w 
 
 ^ 
 
 i^"^ 
 
 ■J^^'- 
 
 I 
 
 
 ■ 'z.-^' " 
 
 ^^yn^tn 
 
f THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 
 
 ^ Princeton, N. J. / | 
 
 # /^- ^ — 4 
 
 "S ' :? ^ ' i 
 
 BX 5995 .C3 H6 18A4 
 Hopkins, John Henry, 1792- 
 
 1868. 
 
 The novelties which disturb 
 
 
' m 
 
 
 
 4k 
 
 
^ wm ^ 
 
 i^ . * 
 
 4^' 
 
 •jjr 
 
<r 
 
 V 
 
 t 
 
 4 
 t 
 
 * 
 
 t 
 I 
 
 #*» 
 
 1^ 
 

 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
 
 • it 
 
THE 
 
 NOVELTIES WHICH DISTURB OUH PEACE. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 adhressed to the 
 
 BISHOPS, CLERGY. AND LAITY 
 
 PROTESTAxVT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 BY JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D. D., 
 
 BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT. 
 
 ' Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell to- 
 gether in unity." — Ps. 133. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 HERMAN HOOKER 
 
 1844. 
 
[Em ereJ according to Act of Congress, in the year 1841, by Herman Hooker, in the 
 Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United Stales in and for the Eastern District of 
 Pennsylvania ] 
 
 GiiioN, Fairchild & Co., Printers, 
 South East corner of Seventh and Market Streets. 
 
A LETTER, &c 
 
 Respected AND Beloved Brethren in Christ: — 
 
 The sacred office of the Episcopate is confessedly in- 
 vested with the most awful responsibihty, even in its ordi- 
 nary administration. When the Church is at peace in 
 all her borders, and her bishops are only called upon to 
 oversee their respective dioceses in the regular routine of 
 accustomed duty, — even then, how few can feel that they 
 have acquitted themselves of their solemn trust with en- 
 tire fidelity ! How ready must we all be to supplicate 
 forgiveness at the hands of the great Bishop and Shep- 
 herd of our souls, and to acknowledge the force of the 
 apostle's declaration, that the treasure of the gospel is in- 
 deed committed to earthen vessels, that the excellency of 
 the power might be of God, and not of us ! 
 
 But far more delicate and difficult does our task be- 
 come, when the peace of the Church is disturbed by in- 
 testine agitation. Scattered at distant points over our 
 vast continent, meeting together only once in three years, 
 and then during a period quite too short for an intimate 
 and thorough understanding of our respective opinions, 
 we are deprived of the power of mutual consultation, 
 when those peculiar occasions arise, on which that con- 
 sultation would be most desirable. Meanwhile, the ir- 
 responsible autocracy of the Press takes hold of the op- 
 portunity. Error and novelty gain ground. The clergy 
 and the people choose their editorial leaders ; and when 
 at last, the sentiments of the bishops are declared, they 
 are merely used as the complements of parties already 
 formed, and are praised or blamed, just as the prejudice 
 of pirty may dictate. The bishops, in theory, are in- 
 deed, the governors of the Church. In 2jractical effect, 
 however, on the minds of the majority, the editorial chair 
 stands far above them ; and as the inconsistency, how- 
 
ever gross, belongs to the spirit of the age, I doubt much 
 wlietlier it admits of any effectual remedy. 
 
 Under sucli circumstances, the inquiry, What can, and 
 what ought to he done by each individual bishop, be- 
 comes a grave and serious question. The apostohc pre- 
 cept, 5e not partaker of other men'' s sins, seems, of itself, 
 to require our public attestation against error. And when 
 we join to this the solemn promise of our consecration vow 
 to banish a?id drive away from the Church all erroneous 
 and strange doctrines contrary to God' s loord; and both 
 privately andopenly tocALLVFON ANDBycovRAGEOTHERs 
 to do the same, it would surely be a false interpretation 
 that we could be justified in doing nothing. If the relaxed 
 discipline of these latter days allows us to exercise only 
 the common liberty of speech, our very silence, in times 
 of trouble, becomes reprehensible. And just in propor- 
 tion to the doubts and difficulties which involve our bre- 
 thren, should be the force and distinctness of our warn- 
 ing voice. Whether men will hear, or whether they will 
 forbear, is not for us to determine ; but we cannot avoid 
 the responsibility of the ultimate evil result, if we see 
 them walking towards an unsuspected snare, without 
 earnestly beseeching them to pause and consider, before 
 it be too late. 
 
 I freely acknowledge, however, that wisdom demands 
 our utmost care, lest we create difficulty, by too hasty an 
 adoption of the cry that the Church is in danger. And 
 I am by no means disposed to sympathize in that popular 
 alarm, or to strengthen the fears of those who maintain 
 it. In one respect, indeed, the assertion may well be 
 granted, for the Church militant can never be free from 
 danger, until her warfare is accomplished, and the final vic- 
 tory is won. But 1 would hope that the agitation which now 
 pervadesour conniiunion, on both sides of the Atlantic, is 
 not an argument oi danger to the Church, so much as it 
 is a proof of her sensitive vitality, and her zealous love 
 for the pure and unadulterated doctrines of the gospel. 
 Hence arises our jealousy of the least approximation to 
 error. Hence our suspicions and our fears, lest the new 
 school of Tractarian theology should conflict with our 
 
standards of religious truth. And hence, following the 
 counsel of the wise son of Sirach, to take physic w}i.en we 
 are well, it seems our duty to arise before the Church is 
 i7i danger, attack the appearance of disorder in its first 
 and lightest symptoms, and thus, so far as in us lies, 
 under the guidance and by the power of the divine Phy- 
 sician, transmit her constitution, in health and vigour, 
 even to the end of the world. 
 
 With these views, my respected and beloved brethren, 
 bishops, clergy, and laity, I beg leave to address myself 
 to you upon the present interesting stage of our ecclesias- 
 tical history. I do it under the conviction, that the 
 Church has a right to know the sentiments of every 
 bishop, upon questions which concern her principles and 
 doctrine, especially at a time of agitation, which threatens 
 — may God avert it ! — to be the herald of strife. I do it in 
 the hope, that when all our bishops shall have spoken 
 distinctly, we shall find this agitation gradually subside. 
 I do it as a lover of peace and unity, as a friend to the 
 Reformation, and as an uncompromising adversary to 
 every form and shape of Romanism. I do it as a brother, 
 addressing brethren, without the fear of being misappre- 
 hended by those who understand, with Jerome, thai 
 " wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or at 
 Eugubiiun, he is of the same excellency, of the same 
 episcopate. The power of wealth, or the lowliness of 
 poverty does not make a bishop either less or greater.'" 
 And I do it in this particular form, on purpose to express 
 the more plainly, that I hold myself under correction, 
 especially from each and all of my brethren in the epis- 
 copate, if any thing which I conceive it my duty to say, 
 should seem, to their better judgments, unsound or objec- 
 tionable. 
 
 My design is to set forth, distinctly, my own position, 
 as one of the college of bishops, (although, it may be, 
 the least,) in reference to those important topics in which 
 innovation is beginning to be manifest ; on the admitted 
 maxim, Obsta principiis. The first subject which I shall 
 present is that of Lay Baptism, inasmuch as the novel prac- 
 tice of re-baptizing those who have received baptism at 
 1* 
 
the hands of our non-episcopal brethren, is openly defend- 
 ed, and is on the increase. My motives for placing this 
 matter at the commencement, have arisen out of my 
 official sphere of duty. The public allowance of re-bapti- 
 zation in the case of some students of the General Semi- 
 nary in A. D. 1841, has given me trouble in ray own 
 diocese. Bound, as I conceive, by the strongest ecclesiasti- 
 cal arguments, to deny the lawfulness of such re-baptiza- 
 tion, I have promised to publish my reasons; and I address 
 them to you with the desire, that when the next General 
 Convention meets together, under the favour of divine 
 Providence, this may be one of the points on which I 
 may have the counsel of my colleagues. 
 
 Another novelty which I regret to see, is the system- 
 atic refusal of the term Church, to the various orthodox 
 communities of our non-episcopal brethren, on the alleged 
 ground, that since Episcopacy is manifestly of divine in- 
 stitution, there can be no Church where there are no 
 bishops. 
 
 A third novelty to which I cannot assent, is the view 
 of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, as set forth 
 in the Oxford Tracts, and presented in the late sermon of 
 the Rev. Dr. Pusey. In connexion with this stands the 
 general scope of what is called the sacramental theolo- 
 gy, and the theory of priestly power. 
 
 A fourth novelty, which has produced a more serious 
 fermentation than all the rest, in consequence of the re- 
 cent ordination of Mr. Carey, is the theological notion 
 that the tenets of the Council of Trent may be recon- 
 ciled to sound Catholic (or orthodox and primitive) 
 doctrine. And along with this, I am compelled to 
 classify the apparent favour exhibited towards the 
 extraordinary assault of a Transatlantic periodical, the 
 British Critic, upon the cardinal doctrine o\ Justijication 
 by faith, and the Protestant character of the Church 
 of England. 
 
 I have called these things 'Novelties,^ not because the 
 notions themselves were never heard before, but be- 
 cause they have never been presented, until lately, in 
 such a form and under such peculiar circumstances, as 
 
to disturb our peace by their practical influence. That 
 iti this respect they are the fruits of the Tractarian theory, 
 is doubted by no one. And while I entertain none but 
 the kindUest feeUngs of personal regard and affection to- 
 wards the distinguished advocates of that theory, whe- 
 ther in our mother Church, or in our own, I have al- 
 ready, (in my Charge of 1S42,) been obliged to dissent 
 from their system; and now propose to act on the same 
 principle, under the vast increase of responsibility, which 
 has arisen from the unexpected developments of the past 
 year. Perfectly persuaded, however, that all my brethren, 
 with one heart, "desire the prosperity of our holy apos- 
 tolic Church," and are ready, " with one mouth, to pro- 
 fess the faith once delivered to the saints," I cannot con- 
 sent to prosecute a warfare against their piety, the purity 
 of their motives, or the rectitude of their intentions, even 
 when I am compelled to oppose what I conscientiously 
 believe to be serious errors in judgment. For if charity, 
 as the apostle saith,"rejoiceth in the truth," it may be 
 asserted, without fear of contradiction, that truth rejoiceth 
 no less in charity. 
 
 On the first of the topics specified, viz., the validity of 
 Lay-Baptism, I must ask your indulgence to a long 
 array of argument and evidence, not only because it has 
 been made the subject of several able publications on the 
 other side, (the lastofwhich,by my highly esteemed brother 
 and friend. Professor Ogilby, I have not yet seen,*) but al- 
 so because of its ^ve^l practical importance to our paro- 
 chial clergy. There are constant accessions to the Church 
 from the various Christian communities around us, and the 
 very first question to be settled in all such cases is, whether 
 the persons concerned have been already baptized or 
 not. It is plainly, therefore, of the most absolute neces- 
 sity to have fixed and definite views upon this matter; 
 and I have accordingly devoted considerable time and 
 labour, in order to exhibit what I conceive to be the doc- 
 trine of the Church, along with the proofs on which it is 
 founded. 
 
 * I have been informed by an intelligent clergyman, that the Pro- 
 fessor has taken the same line of argument as Waterland, whose work 
 I have kept chiefly before me in preparing the following pages. 
 
8 
 
 To this end, I shall first consider the question as it 
 stands in our mother Church of England since the Refor- 
 mation, and in our own Church, as derived from her. 
 Next, I shall bring the doctrine to the test of Scripture, 
 and Christian antiquitj^; and lastly, I shall point out some 
 of the difficulties which encumber the contrary opinion. 
 
 It is universally known, not only that Lay-Baptism 
 was the prevalent practice of the whole Western Church, 
 in cases of extremity, but that it was expressly approved 
 by the Church of England at the time of the Reformation; 
 for the Prayer-Book established in the reign of Edward 
 VI., gave directions for the mode in Avhich a layman 
 might perform the ordinance. The familiar maxim 
 in theology had long been settled, that the minister was 
 not of the essence, but only of the order of the sacra- 
 ment; and therefore, although as a point of sacred order, a 
 priest was required when he could be obtained,yet the e*- 
 seiice of baptism might be had under a lay-administration. 
 
 The first man of note who laid down the contrary 
 doctrine was the celebrated John Calvin, (1) " We judge 
 that baptism to be adulterated or vitiated," saith he, 
 "which is administered by a private man, and this teme- 
 rity, in a well-ordered Church, ought not to be tolerated. 
 But because this thing happened among you in the be- 
 ginning of the Reformation, before the order of the Church 
 was well restored, and while things were yet in confu- 
 
 (1) "Adulterinum baptismum censemus, qui administratus est a 
 privato homine . Ac in ecclesia, recte coraposita, tolerabilis non esset 
 heec temeritas. Sed quia id apud vos inter principia contigit, ante 
 restitntiun Ecclesife ordinem, et rebus adhuc confusis ; non tantum 
 errori danda est venia, sed ferendus est qualiscunque baptismus : 
 modo ne in exemplum trahatur, quod semel perperam gestum est. 
 Nam inEcclesice dissipatione multaDeus condonat, qusenullo modo ad- 
 mittere fas esset in Ecclesiam bene ordinatam. Olim cum viliata esset 
 religio, hand dubie multis vitiis et corruptelis implicita circnmcisio fuit; 
 quam tamen iteratam fuisse non legimus, quum revocaretur populus 
 ad purum cultum. Ergo anxie disquirere necesse non est, ac ne ex- 
 pedit quidem.in omnes circumstantias,quce innumeros scrupulosgigne- 
 rent. Proinde quod ignovit Deus sub Papatu, nos quoque sepeliamus. 
 Nunc ubi de vero baptismi usu admonita fuerit Ecclesia, quod pugna- 
 ret cum Christi institutione, pro nihiloducendum esset ; ac de integro 
 baptizandus, qui pollutus fuerit profana aspersione." Calv. Ep. p. 209. 
 Ed. Amstel. 1667. See App. to Bingham's Scholastic Hist, of Lay- 
 Baptism, § 8, to which I am indebted for the passage. 
 
sion, this error is not only to be pardoned, but any bap- 
 tism is to be admitted, provided the irregularity of what 
 was once done, be not drawn into precedent for the fu- 
 ture. For, in the dissipation of the Church, God pardons 
 many things thatare not to be admitted of in a well-order- 
 ed Church. Heretofore, when religion was corrupted, no 
 doubt many faults and corruptions had crept into cir- 
 cumcision : yet we do not read that it was repeated, 
 when the people were brought back to a pure worship. 
 It is therefore neither necessary nor expedient to be over 
 anxious in our inquiries into all circumstances, which may 
 raise innumerable scruples. And therefore, what God 
 pardoned under the Papacy, let us also bury. Only now, 
 that the Church is instructed in the true use of baptism, 
 what is repugnant to Christ's institution is to be account- 
 ed as nothing ; and he is to be baptized again, who has 
 been polluted by a profane washing.'^ 
 
 The Rubric of the Church of England, however, con- 
 tinued the same through the long reign of Ehzabeth, not- 
 withstanding the influence of Calvin's authority ; nor 
 was it altered until the famous conference at Hampton 
 Court; and then it was done to gratify King James, who 
 had been educated a thorough Presbyterian. But still 
 there was no condemnation nor prohibition of Lay-Bap- 
 tism. The bishops merely consented that it should not be 
 enjoined, as it had been previously; while they had no idea 
 of adopting the rule of Calvin, by treating it as a nullity. 
 Nay, more than a century after this, viz. A. D. 1712, 
 th«re was a formal meeting of the archbishops with the 
 bishops, in consequence of Mr. Lawrence's publications 
 on the subject ; and they unanimously resolved, that 
 '•'Lay-Baptism should be discouraged as much as possi- 
 ble,/;!/^ if the essentials had been jjreserved in a baptism 
 by a lay hand, it ivas not to be repeated.''^*' In full ac- 
 cordance with this, Bishop Fleetwood, cited as authority 
 in the last edition of Burns' Ecclesiastical Law, express^- 
 ly asserts, that " Lay-Baptism is not declared invalid by 
 any of the offices or rubrics, nor in any public act hath 
 tlie Church ever ordered such as have been baptized by 
 
 *See Bishop White's Memoirs of the Prot. Ep. Church, p. 280-394 
 of first edition. 
 
10 
 
 lay hands to be baptized by a lawful minister, though at 
 the time of the Restoration there were supposed to be 2 
 or 300,000 souls baptized by such as are called lay hands." 
 A glance at the chronology of this matter may aid 
 the force of the argument. The Book of Common Pray- 
 er which positively enjoined Lay-Baptism, was first pub- 
 lished in the reign of Edward VI., A. D. 1548, revised 
 and confirmed in 1552, and again revised and established 
 under Elizabeth, in 1559. The Hampton Court Confe- 
 rence which altered the rubric concerning Lay-Baptism, 
 at the instance of James I., took place in A, D. 1603. 
 The Restoration of Charles IL, after such vast numbers 
 had been baptized by lay hands. Independents and others, 
 was in A.D. 1660. The resolution of the bishops, occasion- 
 ed by Mr. Lawrence's book, was in 1712, and Bishop 
 Fleetwood, (who was probably present, since he was 
 consecrated to the see of St. Asaph in 1706) died in 1723, 
 precisely one hundred and twenty years after the Confe- 
 rence at Hampton Court, and sixty-three years after the 
 question of Lay-Baptism must have been pressed upon 
 the conscience of the Church of England with such pecu- 
 liar force, by the state of the kingdom, at the accession of 
 the second Charles. Hence we see that the time and the 
 circumstances stamp the most absolute confirmation upon 
 the doctriiie maintained by the ecclesiastical law of Eng- 
 land, viz. : that Baptism, administered by lay hands, 
 though irregular, and unauthorized by any express Rubric 
 since the year 1603, is nevertheless valid, and therefore 
 NOT TO BE REPEATED. That the judgment of our mo- 
 ther Church continues the same, has been fully proved 
 by the late case of Mastin vs. Escott, in which one of 
 her clergymen was sentenced to a suspension from the 
 ministry during three months, for having refused to bury 
 the body of a child who had been baptized by a Metho- 
 dist preacher, under the plea that such baptism was a 
 mere nullity; being performed, not by a 'lawful minister,' 
 but by a layman. The Ecclesiastical Court went large- 
 ly into the authorities, and condemned the clergyman on 
 the ground that Lay-Baptism, administered with water, 
 in the name of the Holy Trinity, ivas valid and sufficient 
 by the doctrine of the Church of England. And this 
 
11 
 
 decision, after an obstinate and zealous contest, was con- 
 firmed, A. D. 1841, upon an appeal to the highest tribu- 
 nal of the English Ecclesiastical law, with the general ap- 
 probation of the Episcopal Bench. At least such appro- 
 bation must in fairness be inferred from the fact, that no 
 attempt has been made to alter the legal state of the 
 question. 
 
 Such being the clear and harmonious action of our 
 mother Church upon this important subject, we have 
 next to examine the matter as respects ourselves since 
 the year 1789, when our branch of the Church became 
 possessed of a complete and independent organization. 
 And here I presume that there can be but one opinion, 
 since it is familiar to all, that our system on the doctrine 
 and administration of baptism is precisely the same with 
 that of England. Our House of Bishops have further 
 adopted and recommended, as theological text-books, 
 those authors who expressly sustain the validity of Lay- 
 Baptism, such as Hooker, Burnet, and Potter. Our late 
 venerable Bishop White, who presided over that House 
 for half a century, has published his mature decision in 
 favour of the same views ; and it is only since his de- 
 cease that any other doctrine has been openly advocated 
 amongst us : so that up to the present hour, nothing has 
 been done on this subject by the authority of our Church, 
 which changes our position one jot from that of the 
 Church of England. Our principles and our practice 
 were both derived from her, and for the first fifty years 
 of our ecclesiastical independence, our concord on this 
 point was unbroken. A few cases, indeed, of individual 
 dissatisfaction occurred from time to time ; but they 
 were disposed of in a corner, with as httle publicity and 
 observation as possible, and were generally regarded, 
 not as a vindication of the doctrine of the Church, but 
 rather as a private and special indulgence to over-scru- 
 pulous minds, about which, the less that was said, the 
 better. 
 
 But I have now to examine the consistency of all this 
 with the truth of Scripture, and the doctrine of Christian 
 antiquity ; in order to test the allegation so confidently 
 made by the writers on the other side, that the Word of 
 
12 
 
 God and the example of the primitive Church stand op- 
 posed to it. 
 
 First, then, if we turn to ihe Old Testanrient, we shall 
 find that those sacramental rites which were afterwards 
 committed to the Aaronic priesthood, were exercised 
 from the beginning without restriction. Thus, Abel 
 brought his sacrifice, the firstlings of his flock. Thus 
 Noah built an altar and offered sacrifices. Thus, Abra- 
 ham fulfilled the same sacred function ; and to him was 
 committed the sacramental rite of Circumcision, which 
 ordinance held the same place with his posterity, as Bap- 
 tism held with the spiritual Israel. I am well aware, in- 
 deed, of the distinction which the ancient fathers gene- 
 rally maintained, between those sacramental rites and 
 the proper Christian sacraments, calling the first the 
 iijpes of those blessings which the latter actually con- 
 ferred. But in whatever light we may regard this point 
 of controversy, the analogy is sufficiently strong. The 
 strict propriety of arguing from Circumcision to Baptism, 
 from Sacrifices to the Eucharist, and from the Aaronic 
 priesthood to the apostolic ministry, is an axiom amongst 
 all sound theologians, the authority of which is settled and 
 unquestionable. 
 
 On this very ground of analogy, it has always been 
 held most reasonable to cite the law which required in- 
 fant Circumcision, as a primary evidence in favour of 
 infant Baptism ; enough of itself to justify the Baptism 
 of infants, unless there were some prohibition in the New 
 Testament to prevent the application of the principle. 
 But assuredly, if it be right to assume this analogy in the 
 subjects of the two ordinances, it must be equally right to 
 claim the same analogy in the authority of the adminis- 
 trator. And hence it becomes important to observe, 
 that Circumcision was instituted long before the Aaronic 
 priesthood ; that even women, as in the remarkable in- 
 stance of Zipporah, (Exod. iv. 25,) performed it in cases 
 of extremity, and that notwithstanding the institution of 
 the Levitical law of priesthood, this initiatory rite con- 
 tinued free to every Israelite ; although, through respect 
 for their office, a Levite was always employed when 
 
13 
 
 practicable. Nor is this the full extent to which 
 the principle was applied in the Mosaic dispensation. 
 For, as is well observed by Isidore of Pelnsium, even 
 sacrifice was not so strictly confined to the order of the 
 priesthood, but that every man was still allowed to be 
 a priest to himself and to his family, in the sacrifice of the 
 Passover ; thus verifying the declaration of the Almighty 
 to the very letter, that Israel was a kingdom of jjriests, 
 and a holy nation. (3.) 
 
 Now here there seems to be a fair demonstration of 
 the theological maxim, that the priest is not of the essence, 
 bnt only of the ort/er of the sacraments. For the sacra- 
 mental rites of ancient Israel were these two. Sacrifice 
 and Circumcision. But although sacrifice was formally 
 committed to the Aaronic priesthood, yet it is most mani- 
 fest that this could not change its essence, since it was in 
 esse, or in existence, since the period of the fall. It 
 would be a waste of words to prove, what is evident ex 
 vi termini, that the essence or essential element of a 
 thing, must needs be that ivithoiit ivhich it cannot exist. 
 And therefore, as the ordinance of sacrifice was in exist- 
 ence from the time of Adam's expulsion from paradise, 
 and continued through every variety of the patriarchal 
 
 (2) Isid. Pelus. Lib. Hi. Theodosio Episcopo, 75, p. 251. "Pulcherrinia 
 victima est, piam mentem et carnem caslam habere. — Non enim ad 
 sacerdotes solos scribens, ut ipse estimas, hsec ipsis mandabat, (sc. 
 apostolus) sed universse Ecclesiae. Unumquemque enim ipsorum hac 
 in parte sacerdotem esse jussit. Quod si castitas et pudicitia subditos 
 sacerdotes creat, libido proculdubio ac lascivia sacerdotibus dignita- 
 tem abrogat. — TJt enim in Veteri Testamento sacerdotii munere fungi 
 exceptis sacerdotibits nemini licebat, Paschffi tamen tempore omnes 
 sacerdotii honore afficiebantur, (unusquisque enim pecudem immola- 
 bat,) sic etiam in novo ac successionis experte, sejunctim quidera, ac 
 velut prPRrogativse nomine, incruentce victimce sacrificium ii habent, 
 quibus illud offerre concessum est ; at interim unusquisque corporis 
 sui sacerdos creatus est; non ut citra ordinationem et institutionem 
 subditorum imperium arripiat, sed ut vitiis imperans, corpus suum 
 castitatis delubrum aut templum efficiat." This beautiful idea, that 
 every man is created the priest of his own body, which is designed to be 
 a living temple of the Holy Spirit, occurs in many of the fathers ; and 
 it is not only important to explain the true ground of the maxim that 
 the instituted official priesthood is a matter of order and not of essence, 
 but it is of still higher value as the guard of personal piety. 
 2 
 
14 
 
 dispensation, it is plain that the institution of the Leviti- 
 cal law of priesthood could not be designed to affect its 
 essential ele7nents, but merely to fix, in a higher and 
 more solemn form, the order of its administration. 
 Hence if, after this divine appointment, some Israelite 
 who was not of the priesthood had undertaken to offer 
 sacrifice, it would seem absurd to say that his act was a 
 nullity, and that his offering was no sacrifice at all. For 
 in truth, the act itself which was a real sacrifice anterior 
 to the priesthood of Aaron, must be a real sacrifice after- 
 wards ; although the offerer would now be guilty of a 
 sacrilege in violathig the order appointed by the Almigh- 
 ty, and for this sin, he would of course deserve condem- 
 nation. 
 
 An example, fully in point, occurs in the case of Korah, 
 Dathan, and Abiram ; who, contumaciously setting them- 
 selves up against the priesthood of Aaron, claimed equal 
 rights for every Israelite. " Ye take too much upon you^^ 
 said they to Moses and Aaron, (Num. xvi. 3,) " seeing 
 all the congregation are holy, every one of them,, and the 
 Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up your- 
 selves above the congregation of the Lord?" In reply 
 to this rebellious assumption, Moses charges them plainly 
 with seeking the priesthood ; and tells them to take cen- 
 sers and put fire therein, and put incense on them before 
 the Lord to-morrow, while Aaron should do the same ; 
 and then the Almighty himself would shew who were 
 his priests, and whom he had chosen. Korah and his 
 company, accordingly, amounting to two hundred and 
 fifty men, took their censers and offered incense, stand- 
 ing in the door of the tabernacle with Moses and Aaron. 
 And God caused Korah, Dathan and Abiram to be swal- 
 lowed up alive, by the earth cleaving asunder that was 
 under them. Nor was this awful punishment of the 
 ring-leaders all that the divine judgment thought neces- 
 sary to vindicate the priesthood. For we read further, 
 that there came out a fire from the Lord, and consumed 
 the two hundred and fifty men that offered incense. 
 
 It is here that we meet with an important fact, directly 
 applicable to our subject ; because it shews that although 
 
15 
 
 these bold schismatics were thus dreadfully visited for 
 their wilful contumacy, yet theik offering was not 
 TREATED AS A NULLITY. For the Lovd spcike unto Mo- 
 ses, saying, Speak unto Eleazer the son of Aaron the 
 j)7'iest, that he take up the censers out of the burning, 
 and scatter thou the fire yonder, for they are halloived. 
 The censers of these sinners against their own souls, let 
 them make thein broad plates for a covering of the altar, 
 
 FOR THET OFFERED THEM BEFORE THE LORD, THEREFORE 
 
 THEY ARE HALLOWED. (lb. 38.) No language could 
 more distinctly prove that the condescension of the Deity 
 attaches a consecrated character to whatever maybe offer- 
 ed to his service, however rebellious the spirit of the of- 
 ferer. The subject of the offering is accepted as a hallow- 
 ed thing, while the sacrilegious usurpers are cut off in 
 their iniquity. 
 
 Now if such a principle appears in the instance of those 
 most atrocious schismatics, Korah and his company, and 
 with respect to the brazen censers on which they per- 
 formed their act of usurpation, it would seem quite pre- 
 posterous to deny the application of the rule by the All- 
 merciful Redeemer, to the case of laymen, exercising 
 their ministry in good faith, though erroneously, when 
 the subject to be consecrated by their priestly acts is not 
 an insensible piece of metal, but an immortal soul, for 
 whom Christ died — God over all, blessed for ever! If then 
 the offering of Korah's comj)any had the effect of hallow- 
 ing the censers, notwithstanding the sinful usurpation of 
 the offerers, much more may we believe that the indivi- 
 dual offered to the Lord in Baptism, and every other sub- 
 ject of religious dedication, is halloived by the act, how- 
 ever the agents may expose themselves to the wrath 
 of God, by their invasion of the priesthood without 
 authority. 
 
 I may have occasion, however, to resume this part of 
 the argument, for a different purpose, hereafter ; and 
 therefore I shall pass on to the New Testament, where 
 some interesting proofs occur of the same merciful prin- 
 ciple, that deviations from the appointed order are not 
 suffered to destroy the validity of the acts of men, in the 
 
16 
 
 performance of religious functions. For example, our 
 Lord, on a certain occasion, saith to the people ; " The 
 Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all there- 
 fore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and 
 do ; but do not ye after their works, for they say and do 
 not." (Matt, xxiii. 2.) Now it is certain, that before our 
 Saviour's day, the succession of the high-priesthood in 
 the line of Aaron had been shamefully disregarded 
 and virtually lost. (3) Yet our Lord would iiave the 
 priesthood defaclo respected notwithstanding, and even 
 bestowed on one of these illegal High Priests, Caiaphas, 
 the gift of prophecy. 
 
 Again, we read that the apostles saw a man casting out 
 devils in the name of Christ ; and ive forbad Imn, saith 
 St. John, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, 
 FORBID HIM NOT, for there is no man which shall do a 
 miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. 
 For he that is 7iot against us is on our part. (Mark 
 ix. 38.) Now it seems manifest that this individual 
 was acting schismatically, for he was not only using the 
 authority of the groat Redeemer without permission, but 
 even kept himself separate from the society of our Lord 
 and his disciples at the very time. But the compassion- 
 ate Saviour could make allowances, where men could 
 see nothing but ground for censure. From the mere fact 
 that the devils were cast out by this stranger in the name 
 of Christ, we may be sure that the principle of faith 
 must have been active; and our Lord, kindly accepting 
 thiSjOverlooks his want of a regular commission, and saith, 
 
 (3) Thus Josephus expressly informs us. "Primus Antiochus Epi- 
 phanes earn legem violavit, pro Jesu subrogate in hoc sacerdotium 
 fratre ipsius Onia. Secundo Aristobiilus ab Hyrcano fratre eum hono- 
 rem in se transtulit. Tertius Herodes Aristobulum adolescentem vivo 
 adhuc poatifice successorem dedit, &c. Antiquit. Jud. Lib. XV., 
 Cap. III. p. 513. In the 20th Book, 8th Chapter, and 18th section, he 
 further gives an historical list of the high-priests from Aaron down to 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, towards the close of which, after advert- 
 ing to the murder of the youthful Aristobulus, the last of the rightful 
 succession, he adds, (p. 701, F.) " Neque postea ulli ex Asamonceorum 
 posteritate hoc sacerdotium committere voluit. Idem fecit in ordi- 
 nandis pontificibus Archelaus ejus filius, (so. Herodis) et Romani, 
 qui i>ost ilium potestate pra?fuerunt provincise." 
 
17 
 
 FORBID HIM NOT. I confess that I have always regarded 
 this affecting incident as pregnant with instruction, on the 
 subject of unauthorized ministrations. For when we 
 see so many varieties of our Christian brethren, who 
 hold themselves aloof, not purposely, like the individual 
 mentioned in the gospel, but ig7iorantIi/, from the fellow- 
 ship of the apostohc ministry, and who yet cast out devils 
 in the name of Christ, by the power which attends their 
 preaching of his truth, it seems to me, that if I had the 
 power to do so, I dare not forbid them, though they fol- 
 low not with us. Nor can I doubt, on the strength of 
 the Evangelist's narrative, that the Lord accepts their 
 work, notwithstanding their schismatic mode of perform- 
 ing it. And I desire cordially to thank Him for the kind 
 indulgence with which He blesses the efforts of their faith, 
 even when accompanied by the sin of disregarding his ap- 
 pointed ministerial order. 
 
 Once more, I find the great apostle declaring that 
 some jjreach Christ, even of envy and strife, and some of 
 good will : The one, saith he, preach Christ of conten- 
 tion, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my 
 bonds : but the other of love, knoiving that I am set 
 for the defence of the gospel. What then? Notwith- 
 standing, every way, ivhether in pretence or in truth, 
 Christ is preached, and I therein do rejoice, yea, and 
 will rejoice. (Phil. i. 15.) Assuredly, there is here an- 
 other exhibition of the principle, that God will give effi- 
 ciency to every part of his own divine system, however 
 defectively it may be administered by men. The apos- 
 tle did not rejoice on account of the unrighteousness of 
 these unsanctified proclaimers of the gospel, for he 
 knew that if they repented not, they must perish in their 
 sin. But he rejoiced that the gospel was proclaimed, 
 for that would save those who received the message of 
 celestial love in faith, notwithstanding the destruction of 
 the messenger. 
 
 It is more directly to my present purpose, however, to 
 
 speak of the rule which appears to have governed the 
 
 administration of Baptism. And here it may be well to 
 
 observe, that the ordinance of Baptism had been familiar 
 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 to the Jews under the Mosaic dispensation, and had been 
 long used, together with Circumcision, as a regular part 
 of the ceremonial, by which proselytes were admitted to 
 the Church of ancient Israel. For this reason, it had be- 
 come naturally associated in their minds with the com- 
 mencement of a religious course of life, in connexion with 
 some change of religious principle ; and therefore they 
 were prepared to expect it when Elias should come, and 
 especially when the Messiah should appear. Hence 
 their question to John the Baptist, Why baptizest thou 
 then, if thou be not the Christ, neither Elias, neither 
 that prophet? The peculiarity of Christian Baptism, 
 therefore, lay not in the application of water as marking 
 a new religious profession, for this had been used long 
 before ; but in the spiritual efficacy with which it was to 
 be accompanied, by virtue of our Lord's atoning sacri- 
 fice and infinite merits, when administered in the name 
 of the blessed Trinity, and in the power of a living faith. 
 And hence, John the Baptist stated the distinction most 
 accurately when he said; / have baptized you with 
 luater unto repentance, but He shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Ghost. 
 
 It is indeed true, that the commission to administer 
 Baptism in this new and sublime aspect, was given to 
 the apostles, after our Lord's resurrection, and by his 
 own divine command. And therefore it is a plain and 
 obvious principle of apostolic order, that the regular ex- 
 ercise of this commission can only be found in the minis- 
 try which they instituted ; since none other can formally 
 claim the benefit of the Redeemer's promise ; '^ Lo, I am 
 ivith you alioays, even unto the end of the icorld.'^ Most 
 manifest it is, that this promise involves the necessity of 
 what we call The Apostolical Succession. For as 
 the apostles themselves died in a few years, the oldest of 
 them, St. John, not having survived the close of the first 
 century, it seems preposterous to suppose that the Sa- 
 viour intended to be with them, even to the end of the 
 luorld, in any other than an official sense. As individ- 
 ual men, he well knew that they' would soon close their 
 mortal career ; but as the ruling and ordaining officers 
 q/' the Kingdom of Christ, they would continue to live 
 
19 
 
 in their successors ; and therefore it seems as demonstra- 
 bly certain that they were intended to have successors, 
 as it is certain that the word of Christ cannot pass away. 
 It is our sacred privilege to know tl)at we stand in the 
 line of that apostolic succession, that we have the com- 
 plete and formal title to all its benefits, and that we have 
 a correspondent account to render for its fearful respon- 
 sibilities. On this topic, however, I shall not enlarge ; 
 for my object is not so much to dvv^ell on those familiar 
 truths which are zealously and constantly repeated, as to 
 assert and illustrate those doctrines which are less ac- 
 ceptable, and therefore more liable to be not simply for- 
 gotten, but sometimes even denied. 
 
 It belongs, therefore, to my proposed course of argu- 
 ment, to observe, that the commission to baptize, although 
 given by our Lord to his apostles, was not considered by 
 them as intended to be confined to their own order. For 
 we do not find them treating it like the higher powers of 
 confirmation, ordination, and government, which were 
 transmitted, (as in the cases of Timothy, the first bishop 
 of Ephesus, and Titus, the first bishop of Crete,) to cho- 
 sen individuals, of tried experience and high qualifica- 
 tions. So far is this from the facts of the Sacred History, 
 that on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand men 
 were baptized between the delivery of St. Peter's sermon 
 and the setting of the sun, it is demonstrably evident that 
 the apostles must have availed tliemselves of other hands 
 beside their own; for twelve men could not, by any phy- 
 sical possibility, have baptized so great a multitude in 
 that short interval, and at that time, there was not a dea- 
 con ordained to assist them. Hence Bishop Bilson, at 
 the famous Hampton-Court conference, cited this trans- 
 action as a Scriptural proof that laymen might adminis- 
 ter baptism, judging that the apostles must have called 
 in the aid of the laity on this solemn occasion.* A little 
 
 *I do not, for my own part, adopt this view of Bishop Bilson, be- 
 cause I prefer the idea that the seventy disciples held a permanent 
 commission under the apostles, and therefore that there was no such 
 necessity for the ministry of laymen, as he supposes, on that day. 
 Where there was a reasonable necessity, however, I have no doubt of 
 their being so employed, as must have been especially the case, for 
 some years, amongst the gentile churches. 
 
20 
 
 further on in the Sacred History, we find the deacon 
 Philip preaching to the Samaritans and baptizing them ; 
 while two of the apostles, Peter and John, are sent from 
 Jerusalem to confirm these new disciples, by the laying 
 on of hands and the invocation of the Holy Ghost. Nor 
 is this all. For in the epistles of St. Paul to the Corin- 
 thians, we see a state of things allowed, for the time 
 then being, which strongly reminds one of the simplicity 
 of the patriarchal dispensation ; every worshipper being 
 permitted to speak in their public assemblies, and even 
 to have the Eucharist administered by the hands of each 
 other, until the period should arrive when they could 
 have the regular order of the ministry established amongst 
 them. 
 
 To those who have not reflected maturely upon the 
 subject, this idea is apt to appear extravagant ; and yet 
 nothing seems to my mind more evident than the proof 
 that it must have been so, during the first years of gentile 
 conversion. For it is to be remembered, that the evan- 
 gelizing of the whole world was committed to the thir- 
 teen apostles ; and a specimen of their labours is record- 
 ed in the travels of St. Paul. From city to city, he went 
 in the power of the Spirit; and in every place, a com- 
 pany of believers, more or less numerous, gathered 
 around him. But how were they to be supplied with an 
 ordained ministry, when the apostle was driven away by 
 persecution, or appointed to some other sphere of effort 
 by his divine Master? Most manifest it is, that no 
 one amongst a set of newly converted heathen could 
 be ready to discharge the pastoral function. Men whose 
 minds had been, from infancy, filled with the debasing 
 fables of the pagan mythology — who had been, but a 
 little time before, bowing down before stocks and 
 stones, and to whom the Scriptures were, as yet, an 
 unknown book, — surely, amongst such as these, the 
 apostle could not, by any moral possibility, find persons 
 fit to be ordained, as authorized teachers, rulers, and 
 priests to their brethren, until some years, at least, had 
 been spent in a course of study and preparation. And 
 therefore it seems plain, that Churches must have grown 
 
21 
 
 up in every quarter of the Gentile world, before there 
 could have been pastors ready for them ; and hence it be- 
 came absolutely necessary to allow Christians to meet 
 together, and edify and minister to one another as well 
 as they could, in the beginning of the work ; until, by 
 degrees, the ranks of the ministry could be regularly 
 supplied ; and then the license which necessity alone 
 could justify, would gradually disappear when the neces- 
 sity had ceased. (4) 
 
 This, therefore, must he granted to the argument of 
 our Congregational brethren, when viewed in the light 
 oi apostolic license, as a matter of reasonable necessity, 
 during the era of extraordinary gifts and graces, and for 
 the sake of building up the walls of the spiritual temple 
 in the desolate wastes of heathen idolatry. Unhappily, 
 however, they mistake a temporary license^ called for by 
 
 (4) There is nothing new in the foregoing hypothesis, since it will 
 be found to agree in substance with many of the fathers ; especially, 
 with the precise words of the early commentator on the epistles, 
 whose work is published along with that of Ambrose, bishop of Milan, 
 and is commonly set down to A. D. 355. (Ambrosii 0pp. in App. 
 Com. inEp. ad Ephesios, Cap. 4, v. 12, p. 241.) "In episcopo omnes ordi- 
 nes sunt ; quia primus sacerdos est, hoc est, princeps est sacerdotum, 
 et propheta, et evangelista, et cetera adimplenda officia Ecclesiise in 
 ministro fidclium. Tamen postquam in omnibus locis Ecclesias sunt con- 
 stituix et offic'a ordinata, aliter composiia res est, quam caperat. Phi- 
 mum eMimo.HNF.s nocKiiA>"r,ETO]ttis'Bs v\PTiZASAyT, qitibiiscumqjcediebus 
 vel femporibusfuis&d occasio" — " Ut ergo cresceret plebs et mult i pit car etur, 
 
 OMXIHUS INTER. INITIA COXCESSUM EST ET ETA^" GEEI Z AHE, ET BAPTI- 
 
 ZAKE, ET ScRirTunAs IX EccLEsiA explaxahe. At ubi omnia loca cir- 
 cumplexa est Ecclesia, conventicula constitnta sunt, et rectores, et 
 caetei-a officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata ;ut nuUus de clericis auderet, 
 qui ordinatus non esset, prcesamere oflicium, quod sciret non sibi cre- 
 ditum vel concessum. Et coepit alio ordine et providentia guber- 
 nari Ecclesia, quia si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, ut 
 vulgaris res, et vilissima videretnr. Hinc ergo est.unde nunc neque 
 diaconi in populo praedicant, neque clerici vel laici baptizant, neque 
 quocunque die credentes tinguntur nisi aegri, &lc. 
 
 And again, the same author, (Com. in 1. Epist. ad Corinth. C. 
 II., V. 19, ib. p. 148) saith, "Quia adhuc redorea Ecclesiis non omnibus 
 hcis f Iterant constituli." Many coincidences will appear in the course 
 of the siibsequent notes, as where the fathers consider that the priest- 
 hood, in a certain sense, belongs to all ; and that Baptism is the priest- 
 hood of the laity. 
 
22 
 
 necessity, for a permanent system, designed for the 
 Church of God to the end of time ; as if the Uberty alio \v- 
 ed in the erection of an edifice could furnish a ride for 
 its occupancy and government after it was Jini shed and 
 complete. But license is one thing, and system is an- 
 other : and while each may be right in its proper place, 
 no sound and reflecting mind can confound them to- 
 gether. Still, in this very license, I cannot avoid recog- 
 nizing the same principle which has already been proved 
 from the Old Testament, namely, the essence or existence 
 of the sacraments, without the priestly order o{ their ad- 
 ministration. For just as Sacrifice and Circumcision ex- 
 isted anterior to, and therefore independent upon the 
 Aaronic priesthood, so Baptism and the Holy Eucharist 
 appear to have existed in the newly converted Churches 
 of the Gentiles, although administered by the hands of 
 laymen, anterior to the period when the apostolic priest- 
 hood could be established among them. 
 
 How long this license continued, it would be impossible 
 to decide. It may have been from three or four to ten 
 years, before the apostles were able to set the whole sys- 
 tem in order. But from the Scriptural evidence furnished 
 by the epistles of St. Paul to Timothy and Titus, we 
 know that the Episcopal or Apostolic form of ecclesiasti- 
 cal government must have been perfectly established 
 some time before his death ; and the uniformity of the ar- 
 rangement maybe considered as proved by superabundant 
 testimony, since it meets the student of the Scriptures in 
 the angels (or bishops) of the seven churches of Asia, 
 mentioned in the Book of Revelation, and appears in the 
 constant statement^- of all ecclesiastical history. Nor 
 indeed is it possible to conceive how the apostles could 
 have set up tiie kingdom of Christ throughout the world, 
 during a ministry which averaged nearly forty years, 
 without having fixed upon so-?ne definite plan of eccle- 
 siastical government. And surely, as they were all in- 
 structed by the same Holy Spirit, it requires no argument 
 to prove, that the system of one must have been the sys- 
 tem of ALL. 
 
23 
 
 It is quite evident, however, that the Hcense given to 
 the laity to baptize, or even to exercise the higher func- 
 tions of the ministry, in the absence of the regular and or- 
 dained priesthood, may or may not have been engrafted 
 into the permanent episcopal system, in whole or in part. 
 Whether it was so engrafted, and to what extent, we can 
 only learn from the testimony of Christian antiquity. To 
 this, therefore, I shall next appeal, availing myself of the 
 Latin versions in the case of the Greek fathers and 
 Councils, as a matter of greater ease to readers in general, 
 and giving the substance in an English dress, without 
 confining myself, except in some particular cases, to the 
 stiffness of a close and literal translation. 
 
 The oldest witness upon the subject is Tertullian, who, 
 in his book concerning Baptism, lays down the principle 
 in these words: "The chief priest," saith he, " that is, 
 the bishop, has power to give Baptism, and next to him, 
 the presbyters and deacons ; but not without the authori- 
 ty of the bishop, on account of the honour of the Church; 
 which being guarded, peace is preserved. For other- 
 wise, it is lawful for laymen to administer it ; since 
 that which is rightfully received, may be rightfully 
 given." (5) Elsewhere the same author asserts the inhe- 
 rent priesthood of the laity, in general terms, and extends 
 it to both the sacraments ; he saith that luherever there 
 are three, e.ve?i although they be laymen, there is the 
 Church ; and assigns as a reason, that evety one lives by 
 his own faith. (6) 
 
 The next early testimony involving the principle, oc- 
 
 (5) Tertul. Lib. de Baptismo, Cap. 17. Dandi quidem habet jus sum- 
 mus sacerdos qui estepiscopus. Dehincpresbyteri etdiaconi, nontamen 
 sine episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesioe honorem ; quo salvo, salva 
 pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex cequo accipitur, 
 ex aequo dari potest, &c. 
 
 (6) Tertul. de Exhort. Castit. ^YIL, p. 522. Nonne et laici sacerdo- 
 tes sumus ] Scriptum est, Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes Deo et 
 Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit 
 Ecclesise auctoritas, et honor per ordinis concessum sanctificatus, adeo 
 ubi ecclesiaslici ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacer- 
 dos es solus. Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet laici ; unusquisque 
 enim sua fide vivit. 
 
curs in the famous controversy which arose about A. 
 D. 250, concerning the vaHdity of heretical baptisms; 
 in which Cyprian, the bishop of Carthage, asserted their 
 absolute nulhty, while, on the contrary, Stephen, the bish- 
 op of Rome, maintained that those who had been bap- 
 tized by heretics and afterwards came to the Catholic 
 Church, should not be baptized again, but should be re- 
 ceived with the imposition of hands, or, as we now call 
 it, Confirmation. (7) It is worthy of observation that 
 Stephen insisted on this as the proper course, on the 
 strength of apostolical tradition ; which argument 
 Cyprian opposed by demanding plain Scriptural proof; 
 denying that any thing could be properly termed aposto- 
 lical tradition, unless it were expressly set down in the 
 writings of the apostles. 
 
 (7) Cypriani Epist. ad Pump.contra Ep'.sf. Slepkani, p. 152. " Quam- 
 quam plene ea qua3 de hrereticis baptizandis dicenda sunt, complex! 
 sumus in epislolis, quarum ad te exempla transmisimus, frater caris- 
 sime, tamen quia desiderasti in notitiam tuam perferri, quas mihi ad litte- 
 ras nostras Stephanus frater noster rescripserit, misi tibi rescripti ejus 
 exemplum, quo lecto magis ac magis ejus errorem denotabis, qui hcere- 
 ticorum causam contra Christianos, et contra Ecciesiam Dei asserere 
 conatur. Nam iitter crrtera vel superba vel ad rem non pertinentia, vel 
 sibi ipsi contraria, qure imperite atque improvide scripsit, etiam illud 
 adjunxerit, ut diceret : SI quis ergo a quacunque liseresi venerit ad nos, 
 nihil innovetur nisi quod trudituin est,ut rnanus illi impunatur in pceni- 
 tentiam : &c. Unde est ista traditio ? U trumne de dominica et evan- 
 c'elica auctoritate descendens, an de apostolorum mandatis atque 
 epistolis veniensi — Si ergo ant in Evangelic prcecipitur, aut in apos- 
 tolorum epistolis, aut Actibus conlinetur, ut a quacumque hferesi 
 venientes non baptizentur, sed tantum manus illis imponantur in 
 poenitentiam, observetur divina hrec et sancta traditio. — Qua; ista ob- 
 stinatio est, quceve praisumptio, humanam traditionem divince dispo- 
 sitioni anteponere," &c. 
 
 It is altogether probable that Cyprian, whose veneration for Tertul- 
 lian was so great, that he commonly called this writer his master, de- 
 rived his opinion against the validity of heretical Baptisms from the 
 authority of that eminent and extraordinary man. But on a careful 
 examination of TertuUian's language, I think it will be apparent that 
 he only rejected the Baptisms of those heretics who had depraved 
 the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and, inconsequence, had adul- 
 terated the form of the Sacrament. And if so, his sentiments were in 
 accordance with the decrees which the councils passed more than a 
 century after his departure. His words are these : (Tertul. de Baptis- 
 mo, C. XV. p. 230, A. B.) " Sed circa haereticos sane quid custodien- 
 
25 
 
 The third testimony in the order of time, is that of the 
 Council of Elvira, in Spain, held about A. D. 313; the 
 thirty-eighth canon of which expressly approves the ad- 
 ministration of Baptism by a layman, provided it be 
 done in cases of necessity, and that the baptizer himself 
 be free from bigamy, and of pure life and conversation. (8) 
 
 The fourth evidence is of higher dignity, because it 
 is furnished by the great Council of Aries, at which hun- 
 dreds of bishops from distant quarters of the Church, 
 especially from Britain, assembled together at the call of 
 the Emperor Constantine, A. D. 314. It was here that the 
 old controversial question between Cyprian and Stephen 
 received its determination ; for the eighth canon of the 
 Council decreed, that if any one leaves a heresy, and re- 
 turns to the Church, he shall be interrogated concerning 
 the creed ; and if it be known that he was baptized in 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, imposition of hands only shall be given him, that 
 he may receive the Holy Spirit, but if he does not confess 
 that Trinity, let him be baptized. (9) This solemn decision 
 was universally received, and from that early day, no 
 Council of the Church has delivered any other doctrine. 
 
 In A. D. 325, only eleven years later, the General 
 Council of Nice assembled by the command of the 
 same emperor, and two of the canons of tliis most 
 important of the Councils bear directly on the ques- 
 
 dum sit, digne quis retractet, ad nos enim editum est. Hasretici autem 
 nullum habent consortium nostrae discipline, quos estraneos utique 
 testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Non debeo in illis cognos- 
 cere quod mihi est praeceptura, quia non idem Deiis est nobis et illis, nee 
 unus Christ us, id est, idem, idcoque nee baptismus uniis, quia iion idem, 
 quern cum rit6 non habeant, sine dubio non habent.' 
 
 (8) Concil. EUberitanum, Concil. Gen. Hard. Tom.l.p. 254. "Peregre 
 navigantes, aut si ecclesia in proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui 
 lavacrum suum integrum habet, nee sit bigamus, baptizare in necessi- 
 tate infirmitatis positum Catechumenum ; ita ut si supervixerit, ad 
 episcopum eum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici possit." 
 
 (9) Concil. Arelat. lb. p. 2G5. De Afris, quod propria lege sua 
 utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuitut si ad ecclesiam aliquis de hseresi 
 venerit, interrogent eum symbolum; et si perviderint eum in Patre, 
 et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum impo- 
 natur ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum. 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 tion. The eighth canon (10) decreed that the Nova- 
 nan clergy who returned to the Catholic Church should 
 continue to hold their official rank, without re-bapti- 
 zation or re-ordination. While the nineteenth canon, 
 (11) on the other hand, commanded that the Paulian- 
 ists should be rebaptized, and that their clergy should 
 not retain their ministerial station, without a regular ordi- 
 nation by the bishop of the Catholic Church. Now these 
 canons evidently prove that the decision of the Council 
 of Aries was adopted and confirmed by the Nicene Coun- 
 cil. For the Paulianists had so corrupted the faith, as to 
 omit the name of the Trinity, even in the form of Baptism, 
 while the Novatians had preserved the pure doctrine of 
 Christ ; and therefore the difference of the treatment 
 which their respective Baptisms and ordinations received 
 at the hand of the Council, is plainly to be referred to this 
 distinction. It is indeed insisted on the other side, that 
 
 (10) Concil. Nic. Gen. Hard. Tom. l.p. 326, Ca7i. VIII. De his qui se 
 nominant Catharos, id est, mundos, si aliquando venerint ad eccle- 
 siam catholicam, placuit sancto et magno concilio, ut impositionem 
 manus accipicntes, sic inclero permaneant. Ha3C autem prae omnibus 
 eos scriptis convenit profiteri, quod catholicce et apostolica; ecclesiae 
 dogmata suscipiant et sequantur ; id est, et bigamis se communicare, 
 et his qui in persecutione prolapsi sunt, erga quos et spatia constituta 
 sunt, ettemporadefinita: ita ut ecclesiae catholicse et apostolicoe pla- 
 cita sequantur in omnibus. Ubicumque vero, sive invicis, sive incivi- 
 tatibusipsi soli reperti fuerint ordinali; qui inveniuntur in clero, in 
 eodem habitu perseverent. Ubi autem catholicse ecclesiae episcopo 
 vel presbytero conslituto, quidam ex illis adveniunt, certum est quod 
 episcopus ecclesise habebit episcopi dignitatem. Is autem qui nomi- 
 natur apud eos episcopus, honorem presbyterii possidebit, nisi placue- 
 rit forte episcopo, nominis eum honore censeri. Si vero hoc ei mi- 
 nime placuerit, providebit ei aut chorepiscopatus, aut presbyterii lo- 
 cum, ut in clero prorsus esse videater; ne in una civitate duo episcopi 
 probentur exsistere. 
 
 (11) lb. Can. XEX. De Paulianistis ad ecclesiam catholicam con- 
 fogientibus, definitio prolata est, ut baplizentur omnimodis. Si qui 
 autem de his prseterito tempore fuerint in clero, siquidem immaculati 
 et irreprehensibiles apparuerint, baptizati ordinentur ab episcopo ec- 
 clesiae catholicae. Quod si discussio incongruos eos invenerit, abji- 
 ci tales convenit. Similiter autem et de diaconissis, et omnino de his 
 quisubregulaversantur.hoec forma servabitur. Meminimus autem 
 de diaconissis, quae in eodem habitu esse probantur, quod non habeant 
 aliquam manus impositionem, et ideo modis omnibus eas inter laicas 
 deputari. 
 
27 
 
 this difference was owing to quite another matter : viz. 
 that the Novatians had a regular episcopal ordination, 
 which the Paulianistshad not. But this assertion is pe- 
 culiarly unfortunate, being directly contrary to the facts 
 of history: for Novatian, the author of the Novatians, 
 had procured himself to be consecrated through fraud and 
 impiety, and was never admitted b}"- the Church to be 
 any thing better than a false and counterfeit bishop.* 
 Whereas Paul of Samosata, the father of the Paulianists, 
 was an undoubted bishop of the Catholic Church, at the 
 time when the Council of Antioch proceeded to depose 
 him. The truth is, that strictly considered, neither of 
 these sects had anything more than the empty form of 
 ordination. Novatian never had the reality by reason of 
 his schism, and Paul lost what he once had, by reason of 
 his heresy. The ecclesiastical defect of the Novatians, 
 however, was cured by the consent of the whole Church 
 in the Nicene Council ; the grace of the Holy Spirit being 
 invoked by repentance and prayer, and sealed in the act 
 of Confirmation. 
 
 My next reference is to the Council of Carthage, held 
 A. D. 348, in which the question was put to the assem- 
 bled bishops. Whether he who has once been baptized 
 with water in the name of the blessed Trinity, could be 
 lawfully baptized again. " And all the bishops answer- 
 ed ; Far, far, be it from us. We adjudge all re-baptiza- 
 tions to be unlawful, and' hostile to the true faith, and 
 Catholic discipline." (12) 
 
 The well-known narrative of Ruffinns, Socrates, and 
 Sozomen, concerning the Baptism of some boys in play, 
 
 * This is largely proved by Bingham, in his Scholast. Hist, of Lay- 
 Baptism, Part 2, p. 431,452, &c. of last English edition. 
 
 (12) Concil. Carth. in Appen. Optati Milev. p. 201. "Ergo, si vobis 
 placet, consideremiis primum titulum rebaptizationis: unde sanctitatem 
 vestram postulo, ut mentis vestrce placita producatis ad descendentem 
 in aquam et interrogatum in Trinitate secundCim Evangelii fidem et 
 apostolorum doctrinam, et confessam bonam conscientiam in Deum, 
 de resurrectione Jesu Christi, si liceat iterum interrogari in eadem 
 fide, et in aqui iterum intingi. Universi episcopi dixerunt : Absit, ab- 
 sit. Illicitasesse sancimus rebaptizationes, et satis esse alienum a sin- 
 cera fide et catholica disciplina. 
 
28 
 
 may next be mentioned, since whatever pains Dr. Water- 
 land and others may have taken to ridicule it, there is no 
 legitimate mode of displacing it from the authentic facts 
 of ecclesiastical history. (13) It seems that the celebrated 
 Athanasius, when a boy, engaged with a company of his 
 young associates in a representation of divine worship. 
 The part of the bishop was performed by Athanasius 
 himself, in the course of which he undertooif to adminis- 
 ter Baptism to several children. The place whicli ihey 
 had chosen was on the sea shore, in full view of the re- 
 sidence of Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria ; who, 
 happening to look towards the sea at the time, soon be- 
 came interested in watching their operations. He then 
 sent for them, examined minutely, in the presence of his 
 clergy, all that had been said and done ; and finding that 
 every part of the sacred office had been correctly used, 
 and with the simplicity of good intention, both he and 
 his presbyters agreed that the children should not be 
 
 (13) Sozom. Hist. Eccl. Lib. 2, C. 17, p. 381. Publicum ac solemne 
 festum ingente pompa quotannis celebrant Alexandrini, eo die quo 
 Pelrus ipsorum olim episcopus mart)'rium coiisummavit. Hiinc igitur 
 diem festum aliquando celebrans Alexander, qui tunc ipsorum erat 
 episcopus, peractis missarum solemnibus; (Gr. rm KtiTov^yta.i') expecta- 
 bat eos qui unb. cum ipso pransuri erant. Cumque solus esset, oculos 
 convertit ad mare. lUic visis eminus pueris, qui in littore ludentes 
 episcopi officium sacrosque ecclesice ritus exprimebant, quamdiu 
 quidem scenam illam absque periculo esse animadvertit, delectaba- 
 tur spectaculo, nee mediocrem ex ea re capiebat voliiptatem. Post- 
 quam vero arcana quoque mysteria exprimere ca-perunt, perlurbatus 
 est animo, vocatisque ad se primoribus Cleri, pueros ostendit. Cum- 
 que eos comprehensos adduci jussisset, sciscitatus est ex iis, quisnana 
 lusus ipsorum esset, et quid in eo dicerent, quidve agerent. Illi metu 
 pcrculsi, initio quidem negarunt. Sed cum Alexander quaestioni in- 
 staret, confessi sunt episcopum ac prsesulem fuisse ipsis Athanasium ; 
 et quosdam pueros qui nondum mysteriis initiati fuissent, ab illo esse 
 baplizatos. Hos Alexander accurate interrogavit, quidnam ipsis 
 dixisset fecissetve ludi illius episcopus ; et quid ipsi respondissent, 
 quidve edocti essent. Cumque omnia juxta ordinem ecclesiasticum 
 exacte in illis servata esse deprehendisset, communicato consilio cum 
 sacerdotibus quos circa se habebat, censuit non rebaptizandos esse 
 eos, qui in simplicitale divinam gratiam semel percipere meruissent. 
 Reliqua vero quae a solis sacerdotibus baptismum tradentibus admin- 
 istrari fas est, in illis supplevit. 
 
29 
 
 rebaptized, but should have the work perfected in Confir- 
 mation. 
 
 About A. D. 36S, Epiphanius, the bishop of Cyprus, 
 complains strongly of some "audacions men, who, under 
 the pretext of zeal for the Catholics, having raised up a 
 private faction to themselves, presume to rebaptize those 
 who come to them from the Arians, contrary to the cus- 
 tom of the Church, and the decree of a General Council." 
 (14) It is a short rebuke, but full of instruction. 
 
 I pass next to Basil, the bishop of Cesarea, A. D. 370, 
 whose authority, strangely enough, is claimed by Dr. 
 Waterland and others, although I think it sufficiently man- 
 ifest that it belongs, of right, to our own side. (15) "The 
 heretics called Encratitse," saith he, "the Saccophori 
 and the Apoctitas, are not under the same rnle as the 
 Novatians, because a canon has been oftablished con- 
 cerning these, while the others have been passed by in 
 silence. But we rebaptize those heretics. And if, with 
 you, rebaptization is forbidden, as it is among the Ro- 
 mans, by reason of a certain economy, let our argument at 
 least be acknowledged sound. For the heresy of these 
 sects is the offspring of the Marcionites, who abhor mar- 
 riage, and refuse wine, and say that the creature of God 
 is corrupt ; therefore we do not admit them into the 
 
 (14) Epiph. adv. Hxres. Lib III. Tom. II. C. XIII. (p. 1095) "AUi 
 qui audaciores videntur, ex Catholicorum partibus, privata sibi fac- 
 tione conflata, prseter Ecclesisc consuetudinem, ac citra generalis 
 Concilii deci'etum, eos, qui ab Arianis ad suas partes transeuut, iter- 
 um baptizare nihil verenlur. 
 
 (15) Basil. 0pp. Tom.3.p. 296, Ep. 199. Can.2. Encratitae,et Sacco- 
 phori, et Apotactitse non subjiciuntur eidem rationi cui et Novatiani, 
 quiade illis editus Canon, etsi varius ; quse autem ad istos pertinent, 
 silentio sunt praetermissa. Nos autem una ratione tales rebaptizamus. 
 Quod si apud vos prohibita est rebaptizatio, sicut et apud Romanos, 
 oeconomiES alicujus gratia, nostra tamen ratio vim obtineat. Quoniam 
 enim veluti germen Marcionistarum est eorum hseresis ut qui nup- 
 tias abhorreant, et vinum aversentur, ac dicant Dei creaturam inqui- 
 natam esse, idcirco ipsos in ecclesiam non admittimus, nisi in nostrum 
 baptisma fuerint baptizati. Etenim ne dicant: In Patrem et Filium 
 et Spiritum sanctum baptizati sumus, qui videlicet Deum esse ma- 
 lorum effectorem existimant, exemplo Marcionis et relinquaruni 
 hasresum." 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 Church until they are baptized with our Baptism. For 
 they cannot say, We are baptized in the Father, and 
 the Son, and the Holy Ghost, who believe that God is 
 the Author of evils, according to Marcion and the other 
 heretics." Here it is evident that Basil admitted the No- 
 vatians without rebaptization, on the ground of the ca- 
 nons, and that he rejected the heretics who had departed 
 from the outer form of Baptism, thus putting the differ- 
 ence where it ought to be placed, on the confession of the 
 Holy Trinity, in the s:icred words dictated by our Lord 
 himself for its rightful administration. 
 
 But there is another passage in this author, from which 
 very opposite conclusions have been drawn : (16) Where 
 
 (16) Ibid, Ep. 188, Canon. Primi, Amphilochto. Tom. 3, p. 268. 
 "Anliqui enim illud baptisma suscipiendum putavere, quod niliil a 
 fide recedit; unde«alias quidem hcereses, alia schismata, alias para- 
 synagogas appellarunt. Hoereses quidem eos, qui peiiitus resecti sunt, 
 et in ipsa fide abalieiiati; schismata vero, eos, qui propter ecclesias- 
 ticas quasdam causas el quasstiones inter utramque partem non insan- 
 abiles dissident; paras)'nagogas autem, convenlus illos qui ab im- 
 morigeris presbyteris aut episcopis et a populis disciplinte expertibus 
 fiunt: velutsi quis in delicto depreliensus, a ministerio arceatur, nee 
 se canonibus summittat, sed sibi principatum et ministerium vendicet, 
 at nonnuUi una cum eo, relicta catholica Ecclesia, discedant ; hoc 
 dicitur parasjmagoga. Schisma autem est, de pcenitentia ab iis qui 
 ex Ecclesia sunt, dissentire. — Visum est ergo antiquis hosreticorum 
 quidem baptisma penitus rejicere, schismaticorum vero, ut adhuc ex 
 Ecclesia existentium, admittere ; eos tandem qui sunt in parsynagogis, 
 justa pcenitentia et animadversione emendatos rursus Ecclesice con- 
 jungere; adeo ut ssepe et ii qui in graducoUocati una. cum rebellibus 
 abierant, postquam pcenitentiam egerint, in eundem ordinem admit- 
 tantur. — Cseterum antiquis visum est, Cypriano dico, et nostro Firmi- 
 liano,hos omnes uni calculo subjicere, Catharos, et Encratitas, et Hy- 
 droparastatas, propterea quod principium quidem separationis per 
 schisma factum fuerat : qui autem ab Ecclesia se separaverant, non 
 amplius habebant in se gratiam Spiritus Sancti: defecerat enim commu- 
 nicatio, interrupta continuatione. Qui enim primi recesserant, ordina- 
 ationem a patribus habebant, et per manuum eorum inpositionem ha- 
 bebant donum spirituale; qui autem resecti sunt, laici efl^ecti, nee bapti- 
 zandi nee ordinandi habebant potestatem, ut qui non possent amplius 
 Spiritus sancti gratiam aliis prccbere, a qua ipsi exciderant. Quare eos, 
 qui ab ipsorum partibus stabant, tanquama laicis baptizatos, jusserunt 
 vero Ecclesise baplismate ad Ecclesiam venientes expurgari. Sed quo- 
 niam nonnullis Asiaticis omnino visum est eorum baptisma, pluribus con- 
 sulendi causa, suscipiendum esse, scscipiatur. — Encratitarum autem 
 
31 
 
 after laying down the general rule of the Church to be in 
 favour of rejecting the Baptism of Heretics, while that of 
 schismatics and separatists was admitted, he proceeds to 
 speak of the opinions of Cyprian and Firmilian, and seems 
 to consider that they repudiated the Baptisms of all who 
 were not in the Church, because such persons had lost the 
 grace of the Holy Spirit, had become laymen., and there- 
 fore could not ofier to others the grace which they had 
 lost themselves. Tlie writers who deny the validity of 
 Lay-Baptism take this passage as full proof, that the real 
 point of dispute between Stephen and Cyprian turned not 
 upon the effect of heresy and schism in annulling Baptism, 
 but upon the question oi orders, as it affected the claims 
 of the clergy who are supposed to have administered the 
 sacrament; and therefore they deny that the validity of 
 Lay-Baptism was involved either in that controversy, 
 or in the subsequent canons of Aries and Nice. 
 
 All this, however, seems to my mind to be nothing bet- 
 ter than a piece of ingenious speculation. For it cannot be 
 said that B:isil pretends to any special or peculiar know- 
 ledge of the controversy between Cyprian and Stephen. 
 He lived one hundred and twenty years too late for that; 
 and as no such reasoning appears in the writings of Cy- 
 prian, or of Firmilian, or of any other of the fathers when 
 speaking of them, and as Basil does not profess to give 
 
 facinus oportet nos intelligere — Existimo itaque, quoniam nihil de 
 illis aperti dictum est, eorum baptisma a nobis rejiciendum esse: ac 
 si quis ab eisacceperit, accedentem adEcclesiam baptizandum. Quod 
 si hoc generali oeconomice impedimento erit, rursus consuetudine 
 utendum est, et sequi oportet patres, qui quoe ad nos pertinent, dis- 
 pensaverunt. Vereor enim, ne, dum eos volumus ad baptizandum tar- 
 dos facere, impedimento propter sententise severitatem simus iis qui 
 salvantur. Quod si illi nostrum baptismum servant, hoc nos non mo- 
 veat ; neque enim debemus par pari referre, sed accuratoe canonum 
 observationi servire. Omni autem ratione statuatur, ut ii qui ab il- 
 lorum baptisrao veniunt, ungantur coram fidelibus videlicet, et ita 
 demum ad mysteria accedant. Scio autem, fratres Izoinum et Satur- 
 ninum, qui erant ex illorum ordine, in episcoporum cathedram a no- 
 bis esse susceptos. Quare eos qui illorum ordini conjuncli sunt, non 
 possumus amplius ab Ecclesia separare: qui scilicet communionis 
 cum ipsis quasi canonem quemdam, episcopos suscipiendo, edideri- 
 mus. 
 
32 
 
 any new view of their sentiments, we can only, in com- 
 mon justice, suppose him to be deUvering his own opin- 
 ion. 
 
 Now while I freely admit that he here intimates his 
 personal judgment, in terms favourable to the other side, 
 yet this only adds strength to our argument when it is ob- 
 served that he yields this judgment to the decision of 
 the Church, for he proceeds to say, in the plainest lan- 
 guage, that since the Asiatics thought fit to receive such 
 Baptisms, f/ie canon and the cnslommust be respected. He 
 then adds that although, in his opinion, the Encratitas 
 ought not to be received without rebaptization, being 
 heretics, yet even in their case he was willing to follow 
 the custom of the fathers, and this the more readily, in- 
 asmuch as two of that very sect had been admitted into 
 the chair of the bishops; which admission he regarded 
 as a sort of canon on the subject. On the whole, there- 
 fore, the testimony of Basil is conclusive to prove, not, 
 indeed, his own individual conviction in favour of Lay- 
 Baptism, but, what is much more important, his resolu- 
 tion to abide, in action, by the custom of the Church. If 
 such were the disposition of all men in our own age, 
 there would be no inducement to revive so old a contro- 
 versy. 
 
 Next after Basil, the order of chronology brings us to 
 Optatus, the bishop of Milevi, A. D. 370, whose work 
 upon the schism of the Donatists, contains many positive 
 declarations in support of the principle, that the minister 
 is of the order and not of the essence of Baptism, and 
 hence he insists on the unlawfulness and impiety of re- 
 baptization. Thus for example, (17) after quoting the 
 
 (17.) Optaf, de Schism. Donat. Lib. Y. C. III. p. 82. Sic enim ipse 
 Dominiis prascepitdicendo ; Ite, haptizate omnes gcntes, iii nomine Pa- 
 iris, et Filii, et Spirilus Sandi. De hoc lavacro dixit : Qui semel lo- 
 tus est, non habet necessitatem iterum lavandi. — Absit enim, ut unquam 
 exorcizemus sanum iidelem; absit, ut jam lotum revocemus ad I'on- 
 tem: absit, ut in Spiritum sanctum peccemus ; cui facinori in prse- 
 senti et futuro soeculo indulgentia denegatur : absit, ut iteremus quod 
 semel est, aul duplicemus quod unum est : sic enim scriptum est, Apos- 
 tolo dicente : Unus Deus, unus Christus, una fides, una tinctio. 
 
