.

ihotrotntmom or lPo#*r#+

A TRACT FOR THE TIMES,

SHEWING THAT THE

TRACTARIAN MOVEMENT

IS A departure from the principles of
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,

and a departure for the principles of

THE CHURCH OF ROME.

REV. EDWARD YOUNG, M.A.

OP TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.

"Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christhatfa made us free : and be not entangled
again with the yoke of bondage."

Swotrtf lEtittum.
LONDON:
JAMES NISBET AND CO. BERNERS STREET;
HATCHARD AND SON, PICCADILLY; AND 8EELEYS, FLEET STREET.
MDCCCXLIII.
Price One Shilling.

CONTENTS.

Introduction  •  3
§ 1 . Position of the Church  5
2. Distinctive Title of Catholics  11
3. Abjuration of Protestantism  12
4. Condemnation of the Reformers  13
5. And of the Reformation  15
6. Mystification of the Thirty-nine Articles  16
7. Proofs of First Charge recapitulated  21
8. Second Charge — Irrelevancy of Tractarian Professions  22
9. Catholic Interpretation, Roman Catholic  23
10. Outward Symptoms  ....•¦  ib.
11. The Mediatorial Church System  25
12. An Engine of Priestly Power  31
13. Its main Supports  33
14. The Opus Operatum or Charm Principle  34
Baptismal Regeneration  {¦*,_
Disparagement of Faith  35
And of Preaching  37
The Lord's Supper  3g
The real Presence  4j
Transubstantiation and the real Presence  '.  43
Sign of the Cross  48
15. Denial of Private Judgment  aq
16. And of the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture  53
17. Monasticism and the Confessional  or.
18. Romish Account of Tractarianism, with Proofs  03
The Breviary— Invocation of Saints  g .
19. Apostolical Succession  „„
20. Acknowledged Relations with Rome  6„
21. The Case, one of Principles, not Persons  78
22. Conclusion  .,
 tb.

PROTESTANTISM OR POPERY.

INTRODUCTION.

Before entering on the demonstration announced in our
title page, I must answer a question or two on the threshold
of the subject.
Some one may say : — I am a member of the Church
of England. I have no intention of changing my religion,
and no wish to interfere with the opinions of my neigh
bours; why trouble me with the alternative, Protestantism
or Popery ?
I answer, it is just on these grounds that I propose the
alternative. The authors of this movement are of a dif
ferent mind. They have already changed their religion,
and intend you shall change yours. They speak of " re
storing the ancient religion."1 They tell you, " we cannot
stand where we are;"2 and they are sparing no pains to
make the prophecy good. It has already gone some way
to its fulfilment. Things are not as they were. The Church
is not at peace. A crusade is proclaimed against all that
makes our ecclesiastical polity a praise in the earth. War
rages from Calcutta to the banks of the Ohio. A very for
midable number of our own clergy have joined the Move
ment. Numbers who have not changed their colours,
become less staunch day by day. The nominal head of the
Movement declares that " on the issue hangs the destiny of
our Church."3 The Bishop of Oxford complains that the
party is " hurrying on a crisis, from the acceleration of
which nothing is to be hoped, and every thing is to be
feared."4 Fellow member of the Church of England, who
and what are you that, in such a crisis, you should think to
stand aloof?
There is another question. It may be asked whether
1 British Critic, LIX. p. 45. 2 Ibid.
3 Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 85.;
4 Charge, 1842, p. 25.
b2

INTRODUCTION.

there be any need of further demonstration ? whether ample
materials be not already furnished to put the unwary on
their guard, and furnish the awakened with the means of
defence ?
I reply, all this is perfectly true ; and yet the work, in
stead of being finished, may be but begun. A miscalcula
tion in science, once corrected, is done with : if moral mis
takes came from causes as soon disposed of, He who knoweth
our frame had not given us " line upon line." It may
chance that some, who have watched the movement, may
find the demonstration not altogether uninstructiye. There
is a large class on which, as yet, it is wholly wanting— men,
not unobservant, perhaps, of some obvious peculiarities, but
never suspecting the real character of what they see — -men
rejoicing in the broad liberty so long an element of our
social life, never dreaming of a serious attempt to subvert
their inheritance — men worthy that inheritance, living in
the generosity of its spirit, making large allowance for
human differences and infirmities, and only moved to oppo
sition by what is deadly or intolerant. With such men I
sympathize ; it is for such I write.
It follows, that the first part of our proposed demonstra
tion is not as gratuitous as it may seem. So much is heard
from Tractarianism about the Church and Church principles,
that it might be supposed the Movement was to strengthen,
not to sap and mine, the foundations of the Church. Oc
casional betrayals, under specious names, of Romish prac
tices and doctrines, may long fail to awaken a salutary
suspicion. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to tell
the whole truth — that the movement is not only an ap
proximation towards errors we have discarded, but an
attempt on those parts of our Church system which,
under God, have kept us from them — an attempt only the
more threatening because insidiously made, by men who,
not being masters of the executive, deprecate violent mea
sures, and are cautioned from head quarters not to betray
their cause by precipitancy, but to be "content to be in
bondage," and to " work in chains ;" and to " go on teaching
through the medium of indeterminate statements, and in
consistent precedents, and principles but partially developed,"
till the whole body be won over, and we can " act with one
accord."1 1 Introduction to " Number Ninety," p. 4.

POSITION OF THE CHURCH. 5
I now address myself to my object; it is, to shew that,
whatever be the personal excellencies, personal feelings, or
personal consciousness of those who constitute the Move
ment — with all which I have nothing whatsoever tojlo — the
written documents and overt acts which characterize the
body are all, more or less, departures from the doctrines,
principles, and practices of the Church of England; that
the allegiance of the body is to a something higher up
than the Church of England, and that, not the word of
God, where the Church of England finds her credentials,
but a something shadowy, dark, and questionable, against
which she has protested ; and that those documents and
acts, so far as they are peculiar, are not only neither those
of Scripture nor of the Church of England, but that they
all savour of, lean upon, bear towards, that systematic and
deadly perversion of God's truth, which — natural to the
fallen heart of man at all times — constituting the " mystery
of iniquity"1 in apostolic days, and gradually maturing
through each succeeding age, is best known, in its complete
symmetry and dimensions at Rome.
§ 1 . Position of the Church.
Commencing with the external position of our national
Church, I am under no necessity of defending the con
nexion between Church and State. I write for members of
the Church of England who know their privileges. I
assume that the above connexion is lawful, sound, and good.
I assume that a state, as such, should do homage to the
King of kings. I assume that, for this purpose, there
should be a national Church, which, without violating in
particular quarters the responsibilities of conscience, should
embody in its services the religion ofthe nation. I assume
that, whilst supporting the authority of such a Church, the
State has a correlative right to assign limits to that autho
rity ; that it has a right to defend itself against abuses of
the ecclesiastical power ; — to take care that ministers of re
ligion should not be " lords of God's heritage ;" — to prevent
our hearing again in England of " false decretals," assign
ing soul and body to the successors of St. Peter; — to give
no future Baronius occasion to inscribe on our annals that
" there can be no doubt but that the civil principality is
' -2 Thess. ii. 7.

POSITION OF THE CHURCH.

subject to the sacerdotal;"1 and no Hildebrand, " for the
dignity and defence of God's holy Church," to " depose from
imperial and regal administration, and absolve from alle
giance all Christian subjects ;"2 1 say I assume this recipro
cal right and duty on the part of the State. If any think
ecclesiastical functions, de jure, independent of the civil, 1
will only ask him to ponder one or two facts referred to be
neath.3 I will not argue the principle; it is fixed and
settled by God's good providence in England. Our national
Church is established on this two-fold basis, which makes
Church and State to be virtually one. The Church is not
an imperium in imperio ; but nothing more nor less than
the embodied religion of the State. This is the broad prin
ciple : I will give one or two of the proofs. First, one of
our Church Articles4 declares that " general councils may
not be gathered together without the commandment and
will of princes ;" so that the Church cannot act collectively
but by permission of the State. Next, another Article5 de
clares that " the king's majesty hath the chief power m this
realm of England, and other his dominions ; unto whom
the chief government of all estates of the realm, whether
they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain :"
and the limits of this government are in the same Article
defined, " we give not to our princes the ministering either
of God's word or of the sacraments." Here is a simple,
but intelligible distinction between the kingly and the
priestly office. Short of this distinction, the head of the
State is head of the Church — not as representing Christ,
the alone spiritual Head, but as representing the tem
poral machinery and outward polity of the Church.
But the kingly power is, by God's providence, limited in
these realms. Hence articles of religion, to be professed
by the State, are ratified and made law by act of parlia
ment. All this makes the Church of England what it pro
fesses to be, a national Church.
Now all this is in the last degree distasteful to the Move
ment party. We find the Master writing to the following
effect : " That there are real difficulties to a Catholic Chris
tian in the ecclesiastical position of our Church at this day

1 Ann. 57. Sec. 23. - Cone. Rom. III. apud Bin. p. 484. J 1 Chron.
xxiii. 6. xxviii. 21. 2 Chrun. viii. 14, 10. xvii. a, 9. xix. 8. to the end.
* XXI. XXXVII.

POSITION OF THE CHURCH. 7
no one can deny. Let the Church our mother sit still ; let
us be content to be in bondage,"1 &c. Such is the guarded
language of a tract prepared expressly as an anodyne.
The feelings of the Movement may be learnt from other
sources. Mr. Faber tells us that " any thing would be
better for a branch of the Church Catholic than that she
should be delivered up to the pestilence of Erastian mode
ration."2 "The Church of England is under a civil
pressure, which she hopes to break."3 Mr. Froude ex
claims, " the present Church system is an incubus on the
country. I admire M.'s hit about our being united to the
State as Israel was to Egypt."4
The drift of all this requires no explanation. To make
Church functionaries the lords, not the ministers,5 of the
State, has been ever the besetting lust of ecclesiastical
bodies. But the degree to which these aspirants for priestly
power would carry it may be learnt from the following ex
pressions. Mr. Faber, like Socrates, has a familiar demon,
a sort of second, irresponsible, self who can speak out, dis
posing of the difficulties and irresolutions of the first, and
forgiving the silenced Neophyte, on the ground that he is
" not ripe."6 This eloquent spirit, who bears the name of
Middle ages, but assumes the language of Number Ninety,
lays it down that the Church " has a great duty to perform.
It is to menace, to thwart, to interfere ;" denies the doc
trine of a divine right of hereditary succession ; says " there
are worse bigotries than attachment to the memory of the
Stuarts," and augurs well for the Church when she " throws
herself into the arms of the people." So O'Connelite an
act must come of ambition, not love, for the same high
toned authority, speaking of " that most dire weapon of
the Church, excommunication," goes on to argue, " surely
it is a duty of Christian states to deprive such excommuni
cated person of every social right and privilege — or even, if
they so judge, to sweep him from the earth."7 Startling
language for the nineteenth century! yet perhaps not more
so than another announcement, that "Europe will once
more see a people fall back from the throne of an excom
municated king." 8
1 Introduction to Number Ninety. - Sights and Thoughts in Foreign
Churches, p. 291. 3 Ibid. p. 415. * Remains, Vol. I. p. 405.
5 See Matt. xx. 26. 6 Sights and Thoughts, p. 367.
' Ibid. pp. 210, 213, 214,419. " Ibid. p. 352.

8 POSITION OF THE CHURCH.
To put such extravagances into the mouth ofthe amiable
demon may suit the modesty of an unripe scholar, or
the prudent tactics quoted from head quarters. How far the
ingenuous pupil is really behind his guide appears in what
he speaks elsewhere in propria, persona. " When she'
(the Church) " sat upon her high chair J somewhat, it may be,
God only knoweth, somewhat more lordly than beseemed
her . . . she kept in power, not by courting the royal and
the noble, but by over-awing kings, by keeping their pride,
and lust, and wrath under ; by breaking them down with a
rod of iron."1
Arms emulous of such powers must indeed be in bondage.
But these, it may be said, are the ravings of some headlong
enthusiast. The Tractarian Monthly Magazine dispels the
charitable delusion. " With the thoughts," it tells us, in a
review of this work, " we hold very sincere sympathy."2
We have further indications in another journal, which,
at the time I quote from, might be called official. The
British Critic, in an elaborate article on Bishop Jewel,
informs us that " the only good reformers have been
ascetics — Elijah, St. John the Baptist ; and again, the
lights ofthe Church in the middle ages, Hildebrand, Becket,
and Innocent."3 An unsophisticated man may start to
find a review, not professedly Romish, singling out from
all past time three worthies of the Church of Rome.
Astonishment will rise as those worthies are known. Of
Hildebrand, then, be it remembered, that he was the great
champion of those " false decretals," by which the popes
alleged that the sovereignty of the earth had been handed
down to them from St. Peter. Brett, quoted as an au
thority in the Oxford Tracts, calls him "that firebrand both
of Church and State."4 The learned Usher calls him, " fa-
tale portentum, prodigiumque ecclesise;"' and Bishop Pa
trick, "the first great troubler of the Christian world."6
It was this ecclesiastical monster who kept an emperor
standing three days at his castle gate, during a severe
winter, bare-footed, bare-headed, "with no other raiment
than a wretched piece of coarse woollen cloth to cover his
1 Sights and Thoughts, p. 291. 2 Monthly Magazine
for June, 1842, p. 625. 3 British Critic, No. LIX.
p. 15. 4 Quoted in Quarterly Review, CXXXVIII. p. 502, from Church
Government, c. xviii. p. 403. 5 De Eccles. Success, p. 58. 6 Devotions
of Church of Rome, p. 212. The Reader will do well to consult Mosheim,
Cent. XI. part II. chap. II. § 9,10, &c.

POSITION OF THE CHURCH. 9
nakedness." Of Becket most Englishmen know something.
Archbishop Bramhall says, " we do abominate that mur
der as lawless and barbarous ; but we do not believe that
the cause of his suffering was sufficient to make him a martyr,
viz. to help foreigners to pull the fairest flowers from his
prince's diadem by violence, and to perjure himself, and
violate his oath. All his own suffragan bishops were against
him in the cause."1 Bishop Bilson says, " This quarrel was
one of those in their own nature wicked and irreligious ; his
pride was intolerable ; his contention with the king detest
able ; his end miserable. We conclude him to be a shame
ful defender of wickedness, an open breaker of his oath, and
a proud impugner of the sword which God hath authorized."2
Of Innocent it is enough to say, that his great principle was,
that " the Church owes no reverence to any person but the
pope," — that he pronounced sentence of excommunication
on two emperors in succession, put England under an in
terdict, and gave its crown to the king of France, — and
that his tender mercies called out a bloody crusade against
the Albigenses.
It is impossible to look on such a selection as an exhi
bition of bad taste. Nor is it possible to doubt why,
amongst the only good Old Testament reformers, no note is
taken of those kingly restorers of godliness, Hezekiah and
Josiah.3 There is " a method in this madness :" and it is
not peculiar to the official journal. Another organ of the
Movement, the British Magazine, speaks of this same Hil
debrand as " that celebrated man who reigns in the Church
without the vestige of a rival."4 Another makes him the
hero of two octavo volumes, describing what the author
calls " the Reformation of the Eleventh Century."*-
We cannot wonder that it was not long since debated
whether the Movement party could conscientiously continue
in a Church thus cramped and fettered by the State. Lord
Stanley's bill for a better arrangement of the Irish
dioceses was the immediate screw ; but the question, once
extorted, could not turn on any particular measure. What
precise arguments prevailed in behalf of the Egyptian
status quo, none but members of the conclave may surmise.

