DnHoo^^

1S39 Ofc!

DR. H O O K'S
"CALL TO UNION
ANSWERED.

REPRINTED FROM "ERASER'S MAGAZINE"
FOR JANUARY, 1839.

SECOND EDITION.

LONDON:
JAMES ERASER, 215, REGENT STREET.

M.DCCC.XXXJX.
Price 3d. ; or Ss. 6d. per dozen ; or 20s. per hundred.

LONDON:
JAMES MOVES, CASTLE STREET, LEICESTER SQUARE.

DR. HOOK'S "CALL TO UNION"*
ANSWERED.

There are diflferent degrees and varieties of dishonesty, as well as of all
other offences against the moral law. And it is very necessary to keep these
distinctions in mind ; else we might be understood to charge a man with
one sort of misdemeanour, when, in fact, we had charged him with a
very different one. There is the dishonesty, for instance, which wilfully
misrepresents, and puts forward a false view of facts, intending to deceive.
This we should be very loath to attribute to a Christian minister, save on
the strongest evidence. We therefore wholly disclaim all idea of imputing
such a transgression to Dr. Hook. But there is a lower degree of the same
offence ; and this is found when a man first contrives to deceive himself;
and then, under the influence of that self-deception, sits down and fabricates
a view of a certain question, so at variance with truth, so opposed to notorious
fact, 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 his own statements. This, however, is still dishonesty,
though of a less culpable order. To frame, to write, to revise, to print, to
put forth, statements not only not true, but the very reverse of the trutb,
cannot be entirely justified by the plea, that the author had first wrought his
own mind up to a belief in them. He is morally bound, not merely to say
what he beUeves, but to say what is true ; at least so far as the sources of truth
lie within his reach. In this point of view, then, and as transgressing this
second canon, we are compelled to accuse Dr. Hook of downright and
positive DISHONESTY.
For what is the drift and object of his sermon? What is the impression
it produces, and is meant to produce, on the minds of the susceptible and
credulous among those who read it? Unquestionably this, — that there is a
schism springing up in the church, — that the seeds of disunion are being
spread, — that this schism and disunion is attributable to certain noisy and
quarrelsome persons, who persist in writing and preaching against the Tracts
for the Times and their authors; and that, consequently, the preacher's most
urgent duty was to rebuke these factious and schismatic spirits ; and to urge
them to cease from their brawllngs, and to " unite on the principles of the
English Reformation."
His text is, " Sirs, ye are brethren, — why do ye wrong one to another?''
(Acts, vii. 26.) Here is at once an implied assertion, that some of those to
-whom he spoke (and it was a visitation sermon) were " wronging their brethren."
• A CaU to Union on the Principles of the English Reformation. By W. F.
Hook, D. D. Svo. London, 1838. Rivingtons.

4 Dr. Hook's " CaU to Union" answered.
And, in following his argument closely, we perceive not the least trace of a
wish to moderate — to admit error on both sides — to suggest a middle course.
All is approval lo the one side (with merely the usual reservation for a few
" differences of opinion"), and reproof and even contumely to the other. The
sermon closes with this passage: —
" Remember, brethren, tliat if the propagation of evaugelic truth be one
portion of our duty, it is no less our duly, by the sacrifice of all personal
considerations, by the humiliation of our proud, the restraint of our angry, the
denial of our selfish passions — by the due control even of our better emotions
. — to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Remember, brethren, that
our enemies are many and mighty; the two extremes of Romanism and Ultra-
Protestantism are banded, together with infidelity, against us, and if, like Samp
son's foxes, they are pulling different ways, the brands which are attached to
them have one and the self-same object — our destruction. And is this a time
to divide our house, and to form parties and factions 1 Is this the season for
discord 1 Ilemember, brethren, the ties, the sacred ties, which bind us to one
another: as men, we are all under the same condemnation, we are all heirs of
the same corrupted nature, equally one and all children of wr.ith : as Christians^
we seek for reconciliation with an offended Maker, through the atoning merits
and tiie all-prevailing intercession of the same crucified, the same glorified Saviour,
through the sunctification of the same Blessed Spirit: we worship the same God,
the Trinity in Unity. We are brethren of the same houseliold, with one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us nil; ministers of Christ acting
under the same apostolical commission, pledged all to walk by the same rule, and
to speak the same thing ; bound all by the same vows, with interests, and
pursuits, and duties, and privileges identical : w here, I ask again, can Christian
unanimity and harmony be found, if we find it not here ? ' Sirs, ye are bielhren ;'
oh, wrong not one another I Sirs, ye are bretiiren ; and your Master is praving
in heaven that ye may be one, even as he is one with the Father: oh, seek not by
your passions to frustrate his work 1 S'lrs. ye are bretiiren: as brethren let us act
cordially together, and gradually our differences will lessen, our agreements will
extend. Then shall we stand, a holy army, closely embodied together, prepared,
with redoubled vigour, to prosecute our warfare against tbe powers of darkness, —
and then we shall find how sweeter than the ointment with which Aaron was
anointed, how refresliing, as the dews of Hermon, it is for brethren to dwell
together in unity ; then the peace of God will rest upon us — that peace which
the world can neither give nor take away." — Pp. 43, 44.
And the notes add this fnither explanation: —
" Those who are called Low-Churchmen are the assailants ; and in assailing
High-("hurchmen, they are, in fact, assailing our High-Church Reformers, and
fighting Ihe battle against them in favour of their old enemies, the Purilans.
Surely, then, it is not much to ask, for the sake of peace, that if those who are
on the strong 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."— Pp. 171, 172.
Here, then, is the cliarge fully and explicitly stated. Union is desired;
harmony is anxiously to be sought for; but those who break that union, 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 calumnious. The re
sponsibility of the present breach of union rests palpably and indisputably on
the Oxford Tract party, and on them alone.
Dr. Hook would fain represent them as qniet, unobtrusive people, who have
proposed and attempted nothing new, and who are exceedingly ill-treated in
being made the object of various attacks, and forced into an undesired and
undesirable notoriety. Now, tlie justice and truth of this way of reprsenting

Dr. Hook's " Call lo Union " answered. S
the matter may, perhaps, best be tested by imagining a parallel case, and
applying it to Dr. Hook's own cons<:ience and feelings.
Let Dr. Hook imagine himself quietly seated in a retired country
town, where all is peace and harmony; and where he proceeds, undisturbed, in
his daily walk, feeding his i^eople with what he believes to be " the sincere
milk of the word," unmingled with the acids of controversial discussion. After
a long tranquillity, however, this calm is broken. Some new comer, perhaps,
-whether lay or clerical, but possessing property and influence, begins lo write
and circulate a series of " tracts." He writes one on the text, " My Father
is greater than 1" in which he argues, in a very quiet and insinuating
manner, that these words mean exactly what they appear to mean, and neither
more nor less. He then issues a second, on the text, " Of that day and hour
knoweth no man, — no, nor the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.''
He merely recapitulates his former argument, doubling its strength by this
second proof. He next produces a dextrous selection of passages from
ancient writers, so arranged or contrived as to appear to sujjport his views.
And thus he proceeds, without noise or wrangling, silently to undermine the
faith, and to unsettle the minds, of the inhabitants; and to shake, without any
open opposition, the whole system of Christian doctrine in which it had been
their pastor's constant effort to build them up.
Now we need not ask whether, on perceiving the grovith of this mischief,
Dr Hook would immediately and strenuously oppose il ? We know that he
-would. He could not, in fact, do otherwise. And we also apprehend
that he would adopt the most open and manly plan ; would frankly state
who and wliat he svas opposing, and would prefer a straightforward encounter,
hand to hand, lo any circumlocutory course of general declamation.
Imagine, then, a third party, a visitant, to come among them, and having
some public opportunity of taking notice of these proceedings, to seize that
opportunity to rebuke, not the propagator of false doctrine, but the defender
of the truth ! Imagine him lamenting the " want of union," the discord
that prevailed ; and concluding by regretting that he who ought to have been
the minister of peace, had in this instance become " the assailant," and had
shewn himself rather the wolf, to bite and devour, than the lamb, to endure
with meekness and long-suffering.
Now, what would be Dr. Hook's reply to such an accusation as this ?
Would he not indignantly exclaim, " I deny that the term 'assailant'
belongs to me at all ? It is true, indeed, that I have preached and
written against certain heretical publications. It is true, also, that I have
done this openly and frankly, naming and describing the works to which I
referred, and their author. But in all this [ was merely fulfilling my bounden
duty. I was not attacking, but repelling un attack, made on the doctrines
of my church, and the faith of my people. This I dared not neglect to do;
and I cannot silently submit to be charged with creating strife and disorder,
when I was merely discharging a clear and an unquestionable obligation."
Such would be Dr. Hook's reply. And yet, in a case exactly resembling
this, in all essential particulars, he takes, himself, the ofHce of the false
accuser; overlooks those who began the discord by disseminating false doc^
trine; and charges the breach of unity on those who merely peiformed their

