Clo

se

MhaSZ C6

THE TENDENCY

« CHURCH PRINCIPLES, "

so CALLED,

TO ROMANISM:

PKOVED AND ILLUSTBATED EEOM THE EECENT PAMPHLET OE

EEV. WILLIAM PALMEK, AND EEOM DE. HOOK S

' CHDKCH DICTIONAKT.

BY REV. F. CLOSE, A.M.
Incumbent of Cheltenham. vj ^
Houtfon :
hatchard and son,
hamilton, adams, and co.
1843.

CHELTENHAM : PHINTED EY j; J. HADLBY,
Journal Office, Queen's Buildings.

THE
TENDENCY OF ''CHURCH PRINCIPLES,"
so CALLED,
TO EOMANISM.

A candid acknowledgment of " Existing tendencies to
RoiiANiSM," in the bosom of our Church, in the heart of a leading
University, among its most distinguished Scholars, Tutors, Divines,
and Professors — and this from the pen of one of themselves, — himself
one of the most learned, cautious, and withal amiable and conciliating
of their number, is an event of no common interest to the Church, and
affords a testimony which must be valid in the estimation of all parties.
The Rev. William Palmer, the friend and associate of Mr. Froude, Mr.
NeAvman, and Dr. Pusey, and an eye witness of the Theological
movement at Oxford, from its commencement, has been reluctantly
compelled by conscientious feelings to record, and to condemn in the
strongest manner the secession of some, and the tendency of others of his
friends, associates, or disciples, to secede to the Roman Apostacy. In
the execution of this painful duty he has depicted with great force the
extent of these wide spreading evils — and with every disposition not to
exaggerate them he has described a state of things calculated to awaken
and alarm every friend of Protestant Principles, whether within or with
out the pale of the Church of England.
Those who have from the beginning been opposed to his theologi
cal system have often been censured as alarmists, because they ventured
to predict the events which Mr. Palmer now so justly deplores  they
with him must now lament the fulfilment of their own predictions.

The object of Mr. Palmer's Pamphlet* which has just appeared, is
to rescue himself and certain others of his friends from the responsi
bility, and I might justly add, the guilt of having occasioned this
fearful inroad upon the safety of our Church. Attributing the
Romanizing tendencies of some of his friends to other causes, he
endeavours to show as well by a narrative of facts, as by a statement
of his views, that these deplorable defections have not been occasioned
by the Theological opinions of himself and some of his associates,
which opinions he calls "Church Peinciples." He reasonably
concludes that the public at large will be led to connect these defec
tions with his " Church Principles ;" a term so prominently avowed,
so tenaciously held, so perpetually harped upon by the party in ques
tion ; and he sets himself to the task, confessedly difficult, of discon
necting these lamentable results, from what would seem to be their
natural and immediate cause : — ^he labours " to clear those who uphold
Church Principles from the imputation of approving certain tendencies
towards Romanism." At this point then we join issue : — and it is
confessedly the object of the following pages to prove the converse of
his proposition, viz . : that what this respectable writer denominates
" Church Principles,'^ are the original and fruitful source of all those
" uncouth consequences" (as Bishop Hall would have called them)
which have followed each other in rapid succession.
But in order that we may keep in view the magnitude of the
question debated, let me pause here for a moment, and place before my
reader Mr. Palmer's own description of the present tendencies to
Romanism within the pale of the Church ; in fact in connexion with
the very persons whom he labours to uphold and defend.
" Within tlie last two or three years," he observes, " a new school has made its
appearance" —
He should rather have said a new race of scholars has sprung up, —
we shall find that the school is the same ; though the disciples may
have outrun their teachers.
* " .1 Narrative of Events connected with the publication of the Tracts for the Times,
Sic" By the RcT. Wm. PalniLi, A.M. of Worcester CoUege, Oxford. Parker, Oxford.

" The Church has unhappily had reason to feel the existence of a spirit of dissa
tisfaction with her principles, of enmity to her Beformers, of recklessness for her
interests. " 'We have seen in the same quarter a spirit of — almost servility and adulation
to Rome, an enthusiastic and exaggerated praise of its merits, an appeal to all deep
feelings and sympathies in its favour, a tendency to look to Rome as the model and
standard of all that is beautiful and correct in art, all that is sublime in poetry, all
that is elevated in devotion. So far has this system of adulation proceeded, that
translations from Romish rituals, and ' Devotions' have been published, in
which the very form of printing, and every other external peculiarity, have evinced
an earnest desire for imiformity with Rome. Romish Catechisms have been intro
duced, and form the models for similar compositions.
" In conversation remarks have been sometimes heard, indicating a disposition
to acknowledge the supremacy of the See of Rome, to give way to all its claims,
however extreme, to represent it as the conservative principle of religion and society
in various ages ; and in the same spirit, those who are in any way opposed to the
highest pitch of Roman usurpations are sometimes looked on as little better than
heretics. The Gallician and Greek Churches are considered unsound in their
ojjposition to the claims of Rome. The latter is held to be separated from Catholic
unity. The ' See of St. Peter' is described as the centre of that unity ; while our
state of separation from it is regarded, not merely as an evil, but a sin — a cause of
deep humiliation, a judgment for our sins ! The blame of separation, of schism, is
unscrupulously laid on the English Church ! Her reformers are denounced in the
most vehement terms. Every unjust insinuation, every hostile construction of their
conduct is indulged in ; no allowance is made for their difficulties, no attempt is
made to estimate the amount of errors which they had to oppose. Displeasure is
felt and expressed if any attempts are made to expose the errors, corruptions, and
idolatries approved in the Roman communion. Invocation of saints is sanctioned
in some quarters ; purgatory is Try no means unacceptable in others ; images and
crucifixes are purchased, and employed to aid in private devotion."
This in the bosom of a Protestant University !
" Celibacy of the clergy — auricular confession, are acknowledged to be obligatory.
Besides this, intimacies are formed with Somanists, and visits are paid to Romish
monasteries, colleges, and houses of worship. Romish controversialists are applauded
and complimented; their works are eagerly purchased and studied; and contrasts
are drawn between them and the defenders of the truths to the disadvantage of the
latter. The theory of development advocated In the writings of De Maistre and
Mohler (Roman Catholic controversialists), according to which the latest form of
Christianity is the most perfect, and the superstitions of the sixteenth or eighteenth

6
century are preferable to the purity of the early age.s, i.s openly sanctioned, advocated,
and avowed. In fine, menaces are held out to the Church, that if the spirit which
is thus evinced is not encouraged, if the Church of Englaud is not ' unprotestantized,'
if the Reformation is not forsaken and condemned, it may become the duty of those
who are already doubtful in their allegiance to the Anglo-Catholic communion, to
declare themselves openly on the side of its enemies." (pp. 44, 45.)
Then he adds —
" I have no disposition to exaggerate the facts of the case ; all who have had
occasion to observe the progress of events will acknowledge the truth of what has
been said."
In page 49 he continues : —
" It is now admitted on all hands, that there is a tendency to Romanism in
some quarters. The author of Tract 90 stated, that his object was to keep certain
persons from ' straggling in the direction of Rome.' Dr. Pusey has written at some
length on the ' acknowledged tendency of certain individuals in our Church to
Romanism ! Difficult as it has been for Churchmen to realize to themselves the
strange and almost incomprehensible fact, that any who had ever prof essed Church
principles should have a tendency to Romanism, they have been gradually and
reluctantly compelled to admit the lamentable truth. Actual secessions from the
Church, feiD, indeed," 
Few, indeed ! We may unhesitatingly aifirm that there have been
more secessions from the Church of England during the last ten years
than there had been in the previous fifty, or perhaps one hundred !
Eight or ten clergymen of our Church have publicly gone over to
Romanism ; several under-graduates have followed them ; while not a
few of the students of both oiu: universities have become deeply
tinged with popish principles — this is indeed " siifficiently alarming!" —
" A change of tone in private society ; and above all, the doctrine continually
and systematically advanced in the ' British Critic' can leave no further doubt of
the existence of the evil."
And at the close of his 4th chapter he acknowledges that the present
perils of the Church occasioned by this school of divines, are as immi
nent as they were in 1833, when the revolutionary principle threatened
her destruction.

