F

aiAss

ett

v/

>A I

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

THE
THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES
CONSIDERED AS
THE STANDARD AND TEST
OF THE DOCTRINES OF
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
CHIEFLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIEWS O?
No. 90
OF THE
TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
A LECTURE
DELIVERED
BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD-,
IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL,
ON THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1841.

BY
GODFREY FAUSSETT, D.D.
THE LADY MARGARET'S PROFESSOR OP DIVINITY, AND CANON

OF CHRIST CHCBCH.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER ;
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
1841.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.

A
LECTURE, 8fc.

The necessity of Creeds and Confessions of
Faith must have been obvious from the very
foundation of Christianity. It can scarcely be
believed that the Apostles themselves, much less
their disciples and successors, baptized their con
verts without obtaining from them some distinct
assent to the leading truths of the Gospel. St.
Paul's frequent mention of the " form of sound
" words," " the form of doctrine which was de-
" livered," and other expressions of similar im
port, lead to the natural and probable conclusion,
that the Apostles had supplied their Churches
with some established formularies of the kind
now supposed. Without them, indeed, it is not
easy to conceive how uniformity of doctrine could
have been either primarily inculcated or sub
sequently maintained. It was not essential to
their efficacy that they should have been, verba-
a2

tim, the same in all places. Indeed the speci
mens which have been transmitted to us, in the
writings of the Fathers of the second and third
centuries, exhibit a variety of expression, though
not of meaning. They were, however, generally
characterized by brevity and simplicity of state
ment, until the prevarications and perversions
of heresy compelled the rulers of the Church
to guard the orthodox Faith by a more critical
preciseness of language, and to enlarge from time
to time her doctrines and decisions, accordingly
as Scriptural truths, hitherto tacitly acknow
ledged, were misrepresented or denied.
Of the progressive increase of this unhappy
necessity, and of the consequent enlargement of
her Confessions of Faith, the successive adoption
of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, and the
minuteness and care with which particular points
were insisted upon in them, afford an ample il
lustration. And it is not readily to be imagined
that the Arian impugners of the complete Divinity
of Christ, or the various misinterpreters and op-
posers of the doctrine of the Trinity, could by
any possible subterfuge have evaded the searching
tests to which they were thus subjected. The
result at least is clear. The Arian and other
kindred heresies, though harassing to the Church
for a season, gradually declined in credit, and
eventually disappeared, leaving the orthodox
Creed thus far triumphant and unquestioned.

Unfortunately, however, what was no longer
questioned or opposed, was unheeded and for
gotten. The ages of darkness, spiritual and
intellectual, were rapidly closing in on the Euro
pean nations; the truths of Revelation faded
away before the dreams of superstition and the
fictions of Priestcraft ; the mere externals of
religion gradually superseded all its life and
spirit, and the worship of the Almighty Creator,
Redeemer, and Sanctifier of mankind was well
nigh merged in an idolatrous devotion to de
parted Saints. Hence it was, that when the
light of reviving intelligence cast its rays on
these dark abuses, and men of reflection and
discernment were fully roused to a sense of their
bondage, and to the determination to cast off the
degrading yoke, the illustrious individuals, whom
God's good Providence raised up to restore and
purify the long neglected Faith, found them
selves engaged in a far more extensive and
arduous work than the Nicene Bishops of old.
The positive doctrines, once so fiercely opposed
by ancient heretics, and again in danger from
reviving heresy, were of course to be clearly and
definitely stated. But this was the least of their
labours; for the adversary, with whom it was
their lot to contend, left these points for the
most part undisputed. She did not, after the
manner of the ordinary heretic, wrest and distort
and misinterpret Scripture, while still strenuously

appealing to its authority ; but she had done far
more and far worse ; she had in a great measure
suppressed Scripture itself, and superseded its
sacred truths by a mass of unauthorized tradi
tions and superstitious inventions, which had for
ages corrupted and disguised, and, as it were,
overlain " the faith once delivered to the Saints."
They were therefore imperatively called upon to
assert the supreme and exclusive authority of
Inspired Scripture; and to enter their decided
negative and protest against every doctrine, which
could not be fairly and legitimately traced to
that sacred source. Thus the negative, the pro
testing, in common language the Protestant por
tion of their task, became their leading object ;
to this their highest energies were devoted;
— " ubi animum intendis ibi valet;" and it would
appear, a priori, little probable, that they should
have failed in drawing a strict line between
scriptural truths and unscriptural inventions. In
fact, just as the ancient Creeds, which have been
referred to, contain internal evidence of the spe
cific aberrations from sound doctrine, which their
framers had chiefly in view, so the Articles of
our Church, for which we are indebted, under
Heaven, to the learning and skill, the care and
discretion, the zeal and piety of our venerated
Reformers, while they shew no anxious desire to
make any unnecessary distinctions between Pro
testant and Protestant, evince the most marked

and jealous determination to erect an impassable
barrier against the peculiar errors of Romanism.
If after all, as is of late more than insinuated
amongst us, they have essentially failed in this
their primary object ; — if this our national pro
test can be fairly shewn to be a weak and in
efficient protection, if not against the grosser
enormities and more flagrant corruptions of the
Papal system, yet at least against those subtle
principles of error, those unsound and super
stitious fancies, those seeds of growing evil,
which gradually ripened into Popery, properly
so called, but may be clearly detected in the
early, some of them almost in the earliest ages of
Christianity ;-— then has our Church been labour
ing under the blindness of confirmed delusion for
more than two centuries and a half, till roused
from her dream of false security by the unlooked
for and unwelcome light, which the penetrating
genius of the nineteenth century has cast on the
gaps and breaches of her ill-constructed defences.
But are we really thus defenceless and un
provided ? Is the fabric, reared by the piety and
pains of the illustrious renovators of our Faith,
really thus unsound, and permeable at all points
by every wind of heretical and superstitious
imagination ? I confidently trust that it is not.
But as an unprecedented latitude of interpreta
tion is now contended for, implying indeed no
less than that subscription to our Articles is

8
consistent with a belief in various doctrines of
the Church of Rome, which they have hitherto
been considered expressly to condemn ; it is
necessary, m the first place, to advert briefly
to the meaning and obligations of subscription;
and then to examine in successive detail the views
which have been explained and the arguments
which have been adduced, affecting the general
system and structure of our Articles; as well
as some of those, which have been brought to
bear severally on its component parts.
I. The Articles of our Church have been
generally considered with reference to the people
at large, to be simply Articles of union and peace,
affording an established guide to uniform opi
nions, but not exacting them on every particular
and less essential point, on which different views
may be held without any necessity of a breach of
communion. But to the Clergy, who subscribe
them, they are a far more stringent code, since
without a very near approach to uniformity of doc
trine in the ministers of the Church, little sem
blance of it could be expected among the people.
The Clergy are required by the 36th Canon to
subscribe " willingly and ex animo," and to " ac-
" knowledge all and every the Articles to be
" agreeable to the word of God." Every single
proposition maintained in the Articles, however
unimportant it may be deemed in itself, becomes
a weighty matter to a person so subscribing.