6 Dr. Hook's " Call lo Union" answered.
duty, by warning the people against the danger. The watchman " seeth the
wolf coming," and, not being an hireling, he gives the alarm. Dr. Hook
turns sharply upon him, and charges him with making an unseemly noise.
But the word of God declares, that " ;/ he [the watchman] see the sword
come, and blow not the trumpet, und the people be not warned ; if the sword
come and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity;
but his blood will I require at ihe watchman's hand." *
But can it be alleged, in defence of Dr. Hook, that he was not aware that
this was the real state of the case ; that he had merely seen various vehement
attacks on the Oxford Tracts ; and judged, from what he had read of the
Tracts themselves, that they had not deserved such indignant reprobation?
This plea cannot be sustained. For the fact is, that while he un
hesitatingly charges the contemners of the Oxford Tracts with being " the
assailants," and with having created the discord and disunion which he laments,
he admits his acquaintance with those publications of the Tract-writers, in
which they explicitly admit that ihey are the assailing party !
Take, for instance, Mr. Froude's Remains, with which Dr. Hook ac
knowledges himself to be well acquainted. Mr. Froude is an unexceptionable
witness to a fact like that in question ; for he was himself one of the authors
of the Oxford Tracts, and his Remains are published by Messrs. Keble and
Newman, two others who are concerned in the production of that series. Now,
what does Mr. Froude say, as to the actual position of the Oxford Tract-
writers, — as to whether they were merely following the beaten track, or were
opening new paths for themselves ; in other words, becoming " assailants'' of
the established faith of the church ? He says :
" The first eclogue runs in my head absurdly ; but there is more in the
prospect of becoming an ecclesiastical agitator, than in ' At nos hinc alii,'" &c.
— Remains, vol. i. p. 258.
" About acting as a party, and the pros and cons, &c., — the Useful Knowledge
Society have proved that the poisoning system mdij "be carried on by a party." — P. 317.
" It has lately come into my head, that the present state of things in England
makes an opening for reviving the monastic system." ... ." I must go about the
country, to look for the stray sheep of the true fold ; there are many about, I am
sure ; only thvit odious Protestantism sticks in people's gizzards." — P. 322.
" Since I have been at home, I have been doing what I can to proselytise in
an underhand way." — P. 322.
" 1 mean to have a touch at the king's supremacy." — P. 328.
" I wish you could get to know something of S. and W., and un — ise, un-
Protestantise, un-Miltonise them." — P. 332.
" I am becoming a more and more determined admirer of the Nonjurors." —
P. 363. "Mind, send lots of tracts, for I shall try hard to poison the minds of the natives
out here." — P. 365.
" Do you know, I partly fear that you and  and  are going to back out
of the conspiracy, and to leave me and  • to our fate." — P. 377.
" For my part, I bad rather have had my orders from -a Scotch bishop. The
stream is purer, and, besides, it would have lelt me free from some embarrassing
engagements." — P. 385.
" I am more and more indignant at the Protestant doctrine on the subject of the
eucliarist, and think that the principle on which it is founded is as proud, irreve
rent, and foolish as that of any heresy, even Socinianism." — P. 391.
" Would that the Nonjurors had kept up a succession I and then we mighthave
been at peace — proselytes, instead oi ugitalms." — P. 395.
* Ezek. xxxiii. 6.

Dr. Hook's " Call to Union " answered. 7
, ."'The present Church system is an incubus on the country," "Would that
the Tyaters would throw up some Acheloides, where some new bishop might erect
a see, beyOnd the blighting influence of our upas-tree." — P. 405.
'.'The Reibrmation was a limb badly set: it must be broken again, in order to
berighted." — P. 433.
Here we should think is enough to satisfy the reader. We freely admit
that, in many of the expressions, there is a degree of jocoseness, and we have
no wish to dwell particularly on their separate and individual meanings.
But take the whole together, as all occurring within about a hundred pages
of a single volume, and then say. Was it right, was it just, was it decent,
in Dr. Hook, after having read all these confessions, to represent Messrs.
Froude and Co. as mere passive adherents to the Church's system, and
their opponents as " the assailing party?"
But the true state of the case does not rest upon a single witness. We
open the British Magazine for April, 1836, and there find a paper which
Mr. Froude refers to as being the production of one of the parties in "the
conspiracy." In that paper we observe the following expressions : —
" We can afford to give up the greater part of England to the spirit of the age,
and yet devetape, in a diocess, or a single city, those principles and tendencies of the
Caroline era, which have never yet arrived at their just dimensions." — ,P. 357.
" This said union (of church and state) is much like the union of the
Israelites with the Egyptians in the house of bondage. » * * We, too,
who are in captivity, must bide our time." — P. 3tJ3.
" Hildebrand really had to create, as well as we." — P. 364.
" If master-minds are ever granted to us, they must make that basis their crted
and their motive ; they must persevere for many years in preaching and teaching,
before they proceed to act on their principles, introducing terms and names," &c. —
P. 365. Here we have several other distinct confessions, from the pen of one of the
same party, all of which avow their conviction, that so far from resting
content with the acknowledged principles and practices of the church, it
was their grand object to effect u mighty change in both. And yet, when
they are opposed in this their attempt, by men who prefer to adhere to the
Articles to which they have set their names. Dr. Hook comes in with his
Call io Union, and stigmatises, not the innovators, but those who protest
against innovation, as disturbers of the church's peace!
We appeal, then, from Dr. Hook's extra-judicial decision. We might
even appeal to the Oxford Tract-writers themselves, who have not, as far as we
are aware, sought to shelter themselves under a false pretence. They know,
and they readily avow, that they are seeking to effect a vast, a momentous
change in the church. Mr. Newman's own words are, that he expects " lo be
ill-used, and to succeed." The very word implies an enterprise, a crusade;
and such is their constant language. But they equally admit the right and
,duty of all who look upon their course as a dangerous one for the church, to
protest against it. " The Christian minister," says the 38th Tract, " should
BE A WITNESS AGAINST THE ERROKS OF iiis DAY." The greatest, the most
'fearful " error of the day," in the view of thousands of the best of the clergy
of the church, is that contained in the system enunciated in the Tracts for
the Times. They, therefore, bear their testimony against them, as the Tractr
writer him.self says they are bound to do, and as they will continue to do,
notwithstanding Dr. Hook's delusive CaU io Union.