" The dangers which now threaten us, are not inferior to those which surrounded
the Church in 1833 ; the tendency to latitudinarianism has been replaced by a
different, but not less dangerous tendency ; while the spirit of disatfection to the
Church has only taken a new form. It seems, therefore, a plain duty to hold out
some warning to those who might be in danger of being deceived."*

These, then, are the tremendous results which must have proceeded
from some adequate moving cause. What that cause may he is now
the subject of our investigation. Mr. Palmer solemnly abjures the
idea of any approximation towards Rome ; and he argues that his
Church Principles could never lead him in that direction. With this
object, he traces the history of the Oxford movement from its com
mencement to the present time. He states, that in the year 1833, an
attempt was made by himself and his friends to form an Association in
Oxford, in defence of the Church — their simple object being to arouse
her friends to a sense of the dangers which threatened her, and to pro
mote a combination in her favour. It is not necessary to my present
argument to foUow him through the various methods, which in
common with others, he adopted to promote these objects — nor to
examine the degree of success which attended their efibrts. Although
not a few persons wOl be siu^jrised to find Mr. Palmer and his asso
ciates taking credit to themselves for some combinations in defence of
the Church at that period which certainly originated from independent

* This alarmiug description of the present state and prospects of our Church (resulting
in some way or other from the Oxford movement) is singularly inconsistent with another
picture drawn by the same hand at p. 87 of this same pamphlet. " In conclusion, it is
impossible not to advert in a spirit of deep thankfulness to the prospects of the Church, and
the progress of Christian principles and practice. PVho shall say that much has not been
done within the last ten years? And what may we not humbly expect from the blessing;
of God on patient, and humble, and persevering endeavours for personal and general
improvement? A Theology deepened and invigorated; a Church daily awakening more
and more to a sense of her privileges and responsibilities ; a Clergy more zealous, more
self. denying, more holy; a laity more interested in the great concerns of time and
eternity; Churches more fully attended; sacraments and divine offices more frequently
and fervently partaken ; unexampled efforts to evangelize the multitudinous population of
our land, and to carry the word of God into the dark recesses of Heathenism." Mr.
Palmer appears to take the credit of these improvements to himself and his friends. He
must take the dangers and perils which have been created by his party along with them.
"The deepened Theology," together with "the Romish tendency and disaffection to our
Church." And we can only say—" Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet
waters and bitter .'"—James iii. 11.

sources. But contemporaneously with these measures, a much more
influential plan was struck out by some of Mr. Palmer's associates, and
actually commenced, during his temporary absence from the University.
The celebrated series of Tracts for ihe Times commenced in the autumn
of the same year, 1833. Of the character and tendency of these tracts,
Mr. Palmer appears to have stood in doubt from their very commence
ment. " I received these tracts which were published during my
absence, and aided in their distribution at first, because their general
tendency seemed good ; though I confess I was rather surprised at the
rapidity with which they were composed and published, without any
previous re^dsion or consultation." (p. 21.) During the autumn and
winter of that same year, Mr. Palmer resolved on totally disconnect
ing himself from those publications, to which, in fact, as an author, he
never contributed. He continued to watch their progress — and, as we
gather from his pamphlet — his disapprobation of them increased. He
perceived, " that the " Theology of the non-jurors, was exercising a
very powerful influence " over the writers of the tracts." — " Some of
" us felt deeply \measy on witnessing such questionable doctrine
" mingling itself with the salutary truths which we had associated
" to vindicate" — they "were driven to the verge of despair." — "Several
" leading friends of Church principles, such as Dr. HooJc, and Mr.
" Percival, felt themselves obliged at last publicly to announce their
" dissent on various points." (pages 24, 25.) Yet partly from love to
the individuals, and partly from approbation of the greater portion of
their writings, Mr. Palmer and others who thought with him, preferred
bearing the iriiputation of sanctioning what they did not approve,
than by an open secession to endanger a disruption of the party
with whom they acted. Their situation was doubtless sufiiciently
embarrassing. " We endured much of what we could not approve— exaggerated views of the
independence of the Church ; undue severity to the Reformers; too much praise of
Romish offices ; a depreciating tone in regard to our own ; not to speak of views on
' Sin after baptism,' the ' doctrine of Reserve,' and other points which were more
than questionable : but we were satisfied that the imputation of Romanism was
really unjust and unfounded ; and therefore we could not assume any hostile
imsitiou." (p. 43.)

9
At length, however, the extravagancies of some of the party reached
such a height, that Mr. P. could not conscientiously remain silent ;
— and seeing among his friends and their disciples, not only tendencies
to Romish doctrine, but actual secession to that communion, he could
forbear no longer, and the result is his present pamphlet ; in which,
while he exposes the deplorable consequences of these pernicious,
^TOtings, he endeavours to rescue the more sober of his friends from
the unenviable charge of originating them.
" The evil has been distinctly perceived fqr more than two years by some friends
of Church principles, who have been withheld from taking any decided and open
step in opposition, by the apprehension lest such a proceeding might have the effect
of precipitating events which they would deeply deplore. Is seems, however, that
there is more danger in continuing silent, when we perceive the increasing dissemi
nation of most erroneous and decidedly Romiinizing views, under the assumed name
of Church principles, and when the advocates of those principles are universally
identified with doctrines and practices which they most strongly disapprove."
(p. 49.)
It is only justice to Mr. Palmer to state, that he is far more anxious to
rescue his " Church Principles," than himself from the imputation of
Romish tendencies. Speaking of himself and his associates, he says —
" That any tendency to Romanism should ever exist amongst themselves ; that
Church principles should ever become the path to superstition and idolatry ; that
they or their disciples should ever become alienated from the English Church,
never entered their imaginations as possible. When their opponents charged them
with such tendencies, the charge was always steadily denied. They availed them
selves of every opportunity to clear themselves from the imputation of Popery.
They even contended against the errors of Romanism. They had no intention to
assist in the propagation of those errors." (p. 38.)
Yet most important admissions are made in page 46, though accom
panied with renewed protestations against Romanism.
" / will not say that the writers of the Tracts have not been, in any degree,
instrumental in drawing forth this spirit ; I will not inquire how far it is traceable
to the publication of Froude's ' Remains,' and to the defence of his views contained
in the Preface to the second series of the 'Remains :' nor will I examine how far it

