Dr. Hoofe l?l9 06S <( DR. HOOK'S CALL TO UN ION" DEFENDED: REPLY TO ERASER'S ANSWER. LONDON: JAMES BURNS, 17, PORTMAN STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE. 1839. tONDOl? : PRINTED BY STEWAKT AND MUftRA V, OLD BAIJCEY, DR. HOOK'S « CALL TO UNION " DEFENDED, &c. The writer of the following pages has been induced to publish them in consequence of the impression which has taken root in some minds, that the article to which they are a reply was true in its statements, and that it had ¦only been left unnoticed hecause it was unanswerable. A perusal of the following remarks will, it is hoped, remove any such impression. It may be well to add, that this vindication of Dr. Hook's sermon is wholly without Dr. Hook's knowledge ; and that the Vicar of Leeds is, therefore, answerable for none of its explanations — for none of its statements. Periodicals which heretofore confined themselves to political matters, have recently plunged into theological controversy. As might almost be expected from the novelty of the warfare, they have approached the contest for the most part with very insufficient weapons, and very ill-proved armoury. The popular side of the question has been warmly taken up by papers and magazines professing a love for the church ; and the injury done to the cause of truth by this treachery of miscalled friendship is considerable. A writer in the January number of Fraser's Magazine is a fair specimen of the theological acumen, and of the spirit of Christian charity and truthfulness, which the revilers of what is of good report in the churches of God bring into the controversy ; and although by confining our attention to the statements of this writer the whole matter at issue will be far from receiving due attention, yet enough will have been brought forward to induce the pious-minded of our people to pause, ere they consent to speak evil of those, who, in this day of rebuke and blasphemy, dare to declare the whole counsel of God, We propose therefore to examine the statements of the writer in Fraser, as they occur. The article opens with a metaphysical distinction as to the degrees of dis honesty, and the writer takes to himself the " Exercise of a full portion of Christian charity" in acquitting Dr. Hook oi wilful misrepresentation; and then proceeds " to accuse Dr. Hook of downright and positive bishonestyI" as one who "first contrives to deceive himself, and then, under the influence of that self-deception, sits down andfabricates a view of a certain question, so lit VARIAHCE with TRUTH, SO OPPOSED TO NOTORIOUS PACT, that it requires the exercise of a full portion of Christian charity to take him out of the first class just referred to, and to admit the possibility of his sincere belief in Ms own statements." Such is Fraser's charge against Dr. Hook. We fearlessly assert that the charge is false ; and we will endeavour to do that for our assertion which Fraser does not for his charge — we will endeavour to sub- 2 stantiate it. And we will do this in two ways. We shall show that the charge of dishonesty lies at the door of Dr. Hook's accuser ; that the writer in Fraser has wilfully mistaken the question at issue between himself and the Vicar of Leeds ; and that, therefore, his evidence is untrustworthy. And further, we shall show that the doctrines and views which Dr. Hook main tains and defends in his Call to Union are strictly the views of the Enghsh Church ; and that his Call is fairly made on the principles of the ENGLISH REFORMATION. Let it be borne in mind, that in doing so, we altogether repudiate the notion that we are fighting the battle of the Oxford Tracts. We believe that in defending the fundamental principles of the English Church, we shall often be found to handle the same weapons with the writers in the Tracts for the Times, for we believe that the object these writers have in view, is a defence of our church, and that they aim at proving that church to be a true branch of Christ's holy Catholic Church. Certain it is that the principal grounds on which these Tracts have been assailed, are because they maintained, in uncompromising tones, and with unanswerable ability, the great Catholic doctrines of the Christian Faith. And thus it has happened that all who stand between these cardinal doctrines, and those who contravene them, have been charged with standing forth simply in behalf of the Oxford Tracts, and this has proceeded very much from the ignorance which has so extensively prevailed among us as to what Church principles really are. This feeling has prevailed the more, in consequence of the general tendency of that unsatisfactory spirit now abroad, which in its hatred of the name Catholic, or Universal and True, takes refuge in the name of some favourite modern. It is natural, we repeat, that those who date no higher than Wesley for their title, or who glory in the nomenclature of Calvin or Arminius, — it is natural for those who are not content with having the name of Christ called upon them, but who add to that glorious name, the affix of the founder of some human system of the last century or Wo, — it is natural for such to wish to bring their opponents in controversy to a level with themselves, by calling them Oxford Tract Men. If it were possible for us to consent to dishonour Christ by preferring the name of man to that of our incarnate God, if we could forget that an apostle has declared it sinful to say I am of Paul, or I of Apollos, then we know not why to be a Puseyite should be more discreditable than to be a Wesley AN, — why to be a Newmanite, should be more objectionable than to be a Brownist, — why Oxford Tract men should convey greater re proach than Independents, Baptists, Jumpers, or the thousand and one other sects which prove the boast of Ultra-Protestantism. But so long as we acknowledge none other for master save Christ and him alone, so long shall we be jealous of acknowledging any spiritual pedigree which halts in tracing back our descent, short of Christ the great Head of the Family of the baptized ! — so long shall we be suspicious of our relationship with him, if we be not found in the " glorious company of his Apostles." On this account it is that we disclaim all intention of contending for Oxford Tract doctrine as such. If our opponents have attacked the principles of the Church universal, "by professing to refute the statements of the Oxford Tracts, we shall expose the fallacy of giving tenets eighteen hundred years and more old, a date of four years back, and we will endeavour to rescue the opinions from slander : it will be no part of our business, in doing this, to vindicate the subordinate arguments used by the writers in the Tracts for the Times. They are competent to do this for themselves in their own accredited publications. To return to Fraser. He charges Dr. Hook with dishonesty. He is guilty of this failing himself in the very outset of the article. He affirms that Dr. Hook says, " That this schism and disunion is [are?J attributable to certain noisy and quarrelsome persons who persist in writing and preaching against the Tracts of the Times and their Authors." Now, this is dishonest, because untrue. Dr. Hook's appeal is to those who either wilfully, or igno- rantly, in their zeal for mere protestantism, overstep the bounds set by the authors of the English Reformation. His remonstrance is addressed to those who