/ Jh^l 
 
 ^Ji 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 PRIKCETOiV, ]\. J. 
 
 !>(lN\TIO\ OF 
 
 S A M U B 1. A O N K W , 
 
 I. >■ F H I 1. A i> K 1. P H 1 \ . PA. 
 
 L'>lieT 
 
 Nc 
 
 /%^^;m/ ^Air.:. i-^^r 
 
 
 
 Cn 
 
 sc 
 
 D 
 
 ivision 
 
 f^: 
 
 Shel/\ Section . ;^ 4^/ Z, 
 
 Boo7>, N, 
 
 •"' — -"- -'^ 
 
 '0-t-P 
 
 
 
 
 
 
;. 
 
 *{ '^^ ) 
 
 
 .^- 
 
 
 / 
 
 h 
 
 / 
 
 \ 
 
 ^ 
 
METHODISM AND THE CHUECH 
 
 OPPOSED IN 
 
 FUNDAMENTALS : 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 REV. J. P. DURBIN, D. D. 
 
 PHESIDEITT OF DICKINSOK COI.LEGK. 
 
 BY THE REV. WM. HERBERT NORRIS, 
 
 RECTOR OF ST. JOHN's CHURCH, CARLISLE, PA. 
 
 J. M. KNEEDLER & Co., CARLISLE, Pa. 
 1844. 
 
•> 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 KING AND EAIRD, PRINTERS. 
 
"The Scriptures and.the Creed are not two different Rules of Faith, but 
 one and the same Rule, dilated in Scripture, contracted in the Creed." 
 — Archbishop Bramhall. 
 
 " The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene, with the additions of Constantinople 
 and that which is commonly called the Symbol of S. Athanasius; and the 
 four first General Councils are so entirely admitted by us, that they, together 
 with the plain words of Scripture, are made the Rule and Measure of judging 
 heresies among us." — Bishop Jeremy Taylor. 
 
 "We differ, then, from the Romanist in this, not in denying that Tradition 
 is valuable, but in maintaining that by itself, and without scripture warrant, 
 it does not convey to us any article necessary to salvation ; in other words, 
 that it is not a rule distinct and co-ordinate, but subordinate and ministra- 
 tive.— Rbv. J. H. Newman. 
 
*) 
 
 I 
 
 " What meanest thou by this word Sacrament 1 
 
 Ans. I mean anyutward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace 
 given unto us; ordained by Christ Himself a« a means whereby we receive 
 the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof." 
 
 How many parts are there in a Sacrament t 
 Ans. Two,; the outward visible sign, and the inward Spiritual Grace. 
 
 What is the inward and Spiritual grace t {"in Baptism.") 
 
 Ans. A death unto Sin and a new birth vnto rig-kceotisness ; for being by na- 
 ture born in Sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the chil- 
 dren of grace. 
 
 "OF THE LORD'S SUPPER." 
 
 What is the inward part or thing signified t 
 
 Ans. The Body and Blood of Christ which are spiritually taken and received 
 by the faithful in the Lord's Supper. — Church Catechism. 
 
 "He hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ not on?y to die for us, 
 but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that Holy Sacrament." — 
 
 ITUROY. 
 
Reverend Sir; 
 
 Inasmuch as you have hazarded a public discourse 
 on matters that intimately concern the Church which 
 I serve, you can not be surprised, if some of your 
 reported statements should meet with severe criticism, 
 and others with a pointed denial. 
 
 I, of course, was not present when you delivered 
 the aforesaid discourse, and therefore it would be 
 unfair for me to hold you responsible for the use of 
 any particular words ; but since you have given 
 currency to several very erroneous opinions, for 
 which you are referred to as authority, it becomes 
 my painful duty to correct those opinions by publicly 
 addressing you. 
 
 Your discourse seems to have been on what you 
 and the " religious public" are pleased to style 
 "Puseyism." The points you raised for discussion 
 were "the Rule of Faith," "Justification," and "the 
 doctrine of the Eucharist." Every body concurs in 
 the belief, that you maintained that the teaching of 
 many distinguished divines of the Church of England 
 on these several points was in the main conformable 
 to that which obtains in the Roman Church ; and as 
 such, opposed to the theological system authoritatively 
 exhibited in the standards of the Anglican Commun- 
 ion in England and America ; and again that you 
 
 1* 
 
took occasion to avow the identity of the Methodist 
 view on those important points, with that of the 
 AngUcan system. 
 
 For the present I shall overlook the very common 
 mistake, which ascribes to certain theologians of the 
 University of Oxford a peculiar property in, and 
 responsibility for, principles whose maintenance has 
 earned for them a name ' which the world will not 
 willingly let die ;' neither do I conceive it worth my 
 while to reply to the stale charge, that those princi- 
 ples are Roman rather than Anglican ; nor to show 
 under what qualifications they may be truly said to 
 be common to both communions. If they are An- 
 glican, it is quite gratuitous to inquire whether they 
 are Roman or not. Herein does not exist the grievous 
 accusation which I am about to repel. My ears 
 have grown used to the clamor about " Puseyism'^ 
 and " Popery ;" and as the inhabitants of Niagara 
 can sleep all undisturbed by the ceaseless and deaf- 
 ening roar of the cataract, so has it come to pass, that 
 the noise which now fills the world about "Popery" 
 in the Church of England, does not particularly arrest 
 the attention of those who know how much it amounts 
 to. But that Methodism should be identified with 
 the Anglican theology on the several points, ' the 
 Rule of Faith,' ' the means of Justification,' and ' the 
 doctrine of the Eucharist,' is to me, certainly, a new 
 thing. I have felt myself. Rev. Sir, obliged to deny 
 that there is any truth in this opinion; and you will 
 bear with me while I state the grounds of my denial. 
 
 These shall be, generally, the alterations which 
 Methodists have felt themselves obliged to make in 
 
our standards in order to render them capable of use, 
 and consistent with their principles. 
 
 I. You read our VI. Article so as to make it exclude 
 the authority and tradition of the Church Catholic 
 from having any interference in the Church's Rule' 
 of Faith for individuals. In the first place, I deny 
 that the article makes any such exclusion ; for itself 
 appeals to tradition, to support its own decision as to 
 the character of the Apocryphal, or, as some Roman 
 theologians call them, the deutero-canonical Books. 
 These the Church appoints to be "read for example 
 of life and instruction in manners, but doth not apply 
 them to establish any doctrine ;" thus making them 
 a rule of moral practice, but not a rule of faith. This 
 portion of our article, however, you have consistently 
 expunged. Secondly, the XX. Article declare vthat 
 " the Church hath authority in controversies of 
 faith,'' and presupposes her paramount right to 
 " expound'^ Scripture, of which she is the " witness 
 and keeper," by saying that she "ought not to decree 
 any thing against the same, nor besides the same, to 
 enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of 
 salvation." The whole of this Article also, the 
 Methodists, from the necessities of their condition, 
 have rejected. ' But again, to show that no such 
 straitened sense can be put upon our VI. Article as 
 would express your view of the Rule of Faith, I 
 refer you to a canon of the Synod which in 1571, 
 imposed subscription to the XXXIX. Articles. It is 
 an authoritative decree of the Church, quite as much 
 so as the VI. Article itself. Its drift is the same ; it 
 uses similar language; it is an executive sentence 
 
carrying out the injunction of the Articles ; it is a 
 rule by which the Clergy are to be guided in teaching 
 and in exacting submission to the faith. I commend 
 it to your candid consideration: "The preachers 
 shall in the first place be careful never to preach any 
 thing to be religiously held and believed by the 
 people, but what is agreeable to the doctrine of the 
 Old and New Testament, and collected from that 
 very doctrine by the Catholic Fathers and Jincient 
 Bishops." Be pleased, Rev. Sir, to pause over these 
 words, for a moment. Observe that they are not the 
 words of any particular man or party of men. 
 They are a decree of the Church ; they show in the 
 Church's own words what is the Church's Rule of 
 Faith. They prove beyond possibility of cavil^ that 
 the tjile of Scriptural interpretation by which the 
 Clergy are to be guided is not their own private 
 judgment ; because, even though they should think 
 any doctrine to be Scriptural, still they are charged 
 to be careful not to preach it except it be also collected 
 out of the Scripture "by the Catholic Fathers and An- 
 cient Bishops." So that by the decision of the Church, 
 Scripture interpreted by the Church and not by par- 
 ticular individuals, is her Rule of Faith. The instru- 
 ment of interpretation is the Catholic Faith, or that 
 integral body of dogmatic teaching which has been 
 believed in the Church " always, every where, and 
 by all;" the witnesses to the existence of such a 
 faith, as having been handed down from age to age, 
 are the great Doctors and Bishops of each particular 
 age, whom the Church recognised as her teachers ; 
 the law interpreted, is the written word of God; 
 
9 
 
 the office of private judgment is to recognise this 
 divine teaching, to distinguish it from all peculiar 
 opinions, individual interpretations of Scripture, and 
 sectarian doctrines, and to submit to it, because in 
 every age it has been declared to be the word of God, 
 by "the Church of the Living God, which is the pillar 
 and gronnd of the Truth." Hence opinions and 
 private interpretations of Scripture which may have 
 been current in some portion or portions of the 
 Church and not in others, or in some age or ages and 
 not in all from the beginning, are by the Anglican 
 Rule, necessarily excluded from the Catholic Faith, 
 even though they may have been here and there 
 imposed, or held as of faith, e. g. such doctrines as 
 the Pope's Sovereignty, transubstantiation, the wor- 
 ship of the Blessed Virgin, and purgatorial satisfac- 
 tion to God's justice, with the concomitant abuse of 
 purgatorial pardons, or, as they are now called, "in- 
 dulgences."* In like manner and a /ortiori that 
 rule excludes from the teaching of our Church all 
 doctrines whatsoever that had their origin in the 
 ecclesiastical convulsions of the sixteenth century, 
 and all developements of those doctrines. 
 
 You must therefore perceive. Rev. Sir, that obedi- 
 ence on the part of Anglican divines, to the canon of 
 their Church, is not to act inconsistently with the VI. 
 Article. A recognition of the "authority of the Church 
 ill controversies of faith," submission to what she 
 "enforces to be believed" as scriptural truth, (Art. 
 XX.) preaching only what the Catholic Fathers and 
 Ancient Bishops have collected out of Scripture, does 
 
 * See Note A. at the end. 
 
I 
 
 10 
 
 not deny, but rather maintains, that " Holy Scripture 
 containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that 
 whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved 
 thereby, is not to be required of any man that it 
 should be believed as an article of faith, or be 
 thought requisite or necessary to salvation.'^ No 
 Anglican divines of any note (none whatever that I 
 have heard of) have written a word in disparagement 
 of this principle of the Church. The doctrinal and ' 
 practical teaching of them all is in strictest accordance 
 with it ; and as to those called ' Oxford Divines,' no 
 writers of the day are more remarkable for confidence 
 in appealing to Holy Writ for authority, ample 
 authority, on every point which they propose as of 
 faith. Mr. Newman has published six volumes of 
 sermons on almost all subjects ; and if they may be 
 said to be distinguished for any one thing more than - 
 another, it is for the profusion of Scripture texts 
 which he interweaves in them, and by them proving 
 and illustrating every important statement that he 
 makes. It may be safely said that the English 
 language contains no sermons that approach his in 
 that paramount quality. Your citations, therefore, 
 from the writings of those divines on the Rule of 
 Faith, by no means serve your purpose. Their 
 words are to be interpreted according to the principles 
 of their own Church, and not by the principles of 
 Methodism. They uphold the tradition of the Church, 
 just as our great divines have always done, not as if 
 the Scriptures did not contain the whole Christian 
 faith, but, as being the true antagonist to self-will, 
 capricious belief, and heretical interpretations of 
 
11 
 
 Scripture. A church claiming "authority in contro- 
 versies of faith" must of necessity have an authori- 
 tative traditional faith. Were it otherwise, the 
 Church of England would stultify herself in putting 
 forth any such claim as that in her XX. Article. 
 Methodism has rejected that article, and therefore is 
 wise in making no appeals to tradition ; but let it not 
 be supposed that what would be inconsistent and 
 absurd in Methodism is inconsistent in the Church of 
 England, or in an Anglican divine. On the contrary 
 what the former cannot do, the latter must do. Our 
 VI. Article therefore. Rev. Sir, in the Anglican system 
 means one thing ; that portion of it which you have 
 appropriated, means with you quite another. If you 
 are satisfied with your own, be it so ; but I beg you 
 will not again think of ascribing your principles to 
 our Church. It cannot be done truthfully ; it cannot 
 be done without imposing on the ignorance and cre- 
 dulity of those who are unable to examine the subject 
 for themselves. 
 
 II. I proceed now to notice your assumed alliance 
 of Methodism with the Anglican system, in their re- 
 spective views on 'the means of Justification' and on 
 'the Sacraments,' particularly 'the Eucharist.' These 
 were I believe distinct topics in your discourse, but 
 I must consider them together. You were able to dis- 
 tinguish them ; I, in the present instance, cannot. I 
 am to show that there is no such similarity in our doc- 
 trine on the above mentioned points as you have pleas- 
 ed yourself withal; but rather a complete antagonism. 
 The basis of my argument will be the same as hereto- 
 fore, viz. the avowed departure of Methodism from 
 
12 
 
 the faith of our church as witnessed by the altera- 
 tions which they have made in our formularies. 
 
 In the first place I call your attention to the fact 
 that you have taken our XVI. Article, "Of sin after 
 Baptism," and after making one or two significant 
 alterations, have entitled it " Of Sin after Justifica- 
 tion ;" thus bearing witness that the XXXIX. Arti- 
 cles do make Baptism a means of Justification, and 
 that Methodism does not ; proving that Justification 
 in the theology of the Articles means one thing, and 
 with the Methodists quite another. The great prin- 
 ciple on which our XVI. Article is based, is that of 
 Spiritual Regeneration in Baptism. It asserts that 
 fundamental article* of the Catholic Faith in the 
 plainest language, e. g. ^^ after we have received the 
 Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and 
 fallinto^sin.'''' But Methodism rejects the doctrine 
 of Regeneration in Baptism, and hence cannot ap- 
 propriate to itself our XVI. Article without altering it 
 so as to make it conformable to their doctrine of 
 Justification ; which it is maintained is immediate on 
 simple faith, i. e. without any intervention of sacra- 
 ments as means of conferring that grace. 
 
 Theologians, Rev. Sir, will see at once, that here a 
 great ^r^■?^c^;;/f divides us ; a principle which is cardi- 
 nal, and which in fact contains the gist of the whole 
 controversy. Adopt the doctrine of Regeneration in 
 Baptism, and in the minds of consistent persons, the 
 whole Catholic System which ignorance miscalls 
 " Puseyism," follows as a matter of course ; and as 
 
 • " I acknowledege One Baptism for the remission of sins" 
 Nicene Creed. 
 
 I 
 
 » 
 
13 
 
 necessarily will the Lutheran dogma of Justification 
 and the systems which are built thereon, be rejected 
 as involving heresy. Consistency between any other 
 real or imaginable contradictions might be supposed 
 just as easily as between the system of the Church, 
 and that of Methodism, or any other phase of Luther- 
 anism. This, Rev. Sir, you will not only admit, but 
 rather maintain. A system which upholds sacra- 
 mental media of Justification, and one that denies all 
 such media are of course heterogeneous to each other. 
 That which you adopt is of the latter character, that 
 of the Anglican Church, or rather of the church 
 catholic in all ages, is the former. Now if this 
 fundamental diflerence between us is not sufficiently 
 obvious to you from the consistent and necessary 
 treatment which our XVI. Article received from the 
 founders of your society, I can show the same as 
 fully from other parts of our formularies. 
 
 I call your attention then in the second place to the 
 meaning of our XI. Articles " Of the Justification of 
 man." This Article confesses itself to be an in- 
 complete statement of the whole doctrine. It raises 
 but one point, viz. the ground or procuring cause 
 (propter quod J of man's justification, i. e. the merits 
 of Christ in contrast with our own works or deserving; 
 and then concisely states faith to be the sole grace, 
 the sole means which qualifies us for a participation 
 of the merits of our Lord. And then, after declaring 
 this Justification by faith only to be "most wholesome 
 and comfortable," it refers us to the Homily where 
 the doctrine is " more largely expressed." That 
 Homily professes to deliver the doctrine as it was 
 
 2 
 
I 
 
 14 
 
 always received by the Fatliers and Doctors of the 
 Church CathoUc. Its words are, "and after this 
 manner, to be justified only by this true~and Hvely 
 faitli speak all the old and ancient authors both 
 Greeks and Latins." Then it quotes directly from 
 St. Hilary, St. Basil, and St. Ambrose, and refers for 
 like testimony to Origen, St. Chrysostom, St. Cyp- 
 rian, St. Augustine, Prosper, fficumenius, Phocius, 
 Bernardus and Anselm, thus appealing to the teach- 
 ing of the great i Doctors of the Church down to the 
 eleventh century. After this the Homily proceeds 
 immediately : " Nevertheless this sentence, that we 
 be justified by faith only is not meant of them (i. e. 
 the Fathers,) that the said justifying faith is alone in 
 man without true repentance, hope, charity, dread 
 and the fear of God at any time or season." "But 
 this saying that we be justified by faith only, freely 
 and without works, is spoken for to take away clear- 
 ly all merit of our works as being unable to deserve 
 our justification . . . and therefore wholly to ascribe 
 the merit and deserving of our justification unto 
 Christ only, and His most precious blood shedding." 
 Thus have we, Rev. Sir, our church's interpreta- 
 tion of the words "faith only" as they are used in 
 her XI. Article. That Article refers us to the Homily 
 for its full exposition. The Homily gives it, and in 
 turn appeals to the teaching of the Catholic Fathers, 
 tells us in what sense they used those words, and 
 claims their meaning as its own, viz. that " faith only" 
 is simply an exclusion of personal merit in the sinner 
 from being the procuring cause of his justification, 
 and an ascription of all desert to our Lord and His 
 
15 
 
 Cross. What authority therefore has any one for 
 saying that our XL Article excludes the Sacraments 
 from being God's means and instruments for convey- 
 ing justifying grace to the penitent believer ? Was not 
 the sacramental system maintained in its fullest vigor 
 by all those Catholic Fathers to whom the Homily 
 appeals (from Origen to SS. Anselm and Bernard) 
 as teaching "justification by faith only ?" This of 
 course is undeniable ; and therefore quite consistently 
 does the same Homily recognise the Sacraments as 
 instrumental means (see also Art. XXVH.) of Justi- 
 fication. It says " Infants being baptized are by 
 this sacrifice (i. e. of the Cross) washed from their 
 sins ;" and again " Our office is not to pass the time 
 of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after that we 
 are baptized or justified, much less after that we be 
 made Christ^s members^ to live contrary to the i 
 
 same ; making ourselves members of the devil." 
 
 Thus, Rev. Sir, do our XXXIX. Articles make a 
 wide difference between us. In your article on 
 Justification you interpret "faith only" so as to 
 exclude not merely our own merits but also all sacra- 
 mental media whereby justification may be given to 
 faith. This is all right and consistent with your own 
 principles ; but remember that your principles are 
 not, never have been, never can be, those of the 
 Church. Our Article (you will pardon my repeating _ 
 it) refers us to a document of the church, from which 
 
 • That you may know how wa are made members of Christ, I 
 refer you to the words of the Church Catechism : " In Baptism, where' 
 in I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor 
 of the Kingdom of Heaven." 
 
I' 
 
 in 
 
 » 
 
 16 
 
 we learn that "faith only" is therein to be under- 
 stood as it always has been in the Catholic Church, 
 so as simply to exclude personal desert in the sinner. 
 Your article, as it is rightly understood by you, 
 teaches that justification is immediate; ours (as in- 
 cluding the teaching of the Homily which it adopts) 
 looks to Holy Baptism as the initial means of justi- 
 fication ; nay further, the Homily considers the two 
 terms as interchangeable equivalents for the begin- 
 ning of the new state of man.* 
 
 The broad line of division betwixt us thus disco- 
 vered in the XXXIX. Articles runs also llu'ough our 
 respective sacramental offices. The alterations which 
 Methodists have made in our office for Baptism in 
 order to render it available to their use, most clearly 
 evinces this ; and that though they have retained 
 some of our introductory prayers, which however, in 
 their system, are quite unintelligible. For instance 
 you must assume that an adult who presents himself 
 to you for Baptism, being truly penitent, having 
 what you consider to be a living faith, and having 
 also answered satisfactorily to the prescribed question 
 " have you experienced the pardon of sin," must be 
 born again, must be regenerated, (in your meaning of' 
 the word,) must have received forgiveness of sins. — 
 And yet you pray for such a person in our words 
 "that he coming to Holy Baptism may receive remis- 
 sion of his sins by spiritual regeneration," "give Thy 
 Holy Spirit to this person that he m,ay be born 
 again." This language I say is to me quite unintelli- 
 
 * Ut Supra, " Our office is not to live unfruitfuUy after tliat we are 
 baptized or justified." 
 
gible as used by you, whereas in our office it is alto- 
 gether plain. You by discarding sacramental media 
 of Justification do and must maintain that true repen- 
 tance and faith are at once and immediately reward- 
 ed by justification and regeneration (in your sense of 
 the word), and that when they exist they are ipso 
 facto proof that those graces have been received. — 
 On the other hand, with us repentance and faith are 
 no proof at all, no pledge whatever, that a person is 
 regenerate and justified; but, as our Catechism teaches 
 us, they are simply prerequisites, qualifying a person 
 for the recejjtion of the grace of Baptism, which ac- 
 cording to the same Catechism is " a death unto sin 
 and a new birth unto righteousness.'^* 
 
 Hence it is that we do in all consistency, pray 
 that the candidate coming to Holy Baptism " may 
 receive remission of sins," may be born again. But 
 though I cannot understand the meaning you put 
 upon these prayers, I can readily apprehend it to be 
 different from that which our office declares ; because 
 the alterations you have made in the latter, intimates 
 something of the sort. For instance, I find not in 
 your office the words, " sanctify this water to the 
 mystical washing away of sin,^' — they occur twice 
 in ours, and declare one of the virtues of Baptism. 
 You were quite consistent in expunging them. Again 
 
 * I may here remark once for all, that the meaning which the term 
 " regeneration" bears in the Church is altogether different from that 
 which obtains out of the Church. We do not mean that regeneration 
 is a change of the will, but the making a child of Adam's sinful 
 nature a " member of Christ's Body" The doctrines are as essentially 
 distinct as if they had different names. 
 
 2* 
 
i 
 
 18 
 
 you have stricken out the exhortations and prayers, 
 after the administration of the Sacrament, the very 
 portion which, in our office, fixes the meaning of all 
 that precedes: e.g. "Seeing ?zoz^, dearly beloved, that 
 this child is regenerate" — "we yield Thee hearty 
 thanks . . . that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this 
 child with thy Holy Spirit. And humbly we beseech 
 Thee to grant that he being dead unto sin and living 
 unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in 
 his death, may crucify the old man, &c., and that as 
 he is made partaker of the death of thy son, he 
 may also be partaker of his resurrection, "&c. The 
 exhortation which follows, also most clearly shows 
 that Baptism is the beginning of the new life, and 
 how and why that life must be pursued. 
 
 I cannot be so unjust to the founders of your 
 society, as to suppose that they made these changes 
 without reason. I believe that, however mistaken, 
 they acted conscientiously ; and there is the strongest 
 evidence in what they did, that they proceeded with 
 deliberation, and under a marked anxiety to depart 
 from the Church of England's doctrine no farther 
 than they could avoid. They did not, however, 
 believe the doctrine of our Baptismal office ; it was 
 unmanageable by them, and inconsistent with the 
 first principle of their religious system ; and there- 
 fore they altered the service as they did the articles. 
 But the dividing line does not stop here; it goes on 
 into the Communion offices, and on your side rejects 
 those two characteristics of that Great Mystery,which 
 the Church has ever maintained; viz: that it is an 
 
 1 
 I 
 
19 
 
 oblation to God the Father, and a real and spiritual* 
 communication of Clirist's body and blood to worthy 
 receivers. 
 
 The first is recognized in the prayer for the Church 
 militant, previous to which, the Priest is directed to 
 place the alms and elements on the altar ; immedi- 
 ately after which, God is besought to accept the alms 
 and the oblations and prayers. Here our Liturgy 
 and the English are the same — afterwards in ours 
 the oblation of the Elements is repeated, in the 
 prayer of Consecration. This oblation, which 
 gives the Eucharist its sacrificial character, is a uni- 
 versal rite in the Catholic church ; but you have 
 nothing of the sort. Again the English agrees with 
 the Roman rite, and ours with the Greek, with 
 respect to the Invocation of the Holy Ghost upon the 
 Elements, so that receivers may be partakers of 
 Christ's Body and Blood ; the former are without 
 that Invocation, the latter have it. 
 
 And now in respect of what theologians call the 
 real presence of Christ's body; you do not lay claim to 
 any such dogma, and an alteration in one prayer which 
 you have adopted, shows that all the sacred language 
 which you have borrowed from us, is, like that in 
 your Baptismal office, to be interpreted differently 
 from the same words, as they occur in our Ritual. 
 In the prayer which the Priest says in behalf of him- 
 
 • Another significant alteration: the Methodists have stricken out the 
 words "spiritual manner" from our XXVIII. Article, and inserted 
 instead "scriptural manner;" which may mean nothing or anything, 
 just as the people please. It may mean, and in the opinion of many 
 millions of Christians does mean, iransubsianltation. 
 
20 
 
 self and the people, there are these words : " grant 
 us therefore gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy 
 dear son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our 
 sinful bodies may be made clean by His Body,''^ Sic; 
 these last words you have struck out, and inserted 
 <■'■ His Death.^' This one act alone would show the 
 essential ditference between us, as sacrificing and 
 rejecting the great principle of the Catholic faith, on 
 which hangs the doctrine of the Sacraments, Regen- 
 eration, Justification, Sanctification, and the Resur- 
 rection unto Life at the Last Day — viz : the office of 
 our Lord's glorified humanity in the salvation of men. 
 Your founders did not believe that our fallen nature 
 is cleansed by the glorified and divine human nature 
 of Christ, that " our sinful bodies are made'clean by 
 His Body,''' that the latter gives us life, even as 
 Adam's gave us death. On this principle. Rev. Sir, 
 is built the sublime Theology of the Catholic church, 
 this is the great exponent of her teaching, as it has 
 come down to us from Apostolic days, and been 
 proclaimed with one mouth in every section of the 
 Apostolic family in every age. There is no more 
 discordance in the tradition of the Church Catholic, 
 
 : in respect of this principle, than of God's existence. 
 
 r The Canon of Scripture itself has not the same 
 
 j,;'j unanimous testimony to its authenticity, that this one 
 
 'great all embracing doctrine has, which in Scripture, 
 shines like the sun, throwing its rich light into every 
 other doctrine, and explaining the whole. The Catho- 
 lic faith is built upon the Incarnation of the Son of 
 God, under the ministration of the Holy Spirit. 
 Th 'second Adam' gives life to the fallen seed 
 
 H 
 
 'I 
 
81 
 
 of the first Adam, by making them "members of His 
 body, of his flesh and of His bones." He con- 
 tinues that hfe in them, by Himself becoming their 
 heavenly food in the Holy Communion of his Body 
 and Blood — really, because a gift that is not real is 
 nothing at all, and spiritually, because Himself, "the 
 second Adam, is a life-making Spirit;" and thus they 
 become'" partakers of the Divine nature," as truly, 
 and even as they are by truth, partakers of the fallen 
 earthly nature of the first Adam. " For as in Adam 
 all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 
 " The first man is of the earth, earthy ; the second 
 man is the Lord from Heaven." "The first man was 
 made (an enlivened i. e. only) a living Soul, the 
 second man a life-making (^wortoww) Spirit." 
 
 It is beside my purpose, Rev. Sir, to show how the 
 ancient Doctors of the church handled this great 
 principle, though I have the means at hand of doing 
 so, to some extent ; my present concern is with the 
 Church of England, and I now proceed to exhibit, 
 from the two greatest of her modern divines, our 
 recognised exposition of the doctrine of our Commu- 
 nion office, which you discarded, when to a living 
 "life-giving" "Body" you preferred "Death." 
 
 First I quote from Hooker. Eccl. Pol. 13. v. c. 
 56. Ed. Keble. 
 
 " We are by nature the sons of Adam. When 
 God created Adam he created us; and as many as 
 have descended from Adam, have in themselves the 
 
 • If we have beeji reconciled to God by the death of his Son, 
 much more, being reconciled, shall we be saved by His Life." "He 
 rose again for our Justification." 
 
I 
 
 I 
 
 I, 
 1 
 
 1(1 - 
 
 I . 
 