10
may be a reaction against ultra-Protestantism : it is unnecessary now to enter oi
this painful and complicated question, on which different opinions may be enter
tained. One thing, at least, is most perfectly certain : it never was the intentior,
of the advocates of Church principles to promote Romanism : they have always
been persuaded that their principles do not, by any fair and legitimate reasoning.
lead to that system, to which they have ever been conscientiously and firmly
opposed; and I am persuaded that they will feel it a duty to offer to the Church
every possible pledge of their attachment to her doctrines ; that if their names have
been employed to sanction any system which generates a spirit of dissatisfaction
with the English Church, and tends to the revival of Romish errors and superstitions,
they will adopt such measures as may be sufficient to mark their disapprobation of
such a system, and their sense of its inconsistency with the principles which they
maintain." (p. 46.)
Mr. Palmer will, however, acknowledge, that those who dread the
inroads of Popery into our Church, had some grounds for alarm, and
some reason to connect the recent Romanist demonstrations with the
Oxford party, when he himself asks how, under recent circumstances,
they could rescue themselves from the charge ?
" But what can we say — what defence can be made, when it is undeniable that
Romanism, in its veky pdllest extent, has advocates amongst due-
selves ; that they have influence in the ' British Critic ;' that they ake on
TEEMS OF intimacy AND CONFIDENCE WITH LEADING MEN, that nO
public protest is entered against their proceedings by the advocates of Church
principles." (pp. 69, 70.)
I have thus endeavoured as fairly as I can in a sketch necessarily
brief, to glean from Mr. Pahner's pamphlet his historical argument, if
I may so call it, by which he endeavours to prove his point. I will not
stop to enquire here how far all the consequences of the publication of
the Tracts, and even of the more broadly erroneous treatises, reviews,
&c. with which the press has teemed during ten long years, are
chargeable on one who all the while^ was sensible of the errors promul
gated, yet as far as the pubUc is concerned continued his sanction, and
lent his respected name to the hurtful cause — or how far his present
measured and qualified condemnation, even of Tract 90 tends to redeem
the mischief which has been occasioned ; I have no desire to be the
censor of Air. Palmer or of any individual, but I must deeply lament

11
that he did not sooner proclaim his misgivings to the Church and to
the world, and that his present disruption with acknowledged error is
not more bold and decisive.
Viewing the movement as thus far developed, I suspect that few
who are not as strongly wedded to a system as Mr. Palmer himself has
been, will be disposed to withhold their conviction, that whatever
" Church Principles" may be, the present wide spread diffusion of
Romanism must be laid at the door of many who profess those Church
Principles. In 1833, when the Oxford movement commenced, no one had ever
heard of the smallest inclination towards Rome in the Clergy or Laity
of the Chuich of England, much less in the Students of our Universities.
The pubhc mind, as Mr. Palmer justly shows in his pamphlet, was
moving in an opposite direction — and the bare possibility that in the
space of ten years therejshould be such an extended inoculation
of Romanism as now exists had occurred to no one. This wide
spread inundation of error wiU and must be traced to Oxford — to Mr.
Palmer and his associates. The protestation of innocence of purpose
(for which I give Mr. Palmer full credit) wiU avail nothing against
facts that cannot be gainsaid nor refuted. Principles were gradually
developing themselves, detected by some from the beginning, lamented
— feebly opposed, and but by a few ; allowed to gather strength, and
ascendancy ; until it is now but too evident that a demon has been raised
who refuses to be laid, and a fire has been kindled (unintentionally I
trust) which cannot easily be extinguished. It is impossible to disconnect
the various parts of the whole Oxford Theological movement — it has
proceeded step by step, even by Mr. Palmer's own showing, until it has
reached the present climax ; and now Mr. Palmer in retiring from the
arena, hopes not only to deliver his own conscience, but to rescue his
" Church Principles" from the condemnation in which they appear likely
to be involved. This effort wiU I hope prove futile. I am sure Mr. Palmer
neither thinks nor believes that his principles on Church matters, have
any tendency towards Rome — hut he may he mistalien — and one would
almost hope that with such bitter fruit in his hands as these principles

12
have already yielded, he may himself be convinced that there must be
some nascent tendency to essential Romanism in them. This
question I will proceed further to argue. The historical evidence is
conclusive thus far, that Romanism as it now exists within and without
the English Church has proceeded from those distinguished men at Oxford
ivho profess these " CHURCH PRINCIPLES."
But the reiterated assertion again returns upon us that Church Prin
ciples never could produce, nor ever had a tendency to produce such
results. This awakens an anxious enquiry — ^What are " Church Prin
ciples?" a phrase occui-ring in almost every page of Mr. Palmer's
pamphlet ! I turn to his chapter devoted to that topic, and I confess
myself unable to glean from it any definite ideas on the subject, and I
am constrained to look elsewhere for a definition of " Church Prin
ciples." As far as my own experience goes, I find hardly two per
sons agreeing in any explanation of the term, and I am therefore
driven to the writings of some accredited author for information. This
I find in a work published by the Rev. Dr. Hook of Leeds. Mr.
Palmer, as we have seen, refers to him as " a leading friend of Church
Principles,"* and one who was early offended at the Romanizing ten
dency of the Tract writers or their associates : and Dr. Hook in the
work alluded to, repeatedly cites "the learned Mr. Palmer;" they thus
mutually accredit each other ; and in taking Dr. Hook's Church Dic
tionary, as authority in deciphering the enigma, " What are Church
Principles ? " I am surely occupying ground which must not only afibrd
a fair field of investigation, as far as the Oxford movement is
concerned, but must also be most unobjectionable to Mr. Palmer
himself.f The spirit m which Dr. Hook's Church Dictionary is composed difiers
widely from that which is displayed in the pamphlet of his friend Mr.
Pahner ; and in producing Dr. Hook's opinions I hope I shall not catch
* Foot-note page 25.
t I wish to add here that when I read Mr. Palmer's recent Pamphlet, I had never
seen Dr. Hook's " C'AkjxA Dictionary ;" (ihoxigh I may have occasionally met with an
extract from it) and that the idea of referring to it as a standard of Church Principles
was suggested to my mind exclusively by Mr. Palmer's laudatory reference to hira.

13
anything of the asperity in which he too often indulges towards those
to whom he is opposed.
In citing this peculiar authority on the subject of " Church Princi
ples," special advantage is afforded me, because of the vast variety of
ecclesiastical topics, and doctrinal subjects, on which the Dictionary
peremptorily decides ; while the very nature of the work itself renders
me less hable to the charge of perverting or exaggerating the author's
meaning. The student who searches for authority upon this important subject
in Dr. Hook's work, should bear in mind these two points — first, that
the author explicitly disavows all those errors of Romanism which he
conceives to be of modern date; and secondly, that in every article
where he cites the authority of the "Primitive Church," and " the antient
Church," he does so with approbation — the Church of the third and
fourth centuries being his model of ecclesiastical excellence both in
doctrine and discipline.*
The first important point which we shall investigate is the nature
of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as viewed by the light of
" Church Principles." To elucidate this point we must refer to the
words " Altar " — "Priest " — " Sacrifice " — " Viaticum."
" Altar. — The place on which gifts or sacrifices to God are offered in religious
worship. As since the foundation of the world we know but of one sacrifice ac
ceptable to God, and beneficial to men, for its own sake, even the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ ; so in this high and strict sense we know but of one Altar, even the Cross
on which the Lamb of God himself, both Priest and Sacrifice, was offered for the
sins of the world." (p. 15.)
Thus far well : but it is the style of the writers of this School, first to
state truth in terms to which none can object, and then to qualify or
encumber it in a subsequent paragraph, in such a manner that the
force of the original position is broken and lost. Thus he adds : —
* See under " Primitive Church," page 454.