<i Dr. Hook's " Call to Union" answered.
For, surely. Dr. Hook himself must know, that among honest men there
can be no true and cordial union without unanimity ; and, surely, he will
not even imagine it possible for some thousands of the clergy of the English
church to pocket their principles at a month's notice, and coalesce with
men, who are teaching what they conscientiou-.ly believe to be fearful and
soul-destroying error. How often shall we be obliged to repeat the apostolic
rule — " I'Ae wisdom which is from above, is first pure, then peaceable}"
How often must we remind men, tbat even the incipient Popery which was
discernible in St. Paul's own days, was denominated by him " the mystery
of iniquity," although we are very certain that it had not then attained to
one-tenth of the growth and stature which is discernible in the Oxford Tracts ?
But we are approaching the main question ; and it will be wisest to state
its character fully, before we ask for a decision on its merits. We have
been endeavouring to shew, in the first place, that it was a most dishonest
manoeuvre on the part of Dr. Hook to endeavour to place the Protestant
party in the position of aggressors and assailants, and ihe Oxford Tract-writers
in that of passive, inoffensive, and ill-used persons; whereas, in fact, the
latter are, by their own confession, engaged in a crusade to effect a total
change in the church; and those who object to them, ask for nothing more
than that we should hold by our articles, homilies, creeds, and liturgy, neither
adding to, nor taking from them.
This is our answer to Dr. Honk's unjust Call to Union {unjust, as
addressed to the wrong party); but we have next to deal with his second
assumption, which is contained in the remainder of his title, " on the Principles
of the English Reformation.''
Tbe 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, ihe doctrines of the Reform
ation. 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
concealed the weaknesses and deformities ot his clients' case, and has
selected only such topics as admitted of a plausible defence. Not a word of
prayers for the dead, saint-worship, the restoration of monkery, the use of the
cross, of crossings, or of" laborious postures in prayer," shall we find in this
CaU to Union I Whether this be a candid way of dealing with his readers,
or not — whether il be a frank and sliaightforward proceeding, to profess to
describe and set forth and prove a particular creed, and yet to keep out of sight
many of the chief peculiarities of it, we leave to others to determine. 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
difference between the portrait and the reality, in this case, as he would have

Dr.. Hook's " Call fo Union " answered. 9
found Irad he taken up with Popery itself upon the representations of Dr.
Wiseman !
We shall not, therefore, limit our view to Dr. Hook's flattering portrait of
" Anglicankm.'' He is not himself the head or the Coryphceus of the party:
he has merely volunteered a dextrous apology in their behalf. But their own
declarations and reasonings are extant in abundance ; and by them, and not
by the partial representations of another, must they be judged. With those
declarations and reasonings, then, we shall now proceed to deal ; well knowing
that it will be no difficult task to prove, out of their own mouths, that it is
scarcely possible for any two systems to stand in more complete and perfect
opposition to each other, than do the respective systems of the Tracts for
the Times, and of the English Reformers.
And this comparison must not be limited, as in Dr. Hook's sermon, to a
few secondary points, concerning the sacraments, the ritual, &c. The errors
of the Oxford school are fundamental. We shall first notice one of their main
objects, to which their strongest efforts are directed, — namely, to get rid of the
Protestant rule of faith, and to substitute for it the Popish standard.
I. The RULE OF FAITH with the Church of England has always been,
the WORD OF God, without any admixture of the traditions of men. The
Romanists are well aware, that so long as this is adhered to, there is no
hope for them ; and their first effort is therefore always directed (see Wise
man's Lectures) to the overthrow of the Protestant rule — the Bible only — and
the establishment of a necessity for something else, to render the Bible in
telligible. This something else is often called " tradition ;" at other times,
" antiquity ;" at others, " the voice of the church," or " the church's teaching."
But, under whatever guise it is introduced, the object is ever the same ; to
draw men away from the written word ; and tlie end is also ever the same, — the
establishment of Popery.
Now on this great cardinal point the language of the church is abundantly
clear. Immediately after the confession of the Holy Trinity, and of the several
persons in the Godhead, her articles go at once into, this matter, and declare,
in the most decided language, that
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that
whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not io he required
of any man, that it should be believed as au article of faith, or be thought requisite
or necessary to salvatiojt."
Here we have both the positive and the negative views of the question.
" Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation." Here is the
full sufficiency of the word of God. " Whatsoever is not read therein, nor
may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man,'' either as an article
of faith, or even as "requisite to salvation!" Close up, then, your endless
folios of the fathers, and take away your " proofs from antiquity " of prayers
for the dead, prayers to the saints, the sacrifice of the mass, the primacy
of the Bishop of Rome, and all the other corruptions of Popery. The
language of the church is explicit. Prove these doctrines from the word of
God, or be silent. If they cannot be founded on that authority, " they are
not to be required of any man," either as articles of faith, or as requisite to
salvation.

10 Dr. Hook's " Call to Union" answered.
But the church goes still further. She places this question in the very
front of her homilies ; and there, also, she gives us not only advice, but also
cautions. " Let us diligently search for the well of life in the books of the Old and New-
Testament; and not run to the stinking puddte of men's traditions for our justificatioti
and salvation. For in the Holy Scripture ia fully contained what we ought to do,
and what to eschew, — what to believe, what to love, and what to look for."
And again does she return to the subject, in a homily Ore certain places
of the Holy Scripture. On this topic, which would nowadays be entitled
Scripture D'ifficulties, there can be no doubt that either Papists or Oxford
Tract-writers would be most ready to seize the opportunity of sending us to
"antiquity," or "the judgment of the church," for a resolution of all difficulties.
Our reformers, however, do nothing of the kind ; and most expressive is their
abstinence from all advice of this description. They ask,
"Shall we Christian men think to learn the knowledge of God and of ourselves,
in any earthly man's work or writing, sooner and better than in the Holy Scriptures,
written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost 1"
But we may even refer to a third branch of evidence, as to the Church's
sentiments on this point. We mean, the Liturgy ; which, indeed, seems to be
preferred by these very writers, to either the Articles or the Homilies.
" The Liturgy," they say, " as coming down from the apostles, is fhe depository
of their complete teaching ; while the articles are polemical, and, for the most part,
only protests against certain definite errors." — Tract xii.
Let us take, then, the second collect in the Prayer-book, and we find that
it runs as follows : —
" Blessed Lord, who hast caused all Holy Scriptures to be written for our
learning : Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and
inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy word, we may
embrace and ever hold fast the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast
given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ."
Thus, uniformly, and without the least exception, the language of the
church, in her articles, homilies, and liturgy, declares, that the only rule and
standard of faith is the word of God, without the least mixture or connexion
with any human writings.
But if the testimony of the church is clear and unhesitating on this point,
equally unequivocal is the doctrine of the Oxford Tracts, in an exactly opposite
direction. The grand fundamental principle of the reformation is nicknamed
" ultra-Protestantism ;" and we are told,
" True, the intelligible argument of ultra-Protestantism may be taken, and
we may say, ' The Bible, and nothing but the Bible ;' but this is an unthankful
rejection of another great gift, equally from God, such as no true Anglican can
tolerate." — No. Ixxi. p. 8.
In another place we find a friend described, as
" One of those, who, feeling strongly the inadequacy of their own intellects to
guide them into religious truth, are prepared to throw themselves unreservedly on
revelation, wherever found — in Scripture or Antiquity." — Brit. Critic, Jan. 1838,
p. 224. But, in fact, the whole frame-work of the Oxford-Tract-system hangs on
what they call " Antiquity." Take away from them the constant reference to
the fathers, and confine them within the limits prescribed by the sixth article,
and their theory vanishes like an edifice of snow. Let it, however, suffice to