 I 
 m 
 
 i,; 
 
 22 
 
 root out of which they sprung The sons of God 
 
 have God's own natural son, as a second Adam from 
 Heaven ; whose race and progeny they are by a 
 sphitual and heavenly Birth. (§6) For in Him we 
 actually are by our actual incorporation into that 
 society, which hath Him for their head, and doth 
 make, together with Him, one Body, (He and they 
 in that respect having one name,) for which cause, by 
 virtue of this mystical conjunction, we are of Him 
 and in Him, even as though our very flesh and bones 
 were continuate with His. We are therefore adopted 
 sons of God to eternal life, by participation of the 
 only begotten Son of God, whose life is the well- 
 spring and cause of ours. The church is in Christ, / 
 as Eve was in Adam. Yea, bi/ grace, we are every 
 of us in Christ and in His church, as by nature we 
 are in those our first parents. God made Eve of the 
 rib of Adam. And His church He frameth out of 
 the very flesh, the very wounded and bleeding side 
 of the Son of Man. His body crucified, and His 
 blood shed for the life of the world, are the true 
 elements of that heavenly being, (i. e. the Church) 
 which maketh us such as Himself is, of whom we 
 come. For which cause the words of Adam may be 
 fitly the words of Christ, concerning His church, 
 "flesh of my flesh and bone of my bones," a true 
 
 nature extract out of my own body* Adam is in 
 
 us as an original cause of our nature, and of that 
 corruption of nature which causeth death, Christ as 
 
 * Comp. St. Paul. Eph. v. 30. 32. " We are members of His 
 body, of His flesii, and of His bones.". . ." This is a great Mystery. 
 ! i But I speak concerning Christ and the Church." 
 
23 
 
 the original cause of restoration to life ; the person 
 of Adam is not in us, but his nature, and the corrup- 
 tion of his nature derived into all men by propaga- 
 tion ; Christ having Adam's nature as we have, 
 deriveth not nature but incorruption, and that imme- 
 diately from his own Person into all that belong 
 unto Him. t^^s therefore we are really partakers 
 of the body of sin and death received from Adam, 
 so except we be truly partakers of Christ, and as 
 really possessed of His spirit, all we speak of eternal 
 life is but a dream. (§7) That which quickeneth us 
 is the spirit of the second Adam, and His Jlesh is 
 that wherewith He quickeneth. That which in 
 Him made our nature incorruptible, was the union of 
 His Deity with our nature.(§S). .. These things, St. 
 Cyril duly considering, reproveth their speeches, 
 which taught that only the Deity of Christ is the ' vine 
 whereupon we do depend as branches, and that 
 neither His flesh nor our bodies are composed in this 
 resemblance.' For doth any man doubt but that 
 even from the flesh of Christ our very bodies do 
 receive that life, which shall make them glorious at 
 the latter day, and for which they are already 
 accounted parts of his blessed body? (§9)... This, 
 therefore, is the necessity of Sacraments. That 
 saving grace which Christ originally is or hath for 
 His people, by Sacraments, He severally deriveth 
 into every member thereof. Sacraments serve as the 
 instruments of God to that end and purpose . . . For 
 we take not Baptism nor the Eucharist for bare 
 resemblances or memorials of things absent, neither 
 for naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grace 
 
 1 
 
«4 
 
 received before, but (as they are in deed and in verity) 
 for means effectual whereby God, when we take the 
 Sacraments, delivereth into our hands that grace 
 available unto eternal life, which grace the sacra- 
 ments represent or signify, (c. 57. §5.) Baptism doth 
 challenge to itself the inchoation of those graces, the 
 consummation whereof dependeth on mysteries 
 ensuing. We receive Christ Jesus in Baptism once, 
 as the first beginner; in the Eucharist often, as being 
 by continual degrees the finisher of our life. (§6) . . . 
 Our souls and bodies quickened unto eternal life are 
 effects, the cause whereof is the person of Christ ; 
 His body and blood are the true well spring out of 
 which this life floweth. So that His body and blood 
 are in that very subject whereunto they minister life 
 — not only by effect or operation, even as the influ- 
 ence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, and in 
 everything which they quicken — but also by a far 
 more divine and mystical kind of union which 
 maketh us one with Him, " even as* He and the 
 Father are one." (c. 58. §6.) 
 
 Such, Rev. Sir, is the teaching of the greatest 
 doctor in modern English theology ; teaching on 
 which our Church, both in England and America, 
 has put her highest approval. His celebrated work 
 on the " Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity," is, and has 
 
 * i. e. by nature ; thus St. Peter speaks of our being made "partak- 
 ers of the Divine nature." This is the constant doctrine of the 
 Catholic fathers, that the children of Adam, by participation of God's 
 Incarnate Son, become His Sons by proper relationship. Thus St. 
 Cyril says we are sons " naturally, because we are in Him and in 
 Him alone." 
 
25 
 
 been for years, a text book for our students in Divi- 
 nity, so appointed too by the authorities of the church. 
 And as he Uved in the age of Elizabeth, it can only 
 be ignorance, or something worse, that can call 
 teaching like his a " novelty" in the church ; though 
 doubtless such teaching is new to many whose minds 
 are possessed by religious notions which are novel- 
 ties in the church, the " novelties ivhich disturb our 
 peace, ''^ but which are not, and never were, of the 
 church. 
 
 I shall next cite a few brief but pregnant sentences 
 from the next greatest name in the theology of 
 modern England ; one who was a contemporary of 
 Hooker, being but two years his junior, and ac- 
 knowledged to be the chief glory of the Church in 
 the next reign : I mean Andrewes, Bishop of Win- 
 chester. " As by partaking the flesh and blood, the 
 substance of the first Adam, we come to one death, 
 so to life we cannot come unless we do participate 
 with the flesh and blood of the 'Second Adam,' that 
 is Christ. We drew death from the first by partaking 
 the substance, and so must we draw life from the 
 second by the same. This is the way ; become 
 branches of the Vine, and partakers of his Nature, 
 and so of His life and verdure both." — Sermon IX. 
 on the Resurrection. 
 
 Once more: "And so we pass to another Mys- 
 tery, for one mystery leads to another; this in the 
 text to the Holy Mysteries we are providing to par- 
 take, which do work like and do work to this, even 
 to the raising of the soul with the first resurrection. 
 And as they are a means of raising the soul out of 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 the soil of sin — for they are given to us, and we take 
 them expressly for the remission of sins — so they are 
 no less a means also for the raising our bodies out of 
 the " dust of death." The sign of that Body which 
 was thus in the heart of the earth, to bring us out 
 from thence at the last. Our Saviour saith it, totidem 
 verbis, " Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my 
 blood I will raise him up at the last day." — Ser- 
 mon VIII. 
 
 Finally, a word from Bishop Overall, a contempo- 
 rary of Andrewes, and the composer of the latter 
 2 portion of our Church Catechism. 
 
 \ " It is confessed by all divines that upon the words 
 
 i. of consecration the Body and blood of Christ is really 
 
 and substantially present, and so exhibited and given 
 i| to all who receive it ; and all this not after a physical 
 
 Wk and sensual, but after an heavenly and incomprehen- 
 
 ^ sible manner. But there remains yet this controversy 
 
 \\ among some of them, whether the body of Christ be 
 
 present only in the use of the Sacrament, and in the 
 act of eating and not otherwise. They that hold the 
 affirmative, as the Lutherans (Confess. Saxon.) and all 
 Calvinistsdo seem to me to depart from all antiquity, 
 which places the presence of Christ in the virtues 
 and benediction used by the Priest and not in the 
 use of eating the Sacrament." — " And this did most 
 ill Protestants grant and profess at first, though now the 
 
 Calvinists make Popish magic of it in their licentious 
 jU^ blasphemy." 
 
 Ilj", ■ . These passages are from writers, upon whose 
 
 teaching the Church at large, years and years ago. 
 placed the signet of her approval. And now I ask, 
 
 IS 
 
 3 
 
 ; «] 
 
 m 
 
27 
 
 is not their doctrine as distinct from the current 
 teaching of Methodist preachers, from John Wesley 
 downwards, as the doctrines of the Articles, Homilies 
 and Liturgy, are from those of your Articles and 
 Sacramental forms? Can the hundred years' exist- 
 ence of Methodism produce an exposition parallel 
 with those I have quoted from Hooker and An- 
 dre wes ? No, no ; — Wesleyans know nothing of 
 any such doctrine ; the English Dissenters know 
 nothing of it ; Presbyterians have nothing to do with 
 it, neither have the so called Evangelicals and Lati- 
 tudinarians in the Church. And should any one 
 venture to bring forward any of these latter as 
 standard writers of the Church, in contrast to the 
 school of Hooker and Andrewes, such a presumptu- 
 ous claim may be silenced by any one who shall 
 compare them severally with the authoritative teach- 
 ing of our Liturgy. Any one who can construe 
 English, and has the consideration to take for granted 
 that the solemn addresses to Almighty God in our 
 ritual, are not composed in equivocal language ; and 
 that our catechism, designed for the instruction of the 
 simple and unsophisticated minds of little children in 
 the Christian Faith, is not made up of riddles ; will 
 be at no loss in deciding who occupy the Church's 
 ground, who consistently maintain her principles, 
 who really do teach her faith and not their own 
 opinions. For it is neither present popularity, 
 nor high station, that can give any individuals 
 the title of being legitimate expounders of the 
 Church'' s faith ; but professed and proved submission 
 to the teaching of the Church. And who are they, 
 
 1 
 
■4 
 
 
 28 
 
 Rev. Sir, who profess as a first principle, this sub- 
 mission to the authority of the Church, as unto God? 
 
 This question at once brings me to say a word 
 about those Oxford divines, of whom I understand 
 you discoursed largely. If they have put forth any 
 opinions peculiar to themselves, they only are re- 
 sponsible for them. They ask no defence, they need 
 none. Salva fide, they have the right of all English- 
 men to say what they please ; and as they are learned 
 and holy men, their opinions are of course entitled to 
 the consideration of their brethren ; but being opin- 
 ions nobody gives them further weight vthan each 
 person may think them severally entitled to. Their 
 opinions, however, (considered apart from the faith 
 which the church teaches them,) form no system, are 
 not common to one another, and are adopted by no 
 party. There is no such thing as " Puseyism ;" and 
 you will surely pardon me when I tell you that I am 
 forced to say, that that word is a slander upon our 
 Church, a slander upon Dr. Pusey. It is I know often 
 used without any such intention; but people should 
 not inconsiderately bear false witness, and speak evil. 
 
 The imaginations of people are, however, possess- 
 ed by a chimera which they call " Puseyism ;'' their 
 ears are open to every report which may go to 
 magnify its shocking proportions ; and they are quite 
 content to be horrified, without taking the trouble to 
 examine the subject, nay, in most cases, without 
 being able to examine it. How many persons. Rev. 
 Sir, in your large audience, suppose you are entitled 
 to any opinion whatever on the great controversy 
 that is stirring our Church, and tasking the minds of 
 
 1 
 
29 
 
 her most accomplished sons ? And yet half the people 
 of Carlisle are expressing their judgments on points 
 which the greatest theologians and Bishops in our 
 Church have spoken on with diffidence. The ex- 
 tracts from the controversial writings of the Oxford 
 gentlemen, which I am told you read from a little 
 book, and which was apparently, at least, the basis 
 of your own judgments; have for the present supplied 
 the multitude's appetite for horrors, or perhaps, have 
 only awakened it anew. How fair the quotations 
 may have been / cannot say, but there were those 
 among your hearers who had happily drawn for 
 themselves from original sources ; and who were 
 scandalized by the manifest misrepresentations which 
 your readings imposed upon your uninformed 
 hearers. Surely, IJev. Sir, you are not ignorant of 
 the tricks of modern controversy ; of that trick 
 especially, which is adopted only by those who are 
 unable to meet a learned opponent in argument, viz. 
 to make brief extracts of startling passages from 
 large volumes, merely ad captandum vulgus. The 
 only way to refute " Puseyism," as people call it, is 
 to meet Dr. Pusey and his friends on the ground 
 which they have assumed, not to frighten the com- 
 mon people ; for though you scare the latter from 
 their senses. Dr. Pusey's positions and arguments 
 still remain untouched. I am, therefore, only amazed 
 that you should have given your confidence to a 
 compilation of garbled passages from the Oxford 
 writers, and should have used it to show the people 
 what was the truth in controversy, instead of taking 
 up the doctrines one by one, and examining fairly 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 the proofs from scripture, tradition, and the standards 
 of our own Church, which are brought to sustain 
 the several points. Now, as an illustration of the 
 worth of such quotations you used, I will cite some- 
 what of Martyr Ridley ( no papist I ween ) from 
 his disputation which immediately preceded his 
 execution ; and you may see whether it would not 
 v| have rather heightened the effect of your exhibition, 
 
 had some words of his been uttered by the Oxford 
 gentlemen, and skilfully placed in your mosaic of 
 " Puseyism/* 
 
 e. g. " I say that both Christ and the sacrifice of 
 Christ are there," i. e. on the altar, p. 216. (Parker 
 Society's edition, 1843.) 
 
 " Is not the miracle great, trow you, when bread 
 which is wont to sustain the body, becometh food to 
 the soul," p. 223. 
 
 " T also worship Christ in the sacrament," p. 235. 
 Mark the force of the word " also." He is disputing 
 with a Roman Catholic. " We do handle the signs 
 reverently, but we worship the sacrament as a sacra- 
 ment, not as a thing signified by the sacrament." 
 " We adore and worship Christ in the eucharist, and 
 if you mean the external sacrament, I say that also is 
 to be worshipped as a sacrament." p. 236. 
 
 " It is His true blood which is in the chalice, I 
 grant, and the same which sprang from the side of 
 Christ," p. 237. Pie : " What say you to that council, 
 where it is said that the priest doth offer an unbloody 
 sacrifice of the Body of Christ ?" Ridley : " I say it 
 is well said if it be rightly understood." " It is 
 called unbloody, and is offered after a certain manner 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 *L_ 
 
81 
 
 and in a mystery, and as a representation of that 
 bloody sacrifice, and he doth not lie who saith Christ 
 to be offered." p. 250. 
 
 To the Bishop of Lincoln. " Both you and I agree 
 herein that in the sacrament is the very true and 
 natural Body and Blood of Christ, even that which 
 was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into 
 Heaven, which sitteth on the right hand of God the 
 Father, which shall come from thence to judge the 
 quick and the dead ; only we differ in Modo, in the 
 way and manner of being. We confess all, one 
 thing to be in the sacrament and dissent in the man- 
 ner of being there." " A Sacramental mutation I 
 grant to be in the bread and which truly is no small 
 change ; but such a change as no mortal man can 
 make but only the Omnipotency of Christ^s Word," 
 p. 274. 
 
 Now, Rev. Sir, I think I am not rash in assuming 
 that if I have here quoted from the martyr Reformer 
 Ridley, some words that are altogether equivalent to 
 what the Oxford Divines have put forth, I have 
 also cited many others far more startling than any 
 thing that is to be found in your text book of " Pusey- 
 ism." "Worshipping Christ in the sacrament, worship- 
 ping the Sacrament as a Sacrament," " it is well said 
 that the Priest doth offer an unbloody sacrifice of the 
 Body of Christ, if it be rightly understood," " he doth 
 not lie who saith Christ is offered." Have the Oxford 
 Divines uttered anything so offensive to modern ears as 
 these words of Ridley ? I trow not. It would how- 
 ever be exceedingly unfair, nay dishonest, to exhibit 
 these passages as an exposition of Ridley's doctrine. 
 
 1 
 
S3 
 
 They cannot be understood without the quahfying 
 context, nor even with it, by one unversed in Catho- 
 lic theology. Had you reported such hard sayings, 
 nine out of ten of your hearers might have asked, 
 "what quahfication is possible for such words ?" and 
 then have added, " they carry with them their own 
 condemnation in the minds of Protestants." And, 
 Rev. Sir, just as unfair is it to attempt an exposition 
 of the teaching of the Divines of Oxford, by giving 
 to the multitude such quotations, as, for the sake of 
 mere popular effect, are taken from their writings. — 
 Nay it is not only unfair, it is an impossible task, A 
 person who is not well read in Anglican Divinity is 
 utterly incompetent to criticise the writings of the 
 Oxford Divines. A Methodist or Presbyterian may 
 be able enough to see that those Divines do teach 
 doctrines quite different from, nay utterly antago- 
 nistic to, what Methodists and Presbyterians are re- 
 spectively taught, and which of course they severally 
 assume to be scriptural truth ; but at that point, their 
 knowledge ends ; that is the limit of their capacity to 
 judge ; they do not know any thing whatever about 
 the consistency or inconsistency of what is called 
 Oxford teaching, with the authoritative Creed of the 
 Church, and the standard authors in Anglican theolo- 
 gy. They may condemn principles which are oppos- 
 ed to their own ; every body assumes that liberty ; 
 but they have no right to condemn those principles 
 as being inconsistent with the doctrines of the Angli- 
 can Church, when they have nothing to do with that 
 church and know next to nothing of her authorita- 
 tive teaching. Nay, Rev. Sir, those dissenters from 
 
 i 
 
S3I 
 
 the Church who do not know what her teaching 
 really is, are not backward in condemning it in as 
 strong language as any that they bestow upon the 
 Oxford Divines. I remember the able organ of 
 English Calvinistic Dissenters, viz. the Eclectic Re- 
 view, to have denounced our Book of Common 
 Pra^'-er as the most awful, " most dangerous and in- 
 jurious book which the English language contains," 
 "and by which myriads of deluded victims are 
 blinded to their character and danger." And during 
 the late outcry against th(? Education Bill in 
 England, Dr. J. Pye Smith, perhaps the most distin- 
 guished man among the Dissenters, declared our 
 Church Catechism to contain "some of the most 
 awful falsehoods that were ever uttered." Nor were 
 the Wesleyans absent from their post during that 
 warfare against a bill which seemed to threaten their 
 children with the fatal instruction of our Catechism. 
 To them mainly belongs all the credit of the victory 
 which was won ; they stopped the progress of the 
 bill. Now I am not one among those who can con- 
 demn the conduct of the Dissenters and Wesleyans 
 in this matter. They acted consistently. It was im- 
 possible for them to submit quietly and see their 
 children instructed in religious principles, antagonistic 
 to their own ; to barter what they believed to be the 
 truth, for the poor price of the secular knowledge 
 which was to be obtained in the government schools. 
 I would that their conduct were in all respects as 
 candid and straightforward as it was in this ; that 
 they would consistently oppose the Church if they 
 oppose it at all ; that they w^ould direct their assauhs 
 
 1 
 
34 
 
 against her authoritative teaching, and not against 
 particular individuals, who religiously adopt that 
 teaching ; that they would contend in short in an 
 upright, manly way, making war upon the body, 
 instead of professing a sort of hollow truce with the 
 church, while they lose no opportunity of assassinat- 
 ing any of her faithful sons whom they can reach, 
 " whetting their tongue like a sword and shooting out 
 their arrows, even bitter words." No true member 
 of the Church will regret it, if the teachers of Metho- 
 dism and Presbyteria'nism shall show their tiocks 
 the difference between the church and them... Let 
 them make as vigorous warfare as they please ; but 
 let their assaults be directed at principles of the Church 
 and not at the men who maintain them. Let them 
 set in the strongest contrast possible, the opposing 
 features of our respective systems (the stronger the 
 better), but let it be done truthfully and candidly ; 
 neither misrepresenting our doctrines nor shrinking 
 from the plainest and fullest possible statement of 
 their own ; not seeking out ingenious methods of 
 interpretation whereby an approximation between 
 opposites might be brought about, but understanding 
 the language of our Church just as it is written ; 
 giving the church the common credit that is accorded 
 to serious people when they speak on serious subjects, 
 viz. that of meaning what they say and nothing 
 else. And then let them set in contrast to this, just what 
 they choose, and oppose it with all the skill, ability 
 and learning they can master. Let us in short all 
 boldly speak out our own principles, and consistently 
 act upon them, by developing them into their legiti- 
 
 •m 
 
35 
 
 mate consequences and into deeds. That is the way 
 to prove them. That is the way to assure ourselves 
 of the truth or error that may be in them, that is the 
 shortest method of bringing to an end the painful 
 controversies that have agitated Christendom for 
 these three hundred years 
 
 I remain, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your Obt. Servant, 
 
 Wm. Herbert Norris. 
 
 Carlisle, Pa., Feb. 9th, 1844. 
 
^ytjva'***!'^'' 
 
Note A. 
 
 The works of our controversial writers are full of testimony drawn 
 from the tradition of the Church, against the assumed catholicity of 
 every Romish tenet or practice, condemned by the church in England. 
 The " Oxford Tracts'' contain some of the ablest and most conclusive 
 arguments against Romanism, as distinguished from Roman Calholicity, 
 that are tq be found in our language. Mr. Newman's Lectures on 
 " Romanism and Popular Protestantism," are, like every thing that 
 proceeds from him, the work of a master, irrefutable, and I might 
 almost say unassailable. Mr. Palmer's works are of a similar character. 
 IJis •' Treatise on the Church," when it first appeared, filled thought. 
 ful English Romanists with astonishment and alarm,* and his late 
 letters to Dr. Wiseman are an assault upon Roman errors unparalleled 
 for their peculiar intensity and vigor. The basis of these great con- 
 troversial works is the Tradition of the Church Catholic. Tradition 
 is the only effectual antagonist against Roman claims and impositions. 
 The Roman Catholic has his proof texts from Scripture as striking, 
 andj37i»ia facie as conclusive, as any that any Protestant can adduce. 
 That the words "I say unto thee thou art Peter (or a rock) and on this 
 
 * The letters 8f an upright and determined R. C. Priest (by the 
 name of Rathbun) to Ur. Wiseman, on the Oxford writers, are my 
 authority for this assertion. 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 H 
 
 rock (or Peter) I will build my Church," are an assertion which the 
 " Bible alone" interpreters are sorely puzzled at, is proved by the mis- 
 erable shifts which they adopt iii order to evade the plain sense of the 
 words. They bind themselves as a first piinciple to a grammatical 
 exegesis of the sacred text ; but when they come to this passage, 
 besides many others that might be mentioned, their "principle" is laid 
 aside, and up start half a dozen wilful interpretations devised for no 
 other purpose than to evade the Roman claims. Is it too much to say 
 that the Roman Catholic must despise such hypocrisy 1 Anglican 
 Theologians on the other hand, commit themselves to that sense of 
 our Lord's promise to St. Peter which the early Church professed. They 
 can appeal to Tradition. They are willing to concede to the succes- 
 sors of St. Peter all the honor and pre-eminence which at first were 
 their right, if they will be satisfied therewith. But until they shall 
 accept of so much, Anglicans concede them none at all, and throw 
 upon the Popes all the responsibility for the schisms in the Church 
 which their usurped and tyrannical jurisdiction has occasioned. There 
 is one precedent in Ecclesiastical History w hich alone makes the 
 position of the Church of England impregnable against Rome. I mean 
 the gH-asi-schism in the church of Antiorh, with the difierent views 
 respecting it, which were common to East and West ; and thfe means 
 adopted to heal it. The Pope ( Siricius ) interfered little, if any 
 more in it than did St. Ambrose. One of the parties, i. e. the Mele- 
 tian, was not in communion with Rome ; and yet Meletius pre- 
 » sided in the second General Council. Again, an Italian Council in 
 which S. Ambrose presided, sent a letter to the Emperor respecting 
 the schism, in which the Bishops say, that they " esteemed the two 
 Bishops of Antioch, Meletius and Paulinus, as Catholics." Ten years 
 later, a Council at Capua under Siricius referred the case of Antioch 
 to the Patriarch and Bishops of Egypt ; and St. Ambrose wrote to 
 Theophilus of Alexandria a letter, in which he acknowledged both of 
 the rival Bishops (at that time Flavius and Evagrius) as "brethren" ; 
 and then says to Theophilus, " we arc of opinion that it would be 
 proper for you to refer your decision to our holy brother the Bishop of 
 i. Rome ; for we do not doubt but that the judgment you shall pronounce 
 
 »f^' will meet his approbation ; and the only means of^etablishing a solid 
 
 peace, will be for us all to concur in what you shall decide, and he ap- 
 prove." Fleury xviii. 17. xix. 27. 
 
 ■ 
 
 1^1' 
 
39 
 
 Now I submit to the common sense of men, that persons who refuse 
 to abide by the Church's traditional interpretation have no right at all 
 to appeal to tradition against the Roman Catholic's literal interpreta- 
 tion of scriptural texts. It is surely most impertinent in them to cite 
 against Rome, such a case as the above, or any other argument from 
 Tradition, when Rome rests her claim upon Scripture. So with 
 respect to transubstantiation. Roman Catholics appeal to numerous 
 texts of scripture with confidence, nay with triumph. Grammatical 
 exegesis shrinks from the contest, and turns our Lord's most awful 
 words into rhetoric, and devises explanations which never occurred to 
 the mind of a Christian, by the space of fifteen hundred years, until the 
 ingenuity of Ulric Zwingle discovered that our Lord did not mean 
 what he said. I say then again, it is most impertinent and prepos- 
 terous, for any one, who adopts Zwinglian or other modern doctrines 
 of the sacraments, to tell a Roman Catholic that transubstantiation is 
 a new dogma. The latter's private judgment is as legitimate as any 
 others ; and all the more honestly exercised in that it professes to 
 claim for our Lord's words their obvious signification, which the other 
 rejects. The Anglican too, claims our Lord's words in their literal 
 meaning, even that which was received in the early Catholic Church ; 
 viz. that the consecrated symbol is truly called Bread, and is Bread ; 
 and truly called also "The Body of Christ" ; because the sacrament is 
 a mystical Unity of which both these are real though distinct predi- 
 cates ; just as our Lord's own Divine Person is a Unity, of which are 
 predicated both His Divine and Human Natures, without any con- 
 fusion, conversion, or transmutation of the one substance into the other. 
 Hence the consecrated Bread and Wine may be called the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, just as truly and really as the Man Christ Jesus is 
 called God. 
 
 For this view, as being most certainly the true, and Catholic, and 
 Scriptural doctrine of the Eucharist, Anglican Divines appeal to the 
 controversial writings of the old orthodox Fathers, on the Mystery of 
 the Incarnation. As an example, I may cite some passages quoted 
 by our Bishop Pearson in his exposition of the Creed, (Art, III. p. 247, 
 note, N. Y. Ed., 1842.) They are from a work of Pope Gelasius, 
 (who lived at th^lose of the sixth century,) against the Eutychian 
 heresy, which affirmed only one substantial nature of our Lord, viz., 
 the Divine. The human, according to Eutyches, was absorbed or 
 

 & 
 
 t'ti. 
 
 40 
 
 V*" transmuted into the Divine Nature. Against this, the Pope argues 
 
 thus : " Surely the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of C hrist, our 
 Lord, which we take, are ajDivine thing : through which, and by the 
 same, we are made " partakers of the Divine Nature :" and yet the 
 substance or nature of the bread and wine does not cease to be. And 
 surely the image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are 
 shown forth in the celebration of the Mysteries. Therefore it is quite 
 clearly shown to us that we must think of Christ our Lord Hinself, as 
 of that which in His likeness we exhibit, celebrate, and partake ; that 
 as by the operation of the Holy Ghost, the one (i. e. the bread and 
 wine) pass over into this Divine substance, remaining still in the proper 
 qualities (proprietate) of their own nature ; so also is it in respect 
 of that principal Mystery (the Incarnation) itself, whose efficacy and 
 virtue they truly represent ; by their remaining properly, it is clear 
 "that they demonstrate that one, (because whole and true) Christ 
 remains." (Gclusius de duahus naluris, in Biblioth. Patr. Lat. t. v. pars. 
 3. p. 671.) The same argument is found in the second dialogue of 
 Theodoret, between Eranistes a Eutychian and Orthodoxus a Catholic. 
 From these it appears that the Mystery of the incarnation is an exact 
 parallel to that of the Eucharist, and we may argue from the known 
 nature of the one, to the other. As Pope Gelasius and Theodoret 
 argued from the nature of the Eucharist, to prove against the Euty- 
 chians, that in the unity of our Lord's Divine person there were two 
 distinct, incommutable, and permanent natures ; so may and do our 
 divines argue against Romanists from the Catholic doctrine of the 
 Incarnation ; and prove that in the Unity of the Eucharist there are 
 two distinct incommuted and incommutable substances or natures, 
 viz., " the outward and visible sign and the inward spiritual grace." 
 Hence, also, it may be remarked, that these two Divine Mysteries 
 mutually protect each other. The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist 
 is an effectual shield on the one hand against Sabellianism, Nesto- 
 rianism, and Socinianism. For one may well ask how incorporation 
 into the body of a human person can regennrate the fallen sons of 
 Adam and make them sons of God; how a partaking of the body and 
 f blood of a human person can give us any other life than that we have 
 
 L, already. So on the other hand, is the same doctrine a safeguard 
 
 !! against Eutychianism. But the premises of transubstantialion involve 
 
 i|i and may support the Eutychian Heresy, if not also that of the 
 
41 
 
 Gnostics, who afiirmed among other follies, that our Lonl's Body was 
 a phantasm, exhibiting the "species" or " accidents" of iuimanity, but 
 not having the substance.* In like manner the old and now perhaps 
 abandoned Lutheran and Calvinistic doctrines of the Eucharist, which 
 destroy the unity of the Sacrament (the one, mailing by virtue of the 
 assumed ubiquity of our Lord's Body the mere indwelling thereof" in 
 with and under" the Bread and Wine; the other separating the grace 
 from the symbol) lead directly to Ncstorianism ; and the Zuinglian to 
 Socinianism. And perhaps we here have an explanation of the 
 Apostucy of Protestant Switzerland into Socinianism ; and of the 
 
 * "It [transubstantiation] giveth occasion to heretics to maintain 
 and defend their errors ; as to Marcion, which said that Christ had 
 but a phantastical body ; and to Eutyches, which wickedly confounded 
 the two natures of Christ." Bp. Ridley — Disputation at Oxford. 
 