On any other supposition, their declared object,
" the avoiding diversities of opinion, and the
" establishing of consent touching true religion"
would be completely defeated. Hence it appears
that there are various points of speculative
opinion, which must at once exclude a con
scientious man from the Ministry of our Church,
which need not, or rather, considering the heinous
guilt of schism, ought not in conscience to induce
him to desert her Communion.
Again, (unless we would open a door to every
species of equivocation and evasion,) Subscrip
tion to the Articles must be made in the sense of
those who impose it. At the very utmost, since
several of the number have been considered as
fairly admitting some latitude of interpretation,
the liberty of so interpreting them must be
limited to what is notoriously understood and
allowed by those who employ them as a test.
To the same purport, Waterland, after no
ticing that " the sense of the compilers and im-
" posers may generally be presumed the same,"
argues thus : " It is a settled rule with casuists
" that oaths are always to be taken in the sense
" of the imposers ; the same is the case of
" solemn leagues or covenants. Without this
" principle no faith, trust, or mutual confidence
" could be kept up amongst men. Now sub-
" scription is much of the same nature with
" those ; and must be conceived to carry much

10
" of the same obligation with it. It is a solemn and
" sacred covenant with the Church or government ;
" to be capable of such or such trusts upon
" certain conditions ; which conditions are an
" unfeigned belief of those propositions, which
" come recommended in the public forms1."
Again, " As the Church requires subscription
" to her own interpretation of Scripture, so the
" subscriber is bound, in virtue of his subscrip-
" tion, to that, and that only; and if he know-
" ingly subscribes in any sense contrary to,
"or different from, the sense of the imposers,
" he prevaricates and commits a fraud in so
" doing b."
Thus again, according to Bishop Sanderson ;
" Verba intelliguntur secundum mentem et inten-
" tionem ejus cui fit juramentum, ait Juriscon-
" sultus. Ratio est, quia eum ob finem hoc
" juramenti genus suscipitur, ut is cui juratur, ex
" interposita fide habeat aliquam certitudinem,
" id quod sibi a jurante promissum est, impletum
" iri ; de promissione autem adimplenda nihilo
" certior esset, si verba ex mente jurantis, non
" ex sua ipsius mente essent intelligenda c."
These plain, and at the same time most im-
a Waterland on Arian Subscription, chap. iii. Works, vol. ii.
p. 288, 9.
" Ihid. p. 284
« Bishop Sanderson, De Juramenti Obligatione, Prselect.
IV. sect. 9.

11
portant principles, I have, for obvious reasons,
preferred stating in the words of well-known and
highly-respected authorities, rather than asserting
them in any language of my own. Their bearing
on the subject before us will be more distinctly
seen, as we proceed to examine the views and
arguments of the Author of No. 90 of the Tracts
for the Times, on the strength of which he has
ventured to suggest those modes of interpreting
the Thirty-nine Articles, which have been justly
characterized by the highest authorities in this
place as " evading their sense, and reconciling
" subscription to them with the adoption of
*' errors, which they were designed to coun-
" teract d."
II. A disposition to depreciate the Reforma
tion, and to vilify the character and conduct
and labours of the Reformers, has notoriously con
stituted a leading feature in the writings of the
Tractarian party, from the late Mr. Froude, who
confessed that he " hated the Reformation and
" the Reformers more and more e," to the Author
of Tract No. 90, who even insinuates, that the
calamities of the succeeding age were " the in-
" herited penalty" of their sins, and that the
Articles and formularies which they promulgated,
are " that body of death which" our fathers
of the seventeenth century " bore about in
d Resolution of the Hebdomadal Board, March 15, 1841.
e Froude's Remains, vol. i. p. 389.

12
" patience '." He had however in a previous
publication designated the Articles as a " trial
" of our humility and self-restraint g ;" whence it
should appear that no ready escape from the
" bondage" which they imposed, had thus far
suggested itself to his mind. Pressing necessity,
however, proverbially stimulates the inventive
faculties. His followers, pursuing his, so called,
Catholic principles to their natural results, are
found to be "straggling in the direction of Romeh ;"
and then at length it is that the all-important
discovery is made, that, though " there are real
" difficulties to a Catholic Christian in the Ec-
" clesiastical position of our Church at this day,"
" the statements of the Articles are not in the
" number1," and that " our Articles, the off-
" spring of an uncatholic age, are through God's
" good providence, to say the least, not un-
" catholic, and may be subscribed by those
" who aim at being Catholic in heart and
" doctrine k."
Where the wish is thus obviously " the father
" to the thought," the thought itself must ever
labour under a strong suspicion on the score
of correctness and consistency. Accordingly the
' Tracts for the Times, No. 90, p. 4.
» Lectures on Romanism, p. 28.
" Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr Jelf, p. 29.
' Tract 90, p. 2.
k Ibid. p. 4.

13
straightforward principle of paying a due regard
to the design of those who framed the Articles,
is at once discarded. But in order to meet the
anticipated objection to anti-Protestant explana
tions of Articles notoriously " drawn up by
" Protestants, and intended for the establishment
" of Protestantism," it is answered that " it is a
" duty which we owe both to the Catholic Church
" and to our own, to take our reformed Con-
" fessions in the most Catholic sense they will
" admit ; and that we have no duties towards
" their framers '." As if betrayed, however, by
a besetting consciousness of the value of the
principle which he is thus rejecting, he is almost
in the next sentence induced to appeal to it for
an argument against itself; — observing with
respect to the declaration prefixed to the Articles
by Charles the First, that " its enjoining the
" literal and grammatical sense, relieves us from
" the necessity of making the known opinions
" of their framers a comment upon their text,
" and that its forbidding to affix any new sense
" to any Article was promulgated at a time when
" the leading men of our Church were especially
" noted for those Catholic views which have been
" here advocated m." Now not to mention that
the literal and grammatical sense is most likely
to accord with the true meaning of men intent
on careful and accurate statement ; — that the new
1 Tract 90, p. 80. - Ibid.

