave the G^Z" ' ""'*'"' -«-•» ^ th:
-™e men dislike and negZlZr^ J'''^''''''''''" '--^-^'^
fordoctrine^theopinionsilf ''Secr^ ^^ <=--' t-h
obsei^e her commission, neither fa,!! ? ""'' *° '"^ ^-^'^^^ "'-t
of Christ is not a possibilitv tw J ' 7 '""^''- ^^>« «oBpol
" For ... the promises of S thi " "'" *" ^^''' -" 4 :
The., is no promise of sah^l 1 "" ^"' ""<* " ^^ Amen "

a. have been baptised intc L [ "" '"* "' ^'"^' '^ "^« -n,

"-linst, have put on Christ, etc."

The course chosen by our PI,,,, i •
cloes not shun to declare the ^^^T " ' "'" ""' ^^^ <»>«, it
-hei. God hath not spoken """"' "' «"''' l-"* - silent

- - Wtitilrrptf '^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - "— ."
children," and use the mear.. '" '" "^"" »^ ^our ■

l-^ter, than to be buo/ed .iraT ""'^ '''' "^ '"^^^ ^■
^table, than man's opinion o conXe^f T"^ °" "°*^"»" -»-
I -ould rather give confidence? a^T .T^* "^ '""^^^ *» ''o.
-ord, than be led by the ex-^.t '''''"" '^*^'-<'f God's

^-elllgent, unprejudicL, o, or^"-^"'^''*"^^^' "^ ^" *"«
or any other century. ' "^ *'"' P-'-'^ont enlightened,

The proper i^Iace fnv +i •
probabilities, such as P„r tl "T"^;'- ' ^'"" ""^ '■•'-
"Fonounced " upon, and sa' , to b^ ^LaT " "^''^^'^ ''-

a fond thuig vainly invented,

^Dtk-

.;?(te.

;■; if':

..-it''

and groiuided upon no warranty of Scriptur(3, but rather repugnant
to the word of God."

01 )j. Y. (b) "Why, then, did tlie revisers of 1662 append this
Rubric (as (pioted above) to tlie Burial Service V

Ans. Because, during the " great rebellion," the worship and
services of the Church of England were suppressed. And the
conflicting o})inions of nearly two hundred differing sects, were
scattered broadcast over the land, producing an abundant crop of
Anabaptists, and pie-\'enting many from being baptized that would
have been, if ojiportunity had served. To remedy the evil, an
office of " Baptism for Persons of Riper Years " was provided, to
meet the wants of those who had not been, and yet desired to be
baptized. The Rubric Avas appended, to enforce the discipline and
maintain tlie oi'der of Christ's Church ; by excluding from Christian
buiial all those who tieated Baptism — a Sacrament ordained by
Christ himself — with contempt or neglect.

Obj. V. (c) " If these unbaptized infants are iit for heaven,
why are the words of the English Burial Service too sacred to be
used over their remains 1 We thank God that the little ones fall
into dilfeient hands in the next world, from the men who prepared
this so much lauded Book of Common Prayer."

Ans. There is no ground for complaint here, because the
offence is taken, not given. If any person is refused the use of the
Burial Service at the death of a child, it will be caused, either by
neglect to have the child baptized, or by stubbornness in
maintaining opinions contiury to the teaching and discipline of the
Church ; which requires all her members to be baptized.

She has prijvided an office and ministr}^ for the administration

of baptism, which is free to all that come. The Burial Service is

not for all, only for her baptized children. If i)ersons refuse the

adoption, and will not be children : then they have neither right

nor title to th<^ iniviJoo-e of childr(Mi. As it is their pride of opinion

fKff

to adjudge baptism of infants \nin«)oessary, and so keoji tlicni out of
the Cliureli; tliey must ex})ect to he, and by i-jglit will be, treated
as aliens from the commonwealth of Israel Every provision l)eing
made for the administration of Ba])tism, that none need die without
it, so far as the Church is accounta])le : if persons will refuse the
Church's baptism, by consequence they must lose the Church's
consolation. I see no other remedy, than that St. Peter gave on
the day of Pentecost — " Repent, and be ba})tized every one of you
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall
receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the i)i-omise is unto you,
AND TO YOUR ciiiLDUEN, and to all that are afar off', even as many
as the Lord our God shall call." Ol>odience to this command would
remove all the ditlicultv.

In answer to the question, " Is tlu; Burial Service too sacred
to be used over their remains, etc. ?" It woidd necessitate a
recommencement, and teach whicli be the " tlrst principles " of the
Christian religion, to make such an objector understand. I shall
thei-efore onlv say, that we do not pray for, or address the dead, in
any part of this service, but gi%e words of comfort and prayer for
tliose that moui"n. What may be said, or left unsaid, on such an
occasion, will in no wise ali'ect oi' determine^ the state of such infants,
in the world to come.

(>})]. V. (d) "Are wci sur})rised tliat Baxter, who was thought
Avoi-thy of a bishopric, declared : ' of the forty sinful terms of
communion Avith the ('hurch party, ii thirty-nine were taken away,,
and only that Ilubric, respecting the sah-ation of infants dying
shortly after their bH])tisn), were continued, yet thvy (i. E. he and
his colleagues) could not conform.' "

Aus. There were mauv erude notio^uKS held bv the Puritans,
with respect to the Book of Common Prayer, before the. Savoy
(Jonference. But wlieu tiiey were i'(M{uest(^d to give their objections
shap'e, in or(l(>r that tliey might be tested by those who w^ere better
acquainted with sueli matters : the forty .sinful terms of communioii

4:^

ni out of
0, treated
ion l)oini:

' without

fu«t3 tilC

OJiurcJi's
gave on
J of you
ya sliall
to you,
s many
I woultl

sacred
tate a
of the
shall
ul, in
31- for
■h an
fants,

light

IS of

ring

and

I us,.

)ns
ter
ou

witli tlio Church party, dvvindf.kd down to onk. Which was not
the one here naiufnl, neither could tlie one they })referred ])e
maintained, v^ide : " My assc^rtion is, Nothing contained in the
liturgy is sinful. This geneiul assertion I am ready to make good
in all particulars, in which our brethren shall think tit to charge the
liturgy with sinfuiness. And because oui' brethren have as yet by
way of disputation charged no other part of it with the imputation
of sinfulness, but that which concerned kneeling at the communion,
therefore my first assei-tion as to that particular is this : The
command contained in th<i liturgy conc(^riUMg kneeling at the
communion is not Sinful/'

Baxtei-, as well as other Puritans, found that they had very
much to learn about the things they disliked before tluiy fully
understood them. On this subject he remarked, " Souie say that
the word 'all' children is not in, and of some it is true." Ho
was answered, *' Tlie indefinite here according to common speech
is equivalent to AN universal. ('liildren l)aptized, dying before
actual sin, is equal to all childiien baptized. Your consciences
must tell you, that if you limit it to souie only you cross the sense
of the compilers of the Liturgy.

If Baxter w^ould not admit that all baptized infants were
undoubtedly saved, as the Church dechuxis, but said it was only
true of some : how does his testimony serve the pui'pose of those who
assert the salvation of all infauts that die, whether baptized or not ?

Aoain i if all infants that die are fit for heaven, how could it
be sin in the (Jhiirch party saying that some, the l)aptized, are
.saved] In such ma,nner do these ol^jectors mystify theuiselves with
their own scruples aiid o))j('etions, as well as all others who are
influenced by tluun.

But if the words of Peter Martyr, whose doctrines and
sentiiuents are so higbly extolled by the Pmitans, may be taken as

1 1

' * :

an additional illustration of this subject, thoy have then nothing in
their favour ; he says, " I hope well of the state of such infants,
inasmuch as I see them to be bom of faithful parents : — # * *
It is to be FIRMLY BELIEVED that children dying who have been
baptized, are saved." So that for unl)aptized infants, Peter Martyr
has nothing more than hope without warrant of God's word ; while
for the baptized ones, he says, it is firmly to be believed they are
saved. Surely no careful parents, anxious for the eternal welfare
of their children, will halt between two such opinions as these :
whether it is best to have only an uncertain hope, or, the satisfaction
of a firai belief.

Having now cleared this conti'O verted subject from the
misrepresentations and cavils we have heretofore been troubled with
respecting it : and also shewn that the Rubric was in the Prayer
Book from the first ; and that it was intended to serve as a protest
against any other Sacrament being necessary for the well-being of
Infants that die in infancy. And further, demonstrated that the
authorized doctrine of the Church of England with respect to the
GROUND of salvation, whether of Infants or adults, is not Baptism,
but the Sacrifice of the death of Christ. I may conclude that no
Protestant will say after this, that the Book of Common Prayer was
" unprotestantized " by this protest being added, or ask that it may
be " erased."

Obj. VI. " The Puiitans had desired that parents might be
allowed to present their own children at the font, and to dispense
with the intervention of other sponsors. To render the arrangement
impossible, a Rubric was added for the first time, enjoining three
god-parents for eveiy child."

Ans. Had there not been a predetermination to cavil and
take unfair advantage, the objector might easily have satisfied
himself that the Rubric was not added to prevent any
" arrangement," but simply to make the rule known, by giving it
more publicity. Wheatly says, that he is unable to tell when

infants,

tli(3 Cliuiv.h of England fixod the numltor of Sponsors required, V)ut
traces the rule now ol)served, back to the year 1230, althougli that
is not to be taken as the beginning of it. Hiery certainly was a
Canon in force at tlic tini(} the Puritans asktjd for the
'"arrangement." The following Canon was passed by Convocation
in 1603. Canon 29, No parent shall b(^ urged to be present, nor
be admitted to answei' as Godfather for his own child, etc. In a
Synod held at Worcester in the year 1240, the same provision was
made as is now required by the Rubric — for every male-child that
is to be baptized, two Godfathers and one Godmothei', and for eveiy
female, one Godfather and two Godmothers.

If there had^been no rule of this kind enfoi'ced at the time,
why did the Puritans ask to be relieved from it ] I will give their
objection and the Bishops answer.

THE EXCEPTION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN COMMISSIONERS.

" And the godfathers, and the godmothers, and the people with
the children, etc.. Rubric 1552. Here is no mention of the parents
in whose right the child is baptized, and who are fittest both to
dedicate it unto God, and to covenant for it : we do not know that
any person except the parents, or some othei'S appointed by them,
have any power to consent for the children, or to enter them into
covenant. We desire it may be left free to parents, whether they
will have sui'eties to undertake for their children in bai)tism or no.'

ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS.

" It is an erroneous doctiine, and the ground of many others,
and of many of your exceptions, that children have no other right
to baptism, than in their parent's right. The Church's primitive
j)ractice (S. Aug. Ep. 23.) forbids it to be left to the ])leasure of
parents, whether tliere shall be other sureties or no. It is fit wc
should observe carefully the practice of venerable antiquity, as tliey
desire.

" It liatli been uccountiMl reasonable, and allowed by the best
laws, that guardians should contract for their minors to their
benefit. By the same right the church hath appointed sureties to
undertake for children, when they enter into covenant with God by
■liaptism. And this general practice of the Church is enough to
Batisfy those that doubt."

REGENERATION.

Obj. VII. (a). It has l)een urged of late by those who have
dorired to reconcile the Prayer Book with the Bible, that the
Reformers made their assertion of spiritual regeneration in
connection with baptism on the ground of the answers of the
sponsors, and on the faith of those who thus presented the infant."

Ans. I should say, and am jirepared to shew, that the
Reformers taught, as well as formed our services, upon a much
better and firmer ground than the one assumed, viz : — the only
ground of hope for sinners ; that we liave regeneration in no
OTHER WAY than from Christ's death and resuiTection. By virtue
of His death He made a full, pei^fect, and suflficient satisfaction pud
propitiation, for the sins of the whole world ; therefore, whosoever
will, may come and take of the water of life, freely. By virtue of
His resurrectioii. He ever liveth to make intei'cession for us ; and
giveth us grace, that we may be formed anew, to lead a new life,
so as to obey the righteousness of God.

Or, in the very woids of the Reformers, and now a part of
our Baptismal service, — " Baptism, doth represent unto us our
profession ; which is, to follow the example of our Saviour Christ,
and to be made like unto him ; that, as he died and rose again
FOR us, so should we, who are baptized, die from sin, and rise again
unto righteousness ; continually moi-tifying all our evil and corrupt
affections, and daily proceeding in all vii-tue and godliness of
living." I think, that taking this " view," there will not be any
further difficulty in reconciling the doctrine of the Prayer Book
with the docti'ine of the Bible.

y the best
to their
ui-eties to
h God hy
'"onnrJi to

vho have
that tJie
ition iu
of the
infant."

lat the
a much
he only

IN NO

' virtue
on piiil

)soever

i;iie of

; and

V hie,

i-t of
our

irist,

SAIX

?ain
•nj)t
of
my
)ok

Ml.j. VI f. {H). •' l)iil> to (U'(i(l(! tin; ({UcsLioji that lliat \va.s not
tlio doc'lrinci of tli») Prayer Book, tlw CoinmisHionors of (liarles (iu
eoiitradistiuetion to the action of the Rcifornieis) \\uu\r, the i)Ositivo
deelMvation with regard to tijo spii'itual regeneration of tlie chikl hy
Ba[)ti.sin, in th(^ otHce of Private ]?a])tiKni, \vlie)-e no s})onsoria):
answers are re.(|uir«!d, hiii when tJiis eiii})]iati(' assertion iiniiiediately
follows the siniph' act of adiiiiidstering the rite."

Ans. Tlie "olHce" alleged as deciding the question of
j'ogeneration, is a jiro\ isional one ; and must l»e considered
according to its liuiits. It is ordered to l^e used, only in cases
of necessity, where a child is sick and not likely to recover ; and
shouhl such a child die, it is saved by the merits and death of our
Saviour Jesus Ohrist. But should it recover, the very same
answers of sponsors, and i)i'osentation of the infant is required as
in Public l>aptism. Which takes away all the GROUND of difference
between the Piefomiers and the (Commissioners of 1662. And the
answer to })0 found below, where the Commissioners give an
exposition, will takt; away all ground foi- the su])position that there
is a)iy difference.

Obj. VII. (c). '' When, th(;refoi"e, says Fisher, the C'hurch has
couKj in this way m annex, as a necessary adjunct to the
performance of Infant Baptism, so positive a declaration of its
regenerative efficacy, sh(3 has, vre submit, pronounced most
unmistakeably her own doctiine upon the subject, and excluded
every artifice by ^vhich the real meaning of her Baptismal ofticey
might be honestly evaded."

Ans. This '•' necessary adjunct," is a prayer of thanksgiving
to God for grace and mercy bestowed, as we ho})e and believe, in
answer to our prayers, and observance of Christ's appointment.
For, he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is
a rewarder of thent that diligently seek Ilim. And so by faith, we
praise Him fi'om whom all blessings floAV ; which is at all times,
meet and right, and our bounden duty.

This " positive de<'laratio}i " of the regenei'ative efficacy of

w ^

I Iji :ii|*l!

■IS
- Baj.tis,,,, ,„woo(ls f,o,„ ti,,, „„^,- „„ , .

God n.a.,0 ,o them i„ the ,«.„.„ ^f j,^l^' Z *'"' l'^-'^ of
our reiigi„„. «,...ieo. or .,ao«„o„t. ,^C J'T'.;''"* — >'
give glory to God in anv way n,o,.. „. T , ^'""' ' ^'"'- *«

*o ou..o,ve, than „ \.o,i .C'rHCr *•; "T """ ''^"^«'='-'"
truth? ^ *'' ''^^^^ '^»^i acknowledging iu

This prayer of thunkngivin- w.^ f.i

P..MicBapMsn.; an. is ah„;t :;, ^ "^ tf""' "" "'"^ '-
the book of 1552. '' ^^'^' ««"it' 'i« that in

idea of what prayers wouH te „!. , *° "°"^''^ " — '
administered Therefore 1 1 'rf T'"" *'"'' «— ent was
P.-eviously to 1663, the thantsgiZtas^ 1 ""''""'^' "''«"'-'
"ot But this I will say, that"! ct W "" '""'' ~'=''^'™" °'-

the Commissioner, of 1662 BElr!, '"•" ''<'«''"««on " a« did
the bapti«,d. When a ehild thit h ,''""'"' "'"'^ '"""'^^^ fo-'
brought to the Church for etli '"'"'"" P"-*^'^' '«

;:«er it was rightly Z,ZriC''7- ^' *° ^ "^'^
d-rected to say-«I certify you that ..' *' ^'^'^^ i«
-ell, and according unto due o.der . " "" ^'^ ^-« ^one

oMld; which being horn in ri^i 's "IT t '''''''" "^ ^^^'^
'« »ow, by the laver of Ee^eneral T '" *' ^^t'^ "^ God,
-"ber of the child, J f ^^^ " .^^.'^P*'- '-eived into the

«o there has been a perfee ^ emtt '! V ^"'''"^^^^ "^«-"
-<>'y fi'^t; or, the voice of the CwTr . f '"'^■^'^* ^""^ the
exp..ssed, and has never varied t ' ^""°" "^^ "'^''-tely '

po— d most. mista^abi, her i::rr:r:-;

4^)

iilid .Mii'I '• S;i" r;i liiiiil > (ir<h iiki I of <'liii.-l Ic iiul uiils IimiI^'-.s iil'
toK'ciis of ( 'lirist iiiii iiM'irs proff'ssioii. Init iMtli'-r tlicy lie c^'rt.iiii huw
vif lii'SSi'S. :ili(i ill'rrt ii:il si;^>'ns of i:r;icc. ;ili<l (lod's !.''"<»tl Nvil! lowiirds
us, l>v tlic \\liir|i 111- (loHi wdik Iii\ i.>ilil\ ill us, iui'l (lo'Ii not onlv
<juirl;cu, liul also st rcn^'tlim au'l coulii in oiii' faitli in liini." 'IMii'fclty
fM'ImlinLf t'xciy aifilicc l.\- wliicli Iht r.a|ttisnia! oD'a-cs lui^lit In*
" hoMi'Stly (•\a'l('<l.

I! M'TISMAI. l;l.<;r,M;i; \'l ion ASsr.I'l'Kli.

(Mij. \'lll. (a) •• It lias lio'U coniinon to say tliat tin- Vrayrp
I'nok (lot's not tiMcli tlial I ir^ciH'iation is roincidcnl with Itaptisni,
and we lia\i' liad no less tjiun si;\r;\ mt^tliods insfnt'-d l>y wliicli the
r>a]tlisnial Sci'N i<'os Mia\ !•<• ifioncili'd with tlio wortl of (lod/'

Ans. The i'ook of ('onmioii I'iM\fr ran oniy '* lt'?u-h "' wliat:,
is i>rinti'(| in it. Tho < omjiihTs of it wcio \ ofy cai't'ful to k('('[)
\vn MIX the liiu' of "'\i-iiif uir doctiinc. Willi the }»ook itself, at tli«^
last l{o\ision, tla ;. ui\<' this proffssion : '' We aro fully |MM-suad«'d
in ouf ind-anon.ts (;unl wr hcic piofrs- it to the world) that the
r.ool<. ;is il sto.id l.cfori' c-taoli^licd \>\ \:\\v. doth not (.-ontain in it
anylhinif eontran to the v,{a(l of <Ioil, oi' to souiid <|octl'iiU', oi-
\\lii<'li a L',<'dl\' nian, mav not with a i:dod eonseience use untl Htihiiut
r.nto. or winch is not i';;irK drfi nsihle auainsl any that shall ojipose
the ^anl(■; if it i>c allowi'd such just and t"a\ oin-ai)]e coiistructien tis
in fonim-'n ei|nit\- (U!i:lit to he al!o\\('(l to all iiuinaii w ritini:;s,
esiici-ialU' sui'h as arc sci foilh hy aulhoi'ity, and e\en to tin- \eiy
licst t I'aiislations of ijic hole Siaanl u I'e.''

})

Tlii- sc\in ncliiods of reconciliation nanu'ii, ai'c of no luofe
nmIuc and aniiioritv, than scxeii coniincnts made upon sonn?
paiticiilar text of SciipLinc l.ct me here state, that the ohji^etor,
has not ,^i\en v.. in liis whole woik, so much as oNK Ti;xT of
Sei'iptui'e lo point otu a w i'(Ci!';' Like unto ail otlier " new lights,"
!iis own Sense of wlist is ii,uhi oi- w ron^ lias heen tlie standard fui'
test,

PWr-^i^^^FV^

()l)j. Vril. (h) " Hui let UH hear tliosr HisliopH of \i){\'2 Im.MIv
aninn wlmt tlui HiiptiHinal OtlicdH arn iutoml(«l to teach, and wliat
their (lolilun-ate hiii^'uajn;e nnniistakcably nicaiiH : ' Sci^iii; that (Jod's
SacramontH have their effects wlieii th(i receiv(»(l (i-ec(Mvei') (h)th not
'ponere oV)iceni ' put any har a»^ainst tlieni, Avhicli chiMren cannot
do, we may say in faith of every cliild that is l»aptized, that it is
n^gcneratcnl by God's Holy Spiiit."

Ans. If the desire as hero expi'cssed, is ukama' to " hear tlie
J3ishoi)8 ;" why give only a part of an answei* ? And, s(K'in^(j;, tliat
not one of a hundred could know more of the matt(?r than what is
thus given : Why not also, give the objections made that called
forth the answer 1 Surely this is a veiy unfair way in which to
treat nuitters of such vast importance Lvt us have the (juestion
and answer in full j the Church of England is solicitous of euiiuiry.

EXCEPTION OF PUESBYTEllIAN COMMISSIOXEHS.

" We cannot in faith say, that every child that is baittizc is
* regenerated by God's Holy Si)irit ;' at least it is a disputable y >
and therefore we desire it may be otherwise expressed."

ANSWER OF THE lilSHOPSr.

Seeing that God's Sacraments have their eflects, where the
receiver doth not " ponere obicem," [)ut any V)ar against them (which
children cannot do) ; we may say in faith of every child that is
baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit ; and the
denial of it tends to anabai>tism, and the contempt of this holy
sacrament, as nothing worthy, nor material wiiether it bo
administered to children or no."

Thus it appears that both parties were A(aiEEi), that the
baptized when regenerated, were "regenerated by God's Holy
Spirit ;" and quote that part of the Service which declares it. The
disputed point, was, whether the words " this child," v.diich words
are used for every child, ought to stand or not. The Presbyterians
say, " WE cannot in faith say that faehy child, etc." The Bishops,

'>1 '

auHWdi' •' wo may nny i\ I'AFTII of kvkiiv cliild (hat in ImiitiziMl, itc."
Til*' PnisKytt'riiiiis •Ickcin i-il thr rclmke, for ihvy uliould have j(iv»»n
ci()<Umic(i to tin' word and |>)'oiniHO of (Jod. Iliit tliry wanted to l»o
CKUTAIN, to s[n'aU from knowlod;^'*', and not by faitli. Altliou«i[li
liow tlu-y could oxjK'ot to \k) ubir to dLst-ern Ix'twecu an elect infant
and one riijirobate thoy do not state.

Obj, YIll. (o) " The eflect of a i-hihl's Haptism flepends njuther
ui)on their own jacHent actual faith and r«^pentance (wliich the
Catechism says expressly tliey cannot p(Mform), uor upon the faitii
and rfspentance of tJKiir natural parents nor pro-parents, or of tluui-
•(od-fatiiers or <iod-mothe)'H, ])ut upon th(5 o)'<linance and institution
of (Jhi'ist * * * * Bai)tism in our Spiritual Regeneration."

Ans. The tii'st [)art of this objisction, is part of rai answer to a
former objection brouglit against the Catechism b;y tin; Presbyterian
Commissioners of lOGl. The su))stance of which, is, that the riglit
of any candidate being admitted to bajitism, should not seem to be
founded u}>on a really actual faith and rejientance of tlieir own ; or
that of those who i)romise for them. To which the Bishops reply
that it does not depend upon any such thing, but upon the ordinance
and institution of Christ ! But the most important part of the
answer the objector has found it convenient to omit, and which I
will now supply.

To follow after " institution of Christ," as quoted above. " But
it is requisite that wlnm they come to age they should perform
these conditions of faith and repentance, foi- which also their god-
fathers and god-mothers charitably undertook on their behalf. And
what they do for the infaiit in this case, the infant himself is truly
said to do, as in the courts of this kingdom daily the infant does
answer by his guardian ; and it is usual to do homage by proxy,
and for princes to marry by jtroxy. For the fuHher justification of
this answer, st^e St. Aug. E}). 23. ad Bonifac. * Nihil aliud credere,
quam fldem habere : ac per hoc cum respondetur parvulum credere,
qui tidei nonduni habet eflectum respondetur fidem habere propter
fidei sacramentum, et conveitei-e so ad Deuni propter conversionis

..£ji:i!ii»|

E '!>i''

yaei'imieniiim. C^uia et Ipsa lY'spousio a'l oeloliratioiu^m portiuei
sacraineiiti. Itaque parvulum, etsi Jiouduiii iUh:n ilia, qua? in
credentium voluntate oonsistit, tamen ipsius ii<lei sacramentiim,
fidelem facit."

The second part ** Baptism is our Spiritual Kegenoration "
is an EXTRACT from the following : — ■

KXf'EPTION^ OF ]'Ui;snVTK!:iAN COMMISSIt >Xi;ilS.

iVlav i'(r('i\'<> remission ot:' sins l»y spiritual iviicnci'ation. ''This
expression sceinini'' inconxcuiont, avc dcsii't' it mav be chanircHl into
this : 'May be regenerated and i-eeei\c the remission r»t' sins,'"

AN'SWKl! OF Tin-: I'.ISIIOI'S.

" Iteeeive rt^Hiission (yf sins l»y spiiitual regeneration/' JMost
propel', for bajjtism is our s|»iritual regeneratioji, (St. John If!.)
" Unless a man l)e l)orn again of water and the Spirit, (>tc." Ami
by this is received remission of sins, (Acts 11. ii.) "Itepent and Ik;
ba})tized every one of you, for the renii.sion of sins." So the Crei-d :
"One ])aptism for the remission ot sins."'

As will j-eadily be seen fi'om lliese (jUotatioPiS, it was not a
(juejition of v,'iu;tl",'r Kx^generation and JvtMiiission of sins were
ptromised to the baptiz(.'d in IJa^Jtism. lUit whc^tlier oui- Church has
chosen the propei* juode of e.\p)-essing and ai>))lying tliese truths l>y
the provision mad(? in hei- S<'i\ices and Catechism. Tin;

Presbyt(,H'ians, like the Itomanist and this lvef()rme<l K]>isco})al
obiectoi', had nothini'- moi-t? to sav than that thev Dlsi.iKKD manv
particulars, and desired a change. Not o;u' text from Scripture to
shew that anvthin^ thev disliked was eontrajv to (rod's Avord.
Wher(ias the Bishops in rt'ply, sti-ejigtlien our position by many
:Kc;ripture proofs, as well as examples of (^itholic nsage ; which,
taken together, will show that our Sei'vice is not a compilation of
])rivate opinions, but embodies the ti'utli and practice of the
(Jhristian Church.

iliis

h'.i

^^\>\. VI] I. (I)) *' 111 y\c\v of tluisr AV(U-(ls. ii'iw utt.i'il\ woitiilt'.ss
and iiuiet'en' iljh^ was the declanitiou signctl iu IS? I by lit'ty
American Bishops, that tlie word ' regenerate ' iu tlie (Jtlice for
Baptism does not determine a moral cliange in every recipient."

Ans, I have not seen the document referreil to, but as it is no
part of our Book of Common Prayer, I fim not called upon to
defend it.

'This oiijcctor li;is luadc surh i-ciii;irkiiM(' ({'i(iiati<HiS, iliat 1
woiiltl I'al.'nci- not cvjiitss any opinioi! upDii it Ixl'ci'c I i]<» sfc it.
However, 1 am p<'i'fccll}' satisti'-d in my (iwii mind, iliat (in- ^.ou^sc
of ^Vmei'ican Ijislmps. will }»(■ fully enabled to maintain tlieii' owji
(h'claraiion on tliis ,snl»ject, without any licl[» from mc

Perhaps the following (piolations may suHicc to <'xplain, in a
more satisfactoi-y maJincv tliaii tlio " scNcn methods " ha\e done,
how the l>ajitismal Ser\ ices may be icconciied v,itli llie word (if
( b)d ; shew the p)Osition 1»;ipti/(^d pei'sons have in tlie (.'liurcli ; and
in Nvhat sense thev are said to be i;egenei;ite.

KXCHI'TIONS OF THK IM! KSi'.VTKi; F A\ COM M ISSloN KIIS.

" Whereas throughout the se\ la' otHces, the j»hi'ase is such as
}»resumes all ]>ersons (within the communioiL of tin; clLurch) to bc
I'egenerated, conviM'ted, and in an actual state of grace, (whicii, had
ecclesiastical discipline Ijeen truly and \ igorously executed, in the
exclusion of scandalous aiui obstinate sinneis, might b(j l)eiter
supposed ;) l)ut there has'ing Ikm-u, and still bt'ing a confessed want
ot that, (as in the liturgy is acknowletlgt'd,) ii cannot l)e i-ationally
adnutted in tise utmost latitude of chai'it}' : we dosii-e thai this may
be refoi-med."

II?

ANSWKi: OF I'liK insHol'S.

The chui'ch in her pi-ayers useth no moi'e oliensi\(' [.lirase tlian
St. Paul us(\s, when lie wrives to the Corinthians, Calations, and
othej's, calling Ihem m general the t'huich of ({od, sanctilied in

Christ Jesus, by vocation saints, amongst whom notwithstanding
there were many, who by their known sins (which the Apostle en-
deavored to amend in them) were ^ ot properly such, yet he gives
the denomination to the whole from the greater part, to whom in
charity it was due, and puts the rest in mind what they have by
their baptism undertaken to be, and what they profess themselves
to be ; and our prayers and the phrase of them surely supposes no
more than that they are saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus,
by their baptism admitted into Christ's congregation, and so to be
reckoned members of that Society, till either they shall separate
themselves by wilful schism, or be separated by legal excommunica-
tion ; which they seem earnestly to desire and so do we.

SOME GENERAL REMARKS ON BAPTISM.

There are some other remarks on the subject of baptism, made by
this objector in his Lectures, which perhaps might be more properly
styled incidental allusions, rather than objections. And as they
may be part of that " information of the most valuable nature," I
do not wish to pass them over without notice. I will therefore
place them in the following order, because I think this will be the
best way of making them understood by the general reader.

He says, some of the Reformers of Edward have presented clear
Scriptural views on this subject. Bishop Hooper, teaches " Al-
though Baptism is a Sacrament to be received, and honorably used
by all men, yet it sanctifieth no man. And such as attribute the
remission of sins to the external sign do offend." To stop here, is
to give the Bishop's proposition without the demonstration, and
pervert the meaning of his words. Seeing that to give the whole
subject would take up too much space, I will add what I think is
necessary for a full understanding only. Bishop Hooper continues :
John the Baptist preached repentance and remission of sins in
Christ, saying, I baptise with water. As though he said, my bap-
tism maketh no man the better ; inwardly, it changeth no man ;

but I call and preach to the outward ear, I exhort unto repentance.
And SUCH AS SAY they do repent, and would change the old sinful
life, I wash with water. Then after other things, says, So that
there are two kinds of baptism, and both necessary : the one in-
terior, which is the cleansing of the heart, the drawing of the
Father, the operation of the Holy Ghost : and this baptism is
in man, when he believeth and trusteth that christ is
THE ONLY AUTHOR OF HIS SALVATION. ***** Likewise
no man should condemn nor neglect this exterior sign, for the com-
mandment's sake : though it have no power to purge from sin, yet
it confirmeth the purgation of sin, and the act of itself pleaseth
God, for because the receivers thereof obey the will of his
commandments.

There is the pretence of a quotation from Bishop Latimer,
garbled in the same manner. " Man must have a regeneration, and
what is this regeneration 1 It is not to be christened in water, as
these firebrands expound it John iii. 3, and nothing else. * * *
Our new bii-th cometh by the word of the Living God, by the word
of God preached and opened."

Latimer's subject was not baptism, but the great necessity of the
})reached gospel, saying " The preaching of the Gospel is the power
of God to every man that doth believe. He means God's word
opened ; it is the instrument, and the thing whereby we are saved)
tV:c., «♦*»«* not to be christened in water, as these fire-
])rands (the Romanists) expound it, and nothing else." So in the
Baptismal Services, there is the word of God, and prayer ; the
solemn charge, that the baptised shall be taught as soon as he shall
be able to learn, " all things that a Chiistian ought to know and be-
lieve to his soul's health," as well as being " christened in water.'

Abp. Oranmer says of Regeneration, " The second birth is by the
water of Baptism, which Paul calleth the bath of regeneration,
because our sins be forgiven us in l)aptism, and the Holy Ghost is

f t

•

}touiL't| into IIS, as iiil.n (JimLs LcIommI cliildic-n, so ilint hy the power
and working of tlu' iloly Crliost \vv. are born again Hi»iritually, and
mad(! now crcatnrcs. J^ml so iiv maptism wi; enter into the king-
(Unn of Cfod, and .shall l»e saveil forev(;r, if we continue to our lives
end in the faith of Christ."

BiKhop Jewell sets forth the fc^llowing as the doctrine of the
Churcli of England, "\V(! confess and have evermore taught, that
in the Sacrament of Baptism, nv the I)KATJi and blood 4Df Ciikist,
is given remission of all mannei* of sin, and that not in half or in
part, 01- l»y way of imagination, or \)y fancy ; but whole, full, and
perfect of all together. So tliat now, as St. Paul saith, there is no
condemnation to them that be in (Jhi-ist Jesus."

The oltjectoi" on ]iage 'M of his paniphlet, says, "Jacob soundly
remarks, wliat must be tlu^ case with our congregations in the use
of these words, as they always ]nust be used, without anything to
(pialifv them, or to inteifere with their natural signification ; and
what the ellect upon any tlioughtfnl inan, when lu^ hears his Pastor
deny in his [>ulpit wliat he aliirms at the font T' "By forced and
unnatui-al explanations, men tluis satisfy each oik; his own con-
science;" but ilo not convince; others ontsidf! their circle. And th;it
the E\'ani.':elical (']er<jfv have not sullicientlv considered or under-
stood the way in wliidi I'Hosk oitsidk their own ranks regard their
conduct in such tilings.

To wliich 1 reply, that if iIk' words complained of, Wi;i;i-; used
in tlieii' nalni;d signification, and without any (^(inevan, oi- Homish
(pialitication, the ''etlcct'' would be all that could be desired : the
peo])h^ would be fed witli the " sincere milk of the woi'd," and would
grow thereby. B>ut, "• tliosc; outside" hav(! long wondered why their
"foreign opinions" have not had more influence, and })ro(lucetl a
better i^lTect. I hope this exposui'e of some of their " fo]-ced and
umiatural " objections will assist in exjilaining tliat doubtful mattx-'',
Pohaps ( li'' foMowin^- slntcniciit niav lu'l[> to (\o so als<t ; allhoiigli

it was written two liuiuliud years ago, it meetb fully aiul suflieiently
the strongest objection of the present day. It may serve as an
instance, to shew how by the good i)rovid(3nce of (rod, the Church
has lived through such attacks as are now made upon her ; and
cause us to trust to the same })rotecting care for her continuance.

" Then as to what he says, ' that no man can be a minister of
the Keformed Church of England who is not certainly persuaded
of the regeneration of every infant baptised,' nkither also is that
TRUE. The minister truly gives thanks to God after each infant
has been baptised, that it hath pleased God to regenerate him with
His Holy Spirit. But it does not thence follow, that he ought to
be CERTAIN of the regeneration of every infant baptised. For it is
sufficient if lie is persuaded of the regeneration of some only, for
instance of elect infants, or, if you like, even of some only of their
number, that on that account he may be able, nay ought, to give
God thanks for such and all baptized. Since who is elected, he
knows not ; and since it is but just, that he should, by the
JUDGMENT OF CHARITY, PRESUME, that as many as he baptises are
elect, and, if any are regenerated in Baptism (which none l)ut a
Socinian or other C. .abaptist will deny) regenei-ated."

There is oi^e more statement to be noticed and then this

subject will be concluded. " It is left foi- our generation to

construct a Baptismal Office in strict accordance with Holy Writ."

If they wish to join issue on this subject, I will adoi)t and maintain

as follows, viz, :— " That there never hath been a doubt in the

Christian Church, from the time of the Apostles to the present

time — always exc3})ting those who deny the ])ivinity of Christ, who

have wandered into all errors of doctrine— that baptism is the most

solemn act whereby a soul is introduced into the full inheritance of

Christ's purchased redemption, and made a member of the visible

Church, to live in His faith, and to walk by His faith, and to

inherit the kingdom of his faith. The papal apostasy, though it

dared to add to the nnm]»er of the sacraiiKMits, and to cover them

'in*..

■■i

-V.J

with veils of scnso, duibt never take tlio senling virtue out of the
8 icrament of baptism ; nor y(;t the (Ireek Church, nor any of the
communions of the Reformed Church : it was left to the silent
saj)ping and mining of the intellectual aj)ostasy of this age to have
so wasted all the strongholds of faith and everlasting institutions cf
the gospel, as to leave this sacrament in the minds of professors, no
more than a shell without the kernel ; a husk without the food ; >
sign without anything signified ; a rite, a ceremony, a form,
anything or nothing — certainly not the thing written of in Scripture
under the name of baptism."

However much this sacrament of baptism may have V)een
misused ; hcywever much the doctrine of it mav have been
misunderstocd and misiepresented : still 1 have not the slightest
hesitation iji saying, that whatever may be found embodied in oui'
formularies, is true and faithful to the teaching of the word of God.
And, that the object and purpose our Saviour had, in instituting
Baptism, will be fully served by its being faithfully administered,
and rightly received, according to the present teaching of our
Church ; and, without any alteration being made in the Book of
Common Prayer.