1 Just Vindication, p. 95. 2 True Difference, p. 483. 3 The value of
the omission may be seen by reference to 2 Kings xxiii. 21, 22. * British
gazine, IX. 359. 5 Bowden's Life and Pontificate of Gregory VII.

10 POSITION OF THE CHURCH.
Some have since lost patience, and are at large within
the liberties of Rome. The party works "in chains;"
but not without all possible efforts for this new Catholic
emancipation. Attacks are daily making on the connexion
between Church and State. The most emphatic stress
is laid on what is technically called " The Visibility of the
Church," as of a body distinct, in features as in character —
a body having an external form, not as an accident, variable
with time and place, but as an integral essential quality of
its being — a body with as true an articulation of visible
parts as any external thing can have — a body whose visi
bility consists, not in its members being individually visible,
but in its own corporate substantiality — a body not spi
ritual, save by a misapplication of the word, possessing all
the external development of any other kingdom ; — " a
horn" amongst other horns — a " little horn," but " that had
eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look
was more stout than his fellows." This is the Tractarian
view of the Visibility of the Church. The idea of a mys
tical body will not suffice. The word is retained : but re
tained as the style and title of what is essentially visible ;
a sort of " fifth monarchy," whose rulers are to sit on
thrones. The spiritual unity of a body will not suffice.
They quote Christ's prayer, " that all may be one :" but
they have no notion of oneness, save of subordination to one
government. The sublime unity of faith, hope, and love —
of character, and object, and experience, and end, is all be
yond them. The holding this unity of the faith " in unity
of spirit and the bond of peace," by toleration amidst diffe
rences, and recognition of membership amidst varieties of
form and action, is not so much as admitted among the
virtues of their decalogue. The aspect such a unity would
present to the world — the impressive grandeur ofa thing so
unearthly and so luminous- — the moral force of so mag
nificent a triumph of a heaven-descended principle over the
littlenesses and selfishnesses the world understands so well —
the distinctness of the mark the Church's Head has esta
blished, " by this shall all men know that ye are My disciples,
if ye have love one to another" — a mark lustrous indeed
when found on those who differ in external things, stamping
" unity of the Spirit" on those who have no bond of union
in the flesh — this is foreign to their system, and foreign to
their hearts. It is not a unity of the Spirit they seek for.

DISTINCTIVE TITLE OF CATHOLICS. 11
The ecclesiastical principle is every thing ; the religious is
absorbed. Christ's prayer is for one government ; Christ's
test is for one rule. There is a groaning for communion
with the darkest portions of episcopalianism ; not a sigh,
not a syllable for those other parts of Christendom, where,
under "diversities of administration," there is "one faith,
one Lord, one baptism." We can imagine how such per
sons must regard what they call " the moderate principle
of the Church of England."
Of this we shall see proof as we proceed. It is observ
able that the " leading journal of Europe" has been pro
pitiated ; and, accordingly, amongst other curiosities, we
meet with some very ingenious arguments to prove that we
have no such thing as an established Church. Other pe
riodicals under the same influence have met the subject
of Church extension on the same ground ; alleging that
the Church — of itself — in its own separate capacity — in
other words, un-nationalized, and made the " imperium in
imperio," is to provide for a people for whose well-being
we have been wont to think a Christian government ought
to care. On this point I will say no more ; the scene opens
before us. § 2. Distinctive Title of Catholics.
Number Ninety begins with these words, " It is often
urged, and sometimes felt and granted, that there are in
the Articles propositions or terms inconsistent with the
Catholic faith." We are not to suppose that an objection
is often urged, though but sometimes felt: although it is
true that objections are felt by some who dare not follow
them out. A tract is therefore written, to assure them that
whatever " real difficulties occur to a Catholic Christian in
the ecclesiastical position of the Church, the Articles are
not of the number." By what means this is shewn we
shall see in good time : all we gather at present is this,
here is a distinction between Catholic Christians, and other
members of the Church : a distinction somewhat peremp
torily established in the conclusion of the tract, where we
read, " The Protestant Confession was drawn up with the
purpose of including Catholics, and Catholics will not now
be excluded." (p. 83.)
The significance of this distinction may be learnt
from the following words : " Generally speaking, the tone

12 ABJURATION OF PROTESTANTISM.
of the fourth century is so unlike that of the sixteenth, on
each and all of these topics, that it is impossible for the
same mind to sympathize with both. You must choose
between the two lines, they are not only diverging but
contrary."1 It is true that the topics referred to in this
passage are " fasting, celibacy, religious vows, voluntary
retirement, and contemplation," (commonly called monas-
ticism) " the memory of the saints, and rites and cere
monies ;" but these things must either be held by Trac
tarians as of essential importance, or there must be other
things between these two centuries that are so ; for the
British Critic makes the loss of these differentials constitute
England " a benighted land," and their restoration as
bringing back " the pure light of the Gospel."2 Nay, the
tract on Reserve speaks of " the great loss of christian
principle which our Church sustained at the Rebellion" (in
English language, the glorious Revolution) " of 1688, when
she threw, as it were, out of her pale, the doctrine of Christ
crucified."3 Such are the terms in which Tractarians speak
of the two lines. We are in no doubt as to which they are
pursuing. The British Critic talks of " the system which
certain parties are labouring to restore"- — of " the oppo
sition which the ancient religion encounters," — and of" the
impediments in the vt&j of our return to the old paths."4
Let us see what means are adopting for the restoration of
the ancient religion, and we shall the better understand
what the religion is to be.
§ 3. — Abjuration of Protestantism.
We have been accustomed to speak of " the Protestant
faith" — to look on our Church as a Protestant Church,
founded or reformed by Protestant divines, on Protestant
principles, for a Protestant people. The Royal House be
neath whose gracious sway we live was invested with its
prerogatives as a Protestant family. Each successive
Monarch of that House, on receiving the time-honoured
symbols of those prerogatives, makes solemn oath to
" maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by
the laws."5 Now it is notorious, that this word Protestan-
1 Froude's Remains, edited by Messrs. Newman and Keble, Vol. III.
pref. p. xxix. 2 British Critic, LX. p. 340. 3 Tract LXXX. p. 77.
* LIX. pp. 28, 45. 5 Coronation Oath.

CONDEMNATION OF THE REFORMER'S. 13
tism is by the Movement party put beneath a ban. Mr.
Faber speaks " of the invention of Protestantism."1 ^Tract
LXXI. attempts to wash the Church's hands of it.2 The
British Critic says, " it is, in essence and in all its bearings,
characteristically the religion of corrupt human nature;"3
and that " the Protestant tone of doctrine and thought is
essentially antichristian." * Another of the party calls it
" a heresy," and then proceeds, with becoming solemnity,
to pronounce the following sentence — " I say anathema to
the principle of Protestantism (which I regard as identical
with that of dissent,) and to all its forms, and sects, and
denominations, especially to those of the Lutherans and
Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters. Likewise
to all persons who, knowingly and willingly, and under
standing what they say, shall assert, either for themselves,
or for the Church of England, to have one and the same
common religion5 with any or all of the various forms and
sects of Protestantism, or shall communicate themselves in
the temples of Protestant sects, or give the communion to
their members, or go about to establish any intercom
munion between ourselves and them — to all such I say,
anathema."6 This at least is honest, if not Christian, language. That
it only speaks as from the altar what is practising else
where, we learn from the following avowal of the official
journal. After alluding to the inevitable consequences of
the pending struggle, " vexing the Church with contro
versy, interrupting the established order of things," &c. it
is added, " all this is worth hazarding in a matter of life
and death — an object thus momentous we believe to be the
unprotestantizing of the national Church." 7 The full mean
ing of this phrase we shall learn as we go on. We pro
ceed with the tactics by which the ancient religion is
restoring. § 4. — Condemnation of the Reformers.
The terms in which the Reformers are treated come next
before us. In quoting, here and elsewhere, from Froude's
1 Sights and Thoughts, p. 107. * p. 38. 3 British Critic, July,
1841, p. 27. 4 Ibid. p. 29. 5 This genuine " Catholicity" is, I need
scarce observe, the emphatic converse of the apostolic prayer, " Grace be with
all them that love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," (Eph. vi. 24) and a breach,
no less emphatic, ofthe Master's command, " Forbid them not," &c. (Luke ix. 50.)
6 Palmer's Letter to Golightly. ' British Critic, LIX. p. 45.

14 CONDEMNATION OF THE REFORMERS.
Remains, it might have been hoped that his words were
the utterance of a momentary petulance. Such a hope is
trodden under foot by his editors. — " His words (playful
ness and irony apart) may be taken more literally than
those of most men. He was not in the habit of speak
ing at random on such matters."1 What then does
he say? " As for the Reformers, I think worse and
worse of them. Really I hate the Reformation and the
Reformers more and more."2 But what say his distin
guished editors? "It appeared to him and to the editors
that the persons chiefly instrumental in that great change"
(Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and Jewel) " were not, as a
party, to be trusted on ecclesiastical and theological ques
tions."3 Here is a tolerable blow at the national Church.
The outrage is supported by other organs of the party.
We all know that the Articles were revised, before publi
cation, by Bishop Jewel. The name of that prelate is so
dear to every child of the Reformation, that age to age has
brought its tribute of veneration and gratitude. I might
quote from divines of the Church of England expressions
in which admiration seems to have exhausted the English,
and I had almost said the Latin, language.4 In such
esteem was he held by his great contemporaries, that his
" Apology" was, by authority of the Queen and of the
Bishops, published in 1562 as a public confession of the
doctrines of the Church of England ; and a copy of his
Defence of that Apology ordered to be placed in every
Church throughout the realm. To this " Jewel of the
Reformation," as he has been called, this " worthiest
divine," according to the judicious Hooker, " that Chris
tendom hath bred for the space of some hundreds of
years,"5 we have first the testimony of Froude : " Certainly
the Council of Trent had no fair chance of getting at the
truth, if they saw no alternative between Transubstantiation
and Jewelism."6 "Jewel was what you would call in this
day an irreverent Dissenter." ' Then come Froude's editors
clenching these sharp sentences ; and anon a very elaborate
article appears in the British Critic, the avowed object of
1 Preface to First Part of Remains, p. xix. 2 Remains, Vol. I. pp. 379,
389. 3 Ibid. Preface to Second Part, p. xix. l A rich collection
of eulogistic expressions may be found at p. 476 of the Quarterly Review,
No. CXXXVIII. s Eccles. Pol. Book II. §6. 6 Remains, Vol." I. p. 339.
7 Ibid. 379.

AND OF THE REFORMATION. 15
which is " to justify these disparaging remarks,"1 and that
on the distinct ground that Bishop Jewel is taken as the
" representative of the moderate principle of the Church
of England."2 § 5. — And of the Reformation.
We make painful progress from the workmen to their
work. The Reformation is spoken of in suitable terms.
One of the mildest censures is to be found in that passage
of the British Critic, which is likely to become famous,
" We must recede more and more from the principles, if
any such there be, of the English Reformation."3 How
long have members of the Church of England doubted
whether the Thirty-nine Articles had any principles?
No less than twenty-eight contain distinct dogmatical
assertions, embodying the substance of all we know as
to the being of Almighty God, His ways of mercy to
His fallen creatures, the authority of His word, and the
sacraments of His grace ; we are compelled, therefore, to
refer this aspersion to the matter of Church authority. It
should seem then that, with these ecclesiastics, the vindi
cation of our religious liberties is no principle — that the
establishment of God's word as the sole standard of truth
is no principle — that the purification of the sanctuary, at
the price of martyrs' blood, is no principle — that the open
ing of the way to heaven by simple faith in Christ, after
ages of obstruction by the accumulated rubbish of human
merit, alms-deeds, mortification, penance, grace of the
Church, saintly and angelic intercession, involves no prin
ciple. It may seem needless to quote further ; but the fol
lowing expressions must not be overlooked.
Mr. Newman says, " our Reformation mutilated the tra
dition of fifteen hundred years ;"4 that the alteration in the
Liturgy, at the time of the Reformation, exhibits a contrast
like that between the first and second temples, " deserving
tears ;"5 that it was a " taking from us a part of our ancient
inheritance; a withdrawment of our higher privileges; a
thrusting us aside, and bidding us take the lower place,
the position of suppliants, and to weep between the porch
and the altar."6 Froude is " more and more indignant at
the Protestant doctrine on the subject of the Eucharist :"
1 No. LIX. p. 8. 2 Ibid. p. 6. 3 Ibid. p. 45. * Letter to Dr. Fausset,
p. 46. 5 Tract for the Times, No. LXXXVI. p. 5. 6 Ibid. pp. 7, 25.

16 MYSTIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES.
and thinks that " the principle on which it is founded
is as proud, irreverent, and foolish, as that of heresy, or
even Socinianism."1 The very Bible does not seem to
have gone unscathed. Mr. Faber tells his demon, " I
know the soft, sentimental character of our English version
ofthe ancient gospel."2 Froude says of the Reformation,
that " it was a limb badly set ; it must be broken again, in
order to be righted."3 The business is, it seems, in pro
gress : " the more I read, the more I am reconciled to the
present state of things in England, and the prospects of
the Church. It seems to me only the fermentation of filth
which has been long in existence, and could not be got rid
of otherwise."4 § 6. — Mystification of the Articles.
It appears that certain propositions in the Thirty-nine
Articles stand rather in the way. In proceeding to efforts
for the removal of these obstructions, it is impossible to
forget what is at stake. A Church, to be a Church, must
have certain distinctive principles : and the nation which
identifies itself with an ecclesiastical system has a right to
some guarantee as to what that system shall teach for
truth. It cannot be endured that, in two neighbouring
parishes, the same authority should be setting* forth the
most contradictory tenets. Hence the necessity of Articles
of faith. It will not do for a man to say, I will preach
from the Bible. Many say this who seem to find strange
things there. Some sort of symbol must be given as to
what the man reads in the Bible. This symbol is the
Article.' It is not authoritative per se : but it expresses
what is agreed on as authoritative because written in God's
word. I dare not say that Articles, however necessary,
answer all their purpose. This does not make them
unimportant as far as they go. They are, at least, a
standing record of what the Church professes to teach; a
rallying point for those who hold the doctrine therein laid
down, a tribunal and a touchstone to try those who do not
hold it. True hearted men, therefore, having conscientiously
signed the Articles, love them, abide by them, are jealous
about them, feel that the most deadly blow that can be
1 Remains, Vol. I. p. 391. a Sights and Thoughts, p. 207.
3 Remains, p. 433. * Ibid. p. 356.

MYSTIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES.