Dr. Hook's " Call to Union " answered. 1 1
say, that neither in the articles, hoinilies, nor liturgy of the church, is there
the least countenance for that which forms the basis of their system, — the
necessity of " antiquity," or " tradition," or " the voice of the Church," to
complete, if not to form, the Rule of Faith.
Dr. Hook, it is true (at pp. 10-14 of his Sermon, and Note B. of his Apr
pendix), has drawn together many passages from the writings of the Reformers,
expressive of their deference to " antiquity," and of their willingness to be tried
by " the decisions of the general councils," and " the doctrine of the primitive
church.'' And, were it clear that all these passages must be taken in the sense
in which Dr. Hook uses them, we should be obliged to retort on him Mr. New
man's remark, that " great names, we know, can be found on the side of
all questions of divinity, great and small;"* and to cling only so much the
faster to the only Rule which is never contradictory, never inconsistent !
But the fact is not so. The whole mistake into which Dr. Hook leads his
readers, arises from a disregard of the actual drifwand intent of the Reformers,
-when they used these expressions. It is upon a due attention to this, that the
whole question turns.
Observe the position of the Reformers. They were perpetually and vehemently
charged with bringing in a new religion. In answer to which charge, they
were very naturally and justifiably in the habit of shewing, not only that their
creed was the creed of the Bible, but also that it was the creed of the primitive
church, and therefore no novelty. Many such passages has Dr. Hook adduced,
and he might easily have filled a volume with similar ones. But who objects
to such references to antiquity? Who, of the most ultra of those whom
Dr. Hook calls " ultra-Protestants,'' would hesitate to rebut such a charge by
the very same means? Such a reference to " antiquity" touches not the point
in dispute. What we object to is, not the use of antiquity, or even a frequent
reference to fathers and councils, but the exaltation of those fathers and coun
cils to an equality with the word of God, and their being made au essential
part of the rule of faith.
And it is on this point that we claim the judgment of the English church,
as being in favour of Holy Scripture only. That judgment, we say, is to be
looked for in her articles, her homilies, and her liturgy. To these authoritative
standards we refer; and not one single reference do we find in any of them,
either to fathers, or councils, or to " antiquity " in general, as constituting the
Christian's standard. This we hold to be decisive. Here, if any where, we
must look for her deliberate judgment as to the Rule of Faith. All the various
references which Dr. Hook has culled from the writings and records of that
day, could avail nothing against it, even were they applicable to this point.
But they are not applicable. They are merely controversial pleas ; in which
men charged with bringing new doctrines, naturally defend themselves by
shewing from history that their doctrines were those of the primitive church.
To the Romanists, then, they became " as Romanists " (1 Cor. ix. 20), that
they " might gain" the Romanists. But when building up their own churcli
in sound doctrine, they acknowledged but one fountain of eternal truth, but
one volume of " Revelation.'' • Letter to Dr. Faussett, 2d edit., p. 42.

12 Dr. Hook's " Call io Union" answered.
II. But we proceed from the Record itself, to the contents of that Record.
And first of that which is the grand and central doctrine of Christianity, the chief
topic of the whole Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, — the Atonement.
The tendencies of the Oxford school are not towards Socinianism. They
have not, therefore, shewed the least wish to impugn this great doctrine.
So far as this point is concerned, they are wholly clear of doctrinal heresy.
Their fault lies, in this, as in most other cases, in following the Church of
.Rome, which never denies or questions the doctrine of the Atonement, but
merely keeps it out of sight.
Rome has ever retained an outward shew of reverence for this doctrine.
She has her crucifixes, her " Devotions to the Sacred Heart of Jesus," and
what not : but amidst all this, where is the Atonement of Christ ever brought
forward in that church, as the grand hope of a sinner, the alone refuge of
the desponding penitent ? On the contrary, is not the Virgin, the patron
saint, the mass, the priest's absolution, — are not these, one or all of them,
constantly tlirust between Christ and the sinner, and in this way the scrip
tural hope of the Gospel rendered of none effect ?
Exactly in the same line are the writers of the Oxford Tracts now pro
ceeding. Three or four years back, Mr. Newman, one of the leaders of
this sect, thus described the practice of the Christian church in the fourth
century, and described it approvingly : —
" Even to tbe last, they (the catechumens) were granted nothing beyond
a formal and general account of the articles of the Christian faith ; the exact
and fully developed doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarnation, and, still more,
the doctrine of the Atonement, as once made upon the cross, and commemorated
and appropriated in tbe eucharist, being the exclusive possession of the serious and
practised Christian." — Arians of the Fourth Century. 8vo. p. 50.
And, following up this idea, a whole tract, No. 80, has lately been
devoted to the consideration of the duty " of Reserve in communicating
Religious Knowledge." The writer, after much circumlocution, comes at
last to this point: —
" We now proceed to the consideration of a subject most important in this
point of view, — the prevailing notion of bringing forward the Atonement eipli-
citly and prominently on all occasions. (The boldness of what follows is quite
startling.) It is evidently quite opposed to what we consider the teaching
of Scripture, nor do we find any sanction for it in the Gospels. If the epistles
of St. Paul appear to favour it, it is only at first sight." — P. 74.
This last astounding assertion is maintained by arguing, that when Paul
says, " I was determined not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ,
and him crucified," — " it is our being crucified to the worid, it is (jar humi
liation together with him," that Paul meant! A more extraordinary perversion
of a text of Scripture we never saw. But we need not dwell upon one or two
texts: let any one read St. Paul's sermons in Acts, xiii. xvii.; or the following
chapters of his epistles: Romans, v.; Galatians, iii.; Ephesians, i. ii.; Phi-
lippians, iii. ; Colossians, i. ii. ; and then say whether Paul ever failed to bring
forward this great central doctrine of the Gospel whenever an opportunity was
afforded him !
But our comparison is to be with the doctrines of the Reformers. These
we shall always ather, whenever it is possible to do so, from those formu
laries of the church which were handed down to us from the Reformation. In

Dr. Hook's ' Call to Union" answered. 13
the present case, tbe question is. Did the Reformers, in framing our articles,
liturgy, and homilies, shew the least accordance with this sentiment of the
Tract- writer, — that " to bring forward the Atonement explicitly and promi
nently is opposed to the teaching of Scripture?"
So far from it, that it is quite impossible to be for a single hour under the
church's teaching without having this grand doctrine pressed upon you, not
cautiously or incidentally, but fully, and in a variety of forms ! Enter a
church, you have the Atonement in the creeds, in the Te Deum, in the litany,
and by the careful selection and constant use of every chapter of the Bible
which sets forth this doctrine. An infant is brought for baptism, and all
concerned are again made to understand, that it is by the virtue of Christ's
death alone that Regeneration is to be obtained. So soon as the child can
speak, he is to be instructed in the Catechism, where the same great truth
is without the least hesitation set before him. And not only so, but the church
enjoins the parents to take care that he shall " hear sermons ;" and she has
accordingly provided a set of most admirable models for this purpose.
The book of Homilies is the most full and satisfactory developement that
we could possibly desire, of the actual "principles of tbe English Reformation."
The chief of those specimens of Protestant theology proceeded from the pens
of Cranmer and his associates in the work of Reformation. The first book
was published by the authority of Edward VI., the second by that of Elizabeth ;
and both were explicitly recognised in the 35th article, as containing "godly
and wholesome doctrine." And what is the tenor of these books, as to the
question now before us ?
The first matter treated of, in the first book, is the authority of Holy Scrip
ture, — a point which evidently required to be settled before any instruction
could be drawn from those sacred writings. This question having been dis
cussed, the preacher goes at once to the root of the matter, devoting his next
homily to the condition of man by nature; and then immediately comes to
a full declaration of the Gospel, in a beautiful treatise on the salvation of
mankind by Christ our Saviour. The very first paragraph in this homily
closes thus :
" It is our part and duty ever to remember the great mercy of God, — how
that — all the world being wrapped in sin by breaking of the law — God sent his
only Son, our Saviour Christ, into the world to fulfil the law for us ; and, by
shedding his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction to his
Father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation couceived against us for
the same." This homily was written by Cranmer. It was " set forth " by the whole
body of the Ei^lish Reformers in Edward's reign ; and again, after Cranmer's
death, in Elizabeth's reign. It was composed and published, not as a mere
record of principles, but as a discourse ordered to be actuaUy read, and which
was actually read, to the whole population, by continual use in all the churches.
This fact (though, indeed, the Book of Homilies would, if necessary, furnish us
with a thousand others) — this fact, added to the whole tenour of the church's
services — will, we should suppose, be considered sufficient to decide the ques
tion, whether or not the opinion of the Tract-writers, that " the doctrine of the
Atonement should not be brought explicitly and prominently forward," is in
agreement with " the principles of the EngHsh Reformation."