14
" But as in the Church of God before our Lord's coming there was an altar on
which were offered, by God's ordinance, gifts and sacrifices, prefigurative of that
upon the Cross : so in the Church of God since the Lord's coming there is an altar
on which, by His appointment, are offered gifts and sacrifices commemorative of
that upon the Cross. The table of Holy Communion, or Lord's Table, in the
Christian Church is therefore called an altar, because on it are placed in presenta
tion before God, the appointed memorials of the Lord's Body and Blood; and be
cause on it are also offered the alms of the faithful worshippers. See our Lord's
directions to his followers on this point, (Matt. v. 23.) and St Paul's declaration
(Heb. xiii. 10.") (p. 15.)
Yet in no part of om: present accredited liturgies, or Church offices, can
Dr. Hook produce a single instance of the term Altar, applied to the
Communion table in the English Church ! * He attaches, however,
great importance to the term and to the thing signified by it ; and in
the pages which follow he gives a history of stone altars, which arose
" in the earliest ages of the Church." (p. 17) and therefore in his view
the purest : the early Christians solemnized the rites of their faith in
catacombs, whither they were driven by persecution — and in sacred
spots — they often built tombs on the place where the martyrs died,
which served as the altar of a Christian Church.
" Afterwards, perhaps, a more magnificent edifice was erected over the same
spot, and the tomb of the martyr remained in the crypt, while the altar was raised
immediately, over it ; access to the crypt and its sepulchral monument being still
permitted to the steps of the faithful."
The tendency to superstition in the minds of the "common people"
in connexion with stone altars, occasioned the necessity of their remo
val at the Reformation; "but," says, the author, "we cannot look with
" indifference on those few examples of the original stone altars still
" remaining, which witness to us of an almost universal custom for
" several centuries."
These altars being established, we must next be furnished with
sacrificing jiriests. So imder the head of '" Priests," (p. 452) while
* Here, as in other places, he cites obsolete canons and Royal ordinances, not binding
on ua, in support of his views.

1.5
the plain doctrine of Rome is denied — viz. " that of a true propitiatory
" sacrifice for the sins both of the living and the dead," — and the
thirty-first Article cited to refute it — the following observations occur : —
" At a period very ancient, the whole of Divine worship was distinguished by the
title of Sacrificium, or sacrifice. This name was given to the prayers and praises,
preaching, and devotion of body and soul to Christ, in the Sacraments of Baptism
and the Lord's Supper. But more particularly, and with greater dignity, was the
term applied to the consecrated symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, called by
St. Chrysostom " the tremendous sacrifice." The ministers officiating were also
endowed with the corresponding title of " priests," (sacerdotes,) and Bishops had
the appellation of " summi sacerdotes," (chief priests.) And these names were
given, not with relation solely to the administration of the Eucharist, but to the
exercise of their prerogative in the various acts of Divine worship. It was one act
of the priest's office to offer up the sacrifice -of the people's prayers, praises, and
thanksgivings to God, as their mouth and orator, and to make intercession to God
for them. Another part of the office was in God's name to bless the people, particu
larly by admitting them to the benefit and privilege of remission of sins, by spiritual
regeneration in Baptism. Above this was the power of offering up to Ood the
people's sacrifices at the altar ; that is, as Mr. Mede and others explain them, first
the Cicharistical oblations of bread and wine to agnize or acknowledge God to be
the Lord of the creatures ; then the sacrifice of prayer and thanksgiving in com
memoration of Christ's bloody sacrifice upon the cross, mystically represented in the
creatures of bread and wine ; which whole sacred action was commonly called the
Christian's reasonable and unbloody sacrifice, or the sacrifice of the altar." (p. 452,
453.)* So again, under the head of " Eucharist" (p. 262), the same charac
ter is attributed to the elements in the Lord's supper.
" As the bread and wine which our Lord distributed at the institution of His
supper, was part of the paschal feast, or sacrifice of the Zord's passover, and as such
had first been offered in sacrifice to God, it is clear that unless His ministers first
offer, in sacrifice to God, the bread and the wine which they distribute at the
Lord's supper, they are not fulfilling their Lord's command, and they are not doing
as He did. Hence the Lord's Supper has always been considered a sacrifice as
well as a sacrament ; a thanksgiving memorial presented before God, as well as a
means of grace to men. The Lord's Supper, in respect of the oblation or pure
• The italics in this paragraph, and in many others, are mine : intended to draw
attention to particular expressions.

16
offering of bread and wine therein presented before God, was foretold by the
prophets as the worship which would be offered to God throughout the world, by
the Gentiles on their conversion to Christianity. (See Isaiah, xix. 19, 21 ; Malachi,
i. 11.) But the most objectionable statements upon this subject occur
under the head of " Sacrifice;" (pp. 502-504), and are not Dr. Hook's
own, though cited as authority by him.
" Saceipice. — An offering made to God on His altar by the hand of a lawful
minister. In strictness of speech there has only been one sacrifice once offered and
never to be repeated, the sacrifice of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. He
suffered death upon the cross for our redemption, and made there, by His one
oblation of Himself once offered, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation,
and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. (See Satisfaction.) Figuratively
speaking, all Divine worship was anciently called a sacrifice : our sacrifice of prayer
and praise. But more especially was the term applied to the celebration of the
Holy Communion. As on this latter subject much misunderstanding has prevailed,
the following remarks are transcribed from the late Archdeacon Daubeny's Guide to
the Church. ' St. Paul tells us (Heb. xiii. 10), that we have an altar* in the
Christian Church. If so, we must have a sacrifice and a priest, for these are
correlative terms.
" ' In conformity with this established idea, the primitive writers often called the
Lord's table an altar, and the holy Eucharist an altar offering, before it became the
Lord's Supper; and the holy table, like the altar at Jerusalem, they considered
to be used as an altar for sacrifice, before it was employed as a table for a
sacrificial feast ; the holy elements being consecrated and offered up as a
commemorative sacrifice, in which is represented before God the sacrifice of
Christ upon the cross, in consequence of which solemn office of the priest, they
become the Body and Blood of Christ in spirit and effect to all faithful receivers.
It follows, then, unless the Church has been under a great mistake upon this subject
from its first establishment to the present time, that when there is no priest there
can be no sacrifice, and when there is no sacrifice, there can be no receiving of tlie
Body and Blood of Christ; por the elements must be fihst made Body
AND Blood by consecration, before they can be received as such by the congre
gation.' — ' And who,' says the learned Hickes, ' but a priest can receive the elements
from the people, and offer up to God such solemn prayers and thanksgivings for
the congregation, and make such solemn intercession for them, as are now, and
' The extraordinary perversion of this allusion of the Apostle's must strike most
readers !

17
ever were, offered and made in this holy Sacrament ? Who but a priest can
consecrate the elements by solemn prayer, and make them the mystical Body
AND Blood of Christ? Who but a pi-iest can stand in God's stead, and at His
table, and in His name, receive His guests ? Who but a priest hath power to break
the bread and bless the cup, and make a solemn memorial before God of His
sufferings, and then deliver his sacramental Body and Blood to the faithful commu
nicants, as tokens of His meritorious sufferings and pledges of their salvation ?
A man thus authorised to act for man in things pertaining to God, and for God in
things pertaining to men, must be a priest, and such holy ministrations must be
sacerdotal, whether the holy table be an altar, and the Sacrament a sacrifice
or not." The Archdeacon may well start a Kttle at his own language here —
and fear lest the people should " give him credit for the least tincture of
Popery," but he quiets their fears by assuring them that " this was the
language used in the Primitive Church," and therefore could have
nothing to do with Popery ! This is a perpetually recurring but most
fallacious argument of the Di-vines of this school — who appear to think
that because the usurpation of the Popedom did not occur until
centuries later, that therefore the foundations of the errors on
which that superstructure was subsequently erected could not have
iieen laid in the third and fourth centuries ! St. Paul, however, declared
even in his day that " the mystery of iniquity, did already work" — and
here is the point of the whole argument !
The Archdeacon, however, complacently afiirms, " such is the
" idea which our Church entertains upon the subject — she considers the
" Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to be a feast upon a sacrifice : to
" constitute it such, that which is feasted upon, must have been first
" made a sacrifice, by Imving heen offered up hy a Priest ! .'"
That our Reformed Church affirms no such thing — whatever the
Primitive Church may have done, is • most evident from the extraor
dinary efibrt which Dr. Hook has made to prove that she does so, and
the signal failure that must overtake that attempt. Under the head
of " Oblation," (page 401,) we read as follows : —
" In the office for the Holy Communion we pray Gad to accept our alms and
B

18
oblations. The word oblations was added to this prayer for the Church militant
here on earth, at the same time that the rubric enjoined, that if there be a com
munion, " the priest is then," just before this prayer, " to place upon the table so
much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient." Hence it is clearly evident that
by that word we are to understand the elements of bread and wine, which the priest
is io offer solemnly to God, as an acknowledgment of His sovereignty over His
creatures, and that from henceforth they may be peculiarly His."
How severely pressed must our author have been to find a shred of
authority for his views in the ^vritings of our Church, when he was
led into so palpable an error as this !
If the term " Oblation," here refers to the elements of bread and
•vvine, how does it happen that the side Rubric directs that " if, there be
" no alms or oblations, then shall these words be left out unsaid ! !"
Dr. Hook himself in the following two pages, gives the real meaning
of the word " Oblations;" shewing that they were originally pecu
niary oflferings for the Priest himself. If this is all the authority in
" our Church," which Dr. Hook and the Archdeacon can cite for then-
views upon the priestly oblation of the sacrifice of the altar, and a
feast upon it, the members of the C^hurch of England may feel con
fident that if such are the " Principles" of any " Cliurch," they are
not the " Church Principles" of that " pure and Reformed part of
" Christ's Holy Catholic Church estabhshed in these realms !"
But under the word " Viaticum," we find assertions relative to
the Eucharist even more perilous. I give the passage entire : —
" Viaticum, the provision made for ajourney. Hence, in the ancient Church,"
(and therefore the pure Church) " both Baptism and the Eucharist were called
Viatica, because they were equally esteemed men's necessary provision and proper
armour, both to sustain and conduct them safe on their way in their passage
through this world to eternal life. The.administration of Baptism is thus spoken
of by St. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, as the " giving to men their viaticum or
provision for their journey to another world;" and under this impression, it was
frequently delayed till the hour of death, being esteemed as a final security and
safeguard to future happiness. More strictly, however, the term viaticum denoted
the Eucharist given to persons in immediate danger of death, and in this sense it is
still occasionally used, the 13th Canon of the Nicene Council, ordains that none

19
" be deprived of his perfect and most necessary viaticum, when he departs out of
this life." Several other canons of various councils are to the same effect, provid
ing also for the giving of the viaticum under peculiar circumstances, as to persons
in extreme weakness, delirium, or subject to canonical discipline." (p. 562.)
Such are the " Church Principles" to which Dr. Hook and Mr.
Palmer are committed ! Upon this one subject of the Lord.'s Supper
alone, has enough been cited to prove no little " Tendency to Ro
manism," in the common, ordinary and Protestant sense of the terms ! —
Whether such principles, such subtle distinctions, and such arguments
placed in the inexperienced hands of the Students of a University, and
those of our youthful divines, are, or are not calculated to furnish them
with a " Viaticum," towards Rome, the common sense of the public
must decide.
Dr. Hook's definition of " ihe Catholic Chiirch," is worthy of notice,
as differing essentially from that given in the nineteenth Article.
" Thus the Catholic Church has the Lord Christ for its founder; its prescribed
form of admission is the Holy Sacrament of Baptism ; its constant badge of mem
bership is the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist; its peculiar duties lire repentance,
faith, obedience ; its peculiar privileges, union with God, through Christ its Head,
and hereby forgiveness of sins, present grace and future glory ; its officers are
Bishops and priests, assisted by deacons, in regular succession from the Apostles,
the first constituted officers of this body corporate. It has the Bible for its code
of laws, AND A Divine tradition for precedents, to aid its officers in the inter
pretation of that code on disputed points." (p. 143.)
What a contrast to the simple and scriptural declaration of the
Article !
"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in the which
the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered ac
cording to Christ's ordinance in all those things which of necessity are requisite
to the same !"
Lengthy and. minute upon some points, Dr. Hook's description of the
Chtjech omits " the preaching of the pure word of God" — an ordinance
generally thrust into the back ground by his class of Divines — ^but put

20
prominently forward in all the offices of our Protestant Church ! He
inserts also " a Divine Tradition," an element of the Catholic
Church, no where recognized in the written traditions of our own
(Church. "V\Tien acting up to the spirit of the first six general coun
cils this Catholic Church is pronounced to be, if not Infallible — " irre
formable" — which is a term of Mr. Palmer's own creation — denoting
that which indeed has no existence ! An " uTeformable" " Anglo-
" Cathohc Church," bears a strong resemblance to an infallible Holy
Roman Catholic Church.
" The doctrine of these general Councils" (says Mr. Palmer, as quoted by Dr.
Hook, p. 218) " having been approved and acted on by the whole body of the
Catholic Church, and thus ratified by an universal consent, which has continued
ev6r since, is irrefragably true, unalterable, and irreformable ; nor could any
Church forsake or change the doctrine without ceasing to be Christian."
It is evident from many expressions in the volume before us that
Dr. Hook is disposed to depreciate the thirty-nine Articles, or to
esteem them, at least, as a very insufficient development of Christian
doctrine. " It is a mistake into which ignorant persons are apt to fall, to suppose that the
Thirty-nine Articles of 1562 were intended to answer the purpose of a body of
Divinity, and it is a very grievous error for persons to speak of the Church of Eng
land, as the Church of the Thirty-nine Articles. It is trne, they contain the
decisions of the Church of England on many points of doctrine and practice ; but on
others of equal importance they are silent ; as on God's Providence, the Fall of
Man, God's Covenants ; the Rule of Christian Obedience or Obligation of the Ten
Commandments ; the Law of the Sabbath, of Marriage and Divorce ; the Rites of
Confirmation, Holy Orders, and other things belonging to Church government and
discipline." (p. 50.)
Those who are familar with this admirable code of Christain truth will
be not, a little astonished at the boldness of the above assertions;, and
it will occur to them, that in the above Hst of deficiencies, there are
several items which are obviously included in various articles which
might be quoted. But how will their astonishment increase when they
discover that in another page of this same work, they are referred to

21
the very article which contains a doctrine on which the author here
aflarms that the thirty-nine Articles " are silent," and that one of
primary and fundamental importance !
Fall op Man. — The loss of those perfections and that happiness which his
Maker bestowed on man at his creation, for the transgression of a positive command
given for the trial of his obedience. This doctrine may be stated in the language of
our Ninth Article ! ! " (which is then cited at length.) pp. 274, 275.
So palpable a contradiction I am at a loss to account for : and
whether it discovers a bias of mind on the subject or not, I wOl not
take upon me to decide. At all events " Church Principles" appear to
harmonize better -with " Divine Tradition" than with the 39 Articles !
, That the theory of pkaying toe the dead, formed any part of
the creed of those who are the representatives of " Church Principles"
as contrasted with " Romish tendencies," I was not prepared to discover !
But so it appears to be : and Dr. Hook shall make this remarkable
confession in his own words —
•" Nor yet does her (the Church's) regard for the saints departed end with their
funeral. In the prayer for the Church militant there still remains, in our Church,
a sufficient memorial of what was still more feelingly expressed by the primitive
Church — the interest of the surviving Christian with his departed friends, — of the
Church on earth, which is militant, with the Church in hades, expectant of its
triumph. Formerly, at the Holy Eucharist, the names of eminent saints were read
aloud from the rolls of the Church, and prayers and thanksgivings were made for
them, and offerings were presented on their behalf : and it is in the prayer before
mentioned, which is an act of communion with all saints, coupled with an act of
oblation, that the Church of England makes most express mention qfthe departed ;
giving thanks for them to God, who gave and hath taken away, and praying that
they and we may again be blessed together. This will appear plain, and the con
nexion between the oblation and the dead will be manifest beyond dispute, if we
throw together the first and last clauses of this prayer; thus then we pray —
" Almighty and everliving God, who by Thy holy Apostle has taught us to make
prayers and supplications, and to give thanks for all men ; we humbly beseech
Thee most mercifully to accept our alms and oblations, and to receive these our
prayers, which we offer unto Thy Divine Majesty ; beseeching Thee to inspire con
tinually the universal Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and concord, &c. And

22
wc also bless Tliy holy name for all Thy servants departed this life in Thy faith and
fear ; beseeching Thee to give us grace so to follow their good example, that with
them we may be partakers of Thy heavenly kingdom."
Who would have imagined that the simple words of this prayer
could have been so wrested by one of the Sons of the Protestant
Church to establish a doctrine which she abhors ! This beautiful form
of worship may be safely left to speak for itself — the juxta position of
two of its parts, however unwarrantable, separated as they are in the
original, (p. 228, 229,) cannot make it speak the voice oi Prayer for
the dead. But it is worthy of remark that this is the prayer for the
restoration of which to the daily service there has recently been such a
feverish anxiety in some quarters : our author endeavours to make it
appear that this formulary sanctions prayers ybr the dead — and in ano
ther place as we have seen, an oblation of an unbloody sacrifice on f/ie
Christian Altar. Can it be that these are the peculiar charms which
it presents to some eyes, and is this the language it shall be made to
speak ?
The ardent sympathy of our author " ivith that which was more feel
ingly expressed in the Primitive Church" on this subject, leads him to still
more adventurous speculations relative to Church Discipline beyo-nd the
grave! ! And the passage which follows will be judged by most
persons to discover strong tendencies to Popery, although its ingenious
and learned author endeavours to draw from it three opposite
corollaries. " As this (as well as the yet more expressive methods of the Primitive Church,)
cannot be less than acts of communion, it follovi'S that there must be something
answering to that discipline which keeps any other part of church communion pure.
Hence in our Church ' The order for the burial of the dead' is prefaced by a rubric
which says, ' that the office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized,
or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands on themselves:' a sentence which
doubtless excludes all such persons, in the judgment of the Church, from the act of
fellowship before mentioned. In the primitive Church a notorious offender was not
enrolled on the diptychs of the Church, (see Diptychs,) or if enrolled before his
offences were discovered, his name was struck off: i. e. he was not remembered in
the prayers, thanksgivings, or oblations made by the faithful. If however this

23
judgment of excommunication (for such in effect it was) was found afterwards to be
unjust, the name of the departed was again enrolled on the diptychs ; this was the
case with no less a pereon than St. Chrysostom.
" And this ecclesiastical dealing with the dead will appear to answer to what is
called, when the living are the subjects of it, communion, excommunication, ararf
RECONCILIATION. Penance and absolution f/je nature of the case excludes.
Thus we are taught that the Church not only enjoys communion
mth the souls of the departed, but exercises ecclesiastical discipline over
them— having the power to excommunicate and to reconcile them !
Whither wiU these Church Principles bear us? And what unearthly
powers wiU they confer on the Church ? Still their author affirms con
stantly that they will not lead us towards Rome — on the contrary,
away from it ! And why ? Because the Church of Rome teaches us
to pray " to the departed Saints," the Primitive Church teaches us to
pray " pofi, them," — " and we cannot pray to and roK the same per
sons ! " Admirable system of spiritual homceopathy ! Protestants
are to be cured of their propensities to the invocation of saints by
being taught to pray for thein! By the same process of reasoning they
are to be saved from believing in Purgatory : because the Primitive
Church never prayed for the wicked, or for people in torture, " but for
" those who were accounted saints par excellence, even including the
" Blessed Virgin and the Holy Apostles," and they could not be in
Purgatory ! And the third deduction is, " that works of supererogation
" formed no part of the system of Primitive Theology since all were
" prayed for" — though (our author adds with much simphcity) " it
"was not declaeed to what paeticulae end!" No, indeed!
he must be learned and ingenious who can tell us " for what particular
" and" prayers were thus supposed to be offered ! It is too obvious
that the blessed Saints lying in the bosom of Abraham, or walking in
blood- washed robes of heavenly purity, and enjoying the presence of
their Lord cannot be benefited by the prayers of those trembling,
sinful, weary fellow servants whom they have left behind in a world of
sin and sorrow ! The doctrine is as repugnant to common sense as it
is to the teaching of Holy Scripture, and the " Church Principiles" of
those who are content to draw their principles from the authorized
formularies of their Protestant Church !

2-t
My readers may begin to think that enough has been adduced from
the work before us to shew the author's " tendency towards Rome,'
although in other pages he condemns Romanism, or rather some of its
tenets. But I feel it very important to multiply evidence of this nature;
because it is not by one or two incautious expressions or inconsistencies
that any man should be judged, or condemned ; but when proof is
accumulated upon many topics, all bearing on the same point, little
doubt of the real sentiments of the author can remain upon a reflective
mind. I shall therefore abridge Dr. Hook's opinions upon many other
subjects connected with this controversy : endeavouring to abstain from
remarks, although the temptation to censure is strong.
Thus, then, " Auricular confession." (page (50.) " The confession
" of sins at the ear of the Priest. The Romish Church not only^'re-
" quires confession as a duty, but has advanced it to the dignity of a
" Sacrament.  The error of the Romish Chm'ch consists in represent-
" ing this confession as necessary. It is clearly shewn in Bingham, that
" private confession was never deemed necessary, though then as nmv,
" in our own Church it was recommended !"
And again, page 191.
" Confession.— The admission of a fault or sin. All Christians admit that we
are to confess our sins to God ; but it is by many considered ' flat popery' to confess
our sins to a fellow man, though that man be God's priest. Now Confession to the
priest is not commanded, but it is in many cases recommended, by the Church oi
England : See the warning for the celebration of the Holy Communion."
Whether the recommendation to a person in trouble of mind " to open
his grief to some discreet and learned minister of God's word," affords
the Church's sanction to " Confession of sins, to God's Peiest," I
will not stop to decide.
Monastic mstitutions, under certain regulations, and an ascetic life,
are evidently sanctioned in this work.
"Monastery; a convent house built for the reception of the religious;
whether it be abbey, priory, nunnery, or the like.

" Monastery is only properly applied to the houses of monks, mendicant friars,
and nuns : the rest are more properly called Religious Houses. We have had no
monasteries in our Church since the Reformation, when they were destroyed to
enrich our kings and their courtiers ; but we have religious houses, such as our
colleges. " The original institution of a monastic life was to relinquish the things of this
world, and wholly to live up to the rules and precepts of our Saviour ; but it was
never intended to distinguish men by particular orders." (p. 384.)
If, therefore, we would whoUy Kve up to the rules and precepts of
our Saviour, we must return to a " Monastic life .'"
" But useful as monasteries had been at one time, they were at last abused and
corrupted. To such an extent had they been corrupted in the reign of Henry the
VIII. that he made their corruptions a ground, not of reform, but of spoliation. The
property of the monasteries was seized in the reign of this monarch, and that of his
successor, and given to their courtiers. Much of the property which was once em
ployed in supporting learned men of humble birth, and might be still so employed,
is now expended in purposes wholly alien to the intention of tl(e original grantees."
—See Impropriator.
It is evident that our author parts with monasteries with a sigh.
We now approach a variety of superstitious usages, sanctioned in
deed, in whole or in part by what Dr. Hook calls the " Primitive
Church," that is, not the Apostolic Church, as she subsisted before the
canon of Scripture was closed — but the Church of that dark and dismal
period which immediately succeeded the death of the last of the
Apostles ; respecting which our information is scanty and imperfect,
but by whose dim and uncertain light these divines would have us walk,
in preference to the broad day-light of Holy Scripture. I am well
aware that in exposing these usages and protesting against them, I
shall involve niyself in the charge of " Ultra- Protestantism," at least
in the judgment of the author of the " Church Dictionary" and his
associates — it may be of Latitudinarianism ! But it is a satisfaction
to find myself in good company : as appears from page 343, —
" Latitudinarians. — Certain divines so called from the latitude of their
principles, the term is chiefly applied to some divines of t)ie 17th century, such as

26
Hales, Chilling ivorth, Wliichcot, Tillotson, Burnet: These men were attached to
the English establishment, as such, but regarded episcopacy, and forms of public
worship as among the things indifferent. They would not exclude from their
communion those who differed from them in those particulars. Many of the
Latitudinarian divines commenced as Calvinists and ended as Socinians."
Of course I write my protest against such a disingenuous insinuation
as the above !
As specimens of superstitious usages approved by Dr. H. I cite the
following : Five pages are occupied in arguing the propriety of —
" Lights on the Altar. — Among the ornaments of the Church enjoined by
the laws, and sanctioned by the usage, in the Church of England, are two lights
upon the altar, to be a symbol to the people that Christ, in His two-fold nature, is
the very true Light of the world." (p. 356.)
" The laws of the Church" respecting candles thus dogmatically pro
pounded, rest solely upon an inference drawn from an injunction of
Ed. VI. The Rubric enjoins that " Church ornaments," &c. shall
in other respects, remain the same as in the 2d year of Ed. Yl. An
injunction of the 6th Ed. is then produced, which decrees that all torches,
tapers, candles, &c. shall be removed from the churches except
" two lights only on the High Altae, before the Sacrament."
Some one has ventured to suggest that we have no " High Altar"
now, and that therefore the injunction is inapplicable : but he is
branded by Dr. Hook with " ignorance of History'' — the fact being
" that the High Altar alone is left in our churches, all the rest being
" removed by Authority" ! The custom of the church is shewn by the
practice still retained in Collegiate Chapels, and Chapels Royal, &c.
The removal of these symbolic candles is attributed not to the Reformers
but to the Puritans — these lights are vindicate.d as primitive, as beautiful
emblems — as alluded to in the seven candlesticks of the Revelation —
the various numbers of them adopted in the different churches have all
appropriate sjonbolic meanings — even to the 70,000 candles burning at
one time in St. Peter's at Rome — " the number two, which is specially

" Anglican, refers doubtless, to the two natures of Christ, in which he
" is especially the very true light of the worid" ! ! p. 356, 361. On
the same subject, we have the following —
" Candlemas Day. — A name formerly given to the festival of the Purification
of the Virgin Mary, observed in our Church, February 2. In the ancient Church,"
(and therefore the correct Church), " this day was remarkable for the number of
lighted candles, which were borne about in processions, and placed in churches, in
memory of Him who came to be ' a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of
His people Israel.' From this custom the name is supposed to be derived."
All this may be primitive, may be the genuine fruits of such " Church
Principles" — but we may surely demur upon their propriety without
being considered " Ultra-Protestants."
Croziers, crosses, and various emblematic ornaments in Churches,
and offices are earnestly contended for. The Bishops are at once
censured and excused for neglecting a Rubric still inforce in the prayer
book of the 2d of Ed. VT. — they celebrate the communion without
" their Pastoral Staff ia. their hands ! !"
" The writer of this article does not remember to have seen an English Bishop
attired as this rubric directs. Most, if not all of the Bishops probably omit this
observance in condescension to the superstition of those whose consciences, though
not offended at a transgression of a command of the Church, might be offended at
ornaments which many pious persons reverence as emblematical." (p. 220.)
Another reason might be suggested for this Episcopal omission, viz. :
that perhaps our venerable Pastors might think the custom itself tended
to superstition, and therefore they dropped it ! Dr. Hook constantly
appHes the term superstition to the conscientious feelings of Protestants
— the term is not very appropriate nor is the suggestion with which it
is accompanied very charitable.
" Cross. — The sign of the Cross was made in the Primitive Church in some
part of almost every Christian office. In the Church of England it is commanded to
be used only in the Sacrament of Baptism • » * and perhaps in the Sacrament
of the Eucharist, where it may be implied in the direction that the Priest shall lay
his hand on the bread and wine when he consecrates them !" (pp. 220, 221.)

28
Great must be the attachment to this usage in the mind of him who
could discover it in such a direction of the Church ! Then follows a
lengthened argument in favour of erecting Crosses on every sanctuary
— " and on every altar whereon the sacrifice of the crucified is comme
morated." " Why should we admit into our Churches the lion and the unicorn, and yet
banish the cross? Why head our processions with flags and colours denoting
political partizanship, and giving rise to angry political feeling, and leave it to
Romish dissenters to bear before them the cross, the badge of Christianity ? "
"Why? Bec&nse " the Lion and the Unicorn" form part of the Royal
Arms, which every lover of the Union between Church and State would
wish to see exhibited in all our Parish Churches even if there were not
an express injunction on the subject ! — ^Why ? Because we never
heard of the Lion and Unicorn leading to superstitious usages — and
the emblem of the cross has been fruitful in idolatry ! The one is
enacted by the Powers that be — and the other receives no sanction in
our canons and offices. But the task of wading through the petty
superstitions of this book is wearisome and endless. I must only
allege them and leave the reader to refer to the particular passages.
" Rowing to the Altae — is a reverend custom still practised at
" Windsor Chapel, in College Chapels and Cathedrals." (p. 102.)
" Steewing with Flowees — is a very simple and most innocent
" method of ornamenting the Christian Altar." (p. 283.) The use of
" Holt Watee" " blessed with an appropriate service hy the priest," is
evidently mentioned as a thing approved — and only " obliged to be
" discontinued at the Reformation" because " so many superstitions
" had become connected with it." (p. 306.) " Immeesion — is the
" proper mode of administering the Sacrament of Baptism, by which
"first the right side, then the left, then the face are dipped in the font."
The author does not give his authority for this peculiar method of
baptizing. " The Antient Christians placed the Altar on the East,
" so that in facing towards the Altar in their devotions they turned
" to the East." (p. 246.) The cruel Oedeal op Fiee, water, red
hot plough-shares, and other barbarous tests to which accused persons
were put, in a dark and superstitious age, in order to discover their

29
guilt, or prove their mnocence, is described at considerable length, and
dismissed without a single censure ! The following clause seems rather
to indicate belief in these false miracles than otherwise.
" The Christians of this age had a strong reliance upon this way of trial, not in
the least doubting but that God would suspend the force of nature, and dear the
truth by a supernatural interposition. If we may believe the records of those times,
we shall find that innocent persons were frequently rescued in a surprising manner."
(p. 407.) In the same superstitious strain is the following — " Demoniacs :
" Persons possessed of the devil. For the cure of such persons there
" were peculiar services in the peimitive Chtjech. They are now all
" of them treated as Lunatics." page 237. The Royal miracle of
curing the King's-evil, supposed to have' been hereditary in the
Kings of England and France, is thus treated of : —
" The whole subject of the truth or falsehood of these pretensions is confessedly
one of difficulty, but all evidence is certainly in favour of their truth ; and it is
clearly more probable that we should be absurdly incredulous, than that all genera
tions, for many ages should be deceived in a matter before their eyes !" (354, 355.)
The service used at the " tim,e of touching," is then subjoined. —
" Moealities, Mtsieeies, and Mieacles, — a kind of theatrical
" representations, which were made by the Monks and Friars, and
" other ecclesiastics of the middle ages, the vehicle of instruction fo the
"people.'" (page 393.) These profane, and often polluting mimers
are rather applauded than condemned ! " A high tone of morality was
often apparent in them" — and they were " sometimes the vehicle of
positive Theology." Under the word " Dedication" (234, 235)
various feasts and wakes are commended. " This laudable custom of
" wakes prevailed for many ages, till the Puritans began to exclaim
" against them as a remnant of Popery." Bishop Laud is cited as
vindicating and re-establishing them. Many particulars are detailed,
the various dresses of the priests, the processions with lighted candles,
in the primitive Church, (p. 234) Preaching in the surplice is
affirmed to be the most correct. — " Emblems" (p. 254) as the trine
compass, or the " circle inscribed within an equilateral triangle"

30
(denoting the Trinity) " the hand extended from the clouds— /or the
"first person in the Trinity — the Lamb triumphant — the fish — the
" pelican — the phcenix rising from the flames for the resurrection — the
" cross — the crown — all these are beautifully significant, and are
" very innocent in their use, as well as pious in their intention."
The primitive kiss, by the circulation of the " Pax" is commended — p.
430, and the "Piscina," (440) and "Penance," (431.) And the
" Stabat Mater," one of the " Prosce" or hymns of the Roman 'church,
is named as " beautiful" while no notice is taken of the most idolatrous
invocations of the Virgin Mary, which it contains. I might cite much
language as evidently hostile to Protestantism, as all this is favourable
to Popery. But I forbear. The task which I have undertaken is far from
pleasant to me : a sense of duty alone has induced me to attempt it.
A mere glance through the pages of this " Church Dictionary," con
vinced me that if these were " the Church Principles" of Mr. Palmer
(and he has identified himself with them,) the attempt to rescue them
from the charge of a Romish tendency, was hopeless — that it was only
necessary to make them generally known, and all unprejudiced persons
must see their affinity with all that full-grown Romanism which Mr.
Palmer has so justly exposed in his recent pamphlet.
Dr. Hook rightly traces the greater portion of these superstitions to
the Church of the third and fourth centuries : such were the seeds then
sown, and the harvest they yielded may be contemplated in the
mediaeval and subsequent ages. The Romanism of the Council of
Trent is but the wide spread tree of which the seed was deposited in
the early ages. The same seeds will always produce the same fruits :
bury them a hundred feet deep in the earth, and up-turn them after the
lapse of centuries, and the process of vegetation will give the same
results. Thus the .seeds of ancient superstition have been sown by
Mr. Palmer and his associates on the banks of the Isis, and the
secessions to Rome, and all the follies of the younger clergy in the
present day, are the natural and immediate fruits which they have
yielded. Again I acquit these respectable writers of any intention to

31
betray their church to Romanism— <% are deceived hy their own
principles. " But men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of
thistles." " A good tree cannot produce evil fruit, nor an evil tree
" gdbd fruit ;" and therefore unless the divine and unerring test of
nature and of nature's God is to become a fallacious guide — unless
" a tree is no longer to be known by its fruits' '—the " Church
Principles" of Mr. Palmer— of Dr. Hook, and the class whom they
represent, contain the germs of all the poisonous and bitter fruits
which they now themselves bewail !
And if this be so — what must be the nature and tendency of " the
Church Principles" of that residue of the party from- whom Mr. Palmer
appears now to be partially dissevered ? They can be nothing but direct
Romish Principles — though held alas ! by many who still call themselves
members of the British Protestant Church, and even of her Priesthood !
We doubt not that as the consciences of these erring brethren become
awakened to the nature of the false position which they occupy, they
vnR drop off" one by one to the see of Rome, as many have already done.
And if they refuse to retract their errors, the safety of the Church and a
regard for the integrity of public principle, must prevent any regret (but
for their own sakes) at their departure.
And now dismissing the peculiarities of the "Church Principles" of
Mr. Palmer and Dr. Hook, I would offer a few parting observations upon
" Church Principles'' generally. This term as too often used, is a mere
cant expression — an undefined inappropriate phrase, comprising an
extensive sliding scale of doctrine and discipHne, of which the private
opinion of the person who speaks is the regulating medium. So that
in fact " Church Principles" in the lips of most persons, mean
nothing more than " Mt principles on Church matters !" And
the phrase is generally hurled at some other person whose views
are supposed to be lower do'wn the scale than those of the former.
The expression forms a substitution for the "now old fashioned word
orthodox, which in its day bore much the same indefinite import. Are
there then, it may be asked, no sound " Church Principles" — in other
words, no scriptural principles on which the doctrines and discipline of

32
the Christian Church are founded ? Undoubtedly there are ! And they
are exhibited not in an isolated canon, or neglected rubric, much less
in the writings of the third and fourth centuries, but in the general
sense and system expounded in the thirty-nine Articles, the Creeds* and
Liturgy of our beloved Church ! Here are my " Church Principles !"
and I would know no others ! And .in these I look in vain for the xm-
measured condemnation of unepiscopal Churches — for the necessity of
Apostolic descent to enable a minister to make a valid sacrament ; for
those exaggerated and self-important dogmas, which appear now to be
adopted even by some otherwise enlightened and pious evangelists !
For such persons I especially tremble ; beHe-ving that extravagantly
high Church notions cannot long be held by any faithful man without
casting over his ministry a cold mist, which chiUs every statement of
gospel truth — and confuses the minds of his people. " Church Prin
ciples" as generally understood, have little affinity to Gospel principles ;
they are as Saiil's armour to David, an incumbrance rather than a
defence ; and simple Gospel truth, as the shepherd boy's sling and
stone, often proves more powerful even against the Giant Schism
itself than all the boasted and elaborate armoury of Chiurch councils,
decrees, injunctions, and traditions !

dFfntjs,

J. J. HADLEY, Printer, Journal Office, Cheltenham.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 5235