33 
 
 declaration of our Lord to the apostle Peter: Ht that is 
 washed hath no need of being washed again, (for so it is 
 rendered by Optatus,) he expressly asserts that the 
 Saviour spake in reference to Baptisni. "Far be it from 
 us," continues he, "that we should exorcise a true believer. 
 Far be it from us that he who is already washed should 
 be called again to the fountain. Far be it from us that we 
 should sin against the Holy Ghost, for which crime there 
 is no forgiveness, either here or hereafter. Far be it from 
 us to repeat what can be but once, or to reduplicate what 
 is alone ; for thus it is written, One God, One Christ, 
 one Faith, one BaptismP 
 
 Again, (\^) he argues strongly against the idea that 
 the privilege of baptism, which is divine, can be given 
 by man. " God cleanses, not the minister. The Psalmist 
 does not say to the Almighty, Appoint a person by 
 whom I may bz washed, but Wash thoume. None can 
 cleanse away the stains of the mind, but He who cre- 
 ated it." 
 
 And again, (19) Optatus observes, that "'the Saviour 
 commanded in ivhat the nations should be baptized, but 
 by ivhom they should be baptized, he left discretionary. 
 He did not say to the apostles. Let no one baptize but 
 yourselves only. And therefore whoever baptizes in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 fulfils the work of the apostles." 
 
 (18) lb. 84. Concedite Deo prsestare quae sua sunt. Non enim 
 potest id munus ab homine dari, quod diviiuim est. Si sic putatis, 
 prophetarum voces, et Dei promissa inanire conienditis, quibus pro- 
 batur quia Deus lavat, non homo. Adest contra vos David propheta, 
 qui ait in Psalmo L. Lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor: item in eodem 
 psalmo : Deus lava me ab, injustltia mea, et a delicto men miinda me : 
 Lava me, dixit; non dixit, Elige per quern laver. — Dignamini ut vel 
 prophetae vos vincant, vel sic agnoscite quia non lavat homo, sed 
 Deus. Quamdiu dicitis : Qui non habet quod def, quomodo dat? Videte 
 Dorainum esse datorera, videte Deum unumquemque mundare : sor- 
 des enim et maculas mentis lavare non potest, nisi Deus qui ejusdem 
 fabricator est mentis. 
 
 (19) lb. 86. Nam in quo baptizarentur gentes, a Salvatore mandatum 
 est : per quem baptizarentur, nulla exceptione discretum est. Non 
 dixit apostolis : Vos facite, alii nonfaciant : quisquis in nomine Patris 
 et Fiiii et Spiritus Sancti baptizaverit, apostolorum opus implevit, 
 
34 
 
 One passage more shall close my references to this 
 author, in which (20) he considers St. Paul as disclaim- 
 ing any part in the power of baptizing, and attributing 
 the whole to the Lord ; where the apostle saith. So then 
 neither is he that planteth, ant/thing, neither he that 
 watereth, but God who giveth the increase. 
 
 About the same time with Optatus, flourished Am- 
 brose, bishop of Milan, who clearly adopts and sanctions 
 the idea so often occurring amongst the fathers, that in a 
 certain sense, the laity are priests. Thus, in answer to 
 the question, (21) why David not only ate the shew? 
 bread himself, but also gave it to those that were with 
 him, (wliich, as our Saviour remarked, it was not lawful 
 to eat but for the priests alone) Ambrose saith, that "it 
 may have been because we ought all to imitate the life of 
 the priesthood, or because all the sons of the Church are 
 priests, since loe offer ourselves to God a spiiHtiial sa- 
 crifice.^' It is obvious to the slightest reflection, that this 
 idea lies at the foundation of all lay administrations, so 
 that he who consistently applies it can hardly doubt their 
 validity, however defective they may be in regularity 
 or order. 
 
 The year 372 is assigned as the date of the Council of 
 Laodicea, in which some additional specifications were 
 laid down upon the subject. Thus, (22) the converts 
 
 (20) Optat. de Schism. Donat. Lib. 5, Chap. VII., p. 87. Denique beatus 
 apostolus Paulus, ut vestram prassumptionem tumoremque compesce- 
 ret, ne se oestimet operarius baptismatis, aut habere dominium, aut de 
 tanto isto munere particulam sibi aliquam vindicare, indicans quia 
 totum Dei est, sic ait : Neque qui plantat, neque qui rigat, est aliquid; 
 sed iolus Deus, qui ad incrementa perducit. 
 
 (21) S. Ambrosii Expos. Evang. secundum Luc. L. 5, § 33, 0pp. 
 Tom. 1, p. 1364. Quomodo autem ille observator Legis atque defen- 
 sor, panes et ipse manducavit, et dedit iis qui secum erant, quos non 
 licebat manducare nisi tantummodo sacerdotibus, nisi ut per illam 
 demonstraret figuram, sacerdotalem cibum ad usum transiturum 
 esse populorum'? Sive quod omnes vitam sacerdotalem debemus imi- 
 tari : sive quia omnes filii Ecclesiae sacerdotes sunt, offerentes «osme- 
 tipsos Deo hostias spiritales. 
 
 (22) Concil. Laod. Can. 7 andS. Condi. Gen. Hard. torn. I. p. 782. Nova- 
 tianos veletiam Quartodecimanos,quos Grajci Tessaradecatites appel- 
 lant, — sed et catechumenos illorum vel fideles non recipi, priusquam 
 
35 
 
 from the Novatians and Quartodecimans are ordered to 
 be received with the acknowledgeriient of their error, by 
 tlie imposition of hands ; while those from the Cata- 
 phrygians are directed to be baptized, even though they 
 might have been previously reckoned among their chief 
 clergy. Now the two sects first mentioned were ortho- 
 dox in their administration of Baptism ; while the Cata- 
 phrygians were a multifarious tribe of heretics, who had 
 depraved the form of the sacrament, in obedience to the 
 blasphemous absurdities of Montanus and Maximilla.* 
 
 A name of high authority amongst the fathers, is that of 
 the celebrated Jerome, whose judgment upon the canon 
 of Scripture is adopted in one of the Articles of the 
 Church. The year currently assigned to him, is A. D. 
 374. Nothing is more express than his decision upon the 
 doctrine of the priesthood of the laity, (23) which he con- 
 siders conferred, as it were, in their Baptism. He also as- 
 serts distinctly, the legality of laymen baptizing, in cases 
 of necessity, justifying it on the ground, that what a man 
 receives, he can give to another. (24) And he defends 
 elaborately the custom of the Church in admitting the 
 converts from heresy without rebaptization, saying that 
 in the controversy betvveen Cyprian and Stephen, the 
 bishop of Carthage was in error. (25) 
 
 condemnerent omnem hasrisim plenissim6, ante omnia autem, earn in 
 qua detinebantur. Et nunc qui apud eos fideles dicuntur, symbolum 
 fidei doceantur, atque ita unctos sancto chrismate, divino Sacramento 
 communicare conveniet. 
 
 Ejusdam Concil. Can. 8. Eos qui convertuntur ab hoeresi, quae dicitur 
 Calaphrygarum, seque in cleros constitutos existimant, quamvis mag- 
 ni dicantur, hujusmodi cum omni diligentia catechizari oportet, et 
 baptizari at) Ecclesiae Catholicse episcopis et presbyteris. 
 
 • Epiph. de Haeres. Tom. 1, Lib. 2, p. 402. 
 
 (23) S. Hieron. adv. Lucifer. 0pp. Tom. 2, p. 94. A. Sacerdotium 
 laici, id est, baptisma, — scriptum est enim : Regnum quippe nos et sa- 
 cerdotes Deo Patri suo fecit : et iterum, Gentem sanctam, regale sa- 
 cerdotium, populum acquisitum. 
 
 (24) lb. p. 96, D. Inde venit, ut sine chrismate et episcopi jussione, 
 neque presbyter, neque diaconus, jus habet baptizandi. Quod frequenter 
 si tamen necessitas cogit, scimus etiam licere laicis. Ut enim ac- 
 cipitquis, ilaut dare potest. 
 
 (26)Ib. p. 100, D. Conatus est beatus Cyprianus contritos lacus fugere 
 
36 
 
 He then proceeds to say that the custom and law of the 
 Ghurch on this ■subject were derived from tradition. And 
 he connects this tradition with tiie apostles by referring 
 to the numerous heresies which already existed in their 
 own day, of which the Epistles and the Book of Revela- 
 tions bore abundant testimony; and yet there is no in- 
 stance in which we read of their being rebaptized. It seems 
 to my mind a singular instance of the force of prejudice, 
 that after all this, and much more evidence of Jerome's 
 sentiments. Dr. Waterland, following the example of his 
 leaders on the same side, should question the character 
 of his judgment, merely on account of a doubtful passage 
 occurring in the same part of his works. That passage 
 admits of two interpretations. The one, which makes 
 Jerome consistent with himself, explains the words as 
 not expressing his own opinion, but simply as opposing 
 the Luciferian schismatics by an argumentum ad homincm, 
 which proved that they were wrong, even on their own 
 principle. The other meaning, for which these writers 
 so strenuously contend, would make Jerome contradict 
 himself ; and therefore, especially in the cas& of an au- 
 thor so distinguished for his acuteness, this consideration 
 alone should be conclusive against it, with every mind 
 of ordinary candour. 
 
 nee bibere de aqua aliena, et idcirco hoRreticnrum baptisma reprobans, 
 ad Stephanum tunc Romance urbis episcopum, qui a beato Petro vi- 
 gesimus sextus fuit, super hac re Africanam Sjnodum direxit ; sed co- 
 natus ejus frustra fuit. Denique illi ipsi episcopi, qui rebaptizandos 
 haereticos cum eo statuerant, adantiquam consuetudinemrevoluti, no- 
 vum emisere decretum. Quid facimus ? Ita et nobis majores nostri, 
 et illis sui tradidere majores. Sed quid de posterioribus loquar ? 
 Apostolis adhuc in seculo superstitibus, adhuc apud Judseara Christi 
 sanguine recenti, phantasma Domini corpus asserebatur. Galatas ad 
 observationem legis traductos apostolus iterura parturit : Corinthios 
 resurrectionem carnis non credentes, pluribus argumentis ad verum 
 iter trahere conatur, &c. — Ad eos venio haereticos, qui Evangelia lania- 
 verunt. Saturninum quendam et Ophitas et Choitam et Carpocratem 
 et CEeteras pestes, quorum plurimi vivente adhuc Joanne Apostolo 
 eruperunt, et tamen nullum eorum legimus rebaptizatum. Quo- 
 niam autem talis viri fecimus mentionem, de Apocalypsi quoque ejus 
 approbemus, haereticis sine baptismate debere poenitentiam con- 
 cedi, &c. 
 
/ 37 
 
 1 pass from Jerome, however, to the celebrated Angus- 
 tin (26) whose authority is cited in another of our Ar- 
 ticles, and whose judgment in favour of the vahdity of he- 
 retical, schismatical, and lay baptism, is admitted, even 
 by the most determined of its adversaries, to be decided 
 and plain. Thus in one place he asserts, that those men 
 are much mistaken who accuse the Church Cathoiic! of re- 
 ceiving heretics as heretics, because she does not rebaptize 
 them ; since, in entering the Church, they become Catho- 
 lics. And then he lays down the maxim, that the sacra- 
 ments which fihould only be given once, cannot lawfully 
 be re-iterated. 
 
 Again, (27) he saith, that although it was granted that 
 heretics had the Baptism of Christ, yet neither heretics 
 nor schismatics could receive the Holy Spirit, until they 
 adhered to unity and charity. The same judgment he 
 repeats more largely in anotlier place, where he extends 
 it to the Eucharist also, and with the same limita- 
 tion. (28) 
 
 Again, (29) Augustin maintains the validity of lay- 
 Baptism, even when administered without necessity, and 
 therefore unlawfully, and against the canons of the 
 
 (26) & August, ad Dulcit. §4. 0pp. Tom. ^p. 583. MultCimque illos 
 falli qui putant a nobis tales istos (sc. hacreticos) suscipi, quales sunt, 
 quia non eos rebaptizamus. Quomodo enim tales suscipiuntur quales 
 sunt, cum sint haeretici, et ad nos transeundo fianf. Catholici ? Neque 
 enim propterea corda depravata non licet corrigi, quia sacramenta sC' 
 mel data non licet iterari. 
 
 (27) S. August. Sermo 269, 0pp. Tom. 5, p. 762, D. Nee immerito 
 recte intelligitur, quamvis ipsos baptismum Christi fateamur, htereli- 
 cos non accipere vel schismaticos Spiritum Sanctum, nisi dum com- 
 pagini adha;serint unitatis per consortium caritatis. 
 
 (28) lb. De civitat. Del, C. 25, § 2. Tom. 7, p. 488. Hi sunt autem 
 qui banc liberationem, nee omnibus habentibus sacramentum bap- 
 tismatis et corporis Christi, sed solis Catholicis, quamvis male viven- 
 tibus pollicentur : quia non solo, inquiunt, sacramento, sed re ipsa 
 manducaverunt corpus Christi, «&c. Ac per lioc ha^retici et schismalici, 
 ab hujus uniiate corporis separati, possunt idem percipere sacramen- 
 tum, sed non sibi utile, imo vero etiam noxium, quo judicentur gra- 
 viiis quim vel tardiCis liberenlur. Non sunt quippe in vinculo pacis, 
 quod illo exprimitur sacramento. 
 
 (29) lb. Contra Parmen. Lib. 2, § 29, Tom. 9, p. 29. Quamquam et- 
 si laicus aliquis pereunti dederit necessitate compulsus quod c<im 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 Church. His words are these : "for aUhough even a lay- 
 man should give it (Baptism) to a person in extremity, I 
 know not whether any one could say religiously that it 
 ought to be repeated. If he does it whhout any necessi- 
 ty, it is an usurpation of another's office; but if necessi- 
 ty urges, it is either no fault, or a very pardonable one. 
 But if it be usurped without any necessity, and be given 
 by any one to anyone, that which is given can never be 
 said not to have been given, however truly it may be 
 said that it was given unlawfully. The unlawful usur- 
 pation is corrected by recollection and repentance. If 
 not corrected, however, the thing given will remain to the 
 punishment of the usurper, either of hiin who unlawful- 
 ly gave, or of him who unlawfully received it, but iican 
 7iever be accounted as not given.'^ 
 
 One more passage from this eminent father shall close, 
 his testimony for the present. (30) " There is yet another 
 question," saith he," viz. Whether Baptism can be given 
 by those who were never Christians ; nor is anything to 
 be rashly affirmed upon this point, without the authority 
 of a council sufficient to pronounce concerning so weighty 
 a matter. But of those who are separated from the uni- 
 
 ipse acciperet, quomodo dandum esset addidicit, nescio an pie quis- 
 quam dixerit esse repetendurn. Nulla enim cogente necessitate 
 si fiat alieni mnneris usurpatio est: si autem necessitas urgeat, aut 
 nullum, aut veniale delictum est. Sed el si nulla necessitate usurpe- 
 tur, et a quolibet cuilibet detur, quod datum fuerit non potest dici non 
 datum, quamvis rect6 dici possit illicite datum. Illicitam autem usur- 
 pationem corrigit reminiscentis et poenitentis affectus. Quod si non 
 correxerit, manebit ad pcenam usurpatpris quod datum est, vel ejus 
 qui illicite dedit, vel ejus qui illicite accepit ; non tamen pro non dato 
 habebitur. 
 
 (30) lb. § 30. Et hajc quidem alia quaestio est, utrum et ab iis qui 
 numquam fuerunt Christiani possit baptismus dari : nee aliquid te- 
 mere inde affirmandum est sine auctoritate tanti concilii quantum tan- 
 taB rei sufiicit. De iis vero qui ab Ecclesise unitate separati sunt, 
 nulla jam qutestio est, quin et habeant et dare possint, et quin perni- 
 ciose habeant perniciose que tradant extra vinculum pacis. Hoc enim 
 jamin ipsa totius orbis unitate discussum, consideratum, perfectum 
 atque firmatum est. 
 
 That Augustin agreed with Jerome in blaming the error of Cyprian, 
 IS plain from his Book Z>e unico Baptismo, 0pp. Tom. 9, p. 359, § 22. 
 Some other extracts from his admirable writings will be given in the 
 subsequent quotations from authors of a later date. 
 
39 
 
 ty of the Church, there is no question but that they may 
 and can give it, and that they hold it and give it inju- 
 riously, without the bond of peace. For this has been 
 long discussed, considered, perfected and established, 
 by the unity of the whole world. '^ 
 
 Next to the high authority of St. Augustin, I shall 
 mention the eminent Chrysostom, ^vhose fame, neverthe- 
 less, is rather to be attributed to his oratorical powers, 
 than to his skill in theological casuistry, since his works, 
 voluminous as they are, consist, for the most part, of po- 
 pidar sevmons or Homilies, which were probably deliver- 
 ed extempore, and taken down by an amanuensis, as we 
 believe was the case with the catechetical and mystagogic 
 discourses of Cyril of Jerusalem, and with many other re- 
 lics of antiquity. This fact would account, to a conside- 
 rable extent, fortheir energy, their inartificial construction, 
 their lively illustrations, and their occasional extravagance; 
 in which respects there is much to praise, and sometimes 
 not a little to censure. Plainly, however, it would be un- 
 reasonable to look to such productions for accurate state- 
 ments on those points which could not conduce to popular 
 edification ; however the author might have been obliged 
 to decide, if consulted by the clergy. The writers on the 
 other side, claimChrysostomnotwithstanding, asif he had 
 unequivocally declared himself against the decisions of 
 the councils, and the allowance of the Church. But this 
 he has not done, nor can I see anything in his works 
 which touches the precise point, viz. whether Baptism, ad- 
 ministered in the proper form by a heretic or by a layman, 
 without absolute necessity, and therefore administered 
 rather against than by the authority of the Church, is so 
 far null and void, that it may lawfully be administered 
 again: or, in other words, whether the minister is of the 
 essence, or only of the orde7^ of the sacrament. I shall 
 make a iew extracts to shew the general views of this 
 distinguished father, by which it will appear (31) that he 
 
 (31) 0/;/j. S. Chrysost. Tom. b, p. 333, D. Horn. LX. De sumentibus 
 indigne divina Hysteria. "Verum et tu laice, cum sacerdotem videris 
 offerentem, nee ut sacerdotem esse putes hoc facientem, sed^Christi 
 
40 
 
 maintains the following doctrines: First, that the ac- 
 tual administrator of the sacraments is not the visible 
 priest, but the invisible Deity, — secondly, (32) that 
 as the merit of the priesthood can add nothing to the 
 efficacy of ihe sacraments, so neither can the sins of the 
 priesthood take anytliing away — tiiirdly, (33) that it 
 is not th3 man who baptizes, but thegreatname in which 
 we are baptized, which is worthy to be enquired of; since 
 the efficacy of J3aptism, which is the remission of sins, is of 
 God;and the work of preaching the gospel, so far as human 
 agency is concerned, is therefore a greater work than th; t 
 of Baptism, — and fourthly, (34) that a repetition of Bap 
 tism is utterly inadmissible, being liable to the reproach, 
 symbolically, of crucifying Christ a second time. Now 
 in all this, the sentiments of our author are in no respect 
 peculiar. But the last passage which I have quoted (35) 
 is directly hostile to the scheme of Dr. Waterland and his 
 
 mauum invisibiliter extensam. Sicut enim cum baptizaris, ipse te 
 non baptizat, sed Deus est qai tuum caput invisibile potentia conti- 
 net, et nee angelus, nee archangelus, nee uUus alius aecedere et tan- 
 gereaudet; ita nunc quoque cum Deus regenerat, ipsius est solius 
 donum. 
 
 (32) lb. Tom. 4, 334, Horn. VIII. in Epist. ad Corinth. I. cap. ii. 
 Nunc autem per indignos consuevit Deus operari, et nihil propter 
 sacerdotis vitam baptismatis gratia lasditur. — Hose dico, ne quis pras- 
 sentium sacerdotis vitam pensiculando circa religionis nostrge doctri- 
 nam scandalizetur. Nihil enim homo his quaa sibipropouuntur, ex se 
 addit : sed id omne divinse virtutis opus est, et ipse Deus, qui nos 
 erudit. 
 
 (33) lb. p. 297, Horn. III. in Epist. ad Corinth. I. Cap. i. Nunquid 
 in nomine Pauli baptizati estis "? Ac si diceret, Noli mihi dicere, quis 
 baptizavit, sed in cujus nomine. Nee enim qui baptizat, sed quern in 
 baptismate invocamus, inquiritur. Hie enim est qui dimittit peccata. 
 
 Et profecto magnum qnidJam baptisma est, sed ejus magnitudi- 
 
 nem non qui baptizat, sed qui invocatur, in baptismate efficit. Nam 
 baptizare nihil est, si humanus labor consideretur, sed longe minus 
 quJim evangelizare. 
 
 (34) lb. p. 1536,5. Com. Chrysost.in Epist. Paul/' ad Hebrasos,cap. 
 VI. Horn. IX. Proinde qui secundo seipsum baptizat, secundo eum 
 crucifigit, — Sicut enim mortuus est Christus in cruce, sic et nos in 
 baptismate, non carni, sed peccato. — Si ergo necesse est baptizare 
 iterum, necesse est rursum eundem ipsum mori. Baptisma enim nihil 
 aliud est, quam interitus ejus qui baptizatur, et resurrectio illius. 
 
 (35) lb. Tom. 2. p. 766, In Cap. Matthxi VII. Horn. XIX. Speaking 
 of heretics, Chrysostom says, "Sed forte dicis, Quomodo dicere ilium 
 possum non esse Christianum, quern video Christum confitentera, ai- 
 
41 
 
 ingenious coadjutors. For their theory requires us to be- 
 lieve, that the reason why the primitive Church allowed 
 the validity of heretical Baptisms, was because the heri- 
 tics had a true and regular priesthood, by succession and 
 ordination ; which priestly authority was indelible. And 
 since they claim St. Chrysostom as a witness on their side, 
 it is with rather more interest than the passage would 
 otherwise deserve that I have transcribed the following 
 part of his testimony. 
 
 " Perhaps thou wilt say, How can I deny a man to be a 
 Christian, when I behold him confessing Christ, having an 
 altar, offering the sacrifice of bread and wine, baptizing, 
 reading the Scriptures of the saints, and having every or- 
 der of the priest liood? wise man ! if he does not con- 
 fess Christ, his heathenism is manifest, and if thou art se- 
 duced by that, itvvas insanity which seduced thee : but if 
 he does confess Christ, and yet not as Christ himself com- 
 manded, then it is thine own negligence if thou art se- 
 duced by him. For he who falls into a hidden pit, is 
 called negligent, because he did not look carefully before 
 him : while he who falls into an open pit, is not called 
 negligent but insane. As to what thou hast said con- 
 cerning the similitude of the ecclesiastical mysteries, hear 
 this answer. The ape haa the members of a man, and 
 imitates man in all his actions, but ivouldst thou on that 
 ground judge that it should be called a man'.' In like man- 
 ner heresy has all the members of the Church, and imi- 
 tates her mysteries, but they are not of the Church not- 
 withstanding.'' 
 
 tare habentem, sacrificium panis et vini ofFerentem, baptizantem, scrip- 
 turas sanctorum legentem, omnem ordinem sacerdotii habentem ? Vir 
 sapiens, si non confitetur Christum, et manifesta esset gentilitas illius, 
 et si seducebaris per eam, insania erat, qua seducebaris : nunc autem 
 qui confitetur Christum, sed non sic quemadmodum mandavit Chris- 
 tus, negligentia tua est, si ab eo seduceris. Qui enim in occultam 
 foveam cadit, negligens esse dicitur, quia non caute prospexit: qui 
 autem in manifestam foveam cadit, non negligens dicitur, sed insanus. 
 Quod autem de similitudine ecclesiasticorum mysteriorum dixisti, hcc 
 audi responsum. Quoniam et simia hominis habet membra, et per 
 omnia hominem imitatur, nunquid propterea dicenda est homo I Sic 
 et haeresis omnia Ecclesise habet et imitatur mysteria, sed non sunt 
 Ecclesiaa. 
 
 4* " ■ 
 
Here, then, St. Chrysostom, expressly reckoning the 
 orders of the priesthood amongst the several particulars 
 in which the heretics resembled the Church, plainly de- 
 nies that there was any more identity between the priest- 
 hood of the one and the priesthood of the other, than 
 there is between the members of the ape and those of 
 the man. Now if this be sound doctrine, — which I by no 
 means assert, but give it for the benefit of the other side, as 
 the doctrine of their own favorite witness — it surely de- 
 stroys the whole ingenious theory by which they think 
 they can account for the admission of heretical Baptisms, 
 without being obliged to acknowledge the vahdity of 
 Lay-Baptism. For how could the ordinance derive any 
 additional efficacy, in the judgment of Chrysostom, from 
 a ministry, whose acts he held in the same esteem as the 
 imitations of a monkey? 
 
 But my next witness is, on every account, much more 
 important. Innocent, the first bishop of Rome who bore 
 that name, was contemporary with Chrysostom, for his 
 accession is placed by Baronius in A. D. 402. And in 
 the passage which I shall cite, we have, not the loose 
 and vague language of a Homily ad populum, but a pre- 
 cise statement on the very point, addressed to a bishop. 
 In this epistle, (36) the pontiff saith, that although the lay- 
 men who were converts from the Arians,and other heretics 
 of the same kind, should be received upon a profession of 
 
 (36.) Inn. epist. XVIII. Alexandra Episcopo, Condi. Gen. Hard. Tom. 
 \. p. 1013. C Ariianos proEterea, ceterasque hujusmodi pestes, quia 
 eorum laicos converses ad Dominum, sub imagine pcEnitentia? ac Sanc- 
 ti Spiritus sanctificatione per manus impositionem suscipimus; non 
 videtur, clericos eorum cum sacerdotii aut ministerii cujuspiam susci- 
 pi debere dignitate : quoniam quibus solum baptisma ratum esse per- 
 mittimus, quod ulique in nomine Patris, et Filii, el Spiritus Sancti per- 
 ficitur, nee Spiritum Sanctum eos habere ex illo baptismate illisque 
 mysteriis arbitramur: quoniam cum a Catholica fide eorum auctores 
 desciscerent, perfectionem Spiritus quam acceperant, amiserunt. Nee 
 dare ejus plenitudinem possunt, quae maxime in ordinationibus oper- 
 atur, quam per impietatis sua; perfidiam potius quam per fidem, dix- 
 erim, perdiderunt. Quomodo fieri potest, ut eorum profanos sacerdo- 
 tes, dignos Christi honoribus arbitremur, quorum laicos imperfectos, 
 ut dixi, ad Sancti Spiritus percipiendam gratiam, cum poenitentise 
 imagine recipiaraus 1 
 
43 
 
 repentance, with the imposition of hands, yet it would not 
 follow thattlieir clergy ought to be allowed the dignity 
 of any ministerial or sacerdotal power. For nothing of 
 theirs was admilled but their Baptism, which was ad- 
 ministered in the true form of the ordinance, by 'he in- 
 vocation of the sacred Trinity. Nor was their Baptism 
 to be supposed endowed with any spiritual grace, for 
 when the authors of heresy departed from the catholic 
 faith, they lost the perfection of the Spirit which they had 
 received. Hence they could not give the plenitude of 
 that grace which chiefly operates in ordinations, for they 
 hQ.(\ forfeited it by their perfidy. And the pontiff' asks, 
 in conclusion, how it was possible that those profane 
 priests could be thought worthy of the honours of Christ, 
 whose imperfect laymen could not be admitted to the 
 grace of the Holy Spirit, without repentance? Now this 
 testimony directly disproves the theory on the other side; 
 for it shows most clearly that instead of the ancient 
 Church admitting the Baptisms of heretics on the ground 
 that those who administered them were priests, validly 
 ordained, it was on the very different ground that the 
 sacrament had been administered in the orthodox form ; 
 since the Baptifuns of the Arians are here expressly al- 
 lowed, while their ordinations are ^s expressly rejected. 
 
 In harmony with the same doctrine, the first Leo, who 
 occupied the See of Rome, A. D. 440, lays down the rule, 
 (37) that Baptism received from heretics must not be re- 
 peated; but that, since the form of the sacrament only 
 could be had amongst heretics, the converted penitent 
 must have confirmation in the catholic Church, in order 
 that he may receive the sanciification of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 (37) lb. p. 1771. D. Leonis Papse l.Epislola Niceias Aquil. Episcopo. 
 § VII. Nam hi qai baptismum ab hoereticis acceperunt, cum baptizati 
 antea non fuissent, sola invocatione Spiritus sancti per impositionem 
 manuum confirmandi sunt, quia formam tantum baptismi sine sancti- 
 licationis virtute siuiipserunt. Et banc regulam (ut scitis) servandam 
 omnibus Ecclesiis predicamus; utlavacrum semel initum nulla iter- 
 atione violetur; dicente Apostolo, Unus Dominus, una fides, unum bap- 
 tisma. Cujus ablutio nulla iteratione temeranda est, sed (ut diximus) 
 sola sanctificatio Spiritus sancti invocanda est : ut quod ab hsereticis 
 nemo accipit, a catliolicis sacerdotibus consequatur. 
 
44 
 
 The next assertion of the point occurs in the fourteenth 
 canon of the General Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451. 
 And here it is decreed, (38) that whereas readers and 
 singers were allowed to marry, nevertheless they should 
 not be permitted to marry amongst heretics : that if, how- 
 ever, there were any who had children by such marri- 
 ages, and tliese children were already baptized amongst 
 heretics, their fathers should bring them to the commu- 
 nion of the Catholic Church ; but such among them as 
 were still unbaptized, should not be baptized amongst 
 heretics, nor should it be lawful thenceforth to marry a 
 heretic, a Jew, or a pagan. 
 
 One year after this General Council, we have the tes- 
 timony of the second council of Aries, in its sixteenth or 
 seventeenth canons, (39) where the Photinians or Paul- 
 ianists are ordered to be baptized, according to the de- 
 crees of the fathers ; while the Arians, and the Bonosia- 
 ci, being baptized in the name of the Trinity, are directed 
 to be received into the Church, with chrism and the im- 
 position of hands. 
 
 An interesting record upon this subject occurs in the 
 acts of a Roman council, held under the pontificate of 
 Felix III, A. D. 484 ; in consequence of the lapse of 
 many African clergy, whom the Vandals had prevailed 
 upon, by persuasion and threats, to accept Arian Bap- 
 tism.* "It is a subject of general grief and lamentation," 
 
 (38) Con. Gen.Hard. Tom. 2. p. 607. B. Quoniam in quibusdam 
 provinciis concessum est lectoribus et psalmistis uxores ducere, sta- 
 tuit sancta S3aiodus, non licere cuiquam ex his accipere sectse alterius 
 nxorem. Qui vero ex hujusmodi conjugio jam lilios susceperunt, si 
 quidem prccventi sunt, ut ex se genitiapud haereticos baptizarentur; 
 offerre eos Ecclesiae catholicae communioni conveniet : non baptiza- 
 tos autem, non posse eos ulterius apud haereticos baptizare : sed ne- 
 qiie copulari debet uuptnra haeretico, aut ludaeo, vel pagano, &c. 
 
 (39) Ih. p. 774. Concil. Arelat. 11, canones XVI c^ XVII. Photinia- 
 tos, sive Pauliauistas, secundum patrum statuta, baptizari oportere. 
 Bonosiacos autem ex eodem errore venientes, quos sicut Arrianos bap- 
 tizari in Trinitate manifestum est, si interrogati fidem nostram ex 
 toto corde confessi fuerint, cum chrismate et manus impositione in 
 Ecclesia recipi sufficit. 
 
 * Baron. Annul. A. D. 487. § 11, Tom. 6. p. 482. 
 
45 
 
 saith the pontiff in his Address, (40) "that in Africa we 
 have known even bishops, priests, and deacons, to be 
 re-baplized." In the second canon of the Council it is 
 strongly argued (41) that no one can come a second time 
 to baptism without casting the grace of salvation away, 
 since it amounts to an open denial of Christ, and a pro- 
 fession that the individual had been a pagan, — a sin to be 
 execrated in all, but much more horrible to be committed 
 by bishops, priests, and deacons. And therefore this ca- 
 non orders all such of the clergy as had been re-baptized, 
 to be placed in the order of penitents all their days, and 
 to be allowed lay-communion only at the hour of death. 
 Now this passage of Church history may not, indeed, 
 seem directly applicable to the question in which we are 
 concerned; since it is obvious that contempt for the Bap- 
 tisms of heretics and schismatics, is a very diflerent mat- 
 ter from despising the Baptisms of the Church. But yet, 
 upon thorough examination of the theology involved in 
 the case, the distinction will be seen to be in degree only. 
 For the Church herself, as we have found by the multi- 
 phed decisions of her councils and doctors, had so rever- 
 enced Baptism as the ordinance of Christ, that she for- 
 bade its repetition, even when it had been administered 
 by her worst enemies. And therefore we must regard it, 
 
 (40) Condi. Gen. Hard. Tom. 2. p. 878. Concil. Rom. sub Felice III. 
 Felix episcopus Ecclesife urbis Romse dixit: Communis dolor, et 
 generalis estgemitiis, quod intra Afticam rebaptizatos etiam episco- 
 pos, presbyteros diaconosque cognovimus. 
 
 (41) lb. p. 833. Ut ergo ab Ecclesiar summitatibus inchoemus, eos 
 quos episcopos, presbyteros, vel diaconos fuisse constiterit; et seu op- 
 tantes forsitan, seu coaclos lavacri illius unici salutarisque claruerit 
 fecisse jacturam ; et Christum, quem non solum dono regenerationls, 
 varum etiam gratia percepti honoris induerant, exuisse ; cum constet, 
 neminem ad secundam tinctionem venire potuisse, nisi se palam 
 Christianum negaverit, et professus fuerit se esse paganum. Quod 
 cum generaliter sit in omnibus exsecrandum, multo magis in episco- 
 pis, presbyteris, diaconibus auditu saltern dictuque probatur horren- 
 dum. Sed quia idem Dominus atque Salvalor clemenlissimns est, et 
 neminem vultperire; usque ad exitus sui diem, in pa-nitentia (si 
 resipiscunt,) jacere conveniet; nee orationi non modo lidelium, sed 
 necatechumenorum omnimodisinteresse, quibus communio liicatan- 
 tum in raorte reddenda est. 
 
46 
 
 I presume, according to the judgment of the great Au- 
 gustin, where, expostulating with a Donatist bishop for 
 having re-baptized a deacon, he says, (42)" Tc? re-bap- 
 tize a heretic is truly a sin, but to re-baptize a Catho- 
 lic is a most enormous rvicked?iess." 
 
 The fourteenth canon of the council of Ilerda, A. D. 
 524, follows up the subject, by decreeing, (43) that "no 
 religious communicant should participate, even at meals, 
 with those who had been re-baptized." 
 
 The third Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, next claims 
 attention, by taking a further step towards the suppression 
 of re-baptization. For in tlie fifteenth canon it is thus de- 
 creed : (44) "Whoever believes or shall believe the sacri- 
 legious work of re-baptizing to be good, and either per- 
 forms or shall perform it, let him be accursed.^' 
 
 The doctrine of the Church is set forth with great per- 
 spicuity by Isidore, the bishop of Hispala, who flourished 
 about this time. He states in plain terms, (45) that Bap- 
 tism was delivered to the priests, that even the deacons 
 could not lawfully administer it without the bishops or 
 
 (4:2) Augustin. 0pp. Tom. 2. p. 23. Episf. XXJII. Rebaptizare igitur 
 haerelicum hominem qui haec sanctitatis signa pei-ceperit quffi Chris- 
 tiana tradidit disciplina, omnino peccatum est : rebaptizare autem 
 Catholicum, immanissimum scelus est. 
 
 (43) Concil. Gen. Hard. Tom. 2.p. 1066. Concil. Ilerdense, Can. XIV. 
 Cum rebaptizatis fideles religiosi, nee in cibo, participent. 
 
 (44) lb. Tom. 3. p. Alb. Concil. Toktanum III. Can. XV. Quicum- 
 que rebaptizandi sacrilegum opus bonum esse credit aut crediderit, 
 agit aut egerit, anathema sit. 
 
 (45) Isidori Hispal. Episcop. de Offic. Ecclesiast. Lib. 11. C. XXIV. 
 p. 411, G. H. Unde constat baptisma solis sacerdotibixs esse traditum, 
 cujusque mysterium nee ipsis diaconibus explere licifum absque epis- 
 copis, vel presbyteris, nisi illis procul absentibus ultima lariguoris co- 
 gat necessitas ; quod et laicis fidelibus plerumque permittitur, ne quis- 
 quam sine remedio sklutari de sseculo evocetur. Hseretici autem, si 
 tamen in Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti attestatione docentur baptis- 
 ma suscepisse, non iterum sunt baptizandi, sed sola chrismate et 
 manus impositione purgandi. Baptismus enim non est hominis meri- 
 tum, sed Christi : ideoque nihil interest, hagreticus an fidelis baptizet. 
 Quod sacramentum tam sanctum est, ut nee homicida ministrante pol- 
 luatur. Habet quidem haereticus baptismum Christi ; sed quia extra 
 unitatem fidei est, nihil ei prodest. At ubi ingressus fuerit, statim bap- 
 tisma quod habuerat foris ad perniciem, incipit illi jamprodesse ad 
 saliltem. 
 
47 
 
 the presbyters, unless when they are faraway, and death 
 is approaching, in which cd.se faithful laymen are gen," 
 erally allowed to administe}' it, Xesi^ny oi^^ should de- 
 part without the salutary remedy. That heretics also, 
 provided only they baptize in the name of the 7'rinity, 
 are admitted, nor, in such case, is Baptism administered 
 again, but they are cleansed by chrism and the imposition 
 of hands only. For Baptism is not the merit of man but 
 of Christ, and therefore it is of no importance whether 
 the faithful or the heretic baptizes. And of such sanctity 
 is this sacrament, that it cannot be poUuted even by a 
 homicide. The heretic, then, has indeed the Baptism of 
 Christ, but because he is without the unity of the faith, it 
 profits him nothing. But when he has entered this unity, 
 immediately the Baptism which he previously had to his 
 hurt, begins to be profitable to his salvation." 
 
 I shall now refer, in chronological order, to the great 
 Council of TruUo, called the Qninisextan, held A. D. 681, 
 in the ninety-fifth canon of which the subject is treated 
 with all the exactness of detail. (46) Of those heretics who 
 were to be admitted without re-baptization, this canon 
 specifies the Arians, the JNIacedonians, the Novatians, 
 &c., while the Eunomians, the Montanists, the Sabelli- 
 ans, with many others, who, like them, had changed the 
 very form of Baptism, are directed to be re-baptized. 
 
 The year 688 brings us to the chapters of Theodore, 
 Archbishop of Canterbury, in the sixth of which we read 
 as follows : (47) "Those who have been twice baptized 
 
 (46) Hard. Con. Gen. Tom. 3. p. 1695. Co7icil. Quinisext. Can. XCV. 
 Eos qui ex hsereticis ad rectam fidem accedunt, et parti eorum qui sal- 
 vantur, subjecta consequentia et consuetudine recipientes, Arianos 
 quidem et Macedonianos, et Novatianos, qui se Puros appellant, et 
 Aristeros, et Tessarescaidecatitas, seu Tetraditas, et Apollinaristas, 
 recipimus, dantes libellos, et omnem hteresim anathematizantes, — 
 sancto prinium chrismate inungentes et frontem, et oculos, et nares, et 
 OS, et aures; consignantes autem dicimus : Signaculum doni Spiri- 
 tus sancti. De Paulianis autem a Catholica Ecclesia statutumest, ut 
 ii omnino rebaptizentur, Eunomianos quoque, qui in unam demersio- 
 nem baptizant, et Montanistas, qui hie dicuntur Phryges, et Sabelli- 
 anos, &c. 
 
 (47) lb. p. 1772, Theodori Cantuar, Archiepiscopi Capitula. VI. Qui 
 
48 
 
 through ignorance, do not need penance ; but they can- 
 not be ordained according to the canons, unless under 
 great necessity. But those who cannot plead ignorance, 
 forasmuch as they have as it were crucified Christ afresh, 
 must do penance for seven years." 
 
 In A. D, 774, Charles the Great received an Epitome 
 of the various canons from the Apostles down, as a pre- 
 sent from pope Adrian. And it is worthy of observation 
 that in this collection the rule appears iniperative, by 
 which those who had been re-baptized should not be ad- 
 mitted to holy orders. (48) Those canons of the African 
 Church are also retained, (49) in which it was decreed 
 not only that the Donatist clergy should be received into 
 the Church in their sacerdotal order, but still further, that 
 the Catholic bishops should divide their dioceses with 
 the Donatists. True, these concessions are placed upon 
 the ground of expediency. Nevertheless, when we re- 
 member that the origin of that pernicious sect was in 
 schism, that they maintained their hostile position against 
 the Church with the most furious obstinacy, notwithstand- 
 ing the decision of the great council of Aries against them, 
 that they indirectly encouraged and doubtless inflamed 
 the sanguinary cruelties of the Circumcelliones, in order 
 to sustain their cause by violence and blood, and that 
 their first bishop, being consecrated by a factious minor- 
 ity when the see was regularly filled, and therefore in ut- 
 ter contempt of the canons, was not entitled to the char- 
 acter of a true bishop, but was rather a wolf than a shep- 
 herd — when all this is fully considered, those canons cf 
 the African church must needs be regarded as a beauti- 
 ful and atTecting monument of her moderation and love 
 
 bis baptizati sunt ignorantes, non indigent poenitentia, nisi qucd se- 
 cundum canones non possunt ordinari, nisi pro magna necessitate. 
 Qui vero non ignorant, quasi iterum Christum crucifijcerunt, pj?nite- 
 ant septem annis, <fec. 
 
 (48) Ib.p. 20i7, A. Ne rebaptizati, clerici fiant. 
 
 (49) lb. p. 2049. Ut clerici Donatistarum in catholicam Ecclesiam re- 
 cipiantur cum ordine pro tempore et necessitate. And again, p. 2051. Ut 
 Catholici episcopi et ex Donatistis conversi, dioceseos illas sequaliter 
 dividant.in quibus tam Donatistse quam Catholici jam ante comman- 
 serant. 
 
49 
 
 of peace in the days of Augnstin ; and they might serve 
 as an edifying lesson, even now, to many a devoted ad- 
 mirer of Christian antiquity. 
 
 But I crave pardon for this digression, and hasten to re- 
 sume the direct Une of my argument. And this, perhaps, 
 will be the place for an interesting question which is of- 
 ten mooted by the writers on the other side, viz. Wheth- 
 er the Eastern branch of the Church was equally liberal 
 with the Western, in the admission of heretical, schisma- 
 tical, and lay-Baptism. Now the answer to this might 
 well be considered as sufficiently given already, not only 
 because the greater Councils which I have cited were of 
 universal authority, but also because there was no sep- 
 aration of the Church into Eastern and Western, until 
 after this period ; and therefore the unity of the universal 
 or catholic body affords the strongest presumption, at 
 least in the aljsence of any evidence to the contrary, that 
 the doctrine of one portion was the doctrine of the whole. 
 It may be well,ho\vever, asa sort of cumulative evidence, 
 to transcribe a very direct passage from the canons of 
 the Greek patriarch Nicephorus, who flourished in the 
 ninth century, in which it is declared, (50) that if there 
 be any infants nnbaptized in a place where there is no 
 priest, it is fitting that they should be baptized notwith- 
 standing. And in such case, if the father himself, or 
 any other person who is a Christian, should administer 
 the ordinance, he commits no sin. 
 
 A little further on in the history of this same ninth 
 century, we meet with an occurence which illustrates still 
 unr3 the prevailing doctrine of the Church on the subject 
 of Kiy-Biptism. Pope Nicholas I., wlio attained the Pa- 
 nil chair, A. D. 853, was consulted by the Bulgarians 
 under the following circumstances. (51) A certain Greek 
 
 (50) Condi. Gen, Hard. Tom. 4. p. 1053, N/'cephori Confessoris ali- 
 quot canones. can, XVI. Infantes non baptizatos oportet, si quo loco 
 reperiaturquis, u'li non sit sacerdos, baptizari. Quod si vel pater, am 
 quilibet alius modosil Ohristianus, baptizet, peccatum non committit. 
 
 (51) Con. Gen. Hxrd. Tom. 5, p. 359. Nicholai Papw Responsa ad Con- 
 mlta Bulgaroruin § XIV. Praeterea indicatis, quod quidam Graecus men- 
 tiens fateretur se presbyterum e -sc, cum non esset, ac per hoc plurimos 
 
 5 
 
50 
 
 impostor, who had pretended to be a priest without any- 
 just title to the office, under that assumed character had 
 converted and baptized a large number of men, Dis 
 covering the cheat, however, his former disciples became 
 enraged, and punished him by cutting off his nose and 
 ears, scourging him severely, and banishing him. The 
 Pope, in his answer, praises their zeal, but utterly con- 
 demns their cruelty. And while he admits that ti e 
 Greek did wrong in feigning himself to be a priest, he 
 cites the apostle, who rejoiced that the gospel was preach- 
 ed, even although it was done by many out of envy 
 and strife, and not sincerely. With respect to the persons 
 who had received Baptism from the impostor, however, 
 the Pontiff replies, that if they were baptized in the name 
 of the Holy and undivided Trinity, they v^ere truly Chris- 
 tians, and ought not to be baptized again. He then pro-, 
 ceeds to show that the v/ork of Baptism was Christ's, no 
 matter by whom administered, although even by an adul- 
 terer or by a thief. And again he refers to Scripture, 
 where John the Baptist, pointing to the Saviour, saith, 
 
 in vestra patria baptizasset. Cum ergo vos inspiratione Dei cognovis- 
 seris, quod non esset presbyter, judicaveritis, ut amitteret aures et 
 nares, et accrrimis verberibuscosderetur, etex patria vestra pelleretur. 
 Ecce impletum est in vobis, ignoscite nobis, quod de quibusdani Apos- 
 tolus clamat, quod habent zelum Dei, sed non secundum scientiam. 
 Nam licet ille male fecerit, si mentitus est, vos tamen in hoc zelum 
 quidem pium, sed minus cautum habuistis : quoniam quamvis ipse se 
 sacerdotem esse simulaverit, simulatio tamen ejus saiutem plurimis 
 contulit. Siquidem diversi fuere qui diverso modo Christum, sed non 
 propter Christum annantiabant : sed sive occasione, sive quomodo- 
 cumque hunc annuntiarent, hos tantum non prohibcbat Apostolus, 
 qui solum ut Christus annuntiarctur, plurimum satagebat, &c. 
 
 lb. § XV. Porro iuterrogatis, utrum homines illi qui hoc ab illo 
 baptisma receperunt, Christiani sunt, an iterum baptizari debeant. 
 Sed si in nomine summse ac individuae Trinitatis baptizati fuere, Chris- 
 tiani profecto sunt, et cos a quocumque Christiano baptizati sunt, iterate 
 baptizare non convenit ; — et baptismum quod procul sit ab Eccle- 
 sia, sive ab adultero, vel a fure fuerit datum, ad percipientem munus 
 pervenit illabatum ; quia vox ilia quce sonuit per Columbam, omnem 
 maculam humance pollutionis excludit, qua declarafur, ac dicitur : 
 Hie est qui baptizat. — Quod itaque numerosa Scripturarum testatur 
 instructio, et revera quia secundum famosissiraum Apostolum : Neque 
 qui plantat, id est, catechizat, rieque qui irrigai, id est baptizat, est uli- 
 qw'd, sed qui incremcntum dat Deus. 
 
51 
 
 He shall baptize you, and quotes St. Paul sayitig, " Nei- 
 ther is he that plautelh anything, neither lie that wateretli, 
 but God who givcth the increase." 
 
 A similar instance occurred in France, before the close 
 of the ninth century, within the jurisdiction of the cele- 
 brated Archbishop Rabanus, who, being consulted by 
 one of his suffragans upon the course proper to be pur- 
 sued, enters largely into the whole subject, as follows : 
 
 " With respect to the man," saith the Archbishop, (52) 
 
 (52) Concil. Gen. Hard. Tom. 5, p. 1415. Rabani Responsa Canoni- 
 ca, § VI. De illo vero qui piesbyterum se esse finxerit, cum non 
 asset ordinatus, et baptism! officium exercuit, requirendum est utrum 
 ipse baptizans baptizatus esset, et utrum in nomine Sanctte Trinitatis 
 sub trina mersione baptizaverit. Quod si ita erat, non est iterum 
 baptizandus, sed per impositionem manus episcopalis, et unctionem 
 sacri chrismatis, id quod factum est contirmandum. Quia quod se- 
 mel est in sacramento baptismatis efiectum non licet iterari : quoniam 
 unus est Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma. Attamen ille qui prae- 
 sumptuose egit, et non pro necessitate aliqua, canonica disciplina 
 est coercendus. Igitur utbeatus Ambrosius testatur, postquam omni- 
 bus locis Ecclesioe sunt constitutoe, et officia ordinata, aliter composita 
 res est quam cosperal. Primum enim omnes docebant et baptizabant, qui- 
 buscumque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio. — At ubi omnia loca 
 circumplexa est Ecclesia, conventiculaconstituta sunt, et reclores, et 
 cetera officia Ecclesiis sunt ordinata: ut nullus de clero auderet, qui or- 
 dinatus non esset, procsumere officium quod sciret non sibi creditum 
 vel concessum; et cccpit alio ordine et providentia gubernari Ec- 
 clesia. Quod si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, et vulgaris 
 res et vilissima videretur. Hinc ergo est unde nunc neque diaconi 
 in populo predicant, neque ceteri clerici vel laici baptizant, &c. — 
 Quod autem unum sit Christi baptisma, et licet a diversis ministre- 
 tur, non debet iterari vel mutari, sacrum Evangclium ostendit, ubi 
 verba Johannis Baptiston posita sunt ita dicentis : Quia vidi Sjnriturn 
 descendenlem quasi Colutnbam de ccelo, et mancntevi super eum, el ego ne' 
 sciebam. Sed qui misit me baplizare in aqua, ille mihi dixit : Supe^ 
 quern videris Spiriluni descendentem et manentem super eum, hie est qtfl 
 baptizat in Spiritu Sancio. — Quam sententiam beatus Augustinus ita 
 exposuit. Quid ergo per Columbam didicit Johannes ; nisi quandam 
 proprietatem in Christo futuraml Ut quamvis multi ministribaptizatu- 
 ri essent, sive justi, sive injusti, non tribueretur sanctitas baptismi ni- 
 si illi super quem descendit Columba, de quo dictum: Hie est qui bapti- 
 zat in Spiritu Sancfo. Petrus baptizet, hie est qui baptizat : Paulus bapli- 
 zet, hie est qui baptizat : Judas baptizet, hie est qui baptizat. Nam si 
 pro diversitate meritorum baptismus esset, quia diversa sunt merita, 
 diversa essent baptismata. Sed unum est baptisma, et solus est Chris- 
 tus, qui per diversos ministros suos baptismate baptizat in remissio- 
 
52 
 
 " who pretended to be a presbyter when he was not or- 
 dained, and in this assumed character administered the 
 ordinance of Baptism, it must first be ascertained whether 
 he had been baptized himself, and whether he baptized 
 others with {he trine immersion in the name of the Holy- 
 Trinity. If this be so, the Baptisms are not to be repeat- 
 ed, but by the laying on of the bishop's hands, and the 
 anointing with holy chrism, that which has been done 
 must be confirmed. For that which is once effect- 
 ed in the sacrament of Baptism, it is not lawful to repeat, 
 since there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. Never- 
 theless, he who has acted presumptuously and not by any 
 necessity, should be punished by canonical discipline. 
 Therefore, as blessed Ambrose testifies, after Churches 
 were erected, and offices ordained in everyplace, the or- 
 der of ecclesiastical matters was arranged differently 
 from the beginning. For at first, all taught and all bap- 
 tized, whenever tliere was occasion. But when the 
 Church became established, places of worship were erect- 
 ed, and rectors and the other officers were ordained, that 
 no one might presume to exercise any other functions 
 than those which were conceded to him. Hence it is 
 that now deacons do not preach to the people, nor do the 
 inferior clergy nor the laity baptize. But that the Bap- 
 tism of Christ is one, and ought not to be repeated nor 
 changed although variously administered, the holy gospel 
 shews, where John the Baptist declares: I saw the Spirit 
 descending from heaven like a. dove, and abiding upon 
 him; and I knew him not. Bui he who sent tne to bap- 
 tize luith ivater, tiie same said unto me : Upon whomso- 
 ever thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining 
 upon him, he it is that baptizeth ivHh the Holy Ghost. 
 Which sentence is thus expounded by blessed Angus- 
 tin. What then did John learn through the holy Dove, 
 unless a certain prerogative to be exercised by Christ ? 
 
 nem omnium peccatorum. Ideo sacri canones prsecipiunt, ut qui ab 
 hsereticis baptizati sunt, non rebaptizcntiir ; sed per impositionem 
 manus sola Sancti Spiritus invocatione, quem ab hrereticis nemo acci- 
 pit, a Catholicis sacerdolibus Ecclesisesecuritatem consequantur. 
 
53 
 
 Thatalthough many ministers should henceforward bap- 
 tize, whether righteous or unrighteous, yet the holiness of 
 Baptism could only be attributed to him, upon whom the 
 Dove descended : and of whom it was said : This is He 
 that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. Peter may baptize ; 
 this is He that baptizeth. Paul may baptize ; this 
 is He that baptizeth. Judas may baptize ; this is 
 m^ that baptizeth. For if Baptism depended upon the 
 diversit)'' of human qualifications, since these are various, 
 there must be various Baptisms. But Baptism is one, 
 and it is Christ alone, who, through his various minis- 
 ters, baptizes with the Baptism of remission of sins. 
 Therefore the sacred canons order that those ivho have 
 been baptized by heretics shall not be baptized again, 
 but by the imposition of hands and the invocation of the 
 Holy Spirit, whom no one receives from heretics, may be 
 assured of their security by the catholic priests of the 
 Church." These extracts are long, and perhaps burden- 
 some. But yet I have thought it best to give them at 
 large, as presenting the fairest view of the doctrine of the 
 ancient Cluirch, which seems to have undergone no se- 
 rious modification from a very early day. 
 
 The next testimony which I shall adduce, like the last, 
 embraces a double attestation, since it consists of the 
 statement of the venerable Bsde, the well-known presby- 
 ter of the Church of England in the early part of tlie 
 seventh century, adopted by Herveius the Metropolitan 
 of Rheims, near the eleventh century. (53) " According 
 to the saving and firmly established doctrine of the catho- 
 lic faith," saith our English divine, quoted with approba- 
 tion by the Rhemish Archbishop, "observed unanimously 
 
 (53) Concil. Gen. Hard. Tom. 6, Fars 1, p. 475. Epislola Herivei 
 Rem. Archiepis. Cap. X. Verba Domini Bedae. 
 
 Juxta salutileram, et firmissimam fidei catholicse doctrinam, in toto 
 terrarum orbe unanimiter ac fideliter ab omnibus observandam; quod 
 de carnali, hoc etiam de spiritali est generatione sentiendum : nequa- 
 quam videlicet earn, postquam semel expleta fuerit, posse repeti. Sive 
 enim haereticus, sive schismaticus, sive facinorosus quisque inconfes- 
 sione Sanctse Trinitatis baptizat ; non valet illo qui ita baptizatus est, 
 a bonis Catholicis rebaptizari, ne confessio, vel exhibitio taati nomi- 
 nis videatur annullari." 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 and faithfully by all throughout the whole world ; we 
 must think concerning the spiritual birth, even as we do 
 concerning the carnal birth, namely, that after it is once 
 done, it can by no means be repeated. For whether a 
 heretic or a schismatic, or any wicked wretch whatever, 
 baptizes in the confession of the Holy Trinity, it avails 
 not that he who is thus baptized, should be re-baptized by 
 good catholics, lest the confession or manifestation of such 
 a name should seem to be anmiUed." 
 
 From the synodical constitutions of Odo, bishop of Paris, 
 in the twelfth century, I shall make a brief extract, confir- 
 matory of the doctrine. " I^et the priests frequently 
 teach the laity,'' saith this document, (54) '•^that they 
 ought to baptize children in case of necessity." 
 
 The thirteenth century brings us again to an English 
 theologian, Richard Poor, the Bishop of Sarum, in whose 
 " Constitutions," we read as follows : (55) "The layman, 
 when in case of necessity he has baptized a child, shall 
 always be diligently questioned by the priest concerning 
 what he did and what lie said. And if the priest shall find 
 that the layman lias administered the Baptism distinctly 
 and in the form of the Church, either in French or in La- 
 tin, it shall be approved." 
 
 The same century furnishes us with a list of authorities 
 which are set down in Bishop Gibson's learned and elabo- 
 rate folios upon the Ecclesiastical law of the Church of 
 England, of which I shall cite a few in order to bring my 
 series of proofs to the period of the reformation. 
 
 Thus the "Constitutions" of Peccham, Archbishop of 
 Canterbury, A. D. 1279, contains the following passage: 
 (56) "If it so happen that children are baptized by lay- 
 
 (54) Concil Gen. Hard. Tom. 6, Pars 2, p. 1939, Cap. III. Et in Romano 
 sub eadem forma doceant frequenter sacerdotes, laicos baptizare de- 
 bere pueros in necessitate. 
 
 (55) lb, Tom. 1, p. 95, Cunstitutiones Ric. Poo)-e, Sarum Epis. § 18. Sem- 
 per sacerdos interroget diligenterlaicum, cum in necessitate baptizave- 
 rit puerum, quid'dixerit, et quid fecerit. El si invenerit laicum discrete 
 et in forma EcclesiiE baptizasse, sive in Gallico, sive in Latino, ap- 
 probetur. 
 
 (56) Gibson's Codex, vol. I, p. 445, Johannes Peccham. Si forte con- 
 
55 
 
 men, on account of the danger of death, let the priests be- 
 ware how they presume to repeat such Baptism when 
 properly done." And again, another " Constitution" ot 
 the same prelate authorises not only laymen, but even 
 women to baptize, in cases of extremity, and expressly 
 forbids such liaptismsto be repeated; caihng those priests 
 '^stolid" who re-baptize; and charging them with doing, 
 not good, but injury. The Archbishop then proceeds to 
 say, that the form of the sacrament in the vulgar tongue, 
 consists not only in the signs, but also in the order of the 
 same words with which the sacrament itself was divinely 
 instituted, in which order our Lord Christ, by those very 
 words as they stand in the Latin tongue, conferred the re- 
 generative power. Bat if the priest reasonably doubts whe- 
 ther the infant was baptized in the prescribed form, let 
 him say according to the Decretals : If thou ari bojHizecl, 
 J do not rebaptize thee; but if tJiou art not yet baptized, 
 I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy G/iost.'^ And thus this matter stood, 
 throaghout the whole Western Cluirch, until the sixteenth 
 century. 
 
 I have now traced the various expressions of doctrine 
 on the subjectof heretical, schismatical, and lay-Baptisms, 
 from the writings of Tertnllian, in the next age after the 
 apostles, to the period of the Reformation. And it must 
 
 tingat pueros propter mortis periculum a laicis baptizari, caveant sa- 
 cerdotes ne bapiisiniim legitime factum audeant iterari. 
 
 (57) lb. p. 446. Cumenim periclitantibus parvulis in necessitatis 
 inevitahili articulo, quibuscumque laicis vel miilieribus sit concessum, 
 in casibus hujusmodi periclitantes taliter baplizare, ethnjusmodi bap- 
 tismum constet ad salutem suflicere, si forma del)ita teneatui-, nee de- 
 bere taliter baptizatos iterum baptizari. Quidam tamen stolidi sacer- 
 dotes sic baptizatos parvulos non sine sacramenti injuria rebaptizant; 
 quod, ne de ccetero fiat, firmiter inhibcmus. — Forma autem sacramenti 
 in vulgari lingua, consistit non solum in signis, verum etiam inordine 
 eorundem verborum, quibus ipsum est divinitus sacramentum institu- 
 tum, quo Christus Dominus illis verbis et taliter ordinatis, ut sunt 
 in lingua Latina, regenerativam contulit potestatem. — Quod si sacer- 
 dos rationabiliter dubitet, an parvulus in forma debita baptizatus sit, 
 tenens modum Decretalis, cum Exorcismi^ et Catechismo dicat: Si 
 baptizatus, ego non rebaptizo te ,- sisnondum baptizatus es, ego baptize te, 
 innomine Patris, et Filii, et Spirittis Saudi. 
 
56 
 
 have been obvious, as I proceeded, that the whole form- 
 ed one continuous chain, completely sustaining the last 
 decision of the Church of England, and utterly subversive 
 of the claims so confidently put forth by the writers on the 
 other side, to any positive ecclesiastical authoritJ^ 
 
 It has been already stated, that the first name of note 
 which could be adduced against the ancient and estab- 
 lished practice of the Church, was that of the celebrated 
 Calvin. And it is well known that his followers in the 
 Church of England, the Puritans in the days of Queen 
 Elizabeth, singled out this very allowance of lay-Baptism 
 as one point of accusation against the Church. It may be 
 well, therefore, that I should add a few extracts from 
 Whitgift, Hooker, Bancroft, &c., to show how their ca- 
 vils were answered. 
 
 Thus Archbishop Whitgift addresses Cartwright,* 
 "Whereas you say that the minister is one of the chief 
 parts, and as it were of the life of the sacrament, in so 
 weighty a cause and great a matter, it had been well if 
 you had used some authority of Scripture or testimony 
 of learned authors: for so far as I can read, the opinion 
 of all learned men is, that the essential form, and, as it 
 were, the life of Baptism, is to baptize in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gliost; which 
 form being observed, the sacrament remaineth in full force 
 and strength, by whomsoever it be ministered. — And 
 certainly, if the being of the sacrament depended npoii 
 man in any respect, we were but in a miserable case ; 
 for we should always be in doubt whether we were right- 
 ly baptized or no : but it is most true that the force or 
 strength of the sacrament is not in the man, he he minis- 
 ter or not minister, be he good or evil, but in God him- 
 self, &c. This I speak, not to bring confusion into the 
 Church, (for as I said before, let men take heed that they 
 usurp not an office whereiinto they be not called, for God 
 will call them to an account for so doing,) but to teach a 
 truth, to take a yoke of doubtfulness from men's con- 
 
 • Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, Tract ix, Ch. 5, p. 519. 
 
57 
 
 sciences, and to resist an error not much differing from 
 Donalisrn and ^nahaptism.'' 
 
 The judgment of the justly celebrated Hooker was 
 the same. *"If, therefore," saith he, addressing the same 
 objector, Cartwright, " it come to pass, that in teaching 
 publicly" or privately, or in delivering this blessed sacra- 
 ment of regeneration, some unsanctified hand, contrary to 
 Christ's supposed ordinance, do intrude itself to execute 
 that, whereunto the laws of God and his Cliurch have de- 
 puted others, which of these two opinions seemeth morea- 
 greeable with equity, ours that disallow what is done a- 
 roiss, yet make not the force of the word and the sacraments, 
 much less their very nature, to depend on the minister's 
 authority and calling ; or else their's which defeat, dis- 
 annul and annihilate both, in respect of tliat one only 
 personal defect, there being not any law of God which 
 sailh, that if the minister be incompetent, his word shall 
 be no word, his Baptism no Baptism." "He which teach- 
 eth, and is not sent, loseth the reward, but yet retaineth 
 the name of a teacher; his usurped actions have in him 
 the same nature which they have in others, although 
 they yield him not the same comfort. And if these two 
 cases be peers, the case of doctrine and the case of Bap- 
 tism, both alike, sith no defect in their vocation that 
 teach the truth is able to take away the benefit thereof 
 from him which heareth, wherefore should the trant of a 
 lawful calling in them that baptize, make Baptism to be 
 vain .?" 
 
 " In the conference at Hampton Court, Bishop Bilson 
 declared, that to deny private persons to baptize in case 
 of necessity were ^0 cros.<; cf//««^/<7Mz7_(/ and the common 
 practice of the Church, it being a rule agreed on among 
 divines, that the minister is not of the essence of the sa- 
 crameyit. To this Archbishop Bancroft fully assented, 
 and further declared that the compilers of the English Lit- 
 urgy expressly intended a permission of private persons 
 to baptize in case of necessity ; in proof of which asser- 
 
 * Eccles.Pol. B.5. §63. 
 
58 
 
 tion he produced some of their letters. Even king James 
 himself, at whose suggestion the rubric was altered, de- 
 clared his titter dislike ofallrehaptizations of those uliom 
 womenor laics had baptlzed.^^'^ So that although the pas- 
 sage was altered in the Prayer Book, by which lay-Bap- 
 tism had previously been recommended, yet the settled 
 judgment in favour of its validity was not designed to 
 be changed, even by the monarch who procured the al- 
 teration. To impute any such change to the Church of 
 England on such insufficient ground, (as I am truly 
 sorry to say, is currently done by the writers on the other 
 side,) has always appeared to me a most unwarrantable 
 attack upon her character. From the time of Edward 
 VI, to that of the Scottish king who had been brought 
 up in the school of Calvin, she enjoined lay-Baptism in 
 necessity, as the whole catholic Church had done from 
 the primitive day. And when, at the Hampton-Court 
 conference, her bishops reluctantly consented to with- 
 draw the public allowance of lay-I3aptism, by ordering 
 that a laivfid minister- should be called, they approved, 
 instead of condemning, the doctrine of the previous ages. 
 Indeed, Dr. Waterland himself confesses t that the ivhole 
 stream of her divines have been of one consent upon 
 the subject, and therefore it seems worse than idle to de- 
 ny that the tlieological doctrine of the Church has con- 
 tinued precisely the same. lam aware of no one among 
 her bishops, from the reformation down, who has pro- 
 nounced lay-Baptism invalid, unless it be Bishop Tay- 
 \ov,X and surely a single exception, amongst so large a 
 number, may well be said to prove the rule. 
 
 In concurrence with the Church of England on the 
 point, the learned Bingham states, that the Greek Church, 
 the Russian Church, the Lutheran Church, the Helvetic 
 Churches, — in av/ord, the wliole Christian world, with the 
 solitaryexceptionofthe foUowersofCalvin — hold thesame 
 doctrine. The Church of Rome, indeed, has gone beyond 
 
 * See Rev. E. Kelsall's ansM'er to Waterland. 
 
 •j- Waterland's Works, Vol. X. p. 185, last edition. 
 
 \ Bingham, Schol. History of Lay-Baptism, Ch. iii. § 5. 
 
SB' 
 
 it, maintaining that Baptisnri is valid not only when ad- 
 ministered by those who have been baptized themselves, 
 bat also even if administered by an utter alien from the 
 Christian covenant, a Jew, Turk, or Pagan. This gross 
 corruption, however, is novel, and does not appear to have 
 received any official sanction until it was decreed, to- 
 wards the close of the eleventh century, by pope Urban 
 the Second.* 
 
 I now turn to the difficulties which encumber the op- 
 posite doctrine. And these appear to my mind to be 
 neither few nor trifling. For, in the first place, it is 
 acknowledged on all hands that the prevalence of lay- 
 Baptism throughout Christendom, for many successive 
 centurieSj'was great, and almost universal. In England, es- 
 pecially, the Baptisms of the Independents, and other dis- 
 senters from Episcopacy, iiave been, and still continue to 
 be, exceedingly numerous. So that if lay-Baptism be in- 
 valid, it is doubtful whether there be any baptizedpersons 
 upon earth at the present day, and especially it is doubtful 
 whether the succession of the ministry has not failed alto- 
 gether. 
 
 To this very serious difficulty, the writers on the other 
 side have given no better answer than asupposition, that 
 ordination would continue the ministry whether men 
 were baptized or no. But the objections to this ingeni- 
 ous hypothesis seem to my mind perfectly insuperable. 
 For in the first place, the proposition is at open war with 
 all tradition, that a man unbaptized could possibly be a 
 subject of ordination. Next, it is confessedly an hypo- 
 thesis devised to meet the difficulty, and does not profess 
 to state what is, but what may be ; as if the very exis- 
 tence of the Christian Church should be left dependent 
 on conjectural possibilities. Thirdly, it asks us to sweep 
 away the whole consentaneous judgment of the cath- 
 olic Church from the earliest ages, and be content with 
 this modern fancy in its stead. But this is not the whole 
 of the difficulty. For it is granted on all sides, that it is 
 in Baptism we are formally born of water and the Spirit, 
 
 • lb. Bingham's Schol. Hist. ch. i. § 24, and Sequel, and Potter on 
 Church Gov. 
 
60 
 
 born into the Church, the Commonwealth of Israel, and 
 made capable, ecclesiastically, of receiving Confirmation 
 and the Eucharist, as members of the body of Christ. And 
 therefore these writers ask us to believe, that men can be 
 ordained as officers of a commonwealth to which they do 
 not belong, and ministers of a society into which they are 
 not authorized to enter; that they can dispense the sacra- 
 ments to others which they have not received themselves, 
 and that they can be appointed ecclesiastical rulers and 
 teachers, before they are ecclesiastically born ! It is not 
 my province to question the sincerity with which this 
 novel idea has been pressed ; but I should be deficient 
 in sincerity myself if I did not frankly say, that it seems 
 to involve a tissue of absurdities. 
 
 My second difficulty arises out of the very argument 
 which, in the minds of some, would doubtless constitute 
 a recommendation. Every consistent Churchman is 
 obliged to deny that the ministry of the non-episcopal 
 Churches is a regular, cifostolic ministry. For we all, with 
 very few exceptions, maintain the apostolic and divine 
 institution of episcopacy ; we all maintain that the work 
 of ordination belongs, ofrigJit, to none but bishops, who, 
 as ordainers and governors in chief over the Church, were 
 appointed to succeed the apostles. It results, of course, 
 that we cannot regard the non-episcopal ministry as men 
 regularly ordained, but rather as laymen, exercising minis- 
 terial functions according to a rule of human, instead of 
 divi7ie, of modern instead of apostolic institution. In other 
 words, we are compelled to regard them as ministers de 
 facto,hut not dejure. Hence their Baptisms are lay Bap- 
 tisms. They are also liable to the charge of schism, and 
 some are not free from the more grievous infection of 
 lieresy. Now it is altogether in reference to this multi- 
 form portion of our Christian bretln-en that the real prac- 
 tical difficulty has arisen. Lay Baptism within ourselves 
 is not an evil, simply because it does not exist. The doc- 
 trine concerning it is important solely in reference to 
 those around us ; with respect to whom there is, truly, 
 a wide difference of opinion. For while some, conceiving 
 episcopacy to be essential to the very being of a Church, 
 
61 
 
 legard our non-episcopal brethren as having neither min- 
 istry, nor sacraments, nor part nor lot in the Church ca- 
 tholic, there are others, (and I trust that they form the 
 great body of our communion,) who hold a very opposite 
 doctrine ; believing, indeed, that the want of the aposto- 
 lic ministry is a defect, and a most serious defect, in their 
 ecclesiastical constitution, but gladly allowing, notwith- 
 standing this, that they belong to the Church catholic by 
 reason of the common faith, that they have the sacra- 
 ments in their essence, though not in their oi^der, and that 
 just so far as they have retained the important features 
 of the gospel system of salvation through our Lord Je- 
 sus Christ, they constitute a true, though ?rre^M/ar portion 
 of his people. 
 