 The use of this argument against the Roman doctrine, by Ridley, 
 proves his own view of the Eucharist to have been that which I have 
 claimed as catholic. He could not have argued from the Incarnation 
 against an erroneous view of the Eucharist, unless he believed the 
 "great mystery of godliness" Q' magnum sacramentum pietatis'") to 
 have a parallel in that other mystery which is its perpetual manifes- 
 tation in the Church. 
 
 As another perspicuous statement of the same view compare the 
 following : " Cyprian the Martyr shall tell you how it is that Christ 
 callethit, saying Panis est corpus, cibus, potus, caro,^c. Bread is the 
 Body, meat, drink, flesh, because that unto this material substance is 
 given the property of the thing whereof it beareth the name." S. 
 Cyprian's words, as quoted by the Editor, are " Ipse enim et panis, et 
 caro, et sanguis ; idem cibus et substantia ct vita factus est Ecclesiae 
 suae, quam corpus suum appallat, dans ei participationem spiritus." 
 i. e. For Himself is both bread, and flesh and blood; the same has 
 become both the food and life of His Church which He calls His 
 Body, giving to it a participation of [His] Spirit. — Conferences between 
 Bourne and Ridley. — Works, p.\G\. 
 
( 
 
 
 a. 
 
 I 
 
 il! 
 
 fill 
 
 r 
 
 t'id, 
 
 42 
 
 almost universal prevalence of Nestorianism and ^wssz-Sabellianism in 
 what are called Orthodox Protestant denominations.^ 
 
 j- The proof is, the extraordinary popularity of Mr. Jacob Abbott's 
 writings, and such like works ; and the prevailing spirit of irreverence 
 that can dare to think or speak of our Lord otherwise than as God. 
 
 The unlearned reader may be informed that Nestorianism holds 
 that our Lord has a human as well as Divine personality ; i. e. it denies 
 that Almighty Gud the Son was properly born of the Virgin, but only 
 a man in whom the Divine nature dwelt. Sabellianism is the denial 
 of the Divine personality of the Son and Holy Ghost, and teaching 
 that our Lord was a human person in whom was a manifestation or 
 functions of the Deity. 
 
m 
 
 1 
 
 NOTE B. 
 
 The argument in the foregoing letter, although directed specially 
 against Methodism, has of course a general bearing, equally strong, 
 against all who maintain in common with the Methodists, those 
 peculiar views on the Rule of Faith, the means of Justification, and 
 .the Sacraments, which I have shown cannot be ascribed to the Angli- 
 can Church. It was not mere wilfulness by which the original 
 Methodists were guided, when they altered our XXXIX. Articles and ^^^, 
 
 Liturgy. However much mistaken they may have been, in their ^5! 
 
 judgments, or rash, or deficient in theological knowledge ; no one can 
 justly deny them to have been serious and conscientious men, who pro- 
 posed to themselves a high aim, and pursued it with unfaltering zeal. 
 Their own principles they understood well enough, and they saw that 
 those were inconsistent with the theological system of the XXXIX. 
 Articles. By altering those Articles and the Liturgy, they condemned 
 the Church, and of course are in turn, so far forth condemned by the 
 Church ; so also, are their principles, by whomsoever held, virtually 
 under the same condemnation. Having seen what the Lutheran spirit 
 has done with our Articles and Liturgy where it had free scope ; we may 
 presume, of course, that it would do the like again if it had a similar 
 opportunity. The restlessness which is continually shown under our 
 Baptismal office, the fanciful interpretations and ingenious theories 
 that are devised to explain away its doctrine, all point to the same 
 
,K 
 
 44 
 
 end. But the XXXIX. Articles expressly acknowledge that doctrine, 
 and therefore are altogether as untenable ground for the Lutherans as 
 the Baptismal office. This important fact needs to be insisted on. 
 The doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration carries with it the Catholic 
 Sacramental S3'stem, and therefore claims the Articles for that System. 
 It should be borne in mind also, that every Roman doctrine condemned 
 by the Church of England, is specified in the Articles; but there is 
 not the smallest hint that Rome is in error in respect of Baptism. 
 That doctrine was never in controversy between the two Communions. 
 Their agreement therefore in it, is absolute and entire ; equally as in 
 the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation. Hence, it is undeniable 
 that the XXXIX. .\rticlcs are utterly irreconcilable with the modern 
 Lutheran antisacramontal doctrine of .lustificalion. 
 
 ^ 
 
 k 
 
THE ^ 
 
 •?■ 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH ifh 
 
 4. 
 
 • r 
 
 VINDICATED FROM 
 
 ALL AFFINITY WITH METHODISM: 
 
 IN A REVIEW 
 
 Ik 
 
 OF THE LETTER OF THE REV. J. P. DURBIN, D. D., ASSERTING 
 
 THEIR IDENTITY. 
 
 w 
 
 BY WM. HERBERT NORRIS, M. A., 
 
 RECTOR OF ST. JOHN's CHURCH, CARLISLE, PA. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 GEORGE & WAYNE, 26 SOUTH FIFTH STREET. V t 
 
 1844. * 
 
1 
 
 
 KINO AND BAIRD, PRINTERS, 9 GEORGE STREET. 
 
 
»3 "I protest and openly confess, that in all my doctrine and preaching, both of 
 the Sacrament and of other my doctrine, whatsoever it be, not only I mean and 
 judge those things as the Catholic Church and the most holy fathers of old, mth one 
 accord, have meant and judged, but also I -would gladly use the same words that 
 they used, and not use any other words, but to set my hands to all and singular 
 their speeches, phrases, ways, and forms of speech, which they do use in their 
 treatises upon the Sacrament, and to keep still their interpretation." 
 
 Archbishop Ceanmer, Appeal at his Degradation. 
 
" The Sacraments of Baptism and of His Holy Supper, if we rightly use the 
 same, do most assuredly certify us, that we be partakers of His Godly Nature, 
 having given unto us by Him immortality and life everlasting, and so is Christ, 
 naturally in us. And so we be one with Christ, and Christ with us, not only in 
 will and mind, but also in very natural properties." 
 
 Chasmeb, Remains, v. ii. p. 407. 
 
 "You flee from the four proper matters that be in controversy unto a new 
 scope devised by you that I should absolutely deny the presence of Christ, 
 and say that the Bread doth only signify Christ's Body absent, which thing I 
 iTETEH SAID NOR THOUGHT. And Es Christ saith not so, nor Paul sailh not so> 
 then so likewise I say not so, and my book in divers places saith clean contrary." 
 
 lb. V. iii. p. 40. 
 
 " And yet the Bread is changed, not in shape nor substance, but in nature, as 
 Cyprian truly saith, not meaning that the natural substance of bread is clear 
 gone, but that by God's Word there is added thereto another higher property, 
 nature and condition. ... So that now the said mystical Bread is both a corporal 
 food for the body and a spiritual food for the soul." 
 
 Jb. V. ii. p. 340. Jenkyns' Edition. 
 
REVIEW. 
 
 The same reasons which led me in the first instance to give a 
 pubHc and pointed contradiction to Dr. Durbin's assertion of the 
 identity of the fundamental doctrines taught respectively by the 
 Methodists and the Church of England, induce me to notice the 
 Letter, which purports to be a reply to the one I addressed to him. 
 My object was then simply to correct the erroneous opinions to 
 which he had given currency, and which I found were believed on 
 his authority ; my purpose now is the same. The letter is not less 
 calculated to lead ill-informed persons astray from the truth than 
 his public discourses. 
 
 When I learned that Dr. Durbin had proposed to deliver a 
 discourse on what he and others think fit to call " Puseyism,'' 
 I felt nowise anxious ; nor did I imagine that I should ever be 
 called upon to notice anything he might choose to say on such a 
 subject. Even after I had known of his extraordinary assertion 
 of the identity of Methodism with the Church, in respect of the 
 three fundamental points discussed by him, I felt equally indifi"er- 
 ent about the matter, and expressed my indifference to others. 
 It did not for once occur to me that any one would believe what 
 was so notoriously otherwise, even though it had been said by 
 the Rev. and dignified President of Dickinson College. I thought, 
 but as it seems too hastily, that our Book of Common Prayer 
 was at least as well known in this community as Dr. Durbin ; 
 and accordingly I took it for granted, that any one who might 
 choose to form an opinion on the subject, would examine the 
 very plain language of that book, and judge for himself of the 
 extravagance of his statements. Even if a person uncatechised 
 in the faith of the Church, and with a mind preoccupied by an 
 
 antagonist system, should not be able to understand all he might 
 
 1* 
 
 r.. 
 
see in our Prayer Book, and know, for example, what was 
 meant by Regeneration in Baptism ; still he could see that such 
 a doctrine was therein taught most distinctly ; and seeing that, he 
 would know of course, that on such fundamental points as the 
 New Birth of the Gospel, and Justification, the Church must be 
 at the farthest remove from Methodism, as inculcating a religi- 
 ous system, not merely unlike the latter, but heterogeneous to 
 it. But unhappily, 1 discovered that this very obvious way of 
 arriving at a just judgment in so important a case, was over- 
 looked by some for whom I naturally felt a deep concern. I 
 had therefore no alternative. An imperious sense of duty 
 obliged me to contradict with proofs, the erroneous notions pro- 
 claimed by Dr. Durbin. I could not degrade my pulpit with 
 such a controversy, even so far as therein to take the remotest 
 notice either of Methodism, or of Dr. Durbin's assertions ; and my 
 only course, was to address him publicly on the subject. 
 
 I am not surprised to find that I have made hiin uneasy : nor 
 to hear his dolorous complaints, not simply on account of the 
 manner in which I expressed myself, but because I joined issue 
 with him on his assertion, that Methodism was identical with the 
 Church system on the three points he discussed. He seems to 
 think, that I ought rather to have entered upon a regular defence 
 of the writings of certain divines of Oxford j and thus to have 
 obtruded my assistance not only where it was not needed, but 
 where it would have been highly indelicate, and perhaps injuri- 
 ous to them. I beg to say then, that under no circumstances 
 could I engage in such a controversy with Dr. Durbin. He 
 might have preached his lifetime out on the writings of Dr. 
 Pusey and Mr. Newman, without having been troubled with a 
 word from me. The little that I did say of those divines, in my 
 Letter, was drawn from me by the fact that their names and 
 writings are, against their own will, made a 'touchstone of 
 opinion,' and are identified with principles which are the com- 
 mon heritage of every member of the Church ; so that unhappily 
 it is almost impossible effectually to assert and maintain those 
 principles as the property of the Church, without appearing to be 
 the advocate of men. Nor again, if Dr. Durbin, like his brother 
 Wesley ans in England, had denounced our Church for her erro- 
 
neous teaching, would I have cared to give him a word of reply. 
 I should have felt satisfied that her own reputation was her all 
 sufficient defence. But indeed I could not treat his proffered 
 compliments with the same calm indifference. Our people are 
 not used to attacks by such weapons, by sugared pills of poison. 
 And therefore, even at the risk of being charged with arrogance, I 
 was forced to hand him back his compliments. But hereupon I 
 am told, with admirable naivete, 
 
 "A good Christian would have thought that the declaration of a strict agreement 
 between the Methodist Episcopal and Protestant Episcopal churches on three 
 fundamental points of Christianity would have gratified your pride, if not edified 
 your apostolic charity." 
 
 Now granting that I may be chargeable with pride, still one 
 is at a loss to conceive how it possibly could be gratified by 
 hearing that we bore any affinity with Methodism ; and as to 
 "apostolic charity," I have learned from St. Paul, that that greatest 
 of the Christian graces 'rejoices' only 'in the truth.' No matter 
 then what was or was not " dreamed" by Dr. Durbin ; even sup- 
 posing his "christian communion of more than a million mem- 
 bers" were ten times its present size, and " three years older" 
 {risum teneatis amici ?) than that of which I am an unworthy 
 servant, the case would not be in the slightest degree altered. It 
 would not be true that the Methodists are agreed with the church 
 in her faith ; and " apostolic charity" would rather he grieved 
 than edified, at hearing such statements as those which he has 
 hazarded. The church in the United States is nowise ashamed 
 of being a " little flock." She would have cause to suspect her- 
 self wanting in some notes of Apostolicity, were she popular 
 with the world ; because " as He is, so are we, in this world ;" 
 " the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not." 
 
 All therefore that Dr. Durbin says about my " changing the 
 issue," and " making a new issue," amounts to nothing more 
 than an unconscious confession, that he has taken too much upon 
 himself in asserting the agreement of Methodism with the Church, 
 in fundamentals. I made no issue whatever, new or old ; I simply 
 joined with him in an issue made by himself. He made the 
 statement which I have combated, publicly, in his" own proper" 
 person ; whether incidentally or not, is nothing to me. It was not 
 therefore " discourteous" in me to address him " publicly," in 
 
8 
 
 order to disprove what he said. Whether it was necessary or 
 not to do so, I am the judge and not he. Neither can it be 
 " unfair" nor " uncandid" under any circumstances to controvert 
 error by means of truth — Dr. Durbin's complaints to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. 
 
 Of course I have nothing to do with his motives in dehvering 
 his unfortunate discourses ; and I only notice what he says of 
 them, to direct attention to a secret which he has divulged, and 
 which a well judging public never would have guessed at. He 
 writes to me, 
 
 " The 'Oxford teaching' which you had stealthily* and gradually introduced into 
 the community here, together with the general excitement in the Protestant 
 churches, led, without my knowledge, to a resolution of the leaders' meeting of 
 our Church, requesting me to deliver a series of discourses on the Oxford doc- 
 trines." 
 
 Here we are gravely informed that this mock- Vatican con- 
 clave, " the leaders' meeting," undertook the presentation of me 
 and my official ministrations, to the notice of the Rev. Doctor in 
 Divinity, the President of Dickinson College, for the sake of en- 
 gaging him to lift his puissant arm against me. It would have 
 been well for him had he simply told his " leaders' meeting " to 
 give heed to St. Paul's advice, " to study to be quiet and to do their 
 own business," instead of lending himself to be the mouth-piece of 
 their impertinence. And to do him nothing less than justice, it 
 becomes me to acknowledge that he did " hesitate" before he 
 proceeded to act upon their presentation. But the " leaders" 
 were not to be so easily put off; they urged that many besides 
 their own congregation desired his action in this matter. " Still 
 he hesitated." He 'received several messages from respectable 
 citizens asking his compliance;' and ' one gentleman not a Metho- 
 dist called on him personally ;' at last this interesting coquetry 
 ended, by his yielding a qualified assent to the urgent suit, 
 because he was " unwilling to awaken religious controversy in 
 the community." His discourses therefore, despite the load of 
 apologies they contained, and the disclaimers of a direct condem- 
 nation of any thing or any body, were yet aimed at me person- 
 
 * It cannot be expected that I should make any reply to this gratuitous insult, 
 especially since it loses all point in being supremely ridiculous. 
 
ally and at my official teaching. All this unlooked for information 
 chimes in, most harmoniously to be sure, with his complaint. 
 
 "To attempt to give the controversy a personal bearing by addressing your 
 pamphlet to me in my own proper name and office, to say the least, was unne- 
 cessary and discourteous." 
 
 Again, he seems to think it strange that I should have replied 
 to "reported statements." My justification is, that I knew the 
 report I used, to be .^rue. The knowledge I acted on, was de- 
 rived from half-a-dozen independent sources, each one giving 
 concordant testimony to the fact, that he had asserted the identity 
 of Methodism with the Church's doctrine, on three fundamental 
 points. I acted upon the highest moral certainty. Dr. Durbin's 
 hand and seal would not have added strength to the convic- 
 tion. If my information had proved false, then there might have 
 been some ground for complaint, and I should have been a fair 
 mark for sarcasm. But since it was true ; since he confesses its 
 truth, and writes a pamphlet to prove those very reported state- 
 ments which I criticised and denied ; it betrays something like the 
 petulance of a spoiled child, for him to refer in the manner he 
 does to the sources of my information. It would at least have 
 been more manly in him to have stood by his declaration with- 
 out any of this pitiful ado. 
 
 He is also much aggrieved because I stated a matter of fact, that 
 " there were those among his hearers who were scandalized by 
 the manifest misrepresentations which his readings imposed upon 
 his uninformed hearers." (See my letter, p. 29.) Now this cer 
 tainly is a fact whether those persons were justly scandalized or 
 not. Be it observed however, that I was careful not to impeach 
 his character in this statement. I assumed that he had not him- 
 self made the quotations which he used ; but, that he read them 
 from a " little book" purportnig to be a " confutation of Pusey- 
 ism ;" to which book he had given an undue confidence ; and 
 therefore, that he deceived others only because he had been 
 in the first instance deceived himself. The quotations I adduced 
 from Ridley were made to show, how easily such a book might 
 have been constructed. I may, however, have been more charita- 
 ble to Dr. Durbin than just ; at least, the startling developments of 
 his capacity for misrepresentation, which are found in his Letter, 
 would suggest such a conclusion. Of these I shall say nothing 
 
10 
 
 at present. They will be brought to light in the course of my 
 remarks. 
 
 I proceed now to an examination of the means which Dr. 
 Durbin has used to overthrow my former arguments, and to 
 establish his original assumption of the identity of Methodism 
 and the Church's doctrine, on the Rule of Faith, the means of 
 Justification, and the Eucharist. 
 
 1. Of the Rule of Faith.* — Dr. Durbin begins his discussion 
 of this point with a very imposing air. He publishes our Vlth 
 Article and the corresponding Methodist Article, side by side, and 
 then triumphantly asks me, "Are they not identical? How then 
 could you publish to the world that they are opposed ?" The 
 simple answer is that I did not "publish to the world that they 
 are opposed" in their letter ; but that he gave an interpretation to 
 the Vlth Article which the XXlh would not warrant ; and which 
 the discipline of the church and her uniform practice denied. My 
 words were these : — 
 
 " You read our Vlth Article so as to make it exclude the authority and tradi- 
 tion of the Church Catholic from having any interference in the Church's Rule 
 of Faith for individuals. In the first place I deny that the Article makes any 
 such exclusion ; for itself appeals to tradition to support its own decision as to the 
 character of the apocryphal books. . . Secondly, the XXlh Article declares that the 
 Church hath authority in controversies of faith, and presupposes her paramount 
 right to expound Scripture, by saying that she ought not to decree any thing against 
 the same, nor besides the same, to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of 
 salvation. The whole of this article also the Methodists from the necessities of 
 their condition have rejected." 
 
 Now the ground here taken is extremely simple. It is assumed 
 that the Vlth and XXth Articles, which are both constituent 
 portions of one document, are consistent with each other, and 
 must be so interpreted. It was not only granted, but maintained 
 by me, that the Church requires nothing to be believed as an 
 Article of the faith but what may be proved by Holy Scripture ; 
 this is the injunction of the Vlth Article ; but does this deny, or is 
 it anywise inconsistent with the fact, that the Church demands of 
 
 • Let it be noted that our Church has nowhere used this phrase, " the Rule of 
 Faith." She does not say that Scripture is the Rule, nor the " only Rule ;" neither 
 does she say that Tradition is a rule. She asserts simply that Scripture con- 
 tains all things necessary to salvation ; and besides that she imposes a Creed, one 
 Article of which is, "I believe one Catholic and Apostolic Church." 
 
11 
 
 her members submission to the faith she teaches, and which she 
 maintains may be proved by Holy Scripture ? Methodists may 
 indeed read their Article as it suits them, and make it exclude 
 all creeds; but with us it is happily quite different: for in the 
 interpretation of the Vlth Article we are bound to heed the XXth 
 also, which asserts the Church's " authority in controversies of 
 faith ;" and her right to enforce certain truths to he believed for 
 necessity of salvation, if they are susceptible of scriptural 
 proof. But who is the judge of this proof? The Church does 
 not enter into disputes with her children. She does not stoop to 
 the work of bandying texts of Scripture with the misbelieving. 
 Suppose then, that one of her ministers or members should refuse 
 to abide by the Nicene formula (o^ttoouMov) « consubstantial," on the 
 ground that he could find no such word in Scripture, (and this 
 was the very position of the Arians) ; would his private judg- 
 ment, or would the Vlth Article, save him from excommunica- 
 tion ? Certainly not ; for the Church has ruled (Art. VIII.) that 
 the Nicene Creed may be proved by most certain warrants of 
 Holy Scripture — the Arian's private judgment to the contrary 
 notwitstanding. r 
 
 It is really irksome to multiply words on a point so very plain 
 as this. The Church does claim and exercise authority in con- 
 troversies of faith. Her Creed is a rule of faith to her members, 
 for she imposes it upon them to be believed. To assent to the 
 authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture is not her only term 
 of communion. The Arian may, and does do that, and so do 
 many others with whom she holds no communion, whose creed 
 varies from hers. As she knows but one Lord, so she acknow- 
 ledges but One Body, One Faith, and One Baptism. She requires 
 of those who seek her Baptism in order to gain membership in 
 the one Body, the obligation, that they shall believe all the 
 Articles of that one Faith, She moreover prescribes a form of 
 daily worship and offices for the administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, which appointments are binding on her clergy. In those 
 formularies her creed is developed, and is thereby still further 
 imposed on her worshipping members under the most solemn 
 sanctions. They are required to address Almighty God in her 
 prayers ; and those prayers are so constructed, I repeat, as to be 
 
12 
 
 at the same time confessions of her faith — confessions (would 
 that we all might think of it !) which are made to Almighty 
 God, the searcher of hearts, the judge of men. It is, I say, under 
 such awful circumstances as these, that her members are obliged 
 to confess to God, the truth of the doctrines taught in her daily 
 service, in her office for Baptism, and in the Liturgy of the Holy 
 Communion — doctrines which it is the fashion of the day to decry, 
 doctrines as old as the Church, and which the Methodists and 
 many others have repudiated and denounced as "Popery" and 
 " Puseyism !" Is there not here a most serious interference with 
 her members, in the formation of their belief? Is not her definite 
 creed thus made a rule for their faith from lisping infancy to ex- 
 tremest age? This Creed is her authoritative tradition. It is 
 handed down {traditur) from Bishop to Bishop, from generation 
 to generation. She claims that it is " the faith once delivered to 
 the saints." The time cannot be named when she cannot prove 
 it to have been believed throughout the Catholic Church. It did 
 not originate in the sixteenth century ; for her chief documents 
 and devotions in which it is expressed, were in use in the Church 
 before the Reformation. It has been received " always, every 
 where, and by all ;" it is therefore the Catholic Faith ; the same 
 faith by which the lives of the saints were moulded, and which 
 supported her Confessors and Martyrs under their fiery trials. 
 
 It is quite astonishing how any one can deny that the Church 
 does impose and enforce her "authoritative traditional creed" 
 upon her members, as a rule for their individual faith, when 
 it is a fact visible to one's eyes, and seen every day, every 
 where and by every body. The prescribed discipline of the 
 Church, moreover, ought surely to be regarded as the best 
 exponent of her avowed principles ; and the same remark may 
 also be made with respect to the Methodist communion. A 
 comparison of the practices of the two will therefore show what 
 has been elsewhere proved, to wit, the essential difference in 
 their principles in regard to this vital point. Now with us a 
 Creed, and consequently a Christian profession, are imposed 
 upon infants ; and that before they are conscious of so great a 
 blessing. These questions e.g. are put to the sponsors in Baptism — 
 " Dost thou [in the name of this child] believe all the Articles of 
 
13 
 
 the Christian faith as contained in the Apostles' Creed ?" " Wilt 
 thou be baptized in this faith .?" An answer in the affirmative 
 is made a condition of the gift of regeneration. Tlie Methodists, 
 on the other hand, having no authoritative Creed, and differing 
 from us essentially as to what Baptism is, have rejected this 
 feature of our office ; and consequently, they commit themselves 
 to a practice, as anti-catholic, as it is anti-Scriptural, of conferrmg 
 baptism without imposing a Creed, without any profession of 
 faith on the part of the candidate, without any obligation being 
 imposed upon him whatever. And yet with this astounding 
 circumstance before their eyes, persons can be bold enough to say 
 that Methodists are agreed with the Church in her fundamental 
 principles ! Moreover, a catechism is prescribed by the church 
 for the instruction of her children in the faith, and which they 
 they are to be taught so soon as they can learn it ; and that is 
 before they are able to exercise their private judgment upon 
 Scripture. Here then, the teaching of the Church is a rule for 
 them antecedent to all personal knowledge of Scripture. So 
 soon as they are sufficiently instructed in the catechism, they are 
 to be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed ; at which time they 
 publicly recognize the obligations which were imposed on them 
 " in Baptism, wherein they were made members of Christ and 
 children of God" — obligations which rest upon the gift of re- 
 generation, and the gracious relation of Sonship. Is it not 
 therefore seen, how the blessed authority and protection of the 
 Church is extended over her children, so as to " bring them up in 
 the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and to save them from 
 the great misery of ever being obliged to choose a religion ? Is 
 it not seen, I ask again, how her Creed is made a rule of their 
 faith ? But the practice of the Methodists is as different as pos- 
 sible from this. Their baptized children are not recognized as 
 Church members. They have rejected our Church catechism, be- 
 cause it is utterly antagonistic to their religion ; they have no rite 
 to which they give the name of Confirmation, thus abandoning 
 one of the " first principles of the doctrine of Christ," (Heb. vi. 
 1) ; and in baptizing infants, as I have said, they neither impose 
 upon them any Creed, nor require that they shall be brought up 
 
 in the belief of any thing whatever. They are thus emphatic- 
 
 2 
 
14 
 
 ally left to themselves, to their own wills, or to the religious 
 whims of their parents ; to their own private judgment, to be- 
 lieve nothing or any thing as it may suit them ; to construct such 
 a creed from Scripture as shall please themselves, or to become 
 infidels outright. And yet the Methodists call themselves "a 
 Church !" 
 
 I have doubtless said enough on this point ; but as I am anx- 
 ious to leave nothing unsaid, I cannot forego the exhibition of 
 some further documentary evidence. My appeal now shall be 
 to the vows which are imposed on our Candidates for the Holy 
 Order of Priests. The Methodists have partly followed us here, 
 and partly not ; and the alterations which they have made will, 
 by the contrast, reveal their point of departure from our princi- 
 ples. They agree with us in exacting a row corresponding to 
 the Vlth Article ; as this by itself, would not exhibit the ground 
 taken by the Church, so the Ordinal has a vow answering to the 
 XXth Article ; and this the Methodists have consistently altered 
 to correspond with their rejection of that Article. I place them 
 side by side. 
 
 FROM THE CHURCH ORDINAL. FROM THE METHODIST DISCIPLINE. 
 
 Will you then give your faithful dili- Will you then give your faithful dili- 
 gence, always so to minister the doctrine gence always so to minister the doctrine 
 and the Sacraments and the discipline of and Sacraments and discipline of Christ 
 Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, as the Lord hath commanded 1 
 and as this Church hath received the same, 
 according to the commandments of God; 
 so that you may teach the people com- 
 mitted to your cure and charge, with all 
 diligence to keep and observe the same? 
 
 From this example is seen on the one hand, professed obedi- 
 ence to the authoritative teaching of the church ; and on the 
 other hand, a loose rein given to the individual's will and private 
 judgment. The Methodists, as it were, in bitterest irony of 
 themselves, do not dare to impose their creed and discipline as 
 that which the Lord hath commanded. In our Ordinal provi- 
 sion is made for the security of the laity. If the Priests not only 
 profess, but pay implicit submission to the authority and teaching 
 of the Church, the people are in no danger of being led off by 
 
15 
 
 their pastors into heresy and schism. They will be saved from 
 the ignominy of being disciples of men ; from the self-condemn- 
 ing reproach of bearing any such name as <' Wesleyans." Had 
 John Wesley been faithful to the vow which he made before the 
 altar of his God, he would not have been the founder of a schism ; 
 there never would have been any such body known, as the 
 " Methodist Episcopal Church." 
 
 But I have another witness. In the order for the consecration 
 of Bishops, the candidate is required to make the following aAvful 
 oath : 
 
 " In the name of God, Amen. I N. chosen Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal 
 Church in N. do promise conformity and obedience to the doctrine, discipline and 
 worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America : So 
 help me God through Jesus Christ." 
 