The foregoing scatements and answers being for a special
jjurpose, viz. : — To meet and refute the objections to which they are
joined ; I hope it will not be considered as asking too much, if I
request, for the sake of peace, that they be not made the ground for
new disputes. 1 know that on each particular of this subject
almost ''everv man hath a doctrine;" therefore, I have caiefullv
avoided mixing up tlie different questions, in order to make the
things explained as intelligible as I i>ossibly could for the general
reader. If the answers given, ai'e found to meet the objections
made, let that sullice ; and let us be thankful that such troublesome
things are removed from vexing the Christian Church. But if in
any thing it can be shewn that I have missed giving the true sense
of Scripture or history : I refuse not to be corrected, by proper

proofs from the Word or standard testimony ; although I shall refuse
to be governed by private opinion, or ])arty sentiments. Had it
been my work to have given expositions of such things oidy, without
clearing them from objections : I could have taken a wider range*
embracing more particulars. But thinking it best to clear the way
first, by answering these objections, I have r«^ser\(Hl for som(i future
time, many things that ought to be said so as to enable any one
to give a sound judgment of the whole subject. I therefore only
claim to have demonstrated the following ])ai-ticulars :

1. That our Baptismal Services do not contain any thing that
is contrary to Scripture.

2. That the Reformers of Edwanl, were not in any way
influenced by Komish eiTor ; but were scrupulous in thcur desire to
be governed by God's word, when forming these and all our oth( r
religious services.

3. That the changes said to have been made subsequently in
these services, as "Sanctify this water, itc," did only ^affect the
placing of some sentences, and did not make any change of doctrine.
Also, that the custom of consecrating the water used in baptism, is
neither a superstitious nor yet a medi(cval practice ; but in
accordance with truth and ancient usage, and conducive to piety ;
and should by all means l)e retained. And further, the quotation
made co strengthen the accusation, is either made disho)iostly or in
ignorance of tlie subject.

4. That the Pvubric with respect to baptised children dying in
infancy, said to have been added in 1GG2 : may be found in each
book from 1549. And that it is shewn to l)e the most Protestant
of all the Rubrics in the book. Also, that the ground for salvation
of infants, is not Baptism, but the sacrifice of the death of Christ.

5. That the Burial Sei'vice is for the ba[)tised members of the
Church, only. And that chiMren, or others, dying unbaptised.

*■■. V,

f. .5

r3 I

being rofuHorl tho use of it, in only a nocosRavy reniilt of the
observanco of order. And that tlic l)lanie must attach to those
persons who neglect or refuse to h ive their children, or themselves
•baptised.

6. That the substance of the Rubric conceriiing Sponsors, did
not originate in 1662.

7. That the Churcli has never varied in her statements of
authorized doctrine ; the ground or warrant for " asserting "
Regeneration in Baptism, having been always one and the same.

8. That Baptismal Regenei'ation is said to be by water and
the Holy Ghost. That the ground for asserting it to have taken
place, is faith in the promises God has made to mankind, in the
name, and for the merits of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

9. This shewn to be the teaching of the Church by her
authorised documents of past and present time, and by quotations
from the writings of the first Reformers.

10. That so-called Evangelical Ministers are not to be charged
with inconsistency in using our Services.

CHAP. TT^

THE CATECHISM.

Obj. I. "Tlio Oateohism chftjigcd."

Ana. The Catechism has not been clianged. It was nuide
hirger at the request of tlie Puritans, in 1604, l.y an additional
instruction on the nature and use of tlie Sacraments Ijeing placed
therein, but nothing changed. The veiy same things, in the very
same words, are continued to this day.

Obj. II. (a) " The Catechism in the Book of Common Prayer
remained as imperfect at the death of Elizabeth as at her accession."

Ans. To olrject to tlie Catecliism in its supposed imperfect
state, and to oppose any cliange being made in it, can only l)e
termed obstructiveness. If, imperfect, Iioav could the defect be
remedied without change i But before we can agree with the
objector, and say that the Catechism was imperfect, at any time ;
we must first have a standard of perfection set u]), saying what a
Catechism ought to be.

The Catechism in the look of Common Prayer, is a form of
instruction necessary to be learned by all that wish to be confirmed.
The very lowest qualification for a candidate to be admitted to
confirmation, is, that he be able to say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer,
and the Ten Commandments in the vulgar tongue. The Bishop
that confirms may now extend this requirement, and at his
discretion put any one or all the questions contained in the
Catechism that he may feel disposed to ask. So that it will be
seen that the Catecliism was pehfect in Queen Elizabotli's time

f it

Ii!|

and is so now also ; inasmucli as it did, and doos serve the purpose
for which it was eonii)iled ; i. e. to furnisli a necessary form of
instruction for tlioso wlio wisli to ho conthined. ,

Ohj. II. (b) "It consisted of thirteen questions and answers,
of which FIVE tau^lit the lloinisli unscriptui'al view of haptisnial
I'ogeneration."

Ans. There are only Foi u (piestions that have reference to
tlie Sacrament of Baptism. Tlie lirst, " Wliat is your Name ] Tlie
second, refers to tlie promises of God made to Christians in that
Sacrament. The baptized pei'son having a Christian name, the
promises ai)ply to him, or her, in tlie general. The third, refers to
and explains, the promises made in the name of the baptized, to
repent, believe, and obey. The fourth, an acknowledgment of the
obligation to fulfil them, with prayer for the ability to do so, and
thanksgiving for the privilege.

If these are *' Romish views :" then the Church of Rome either
misrepresents her " views," or obscures them. But the objector is
a mere child, and cannot even count five correctly, much less teach
theology, oi' distinguish between things that diflfer.

Obj. III. (a) " If Edward and Cranmer had lived, the Cliurch
would doubtless have possessed a very different Catechism from the
one now in the book. This is evident from the publication of
another Catechism by royal authority, six weeks before the king's
death in 1553. This work, the latest issuing from the reformers,
may be regarded as the clearest statement of their views which we
now possess."

Ans. This remark will be sulficient to shew that the objector
did not understand the nature and purpose of either Catechism.
The one he names as published by roya' "nthority, was not intended
to supersede that one at first prepared and placed in the l)ook ; but
to be supplementary to it. As said before, we must notice what
PURPOSE each has to serve. The short Catechism in the Prayer
Book, is specially for candidates for Confirmation. If we have

capHoity for, and dcsiic inor*- cxiciisivc kiiowlcdj^M' of CliriHtian
liutli, there \h h liirgiir (Jutecliisin, both in Latin and English,
banctioncfl by Convocation, antl s(^t fortli by autlioriiy of Qu(;i'n
ElizalKith ; wliich fully (3<iualizoK what was ilono in the time of
Edward VI. ; and i.s in reality a lontinuance of his. C^anon 70,
requires " All Schoolniaislers shall teach in Englisli or Latin, as the
children are able to bear, the larger oi- shorter Catechism heretofon?
by public authority set forth." Thus there is no necessity to lament
the loss of a "different Catechism," for we really have it in
possession.

Obj. IIL (b) " In the light of the jtresent Sacrainentarian
controversy, mark tlm wonderful contrast between the Catechism of
Edward and that of Jas. I. as contained in the Prayer Book. The
Jtresent document, out of twenty-five (ju(^stions, devotes sixteen to
the the doctrine of the sacraments, about two-thirds of the whole."

Ans. These peojtle prof<'ss that they have taken u\) the
unfinished work of the Puritans, and that they cairy it on in the
same spirit ; but, on this subject they certainly differ from the
Puritans both of 1604 and 1C61, who ai)})roved the mode in which
the Sacramental portion of the Catechism is bet forth, and lequested
the other portions to In) treated in tlie same minute way. The
following quotation will show this ; and further demonstrate, that
the portion now objected unto was added at tlieii- reijuest.

exceptions of the rKESUVTEJlIAN COMMISSIONEKS.

" In tin g'Mieral we oV)serve, that the doctrine of the
saci-aments w^hicli was ad<k'd u]>on the conference at Hampton
Court, is much more fully and particularly delivered than the other
[)arts of the Catechism, in short answers titted to the memories of
children, and thereupon we otier it to be considered :—

First Whether there should not be a more distinct and full
explication of the Creed, the Conniiandments, and the Lord's Prayer.

Secondlv. \Thether it were not convenient to add (what seems

\. :'

to Ik- vvaiitiii;;) soiiicwliat i»;irtirularly coiiciM'iiiiig the nudirn of
fiiitli, of rcpontaiice, tlio two cov(Mi!inis, of JMstificiition, HHiictitication,
adoption aiul lO'jcsiKMation."

As tlu! lai'<^<'r CutfclnHin was found to l>c (iiiito sulKciont to
moot all thc'so things hum naniod, the shortor one was continuod
without ohangc, as being more suited to the caj)acitioH of childicn,
and the coninion |t('oj)le.

T3ut the objection now nuide to the way in wiiich the dilVeient
subjects contained in the Catechism are apportioned, and the
assei'tion that tlie greatest prominence is given to the doctrine of the
Sacraments ; is a necessary consequence of the subject being in a
state of confusion in the mind of the objector. A want of clear
perception on his })ai't, with respect to numbers, quantity, and
subjects. ICe says tlicrc; were five questions whicli taught the
Itomish unscriptural view of baptismal regeneration, in the
Catechism of Elizabeth : whereas there were only fouu that could
in any way be said to refiu' to Baptism at all.

Then he says that nine questions and ans'weis were added,
when the number should be twelve. Th re should also be a
distinction made with respect to the quantity contained in each
question and answer, before asserting that the doctrine of the
sacraments is "about two-thiuds of the whole." If the importance
of a doctrine is to be determined by the ipiantity of matter devoted
to the teaching of it : then, ' our generation " has discovered a new
way of testing such things. But if this test is to be applied, let it
be done with fairness.

To select two questions, to illustrate the fallacy and absurdity
of such test : " What is your name 1 which may be answered with
one word. But, "What is thy duty towards thy neighbour]"
would require one hundred and sixty-one, to answer it. In the
Book of Conunon Prayer before me, I find that the Catechism takes
up a space of seven colunnis. The first of which teaches the nature

and oliligHlioii of tlui OliriMtiiiu covoimnt oiitniHul into ;it l>;i|(ti.siii.
The second, tlie Articles of Belief. Tiio next two and a lialf, tlie
Ten Commandments. One, to the Lord's Prayer. T\w last OXE
AND A HALF to the two Sacramoiits. So tiiat out of seven (u|nal
portions, four and a half will be found to set forth Christian truth,
in almost the very words of Scripture ; and the two-thirds of the
whole, })y a proper api)lication of the objector's own ruh.^, will he
found to he reduced to one-tiiird. I am sorry to have to treat
these subjects in such manner, but I must plead the wise king's
proverb, and ** answer a fool according to his folly."

Obj, III. (c) " The Catechism of the Reformers, out of sixty-
seven questions, allows this subject only seven, NOT one in nine.
In other words, the later Catechism mak(»s the sacramental cpiestion
six times as important as the Catcjchism of tl e lieformers. Not
one of the old Reformers was living at the time of the Revision of
James. Dean Nowell, who outlived the rest, died in 1G02."

Ans. In this case the objector is at fault, he has made a
wrong compaiison of Catechisms. He has compared the larger
one set forth by authority of Edward VI. with the smaller one of
Jas. I. Whereas it sliould have been compared with what is
commonly known as Nowell's Catechism, set forth by authority of
the Queen and Convocation in 1570, to supply the place of the one
suppressed by Queen Mary. Jn that, will be found about fifteen
OCTAVO pages of instruction on the Sacraments. The Church of
England, since the Reformation, has always had two authorized
Catechisms, a shorter and a larger one. The larger one we now
have, is entitled to be considered, the last work of the Reformers
on this subject : because it was prepared by Dean Nowell, and
approved by Bishops Grindal, Jewell, and Cox ; as well as others
contemporary with them.

Obj. IV. (a) "Bishop Overall, a highly scholastic and
Sacramentarian divine, prepared the nine questions and answers at
the close of the Catechism."

IP "'

L*i

Alls. Tlioro are twelve of them. But it will be considered a
very small matter by churchmen generally, who the person was
that prepared them, yet Bishop Overall was a fit and proper person
for the work. We place the value of them in their truth and
conciseness ; and not in the number of them, or the merit of the
man that compiled them. Still, it may be as well to give the reason
why the addition was made. The Puritans in 1G04, complained
that the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer was **too
brief ;" and that of Dean Nowell's, " too long for young novices to
learn by heart ;" and requested " that one uniform Catechism
might be made, which, and none other, might be generally received."
It was asked, " whether, if to the short Catechism in the Communion
Book something were added for the doctrine of the sacrament, it

would not serve ] " King Jas. : "taxing withal the number of

ignorant catechisms set out in Scotland, by every one that was the
son of a good man : insomuch, as that which was catechism doctrine
in one congregation, was in another scarcely accepted as sound and
oi-thodox ;" requested that the Catechism to be set forth, be made
in the fewest and plainest r.ffirmative terms that may be. As the
Puritans assented to these additions, and promised to observe and
teach them, we may assume that they saw nothing objectionable in
either matter or manner.

Obj. IV. (b) ^' These were confined to the matter of the
sacraments, which are treated with far more minuteness than the
Creed, the Lord's Prayer, or tlie Ton Commandments ; and the
inference is natural from the i)erusal of this document, that the
Church regards this subject as the most important to be brought
before the minds of youth."

Ans. There is not any more minuteness of treatment than
each portion of ^' e subject requires, which is a simple statement of
particulars- The Creed, Lord's Pvayer, and Ten Commandments,
were delivered to the Church m a fixed and permanent form, which
makes the requirement with respect to them, no more, than that
they be faithfully transmitted. The doctrine of tlte sacraments was,

'!fe"

not delivered in any such permanent form ; therefore, it was
necessary to collect it from the Scriptures. It is scarcely posssible
to give the simple facts in fewer words, or clearer sentences.

We ought to know, and teach positively, how many sacraments
there are ordained by Clirist in his Church, seeing that it is a matter
of dispute. Some say, seven ; others, none ; the Catechism says,
two, only. The word. Sacrament, is not an English word ; it is
also ambiguous, has been taken to signify what men please lo laake
it ; therefore, it was necessary to define how it was to I: reccved
and understood in the Church of England. The nature and puApose
these ordinances have, and are intended to serve, should be stated
clearly so as to guard against error. Also, the Sacraments are " to
be duly used," so that it is farther necessary to teach, by whom, and
in what way, they may be rightly used.

When we know that of all tlie good things the Christian
Church has received from her Lord, not one has been more abused
and corrupted than the doctrine of the Sacraments : can we wonder
that the Church regards this subject as important, although not the
MOST important, to be brought before young peoi)le 1 Because if
you " Train up a child in the way lie should go : when he is old, he
will not depart from it,"

I conclude, that the subject has not been treated with any
more minuteneHH than the nature of it requires ; and bearing in
mind, the superabuii' lance of erroneous teaching with respect to it,
feel grateful that we jk^jscss this form of sound words.

Obj. V. (a) **Tbe supremacy of Holy Scii])ture is not even
alluded to."

Ans. The sui»rema(y of Scri[)tiire), is not an Ai'ticle of Faith.
But the sutticiency of Holy K<;ripturo to make us wise unto
salvation, is ; and will be found iu its })roi)(n- place, i. e., as the VI.
of, the thirty-nine Articles.

ri5fc':

■ '■(■<.

I
1

1 )

Such ignorant cavils make it necessary to point out, that the
Catechism is only a part of a book. And that it is specially
devoted to set forth a form of instruction, necessary for childi"en to
learn, so as to be prepared for confirmation. And that it takes
MANY LIKE PARTS to make the book complete. It is quite enough
that each part is complete in itself ; and that the several parts,
when added together, make up a complete book of devotion and
instruction. An objector, might, with as much reason, complain
that the whole of the Gospel was not contained in a particular
chapter of the New Testament. After this explanation, it will be
easy to see, that in the Calender, which is also A part of the book
the WHOLE of the Scripture is not only " alluded to," but every
chapter thereof is named, and ordered to l)e publicly read in the
Church.

Obj. V. (b) " Faith and repentance are mentioned as they are
related to Baptism, but not explained.

Ans. They are more than mentioned. I do not think it is
possible for any one to say more, in so fev words ; nor with all the
forced explanations of modern times, to state moi-e clearly what
purposes Repentance and Faith are intended to serve, than is here
done in the Catechism. "What is required of persons to be
baptized ? Repentance, whereby they forsake sin ; and faith, whereby
they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that
Sacrament. "

But in addition to this, let it be known, that it is also a part of
the duty of baptized persons, to hear JfJermons ; an<l of the Cler^^y,
to teach and preach the whole counsel of God.

Obj. v. (c) " A distinguished author (Bontham) remarks that
with the exception of the one ' allusion ' to the Ten Commandments
tliere is ' not a syllal)le by which in any mind to wliich the matter
was not made known from other sources, so mich as a suspicion
could be i)roduced, that any such book as tlio Bible hud over bf^^n
written.'"

Ans. Frivolous nonsense ! When you walk in the light of the
sun, it is not necessary to tell people that have eyes, and can use
them, where the sun is to be seen, it proclaims its own presence.

Is it possible for any person to attend the services of the
Church of England, without both seeing and hearing the Bible 1 Is
it possible to name any other Church, in which so much of the pure
word of God is ordered to be read 1 Is there any provision made for
English speaking people, to have any other copy of the Bible in
their own langiiage, than that made and provided by the Church of
Enghud ? But, that provision was made for the youth of England's
Church to know the Scriptures will be seen by the following : —

Canon. 79. " * * * * As often as any Sermon shall be
upon holy and festival days within the parish where they teach,
they (all Schoolmasters) shall luring their scholars to the Church
where such Sermon shall be made, and there shall see them quietly
and soberly behave them^ elves ; and shall examine them at times
convenient, after their retiirn, what they have borne away of such
Sermon. Upon other days, and other times, they shall train them
up with such sentences of Holy Scripture, as shall be most
expedient to induce them to all godliness." * * * *

And froiii ' larger authorized Catechism, after being taught
that the " Christian religion is the true and godly worshipping of
God and keeping of His commandments," the following : —

*' M. Of whom riost thou think it is to be learned 1

S. Of none other surely but of the heavenly word of Go<l
himself, which he hanii irft anto us written in the holy scriptures.

M. What writings be those which thou callest the Word of
God and tlie holy scriptures ?

S. Konc other but those that have been published, first, Vjy
M'Tw^ ami the holy prophets, the friends of Almightv God, by tlie

i^^-'i

'"•^il

m : -

• '■•

!!!

instinct of the Holy Ghost, in tlie Old Testament ; and afterward
more plainly in the New Testament, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the
Son of God, and by his holy apostles inspired with the Spirit of
God, and have been preserved unto our time whole and
uncorrupted."

These testimonies will suffice to shew what value we attach to
the Bible. It is no fault of the Church that these things are not
carried out in practice.

Obj. VI. " Elizabeth ignored the Catechism of Edward. So
also did James. This document is intensely Biblical and Protestant.
So much so, that it is the only document of Edward and Cranmer
which was publicly stigmatized by Mary as worthy of reprobation.
It was styled by her in a public pi-oclamation, the Catechismus
Beprobatus ; and this circumstance is a good reason why, as
Protestants, we should look upon it with special regard ; and we
should be grateful that we have this precious memorial of the truth
from that noble monarch and his martyred co-laborers."

Ans. The larger Catechism of Edward YI., had neither
ecclesiastical nor parliamentary authoiity ; it was set forth in that
king's name ; and was suppresseii W authority of his successor.
Queen Mary. Although we nay not approve her judgment in
doing so, yet we cainiot but say, her authority to suppress it, was
fully equal to that of K. Edward to set it forth.

It was not " ignored " either by Queen Elizabeth or King Jas. ;
but was one of the first thing? attended to by Convocation ; the
substance of it was adopted, and again set foi-tli, but by better
authority than at first, ais the following remarks will show.

Tlie Convocation which met in 1562, amongst other things,
were to ■' authorize one perfect Catechism for the bringing up of
the youth in go<lliness, in the schools of the whole realm ; which
book," it is added, 'is well nigh finished by the industry of the
Dean of St. Paul's ;" and that "the said Catechism once approved
by the learned in the Convocation house, may be authorized to be

taught also by the Uiiivoisitics, and to tlio youth wheresoever they
be taught their grammar in any private men's houses."

On the 5th Feb., 1562, Bishop Jewell with three other bishops,
were appointed to examine a book called <'The Catecliism," and
caused certain places to be altered. On the 3rd of March, 1562,
the Prolocutor of the lower house, returned to the upper one, the
Catechismus Puerorum, as having been unanimously approved. On
the 22nd of June, 1563, a copy was sent to the Prolocutor by Sir
W. Cecil, as " The book approved and allowed of the Clergy of the
Convocation." It was not printed or issued before 1570. Various
injunctions were published at that time by public authorities,
stating, " that ro Catechisms were allowed to be used, except one or
other of Nowell's. These injunctions, prohibitions, &c., were, so
far as thought to be applicable, in 1603, Jas. I., embodied in Canon
79, which orders all Schoolmasters to teach children from the larger
or shorter Catechism " heretofore by public authority set forth."

And now having proved that the Catechism of Edward VT.,
instead of being " ignored " by Queen Elizabeth and King Jas. was
adopted and revised by some of the first reformers, and ordered
to be taught to the youth of the whole realm. I may retort, and
say, why has the objector ignored, or suppressed all mention of this
authorized document of the Church of England 1 Was it from
ignorance 1 Then he is not competent to teach on such subjects.
Was it from design 1 Then he is deceitful, and cannot serve the
cause of Him who is " the truth." In either case, it must be
admitted, that such persons are not fitted for the position assumed.

1. I may here claim to have demonstrated that the Catechism
was not changed.

2. That it was not imperfect, but sufficient for the purpose it
was intended to serve.

. 3. That it does not teach any Romish view^s of Baptismal
regeneration.

I '!

4. That the substance of the lai'ger Catechism of the fii'st
Reformers, is still an authorized formulary of the Church.

5. That the two-thirds proportion theory is absurd nonsense.

6. That the comparison of Catechisms made, is unjust, the
larger being compared with the smaller,

7. That the treatment of the doctrine of the sacraments, has
not more minuteness of detail than the subject requires.

8. That the Catechism is only a part of a book.

9. That no Church has a greater value for God's word, or
takes more pains to make it known, than the Church of England
does.

10. That neither did Queen Elizabeth, nor yet King James,
ignore the Catechism of Edward VI.

nil

n''*^

^■,

CHAPTER IV.

THE COMMUNION.

Obj. I (a) "Bishop Tomliuo writes: ' Sovcral alterations
were made in the Service and Rubric, to conciliate the Roman
Catholics.' "

Ans. Assuming, not granting, this to be true, there would not
be any thing contrary to Christian duty or charity in striving to
eflect it ; unless, in order to accomplish their design, if such they had
the Revisers introduced doctrines and ceremonies contrary to Christian
faith and custom. We must therefore try and ascertain the truth
of this from the nature of the alterations made. Their work is be-
fore us, their purpose and intentions, they have not left on record*
But I here strongly protest against all such assertions being received,
because they have nothing better to support them than mere
conjecture.

Obj. I (b), " The Rubric referred to is thus spoken of by
Heylin, a High Church historian : * They expunged also a whole
Rubric at the end of the Communion Service, hy which it was
declared that kneeling at the participation of the Sacraments was
i-equired for no other reason than for a signification of the humble,
grateful acknowledging of the benefits of Christ, given therein unto
the worthy receiver, and to avoid that profanation and disorder
which otherwise might have ensued ; and "not for giving any
adoration to the sacramental bi-ead and wine there bodily received,
or in regard of any real and essential piesence of Christ's body and
blood."

Ans. This is a false statement. What the objector here culls

a " Rubric," is, properly, a " Declaration;" and was so named from

the first. It never had a right to a place, either in, or with the

Communion Service, before 1663. Neither was it a [>art even, of
the book of 1552 ; bu*. was set forth by myal authority after the
book was published and signed. I will give tlio following statements
to prove this td be true.

"The Book of Common Pmyer having the last year (1551)
been carefully I'evised and coi-rected by the Archbisliop and others,
the Parliament in April'this year (1552) enacted tiiat it should begin
to be used everywhere at All Saint's Day next. And accordingly,
THE Book was printed against the time, began to be read in St,
Paul's Church, and the like throughout the city. But because the
posture of kneeling was excepted against })y some, and the words
used by the Priest to the communicants, at the reception of the
bread, gave scruple, as though the adoration of the Host were
intended; therefore to take off this, and to declare the contrary to
be the doctrine of the Church ; — Oct. 27, A lettei- wrs sentfroin
the Council to the Lord Chancellor, to cause to Br: added to the
Book of Common Prayer lately set forth, a declaration skjned by
THE King touching the kneeling at the veceiving of the Communion."

The next quotation will shew, that this is not the first timo
this same thing has been called in question, and understood as I wow
explain it.

THE EXCEPTION OF THE PRESnVTKRIAN COMMLSJ^IONEIIS.

*' And we desire that tiie following Rubrick in the Common
Prayer-book, in 5 and 6 Edw., established by law as much as any
other part of the Coinmon Prayer-book, may be restored for the
vindicating of our chui'^h in the matter of kneeling at the Sacrament
(although the gesture be left indifferent) : ' Although no order can
be so perfectly devised, itc' "

ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS.

<< T

This rub. is not in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor
confirmed by law ; nor is tliei-e any great need of rowtorincr it, the

world being now in more dangor of inofanation than of idolatry.
Besides, the sense of it is declared sufHcienily in the 28th article
of the Church of England."

9 1

The Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, confirmed by law, as 1
Eliz. 0. 2, A.D. 1559, was the book of 1552 with one alteration
or addition of certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the
year, and the form of Litany altered and corrected, and two
sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament to
the Communicants, and none other or otherwise." If, therefore,
this " Declaration " had been legally a part of the book, it would
have been confirmed by this Act, as much as any otlior part ; or
named in the exception. But as it was not even named, the
evidence is conclusive that it was as stated, a proclamation made l)y
the King ; having only the same authority as " Injunctions " of
Queen Elizabeth, viz. : — to provide t(3mporarily for pressing matters,
until the subject could be settled by proper authority. But that
wliich ought to set the matter at rest and silence objections, is the
difference in the w^ording of the Declaration of 1552, and that
of 1662. K. Edward, in Ills proclamation, says: "Whereas it is
ordeyned in thf^ Book of Conunon Piavei", (kc *****
Wk do t^eclare, ttc." Tt must be evident that it is the King
himself speaking in his own name and by virtue of his authority.
But the language of that of 1662 assumes the Ai tiiority given to
THE BOOK ITSELF : by couscut of Church and State. " Whereas it
is ordained in this opfice for the administration of the Lord's
Supper, &c. * * * * It is hereby declai-ed, itc."

I find that many historians have sp'olvrn of this objection as a
valid one, most likely copying one from another ; but it will now
be evident that it never had ecclesiastical or parliamentary sanction
before 1662 and therefore was not legally a part of the book before
that time ; and further would have nothing to do with conciliating
the Roman Catholics, neither was it expunged.

K:.

■c

I ■■l-J

-ill

01>]. IT. " Another alteration in tlie Communion Service was
witli respect to THE FORM of givincs the elements. In tlie first
Book of E<lward, 1549, the words used were : * The body or blood
of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting
life.' * Which words,' .says Bishop Burnet, • were left out in his
second Liturgy, as favoring the corporal presence too much ; and
instead of them these words were ordered to be used in the
distrilmtion of that sacrament : ' Take and eat,' ttc. # * * *
« Drink this,' etc. They now joined together tJiese in one."

Ans. I have made strict searcli in all the books at my com-
mand, from wliich I could expect to obtain infonnation on this
subject : but have not found any positive evidence whereby I could
give a clear statement to shew why the form used in administering
this Sacrament, was changed in the time of Queen Elizabeth. But
from what I have obtained, I hope to make it manifest by
inference, that there is not the least ground for objection.

In the "Order of the Communion" published in 1548, the
following words were said at the delivery of the elements : " The
body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve
THY BODY unto everlasting life. The blood, tkc, * * ♦ preserve
THY SOUL to everlasting life." This being misrepresented, some
saying that the body of Christ was given for preserving the body,
and the blood of Christ for presei'ving the soul : it was therefore
jmmediately changed, and made to read " preserve thy body and
soul " in each statement ; same as may now be found in the first
sentence of the form we use. But " by the curiosity of the minister
and mistakers, rather than of any other worthy cause," it became
necessaiy in 1552 to take that form away altogether, and to replace
it })y " Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee,
and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." And,
" Drink this in remembrance that Christ's blood was shed for thee,
and be thankful." Words, which were never in any Liturgy before.

In 1553, the whole service of the Church of England was
abolished, and the Komish worship substituted for it. So that

:\i

■^4--

t t

•wlieii Quopn KlizaUetii came to the tluouo, that was the religion
ebtaMisIuvl by law, juul wouUl prevail, until new onlei*H could h^^
taken.

In 1559, the Queen began anew the work of rc^forination, and
with resjtect to tluR partictdai", the sentences already quoted were
combined, and made one lomi ; which lia« heen in uRe from that
time to the present day.

In tracing the subject in histoiy, we find that in all churches,
from tlio earliest times, the Bread and Cup wt;re given as the
Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ. And accordingly in the
words used at the diHtri})ntion, were always called by the name of
his Body and Blood ; the name by which our Saviour himself called
those elements, the bread and wine, when he gave them to his
disciples. Matt. xxvi. 2G-28.

And St. Paul in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. x.
16, " The cup of blessing which we bh^ss, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ 1 The bread which w(,' break, is it not the
communion of the bodv of Christ ]"

John a'Lasco ; is quoted with :4)probati()n by the objector.
He w as pastor of a congregation of foreigners who had taken refuge
in England. At that time, 1552, he used this form of words in his
church, at the delivery of the bread : " Accipite, edite, et
memineritus corpus Domini iiostri Jesu Christi i)ro nobis in mortem
traditum esse in crucis patibulo, ad remissionem omnium peccatorum
nostrum."

These sentences have a sound basis, and are of the very
essence of the Gospel ; it is therefore surprising, that any person
asserting the " supremacy of Scri[)ture," or claiming to be
"evangelical," should ever call them in question; or that they
should be thought to favour the corporal presence.

S..i

fl \

,i 1

' i

Obj. TIT. (a) " TTeylin writoH : 'Tl\en to conio up tho closer to
the Chiirch of Homo, it wuh onh^ml by tlie Qucon's injunctioiiH,
tliat th(! Hacramontal bread (which tlie Hook required only to be
made of the finest Hour) should be made round in fasliion of the
wafei-s used in the time of Queen Mury.'

> »

Ans. Heylin is not a good authority ; his reniaiks are
inuiginary, and as may be seem, not governed by facts. The
«• Injunctions " were not intended to bring us " closer to the Church
of Rome ;" that church provides the " Host," unleavened, thin, flat,
of a circular form, and has certain mystii* signs impressed on it, —
Whereas it is ordereid that the "sacramental niiEAD be made and
fonned plain, without any fkjurk thereu})on."

It was an order to return to the c\istoui of T'^dwiird VI. time ;
and to AiiOLisii that introduced by th(» Church of Tvome, in the
reign of Queen Mary.

Queen Elizabeth's injunctions : An admonition to simple men
deceived by malicious. — " Item, where al«o it was in the time of
Edward the Sixth used to have the sacramental bread of common
fine bread ; it is ordered for the more reverence to be given to these?
lioly mysteries, being the sacraments of the body and blood of our
Saviour Jesus Christ, that the same sacramental bread be made
and formed plain, without any figure thercnipon, of the same fineness
and fashion round, though somewhat bigger in compass and thickness,
AS THE ^USUAL UTIEAD AND VVAFKU, lierctofore named singing cakes,
which served for the use of the private ma.S8."

Archbishop Parker, and other bishops, gave " Interpretations
and further Considerations " of the Injunctions ; on this particular,
we have " Item, That the communion hread be thicker than it is
now (1559) connnonly used.

The FINAL order of the Cluuvh may be seen in the 20th
Canon, 1G03 : — Bkead and Wine to be provided against every
Communion. The Churchwardens, etc. • « • * * provide a

BulViciciit (luaiitity of line whitu Driuul, luul of good and wlioh-aomo
Wine, etc.

And in the lluluic now in the book, and wliich is nearly tlio
Hanie in eacli edition of it : ♦' To take away all occasion of dissenHion
and superstition, which any person liath or nuglit have concerning
the Bread and Wine, it shall suflice, that the Bread ho such as is
usual to bo oaten ; but the best and purest wheat Bread that
conveniently may be gotten."

The objector ought to have known, that this objection could
have nothing whatever to do with the present edition of the Prayer
Book, or influence our practice in any way ; s(3cing that it was only
a temporary arrangement, and for which tliere was great need at the
time. But if we may judg(i the amount of knowledge he is
l)0ssessed of, l»y the remark ]\v, has made, saying, " which the Book
required only to be made of the linest flour ;" it is eN ident that he,
like many others, has much yet to learn, and common prudence
should teach him to keep silence until he knows better.

Obj. III. (b). '* She (Q. Elizabeth) also ordered, tliat the
Lord's Table should be placed where the altar stood."

Ans. I should quote this as an evidence of the Queen's
Protestantism. Very few Protestants would comjjlain that she
preferred to use the term " Lord's Table," to that one which
designates it an "Altar." But zeal will sometimes outrun discretion.

However, the truth is, the Queen simply speaks of it as "the
holy table." And the placing of it where the altar stood, was "for
observation of one nniformity throughout the whole realm, and the
better imitation of the law in that behalf."

The Injunction is headed, " For tables in the church." I will
try and give the essence of it. No sooner had this Queen ascended
the throne, than many persons, in excess of zeal, began to make
phanges in the churches without aiithoiity ; and amongst other

.,j;

■■'**4'

^ \

Hll!

¥%:

/»>; ■:,:!

!! •

things, to bnnik down tlic altars and runiovt^ them. The Queen,
wishing to put a stop to such lawless proceedings, orders, that " no
altar be taken down but by oversight of the curate of the church,
and the churchwardens ; or one of them at the least, wherein no
riotous or disordered manner be used." And that the holy table in
every church be decently made, and set in the place whei'*^ the altar
stood, i. e. Such position was to be the permanent place for it*
But if not found to be convenient, it might be moved when the
communion of the Sacramt^nt was to be distributed, '* so that the
minister uught be better heard, &c." After which " the same holy
table to be placed where it stood before."

Obj. IV. " We must simply allude to the changes in the same
Romish direction in the Office for the Lord's Supper. They are
not very noticeable ; and with one who is not veiy familiar ^vith
the Theological tenets of these Carolinian divines, and with the
Romish controversy, they would readily escape notice. Elizabeth,
however, as we have seen, had so thoroughly tampered with the
work of Edward & Cranmer, as to leave but little necessary to be
done in the same direction."

Ans. As these " changes in a Romish direction " in this office,
are here only *' alluded to," I shall only make a slight comment.

They cannot be of very much importance when they are " not
very noticeable ;" and as the objector himself is not very familiar
with the Romish controvei jy, he has made a few selections from
" a High Church writer," Alexander Knox, from Dr. Pusey, and
from Dr. Newman ; which shall receive attention in due order.

In so far as I have replied to these objections, and those yet to
follow, I claim to have made Jt manifest that the only " tampering
with the work of Edward or Cranmer," has been that done by the
objector himself.

Obj. y. (a) "A Higli Church writer, Alexander Knox, refers
to the ' insidious ' manner in which the changes were made by those
artful ecclesiastics, lie says : ' The revisers seized the opportunity

(contrnrv to what th^ ])nV)Hc vr;\^ rerkonin^: on) to make o\ir
Formularies not more Puritanical, l)ut uunv, ('atiiolif. Thcv
elFected this, witliout douht, stealtliily ; and, to all ap))earances, l»y
the minutest alteration ; Init to conijiaie the Communion Service;,
as it now stands, esi)ecially its lluhries, with the form in which we
lind it, previously to that transaction, will Ix; to discover that
without any change of features which would cause alarm, a new
S[)irit was then breathed into our Comuiunion Service.''

Ans. The quotation from Alexander Knox, is not entire, so
as to give a proper understanding of what he said, noi' yet correct in
^oi)y. Knox says, " The distress of the Church had more than ever
endeared her to her giniuine children and served to ahiite all inidue
Protestant zeal." And in effect, although the Puritans ha<l expected
to have had some changes favoralde to th(;mselves made in the
service book by a revision of it ; yet it ended in bitter disa}>poiiit-
ment to their hopes ; the changes went against them, and were more
Catholic — not Romish. This he says was effected stealthily, by
minute alterations of the Communion Service, esjx'cially the rubrics.
Without any change of f(!atures to cause alarm, having a new sj)irit
breathed into it. And ex})lains by the following, which the objector
"conveniently" omitted: — '-Principally l)y a few signihcant
circumstances in the manner of conducting the business which were
fitted to impress the devout, though certain to be fully understood
only by the initiated."

As this question is too occult and fanciful, to have any real
inliuence on any person, save the " initiated :" and as I am not one
of the "initiated;" I think it will be labor in vain to try and make
anything of it. Oi tliis I am certain, it is not in accordfince with
the facts, and has no practical bcMiing on the subject.

The word " stealthily " does not aj)ply ; for the work was done
opeidv. In Convocation, fully and freely discussed, and afterwards
passed through both Houses of Parliament.

The part the Puritans had in the " Revision," failed altogether,

" ">>

'■m*

■ >

r ■

■\ ■

««' .Jl

iwM. - fji^^mi^^^

It ■ f

on account of th(dr inability to suHt;an it, as any well road [)tM[sun
knows, and as 1 will shew Mluni treating of that particular.

On the strength of the word " stealthily," the objector has taken

'^ccasion to declaim against the Ilitualists ; but as he says himself

" th(^ issue to-day is not between the Ilitualists and the Ilefonnod

Episcopalians." I shall consider this an inadvertence, and proceed.

Obj. V. (n). " I will briefly notice these stealthy changes. I
have stated witli resjxict to the Rubric of 1552, where, with
reference to the postii:-! of kxkeling. it is declared, no ' adoration ii#
done, or ought to be done, either unto the sacranioital bread and
wine then bodily received, or unto any kical or essential presence
there being of Christ's natui-al fl(!sh and blood,' one of Elizal)eth's
llomanising stei)S was to ex}>ungc altog(.'thcr this denial of the " real
])resence."

Ans. I must again protest against this use of the tei-m
" stealthily," and the objector's improvement of it — stealthy changes
— there is no warrant for it being used, it is a mere assumption, not
capable of any proof. Bui it is equal to charging the members of
the Church of England with being partakers in a crime. For, to
steal, is either to take by force or otherwise, what is not your own ;
or to take away secretly what is another's, without consent of tho
OAvner ; neither of wdiicli cuses, or any other like ones, can be
charged against us, with truth. The Prayer Book is the lawful
proi)erty of the English Church, and recognized as such all the
world over ; the State and Convocation being the pro})er guardians
of it. Changes have been, and may again be made in it, when a
majority can be found to agree to do so ; the last changes made in
it, were made by lawful authority in 1662, and in the most public
manner possible. T\w. contents of the book are all honest truth,
and were honestly obtained ; and nothing done stealthily ; to say
otherwise, is to uttci- slander against the Church and nation.