17

aimed at the distinctive character, and therefore the legi
timate claims, of the Church, is the invalidating of docu
ments which are at once its portraiture and its title deeds.
Now I will not enter on the morality of the movement
party on this point. It might certainly have been de
manded that they should deal with the Articles as they
have dealt with those who framed them. If those who
" often urged, sometimes felt, and sometimes admitted,
that there were in the Articles terms inconsistent with
the Catholic faith," had gone direct to their Diocesan,
and told him that they were Catholics, they would
have stood before the public in a very different light.
This, however, is not my mark. I am intent on shew
ing that the Tractarian system is an attack upon the
principles of the Church of England ; and its treat
ment of the Articles is the last evidence I shall ad
duce. What then does it do ? Why, after multifarious
efforts, and a series of eighty-nine laborious tracts, the
party is brought to such a sense of the uncatholicity of the
Articles, that it is necessary for the master mind to obviate
the consequences This is done by shewing "how ground
less the objection is." The means adopted are so extra
ordinary as at once to excite our wonder, and make the
discrepancy more palpable. The handling of separate
Articles would require more space than I can spare : it
will be sufficient, with an illustration or two, to examine
the principles of interpretation.
We must begin with the conclusion.1 It is here stated
that " Catholics will not be excluded" by the Articles — and
that " it is our duty both to the Catholic Church and bur
own, to take these reformed confessions in the most
Catholic sense they will admit." The Articles then are
to be subjected to a nice operation, in order to ascertain
their most Catholic sense.
It is further urged that, " the Declaration prefixed to the
Articles, enjoining the ' literal and grammatical sense,' re
lieves us from the necessity of making the known opinions
of their framers a comment upon the text" — a strange
quotation for persons who are seeking, not the literal and
grammatical, but " the most Catholic sense." It is still
more strangely added, that "its forbidding any person to
1 P. 80.

18 MYSTIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES.
affix any new sense was promulgated at a time when the
leading men of our Church were especially noted for
those Catholic views," &c. So, first, to avoid reading the
Articles by the well known opinions of their framers, the
Declaration is quoted for taking them in their literal and
grammatical sense ; and then (to get rid of their literal
and grammatical sense?) the Declaration is to be taken
according to the well known opinions of its framers. " It
may be remarked, moreover, that such an interpretation
is in accordance with the well known leaning of Me-
lancthon, from whose writings our Articles were prin
cipally drawn." Here we have a return from the Decla
ration sense and the grammatical sense alike, to the
opinions of the framer. But what framer? Not the " ir
reverent Dissenter" who actually drew them up, but a
German divine, and his well-known general leaning (the
climax goes on) " whose Catholic tendencies gained for
him that same reproach of Popery," &c. So that our
Thirty-nine Articles, admitted by their interpreter to be
" the offspring of an uncatholic age," compiled by one
whose uncatholic sentiments have gainedCfor him the most
flattering abuses of Tractarianism, are at last traced to a
man of Catholic tendencies; and — for the climax is not
yet complete — to be interpreted on Catholic principles,
because " this great man and his associates placed many
things in the class of things indifferent — for he regarded as
such the doctrine of justification by faith alone, the number
of the sacraments, and the jurisdiction of the Pope:" on
each of which subjects the compilers of the Articles held
the most decisive opinions, and the Articles lay down the
most positive affirmations. Such are the pains and penal
ties of Tractarian interpretation ofthe Articles.
It were injustice, after such an account of the theory, to
withhold a specimen of the practice. Let us take Article
Twenty-one : the rather, because it is critical as regards
some points of " Catholicity."
What then says Catholic interpretation ? Why, first,
" that great bodies of men, of different countries, may
not meet together without the sanction of their rulers :"
next, " that when met together, though Christians, they
will not be all ruled by the Spirit of God :" what then ?
Why, " that bodies of men, deficient in this respect,
may err, is a self-evident truth." Have we done? The

MYSTIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES. 19
Article has : save that it adds the practical conclusion,
" and sometimes have erred, in things pertaining to God."
But the interpreter has not done. He states the general
principle with the Article : he adds a qualification without
the Article ; and a qualification which reduces the Article
to sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal. " Unless, indeed,
they be favoured with some divine superintendence ;" or, as
it is put in the next sentence, " unless in any case it is
promised, as a matter of express supernatural privilege, that
they shall not err ; a case which lies beyond the scope of this
Article, or at any rate beside its determination. Such a
promise, however, does exist, when general councils are
not only gathered together according to the command
ment and will of princes, but in the name of Christ, ac
cording to our Lord's promise."
Let us suspend our astonishment at the premises, that
Christ's promised presence, wheresoever two or three are
gathered together in His name, is a guarantee of infalli
bility — an assumption which must render every Christian
prayer-meeting an infallible assembly ; aud let us look
simply on this interpretation of the Article. We have
heard of the word being made of " none effect," where it
was not denied : what shall be said of an interpretation
which, reading an Article entitled " on the Authority of
General Councils," makes it utter truisms as to what such
Councils might be, were there no divine warrant for their
authority, but not a syllable about the possibility of a
warrant which " does exist?" It is no answer to say that
the Article begins with asserting the prerogative of tem
poral princes. I wonder how, with these words in it, such
an interpreter can have dared to sign it. What ! is it in the
Church's charter to put an end to distractions by an infallible
Council ; and will he sign over the benefit to those secular
authorities, the recognition of whom has made Catholics
work in chains ? I repeat, it is no answer to say that the
Article begins by asserting the prerogative of the temporal
prince. It does so begin ; but it does not so end. If it did,
the heading would never have stood as it does. The bulk
of the Article refers to the Council assembling, not the
prince convening. It is a distinct and emphatic abnegation
of a well known blasphemy : and its abnegation is dis
tinctly marked in its title. To say that a General Council
c2

20

MYSTIFICATION OF THE ARTICLES.

convened in the name of Christ is beyond the scope of the
Article, is to give the Article no scope at all in the Christen
dom it was written for : for where was ever the General
Council that did not come together in the name of Christ .
To say, therefore, " the Article merely contemplates the
human prince, not the King of Saints," is to make it a
dead letter, and its subscription a solemn farce. No doubt
the Catholic doctrine ofthe infallibility of General Councils
escapes by such a process; and the authority of General
Councils remains what Popery has ever made it. But this
is no interpretation. If it were, we must have more
Articles of faith to hold divines, than laws of justice to
punish thieves.
The above specimen of Catholic interpretation was jmt
forth, in Catholic language, at " the Feast of St. Paul," or
as we English Christians would say, in the month of Janu
ary, one thousand eight hundred and forty-one. It is not
surprising that, in the month of March ensuing, a meeting
of the Vice Chancellor, Heads of Houses, and Proctors of
the University of Oxford came to the conclusion that,
" Considering that it is enjoined in the statutes of the
University that every student shall be instructed and ex
amined in the Thirty-nine Articles, and shall subscribe to
them ; considering also that a tract has recently appeared,
dated from Oxford, and entitled, ' Remarks on certain
Passages in the Thirty-nine Articles,' being Number Ninety
of the Tracts for the Times ; resolved, that modes of
interpretation such as are suggested in the same Tract,
evading, rather than explaining, the sense of the Articles,
and reconciling their subscription with the adoption of
errors which they were designed to counteract, defeat the
object, and are inconsistent with the due observance, of the
above mentioned statute."
This is tolerably distinct ; and from a very competent
authority. There is another class of authorities, still more
entitled, on such a subject, to our respect — still more so
lemnly pledged to watch against the entrance of error —
still less tempted by their position to an incautious
committal — still less likely to think uncharitably, or bear
hardly upon a party whose tenets profess to uphold
the prerogatives of the hierarchy. It is a solemn fact
that, since the publication of Number Ninety, no fewer, I

PROOFS OF FIRST CHARGE RECAPITULATED. 21
believe, than sixteen of the archbishops and bishops have
in their printed charges pronounced a protest against that
Tract. Now it is needless to shew that this Tract does not
stand alone ; but that, as it was written for, it is received
by, the collective party. Such proofs have been amply
furnished : but were they less numerous, the fact that
the Tract was written by the individual, the most in
fluential, by far, of all the Tractarian body— written under
urgent circumstances, to keep the body from a suicidal
declaration against the Articles — and so written as actually
to answer its purpose ; and that since its publication there
has not been a single note of dissatisfaction from a single
member of the party, were sufficient evidence that the
general body would not give it up as a scape goat.
§ 7, Proofs of First Charge recapitulated.
I have now gone through all needful proof, though but an
insignificant part of what might be urged, in attestation
of my first, charge against the Tractarian movement. In
shewing that it proclaims its dissatisfaction with the present
position of the Church — its allegiance, in point of doctrine,
to a shadowy something anterior to the epoch which made
our Church of England what she is — its determination to
restore what it calls " the ancient religion" — its abhorrence
of all that calls itself Protestant — its contempt for the
Reformers — its shame and sorrow at the Reformation — and
its right to interpret the Thirty-nine Articles, not in a Pro
testant, but a Catholic sense, I have abundantly made out
the assertion I began with, that the movement is a de
parture from the principles of the Church of England.
§ 8. Second Charge — Irrelevancy of Tractarian Professions.
We are now prepared for my second allegation, that this
Movement is a departure for the principles of Rome. When
men have been convicted of disgust for the principles and
position of the Church of England, we are in a capacity
to receive evidence of further infatuation. Before such
conviction we almost refuse a hearing.
It must be borne in mind that we have nothing to do with
the ultimate intentions of the party. We are to examine,

22 SECOND CHARGE, &C
not the movers, but the Movement. Nor have we much
more concern with their actual professions. When we
read the avowal that " it is absolutely necessary that truths
should be stated, which as yet have been but intimated,
and others developed which are now but in germ," x we feel
as well informed about what is to follow, as of the length of
a snake when we first see his crest. Let it be granted that
Tractarians know their own mind, and that their real
object is to restore the tone of the fourth century, what
satisfaction have we got? Why, unlearned readers are
helped by Mr. Newman himself to a very competent
notion of this tone of the fourth century. He tells us that
" in Asia Minor the Church was almost without form and
void; that the disorders of the Christian Church, especially
of the Bast, and still more of Asia Minor, were so great in
Basil's day, that a spectator might have foretold the total
overthrow of the Church."2 Is this the model sera in
whicli to search for what is apostolic par excellence? Is
it an approach to satisfaction, amidst so many symptoms
of Popery, that this is " the ancient religion" for which we
are to unprotestantize the Church?
But there is another consideration which detaches us
from the professed intentions ofthe Movement. All Popish
abominations were gradually developed. Every student of
prophecy knows the difficulty of fixing the precise limits of
the reign of Antichrist : not because the twelve hundred and
sixty prophetic days are not a definite period ; but because
it is difficult to fix the manhood of " the man of sin." We
know that he was in existence in the time of the apostles. 3
We know that each succeeding century matured his growth.
But we only conjecture the precise time when he came of
age, and got his birthright. This of itself vitiates all appeals
to antiquity, and makes adherence to what is vaguely called
primitive no security whatsoever against primitive Popery.
One thing is certain : Protestantism, under God, destroyed
Popery in England ; and the Movement professes to get rid
of Protestantism. We proceed, therefore, under at least
very dark forebodings, to see if it be not in full march for
Rome. On this point the evidence is large and varied. I will

British Critic, LIX. p. 45. 2 Church ofthe Fathers, p. 91.
3 " The mystery of iniquity doth already work." 2 Thess. ii. 7.

CATHOLIC INTERPRETATION ROMAN CATHOLIC, &C 23
begin by some general indications ; and then trace a few of
the most important particulars.
§ 9. Catholic Interpretation Roman Catholic.
To take up the matter where we left it, I mean at the
interpretation of the Articles, we find what Number Ninety
calls Catholic interpretation made a little more plain in the
British Critic. The reviewer tells us that " at all events,
the fact seems highly probable as a matter of history, that in
the construction of the Articles, an eye was had to the com
prehension of all Roman Catholics, except those only who
maintained the Pope to be, de jure, the primate of Christen
dom."1 J V
The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol observes, "The
ostensible object of this Tract is to shew that a person
adopting the doctrines of the Council of Trent, with the
single exception of the Pope's supremacy, might sincerely
and conscientiously sign the Articles ofthe Church of Eng
land. But the real object at which the writer seems to be
labouring, is to prove that the difference in doctrine which
separates the churches of England and Rome will, on
examination, vanish."2
The matter is put beyond dispute by the declaration of
Mr. Ward, that " the Articles may be signed by one who
holds the Decrees of Trent."3 The inference is very plain;
but it remains to be proved. Let us look first at some of
the outward actings, and next at certain intrinsic principles
of Tractarianism. § 10. Outward Symptoms.
Of the outward symptoms, many, did they stand alone,
would be beneath our notice. Thus we hear once more of
faid stools, letterns, roodscreens, and misereres — of candles
lighted at noon day — special reverence to be paid to what
is industriously called the altar — directions, in architectural
and other works, as to the due placing, elevating, and non-
obstructing of the altar. At Birmingham, we find a Vicar
placing a gilt crucifix on the altar, and bowing, Romish
fashion, as he passes and repasses it. At a chapel in London,
1 British Critic, LIX. p. 27. 2 Charge, 1841. * " A few more
words in defence of Number Ninety."

24 OUTWARD SYMPTOMS.
some have seen three clergymen at once prostrate to solemn
music before the altar; and at the administration ofthe Lord's
supper, the — host, I had almost said— held up three times to
devout contemplation. Some have been struck with the
standing accident by which these indefatigable divines are
uniformly moved to issue their tracts on a saint's day. _ We
live a little longer, and we find one of the party quit his
congregation at Ryde for the Romish communion of saints.
Presently two others, less distinguished by personal endow
ments, but enjoying the special privilege ofthe ministrations
of the Interpreter, make an open exchange of " stammering
lips"1 for the plainer teaching of the mass book. In
process of time all sorts of things present themselves in the
daily press. A resident graduate of Oxford, who appends
his name to his statement, publicly declares that no less
than " ten fellows of colleges and clergymen of the Estab
lished Church, are taking advantage of their positions to
propagate Romanism : that the Rev. W. Ward, fellow of
Baliol, had admitted that Mr. Newman is no longer op
posed to Rome ; that Mr. Ward himself has been a visitor
of Dr. Wiseman, at Oscott College ; that the Rev. J.
Bloxam, fellow of Magdalene, was the individual who intro
duced Mr. Sibthorp to Dr. Wiseman ; that a Popish bishop
has been staying at Oxford, receiving and returning acade
mical visits ; that a fellow of Exeter has expressed his belief
that seven years hence the churches of England and Rome
will be reunited ; that some cross themselves in public wor
ship ; others practise genuflections ; others openly praise
the inquisition ; talk of Saint Ignatius Loyola ; have plans
for taming refractory bishops," &c. 2 I will not dwell on
individual instances. To the intelligent it may justify the
ways of Providence, that, whilst the party is looking back,
significant warning should be given by these pillars of salt.
Some will contrive to divest them of all that is salutary. It
will be argued that, in adjusting the lines of truth, we must
expect to see minds of a certain order mistaking the limits.
This is just the whole question. I affirm that Tractarianism
does not lay down, but take up, lines of truth; and that its
salient points lie all of them on those confines of light and
darkness, where error has been always most successfully

1 See note at p. 4 of No. XC. 2 The letter appeared, during the last
winter, in the St. James's Chronicle.

THE MEDIATORIAL CHURCH SYSTEM. 25
called truth. A review of those points will show that " un-
protestantizing" means Romanizing, and that the cases re
ferred to are the proper fruits ofthe system.
§ 11. The Mediatorial Church System.
I believe we shall best apprehend the subject by beginning
with the phenomena we have just been glancing at. They
are but specimens of an effort to bring again into play that
complicated machinery, which distinguishes the Romish
ritual from our own. In some cases there is a reproduction
of discarded ceremonials : in others a revival of minute ob
servances which have lapsed. The punctilious stickling for
these things is one of the first ostensible symptoms of the
Movement. This is not mere 'antiquarianism : it has a
deeper source : the British Critic tells us, " the grand
question between Catholics and Protestants is this : Has
Almighty God, or has He not, interposed a sacramental
medium between Himself and man? Catholics with all their
mutual differences say that -He has: Protestants, with
all theirs, say the reverse." 1 Here is a master question :
who shall solve it ? What does the Bible say ? what the
Church to which these Catholics profess to belong? Is
there a syllable in the New Testament, or in tbe Articles
and Liturgy of the Church of England, that gives the
slightest countenance to this " sacramental medium ?" This
is no question as to the two real sacraments. What is
meant is plain from another remark on Bishop Jewel's
" deep and deliberate antipathy to the whole principle of
External and Symbolical worship, as involved in the use of
Church Vestments and Ornaments, with other accompani
ments of Ceremonial religion."2 " All the parts of the
Holy Catholic system do hang together : if it be a delusion,
then even surplices are sinful : if, on the other hand, it be a
life giving Ordinance of divine appointment, one vast sacra
ment, so to say, then even surplices are in their way essen
tial."3 " Jewel and the Puritans seem to have felt that in
the most unimportant symbolical usage of the Church, was
contained the whole essence of the sacramental principle.
It is impossible not to see how. this extraordinary passage
makes conscience of every rag of Popery ; how it explains
1 LIX. p. 39. " Ibid. p. 21. 3 Ibid. p. 24.

