HeraiiA-

- Mhn02

/,>.

THE

li

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES"
IMPARTIALLY AND DISPASSIONATELY
CONSIDERED.

REPRINTED FROM THE MARCH NUMBER OF THE NEW SERIES

MONTHLY MAGAZINE.

EDITED BY

JOHN A. HERAUD, ESQ.
AUTHOR OF " THE lUDOEMENT OF THE FLOOD," " DESCENT INTO HEI.L," &C, &C.

J. W. SOUTHGATE, LIBRARY, 164, STRAND.
1839.
1855 %

THE
"TRACTS FOR THE TIMES"
IMPARTIALLY AND DISPASSIONATELY
CONSIDERED.*

Never was title more aptly, nor, in many senses, more appropriately
chosen. The times, indeed, have their necessities — nor among them
is the want of right discipline and doctrine the least. In so far as the
writers of these pamphlets have attempted to supply them with such —
or with directions for the attainment of such — their eff^orts have been
laudably conceived and executed. But they have erred in ascribing too
much influence to the past, and too little importance to the present and
the future.
Ever since the period of the Reformation, it is confessed on all hands,
that the Union, Discipline, and Authority of the Church, have suffered
diminution. The Oxford divines, in the pubhcations before us, seek to
effect the restoration to her of these privileges ; but therein they run the
risk of kindling ultra-protestant jealousy : — nor from this can they expect
to be saved on account of any general words of renunciation directed
against the papal heresy. Practices which have once resulted in supersti
tion, will still be viewed with suspicion, and the original use will be for
gotten in the evil of the more recent abuse.
Nor is it always possible for the most unprejudiced mind to sympathise
with their feelings. The Roman ritual, however good for its time, need
not be immortal — nay, may well be substituted by a later service. They
contend, that it was a precious possession : — Granted. But when they
proceed to regret that " we, who have escaped from popery, have lost not
only the possession, but the sense of its value" — and to declare that " it
is a serious question, whether we are not like men recovered from serious
illness with the loss or injury of their sight or hearing — whether we are
not like the Jews returned from captivity, who could never find the rod
of Aaron or the ark of the covenant, which, indeed, had ever been hid
from the world, but then was removed from the temple itself," — Pro
testants naturally join issue, and are apt to impugn the authors of more
than fine writing; especially, when hereupon they find Dr. Wiseman
* " Tracts for the Times," by Members of the University of Oxford. 5 vols.
1834-5-6-7-8.

^ Tracts for the Times.
corroborating the statement, and conceding the grievousness of the
lamentations, exclaiming, " Thank God that the members of the Church
of Rome have no occasion to make them ! The deposit of traditional
practices which we received from our forefathers, we have kept inviolate.
We have rejected no rite — we have hardly admitted one in the admi
nistration of the Sacrament since the days of Gelasius and Gregory."
Nor are Protestant feelings at all mitigated, when it is found that to the
whole tirade (according to the principles of the declaimers), Protestants
are not permitted to rejoin — " What are all these regrets for the lost
treasure? — Have we not the Bible left?" It is hard for Protestants to
be taunted with their "idolatry of the Book," while the Orielites
claim the privilege of idolising the Ritual I But so it is !
We have been betrayed, however, into a tone which it is far from our
wish to maintain. It is not as Protestants that we design to argue
this question — but as Christians. We shall proceed with the subject
in a Catholic spirit, guided by philosophical principles, such as no man,
who admits the fact of his own existence, can logically dispute.
The first of the Tracts of the Times is addressed Ad Clerum, and
contains Thoughts on the Ministerial Commission. According to the
writer, this is not to be rested on private unsupported assertion, on popu
larity, on success, or on temporal distinctions — but on apostolical
DESCENT. To this we readily concede. But the writer goes on to state
that the apostolical gifts are transmitted by the prelate to the candidate
in the act of ordination. To this we demur. "The office of the Bishop
is only declarative of a gift already received immediately from the Spirit
of God, and signified by the willingness of the candidate to share in the
rite; to have it registered; and to be bound by its obligations. Who
art thou who standest between God and another? Who made thee a
day's-man between God and him? By what magic, white or black, had
the Apostles themselves, much less their successors, such power of trans
mission ? If we mistake not, the assumption smacks more of Simon
Magus than of St. Peter. He who makes deacons and priests is none
other than he who makes bishops. " The Holy Ghost," says the venerable
Hooker, repeating the Apostle, " doth make bishops, and the whole
action of making them is God's own deed, men being therein but his
agents." However much Romanism may insist on direct transmission, Protes
tantism is so far from depending on it, that the judicious author just
named, is compelled to raise an argument, shewing that ordination is
sometimes lawful without bishops. Ordinary courses, he argues, are
for ordinary occasions; but on extraordinary occasions, extraordinary
courses are not only permissible, but " not unnecessary." God uses the
labour of some without requiring that men should authorise them : "but
then," adds our ecclesiastical politician, " he doth ratify their calling by
manifest signs and tokens, himself, from heaven ; and thus, even such as
believed not our Saviour's teaching, did yet acknowledge him a lawful
teacher sent from God." Bishop .Tewel also pursues the like argument :
" If Christ," says he, "had determined from the beginning, that nothing
should be taught and preached without a licence from the bishops, and
had referred all his doctrine to Annas and Caiaphas, what had be
come of the Christian faith by this time? and who had ever heard '

Tracts for the Times. 7
anything of the Gospel ? " Furthermore, Hooker concludes, that " we
are not, simply without exception, to urge a lineal descent of power
from the Apostles, by continued succesiion of bishops in every effectual
ordination."* It is, therefore, not to be taken for an historical fact, as the
tract writers insist, that we can trace the power of ordination from hand
to hand, until we come to the apostles at last. If apostolical succession
is to be understood of historical "lineal descent," we are bold to say
that it cannot be maintained. We must therefore, if we (as we do)
hold the doctrine, interpret it in other than an historical sense. The
churches founded by Calvin and Luther cannot safely depend on it.
The fact is, that the historical succession is apjiointed only as a
type of the true apostolical descent, and has been destined by pro
vidence to be imperfect, that it may not be legitimately taken for
more than a type. A sign of the thing signified it is ; but no more
than a sign — sometimes unaccompanied with the thing, as some
times the thing is unaccompanied with the sign.
This argument is of course conclusive against the tract writers,
only on the supposition of their being Protestants. To the Ro
manists we should have to prove that those miracles accompanied the
new teacher, which Hooker supposes necessary for the vindication
of every fresh avatar. Nor would it be impossible to point to many
passages in the career of Calvin and Luther capable of being legi
timately considered in the nature of signs and wonders, as proper to
the dawn of an intellectual cycle, as were those recorded in the
four gospels to the evening of a sensuous age and country. But it
has been too often urged against the infidel, that a greater miracle
is supposed in the propagation of Christianity without visible divine
interposition than with — for this argument now to avail much.
The success of the Reformation without the accompaniment of pre
ternatural exhibition therefore would, on such shewing, have been
even such a greater miracle, of which all minor accompanying
miracles are at all times but subordinate types and symbols. Nor
can it be doubted that a religion propagated without miracle, is a
greater manifestation of divine power than one propagated with.
* Compare with this candid admission of the judicious Hooker, the reckless asser
tion of the tract writer : — " We have confessed before God our belief, that through
the bishop, who ordained us, we received the Holy Ghost, the power to bind and to
loose, to administer the sacraments, and to preach. Now, how is he able to give
these great gifts ? Whence is his right ? Are these words idle, (which would
be taking God's name in vain) ? or do they express merely a wish, (which is surely
very far belowtheir meaning)? or do they not rather indicate that the speaker is con
veying a gift ? Surely they can mean nothing short of this. But whence, I ask,
his right to do so ? Has he any right, except as having received the power from
those who consecrated him to be a bishop ? He could not give what he had never
received. It is plain, then, that he but transmits, and that the christian ministry is
a succession. And if we trace back the power of ordination, from hand to hand, of
course we shall come to the apostles at last. We know we do, as a plain historical
FACT ; and therefore all we, who have been ordained clergy, in the very form of our
ordination, acknowledged the doctrine of the apostolical succession." — No. 1, p. 3.
" As to the /act of the apostolical succession, i. e. that our present bishops are the
heirs and representatives of the apostles, by successive transmission of the prero
gative of being so ; this is too notorious to require proof. Every link in the chain is
known from St. Peter to our present metropolitans." — No. 7. p. 2.