1 have already slu^wn conclusivelv, that what is now aijain
miscalled a Ku))ric, was proi)erly a " Declaration ;" set forth by the

authority of Kng Edward VI., was only temporary ; and never at
any time before 1662, a lawful portion of the book. Therefore to
say that it was " expunged," is not, and cannot be true.

Before asserting that this is " one of Elizabeth's Romanising
steps," or that she caused it to be *' expunged :" let the objector first
establish the fact, that it was a part of the book, and a legal part
thereof. Then his objection might be worth considering ; but until
he does so, (and he never can) his o))jection has no more value than
a di'eam, or the ravings of a brain-sick |)erson.

Obj. Y. (c). " What did these shrewd Sacramentarians of
Charles II. do in this coiniection 1 Tliey reinstated the llubric of
Edward, but changed it in its most important feature, by expunging
the words ' real and essential," and sul)stituting the word ' corporal '
in its stead, thereby conveying the idea that the Church believes in
the ' REAL AND KSSENTIAL ' presence of Christ in the bread and wine,
but one which is not 'corporal ' or 'physical,' or ' sensible.'

Ans. " These shrewd Sacramentarians," whoever they were,
would only have a vote equal to their number. The changes were
made and sanctioned by both Houses of Convocation, by th(^ Lords
and Commons as well, and carried by a majority of each. So it was
the voic(? of the whole nation that agreed to it. If by " these
shrewd Sacramentarians," the Bishops &c., of the Savoy Conference
are alluded to, it will scarcely ap])ly ; becau.se they declared that
there was no necessity for the Kubric being restoieil, vide p. 74.

The " Rubric " ap]>ears to be a very "strong" point with the
o)>jector. But as it was not "expunged," so neither was it
" reinstated ;" and neither is it a " Rubric." At the first it was
called a " Declaration." In 16G2, it was called a " Protestation !"
And then foi- the first time found a lawful j)lace in the Book of
Common Pray(M-. I scarcely think " shnnvd Sacramentarians '' would
have anything to do with such a Protestation.

♦* C]ian<'ed in its most important feature :" should 1)0, changed

-i. ^1

i — • ii4

I'iiJ'

•i i

li I

1 1

in tlie words usod for illuHtration. l>eca\ise tlic most iiuportaiit
foatiire i)i the Declaration, as also in the Protestation, is, to signify
what is meant by the act of kneeling, when receiving the EiOrd's

Supper, viz. : * Our humhle and grateful acknowledgement of the

benefits of Chnst therein given to all woi-thy receivers, and for the
avoiding of such pvofanation and disoi'der in the holy C/Ommunion,
as might otherwise ensue," And lest the act might be misconstrued,
to declare ''Tliat thereby NO adoration is intended, or ought to be
DONE, either unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily
received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural

FLESH AND BLOOD."

" Evimnuinii the words 'real and essential,' and substituting
the word 'corporal.'" The Protestation is not only a declaration of
our intention and pur]»ose in kneeling, when receiving the Lord's
Sujiper : but also a protest against Transubstantiation. When it is
understood that the decrees of the Council of Trent, were
])romulgated after the death of Edward VT., and that some tl (S
therein decreed have a bearing on this suliject, (as the following
quotation) : it may perhaps l)e allowed that the word " corporal,"
is more effectual in this ])lace as a ]>rotestation than the words taken
away.

Decree of Council of Treiit, Oct.; 1551.

Caput. IV. De Tiunsubstantiatione. Quouiam autem Christus
redemjitor noster, corpus suum id, quod sub specie panis offerebat,
vere esse dixit : ideo persuasum sem})er in Ecclesia Dei fuit, idquo
nunc denuo sancta \\xc Synodus declarat, per consecrationem panis
et vini conversionem fieri totius substantiie ])anis in substantiam
coi'poris Christi Domini nosti'i, et totiu? substantiae vin' in
subsiantiam sanguinis ejus ; qujx; convei'sio convenienter ei jrrr/prie
a sfincta Catholica Ecclesia Trans ubstantiatio est ai)pellata."

Tliat this was one pui'])0s<' the " Protestation " was intended to
mrve may be seen from the following part of it : " For tlus

Sacmnioiital BickI iuul Wine i-cinain still in tlu^ir vcrv iiHtiirul
substances, aiul theivfoif may not Ix' adored ; (for tliat were
idolatry, to be abhorred of all faitliful Christians) : and the natural
Body and Blood of our Saviour Clirist are in Heaven, and not
here ; ifec."

•' Conveying the idea that the Church believes in tlic REAL AND
ESSENTIAL presence of Christ in the bread and Avine." How can an
i<lea be conveyed without words ] Then where are the words to
shew that tlie Church teaches anv such thiui; as a " real and essen-
tial" PRESENCE IN the Bread and Wine ? It is as jdaiidy said, as
words can express it ; that there is not any presence in the
Sacrament, of Chi'ist's natural Flesh and Blood. And tliat the
bread and wine remain in tiieii{ very natural SrnSTANCES.

There is not in this " Protestation." any mention made of
a presence of Christ meinc; there, in anv wav or form whatever.
It is simply a denial of Transubstantiation ; and therefore, to adore
the Bread and Wine used as a Saci-ament would be "Idolatry, to be
abhorred of all faithful Christians." So that the act of kneeling,
intends and signifies no more than a grateful acknowledgement of
the benefits faithful })eoi>le i'ecei\e from Christ's sacrifice.

But there is 'lo ground even for an inference, for the Church
HAS defined in wdiat manner "The Body of Christ is given, taken,
and eaten in the Supper :" as in Article xxviii., " only (very
exclusive) after an heavenly and spiritual Dianner. And the mean
whereby the Body of Christ is receive<l and eaten in the Supper is
Faith.'

Now if the o\jector had wished to deal honestly and intelligently
with the Book of Comiiioe Prayer, wliy did he say, tliat the Church
conveys theidea, that she liclies es in a "preHeiiiuMil' Christ in tlip bread
and wine, but one which is not ' corporal,' or ' physical,' or Hejisihle,'"
and stop there ] Why not have completed Ihe ii titter, by stating
what the Church does believe, vi^ : that 'Chrif^t is present only

' »

cur.

His

-1

■^

after an heavenly and spiritual manner ?" Well, it must be either
from ignorance or design. Therefore, reader, Ijeware ! " They that
are such serve not our Lord Jesus Clirist."

I'll

Obj. V. (d) " And it is on this chang(^ in this Rubric that the
Ritualists and Hacramentarians have i)lanted themselves, and their
liosition cannot be shaken."

Ans. Say, not by me. Rev. Mason Gallagher, Pros by tei- of tlie
Reformed E[)iscopal Cliurch.

This very Declaration, or Protestation, hei-e called a Rubric ;
at first, began " Although ]io order can be so perfectly devised, but
it may be of some, either for their ignorance and infirmity, or else
of malice and obstinacy, misconstrued, dej)ra\ ed, and interpreted in
a wrong part, itc.;" which shews that misconstruction is not an
unlooked for occurrence. But I should hope, that if any persons
have miscontrued, itc, their ignorance ttc, might yield the
" position ,' to better knowledge. For " brotherly charity willeth,
that so much as conveniently may l)e, offences should be taken
away."

Obj. V. (e) " Says Dr. Pusey : ' I have explained the word
' corporal ' by ' carnal ' or ' physical,' because tlse framers of this
Rubiic DELIBERATELY rejected the denial of the woids ' real and
essential ' which stood in the first Ai'ticles under Edward Yl., and
substituted the word * coi-poi-ai.' "

Ans. I have not any means by me, of verifying this quotation,
or knowing in what sense it is used by Di-. Pusey in this
coiuiection.

The word " corporal," was used liy tlie first Reformers, in a
sense equal to, or synonymous with *' real," as in their Article 29,
" it becometh not any of the Faithful to believe or profess, that
there is a R(^al — or — Corporeal presence (as they [Church of Rome]
plnvfio it) of the Body and Blood of Olirist in the Holy Eucharist."

So tlio Church still mho.h tluit word to inotcvst the error of
TrMuaiibstaiitiation, which tlie Church of Rome oxprosses cliiefly by
that term : as seen in their " Corpus Christi " processions, Ac.

Obj. V. (f) " Tlie statement of th(! Eiij^lish Catecliism that the
body and blood of Christ ' were verily and indtHMl takmi and received
in the Lord's Supper,' taken in connection with the history of this
liubric, settles conclusively what is the doctrine of the Church of
England on this point."

Ans. Can this })e from ignor;ince ? Whatever the inotixx!, F
doubt not but that by merely giving this subjcjct in full, to uiake
manifest what is considered to be the acme of baseness and
deception — a partial quotation.

"Q. Wliat is the ontwitrd j)ari or sign of the Lord's Supper?

A. Brcjad and Wine, which the I^ord hath commanded to be
received.

Q. What is the inward pr-j't or thing signified 1

A. The Body and Blood of Christ, which are v(;rily and
indeed taken, antl received by tlie faithful in the Lord's Supper."

There is not the slightest connection between this part of the
Catecliism and the " Rubric ;" the latter, being tirst compiled in
1552, had but a short life, and not again recognized for one
hundred yeai's, while the Catechism quoted was set forth in 160 1 ;
the distance of time between these subjects linding a place in the
book will shew that they have each a different jjurpose to serve.

Obj. V. (a). " Dr. Jacol) remarks, p. 14, The otht^r Revision
at the restoration of Charles II., after the Savoy Conference (1660),
rtistored the Rubric about the Kneeling of Comnnmicants, with a,
significant alteration, whicli indicates the Sacramental leanings of
the time, and made another st(^}) in the anti- Kefoi'ination road.
And it is to be remembercnl that these two additions, rcspective>ly
introducted on these two occasions, proved [>artly the ground of the
defendants in the notable Berinet case, and thus helped to legalize a

'ill 'j

i ! i

^ 1 : i

' 1 I

I,'
' •

new approjioh to Tran.sul>r;tiUitiation and Ho.;t worship in the
Church."

Ails. Dr. Jacob's remarks aro luori'ly a ri^K'titioii of soiiu", of
tho ol)jectioiis rcjtlicd unto ahoady, and slicw tliat lie is another wlio
has niistai<eu the suhject and purpose of the Protestation. It is not
possible for words to be put 'together so as to form a strongiu-
protest against Transultstantiation and Host worship, than those
which form the Protestation these people here; object against. If
they woidd cease to speak of and consider it as a *' Paibric," and
call it by its proper name instead ; and had penetration enoitgh to
perceive that instead of afibrding any ground for legalizing the
things objected against it, it was a stern, fixed condemnation of
such doctrine and practice, they would take a contrary course. But
ignorant people, and fanatics, in their blindness : frequently desti-oy
things of the highest \'alue ; and then, when they come to their
pi-oper senses, wish they had them back again. Let them take the
warning in good time, and in good part, in all conscience 'tis well
meant.

Obj. V. (h). " TJie ablest of tin; Oxford Tract wriku-s, Dr.
Newman, savs of these Formularies : ' Thev W(M(3 drawn up for the
purpose of including Catholics ; and we are using them for the
purpose for which their authors framed them.' "

Ans. Dr. Newman, is chargoable^with aml)iguity in so using
the word " Catholic," being just as likely to deceive, as to instruct.
He is further chargeable ^v'ith inconsistency in savins: one thinir, and
doing another ; for he has excluded himself.

The Formularies, as the "authors" of them state, were drawn
up for the purpose of uniting the English nation in one form of
religious worship ; and declare that there is nothing in them that
either Piotestant or Komanist eoidu justly except against.

But, how is it, if th«'y were drawn i\\) for the ]mrposo of
inclu'ling Catholics — if l)y this is to be understood Bomanists, as T

think tlio ol)ji!ul()r int(Mul.s to iiisiimaU! — tlicy do not now iiu'ludo
Dr. Newman'? Tlioy have not l)uc!ii "lloviscd" .since tliose *' Tracts ''
were written. This sliouM ]h\ proof concUisive that they arij not
Jloniisli. And how is it thattliey do not now incliuh; "Protestants?
When such i)ersons as Dr. Newman and Rev. Mason (JaUaglier
must SECRDE, ))ecaiise thoy UN- "justly" exce[)t to tliem, and
cannot use th(Mn, it must sliew tliat iho fornndari(!S arc neitlici-
llonush, nor (Unu^van l)ut (.'atholic. And tliat thes(! people
" went out ft'om us, but (Jiey were not of us ; for if they had hccn
of us, they would no douijt have continutMl with us : hut tiihy wknt
OUT, that they might l^e made manif(!st that they were not all of us."
I John Li. 19.

„*fe*i2(

i«i...

0])j. V. (i). " Ther(! is no answ(?r to Dr. Piisey's ai-gumeut ;
and the only alternative; for any honest, sinecure and (uilightened
Protestant, is Revision or Secession." o

Ans. r am not cei'tain whether the; ohjc^ctor hei-e means Dr.
Pusey's or Dr. N(iwman's argument ; hut h'L it Ix; which it may,
I fear from the display he has made of liis ahilities in these
" Lectures," that he would not be a hie to contend with either of
them in an arguuuuit.

There is another altei-native, Ix^sides thosf^ named of Revision
or Secession, for an " honest, sincere and enlightened Protestant :
and that is, a cleauer perception of honesty, sinc(!i'ity and truth,
mingled with that charity dc^scrihed hy St. Paul, in I (Jor. xiii., 4-G.

Ohj. YT. (a). " Again, Cranmcr had inserted in the Scu'vice
these words : ' wherefore, it is our duty to r(^nder most humble
thanks to Ahnighty (lod, our Heavenly Father, for that he has
given his Son, oui- Saviour Josus Christ, not only to die for us but
also to be our sj)iritual food and sustenance ; as it is declared unto
us, as well by God's word as by the Holy Sacrament of his body
and blood.'"

Ans. The objector must either have "extracted" this objection
from page 326 of " A A'iew, ii:c. :" for he gives exactly the same

• 12

if.

--*►»<

•:li

! I

quantity, with tho sanic ei-rors ; ami Itogins with the same two
words " Wherefore it " which are not in the original ; alters
"Sacraments," to Sacriunent ; and omits "blessed." Or, if copied
from the original, then he has " tampered " with it, and failed to
perceive, that " wherefore," is not a suitable word to begin with,
and the omission changes the force of his objection.

I will put it to the objector's own conscience, whether as an
" honest, sincere, and enlightened Protestant," he can consistently
apply to ANY persons, the term " Stealthy Sacramentarians ]"

The second book of Edward VI., begins with " Dearly beloved,
forasmuch as our duty is to render to Almighty God our Heavenly
F ther, tfec." The book of 1662, has the following form of notice to
be read, stating when the Sacrament is to be administered, preceding
the exhortation ; which is not in the book of 1552, and which would
of necessity cause a change to be made in the manner of wording

it. " Dearly beloved, on day next I purpose, through God's

assistance, to administer to all such as shall be religiously and
devoutly disposed, the most comfortable Sacrament of the Body and
Blood of Christ ; to be by them received, in remembrance of his
meritorious Cross and Passion ; whereby alone we obtain remission
of our sins, and are made partakers of the kingdom of heaven."

Obj. VI. (b). " Here the Sacrament, as a means of grace, is
put on an equality with the word of God, and not above it. But
this statement appears not to have suited these stealthy Sacramen-
tarians ; so they struck out all allusion to the word of God in this
pjussage as a means of grace, and altered the statement to read thus :
* but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that Holy
Sacrament.' "

Ans. There is not any " allusion " either to the Sacrament, or
word, being a means of grace, in either exliortation. But a
statement that the sacrament declares, and the word declares,
that God hath not only given His Son to die for us ; but also to
be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament. Whicl\

statements may be proved by our Saviour'n own words, " T am tlio
living bruad which cnnie down from luMveu : if any man eat of this
bnjad, he shall live forever : and the bit.ad that I will give is my
flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. So he that eatet.i
me, even he shall live by me. The words that I speak unto you.
they are spirit, and they are life. God sent not his Son into the
world to condemn the world ; but that the world through him might
be saved. For as often as ye eat tluw bread, and drink tliis cup, ye
do shew " — declare, make manifest, " the Lord's death till he come."

' I tit;

In each book tlie same truths are leclared, \ iz. : that Christ
died for us; that Christ is our spiritual food and sustenance. And,
that the Sacrament of the Lord's Sui)per declares these things, and
is a nicans of communicating to the faithful those benefits Christ
obtained for mankind, as well as the word preached. There is not
any comparison made of on^ "means" with another, much less a
placing of one above aiioth<u' ; neither is there any confusing or
confounding of subjocts, in any part of the service ; but each and all
the appointed means of grace, are used and mentioned in their
proper order. The omitting to mention "God's word" in this
Exhortation, is well supplied by the statement introduced in 1662,
" His meritorious Cross and Passion, &c.," which does more than
" allude " to it ; for it gives us one of the most precious tniths the
word contains — remission of sins only through the merits of Christ's
death.

*t..i

il.

Obj. VI. (c). " We are not surprised at the remark of Fisher,
p. 311 : ' We certainly hold that however slight the appearance, a
more objectionable alteration — or one more palpably indicative of
the old media3val notion of Sacramental efficacy — has never yet
been introduced into the Prayer Book since its first establishment
upon a professedly Protestant basis. ****** it
amounted entirely to a repudiation of Evangelical doctrine, as
emphatic and unequivocal as even the most inveterate admirer of
the ecclesiastical theory of Laud himself could reasonably be
expected to require."

"m^

''^^"''

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

1.0

I.I

121

£ 1^ |Z0

lUliu

Hiotographic

^Sciences

Corporation

23 WLST MAIN STREfT

WUBSTER.N.Y. 14S80

(716) B72-4S03

5^^

'a<^

^l^

v.^^

^i^
^

c.\

■^i"

'' Ans. This " objectionable alteration " can be such only to
those persons who fail to comprehend the sense of the words and
confuse the subject brought before them. That the Church should
publicly name the Lord's Supper as an " efficacious " means of
declaring the Lord'?^ death until he come ; or make mention of the
benefits procured for man thereby ; and how we live by the death
of Jesus, and have remission of sins by his blood being shed : ought
not to surprise anyone who knows for what purpose the Sacrament
of the Loi-d's Supper was ordained.

The Book of Common Prayer is established on a " more sure "
l)asis than the changeable opinions of would-be Pi'otestants of the
nineteenth century.

If to declare that Christ- Jesus is our si)iritual food in the
Sacrament that He himself instituted for that very purpose, be to
repudiate modern Evangelism : then we must repudiate it, and
" agree to differ ;" we cannot consent to drink the new wine, having
tasted the old, we prefer it, and say, " the old is better."

The only practical portion of Abp. Laud's theory, that I know

of, affecting this subject in the ju'esent day, is that contained in

what is commonly known as the Scotch Liturgy of 1637, which, in

this Exhortation, follows the second Book of Edw. VI. ; so that

these objectors, in their ignorance of the subject, are either

*' inveterate admirers of the ecclesiastical theory of Laud," or

misunderstand and misrepresent what he held and taught.

Obj. VI. (d). " This alteration is the more imi)ortant as it is
in the form of a 'doctrinal statement' uttered in the presence of
the whole congregation to whom the exhorttition is emphatically
addressed. This marked depreciation of tiui word of God, and
undue exaltation of Sacramental giace, is step number SE^EN
Homeward."

Ans. The alteration makes a better arrangement, and is
confined to the subject named, and duty to be pei-formed. It would
doubtless be very much better, if in this present time, we had more

. I

" doctrinal statements " of a like nature, ami fewer sjwculative
theories, by such means the people would be so much more
effectually built uj) in the faith. I fear that very few peraons
outside the Church of England, as frequently liear such a clear and
distinct statement made of an important truth as this now objected
unto. The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, was institutetl ^hat it
might " be received in remembrance of Christ's meritorious Cross
and Passion." His own connnand, given the same night that He
was betrayed, was "This do in remembrance of me." The Blood of
Christ is that " whereby alone we obtain remission of our sins an<l
are made partakers of the kingdom of heaven."

I must say I fail tc see how this can with truth, be called, a
" marked depreciation of God's word."

What is properly " The Exhortation," I never heai'd read in
the Church in my life. The intention of the compilers of it, wa.s,
that it should serve when there was no sermon on the subject : or,
no reading of the Homily "Of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament
of the Body and Blood of Christ."

The Church of England, so far from " depreciating," reads in
her public services, more of the pure word of God than any othe^*
Church in ^Christendom. Is the only Church that orders tlio
word of God to be written on her walls. She gives to the
Sacraments that i)lace and imjlortance tlioy ouglit to have in Christ's
Church ; no more ; no less.

We are not affnghted at this " step number seven Romeward."
Bishop Ridley, who said, I dare not take one step except the woi-d
of God holds me by the hand, yet took a step in that direction.
For he commends this statement of Gelasius, who was Bishop of
Rome, A. D. 492. " The Sacraments of the body and blood of
Christ, which we receive, are godly things, whereby, and by the
same, we are m£*de partakere of the divine nature : and yet, never-

J*Wi '^

Ui-il^

m0 *#

•mi *

ffln

««■

theless, the substance or nature of the bread and wine doth not
depart or go away."

And says of this, " Can anything be more plainly spoken, than
these words against the error of transubstantiation ; which is the
ground and bitter root, whereupon spring all the horrible errora
before rehearsed."

Obj. VII. (a). "Another change was made which seems to
give countenance to the notion that ** some mysterious virtue, as
according to the Boman Catholic view, is infused into the elements
by the Priestly act of Consecration. We find a Rubric in the
older Books which reads thus : ' And if any of the consecrated
bread and wine remain, the curate shall have it for his own use.' "

Ans. I here charge the objector with a gross interpolation,
which, if from ignorance, should convince his followers that he is
not to be trusted ; but if from malice, then he is to be avoided.
This subject is not so much as mentioned in the first book of Edw.
VI. At that time, the Pastors and Curates provided the bread and
wine at their own cost ; and were to be compensated for the same
by the people paying " their duties."

In the second book of Edw. VI., the bread and wine is
ordered to be provided by the Curate and Churchwardens at the
cost of the pai-ish. And a Rubric orders ; " And if any of the
bread and wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use."

Now mark well the difference between the truth and the
falsehood, it is an important one. The word " consecrated " is not
THERE AT ALL I This cuts a way the foundation, the superstructure
or inference falls to pieces, and the objector stands convicted of a
piece of gross imposition. And tJie. very worst kind of imposition,
an imposition in religion; changing the good meaning of a
document by introducing a word, so as to give it an evil meaning.

Obj. VIII. (b) " To make this Rubric consistent with the
sacramental teachings of other portions, it was thus altered : * And

^'"^i,-^:

if any of the bread and wine remain unconsecrated, the curate shall
have it for his own use : but if any remain of that which was
consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but the Priest,
and such other of the Communicants as he shall then call unto him,
shall, immediately after the blessing, reverently eat and drink of
the same.'*

Ans. The Rubric was made " consistent " with the rest of the
Sei-vice of the Church, which is, the doing " all things decently and
in order." This will be made apparent by the following : Bishop
Cosin says : It is likewise ordered, that * if any of the Bread and
Wine remain, the Curate shall have it to his own use." Which
words some Curates have abused and extended so far to suppose,
that they may take all that remain:: of the Consecrated Bread
AND Wine itself home to their houses, and there eat and drink the
same with their common meats ; at least the Roman Catholics take
occasion hereby to lay this negligence and calumny upon the Church
of England, whereas the Rubric only intends it of such Bread and
Wine as remains unconsecrated, (fee. And therefore for the better
clearing of this particular, some words are needful here to be added
whereby the Priest may be enjoined to consider the number of them
which are to receive the Sacrament, and to consecrate the Bread
and Wine in such a near proportion as shall be sufficient for them ;
but if any of the consecrated Elements be left, that he and some
others with him, shall decently eat and drink them in the Church,
before all the people depart from it."

So it is now evident, that the Rubric was amended to correct a
disorderly practice ; to silence the carpings of the Romanist ; and
to prevent any such misunderstanding arising in future, by defining
what portion of the bread and wine, the Curates might have for
their own use, and the proper disposition to be made of the other.

Ml. ^%f

Having now noticed all the objections made against this
service, I will conclude the subject by claiming to have made ii,
clear:

J|.

I'i

illl

>'W

I'i

1. That there was not any ulttjration made at any time in
this Service to conciliate the Roman Catholics. .

2. That what is called a " Rubric," and said to have been
eximnged from the Book, was not a Rubric, but a Declaration.
And that it had no lawful place, and therefore could not have been
expunged.

3. That the forms now used ni the delivery of the elements, have
sullicient warrant from Scripture, to made them accepUible and
suitable words for the purpose they are used for.

4. That the Injunction of Queen Elizabeth, with resi)ect to
the Sacramental bread, was not to make the custom of the Church
conformable to that of Rome ; but to abolish or counteract that
intkoduced in the reign of Queen Mary.

5. That that one also respecting the phicing of the Lord's
table, wjxs not to imitate Rome, but to establish one uniform mode,
and " imitate " the law. Rather an evidence of the Queen's
Protestantism, than a step in the direction of Rome.

6. That the quotation made from Alexander Knox is a
partial one. That Knox himself used fanciful and occult terms.
And that to say the changes made were " stealthy changes," is a
slander on the Church and nation,

7. That the " Rubric " said to have been reinstated and
changed in its most impoi-tant feature, is not true : but shewn to be
a Protestation against Transubstantiation, and a denial of there
being any intention of adoration in the act of kneeling. And that
the Church has defined the manner in which Christ's Body is
given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper.

8. That the word " Coi-poral " as used by the first Reformers
in Ai-t. 29, was synonymous with " Real," and a protest against the
Romish error of Transubstantiation,

r.si

9. That the quotation from tlirj Catechism, is an unfair one,
and deserving of censure.

10. That the remarks of Dr. Jacob, are a repetition of false
chai'ges founded on error.

11. That our Formuhiries were not drawn up for the purpose
of including Roman Catholics.

12. That there is another alt(u*native for an "honest, sincere,
and enlightened Protestant," besides these offered by Revision or
Secession.

13. That the "alteration" made in "the Exhortation" in
1662, is an improvement ; setting forth in the best manner the
most important subject of the Gospel.

14. That the objector is guilty of a gross interpolation,
when quoting a Rubric respecting the bread and wine remaining
after Communion, and that the alteration made in it in 1662, was
conducive to good order, and requisite.

HkK il,

■ ^n

. ^. jii-.-i

'T%J

r ■ i^

Jiir ^ .

mf^

li I

II ^

,! I

!■/■'

CHAPTER V.

THE ARTICLES.

Obj, I. (a). "The ARTICLES, the Constitution of the Church,
were tampered with in two important instances."

Ans. The Articles, Formularies, &c., of the Church of
England, are the property of the Church ice the time being,
whatever that time may be, or whoever the persons may be
representing it. Therefore, any alterations made in them by lawful
authority — which is known and determined — ought not to be called
" tami)erings."

Things are tampered with, when persons meddle with them
who have no right to do so. As the so-called Reformed Episcopal
Church have done with our Book of Common Prayer, which, although
the common property of the whole Church, does not belong to any
individual, whether Bishop or layman.

Obj. 1. (b). *' Cranmer and his associates, in order to condemn
as clearly as possible the error of Sacramental grace, now ao widely
taught in the Protestant Episcopal Church, had inserted in the
articles of 1553, Art. xxvi., these words : *Our Lord Jesus Christ
gathered his people into a society by Sacraments, very few in
number, most easy to be kept, and of most excellent signification ;
that is tc say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. And in such
only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome eftect and
operation ; not as some say, ex opere operate, which terms, as they
are strange and utterly unknown to Holy Scripture, so do they
yield a sense which savoi-s of little piety and of much superstition.'"

Ans. This is a vkry partial quotation for any one to give, who.
In the same breath, speaks of " tampering." I will first supply what
the objector has omitted, and tlien shew that liis judgment is at.
fault in quoting thiF* passage at all.

•><<.

After tho words ** Supixn- of the Lord," read, *• The Sacraments
were not ordained of Christ to be ^azed ujion, or to >)e canned about,
but that we should duly use them." And to follow his whole
quotation, " but they that receive them unworthily, receive to
themselves damnation. The Sacraments ordained by the word of
God, be not only Badges or Tokens of Christian Men's Profession ;
but rather they be certain sure witnesses, effectual signs of Grace,
and God's good will towards us, by which he doth work invisibly in
us ; and doth not only quicken but also strengthen and confirm our
faith in him."

-IF,,"

mL«J^

**? " tl

Thus it will be seen that Cranmer and his associates say, when
ALL their words are given, thi^t our Lord Jesus Christ gathered his
people into a society — by Sacraments. That they are of most
excellent signification. That they were ordained to be duly used.
That in such as worthily receive them, they have a wholesome
effect and operation. That they are more than badges or tokens of
Christian men's profession — they be certain sure witnesses, effectual
signs of grace, and God's good will towards us. And that they not
only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. I
think the objector will now see the necessity there is of rectifying
his own error firstj before he re-asserts his charge of error being
taught in the Protestant Episcopal Church on this suVjject.

Obj. I. (c). " ' This statement,' writes Nangle, of the Church
of Ireland, in Irish Church Advocate, March, 1874, 'which
demolishes the foundation of Baptismal Regeneration, was expunged
from our Prayer Book in the reign of Elizabeth,' and the following
of a totally different aspect, was substituted for it : * Sacraments
ordained of Christ are not only badges or tokens of Christian men's
profession, but rather they be sure, certain witnesses and effectual
signs of grace,' &c."

Ans. " This statement," is a false statement ; and therefore
\sorthless. The paragraph said to have been expunged, and one of
a totally different aspect substituted for it, I have shewn was a part

• -li li

(■
t

am i

100

of th(} xxvi. Art. of Edwanl VI. lint tliat tuticlo has no i<;foroncn
to BaptiHnuil Regeneration ; it treats of the SacrunieiitH, stating the
number, nature, and use of tlieni. Tlieir iStli Art., which, excei)ting
the last paragraph, is woid for word the banio as our 27th, treats
specially of Baptism, and declares it to be " a sign of Regeneration,
or New Birth." Now if these half-read individuals who glean a
little from some party " magazine " here, and a little more from an
" Advocate " of party view there — would remember, that " a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing," and govern themselves accordingly :
they would not perhaps be so forward to assist in demolishing or
expunging wholesome doctrine ; or so ready to charge othei-s with
having done the like, and find out afterwards that they were
mistaken.

Obj. I. (d). " On this change, Fisher, in his work on Liturgical
Purity, p. 507, remarks : * The same false tenderness towards the
corruptions of the old superstitions which had caused, in the year
1559, the admission into the Communion Office of the Romanizing
doctrine of the Real Presence, as well as the omission from the
Liturgy of anything like a distinct protest against the errors of
the Papacy, occasioned likewise, in 1571, the withdrawal from the
Article on Baptism of that specific protest against the — opus
operatum — so wisely inserted in the earlier articles of 1553.' "

An& The latter part of this long sentence is all that appertains
to our present subject, the other things objected, will be found to be
noticed each in its proper place.

Tliere is not any such " protest " to be found in any Article on
Baptism, either in those of 1552, or those of 1562 ; and there has
been no change since that time last named. The words " opus
operatum " are not in any Article. The words " ex opere operato,'»
were in the xxvi. of those of 1552 ; but cannot be said to apply to
Baptism more than to the Lord's Supper, because, that article treats
of the Sacraments. The words are expository, and to convey the
meaning intended by them, I would place them thus, in a
parentliesis : *' And in such only as worthily receive the same, they

"jrvJ

101

Imvo a wlioh'HOJiH' viYrci or o cratioii ; (not m some sjiy, Kx oprjo
oporato, wliicli terniH, im tlioy aro stniii^f^ iiml utt<'rly unknown to
tho Holy Scriptiiiv, ho do tluiy yield a sense? which savouioth of
little Piety, but of nuich sn})(;rstition) : hut they that rec^'ive them
unwoi-thily, receive to themselves dannuition."

This objection is said to be an extract from the work of " a
layman of the Church of England," and commended as ** the most
thorough and candid on the subject." The quotation made and
dates given, upon which the " remarks " are founded, are erroneous ;
but perhaps they have not, as yet, perceived, that accuiiacy is a
necessary ingredient to constitute a work ** candid and thorough."

Obj. II. " Nor was this tho only alteration in the Articles. * A
clause of great clearness and precision of statement, which had been
introduced into the articles of 1553, in condenniation of the doctrine
of the * Real,' nor of the Ileal ojdy, but of the * Bodily ' presence of
Christ in tho Sacrament, was wholly omitted from those of 1562.
It has never to this day been restored.' It reads thus : *For as
much as the truth of man's nature recpiireth that the body of one
and the self-same man cannot be at one time in divers places, but
must needs be in some one certain place, therefore the body of
Christ cannot be present at one time in many and diveree places.
And because (as Holy Scripture doth teach) Christ was taken up
into Heaven, and there shall continue until the end of the world, a
faithful man ought not either to believe or openly to confess the
real bodily presence (as they tei'm it) of Christ's flesh and blood in
the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Ans. " This " clause of great clearness and precision," is
neither clearly nor precisely stated by the objector. It is one of
the most incorrect quotations yet noticed ; it ought to be called a
paraphrase. He has made a distinction between " Ileal " and
** Bodily ;" althougli there is no such distinction made in the Ai-ticle*
But I suppose this has been done on the strength of his own
paraphrase. When he says that " it has never to this day been
restored," he should have said , to its place in the Article ; because
the same ideas may be found in the Protestation, at the end of the
Service for the Communion.

« .u

. ,. i

'^4'

102

ThiK portion of tlin Aitiolo \h not. a condom nation of
the " real proHonco " of ChriHt, in, or at, tluH Sacrament.
It denies the " Cor|>oroal proHcnce," or real in-esence of
Christ's natural flesli and blood, (whicli tlie Church of Rome
affirms) : Saying, " it becometh not the Faithful to believe or
profess, that there is a Real on Cori)orcal presence (as they [Church
of Rome] phrase it) of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy
Eucharist."

It is not to be wondered at, that the objector should fall into
eiTor, when we see the nature of the material he makes use of to obtain
his information from. I will here give his pretended quotation and
compare it with the original by placing them side by side ; it should
have been given word for word, if otherwise, it is not «. quotation :

■'■if-

•ill

objector's quotation.

" For as much as the truth of
man's nature requireth that the
body of one and the self-same
man cannot be at one time in
divei*s places, but must needs be
in some one certain place, there-
fore the body of Christ cannot
be present at one time in many
and divers places. And because
(as Holy ' Scripture doth teach)
CJhrist was taken up into Heaven,
and there shall continue until the
end of the world, a faithful man
ought not either to believe or
openly to confess the real bodily
presence (as they term it) of
Christ's flesh and blood in the
Sacrament of the Lord's Sup-
per."

COPY FROM ORIGINAL.

" Since the very Being of
humane nature doth require, that
the Body of one and the same
Man, cannot be at one and the
same time in many places, but of
necessity must be in some certain
and determinate place ; there-
fore the Body of Christ cannot
be present in many different
places at the same time. And
since (as the Holy Scriptures
testify) Christ hath been taken
up into Heaven, and there is to
abide until the end of the world ;
it becometh not any of the
Faithful to believe or profess,
that there is a Real or Corporeal
presence (as they phrase it) of
the Body and Blood of Christ in
the Holy Eucharist."

The leading men engaged in the reformation of the Articles,
&c., in the time of Queen Elizabeth, were not men likely to

>• -.1 .

103

" tainpoi' " witli thoiu ; for tlioy wcro nishoiw Parker, Jcwf II, Cox,
Grindal, «kc. : thoHO wlio still remained alive of tlie firat Reformers.
The chief difficulty they had to contend with at that time, wtvs the
Romish error of Transubstantiation. They had no objection to any
statement tlie Article contained, as is shewn by their ado]>ting it at
first without change ; but on mature consideration, they decided
that it was not prudent to issue it in that form. It ought to bo
remembered, that they did not succeed to the offices they held in the
Church, as they were loft by ** Cranmer and his associates," or with
the Liturgy oi*dered by Edw. VI. in full use and force : these had
all been abolished by Act of Parliament. But they were successore
of Bishops Gardiner, and Bonner, and their associates ; and they
found England's Church fully supplied with Romish Bishops,
Priests, Jlfc,, teaching amongst numerous other eiTora, that peculiar
dogma of Rome " that the whole substance of the bread is changed
into the body, and the whole substance of the wine is changed into
the blood of Christ" And pronouncing anathema against
** Whoever shall affirm, that the body and blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ are not present in the admirable eucharist, as joon as
the consecration is performed, but only as it is used and received,
and neither before nor after ; and that the true body of our Lord
does not remain in the hosts or consecrated morsels, which are
reserved or left after communion : let him be accursed."

:- *H«fJ.

To refute this, it was thought necessary and sufficient, to
protest Transubstantiation, and condemn it ; but to say more at
that time, would be superfluous. Because, denying that there was

ANY CHANGE MADE IN THE BREAD AND WINE — was also to deny, that

there was any " real bodily presence " in, or with the same. And
they state the manner by which " The Body of Christ is given,
taken, and eaten in the Supper," by adding to the article, " only,
after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby
the bodv of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith."

»•■ i ■■

.IV*^

.!i

104

So they having authority, form the Ai-ticle on this suhject
anew, and in the following manner :

The first paragraph, is retained and continued without change.
The next, beginning with Transubstantiation, is amended, by adding
the words " ovei-throweth the nature of a Sacrament." The next
one, was " wholly omitted '* as the objector states. Because they
thought the same truth could be expressed in some better way,
than by denial and philosophical reasoning. Therefore they
introduced, what is now the third paragraph of the Article, " The
Body of Christ, is given, taken, cfec." Whether this was made
specially to cliallenge the " anathema " of Rome or not, I have at
present no means of knowing ; but, if it is " Protestant " to oppose
Romish error : then this paragraph increased the Protestantism of
the Book of Common Prayer. The last paragraph, is common to
both editions of the article, and was continued without change.

In order to give this difficult subject, " as great clearness and
precision " as I possibly can, I will conclude it by saying that the
declaration of the Church, as now expressed by her authorized
formularies, is — there is no corporal presence of Christ's natural
Flesh and Blood in the Lord's Supper. The Sacramental Bread und
Wine remain still in their veiy natural substances.

Obj. II. (b). " Are we surprised to Imd Bishop Jewell, the
ablest divine of this reign, writiiig thus : " Now everything is
managed in so slow, cautious and prudent a manner, as if the word of
God was not to be received upon its own authority ; so that as
Christ was thrown out by his enemies, he is now kept out by his
friends."