26

THE MEDIATORIAL CHURCH SYSTEM.

the confession of an ardent Tractarian, " I looked in vain "
(in a Roman Catholic cathedral) " for the mummery, childish
repetition, and so forth, which one reads of in modern
travellers ;" * and how it sweeps away all distinction between
proprieties, for which a Church is bound by apostolic precept
to provide, s and sacramental institutions ordained of God,
for the further multiplication of which there is not a shadow
of warrant in Holy Scripture. This distinction is one ofthe
Rubicons that mark the States of the Church. But I would
fix attention on the extent to which Tractarianism, like
Popery, gives a oneness, indivisibility, and divine authority
to what is directly after called " this mediatorial system, this
one diffusive doctrine and one transforming principle, living
and vigorous in its countless ramifications, of which even the
minutest cannot be violated without impairing and endan
gering the unity and perfection of the whole :" " this tree of
life, which we may not rudely approach or curiously handle."3
I take this passage as the key note to the system. Whether
rudely or not, it must be thoroughly investigated.
Now it is a solemn, but not enough appreciated fact, that,
whilst unrenewed man has been always " without God," he
has never been, strictly speaking, without religion. Pure
atheism is as inconsistent even with corrupt nature, as the
religion undeflled which has descended from heaven. Un
enlightened man has been ever what St. Paul found the
Athenians. By mere natural appetency he will be religious
after a fashion ; and will admit the true religion, if only
masked and neutralized in a " mediatorial system." Hence
the deadliest evil has been, not the rejecting of all religion,
but the corrupting of the true. Atheism struggled through
a day, and expired of inanition. Popery has flourished long
because it lives on qualified truth. The Tractarian gives
us a perfect analysis of the matter. True religion has
one essential principle ; it shews God, in His incommuni
cable perfections, as " Him r with whom we have to do."
It has indeed a mediation : but one which, though a stu
pendous accommodation, does not in the slightest degree
invalidate the principle ; for " through Him we have access
by one Spirit unto the Father."4 As to more extended me-
1 Faber's Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches, p. 302. 2 " Let all
things be done decently and in order." I Cor. xiv. 40 3 P 25
4 Eph. ii. 18.

THE MEDIATORIAL CHURCH SYSTEM. 27
diation, there is no such thing. The two sacraments are no
mediatorial system ; but occasions on which, whilst things
spiritual are symbolized by outward elements and outward
acts, a real and direct communion is maintained with God.
We shall come presently to a distinct examination of the
sacraments ; I will only observe at present, that the
word sacrament is equivocal : it includes an outward vi
sible sign, and an inward spiritual grace. To put the one
for the pther, or to call the sign a medium, is to confound
the subject, and open a door to gross practical abuse. I
repeat that true religion shews God as the direct object of
religious worship. False religion substitutes a cloudy me
dium, self called symbolical, which, professing to reflect
light, makes a convenient eclipse. The actings of the two
need no lengthened demonstration. The least sagacity will
find this gentle nurse overlaying her child. This is the
true secret of the mediatorial system ; it puts ceremony
for godliness, and the presiding genius in the place of God.
Strange to say, the last substitution is as acceptable as its
fellow. The Israelites soon grew tired of a pure theocracy;
and added to their other crimes the asking for a king.1
Now it is plainly here that we must look for " the depths
of Satan." The man of sin has here found scope for
development. The master line in his portrait was just
this deification of himself— sitting "in the temple of God,
and shewing himself that he is God." 2 The assumption of
the divine prerogatives is, of course, not direct. Rome
denies not, any more than Tractarianism, that there is One
Mediator ; but' she contrives to keep a thousand other me
diators before Him. People may mock charity by calling
this an error of the dark ages. Let them go to Paris ;
and they will see on the last erected Romish temple3 the
significant emblazonry, "Deo Optimo Maximo, sub invo-
catione Sanctce Maries Magdalena" Where is the One
1 I would be far from intimating that, amongst the friends of the mediatorial
system, Tractarian or Popish, there are not many whose conscience would
revolt from an intentional sensualizing of faith, or a wilful obscuration of the
Great Object of faith. It may be a purely unconscious infirmity which leads
minds highly imaginative to mingle imagery with all their thoughts. But this
does not alter the essential principles of the case. It does not sanctify idola
try, nor warrant the multiplication of sacraments, nor diminish the enormous
mischief inflicted on professing Christendom by entangling the soul in the
mazes ofa symbolical worship. 2 2 Thess. ii. 4.
3 The Madeleine — a masterpiece of modern architecture.

28 THE MEDIATORIAL CHURCH SYSTEM.
Mediator ? Raise your eyes to the sculptured pediment,
and the Mediator stands before you — alas ! no Mediator,
but a Judge — in an attitude of terror — propitiated by the
sinner who once wept at His feet. Here is the triumph ot
the mediatorial system. .
I shall reserve to its proper place the subject ot in
vocation. I take it now as illustrative of that usurpation
of Christ's office of which it is but a part. Let us see it
the Church, abstractedly, is not made to stand in the same
precise way between God and the soul. Christ has said,
"I am the Vine;" the British Critic calls the Church "the
tree of life."1 Another work informs us "It is in the
Church that we have our religious life, derived to us
not as individuals, but by virtue of incorporation into her
body."2 " God has not chosen to establish His relations
with each of us on a distinct and individual footing, but has
constituted us in a body, to derive from its source of life a por
tion of its general life."3 The Holy Ghost is revealed as the
ever-present minister of Christ ; " I go away, but I will send
to you another Comforter ;" " He shall take of mine and
shall shew it to you." Holy Scripture speaks uniformly of
the Spirit as the spontaneous agent, whose operations quicken,
purify, enlighten the soul; "All these worketh that one and
the self-same Spirit, dividing unto every one severally as He
will." Tractarianism invests the Church with these awful
prerogatives. We take up the second volume of the Tracts,
and we find the editor speaking of " the Church as the
storehouse and direct channel of grace, as an ordinance
which conveys secret strength and life to every one that
shares in it."4 This direct channel is, it seems, entrusted
to her own discretion. Number Ninety, interpreting the
Article which declares that the " five commonly called sacra
ments are not to be counted for sacraments of the gospel,"
gives us, in the following evasion, a clear sight ofthe media
torial system, " They are not Sacraments in any sense, unless
the Church has the power of dispensing grace through rites
of its own appointment." " But we may well believe that
the Church has this gift."
This gives a sort of personality to the Church ; constitutes
her an object of admiration, dependence, gratitude, devo-
1 British Critic, LIX. pp. 25,26. 2 Church Principles, p. 5. 3 ibid.
p. 147. 4 Advertisement to Vol. II.

THE MEDIATORIAL CHURCH SYSTEM.

29

tedness ; and makes obedient communion with her the
practical substance of true religion. These are, in truth, the
cardinal points of Catholic theology. A Tractarian tells us
that, in confession, "as if to prove the inexhaustible rich
ness of the resources of her bounty, and the infinite va
riety of her arrangements for our good, she descends from
her throne;"1 says, "Let it deepen our veneration, and
inflame our gratitude towards Mother Church, that, in the
immense comprehensiveness and piercing wisdom of her
divine provisions, she has furnished" &c.2 The need ofthe
confessional is argued from our want of " adequate sym
pathy." " When father and mother forsake us, where are
we then?" Scripture says, " then the Lord taketh me up."
Tractarianism tells another tale. " That poet, we will
venture to say, did not reckon ainong these merely human
helps the maternal sympathy of the Holy Catholic Church.
He would probably say, that the soul which is cast upon
the Church for aid is really a witness to the supremacy of
divine consolation."3 Then he was no puling poetaster
who wrote, " Wake, mother, dear ¦ the foe is near ;
A stranger claims thy child.
This the sole refuge of my fear,
Thy bosom undefiled."4
Nor need we wonder at such expressions as "believing in
her mystical character — her divine institutions, and the un
failing promises she has received" — "her unvaried teaching,
her habits, her authority, her offices."5 " Man is made for
the Church ; . . . and if he have been misled ... he is
forced to fill the aching void of which he is conscious, by
constituting or adopting an ideal system" (direct communion
with God !) " to fill the Church's place."6 True, "Enoch
walked with God ;" true, the apostle says, " Our fellowship
is with the Father ;" true, the blessed Jesus says, "If any
man hear my voice, I will come in to him, and sup with
him, and he with me." Bury the Bible in tradition, and
all this dissolves away: a sort of mediatorial moonlight is
substituted for "the Sun of righteousness." " It is the
Church to which we are to look for the fulfilment of those
1 British Critic, LXVI. p. 315. 2 Ibid. p. 311. 3 Ibid. p. 314. * Lyra
Apostolica. 5 Tract on Baptismal Regeneration, pp. 8 and 9. " British
Critic, No. LIX. pp. 136, 137.

30 THE MEDIATORIAL CHURCH SYSTEM.
gracious words," (quoted in Latin,) " He shall not break
the bruised reed," &C.1 "When once this glorious and
ennobling view of a Christian's relation to Christ in his
Church has been secured, it must seem superfluous to draw
distinctions between confession to God and confession to man."2
Nay, startling as it may seem, the arrangement is no less
salutary than authoritative. "Upon the Catholic hypothesis,
the visible system of things, whilst it transmits God to the
eye, breaks the force of the rays which environ Him, so
that even sinners can bear to look where angels hide their
faces."3 We have now reached the climax. The priest
sits " in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is
God." The reverential sight of him is a looking where
angels hide their faces. This is " walking by faith, through
sight."4 It may be suspected that, as these several passages are
not consecutive, the blasphemy has been exaggerated, or
even disingenuously constructed. Let us hear, then, the
rationale, from this same Tractarian authority :
" From the moment that our blessed Lord assumed the
flesh, He sanctioned for ages to come the great truth upon
which the whole ecclesiastical dispensation is built, that
God comes to us, in the Gospel, under earthly veils. The
Church is a farther and ever-present token of that conde
scension which dates from the Nativity, or rather, from the
Annunciation. God, once manifest in the flesh, is constantly
manifest, though, since his ascension, in a different form from
which He wore previously to it. He is continually incar
nate in his Church . . . Either, then, (if we may name
such an hypothesis in the same breath with such an an
nouncement,) the great sacramental principle in the Con
secration of Matter had its first and last exemplification in
our Lord's three years' ministry, or the Catholic Church, in
all her developments and ramifications, is an abiding per
sonification of the same principle. Either theory is con
sistent and intelligible, though one only, of course, is true.
But the alternative is between them ; they cannot stand to
gether. Yet such an intermediate view of it would be to
consider that our Lord is (in some sense) in the blessed
Eucharist, yet not in the priesthood." 5
1 British Critic, LXVI. p. 340. Comp. Matt. xii. 15—21. 2 Ibid. p. 307.
3 Ibid. p. 315. * Ibid. p. 316. 5 British Critic, LXVI. pp. 314, 315.

AN ENGINE OF PRIESTLY POWER. 31
This is the last utterance of Tractarianism. Let those
who have as yet been dallying with the basilisk, begin, at
least, to suspect they have been under some enchantment.
§ 12. An Engine of priestly Power.
Though I have traced the " mediatorial system" to its cli
max, it will be seen that we have not done with it. It is
obvious that power lurks beneath the whisper of such a
monster. The Tractarian deprecates " converts to her
beauty, but not to her rule."1 It is no less obvious that
the Church is virtually the officiating, not the worshipping
Church. Its power must condense itself; where it does
this is pretty clear. " In the hands of whose rulers," says
Mr. Gladstone, " the ordinances of life are deposited."2
" The Confessor," says our Tractarian, " is the Church."3
"The Reformers refused," complains another Critic, "to dis
cover in the Catholic and apostolic Church the one body of
Christ, and in her priesthood the authorised dispensation of his
power, and the abiding capability of his functions." Here
is the priesthood put, without even an indeterminate state
ment, in the very place of Christ ; the whole Church being
his body, but the priesthood its vital energy. Now, I
affirm that we have here the most unqualified Popery. It is,
I had almost said, a device of Tractarianism to make
Popery to consist in the supremacy of the Pope. This is
but an unlawful extension of an unlawful system. The
great apostacy has in Scripture two titles, " the mystery
of iniquity," and " the man of sin." Every analysis of the
subject will bring us to the conclusion, that the " mystery"
is priestcraft, and " the man of sin," the priest. Now it
was this one sustained and all pervading principle, the
exaltation of the priesthood under the specious name of the
Church, whose duly appointed ministers can alone confer
new birth, interpret the Bible, pronounce pardon, make
bread and wine the mysterious nourishment of the soul —
this was, I say, the very master evil in the Papal Church .
This darkened Christendom; hood-winked, degraded, in
carcerated conscience ; and issued in a mass of profligacy,
imposture, blasphemy, and tyranny — of outrage against
1 British Critic, LXVI. p. 298. 2 Church Principles, p. 217.
3 British Critic, LXVI. ^>. 315.