 The Methodists, with unswerving consistency to their principles 
 and circumstances, exact nothing like this from their " Bishops." 
 
 It was with the knowledge of all these solemn vows which 
 
 rest upon our Bishops and Priests, that I took the liberty of thus 
 
 expressing on p. 27 of my Letter, what he chooses to regard 
 
 as my "fear of the great weight of living authority in the 
 
 Church :" 
 
 "Any one who can construe English, and has thel consideration to take for 
 granted that the solemn addresses to Almighty God in our ritual, are not com- 
 posed in equivocal language, andthatour catechism, designed for the instruction 
 of the simple and unsophisticated minds of little children in the Christian Faith 
 is not made up of riddles ; will be at no loss in deciding who occupy the Church's 
 ground, who consistently maintain her principles, who really do not teach her 
 faith, and not their own opinions. For it is neither present popularity, nor high 
 station that can give any individuals the title of being legitimate expounders of the 
 Church's faith: but professed and proved submission to the teaching of the Church." 
 
 Fear indeed! such language looks like it, forsooth. Further- 
 more, Dr. Durbin has the assurance to make the following start- 
 Ung assertion in reference to the last sentence of the passage : 
 — " This a very convenient way of disposing of three-fourths of 
 your own Bishops including your own diocesan, who have de- 
 clared against you in America, and of a greater proportion in 
 England." In other words. Dr. Durbin thinks that three fourths 
 of the American Bishops and a greater proportion of the English, 
 have forsworn themselves, by denying that they owe obedience 
 
16 
 
 to the doctrine of the Church ! And because I say that " professed 
 and proved sub7nissio7i to the teaching of the Church," is neces- 
 sary to their being recognized as " legitimate expounders of the 
 Churches faith," I dispose of their authority ! Dr. Durbin has 
 incautiously pubhshed a calumny against our Bishops. I cannot 
 believe that he was aware of the vows which are upon them, 
 when in his anxiety to "dispose" of me, he penned that amazing 
 sentence. It is not true that three-fourths of our Bishops have 
 declared against any point that I have maintained. On the con- 
 trary it is well known that I am supported by a large majority. 
 But certain it is that there is a very serious controversy going on 
 in the church ; certain it is, that two rival and antagonist theo- 
 logical systems are contending for the upper hand now, as in the 
 days of the original puritans. Both cannot be the property of 
 the Church ; and the advocates of each cannot be really obeying 
 the doctrine of the Church. One or the other must be in the 
 wrong ; and yet I will not believe but that all unfeignedly sup- 
 pose that they are submitting ex animo to the Church's teaching. 
 These are days of confusion and mental distraction. The Church 
 is awaking out of the stupor of the eighteenth century, brought 
 upon her by the loss, in one dire moment, of her most learned 
 and faithful clergy, under the measures of that bloodstained and 
 impure villain William III ; by the lifeless latitudinarian teaching 
 of his creatures Tillotson, Burnet, and the like ; and by the bond- 
 age she is under to the civil power ; all which evils affect the 
 Church in this country, for we are all members of one Body, and 
 have common nerves. It will not do then to judge men too 
 strictly for the sins of their fathers ; and the most that it becomes 
 one to say is that the " fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the 
 children's teeth are set on edge.'' At all events, this is plain, 
 and it may be said without judging the character of any body : 
 the advocates of one of these rival systems are loud in calling for 
 submission to the teaching of the Church ; the advocates of the 
 other (Dr. Durbin being witness) reclaim against any such de- 
 mand, and maintain that their "private judgment" is a higher 
 rule for them than the Faith of the Church. Here is the point; there 
 is no dispute as to the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, no 
 question as to its containing all doctrine necessary to salvation ; 
 
17 
 
 but the debate is, as to whether the individual's interpretation 
 shall countervail, and even set aside that interpretation which the 
 Church gives, which she has always maintained, and which is 
 identical with her " authoritative traditional faith." Let then the 
 impartial observer say which of these contending parties, judging 
 them by these their own acts, have the most rightful claim to be 
 recognized as legitimate expounders of the Church's faith. At all 
 events. Dr. Durbin will surely not venture in future to cite against 
 me or any one else, the authority of any Bishop whom he be- 
 lieves to have declared against " submission to the teaching of the 
 Church ;" because such authority must be ipso facto no authority 
 at all. I cannot, however, answer for the propriety of one who 
 charges me with departing from the doctrine of ihe Church, 
 because I maintain the paramount authority of that doctrine ; 
 who places that authority below the right which he thinks we 
 all have to form our own religious opinions, and at the same 
 time exalts before me (p. 38) the authority of particular indi- 
 viduals " who ought rightfully to control my opinions !" Cer- 
 tainly this is well done, for an advocate of the individual's rightful 
 independence of Church authority. Catholic tradition, and Creeds, 
 in the formation of his belief and opinions. I beg to say that the 
 clergy and laity of the Church know of no such bondage as that 
 which Dr. Durbin thinks I "oz/^A/" to know and feel "to some 
 extent at least." To no extent, I answer. Those of us who 
 know what are their privileges in the Church, are able to rejoice 
 in a freedom which is not to be found except within her pale, 
 and by submission to her divhiely constituted authority ; freedom 
 from self-will and the " itching ear," (2 Tim. iv. 3), freedom 
 "from all false doctrine, heresy and schism," freedom which 
 the Church only can bestow, and which the " pillar and ground 
 of the Truth, the Church of the Living God" (1 Tim. iii. 15) 
 only can guarantee. For " if the truth shall make you free, ye 
 shall be free indeed." 
 
 The word " tradition" is a great scarecrow in certain quarters ; 
 and by the help of some coarse language in our first Homily, 
 which Dr. Durbin seems to delight in, he has no doubt, made it 
 appear more offensive than is common. He has thus shown his 
 
 usual cleverness in saying things for etfect. From what has 
 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 been|said on pp. 8 and 9 of my Letter, together with what is 
 here submitted,* my meaning of the word may be gathered ; and 
 an examination of our Homilies will show that they make quite 
 as much use of tradition as I am disposed to do, and the same 
 use. By some people the word is supposed to mean hearsay 
 rumors carried from mouth to mouth. But such tradition is 
 repudiated by all Church writers ; such is not the Catholic 
 Creed, nor Catholic Tradition ; such is not the testimony of the 
 Holy Fathers and Saints and Martyrs of the Church, to " the 
 truth as it is in Jesus." It is not to such testimonies as these 
 that the first Homily refers when it speaks of the " stinking 
 puddles of men's traditions devised hy men's imaginations.'" The 
 doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Incarnation, as 
 defined by the General Councils of the Church, are Catholic tra- 
 ditions. The very Homily from which Dr. Durbin's taste 
 selected the above sentence, appeals to tradition, by referring to 
 the teaching of the "great clerk and godly preacher St. John 
 Chrysostom." The authority and teaching of more than forty 
 of the Fathers is constantly appealed to by the Homilies as that 
 which we ought to follow. They say that " the Primitive 
 Church is specially to be followed as most incorrupt and pure," 
 (2 B. ii. pt. 3.) and they speak of those six councilst which were 
 
 * For some observations on the Right of private judgment and kindred mat- 
 ters see Appendix A. 
 
 f To wit, Nice, A. D. 325. Constantinople, A. D. 381. Ephesus, A. D, 431. 
 Chalcedon, A. D. 451. Constantinople, A. D. 553. Constantinople, A. D. 680. 
 
 In this connection it will be instructive to consider the following extracts from 
 the credentials furnished our delegates to the Oriental Church, as showing both 
 whom we regard as members of the Catholic family, and what we acknowledge 
 as the true basis of Catholic communion. 
 
 "The arrogant assumptions of universal supremacy and infallibility, of the 
 Papal head of the Latin Church, render the prospect of speedy and friendly 
 intercourse with him dark and discouraging. The Church in the United States 
 of America, therefore, looking to the Triune God for His blessings upon its efforts 
 for unity in the Body of Christ, turns with hope to the patriarch of Constanti- 
 nople, the spiritual head of the ancient and venerable Oriental Church." 
 
 "They [the delegates] will make it clearly understood that their church has 
 no ecclesiastical connexion with the followers of Luther and Calvin, and 
 takes no part in their plans or operations to diffuse the principles of their sects." 
 
 Again — « they will present themselves ... to the patriarch of Constantinople, 
 
19 
 
 allowed and received of all men. {lb. pt. 2.) Dr. Durbin's cita- 
 tion from the first Homily is therefore quite gratuitous. His 
 application of the words '' stinking puddles," &c., to the tradi- 
 tion which I have maintained is a gross misrepresentation of the 
 Homily. His request that I should read that Homily in my 
 Church is excessively rude, and so is his invitation to me to re- 
 view my ordination vows. Again, when he speaks of my using 
 "the authoritative words of the Roman Catholic Church in 
 defining tradition," viz. as " that which has been believed always 
 every where, and by all ;" and says that I thereby show clearly 
 that I receive tradition as a rule of faith in the same sense as 
 that Church ;" he proves that he does not know what he is 
 writing about. Those words are the original words of a writer 
 who lived in the early part of the fifth century. They are taken 
 from the Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lerins and are univer- 
 sally referred to by theologians as the " Canon of Vincentius."^ 
 Equally absurd is it to say, that I hold tradition in the same 
 sense as the Roman Catholic Church; for if I did, I could not but 
 be a Roman Catholic, I could not but acknowledge the Creed of 
 
 inviting him to a friendly correspondence with the heads of the Church in the 
 United States, explaining more fully the views and objects of their Church, and 
 inquiring whether a mutual recognition of each other can be eifected, as mem- 
 bers of the Catholic Church of Christ, on the basis of Holy Scriptures and the 
 first councils, including the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, in order to a future 
 efficient co-operation against Paganism, false religion and Judaism." Dated 2d 
 January, 1843, and signed by the late Senior Bishop Griswold, and by the Bishops 
 of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Missouri, and Pennsylvania. 
 
 * St. Vincent's words are worth heeding. "Inquiring often with great desire 
 and attention of very many excellent holy and learned men, how and by what 
 means I might assuredly, and as it were by some general and ordinary way, dis- 
 cern the true Catholic faith from false and wicked heresy ; to this question I had 
 usually this answer from them all, that whether I or any other desired to find 
 out the fraud of heretics daily springing up, and to escape their snares, and 
 willingly would continue in a sound faith, himself safe and sound, that he ought 
 two manner of ways by God's assistance to defend and preserve his faith; that is, 
 first, by the authority of the law of God ; secondly, by the tradition of the 
 Catholic Church." 
 
 "Again, within the Catholic Church itself we are greatly to consider that we 
 hold that which hath been believed every where, always and of all men; for that is 
 truly and properly Catholic (as the very force and nature of the word doth declare) 
 •which comprehendeth all things in general after an universal manner, and that 
 
20 
 
 Pope Pius and the Council of Trent, I could not but maintain that 
 
 there are articles of faith found elsewhere than in Holy Scripture, 
 
 viz., as the Council of Trent says, in "unwritten traditions." 
 
 But it seems that some how or other, right or wrong, I am to be 
 
 proved not only a " Papist," but something worse. He says : 
 
 "You show clearly that you receive tradition in the same sense as that Church 
 and even in a stronger sense, for you say, (p. 20) < There is no more discordance 
 in the tradition of the Church Catholic in respect of this principle than of God's 
 existence.' Verily this is strange language in a Protestant community." 
 
 Verily, I reply, to do as Dr. Durbin has here done, is stranger 
 
 conduct in a community that expects men to have at least 
 
 some regard for truth. How could he have the hardihood 
 
 to take those words of mine which I used in speaking of the 
 
 Incarnation and Salvation by the " Word made flesh," and give 
 
 out that I thus spoke of tradition. Here is the connexion in 
 
 which those words occur. 
 
 " Your founders did not believe that our fallen human nature is cleansed by 
 the glorified and divine human nature of Christ, that, ' our sinful bodies are 
 made clean by His Body,' that the latter gives us life even as Adam's gave us 
 death. On this principle, Rev. Sir, is built the sublime Theology of the Catholic 
 Church, this is the great exponent of her teaching as it has come down to us from 
 Apostolic days, and been proclaimed with one mouth in every section of the 
 Apostolic family in every age. There is no more discordance in the tradition of 
 the Church Catholic in respect of this principle than of God's existence." 
 
 It has been observed that I have made use of the first clause of 
 our XXth Article — " The Church hath power to decree rites and 
 ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith;" and in my Let- 
 ter I appealed also to a well known Canon of 1571. The authority 
 of both these Dr. Durbin has impeached, and, in his own opinion, 
 has overthrown. It is my duty therefore to defend them. First, 
 of the disputed clause of the Article. I remark then, that grant- 
 ing its spuriousness, nothing is gained ; for the latter portion of 
 the Article assumes the paramount right of the Church to expound 
 
 shall we do if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. Universality shall we fol- 
 low thus, if we profess that one faith to be true which the whole Church through- 
 out the world acknowledgeth and confesseth. Antiquity shall we follow if we 
 depart not any whit from those senses which it is plain that our holy elders and 
 fathers generally held. Consent shall we likewise follow, if in this very anti- 
 quity itself we hold the definitions and opinions of all or at any rate almost all 
 the priests and doctors together." 
 
21 
 
 Scripture and to " enforce'^ certain things " to be believed for 
 
 necessity of salvation." Secondly, supposing the clause to have 
 
 been originally an interpolation, it has become authoritative by 
 
 the sanction of the Church. Before the Convocation of 1603, 
 
 (as has been the case ever since) the Article, as it now stands, 
 
 was received as one of the XXXIX Articles of 1562. So much 
 
 then settles its present authority. Dr. Durbin's impeachment 
 
 rests upon the following passage from Burnet. 
 
 " One alleration of more importance was made in the year 1571. These words 
 of the XXth Article, The Clmrch hath power to decree rites and ceremonies and authority 
 in controversies of faith, were left out both in the manuscripts and in the printed 
 editions, but were afterwards restored according to the Articles printed Anno 1563. 
 I cannot find out in what year they were again put in the printed copies. They 
 appear in two several impressions in Queen Elizabeth's time, which are in my 
 hands. It passes commonly that it was done by Abp. Laud, and his enemies laid 
 this upon him among other things, that he had corrupted the doctrine of this 
 Church by this addition ; but he cleared himself of that as well he might, and la 
 a speech in the Star Chamber appealed to the orignal and affirmed these words 
 were in it." 
 
 Of this passage I remark, that Burnet's assertion that the clause 
 was left out " both in the manuscript and in the printed editions 
 of 1571," is contradicted by authority that he himself produces. 
 At his own request, the Master of C, C. College, Cambridge, 
 made two collations ; one of the " Otnginal MS." with the 
 printed edition of 1563, and with the edition of 1553 of " King 
 Edward's Articles ;" the other collation was of the " Otnginal 
 MS." of 1562, with the MS. and printed edition of 1571. 
 Now as to Article XX, the results of this last collation are as 
 follows, according to the record.* 
 
 " Art. 20. MS. The Church hath power to decree rites and 
 ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith. And yet. 
 
 These ivords are not in the original MS. 
 
 MS. Ought it not to enforce any thing. 
 
 Pr. It ought not to enforce anything." 
 
 This collation then proves, that both the MS. of 1571, and 
 the printed edition of 1571 contained the disputed clause ; and 
 that the same was not in the " Original MS." of the XXXIX 
 Articles, that is, of the year 1562, which every body knows. Bur- 
 net's statement therefore is only one instance, among many others, 
 
 * Burnet's Exposition, N. Y., 1843, p. 15. 
 
22 
 
 of his heedlessness in reporting facts. With this agrees the ac- 
 count given by Dr. Cardwell in his SynodaUa, (p. 34, note.) The 
 original MS. (i. e. of 1562,) was laid before the Queen but did not 
 receive her sanction. But a year afterwards the articles were 
 printed by her command, with the declaration, that they had her 
 " royal approval." This was the " printed edition of 1563," to 
 which Burnet refers ; and this edition diifers from the " Original 
 MS." of 1562, in having the disputed clause, and in excluding 
 the XXIXth Article. 
 
 There can be little doubt therefore that this clause was origin- 
 ally inserted by the Queen and Privy Council, to whom a right of 
 interference in such matters was then conceded. However, no 
 matter who was the author, it afterwards received the sanction 
 of the Church, and it appeared in the printed editions of 1563, 
 1571, 1581, 1586, 1593, 1612, 1624, 1628, 1629, 1630, 1631, and 
 others that are all in the Bodleian Library. There were also 
 two editions, one Latin, the other English, published in 1571, and 
 agreeing with the Original MS. of 1562. 
 
 As to the calumny against Abp. Laud, that is refuted by the 
 passage which Dr. Durbin cites. Burnet says," he cleared him- 
 self of that, as well he might, and in a speech in the Star Chamber 
 appealed to the original, and affirmed these words were in it." 
 And yet in the face of this he says " in the judgment of charity (!) 
 [Dr. Durbin's charity?] it may be concluded as it was commonly 
 in Bishop Burnet's time, that the passage was foisted into the 
 Article by Abp, Laud, for the purpose of bringing back the 
 Church to Rome." 
 
 O Judgment, thou art fled to brutish beasts ; 
 And men have lost their reason ! 
 
 How could archbishop Laud have " foisted those words into the 
 article," when, as even Burnet says, " they appeared in two 
 several impressions in Queen Elizabeth's time which were in 
 his hands" — that is before Laud was born, or while he was a 
 boy ? This stale, oft-repeated and as often-refuted Puritan 
 calumny may now surely be consigned to the "tomb of the 
 Capulets," there to rest in fit companionship with the " Nag's 
 head" fable of the Jesuits. 
 
 I proceed to consider the Canon of 1571. Dr. Durbin says, I 
 
23 
 
 knew this had never been of authority in the church. I reply, I 
 did not know it, neither do I now. It is authority ; the authority 
 of the church. It is her voice, her command— pubUshed under 
 the hand and seal of all the Bishops of England, at the time ; 
 and it has never been recalled, modified, or explained away. 
 Nor could the church have abrogated it, without passing sentence 
 of condemnation against herself, her creeds, liturgy, and homilies ; 
 without a departure from those principles on which she justified 
 her Reformotion. But why were not the Canons of 1571 accom- 
 panied by the royal sign-manual? Because the Queen had 
 objection to that paragraph, which I quoted, and which with all 
 the rest was approved and signed by such men as Grindal and 
 Jewell ? The idea is supremely absurd, as every one who re- 
 members the stern unbending front, with which Elizabeth met 
 the Puritans and their measures for further reformation, must 
 perceive at once. Dr. Cardwell in his Synodalia, gives some 
 passages from Strype's life of Parker which go far towards 
 solving the difficulty. 
 
 « The Archbishop laboured to get the Queen's allowance to it, (i. e. the book 
 of Canons) but had it not : she, often declining to give her license to their orders 
 and constitutions, reckoning that her bishops' power and jurisdiction alone, 
 having their authority derived from her,* was sufficient. In the month of July 
 or August the Archbishop sent this book to Grindal, Archbishop of York, re- 
 commending it to the observation of the Clergy of his province; and for' his 
 judgment of it. 
 
 " What that Archbishop's thoughts of it were is worth observing ; which 
 appears from his answer he sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as follows : 
 'He thanked his grace for the book of articles and discipline, but he stood 
 in doubt whether they had vigorem legis unless they had been concluded upon in 
 synod, and after ratified by her majesty's royal assent in scriptis (fine words 
 added he, fly away as wind, and will not serve us, if we were impleaded in a 
 case of praemunire ;) or else were confirmed by act of parliament. He said he 
 liked the book very well ; and that if hereafter he should doubt in any point, or 
 wish it enlarged in any respect, he would signify to his grace hereafter. And if 
 there were at present want of sufl!icient authority, yet it was well the book was 
 ready and might receive more authority at the next parliament:' yet we see he 
 and his provincial bishops signed it. 
 
 "But notwithstanding these doubts and suspicions which did not without 
 reason arise in the minds of these and other of the bishops, (knowing what 
 watchful back-friends they had) yet they proceeded according to the above book of 
 discipline, especially in what concerned their clergy in their respective dioceses." 
 * Strype's Eraslianism commits nobody but himself. 
 
24 
 
 The Canon in question, let it be observed, "concerned their 
 Clergy." Its title is Concionatores. 
 
 Elizabeth's conduct in this matter (of her motives presently) 
 receives illustration from the manner in which she acted towards 
 another book of discipline, (the libellus admonitionuni) whose 
 authority is assumed in the canons of 1571, in the canon prescribing 
 the duties, &c., of Church wardens [Aeditui). Of this book 
 Dr. Cardwell remarks, "The celebrated Advertisements of 1564, 
 which, acting on the same principles as in the case of these 
 canons the Queen refused to put forth with her sanction., although 
 she had required the bishops in commission to draw them up, 
 and afterwards insisted that they should be rigorously enforced. 
 By this and by other synods, they seem to have been considered 
 as having the most perfect author ity.^^ 
 
 And yet they had not the ratification of the Queen's signature, 
 no more than the canons of 1571. The two codes of discipline 
 stand exactly upon the same ground. 
 
 It is not difficult to discover Elizabeth's motives. A new order 
 of things had just been introduced ; principles were not estab- 
 lished ; confusion reigned in the Church, and necessity in certain 
 cases took the place of precedent and law. Elizabeth's Catholic 
 predilections are well known ; she stood between the Parliament 
 and the Church, firmly checking the encroachments of the former 
 upon the prerogatives of the latter. They had enacted that she 
 was. the supreme temporal head of the Church, and she acted 
 upon their statute, to foil parliamentary interference ; while she, 
 at the same time, showed her anxiety to have the Church govern- 
 ed solely by Episcopal authority, in not obtruding her sanctions 
 upon the canons of discipline enacted by the Convocation or the 
 Bishops. Accordingly, when in 15G2 the Commons interfered 
 with the Church, by passing a bill ratifying the XXXIX Articles, 
 and then sent their bill up to the Lords ; she stopped its progress 
 before it had passed to the second reading, considering it, as she 
 said, (for it was all she could say to Parliament) an encroach- 
 ment upon her prerogative as supreme head of the Church. 
 Again, when in 1571 the Commons made a similar effort, the 
 following message was sent from the Lords to the Commons, 
 
 that the Queen's majesty having been made privy to the said 
 
 a 
 
Articles, liketh very well of them and mindeth to publish them, 
 and have them executed hy the Bishops, by direction of her 
 highness' regal authority of supremacy of the Church of England, 
 and not to have the same dealt in by Parliatnent.^^ And 
 on the other hand, as we have seen, the Advertisements of 1564 
 were enforced, under her command, solely by the authority of the 
 Church ; and in like manner the Canons of 1571. 
 
 These Canons have, moreover, ever since been esteemed as 
 authority, except by those persons who, agreeing with the infidel 
 Hobbes, suppose that the State is the Church, the " public 
 authority to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard," 
 (spoken of in Art. 23) " the authority of the State,"* and the 
 Bishops and Clergy, officials of the sovereign rather than Priests 
 of the Most High God. I was not therefore following Dr. 
 Pusey, as Dr. Durbin with characteristic cleverness insinuates, 
 when I appealed to the Canon in question. It was not he, who 
 led me to cite it, but the noble, learned, and saint-like Beveridge, 
 who died more than a century ago. It was the use he had made 
 of it in one of his sermons on the Church, which first impressed 
 my mind with its authority and forceful meaning. His words 
 are full of wisdom. 
 
 " Especially it concerns us who are to instruct others in the way to bliss, to 
 use none but sound words, such as are consonant to the Scriptures, as interpreted 
 by the Catholic Church in all ages. I speak not this of myself ; it is the express com- 
 mand of our Church in the Canons she put forth in the year 1571, where she 
 hath these words : Imprimis vero videbunt QCondonatores') &c., &c. [' But the 
 preachers shall in the first place see to it that they never teach anything in the 
 pulpit which they may wish to be religiously held and believed by the people, 
 except what is agreeable to the doctrines of the Old and New Testament, and 
 what the catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected out of that very 
 doctrine.'] So wisely hath our Church provided against novelties ; insomuch 
 that had this one rule been duly observed as it ought there would have been no 
 such thing as heresy or schism amongst us ; but we should all have continued 
 firm both to the doctrine and discipline of the Universal Church, and so should 
 have held fast the form of sound words, according to the Apostles' counsel."-)- 
 
 So much for the authority of the Canon of 1571 ; now for my 
 alleged use of it : I am asked — 
 
 * Durbin's Observations in Europe, vol. 2, p. 80, note. Has Dr. Durbin ever 
 read the Preface to the Ordinal ] 
 \ Beveridge's Sermons in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology, Sermon VI. 
 
 3 
 
26 
 
 " How could you venture to produce this Canon in support of one of the capital 
 errors of Popery, and this too when it was not designed to favour your interpre- 
 tation, but exactly the contrary, as would have appeared to your reader had you 
 quoted the whole of it, instead of quoting only so much as Dr. Pusey had pro- 
 duced in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford 1 The latter part of the Canon reads 
 thus: 'They [preachers] shall not teach vain and senseless opinions, and 
 heresies, and Popish errors,'* and this too at a time when Popish errors as now 
 were rife in the Church of England 1" 
 
 The amazing imbecility of this passage will save Dr. Durbin 
 from the retort it invites. My only answer therefore is, that I did 
 not quote the Canon in support of one of the capital errors of 
 " Popery," but to exhibit a fundamental principle of the Church 
 of England. Dr. Durbin, it seems, has not the ability to perceive 
 that because the Canon charges the clergy not to preach vain and 
 senseless opinions and Popish errors, and also, not to preach any 
 thing at any time, {ne quid U7iguam) but that which is agreeable 
 to the doctrine of the Old and New Testaments, and what the 
 Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected out of 
 that very doctrine ; therefore, what the Catholic Fathers taught 
 as Scriptural doctrine, is not "popish error;" following such 
 traditional teaching in obedience to the Canon is not "a capital 
 error of popery." I gave it no other interpretation than that 
 which every body gives it ; which every body must give it ; 
 which even Dr. Durbin gives it, in trying to impeach its authority. 
 The sum of my remarks was as follows : 
 
 " You must therefore perceive. Rev. Sir, that obedience on the part of Anglican 
 divines to the Canon of their Church is not to act inconsistently with the Vlth 
 Article. A recognition of the ' authority of the Church in controversies of faith,' 
 submission to what she 'enforces to be believed' as Scriptural truth, (Art. XX.) 
 preaching only what the catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have collected 
 out of Scripture does not deny but rather maintains that Holy Scripture con- 
 taineth all things necessary to salvation." 
 
 II. I now proceed to substantiate the ground I maintained in 
 
 * Why did not Dr. Durbin proceed with what he puts forth as his quotation, 
 and give what immediately follows as a contrast to " Popish errors," "nee omnino 
 quicquam," &c. &c. i. e., " Nor anything whatever whereby the ignorant multi- 
 tude may be incited to a fondness for novelty," &c. " Popery" was no novelty, 
 but Puritanism then was the novelty of the day. Perhaps Dr. D. quoted from 
 his " Confutation of Puseyism," which would explain all this and more besides. 
 
27 
 
 my Letter, on the means of Justification ; not that my position 
 needs any strengthening at all, but simply for the sake of de- 
 veloping the proofs I there advanced, that minds which have 
 been sophisticated by sectarian dogmas may be able, if possi- 
 ble, to see what is the Church's doctrine, and that it stands utterly 
 opposed to the teaching of Methodism. 
 
 Dr. Durbin begins his remarks on this subject in his usual ad 
 captandum style ; he places our Xlth Article side by side with his 
 own, and then bravely asks, " are they not identical ?" To be 
 sure they are in their letter (except that ours confesses itself to be 
 an incomplete statement, which his does not), and I never had 
 the stupidity to deny it. I discussed no such point as this, but 
 rather that his interpretation of the words " faith only," so as to 
 exclude not merely our own merits, but also all sacramental 
 media, whereby, solely for Christ's sake, and not for our works, 
 justification is given to faith ; gives a meaning to our Article 
 which neither its own text, nor Holy Writ, nor the Homily, nor 
 our Church's teaching elsewhere will warrant. All this I shall 
 prove as I proceed. 
 