8 Tracts for the Times.
What wonder either ? For are not, in fact, reason and religion their
own evidence ? and all inferior corroborations but condescensions
to " a carnal and adulterous generation." Even so— whence it
cometh also, that, whereas of aforetime miracles were the proof to
unenlightened men of the truths that they accompanied, now those
very truths themselves are become the tests of the miracles that at
tended their enunciation. Miracles then may be sometimes expe
dient, but are never necessary.
The blindness of the tract writers is sometimes astonishing. Thus
they quote the example of Aaron in proof of ministerial succession,*
by transmission : Aaron, to whom an immediate divine call was
vouchsafed ! But, however, it is well quoted, since it defines and
explains the signification of the other texts cited in connexion, as
well as the meaning of apostolical descent itself. Throughout the
whole order of succession, and in every instance, the immediate call
is presupposed as individually vouchsafed to every candidate ; and
where it has not really been received, the candidate has played the
part of the hypocrite ; and the prelatical declaration does not, and
cannot make him other than a pretender. There is no magic in the
ceremony. Nor is the declaration necessary, though expedient.
As sometimes it is undoubtedly wrongfully obtained ; so sometimes
that which it declares may be possessed without ofiicial acknow
ledgement being sought or rendered. The unity of the divine
ordinances is consistent with the utmost possible variety in their
mode of exhibition. And wherefore ? To shew that while the exhi
bition is physical, the ordinances themselves are spiritual!
The sort of apostolicity claimed by the tract writers is very much
like the standard of classicality, once set up in literature, but now
generally acknowledged to be untenable. The true way of becom
ing classical in poem or drama is not by imitating the ancient
unities, nor by imitating at all ; but by resorting, as the old sages
and poets did, to the eternal sources of inspiration — sources as open
to us as to them. " Shakspere," says a late writer, (how justly I) "is
a more classical poet than Racine. To be regular, and polished,
and unimpassioned, is not to be classical-^^but to feel, to think and
write antecedently to rules as the Greeks did, — that is to be truly
classical." In like manner, to be truly apostolical is not to depend
on mere historical association—but to do as the apostles did — make
application direct to the Fountain of love and light and life, and re
ceive from God himself the spiritual gifts of which he is the sole
and exclusive giver. We literally shudder, when we find these
tract-writers using such language as the following : " It is better
and more scriptural to have than to want Christ's special commis
sion for conveying his word to the people, and consecrating and dis-

* Observe how often these principles which are usually called, in scorn, " High
Churehmanship," drop as it were incidentally from the pens of the sacred writers
professedly employed on other subjects. "How shall they preach, except they be sent ?"
" Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the myste
ries of God ?'' " No man taheth this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God
as was Aaron."

Tracts for the Tima. 9
tributing the pledges of His holy sacrifice" .... <' the only Church
in the realm which has a right to be quite sure that she has the
Lord's body to give to his people." — " If an imposition of hands is
necessary to convey one gift, why should it not be to convey ano
ther?".. .. "heirs and representatives of the apostles by successive
transmission of the prerogative of being so"..." a gift, thus transmit
ted to us in matter of fact." &c. In all this, the functions ot convey
ing — consecrating — distributing — giving — transmitting — are asserted
as belonging to certain men, and to a certain society — functions
which belong not to society at all — belong not to man at all — but
to God alone ! To every man, even as he will, he gives his especial
gift ; which, manifesting itself in him, he decrees official declaration
of or not, according to his gracious purpose in the bestowal.
Now-a-days, the merest tyro in literature could have corrected this
egregious error in the tract-Writers ; and the smallest smattering of
philosophy would not have failed to detect the sophism of identifying
the church and the world in the same methods of proceeding, and
the same laws of conduct : — e. g." The bishop has received" [received,
again !] " it from another, and so on till we arrive at the apostles
themselves, and thence, our Lord and Saviour. It is superfluous to
dwell on so plain a principle, which, in matters of the world, we act
upon daily ! "
Matters of the world, forsooth ! Why, if there were no other rea
son, this would lead us to pause. The world, and the world's ways,
are in antagonism with themselves and with the Church. If other
wise, why not carry out the principle fully? Why not hereditary
succession ? This question, to those who understand the subject,
settles the point at once. Not by generation, but by regeneration,
the Spirit proceeds. " The wind bloweth where it listeth, and no
one can tell whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth ! " The laws
whereby it works are superior to those whereby Nature herself works
— and, in no way even, are the former bound by the analogy of the
latter, but precisely in those qualities which are essential, transcend
all types whatsoever. Thus, for instance, the affirmation made in the
text just cited, cannot, in these scientific days, be stated of the na
tural wind.
All things spiritual, however, have their types in things natural,
which present them to the fullest extent possible, short of identifica
tion. Even to this extent, the historical symbolises the mystical
Church — but seeing how inadequate the whole of history is to repre
sent the idea which it is evolving, let us be careful to make our in
duction as extensive as may be. What a miserable limitation of the
argument is it to confine the history of the Messiah's dispensation to
a single society or two out of many I The Romish Church pre
sents one class of historical facts — the Greek Church anotherclass
of historical facts — the Anglican Church another class of historical
facts — the Presbyterian Churches another class of historical facts —
and the Dissenting Churches another class of historical facts. Our
tract-writers are arguing for one small section of the historical
against all the other sections : nay — they are consciously doijig this
— and then, at the same time, they blind and hoodwink themselves

10 Tracts for the Times.
with main force, by the paltriest considerations,"' such as have been
too frequently exploded, to detain us now.
We call the considerations paltry ; because, if the result to which
they lead were produced, it would conduct to the usurpation, by one
Church, of authority over others. It claims, in a word, for the Ang
lican Church what the Church of Rome once claimed for itself.
Those who have dreaded, from these tracts, the revival of papal
domination, and proclaimed in tirade and leader, " Treason within
the Church ! " have only shewn (supposing them to be members of
the Church of England), the absurdest ignorance of the grounds of
the whole controversy. The argument proceeds upon the basis of
the Anglican Episcopal Church being the only true one ; and the
attack is levelled against that ultra-protestantism which leads to
dissent and infidelity. But this end, however good, is sought by er
roneous means and on a false principle^bj' the revival of certain
external observances, and on the assumption of the Church being
constituted of the clergy, as the sole possessors of apostolic unc
tion. The endeavour is vain — the mother see of the world has doubt
less been divinely ordained. In regard to the other churches also,
God's providence is its own best interpreter. The Variety which he
has permitted in the Unity, carries its credential in the fact of its
existence. Nor is the unity itself, together with the whole beauty
of the divine arrangement, less perceptible to the philosophic mind.
At no time has the Sacred Rose been scattered, although it has still
enlarged and multiplied its leaves even as it has budded and blos
somed. Nor is its growth yet completed. When it is, doubtless
the Variety of the Many will be swallowed up in the Unity of the
All. But this completion of the circle is not to be effected by
human means. In all things these Orielite clergy seek to arrogate
the privileges of the Divinity — in this particular indeed, reviving
the worst errors of Romanism ; we dwell on this the more, because

* " Nor need any man," say the tract- writers, " be perplexed by the question, sure
to be presently and confidently asked. Do you then unchurch all the Presbyterians,
all Christians who have no bishops ? — Are they to be shut out of the covenant, for all
the fruits of Christian piety, which seem to have sprung up not scantily among
them .?— Nay, we are not judging others, but deciding on our own conduct. We, in
England, cannot communicate with Presbyterians, as neither can we with Roman
Catholics ; but we do not, therefore, exclude either from salvation. Necessary to sal
vation, and necessary to Church communion, are not to be used as convertible terms.
Neither do we desire to pass sentence on other persons of other countries ; but we
are not to shrink from our deliberate views of truth and duty, because difficulties
may be raised about the case of such persons ; any more than we should fear to
maintain the paramount necessity of Christian belief, because similar difficulties may
be raised about virtuous Heathens, Jews, or Mahometans. To us, such questions
are abstract, not practical : and whether we can answer them or no, it is our business
to keep fast hold of the Church Apostolical, whereof we are actual members ; not,
merely, on civil or ecclesiastical grounds, but from real personal love and reverence-
affectionate reverence to our Lord and Saviour. And let men seriously bear in mind
that it is one thing to slight and disparage this holy succession, where it may be had,
and another thing to acquiesce in the want of it, where it is {if it be any where)
really unattainable."

Tracts for the Times. 1 1
it is a point on which we shall be understood by the tract-Mriters,
and one of which they themselves have shown perception.*
Our complaint with these Oxford divines is, that they have con
founded the political and religious aspects of the question. Their
motive for doing this is confessed. "The prospect of the loss of
state protection made it necessary to look out for other reasons for
adherence to the church, besides that of obedience to the civil
magistrate." We have cause to thank God that the agitations of
these times have produced even such a result ; and the more so that
the Church has been thus led to depend on her apostolical privi
leges. Fatally, how^ever, would these be misinterpreted, if she should
be carried back to an origin in time, for authority that is ever pre
sent — or to a particular body of men for an influence that is uni
versally diff'used. " Are ye" (might the laity not demand of the
clergy) " Are ye the temples of the Holy Ghost ? Even so are
we !"
That Christianity, however, recognises no distinction between
clergy and laity, we are not prepared to assert — but we nevertheless
contend that it recognises the distinction as transitional and not
essential. Christians are not what they ought to be ; and until they
become so, the better must rule the worse, the wise think for the
foolish, and the learned act for the ignorant. The state, however,
thus prepared will emanate in a sacred republic ; in which, the
aristocratic and democratic shall be resolved into their original
unity. Under such a theocracy, a priesthood, though unnecessary,
may be voluntarily permitted ; and the more so as, from the spread
of intelligence, their authority will be incapable of abuse, and un-
indigent of assertion. Moreover, as all differences of opinion will
then merge in the general admission of common principles,
churches will no longer be separated by national limits, and all may
then hold a common bishop— a papacy that may be intrusted with
the greatest powers, since it will be impossible to misemploy them,
and their steward will indeed have no desire to exceed his office. But

* It is with some gratification that we are enabled to extract the following para
graph. "It is surely parallel with the order of Divine Providence that there should
be a variety — a sort of graduated scale in His method of dispensing his favor in
Christ. So far from its being a strange thing that Protestant sects are not in Christ,
in the same fulness that we are, it is more accordant to the scheme of the world that
they should lie between us and heathenism. It would be strange if there were but two
states, one absolutely of favour, and one of disfavour. Take the world at large, one form
of Paganism is better than another. The North American Indians are Theists ;
and as such, more privileged than Polytheists. Mahometanism is a better religion
than Hindooism — Judaism is better than Mahometanism. One may believe that long
established dissent affords to such as are born and bred in it, a sort of pretext, and
is attended with a portion of blessing (where there is no means of knowing better),
which does not attach to those who cause divisions, found sects, or wantonly wan
der from the Church to the Meeting House ; — that what is called an orthodox sect,
has a share' of divine favour which is utterly withheld from heresy. I am not
speaking of the next world, where we shall all And ourselves as individuals, and where
there will be but two states, but of existing bodies or societies. On the other hand
why should the corruptions otRome lead us to deny her divine privileges, when even
the idolatry of Judah did not forfeit or annul her temple sacrifices and level her to
Israel." No. 47.— p. 3—4.