32 AN ENGINE OF PRIESTLY POWER.
God's truth, and of barbarity to God's saints, which might
have seemed impossible beneath the profession of the true
religion, did we not know from a thousand oracles, that
" the best things are open to the worst abuse." This one
crime, the exaltation of the priesthood, wrote the deepest
lines of infamy upon the forehead of that Church. It was
the emphatic crime by which she committed, in the same
moment, murder, sacrilege, and suicide. She gained her
object, and she keeps it, not so much by the direct denial
of any particular truth, as by systematically standing be
tween all truth and the soul — by making the Church — for
life, grace, strength, comfort — the light in which to see
light,1 the accredited representative and vicegerent of God,
the embodiment of Christ's love, and of the power and
wisdom ofthe Holy Ghost. I have taken the expressions
of all this, not from professedly Romish, but from Trac
tarian sources. They are but samples, perhaps not the
best selected, but at least faithfully given *. and I place
them here because, whilst they identify, thus far, Tracta
rianism with Popery, they furnish a convenient clue to
what we have further to examine.
It is an instructive fact, that it was the determination to
revive, if possible, this power ofthe priesthood, which gave
rise to the issue of the Tracts for the Times. 2
We have seen 3 the fierceness of this priestly enthusiasm,
in the selection, from amongst all moderns, ofthe names of
Hildebrand, Becket, and Innocent, and the ranking them,
as " the only good Reformers," with Elijah and John the
Baptist. Now we can be at no possible loss as to the animus
of all this. To suppose it is for the vindication of the disci
pline of the Church of England were absurd. Nor is it the
restoration of the apostolic discipline that can be meant.
The man who had felt the force of those apostolic words, " I
1 Psalm xxxvi. 9. 2 Mr. Percival has given us, in the Irish Eccle
siastical Journal, the first three principles on which the Tracts were to be
written, taken from what he calls a " Matured Account," drawn up by Mr.
Keble :
" 1. That the only way of salvation is the partaking of the body and blood
of our Redeemer.
" 2. That the means expressly authorized by Him for that purpose, is the holy
Sacrament of the Lord's 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." Compare a pas
sage quoted from Tract No, X. at p. 47. 3 P. 8.

AN ENGINE OF PRIESTLY POWER. 33
was gentle amongst you as a nurse cherishethher children,"
could never have singled out these three men as " lights of
the Church," nor talked of a " view which, if it will but hold,
promises us the power of upholding Pope Hildebrand and
the see of St. Peter." l I cannot pass unnoticed the Old Testa
ment names. " To every purpose," the wise man tells us,
" there is a time." Had modern Reformers, like Elijah,
the authority of immediate inspiration, they would not, I
conceive, re-enact some parts of his history. I read but of
two swords in the charter of the Christian dispensation — the
sword of the magistrate, and the sword of the Spirit.
Could any thing approaching to violence be found amongst
those from whom some talk of being ecclesiastically de
scended, one might expect that it should soften down as
the Church grows in age. The child and the barbarian are
under summary rule : yet an apostle can address even his
converts, " I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I
say." There may be much want amongst us of the " first
love" of the Church : but intelligence, at least, has grown
where priestly nurses have not swaddled it. What then
must be thought ofa revival of Church discipline which, in
the nineteenth century, assumes the name of Hildebrand as
a motto ? and what shall we further say of the Christian
humility which, complaining of the power of the temporal
prince in ecclesiastical matters, finds, in " the situation which
the prayer for the King has in the Liturgy, a something
too indicative of the position which she" (the Church) " was
to hold! "2 and who can now mistake the " open seat" agita
tion ? who sees not that, if it go not the length of throw
ing the church " into the arms of the people," it does, at all
events, go to beat down all distinctions but the great one,
leaving only two classes, the laity and the priesthood ?
§ 13. Its main supports.
After surveying the pandemoniacal architecture of Popery,
which, like that of Venice, built its hall of splendour upon
dungeons, with " a bridge of sighs," and
" A palace and a prison on each hand,"
it is impossible not to recognize in Tractarianism the same
1 British Critic, pp. 30,31. 2 Tract LXXXVI. pp. 24, 74. Comp.
1 Tim. ii. 1. D

34 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
combinations. The virtual identity of the two structures
may be seen by an inspection ofthe component parts. The
following are, I think, the most important — the " opus
operatum" principle in the sacraments, and the denial of
private judgment, and of the sufficiency of Scripture. These,
together with monasticism and the confessional, are the true
foundations of the huge deformity. Apostolic succession
is a key stone to some of the essential arches; and
invocation of saints and other " fond things," a sort of
imaged pinnacles and flying buttresses. Now it is an awful
fact, that every one of these foundations has been laid with
solemn pomp by Tractarianism, and that the more aerial
parts are, to say the least, very symmetrically preparing.
§ 14. The Opus Operatum Principle.
The first foundation of the priestly system is the opus
operatum, or charm principle. I put this first, because it is
the starting point of the Tracts for the Times : and I take
it as regards, not the " one vast sacrament," but the two real
sacraments divinely appointed. Now, of these Tractarianism
first makes undue exaltation, and then lays undue stress
upon the ceremonial or priestly part, so, as to make the
Church, rather than the Spirit of God, the immediate object
of dependence. Due administration, i. e. by hands apos-
tolically ordained, and not due reception through " faith of
the operation of God," constitutes, on Tractarian shewing,
the validity of a sacrament. I say on Tractarian shewing ';
for neither Tractarianism nor Romanism denies the necessity
of faith. The matter is well put in a Canon of Trent : " If
any one say that the sacraments do not contain the grace
that they signify, or that they do not communicate this °*race
to those who present no obstacle, &c. let him be anathema." 1
Here faith is not put positively as the essential principle
which gives its efficacy to a sacrament; but negatively
as that, the want of which may obstruct that efficacy. This
is not the minute distinction it may seem to be. That
baptism duly administered is, ipso facto, new life, is taken
by Tractarians as a moral certainty.2 All who are' baptized
are infallibly born again, and freely and fully justified from
1 Cone. Trident, Sess. VII. Can. 6. 2 The matter is gravely argued in
the Tract on Baptismal Regeneration, on grounds easily refuted, but into wh,vt,
I cannot enter here. ul

DISPARAGEMENT OF FAITH. 35
all sin. And the transition is so complete, that all subse
quent grace, even faith, which is the mother grace, looks
back to baptism — comes out of baptism. To keep the faith
is to keep the grace of baptism. To lose the grace of
baptism is a loss so, seemingly, irreparable, that the Tracta
rian preacher, forgetting the sixteenth Article he has sub
scribed, or interpreting it after the manner of Number
Ninety, cannot assure the penitent that it is even possible to
repair it. *
Now it seems to have totally escaped the framers of this
scheme, that all which can be predicated of the sacraments is
in holy Scripture predicated of the word of" God — that is, ac
cording to our Nineteenth Article, of preaching. Is it new
birth ? " Being born again," says St. Peter, " not of cor
ruptible seed but of incorruptible, by the word of God."
Is it the continuance and growth of life ? " As new born
babes," continues the apostle, " desire the sincere milk of
the word, that ye may grow thereby." I could shew, in a
hundred passages, that every stage, degree, and manifesta
tion of this growth is every where coupled, in holy Scrip
ture, with the word of God.
Take the matter a little further. Baptism pre-supposes
faith. " What doth hinder me to be baptized ? If thou be-
lievest with all thine heart thou mayest." But " faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." Then
baptism hangs on preaching and hearing. Let us see how
this is made out in the Service of the Church of England.
Take the Baptism of Infants. Here it is plain that the
interrogations are addressed, not to the sponsors, but
through them to the child : " Dost thou believe?" " Wilt
thou then be baptized? &c." To the like effect are
the well known words of the Catechism, "What is re
quired, &c. ?" and, " Why then are infants, &c. ?" To any
one candidly pondering these questions and their answers,
it must be clear, that the Church, performing absolutely
1 " She" (the Church) " has no second baptism to give, and so she cannot
pronounce him altogether free from his past sins. There are but two periods
of absolute cleansing, baptism and the day of judgment."— Dr. Pusey's Letter,
p. 93. " If, for sins committed after baptism we have not yet received a
simple and unconditional absolution, surely penitents from this time up to the
day of judgment, may be considered in that double state of which the
Romanists speak, their persons accepted, but certain sins uncancelled."—
Tract LXXIX. p. 7.
d2

36 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
an outward act, with outward benefits attached to it, uses,
in regard to the inward grace, language strictly hypo
thetical — the actuality of the whole hanging on subsequent
repentance and faith, which, though the Church hopes and
prays for, God alone can foresee. The Church has done her
part, in faith, hope, and charity: the rest is beyond her;
save only as she is responsible for the established means of
grace. Faith and repentance are from God : they come by
hearing His word : what then is the admonition with which
she dismisses the sponsors? " Ye shall call upon him to hear
sermons." Now contrast all this, which, whatever be the importance
of the ceremonial part, practically sends the individual to
the Author and Giver of life — contrast this, I say, with the
following words of Tractarianism : " Had he been taught,
as a child, that the sacraments, not preaching, are the sources
of divine grace, we could not have had so many wanderers
from our fold."1 How then can faith come by hearing?
or is faith not divine grace? But let us open another
volume from the same source. Here we find the complaint,
" We have almost embraced the doctrine that God conveys
grace only through the instrumentality of the mental ener
gies, that is, through faith, prayer, active spiritual con
templation, or (what is called) communion with God : in
contradiction to the primitive view, according to which, the
Church and her sacraments are the ordained and direct
visible means of conveying to the soul what is in itself
supernatural and unseen. . . . Indeed this may even be set
down as the essence of the sectarian doctrine, to consider
faith and not the sacraments as the instrument of justifica
tion and other gospel gifts."2 Here are the sacraments
put in opposition, not to preaching, but to faith. The
recognition, therefore, of faith in the sacraments becomes of
none effect. We cannot wonder that Tractarianism, eating
thus her own words, should make so light of the Eleventh
Article she has subscribed, where we read, " Wherefore that
we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine."
With these Catholics, the Church of England Article is " of
the essence of the sectarian doctrine." Alas, that Catholicity
1 Advertisement to Vol. I. of Tracts for the Times, p. iv.
2 Advertisement to Vol. II. of Tracts for the Times, p. iv.

DISPAUAGEMENT OF PREACHING. 37
should defile its hands by subscribing it ! And alas, that
Hooker, after describing the rival doctrine, should have
written, " this is the mystery of the man of sin !" l
I cannot pass, without special notice, the Tractarian dis
paragement of preaching. The Jewish prophet, in his poe
tical way, exclaims, " How beautiful upon the mountains
are the feet of Him that publisheth peace !" The blessed
Saviour, finding Himself in the synagogue, takes up the
language of the prophet, " The Lord hath anointed Me to
preach the gospel to the poor ; to preach deliverance to the
captives ; to preach the acceptable year ofthe Lord." The
apostolic commission of this gracious Saviour was, " Preach
the gospel to every creature." The all-absorbing impor
tance of that commission was exemplified by the great
apostle, " Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the
gospel." It is something, after this, to find Mr. Williams
asserting that preaching is, " to say the least, an instru
ment which Scripture has not much recommended."2 It
is something more to hear Mr. Froude expressing his
wishes for a brother newly ordained, " May he escape
becoming a gospel minister !" and talking of " a fat fellow
who preaches himself into opulence."3 It is something more
to see a general attempt to put a sort of strait waistcoat
upon preaching — to make energy impossible, and quench the
preacher in the priest, by insisting that the gown shall be ex
changed for the surplice. It is something further yet to learn
that " the prevailing notion of bringing forward the atone
ment explicitly and prominently on all occasions, is evidently
quite opposed to what we consider the teaching of Scripture."4
But what shall we say for the title page of No. 2 (God in
1 Sermon on Justification, Sec. 5. The doctrine alluded to is that of Thomas
Aquinas. It is not a little remarkable, that not only has Number Ninety, in its
evasion of the Eleventh Article, given us the identical doctrine of Aquinas, but
the number of the British Critic, from which I quote so often, contains an
article entitled, " Catena Aurea of St. Thomas," the object of which is, to
introduce to Catholic members of the Church of England " this great oracle
of the Church of Rome," of whom it is characteristically said in one place,
" That there is much in his theology which we cannot receive and can only
lament, need scarcely be said," (p. 197) ; and in another, (of course in an
extract) " Other compilations exhibit research, industry, learning, but this,
though a mere compilation, evinces a masterly command over the whole subject
of theology.''' (p. 204.) Thus every step of the Movement confirms the words
of Mr. Bird, " Tendimus in Latium."
2 Tract, LXXXVII. p. 75. * Remains, Vol. I. pp. 250—365.
4 Ibid. p. 74.

38 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
mercy grant they may not write ninety!) of a Series of
Sermons, issued by the authors of the Tracts, " Pollution of
the Temple — the Church a place for the worship of God,
and not for the conversion of sinners ? " Can the worst
declamatory accusation they complain of come up to
this ? You may consecrate water, or bread and wine, into a
mystery approachable only with implicit awe; you may
stand forth the representative of that one vast sacrament,
the Church ; you may read prayers, announce fasts and
feasts, and act the high priest, if so be, every day through
out the year. But, to suppose God's house a place where
Christ's ministers are to do what He did in the synagogue,
to preach the gospel, and proclaim liberty to the captives —
this is pollution of the temple — an offence gross as eating
with publicans and sinners ! Who can wonder that Tract
Eighty should have counselled " reserve" as to the one
doctrine by which St. Paul determined to be known at
Corinth? or that, interpreting Scripture as Number Ninety
does the Articles, it should make " Christ crucified" denote
virtually the crucifixion of the believer I1
Let us now look at the opus operatum principle in its
profanation ofthe Lord's supper. The subject demands the
most scrupulous discrimination. The constant attempt of
Tractarianism to stop devout enquiry with the awful word

1 This astounding substitution of the secondary for the primary — the effect
for the cause — the sinner's work for the Saviour's work — occurs at p. 75 of the
above cited Tract. I cannot, and need not, go into particulars. Suffice it to
say, that the Tractarian affirms that in all these expressions, " God forbid that
I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" — " I determined not
to know any thing among you but Christ crucified" (not " Jesus Christ
and Him crucified") — " But we preach Christ crucified" — what St. Paul " always
intends is the opposite to the modern notion. It is the necessity of our being
crucified to the world, it is our humiliation together with Him, mortification
of the flesh, being made conformable to his sufferings and his death." Now
that these things/oZZoro, is not the question. The Tractarian asserts that they
are specifically what is always meant ; consequently, to take one passage as
a sample, St. Paul cries, God forbid that I should glory, save in the mortifica
tion of the flesh ! Alas ! it is twice written in the Bible, " He that glorieth,
let Mm glory in the Lord." We may well have a traditional key to Scripture,
if such be the " great plainness of speech" this apostle speaks of. But the
sting of the passage is in the tail. " If the doctrine of the atonement is con
veyed in the expression of Christ crucified," (by what catena aurea of Ca
tholicity could that " if" have come down ?) " it is expressing in other words,
' he that cometh after Me must take up his cross daily.' They both imply that
we cannot approach God without a sacrifice — a sacrifice on the part of human
nature in union with that of our Saviour." Certainly to write thus is to
" escape becoming a gospel minister."