14
sense, then complained of, was the Puritanical
interpretation of the Articles relating to the
Divine Decrees and other points recently main
tained by the Synod of Dort", and that any
opinions of these men of presumed Catholic
views, differing from those of the original framers
of the Articles, would have been equally open
to the charge of novelty, what does the whole
argument amount to ? — Simply to this. — The
Articles were carefully drawn up, and delibe
rately and successively revised and corrected
by the ablest Theologians of the day, approved
by Convocation and sanctioned by Parliament,
but their framers were Protestants; — therefore
their known opinions are no guide to us. Again,
a few Bishops influenced Charles I. to issue a De
claration respecting these Articles, unsanctioned
either by Convocation or Parliament ; but its
framers were noted for Catholic views ; — there
fore their known sentiments may assist us in
determining its meaning. And as if this in
consistency were not sufficiently glaring, who can
fail to marvel at the unwonted fancy here ex
pressed for a " literal and grammatical sense," —
the very bane of those who would by evasive
distinctions extract Catholic views out of Pro
testant Articles ?
" The Synod of Dort was held in 1618. The Declaration
of Charles I. was made in 1 628. See Collier's Eccl. Hist.
vol. ii, p. 746.

15
As if, however, to involve this whole argument
in still more inextricable confusion, another of
the Tractarian party steps forward with a " Vin-
" dication of their principles," and a declaration
of opinion that " the main object of Tract 90
" deserves the commendation of every member
" of the Church of England0;" but utterly super
seding the main theory of its author, by another
of his own. Whereas the Tract-writer aims at
explaining and interpreting the Articles " in the
" most Catholic sense which theyP will admit,"
repudiates altogether the views of their framers,
as uncatholic, the Vindicator clearly, and so far
correctly proves the real respect, which the Re
formers had for the voice of Primitive Antiquity ;
greatly overstates the verdict of the Homilies to
a more extravagant regard for it ; and then says,
" If in any instance it can be shewn that the
" strict letter of the Articles is necessarily
" and absolutely condemnatory of any such opi-
" nions and practices, we are bound in charity to
" the Reformers to suppose that this was most
" unintentional on their parts ; in which ' very
" perplexing difficulty' and ' nice point of casu-
" istry' as he calls it, he does ' not see why a
" man is to be blamed, who thinks' it ' the best
" way to do violence to their Articles for the
• Vindication of the Principles of the Authors of the Tracts
for the Times. By the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, p. 19.
» Tract 90, p. 80.

16
" integrity of their principles'';'" — as if forsooth
it were possible for one moment to believe, that
scattered opinions collected indiscriminately from
Histories, and Canons, and Homilies, or even
from some of the Reformers individually, as
uttered on unconnected occasions, are more to be
depended on for their deliberate verdict on spe
cial points, than the Articles themselves, which
passed through every ordeal, of cautious adoption
and careful revisal, which their collective wisdom
could suggest. The common object of both these
persons is to obtain an emancipation from the
well understood restraints, which our Articles
impose on their, so called, Catholic views. The
difference is, that the one proceeds to unravel the
knot by the more specious arts of evasion and cap
tious interpretation ; the other, observing his ill
success, proposes the idea of boldly cutting it;
in defiance of the plainest suggestions of right
reason. Thus far then the excuses advanced for
straining the Articles from their obvious and
received meaning, completely fail in consistency
and force. Indeed while the fire of the assailants
is thus unskilfully directed against themselves
and each other, little danger can be apprehended
for this bulwark of our national Faith, if its
defenders do not absolutely sleep at their post.
But it is argued by the Tract-writer, that our
i Perceval's Vindication, p. 17.

17
Articles notoriously admit some latitude of inter
pretation, and that " in thus maintaining that
" we have open questions, he is introducing no
" novelty '." This is undeniably true ; but un
fortunately for his object, the very questions
which he feels interested in leaving open, are for
the most part precisely those which our Re
formers were especially careful to close. It is
quite true that some considerable diversities
of opinion have been and are still held by very
conscientious men, without their feeling them-'
selves at all precluded from subscribing our
Articles. I allude of course, among other points>
to different views relating to Church government,
and more particularly to a leaning towards the
Arminian and Calvinistic systems respectively.
But some liberty on these points (whether too
wide a door was thus opened, is not here the
question) was naturally to be expected from the
framers of our Articles, whose attention and
efforts were so urgently called for in a very dif
ferent direction.
Besides, the system of Calvin was not so likely
to have arrested their attention, as we may now
perhaps imagine. It had not yet acquired its
notoriety and its distinctive appellation ; and the
disputes of Protestants inter se had been for the
most part confined to the Eucharistic ques-
r Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 19.
B

18
tion s ; a question moreover chiefly prevalent
among the Continental Reformers, and com
paratively little affecting the English Church.
It is still farther observable, that points of the
kind adverted to are in their very nature some
what beyond the reach of complete exactness of
definition and distinction. Who will pretend to
draw a strictly accurate line between the claims
of faith and works ? Who will dare dogmatically
to settle the respective limits of God's grace and
man's free-will? Those who differ on these
subjects, alike base their respective views on
truths undeniably scriptural. Where a fault
exists on either side, it arises from a dispropor
tionate adjustment of their respective demands
on our attention. It was a sound admonition of
our Reformers in the " Necessary * Doctrine,"
" that in this high matter all men, especially
" preachers, looking on both sides, so temper and
" moderate themselves, that they neither so
" preach the grace of God that they thereby
" take away free-will ; nor, on the other side, so
" extol free-will, that injury be done to the grace
" of God." But the corresponding and praise
worthy moderation of their Articles can scarcely
operate as a restraint, unless in those extreme
* See Archbishop Laurence's Bampton Lectures. Sermon
II. p. 47—50.
1 Called also " The King's Book," and published in
1543.