12 Tracts for th« Times.
we are speaking of an era of government, in v,-hich humanity shall
be at its highest point of perfection, morally and mentally, and only
individuals of the greatest virtue and genius shall be office-bearers
for the rest.
To antedate this period altogether, (by the bye, an ideal one,) is
not prudent ; to substitute the order of providence by any invention
of human ingenuity is presumptuous. Will we be wiser than God?
Nay, will we be more foolish than man need be ? Notwithstanding
the testimony of history, will we seek again to promote the apparent
for the real Unity? If so, by what means short of violence can it
be promoted ? Nay, but we will be patient ; and trust to the Father
the ordering of the times and seasons, of which knoweth no man,
not even the Son of Man.
And see what a loss of dignity the priesthood undergo by this sub
stitution of the apparent for the real ! We are told, that "the apostles
and their successors have, in every age, committed Tportiona of their
power and authority to others, who thus become iheiv delegates, and
in a measure, their representatives, and are called Priests and Dea
cons. The result is an episcopal system, because of the practice of
delegation."* What! Delegation? Not long ago, under the Reform
Act, an attempt was made by some of the constituencies to convert
members of parliament into delegates. Was it generally, or in indi
vidual instances, willingly, submitted to? Not it ! A member of par
liament was a representative indeed, but no delegate. Nevertheless,
the motive of the dispute is more interesting and instructive than the
dispute itself. Why seek to restrain the liberty of the representative ?
Because he and his constituency are not yet of one mind I Why
refuse to concede the demand? Because it is not fit that the better
instructed should yield to the less! And why, both the demand and
the refusal ? Because there are degrees of intelligence and cultiva
tion, resulting in differences of perception, whereof the minus gene
rally belongs to constituencies, and the plus to representatives, so
that the parties litigant stand at different poles, and a whole equator
between them. Now, conceive, that both parties are equally illumi
nated in their rights and duties ; and the question of delegation or
representation would not arise. There would be such an agreement
in opinion, and such a unity of mind and purpose, that one party
would freely and fully confide in the spontaneous views and mea
sures of the other. Even such is the Christian's liberty ! The apostles
imposed no mere delegation on their alleged successors, nor gave
them any specific commission ; but simply sanctioned them by per
mitting their association during their own life, who, thus sanctioned,
continued to teach after the death of the first teachers, both trust
ing in the One Spihit, by whom alike the first and second, and
all subsequent teachers have been, are, and shall be sent, to the
end of time. To talk of " the representatives of the first representa
tives" is nonsense. It were as if one member of parliament repre
sented his predecessor instead of his constituency ! Whom, then
does the Christian teacher represent? Whom, but the Christ? And
'No, 7, p. 1.

Tracts for the Times. 1 3
what less is represented by the humblest, if sincere, Christian, that
ever lived ? That man is sent to be an apostle, in whom lies the
capacity and the desire to teach, and for whom providence has pre
pared a field of labour.
Even under the law, all apostleship was not confided to the he
reditary priesthood. Necessary to the Hebrew economy was a
school of prophets, in addition. Nor were all prophets instructed
in the same school— yet Amos has a place in the Scripture as well
as Isaiah. So careful has Divine Providence been, in all its dispen
sations, to preclude the pious from trusting in mere historical sanc
tions, mere institutional arrangements. Nor has the Christian
scheme been left destitute of defenders — nor the Church without its
wardens and warners — among the laity of every age and clime. For
the wise men and prophets of old, we have had our philosophers and
poets. Had tiot Erasmus prepared the way for Luther ? Was it not
also entrusted to a Bacon and a Locke to carry out the science of
induction concurrently with the principles of the reformation ; and
without which Protestantism had long, ere now, been a dead
letter? And that science, being carried to a prejudicial extreme,
have not a Kant, a Fichte, and a Coleridge, been raised up to
counteract its exclusive influence by the opposition of an elevated
philosophj' ; and this, too, in concurrence with a clerical attempt to
restore ancient Unity — an attempt which must fail, unless it sub
stantiate itself in the truths evolved by the new and improved tran
scendentalism that now pervades, in one shape or other, the walks
of literature ? In this philosophy, the Oxford divines will find that
support which history cannot give them ; and also the interpretation
of the blind aim that is now to them as a dream that perplexes them
and their opponents, because not understood by either.
In literature we dare not substitute Learning for Inspiration,
neither must we in the Church. But the scheme of the Oriel
ites goes to shut out inspiration altogether, granting it to the first
apostles only, and conveying the effects of it, by some means of
magical transmission, to the evil and the good, by the simple laying
on of hands. It is a monstrous hypothesis — a limitation of the Divine
influence, for which there is no authority either in Scripture or reason.
Institutions can be none other than partial, incomplete, and tem
porary — but the basis of all is the same — one, perfect and perma
nent. We are of St. John's mind on these subjects. In the
Beginning was the Word, in whom was Life, and the Life was the
Light of Men. Yet, albeit this veritable Light is even that which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world, we hold with the
Evangelist, that in many men it shineth in darkness, and the dark
ness comprehendeth it not. But to those who have and perceive
this Light, power is given, to become the sons of God — nay, to such
a " Scripture that cannot be broken" has even ascribed a higher
title, " calling them gods, unto whom the Word of God came."
By such sons of God — nay, even by such gods — at sundry times,
and in divers manners and places — God spake from the earliest pe
riods until the last days, when he spake unto us by the Son, whom
lie hath appointed heir of all things; and in, and by whom also, he

14 Tracts for the Times.
constituted the ages. By men like these, as both sacred and pro
fane writ agree in declaring, the institutions of Religion and Go
vernment, of Church and State, were founded.
It was not by means of a written book, nor by any process of
natural science (of which the earliest books contain no traces,)
that the Word of God came to these founders of temples and cities,
but by immediate inspiration of the Spirit of God ; namely, by the
revelation of that light which is in all men but which in few shines
in light, though it may in every man ; and the perception of
which, makes a rightful legislator of him who perceives it. For its
first revelation is the conscience, or self-intelligence, as the law co
eval with being, whence that power has always and everywhere been
recognised as the voice of God— the Divine principle in the heart
of man : and is even that Spirit in and to the will, the renewal
of which is the regeneration of man. That voice or principle, de
veloped according to the measure of human and individual
capacity, becomes the reason, the great fontal power of ideas, which
are the correlatives of laws, whether moral or natural ; moral laws
being only the manners, modes, or forms of spiritual developement,
and natural laws but the application of such to the material
universe, as the rules for judging of phenomena in the integrity of
their manifestation.
Thus accomplished with legislative power, and invested with
authority over the body and the external world, man proceeds to
govern rude nature in his flesh and in the world. From universal
principles and ideas, which, as Coleridge remarks, "are not so
properly said to be confirmed by reason as to be reason itself;" all
rules and prescripts of action, whether private or public, directly and
visibly flow. " Every principle," says the same authority, "is
actualised by an idea ; and every idea is living, productive, par-
taketh of infinity ; and (as Bacon has sublimely observed) containeth
an endless power of semination. Hence it is, that science which
consists wholly in ideas and principles is power."
Agai'n ; " The first man, on whom the light of an Idea dawned,
did in that same moment receive the spirit and credentials of a law
giver; and as long as man shall exist, so long will the possession of
that antecedent knowledge (the maker and master of all profitable
experience) which exists only in the power of an Idea, be the one
lawful qualification of all dominion in the world of the senses."
Again: "The Old Testament teaches the elements of political
science in the same sense in which Euclid teaches the elements of
the science of geometry, only with one difference arising from the
diversity of the subject. With one difference only, but that one
how momentous ! All other sciences are confined to abstractions,
unless when the term science is used in an improper and flattering
sense. Thus we may speak without boast of natural history ; but
we have not yet attained to a science of nature. The Bible alone
contains a science of realities ; and therefore each of its elements
is at the same time a living germ, in which the present involves the
future ; and in the finite the infinite exists potentially. That hidden
mystery in every the minutest form of existence, which contem-

Tracts for the Times. 15
plated under the relations of time presents itself to the understand
ing retrospectively, as an infinite ascent of causes, and pro
spectively as an interminable progression of effects ; — that which,
contemplated in space, is beholden intuitively as a law of action
and reaction, continuous and extending beyond all bound : this
same mystery freed from the phenomena of time and space, and
seen in the depth of real being, reveals itself to pure reason as the
actual immanence or in-being* of all in each. Are we struck with
admiration at beholding the cope of heaven imaged in a dew drop ?
The least of the animalcula to which that drop would be an ocean,
contains in itself an infinite problem, of which God omnipresent is
the only solution. The slave of custom is roused by the rare and
the accidental alone ; but the axioms of the unthinking are to the
philosopher the deepest problems, as being the nearest to the mys
terious root, and partaking at once of its darkness and its
pregnancy." But enough of citation, both concerning the legislative power
divinely invested in man, and the record of its exercise in the earli
est ages, among a chosen people. Enough of both has been given
to suggest to the philosophical mind, how that every form of institu
tion is an image of such ideas and principles ; and, that man, without
such, could have had no science of government : indeed, neither
science nor government at all. Symbols of such, we therefore
recognise in all institutions of society — in all the establishments of
church and state — and are careful to preserve them intact and sacred,
even while suggesting the ideal standards in whose radiance and
majesty they look pale and mean. Nevertheless, never shall we
less esteem of them, than as the emblems of majesty and power ;
and of these the sacerdotal and the aristocratic, as enshrining the
holiest and the best, shall receive from us marked reverence and
studious veneration.
What then ? Shall we, therefore, substitute these images for the
ideas ? God forbid ! We repeat, God, who trusted not the Jewish
priesthood, but set over them the watch and ward of his specially
sent prophets, both in school and out of school— both taught and
untaught — even that all-wise God, in his infinite mercy, forbid such
idolatry ! Should not the priesthood of every age study the exam
ple of Aaron ? A political priest, though distinguished by an
immediate divine call, what were his failings — his errors ? How
worse than his, the follies and vices of his successors? In them the
principle of historical succession was thoroughly carried out, and
in the hereditary form. But in the christian system that was
changed for a spiritual filiation demonstrated in a spiritual call.
We have seen that Hooker demanded for the special sending the
evidence of sensuous miracles, which we were bold enough to
supersede by higher wonders. The Oxford tract-writers are bolder
still  they get rid of the miraculous altogether. " As miracles,"

* " In-being" is the word chosen by Bishop Sherlock to express this sense. See
his tract on the Athanasian Creed, 1827.