 On the first of these two theories, it is easy to account 
 for the peculiar favour which some of my respected and 
 beloved brethren have shown towards the doctrine, that 
 Baptisms administered by the non-episcopal ministry, are, 
 in strictness, no Baptisms at all. But when first preached 
 in our mother Church, this theory found small acceptance 
 amongst her clergy. Nor would it possess any stronger 
 influence now, as I conceive, if it were not connected 
 with the Oxford Tracts, which have been, from the be- 
 ginning, peculiarly hostile to the English Dissenters. 
 A kindred spirit has been active amongst ourselves. To 
 discredit the claims of every non-episcopal society as 
 much as possible, to deny them all the characteristics of a 
 true Church, to set Rome in advantageous contrast with 
 their disunion, and treat them with bitterness, contempt, 
 and even ridicule, has been, unhappily, for some years 
 past, the favorite work of many gifted minds, on both 
 sides of the Atlantic. And hence, the time and the cir- 
 cumstances do not permit me to doubt, that the zeal so suc- 
 cessfully displayed of late in favour of re-baptization at 
 our own highest seat of theological learning, and spread.- 
 ing from thence into my own diocese, is the legitimate 
 child of the Tractarian theology. 
 
 Now this, to me, is another source of difficulty. I 
 learned Divinity from the books of men who felt kindly 
 towards every branch of the reformed Churches, and ac- 
 6 
 
62 
 
 knowledged them, notwithstanding those defects which 
 prevented their full inter-communion, as Christian breth- 
 ren, beloved for the sake of the common faith, and con- 
 fessed to be of the same great Household, of which Christ 
 is Lord and Master. I have already proved, 1 trust, that 
 the repetition of Baptisms administered by such as these, 
 is not lawful, since the primitive Church forbade it, and 
 the Church of England, as well before as since the refor- 
 mation, has done the same ; and we, as derived from her, 
 are bound by the laws which she derived from the Church 
 universal. But to this I add the further objection, that 
 in my humble judgment, it is hostile to the best interests 
 of Christian charity and peace ; calculated to excite the 
 worst feelings of sectarian animosity, and therefore likely 
 to inflame and irritate, rather than to heal, the wounds of 
 the daughter of Zion. 
 
 But I shall not dwell longer upon this part of the ques- 
 tion, since it is designed to be the theme of ray next com- 
 munication. I proceed, therefore, to the third and last 
 difficulty, with respect to which I am sure that I can cal- 
 culate on your serious reflection, if not on your concur- 
 rence. 
 
 Look, then, beloved brethren, at the startling results of 
 this doctrine of re-baptization. In order to adopt it,'we must 
 violate our adherence to the earliest councils of the primitive 
 Church, and openly repudiate the best settled maxims of 
 catholic antiquity. We mustcontradictthe universal sense 
 of Christendom at the present day, with the single exception 
 of those who maintain the peculiar notions of Calvin. 
 We must set up a standard of doctrine and practice for 
 which we can adduce no real or positive authority. We 
 must condemn the whole teaching of the great divines of 
 England, and that of our own first race of bishops, but 
 just passed away. We must brand with error the re- 
 peated decisions of ecclesiastical courts in our mother 
 Church, and bring shame upon our claims to ecclesiastical 
 unity ; since a clergyman shall be suspended three months 
 on the other side of the water for acting on an opinion, 
 which here he shall be encouraged to maintain as pub- 
 licly as he can. And while we are constantly reminding 
 
63 
 
 others of the rule of Vincent, Quod semper, quod ubique, 
 quod ah omnibus, we shall be taking this novel course for 
 the sake of a notion which was confined to a fraction of 
 the Church, even in the days of Cyprian ; which was ne- 
 ver broached again until the Refonnalion, which was re- 
 pudiated both in theory and practice, by our forefathers; 
 and which, amongst ourselves, has only begun to find open 
 and decided favour since our last General Convention. 
 Now it is not possible that we can have peace and unan- 
 imity, even throughout our own borders, in the encour- 
 agement of an innovation like this. The only maxim 
 which can, under God, preserve us from distraction, is 
 the fundamental principle of episcopacy. State super 
 antiquas vias. We shall agree harmoniously in main- 
 taining our old and established doctrines, but we never 
 shall agree in new ones, unless, indeed, we were ready 
 to adopt the Roman policy of making some one diocese 
 the Mater Ecclesia, and submitting to her dictates, as to 
 the voice of infallibility. 
 
 I am aware, however, that there is another mode of 
 regarding this very serious matter, which I confess my- 
 self quite unable to reconcile with any theological prin- 
 ciple, I have heard it said, and seen it printed, that a 
 man who has received Baptism from some non-episcopal 
 minister, and afterwards desires to become an episcopa- 
 lian, should be considered as sufficiently baptized if he 
 be hhnself satisfied with his Baptism. But that ifJie has 
 become dissatisfied, he is to be indulged with a repetition 
 of Baptism, either in the hypothetical form or otherwise, 
 in order to satisfy his scruples and set his mind at rest. 
 
 Now here, I apprehend, is a course of argument, which 
 no ingenuity can place on a solid ground. The hypothe- 
 tical form was never designed for such a purpose as the 
 satisfying a scruple concernnig the essential elements of 
 a valid Baptism. It was a form introduced many centu- 
 ries before the Reformation, when the system of the 
 Church was perfectly settled, and no man was at liberty 
 to depart from it. And the sole purpose to which it was 
 applied was not to satisfy doubts about doctrine, which 
 did not then, and ought not now to exist ; but to satisfy 
 
64 
 
 doubts about the fact whether the person had ever re- 
 ceived Baptism at all. The clergyman, therefore, as I 
 conceive, has no right to use the hypothetical form, when 
 he himself is j)erfectly satisfied that the applicant has al- 
 ready been validly baptized. For in the whole devo- 
 tional part of that solemn office, the minister would be 
 trifling with the Deity, if he believed in his heart that 
 God liad done already, in the first Baptism, what he 
 knows can only be done once, and yet should gravely 
 beseech the Almighty to do the same spiritual ivork 
 again, merely to gratify the presumption or obstinacy of 
 the ignorant party. The individual may come in his 
 simplicity indeed, and state his difficulties ; but it is his 
 duty to be satisfied with his Baptism, if the Church which 
 he desires to enter considers it sufficient. And if he re- 
 fuses to practise this first lesson in churchmanship, name- 
 ly, the submitting his private notions to the decision of 
 the Church, I should hold it to be the clergyman's duty 
 not to humour his waywardness by committing a species 
 of sacrilege, and taking God's holy name in vain ; but to 
 counsel and pray for him, that the Lord might grant him 
 the grace of humility, and bring him to a better mind. 
 If this course failed, after due time, to satisfy the party, 
 1 should advise the minister to let him go without hesita- 
 tion ; fully persuaded that he was not yet prepared to de- 
 vote himself to that Redeemer who said : If he hear not 
 the Church, let him he unto thee as a heathen man and a 
 'publican. 
 
 It is impossible for me, therefore, to justify the admin- 
 istering of Baptism, when the minister has one opinion 
 about its propriety, and the candidate has another. For 
 if either party lacks faith in the act, he commits an aw- 
 ful profanation. And especially if the ordained servant 
 of the sanctuary, who is bound to obey the Church, and 
 not to encourage, but drive away all strange doctrines — 
 if he lends himself to a delusion, and even performs a 
 solemn service addressed to the Almighty in which he 
 can himself have no faith at the time — I have no lan- 
 guage strong enough to express my sense of such a sa- 
 crilege, nor my apprehensions for the result, if the 
 
65 
 
 Church could be induced to stamp it with her formal ap- 
 probation. That good, and pious, and intelligent men 
 have done this thing themselves, and have recommended 
 it to others, may perhaps be quite true. But this is no ar- 
 gument in the settlement of any theological question. 
 
 And now, my beloved and respected brethren, before I 
 close this first of my communications, allow me to solicit 
 your attention to a few remarks on the propriety of the 
 course which I have adopted — remarks which I should 
 not have conceived necessary, if I had not seen, with the 
 deepest regret, the censures published in some of our 
 periodicals, upon the notice which our venerable pre- 
 siding Bishop and the Bishop of Ohio have thought fit 
 to take, of one of the subjects contemplated in my own 
 proposed series. These well-known and approved mem- 
 bers of our episcopal college have been styled Dictators, 
 and have been charged with interfering wncanonically 
 with the Bishop of New York, because they have pre- 
 sumed to dissent, in print, from his opinion. Doubtless 
 I shall be exposed to the same censure, unless I shall be 
 so fortunate as to convince the brethren concerned, that 
 neither the bishops first named, nor myself, nor any other 
 member of the episcopal body, can be rightfully blamed, 
 for publishing our sentiments upon all or any subject in- 
 volved in the official acts of each other, provided it be 
 done in a proper spirit of Christian courtesy and afFec-^ 
 tion. 
 
 In order to set this important matter in its proper 
 light, I shall first quote from No. 78 of the Oxford Tracts, 
 an admirable extract from the learned Bingham,* in 
 which I shall have the satisfaction of combining, in one, 
 the authority of that excellent writer, with that of our 
 Tractarian friends which some might deem preferable, 
 upon the true rule of episcopal unity. 
 
 " To maintain the unity of faith entire," says Bingham, 
 speaking of the primitive system, " every Church was 
 ready to give each other their mutual assistance, to op- 
 
 • Tracts for the Times, Vol. 3, p. 506 of Am. Ed. Also Bing. Orig, 
 Ecc. "Vol. ii. pp. 2, 14. 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 pose all fundamental errors, and beat down heresy at 
 its first appearance among them. The whole world in 
 this respect was but one common diocese, the episcopate 
 was an universal thing, and every bishop had his share 
 in it in such a manner as to have an equal interest in the 
 whole ; as I have more fully showed in another place, 
 where I observed, that in things not appertaining to the 
 faith, bishops were not to meddle with other men's dio- 
 cese, but only to mind the business of their own : but 
 when the faith or welfare of the Church lay at stake, and 
 religion was manifestly invaded, then, by this rule of 
 their being but one episcopacy, every other diocese was 
 as much their diocese as their own, and no human laws 
 or canons could tie up their hands from performing such 
 acts of the episcopal office in any part of the world, as 
 tiiey thougiit necessary for the preservation of faith and 
 religion. This was the ground of their meeting in Sy- 
 nods, Provincial or National, and sending their joint opi- 
 nions and advice from one Church to another. The 
 greatest part of Church History is made up of such acts 
 as these, so that it were next to impertinent to refer to 
 any particulars. I only observe one thing farther upon 
 this head, that the intermeddling with other men's con- 
 cerns, which would have been accounted a real breach 
 of unity in many other cases, was in this case thought so 
 necessary, that there was no certain wa)?" to preserve the 
 unity of the Catholic Church and Faith without it. And 
 as an instance of this, I have noted in the fore-cited book, 
 that though it was against the ordinary rule of the 
 Church for any bishop to ordain in another man's dio- 
 cese, yet in case a bishop turned heretic, and persecuted 
 the orthodox, and would ordain none but heretical men 
 to establish heresy in the diocese, m that case any ortho- 
 dox bishop was not only authorized, but obliged, as op- 
 portunity served, and the needs of the Church required, 
 to ordain Catholic teachers in such a diocese, to oppose 
 the malignant designs of the enemy, and stop the growth 
 of heresy, which might otherwise take deep root, and 
 spread and overrun the Church. Thus Athanasius and 
 the famous Eusebius of Samosata went about the world 
 
67 
 
 in the prevalency of the Arian heresy, ordaining in every 
 Church where they came, such clergy as were necessary 
 to support the orthodox cause in such a time of distress 
 and desolation. And this was so far from being reckon- 
 ed a breach of the Church's unity, though against the 
 letter of a canon in ordinary cases, that it was necessary 
 to be done, in such a state of affairs, to maintain the uni- 
 ty of the Catholic Faith, whicli every bishop was obliged 
 to defend, not only in his own diocese, but in all parts of 
 the world, by virtue of that rule which obliges bishops 
 in weighty affairs to take care of the Catholic Church, 
 and requires all Churches in time of danger to give mu- 
 tual aid and assistance to one another." 
 
 Now here, beloved brethren, is the true rule of epis- 
 copal unity, stated fairly and indisputably from the max- 
 ims of the primitive Church. By it the bishops are bound, 
 in the sight of God, and in the fulfilment of their solemn 
 consecration vows, not to except those mistakes which 
 are committed by each other ; for otherwise, how, I be- 
 seech you, could we attempt the duty of" banishing and 
 driving away from the Church all erroneous and strange 
 doctrines,^' if tlie fact that one of our own body had pa- 
 tronized, or seemed inclined to patronize them, were to 
 cover them with the mantle of protection ? Nay, on the 
 contrary, does not the high office of a bishop give a pro- 
 portionate importance to those errors in judgment, to 
 which the best men are liable ? And if he errs, since 
 all are fallible, from whom ought he to desire the cor- 
 rection of his misjudgment, if not from those who must 
 needs appreciate most fairly the dilRculties of his office, 
 feel most tenderly for the mistakes to which themselves 
 are equally exposed, and guard most carefully the sacred 
 rights of the order to which they belong ? Most distinct- 
 ly and emphatically, therefore, do I unite in the declara- 
 tion of Bingham, that without this fraternal watchfulness 
 of the bishops over each other, in all matters which in- 
 volve the general doctrines and faith of the Church, if/iere 
 is no way of preserving unity. And I must, for myself, 
 affectionately recommend my editorial brethren to study 
 the ^^p^rst principles" of episcopal order, before they 
 
68 
 
 again attach to a duty like this, the terms of popery, 
 officiousness, and dictation. 
 
 Even in our own branch of the Church, young as it 
 is with respect to its distinct organization, the same thing, 
 in substance, has occurred repeatedly. When our pre- 
 sent venerable Presiding Bishop commenced the enter- 
 prise which resulted, by the singular blessing of Christ, 
 in the erection of Kenyon College witliits attached The- 
 ological Seminary, did not the excellent Bishop Hobart 
 exercise, as an undoubted right, the power of open oppo- 
 sition ? Nay, did he not carry that opposition across 
 the broad Atlantic, and display the painful spectacle be- 
 fore the eyes of our English brethren? And yet the 
 doctrines and the faith of the Clnirch were not, by any 
 one, supposed to be involved on that occasion, but sim- 
 ply the interests of the General Theological Seminary, 
 which that conscientious and high-minded bishop, honest- 
 ly (although, as I believe, quite erroneously,) conceived 
 to be in danger, if each diocese were allowed to set up a 
 separate institution. 
 
 A second instance occurred, when the same distin- 
 guished individual, whose memory our whole Church 
 has so much delighted to honour, thought himself obliged 
 to refuse Holy Orders to one who has long been a well 
 known presbyter of Pennsylvania. The candidate 
 removed to Massachusetts, and was ordained by Bishop 
 Griswold. Did not Bishop Hobart censure, openly and 
 strongly, this act of his episcopal colleague ? And who 
 could question his right to censure, if he believed con- 
 scientiously, that an error had been committed, which 
 menaced, not the doctrines or faith of the Church, but the 
 confidence and mutual comity of the bishops towards 
 each other ? 
 
 Again, when it pleased a few of our body to adopt a 
 different opinion from the received judgment of the 
 Council of Ephesus,touching the heresy of Nestorius, and 
 to acknowledge Mar-Yohanna,the Nestorian bishop, as an 
 orthodox prelate of the Church catholic, did not our bre- 
 thren, the bishops of the venerable Church of Scotland, 
 direct an epistle to one of our number, complaining of 
 
69 
 
 the act, on the ground that it appeared to them utterly 
 inconsistent with tlie acknowledged authority of the 
 first four General Councils, by which all questions of he- 
 resy are to be tried according to the express words of the 
 English Canon Law ? 
 
 But r pass from these modern and recent instances to 
 a far more illustrious example. When St. Peter, by di- 
 vine direction, had extended the privileges of the gospel 
 to the heathen convert, Cornelius, we read that 
 on his return to Jerusalem, They of the circum- 
 cision contended with him, saying: Thou wentest in 
 to men uncircumcised, and didst eat uiih thetn. (Acts 
 xi, 2.) It does not seem that any man thought this 
 bold remonstrance was an officious intermeddling 
 with the rights of St. Peter ; nor did he, for a moment, 
 disclaim the power of his brethren to call him to account, 
 whenever they supposed that he had acted inconsistent- 
 ly. On the contrary, he received the accusation meekly, 
 and rehearsed the matter from the beginning, informing 
 them of the special revelation by which he had been 
 guided throughout, and concluding with that beautiful 
 sentence of pious liumility : What was I, that I should 
 withstand Godl 
 
 Once more. When the same great Apostle was led 
 away by his fear of giving offence to his Jewish brethren, 
 (Gal. ii. 11-14,) and withdrew himself from his former 
 social intercourse with the Gentile converts, St. Paul 
 saith to the Galatians : " I withstood him to the face, he- 
 cause he teas to be blan-ied.^' And this act of open rebuke 
 was not only done publicly, " before them a/l,'' (v. 14) 
 but it was placed on record for our instruction by the 
 inspiration of the Most High. 
 
 Manifest, then, it must surely be, from every principle of 
 primitive order, of modern precedent, nay — more than all 
 — of apostolic example, that the bishops stand in no need 
 of apology when they feel obliged openly to dissent from 
 the official acts and opinions of each other. Nor is there 
 any difficulty in sustaining the propriety of such a course, 
 even by an appeal to judicial and legislative analogy. 
 For we all know that it is the duty of our civil tribunals 
 
70 
 
 to pronoLiiice upon the official decrees of every co-ordi- 
 nate jurisdiction ; and there is scarcely a Governor or a 
 Legislature in the Union, that has not occasionally re- 
 buked those acts of other independent States, or of Con- 
 gress itself, which have seemed, in their judgment, to 
 conflict with the paramount Articles of the Constitution. 
 
 I confess that I could not help smiling at the new 
 proof which this editorial objurgation has afforded, of the 
 Tnajesty of the Periodical Press. A presbyter sharply 
 denounces two bishops, because they have presumed to 
 dissent, publickly, from the official course of one of their 
 ' own order; without appearing at all conscious that he was 
 transcending his limits as a presbyter, far more widely, 
 by publishing his censure upon the?ji. He considers him- 
 self secure in the fact, that he was acting in his edi- 
 torial CAPACITY ; and doubtless, in the general mind of 
 our community, this would be deemed a perfect- jus- 
 tification. The simple, but irresistible inference is the 
 following: that the modern dignity of editorial govern- 
 ment, must have something of the ancient Patri- 
 chate about it, which is quite superior to the bishops 
 of the Church; teaching with a more efficient influ- 
 ence, censuring with a more commanding authority, and 
 yet, so far, as I have yet seen, beyond even the Patriarchs 
 in this ; that is wholly irresponsible to any earthly tribu- 
 nal, unless it be the vague and undefinable phantom call- 
 ed Public Opinion. May the Lord give a triple portion 
 of his wisdom to those who wield the dangerous energies 
 of such a power, for they need it all ! 
 
 But it is time that I should close this first part of my 
 labour, trusting that I shall be enabled to complete the cir- 
 cle of subjects proposed, as God may prosper me. With 
 my earnest supplications to the throne of grace, that the 
 Almighty Prince of peace may have yon in his holy 
 keeping, and make you of one heart, and one mind in all 
 things, I commit my humble work, in full and affection- 
 ate confidence, to your fraternal judgment, and to your 
 prayers. For the result of the present agitation, I have 
 no fears. Bishops, Clergy, and Laity — each in our seve- 
 ral offices, and all severally gifted according to the Lord's 
 
71 
 
 good pleasure, — yet are we all one body in Christ, and 
 every one " mem&ers one of another.''^ In the spirit of 
 this unity, I am persuaded that we shall stand fast in the 
 old paths, RESISTING INNOVATION. Even those of my be- 
 loved brethren in the Episcopate, from whom I may be 
 compelled to differ, will be of one accord with me in the 
 great practical result, however we may reason diversely 
 upon the several links of the theory. For after all our 
 theological discussions, we shall prove, in the main, to be 
 thoroughly convinced, that the efforts of our Tractarian 
 friends to reform the Reformation, can only lead to end- 
 less confusion and strife ; while the sacred resolve to keep 
 the doctrines of diviiie truth, as we have received 
 THEM FROM OUR FATHERS, will, uudcr the good hand of 
 God, preserve and perpetuate our peace; and, if carried 
 out with unwavering faith in his love and power, secure, 
 for his Church and for ourselves, a rich and abundant 
 blessing. 
 
 I remain, 
 
 With all fraternal affection and esteem, 
 Your brother and servant in Christ, 
 JOHN H. HOPKINS, 
 Bishop of the Diocese of Vermont. 
 
 Burlington, Vt., October 19th, 1843. 
 
THE 
 
 NOVELTIES WHICH DISTURB OUR PEACE. 
 
 A SECOND LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 BISHOPS, CLERGY, AND LAITY 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BY JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OP THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 HERMAN HOOKER— 178, CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
 1844. 
 
Entered according to the act of congregs^ in the year 1844, by Herman 
 HooKKR, in the clerk's office of the district court of the eastern 
 district of Pennsylvania. 
 
A SECOND LETTER, &c. 
 
 Respected and beloved Brethren: 
 
 According to the arrangement proposed in my first Let- 
 ter, I proceed to offer some observations on another subject, 
 which I cannot help considering an innovation — and by no 
 means an unimportant one — upon ourold,and fraternal mode 
 of regarding the various orthodox churches of our non-epis- 
 copal brethren, called, in England, The Dissenters, In 
 that country, this term vv^as adopted with acknowledged 
 correctness, to signify those who had thought fit, for what- 
 ever reason, to dissent from the Church, as by law established. 
 It was, therefore, considered a legal, rather than a theologi- 
 cal name, and as it conveyed no reproach on the one side, 
 it was accepted without ofience on the other. It followed, 
 of course, as we have all, until quite recently, admitted, that 
 in this country, where the law of the land gives equal sanc- 
 tion and support to every nominally Christian system, there 
 could be no Dissenters, for the very plain reason, that there 
 is no Establishment. And it seemed, as we have been ac- 
 customed to regard the matter, that nothing could be gained 
 by introducing a new application of the term to signify 
 those who dissented from Episcopacy; because, in this mode 
 of using the word, it is manifest that it must either be to- 
 tally confined to our own vocabulary, or else have a distinct 
 meaning in every division of Christendom, For just as the 
 Episcopalian might employ it to signify a dissenter from 
 episcopacy, so the Presbyterian might employ it to signify 
 2 
 
a dissenter from presbyterianism; and thus, it would change 
 its signijicalion in the dialect of every party, and end in 
 having no meaning at all. ^ 
 
 This used to be considered sound common sense, and 
 quite consistent with churchmanship. But now, some of 
 our most highly esteemed brethren have adopted a theory 
 which calls for a restricted application of the word Church, 
 and an extended use of the word Dissenter. According 
 to this hypothesis, there is no Church except the episcopal, 
 because episcopacy is of the very essence of the Church, 
 without which it can have no being. Hence it is said to 
 result, that whatever portion of the great family of Christ 
 has retained episcopacy, along with an orthodox creed, is 
 an unquestionable part of the true Church, while those por- 
 tions that have lost episcopacy, have thereby ceased to be 
 Churches altogether. And inasmuch as the word Dissenter 
 has long been fixed to represent those classes of Christian 
 professors who dissent from episcopacy as established by the 
 laxf} of England, much more is it thought to be applicable 
 to those who dissent from episcopacy, as established by the 
 law of God. 
 
 Now this is, undoubtedly, an ingenious statement of the 
 case, but the difficulties in the way of its adoption, are se- 
 rious, and, as it seems to my mind, insurmountable. In 
 the first place, if I understand the doctrine of the Church, 
 episcopacy is not of its essence, but only of its order. Se- 
 condly, those portions of Christendom which retain the 
 fundamental verities of the Christian faith, are entitled, for 
 the faith's sake, to be called Churches, although they have 
 lost the apostolic order of the ministry. And therefore, 
 in my humble judgment, the new restriction of the term 
 Church, as well as the new extension of the term Dissen- 
 ter, ought to be altogether let alone, in obedience to the 
 better standards of theological truth; to say nothing, at 
 present, of the virtue of Christian discretion. 
 
But as I claim no authority for my individual opinions, 
 I am bound to prove that these assertions are in accordance 
 with the doctrine of the Church; on which ground alone I 
 should think myself at liberty to advocate them. For 
 every priest ordained amongst us is under a solemn pro- 
 mise, that he will give his '^failhful diligence, alicays so to 
 minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of 
 Christ, 3ls the Lord hath commanded, and As this Church 
 HATH RECEIVED THE SAME,"* and therefore, if 1 could 
 believe that the church had received the new opinions, 
 I should be the last to gainsay them. This I am quite sure 
 she has not done. It is very certain, however, that she is 
 not a little disturbed by the good and learned men who 
 have received them, without waiting for her consent or 
 approbation. 
 
 1 shall proceed, accordingly, as in the question of Lay 
 Baptism, discussed in my first Letter, to state the declara- 
 tions of the standards of the Church of England and of our 
 own Church, in relation to the point; and I shall next re- 
 cur to the Scriptures, appending, for the gratification of 
 such as desire them, the commentary of the Fathers. It 
 will then, I trust, be sufficiently evident, that the theory 
 so much encouraged, of late, amongst us with regard to our 
 non-episcopal brethren, is opposed to the real doctrine of 
 our Church. And connected as it now stands with an 
 alarming novelty, which the last few years have trans- 
 planted from the modern school of Tractarian divinity, the 
 topic will be found worth}', if I mistake not, of our serious 
 attention. 
 
 The first question to be settled, is this, namely; Whe- 
 ther Episcopacy is essential to the very being of the Church 
 of Christ, so that there can be no Church where there is no 
 Episcopacy? And here I beg leave to be understood as 
 distinctly maintaining that the institution of the episcopal 
 
 * See the second interrogatory of the ordinal, for the office of Priests. 
 
6 
 
 government is Divine, because Apostolic. In the words of 
 the venerable Hooker, I would say, without the slightest 
 reservation, " Let us not fear to be herein bold and pe- 
 remptory, that if any thing in the Church's government, 
 surely the first institution of bishops teas from heaven, was even 
 from God; the Holy Ghost was the author of it.'"* But il 
 does not necessarily follow from this, that the loss of epis- 
 copacy destroys the very being of the Church. It destroys 
 its apostolic order, undoubtedly; but as I have already 
 shown, in the question of the sacraments, that their essence 
 may be had, when their order is wanting, so is it in the 
 question of the Church. Hence I am compelled to admit, 
 that although the episcopal government be, indeed, of di- 
 vine institution, and although the want of this be the want 
 of the order appointed by the authority of Christ, yet the 
 Church, in its essential elements, may subsist notwithstand- 
 ing. The completeness or perfection of the Church requires 
 both the apostolic doctrine and the apostolic government. 
 The faith of the Church, and the ministry of the Church 
 should, doubtless, go together. The first is the jewel, the 
 second is the casket: " We have this treasure," saith St. 
 Paul, "fn earthen vessels." But the loss of the one does 
 not necessarily involve the loss of the other; even as the 
 destruction of the body does not necessarily involve the 
 destruction of the soul. 
 
 Let me proceed, however, to the proof proposed, that 
 while our mother Church provided for the strictest adhe- 
 rence to apostolic order in her own case, she yet granted 
 both the name and character of Churches, to the various 
 Christian sects which sprang up in the difficulties and strug- 
 gles of the Reformation. 
 
 I shall commence with the well known work of Bishop 
 Burnet, on the Thirty-nine Articles, because he wrote at a 
 period when the first feeling of fellowship with the Calvin- 
 * Ecc. Pol. B. 7, § 5, London Ed. of 1825. Vol. 2, p. 275. 
 
istic, Helvetian, and Lutheran Churches of the continent, 
 had long died away. It has, indeed, been said, that he was 
 liable to other influences, both national and political; be- 
 cause he was a Scotchman, and a supporter of King Wil- 
 liam III., which circumstances would concur in drawing 
 him towards the same system of Presbyterianism, from the 
 double motives of birth and interest In truth, however? 
 1 cannot see the fairness of arguments like these, not only 
 because they assume, what we do not possess, — the power 
 of reading the heart; but because they cannot be urged 
 w^ithout positively sinning against the precept; "Judge not, 
 that ye be not judged; for wilh what judgment ye judge, ye 
 shall be judged; and wilh what measure ye mete, it shall be 
 measured to you again.'' Besides which, there is a peculiar 
 ground of confidence in the book of Bishop Burnet, derived 
 from the fact staled in the preface, that he was induced to 
 undertake it by the Archbishop of Canterbury, that it was 
 read with great care by many of the other bishops and se- 
 veral learned divines, and that it was published with the 
 strongest expressions of their approbation. 
 
 Speaking of the 23d Article, on the very point of a law- 
 ful calling of the ministry, this author saith as follows:*^ 
 "I come in the next place to consider the second part of 
 this Article, which is the definition here given of those 
 that are lawfully called and sent; this is put in very gene- 
 ral words, far from that magisterial stiffness in which some 
 have taken upon them to dictate in this matter. The Ar- 
 ticle does not resolve this into any particular constitution, 
 bat leaves the matter open and at large for such accidents 
 as had happened, and such as might still happen. They 
 who drew it had the state of the several Churches before 
 their eyes that had been differently reformed; and although 
 their own had been less forced to go out of the beaten track 
 than any other, yet they knew that all things among them- 
 
 * liurnet on the 39lh Article, London Ed. of 1827, p. 857. 
 2* 
 
1^ 
 
 selves had not gone according to those rules that ought to 
 be sacred in regular times: necessity has no law, and is a 
 law unto itself." 
 
 We need be at no loss to understand these last expres- 
 sions of Bishop Burnet, when we remember the dependence 
 of the Church of England upon the State, as well in the 
 mode of electing their bishops, as in the secular influence 
 of their immense Lay-patronage, and the miserable subjec- 
 tion of the Ecclesiastical Convocation, which ma}^ not even 
 speak the sentiments of the Church without the royal license. 
 These and similar evils, however, belong not to the Church 
 herself, because her Articles, Homilies and Canons do no 
 where justify them. They are rather the bondage arising 
 from her peculiar political connexion, which she endures 
 rather than approves, and for which she does not hold her- 
 self accountable. 
 
 But to proceed with the exposition of our author: " If 
 a company of Christians," continues he, " find the public 
 worship where they live to be so defiled, that they cannot 
 with a good conscience join in it, and if they do not know 
 of an}' place to which they can conscientiously go, where 
 they may worship God purely, and in a regular way; if, 
 I say, such a body, finding some that have been ordained, 
 though to the lower functions, should submit itself entirely 
 to their conduct, or finding none of these, should, by a 
 common consent, desire some of their own number to 
 minister to them in holy things, and should upon that 
 beginning grow up to a regulated constitution, though we 
 are very sure that this is quite out of all rule, and could 
 not be done without a very great sin unless the necessity 
 were great and apparent, yet if the necessity is real and 
 not feigned, this is not condemned nor annulled by the 
 Article; for when this grows to a constitution, and when it 
 was begun by the consent of a body, who are supposed to 
 have authority in such an extraordinary case, whatever 
 
11 
 
 some hotter spirits have thought of this since that time, 
 yet we are very sure, that not only those who penned the 
 Articles, but the body of this Church for about half an age 
 after, did, notwithstanding those irregularities, acknow- 
 ledge the foreign Churches so constituted, to be true 
 Churches as to all the essentials of a Church, though they 
 had been at first irregularly formed, and continued still to 
 be in an imperfect state. And therefore the general words 
 in which this part of the Article is framed, seem to have 
 been designed on purpose not to exclude them." 
 
 Now here, Bishop Burnet asserts not only his own 
 judgment, nor only that of the Church of England in his 
 day, but further undertakes to deliver the judgment of the 
 body of the Church for half a century after the era of the 
 Reformation. If, in this, he was in error, it would be the 
 easiest of all things to show it. But the farther we ex- 
 amine into the sentiments and conduct of the Church at 
 that period, the more we shall be obliged to acknowledge 
 that he represented them fairl3\ As the most unimpeach- 
 able witness on this point, I shall next turn to Hooker, 
 whose position in the Church during the reign of Queen 
 Elizabeth, concurred with his acknowledged learning and 
 profound judgment to give him every qualification for 
 the decision of such a question. First, therefore, let us 
 attend to his definition of the word Church, in general, 
 and afterwards to his opinion on the precise point of our 
 inquiry. 
 
 " Church," saith this admirable author,* " is a word which 
 art hath devised, thereby to sever and distinguish that so- 
 ciety of men which professeth the true religion, from the 
 rest which profess it not. There have been in the world, 
 from the very first foundation thereof, but three religions. 
 Paganism, which lived in the blindness of corrupt and de- 
 praved nature; Judaism, embracing the law which reformed 
 
 * Ecc. Pol. B. 5, § 08, vol. 2d of Lond. Ed. of 1825, p. 17. 
 
12^ 
 
 heathenish impieties, and taught salvation to be looked for 
 through One whom God in the last days would send and 
 exalt to be Lord of all; finally, Christian belief, which 
 yieldeth obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and ac- 
 knowledgeth him the Saviour whom God did promise. 
 Seeing then that the Church is a name, which art hath given 
 to professors of true religion; as they that will define a 
 man are to pass by those qualities wherein one man doth 
 excel another, and to take only those essential properties, 
 whereby man doth differ from creatures of other kinds, so 
 he that will teach what the Church is, shall never rightly 
 perform the work whereabout he goeth, till in matter of 
 religion he touch that difference which severeththe Church's 
 religion from theirs who are not the Church. Religion 
 being therefore a matter partly of contemplation, partly of 
 action, we must define the Church, which is a religious so- 
 ciety, by such differences as do perfectly explain the essence 
 of such things; that is to say, by the object or matter 
 whereabout the contemplation and actions of the Church are 
 properly conversant; for so all knowledge and all virtues 
 are defined. Wherefore, because the only object which 
 separateth ours from other religions, is Jesus Christ, in 
 whom none but the Church doth believe, and whom none 
 but the Church doth worship; we find that accordingly the 
 apostles do every where distinguish hereby the Church from 
 infidels and Jews, accounting them which call upon the 
 name of our Lord Jesus Christ to be his Church. If we go 
 lower, we shall but add unto this certain casual and variable 
 accidents, which are not properly of the being, but make 
 only for the happier and belter being of the Church of God, 
 either in deed, or in men's opinions and conceits. This is 
 the error of all popish definitions that hitherto have been 
 brought. They define not the Church by that which the 
 Church essentially is, but by that wherein they imagine their 
 own more perfect than the rest are.'' 
 
13 
 
 Again, (ib. p. 19,) "That which separateth therefore ut- 
 terly," continues Hooker, "that which cutteth off clean from 
 the visible Church of Christ, is plain apostacy, direct denial, 
 utter rejection of the luhole Christian faith, as far as the same 
 is professedly different from infidelity. Heretics, as touch- 
 ing those points of doctrine wherein they fail; Schismatics, 
 as touching the quarrels for which, or the duties wherein 
 they divide themselves from their brethren; loose, licentious 
 and wicked persons, as touching their several offences or 
 crimes, have all forsaken the true Church of God: the Church 
 which is sound and sincere in the doctrine which they cor- 
 rupt; the Church that keepeth the bond of unity which 
 they violate; the Church that walketh in the laws of righ- 
 teousness which they transgress; this very true Church of 
 Christ they have left, howbeit not altogether left, nor forsaken 
 simply the Church; upon the main foundation whereof they 
 continue built, notwithstanding those breaches ichereby they are 
 rent at the top asunder." 
 
 And to show his meaning yet more clearly, this eminent 
 writer saith again, (ib. B. 3, Sec. 1, vol. i. p. 276,) "We 
 must acknowledge even heretics themselves to be, though a 
 maimed part, yet a part of the visible Church." — "Heretics 
 are not utterly cut off from the visible Church of Christ. If 
 the Fathers do any where, as oftentimes they do, make the 
 true visible Church of Christ and heretical companies op- 
 posite; they are to be construed as separating heretics, not 
 altogether from the company of believers, but from the fel- 
 lowship of sound believers. For where professed unbelief 
 is, there can be no visible Church of Christ: there may be, 
 where sound belief wanteth. Infidels being clean without 
 the Church, deny directly, and utterly reject, the very prin- 
 ciples of Christianity, which heretics embrace, and err only 
 by misconstruction." 
 
 Now these principles, it must be confessed, are large and 
 comprehensive. And yet I suspect that those who most 
 
14 
 
 dislike them in one respect, may be most dependent upon 
 them in another, for certain it seems, that nothing short of 
 this will justify the opposite modes in which our Oxford 
 friends speak in their celebrated Tracts of the Church of 
 Rome. Thus, in one place they very truly say, "the Ro- 
 man Church is infected with heresy, we are bound to flee 
 it as a pestilence." While in other parts of their work 
 they call her "Our elder sister," and speak with great 
 feeling of our supposed obligations to her. On Hooker's 
 hypothesis, however, there is no inconsistency in main- 
 taining that the Church of Rome has become heretical, schis- 
 matical, and awfully corrupt, while, nevertheless, so long 
 as she professes the fundamental principlesof Christian faith, 
 she must be granted a place in the comprehensive circle 
 of the Church universal. But it will not be just to claim 
 the benefit of his theory when it operates in favour of 
 Rome, and yet reject it as soon as it is applied to Presby- 
 terianism. 
 
 Let me once more recur to this venerated author, there- 
 fore, and hear his judgment in reference to those Churches 
 which had lost episcopacy: (ib. B. 7, § 14, 2 Vol. p. 304.) 
 "There may be sometimes very just and sufficient reasons," 
 saith he, " to allow ordination made without a bishop." 
 " Men may be extraordinarily, yet allowably, two ways 
 admitted unto spiritual functions in the Church. One is, 
 when God himself doth of himself raise up any, whose la- 
 bour he useth without requiring that men should authorize 
 them; but then he doth ratify their calling by manifest 
 signs and tokens himself from heaven. Another extraor- 
 dinary kind of vocation is, when the exigence of necessity 
 doth constrain to leave the usual ways of the Church, which 
 otherwise we would willingly keep: where the Church 
 must needs have some ordained, and neither hath, nor can 
 have possibly, a bishop to ordain; in case of such necessity? 
 the ordinary institution of God hath oftentimes and may 
 
ti 
 
 give place. And therefore, we are not, simply without 
 exception, to urge a lineal descent of power from the apos- 
 tles, hy continued succession of bishops in every eflfectual 
 ordination. These cases of inevilable necessity excepted, none 
 may ordain but only bishops." 
 
 These principles. Hooker himself applies to the very 
 case of the presbyterian Churches, in the following pas- 
 sage: (ib. B. 3, § 2, Vol, 1, p. 330.) "In which respect," 
 saith he, "for mine own part, although I see that certain 
 reformed Churches, the Scottish especially and French, 
 have not that which best agreeth with the sacred Scrip- 
 tures, I mean the government that is by bishops; inasmuch 
 as both these Churches are fallen under a different kind of 
 regimen; which to remedy, it is for the one altogether too 
 late, and too soon for the other during their present af- 
 fliction and trouble: yet this their defect and imperfection 
 I had rather lament in such a case than exaggerate: con- 
 sidering that men oftentimes, without any fault of their 
 own, may be driven to want that kind of polity or regimen 
 which is best: and to content themselves with that which 
 either th.e iiremediable error of former times, or the ne- 
 cessity of the present hath cast upon them." 
 
 Here, then, I behold the opinion which fairly presents 
 the views of our mother Church on the true character of 
 those reformed Churches which had unhappily been obliged, 
 as they honestly supposed, to dispense with the apostolic 
 order of episcopacy. It was a defect, a defect to be sorely 
 lamented, but yet it did not destroy them as Churches. The 
 title of Churches vvas plainly and constantly applied to them 
 not only by Hooker, but by all the English episcopalians 
 of that and long subsequent times. And although the com- 
 prehensive definition of the essential elements of the Church, 
 allowed Hooker to embrace the Church of Rome along 
 with the reformed Churches of France and Scotland, within 
 the great circle of the Church universal, yet there can be 
 
16 
 
 no question in any unprejudiced mind as to the sentiment 
 entertained concerning their comparative affinity to the 
 primitive Apostolic system. Even our brethren of Oxford, 
 in one place, speak of Rome in the nineteenth century, as 
 of " a demoniac, beside herself, ruled within by an inexorable 
 spirit." How much more must she have been so esteemed 
 in the days of Hooker, in the days of Elizabeth, when men 
 were but just relieved from her darkest empire of super- 
 stition and cruelty? And hence, is it not manifest, that the 
 Church of England, at that period, could not have faltered 
 for an instant in their judgment between Rome and 
 Geneva? That if, in the latter case, they might have been 
 obliged to regard their reformed sister, as one who had, 
 indeed, with respect to episcopacy, lost the right hand of 
 her strength, yet was she, in every thing else, of sound 
 mind and fair proportions, while Rome, though possessing 
 every member of the body, was covered with excrescencies 
 and corruption from head to foot, and was, moreover, " be- 
 side herself" — a maniac, though, happily, in chains. 
 
 Let me next state the judgment of our mother Church 
 upon this point, as it appeared in the following century, 
 under the first Charles and his successor. Mede, Chilling- 
 wo"rth. Usher, and Bramhall, will furnish sufficient proof 
 in favour of the same allowance of the name Church, to 
 our non-episcopal brethren. 
 
 Commencing with Chillingworth, (see his Works, London 
 edition of 1S20, volume 2, p. 253,) I find him thus sum- 
 ming up, in his celebrated answer to his Jesuitical antago- 
 nist, the differences between the various branches of the 
 Reformation. "Some," saith our author, " taking their di- 
 rection only from the Scriptures, others from the writings 
 of the fathers and the decrees of councils of the first five 
 ages, certainly it is no great marvel that there was, as you 
 say, disagreement between them, in the particulars of their 
 reformation; nay, morally speaking, it was impossible it 
 
17 
 
 should be otherwise. Yet let me tell you, the difference 
 between them, (especially in comparison of your Church 
 and religion,) is not the difference between good and bad; 
 but between good and better; and they did best that fol- 
 lowed the Scripture, interpreted by catholic written tradi- 
 tion; which rule the reformers of the Church of England 
 proposed to themselves to folIow\" 
 
 The prevailing sentiment of his day may be gathered 
 from this distinguished writer on another point, which be- 
 longs to this subject; for there are many amongst ourselves 
 who do not see any difference between the sin of origi- 
 nating a schism, and that of maintaining it, after time and 
 long consent have given it a species of sacred prescription 
 in the feelings and prejudices of a multitude, who could 
 not, by any possibility, be turned away from it, without 
 putting many schisms in the place of one. " You say," 
 saith Chillingworth, (ib. p. 189,) "that supposing Luther 
 and they which did first separate from the Roman Church, 
 were guilty of schism, it is certainly consequent that all 
 who persist in this division must be so likewise; which is 
 not so certain as you pretend. For they which alter, with- 
 out necessary cause, the present government of any State, 
 civil or ecclesiastical, do commit a great fault; whereof, not- 
 withstanding, they may be innocent, who continue this alte- 
 ration, and to the utmost of their power, oppose a change 
 though to the former state, when continuance of time hath 
 settled the present.*' This is, indeed, the very same apology 
 which the learned Le Clerc, an ardent lover of Episcopacy, 
 although professedly a Presbyterian, assigned at a later 
 day, for not encouraging a change. "The Presbyterian 
 form," saith he, "is settled in most places, which being 
 once done, it was a matter of so much interest to those who 
 presided over the civil government, (sc. of Holland,) and 
 is still of so much consequence to the public peace to avoid 
 all causes of disturbance, that at this day it must of neces- 
 3 
 
18 
 
 sity be suffered to remain,'' — " Therefore prudent men, 
 although they ardently long for that form of Church admi- 
 nistration which was apostolic, or like it, yet they think 
 it best now to leave matters as they are."* The difference 
 in judgment, motive, principle and feeling, between men 
 who talk thus, and the originators of a needless schism, is 
 too plain to requh'e either argument or illustration. 
 
 With some of my esteemed Oxford brethren, however, 
 I am aware that Chillingworth is no favourite. My other 
 citations will please them better, I trust, inasmuch as they 
 are taken from the Oxford Tracts, and therefore ought to be 
 invested, in strict consistency, with the sanction of their 
 own commendation. 
 
 I proceed, therefore, to observe, that the famous Mede, 
 (Oxford Tracts, 3d vol. of Am. Ed. p. 440) had no scruples 
 about granting to the non-episcopal branches of the Reforma- 
 tion the title of Churches. " Our Church," saith he, " goes 
 upon differing principles from the rest of the reformed, and 
 so steers her course by another rule than they do. We 
 look after the form, rites, and discipline of antiquity, and 
 endeavour to bring our own as near as we can to that pat- 
 tern. We suppose the Reformed Churches have departed 
 farther therefrom than is needed, and so we are not very 
 solicitous to comply with them; yea, we are jealous of such 
 of our own as we see over-zealously addicted to them, lest 
 it be a sign they prefer them before their mother." Now 
 here is a man, distinguished for his learning and his zeal 
 for primitive Catholicism, who yet, in all the freedom of a 
 private letter to a friend, calls these non-episcopal commu- 
 nions Reformed Churches, as if he considered it a matter 
 of course that they were entitled to that character. 
 
 My next citation bears the honoured name of Archbi- 
 shop Usher, (ib. p. 443-4.) « If at this day," saith this 
 
 * See the author's volume on the Primitive Church, 9th Lecture, p. 
 263 of 2d Ed. where the original is quoted. 
 
19 
 
 eminent scholar and divine, " we should take a survey of 
 the several professions of Christianity that have any large 
 spread in any part of the world, as of the religion of the 
 Roman and the Reformed Churches in our quarters, of the 
 Egyptians and the Ethiopians in the south, of the Grecians 
 and other Christians in the eastern parts, and should put 
 by the points wherein they did differ one from another, 
 and gather into one body the rest of the articles wherein 
 they did all generally agree, we should find, that in those 
 propositions which without controversy are universally 
 received in the whole Christian world, so much truth is 
 contained, as, being joined with holy obedience, may be 
 sufficient to bring a man unto everlasting salvation. Nei- 
 ther have we cause to doubt, but that as many as do walk 
 according to this rule, (neither overthrowing that which 
 they have builded by superinducing any damnable heresies 
 thereupon, nor otherwise vitiating their holy faith with a 
 lewd and wicked conversation,) peace shall be upon them, 
 and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." 
 
 This noble paragraph, conceived in the true spirit of an 
 enlightened judgment and an enlarged heart, is worthy 
 of being transcribed in letters of gold, and hung up as a 
 constant memorial in the study of every controversialist. 
 The special point for which I have cited it, appears in the 
 commencement, wherethis profoundly learned authorspeaks 
 of the " Roman and Reformed Churches in our quarters." 
 The inference from such language as this is obvious to the 
 slightest reflection. 
 
 Let me now turn to Bramhall, another archbishop of 
 Armagh, who occupied the see immediately after the re- 
 storation, A. D. 1660, not long after the decease of his 
 illustrious predecessor. I shall not dispute with my trac- 
 tarian brethren, the propriety of calling him a Confessor, 
 nor the justice of applying the name o( Martyr to Arch- 
 bishop Laud, although I certainly think that their claims 
 
so 
 
 to these distinctions are more than doubtful. But be this 
 as it may, the inexpediency of such epithets, when their 
 inflammatory influence upon the Church of our own day 
 might have been so easily anticipated, should have led to 
 the omission of titles, which were likely to injure the 
 living, without profiting the dead. It is indeed true, that 
 Bramhall was impeached in 1640, by the Irish House of 
 Commons, when bishop of Londonderry, as one of the 
 coadjutors of the unfortunate Earl of Strafibrd. It is true 
 that he was imprisoned, and after he obtained his liberty 
 through the royal influence, he became a voluntary exile. 
 But the difficulty in such cases is to separate the religious 
 from the political antipathy, which armed the hand of per- 
 secution, so as to demonstrate, that if the individual had 
 confined himself strictly within the limits of a Christian 
 Bishop, instead of making himself actively obnoxious as'a 
 political adviser, the same measure of odium and of sufier- 
 ing would have been meted out to him. For in order to 
 entitle a man to those venerable distinctions of Confessor 
 and Martyr in the Church of God, it is incontrovertible 
 that he must have suffered purely on account of his Chris- 
 tian fidelity. 
 
 But this by the way: his testimony is none the less con- 
 clusive on the point before us, if it be not rather the more 
 so. These are his words, as cited by our Oxford brethren, 
 (Tracts, vol. 3, p. 140.) " Episcopal divines do not deny 
 those Churches to be true CiiAirches, wherein salvation may 
 be had." We advise them, as it is our duty, to be circum- 
 spect for themselves, and not to put it to more question 
 whether they have ordination or not, or desert the general 
 practice of the universal Church for nothing, when Ihey 
 may clear it if they please. Their case is not the same 
 with those who labour under invincible necessity." — "Epis- 
 copal divines will readily subscribe to the determination 
 of the learned Bishop of Winchester," (sc. the eminent 
 
21 
 
 Bishop Andrews,) "in his answer to the second epistle of 
 Molineus. ' Nevertheless, if our form (of Episcopacy,) 
 be of divine right, it doth not follow from thence, that 
 there is not salvation without it, or that a Church cannot 
 consist without it. He is blind who does not see Churches 
 consisting without it: he is hard-hearted who denieth 
 them salvation. We are none of those hard-hearted per- 
 sons, we put a great difference between these things. 
 There may be something absent in the exterior regiment 
 which is of divine right, and yet salvation to be had.' 
 " This mistake," continues Bramhall, " proceedeth from 
 not distinguishing between the true nature and essence of a 
 Cliurch, WHICH WE DO READILY GRANT THEM, and the in- 
 tegrity or perfection of a Church which we cannot grant 
 THEM, without swerving from the judgment of the catholic 
 Church." To this let me add a short extract from Scott, 
 a learned cotemporary of Bishop Burnet,* who expressly 
 asserts the same principle, (ib. p. 152,) that although this 
 instituted government of episcopacy " is necessary to the 
 perfection of a Church, yet it doth not follow that it is there' 
 fore necessary to the being of it.'' 
 
 Now here, the testimony of the Church of England is 
 brought down to the time of William III. — to the time of 
 Bishop Burnet; and it is impossible to deny that his state- 
 ment, with which I commenced my proofs, is completely 
 sustained by all that went before him, our Oxford brethren 
 themselves being judges. It is perfectly idle, therefore, 
 to make light of his evidence, by talking of his prejudices 
 on account of birth and education, or hi*s political interest 
 in the service of the house of Orange. Christian writers 
 should blush to use such arguments in disparagement of 
 any theological author, unless they are prepared to prove 
 him guilty of fraud or falsehood. For what is it but an 
 
 * Bishop Burnet was born in 1643, and Scott in 1G33, there was 
 therefore only five years between them, 
 
 3* 
 
22 
 
 open proclaiming to the world that clergymen themselves 
 have no confidence in the honesty and candour of each 
 other, but are ready to slander the motives and principles 
 of the most eminent divines, even of their own Church, 
 when they can find no other way to gain a polemic victory? 
 If, however, it be still doubted, whether the Church of 
 England, as a Church, would have assented to this doctrine, 
 I have no difficulty in pointing to her ecclesiastical action 
 in the most direct form. For to say nothing of the fact, 
 that some of her most distinguished divines acted as dele- 
 gates in the famous Presbyterian Synod of Dort; nor of the 
 fact that she assented, without difficulty, to the terms of the 
 union by which the Presbyterian Church became the esta- 
 blished religion of Scotland, we have two ecclesiastical de- 
 clarations upon the point, which are beyond all fair excep- 
 tion. The first to which I refer is the language of the ad- 
 dress on the accession of William III., in which both the 
 Houses of Convocation agreed in thanking the king for his 
 zeal in behalf of the Church of England, anticipating that 
 thereby "the interest of the Protestant religion in all other 
 Protestant Churches would be better secured.'' (Oxford 
 Tracts, vol. ili. p. 37.) The other declaration is found in 
 the 55th canon of the Church of England, in which the 
 clergy are required to "pray for the Churches of England, 
 Scotland and Ireland, as parts of Christ's Holy Catholic 
 Church, which is dispersed throughout the world."* In 
 all the forms, therefore, in which our mother Church could 
 assert her doctrine, she has constantly maintained the prin- 
 ciple that the Order of the Apostolic ministry which she 
 was careful to preserve for herself, as a high and sacred pri- 
 vilege, was yet not held essential to the being of a Church, 
 and that the Reformed Christian communions which had it 
 
 * See this fact treated by Bowden, in his 15th Letter to Miller, Stan- 
 dard Works, vol. i. p. 211. 
 
23 
 
 not, were, notwithstanding, true Churches, although imper- 
 fect. The same judgment, as we all know, has been main- 
 tained in England to our own day, nor am I aware that it 
 has been openly impugned by any bishop on that side of 
 the ocean. 
 
 It remains that I should say a few words on the ques- 
 tion, whether our own branch of the Church has been less 
 liberal in her doctrine. And but few can be required to 
 settle this point in the discussion, since, in the very preface 
 to our book of Common Prayer, we read as follows: 
 
 "When, in the course of Divine Providence, these Ame- 
 rican States became independent with respect to civil go- 
 vernment, their ecclesiastical independence was necessarily 
 included ; and the different religious denominations of Chris- 
 tians in these States were left at full and equal liberty to 
 model and organize their respective Churches and forms of 
 worship, and discipline, in such manner as they might judge 
 most convenient for their future prosperity; consistently 
 with the constitution and laws of their country." And in 
 the last paragraph but one, it is further stated that "this 
 Church is far from intending to depart from the Church of 
 England in any essential point of doctrine, discipline, or 
 worship; or farther than local circumstances require." 
 
 Now this document, being the voice of the American 
 Episcopal Church in general convention, and that, too, ut- 
 tered at the very time when we were to consummate our 
 separate stand as an independent Church, must be considered 
 decisive upon the subject, at least until an equally authori- 
 tative expression shall have done it away. For here, in our 
 collective capacity, and in connexion with our standard 
 book, we have given the name of Churches to the different 
 religious denominations in the United States as then exist- 
 ing, and have declared our agreement with the Church of 
 England in all essential points of doctrine, &c. Tiie evi- 
 dences which might be collected from the language of our 
 
24 
 
 bishops and clergy, since that important era in our history, 
 would fill a volume. I would only refer to the well known 
 work of Bowden's Letters to Miller, in which he admits, 
 repeatedly, that the doctrine which I have stated is the re- 
 ceived doctrine. Thus, for example, (p. 235 of Standard 
 Works,) he saith, "No doubt he (Archbishop Whitgift) 
 maintained, even with respect to episcopacy, what every 
 episcopal writer that I have ever met icith maintains, that this 
 government is not absolutely necessary to the very salvation 
 of the Church, but that it is so necessary, that the Church 
 cannot be in a sound and perfect state without it." 
 
 Having thus shown, beloved brethren, what I cannot 
 otherwise regard than as the settled doctrine of our mother 
 Church and of our own in relation to this matter, I proceed 
 to sustain the proposition that the apostolic ministry is not 
 of the essence but of the order of the Church, by a brief refe- 
 rence to the Scriptures. 
 
 That the word 'Church,' which, in the original Greek, 
 is sxx'Kviaia, signifies the called assembly or congregation, is 
 known to every scholar. And accordingly it occurs in this 
 sense nearly one hundred times in the Septuagint version of 
 the Old Testament, being currently applied to the people 
 of Israel. 
 
 That the same word is used in the New Testament to 
 signify the congregation of Israel before the period of the 
 Aaronic priesthood, is plain from the language of the martyr 
 Stephen, (Actsvii. 30,) "This is he that was in the church 
 in the wilderness, with the angel which spake to him in 
 the Mount Sinai, who received the lively oiacles to give 
 unto us. To whom our fathers would not obey, but thrust 
 him from them, and in their hearts turned back again into 
 Egypt, saying unto Aaron, Make us gods to go before us; 
 for as for this Moses which brought us out of the land of 
 Egypt, we wot not what is become of him." Here we see 
 the term applied to the chosen people, anterior to the in- 
 
25 
 
 stitution of the regular priesthood^ distinctly proving that 
 the CAwrc/i mai/ exisi without the ortZer of the priesthood , since 
 it is spoken of as existing, before that order was established. 
 
 We find the word used again by our great Redeemer, 
 (Mat. xviii. 17,) in reference to the then existing Jewish 
 polity, although the Aaronic succession, which was the only 
 lawful priesthood, had long been lost. "Tell it unto the 
 Church," saith our Lord: "if he refuse to hear the Church, 
 let him be unto thee as a heathen man, and a publican." 
 Here we see the term used, not only while the Jewish 
 polity was yet standing, but also at a time when the lawful 
 Aaronic succession had been notoriously set aside; proving 
 again, that the Church in its essential elements was regarded 
 as still in being, although the appointed order of its priest- 
 hood was openly destroyed. 
 
 Again, we find St. Paul saying, (1 Cor. xii, 27, 28,) 
 "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particu- 
 lar. And God hath set some in the Church, first apostles, 
 secondarily prophets; thirdly teachers; after that miracles," 
 &c. Here the inspired writer applies the terms first and 
 second, not to the point of time, but to the rank of au- 
 thority; regarding the Church as already subsisting, and the 
 apostolic ministry as set or placed in it. 
 
 Now the favourite hypothesis of many in our day is quite 
 opposed to this, for it contemplates the Church as subsequent 
 to and dependent upon the ministry, on the plausible ground 
 that the Church is the body called, and as they cannot be 
 called without some agency commissioned to call them, 
 and this agency, according to the plain appointment of 
 Christ, is the apostolic ministry, therefore this ministry comes 
 first, and the Church comes afterwards; and hence the notion 
 is naturally supposed to be quite demonstrated, that the 
 apostolic ministry is essential to the Church, since there can, 
 in the necessary connexion and dependence of things, be no 
 Church without it. A little reflection may be required, 
 
26 
 
 and but a little, I trust, to show the error of this argument, 
 to any unprejudiced and ordinary understanding. 
 
 The Church, then, as the Scriptures present it to us, con- 
 sists of all those who, lost by the fall, and doomed to death 
 in the first Adam, are called to redemption and salvation 
 by the second Adam, our Lord Jesus Christ. Hence it is 
 a mistake to date its rise after the apostolic commission, 
 since, judging by the testimony of St. Paul, it includes the 
 righteous Abel ; by that of St. Jude, it includes the patriarchs 
 Enoch and Noah; and, by the express words of Christ him- 
 self, we know that its final glory is described as a silting down 
 with Abraham, and liaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. 
 
 Precisely in accordance with this, is the aspect in which 
 the apostle presents the calling of the Gentiles. They are 
 told that the Church was already existing, — the good olive 
 tree; that some of the branches were broken off in order 
 that they might be grafted in; and that they must not 
 therefore magnify themselves on their privileges, since they 
 did not bear the root, but the root them. 
 
 Bearing this comprehensive, but Scriptural view of the 
 term Church in mind, there v/ill be no difficulty in under- 
 standing the argument. The first call from which the 
 Church took its rise, was the voice of God himself in Para- 
 dise, when he graciously promised that the Seed of the wo- 
 man should bruise the cerpent's head, and instituted, there- 
 upon, the rite of sacrifice. In obedience to that call, Abel 
 brought his lamb, and Vv^as accepted, because, as saith the 
 apostle, he offered it by faith. The divine call descended 
 from the patriarchs, renewed from time to time by the im- 
 mediate communications of the Deity, and proclaimed by 
 the agency of prophets, such as Enoch and Noah, before 
 the flood, and Abraham and his posterity after it. This 
 distinguished patriarch was chosen to be the father of the 
 faithful; and the peculiar privileges of the Church — the 
 called and chosen covenant people of God — were solemnly 
 
27 
 
 granted to him and to his seed for ever. And the system 
 of mercy went on until the Lord brought this favoured 
 Church of Israel, his peculiar people, out of Egypt, and 
 gave them, for the first time, the visible sanctuary as a 
 pledge of his presence, and an instituted order of priests, 
 and a written record of his Holy Law, to teach and direct 
 them. Soon after this gracious dispensation, the Almighty 
 planted them in Canaan, to be a glorious witness to the 
 whole world, and to call all men, by the spectacle of their 
 privileges, and the communication of His truth, to acknow- 
 ledge the God of Abraham. 
 
 Presently, however, we behold the rebellion of the 
 Church of Israel against the government appointed by 
 the Lord. First, in the days of Samuel, when they grew 
 weary of their judges and desired a king. "They have not 
 rejected thee,'' saith the Almighty to his prophet, "but they 
 have rejected me, that I should not reign over them." But 
 did their compassionate God cast them off for this? Nay, 
 he condescended to indulge their waywardness, and even 
 appointed their king, and promised them, if they would 
 but be faithful to the divine law, that they should still ex- 
 perience his blessing. Again, in the reign of Rehoboam, 
 ten tribes revolted from the house of David, and chose for 
 themselves Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, to govern them. 
 And now was consummated the formal schism of Israel in 
 their religion; for they forsook Jerusalem under this new 
 political temptation, deserted the ark of the covenant and 
 the priesthood appointed by the Lord in the midst of mighty 
 signs and wonders, and accepted the wretched substitutes 
 of the calves of Dan and Bethel, with the priests which Jero- 
 boam made of the lowest of the people, instead of the glo- 
 rious temple of Solomon, and the sacred line of the holy 
 Aaron.* 
 
 * It may be thought, perhaps, that this separation of the ten tribes can- 
 not be called a schism, because it was commanded by the Deity. But, 
 
23 
 
 We might well suppose ihat the Most High would avenge 
 this atrocious contempt of his own solemn order, hy a total 
 abandonment of his rebellious people. And doubtless he 
 would have done so, if his thoughts were as our thoughts, 
 or his ways as our ways. But though the schismatic tribes 
 of Israel had wilfully deserted all the external means of 
 grace, on a mere secular apology, yet their merciful God 
 did not desert them. When they forsook his chosen 
 priesthood, he gave them prophets. The pre-eminent Eli- 
 jah and Elisha were sent to proclaim the word of the Lord, 
 and keep his people from idolatry. And strange it is to 
 mark how perfectly silent those prophets are upon the sin 
 of schism. They say nothing to heal the breach, or bring 
 the revolters back to Judah. Nay, they seem to yield to 
 the evil circumstances of the time, and instead of endea- 
 vouring to obtain help from the Levites or the Priests of 
 Sion, they accommodate themselves to the difficulty, and 
 train up their schools of the prophets to do the same work, as 
 well as they might, in another way. Still the Church was 
 not extinct. Still the Word of the Lord was heard and 
 obeyed in Israel. And still, in the darkest hour of Elijah's 
 despondency, when he complained that he was left alone, 
 and they sought his life, his heart was cheered by the di- 
 vine assurance that his work had not been in vain. "For 
 
 as St. Augustin well argues, the Almighty ordered this separation, not 
 for the purpose of dividing religion, but in order to divide the kingdom, 
 as a judgment upon Judah. For God never commands a schism or a 
 heresy. Nor does it follow that because the kingdoms of the world are now 
 divided, therefore Christian unity must be divided, instead of the same 
 Universal Church being found in them all. S. Augustin de Unitate Eccle- 
 sise, 0pp. Tom. ix. p. 245, D. Deus enim easdem tribus jusserat separari, 
 non ut religio, sed ut regnum divideretur, et hoc modo vindicaretur in 
 regnum Judre. Deus autem nunquam jubet schisma vel hseresim fieri. 
 Neque enim quia et in orbe terrarum plerumque regna dividuntur, ideo 
 et unitas Christiana dividitur, enim in utraque parte catholica inveniatur 
 Ecclesia. 
 
29 
 
 yet," saith the Most High, «/ have reserved unto myself 
 seven thousand men in Israel that have not bowed the knee 
 to Baal." 
 
 The iniquity and idolatry of Israel, however, at last pro- 
 voke their long-suffering Lord to send them into captivity. 
 Judah, notwithstanding their admirable system of religious 
 polity, follows the sad example, and shares the same fate. 
 Their temple is profaned, their sacrifices are forbidden, and 
 yet their compassionate God does not abandon them. In 
 their dispersion he still makes them his chosen witnesses. 
 The principles of his holy Word are scattered amongst the 
 nations, and in ten thousand ways which no human eye 
 can trace, they are rendered available, as a seed of truth 
 amongst the falsehoods of paganism, prompting the purer 
 breathings of heathen philosophy, counteracting the arts 
 and influence of Satan, insensibly preparing the way for 
 the future progress of the gospel, and thus subserving the 
 will of that All-wise, and All-gracious God, who accom- 
 plishes his ultimate purposes in material things, not only by 
 the orderly instruments of the dew and the sunshine, but 
 by the equally appointed agency of the earthquake and 
 the storm. 
 
 In due time, however, a fragment of the Church of Judah, 
 which had retained the order of the priesthood, is per- 
 mitted to return and restore the walls and the temple of 
 Jerusalem. But how inferior to their former glory do 
 they appear! Where is the ark? Where are the tables of 
 the law? Where the Urim and Thummim,the Lights and 
 Perfections of the first sanctuary ? Where the strength, 
 the superhuman power, with which the army of the living 
 God once went forth, conquering and to conquer? Departed 
 and gone! Sustained by the capricious allowance of a hea- 
 then despot, taunted by their enemies on every side, they 
 labour under every discouragement; but still their faith is 
 upheld by the divine promise that the glory of the latter 
 4 
 
30 
 
 house should yet exceed the glory of the former, and trusting 
 in that hope, they persevere. 
 
 And when the fahiess of the time arrives, the star from 
 heaven announces to the eastern magi the birth of him who 
 was the King of the Jews, and the angels proclaim to the 
 shepherds of Judea, " To you is born the Saviour, which is 
 Christ the Lord." He comes, indeed, to his temple, the 
 Shepherd to his flock, the Master to his household, the 
 Church. His personal ministry is given to them who 
 were emphatically the called, the chosen. His twelve 
 apostles are sent with the express command to confine their 
 preaching, as yet, to the cities of Israel. And although, 
 when he came unto his own, his ovvn received him not, — al- 
 though they fulfilled, unconsciously, the designs of God, by 
 wickedly crucifying the Lord of life and glory, — yet was it 
 in the temple that the Holy Ghost manifested his power to 
 an extent far more stupendous than under any former dis- 
 pensation; thousands of the ancient covenant people bovved 
 down in adoration before their glorified Redeemer, a great 
 company of the priests were obedient unto the faith, and 
 thus, it was a part of the literal Israel which first acknow- 
 ledged their spiritual King, in obedience to the very prin- 
 ciple on which alone they had a right to be called the chil- 
 dren of Abraham. For in the sight of God, he was not a 
 Jew which was one outwardly, neither was that circumci- 
 sion which was outward in the flesh, but he was a Jew 
 which was one inwardly, and circumcision was of the heart; 
 not of the letter, but of the Spirit.* 
 
 Hence it seems manifest that God did indeed set the apos- 
 tles in the Church before his mighty power was manifested 
 on the day of Pentecost, and consequently this was not the 
 commencement of his Church, but rather the commencement or 
 development of the new dispensation which the prophets 
 had foretold. And therefore the true Israel became the 
 * Romans ii. 28—9. 
 
31 
 
 proclaimers of salvation to the ends of the earth, the apos- 
 tles' commission being expressly intended not to originate 
 a distinct Church among the Gentiles, but to graff them 
 
 UPON THE OLD STOCK OF ISRAEL, and thuS add to that ONE 
 
 CHURCH, the spouse and Bride of Christ, such as should be 
 saved. 
 
 The same principle of the divine order governed St, 
 Paul himself; for although designed to be a chosen vessel 
 to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, yet he, like the rest, 
 was set in the Church of Israel. Therefore we find him 
 beginning his ministry amongst his brethren on the de- 
 clared ground of this divine economy. At Antioch, for 
 instance, he and Barnabas went into the synagogue, and 
 preached the gospel, (Acts, xiii.) and when the Jews con- 
 tradicted and blasphemed, (ver. 46,) the apostles " waxed 
 bold, and said, // ivas necessary that the Word of God should 
 first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, 
 and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we 
 turn to the Gentiles." The same course is taken through- 
 out the whole history of his apostleship, and in the last 
 chapter of the book, when at Rome, where his condition 
 as a prisoner confined him to his own hired house with 
 the soldier that kept him, still he pursues the same prin- 
 ciple by sending for the Jews, and giving them, as a mat- 
 ter of acknowledged right, the first tidings of the gospel. 
 
 Viewed, therefore, in the light of Scripture, there is but 
 one holy and universal (or catholic) Church, from the fall 
 to the end of the world. That Church, according to the 
 wisdom of God, has passed through many dispensations, 
 of which the Patriarchal, the Levitical, and the Apostolic 
 are the chief. These various dispensations mark the 
 divine order appointed for the Church, but none of them 
 are of its essence or being; for this took its rise from the 
 first act of faith in the Covenant of Grace announced by 
 the Almighty himself in paradise, and from that hour the 
 Church, in its essential principle, has never been extinct. 
 
32 
 
 And as we see that the Church passed on, at first, without 
 any fixed order, afterwards with a strictly appointed priest- 
 hood, often troubled with the grievous sin of idolatry, 
 and distracted by heresy and schism, which brought upon 
 her many chastisements from the hand of God, while, 
 nevertheless, sustained by his mercy, she survived the 
 whole, so we must admit, that although every wilful de- 
 parture from the apostolic order must be more or less 
 injurious to the purity and welfare of the Church, yet it 
 never can be fatal, while the substance of the faith remains. 
 If men who truly believe, mistakenly reject the priests of 
 God, we may trust that his mercy will send them prophets, 
 sooner than abandon them, as he did to the ten tribes 
 which revolted from Judah. Only let them take heed lest 
 they hasten, by this grievous fault, the time of their cap- 
 tivity to error, and lest that captivity be one from whence 
 there can be no return. The Lord is gracious and long- 
 suffering, slow to anger, and of great goodness. But a 
 wilful departure from his divine order, in any respect, is at 
 least a tempting him. And we know who it was that said, 
 Thou shall not tempt the Lord thy God. 
 
 It is possible, however, that this view of the subject, to 
 some minds, may involve an apparent contradiction to the 
 language of St. Paul, who contrasts so strongly the Mosaic 
 with the Christian dispensation, especially throughout his 
 epistle to the Hebrews. The difficulty, I trust, will vanish, 
 when it is remembered, that the apostle is not speaking of 
 the Church with respect to its essential principle, but only 
 with respect to its change of formal development. The 
 distinction may be readily illustrated from the language of 
 the same inspired writer concerning himself. "When I 
 was a child," saith he, " I spake as a child, I understood 
 as a child, I thought as a child ; but when I became a man, 
 ^ I put away childish things." Here is a familiar and 
 marked contrast, which every one admits, between child- 
 hood and maturity. Form, faculties, intelligence, duties, 
 
33 
 
 relations, — all are changed for a new, more comprehensive, 
 more elevated, and incomparably more effective condition. 
 And yet, who does not perceive that in every thing which 
 is of the essence of humanity, the child and the man are 
 one and the same? 
 