19
cases, where one principle is so extravagantly
adopted as well nigh to supersede the other.
In that portion of the Articles, however,
which were directed against the errors of the
Church of Rome, precision was far more attain
able. They were no longer called upon to
moderate extreme views, or adjust the balance
between admitted principles, but to put a decided
negative on various doctrines, unfounded in
Scripture,— in fact, spurious additions to Scrip
tural truth. And though there is notoriously
some hazard in affirming a negative proposition,
yet when once their intimate acquaintance with
Holy Writ gave them a well-founded confidence
in pursuing that course, they could scarcely fail
in drawing a distinct line between what they
would retain and what they would condemn.
When they could once venture to declare, that
there is no foundation for doctrines essential
to salvation except in the Canonical Scriptures, —
that there are no Sacraments of the Gospel
except two, — that there is no infallibility in
General Councils, no Purgatory, and the like ; —
their declarations assumed the most discriminative
character; leaving no room for equivocation, —
no question about a little more or a little less
latitude of interpretation, — but becoming a ban
of total exclusion against the opinions or practices
denounced. This is so evidently the general characteristic
b2

20
of those Articles which are directed against the
errors of the Church of Rome ; — so little do they
admit of being treated as, what the Tractarian calls,
" ambiguous formularies u," from which by subtle
distinctions a Catholic meaning may be elicited ;
— that, as if in despair of bending them fully to
his purpose, he has resorted to an expedient for
eluding, or rather diverting, that force which he
can neither deny nor resist, — quite as novel,
I should suppose, as it is, at all events, unwar
ranted by truth and fact. Admitting their defi
nite bearing upon the doctrines of Romanism,
he contends that they only condemn the autho
ritative teaching of the Church of Rome before
the Council of Trent, and not the decrees of that
Council ; for that " the decrees of Trent were
" drawn up after the Articles \" Now this is
chronologically untrue of almost all those decrees,
and virtually untrue of all. Of the twenty-five
Sessions of that Council, three only took place
after our Articles of 1562 were agreed upon.
And though the important decrees concerning
Purgatory and its associated doctrines stood over
to the closing Session, yet our Reformers (as
Bishop Burnet clearly explains) had so satis
factory a guide in the decrees and canons con
cerning the Mass, which had already passed
at Trent, in which most of those doctrines are
" Tract 90, p. 4.
1 Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6 and 19.

21
either affirmed or supposed, that they even ven
tured to exchange the more cautious expression
of King Edward's Article, " Doctrine of the
" Schoolmen" (" Scholasticorum") for " Romish
" Doctrine," as it now stands y. But still farther,
it seems to be wholly kept out of view, that the
Articles were once more deliberately revised and
formally ratified in 1571, more than seven years
y See Bishop Burnet on the Articles, Art. xxii. Thus of
the sacrifice of the Mass it is declared, " Quare non solum
" pro fidelium virorum peccatis, poenis, satisfactionibus, et aliis
" necessitatibus, sed pro defunclis in Christo, nondum ad
" plenum purgatis, rite, juxta Apostolorum traditionem offer-
" tur." Concil. Trid. Sess. xxii. cap. ii. De Sacrif. Missse.
Again, ..." nee Sacerdos dicere solet, 'offero tibi sacrifi-
" cium, Petre, vel Paule ;' sed Deo de illorum victoriis gratias
" agens, eorum patrocinia implorat, ut ipsi pro nobis inter-
" cedere dignentur in ccelis, quorum memoriam facimus in
" terris." Ibid. cap. iii.
We find Indulgences thus spoken of in the 21st Session;
" Indulgentias vero, aut alias spirituals gratias, quibus non
" ideo Christi fideles decet privari, deinceps per Ordinarios
" locorum . . . publicandas esse decernit . . ." Ibid. Sess. xxi.
cap. ix.
That the decrees of Trent were not intended to await any
final promulgation or ratification, is plain from these words,
which close the decree concerning the Canon of Scripture ;
" Omnes itaque intelligant quo ordine et vih ipsa Synodus,
" post jactum fidei confessionis fundamentum, sit progressura,
" et quibus potissimum testimoniis, ac praesidiis in confir-
" mandis dogmatibus, et instaurandis in Ecclesia moribus sit
" usura." Ibid. Sess. iv. De Canonicis Scripturis. A. D.
1546.

22
after the close of the Council of Trent, — that
several verbal corrections were then made, and
the English translation approved and adopted; so
that ample opportunity was allowed, and would
unquestionably have been taken, to modify any
views of Romish doctrine, which the later
decrees of the Council of Trent, or the more
diffuse explanations of the Trent Catechism, which
had also been intermediately promulgated, might
have required our Reformers to correct.
But after all, what beyond the merest shadow
of pretence is there for insinuating or assuming
any essential distinction between the well-under
stood doctrines of the Church of Rome before
the Council of Trent, and those established by
the more formal decrees of that Council ? Though
deceptively adopting a somewhat guarded tone,
and even expressing a distinct disapproval of
some of those more flagrant abuses in practice,
which, she was well aware, had roused the indig
nation of mankind against her, she still clung
with desperate and infatuated tenacity to the
principles themselves, from which the same prac
tical corruptions could not fail to flow again, and
indeed have notoriously flowed ever since in an
overwhelming tide of superstition and idolatry.
Of all the inconsistencies into which the Author
of Tract No. 90 has been betrayed, surely this
advocacy of the Council of Trent is the most
marvellous. When the conduct of the Reformers

23
was to be condemned, and the Reformation itself
disparaged, according to the views of Mr. Froude's
Remains, he maintained the comparative inno
cence of Rome before that Council ; urging that
her previous corruptions were but " floating opi-
" nions and practices2;" — " doctrines doubtfully
" broached ;"— " the private and unresolved opi-
" nions of some certain only";" that " if Rome
" has apostatized, it was at the time of the
" Council of Trent ;" and that " then indeed
" it is to be feared, the whole Roman Com-
" munion bound itself by a perpetual bond and
" covenant to the cause of Antichrist b." All
this, however, is found to run counter to
the more recently adopted scheme of shaking
the credit of our Articles, and unsettling our
reliance on their definite bearing. It is now,
therefore, considered that our Articles refer only
to the corruptions of Romanism as existing be
fore the Council of Trent ; that " its decrees do
" not necessarily in themselves tend to the cor-
" ruptions which we seec;" and that " it seems
" to be a very satisfactory omen in favour of the
" Church of Rome, that at the Council of Trent
" such protests, as are quoted in the Tract, were
" entered against so many of the very errors and
• Letter to Dr. Faussett, p. 13.
¦ Ibid. p. 15, 16.
» Ibid. p. 14.
c Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 1 0.