 I stated as an undeniable fact, that the Article raised but one 
 point, viz. the ground or procuring cause {propter quod) of man's 
 justification ; to wit, the merits of Christ in opposition to our own 
 works or deservings. A man half blind can see this on reading 
 the English of the Article, but for the sake of those whose vision 
 is yet more obscure, I shall cite the Latin version (which is the 
 original draft) where the order of the words indicates the em- 
 phasis : "Tantum /jro/^^e/- meritum Domini ac Servatoris nostri 
 Jesu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera, et merita nostra, 
 justi coram Deo reputamur. Quare sola fide nos justificari," 
 &c. ; that is literally and in the same order, " Only /or the sake of 
 the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not 
 for the sake o/our works and merits, are we reputed just before 
 God. Wherefore that we are justified only by faith is a doctrine 
 most wholesome and full of comfort, as in the Homily concern- 
 ing the justification of man is more largely unfolded." The last 
 sentence of the Article is introduced by ^'^ wherefore,'" and conse- 
 quently it is a conclusion deduced from what goes before, thus 
 
28 
 
 showing that the words " we are justified only by faith," means 
 nothing more and nothing less than this, that " we are reputed 
 just only for the sake of the merit of our Lord, by faith, and not 
 for the sake of our works and merits. So much for the text of 
 the Article. But to put our Church's meaning of the words 
 " faith only," beyond dispute, I referred as the Article directs, to 
 the Homily, where the doctrine is more largely expressed, in 
 order to obtain its decisive judgment. In making this reference, 
 the opportunity occurred of giving an example of the Church's 
 use of her own prescribed rule of teaching, and accordingly I 
 said, " that Homily professes to deliver the doctrine as it had 
 always been received, by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church 
 Catholic," which shows ours is not the Lutheran doctrine. To 
 prove this assertion I quoted the words, " And after this manner 
 to be justified only by this true and lively faith, speak all the old 
 and ancient authors, both Greeks and. Latins." Hereupon Ur. 
 Durbin tries his skill in the construction of scare-crows, and pro- 
 ceeds to solicit the shame and grief of all good men for me, be- 
 cause I omitted the words " in Christ," after the word " faith" — 
 the merest accident, caused by my hastily following the usual 
 elliptical phrase, "justification by faith," wherein the Object of 
 faith is always understood and always omitted.* I do not believe 
 there are any good men so stupid as to feel any shame at all on 
 my account, though it is possible they may have some pity for Dr. 
 Durbin, for that he should say that I made this omission "to lead 
 the reader to the conclusion, that the faith was to be had in 
 Sacraments !" I take it upon me to say that a more preposterous 
 idea never entered into the mind of man. There never was a 
 man who believed that he was justified by faith in the Sacra- 
 ments ; and before Dr. Durbin arose, there never was a man who 
 believed there was any such nonsense possible. But this is not 
 all : he says that I " very carefully suppressed the quotations 
 which the Homily gives from Hilary Basil and Ambrose." Ex- 
 
 * I hope I shall not be charged with wilfully " causing shame and grief to all 
 good men" if I point to a similar oversight in the translation of our IXth Article. 
 It reads, "And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are 
 baptized," &c. The Latin is, " Et quanquam renatis et credentibus nulla propter 
 Christum est condemnatio ;" i. e. literally, " And although for Chrisfs sake, there 
 is no condemnation to them that are regenerate and believe." 
 
29 
 
 cellent ! And that when the passages from those Fathers simply 
 occupy the ground of the Article as I have interpreted it, viz. 
 opposing Christ's righteousness to man's; His merits to our 
 works. I did not cite these passages, because I had no occasion 
 whatever to quote the words of those saints. I referred to the 
 homily for the purpose of adducing its words alone ; and what- 
 ever the words of those Fathers may have been, the homily said, 
 (which was enough for me) that such and such was their mean- 
 ing, which is also the meaning of the homily. They said no 
 more nor less than this : — 
 
 "This saying that we are justified by faith only, freely and without works, is 
 spoken [i. e. by the fathers] for to take away clearly all merit of our works as 
 being unable to deserve our justification .... and therefore wholly to ascribe the 
 merit and deserving of our justification unto Christ only and His most precious 
 blood-shedding." 
 
 Dr. Durbin seems very indignant that I should imagine that 
 he and others who agree with him cannot, in their present cir- 
 cumstances, distinctly apprehend the doctrines of the Church. 
 But a more signal proof of the truth of my assertion there could 
 not be than the remarks he has made, and the quotations he has 
 adduced upon the subject of justification. It was no matter with 
 him that I maintained the doctrine of " justification by faith only" 
 in as strong terms as the Article ; that I said that faith* is the 
 sole means, the sole grace which qualified us for a participation 
 of the merits of our Lord ; that according to the homily " faith 
 only" is an exclusion of personal merit in the sinner, and of 
 course of his works, from being the procuring cause (propter 
 quod) of his justification; and an ascription of all desert to our 
 Lord and His Cross — no, all this amounts to nothing in Dr. Dur- 
 
 * The kind of faith here meant, I explained by this passage of the Homily: 
 "Nevertheless, this sentence that we be justified by faith only is not so meant of 
 them, (i. e. the Fathers) that the said justifying faith is alone in man, without 
 true repentance, hope, charity, dread, and the fear of God at any time and sea- 
 sons." That is, it is not bare faith, but what the Church writers call "fides form- 
 ata charitate" — and St. Paul, "faith which worketh by love." So also St. James: 
 « Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was his faith made 
 perfect." Ch. ii. 22. " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not 
 by faith only," v. 24. Yet St. James is far from saying that works deseiue our 
 justification, or that justification is any thing else than a gift of God's free mercy, 
 imparted to us, " only for the sake of the merits" of our Lord. 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 bin's eyes. He reiterates against nne quotations from the 
 Homilies, dressed up in capitals and italics, which prove just 
 what I have said, that we are "justified freely without works, 
 by faith only ;" thus giving his reader the idea that, so far from 
 maintaining, I had denied that cardinal proposition. Such is the 
 confusion which reigns in his mind on this subject, that although 
 every passage he quotes opposes faith to works and personal 
 merit, and to nothing else; yet he cannot divest himself of the 
 notion, that by the Xlth Article, " faith only" is opposed also to the 
 life-giving grace of the Sacraments, What is the consequence ? 
 Why the marvellous, the profane absurdity, of placing God's 
 gift of the new birth in Jesus Christ, and the Body and Blood, 
 the indwelling of the Incarnate Word, in the same category with 
 our works and personal virtues, our "repentance, hope, love, 
 fear and dread of God !" Accordingly, all his efforts go to prove 
 that the Church in teaching "justification by faith only" means 
 not simply "without our works or deservings," but also " by 
 faith without regeneration,^^ " by faith without the indwelling 
 and quickening spirit of the Second Adam," the " Word made 
 flesh :" for these are the gifts conveyed by the Sacraments. Such 
 is the consequence of Dr. Durbin's reasoning, if reasoning it may 
 be called. It matters not that he does not believe there is any 
 such grace given by Sacraments ; it matters not that the Sacra- 
 ments, so to speak, of his Society, are, consistently with his 
 religious theory, man's works and not God's, and therefore 
 are, agreeably to his Article, excluded from the means of justi- 
 fication, as being properly opposed to faith ; — the Church teaches 
 very differently of her Sacraments, and he knows it ; and in 
 quoting the language of the Church, he should, by all that is due 
 to justice and truth, interpret it according to her usage, and not 
 by the principles of Methodism. 
 
 After I had thus proved that the Homily, by the words " faith 
 only" simply meant to shut out personal merit in the sinner, and 
 not God's gifts from the means of justification (an absurdity which, 
 as I have shown, would be equivalent to saying, that we are 
 justifiable by faith only without the grace of justification); and 
 had adverted also to the fact that that doctrine of "justification 
 by faith only" which has always been received in the Church 
 
31 
 
 Catholic, was the doctrine which the Homily professed to teach 
 — I asked in my Letter, 
 
 "What authority, therefore, has any one for saying that our Xlth Article ex- 
 cludes the Sacraments from being God's means and instruments for conveying 
 justifying grace to the penitent believer] "Was not the Sacramental system 
 maintained in its fullest vigor by all those Catholic Fathers to whom the Homily 
 appeals (from Origen to SS. Anselm and Bernard*) as having taught justifi- 
 cation by faith only 1 This of course is undeniable ; and therefore quite con- 
 sistently does the same Homily recognize the Sacsamentsf as instrumental 
 means of justification. (See also Art. XXVII.) It says, "Infants being baptized 
 are by this sacrifice (i. e. of the Cross) washed from their sins [brought to God's 
 favour and made His children and inheritors of His kingdom. And they which in 
 act or deed, do sin after Baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they 
 are likeivise (i. e. as formerly by Baptism, so now Sacramentally) washed by this 
 sacrifice from their sinsi;] ; and again, " our oflice is not to pass the time of this 
 present life unfruitfully or idly, after that we are baptized m- justified, much less 
 after that we be made Christ's members to live contrary to the same, making 
 ourselves members of the devil." 
 
 Of this passage Dr. Durbin remarks, 
 
 " I have carefully examined and compared the Homily with your views of it, 
 and extracts from it, and I confess that I feel sorrow (1) at what you have done. 
 You have endeavoured to sustain your doctrine of Sacramental justification by 
 this Homily ; when it does not make even an indirect allusion to that doctrine. If the 
 Homily make such an allusion, I challenge you to show where and in what." i 
 
 Brave words ! The reader who remembers, that in the pas- 
 sages just quoted from the Homily, and which were " carefully 
 examined,'' it is said that infants baptized are, by the sacrifice 
 of the Cross, washed from their sins, brought into God's favour, 
 made His children and inheritors of His kingdom; that "our 
 office is not to pass the time of this present life idly after that we 
 are baptized or justified (where baptism and justification are in- 
 terchangeable equivalents for the same thing); will perhaps be led 
 to doubt whether Dr. Durbin knows that Baptism is a Sacrament. 
 
 The reason is now apparent why it was that I said I could not 
 
 * i. e. down to the 12th century. 
 
 f If one Sacrament be recognized, the other is also ; for they both convey 
 similar though not altogether the same gifts. By one we are made members of 
 Christ, and by the other he dwells in us ; and both are for the remission of sins. 
 
 t This passage in brackets was for the sake of brevity omitted in my Letter. 
 The explanation I give in the parenthesis is justified as well by the laws of 
 grammar as by the prayer in the Communion office ; " Grant us therefore so to 
 eat the flesh of thy dear Son, and to drink His blood, that our sinful bodies may 
 be made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most precious 
 Blood," &c. 
 
32 
 
 treat of the Church's doctrine of justification without taking into 
 view the Sacraments ; especially when I was obliged to consider 
 that doctrine relatively to what the Methodists maintained. And 
 herein I shall prove that I was moving directly in the line marked 
 out for me as well by the Church as Holy Scripture. 
 
 Is the remission of sins an element of justification ? All 
 agree that it is, and some maintain that that is all. It is 
 an Article of the Creed, " I acknowledge one Baptism ybr the 
 the remission of sins." In our Baptismal oifice we pray for the 
 Candidate that he coming to Holy baptism, may receive remis- 
 sion of sin by spiritual regeneration. After he is baptized the 
 minister says, "seeing now dearly beloved that this person is 
 regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us 
 give thanks," &c. So too the Homilies besides the passages 
 already quoted : " Yea we be therefore washed in baptism from 
 the filthinesss of sin, that we should live afterwards in pureness 
 of life." 2 B. 13, pt. 1. So too St. Peter, in the first sermon ever 
 preached in the Church : " Repent and be baptized in the name 
 of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
 the gift of the Holy Ghost." And such also was the express 
 word of Ananias to penitent Saul, "Arise and be baptized and 
 wash away thy sins.^' Again, are we justified by being taken 
 out of the world and from our condemned relationship with the 
 old Adam, and translated into God's kingdom, and made mem- 
 bers of Christ by the Holy Ghost ? See the Baptismal service 
 every where. And the Catechism : " in Baptism wherein I was 
 made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven." So too the Homily ; " by holy pro- 
 mises we be made lively members of Christ when we profess His 
 religion, receiving the Sacrament of Baptism." 1 B. 7. And as 
 before, " Infants being baptized .... are brought into God's 
 favour, made His children and inheritors of His kingdom in Hea- 
 ven." So St. Paul; "'ye are all children of God by faith in 
 Christ Jesus, for as many of you as have been baptized into 
 Christ have put on Christ ;" and again, " ye are washed, ye are 
 sanctified, ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and 
 by the Spirit of our God ;" and again, " By one Spirit are we 
 all baptized into one Body." Is a participation of the merito- 
 rious death and resurrection of our Lord, justification .'* See 
 
33 
 
 the Baptismal Office, where, in the thanksgiving for the grace the 
 person has just received in the Sacrament, it is said, "We be- 
 seech thee to grant that he being dead unto sin, and living unto 
 righteousness, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the 
 whole body of sin." So also the Catechism says, " the inward 
 grace received in Holy Baptism, is a death unto sin and a new 
 birth nnto righteousness.'^ And St. Paul : " Know ye not that 
 so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ ivere baptized 
 into his death ? Therefore we are buried with Him, by bap- 
 tism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by 
 the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
 of life." (Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; and (in verse 7,) speaking of those who 
 are thus dead unto sin, he says, " for he that is dead is justified 
 from sin." In a word, is justification that unspeakable saving 
 gift of God which is bestowed upon us, not for our works of right- 
 eousnes, but of His mercy through Christ our Lord ? Hear then 
 St. Paul; "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, 
 but according to His mercy. He saved us by the luashing 
 {hM-Kwitpov^ by means of the laver, or font) of regeneration, and the 
 renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly 
 through Jesus Christ our Saviour, that being justified by His 
 grace we might be made heirs of eternal life." 
 Dr. Durbin asks : 
 
 " How could you dare to say that these same Fathers [from Origen to St. Ber- 
 nard] taught the ' Sacramental system,' and ' therefore the Homily consistently 
 recognizes the Sacraments as instrumental means of justification V The 
 Homily says they taught the doctrine of ' Sacramental justification.' Both can- 
 not be true." 
 
 Both are true; and the evidence I have just adduced both from 
 our Church's standards and Holy Scripture, proves it, demon- 
 strates it. Was not St. Paul justified by faith only .5* And were 
 not his sins washed away by baptism ? Were not the converts 
 on the great feast of Pentecost justified by faith only ? And 
 were they not baptized for the remission of sins and the gift of 
 the Holy Ghost? But it is true that neither St. Paul nor St. Peter, 
 nor the Fathers knew any thing of such a doctrine as that taught 
 by the Methodists; of which Dr. Durbin rightly judges that it 
 
 * i. e. our Church explains the formula, « only for the sake of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ by faith, and not for the sake of our own works or merits." 
 
34 
 
 cannot be true, if the Sacraments be means of justification, as 
 I have shown them to be. And accordingly the Methodists 
 never hear their religious teachers announce the doctrine and 
 gospel of the Apostles. Did a Methodist ever exhort any- 
 body to be baptized for the remission of his sins and the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost ? Never ! Did a Methodist ever de- 
 liver such a message as that of Ananias to Saul, "be baptized 
 and wash away thy sins ?" Never ! such doctrine never escapes 
 their lips. Their teachers are not able to enunciate such truth, 
 for if they did it would overthrow their whole system. They 
 have a mode of proceeding totally different, one too unknown to 
 the Apostles, to the Fathers, and to the Church of Christ. They 
 ask the astounding question, " Have you experienced the pardon 
 of sin !" And they thus make \\\%\\ feeling, that which is their 
 own, take the place of the Holy Sacraments which our Lord 
 has made the Avitnesses and seals and pledges of the grace He 
 bestows. Was a Methodist ever told that the reason why he 
 should not sin is, that by his baptism he was baptized into 
 Christ's death ? Never ! such awful conclusions from the won- 
 derful mystery of Holy Baptism as are to be seen in the sixth 
 chapter of Romans, are never heard from a Methodist pulpit, 
 nor seen written in their books. The Lutheran dogma of jus- 
 tification virtually blots out from their Bibles the doctrine of the 
 Apostles, and veils from their eye-sight the teaching inspired by 
 the Holy Ghost. " He that hath ears to hear, let him hear !" 
 
 Let it not be supposed that a participation of such unspeakable 
 grace as the Church teaches is conveyed by Sacraments, will 
 ipso facto save a man. Minds filled with Lutheran and Calvin- 
 istic notions are accustomed to draw this conclusion ; but this only 
 shows their inability, while their minds are thus sophisticated, to 
 apprehend the doctrine of the Church. They take one premiss 
 from the Catholic system, and the other from their own ; and the 
 monstrous hybrid offspring of such an argument, they try to father 
 on the Church. Nevertheless, our doctrine is most simple, and 
 adapted to the minds of little children ; but at the same time the 
 capacity of a Newton may fail to apprehend it. It is a law of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven, that its mysteries are hid from the wise 
 and prudent, and revealed unto babes. " Even so Father ! for so 
 
35 
 
 it seemed good in thy sight." The parables of our Lord illus- 
 trate the Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven. The soul of each 
 child of Adam on passing from the world into thp Communion 
 of Saints is a well filled and lighted lamp, which it is his glorious 
 calling to keep filled, and trimmed, and burning, till the Bride- 
 groom's coming. And this can he do, and will he do, if he be 
 '' wise," But if he be " foohsh" and improve not his privileges 
 in the Kingdom of Heaven, and so suffer his lamp to go out, the 
 glorious coming of the Bridegroom will bring him nothing but 
 woe. He will not only lose all he had, but besides that he will 
 be punished for losing it. The gift of Holy Baptism thus be- 
 comes the basis of all the Christian's responsibilities. Their 
 foundation is Grace. The Jew could look no farther than the 
 Law, for the ground of moral obligation ; nor the heathen beyond 
 the law of nature. But St. Paul says to those " baptized into 
 Christ," "Ye are not under the Law, but under grace ;" "yield 
 yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and 
 your members as instruments of righteousness unto God." Work 
 out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God 
 who worketh in you to will and to do of His good pleasure ; and 
 again, " in Baptism ivherein we are risen with Him ... if ye 
 then be risen with Christ — seek those things which are above." 
 The harmony between the facts that we are justified by faith 
 only and at the same time by the grace given in Sacraments, 
 (because the grace thus given is the reward vouchsafed to faith) 
 it is to be hoped, may now be distinctly seen. And therefore, I 
 shall bring the discussion of this matter to a close, with an illus- 
 tration afforded by the Gospels. I refer to the case of the woman 
 who was cured of an issue of blood by touching the border of 
 our Lord's garment. " Jesus said, somebody hath touched me, 
 for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me." . . . And He said 
 to the woman, " Daughter, be of good comfort, thy faith hath 
 made thee whole." Now I put the question to those who say 
 that " we cannot be justified or saved by faith only, and by the 
 Sacraments also ;" was it the " virtue" which flowed out of our 
 Lord's Person through the border of His garment, or was it the 
 woman's faith, that made her whole ? Is one opposed to the 
 other ? Are not both true .'' Assuredly they are. So also is it 
 
36 
 
 in the salvation of man. The Person of our Lord, God and Man, 
 is the source of that Ufe and grace which regenerates, renews, 
 justifies, and sanctifies us ; and which at the last day will quicken 
 our mortal bodies into life again, and make them like His own 
 glorious Body. " His life is the well-spring and cause of ours." 
 " He that hath the Son hath life." The living branches of the 
 True Vine partake of its sap and verdure ; the members of His 
 Body share in His fulness. " In Him dwelleth all the fulness of 
 the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete (jtsmripufiivov made full) 
 in Him who is the Head, buried with Him in Baptism, wherein 
 also ye are risen with Him, through the faith of God's operation." 
 The Sacraments instituted by Himself are to us, what His garment 
 was to the woman. He is hid in them. They are the means and 
 channels through which His life-giving grace flows into us ; and 
 faith as with the woman, is that which makes man susceptible of 
 this grace, the subjective means of partaking of it, as the Sacra- 
 ments are the objective means of conveying it. Or in the words 
 of the great Hooker, " that saving grace which Christ originally 
 is or hath for His people, by Sacraments He severally deriveth 
 into every member thereof Sacraments serve as the instruments 
 of God to that]end and purpose." .... " We receive Christ Jesus 
 in Baptism once as the first beginner, in the Eucharist often 
 being by continual degrees the finisher of our life." 
 
 I wish that I might here take leave of this subject. It is ex- 
 ceedingly irksome to be obliged again to go over the ground 
 which I occupied in my Letter to Dr. Durbin, in order to prove 
 that Methodism is at utter variance with the Church on this 
 fundamental point ; which, as I am happy to acknowledge, he 
 agrees with me in saying, decides every thing in controversy. I 
 thought I had brought the matter to the crucial test, when I cited 
 our Article " Of sin after Baptism" as having been entitled by 
 the Methodists, (in order to make it suit their religion) " Of 
 Sin after Justification." And here a theologian would have 
 seen that the question was settled by the documentary evidence 
 furnished by the Methodists on the one hand, and by our Church 
 on the other. What are the words of that Article ? As Dr. 
 Durbin is fond of seeing our respective Articles printed side by 
 side, I may as well gratify him here. 
 
37 
 
 OF SIX AFTER BAPTISM. 
 
 Not every deadly sin (^Non omne 
 pcccatum mortale) willingly committed 
 after Baptism, is sin against the Holy 
 Ghost and unpardonable. Wherefore 
 the grant of repentance is not to be 
 denied to such as fall into sin after 
 Baptism. After we have received the Holy 
 Ghost, we may depart from grace given, 
 and fall into sin, and by the grace of God 
 (we may) arise again and amend our 
 lives. And therefore they are to be 
 condemned, which say, they can no 
 more sin as long as they live here, or 
 deny the place of forgiveness to such 
 as truly repent. 
 
 OF SIN AFTER JUSTIFICATIOX. 
 
 >iot every sin willingly committed 
 after Justification is the sin against the 
 Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. Where- 
 fore the grant of repentance is not to be 
 denied to such as fall info sin after 
 Justification ; after we have received the 
 Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace 
 given and fall into sin, and by the grace 
 of God rise again and amend our lives. 
 And therefore they are to be condemned 
 who say they can no more sin as long 
 as they live here ; or deny the place of 
 forgiveness to such as truly repent. 
 
 The variations in the text of the Methodist Article, other than 
 the change of the word "Baptism" to "Justification," however 
 significant, do not interfere with the argument I deduce from 
 its title. It is plain, that language which our Church adopts 
 in respect to Baptism, the Methodists cannot use without 
 applying it to their doctrine of justification ; thus denying for 
 themselves, that justification is the grace of Baptism, and assert- 
 ing that the Church teaches, that it is the same. Very consistently 
 does Dr. Durbin assert, that these are " two totally distinct points, 
 and so expressly declared in the titles of the two Articles." But 
 who made them distinct ? That is the question. That they are 
 distinct in his system, was the fact that I cited the Articles to 
 prove ; and that very distinction shows the opposition that 
 exists between Methodism and the Church on this fundamental 
 point. And yet he strangely says, after many words of no 
 importance, about my not meeting the question "directly and 
 frankly," "subterfuge and vacillation," "false issues," (!) "adroit 
 substitutions," and the like : 
 
 " All that j'ou have said, therefore, of the inconsistency of Methodism touching 
 the Sacrament of Baptism falls to the ground ; for it is predicated of our Article Of 
 Sin after Justification, and not of our Article Of Baptism nor of our baptismal 
 service, both of which are taken from the Church of England. But the whole 
 of these injurious blunders arise from" 
 
 Dr. Durbin's own brain. As to what he says, of my not taking 
 into view his baptismal service, I beg to refer, in contradicting his 
 
 4 
 
38 
 
 assertion, to pp. 16, 17, 18, of my Letter, where I pointed out 
 and proved from his baptismal service, its doctrinal variation 
 from our own. And as to his article Of Baptism, I did not refer 
 to that, simply because I thought that after a point was once 
 proved, nothing more need be said about it. It seems however, 
 that I set too high an estimate upon his theological discernment, 
 and therefore to accommodate him, I suppose I must, even at the 
 risk of taxing the reader's patience, refer to his Article of Baptism. 
 But let us first fix our eyes upon the point whence the broad 
 line of division is here drawn, that so we may follow it up con- 
 tinuously. On reference to the Article Of Sin after Baptism, 
 quoted above, it will be seen that it distinctly recognizes the 
 doctrine of spiritual regeneration, and of justification, in Baptism. 
 Its words are, " after we have received the Holy Ghost we may 
 depart from grace given, and fall into sin;" this being equiva- 
 lent to saying, that " after Baptism we may depart from grace 
 given," &c. It is this doctrine of Regeneration which the 
 Methodists do not hold ; and as it is this which makes the great 
 difference between sins before, and sins after Baptism, the 
 Methodists do not, and while they are Methodists they cannot 
 recognize any difierence between such sins ; nor correspondingly, 
 any difference between works performed before, and after Bap- 
 tism.* The Methodist Article of Baptism will show the same doc- 
 trinal variation ; that is, that they do not agree with the Church 
 as to what that Sacrament is, and of what it is the means. 
 
 THE METHODIST ARTICLE. OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Baptism is not only a sign of profes- 
 
 ART. XXVII. OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Baptism is not only a sign of profes- 
 sion, and mark of difference whereby 
 Christian men are discerned from others 
 that be not christened, but is also a sign 
 of Regeneration or New Birth, whereby 
 as by an instrument, they that receive 
 Baptism rightly are grafted into the 
 
 sion and mark of difference whereby 
 Christians are distinguished from others 
 that are not baptized ; but it is also a 
 sign of regeneration or new birth. The 
 Baptism of young children is to be re- 
 tained in the Church. 
 
 * For the Church's doctrine of the efficacy of Christian works, the Xlth Homily 
 of the second Book, entitled. Of jlhns-Decds, may be advantageously consulted. 
 The doctrine there stated at length is very different from what is now commonly 
 received ; but as this is a point which does not enter into my present subject I 
 pass it by. It should be remembered that Bp. Jewell had a great hand in setting 
 forth the 2nd Book of Homilies, which the Articles also seem to prefer to the 
 first Book. 
 
39 
 
 Church; the promises of the forgive- 
 ness of sin, and of our adoption to be 
 Sons of God, (in filios Dei, among the 
 sons of God) are visibly signed and 
 sealed ; faith is confirmed, and grace 
 increased by virtue of Prayer unto God. 
 The Baptism of young children is in 
 anywise to be retained in the Church as 
 most agreeable with the institution of 
 Christ. 
 
 Let the reader mark the spot where the Methodists have 
 stopped short, m trying to follow our Article ; it is at the very 
 point where the Church goes on to say what Baptism is the 
 means of. And this omission coincides with their doctrine that 
 persons are admitted into the Church, not by Baptism, as the 
 Apostles taught, but by "joining class." So speaks the "Disci- 
 pline :" " Let none be received mto the church, until they are 
 recommended by a leader with whom they have met at least 
 six months on trial, and have been baptized ;" &.c. So we learn 
 what INIethodists mean, when they talk so loudly about the Bible, 
 as their " only rule of faith and practice ;" they intend very in- 
 nocently to say, that "they follow the Book of Discipline instead." 
 
 A comparison of the Articles on the all important doctrine of 
 Original sin (on which if a man err, he errs throughout the 
 whole plan of salvation by Christ) will reveal the same point of 
 departure from the faith, and very much else which it is beside 
 my present purpose to notice. 
 
 ARTICLE IX. 
 
 Original sin standeth not in the fol- 
 lowing of Adam, (as the Pelagians do 
 vainly talk;) but it is the fault and 
 corruption of the nature of every man 
 that naturally is engendered of the off- 
 spring of Adam, whereby man is very 
 far gone from original righteousness, 
 and is 'of his own nature inclined to 
 evil, so that the flesh lusteth always 
 contrary to the spirit; and therefore, 
 in every person born into this world 
 it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. 
 And this infection of nature doth re- 
 main, yea, in them that are regenerated ; 
 whereby the lust of the flesh called in' 
 
 METHODIST ARTICLE. 
 
 Original sin standeth not in the fol- 
 lowing of Adam, (as the Pelagians do 
 vainly talk,) but it is the corruption of 
 the nature of every man, that naturally 
 is engendered of the offspring of Adam, 
 whereby man is very far gone from 
 original righteousness, and is of his 
 own nature inclined to evil, and that 
 continually. 
 
40 
 
 Greek ^p6vt;ixa oapxoj which some do 
 expound the wisdom, some sensuality, 
 some the affection, some the desire of 
 the flesh, is not subject to the Law of 
 God. And although there is no con- 
 demnation for them that believe and are 
 baptized ; yet the Apostle doth confess 
 that concupiscence and lust hath of itself 
 the nature of sin. 
 