mistake a love of discipline, for a hatred of spirituality, and who see, in a return to catholic usage,* a tendency to Popery. Dr. Hopk seeks to expose the groundlessness of these fears, and to show that those, who are popularly called High Churchmen, have no right to be assailed as Papists because they have views on Tradition, the Sacraments, the Apostolical Succession, and Ceremonial Observances, which they be lieve themselves to hold in common with the English Reformers and the great Divines of our communion. Now, what is there in all this that can, by fairness, be said to be a defence of the Oxford Tracts, Disputes about Tradition had their origin long before Mr. Keble was born, as unanswerable works by the great divines of our Church prove beyond dispute. That Baptism is the laver of Regeneration, was never denied till the times of Zuinglius, so that must not be laid at Dr. Pusey's door. The Apostolical Succession, and the fitness of ceremonies, had engaged the splendid abilities of a Hooker, a Taylor, a Beveridge, with a goodly host of others far too numerous to mention, long before the Oxford Tracts were set on foot. What is it then but sheer dishonesty, to say that Dr. Hook directs his re monstrance to persons who write and preach against the Tracts for the Times and their Authors ; because, forsooth, he shows that a man may be a High Churchman, and yet be much farther from Popery than ultra-Protest antism is from Socinianism ?•)¦ Really if one were to draw conclusions as to * We use the phrase 'return to catholic usage,' as marking a resuscitation from that cold and lifeless lethargy,, in which that reason-idolizing age (which so- cinianized the hierarchy, and sensualized the parochial clergy) left us. If Fraser prefers leaden morality and meagre decency, to the glowing and life- instinct harmony and regularity of primitive times, he is welcome to his choice. t " It is curious enough," says Mr. Le Bas, in his Life of Jewel, " that Harding, seems to have apprehended, almost prophetically, the future declension of high Calvinism from the Trinitarian doctrine." He says that the Fathers of Trent did not occupy themselves with determinations and decrees respecting the Trinity ; for then the world had no nesd of any new determinations relative to that doctrine, and he adds, "What it shall have hereafter, by occasion of your chief master, John Calvin's Aocttine, it is more feared than yet perceived." What Harding feared, upwards of 160 chapela, once Presbyterian, now Socinian, amply prove 1 the date of these doctrines from the writings of their assailants, one would suppose they were inventions four or five years old, instead of being, as they are, truths as old as Christianity itself, and forming an integral portion of that Christianity. After giving the concluding sentences of the sermon and a passage out of the last note, Fraser goes on to say, " Here, then, is the charge fully and explicitly stated. Union is desired ;. harmony is anxiously to be sought for ; but tlwse who break that xtiiion, and who impair that harmony, are distinctly averred to be the ' low churchmen ;' in other words, those who feel themselves called upon to protest against the popery of the Oxford Tracts. Now, this accusation we must most deliberately and earnestly declare to be altogether unfounded and calumnioui. The responsibility of the present breach of union rests palpably and indisputably on the Oxford Tract party, and on them atone." Now the best answer to all this passage is to give the entire note from the Sermon, and this will show that Dr. Hook's object, as represented by him self, and that which Fraser imputes, are widely different from one another. And yet Fraser pretends to state the Doctor s object in his own words. Is not this Dishonesty ? But here is the note — " In concluding these notes I wish to observe that my intention bas not beeB to bring charges against those who may differ from me in opinion, and yet are united with me in a desire to adhere to the principles of the Church. But I have been desirous of pointing out the erroneous position in which we are at present placed by those who would divide us into High-Churchmen and Low- Churchmen. 1 have shewn tbat the English Reformers contended for the principles, and resolutely maintained the practices, for defending and main taining which, those who are now styled High-Churchmen are assailed as Papists. If THEY, then, were to assail their opponents as persons hostile to the spirit and principles of the English Reformation, as persons who, with respect to baptism especially, are wont to use a language which they acknowledge to he different from the language of theprayer hook, however much we might regret the circumstance, it would not be a matter of much surprise to any one. But it is notorious that such, at the present time, is not the case. Those who are called Low-Churchmen are the assailants, and in assailing High-Churchmen, they are in fact assailing our high- church Reformers, and fighting the battle against them in favour of their old enemies, the Puritans. Surely, then, it is not much to ask, for the sake of peace, that if those who are on the wrong side refrain from attacking ; those who are, confessedly, so far as the Church and the English Reformers are concerned, on the weak side, should be equally forbearing. There are among them many pious and good men, whose only fault is. that they take, without examination, the premises afforded them in the falsehoods invented bit certain newspapers and magazines, and then hastily draw conclusions which would not be false, were the premises correct ; but with whom are these persons uniting in order to defame the representatives of our very High-Church Reformers \ Let them look to the cold, worldly theologians, who are seeking to inflame their passions, merely to further the party purposes of worldly policy. I will not name them. But it is notorious that against those whom they are pleased to denominate High-Church men, are joined in one band the most cold and calculating of our divines, who regard the Church as little more than a state engine, together with others, whose truly evangelical views ought to unite them with the very men to whom they are opposed, even though on some points of opinion they may differ. With respect to such combinations, we may truly say with an old writer, " if such public mischiefs be presaged by astrologers from the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn, though the first of these be a planet of most sweet and gentle influence, what dangers, what calamities, may not be feared from these political con junctions !" " For my part, I hate party names, which often make a distinction between persons where there is no difference. I believe, that, in real principle, a more united body of men never existed than the Clergy of England at the present time, and the attempt to make them suppose themselves at variance cannot cer tainly be of God. But if men will divide us — be it so. And if I am ranked among the High-Churchmen, I shall be perfectly contented. lam content to be what the Fathers of the Church Universal were ; I am content to be what our pious Reformers were ; and if the opprobious epithets which were applied to them be applied to us, we shall glory in the tribulation, and rejoice to bear the scandal of the cross. Only let it be clearly understood what a