THE LORDS SUPPER. 39
inscribed on a certain forehead1 serves to identify her, but
cannot make credulity our duty.
When I spoke of an undue exaltation of the sacraments,
I meant, not a positive, but a relative excess. The faithful
partaker of the Lord's supper feeds spiritually on Christ the
bread of life : God forbid that we should yield to Trac
tarianism in our estimate of such a privilege. When, how
ever, Mr. Keble tells us of "the exclusive nature ofthe
sacraments as ordinary means to their respective graces,"2
we feel an injury done to God's word, which gives us all that
can be said of the respective graces of the two sacraments.
But the undue exaltation relates specially to the component
parts of the sacrament. It is here we want discrimination,
or we plunge headlong into superstition. Now a sacrament
has two parts, " the outward and visible sign, and the
inward and spiritual grace." The one part within the re
sponsibilities of the Church ; the other altogether beyond,
save only as she affords the occasion of it in the sign — a thing
so perfectly distinguishable from the sign, that, without the
slightest difference in the Church's act, all partake of the
one, and but the faithful of the other. This may seem a
truism ; but on its non-recognition the whole question will
be found to turn. When we speak of the sacrament being
a sign, we are accused of asserting that on the part of the
recipient it is no more ; and when we speak of its being
more, priestcraft steps in and lays profane hands on what
we say. All know what Rome says on this subject. The
priestly act of consecration is, with her, an act transub
stantiating bread and wine into the very body and blood of
Christ — not in a metaphorical, symbolical, sacramental
sense, but in very deed and truth, so as to make them
objects of worship. This is what we mean by the opus
operatum principle. I am about to shew that this identical
principle is assumed by Tractarianism.
In the fifth chapter of the thirteenth Session of the
Council of Trent, we are told that " the most holy eucharist
has that in common with all the other sacraments, of being
a symbol of a holy thing, and a form or visible sign of an
invisible grace: but that which is singular to it, and ex
cellent in it, is that the others have not the force and the
virtue of sanctifying, till they are received, whilst in the
1 Rev. xvii. 5. 2 Preface to Hooker, p. lxxxiv.

40 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
eucharist the Author of holiness is himself there, before
receiving of it," that is to say, irrespective, altogether, of
the faith qf the recipient.
Now with this compare the doctrine of the Church of
England. In her Article XXVIII. we read that " to suck
as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the
bread which we break is a partaking of the body of Christ,
&c. Then to those who do not so receive, the bread is not
the partaking of the body of Christ. This is not left to be
inferred; for a separate Article declares, that " those who
are void of faith, though they do carnally press with their
teeth the sacrament ofthe body — yet in no wise are they par
takers of Christ," (if the opus operatum had been what Rome
makes it, they must be,) " but rather to their condemnation, do
eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing." They
take the sacrament of the thing, but not the thing itself.
So much as regards those who have not faith : in all which,
as throughout all her beautiful services, the Church of
England shews that it is faith, not the priestly act, that is
available to salvation. But the gist ofthe question remains.
As regards those who rightly partake, what says the
Church? Why the Article goes on to say, "the body of
Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the supper, only after
an heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean is faith."
Such are the respective doctrines of Rome and England.
Let us now look at the Tractarian view.
There is a passage in Bishop Jewel's Apology, in which
it is said, " And these sacraments, together with Tertullian,
Origen, Ambrose, and a long catalogue of fathers, we do
call figures, signs, marks, badges, prints, copies, forms,
seals, signets, similitudes, patterns, representations, remem
brances, and memories." On this passage the British Critic
observes, " Not a word in this fluent enumeration on the
direct consequence" (in italics) " of divine grace by the
sacraments. Not a hint at the mysterious virtues, the
transforming, invigorating efficacy which the natural ele
ments acquire through the act of consecration." l Here we
have the whole matter. The penman of the scriptural
Church of England makes the sacrament as presented by
the priest, to be, per se, but a sign ; the value of which, or
sacramental grace, is dependent, not on priestly power pre-
< LIX. p. 39.

THE LORD'S SUPPER. 41
senting, but on personal faith receiving it. The Catholic
view is just the reverse. By virtue of the priestly power
the natural elements acquire mysterious virtues. So far
Tractarianism and Rome are one : here begins a distinc
tion which must be carefully examined. The Romish
version is real body ; the Tractarian real presence .* as re
gards the matter before us, both will be found to come to the
same thing.
That Christ is really present in the eucharist, who dis
putes? He is present where two or three are gathered
together in his name. Were this all that is meant by real
presence, there would be no need of some of the most
extraordinary subtleties of Number Ninety. The question
is, whether Christ is corporeally present — whether He is, in
any sense, present in the eucharist as He is not in other
ordinances. For the purpose of shewing that He is, we
find Mr. Newman, in his Letter to Dr. Fausset, and in his
remarks on the Twenty-eighth Article, in Number Ninety,
making an attempt at the annihilation of space and distance,
by arguing that as stars, millions of miles off, are present,
because seen, so Christ's presence may be real though not
local — in a word " mysterious." So again, " The body and
blood of Christ may be really literally present, yet, not
having become present by local passage, in other words,
not having left their dwelling-place, may still literally and
really be at God's right hand." ' Again — more after the
Romish manner still — " As taste and colour are the evi
dences of the natural substance of bread and wine which
we do see, so the bread and wine thus evidenced to our
senses are the token of that adorable body which we do not
see. When we feel the bread with our finger, we touch the
body, when we taste the bread with our lips, we eat the
body." 2
1 Letter, pp. 53— 56. Number Ninety, pp. 53— 58.
2 Ib. pp. 61, 62. I will not follow the six pages in Number Ninety, in which
it is attempted by the above arguments fo reconcile the doctrine of the real
presence with the explanation of kneeling appended to the Communion
Service that " Christ's natural body is in heaven and not here." If that
explanation be honestly received, it disposes of tlie question. The Interpreter
finds a difficulty in going on from the argument about kneeling, that " the body
of Christ is in heaven," to the superadded assertion " and not here." And the
result of his interpretation is, to make good Mother Church, talk nonsense ; e. g.
she says Your kneeling at the eucharist is no superstition, for Christ's body is

42 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
Now what I am anxious to shew is the identity of this
doctrine — in point of principle and consequences — with
transubstantiation. There are obvious differences. The one
is gross, and to undebauched sense revolting ; the other
more sublimated: both are practically one. Christ's body
is present, given and received, either in a metaphorical, or in
an actual sense. According to the former, the elements
remain unchanged from first to last. Consecration simply
sets them apart for a holy purpose, and asks a covenanted
blessing on their covenanted use. This is all consecration
can need to do. Christ does not dwell corporeally in us :
we do not dwell corporeally in Him : the ordinance, there
fore, in the right use of which we are said to dwell in Him
and He in us, has nothing whatever to do with any corporeal
presence. To suppose the elements any way connected,
save as types and emblems, with Christ's body — to talk of
a real presence, local or " super-local," simple or " mys
terious," is not only needless, but an offence to truth — a
snare for souls. The same as to the alleged change in the
elements. They are not changed: why should they be?
they are but a sign — eating and drinking them but a sign :
" It is the Spirit that quickeneth ;" and the spirit that is
quickened. The quickening of a spirit must be by a spiri
tual act. Does any say, then the elements may be dispensed
with? I answer, no. The sign is Christ's appointment;
and its use is obvious. It shews forth Christ's death. It
shews forth what we derive from that death. It shews forth
our oneness with Him and with his Ch urch. It shews it forth ;
it does not make it. Its use is but the occasion of realizing the
thing signified. This realization is no more a mere intellec
tual, than it is a bodily act. It is a pure act of faith — a dis
cerning the Lord's body, and feeding upon it — discerning it
where it is, not in the bread and wine, but wliere Stephen
saw it, at God's right hand — feeding on it as a spirit must
feed on what is substantial, not by eating and drinking, but
by a spiritual faculty. There is nothing in all this peculiar
in heaven : but it is found that that body, though in heaven, is here, only
not by local passage : what then becomes of the argument about kneeling at
the eucharist? As to the Church's conclusion " and not here," I will add but
one word from a Book, to me constantly distinct where tradition is mysterious
" He is not here, for He is risen : come, see the place where the Lord lay."
(Matt, xxviii 6.)

TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE REAL PRESENCE. 43
to the eucharist ; so as to make it, as Tractarians make
it, the feeding on Christ. Faith does it habitually : it is her
vital act, like breathing. But, as all our faculties find
special occasions, so this ordinance is an appointed time,
with appointed means and encouragements, for faith to
act. This is the only sound view of the sacrament. It
agrees with the whole analogy of Scripture truth ; and
with every syllable of the Liturgy of our truly Scriptural
Church. The other view, that the body of Christ is given and re
ceived by virtue of a corporeal, or real presence (and a real
presence of a body must be a corporeal presence,) carnalizes
faith — confounds common sense distinctions — asserts a mi
racle, at once needless, unwarranted, inconceivable and dis
tressing — and, however steeped in mystery, or fenced round
with subtleties, is sensibly and demonstrably of the essence
of Popery.
I know that saying that the elements contain the body
is one thing, and saying that they are the body another
thing. But both are equally figments — cognate figments
— and figments between which the differences are vastly
small in point of consequences. I beg candid attention to
the following particulars.
1. The two hypotheses are, as regards the true object of
the ordinance, alike gratuitous. The whole virtue of the
sacrament is in the beautiful direction, " Feed on Him in
thy heart, by faith, with thanksgiving." To this feeding on
Christ, the actual absence or presence of Christ's body are,
as we have seen, indifferent.
2. The two hypotheses proceed on the same objection
able interpretation. This carnal taking of Christ's words
makes havoc alike of truth, duty, and common sense. It
may be seen, amongst a thousand instances, in Nicodemus's
strange question about being " born again," or in the an
nual washing of pilgrims' feet by the proudest Lucifer of
the triple crown. What more warrant for interpreting
" this is My body" in a literal manner, than " all flesh is
grass," or " He is a rock ?"
3. Both hypotheses involve a miracle. The priestly act
is called by Tractarians a " great miracle." In their view
it must be so. That Christ's body, which, after its resurrec
tion was not etherialized into spirit, but was handled by the
apostles, proved by eating and drinking to be a true and

44 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
proper body, declared to have " flesh and bones,"1 to oc
cupy, like our own, a certain space, so as to be in one place,
and therefore not in another, at one and the same time —
that such a body should possess ubiquity— that it should be
contained, concealed, given, and eaten in a hundred thou
sand pieces of bread in a hundred thousand places at the
same moment — is a miracle. To talk of little or great in
such cases is to talk idly.
4. The one hypothesis, like the other, " overthroweth
the nature ofa sacrament:" for it makes the object actual,
rather than typified, the bread the tabernacle, not the sign,
and eating the act, not the demonstration of faith.
5. Both hypotheses alike, as they overstep the sacra
mental principle, introduce another, from which a devout
man may well recoil. If "this is my body" be not under
stood in a purely metaphorical sense, the " take, eat," in
volves a more trying act than Abraham's offering up his
own son.
6. Both alike make it allowable, and a pious duty, to ad
minister the consecrated elements to infants and persons
insensible : and accordingly it is so held both by Tracta
rianism and Popery.2
7. Both alike involve the notion of a sacrifice. Mr. New
man thus concludes his remarks on Article XXI. " On
the whole then, the Article neither speaks against the mass
in itself," (or, as he calls it in the next paragraph, " the sa
crifice of the mass,") " nor against its being an offering,
though commemorative, for the quick and dead, for the
remission of sins," (here is a very nice distinction for simple
folk ; and a very inconsequential one, in point of fact)
" but against its being viewed, on the one hand, as inde
pendent of, or distinct from" (who ever thought it was ?)
" the sacrifice on the cross : and on the other, its being di
rected to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to
celebrate it."3 Compare with this the words of Popery, in
the two following Canons of the Council of Trent : " If any
one say that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of
praise and thanksgiving, or a simple commemoration ofthe
sacrifice which has been made upon the cross, and that it is
not propitiatory, or that it is not profitable, save to him who
' See the significant transactions in Luke xxiv. verses 37 to 44, and John
xx. 25. 2 Advertisement to Vol. II. of Tracts for the Times.
3 Number Ninety, p. 63.

TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE REAL PRESENCE. 45
receives it, and that it ought not to be offered for the living
and for the dead, let him be anathema." " If any one say
that, by the sacrifice of the mass, blasphemy is committed
against the most holy sacrifice of Jesus Christ consum
mated on the cross, or that it is disparaged, let him be
anathema." (Canon III. and IV. of Session XXIV.)
Tractarianism then asserts all that Popery guards with
anathemas : only Popery speaks out plainly, whilst Trac
tarianism equivocates: for, if the real body be present in
the elements,1 so that when we touch the bread we touch
the body, when we eat the bread we eat the body, then it is
a play of words to add the distinction about "an offering
though commemorative ;" for it follows of necessity, that
when we offer the bread we offer the body. This is the plain
English of the Tractarian dogma ; and the interposition of
the " though commemorative," produces only painful feel
ings. Tractarianism calls it an offering for the remission of
sins, not only of quick who partake of it, but of dead who do
not. It is therefore propitiatory : and this is all that Rome
affirms about a sacrifice. All that follows is of course ;
the communion table, which denotes a feast, must be the
altar, which denotes a sacrifice ; and the officiating minis
ter must be the "priest;" and the eucharist, which the Church
of England calls " our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,"
must be " the blessed sacrament of the altar ;" and a very
long tract (No. 81) must be written, to prove that it is
" the eucharistic sacrifice ;" and Faber must call it (as he
says, in " patristic," but, as we should say, in downright
popish, language) " the tremendous, unbloody sacrifice."2
8. Both hypotheses lead to idolatry, though by charac
teristic steps. Transubstantiation says plainly, the bread
and wine are Christ's body and blood, therefore objects of
adoration. The real presence dogma, having to observe
certain semblances touching certain Articles, says the bread
and wine stand in the same relation to the body and blood,
as taste and colour to the material substance of the bread.
This of course resolves itself into that precise " confusion
worse confounded" about substances and accidents, by which
Rome attempts to get rid of awkward phenomena in the
bread and wine. The British Critic complains that " to
consider Him as not commemorated merely by the Blessed
1 British Critic, LIX. p. 25. 2 Sights and Thoughts, p. 126.