 The Church's doctrine of regeneration is recognized in this Arti- 
 cle, as indeed it must always be where the doctrine of original sin 
 is fully stated. But the Methodists have omitted that very portion 
 which speaks of regeneration. The words, "to them who believe 
 and are bapitzed," are the equivalents to these from the Latin ver- 
 sion: " renatiset credentibus,^' literally, " to the regenerated and 
 believers." But notwithstanding all this documetary evidence, Dr. 
 Durbin has the extraordinary boldness to assert, that the doctrine 
 of Baptism is " the same in both Churches !" His proof is this, 
 (and let the reader who has observed the difference in the two 
 Articles of Baptism, mark it ;) " Every word of our seventeenth 
 Article of Baptism being taken from the English Article of Bap- 
 tism." Is not this rare logic ? With as much truth might he 
 have said, that the Bible and the Nicene Symbol both teach the 
 Creed of the Deist, because they both speak of " One God the 
 Father Almighty."* 
 
 * The following amazing words are found on p. 7 of Dr. Durbin's Letter. He is 
 speaking of his " Christian Communion of more than a million of members," and 
 says to me, it " derived its ordination [see Appendix B.] Articles of Religion, and 
 Sacramental services from the same source as your own and in the same language. 
 I say in the same language, notwithstanding you have by a careful collation, found 
 verbal alterations (?) in two or three instances (!)" Again, in a note he goes on in 
 the same reckless style : "The differences between the Articles and Services which 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church has taken from the Church of England, and 
 those of the Church are scarcely greater in reality than the differences between 
 those of the Protestant Episcopal Church and the Church of England. In both 
 cases the differences have mainly arisen from circumstances, the occasional 
 variation in the meaning of words, and the more settled sense affixed to the 
 same. There is no essential difference in the fundamental doctrines of the three 
 churches ; examples of which" 
 
 The reader has seen to tell a story very different from that which Dr. Durbin 
 would impose upon him. And here is somewhat more : 
 
 Besides the doctrinal variations in the Articles which have been noted in the text, 
 
41 
 
 III. The third and last topic before me is the Holy Eucharist. 
 I proceed then to establish, not by a reference to the opinions of 
 individuals, but by an appeal to documentary evidence, as I have 
 done all along, the fundamental opposition between Methodism 
 
 the Methodists have stricken out bodily the following doctrinal Articles of the 
 Church of England, to wit, the 3d, Of Christ's descent into Hell. 8th, Of the Creeds. 
 15th, Of Christ alone without sin, in which the doctrine of regeneration appears. 17th, 
 Of Predestination and Election, wherein the school of Tillotsoii and Burnet 
 would be glad to follow them. 18th, Of obtaining Eternal Salvation only by the 
 name of Chtist, which bears hard upon Methodists, anathematizing those that 
 " presume to say that every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he 
 professeth." 23rd, Of ministering in the Congregation (ecclesia) which is also a 
 condemnation of the Methodists and of Wesley's mock ordinations. 26th, Of 
 the univorthiness of Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments, wherein 
 was scented something of the " Opus Operatum." 29th, Of the wicked which eat not 
 the Body of Christ [in the use of the Lord's Slipper] : the words in brackets are not in 
 the Latin title. In addition to all this they have changed the title and first words 
 of 32d, Of the marriage of Priests, (Sacerdotum) which corresponds with their re- 
 jection of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. They have also altered the title of the 34th, 
 " Of the traditions of the Church," into " Rights and Ceremonies of Churches," and the 
 passage, " Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, 
 doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church," into " the rites and cere- 
 monies of the Church to which he belongs." The Church of England knows of 
 butfone Church, "The one Catholic and Apostolic Church," and legitimate 
 national branches of the same. See the title-page of the Book of Common Prayer. 
 The Methodists consider all religious worshipping bodies. Churches, in the proper 
 sense, because they call themselves " Churches." Schism is a sin which cannot 
 coexist with their vaunted right of " private judgment." It is nevertheless de- 
 nounced by the Apostles.* 
 
 Now all these repudiated Articles have been retained by the Church in this 
 country. The only changes made in the English Articles, are, 1st, the striking out 
 the name of the Athanasian Creed from Art. 8, because that Creed was, to our un- 
 speakable regret thrown out of the Morning Service, on account of its damnatory 
 clauses ; and that, from the same mistaken tenderness which led our first infor- 
 mal Convention to publish a set of Articles which omitted all condemnation of 
 Roman Errors : 2d, the 21st Article about " the authority of General councils," 
 which, because of its local and civil nature, its words about " the will of 
 Princes," it would have been improper to retain in this country. 3rd, We made 
 a new Article " of the power of the civil magistrate," which was necessarj', 
 inasmuch as we had nothing to do with "the King's Majesty." This new Article 
 omits saying anything of the Bishop of Rome. Our church does not decide 
 where or where not he hath jurisdiction. 
 
 Our Baptismal Offices are identical with the English, but the Methodists 
 
 * See Appendix A. 
 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 and the Church on this vital point. I stated in my Letter that 
 the Methodists rejected those two characteristics of that great 
 Mystery, which the Church has always maintained, viz. " that it is 
 an oblation to God the Father and a real and spiritual commu- 
 nication of Christ's Body and Blood to worthy receivers." The 
 first, I went on to say, "is recognized in the prayer for the Church 
 militant, previous to which the Priest is directed to place the alms 
 and elements on the Altar; immediately after which God is be- 
 sought to accept the alms and the oblations and prayers." Here- 
 upon Dr. Durbin is pleased modestly to remark, not only that I 
 have totally mistaken my own Church's doctrine of the Eucharist; 
 but he adds further on, 
 
 "I know not whether to suppose your want of discernment or to doubt your 
 candour, in }'our attempt to make the reader of your Letter believe that the obla- 
 tion of the elements to God the Father is found in the prayer for the Church 
 militant. There is not one word in that prayer to countenance it : but expressly the 
 contrary." 
 
 As I am not in the least concerned about his thoughts of 
 my discernment, or his doubts of my candour, I shall pro- 
 ceed at once to establish my assertion by proof. Even Bur- 
 net,* who very naturally is quite a favourite with Dr. Durbin, 
 
 have essentially altered the same, as I have elsewhere shown. Our Liturgy 
 of the Holy Communion varies from the English in containing a fuller 
 expression of the doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice ; and in having the 
 ancient Invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the Elements, in which feature it 
 agrees M'ith the Oriental and some other Liturgies, and differs from the English 
 and Roman. The Methodist " Communion Service " is such a perfect monster 
 of deformity, that I need say nothing else about it. 
 
 Now when one bears all these things in mind, and hears it said that the differ- 
 ences between the Articles and Services which the " Methodist Episcopal 
 Church" has taken from the Church of England, and those of the Church, are 
 scarcely greater in reality than the differences between those of the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church and the Church of England — one is seriously led to inquire 
 what, in the eye and mind of Dr. Durbin, does constitute a fact ? 
 
 * The Church never has been satisfied with Burnet's Exposition of the Ar- 
 ticles. At the Convocation of 1700 the lower house thus expressed their opin- 
 ion of it: 
 
 "Whereas a book hath been lately published, entitled, 'An exposition of the 
 XXXIX Articles of the Church of England, by Gilbert, Lord Bishop of Sarum,' 
 
43 ^ 
 
 (as is also the heretic VVhately) with all his latitudinarian bias, and 
 his low lifeless Arminianism, might have told him, that, besides 
 the propriety of the Eucharist's being called a sacrifice in two 
 senses which he names, " in two other respects it may be also more 
 strictly called a sacrifice. One is because there is an oblation 
 of bread and wine nnade in itr (And in the English Liturgy 
 of which Burnet is speaking, there is no other verbal oblation 
 but that in the prayer for the Church.) " Another respect in which 
 
 which the author declares to have passed the perusal of both the Archbishops, 
 and several Bishops and other learned divines, and suggests their approbation 
 of it; and whereas we think it our duty as much as in us lies, to secure the 
 doctrines contained in those Articles, from any attempts that may be made 
 against them, we most humbly offer to your grace and your Lordships the sense 
 of this house, which is as follows : 
 
 1. "That the said book tends to introduce such a latitude and diversity of 
 opinions, as the Articles were framed to avoid. 
 
 2. "That there are many passages in the exposition of several Articles which 
 appear to be contrary to the true meaning of them, and to other received doc 
 trines of our Church. 
 
 3. "That there are some things in the said book which seem to us to be of 
 dangerous consequence to the Church of England, as by law established, and to 
 derogate from the honour of its reformation. 
 
 " All of which particulars we humbly lay before your Lordships, praying 
 your opinion herein." — 
 
 This document however, of course was not acceptable to the Bishops, for rea- 
 sons, which every one acquainted with the history of those times would be at no 
 loss to imagine. See Cardwell's Synodalia, p. 704. 
 
 As to the present notorious Archbishop of Dublin (whose name on several 
 accounts I have not unreasonably coupled with that of Burnet), his heresy is 
 known as widely as his name. In the Appendix to his logic he has distinctly 
 taught Sabellianism, thus considering our Blessed Lord little else than an ab- 
 straction ; and in his sermons this heresy appears in a still more revolting form. 
 Thus he says explicitly, (pp. 51, 52) " We differ from the worshippers of a 
 graven image, or of a fire in this, the essential circumstance, that their worship is 
 
 unauthorized, presumptuous, and vain, while ours is divinely appointed 
 
 But the kind of adoration which idolators pay to their images so far corresponds to 
 tlie Christians' to our Lord Jesus Christ, that we might very reasonably and intelligibly 
 describe Him by that term." See British Critic, No. 64, p. 396. 
 
 Dr. Durbin and others may rest assured that writers of this stamp give no 
 "trouble" whatever to the Catholic-minded members of the Church, beyond the 
 fact, which is indeed a solemn one, that they mourn over a church which is 
 cursed with such a head. 
 
44 
 
 the Eucharist is called a sacrifice is, that it is a commemoration 
 
 and a representation to God, of the sacrifice that Christ offered 
 
 for us on the cross." I do not, however, wish to refer to the 
 
 authority of Bishop Burnet, on this or any other doctrine : 
 
 Non tali auxilio nee defensoribus istis 
 Tempus eget. 
 
 I have no occasion to look beyond the letter of our Church's 
 own formularies. In the first place then, the prayer in question, 
 like all other prayers in the Liturgy of the Holy Communion, is, 
 in accordance with unvarying Catholic usage, addressed distinctly 
 and intentionally to the First Person in the adorable Trinity ; 
 consequently, since the prayer does contain an oblation, the offer- 
 ing is made to God the Father. Secondly, as to what the word 
 " oblations" refers to, I asserted, that it meant the sacramental 
 elements on the altar ; and in proof I bring the fact that the word 
 " oblations" was inserted in that prayer, in addition to the word 
 " alms," at the very time the following rubric was prefixed, " ^nd 
 the Priest shall then place upon the table so much Bread and 
 TVine as he shall think sufficient. Jifter which he shall say* Let us 
 pray," &c. Consequently, the intention of the rubric and the mean- 
 ing of the word " oblations" are apparent each from the other. 
 Thirdly, the custom of the Church in the use of the prayer, goes to 
 establish the same. When the offertory is used without a commu- 
 nion, (which is obligatory every Sunday in England, though it is 
 discretionary with us) the passage is read thus, " we beseech Thee 
 most mercifully to accept these our alms, and receive these our 
 prayers ;" or, if it should so happen that no alms are collected at a 
 communion, it is read " accept these our oblations ;" or finally, if 
 the prayer is used without the offertory, when " there are no alms 
 or oblations," as it sometimes is, it is read, " We beseech thee to 
 receive these our prayers." 
 
 When therefore Dr. Durbin goes on to say : 
 
 " Now leaving out the words ' to accept our alms and oblations, and' when there 
 are no alms or other devotions of the people to be offered to God, the elements 
 alone remain," 
 
 he is imagining a case which never exists. The word " ob- 
 • See Wheatly on the Common Prayer, ch. 6, § 10, III. 
 
45 ^ 
 
 lations" never is omitted at a communion, and cannot be without 
 a violation of the order of the Church. 
 
 The " devotions of the people," refer to the Minister's dues ; 
 and are properly coupled with the alms— both being required to 
 be collected in a " decent basin." They are all one with the 
 alms except as to their object. This part of the rubric has in- 
 deed no significance in the Church in this country, but was once 
 observed in England. Wheatly says of it : — 
 
 « It was with an eye I suppose to this difference [that is, among the offertory 
 sentences, some of which refer to the poor, and some to the minister of the altar] 
 that in the last review there was a distinction made in the rubric that follow 
 these sentences, between alms for the poor and other devotions of the people. In 
 the old common prayer there was only mention made of the latter of these, as 
 appears from its being ordered to be put into the poor man's box. But then the 
 clergy were included in other words which ordered that upon the offering days 
 appointed every man and woman should pay to the curate the due and accustomed offer- 
 ings. . . . Now indeed whilst they have a stated and legal income, the money 
 collected at those times is generally appropriated to the poor, not but that where 
 the stated income of the parish is not sufficient to maintain the clergy, they have 
 
 still a right to claim their share in these offerings." 
 
 I asserted also that " this oblation of the elements was repeated 
 in the prayer of consecration ;" to this it is replied, " there is no 
 offering of the elements in the prayer of consecration in the sense 
 of a sacrifice to God the Father ;" as if an oblation did not carry 
 with it, necessarily, the " sense of sacrifice." This blundering 
 over plain English, this violence done to language whose mean- 
 ing is fixed, consecrated by immemorial usage, ought certainly 
 to have suggested to him some " doubts" rather of his own "dis- 
 cernment and candor" than mine. But no — he goes on to venture 
 his rash criticisms upon the prayer of consecration. That prayer 
 begins with a recital of the facts, of the "One Oblation once offered 
 on the Cross," and of " the institution of the perpetual memory of 
 that sacrifice until His coming again." Then follows the conse- 
 cration of the elements, and then the oblation, named as such in 
 the margin, as follows : 
 
 " The Oblation. Wherefore O Lord and Heavenly Father, according to the insti- 
 tutions of Thy dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ, we, Thy humble servants, do 
 celebrate and make here before Thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which 
 we now OFFER unto Thee, the memorial Thy Son hath commanded us to make." 
 
 In copying a portion of this passage. Dr. Durbin inserted in 
 
46 
 
 brackets after the word "memorial," the words, "not the sacri- 
 fice" — as if the oblation unto God the Father, of His holy gifts 
 were not the sacrifice commemorative and representative to 
 Him of the One Oblation on the Cross ; as if this were not 
 the Eiicharistic Sacrifice. No, no, Dr. Durbin, with the Liturgy 
 before him, has no eyes to see that our Church makes obla- 
 tion {and she would not be a Church if she did not) ; his 
 acquaintance with the English language and the English Bible 
 is not such as to teach him that " oblation" has the " sense of 
 sacrifice ;" and with a recklessness which amazes one, he says 
 I have totally mistaken the doctrine of my Church on the 
 Eucharist when I affirm that it is an oblation to God the Father ! 
 But something more startling remains to be told. Because I 
 said — " This oblation, which gives the Eucharist its sacrificial 
 character, is a universal rite in the Catholic Church," — he tells 
 me: "Here you expressly declare^' (mark the words) "that you 
 hold the same vieivoi the sacrificial character of the Eucharist that 
 the Roman Catholic Church holds." Admirable theologian ! Will 
 not the Protestant Association immediately retain him as their 
 prosecuting attorney, after this manifestation of his skill in fixing 
 the " mark of the beast" in my forehead ? Because I say the ob- 
 lation is a universal rite in the Catholic Church, therefore I hold the 
 same view of that rite that the Roman Catholic holds ! And so, I 
 suppose, because I say that Baptism is a universal rite among all 
 professing Christians except the Quakers, therefore I hold the 
 same view of that rite with Methodists and Mormons too ! Dr. 
 Durbin's logic is quite as peculiar as his estimation of facts. What 
 he means by the Roman Catholic view, he has elsewhere told us ; 
 it is, that " each good [R.] Catholic understands the sacrifice of the 
 Mass to be a real repetition of the sacrifice of Christ for men.*" 
 That I have said one word any where or at any time, to counte- 
 nance such a doctrine, is utterly untrue ; and just as untrue is his 
 other and kindred assertion (p. 28), that I "defended an oblation 
 of the elements as a propitiatory sacrifice as the Romish Church 
 teaches,-^ Dr. Durbin seems to have been hurt that any one 
 should have thought him capable of making " scandalous misre- 
 presentations" of the Oxford divines; but I do not know what more 
 
 • Durbin's "Observations in Europe," Vol. i. p. 72. 
 
47 
 
 safety they or any one might hope for in his hands than I have 
 found. He has here done worse by me than make a "scandalous 
 misrepresentation." I earnestly hope it may be true that he 
 knows nothing of the subject he has ventured to write about j 
 that he is ignorant of the meaning of the words he has used ; for 
 his charge against me is nothing less than what 1 would not 
 dare to say except in defence of myself, or rather, of interests 
 dearer to me than myself; but I do repeat, it is a palpable untruth. 
 
 It is a sad thing that I should be obliged to proceed to the 
 doctrine of the Real Presence, and to speak of it in such a con- 
 nection as this. It is almost too awful a subject to discuss here: 
 and therefore to spare myself the pah), 1 shall endeavour, as far 
 as I can, to confine myself to the words of the Church, in teaching 
 her own doctrine. 
 
 But some attention must first be given to two or three of Dr. 
 Durbin's characteristic assertions. He tells me that, being unable 
 to deny that our communion service is identical with his own, I 
 " endeavour to make out a difference by noting a change in the 
 Methodist forms, of two words, and the omission of some prayers 
 after the sacrament is concluded," which his ministers may say 
 or not as they choose. A formal denial of this ' identity' I never 
 indeed made, because there was no occasion for me to deny what 
 I thought every body knew was not so. But let it be observed 
 that he thus implies the identity of the two services, knowing too 
 at the same time, that his service is without the distinguishing 
 features of the Collect, Epistle, and Gospel, for the day ; the 
 creed, the offertory, the prayer for the Church, containing the 
 oblation of alms and bread and wine, and the commemoration 
 of the faithful departed, the absolution, the Sursum corda, ("Lift 
 up your hearts,") the proper prefaces, the oblation of the conse- 
 crated elements and the invocation of the Holy Ghost upon 
 them — besides other parts of less importance. Identity of the 
 services indeed! Did any body but he ever imagine such a 
 thing, much less assert it ? Neither did I say one word about 
 the omission of any prayers, and of course I drew no conclusion 
 from such omission. He seems to have had in his mind what I 
 said about the alterations and omissions in their baptismal service, 
 viz. that they left out the addresses and prayers which asserted 
 
48 
 
 that the person baptized " is regenerated," — " regenerated by 
 the Holy Spirit." This was part of my evidence that the 
 Methodists had rejected our doctrine of baptism and of regenera- 
 tion ; and this evidence he was pleased so far to overlook as to 
 assert (p. 21) that my argument in proof of the departure of 
 Methodists from this fundamental article of the faith was not 
 predicated of their baptismal service. Thus he denies that I 
 noticed this flagrant fault when I did notice it ; and he asserts that 
 I noted the omission of prayers in his communion service, when 
 I did no such thing. I was concerned with the doctrine of his 
 communion service, and not with its difference from ours in other 
 respects; and I pointed out a change in one word of prime im- 
 portance, which showed the fundamental difference between us 
 in respect of doctrine ; and that was the change of the word 
 " body" to " death" in the prayer " Grant us therefore gracious 
 Lord so to eat the flesh of Thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to 
 drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by 
 his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood ;" 
 in which words both the benefits of the atonement and the life- 
 giving grace of our Lord's Body are each asserted. On this Dr. 
 Durbin remarks — 
 
 "The difference is in the use of the word body by you and death by us: [to be 
 sure it is]. Now I appeal to the reader if he can delect any difference in these 
 words as used in the service, unless he first assume the real presence of the 
 body of Christ in the Sacrament 1" 
 
 And so might a Socinian appeal from the formula of Baptism 
 into the Name of the Holy Three, to his reader, and ask, if the 
 passage taught the Triune Essence of the Godhead, unless the Tri- 
 nity was first assumed ? There is no assumption whatever. The 
 words of the prayer are plain. It is not the way of the Church 
 to address Almighty God in the language of the rhetorician ; and 
 her words in that prayer make nonsense, if they do not teach 
 the doctrine of the Real Presence. They do assert it, and the 
 Methodists knew it, and therefore they altered the prayer as is 
 thus hesitatingly confessed. 
 
 " We with the genuine Protestant party in the Church disbelieve the real 
 presence of His Body in the Sacrament and refer the ivhole to his death, and therefore 
 we changed the word to cut off all occasion to claim the authority of the Church 
 (i. e. of the 'Discipline') in favour of the real presence." 
 
 Exactly so ; and now I shall show that the Church does make 
 
49 
 
 a difference between the words body and death ; and does not 
 like the Methodists refer the " whole'^ to his death. In the ex- 
 hortation giving notice of the Holy Communion there may be 
 read as follows ; 
 
 " Almighty God our Heavenly Father hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus 
 Christ not only to die for us, but also to be our spiritual food and sustenance m 
 that Holy Sacrament." 
 
 The testimony of the Homilies to this doctrine is as explicit as 
 
 that of the Liturgy. In the advertisement at the close of the first 
 
 book, we read of the "due receiving of His blessed Body and 
 
 Blood under the form of Bread and Wine." In the Homily of 
 
 the Resurrection it is said : — 
 
 « Thou hast received Him if in true faith and repentance of heart thou has 
 received Him, if in purpose of amendment thou hast received Him for an ever- 
 lasting pledge and gage of salvation. Thou hast received His Body which was 
 once broken and His Blood which was once shed for the remission of sins. 
 Thou hast received His Body to have within thee the Father, the Son and the 
 Holy Ghost, for to dwell with thee, to endow thee with grace, to strengthen thee 
 against thine eniraies, and to comfort thee with their presence. Thou hast re- 
 ceived His Body to endow thee ivith everlasting righteousness,* to assure thee of ever- 
 lasting bliss, and life of thy soul." 
 
 In the Homily "of the worthy receiving of the Sacrament" we 
 are told, 
 
 « 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 co-operation of the 
 Holy Ghost, (the very bond of our conjunction with Christ) is through faith 
 icrought 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. The 
 true understanding of this fruition and union which is betwixt the Body and the 
 Head, the true believers and Christ, the ancient Catholic Fathers,f both per- 
 ceiving themselves, and commending to their people, were not afraid to call this 
 supper, some of them, the salve of immortality and sovereign preservative against 
 death ; other, a deifical communion ; other, the sweet dainties of our Saviour, 
 the pledge of eternal health, the defence of faith, the hope of the resurrection." 
 
 And again : It is well known that the meat we seek for in this supper is spiritual 
 
 • The intelligent reader will here perceive the gift of justification through the 
 Sacrament faithfully received. 
 
 f Irenasus, Ignatius, Dionysius, Origen, Optatus and Cyprian are referred to 
 by name. 
 
50 
 
 food, the nourishment of our soul, a heavenly reflection and not earthly ; an in- 
 visible meat, and not bodily; a ghostly substance, 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 and 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 these 
 inferior and earthly things, there seek it where the sun of righteousness ever 
 shineth. Take then this lesson, O thou that are desirous of this table, of Emis- 
 f:enus, a godly father, that when thou goest up to the reverend communion, to 
 be satisfied with spiritual meats, thou look up with faith upon the holy Body 
 and Blood of thy God, thou marvel with reverence, thou touch it with the mind, 
 thou receive it with the hand of thy heart, and then take it fully with thy inward 
 man." 
 
 An argument has been drawn sometimes, and lastly by the 
 Bishop of Vermont,* from a rubric in the office for " the com- 
 munion of the sick," in order to show that the Real Presence or 
 "inward grace" is not, acording to the judgment of our Church, 
 in unity with the consecrated offering; and that in that rubric 
 may be seen the wide difference between us and the Church of 
 Rome. I cannot but express my astonishment, at such a con- 
 clusion, in spite of my unfeigned respect for the abilities, learning 
 and character, of those who maintain it. It is well known that 
 the Church of Rome teaches t/ie very doctrine of that Rubric, 
 and acts upon it much more than we do ourselves. The decree 
 of the Council of Trent is this : — 
 
 "But as to the use, our fathers have rightly and wisely pointed out three 
 modes of receiving this Holy Sacrament. For they have taught that some partake 
 of it only sacramentally, viz. sinners ; but others spiritually, those to wit, who 
 with hearty desire, eating that consecrated heavenly bread by a living faith 
 which worketh by love, discern its fruit and benefit ; lastly, the third partake at 
 once sacramentally and spiritually .• but these are they who examine and prepare 
 themselves beforehand, that, clad in the wedding garment, they may,"f «&c. 
 
 It is on the ground of this spiritual communion without par- 
 
 * " Novelties which disturb our peace," No. 3, pp. 34, 35. 
 
 f Sess. xiii. c. 8. Quoad usum autem, recte et sapienter patres nostri tres 
 rationes hoc sanctum sacramentum accipiendi distinxerunt. Quosdam enim 
 docuerunt sacramentaliter duntaxat id sumere ut peccatores, alios autem spiri- 
 tualiter, illos nimirum, qui, voto propositum ilium coelestem panem edentes, fide 
 viva, quae per dilectionem operatur, fructum ejus et utilitatem sentiunt ; tertios 
 porro sacramentaliter simul et spiritualiter : hi autem sunt, qui se prius pro- 
 bant et instruunt, ut vestem nuptialem induti, &c. 
 
51 
 
 taking of the consecrated species, that Roman Catholics practise 
 \vhat our writers are wont to consider a great abuse, viz. that of 
 leaving communion very much to the Priest, they joining with 
 him, mentally and spiritually. This spiritual communion, there- 
 fore, surely ought to be the very last thing referred to, whereby to 
 point out the difference in Doctrine between the two churches ; 
 for in this they are agreed^ whatever else may be said in other 
 respects. 
 
 But to return to the Homilies : I suppose it is quite superfluous 
 to ask if any such doctrine as that which they deliver, (which 
 was the doctrine of our Reformers) is ever taught by Methodists ? 
 Different as it is undoubtedly from those gross conceptions of that 
 Holy Mystery which we commonly ascribe to Roman Catholics,* 
 and which transubstantiation, and the view of the Eucharistic 
 Oblation consequent thereupon, seem to make necessary ; it is 
 yet more different from the low and freezing view which Zwingle 
 invented, which the Methodists have inherited from him, and 
 which, though widely differing from that of Luther, is still the 
 only one which is consistent with the latter's famous doctrine of 
 justification. Nevertheless Dr. Durbin, who in his own way, 
 has a wonderful facility in getting rid of difficulties which would 
 baffle and appal any one else, asserts of his own great efforts at 
 
 theological discussion : 
 
 " What I have said will convince you that the doctrine of the two Churches 
 [i. e. of the Methodists and the Church] is identical. It now remains for me to 
 show what this doctrine is, and that you do not hold it ; but that you hold sub- 
 stantially the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Sacrament." 
 
 Here are great promises and grevious accusations. Let us 
 now examine the means adopted to fulfil the one and to substan- 
 tiate the other. He goes on : 
 
 "The true Protestant doctrine of the Sacrament is 'an outward and visible 
 sign of an inward and spiritual grace.' — Catechism. A Sacrament then consisteth 
 in the ' outward sign' and the thing signified which is ' the inward and spiritual 
 grace.' These are two, and a child for whom the Catechism was designed can 
 easily distinguish them." 
 
 The two last sentences of this passage are very good and very 
 true; but let the reader mark the first, which contains what pur- 
 
 • It is a palpable misrepresentation of the Homilies, when persons of Zwingliaa 
 views quote passages, directed specially against the current errors of their 
 time, as if they were written against the doctrine taught in the Liturgy and Cate- 
 chism. 
 
52 
 
 ports to be our Church's definition of a Sacrament, the definition 
 of our Catechism ; what he calls the " true Protestant doctrine." 
 Will it be believed by those persons who have placed confidence 
 in Dr. Durbin's statements, " the leaders' meeting" to wit, and 
 his other unenviable abettors and " flatterers," in the miserable 
 work to which he has lent himself, that their redoubteble cham- 
 pion, has, in his quotation from our Catechism, suppressed two- 
 thirds of the passage he pretends to cite, and that passage a 
 DEFINITION ! Yes, a definition, every line and letter of which 
 is sacred, sacred from its nature as a definition. He has sup- 
 pressed the body of a brief doctrinal definition, in order that, 
 in his hands, our teaching may appear as " true Protestant doc- 
 trine," and so square with Methodism. He has suppressed the 
 doctrine of our Church in order to make it out to his ill-informed 
 reader, that I depart from her teaching and hold substantially to 
 that of Rome. Among all the " tricks of modern controversy" 
 can a procedure like this be found ? Let the lover of justice and 
 truth, he only whose opinion I care to ask, let him compare the 
 above quotation with what the Catechism does say: 
 
 Q. "What meanest thou by this word Sacrament V 
 
 A. " I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace 
 given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, 
 and a pledge to assure us thereof."* 
 
 Here it will be perceived that the suppressed portion of the 
 definition contains the gist of the whole controversy, which is, 
 not as to what either Sacrament may signify, but what they are 
 the means of conveying. The definition shows that the outward 
 sign is ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we re- 
 ceive the inward grace it signifies ; to wit, that water in the 
 Sacrament of Baptism is the means whereby, under the minis- 
 tration of the Holy Ghost, we spiritually receive the grace of 
 regeneration, or, " a death unto sin and a new birth unto right- 
 eousness ;" and that Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are the 
 means whereby, under the like ministration of the Holy Ghost, 
 we spiritually receive the thing signified, viz. the Body and 
 Blood of Christ. 
 
 * An erroneous punctuation has crept into some editions of the American 
 Prayer Book, viz. the insertion of a comma between the words ' grace' and ' given.' 
 The punctuation I have followed is the standard one, as may be seen in the 
 editions of the Oxford University Press. 
 