 In order that this view of the subject may lack no evi- 
 dence which can serve to establish it, I proceed to show 
 how well it accords with the sentiments of the Fathers, 
 adding the originals below for the satisfaction of those who 
 may prefer consulting them, and stating only their sub- 
 stance in English, for the sake of brevity. 
 
 [1] Irenseus, (A. D. 170,) writing in opposition to the 
 
 [1] (S. Ircjiasi, Lib. iv. contra Hsereses. c. vii. § 3 & 4. p. 2 3 5 — 6.) 
 Unus igitur et idem Deus qui advoqavit Abraham, et repromissionem ei 
 dedit. — Revelat autem omnibus Filius, quibus velit cognosci, Patrem, et 
 neque sine bona voluntate Patris, neque sine administratione Filii cog- 
 noscet quisquam Deum. Et propter hoc dicebat discipulis Dominus: 
 Ego sum via, Veritas, et vita. Et nemo venit ad Patrem, nisi per me. — 
 Propter hoc Judaei excesserunt a Deo, Verbum ejus non lecipientes, sed 
 putantes per seipsum Patrem sine Verbo, id est, sine Filio, po§se cog- 
 noscere Deum, nescientes eum qui in figura loquutus est huinana ad 
 Abraham, et iterum ad Moj'sem, dicentem: Videns vidi vexaliuncm 
 popu/i mti in .M^gypto, et dcscendi Uberare cos, — Ministrat enim ad 
 omnia sua, progenies et figuratio sua, id est Filius, ct Spiritiis 
 Sanctus, Verbum et Sapiejitia. (ib. c. viii. § 1.) Vanus autem et 
 Marcion, et qui ab eo, expellentes ab haereditate Abraham, — frustrantes 
 et blaspliemantes Deum, qui in Regnum ccelorum inlroducit Abraham, 
 et semen ejus, quod est Ecclesia, per Jesum Christum, cui et adoptio 
 redditur, et hasreditas quae Abraha3 promissa est. ib. c. ix. § 1. p. 
 237. Unius igitur et ejusdem substantias sunt omnia, hoc est, ab uno et 
 eodem Deo, quemadmodum et Dominus ait discipulis; Propterea omnis 
 scriba doctus in Regno ccelorum similis est hornini patrifamilias , qui prof ert 
 de i/tesavro suo nova et Vetera. Non alterum quidem Vetera, alterum vero 
 proferentem nova docuit, sed unum et eundem. Paterfamilias enim 
 Dominus est, qui universal domui pateina; dominatur: et servis quidem, 
 et adhuc indisciplinatis condignam tradens legem; liberis autem, et fido 
 justificatis congruentia dans prmcepta, et filiis adaperiens suam heredi- 
 tatem. — Utraque autem Testamenta unus et idem Paterfamilias produxit, 
 Verbum Dei, Dominus noster Jesus Christus, quiet Abrahae et Moysi 
 coUoquutus est, et nobis in novitate reslituit libertatem, et mulliplicavit 
 earn, qua ab ipso est, gratiam. 
 
 4* 
 
34 
 
 Gnostics, who denied, that the same Deity could be the 
 author of the Old and New Testaments, saith "that no one 
 can know God without the revelation of the Son, that Christ 
 spake in a human form with Abraham, and again with 
 Moses, that the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and 
 the Wisdom, minister to all, that God introduced Abraham 
 and his seed which is the Church, into the kingdom of 
 heaven, that one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the 
 Master of the household, produced both the Testaments, 
 who spake with Abraham and Moses, and gave us new 
 liberty, and multiplied that grace which is from him only." 
 
 So, too, Clement of Alexandria, (A. D. 195,) declares, [2] 
 " that as the will of God is work, which is called the world, 
 so his will is the salvation of men, and this is called the 
 Church, that all are neighbours who participate in the 
 Spirit, that Abraham is the father not only of the Jews, but 
 also of the Gentiles, that God was with one people, namely 
 the Jews, bearing the law; then calling the Gentiles, he 
 gathered a second people, that these two united form one 
 new man, in whom he dwells, namely the Church: for it is 
 not the place which I call the Church," saith Clement, 
 " but the congregation of the chosen." 
 
 Origen, (A. D. 248,) writes as follows: [3] " But since 
 
 [2] (dementis Mexan. PcEdag. L. 1. j). 93.) Numquara est Deus 
 imbecillus. Quemadmodum enim ejus voluntas est opus, et id mundus 
 nominatur; ita etiam ejus voluntas est honiinum salus, et ea vocata est 
 Ecclesia. {lb. Stromata. L. 3. p. 430. B ) Quomodo autem non propin- 
 quus, qui potest spiritus esse particeps? Non solum enim Hebreeorum, 
 sed etiam Gentium pater est Abraham. (lb. p. 455.) Fuerit autem mul- 
 torum quoque concordia ex tribus numerata, cum quibus est Dominus, 
 una Ecclesia, unus homo, genus unum. An non cum uno quidem Judaeo 
 erat Dominus legem ferens. Jam autem prophetans, et Hieremiam mittens 
 Babylonem, quinetiam eos qui erant ex gentibus vocans per prophetiam, 
 congregavit duos populos. Tertius autem est unus, qui ex duobus creatur 
 in novum hominem,quo inambulatet inhabitat in ipsa Ecclesia. (lb. L. 
 VII. p. 715.) Non enim nunc locum, sed electorum congregationem 
 apelio Ecclesiam. 
 
 [3] (Originis Com. in Mat. Tom. l.p. 357.) Sed quoniam Apostolus 
 de Christo et Ecclesia id dictum esse vult; Et erunt duo in came una, 
 
»5 
 
 the apostle applies to Christ and the Church the saying 
 that they two shall be one flesh, we may understand that 
 Christ did not put away his first spouse, the synagogue, 
 (faithfully observing the rule, those whom God hath joined 
 together, let no man put asunder,) until she became an adul- 
 teress, being corrupted by the wicked one, and with him 
 laying snares for her Lord, delivering him to be killed and 
 saying, Take this man away from the earth, crucify him, 
 crucify him. Therefore it may be said that she departed 
 from him, rather than that he put her away as one divorced. 
 Hence he speaks of this divorce in Isaiah, saying, Where is 
 the bill of your mother'' s divorcement, by which I put her aivay?'* 
 And again, this eminent father saith, " See, therefore, how 
 the saying (of St. Paul,) / am crucified icilh Christ, may be- 
 long, not only to the saints who lived after the coming of 
 Christ, but also, and equally, to those who lived before it, 
 lest we should say that the saints who were after his 
 coming, differed from Moses and the Patriarchs. There- 
 fore that text, / live, yet not I, but Christ livelh in me, may 
 be said of the saints who were before as well as those who 
 were since his coming. For we maintain and teach, that 
 
 dicendam est non aliam ob causam, priorem, ut ita appellem, conjugem 
 ipsius, priorem nempe Synagogam, fuisse repudiatam a Christo, illud ser- 
 vante: Quos Deus conjunxit homo non separet, quam quod a Malo vitiata 
 Iiaec mulier fornicata est, et cum eo insidias viro suo struxit, eumque 
 neci dedit dicens: Tolle ejusmodi hominem de terra, crucifige, crucifige eum. 
 Ilia igitur discessit potius quam vir earn repudiatam dimisit. Idcirco 
 ipsius divortlum huic in Isaia exprobrans ait: Quis est hie liber repudii 
 matris vestra, quo dcmisi earn?'' This idea is fully and largely treated in 
 the two following pages. 
 
 (lb. Com. in loannem, Tom. 2. p. 298-9.) Vide vero, an non tantum 
 sanctorum, qui post Christi adventum fuere, sit vox ilia: Cum Christo 
 crudfixus sum, sed aequti ad priores etiam pertineat, ne difFerre dicamus 
 sanctos, qui post Christi adventum fuere, a Moyse, et Patriarchis. Vox 
 ilia quoque: Vivo ego, non amplius ego, sed vivit in me Christus, seque 
 etiam dicatur non solum de Sanctis, qui post Christi adventum fuere, 
 
 verum etiam de his, qui antea. Tradimus enim et docemus, numquara 
 
 defuisse Sanctis spiritualem Jesu adventum, atque dispensationem. 
 
36 
 
 at no time were the advent and dispensation of Christ 
 wanting to his saints." 
 
 The same doctrine is laid down by Ambrose, Bishop of 
 Milan, where he saith, [4] that, "those who conform to 
 Abraham in faith and in good works, are said to rest in 
 his bosom." Again he saith, that "Jesus came to the snare, 
 that he might set Adam free." In still plainer language he 
 declares, that "the Holy Church, which in the beginning of 
 the world xvas belrolhed in Paradise, prefigured in the 
 deluge, announced by the law, and called by the prophets, 
 for a long time expected the coming of her beloved, the 
 redemption of men, and the glory of the gospel," &c. 
 
 Elsewhere the same author saith, [5] that " the Church 
 is bound together, when hope has gone before, and faith is 
 
 . [4] .S. ^mbrosii, In Ps. 38, Jinar. Tom. ]. p. 846. § 11. Unde et justi 
 in Abrahas sinu requiescere leguntur, quod in ejus gratia, in ejus requie, 
 in ejus placiditate requiescant, qui conformein ei induerint fidem, et 
 eamdein in bonis operibus fecerint voluntatem. 
 
 {lb. in Ps. 118, En. p. 1039, § 22.) Quot vitia, tot retiaj quot peccata, 
 tot laquei; hereditarii jam te nexus tenebant. Venlt ad laqueos Jesus, 
 ut Adam solveret; venit liberare quod perierat. 
 
 (lb. Sermo primus, p. 974, § 4.) Ita ergo et sancta Ecclksia (ivm in 
 pniMOKDiis MUNDi DKSPONSATA IN PARADiso, prffifigurata in diluvio, an- 
 nuntiata per Legem, vocata per prophetas, diu redemplionein liominum, 
 Evangelii decorem, dilecti expectasset adventum, &c. 
 
 (lb. Expos. Evang. secundum Luc. L. 3, p. 131G, § 7.) Prior Abraham 
 qui ante Moysi legem, et ante populum Judceoruni propria derelinquens, 
 et cognoscons Deum, meruit fidei testimonium; quia credidlt Deo, et re- 
 ■putalum est ei ad justitiam: — Vides igitur congregitiones gentium, et 
 sacrosanctum Ecolesias coDtum oraculo divino liuic esse primo promis- 
 sum. Et ideo is auctor generis debuit design'ari, qui instaurandae Eccle- 
 sice sponsionem primus emeruit. 
 
 [5.] (lb. Tom. 2, p. 220, § 53, Dc Virg.) Cum spes prsEcesserit, fides 
 fundata fuerit, ordinatur caritas, Ecclesia copulatur. 
 
 (lb. De Inc. Dam. Sacrum. C. v. § 34, p. 7] 1 .) Fides ergo est Ecclesioe 
 fundamentum: non enim de carne Petri, sed de fide dictum est, quia 
 porta3 mortis ei non praevalebunt: sed confessio vicit infernum. 
 
 (lb. de obit. Tlicod. Oral. § 8, »& 9, p. 1200.) Quid enim est fides, nisi 
 rerum earum, quse sperantur, substantia? Ergo si substantia eoruni 
 qute sperantur, fides est; quanto magis eorum quas videntur? Bona 
 
37 
 
 established, and charity is ordained. Faith is the founda- 
 tion of the Church; for it was not of the flesh but of the 
 faith of Peter, that it was said: 'The gates of hell shall not 
 prevail against it:' the confession of faith overcame hell." 
 And again, saith he, "that faith is good, of which it is 
 written, 'The just shall live by faith.' Our fathers Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob, gave their testimony in this warfare 
 of faith, and therefore they have left to us the inheritance 
 of faith." 
 
 Jerome presents another view of the extent to which 
 the word Church was properly used, in his commentary 
 on St. Paul's epistle to the Galatians. [6] " The apostle ad- 
 dresses," saith he, " the Churches of Galatia, and thus it 
 is to be observed that here only he writes not to the 
 Church of a single city, but to the Churches of a whole 
 province, and he calls them Churches, which afterwards 
 he reproves as depraved by error. From which we may 
 learn, that the word Church has a twofold meaning; that 
 which has neither spot nor wrinkle, and is truly the body 
 of Christ, and that which is gathered in the name of Christ, 
 but without full and perfect virtues." 
 
 From the great Augustin, however, on this, as on most 
 other subjects, we may obtain the most distinct and accu- 
 rate ideas. Thus in one place he saith, [7] " the Church was 
 
 fides, de qua scriptum est; Justus autem ex fide vivit. — § 9, Quoniara in 
 hac fidei militia testimonium consequuti sunt seniores nostri Abraham, 
 Isaac et Jacob. Et ideo hereditatem nobis fidei reiiquerunt, 
 
 [6] (S. Hieron. Com. in Epist. ad Gal. C. 1, Tom. 4, L. ix. p. 124.) 
 Quod autem ait: Ecclesiis Galatise, et hoc notandum, quia hie tantum 
 generaliter non ad unam Ecclesiam unius urbis, sed ad totius provinciae 
 scribat Ecclesias, et Ecclesias vocet, quas postea errore arguat deprava- 
 tas. Ex quo noscendum dupliciter Ecclesiam posse dici, et earn quae non 
 habet maculam aut rugam, et vere corpus Christi sit, et earn quce in 
 Christi nomine absque plenis perfectisque virtutibus congregetur. 
 
 [7] {S. ^ugustini, In Ps. 128, Enar. § 2. Tom. 4, p. 1083.) Olim est 
 Ecclesia: ex quo vocantur sancti, est Ecclesia in terra. Aliquando in 
 solo Abel Ecclesia erat, et expugnatus est a fratre malo et perdito Cain. 
 
38 
 
 in old time; for that in which the saints are called, is the 
 Church in the earth. At one period the Church was in 
 Abel alone, and he was assaulted by his reprobate brother 
 Cain. Sometimes the Church was in Enoch alone, and he 
 was translated from among the wicked. Sometimes the 
 Church was only in the house of Noah, and he suffered 
 from all those who perished in the deluge, and the ark 
 alone floated on the waves, and came forth on dry ground. 
 Sometimes the Church was in Abraham alone, and we 
 know how much he suffered from the wicked. The 
 Church was in his nephew Lot, and in his house in Sodom, 
 and he suffered the iniquities and perverseness of the 
 Sodomites, until God delivered him from the midst of 
 them. The Church began to be among the people of 
 Israel, and suffered from Pharaoh and the Egyptians. A 
 number of holy men began to be in the Church herself, 
 that is, in the people of Israel, and Moses and the other 
 saints suffered from the wicked Jews. Therefore let not 
 the Church be surprised, nor let any one who wishes to 
 be a good member of the Church be surprised, when he 
 hears his mother the Church saying to him, Wonder not at 
 this, my son, for ihey have often fought against me from my 
 youth." 
 
 Again, saith the same distinguished father: [8] " For who 
 
 Aliquando in solo Enoch Ecclesiaerat, et translatiis est ab iniquis. Ali- 
 quando in sola domo Noe Ecclesia erat, et pertulit omnes qui diluvio 
 perierunt, et sola area natavit in fluctibus, et evasit ad siccuni. Ali- 
 quando in solo Abraham Ecclesia erat, et quanta pertulit ab iniquis, no- 
 vimus. In solo filio fratris ejus Lot, et in dorao ejus in Sodomis Ecclesia 
 erat, et pertulit Sodomorum iniquitates et perversitates, quo usque Deus 
 eum de medio ipsorum liberavit. Ccepit esse et in populo Israel Ecclesia, 
 pertulit Pharaoneni et ^^gyptios. Cocpit et in ipsa Ecclesia, id est, in 
 populo Israel, numerus esse sanctorum; Moyses et ceteri sancti pertu- 
 leruntiniquos Judteos populum Israel.— Ideo ne miraretur modo Ecclesia, 
 vel ne quisquam miraretur in Ecclesia, volens esse membrum bonum 
 Ecclesice, audiat et ipsam Ecclesiani matrem suam dicentem sibi: Noli 
 mirari ad ista, fili; Sxpe expugnaverunt me a juvenCute mea. 
 
 [8] {lb. in Psal. 50, p. 352; § 17.) Quls enim sine illo (so, Christo) 
 
39 
 
 can be healed without Christ? Since before he was born 
 of Mary, in the beginning was the Word, and the Word 
 was with God, and the Word was God: and thus the dis- 
 pensation in which he was to take our flesh upon him, was 
 beheved as future, just as we believe it as past. The periods 
 are changed, but nol tliefailh.'^ 
 
 Elsewhere Augustin saith: [9] " Consider that the whole 
 Church is in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, yea the whole seed 
 of Israel ; not only that which is according to the flesh, but 
 according to the faith. For the apostle, speaking to the 
 gentiles, saith. If ye are of Christ, then are ye the seed of 
 Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. Therefore 
 we are all blessed in the God of Abraham and Isaac and 
 Jacob. Truly he blessed a certain tree, and made it an 
 olive, as saith the apostle, namely, Those holy Patriarchs, 
 from whom flourished the people of God; but from thence 
 the proud branches were broken off, that is, the impious 
 and blaspheming people of the Jews. Nevertheless the 
 good and useful branches remained, for from them are the 
 
 sanari potuitr Quia et anteqnam de Maria nasceretur, in principio 
 erat Verburn, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum: et ita a 
 Sanctis patribus dispensatio suscepta; carnis futura credebatur, sicut a 
 nobis facta creditur. Tempora variata sunt, non fides." See, on the 
 same subject, page 610 of same vol. § 2. 
 
 [9] (lb. Ills. § 7. Enar. in Psal. 134.) In Abraham, et Isaac et Jacob 
 totam Ecciesiam ejus cogitate, omne semen Israel cogitate j omnem 
 autem semen Israel, non solum quod est ex came, sed etiam quod est ex 
 fide. Apostolus enim Gentibus loquebatur, quibus dicebat. Si ergo 
 vos Christi, ergo semen Abrahae estis, secundum promissionem 
 haeredes. Benedicimur ergo omnes in Deo Abraham et Isaac et 
 Jacob. Arborem quidem benedixit quamdam, eamque olivam creavit, 
 sicut dixit Apostolus, ipsos Patriarchas sanctos, unde effloruit populus 
 Dei; sed haec arbor olivce putata est, non amputata, et inde superbi 
 rami fracta sunt: ipse est blasphemus et impius populus Judseorum. 
 Manserunt tamen rami boni et utiles; nam inde apostoli, et ciim ibi 
 rami utiles relicti essent, per Dei misericordiam insertus est et oleaster 
 Gentium, &c. Hasc una arbor est perlinens ad Abraham et Isaac et 
 Jacob, &c. 
 
40 
 
 apostles. And along with them, by the mercy of God, the 
 wild olive of the gentiles was inserted. Therefore this one 
 tree belongs to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." 
 
 In another place he uses this language: [10] "Understand 
 the Church, brethren, as not being in those alone who began 
 to be saints after the advent and birth of our Lord, but all 
 who were holy belong to the same Church. For our fa- 
 ther Abraham belongs also to us, although he lived before 
 Christ was born of the virgin." 
 
 Copious as these extracts from this admirable writer are, 
 I cannot refuse myself the pleasure of adding one passage 
 more, [11] "Certainly," saith Augustin, "the saying is 
 manifest that we must be in the Church within and with- 
 out, and it is to be understood as respects the heart, and not 
 the body; wherefore all who in heart are in the Church, are 
 saved in the unity of the ark by the same water, by which 
 all who in heart are without, whether they are bodily without 
 or not, shall perish as the enemies of unity." 
 
 A similar idea is well expressed by the celebrated Chry- 
 sostom, where he saith: [12] "The Church is nothing else 
 but the house constructed of our souls." 
 
 I pass on to another of the fathers, Prosper, of Aquitaine, 
 who speaks of the Church as follows: [13] "This truly is to 
 
 [10] lb. Tom. 5, p. 11, F.) Ecclesiam autetn accipite, Fratres, non 
 in his solis qui post Domini adventum et nativitatem esse coeperunt 
 sancti, sed omnes quotquot fuerunt sancti, ad ipsam Ecclesiam perti- 
 nent. Non enim non ad nos pertinet pater Abraham, quia ille fuit an- 
 tequam Chrislus nasceretur de Virgine, &c. 
 
 [II] {-^ug. de Baplismo contra Donat. L. v. § 39. Tom. 9. p. 108.) 
 Certe manifestum est, id quod dicitur, in Ecclesia intus et foris, in corde, 
 non in corpore cogitandum; quandoquidem omnes, qui corde sunt intus,*" 
 in arese unitate per eandem aquam salvi fiunt, per quam omnes qui corde 
 sunt foris, sivc etiam corpore foris sint, sive non sint, tamquara unitatis 
 adversarii moriuntur. 
 
 [12] {S. Chrysostomi, Ad Ephes. C. 4, Horn. x. Tom. 4, p. 921.) Nam 
 nihil aliud est Ecclesia, quam ex nostris animabus constructa domus. 
 
 [13] (S. Prosper. Expos, in Ps. 124, 5 & 6, p. 474, A ) Quod utique de 
 tola Ecclesia intelligendum est, quse est Jerusalem, in omnium compage 
 
41 
 
 be iindei'stood of the whole Church, which is Jerusalem, 
 one house in the connexion of all the saints, and one tem- 
 ple, and one city, whose construction, the Lord being the 
 builder, rises from the beginning even to the end: without 
 whose grace nothing is solid, nothing firm, but all is vain 
 and sure to go to ruin." 
 
 Again, [14] "He speaks in these words to the Church, 
 which having arisen from the beginning of the human race, 
 was absent from no generation." 
 
 And elsewhere saith the same writer, [15] "When our 
 fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob inhabited the land of Ca- 
 naan, they were strangers there, before they should receive 
 it for a heritage. But God permitted no one to liurt them, 
 so that the protection of God seemed to say, Touch not 
 mine anointed, &c. We see, therefore, that they were al- 
 ready called anointed, although the holj^ anointing oil 
 (Chrism) was not yet in use, because they lived in that 
 faith, which was to be revealed in the last days. For 
 from the beginning, the justification of all the saints was in 
 Christ alone." 
 
 I shall next quote Leo the Great, (A. D. 450,) who is 
 clear and express upon the same doctrine. [16] " Finally," 
 
 sanctorum una domus, et unum templum, et una civitas, cujus extructio 
 ab initio usque ad finem, Domino cedificante, consurgit: sine cujus gratia 
 nihil est solidum, nihil firmum, sed vana omnia atque ruitura. 
 
 [14] {10. Expos, in Ps. 118, p. 4G1, A.) Verbis Ecclesiss loquitur, quag 
 ab initio humani generis exorta, nullis generationibus defuit. 
 
 [15] {lb. Expos, in Ps. 104, p. 393 E. &.3M A) Quando in terra 
 Chanaan habitaverunt patres Abraham, et Isaac, et Jacob, peregrini 
 erant illic, priusquam illam acciperent in hereditatem. Non enim per- 
 misit Deus ut quisquam illis noceret; ita ut ipsa protectio Dei dicere 
 videietur: J^oiite tangere Christos meos, et cetera- — Qui ideo jam tunc 
 Christi dicti sunt, cum adhuc in usu Chrisma non esset; quia et ipsi in 
 ea vivebant fide, quae erat novissimis temporibus revelanda. Ab initio 
 enim omnibus Sanctis non nisi in Christo, justificatio fuit. 
 
 [16] (S. Lconis Mag. De Vocat. am. gent. L. 11, c. x. p. 23.) Denique 
 si ad ipsa mundi exordia recurramus, inveniemus omnium sanctorum qui 
 5 
 
42 
 
 saith he, " if we recur to the very beginning of the world, 
 we shall find that the Spirit of God was the ruler of all the 
 saints who were before the deluge, on which account they 
 are called the sons of God : for so saith the apostle express- 
 ly: ' As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the 
 sons of God."^ 
 
 [17] "That first people of God," saith Leo, elsewhere, 
 " was ruled by the Spirit of God, and, by the instruction of 
 the Holy Spirit, abstained from the society and customs of 
 the accursed and reprobate," 
 
 And again saith our author, [18] "This faith, before the 
 coming of the Seed concerning whom it was said to Abra- 
 ham : ' In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,^ 
 was contained within the people of a single stock, the hope 
 of our redemption flourishing among the true Israelites.'" 
 
 But Gregory the Great is much more copious and ex- 
 press upon the subject. [19] "Truly," saith this famous 
 
 diluvium praecesserunt, Dei Spiritum fuisse rectorem, propter quod et 
 filii Dei nominati sunt, quoniam, sicut ait Apostolus; Quicumque Splrilu 
 Dei aguntur hi filii sunt Dei. 
 
 [17.] (/i. p. 24. c. xiii.) Regebatur ergo primus ille populus Dei 
 Spiritu Dei, et a maledicti hac praedamnati populi societate ac moribus per 
 eruditionem Sancti Spiritusabstinebat. 
 
 [18.] {lb. p. 25. c. xiv.) HaiC autem fides, antequam veniret hoc 
 semen, de quo Abrahae dictum est: In se/nine tuo benedicentur omnes 
 (rentes terrse; intra unius stirpis populum continebatur, vigente apud 
 veros Israelitas spe redemptionis nostrae. 
 
 [19] (S. Gregorii Mag. In Ezech. L. 11. Horn. 111. 0pp. Tom. 1. p. 
 1336, .4.) El quidem ab Abel sanguine, passio jam coepit Ecclesice, et 
 una est Ecclesia electorum praecedentium atque scquentium. 
 
 (lb. Horn. viii. p. 1391.) Sciendum nobis est, quia una est Ecclesia 
 in prredicatoribus Testamenti veteris ac novi. 
 
 {lb. in Evang. L. 1. Horn. xix. p. 1510.) Dominus — qui habet vineam, 
 universalem scilicet Ecclesiam, quag ab Abel justo usque ad ultimum 
 electum qui in fine mundi nasciturus est, quot sanctos protulit, quasi tot 
 palmites misit. 
 
 {lb. Tom. 2. Ep. Jo. Episc. Constant, p. 743.) Atque ut cuncta brevi 
 cingulo locu tionis astringam, Sancti ante Legem, Sancti sub Lege, Sancti 
 sub gratia, omnes hi perficientes corpus Domini, in membris sunt 
 Ecclesise constituti. 
 
43 
 
 Pontitf, "the suffering of the Church began from the blood 
 of Abel, and it is all one Church of the elect whether before 
 or after." " We must acknowledge that the Church is one, 
 in the preachers of both the Old and New Testaments." 
 '' The Lord — who has a vine, namely the Universal Church, 
 which is from the righteous Abel to the last of the elect 
 who shall be born in the end of the world," &.c. — "And 
 that I may conclude all with a short speech, the saints be- 
 fore the law, the saints under the law, the saints under 
 grace, all filling up the body of the Lord, are constituted 
 members of his Church." 
 
 The same idea meets us in the language of a Collect in 
 the old Romish Liturgy, [20] "Which Church, thou, (0 
 Lord) hast founded in the patriarchs, hast prepared in the 
 prophets, hast built up in the apostles." 
 
 [21 J "The house of the Lord," saith Gregory, elsewhere, 
 " is rightly understood to be his holy Church, which is said 
 to have been seated in Shiloh. For Shiloh is the place 
 where the ark of God remained. What, therefore, does 
 Shiloh in this place signify, but the tradition of the Old 
 Testament? For as it contains the ark of God, so doth the 
 Old Testament exhibit the carnal letter externally, which 
 holds spiritual knowledge shut up in its secret place. What 
 is it, therefore, that the house of the Lord is said to be 
 
 [20.] (Scholia in Lib. Sac, S. Greg. Fnpas. opp. Tom. 3, p. 605.) Quam 
 (scilicet Ecclesiam) in Patriarchis fundasti, in Prophetis praeparasti, in 
 Apostolis condidisti. 
 
 [21.] (& Greg. Papa Opp. Tom.'i. Pars Secunda, L. l,m Prim. Reg. 
 c. 1, p. 27. B.) Domus Domini Sancta Ecclesia recte intclligitur, quae 
 nimirum in Silo sitaesse perhibelur. Silo aulem locus est, in quo area 
 Dei mansisse perhibetur. Quid ergo aliud Silo isto in loco significat, 
 quam veteris Legis traditionem. Nam velut arcam Dei continet, dum 
 carnalem litteram foris exhibet,qu8e in suis secretis spiritalem scientiam 
 clausam tenet Quid est ergo, quod domus Domini in Silo sita esse per- 
 hibetur, nisi quia sancta Ecclesia in sacramento Scripturarum, velut in 
 loco fundata, cognoscitur? Jlluc Samuel adductus asseritur, illic oblatus; 
 quia prseter sanctam Ecclesiam locus non est, ubi merita virtutum cres- 
 cant, et ad culmen perfectionis veniant- 
 
44 
 
 placed in Shiloh, unless that the holy Church is known in 
 the sacraments of the Scriptures, as in its established place? 
 Thither Samuel is related to have been brought up, and 
 there offered, because there is no place besides the holy 
 Church, where the merits of the virtues grow, and come to 
 the height of perfection." 
 
 And again, saith the same author: [22] " Let us place be- 
 fore our eyes the whole human race, from the beginning 
 of the world, even to the end, namely, the whole Church, as 
 being one spouse, which received her pledges in a spiritual 
 gift by the law; but nevertheless sought the presence of 
 her bridegroom, saying: Let him kiss me with the kisses of 
 his mouth. For here the holy Church, sighing for the 
 coming of the Mediator, God and Man, for the coming of 
 her redemption, addresses her prayer to the Father, that he 
 would send the Son, and enlighten her with his presence; 
 that he might speak to her not only by the prophets, but 
 with his own mouth." 
 
 With all this corresponds the doctrine of Bernard, in the 
 ninth century, who says, [23] that "The body of Christ is 
 the universal Church as well of the Old as of the New Tes- 
 tament." 
 
 Lastly, let me close our patristical evidence with the 
 sentence of Thomas Aquinas, to prove the continuity of the 
 idea. [24] " The holy fathers," saith this master of school- 
 
 [22] {lb. super Cantica Cant. Expos, c. 1, p. 402.) Ponamus ante 
 oculos omne genus humanum ab exordio mundi usque ad finem mundi, 
 totarn videlicet Ecclesiam, unam esse sponsam qute arrhas spiritual! 
 dono per Legem perceperat: sed tamen sponsi sui praesentiam quaerebat, 
 quDB dicit; Oscuhtur me osculo oris sui. Suspirans enim sancta Ecclesia 
 pro adventu Mediatoris Dei et hominum, pro adventu Redemptionis sui, 
 ad Patrera orationem facit, ut filium dirigat,et sua iliam praesentia illustret) 
 uteidem Ecclesise non jam prophetarum, sed suo ore allocutionem, facial. 
 
 [23] (S. Bernardi, De nat. et dig. Amor. Div. c. 10, p. 275, D.) 
 Corpus Ciiristi universa est Ecclesia tam veteris quam novi Testamenti. 
 
 [24] (S. Thomx Aquin. Summa Tot. Theol. P. 3, Q. 8. £rt. 3. Con. p. 22. 
 Ad tertium dicendura, quod sancti Patres non insistebant sacramentis 
 
45 
 
 divinity, "did not regard the sacraments of tiie Law as 
 being things, so much as the images and shadows of future 
 things. But the motive which regards the image, consi- 
 dered as an image, is the same with the motive which re- 
 gards the thing. Consequently the ancient fathers, in ob- 
 serving the legal sacraments, were united to Christ by the 
 same faith and love, which unite ourselves to him. And, 
 therefore, they belonged to the same body of the Church 
 to which we belong." 
 
 The foregoing authorities, from Irenteus to Thomas 
 Aquinas, are more than sufficient to sustain the doctrine, 
 which 1 shall further enforce by the words of our Seventh 
 Article. 
 
 " The Old Testament is not contrary to the New, for 
 both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is of- 
 fered to mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator be- 
 tween God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard, 
 which feign that the old fathers did look only for transitory 
 promises." 
 
 Let us next hear the venerable Hooker, as the best re^ 
 presentative of the sense of the Church before tlie end of 
 the sixteenth century.* " This visible Church,'^ saith he, 
 "in like sort is but one, continued /rom the first beginning of 
 the world to the last end. Which company being divided 
 into two moities, the one before, the other since the comina: 
 of Christ; that part, which since the coming of Christ partly 
 hath embraced and partly shall hereafter embrace the Chrisr 
 tian religion, we term as by a more proper name, the Church 
 
 legalibus tanquam quibusdam rebus, sed siciit iniaginibus et umbris fu- 
 turorum. Idem autem est motus in imaginem, in quantum est imago, 
 et in rem. — Et ideo antiqui Patres servando legalia sacramenta, fere- 
 bantur in Christum per fidem et dilectionem eandem, qua et nos in ip- 
 sum ferimur, Et ita Patres antiqui pertinebant ad idem corpus Ecclesice 
 ad quod nos pertinemus. 
 
 * Ecc. Pol. B. 3, Ch. I. § 3, vol. I, p. 427, Keble's ed. See, also, Bar- 
 row on the Unity of the Church. (Works, vol. VI.; p. 497.) 
 
 5^ 
 
46 
 
 of Christ." Here the idea is clearly and strongly expressed, 
 two moities, but one Church. 
 
 And lastly, Archbishop Potter, in his well known and 
 ver}'- elaborate Discourse of Church Government, (Ch. I. p. 
 2,) plainly saith, that the "Jewish and Christian Churches, 
 though they differ in their outward polity, are the same in 
 substance: the Jews believed in Christ to come, and (hank 
 of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and the Christians 
 are saved by Christ already come; but both Jews and Chris- 
 tians are members of the same Church of Christ. Whence 
 St. Paul compares the Church to a tree, in which there are 
 two sorts of branches, one natural, which are the Jews; the 
 other ingrafted, which are the Christian converts from 
 Gentilism; but both of them belong to the same slock.^^ 
 
 The inference from the whole, seems to me undeniable. 
 If the Church, in its essential character^ existed before the 
 appointment of the Aaronic priesthood, then that priesthood 
 could not be of the essence, but only of the order of the 
 Church. The abandonment of that order, on a light pre- 
 text, would indeed be a grievous sin, and would surely 
 bring down its appropriate punishment. Still it would not, 
 of itself, destroy the being of the Church, nor utterly pre- 
 vent the manifestations of the divine mercy, as we see in 
 the case of Israel. In like manner, since the Church existed 
 so long before the appointment of the apostles, their mi- 
 nistry also was not of the essence but only of the order of 
 the Church. And although a wilful rebellion against their 
 authority, like that of Korah and his company against 
 Aaron, would probably have involved the utter destruction 
 of the transgressors, yet the case stands on very different 
 ground in the later ages of the Church's history; when the 
 despotism and corruption of Rome rendered a reformation 
 necessary, and the awful abuses of priestly power created a 
 natural prejudice against the whole hierarchy, which made 
 it easy for the most conscientious judgment to be led astray. 
 
*7 
 
 Under such circumstances, the unnecessary abandonment of 
 the apostolic ministry, although still a sin, would be greatly 
 mitigated in the judgment of reason as well as charity; and 
 the indulgent allowance of our merciful Redeemer might 
 well be supposed to pardon the deviation, and still bestow 
 his blessing, as he did in the far less excusable case of Is- 
 rael, desiring to cast off the government of Samuel that 
 they might have a king. And thus we are led to the pre- 
 cise conclusion of our Church, which freely allows the name 
 and character of Churches to our non-episcopal brethren, 
 while she laments their want of the apostolic ministry as a 
 grievous defect, and takes care to secure its perpetuity 
 within her own pale. 
 
 I am al most ashamed, beloved brethren, to labour so plain 
 and hitherto unquestioned a point in our system of theology. 
 But the favour which has been shown of late to the con- 
 trary doctrine, and the very serious practical consequences 
 which, in my humble judgment, are likely to result, seem 
 to have laid this necessity upon me. In proof both of the 
 contrariety and its consequences, I cannot appeal to a more 
 unexceptionable testimony than the new treatise of Mr. 
 Palmer on the Church; a work of very extraordinary merit 
 for method, ingenuity, and erudition; and therefore one to 
 which I should willingly bow, in deferential submission, if 
 it were possible for me to reconcile his argument with the 
 standard of divine truth, or the rule of Christian responsi- 
 bility. It will require some time and attention to estimate 
 the force of the objections which I am bound to advance, 
 but not more, I trust, than their importance will be found 
 to deserve. 
 
 The work of this distinguished author sets out with a 
 proposition which cannot be controverted, namely, that the 
 Church of Christ, being his body, salvation is only promised 
 to those who belong to it. He proves satisfactorily, from 
 their own standards, that this solemn truth has been pro- 
 
48 
 
 fessed not only by the primitive writers, but by all deno- 
 minations of Christians since the Reformation; and there- 
 fore, whatever secret method may be reserved in the wis- 
 dom of God for those who have never heard the gospel, It 
 is universally admitted, that, "all men to whom the gospel 
 is preached must be members of this Church, when sujfficienthj 
 proposed to them, on pain of being excluded from the favour 
 of God for ever." 
 
 The essential characteristics of this Church of Christ, are 
 next laid down. Its visibility, its unity in communion, its 
 unity in faith, the sins of heresy and schism, and the effects 
 of excommunication, are all ably and learnedly treated. 
 But I have no intention of reviewing each specific link in 
 the chain of his argument. 1 pass on, therefore, to the 
 conclusions which seem to me so hostile to correct prin- 
 ciple. 
 
 The eighth chapter of the first part is devoted to the pro- 
 position, that the apostolical succession of episcopal ordinations 
 to the ministry is essential to the Church. The twelfth chap- 
 ter and fourth section advocates the necessary result, that 
 the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Zuinglians ^'could not be con^ 
 sidered as Churches of Christ, properly speaking; though they 
 might have been called so in a general and popular way, as 
 being internally united to the Church." And the thirteenth 
 chapter, treating the position of the English Dissenters, af- 
 firms that ^'they are no part of the Church of Christ." Many 
 subordinate arguments are urged for this conclusion, but 
 the leading one is derived from the alleged principle, "that 
 separation from a Christian Church is incapable of excuse, 
 that no reason can possibly justify it, and that the society so 
 formed by such an act of separation is entirely cut off from 
 Christian unity and from the true Church of Christ." (p. 402.) 
 The same arguments are applied with the same result (p. 
 576-7) to the Presbyterians of Scotland. 
 
 On the other hand, the Church of Rome is maintained to 
 
4^ 
 
 be a branch of the true Church of Christ, in common with 
 every other Church which can trace its descent from the 
 apostles, and retains the original Christian creeds, &c. But 
 it is ingeniously insisted that in England, the Romanists 
 themselves are in the position of dissenters and schismatics, 
 because they separated from the Reformed Church of Eng- 
 land in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, (p. 305.) And in- 
 asmuch as "schismatics do not cease to be so by a mere 
 change of country, therefore the papists who went from 
 England to establish colonies in the United States of North 
 America, were schismatics when they arrived there; and 
 always remaining separated from that branch of the Catholic 
 apostolic Church which was established there, they only 
 perpetuated their schism. In fine,'^ continues our author, 
 "when America received bishops from our Churches, the 
 schismatics constituted a rival episcopacy, and so remain to 
 this day, separated from the true Church." 
 
 It is very obvious that on these principles, the Church of 
 England would seem to be entirely abandoned to the charge 
 which the Romanists have always made their chief point 
 of accusation, namely, that the Reformers committed a 
 schism by separating from what is acknowledged to be a 
 true and apostolic br^ch of the Church universal, and 
 thereby cut themselves off from the Church of Christ. But 
 from this consequence our author thinks his theory per- 
 fectly protected, by denying that the Church of England 
 separated herself from the Church of Rome in the act of 
 reformation, and by charging the separation upon Rome, as 
 well through the sentence of excommunication fulminated 
 against Elizabeth and her adherents, as through her formally 
 withdrawing the English Romanists from their union with 
 the established Church, and setting up a rival priesthood, 
 in the eleventh year of that sovereign's reign. 
 
 The practical working of these principles next demands 
 our attention, as stated in our author's own words. 
 
50 
 
 "When Roman Churches," saith he, (p. 304,) "were 
 founded in South America, Canada, the Philippines, &c., by 
 the Europeans who first colonized or subdued those coun- 
 tries, such Churches are altogether free from schism, and 
 are invested with the original rights of Catholic Churches, 
 so that no one has a right to establish rival communities among 
 them, ivith a view to oppose their authority or draw proselytes 
 from them. If in Canada, the English community united 
 to our Catholic Churches, have bishops and priests, it is 
 only as a matter of necessity, because the Church there re- 
 fuses them communion, and they are properly for the Eng- 
 lish only. The arrangement must be considered only provi- 
 sional in a certain measure, and not designed to interfere with 
 the prior claims of the Roman Churches there, within their pro- 
 per districts. The same may be observed of our clergy on 
 the continent of Europe." 
 
 Again, in answer to the objection that upon his princi- 
 ples, " it must be unlawful for any one to separate himself 
 from the Church of Rome, and become a Protestant in 
 France, Germany, &c." our author replies: " It is always 
 right to embrace the truth, and if, in consequence of main- 
 taining the truth, any one should be excommunicated by 
 those who are misled by the authority of their Church, 
 erroneously supposed infallible, he is not in schism, and 
 may lawfully consort with those icho are not themselves in 
 schism, and by whom the truth is maintained. But he 
 
 OUGHT NOT TO FORSAKE HIS ChURCH VOLUNTARILY, but 
 
 rather remain in its communion, and endeavour with pru- 
 dence and humility to edify his brethren." (p. 316.) 
 
 -'in answer to the further objection, that upon his princi- 
 ples " it is unlawful to send missionaries among the Ro- 
 man Churches, to establish any rival worship, seek for con- 
 verts among them, &c., — our author replies, (p. 317,) " The 
 rule of fraternal charity encourages different parts of the 
 Churchy to aid, if possible, in the dissemination of perfect 
 
51 
 
 Christianity among all their brethren. Therefore whatever 
 can be done by writings and conferences, managed without 
 acerbity, and wilhoul intrusion on the appointed sphere of 
 others, may be lawfully resorted to. But it is inconsis- 
 tent WITH THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF CaTHOLIC UNITY, 
 FOR ANY BRANCH OF THE CHURCH TO SEND MISSIONARIES 
 TO RAISE A RIVAL WORSHIP, AND SEEK FOR CONVERTS IN 
 THE BOSOM OF ANOTHER," 
 
 One citation more seems necessary to a full view of Mr. 
 Palmer's rule of Christian duty with respect to Rome. He 
 states very fairly the objection, that, according to his prin- 
 ciples, since "it is not necessary to institute an examination 
 into particular doctrines, but we are to be guided in a great 
 measure b}' the Church; it follows, that if an Englishman 
 were resident in France or Spain, he ought to join in com- 
 munion with the Roman Churches there; and in order to 
 do so, ought to subscribe the creed of Pius IV." &c. To 
 this our author answers, that " the law of unity requires 
 
 THAT HE SHOULD BE WILLING TO COMMUNICATE WITH 
 
 THOSE churches; but he cannot lawfully subscribe or 
 profess the creed of Pius IV., for the following reasons. 
 First, this creed is proposed to him as a heretic. It is de- 
 signed to exact from him a condemnation of his own Church, 
 and this he could not pronounce with truth. Secondly, 
 the Roman Church, in exacting the profession of this creed, 
 evidently expects an explicit profession, after examination, 
 for otherwise she would only have required a general ad- 
 hesion to all her doctrines. But this cannot be made con- 
 sistently with truth, for several of the doctrines of this 
 creed are disputed and erroneous," &c. Now Mr. Palmer 
 assigns no other reason than these two, why an Englishman 
 proposing to commune with the Church of Rome, should 
 refuse to subscribe the creed of Pius IV. If, therefore, he 
 were told, that as his own Church was not mentioned in 
 that formulary, he was under no obligation to apply the 
 
52 
 
 anathema to her, the first argument would lose its force; 
 and if he were assured that he was not required to make 
 any examination, but that a general adhesionio the doctrines 
 of that creed would perfectly satisfy the Roman priesthood, 
 the second argument would be set aside with equal facility. 
 But suppose, what undoubtedly would be the fact, in a 
 majorit}' of instances, that the priest should receive the Eng- 
 lish Protestant to communion in the most accommodating 
 spirit, and, for the sake of securing a future proselyte, or, 
 at least, of weakening the English Church by the appearance 
 of disaffection, should consent to waive the subscription of 
 the creed of Pope Pius IV. altogether. In such a case Mr. 
 Palmer's law of unity requires that the English 
 
 PROTESTANT SHOULD BE WILLING TO COMMUNE WITH THE 
 
 ROMAN CHURCHES, in Italy, Spain, or any other country 
 where they are free from schism. Our author, therefore, 
 would condemn the communing with Rome in England. 
 He would also condemn the communing with her in the 
 United States, as they were constituted before the pur- 
 chase of Louisiana. But his law of unity requires our 
 willingness to commune with Rome, (if she will excuse 
 our subscribing to the creed of Pope Pius IV.) in every 
 part of the world where that Church has had a previous and 
 regular possession. And therefore we are bound to exhibit 
 this willingness, in all those states of the Union which have 
 been formed out of tiie old province of Louisiana, as pur- 
 chased from the French under the administration of Jeffer- 
 son; in the Floridas, in the Canadas, in the Philippine Is- 
 lands, in South America, in many parts of the East Indies, 
 throughout the continent of Europe in general, in a word, 
 wherever Rome has had a prior peaceable possession: for 
 the question of communion with Rome, according to this 
 system, is made to depend, not, as hitherto, upon her re- 
 forming her dangerous and unchristian doctrines, but on 
 the ground of a legal riglit, to be determined by geogra- 
 
53 
 
 PHICAL LINES AND DATES OP SETTLEMENT! And this ig 
 
 the principle which, in the opinion of son:ie of our beloved 
 and respected brethren, deserves to be received amongst us 
 with the most absolute confidence and even fervent admi- 
 ration! 
 
 This astounding law of unity, however, is far from in- 
 cluding the whole practical results of Mr. Palmer's eccle- 
 siastical polity; since he maintains that no one has a right 
 to establish rival communities, where the Church of Rome 
 has acquired a quiet prior possession. Rival communi- 
 ties! not CHURCHES, because the Author's principles oblige 
 him to consider these communities as schismatics, and there- 
 fore '' separated from the true Church." Hence he finds him- 
 self obliged to devise an excuse for the Church of England 
 in Canada, &c. by informing us that ''the arrangement is 
 only provisional in a certain measure, and not designed to in- 
 terfere with the prior claims of the Roman Churches there, tcith- 
 in their proper districts." It is perfectly obvious that our 
 own branch of the Church stands in precisely the same at- 
 titude throughout the whole valle}^ of the Mississippi. And 
 therefore the information here given to us is a matter of 
 very serious importance, and quite unexpected, I may safely 
 say, either by the Church of England, or by ourselves. 
 
 The British Parliament will learn from this new school 
 of theology, that in legislating for the establishment and 
 maintenance of bishops and Churches throughout the Cana- 
 das, &c., they have only been making a provisional arrana-e- 
 ment; and the proviso is, that there shall be no interference 
 with the prior claims of the Roman Churches, within their 
 proper districts. But it unfortunately happens that t!ie whole 
 of these countries are the proper districts covered by the 
 prior claims of the Church of Rome. A nd I am quite at a 
 loss to conceive how the Parliament of England could ' m- 
 ier/ere' with these prior claims more effectually, than by 
 sending their bishops, and erecting Cathedrals, and sustain- 
 6 
 
54 
 
 ing missionaries in every city, and throughout the whole 
 land, for the express purpose of proclaiming the Gospel of 
 Christ in its Protestant aspect as opposed to the Church of 
 Rome. It is indeed said, in order to reconcile this mon- 
 strous incongruity, that the arrangement was properly in- 
 tended for the English only, and even of necessity, because 
 tlie Roman Churches refused them communion. But this 
 statement, to my mind, is totally incomprehensible. For 
 surely it must be manifest to any ordinary understanding, 
 that those Roman Churches would have rejoiced to extend 
 their communion to every Englishman in Canada, on the 
 easiest possible terms, sooner than have an English esta- 
 blishment planted amongst them. The difficulty was alto- 
 gether of another character. The British nation had not 
 then been asked to believe, that the law of unity required 
 an English Protestant, resident in a popish country, to de- 
 sire communion with the Church of Rome. For want of 
 proper knowledge, therefore, according to Mr. Palmer's 
 argument, the Parliament of England committed a mani- 
 fold absurdity. They passed laws for a 'provisional' ar- 
 rangement, but quite forgot the Proviso! They did the 
 very thing which most directly interfered with the 'prior 
 rights^ of the Roman Churches, without intending to in- 
 terfere with them at all! They established bishops, mis- 
 sionarieSj and Churches, in the proper districts of the Roman 
 Churches, merely on the principle of necessity, because the 
 Romish priests refused to give the communion to the resi- 
 dent English; witliout the slightest evidence either of the 
 refusal or of the nccessihj! For certain it is, that the Parlia- 
 ment itself has totally omitted the reasons which Mr. Pal- 
 m.er has ventured to assign, as their sole justification, as if 
 they were profoundly ignorant of the law of unity, which 
 would have saved them all the expense and trouble of their 
 provincial establishments. But can any one seriously 
 doubt, that in those days, they would probably have thought 
 
55 
 
 that man unworthy of the name of an English Protestant, 
 who should have talked of a law of unity, requiring him 
 to desire communion at the hands of Rome? 
 
 If the Parliament of England, however, according to 
 Mr. Palmer's argument, was thus far astray, it is perfectly 
 obvious that the Church of England was equally blame- 
 worthy. Her " Venerable Society for the Propagation 
 of the Gospel in Foreign Parts," have been violating the 
 law of unity, without the least idea of their transgression, 
 making vast efforts, and expending immense sums, in what 
 they conceived to be a work of the highest Christian duty, 
 but what — according to this new System of Theology — 
 proves to be nothing better than the establishment of schism. 
 Her bishops in the provinces where the Church of Rome 
 had prior peaceable possession, have been committing sin, in 
 the very labours and sacrifices which they ignorantly sup- 
 posed to be acceptable. They were -only thinking of re- 
 verencing the holy claims of divine truth, when they should 
 have been paying due regard to the prior rights of Roman- 
 ism. They were only striving to gather men into a pure 
 communion, when they should have sent them first, in 
 obedience to the law of unity, to ask admission to the 
 Communion of Rome. They were acting upon the old 
 doctrine, that theological truth in England must be theolo- 
 gical truth every where, when tiiey should have known the 
 legal consequence of prior possession, by which the same 
 Roman Communion which it was a duty to denounce at 
 home, it was equally a duty to seek abroad, since the grace 
 of the sacrament depended on the district in which it was 
 administered, and therefore the wrong, in England, became 
 the right, in Canada! 
 
 No wonder, truly, that our own Church has gotten h^ 
 self involved in the same difficulty, according to the max- 
 ims of this novel doctrine. We have organized dioceses, 
 appointed bishops,sent missionaries, and erected a college, in 
 
56 
 
 the very midst of those States, in which the Church of 
 Rome had peaceable prior possession, under the same pro- 
 found ignorance of Mr. Palmer's ecclesiastical system. He 
 tells us that no Romanist ought 'voluntarily to leave his 
 Church,' and, therefore, it must be wrong in us to offer ar- 
 guments intended to convert them. He further lays it 
 down in the most positive terms, that it is " Inconsistent with 
 the true principles of Catholic unity for any branch of the 
 Church to send missionaries, to raise a rival worship and seek 
 for converts in the bosom of another." So that we, too, are 
 openly and directly implicated in this species of transgres- 
 sion ; our supposed works of piety become sin, our favourite 
 good is all converted into evil; and where we hoped, that 
 through the blessing of the Almighty, we had planted true 
 Churches of Christ, in the midst of Roman corruption, we 
 are to discover that we have only organized schismatical 
 COMMUNITIES which are altogether separated from the true 
 Church of Christ. Nor is even this the whole of the mis- 
 chief which we have effected. For our author assures us, 
 as if it were an undoubted Canon of ecclesiastical polity, 
 that ' schismatics do not cease to be so by a mere change of 
 country,' and hence, the same rule which so ingeniously 
 proves the Roman schismatics of England to be still schis- 
 matics in the United States, has a far more extensive and 
 fatal influence upon the missionary work of Protestants. 
 We not only plant schismatical 'communities' in the first 
 instance, but all who belong to those communities continue 
 schismatics wherever they may go, and from generation to 
 generation ! And as, in the present condition of the world, 
 the numbers and superior advantages of Rome have neces- 
 sarily given her the priority throughout the whole mis- 
 ^nary field, it is easy to see that Mr. Palmer's system, 
 while it promises to have a useful influence against the Ro- 
 man schism in England and the United States, must cer- 
 tainly, in almost the whole world besides, annihilate our 
 own claims completely. 
 
But I am exceedingly sorry to say, that our learned and 
 ingenious auther's idea on the subject of this Roman schism, 
 (with which some of my beloved and respected brethren 
 have been so much pleased, as to re-iterate it to the exclu- 
 sion of much safer arguments,) appears to my mind nothing 
 better than a betrayal of the whole cause of the Reforma- 
 tion. Very far, indeed, should I be from suspecting Mr, 
 Palmer or his friends of the sliglitest consciousness of such 
 a result. I have no doubt that they have honestly per- 
 suaded themselves to confide in their doctrine, and that 
 many others are induced to confide in it, as the best mode 
 of defending the reformers of our mother Church. But 
 just as little do I doubt the perilous insufficiency of their 
 defence, and the imminent probability that a consistent 
 adoption of their entire system would eventually bring us 
 all under the law of unity, which, practically considered, 
 would prove to be only a more agreeable synonym for the 
 LAW OF Rome. 
 
 I should be most reluctant to make so serious an asser- 
 tion as this, if I did not believe that I could prove its truth. 
 Let me, then, proceed to show my reasons, and then, be- 
 loved brethren, if you think them insufficient, I shall sub- 
 mit to be condemned. 
 
 Our author states, very fully, the objections which the 
 Romanist makes against the English reformation: that it 
 was effected by Henry VIII. in revenge for the refusal of 
 the Pope to sanction his marriage with Anna Boleyn: that 
 it was carried by false arguments, that the pope's jurisdic- 
 tion having existed since the foundation of Christianity in 
 England, it was schismatical to remove it, and that the 
 Church of England then separated herself from the Catholic 
 Church, and from Christian unity. ^ 
 
 Now the only answer which Mr. Palmer gives to the 
 latter allegation, consists of an absolute and unqualified de- 
 nial. After a considerable display of such evidence as li§ 
 
58 
 
 thinks sufficient, he concludes as follows: "It is evident 
 tlien, that the whole separation or schism was originated 
 and effected by the Roman Pontiffs and their adherents, 
 not by the Churches among us. I repeat it," he continues, 
 "as a fact which ought never to be forgotten, that we 
 DID NOT GO OUT FROM THEM, but, as the apostle says, they 
 WENT OUT FROM US, thus bearing what is, as Bossuet well 
 observes, the invariable mark of schism and heresy in every 
 age; Non enim nos ab illis, sed illi a nobis recesserunt." 
 (Vol. I. p. 458.) 
 
 These are the emphatical words of our author, and the 
 capitals are also his own. The following inference appears 
 to my mind to be the fair and inevitable result. 
 
 If it be true that the Church of England has never sepa- 
 rated from the Church of Rome, and that the separation 
 was the work of Rome alone, it seems manifest, that so far 
 as the Church of England was concerned, she would have 
 continued in communion with Rome still, and of course would 
 reneio that communion now, if Rome would consent, as an act 
 of Christian duty, on the same principle already recom- 
 mended by our author, namely, the law of unity. 
 
 Now this, to me, is a novel and alarming proposition, 
 even when it concerns only a private member of our com- 
 munion: much more when it is asserted of the whole 
 Church. For myself, I reject it with all my heart, as to- 
 tally and positively erroneous. Mr. Palmer's evidence is 
 utterly insufficient to establish it, because it consists of no- 
 thing beyond the words of Henry VIII., and one of his bi- 
 shops, Tunstall. But it is notorious that the English refor- 
 mation was not the work of that reign. Henry lived and 
 died a complete Romanist in almost every thing, save the 
 destruction of the papal supremacy and the spoliation of the 
 monasteries. His was the task of pulling down the ram- 
 parts which guarded the citadel of superstition. The 
 cleansing and purifying the citadel itself, was reserved for 
 
59 
 
 a very different instrumentality, namely, that of the bishops 
 under the reign of his son, Edward VI., an acknowledged 
 prodigy of youthful piety and wisdom. As in the instance 
 of the famous temple of Jerusalem, David was allowed to 
 prepare the materials, but because he had been 'a man of 
 wars' the building of the sacred edifice was committed to 
 his successor Solomon, even so was it in the reformation of 
 the English Church, to be the resting place of the original 
 sanctuary. Henry's office was to prepare the ground and 
 the materials; it was Edward's part to have the fabric put 
 together. Nor was the work fully accomplished until the 
 reign of Elizabeth, when the tiiirty-nine Articles and the 
 Homilies completed the whole design, in substantial accor- 
 dance with the primitive pattern, under the paramount au- 
 thority of the Word of God. 
 
 In distinct contrariety, therefore, to Mr. Palmer's em- 
 phatic assertion, I must maintain that the Church of Eng- 
 land did separate from the Church of Rome by the act of 
 reformation: that although that separation was the work of 
 the Church of England, yet the sin and the responsibility 
 rested wholly upon the Church of Rome: that while the 
 separation was indeed consummated in defiance of the laws 
 of the papal system, it was nevertheless in conformity to 
 the higher laws of the primitive Church universal, and in 
 strict accordance with the divine law of unity declared by 
 our Lord himself; and that, by necessary consequence, no 
 act of the Church of Rome could bring our mother Church 
 or ourselves into communion with her, unless the corrup- 
 tions of her unchristian doctrines were first done away, and no 
 member of our Churches could seek to hold communion 
 with her, until she is reformed, without a virtual condemning 
 of our own reformation. 
 
 The highest evidence of the judgment of our mother 
 Church upon these points, may be found in the celebrated 
 * Apology' of Bishop Jewel. And the character of this 
 
60 
 
 document is set forth with equal truth and ability in the 
 preface, published in the third volume of 'The Standard 
 Works/ a few years ago; which, (together with the notes,) 
 are from the gifted pen of the present Bishop of the diocess 
 of Maryland. Some extracts from this admirable preface 
 may be advisable, in order to justify the importance which 
 1 cannot but attribute to the ''Apology," as furnishing con- 
 clusive testimony upon the subject in question. 
 
 "Few works," saith the learned author of this Preface, 
 "possess stronger claims to regard than that which is now 
 introduced to the American public." (sc. Bishop Jewel's 
 Apology for the Church of England.) "Apart from its 
 intrinsic merits, it comes down to us from the golden age 
 of the reformation, with the stamp of national sanction at 
 the time of its publication, and recommended by the undi- 
 vided suffrages of the learned and pious of every intervening 
 age. It is the production of an individual, it is true; but 
 that individual confessedly pre-eminent for learning and 
 eloquence in a learned age, and expressing, with mature 
 deliberation, the avowed sense of all his brethren, under 
 their revision, and with their unqualified approbation. It 
 may, therefore, justly pretend to all the consideration due 
 to the combined wisdom, learning, and piety of the Church 
 of England in one of its brightest periods — the age of the 
 compilers of the Book of Common Prayer." Elsewhere 
 the preface states that the work was published as "set forth 
 by Queen Elizabeth's authority," and appealed to as "an 
 authentic statement of the principles of the Church of Eng- 
 land, offered to Christendom by that Church as a hostage for 
 Us adherence to the common faith." In further proof of its 
 standard excellence, it is quoted as authority, in the 30th 
 canon of the English Church. 
 
 Here, then, we have a witness, in every way unexcep- 
 tionable: living at the time, appointed for the purpose, the 
 accredited representative of the whole Church of England; 
 
6t 
 
 and his work acknowledged and approved by the Church, 
 the sovereign, and the nation. I shall proceed to quote his 
 testimony, therefore, as absolute and final upon the ques- 
 tion. Whether, in the act of reformation, the Church of 
 England proclaimed herself to have separated from the 
 Church of Rome, and for what cause? 
 
 In the 13th chapter of this masterly work, under the 
 head of the "Grounds of the Reformation," (Am. ed. p. 
 229,) we read as follows: 
 
 "Verily, we for our parts, as we have said, have done 
 nothing in altering religion, upon either rashness, or arro- 
 gancy: nor nothing, but with good leisure, and great con- 
 sideration. Neither had we ever intended to do it, except 
 both the manifest and most assured Will of God, opened 
 to us in his Holy Scriptures, and the regard of our own sal- 
 vation, had even constrained us thereunto. For though we 
 have departed from that Church which these men call Catholic, 
 and by that means get us envy amongst them that want 
 skill to judge; yet is this enough for us — and it ought to 
 be enough for every wise and good man, and one that 
 maketh account of everlasting life — that we have gone from 
 that Church which hath power to err; which Christ, who 
 cannot err, told, so long before, that it should err; and 
 which we ourselves did evidently see with our eyes to have 
 gone from the old holy fathers, and from the apostles, and 
 from Christ himself, and from the primitive and Catholic 
 Church of God: and we are come, as near as we possibly 
 could, to the Church of the apostles and of the old Catholic 
 bishops and fathers — which Church, we know, was sound and 
 perfect, and asTertuUian termeth it, 'a pure virgin,' spotted 
 as then with no idolatry, nor with any foul and shameful 
 fault. 
 
 Again, (p. 186) our author, in the name of the Church 
 of England, saith, " Indeed we have renounced that Church, 
 wherein we could neither have the word of God sincerely 
 
63 
 
 taught, nor the sacraments rightly administered, nor the 
 name of God duly called upon: which Church also them- 
 selves confess to be faulty in many points; and wherein was 
 nothing able to stay any wise man, or one that hath con- 
 sideration of his own safety. To conclude, we have forsaken 
 the Church as it is now, not as it was in old times past; and 
 have so gone from it, as Daniel went out of the lion's den, 
 and the three children out of the furnace: and to say the 
 truth, we have been cast out by these men (being cursed 
 of them, as they use to say, with book, bell, and candle) 
 rather than have gone away from them of ourselves. And 
 we are come to that Church, wherein they themselves cannot 
 deny, (if they will say truly, and as they think in their 
 own conscience,) but all things be governed purely and re- 
 verently, and, as much as we possibly could, very near to 
 the order used in old times. Let them compare our Church 
 and theirs together, and they shall see, that themselves 
 have most shamefully gone from the apostles, and we most 
 justly have gone from them.'^ 
 
 Again, (p, 254) "We so have gotten ourselves away from 
 that Church which they had made a den of thieves, and 
 wherein nothing was in good frame, or once like to the 
 Church of God, even as Lot in times past got him out of 
 Sodom, or Abraham out of Chaldea, not upon a desire of 
 contention, but by the warning of God liimself: and we 
 have searched out of the Holy Bible, which we are sure 
 cannot deceive us, one sure form of religion; and have re- 
 turned again unto the primitive Church of the ancient fathers 
 and apostles." 
 
 Once more, our Author uses, towards the close of his 
 defence, (p. 255) the following just and pertinent language. 
 "Neither do we eschew concord and peace. But to have 
 peace with man, we may not be at war with God. ' The 
 name of peace is a sweet and pleasant thing,' saith Hilary; 
 < but yet beware,' saith he; 'peace is one thing, and bondage 
 
63 
 
 is another.' For if it should be so, as they seek to have it, 
 that Christ should be commanded to keep silence, that the 
 truth of the Gospel should be betrayed, that horrible errors 
 should be cloaked, that Christian men's eyes should be 
 bleared, and that they might be suffered to conspire openly 
 against God, this were notapeace, but a most ungodly cove- 
 nant of servitude. 'There is a j)eace,' said Nazianzen, 'that 
 is unprofitable: there is a discord that is profitable.' For 
 we must conditionally desire peace, so far as is lawful before 
 God and so far as we may conveniently. For otherwise 
 Christ himself brought not peace into the world, but a 
 sword. Wherefore, if the Pope will have us to be recon- 
 ciled unto him, his duty is first to be reconciled to God." 
 Now with this plain, positive and re-iterated evidence 
 before my eyes, 1 must acknowledge myself totally unable 
 to admit the assertion of Mr. Palmer, where he saith, (vol- 
 1, p. 445,) " It is obvious that the sole intention^' (sc. of the 
 Reformation,) " was to suppress the novel and usurped ju- 
 risdiction of the Roman bishop, not to separate from his com- 
 munion or from that of the Western Churches." I willingly 
 grant, indeed, that Henry VIII, may have adopted this 
 limited notion of the matter at the beginning; but we should 
 deal most unfairly by the real Reformers of our mother 
 Church, in judging their work by his intentions. Looking 
 at the whole as it stood after the reign of the persecuting 
 Mary, when the liturgy was revised, the 39 Articles adopt- 
 ed, the apology of Bishop Jewel put forth as the open and 
 authoritative statement of the Church of England — for this 
 is the form in which it has properly descended to our day — 
 there was, and there could have been no possible commu- 
 nion between that Church and the Church of Rome. It is 
 very true, as Mr. Palmer remarks, that our mother Church 
 published no anathemas against her adversary. Surely, 
 however, this affords no proof of her desire of communion, 
 since, (thank God!) she pronounced no curses against any. 
 
64 
 
 That awful assumption she left to the Pope and his Council 
 of Trent, where no less than one hundred and twenty-six 
 'of these terrible maledictions were solemnly recorded; in 
 agreement, truly, with abundance of ancient precedents, 
 but in total abandonment of the higher rule of scripture, 
 * BLESS AND CURSE NOT,' which our mothcr Church most 
 wisely resolved to follow. Nor did the primitive Church 
 set any other example, since it is certain that she pronounced 
 no anathemas except when men presumed to deny the very 
 foundations of the Christian faith, in those articles which 
 concerned the doctrine of the blessed Trinity and the Per- 
 son of our Lord and Saviour.* 
 
 * It is worthy of observation, however, that our learned author him- 
 self furnishes an unanswerable argument against his view of this im- 
 portant question; for in the account he gives of the Jansenists of Holland, 
 he tells us (vol. 1. p. 339) that " they alone seem to be out of the Com- 
 munion of the Roman Church, but they exhibit every wish to be con- 
 nected with it, and profess themselves some of its best members 
 
 They always pretend to be united with the Roman Church," saith he on 
 the next page, " duly informing the Pontiff of their elections, &c., in a 
 most fraternal manner, and occasionally addressing epistles to him; to 
 all whicli they receive no other reply than bulls of excommunication, 
 deposition, censure, &c , which they do not seem much to regard." On 
 page 320 he clearly proves that Jansenism is held by the Roman Church 
 to be a damnable heresy, and yet saith he, " notwithstanding all this, it 
 is a matter of absolute certainty that this very Jansenist heresy has, in 
 opposition to all these anathemas and condemnations, and in spite of the 
 persecution of the temporal powers, continued to exist for nearly two 
 hundred years, and what is more, that it has existed all along in the 
 very heart of the Church of Rome itself" 
 
 Now here is a fair example of a case where men, professing to be re- 
 formers in principle, and really much purer in their doctrines than the 
 Roman Church, refuse to be cast off in spite of all that she can say and 
 do to the contrary. Of such as these it is consistent to say that they 
 never separated from the Church of Rome, since even in Holland, where 
 they are actually out of her communion, they do every thing in their 
 power to show that they desire to maintain a fraternal intercourse. But 
 when has the Church of England shown this desire.' What fraternal 
 intercourse has she attempted.' What indication, however slight, has 
 ever escaped her to prove Mr. Palmer's assertion that she never intended 
 
65 
 
 In this point, therefore, as I apprehend, lies the incura- 
 ble vice of the defence, learned, elaborate, and ingenious as 
 it otherwise is, which Mr. Palmer sets forth in behalf of 
 the British Reformation. For on his principles of Catho- 
 lic unity the question immediately arises. Why talk of a 
 Reformation at all ? If the only difficulty, as he maintains, 
 consisted in the usurped jurisdiction of the Pope, why did 
 not our mother Church stop at that point, with Henry 
 VIII? Why did her Reformers attack every other corrup- 
 tion, Ihe idolatrous worship of the Virgin and the saints, 
 of relics, images, crosses; the priestly tribunal of auricular 
 confession, absolution, and penance; works of supereroga- 
 tion, pardons and indulgences; clerical celibacy, with its 
 attendant licentiousness; the doctrine of the sacraments, 
 with their perilous principle of grace ex opere operato; the 
 communion in one kind, with its correlative impieties in 
 the Sacrament of the altar; and, above all, that most dan- 
 gerous notion of reliance on the merit of man's works, 
 and his own inherent righteousness, which had superseded 
 the Scriptural and primitive justification by faith? Are 
 we supposed to have forgotten that Henry VIII. made 
 no difficulty about any of these grave subjects, on which 
 our Articles are so clear and definite?* Has IVIr. Palmer 
 
 to leave the communion of the pope? Surely it is wonderful that this 
 learned writer should not have been convinced of the contrast, thus un- 
 consciously recorded by his own pen, between those Jansenist reformers 
 who are determined to cling to Rome, and those English reformers who 
 at once resolved, in the words of Jewel, to "renounce " her. Whenever 
 he finds our Mother Church, or our own, acting like the Jansenist 
 Church of Holland, duly informing the pontiff of their elections, &c. in a 
 most fraternal maimer, and occasionally addressing epistles to him, or doing 
 any thing else which comes within the established rules for the com- 
 munion of churches, it will be time enough for him to proclaim his hy- 
 pothesis as a matter of fact. But until then, I cannot but consider it a 
 most unfounded and unjust imputation. 
 
 * I design to take up Mr. Palmer's notions of the Reformation effected 
 by Henry VIII. in my next letter. 
 7 
 
68 
 
 himself forgotten that the favourite test questions which 
 the Romanists, in the days of Queen Mary, used in order 
 to convict the Reformers of heresy, turned on these points, 
 and chiefly on the gross corruption of Transubslantialion? 
 And can he really persuade himself, that those holy men 
 who abjured the tenets of Romanism in the fires of Smith- 
 field and Oxford itself, were all the time disposed to com- 
 mune WITH Rome, without regard to any of her most 
 false and dangerous doctrines, if only the usurped jurisdic- 
 tion of the Pope over the Church of England were done 
 away ? 
 
 Utterly erroneous, therefore, — utterly ineffectual, do I 
 consider the mode of defending the Reformation which 
 has come amongst us in this novel guise; although it be, 
 indeed, worked up into a specious, and, in some respects, a 
 highly imposing system. Its central principle, the duty of 
 ecclesiastical unity, and the destructive effects of schism, 
 are stated in such a manner, as to be easily turned to the 
 service of Rome and against the Church of England. For 
 it is impossible to deny, that the whole system of Popery 
 had gained tlie ascendancy in England for centuries before 
 the Reformation, and that all the prelates of the Church 
 were bound to the Pope by the most solemn vows of 
 ecclesiastical obligation. Granting, then, that the Popedom 
 was an usurpation, as it assuredly was, yet no reflecting 
 Christian, steadfastly regarding the strife, the wars, the 
 persecutions, the martyrdoms, and the endless dissensions 
 which the Reformation necessarily brought along with it, 
 could have thought himself justified in urging such a mea- 
 sure, if the evil had been nothing worse than the jurisdic- 
 tion of the foreign pontiff". But when the eyes of the 
 Reformers were opened to the true issue between the Re- 
 ligion of God, and the Religion of man, — "when," to use 
 the language of Bishop Jewel, the state of the Church was 
 such, that "Christ must keep silence, and the truth of the 
 
67 
 
 Gospel be betra)7ed, and horrible errors be cloaked, and 
 Christian men's eyes be bleared, and a conspiracy against 
 God be openly carried on," and all this in the very name of 
 Christ himself, and under the seal of his abused authority, 
 — then was the cause of the Reformation identified with the 
 supremacy of the Scriptures and the eternal hopes of the 
 world; and the blessed instruments who were strengthened 
 to become its champions went forth to the work, under the 
 full power of the conviction that the Church of Rome was 
 the seat of Antichrist. Not that by this term they denied 
 her to be, in a certain sense, a true Church. She was apos- 
 tolic in her foundation, sound in her ancient creeds which 
 she had never cast away, and regular in the succession of 
 her ministry. Planted in the truth as the spouse of Christ 
 in the beginning, she remained his spouse still, by the old 
 covenant of her first profession. But she had become an 
 adulteress, the mother of harlots, in their esteem; and just 
 as a wife, the most devoted of friends while faithful, be- 
 comes the most dangerous of enemies when her aflfections 
 are transferred to another, so, in the judgment of those 
 glorious men, the Church of Rome was at the same time 
 the spouse of Christ by her original faith, and the worst 
 enemy of Christ by her idolatry, her man-worship, her 
 indulgences, her superstitions, her licentiousness. And 
 as no honest man who felt himself called upon to expose 
 the crimes of an adulteress, could possibly sit down with 
 her in brotherly communion at the same table, without 
 forfeiting his own character for sincerity and consistency 
 for ever, so, and much more, are we sure that the Reform- 
 ers, divinely raised up for the exposure of tlie multiplied 
 spiritual adulteries of the Church of Rome, must have re- 
 volted from the idea of remaining in communion with her, 
 as from an act of open treason against the majesty of God, 
 and the honour of their Redeemer. 
 
 The duty of unity with the Holy Catholic Church, they 
 understood most thoroughly, and they practised upon thS 
 
68 
 
 theory of that unity, as they saw it laid down by the only 
 infallible authority of Scripture. That was the principle 
 of the Church's unity which bound the body to the Head; 
 — not the visible head which had become established by 
 the successful ambition of the Popedom, but the invisible 
 Head which had declared; My kingdom is not of this world. 
 They knew well that the only unity which their Lord had 
 commanded was that of which he spake, when, addressing 
 his Father, according to the Gospel of St. John, (Ch. xvii. 
 20,) he said, "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them 
 also which shall believe on me through their word; that 
 they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in 
 thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may 
 believe that thou hast sent me." The unity here set forth 
 was unity in the blessed Trinity, unity in Christ, unity in 
 the way, the truth, and the life; in a word, the unity of a 
 living faith in the everlasting Gospel. But the Church of 
 Rome had destroyed this unity herself, by making void 
 the word of God that she might keep her own traditions; 
 and the very reason why the Reformers left their commu- 
 nion with the Pope, was because they could not otherwise 
 secure their communion with the Saviour. They acted, 
 therefore, in strict accordance with the duty of spiritual 
 unity, when they applied to their position with respect to 
 Rome, the language of Isaiah: (Hi. 11.) *^ Depart ye, depart 
 ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out 
 of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of 
 the Lord." Or the still stronger warning of the Book of 
 Revelation, (xviii. 4.) " Come out of her, my people, that 
 ye be not partakers of her sins." 
 
 Surely, then, beloved brethren, I cannot err in pro- 
 nouncing this new system of ecclesiastical polity to be 
 utterly foreign to the principles, and hostile to the spirit 
 of the English Reformation. Set the Church of Rome 
 upon the one side, and the Church of Luther, Zuinglius, 
 or Calvin upon the other, and bt our martyred Reformers 
 
69 
 
 be supposed to answer the question: On wMch side is the 
 Church of Christ which you hold to be the purest, the safest, 
 the best entitled to the name of his spouse and his bod}', 
 and with which would you prefer to east in your lot, if you 
 were compelled to choose between them? And is it pos- 
 sible for any Protestant Episcopalian to doubt what would 
 be the reply? Or imagine that the dioceses of our Mother 
 Church were now filled with the same men who shone in 
 the days of Edward VI., and embraced the stake sooner 
 than unity with Rome, in the reign of Mar)'; or with their 
 like-minded and true-hearted successors, when the eloquent 
 pen of Jeivel set forth the '' Apology for the Church of 
 England" in the time of Elizabeth; and what can we 
 suppose would be tiieir judgment on Mr. Palmer's system.? 
 How would Ihey regard his statements concerning the es- 
 sential attributes of the Church, and the laiv of unity, and 
 the provisional establishment of the English FJpiscopate in 
 Canada, and the sin of interfering with the prior rights of 
 Rome, and the duty of an English Churchman to commune 
 with her, if resident in any part of the world where she had 
 peaceably gained the first possession? But truly our Ox- 
 ford brethren have answered these questions indirectly al- 
 ready, by their frequent efibrts to disparage the work and 
 the character of the Reformers. They are too learned and 
 loo acute to suppose, that we can cordiallj' maintain the old 
 standards of English theology, in harmony with their novel 
 doctrine. I thank God, however, that the successors of the 
 Reformers, the English bishops of our own day, have given 
 no other judgment, as yet; but have faithfully preserved, 
 in conjunction with the prelates of the Irish Church, the 
 precious legacy of Gospel truth, which was dyed in tlic 
 blood of their fathers.* The same, I feel confident, is the 
 
 * It gives me pleasure to refer to the late sermons of the Bishop of 
 London, the Charges of the Bishop of Chester, Winchester, Llandaft' 
 and Salisbury, and the elaborate Cliarge of the Bishop of Ossorj. 
 
 7* 
 
70 
 
 settled sentiment amongst ourselves; for however the learn- 
 ing, the talent, and the ingenuity of our Oxford brethren, 
 have combined w^ith their personal worth and the peculiar 
 character of the age, to give their novel opinions a certain 
 influence for a season, it is impossible to reflect upon them 
 long and candidly without a perfect conviction, that they 
 belong, in their origin, to the system of Rome, and must 
 operate, so far as they are received, against the true spirit 
 of the Reformation. 
 
 But while I am thus compelled, with sorrow and regret, 
 to point out the erroneous tendencies of this novel system, 
 and to vindicate the old distinction between the essence of 
 the Church, which is its faith, and the order of the Church, 
 which includes its ministry, I beg to be distinctly under- 
 stood as intending neither to conceal nor to palliate the sin 
 OF SCHISM, of which all are guilty, to a greater or a less de- 
 gree, who needlessly originate, or knowingly defend, a de- 
 parture from the rule of apostolic unity. Such men destroy 
 the concord for which the Redeemer prayed to his Father. 
 They advocate the fearful work of dissension and strife in 
 the Church universal, which ought to be at peace within 
 itself, if only that it may conduct, with full assurance of 
 victory, the sacred warfare against a world that lieth in 
 wickedness. Therefore it can only be on grounds of the 
 most solemn importance to the integrity of the faith itself, 
 that the evils of separation can ever be justified. Such was 
 the case of the blessed Reformation, It was not the usurpa- 
 tion of the pope, nor his unlawful power of appeals and dis- 
 pensations, nor his tribute money in the shape of Peter pence, 
 and other exactions, nay, nor even his pretended right to 
 dispose of crowns and sceptres, which would, in my mind, 
 have justified the attempt to break his despotic yoke, after 
 the acquiescence of centuries had fastened it upon the con- 
 tented necks of millions. It was the corruption of the faith 
 of the gospel, by leading the Church of God to worship the 
 
71 
 
 Virgin Mary as the queen of heaven, and a mediatrix more 
 merciful than Jesus Christ; to bow down before a host of 
 inferior saints who occupied the foreground of the thoughts 
 and the confidence of Christians; to trust in the official 
 work of the priesthood, — absolution, indulgences, penances, 
 sacraments, — more than in judgment, mercy and faith; to 
 look to the priest for all spiritual knowledge, in total negli- 
 gence of the written Word of God; to exalt the Church 
 and the pope, in practical effect, above their Lord and Mas- 
 ter; to claim for them the infallibility which properly be- 
 longs to Deity alone; to bestow on human righteousness 
 the merits of the Saviour's cross and passion; to magnify a 
 false and superstitious sanctity, composed of outward acts 
 of bodily suffering, above the works of true faith ; in a word, 
 to bring down the majesty of the glorious Redeemer; and 
 place his mercies and rewards at the disposal of the saints, 
 in perfect accordance with the idea of their favourite pic- 
 tures, where Christ is set forth, surrounded by the hosts of 
 heaven, but in the form of a child in the arms of the Virgin, 
 while the deluded worshippers are taught to pray to her, 
 that she may use over him the authority of a Mother! 
 
 These, and things like these, not only justified, but loudly 
 demanded an abandonment of that corrupt Ciiurch, because 
 they poisoned the very fountains of truth, and infected 
 every rank and order in the Christian Commonwealth. It 
 was no contemptible anxiety to save their j)ence; it was no 
 miserable struggle whether the king or the pope should be 
 supreme, which enabled the reformers to bring the question 
 of the Reformation home to the consciences of the people. 
 Neither was it, amongst the divines of that age, any of the 
 paltry and puerile strifes which have since been thought 
 sufficient to authorize an open breach amongst the professed 
 followers of the Prince of peace; when a linen surplice, or 
 a prayer-book, or the name of a bishop, was made a plenary 
 justification for the awful evils of hatred amongst brethren. 
 
72 
 
 And hence, while I maintain that the essence of the Church 
 may remain amongst the worst schismatics, so long as they 
 hold the fundamental doctrines of the failh, — while I deny 
 that their schism, howev^er causeless, destroys their being 
 as a portion of the Church universal — while I consider that 
 my argument is sustained by the Scriptures; that the pri- 
 mitive Church held the same subslanlial views, (as may be 
 plainly proved, especially, by their conduct towards the 
 Donatists,) and that they are, moreover, in accordance with 
 the best school of English theology — yet God forbid that 
 I should be supposed to defend, or in anywise extenuate, 
 the sin 0/ SCHISM. For what is schism, amongst Christians, 
 holding the same general views of gospel truth, but the im- 
 mediate offspring of the evil spirit, bearing, in every fea- 
 ture, the marks of its parentage? Like Satan, schism ap- 
 pears like an angel of light. Like Satan, its favourite work 
 is to be an accuser of the brethren. Like Satan, it puffs up 
 the heart with pride and self-confidence. Like Satan, it 
 delights in rebellion against all constituted authority, and 
 sets itself in open and systematic opposition to the will of 
 the Saviour, by following strife rather than peace, discord 
 rather than union, and hatred rather than that brotherly 
 love, which should be cherished, both as a privilege and a 
 duty, towards all the children of our Father in heaven. 
 
 But however fearful and odious in itself the sin of schism 
 must appear, it is quite another question how far our non- 
 episcopal brethren are actually involved in it. For separa- 
 tion from the existing Church may be a duty, as it was in 
 the case of the Reformation; and in such case there is no 
 transgression, since it would be absurd to say that the same 
 act can be, at once, a duty and a sin. Perhaps the fairest 
 mode of dealing with the subject would be to apply to it 
 the maxim of human justice; namely, that it is the criminal 
 intention of the actor which constitutes the crime. In the 
 language of the civil law: J^on est reus, nisi mens sit rea. 
 
73 
 
 According to the motive, for example, the killing of another 
 man may be justifiable homicide, or manslaughter, or mur- 
 der. The act is the same, the motive makes the difference. 
 On the same principle, a separation from the Church may- 
 be variously characterized; and hence the following consi- 
 derations seem worthy of attention. 
 
 First, then, I conceive that we are bound, as a simple 
 matter of justice, but much more as the dictate of charity, 
 to make the largest possible allowances for the mistaken 
 judgment of our non-episcopal brethren. They receive as 
 we do, for the most part, the fundamental doctrines of the 
 faith. They agree with us in an anxious desire to follow 
 the teaching of the Bible. And if they hold unscriptural 
 and unapostolical notions about episcopacy and forms of 
 worship, we should remember that they framed their er- 
 roneous ideas under circumstances of peculiar temptation 
 and difficulty. Once roused to the necessity of contending 
 against the corruptions of the Church of Rome, it was na- 
 tural, and, indeed, unavoidable, that men of ardent tempe- 
 rament would be unable to draw the line with accuracy be- 
 tween the various principles of right and wrong, which her 
 system for so many centuries had confounded together. 
 The Pope was a bishop, and was commonly holden to be 
 Antichrist. Under him were hundreds of bishops all over 
 Europe, bitter against the Reformers, and set against the 
 truth. In England alone were any bishops found willing 
 to take part against the papacy, while every where else, 
 they were sustaining its despotism with all their power. 
 How easy then was it for the common mind to conclude, 
 that the office of bishop was part and parcel of popery? 
 How ready to believe, that where so much was evil, there 
 could be nothing good? Above all, when they discovered 
 their long hidden treasure, the Holy Scriptures, and be- 
 came accustomed to sit in judgment on the false doctrines 
 of their former teachers, how obvious is it to see, that they 
 
74 
 
 would cast aside all respect for authority, and take their 
 own interpretations for their standard, investing them, on 
 all occasions, with the majesty of revelation — that instead 
 of wisely retrenching and purifying the existing forms, 
 they would prefer the shorter and more thorough work of 
 abolishing forms altogether — that from venerating the 
 priesthood as if they were super-human, they wo^dd fall 
 into the opposite error of distrust and contempt — that from 
 a superstitious awe towards the altar, and the sanctuary, 
 and the cross, and the shrines of images or relics, they 
 vs'ould rush into the contrary extreme of light familiarity 
 and irreverence? Who that knows any thing of human 
 nature can wonder at the variety of errors that must, under 
 such circumstances, have attended the restoration of Scrip- 
 tural truth? And what humble and affectionate heart can 
 refuse the offering of praise and gratitude to the Almighty 
 Father op lights, that the main doctrines of a saving 
 faith were, notwithstanding, professed with so much clear- 
 ness among them? 
 
 But secondly, our non-episcopal brethren are entitled to 
 much tender allowance from the fact, that they did not, at 
 their first rise, separate themselves from our mother Church, 
 by any deliberate or wilful act of schismatic opposition. A 
 brief reference to the chronology of the matter will make 
 this assertion plain. Thus England has an undoubted right 
 to claim the beginning of the Reformation, through the 
 efforts of the famous Wickliff, in the latter part of the four- 
 teenth century. At that time, however, the power of 
 Rome prevailed to put down his followers, and although 
 his translation of the Bible was extensively read, and his 
 writings against the corruptions of popery were scattered 
 far and wide, (producing, amongst other fruits, the eminent 
 testimony of Huss and Jerome, the martyrs of Bohemia,) 
 yet it is certain that the first movement which took a suc- 
 cessful hold upon the public mind of Europe began A. D. 
 
75 
 
 1517, with the celebrated Luther, of Saxony. Zuinglius 
 followed A. D. 1519, in Switzerland. Olaus Petri, in 
 Sweden, Martin Reinard in Denmark, and other divines in 
 Hungary, commenced A, D. 1522. Prussia welcomed the 
 truth, the year afterwards, in the person of John Brisman; 
 and France, under the favour of Margaret, queen of Na- 
 varre, had even churches erected about the same time, for 
 the preaching of the Reformation. But at this period Eng- 
 land was opposing, instead of assisting the work of truth. 
 Henry VIII. earned the papal title of Defender of the Failh, 
 by writing a book against Luther; nor was it until 1534, 
 after the movement had been going on successfully for 
 seventeen years, that the English monarch was led to take 
 his stand against the pope's supremacy. The distinguished 
 Calvin commenced his career as a reformer about the same 
 time, and the following year beheld the publication of his 
 famous ' Institutions,' which placed him amongst the mas- 
 ter spirits of the age; when the English Church was only 
 beginning, cautiously and gradually, to prepare the way for 
 her subsequent system. 
 
 King Henry died in 1547, and at this time but little 
 progress had been made in the restoration of the spiritual 
 fabric, although the chief obstacles had been effectually 
 beaten down. The short reign of his successor terminated 
 in 1553, during whicli, indeed, the work went on with 
 vigour, and a considerable measure of success. But the 
 reign of the persecuting Mary followed, and destroyed 
 the whole; saving only the salutary and deep impression 
 which the mass of the nation received, under God, from 
 the cruelty of the Roman priests, and the glorious constancy 
 of the English martyrs. In A. D. 1558, the sun shone 
 out once more upon the Reformation, for Mary was re- 
 moved to make way for Elizabeth; and in A. D. 1559, the 
 Church of England was placed upon a solid basis, although 
 three years more elapsed, before her Articles &c. were com- 
 pleted. 
 
76 
 
 Now these dates prove, conclusively, that the reformed 
 Churches on the continent, who had not the power of re- 
 taining episcopacy, however sincerely they desired it, were 
 first in the field; and had been compelled to give a positive 
 form to their respective communities long before our Mo- 
 ther Church was in a condition to assist them. A new ge- 
 neration had risen up under the influence of these various 
 ecclesiastical systems; hundreds of thousands were interest- 
 ed and ardent in their support; cities, states, and kingdoms, 
 had incorporated them into their habits, and even into their 
 laws; and hence, when they were afterwards advocated in 
 England, we may well believe that it was not from the 
 wantonness of a schismatic spirit, so much as from a sincere 
 conviction, formed on the continent by the exiles during 
 Mary's reign, that it would improve the purity and enlarge 
 the influence of the Church of England, if her system could 
 be so modified as to differ less from the rest of the reformed. 
 Surely, separations arising under such peculiar circum- 
 stances,deservethe kindliest temper of charitable allowance. 
 They are plainly of a totally different spirit from the 
 schisms which troubled the primitive Church; for during 
 the first ages of the Christian dispensation, there was no 
 serious corruption to reform, and no apology, much less 
 necessity, for departing, in any respect, from the apostolic 
 platform. And therefore whatever the defects of our mo- 
 dern separatists may be, with respect to ministerial order 
 and worship, we should much rather, in the language of 
 Hooker, Hament than exaggerate them.'* Doubtless, if it had 
 pleased God to establish the Church of England in the first 
 place, and a set of pious and devoted bishops, with their 
 clergy and the nation to co-operate with them, had been 
 enabled to exhibit the spiritual benefits of the apostolic 
 system before any other kind of polity had become fixed, 
 we may feel reasonably assured that all the reformed would 
 have rejoiced to unite in the same sacred orders of the mi- 
 
77 
 
 nistry,and the same general mode of worship. For we have 
 the most unquestionable evidence that Luther, JVIelanclhon, 
 and Calvin, were decided friends of episcopal government 
 and a Liturgy; and therefore the unhappy position vvliich 
 their Churches assumed, and caused others to assume, in re- 
 spect to our mother Church, has every claim upon our 
 Christian compassion, as having arisen, not from any schis- 
 matic intention, but from the force of circumstances beyond 
 all human control. 
 
 It is worthy, in the third place, of our most serious 
 consideration, whether the schismatic character of those 
 Churches can be properly extended beyond the specific er- 
 rors in which they have departed from the apostolic sys- 
 tem. For it is well laid down by the eminent St. Augus- 
 tin, that those who had separated themselves from the so- 
 ciety of the Church, breaking the bands of charity, were 
 altogether separate, if they had cast aside, in all respects, the 
 ordinances of the Church. But that if they continued to 
 do some things as the Church herself did, they were 'not 
 separated in those particulars; and hence they retained their 
 place in the substance of the Church in some respects, while 
 in others they were cut off from her.* If such a kindlv 
 sentiment could be uttered in his day, when schism had 
 comparatively so little excuse or apology, how much more 
 does it become us now? For not only do the Orthodox 
 Churches of our non-episcopal brethren agree with us in the 
 
 * 5. Augustini de Baptismo contra Donatislas, Lib. I. Cap. Till. 0pp. 
 Tom. IX. p. 57, E. Sic etiam qui se ipsos a societate ctbterorum sepa- 
 rantes, caritate violata, unitatis vinculum rurapunt, si nihil faciunt 
 eorum quae in ilia societate acceperunt, in omnibus separati sunt: et ideo 
 quem sibi sociaverint, si venire ad Ecclesiam voluerit, debet omnia qua; 
 non accepit accipere. Si vero nonnulla eadem faciunt, non se in eis 
 separaverunt; et ex ea parte in texturae eompage detinentur, in cetera 
 scissi sunt. Proinde si quem sibi sociaverint, ex ea parte nectitur Ec- 
 clesisE, in qua nee illi separati sunt: et ideo si venire ad Ecclesiam vo^ 
 luerit, in eo sanatur ubi laniatus errabat, ubi vero sanus connectebatur 
 non curatur, sed agnoscitur, &c. 
 8 
 
78 
 
 genera] truths and ordinancesof the gospel, but we knowthat 
 a certain measure of fraternal association has always existed 
 amongst the members; nor is there to this hour, a single 
 act, law, or rule, either on their part or on ours, which for- 
 bids their ministry or people from sharing, as often as they 
 will, in our communion. I confess myself, therefore, by 
 no means sure, that schism, strictly speaking, can be af- 
 firmed, of the relation in which these Churches stand to us. 
 None of them have denounced us, nor have we denounced 
 them, as cut ofi" from the body of the Church Universal. 
 Our Christian fellowship has been less or more, according 
 to times and circumstances, but it has not been severed by 
 any sentence of anathema. And if the good old churchmen 
 Hall and Wilkins, who deliberated, and voted, and com- 
 muned together with the Presbyterians at the Synod of 
 Dort, were set before us on trial, although they went far- 
 ther than I should think it expedient to follow them, yet 
 I profess myself totally ignorant of any ecclesiastical right 
 or power, by which we could justly pronounce their con- 
 demnation. 
 
 Lastly, however, it seems our duty to exercise this fra- 
 ternal feeling towards our non-episcopal brethren, as the 
 only way, under the divine blessing, whereby we can ex- 
 pect to do them good. It may be said, indeed, that they 
 will not thank us for it, that their spirit towards us is hos- 
 tile and acrimonious, that they treat our claims with ridi- 
 cule and bitterness, and cannot prevail upon themselves to 
 approach their discussion without the strongest display of 
 prejudice and dislike. And much of this, alas! is but too 
 true. But surely, it affords no excuse for our unkindness, 
 or asperity, or ridicule in return. Our divine Master has 
 commanded us even to bless those that curse us,* to do good 
 
 * "Hos autem inimicos," says Augustin, (Enar. in Psal. cxxxi. § 3, 
 7, 4, p. 1101.) " Ecclesia debellat. Et quomodo debellat .' Mansuetu- 
 dine. Mansuetudine enim ipse Rex noster vicit diabolum." 
 
79 
 
 to them that hate us, to pray for them that despitefully use 
 us and persecute us, if we would indeed be the children of 
 our Father in heaven. For if we only love them that love 
 us, what reward have we? Do not even the publicans the 
 same? Elsewhere we are told that in meekness we must 
 instruct those that oppose themselves; and certain it is that 
 religious discussion, conducted without regard to those ce- 
 lestial rules, has no promise of the divine blessing, but is likely 
 to do more harm than good, by convincing our adversaries 
 that we have not the Spirit of Christ, and therefore can be 
 none of his. which of us, in these unhappy days of po- 
 lemic acrimony, can wash his hands of this too common 
 transgression against the temper of the Gospel! When 
 shall we learn to prepare ourselves for controversy, by first 
 trying the spirit which animates us, to discover whether it 
 is of God ! When shall we cast aside the sarcasm, and the 
 bitterness, and the ridicule, and the scorn; and speak and 
 write with continual prayer for the wisdom which cometh 
 from above, and under the influence of that awful declara- 
 tion, " Whosoever shall say unto his brother, Thou fool, shall 
 be in danger of hell fire." 
 
 1 mean not, by these remarks, to discourage the firm 
 maintenance of the truth, as it seems to us, on every topic 
 of religious importance; without any regard to the fear of 
 man which bringeth a snare, or the praise of man, which 
 bringeth a greater snare. We are bound to " contend ear- 
 nestly for the faith once delivered to the saints;" and being 
 harnessed by the hand of God for his warfare, we may not, 
 like the rebellious Ephraim, "turn ourselves back in the day 
 of battle." But yet our weapons must be drawn from our 
 divine Master's armory, and be suited to that Gospel which 
 is the religion of love. Especially when contending with 
 our fellow Christians, must we put a guard upon our lips 
 and upon our pen; since far better is it that we should for- 
 ever hold our peace, than publish aught, on which we can- 
 not ask His blessing. 
 
80 
 
 But it is time, my beloved brethren, that I should bring 
 this letter to a close. My next topic will call for some 
 remarks on the Eucharistic controversy, in connexion with 
 the late sermon of Rev. Dr. Pusey, and with the general 
 views of our eminent Oxford divines on the subject of 
 priestly power. In full faith that the more these subjects 
 are discussed, in a frank and affectionate temper, the more 
 we shall find ourselves united and strengthened to stand in 
 the old paths, I ask the benefit of your prayers, that I may 
 be enabled to contribute my humble share to that blessed 
 end. And may the Lord God Almighty grant us, through 
 his only Son, wisdom and grace, that we may all " folloio 
 after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith 
 one may edify another. 
 
 Your faithful brother, 
 
 And servant in Christ, 
 
 JOHN H. HOPKINS. 
 
 Burlington, Vermont, 
 January 10, 1844. 
 
THE 
 
 NOVELTIES WHICH DISTURB OUR PEACE. 
 
 A THIRD LETTER 
 
 ADDRESSED TO THE 
 
 BISHOPS, CLEEGY, AND LAITY 
 
 PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH 
 
 OF THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 BY JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OP VERMONT. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 HERMAN HOOKER,— 178, CHESTNUT STREET. 
 
 1844. 
 
.Entered according to the act of congress, in the year 1844, by Herman 
 Hooker, in the clerk's office of the district court of the eastern 
 district of Pennsylvania. 
 
THIRD LETTER, &c. 
 
 Respected and beloved Brethren: 
 
 The subject to which I have now to solicit your atten- 
 tion, involves one of the most important and warmly con- 
 tested points, in the whole circle of Christian theology; 
 viz. the doctrine of the holy Eucharist, or Sacrament of 
 the Lord's Supper. A very peculiar interest has been 
 lately given to this topic, on account of the extraordinary 
 factj'that the Rev. Dr. Pusey of Oxford has been suspended 
 by the Vice-Chancellor, for preaching a sermon on the 
 Eucharist, which was supposed to be unsound, and of dan- 
 gerous tendency. The discourse has been printed with 
 extensive notes. Its learned author maintains that it is in 
 precise accordance with the doctrine of our mother Church, 
 and some amongst our own divines have published their 
 decided approval of it. But being myself of the number 
 of those who do not approve, and believing that the views 
 presented in that discourse, though by no means identical 
 with Transubstantiation, are, nevertheless, almost equally 
 objectionable, I have found myself compelled to reckon the 
 public adoption of them amongst the '' JS'ovellies which dis- 
 turb our pence," and beg your kind and patient examination 
 of my reasons. 
 
 For the purpose of stating the question with all reasona- 
 ble clearness, I shall first mention, briefly, the principal 
 varieties of doctrine existing amongst Christian divines 
 with regard to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; next 
 9 
 
show which amongst them is the chosen doctrine of the 
 new OxforJ theology; thirdly, point out the objections to 
 it, from the Standards of our mother Church, the writing of 
 the fathers, and, above all, the Scriptures; and, fourthly, 
 explain my meaning in sa3'ing, that it is but little less open 
 to animadversion than Transubstantiation itself. 
 
 The lowest view of the Holy Eucharist, (passing over 
 the Socinians,) is that which owes its origin to Zuinglius, 
 tlie celebrated Reformer of Switzerland. He taught that 
 the consecrated Bread and Wine were merely symbols of the 
 Body and Blood of Christ, intended to be received in me- 
 morial of his death and sacrifice, but without any peculiar 
 sacramental efficacy beyond the divine grace which is ac- 
 corded to every act of pious devotion. 
 
 The opposite extreme to this is the doctrine of the Ro- 
 manists, so familiarly known by the name of Transubstantia- 
 tion. They maintain that the Bread and Wine, by virtue 
 of the priestly act of consecration, is converted into the 
 natural, real and material Body and Blood of the blessed 
 Redeemer, nothing of their former substance remaining, 
 but only the outward appearance, which they style, the 
 species. From the conversion of the substance of the ele- 
 ments into the substance of our Lord's Body and Blood, 
 they significantly derive their term Transubstantiation. 
 They further hold, that this is now the living Body of the 
 Saviour, which is inseparable from his Soul and his Divi- 
 nity, and hence the act of adoration is, of course, due to it. 
 In the service of the Roman Mass, therefore, as the lan- 
 guage is Latin, a little bell is rung to give the people notice 
 that the consecration is complete; and then the priest lifts 
 up the bread, and all bow down to it in worship, as to the 
 very person of Christ. The term Ilostia (or Host,) which 
 signifies the sacrifice, is now appropriated to it, and in those 
 countries where the papal religion prevails, and the Host is 
 carried through the streets, (either to be given to the sick, 
 
or else in procession, on the day which they call Corpits 
 Cliristi,) every one without exception is compelled to kneel 
 down as it passes; and thus the consecrated bread or wafer 
 is regarded, not as a figure or emblem, but as an actual Deity. 
 The priest, accordingly, holds in his hands, as they suppose, 
 the incarnate Creator and Redeemer. When he breaks the 
 Bread or wafer, each separate piece or even crumb, becomes 
 the whole Body, Soul and Godhead of the Saviour; and 
 when he puts the jjarticle into the mouth of the communi- 
 cants, each one receives it as being the actual, entire, and 
 glorified Humanity and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 I need not say to 5'ou, my brethren, that our- Church holds 
 this to be formal idolatry, and that sooner than acknowledge 
 it, the reformers of England welcomed the flames of mar- 
 tyrdom, 
 
 A third doctrine of the Holy Eucharist is that of the 
 Lutheran Church, which adopted the tenet of Consuhstan- 
 tialion. Their great leader I^uther maintained, that on the 
 act of Consecration, the material Flesh and Blood of the 
 blessed Redeemer become united with the bread and wine. 
 He agreed with the Romanists, therefore, in the notion of 
 a real, carnal or corporal presence of Christ in the Sacra- 
 ment; he differed from them, however, in holding that the 
 bread and wine did not become converted into the Body 
 and Blood of the Saviour, but remained as they were be- 
 fore; and hence the term consubstantiation, which was ap- 
 propriated to his doctrine. Nevertheless he discarded the 
 Romish practice of adoring the Host, and to show more 
 plainly that no worship was intended, he directed that the 
 Communicants should receive it standing. 
 
 The fourth view of the Eucharist is that which I have 
 received as the doctrine of our mother Church and of our 
 own. According to this interpretation, the elements of 
 bread and wine, by virtue of the act of Consecration, be- 
 come the holy Symbols of the Body and Blood of our cru- 
 
fied Lord, being appointed to bear this emblematic charac- 
 ter by his own express commandment, in solemn remem- 
 brance of his Cross and Passion for the redemption of 
 mankind. Thus far, we hold the same view with Zuin- 
 glius. But in the more important question of the inward 
 and spiritual grace received in the Sacrament, we go incom- 
 parably farther; believing that in the due reception of the 
 representative Body and Blood, the faithful Communicant is 
 made, by the Holy Spirit, a partaker, verily and indeed, of 
 the Body and Blood of Christ, after a heavenly and Spiri- 
 tual manner, so as to become mystically one with his Divine 
 Lord, and to strengthen the bands of that glorious incorpo- 
 ration more and more, with each repetition of the Holy 
 Communion; provided he approach with genuine repent- 
 ance, lively faith, and fervent charity, and thus ^'come holy 
 and clean to the heavenly feast, in the marriage garment re- 
 quired by God in Holy Scripture." 
 
 -This view of the sacred Eucharist, however, does not 
 satisfy our Tractarian brethren. For they contend that the 
 power of priestly consecration converts the elements, not 
 merely into the emblematic, symbolical, figurative, or re- 
 presentative Body and Blood of Christ, but into his actual 
 and real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. They do, 
 indeed, carefully refuse to define the mode of this presence, 
 so as to difier, in terms, from the Church of England, and 
 they condemn the attempt at such definition, whether it be 
 according to the tenet of Transubstanliation, or that of 
 Consubstantiation. But although they censure these doc- 
 trines, yet they seem to accord with the Romanists in many 
 important particulars, believing that the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, (after a heavenly and spiritual manner) together 
 with his soul and divinity, become present on the altar by 
 virtue of the prayer of Consecration, that tlie Redeemer is 
 there offered up by the priest as a real though unbloody 
 sacrifice, and that the Lord is received, whole and entire, 
 
(although still uncorporeally) by every faithful communi- 
 c&ni,fro7n the hands of the officiating minister. 
 
 Now it will be easily perceived that if this doctrine be 
 true, there would be no idolatry whatever in adoring the 
 consecrated elements, because the Lord Jesus Christ is 
 supposed to be actually in those elements, locally present 
 under the sacramental veils, in all respects except the material 
 or carnal one of Flesh and Blood, included in the theory of 
 Transubstantiation. It is evident, however, that this dif- 
 ference could not affect the question of worship, because it 
 was not on account of his flesh and blood that our blessed 
 Redeemer was worshipped when he was on earth, but on 
 account of his essential Deity as the co-eternal Son of God: 
 and, therefore, if the priest is able to cause that the Deity 
 of Christ be present in the elements, it would not be idola- 
 try, but true piety, to prostrate ourselves before him. As 
 manifest it must surely be, that every particle of the sacred 
 Eucharist becomes as divine, upon the Tractarian, as upon 
 the Roman theory; the same fear of awful profanation if a 
 crumb or a drop should fall, the same solemn reverence for 
 the holiness of the altar and the vessels, the same genuflex- 
 ions on approaching them, the same veneration for the 
 priesthood to which such a marvellous prerogative is given, 
 and — if the express law of the Church did not forbid it — 
 the same reservation in the consecrated Pyx, and the same 
 homage to the Corpus Christi, in public procession, would 
 consistently follow. Nor am I able to discern what there 
 would be left worth contending for, between the doctrine 
 of Rome and our own; for assuredly, after granting tliat 
 the eucharistic bread and wine contain the present Deity of 
 Christ, it would be very idle to quarrel about the question, 
 whether they were not transubstantiated into the very sub- 
 stance of his flesh and blood also. 
 
 But I proceed to the duty of showing the evidence on 
 which I rest the statement of the new Tractarian doctrine. 
 
10 
 
 And I shall commence with Mr, Palmer's Treatise on the 
 Church, quoted in my last Letter, because there is at least 
 a comparative clearness in his views, demanded by the 
 character of his learned work, which will materially aid in 
 settling the meaning of the Oxford Tracts and Rev. Dr. 
 Pusey's sermon; although in no part of these several pro- 
 ductions that I have seen, is the doctrine exhibited with 
 such perspicuity, as might save us from a close and attentive 
 examination: 
 
 Our author professes (vol. i. p. 526,) to set forth the doc- 
 trine of the Church, in the following words: 
 
 "Taking for her immovable foundation the words of 
 , Jesus Christ: 'This is my body . . . This is my blood 
 of the New Covenant;' and 'Whoso eateth my flesh and 
 drinketh my blood, hath eternal life;'" "She" (sc. the 
 Church of England, according to Mr. Palmer,) "believes, 
 that the body or flesh, and the blood of Jesus Christ, the Cre- 
 ator and Redeemer of the world, both God and man, united 
 indmsibly in one person, are verily and indeed given to, taken, 
 eaten, and received by the faithful in the Lord''s supper, under 
 the outward sign or form of bread (and wine,) which is, on 
 this account, the 'partaking or communion of the body and 
 blood of Christ.' She believes that the Eucharist is not the 
 sign of an absent body, and that those who partake of it 
 receive not merely the figure or shadow or sign of Christ's 
 body, but the reality itself. And as Christ's divine and 
 human natures are inseparably united, so she believes that 
 we receive in the Eucharist, not only the flesh and blood of 
 Christ, but Christ himself, both God and man." 
 
 "Resting on these words, 'The bread which we break, 
 is it not the communion of the body of Christ?' and again, 
 'I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine,' she 
 holds that the nature of the bread and wine continues after 
 consecration, and therefore rejects Transubstantiation, or 
 
11 
 
 'the change of the substance ' which supposes the nature 
 of bread entirely to cease by consecration." 
 
 " As a necessary consequence of the preceding truths, 
 and admonished by Christ himself, ' It is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I 
 speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life,' she 
 holds that the presence (and therefore the eating) of Christ's 
 body and blood, though true, is altogether heavenly and 
 spiritual, of a kind which is inexplicable by any carnal or 
 earthly experience or imagination: even as the Sonship of 
 the Eternal Word of God, and His incarnation, and the 
 procession of the Holy Spirit are immeasurable by human 
 understandings." 
 
 "Believing, according to the Scriptures, that Christ as- 
 cended in his natural body into heaven, and shall only come 
 from thence at the end of the world; she rejects, for this 
 reason, as well as the last, any such real presence of Christ's 
 body and blood as is ' corporeal ' or organical; that is, ac- 
 cording to the known and earthly mode of existence of a body.'' 
 
 " Resting on the divine promise, ' Whoso eateth my flesh 
 and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life,' she regards it as 
 the more pious and probable opm<on, that the wicked, and those 
 who are totally devoid of true and living faith, do not par- 
 take of the holy flesh of Christ in the Eucharist, God with- 
 drawing FROM THEM SO ' DIVINE ' A GIFT, and not per- 
 mitting his enemies to partake of it. And hence she holds, 
 that such a faith is 'the means by which the body of Christ 
 is received and eaten,' a necessary instrument in all these 
 holy ceremonies;' because it is the essential qualification 
 on our parts, without which that body is not received." 
 
 " Following the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of 
 the apostles, and supported by their authority, she believes 
 that 'the blessing,' or 'consecration' of the bread and wine 
 is not without effect, but that it operates a real change: for 
 when the sacrament is thus perfected, she regards it as so 
 
12 
 
 < divine a thing,' so 'heavenly a food,' that we must not 
 ^presume' to approach it with unprepared minds, and that 
 sinners, although they only partake of the bread and wine, 
 partake of them to their own condemnation, because they 
 impiously disregard the Lord's body, which is truly present in 
 that sacrament. Hence it is that the Church, believing firmly 
 in the real presence of the ' precious and blessed body 
 and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ,' speaks of the Eu- 
 charist, as < high and holy mysteries,' exhorts us to consider 
 the ' dignity of that holy mystery,' that ' heavenly feast,* 
 ' that holy table,' ' the banquet of that most heavenly food,' 
 even the ' King of kings' table.' " 
 
 To render our author's meaning yet more clear, he says 
 that even our (Roman) " adversaries are compelled by the 
 force of truth to clear the Church of England from the im- 
 putation of disbelieving the sublime mysteries of this holy 
 sacrament'," and he cites, in a note, the declarations of three 
 Romanists, to prove his assertion. " Milner," saith he, is 
 obliged to confess that the genuine doctrine of the Church of 
 England is that of the real presence Hornyhold, ano- 
 ther of their titular bishops, admits that the doctrine of 
 the Church of England in the Catechism expresses the real 
 and substantial presence of Christ's body and blood in the 
 sacrament, as fully as any Catholic can do ... . And Bos- 
 suet affirms that even the declaration against Transubstantia- 
 tion leaves the English at liberty to believe, that the body 
 and blood of Jesus Christ are really and substantially pre- 
 sent in the bread and in the wine, immediately after conse- 
 cration," 
 
 I turn next to the Oxford Tract, No. 10, (vol. i. p. 55.) 
 where the writer, in the person of the English ministry, 
 addresses the laity in these words: " Then you will ho- 
 nour us with a purer honour than you do now, namely, as 
 those who are intrusted with the keys of heaven and hell, 
 as the heralds of mercy, as the denouncers of wo to wicked 
 
13 
 
 men, as intrusted with the awful and mysterious gift of 
 making the bread and loine Chrisl^s body and blood, as far 
 greater than the most powerful and wealthiest of men in 
 our unseen strength and our heavenly riches." 
 
 Again, in the celebrated Tract No. 90, the ingenious au- 
 thor finds himself opposed by the language of the English 
 Prayer-Book, where the posture of kneeling in order to 
 receive the sacrament, is explained in these words: "It is 
 hereby declared, that 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. For the sacramental bread 
 and wine remain still in their very natural substance, and 
 therefore may not be adored, (for that were idolatry to be 
 abhorred of all faithful Christians;) and the natural body and 
 blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven, and riot here, it 
 being against the truth of Christ's natural body to be at one 
 time in more places than one." 
 
 In plain contrariety to this assertion, that the natural 
 body and blood of Clirist are not here, the author of the 
 Tract devotes several pages to prove that the Prayer-Book 
 meant only that the body and blood of the blessed Redeemer 
 were not present locally, but that they might be present 
 in the sacrament and at the right hand of God, at the same 
 time, notwithstanding! 
 
 I come next, however, to the discourse of Rev. Dr. 
 Pusey, in which it will be sufficiently evident that he sup- 
 poses the body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord to 
 be united to the bread and wine in the hands of the priest 
 and on the altar by virtue of the prayer of consecration. The 
 inconsistency of this, with what we have hitherto regarded 
 as the doctrine of the Church, will be shown, as I trust, 
 sufficiently, by and by. 
 
 "The Holy Eucharist," saith our author, " imparteth not 
 life only, spiritual strength and oneness with Christ, and his 
 10 
 
14 
 
 indwelling and participation of Him, but, in its degree, re- 
 mission of sins also It augments life, or death; gives 
 
 immortality to the living; to the dead it gives not life but 
 death, it is a savour of life or death, is received to salvation 
 
 or damnation The Lord, with unwearied patience, 
 
 bringeth this one truth before us in so many different forms, 
 as meaning to inculcate that life in Him is his chief gift in 
 his sacrament, and to make a reverent longing for it an in- 
 centive to our faith He answers not the strivings of 
 
 the Jews, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?' 
 Such an ' How can these things be?' he never ansvvereth; 
 and we, if we are wise, shall never ask how they can be 
 
 elements of this loorld, and yet his very Body and Blood 
 
 Such is undoubted Catholic teaching, and the most literal 
 import of Holy Scripture, and the mystery of the sacrament, 
 that the Eternal Word, who is God, hath taken to him our 
 flesh and joined it indissolubly with Himself, and so, where 
 his Flesh is, there He is, and toe receiving it, receive Him, 
 and receiving Him are joined on to Him through his Flesh to 
 the Father, and He dwelling in us, we dwell in Him, and 
 
 with Him in God He, by the truth of the sacrament, 
 
 dwelleth in us, in whom by nature, all the fulness of the 
 Godhead dwelleth, and lowest is joined on with highest, 
 earth with heaven, corruption with incorruption,man with 
 
 God And this may have been another truth, which 
 
 our Lord intended to convey to us, when he pronounced 
 the words as the form which consecrates the elements into 
 his Body and Blood, that that precious Blood is still, in con- 
 tinuance and application of his one oblation once made upon 
 the Cross, poured out for us now, conveying to our souls, 
 as being His Blood, with the other benefits of his Passion, 
 
 the remission of our sins also That which is in the cup, 
 
 St. Chrysostom paraphrases, ' is that lohich flowed from 
 his side, and of that do we partake.^ How should we ap- 
 proach his sacred side, and remain leprous still? Touching 
 with our very lips that cleansing Blood, how may we 
 
15 
 
 not, with the Ancient Church, confess, * Lo, this hath 
 touched my lips, and shall take away mine iniquities and 
 cleanse my sins." 
 
 Again, saith our author, "This is (if we may reverently 
 so speak,) the order of the mystery of the Incarnation, that 
 the Eternal Word so took our flesh into Himself, as to im- 
 part to it His own inherent life; so then we, partaking of 
 it, that life is transmitted on to us also, and not to our souls 
 only, but our bodies also, since we become flesh of His flesh, 
 and bone of His bone, and He who is wholly life is im- 
 parted to us wholly. The Life which He is, spreads 
 around, first giving its own vitality to that sinless flesh 
 which He united indissolubly with Himself, and in it en- 
 circling and vivifying our whole nature, and then through 
 that bread which is His Jlesh, finding an entrance to us indi- 
 vidually, penetrating us, soul and body and spirit, and irra- 
 diating and transforming into His own light and life." . . . 
 And elsewhere, quoting from one of the fathers, he saith^ 
 "We come to bear Christ in us. His Body and Blood being 
 diffused through our members, whence, saith St. Peter, we 
 become partakers of the divine nature." 
 
 One citation more may suffice to give a fair view of the 
 leading doctrine of this sermon. "Yet," saith Dr. Pusey, 
 "although most which is spoken belongs to Christians as 
 belonging already to the household of saints, and the family 
 of heaven, and the communion of angels, and unity with 
 God, still here, as elsewhere in the New Testament, there 
 is a subordinate and subdued notion of sin; and what wraps 
 the saint already in the third heaven, may yet uphold us 
 sinners, that the pit shut not her mouth upon us. The 
 same reality of the Divine Gift, makes it angeVs food to the 
 saint, the ransom to the sinner.'' 
 
 Now it is perfectly manifest that all this, and much more 
 in the same sermon, accords most thoroughly with the Ro- 
 mish doctrine of the Real Presence. Nor is there one 
 
word in the whole discourse of Dr. Pusey which could 
 rescue his meaning from the Roman sense, or remind the 
 hearer that there was any difference between them. To 
 demonstrate conclusively, however, the sentiments enter- 
 tained by our brethren of Oxford on this important subject, 
 I must ask your special attention to a part of Mr. Palmer's 
 learned treatise, (Vol. I. p. 508, &c.) where he expressly 
 asserts that the doctrine of the Church of England has not 
 undergone any "malerial change" from the formulary 
 established by Henry VIII., especially in the point of the 
 Real Presence. The standard which he assumes is the 
 book called 'The necessary doctrine and Erudition,' 
 set forth by the Convocation under that sovereign, A. D. 
 1543. He assures his readers, (p. 524,) that the Articles 
 as now existing, do " not condemn absolutely all change of 
 substance in any sense, but the particular change called by 
 the Romanists, 'Transubstantiation,' which supposes the 
 bread to cease to exist." And after touching upon various 
 points in which the two formularies seem to differ, he con- 
 cludes in these remarkable words: (p. 526,) "Altogether/ 
 see not that there is any great contradiction between these two 
 formularies," (sc. The Necessary Doctrine of Henry VIII., 
 and the Thirty-nine Articles,) '' in matters of doctrine. 1 
 dispute not that several of those who composed the one, 
 differed in some points from several of those who com- 
 posed the other; but their formularies are not so xoordedas to 
 evince any great or irreconcilable opposition between the public 
 and authorized faith of the Church of England in the reign of 
 Henry VIII., and in that of Elizabeth." 
 
 Here is an allegation, beloved brethren, of immense im- 
 portance, not only because it serves as a key to the reason- 
 ing of the Oxford Tract, No. 90, and to the whole strain of 
 this new theology, but because it overthrows the general 
 sense of history, and presents the entire system of our 
 Church under a different aspect. Let us, therefore, test the 
 
17 
 
 correctness of Mr. Palmer in the fairest manner, by setting 
 the doctrine of the Eucharist, as settled in the time of Henry 
 VIII., side by side with that of our present Articles, which, 
 as you know, were established in the reign of Queen Eliza- 
 beth, A. D. 1562. 
 
 Doctrine of A. D. 1543, under 
 Henry VIII. 
 
 "As touching the sacrament of 
 the Altar, We will that all Bishops 
 and Preachers shall instruct and 
 teach our people committed by us 
 into their spiritual charge, that they 
 ought and must constantly believe, 
 that under the form and figure of 
 bread and wine, which we there pre- 
 sently do see and perceive by our 
 outward senses, is verily, substan- 
 tially, and really, co7itained and com- 
 prehended, the very self-same body 
 and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ 
 which teas born of the Virgin Mary 
 and suffered upon the cross for our 
 Redemption, and that under the same 
 form andfigureof bread andwine,the 
 very selfsame body and blood of 
 Christ is corporally, really, and in the 
 very substance exhibited, distributed 
 and received of all them which receive 
 the said sacrament, and that there- 
 fore the said sacrament is to be used 
 with all due reverence and honour, 
 &c. (Burnet's History of Reforma- 
 tion, Lond. Ed. of 1825, 2 vol. p. 
 381.) 
 
 I subjoin the abstract given by 
 Bishop Burnet of the famous law of 
 the six Articles, passed A. D. 1539 
 of King Henry's reign, and not re- 
 pealed until the second year of Ed- 
 ward VI., which is more precise on 
 two points connected with our sub- 
 ject, (lb. 1 vol. p. 335.) 
 
 10* 
 
 Doctrine of the Articles, A. D. 
 1562, UNDER Elizabeth. 
 
 "The Supper of the Lord is not 
 only a sign of the love that Chris- 
 tians ought to have among them- 
 selves one to another; but rather it is 
 a sacrament of our Redemption by 
 Christ's death ; insomuch that to 
 such as rightly, worthily, and with 
 faith, receive the same, the Bread 
 which we break is a partaking of 
 the Body of Christ: and likewise 
 the Cup of Blessing is a partaking 
 of the Blood of Christ. 
 
 Transubstantiation (or the change 
 of the substance of Bread and Wine) 
 in the Supper of the Lord, cannot 
 be proved by Holy Writ; but is re- 
 pugnant to the plain words of Scrip- 
 ture, overthroweth the nature of a 
 Sacrament, and hath given occasion 
 to inaiiy superstitions. 
 
 The Body of Christ is given, taken 
 and eaten in the Supper, only after 
 an heavenly and spiritual manner. 
 And the mean whereby the Body of 
 Christ is received and eaten in the 
 Supper is faith. 
 
 The sacrament of the Lord's Sup- 
 per was not by Christ's ordinance 
 reserved, carried about, lifted up, or 
 worshipped. 
 
 Article XXIX. Of the wicked which 
 eat not the Body of Christ in the use 
 of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 The wicked, and such as be void 
 of a lively faith, although they da 
 
18 
 
 First, That in the sacrament carnally and visibly press with their 
 of the Altar, after the consecration, teeth (as saint Augustine saitli) the 
 there remains no substance of bread Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
 and loine; but under these forms, the Christ, yet in no wise are they par- 
 natural body and blood of Christ are takers of Christ: but rather to their 
 ■present. Secondly, that communion condemnation, do eat and drink the 
 in both kinds is not necessary to sal- sign or sacrament of so great a thing- 
 vation to all persons by the law of Article XXX. Of both kinds. 
 
 God, but that both the flesh and blood The cup of the Lord is not to be 
 of Christ are together in each of the denied to the Lay- people; for both 
 kinds." the parts of the Lord's sacrament, 
 
 by Christ's ordinance and com- 
 mandment, ought to be ministered 
 to all Christian men alike. 
 
 Now to any man of plain and ordinary understanding, the 
 doctrines of tliese two formularies are utterly irreconcilable. 
 It is true, indeed, that the system of Henry's day did not use 
 the term Transubstantiation, but the idea conveyed by that 
 term is as strongly and distinctly expressed as words can 
 set it forth; and 1 need not, surely, spend time in proving 
 that the doctrine does not depend upon the technical word, 
 but may be taught just as distinctly without it. Thus, 
 therefore, as I apprehend the matter, stands the contrast 
 between them. 
 
 In the first place, then, the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
 in King Henry's formulary, is defined in precise accordance 
 with the Church of Rome. The conversion of the elements 
 is so complete, that, according to this formulary, there "re- 
 mains no substance of Bread and Wine, but under these 
 forms the natural Body and Blood." ..." the very self- 
 same body and blood which was born of the Virgin Alary and 
 suffered upon the cross." 
 
 On the other hand, the Article asserts, that " Transub- 
 stantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) 
 is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the 
 nature of a sacramentj&nd has occasioned many superstitions." 
 Is there no material change of doctrine in this ? No serious 
 
19 
 
 contradiction? Mr. Palmer assures us that he does no 
 see any. 
 
 In the second place, King Henry's fornmlary asserts a 
 corporal, substantial presence of the Body and Blood of the 
 Saviour, in the strongest terms; while the Article as ex- 
 pressly asserts that " the Body of Christ is given, taken, 
 and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual 
 manner.'^ Is there no great contradiction here? Mr. 
 Palmer assures us that he does not see any. 
 
 In the third place, King Henry's formulary asserts that 
 " the Body and Blood of our Saviour are ^' corporally , really, 
 and in the very substance exhibited, distributed, fln«? received 
 
 op ALL THEM WHICH RECEIVE THE SAID SACRAMENT." 
 
 But the Article limits the reception of the Body and Blood 
 of Christ, to those who receive the sacrament rightly, wor- 
 thily and icilh faith; and again, it expressly declares, that 
 the " MEAN whereby the sacred Body is received and eaten, 
 IS FAITH," and yet again, the following article, quoting St. 
 Augustine, is devoted to the assertion of the important doc- 
 trine, that "the wicked, and they that be void of a lively 
 faith, may press with their teeth the sign or Sacrament, 
 but are in no wise partakers of Christ." Is there no ma- 
 terial difference here? Our learned and ingenious author 
 does not see any. 
 
 In the fourth place. King Henry's formulary asserts that 
 the communion of the cup is "not necessary to salvation 
 to all persons by the law of God, since the flesh and the 
 blood of Christ are together in either kind." This is the 
 well known Romish doctrine of Concomitancy, by which 
 they defended the gross abuse of taking the cup from the 
 Laity. But in plain opposition to this, our thirtieth Article 
 declares, that " the cup of the Lord is not to be denied to 
 the lay-people, for both the parts of the Lord's Sacrament, 
 by Christ'' s ordinance and commandment, ought to be minis- 
 tered to all Christian men alike." Is there no great contra- 
 
20 
 
 diction here? Mr. Palmer tells us that he does not see 
 any. 
 
 Wonderful, wonderful capacity of the human mind! 
 which thus, at times, casts us into amazement and per- 
 plexity. When that which the whole Church of England 
 supposed to be a total change of this most important doc- 
 trine — which the persecutors in the reign of Mary con- 
 ceived to be worthy of the stake — which the martyred Re- 
 formers conscientiously regarded as a difference so material, 
 a contrariety so great, that life and death should depend 
 upon the distinction, — which the foreign churches of the 
 Reformation esteemed to be a glorious victory over the old 
 superstition, which Rome (notwithstanding the occasional 
 " admissions" of her Jesuits,) has always regarded as one 
 of the surest tests by which to convict us of what she calls 
 heresy ; and which the whole body of our Church, with 
 few and trifling exceptions, conceived, until lately, to be a 
 clear and marked example of irreconcilable opposition, 
 should yet seem, to a man so gifted as Mr. Palmer, and to 
 his circle of pious, learned, and talented colleagues, to in- 
 volve no "material change," no "very great contradiction^' 
 
 Doubtless, our Tractarian brethren are perfectly sincere. 
 I have no right, and assuredly not the slightest disposition, 
 to question their candour; and their intellectual power and 
 the affluence of their theological treasury are equally rare 
 and admirable. But after all, Mr. Palmer, whose Treatise 
 on the Church may be justly regarded as their System, ap- 
 pears to me to need a most indispensable requisite for the 
 work which he has undertaken. He offers himself as a 
 guide, and evidently possesses many high qualifications for 
 the office. Nevertheless, he assures us that ' he does not see' 
 the difference which all Europe and the United States have 
 seen — which every historian has noted — which every tyro 
 in ecclesiastical affairs has professed to understand — viz. 
 the " material change" from the doctrine of the Sacraments 
 
21 
 
 in the reign of Henry VIII. to the Articles under queen 
 Elizabeth, Cranmer himself bore witness to that change, 
 by plainly professing that Ridley had opened his eyes to his 
 former error. The martyr Latimer resigned his bishopric 
 for no other reason than the passing of the law of the six 
 articles. It is surely, therefore, a serious question to those 
 who desire to take Mr. Palmer for a guide, whether any 
 other qualification can supply his singular lack of vision. 
 For my own part, I deeply regret the necessity which 
 obliges me to animadvert upon the statements of a man 
 for whose research and ability I have so high a regard. 
 But this same incapacity to see the 'great' or ' material' 
 difference between Rome and England, will present itself 
 in some other particulars, before I close. 
 
 I shall now proceed to prove that the doctrine of our 
 Oxford brethren concerning the Real Presence, is not the 
 true doctrine of our mother Church or of our own, by a few 
 plain authorities, commencing with the Homily on this 
 subject, written in the reign of Edward VI., if not by the 
 hand, yet certainly with the entire concurrence of Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer, and Bishop Ridley, his most efficient 
 colleague. 
 
 "Three things," saith this excellent Homily, "be re- 
 quisite in him which would seemly, as becometh such high 
 mysteries, resort to the Lord's table. That is, first, a right 
 and worthy estimation and understanding of this mystery. 
 Secondly, to come in a sure faith. And thirdly, to have 
 newness or pureness of life to succeed the receiving of the 
 same." 
 
 "But before all other things, this we must be sure of 
 especially, that this supper be in such wise done and 
 ministered, as our Lord and Saviour did, and commanded 
 to be done, as his holy Apostles used it, and the good fathers 
 in the primitive Church frequented it. For (as that worthy 
 man St. Ambrose saith) he is unworthy of the Lord, that 
 
5^ 
 
 otherwise doth celebrate that mystery, than it was delivered 
 by Him. Neither can he be devout, that otherwise doth 
 presume than it was given by the Author. IVe must then 
 take heed, lest, of the memory, it be made a sacrifice; lest of a 
 communion, it be made a private eating; lest, of two parts, 
 we have but one; lest, applying it for the dead, we lose the 
 
 fruit that be alive Neither need we to think that 
 
 such exact knowledge is required of every man, that he be 
 able to discuss all high points in the doctrine thereof, 
 (Matt, xxvi.,) but thus much we must be sure to hold, that 
 in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no 
 bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent; but, as the 
 Scripture saith, the table of the Lord, the Bread and Cup 
 of the Lord, the memory of Christ, the annunciation of his 
 death, yea, the communion of the Body and Blood of 
 THE Lord, in a marvellous incorporation, which by 
 the operation of the Holy Ghost (the very bond of our 
 conjunction with Christ) is, through faith, wrought in the 
 SOULS of the faithful, whereby not only their souls live 
 to eternal life, but they surely trust to win their bodies a 
 resurrection to immortality." (1 Cor. xi.) 
 
 " Now it followeth to have with this knowledge a sure and 
 constant faith, not only that the death of Christ is available 
 for the redemption of all the world, for the remission of 
 sins and reconciliation with God the Father; but also thai 
 he hath made upon his cross a full and sufficient sacri- 
 fice/or thee, a perfect cleansing of thy sins, so that thou 
 acknowledgest no other Saviour, Redeemer, Mediator, 
 Jldvocate, Intercessor, but Christ only; and that thou 
 mayest say with the Jijmstle, that he loved thee, and 
 gave himself for thee. For this is to stick fast to Christ's 
 promise made in his institution, to make Christ thine oivn, 
 and to apply his m,erits unto thyself. Herein thou 
 needest no other mail's help, no other sacrifice or obla- 
 tion, no sacrificing priest, no mass, no means established 
 
S3 
 
 hy man's invention. That faith is a necessary instrument 
 in all these holy ceremonies, we may thus assure ourselves, 
 < for that,' as St. Paul saith, ' without faith it is impossible 
 to please God.' [Heb. xi.) When a great number of Israel- 
 ites were overthrown in the wilderness, Moses, Aaron, and 
 Phineas did eat manna, and pleased God, for that they un- 
 derstood, saith St. Augustine, the visible meat spiritually. 
 [In Johan. Horn. 6.) Spiritually they hungered it, spiritu- 
 ally they tasted it, that they might be spiritually satisfied. 
 And truly as the bodily meat cannot feed the outward man, 
 unless it be let into a stomach to be digested, which is 
 healthful and sound, no more can the inward man be fed, 
 except hism,eat be received into his soul and heart, sound 
 and whole in faith. Therefore, saith Cyprian, when we 
 do these things, we need not to whet our teeth; but with 
 sincere faith we break and divide that whole bread. [De 
 coena Domini.) It is well known that the meat we seek 
 for in this supper is spiritual food, the nourishment of our 
 soul, a heavenly refection, and not earthly; a ghostly sub- 
 stance, and not carnal; so that to think that without faith 
 we may enjoy the eating and drinking thereof, or that that 
 is the fruition of it, is but to dream a gross carnal feeding, 
 basely objecting and binding ourselves to the elements and 
 creatures. Whereas, by the advice of the council of Nicene, 
 we ought to lift up our minds by faith, and leaving 
 those inferior and earthly things, there seek it, where the 
 Sun of righteousness ever shineth.^^ {CoJicil. Nic.) 
 
 "Thus we see, beloved, that resorting to this table, we 
 must pluck up all the roots of infidelity, all distrust in 
 God's promises, that we may make ourselves living mem- 
 bers of Christ's body. For the unbelievers and faithless 
 cannot feed upon that precious body. Whereas the faith- 
 ful have their life, their abiding in him, their union, and as 
 it were their incorporation with him. Wherefore let us 
 prove and try ourselves, unfeignedly, without flattering 
 
24 
 
 ourselves, whether we be plants of the fruitful olive, living 
 branches of the true vine, members indeed of Christ's 
 mystical body; whether God hath purified our hearts by 
 faith, to the sincere acknowledging of his gospel, and em- 
 bracing of his mercies in Christ Jesus; so that at this his 
 table, we receive not only the outward sacrament, hut 
 the spiritual thing also, not the figure, but the truth; 
 not the shadow only, but the body, not to death but to 
 life, not to destruction, but to salvation: which God grant 
 us through the merits of our Lord and Saviour." 
 
 Next to this excellent Homily, and also as a sure com- 
 mentary on it, I shall set down the judgment of the mar- 
 tyr Cranmer, as it is stated in substance in the first page 
 of the Preface of his Answer to Gardiner, (ed. 1551,) only 
 modernizing the orthography. 
 
 "Where I use to speak sometimes, (as the old authors 
 do) that Christ is in the Sacraments, I mean the same as 
 they did understand the matter: that is to say, not of 
 Christ's carnal presence in the outward Sacrament, but 
 sometimes of his sacramental presence, and sometimes by 
 this word sacrament I mean the whole ministration and 
 RECEIVING OP THE SACRAMENTS, either of Baptism or of 
 the Lord's Supper. And so the old writers many times 
 do say, that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the 
 Sacraments, not meaning by that manner of speech, that 
 Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the loater, bread, or 
 loine, (which be only the outward visible Sacraments) but 
 that in the due ministration of the Sacraments, according 
 to Christ's ordinance and institution, Christ and his Holy 
 Spirit be truly and indeed present by their mighty and sancti- 
 fying pou'er, virtue, and grace, in all them that worthily 
 RECEIVE the same. Morcovcr, when I say and repeat 
 many times in my book, that the body of Christ is present 
 in them that worthily receive the Sacrament, lest any man 
 should mistake my words, and think that I mean, that 
 
25 
 
 although Christ be not corporally in the outward visible 
 signs, yet he is corporally in the persons that duly re- 
 ceive them; this is to advertize the reader that I mean no 
 such thing: but my meaning is, that the force, the grace, 
 the virtue, and benefit of Christ's body that was crucified 
 for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really 
 and effectually present with all them that duly receive the 
 sacraments. But all this I understand of his spiritual pre- 
 sence, of the which he saith, / will be with you until the 
 world's end; and wheresoever tivo or three be gathered together 
 in my name, there am I in the midst of them, and he that eateth 
 my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me and I in him. 
 Nor no more truly is he corporally or really present in the due 
 ministration of the Lord's Supper, than he is in the due minis- 
 tration of Baptism.'' 
 
 I must solicit your attention, here, beloved brethren, to 
 a distinction which it is absolutely necessary to understand, 
 in order to avoid a very erroneous inference from the lan- 
 guage of our Catechism, by no means uncommon at the 
 present day. In that familiar and valuable coippend of 
 sound instruction, it is declared that a sacrament consists of 
 two parts, the outward and visible sign, and the inward and 
 spiritual grace; and this statement is afterwards applied to 
 Baptism and the Eucharist, by setting forth tiiese sacra- 
 ments in their forms and elements, and in their spiritual 
 effects respectively, when rightl}^ received; the inward part, 
 or thing signified by the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist 
 being said to be, The Body and Blood of Christ, which are 
 verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 Here it is evident that the outward and visible sign is 
 called only a part of the Sacrament, whereas it is properly 
 called the Sacrament without restriction in the Articles, 
 and is rightly so defined in the Catechism itself, where it 
 is said that a sacrament is an "outward and visible sign of 
 11 
 
26 
 
 an inward and spiritual grace," &c. In accordance with 
 this more strictly correct meaning of the term, the 2Sth 
 Article saith that "the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper 
 was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted 
 up, or worshipped:" and the 29th Article saith, that "the 
 wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although they 
 do carnally and visibly press with their teeth, (as St. Au- 
 gustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
 Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ, but 
 rather to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sis:n or 
 Sacrament of so great a thing." In both these places, espe- 
 cially the last, it is quite manifest that the word Sacrament 
 is taken as synonymous with the word Sign, (or Symbol) 
 and is applied to that kind of administration (viz. the com- 
 munion of the wicked) in which the inward and spiritual 
 grace is confessedly wanting. And this, indeed, is the 
 genuine meaning of the word, according to Patristic and 
 primitive usage, since it was the current statement of the 
 fathers that heretics and schismatics had the Sacraments, but 
 received no spiritual grace thereby. 
 
 Now the passage which I have extracted from Arch- 
 bishop Cranmer will be found especially important, because 
 it not only proves the latitude with which the word was 
 used, but also furnishes the true test for its interpretation. 
 In one sense, and that the more ancient one, it signified 
 the outward and visible Sacrament, such as the water, and the 
 bread and wine. In the other sense it signified the whole 
 ministration and receiving of the Sacrament, which included 
 the inward and spiritual grace bestowed, by the power of 
 the Lord, on the faith of the worthy receiver. In the first 
 sense, Cranmer held that Christ and the Holy Ghost were 
 not present in the Sacrament: in the second sense, he ad- 
 mitted that they ivere present to the hearts of the faithful. 
 A want of discrimination between these two modes of 
 using the word Sacrament, has led to great confusion of 
 
27 
 
 ideas amongst those who have undertaken to represent the 
 doctrines of the Church. And it is this confusion of ideas, 
 (as I would fain hope, rather than inapute a dishonest in- 
 tention to any of my respected brethren) which has in- 
 duced Dr. Pusey and his friends to claim authority from 
 Ridley, Hooker, and other eminent writers, whose senti- 
 ments, rightly understood, are directly opposed to him. 
 
 Let us next, therefore, proceed to the language of the 
 eminent Bishop Ridley, whom Cranmer professed to have 
 been his own instructer on this very subject.* The fol- 
 lowing passages, taken from his Disputation at Oxford, in 
 full assurance of his approaching martyrdom, are well 
 worthy of our confidence and veneration. 
 
 " Christ left his body and flesh," saith he,f " in mystery 
 to the faithful in the Supper, to be received after a spiritual 
 communication and by grace. J^either is the same received 
 in the Supper only, but also at other limes, by hearing the Gos- 
 pel and by faith." 
 
 " I worship Christ in the Sacrament," saith he else- 
 where, + "but not because he is included in the Sacrament; 
 like as I worship Christ also in the Scriptures, not because 
 he is really included in them. — The true Church of Christ 
 doth acknowledge a presence of Christ's body in the Lord's 
 Supper to be communicated to the godly by grace and spi- 
 ritually, as I have often showed, and by a sacramental sig- 
 nification, but not by the corporal presence of the body of 
 his flesh." 
 
 Again, saith he,§ " The Eucharist, taken for a sign or 
 symbol, is a Sacrament." 
 
 " Inasmuch as the bread and wine are sanctified and made 
 the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, they 
 have a promise of grace annexed to them; namely, of spi- 
 
 * Burnet's History of the Reformation, Vol. HI. p. 425. 
 t Fox's Acts and Monuments, Vol. VI. p. 485. 
 t lb. 492. § lb. 493. 
 
28 
 
 ritual partaking of the body of Christ to be communi- 
 cated and given, not to the bread and luine, but to them 
 which worthily do receive the Sacraments.''''* 
 
 " The Sacrament hath not grace included in it,^ but to 
 those who receive it well, it is turned to grace. After that 
 manner the water in Baptism hath grace promised, and 
 by that grace the Holy Spirit is given; not that grace is 
 included in water, but that grace cometh by water." 
 
 From this testimony of the accomplished Ridley, I turn 
 next to his fellow martyr, the excellent bishop Latimer, 
 whose doctrine accords precisely, and was by himself re- 
 peatedly identified, with the book of Archbishop Cranmer. 
 "It appeareth," saith he,| "that the sacrificing priesthood 
 is changed by God's ordinance into a preaching priesthood, 
 and the sacrificing priesthood should cease utterly, saving 
 inasmuch as all Christian men are sacrificing priests." — 
 "Christ gave not his body to be received with the mouth, § 
 but he gave the Sacrament of his body to be received with 
 the mouth ; he gave the Sacrament to the mouth, his 
 
 BODY to the MIND." 
 
 In a very faithful summary of the tedious disputations 
 between the papal commissioners and our blessed Reform- 
 ers, Fox, the martyrologist, himself a divine of no com- 
 mon ability, observes very justly, that the Romanists de^ 
 ceived themselves about the matter of the Holy Eucharist, 
 in a twofold manner. " First," saith he,]] " that they con- 
 sider not the nature of a Sacrament, which is, not to ex- 
 hibit the thing indeed which it doth represent, but to repre- 
 sent effectually one thing by another; for that is the property 
 of a Sacrament to bear a similitude of one thing by another 
 thing; of the which two things the one is represented, the 
 other indeed exhibited. Secondly, that they consider not 
 
 • Fox's Acts and Monuments, Vol. VI. p. 494. t lb. 
 
 t lb. 502. § lb. 506, j] lb. 581. 
 
29 
 
 the operation of faith, which, penetrating up to heaven, 
 there apprehencleth the real body of Christ no less, yea, 
 and more effectually, than if he were here bodily present 
 to the eye." "Now the papists," continues he, on the 
 following page,* wheresoever they speak or read of the 
 eating of Christ's body, conceive no other eating of him 
 but only of that in the Sacrament, and no otherwise ; 
 which is false, and the cause of great error, in that they see 
 not, neither do consider, hoio Christ is eaten, not only with 
 the symbols or Sacrament, but also without the Sacrament: 
 which eating standeth inwardly by faith, and pertaineth to 
 the spirit of man, in apprehending or digesting with the 
 stomach of faith those things which, by the outward Sacra- 
 ment, are represented. And of this spiritual eating of 
 Christ speaketh the sixth Chapter of St. John." 
 
 The same writer has constructed a Table, which seerns 
 to me well adapted to give clear and distinct ideas of the 
 true doctrine of our Church as held by the Reformers on 
 this highly important subject. With this view, beloved 
 brethren, I present it in full, and I beg leave to recommend 
 it as worthy of careful and repeated perusal. It is as fol- 
 lows: viz. 
 
 " The body of Christ is, really, spiritually, and sacra- 
 mentally, present, eaten, and united.''' 
 
 First. 
 The Body of Christ is really present. 
 " So was the body of Christ once present here on earth 
 with us, and shall be again at the day of his comino-. 
 Otherwise it is not here really present, but only to our 
 faith, really, that is to say truly, apprehending his body in 
 heaven, and here feeding upon the same in earth. And 
 thus is he present only to good men, whether with the 
 symbols or without the symbols. 
 
 * Fox's Acts and Monuments, Vol. VI. p. 528. 
 11^ 
 
30 
 
 The Body of Christ is really eaten. 
 "Really, not with our bodily mouth, but with the mouth 
 of faith; apprehending the real body of Christ, who suf- 
 fered for us, and worketh to us nourishment of life and 
 grace. 
 
 The Body of Christ is really united. 
 '' Really and corporally the flesh of Christ is united to 
 us, by his incarnation, and the partaking of our flesh. 
 
 Secondly. 
 The Body of Christ is Spiritually present. 
 " Spiritually we say his body is present when either the 
 body of Christ is present to our spirit and faith; or when 
 the virtue of his body is present, and redoundeth to our 
 bodies and spirits by grace. And this differeth from the 
 other real presence above in this: that the one hath re- 
 spect to the body apprehended, the other to the thing that 
 doth apprehend. 
 
 The Body of Christ is Spiritually eaten. 
 
 " Spiritually we eat the body and blood of Christ, not 
 with mouth and teeth, but with faith only, whensoever we 
 believe on the passion of Christ, being the true Bread of 
 Life, and the only food of man's soul. And thus is he 
 eaten, but only of good men, as well besides the Sacrament 
 as with the Sacrament; and of this eating speaketh the sixth 
 chapter of John. And so was he eaten in the time also of 
 the old Law. 
 
 The Body of Christ is spiritually united. 
 " Spiritually he is united to us, when the properties of 
 his holy body, as its innocence, power, glorification, eter- 
 nity, beatitude, &c., are united to our bodies and spirits, 
 which cometh by our faith in him, according to his words 
 in John xvii. ' lin them, and thou in me^ &c. And this 
 
31 
 
 uniting, standing by grace, cometh, as well besides the Sa- 
 crament, as with the sacrament; only to the godly. 
 
 Thirdly. 
 
 The Body of Christ is sacramentally present. 
 
 " Sacramentally his body is present, by representation of 
 another thing which beareth a similitude or memorial of 
 his body; and his sacramental presence, pertaining to the 
 outward mouth of the receiver, is common as well to the 
 good as to the evil. And this sacramental presence ought 
 not to be alone, but to be joined with the spiritual pre- 
 sence, &c. 
 
 The Body of Christ is sacramentally eaten. 
 
 " Sacramentally we eat with our bodily mouth, the mys- 
 teries of bread and wine, not being the real body indeed, 
 but representing the real body indeed; id est, '^nonpanem 
 Doniinum, sed panem Domini.^' And this eating, if it 
 be not joined with the other two above, profiteth nothing; 
 and so, is eaten only of the evil. If it be adjoined, then is 
 it eaten of the good, and then it profiteth. 
 
 The Body of Christ is sacramentally united. 
 
 " The sacrament, as it is the real body itself of the Lord, 
 so it causeth not itself any real conjunction betwixt Christ's 
 real body and ours, but representeth the same, declaring 
 that as the material bread, digested in our bodies, is united 
 to the same, so the body of Christ, being received by faith, 
 changeth our spirits and bodies to the nature of him. 
 
 To the sacramental presence, and eating of Christ, per- 
 tain two things chiefly to be considered: Mutation and 
 Operation. 
 
 Mutation. 
 
 First, Mutation Substantial. 
 "Whereby one substance is changed into another: as 
 water into wine; the rod of Aaron into a serpent, &c. And 
 
33 
 
 this "mutation," which they call "transubstantiation," be- 
 longeth nothing to the Sacrament: for then, accidents of 
 bread should also be changed, as the accidents of Aaron's 
 rod were changed, with the substance, into a serpent. 
 Secondly, Mutation accidental. 
 " Of this " mutation " speaketh the doctors, meaning not 
 the change of substance, but of accidents, which standeth 
 in three things; in the use, in name, and in honour' 
 
 First, in Use. 
 " As when the use of common bread is changed into a 
 mystical and heavenly use. 
 
 Secondly, in Jfame. 
 " When the name of bread and wine passeth away, and is 
 changed into the name of the body and blood of the Lord, 
 and so, is the name changed. 
 
 Thirdly, in Honour. 
 "As when the bread and wine which before were received 
 not with honour, are now received with honour and reve- 
 rence: not that we honour the bread and wine, but the 
 things represented in them, as, in a king's letter and seal, 
 we honour the king, and not the seal. 
 
 Operation. 
 First, Operation in the Sacraments. 
 "The operation of the word in the Sacraments is this: 
 to change, not the substance of the Sacrament, but that the 
 substance thereof remaining, may be made the body of 
 Christ, that is the Sacrament of the body of Christ. And 
 this operation cannot come but by the Holy Ghost. 
 Whereof Augustine saith : " Pa7iis non sanctijicatur in sacra- 
 mentum tarn magnum, nisi operanle invisibililer Spiritu Dei." 
 
 Secondly, Operation of the Sacraments. 
 " The operation of the Sacraments is thought by the pa- 
 pists to give grace, which, in very deed, give not grace of 
 
83 
 
 their own work; but only serve as instruments and means 
 of that grace and life which cometh from God. So St. 
 Peter calleth it " Verbum vitse," the Word of life; and St. 
 Paul calleth the Gospel of Christ, " the power of God unto 
 salvation." Not that they themselves give life and salva- 
 tion, but that they are certain means and instruments of 
 that life and salvation which cometh to us from God. 
 
 To the spiritual presence and manducation of Christ, 
 principally belongeth the sixth chapter of St. John; albeit 
 two sorts of bread are there specified, namely, bodily or sa- 
 cramental, and spiritual bread. 
 
 First, Bodily or Sacramental, of the Old Testament, and 
 also of the New Testament. 
 "The bodily or sacramental bread of the Old Testament 
 signifying Christ to come, as manna, the rock, &c.,and the 
 bodily or sacramental bread of the J^ew Testament, signi- 
 fying Christ already come, as the holy Eucharist. 
 
 Secondly, Spiritual Bread. 
 
 " Spiritual bread, which is Christ himself, born for us and 
 given for the life of the world. John vi. " My flesh is meat 
 indeed," &c. 
 
 A few other passages, from the dying professions of the 
 martyrs of Christ, may be useful to show their entire agree- 
 ment. Thus, in the examination of the admirable Bradford, 
 before the Archbishop of York and others, we have the fol- 
 lowing:* 
 
 " York. You do deny the presence." 
 
 "Bradford. I do not, to the faith of the worthy re- 
 ceivers." 
 
 " York. Why, what is that to say other than that Christ 
 lieth not on the altar?" 
 
 " Brad. My lord, I believe no such presence." 
 
 * Fox's Acts and Monuments, 7th vol. p. 176, 
 
34 
 
 " Chichester. It seerrieth that you have not read ChrysoS- 
 tom, for he proveth it," 
 
 "Brad. Hitherto I have been kept well enough without 
 books; howbeit this I do remember of Chrysostom, that he 
 saith that Christ lieth upon the altar, as the seraphim with 
 their tongs do touch our lips with the coals of the altar in 
 heaven; which is a hyperbolical locution, of ivhich you know 
 Chrysostom is fulV 
 
 Taylor, the excellent Rector of Hadley, and a martyr, 
 writes strongly concerning the same subject.* " Whereas 
 the sixth chapter of John," saith he, "was alleged to prove 
 .that Christ did give his body corporally in the Supper, 
 even as he had promised in the said chapter, it is most un- 
 true. For only he gave his body sacramentally, spiritually, 
 and effectually, in his supper to the faithful apostles, and 
 corporally he gave it in a bloody sacrifice for the life of the 
 world upon the cross once for all. — But the popish mass is 
 another matter. The mass, as it is now, is but one of Anti- 
 christ's youngest daughters, in the which the devil is rather 
 present and received, than our Saviour, the second Person 
 in Trinity, God and man." 
 
 It would be tedious and unprofitable to cite the several 
 testimonies of that noble band of martyrs, for they all agree 
 in asserting the same substantial doctrine. But perhaps 
 there is nothing more satisfactory to the reflecting mind 
 than the language of the Church herself, in the rubric which 
 is at the close of the office for the Communion of the Sick. 
 It is in the following words: ' 
 
 " But if a man, either by reason of extremity of sickness, 
 or for want of warning in due time to the minister, or for 
 lack of company to receive with him, or by any other just 
 impediment, do not receive the Sacrament of Christ's Body 
 and Blood, the minister shall instruct him, that if he do 
 
 * Folk's Acts and Monuments, 6th vol. 701. 
 
truly repent him of his sins, and steadfastly helieve that 
 Jesus Christ hath suffered death upon the cross for him, 
 and shed his Blood for his redemption, earnestly remem- 
 bering the benefits he hath thereby, and giving him hearty 
 thanks therefor, he doth eat and drink the Body and Blood 
 of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's health, although 
 he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth.'' 
 
 In this we have a plain confirmation of the great truth, 
 that the sacramental eating of the Body of our Lord is one 
 thing, and the spiritual eating is another. The real pre- 
 sence, therefore, and the spiritual uniting with Christ, as 
 the Table of Fox clearly defines, may be enjoyed by the 
 faithful and godly man, not only with the symbols or Sacra- 
 ment, but also without them, since that divine and celestial 
 gift is bestowed, not upon the elements, but upon the be- 
 lieving soul. 
 
 Seeing, then, the perfect harmony of the Prayer Book, 
 the Articles and the Catechism, when rightly understood 
 according to the manifest doctrine of those admirable men 
 who conducted the Reformation to its triumph, and then 
 laid down their lives as witnesses to the truth, I pass on 
 to the time of Elizabeth, and shall show how absolute an 
 accordance is exhibited by tlie learned and judicious Hooker. 
 Dr. Pusey has indeed appealed to him as he did to the mar- 
 tyr Ridley, but in both instances, unfortunately, he has 
 lost sight of the passages which were directly to the point. 
 Very certain it is, that in many parts of Hooker's great 
 work, expressions may be found, which, taken without 
 qualification, seem to be altogether favourable to the new 
 Tractarian doctrine. All that we have to do, however, is to 
 take the whole of his statement, and then it will be manifest 
 that he taught no other doctrine than the great Reformers 
 who had gone before him. The following passages furnish 
 conclusive proof of this assertion. 
 
 "The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and 
 
56 
 
 blood," saith Hooker, "is not therefore to be sought for fn 
 the Sacrament^ but in the worthy receiver of the Sa- 
 crament." 
 
 "And with this the very order of our Saviour's words 
 agreeth, first, 'Take and eat;' then 'This is my body which 
 is broken for you: first, 'Drink ye all of this;' then fol- 
 loweth, 'This is my blood of the New Testament which is 
 shed for many for the remission of sins.' I see not which 
 way it should be gathered by the words of Christ, when 
 and where the bread is his body or the cup his blood, but 
 only in the heart and soul of him which receiveth them. 
 As for the Sacraments, ihetj really exhibit, but for aught we 
 can gather out of that which is written of them, they are 
 not really, nor do really contain in themselves that grace, 
 which with them or by them it pleaseth God to bestow." 
 
 " If on all sides it be confessed that the grace of Baptism 
 is poured into the soul of man, that by water we receive it, 
 although it be neither seated in the water nor the water 
 changed into it, what should induce men to think that the 
 grace of the Eucharist must needs be in the Eucharist before 
 it can be in us that receive it?"* 
 
 Not long after Hooker, viz. A. D. 1601, Dr. William 
 Barlow, afterwards bishop of Rochester, published a treatise 
 entitled, " A Defence of the Articles of the Protestant Re- 
 ligion," which he dedicated to Bancroft, then Bishop of 
 London. From this work I shall give a short extract, 
 which will throw fresh light upon the point before us. 
 
 " Great difference there is, (perchance not observed by 
 many) between our eating of Christ, and our uniting with 
 him." 
 
 "We eat him as our Passover .... dead and slain. 
 And so that speech of St. Austin is true, we have him here 
 in pabulo, as he was in patibulo, torn and rent; as himself 
 ordained the Sacrament in pane fracto, not integro, the bread 
 
 • Ecc. Pol. Book V. ch. Ixvii. § C, Keble's Ed. Vol. 3, p. 540. 
 
37 
 
 broken, not the whole loaf; thereby signifying, yea saying, 
 that in doing it we must remember him, not as living among 
 us, but as dying for us; ut in cruce, non in codo, as he was 
 crucified, not as he is glorified. Whereby we conclude, 
 first, for his presence, that his body is so far forth there, 
 quatenvs edilur, as it is eaten: but his bod)'' is eaten as dead 
 and slain; so himself appointed it, This is my body, and 
 sta5'eth not there, but adds withal, which is given for you. 
 And his blood is drunk, not as remaining in his veins, but as 
 shed: so himself speaketh. This is my blood of the JYew 
 Testament shed for many. Now his body bruised, and his 
 blood poured out, can no otherwise be present in the Eu- 
 charist, but by a representation thereof in the bread broken, 
 and in the wine effused, of the one side; and on the com- 
 municant's part, by a grateful recordation of the benefits, a 
 reverent valuation of the sacrifice, a faithful application of 
 his merits in his whole passion: and therefore his presence 
 must be sacramental, and our eating spiritual; for, non quod 
 videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit, saith St. Austin." 
 
 "For the union," continues our author, "we are united 
 to him ut viventi, as our living Head, et nos vivificanti, and 
 making us his lively members. It is true which Christ 
 saith, that he which ealeth my flesh abideth in me, and I in 
 him. Not that this union is first begun in our participation 
 of that holy Supper, (for none can truly eat the body of 
 Christ, unless he be hrstunited with him, and ingrafted into 
 him : nee vere edit corpus Christi, qui non est de corpore Christi, 
 saith St. Austin,) because primo unio, saitii Aquinas, the 
 first union between God and man is begun in Baptism by 
 one Spi7'it, as the apostle speaketh, and continueth by faith, 
 hope, and charity; all these the operation of the same 
 Spirit." 
 
 " But if we truly eat tlie body, and drink the blood of 
 Christ, then, by the power of the Holy Ghost, and faith co- 
 operating, this union is strengthened, the vigour and effects 
 12 
 
38 
 
 whereof, after a true participation, we shall feel within our- 
 selves more forcible and lively. — Is not Christ as present in 
 Baptism, as in the Eucharist? For in them both we com- 
 municate with him, bredanew in theone,/erfane^«intheother; 
 and 3'et Christ's real presence is not challenged for Baptism. 
 If they say, No, because of the Eucharist it was said. This is 
 my body and blood, not so of Baptism; I answer: As much, 
 if not more, was spoken by the Apostle : They which are bap- 
 tized have put on Christ, (Gal. iii. 27.) Put him on we can- 
 not, unless he be present: and the putting him on is even the 
 very same which he elsewhere calleth, Christ's dwelling in 
 us; (Eph. iii. 17,) namely, that in Baptism we are so trans- 
 formed, as now not we, but Christ alone doth live within 
 us; (Gal. ii. 20.) as near an unity as may. And in truth St. 
 Austin is out of doubt, that in Baptism the true member of 
 Christ corporis et sanguinis Domini particeps jit: and there- 
 fore no reason withstands, but that he should be really pre- 
 sent in both, or in neither.'' 
 
 The same important argument is admirably enforced by 
 Rev. Dr. Aldrich, A. D. 1687. The extract is long, but it 
 is well worthy of an attentive perusal, 
 
 "The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under 
 a two-fold consideration in the Eucharist:" 
 
 "1. As a body dead: under which notion we are said 
 to eat it in the Sacrament, and to drink the blood as shed; 
 as appears by the words of the institution. Take and eat; 
 this is my body which is given or broken for you: drink ye all 
 of this; for this is my blood which is shed for you: in which 
 words, as Mr. Bradford long ago observed, what God has 
 joined, we are not to put asunder." 
 
 "2. As di glorified body : in which condition it now sits 
 at the right hand of God, and shall there continue till the 
 restitution of all things, imparting grace and influence, and 
 all the benefits purchased by the sacrifice of the dead body, 
 to those that, in the holy Eucharist most especially, are 
 
39 
 
 through faith and the marvellous operation of the Holy 
 Ghost, incorporated into Christ, and so united to him, 
 that they dwell in Christ, and Christ in them; they are one 
 with Christ and Christ with them ; they are made members 
 of his body, of his fiesh, and of his bones; and by 
 partaking of the Spirit of him their Head, receive all the 
 graces and benefits purchased for them by his bitter death 
 and passion." 
 
 '' Wherefore it is evident, that since the body broken, 
 and blood shed, neither do nor can now really exist, they 
 neither can be r^dWy present, nor literally eaten or drunk; 
 nor can we really recejfc them, but only the benefits purchased 
 by them. But the body which now exists, whereof we 
 partake, and to which we are united, is the glorified body; 
 which is therefore verily and indeed received — and by 
 consequence said to be really present, notwithstanding its 
 /oca/ absence; because a real participation and union must 
 needs imply a real presence, though they do not necessari- 
 ly imply a local one. For it is easy to conceive, how a thing 
 that is locally absent may yet be really received, — as we 
 commonly say, a man receives an estate, or inheritance, 
 when he receives the deeds or conveyances of it. The re- 
 ' ception is confessedly real, though the thing itself is not lo- 
 cally or circumscriptively present, or literally grasped in 
 the arms of the receiver. — The Pi'otestants all agree, that 
 we spiritually eat Christ's body, and drink his blood; 
 that we neither eat, nor drink, nor receive the dead body, 
 nor the blood shed, but only the benefits purchased by 
 them; that those benefits are derived to us by virtue of our 
 union and communion with the glorified body, and that 
 our partaking of it and union with it, is effected by the 
 mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 " Now though it be easy, as I said before, to conceive 
 how a natural substance may be said to be really received, 
 though not Ipcally present, it is not so easy to conceive it 
 
40 
 
 really present^ when at the same time it is locally absent. 
 Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborne to 
 use the term of real presence, in all the books that are set 
 forth by her authority. We neither find it recommended 
 in the Liturgy, nor the Articles, nor the Homilies, nor the 
 Church's nor Nowell's Catechism. So that if any Church 
 of England man use it, he does more than the Church di- 
 rects him: if any reject it, he has the Church's example to 
 warrant him. Yet it must not be denied but the term may 
 be safely used among scholars, and seems to be grounded 
 upon Scripture itself."* 
 
 "So much for the use of the word; which when we of 
 the Church of England use, we mean thus: A thing may 
 be said to be really received, which is so consigned to us, 
 that we can really employ it to all XhosQ purposes for which 
 it is useful in itself, and we have occasion to use it. And 
 a thing thus really received may be said to be really pre- 
 sent, two ways, either physically, or morally, to which 
 we reduce sacrament ally. In the holy Eucharist, the 
 Sacrament is physically, the res sacramenti morally 
 present; the elements antecedently and locally; thevery 
 body consequentially and virtually, but both really pre- 
 sent. When we say that Christ is present in the Sacra- 
 ment, we do not mean in the elements, but in the celebra- 
 tion. This doctrine is sufficiently removed from what is 
 called Zuinglianism, (how truly, I will not now inquire,) 
 for we do not hold that we barely receive the effects and 
 benefits of Christ's body, but we hold it really present, in 
 as much as it is really received, and we actually put in 
 possession of it, though locally absent from us." 
 
 The observations of Dr. Waterland, to whose elaborate 
 'Review of the doctrine of the Eucharist' 1 am indebted 
 for the last two extracts, are valuable. (Works, Vol. vii. p. 
 
 * Here the author refers to Matt, jcviii. 80, sxviii. 20, 1 Cor. v. Z. 
 
41 
 
 192.) " The sum of all," saith he, " is, that Sacramental or 
 symbolical feeding in the Eucharist is feeding upon the body 
 broken and blood shed, under the signs and symbols of bread 
 and ivine: the result of such feeding is, the strengthening 
 or perfecting our mystical union with the body glorified; 
 and so, properly speaking, we feed upon the body as dead, 
 and we receive it into closer union as living, and both in the 
 Eucharist when duly celebrated." 
 
 Our learned author proceeds to apply the doctrine to the 
 various parties who contend for a different hypothesis. 
 
 " 1. To the Romanists," saith he, " who plead warmly 
 for the very body and blood in the Eucharist, we make 
 answer, that we do receive the very body and blood, in it, 
 and through it, as properly as a man receives an estate, and 
 becomes possessed of an inheritance, by any deeds or con- 
 veyances: and what would they have more? Will nothing 
 satisfy, except the ivax and parchments be transubstantiated 
 into teira firma, or every instrument converted into arable? 
 Surely this is pressing points too far, and turning things 
 most serious into perfect ridicule." 
 
 " 2. To the Lutherans, who seem to contend for a mixture 
 of the visible elements with the body invisible, we have this 
 to reply, that we readily admit of a Symbolical delivery or 
 conveyance of one by the other; which effectually answers 
 every good end and purpose, and also suits extremely well 
 with the Scripture phraseology in those cases. And though 
 we admit not, that our Lord's body is locally present in the 
 Sacrament, or any where so present but in heaven; yet so 
 long as it is really united in one mystical body with ours, or 
 rather is considered as the Head with the members, we think 
 that may suffice; and we need not desire any closer alliance, 
 on this side heaven, than such an union amounts to." 
 
 "3. To the Calvinists of the ancient stamp, (if any such 
 remain now,) we might reply, that though we eat not 
 Christ's glorified body in the Eucharist, yet we really rs- 
 
 12* 
 
42 
 
 ceive it into closer mystical union than before: and though 
 we know nothing of the diffusion of any virtue of Christ's 
 jiesk (which would not profit) yet we have the power and 
 presence of his Godhead with us, and at the same time, 
 virtual or mystical union with his body, sufficient to make 
 us, in Divine construction and Divine acceptance, one with 
 him; "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and 
 of his bones." 
 
 "4. To the Zuinglian Sacramentarians, old Anabaptists, 
 Socinians and Remonstrants, who will not admit of any 
 medium between local corporal presence, and no presence at 
 all as to beneficial effects, no medium between the natural 
 body itself and mere signs and figures; to them we rejoin, 
 that there is no necessity of falling in with either extreme; 
 because there is a medium, a very just one, and where indeed 
 the truth lies. For though there is no corporal presence, yet 
 there is a spiritual one, exhibitive of Divine blessings and 
 graces: and though we eat not Christ's natural glorified body 
 in the Sacrament or out of it, yet our mystical union with 
 that very body is strengthened and perfected in and through 
 the Sacrament, by the operation of the Holy Spirit." — 
 
 " 5. To those who admit not that the natural body of 
 Christ is in any sense received at all, but imagine that the 
 elements, as impregnated or animated with the Spirit, are 
 the only body received, and are made our Lord's body by 
 such union with the Spirit; 1 say, to those we make answer, 
 that the union of the Spirit with the elements (rather than 
 with the persons) appears to be a gross notion and ground- 
 less: and if it were admitted, yet could it not make the 
 elements, in any just sense, our Lord's body, but the notion 
 would resolve into a kind of impanation of the Spirit, for 
 the time." 
 
 In a note to this passage, our author states that such 
 " seems to be Mr. Johnson's notion, in the < Unbloody Sac- 
 rifice,' &c., part 1, p. 247. And it is very near akin, so 
 
43 
 
 far, to that of the modern Greek Church, as represented 
 by Mr. Claude in his Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist.'* 
 According to the best of my judgment, it is the very 
 doctrine intended by our Tractarian brethren. And I 
 doubt not that we should all willingly subscribe to the 
 language of Dr. Waterland, that " the fundamental error of 
 this hypothesis (as also of the Lutheran and the Romish,) is 
 the connecting the grace of the Sacrament with the elementSy 
 instead of looking for it in the persons only." 
 , I have deviated somewhat from the order of Chronology, 
 by placing the judgment of Waterland before that of Bishop 
 Burnet, whose well-known work upon the 39 Articles 
 corresponds, in the main, with all that I have cited. A 
 short extract will suffice to show this clearly. 
 
 "We assert," saith this important author, speaking for 
 the Church of England, " a real presence of the body and 
 blood of Christ; but not of his body as it is now glorified in 
 heaven, but of his body as it was broken on the cross, when 
 his blood was shed and separated from it: that is to say; his 
 death, with the merits and effects of it, are in a visible and 
 federal act offered in this Sacrament to all worthy be- 
 lievers." 
 
 " By real we understand true, in opposition both to fiction 
 and imagination .... though we are convinced that our first 
 Reformers judged right concerning the use of the phrase 
 real presence, that it were better to be let fall than to be 
 continued, since the use of it, and that idea which does 
 naturally arise from the common acceptation of it, may 
 stick deeper, and feed superstition more, than all those 
 larger explanations that are given to it can be able to cure." 
 (Burnet on the Articles, p. 321.) 
 
 The long list of quotations, appended to the sermon of 
 Rev. Dr. Pusey, would inspire considerable respect for the 
 strength and number of his authorities, but unhappily they 
 labour under an imputation of the same unfairness which I 
 
44 
 
 have proved in the cases of Ridley and Hooker. It must 
 indeed, be admitted, in palliation of his course, that it had 
 been followed by others before him, particularly by Arch- 
 bishop Laud, in his conference with Fisher. This, how- 
 ever, properly understood, seems to my mind a confirmation 
 of the charge, that the doctrine held by our Tractarian 
 brethren inclines strongly towards Romanism. For the 
 powerful influence of his queen Henrietta over the mind 
 of the first Charles, manifestly disposed him, and perhaps, 
 unconsciously, his favourite Archbishop, to make the- 
 Church of England as much like the Church of Rome as 
 possible. And there can be little doubt that to his manifest 
 bias towards the ceremonial of Rome, which, under such 
 high influence, spread rapidly through her clergy, was 
 owing, in a great degree, the disgust conceived against the 
 Church, and the consequent outbreak and temporary suc- 
 cess of Puritanism.* 
 
 On a fair and candid comparison, therefore, of the doc- 
 trine of the Church, with the doctrine of our Tractarian 
 brethren, I think it manifest that the Church confines the 
 idea of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ 
 to ihe faithful receiver of the Sacrament, while our Tractarian 
 brethren place that Real Presence in the Sacrament itself, 
 that is, in the consecrated elements, on the Communion 
 Table, or Altar. That when the Article declares that the 
 Body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the Supper, 
 only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, the Church 
 teaches us to believe that this divine benefit is communi- 
 cated by Christ himself to the faithful soul, while our Trac- 
 tarian friends hold that it is alreadj' 'in an ineffable manner' 
 united to the consecrated Bread, and is thus given to the 
 communicant by the hands of the minister. That when the 
 Catechism declares the Body and Blood to be verily and 
 
 * See Hume's History of England, for a full confirmation of this. 
 
45 
 
 indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's 
 Supper, the Church expresses the grace bestoiced by the 
 Redeemer, through his Holy Spirit, on the worthy partaker, 
 while our Tractarian brethren would maintain that this 
 verily and indeed refers to the consecrated Symbols in the 
 paten and the chalice — that in some ineffable manner, but 
 yet real and true, the glorified Saviour, Body, Soul, and Di- 
 vinity, are included in the bread and wine, by virtue of the 
 act of consecration, handled, broken, poured forth, and 
 finally given to the Communicant by the priest, so that the 
 Lord does not fulfil his gracious promise of entering into 
 the faithful heart, except by first, verily and indeed, uniting 
 himself to these elements, in order that the priest may per- 
 form the act which brings the soul into a living union with 
 its Saviour. 
 
 Hence Mr. Palmer states it as the Church's doctrine, 
 that the outward Sacrament " is not a sisn of an absent 
 body," misquoting the Homily, which declares, that it is 
 not an untrue sign of an absent body, by which unfortunate 
 omission of this word 'untrue ' he changes the whole mean- 
 ing of the sentence. 
 
 Hence he saith that " God withdraws his divine gift" 
 from those who are totally devoid of a true and living faith; 
 taking it for granted, that this divine gift was first placed 
 in the hand of the priest, since it was really present in the 
 elements, and therefore that the unworthy would actually 
 receive it, if the Almighty Redeemer did not withdraw 
 himself, by a special and subsequent act, from the touch of 
 the profane. 
 
 Hence, too, he pronounces the doctrine of the Church 
 that 'the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith do 
 not receive Christ,' although they take the Sacrament, to be 
 only "the more pious and probable opinion," From 
 which it is to be inferred, that the contrary opinion of the 
 Church of Rome is pious and probable, only that the opinion 
 
46 
 
 of our article is more pious and probable. Where this learned 
 and ingenious theologian discovered that he was at liberty 
 to hold a positive statement of Christian doctrine in the 
 Articles to be no more than an ''opinion,'^ he has not in- 
 formed us. Eut it is evident that the inference which I 
 have supplied may be even more favourable than the true 
 one. For there are three degrees of comparison, and our 
 author may place some other opinion in the PosUive, and 
 the doctrine of Rome in the Superlative, if he pleases, 
 without in the least disturbing' the arrangement of his 
 System. 
 
 It is true, indeed, that Mr, Palmer consents to the Ar- 
 ticles in rejecting transubstantiation, and asserting that the 
 nature of the bread and wine remains. But he appears to 
 be in a diificulty about the inevitable consequences, and 
 therefore he admits these propositions under limitations 
 which open a wide door of escape from the true doctrine 
 of the Church. 
 
 Hence he defines transubstantiation to be " the change of 
 the substance which supposes the nature of bread entirely 
 to cease by consecration," From this it is sufficiently ob- 
 vious, that if the nature of bread does not entirely cease, — if, 
 for example, the nature of bread continues in the form, co- 
 lour, weight, smell, and taste, which the Romanists them- 
 selves allow under the name of accidents — there seems no- 
 thing to prevent Mr. Palmer's hypothesis from recon- 
 ciling the Article with the doctrine of Rome, Only leaving 
 out the mere term transubstantiation, as was done in the 
 time of Henry VIII. And that such must be his meaning 
 appears but too evident from his startling assertion, that the 
 doctrine of the Church has undergone no very material 
 change since that day. 
 
 Hence too, when he admits that the Church holds the 
 presence, and therefore the eating of Christ's Body and 
 Blood in the Lord'3 Supper, according tq the Article, to 
 
47 
 
 be "altogether heavenly and spiritual," he exhibits the 
 same kind of skill in defining the words to mean a kind of 
 presence and eating " which is inexplicable by any carnal 
 or earthly experience or imagination; even as the Sonship 
 of the Eternal Word of God, and His incarnation, and the 
 procession of the Holy Spirit, are immeasurable by human 
 understanding." Thus limited, or paraphrased, or rather, 
 as it seems to my mind, refined away, it is perfectly ma- 
 nifest that Mr. Palmer finds nothing in the Article which 
 might not be subscribed ex animo by a Roman Catholic 
 himself. 
 
 And, in perfect consistency with the rest, our ingenious 
 author, when stating, according to the Article, that the 
 Church rejects the doctrine of the corporal presence of 
 Christ in the Eucharist, is careful to call it, "any such real 
 presence of Christ's Body and Blood as is corporal or or- 
 ganical; that is, accot'ding to the known and earthly 
 •mode of existence of a body^ Here again, he reduces 
 the doctrine of the Church to a proposition which no Ro- 
 manist could censure. The divines of Rome, in her most 
 corrupt days, never pretended to say that the corporal pre- 
 sence of Christ in the Sacrament was ^^ according to the known 
 and earthly mode of existence,^' but quite the contrary. Thus it 
 is, that this eminent writer bends his talents and his learning 
 to reduce our theology to a set of distiiictions without a 
 difference, all agreeing, it must be confessed, with his 
 counsel, that an English Episcopalian ought to desire Com- 
 munion with Rome, if he were resident in any part of the 
 world where Rome had the prior and peaceable possession ; 
 but all sadly variant, in my humble judgment, from the 
 Standards of the Church, and the principles of the Refor- 
 mation. 
 
 I see nothing, therefore, in the elaborate statement con- 
 cerning the holy Eucharist, which Mr. Palmer has set forth 
 at large, and which Dr. Pusey has appended to his sermon, 
 in any wise restrictive of his first broad proposition, tha^- 
 
48 
 
 " the body or flesh, and the blood of Jesus Christ, the Crea- 
 tor and Redeemer of the world, both God and man, united 
 indivisibly in one Person, are verily and indeed given, 
 taken, eaten, and received by the faithful in the Lord's 
 Supper, under the outward sign or form of bread and 
 wine; which is, on this account, the partaking or Commu- 
 nion of the body and blood of Christ; that the Eucharist 
 is not the sign of an absent body, and that those who par- 
 take of it receive not merely the figure or shadow of 
 Christ's body, but the reality itself. And as Christ's di- 
 vine and human natures are inseparably united, so we re- 
 ceive in the Eucharist, not only the flesh and blood of 
 Christ, but Christ himself, both God and man." For after 
 ingeniously refining away, as we have seen, the qualifica- 
 tions of this proposition, which might have reconciled it 
 with the true sense of the reformers, he proceeds to say, 
 that the consecration of the elements "o/?era/e5 a real 
 change. For when the Sacrament is thus perfected, 
 the Church regards it as so 'divine a thing,' so 'heavenly 
 a food,' as that we must not ^presume ' to approach it with 
 unprepared minds, and that sinners, although they only 
 partake of the bread and wine, partake of them to their 
 own condemnation, because they impiously disregard the 
 Lord's Body, which is truly present in that Sacrament. 
 Hence it is that the Church, believing firmly in the real 
 presence of the 'precious and blessed Body and Blood of 
 our Saviour Jesus Christ,' speaks of the Eucharist as ' high 
 and holy mysteries,' exhorts us to consider the dignity of 
 that holy ' mystery,' that ' heavenly feast,' that ' holy table,' 
 ' and banquet of that most heavenly food, even the King 
 of kings' table.' And a little farther on, although he ad- 
 mits that the tenet of Transubstantiation " has the fatal de- 
 fect of being opposed to the plain language of Scripture," 
 yet he introduces this by the following startling statement: 
 " It is not to be denied that the Roman doctrine of Tran- 
 substantiation facilitates the mental conception of that mys- 
 
49 
 
 tery/' (sc. the Eucharistic doctrine.) how discordant is 
 all this from the language of Cranmer, and Ridley, and 
 Latimer, and Bradford, and the whole of that blessed army 
 of martyrs! How opposite to the teaching of Jewel and 
 Hooker! How much more sympathy and concord does it 
 plainly manifest with the Church of Rome, than with the 
 Church of England! 
 
 But there is yet another aspect of this matter, in which 
 thecharacter of the new Tractarian divinity is discernible. 1 
 refer to the passage in which our learned author speaks of the 
 adoration of the Host in the Church of Rome.* "If Christ," 
 saith he, " be in a special and mysterious manner present 
 in these 'iioly mysteries,' as the infinite majority of Chris- 
 tians have at all times firmly and fervently believed, ac- 
 cording to the more simple and unrestrained interpretation 
 of Holy Scripture; the truly religious man cannot but be 
 profoundly impressed with sentiments of awe and venera- 
 tion in the more immediate presence of the Divine Saviour 
 of the world. He will feel with the patriarch: 'How 
 dreadful is this place,' 'this is none other but the house of 
 God, and this is the gate of heaven.' Nor will he need the 
 voice of God to say: 'Put ofi" thy shoes from thy feet, for 
 the place whereon thou standest is holy ground.' Now 
 there is every reason to believe that of those who intended 
 their worship at the elevation to be directed to Christ, as 
 more immediately present in the holy Eucharist, many di- 
 rected it simply to Christ himself, and not to the external 
 part of the Sacrament, whether substance or species. And 
 such men could not be properly charged with idolatry, be- 
 cause their worship was not directed to an idol, nor to a 
 false god, nor to a creature. It is clear, hoivever, that 
 others have worshipped the elements themselves with di- 
 vine honour, as our writers have shown, and those loho 
 did so canjiot be excused from the guilt of idolatry. But 
 
 • Vol. i. p. 314. 
 13 
 
50 
 
 this imputation cannot justly rest either on the whole 
 Western Church before the Reformation, or on the Ro- 
 man Churches in general since, as bishops Bramhall, Jere- 
 my Taylor, &c. have taught." 
 
 Now here, at least to my own feelings, is a very painful 
 specimen of paralogism. For I cannot believe that the ele- 
 ments were ever worshipped by the Romanists,unless under 
 the erroneous belief that Christ Jesus the Lord was actually 
 jjresent in them, and if such was their belief, their worship 
 was mentally directed to Christ himself so far as their 
 intention was concerned, and therefore the author's apolo- 
 gy would justify them from the guilt of idolatry. But in- 
 asmuch as this reasoning would too openly condemn the 
 Church of England, who had repeatedly charged idolatry 
 in this matter upon the Church of Rome, he makes a for- 
 mal and general statement, without authority, that some 
 persons in that Church icorshipped the elements themselves ; 
 which loas indeed idolatry, and under cover of this assertion, 
 he discharges the Church of Rome from all blame, allowing 
 the lawfulness of their prostration before the Host, on the 
 ground that the worship may be directed to Christ himself, 
 ^ whom the infinite majority of Christians have at all times 
 firmly and fervently believed to be present in these holy myste- 
 ries, in a special and mysterious manner.'' 
 
 In no one of these statements, however, do I see how Mr. 
 Palmer can be fairly reconciled to the Church of England. 
 Not in his exoneration of the Church of Rome from idola- 
 try ; for this is charged upon her by the Homilies, the Ar- 
 ticles, and the Reformers, again and again. Not in his 
 confident assurance that the infinite majority of Christians 
 have at all times firmly and fervently believed that Christ 
 himself was present in the holy mysteries, (meaning the 
 consecrated elements,) in a special and mysterious manner. 
 For ihe Church of England maintains that this mystical 
 presence of Christ is in the soul of the faithful receiver, and 
 not in the consecrated sign or symbol, as held up in the 
 
51 
 
 hands of the priest. Not in his notion that the Sacrament 
 cannot be an idol, to those who erroneously worship it, 
 under the belief that Christ is there. Because their error 
 in so believing does not change the real character of the 
 object of their worship. The Israelites committed idola- 
 try when they worshipped the golden calf, although they 
 seem to have intended nothing more than the honouring of 
 the true God; for they said: " These he thy gods, O Israel, 
 which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.^' The hea- 
 then committed idolatry in worshipping the statue of Ju- 
 piter, although they erroneously believed that in that sta- 
 tue, after consecration, was actually contained the essential 
 Deity of the almighty Father of gods and men. And ac- 
 cording to the main body of English theologians, the 
 Church of Rome is idolatrous in worshipping the Host, 
 notwithstanding the false idea, that it has been transubstan- 
 tiated into the actual Body of the Redeemer. How far 
 this erroneous notion may palliate their idolatry before the 
 Searcher of hearts, it is not for us to say. But we can 
 certainly say, that as it is idolatry to pay divine worship to 
 any being, other than the only living and true God, the 
 Romanist cannot fairly escape from the imputation of this 
 deadly sin, merely because he falsely attributes to a conse- 
 crated wafer, the personal Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ; 
 for this would be to get rid of the idolatry, by virtue of a 
 lie. The other side of the argument would indeed be more 
 agreeable to our feelings of Christian compassion towards 
 our mistaken brethren. But the insurmountable objection 
 to it lies in this: that if the erroneous conception of the 
 worshipper in supposing his idol to be divine, be sufficient 
 to sanctify the object of his worship, there never could 
 have been any idolatry since the world began. 
 
 There is, however, one aspect of this matter, which has 
 pressed upon my mind with peculiar force, as worthy of 
 grave reflection. It must be granted, I presume, that the 
 
53 
 
 guilt of idolatry rests, in its highest and most awful aspect, 
 upon those who make the idol, rather than on tliose who 
 worship it, confiding in the false assertions of their leaders. 
 Now I would earnestly beseech my respected brethren, 
 who are so indulgent to this perilous error of the Church 
 of Rome, that they would seriously consider whether they 
 are not making an idol, by thus exalting the outward sym- 
 bol of the Saviour's Body into a present Deity. For whether 
 there be any elevation by the Priest, or any prostration by 
 the people, the idolatry of the heart may be as surely in- 
 troduced, and then the evils of superstition will as surely 
 follow. 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that the idolatry which our Church 
 charges upon Rome on account of this adoration of the 
 Host, is supposed, by most persons, to be altogether impos- 
 sible, so long as we reject their doctrine of transubstantia- 
 tion. But here lies a palpable error. The most important 
 point in the whole eucharistic controversy, according to my 
 humble judgment, does not concern the absence of the 
 Bread, but the supposed presence of the Saviour's Body. 
 The very reason why the Romanists insisted on the dis- 
 appearance of the bread, was because they thought they 
 could not otherwise inculcate the presence of the Body, 
 under the not unreasonable notion, that two different sub- 
 stances could not occupy the same place at the same time. 
 And therefore, if our Oxford friends can persuade the 
 Church to believe, that Christ Jesus, in a spiritual Body, 
 together with his Soul and Divinity, is just as really and 
 positively exhibited upon the altar and held in the hands 
 of the priest, and received into the mouth of the worship- 
 per, upon their hypothesis, without transubstantiation, as 
 upon the Roman hypothesis with it, where is the difference 
 in any point which is of importance either to faith or 
 practice? 
 
 In the one case, indeed, Christ is supposed to be in the 
 
53 
 
 consecrated elements with a fleshly body. In the other, 
 he is supposed to be in them with a spiritual body. But 
 surely it is not on account of his flesh that we worship him, 
 but by reason of his Deity, which is supposed to be equally 
 present by either doctrine. Of course it results, that since 
 the Sacrament contains the real object of worship as per- 
 fectly according to the doctrine of Oxford, as according to 
 the dogma of Rome, the same adoration must be equally 
 due; and the communicant, thus believing, is equally bound 
 to worship it accordingly. 
 
 It is likewise granted, that in the one case the sacred 
 presence of the divine Redeemer is supposed to be in- 
 cluded under the substance of the bread, and in the other 
 case it is supposed to be included under the outward ac- 
 cidenls, the taste, the form, the colour, &c. But this dis- 
 tinction is of small account in the main doctrine. The 
 miracle is equally great in either case, or rather it is a little 
 greater on the Tractarian theory, because, as Mr. Palmer 
 honestly confesses, transubstantiation ''facilitates the men- 
 tal conception of the mystery." Nor, indeed, is it at all 
 admissible, in my poor judgment, that while the Church 
 throughout the world has always maintained the insepara- 
 ble indivisibility of the human from the Divine nature, in 
 the One Person of the adorable Redeemer, theologians 
 should be permitted to inculcate the notion, that He can be 
 really present, in his human and divine nature, in the con- 
 secrated elements, and yet not be present in his flesh, or 
 corporally. Our respected friends of Oxford are satisfied 
 with calling this a mystery, ineffable and inexplicable. 
 I fully believe with them that it is ineffable and inexplica- 
 ble; but instead of a mystery, it looks, to my mind, much 
 more like a palpable contradiction. And therefore I must 
 frankly say, that if I were compelled to make my election 
 between the doctrine of Rome and the new doctrine of 
 Oxford, I should take transubstantiation as the more rea- 
 
 13* 
 
54 
 
 sonable of the two. Thank God! the doctrine of the 
 Church is neither the one nor the other. 
 
 If it should still be thought, however, that the substance 
 of the bread, according to the Oxford doctrine, must be 
 a sufficient hinderance to the act of adoration, I beg to ask 
 on what principle? Surely it cannot be doubted, that the 
 real, \ocd\ presence of our Divine Redeemer must be honoured 
 by our adoration, without regard to the material substance 
 under which he becomes manifest to our faith. When he 
 tabernacled with men, his garments formed a far larger 
 mass, and were no more objects of worship in themselves, 
 than the consecrated bread of the Sacrament. Yet who 
 supposes that the presence of those garments caused the 
 adoration of his suppliants to cease? 
 
 But our respected brethren would not be satisfied with 
 claiming for their doctrine the sanction of the Church of 
 England: they also challenge on its behalf the clear and 
 unanimous suffrages of the fathers, and I should do injus- 
 tice to the subject, therefore, if I did not exhibit what 
 seems to my mind a sufficient amount of evidence to con- 
 fute this error. 
 
 Commencing with Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 192, 
 wc find him selling forth a very clear and satisfactory ac- 
 count of our subject. He states [I] that " the blood of our 
 
 [1] Clem. Alex. Psedag. Lib. 11. p. 151. B. Duplex est autem Sanguis 
 Domini: alter enim est carnalis, quo redempti sumus ab interitu: alter 
 vero spiritualis quo scilicet uncti sumus. Et hoc est bibere Jesu san- 
 guinem, esse participem incorruptionis Domini. Verbi autem virtus 
 est spiritus, quemadmodum sanguis carnis. Apta itaque proportione et 
 convenientia, vinum quidem aquae, homini vero Spiritus admiscetur. 
 Ac temperatum quidem vinum ad fidem, convivio excipit: Spiritus au- 
 tem deducit ad incorruptionem. Amborum autem temperatura, potus 
 scilicet et verbi, dicitur Eucharistia. quas et laudatur, et bona est gratia; 
 cujus qui per fidem sunt participes, sanctificantur et corpore et anima, 
 cum divinum temperamentum, hominem scilicet, divina voluntas Spi- 
 rilu et Verbo mystice contemperaverit. Etenim vere quidem Spiritus 
 aniniffi quse ab ipso fertur, conjungitur et familiaris efficitur; caro autem 
 Verbo, propter quam Verbum caro factum est. 
 
55 
 
 Lord is twofold, one carnal, by which we are redeemed 
 from destruction, the other spiritual, with which we are 
 anointed. To drink the blood of Christ is to be a par- 
 taker of our Lord's incorruption. But the vigour of the 
 Word is Spirit, as the vigour of the flesh is blood. As 
 the wine in due proportion is added to the water, so is the 
 Spirit to the man. And as the wine, duly administered, 
 is taken in the feast, the Spirit is received to incorruption. 
 The admixture of the wine and the word is called the 
 Eucharist, whicli is a good gift and praiseworthy, since 
 those who partake of it through faith, are sanctified in 
 body and in soul, when the divine will mystically operates 
 upon the receiver. For truly the Spirit becomes united 
 to the soul, while the flesh is united to the Word, because 
 the Word was made flesh." 
 
 Here, ail is simple and consistent. The elements are 
 spoken of as consecrated symbols, and the sacred effects are 
 spiritual, the operation of Christ and the Spirit upon the 
 faithful and worthy recipient. 
 
 From Clement, 1 pass on to Tertullian, who flourished 
 a little later, A. D. 200. Disputing against the heretic 
 Marcion, who insisted that the senses were not to be be- 
 lieved with regard to the outward appearance of our Lord's 
 human nature, his sufferings and death, Tertullian presses 
 his adversary with the following argument: [2] " If I am 
 deceived with respect to the outward, shall I believe him 
 concerning the inward substance? How shall he be true in 
 what is concealed, when he is found to be so fallacious in 
 what is open?" Now this argument might have been 
 triumphantly retorted by Marcion and all the Gnostic he- 
 retics, if the tenet of our Oxford friends had then been the 
 doctrine of the Church. For what is the testimony of the 
 
 [2] Tertul.adv. Marcion. p 401. An credam ei de interiore substantia, 
 qui sit de exteriore frustratus? Quomodo verax habebitur in occulto, 
 tarn fallax repertus in aperto? 
 
56 
 
 senses worth, if we are to believe, that the consecrated bread, 
 in the hand of the priest, has actually become the present, 
 incarnate, glorified Redeemer? 
 
 Again, saith the same Tertullian, directly to the point: 
 [3] "For thus God has revealed it in the Gospel, calling the 
 bread his body, that henceforth you may understand that 
 he gave to bread the figure of his body, which body the pro- 
 phet had in times past spoken of under the figure of bread, 
 the Lord himself being about to interpret it in this Sacra- 
 ment." 
 
 Again, [4]*' Taking bread, and distributing it to his dis- 
 ciples, he made it his body, by saying, This is my body, 
 that is, the figure of my body." 
 
 In like manner, Tertullian interprets the prophet Ma- 
 lachi in a manner totally variant from the hypothesis of our 
 Tractarian brethren, who symbolize with Rome in the no- 
 tion of the Eucharist being a sacrifice. [5] " From the rising 
 of the sun, saith the prophet, unto the setting of the same, 
 my name is glorified amongst the nations, and in every 
 place sacrifice is offered unto my name, and a clean sacri- 
 fice; to wit," saith Tertullian, " simple prayer from a pure 
 conscience." 
 
 Origen will next furnish us with a very plain testimony. 
 For he tells us in one place, [6] that " the bread of Jesus 
 
 [3] lb. 408. Sic enim Deus in Evangelio revelavit, panem corpus 
 suum appellans, ut et hinc jam eum intelligas corporis sui figuram pani 
 dedisse, cujjas retro corpus in panem Prophetes figuravit, ipso Domino 
 hoc sacramentum postea interpretaturo. 
 
 [4] lb. p. 457, § xl. Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, cor- 
 pus ilium suum fecit, hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura cor- 
 poris mci, 
 
 [5] lb. 413. A solis ortu usque ad occasum glorificatum est in nation- 
 ibus nomen meum, et in omni loco sacrificium nomini meo ofFertur, et 
 sacrificium mundum, scilicet, simplex oratio de conscientia pura. 
 
 [6] Origenis in Jeremiam, Horn. X. Tom. I. p. 108. Fanis Jesu quo 
 nutrimur, sermo ejus interpretatur. 
 
57 
 
 with which we are fed is to be interpreted his WonV And 
 elsewhere, commenting on our Lord's instructions, he saith 
 [7] that " the bread is consecrated by the Word of God and 
 prayer, and that through the prayer offered over it, accord- 
 ing to the proportion of faith, it is useful to purify and clear 
 the mind." He adds that " he who eats it worthily before 
 God is not helped by the material bread, but by the prayer 
 offered over it, and thus much may suffice," saith he, "con- 
 cerning the typical and symbolical body." 
 
 From Origen, about the middle of the third century, we 
 may pass to his cotemporary Cyprian, from whom the same 
 doctrine may be gathered without difficulty. For having 
 occasion [8] to reprove the error of some persons who cele- 
 
 [7] Origcnis Com. in Mat. Tom. J. p. 254. Quod si verum id, omne quod 
 intrat in as, in ventrem vadit, et in secessum emiltilur, et cibus ipse per ver- 
 bum Dei et orationem consecratus, secundum illud quidein ipsum quod 
 materia constat, in ventrem abit, et in secessum ejicitur; secundum ora- 
 tionem autem quce illi ^ccessM, juxta ■proporlionem fidei, utilis fit, efficit- 
 que ut perspicax fiat animus, spectans ad id quod prodest; nee panis ma- 
 teria, sed super eum prolata oratio, ea est quae ilium juvat, qui non in- 
 digne Deo hunc comedit. Et htec quidem de typico et symbolico cor- 
 pore, 
 
 [8j S. Cypriani Ep. LXIII. ad Cascilium de Sacramento Domini calicis, 
 p. 118-9. Miror satis unde hoc usurpatura sit, ut contra Evangelicain et 
 Apostolicam disciplinam quibusdam in locis aqua ofFeratur in Dominico 
 calice, quae sola Christi sanguinem non possit exprimere — p. 119. Aquas 
 namque populos significare, in Apocalypsis Scriptura divina declarat di- 
 cens: Aquas quas vidisti, super quas sedet meretrix ilia, popu]i,et turbsB, 
 et gentes ethnicorum sunt et linguae. Quod scilicet perspicimus et in 
 Sacramento calicis contineri. Nam quia nos omnes portabat Christus, 
 qui et peccata nostra portabat; videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in 
 vino vero ostendit sanguinem Christi. Quando autem in calice vino 
 aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur, et credentium plebs, ei in 
 quem credidit, copulatur et conjungitur. Quae copulatio et conjunctio 
 aquae et vini sic miscetur in calice Domini, ut commixto ilia non possit 
 ab invicem separari. Unde Ecclesiam, id est, plebem in Ecclesia con- 
 stitutam fideliter et firmiter in eo quod credidit perseverantem, nulla res 
 separare poterit a Christo, quominus haereat semper et maneat individua 
 dilectio. Sic autem in sanctificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola non 
 potest, quoniodo nee vinum solum potest, nam si vinum tantum quis 
 
58 
 
 brated the sacrament with water alone, he explains the cus- 
 tom of the Church in mixing water with wine, saying, that 
 by the water was to be understood the people, while the 
 wine showed the blood of Christ; that when these were 
 mingled together, Christ was joined and united with his 
 people, and that as the wine could not be afterwards sepa- 
 rated from the water, so neither could believers, perse- 
 vering, be separated from their Saviour. He concludes by 
 saying that "in sanctifying the cup of the Lord, it is not 
 proper to offer either water or wine alone, since if any one 
 offers wine alone, the blood of Christ begins to be without us : 
 but if the water be alone, the people begin to be ivithout Christ; 
 but when each is thoroughly mingled with the other, then 
 the spiritual and celestial sacrament is perfected." 
 
 Now in this passage of Cyprian, we may plainly per- 
 ceive that he considered the consecrated wine as a figure 
 of the blood, because he speaks of it precisely as he does of 
 the water, which is manifestly a figurative expression for 
 the people, since no one ever imagined that the communi- 
 cants were actually present in the chalice, unless in the sense 
 of an emblematic representation. The necessary inference 
 is, that he considered the eucharistic elements as sacred 
 symbols of the spiritual benefits assured to the faithful and 
 persevering, in the inseparable union accomplished between 
 Christ and the soul. And yet, while it is demonstrably evi- 
 dent that this was his meaning, he uses such terms as would 
 make him an authority on the other side, if it had not been 
 for the signification of the water, which serves as a key to 
 the whole. From this we may further learn the current 
 usage of the early Christians, who spake and wrote without 
 any fear of misapprehension from the figurative language 
 
 oiferat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis: si vero aqua sit sola, 
 plebs incipit esse sine Ghristo: quando autemutrunque miscetur, et adu- 
 natione confusa sibi inviceni copulatur, tunc s^craii)enti4m ppirjtale et 
 pcejpste perficitiir, 
 
59 
 
 which they employed. They would, doubtless, have qua- 
 lified their statements, on many occasions, if they could 
 have imagined the possibility of such a doctrine as Tran- 
 substantiation. 
 
 I may next set forth a sentence from Eusebius, who 
 flourished in the early part of the 4th century. He speaks 
 (9) of "the memorial of the Sacrifice of Christ being cele- 
 brated at the table, by certain signs (or symbols) of his body 
 and saving blood, according to the institution of the New 
 Testament." And after quoting the Psalmist, saying: Thou 
 hast prepared a table before me against them which afflicted 
 me, &c., he then adds, "Plainly therefore the Psalmist 
 signifies, in these, the mystical anointing, and the tremen- 
 dous sacrifices of the table of Christ, operating with which, 
 we are taught to offer ourselves unbloody, rational, and accep- 
 table victims in our ichole life to the Supreme God, through 
 that most highly exalted High Priest of our profession." 
 Here again we find the consecrated elements termed signs 
 or srjmbols, and the spiritual anointing, and the practical re- 
 sult, are both set forth with force and clearness. 
 
 Next to Eusebius, comes the testimony of Athanasius, 
 which is the more interesting on account of his successful 
 zeal in the great Arian controversy. The passage occurs 
 in a comment on part of St. John's Gospel, (10) where our 
 
 (9) Euseh. Dem. Evan L. I. p. 39. Cum ergo hujus sacrificii memo- 
 riara signis quibusdam in mensa celebrandam, corporisque item illius, 
 salutarisque sanguinis, ut novi Testamenti institutum habet, acceperi- 
 mus: rursus a propheta David instruimur ad dicendum; Parasti in con- 
 spectu raeo mensam contra eos qui affligunt me. Pingue fecisti in oleo 
 caput meum, et calix tuus inebriane quam prsEstantissimus. Palam igi- 
 tur in his mysticam significat unctionem, et horrorem afferentia mensca 
 Christ! sacrificia, quibus operantes, incruentas et rationales, eique sua- 
 ves victirnas, in tota vita supremo Deo ofFerre, per eminentissimum om- 
 nium ipsius Pontificem, edocti sumus. 
 
 (10) S.Mhan. in illud Evangelii, Quicumque dixerit. Tom. I. p. 979, B. 
 Istiusmodi characterem etiam in Johannis Evangelic vidi, ubi de esu 
 
60 
 
 Lord, replying to the cavils of the Jews, (who understood 
 literally what he had declared concerning the eating of his 
 flesh and drinking of his blood,) explains himself by saying, 
 Doth this offend you ? What and if you shall see the Son of 
 man ascending up where he was before? It is the Spirit that 
 quickeneth, the flesh profileth nothing. The words that I have 
 spoken unto you, they are Spirit and they are life. "In this 
 place," saith Athanasius, " he speaks of both the flesh and 
 the Spirit, and carefully distinguishes one from the other, 
 in order that we, believing not only in that which was ap- 
 parent to sight, but also in that which was invisible, might 
 learn that the things which he spake were not carnal but 
 spiritual. For how many men would his body have sufficed 
 for food, that it should become the nourishment of the whole 
 world ? But for this reason he made mention of his ascen- 
 sion into heaven, that they might be drawn away from this 
 corporal notion, and thus understand that his flesh, about 
 which he had been speaking, was celestial and spiritual 
 
 FOOD FROM HEAVEN, TO BE GIVEN BY HIMSELF. For thoSB 
 
 things which I have spoken unto you, saith he, are Spirit and 
 life.'' 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem stands next in the order of our wit- 
 nesses, and I shall first quote a passage from his comment 
 on the Liturgy of his day. 
 
 corporis disputans, ac propterea multos scandalizatos conspiciens, ita 
 locutus est : Hoccine vos scandalizat f Quid si igitur filium hominis spec- 
 taveritis ascendentem, uhi ■prius erat ? Spiritus est qui vivijicat, caro non 
 prodesl quicquam. Verba, qua ego locutus sum vohis, spiritus sunt et vita. 
 Hie enim de utroque, came et spiritu suo locutus est, et spiritum a carne 
 discriminavit, ut non solum in eo quod oculis apparebat, sed naturara 
 quoque invisibilem credentes, disceremus ea qua3 loqueretur, non carna- 
 lia esse, sed spiritualia. Quot enim hominibus corpus ejus suffecisset 
 ad cibum, ut universi mundi alimoniafieret? Sed propterea ascensionis 
 BUSB in coelum mentionem fecit, ut eos a corporali intellectu abstraheret, 
 ac deinde carnem suam, de qua locutus erat, cibum e supernis coelestem 
 et spiritualem alimoniam, et ab ipso donandum intelligerent, Qucb enim 
 locutus sum vohis, inquit, Spiritus sunt et vita. 
 
61 
 
 [1 1] " Holy are those things," saith he, " which lie upon 
 the altar, the influence of the Holy Spirit being received. 
 Holy are ye also, being endued with the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost. Holy things therefore are suitable for holy persons. 
 — Thou hast heard the voice of the chorister, inviting you 
 as with a divine melody to the communion of the mysteries^ 
 and saying: Taste and see that the Lord is good. Trust not 
 to your corporeal senses the judgment and estimation of 
 this thing; No, I say, but to your faith, without any doubt- 
 fulness. For those who taste, are not commanded to taste 
 bread and wine, but the antitype (or sign and sacrament) 
 
 OF THE BODY AND BLOOD of Christ." 
 
 It seems obvious, here, that Cyril considers the power 
 of the Holy Spirit necessary for the change by which the 
 elements, from being common bread and wine, are now, 
 after consecration, to be regarded in faith, as the antitypes^ 
 figures, signs and sacraments, of the body and blood of the 
 Redeemer. For he represents them as holy things, sancti- 
 fied, by the word of Christ, to a new and holy signification, 
 so that while the senses could behold in them nothing but 
 common bread and wine, as they were hei^ore, faith beheld 
 in them the solemn memorials of Christ's passion, showing 
 his death until he come. But it is equally plain that Cyril 
 did not believe the Roman or the Tractarian doctrine of 
 the Real Presence, else he would have said that the be- 
 lievers tasted, not the antitypes or figures, but the actual 
 body and blood themselves. 
 
 [11] (Cyril. Hier. Cat. xxiii. Mystag, v. p. 331.) Saucta sunt, quse (in 
 altari) proposita jacent, recepto Spiritus sancti superventu: Sancti vos 
 quoque, Spiritus sancti dono dignati. Sancta igitur Sanctis conveniunt. 
 — Audisti deinde vocera psallentis, divina quadam melodia vos ad sanc- 
 torum mysteriorum communionem invitantis, ac dicentis: Gustate et 
 viDETE, QUOD BONUS EST DoMiNus. Ne corporeis faucibus liujus rei 
 judicium £estimationemque permittite: non, inqiiam, sed fidei omnis 
 dubitationis experti. Qui enim gustant,non panemetvinum degustare 
 jubentur, sed antitypura (seu signum et sacramentum) corporis et san- 
 guinis Christi. 
 14 
 
62 
 
 This view of the doctrine of Cyril will perhaps be better 
 understood after a careful consideration of the two following 
 passages, in which the Eucharist is compared with other 
 things, about the meaning of which there can be but one 
 opinion, [12] "For in the like manner," saith he, "as 
 the bread and wine of the Eucharist, before the holy invo- 
 cation of the adorable Trinity, are naked bread and wine, 
 but when that invocation is completed, the bread is made 
 the body of Christ, and the wine the blood of Christ, even 
 thus, in the same way, those meats which belong to the pomp of 
 Satan, although by nature, they are naked and common, are 
 nevertheless made, by the invocation of demons, contaminated 
 and profane." 
 
 And again, speaking of the Chrism, used to this day in 
 the Greek and Roman Churches, (but laid aside in ours, 
 because it had no Scriptural warrant of the apostles,) Cyril 
 saith, [13] " Beware that you do not regard this as a naked 
 and common ointment. For as the bread of the Eucharist, 
 after the invocation of the Holy Spirit, is not common 
 bread, but the body of Christ, even thus this holy ointment 
 is no longer naked, nor, if any one prefers so to call it, 
 common ointment after the invocation, but the gift of 
 Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, made efficient by the pre- 
 sence of his divinity. With which truly, you are symboli- 
 
 [12] (S. Cyrilli Cat. My stag. 1, p. 308.) Quemadmodum enim panis 
 et vinum Eucharistiae ante sanctam adorandse Trinitatis invocationeni, 
 nudus panis et vinum erat, invocatione autem peracta, panis fit corpus 
 Cliristi, et vinum sanguis Christi, ita et hujusmodi esculenta ad pompam 
 Satance pertinentia, quum ex natura sua nuda et communia sint, invo- 
 catione doemonum profana et contaminata redduntur. 
 
 [13] {fb. Cat. Mystag. Ill, § 111, p. 316.) Cajterum vide ne nudum 
 et vile susciperis unguentum hoc esse. Nam sicut panis Eucharistise, 
 post invocationem sancti Spiritus, non est communis panis, sed corpus 
 Christi; ita et sanctum islud unguentum, non ampHus nudum, neque si 
 (luis ita appellare malit, commune unguentum est post invocationem, sed 
 Christi donarium, et Spiritus sancti, praesentia divinitatis ejus, efficiens 
 factum. Quod quidem symbolicc fronti, aliisque sensibus tuis illinitur. 
 Ac dum unguento visibili inungitur corpus, sancto et vivifico Spiritu 
 anima sanctificatur. 
 
63 
 
 cally anointed on your forehead, and other members. And 
 whilst the body is anointed with the visible ointment, the sold 
 is sanctified by the holy and quickening Spirit." 
 
 These comparisons seem clearly to demonstrate the sense 
 in which Cyril and the fathers generally regarded the doc- 
 trine of the Real Presence. The consecrated elements 
 acquired a new symbolic character by their dedication to 
 a holy use, just as the meats olTered to idols acquired a 
 character of profanation on the one hand, or as the holy 
 Chrism used in Confirmation acquired an emblematic sig- 
 nification of spiritual blessings upon the other. But Cyril 
 appears to have held no more Real Presence of Christ in 
 the consecrated symbols of his sacred body and blood, than 
 of the Holy Spirit in the ointment, or of Satan in the meats 
 offered to idols. The only Real Presence of Christ and 
 the Holy Spirit was in the faithful soul, as, in like manner, 
 there might be a real presence of the wicked one, in the 
 heart of the unbeliever. 
 
 From Hilary, bishop of Poictiers, I shall next make a 
 brief quotation, where his language may help to explain his 
 meaning in another place, which is much less clear and 
 satisfactory. Commenting on a text of the apostle, Hilary 
 saith; [14] "We are all spiritual, if the Spirit of God be 
 in us. But this Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ. And 
 when the Spirit of Christ is in us, then his Spirit is in us 
 who raised Christ from the dead, and he who raised Christ 
 from the dead will also quicken our mortal bodies by the 
 
 [14] (S. Hilar. De Trinitatc, L. viii. p. 169,) Volens enim naturce uni- 
 tatem in Patre et Filio docere,ita ait; (Sc. Apostolus Paulus) Vos autem 
 non estis in came, sed in Spiritu: siquidem Spiritus Dei in vobis est. 
 Si quis autem Spiritum Christi non liabet, hie non est ejus, &c. — Spiri- 
 tualis omnes sumus, si in nobis est Spiritus Dei: scd hie Spiritus Dei 
 Spiritus Christi est. Et cum Christi Spiritus in nobis est, ejus turn 
 Spiritus in nobis est, qui Christum suscitavit a mortuis, et qui suscitavit 
 Christum a mortuis, corpora quoque nostra mortalia vivificabit propter 
 habitantem Spiritum ejus in nobis. Vivifieamur ergo propter habitantem 
 in nobis Spiritum Christi, per eum qui Christum suscitavit a mortuis. 
 
64 
 
 Spirit that dwelleth in us. Therefore we are quickened on 
 account of the Spirit of Christ dwelling in us, by him who 
 raised Christ from the dead.'' Now this passage, quoted 
 from the very same treatise cited by Dr. Pusey, may show 
 the real doctrine of this father, taken as a whole, to have 
 been, that our resurrection was the consequence, not of a 
 literal incorporation of the body and blood of Christ with 
 our bodies, (for this incorporation is figurative and mystical,) 
 but of the indwelling Spirit of Christ, the true Presence 
 vouchsafed to the faithful soul. 
 
 Basil, the bishop of Cesarea, comes next in order. From 
 the Liturgy which bears his name I shall make one extract, 
 and from his epistles another. In both together, his doc- 
 trine will sufficiently appear. 
 
 Jlfter the consecration of the elements, and a collect offered 
 by the priest, and two responses by the people, the follow- 
 ing supplication occurs. [15] "We, thy sinful and un- 
 worthy servants, pray and beseech thee, Lover of man- 
 kind, good Lord, and we adore thee with a grateful sense 
 of thy goodness, that thy Holy Spirit may come upon us thy 
 servants, and upon these thy gifts placed before thee, and 
 may sanctify and make them the holy things of holy persons. 
 And may He make tJds bread to become the holy body of the 
 Lord God himself and our Saviour Jesus Christ, for the re- 
 mission of sins and eternal life, to those partaking of it." 
 
 The remark which I would make upon the foregoing, is 
 that the illapse of the Holy Spirit is prayed for, first on the 
 communicants and secondly on the elements, plainly showing 
 that the answer to the prayer is expected, not upon the 
 
 [15] (S. BasUii Liturgia, 0pp. Tom. 2. p. 678-9.) Rogamus et de- 
 precamur te amator hominum, bone Domine, nos peccatores et indigni 
 servi tui, et adoramus te cum beneplacito bonitatis tuEe; ut veniat Spiri- 
 tus tuus sanctus super nos servos tuos, et super proposita baecdona tua, 
 sanctificenlque et efficiant ea sancta sanctorum. 
 
 Et faciat panem quidem istum, fieri corpus sanctum ipsius Domini Dei 
 et Salvatoris nostri Jesu Cbristi in remissionem peccatorum, et vitam 
 iBternam, ex illo participantibus. 
 
65 
 
 elements anterior to their reception, when lying on the altar 
 or in. the hands of the priest, but on the communicants and 
 the elements in the act of reception. The more plainly to 
 demonstrate this, we find that this prayer is offered after 
 the consecration is completed, and that the elements are still 
 called bread; proving incontrovertibly, that no change is 
 supposed to be wrought by consecration except the con- 
 ferring upon them the symbolical or figurative character 
 which make them the authorized memorials of the death of 
 Christ, or, in other words, memorials of his sacred bod}^ 
 broken, and his precious blood shed, for our redemption. 
 In this feature of the Basil ian Liturgy, we recognize, sub- 
 stantially, the language of our own. 
 
 I pass on, however, to the promised specimen of this 
 father^s interpretation. [16] " Whosoever eateth me,'' saith 
 the Saviour, " livelh by me.'' " For we eat his flesh," con- 
 tinues Basil, " and drink his blood, being made participants, 
 through his incarnation and visible life, of the Word and 
 Wisdom. For his whole mystical life in the flesh, and his 
 constant doctrine in practice, nature, and theology, are 
 what he called his body and blood, by which doctrine the 
 soul is nourished," &c. It is difficult to conceive of a less 
 literal interpretation than this, and yet it is one which may 
 be thoroughly sustained, not only by the paramount lan- 
 guage of Scripture, but by a large amount of palristical 
 authority. 
 
 From Basil I pass on to Gregory Nazianzen, who speaks 
 in accordance with Cyril, [17] asking how unholy men 
 
 [16] {S. Basil. Ep. viii. Turn. Ill, p. 84.) Qui manducat me, inqiiit, 
 mvit propter me. Edimus enim ipsius carnem^ et bibimus ipsins sanoui- 
 nem, participes facti, per incarnationem et sensibiletn vitam, Verbi et 
 sapientis. Carnem enim et sanguinem, totam suam mysticam in came 
 conversationem vocavit, et doctrinam ex practica et naturali et thcolo- 
 gica notions constantein declaravit: per quam et nutritur anima, &c. 
 
 [17] Greg. JYaz. Apohgct. Oratio Prima, p. 38. B. Htec igitur cum nossem, 
 illudque insuper, neminem magno, et Deo,et Sacrificio,et Pontifice, din-- 
 nura esse, nisi qui prius seipsum Deo hostiam viventem sanctara exlu' 
 
 14* 
 
66 
 
 could dare to "offer the external sacrifice, the figure or anti' 
 type of the great mysteries." 
 
 Optatus, the bishop of Milevi, furnishes another inci- 
 dental testimony of a similar kind, where, arguing with 
 the Donatists, he says [18] that "the wine which is trodden 
 and pressed by sinful labourers, is nevertheless offered a 
 sacrifice to God, and the oil which is prepared by evil men 
 is also used in the holy Chrism." A little afterwards, al- 
 luding to the violent proceedings of those outrageous schis- 
 matics, he asks, "What is more iniquitous than to exorcize 
 the Holy Spirit," (meaning their custom of re-baptizing, 
 which he regarded as virtuall}' seeking to drive away the 
 Holy Spirit from those who had received him) "to break 
 altars and to cast the Eucharist to dogs?" On the Oxford 
 theory, these expressions would have been quite inadmis- 
 sible. Optatus could not have written about offering the 
 wine in sacrifice to God, because he would regard it as 
 being the sacred blood of the Redeemer. Nor is it likely 
 that he would have stated the monstrous sacrilege of cast- 
 ing the Eucharist to dogs, immediately after the breaking 
 of the altars, without any amplification or peculiar feeling 
 of indignant astonishment, if he had held the notion, that 
 in the consecrated bread there was actually present, the 
 human and divine Nature of the glorious Redeemer. 
 
 But I pass on to a set of witnesses whose testimony is 
 more express, and, from their eminent reputation in the 
 
 buerit, ac rationabile obsequium gratum atque acceptum ostenderit, 
 Deoque sacrificium laudis,ac spiritum contritum obtulerit, (quod solum 
 sacrificium, is qui omnia dedit, a nobis exposcit) quo tandem niodo ex- 
 ternum illud sacrificium, illud magnorum viysteriorum antitypum ipsi 
 offerre auderent, aut quomodo sacerdotis habitum et nomen subire? 
 
 [18] S. Oplat. Mil. Epis. de Sclusm. Donat. Lib. III. § IV. p. G2. Nam et 
 vinum a peccatoribus operariis et calcatur et premitur, et sic inde Deo 
 sacrificium offertur; oleum quoque a sordidis et nonnullis male viven- 
 tibus et immunda loquentibus conficitur, et tamen in sapore, in lumine, 
 etiam in sancto Chrismate simpliciter erogatur. 
 
 lb. Quid iniquius, qnkm exorcizare Spiritum Sanctum, altaria fran- 
 gere,Eucharistiam animalibus projicere? 
 
67 
 
 ancient Church, far more important; Ambrose, Jerome, 
 and Augustin. 
 
 Beginning with Ambrose, let us hear the words of his 
 Liturgy. [19] "The priest saith: Make to us this oblation 
 imputed, established, reasonable, acceptable; which is the 
 FIGURE of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ/' 
 
 "Perhaps thou sayest," [20] continues Ambrose, else- 
 where, " My bread is common bread. But this bread is 
 bread before the sacramental words are spoken, but when 
 consecration is performed, from bread it becomes the flesh 
 of Christ. Let us add this therefore: How can that which 
 is bread be the body of Christ? By Consecration. But 
 by what words and by whose command is this consecra- 
 tion? By those of the Lord Jesus. — Therefore the word of 
 Christ makes this sacrament." 
 
 [21] "That I may therefore answer thee, it was not the 
 body of Christ before consecration, but after consecration, 
 I say to thee it is the body of Christ. He said, and it was 
 done; he commanded, and it was created. So ihou icert 
 once the old creature: but after thou tvert consecrated, thou 
 didst begin to he a new creature. Wouldst thou know how? 
 Every man, saith the apostle, in Christ is made a new crea- 
 ture." 
 
 [19] 6'. Jlmbros. de Sac. Lib. IV. C. V. Tom. 2. p. 371. 
 
 Dicit Sacerdos-. Fac nobis, inquit, banc oblationem adscriptam, ratam, 
 rationabileni, acceptabilem: quod figuraest corporis et sanguinis Domini 
 nostri Jesu Cliristi. 
 
 [20] S. Jlmbros. de Sacramentis, L. IV. C. IV. Tom. 2. p. 3G8. Tu forte 
 dicis: Meus panis est usitatus. Sed panis iste panis est ante verba Sacra- 
 mentorurn: ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Cliristi. Hoc 
 igitur adstruamus. Quomodo potest qui panis est, corpus esse Christi? 
 Consecratione. Consecratio autem quibus verbis est, et cujus sermo- 
 nibus? Domini Jesu. — Ergo sermo Christi lioc conficit Sacramentum. 
 
 [21] lb. p. 369. Ergo tibi ut respondeam, non erat corpus Cliristi ante 
 consecrationem: sed post consecrationem dice tibi quia jam corpus est 
 Christi. Ipse dixit, et factum est: ipse raandavit, et creatum est. Tu 
 ipse eras, sed eras vetus creatura: postea quam consecratus es, nova 
 creatura esse coepisti. Vis scire quam nova creatura.' Omnis, inquit, 
 in Cltristo nova creatura. 
 
68 
 
 [22] "Wine and water is put into the cup: but it is 
 made blood by the consecration of the heavenly word. — 
 But perhaps thou sayest, I do not see the appearance of 
 blood. Nevertheless it has a simUUude; for as thou hast 
 taken the similitude of death, thus also thou drinkest the simili- 
 tude of his precious blood, that there might be no horror of blood 
 conceived, and yet the price of thy redemption might operate." 
 
 Once more, let me add an interesting specimen of the 
 figurative style of our author's interpretations. 
 
 [23] " God loill bruise Satan under your feet. In the first 
 place, bruise thy heart, in which was the character of the 
 dragon, that he may not find a place to dwell in: bruise 
 the flesh of the dragon: his flesh is our sins. — For as the 
 saints are the body and members of Christ, so sinners who do 
 not abandon sin but adhere to it, are the body and members of 
 the dragon. Therefore we feast upon the BOor op 
 Christ; but they feast upon the body of the dragon; 
 we who contend that we may adhere to Christ, feast upon 
 the daily pardon and remission of sins, but they who daily 
 add sin to s'm, feast upon the continuance of their crimes and 
 wickedness.'^ 
 
 Now in all this, it is easy to see the sense in which the 
 consecrated elements were regarded by the Church, in the 
 age of Ambrose, as the body and blood. In the Liturgy, 
 
 [22] lb. p. 370. Vinum et aqua in calicem mittitur: sed fit sanguis 
 consecralione verbi coelestis. § 20. Sed forte dicis; Specieni sanguinis 
 non video. Sed babet similitudinem: sicut enim mortis similitudinem 
 sumpsisti, ita etiam similitudinem preciosi sanguinis bibis, ut nullus 
 horror cruoris sit, et pretium tamen operetur redemptionis. 
 
 [23] S. Amhros. inPs. xxxvi. Enar. § 9. Tom- 1. p. 819. c<c. Conleral, 
 inquit, Deus Satamtm suh pedihus vestris. Contere primo cor tuum, in 
 quo erat draconis cubile, ut non inveniat ubi possit habitare: contere dra- 
 conis carnes; carnes ejus peccata nostra sunt. Sicut enim sancti, corpus 
 et membra sunt Christi; ita peccatores qui peccatum non deserunt, sed 
 peccato iniicerent, corpus draconis et membra sunt. Ideo nos Christi 
 corpus epulamur; illi autem corpus epulantur draconis: nos epulamur 
 qui Christo adhaerere contendimus, remissionem quotidianam et veniam 
 peccatorum; illi autem qui peccatis quotidie peccata connectunt, conti- 
 nuationem flagitiorum epulantur et criminum. 
 
69 
 
 for instance, the very prayer supplicates tiiat they may be 
 made, not the reality, but tlie figure: corresponding with 
 the antitype of Cyril, the symbolicnl and typical body of 
 Origen, and the same word figure of Tertullian. Next we 
 see him stating; that the elements become the flesh of Christ, 
 not by his real presence in them, nor by any infusion of our 
 Lord's spiritual and divine nature into them, but by con- 
 secration, performed by the word of Christ, namely, his 
 command or express authority. Thirdly, we see the change 
 in the elements by this consecration, compared to the 
 change in the Christian when he is consecrated to the ser- 
 vice of God. P'ourthly, Ambrose, in answer to the diffi- 
 culty that the communicant does not see the appearance of 
 blood, replies, that granting this, there is, nevertheless, (not 
 the reality, but) a similitude, compares it to the similitude 
 of the Christian being buried by baptism into Christ's death, 
 which is confessedly mystical and symbolical, and then 
 states a reason why it should not be really the blood of 
 Christ, that there should be no horror of blood, but that it 
 should operate to give us the benefits of the Saviour's death 
 and passion. And lastly, we see him using the very same 
 language in reference to our feeding, by our sins, upon the 
 body of Satan, which he uses concerning our feeding, by 
 holiness, upon the body of Christ, than which I can conceive 
 of no proof more conclusive to show, that this language 
 concerning the consecrated elements of the Eucharistical 
 feast, was well understood as symbolical and figurative 
 throughout, designed to represent, in the liveliest form, the 
 spiritual effects assured to the faithful partaker. 
 
 But I proceed to the next witness on our list, the learned 
 Jerome, who will fully sustain, if I am not much mistaken, 
 the same doctrine. 
 
 In one place, for example, he states that our Lord [24] 
 
 "offered not water, but wine, as a type of his blood." 
 
 [24] Hieron. Lib. See. adv. Jovinianum, Opp. Tom. 2. p. 52. C, lo 
 TYPO SANGUINIS sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum. 
 
7^ 
 
 Again, in his commentary on the institution of the Eu- 
 charist in St. Matthew's Gospel, Jerome salth, [25] that 
 "after the t3^plcal Passover had been fulfilled, and He had 
 eaten the flesh of the Lamb with his apostles, He took bread, 
 which comforts the heart of man, and proceeded to the true 
 Sacrament of the Passover, that in like manner as Melchi- 
 sedec, the priest of the most High God, in prefiguration of 
 him, had done, offering bread and wine. He also might 
 REPRESENT the truth of his body and blood." 
 
 In the same fatlier's commentary upon the institution, 
 as narrated by St. Mark, we read as follows: [26] "Jesus 
 took bread, and blessed and brake it, transfiguring his body 
 in bread, which (body) is the present Church, accepted 
 in faith, blessed in number, broken in sufierings, given in 
 examples, received in doctrines," &c. 
 
 Again, in his commentary on the same transaction in 
 St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, Jerome saith, 
 that our Lord, [27] " being about to suffer, left to us this 
 
 LAST COMMEMORATION, OR MEMORIAL." 
 
 And again, on the text which declares that the unworthy 
 communicant shall be guilty of the body and blood of the 
 Lord, Jerome makes this comment, [28] "Because he de- 
 spised, as a common thing, the sacrament (or sign) of 
 such a mysterj^." 
 
 Now in all of these passages we have distinctly set forth 
 
 [25] Hieron. Com. in Mat. Lib. IV. Cap. XXVI. Tom. 9. p. 64. B. 
 Ccenantibus autem eis, accepit Jesus panem, &c,] Postquam typicum 
 Pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum Apostolis comederat, assu- 
 mit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum Paschee transgreditur 
 Sacramentum, ut quomodo in prsefiguratione ejus Melchisedec Summi 
 Dei sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, ipse quoque veritatem 
 sui corporis et sanguinis REPRa:sENTARET. 
 
 [26] lb. Com. in Marc. Cap. XIV. Tom. 9. p. 87. Accepit Jesus panem 
 et benedicens fregitj transfigurans corpus suum in panem quod est Ec- 
 CLEsiA PRyESENS, qu£B accipitur in fide, bcnedicitur in numero, frangitur 
 in passionibus, datur in exemplis, sumitur in ductrinis, &c. 
 
 [27] Hieron. Com. in priorem ad Corinth, cap. xi. 9, p. 255: accipit 
 •panem, et gralias agens, &c. Hoc est, benedicens etiam passurus, ulti- 
 mam nobis commemorationem sive memoriam dereliquit. 
 
n 
 
 the same idea, viz. that the consecrated elements are the 
 body of Christ, in a figurative or symbolical sense, and 
 nothing more. In one place he calls them expressly a type, 
 in another, a representation, in a (bird, an emblem of the 
 Church, in a fourth, a commemoration or memorial of Christ's 
 sufferings, in a fifth, a sacrament (or sign) of the great 
 mystery. It is obvious that such language accords pre- 
 cisely with the doctrine of tiie Eucharist as declared by the 
 Church of England and explained by the Reformers, but 
 can hardly be pressed, by any fair management, into the 
 service of our Tractarian brethren. 
 
 The last of the fathers which I propose to cite, is the 
 highly-gifted Augustin, from whom my extracts will be 
 more copious, as they will be, I trust, perfectly conclusive 
 on the point before us. 
 
 Illustrating the fundamental maxim of figurative language 
 by the ordinary practice of the Church, this eminent teacher 
 saith as follows. [29] " We often express ourselves in this 
 
 [28] (Reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.) Quia tanti mysterii 
 Sacramentum pro vili despexerit. 
 
 [29] S. Augustin. ad Bonifac. Ep. 98. 0pp. Tom. 11, p. 202, § 9. 
 Nempe ssepe ita loquimur, ut Pascha propinquante dicamus, crastinam 
 vel perendinam Domini passionem, cum ilia ante tarn multos annos pas- 
 sus sit, nee omnino nisi semel ilia passio facta sit. Nempe ipso die do- 
 minico dicimus, Hodle Dominus resurrexit, cum ex quo resurrexil tot 
 anni transierint. Cur nemo tarn ineptus est, ut nos ita loquentes arguat 
 esse mentitos, nisi quia istos dies secundum illorum, quibus hcBC gesta 
 sunt, similitudinem nuncupamus, ut dicatur ipse dies qui non est ipse, 
 sed revolutione temporis similis ejus: et dicatur illo die fieri, propter 
 sacramenti celebrationem, quod non illo die, sed jam olim factum est? 
 Nonne semel immoiatus est Christus in seipso, et tamen in Sacramento 
 non solum per omnes Paschae solemnitates, sed omni die populis immo- 
 latur, nee utique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari? 
 Si enim sacramenta quamdam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sa- 
 cramenla sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non assent. Ex hac 
 autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. 
 Sicut ergo secundum quemdam modum sacramentum corporis Cbristi 
 corpus Christ! est, sacramentum sanguinis Ciiristi sanguis Christi est, 
 ita sacramentum fidei fides est. — Sicut de ipso baptismo Apostolus, Con- 
 sepulll, inquit, sumus Christo per laptismum in mortem, Non ait sepultu- 
 
manner, as when Easter is approaching we say, To-morrow 
 or the next day will be the Passion of our Lord, although 
 so many years have passed away since he suffered, nor did 
 he suffer more than once. In like manner we say on the 
 Lord's day, To-day the Lord arose, although the real day 
 of his resurrection was so many years ago. Why is no 
 one so foolish as to accuse us of lying when we talk thus, 
 unless it be because we express a similitude to those days 
 on which the events actually occurred? so that it may be 
 called the same day, which is not in reality the same, but 
 in the revolution of time, is its likeness, just as by reason 
 of the celebration of the Sacrament, that may be called 
 done on that day, which was truly done, not on that day 
 but long before it. Was not Christ once really immolated, 
 and yet in the Sacrament, not only through all the solem- 
 nities of Easter, but every day, he is immolated for the 
 people; nor does he speak falsely, who, being interrogated, 
 should reply, that Christ was immolated. For if the Sa- 
 craments had not a certain similitude of those things, of 
 which they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments 
 at all. But from this similitude, they receive, for the most 
 part, the names of the things themselves. As therefore the 
 Sacrament of the body of Christ, after a certain mode, is 
 the body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the blood of 
 Christ is the blood of Christ, even so the Sacrament of faith 
 is faith. Even as the Apostle saith of baptism itself, We 
 are buried with Christ by baptism into death. He does not 
 say. We have exhibited the sign of burial, but he saith di- 
 rectly, We are buried. Hence he describes the Sacrament 
 (the sign or figure) of such a thing, no otherwise than by 
 the name of the thing itself." 
 
 Again, our author, speaking of the schismatic Donatists, 
 saith, [30] " They are not to be despaired of, for they are 
 
 ram significavimus: sed prorsus ait: cnnscpultl sumus. Sacramentum 
 ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupavit. 
 
 [30] S. Auguslin. de cor. Donal. Lib. ad Bonifacium, § 50. Tom, 2. p. 
 
73 
 
 yet in the body: but they may not seek the Holy Spirit 
 unless in the body of Christ, of which they have indeed 
 the Sacrament outwardly, but they do not hold inwardly 
 the thing itself of ivhich it is the Sacrament, and therefore 
 they eat and drink judgment to themselves." 
 
 [31] Elsewhere, Augustin lays down a rule of figurative 
 language in Scripture, which he applies in a ver}' interesting 
 manner to the subject of the Eucharist. " If a text con- 
 taining a precept," saith he, "either forbids any baseness 
 or villany, or enjoins utility or beneficence, it is not figu- 
 rative. But if it seems to command what is criminal or 
 dishonourable, or to forbid what is useful or beneficent, 
 it is figurative. Thus our Lord saith: Unless ye eat the 
 flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have no life 
 in you. He seems to command a wicked and immoral ac- 
 tion: therefore it is a figure, directing a participation in 
 our Lord's Passion, and that we shall sweetly and usefully 
 lay it up in our memory, that for us his flesh was crucified 
 and wounded." 
 
 Commenting on the Book of Genesis, where Joseph, in- 
 terpreting the baker's dream, saith, The three baskets (or 
 dishes,) are three days, Augustin observes: [32] "He does 
 
 504. Non sunt desperandi : adhuc enim sunt in corpore : sed non qute- 
 rant Spiritum Sanctum, nisi in Christi corpore, cujus habent foris sacra- 
 mentum, sed rem ipsam non tenent intus cujus est illud sacramentum 
 et adeo sibi judicium manducant et bibunt. 
 
 [31] lb. de Doctrina Christiana, L. iii. § 24. Tom. 3, p. 40. Si praeceptiva 
 locutioest autflagitiumautfacinusvetans,aututilitatem autbeneficentiam 
 jubens,non est figurata. Si autem flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, 
 aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. JYisl manducaveritis, 
 inquit, carnem filii hominis, et sanguinem biberitis, non liabebitis vitavi in 
 vobis. Facinus.vel flagitium videtur jubere : figura est ergo, proecipiens 
 passioni Dominicee communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter recon- 
 dendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit. 
 
 [32] lb. p. 250. Ties fundi, tres dies sunt. (Gen. xl. 12.) JNon dixit, 
 tres dies significant. Et multum hsec locutio notanda est, ubi aliqua sig- 
 nificantia, earum rerum quas significant, nomine appellantur: inde est 
 quod ait Apostolus, Petra autem erat Christus, non ait, Petrasignificabat 
 Christus. 
 
 15 
 
not say, They signify three days. And this mode of ex- 
 pression is greatly to be noted, where the signs are called 
 by the name of the things which they signify: hence the 
 apostle salth: And the rock was Christ, he does not say, 
 The rock signified Christ."" 
 
 Again saith Augustin, very expressly, [33] " Our Lord 
 did not hesitate to say: This is my body, when he gave 
 
 them THE SIGN OF HIS BODY." 
 
 And again, speaking of the very word, [34] " Sacraments, 
 that is," saith Augustin, "sacred signs." — "Even as we," 
 continues he, "with faithful heart and mouth, acknowledge 
 the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, 
 giving to us his flesh to eat, and his blood to drink; al- 
 though it may seem more horrible to eat human flesh, and 
 drink human blood, than to perish; and so throughout all 
 the holy Scriptures, whatever is expounded concerning 
 figurative speech or action, should be according to the rule 
 of a sound faith." 
 
 Fi'om these extracts out of the fathers, I think it abun- 
 dantly plain, that the doctrine of the primitive Church was 
 fully understood and fairly professed by our great Re- 
 formers; that the early Christians did not hold the conse- 
 crated elements to be more than a figure or symbol of the 
 body and blood of Christ; that the very term sacrament in 
 the primitive ages, (and indeed until the times of the school- 
 men) signified, as saith Augustin, a sacred sign; the same 
 meaning still retained by us in the Articles: and therefore 
 
 [33] Tb. contra Jldhnantum, Tom. viii.;;. 90, § 3. Non enim Doininus dubi- 
 tavit dicere, Hoc est corpus mcum: cum signum claret corporis suL 
 
 [34] lb. contra Jldversarium Legis et Proph.Lib. ii. p. 425. Sacramenta, id 
 est, sacra signa. Sicut mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum 
 Jesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam bibendumque sanguinera dan- 
 tem,fideli corde atque ore suscipimus; quamvis horribilius videatur hu- 
 manam carnem manducare quam perimere, et humanum sanguinem 
 potare qukm fundere: atque in omnibus Sanctis Scripturis, secundum 
 sanae fidei regulam figurate dictum vel factum si quid exponitur, de qui- 
 buslibet rebus et verbis qua sacris paginis continentur, expositio ilia 
 ducatur, &.c. 
 
75 
 
 that heretics, schismatics, and wicked men, might receive 
 the body and blood of Christ sacramenlally, that is, they 
 might receive the outward signs or consecrated elements 
 which were the appointed emblems of Christ's passion, as 
 well as the righteous. But the Real Presence, the spiritual 
 benefit, could only be received by the faithful and sincere 
 heart, and from Him alone who is the Searcher of the 
 heart. Hence the manifest error of placing the inward 
 grace in the outward element, of committing to the hand of 
 the minister that spiritual presence which comes from the 
 direct agency of God, and thus raising the external sign, and 
 the human instrument, to a dignity and importance which 
 our Lord reserved for his own heavenly power, his own 
 divine agency. The probable, not to say certain, conse- 
 quences of such an error, are sufficiently intimated by the 
 words of Christ himself; " In vain do ye worship me, teaching 
 for doctrines the commandments of men,'' with which we may 
 well connect the language of the Almighty by the prophet, 
 "/ will not give my glory to another.'' 
 
 Under this aspect of the question, my respected and be- 
 loved brethren, I must confess myself altogether opposed 
 to the discourse of Rev, Dr. Pusey. For its language is 
 borrowed from the highest figures of the fathers, quoted 
 without the slightest qualification, and applied in the most 
 literal sense; nay, hardly admitting of a construction short 
 of Transubstantiation itself; as, for instance, the words taken 
 from Chrysostom, " That which is in the cup is that which 
 flowed from his side," to which the preacher adds this com- 
 ment, " Touching with our very lips that cleansing blood, how 
 shall we not, with the Ancient Church, confess, Lo, this 
 hath touched my lips, and shall take away my iniquities, and 
 cleanse my sins." 
 
 I am perfectly aware, indeed, that this distinguished di- 
 vine has frequently declared, in general terms, his adherence 
 to the Articles, and therefore it has been supposed by some, 
 that the language of his sermon cannot be fairly interpreted 
 
76 
 
 except in accordance with the Church's doctrine. But I 
 would beseech himself and his friends to ask their own 
 good sense and Christian feelings whether such an apology 
 can be admitted in justification of this particular discourse? 
 Manifestly not, in my humble judgment, and for the fol- 
 lowing reasons: 
 
 First, because the very object of preaching is to deliver 
 the truth of God to the people who are assembled to hear. 
 If that truth is kept back, if an exaggerated and dispropor- 
 tioned representation of one side of a great doctrine is put 
 forth as the whole, if false views are advanced by the sup- 
 pression of essential explanations, if an apparent agreement 
 with the superstitious and perilous tenets of Rome be in- 
 culcated, without the slightest attempt on the part of the 
 preacher to guard his hearers from misapprehension — it is 
 no excuse to say that the congregation can correct the er- 
 ror of the sermon for themselves, by recurring to what the 
 preacher has either said or written on some other occasion. 
 I deny that any minister of Jesus Christ has a right to lay 
 stumbling blocks in the way of his brethren, by preaching 
 on the great doctrines of the Gospel so as to require such 
 explanation. It is his duty to establish, not to unsettle; 
 to clear away the mists of error, not to cloud the minds of 
 his hearers with the fogs of Roman superstition; to ground 
 them thoroughly in the faith as the Church has set it forth, 
 not to throw them into a state of doubtfulness as to her 
 real orthodoxy. And he is bound to remember that each 
 sermon must be viewed as a whole in itself, with respect to 
 his congregation, because he cannot expect that the people 
 either will or can rectify its apparent errors from any other 
 source. Some of them may never visit the Church again. 
 The preacher may not live to correct his own mistakes: the 
 same identical assembly may never meet together to give 
 him the opportunity. And therefore it is obvious, that the 
 sermon cannot be defended by appealing to other statements of 
 its author, extraneous to itself. The very admission that it 
 
77 
 
 needs such a defence, amounts to a virtual condemna- 
 tion. 
 
 But secondly, the apology is utterly unsatisfactory when 
 it is recollected, that our Tractarian friends had long pro- 
 claimed themselves to be in a transition state. The British 
 Critic had published the avowal, that they could not stay 
 where they where, that they must "go back or go forward, 
 and that it would surely be the latter.'' The famous Tract 
 No. 90 had demonstrated the surprising fact, that the Ar- 
 ticles of the Church of England might be so interpreted as 
 to satisfy the consciences of men who were then professedly 
 within her pale, but who were seriously contemplating the 
 abandonment of her communion for that of the Church of 
 Rome. The new system of Tractarian theology was con- 
 fessedly in a growing condition, and every month was ex- 
 pected to produce ^ome fresh development. At such a 
 time and under such circumstances, it seems perfectly pre- 
 posterous to my mind, that the hearers of Dr. Pusey should 
 be asked to receive his sermon in that sense only, which 
 he and his friends were universally believed to have repu- 
 diated. He could not have so mistaken his position as to 
 believe, that his words would be transmuted into the doc- 
 trines of the Reformation. On the contrary, he must have 
 been perfectly aware, that whatever construction they re- 
 quired on the part of his congregation, must needs be sup- 
 plied from precisely the opposite quarter; that if he spake 
 in language that sounded like Romanism, the fears and the 
 expectations of those who listened to him must make them 
 doubly susceptible of a false impression. And therefore 
 all the peculiarities of his situation, — peculiarities which had 
 been increasing in weight and importance for ten successive 
 years — precluded the correction of error by any ordinary 
 process of implicit faith in the intentions of the preacher; 
 and invested his whole discourse with the most decided 
 character of deliberate and conscious responsibility, 
 
 15* :.j 
 
78 
 
 Thirdly, however, the excuse attempted goes no farther 
 than to assert, that Dr. Pusey does not maintain the Roman 
 tenet of Transubstantialion. I have already shown, at large, 
 the exceeding skill with which this obnoxious term is ex- 
 plained by our Tractarian friends, so as to leave them at li- 
 berty to state the Real Presence of Christ in such language as 
 the Romanists themselves approve. And therefore, for my 
 part, I am disposed to do full justice to Dr. Pusey's candour, 
 since I am persuaded that he holds ex animo exactly what 
 his sermon expresses; namely, that by virtue of the act of 
 consecration, the human and divine natures of our Lord Je- 
 sus Christ become united to the sacramental elements, on the 
 altar and in the hands of the officiating priest: a doctrine 
 which I believe to be thoroughly inconsistent with Scrip- 
 ture, with the Reformers, with the fathers, and with the 
 standards of our Church — which is, in my opinion, liable 
 to all the objections of Transubstantiation, and in no re- 
 spect to be distinguished from it, except by one of those 
 refined subtleties in theology which make a distinction 
 without a difference. And thus persuaded, I am compelled 
 to say, that I cannot join with those of my respected bre- 
 thren who have protested against the sentence of the Vice- 
 Chancellor in suspending him. On the contrary, I believe, 
 that if the censures of the Church of England had been 
 formally passed upon all the doctrinal innovations of that 
 school, on the publication of Tract No. 90, neither the in- 
 terests of Christian truth nor the law of ecclesiastical jus- 
 tice would have had any reason to complain. 
 
 I make this statement without having seen any of the 
 publications which this extraordinary act of University 
 discipline has called forth, on the side of the high func- 
 tionary concerned. But 1 have seen the elaborate attack 
 upon him and the six doctors of divinity, in defence of Dr. 
 Pusey, which occupies so large a portion of the late British 
 Critic, and in which there is, undoubtedly, a most brilliant 
 display of argument and eloquence; of authority, popular 
 
79 
 
 sense of right, the sanctity of law, the majesty of justice, 
 satire, wit, ridicule, and every element of forensic and rhe- 
 torical ability, all mingled together, with a profusion, a 
 keenness, a splendour, and a scorching power, quite above 
 the meed of my humble admiration. It is no part of my 
 province to obtrude an opinion as to the strict, technical 
 accuracy, with which the statutes of the University were 
 enforced on this occasion. I prefer the safer course of 
 leaving the mode of such peculiar proceedings to the judg- 
 ment of those, who have the best opportunity to know 
 whether their course is according to precedent; and who 
 have every possible motive, whether of duty to the Church, 
 duty to the University, duty to the public, or duty to 
 themselves, to prevent their hazarding the obvious conse- 
 quences of any act, which could deserve the charge of offi- 
 cial oppression. But I do consider myself bound, in all 
 Christian honesty, to say, that I cannot see any just ground 
 of complaint, on the part of Dr. Pusey, so far as his sermon 
 is concerned. It appears by the statement of the British 
 Critic, that the legal tribunal, appointed by the statutes of 
 the University, examined it to their own satisfaction; that 
 they sent Dr. Jelf to confer with the Author about the pas- 
 sages which were found objectionable, in order to ascer- 
 tain whether he would consent to recant, or to modify his 
 doctrine; that he utterly refused to do either the one or the 
 other, and that after allowing him sufficient time to change 
 his determination, the Vice Chancellor suspended him for 
 two years. These are the main facts, as 1 have gathered 
 them from Dr. Pusey 's most accomplished advocate; and 
 he pours the most unsparing rebuke upon the whole tran- 
 saction, first because there was no public trial, next, because 
 Dr. Pusey was not called upon to make his public defence; 
 and lastly, because the examination of the sermon was held 
 in a private room, over a tea-table. 
 
 In the first of these objections, there is, without doubt, 
 great plausibility. We are all accustomed to the idea, that 
 
80 
 
 no man can be condemned without a public trial; and this 
 axiomatic principle of justice is naturally supposed to have 
 a full and fair application to the case in question. In truth, 
 however, I have not been able to discover that it has the 
 slightest connexion with the examination of published icritings 
 by a Court of heresy. I seriously question whether any 
 Theological Faculty in Europe, of any kind or under any 
 circumstances, ever yet held a public court, for the purpose of 
 investigating the soundness or orthodoxy of a book or a 
 sermon. If the highly gifted Reviewer in the British Cri- 
 tic can find a single instance in the history of the Universal 
 Church, where such an examination was ever conducted in 
 any other than a private manner, he will deserve thanks 
 for the discovery. To my humble judgment it would ap- 
 pear, that the deliberate weighing of written theological 
 statements, and comparing them with the standards of re- 
 ligious truth, is a process generically different from the 
 hearing of living witnesses and the ordinary administration 
 of earthly law. Still more peculiar is the guardianship, 
 wisely established, for the sake of peace, over the pulpits 
 of bodies like the English Universities. The irrelevancy, 
 therefore, of this first objection, seems sufficiently plain. 
 
 The second is equally plausible, and, as it seems to me, 
 equally nugatory. The Rev. Dr. Pusey had publicly pro- 
 claimed what the theological Faculty adjudged to be erro- 
 neous and dangerous opinions, concerning one of the cardi- 
 nal points in controversy between the Churches of England 
 and Rome. His right of defence could only embrace two 
 questions: first. Whether his doctrine was unsound, and 
 secondly, Whether he was the person who delivered it. 
 The latter point, however, was not disputed. No one af- 
 fected to doubt that the discourse was his discourse, and 
 that he was the writer and the preacher. And as to its 
 orthodoxy, there was the written document of Dr. Pusey 
 on the one side, and the Standards of the Church upon (he 
 other, while it was the business of the theological Faculty 
 
81 
 
 to compare them, and judge how far they disagreed, 1 
 cannot, therefore, understand what the Reviewer intends, 
 by this right of defending the doctrine, unless he means 
 that Dr. Pusey should have been invited, in the very pre- 
 sence of the Faculty, publicly to oppose the judgment to 
 which they had already arrived, in their official examination 
 of the sermon. But this would have involved an open 
 contempt of their authority. And the legal absurdity 
 would be the same, as if a temporal Court, after sentence 
 was pronounced, should call upon the party condemned to 
 make a public argument, in order to prove that he was in 
 the right, and that his judges were mistaken! 
 
 In the case under consideration, however, the objection 
 seems particularly unreasonable, when it is remembered, 
 that the Rev. Dr. Pusey had been publicly defending his 
 doctrines, by himself and his colleagues, for years together, 
 against all opposition; in total disregard of the various cen- 
 sures passed upon his opinions by a large proportion of the 
 English bishops, and in the full view of a most extensive 
 and mischievous agitation, not only within the precincts of 
 the University, but throughout the whole land, which had 
 long been regarded, by thousands of good men, with pain- 
 ful apprehension. The sermon in question, therefore, was 
 not so much a single act, as the last of a series of acts, 
 which had been most pertinaciously and publicly defended 
 already, and about the character and bearing of which, 
 neither Dr. Pusey nor his friends could possibly give the 
 Vice Chancellor and his colleagues, any new light or infor- 
 mation. Consequently there was but one call, which could, 
 consistently, be addressed to him, before the final sentence 
 was pronounced; and that was the formal call, to recant or 
 modify his ofi'ensive doctrines, if he desired to avoid official 
 censure. The Faculty, doubtless, might have performed 
 this painful duty, in a more public manner. They might 
 have held an open Court; they might have despatched their 
 officer for the offender, who is said to have been suffering, 
 
82 
 
 at the time, under bodily indisposition; they might have 
 brought him from his sick room, before a gazing audience, 
 to proclaim their judgment on his discourse, and put to 
 him the humiliating question. Whether he would confess 
 his error, ralher than suffer sentence of suspension to be 
 recorded against him. And if they thought fit to pursue a 
 less public method, — if they indulged a feeling of tender- 
 ness towards the sensitive character and infirm, health of 
 Dr. Pusey, and therefore deputed his own personal friend, 
 Dr. Jelf, to make the same proposal to him, in his own 
 private chamber, and with all the delicate consideration 
 which affection and esteem could inspire, — I must con- 
 fess that I cannot see, in this part of the proceeding, any 
 indifference to the rights of Dr. Pusey, nor any defect of 
 courtesy or kindness of which he or his followers could 
 justly complain. 
 
 And as to the third objection, that the judgment of the 
 Theological Faculty was made up in a private room and 
 over a tea table, I am sorry that any mind of religious prin- 
 ciple and strong sense should lay hold of such a trifle, in 
 order to cover with ridicule an act of serious and solemn 
 duty. If, as I have shown, it be the invariable rule for 
 every Theological Faculty to try the orthodoxy of books 
 and published discourses by a private examination, then, I 
 presume, it must be granted, that there could be no injustice 
 to Dr. Pusey in appropriating a private room to a private 
 meeting. And if, in the course of the evening's labours, 
 the customary beverage of tea was introduced, I am quite 
 at a loss to understand how so innocent a refreshment could 
 prejudice the doctrines of Dr. Pusey's sermon. It has 
 been, indeed, a rule of temporal Courts, that a jury should 
 neither eat nor drink until they had agreed upon their ver- 
 dict. But it will be something new to learn that the 
 judges must not swallow a cup of tea or coffee, during a 
 short recess, to refresh them in the progress of an exhaust- 
 
83 
 
 ing trial, without exposing their official decisions to public 
 reproach and crimination. 
 
 1 should not have adverted to this subject at all, if I had 
 not seen, with much regret, that some of my respected and 
 beloved brethren have indulged themselves in a tone of se- 
 vere rebuke with regard to the officers of that noble Uni- 
 versity, which I cannot reconcile with the rules of Chris- 
 tian comity towards a foreign institution, nor with the 
 course which we should expect from the clergy of our 
 mother Church, if our own official acts were passed in re- 
 view before them. It does not argue well for the true in- 
 terests of Christian peace, that we should be over-hasty in 
 censuring the authorities of England for matters with 
 which we have no direct concern; and it would doubtless 
 be wise in us to pause, before we sacrifice the small remains 
 of real unity which the strifes of past years have left us, 
 to an Utopian scheme of Catholic unity, which is probably 
 about as likely to be realized as the Elixir vitas or the Phi- 
 losopher's stone. But since others have spoken so strongly 
 in defence of Dr. Pusey, I have thought it an act of justice 
 to state my personal opinion on the other side, if only to 
 show, that there are some amongst us who are ready to 
 sustain the rights of wholesome discipline, and to render to 
 the official judgment of our English friends, a fair measure 
 of the same confidence which we should claim from them 
 in turn. 
 
 And now, my respected and beloved brethren, as I pro- 
 pose to devote my next Letter to the novel case of the 
 Rev. Mr. Carey's ordination, which has been the occasion 
 of exciting amongst us such an unexampled ferment, I 
 shall add no more to this communication. I trust impli- 
 citly to your kind indulgence, if I have bestowed more la- 
 bour than was necessary upon the present theme. Cut the 
 well-known fact, that the doctrine of the Eucharist is the 
 great centre of the whole Sacramental theology, fully jus- 
 tifies, in my humble judgment, the best effort in our power, 
 
84 
 
 to place, on firm ground, the true teaching of the Church 
 on that highly important subject. It concerns us most 
 nearly, that Baptism and the Eucharist be kept in their 
 true place, as holy Sacraments, " outward and visible signs of 
 inward and spiritual grace, given to us, ordained by Christ 
 himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge 
 to assure us thereof," and to be highly reverenced and duly 
 used by all who would be the heirs of salvation. We must 
 therefore beware, lest we injure the interests of piety by 
 disparaging the proper rank and dignity of these blessed 
 ordinances. But we are equally bound to beware, lest we 
 dishonour the majesty of Christ, and grieve the Holy Spi- 
 rit, by an excessive magnifying of their positive effects, or 
 an idolatrous veneration of their outward elements. Ir- 
 reverence and SUPERSTITION are the Scylla and Charyb- 
 dis of religion, and it will profit us little if, in order to avoid 
 being dashed against the rocks upon the one side, we must 
 be ingulfed by the whirlpool upon the other. May the Lord, 
 of his infinite mercy, grant us the constant direction of his 
 heavenly wisdom, that his Church may be safely guided 
 between them, to the haven of eternal peace and joy. 
 
 Your faithful brother. 
 
 And servant in Christ, 
 
 JOHN H. HOPKINS. 
 
 Burlington, Vermont, 
 January 16, 1844. 
 
JEhe flobeltfes iDlitch tiisturt our 33eace. 
 
 A FOURTH LETTER 
 ADDRESSED 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BISHOPS, CLEl^GY, AND LAITY, 
 
 OF TEE 
 
 Jprotcstant Episcopal (!ll)ttvcl) 
 
 IN THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, D. D., 
 
 BISHOP OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 H. HOOKER, 178 CHESNUT STREET, 
 
 (opposite masonic hXll.) 
 
 1844. 
 
KINfJ AXn BAIRD, PRIJfTERR. 
 
FOURTH LETTER, &c. 
 
 Respected and beloved Brethren, — 
 
 In this, my fourth and conchiding address to you, 
 on the Novehies which disturb our peace, but which — 
 I thank God — have no power to destroy it, I have to 
 soUcit your kind indulgence on a variety of topics, 
 which would bear a far more extended investigation. 
 Thechief of these, however, is the theological notion, 
 that the tenets of the Council of Trent may be recon- 
 ciled to Catholic, or in other words, to primitive and 
 orthodox doctrine. This idea has been for the first 
 time eliminated in the recent ordination of Rev. Ar- 
 thur Carey by my highly esteemed brother, the Bishop 
 of the diocese of New York ; and I cannot discharge 
 what appears to be an act of obligation to the Church 
 of God, without discussing the principal points in- 
 volved in that interesting transaction, and suggesting 
 the best practicable safeguard against future difficul- 
 ties. A few observations upon the system of Rome 
 compared with Tractarianism, the general scope of 
 the sacramental theology, the theory of priestly 
 power, and the strange attempt made of late to beat 
 down the doctrine of justification by faith, and un- 
 
protestantize the Church of England, will bring these 
 Letters to a close, and relieve my own mind, at least, 
 of what I have long felt to be a most painful and 
 oppressive duty. 
 
 In entering upon the questions connected with Mr. 
 Carey's ordination, I beg leave to premise, that there 
 are probably very few men in the Church, or in the 
 world, who have a higher or more affectionate regard 
 for my youthful brother in the ministry, than I pro- 
 fess to cherish. Consigned, by his estimable father, 
 o my care, in A. D. 1833, he remained a constant 
 inmate in my family until 1837, the class-mate of my 
 eldest son, and accounted as one of my own children. 
 In my house, he and his elder brother passed through 
 the studies appropriate to the Freshman year in Col- 
 lege, and the larger portion of the Sophomore, under 
 the tuition of thorough and accomplished instructors; 
 and were forthwith received into the Sophomore class 
 of Columbia College, where they earned an honora- 
 ble rank, and sustained a most pure and elevated 
 character. And when, after graduating with uncom- 
 mon credit at that excellent institution, I was informed 
 that my young friend and beloved pupil had become 
 a candidate for holy orders, I shall not undertake to 
 describe the gratitude to God which the intelligence 
 inspired, nor the deep interest with which I listened 
 to the best accounts of his consistent piety and re- 
 markable attainments, from time to time. 
 
 I should be very reluctant to publish facts of this 
 description, if it were not for the opportunity which 
 it affords me to do justice to Mr. Carey's personal 
 claims, on the one hand, and to assign a reason, on 
 
the other, for my absolute confidence in himself, 
 while I shall be compelled to question the consistency 
 of some of his opinions, with the act of his ordina- 
 tion. Whatever may be the error in judgment which 
 the case presents, it can hardly be charged on him 
 with justice or propriety. I take it for granted that 
 he only studied, with all the undoubting confidence 
 of youth, those productions of our Oxford brethren, 
 which were eminently attractive in themselves to a 
 thoughtful and a pious, but inexperienced mind, and 
 which were, moreover, warmly advocated and re- 
 commended by many of the best theologians around 
 him. And who can wonder, if, under such circum- 
 stances, the very prestige connected with the time- 
 honored University of Oxford, awakened the strongest 
 enthusiasm in an English heart, and gave every pos- 
 sible advantage to the lessons of those divines who 
 had already set the Church of his native land in such 
 unwonted commotion ? Nor was it strange, inde- 
 pendently of all national partiality; for when has 
 the world beheld such a band of intellects, combined 
 in such an enterprise ? The startling energy of Fronde, 
 the lovely poetry of Keble, the learned mysticism of 
 Pusey, the profound yet simple eloquence of New- 
 man, the tact and directness of Percival,the straight- 
 forward and unflinching honesty of Hook, the scho- 
 lastic exactness and ponderous erudition of Palmer, 
 the varied power and sparkling -brilliancy of the 
 British Critic, to say nothing of a host of auxiliaries 
 in every form of taste and feeling, operating in every 
 quarter of the vast ecclesiastical field, church music, 
 church painting, church architecture, church history, 
 
 1* 
 
church ritual, and, unhappily, church doctrine — in 
 tales for the young, and arguments for the old, in 
 grave truth and amusing fiction, while the whole 
 tended to the same end with marvellous strength and 
 harmony ? No, the result is not strange, when we 
 look back upon the wonderful union of capacities, 
 which, for ten successive years, had been laboring to 
 produce it. And no one who has been brought with- 
 in the influence of that charmed circle, who can re- 
 verence the aspect of piety, or honor learning, or 
 sympathize with zeal, or appreciate refined sentiment, 
 or admire the prismatic splendors of an almost uni- 
 versal genius, will be likely to wonder at the strong 
 impression produced upon the minds of others, how- 
 ever thankful he may feel that the overruling Provi- 
 dence of God has said to it. Thus far shalt thou go, 
 and no farther — however fervently he may suppli- 
 cate the Almighty Bestower of all good, that not one 
 of that gifted band may be finally lost to the ranks 
 of Christian truth, or be deluded so far as to mistake 
 the Church of Rome for the true Catholic Church of 
 the Redeemer. 
 
 Regarding, therefore, the case of Mr. Carey as the 
 natural result of his position, knowing, as I think I 
 do, the peculiar capacities with which the Lord has 
 endowed his intellect, and confident in the rectitude of 
 purpose which I doubt not the grace of God has 
 established in his heart, I am under no anxiety about 
 the ultimate soundness of his theological principles. 
 Nor do I question, in the least, that if it should please 
 the Most High to prolong his life until age and expe- 
 rience, under the divine blessing, have given ripeness 
 
to his powers, he will stand in the front rank of those 
 authors whose writings shall be quoted by future 
 generations in the Church, with confidence and 
 praise. 
 
 But all this, however satisfactory with respect to 
 the probable result in this particular instance, has 
 nothing to do, in strictness of argument, with the 
 serious question, whether a candidate, holding the 
 opinions imputed to Mr. Carey at the time, ought to 
 have been ordained at all. I am aware, indeed, that 
 this is said by some to be a question which ^concerns 
 only the diocese of New York, and her highly 
 esteemed bishop. And therefore it is thought to be 
 an invasion of his peculiar province, if any other 
 bishop should express his disapproval. But I have no 
 hesitation in saying that this is quite a mistaken idea. 
 Nor shall I believe, unless upon his own direct asser- 
 tion, that the bishop of New York himself holds any 
 such unfraternal and thoroughly anti-episcopal doc- 
 trine. On the contrary, I feel quite confident that all 
 our bishops admit the general and connnon interest 
 which the entire body must take in questions of ordi- 
 nation. For no man can enter the ministry of a 
 separate diocese without becoming, at the same mo- 
 ment, a minister of the whole Church. His letters of 
 orders, accompanied by the usual certificate of dis- 
 mission, entitle him to claim his ministerial rights 
 from every other bishop, as perfectly as from him 
 who ordained him. And consequently the grounds 
 and qnalifications which are acted upon by any one 
 bishop, concern every part of the Church alike, and 
 must therefore be equally, in every quarter, open to 
 
8 
 
 a candid review, and, if need ]»e, to a frank though 
 afl'ectionate animadversion. 
 
 It is fnrther an obvious result from the very object 
 of the sacred office, that there is nothing of such car- 
 dinal importance to the interests of the gospel and 
 the welfare of the Church, as the qualifications of 
 the ministry. They are ordained as the guides, the 
 teachers, the authorised examples of the flock of 
 Christ. If the guide does not know the road, how 
 shall he direct the traveller ? If the teacher be igno- 
 rant, how shall the scholar learn? Or in the emphatic 
 words of our Lord himself, If the blind lead the 
 blind, shall not both fall into the ditch ? Hence 
 the Church has laid down the rules in her gene- 
 ral canons, for the qualifications of candidates for 
 holy orders : from which canons no bishop or diocese 
 is at liberty to depart. But I risk nothing in assert- 
 ing that the Church does not contain an individual, 
 by whom a serious or wilful contempt of those whole- 
 some laws would be visited with more unsparing re- 
 prehension than the bishop of New York himself. 
 His whole ministerial life has been distinguished by 
 a strict and even punctilious regard to every rule of 
 ecclesiastical obligation. And if, therefore, under 
 new and peculiar circumstances, he may seem to 
 have erred in judgment — for who is infallible P-^^it 
 needs no argument to prove what all will cordially 
 and spontaneously concede, that it must have been 
 an error of the head, and not of the heart. 
 
 I pass on, accordingly, to consider the aspect of this 
 novel case, and shall premise a statement of the facts, 
 which I shall endeavor to put into a shape free from 
 every possible objection. 
 
In A. D. 1842, Mr. Carey completed a full course 
 of three years' theological study at the General Semi- 
 nary in New York, passed his examinations with 
 great credit, and might have been ordained without 
 scruple, or delay, if he had not lacked a year of the 
 age of twenty-one, under which the Canons of the 
 Church allow no one to receive Holy Orders, His 
 habits were those of a devoted student, and as he 
 naturally felt a strong attachment to the associations 
 of the semhiary, he resolved to continue there in the 
 character of a resident graduate, until the time of his 
 ordination should arrive. Having attached himself 
 meanwhile to the Church of Rev. Dr. Smith, and 
 become a teacher of his Sunday-school, he applied 
 to him, at the proper period, for the usual certificate. 
 Before the paper was delivered, however, Dr. Stnith 
 had reason to apprehend that Mr. Carey had adopted 
 the Tractarian theology, to an extent which he con- 
 sidered inconsistent with the doctrines of the gospel 
 as set forth in the standards of the Church. As a 
 matter of conscientious duty, therefore, and calling to 
 his assistance the Rev. Dr. Anthon ; the difficulty was 
 communicated to the bishop, who promptly directed 
 a special examination in the presence of himself, Drs. 
 Smith and Anthon, and six other clergymen, for the 
 purpose of investigating how far there was any real 
 ground for doubtnig Mr. Carey's soundness in the 
 faith. 
 
 The decision of the board, thus constituted, was 
 not unanimous. The bisliop and the six presbyters 
 approved of Mr. Carey's tjjeological qualifications 
 Drs. Smith and Anthon, on the other hand, were 
 
10 
 
 satisfied that he had become a perfect convert to the 
 Tractarian school, and did not hold the true sense of 
 the thirty-nine Articles. Understanding, however, 
 that their objections were over-ruled, and perceiving 
 no other regular mode of preventing, what they re- 
 garded as a precedent, fraught with danger to the 
 soundness pf our future ministry, they resolved to 
 avail themselves of the opportunity which the ordi- 
 nation service allowed, in the question which the 
 bishop is bound to address to the people ; requiring 
 them, if they know of any crime or impediment in 
 the person about to be ordained, to come forth and 
 declare it in the name of God. 
 
 Accordingly, having intimated their intention to 
 the bishop, the Rev. Drs. Smith and Anthon repaired 
 to St. Stephen's Church, where the ordination was to 
 be held, on the appointed Sunday, habited as clergy- 
 men in our cities usually are on that holy day, and 
 took their place among the congregation. At the 
 proper time, when the bishop addressed the people 
 in the words of the ordinal, they rose and read their 
 objections to Mr. Carey's ordination, in the form of 
 a written protest. The bishop replied that these ob- 
 jections had been already laid before him by the same 
 gentlemen, had been thoroughly investigated, and 
 judged to be not sustained ; and therefore he should 
 proceed with the ordination. Immediately after this 
 annunciation, Drs. Smith and Anthon withdrew from 
 the Church, and the candidate was ordained. Their 
 conduct was forthwith stronglyassailed in the columns 
 of the Churchman, which rendered it proper for 
 them, in self-defence, to publish a statement of their 
 
11 
 
 reasons. This statement called forth a variety of 
 answers, and an unexampled agitation arose through- 
 out the Church, in which the secular press engaged 
 with zealous emulation. The tempest of conflicting 
 feelings and opinions thus unhappily excited, will 
 probably continue long, before it passes into calm 
 and sunshine ; but we may well hope in God, be- 
 loved brethren, that, like storms in the material 
 world, it will serve to purify the spiritual atmosphere, 
 and brace our whole Church into renewed health and 
 vigor. 
 
 A number of novel and important questions have 
 been raised by this deeply interesting occurrence, 
 which I shall now proceed to examine, according to 
 the best light which I have been able to obtain. 
 They may be reduced to three : First, as to the va- 
 lidity of the objections to the ordination of the can- 
 didate ; secondly, as to the propriety of the course 
 taken by the protesting clergymen ; and thirdly, as 
 to the judgment of the bishop. 
 
 It is neither pleasant nor necessary to attempt the 
 reconcilement of the apparently conflicting statements 
 with regard to the facts which took place during Mr. 
 Carey's examination. I would merely observe that 
 the contrariety is often more apparent than real, and 
 may be sufficiently accounted for, as I conceive, 
 without the shghtest impeachment of veracity on 
 either side, by making due allowance for the particu- 
 lar aspect in which the parties severally regarded the 
 points under discussion, and for the extreme difficulty 
 which the best men experience in doing full and per- 
 fect justice to the opinions of an antagonist. Expe- 
 
12 
 
 rience has always proved that this difficulty is not a 
 little increased by theological zeal, and it is usually 
 brought to its utmost height, when the decision aflects 
 the personal claims or rights of a third party. 
 
 Avoiding, therefore, the whole of this debated 
 ground, it is enough for me to adopt the pamphlet of ^ 
 my friend. Rev. Professor Haight, who was one of 
 the six presbyters in favor of the ordination, and 
 who, of course, must have taken the most kindly 
 view of Mr. Carey's side of the question. And one 
 item of this pamphlet will embrace all that the case 
 seems to me to require, which I shall proceed to 
 quote in the language of its estimable author. 
 
 " In regard to the Council of Trent," saith Pro- 
 fessor Haight, "I understood Mr. Carey simply to 
 say, that the doctrinal decrees of that Council, apart 
 from the damnatory clauses (which bind them as 
 articles of faith upon the consciences of Romanists,) 
 taken in their literal sense, and not as interpreted by 
 the writings of Bishops and Doctors of the Romish 
 communion, were not, in his opinion, absolutely irre- 
 concilable with the Catholic faith." — " Now this is a 
 very different thing from saying that he adopted the 
 decrees of the Council of Trent as his confession of 
 Faith, or that he would choose to express his own 
 belief on any given point in their' language. He 
 simply gives it as his opinion — let it go for what it is 
 worth — that the naked words of those decrees, with 
 the above limitation, and without reference to the 
 Romish system as generally displayed, and as 
 gathered from the teaching of her divines, are sus- 
 ceptible of an interpretation not inconsistent with the 
 
13 
 
 received doctrines of the Universal Church. It is an 
 exceedingly charitable view of the subject, some may 
 call it a very loose and imsafe view ; still it does not 
 follow as a matter of course, that he who holds it is 
 unsound in the faith." 
 
 In selecting this particular portion from all the rest, 
 I am actuated mainly by the desire to regard the case 
 in the most favorable light of which it is susceptible. 
 And I confess myself most reluctantly compelled to 
 say, that this single opinion, deliberately avowed and 
 defended, is enough, in my mind, to prove a disquali- 
 fication. Let me endeavor to explain the reasons 
 which have led me to this conclusion. 
 
 First then, I hold that nothing but a corruption of 
 the faith can justify our glorious Reformation. Cor- 
 ruptions in practice, in morals, in interpretation, in 
 any and every imaginable form, may exist, but while 
 the system of doctrine remains pure, there can be no 
 true ground for entire and total separation. This was 
 the argument which not simply excused our mother 
 Church for taking her stand against the papacy, but 
 made it her solemn duty to protest against all the 
 corruptions which the Roman Church had added to 
 the true faith, and to which she claimed absolute 
 adherence from every soul, under the fearful penal- 
 ties of temporal ruin here, and eternal misery here- 
 after. 
 
 Therefore our 19th Article expressly asserts that 
 the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their 
 living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters 
 of faith. And the most important portions of the 
 other Articles are devoted to the protesting against 
 
14 
 
 those several points in which the errors of Rome con- 
 sisted. In making this assertion, I except, of course, 
 the first five Articles, which treat of the Trinity, the 
 Incarnation of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the descent of 
 our Lord into the place of departed spirits, and his 
 glorious Resurrection ; not because I would depre- 
 ciate their paramount importance, — God forbid ! — 
 but because, if the Articles had said nothing of them, 
 they would still have been secured in the Creeds, the 
 Litany, and the other offices of the Book of Common 
 Prayer. Selecting, however, only a few from the 
 remainder of these admirable documents of religious 
 truth, let us see how the Church and the Council of 
 Trent will agree together. 
 
 The 6th Article sets forth the correct Canon of 
 Scripture, asserting that it contains all things neces- 
 sary to salvation, and denying that any thing which 
 is not contained therein shall be required as an article 
 of faith ; thus directly opposing the claims of Tradi- 
 tion, and accounting as Apocryphal no less than four- 
 teen distinct writings, which the Council of Trent 
 commands to be received with as much reverence as 
 any portion of the real Word of God.* Now in this 
 
 * Decretum de Canonicis Scripturis. 
 
 Sacro-sancta 'oecumenica et geneialis Tridentina Synodus, — per- 
 spiciensque banc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris Scriptis, 
 et sine scripto traditionibus, quae ab ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis 
 acceptae, aut ab ipsis Apostolis, Spiritu Sancto dictante, quasi per manus 
 traditae, ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum exempla 
 secuta, onines libros tarn veteris quam novi Testamenti, cilm utriusque 
 unus Deus sit auctor, necnon iradifiones ipsus, turn adjidem, turn ad 
 mores pertinenfes, tanquim vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu 
 Sancto dictatas, et continue, successione in Ecclesia Catholica conser- 
 vatas, pari pietatis affedu ac reverentia suscipii, et veneratur. 
 
15 
 
 single Article there are three distinct propositions, 
 embracing in their details a multitude of questions 
 concerning the authority of Tradition in matters 
 which Rome holds to be de fide. So ttiat if there 
 were no other quarrel betwixt us than this alone, it 
 is sufficient to keep us apart for ever. 
 
 The 11th Article asserts the cardinal doctrine of 
 Justification by Faith, or, as the Church of England 
 expresses it, By faith only, to which the Council of 
 Trent stands strongly opposed, confounding justifica- 
 tion with sanctification, making our Baptism the 
 instrumental cause of our first justification, our 
 good works the instrumental cause of its subsequent 
 increase, and our inherent righteousness the ground 
 of our final acceptance. So serious and-nmportant is 
 the difference here, that the Tractarian divines have 
 made the most determined and persevering attacks 
 upon the doctrine of our Church, not hesitating to 
 brand it as the " Lutheran heresy ^^ and even plac- 
 ing it below heathenism itself.* 
 
 * Thus the British Critic, (Ixiv. 391) does not scruple to use this lan- 
 guage, "The very first aggression, then, of those who labour to revive 
 some degree at least of vital Christianity, (in the room of those gross 
 corruptions and superstitions which have, in these latter days among 
 ourselves, overlaid and defaced the primitive and simple truth,) their 
 very first aggression must be upon that strange congeries of notions 
 and practices, of which the Lutheran doctrine of Justification is the 
 origin and representative. Whether any one heresy has ever infested 
 the Church, so hateful and un-Christian as this doctrine, it is per- 
 haps not necessary to determine; none, certainly, has ever prevailed 
 so subtle and extensively poisonous." — " We must plainly express our 
 conviction, that a religious heathen, were he really to accept the doc- 
 trine which Lutheran language expresses, so far from making any 
 advance, would sustain a heavy loss, in exchanging iundamental truth 
 for fundamental error." 
 
16 
 
 The 12th Article places good works hi their true 
 Ught "as the fruits of faith, and pleasant and accept- 
 able to God, although they cannot put away our sins 
 and endure the severity of God's judgment." Here 
 is a plain opposition to the Council of Trent declar- 
 ing,* that the justified are in no respect deficient, 
 hut may be considered, as fully satisfying the divine 
 law {as far as is compatible with their present con- 
 dition) by their works lohich are wrought in God, 
 and as really deserving eternal life, to be bestowed 
 in due time, — for this is called our righteousness, 
 because we are justified thereby, through its 
 indwelling in us. 
 
 The 22d Article is directed against the Romish 
 doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worship- 
 ping and Adoration as well of Images as of Relics, 
 and also the Invocation of Saints, calling this doc- 
 trine, " a fond thing, vainly invented, and repugnant 
 to the Word of God." Now of all these, the Council 
 of Trent treats more or less at large, and a consider- 
 able Treatise would be required to point out the 
 detailed corruptions of truth, and sad superstitions in 
 practice, which are virtually condemned by the com- 
 prehensive language of the Article. The style of 
 argumentation in which the famous Tract No. 90 
 
 * Decretum de Justificatione, Gap. xvi. De fructu justificationis, hoc 
 est, de merito bonorum operum, &c. 
 
 — Nihil ipsis juslificatis amplius deesse credendum est, qu6 minfis 
 plene illis quidem operibus, quae in Deo sunt facta, divina legi pro hujus 
 vitae statu satisfecisse ; et vita^n aternam suo etiam tempore, si tamen 
 in gratia decesserint, consequendam, vere promeruisse censeantur, &c. 
 Quae enim justitia nostra dicitur, quia per earn nobis inficBrentem justifi- 
 camur. 
 
17 
 
 endeavored to evade this and some other of our 
 doctrines, is so unworthy of its author, and so de- 
 grading to tiie framers of our Articles, that it is one 
 of the standing wonders of the age how an Episco- 
 palian could write, or the Church could endure, such 
 a production. 
 
 The 24th Article condemns the Roman doctrine, in 
 holding religious service in the Latin tongue, without 
 any regard to the question whether it can be under- 
 stood by the people. And here again* is a positive 
 contrariety to the Council of Trent. 
 
 The 26th Article denies that five out of the Seven 
 Roman Sacraments ought to be accounted as such; in 
 which list, that most important subject of Penance 
 occurs, and the doctrine of Rome concerning it is 
 said to have ^^ grown out of a corrupt following of 
 the Jipostles.^^ It is quite incomprehensible to my 
 mind how any one can approve the decrees of Trent 
 upon the Sacrament of Penanoi,\ and at the same 
 
 * Doctrina de Sacrificio Missse. Cap. viii. Missa vulgari lingua non 
 celebretnr. 
 
 Etsi Missa magnam contineat populi fidelis eruditionem; non tamen 
 expedire visum est Patribus, ut vulgari passim lingua celebraretur, &c. 
 
 f Doctrina de Sanctissimis PoenitentisB et Extremae-Unctionis Sacra- 
 mentis. 
 
 Cap. I. De necessitate et institutione Sacramenti Poenitentiae. 
 
 Sacramentum Pceniientise, quo lapsis post Baptismum, beneficium 
 mortis Christi applicatur. 
 
 potestatem remittendi et retinendi peccata, ad reconciliandos 
 
 fideles, post Baptismum lapsos, Apostolis et eorum legitimis succes- 
 soribus fuisse communicatum, universorum Patrum consensus semper 
 intellexit. 
 
 Cap. V. De Confessione. 
 
 Doiiiuius noster Jesus Christus, e terris ascensurus ad ccclos, 
 
IS 
 
 time approve tlie doctrine of our Church, for if ever 
 there was a set of plain contrarieties, they may be 
 found here. Indeed this Article alone contains more 
 than twelve propositions, in which the two Churches 
 are not to be reconciled by any fair process of rea- 
 soning. 
 
 The 28th Article expressly condemns the Roman 
 doctrine of Transubstantiation, and defines the spirit- 
 ual presence of Christ so as to limit it to the faithful 
 receiver. And here we have corrected a large circle 
 of error, in open contradiction to the Council of 
 Trent,* so that the notion which reconciles that 
 
 sacerdotes sui ipsius Vicarios reliquit, tamquam praesides et judices ; 
 ad quos omnia mortalia crimina deferantur, in quae Christi fideles ceci' 
 derint , qu6 pro potestate clavium remissionis aut retentionis pecca- 
 torum, sententiam pronuntient. 
 
 Cap. VI. De ministro hujus 8acramenti, et Absolutione, 
 
 Quamvis autera Absolutio sacerdotis alicui beneficii sit dispen- 
 
 satio ; tamen non est soMm nudum ministerium, vel annuntiandi 
 Evangelium, vel declarandi remissa esse peccata ; sed ad instar actus 
 judicialis ; quo ab ipso, velut a judice, sententia pronuntiatur. 
 
 Cap. VII. De Casuum reservatione. 
 
 Unde merit6 Pontifices Max. pro suprema potestate sibi in 
 
 Ecclesia universa tradita, causas aliquas criminum graviores suo 
 potuerunt peculiari judicio reservare. 
 
 Cap. Vf II. De satisfactionis necessitate et fructu. 
 
 Debent ergo sacerdotes Domini — pro qualitate criminum, et 
 
 pocnitentium facultate, salutares et convenientes satisfactiones injun- 
 gere. 
 
 * De Sacro-sancto Eucharistise Sacramento. 
 
 Canon 2. 8i quis dixerit, in sacro-sancto Eucharistise Sacramento 
 remanere substantiara panis et vini und, cum corpore et sanguine 
 • Domini nostri Jesu Christi, negaveritque mirabilem illam et singularem 
 conversionem totius substantise panis in corpus, et totius substantive 
 vini in sanguinem. manentibus dumtaxtlt speciebus panis et vini ; quam 
 quidem conversionem Cathohca Ecclesia aptissim6 Transubstantionem 
 appellat ; Anathema sit. 
 
19 
 
 Council to Catholic antiquity, and at the same time 
 maintains that we are in agreement with the same 
 Catholic antiquity, strikes a plain mind with perfect 
 astonishment. 
 
 The 30th Article condemns the Roman doctrine of 
 withholding the cup from the Laity. But the Coun- 
 cil of Trent* pronounces a curse upon any one, who 
 shall deny that Christ is whole and entire under the 
 species either of the bread or the wine, and in every 
 particle of the same. 
 
 The 31st Article rejects the sacHfice of propitiatory 
 masses, " in which it was said that the Priest did offer 
 Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission 
 of pain and guilt," as being a "blasphemous fable and 
 dangerous deceit." That this doctrine was not, as the 
 Tractarian theologians would persuade themselves, 
 the vulgar error of Romanists, but the doctrine of 
 that corrupt Church herself, is manifest from the 
 whole body of her divines for ages before the Refor- 
 mation, and the Council of Trent was so far from 
 reforming it,t that they expressly confirmed the whole. 
 
 * Canon 3. Si quis negaverit, in venerabili Sacramento Eucha- 
 ristise sub unaquaque specie, et sub singulis cujusque specie! partibus, 
 separatione facta, totum Christum contineri ; Anathema sit. 
 r -[• Doctrina de Sacrificio MissaB. 
 
 Cap. II. Sacrificium missae esse propitiatorium tam pro vivis 
 quam pro defunctis. 
 
 Et quoniam in divino hoc sacrificio, quod in missa peragitur, idem 
 ille Christus continetur, et incruente immolatur, qui in ara crucis 
 semel seipsum cruente obtulit ; docet Sancta Synodus, sacrificium 
 istud vere propitiatorium esse. Quare non solum pro fidelium vivorum 
 peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus, et aliis neccssitatibus, sed et pro de- 
 functis in Christo nondum ad plenum purgatis, rite,juxta Apostolorum 
 traditionem, offertur. 
 
 Cap. VI. De Missa in qua solus sacerdos communicat. 
 
V 20 
 
 The 32d Article condemns the Roman doctrine of 
 priestly Celibacy, in which also* we stand opposed 
 to the Trentine Council. 
 
 Now here are between twenty and thirty danger- 
 ous errors in the faith, taught by the Council of Trent, 
 and condemned by our Articles ; and yet a candidate 
 shall be thought qualified to be ordained as a minis- 
 ter of our Church, who thinks the decrees of Trent 
 not " absolutely irreconcilable^' with the Catholic, 
 meaning thereby the pure, apostolic, and primitive 
 doctrine ! * 
 
 " It is," saith Rev. Professor Haight, " an exceed- 
 ingly charitable view of the subject, some may call 
 it a very loose and unsafe view, still it does not fol- 
 low, as a matter of course, that he who holds it is 
 unsound in the faith." Tliis remark of my esteem- 
 ed friend and brother suggests a few observations, 
 which I think have been rather overlooked on that 
 side of the controversy. 
 
 There is a certain official fitness required on be- 
 half of the candidate for holy orders, which no other 
 q^^iality can supply. A man may not be unsound in 
 the faith which is essential to his own salvation, 
 
 Nee tamen (Sacro-sancta Synodus) Missas illas in quibus ^ 
 
 " . . . . ^ 
 
 solus sacerdos sacramentaliter communicat, ut privatas et illicitas 
 
 damnat, sed probat, atque ade6 commendat. 
 
 • De Sacramento Matrimonii. 
 
 Can. 9. Si quis dixerit Clericos in sacris ordinibus constitutos, vel 
 Regulares, casiitatem solemniter professos, posse matrimonium contra- 
 here, contractumque validum esse, non obstante lege ecclesiastica, vel 
 vote ; et oppositumnil aliud esse, quam damnare matrimonium ; posse 
 que omnes contrahere matrimonium, qui non sentiunt se castitatis, 
 etiam si earn voverint, habere donum ; Anathema sit. 
 
21 
 
 and yet profess an honest belief in a hundred errone- 
 ous notions. He may be a thorough Romanist, Uke 
 Pascal, or Fenelon, and yield a mental acquiescence 
 to every corruption of their creed, while yet his 
 heart clings to Christ, and his actual trust and confi- 
 dence are neither in the virgin, nor in the saints, nor 
 in the sacraments, nor in his own good works, nor in 
 the power of the priesthood, but in God his Saviour. 
 Thousands of men, I doubt not, have lived and died 
 in the communion of that corrupt Church of Rome, 
 who were Protestants in their real faith, that is, in 
 the doctrines which their hearts have acknowledged. 
 But suppose such persons to be under examination 
 for the ministerial office, and to avow, in plain lan- 
 guage, that they believed our thirty-nine Articles, 
 taken in their literal sense, were not absolutely irre- 
 concilable with Catholic doctrine, I ask any man of 
 common sense whether the Church of Rome would 
 think them qualified to receive the ministerial com- 
 mission, merely because they professed, at the same 
 time, their entire consent to the decrees of the Trent- 
 iiie Council, and therefore could not be directly con- 
 demned as unsound in the faith ? Would not such a 
 notion be taken as decisive evidence, that whether 
 *ey were sound in their personal faith or not, they 
 could not expect consistently to be authorized to 
 teach others ; that the Church of Rome wanted men 
 who knew how to proclaim her doctrines, and con- 
 demn all that had gone out from her under the 
 pretence of a Reformation, and that the man who 
 was not ready to teach as that Council taught, was 
 
22 
 
 unfitted for her purpose, however great his other 
 merits might confessedly be ? 
 
 But if this would be correct reasoning on the part 
 of Rome towards us, is it not equally applicable to 
 our position with respect to Rome ? Does it follow, 
 tliat because we do not condemn the soundness in the 
 faith of a particular individual, we must therefore 
 grant that he is to be trusted as an authorised and 
 commissioned leader? Because we may think it 
 highly probable that Pascal and Fenelon are now in 
 the Paradise of the just, should we, therefore, if they 
 were on earth again, be ready to ordain them ? Or if 
 we should marvel at the inconsistency of Rome, in 
 ordaining a candidate who openly declared that he 
 did not think our Articles irreconcilable with sound 
 doctrine, should we not marvel as much at the ordi- 
 nation of one amongst ourselves, who regarded the ' 
 decrees of Trent with equal complacency ? 
 
 It is not enough, therefore, in the case of a candi- 
 date for holy orders, that he have competent learning 
 and piety, and be not unsound in his own faith. He 
 must be, in the language of the canonical certificate, 
 " Apt and meet to exercise the ministry to the glory 
 of God and the edifying of the Church," and if h^ 
 is not honestly believed to possess a reasonable mea- 
 sure of this fitness for the work, we have no real 
 authority to ordain him. Hence we are obliged to 
 examine him for the very purpose of ascertaining 
 whether the mind, and spirit, and character of the 
 Church are in him. The Church is a Bef armed 
 Church : Is he prepared to justify her reformation ? 
 
 ^ 
 
23 
 
 The Church is a Protestant Church, — emphatically 
 and distinctly such, because her duty to protest 
 against error, is, in the nature of things, inseparable 
 from the right of refoum. Is he ready to repeat her 
 protest, to defend its duty, and to demonstrate its 
 truth ? The Church is a Catholic Church, that is, a 
 branch of the ancient. Universal Church of Christ, 
 in contradistinction from all heresies and schisms. Is 
 he thoroughly persuaded of this fact, and ready to 
 assert, against all gainsayers, but chiefly and pre- 
 eminently against that corrupt system which would 
 fain be called i\\e'only Catholic Church, the purity 
 and faithful consistency of her doctrines ? If not, let 
 him be put back awhile until he learns to understand 
 the office which the Church expects of him. He 
 may have piety, he may have learning, he may have 
 all high moral and intellectual capacities, he may be 
 sound in the essentials of his individual faith so far 
 as concerns his own salvation. But all this he might 
 be, without any of the distinctive principles which 
 can alone authorize us to clothe him with the com- 
 mission of the ministry. Our power to give him this 
 commission is a soleynn trust, delegated to us on cer- 
 tain specified conditions. And if those conditions, 
 or any of them, be manifestly wanting, we have, 
 strictly speaking, no legal right to ordain. 
 
 My esteemed friend and brother. Professor Haight, 
 does himself, indeed, seem to hold the same views, 
 substantially, in the following passage, (p. 167:) 
 " That the clergy who consent to the ordination of a 
 candidate, and the bishop who ordains him, are to 
 be held responsible for all his opinions, no Church- 
 
' 24 
 
 man, I presume, will venture to assert. If his doc- 
 trines are in conformity with the doctrines of our 
 standards — his honesty, intelligence, piety, and gen- 
 eral fitness being granted — nothing more can be 
 demanded of him." To this I cheerfully subscribe. 
 It is the very ground of my difficulty, that the doc- 
 trines of Mr, Carey did not agree with the doctrines 
 of our standards ; not with the Homilies, not with the 
 Articles, not with the doctrines of the Reformers who 
 accomplished the blessed work, in the midst of every 
 obstacle, and sealed it with their blood. For how 
 could it be inferred from any of those standards, that 
 the decrees of the Council of Trent are not absolute- 
 ly irreconcilable with the truth of the gospel ? If 
 not absolutely irreconcilable, they may be reconciled. 
 If not false, they must be true. He that is not 
 against us, saith our divine Master, is on our part. 
 And again, he that is not with me is against 
 ME. In the things of God, therefore, we know no- 
 thing of a medium between falsehood and truth. 
 There are confessedly things indifferent, about which 
 men may argue to the end of the world, without af- 
 fecting the character of their Church, or the honor of 
 the gospel. But the mind of a Churchman seems to 
 me under a strange cloud, when he can reckon the 
 merits of the Romish controversy amongst them. 
 For on our having the truth with us, in that contro- 
 versy, depends our very being as a Church, our cha- 
 racter as Christ's ministry, our right to ordain, our 
 power to preach, our justification before men, and, 
 more than all, our justification before the throne of 
 the " King eternal, immortal, and invisible." 
 
25 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that my esteemed brother 
 would claim a distinction here which my argument 
 has overlooked. It is the distinction between opin- 
 ions and doctrines; a distinction sometimes very real 
 and tangible, and sometimes very delusive and vain. 
 Perhaps I may be understood more clearly, however, 
 if I illustrate my meaning by a hypothetical ex- 
 ample. 
 
 ■ Suppose, then, that a candidate for Orders should 
 tell his examiners that he had formed an opinion — 
 only an opinion — that the Koran of the impostor 
 Mahomet was not absolutely irreconcilable with 
 truth ; that in some respects Mahomedanism had the 
 advantage over Christianity, and that he could not 
 precisely decide which was the better religion of the 
 two. Now is it possible to believe that such an 
 opinion, declared to his examiners, and therefore per- 
 fectly known by them to be really entertained by the 
 candidate, would not be deemed a disqualification ? 
 Would it be competent for him to say, " I do not hold 
 this as a doctrine, it is only my individual opinion. 
 I shall not preach it, nor teach it ; and as I hold 
 and subscribe, ex animo, if you please, to all 
 the Articles, principles, worship and discipline of 
 the Church, you may rely on my faithfulness and 
 official consistency." Would not the plain answer 
 to such a statement be, " My friend, we do not ques- 
 tion your good intentions, but your scheme of con- 
 duct involves an absurdity. Your opinion may be 
 called what you please, hut so long as you hold it, 
 you cannot preach the doctrines of the gospel, be- 
 cause you do not believe them in your own heart. 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 You have, indeed, become so mystified upon the sub- 
 ject, that it is plain you do not at present see the 
 gross inconsistencies of your position, else you would 
 not have so frankly avowed it. But we cannot be- 
 come accessories to such a fearful error. May God 
 give you repentance, and bring you to the knowledge 
 of the truth." 
 
 Now here, I admit, is an extreme case ; but cer- 
 tainly it suits my purpose in proving, that the dis-* 
 tinction between opinions and doctrines cannot save a 
 candidate's consistency, when it so happens that they 
 are diametrically opposed to each other. For not a 
 whit more subversive of Christian faith is the opinion 
 that Mahomedanism may be reconciled to truth, than 
 it is subversive of our Protestant Church to hold the 
 opinion that the Couacil of Trent may be reconciled 
 to sound primitive doctrine. Nay, on some accounts, 
 the half-way Turk would have a better apology than 
 the half-way Romanist. He might say, and truly, 
 that Mahomet adopted the Scriptures, and admitted 
 the mission of Christ, and considered him the son of 
 God in the Socinian sense, and represented him as 
 occupying a place in the seventh heaven. He might 
 plausibly insist, moreover, that he had a right to think 
 as he pleased about the matter, because it was not 
 mentioned in the Standards of the Church at all, and 
 therefore, it was impossible to show the contrariety 
 except by indirect inference and implication. And 
 he might fairly argue that on all topics of the Bible 
 and the Prayer Book, except a very few, he could 
 preach without difficulty. The authority of Scrip- 
 ture, the unity and attributes of God, the mission of 
 
27 
 
 the prophets and of Christ himself, the day of judg- 
 ment, the future state, all the moral virtues, the effi- 
 cacy of prayer, fasting, and good works, would all 
 be left to him as common ground ; and the few ex- 
 pressions of the Litany and the Creeds which might 
 produce a difficulty, could be gotten over by the 
 aid of the reasoning in Tract No. 90. Above all, he 
 might say, that there was nothing to prevent a vigor- 
 • ous urging of the doctrines of the Articles so far as the 
 Reformation was concerned ; for with all his private 
 leaning towards Mahomedanism, he had not the least 
 doubt of the awful corruption of the Church of 
 Rome. 
 
 And yet, all this would not save him from rejec- 
 tion. The case would be too clear for argument, 
 because on this subject, there has been nothing to 
 lead our minds astray from the simplicity of truth. 
 
 I cannot therefore, consent to tolerate this novel 
 system, which maintains that Romanism, as de- 
 fined by the Council of Trent, may be reconciled 
 to pure Christianity, merely because it is professed as 
 an opinion, and not as a doctrine. Because so long 
 as the individual entertains that opinion, it will be 
 absurd to expect him to feel like a true son of the 
 Reformation. He cannot, without violating his con- 
 science, preach plainly and distinctly upon the various 
 corruptions which the Homilies and the Articles 
 detail. He cannot condemn, in strong and decided 
 terms, the idolatrous worship of the Virgin mother, 
 nor the invocation of saints, nor the veneration of 
 images and relics, nor the doctrine of Transubstan- 
 tiation, nor the merit of our own good works, nor 
 
28 
 
 any other point in controversy. He can, indeed, 
 preach upon a large scope of faith and practice, 
 without recurring to Rome at all ; and he may possi- 
 bly be quite a useful and a respectable man, if he can 
 only contrive to bury this opinion in his own bosom. 
 But he must either have very little conscience, or 
 very extraordinary self-control, to persevere in the 
 effort to conceal it. And if he could, what right have 
 we to ordain men whose opinions are such, that they 
 cannot promulgate them without defeating the very 
 object of their ministry ? Is not the fact that the 
 opinion must not be openly avowed, sufficient evi- 
 dence to prove that it ought not to be held at all ? 
 
 I do not, however, desire to pass by the argument 
 which my respected and beloved brethren seem to 
 think so satisfactory, namely, that the Church has 
 always allowed the most liberal range of sentiment 
 on other subjects, namely, on Calvinism, Arminian- 
 ism, and Episcopacy ; from whence the conclusion 
 is deduced that a correspondent laxity or even con- 
 rariety of sentiment must be allowed, with respect 
 to Rome. It may be owing to my own obtuseness 
 that I cannot see the relevancy of this reasoning. 
 But assuredly it was not Calvinism, nor Arminianism, 
 nor Episcopacy, which produced the struggles of the 
 Reformation. These were not the questions which 
 filled Germany with slaughter, and brought the mar- 
 tyrs of England to prison and to death. Our candi- 
 dates may construe the Articles in the Calvinistic or 
 the Arminian sense, and they may think episcopacy 
 a divine or a human institution, and yet leave every 
 important doctrine of the blessed Reformation pre- 
 
29 
 
 cisely as it was before. But if they begin to tolerate 
 the Council of Trent, and fancy its decrees reconcilable 
 with pure primitive Christianity, it appears perfectly 
 incontrovertible to me, that they virtually subvert 
 the foundation of our whole reform, and convert our 
 Apostolic Church into a band of Schismatics. Nothing 
 therefore, seems to my mind more obvious, than the 
 paramount importance of this vital question. If 
 Rome can be proved to be doctrinally right, we 
 must be doctrinally wrong. To prove that we are 
 both right, and yet to admit and defend the principles 
 or the act of the Reformation, is a manifest contra- 
 diction. 
 
 Such, then, being my own humble judgment on 
 the subject of the qualifications of the candidate, and 
 thus far agreeing with Drs. Smith and Anthon in 
 thinking that he was not, according to the true spirit 
 and meaning of the Ordinal and the Canons, ready 
 to be ordained, the next question arises, namely : 
 Were they right or wrong, in openly protesting 
 against the ordination? 
 
 And here, I think it due to those reverend brethren 
 to say, that they plainly sought for a regular and 
 legal mode of attaining an object of high and im- 
 portant principle. They acted on an established part 
 of the service appointed by the Church, and, as they 
 conceived, in strict conformity to the provisions of the 
 Rubric. What deprived them of a right given to 
 every member of that congregation ? 
 
 It is said first, that the right is given to the people, 
 that is, the laity ; and secondly, that these objectors, 
 being clergymen, had free access to the bishop in 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 their clerical capacity, and had actually used their 
 privilege already : hence it is deemed absurd that 
 they should use it again. 
 
 In answer to the first part of this argument, I must 
 confess myself unable to see that a right, given by 
 the Church to -every layman present at an ordination, 
 is lost forever, if such layman becomes a clergyman. 
 Can any other case be shown in which the clergy 
 must no longer presume to use the privileges of the 
 laity? Is it indeed a principle of sound construction, 
 that a layman, having certain rights as such, forfeits 
 them all as soon as he becomes a clergyman ? This 
 is, to me, a very novel, and I must needs think, per- 
 fectly indefensible idea. The clergyman doubtless 
 acquires certain official rights by his ordination, but he 
 loses no right which he had before, unless it be such 
 as is either incompatible joer se with the sacred func- 
 tion, or is made incompatible by positive ecclesiastical 
 law. Hence, as neither of these can be alleged, these 
 clergymen had the same right to act on the exhorta- 
 tion which the ordinal addresses to the people, as 
 they had to sit amongst the people, and become, for 
 the time, a part of the congregation. 
 
 The second branch of the argument, however, has 
 more apparent force ; since it is a very plausible idea 
 that these clergymen had exercised their privilege 
 already, and the Church could not mean to give them 
 two distinct modes of doing the same thing. 
 
 At the first view of the transaction, I was inclined 
 to adopt this opinion ; but further reflection has led 
 me to doubt, whether the information given to the 
 Bishop, and the private examination held thereupon, 
 
SI 
 
 weffe the thing which the Church intended to insure 
 to the pubUc objection in the Ordinal. Let us look 
 to the language of the Prayer book, which is as fol- 
 lows, viz. 
 
 " And if any great crime or impediment be object- 
 ed, the Bishop shall cease from ordering that person, 
 until such time as the party accused shall be found 
 clear of that crime." 
 
 Now an important question arises on these words, 
 viz. By what mode is the party to he found clear of 
 the alleged crime or impediment ? Br a regular, 
 CANONICAL TRIAL, conductcd according to the esta- 
 blished laws of the Church, or by an informal, pri- 
 vate examination ? By the first, as it would seem to 
 me ; because no accuse^person can be found " clear" 
 of an alleged crime, without a trial ; or at least with-' 
 out an examination conducted according to some 
 known forms of law. And as the language of the 
 rubric embraces not only crimes but impediments, 
 and doctrinal unsoundness is an impediment of the 
 most extensive kind, which may vary from the 
 lightest shades of error, up to the most grievous 
 heresy, it seems plain that the interests of the Church, 
 the character of the candidate, and the rights of the 
 accusers, would all require, that a decision so grave 
 and important should be attained in the most canoni- 
 cal, complete and satisfactory manner. 
 
 If this reasoning be correct, the result will be, that 
 Drs. Smith and Anthon had not had the kind of in- 
 vestigation which the Ordinal contemplated. That 
 what they desired was what the rubric had expressly 
 provided for, namely, a canonical, regular, legal 
 
32 
 
 investigation. And it would certainly be a strange 
 anomaly in our system, if a single layman, making 
 public objection according to the Ordinal, should 
 have a right to a more solemn, strict and thorough 
 examination of the charge, than the Church intended 
 to allow, where the same charge was made at the 
 same time and under the same circumstances, by two 
 doctors of divinity. 
 
 There is one argument more, however, advanced 
 upon the other side, and that is derived from a new 
 meaning of tlie word impediment; which is inge- 
 niously supposed to exclude all theological unsound- 
 ness, and to embrace only acts or habits of vice or 
 immorality. I acknowledge myself quite unable to 
 perceive the authority for tiUs definition. If such 
 were the meaning of the Church, I presume the lan- 
 guage would have been the familiar word, m,isde- 
 meanour, instead of the much more comprehensive 
 term, impedim,ent. It is not impossible, indeed, that 
 our General Convention may think fit to affix this 
 meaning to the word, for the future ; but they cannot 
 extend such a novelty so as to give it a retrospective 
 operation on the past. If Congress cannot create a 
 crime by an ex post facto law, it would seem very 
 hard that the Church should make an ofience by an 
 ex post facto interpretation. 
 
 I must frankly say, therefore, that Drs. Anthon 
 and Smith, in my humble judgment, had sufficient 
 ground for their objection, and as that objection was 
 over-ruled in the private examination of the candi- 
 date, they had a plain riglit to make their public 
 protest, in order that the ordination might be sus- 
 
33 
 
 pended, according to the express law of the Church, 
 until the candidate should have been found " clear," 
 by a regular, canonical trial. Their leaving the 
 Church, as soon as they were told that their objec- 
 tion was disregarded, has been severely censured, 
 but I could never perceive the ground of censure. 
 For certainly, they were compelled either to leave 
 the Church, or else to take part in the very ordination 
 against which they had conscientiously protested. It 
 will hardly be thought, I presume, that it would 
 have been reverential on their part to have remained, 
 without uniting in the prayers and responses proper 
 to the occasion. And yet how could they have thus 
 united, when they honestly believed the candidate 
 unfit, and the Bishop mistaken ? 
 
 The result then, in my mind — and I state it with 
 deep regret — is quite at variance with the decision of 
 my highly-esteemed brother, the Bishop of New 
 York. But he has every possible claim to a favorable 
 construction of what — at worst — can only be consid- 
 ered an error in judgment, to which the best men are 
 liable. The more especially as the case was new, 
 and he must have felt strongly inclined to regard it 
 in the most indulgent light for the candidate. Let 
 me ask a few moments' consideration to what seems 
 to my mind the natural course of his reflections. At 
 least, they would have been my own, on such an 
 occasion ; although it would not become me to say, 
 until I am similarly circumstanced, how far they 
 would govern my decision. 
 
 Here is a youth of uncommon piety, talent and 
 learning, who is plainly devoted to the Tractarian 
 
34 
 
 school of Oxford. He is but just twenty-one, and is 
 only to be admitted to the diaconate, where he can- 
 not even be allowed to preach without a special 
 license, which can be at any moment withdrawn. 
 His highly respectable connexions, and large circle of 
 friends, will be deeply wounded in their feelings if 
 he is put back; especially as a full year has already- 
 elapsed since he had passed most honorably through 
 his Seminary course. He himself will probably be 
 powerfully affected by such a public censure, and his 
 constitution, already enfeebled by severe application, 
 and frail at best, may be crushed under his mental 
 depression. Why should such a dangerous experi- 
 ment be tried, when the Church can be guarded as 
 surely by passing gently over his extreme opinions 
 upon a scholastic subtlety now, and recommending 
 him to a sounder course of reading and reflection 
 before he applies, three years hence, for ordination to 
 the priesthood? At that time, should he prove un- 
 sound, there will be another and a sufficient oppor- 
 tunity for thorough investigation, and he can be 
 withheld from the higher ofhce which includes the 
 cure of souls. Therefore, on the whole, is it not 
 better for the candidate, better in view of his future 
 usefulness to the Church, better for the sake of his 
 estimable friends and connexions, that he should be 
 admitted without further delay, trusting to experience 
 and time, under the influence of divine grace, for the 
 correction of opinions which now seem inconsistent, 
 and at all events keeping a strict guard over his next 
 examination ? 
 
 Now surely this must be allowed to be a strong 
 
35 
 
 case, on the part of the decision formed by my highly- 
 esteemed brother, the Bishop of New York ; and yet 
 it is far from being the whole of what probably 
 occupied his thoughts, when employed in the serious 
 task of deliberation : for as Drs. Smith and Anthon 
 expressly state that his mind was not made up at the 
 close of the private examination, it may well be sup^ 
 posed that the whole of the intervening day, (Satur* 
 day,) was spent in a careful and anxious survey of 
 all the direct and indirect bearings of this new and 
 difficult question. 
 
 The next set of inquiries, therefore, which I ven- 
 ture to presume must have passed through his mind, 
 would perhaps be such as the following : How will 
 the rejection of this interesting and most conscientious 
 young man affect the General Theological Seminary, 
 and its valued Professors ? Will it not be seized on 
 with avidity by the enemies of the Church, as a mani- 
 fest proof that this most important institution is infect- 
 ed with a tendency to Popery, when even the Bishop 
 himself, who is already supposed to be somewhat 
 over-friendly to the Oxford Tracts, has been obhged 
 to reject a candidate of the highest merit, for no other 
 reason than his having imbibed the errors of that 
 system ? Will not the hue and cry against " Pusey- 
 ism" be thus raised to such a height, as may seriously 
 injure the future welfare of this school of the pro- 
 phets, stain the professional character of its worthy 
 and talented instructors, and even extend to those 
 excellent and long experienced men, who have no 
 sympathy whatever with the supposed error? And 
 how can the Bishop repair the evils which an exces- 
 
36 
 
 sive strictness in this matter may make him instru- 
 mental in producing ? He may inflict the wound, 
 but he cannot heal it. He may open a breach which 
 he cannot close. And why should such a risk be 
 incurred merely on account of a single example, a 
 novel case, which never occurred before, which, with 
 proper care, may never occur again, and which can- 
 not produce any imaginable evil, if due attention be 
 paid to the interval which must be spent before the 
 candidate is presented for the priesthood ? 
 
 There is yet remaining, however, an argument 
 which merits some serious consideration. The bishop 
 might have doubted whether it was just, with re- 
 gard to the candidate himself, to delay his ordination 
 at a stage like this. The canons, in laying down 
 certain requisites for ordination, do impliedly autho- 
 rize, as it were, a contract with every candidate, that 
 if he fulfils these requisites, he shall be ordained : and 
 therefore Mr. Carey, having done his part to the full 
 extent, and even more than was required by an extra 
 year of study, had a right to demand the fulfilment 
 of the covenant on the part of the Church. True, 
 there were opinions charged upon him which were 
 believed to be radically inconsistent with her doc- 
 trines. But ought he to suffer for holding such 
 opinions, so long as he evidently could not see their 
 inconsistency, and was not prevented from subscrib- 
 ing, ex animo, to all that the Church required.-* 
 Should a solemn contract be thus violated on the 
 strength of a new hypothesis, whiclrhad started up 
 without either party having anticipated it, which one 
 party, the candidate, did not believe to belong to the 
 
37 
 
 main question at all, but honestly held it as a private 
 speculation; and which the other party, the Church, 
 had not defined as yet, while her ministers held it 
 differently, some regarding it one way, and some in 
 another? Surely, it might well be said, that contracts 
 may not be avoided on such doubtful grounds as this. 
 The candidates for the ministry have certain vested 
 rights, and no new matter, especially when it is of a 
 disputable kind, can be justly suffered to despoil 
 them. 
 
 The answer to all this is sufficiently obvious. To 
 the first it may be truly said, that the bishops have 
 received their sacred commission under the solemn 
 pledge to banish and drive away from the Church 
 all erroneous and strange doctrines, and that their 
 highest function, the power to ordain, may not be 
 lawfully subjected to any arguments of personal re- 
 gard or expediency. To the second, that the best 
 interests of the General Seminary would be promoted 
 instead of injured, by any act, which proved, to the 
 public satisfaction, a strict and thorough vigilance 
 over sound doctrine, especially where Rome was 
 concerned. And to the third, that the candidate can 
 have no vested x'x^his, which, in the reasonable appre- 
 hension of his examiners, can possibly expose the 
 Church to danger. His inability to see the incon- 
 sistency of his opinions could not alter they^/c/, how- 
 ever it might affect our feelings towards him person- 
 ally. The ministry is only to be conferred on those 
 who are qualified. The qualifications must be judged 
 by others, and the very existence of a reasonable 
 doubt whether the candidate possesses them, de- 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 prives him of all right to complain, because it lies 
 upon him to satisfy the Church that he is fit, and so 
 long as there is ground for doubt, the evidence can- 
 not be called satisfactory. Finally, it might be said, 
 that the fear of evil consequences can never be ad- 
 mitted in the scale against positive rules of obligation. 
 It is our part to fulfil, so far as in us lies, \he present 
 duty, and leave the question of results, in humble 
 faith, to that overruling Providence, who can cause 
 the very wrath of man to praise him, and make all 
 things, however adverse they may seem to our short- 
 sighted apprehensions, ultimately work together for 
 good to those that love him. 
 
 Nevertheless, although, as I have frankly said, my 
 judgment would have differed from that of my re- 
 spected brother, yet it would be quite unfair to deny 
 that his probable view of the case is a very plausi- 
 ble, amiable, and inviting, if not a very strong one* 
 To a man of warm and generous feelings, I can 
 readily imagine that the appeal on the side of Mr. 
 Carey would be very hard to resist ; and I honestly 
 confess, that granting it to be a mistaken decision, it 
 seems impossible for me to regard it witii any serious 
 fear or apprehension. It was a novel case, in all re- 
 spects, and one of considerable difficulty ; there was 
 but little time for weighing the objections, and per* 
 haps but little of that preparation of mind which 
 could perceive their force : and if ever there was an 
 error of judgment which could claim our sympathy 
 for its feelings, our respect for its probable motives, 
 our all-but-allowance for its difficulties, I think we 
 may find it in the case of Mr. Carey's ordination. 
 
39 
 
 It needs but small wisdom, after we have made a 
 mistake, to tell how it might have been avoided. We 
 can all see, now, that it would have probably saved 
 the Church from this whole intense agitation, if the 
 request of Drs. Smith and Anthon to conduct the ex- 
 amination in writing had been granted, if the pre- 
 vious paper of notes had been admitted in evidence, 
 and if but one week had been allowed to give the 
 candidate time to see the true nature of the difficulty 
 before him. But so far as the published documents 
 would lead one to infer, there was quite too much 
 feeling on the occasion to allow the proper exercise 
 of cool and calm reflection ; perhaps too much for the 
 exhibition of that fraternal confidence and Christian 
 courtesy, which clergymen owe to each other, but 
 which, when under the influence of excitement, they, 
 like other men, sometimes forget to render. And thus 
 has the v/hole Church been thrown into an unexam- 
 pled state of alarm and consternation, by a result, 
 which a little patient allowance for the honest doubts 
 of the objectors, a little kindly attention to their con- 
 scientious scruples, a little wholesome self-distrust, 
 and a postponement long enough to give the whole 
 matter the thorough searching which its importance 
 deserved, might, under God, have avoided. But, as 
 I have said, any one can see this noiv, when the 
 painful results are before us. I am far from intend- 
 ing to insinuate that I should have done better, or 
 even as well, under the same circumstances. Nor 
 have I, for myself, the slightest doubt, that the whole 
 has been ordered most wisely by the Providence of 
 our heavenly Father, for the better establishment of 
 
40 
 
 his Church, and the furtherance of his blessed gospel, 
 by the opportunity which it holds out for future pro- 
 tection against the inroads of error, for securing, in 
 every suspected case, the fullest inquiry, for clearer 
 and more definite views of doctrine, especially as it 
 regards the Roman controversy, and for the adoption 
 of an arrangement by which the conflicting judg- 
 ments of our bishops may be regularly submitted to 
 some appellate jurisdiction, instead of being spread 
 in open contrariety before the public eye. 
 
 With no desire, therefore, — God forbid ! — to en- 
 courage strife or promote dissension, but with the 
 hope of aiding, according to my humble capacity, in 
 pointing out the course which our General Conven- 
 tion might wisely adopt, to guard against the possi- 
 ble recurrence of any difficulty hereafter, and thus to 
 turn our past experience to the true account, by 
 making it the ground-work of an improved system, 
 I have frankly considered the main features of the 
 case before us, for the purpose of drawing your atten- 
 tion, in due time, to the best practicable mode of ac- 
 complishing an object so desirable to every friend of 
 unity and peace. 
 
 In order to give the Church the full benefits of a 
 simple and complete system, three measures seem to 
 me required. 
 
 First, that we should have but one code of canon 
 law, enacted by the whole Church in General Con- 
 vention, and superseding, of course, all diocesan 
 legislation. 
 
 Secondly, that this code should be administered, 
 in each diocese, by the Bishop, acting as judge, with 
 
41 
 
 the assistance of a certain number of his Presbyters, 
 as assessors. 
 
 Thirdly, that from the judgment of each bishop, 
 an appeal should lie, under proper regulations in 
 every case, to a Board or Council, consisting of not 
 less than seven bishops, with from four to six lay- 
 men, in the capacity of advisers and assistants, all of 
 whom should be elected by joint ballot at each Gene- 
 ral Convention, and should hold their sessions at such 
 time and place as the President of the Council should 
 appoint; the necessary expenses of such meeting 
 being provided for by the Church at large, in the 
 same manner as is now done for the meetings of the 
 General Convention. 
 
 I shall not here repeat what I have already printed 
 on this subject, in my humble work called " The 
 Primitive Church," the first edition of which was 
 published in the spring of 1S35,* It maybe well, 
 however, to state briefly, on the present occasion, a 
 few general reasons for some such arrangement as I 
 have proposed. 
 
 We have about twenty-seven dioceses in the vast 
 territory of the United States, with one General 
 Theological Seminary, and three or four Diocesan 
 Seminaries. Our Prayfr Book, containing the Arti- 
 cles of the Church, the Ordinals, the worship, and a 
 portion of our discipline, is wisely delivered to the 
 General Convention; and no Bishop nor diocese has 
 power over a single word of those inestimable for- 
 
 * See the 10th ch. of the Dissertation, p. 378 of second edition, as 
 also the Journal of the House of Bishops, at the General Convention 
 of 1835, p. 88, &c. 
 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 mularies. The same body has authority to make 
 Canons which bind the whole Church. So far, all is 
 placed, consistently enough, upon the only practical 
 principles of unity. But the anomaly begins as soon 
 as we leave the language of the law, and come down 
 to the work of interpretation. Here we have no 
 standard of unity at all, no general regulator, no 
 officer of the Church, and no constituted body, to 
 whicli we can appeal, to remedy the occasional mis- 
 takes of judgment to which all are liable. There is 
 no sufficient respect paid to the decisions of ^any one 
 Bishop, because there are other Bishops, probably, 
 who may think differently, and thus the clergy can- 
 not always be expected to yield with cheerfulness, 
 even when their diocesan may be right. And if he 
 should be wrong, which is certainly a very possible 
 thing, notwithstanding his purest intentions and best 
 efforts, there is no mode of rectifying the error. 
 Hence, of necessity, arise complaints, murmurs, fac- 
 tions, parties ; and good men — yea, some of our best 
 men — become perfectly conscientious in the temper 
 and spirit of opposition to their Bishop, on the ac- 
 knowledged ground, that they have no other mode 
 of preserving their rights, or of guarding the liberty 
 wherewith Christ has made them free. 
 
 Now it is impossible to justify a condition of things 
 like this, because it has no warrant in the history of 
 the Church, none from the Scriptures, none from our 
 mother Church of England, none from any well- 
 ordered civil commonwealth, none in reason or com- 
 mon sense. In the Church of Israel there was a 
 complete series of appeals. In the early Christian 
 
43 
 
 Church there was an appeal from the Bishop to the 
 Metropolitan, and from him to a Provincial Council. 
 In England there are appeals of a similar kind, 
 although, unhappily, their system is so trammeled 
 by its subordination to the civil courts, that it is of 
 very little use to them. Nay, the Presbyterian 
 and Methodist denominations of our own country, 
 defective as they are in some most important points 
 of apostolic order, have nevertheless a far better 
 provision for unity of judgment than ourselves. 
 Hence it must surely be granted, that in some way 
 or other we ought to sufiply ihis manifest defect. 
 And although the shortness of the period since our 
 distinct organization, our scattered population, and 
 the potent conservatism of our principles in other 
 things, have enabled us, under God, to dispense with 
 it thus far, without actual schism : yet as long as our 
 position in this respect presents an anomaly, in plain 
 contradiction to all our acknowledged maxims, we 
 cannot hope that we shall always escape the conse- 
 quences. Nor have we any right to expect that a 
 continued miracle will keep the Church together, 
 while we refuse to employ the only established 
 instrumentality. 
 
 Until some such arrangement is carried into effec- 
 tual operation, I do not see any hope of discipline or 
 lasting concord; and the recent case in New York 
 may serve as one out of many practical illustrations. 
 Had the decision of the Bishop on that occasion been 
 open to a regular appeal, a few weeks would have 
 settled the question, and would probably have laid 
 down a rule by which he himself would have been 
 
44 
 
 relieved from a painful responsibility, and his clergy 
 from a still more painful opposition. For want of 
 this, those who felt aggrieved, having no other 
 remedy, appeal to tiie Cliurch and public at large, 
 and set up a new periodical to defend what they 
 honestly believe to be true Church principles. Will 
 any man contend that it is desirable to have an 
 organized division in every considerable diocese, 
 each sustained by an established pi'ess, which must 
 again, in the very nature of things, tend to perpet- 
 uate and consolidate its own party ? Surely not. 
 But it cannot be otherwise, if the judgment of a 
 single Bishop is the only judgment which practically 
 decides the most serious and important questions. 
 For if appeals were allowed in those primitive times, 
 when there was an liundred-fold more respect felt for 
 the office of a Bishop than we shall ever see again, 
 how much more, beloved brethren, must they be 
 required, in the unchecked freedom of the nineteenth 
 century ! 
 
 It may be thought, indeed, by some, that our 
 General Convention affords an adequate remedy for 
 every episcopal mistake, and by others, that the late 
 Canon for the trial of Bishops secures ample protec- 
 tion. Both of these opinions, however, in my humble 
 judgment, are untenable, for the following reasons: 
 
 The first idea, which would bring the mistakes of 
 episcopal decisions to the General Convention, is 
 opposed to all experience and analogy. That as- 
 sembly is the supreme legislature of the Church, 
 whose business is not so much with men, as with 
 principles. No such body can advantageously unite 
 
45 
 
 the judicial with the legislative function. The very 
 form of their proceeding, in having two separate 
 Houses, like the Senate and the House of Represen- 
 tatives in the Congress of the United States, or, more 
 properly, like the English Convocation, utterly for- 
 bids the attempt to hear appeals, or sit in judgment. 
 It might, indeed, be otherwise, if, like the ancient 
 Provincial Synods, they consisted only of bishops, or 
 if, like the Presbyterian General Assembly, they sat 
 together. But constituted as they are, (and, as I 
 believe, most wisely,) nothing like an appellate juris- 
 diction can be exercised by them. They may correct 
 abuses to a certain extent, by Canons and resolu- 
 tions ; but the full remedial power of an appellate 
 Court demands a distinct examination. There are 
 other reasons which would lead to the same result, 
 but this appears to be conclusive. 
 
 As to the other idea, that our late Canon on the 
 trial of Bishops might be applied to the correction of 
 errors in judgment, I apprehend that it is equally 
 inadmissible. For although this Canon does indeed 
 say, that a Bishop may be presented, not only for any 
 crime or immorality, or for heresy, but also for vio- 
 lating the constitution or Canons of the Church, or of 
 his own diocese, so that the whole range of possible 
 offences seems to be included, yet I think it obvious 
 that in sound legal construction, it can only apply to 
 offences. That is to say, a criminal intent must be 
 attached to the act on which the presentment is 
 founded, and therefore mere errors in judgment, to 
 which the best and most conscientious men are liable, 
 can by no means be a proper ground for a present- 
 
46 
 
 ment under that Canon. The answer of the respon- 
 dent to every such presentment would be, substan- 
 tially, either Guilty, or Not guilty. But there is no 
 guilt when the intention is right; and therefore many 
 serious mistakes may be committed, and much oppo- 
 sition may exist between the declared opinions of the 
 bishops, and the official action founded thereupon, 
 which the true spirit of that Canon could never reach 
 at all. The distinction may be readily understood 
 by a recurrence to the familiar analogy of our civil 
 judges. For they may all be subject to impeach- 
 ment for official misconduct ; wliile an illegal opinion, 
 delivered without wilful corruption, and in the exe- 
 cution of their office, must be corrected either by 
 TV7'it of Error, or Appeal, and no rebuke nor cen- 
 sure, mvich less the loss of office, can possibly follow 
 from those honest mistakes of judgment, to which 
 the very exercise of their functions, in the nature of 
 the case, must always expose them. In like manner, 
 as it seems to me, should the Church be provided 
 with some mode for the correction of those errors, 
 which are no proper ground for impeachment or 
 presentment, since the Canon, which was designed 
 for this latter purpose, cannot, with any legal con- 
 sistency, be applied to the other. 
 
 Independently of these arguments, however, I 
 frankly confess that there is another view of this 
 subject which has long had great influence on my 
 own mind. We are obliged to listen to a vast amount 
 of accusation without, and of apprehension within 
 our own pale, concerning the dangerous and despotic 
 character of episcopal power, and the terrible abuses 
 
47 
 
 to which it is applicable. Now so long as we have 
 no appeal from the judgment of a single Bishop, it is 
 evident that there will be room left for the reiteration 
 of those complaints and lamentations. No change 
 that v/e can make, indeed, will be likely to satisfy 
 those who are determined to censure episcopacy, 
 right or wrong. But for the sake of some amongst 
 our own brethren, it is surely worth our wliile to do 
 any thing lawful in itself, by which we may quiet 
 those fears of episcopal tyranny which seem to dis- 
 turb them. So far as I know our Bishops, they 
 desire the exercise of as little official power, as may 
 consist with the faithful administration of the system 
 committed to their especial oversight and care. And 
 I cannot see any reason to doubt, that they would 
 have cause to rejoice in a measure, which would 
 strengthen their hands by the influence of unity in 
 all that the interests of discipline and order could re- 
 quire, while it would take away all pretext for com- 
 plaint, and all excuse for opposition. 
 
 There is yet one service more, and that of no small 
 importance, which I should desire might be perform- 
 ed by the Board or Council of Appeals, which I have 
 been advocating. It is the censorship of the press 
 within the circle of the Church. I need hardly say 
 to you, my beloved and respected brethren, that this 
 censorship formed a serious part of the duty dis- 
 charged by the English Convocation, and that no 
 branch of the Church can expect to be long at rest, 
 in which there is not some mode by which it may be 
 faithfully exercised. No reflecting mind can doubt, 
 for instance, that if the Convocation had been in pos- 
 
• 
 
 48 
 
 session of its former powers, the mischievous excite- 
 ment produced by the objectionable portions of the 
 Oxford Tracts, and especially of the British Critic, 
 would have been etfectually arrested in due season. 
 Nor do I see how any sober Christian, who loves to 
 follow the things which make for peace, and who has 
 been an attentive observer of our episcopal press for 
 some years past, can help desiring, that if possible a 
 wholesome curb might be put upon that powerful 
 engine, by which its vast strength could still be used 
 for good, while it should be restrained from evil. 
 
 I should feel self-condemned, if, having touched 
 upon this subject, I did not discharge my own con- 
 science, by openly protesting against the sad abuse 
 of anonymous publications, written by nobody 
 knows whom, and often replete with a temper and 
 a language, which, it must be confessed, few men 
 who have any character to lose would be willing to 
 appropriate. This pernicious custom, however, seems 
 to me particularly blameworthy, when it is adopted 
 in our Church Periodicals. For at least it must be 
 granted, that the author of a scurrilous pamphlet 
 stands alone, and pays for the privilege of printing 
 it. But the writer of as scurrilous a communication 
 in the columns of a religious paper, is put to no cost; 
 and is brought, without their leave, into respectable 
 company. By this convenient vehicle, he is intro- 
 duced to a thousand eyes to which he would not 
 otherwise have gaiiied access, and is aided in liis ma- 
 levolence or folly by nn implied approbation, while 
 all real accountability is turned ofi" upon the editorial 
 prerogative of not being responsible for the senti- 
 ments of correspondents. 
 
• 
 
 49 
 
 The activity of this ingenious management has 
 procured us a succession of invisible and intangible 
 monitors, who reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with all 
 authority, at one moment; and jest, and flout, and 
 sneer, with all irreverence, at another. Who the 
 persons may be that thus undertake to illuminate 
 the Cluirch, or flagellate her unhappy oflicers, is all 
 a mystery. It is a literary masquerade. A young 
 gentleman, perhaps, whose theological studies have 
 but just begun, assumes, with all proper gravity, the 
 cognomen of one of the martyrs ; and Bidley, or 
 Latimer^ or Hooper, or Cranmer, appears in such a 
 guise, that assuredly their best friends would never 
 know them. It may be that some young lady, warm- 
 ed with a generous emulation, next pens a letter to 
 the editor ; and after discussing her ecclesiastical difii- 
 culties with a reasonable measure of profundity, sub- 
 scribes herself, the judicious Hooker. All this, how- 
 ever, is but conjecture, for whether the contributors 
 be young or old, male or female, gentle or simple, 
 mere phantoms or substantial realities, is quite a 
 secret to Ihe reader. It is true, nevertheless, that the 
 plan presents a goodly variety, a sort of Protestant 
 Carnival in type. One nobody patronizes the demo- 
 cratic principle, and calls himself. Vox popuH. An- 
 other nobody i)refers the honor of the magistrate, 
 and signs himsi^lf, Fi<it justitia. A third nobody 
 contents himself with being an Observer, meaning, 
 of course, to be considered an exceedingly shrewd 
 one. A fourth nobody has better ideas of imperson- 
 ality, and only aspuMiig to represent a maxim, calls 
 himself, Suum cuique. A fifth nobody has a strong 
 
 5 
 
50 
 
 bias towards State rights, and takes the style of Ve.r^ 
 mont, Maryland, or Ohio. A sixth nobody shrinks 
 from such arrogant presumption, modestly contracts 
 himself within the bounds of a single city, and so 
 dubs himself, New York. While a seventh disdains 
 such adventitious dignity, and puts upon his mask a 
 solitary letter, as if he felt himself quite above the 
 vulgarity of having any name at all. Meanwhile 
 our host of nobodies display a great deal of spirit, 
 and not a little temper at times. Gross personality; 
 keen asperity, heartless ridicule, fulsome adulation, 
 and downright insult, may be found among their 
 contributions ; mingled, indeed, with much better 
 things, sound argument, solid learning, and polished 
 style, which deserve to be found in very diflferent 
 society. But who and what are they ? For the most 
 part, nobody knows. Sometimes there may be a pri^ 
 vate signal for the benefit of friends, or a peculiarity 
 which favors detection, or a long appropriation of the 
 same vizor, which at last becomes recognized as if it 
 were the man's own countenance. It is very seldom, 
 however, that the more objectionable njaskers are 
 known at all, by the bulk of those who peruse the 
 paper. Practically speaking, we only see them in 
 print, under a name assumed to balk our curiosity. 
 Who, then, is responsible? Nobody. If injury be 
 inflicted, who shall repair the wrong? Nobody. If 
 reparation be denied, on whom shall the discipline of 
 the Church descend ? Of course, on nobody. But are 
 they not the Ediior^s correspondents ? Doubtless ; 
 but they are nobody, not withstanding. Then must 
 not the editor himself be responsible? Yes, truly, 
 
51 
 
 in law ; but it may be a difficult point to ascer- 
 tain whether he holds himself accountable in con- 
 science : and in Church practice he is so far from 
 being responsible for the sayings of his correspond- 
 ents, that he is not always expected to justify his 
 own. 
 
 Now all this is surely preposterous, and ought not 
 to be tolerated by any community which calls itself 
 the Church of God. The truth is, that the model 
 and the license of our religious periodicals have been 
 too much taken from the world, and their editors 
 seem often to have imagined, that there was some 
 tribunal for an avocation like theirs, from which the 
 law of Christian responsibility must be excluded. 
 Honorable exceptions there are, doubtless, to this re- 
 mark, but, as a whole, we have still to look forward 
 to the time when our editors shall remember that 
 their works do follow them, and that they are re- 
 sponsible, Avhether they declare it or not, for every 
 thing pubhshed through their instrumentality. This 
 is a lesson, therefore, which it is the duty of the 
 Church to teach them. Especially does it seem to 
 me, that they should suffer no man to assume the task 
 of advice or reprehension in the Church of Christ, 
 who is ashamed or afraid to do it in his own name. 
 We have a right to know our teachers, and to have 
 a fair opportunity of judging how far they seem en- 
 titled to discharge so grave an office. Young persons 
 may doubtless be encouraged to try their skill on 
 moral or religious essays, poetry, &c., with all pro- 
 priety, and on the score of modesty they may be in- 
 dulged with a private signature. But to place them 
 
52 
 
 in the seat of the scorner under such a disguise, — to 
 encourage them in the scattering of fire-brands, and 
 counting it sport, — to sustain them in libelUng the 
 characters of men who were laboring for the Church 
 before they were born, — and to prostitute the sacred 
 influence of a rehgious paper in order to gain atten- 
 tion for what the writers dared not to have printed 
 in their own person — these are abuses for which I 
 can imagine no apology ; and if there were no other, 
 these alone call loudly for some power to regulate the 
 press. I speak not, of course, with respect to the 
 world. The secular press must manage its own con- 
 cerns in its own way, subject to the law of the land, 
 and to the tribunal of public opinion. But I speak 
 of the press which is professedly connected with the 
 Church, in the hands of her clergy, the organ of her 
 bishops, commended publicly to her Conventions, and 
 therefore, in theory, subject to her control. Still far- 
 ther is it from my intention, directly or indirectly, to 
 deprecate the voice of honest censure or reproof, 
 either as it may respect myself, or any of my brethren 
 in the episcopate. On the contrary, I would desire 
 at all times to say, in the words of the Psalmist, Let 
 the righteous smite me friendly, and rebuke me. 
 But let me see that my reprover is acting as becomes 
 a Christian and a man, in obedience to his duty, and 
 in the light of day. And let not the Church of the 
 Most High God tolerate the principle of the assassin, 
 who only inflicts the wound when he has his face 
 disguised, and hopes that darkness will shroud him 
 from observation. 
 
 Before I close my remarks on the improvement 
 
53 
 
 proposfifl, however, it is incumbent upon me to no- 
 tice the objection, that the adoption of but one code 
 of canon law, and the consequent abolition of dio- 
 cesan legislation, would interfere with the rights of. 
 the dioceses themselves, and counteract a plain pro- 
 vision of our existing Constitution. 
 
 I freely admit that this argument deserves a serious 
 consideration, and at once concede,:that as our Con- 
 stitution now stands, the improvement suggested 
 would be impracticable. But that instrument can 
 be readily modified or changed at the will of the 
 Church. No one regards it with any other feeling 
 than that of profound respect ; but yet no one is so 
 ignorant as to claim for it the reverence due to an- 
 tiquity, much less the unchangeable authority which 
 alone belongs to inspiration. 
 
 The first part of the objection, therefore, is the only 
 one which demands attention, namely, that the plan 
 proposed would interfere with the rights of the dio- 
 ceses. Now the rights of the dioceses, under the 
 Constitution, I grant ; but the rights of the dioceses, 
 as such, to make Constitutions or canous, properly so 
 called, I beg leave to deny utterly. A brief reference 
 to facts, as they stand upon the face of the Church's 
 history, will explain this position clearly. 
 
 A Constitution, or a canon, is a decree, law, or rule, 
 binding upon the Church, in the highest sense of 
 merely ecclesiastical obligation. And the first ex- 
 ample of such decree or canon is in the remarkable 
 instance of the Assembly or Council held by the 
 Apostles at Jerusalem, in order to settle the contro~ 
 rersy which had arisen upon the question ; Whether 
 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 the Gentile Churches were under the ceremonial 
 law of the Mosaic economy. Here the decree was 
 framed by the authority, not of one Apostler, but of 
 all ; and from this has been properly derived the 
 great model of all subsequent legislation in the 
 Church of God. 
 
 The next example bearing upon the subject, occurs 
 in the venerable code familiarly known by the name 
 of the Jipostolic Canons, purporting to have been 
 made by the collective authority of the blessed Apos- 
 tles. I need hardly say that such a claim as this is 
 quite apocryphal. But nevertheless, their great anti- 
 quity is unquestionable; and the respect with which 
 they are referred to by the Councils of the primitive 
 Church, is well known to every theologian. I men- 
 tion them, however, as furnishing the second proof 
 of the principle already stated, namely, that a decree 
 or law, intended to bind the Church with any per- 
 manent obligation, was regarded as the work of all 
 the apostles, and not of one alone. 
 
 There is yet a third exan^.ple of the same thing, in 
 the very interesting collection called the Jlpostolical 
 Constitutions. That this title is also apocryphal, or 
 rather, I should say, confessedly supposititious, detracts 
 nothing from the evidence which they afford of the 
 principle : since, like the Apostolic Canons, they 
 profess to be the decrees of the whole Apostolic 
 College, met together in solemn Council. 
 
 It may be as well, perhaps, to notice here a diffi- 
 culty, which may probably trouble some amongst my 
 readers. How, it might be asked, should the autho- 
 rity of all the Apostles be supposed necessary for the 
 
55 
 
 production of these Canons, when St. Paul, single 
 and alone, claims absolute obedience from the 
 Churches, and plainly saith : " If any rtian among 
 you seem to he a prophet or spiritual, let him 
 acknowledge what I say to be the commandment of 
 our Lord Jesus Christ.^^ The answer is: Because 
 the Apostles sometimes spake by inspiration, and 
 then their authority was indeed equivalent to the very 
 word of the great Redeemer, since, according to their 
 Lord's own promise, it was not they who spake, but 
 the Holy Ghost who spake in them. But St. Paul 
 himself records some counsels which he declares 
 were not by inspiration ; as, for example, where he 
 saith : " Now concerning virgins, I have received no 
 commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judg- 
 m,ent, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord 
 to be faithful,^^ (1 Cor. vii. 25.) It is perfectly plain, 
 too, on the face of the sacred history, that there was 
 no inspiration granted to decide the question whether 
 the Gentiles were free from the cerenjonial law ; nor 
 did St. Peter speak, nor did St. James deliver his 
 judgment, in the authoritative style which became a 
 divine communication. But after the sentence pro- 
 nounced by St. James was found to be unanimously 
 acceptable, and the Apostles were persuaded, by a 
 secret consciousness, that the Spirit of God had ap- 
 proved it, they then say in the decree, " // seemed 
 good to the Holy Ghost and to us.'' From this we 
 may readily understand, that the primitive Church did 
 not esteem the apostolic Canons as actually inspired, 
 else they would, doubtless, have reckoned them 
 among the Holy Scriptures. But they understood 
 
^ 56 
 
 them to be the joint result of the Apostles' consulta- 
 tion, without any other divine aid than the ordinary 
 succours of heavenly grace promised to the apostolic 
 ministry. Consequently, although they doubted not 
 that they "seemed good to the Holy Ghost," yet 
 they distinguished between that which was spoken 
 " hy permissions^ and that which was spoken " hy 
 commandment The first was apostolic, the second 
 only was divine. 
 
 But to return from this digression: I have next to 
 observe, that the model of those apostolic consulta- 
 tions was followed scrupulously by the Christian 
 Church in every quarter, and, so far as I can find, 
 without a single exception. What the blessed Apos- 
 tles were known to have done in the Council of Jeru- 
 salem, and what they were generally believed to have 
 done in the enactment of the apostolic Canons, was 
 done by the bishops who succeeded them. No single 
 bishop, therefore, with only the clergy and laity be- 
 longing to his own jurisdiction arouiid him, ever 
 thought of establishing Constitutions or Canons for 
 his particular diocese; but a whole band of bishops, 
 more or less numerous, met together, as the Apostles 
 had done before them, and Canons were the joint 
 product of their united wisdom, not intended to guide 
 a single district, only, but designed to express what 
 they believed to be equally suitable and acceptable 
 for the whole body of the faithful. Nor do I know 
 of anv deviation from the rule, until the enterprizing 
 spirit of our own Church, smitten with the love of 
 legislation which characterized the country and the 
 time, made the privilege of enacting ecclesiastical 
 
57 
 
 Canons commensurate with the limits of every dio- 
 cese, past, present, and to come ; so that we not only 
 give to a real diocese, (that is, a district, having a 
 bishop of its own,) the full right of making its own 
 laws, but we even allow every State to be called a 
 diocese prospectively ; and where, as yet, there is no 
 bishop, nor the slightest probability that there will be 
 any for years to come, we nevertheless accept the 
 doings of one or two clergymen and three or four 
 laymen, as an equivalent. We call a fire-side com- 
 pany like this, a Convention : we receive from their 
 assembled wisdom a Constitution and Canons, and 
 thus, we have brought the solemn work of pronounc- 
 ing laws for the future Church of God to such a 
 point of facility, that it may be fairly compared to 
 any other mechanism of our prolific days. 
 
 I should be exceedingly grieved, my beloved bre- 
 thren, if these remarks were understood to indicate 
 the slightest want of respect and affection for the 
 ' work of those excellent and admirable men, who 
 were called, by divine Providence, to act as pioneers 
 in the arduous task of Church legislation. They 
 doubtless did all that was at that tifiie possible. They 
 surmounted obstacles which we can scarcely even 
 imagine. And far be it from any of those who have 
 entered into their labors, to pluck one leaf from the 
 wreath of pre-eminent honor, with which the grate- 
 ful veneration of millions, in England and America, 
 has long since crowned their brows. But the ad- 
 vancement of a mighty work, which could not, in 
 the very nature of the case, be otherwise than imper- 
 fect in its beginning, should never be regarded with 
 
58 
 
 jealousy on account of those revered men ; for in 
 truth, the argument, rightly applied, would tend the 
 other way. 
 
 Imagine, for illustration's sake, the children of a 
 first settler, shedding their tears of filial devotion at 
 the grave of their departed father. They dwell 
 with affectionate remembrance upon his hardships 
 in the wilderness : the Indian tomahawk, the pan- 
 ther's ferocity, the serpent's venom, — all was encoun- 
 tered, and all was overcome. In due time, peace 
 and security rewarded his fortitude and courage, 
 fruitful harvests bore witness to his labours and his 
 toils, hundreds and thousands came thronging around 
 him, a goodly city rose up on the field which his 
 hands first planted, till at length, after reaching to 
 the borders of a century, with praises and honors 
 heaped on his reverend head, he went to his eternal 
 rest, leaving his hard-earned but noble estate to his 
 grateful children. Now what would be the value of 
 their love for their departed sire, if they used it as an 
 apology for refusing to goon in the improvement of the 
 property ? Should they be so weak as to say, " Our 
 father built the house, and therefore we will neither 
 add nor alter. The foundation which he laid of tim- 
 ber, we will not rebuild with stone. Some of the 
 tenements were hastily constructed, under the pres- 
 sure of surrounding difficulties, and the beams are 
 threatening to give way ; but our filial piety will 
 suffer them to fall upon our heads, sooner than 
 replace them by a firmer structure." Surely such 
 folly as this could never be mistaken for the true 
 principle of manly and rational aftection. Instead 
 
59 
 
 of this, we should charge the sons of such a father^ 
 to prove their admiration of his virtues by emulating 
 his energy and perseverance ; to carry forward the 
 work which he had begun in the midst of so many 
 obstacles, and to leave no labor undone, which might 
 make the perfection of the end, worthy of the wisdom 
 and the courage displayed in the beginning. 
 
 Precisely under such an aspect, do I desire to 
 regard every effort to supply the existing deficiencies 
 in our ecclesiastical system, as a tribute of the highest 
 practical reverence to the American patriarchs who 
 have gone to their rest. They were the great pio- 
 neers in a mighty undertaking. Theirs were the 
 struggles, the dangers, the conflicts, tlie fears, which 
 we only know in history. Instead of wondering 
 that they left anything for us to do, our only wonder 
 ought to be that they effected so much, and eifected 
 it, by the good hand of God upon them, so wisely 
 and so well. And therefore, far from recurring to 
 their venerated names as an argument for doing 
 nothing, I would cite them as a high example, to 
 encourage our ardour, and to stimulate our zeal. 
 
 It may be objected, however, that the proposed 
 abolition of all diocesan legislation, and placing all 
 the dioceses under the same code, framed by ttie 
 same comprehensive authority of the General Con- 
 vention which already iias the sole power over the 
 system of the Church in doctrine and worship, would 
 destroy the interest of our clersy and laity in our 
 diocesan Conventions, and thus work a serious evil. 
 
 Such a result, if it were likely to happen, would 
 indeed be an evil of no small magnitude. But I am 
 
60 
 
 quite convinced that the very contrary would be the 
 practical effect of the alteration which I take the 
 liberty of recommending. For all experience proves, 
 that the work of legislation can hardly ever be con- 
 ducted with perfect unanimity ; and therefore it is 
 apt, in small bodies, such as our diocesan Convene 
 tion, to be attended with strife, heart-bnrnings, and 
 lasting dissatisfaction, where all ought to be unity 
 and peace. The portion of the diocese who acqui- 
 esce relnctantly, are tempted to form a party. Dis- 
 content is propagated by uneasy spirits, of whom 
 there are always found more or less, and who, though 
 doubtless with very good intentions, exaggerate alike 
 the supposed existing evil, and the importance of the 
 contemplated change; and thus a feeling of opposi- 
 tion and division is kept up, which of all tilings 
 proves most thoroughly hostile to the work of the 
 ministry, and often grieves the Holy Spirit, if it 
 does not deprive the whole diocese of the blessing of 
 God. The inevitable disadvantages of the existing 
 system have been exemplified by almost every dio- 
 cese in the Union. Their Constitutions and Canons, 
 so called, are subjected to revisions as often as de- 
 cency can allow. Matters of the smallest possible 
 importance become the subject of serious and lasting 
 ^ difficulty, and a wovnid is inflicted upon tlie feelings 
 of unity and brotherly affection, whicii may possibly 
 be never healed again. 
 
 Another, and perhaps a much greater evil, how- 
 ever, is connected with this diocesan legislation; 
 namely, the general indifference or contempt towards 
 the Canons of the diocese, which every experienced 
 
61 
 
 observer must have noticed. Nor is this a subject of 
 surprise to a reflecting mind. For how, I beseech 
 you, brethren, can there be any solemnity of obHga- 
 tion felt towards a set of laws, passed by one bishop, 
 and perhaps a dozen clergymen, with tlieir attendant 
 parochial laymen, and with more or less opposition, 
 when every one knows that they rest on no higher 
 authority than their own will, and can be altered as 
 soon as the minority, by a few changes in the minis- 
 try of the diocese, can become the majority ? What 
 Churchman can be expected to obey, in religious 
 matters, what he cannot reverence ? And what 
 reverence is he likely to cherish for any thing so 
 mutable, so slight, so easily set up, and so easily cast 
 down, as this diocesan legislation ? 
 
 But all this vexatious, uncertain, and troublesome 
 set of subjects, only interrupts and deranges the pro- 
 per objects for which the Convention of the diocese 
 meet annually together. The hearing the statement 
 of their bishop's labors, and the parochial reports, 
 the raising and paying in the various contributions 
 for missionary and other purposes, the settling of any 
 doubts or difficulties which might be proposed touch- 
 ing the meaning of the ecclesiastical system, the 
 listening to the wants of the weaker Churches, and 
 consulting how to supply them, the mutual encou- 
 ragement derived from mutual intercourse, and the 
 multiplying and strengthening those bands of Christ- 
 ian love, which ought to bind the members of every 
 diocese together, as, indeed, one family in Christ, — 
 these are the true and important objects of these 
 annual meetings. And so far would they be from 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 suffering, if the provocations and temptations which 
 arise out of this vice of legislation were removed, 
 that, in my humble judgment, they would flourish and 
 prosper incomparably more than ever. As the mat- 
 ter now stands, these legislative topics, in their rela* 
 tion to our Diocesan Conventions, are like the suckers 
 of a valuable tree, which drain the trunk of its pro- 
 per vigor. And hence, one of the most certain means, 
 under God, to improve the quality of the fruit, would 
 be to prune them utterly away. 
 
 All these objections, however, to diocesan legisla- 
 tion, vanish, when we consider the action of the 
 General Convention. For the strifes and difficulties 
 which sometimes attend the task of legislation, are 
 never dangerous in a body gathered from every dio- 
 cese in the Union, at longer periods, the members of 
 which scarcely know each other, who may never 
 have met together before, and most probably will 
 never meet together again. There is here, therefore, 
 more solemnity, more dignity, more courtesy, more 
 self-restraint, more thoughtful deliberation. Even 
 if dissension should arise, there is no opportunity for 
 renewing or extending it, and therefore it soon dies 
 away. In all respects, indeed, it is an assembly of 
 an incomparably higher character. Then there is 
 the whole College of our bishops, met together with 
 every advantage, which the knowledge, wisdom, ex* 
 perience and piety of each, can bring to the common 
 work of deliberation. Then tliere is more than ten 
 times the period, during which their labors continue; 
 and can we reasonably doubt that there is an increase, 
 proportionate to all this, in the essential work of faith" 
 
€3 
 
 ful prayer, and earnest supplication to that blessed 
 Spirit, who alone maketh men to be of one mind in 
 a house? — a proportionate realizing of the insignifi- 
 cance of each individual man, — a proportionate feel- 
 ing of entire dependence on the wisdom which 
 cometh from above ? Then theje is the necessity of 
 an united judgment in favor of each canon enacted, 
 securing the benefits of a revision by either House, of 
 the acts proposed by the other. So that you have 
 the principle of the primitive councils in the House 
 of bishops, along with the safeguard of the clergy's 
 assent, as in the British Convocation system; and 
 superadded to both, a principle, to which every year's 
 observation and experience has more and more at- 
 tached me, namely, the distinct approbation of our 
 laity. Everything, therefore,is here combined, which 
 exhibits the ideal of the Church's admirable unity. 
 Some of our brethren, indeed, have been induced to 
 apply to our system the term, veto, which seems, to 
 my mind, exceedingly ill-judged, and totally inappli- 
 cable ; since neither the bishops, nor the clergy, nor 
 the laity, can be truly said io forbid the action of the 
 rest. But the correct rationale of the matter is sim- 
 ply this : that the Church is one body, and for that 
 simple reason, it must move together, or it cannot 
 move at all. The bishops cannot take one step with- 
 out the clergy and laity, nor these, again, without the 
 bishops, merely because they are " every one mem- 
 bers one of another:'''' for just as the human body 
 cannot act efficiently without the harmonious con- 
 sent of every limb, even so the Church cannot act 
 efficiently without the concurrence of all her members. 
 
64 
 
 In canons pronounced by the General Convention, 
 therefore, and in none other, shall we find the attri- 
 butes properly belonging to the work of ecclesiastical 
 legislation. These would form an authoritative rule 
 to each diocese. Every bishop could be sure of uni- 
 versal concurrence when he enforced them, and men 
 could never find encouragement in an attempt to 
 charge their diocesan with tyranny, or partiality, or 
 the love of power, so long as he was only doing his 
 manifest duty in claiming conformity to the law of 
 the whole Church, and a regular appeal was allowed 
 to every complaining party. 
 
 Having thus, my respected and beloved brethren, 
 gone over the principal topics proposed in my first 
 Letter, it only remains that 1 should present to your 
 indulgence a few concluding remarks, upon the cha- 
 racteristic features of the Tractarian system, and the 
 g'eneral aspect which it wears to a reflecting mind. 
 
 I am compelled, with deep regret, to avow my 
 own entire conviction, that the fundamental error of 
 this system is one and the same with the theory of 
 Romanism. For both seem perfectly agreed in the 
 idea, that the Church militant on earth is a vast Cor- 
 poration, whose members have no individual rights 
 under the Charter, except as parts of the great whole. 
 From this they derive the principle, that the visible 
 Church is the reservoir of all spiritual influence ; that 
 grace is given by her, and onli/ through her in- 
 strumentality. In a word, they invest her with a 
 SUBSTANTIVE PERsoNALiTV, dispensing through her 
 officers, by the very appointment of Christ, all the 
 
65 
 
 powers, gifts, rights, and privileges, belonging to the 
 kingdom of heaven. 
 
 This view is grand, sublime, and imposing; but I 
 believe it to be thoroughly miscriptural in principle, 
 false in fact, and dangerous in operation. My rea- 
 sons are briefly as follows. 
 
 I hold this notion of the Church to be unscriptural, 
 first, because all the promises of Christ are made to 
 the individual believer, conditioned on his personal 
 repentance and faith ; secondly, because the only 
 clear promises made to the Church, as the Spouse of 
 Christ, and possessing the kingdom, are made in con- 
 nection with his second advent ; and thirdly, because 
 our Lord, speaking of the present dispensation, espe- 
 cially saith. My kingdom is not of this world. 
 
 I hold this theory to be false, in fact ; because the 
 eighteen centuries of the Christian era have not yet 
 witnessed its successful application. This mighty 
 unit has never been without more or less division in 
 its outward government, and the papacy, which was 
 indeed a wonderful attempt to make the kingdom of 
 Christ of this world, has only proved to be a splendid 
 failure. 
 
 I believe the notion to be dangerous in operation, 
 because hs inevitable tendency seems to be, to sink 
 the individual responsibility of each conscience in a 
 blind reliance on the privileges of the whole ; to 
 cherish an excessive and superstitious dependence on 
 the Sacraments, to attach an extreme and absurd faith 
 to the supposed teaching of tradition, to invest the 
 Church with the authority which belongs solely to 
 her divine Lord and Master, to rest our whole justifi- 
 
66 
 
 cation upon ordinances rightly administered, rather 
 than on the Hving principle of faith, and to lead each 
 behever, instead of using, with humble confidence, 
 the rights of his adoption, by coming boldly to the 
 throne of grace in every time of need, rather to lean 
 upon the priesthood, as a class of appointed media' 
 tors between Christ and the soul. 
 
 The true aspect of the Church, therefore, as I ap- 
 prehend it, is not so much corporate as aggregate. 
 Its living principle is faith, by the operation of the 
 Holy Spirit, in the soul of each individual man. Its 
 essential unity is inward, having fellowship with the 
 Father and the Son, through the Spirit that dwelleth 
 in the temple of the renewed heart. Its outward or 
 formal unity follows after this, as a privilege and a 
 duty, so iixx as it consists with truth ; but its life de- 
 pends not on that unity. Hence, the fathers speak 
 of the Church as essentially existing in Abel, Enoch, 
 Noah, and Abraham. Hence all who are united 
 with God as their Father, through faith in Christ, be- 
 come necessarily the brethren of each other, and 
 members of the heavenly household ; although they 
 may not have the power to congregate together upon 
 earth. Hence, too, there is a sense in which the say- 
 ing of Cyprian is true, that " he caiuiot have God 
 for his Father, who has not the Church for his 
 mother" ; but that Church, rightly understood, is 
 "Jerusalem above," which, as saith the inspired 
 Apostle, "is the mother of us all." 
 
 The congeniality of Tractarianism with Rome has 
 been painfully manifested during the last two years, 
 by a variety of publications ; but especially by the 
 
67 
 
 whole course of the British Critic, in an open assault 
 upon the doctrine of justification by faith, which its 
 editor has boldly denounced as the Lutheran heresy; 
 — in frequent advocacy of the Romish principle of de- 
 velopment, of the sacramental power and grace attri- 
 buted to the external unity of the Church, of auricu- 
 lar confession and private absolution by the priest, — 
 in high praises of the Romish formularies of devotion, 
 veneration for the saints, and especially for the Virgin 
 Mary, laws of clerical celibacy, and monastic insti- 
 tutions, — in a plain preference for the th.eology and 
 practical piety of the middle ages, — in an injurious^and 
 subtle strain of palliation towards all the superstitions 
 of Rome, — in an undisguised contempt for the charac- 
 ters of our great Reformers, and in a studied opposi- 
 tion to the name and spirit of Protestantism. Several 
 of those points it was my intention to have discussed 
 jat large ; but I am rejoiced to find that I have been 
 superseded by other and far abler hands, and there- 
 fore I consider myself relieved from the duty of pur- 
 suing the painful subject any farther. 
 
 I cannot conclude, however, in justice to my own 
 feelings, without again recording my belief, that on 
 many points of ecclesiastical order and discipline, the 
 writings of my Tractarian brethren have been highly 
 useful. Nor would I omit the opportunity of renew- 
 ing my cordial acknowledgments to such of those 
 eminently gifted men, especially Mr. Newman him- 
 self, whose personal intercourse, when at Oxford, I 
 esteemed as a peculiar privilege, and to whose liberal 
 kindness, hospitality and attention, I was, in various 
 ways, so much indebted. The highest compliment 
 
68 - 
 
 that I can pay them is to express my conviction, that 
 they would be amongst the last to suffer acts of cour- 
 tesy or friendship to interfere with the conscientious 
 expression of religious truth. " He that loveth 
 father or mother more than me," saith the blessed 
 Redeemer, " is not worthy of me.'' But although 
 even the most sacred of all personal relations may 
 not be suffered to stand in the way of our allegiance 
 to Christ, and our fidelity to his Gospel ; yet we can 
 hardly fail to regard it as a real affiiction, when 
 admiration of the men must be united with hostihty 
 to their doctrine. 
 
 It may be proper that I should add another remark, 
 in order to account for the fact, that while I have been 
 occupied with opposing some of the errors of Tract- 
 arianism, I have made my chief quotations, not from 
 the Oxford Tracts, but from Mr. Palmer's Treatise 
 on the Church. My reason is, because I regard that 
 work as being the most authoritative exponent of the 
 system, which is likely to abide, with considerable 
 influence and honor, long after the Tracts, and the 
 transient publications which have grown out of them, 
 shall have passed away ; and therefore any error of 
 principle or of application, in a treatise so eminent 
 for its scholastic method and its immense research, 
 deserves, and indeed demands, the most thorough 
 examination. I have seen, with the liveliest satis- 
 faction, that this distinguished writer has himself 
 become a declared opponent to the extravagances of 
 the school with which he has been. so long identified. 
 And I earnestly hope that the next edition of his 
 great work will exhibit the results in such a form, as 
 shall leave no further ground for animadversion. 
 
69 
 
 I stated, in the first of these Letters, that my 
 object was not so much to consider the whole Tract- 
 arian controversy, simply with regard to its precise 
 measure of theological soundness, as to examine those 
 novelties which disturbed our oivn peace. And I 
 selected the points which I thought most important 
 to my object, under the full conviction, that so long as 
 we retained our established doctrines on the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, on the true idea of the Church, on the 
 Holy Eucharist, and on th« essential antagonism of 
 the Roman system as set forth in the Council of Trent, 
 there would be small danger of our being led astray 
 on any other topic. I have called the Tractarian sys- 
 tem neiu, not because I was ignorant that it is indeed 
 very old, inasmuch as it is mainly taken from the 
 later fathers, as interpreted by the Church of Rome ; 
 nor yet because I was not aware that it may be found, 
 scattered here and there, amongst the writings of 
 English divines, especially in those of Laud, Mon- 
 tague and Thorndike, but because it is new in its 
 aggressive, combined, Mid, sustained character, even 
 in England, and new in all respects amongst our- 
 selves. No other writers of our mother Church have 
 ever dared to stigmatize the Reformers, to call the 
 doctrine of justification by faith, a heresy, to attack 
 the epithet of Protestant, to concede a high supe- 
 riority to Rome, to mourn over our separation from 
 her corrupt communion, and to display their sym- 
 pathies with her enormous superstition. And the 
 indignant spirit aroused against them, throughout the 
 length and breadth of the Church of England, not- 
 withstanding the acknowledged learning, and talent, 
 
70 
 
 and personal worth of the individuals concerned, 
 together with the unparalleled excitement which has 
 marked the first instance, in which our own Church 
 has had reason to mark their influence in the recent 
 ordination, bear a testimony, not to be mistaken by 
 any candid mind, that small indeed is the number on 
 either side of the Atlantic, who are deeply infected 
 by this novel system. Still, although I had no fears 
 of the ultimate result, — nay, although I doubted not 
 that the whole would be gloriously over-ruled, in the 
 gracious order of divine Providence, for the purifica- 
 tion and advancement of the Church of God in gene- 
 ral, and of our own branch of it in particular, yet I 
 felt it incumbent on me, as one of her bishops, how- 
 ever inferior to the rest, to state, frankly, on what 
 side our dangers seemed to lie, and by what measures, 
 through the blessing of our Redeemer, we might be 
 most surely protected against them. 
 
 And now that my proposed work is done, I beg 
 leave to repeat my conviction, that we have nothing, 
 under God, to dread ; since I doubt not that the 
 bishops, the clergy, and especially the laity, will 
 arouse themselves to a careful and prayerful exami- 
 nation of the whole merits of the question \ resolving 
 that so far as in them lies, the Church which was 
 restored to her primitive purity in the flames of the 
 Reformation, shall be transmitted to future ages, 
 without any infusion of Romanism, or deterioration 
 of Scriptural truth. If, in the execution of my own 
 share of the common duty, I have in any respect 
 trespassed against the laws of fraternal affection or 
 of Christian courtesy, I beg my respected and beloved 
 
71 
 
 brethren to believe that nothing could be farther from 
 my intention. It is indeed written that Faithful are 
 the wounds of a friend ; but I have labored in the 
 hope that my friendly eflbrts could inflict no wound, 
 because I had no errors to mention that were not 
 notorious already, and none for which I was not 
 anxious to make the largest allowance in my power. 
 Abundantly conscious, nevertheless, of my own 
 manifold defects, and aware, that in suggesting any 
 improvement in our ecclesiastical polity, I have un- 
 dertaken what is always an invidious and unpopular 
 task, I commit the whole to your indulgence, with 
 my fervent prayer to our Almighty Father, that the 
 defects of the advocate may not lessen the influence 
 of truth, and that my humble work may contribute, 
 in some degree, to promote the welfare of his Church, 
 and the extension of his glory. 
 
 Your faithful brother. 
 
 And servant in Christ, 
 
 JOHN H. HOPKINS. 
 
 Burlington, T*t., Jan'y. \9th, 1844. 
 
% 
 
 t 
 
^«. 
 
 •* 
 
 Jl 
 
1 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 
 w»< 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U.S.A. 
 
W^" si'^^IP 
 
J""""'"" Theologrcal Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01013 6432