24
" corruptions which our Articles and Homilies
" also condemn H." Thus the Council of Trent
is at last discovered to be almost a Protestant
Council ; and at all events, that its decrees
clearly escape the Protests of our Articles. Surely,
if any thing can betray the weakness, I had al
most said the conscious weakness, of a cause,
it must be such an unsettled vacillation of views
as this ;— such a reckless adoption, as if it were
for the mere temporary purpose of the argument
immediately in hand, of whatever may promise
to afford it any colourable pretensions to plausi
bility, though in the very teeth of opinions
quite as strongly maintained on another and
that no distant occasion.
This singular change of language on the sub
ject of the Council of Trent, has not failed
(indeed, how could it ?} to attract the keen ob
servation of the Papist controversialist Dr. Wise
man, who very naturally asks of him and his
party, '< Why not suspect your judgments, if you
" find that they vary ? If there was ever a time,
" when you did not see many of our doctrines
" as you now view them ;  when, in fine,
" you were more remote from us in practice and
" feeling than your writings now shew you to be,
" why not suspect, that a further approximation
" may yet remain ; that further discoveries of
" truth, in what to-day seems erroneous, may be
d Ibid, p. 17.

25
" reserved for to-morrow ?" and " in conclusion,
" I thank you, Rev. Sir, from my heart, for the
" welcome information which your Letter con-
" tains, that men whom you value so highly,
" should be opening their eyes to the beauties
" and perfections of our Church, and require such
" efforts as your interpretation of the Articles
" to keep them from straggling in the direction
" of Romee.'' Most natural on the part of Dr.
Wiseman, and with his views and principles, is
the anticipation which he thus appears disposed
to indulge; nor less natural the complaint which
he makes against the Author of Tract 90, for
being " so eager to seize on the prejudices exist-
" ing" against Romanism in the members of the
Church of England, " as a shield to cast between
" himself and their attacks ;" — in other words,
for drawing a hideous picture of the worst cor
ruptions of Romish practice, in order that by his
strong protest against these, as well as against
various absurd opinions and degrading supersti
tions, to which all intelligent Romanists are quite
as much opposed as he himself can be, he may
rescue himself from that imputation of leaning
towards Romanism, under which he is well aware
that he lies, — while maintaining, on the vague
plea of Catholicity, many of the very prin
ciples and elements of corruption, which are
notoriously embodied in the decrees of Trent,
c Dr. Wiseman's Letter to Mr. Newman, p. 30 and 32.

26
but which the Articles of our Church as notori
ously and still more distinctly reprobate and
disclaim. III. And now having in some measure con
sidered the invalidity of the general arguments
and principles, by which the Tractarian endea
vours to justify and to facilitate his novel attempt
to elicit, what he is pleased to call, a Catholic
sense from our Protestant Confession of Faith,
and to reconcile a subscription to it with the
profession of tenets which it was unquestionably
intended to exclude ; it remains for us to ob
serve in a few leading instances (for our time
will not allow of a full detail) how the scheme
is brought to bear on the Articles severally, and
how it is sought by evasive interpretations and
subtle distinctions to elude and confuse, and
even sometimes to contradict, their simple and
obvious and received meaning.
To assert the paramount authority of Holy
Scripture, and establish its exclusive claim to be
the Rule of Faith and the Guide of Life, was the
vital principle of the Reformation : and the un
equivocal declaration of our sixth Article to this
purport is quite beyond all direct denial. The
plan adopted, therefore, is to mix the considera
tion of this Article with the twentieth " of the
" Authority of the Church ;" and the discussion
commences thus ; " Two instruments of Chris-
" tian teaching are spoken of in these Articles,

27
" Holy Scripture and the Church'." Now not
at all to question the truth of this assertion, or to
deny that Holy Scripture and the Church are
both important instruments of Christian teaching,
it is obvious to remark, that this unlooked for
and gratuitous coupling together of the two
authorities on an apparently equal footing, is at
least inauspicious. Accordingly, the drift of the
whole section turns out to be, to insinuate, or
assert, as the cases best admit, the respective
claims of the Apocryphal Books, the Church,
and Tradition, — and to establish not an exclusive,
but a combined Rule of Faith.
Thus advantage is taken of the non-application
of the epithet inspired to Holy Scripture, to
observe " that the books which are commonly
" called Apocrypha are not asserted in this
" Article to be destitute of inspiration, or to
" be simply human, but to be not canonical^;" —
as if calling Scripture holy (in the Latin Article
Sacra and Divina), and identifying it with the
acknowledged Canon or great Rule of Fath, as
" containing all things necessary to salvation,"
while the Apocrypha is distinctly excluded from
all share in " establishing any doctrine," — were
not, in other words, claiming the character of
inspiration for the Canonical Scriptures and
refusing it to the Apocrypha. The Tractarian
' Tract 90, p. 5. B Ibid. p. 6.

28
goes on however to improve the impression, which
he may thus perchance have made in favour of
these books, by a reference to " the reverential
" manner in which the Homilies speak of them,"
and to the language of Jerome and Augustine,
both of whom, it is said, though " implying
" more or less their inferiority to Canonical
" Scripture, yet use them freely and continually,
" and speak of them as Scripture1'." .In short,
one is naturally led to ask, whence all this
anxiety to raise from their secondary rank,
books, whose own internal evidence (from un
deniable instances' of false history and false
doctrine) clearly marks them out as the pro
ductions of erring men ? — and the recollection
is irresistibly forced upon us, that the Church
of Rome having had recourse to them for certain
supposed proofs of the existence of Purgatory, as
well as for support to the Invocation of Saints,
and the veneration of relics and images'1, would

h Ibid.
1 See Veneer on the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. vi. p. 190.
2d edit.
k Thus the 4th chapter of Tobit, the 2d, 14th, and 18th
chapters of Ecclesiasticus, and the 12th chapter of the second
book of Maccabees, are alleged to prove the existence of Pur
gatory. From the same books passages are cited in support
of the canonization and invocation of Saints, and the venera
tion of relics and images. See Bishop Marsh, Comparative
View, p. 5, 6.