14 Dr. Hook's " Call lo Union" answered.
III. The next point to which we shall direct our attention is, that doc
trine — closely allied to the last — which has been described as the test of a
rising or a falling church, — the doctrine of" Justification by Faith."
Equal care has the chuich taken, in this as in the former case, to make her
doctrines clearly known. She gives one article to this subject, and therein,
not to be misunderstood, she refers directly to Archbishop Cranmer's Homily
for a fuller elucidation. The article runs thus : —
" We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit ofour Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, and not for our o-wn works, or deservings. Wherefore,
that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full
of comfort, as more largely is expressed in tbe homily of justification."
Turning, then, to the homily, we find its venerable author evidently labour
ing under the greatest anxiety to express himself so clearly, so fully, and so
emphatically, as to leave no possible way by which the unwilling listener
might escape him. Let us hear how he returns again and again to the subject.
" The apostle touches specially three things, which must go together in our
justification. Upon God's part, bis great mercy and grace : upon Christ's part,
justice; that is, the satisfaction of God's justice, or the price of our redemption,
by the offering of his body, and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the 1-aw
perfectly and thoroughly : and on our part, true and lively faith in the merits of
Jesus Christ ; which yet is not ours, but by God's working in us."
" And therefore St. Paul declareth here nothing, upon the behalf of a man,
concerning bis justification, but only a true and lively faith."
" Three things are required to the obtaining of our righteousness ; that is,
God's mercy, Christ's justice, and a true and lively faith ; out of which faith spring
good works."
" And after this wise to be justified, only by this true and lively faith in Christ,
speak all the old and ancient authors."
" By the law all men are condemned, whereupon it followeth necessarily, that
some other thing should be required for our salvation than the law ; and that is,
a true and lively faith in Christ, bringing forth good works."
" Because laith doth directly send us to Christ for remission ofour sins ; and
that, byj'aithg'iven us of God, we embrace the promise of God's mercy, and of the
remission of our sins, therefore the Scripture useth to say, tbat faith without
works doth justify."
" Here you have heard the ofiice of God in our justification; and how we
receive it of him freely, by his mercy, without our deserts, tlirough true and
lively faith,"
Such was Cranmer's Homily, These seven passages might be doubled, or
trebled, could we stay to copy all expressions of a similar kind which occur
in it. We will only add one more proof of the " principles of the English
Reformation," on this great doctrine, and that shall be taken from a later
homily, one of the second book, ore the Passion. Language more explicit and
expressive could scarcely be imagined.
" As it profiteth a man nothing to have salve, unless it be well applied to the
part infected ; so the death of Christ shall stand us in no force, unless we apply it
to ourselves in such sort as God hath appointed. Almighty God commonly worketh
by means ; and in this thing he hath also ordained a certain mean, whereby we take
fruit and profit to our soul's health.
" JVhat mean is that? Forsooth, it is Faith. Not an inconstant or wavering
faith ; but a sure, stedfast, grounded, and unfeigned faith. God sent his son into
the world, saith St. John. To what endl Tbat whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life. Mark the words: ' That whosoever believeth
in him.' Here is the mean whereby we must apply the fruits of Christ's death unto
our deadly wound. Here is the meau whereby we must obtain eternal life,
namely, faith. **»»•»»»

Dr. Hook's " CaU to Union " answered. 1 5
" To conclude with the words of St. Paul, which are these : ' Christ is the
end of the law unto salvation for every one that doth believe.' By this, then,
you may well perceive, that the only mean and instrument of salvation required,
on our parts, is Faith."
Such, then, are the " principles of the EngUsh Reformation," on this most
important point. Now, let us ask. What are the views of the Oxford sect,
touching this same matter? And here we have the advantage of dealing,
not merely with an anonymous tract, but with a complete treatise, recently
put forth on this subject by one who is an acknowledged leader of the party.
Mr. Newman's Lectures on Justifcaiion announce the following views : —
" That justification is the application of Christ's merits to tbe individual" —
" will not be denied by English divines. Moreover, it will be agreed that his
merits are not communicated, or a saving interest secured, except through an
instrument divinely appointed. Such an instrument there must be, if man is to
take part in the appropriation supposed ; and it must be divinely appointed, since
it is to convey what God only dispenses."
" All parties seem to agree as far as this ; but when we go on to inquire
what it is which God has made His instrument, then, as I said, we find ourselves
upon the main subject of dispute between ourselves and the strict followers of
the German reformer. Our church considers it to be the Sacrament of Baptism ;
they consider it to be Faith." — Pp. 3, 4.
" A theology which diners from our own in considering that faith, and not
baptism, is the primary instrument of justification." — P. 31.
" The instrument of our righteousness, I would maintain, is holy baptism." —
P. 146. " Christians are justified by the communication of an inward, most sacred,
and most mysterious gift. From the very time of baptism they are temples of the
Holy Ghost."— P. 167.
Now, in thus flatly contradicting the very words of the homily, Mr. Newman
could not but be aware that he was revealing his anti-Protestant leanings
somewhat hazardously. He therefore boldly grapples with the difficulty; and
first strives to raise baptism to an equality with faith, and then to exalt it to a
superiority. " There is nothing inconsistent, then, in faith being the sole instrument of
justification, and yet baptism also the sole instrument, and that at the same time,
because in different senses." — P. 259.
But there is something inconsistent in a churchman's starting such a pa
radox, inasmuch as the church has declared faith to be the sole instrument
some dozen times, and baptism not once ! But we advance one step more,
and find baptism raised to an entire supremacy over faith.
" Faith, then, being the appointed representative of baptism, derives its au.
thority and virtue from that which it represents. It is justifying, because of
baptism; it is the faith of the baptised, of the regenerate, of the justified. Faith
does not precede justification ; but justification precedes faith, and makes it
justifying. And here lies the cardinal mistake of the views on the subject now
in esteem. 1'hey make faith the sole instrument, not after baptism, but before ;
whereas baptism is the primary instrument, and creates faith to be what it is,
and otherwise is not, giving it power and rank, and constituting it as its own
successor." — P. 260.
This sort of reasoning, which would prove black to be white, and effects
to be, in all cases, the forerunners of causes, may possibly succeed with the
neophytes of the new sect. But any one who really studies the homilies for
himself, will observe that this same homily — which Mr. Newman first quotes,
and then distorts — sends him at once to the 4th of Romans, where stands
the authoritative contradiction of Mr. Newman's fiction.

16 Dr. Hook's" Call to Union" answered.
" We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham far righteousness. How was it then
reckoned? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcisiott,
bat in uncircumcisiim. And he received the sign of c'lrcutncision, a seal of ihe
righteousness which he had yet being uncircumcised." — Rom. iv. 9-11.
Here, in St. Paul's own words, is the order propounded by Mr. Newman
exactly reversed. Mr. N. says that the sacrament precedes faith, calls faith
into being, and then " constitutes it as its successor." St. Paul says, that
Abraham's faith preceded the sacrament; secured his justification without
the sacrament ; and that the sacrament was merely added as a seal of the
rigliteousness which the patriarch already possessed. But the book of ho
milies illustrates this truth by another example. The Sermon on Good fVorks
observes, " I can shew a man that, by faith without works, lived, and came to heaven ;
but, without faith, never man had life. The thief that was hanged when Christ
suffered, believed only, and the most merciful God justified him. » » •
Thus, faith by itself saved him; but works by themselves never justified any man.''
As truly may we add, failli, without baptism, has saved, and is now daily
saving, thousands; while baptism, without faith, has left, and is now leaving,
millions in their natural slate of wrath and condemnation.
On Justification, then, as on the preaching of the Atonement, the system
of the Oxford Tract-writers is in the most direct opposition to "the principles
of the English Reformation."
We pass on to the consideration of the sacraments, and begin with
IV. Baptism. — Here we arrive at what may be called the central point
of the Oxford system. The atonement, the distinctive doctrine of Christianity,
they judge it safest to keep in silence and reserve. Justification tbey reduce
to nothing more than a phase of, or denomination for, baptism ; and, in fact,
this one ordinance. Baptism, is made, with Ihein, the point on which every
thing else turns.
This probably arises from a feeling that their main strength lies in this
direction. We admit that the church is more open to misconstruction on
this point than on most others. But to judge accurately of her views, we must
consult those of her formularies which date from the times of the Reforma
tion. These we will now quote.
In the office for the baptism of infants, the persons presenting a child
are led to pray : —
" Give thy Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be born again, aud be made
an heir of everlasting salvation, through our Lord Jesus Christ."
They are then addressed as follows : —
" Dearly beloved, ye have brought this child here to be baptised ; ye have
prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would vouchsafe to receive him ; to release him
of all his sins ; to sanctify him with the Holy Ghost ; to give him the kingdom
of heaven, and everlasting life."
" This infant must also faithfully, for his part, promise by you, that are_ his
sureties, that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe
God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments."
This pledge being publicly given, the rite is administered ; and then the
priest invites all present to thanksgiving, in these words, on the precise force
and meaning of which the question now raised mainly turns : —
" Seeing now. dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted
into the body of Christ's church, let us give thanks," &c.