53 
 
 Does this act of suppressing the gist of a doctrinal definition 
 in order to subserve the ends Dr. Durbin proposed to himself in 
 his discourses and in his Letter, amount to a " scandalous misre- 
 presentation ?" If not, I know not what does, or what can. And 
 this very thing did he do in his first discourse ; he then, in like 
 manner, withheld that part of the definition which gives the 
 differentia, the essential characteristic of the thing defined ; and 
 that too, in order to exhibit " the true Protestant doctrine," as 
 being that of our Church ; and by contrast to show, that there 
 was a large body of our divines who were putting forth views of 
 the Sacraments not warranted by the Church, but directly op- 
 posed to her authoritative teaching. And though I was aware of 
 this fact, though I knew that some had thus been shamefully led 
 astray, yet could I not bring myself to notice in my letter to him, 
 so flagrant an outrage. It seemed to me to be altogether too serious 
 a matter, involving consequences too momentous to his reputa- 
 tion, for me even to allude to it in print, without the evidence of 
 it in the author's own hand. I should have shrunk from 
 speaking of it, even if I had heard it myself. But he has now 
 published it to the world, and its fearful consequences he must 
 bear, without reproaching any one but himself. 
 
 And now with these facts before him let the reader contem- 
 plate the innocent simplicity, the guilelessness of the following 
 paragraph : 
 
 " Had you not been of the ' straitest sect of the Pharisees,' which made you 
 say in your Letter, ' I of course was not present when you delivered the afore- 
 said discourse,' I am sure you would have testified also to the delicacy and 
 candor ( ! ) with which I treated all persons and parties, your ' ignorant' in- 
 formant notwithstanding — ignorant she* must be or she could not have been 
 * scandalized' by my manifest ' misrepresentations.' " 
 
 Having already far exceeded the limits that I proposed to my- 
 self, I am forced to bring my remarks to an abrupt conclusion. The 
 importance of the subjects discussed, has tempted me to a greater 
 length than I should otherwise have gone. I wished this review 
 also to possess an interest beyond that which local circumstances 
 
 * I know not what to make of this indelicate, unmanly allusion. Dr. Durbin 
 is informed that no such person as he imagines, gave me any accounts of his 
 sayings and doings. I have the testimony of his own friends to the truth of what 
 I have asserted. 
 
 5* 
 
54 
 
 may give it. I had other aims, than the exposure of Dr. Durbin. 
 I have endeavoured so to exhibit the doctrine to which I have 
 vowed submission, as to remove misapprehensions, to assist per- 
 sons in difficulty, and to reheve those minds from doubt and 
 alarm, who are anxious to abide by the teaching of " the Church 
 of the Living God, which is the pillar and stay of the truth.'' 
 That teaching is embodied in our Book of Common Prayer ; it is 
 Catholic, it is Apostolic, coeval with the Church of Christ. We 
 received it not from the private judgment of any man, for we are 
 not followers of men. It came to us by inspiration of the Holy 
 Ghost. The things which the Apostles committed to their suc- 
 cessors, to be handed over to other faithful men, who might be 
 able to teach others also (2 Tim. ii. 2), have come down to us ; 
 they are guaranteed to us by the unfailing word of Him who 
 promised to be with His Apostles every day until the consum- 
 mation of the world. Even "if we believe not, yet He abideth 
 faithful ; He cannot deny himself." " The gates of Hell never 
 can prevail against His Church." They may attack her, they 
 may for a time be reared in her midst ; and so may painfully 
 engross the vision of many that are endeavouring to set their 
 eyes towards Heaven. But these evils will have an end ; they 
 are fast coming to an end. The bow of hope is already cast 
 upon the clouds that have been afflicting us with storms. Su?-- 
 sum Corda ! " The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as 
 some men count slackness," and we may therefore wait with 
 patience and with confidence, the fulfilment of His word. On 
 this rock we rest. We know that we are in His Church, and so 
 partake of His Life and fulness, because she is His Body. We 
 know that we are in His Church, enjoying unrestrained access 
 to His Holy Word; and therefore will humble minds within her 
 obtain a certain knowledge of His truth, because she is "the 
 pillar and stay of the truth," the "temple of the Holy Ghost," 
 who is the Guide to all truth. Within her pale the light of 
 Heaven illumines the all-sufficient record of our Lord's life and 
 labours. His Divine discourse, and the teaching of His Apostles; 
 and there " sitting at His feet" we are " taught by Him," and 
 learn from the living letter of His Word, " the truth as it is 
 in Jesus." " Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words 
 
 SHALL NOT PASS AWAY." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 
 
 The following remarks on this much controverted topic could not be intro- 
 duced into the foregoing Review without too great an interference with the 
 main subject. They are, therefore, thrown together here, for the considera- 
 tion of the thoughtful.* 
 
 In Morals, right is the correlative to ought and duty. We have a right to 
 do what we ought to do ; a right to do only what is right. We have no right 
 to disobey God ; but we have the liberty ; and if we do so it is at our own 
 peril. Consequently, as every man who can, ought to learn the Christian 
 faith, so it is his right to do so. In this sense the right of individual judg- 
 ment is not opposed to Church authority ; for the Church guarantees the 
 right, nor only so, but helps the individual to exercise it. Again, God has 
 appointed certain means whereby we may learn His truth ; and as every man 
 ought to make use of all those means, so he has no right to neglect any one 
 of them. Now, as we learn from St. Paul, God has set up an institution 
 which is the " Pillar and Ground of the Truth," " the Church of the livino- 
 God," and man has, can have, no right to turn away his eyes from the es- 
 tablished stay of the truth. But he has the liberty to do so, and if he choose 
 to act thus, heresy is the inevitable consequence, sooner or later. 
 
 The constant profession of any doctrine by the whole Church from the 
 beginning, thus becomes an infallible proof of the truth of that doctrine. It 
 is a proof that we are bound to seek after, and which we have no right to 
 forego. The belief of truth susceptible of such proof, is a condition of re- 
 maining in the favour of God. " Let that therefore abide in you which ye 
 have heard from the beginning; if that which ye have heard from the begin- 
 ning abide in you, ye also shall continue in the Father and the Son." (1 .Tohn 
 ii. 24.) 
 
 The present teaching of any sect, or any portion of the Church is, to 
 persons under that teaching, privia facie evidence, that it has been heard 
 from the beginning. But if, after acting upon it with a good conscience, one 
 find that without any fault on his part, it fails in carrying him on to fulfil the 
 law of Christ ; he may be assured that there is something wrong in his creed. 
 
 * The July No. of the True Catholic has an article on Private Judgment, con- 
 taining thoughts similar to some here expressed. I feel it due to myself to say, 
 that what is here offered, was written before I saw the last number of that ad- 
 mirable publication. 
 
56 
 
 Here then there is good reason for " examining himself," to see " whether 
 he be in the faith," whether he believes anything which has not, or believes 
 not anything which has, been heard from the beginning. And so far as he 
 may thus correct his individual faith, he will do so by exercising his private 
 judgment, that is, by deferring to evidence, by appealing from the local teaching 
 which he has hitherto followed, to Catholicity. Of course he will be bound to 
 make a diligent use of the New Testament, in prosecuting so momentous an 
 inquiry, in order that he may see wherein the said teaching contradicts that 
 holy volume. But here he is met by the difficulty, that all heresies have 
 their proof texts, all systems profess to be derived from the Bible. Let him 
 then carefully inquire whether the system in which he has been trained adopts, 
 or is able to adopt, all the doctrinal statements of the New Testament ; for 
 they are all constituent portions of one integral body of divine truth. If it 
 do not, it is fundamentally wrong ; it rejects those portions which it does not 
 use ; it would not reject them if it could use them. To take an example 
 already used (p. 34), if that system does not announce in its regular ordinary 
 teaching, that Baptism is " for the remission of sins," (Acts ii. 38) ; that 
 by Baptism we are " baptized into Christ's death," (Rom. vi. 2,) and " put 
 on Christ," (Gal. iii. 27,) and that in Baptism " we are risen with Him," 
 (Col. ii. 12) — it is not simply erroneous or defective ; it is heterogeneous 
 to the New Testament ; it is rotten at the core, and cannot be reformed. 
 
 This is, or should be, the first step in bringing any teaching to the in- 
 fallible test of Catholicity ; and in most instances this one will be found 
 sufficient to detect error. The inspired writings show what was the Church's 
 teaching at the beginning, and of course they must be used to know what 
 has been taught always. The authentic records of the Church from that time 
 forwards, her liturgies and canons, the writings of her doctors and apologists, 
 and the lives of the saints, which are the distinctive fruits of her faith — form 
 all together an overwhelming testimony to the exactness and integrity of her 
 Creed ; an unimpeachable witness to one harmonious body of truth, and 
 one way of salvation, as having been authoritatively taught by the Church 
 " always and everywhere." The faith of the Church is a fact in history, 
 as easily identified at any given time, as her own existence, and much 
 more easily than many facts which it would be thought the extremest folly 
 to disbelieve. Here then is the second test which is to be applied to any 
 teaching that challenges our acceptance, a test to which scripture points us, 
 as has been shown ; and one by which the Apostles themselves would have 
 their own later teaching tried, by those who heard them. " \iwe, or an angel 
 from Heaven," says St. Paul, " preach unto you any other Gospel than that we 
 have preached unto you, let him be accursed." To try any doctrines by these 
 tests is surely to exercise the private judgment, to act upon the most fearful 
 individual responsibility ; and yet in doing so one would not sit in judgment 
 upon the Catholic Church, for all this is but a preliminary step to dutiful 
 submission to the faith. Such an inquiry would proceed upon the assump- 
 tion, that there is such a body of truth as the Catholic faith, and every step 
 in it is an act of obedience. There would be no aim at making private 
 
57 
 
 interpretations of scripture, but on the contrary a search after that which from 
 the beginning has been common to the whole Church. 
 
 There is " one Body" and of course but " one Faith" (Eph. iv. 5); but if 
 each individual may have a creed of his own, then it as necessarily follows 
 that each individual may be a Church to himself, which is the highest ab- 
 surdity. And the mere circumstance tliat any number of individuals associate 
 together because their private opinions agree, does not remove this absurdity ; 
 they are not a church, as they would themselves unconsciously confess by 
 not thinking guilty of the sin of schism, any who should see fit, for their 
 own good reasons, to leave their associates. There must be a church before 
 schism can be possible ; and conversely, where that sin is impossible there is 
 no church. Now is it not a fact that the members of the different protestant 
 sects are freely dismissed from one to another as being in " good standing 1" 
 which would be absurd if their pastors believed there was a grievous sin 
 upon the heads of those thus dismissed. May not a Methodist become a Pres- 
 byterian if he think fit, or a Presbyterian a Baptist or Lutheran, and so on, 
 without being thought by others to imperil his salvation, or even thinking so 
 himself? How often do such transmigrations occur without the charge 
 or the consciousness of guilt] How often for mere convenience sake? 
 Is not this abundant proof that the possibility of committing schism 
 never occurs to the thoughts of such persons 1 Is it not proof that that 
 sin is impossible on their principles, and consequently, that they confess, un- 
 consciously, that they are not in the Church of Christ, and care not whether 
 they are or no 1 A remarkable illustration of the argument I am here urging 
 is furnished by the Rev. Albert Barnes, who, in his truthful* and effective 
 publications on our Church, so speaks of the " inborn horror" with which 
 every genuine member of the Church regards the sin of schism, as to show 
 that he is himself unable to appreciate such a sentiment. It is one which he 
 
 * I use the word « truthful" deliberately, and with more pleasure because Mr. 
 Barnes has been assailed as having stated in his first pamphlet " what he knew 
 at the time to be untrue." Of course I do not agree with him in all he says. He 
 makes some mistakes, and labours under grievous misapprehensions in respect 
 of some of our doctrines ; but this he cannot help, because he views our church 
 from without, and through the medium of his own system. There is, however 
 throughout his essay, proof of his single aim to see what the truth is, and to 
 state it with plainness. His main position, and his arguments to sustain it, are 
 alike impregnable. In reading his words one should take them in his own 
 obvious meaning; and so understanding him, when he says, "it has never been 
 possible permanently to connect Evangelical religion ivith a religion of forms," I agree 
 with him ; and add, moreover, that a truer word never was spoken. What Mr. 
 Barnes means by ' Evangelical religion,' never was thought of by the Catholic 
 Church. Neither was any such 'connexion' attempted at the Reformation as 
 Mr. Barnes thinks. Surely the Baptismal office of the Reformed Church of 
 England might have convinced him of that ; so also would the Articles, if he did 
 
5S 
 
 never feels ; it is what he, as a Presbyterian, cannot feel. It appears to him 
 to be a superstition, or an inexplicable weakness. And yet the schismatical 
 temper which individual preferences created in the Church of Corinth, was 
 rebuked by St. Paul in such terms as these : " While one saith I am of 
 
 Paul, and another, I of Apollos, are ye not carnal ? Know ye 
 
 not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in 
 you 1 If any man destroy (marg. transl.) the temple of God, him shall God 
 destroy ; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." And he who 
 commits schism, or cherishes the temper, does all he can to destroy or at least to 
 injure " the temple of God." One would then be glad to learn from Mr. Barnes 
 and those who think with him, what are the principles or antecedent condi- 
 tions on which the sin thus denounced by St. Paul is possible 1 The modern 
 figment of an invisible Church on earth, supposing its reality, cannot possi- 
 bly be afflicted with any such evil. On the Calvinistic hypothesis "neither 
 death nor life, angels, principalities nor powers, can separate" a member 
 from such a body. Not schism only, but no sin at all could thus avail. It 
 surely then would become considerate persons, to give a little more heed to 
 this matter than it usually meets with. There is such a sin as schism ; it 
 is denounced in the New Testament ; it is one that the members of the 
 Church of Christ are liable to. Does it not therefore behoove every man 
 who calls himself a Christian, to know what that sin is, and how it may be 
 committed, in order that he may shun it, and all temptations to it 1 How 
 else is one to know that he is not guilty of this sin, or at the least is not a 
 partaker of other men's sins, saying ''lam of Paul or Apollos 1" "Will 
 not some persons exercise their private judgment, and act upon their indi- 
 vidual responsibility, in investigating this all important matter ? 
 
 not make the 17th, interpreted by the Westminster Confession, the exponent of 
 the whole thirty-nine. What is known as the " Evangelical party" in the Church, 
 is little more than fifty years old; it is the school of Romaine, Newton, Cecil, and 
 Scott. They have nothing to do even with the low church or latitudinarian 
 party, which arose after the Restoration, and came into full power under Tillot- 
 son and Burnet, with the state to support them, after the Revolution of 1688. 
 The " Evangelical" movement was a reaction upon the stupefaction which the 
 low church teaching had brought upon the Church. Its mission under God was 
 to undo the mischief wrought by the state-school of Tillotson and Burnet ; it has 
 succeeded to a great extent and is now expiring. It was able to break down, but 
 is wholly impotent at reconstruction upon the original basis of the Church. The 
 latitudinarians reaped what they sowed; they supplied the "Evangelicals" with 
 the means to overthrow themselves. They began by trampling on the sacred 
 principles of the Church, and at last were put down by those who did their own 
 work at a more thoroughgoing rate. Coleridge somewhere says that ' no principle 
 was ever sacrificed which did not in the end, fully revenge itself by making re- 
 prisals ;' the history of the Church constantly bears witness to the truth of this 
 remark. 
 
59 
 
 There is a further thought suggested by the loud boasts which one hears so 
 often of the " right of private judgment," as these words are commonly taken. 
 If a man has the right to interpret the doctrinal parts of the New Testament, 
 so as to construct for himself a creed, distinct from that which has always 
 been professed by the Church Catholic; has he not also the same right to 
 put a new interpretation upon the moral precepts, and so make for himself a 
 new ethical code 1 Where is the difference so far as the " right" is concerned'? 
 The right claimed is, to interpret the Bible each one for himself, and as each 
 one chooses ; and ethics are as much a part of the Bible as its doctrines. 
 Christian morals, both in their science and practice, are as peculiar to the New 
 Law as Christian doctrines. The former are the distinctive fruit of the latter, 
 and the two are therefore inseparable ; precept often teaching doctrine, and 
 doctrine precept. Why then do not people as boldly avow their right to put 
 new meanings into the passages condemning vices, and enjoining good works, 
 as they do in respect of those which speak of thedoctrine of good works, jus- 
 tification, regeneration, the virtue of the Sacraments, the nature of the Church, 
 and ministry 1 Sad as it is to know that the " right" so to call it, has 
 been freely exercised, though a distinct avowal of it is seldom heard. Symp- 
 toms, however, of private interference with the established ethical code of the 
 Church, began to appear soon after the discovery of what is called the " riorht 
 of private judgment" ; that is, soon after any individual's interpretation of the 
 Bible was assumed to be the same with the Bible itself. Luther in his 
 celebrated commentary on the Galatians remarks : — "Although this is as 
 clear as noonday, yet the Papists are so senseless and blind, that out of the 
 Gospel they have fashioned a law of love, and out of Christ a law giver, 
 who hath imposed far more burdensome laws than Moses himself. But the 
 Gospel (1) teacheth, Christ hath come, not to give a new law, but to offer 
 himself up as a victim for the sins of the whole world." Singular indeed, but 
 quite Luther-like is the contrast in which this passage stands to our Lord's 
 Sermon on the mount, and to His other words : " He that hath my command- 
 ments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me ; and he that loveth me shall 
 be loved of my Father." And again, " when Thomas of Aquin and other 
 schoolmen assert that the law hath been abolished, they pretend that the 
 Mosaic ordinances respecting judicial affairs, and in like manner the laws 
 respecting ceremonies and the services of the temple were after the death of 
 Christ pernicious, and on that account were set aside and abolished. But, 
 when they say the Ten Commandments are not to be abrogated they them- 
 selves understand not what they assert or lay down. 
 
 "But thou when thou speakest of the abolition of the law be mindful 
 that thou speakest of the law as it really is, and is rightly called, to wit, 
 the spiritual law, and understand thereby the whole law making no dis- 
 tinction between civil laws, ceremonies, and ten commandments." 
 
 The doctrinal bearing of these passages is easily seen. They illustrate 
 Luther's great dogma. It does not seem to have entered his mind that 
 Christians are under higher obligations to observe the moral law than the 
 
60 
 
 Jews were, because our gifts will enable us to fulfil it. St. Paul says, 
 " Sin" ( mark the word ; it is not law but sin) " shall not have dominion 
 over you, for ye are not under the law but under grace ,-" as much as to say, 
 that under the old law sin had dominion ; but under the dispensation of 
 grace it need not have, and shall not if we be faithful ; for " the righteousness 
 of the law may be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the 
 Spirit." 
 
 M hler, to whom I am indebted for these quotations from Luther, cites 
 (§18) also the following passage from his " Table Talk :" — "And it would 
 not be good for us to do all that God commands, for He would thereby be 
 deprived of His Divinity and would become a liar, and could not remain true !" 
 Corresponding with all this is the concession of Luther, Bucer, Melanc- 
 thon, and others of their party, to the Landgrave of Hesse, to take to him- 
 self two wives. 
 
 To conclude : it may be observed that as the moral code which the 
 Church has ever maintained does not interfere with any individual's rights, 
 but by grace rather helps one to lead a life of purity and holiness ; so the 
 Creed of the Church is not opposed to any real private rights, but on the 
 contrary secures to one freedom from heresy and schism. 
 
 B. 
 
 Dr. Durbin on p. 7 of his letter says that the Methodists derived their 
 ordination from the same source whence we obtained ours. I do not think a 
 statement like this at all worthy of any reply. It however furnishes a happy 
 introduction to the following extracts from a startling tract lately published in 
 Baltimore, entitled "A Letter to a Methodist by a Presbyter of the Diocese of 
 Maryland." They will doubtless put intelligent Methodists in the pjossession 
 of certain facts of which they must be ignorant. Methodists ought to" recollect 
 that they are Wesleyans — the disciples of one man. They ought to remember 
 that by him they were first formed into a party in the Church, whence the 
 passage to open schism was easy. This man too, whatever may have been 
 his merits, was not inspired. He had no credentials to show that he was 
 called of God to consummate such a work as the founding of a new church. 
 And then they should bear in mind that God once reproved man for making 
 even an attachment to inspired Apostles, the excuse for schism. Let them 
 calmly reflect upon what follows, and ask themselves what sort of a Com- 
 mentary their history furnishes upon this text, " Now this I say that every 
 one of you saith, I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I 
 of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you 
 baptized in the name of Paul. For while one saith I am of Paul ; and another 
 I of Apollos ; are ye not carnal ?" 1 Cor. i. 12, 13 ; iii. 4. 
 
 Wesleyh Ordinations. 
 
 "On this point rests the validity of the Methodist ministry. If Wesley had 
 authority to ordain Dr. Coke a Bishop, then it is conceded that the Methodists 
 have a lawful ministry and lawful sacraments ; but, if Wesley had no such 
 
61 
 
 (lufhorify to ordain him, then his ordination of Dr. Coke was a nullity, and the 
 Methodists have neither a lawful ministry, nor lnwful sacraments ; and as there 
 cannot be a Christian Church without a lawful ministry and lawful sacraments, 
 it will, in that case, necessarily follow, that what is called the " Methodist 
 Church," is not, as such, a part of the Church of Christ. 
 
 Now, lest you might suppose that some wrong is done to the Methodists in 
 the is&ue here made, I shall quote theyJ/>Y section of their "Book of Discipline," to 
 prove that the entire validity of the Methodist ministry is made by themselves to 
 rest upon Wesley's ordination of Dr. Coke. It is as follows: 
 
 " On the Origiit of the Methodist Episcopal Church" 
 
 " The preachers* and members of our Society in general, being convinced 
 that there was a great deficiency of vital religion in the Church of England in. 
 America, and being in many places destitute of the Christian Sacraments, as 
 several of the clergy had forsaken their churches, requested the late Rev. John 
 Wesley to take such measures, in his wisdom and prudence, as would afford them 
 suitable relief in their distress. 
 
 "In consequence of this, our venerable friend, who, under God, has been the 
 father of the great revival of religion now extending over the earth by means of 
 the Methodists, determined to ordain ministers for America; and, for this pur- 
 pose, in the year 1784, sent over three regularly-]^ ordained clergy : but preferring 
 Episcopal mode of Church government to any other, he solemnly set apart, by 
 the imposition of Ais hands and prayer, one of them, viz. Thomas Coke, Doctor of 
 Civil Law, late of Jesus College, in the University of Oxford, and a Presbyter of 
 the Church of England, for the Episcopal office; and having delivered to him 
 letters of Episcopal orders, commissioned^: and directed him to set apart Francis 
 Asbury, then general assistant of the Methodist Society in America, for the same 
 Episcopal office ; he, the said Francis Asbury, being first ordained deacon and 
 elder.§ In consequence of which, the said Francis Asbury was solemnly set 
 apart for the said Episcopal office by prayer, and the imposition of the hands of 
 the said Thomas Coke, other regularly ordainedll ministers assisting in the sacred 
 ceremony. At which time^ the General Conference held at Baltimore, did 
 
 * At this time, the preachers were considered only lay-preachers, and according 
 to the uniform advice of Mr. Wesley, had declined administering the sacraments. 
 In 1778, a few of these lay-preachers, in Virginia, undertook to ordain each other, 
 thinking thereby to get the power of administering the sacraments ! but, by a vote 
 of one of the Conferences, this ordination was declared invalid ! (Life of 
 Wesley by Coke and Moore, chap. 3, sec. 2.) 
 
 f These "regularly" ordained clergy, were clergy of the Church of England. 
 They were not ordained by Wesley. The Methodists here themselves draw the 
 distinction between "regularly ordained clergy" and Wesley's ordinations. 
 
 t Lest it might be supposed, that Wesley had "commissioned" Dr. Coke, in 
 these (so-called) "letters of Episcopal orders," to "set apart" Mr. Asbury for the 
 " same Episcopal office," it is proper to state that no such " commission" is given 
 to Dr. Coke in said " letters." Where is this " commission" to be found? 
 
 § As some might think from this language, that Wesley hAi " firsl ordained 
 [Mr. Asbury] deacon and elder," it should be known, that Asbury received no 
 ordination from Wesley. He was only a layman, when Dr. Coke came to 
 America; and Dr. Coke ordained him a deacon, elder, and superintendent, or, (as he 
 afterwards called himself,) a Bishop, in the course of a few days! (See Lee's 
 " Short History of the Methodists," p. 94.) 
 
 II One of these " regularly ordained" ministers was a German minister named 
 Otterbine! (Lee's History, p. 94.) 
 
 K This is not true. The General Conference did not at that " time" receive 
 Coke and Asbury as Bishops, as will be shown hereafter. 
 
 6 
 
62 
 
 unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis jisbury as their Bishops, 
 being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination." 
 
 Thus you will perceive that the validity of the Methodist ministry is made, by 
 the Methodists themselves, to depend on the validity of Dr. Coke's ordination by 
 Wesley. 
 
 Let us then seriously inquire, where did Wesley obtain the Authority to ordain 
 Dr. Coke 1 
 
 It certainly was not born with him ; for authority to ordain a minister of Christ 
 is born with no man. 
 
 He could not have obtained it from any temporal poM'er; for all the kings and 
 governors of the earth combined cannot ordain a minister of Christ, nor confer 
 the authority to ordain one. 
 
 Was this authority conferred on Wesle)'- at his orrfi»?a/?on? — Plainly not : be- 
 cause the authority for ordaining in the Church of England, (of which Wesley 
 was a member,) is confined exclusively to the order of Bishops, and Wesley was 
 not consecrated a Bishop, but only ordained a Presbyter. As no such authority 
 was then conferred on Wesley ; he did not obtain it when he was ordained. 
 
 That you may perceive at a glance, what authority was conferred on Wesley 
 when he was ordained, I shall transcribe the very ivords used by the Bishop who 
 ordained him. You may find them in the Office for " The ordering of Priests," 
 in the Book of Common Prayer ; they are as follows : 
 
 " Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a P7iest in the Church of 
 God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands: whose sins thou 
 dost forgive, they are forgiven ; and whose sins thou dost retain the}' are retained : 
 And be thou a faithful Dispenser of the Word of God, and of His holy Sacraments : In the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." 
 
 By this form, every Presbyter of the Church of England is ordained ; of course, 
 Wesley was thus ordained ; and you may thus perceive, at once, that no authority 
 to ordain was then committed unto him. 
 
 But here your preachers meet us with the argument, that Bishops and Pres- 
 byters are one and the same order of ministers; and, therefore, Wesley being a 
 Presbyter, was also a Bishop, and therefore had authority to ordain — and this, too, 
 in the teeth of the fact, as I have just proved, that no such authority was given 
 to him at his ordination ! Whether Bishop and Presbyter be the same order, is a 
 point I shall consider hereafter; at present I shall content myself with showing, 
 that this argument will not avail the Methodists in the least, because : 
 
 If Wesley were a Bishop, because he was a Presbyter, ihen Dr. Coke must also 
 have been a Bishop, since he was a Presbyter when Wesley "laid his hands on 
 him." And if Dr. Coke was already a Bishop, what did Wesley make him by 
 ordaining him 1 Not a Bishop, surely ; for he was one already, if Presbyters 
 and Bishops be the same order ! What then 1 He must have made him an 
 officer higher than a Bishop — an officer unknown to the Church of God ! Be- 
 siJes, if Dr. Coke, being a Presbyter, was, therefore, a Bishop, he had the same 
 right to ordain Wesley, as Wesley had to ordain him ! 
 
 This argument, I consider so unanswerable and conclusive, to prove the inva- 
 lidity of Coke's ordination, that I might here let the subject rest; but, before I 
 close shall again advert to it, for reasons which will then appear. 
 
 Having thus disposed of one of the chief arguments by which the Methodists 
 attempt to show that Wesley had authority to ordain, I shall now proceed to 
 consider their other great argument, namely, that Wesley had a "Providential 
 call" to ordain. 
 
 When Wesley sent out Dr. Coke, he gave him the following instrument of 
 writing, which " The Book of Discipline," above quoted, calls his " letters of 
 Kpiscopal orders .•" 
 
 "To all to whom these presents shall come, John Wesley, late fellow of Lincoln 
 College, in Oxford, Presbyter o^ \\\e Church of England, sendeth greeting: 
 
 " Whereas, many of the people in the Southern Provinces of North America, 
 "who desire to continue under my care, and still adhere to the doctrine and discipline 
 
63 
 
 of the Church of England, are greatly distressed for want of ministers to admin- 
 ister the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, according to the usage 
 of the same Church : and, whereas, there does not appear to be any other way of sup' 
 plying them tvith ministers — 
 
 " Know all men, that I, John Wesley, think myself to be providentially called 
 at this time to set apart some persons for the work of the ministry in America. 
 And therefore, under the protection of Almighty God, and with a single eye to 
 his glory, I have this day set apart as a Superintendent, by the imposition of my 
 hands* and prayer, (being assisted by other ordained ministers,) Thomas Coke, 
 Doctor of Civil Law, a Presbyter of the Church of England, and a man whom I 
 judge to be well qualified for that great work. And I do hereby recommend 
 him to all whom it may concern, as a fit person to preside over the flock of 
 Christ. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this second 
 day of September, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and 
 eighty-four.f John Wesley." 
 