16 Tracts for the Times.
say they, " have long ago come to an end, there must be some other
way for a man to prove his right to be a minister of religion."*
And what does the reader think is this other way? "A regular
call and ordination by those who have succeeded to the apostles." ! !
And thus to the bishops, these divines give every thing — the call as
well as the ordination ! God has so parted with his rights to these
successors of the apostles, that he has left to himself nothing — not
even the privilege which he claimed and exercised by miraculous
interposition in the apostolic age, that of calling the candidate
whom the apostles should ordain. To their successors, therefore,
according to this assumption, God has rendered greater power than
ever the apostles had — and all, forsooth, because the age of miracles
is past! What other proof have we of this fact than that the lower
types have been suspended in the higher reality ? And what is this
proof but an evidence that we live in an age when greater wonders
than those of old are daily done ? Who shall then say that the age
of miracles is past ? Moreover, where is the record in corroboration
of the dogma of these Oxford divines, that to the successors of
the apostles has been granted a power of calling, not possessed by
the apostles themselves ? Surely nothing less than a miracle must
be vouched by them in favour of this grant — the last and greatest
miracle — which, being accomplished, the divine function of perform
ing miracles might well cease for aye ; as in that case all the
privileges of Deity would have been therewith made over to the
Anglican priesthood in fee-simple for ever.
Why, this is more than the Romish priesthood ever claimed — but
then to be sure, the Church of Rome acknowledges still the possibility
of miracles, aud the perpetual presence of the Spirit in the Church ; —
both of which hypotheses are precluded by this argument of the Orielite
Divines ! Verily, a pious critic, eaten up with zeal for the Lord of Hosts.
might here exclaim, " Ye blaspheme, seeing that ye first make your
selves equal with God ; and then proceed to dethrone him, even in his
very heavens, which in their seven-fold perfection, are none other than
the Church of the Holy One !"
Our tract-writers, however, are aware that this is dangerous ground :
— an usurpation of the privileges of God naturally has the effect of in
validating their own. An objection is brought, they tell us, that as the
apostolic authority is grounded in Scripture upon the possession of
miraculous powers, it necessarily ceased when those powers were with
held. Can the tract writers, we demand, possibly be satisfied with
the manner in which they have met this objection ? They respond, that
" there is no essential difference between the apostolic age and our own,
as to the relation in which God's ministers and his people stand to each
other." " I do not say," writes one of them, " that the ministers of His
word in these days can feel as sure as the apostles could, that in the
commandments which they give, they have the Spirit of God:, very
far from it. But 1 do say, that neither can the people feel sure
as in those days of miraculous gifts, that they have the Spirit of God

* No. 15, p. 2 — see also No. 24.

Tracts for the Times. 17
with them, and thus the relation between the two parties remains unal
tered."* Reader I can you believe your eyes ? This and none other is the
answer to the fatal objection above cited — an answer which divests both
priest and congregation of God's Spirit — an answer which acknowledges
in express terms, that the Church which these divines seek to establish,
is one that shall have the Form of Godliness, but not the Power
thereof! Astonishing blindness, but doubtless judicial.
True enough it is that, as they say, the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit were not confined to the appointed Teachers of the Church, but
were shed abroad upon the congregation at large, upon the young and
old alike, upon the servants, upon the hand-maidens- — and true enough
it is that if denied to the taught, they must be denied to the teachers too.
O pregnant conclusion ! And do these divines really believe that the
Form without the Power of Godliness is all that is needed for or will
be granted to these last days ? We wonder not at Irvingism and fanaticism
of all kinds spreading, while such are the opinions promulgated by
Oxford Doctors of Divinity, The wildest enthusiasm were scarcely a
counterpoise to such heartless, soulless, spiritless dogmatism — which,
if encouraged will provoke the other as its inevitable opposite.
That both extremes may be seasonably averted, we take advan
tage of our peculiar position to effect a philosophical mediation.
That which was in the beginning is now and ever shall be : the
Word of God endureth for ever. The light that once lighted every
man that came into the world, is now the light that still lighteth
and shall light every man that cometh and shall come into the
world. Every truth is eternal — and this is a truth revealed by the
Eternal! — a permanent miracle identified with the intelligence of the
human being — witnessing in, and to the conscience of every Chris
tian, that he is Christ's* representative, whether he be priest or lay
man, and, as such, an apostle, whenever the voice of God in his
conscience shall call upon him to go forth and preach in the name
of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost ! It is amusing to read
in one page of the tracts before us,f that the apostles " were like
Christ in their works, because Christ was a witness of the Father,
and they were witnesses of Christ." And in the next page,J that
the same apostles " did not leave the world without appointing
persons to take their place; and these persons represent them, and
may be considered with reference to us, as if they were the apos
tles." Such apostles as we contemplate, whether of ancient or
modern times, represent Christ and Christ only, directly and im
mediately, his life being in them as the light of their life, shiii-
ino-, however, not in darkness, but in glory. Such an apostle will
not deny to himself or others the presence of God's Spirit, but will
humbly and piously acknowledge its perpetual influence, as the
source of every moral act, the fountain of d. priori reasoning, the
giver of every" good and genial gift, the parent in the soul of man
of all wisdom and knowledge, the interpreter of dark sayingsin
the volume of the Book, and the veritable Word of God which

« No. 24. p. 9—10- tNo. 10, p. 1. X No. 10, p. 2.
0

18 Tracts for the Times.
maketh them to whom it comes sons of God, nay, gods — "at all
times and in all places."
How much more consonant with reason, then, is such an inter
preter of the Bible, than that proposed by the Protestant divines. —
Their outcry, however, for the necessity of an interpreter is even
louder than the Church of Rome; and their depreciation of the Holy
Scriptures, more unequivocal than any yet ventured upon by infidels
themselves. Were not, indeed, our Magazine, from its philosophi
cal character, especially addressed ad clerum, we should scarcely
dare hazard the insertion of passages in proof. As it is, v/e may
be privileged to a step that could scarcely be permitted to a publi
cation designed for the less instructed reader.
Our summaiy must be short. The Godhead of the Holy Ghost is no
where literalh' stated in Scripture, yet is taught hy the Church. Bap
tism, though often mentioned in the epistles, and its spiritual benefits,
yet its peculiarity as the one plenary remission of sin is not insisted upon
with frequency and earnestness — chiefly, in one or two passages of one
epistle, and there obscurely — (in Hebrews vi. and x.) I'he doctrine of
absolution is made to rest on but one or two texts (in Matt. xvi. and
John XX.) with little or no practical exemplification of it in the epistles,
where it was to be expected. — The Apostles are not continually urging
their converts to rid themselves of sin after baptism, as best they can by
penance, confession, absolution, satisfaction. Christ's ministers are
no-where called priests, or at most, in one or two obscure passages, (as
in Rom. xv.) The Lord's supper is not expressly said to be a sacrifice.
The Lord's table is called an altar but once or twice (Matt. v. and
Heb. xiii.) even granting these passages to refer to it. The consecra
tion of the elements is expressly mentioned only in one passage (1. Cor.
X.) in addition to our Lord's original institution of them. Only once or
twice express mention is made at all of the Lord's supper, all through
the New Testament, and where there is, chiefly in the same epistle.
Very little is said about ordination — about the appointment of succession
of ministers — about the visible Church (1 Tim. iii. 15.)— only one or
two passages on the duty of fasting. In fine, as to all these dogmas,
every one must allow that there is next to nothing on the surface of
scripture, and very little even under the surface of a satisfactory charac
ter. Scripture, in all these respects, being deficient, the authority of
the Church comes in as supplementary.
To exalt this supplementary authority is it necessary to depreciate so
much the original record ? It seems that the delinquency of the Bible
is augmented by the fact, that it also contains texts actually inconsistent
with the system supported by the said supplementary authority, " For
example, what can be stronger against the sanctity of particular places,
nay of any institutions, persons, or rites, than our Lord's declaration,
that God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him, must worship Him in
spirit and in truth ? or against the Eucharistic sacrifice, than St. Paul's
contrast in Heb. x. between the Jewish sacrifices and the one Christian
atonement ? or can baptism really have the gifts which are attributed to
it in the Catholic or Church system, considering how St. Paul says, that
all rites are done away, and that faith is all in all?" Of course in all
these cases the Bible is wrong — and particular Church authority right !