Ans. A little attention to the order of events is necessary, in
applying documents of this kind. When Bishop Jewell wrote his
letter, the Queen had not been many months in possession of the
throne, and the reformation of religion, not really begun ; and as
will be seen by a more extensive quotation, the Bishop was
impatient, ani. ^^'ould huvo acted without law, simply because the

'Ji

105

papists had clone so in the previous reign. The hindkiikks, were
the Roman bishops, who had legal possession ; who " treated the
reformera with many reproaclies, and much scorn ; and called them
seditious incendiaries."

" He (Jewell) laments the want of zeal and industry in
promoting the Reformation ; far short of what the paj)ist's shewed
in Queen Mary's time Then everytliing was carried on violently,
without staying either for law or precedent : Ijut now everything is
managed in so slow, so cautious, and prudent a manner, as if the
word of God was not to bo received upon his own authority : so
that as Christ was thrown out by his eneuiios, he is now kept out
by his friends. This caution made that the spirits of those that
favored them were sunk, while their enemies wo'e much exalted
upon it. Yet he acknowledges, that though no law was made
abrogating the mass, it was in many places laid down. The nobility
seemed zealous in their hatred of popeiy. The Queen had indeed
softened her mass much ; but there were many things amiss that
were left in it. If she could be prevailed on to put the crucifix out
of her chapel, it would give a general encouragement : she was truly
pious, but thought it necessaiy to proceed by law, and that it was
dangerous to give way to a furious multitude."

This letter was written on the 10th of April, 1559, before any
alteration was made in the Articles, and therefore does not apply to
them. The other inferences made are of the same nature, and are
not necessary to be brought in here.

Obj. III. " A writer already quoted, in an article on * the
Anglican Reformation,' remarks : ' Our readers are aware of the
controversy as to how the celebrated clause — ' The Church hath
power to decree rites and ceremonies, and authority in matters of
faith ' — crept into the twentietli Article of the Church of England,
when it occurs neither in the first |>rinted edition of the Articles,
nor in the draft of them which were passed by convocation, and
which is still in existence, with the autograph signature of the
membei-s. It is now the universal belief that Elimbeth inserted

this clause.' "

.iiA, „,

1'"JJ

■f^*<

•(

)>i

'iri

106

Ans. " This clause " as quoted, never was, in any Article of
Religion, set forth by the Church of England. And never will be,
so long as the VI. Art. is retained. The clause alluded to, as will
be seen by reference to the xx. Ai*t., has the word " Controversies;"
for which the objector, or his quoted authority, has substituted
" matters." I am very far from suspecting even, that either of them
were influenced by base motives in doing so. I would rather
charitably suppose, that like St. Paul before his conversion, they
have done so "ignorantly." But yet, I feel it a duty, to say, that
whoever could set forth, or endorse such a quotation as the one now
before us : if not ignorant, must at the least plead guilty to gross
carelessness ; and by no means fitted to give out a system of
religion. Such mouths ought to be stopped ; they are without
excuse ; millions of copies of the Book of Common Prayer are in
circulation, aiid one could be procured for a few pence ; neither
does it require much skill to copy correctly. But the substitution
of one word for another in this case, is, perhaps, a point of difference
TOO FINELY CUT for Ordinary readers readily to perceive wherein the
distinction lies. But as by consequence, so much the more
DANGEROUS, it must be pointed out.

The difference between " authority in matters of faith," and
" authority in controversies of faith," is the difference between the
authority which Gnd ha? reserved to Himself : and the authority
He has been graciously pleased to entrust to the Bishops and
Stewards of His mysteries.

God ALONE has authority in matters of faith. He hath said,
"The just shall live by his fa th." And "by every word that
proceedeth out of the mouth of tiie Lord doth man live." The word
of God, is, wholly and solely — matter of faith. God hath commited
His word to His Church, which accepts the trust, and acts as a
" Witness and keeper of Holy Writ." The Church of England
has never exceeded her authority in this respect.

107

Th. rulers were within tl^pir proper bounds when tliey decided
the " Controveray " with respect to tlie " Sufficiency of Holy
Scripture ;" decreeing that *' whatsoever is not read therein, nor
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it
should be believed as an article of tlie faith, or be thought
requisite or necessary to salvation."

They have decided another ** Controversy " as to what is to be
received as the word of God , by naming certain books to be
received as such, and rejecting others as not being such.

Tho Church acts as a judge, not as a law-giver. In so far as I
know, our rulers have not ordered anything for our Church, that is
contrary to God's word. And certainly, not set foi-th matters of
faith on their own authority. The Church has, at different times,
decided for her members, many " Controversies of faith f
such for instance as, in addition to those already named,
" Purgatory, Pardons, tfec," and declared them to be " repug-
nant to God's word." Many other good works of a like
kind hath she done : for which of these good works is she now to
be condemned or destroyed 1 Why not patiently consider, and
even humbly enquire, so as to understand her purpose before
destroying that which can so easily be shewn to be good ?

This celebrated clause was in the XX Art., and was placed in
it in 1562 ; sanctioned by both Houses of Convocation ; then
printed and issued by ecclesiastical authority in 1563. It was left
OUT at the second publication in 1571, when the Articles were
confirmed by Act of Parliament. But was shortly afterwards
restored. Now an Act of Parliament could not be made without
the Queen's sanction. So, if she sanctioned it without the clause :
what ground is there for "the universal belief that Elizabeth
inserted this clause '?" None ; only the people love to have it so.

But, seeing that it was a part of the Article some years
previously, and sanctioned by ecclesiastical authority, Queen

■m

I"' „

"■4

■:-^,'4ufi^

^h4

I i

Si V,

11'

) ii

I 1 ji

108 .

Elizabeth could not have inserted it en her sole authority ; I think
that it amounts to more than a probability, that the omission was
caused either by the copyist or the printer.

: The Piritans never did found a charge upon anything better
than suspicion. For Abp. Laud was also charged with having
introduced it on his own authority. But like unto all these false
charges now refuted, that one had no foundation in fact As
Burnet says "he easily cleared himself and well he might"

Abp. Laud retorted, and charged his accusers with having
falsified the Articles by omitting the clause in the printed copies.
He appealed to the original, which was then in existence, and
aftirmed the words were in it.

The objector says, " the draft of them * * * # passed
by convocation is still in existence." True ; there are even "drafts"
of them in existence. But drafts are not decisive. I think a draft
is scarcely to be considered as a legal document It is well known
that before such things take a permanent form, they frequently
undergo many omissions and amendments. The Record, which alone
COULD give authentic information, and decide the question, was
BURNT. " in the great fire of London."

But even after all that has been said, what valid reason can be
given, to shew why there should not be such a clause in the Article,
no matter by whom introduced ? Surely every association, calling
itself a " Church " — the Beformcd Episcopal included- — assumes
this authority ; dictating how religious services shall be performed,
and what its ministers are to teach for doctrine, and what shall not
be taught. Therefore seeing that the Church of England does not
lay claim to any higher authority thpn this : and which is openly
and honestly stated in the Article ; where is the necessity for such
objections, or what good purpose can they be intended to serve 1 I
am of opinion, that it is worse than a waste of time ; because,
instead of gathering with Christ, it is scattering and dispersing

109

those already gathered in His name, by sowing the seeds of dissension
and strife.

Again ; why ask for " Revision " from the authorities of the
Church, and then turn round and say, ye take too much upon you,
seeing all the congregation are holy ; so that if our rulers will not
make the alterations we demand, we will make them ourselves 1
Well, the Lord will one day shew who are His, as He did in time
past."

Obj. IV. (a). " One marked reactionary change made by
Elizabeth, I have omitted. In the articles of Edward, there is a
remarkable clause : " The grace of Ciirist, or the Holy Spirit, who
is given through the same, takes away the heart of stone and gives
the heart of flesh.' " .,,, .

Ans. As^usual, we have a parai)hrase imposed upon us, for
what should be a quotation. Tliere is nothing " reactionary " in
this case ; but simply, a reducing to order, what had been before
rather vaguely expressed. The " clause " in question, is a part of
Art. X. of K. Edw. VI., with title " Of Grace." But the word
" Grace " is scarcely more than mentioned ; for the substance of the
Article, is an explanation of how grace acts upon the will of man.

Our second reformers who, in part, were a continuation of the
first ones — 'in 1562, made one Article, that which is now the IX. i
out of the substance of the former IX. and X. I shall readily
dispose of this objection, and I think most effectually, by merely
quoting the Articles at length, as at first prepared, and then after-
wards amended.

aRT. IX. OP GRACE. EDW. VL

We have no power to do good Works pleasant and acceptable
to God, without the Grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we
may have a good will, and working with us, when v e have that
good will.

^'V

L^^

• >«• ■■' I

*. «u:4

110

ART. X. OP GRACE. EDW. VI.

The Grace of Christ, or the Holy Gliost which is given by him,
doth take from Man the heart of stone, and giveth him a henA of
Flesh. And though it rendereth us willing to do those good "Works,
which before we were unwilling to do, and unwilling to do those evil
Works which before we did, yet is no violence oflfered by it to the will
of Man ; bo that no Man when he hath sinned can excuse himself, as
if he had sinned against his will, or upon constraint ; and therefore
that he ought not to be accused or condemned on that account

(

.1
■J

"■■'J
■•I"'

'l: i!

ART. X. OP PREE-WILL. BOOK OP COMMON PRAYER.

The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such that he
cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and
good works to faith, and calling upon God : wherefore we have no
power, to do good works, &c., as above in Art. ix.

Obj. IV. (b). " Here, grace conveyed by the Spirit, the
conversion of the soul, as distinguished from grace inwrought by
the Sacraments, is positively asserted. This strong Protestant
statement, so powerful an antidote to the Sacramental errors of the
Liturgy, was expunged by this shrewd monarch ; and wherefore, if
not still further to unprotestantize the Book, and to render it less
distasteful to her Roman subjects 1

Ans. From an assumption of false premises we have again
false inferences. There is not any distinction made between the
several manifestations of God's grace, in the Article quoted ; but a
statement, that the Holy Ghost changes man's will, and how the
work is manifested, and what are its effects.

They state that the Holy Ghost himselp, — is — the grace
named. As may be inferred from the word — or. That the Holy
Ghost is given by Christ the Scripture teaches : " I (Jesus) will
pray the Father and he shall give you another Comforter, &c." "If
I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I
depart I will send Him unto you." So also, as in the Litany

Ill

Service, we supplicate Jesus, " to endue us with the grace of thy
Holy Spirit to amend our lives according to thy Holy Word."
Doubtless on this account called the " Grace of Christ."

The work of taking from man the heart of ** Stone," and giving
him a heart of " Flesh," is, truly ; a work of grace — but the worker,
is, God the Holy Ghost. The grace inwrought by means of the
Sacraments ; as well, the grace wrought by means of the word and
prayer ; is all the work of that one and the self-same Spirit, who
divideth to erery man severally as He will.

For grace inwrought by the Sacraments, vide p. 56, where are
words used by one of the very persons who assisted in changing this
Article ; and whose words were, and are now, approved, and believed
to express the sense of our Formularies.

For these surmises, that the book might have been altei-od to
render it less distasteful to the Queen's Roman subjects, I have
none other answer to make here, than that the Church must
patiently bear such things, until people learn to govern their speech
by the truth. For the tongue can no man tame ; it is an unruly
evil, full of deadly poison.

Obj. V. " The Protestant portion of the Prayer Book is
especially the Articles, which Elizabeth only allowed to be published
after she had, upon her excommunication, broken with the Pope,
when there was no further object in conciliating the Romanists."

Ans. This charge is a false one also. The 42 Articles of Edw.
VI. were abolished by his successor. And when Queen Elizabeth
came to the throne, the Pope's Supremacy, and the Romish worship
had taken their place. But provision was made immediately to
restrain and remove those evils. In virtue of her " Supremacy,"
the Queen issued those celebrated Injunctions, and instructed
Bishops Cox, Grindal, and others, to prepare certain "brief articles'
that might serve until the others could be restored by an equal
authority to that which abolished them.

.10 »

^♦1

% ^.-t
*

cJ.

hpi

ir;

ii'3

S'-iJI

112

The forty-two Articles, were revised, reduced in number, and
first published in 1562 ; but by ecclesiastical authority only. Since
that time, they have always been called the Articles of 1562, as
may be seen in the 36th Canon, and also in the " Declaration "
preceding them, in the Prayer Book.

The " Ratification " should suffice to prove that the Articles
were not then, 1571 J published for the firat time. The import of
the word itself. Ratification. The words " again approved," and
" AGAIN confirmed," must refer to some former time. So, 1571,
was the time they first received Parliamentary sanction ; but not
the first time of their publication. They were therefore published
before Elizabeth had "broken with the Pope."

Some few things that may relate to Queen Elizabeth personally,
will be found under the heading of " Kings."

I have now only to point out the subjects noted in this
Chapter, and shew how tliey appear.

1. That the Articles were not tampered with in the time of
Queen Elizabeth.

2. That tampering should be charged against meddlers.

3. That the charge of expunging .ne statement and substitu-
ting another in Art. xxviii., is a false statement.

4. That there was no false tenderness towards the corruptions
and old Superstitions ; but that the whole charge is based on wrong
impressions, and that the objectors have not enough knowledge of
the subject to give correct statements.

5. That a clause in the same Article, relating to the Corporeal
presence, said to have been omitted ; was expressed in other and
more suitable words.

6. That Bishop Jewel's letter does not apply to the subject
for which it is (quoted,

113

7. That the objector has substituUsd one word for another, in
his partial quotation of the xxth Article, thereby changing its
whole sense and purpose.

8. That Queen Elizabeth did not insert the " celebrated
clause."

9. That the objector has entirely mistaken the purpose of the
Article of Edward VI. on " Grace."

10. That some of the first Rofc .ncrs, as Bishops Parker, Cox,
Grindal, Jewel, and others ) assisted in preparing the 39 Articles
as now in the Book.

11. That the objector has garbled eveiy quotation he has

made.

12. That the whole of his work, is worse than time wasted.

13. That the 39 Articles, were published before Queen
Elizabeth was excommunicated by the Pope.

A'«a Jl

,t»

*• <• .<«»

•5

**f.|l

*^-:.l

• ' ; (1 -

tp:.. 'ri^ilfii, J

H-" i

J»*-,1-J.

114

CHAPTER VI.

THE APOCRYPHA.

* M*

K f- »4rt

Obj. I. •* Again, it is well known that tlio scvorance of the
Apocrypha from the Canon of Scripture, has always been, with the
partisans of Home, a prominent topic of denunciation against the
reformers and their work."

Ans. As members of the Church of England, we govern our-
selves by the Book of Common Prayer, and have nothing whatever
to do with " the partisans of Rome." If these people wish to
denounce that Book ; let th(;m do so, and keep to their subject ;
and I will do my best to defend it.

Now with respect to the Scriptures, and which portion of them
is held by the Church of England, to be Canonical, and which not,
our VI. Ai-t. fully declares. The difference between the statements
of the Church of Rome and our own, on this subject, is a very wide
one. At the Council of Trent, the Church of Rome, for the first
TIME, decreed all the books of the Old and New Testament to be
Canonical. But, the Old Testament — with them — includes the
books called Apocrypha. In " decreeing " this, they say : " More-
over, lest any doubt should arise, respecting the sacred books which
are received by the council, it has been judged proper to insert a
list of them in the pi-esent decree." In the list given, the books of
the Apocrypha, are mixed with the books of the Old Testament ;
and^not kept distinct, or severed, as by lis.

The Bible of the Church of England, is the book of the
English language, and said to be " the secret of England's
greatness." All English speaking people, except the members of
the Church of Rome, receive and use our Bible, and have no other,

lift

Our Church, in her VI. Ai-t., as well an in the Bible itself,
namoB the Canonical books of the Old and New Testunient, and
distinguishes between them and the Apocrypha. The Article
further says, the Canonical Scripturr's contiiin af-l things necessary
to be Ix^lieved and known, in order to salvutioii. And the
Ai>ociy})ha " the Church doth read for example of life an<l
* instruction of manners ; but yet it doth not apply tluMU to
establish any doctrine :" so that, every thiujL,', in this matter, must
be acknowledged to be clearly and honestly statetl ; and altogether
opposed to the jJan adoptcid l)y the Church of Home.

Obj. IT. " The e.si>ncial repugnance of the Puritans to the use
of the Apocrypha, was manif(;sted by their petition at the Hamj)ton
Court conference in 1G04."

Ans. This repugnancy of the Puritans, sprang from the same
source as all their other scrujjles of conscit^nco, viz. : an overweening
conceit of their own importance, and of their great abilitlc^s. In
tlieir petition, they assume to be " We, the— -ministers of tho
gospel in this land, ttc ;" whereas, they were not a tentli part of
them. And, that all opinions they held must certainly be infallible,
and not only govern themselves, which could have been borne
with ; but must also rule others as well

The Three Articles of subscription. Canon, 3G, were the trouble
here, they could not conscientiously subscribe to the second one.
Dr. Reynolds says, " To subscri]>e according to the statutes of the
realm, namely, to the ai'ticles of rfdigion, and the king's supremacy,
they were not unwilling. The reason of their backwardness to
subscribe otherwise was, first the books Apocryphal, which the
Coiimon Prayer Book injoined to be read in the Church ; albeit
there are, in some op the chapters appointed, manifest errors,
directly repugnant to the Scriptures." The particular instance
selected, was Ecclus. xlviii. 10. saying, it implied a denial of the
cliief article of our redemption. They were answered in their
general objection, by the bishops : " that the most of the objections

\ ^^^

.11

• ' 1

;.: .1

mi'

116

made against tliose "books, were the old cavil of tlie Jews, wnewod
l)y St. Jerome in his time, who was the first to give them the name
of Apocrypha." The distinction of St. Jerome, is that adopted by
our Church, viz. : " Canonici sunt ad informandos mores non ad
confirmandam fidem." K. Jas. himself made answer to the
particular objection, Ecclus. xlviii. 10, shewing that " what was
there said by Elias, Elias liu/l in his own person, while he lived,
l)erformed and accomplished." Then turning to Dr. Keynolds, said,
" It was not good to impose upon a man that is dead, a sense never
meant by him." And next to the bishops, "What, trow ye, make
these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think ho
was a bishop, or else they would never use him so." The Puritans
were then requested to note the chapters of the Apocryphal books
where those offensive places were ; and so the matter ended for
that time, by changing the portions objected against, for chapters
selected from the Canonical Scripture. Thus it appears that ihe
Puritans had repugnance only to the use of a very few passages of
the Apocrypha, some six chaptere in all. And the ground of
their repugnance, was, a misapprehension of the sense and pui*pose
of them ; for they submitted veiy readily, and willingly, when more
fully informed.

Obj. III. (a). " * Down to the present period,* says an author,
(Anglican Reformation, p. 46,) * there were comparatively but
little of the Apocrypha used in the Calendar ; and even that little,
by an * admonition ' prefixed to the second book of Homilies, in
1564, le officiating clergyman was not only authorized to omit and
substitute in its place some more suitable portion of Canonical
Scripture, but he was recommended to do so.' "

Ans. Where the objector say?.*, "cGmparati\ely little used,
&c." 1 may suppose him to mean, ordei-ed to be used. But this
statement is false. For in the Calendar of each book of Edw. VI.,
the WHOLE of the Apocrypha will be found to be so ordered.
Beginning with Oct. 5th, and ending with Nor. 27th, nothing else
is provided for first Lessons at Morning or Evening prayer, but

i!'i''«i

117

clmpters from the Apocryplia. And at tliat tiino, thoro wore no
proper Lessons for Siuulay-H ; tlu^sc waw Hrst ortlorod in 1559. An
Act of Parliament I. EHjl. u. ' 3, ^i'^us [lalliuiit^ to uso " the Book flf
Common Prayer of 5th and 6th of Edw. VI., with one alteration
or addition of coi*tain lkhhonh to 1»o imed on every Sunday in tli<?
year."

The second hook of IIoniilieH canui out in 1504, fiv(^ years after
special Lessons had heen provicU^d foi* Sundays. The clause in the
" Admonition," referring to this suhject, is " where it may so chance
somo one or other chapter of the Old Testament to fall in order to
be read upon the Sundays or Holy days, which were better to be
changed with some other of the New T(!stament of more edification,
it shall be well done to spend your time to consider well of such
chapters beforehand, &c."

So there is no mention made of the Apo(;rypha in this
" Adiaonition ;" it merely refc^rs to the Sunday Lessons, or Holy
days, and gives permission to change a lesson from the Old
Testament for one of the New, if judged to be more suitable.

Obj. IIL (b). "The Convocation of 1661, however, and the Act
of Uniformity, based upon their proceedings, not only introduced
other portions of the Apocrypha with the daily Lessons, but
rendered it impt-rative upon every clergyman to read them."

Ans. The Convocation of 1662 could not and did not,
introduce more than the whole of the Apocrypha. And as the
WHOLE was in the Calendar authorized at the time, "other portions"
could not be and were not introduced in 1662. Such blunders as
these are a necessary consequence, when men will meddle with
things they do not understand.

Our Book of Common Prayer, is the one set forth in the fii-st
year of Queen Elizabeth, and therefore not affected by the conces-
sions James i. made to the Puritans, whereby a few chaptei-s of the
Apocrypha were omitted. Jas. i. had not authority to make such

I ,j#

..»
^'1

»t;!J

i[ ,

118

alterations for permanence ; this could only be done legally, by Act
of Parliament. So when the Parliament in 1662, received and
adopted the Book of Elizabeth's time, the lessons as ordered in the
Calender, would regulate the practice of the Church in the public
reading of the Scriptures. The table of lessons will testify, that
therp were none taken from the Apocrypha for Sunday lessons ; and
as for introducing any with the daily lessons, a comparison of the
books will shew, that the order of our first Rcformoi's was continued
without change.

There is more liberty of choice in this matter now, than at any
other time previously ; for a new Calendar was prepared and set
forth, a few years ago, of which the objector lias not made
mention.

Obj. III. (c) " ' The reiiLsortion,' says Fisher, * upon this
occasion, of the book of ' Bel and the Dragon,' in the Calender of
Lessons, was intendetl as a special indignity upon Baxter and his
colleagues."

Ans. As there was not any i*einsertion but only a return to
what was legal, Fisher's remaik, has, properly, no ground for it.
But I cannot refrain from saying, that such sui'mises are specimen
fruits of very nariow minds. Religion is of too serious a nature to
be trifled with in this way. Neither the Church of England, nor
any other Church, can with truth deny "the book of Bel and the
Dragon " to be a part of the A])0crypha. It is so, whether we will
or not. And seeing that it was named in the Calender, before
Baxter and his colleagues were Ijorn, it could not have been placed
there with any special intention of offering them an " indignity."
But some over-sensitive i)Oop]o will take oflenco, where none is
intended or thought of.

Obj. IV. " Here is step number four towai'd Bome^ and proof
conclusive of the schismatical intentions of these men^ as well as
the absence of the Holy Spirit from their proceedings."

119

Ans. This, and other like statements of "steps toward
Rome," may be taken as " i)roof conclusive " of the absurd
nonsense by which ignorant men deceive themselves and others.

These men accused of schismatical intentions, were the legal
representatives of the Church and nation ; who were assembled for
the purpose of devising the best means, whereby peace and quiet-
ness could be restored and continued to' a troubled nation, just come
out of a sad state of rebellion, anarchy, confusion, disorder, and
strife. A state of existence that had even more than disgusted the
rebels themselves. The result of the deliberations of the assembled
wisdom of the nation, was : the restoration and adoption of the
doctrine and discipline of the national Church, which had been
suppressed during the rebellion.

-■■ (■

■m

's'

Therefore, the real schismatics, were " those men " who would
not submit to settled order ; who were detei-mined that the nation
should be governed, in matters of religion, by their private

OPINIONS.

I will here shew that the Puritans of 1661, were satisfactorily
answered in this matter also.

EXCEPTION OP PRESBYTERIAN COMMISSIONERS.

" That inasmuch as the holy Scriptures are able to make us
wise unto salvation, to furnish us thoroughly unto all good works,
and contain in them all things necessary either in doctrine to be
believed, or in duty to be practised ; whereas divers chaptei-s of the
apocryphal books appointed to be read, are charged to be (not
proved to be) in both respects of dubious and uncertain credit : it is
therefore desired, that nothing be read in the church for lessons, but
the holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament"

answer of the BISHOPS.

.,*.W(6J^'

t^l

*J^-

As they would have no Saints' days observed by the church, so

i 'i^.j

l! '

120

no apocryphal chapter read in the church, but upon such a reason as
WOULD EXCLUDE ALL SERMONS as well as apocrypha ; viz. because the
holy Scriptures contain in them all things necessary, either in
doctrine to be believed, or in duty to be practised. If so, why so
many unnecessary sermons 'i why any more but reading of
Scriptures 1 If notwithstanding their efficiency sermons be neces-
sary, there is no reason why these apociyphal chapters should not
be as useful, most of them containing excellent discourses, and rules
of moi'ality. It is heartily to be wished that sermons were as good.
If their fear be that by this mean, those books may come to be of
equal esteem with the Canon, they may be secured against that by
the title which the church hath put upon them, calling them
apocryphal ; and it is the churches testimony which teacheth us
this difference, and to leave them out were to cross the practice of
the church in former ages."

Before any reply can be made to this presumptions assertion,
that " the Holy Spirit was absent from these proceedings ;" it must
fii*st be CORRECTLY shewn, that anything was ordered to be said or
done contrary to the truth. For, it is His work to guide us into
all truth. Unity is the sign of the presenoe of the Holy Spirit :
division is the sign of His absence. The spirit of unity leads to
submission : the spirit of division produces rebellion. I need not
say more here to shew which were schismatics j but see more of
this on Schism.

I will conclude this chapter by again pointing out,

1. That the Church of England has clearly distinguished
between the Canonical Scriptures and the Apocrypha.

2. That her action in this matter, is a decided protest against
the contrary course adopted by the Church of Home.

3. That the repugnance of the Puritans to the Apocrypha,
proceeded from a misapprehension of the sense ; and the purpose
the reading of it w^s intended to serve,

121

4. That the whole of the Apocrypha, is ordered in the
Calendar of each 1)ook of Edw. VI,

5. That proper Lessons for Sundays, ttc, were first appointed
in the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

6. That the " Admonition," prehxed to the second book of
Homilies, has no reference to the Apocrypha,

7. That the Convocation of 1662, did not restore certain
portions of the Apocrypha to the Calendar.

8. That there was not any I'einsertion of " Bel and the
Dragon " in the Calendar ; that it was there before Baxter and his
colleagues were bom. -

9. That in this matter, the Puritans had no cause for Schism.

10. That the presence of the Holy Spirit may be known by
the fruits of Unitv and Truth.

'>
■%

132

CHAPTER VII.

SAINTS DAYS.

Obj. I. (a). " Again, Hallam remarks : * The Puritans having
always objected to the number of Saints' days, the bisliops ordered
a few more,, more than sixty of the mythical and semi-historical
heroes of monkish legends.' "

Ans. In reply to this objection, I think it will be best, first to
give the Exceptions of the Puritans with the Bishops' Answer, so
as to have the matter fairly before us.

EXCEPTION OF THE PRESBYTERIAN COMMISSIONERS.

"That the religious observation of Saints' days 'appointed to be
kept as holy days, and the vigils thereof, without any foundation
(as we conceive) in Scripture, may be omitted. That if any be
retained, they may be called festivals, and not holy days, nor made
equal with the Lord's day, nor have any peculiar sen^ice appointed
for them, nor the people be upon such days forced wholly to abstain
from work, and that the names of all others now inserted in the
Calendar which are not in the first and second books of Edw. VI.
may be left out."

ANSWER OF THE BISHOPS.

" The observation of Saints' days is not as of divine but
ecclesiastical institution, and therefore it is not necessary that they
should have any other ground in Scrij)ture than all other institutions
of the same nature, so that they be agreeable to the Scripture in
tlie general end, for the promoting of l)iet3\ And the observation
of them was ancient, as appear by the i-ituals and liturgies, and by

I ^*w

123

the joint consent of antiquity, and by tlie ancient translation of the
Bible, as the Syiiac and Ethiopie, where the lessons appointed for
holy days are noted and set down ; the former of which was made
near the apostles' times. Besides our Saviour himself kept a feast
of the churches institution, viz., the feast of the dedication (St.
John, X. 22). The chief end of those days being not feasting, but
the exercise of holy duties, they are fitter called holy days than
festivals : and though they be all of like nature, it doth not follow
that they are equal. The people may be dispensed with for their
work after the service, as authority pleaseth. The other names are
left in the Calendar, not that they should be so kept as holy days,
but they are useful for the preservation of their memories, and for
other reasons, as for leases, law -days, tkc."

Thus it appears the objection of the Puiitans was not to the
number of the Saints' days ; but to the religious observance of
them. Had their request been complied with, the observance of
Christmas day, Epiphany, Good Friday, Ascension day, tkc, would
have been abolished. Their supposition, that we have no Scripture
foundation for the observance of them, shews the extent of their
knowledge of such matters.

The desire of the Church, is, that the chief acts of our Saviour's
life in the flesh, and the work of the Apostles, should be com-
memorated.

Surely the observance of such events, or remembrance of such
persons, is more to be desired than the anniverearies, the bicentenaries,
bazaai's, tea-meetings, ike, of modern times. We have Scripture
testimony, that God did bless mankind by those events and persons
whose works and names we commemorate. Whereas such " religious
observances " as have lately sprung up, to say the least against
them, celebrate at best, " benefits " of a questionable nature.

Obj. I. (b). " And, adds Isaac Taylor, * for the charitable
purpose of annoying those who objected to all commemorations of
the kind, the names of a few popes were included in the list' "

»/ xJi iff .(■

- i

i .A

',» ^

^ \

s. ■' ' ii SI

• *•

■■■- *J

"'^ i\

,m--'^

<-i

124

Ans. From their own " Exception," we see they u.sk for the
removal of ail other names now— 1661 — inserted in the Calendar,
not in the books of Edw. VI. Therefore, could not have been
included in the list for the charitable purpose of annoyance. We
learn from Wheatley, who is much more reliable on such subjects,
that they were introduced by our " second reformers :" Jewell,
Grindal, tfec. ; and for the purpose of giving information, when
certain days called by such names should be observed ; but not for

RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE.

The days noted in the Caleiidar observed religiously by the
Church of England, are these named in the following table, taken
from the Book of Common prayer : —

A TABLE OF ALL THE FEASTS THAT ARE TO BE OBSERVED IN THE
CHURCH OF ENGLAND THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

All Sundays in the Year.

The Circumcision of our Lord JESUS CHRIST.

The Epiphany. — The Conversion of Saint Paul.

The Purification of the Blessed Virgin.

Saint Matthias the Apostle.

The Annunciation of the Blessed Viigin.

Saint Mark the Evangelist.

Saint Philip and Saint James the Apostles.

The Ascension of our Lord JESUS CHRIST.

Saint Barnabas. — The Nativity of Saint John Baptist.

Saint Peter the Apc^tle. — Saint James the Apostle.

St. Bartholomew the Apostle. — St. Matthew the Apostle.

Saint Michael and all Angels. — Saint Luke the Evangelist.

Saint Simon and Saint Jude the Apostles. — All Saints.

Saint Andrew the Apostle. — Saint Thomas the Apostle.

The Nativity of our Loi'd.

Saint Stephen the Martyr, — Saint John the Evangelist.

The Holy Innocents.

Monday and Tuesday in Easter- Week.
Monday and Tuesday in Whitsun-Week.

The 13th Canon gives the manner in which they are to be
celebrated.

125

" All maiinor of i)frsons within the Church of Eiiohnul sluill
from henceforth celebrate and keep the Loi-d's ciay, commonly called
Sunday, and other Holy day.s, according to God's holy will and
pleasure, and the orders of the Church of England prescribed in
that ])ehalf ; that is, in licaring the word of God ]*ead and taudit ;
in private and public prayers ; in acknowledging tlieir offences to
God, and amendment of tlie same ; in reconciling themselves
charitably to their neighbours, where displeasure hath been ; in
oftentimes receiving the Communion of the body and V)loo«l of
Christ ; in visiting the poor and sick ; using all godly and sober
conversation."

us.

As a nation, we have both religious and civil observances ; and
if this distinction were received and acted upon, when speaking or
writing about this subject, there would be no room either for cavil
or mistake.

In history, and public documents, wo have mention made of
sundry events occurring on one or oth ^- of such named days, as
found in the Calendar, but omitting date. Just as we uso the term
Christmas day without saying the day of the month, and other like
terms. And it does not lequire much sagacity to perceive, tfcat it
would be a much easier matter of " reform " to take Chistmas day
out of the Calender, than to change the " vulgar" custom of calling
the 25th of December by that name. The Puritans did not succeed,
themselves, in abolishing them ; although in the time of the "great
rebellion " they tried to do so. They enacted, that " Festival days,'
vulgarly called Holy days, having no wariant in thi? word of God,
are not to be continued, ttc, ttc.

The days objected against, that are named in the Calender,
have a civil observance only. They relate to practices of courts of
law ; as Hilary term, &c. To Societies : as St. George, St. David,
Crispin, &c. To common customs : as Lady day, Martimas, &c.
In Towns and Villa.<;^es, where Fairs and Feasts were instituted,

" ... I

126

tliey were held on one or otlior of the days named in the Calendar.
These and many other such like reasons would necessitate their
being reti ' ed ; and the fastidious must be hard pressed .for
something to find fault with to raise such ol>Jections.

Obj. I. (c). " Cranmer had allowed, besides Scriptural
worthies, only three names to be commemorated, those of St.
Michael, St. Lawrence, and St. George. "

1,1

l^''i

'■111

J**

\m ■

Ans. Say in the first book ; for in the second one, we find
St. Clement, Lammas, Term times. Signs of the Zodiac, ifec. And as
the rest were inserted by his " associates," in the time of Queen
ElizaV'ith, the reason given for this objection is worthless.

In the preamble to the bill which passed the Commons on the
15th of March, 1552, we read : •' That men are not at all times so
set on the performance of religious duties as they ought to be ;
which made it necessary that there should be set times in which
labour was to cease, that men might on these days wholly serve
God ; which days were not to be accounted holy of their own nature,
but were so called because of the holy duties then to be set about :
so that the sanctification of them (was not any magical virtue in
that time, but) consisted in the dedicating them to God's service :
that no day was dedicated to any saint, but only to God, in
remembrance of such Saints : that the Scripture had not determined
the number of holy days, but that these were left to the liberty of
the Church. Therefore, they enact, that all Sundays, with the days
marked in the calendar and liturgy, should be kept as holy days, &,c/

Obj. I. (d). " Here is the fifth evidence of the Romish
proclivities of these remarkable Commissioners."

Ans. This remark will not apply to the Commissioners,
because they failed to bring their work to any good issue, on account
of the perversity of the Puritan section of them.

Also, the alteration was made many years before; as in 1564.

127

"Item, That tliorc be no otlier holidayos olwerved besides tlio
Sundayes, but onelye suche as bo sot out for holidayos, as in the
statute, < anno quinto, et sexto Edwardi sexti,' and in the new-
calendar authoiysed by the quoenes majesty."

I' :4

The Church of England, in confining he members to a religious
observance only of the days named in the table as above, has
certainly departed, many steps, from the i)ractice of the Church of
Rome. We set forth, and celebrate the names of those "whose
praise is in the Gospel," and none other. We retain some of the
ancient customs of the Christian Church, and are free from errors
and corruptions in this matter. The following is as old as the third
century, if not older : " Let the servants work five days ; but on
the Sabbath, and on the Lord's day, let them ha\e leisure to go to
church, for the doctrine of piety. We have said that the Sabbath
is on account of the creation, but the Lord's day on account of the
resurrection. Let sei-vants rest from their work all the Great
Week, and that which followeth it ; for the one is in memory of
the Passion, and the other of the Resurrection. And there is need
of their being instructad who it is that suffered, and rose again ;
and who it is that permitted him to suffer, and raised him again.
Let them have rest from their work on the Ascension, because it
was the conclusion of the dispensation of Christ. Let them rest at
Pentecost, on account of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Let them
rest on the festival of his Birth ; for then the unexpected favour
was bestowed on men, that the Word of God, Jesus Christ, was
born of the Virgin Mary, for the Salvation of the world. Let them
rest on the festival of the^ Epiphany ; foi* then there was made a
manifestation of the divinity of Christ, the Father bearing him
testimony at his baptism ; and the Comforter, in the form of a
dove, indicating to those who wei-e present, the individual respecting
whom the testimony was borne. Let them rest on the days of the
Apostles ; for they were constituted your teachers in respect to
Christ, and have deemed you worthy of the Spirit. Let them rest

. J« If

,.JI

128

on the day of Stej)l»eii, the first martyr ; and on the days of tlio
other holy maityrH, who have esteemed Christ more precious than
their own life."

And further to shew the utility of observing them, the follow-
ing from Dr. Smith's " Account of the Greek Church.', Next to
the miraculous and gracious providence of God, I ascribe the
preservation of Christianity among them, to the strict and religious
observation of the festivals and fasts of the church ; this being the
happy and blessed effc^ct of those ancient and pious institutions,

THE TOTAL NEGLECT OF WHICH WOULD SOON INTRODUCE IGNORANCE,

and a sensible decay of piety and I'eligion, in other countries besides
those of the Levant, ttc."

I hope that I have now made it ai>pear —

1. That the bishops did not order the number of Saints' days
to be increased.

2. That the Puritans did not object to their number, but to
the religious observance of them.

3. That the number celebrated by religious obsei'vance, has
always been a fixed number since the Reformation.

4. That the names objected unto, were first inserted in the
reign of Queen Elizabeth, and not in that of Charles ii.

5. That seeing the names were in the Calendar, they could
not have been placed tliei'e for special annoyance to men born many
years afterwards.

6. That the Church of England has only selected the names
of " Scriptural worthies " to be commemorated by a religious
observance.

129

7. Tluit Uhuc iH a wido (lirtbreiict! butwocii th(5 piaolict^ of tlie
(Miurcli of England, and that of Rome, both in tho days observed,
and the manner of observance.

8. That such an observance; as we make use of, is intended
for a good purpose ; conducive to a knowhulgo of tho work of
Christ, and to promote piety and religion ; and should by all moans
be retained.

... tji

V m

.. -Ml

\ \

»■ ■i4i*'

130

CHAPTER VIII.

TRADITION.