46 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE.
Elements, but as really existing in them, this was judged
part of the doctrine of antichrist." ' Dr. Pusey argues that
antiquity constantly affirms a change in the sacred elements.2
And in Froude's Remains this change is actually called
" this great miracle."3 Let common sense predicate the
practical result. If, " when we feel the bread with our fin
gers we touch the body," because the bread contains the
body as " really existing in" it, how can we avoid the con
clusion, that when we receive, carry about, lift up, or wor
ship the bread, (see Article XXVIII.) we are not doing all
this to the body therein existing ? Is it not perfectly natural
for a Tractarian book of Devotions to call the Lord's sup
per " the adorable Sacrament?"* and in Froude to insist
" pray dont let it" (the pulpit) " stand in the light of
the altar, which, if there be any truth in my notions of
ordination, is more sacred than the Holy of Holies in the
Jewish Temple Vs
Lastly. Both views contain alike the opus operatum
principle. The Romish Canon tells us that in " the eucha-
1 No. LIX. p. 25. 2 Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 73.
3 Vol. iii. p. 43. 4 Burns, p. 43.
0 Remains, vol. i. p. 372. The above charge is so grave and painful, that I
think it right to subjoin the following Articles, drawn up, by Romish authori
ties, in the time of a Queen of unhappy memory.
" I. That in the sacrament of the altar there is a true and real presence of
Christ's body and blood in either kind ; and therefore that the laudable custom
of communicating in one kind is to be retained.
" II. That the fathers of the Lateran Council aptly expressed the mode of
Christ's presence by the new term of transubstantiation, as the Nicene fathers
had expressed that the Son is of the same substance with the Father by the
term of consubstantiation.
" III. That since we confess that the true body and blood of Christ is present
in the sacrament, how can we but worship Him 1
" IV. That this holy and life giving and unbloody sacrifice we offer up for the
healing of our infirmities ; considering that there is on the holy table the Lamb
of God who taketh away the sins of the world, there sacrificed by the priests,
though without blood shedding."
These were actually the safeguards of Popery during that awful period when ,
on English ground, Rome became " drunk with the blood of the saints." I
ask the intelligent candid reader who sees some differences between these
Articles and the " indeterminate statements" of Tractarianism, whether one
tythe of the logic in Number Ninety would not reduce these differences to an
impalpable medium — " or in one word, a mystery ?" If any doubt Tractarian
power or disposition, when it shall have got beyond its present embarrassments,
he has only to pass from the words " real presence," " change," and " this
great miracle," to p. 51 of the Tract, and he will find in a sentence the essen
tial strokes of the performance — " Objections against substance, nature, change,
accidents and the like, seem more or less questions of words." What but sub
stance, nature, change, accidents, and the like, stand between transubstan
tiation and the doctrine of the real presence ?

TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND THE REAL PRESENCE. 47
rist the Author of holiness is himself there before receiving
of it — i. e. by virtue of the priestly act, irrespective of the
recipient's faith : and Dr. Pusey tells us that " faith opens
our eyes to see what is really there — but that it is there in
dependently of our faith."1 This is just the opus operatum
principle. Here is the occult charm. We find it over and
over again in Tractarian works. " 0 dear Mother Church,"
cries Faber, " at whose plain altars I have received my
Lord ; and made his body for his people."2 Who does not
see that the grosser form of transubstantiation and the
subtler one of the real presence are one, for every purpose
of priestly ambition? "Then," says Number Ten of the
Oxford Tracts, "Then you will honour us with a purer
honour than many do now, namely, as those (if I may say
so) who are entrusted with the keys of heaven and hell — as
entrusted with the awful and mysterious privilege of ma
king Christ's body and blood."3 Who can wonder that,
among the high prerogatives of tlie apostolic succession,
after being told ofthe power, "1. to admit into, or exclude
from, the mysterious communion called in Scripture the
kingdom of heaven, any one whom they judge deserving of
it — 2. to bless and intercede for those who are within this
kingdom, in a sense in which no other men can bless and
intercede — 3. to make the eucharist bread and wine the
body and blood of Christ, in the sense in which our Lord
made them so," we find, " 4. to enable delegates to perform
this great miracle," (in italics) and consistent mention in the
next paragraph of being " miraculously blessed and miracu
lously fed?"* Who can refuse the honour — who can dis
pute the authority, of those who can perform great miracles —
who can miraculously feed and bless ? And who does not
see that, in this all-important point of the powers of the
priesthood, all that stands between transubstantiation and
the real presence is " a question of words ?" For myself, I
1 Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 128.
2 Sights and Thoughts in Foreign Churches, p. 365.
3 Thus it was in the First Edition ; it is now prudently read, " dispensing ;"
but the original word gives, we have seen, the Tractarian view. Thus also it
stands in Froude's Remains, where, at p. 326, of Vol. I. we are told that " the
power of making the body and blood of Christ is vested in the successors of the
Apostles." Thus Faber speaks, in the passage already quoted, " of them who
make the Lord's body in the tremendous unbloody sacrifice ;" and thus Dr.
Pusey in his Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 131.
* Froude's Remains, Vol. III. p. 43.

48 OPUS OPERATUM PRINCIPLE — SIGN OF THE CROSS.
dare scarce pronounce between the grosser and the subtler
form. Both are masterpieces in their way : both adapted with
equal skill to their respective places, times, and circum-
/ stances : both answer the same end : both put the priest
for the Spirit — a charm for grace — and credulity for faith :
and both bring the collective Church to an equal depen
dence upon the priesthood.
So much hangs on this opus operatum, or charm system,
that we may expect to see it coming out in more than one
way. I must allow myself an illustration, in which the
Movement is treading on the heels of Rome. It is the sign
of the cross — a very suitable thing as a sign — and on suit
able occasions. Yet mark the holy caution of the Church
of England. Once only, I believe, has she employed it in
her services ; and then she has both taken care to say " We
do sign him with the sign of the cross" (not for grace but)
" in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed of Christ
crucified ;" and, to avoid the possibility of misconception, she
has framed a separate Canon (No. XXX.) on the subject,
and made distinct reference to that Canon in her Baptismal
Service. What Rome does with this sign — how it begins,
runs through, and ends her services — I need not particu
larize. It is characteristic : Mr. Sibthorp no sooner pro
fesses Popery, than he begins and ends his letters with the
sign of the cross.
Now, what says Tractarianism ? why, Tract LXXXVI.
speaks of " the sanctifying and perhaps half sacramental
use of the cross;"1 and this in that very ordinance as to
which the Chtirch of England has been just quoted. Mr.
Newman tells us that " among the divine [ordinances] are
a number of more or less abstract, or (what may be called)
disembodied rites, to which the Church gives a substance
and form: such as public worship, imposition of hands,
benedictions, and the sign of the cross, which are first
elements of actual ordinances, and the instrumental prin
ciples of grace." 2 There is a happy use here of mystery :
but the upshot is plain enough. The Lyra, miscalled
Apostolica, contains the following stanzas
" Whene'er across this sinful flesh of mine,
I draw the Holy Sign,
1 P. 58. " Church of the Fathers, p. 333.

DENIAL OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 49
All good thoughts stir within me, and collect
Their slumbering strength divine :
Till there stirs up that hope of God's elect
My faith shall not be wreck'd.
" And who shall say, but hateful spirits around,
For their brief hour unbound,
Shudder to see, and wail their overthrow ?
While on far heathen ground
Some lonely saint hails the fresh odour, though
Its source he cannot know ?"
All this from the sign of the cross ! Sure, we shall not be
long in hearing again of Michael Scott, of whom a better
poet sings, " That when, in Salamanca's cave,
Him listed his magic wand to wave,
The bells did ring at Notre Dame ? "
§ 15. Denial of Private Judgment.
I spoke of the denial of private judgment as another
foundation ofthe priestly system. We see at once that this
is critical. Forbid the exercise of private judgment, and all
that remains is a question of exaction and endurance. We
see also that it is a matter upon which there can be no
ambiguity. There is no middle point. Let wisdom speak —
let antiquity bear record — let the Church pronounce — the
result must, after all, be one of two things, implicit sub
mission of the understanding, or its responsible exercise.
On a subject at once so distinct and so vital, I cannot quote
Popery or Tractarianism, without a brief reference to other
authorities. We all admit that the Church is a teacher. That " the
priest's lips should keep knowledge, and that they should
seek the law at his mouth,"1 is the language of Holy
Scripture. Our Church declares the same in her Twentieth
Article. Then this teacher must be heard with deference.
The question is, whether such deference is to be implicit.
Before solving this question, let us ask two others. Is the
Church infallible? — in other words, will the priest's lips
keep what they are bound to keep ? — or, in default of this,
will the individual, following her into error, be saved from
the consequences? Now the answer to both questions is in
the authorities above referred to.
As to the priest's lips keeping knowledge, Holy Scripture
is decisive. In the very next verse we read, " But ye have
1 Malachi ii. 7.

50 DENIAL OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.
departed out ofthe way ; ye have corrupted the covenant of
Levi." This is no solitary passage ; Scripture has many such.
It tells us that the priests of the Old Testament dispensation
made the word of God " of none effect through their tradi
tions" ' — that they did " err, not knowing the Scriptures"2
— that Christ pronounced them " blind guides "•* — that they
rejected Him who was emphatically the one subject of
knowledge, and taught the people to cry, " Crucify Him,
crucify Him. " 4 The Scripture tells us that these errors
were not to end there. It warns us that there shall be
" false Christs and false prophets." It tells the elders of a
Christian Church, " Grievous wolves shall enter in among
you, yea, of your ownselves shall men arise, speaking per
verse things." Thus far Scripture by way of prophecy.
What says the Church of England as to the fact ? " As the
Churches of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred,
so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their
way of living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters
of faith."5
Then we have no guarantee whatsoever that the priests' lips
will keep knowledge. Have we any guarantee against the
consequences of following them when they do not keep it?
I answer in one word — No. All the priestly powers in the
universe cannot blot out the decisive question of the Judge,
" If the blind lead the blind, shall they not both fall into
the ditch ?"«
What then ? has a God of mercy bound us to a guide that
may turn out to be blind ? God forbid. We have only to
open the prophecy of Isaiah, and we find what the priest is
to teach and we to learn ; " To the law and to the testimony ;
if they speak not according to this word, it is because there
is no light in them."' This is the decision of Holy Scrip
ture : what says the Church of England ? " Wherefore,
although the Church be a witness and a keeper of holy writ,
yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same,
so, besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be
believed for necessity of salvation."8 Then we have a
standard, and an appeal. Does any need to be told that
this appeal is for both parties ? What would be thought of
an appeal to the law, where it was the exclusive privilege of
1 Matt. xv. 3. 2 Matt. xxii. 29. 3 Matt, xxiii. 16.
* Matt, xxvii. 20. 5 Article XIX. "> Matt. xv. 14. See from the
beginning ofthe chapter. 7 Chap. viii. 20. 9 Article XX.

DENIAL OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT. 51
one party to call witnesses — sum up evidence — deliberate
on the proofs — and determine the sentence? This is all
very trite : but it includes the whole subject.
This co-existence of a teacher and of private judgment is
made to assume a paradoxical appearance. If there were
really a paradox, it is none of our making ; but, in point of
fact, there is none. Once lay down the principle that the
priest's lips must keep a certain standard, and that this
standard is to be accessible to those he is to teach : and his
teaching will be just what becomes that of men not infal
lible. It will have its lawful influence, without an unlawful
authority. Dependence for truth will be placed — not in
man, where it should never be — but where the whole gospel
scheme, in contradiction to the whole priestly scheme,
visibly, sensibly, and uniformly places it, in that ever-living
Spirit of promise who guides the meek in judgment.
This is the gospel scheme. We are not to be frighted
out of it by Dissent, Socinianism, or all the bugbears" in the
world. Had we any right to consult consequences, we might
find a fearful per contra in the history of the Churches
referred to in the Article. No doubt Dissent is an evil ;
and Socinianism, a vastly greater. But fever and apoplexy
are, in their several ways, as bad. Does the physician protest
against the circulation ofthe blood? Will any dare to argue
that, since Adam, being free to stand or fall, actually fell,
it was misgovernment or miscreation to invest him with
freedom ?
This, I say, is the gospel scheme : it is the Church of
England scheme no less. On what does she found the
authority of her teaching? On the Church? AVhat does
she call the Church? Why " the Church is a congregation
of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached,
&c." x Shall we mock her, by first limiting the word Church
to the priesthood, and then leaving it to the Church to
determine what is the preaching of God's pure word, &c?
Why, the concluding words of the same Article make such
monstrosity impossible — " as the Churches of Jerusalem,
Alexandria, and Antioch have erred, so also the Church of
Rome hath erred." Will any say, these are particular con
gregations, we must go to the General Council of the whole
Church ? Then she adds another Article on this very point ;
and she tells us, in language which ninety Number Nineties
1 Article XIX.
E 2

52 DENIAL OF PRIVATE JUDGMENT.
can never sophisticate, that general Councils " may err and
sometimes have erred even in things pertaining unto God :
wherefore things ordained by them have neither strength,
nor authority, unless it may be declared — or, as the original
Latin has it, unless it may be shewn — that they are taken out
of Scripture."
This Thermopylae, then, of truth and freedom is alike
guarded by Holy Scripture and the Church of England.
Priestcraft knows the value of the post. Popery has carried
it: Tractarianism would do the same. They have the
self-same objects; and use the self-same weapons. Of
the achievements of the former I need say little. Dr.
Wiseman tells us, in language the more important be
cause it speaks in the present day and in the present tense,
" The Catholic Church has but one gate ; and that one gate
is absolute unconditional submission to the teaching of the
Church."1 Nor need I go far to prove that Tractarianism
has the same gate. Every one knows, who knows any thing
of the Movement, that Church teaching is its polar star in
the discovery of truth— that, irrespective of Church teaching,
it does not admit even of appeal to Scripture — save only to
ascertain, ab extra, the authority of the Church. The matter
is well put by the British Critic, in an article on private
judgment. " In the New Testament we have the same
promises stated, far more concisely indeed, but what is much
more apposite than a large description, with the addition
of the name of our promised teacher — ' The Church of the
living God,' says St. Paul, ' which is the pillar and ground
ofthe truth.' The simple question then, for private judg
ment to exercise itself upon is, what, and where, is the
Church ? — the province of private judgment is the discovery,
not of doctrine, but of the teacher of doctrine." 2 This, no
doubt, is the Catholic view. But it is not, and cannot be,
that ofthe Church of England. She has made the province
of private judgment, the discovery of the Church in the
previous knowledge of the doctrine — " The Church is a con
gregation of faithful men in which the pure word of God
is preached." We have done with those who tell us we are
to take implicitly the Church's account of the matter.
Rome calls Thomas a Becket a faithful man, and I know
not what the pure word of God : but the Church of England
says, " Rome has erred." As to the Church being a pillar
1 Lecture I. p. 67. 2 No. LIX. p. 114.