Tracts for the Times. 1 9
We shall see — See ? — why is not the case given up when its advocates
resort ^ to the argumentum ad hominem, appealing to the passions and
prejudices of Churchmen, not their reason. If we are to believe the
Bible, religion is simply mental and moral, not ceremonial and ritual —
nay, "it is plain that all external religion is not only not imperative
under the Gospel, but forbidden." We confess that we apprehend no
terrors — even in such a conclusion — but we know it to be over stated.
What is forbidden is not external religion — but a religion exclusively ex
ternal and not at all internal, such a religion as the Oxford Divines (?)
advocate. We must also give up not the Sabbath only, it seems, but the
Lord's Day also, there being nothing on the surface of Scripture to
prove, that the sacredness conferred in the beginning on the seventh day
now by transference attaches to the first. This is also over stated.
Our space will not permit us to pursue the subject before us in the
elaborate detail in which the lectures on which we are animadverting
present it. Never, perhaps, was the argument more powerfully sifted
than in this pamphlet— (Tract No. 85)— shewing, in fine, that the
authority and creed of the Church and canon of Scripture stand or fall
together. Nothing could justify, indeed, the extreme arguments here
taken, but the position that unless the two first are defended, the last
must- falL " Sectaries," says the writer, "commonly give up the
Church's doctrines, and go by the Church's Bible; but if the doctrines
cannot be proved true, neither can the Bible ; they stand or fall together.
If we begin we must soon make an end." Again. " The prayer-book
rests upon the Bible, and the Bible rests on testimony ; the Church,
on doctrines which are to be gathered from Scripture, and the books
of Scripture which make up the Bible are to be gathered from history ;
and further, those doctrines might have been more clearly stated in
the Bible, and the books of the Bible more clearly witnessed by anti
quity.'' Again : " The canon of Scripture rests on no other founda
tion than the Catholic doctrines. Those who dispute the latter should,
if they were consistent, — will, when they learn to be consistent, — dis
pute the former ; in both cases, we believe, mainly, because the
Church of the fourth and fifth centuries unanimously believed ; and
we have at this moment to defend our belief in the Catholic doctrines,
merely, because they come first, are the first objects of attack ; and
if we were not defending our belief in them, we should, at this very time,
be defending our belief in the canon."
With this object in view, and under this impression, the writer argues
with some logical exactness, that there are no difficulties in the creed of the
Church which are not to be found equallyin the canon of Scripture. Thus
he tells us, that, if we are compelled to allow that the fathers are credu
lous and childishly superstitious, for recording certain narratives, we must
next surrrender the gospel accounts of demoniac-possession — together
with the Pythoness of the Acts — also, the Pauline assertion, as to the
sacrifice to devils, and fellowship with devils ; and all references to the
mysterious interference of evil spirits in human affairs. Should we
indulge in a laugh at the legends of the middle ages — or assume for
a moment that any one of them is intrinsically incredible, and there
fore the necessity of examining into evidence is superseded — we must
also scoff at the account of the serpent speaking to Eve, or its being in-

20 Tracts for the Times.
habited by an evil spirit ; of the devils being sent into the swine ; of
Balaam's ass speaking; of the Holy Ghost appearing in a bodily shape, and
that apparently the shape of an irrational animal, a dove, as fanciful and ex
travagant. Nay, the phrase, "Lamb of God," is ludicrous and grotesque
in the tract writer's estimation.There is something repugnant, he asserts, to
our present habits of mind in calling again and again our Saviour by the
name of a brute animal. Unless we were used to it, he continues, " I
conceive it would hurt and offend us much, to read of " glory and honour"
being ascribed to Him that sitteth upon the Throne and to the Lamb, as
being a sort of idolatry, or at least an unadvised way of speaking. It
seems to do too much honour to an inferior creature, and to dishonour
Christ. You will see this, by trying to substitute any other animal
however mild and gentle." A little after, he adds, that " the ancients
formed an acrostic upon our Lord's Greek title, as the Son of God,
the Saviour of men, and in consequence called him from the first let
ters, \xQvQ, or fish." Hear how a late English writer speaks of it.
" This contemptible and disgusting quibble originated in certain verses
of one of the pseudo-sibyls  I know of no figure which so revolt-
ingly degrades the person of the Son of God."* Such is the nature
of the comment made in the further East on the sacred image of the
Lamb. The two objectors may settle it with each other."
In like manner, the tract- writer proceeds to argue on the strangeness of
the brute creation being symbolically used in connexion with God's spi
ritual and heavenly kingdom. The four beasts of the Apocalypse — the
lion, calf, man, and eagle, the cherubim of the Jewish law — the repre
sentation of angels under brute images, are quite as odd and out-of-the-
way to him, as the cleansing of sin by the water of baptism, the eating of
Christ's body in consecrated bread, the use of oil for spiritual purposes,
or in an English coronation ; and such like doctrines of the Church not
to be primarily derived from the letter of the word, or on the surface of
the text. Do we dispute the use of any outward sign, or that water
applied to the body really is God's instrument in cleansing the soul from
sin ?— -then away go, at once, the credibility of the angel giving the pool
at Bethesda a miraculous power — of Naaman bathing seven times in the
Jordan — of the tree which Moses cast into the waters to sweeten them
— of Elisha's throwing meal into the pot of poisonous herbs- — and of our
Saviour's breathing, making clay, and the like. " Unless we were used
to the sacraments we should be objecting, not only to the notion of their
conveying virtue, but to their observance altogether, viewed as mere
badges and memorials. They would be called Eastern, suited to a peo
ple of warm imagination, suited to the religion of other times, but too
symbolical, poetical, or (as some might presume to say) theatrical for
us ; that there was something far more plain, solid, sensible, practical,
and edifying, in a sermon or an open profession or a prayer."
But what if we question that the hands of bishop or priest " impart"
a power, a grace, a privilege — or object to the Catholic doctrine of the
Eucharist — or " deny that the Blessed Virgin, whom all but heretics,
have ever called the Mother of God, was most holy in soul and body,

* Osburn on the Early Fathers, p. 85.

Tracts for the Times. 21
from her ineffable proximity to God ?" O then we musk decidedly ob
ject to the accounts of virtue going out of our Lord, and that, in the
case of the woman with the issue of blood, as it were by a natural law,
without a distinct application on his part — of all who touched the hem
of his garment being made whole ; and further of handkerchiefs and
aprons being impregnated with healing virtue by touching St. Paul's
body — and of St. Peter's shadow being earnestly sought out ; or con
sider the whole as mythi.
And what if we should dispute the credibility of some of the martyr-
ologies, or call some of the doctrinal interpretations of some of the
fathers obscure and fanciful ? Why, then we must likewise stumble
greatly at the accounts of our Saviour's bidding St. Peter catch a fish
in order to find money in it, to pay tribute with — of the blood and
water that issued from our Saviour's side, particularly taken with the
remarkable comment upon it in St. Jude's epistle — of the occurrence
mentioned by St. John xii. 28, 29, — of the deluge, the ark and its in
habitants — of Jonah and the whale — and of Elisha and the axe-head,
2 Kings vi. I — 7.
" I conceive," continues the writer, " that, under the same circumstances,
men will begin to be offended at the passage in the Revelations which speaks
of the " number of the beast." Indeed, it is probable that they will reject the
Book of Revelations altogether, not sympathising in the severe tone of doc
trine which runs through it. Again, there is something very surprising in the
importance attached to the Name of God and Christ in Scripture. The name
of Jesus is said to work cures and frighten away devils. I anticipate that this
doctrine will become a stone of stumbling to those who set themselves to en
quire into the trustworthiness of the separate parts of Scripture. For instance,
the narrative of St. Peter's cure of the impotent man in the early chapters of the
Acts: — First, ' Silver and gold,' he says, 'have I none ; but such as I have,
give I thee : In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk.'* Then,
"And His name, through faith in His name, hat'n made this man strong."
Then the question, 'By what power, or by what nome, have ye done this ?' Then
the answer, • By the Name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth . . . even by it doth
this man now stand here before you, whole. . . . There is none other JVame under
heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved.' Then the threat, that
the apostles should not ' speak at all, nor teach in the Name of Jesus.' Lastly,
their prayer that God would grant 'that signs and wonders might be done by
the Name of his holy Child, Jesus.' In connexion with which must be consi
dered St. Paul's declaration, that 'at the Name of Jesus every knee should
bow !'f Again, — I conceive that the circumstances of the visitation of the
Blessed Virgin to Elizabeth would startle us considerably, if we lost our faith
in Scripture. Again, — can we doubt but that the account of Christ's ascend
ing into heaven will not be received by the science of this age, when it is care
fully considered what is implied in it : Where is heaven ? Beyond all the stars ?
If so, it would take years for any natural body to get there. We say, that with
God all things are possible. But this age, wise in its own eyes, has already
decided the contrary, in maintaining, as it does, that he who virtually annihilated
the distance between earth and heaven on'his Son's ascension, cannot annihilate
it in the celebration of the Holy Communion, so as to make us present with
Him, though he be on God's right hand in heaven."
We have thought fit to quote the foregoing passage in extenso ; as

» Acts iii. iv. t Phil. ii. 10.

22

Tracts for the Times.

we would not take the responsibility of a single statement in it. So
much for the equality of difficulties on the part of the canon and the
creed. As the records of revelation are to be defended according to these
divines, in the defence of clerical dogmas, we will not now engage in the
reconciliation of the apparent contradictions in Holy Writ itself ; rather
we are concerned in the seeming anomalies that exist between Holy Writ
and more Holy Church. We shall arrange these in parallel columns— pre
mising that the statements and assumptions on both sides are the property
of the tract writers, not ours — whatever logical use we may make of
them afterwards.