Dr. Hook's " Call to Union" answered. 17
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 reservation, that every infant who is brought to her font, and receives
baptism, is, ipso facto, born again, and translated from a state of wrath into
" tbe kingdom of God's dear Son ?"
To decide this question, we must refer to the Articles ; and must also
call in the evidence of the men by whom those Articles were framed.
The XXVth Article declares of the Sacraments, that
" In such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or
operation." . The XXVIth further explains, that
" The unworthlness of the minister hinders not the effect of the sacraments,"
to " such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the same."
In the XXVlIth, baptism is declared to be, not regeneration, but
" A sign of regeneration, or the new birth, whereby as by an instrument, they
that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the church."
And in the XXVIIlth, the supper of the Lord is stated to be
" A sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death, insomuch that to su.ch as
rightlq, worthily, and w'lth faith, receive the same, the bread which we break is a
communion of the body of Christ," &:c.
Thus we find the stress laid, in every case, not on the mere formal use,
but on the right reception, of the sacrament. And that which renders such
reception a right reception is declared to be faith. Now, there can be no
doubt that many, nay, multitudes, who receive the sacrament of baptism in
their infancy, can neither refer to the faith of their sponsors, nor of the offi-
cialina; minister, nor of any other person concerned in the ceremony. Faith
was altogether absent: where, then, is the " right recepth n" upon which the
articles lay so great a stress ?
But lest any doubt should rest upon the real meaning of the language of the
articles, we may as v^ell refer to the recorded views of those vvho framed both
the articles and the services. A few extracts may suffice.
In Cranmer's book on the sacraments (book iv. c. vii.), he says :
" In sacraments, saith St. Austin, is to be considered, not what they be, but
what they sheui ; for they he signs of other things. — being one thing, and signifying
another.' Therefore, as in baptism, those that come feignedly, and those that come
uufeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed
with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ; so in the Lord's supper," &c.
Latimer thus agrees with his archbishop :
" Except a man be born again from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
He must have a regeneration; and what is this regeneration 1 It is not to he
christened in water, and nothing else. How is it to be expounded, then t Saith
St. Peter, we be born again. How I ' Not by a mortal seed, but by an immortah'
What is this immortal seed 1 ' By the word of the living God;'_ by the word
of God preached and opened. Thus cometh in our new birth."— Vol. i. p. 72.
So follows Bishop Hooper, a third episcopal martyr and witness :
" Although baptism be a sacrament to be received, and honourably used of all
men, yet it sanctifieth no man. And such as do attribute the remission of sins to
the external sign, do offend."

18 Dr. Hook's " Call to Union" answered.
We will only adduce one more witness, Bishop Jewell, the great defender
of the Reformation. He observes (in his answer to Harding) that :
" Even in St. Paul's time there were certain, that, of like superstition, began to
baptise the dead. They thought that the outward work of baptism itself, only be
cause it was done, was sufficient to remit sins."
The bishop also quotes St. Augustine to this effect:
" Christ saith not. Ye are clean for the baptism wherewith ye are washed ;
but /or the word's sake tbat I have spoken to you."
And he adds the strong opinion :
" Verily, to ascribe felicity, or tbe remission of sins, which is the inward work
of the Holy Ghost, unto any manner of outward action whatsoever, is a superstitious,
a gross, and a Jewish error." — Pp. 594-600.
Now, in the face of all these testimonies, let us see what the Tracts for
the Times, which Dr. Hook puts forward as maintaining " the principles of the
English Reformation," — let us see what these tell us of the power and virtue
of baptism. Many are the various statements of this doctrine which the
writings of this sect would furnish ; but perhaps one, of a late date, may
suffice. In No. 76 (p. 1) this passage will be found :
" By the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is meant, first, that the sacrament
of baptism is not a mere sign or promise, but actually a means of grace, an instrument,
by which, when rightly received, the soul is admitted to the benefits of Christ's
atonement, such as the forgiveness of sins, original and actual, reconciliation to
God, a new nature, adoption, citizenship in Christ's kingdom, and the inheritance
of heaven,' — in a word, regeneration. And next, baptism is considered to be
rightly received, when there is no positive obstacle or hinderance to the reception
in the recipient, such as impenitence or unbelief would be in tbe case of an
adult; so that infants are necessarily 1 ight recipients of it, as not being yet capable
of actual sin."
Now, we desire to avoid exaggeration, and " even the appearance of evil."
But this Oxford Tract doctrine can only be thoroughly understood, in its whole
length and breadth of monstrosity, by bringing it to the test of actual fact.
The younger son of a fox-hunting squire, who has just been inducted to
a family living, rings his bell immediately breakfast is despatched, and orders
his groom to bring his horse round instantly, or he shall be too late to meet the
bounds. But he is answered, that he must stop a few minutes, for that the
constable is waiting with a guilty couple and their child ; who are sent by the
overseer for the double purpose of marriage and baptism.
In no very favourable mood, the young rector throws a surplice over his
hunting-vest, steps into the church, and with more than ordinary expedition,
despatches both the services, mounts, and gallops off.
The father has been sullen from the compulsion used, and half stupid with
beer. The mother's whole attention has been given to her half-starved and
fretful child. The sexton has volunteered all the responses; and the miserable
couple, who have been supposed to pledge their child to forsake the world,
the flesh, and the devil, know and care nothing of what has been done,
except its legal consequences.
We have not wished to state an extreme case ; nor do we think that this
canjustly be classed under that head. Unhappily, sporting clergymen are still
far from being uncommon ; while illegitimacy and forced marriages are of daily
occurrence. The case, therefore, although it may be strong enough to serve as

Dr. Hook's " Call to Union " answered. 19
a test of the doctrine we are opposing, is not, we lament to believe, one which
can be characterised as an extravagant supposition.
Yet is this child, the offspring of gross sin, forced to the font by the
overseer and the constable, unblessed by one word of real prayer, either by
the minister, the father, or the mother — yet is this child declared by these
new theologians to be, by virtue of this horrible profanation, " admitted to the
benefits of Christ's atonement ; such as the forgiveness of sins, original and
actual, reconciliation to God, a new nature, adoption, citizenship in Christ's
kingdom, and the inheritance of heaven — in a word, regeneration."
So appalling a proposition ought, unquestionably, to be supported by the
most invincible proofs. Scripture, assuredly, tells us nothing of the kind. The
framers ofour articles and homilies declare, as we have seen, the very contrary.
How, then, does the writer of Tract No. 76 support his averments ?
By one or two misapplied quotations from Jewel and Hooker, apparently
inserted to make a shew, inasmuch as they do not prove his principle, —
and then, by a large bundle of extracts from such writers as Laud, Bramhall,
Hammond, Heylin, Allestrie, Thorndike, Sharp, Jenkin, Potter, Nelson,
Hickes, Bingham, Skellon, Jebb, and Mant ! He then adds, " It would
be very easy to extend this list ;" of which, if such writers are to be reckoned
authorities, there can be little doubt I
But where, amidst all this, is the supposition, that in these Tracts for the
Times we should find " the principles of the English Reformation?" The
principles of the English Reformation ! The principles of the English Reform
ation, as far as baptism is concerned, are, as we have just shewn, at the very
antipodes of this monstrous system.
Dr. Hook, however, comes to their aid, with two or three passages from
Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer ; which bear an appearance of sustaining the
Tract-doctrine. But it is only an appearance. Cranmer says, " Christ hath
ordained one visible sacrament of spiritual regeneration in water, and another
visible sacrament of spiritual nourishment in bread and wine." Ridley says, that
" the bread, indeed, sacramenially, is changed into the body of Christ, as
the water in baptism is sncraOTe/iia/A/ changed into the fountain of regeneration."
Latimer says, that " this sacrament of baptism is a thing of great weight; for
it ascertaineth and assureth us, that like as the water washeth the body and
cleanseth it, so the blood of Christ our Saviour cleanseth and washeth from all
filth and uncleanness of sin.''
In all these passages, the venerable writers are evidently lauding the sacra
ments, not unwisely or unduly, but without stopping in these places to
furnish accurate definitions and reservations. But in the articles we have
already seen how these same men state the doctrine, when strict accuracy is
required. " In such only as worthily receive the sacraments, they have a
wholesome effect or operation." " The grace of God's gifts " belongs to " such
as by faith, and- rightly, do receive the sacraments." " They that receive bap
tism rightly are grafted into the church." " Such as be void of a lively faith"
" are in no wise partakers of Christ, but rather io their condemnation do eat
and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing."
To this deliberate judgment of the church, then, we bring the fact of an
outward baptism in which all parties are " void of a lively faith.'' And we

20 Dr. Hook's " Call to Union " answered.
say that in such a case the judgment of the church clearly is, that there has
been no "worthy" or "right" reception; and, consequently, no grace con
veyed. The last passage quoted by Dr. Hook, and with great triumph, is one from
Mr. Simeon ; in which Mr. S., in defending the baptismal service, shews that
there are several passages of Scripture which bear out its language. Dr. Hook,
with more adroitness than candour, presses Mr. Simeon, without hesitation,
into his service, as a witness in favour of the Oxford Tracts. He says:
" I venture to quote this as one of the most lucid expositions, and one of tho
most scriptural vindications, of the doctrine of regeneration, as held by our English
reformers — andjiir holding which so much abuse is heaped upon those who are
designated High Churchmen, — that has fallen under my notice."
Now, would it not have been rather more honest on the part of Dr. Hook,
to have apprised his readers of the important fact, that although Mr. Simeon
maintains baptismal regeneration, and the Oxford Tracts maintain baptismal
regeneration, yet the bapti.^mal regeneration of the one is wholly different from
the baptismal regeneration of the other? Mr. Simeon, finding the term
" regeneration " in our baptismal service, and setting himself to defend that
service, remarks that —
" Afler thanking God for regenerating this infant by his Holy Spirit, we are
taught to pray ' that he, being dead unto sin and living unto righteousness, may
crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of sin ;* and then, declar
ing the toral change to be the necessary mean of his obtaining- salvation, we add,
' sn that, finally with the residue of the Holy Church, he may be au inheritor of
thine everlasting kingdom.''
But this is not the baptismal regeneration of the Tract, No. 76. That
Tract declares, unreservedly, that every baptised infant, without exception, " is
admitted to the benefits of Christ's atonement ; the forgiveness of sins, recon
ciliation to God, a new nature, adoption, citizenship in Christ's kingdom, and
the inheritance of heaven." If any one had put the question in ihis form to
Mr. Simeon, he would instantly have repudiated such a doctrine. Yet, upon
the strength of an apology for the baptismal service, he is dragged forward
as a witness in favour of the monstrous doctrine of these Oxford Tracts ! He
shews how, in his judgment, the baptismal service may be justified, by supposing
nothing more to be meant by " regeneration" than the implantation of a seed
of grace, which may, or may not, be subsequently developed. He is imme
diately represented as holding the same opinions with those, who declare that
every baptised infant is at once endowed with the whole inheritance of the
sainis, excepting only glorification! Such is the advantage that an adroit
controversialist knows how to take of a deceased author!
V. Touching the other sacrament, the Communion of the Lord's Supper,
it will not be necessary for us to say much. The writers in question frankly
admit their entire opposition to the church on this point. They acknowledge,
without disguise, as we shall presently see, that they decidedly prefer " the
Mass" to " the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper."
The ground deliberately taken by our English reformers will be best under
stood, by a few moments' consideration of what they actually did, in the matter
of the eucharistic service. That service, like all other things which had passed
through the defiling hands of the apostate church, had to be " reformed." In
what did that reform chiefly consist .'

Dr. Hook's " Call to Union" answered. 21
It consisted almost solely of omissions, of purifications. The compilers
of the Common Prayer-book settled this service by the simple mode of
clearing away all the passages which spoke of an altar, of a sacrifice, or of
the offering up that sacrifice to the Father. Every trace of these views of the
sacrament was eradicated ; and thus the ordinance became, once more, what
our Lord and his apostles left it.
A few minutes' examination of that service will shew how carefully the
extrusion of these objectionable terms was carried on. From the opening to
the close, including the rubric, the expression " the table," " the Lord's table,"
occurs no fewer than fourteen times ; the word " altar " not once. The
term " sacrifice" is only twice adopted; first, emphatically to declare that
Christ, " by his one oblation of himself once offered, made a full, perfect, and
sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of ihe whole world ;"
and then, after the remainder of the consecrated elements have been covered
up, and all possibility of making a sacrifice of them removed, the communicants
are led to offer and present themselves, their souls and bodies, " to be a reason
able, holy, and lively sacrifice," a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving." As to the
sacramental elements, they are constantly, both before and o/iler the consecration,
termed " the bread and wine ;'' and the whole closes with a declaration that
" the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substance,
and therefore may not be adored ; and the natural body and blood of our
Saviour, Christ, are in heaven, and not here."
Now, it is very necessary that, in observing these things, we should bear
in mind, that the communion service was not a new composition, framed by
our reformers in such and such words, and which they might just as easily
have cast in other phraseology, if it had occurred to them. The omission
of the Romish terms is most determined and emphatic. The service is
an ancient service; it descended down to our reformers, filled with idolatrous
corruptions. Every where it was replete with " altar," and " sacrifice," and
" the body and blood," and the " offering up," and the " adoration." The
entire and total exclusion of aU this furniture of transubstantiation was as
complete a protest, as full a declaration of their sentiments, as the reformers
could possibly give.
So complete, indeed, that it seems hardly necessary to add any further
proof. Yet a few .sentences from the Articles and Homilies may be given.
The 31st Article plainlyLSays, that
" The sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the priest did
offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were
blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."
Stronger language than this, our Reformers have nowhere used. In the
homilies for Whitsunday, and on the Sacrament, they sustain it: —
" For this is to stick fast to Christ's promise made in his institution, to make
Christ thine own, and to apply his merits unto thyself. Herein thou needest no
other man's help; no other sacrifice, or oblation; no sacrificing priest; no mass;
no means established by man's invention."
" Christ commended to his church a sacrament of his body and blood. They
(the Romanists) have changed it into a sacrifice for the quick and the dead."
Language so explicit cannot be perverted or evaded. The Oxford Tract-
writers are therefore driven, in this instance, to a candid confession, that they

22 Dr. Hook's " Call to Union" answered.
utterly dislike and mourn over the service and the doctrine of the church, in
this matter. Mr. Froude says : —
" I am more and more indignant at the Protestant doctrine on the subject of the
eucharist, and think that the principle on which it is founded is as proud, irreverent,
and foolish, as that of any heresy, even Socinianism! " — Remains, vol. i., p. 391.
Now, this sentiment, be it remembered, was published by Mr. Newman
and Mr. Keble, without u word of dissent. But, being called upon by
Dr. Faussett, Mr. Newman publishes the following defence and reasserlion
of Mr. Froude's view : —
"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
tbe 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 indignation 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 di'd."
These bold assertions of Mr. Newman's, of the mass being "a tradition of
1500 years," and of " St. Peter's liturgy " being "a relic of the apostles,"
may serve lo shew us into what confusion we should plunge, were we to
give way to " traditions " of any kind. Justin Martyr, writing one hundred
years after St. Peter, knew nothing of any mass, or any sacrifice ; yet, now,
at the bidding of the Papists, we are called on to believe, without hesitation,
that their mass-book is " a relic of the apostles 1"
However, the main point now before us is the agreement alleged by Dr.
Hook to exist, between the writers of the Tracts for ihe Times and the English
Reformers. We imagine that even the doctor himself, with these passages
before him, will be obliged to admit that on this point, at least, instead of
agreement, there exists, manifestly, and beyond all doubt, an opposition the
most complete and total.
VI. Agreeing with Rome in all the chief points on which the Reformers
differed from her, it is no matter of wonder that, in minor matters, the
same leaning is equally discernible.
We have just seen, that the XXXIst article declares, that
" The sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly said, that the
priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or
guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits."
The Homily on Prayer adds : —
" Let us not deceive ourselves, thinking that either we may help other, or
other may help us, by their good and charitable prayers in time to come."
" Let us think, as the Scripture teacheth us, that the soul of man, passing out of
the body, goeth straightways either to heaven or to hell, whereof the one needeth
no prayer, the other is without redemption." " Let us not, therefore, dream of
purgatory, or of prayers for the souls of them that be dead."
Such is tlie language of the church. That of the Tracts for the Times is as
follows : —
" Since they (the early church) knew not ofour chill separation between those
who beino- dead in Christ, and those who are yet in the flesh, they felt assured that
this sacrifice offered by the church on earth, for the whole church, conveyed to that
portion of the church which had passed into the unseen world, such benefits of
Christ's death as were still applicable to them." " Why should men think it an

Dr. Hook's " Call fo Union" answered. 23
unhappiness or; imperfection that they should obtain additional joys and satisfactions
thereby ?— No. 81, pp. 6, 7.
, In. short, of the whole liturgy of the church, Mr. Froude speaks thus : —
"I can see no other claim which the Prayer-book has on a layman's deference,
as the teaching of the church, which the Breviary and the Missal have not in afar
greater degree." — Vol. i. p. 402.
And, in accordance with this sentiment, is the practice of the Tract-writers,
The preface to the Prayer-book of the Church of England states, that
" The godly and decent order of the ancient fathers hath been so altered,
broken, and neglected, by planting in uncertain stories, and legends, with mul
titude of responds, verses, vain repetitions, commemorations, and synodals,'' &c.
In direct opposition to which view appears Tract No. 75, with a heap of
" uncertain stories and legends, a multitude of responds, verses, repetitions,
commemorations," and what not ; and the whole declared, in the preface,
to be " a reappropriation " of " a treasure " which had long been lost.
It is in this number, also, that an attempt is made to introduce the practice
of saint-worship, or direct idolatry,- in positive contravention of the whole
tenor of the homily on prayer. But time would fail us in the attempt to
recount all the corruptions and errors advocated and reintroduced by these
Tracts. The simple truth is, that on every individual doctrine or practice on
which our reformers differed from Rome, their bias is against the English church,
and in favour of the Italian apostasy. On a few minor points, indeed, such
as the degree of honour to be paid to the Pope, the degree of homage to the relics
and images of the saints, and three or four others, they do their own church
the honour to hold partly with her, and partly with the adversary. But on all
the great fundamental questions, their course, as we have already seen, is always
with Rome and against England.
We answer, then, the Call to Union of Dr. Hook in the words of the mar
tyred Latimer : —
" In the time of the Six Articles, there was a bishop which ever cried, ' Unity,
unity!' but what he desired was a Popish unity. St. Paul, writing to the Corin
thians, saith, ' Be of one mind ;' but he addetb, ' according to Christ Jesus ;' i. e.
according to God's holy word ; else it were better war than peace. We ought never
to regard unity so much as that we should forsake God's woird for her sake."
Dr. Hook's assumption, that in uniting with the Oxford Tract-writers, we
sbould " unite on ihe principles of ihe English Reformation," is about the
most groundless supposition that we ever met with. We have gone through
the leading doctrines of the new sect, and have shewn that in every point they
forsake " the English Reformation," and approximate as closely as possible
to the system of the Church of Rome.
Their Rule of Faith is not that of the articles and homilies, which con
stantly direct us to Holy Scripture, and to nothing else, as the alone source of
Divine truth. On the contrary, it is precisely that laid down in Dr. Wiseman's
Lectures — namely, Holy Scripture, not alone, hut joined with ihe authority of
the Church.
Their Doctrines are not those of the Reformation, any more than their Rule.
The glory and excellence of that great recovery was, that it brought up again
from under the heaps of rubbish beneath which they had long been buried, the
grand Scriptural doctrines of the Atonement and of Justification by Faith. The

24 Dr. Hook's " Call lo Union" answered.
Oxford Tract-writers, far from rejoicing in these privileges, at once propose to
thrust back into concealment the main doctrine of the Bible, the Atonement ;
while Justification by Faith they declare to be nothing else than Justification by
an external ceremony !
Their Sacraments, also, are not the sacraments handed down to us by the
Reformers. The efficacy of baptism they make to depend, not on the prayer
of faith, or the " right reception," but solely on the fact that he who sprinkles
water on the child has had the hands of the bishop laid upon him. As for the
other sacrament, over that they openly mourn, because it is no longer the Mass ;
and they plainly tell us that the Reformers " sinned " in " mutilating " the
Mass-book, and that we " bear their sin," in having only a communion-service
instead of " a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead."
The Liturgy, also, which the Reformation gave us, is equally the object
of their grief and their indignation. They tell us that
** The Catholic (Romish) ritual was a precious possession ; and if we, who
have escaped from Popery, have lost not only the possession, but the sense of its
value, it is a serious question whether we are not like men who recover from some
grievous illness with the loss or injury of their sight or hearing!" — Tract xxxiv.
Reckon up, then, the amount of those things in which the writers agree
with " the principles of the English Reformation," and weigh them against
those in which they differ. Their 71st Tract affords us the means of doing so,
— for it particularly enumerates the points to which it advises that the con
troversy with the Romanists should be confined.
The Tract-writers, then, agree with the Reformers, in disapproving, — 1,
the denial of the cup to the laity ; 2, the necessity of the priest's intention to
the validity of the sacraments ; 3, the necessity of confession ; 4, the ana
themas of the Council of Trent ; 5, the doctrine of purgatory ; 6, the invoca
tion of saints ; 7, the worship of images. But on the latter three points, at
least, they hold partly with Rome, and partly with the Reformers.
But they disagree with the Reformers on the following points ; 1, they
deny the sufficiency of Scripture as a rule of faith ; 2, also, the duty of
preaching the atonement ; 3, also, justification by faith ; 4, they hold baptismal
regeneration by the mere external rite, ex opere operato ; 5, the mass to be a
sacrifice for the quick and dead ; 6, the Virgin to be honoured and invoked ;
7, the breviary, cast out by the Reformers, to be reintroduced ; 8, monastic
establishments to be recommended ; 9, prayers for the dead to be inculcated ;
10, Rome to be deemed "our sister," — not "Antichrist," or "Babylon;"
11, the Reformed churches of the continent and of Scotland to be discoun
tenanced, and friendship with Rome, rather than with them, to be sought.
This list might be lengthened, but there seems no need. Let any one still
possessing the power to weigh these things, impartially balance the one list against
the other, and then say whether the Oxford Tracts can be honestly and truly
described as advocating " the principles of the English Reformation."

yd^^i

London !— J. MoyeB^astle Street, Leicester Square.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03266 2026