29
not consent to abandon their inspiration at the
Council of Trent.
In the next place, proceeding to adjust the
respective offices of Scripture and the Church,'
and appearing to admit that the Articles
settle that " Scripture contains all the ne-
" cessary Articles of the Faith," and that the
Church is the " keeper," the " witness," and
the " expounder" of Scripture, in strict sub
ordination to Scripture itself, he proceeds to
unsettle and mystify what to common appre
hension is sufficiently clear, by suggesting all
sorts of remaining difficulties with regard to the
Church's "discretion," "responsibility," "me-
" dia of interpretation," &c. and confusing the
distinct ideas of rule in the sense of standard or
authority, and rule meaning method or liberty of
interpretation, maintains that it is not said that
" Scripture, as it is commonly expressed, is the
" sole rule of faith)."
Proceeding onwards in his course, he recom
mends dispensing with the phrase, " rule of
faith," as ambiguous in another respect, but
cannot afford to dispense with it himself, till
he has founded on this very ambiguity a
plausible fallacy for his own purpose. For
quoting several of our older divines, to shew
that the phrase was in their days somewhat
indiscriminately, sometimes jointly, sometimes
1 Tract, 90, p> 7.

30
severally, applied to the Creeds and Scripture, he
boldly concludes, that " in the sense, in which
"it is commonly understood at this day,
" Scripture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican
" principles, the Rule of Faith1." Now not
to dwell on the notorious deceptiveness of the
one-sided quotations of a modern Catena Patrum,
and the impossibility of admitting any number of
English Divines, however fairly quoted, to decide
what are Anglican principles in preference to the
acknowledged standard of the Articles, what is
the force of the argument itself? Divested of
its incumbrances, it stands thus ; — The phrase,
" Rule of Faith," was formerly applied to Creeds
as well as to Scripture; therefore Scripture
cannot possess that higher authority, which the
more modern sense of the phrase supposes ; but
it must share it with the Creeds. Would the
author of the Tract admit the conclusiveness
of a parallel argument against Episcopal supre
macy ? The title 'E7rto-/eo7ro? was at first used
indiscriminately for Presbyters and Bishops; there
fore a Bishop has no claim to the supremacy
which his title is now presumed to imply ; he
must share it with the elders of the Church.
As the XXth Article, however, has been
pressed into the service out of its due course,
and employed to shed clouds and darkness over
the clear daylight of the Vlth, it is but fair and
m Ibid. pp. 8—11.

31
reasonable to call in the aid of the VHIth, to
disperse these mists of sophistry. This Article,
be it observed, is not noticed in the Tract.
Whether its sturdy Protestantism was deemed
somewhat impracticable, or the inference natu
rally deducible from it was considered to be
sufficiently obviated, as it were by a side wind,
in the discussion of the other two Articles, can
only be matter of conjecture. The Article
stands thus. " The three Creeds, Nice Creed,
" Athanasius's Creed, and that which is com-
" monly called the Apostles' Creed, ought
" thoroughly to be received and believed, for
" they may be proved by most certain warrants
" of Holy Scripture." Thus then the Creeds,
the most venerable, the most indispensable, the
most implicitly to be trusted, and, happily,
the most implicitly trusted, of all Primitive
Traditions, are not to be received through
any absolute reliance on those who drew them
up, but simply from their ascertainable cor
respondence with the truths of Scripture. If
they are rules of faith, as in a practical and very
useful sense they may well be considered, they
are but subordinate and compendious rules, de
riving all their authority from the one great and
perfect rule, the sure word of God himself.
It may perhaps be observed, that there has
after all been shewn no direct and unequivocal
assertion of complete equality with Scripture in

32
these other claimants on our faith. Insinuation
however rather than assertion, is the general
characteristic of the Tract, and is calculated to
work quite as effectually on the minds of the
unwary. But can the actual views of the
author of the Tract and some others of the
Tractarian party fall far short of that funda
mental error of the Romanist, which allows an
equal authority to Scripture and Tradition ?
What other conclusion can we draw from such
startling opinions and suggestions as the follow
ing ? — that, " Scripture is the foundation of the
" Creed, but belief in Scripture is not the found-
" ation of belief in the Creed m ;" — that it is
commendable to be " prepared to throw one's self
" unreservedly on Revelation wherever found, in
" Scripture orAntiquity";" — that "the faith once
" for all delivered to the Saints, in other words,
" Apostolical Tradition, was divinely appointed
" in the Church, as the touchstone of Canonical
" Scripture itself0." And can we, challenged as
we now are to the serious consideration of these
questions, admit that the views, which such
expressions should appear to indicate, are con-

m Lectures on Romanism, by the Rev. J. H. Newman,
p. 297.
° British Critic for January, 1838, p. 224.
" Sermon on Primitive Tradition, by the Rev. John Keble,
p. 27. ,

33
sistent with subscription to thep Vlth and VHIth
Articles of our Church ?
The attempt to secure the character of infalli
bility to certain General Councils from the ban
of the XXIst Article, though much laboured,
is eminently unsuccessful. An exception is at
tempted to be made in favour of ' ' any case in
" which it is promised as a matter of express
" supernatural privilege that they shall not
" err ;" — " Councils called in the name of
" Christ;"—" Catholic Councils;"—" a case"
(it is said) " which lies beyond the scope of this
" Article, or at any rate beside its determin-
" ationV Now no case of General Councils
is beside its determination ; for it declares that
" General Councils," (obviously all General
Councils,) " forasmuch as they be an assembly
" of men whereof all be not governed with the
" Spirit and Word of God, may err." One
might be tempted to ask, where is this presumed
promise recorded? — but it matters not to the
meaning of the Article whether it exist or not ;
•' " Our sixth Article, .... instead of describing the total
" Rule of Faith, as composed of two partial Rules of Faith,
" viz. Scripture and Tradition, — instead of describing Tradi-
" tion or the unwritten Word, as equal in authority with
" Scripture, as the written Word, — gives the whole authority
" to Scripture alone." Bishop Marsh, Comparative View,
p. 22. :
i Tract 90, p. 21. C