Doctrine of the Bible.
There is no system in the New Tes
tament. The word Trinity is not in
Scripture. The verses of the Athana
sian Creed are not distinctly set down
in Scripture ; nor particular portions
of the doctrine, — such as, that Christ
is equal to the Father, that the Holy
Ghost is God, or that the Holy Ghost
proceedeth from the Father and the
Son. When we turn to Scripture, we see
much, indeed, of certain gifts ; we read
muchof vvhatChristhasdonefor us, by
atoning for our sins, and much of what
he does in us ; that is, much about
holiness, faith, peace, love, joy, hope,
and obedience ; but of those interme
diate portions of the revelation com
ing between Him and us, of which the
Church speaks, we read very little.
Passages, indeed, are pointed out to
us as if containing notices of them ;
but they are, in our judgment, singu
larly deficient and unsatisfactory; and
that, either because the meaning as
signed to them is not obvious and na
tural, but (as we think) strained, un
expected, recondite, and, at best, pos
sible, or because they are conceived in
such plain, unpretending words, that
we cannot imagine the writers meant
to say any great thing in introducing
them. On the other hand, a silence
is observed in particular places, where
one might expect the doctrines in
question to be mentioned. Moreover,
the general tone of the New Testa
ment is, to our apprehension, a full
disproof of them ; that is, it is moral,
rational, elevated, impassioned ; but
there is nothing of what may be called
a sacramental, ecclesiastical, mj-ste-
rious lone in it.

Doctrine of the Church.
There is a system in the Church.
The word Trinity is in the Prayer-
book ; so is the Athanasian creed, and
the entire docirine on the subject.

We are told in the Prayer-book of
a certain large and influential portion
of doctrine, as constituting one great
part of the Christian revelation ; that
is, of sacraments, of ministers, of rites,
of observances ; we are told that these
are the appointed means through
which Christ's gifts are conveyed to
us.

The tone of the doctrines of the
Church is sacramental, ecclesiastical,
and mysterious, rather than merely
moral, rational, elevated, and impas
sioned.

Tracts for the Times.

23

The words " break bread" are quite
a familiar expression. Again, " Christ
our Passover is sacrificed for us, there
fore let us keep the feast, not with old
leaven, neither with the leaven of ma
lice and wickedness, but with the un
leavened bread ofsincerity and truth."
In which passage, instead of any lite
ral feast occurring to the sacred wri
ter, a mental feast is th'e only one
he proceeds to mention ; and the un
leavened bread of the Passover, in
stead of suggesting to his mind the
sacred elements in the Eucharist, is to
him but typical of something moral,
" sincerity and truth."
It is not provable from Scripture
that the Lord's Supper is generally
necessary to salvation. The sixth
chapter of St. John does not neces
sarily refer to the subject. Many ex
cellent men alive deny such refer
ence, and many dead have denied it.
The words in which the celebra
tion of the holy Eucharist is spoken
of by St. Luke and St. Paul (break
ing bread) are very simple : they are
applicable to a common meal as much
as to the Sacrament ; and they only
do not exclude, they in no respect in
troduce the full and awful meaning
which the Church has ever put upon
them. St. John says, " If we confess our
sins. He is faithful and just to forgive
us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness." Why (it is
asked) is nothing said here concerning
absolution, or the Lord's Supper, as
the means of forgiveness ? Certainly,
then, the tone of the New Testament
is unsacramental ; and the impression
it leaves on the mind is not that of a
priesthood and its attendant system.
The tone of Scripture is not more
unfavourable to the doctrine of a
priesthood than it is to the idea of
Christianity, sucli as we are brought
up to regard it, i. e. of an established,
endowed, dignified cliurch.
The apostles contemplate not sin in
the baptized, but seem to hold, that
Christians fall not into gross sin ; or,
if they do, they forfeit their Christia
nity. Hence, little is said in the New
Testament of the danger of sin after
baptism, or of the penitential exercises
by which it is to be met.

By breaking of bread, the Church
understands a solemn mysterious rite.

The Church system, in these words,
" keeping the feast," recognises a re
ference to the Lord's Supper as being;
the great feast of Christ's sacrifice.

The Church holds that the Lord's
Sujjper is generally necessary to sal
vation.

These simple words, blessing, break
ing, eating, giving, have a very high
meaning put on them in the Prayer-
book, and by the Church from the
first.

The Prayer-book contains a form of
absolution, and in its tone is through
out .'sacramental , favourable to a priest
hood, and to an established, endowed,
dignified church.

The Church contemplates sin in the
baptized, and has provided penitential
means for its avoidance and pardon.

24

Tracts for the Times.

The three first gospels contain no
declaration of our Lord's divinity, and
there are passages which tend, at first
sight, the other way. Tlie impression
left on an ordinary mind would be,
that our Saviour was a superhuman
being, intimately possessed of God's
confidence, but still a creature.
There have been unbelievers who
have written to prove that Christ's
religion was more simple than St.
Paul's ; that St. Paul's Epistles are
" a second system" coming upon the
Gospels, and changing their doctrine.
Some have considered the doctrine of
our Lord's divinity an addition upon
the simplicity of the Gospels. Yes,
this has been the belief, not only of
such heretics as the Socinians, but of
infidels such as the historian Gibbon,
who looked at things with less of pre
judice than heretics, as having no
point to maintain. I think it will be
found quite as easy to maintain that
the divinity of Christ was an after
thought, brought in by the Greek
Platonists and other philosophers,
upon the simple and primitive creed
of the Galilean fishermen, as infidels
say, as that the sacramental system
came in from the same source.
The New Testament nowhere de
clares itself to be inspired. We have
no means of knowing that the whole
Bible is the word of God, or that we
have got the whole of the books that
are the word of God.

The Prayer-book expressly recog
nises our Lord's divinity, and asserts
his superhumanity and his uncreated
being.

The Church holds the identity of
the religion of Christ and of St. Paul.

The Church declares the New Tes,
lament to be inspired, and admits the
commemorations for the faithful de
parted, which are omitted from the
canon.

But enough of these parallel citations ; since all the differences are
declared to be apparent only, and not real : — ^but in what sense are we to
concede this ? Surely there are substantial diversities between the
records of revelation and the historical institution, and must in the nature
of the thing be such. What can be more clear than that the New Test
ament in all its parts presents the ideal of the Church equally existing
in the individual and a corporation ? Nothing can more strictly mark
this than the sinless state of human perfection which is required of every
Christian by St. .John and above alluded to. For such an one, no special
sacrifice would be required, whose life would be all one sacrifice to truth
and goodness — no special sacrament needed,whose every meal would be a
sacrament — no shrine or altar or sacred building wanted for his devotion,
to whom every place would be altogether holy, and no spot of earth un
blessed by him who made it. Such is the character presented to us in
the Gospel — a being carrying about in his person and habits of mind the
most hallowed influences, andconsecratingthe very airin which he moves
with the sanctity of his presence. But, alas ! such is not man ! The Christian
is his highest style, but who has yet deserved it ? Christianity from the

Tracts for the Times. 25
first was and could only be a corruption of that which gave it birth.
Christianity is not Christ-isra. Christianity is a system made by
Christians, and not by Christ. It follows and embodies the usages of
Christians, not the example of Christ. From the Church of Antioch to
the present day it has been so, and could not be otherwise. Pure
Christism contemplates Man as restored to his original purity, as incapa
ble of sin, as a veritable child of God — but Christianity accommodates
itself to fallen humanity, pities its errors, and condescends to its infirm
ities. When it became joined to the world, and was taken into partner
ship with the state — this was more particularly the case — a more decided
compromise was effected between the ideal and the possible : and at different
periods and in different places it has assumed different phases according
to the circumstances and condition of the age and country. But no such
compromise — no such accommodation is contemplated by the Gospels ;
on the contrary, their very spirit is directly opposed to it in every shape
and in every degree. It is of no use deceiving ourselves : for this is the
case. It is not that the Gospel precepts are only apparently more pure
than the practices of the Church in all times ; but they are so in very
deed and truth. Nor is this conclusion avoided by any necessity for sup
posing an antecedent institution as at once their author and interpreter.
It is granted readily that there must have been a previous establishment
virtually or actually and acting always in both capacities. What then ?
The documents would aim at the same end for which the institution
existed ; but they would work by different means. The purpose of the
Institution would be to lead its members to the pursuit of the highest
excellence practically ; and the aim of the documents would be to hold
up the standard of excellence as the object to be gained. The first
would proceed by training an imperfect, uninstructed individual, and pro
viding for him means whereby he might be perfected to every good word
and work ; this training and preparation — these means would all be
adapted to his imperfection 'and ignorance. The second would be
limited to announcing the idea of the utmost excellence, and strictly defin
ing its image ; permitting no mutation nor mutilation, but setting aloft
the example to be studied, far above the mists of earthly passion and
folly, in the pure ether of wisdom and goodness and power, not to be
breathed by the profane, not to be approached by the unclean. A law is
always more strict in its terms than the observance of it can be ; and the
perfection of holiness required by Christism was never attained by mortal
man. Christianity is just so much as has been realised in time and space,
and no more. Christism is to be found in the New Testament-
Christianity in the Church, and Antichrist in both the Church and the
World ; and by so much as one differs from the other, by so much the
religion and morahty of the New Testament differ from the institutions
and customs of the Church.
Proof enough is given in the Tracts before us that if the Bible needs
the interpretation of Church authority, the Church authority needs
interpretation too. The works of the Fathers are full of difliculties, and
the traditions of the Church are unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, to adopt
the language of the tract-writer, " it never can be meant that we should
be undecided all our days : we were made for action, and for right action ;
for thought, and for true thought. Let us live while we five, let us be