 Whatever may be meant by the phrase, "providentially called,'^ in the above 
 document, Wesley has saved us the trouble of finding it out, for he expressly 
 tells us why he thought he had this "providential call," namely, because, there does 
 not appear to be any other way of supplying tJiem -with ministers. 
 
 That this was Wesley's true reason for thinking himself "providentially 
 called" to undertake this business, is made still plainer by his letter, dated 
 " Bristol, 10th September, 1784," (only eight days after he "laid hands" on 
 Dr. Coke,) addressed to " Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and our brethren in North 
 America,"^ in which, on adverting to the above transaction, he says: 
 
 "If any one will point out a more rational and scriptural way of feeding and 
 guiding these poor sheep in the wilderness, / will gladly embrace it. At present 1 
 cannot see any better method than I have taken." 
 
 Whether Wesley, then, had a "providential call" to ordain, depends upon the 
 fact, whether there was "«??!/ other ivay" to obtain ministers for God's Church, 
 (for the Methodists had not yet left the Church,) than his taking upon himself the 
 authority to ordain Dr. Coke ; because, if it can be plainly shown that there was 
 an "other way," then it is evident, on Wesley's own ground, that he had no 
 such "providential call." 
 
 Rightly to solve this question, it will be necessary to advert to the position of 
 the American Church at that time. Before these "United States" were separated 
 from Great Britain by the Revolution, the Church of England had been planted 
 in several of them, and the jurisdiction over these Churches and their ministers 
 was committed to the Bishop of London. After the Revolution, consequently, 
 when this country was separated from Great Britain, the jurisdiction of the 
 Bishop of London was, practically, at an end, and the American Church was 
 thus left without an available ecclesiastical head. Some wise men of late, among 
 the Methodists, have atfected to think, that the Church in this country was 
 destroyed, because it had lost its Bishop ! It was no more destroyed, than the 
 Church in New York, or Maryland, would be destroyed, should she lose her 
 
 * This " imposition of hands" was not done in a Church, openly before the 
 people, but in Wesley's hed-chaniber in Bristol! It soon, however, got noised 
 about, that Wesley had made a Bishop ! (though there is not a word of the kind in 
 these " letters of Episcopal orders," as they are called.) The Rev. Charles Wes- 
 ley, who was not in the secret, on hearing of it, wrote the following epigram : 
 
 "So easily are Bishops made. 
 
 By man's, or woman's whim; 
 Wesley his hands on Coke hath laid, — 
 
 But — who laid hands on him 1" 
 
 f Reprinted from a tract written by Dr. George Peck, a Methodist preacher. 
 ^ Lee's Short History, page 91. , 
 
64 
 
 Bishop, by death, degradation, or resignation. The remedy was the same in 
 both cases, to elect another, and have him consecrated by lawful authority. And this 
 was done by the Presbyters of the American Church : they elected four of their 
 number to the office of Bishop; and these four proceeded to England, where 
 three of them were consecrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and one of 
 them in Scotland by the Bishops of the Church in that country. The successors 
 and spiritual descendants of Ihese/owr, deriving their authority from the blessed 
 Redeemer, through "the imposition of the hands" of His lawful Bishops, have 
 multiplied to twenty-two, with a prospect of further increase ; and their authority 
 is acknowledged by more than twelve hunched clergy, w^ho derive their ordination 
 from them and their predecessors. — Here, then, was an " other way" of obtaining 
 a supply of ministers, than by a Presbyter iindertaking to ordain another Presby- 
 ter a Bishop in his chamber! And, as Wesley makes his "providential call" 
 depend on the /art of there not being "any other way," and this proof that there 
 was another way, makes it plain to a demonstration, that Wesley had no " provi- 
 dential call" to ordain whatever! It was just seventy-three days after this ordination 
 of Dr. Coke, that Dr. Seabury was consecrated in Scotland, to be the Bishop of the 
 Church in Connecticut. Had Wesley, therefore, waited but seventy-three days,he 
 would have seen that God was providing a lawful ministry for His Church, and 
 that he did not need the aid of the superintendent of a Methodist society to do 
 the work for Him. Strange — passing strange — it is, it never should have crossed 
 Wesley's mind, that God could provide ministers for his Church, without his in- 
 strumentality !* Strange, too, when there were, at least, one hundred "regularly 
 ordained" Presbyters of the Church remaining here, (after she had been sepa- 
 rated, by the Revolution, from the Mother Church of England,) that, if there 
 were to be a "providential call" to ordain ministers, it did not occur to Wesley 
 the "call" would have been given to one of them instead of hivi. Four of thena 
 were " called," as I have shown, by those possessing authority to call and ordain 
 ministers for the Church of Clirist, namely, by the lawful Bishops of the 
 Churches of England and Scotland; thus showing, beyond the power of contra- 
 diction, that God had not forsaken His Church, and that Wesley's thinking (for 
 he tells us he only thought so,) that he had a "providential call," was only the 
 imagining of a fallible man, trusting too much to his own narrow view of the 
 circumstances in which he was placed. And thus, sir, is scattered to the winds, 
 the other grand argument for the validity of Wesley's ordinations. 
 
 Hitherto, you will have observed, I have argued this question on the ground 
 taken by the Methodists, that Wesley ordained Dr. Coke, to be a Bishop — by a 
 Bishop meaning the first and highest officer of the Church of God, and that 
 Wesley himself was such a Bishop. But this we deny, because, 
 
 1. Wesley, in the above (so called) "letters of orders," simply styles himself 
 "a Presbyter o£ the Church of England." 
 
 2. In that document, he does not say a word about having ordained Dr. Coke 
 to be a Bishop, but merely that he " set him apartf as a Superinte^idcnt." Now 
 what did Wesley mean, by this phrase of setting him " apart as a Superintend- 
 ent r' 
 
 In the letter, above quoted, addressed (not to Bishop Coke, but) to " Dr. Coke, 
 
 * Wesley saw this when it was too late. Dr. Coke, in his letter to Bishop 
 White, says: "He (Mr. Wesley) being pressed by our friends on this side of 
 the water, for ministers to administer the sacraments to them, (there being very 
 few clergy of the Church of England then in the States,) went farther, I am 
 sure, than he would have gone, if he had foreseen some events which followed." 
 
 f " Ordination is not to be confounded with the designating or setting apart of a 
 person to the work of the ministry; for in strictness, any one may do this for 
 himself, or it may be done for him by his parents, guardians, &c., and involves 
 nothing but what any layman may perform ; whereas ordination is the actual com- 
 munication of authority from a legitimate source, to execute those functions which 
 appertain to the several orders of the ministry." (Staunton.) 
 
65 
 
 Mr. Ashury, and our Brethren in North America" is the following paragraph, which 
 explains the whole transaction : 
 
 " I have apjioinled Dr. Coke and Mr. Francis Asbury to be joint Superintendents 
 over our Brethren in North America." 
 
 Now, I beg you to examine this language narrowly. 1. Wesley does not say 
 he ordained Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury, but simply that he " appoiniccr them. But, 
 by using the word " appointed," did Wesley mean that he ordained them 1 Cer- 
 tainly not; because the same word (appointed) is used respecting them both, 
 and Wesley did not ordain Asbury, lor Asbury was at that time in America, 
 and had been for several years previously. Nevertheless, Wesley " appointed" 
 hitn a Superintendent, as well as Coke ; and as ordination was not necessary to 
 constitute Asbury a Superintendent, neither was it necessary to constitute Dr. 
 Coke one; and it is evident that, as Asbury was not ordained, Coke could not 
 have been, (as the same word, " appointed," is used respecting them both,) and 
 that Wesley did not mean to say that he had ordained them, when he said that he 
 " appointed" them. Indeed, the idea of ordaining a Superintendent of a merely 
 human society* is a thing utterly unknown to the Scriptures and the Church of 
 God. It is precisely the same thing, as if a Presbyter now was to ordain a Super- 
 intendent for the Sunday School Union, or a Bible Society. Wesley was too 
 sound a divine to adopt any such absurd notion. He was himself the Superin- 
 tendent of the Methodist Society in England, but had never been ordained to that 
 office ; and if Wesley could be a Superintendent without ordination, the same 
 could be done by Coke or Asbury without ordination. No, sir, there is not a 
 partick of evidence to prove that Wesley ever "ordained" Dr. Coke. Coke was 
 placed precisely on the same footing with Asbury, (who was a.layman) — Wesley 
 " appointed" them both Superintendents of the Methodist Society in North Ame- 
 rica; and the only difference between them is this: that in "appointing" Dr. Coke, 
 Wesley did it in rather a more formal manner, by placing his hands on his head, 
 and praying over him ! 
 
 But (2d,) did Wesley by « appointing" Coke and Asbury to be "Superintend- 
 ents" intend to make them "Bishops'!" Lee, in his "Short History," gives the 
 following account of these men first calling themselves Bishops, in the minutes of 
 their Conference : (pages 127-8.) 
 
 "In the course of this year (1787) Mr. Asbury reprinted the general minutes; 
 but in a different form from what they were before. The title of this pamphlet 
 was as follows : 
 
 " A form of discipline for the ministers, preachers, and members of the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church in America; considered and approved at a Conference 
 held at Baltimore in the State of Maryland, on Monday, the 27th day of Decem- 
 ber, 1784. * * * * 
 
 "In this discipline there were thirty-one sections, and sixty-three questions, 
 with answers to them all. 
 
 " The third question in the second section, and the answer, read thus : 
 
 "Q. Is there anj^ other business to be done in Conference 1 
 
 <' A. The electing and ordaining of Bishops, Elders, and Deacons. 
 
 "This was the /Jrs/ time that our Superintendents ever gave the title oi Bishops 
 in the minutes. They changed the title themselves ivithont the consent of the Conference!^' 
 
 Thus it appears that a fraud was practised by one of these Superintendents to 
 
 * At that time, there was no such thing in existence as a " Methodist Church'' 
 Wesley, and the Methodists themselves only spoke of themselves as the Metho- 
 dist society, or societies, or sometimes as the Methodist Connexion, and that Wesley 
 was their founder and father. Of course, it was only a human society, and nothing 
 more : indeed, at that time, it did not claim to be any thing more ; and the idea, of 
 ordaining a Superintendent, or any other minister, for a human society, is absurd. 
 Lee says, (page 47,) " We were only a religious society, and not a Church." At 
 page 94, he says: "At this Conference we formed ourselves into a regular 
 Church." How a religious society could be turned into a Church,he does not 
 inform us. This was after Coke came to America. 
 
 6* 
 
66 
 
 get himself recognized as a Bishop — No less a fraud than altering the minutes of 
 the Conference! and this, too, by endeavouring to make it appear to the world, that 
 they had been recognized as Bishops by the Conference since the first foundation of 
 " the Methodist Church," in 1784 ! whereas the Conference had only recognized 
 them as Superintendents — the office to which Wesley had appointed them — and 
 this alteration of their title, for this purpose by themselves, took place in 1787! 
 
 Lee, in his "History," goes on to remark: 
 
 "At the next Conference they asked the preachers if the word Bishop might 
 stand in the minutes ; seeing that it was a Scripture name, and the meaning of 
 the worrf Bishop was the same with that of Superintendent." 
 
 Observe here, the reason assigned for assuming the title of Bishop. It was 
 not that Wesley had ordained them to that office. Coke knew better than that! 
 But because the word " Bishop" meant " Superintendent !" So it also means an 
 " overseer," but is every overseer therefore a Bishop ? So the word " Presbyter" 
 means " an old man ;" but is every old man therefore a Presbyter? So the word 
 "Deacon" means " a servant ;" but is every servant therefore a Deacon ? It is 
 evident from this transaction, that Coke and Asbury did not dare to assign Wes- 
 ley's " appointment" as the ground for their assuming the title of the chief officer 
 in the Church of God ; otherwise they would not have assigned such a school- 
 boy reason for their unjustifiable act. 
 
 Lee, in his " History," then goes on further to remark : 
 
 "Some of the preachers opposed the alteration, and wished to retain the for- 
 mer title, [that of superintendent;] but a majority of the preachers agreed to let 
 the word Bishop remain ; and, in the annual minutes for the next year, the first 
 question is : ' who are the Bishops of our Church for the United States V " 
 
 Thus was consummated one of the most startling frauds of modern times; and 
 the whole " Methodist Church" has ever since, been led to believe, that Wesley 
 ordained Dr. Coke a Bishop, and then " commissioned" him to ordain Asbury a 
 Bishop, and that these two were actually recognized and called Bishops by the 
 Methodist Conference since the first foundation of their "Church," in 1784! 
 And, what is more, this fraud is actually perpetrated to the present day; for in 
 the " Book of Discipline," (chap. 1, sec. I,) it is said expressly: " Francis Asbury 
 was solemnly set apart for the said Episcopal office by prayer, and the imposition 
 of hands of the said Thomas Coke, other regularly ordained ministers assisting 
 in the sacred ceremony. At which time, the General Conference, held in Balti- 
 more, did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as 
 their Bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination!" 
 
 Now when did this " imposition of hands" on Mr. Asbury by Dr. Coke take 
 place ■? Mr. Lee informs us, in his " History," (p. 94,) that it took place at the 
 Conference, which began in Baltimore on December 27, 1784; whereas it was 
 not until 1787, that the minutes were altered; and it was not until the "next 
 Conference" afterwards, that the Superintendents were " received" as Bishops ! 
 and when the Conference did consent to " receive them as Bishops," it was not 
 done " unanimously," but was the act of only a " majority" of the preachers. 
 And thus are the Methodists imposed upon until this very hour! 
 
 It is enough to make one shudder, when contemplating the manner in which 
 these men attempted to thrust themselves into the chief office of the Christian 
 ministry. The recollection of it appears to have grievously weighed upon Dr. 
 Coke's conscience, when he afterwards so earnestly wrote to Bishop Seabury to 
 ordain him and Asbury Bishops! and to Bishops White and Seabury to ordain 
 their preachers over again ! And well it might weigh upon his conscience ! The 
 wonder is, it did not drive him into a mad-house ! Wesley himself tells us the 
 effect it had upon him, when he heard of Asbury claiming to be a Bishop ! He 
 tells us it made him shudder — and well it might. He thus writes to Asbury : 
 
 John Wesley to Frattcis Asburt. 
 
 "London, September 20, 1788. 
 
 "There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand 
 to the Americans, and the relation M'herein I stand to all the Methodists. You 
 
67 
 
 are the elder brother of the American Methodists ; I am, under God, the father of 
 the whole family. Therefore,! naturally care for you all, in a manner no other 
 person can do. Therefore, I, in a measure, provide for you all ; for the supplies 
 which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide, were it not for me — 
 were it not, that I not only permit him to collect, but support him in so doing. 
 
 " But, in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid both the Doctor and 
 you difier from me. I study to be little, you study to be great ; I creep, you strut 
 along; I found a school, you a college. Nay, and call it after your own names! 
 Oh, beware ! Do not seek to be something ! Let me be nothing, and Christ be 
 all in all. 
 
 " One instance of this, your greatness, has given me great concern. How 
 can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a Bishop ? 
 
 " I shudder, I start at the very thought ! Men may call me a knave, or a fool, a 
 rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content; but they shall never, by my consent, call 
 me a Bishop ! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to 
 this ! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let the Methodists know 
 their calling better. 
 
 " Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart ; and let this, 
 when I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely 
 
 " I am your affectionate friend and brother, 
 
 John Wesley."* 
 
 This letter is a remarkable document. Four years had nearly elapsed since 
 his "appointment" of Dr. Coke. In the mean time Wesley had had time for 
 reflection. He had time for a further and more deliberate investigation of the 
 authority of Presbyters to ordain ; and however he might, for a season, have been 
 blinded by the sophistical book of Sir Peter King, so as to suppose Presbyters 
 and Bishops were the same order, yet now he gives his more mature judgment, 
 that they were not — for that is the meaning of the last clause in his letter, where 
 he speaks of the Presbyterians. It is well known that the doctrine of the Pres- 
 byterians is, that Bishops and Presbyters are the same order; and many of them, 
 even to this day, do not scruple to call themselves Bishops. In reference to this 
 fact it is, that "Wesley says in the above letter, " Let the Presbyterians do as they 
 please, but let the Methodists know their calling better." That is, let the Presbyterians, 
 if they please, call themselves Bishops, but let not the Methodists follow their 
 example — let them know their calling better than to call themselves Bishops, 
 when they are not. 
 
 Now, let it be remembered, that the question before us is : Did Wesley, when 
 he " appointed" Coke and Asbury "Superintendents" of the Methodist Society, 
 ordain them Bishops T 
 
 It is certain he did not. This letter to Asbury, in the very plainest manner 
 possible — words cannot be plainer — declares that Asbury was no Bishop; and 
 yet Coke did for Asbury precisely what Wesley did for Coke — he laid his 
 hands upon him, and prayed over him : and if, in Wesley's judgment, this impo- 
 sition of hands and prayer by a Presbyter did not constitute Asbury a Bishop, 
 neither could they, in Wesley's judgment, have constituted Dr. Coke a Bishop; for 
 Coke's authority to ordain was the same as Wesley's, (which was no authority 
 at all,) both of them being Presbyters of the Church of England ; and, therefore ,it is 
 proved clearly and undeniably, that in appointing Coke and Asbury to be " Super- 
 intendents" of the Methodist Society, Wesley did not ordain them Bishops. 
 
 Notwithstanding their high-handed assumption of Xheiltlc of Bishop, still these 
 men were uneasy. The fact was still staring them in the face, (and the woi'ld 
 knew it,) that Wesley had only " appointed" them to be Superintendents of the 
 Methodist Society under him ;-{- and, however they might claim to be Bishops 
 
 * From Moore's Life of Wesley, vol. ii. page 285. 
 
 f In his letter "appointing" Dr. Coke a Superintendent, Wesley says, "Whereas 
 many of the people in the Southern Provinces of North America, who desire to 
 continue under my care," &c. In his letter to Asbury, he says : "The supplies 
 •which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could wot collect, were it not for me were 
 
68 
 
 — and, however they might alter the name in the minutes — still Bishops of the 
 Church of God they were not! Something, then, must be done to get around 
 this matter, and convince the people, 1. That Wesley was a Bishop ; 2. That 
 Wesley ordained Coke a Bishop ; and, 3. That Coke ordained Asbury a Bishop ! 
 One would suppose, when Asbury had Wesley's letter, (dated September 20lh, 
 1788,) in his pocket, declaring that he was no Bishop, and that Asbury was no 
 Bishop, that this would not be a very easy matter to accomplish. But these men 
 did not stick at trifles ; they had already fabricated a new set of minutes for their 
 "Church" to get the title of Bishops, and they were determined to go all lengths 
 sooner than fail in their project to be accounted real Bishops. The Bishops of 
 the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States had now for some time been 
 consecrated ; Coke and Asbury knew that their commission was authentic ; that 
 they had been consecrated in England and Scotland by lauful Bishops ; and that 
 the Church had received them as Bishops, in a regular succession from the 
 Apostles. Coke and Asbury knew all this; and alongside of these men, as 
 Methodist "Superintendents" they felt their littleness, although they had assumed 
 the name of what they so much coveted ! They knew that they had the name of 
 a Bishop, and that was all ! They had no succession to point to ! Let us see, 
 then, how they proceeded to get the reality. At one of their Conferences, held 
 in the year 1789, Mr. Lee, in his " History," informs us (p. 142,) that 
 
 " The Bishops (that is, Coke and Asbury) introduced a question in the annual 
 minutes, which was as follows : 
 
 " Q. Who are the persons that exercise the Episcopal office in the Methodist Church in 
 Europe and America f 
 
 " A. John Wesley, Thomas Coke, and Francis Asbury, by regular order and 
 
 SUCCESSION ! ! 
 
 " The next question was asked differently from what it ever had been in any of 
 the former minutes, which stands thus; 
 
 " Q. Who have been elected by the unanimous suffrages of the General Con- 
 ference to superintend the Methodist Connexion in America? 
 
 "A. Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury." 
 
 The drift of these questions and answers can be seen at once. Their object is 
 to make it appear, (1.) That it was the Conference and not Wesle)% which 
 "appointed"' them Superintendents ! and (2.) To make it appear, that Wesley was 
 a 13ishop, and ordained them Bishops, and that thus they have a regular succes- 
 sion from a lawful Bishop ! Now, let it be remembered, that these questions 
 were introduced by Coke and Asbury themselves ! They saw the full drift of 
 them, although the Conference might not have seen it! Calmly and without 
 prejudice review this proceeding; and then, taking it in connection with the fact, 
 that they fabricated a new set of minutes to get the name of a Bishop, and with 
 the fact that Asbury had in his possession Wesley's letter declaring that he was 
 no Bishop, and thdiX Asbury was no Bishop — I say, calmly and without prejudice 
 review this proceeding, in connection with these fads, and then say, whether 
 modern or ancient times afford a more daring or unhallowed scheme, than this 
 presents, of men undertaking to usurp the office and authority of a Christian 
 Bishop ! 
 
 These facts, also, prove that Coke and Asbury knew that Wesley did not ordain 
 them Bishops, when he " appointed" them Superintendents of the Methodist 
 
 it not that I not only pfnni^ him to collect, but support him in so doing." The 
 following question and answer were adopted at the Conference in 1784. " Q. 2. 
 What can be done in order to the future union of the Methodists'? A. During 
 the life of the Rev. John Wesley, we acknowledge ourselves his sons in the 
 Gospel, ready, in matters belonging to Church Government, to obet his com- 
 mands," &c. (Lee's History, p. 95.) Mr. Lee afterwards observes: "This 
 engagement to obey Mr. Wesley's commands, in matters belonging to Church 
 Gwernment, was afterwards the cause of some uneasiness." No wonder. Wes- 
 ley's letter to Asbury when he set up for a Bishop, was well calculated to make 
 him uneasy 
 
69 
 
 Society under him. But, if there be any doubts remaining on this point, they will 
 be removed by the perusal of Dr. Coke's letters to Bishops White* and Seaburyf 
 of the Protestant Episcopal Church. 
 
 1. It will be observed, in both of these letters, that Dr. Coke does not, for a 
 moment, claim to be a Bishop. 
 
 2. His letter to Bishop White shows, that he exceeded the authority given him 
 by Mr. Wesley, and that Mr. Wesley disapproved of his proceedings. 
 
 3. In his letter to Bishop Seabury, he asks Bishop Seabury to ordain him "a 
 Bishop of the Methodist Society !" Thereby acknowledging that Wesley, when 
 he " appointed" him a Superintendent, did not ordain him a Bishop, of that society! 
 
 4. In his letter to Bishop Seabury, he asks Bishop Seabury to ordain Mr. As- 
 bury a Bishop of the Methodist Society; thereby acknowledging that his ordina- 
 tion of Asbury to be a Bishop was only a mock ordination ! 
 
 5. In his letter to Bishop Seabury, asking for the admission of the Methodist 
 preachers into the Protestant Episcopal Church, Dr. Coke says, that he "knows 
 that they must submit to arc-ordination." Of course, the ordination they received 
 from him was good for nothing, otherwise there would have been no necessity 
 for their being ordained over again. 
 
 6. These letters prove, beyond question, that Coke knew and believed, that 
 Bishops alone possessed authority to ordain ; that no such authority was possessed 
 by Presbyters (otherwise his own ordinations would have been valid, for he was a 
 Presbyter;) and, consequently, that he knew and believed that Presbyters and 
 Bishops were not the same order. 
 
 7. These letters, too, show conclusively, what was Dr. Coke's opinion of Wes- 
 ley's ordinations (as they are called) — that is, that they possessed no validity what- 
 ever; and, therefore, that when Wesley " appointed" him a Superintendent of 
 the Methodist Society, he did not "ordain" him a Bishop of the Church of God. 
 
 c. 
 
 The following paragraph is the close of a Letter addressed to me by Dr. 
 Durbin in the public prints, and which, for good reasons, I determined not to 
 notice. The matter referred to is not of much consequence, and I would 
 overlook it entirely, did I not know that some persons have regarded his 
 statement as true ; and have naturally drawn conclusions against those prin- 
 ciples of the Church with which Dr. Pusey's name is so nobly associated. 
 
 "It was deemed desirable by my brethren, that the capital questions in dis- 
 pute should be distinctly stated, as the general judgment of the Church in Eng- 
 land and America is, that Puseyism is Romanism in disguise. The proceedings 
 of the existing Church authorities in England which resulted in the suspension of 
 Dr. Pusey from the ministry, and the resignation of Mr. Newman, are sufficient 
 evidence of their views." 
 
 " Evidence" ! There is no truth in the statement. No Church authorities 
 have acted in the premises. Dr. Pusey has not been suspended from the 
 ministry ; and if it be meant that Mr. Newman has resigned his ministry, (in 
 which case only it would be evidence of his doctrinal unsoundness,) that also 
 is untrue. A person acquainted only with the first principles of Church 
 polity, never could have been guilty of such an assertion, as Dr. Durbin has 
 here hazarded ; and that too, in respect of a case which was correctly reported 
 
 * Published in Bishop White's Memoirs. 
 
 f The letter to Bishop Seabury is similar. The autograph is in the possession 
 of the Rev. Dr. Seabury of New York, 
 
70 
 
 even in the newspapers. He needs to be informed that a clergyman can be 
 suspended from his ministry only by his diocesan. But the Bishop of Oxford 
 has never interfered with Dr. Pusey, even so much as to give him a rebuke. 
 The latter was suspended only from the privilege of preaching within the pre- 
 cincts of the University, for two years ,• and that by the Vice Chancellor, acting 
 in his capacity of supreme civil magistrate of the city and University of Oxford, 
 and without paying any regard to the provision of the statute under which he 
 acted, that the ' offence should be examined in open court.' Dr. Pusey was 
 punished without having any distinct charge brought against him. No one 
 in authority has dared to say, that his famous sermon contained one word con- 
 travening any doctrinal statement of the Church of England. Neither the 
 Vice Chancellor, nor his lieutenant. Professor Garbett, have ventured so far 
 as this. The title of the statute under which Dr. Pusey suffered (it is wrong 
 to say " punished," for a man cannot be punished, properly speaking, unless 
 he is guilty of an offence,) is " De offensionis et disseniionis materia in con- 
 cionibus evitanda;''^ i. e. " about avoiding matters of offence and dispute in 
 sermons." Such matters, the statute states, are those which are " contrary to, 
 or at variance with, the publicly received doctrine and discipline of the Church 
 of England ;" and the statute closes with these words, "e/ praedictorum crimi- 
 num suspectus pads reus habeatur,^^ i. e. " and one charged with the afore- 
 said offences may be accused as a disturber of the peace." 
 
 Such was the pretended offence. At most, it was a civil offence, and ille- 
 gally punished by a ai)z7 magistrate, without giving the accused a trial, or a 
 hearing. In a published note, the Vice Chancellor says, " Dr. Pusey has 
 my full authority for saying, that he has had no hearing." Dr. Pusey is 
 still a priest in the Church of England, Canon of Christ Church, and 
 Regius Professor of Hebrew ; and is free to preach any where he may be 
 invited, beyond the Vice Chancellor's jurisdiction. It may be as well to 
 state here in addition, that that officer, and those who have acted with him, 
 have lately received a rebuke from the Convocation which has covered them 
 with shame. 
 
 Mr. Newman's resignation was simply of the vicarage of St. Mary's. He 
 wished to make it two years before, in order to relieve his persecutors from 
 the sin of indulging their personal animosity against him ; but he was dis- 
 suaded from it by his Bishop. His meek forbearance, however, did them no 
 good ; and he at last, voluntarily, gave up the living of St. Mary's, together 
 with the chapel annexed, which he had founded himself. 
 
 THE END. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 28, top line, for means read mean. 
 
 Page 30, 3d line from the bottom, fox justifiable read justified. 
 
 Page 33, in the quotation near the bottom, for " The Homily says they 
 taught the doctrine of Sacramental justification ;" read, " The Homily says 
 they taught the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone ;' you say they taught 
 the docrine of ' Sacramental justification.' " i 
 
 Page 34, in the 9th line from the bottom, erase the words " their minds 
 
 are"- 
 
 Page 49, 1st line in 2d quotation, for has read hast. 
 
 Page 52, 6th line from the top, for redoubiebk read redoubtable. 
 
 %^l 
 
£T ^ 
 
 ^^5^' 
 m^,^^ 
 
 ^y^^^s^j i<. 
 
..'^■y;^>:m 
 
 >^" 
 
 
 r.^^ 
 
 ~v"-K. 
 
 
 Vl)^ 
 
 
.^ 
 
 l\ 
 
 V \> 
 
 ^^ V -'. 
 
 t^^xX 
 
 ^y v^'-