34
for the Article (whether rashly or otherwise, is
not here the question) has negatived the suppo
sition. One might be tempted again to ask,
whether any General Council was ever called
together unless in the name of Christ; — but,
again, it matters not; for however called together,
they were still General Councils. Moreover,
Catholic Councils are General Councils by the
writer's own shewing, for he says, " some General
" Councils are Catholic, and others are not1'."
Lastly, the Article places their claim to our confi
dence precisely on the same footing as that of the
Creed which they framed ; for it says, " Where-
" fore things ordained by them as necessary to
" salvation have neither strength nor authority,
" unless it may be declared that they are taken
" out of Holy Scripture." It follows, therefore,
that whoever believes in the infallibility of any
General Council, believes that which disqualifies
him for subscribing the XXIst Article of our
Church. More than ordinary pains are taken to save the
decrees of Trent concerning Purgatory and its
associated Indulgences from the protest of our
Article ; — to establish, if it were possible, a dis
tinction between Romish doctrine and Tridentine
doctrine ; — and the chronological exception, the
futility of which has been already exposed, is here
particularly insisted on \ This plea is followed
r Ibid. • Ibid. p. 24.

35
up by long quotations, displaying the gross ab
surdities and shameful abuses, which popular
credulity, and priestly rapacity had engrafted on
the doctrines ; — and all this in order to make way
for the delusive inference, that it is against these
only that the Article is levelled ; — in other words,
that it wastes its censures on absurd fictions
beneath its contempt, and on the profligate traffic
in Indulgences, of which the Tridentine Bishops
themselves were ashamed ; and leaves the un
sound principles, the root of all the evil, wholly
untouched. In short, the conclusion arrived at
rests on this most transparent fallacy ; — that,
whereas it is pretended to make a distinction
between the doctrines of Trent, and those of
a somewhat earlier period, the distinction is
really made between the doctrines, simply con
sidered, and their more flagrant exaggerations
and abuses. The Article however speaks of the
doctrine of Purgatory, not of its practical re
sults ; — a doctrine, which betrays the spirit of
its Pagan original in an infidel distrust of that
" blood of Jesus Christ, which will cleanse us
" from all sin ;" and leads the hopes even of
the faithful to a more perfect cleansing after
death, to be promoted by Indulgences, and
Masses, and the prayers of the faithful sur
viving. Here then we have another specimen
of those Theological opinions, which the zealous
advocate of Catholicity is employing all the arts

36
of misdirected ingenuity to reconcile with a con
scientious subscription to our Protestant Arti
cles. The argument of the Tractarian relating to the
worship of images, and the Invocation of Saints,
is especially remarkable for the utter insufficiency
of its premisses to bear out the presumed con
clusion. The Homilies are cited at some length
in order to shew what the Article means by
" the Romish doctrine," and " a fond thing,"
viz. " kneeling before images, offering them in-
" cense, lying tales about them," " licentious
"practices," and the like; and it is asked,
" who can ever hope, except the grossest and
" most blinded minds, to be" thus " gaining the
" favour of the blessed Saints'?" — at all events
insinuating that their favour may be gained by
due observances.
And with regard to Invocation, more par
ticularly, we are reminded, that in the Psalms
we invoke the Angels to bless and praise God,
" and in the Benedicite address the Spirits and
" Souls of the righteous ; and in the Benedictus
" St. John Baptist," (an infant be it observed of
eight days old). And this, which is merely Rhe
torical Apostrophe, and no more an Invocation
of beings supposed to hear, than the parallel
addresses, " Praise Him, sun and moon; praise
"Him all ye stars and light;" is relied on,
' Tract 90, p. 31—35.

37
and presently referred to, as shewing " that not
" all invocation is wrong." Next, the Homilies
are once more resorted to, and with a prolixity
well calculated to bewilder the reader, and cause
him to lose the thread of a disjointed argument.
But though they are shewn to present numerous
instances of what is utterly wrong in invocation ;
such as " sacrificing, falling down in worship,"
and a great deal besides ; yet not a word or
a hint is there yet found of any invocation that is
right". Next in order, Bishop Andrews is intro
duced, arguing against a Romish opponent, that,
after all the pretences of the Church of Rome
holding no more than that men should pray to
the Saints to pray for them, they were really
prayed to as absolutely and directly as God
Himself. Still however there is not one ex
pression which betokens Bishop Andrews' ap
proval of that species of invocation which he
regards as the lesser abuse of the two*. Last
of all comes Bellarmine himself; — a somewhat
novel authority it is true for a Divine of the
Church of England ; — but as none but an
actual Papist can be found to relieve him in
this extremity, he makes a virtue of the ne
cessity, and is rewarded by the assurance, that
we may pray to the Saints, " provided that
" we mean, ' save and pity me by praying for
" Ibid. p. 37—40. * Ibid. p. 41.

38
" me; grant me this or that by thy prayers and
" merits'.' " But what becomes of the solemn
declaration of the Apostle, " there is one God,
" and one Mediator between God and men, the
" man Christ Jesus ?" and what becomes of
willing and ex animo subscription to the Article,
which declares Invocation of Saints, as a doctrine,
and without reference to any practical modi
fications — to any allowance for the subtle dis
tinctions of prayer relative and prayer absolute ;
dulia, and latria; to which wilful men flee
for refuge from the pain of conscious disobe
dience, — but simple Invocation to be not merely
a vain invention and unfounded in Scripture,
but to be repugnant, literally contradictory, to
the word of God (" verba Dei contradicit") ?
But it is an irksome task to trace the mazes,
and unravel the entangled web of sophistical
reasoning. Neither time nor patience can be
presumed on for my proceeding any further with
this detail. Enough, however, must have been
already seen in the specimens adduced, to shew
the general nature of the mystifying process, by
which Articles, which have never been deemed
.obscure or indefinite, unless by those who wished
to find them so, have been tortured to admit
tenets, which they were framed to oppose.
Surely the alleged plea of " duty to the Catholic
y Ibid. p. 42.