26 Tracts for the Times.
alive and doing ; let us act on what we have, since we have not what we
wish. Let us believe what we do not see and know. Let us forestall
knowledge by faith Let us maintain before we have proved." Yes —
we repeat with the tract-writer, let us do all this, and not be unwilling to
go by faith. But why should we believe in the Church, or rather in the
clergy of the Church ? No, no ; this is not the thing ; but verily, we
should believe rather in God I We should believe rather in the Christ!
Between Deity and us we cannot suffer the clergy to stand as mediators by
right of an hj'pothetical apostolic succession, ivltich can never be proved,
and for which, even as an assumption, there is confessedly no satisfactory
evidence in the charter and the records belonging to the association of
which they are members. Besides, the Church pre-existed this clergy,
and of old times sought to God immediately and directly ; and this state
in which the Church is now with a clergy and laity is a second state ; and
may there not be a third to which the second is transitional ? We have
already said so ; and hereby we are brought, as in a circle, to this very
important point again.
The differences between the New Testament Christism and the Church
Christianity, which we have declared are not apparent only but real,
result from the imperfection of the members of the Church, who have
therefore need of mediates and helps, such as are provided in rites and
ceremonies and public prayers, and the ministration of the better in
structed. While the members of the Church continue in that state,
these things must continue. But they were not from the beginning.
The familiar and customary were then the holy— now it is the rare and
solemn that is so. In a perfect Church estate, however, the holy will
become the familiar, — every day will be a Sabbath. The perfect Christian
will do no act that is not worthy of his name and calling — and that
which is now extraordinary and awful will be common and easy. In
the primitive Church, there was no meal that was not a sacrament — in
the ultimate Church there shall be no sacrament that is not a meal. A
holy man can do nothing that is unholy — and the vessels that are marked
" holiness unto the Lord" shall be used as the every-day utensils of mean
est employment; for there shall no longer be any distinction between sacred
and profane, between clergy and laity— for all shall be equally worthy
and able.
Now it is clear that the Church system, such as we have it, is but
preparatory to this, and awaits its apotheosis in it. Providence is
evidently operating this, and the tract-writers are as evidently striving to
avert the consequence. They desire to keep apart from the laity, and to
remain alone the clerical — at a day, too, when almost every man has be
come as clerkly as themselves. The general diffusion of education must
break down the barriers of a distinction only proper to a state of transi
tion. But how vain is the attempt ? Can any stand that Oxford
Divines may make in behalf of their apostolical succession, convince the
men of these times ? Can they restore the faith that was of old, but
now is not ? Faith was never yet made by the priest but the people.
Nay, the character of the priest himself has been made by the people.
' Like people like priest,' it has been said, and also that in all superstitions
the priest has only sanctioned what the people have invented. Aaron
is a type of every one of his class : — and then only, when the general body

Tracts for the Times. 27
of the worshippers shall have been perfected, will the priest himself be
really what he now only professes. But when that time comes, he will
arrogate no superiority— for the meanest votary, shall be the equal of
the highest dignitary in all that makes man, man— in virtue and truth
and wisdom.
Would the Oxford Divines preserve the relative station of the
order to which they belong, they must resort to other means than
they have adopted. It is not by recurring to old customs and
slavishly restoring the rubric that they can succeed. God has de
clared that the unity of the Church is not to be produced in any
such worn-out way, or by means of such beggarly elements.
Priestcraft is not possible now— what folly therefore, to try it? It
is not possible, because the adage " Populus vult decipi, et decipia-
tur," is no longer applicable. No superstitious rite is likely to
be forced on the priest by the people. Aaron thus is left without
excuse, but equally without power to do harm. Is he supersti
tious? It is a private folly, not a popular madness. For a priest
who ought to know better, to take up a superstition to deceive him
self withal, and none else, is a sublimely ridiculous conception, or
or an exceedingly villanous invention. A coarse-minded, though
very upright. Iconoclast might say that the Oxford Divines are
either knaves or fools. He might add, that their being men of learn
ing does not preclude them from being the latter also — but as some
of them shew considerable logical acumen, and all evidently pro
ceed upon a common system, it is rather to be believed that they
are a confederacy of crafty men, who have conceived a strange
design for their own advantage, but, miscalculating their means,
have been full soon overtaken in their own craftiness. A genera
tion of vipers they are, seeking to escape from the wrath to come,
by flying to the past, which will drive them back again to the pre
sent, with tremendous recoil and rebound, by which they must
greatly suffer. We say, a coarse Iconoclast might say this. We,
however, know that their folly arises from a peculiar course of
study, unenlightened by philosophy ; their violent proceedings also
are nothing more than the necessary reaction of a violent ultra-pro
testantism as much to be deprecated on the one hand, as their ex
treme and exclusive antiquarianism on the other. It has never been
doubted by any one capable of appreciatingthe theosophical bearings
of the subject that the position of Chillingworth (namely, that the
mere text of the Bible is the sole and exclusive ground of faith, and
practice) is quite untenable against the Romanists. It, said Cole
ridge, " entirely destroys the conditions of a church, of an authority
residing in a religious community, and all that holy sense of bro
therhood which is so sublime and consolatory to a meditative
Christian. Had I been a papist (continued the modern Plato), I
should not have wished for a more vanquishable opponent in con
troversy. I cannot but believe Chillingworth to have been in some
sense a Socinian. Lord Falkland, his friend, said so in substance.
I do not deny his skill in dialectics ; he was more than a match for
Knott to be sure." The authors of the Tracts before us have strongly
shewn, that not only the Church of England, but the congregations

28 Traces for the Times.
of Dissent are equally without authority from the Scriptures
alone for their various practices and disciplines : —
" Since the great bulk of professing Christians in this country," say the
Orielites, " whatever their particular denomination may be, do consider,
agreeably with the English Church, that there are doctrines revealed (though
they differ in what), and that they are in Scripture, they must undergo
and resign themselves to an inconvenience which certainly does attach to
our creed, and, as they often suppose, to it alone, — that of having to infer
from Scripture, to prove circuitously, to argue at disadvantage, to leave
difficulties, and to seem to others weak or fanciful reasoners. They
must leave off attacking our proofs of our doctrines as insufficient, not being
stronger in their own proofs themselves. No matter whether they are Lutherans
or Calvinists, Wesleyans or Independents, they have to wind their way through
obstacles, in and out, — avoiding some things, and catching at others, like men
making their way in a wood, or over broken ground. If they believe in con-
substantiation with Luther, or the absolute predestination of individuals, with
Calvin, they have very few texts to produce which, in argument, will appear
even specious. Or how, if Wesleyans, do they prove that the gospel sanctions
an order of ministers, yet allows man to choose them ? Where do they find a
precedent in Scripture for a self-chosen ministry ? or if no mere succession, and
no human appointment are intended by them, where has the gospel promised
them infallible evidence from Gon, whom He will have as his ministers, one
by one ? And still more plainly have their religionists strong texts against them,
whatever be their sect or persuasion. If they be Lutherans, they have to en
counter St. James's declaration, that ' by works a man is justified, and not by
faith only:'* if Calvinists, God's solemn declaration, that 'as He liveth. He
willeth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he should live :" if Wesleyans,
St. Paul's precept to ' obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your
selves ¦.'¦\- if Independents, the same apostle's declaration concerning the
Church being * the pillar and ground of the truth :' if Zuinglians, they have to
explain how baptism is not really and in fact connected with regeneration, con
sidering it is always connected with it in Scripture : if Friends, why they
allow women to speak in their assemblies, contrary to St. Paul's plain prohibi
tion : if Erastians, why they distort our Saviour's plain declaration, that His
kingdom is not of this world: ifmaintainers of the every-day secular Christianity,
what they make of the woe denounced against riches, and the praise bestowed
on celibacy. Hence, none of these sects and persuasions have any right to ask
the question of which they are so fond, ' Where in the Bible are the Church
doctrines to be found t Where in Scripture, for instance, is apostolical succes
sion, or the priestly office, or the power of absolution ?' This is with them a
fav'ourite mode of dealing with us ; and I, in return, ask them, Where, are we
told that the Bible contains all that is necessary to salvation ? Where are we
told that the New Testament is inspired .' Where are we told that justification
is by faith only ? Where are we told that every individual who is elected is
saved ? Where are we told that we may leave the Church, if we think its mini
sters do not preach the gospel ? or, Where are we told that we may make
ministers for ourselves."
Having thus invalidated the rule of faith adopted by sectarists and
low-churchmen, our Oxford Divines might here have left their case tri
umphantly, establishng in this matter the Anglican Church on an
equality with other churches. But they were solicitous of ascendancy,
and have therefore strained the point, for the purpose of showing its
superior claims. Enough, however, is done to demonstrate the need of
* James ii. 24. ¦• f Heb. xiii. 7.

Tracts for the Timet. 29
an interpreter beyond the Bible for its contents : The following passage
puts this on grounds of the true Catholic kind :
" We are told that the doctrine of the mystical fefflcacy of the Sacraments,
comes from the Platonic philosophers, the Ritual from the Pagans, and the
Church polity from the Jews : so they do ; that is, in a sense in which much
more, also, comes from the same sources. Traces also of the doctrines of the
Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement, maybe found among heathens, Jews, and
philosophers ; for God scattered through the world, before His Son came,
vestiges and gleams of His true religion, and collected all the separated rays
together, when he set him on his holy hill, to rule the day ; and the Church,
as the moon, to govern the night. In the sense in which the doctrine of the
Trinity is Platonic, doubtless the doctrine of mysteries, generally, is Platonic
also. But this by the way. What I have here to notice is, that the same
supposed objection can be, and has been made, against the books of scripture too ;
viz : that they borrow from external sources. Infidels have accused Moses of
borrowing his law from the Egyptians or other pagans ; and elaborate compa
risons have been instituted, on the part of believers also, by way of proving it ;
though, even if proved, and so far proved, it would show nothing more than
this — that God, who gave His law to Israel absolutely and openly, had secretly
given some portions of it to the heathen. Again : an infidel historian accuses>
St. John of borrowing the doctrine of the Eternal Logos or Word from the
Alexandrian Platonists. Again : a theory has been advocated — by whom I
will not say — to the effect that the doctrine of apostate angels, Satan and his
hosts, was a Babylonist tenet, introduced into the Old Testament after the
Jews' return from the Captivity : that no allusion is made to Satan, as the head
of the malignant angels, and as having set up a kingdom for himself against
God, in any book written before the Captivity ; from which circumstance it
may easily be made to follow, ihat those books of the Old Testament which
were written after the captivity are not plenarily inspired, and not to be trusted
as canonical. Now, I own, I am not at all solicitous to deny that this doc
trine of an apostate angel and his hosts was gained from Babylon ; it might
still be divine, nevertheless. God, who made the prophet's ass speak, and
thereby instructed the people, might instruct His church by means of heathen
Babylon. Again : is not instruction intended to be conveyed to us by the re
markable words of the governor of the feast, upon the miracle of the water
changed to wine ? " Every man at the beginning dolh set forth good wine, and
when men have well drunk, then that which is u-orse ; but thou hast kept the good
wine until now." (John ii. 10.) Yet at first sight they have not a very serious
meaning. It does not therefore seem to me a difficulty, nay, or even unlikely,
that the prophets of Israel should, in the course of God's providence, have
gained new truths from the heathens, among whom they lay corrupted.
The Church of God in every age has been, as it were, on visitation through
the earth, — surveying, judging, sifting, selecting, and refining all matters of
thought and practice, detecting what was precious amid what is ruined and
refuse, and putting her seal upon it. There is no reason, then, why Daniel
and Zechariah should not have been taught by the instrumentality of the
Chaldeans. However, this is stated, and as if to the disparagement of the
Jewish Dispensation bv some persons, and under the notion that its system
was not onlv enlarged but altered at the era of the Captivity— and I certainly
think as plausibly as pagan customs were brought to illustrate, and thereby to
invalidate, the ordinances of the Catholic Church ; though the proper explana
tion in the two cases is not exactly the same.
"The objection I have mentioned is apphed in the quarter to which I allude,
to the Books of Chronicles. These, it bas already been observed, have before
now been ascribed by sceptics to (what is called) priestly influence : here then
is a second exceptionable influence, a second superstition I In the second
book of Samuel it is said, the anger of the Lord w^as kindled against Israel ;

30 Tracts for the Times.
and he moved David against them to say — Go, number Israel and Judah."
(2 Sam. xxiv. 1.) On the other hand, in Chronicles it is said, ' Satan stood
up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.' (1 Chron. xxi. 1.)
On this a writer, not of the English Church, who is in too high a station to be
named says, 'The author of the Book of Chronicles .... oDaiV/ng /li/nse//' of the
learning which he had acquired in the East, and influenced by a suitable tender
ness for the harmony of the Divine attributes, refers the act of temptation to the
malignity of the evil principle." You see in this way a blow is also struck
against the more ancient parts of the Old Testament, as well as the more
modern. The books written before the captivity are represented, as the whole
discussion would shew, as containing a ruder, simpler, more inartificial
theology; those after the captivity, a more learned and refined. God's in
spiration is excluded in both cases  It seems then that the objections
which can be made to the evidence for the Church doctrines are such as also
lie against the Canon of Scripture."**
This Catholic view of revelation, together with the practical
application derived from it, " that almost all systems have enough of
truth, as, when we have no choice besides, and cannot discriminate,
makes it better to take all than to reject all — that God will not
deceive us if we trust in him," meets with our entire approbation.
" Though the received system of religion," the writer continues,
"in which we were born were as unsafe as the sea when St. Peter
began to walk on it, yet be not afraid. He who could make St.
Peter walk the waves could make even a corrupt or defective creed
truth to us, even were ours such ; much more can he teach us by
the witness of the Church Catholic. It is far more probable that
her witness should be true, whether about the canon or the creed,
than that God should have left us without any witness at all."
Admirable sentiments like these are scattered throughout these
tracts ; and they will have the effect of universalizing and philan
thropizing the minds of their admirers. Would that these pious sen
timents had but been enlightened by thepresence of the true Witness
among Christians — the testimony of that One Philosophy which has
never changed — the same permanent Spirit, whatever might be the
scientific form, physical or metaphysical, in which, at various
times, it has been partially developed. It is, has always been; and
will ever be, in the world and in the Church, — the Wisdom or the
Love ofit, that worketh all things — thatUnderstandingwhichisholy,
one only, manifold, subtil, lively, clear, undefiled, plain, not subject
to hurt, loving the thing that is good, quick, which cannot be letted,
ready to do good, kind to man, stedfast, sure, free from care, hav
ing all power, overseeing all things, and seeing through all under
standing, pure and most subtil spirits — that Brightness of the ever
lasting Light which being but One, can do all things ; and remain
ing in herself, she maketh all things new ; aud in all ages entering
into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God and prophets. +
This testimony, however, they have surrendered in favour of a lower
one, merely scientific and historic, confessedly holding that it is
less sin in the Church to " quench the Spirit" than to destroy the
Unity. Were the first not extinguished, the second could not be
• No. 85. p. 82. 84, t Wisdom of Solomon vii. 22 — 27.

Tracts for the Times, 31
violated. To consolidate the form, is not to reproduce the power of
Godliness; but promote the power, and the form will come in order
of sequence, or rather will coevally be manifested. The dogmas that
the Orielites advocate preclude inspiration — preclude genius in the
Church — (for inspiration in religion is analogous to genius in the
arts) — in favour of mere learning. Favourable, as we are, to the
synthesis of learning and inspiration, we confess that we prefer the
latter alone to the former alone. A rule that will not hold good in
profane literature, will hardly maintain itself in sacred ethics.
An eternal originality characterises all genuine production, whether
speculative or practical, whether divine or moral, or only intel
lectual. Nay, the exercise of the poor five senses begins afresh
with every man — we neither see, hear, taste, smell or feel, on the
authority, or by imitation of others — and, in like manner, the apos
tolical in us is an original gift of God — a faculty underived from
human ordination, but immediately granted by God to every man
whom his wisdom pleases to renew in the spirit of his will.
The grand error of the Oxford divines, we repeat, in conclusion, is,
that they confound the Spiritual Church of the Christ with the Political
Church of Christians, and that blending both in an historical view,
they conduct that view partially, confining God's providence to the
history of one church, the Anglican, and disregarding the Roman, the
Grecian, the Presbyterian, and the sectarian brotherhoods. O that man
would but look on the various families of his kind, as God looketh on
them — God, their common Father ! Any Catholicism short of this, is
short altogether of what it calls itself; for nothing but the whole is the
whole ; a position so true, that it allows neither the aggregate, nor all the
parts to be mistaken for it, preserving an eternal priority, and for ever
precluding the equality with itself of what it comprehends. No exclusive
Church can be Catholic.
As members of the National Church of England, we are right willing
advocates of all her privileges, as a visible Church, whose communion
we love ; but we desire to see them placed on their true basis. A
national church is not an international church, nor would an interna
tional church be necessarily Catholic, though, perhaps, the nighest pos
sible approximation to such on the face of the earth. The true Catholic
Church is neither Anglican nor Roman, nor international, but the Jeru
salem that is above. Neither is it a syncretic Unity, though that were
something, but a prothetio One — an antecedent Whole — of which all
unity is only symbolic.
A National Church is simply an institution for promoting and ad
vancing the moral cultivation of the people ; and until that is attained is
a partial substitute for the general cultivation that it is charged to pro
duce. The vicarious few mediate for the many with their consciences.
It proceeds upon the supposition that the many have not yet accomplished
Christian perfection — nay, are not yet Christians, and therefore con
descends to certain rites and ceremonies that may win them to the fold ;
and whether Protestant or Romanist, consents in some degree or other
to paganise Christianity in order to christianise Pagans. These being
really christianised, the institution, no longer needed as a means, may be
retained as an ornament. Priests have been the clerks of the people —

32 Tracts for the Times. ^
but when the people become themselves clerkly, as in this age they are
becoming, they resort not to the clerisy for help in calligraphy or cryp
tography. Nevertheless, though excellent writers themselves, they will
ever be ready to acknowledge superior genius or virtue, and will doubt
less place it in office and trust for its own and the public benefit.
" Neither Christianity " (says Henry Nelson Coleridge in his editorial
preface to his uncle's treatise on Church and State), " nor H fortiori
any particular scheme of theology supposed to be deduced from it, forms
any essential part of the being of a National Church; however conducive
it may be to its well-being. A National Church may exist and has ex
isted without, because before, the institution of the Christian Church ; as
the Levitical church in the Hebrews, and the Druidical in the Keltic,
constitutions may prove. But two distinct functions do not necessarily
imply or require two different functionaries ; on the contrary, the per
fection of each may require the union of both in the same person. And
in the instance now in question, as great and grievous errors have
arisen from confounding the functions of the National Church with those
of the church of Christ ; so fearfully great and grievous will be the evils
from the success of an attempt to separate them."
Here we conclude for the present. We shall take an early oppor?
tunity of declaring at large the proper constitution of a Holy Catholic
and Apostolic Church rightly so called, as the visible exponent of the
invisible church of the ascended Christ — the veritable virgin-mother
and sister-bride of the anointed Son of God.

YALE

Wertlieiraer & Co. Printera, Finshury Circus.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01481 6772