0))j. I, (a). "Witli r(!H|)ect to tlie objoctioii offere«l tliat our
Book of Oonuiioii Praytu* unduly olevutos the ottice of Tradition,
wliat do tlie Bislioi»H of 16G2 atHnu 1 • Tin; Cliurdi hatli bccm
caroful to i)ut notliinjj^ Into the Liturgy but that wliich ia evidently
the word of God, or that which hath been gentsrally receivcid in the
Catholic Church ; neither of which can be called i>rivate opinion.
If by orthodox be meant those who adhere to Scriptin-e and the
(Catholic Consent of Anticjuity, we do not know that any part of
our Liturgy hath been questioned by such.' "

Ans. Before making any remark about this objection, I will
give a couiiECT statement of it, and the answer to it ; as they
proceeded from the parties who first made tliem. In doing this I
shall only give the substance of the objection, and such sections of
t1ie answer as a})ply to tlie subject. I do so in this case, because of
th(; MixiiD nature of the " Exception " of the Puritans; and because
the word " Tradition " is not mentioned in it.

rilOPOSAL OF I'UESIJVTHRIAN COM.MISSI'JNEKS, 1G61.

If •■

That all the pr;)yors, and other materials of the liturgy may
consist of nothing rvjunTi-'ij. or QtiisTioNKo luiiongst })ious, learned,
and orthodox persons, inasmuch as the proft's.sed end of composing
them is for the declaring of the unity and consent of all who join
•> .'ivi'i* , 'i ■•■ iiig too evident that the limiting of
c iiULiJi-ovj^iiUuuuon to things of DOUBTFUL DISPUTATION, hatli been
i 1 all aires the ground of Schism and separation, according to the
saying of a leai'ned person."

131

ANswr.M or TFii; msirops.

" Ah to tlmi part of tlir jtroposul Nvlii(;li i»M|iiij('s tliiit the lualtcr
of tlic litur<j;y iiiiiy not be |»riviilt' ()|»iiii()ii or fancy, tliat hi^'wv^ tliw
way to |)or|»«»t»iato scla.sm ; the dniroli hatli Ix't-n car«'fiil to jtut
nothin;^ into tlio liturgy, Imt tliat wliidi is cither cvidcnily tiu^ word
of God, or what liatli Ik.mmi grnuiraily rcccivi'd in tlio C*atl)olic
Church ; neithor of wliich can Ix? caUcd ])rivatc opinion, and if tlio
contrary can be proved, wo wisli it out of the lituj-i^y. We lieartily
desiro that, according to this proposal, groat cart- may he takfMi to
HU})pre.ss those privat<^ conccjitiojis of players hefor*! and after
sermon, lest private opinions V»o made the matter of prayei* in public,
as hath and will be, if private persons take lil)erty to niuk(^ public
j)rayers.

To that i)art of the }»roi)osal that the })rayers may consist of
nothing doubtful or questioned by pious, leariuid, and orthodox
9 persons, they not determining who i»e those orthodox persons ; we
must either take all them for orthodox persons, who shall conlidently
aflfirm themselves to be such, and then we say first, the demand is
unreasonable, for some such as call themselves orthodox have
questioned the j)rime artich; of our Creed, even the Divinity of the
Son of God, and yet there is no reason we should part with our
Creed for that. Besides, the proi)osal reipiires impossibility ; for
there never was, nor is, nor can be such prayers made, as have not
been, nor will be questioned by some who call themselves ])ious,
learned, and orthodox. If by orthodox be meant those who adhere
to Scripture and the Catholic consent of anti(]uity, we do not yet
know that any part of our liturgy hath been (juestioned by such."

•■■■« ,

-J

I will now ask for attention to be given hei'e, so as to mark the
difference between the subject as quoted by the objector, and
myself. The j)oints essential to a i)roper understanding of the
answer given by the bishops, are altogf ther omitted ; and in si;ch a
way as would lead any one, not knowing, to suppose that he had

Ill''

■ii

182

tlie whole matter before him. The subject also is misunderstood, it
has no reference even to tmdition.

It would appear, that the Presbyterian Commissioners were
convinced of the folly of their conduct in " abolishing " the Book of
Common Prayer ; and the futility of their own endeavors to provide
a better mode, or to preserve and maintain even the semblance of
unity without it. They were well able, from dear bought
experience, to speak of the mischief and evil resulting from
" private opinions " expressed in public worship, and how it would
necessarily lead to Schism. But still "orthodox " as they supposed
themselves to be : instead of shewing anything said or done by
means of the Prayer Book, to be contraiy to Scripture or Catholic
usage ; they give as their authority for change, their own
suspicions, and the opinion of a "private person." Thus enforcing
by themselves, that which they refuse to be governed by, and
deprecate in others.

The answer of the bishops is a masterly one, and meets the
iSubject most fully. Our Liturgy, say they, contains no private
opinion, if the contrary may be proved, we wish it out.

There is no want of liberality here. This, taken with their
application of the term " orthodox " disposes of the " proposal " most
effectually ; and shews the absurdity, and impossibility of any such
comprehensive scheme. Men, governed by " private opinions "
may " agree to differ :" but they will also " differ so as not to

agree,

" agree to differ

Obj. I. (b). " Here we see that Catholic Consent of Antiquity
is placed on the same level with Holy Scripture, as a standard of
doctrine."

Ans. Although the Church is " a witness and keeper of Holy
Writ," it is I'ot on "the same level." The Scripture governs
the Church, not the Church the Scripture. Neither is there any
comparison of Scripture with Tradition. But as the objector made

;^ '^^if

133

a contracted quotation, so iilso has lie given a contracted inference.
For as the Presbyterians made the assertion, it was left for them to
determine who were orthodox. Whether those persons who called
themselves such, or those who adhere to Scripture and Catholic
consent of antiquity. If the first, we do not admit it, on account of
the absurdity. If the latter, then our Liturgy hath never be<^n
questioned by such.

The charge of the Puritans fimounted to this : they suspected
there might be some doubtful and questionable matter in the
Liturgy, and they were prepared to object to certain particulars
which they thought to be such, and desii-ed to have them taken out.

The Bishops in reply, repeat in substance, the answer made to
the Romish cavils, by Bishop Grindal, as on p. 14, saying : that
the Scriptures, and the general consent of the ancient Catholic
Church are not matters of private opinion ; neither should they be
doubted nor questioned. And that if the Liturgy, when tested by
these, should be found to contain anything to the contraiy, they
would wish it out. The Puritans prefer to decide the matter by
the private opinions of the " pious, learned, and orthodox ;" but
fail to say who are to be esteemed as such. It is very much to be
feared, that where such opinions have been acted upon, they have
afforded a wider scope for " doul)tful disputations," and the
promotion of Schism.

Obj. II. The Puritans, so styled because they adhered to the
PURE WORD OF GoD, apart from traditions, which had corrupted the
Book of Common Prayer, were the truest Protestants of that
ERA, and deserve from all enlightened Cliristian men admiration and
synqmthy."

Ans. The Rev. Geo. Stanley Fubcr, has said all that
is necessary to meet this assei-tion : " Among unread or half-read
persons of our present somewhat confident age, it is not an uncommon
saying, that THEY disr:':(}Ard the early fathers ; and that

THEY WILL AHIDE MY N0THIN(J HI T THE HoilIPTrKEH ALONE. If by

...14

1»

,-*;•: -J

. 134

A DISREGARD OF THE EARLY FATHERS, they mean that they allow
tliem not individually that personal authoi'ity which the Romanists
claim for them, they certainly will not have me for their opponent.
And accordingly I have shewn that in the interpretation of the
Scripture terms, Election and Predestination. I regard the
insulated individual authority of St. Augustine just as little as I
regard the insulated authority of Calvin.

But if by A DISREGARD OF THE EARLY FATHERS, they,

meati that they regard them not as evidence of the FACT of what
doctrines were or were not received by the primitive Church, and
from her were or were not delivered to posterity, they might just as
rationally talk of the surpassing wisdom of extinguishing the light
of history, by way of more effectually improving and increasing our
knowledge of past events ; for, in truth, under the aspect in which
they ai'e specially important to us, the early Fathers are neither
more nor less than so many historical witnesses.

And if by an abiding solely by the decision of Scripture,
they mean that, utterly disregarding the recorded doctrinal system
of that primitive Church which conversed with, and was taught
by, the Ajjostles, they will abide by nothing save their own crude
and arbitrary private expositions of Scripture ; we certainly may
well admire their intrepidity, whatev-^r we may think of their
modesty ; for in truth, by such a plan, while they call upon us to
despise the sentiments of Christian antiquity, so far as we can learn
them, upon distinct historical testimony, they expect us to receive,
without hesitation, and as undoubted verities, their own more
modern ui)start speculations upon the sense of God's holy word ;
that is to say, the evidence of the early Fathers, and the
hermeneutic decisions of the primitive Church, we may laudably
and i)rofitably contemn, but themselves we must receive (for they
themselves are content to receive themselves) as well nigh certain
and infallible expositors of Scripture."

135

I hope that it is now sufficiently clear—

1. That by Tradition, is here meant the general consent of the
Christian Church, as opposed to private opinion.

2. That our Liturgy contains nothing but what is evidently
the word of God, or the general consent of the ancient Church.

3. That the objector has misunderstood the subject he quoted,
and that it has no reference to tradition.

i. That he has made a very partial quotation, thereby
conveying a wrong impression of the matter.

5. That there is no "placing Tradition on the same level
with the Holy Scriptures," or any comparison of one with the
other; but that Holy Scripture testifies, and the general consent of
the Church testifies, that our Liturgy is free from private opinions.

6. That no Tradition is received by the Church of England
that is contrary to God's word.

7. That they who say they reject all tradition, neither
understand the proper use of it, nor the consecpienccs that would
follow the total rejection of it.

:l '' ^-

■V- i!»

it |j

136

*V'«;

1
1

■h

•«4.

'I-

\:i

'■ ^4»»

CHAPTER IX.

SCHISM.

Obj. I. (a). " Archdeacon Hare, one of the noblest Churchmen
of this generation, says : * All hope of union was blasted by that
second most disastrous, most tyrannical, most Schismatical Act of
Uniformity, the authors of which, it is plain, were not seeking
unity, but division.'"

Ans. I suppose the Archdeacon would be able to reconcile the
foregoing statement, with his unfeigned assent and consent to every
thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer. But to speak for
myself, I must say that I could not. No ; not even if the popular
stamp of " nobility " should certainly follow as a reward.

It appears to me, that what prevented the union, and caused
the Schism : was the unfortunate position and conduct of the
Puritans. They could not conform ; and for a very good reason —
they had previously bound themselves, hand, foot, and conscience,
by the " Oath and Covenant." The things they had done, had made
the Act of Uniformity a necessity. There is nothing in the Liturgy
to prevent a man from joining in the worship of the Church of
England ; it gives no just cause for Sch' m. And we are required
to submit ourselves to the powci-s that be.

Obj. I. (b). "For in the words of Isaac Taylor, 'While the
leadei's of the High Church party were devising liturgical
innovations, which they well knew would drive their antagonists
out of the Churcli, at the same time with an almost blasphemous
irony they inserted in the Litany a petition for deliverance from
that ' Schism ' which they themselves wei-e bringing about by their
own hiffh handed and intoloiant conduct.

) )}

*'?

Ans. Purely imaginary. There was not any High Chuich
l»arty in existence at that time ; no such name then in use.

137

The Puritans began the * Schism ' on the 3r(l of January,
1G45. An "ordinance was passed by the parliament on that day,
which repealed certain Statutes of King Edward VI and Queon
Elizabeth, and provided that the Book of Common Prayer should
not remain or be used thenceforth in any church, chapel, or place
of public worship in England or Wales, and that the Directory
should be used instead of it." From 1645, to 1662, there had not
been any opportunity to introduce the word into the Litany, neither
had there been any necessity for it before the rebellion. But the
people had suffered so much from Schism and Schismatics, during
the " great rebellion," that it is not to be wondered at — they should
pray to be delivered from the evil.

Dr. Littleton, a Prebend of Westminster, and an eye witness
of those evil times, says, " It is but late, indeed, that rebellion and
schism, those twin sisters that always covenant and engage for one
another's mutual defence, have been brought into our Litany : our
late experience, who have seen a flourishing church and state in
ruins, having taught us sufficiently how necessary it is for us, even
in our most solemn humiliations, if we have any duty for
government, any kindness for ourselves and posterities after us, to
pray to a good God to deliver us from them."

So it would not be " with an almost blasphemous irony " that

they inserted this petition in the Litany ; but from a conviction

that neither power, learning, wealth, nor good laws, could make

i' men to be of one mind in a house ;" so they prefer their request

before Him who alone can effect it.

Obj. 11. (a). " For the so-styled ' Schism ' of the Noncon-
formists, of the Wesleys, of the Free Church of England, and of
the present movement in this country, these ecclesiastics whom I
have described, and the book which they framed to be imposed by
law on the whole nation, are mainly responsible."

Ans. The Nonconformists of the past, as also of the present
age, cannot be considered infallible, and may be mistaken in their

* w

.i.•<^tli■'^■'*

*6^J

138

l;t

htt:)-:

: i

opinions had of tluiso niattcjrs. Altliougli {tgreoing to oppose tlic
established Chui'ch, they disagree among themselves in the manner
and matter of opposing, which shews they cannot all be right.
Mai-tindale says, " I did so little like a universal toleration, that I
have oft said and once writ, in answer to a book which Mr. Baxter
after, more largely answered in print, that if the king had offered
me any liberty, upon condition that I would consent that Papists,
Quakers, and all other wicked sects should have theirs also, I think
I should never have agreed to it."

The Wesleys, always commended the Prayer Book and the
Church, and expressed themselves as being perfectly satisfied
therewith. Wesley says this is the peculiar glory of the Methodists :
" That we do not, will not, form any separate sect, but from
PRINCIPLE remain what we always have been, true members of the
Church of England." As for the " Free Church of England, and the
present movement in this country," neither the ecclesiastics, nor
the book they framed, can be held responsible for their Schism. If
the objector will abide by his own words, he says, " It was the
wisdom of our Reformers to d'" -w up such a Litvirgy as neither
Romanist nor Protestant could justly except against." And that this
statemeno is perfectly true of the book at present in use. So it
remains to be seen whether he will change his condnct, or change
his words ; to be consistent, he must do either one or other.

Dean Xowell gives a clear statement on this subject, applicable
to their situation, which it would be well for them to seriously
consider.

" Master. Is there then no hope of salvation out of the Church ?

Scholar. Out of it can be nothing but damnation, death, and
destruction. For what hope of life can remain to the members
when they are pulled asunder and cut off from the head and body ]
They therefore that seditiously stir up discord in the Church of God,
and make division and strife in it, and troulJe it with sects, have

139

all l)Oi)e of safety by forgiveness of sins cut oil' from tliem, till they
be reconciled and return to agreement and favor witli the Chnrcli."

Obj. II. (b). " In the' words of Laud, the originator of tliis
faction, a Schism must needs be theirs, whose the cause of it is.
He makes the separation that gives the tiist jnst cause of it — not he
that makes an actual separation ujion a just cause proceeding."

Ans. I am not certain what party the objector alludes to by
'' this faction." He has named the Nonconformists, Wesleys, Free
Church of England, and the present movement ; but surely Abp.
Laud gave not " the first just cause" for any of these. There is
not a word of his in the Book of Common Prayer that any one is
asked to follow or be influenced by, and he was dead before the Act
of uniformity was enacted. The word " proceeding " should, I
suppose, be preceding.

Obj. II. (c). "John Hales, a learned Episcopalian of this
age, puts this point thus strongly : * The limiting of the Church
communion to things of doubtful disputation hath been in all ages
the groand of schism and separation ; he that separates from
suspected opinions is not the separatist.' "

Ans. The Church of England does not require or order
anything contrary to God's word — which ought not to be "suspected."
The term " doubtful disputation " is the rock on which most split.
It is not every disputed thing concerning Rites, Ceremonies, or
Vestments that is here meant ; but making things to be necessary
to salvation that God's word does not require, which charge will not
apply to us.

Obj. II. (d). " Chillingworth also, in his immortal work, has
most logically elaborated this principle."

Ann. Dr. Coit says, Chillingworth was brought back from
Romanism mainly through the instrumentality of A})p. Laud.
Ai^ in the opinion of Puritanism died " a desperate apostate
Papist." Cheynell, the Puritan minister at Chichester, where
Chillingworth died in 1644, refuse<l to V>u)'y him, but threw hia

» f

'f-

^PlfflfN^

i^^^^B '

■ ■

'iX',?,,.

|i%-;;*^' ^'^^Skm^

book into his grave with the following anathema, antl then went
away and preached forthwith from the text, " Let the dead bury
their dead," (Luke ix., 60.) : " Get thee gone, thou cursed booke,
which has seduced so many precious souls ; get thee gone, thou
corrupt, rotten booke, earth to earth, and dust to dust ; get thee
gone into the place of rottennesse, that thou maist I'ot with thy
author and see corruption."

The quotation made of Chillingworth's words do not in the
least apply to us. He was refused burial because he was an
Episcopalian, which shews how his work was understood and to
whom it applied.

Obj. IIL " The stipulations which are made in Baptism, as well
as in Ordination, do only bind a man to the Christian faith, or to the
faithful dispensing of the Gospel, and of those Sacraments of which
he is made a minister ; so he, who, being convinced of the errors
and corruptions of a church, departs from them, and goes on in the
purity of the Christian religion, does pursue the true effect of his
Baptism and his Ordination vows."

Ans. This is a very unfair quotation ; it fails to give the
sense of what was writ+cu, and makes the writer appear to say the
very opposite of what he intended. Bp. Burnet first shews that the
Church of Rome had the " fundamentals of Christianity, a true
baptism and true orders, * * * * we do neither repeat the
baptism nor the ordinations of the Church of Borne; we
acknowledge that our forefathers were both baptised and ordained
in that communion ; and we derive our present Christianity or
baptism, and our orders from thence ; yet we think, that there
were so many unlawful actions, even in those rituals, besides the
other corruptions of their worship, that we cannot join in such any
more. The being baptized in a Church does not tie a man to every
thing in that Church ; it only ties him to the covenant of grace."
Then follow the word^ quoted by the objector, and after tSbm,
*' For these are to be considered as ties upon him only to God and
Christ, and not to adhei'e to the other dictates of that body in which

141

he had his hirth, l)i4»ti.sni and ordination." Whicli ^a\('s (juito a
different sense to the whole niatt^jr. It is a justification of tlie
course taken by the Church of England in separating from that of
Rome. And not that any man tliat pleases, may separate from any
Church on account of mere wJiim or caprice ; but that lie ought to
hold communion with it, if that he shall find it to be true in doctrine
and fundamentals when tried l)y Scripture.

Having now examined all the reasons to justify this Schism,
I will point out :

1. That the things offered to justify these separations are
purely speculative and have no practical value.

2. That the Schism of the Puritans, was openly declared by
Act of Parliament in 1645 ; and therefore could not have been
caused by the Revision of the Prayer Book in 1662.

a. That having previously sworn to the " Oath and Covenant"
would prevent any conformity from those who had sw orn.

4. That the word Schism, inserted in the Litany, was
rendered necessary from having seen how easily a flourishing Church
and State could be brought to ruin by it. .

5. That the Book of Common Prayer does not give any occa-
sion for Schism, seeing that it does not order any thing as necessary
for Church Communion of doubtful disputation.

6. That Cliillingworth was treated as a vSeliismatic by the
Puritans.

7. That the qr.otation from Burne": is garbled, and does not
a:)ply.

I 1

«>-H'

'fi «

Ii3

CHAPTER X.

THE COMMISSIONERS.

The character of the Comuiissioners appointed hy K. Chas. II.
to confer together about the alterations the Puritans desired to have
made in the Book of Common Prayer, is described by the objector
in such a way, and with such words, that I can only call it railing.
Now railing accusations, are of such a nature that they cannot well
be met by argument ; and " railing for railing " does not become
the christian character. I will therefore select a few phrases, make
a general comment, and let that suffice.

Obj. I. The Commissioners for the Church party, I suppose*
are meant ; and they are alluded to, as " The unprincipled Com-
missioners of 1662.' Again, as * Sheldon, Gunning, and Morley,
that vindicitive and reckless trio.' And again, 'These were the
three Chief engineers, the Controlling spirits in framing the Prayer
Book of the Church of England, as it has lemained unaltered for
two hundred years."

Ans. The Commissioners appointed were twenty-four in
number, twelve for each party ; each side having in addition, nine
coadjutors. They were commissioned to advise upon, and review,
the Book of Common Prayer ; and to compare it with the most
ancient liturgies used in the church, in the primitive and purest
times. They were allowed four calendar months to bring the same
to an issue. To consider well the objections and exceptions. To
avoid, as much as may be, all unnecessary alterations. Those were
the " principles " for guidance.

The church party had opposed the commission being granted at
all : they were perfectly satisfied with the book as it was. But the

14.'^

King, to i)lo!i.s<3 Llu) PrciHltytt'iiiiM party, gi-aiit(!(l tlirm iiutliority, hh
named above. So the Prosbytoriau party, who (Uiiurod a chaiigc;,
were asked to name their objections and oxce])tioii8. Upon wliich,
Mr. T3axter produced a LiTuiuiY of his owx composition, and
desired that it might be adopted ; but, the oM one to be retai^icd as
well ; and that the minister might use one or other at his own
discretion. This, Ixiing no part of their connnission, was refused by
the other side, who were determined not to exceed tlieir orders. The
Presbyterians were again requested to produce their " Exceptions,"
which, when brought forth, proved to ))e nothing more than likings
or dislikings of their own ; disregarding the terms of their com-
mission, and making their own private judgment the standard of
what the Church should be governed by. Of course the Church i)arty
COULD NOT exceed their commission, and — retain their princij)les :
had they done so they might have, with some shew of justice, been
called " unprincipled ;" but as these " new opinions " did not agree
with the most ancient liturgies of pure and primitive times, they
were rejected, and the conmiission failed. " About ten days before
the Commission expired, the Nonconformists desired a personal
conference with the Bishops, upon the subject of the papers
exchanged. The Bishops, with some degree of reluctance, consented.
Three of each party were appointed to manage the dispute, the
Bishops choosing Drs, Pearson, Gunning and S])arrow, and the
Presbyterians selected Bates, Jacomb, and Baxter. When they
met, the conference, through want of order, frequent interruj)tions,
and personal rellections, turned to no account."

At the close of the last day it was mutually Jigreed, that the
report of the conference should be delivered to the King in writing ;
and that each party should give in this general account, That the
Church's welfare, that unity and peace, and his Majesty's
satisfaction, were ends upon wliich they were all agreed ; but as to
the means, they could not come to any harmony.

Obj. 11. "Fisher remarks, p. 281 : 'It was a domineering

, ... J

iiftf

('cclosiaHticul [Muty, whosr HchohiHtic hiuI lloinitni/Jug pntdiU^ctioiiH
wore notoriouH, wlios(i writin^H ufronl littU^ or no indicatioiiH of an
fixporiinontal ac(juaintance witho the Having trutliH of the Gospol,
but who wei'o, n«5V«i"thoh'H8, perinitttnl, undfir tho auHpicos of a
rockloss and unprinciph'd governnnuit, to tamper with the very
choicest work of tlusir martyred predecoHsors, and to hjave the
improHs of their now barnm 8y.stems upon that precious heritage of
truth — precious notwjtliHtanding certain manifest defects — which
those holy men had left us.' "

¥,

11:

Ans. I will just leave this matter hi the hands of their highly
esteemed Mr. Baxter, and quote his words a:: scored by himself. I
hope they may see, like Baxter, that declamation will not serve for
evidence.

" You never try them, nor iikar them speak for themselves,
nor examine any witnesses publicly against them, nor allow them
any church-justice ; but avoid their communion, upon reports or
pretence of private knowledge. They judge you personally, one
BY ONE. You condemn whole parishes in the lump, unheard.
They condemn you as for a positive crime. But you condemn
them without charging any one crime uj)on them, because they
have not given you a satisfying proof of their godliness."

So therefore, all these insinuations of base motives ; all the
hearsay evidence ; all such " reliable " statements, as " Calamy says,
* 'tis credibly reported he should say.' " " Fisher remarks, * 'tis said
by Calamy.' " And, " Burnet says, that he seemed not to have a
deep sense of religion," make little or no impression upon those
who are accustomed to judge men and things by evidence and laws.

Let me now point out : —

1. That the Commissioners were not '* unprincipled," or
governed by Sacerdotal or Sacramentarian views ; but were men
of principle and integrity, not to be swayed by popular clamour,

W'' '

14.')

'2. That it was not poHsihlo to j,MMtify tluj NonuonfoniiiHtH,
bucauHC thoy deairecl chaiigea not warrautoil by tho toriub of thoir
coniuuHuion.

3. That tho Savoy Coufcu-ouce was a failure.

4. Tliat ther« is no ground for thoso " railing actMiNations,"
tho Jjook of Ooiunion Prayer being revised by Convocation.

5. That the objector knew this ; for on p. 47, of his i>anii)hlet
he says "It is a fact that the Common Prayer Book, with tho

ALTKllATIONS and AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE CONVOCATION, tfec."

i-r-

■i

146

CHAPTER XL

THE PURITANS.

'ii\

1'!

,1 :i

Objc'tor. " The Puiitans, so styled because they adliered to
the PUKE wouD OF God, apart from traditions."

Ans. Tlie term, Puritan, like many others, was given, not
assumed. And although, l)y false glosses, it may in modern times
be made capable of a good meaning, it had no such signification at
first. Twill sliew from the " sagacious " Walsingham, and from
Bisho}) Cooper : names quoted with marks of approbation by the
objector ; how the name and party first came into being^
Walsingham says " For the other l»arty, which have been offensive
to the State, though in another degree, wdiich named themselves
Reformers, and we commonly call Puritans, etc." And Bp. Cooper,
in an *' Adm. to the people of England," shews how fluctuating were
the opinions of those who styled tlunnseives Reformers, and how at
length all that o})posed the Churcli came to be called Puritans.

Objector. " The oi'dinaiy view of English and American
Episcoi)alians, with respect to tlu; position and chaiacter of the
Puritans, and also with regai'd to th(^ Book of Conniion Prayer, is
incorrect, and needs reconstruction."

Ans. The view Episcopalians take is the one presented nnto
them, they regard them as se}»aratists, because they see them to be
such. But with respect to " vien's" of }»ast ag(;s, we guide ourselves
by the statements of contem])ory writeis, such as the foregoing and
the following. Sir Wm. Dugdale, as cpioted ])y Dr. Coit, says,
" They were first imported into England from the continent in the
rjign of King Edward VI., and created so much disturbance as to
excite the ire even of Calvin, wlio ^vas no eiuany of wholesome

authority, and b}' no means shrank from tlie use o£ carnal weapons
and material fire. Calvin would have had Somerset, the Protector
during Edward's minority, restrain them ' by the revenging swoi'd.'
# * # * ♦ The very emblem of it (a round head) was well
known in Germany, long before its api)earance on English shores."
Another \>'riter says, " The hierarchy established ])y Queen
Elizabeth in the churches of her dominions, the vestments worn by
the clergy in the celebration of divine worship, tlie book of (Jonnnon
Prayer, and, above all, the sign of the eioss used in the administra-
tion of baptism, were very offensive to many of her subjects, who,
during the persecution of the former reign, had taken refuge among
the Protestants of Germanv and Geneva, Th(!se men tiiought that
the Church of England resembled in too many pai-ticulars the ant:-
christian churches of Eome ; they therefoie called per]>etuHlly for a
more thorough refoi-mation, a puher worship. Fi'om this circum-
stance they were stigmatized with the general name of Puritans."
Although these jieople were many in number, yet they were
unanimous in nothing, save in their anti})atliy to the established
Church. Robert Brown, one of the princi})al men amongst them,
together with his associate.^, held, and preached, seditious and
impracticable opinions. They " anirmed that all communion was to
be broken off' with those religious societies that were founded upon
a different plan from his ; and treated more esi)ecially the Church
of England as a spurious church, whose ministers were unlawfully
ordained ; whose discipline was i)opisli and anti-christian ; and
whose sacraments and institutions were destitute of all efhcacy and
virtue." And then, when after having sown most industriously
such seeds of dissension and strife : he abandoned his deluded
followers, and left them to shift for themselves. But, he, himself

returned and took orders in the very Chui-ch he had so foully

abused. " History still repeats itself." Modern would-be
Puritans, present sueli like scenes to our view. So that before we
reconstruct our " impressions," we require to be presented with
diffei-ent "views." ^

,.i^ ii

73:

r-i

i.i'S'tl

^t':

; i:f 111

f '/:,'{'

I* *»

.n. >a

148

CHAPTER XII.

KINGS OR xMONARCHS.

Obj. I. I will next give a few extracts from these Lectures, to
shew how these modern Puritans esteem " kings, and all that are in
authority." The objector speaks of the pleasure he "received in
exposing the process by which the work of the Reformers under
Edw. VI., was deformed and defiled by three ungodly Monarchs and
a degenerate Clergy." These " three ungodly Monarchs, are the
imperious Elizabeth, the vain and frivolous James, and the Romish
and profligate Charles."

Ans. These descendants of the Puritans, boast, that they
" adhere to the pure word of God." It would be well if they would
also govern their speech and conduct by it In Job. 34, 18, we
find " Is it fit to say to a king. Thou art wicked ? And to Princes,
Ye are ungodly T I fear their words savour more of the spirit of
pride and arrogancy, than of that meekness and humility which the
word of God inculcates. I fail to perceive how such expressions
as the foregoing can promote the cause of good government, or
prepare men's minds for gospel teaching. The Apostle Peter says,
"Honour the king." St. Paul says, first of all make prayers
and supplications for kings and all that are in authority. But these
Puritans " stir up strife all the day long."

Obj. II. The objector insinuates that the Book of Common
Prayer, is far from being as pure as it was at first, on account of
the unfitness of those "three ungodly Monarchs, &c.," for the work
of revising it. He argues thus ; the book of Edw. VI., was good :
because, the king was a good and pious young man. The same
book as revised in the reign of Elizabeth, Jas. I. and Chas. II., was
deformed and defaced ; because they themselves were " ungodly
Monarchs." It scarcely seems possible, that any thinking man

149

would endorse hucIi tmshy " logic " as that ; inucli less so, that any •
should be found to commend it, as "information of the most
valuable nature." But on p. 33, we have "we put it to the common
sense of our fellow Puritans, both in England and Ireland, to say,
could our Prayer P>ook have escaped from tlie manipulations of such
filthy hands without defilement ("

Ans. Let the character of the King or (^ueen reigning at the
time the Prayer Book was revised, be what it may, good or bad.
Let the motives governing the mind or purpose in revising it, be
pure or impure. Still neither can the contexts of the book, nor
the form of the worship, as they now exist, be affected by any such
things as these. The book, is, what it is— in itself. It has a
character of its own ; and neither character nor motives of men
long dead can in any way influence its contents. Every statement
can be, and ought to be, properly tested by Scripture, and Catholic
usage of primitive times ; and not by the good or bad motives of.
any man or men, living or dead.

What doctrine are we required to Ijolieve on the authority of
any one of the " three ungodly Monarchs, or degenerate Clergy ]"
What has the i)omp and magnificence of Q. Eliz., the vanity of K.
Jas., or the profligacy of Chas. II., to do with any Ilite or Ceremony
of the Church^ Such frivolous objojctions ])lainly sIk^vv the diiliculty
of finding any more serious ones.

What would be thought of tlie man who would say, the
Pentateuch was not true, because Moses got angry at the waters of
Meribah, and therefoi-e, was not a fit i)erson to write it 'I And yet,
the Sceptic would have as good ground for his objection, as the
objector has for the one made above. The fact is, there is little
difference between tlie two parties in tlie gi'ound they take ; for one
requires a moral perfection, and tlie otiier a religious perfection, of
their own devising. They each look for tilings to be good, from the
goodness of the person originating them ; and can see no good in
any other persons than thos(^ that agree witii th«'m ; therefore what

,4X>

: !!l

> ti

150

does not belong to tlieir party cannot be, by them, allowed to
be good.

But, to return. The Queen, or King at each Revision,
commisioned competent persons to perform the work entrusted to
them ; and gave oi)})ortunity to all tliat wished, or could object, to
do so. At each Revision, objections were received and answered.
The first one, in the time of Queen Elizabeth, the Romanists were
the objectois ; and were completely silenced. The next, in time of
J as. i., the Puritans made a few objections, which were met and
answ^ered, when they expressed themselves as fully satisfied and
remained in the Church. The last one failed to satisfy ; because
the disaffected required a new form both of government and service,
which could not be grantetl.

Obj. III. (a) "This monarch (Queen Elizabeth) has been called
a Protestant. "

Ans. Yes ; and was fully entitled to the name. She made
more " protests " against the usurped authoiity of Rome, and —
Dei gratia — overcame more opposition from Rome, than any other
monarch either before or since her time.

Obj. III. (b) " But we read that ' during her sister's reign she
regularly attended confession and mass, and conformed to all the
ritual observances of Popery.' "

Ans. Elizabeth, during tlie reign of Q. Mary, was held a close
prisonei", and the slightest cause of offence would have, been
sufficient pretext for her death. Although it is possible, for it is
by no means certain, that she comi)lied with many — not all —
observances of Poi)ery, l)efore slie was proclaimed Queen, still there
is no cause for complaint afterwards.

^.'^•^r^^iil

Obj. III. (c) " She was crowned by the Roman Bishop
Ogelthrope, according to the forms of the Roman Pontifical, of
which High Mass is aj^ essential part."

■''"(I

151

Ans. The Queen would be crowned according to the hiws then
in force. The action of a Bishop was necessary in this matter, to
constitute her a lawful sovereign. The Bishops in oHice at that
time, were all of the Church of Rome. Bishop Ogelthoqie was the
only one among them that would perform the ceremony.

Obj. III. (d) " After her accession to tlie throne, she continued
to pray to the Virgin Mary. She believed in the Real i>resence ;
publicly censured a preacher who j)reached against it in her
presence, and praised another who preached in its favor. She
retained a crucifix with tapers burning Ijefore it in her own ])rivate
chapel, till as late as 1572."

Ans. All such statements as these require to be examined
with veiy gi'eat care befoi-e being received. In all things necessary
to faith and salvation, the Queen was governed by the Scriptures
only. In religious ceremonies by the law of the land. Slie was
not responsible for the laws enacted previously to her accession ;
but would be responsible for the observance of them. Being a
Refonner, as soon as opportunity served, superstitious practices
were abolished ; and the whole worship purified. Although at her
first coming to the throixj, she found the images, kc, in her chapel ;
yet were they not worshipped or adored : l)ut retained until they
could be legally removed. They were not retained " till as late as
1572 " as the following copied fiom an authentic source will shew.

I'M

.!»

Ul;'

..: i

In a letter written on the 1st of April, 15 GO, Bishop Sandys
says, " There was yet a question concerning images : the Queen
thouiiht that was not contrarv to the word of God, and it seemed
convenient to have a crucifix, with the blessed Virgin and Saint
John, still in her chapel. Some of them could not bear this : We
had, says he, according to our injunctions, taken away all the
images we found in churches, and burned them. AVe see
superstitious people plainly worslii}) this idol : upon this, we had
spoken freely to the Queen ; with that she was so displeased as to
threaten to deprive him ; she was since that time more softened,

:■ M;ii

i: ,'::,1 Ell

152

and YiiE IMA(JES WERE IJEMOVED: but that the popiah vestments were
still used ; yet he hoped tliat should not last long."

That the Queen was decidedly opposed to the doctrine of
transubstantiation, or real bodily presence, as also to the "Invocation
of Saints," I need not labour to prove. These different charges
brought against the religious character of Queen Elizabeth, .„o
founded on susi)icion, for the most part ; but they have nothing
whatever to do with the Book of Common Prayer. I suppose that
not one person of a hundred, knows, or cares to know, whether
Queen Elizabeth had images, or a crucifix with tapers burning
before it in her private chapel, or not. But every one of the
hundred will know, that the Church of England gives no authority
for such things in her public worship.

Obj. III. (e) " To illustrate her ecclesiastical qualifications, her
treatment of Abp. Grindal is in point. Grindal was styled by Lord
Bacon ' the greatest and gravest prelate in the land.' He laboured
assiduously to increase the number of sound and enlightened
preachers. He established meetings of the clergy for their spiritual
and intellectual improvement. Elizabeth, who declared that she
considered ' two or three preachers enough for one county,' ordered
Grindal to suppress these meetings. He replied that he could not
in conscience do this. Whereuj^on this wilful woman suppressed
him. She shut him up in his residence, and placed his office in the
hands of two of her followers until his death."

Ans. A misrepresentation, from a confusion of subjects. These
meetings first began at Northampton in 1571, and had nothing to
do with the " two or thi-ee preachers for a county f but, were
called " Exercises," or " Prophesy ings." They were not only
irregular : but also remarkable foi' squabbling and unnecessaiy
disputes ; and failed to fulfil the end designed. A report of them
first came to the ears of the Queen from the diocese of Norwich in
1573, when she ordered Abp. Parker to put them down; which was
effected after much opposition. Afterwards, complaints came in
from other places, of which fjhe Q\ieen informed Grindal, who was

153

then Abp. of Canterbury, and desired that they might be suppressed.
The Archbishop approved them, and thought the evil arising from
the abuse might be taken away ; but, on account of conscience he
could not suppress them himself. He recognized the Queen's
authority, and in his letter says, he " was a most humble sutor unto
her majestie, that I might not ^be made the chief instrumente in
suppressinge the same." He was willing that it should be done,
but by some one else, and he would not " condemn any of a contrary
judgmente, or being of authoritie sholde suppresse them." He
contended, that " the abuse being reformed, which I alwaies offered
myselfe reddie to labour in, the said exercise might yet serve to the
great profittc of the church : and feared that the utter suppressinge
of them wolde bread offence." And so far is he from considering
the Queen a " wilful woman," that he says of her " who havinge
authoritie and power to have used greater and shaq^er severitie
againste me, and for good policie and example thinkinge it so
expediente, hath notvathstanding dealte so mercifully, mildlye, and
gentlye with me."

Lord Bacon gives the same idea. " I know prophecying was
subject to great abuse, and would be more abused now, because
heat of contentions is increased : but I say the only reason of the
abuse was, because there was admitted to it a popular auditory, and
it was not contained within a private conference of ministers."

According to Camden, the Archbishop had to thank the Earl
of Leicester for the loss of tlie Queen's favour and his long
imprisonment.