39
" Church," however warmly and sincerely felt,
can amount to no valid justification of a system,
making such fearful approaches to that special
pleading, which, though sometimes tolerated in
the ordinary affairs of life, and in those who find
themselves professionally called upon to make
the worse appear the better reason, can never
be too earnestly deprecated in its application to
sacred subjects ; since, if habitually indulged
in, it could not fail to transform the single-
minded inquirer after Christian truth into the
subtle casuist, and disturb, if not destroy, the
clear verdict of an enlightened conscience.
But the Author of Tract 90, in his explanatory
Letter, alleges great names and high autho
rities for several of the opinions which, on
the principle of assumed Catholicity, he is
disposed to advocate. If Bramhall, however,
(though no proof is here given,) can be dis
tinctly convicted of allowing " a comprecation
" with the Saints ;" and Hammond of main
taining, " that no General Council, truly such,
" ever did or shall err, in any matter of faith a ;"
it is enough to reply, " Decipit exemplar vitiis
" imitabile ;" — let us lament, rather than imitate,
all exceptions to general excellence. This ap
peal to authority, at all events, amounts to no
proof of the consistency of such views with the
Articles of our Church.
* Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 18.

40
He goes on, however, to cite at some length,
Bull, Stillingfleet, and others, for " a view of the
" Articles allowing of much greater freedom in
" the private opinions of individuals subscribing
" them than he has contended for a." But this
is only another example among many, of quota
tions which are beside the point at issue, and
will by no means bear out the conclusion which
he desires to deduce from them ; — for these mani
festly relate to such varieties of opinion as may
be held in lay communion under the Articles, as
" articles of peace ;" — certainly not to those of the
Clergy subscribing them, as they now do, in the
terms of the 36th Canon, and as " Articles
" agreed upon for the avoiding of diversities
" of opinions." For how could any man, blessed
at once with a sound head and an honest heart,
declare " ex animo, that he acknowledged all and
" every the Articles to be agreeable to the word
" of God," if his conscience informed him that
there was even one of an opposite description ;
which however unessential or utterly trivial it
might be as a matter of faith, yet was plainly
stated; or, supposing a possible ambiguity, was yet
put before him in a plainly acknowledged sense,
by those who imposed them as a test of his fitness
for the ministerial office ?
It may be confidently maintained, that with
regard to the strictly Protestant portion of our
a Ibid. p. 23—25,

41
Articles, — those now more particularly under
consideration, — the sense of the imposers has
never varied from that of the compilers, down to
the present day inclusive. Of this the Tract-
arian himself appears in some measure aware, for
he speaks of it as " traditionary ;" though he
deprecates it as " beyond and beside the letter of
" the formularies," and soon after, a little singu
larly, as " modern h." At all events it is the
" animus imponentis," to which he himself sub
scribed. Did he prevaricate in so subscribing 1
No one will for an instant suppose it. Has he
since adopted views inconsistent with that sub
scription ? That would at once imply present
prevarication. Let us therefore presume the case
to be as he here states it. " I am not," says he,
" speaking for myself, in one way or another. I
" am not examining the scripturalness, safety,
" propriety, or expedience of the points in ques-
" tion ; but I desire that it may not be supposed
" as utterly unlawful to hold them c." But is it
wise, is it fair, is it charitable, thus to allow his
suggestions to outstrip his actual views, in a
case so imminently critical and hazardous 1 If
he can secure his own footing on the brink of
a precipice, what is to save those who confidently
and incautiously follow him to the giddy verge ?
How are those, who adopt his suggestions for
interpreting the Articles, to be prepared to meet,
" Ibid. p. 18. - c Ibid.

42
as honest and consistent subscribers, the " animus
" imponentis" of the Church, and more imme
diately of this University? For here at least
the sense of those who impose them as a test
has been unequivocally expressed. And we
cannot be too grateful for this well-timed and
judicious Declaration, which must have already
brought many to a sober consideration of the
views which they were unwarily adopting; and
becomes a guarantee to parents at a distance,
whose anxiety on the subject has been for some
time painfully excited, that the pulpit and the
lecture-room will be henceforth inaccessible to
such instructors, as would " evade rather than
" explain the sense of the Thirty-nine > Articles,
" and reconcile subscription to them with the
" adoption of errors, which they were designed
" to counteract."
At the same time, however, let us indulge the
hope, and I cannot but consider that there is
fair ground for hoping, that the mode of inter
pretation suggested in the Tract may never
become extensively popular amongst us. Those
to whose case these suggestions have been pro
fessedly*1 adapted, — who have pursued the delusive
phantom of a vague and indefinable Catholicity,
till it has evidently led them to the very confines
of Romanism, — are little likely to be thus arrested
in their downward course. But for the rest, I
" Letter to Dr. Jelff p. 28, 29.

43
cannot but confide in the characteristic candor
and plain dealing, which is thus recognised by
an English Catholic, who has anonymously taken
part in the present controversy ; " If my sincere
" and straightforward countrymen should ever
" consent to be united in faith to the centre of
" Catholic unity  they will unhesitatingly
" renounce those opinions, which calm inquiry
" may have convinced them to be erroneous ;
" and instead of straining the Thirty-nine Arti-
" cles into a forced and paradoxical accordance
" with the decrees of Trent, boldly determine to
" make an honest election between theme."
On the other hand, should a -persevering ad
herence to the Tractarian views of Subscription
fail to be met by a corresponding vigilance on
the part of the Church herself ; — should any ill-
timed spirit of forbearance or compromise or
indifference silently allow her tests to be rendered
null and void by forced and evasive interpretations,
till at length it might be plausibly urged that
the, so called, Catholic sense was at least one
of the senses notoriously recognised by those who
imposed subscription ; — then would our case be
hopeless indeed. What could then remain to
stem the returning tide of error and corruption,
against which, by the good Providence of God,
our Articles have hitherto been found an insur-
e " Oxford or Rome," A Letter to the Rev. J. H. Newman,
by an English Catholic, p 31.

3 9002 00995 8605 44
mountable barrier and defence ? Far better
would it be to seek for Christian unity in the
wide field of Scripture itself, (with what prospect
of success we can all readily anticipate,) than
continue to affect the mere semblance of unity,
by a hollow and delusive subscription to Articles
thus become a dead-letter and a disgrace.
Under such unhappy circumstances, to say that
they were utterly devoid of use would be the
least of their condemnation. They would be in
finitely worse than useless. To the sincerely
attached friends of our Reformed and Protestant
Faith they would be an afflicting memorial of
past blessings and present degradation ; — to the
clear in intellect and the upright in heart they
would be an object of loathing and disgust ; —
to the weak and wavering a deadly snare ; — a
cloak for hypocrisy, — an encouragement to sin.

THE END.

BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD.