PerceVAi

rihgsz 9\

LETTER

REV. THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D.
HEAD MASTER OF RUGBY SCHOOL;

A REPRINT OF ONE WHICH APPEARED IN THE
" IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL JOURNAL."

HON. & REV. A. P. PERCEVAL, B.C.L.
CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE QUEEN.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. Paul's church yard,
AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL.
1841.

LONDON :
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. .tohn's square.

LETTER,

Sir,
The challenge to those concerned in the origination of the
" Tracts for the Times," put forth in the Preface to your last
volume of Sermons ', is so frank and straightforward, and at
the same time so courteously expressed, that it seems to lay
them under a reasonable necessity to answer it : and as you have
been pleased to fix, among others, upon me by name, and to
attempt to turn to the prejudice of the whole cause in which
those whom you oppose have engaged, an expression proceed
ing from my pen, and for which I alone am responsible, I can
hardly be accused of stepping out of my way, if I not only
vindicate the expression in question, but proceed further to
reply to the points most worthy of notice which have been put
forth by you.
First, I am to vindicate certain expressions apphed to the
Irish Church Act of 1833. This I have spoken of as " a wanton
act of sacrilege," " a monstrous Act," " an outrage on the
Church." Upon these expressions your remarks are as fol
lows : — " Now I am not expressing any opinion upon the
justice or expediency of that Act; it was opposed by many
good men, and its merits or demerits were fairly open to dis
cussion ; but would any fair and sensible person speak of it
with such extreme abhorrence as it excited in the minds of
Mr. Perceval and his friends ? The Act deprived the Church
' " Christian Life, its course, its hindrances, and its helps." Sermons, hy Thomas
Arnold D.D. London, Fellowes. 1841.
A 2

4 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
of no portion of its property ; it simply ordered a different
distribution of it, with the avowed object on the part of its
framers of saving the Church from the odium and the danger
of exacting Church-rates from the Roman Catholics. It did
nothing more than what, according to the constitution of the
Churches of England and Ireland, was, beyond aU question,
within its lawful authority to do. The King's supremacy and
the sovereignty of Parliament may be good or bad, but they
are undoubted facts in the constitution of the Church of Eng
land, and have been so for nearly three hundred years. I repeat
that I am stating no opinion as to the merits of the Irish
Church Act of 1833 ; I only contend that no man of sound
judgment would regard it as 'a monstrous Act,' or as ' a wanton
sacrilege.' It bore no marks of flagrant tyranny; nor did it
restrain the worship of the Church, nor corrupt its faith, nor
command or encourage anything injurious to men's souls in
practice \"  " There are states of nervous excitement,
when the noise of a light footstep is distracting. In such a
condition were the authors of the Tracts in 1833, and all their
subsequent proceedings have shown that the disorder was stifl
upon them ^"
Sir, the expressions which have called forth your animad
versions are so strong, they convey so severe a censure upon
all concerned in promoting the Act in question, that if they
are unwarranted, I am bound, in justice and charity, as a
Christian man, remembering my last account, to withdraw
them as publicly as I have uttered them, and not to leave on
record unrevoked a censure undeserved, and which it is plain
by your remarks has not failed in attracting notice.
But the expressions were not Hghtly used. The lapse of
more than seven years, which had intervened between the
passing of the Act and my writing the letter in which the
expressions occur, might wefl have afforded time for calm deli
beration ; the situation of political parties, the position of
individuals concerned, could hardly fail to incline one to pass
the matter in silence, could I have persuaded myself that such
a course was consistent with duty. I wrote calmly and deli
berately, with a full sense of my responsibility both to God and
> Pp. xix. XX. » P. xxi.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 5
man for the words which I used, and with a fuU conviction that
I should best discharge my duty to both by using them.
To vindicate that conviction is what I now proceed to do :
that vindication resting upon the meaning of the terms, and the
nature of the transaction to which they are applied.
As the term " wanton sacrilege" involves the others, it may
suffice if I confine myself to the vindication of it.
Now, whether the suppression of the ten bishoprics was an
act of sacrflege or not, yet that it was a " wanton" act you have
yourself sufficiently shown, by saying that the object of the
framers of the act was to " save the Church from the odium
and danger of exacting Church-rates fi-om the Roman Catholics ;"
in other words, to provide out of the ecclesiastical estates a
substitute for Church cess. For as all wiU allow that he who,
not content with plundering a man who makes no resistance
but by prayers, proceeds to destroy him, commits an act of
wanton (because unnecessary) cruelty; so the Act of 1833,
which not content with plundering the bishoprics, to which no
resistance but that of prayers was offered, proceeded to destroy
them, committed an act of "wanton" (because unnecessary)
oppression. So that even admitting (for argument's sake) that
it was right or necessary to abolish Church cess in Ireland —
admitting that it was right or necessary to find no other substi
tute for it but in the ecclesiastical estates — admitting that it was
right or necessary that the fund should come from certain ten
bishoprics — and admitting that it was right or necessary that
the whole of the existing endowments of those bishoprics should
be thus absorbed : yet still the wantonness of the destruction of
the offices them.selves is not the less apparent. The destruction
of those offices did not add a sixpence to the amount obtained,
nor promote in the smallest degree the professed objects of
the bill. It was, therefore, I will be bold to contend, a wanton
act of destruction.
But was it also an act of sacrilege ? My cafling it so arises
from the belief, that the bishops of the Church have received
through the apostles from Christ, that Divine commission for
the government of the Church, which He gave, when He said
to them, " I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
appointed unto me." Consequently, that all alterations in the
polity of the Church, without the consent and approval of the

6 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
bishops, or at least of the greater number of them, are violations
of that Divine commission ; and a violation of things Divine (I
need not inform you) is sacrilege. Now the act in question for
altering the polity of the Irish Church, in things so purely spi
ritual as the number of its spiritual pastors, was not only with
out the consent and approval of the Irish bishops, or a majority
of them, but against the solemn and most earnest appeal of the
whole body save three. Nineteen out of the twenty-two Irish
prelates in their petition to the House of Lords protested
against it, "as deeply injurious to the spiritual privileges, rights, and
interests of the Church .-" as " totally opposed to their system of
ecclesiastical polity, inconsistent with the spiritual authority of
the prelates, calculated to impede the extension of the principles of
the Church among the people, and highly injurio'us to the progress
of true religion in that country." The act not only abolished
ten bishoprics, but placed the whole of the Irish Episcopate
under the control of a mixed commission, even in the exercise
of their power of ordaining elders in some cases '.
The civil legislature appropriated to itself authority, which,
according to this belief, has been divinely bestowed upon
others : it violated the Divine commission by which that
authority has been conveyed. Now sacrilege, according to
Johnson, consists in " appropriating to himself what is devoted
to religion : in violating or profaning sacred things."
If the belief in the existence of such Divine commission is
reasonable, then I was not unreasonable, under the influence of
such belief, in applying the term sacrilege to the Act in question :
if that belief is unreasonable, I acted unreasonably in so apply
ing it, and am bound publicly to withdraw it.
Let us consider, then, whether it is most reasonable to believe,
or disbelieve, the existence of such a commission :
I. Now that our Lord, when leaving his Church on earth, " to
receive for himself a' kingdom, and to return," would leave a
commission of government behind Him, reason would have led
us to expect ; since, otherwise. He would (apparently) have been
less mindful of the welfare of his Church, than any earthly
king is wont to be of his kingdom which he may have occasion
for a time to leave. That our Lord did leave such commission
behind Him to the Apostles, the Scriptures are express : " As
' Sec. 116.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 7
my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." " I appoint
unto you a kingdom as my Father hath appointed unto me."
The Apostles speak of " the authority ' which the Lord " had
" given " them ; and consider it a faithful discharge of duty to
God and to the people to "magnify" their "office":" not
thinking, as you seem to do', that in so doing they preached
themselves, but rather Him, in whose only name and by whose
only authority they spoke and acted.
II. As reason would have led us to expect that our Lord
would at the first give the commission of which we speak ; so
reason would lead us to expect that such commission would be
continued till his own return. For whatever rendered it neces
sary at the first, would, apparently, render it necessary con
stantly: it not being reasonable to suppose that the Church
would stand less in need of government according as it increased
in number ; but rather the contrary : insomuch so, that they who
question the Divine institution of Episcopacy, for the most part
(you yourself amongst the number, p. xlvii.) admit that it arose
out of the necessity of the case — for the avoiding divisions : and
of the two, it is surely at least as reasonable to suppose, that
our Lord, who had the welfare of his Church at heart, would
foresee and provide for such necessity, by making his commis
sion permanent, as that He would not; and the Scriptures
confirm the view which reason would lead us to entertain. They
are not only wholly silent as to any limitation of the commission
to the lifetimes of the Apostles, or intended revocation of it at
their deaths, but use terms in reference to it wholly inconsistent
with any such intention, and, according to their most plain and
obvious meaning, expressly establishing the contrary. Thus,
when the giving of the commission is represented in the para
ble, the expression is, " occupy till I come ;" when the com
mission itself was given, the words are added, " I am with you
always, even to the end of the world." When St. Paul speaks
of it, he uses terms which imply the same idea of perpetuity,
stating it to have been given for objects which wifl ever require
to be in process of accomplishment till the end of the world *.
Certain it is, St. Paul gave to others as full a commission to
set in order the things that were wanting, as words could
1 2 Cor. x, 8. xiii. 10. ' Rom. xi. 13.
= P. xxvii. ' Ephes. iv. 12—14.

8 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
convey, and as expressly commanded obedience to be shown to
them '.
III. That the whole ancient Church believed that commis
sion to be permanent, and to be vested in the bishops, is, I
believe, undeniable. You have, indeed, endeavoured to make
an exception in the case of the Church of Corinth. On the
strength of a passage in Clement's Epistle, you venture to
assert, that " only Elders are spoken of as governing the Church
of Corinthl"
If that passage had stood alone, it would no more have
availed to show that which you deduce from it, than the
writings of Hosea, Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, and Haggai, where
priests alone are mentioned, would avail to show that, in their
time, there was no higher office in the Church. But let Cle
ment speak for himself; in that very Epistle he enjoins the
Christians of Corinth to obey their rulers, in these very
words : —
" It will behove us (Christians) looking into the depths of Divine know
ledge, to do all things in order, whatsoever ow Lord has commanded us to do.
He has ordained by Ms superior ¦will and authority, both where, and by what
persons they [the sacred offices] are to be performed. For the Chief Priest
has his proper services, and to the Priests their proper place is appointed ;
and to the Levites appertain their proper ministries ; and the layman is con
fined within the bounds of what is commanded to laymen."
Three orders of Clergy, Sir, you will perceive, and the chief
authority in one person, not in many. However, in Ignatius'
time, you admit that "the government of a single man was
become very general, and Ignatius wishes to invest it with
absolute power '." You add, " no man can doubt that the
system which Ignatius so earnestly recommends was very
different from that which St. Paul had instituted fifty or sixty
years earlier *." But in what respect the " full power," which
you yourself admit (p. xlvi.) St. Paul to have given to Timothy
and to Titus, feU short of the " absolute power" claimed by
Ignatius for the Bishops, you have not been at the pains to tefl
us. I will only observe, that the authority, which you would
have us believe was the invention of Ignatius' wisdom, ("he
acted quite wisely %" are your words,) was claimed by him
' Compare Titus i. 5, with Hebrews xiii. 17. ' P. xlvi.
2 P. xlvii. * P. xlviii. * P. xlvii.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 9
on the score of Divine right and obligation. If you are correct
then Ignatius, the friend and disciple of St. John, is proved to
be a barefaced liar and impostor; and the Church generally
shown to have acquiesced in and succumbed to a notorious
cheat and imposture and usurpation, without, as it appears, the
slightest remonstrance offered. Now, whether. Sir, is it most
reasonable to believe this of the primitive Church, and the
chosen companion of St. John, or to believe that the Head
Master of Rugby in the nineteenth century is mistaken ? That
the belief which St. Ignatius entertained and expressed, of the
Divine authority for the office of Bishops as chief rulers of the
Christian Church, was universally entertained in the Church,
cannot be more satisfactorily shown than by the prayers made
use of by the Church at the appointment of men to that office.
Search those prayers. Sir, and you will find the Christians
of the times preceding the Nicene sera, as set forth in the
CoUection called " Apostolical Constitutions ;" the Christians
of the East, of the West, of the South, and of the North,
— all, with one voice, on those most solemn occasions, ascrib
ing to the Divine will and ordinance the Institution of the
High Priesthood, Apostleship, or Episcopate in the Christian
Church. The Ante-Nicene Churches' Prayer.
" O Thou who givest the laws of Thy Church through the incarnate pre
sence of Thy Christ, by the witness of the Paraclete, through thy apostles,
and us bishops, present by Thy grace ; O Thou, who from the beginning
hast provided priests to be over Thy people, first Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch,
Noah, Melchisedec, and Job ; who didst manifest Abraham and the rest of the
patriarchs, with Thy faithful servants Moses and Aaron, Eleazar and Phineas,
appointing from them rulers and priests in the tabernacle of Witness, who
choosedst Samuel to be a priest and prophet, who leftest not Thy sanctuary
without ministry . . . , give in Thy name, O God, who knowest the hearts,
to this Thy servant, whom Thou hast chosen to be a bishop, to feed Thy
holy flock, and serve Thee in the high priesthood without blame, 
Grant him. Almighty Master, through Thy Christ, the partaking of Thy
Holy Spirit, that he may have power to remit sins according to Thy com
mand, to give lots (icX^poue) according to Thy institution ; and to loose every
bond, according to the power which Thou gavest to the apostles ; to please
Thee well in meekness and a pure heart, off'ering to Thee the pure and un
bloody sacrifice, &c." — Apost. Const, viii. c. 5.

10 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
The Eastern Churches' Prayer.
" O Lord, our Lord God, who by the most illustrious Apostle Paul hast
sanctioned the series of degrees and orders for the service and ministration of
Thy holy and undefiled mysteries at Thy holy altars, there being set forth
first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers ; do Thou, O Lord,
strengthen with the coming power and grace of Thy Holy Spirit, by the hands
of me a sinner, and of the ministers and fellow bishops here together present,
the person already chosen and counted worthy, by the votes of all, to under
take the evangelical yoke, and the pontifical dignity .... make his Episco
pate irreproachable in the sight of all men, &c." — Goar Rituale Grcec.
p. 302—304. The Western Churches' Prayer.
" O God of all honours, God of all dignities, which minister to Thy glory,
in the sacred orders ; God, who instructing Thy servant Moses with the
affection of a secret-friend, among other documents of heavenly culture, com
mandest the chosen Aaron to be clothed in a mystical garment at the sacred
offices .... for the habit of that earlier priesthood was adorned for the
service of our mind, and the glory of the High Priesthood is commended to
us not by honourable garments but by the splendour of souls . . . There
fore, upon this servant N, whom Thou hast chosen to the ministry of the
High Priesthood, we beseech Thee, O Lord, largely to bestow this grace . . .
Give unto him, O Lord, we beseech Thee, the keys of the kingdom of
heaven . . Give unto him the episcopal chair, to govern Thy Church and
universal people. Be Thou his authority, his power, his strength, &c." —
Muratori, ii. 670. The Southern Churches' Prayer.
" O Lord God of power, who hast caused us to come into the lot of this
ministry ... fill us with Divine power, and the grace of Thine only begotten
Son, and the operation of the Holy Spirit, that we may be worthy of this
ministry of the New Testament . . . that we may . . . minister in the priest
hood of Thy holy and good pleasure . . . Lo Thy servant N approacheth
Thee, with perfect intention, and stands expecting Thy heavenly gifts.
" The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which supplieth our defects in the
goodwill of God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, come upon N, who with fear
and trembling entereth Thine holy altar ; and raiseth the eyes of his heart to
Thee who inhabiteth the heavens, waiting for Thy heavenly gifts, that he may
be translated from the sacerdotal order to the order of prelacy." — Martene, de
Ant. Eccl. Rit. i. c. 8. a. 11. o. 23.
The Northern Churches' Prayer.
" Almighty God, giver of all good things, which by Thy Holy Spirit hast
appointed Divine orders of ministers in Thy Church, mercifully behold this
Thy servant now called to the work and ministry of a Bishop, &c."

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 11
In other parts of our office the ministration of a Bishop is
declared to be according to the will of Christ ; the authority
with which it is invested to be by the word of God ; e. g.
" Are you persuaded that you be truly called to this ministration according
to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ ?"
" Will you correct and punish such as be unquiet, disobedient, and wicked
men within your diocese, according to such authority as ye have by God's
word ? &c." — Ordinal of the Church of England.
Thus the holy Church throughout all the world hath from
the beginning borne witness to the truth of that belief, on the
strength of which I applied the term sacrilege to the Irish
Church Act of 1833.
In favour of the reasonableness of the belief, we have first the
antecedent probability, that the Great Head of the Church
would have given some such commission, and that the Holy
Spirit would have foreseen and provided for those necessities,
which, according to your own statement, rendered it desirable in
St. Paul to give such a commission to Titus and Timothy ; and
made it an act of wisdom in St. Ignatius to claim such.
Secondly, the testimony of the Scriptures that such was given,
in terms expressive of continuance. Thirdly, the testimony of
the whole Church, that they had so received and held concern
ing it. Against the reasonableness of the belief, we have only a
gratuitous assumption, that St. Ignatius, the companion of St.
John, wisely, indeed, but falsely, claimed authority for himself
and others, on the score of Divine institution, which he and all
men must have known to have been a plain and manifest
usurpation, and that the whole Church of Christ, acquiesced
without remonstrance in this clever but false and scandalous
imposture and usurpation.
I might dwell at length, not surely without reason, upon the
considerations unavoidably suggested by the fact of a person of
your powers of mind preferring an assumption so wholly gratu
itous, improbable, nay, I may say more, morally impossible, to
the combined testimony of analogy. Scripture, and tradition.
Tradition, not oral, but set forth in the records of the Church
from the beginning. But I wifl not: all I have occasion
to contend for is this, that as I am not destitute of reason to
assign for my belief, that belief is clearly not unreasonable; and

12 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
that, therefore, I exhibited no want of sound judgment in apply
ing to the act of 1833 the term of saci-ilege, which, if my belief
is correct, is clearly and undeniably due to it.
In vindication of that Act, you say, that "it did nothing
more than what, according to the constitution of the Churches
of England and Ireland, was beyond all question within its
lawful authority to do. The King's supremacy, and the
sovereignty of Parliament may be good or bad ; but they are
undoubted facts in the constitution of the Church of England,
and have been so for nearly three hundred years." I am
offering you no disrespect in supposing that the Bishops of the
Church of Ireland are at least as competent judges as yourself
of the constitution of their Church ; and they — that is, nineteen
out of twenty-two, — in their petition to Parliament in 1833,
under their own hands, declared that that Act was " totally
opposed to their system of ecclesiastical polity," and " deeply
injurious to the spiritual privileges, rights, and interests of the
Church." It is rather strong, in the teeth of this declaration,
to say that the accordance of the Act with the constitution of
the Church is beyond question. But the ground of your asser
tion appears to consist in what you call the facts of the King's
supremacy and the sovereignty of Parliament, which you con
sider give lawful authority for such an Act. Have you not
herein confounded power with authority ? That the civil
rulers have power to destroy, not ten, but twenty bishoprics, to
condemn the whole order, to forbid our Liturgy, to shut up our
Churches, we know to our cost ; but that they have authority
to do so, I have yet to learn. From whom did they receive the
authority ? Not, surely, from Him who cautioned all men to
draw a distinction between the things of Csesar and the things
of God; and who, while He strictly enjoined that we should
render to Csesar the things that are Caesar's, no less strictly
commanded us to render to God the things that are God's :
not, surely, from Him who consigned the chief government of
his Church, not to the civil rulers, but to twelve poor fishermen
and others, choosing the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise, and the weak things of the world to confound the
things which are mighty. But, though the civil rulers have no
such authority as you claim for them in spiritual matters imme
diately from Christ, yet possibly they may have it mediately, by

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 13
grant from the Church : and that a grant of authority, to some
extent, has been made by the Church in England to the civil
ruler of the nation, is very certain ; for the 37th Article says,
" we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government ;"
and again, "we give to our princes that prerogative." But,
seeing that they have this authority thus confessedly by grant
from the Church, it seems to follow necessarily, that the extent
of the authority must be limited by the terms of the grant ; and
that it cannot truly be said that the civil rulers have any
authority, according to the constitution of the Church, which
has not been expressed in some of the Acts of the Church. To
what extent, then, has the Church in England at any time
recognised the authority of the civil rulers of the nation over
it? I know but of four overt acts of such recognition. 1st.
What is contained in the statutes of Clarendon, in the reign of
Henry II., which give a right of appeal from the Archbishop's
Court to the King, with power to the King to order the cause to
be reheard in the Ecclesiastical Courts : similar authority to that
which the Canons of Antioch and Carthage gave '. 2ndly. What
is called the Submission of the Clergy in Henry VIII.'s time,
whereby they engaged to hold no synods, and make no new
laws for the Church, without the King's consent. 3rdly. The
recognition in the 37th Article, which is as follows : " The King's
Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and
other his dominions, unto whom the chief government of all
estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in
all causes, doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject
to any foreign jurisdiction. When we attribute to the King's
Majesty the chief government, — by which titles we understand
the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended, — we give
not to our princes the ministering either of God's Word or of
the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set
forth by Elizabeth our Queen do plainly testify ; but that only
prerogative which we see to have been given always to aU godly
princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself: that is, that they
should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by
God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain
with the civfl sword the stubborn and evil doers." 4thly. The
' See Antioch, Can. xii. African Code, c. civ.

11 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
1st Article in the 36th Canon, which is as follows : " The King's
Majesty, under God, is the only supreme governor of this
realm, and of all other his Highness's dominions and countries,
as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as tem
poral ; and that no foreign prince," &c.
Now, in all these constitutional acts of the English Church,
we have not one single word respecting what you call the
sovereignty of Parliament .- only the supremacy of the Crown is
declared, and that, indeed, fuUy ; as fully over the Church as
over the State, as much as this is granted ; more is not stated
by the Church, more is not asked by the Crown. But, unless
you can show that the Church has recognised in the Crown
supremacy of a totally different kind from that which is acknow
ledged by the State, you will fail altogether in proof of your
assertion, that the Crown has lawful authority, according to the
constitution of the Church, to consent to, or enforce, such an
Act as that of 1833 : for as the Crown has no lawful authority
conceded to it by the State to abrogate high offices of State
without consent of the great council of the State, so neither has
it lawful authority conceded to it by the Church to abrogate
high offices in the Church without consent of the great council
ofthe Church.
I will not urge this upon you merely on the strength of what
Bishops and Clergy have said, — because as you consider their
paying and claiming from others respect to the commission
which they believe that they have received from Christ is
merely "to preach themselves," you will naturally look with
suspicion upon aU clerical testimony ; — but the declaration of
Parliament itself upon the point may perhaps be more con
vincing. This, then, is the language of the statutes of the
realm : — ¦
"... This realm of England is an Empire . . . governed by one supreme
head and king . . . unto whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and de
grees of people, divided in terms, and by names of Spiritualty and Temporally,
been bounden and owen to bear next to God, a natural and humble obedience.
. . . The body spiritual whereof, having power, when any cause of the law
Divine happened to come in question, or of spiritual learning, that it was
declared, interpreted, and showed by that part of the said body politic, called
the Spiritualty, now being usually called the English Church, which always
hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, that both for knowledge,
integrity, and sufficiency of number, it hath been always thought, and is also

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 15
at this hour sufficient and meet of itselif, without the intermeddling of any
exterior person or persons, to declare and determine all such doubts, and to
administer all such offices and duties as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain
. . . and the laws temporal, for trial of property of lands and goods, and for
conservation of the people of this realm in unity and peace, vnthout rapine
and spoil, was, and yet is administered, adjudged, and executed by sundry
judges and ministers of the other part of the said body politic, called the
Temporally; and both their authorities and jurisdiction do conjoin together
in the due administration of justice, the one to help the other ^"
This clear enunciation of the English constitution in Church
and State no more recognises authority in the king to alter the
laws and customs of the Church, without the consent of the
spiritualty, than to alter the laws and customs of the State
without consent of the temporalty ; no more authorises the
Crown and the temporalty to oppress the spiritualty in things
spiritual, than it authorises the Crown and the spiritualty to
oppress the temporalty in things temporal. Unless then it
can be maintained that the judging of the spiritual wants of the
people, and determining the number and location of the spiritual
officers necessary to supply those wants, and the providing
rules for the guidance of the spiritual officers in the discharge
of their spiritual duties, are not matters of spiritual concern,
which is a contradiction in terms, the Act of 1833 is clearly
proved to be in open and palpable violation of our consti
tution in Church and State, as laid down in the statutes of
the realm : seeing that that Act, by the mere force of the
temporalty, did that which the Bishops of the Church, in that
portion of the realm affected by it, with so few exceptions
as hardly to deserve notice, solemnly declared to be "deeply
injurious to the spiritual privfleges, rights, and interests of the
Church," "totally opposed to their system of ecclesiastical
polity, inconsistent with the spiritual authority of the prelates,
calculated to impede the extension of the principles of the
Church among the people, and highly injurious to the progress
of true religion ;" and against which the petitions of the Clergy,
and Laity also, most numerously signed, bore witness in as
plain and unequivocal a manner.
And thus much may suffice by way of vindication ofthe term
" sacrilege" and " outrage" which I applied to that Act, and in
' 24 Henry VIII. 12.

16 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
refutation of your assertion concerning its undeniable conformity
to the constitution.
If these pages should chance to meet the eyes of that Noble
Lord (Stanley) who was chiefly instrumental in passing the Act
in question, I would respectfully and humbly entreat him,
should it please God to place the power in his hands, to have
so much respect to the ancient constitution of this Church and
nation, so much regard for the conscientious belief of a very
large portion of his fellow-subjects, even if not his own, as to
empower the spiritual authorities of the Church in Ireland to
make such alterations in the spiritual provisions of that Act as
shall seem expedient to them. He will readfly acknowledge that
charity should begin at home; and that his own communion
should not be the only one debarred the exercise of that religious
liberty, which he has learned to value and to guard for others.

There are three, and, as it seems to me, only three, other
points in your preface which require notice.
I. The first is a chaUenge for some warrant from Scripture in
support of the statement " that the Apostolical commission of
the Bishops is the Divinely authorised security for the conti
nuance and due celebration of the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper ' ;" to which challenge, without waiting for an answer,
you are forward to reply'', "that their statement is, untrue is
absolutely certain."
I am not the author of the statement, and am far from sup
posing that the grounds which I should adduce in its support
are all that its author would suggest. Still it seems to me that
every child may show from the Scriptures quite sufficient war
rant for the assertion, not only for its truth, but for the duty of
keeping alive the knowledge of it.
If a fufl commission of government, granted by a king to his
deputy in a province, affords a royaUy authorised security to
his subjects there for his acceptance and ratification of all acts
of civil government effected in the province by virtue of that
commission; which security (to speak in the lowest terms)
> P. XXX. 2 p. xxxii.

LETTER TO DR. .ARNOLD. 17
must be wanting to all acts of government carried on there by
others, in opposition to and defiance of that commission : a full
commission of government, granted by our Lord to the Apostles
in the Church, must needs afford a Divinely authorized security
to his servants here for his acceptance and ratification of all acts
of ecclesiastical government effected in the Church by virtue of
that commission ; which security must be wanting to all acts of
government carried on here by others, in opposition to and
defiance of that commission. Now the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper being, to use your own words, " the one perpetual ordi
nance of the Christian Church^," the due celebration of that
must needs be one of the most, if not actually the very most,
important act of ecclesiastical government. If then we prove
the grant of a full commission of government to the Apostles or
chief rulers of the Church, we sufficiently prove the truth of
the assertion in question ; unless it can be shown that the com
mission was expressly limited in point of time, or has been sub
sequently revoked. Now, that our Lord himself had received
a full commission of government over the Church, even the
Arians and Socinians will admit. That He gave it in full to
the Apostles, the words which have been already cited from
Him are express ; " As my Father hath sent me, even so send I
you." "I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath
appointed unto me." Unless then it can be shown from the
Scriptures, that the commission was limited in point of time,
or was subsequently revoked, we have in these words sufficient
to prove the truth of the assertion in question. And therefore
I have no need to dweU upon the fact, that when our blessed
Lord instituted the holy Eucharist, he had none with Him but
those whom He appointed chief rulers and Apostles of his
Church ; and that to them expressly, for to them only, did He
address himself when He said, " Do this in remembrance of
me." Concerning which saying, though you are free to tell us
that the words " do this" refer only to " the eating the bread
and drinking of the cup';" yet every person who considers
how those words are used, must see what a strange and unna
tural force must be put upon them so to interpret them ; for
our Saviour said, " Do this, as often as ye drink it ;" is it natural
1 p. xlv. ^ P. xxxv. B

18 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
or reasonable to suppose that in so saying He meant no more
than " Drink this, as often as ye drink it ?" or would there be
any meaning at all in such an expression ? Surely the least
force the words will bear must be this : " Do this that I have
done." Now, what had He done? He had blessed the bread
and wine, and given thanks over it. St. Matthew says, " Jesus
took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the
disciples :" "He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to
them." St. Mark says, " Jesus took bread, and blessed and
brake it, and gave to them :" " He took the cup, and when he
had given thanks, he gave it to them." You are pleased to say
that there " had not been a word said of any consecration ;"
but as you apparently wrote in forgetfulness that both St. Mat
thew and St. Mark bear as distinct witness to the " blessing"
as St. Luke and St. Paul do to the "giving thanks" over the
elements, your assertion, though to be regretted as proceeding
from one in your station, is not worthy of the regard which it
might otherwise claim. But if our Lord blessed the elements
and gave thanks over them before distributing them, and then
bade his Apostles " do this" in remembrance of Him, to what
other reasonable conclusion can we come, but that He meant
them "to bless and give thanks over, as well as to distribute,
the elements, in remembrance of Him." But he who considers
how constantly in the Septuagint (the version of the Old
Testament most frequently cited in the New) the word Troiiw,
which we here translate " do," is used to express " offer," or
" sacrifice :" as in Exodus x. 25, " which we may sacrifice,"
TToiriaoiisv : xxix. 36, " thou shalt offer," -iroinryiig : 38, " thou
shalt offer," ¦TTOLrtrrug : 39, " thou shalt offer," iroirjanQ : 41, " thou
shalt offer," -n-onicrug : Levit. vi. 22, " the priest shall offer it,"
TToiricTH : ix. 7, " offer thy sin-offering," 7roir)(7ov : " offer the
offering of the people," ¦n-oiri<Tov : v. 16, " he offered it," tTroiijo-ev:
and so in innumerable places : and considers also that the
Hebrew r\)D]^ (which is rendered in the Septuagint, in these and
other passages expressive of off'ering or sacrifice by the word
Trodio) has the like combined force of " do " and " sacrifice ' :"
and considers further how the ancient writers of the Church

' I speak here on the authority of others : being myself, I am sorry to say, no
Hebraist.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 19
interpret our Lord's term -n-oiuTt, as signifying oblation. Thus
Justin Martyr speaks,
" The oblation of flour commanded to be offered by those who were
cleansed of leprosy, was a type of the bread of the holy Eucharist, which our
Lord commanded us to offer {iroulv) in remembrance of his passion."
He, I say, who will consider these things, (which the late
learned Bishop Jolly of Moray, and before him the learned Dr.
Hickes and others, have much illustrated,) will not think that
that man acts without reason, who considers our Lord's words
here as intimating, not obscurely, one portion of the priestly
office with which He invested his Apostles.
II. Your denial of the Christian Priesthood is the next point
to which I desire to call your attention.
Your denial is explicit : " The Christian Church was abso
lutely and entirely, at aU times, and in all places, to be without
a human Priesthood '." And again, you speak of " the antichrist
of Priesthood ^" Your assertion, taken literally, amounts to an
absolute and entire denial of the human nature of our Lord.
But as I am not aware of there being any other ground for
believing you to hold the Eutychian heresy, I suppose by your
absolute and entire denial of a human Priesthood, you only
mean any besides that which our great High Priest, our kins
man according to the flesh, first exercised on earth, and now
continueth still to exercise in heaven, on our behalf, until the
consummation of aU things. Beyond this, at aU events your
denial is absolute ; as absolute in respect of the Apostles them
selves, as in respect of any who claim to be their successors.
You have appealed to the Scriptures ; to the Scriptures let
us go : and if Prophet, Evangelist, and Apostle, all with one
mouth uniting to testify the contrary to your affirmation, may
avail, under God's blessing, to bring conviction to your mind,
I wfll not despair of hearing it said of you, as it was said of
one before you, "he now preacheth the faith which once he
destroyed." It may help to elucidate the matter, if we come to a clear
understanding respecting the meaning of the term : Priest,
hpsvg, sacerdos : for you inform us, P. Ixix. that it is of the
IspBvg, and not of the irpEafivTepoQ, that your denial is to be
1 P. xlix. ' P. Iii.
B 2

20 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
understood. By Priest [Ispsvc), according to the Scriptures, is
meant, either, I. One who ministers to God, in the name and on
the behalf of the congregation ; " ordained for men in things per
taining to God, that he may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins ' ;"
" ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices ^ ;" " to offer upon my
altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me\" Or,
II. One who ministers to the congregation in the name and on
the behalf of God;" "to stand before the Lord, to minister unto
him, and to bless in his name*;" "to minister unto the Lord
thy God, to bless in his name * ;" " to minister in the name of
the Lord "." The authority for exercising both parts of this
office is expressly declared to be from God, in every place here
.cited. Thus in Deuteronomy : "TheLord separated the tribe
of Levi to minister unto him, to bless in his name." In
Samuel : " / chose him out of all the tribes of Israel to offer
upon my altar." In Hebrews : " No man taketh this honour
unto himself, but he that is called of God." Hence it is reason
able to infer, that wherever an altar is spoken of, some one
ordained of God to offer at that altar, i. e. a Priest, is implied :
and that wherever offering or sacrifice is named, there also is im
plied some one ordained of God, i. e. a Priest, to make or do
that offering or sacrifice. Nor, apparently, is the question at all
affected by the nature of the offering ; whether it be bloody
or unbloody ; material or aerial ; earthly or spiritual ; expiatory
or impetratory; real or figurative; actual or commemorative:
whether it be animal or vegetable; the smoke of incense or
the breath of praise ; the fruit of the earth or the fruit of the
lips : whoever makes, does, or offers any sacrifices before the
Lord, in the name and in the behalf of the congregation of the
Lord, does actually exercise the office of a priest before Him •
if with an appointment from God, then quoad hoc according to
God's will : but if without such appointment, then (to speak
generally, for God can make exceptions, though man may not)
in a manner unacceptable to God, and apparently highly dan
gerous to himself.
In like manner, whoever ministers blessing to the people in
the name of the Lord, does exercise the office of a Priest before

' Heb. V. 1. 2 Heb. viii. 3. a 1 Sam. ii. 28. • Deut. x. 8.
» Deut. xxi. 5. ' Deut. xviii. 5. 7.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 21
Him ; according to God's law, if by appointment from Him ;
but (to speak generally again) contrary to God's law, if without
such appointment.
Let us, then, in respect of the first branch of the priestly
office, — the ministering unto the Lord, in the name and on the
behalf of men,— see in the Prophets an altar, offerings, and
priesthood spoken of as to exist under the Christian dispensa
tion, when the Gentiles (by whatever name known) should be
converted to the Lord.
" In that day shaU there be an altar to the Lord in the midst
of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the
Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the
Lord of Hosts in the land of Egypt : for they shafl cry unto
the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a
Saviour and a Great One, and he shall deliver them. And the
Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know
the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation '."
" For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that
they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with
one consent. From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppli
cants, even the daughters of my dispersed, shall bring mine
offering ^"
" Give unto the Lord O ye kindred of the people, give unto
the Lord glory and strength. Give unto the Lord the glory
due unto his name ; bring an offering, and come into his courts^"
" The * daughter of Tyre shall be there with a gift '."
" He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the
rivers unto the ends of the earth. They that dwell in the wil
derness shall kneel before him, his enemies shall lick the dust.
The kings of Tharshish and of the Isles shall bring presents ;
the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts *."
" From the rising ofthe sun even unto the going down of the
same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles ; and in every
place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering.
For my name shall be great among the Heathen, saith the Lord
of Hosts'."
" He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver ; and he shall
' Isaiah xix. 19—21. ' Zephaniah iii. 9, 10. ' Psalm xlv. 12.
* This Psalm has been expressly applied to Christ by St. Paul. Heb. i.
s Psalm xcvi. 7, 8. " Psalm Ixxii. 8—10. ' Malaehi 1. 11.

22 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver,
that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.
Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto
theLord'." " Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of
the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But
ye shall be named the Priests of the Lord ; men shall caU you
the Ministers of our God''."
" They shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the
Lord out of aU nations, upon horses and in chariots, and in
litters, and upon mules, and upon swift beasts, to my holy
mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord ; as the children of Israel
bring an offering in a clean vessel unto the house of the Lord.
And / will also take of them for Priests and for Levites, saith the
Lord^" " He that hath ears to hear let him hear," and consider whe
ther this frequently recurring mention of altar, offerings, and
Priests, in prophecies relating (as in part we are assured by
divine testimony, and as in general they have been received to
relate) to the times of the Christian dispensation, does not
afford a considerable eIkoc or probability in favour of that view
of the Christian dispensation which considers it as marked with
the characteristics of God's worship, altar. Priest, and offering,
which we find to have obtained in all the earlier dispensations.
Let it further be considered, that in most of the places cited
above, the term used to express offering is " mincha," the same
which is employed to designate the offering of bread and wine.
Come we now to the Evangelists : and here we find our
blessed Lord, in giving instructions to his disciples for their
pure worship in spirit and in truth, teaching them in these
words, — " If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remem-
berest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy
gift before the altar, and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy
brother, and then come and offer thy gift *." Thus plainly inti
mating, that his followers would have their altar, and their gifts
to offer on it, as the Prophets before had foretold.
And when He instituted that which you call " the one perpe-
' Malaehi iii. 3, 4.
^ Our Lord himself applied the prophecies in this chapter to his own dispen
sation. Isaiah Ixi. 5, 6. ^ Isaiah Ixvi. 20, 21. * Matt. v. 23, 24.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 23
tual ordinance of the Christian Church," in what do we find
Him instituting it ? In what but in bread and wine, the very
elements of that mincha which the Prophets of old had declared
should be offered under the Christian dispensation by the Gen
tiles on their conversion. Nor was it only in the elements of
the mincha that our Lord instituted this chief act of Christian
worship : it was in the mincha itself. For our Lord instituted
it in the bread and wine which formed part of the Feast of the
Passover. But the Passover, as the Scriptures expressly
declare, was a sacrifice : " It is the sacrifice of the Lord's Pass
over'." And again: "The sacrifice of the Feast of the
Passover ^." And if it had not been so, then St. Paul's expres
sion concerning our Lord, — " Christ our Passover is sacrificed
for us, therefore let us keep the feast ' ;" — would have been less
appropriate than we see it to have been. But if the Paschal
Feast was a sacrifice, or a feast upon a sacrifice, then the bread
and wine used in it formed part of the sacrifice : in other words,
actually were the mincha, the bread and drink offering which
accompanied the oblation of the lamb. Hence it appears, that
our Lord instituted the Eucharist in the mincha, that is to say,
in bread and wine offered in sacrifice to God ; and that in what
ever sense the Scriptures declare the Passover to be a sacrifice,
— whether in the same sense or not as the other sacrifices of
the Mosaic law, I will not dispute *, — in that sense are we war
ranted in affirming the Eucharist to be a sacrifice.
But to offer bread and wine, or any gifts before the Lord, is
' Exod. xii. 27. 2 Exod. xxxiv. 25. = 1 Cor. v. 7.
* I use this expression in reference to a remarkable passage in a living writer,
who lays it down that the Passover was the type of the Eucharist ; the Eucharist
the antitype of the Passover : and argues that the antitype must partake of the
nature of the type. Still he is averse to admitting the Eucharist to be a sacrifice.
But how, it will be asked, does he avoid the apparently unavoidable conclusion
from his own premises ? First, by denying altogether the sacrificial character of
the Passover, which he speaks of as "in no one single respect bearing the charac
teristics of a sacrificial rite in the usual acceptation of the term :" and then, when
reminded of the express application of the very term " sacrifice " to it in the
Scriptures, saying " that no analogy is intended in the Scripture to be implied
between the Passover and the sacrificial institutions of the Levitical law." I
suppose he means, that though the Passover was a sacrifice, it was not a sacrifice
of the same kind as the other Mosaic sacrifices. But the immediate question is
not in what sense it was a sacrifice, but whether in any : for if it was a sacrifice
in any sense, then he himself will assist us to maintain that the Eucharist must be
a sacrifice also. See Shuttleworth, "Not Tradition but Scripture," p. 144.

24 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
an act of priesthood ; so St. Paul tells us ' : nor, as he like
wise teaches us, in accordance with the rest of Scripture, ought
any man to take this honour to himself, unless he be called of
God for the purpose, as Aaron was. Agreeably to which prin
ciple, we find our Lord entrusting the celebration of this service,
— the making, doing, or offering this service before the Lord, —
to those whom He had expressly called out of the number of
his disciples : and in giving them this commission. He used
(whether intentionally or not, let profane men dispute if they
please) the very term (TrotEirE) which, from its use in the Septua
gint, and the use of its equivalent in the Hebrew, He probably
and naturally would have used if He had intended to express
"sacrifice" or "offer."
Let us come now to the Apostles, and we shall find St. Paul
not only drawing a close comparison between the Lord's table,
and the tables or altars ofthe heathen deities^, on which Bishop
Andrews acutely remarks, "We know the rule of compari
sons, they must be ejusdem generis -" but we find him also ex
pressly calling that board at which Christians make their sacred
feast, by the name of altar. " We have an altar, whereof they
have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle "." Both which
passages necessarily imply gifts or offerings ; and priests to mi
nister and to guard the holy service. We have St. Paul affirm
ing that the heavenly things, i. e. persons under the Christian
dispensation, the Christian people should be purified by " better
sacrifices *," than those of the Mosaic dispensation, and are at
liberty to understand him as speaking of the bread of the
Eucharist and the wine of the Eucharist, whereby they have
communion in the body and blood of Him through whom
alone there is remission of sins. We have it recorded in the
Acts of the Apostles that certain persons named prophets and
teachers " ministered unto the Lord ^;" the very act which is
spoken of as one of priesthood, in Deuteronomy ^. We have St.
Peter speaking of the spiritual sacrifices ' which Christian people
should offer, and may apply that term to the oblation in the
Holy Eucharist ; spiritual, " as sanctified by the Holy Ghost ;"
spiritual, as offered for spiritual purposes; and fed upon for

> Heb. V. 1 ; viii. 3. ^ 1 Cor. .%. 21. ' Heb. xiii. 10. ' Heb. ix. 23.
s .\cts xiii. 2. ^ Deut. a. 8. ' 1 Pet. ii. 5.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 25
spiritual benefits and effects. To return to St. Paul, we find
him directing that intercessions, prayers, and thanksgivings
(Eucharists) be made (the same word which is used to express
offered) for all men ' ; this necessarily implies some one to make
or offer them. We find him enjoining that we should fulfil the
prophecy of Hosea, and offer to God continually " the fruit V
or, as Hosea calls it, " the calves of our lips '," the sacrifices of
praise and thanksgiving; but that these were to be done by
some one ministering in the name and on the behalf of the con
gregation, we find from the instruction given that they should
be done in a tongue understood by the people ; else, as he asks,
"how shafl he that occupieth the room of the "private Christian
or layman, tStwrrje, which our translation calls " unlearned, say
amen at thy giving of thanks*?"
Hitherto we have only considered the scriptural testimonies
to the existence of a Priesthood under the Gospel, in that
branch of the priestly office which consists in ministering unto
the Lord, in the name and on the behalf of his people. Let us
next consider the testimony which the Scriptures give to the
other branch of the office which consists in ministering unto
the Lord's people, in the name and on the behalf of God. If
to be " ambassadors for Christy to men ; if to be "put intrust
with the GospeP;" if to exercise "the ministry of reconciliation,"
committed to them'; if to convey "the remission of sins," "with
the washing of water by the wordV if to "minister the Spirit';''
if to convey, ^'the gift ofthe Holy Ghost'"," by imposition of
hands; if to give "thecommunion ofthe bodyandbloodof Christ","
by distributing the hallowed bread and wine in the Eucharist.
If aU these be not acts of actual Priesthood, according to God's
own definition of the meaning of that term in Deuteronomy,
under the Priesthood of Aaron, only of a far more transcendant
kind, fruits of " a more excellent ministry '^" than that of Aaron,
there is no meaning in words ; but all these are asserted and
claimed for the Apostles in those very Scriptures to which you
appeal. Claimed and exercised by men, (attested at the first,
for the more confirmation of the faith, by outward miracles,)
1 1 Tim. ii. 1. ' Heb. xiii. 15. ' Hos. xiv. 2. * 1 Cor. xiv. 16.
5 2 Cor. V. 20. * 1 Thess. ii. 4. ' 2 Cor. v. 18.
8 Acts ii. 43. Eph. v. 26. ' Gal. iii. 5.
>» Acts viii. 18. Heb. vi. 2. 4. " 1 Cor. *. 16. " Heb. viii. 6.

26 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
acts of a human Priesthood, Consider the third chapter of the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians. What is the whole drift
and purpose of the Apostle in it and the succeeding chapters ?
Not only to assert the existence of a Christian Priesthood in his
own human person and that of others, — not of themselves,
indeed, for he says, " we are not sufficient of ourselves to think
any thing as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who
hath also made us sufficient (iKavoxrEv riixao) ministers of the
New Testament ;" — but also to claim for their human Priesthood
under the New Testament, in the eye of Christian faith, a greater
glory than that which belonged to Moses, when the rays of
Divine glory shone from his face in the carnal eyes of the
Israelites: as he asks, "If the ministry (SioKovia') ofdeath . . ,
was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly
behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, . . .
how shall not the ministry of the Spirit exceed in glory ?" And
upon what does he rest this awful claim ? His argument is
this : " God, on Mount Sinai, by means of Moses, ministered
the Law which serves to condemnation and death : He now, in
the Church, by means of the Apostles, ministers the Holy
Spirit for righteousness and life. The Christian Priesthood
must therefore be more glorious than that of Moses ^" But
was Moses a Priest ? Even so says the Holy Scripture :
" Moses and Aaron among his priests" i^LiQtvaiv^). We have,
then, St. Paul's authority for asserting, under the Christian
dispensation, the existence of a human Priesthood, not only
equal, but superior, to that of Moses. But if nothing will remove
your doubt but the use of the very term, then hear the Apostle
of the Gentiles, expressly claiming for himself that very title,
which it seems to you a mark of Anti-Christ to claim for any
man ; our translation indeed only uses the word " ministering,"
but I need not teU you that the term employed by the Apostle
hfjovQ'-/ovvTa, does mean exercising the office of a Priest,
" doing the work of a Priest as regards the Gospel of God, that
the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable to God,
being sanctified by the Holy Ghost*." Whether by the offer
ing up of the Gentiles He means the dedication of them in
1 Compare ch. iv. 1. — .Vets i. 17- 25. ^ Compare verses 3. 6. ^ — 11.
3 Ps. xcix. 6. * Rom. xv. 16.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 27
baptism ; or their " pure offering," when in fulfilment of the
prophecy of Malaehi, they offer the pure offering in the perpe
tual ordinance of the Christian Church — the spiritual sacrifice,
sanctified by the Holy Ghost, — though a question of interest,
does not immediately affect the point before us. It is enough
for our purpose to consider that as in other places the Apostle
claimed the authority from God for acts of Priesthood, so here
he claims the style of Priesthood, and that as he says in the
preceding verse, out of " the grace that is given me by God."
Add to this the testimony of St. Peter, who addresses the Chris
tians in the very same terms in which Moses addressed the
Israelites, " a holy priesthood," " a royal priesthood' ;" terms
applicable and inteUigible enough when spoken of a community,
the chief officers of which are Priests (as we have seen it
foretold by Isaiah of the Christian dispensation, "I will take
of them for Priests and for Levites ") ; but, surely, not so rele
vant if spoken of one in which there are none. Add also the
testimony of St. John, " He hath made us kings and priests
unto God and his Father ;" " Thou hast made us unto our God
kings and priests'." And in whatever sense we understand
these words, still here we have these divinely inspired witnesses
all testifying in so many words to the truth and reality of the
existence of a human Priesthood, which you have been led so
utterly and entirely to deny ; " the Christian Church was abso
lutely and entirely, at aU times and in all places, to be without
a human Priesthood." They witness to the Divine institution
of that which you have been led to term Anti-Christian, " the
Anti-Christ of Priesthood." But " in the mouth of two or three
witnesses shall every word be established :" and the practical
comment upon all these Scripture-warrants is to be found in
the testimony of the Church from the beginning, and in all its
branches. Eastern and Western, Southern and Northern ; some
slight portion of which I have given above ^.
Your denial being thus absolute and entire, I have scarcely
warrant to pursue the investigation as in respect of any quali
fication of that denial, to which it may, not improbably, be con
jectured that you may wish to have recourse. Still there is one
point, which, if one may judge from the general drift of your
' I Pet. ii. 5. 9, compare Exod. xix. 6. •' Kev. i. 6, v. 10. ^ pp 9_ii_

28 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
Introduction, forms so much the key to some, at least, of the
difference existing between us, that it may be as well to notice
it. For that which apparently actuates you is a jealousy,
which may well be considered a godly jealousy, for the rights
and influence of the laity ; under the force of which it is rea
sonable to expect that you will ask. Is it meant to exclude the
people from this Priesthood ? No more than it is meant to
exclude the people from the kingdom. In their several stations,
in their due order and subordination, they help to form both
the Priesthood and the kingdom, assist and join in many of the
immediate acts of priestly service, e. g. by saying Amen at the
giving of thanks ', as they do by their consent and approval in
all acts of kingly government. Moreover, I have here spoken
only ofthe public worship of God : the ministering to Him in the
assembly of the saints. In private devotions ; and in that, with
out which all outward services are valueless, as regards the indi
vidual, and which all outward services, whether public or pri
vate, are designed to represent, that which the Psalmist calls
" an offering of a free heart," every man, under the Holy Spirit,
must needs be a priest unto himself.
But at p. li. you suggest another difficulty ; and, conceiving
that the Priesthood claimed is "neither after the order of Aaron,
nor yet of Melchizedek," you affirm it to be " unlawful alike
under the law and the Gospel." If you are correct in your
premises, your conclusion apparently would be legitimate, and
that our Priesthood is not after the order of Aaron will be ad
mitted without gainsaying ; but that it also is not after the
order of Melchizedek, cannot be so readily granted. What
act of Priesthood recorded of Melchizedek is wanting among
us ? What acts of Priesthood exercised by him have the Scrip
tures recorded? Simply these, that he celebrated the sacred
feast in bread and wine, and blessed him who had the promises
and who fed thereon. What short of this does every Christian
Presbyter, or Bishop do, who celebrates the holy Eucharist in
bread and wine, and blesses the faithful, the heirs of promise,
who feed thereon? "The Priesthood" is "changed," saith St.
Paul ; he does not say destroyed.
This is undeniable, that in the Christian Church there has
' I Cor. xiv. 16.

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 39
been from the beginning and continues to this present day, a
body of men set apart to be " ministers of Christ, and stewards
of the mysteries of God," who actually do perform acts, which
according to the scriptural definition of Priesthood, are acts of
Priesthood. Consider how many such acts are to be found in
the single service of the Eucharist. Take it as celebrated in our
English Churches ; and first, of those acts of Priesthood which
are for the people to Godward, observe these four, to name no
others : — 1st, the verbal dedicatioli- of the people, "themselves,
their souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacri
fice " to the Lord, pronounced by the Priest alone ; the people
saying, "Amen." 2nd. The verbal sacrifice of thanksgiving, —
" the fruit of the lips," or " the calves of the lips :" " It is very
meet, right, and our bounden duty, that we should at all times,
and in all places, give thanks unto Thee : therefore with angels
and archangels," &c. — which the Priest presents before the Lord,
the people following either audibly or in silence. 3rd. The
presentation of the alms of the people : which " the Priest shall
humbly present and place upon the holy table." 4th. The
presentation of the fruits of the earth : bread and wine : the
mincha, or pure offering, ofthe prophets : "the best and purest
wheat bread," — as our Rubric prescribes, agreeably with the
direction of the Scriptures, that the meat-offering should be of
" fine flour :" which the Priest is directed to place upon the
table, and to consecrate by prayer to God. And of those acts
of Priesthood which are to the people from God, observe these
two : the pronunciation of " Absolution " in the name of God,
after the Confession ; and the pronunciation of " Blessing," at
the end of the service, in the name of the Lord. Here, then
we have considered, in one service, no less than six open acts of
Priesthood, according to the Scriptural definition of that office,
which has been cited above : open acts of Priesthood which may
be seen or heard of all men : and these without taking into account
the more hidden and mysterious acts which are recognised by
faith alone, — to wit, the Commemoration of the blessed Sacrifice
upon the Cross, whence this our holy service is commonly de
noted a Commemorative Sacrifice; — and the representation of
that continual act of intercession, which our great High Priest,
who is passed into the heavens .... now to appear in the

(e

30 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
presence of God for us ... . ever liveth to make " in our be
half; whence the terms figurative or representative are also
applied to our service : these being for the people to God-ward.
And also the Communication, "verily and indeed," of "the
spiritual food of the most blessed Body and Blood of Christ,"
to the faithful people, in the administration of the bread and
wine by the Priest : this being to the people from God. But,
though I would not pass these by without notice, lest my
silence should be misconstrued ; yet, in this argument, I will
not insist upon them. It is enough to have pointed out the
first six outward, open, and — according to the Scriptural defini
tions — undeniable acts of Priesthood constantly performed by
our ministers in the celebration of this holy and abiding Ordi
nance ofthe Gospel.
Nor is the question at all affected by that which you touch
upon in your note : namely, the sense in which the framers of
our Liturgy used the word " Priest." " A rose, call it by any
other name, will smell as sweet :" and he, who, in the public
service of God, performs acts which God himself has declared
to be acts of Priesthood, does exercise the office of a Priest, call
him by what name you please : as the board at which the gifts
of God's worshippers are presented in the public service must
be an altar, however unwilling any may be to allow the term.
Stfll, seeing that the " English word Priest has two significa
tions," is it not something like begging the question, for you,
without warrant or ground assigned, peremptorily to declare,
that, in the Rubrics of our service, the framers of our Liturgy,
in using the word " Priest," did not intend to express the
sacerdotal officer — hpsvg, or sacerdos, — but only Presbyter?
Possibly, it is so as you state : but unless we had some author
ised version of the Prayer Book in Greek or Latin, we seem to
have no warrant for speaking beyond conjecture upon the sub
ject. This, however, may be observed, that the authors and
publishers of the Greek edition of our Prayer Book, printed at
Cambridge by Field, the University printer, in 1665, were not
of your opinion : for there, in the Communion-office, wherever
our English service has " Priest," it is rendered into Greek, not
by irpei7J3vT£pog, but by uptvg.
Priest, who can approach to God in his own right — Mediator,
12

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 31
who can plead his own goodness — Sacrifice, available by its own
merit, — there has been but One since the foundation of the
world : even the man Christ Jesus, himself Priest, Sacrifice,
and Mediator. The Christian ministry, which by its acts is
shown to be a Priesthood according to the Scriptures, as it is
also so designated by them, in so far as it is exercised on the
behalf of men towards God, knows no other access than through
Him, pleads no other merits but His, owns no Mediator but
Him ; and, in so far as it is exercised in God's behalf towards
men, does no more than minister or distribute upon earth the
things which He — the great High Priest — has procured, and
does procure in heaven.
As regards the communion of saints, as regards acceptable-
ness with God, bishop, presbyter, deacon, and layman, — all are
equal : God knows no difference among his adopted children,
but in proportion as with singleness of heart they draw near to
Him through Jesus Christ. But, as regards the duties laid
upon them, the responsibility required of them, there is a
difference, as our Ordinal speaks : " by his Holy Spirit He hath
appointed diverse orders in his Church." The greatest and
highest being that which ministers or serves to the wants of all
the rest in spiritual things : as it is written, " Whosoever will
be great among you, let him be your minister ; and whosoever
will be chief among you, let him be your servant : even as the
Son of Man came not to be ministered to, but to minister '."
Or, as it is in St. Luke : " He that is greatest among you, let
him be as the younger ; and he that is chief, as he that doth
serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he
that serveth ? is not he that sitteth at meat ? But I am among
you as he that serveth ^"
What I have contended for are these : first, the fact, that
there is, and — as the Scriptures testify — has ever been, in the
Christian Church, a body of men exercising acts, which the
Scriptures designate as acts of Priesthood: secondly, the
belief, that, in so doing, they have not — as you, being one
of the number, seem to fear — been serving Antichrist; but,
— as we, against whom you write, devoutly hope and believe,
• Matt. XX. 26—28. ^ Lu^e xxu. 26, 27.

32 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
and have, as we think, prophets, evangelists, and apostles,
to confirm that hope and faith,— been doing the work and
will of God.
I am not aware of a single individual who would contend for
more in this behalf than I have here set forth : I am not without
hope that, when you find it is no more, it wfll cease to be
as objectionable in your eyes as it must have been when you
wrote your Introduction.
III. The only other point in your Introduction which seems
to call for notice, is your fancy, for it is no more, that the
system we seek to uphold is the same as that which was tried
and failed in the ages prior to the Reformation. That I may
not do you injustice, I quote your words at length. " The
system which they hold up .... is a remedy which has been
tried once already : and its failure was so palpable, that all the
evil of the eighteenth century was but the reaction from that
enormous evil which this remedy, if it be one, had at any rate
been powerless to cure. Apostolical succession, the dignity of
the Clergy, the authority of the Church, were triumphantly
maintained for several centuries ; and their full development
was coincident, to say the least, with the corruption alike of
Christ's religion and Christ's Church. So far were they from
tending to realise the promises of prophecy, to perfect Christ's
body, up to the measure of the stature of Christ's own fulness,
that Christ's Church declined during their ascendancy more and
more ; she fell aside from truth and holiness ; and these doc
trines, if they did not cause the evil, were at least unable to
restrain it '. For in whatever points the fifteenth century dif
fered from the fourth, it cannot be said that it upheld the
Apostolical succession less peremptorily, or attached a less
value to Church tradition and Church authority. I am greatly
understating the case, but I am content for the present to do
so : I will not say that Mr. Newman's favourite doctrines were
the very Antichrist which corrupted Christianity ; I will only
say that they did not prevent its corruption, — that when they

' Will not this argument go farther than even you yourself would wish ? e.g_
were not the essential truths of Religion, the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation,
Judgment to come, &c. all strenuously upheld in these times ?

LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD. 33
were most exalted. Christian truth and Christian goodness were
most depressed '."
When difference shall cease between u^sus and abusus ; when
Birmingham counterfeits shall be equivalent to the coin of the
realm ; then, and not till then, can I consent to yield to your
assertions, written apparently under misconception.
Surely nothing but over-haste or over-anxiety could have led
you to confound things so extremely different as the system of
ecclesiastical government for which we contend, with that which
obtained in the ages of which you speak ; the grounds for Chris
tian doctrine put forth by us, with those put forth in those
times. The system of ecclesiastical government contempo
raneous with the corruptions you denounce, was one in which
one bishop, in the name of St. Peter, had usurped authority
over all others, who were little, if anything, better than his
vassals, slaves, and delegates, bound to him by oaths almost as
abject as human words could frame. The system we hold to be
sacred is that which we find in the Scriptures, where all who
under Christ exercised the chief rule on earth in his Church
were equal ; and the first ^ member of that body, even St. Peter
himself, liable to, and receiving, open rebuke from the junior
member of the same body, St. Paul '. The faith for which we
contend is that which was once delivered unto the saints ; to
which the Catholic Church throughout the world has borne
witness; whose decrees in the general Councfls of Ephesus,
Chalcedon, and Constantinople, are as available in behalf of
Christian Kberty, against corrupt additions on the one hand, as
they are in behalf of Christian truth, against corrupt detractions
on the other. But the faith which obtained during the ages of
which you speak could be regulated by the Bishop of Rome
alone, for whom it was openly contended in the Council of
Florence, that he had authority to add to the articles of neces
sary Christian faith * ; the fullest practical exercise of which
claim may be seen in the Creed of Pope Pius. Deference for
tradition we claim only in that proportion in which the existing
records of the Church afford reasonable ground for believing it
» Pp. xxviii. xxix. ' Matth. x. 2. 3 ^^1. ii. 11_14.
* Labbe and Cossart, xiii. 1028. C

34 LETTER TO DR. ARNOLD.
to have been from the beginning. Had such a principle
obtained in the times of which you speak, either the corruptions
of the fifteenth and preceding centuries would not have existed,
or the correction of them would not have occasioned the con
fusions of the sixteenth, which continue to this very day.
Sir, I write now, as always, under correction, desiring only to
uphold and bear witness to the truth, which God has dehvered,
and his Church has received. If in anything you can show
that I have perverted the truth, or stated that which is contrary
to it, rest assured that I will gladly retract what I have
advanced, and thank you also for assisting me to correct my
error. I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your very obedient Servant,
ARTHUR PERCEVAL.
East Horsley,
Aug. 5, 1841.
P. S. — I subjoin the letter which, in part at least, gave occa
sion to your " Introduction ;" herein complying with a request
which has reached me from several quarters that it should
be reprinted.

APPENDIX.

A Letter to the Editor of the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal on the Oxford
Movement.
Sir,
The sight of Mr. SewelPs letter in the Ecclesiastical Journal of November
last, has induced me, mth the hope of furthering the good work of recon
ciliation, to request permission to offer a word of explanation on a point
connected with the theological or ecclesiastical movement of which 0.x:-
ford has been the centre, which has given rise to much misunderstand
ing. I allude to the notion which has gone abroad, of there being, or
having been, some secret association, combination, or conspiracy, among
the original promoters of that movement, to alter the doctrine or disci-
phne of the Church of England, from that which is exhibited in her
authorized formularies. I believe the notion took its rise chiefly from
an expression in one of the letters in " Froude's Remains," vol. i. p.
377, where, writing to one of his friends, he observes, " Do you know, I
partly fear that you, and  , and  , are going to back out of the con
spiracy, and leave me and  to our fate ;" at least, I find this passage
referred to by the Margaret Professor, as the ground for imputing to the par
ties in question the design above-named. As I am myself the individual last
referred to by Mr. Froude, as likely, in his opinion, to continue steadfast
with him in " the conspiracy," even if deserted by others ; I may perhaps be
allowed as a competent witness to speak of the origin, nature, and extent of
the same. This, therefore, I proceed to state, and if there is any body of
men likely to receive that statement favourably, I venture to think it is the
body of the Irish clergy, when they shall be informed that that combination
and conspiracy had its rise in sympathy for their deep affliction, when, in
1833, their loyal obedience to the British Crown, their faithful testimony to
the truth, and their patient endurance of murderous persecution, were re
quited by the ministers of the day, with that wanton act of sacrilege, which
produced an outcry of shame from some, even of their bitterest enemies, I
mean the destruction of the ten bishoprics i. This monstrous act had the
1 See upon this subject, Mr. Keble's sermon at the Oxford Assizes, in July, 1833,
entitled " National Apostacy considered."
c 2

36 ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT.
effect of awakening some who till then had slumbered in the secure and easy
confidence that the Church had nothing to fear from the State, into whatever
hands the management of the latter might fall ; and it set those whose atten
tion had long been painfully alive to the diflSculties and dangers of the time,
upon considering whether some combined effort might not or could not be
made, with the hope, if possible, even at that late hour, to arrest that fatal
measure, or at any rate, to offer resistance to further outrage upon the Church
on either side of the Channel ; and, whether the resistance might or might
not be successful in arresting the evil, yet, at all events, to leave on record a
witness of the evil, and a protest against it. With this view three of the
parties alluded to in the passage of Froude's letter, given above, (Mr. Froude,
another, and myself,) met at the house of a common friend ', now no more,
in July of that year, to talk over matters, and consider what could be done.
And it being very clear, that the support which such a measure as the Irish
Church Bill had received in both Houses of Parliament, was to be attributed
to ignorance [or forgetfulness] of the constitution and nature of the Church j
ignorance [or forgetfulness] of its existence as a society distinct from the
State, and ignorance [or forgetfulness] of the Divine commission and autho
rity of government which its chief pastors had received, we came to the con
clusion, that the first and most necessary step to be taken for the defence and
preservation of the Church was, to revive in men's minds a practical recogni
tion of the truth set forth in the preface to the ordination service. On the
breaking up of our meeting, Mr. Froude and  returned to Oxford, from
whence, after they had consulted with the two others alluded to in the extract
cited above, I heard from them both, to the effect, that it was agreed we
should at once make a united effort, both by ourselves and as many as we
could by private or public appeal induce to exert themselves, in behalf of
these two points .- namely, first, the firm and practical maintenance of the doc
trine of the Apostolical Succession, so grievously outraged by the Irish
Church Act 2. Secondly, the preservation in its integrity of the Christian
doctrine in our prayer books, with a view to avert the Socinian leaven with
which we had reason to fear it would be tainted, by the parliamentary altera
tion of it, which at that time was openly talked of. These formed the whole
and sole basis of the agreement for united exertions then entered into by the
five individuals of whom Mr. Froude speaks. Nor was any extension of the
objects either agreed to or proposed at any subsequent period.
Appeal was forthwith extensively made to the members of the Church for

• Rev. H. J. Rose, then Rector of Hadleigh, in Suffolk. It is right to state that
Mr. Rose was not, as far as I know, in any way concerned with the proceedings
which took place subsequently to the meeting at Hadleigh, nor iu any way respon
sible for them. Indeed as late as the 18th of August, " the Oxford resolutions " as he
calls them in a letter of that date, now lying before me, had not been communicated
to him.
' When I say that the doctrine of Apostolical Succession was outraged by the
Irish Church Act, I mean that disregard was shown to the doctrine, as though it
had no foundation in truth.

ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 37
their support of these two objects : see below. And one of the first results
of " the conspiracy " was, the clerical address to the Archbishop of Canter
bury, signed by (I think) about 7,000 of the clergy ; and another was, the
lay declaration of attachment to the Church, signed by upwards of 230,000
heads of families. From which two events we may date the commencement
of the turn of the tide, which had threatened to overthrow our Church and
our religion.
Now, that it may not be supposed that this explanation is an afterthought,
or that I have in any way misrepresented the state of the case, I subjoin an
extract from the letter which I received from Mr. Froude after his return to
Oxford from the meeting of which I have spoken, and also the statements of
two others of "the conspirators" on the same subject.
Extract from Mr. Froude's Letter.
" Oriel College, Aug. 14, 1833.
" My DEAR Perceval,
" The impression left on my mind by my visit to Rose was, on the whole, a
gloomy one ; i. e. that in the present state of the country we have very poor
materials to work upon ; and that the only thing to be done is, to direct all
our efforts towards the dissemination of better principles.
"Since I have been back to Cxford, Keble has been here, and he,  and
Newman, have come to an agreement, that the points which ought to be put
forward by us are the following : —
" I. The doctrine of apostolic succession as a rule of practice ; i. e.
" (1.) That the participation of the body and blood of Christ is essential
to the maintenance of Christian life and hope in each individual.
" (2.) That it is conveyed to individual Christians only by the hands of the
successors of the Apostles and their delegates.
" (3.) That the successors of the Apostles are those who are descended in
a direct hue from them by the imposition of hands ; and that the dele
gates of these are the respective presbyters whom each has commis
sioned.
" II. That it is sinful voluntarily to allow the interference of persons or
bodies, not members of the Church, in matters spiritual.
" III. That it is desirable to make the Church more popular, as far as is
consistent with the maintenance of its apostolical character.
" Newman and  add, but Keble demurs.
" IV. We protest against all efforts directed to the subversion of existing
institutions, or to the separation of Church and State.
" V. We think it a duty steadily to contemplate and provide for the contin
gency of such a separation.
" Keble demurs to these, because he thinks the union of Church and
State, as it is now understood, actually sinful. In the next we all agree.
" VI. We hold it to be the duty of every clergyman to stir up his brother
clergy to the consideration of these and similar subjects, and if possible to
induce them to do the same."
Having expressed to my friends my concurrence in the objection, under
the existing aspect of the times, to any such pledge as that implied in the

38 ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT.
fourth section, considering, that unless the course then pursued and threat
ened by the State were altered, we had no alternative between separation' and
apostacy ; I received from one of them the following statement, dated Ox
ford, August 23, 1833.
" With respect to your observations, it seems to me that Froude has made
a mistake in sending you some articles which, on further discussion, we
thought it better not to introduce. The two principles of the society would
be — a firm maintenance of the apostolical succession, and a resolution to pre
serve the integrity of Christian doctrine in our Prayer Book, that is, not to
allow it to be watered down to Socinianism.
" Such would be simply the principles of the society."
From another of them (Mr. Newman) I received the following matured
account (drawn up by Mr. Keble), dated, Oxford, September 6, 1833.
" Considering, 1. That the only way of salvation is the partaking ofthe
body and blood of our sacrificed Redeemer.
" 2. That the mean expressly authorized by Him for that purpose is the
holy sacrament of His supper.
" 3. That the security by Him no less expressly authorized, for the continu
ance and due application of that sacrament, is the apostolical commission of
the bishops, and under them the presbyters of the Church.
" 4. That, under the present circumstances of the Church in England, there
is peculiar danger of these matters being slighted and practically disavowed,
and of numbers of Christians being left or tempted to precarious and unau
thorized ways of communion, which must terminate often in virtual apostacy.
" We desire to pledge ourselves one to another, reserving our canonical
obedience, as follows :
"1. To be on the watch for all opportunities of inculcating on all com
mitted to our charge, a due sense of the inestimable privilege of communion
with our Lord through the successors of the Apostles ; and of leading them
to the resolution to transmit it, by his blessing, unimpaired to their children.
" 2. To provide and circulate books and tracts which may tend to familiarize
the imaginations of men to the idea of an apostolical commission, to repre
sent to them the feelings and principles resulting from that doctrine in the
purest and earliest Churches, and especially to point out its fruits as exempli
fied in the practice of the primitive Christians ; their communion with each
other, however widely separated, and their resolute sufferings for the truth's
sake. "3. To do what lies in us towards reviving among Churchmen the prac
tice of daily common prayer, and more frequent participation of the Lord's
' Separation of the Church from the State, is here intended ; not of individuals
from the Church, as is supposed by the Edinburgh Review, April, 1841, p. 274.
It may be as well to observe, that none of these papers were formally signed or
approved by all the individuals alluded to. We were united in a common bond of
alarm, aud in a common resolution to exert ourselves to the utmost in defence of
those principles, to the neglect of which we ascribed the danger which alarmed us.
But neither did I consider my friends responsible for the course I took ; nor they
me for theirs.

ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 39
Supper. And whereas there seems great danger at present of attempts at
unauthorized and inconsiderate innovation, as in other matters so especially
in the service of our Church, we pledge ourselves ;
"4. To resist any attempt that may be made to alter the liturgy on in
sufficient authority ; i. e. without the exercise of the free and deliberate judg
ment of the Church on the alterations proposed.
" 5. It will also be one of our objects to place within the reach of all men
sound and true accounts of those points in our discipline and worship, which
may appear from time to time most likely to be misunderstood or underva
lued, and to suggest such measures as may promise to be most successful in
preserving them."
And thus. Sir, without the slightest reserve, have I given to the inspection
of my Irish brethren all the communications which I received on the princi
ples to be aimed at by the united effort, which, at that season of peril and
alarm, it was agreed to make, in defence of our Master's house, and of the
principles of truth and order on which it is founded ; and when the whole
affair is calmly weighed, it will amount to no more than this, namely, a stir
ring up of ourselves and others to an active and faithful discharge of duties,
which, by our very calling as members, and by our office as ministers of
the Church, were already binding upon us. It is but right to add,
that Dr. Pusey, who has been held in general estimation as responsible
for the whole affair, had nothing to do with the first promotion of the un
dertaking. With respect to the exceptions taken against many of the publications
which from various quarters were circulated, with the design of aiding the
attempt above named ; let any man consider how extremely difficult, if not
impossible, it would be for the most practised hands, in the calmest times,
and vrith the utmost deliberation, to produce a series of papers free from
real or supposed grounds of censure ; and then he will cease to wonder that
publications put forth in times of the greatest excitement, by hands for the
most part unpractised, and under the influence of the strongest apprehension
of real danger, should contain many things, which either as to matter, or
manner, or both, might have been better othenvise. When I offered objec
tions to some of the things which appeared, I received the following answer,
which, under the emergency of the case, satisfied me, and will, I think,
satisfy any dispassionate person who considers the subject in relation to that
emergency. It is dated, Oxford, July 20, 1834.
" As to the tracts, every one has his own taste. You object to some things,
another to others. If we altered to please every one the effect would be
spoiled. They were not intended as symbols i cathedra, but as the expres
sions of individual minds ; and individuals feehng strongly, while, on the one
hand, they are incidentally faulty in mode or language, are still peculiarly
effective. No great work was done. by a system; whereas systems rise out of
individual exertions. Luther was an individual. The very faults of an indi
vidual excite attention ; he loses, but his cause (if good, and he powerful-
minded) gains ; this is the way of things, we promote truth by a self-sacriflce.
There are many things in  's tract  which I could have wished said
12

40 ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT.
Otherwise for one reason or other ; but the whole was to my mind admira
ble, most persuasive, and striking."
In short, if those publications served the purpose of a rallying cry to the
friends of the Church ', if they have availed, directly or indirectly, to satisfy
men, that the Church in these kingdoms is not a creature of the State, pro
fessing merely a negation of certain errors, to be changed or modified to suit
the spirit of the age ; but that it is a divinely constituted society, with a di
vinely commissioned government, having fixed and heaven-descended prin
ciples, which being founded on immutable truth, can endure neither mutila
tion nor compromise, but must be defended and abided by in time, by those
who would secure in Christ the reward of eternity ; and in defence of which, if
need be, all suffering must be undergone. — If, I say, those publications have
at all availed, and in proportion as they have availed, under God, to impress
this view of sacred things on men's minds, and so to secure to those who
come after us, unimpaired, those blessings which have been transmitted to
us, they have answered the object of those who promoted the undertaking;
who will count so great a blessing cheaply purchased at the cost of the tem
porary misrepresentation, obloquy, and reproach, which it has been their lot
to bear in the prosecution of this good design.
In conclusion, I should request permission to offer one word in respect of
a publication, " Froude's Remains," which, more than any other, appears to
have been the occasion of the alarm and misrepresentation which has spread
respecting the designs of the promoters of the movement which had its rise
at Oxford ; and without expressing an opinion, as I am not called upon to
do, either as to the prudence or otherwise of the publication, or as to the
soundness or unsoundness of many of the views expressed in it, I would re
quest all, whether they approve or disapprove of the publishing it, whether
they admire or condemn the theological opinions contained in it, to bear this
in mind ; namely, that those volumes contain the expression of the workings
of a young and ardent mind, seeking after truth with a singleness of purpose,
and a noble disregard of all sublunary and temporary consequences, rarely to
be met with; doing that which most men are blamed for not doing, that is
to say, refusing to take things for granted to be true, because they were told
him, but striving to weigh all things in the balances of the sanctuary, and pre
pared to embrace truth wherever he should find it, at any and whatever
cost. That fervent zeal and highminded enthusiasm which shone from his eagle
eye, and formed the charm of his conversation, and has left so deep an
impression of affection to his memory in the minds of all who had the
privilege of his friendship, while they prompted him to a noble course of
great exertion, at the same time led him frequently to express himself, as is
apparent from his letters, hastily, upon imperfect information, and without
due consideration of all the bearings of the point before him. But he was
open to conviction, and ever ready to embrace that modification or alteration
' See on this point the Preface to the 2nd volume of " Tracts for the
Times."

ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 41
of any view he might previously have entertained, which, after due examina
tion, he was persuaded approached nearer to the truth. This is plain from
the letters published in his " Remains," which show what great modifications
of the view in which at first he had regarded the Church of Rome, he had
been led, upon more accurate information, to adopt. And this process was
going on until it pleased God to take him in the midst of his labours : for in
the very last letter which it was my privilege to receive from him, dated
Barbados, September 9, 1834, after having set forth, in his earnest zealous
way, his view of certain points of theology, in which he thought I needed
correction, he concluded with these words : " And now I have done with my
criticisms ; if you think them very wild, and have time to tell me so, it will
be a great satisfaction to me, for I feel as if thinking by myself had set my
wits rambling." In that same letter he expressed his opinion on the relative
position of the Church of England, in respect to Rome and other religious
communities ; which seems to me worthy of record.
" If I was to assign my reason for belonging to the Church of England, in
preference to any other religious community, it would be simply this, that
she has retained an apostolical clergy, and enacts no sinful terms of commu
nion ; whereas, on the one hand, the Romanists, though retaining an apostolical
clergy, do exact sinful terms of communion; and on the other, no other
religious community has retained such a clergy."
Moreover, let my deceased friend be tried by the publications for which
alone he is responsible, I mean those which he had himself prepared and
committed to the press, and from which his deliberate convictions are to be
ascertained ; and though many may find reason to differ in opinion with him,
they will, I think, find nothing to reprove. If his friends had confined them
selves to the two last volumes, they would, according to my judgment, have
done better justice to his memory, and better served the cause, in the defence
of which his life was consumed. But they acted, I doubt not, under the
conviction expressed by one of them, in the extract I have given above;
namely, that " individuals feeling strongly, while on the one hand they are
incidentally faulty in mode and language, are still peculiarly effective," that
" the very faults of an individual excite attention, he loses, but hig cause (if
good, and he powerful-minded) gains ; this is the way of things, we promote
truth by a self-sacrifice ;" and believing that both the matter and manner
exhibited in the frank and unreserved communications of their deceased
friend, were calculated to startle men from the apparent lethargy as to eccle
siastical principles, which seemed at that time so extensive, and to lead them
to inquire and examine on points, which though, according to our view,
essential and fundamental in the Christian system, seemed likely to be passed
by and set aside as things unworthy of notice, they were willing for the sake
of obtaining this inquiry and examination, which is all they asked, to hazard
not only the censure and suspicion, which would inevitably fall to their share,
but what was of far higher value in their sight, the temporary misunder
standing of their deceased friend's character, and the posthumous reproach
which (they could not but have foreseen) would be the (almost) necessary
consequence of the course which they adopted ; being sure that when they
D

42 ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT.
should meet him hereafter in the land of spirits, he who while living was
willing to sacrifice all for the sake of truth, would frankly forgive them for
having hazarded for a time his reputation among mortals, if by so doing they
had hope the better to promote those interests which are immortal.
I am Sir, your obedient Servant,
ARTHUR PERCEVAL.
Formerly of Oriel, now of All Souls
College, Oxford.
P. S. — To prevent misunderstanding, I think it right to add, with respect
to the " Tracts for the Times," that I am myself answerable for three of the
early Numbers, 23, 35, and 36, and for these only. My opinion as to some
of the later ones will be found in the British Magazine for May, 1839.

I.
The appeal, which I have stated to have been extensively made to the
members of the Church, in Autumn, 1833, was couched in the follow
ing :—
" Suggestions for the formation of an Association of Friends of the Church.
" It will readily be allowed by all refiecting persons, that events have
occurred within the last few years calculated to inspire the true members and
friends of the Church with the deepest uneasiness. The privilege possessed
by parties hostile to her doctrine, ritual, and polity, of legislating for her, —
their avowed and increasing efforts against her, — their close alliance with such
as openly reject the Christian faith, — and the lax and unsound principles of
many who profess and even think themselves her friends, — these things have
been displayed before our eyes, and sounded in our ears, until from their
very repetition we almost forget to regard them with alarm.
" The most obvious dangers are those which impend over the Church as
an Establishment ; but to these it is not here proposed to direct attention.
However necessary it may be, on the proper occasion, to resist all measures
which threaten the security of ecclesiastical property and privileges, still it is
felt that there are perils of a character more serious than those which beset
the political rights and the temporalties of the clergy ; and such, moreover,
as admit and justify a more active opposition to them on the part of indivi
dual members of the Church. Every one, who has become acquainted ^vith
the literature of the day, must have observed the sedulous attempts made in
various quarters to reconcile members of the Church to alterations in its
Doctrines and Discipline. Projects of change, which include the annihila
tion of our creeds and the removal of doctrinal statements incidentally con
tained in our worship, have been boldly and assiduously put forth. Our
services have been subjected to Ucentious criticisms, with a view of super-
12

ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. 43
seding some of them, and of entirely remodelling others. The very elemen
tary principles of our ritual and discipline have been rudely questioned. Our
apostolical polity has been ridiculed and denied.
" In ordinary times, such attempts might safely have been left to the
counter operation of the good sense and practical wisdom, hitherto so
distinguishing a feature in the Enghsh character : but the case is altered,
when account is taken of the spirit of the present age ; which is confessedly
disposed to regard points of religious behef with indifference, to sacrifice the
interests of truth to notions of temporary convenience, and to indulge in a
restless and intemperate desire of novelty and change.
" Under these circumstances, it has appeared expedient to members of
the Church, in various parts of the kingdom, to form themselves into, an
association on a few broad principles of union, which are calculated from
their simplicity to recommend themselves to the approbation and support
of Churchmen at large, and which may serve as the grounds of a defence
of the Church's best interests against the immediate difficulties of the
present day. They feel strongly, that no fear of the appearance of forward
ness on their part should dissuade them from a design, which seems to
be demanded of them by their affection towards that spiritual community,
to which they owe their hopes of the world to come, and by a sense of
duty to that God and Saviour who is its Founder and Defender. And
they adopt this method of respectfully inviting their brethren, both clergy
and laity, to take part in their undertaking.
" Objects of the Association.
" 1. To maintain pure and inviolate the doctrines, the services, and the
discipline of the Church ; that is, to withstand all change, which involves
the denial and suppression of doctrine, a departure from primitive practice in
religious offices, or innovation upon the apostolical prerogatives, order, and
commission of bishops, priests, and deacons.
" 2. To afford Churchmen an opportunity of exchanging their sentiments,
and co-operating together on a large scale."
It is right to state, (which I do on Mr. Newman's authority,) that Mr.
Froude disapproved of these suggestions, because he was strongly against
any society or association other than the Church itself : which objection,
striking many others with like force, occasioned the idea of any such
association to be speedily relinquished : only the necessity for increased
exertions, in their several legitimate stations and limits, was felt and
responded to by the bulk of those to whom the appeal was made.

II.
As eight years have elapsed since the address, above referred to, was
signed by the clergy, it may be interesting to many of them to know the

44 ON THE OXFORD MOVEMENT.
terms in which it was expressed. The following is a copy of it as circulated
among the clergy for their subscription : —
" To the Most Rev. Father iu God, William, by Divine Providence Lord
Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England.
" We, the undersigned clergy of England and Wales, are desirous of
approaching your Grace with the expression of our veneration for the sacred
office to which by Divine Providence you have been called, of our respect
and affection for your personal character and virtues, and of our gratitude
for the firmness and discretion which you have evinced in a season of
peculiar difficulty and danger.
" At a time, when events are daily passing before us which mark the
growth of latitudinarian sentiments, and the ignorance which prevails
concerning the spiritual claims of the Church, we are especially anxious
to lay before your Grace the assurance of our devoted adherence to the
apostolical doctrine and polity of the Church over which you preside, and of
which we are ministers ; and our deep-rooted attachment to that venerable
Liturgy, in which she has embodied, in the language of ancient piety, the
orthodox and primitive faith.
" And while we most earnestly deprecate that restless desire of change
which would rashly innovate in spiritual matters, we are not less solicitous
to declare our firm conviction, that should any thing, from the lapse of
years or altered circumstances, require renewal or correction, your Grace,
and our other spiritual rulers, may rely upon the cheerful co-operation and
dutiful support of the clergy, in carrying into effect any measures that may
tend to revive the discipline of ancient times, to strengthen the connection
between the bishops, clergy, and people, and to promote the purity, the
efficiency, and the unity of the Church."

THE END.

Gilbert & Rivingto.n", Printers, St. John's Square, London.

I IV, r

Ih '

't^i

M