Obj. III. (f). " I think histoiy shows, that if the Pope had
acknowledged that her mother was the lawful wife of Henry, and
that she was the legitimate sovereign of England, she would have
accepted the Papal ''Supremacy, and England this day would have
been subjected to Rome."

Ans. The best way to dissipate such vain thoughts, would be

to READ histoiT and be certain. I wiU furnish the very passage

154

;|'

required, so as to save further trouble. " Pope Pius the Fourth,
reflecting on the capric'.ous and high answer his mad predecessor
had made to her address, sent one Parpalia to her, in the second
year of her reign, to invite her to join herself to that See, and he
would disannul the sentence against her mother's maniage, confirm
the English sei'vice, and the use of the Sacrament in both kinds.
But she sent the agent word to stay at Brussels, and not to come
over. The same treatment met Abbot Martinengo, who was sent
the year after with the like message. From that time, all treaty
with Home was entirely broken off."

Obj. IV. " The open, scandalous viciousness of Charles II.
was most offensive to the religious portion of the nation."

Ans. It would not be necessarry to notice this remai'k, only
the objector, like others of this class, has made it to cast odium on
the Book of Common Prayer. I shall not undei'take to defend the
charactei' of Chas. II., but only to shew that neither that nor any
of his personal acts and doings, in any way reflect on the tnith and
order of our Church. But I desire to suggest that it would only be
common honesty to state that previous to 1662 he was flattered by
that I'eligious portion of the nation, the Puritans, with such titles
and addresses as, "We, your majesty's most loyal subjects, cannot
but acknowledge it as a very great mercy of God, that immediately
after your so wonderful and peaceful restoration unto your throne
and government (for which we bless His name). He hath stirred up
your royal heart as to a zealous testimony against all proi)haneness
in the people, (fee." And that his " Romish and profligate
character " was not developed until some years after the Book of
Common Prayer was completed. Charles II. had no part whatever
in ORDERING the form of doctrine and worship now in use. The
Church of England at the Restoration took her own proper place as
a matter of right and justice, and would have continued the use of
" the Liturgy without change. The dissatisfied pai'ties were the
Nonconformists, who asked for changes to be made so n.s to nieet

155

their scruples. The King tried i^ serve titism, but the attempt
failed; their demands were such as could not be complied with.
Upon which the Houses of Convocation made such alterations in
the Book as were deemed lawful and necessary. Then the matter
was taken up by the Houses of Parliament ; because the King had
promised, in the *' Declaration of Breda,' ohat every thing should
be settled by the wisdom of the Legislature. They received and
adopted the book as it came from Convocation, after which the King
merely gave a formal sanction to what had been done. So little,
indeed, had he to do with the contents of the book, that it would
not be possible to point out a single sentence and say, this was
placed there at his command or desire.

It would be well for these would-be Puritans, when speaking
of Charles II., to remember the remark made by Dean Swift : —
"To Puritanism also, England, by a sort of vice versa rule, has
been indebted for Popery. Puritanism drove the children of
Charles I. into exile, where one of them at least. King James II.,
was seduced to Popery ; which ended in the loss of his kingdoms,
the misery and desolation of this country, and a long and expensive
war abroad.

Seeing that our interest as a Church, centres in the purity and
truth of the Book of Common Prayer alone ; and not in the
character of any Monarch reigning at the time of its different
Revisions ; I shall deem it quite sufficient to have pointed out,
that its contents were in no w ,y affected by anything they did or
said.

,*
">

n.'

156

CHAPTER XIII.

BOOK OP SPORTS.

Obj. I. (a). " At the same time, Charles began a series of
oppressive acts, which were in violation of the fundamental
principles of the British Constitution. Together [Chas. I. and Abp.
Laud] they endeavored to enforce the infamous * Book of Sports,'
which enjoined for the afternoon of tho Lord's Day games of
various kinds, dancing and general hilarity."

Ans. In the case I have selected for illustration, the reverse
of this statement will be found to be the truth. The " Justices "
were acting arbitrarily and violating " the fundamental principles,
(fee." "At the summer assizes held at Exeter, in the year 1627,
the Lord Chief Baron Walter and Baron Denham made an order
for suppression of all wakes." The Puritans had impressed the
people with the idea that these " Wakes " were a remnant of
Popery, which had provoked opposition to them. Four years later
a like order was made by Judge Richardson for the County of
Somerset But on Bishop Laud's complaint of these innovations,
the King commanded the last order to be reversed ; which Judge
Richardson refused to do. So enquiry was made how these feast
days were observed. The answer returned was " on these feast
days (which generally fell on Sundays), the service of God was
more solemnly performed, and the church much better frequented
both in the forenoon and afternoon, than r^^ any other Sunday in
the year : that the people very much desired the continuance of
them ; that the ministers did in most places the like, for these
reasons, viz., for preserving the memorial of the dedication of their
several churches, for civilizing the people, for composing differences
by the mediation and meeting of friends, for increase of love and

157

unity for tlieso foastH of charity, ami for reliof and comfort of the
poor."

Judge Richardson was again cited to tlio council tul>h», and
peremptorily commanded to reverse his fornHU" order. After which
it was thought lit to reinforce the declaration of King James, This
was simply to declare what privileges thf; people had, and to protect
them in the proper use of them. The peoj)le were not enjoined to
dance, tfec. : but as there was no law to prevent thtnr doing so if
they felt disposed, they were not to be debarred from such recinjations
as were permitted, at the mere dictation or dislike of others.

Obj. I. (b). "Jeffreason remarks, p. 132: 'Charles followed
up the affair of the Somersetshire wakes, by republishing, at
Laud's suggestion, the fatal * Book of Sports,' where>)y his subjects
were invited to show their loyalty to their King and theii* contempt
of the Puritans, by spending their Sunday afternoons iu riotous
merriment.'"

Ans. For the proper way of spending feast days, see p. 125,
that is the mode "enjoined." The objector has given a lengthy
quotation which gives his " view " of the matter, but I must again
remark, he has a very unfair way, when quoting from documents,
of leaving off" just where the sentence favors him. I cannot afford
sufficient space to give the whole proclamation, but, will supply
a portion so as to give a better understanding of the purpose of it.

" Now out of a like pious care for the service of God, and for
suppressing of any liumours that oppose the truth, and for the ease,
comfort, and recreation of our well deserving people, we do ratify
aud publish this our blessed father's declaration, the rather because
of late, in some counties in our kingdom, we find that under
pretence of taking away abuses there hath Ijeen a general forbidding,
not only of ordinary meetings, but of the feasts of the dedication of
the churches, commonly called 'Wakes.'"

King James says that the Puritans and Papists misrepresented
and mistook his meaning and misled tlie people ; so he fo md it

'*
1

r'li

168

necnssary to niako thiH cUiclarution of his intention in granting
Sunday recreations. And tliat tlie preventing of the same cannot
but produce two evils which he was desirous to counteract. That
it woukl hinder the conversion of Romanists ** whom their priests
will take occasion thereby to vex, persuading them that no honest
mirth is lawful on those days, which caimot but breed a great
discontentment in our people's hearts, especially of such as are
peradventure upon the point of turning." And with the common
and meaner soit of people — " in place thereof, sets up filthy tiplings
and drunkenness, and breeds a number of idle and discontented
speeches in their ale houses."

Jeaffreson says, that the conviction planted in the minds of the
simple, of their sovereign's hostility to religion, was unreasonable

AND UNJUST.

The Book of Common Prayer is not responsible for these
"Sports, Wakes, &c. ; they were something like the modem
Soirees, Socials, Concerts, &c. ; or the anniversaries of such societies
as the St. George's, St. Andrew's, Orange, Mason's and others ;"
and were " improved " religiously, as a means of bringing a greater
number of people together than would otht. vise be brought by the
ordinary services of the Church. The " fashions " may have
changed, but the craving for entertainments has not passed away :
a concert or other entertainment would fill a " Church " now, on
short notice ; but the readi'-'g of the Scriptures, or use of Common
Prayer, will no more do this now, than in time past.

This objection can in no way be made to apply to the
services of the Church.

\' ^

159

CHAPTER XIV.

^ THE PUAVER BOOK IJNPROTESTANTIZED.

Obj. I. (a) " Elizabeth determinorl to luako tho Service Book
acceptable to her Roman subjects ; and in this effort she succeeded ;
for they attended the parish churches, with the preaching and
sacraments, for the first ten years of her reign."

Ans. It was not that the Book was made — but found —
acceptable to her Roman subjects, save and except the real
Romanists, that they continued for ten years to attend church.
This ought to be taken as proof that the book was free from
anything calculated to give offence. The Queen had entrusted the
revision of it to a select few, some seven or eight of the first
Reformers, whose names have been given already on p. 103. She
could not trust the work with Convocation, the majority at that
time being strongly opposed to reformation, and determined to
continue the worship of Rome. But from the known character of
the Queen, and those entrusted with the revision, I should say the
last thing they would think of wouki be a compromise with Rome.
As also the great dissatisfaction manifested by the Romish Bishops
in the House of Lords, and their determinate opposition to the
Prayer Book taking the place of their mass-book, might be testimony
enough to enforce silence on this subject. Tlie objector has omitted
to tell the reason why, after the first ten years, they could no
longer join in a worship made — as he says — so acceptable to them.
I will supply it for him. Because tlie prayers were said in English ;
th jre was no " sacrifice " in the Lord's Sui)per ; and, worst of all,
the Pope's supremacy was protested. So on the 27 th of A])ril,
1570 — just about ten years after the Liturgy was restored — Pope

'^■M

■I

hi |i ■

160 i

Pius V. excommunicated the Queen and interdicted the " Service
Book." From that time unto this present, they have continued in a
state of separation from the Church, and followed a form of worship
of their own devising.

Obj. I. (b). " So acceptable did she make the Prayer Book to
the clergy, that of nine thousand four hundred ministers, who had
served under Maiy, and conformed to Popery, under Elizabeth all
remained at their posts and used the Ritual, with the exception of
two hundred. Not one iu forty refused to conform."

Ans. The objector, in the blindness of his zeal, has failed to
perceive that this rema.k applies to the Second Book of Edw. YI.,
shewing how little real influence it had upon the nine thousand four
hundred. The greater part of them would have subscribed to the
Heformed faith in time of Kenry YIII. and Edw. VI., and
afterwards " conformed to Popeiy " in the time of Q. Mary.
Therefore, seeing they were so changeable, the Queen would not
trust them. In virtue of her Supremacy, she forbade their preaching;
but permitted them to lead the Service, the Scriptures, and the
Homilies ; also to administer the Sacraments. So valuable is a
good " sound form of words," with the laws well administered ; for
by these means Popery was well nigh driven from England, and
those who secretly favored it, made a means of destroying it.
Burnet says, " the bishops after this time had the same apprehen-
sion of the danger into which religion was brought by the jugglings
of the greatest part of the clergy, who retained their affections to
the old Superstition, that those in King Edward's time had ; so
that if Queen Elizabeth had I'.ot lived as long as she did, till all
that generation was dead, and a new set of men, better educated
and prii 'pled, were grown up and put in their rooms ; and if a
prince of another religion had succeeded before that time, they had
probably turned about again to the old Superstitions as nimbly as
they had done before in Queer. Mary's days."

Obj. I. (c) " As the Prayer Book now is less Protestant than
then, we are not surprised that Ritualists and Low Papists can

iVP

161

minister in the communion of the Episcopal Churches in Englmid,
and in this country. History is simply repeating itself."

Ans. The Prayer Book is not the cause of men's differences.
It has a certain definite form, ami should be honestly received and
used by all persons enti'usted with tlie ministry. But as in times
past, so it is now, many persons make use of it to serve their own
purposes. Among so numerous a )|ody of men, divei-sity of tho") ght
and difference of o])ii'ion will be sure to be found, so lo? ij hs
oi)inions are free ; and no one with a proper sense of whai. h,
simply necessary to conformity could ex})eot moi'e than a general
agreement in recei\ing and using the form and doctrines prescrioecl.
Some will always be found to be careless and inattentive ; othere
precise and particular ; and many grades between the two extremes
also.

To say that '' History is simply repeating itself," uiK)n the
strength of this (quotation, does not well J^pply ; for the Church
Clergy have not yet changed the Keformed faith foi- that of Rome,
and then tujued back again to the Keformed. But J will supply a
)>assage from liistory that will l)e more to the purj^ose : '' In the
yeaj- 1567, Faithful CUMMINS, a Dominican Friar, was much
admired and followed by the people for his seeming piety, for his
readiness in ujakiug long extempore prayeis, and for inveighing
against tliti Pope, Pius the Fifth. His real charactei- being
suspected, he was tukt-Ji iij> and examined before the Privy Council.
Having made Iii» es<;af)e, h<' wtuit to Runu'. Being <|uestioned by
tlie Pope, Cunnuins rei»lied, ' That liis Holiness little thought that
he had «l<>ne liini n consifU'mblt' s*'i\ icr. notwithstanding he spoke
so much agajjist liini.' Wlifii tlu- Pope asked how, he said, ' He
had preached against set foiu.s <•! piayer. and that he called the
English P)ayei- B(.ok. Knglisli Ma,s/, and had pcisuaded sevei-aJ
people to pray .spiritually and i'Xt»Mii|ior«' : and that this hud Ht»
)nu('li taken with the people, that the (Miiuvh of K)ightud was
beeome as oilions to that soit «>f |»«'o|.>le s\ horn he instruete«l as a

'II

1' '.;

f><>

' . 162

Mass' was to the Olimcli of Eiigliiiid ; and that tliifs Avoiikl l>o a
stuinbling-l»lock to that Ohiirch vvliile it was a Church.' Upon tliis
the Pope comnieiKled him, aiul gav(^ him a ivward of two thousand
ducats. "

So Faithful Cuuuiiins at tiist, tljcii iiis iiamesake and now his
co-adjutoi\s and successors, have done, and are doing wlat they can
to make the Book of Coumujn ^-ayer of tlie ( *hurcli of Kngland, as
odious as possible to the general public.

Obj. I. (d). *' But how did Elizabeth succeed in making the
Prayer Book so acceptable to her Roman (Jatholic clergy and
subjects ( In the lirst places as Hume states : ' She retaine<l eleven
of her sisters councillors ; but in order to balance their autliority,
she added ekuit more, \\ho were known to hv inclin(3d to the
Protestant communion."

Ans. These were counsellors of State. They had served in
formei* I'eigns, and were well versed in matters of govcirinnent.
But the (.^ueen did not emj^lov them to reform religious worshi]> :
she was possessed of too great prudt-'Uicc and discretion to do so.
Being sincerely attached to the reformed faith, and fully persuaded
of its ti'uth and puritv ; i)i-o«>f enouyli «tf which was yiven bv liei'
steadv adherence thei-eto, thouufh tried 1>\' much persecution ; she
inipartf'd her intentions and designs, only to a few well tried and
reliable friends, 'i'o the .Manjuis of N<»i-tha»ti]>ton. the Earl of
Bedfoinl, Sir John (Iray, and Sii- Win. ( lecil ; she .selected some of
the first reformers to review the Liturgy of h]dw. VT., which she
]>urj>osed to and did r<'stoi'e. Her Roman ( 'atholic counsellors were
not consulted /m religious ([U(^stion.s. and ha<l nothing to do with the
Praver Rook.

Obj. \. (k). " The petition in the Litan'v found in Henry's
Primer, and in both Rooks of Kdwaid. • Krom tlie tyranny of the
Bisho)) of -Ronuu and his detestable enormities, good Lord deliver
us,' wais stricken (uit. ' R)y which < ouipliano . .savs Heylin. 'and
the cxpujiging the j)assage before leiuemi" red, the Rook was made
so passable to the Pa])ists that lor ten ye;n - they g'Mrerally repaired
to the parish chun-hes without doubt or sciuple."

1 h:;

Alls. The Litany is not a propci- ])lac«' for a '*j»r()tost ;"
neirlier is it a seemly tiling- to niciition a jicrson l»v name or title,'
as was there doiif ; it savou)-s somewliat of, '-even as this j)ul)liean,"
and is better left out. In .\i't. T)7, may lie found, "'riic liishoi) of
.Home liat.li n«) jurisdiction in this realm of Knuland."" Aiid in the
Litany, we [iray to he delivered from all false doctrine, heresv, and
schism ; which must inelmb all the errors of Rome, and is better
tlian sueh tine distinctions in commrtn |)rayer. Kor Vwc " ten years
t)ce.,'" see p. 1 ."iO.

ilf^. \. (F). •• When a copy of the Prayei Booh was sent to'
the Pope, so well satisfied was lie witli it. that he ottered throuyli
his Nuncio Parpalia, to latify it for Ln.i;land, if the Queen would
only own the Snpremacy of Ivome."

Ans. Seein^n' that the P)Ook contained nothinii' t4iat

anv

))rofessiiif>- (*hrl.-; ian could justly exce))t ai^ninst, and that it was-
made s])eciaUy for Knijland : there is nothiuif to he surj^rised at,
tliat AT THAT Ti.MK, he iniyht otter to ratify it Foi! Kxclaxd. A
few years later, aiul Iih could not have iUmi' so. Fm- in l.'ifvt the

same Pope issued an order of ser^ ice am] faith for all churches in
c(mim union

n with Rome, from w

hich

yeram (.*atholicani tidem, extra quani nemo salvu

no de\ lation is i>erinitted,

essf
cei\

])otest." And \ \ttirma ]>ronouncfHi aju^ainst all that do not receive
and ado])t it.

The only thin^u" the Pope desired was the Supremacy: ;,dve him
that, :!nd all th»^' rest wc^dd follow as a matter of course. This tlie
Queen steadily refus»-d. Aid the end was: the P>ook was
interdicted, and the <^)iie<)i -^xcnminunicated : so that the Pope's
approbation of the pMM»k .t time, ,i;o*^s for veiy little.

Obj. L (<;). " We know that the Prayer P>o<»k thus tampered
with, to satisfy tlie Romanists, was enforced l«v leu'al penalties on
all Ei^flisliiMen.'

Ams. As alrt^ady stated on p. OS, the book could not be
*' taatttiered ' witli by those who had right to it. The Book of

: J
i A

164

¥.

■;^;^i

',-.-. '4

,.*• 4 '

Common Pray»»]s xKVF.n was altered at tlic mjnt'st of, oj- to plt)HS«^
the Romani.sts : tJiey i'ej<^ctprl it in toto, as luM-etical, and saiM it
wrtB onlv i\t for tlie flamps.

It was altered to pU-ase the Puritsins ; hut tliev, like tlie
Romanists, cannot be pleased with less tlian a total abolition of it.
The PnritanK May, to "jjive some public testimony of our endeavonrs
for unitormity in divine worship, whicli we have promised in our
solemn league and (Jovenant ; we have, after earliest and freijuent
calling upon the name of God, and after much considtation, not
with flesh and blood, but with His holy word, resolved to lay
ASIDE THE FORMER LITURGY, with the many rites and c(;j'emonies
fommrly used in the worshii* of (4od/'

In the reign of Q. Mary, the KoinaDists gave jiroof of their
approval of the Book of Common Prayer, by decreeing its total
abolition. The Puritans did the same dunng tlie " great I'ebellion."
Such things give the strongest testimony possible, that it meets not
their approbation ; but tiiat it w a distinct j^rotest against the
opinions of both parties,

Obj. T. (h) " Concession of the Bishops. With regard to the
charge of theii* opponents, that the Liturgy was the result of a
compromise with Rome, they honestly acknowledged what was
asserted in mv former lectui'e : ' It was the wisdom of our
Reformei'S to draw up such a Litui'gy -ah n#*itlier Romanist nor
Protestant could justly exf^ept against." '

Ans. False ' Tlie*-e was do com|)roniise witli Rome. Neither
did " their oppon«ents ' charge the Liturgy with being any sucli
compromise. Nor yet did the Bisliops '* Imnestly acknowledge "
that it was so.

The Presbyterian Commissioners allege, that the first
Reformei"s, to win the papists, varied as little as they WELL
OOULD from the Romish forms before in use. Thev desire the
Bishops, in the contemplated Revision, to obsen e the same rule of

\i^:^

yvmhucc nii.l diMiity. ni.d \\vh\ sfmic\vli:»t to tlic opinions of the
Puritiin i>nrtv. TW Uisliops dkw tliat tlio IJtmxv was any
compnunisc^ witJi Home; smd assert, 'that tlio ar<;innent used in
demanding an alteration is not reasonahle/ I will supply in full,
the Exception and tlw answer; whieh will "hear an investigation.'

KXfKPrroN OK pr{i:si!VTi:i!i.\N roMMjssioxmis.

" We humbly desiie that it may i)e s»'iiously ccmsideml, that
as our first vefoniieis out of theii- oi(.at wisdom did at that time so
compose the liturgy, as to win u))on the papists, and to draw them
into theii- chui'di-eommunion, by \arying as little as they well could
from the Homish f«H'ms })efoie in use ; so whethei- in the ftresent
constitution, and state of things amongst us, we should not accord-
ing to tlie same rule of |)rudeni-e and charity, ha\e ouj- liturgy so
composed, as to gain upon the judgments and affection of all those
wlio in the substantials of the protestaut ivligion ai-e of the same
persuasions witii ouj'seives ; inasnnich as a. more firm union and
consent of all such, as well in w^orship as in doctrine, would greatly
strengthen the ju'otestant intei-est against all those dang(M-s and
temptations which our intestine divisions and animosities do exposf!
us unto, from the common ad versa rv."

; .1

1»

answi:h of thk hfsih>ps.

" It was the wisdom of our I'efoirners to draAV up such a liturgy
as neither Romanist nor protestai it could justly except against ; ami
therefore as the first ne\er charg<Ml it w ith any positixe errors, l)ut
only the want of something they conceived necessary. So it was
never found fault with by those to whom the name of )>rotestaiits
most properly belongs, those that profess the Augustan (confession :
and for those who unlawfully and sinfully brought it into dislib;
with some people, to ui'g(! the present state of affaiis as an
argument why the book should be altered, to give them satisfaction,
HO that they should take advantage by their own unwarrantable
act»5 is not reasonable.""

*«t*.

fei-i

iW''- " *'■;

166

Ohj. 1. (.)) "This stsiLomoiit. is utterly false with respect to the
original Ivefomers unrler Edwaid. It is perfectly true as rejyards
Elizabeth, as 1ms been rleinonstrated. "

Aus. But " this statement "' wjis made by the obiectoi\s own
ehosen friends — the Pui-itans of 1661. It is too bad to chai'ge
YOUR OWN FHiK\i>s with nmkin«( statements " uttei'ly false.'

In this case, the objector, poor man, has evidently <i:ot
entangled in his talk ; Avliat a pity he did not notice tliat word —
jUkSTLY— in tinre : for this cpiotation will do his ease an evil turn.
Had he done so, he might have left out the word altogether ; and
then, his remark would have been jiertinent, and his inference well
drawn. One .moue garbled quotation might have been attempted,
without much damage to such an elastic consdiience. That one
word, "justly,"' mnkes srrn a difference, it determines all
0B.TECTT0NS to be null and void : because unjust. Thus the
objector is made to pass the sentence of condemnation upon
his own work. He savs : " It is PERFECTLY TRITE," as has
been demonsti-ated, that the Liturgy drawn up in the time of
Elizabeth, is such an one that neither Romanist nor Protestant can
JUSTLY except against. And that the Revisers of 1662 adopted the
policy of Elizabeth. But with respect to the original Reformers
under Edward, "This statement is utterly false."

Is this objector a specimen of " those able men," fully
competent to reconstruct -the Book of Common Prayer ? Is this
the kind of leconstruction required : tliat it should contain, oi'
omit, things that both Romanist and Protestant can justly except
against ?

I trust that I have now nia<le it sufficiently clear —

I. That Queen Elizabeth «lid not make the Service Book
acceptable to her Boman subjects ; but that the more modei-ate
amongst them found it to be so ; and worshipped in the C^hureh
until forbidden to do so by the Pope.

if , > v'^* "

167

2. Tliat the nine thousand four luiiulrcd Olortrvmon. worn,
in the gi-eatest part, the same pcisons that liad confonued to the
l)Ook of Edw. vi. ; and that on account of tlieir inconstancy they
were not much trusted afterwards.

.'?. Tliat the objector's statement : " History is simply
repeating itself ;" is well illustrated by means of the " Cummin's
Schism " of the present time.

4. That th(! Roman (Catholic portion of <,)uet'n Elizalxith's
council, had no i)art in ordering the Prayer Book.

5. That the Liturgy is not a [)roper p] iCe for a '' protest ;'
that the Revisers did well in removing the petition referring to the
Bishop of Rome : and that these things are better expressed by tlie
changes made.

6. That the Pope's ap})robati()n of the Book of C'Ommon
Prayer, is testimony in its favour.

7. That the Book was not tampered with to [)lease the
Romanists ; that they are not ])leased with it ; but denounce it as
only fit foi' the flames.

8. That the objector has stultitied hiniselt', by not perceiving
the word "justly" in an im])ortant sentence; and by admitting its
truth, has declared his own, and all other objections ma<le against
the Book of Common Prayer, to be unjust.

J1tT

'«■;.

IV.,

168

CHAPTER XV.

THE ROOK OF COMMON I'HAYKH DKFOIIMKD AND DKKACKD.

Obj. I. (a). "The Revisers of 1G62, adopting the policy of
Elizabeth, made so much jn'Ogress in that direction that no
thoroughly intelligent Protestant, I deliberately affirm, can consist-
ently, without mental reservation, use the Book of the Reformers,
as it came marred and sadly defaced fiom the hands of those unfit
and unfaithful men."

Ans. The best I'efutution of this assertion, will l»o some
specimens of the work of "the Revisers of 1662." As amongst
other things the prayer "For all sorts and conditions of mer,"
"The General Thanksgiving," etc. ; they also made some new
Collects, two of which 1 will now qiu^te :

For the ;5rd Sunday in Ad\ent. "O r.ORD Jesu Christ, who
at thy first coming di<lst send thy messenger to prepare thy way
before thee ; grant that the ministers and stewards of thy mysteries
may likewise so piepaie and makc^ ready thy way, by turning the
hearts of the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, that at thy
second coming to judge the world we njay be found an acceptable
people in Thy sight, who livest and i-eignest with the Fatlier and the
Holy Spirit, ever one (lod, world without end. Amen."

f '11' '*

For the Gth Sunday after the Epiphany. "O GOD, whose blessed
Son was manifested that he might destroy the works of the devil,
and make us the sons of God, and heirs of eternal life : grant us,
we beseech thee, that having this hope, we may purify ourselves,
even as lie is piiie ; that, when he slinll a]»peiiv again with power

109

and great glory, wo may bo made like unto Him in Jiia eternal and
glorious kingdom ; where with thee, Father, and thee, Holy
Ghost, he liveth and reigneth, ever one God, world without end.
Amen."

It is too much to ask of those who know better, that we should
regard such work, and such men, as described by the objector ;
" marred and defaced; unfit and unfaithful." The several additions
and alterations made in 1662, bear the impress of sound judgment
and fervent piety ; and we do not require any such Jesuitism as
" mental reservation " in the use of any portion of the book.

Obj. I. (b). " Some would have us regard the present Prayer
Book as a sacred relic of Antiquity, framed by men of God,
according to a Scriptural standard, supported by Apostolic authority :
whilst in reality we are in the humiliating position of having it
imposed upon us, as it has been corrupted for an unholy purpose,
by the imperious Elizabeth, by the vain and frivolous James, and
finally by the Romish and profligate Gharles — a Prayei* Book which
is a combination of truth and error ; of light and darkness ; of
Protestantism and essential Romanism ; Protestant articles, as a
standard of faith, and Romish formularies which rule our practice."

, 'l;

Ans. The ohjector says he has taken this statement, fi'om an
address of the Church of Ireland Defence Association ; I must say
that I fail to perceive one word of " defence " in it ; but a great
many words of offence ; and words that have no truth in them. I
have already made it clear, that the laling Monarchs, had no part
in ordering the form of our Prayer Bock. I may also claim to have
shewn that eveiy particular objection made against our Litui-gy is
false in fact. And a3 there is no particular charge in the above
objection, merely a general assertion, made by some self sufficient
individual : it will be enough to give this quotation ; and ask for a
proper consideration of particulars before using the like again.

" If it may be concluded that our liturgy is not good because

it is comprehended in the mass-book, or in the breviaiy, we must, by

the same reason iufcv, that our doctrine is un^^ound, Ijecause it is uU

17U

i..j w W«'

»#■

'Mii

to be found in the councils, and in tlie writings of tlie doctors of the
Romisli Church. But so the Loud's Prayer, the Apostles Creed,
and many sentences of Scripture which are nsed in that missal, or
in that breviary, as also the doctrine of the Trinity, of the
incarnation, passion, itc, which are coniprc^hended in the councils,
would all of them be but superstitions and heresies. Again, to say
that our liturgy is naught, because it hath been extracted out of
the mass-book or breviary, if that were true, yet it is just sucli
an argument as if men had hit liuther and Calvin in the teeth with
this, that they were superstitious. Popish heretics, because they
came the .one out of a convent from among friars, and the other out
of a cathedral from the midst of prebendaries, who were all infected
w. bh Popish heresies and superstitions. And would they not have
had great cause to com})lain, if upon this pretence they had been
always suspected, rejected, or condemned] Tl' fefore, as they were
reputed sound and orthodox in that respect, afiei- th(;ir doctrine hiid
been examined, and nothing was found therein of the leaven of
Rome, although they came out of her communion, let ou)' liturgy
have but the same right done unto it ; let it be examined, and that,
if they please, with exactness and the gieatest ligour ; but in
consequence let it also be declared innocent, if no harm be found
therein, though that should pi'ove true, that it had been wholly
taken out of the mass-book, or breviary, wiiicti will never jje
FOUND TO be so. For I dare say that among one hundred of them
who so confidently affirm it, there is not one that ev(>i' saw the
missal or breviarv, or but knows so much as what the books are.
And if we should put those books into their hands, that they might
produce some proofs of this hash affirmation, which is so frequent
in their mouths, they would be infinitely pu/zled. They would not
find, either in the missal, or in the breviary, that wise economy
which our liturgy useth in the reading of the Holy Scriptures, nor
those excellent passages which set before our eyes tlu- grejitness of
our guilt towards God, and of his mercy in pardoi\ing the same
unto us ; which patjsages are placed in the very be^nnning of it.

171

Tiioy would not Ihul ^liorc tli.it ijoiily fwliort.-ilion to ivpnitRiiff, nnd
to the L'onfeR.sioii of om- sins in tin" in-c-fnc-c o*" (Iod, which followcMi
imincdifttoly thf^* le idiuj,' of those i)assa<;(S. Sm- yet the rojifessioii
of .sins, nor the abHolution \vhi(Mi followcth the sauic, for tlioro is
NOT ONK LINE OF ALL THIS IX TlIK MASS-HOOK. Th<; ten COUHuaild

ments are not to bo found thcfo, noi- tlmt inayor which is ina(h' at
the end of every coinnMuduu^nt which the niinlstei- linth pronounced;
nor the Ooninniiation, nor several prayers of the Litany, or of tlu;
other forms. But in it tliey will nn^et with the Louos Prayer, the
Creeds, the Songs of Zachary, Siinc^on, of the Bh»s.sed Vii-i^'in, and
of some others, which are word for word in the Scriptnv*', <>r are
extracted out of it, and are gronnded uj)on the same, and were in
use in the Primitive Christian (church before ever the mass was
hatclied. Tlierefore, it is manif(^st that to say that our liturgy is
either the mass, or taken out of it, is a mere slander, i)roceeding
from malice, or ignorance, or both."

Obj. I. (c). " Naugle, an b^pisco[>al clergyman, of Dublin,
remarks: 'The thorough Sycojihancy c»f Sheldon, AForley, and
(xunnini; is suHicientlv manifested in the fact, thai tliev intro(biced
into our Liturgy the prayer for the Parlianumt, in which the
profligate aiid hyi)Ocritical Pa]>ist who then sat upon the throne of
England, was designat(Ml oni- most icligious and gracious King.' "'

A: 3. The first thing to be setthul Jiei'c, befoi-e " tiie thorougb.
Sycophancy," ifec, will a})ply, is this : What was the known
character of Chas. 11. at the time '\ Tlie Piritax Commissioners
address him, and use much the same language as found in the
prayer : " How greatly pleasing it will be to the Lord that your
majesty's heart is so t(>nderly and religiously com[)assionate, itc."

And THEY woi'LD PRAY that God would bring the resolutions
of the King " unto so perfect an effect and issue, that all thf! ginxl
people of these kingdoms may have abundant cause to rise up and
bless you, and to bless God who hath delighted in you to .make vou
his instrument in so happy a work

. J'

172

".I'

^ 4

It:

r'r

Auil tlu; kiiiy 8 own (h^clarution, " Wv <lo in the; lirst place
declare our purpose and rcHolution is uiul sliull he to promote the
jiower of godlinesR, to encourage the exercises of religion, hoth
puhlic and private, and to take care that the Lord's day he applied
to holy exercises, without unnecessaiy divertisements." Those

things would have hcen sufficient at the time, to warrant the use
of such words in the prayer ; foi- the king was in ])iofeHsion at
least, both gracious and religious.

The next thing is, was this the firr,t time the prayer was used
for King and Parliament 1 Mr. Lothbuiy, in his " Ilistoiy of the
Convocation," p. 235, says, " The Prayer (for the Parliament) had
BEEN IN USE FOR YEARS, though it had uot been incorporated in the
Liturgy. It was first used in an occasional form in the year 1625 ;
and in this prayer, the words (most religious and gracious King) are
found." So that all this show of learning, and appeal to
"intelligent Protestants," &c., is so much time and effort wasted.
The whole thing turns out to be false ; and these very intelligent
leaders, ignorant of common matters of history.

In concluding this chapter, it will be quite sufficient to say :

1. That the Book of Common Prayer was neither " marred,
defaced, nor deformed," when revised in 1662.

2. That the objectors have neither read nor understood its
history, but have picked up here and there, a few false statements
made by declaimers.

3. That such charges are " mere slander, and proceed from
ignorance, or malice, or both."

7.T

CM APT 1:1 1 XVI.

on DI NATION'.

0})j. I. (a), " Wo coiuo to tho most ini])ortant practical
change in the Book, one which introduced a iiiiucip';-, hithcu'to
foreign to it ; one which has nvsnlted most disastrously to the
Church of England, and to the interests of Christianity. We have
seen that Crannier and the Reformers had not succeeded in freeing
the Prayer Book altogether from expressions of a Romish character
with respect to Baptism. The same remark may be made with
respect to the othce for Ordination to the Ministry. They retained
that form which had first been introduced in the middle ages :
' Receive tlie Holy Ghost ; whose sinh thou dost forgive, they are
forgiven ; and who.se sins thon dost retain, they are retained ; and
be thou,' ike."

Ans. Our form of OrdinatioJi may vary somewhat from those
used in the first ages of the Church ; but the diffei-ence is one of
form only. The same doctrines and essentials are there, although
expressed in different words. It is not absolutely necessary that
the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church should be always one and
the same in form : circumstances may arise that would necessitate
a change ; but providing that the change made, is done ()y lawful
AUTHORITY, and not contrary to God's word, there can be no ground
for objection.

In this case the altm-ation wjvs rendered necessaiy by circum-
stances ; done by lawful authority ; and in accordance with God's
word. The words of the " form " objected against, are taken from
the XX Chap, of St. John, v. 22, 23 ; which all must allow ^-e of a
christian character, even if they are used by the Church ot Rome.
They are used by the Bishops, to ser\^e the very purpose for which

.,-1

'lis

^.m-^iii

f^r. I ,

17i

tliey were given. It will be evident to all persons diligently reading
the Scriptures, that the qualification needed for the Ministry, was,
that such persons as were to be entrusted with it, should be " men
full of the Holy Ghost, and have a good report of those that are
without." So BEFOTiE Ordination, an a])peal is made to the people
to object to any candidate known to be an unfit person ; but if
none object, t^^^n the proper })ravei's ai-e made to God to bestow the
necessary gifts ; after which aul.liMrity is given by means of the
words used.

It will be seen to be an ancient custom by the following
quotation, which was used at the oi'dination of a Bishop, in the
first centuries. "Grant to him, O Lord Almighty, through thy
Christ, the communion of the Holy Spiiit, that so he may have the
POWER TO REMIT SINS according to thy command ; to distribute
clerical oflices according to thine ordinance ; to loose every bond,
according to the powei' which thou gavest to the Apostles, ikc."
Another from a form used in the Alexandrian Church, when
consecrating a Patriarch or Archbishop. " Give him the power of
Thy Holy Spirit, that he may loose all the bonds of those
whom the enemy has bound in sin, and grant that he may reconcile
separated members to the unity of the Church."

Obj. I. (b) "'This clause,' s?vs an Episcopal writer, 'was not
used during the first thousand yejirs of the History of the Church,
when the form consisted simply of a prayer for the Holy Ghost."

Ans. The two preceding (luoiations will sheAv that the form
was more than a prayer for the Holy Ghost. The " Episcopal
writer," whose remark is said to dejx.nd upon a statement made by
Morinus is not named ; but, Burnet quotes that author on this
particular, and says, " Take thou authority to offer up sacrifices to
God, and to celebrate masses both for the living and the dead," was
not in any ancient form of consecration. I will venture to say that
the objector never read Morinus ; but has either garbled Burnet s
quotation, or copied ?rom some one who had done so previously.

17')

Burnet adds, in another place, "So we consider sucli as deserve to
be admitted to those holy functions, as persons called and sent of
God j and therefore the Church in the name of Christ sends them ;
and because he gives a i)ortion of his Spirit to those whom he sends,
therefore the Church in his name says, Keccive tlio Holy Ghost.
And in this sense, and with this respect, the use of these words may
be well justified."

We do not, in this case, contend for the antitjuity of the form
we use ; but for its being suited to the occasion, and agreeable to
Scripture. The many gestures and signs that were introduced and
used before the Reformation, were given up by our Cliurch on
account of their tendency to superstition ; and because they had no
proper reference to the ottice or w^ork of the Ministry.

Obj. 1. (o) "Morinus publishes sixteen of the most ancient
forms of Ordination, in fifteen of which it does not occur. It was
first found in a book belonging to the Cathedral of ^layence in tlie
thirteenth century."

Ans. As so much of this objection d{^])ends u}ion what
Morinus said, I will briefly state who he was and fur what purjtose
he wrote.

Morin, or Morinus, was born A.D. 1591, and died at Paris in
1659. In his early years, lie was a Pi'otestant, but afterwards
became a Romanist. He wrote on " The origin of Patriarchs,
Primates, etc." Pope Urban viii. was very anxious to subjugate
the Oriental Christians to the Dominion of the Koniish See. To
aid him in this purjiose, he called in men who w^ere best ac(|uainted
with the opinions of the Greeks and the Eastern Christians. Jolni
Morin was one ; mid in his works " De Pcienitentia et De
Ordinationibus " aims to evince that there is a wonderful agreement
on these subjects between tlie Christians of the East and tlie
Latins, provided the thorny subtleti(^s of the Scholastics are kept
out of sidit. But his work failed to convince those for whom it
was prepared; for Cviil Lucaris, Patriarcli of Constantinople, a

iiM

176

II ■'k'fi

learned nian, and one who had oravelled over a great pait of
Europe, resisted these endeavours ; and signified clearly that he
was inclined to the religious opinions of the English and the
Dutch.

This Ptitiiaich corresponded with Abbot, Archbishop of
Canterbury, find sent to England the celebi-ated Alexandrine Codex
of the Bible.

Obj. I. (d). " Bishop T?4irnct, Bingham, Blunt, Fisher and
other writers amply confirm this; statement. "Sjii Fisher writes :
' Cnmmer did not expung<^, as he certainly ought to have done, the
sacerdotal element from our Ritual, but persisted in retaining it, in
si)ite both of Scripture and Ecclesiastical usage of the first ten
centuries, the objectionable words — objectionable, that is, when
addressed by one frail mortal to another — whose sins thou dost
forgive they are forgiven.' "

Ans. That many writers may quote Morinus, is very true ;
but not in the way this objector insinuates, against the forms of
Ordination used by the Church of England ; the last vjuotation
given from Bishop Burnet will suffice to shew this. Morinus wrote
for a special object, which was to establish the Supremacy of the
Pope of Rome ; therefore, his statements require to be well con-
sidered before being received ; for like unto many of these now
replied to, they were manifestly "tn ixined " to serve a purpose.

It was not the object of our fiist Pteformers to make
unnecessary alterations in the Church Service. Their desire waste
free it from Romish error and corruption. So although they cut ofi'
some practices used in ordination, which were contrary to sound
doctrine : they carefully retained what was primitive and Scriptural.
But the objector has not given a fair quotation. He has left out
the qualifying part of the sentence, "And be thou a faithful
Dispenser of the Word of (lod, and of his holy Sacraments." The
gift of the Holy Ghost is essentially necessary for the faithful
discharge of the duties of such an office ; for, who, of himself, is
*' sufficient for these things r

177

A quotation fioiii Bi«liop Jewel s " Apology," which liad
authority from Convocation, 1571, will eflectually silence this
ignorant objection of " Sacerdotal element in spite both of Scripture
and Ecclesiastical usage of fhe iirst TKN centuries." His words are,
" We say that Christ hath given to his ministers power to bind, to
loose, to open, to shut : and that the office of loosing consisted in
this point, that the minister should either oiler l)y the preaching of
the Gospel the merits of Christ and full pardon to all such as have
holy and contrite hearts, and do unfeignedly repent them,
pronouncing unto the same a suj'e and undoid^ted forgiveness of
their sins, and hoi>e of everlasting salvation : or else that the
minister, when any have ofi'ended their brother's minds with a great
otfence, or witli a notable and o])en favdt, whereby they liave as it
were banished and made themsehes "strangers froiu the common
fellowship and from the body of Christ, then, after perfect
amendment of such persons, doth I'econcile them, and bring them
home again, and restore them to the company and unity of the
faithful. We say also that the minister doth execute the authority
of binding and shutting, as often as he shutteth up the gate of the
kingdom of heaven against the iinbolieving and stubl)orn persons,
denouncing unto them Cod's veng(»ance and everlasting punishment;
or else, when he doth (piite shut them out from the church by open
excommunication. Out of doubt, whatso(n'er sentence the minister
of God shall give in this sort, (xod himself doth so well allow of it,
that whatsoever here on earth by their means is loosed or bound,
God himself will loose and bind, and contii-m the same in heaven.

And touching the keys by wliicli they sliiii or open the kingdom
of hea\-cn, we with ( ^hiysostouk say, they be tlic kjiowledge of the
Scriptures : v. itli 'IVrtuilian \vr say they be the iiiterj»etatioji of the
law ; and with l^usel'ius we cali Mieni tlii' word of fiud.

Moreovei' tiiat Cliii.st's disciph-h (lid re<-ci\-e the uutliuiity, nut
that they should ileal- pir^ite .•onfe^si..ns uf llir people, an<l listen
to theii' N\ liisperin^s. but to tiie eiul 'liey >li<Mdd go, 1 1 ley should

178

'■1.1V

wv >^>

^ **^»m irt

teach, tlicy sliould publisli aliioad IJih Uospcl, and l»c unto tin;
believing a secret wavour of life unto life, aiul nnto tlu; imltelieving
and niifaithful a savour of duatli unto death. This take we to be
the meaning of the keys ; and afto- tliis fashion men's consciences
are to be eitlu'i" o[H:'n or shut. We say that the priest indeed is
iuda;e in this cas(\ but vet hatli no niann(M- of risfht to cliallenije an
authority or power ; assaith Anil)ro,se.

•So " Sacerdotal element '' should liavc! becji either niagisterial
or judicial element. "Spite of Scri])ture," shews that tluy who
object are not \V(dl r(;ad therein : for the words are from th(^ xx.
Chap, of St. John ; and the v/ork, to pi'each the Gospel and
admiiiister the Sacraments.^ Neither is agieement with Tertullian,
Chrysostom, and Eusebius : to " Spite the Ecclesiastical usage of the
first TEN centuries. And by reading 2 Coi-. ii. 7, we may see how
"one frail mortal" exhorts other "frail mortals" to formve an
excommunicated person, in the person of Jesus Christ.

Obj. 1.1. (a). But (h-anmer taught, at tlu; saiiic time, that
" Bishops and Priests were both the [sanu'] oflice at the beginning
of Chi"ist's religion."

Ans. This WIS in l-llO, some years before the oitices for
Ordination were compiled : but it was a nuTt; private opinion that
yielded to better knowledge. At that time, l.")}!), lie had not had
sutHcient time to exaniine the ground for every opiiiitai he held ;
for he then also lU'knowledged s<'ven Saerameiits, Pui'gatoiy,
Transubstantiiition, S:r. \)ut when looked into, these things were
found to be gross deeeits of the Schoolmen a)id Canonists; one party
to set u]i the grand mystei-y of 1 r;tnsub.>iantiation. and the otJi'.-i- to
secure the Pop<! a ptA-ilion ahoxc all other l>isho|»s of riie ('huich.

Obj. 11. (|{). •■ In tin uijieteenth Artiele he car<-Iully U-ft -ni
all allusion to any one foijn of i>o\ ei-nment as essentwd to th'
Church, and in the Litany he ma'.ie the petithni for the Clergy read :
'All Bishops, l*nsto)'s, and Minislei-s of t]i>- Cliuivh."''

170

Alls. 'Pile Ai'l icl'',s wciv, HL^rccd ujioii, twclvt' vcarf?
suljseciiKMitly to (Vuniiici's liol.lino' and ('xpi-cssiiii^MJic ()|.iiii(.ii just
statc'l ; a]i(] linviii;^ ]>mss('(1 l.otli ( 'oinoont ion and Parlianu'iit, ()u<di(-
]U)i to l>n call('(] (Jianinci's oi- iiitrrpi-t-tcd hy his ]»i'i\itti' (i|>iiuoii.
Tlio F()i-inii1ai'it>s tlicnis-dvos, suiliciciilly declare wliat tin.' doftriuo
ot tlie Clmrcli is ; yet, ('raninei- liaviug siibsciihed tli(»in, we may
suppose iliat THKkk were Ins i,ati:st ojiinions.

The XX. Ai'ticle (Edw. \'l.) oidy deliiies what we are to
understand l)y "The visible. Uliurcli,"' aiiddt could not ho (!xi)ected
that there wovdd l>e any '^^dlnsiou to auy one form of gov^eriirneiit
ij: it.'' But in the XXIA'., they .say, " It is not lawful for any
man to take upon hivii the Olliee of ]aililic Preaching, or ministering
the Sacraments, in t!ie (.'onnicoation, befor-(? he ho lawfully called
and sent to execute the same. And those \ve oudit to iudL'P
lawfully called and sent, which l^e chosen and called to this Woi'k
by Men, who have ])ublir Authoi'ity givcMi unto them in tlie
Congregation, to call and send Ministei's into the Lord's Vinevard."
From the XXXY., which names the Ordination Service, as l->eing
published by authority of ihe King and Parliament, for oj'dering
Minister's in the (.'hurch : we may learn who are to be considered
"lawfully called," i. e,, those who had Ejnscopal Oi-dination ; and
who had "public authority," \ iz. : the Bishops to whom the care of
the Church was given. " Tn the Jjitany he made the j»etiti(m for
the Clergy read : all r>isliops. Pastors, and Ministers of the Church."
True ; and the Ordination Servicf;, lie uiade it i-ead, Bishops,
Priests and Deacons, which, when taken togethei, shew that they
had names of order, and names of oliice. Collectively, they were
the Clergy. By order : thev worr- P>ishops, Priests, and Deacons,
according to tlunr grnde. In otiice ; they were Overseers, Pastors,
or Ministers, according (o ' •• dlhee each lield.

Obj. 11. ((').- " Moreo\ef. he fully recOj^nized the ord/'fs of
Ministers ordained lux'ording to the Pi'esliyteHiM) (ful'Ui."

>*\

180

' Ans. TIk' Cliui-cli iit tlint tiuio knew no other l!i;iii Kpis )|»al
Ordination, 'riiorc were no English or Scotcli Prc^shytorians luiofc^
the time of Quo(ni KliziOicth. !t is v<M-y (]oiil)tful wliat ordcns tlioso
pfrsoiis hsifl who cnnio fioin ahroad ; thoy wore eitlifi- iniiiistois to
"foreign" congi'egations. or professors in the llnivei-sities. But as
they (lid not umh^-stand Engiisli, yvv.yc not a|)pointed to "livings."
Bucer, one of the hest of tjiein, eouhl not uvideistand the Book of
Common Prnyc^r, nntil it was put into Latin foi- him ; so would not
be able to preaeh or read in the. vulgar tongu(\

Ohj. II. (n). " The Church of England, down to the year
1662, recognized the validity of orders, received from Presbyters,
by admitting to her livings. Ministers thus ordained, simply
requiring of them a subsci-iption in eonformitv with the laws of the
land."

Ans. To exi)ect to meet with a [)rohibition of an evil, before
it had a recognized existence, is simply absurd. The ordinations by
Presbyters, had no public recognition either by Church or State
before *' the great rebellion." So what authority they ever had in
England, w^as by usurpation, in the time of Cromwell. When
order and lawful authority were again restored, by the return of
Chas. IJ. ; it was deemed necessary to condemn and pievent all
tendencies to rebellion ; both in Church and State ; and to provide
means so as to protect the kingdom from such like calamities in
future.

The Church of England did not recognize the validity of
orders recived from Pi-esbyters at any time. The Formularies,
Canons, «fec., should be considered as expressing the voice of the
Church. In which we have no other [provision made for
" Ordering " Ministers than the one which directs the Bishops to
perform that duty ; such orders, and none other, '" by the laws of
the land," were valid. The Church, at the Reformation, had to
contend with Rome, and Romish usurpation ; se the laws of the
Church respecting orders, wei-e principally to prevent tlie inlrusiou

• )f any jMMsoiis wlio f,i\()uivfl |;„i„is|i Sii|.ivi.iiH-y, ;tii(l l(. rontiniio
Episcopjicy. lUil, ill l()f;2, ihv. (^mi-ell 1im(1 to coiitciul witli iUiotluM-
usurpation and mad*^ additional ridrs so as to <,niard a;4ainst l>otli
evils. The laws pi-ovidcd, woidd at any tinin liii\(> boon sutiiciont
to prevent ministers otherwise; or.iained fi-oin olHt-iatinir in iIm,
Church, had ^ they been ]»roperly administered. But men witli
" private oinnions," intcM-jtretiiig theii\ in such a way as was pleasing
to themselves, might, at times, havf; admittcnl some who luxd not
proper orders, When eonij.laint was ma.lc that sin-li things had
been done, it Mas at om-e ordered to be coi-peeted. See how, in
1559 a letter fi-om the CoiiiK-il directing Abp. Parkec, " About the
recovering tin; discipline of the Church," he issues "Visitation
Articles ;" in No. vii. of which, '• ftcni, Whether there lie ajiv
parsons, that intrude themselfe, and jiresumc to excicise any kinde
of mynistery in tlu; ehurche of Cod, without iiaj)osition of handes,
and ordinary aucthority." And Abp. AA^ hi (gift in In.Sl, Art. V.
"That none be ]»erniitt(Ml to preach, or intei-pret the Scriptures,
unless lie be a, priest or deacon at the h^ast, adndtted thei-eunto
according to the laws of tJiis re.ihne." The Canons of 1603, are
sufficiently well known to sjxvak decisivtdy on tliis subject, to the
exclusion of all jo-iAate opinion.

The " simple subscription ' recjuires an acknowledgement of
the three oixlei-s ; and if any man would subscribe that, who was
not so ordered himself : I would not say mucli foi his conscience.
I cannot see how, either a. real Preslnterian, or a rkal Romanist
could subscribe at all. For it requires an acknowledgeni» ut that
the Queen is Suprenu"' ruler in things Ecclesiastical as well as Civil.
A denial of all foreign authority whether Prince oi- Prelate. An
acknowledgement, that the Book of (."^ommou Pi-ayer, and ordering
of Bishops, Priests and Deacons, is not in anything conti-ary to
Cod's word, and that he hims(df would use the same and none
other. An<l that he allowcth the Hi.ok of Articles of Religion.

Obj. 11. (e) " Tlie mode-, n dogma, which denies the validity of
IVesbytei'ian orditAutiuuii, ha I been held as a private oj^iuiniou by

]SL>

\M^

Laud }U 1(1 Ills followers; Imt f(nv of the laity r«'C(nv(Ml ii ; it. wiis
first practically aof;o]>te(l Wy tlio (Ihuvtli in 1()()2, l^y tW chaiifijos in
the Ordinal, and by tlio ])assaf,'(' of tlio infiunons Act of
ITniforniity."

Ans. Pi'osliytorian ordination, is a inodorn doc^nia itself ; and
therefore tlio denial of it must l)o modern also. There were no such
oi'ders for the fii-st fifteen linndred years. However much necessity
may hav(^ r(M|uired such ordinations ; or e\]iedi(Micy tolerated tliein ;
still both Sci-iptni-e and Canon Imw arc^ against them.

The Pref.ice to tlie ( irdinal, whicli was in the book from the
first, plainly states that tlie (Ihi-istian dhnrch from its very begin-
ning, had only E])iscopal ordinjttion, and the desire foj* its
continuance in tlie Church. Dr. Jablonsky says: "It is very
I'emarkable, that there is no doctj'ine oi- tenet of the christian
i-eligion in Avhich all chi-istians, in genei-al, have for the space of
fifteen hun<bed years, so unanimously agreed, as in this of Episco-
pacy, In all ag(^s and times dowji from the Apostles, and in all
places, through Eui'ope, Asia, and Africa, wheresoever there were
christians, there were also I>isho|)s, and even where christians differed
in other points of docti-ine or custom, and made sclJsms and divisions
[by heresies] in the Ohurch, yet did they all remain unanimous in
this, in retaining their Bisho])S."

Obj. II. (f) " In testimony of this statement, I quote the
language of the most venerable of the Commissioners of 1652,
Bisliop Cosin : ' If at any time a Minister so ordained, in these
French Churches, came to incorj>orate himself in ours, and to receive
a j)ublic charg(i, or cure of souls, among us in the Church of England,
('as I have known some of them to have done of late, ar^d can
instance in many others before my time,) our Bishops did not
i<.'ordain him before they admitted him to his charge, as they must
have done if his former oi'dination in France had been void ; noi'
did oui' laws require more of liim than to declare his public consent
to the religion received amongst us, and to subscribe the ai'ticles."

Ans. At present I hav6 no means of testing this (piotation, or
of knuwinti; in what sense it was used.

183

I liiive iili'oady Siiid, (li.it in ciis'-s of is^rcni iirccssil y, siuli sv
thing may bo excused. The Jlcstoriitioii woiihl iluuhth'SH l»i! such ii,
cas(! of n('C'(\s.sity : foi- the I'ishop.s had been (h'piivcd of their olhci's
for nearly twenty ycHi's ; and it won hi not lie j)ossil»le to Mad on
thoir return, a sutlicient number of Priests or Deacon's to till tlic
vacant livintrs ; therefore, foi- a time, thev miuht euntloy Ministers
otherwise oi*dain«Hl,

Ihit this (^idy shews tJiat tJie disfrijtliiie was soinewliat relaxed,
in (U'dei' to miu^t an extreme ease ; a litth; time would soon reiiiedy
that state of tilings, and order would 1)0 again i-estored.

Ob). Tf. (<j) "The eonsontient testimony of l>isho]»s Hall,
Hurnet, Fleetwood and others, might be given if time ])ermitted."

ns.

jlj sup])ly then- testimony. Ihsliop

Hh!I,

in s|»('akin

of the absolute necessity of Ministeis for thi^ being of a Chureli,
and tlie impossibility of ol)taining Fjiiseopal or<lination, says : that
in SUCH cases it should be allov.cd until it lonld be remedit'd ; and
concludi's with, " Whatever iiie> itable necessity may do, \sv. now
dispute not, yet for the main substance, kimsooI'ACY is i :TTI:KI,v

IXDISl>^:NHA]nJ: an.

must so eoiitiniU' to tli

e wo

•Id
HisI

s end

IC!

ion

if;

as a

objeetoi' has made a c;iii:at mistake, in naniin!
witness in his favoui' ; but, a ori: vrKit, in naming lip. liuriiet; for
he destroys his argument.. In Artidi' xxiii., '• Tho antiiorify of the
Ministry," ti'cating of a liko ntcessity, lie says " yet aic wc; vcit
sure, that not only those who iiciokm! the .Artitics, but the bo<ly of
this Chureh foi' above liaif an age .-iftei', did. notwitlistan<liiig those
iri'egularities, a<knowledge the t'oreiLin ('liureiies so efuistituted to
b(! tiaie (Jhurelies as to .ill llie essentials of a Church, though they
'en at lirst irreuulavi\ I'oiiiietl. and continued still to be in an

had li

imnerfect state. And, thkiiki'c»kj;. the ^'eneral words in wliich tliis

4
])ar

t of the Ai'tiele. is framed, seem to have been i>ESl(;\KD ON

PriU'OSK TO KXCHI)!; TIIKM,

■ i« '<

184

h, ('« ■

• i'

••ill

T]i(?.s(! <)l»jr(loi'.s ou.^lil (o Im'. iiKHc nucfiil in si'lcfctiiig tlicir
witnesses ; foi' nlt]»ou<;li the two last nuined, ;iro Hullicient to
destroy tli(i wlioh; objection to E|)iseo[nu'y ; yet the contenn)late«l
Jtevision of Wni. II f., mIucIi, on ]>. 19, lie says : "failed to become
the law of the land, tlnoui;h the intolevanco, bi«^oti'y and ii^uoranco
of the iilitAL CLEUGV," gives the last needed evidence^, to convince
any one, that Presbyterian ordinations wvro, nov(!r recogni/ed, as
valid, by I. lie Cliuj-ch of l*]ugland at any time. " And be it further
enacted by the authority aforesaid, that no minister ordained only
l>y })resbyters since tlu^ year of our Lord lOGO, shall be admitted to
any benc^fice or promotion iiidess he rciOCMve a second imposition of
hands fi'om some bishop, to reconnnend him to the grace of God for
the work or exercise of his oilice, in the })lace or charge unto which
he is called ; and the; bishop shall frame his words and testimonial
accc. lingly, to the nnitual satisfaction of him.jelf and the ordained,
till a form on })urpose be by a convocation and a law established."

i '

i^-:,

-'•■■Sn»eh^..

Obj, II. (ii). "One remarkable^ instance on record shows
conclusively wlutt were the views held in the I'eign of Elizabeth
with respect to Prcfsbyteiian orders. It is the license given to John
Morrison, a .Scotch Pi-esbyterian Minister, by Abj). Grindal to
exercise all the functions of the luinistrv without reordination."

Ans. \Vv shouhl base supposed, that by this time, this one
single case of Morrison's as an illustration, had been disposed of.
This is not the first time it has been alleged., or replied to. But
however, w^e may shew from the documciut itself, as the objector
( (notes it, the reverse of what he infers. It states, that John
Moi'rison, M. A., was ordained to Holy Ordei's, by imposition of
hands, in the to^vn of (jarvet. County I^othian, Kingdom of
Scotland ; fine vears before he obtained a license to otFiciate in
England; that would be in 1577. Dr. Bowden says, "That
Presbyterian gcnernment was not introduced into the Church of
Scotland till the year 1580, is capable of such proofs as no human
mind can resist.'" That being three year's after Morrisoji's or<lination,

18.1

there is ^ood ground for iufrronce tliuL IiIh wa.s not, a rrcsbvlrrianor-
dijiation. He was oi-duin(;d to " J foly Orders:" from which we mayfur-
theriiiftr, tliathehad received the two ordorw of Priest and Deacon.
IJ is being received into the Church of Enghmd, and i»erniitted to
a(hni]iibt(;r the Saei'anientH without furtlier ordination is additional
evidence. Then, also, this " pi-ecise legal-like document " specially
names " the said congregation of tliat county of Lothian," as
"conformable to tlu; orthodox faith and pure !> .igion now received
and by public authority established ii. this realm of England :" and
docs NOT name tlie Church of Scotland. Add ( , this a remark by Bp
Sage, "The parliament which met at Dumlee, July 12th, 1680,
established a presbyterian regimen for tie Church of Scotland, to
the grief, and with th(^ execrations of thousands in that kingdom."
Which gives an idea that Morrison might be one of the " grieved,"
and had to leave for conscience sake ; and taken altogtither, is very
far from a clear case.

Tiie objector also draws a few inferences, as : " Theex]>ii?ssion,
* in cases,' in this precise legal-like document })roves that the custom
of thus licensing Vresbyterian ministers prevailed at that time."

It should he "in like cases," i. e., cases like this, of giving a
license to officiate ; such a license would be given now, to any
clergyman whose orders were approved, and without which he would
not have autliority to minister.

This, therefore, is not evidence in favoui' of Presbyt(;rian
ordei's being acknowledged by the Church of England as valid.

Obj. II. (i). " As the Church of Scotland was then Presby-
terian, and no bishops Episcopally ordain(?d held oHice in that
countiy, the case is settled bejyond contradiction."

Ans. The trovernment of the Church of Scotland at that time,

was somewhat mixed ; so it is rather too much to say with

CERTAINTY " the case is settled beyond contradiction." T read, from

Adam's work on this subject " the reforming i)arty, ever ready to

IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

•^

1.0

i.l

la 128 125

^ 1^ 12.0

L25 III 1.4

1.6

c2r o^

Photographic

Sciences

Corporation

33 WEST MAIN STREET

WEBSTER, N.Y. 14SS0

(716) 872-4503

•ss

?'^

o" ^ <<^J^

IS >

-1 ■

186 -

pull clown with tlio one hand what they have jubt raised with the
o'jher, beyan to call the lawfulness of Kpi.seoi>aey in question in
1575 and, after a struggle of five years, they condemned it, as
\inlawful and unscriptural, an«l soon departed much farther from it
than l>efoi'e." Aiid " Presbyterian parity in Scothmd, was at last
adopted and estiiblished by act of parliament, in 1592." From the
foregoing, an<l seeing that there were Bishops of the Church, when
connected with Rome, who might have li\ed through all the changes;
it is highly probable that a true Bislujp did ordain Morrison ; but
at the best, it is a vevy d()ul>tfid i-ase,

Obj. II. (.i). '' This case settles the point, that the dispute
concerning Travers and Whittingham of the same reign, was not
with regard to the matter of their Presbyterian orders, but on
account of irregularities of another sort."

Ans. Nothina: is cleMrtu- in historv, than that Travers was
dismissed from the Tempk^ on account of his ordination. Queen
Elizabetli, through Lord Burghley en(piires wliy Travers could not
have the appointment. To which the Aljp. of Canterbury replies,
and of which this is part, and sulficient for this case : " Unless he
will testify his conformity by subscription, as all others <lo, which
now enter into cu'clesiasticai livings, and make proof unto me that
he is a minister ordei-ed according to the laws of this Church of
England, as I verily believe he is not, because he forsook his place
in the college upon that account ; I can by no means yield my
consent to the iilaciiii' him there, or elsewheiv, in anv function of
this church.'

Obi, ir. (k). '• TIu'. nelson whv the Ptcfor^tiiTs did Jiot choose
the satne ' }>latform of government' with their brethren on the
Continent, was not because th(;y regar-ded it as unscri])tural, but in
the woi'ds of iiishop Cooper, a learjied writcir of J'llizabeth's reign,
simply beicause they did not consider i'r sujtaulk to the * the state
of our country, people and commonwealth.' " (Fisher, p. 448.)

Ans. The Reformers in England, as well as those on the
Continent, had lait one opinion about tiie foi'm of government or

187

ministry of Chnsrs Ciinroli ; tlwy weic ygiv.xl tluit Episcopacy was
the primitive form, ami in iucoidaiico witli lioth tlic Old and New
Testament. And, that wlieio Ej>isooi)acy did exist, and conid he
continued : and would tlie Bisliop's ride accoj-din*; tf) (lod's word ;
then hy all means retain tliem. Tliat tins was (^alvin's opinion,
will be seen by his own words : " If they would .i>i^e us such a
hierarchy, in whicrli tlu^ Bishojjs liave sucli a pre-eminence, as that
they do not refuse to be subject to Christ, an<l to depend ui)on TJim
as their only head, and refer all to Him : tlicu [ will confess, tliat
they are worthy of all cuises, if any such shall be found, who will
not reverence it, and snbniit themselves to it. with the utmost
obedienc".' *

That it was the ))revailinjL^ sentiment in Knj^land, is shewn bv
the form ado])ted, and the Pi-eface to the Oi-dinal. The bi-ethren
on the Continent did not consider Episcopacy suitable to the state
of THEIK country and commonwealth ; not that they werrr op])osed
to it if it could be had in its purity : but against it in its con-upt
and tyrannical state. The two prominent leaders. Luther and
Calvin, expressed their willingness to receive and ado])t it, had it
been i>ossible to do so.

Obj. III. (a.) "In the Revision of lo5i), the for^ f<.r
Ordering Priests was in this wise : 'Receive the Holy Glio ;
whose sins thou dost forgive,' ttc. In 1662 it was made to read
thus : * Receive the Holy Ghost for the office an<l work of a Priest
in the Church of God, now committed unto thee ]>y the imposition
of our hands, whose sins thou dost forgive,' ttc."

Ans. It is true, that the forms for Ordei-ing Bishops and
Priests were amkxded in 1662. P)efore that time they were
exposed to the cavils and censures, alike, of the Puritan, Noncon-
formist, and Romanist : and on account of the language used not
being sufficiently decisive, were a cause of continual strife. The
Presbyterian argued, tliat as thera was not any express mention
made of either Bishop or Pi-iest, when onlers were given to them ^

'i' J

188

W'lll'^^/!

that tlie compilers of the Lituij^'y int(Mi(le<l uo difference ; hut tliat
they were the same otHce. Tlie llomauist, that as the form of
ordination did not mention the giving of any power to conaeci*ate
the Eucharist, we had no true Priests ; and therefore, no sacrifice
in the Miiss. And that as wc were in a state of Schism, by refusing
to acknowledge tlie authority of the Bishop of Rome, our Bishops
had no spiritual jurisdiction ; and therefore, could not confer valid
orders. This cavil of the Romanist^ was thought to be sufficiently
met by the protest in the Articles, where such things are spoken of
as ERRORS of the Church of Rome.

But the Presbyterians, by means of the " great rebellion,"
and by an arrogant assumption of offices in the Church, to which
they had no legal claim ; rendered it necessary to take such
precautions, both ecclesiastical and civil, as would in future prevent
any like evil arising from the rnisrepresentation of a foi-m that
could be so easily amended. So the words, " For the Office and
Work of a Priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee
by the Imposition of our hands," were added. Which decided the
matter, and shewed clearly, that there is a difference of rank and
office, given by ordination to each minister of the Church ; and the
form used declares what that i-ank and office is which each one has
received.

This amendment gave a new occasion to the Romanist also, to
boast and to cavil ; stating that the alteration made in the Ordinal
in 1662, was an admission on our part, that, before that time, our
Ordinal was deficient, and all orders conferred previously were
invalid. The reply Dr. Prideux made to this at the time, will
testify, why the change was made, and shew the error of the
Romanist as well. " I being of late much assaulted here with
papers from the papists, have thought it my duty to leave none of
them unanswered; and in one concerning the validity of our orders,
having many cavils objected against them on the account of the altera-
tion ill the words of ordination made in the review of our liturgy anno

189

1662, among otlifer things I toM them in my answ(M- tli.it tins
alteration was not made with any reKj)ect to our contiovoi-sy with
them, but to silence a cavil ot' the Presbyterians, who from ou.-
ordinal pretended to j^rove figainst us that there was no dirt'erence
between the two functions, l)eoause the words of ordination said
nothing to him [as a bislioj)] ii, the old ordinal which ho had not
afore as a ])riest/'

The objection of tlin IVesbytciijins was, '• \V(! do not find in
Scripture any ordination to tliQ ottice of a bisliop difh-ring fiom the
ordination of an elder." 'I'lie olijection of tlie lUmianists was, ''The
protestants have no true pi-iests, because; they have not the foi-m of
ordaining priests which was and is in the Catholic Church." It
will be clear that the alteration was made to meet the (;avil of the
presbyterians.

Obj. III. (P.)- "We have, now introduced, foi- the first time,
the doctrine of the tactual sicckssiox of the Pt-icsthood."

Ans. We have mysteries and coni[)lications enougli without
adding " Tactual Sucession ;" but if it is here imjdied that the
giving authority by the imposition of hands, is now used for the
first time, it manifests gi-eat ignorance on the part of the objector.
St. Paul gave authority to Timothy by using that gestui-e ;
instructed both Timothy and Titus to observe the custom ; and
mentions it as one of the " first principles," tfec.

Obj. III. (c). " In the Prayer Book of Edward we have ' the
form of Consecrating of an Archbishop or Bishop,' in these words :
.' Take the Holy Ghost, and remember that thou stir up the Grace
of God which is in thee by imposition of hands,' tkc. The title was
changed to 'the form of Ordaining or Consecrating.' The early
' Reformers did not regard the Bishop as a distinct Onler from the
Presbyter by the authority of Scripture ; but they hehl, with
Jerome, that Bisho[)s wej-e place<l abov(! Presbyters by ecclesiastic il
custom."

Ans. The i)reface to tlie Ordinal of the book of [oi)'2, has
The Form and Manner of makin;>' and consecrating Bishops,

190

If' 1:

•0

:tSi

/•-

Priests, and DeacoiiK.' As also, " It is t^vident unto all men,
diligently reading holy scriptitrr, and nncicMit nutliors, tliat from
THE Apostles time there hath been thkse orders of Minister's in
Christ's Church ; Bishops, Priests, and Deacons," c^tc. It is a sorry-
plight to 1)6 in, to have your own selected witnesses testify against
you ; but the " early Refoiinei's " distinctly testify to the three
orders as named, and say that Holy SriMPTURE gives tlie same
testimony. Wliich is quite equjil to saying, that Uishops are a
distinct or(h;r from Pn'8l>yters by authority of Scripture. Abp.
Bramhall said long ngo, tliat the asskhtiox that our Reformers held
Episcopacy an<l Priesthood to be one and tlie sjimo thing, is
manifestly fidsc to all who read their forms.

But the obj(u*tor has another \vitn«'ss, Jerome ; with wliom he
says that the lUifoi'iners were a!U'ree<l ; holding that Bishops were
placed above Presbyters ])y ecclesiastical custom. I have not the
least doubt but tliat thev did agree witli him. But when the
testimong of the witness alleged, is given, it will appear very
different from this and other received opinions, " that they were
one office." Jerome, in his commentary on the epistle of Titus, has
" Before there were factions in religion, and the ])eople began to
say, I hold of Paul, I of Apollo, and I of Cephas ; the churches
were governed by the common advice of the presbyters. But when
every man thought those whom he had baptized to be his own, and
not Christ's, it was decreed in the whole world, that one chosen out
of the presbyters should be set above the rest, to whom all care of
the church should appertaiii, and the seeds of division rooted out."
It may readily be seen, at what time, and by whose authority.
Bishops were placed above presbyters ; and why the early ^
Reformers say " It is evident to all men, diligently reading holy
scripture, and ancient authors, that from the apostles' time, etc."
This will be manifest when Jerome's statement is compared with
Rom. xvi. 17. 1 Cor. i. 12. and 1 John ii. 18., and also that the schisms
and divisions mentioned, took place in the life time of the writers

191

of the Epiatltis. But further ; Jerome, in liis ei»istlo to Evagrius,
on the same subject, Bishops and Piesbytei-s being one at thk
BiiGiXNixo, says " That afterward one was elected and advanced
above the rest, this was to remedy schisms, lest every man drawing
the church of Christ to himself, should rent it in pieces. So at
Alexandria from Mark the Evangelist, to Heraclus and Dionysius,
bishops there, the presbyters always chose one of themselves, and
placed him in a higher degree, and called him a bishop*" Tlie
same Jerome, says, that Mark the first Bisho}) died A. D. 62 ;
another proof that this took place during the lifetime of some of
the Apostles. Again, he says it was an ecclesiastical custom, or
custom of the Churcli. A connnon way of speaking as may be
seen from 1 Cor. xi. IG ; which shews also that the Church had
CUSTOMS in the Apostles times that were not written. I have much
more testimony of the same kind to ofl'er, but I think this will be
amply sufficient to convince any unprejudiced person, that Bishops
are a distinct order of Ministers from Presbyters, and were so in
the earliest age of the Church.

Obj. III. (d) "The form of (Jrdaining was thus altered,
' Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and word of a Bishop in tlie
Church of God, now committeed unto theci by the im^tosition of oui
hands, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.
Amen. And remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is
given thee by this imjiiosition of hands. '

Ans. The same r(^iiso]is given to shew why the change was
made in the form of Ordering Priests, will be amjily sufficient to
meet this objection.

Obj. 111. (e) "The doctrine of ' Transmitted Grace ' is here
plainly asseited.'

Ans. I do not remember to ha^ e met with any such doctrine.
But perhaps the objector will inform us somewhat further on this
subject ; and at the same time tell us what is " transmitted " when
he, or -others '' pronounce the benediction, 'The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ, etc,'"

192

Obj. in (f). " Tlui oldt'i- form, it \h true, had departed from
the simi)licity of the early (Jhurch. But how grievoubly was it
changed for the worse by these daiing innovators. Ought we to b(j
surprised at any amount of Pipisuopal or Priestly pretension on the
paii) of men who have had such unwarrantable, and I fear not to
asseH blasphemous, words })ronoun;;ed so solemnly over their heads]"

Aris. Such expressions as these would neither be written nor
spoken by any otlu^r than an ignorant, bold, vainglorious man.
Having already shewn, that although there has been a change of
form, yet the simplicity of the Scrijiturcs and custom of the early
Church ha\e been stciadily maintained ; there will now be no
further renuirk needed than to say, that Bp. Cuminins himself the
originator of, and sole authority for this movement, had these very
words said to be blasphemous pronounced over his head.

Obj. IV. (a). " In order to make the Ministiy exclusive,
these Counsellors of Charles turned their attention to the Preface
to the Ordinal, which read thus: 'No man (not being at the present.
Bishop. Priest, or Deacon,) shall execute any of them, (i. e., the
office of Bishop, tkc.,) except he be called, tried and examined, and
admitted according to the form hereafter following.' This was
made to read thus : ' No man shall be accounted or taken to be a
lawful Bishop, Priest or Deacon in the Church of England, except
he be called, tried, examined and admitted thereunto, accoi-ding to
the form hereafter following, or hath had foi'merly Episcopal Con-
secration or Ordination.' "'

Ans. This is simply trying to make a distinction without a
diflerence. The Preface as found in the book of 1552. is just as
" exclusive "Jn its requirements as that of 1662; although necessity
I'equired a few^verbal alierations to bo made subsequently. The
book of 1552, after stating that the three orders had been in the
Church of Christ from the Apostles' time, says : "to the intent
tx'^.se orders should be continued, and reverently used and esteemed
in this Church of England, it is requisite that NO man (not being at
this present Bishop, Priest, nor Deacon) shall, »fec." No man might
be considered exclusive enough, without further remark ;, but a
little explanation may not be in vain. All the ministers at the

193

PtefoniiutioM, would liiivo ha.l Kpi.scoiuil oi.liiiutioii ; hii.I l.y ihvW
orders were (nuditled to servo in the difierc-iit offices of the Church,
according to tlieir grade ; so were ail included, providing they would
conform to and use the revised Lituigy. And foi- the succession oi-
continuance, the authoiities i.rej.ared the Ordinal, riMpiijing strict
conformity to it, and permitting no oti.ci-. No uian -otherwise
ordained, allowed. This lule and ordei-, as cstahlish.-d in 15r)L>,
continued witliout change, except in the reign of (I Mary, to 16G2.
But during the "great .ebellion" th(^ iJook of Counnon Prayer,
together with Ei)iscoi)acy, was said to be -" abolished. At tlie
Piestoration, "thousands" who were not ordaijied according to the
order of the CJhurch of England, had usurped the otlices, and
expelled the lawful ministers. These, in their turn, had to trive
way to others who had a more just claim and title, and who had
been previously, illegally and violently ejected for their loyalty to
the Church and Crown. Such a state of things naturally produced
much contention, so that it became necessary to define who were
LAWFUL nnnisters and wJio were not ; and the Preface was made
somewhat more explicit, but not more exclusive.

Obj. IV. (li). " This chaug(* made the Church henceforth
absolutely an<l inexorably exclusive. No longer could the Protestant
Ministry of Scotland oi- of the Continent, as they had done for over
a centmy, hold livings in the Church."

Ans. This change was callctl for by tlu; " gieat rebellion;" but
it was notliing luoiv than clearly and precisely delining what was
the rule of oi-der in tla; Chuich. It is not {)ossiljl(} to hnd one
single line on i-ecord, in which theChuieh of England has recognized
Presbyterian oj'diiiations as \alid at ajiy time.