High-Churchman, according to the present signification of the term is> let it be understood that while the Low- Churchman is contending for the temporalities of an Establishment, the High-Churchman regards only the spiritualities of the Church ; that while the Low-Churchman is a High-Establishment man, the High-Churchman is prepared to sacrifice all the advantages of an Establishment, rather than com promise an iota of God's truth ; that while the Low-Churchman defers to acts of the English Parliament, the High-Churchman defers to the Church, in Council ; that while the Low-Churchman interprets Scripture according to the tradition of men, — a tkaoition which can be traced back only to a Calvin or an Arminiits, the High-Churchman interprets Scripture according to the system which may he traced back to the Apostles themselves, and which the Church Universal has regarded as, in its origin, divine j in short, let me conclude with the words of Bishop Horsley : — " ' Upon these topics,' says that great divine, alluding to the Apostolical Suc cession, &c., * the clergy of late years have been more silent than is perfectly consistent with their duty, from a fear, as I conceive, of acquiring the name and reputation of High-Churchmen. But, my brethren, you will not be scared from your duty by the idle terror of a mere name, artfully applied in violation of the true meaning of the word to entrap the judgment of the many, and bring the discredit of a folly long since eradicated, upon principles which have no connexion with it. You promote the stratagem of your enemies, you are assisting in the fraud upon the public, and you are accessaries to the injury to yourselves, if you give way to a dread of the imputation. To be a High- Cliurchman, in the only sense which the word can be allowed to bear, as ap plicable to any in the present day, God forbid that this should ever cease to be my public pretension, my pride, my glory ! To be a High Churchman in the true import in the English language, God forbid that ever I should deserve the imputation. A High Churchman in the true seuse of the word, is one that is a bigot to the secular rights of the Priesthood ; one who claims for the Hierarchy, upon pretence of a right inherent in the sacred office, all those powers, honours, and emoluments, which they enjoy under an establishment ; which are held indeed by no other tenure, than at the will of the Prince, or by the law of the land. To the Prince, or to the law, we acknowledge ourselves indebted for all our secular possessions ; for the rank and dignity annexed to the superior order of the clergy ; for our secular authority: for the jurisdiction of our courts, and for every civil effect which follows the exercise of our spiritual authority. All these rights and honours with which the priesthood is adorned by the piety of the civil magistrate, are quite distinct from the spiritual commission which we bear for the administration of our Lord's proper Kingdom. They have no necessary connexion with it ; they stand merely on the ground of human law, and vary, like the rights of other citizens, as the laws which create them vary. And in every Church, connected, like our Church, with the state by an esta blishment, even spiritual authority cannot be conferred without the consent of the supreme civil Magistrate. But in the language of our modern sectaries, every one is a High Churchman, who is not unwilling to recognise so much as the spiritual authority of the Priesthood ; every one, who denying what we our selves disclaim, any thing of a divine right to temporalities, acknowledges, however, in the sacred character, somewhat more divine than may belong to the mere hired servants of the state, or of the laity, and regards the service, which we are thought to perfoi-m for our pay, as something more than a part to be gravely played in the drama of human politics. My reverend brethren, we must be content to be High- Churchmen according to this usage of the word, or we cannot at all be Churchmen. For he who thinks of God's ministers as the mere servants of the state, is out of the Church, — severed from it by a kind of self-excommunication. Bluch charitable allowance is to be made for the errors 6 of the laitv upon points to which it is hardly to be expected they should turn their attention of their own accord, and upon which, for some time past, they have been very imperfectly instructed. Dissenters are to be judged with much candour, and with every possible allowance for the prejudices of education. But for those who have been nurtured in the bosom of the Church, and have gained admission to the ministry, if from a mean compliance with the humour of the age, or ambitious of the fame of liberality of sentiment (for under a specious name, a profane indifference is made to pass for an accomplishment) they affect to join in the disavowal of the authority which they share, or are silent when the validity of their divine commission is called in question ; for any, I hope they are few, who hide this weakness of faith, this poverty of religious principle, under the attire of a gown and cassock, they are, in my estimation, little better than infidels in masquerade.' " — Bp. Horsley's Charge to the Clergy of St. David's, in the year 1790, p. 34, 37. This is a long quotation, but it contains much valuable matter, and quite overthrows the dishonest insinuation that, by the High Churchmen, with whom he is content to rank. Dr. Hook means only the writers in the Oxford Tracts. Reader, see what Dr. Hook says of the Oxford Tracts, and then applaud the choice honesty of Fraser in the passages which follow the extract. " At such a time, the celebrated Oxford Tracts made their appearance. The reputed writers of the Tracts were men of ardent piety, who had been attached to the " Evangelical " school, and it was among the young men who had been educated in that schoortbat they created a strong sensation. Hence, perhaps, the bitterness with which they are assailed by some of the older partizans of that section in the Church. TO' those who, like the present writer, Iiad been educated strictly in principles of the English Reformation, and belonged to-the old or thodox school, they brought forward nothing new, and though we may have demurred to some of their opinions, and have thought that, in some things, they are in an extreme, we rejoiced to see right principles advocated in a manner so decided, and in a spirit so truly Christian. Against some of the pious opinions supported in these Tracts, objections may occasionally be raised, for perfect coincidence of opinion is not to be expected. I do not, mifself, accord with all the opinions expi-essed in them, or always admit the deduction attempted to be drawn from the principles on which we are agreed. I think, too, that while manfully vindicating the principles of the English Reformation, in their fear lest they should' appear to respect persons too highly, the writers of the Tracts do not appreciate highly enough the character of some of our leading Reformers, or moke due allowance for the difficulties in which they were placed." In spite of the above, Fraser has the following honest morgeau: — " The main drift of Dr. Hook's sermon is, to give a sketch of the system of the Oxford Tract-writers — to assume, and, as far as possible, to prove the identity of their system with ' the principles of the English Reformation,' — and then to demand the adhesion of those who are now protesting against the ' Tracts, for the Times," on the score of that identity. His main positions, then, are two : — 1. That the Tract-writers are the assailed, and not the assailants ; and, 2. That they are maintaining, not opposing, the doctrines of the Reformation. The first of these positions we have already dealt with. We now proceed to the consideration of the second. " But we must not take our impression of the Oxford writers from Dr. Hook's pages. With all the dexterity of a practised advocate, he has carefully con cealed the weaknesses and deformities of his client's case." Again, the writer in Fraser says, " Take, for instance, Mr. Froude's Remains, with which Dr. Hook acknowledges himself to be well ac quainted." Now, what is meant here, but to insinuate that Dr. Hook ap proves of these Reraain.s, and yet, at p.lG7. of the Call to Union, we find — " The present discourse is sufficient to shew that I am not, any more than Dr. Faussett, inclined to approve of Mr. Froude's Remains. I deeply, indeed. regret the publication of that work without a protest, on the part of the Editor, against the author's many paradoxical positions. With a kind heart and glowing sensibilities, Mr. Froude united a mind of wonderful power, saturated with learning, and from its very luxuriance, productive of weeds together with many flowers. Though he always took an original, he sometimes took a morbid view of things, and while from his writings all must derive much food for thought, from many of his opinions the majority of his readers will, like myself, dissent." Is this suppression of Fraser's honest? After giving some quotations from these Remains, Fraser goes on to say, " Was it right, was it jnst, was it decent, in Dr. Hook, after having read all these confessions, to represent Messrs. Froude and Co., as mere passive ad herents to the Church's system, and their opponents as 'the assailing pahty V " Dr. Hook never did so represent Mr. Froude, and that Fraser knows. We retort, then, was it rightl was it justl was it decent 1 in Fraser to omit ¦ Dr. Hook's censures on Mr. Froude ? Now hear Fraser give a finishing touch to our portrait of his dishonesty : — " One thing at least is clear, that should any one be attracted by Dr. Hook's account of Oxford-Tract doctrine, and led in consequence of that impression to join himself to the party in question, he will soon find that there is as much dif ference between the portrait and the reality, in this case, as he would have found had he taken up with Popery itself upon the representations of Dr. Wiseman!" Here, then, after all, Dr. Hook's Sermon is not Oxford Tractism. Now the Doctor does not profess that it shall be Oxford Tractism, and yet, in spite of all this, Fraser calls it a defence of Oxford Tract doctrine ! And then, in an article professedly on Dr. Hook's book, we have this — " We shall not therefore limit our view to Dr. Hook's flattering portrait of ' Anglicanism.' " So, after all, Dr. Hook's Call to Union Answered, is to turn out an answer to any thing and every thing, save and except Dr. Hook's Sermon. Is this quite honest ? However, we will follow the writer through the subjects of which he treats, not caring to defend the Oxford Tracts or Mr. Newman, but confining our selves to the statements of the Church and of Dr. Hook on the points at issue.* The first point on which the writer in Fraser shows his ignorance (or some thing worse) is — ^The Rule of Faith. It is insinuated that Dr. Hook denies the Scriptures to be the sole rule of Faith. The insinuation is false — it can not be supported by a single line from the Visitation Sermon. At page 20 of the sermon, Dr. Hook admits, as every Churchman is prepared to admit, that the Bible and the Bible only is our religion — but he denies that "the * We may however expose a bit of unfairness (dishonesty'!) in the case of a quotation from Mr. Newman. In Fraser it stands thus : — " At the time of the Reformation, we, in common with all the West, possessed the rite of the Roman church, or St. Peter's liturgy" (called also the canon of the mass). " This sacred and most precious monument, then, of the apostles, our reformers received whole and entire from their predecessors, and they mutilated the tradition of 1500 years." " The first feeling which comes upon an ardent mind, on mastering these facts, is one of ijidignation and impatient sorrow." " The third, that we are mysteriously bound up with our forefathers, and bear their sin, or, in other words, that our present condition is a Judgment on us for what they did." Bible is to be understood by each person in that sense in which he is per suaded by argument to be the true sense, and that he is then to unite himself with that society of Christians with whom the same or similar arguments, have been productive of the same effect." " This principle," says Dr. Hook, " is of course subversive of union. For on these grounds the only difference between the coldest Socinian who acknowledges the truth of Scripture, and the highest supralapsafian Calvinist, is a difference in their logic or their powers of Biblical criticism, and while both parties may argue, neither may consistently censure." And again in the note on this passage. " We of the Church of England, while we defer to Scripture only, profess to receive Scripture as the Church always understood it." And again, in a Sermon " On the Authority of the Church," preached before the University of Oxford, we have, " Let it not for a moment be supposed that I would deny that most important truth, that the Bible, and the Bible only, is our Rule of Faith." Dr. Hook therefore is unassailable on this point. But this is not aU that Fraser wants. Fraser demands the rejection of all appeal to Antiquity. Now here. Dr. Hook would join issue with him, and the Church joins issue. It is curious that Fraser cannot quote honestly. Throughout the paper, wherever he alludes to the Sixth Article he omits the word the before faith, a little word — but an important one, nevertheless. The fact that the Church uses the words " not to be required of any man as an article of tlie faith,'' implies, that the Church has a system of faith collected out of the Scriptures, and this is to have another tribunal, and though a subordinate one, still another tribunal for the trial of orthodoxy, beside Scripture. Is this omission from dishonesty or ignorance ? Fraser is entitled to the choice. He goes on to say : " Close up then your endless folios of the Fathers," &c. Alas ! Poor Church of England. Thy reformers were sad papists, and terribly deluded. Why they could not get to the end of this Sixth Article without In Mr. Newman's pamphlet thus, — the passages [in brackets being (honestly 1) omitted by Fraser. " At the time of the Reformation, we, in common with all the West, jlossessed the rite of the Roman Church, or St. Peter's Liturgy. [This formulary is also called the Canon of the Mass, and except a very few words, appears, even as now used in the Roman Church, to be free from interpolation, and thus is disti7iguished from the Ordinary of the Mass, which is tlie additional and corrupt service prefixed to it, and peculiar to Rome.] This sacred and most precious monument, then, of the Apostles, our Reformers received whole and entire from their predecessors; and they mutilated the tradition of 1500 years. [Well was it for us that they did not discard it, that they did not touch any vital part ; for through God's good providence, though they broke it up, and cut away portions, they did not touch life; and thus we have it at this day, a violently treated, but a holq and dear possession, more dear, perhaps, and precious than if it were in its full vigour and beauty, as sickness or infirmity endears to us our friends and relatives.] Now, the first feeling which comes upon an ardent mind, on mastering these facts, is one of indignation and impatient sorrow ; [the second, is the more becoming thought, that as he deserves nothing at all at God's hand, and is blessed with Christian privileges only at his mere bounty, it is nothing strange that he does not enjoy every privilege which was given through the Apostles ;] and his third, that we are mysteriously bound up with our forefathers, and bear their sin, or, in other words, that our present condition is a judgment on us for what they did." Fraser should be reminded tbat those who live in glass houses shoidd nat throw stones. We think he should hardly talk of dishonesty after this. 9 summoning one of these musty old Fathers a.? an evidence. But perhaps the writer in Fraser did not know that Jerome was a Father of the Church ! Again, alas for the wickedness of the writers of the Homilies ! They seem to have revelled in these naughty folios, for they hardly trust themselves a couple of pages without quoting some of these shockingly impious " old doctors." But after all, the reformers may be right and Fraser wrong. Certainly they and he differ. For he discards antiquity: now in the preface to the Common Prayer, this antiquity is lauded, as also in the preface to the Ordinal, and all the services have a very ancient hue. Romish mass- books were too niodern, and the ancient Liturgies were the Church's patterns in these matters. In the first Homily, that, " Great Clerk and Godly Preacher St. John Chrysostom" is quoted four times, and " St. Augustin" three limes, and Fulgentius once. Eight quotations from the hated Fathers in six pages ! But further than this, St. Chrysostom is quoted to show that when a man is in doubt as to Scripture, " God Almighty will send some godly doctor to teach him, as he did to instruct the Eunuch ;" and the same Homily tells,us that people are to come to Holy Scripture, [not with the self-sufficiency of the right of private judgment, not with the pride which plumes itself upon discovering all truth,] but " in humility with ameek and lowly heart." It would be" far too long a business to quote all the pas sages in which the Church, in her Homilies, and other formularies, defers to the "Holy Doctors and Godly Fathers" of antiquity. Any true son of the Church will find them in abundance. A few words as to the reason of the case. To hear people talk now-a-days, one would fancy that there yet remained some of the articles of the Christian Faith undiscovered. The Erasers of the present day seem to think that we are dependent on the pro gress of learning, or the march of discovery, for some vital doctrine. Were this so, then indeed would the Church — God's divinely appointed deposi tary of Christian verities — have miserably failed to answer the purposes of her institution; but, God be praised ! our religion is not an unsolved problem; our faith is something more than a mere untried theory ! In science, when we wi.sh to arrive at the truth, we look to the latest discoveries ; but it is not so in Christianity ; in that we must look to the beginning to discover the truth. Science rises in darkness, and every step it takes increases in light. Christianity started into view, in full and glorious light, and successive ages have served not to make more resplendent its inherent brilliancy, nor to add to its mass of facts, but only to show that it is heaven-born, and enduring. The reason of this is obvious. Science is matter of discovery ; Christianity is matter of revelation. Hence, to find out what Christianity is, we must go back to the New Testament. Here arises a difficulty. The books of the New Testament were written in a language or languages now strange to us. Customs then in use are now obsolete, and hence allusions then obvious and plain are now obscure and perplexing. These and other considerations render it an easier matter to say that we take our opinions from the New Testament, than to be sure, that we do so, without any extraneous assistance. Doubts are every day occurring as to the meaning of different passages in the inspired volume. To what sources can we go with so much safety, for c 10 a solution of our difficulties, as to the contemporaries and immediate suc cessors of the men whose writings we wish to understand ? There is noquestion that we possess advantages for conducting this enquiry not enjoyed by some of our predecessors; but inasmuch as there has been no new revelation, we can arrive at no new fact. It will thus be seen that even if all the phantasies of modern interpretations, and all the fanciful applications of recent divines have their counterparts in the early Christian Fathers, this will no more invalidate the evidence of the Fathers, than it will establish the theological reputation of their copyists. The Fathers are better evidence, both as to fact and doctrine, than moderns can possibly be. Mo derns may arrive at wise conclusions on minor points, but the most erudite modern is of small value as evidence in determining the catholicity of a doc trine ; while the most ignorant ancient is valuable and trustworthy (for this same purpose of evidence) in the exact ratio of his antiquity. Ridicule cannot invalidate the claims of the Fathers to be considered as the best evi dence to the teaching of Christ and his Apostles. And, even as authorities, they are not to be rejected, merely because they have not been born since philosophers have discovered that the moon is not made of green cheese 1 They may or they may not be worth listening to as authorities. If however they be honest, pious, and withal learned, it is not very obvious to plain men, — ^why, because they conversed with Apostles and the immediate suc cessors of Apostles, they should therefore be more lightly esteemed than those who have lived fifteen, or it may be eighteen, hundred years later. If a man be not inspired, his judgment and opinion are valuable only ac cording to his opportunities of forming these correctly. If they be not inspired, and this is not pretended for the Fathers, then we must test their decrees by the same criteria which are applied to other expounders of law. Are they learned ? Are they sober-minded and truthful ? These and such like questions must be asked respecting them ; and if these be answered satisfactorily, it is rather hard to throw them overboard because they were favoured with the companionship of Apostles, and were themselves the first martyrs for the Christian religion. At page 11 of the reprint, there is a passage which is not in the magazine. In this passage there is a poor attempt to account for the obstinate popery of the reformers in making such constant appeals to antiquity. They, poor men! were idle and stupid enough to think that there was something fatal in the charge that they were bringing in a new religion. The wholesale de- spisers of antiquity, in the present day, would have had no such squeamish- ness. Our present controversialists would have disdained to notice such attacks. " Well, and if our religion is not to be found in the theology of the first four centuries, what is that to us ? It is in the Bible'. It is worse than idle to show that the doctrines we hold are those of antiquity. They are in the Bible, and therefore must be true. We care not for your fathers and doctors !" — such would be the language of some modern opposers of Romanism. " This is the sense in which the Bible has always been received by the church" — " this is the ancient doctrine" — " ours is the faith of the church from the beginning" — "we have come as near as we possibly could to the church of the Apostles and of the old catholic Bishops and Fathers, and have 11 directed, according to their customs and ordinances, not only our doctrine, &c." These, and such like, were the answers made by our reformers. They appealed to the Scriptures, but they appealed to them in that sense in which they had been understood by the primitive Fathers. What shocking Papists these said martyred reformers must have been ! and yet, after all, they may not have been so very wrong ; for Christianity itself is now eighteen hundred years old, and perhaps truth may turn out to be somewhat of the same date. The sentiment of Tertullian, and the test of Vincent of Lirens, have been well embodied in the following sentence of an able and devoted son* of the church, now gathered to his rest : — " Whatever in religion is old is eo nomine True. Whatever in religion is new is eo nomine False." It may suit minds like that of the writer in Fraser to talk of the Fathers being raised to an equality with the Word of God ; he knows little of those Fathers, or of the spirit of those who defend them, if he thinks that any thing which derogates from the sanctity of the revealed word of life would have their sanction. It is their zeal for the honour and integrity of this blessed book, the Bible, which makes them thus anxious that helps shall be provided, in order that men may be guided to its true meaning, and so kept from wresting its holy truths to the support of heresy and error. We shall dismiss this branch of the subject, with Mr. Le Bas's vindication of Jewel from the charge of Z7itra-Protestantism, brought against him by those who want the sanction of his name. ' ' With respect to the controversy itself, it is extremely important to remark the principles on which it is conducted by Jewel. The reader may, perhaps, have been almost tempted to infer from several passages in his history, that he brought back with him from the Continent nothing but the general spirit of Protestantism ; and that he left behind him the peculiar spirit of the Church of England. A more attentive consideration of those passages must satisfy us that this was not the case. It is true that he was in constant trepidation lest any thing should be preserved, which might restore to the ancient corruptions their hold upon the public mind. And hence it was that, for some time, he was anxious that the Church should throw aside certain rites and usages, which were thought by many to savour too rankly of Romish superstition ; and which seemed to threaten the Estahlishmentwith the miseries of discord and confusion. But it is quite indisputable that his readiness to concede was confined to matters purely superficial, and, in their own nature, indifferent. That, in every essential question, he was faithful to the principles of the English Reformation, as distinguished from those which governed most of the Reformers of the con tinent, is clear from the whole tenor of his dispute with Harding. For he does not content himself with saying to his adversaries, ' I defy you to find Ro manism in the Bible.' He goes further, and saySj ' I defy you to find it in the first six centuries ; I defy you to uphold it by the authority of the earliest inter preters of the Bible ; I defy you to establish it by the consent of those who, in primitive times, bare witness to the truth.' Now, in doing this, he was true to the peculiar genius of our Anglo Catholic Church. Most other Protestant com munities send every individual to the Bible alone ; there to exercise his own • Rev. Hugh James Rose, B.D., late Principal of King's College, London, m a sermon on Matt. x. 27. preached at Cambridge. The writer had the privilege of hearing this sermon, and he doubts not that he is by no means singular in the testimony which his conscience and his resolve bear to the earnestness with which that great man enforced upon his hearers — the younger portion more especially — the imperative necessity that was laid upon them to maintain truth! In speaking of the death ofMr.Rose, we may indeed exclaim— " A Master in Iskakl is no more." God grant that his mantle may have fallen on some one worthy to tread in such steps ! 12 private judgment, without reference to the judgment of primitive and catholie antiquity. The Church of Rome, on the contrary, sends her children to an infallible and living guide, whose prerogative it is to expound the written and unwritten word, — to interpret the Oracles both of Soriptiire and of Tradition. Whereas, the Church of England, on the one hand, acknowledges no authority as co-ordinate with the authority of the Bible ; but, on the other hand, in deter mining the sense of the Bible, she listens with respect to the voice of the most ancient Fathers and Doctors ; and not only with respect, but even vrith submis sion, where that voice is all but unanimous. " That the notions of Jewel were, in this particular, strictly conformable to the principles of our Church, is manifest from his own statements. When Harding intimated that the authority of the Fathers had been discarded by Jewel, his reply was — ' Here, Mr. Harding, ye have taken in hand needless labour. You know right well, we despise not the authority of the holy Fathers. Throughout the whole discourse of this Apology, in defence of the Catholic truth of our religion, next unto God's holy word, we have used no proof or authority so much, as the expositions and judgments of the holy Fathers. We despise them not, therefore, but rather give God thanks, on their behalf, for that it hath pleased him to provide so worthy instruments for his Church ; and, therefore, we justly reprove you, for that, so unadvisedly and without cause, ye have forsaken the steps of so holy Fathers. The four General Councils, wherein ye dwell so long, as they make nothing against us, so, in sundry points, they fight expressly against you.' ' To come near the matter, we say not tbat all cases of doubt are, by manifest and open words, plainly expressed in the Scriptures. For so , there should need no exposition. But we say, there is no case in religion so dark and doubtful, but it may necessarily be either proved or reproved, by collation and conference of Scriptures . ... In this conference and judgment of the Holy Scriptures, we need oftentimes the discretion and wisdom of learned Fathers. Yet, notwithstanding, may we not give them herein greater credit than is convenient ; or, than they themselves, if it were offered, would receive. We may reverently say of them, as Seneca, in the like case sometimes said, Non sunt Domini, sed Duces nostri, They are our Leaders, not our Lords. They are not the truth of God itself, but only witnesses of the truth .... Thus may you see, Mr. Harding, to what end the Bishops, in the Councils ye speak of, alleged the expositions of the ancient Fathers, and how far they weighed them under the authority of the Scriptures. In like sort, do we also, this day, allege against you, the manifest, and undoubted, and agreeable judgments of the most ancient and learned holy Fathers : and thereby, as by approved and faithful witnesses, we disclose the infinite follies and errors of your doctrine.' " — (Def. Apol. part i. c. ix. div. i.) But let us, in conclusion, quote Fraser against himself In a paragraph in this same passage, which is not in the Magazine, but is in the reprint, occurs, " To these authoritative standards we refer," i.e. ; — there is an au thoritative standard short of the Bible. When will adversaries of the Church, be consistent ! The second head of Fraser's attack is foreign to Dr. Hook's Sermon, and, as we wish to be as brief as possible, we therefore pass it by. The third head is alike foreign, and will be discussed in all important par ticulars under the fourth, — that of Holy Baptism. The clear way with this important subject will be to give the verdict of the Church on this point as found in her services. Fraser thus opens the question : — " The ground of controversy, then, arises out of these words. The church speaks of the child as ' regenerate.' Does she do so in the judgment of charity ? — in the same spirit in which the burial-service and other of her forms of prayer are constructed ? — or does she mean to assert, positively, and without reserva tion, that every infant who is brought to her font, and receives baptism, is, t;m(i facto, born again, and translated from a state of wrath into ' the kingdom of G od'a dear Son?'" 13 We undertake to prove that the Church speaks in certainty, not in charity. When she speaks in charity, she speaks doubtingly, as in the burial service she says,— "as our hope is." All is positive as to Baptismal Regeneration.* Now to the proof. The Church defines her Catechism to be " An instruc tion to be learned of every person before he be brought to be confirmed by the Bishop," and the veiy first thing which she teaches the infants of the Church is, that they are already in covenant with God — that they are ad mitted info the membership of Christ's household the Church — that they are adopted into the family of God — that they are placed in the way to lay hold on the promises of eternal life. Having thus first taught them that they are by grace what they were not by nature, she then goes on to teach them, that certain vows were made for them by persons who, from the circum stance of thus supplying those wants, which belong to them as expectants of immortality, just as an earthly parent attends to the requirements of time, are called (go(Z-fathers and god-mothers,) i. e. fathers and mothers in the matters which concern them as heirs of an heavenly inheritance. Having taught them that these vows were made for them, in the hope that when they came of age they would take the responsibility upon themselves ; the Church further instructs them, that they are themselves bound to believe and do what their god-fathers and god-mothers then promised for them. Thus the obligation to take these vows upon themselves is consequent upon their regeneration in baptism, and their regeneration does not, as is pretended, " liinge'' upon tlieir renewal of their baptismal vows. Thus much is observable indeed from the language of the Catechism, alike in the place we have just been considering, as also in the answer the Church gives to the question. " Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them !" From which answer it clearly appears that the Church has the power to dispense with the exhibition of faith and repent ance, in the case of infants. But this will be more abundantly evident from the office for private baptism. In that office there are no sponsors. Bap tism is antecedent to any ascertaining questions, to any sponsorial promises. The Lord's Prayer is to be offered, and such other of the Collects in the Baptismal Service as time will permit, and then " the child being- named by some one tluit is present, the minister shall pour water upon it, saying these words — ' N. I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Amen.' Then all kneeling down, the minister shall give thanks unto God, and say, ' We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy Holy Church.'" And lest, from the ab- • Hear the Rev. Henry Melvill, in answer to a similar charge. Surely, he at least is no Papist. " We cannot, however, admit that the language is only the language of that charity, which hopeth all things. Had the church not designed to go further than this, she might have said. Seeing that we may charitably believe ; or Seeing that we may charitably hope tbat this child is regenerate," &c. Se« Sermons, vol. ii. 237. 14 sence of sponsors, any should seek to impugn the efficacy of this baptism, the Church goes on to say : — " And let them not doubt but that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again." The Church further directs that, " if the child baptized after this sort do afterwards live, it is expedient that it be brought into the Church, to the intent that, if the minisfer of the same parish did himself baptize that child, the congregation may be certified of the true form of baptism." And further, if the child have been baptized by any other minister, the minister of the parish is to inquire, according to certain fixed questions, whether the child has previously been rightly baptized; " and if the minister shall find, by the answers of such as bring the child, that all things were done as they ought to be; then shall not he christen the child again, but shall receive him as one of the flock of true christian people, saying thus, I certify you that in this case all is well done, and according to due order, concerning the baptizing of this child ; who being born in original sin, and in the wrath of God IS NOW, by the laver of regeneration in baptism received INTO the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting LIFE. For OUR Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny his grace and MERCY UNTO SUCH INFANTS, but most lovingly doth call them unto him as the Holy Gospel doth witness to our comfort on this wise." This needs no comment, and leaves room for no sophistry. Did those who hold low views of the sacraments ever read this office for " the minis tration of private baptism of children in houses ? We now come to the articles of religion, — one of " the Authoritative Standards." The first article in which use is made of the term Regeneration, is the NINTH, which treats of Original or Birth Sin. Its use in this passage is of the greatest importance, since, at first sight, to the English reader, there ap pears to be a distinction between the terms " them that are regenerated," and " them that are baptized." Is this difference real or imaginary? On the answer to this question very much depends; for if there be indeed one thing meant by regenerated, and another by baptized, it would be our business at once to set on foot an enquiry, how this discrepancy with other parts of the Prayer Book could be satisfactorily accounted for. But we are not driven to any such step. The difference is only apparent, not real ; and the use of the two different words to express the same thing is strongly confirmatory of the view we have already taken of what the Church says on this point. In the Latin copy of the articles (which from Latin having ceased to be a living language, and not being thus subject to the fluctuations in signification which words receive from changes in the habits and manners of life, is often very valuable in assisting us to determine the sense which the Reformers at tached to the English copy) the words " regenerated" and " baptized" are both represented by one and the same word — viz. " renatis."* That the Reformers of the English Church, who settled our Liturgy and Articles, considered regenerated and baptized as convertible terms, is sufficiently clear. They thought it immaterial whether they said a person was baptized, or whether they said that he was regenerated. They were of the opinion which had been * i. B. born again or regenerated. 15 held uninterruptedly in the Christian Church for 1500 years — that a person could not be regenerate unless, having the opportunity, he were baptized '? and they affirmed on like authority, based in each case on Scripture, that all who are rightly baptized are ipso facto regenerate. How water can be sanc tified to this mystical washing away of sin we cannot, seeing as we now do, through a glass darkly, tell ; but that the fact is so is revealed, and that which is revealed we must believe. If in baptism there were only a condi tional regeneration, the sixteenth article would be unintelligible. Herewe have baptism identified with the receiving of the Holy Ghost. " To sin after baptism," aui to " depart from grace given after that we have received the Holy Ghost " are used as expressing the same act. Not to multiply this kind of argument we reprint the 27th Article, and we shall then have more than sufficiently established our position — that the writer in Fraser is broaching doctrines dissonant from the teaching of the Church of England; that if he be a son of the church, he is libelling his spiritual mother, and traducing the formularies of religion as this Church and realm of England hath received the same, when he incautiously asserts that the " Church of England gives heed to no such doctrine as that all that are baptized are born of God." Church men should be careful how they thus speak unadvisedly with their lips, and give utterance to such " great swelling words of vanity."* The article to which we allude is On Baptism. " Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the church ; the promises OF forgiveness of sin, and of our auoption to be THE SONS OF GOD BY THE HOLY GHOST are visibly signed and sealed." We have here three distinct benefits enumerated as attendant on Bap tism. We are told that these benefits belong to those vpho receive Bap tism rightly. Now before we proceed to re-enumerate the benefits, let us first settle who they be, who in the judgment of the Church receive Baptism rightly. For if it shall appear that faith in the recipient, or a promise in his behalf by sureties, of future integrity of life be necessary, then this article will avail us nothing in establishing our point. How then stands the case ? On a reference to the Office for private Baptism, where no sponsors are required, no vow and no profession, we find that the minister is em powered to pronounce that Baptism to be sufficient and valid, which has been done with water, in the name of the holy and blessed Trinity .f And as if to set the matter wholly free from doubt, we find in the Rubric at the close of the service already quoted, that two things are mentioned as " essen^ tial parts of Baptism, viz. that the child was baptized with water, and that it was in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Now, we have here no mention of faith, nor of vows nor renewal of vows, and we are therefore at liberty to conclude that the Church considers all those to be rightly baptized, who have been baptized with water in the name of the three persons of the holy and undivided Trinity. We have then » 2 Peter, ii. 18. t See Rubric immediately following the Thanksgiving in the office for minis tration of private baptism in houses. 16 no fears but that all who were dedicated at the font of the Church, to Christ, have received Baptism rightly." What now are the three benefits which are conferred on all thus baptized ? They are — I. Grafted into the Church or taken into the number of God's elect. II. The promises of forgiveness of sin are sealed to them by the Holy Spirit. III. The same Holy Spirit makes them sons of God by adoption. Now surely these are the blessings which are comprised in the term regeneration, and he can be no true son of the English Church, who denies that all who are rightly baptized are born of God. If to be grafted into Christ's holy Church, to be forgiven all the sin and all the punishment due to the sin of Adam's transgression, and to have heaven placed within our reach, — if these things deserve not the name, of a new-birth, of a death unto sin, and a birth unto righteousness, then the covenant blessings of Christianity are not those which are revealed in the book of Eternal Life. We have now sufficiently established our position, that those who deny regeneration in baptism, deny one of the fundamental verities of the Chris tian religion as understood by the Church of England, and that therefore those who speak of it as Popery, in fact do, as the Dissenters do, call our Church, Popish. Let us now look at the office of Confirmation. Let us take the first prayer, — " Almighty and ever-living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate THESE THY SERVANTS BY WATER AND THE HoLY GhOST, and haSt givCU unto them forgiveness of all their sins, strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace, the spirit of wisdom, and understanding, the spirit of knowledge and true godliness, and fill them, O Lord, with the Spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen.'' No one will deny that here the children about to be confirmed, are spoken of as regenerate by water. Thus regeneration is affirmed positively to have already taken place, and moreover it is predicated of it that it was brought about by water and the Holy Ghost. Now the Church could not thus connect regeneration with water, if it de pended, as has been alleged by explainers away, on an inquiry to be made, without the use of any material 'symbol; nor have we any simi lar command on her part, in other services, which allows us to suppose that she could require the Bishop to affirm that, positively, and offer up thanks for its being so, of which he had no more certain knowledge than a simple affirmation on the part of the person seeking confirmation. The opinion must stand upon but a poor basis which requires such sophistry to support it as is involved in the notion that the Church — so uniformly cautious as she ever is, could ask her chief officers to declare that, in the presence of God, as a certainty, which they had then, for the first time, learnt of man. The church acts not so rashly. Her object in directing that this inquiry * The writer of course, does not wish to enter here on the question as to the validity of la -baptism. That the Church condemns lay-baptizers is abundantlv clear from the rubrics; which do not even allow a deacon to baptize, save in tlmrrd XXVI^TrtLS."" "°"'"^ °' *'' ^'''^"^ *° *"« «'^-^'' -