Obj. I v. (('). •• TJie (IJiuixtli is not, however, aissolitklv
exclusive. There is one notable exception. iJoman orders
ackjiowledged. I)i the \v<»)ds of Fisher, }». :»:^1* : ' Our Chuich to
the shame of her rulo-s, and to the disgrace of this profe.ssediv
'Protestant natioji be it spoken does not exclude llu' «)rders of the
('hurcli of J'nnM'. The Koniish I-*i-iest is at ou'c admitted, \vitli<»iii

194

any Hpocial act of re-ordiuatioii, to offlciato at hor most s(»lenin
serviecH, and to )>artake of her honors and eniolumentH. In this
particular (and it is a most important one) the present Churcli of
Enghmd is not the C/hiu'ch of (Jranmcr, and Ridley, of Bradford,
and Jewel, Usher, and Hail, but a very diflerent institution.' "

I^M '?!

Ans. The Church of England lias no necessity to jn-otest the
oi'dinations of the Church of Home ; they are, and always have Ix^en
acknowledged as valid. Fisher, et al, may be very ready at
declaiming, when they have Romanism for their subject ; but that
they do not understand what they say, is evident by the language
used. The Romish Priest, is not admitted as a Romish Priest : but
as one that is willing to renounce and forsake Romish error and be
guided by the Fornndaries of the Church of England. In this
particular, the pi-esent Church of England does not difter from the
practice of the early Reformers ; for had they refused to acknow-
ledge " Roman orders " they would ha\'e excluded themselves !
Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, ttc, were Romish Priests, and never had
any other oitlination than that they received while in connection
with the Church of Rome. JOHN KNOX also, himself, was
ordained a Romish Priest in 17)24. And in viitue of these orders,
Cranmer sent him to take chaigt of tlie church at Berwick. I do
not think it is possible to prose, that John Knox ever had a
"Protestant" ordination, Tlie same with Luther, Calvin, and most
of the Oerniau and Fiench Itcformers, thev also were ordained in
accordance with the Jiomish ritual. These people use strong words,
but weak objections ; instead of a thorough investigation of the
matter, they string a tVnv sentences together hastily, then enforce
the same with insolent abuse. Of coursi^, we cannot be exjieeted to
yield, or give up our position, to sicii lociic as this.

Obj. V. (a) "The Puritans held that a Bishop was only
* primus inter pares :' that is, the difference between Bishops and
Presbyters was a difference of degkee, not a difference of order ;
or, to use the words of Cranmei', that ' tliey were both one office at
the beginning of Christ's religion.' "

Aus. Tin' Pmil.uiK Nvcrc in vimy in this I'csjurt, \vlii<*li orvor
was tlio f-nnso of tlicir scliiNni. 'V\mv o)tinionH weif' contrarv to llio
ostahlishofl or<l«'v of the ( ■lir.rcli of Kn^'lnnd, and wlicn actod upon,
tend to suUvort it, ns in tie " jiicat iThrllitni." Tlir opinion
(!rannior lifld in I")40, as slu'wn l»('f»)i'o, was nn crron^'ous ono, and
f^ivon up wlicn lir knew Vx'ttcr. It is a ])o»"ti«»n of tlio " \ kisy drkcjh
OF POPKUV." In i"i.")L', lio says "It is kvidknt. tliat in Clnist'H
(-hurcli tliorc liatli rvor Immmi tlifsr oi!i>Ki!s :'' he drtcs not sny
degroc, >ait nanios thiskk distinct okhkks of Ministci-s. So-in;;
tliat the Puritans licld with Jvonic on tliis sultject, I .nn not sur-
prised tliat tlM'ir opinions linvf hcon n-jrctcd hy tlic < 'linrcli of
Enjfliind.

()l)j. V. (n) '• In tilt! r('i<;u of I'^tlward and Eliziil«'th,tU«' Church
of England, by statuto ms wpII ms in i>i-acti('<'. had rocoorni/cd
Proshvt»'rian Ordination."

Aus. This is an ass(!rtiou witluait proof; it Nv<add Ijave hoen
a very easy thing to have (pioted the Statute, or Statutes. 1
repeat, the Churcli of Engh-uul xkvkh did uix:o(iNiZK Presbyterian
Ordination as valid. As Burnet says, " tl»e general woi-ds in
which this part of the Article (xxiii.) is framed, seem to have been
designed on i)\u'pose to exclude them."

Obi. VI. (o). " At the close of the sixteenth century, 'scores,'
if not imndreds, of Clergymen wei-e ofliciating in the Church of
England who had been ordained >»y Presbyters in Scotlan«l or on
the Continent."

Ans. An assei-tion that might l»e disposed of by a simple
<lenial, and by a demand for proof ; but the objector shews the
weakness of his position, by giving in an Appendix, the single case
of Morrison ; and by an assertion that Travers was dismissed for
some other cause than invalid orders. I suppose these were alt.
that he could find on record ; Morrison's I have shewn to be a
VERY DOUBTFUL CASE ; and that Travels was dismissed because hc^
was not rightly ordained.

190

^•I,.^^

()l»j. N'. (i») " Xow, liowi'vn, M cliuist' NVjis iiiscilcil in llm
Pri'face to tlio Or<lin»jl, HRHritiiii,' iIm' necessity of K|iiNeo|iMl
Or«liimtion, «n«l eonse<|ueiitly <leiiyin^' tlie v{ili<lity of the ()ffl<iis of
all tliose who Iiad heeu ordained durinuf the last tifteen oi' twenty
veai's. This Litwr^ieid chnni^'e wiis not sntl'ered to reninin a <h'ad
letter."

Ans. As sjiitl liefoie, Ihe "«lauM'" wns fta- the |nir|K.se of
explanntion and <h'(inition ; tlie same HitixciiT.K was th(^re at all
times. Connivance niny toleinte, jind ;;ive a seeniinp r(HH)};(nit.ion to
such thinjLfs, hut can ne\er change their natnie, or make rij^ht, that
wltich in itself is wrnni,'.

Hooker's reiniest. rnjide nearly r»()0 years aj^o, has not yet, ho
far as I know, hrou^dit fortli a satisfactory answer. I will hei'e
repeat, it : " We requires yoti to find out but onc^ ch-icli upon the
face of the wliole (^irth, that hatli lieon ordenul l>y your disoiplims
or hath not heen or«lered l>y ours, that is to say, hy ej)isco))al
r»?ginient, Hithence the time that the l)lesse<l Apostles were Jiere
eonvei'KHnt. "

Ohj. V. (k) ''The Act of Uniformity deprived of their
Ministerial character all who had received Presbyterian Ordination,
unless by consenting to Episcoi)al rc-ordination they wouid agree
virtually to confess the nullity of their previous ministrations."

Ans. Had it not Vx'en for the " great rebellion " they would
never have been deprived ; because tliey would never have had any
stich position to l)e deprived of. The success of the rebellion gave
them their position, and when it collapsed they lost it. But men
are always more ready to cry out against law, and condemn it : than
they are to see the evil of their own conduct which has made such
law a necessity. This state of things was brought about by the
overbearing, and high-designing conduct of the Puritans ; and the
Act named was absolutely necessary, to put out altogether the
smouldering embers of rebellion and schism. Every opportunity to
retain their places that could well be given, had been afforded them,
BEFORE the Act was pa.ssed ; but when it became law, then they

1 1)7

wore »v.|iiiiv.| In .'..iifunii or miH;-) (l.'|.iiv;iliuii. \<) u 1 s»il»j,.»'t,

wnuM wish in o).)(o,s(> s-tMliit.- Imw, siirli romliK-t an. I cxMiiipN* woiiM
\t(' flostnirtivr to jiny stati'. K|.isn.|.;il oiiliintHon wms iilwiiyHknown
to \m iH'rnsHai-v, in order to rinjility miiv on*- to niinistoj- in Mih
rhnrcli of Kn/iliind : tlicy IijkI it not, neither would tlioy snl.niit, to
it, hy conscipK'nc*' wnv dis(|ii;dili('d iinii .Icjirivcd.

()l)j. \'. (r). "Oncmoliv*' for tiiis clum;;!', it is plain, wiis to
drive many of tlio Mlilcst niinistcis in Kniil.-ind from tlieir livini^'s ;
foi" tli('y (;onld not in (•f)nsoi«'n«(' deny flic ministry tliat. tlie l.oril
liafl lonjj; !i<'knowlf'd<;vd juid Messed. "

Ans. MoTi\ i:s are not, for man to know oi- Jud;<(' ; it would
hn Hafm* to say tlie efleet of this ehajiju'e, itc. IJnt tlie "livinj^s"
wore NOT TiFKir.'S fjy liKiiiT, thoy laid ustirped them ; they wore
awai'o of this, nnd askfd indulgence, until surh timo as a
parliament should decide tlu^ matter ; and in the mnan time K.
Chas. II. DID INDI'LOK them, and made a proclamation " that they
shall receive ordination, institution, and induction, and shall be
permitted to exercise tlioir function, and to enjoy the profits of
their livings, without the said srBsruiPTioN on oatff of canonical
OBEDIENOK ;" wliicli they could not in consci(Mice comply with.
There was no other way of satisfying them, than hy giving ihom
their own way ; and, their own way of having their own way.

Ohj. V. (a). " Said John How*>, pre-eminent among divines,
to a Bishop who remarked : * Pray, sir, what hurt is thei-e in being
twice ordained ]' ' Hurt, my Lord : it hurts my luiderstanding !
the thought is shocking ; it is an absurdity, since nothing can have
two beginnings. J. am sure J am a iNfinister of Christ, and am ready
to debate that matter with you, if youi- T/.idsliip pleases ; but I
cannot begin again to be a MinistP!.' '"

Ans. In ordination, as in other things, tliere is a right ami a
Avron^ ; it would not have " hurt the understanding " of John
Howe, pre-eminent though he might have been among divines, to
have known, that although he could not begin again to be a
minister : yet he could make a now beginning, and exorcise his

19^

ministry in a reguliu- lawful mannei-. It would not require a very
great amount of reflection, to learn and understand, that his orders
were not snch as the Chnrcli of England required or pei'mitted; and
that now order was again restored he ninst either ol»tain proper
orders or retire himself. ,

His remark, " It is an absurdity, Ac," is an absurdity itself :
if correctly stated ; "nothing" — is, simply nothing ; and has not
even one beginning. If by this he "meant to say," that a thing
once begun, cannot begin again to be the same thing ; it is granted.
But any created thing may undergo a change, and begin in a new
WAY. Had he submitted to be ordained as the law required, he
would from that time have begun again, as a lawful minister, the
exercise of that ministry he had before carried on without proper
authority. His statement is the very opposite, and a flat contradic-
tion, of John iii. 3. "Except a man be born again, &c." Nicodemus,
was pre-eminent :ilso, in his day ; bu.t he was not infallible.

Obj V. (h). "Protest of the Puritans. 'We doubt not but
you know how new and strange a thing it is that you require in the
point of re-ordination, when a canon amongst those called Apostolic,
deposeth those that re-ordain, and that are re-ordained ; and when it is
a thing both Papist and Protestant condemn ; when not only the
former Bishops of England, that were more moderate, were against
it, but even the most fervent adversaries of the Presbyterian way,
such as Bishop Bancroft himself ; how strange must it seem to the
Reformed Churches, to the whole Christian world, and to future
generations, that so many able, faithful ministers should be laid by
as broken vessels, because they dare not be re-ordained, and that so
many have been just upon so new and so gener^ly disrelished a
thing."

Ans. I am very much surprised, that they should have urged
the authority ef the Canons Apostolic ; because both Nonconformist
and Papist tell us they wei-e not to be relied upon ; but, perhaps,
when it suits the purpose of either of them, they may. Howevei",
we will try this " Protest" by the Canons appealed unto. In Book
iii. Canon xx., " We command that a Bishop be ordained by three

199

Bishops, or at least by two : l)ut it ia not lawful that he he set over
you by one ; for the testimony of two or three witnesses is more
tirm and secure. But a Presbyter, and a Deacon, and the rest of
the clergy, are to be ordained by one Bishop. Nor must either a
Presbyter or a Deacon ordain from the laity into the clergy. But
the Presbyter is only to tea^h, to offer, to baptize, and to bless the
people ; and the Deacon is to minister tq the Bishop and to the
Presbyters, that is, to do the office of a ministering Deacon, and not
to meddle with the other offices."

In Book viii. Canon IxviiL, '• If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or
Deacon, receive a second ordination from any one, let him be
deposed, and the man who ordained him, unless he can shew that
his former ordination was from heretics ; for those that are either
baptized or ordained by such as these, can be neither Christians nor
clergymen.

If the Reformed Episcopal, and all other objiictors to Episcopacy,
will acknowledge this authority themselves : the which they desire
the Church of England to recognize ; then the question of the
authority of the ministry, which they have raised will soon be
settled. By the Canons quoted, the acts of the late Bp. Cummins,
and the present co-called Ilefurmed Episcopal Church, are unlawful.
Ordination by Presbyters, is expressly forbidden. The three ordei-s
of the Ministry ai-e distinctly named. Roman orders are
acknowledged ; " If any Bisho}) " ifec, The exclusive right of
Episcopal Ministers to ordain and baptize, fully asserted. These
things are so plainly stated, that it would require the acumen of a
Jesuit, to shew how they may Ix' " honestly evaded," or used with
" mental reservation."

Having now noticed all the objections that have any connection
with this Chaptei', I will poir^t out :

1. That ou)' Ch-clinutiou Services have all the essentials
necessary to the ordering of ministei's for Clii'ist's Church ; and
agree with those of the first ages.

1%.

200

2. That the clause objected against, '' Eeccive the Holy
Ghost," etc., is Scriptural ; and approved by Bishops Jewel, and
Burnet.

3. That the charge, " Cranmer taught, Bishops and Priests
were the same office " is shewn to be an error abandoned ; and that
Cranmer distinctly declares there are three oi'dei-s. As also, that
" primus inter pares," is of the veky duegs of Pqpery.

4. That Presbyteiian Ordinations were never at any time
recognized as valid in the Church of England, but Bp. Burnet says
that the xxiii Article was prepared on purpose to exclude them.

5. That Bishop Hall says Episcopacy is utterly indispensable.

6. That all the Reformers, both in England and on the
Continent, declare Episcopacy to have been the original form of
iiovernment in the Chuich of Christ.

7. That the forms used for Ordaining Bishops and Priests,
were amended in 1662, to silence the objections of the Presbyterians.

8. That Jerome testifies to Bishops being a distinct order
from Presbytei's, in the lifetime of the Apostles.

9. That the Preface in the book of 1552, was quite as
exclusive as the one now in the Prayer Book at present in use,
admitting none tc the Ministry but those ordained by Bishops.

10. That Roman Orders were acknowledged by the first
Reformers ; and that Cranmer, Ridley, Luther, ( -alvin, and Knox
were ordained according to the Romish Ritual.

11. That the Act of V iformity was not the cause of
Puritan Ministers being deprived of the livings they unjustly held.

12. That the Apostolic C'huous quoted by the Puritans for
their defence, condemn them and all other objectors to E|»iacopacy.

201

1 1

CHAPTl!:U XVil.

SACEKDOTALISM.

01)j. I. (a). " The Revisers foiina tlie word 'Minister' used
to denote the Clergy in tlie reign of Edward and Elizabeth. In the
Book of 1552, the wo;ds are : ' Absolution to be pronounced by
the Minister" alone,' * * * * they substituted the word
'Priest 'for 'Minister.'"

Ans. True ; l)ut this was only one of many terms used to
denote the Clergy ; for in the very first Rubric of the book of
1552, we find "Minister, Archbishop, Bishop, Priest, Deacon;"
any one of which would be a Minister. But the Rubric before the
Absolution, in the Communion Service of the Book of 1552, has the
word Priest ; which word may be found in many other places also.

The Puritans of 1661, object against this word which shews it
was in the book at that time. " That as the word ' minister,' and
not priest or curate, is used in the Absolution, and in divers other
places ; it may throughout the whole book be so used instead of
those two words."

To which the Bishops reply, "It is not reasonable that the
word minister should be only used in the liturgy. For since some
parts of the liturgy may be perfo.-med by a deacon, others by none
under the order of a priest, viz., absolution, consecration, it is ht
that some such word as priest should be used for those offices, and
not ministers, which signifies at large every one that mnusters in
that holy office, of what order soever he be ; the word curate
si^iifving properly all those who are trusted by the bishops with
cure of s^uls, as =mclently it sigiuHed, is a very fit word to be used,

and can ofteud no sober person.'

26 '

liM

m i

202

Obj. I. (15). " The so-callcil Priest of the Olmrcli of Eiiglaml
]n-oiiouiices the absohitiou 'standing.' B]). Andrews said that postui'e
was proper, because he executed this otKce * autlioritatively.' Here
is ex})ressed the clear sacerdotal idea, which has wrought sucli

mischief among us."

ft », .'■

^Wi;

Ans. The Priest pronounces the absolution autlioritatively,
because he has authority given to him, (by those commissioned to
send ministers), to preach, to declare, to i)ronounce, to make known,
God's terms of })ardon and forgiveness to i)enitent- sinners. He is
authorized to say, that " God ])ardoneth and absolveth all them that
truly repent and unfeignedly believe His Holy Gospel." As to the
position - " standing :" he could not well assume any other. He
ought not to— kneel — be(rause li<! is speaking to the congregation.
He o\ight not to- -sit down — for he is a Messenger ; and that
position would not be be(,-oming, or in character. So he — stands —
" to declare and pi'onouTice " the message ; then as a Minister of
Christ, and in Christ's stead, he bese<Kthes them to be reconciled to
God ; saying, " Let us beseech him to grant us true repentance, and
his holy Spirit, that those things may please him, which we do at
this present ; and that the rest of our life hereafter may be pure
and holy ; ttc." When this part of his duty is performed, then he
changes his position -kneels — and with the p(;oj>le, says the Lord's
Prayer.

Query : When a ''Nonconformist" PUoNOrNCES the benediction,
does he do it authoritati\ely ? And, what is ills jiosition when
pronouncing it i

Obj. I. (o). "At the revifsion of KlUl, the term ' Remission of
Sins ' was introduced after the word 'Absolution" to render the
service more emphatically sacerdotal."

Ans. The llexisiou of 1001, was a special eti'ort made to
satisfv the Puritans ; and this was one of the changes made FOR
THKM. It was left to the Bisho})s to see if the words " lemission of
sii.s " might not be ai>ih:i» i-uii kx plan at ion's sakk. Hut how is it

203

tlijil tlif> (►hjcctor tlid not S('.<' tlir mtv smfim' woidsiii tli«' Ahsolutiou,
as woll MS ii) t]\v, titlol An<l scciiii^f tliosr words wore tliciv in ir>rn\
how were they introduced to rendei- tlie s(M'\ ice moi-e enn>h:itically
Sacerdotal I 'V\iv fact is, such men as this ohje(ttoi', have no
necessity to head for information- they know without i*e:i<ling.
I am very soriy for the poor people they <h'cei\e with such
impositions.

-! 'i|

all ''I

204

(JHAPTEJI XVIIl.

THE ACT OP i;NiFon>:fTv.

It will be necessary for i»ie to make a few i-emarks with respect
to this Act, etc. ; because the objector and his party, have in
addition to their own grievances, assumed that burden the Puritans
formerly carried. I shall not do more than state as briefly as I can,
the particulars they object to, and say weie caused by the passing of
tliis Act.

First. They say that the passing of this Act, was the special
cause of their Schism.

Ans. This is not true; the Schism began more than twenty yeai's
previously. The faction by which this was accomplished, had
entered into a " Solemn League and Covenant " to " extirpate
Prelacy ;" or in other words the Church of England, and abolish the
Liturgy. They met with such success, that they were enabled for
a time, to suppress both Monarchy and Episcopacy ; so they divided
the places amongst themselves, and set up a new form of govern-
ment and of religion. The King, and the Church, with theii'
consent, would never have been restored ; but their schemes failed
and came to naught ; they found it to be impossible to rule the
kingdom by such men and such means. When the King returned,
the old forms of government were not immediately restored ; it was
left to the Parliament to do what was best under the circumstances.
The result was, Monarchy was re-established and the Book of
Common Prayer again declared to be the form of worship for the
Church.

Secondly. The Act of Uniformity is supposed and said to be
for the purpose of coiBpelling the use of the Book of Common

205

«l>

Pniynr ; rcrjiiii-ini^r ;,)» •• uiift'i<;iMMl jissciit mikI I'onsr.iit," at., to all
that it cont iiins. An<l tiiiit sroiiiL^ tlios<i Puritfiiis could not mvc
thoiruiifci^nM'fl nssciit, At.. IIk'V \vcr»' fli('iv!i|M>ii mijiistly »'j('ct«'T
fj'om tluMv liviiijjfs.

Alls. Tliis is ji very ])l!Uisil»I(' story iunl luis sonic M[>|n»amii('o
of truth. IJut thcio is aiiotlior si(l<» to the story. T\\r, Puritans
had previously bound themselves in a Solonin Lcai^iie and (Covenant
to "extirpate prelacy" and to abolish the IJook of (•oinmoii Prayer.
They had also taught for doctrine, that it was la^^ful and li^dit for
subjects to bear arms against the King, and those conivnissioncd by
him : and had cai'ried it out in i»ractice, thus placing themselves in a
false position. Men of t<^nder consciences indet^d ! Say, stern,
self-willed, determined men. But they deserve credit for
consistency and steadfastness of ]»ur]>ose, when they refused to
adjure, and swear the very contrary. As Bisliop Sheldon said —
they would have been kna\es, had they conformed. But they had
to thank their own rashness of lieart and month for their
unpleasant position and sul3se({uent sutterings. They subscribed
the FIRST OATH willingly and " ex animo ;" so consistency and
common honesty would prevent them signing the following
'' Declaration or Acknowledgement," as found in Clause ix. of the
Act. " I, A. B., do declare, that it is not lawful upon any
pretence whatsoever to take arms against the King ; and that I do
abhor that traitorous position of taking arms by his authority
against his person, or against those that are commissioned by him ;
and that I will conform to tlie Liturgy of the Church of England,
as it is now bv law established. — And I do declare that I do hold
there lies no obligation upon me, or on any other person, from tlie
oath commonly called The Solemn Leaguk and Covenant, (o
endeavour any change or alteration of government either in Church
or State ; and that the same was in itself an unlawful oath, and
imposed upon the subjects of this realm against the known laws and
liberties of this kingdom."

iifH

BUJ

2or,

floNVcvcf iimdi we iii:iy |»ih' iikmi nvIio Iimnci jJactMl tlu'iiiscilvcH
in such an unfoituiuitci i>osition ; y«'t wo rmist allow that ihv i)oaco
and safety of the realm nMjuired such nienHUies to be taken. Bettcu*
that the " two thoiismul '" should l>ede|)riv<fd, than by eonnivance to
nourish nj) a dan,<j;eioii.s faction. They refused to siji^n the declara-
tion, and so could not be peimitted to hold any oHice in Church or
8tate. Episcopal or<rnintion could not hiive been the reason for
refusing, b(K*ause Baxter and otlu^rs ha«l such orders, and were in
that res})ect qualified ; that Soh^nni L(\\giic! and Covenant *' stood in
the way." To shew that the for(?e of tliis rash oath was i)ei'ceived,
and formed one of the cliief lnn«lrances. I will quote from " Bicen
Papers," \). 24 -*' Before the Act of Uniformity came forth, writes
Mrs. Alleine, wife of the saintly autlior of ' Alleine's Alarm,' "my
husband was very earnest, day and night, with God, that his way
might be made plain to him, and that he might not desist from sucli
advantages of saving souls, witli any scruple upon his spirit. He
seemed so moderate, that both myself and others thought he would
have conformed ; he often saving that he would not leave his work for
small and dubious matters ; but when he saw those clauses of assents
and consent, A\D renouncixg tiik Covexant, he was fuUv satisfied." I
verily believe, that if the former " Oath,itc.," had not been taken, the
number of that two thousand would have been considei'ably reduced.
Lord Clarendon's opinion is expressed as follows : " It is an unhaj)-
py policy, and always uidiappily applied, to imagine that classis of
men can be recovered and reconciled by partial concessions, or
granting less than they demand. And if all were granted they
would have more to ask, somewhat as a security for the enjoyment
of what is granted, that shall preserve their power, and shake the
whole frame of the government. Their faction is their
RELIGION ; nor are these combinations ever entered into upon real
and substantial motives of conscience, how erroneous soever, but
consist of many glutinous materials, of will, and humour, and folly,
and knaveiy, and ambition, and malice, which make men cling
insepai-ably together till they have satisfaction in all their pretences,

207

oi" till tiny arc al»,solutL']y lnokrii mikI HulitUiffi, wliicli iiiny nhvays
Ite inoix; easily done than tho othei."

Thirdly. Jt i.s said that they had not sutliciciit tinir allowed,
to consider and detenniiie vvhethei thev could sul)scril)e to all tluj
thnigs contained in the liook of (V)nnnon Prayer, to which they
were required to give their unfeigned assent and consent.

Ans. But this, I think, couhl not Ix^ pleaded with truthful-
ness either ; and is an afterthought. Tin; Puritans kvi:w, l»y right
the Book of (Jonnnon Prayt ought to l»e restored, and govern the wor-
ship of the Church. JiJut those "pure minded" uuai sought to prevent
this : not constitutionally or ojienly ; hut secietly ; for they knew
the weakness of C'has. II., and ten)i)ted hiiu to make an arbitrary
use of the powt-i- he possessed, and restrain the Clergy from using
the Liturgy. " Iteynolds. Calamy, Mant, and otheis, tsmboldened hy
the king's gracious demeanour, by the Declaration lie had issued of
liberty for tender consciences, an<l by the teni]>tation otl'ered them
to make some specific trial of their strength, they ventur(;d to
suggest to the king in some private audiences, that the use of the
Book of ^ *omnion Prayer had b(H?n long discontinue*! ; that many
of the people had never heard of it, and had become familiar with
an oi)posite method of public woiship ; and that lu; would be acting
agreebly with the wishes of tlu; nation, if he weic to abstain fi-oni
using the liturgy in strict form in the royal chajiel. * * * *
The king replied with some warmth ' that while he gave them
liberty, he woukl not liave his own takeii from him ; that lu^ had
always used that form of service, which he thought the best in tlui
world, and had never discontinued it in jtlaces whero it was more
disliked than he hoped it was by them ; that when he came into
England, he would not se\eiely inc^uire how it was usevl in other
churches, though he doubted not he should tind it used in many; but
he was sure he Nvould have no otluM' used in his own chapel"

K. Chas. was verv an.Mous tu win o^cJ■ the Piesbyterians to
confoi-mitv ; nnd while tilings wrre in abcynncc, he otfer(>d teinis

208

"i.
1 ]

for offecting tin; .saino, wliicli wore of .siudi m niitinr, tliiii any one at
that timo might liave conformed without compromiBiiig his
conscience. On the 2r)th Oct., 1660, nearly two years before tlie
jmssing of tlie Act of Uniformity ; also before the Savoy Conference
was held ; before ever un alteration was made in the Book of
Common Prayer, to which the Puritans of 1604 agreed ; he otfere*!
the following easy terms for conformity. " And because some men,
otherwise pious and learned, say tlu^y cannot conform unto the
subscription i-equired by the canon, nor take the oath of canonical
obedience ; we pre content, and it is our will and pleasure (so they
take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy) that they shall receive
ordination, institution, and induction, and shall be permitted to
exercise their function, and to enjoy the profits of their livings,
without the said subscription, or oath of canonical obedience."

It will be now seen that want of time cannot be pleaded as an
excuse, for they had two whole years to consider the matter. It
was not from any alterations made in the Book of Common Prayer,
for tney were made subsequently. It was not because they objected
to Episcopacy, for they offered to comply with Abp. Usher's plan.
It was not because they objec-t(;d to the use of a Liturgy, for Baxter
had offered one such as they would use. The cause of all the
trouble and disappointment they met with, was, they were unac-
commodating, and determined on victory. Their desire was to
RULE — and not to be ruled ; they were anxious to force their
opinions ujion otliers, and were intolerant of any but their own
being received ; they did not succeed in their endeavour, because
their party was not strong .,nough.

I do not wish to decide these matters by my own opinions, but
will give evidence from history. On the 3rd of Jan. 1644, "The
Lords and Conmions assembled in Parliament, taking into serious
consideration the manifold inconveniences that have arisen by the
Book of Common Prayer In tliis kinijdom, and resolvinif, accordinj'

209

to ihv'w rovi-nHut, to n^forni ri'li^lon, ^c, ilr., rlo jtnl^c it neM-Hsarv
tliat tlu' Haul Jjook of Coininon Prayer .sliull ho uljoliHlicd, ami tlu'
J)irectoiy for th«5 public woi'shljj of Ciod, lierciiiaftor inontioiiod, U'
(jstablishc'd and observod iu all clmiclics within tliis kingduni." Tlic
couse<iuenceH resulting fiouj tht^wo Onliiiantos, wnv Hoon felt by
thoHO opposed to tlnMii. The conformable ehn'jy were deprived to
the number or hkvkn thousand at least. The l>i.sliop;< removed
from their sees ; the cathedral lan<ls w(!re soUi; tin; dejtrived clergy,
with their wives and families, leduccul to a state of great distress.
Those who wished to use the iiituigy, did so at th«! risk of their
lives.

This state of things had an existence fui' nearly twenty yeaif^,
and may give .some idea of what would be the kind of spirit in
which the Puritans and other Nonconformists would entei- upon the
consideration of that Liturgy, and form of governmoit being about
to be restored, that they had taken such piiiiis to destroy and utterly
annihilate or extir[)iite.

Fourthly, ('has. II. had given a pleilgc that no man shall be
disquieted or calk!d in (piestion for ditieronces of opinion in nnittcra
of religion which do not disturb the peace of tlie kingdom.

Ans. The king's promise had a limit; he promised protection
until the matter could be settled by Parliament.

But things were carried quite diii'erently to what the king
wished, or what the Puritans expected. They were disapi)oinled in
their expectations of tlie attachment of tin' people to their cause.
Neal, the Puritan historian siiys, "The Loids would have exempted
schoolmasters, tute)rs, and thosi! who had the education of youth ;
and in the disabling elaust;, would have in(!ude<l oidy livings with
cure. But the (!ommons, bring sui)]>orted by the Court, would
abate nothing, nor consent to any i)iovisio)i for such as shouhl be
ejected. They wonhl indulge no latitude in the surplico, or cross in
Uwtism for fear of ostablishing a Schisui, and w«'.ak<'ning the
^ 27

'tf:

210

authority of tJio Dimrh, hk to ]wr liglit of iiMi»o«iny iTulifrnrmt rit^H
and ci'inuonit'8. And tho (lourt wviv, willino to shtt out as
many uh they could from the EHtabliNhnuiut, to make a uKNKUAii
TOLEiiATlON MOKE NECESSARY. When the LordH urged the King'a
declaration from Breda, the Commons ro])lied, that it would hu
strange to call a schismatical conscience a tender one ; but, BUp|)OHo
this had been meant, say tlniy, his Majesty can be guilty of no
breach of promise, because the Declaration had these two limitations;
a reference to Parliament, and, so fur as was consistent with the
peace of the kingdom."

There will be some dirticulty found in reconciling this account
with the statements made by the objector : that the Bishops
" engineered " this and other Acts ; or that their intention was to
tolerate all opinions in religion ; and then add, they were never
known to yield a prerogative.

I think it will plainly ai)pear that the chief difficulty in the
way of Conformity, was, the Oatii of the Solemn League and
Covenant ; and that the Act of Uniformity, was the deliberate act
of the House of Commons, in which the Cleigy had no voice.

^ >

•Jll

CIIAPTEK XIX.

rOXC'M'SlON.

Vfiy little more now loiiuiiiiH to ho said. In brinj^'in^ tliiH
work to a conclusion, 1 am not so |in'suni|>tioiiH as to Hn))poRo that T
lia\e Holvod cvei'v tlitticultv, I'oniovjMJ cvorv oUjcction out of the way*
and that wo shall not cxiu'rionff fuithor troul>lo. \. am afrai«l that
evil nion and seducers will Wiix ^vol•M^^ and woj-nr, doccivinj; and
))eing dooeived. j>ut this much 1 claim to have dono ; shewn very
clearly that the char<,'cs made a;,'ainst the Hook of Common Pray(M-,
by this ** Ivet'ormed E|<iscopal '' Lectiii-er, are falsk IN every
PARTici'LAR. That it does not contain any " I'omanizing germs,"
neither was it "intentionally llonianized." Hnvinj; examine<],
classified, and minutely delinedjthe difl'cj'ent piuticularsof eaoli char«;e
made, T need not trouble the reader with any jejietition. I have
made it clear that— all our doctrines, forms for administration of
tlie Sacraments, and for Ordination -as well as tlu; gencnal order of
the Prayer Book — ark pkrfkctia' fhkk from all khror, in so far
as it lias heeen charged against tluMu, And further, that they are
in perfect agieement with Scripture, and tlu» ancient usage of the
Christian church. The imi»ortance and value of the Book of
Common Piaver, centres in its truth although we might have had
a general idea that it was fj-ee from error, and might he relied
upon ; yet I venture to say, that our satisfaction will be found to be
increased when we see these cliarges refuted, and the truth brought
to licht I think the faihire of so many attempts made to fix the
charge of error upon our Services, .should act as a caution to all
pei-sons ready to cavil at them, and cause them to take heed to what
they say ; it may readily be perceived that they cainiot prevail
■ainst the truth by false and foolish charges ; sooner or later the

truth will out.

212

I lirtvc b'lt few words to say nlxnit ilic'cliai'tjcs tiKaiiscOvcs. Of
Jill the blunders of tlio ignorant, or ilw )nii)Ositions of tlio crafty
and designing tliat ovoi- I nictt with, I must say tliese hear away the
palm. I think it is vovy douhtful if the Lecturer ever read any-
thing more on the siihject than a few other lectures of a like kind.
But I find it difficult to decider, whcthej' to wonder niost at the
holdness and concent of the fjecturer : oi- the childish folly and
simplicity of tliose who so readily followed him. I think it shews
how easy a matter it is for a man to believe that to be false, which
he has either an intltnation to siip]»ose, or too nnich I'eason to
WISH to be true.

^' i?'

}

It is to be fearc?«i there nuist be some latent juggle in this new
movement, something to be destroyed deceptively ; and to be
effected by casting a mist before the eyes, or as they think, by some
dazzlinjj brilliant effort,

0, the marvellous enlightenment of this nineteenth century ! The
light is so intensely brilliant, that it positively blinds the eyes ; so
that this excess of light is as much to be feared ^s the gross darkness
of the middle ages. And the Prince of darkness, by transforming
liimself into an angel of light, will as effectually deceive by this
means, as he did formerly by gross sujierstition and ignorance.
Therefore let all those who have the conceit to say — we see — Ijeware!

In self-defence we are })0und to ascertain oui' true position as
clearly and as accurately as we can, T hav.e endeavoured, so far as
my ability would serve me, to clear our Prayer Book from all such
false and ei-roneous opinions as these people have expressed against
it ; and by a patient investigation to foitify our position by a
manifestation of ius truth. Although it has been strongly " spoken
against ;" and others halt between two opinions as if they doubted
either its truth or completeness ; for my own part I heartily
commend it, without change, when after a long and i)atient search
I have found it all that could be desired.

-i

Let us then lioM fast tlic form of sound words \v<> |k)ss('Ss.
Let us go forwrtid-OTiNvard ! Ncitln'i- turnin,<r to Mic riglit
Imnd, nor yot to tlio, left. if we wisli to }k> found faithful,
and at last nowni,^d M-ith sucfess, we must not ovon halt, as if of
doubtful luind, inu('h loss turn out of the way. But, go on — as our
fathers did- -as (Vaniner, Ridley, and Latimei- did; rc^gardless
alike of the assaults of the Ronianist, the eavil of the Oissentej-, or
the sneer of the Tnfidel.

>■

Our system of worship and teaching is so judiciously contiivt^d,
so well defined, so complete, so true to Scri]iture ; that if it is but
received iu its purity, rightly and duly used ; we cannot lack any
thing that is necessaiy to make us wise unto salvation. The
purpose of the C/hurcJi of Enghmd is an honest one ; let men
examine as closely as they please ; let them investigate our
Formularies in the strictest manner ])ossil>le ; yet then aftei" all is
done, we may defy them to, find any thing contrary to ( Jod's word
wi'itten.

The Churcli of England can never he charged with having kept
any thing back from the ])eople that it was profitable for them to
know. From the time of the Pvoformation down to the present
time, the Bible and the Prayer Book in our own language have
always gone side by side ; so that every person is furnished with
the ifecessary means of testing for himself the truth of wh}»t he is
required to believe,

I will conclude with some of the last words of Chas. L to his
son, afterwards Chas. II., being dying words, and said by one who
was greatly tempted to give up the Church Service altogether, they
ought to have weight. " 1 do entreat you, as your father and
your king, that you never sufier your heart to receive the least
clieck against, oi' disaffection from, the true religion established in
the Church of England. 1 tell you I have tried it, and, after nuicli
search and many disputes, have concluded it to be the best in the

•214

world, not only in the community, as Christian, but also in the
special notion, as Reformed ; keeping the middle way between the
pomp of superstitious tyranny, and the meanness of fantastic
anarchy.

Not but that (the draught being excellent as to the main, both
for doctrine and government, in the Church of England) some lines,
as in very good figures, may haply need some sweetening or
polishing, which might have been easily done by a safe and gentle
hand ; if some men's precipitancy had not violently demanded such
rude alterations as would have quite destroyed all the beauty and
and proportions of the whole."

215

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION

CHAP. I. . . General OV)jcctionH,

«
a
((
<<
((
((
((
i(
((
tt
tt
tt
ti

tt
it
tt
tt

II. .

III. .

IV. .
V.

VI. .

VII. .
VIII. .

IX. .

X. .
XL .
XII .
XIII. .

XIV. .

XV. .

XVI. .

XVII .
XVlll.

Baptism,

The Catechism,

The Communion,

The Articles, . . ....

The Apocryplia,

Saints' Days,

Tradition,

Schism,

The Commissioners,

The Puritans,

Kings or Monarchs,

Book of Sports,

The Prayer Book Unprotestantized

The Book of Common Prayer Deformed
and Defaced

Ordination, •

Sacerdotalism,

Act of Uniformity

Conclusion,

Page

13.

22.

61.

73.

98.

114.

122.

130.

((

136.

((

142.

146.

((

148.

156.

((

159.

led

((

168.

173.

201.

204.

211.