AND OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 53
and ground of truth— that is to say, the place in which truth
resides, (or should do) and the column whereon, as of old,
laws and proclamations are inscribed — of this there can be
no more doubt than that the priest's lips should keep know
ledge : but this, as we have seen, leaves the question where
it was. The attempt to settle such a question by such a
quotation, and that in the face of the Article above cited — '
an Article which finds the Church in the doctrine, not the
doctrine in the Church — such an attempt,. I say, seems to
indicate the scholars of a certain Pope, who, after a magni
ficent display of the charm system, turned and whispered to
his secretary, " Quanto e facile coglionare le genti." One
can never see Tractarianism without feeling oneself at Rome.
This denial of private judgment is pure Romanism. There
is not between the two systems a shadow worth complaining
of. One prohibits the reading of Scripture, save by license
of the Church, the other the understanding it without the
judgment of the Church. Both leave their victim at the
mercy of a mystic personage, whose credentials consist
practically of her own assertion.
^16. And of the Sufficiency of Holy Scripture.
The full guilt of this is in the next step of the process.
To deny the laity the power of ascertaining their rights and
duties from the Scriptures, without some seeming ground
for the denial, were a coup d'etat of which even Rome was
incapable. A device was framed ; and this device Tracta
rianism has unscrupulously adopted. We have seen that the
Church of England, in laying down the principle that neither
Church nor Council may enforce any thing as necessary to
salvation, save only as it may be proved by certain warrant
from Holy Scripture, establishes, ipso facto, the right
of private judgment, because else the Church or Council,
appealing to Scripture, would be at once appellant, wit
ness, jury, and judge. The correllative principle is the
sufficiency of Holy Scripture for the purpose; and this
principle the Church of England has no less conclu
sively laid down. There has been some special pleading
on the latter subject, which makes it needful to state ex
plicitly what is meant by the words employed. Dr. Pusey
tells us that " whatever difference there is, relates not to
the sufficiency of Holy Scripture in any way, nor to its
being the sole source of saving faith, nor to its superiority to

54 AND OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
man, nor to its authority over the Church : it relates not at
all to Holy Scripture, but to us. The whole question of tradi
tion relates not to Holy Scripture but to the individual." 1
What then mean we by the sufficiency of Scripture?
Surely a sufficiency for the purpose it was sent to answer.
What is that purpose ? To convert the soul — to be a light
to our path — to make us wise unto salvation, through faith
in Christ Jesus. Is it sufficient for the purpose ? The
passages I have quoted unequivocally affirm it is.* But we
have not completed the analysis. Holy Scripture, on its
own shewing, is sufficient; yet, on its own shewing, this
sufficiency is not enough. " The word preached did not
profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard
it" — " they who are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they
do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Is
this from any defect in Holy Scripture as the rule? Hear
St. Stephen, " Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost." Then
it no more follows from the Scriptures being wrested, that,
in themselves, they are insufficient, than from the Holy
Ghost's being resisted that He is not almighty. Dr. Pusey
is, in one sense, right when he says, that " the question
relates not to Scripture, but to us." Wilful sin, obstinate
prejudice, unbelieving or careless neglect of the Spirit's
proffered aid, may obscure our eye, when the chart itself is
plain. The "unlearned" and "unstable" have to thank
themselves. What then ? the remedy must touch the disease.
If it be obscurity in Holy Scripture, and tradition caD clear
it, then Holy Scripture is not sufficient, and tradition must
make it so. If it be judicial blindness in the individual,
then, unless tradition can give grace, it is all beside the
mark. What then says Tractarianism on the subject? Why,
here is a long Tract (No. LXXXVII.) written to prove
" that the unanimous witness of Christendom is the only,
and the fully sufficient, and the really existing guarantee of
the whole revealed faith : that Catholicity is the only test of
truth." 3 Not one single word relating to the individual,
but every word relating to revealed truth. We must have
another language than honest English, before we can call
this no denial of the sufficiency of Holy Scripture. The
matter is no ways mended by adding that " Scripture and
tradition are the joint rule of faith."4
1 Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, p. 71. 2 Psalm xix. 7.
Psalm cxix. 15. 2 Tim. iii. 15. 3 P. 2. 4 Ibid. p. 2.

AND OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 55
It is distressing to find webs wound round objects from
which sophistry should stand aloof. I will say nothing of
the false doctrine, corrupt practice, and frightful abomina
tions, which have grown out of this making Scripture and
tradition the joint rule of faith. It is enough that tradition
invades the sanctuary of inspiration. — places itself on the
throne side by side with God's word — and usurps the in
communicable prerogatives of the Holy Ghost. Here is no
mere question of consequences : a deadly crime is perpe
trated ; and the heart, even more than the understanding,
recoils from it. The heart has its own logic — sometimes
very just and conclusive. It asks a simple question,
where is my guarantee for truth? If God's word and
God's Spirit are not enough without tradition, then I am
not dependent on the demonstration of the Spirit; my
faith does not stand in the power of God.
It may be said that this dependence is but instrumental,
as in preaching or other ordinances — faith resting ultimately
on the blessing of God. I reply that this argument pro
ceeds on the assumption that this is God's appointment. If
it be so, the argument is good; but what if it be not!
Where then is the proof? Tradition bearing witness of
itself will never do. Can Romanism or Tractarianism
point out a single passage in Holy Scripture which esta
blishes the assertion about a joint rule of faith?1 Will
Tractarianism be responsible for such rendering of certain
passages as shall divest them of their contrariety to any
such notion? For instance, " The law of the Lord is per
fect, converting the soul," &c. (but only when coupled with
the joint rule of faith) — " The entrance of Thy word giveth
light : it giveth understanding to the simple" (but not
without the unanimous witness of Christendom) — " To the"
(priest and to Tradition) " if" (the law and the testimony)
" speak not according to these, &c." — " Search the" (unani
mous witness of Christendom, the only and the fully suf
ficient, &c.) "for in" (it) "ye think, &c."— "These were
more noble than those of Thessalonica, in that they
searched the" (traditions of the Scribes who had made the
1 I once asked this proof of a Capuchin friar. Great was my surprise when
he quoted, " We have heard with our ears, and our fathers have told us."
Here he stopped. Of course. I had only to ask further what it was our fathers
told us. His argument supposed they told us traditional interpretation ; but
Scripture says it was " noble acts" — a subject somewhat more appropriate, as
I conceive, to testimony.

56 CATHOLIC TRADITION  QUOD SEMPER, &C.
word of God of none effect)—" Apollos, mighty in" (Church
tradition) " shewing by" (Church tradition) "that, &c." —
" Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three
Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the" (Traditions)
— " From a child thou hast known" (the joint rule of faith)
"which is able, &c." My hand trembles to write these
blasphemies ; yet they are the faithful transcript of the
principle before us.
If indeed it be so, we have done with the sufficiency of
Holy Scripture ; and we have done no less with all appeal
to Scripture. The British Critic, when he tells us that
" the Bible is in the hands of the Church to be dealt with
in such a way as the Church shall consider best for the ex
pression of her own mind at the time," may assume that the
mind of the Church will be all that it ought to be : I
scruple not to tell him that he is practising on my sim
plicity. I say then we must give up the notion of an
appeal to Holy Scripture. I go farther ; if Scripture be
obscure, and Tradition " the only, and the fully sufficient
guarantee of the whole revealed Faith," I may close the
word of God. Without the only sufficient guarantee it
were dangerous ; with it, superfluous. " Catholicity is the
only test of truth." Wherefore then serveth the law?
Let us silence indignation for awhile, that this ghostly
shadow may convict itself. I would know the reply to
that awful question " What is truth ?" Tractarianism points
to Vincentius Lerinensis, and mutters oracularly " Quod
semper — quod ubique — quod ab omnibus traditum est." This
is Catholic truth — what has been handed down always,
(or the quod semper) — every where, (the ubique) — by all
(the ab omnibus.) This is a very comprehensive, if not very
comprehensible account of truth. But where then am I to
go for this specific quod ?
I suppose that the ab omnibus must include all the
Churches of Christ. But the Church of England is one of
them : and she has written in her Articles that the Church
of Jerusalem has erred ; and the Churches of Alexandria
and Antioch and Rome have erred. Am I still to find the
quod amongst the doctrines of these Churches, though the
Church of England says they erred ? or am I to exclude all
these Churches from the account? or must I strike the
Church that differs from them out of the category ? But
where am I to go ? The Tractarian school makes this defi-

CATHOLIC TRADITION. 57
nition the test of truth. Will the reputed master of that
school instruct me ? Why, I read in his own work such an
astounding annihilation of the test, that it would be no
better than a mockery to profess myself his catechist.' Shall
I fare any better with the first originator of the rule ? Why,
Vincentius has no less stultified himself, for he tells us that
" the poison of the Arians had now infected, not a little
part, but wellnigh the whole world; in such sort that almost
all the Bishops of the Latin tongue deceived, &c."2 Am
I then to include the Arian heresy in the essential truth,
the specific quod? or, am I to dispose of the rule itself, by
excluding the now from the semper, — well nigh the whole
world from the ubique, — and almost all the Bishops of the
Latin tongue from the omnibus ?
If this test really holds, it holds for all time. But I find
in Tract XXXVI. a list of those who receive and teach a
part, but not the whole of the truth ; " erring in respect of
one or more fundamental doctrines." These are " Presby
terians, Independents, Methodists, (subdivided into an im
mense variety of sects) Baptists, and Quakers."3 Now these
together make up a very considerable part of the Christen
dom whose " unanimous witness" we are in search of. Will
Mr. Newman take them all into his omnibus? If so, one or
more fundamental truths must, as they enter, be shut out.
Will he boldly shut out these multifarious sects — unchris-
tianize them — and let the Episcopalians monopolize the
omnibus? Alas! the Tract goes on to enumerate "those
who teach more than the truth :" and at the head of the list
I read those famous Episcopalians " Romanists or Papists."
So " more than the truth" goes into the omnibus.
This famous Canon, then, seems to end in a palpable ab
surdity. But let us do it justice. Every instrument requires
to be used secundum artern, according to its make, and the
laws of the trade. It seems no single doctrine can stand
the test of these criteria conjointly. Sometimes one holds,
sometimes another ; we must shift the instrument for our
selves : so the search for truth becomes a sort of Chinese
puzzle — the more difficult to adjust, since most of the pieces
have been fumbled by Jesuitical fingers. But let Vincentius
speak for himself. " What if, even in antiquity itself, there
be two or three men, nay, one community, or even province,
1 See passage quoted at p. 22. 2 Vincent. Lerinen. Commit. Oxford,
1837, p. 10. 3 P. 3.

58 CATHOLIC TRADITION.
discovered in error :" (these large concessions are all short
of our Nineteenth Article's assertion about the Churches of
Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome) " then he will
be careful to prefer to the rashness or ignorance of the few,
(if so be) the ancient decrees (i. e. in Council) of the uni
versal Church," (thus he is to determine what is, what is not
the universal Church). " What if a case arises when no
such acts of the Church are found ? then he will do his best"
(unhappy wight ! left by Catholicity to do his best) " to com
pare and search out the opinions of the Ancients, of those,
that is, who, in various times and places," (all times ? all
places? either or both?) "remaining in the faith" (what
faith ? this is the point he is in quest of) " and communion
of the one Catholic Church are the most trustworthy autho
rities," (so for God's free Spirit, he has got the most trust
worthy authorities) " and whatever, not one or two, but all
alike," (St. Jerome to wit, and St. Augustine) " with one
consent, held, wrote, and taught, and that openly and per-
severingly," (seeing that the last named father wrote different
things at different times) " that, he will understand is to be
believed without hesitation."1
We have got then to this, the semper, ubique, and omnibus
are shifting elements in the account ; a sort of " sliding
scale" to be applied according to circumstances. But we
must have a further word or two on this subject. I am not,
it seems, to trust Scripture without the joint rule, and this
joint rule must be collected from all Churches and all indi
viduals, in all places and in all times. Now I would fain
know who is to be entrusted with the right of search. Clearly
not private individuals, though Vincentius implies they are ;
for, were they capable of the effort, private judgment is gone
from them. They can have no power amongst voluminous
disputations of school divinity, when they are incompetent
to decypher writings of men inspired of God, who, writing
" as unto babes," used " great plainness of speech." Surely
not individual ministers: the whole question before us is
between individual ministers, all of whom stand alike
related in the apostolical succession : Number Ninety was
written by an individual minister, and a more inexplicable
puzzle was never constructed than Number Ninety, as re
gards the specific quod of one single Church : all the Tracts
were written by individual ministers, who have not yet an-
1 p. 4.

CATHOLIC TRADITION. 59
swered — and never can answer — the charge of misrepre
senting tradition, both ancient and modern.1 Who is to
determine? Clearly not Churches, Papal or Patriarchal:
for they have been excommunicating each other for eight
hundred long years. Who then is to determine ? I have a
blessed promise of my Saviour, "Ye shall know the truth ;
and the truth shall make you free." Is this labyrinth the
only way to the attainment of the promise ? or have I not a
clue in what Paul said to Timothy, " From a child thou hast
known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee
wise unto salvation?"
The power which pronounces Holy Scripture sufficient
only when lighted up, not by the Holy Spirit, but by
Church Tradition, may be said to have achieved the seeming
impossibility of sitting as God in the temple of God. There
is in the bare idea such an aspersion of the word of God,
and an assumption so direct and perfect of the prerogatives
of the Holy Ghost, that, amidst a cloud of emotions which
sweep across the soul, one conviction stands out distinct —
this is " the man of sin." 2
The achievement is no doubt the climax. It was some
thing to surround the worship of Him who is a Spirit with
a dazzling mystic halo, called a sacramental principle. It
was something in the real sacraments to sensualize faith,
by fixing its eye upon the sign, and its dependence on the
priest. It was something to detach it still further from its
proper trust, by denying the responsibilities of private judg-
1 See Mr. Goode's " Divine Rule of Faith and Practice."
! I cannot refrain from quoting a paragraph in No. 24 of the Records of the
Church from Vol. II. of the Tracts for the Times. " Here some one perhaps
will demand, why I need make mention of the Church's understanding of
Scripture at all, considering that the canon of the Scriptures is perfect and self-
sufficient, nay, more than sufficient for all things V (this should seem as conclu
sive as the Romish admission that there is One Mediator) " To which I an
swer, that the very depth of Holy Scripture prevents its being taken by all men
in one and the same sense," (so the insufficiency of Scripture without tradition
comes from its being more than sufficient) " one man interpreting it in one way,
one in another," (much as they do the simple Articles of the Church of Eng
land) " so that it seems almost" (Number Ninety would make it quite) " possible
to draw from it as many opinions as there are readers." Then follow terrible
names. " Each of these heretics has his own distinct interpretation of it. This
is why it is so necessary, viz. in order to avoid the serious labyrinths of such
various errors, to direct the line of interpretation, both as to prophets and
ap03tles, according to the sense of the Church and Catholic world," Poor Vin
centius Lerinensis ! could be have seen the labyrinths since struck out with this
magic wand, " sense of the Church," would he not have burnt his hand, rather
than write such a passage?

60 MONASTICISM AND THE CONFESSIONAL.
ment, save as to credentials, and binding it, in mute sub
mission, to the priestly chair. All this was something;
but not enough. The word of God unfettered, man was
not all a slave. The last atrocity must be perpetrated
against that Magna Charta of the human race. This was
done. It was done, like all besides, with wretched craft
and speciousness : but it was done. Insulted reason, slow
to bow its pride in " the obedience of faith," seemed indif
ferent how it bowed its privileges in this " voluntary
humility." Whether cajoled, brow-beat, or seduced by the
secret consciousness that this human power, though exter
nally grinding, was less strict than to pierce " to the
dividing of soul and spirit" — however it was, reason
yielded — the priest prevailed — and, when once it was made
a Church principle that the word of God could only speak
through the instrumentality of the Church — that, whatever
impressions it might make, on understanding, heart, con
science, these were not God's message till the Church had
accredited them, the climax was complete, the chain of
darkness was riveted.
What of doctrinal error or practical imposture was to
follow is a matter of detail. It is instructive to trace the
sequel : but nothing else need surprise us. The only won
der is, that in England — at this time of day — after blood-
bought experience — after ages of light and liberty, it should
eome to this, that we have to fight the battles of elementary
truth — not against the open infidel and blasphemer — but
against that self-same smooth spoken, solemn looking,
mystical personage, who, clothed in garments of light, and
making broad her phylacteries, has played " fantastic
freaks" and done deeds of darkness " before high heaven,"
on which men as well as " angels" may look with mute
astonishment. That it is the self-same priestly mystery, if
not the same identical incarnation of it, there can be no
reasonable doubt with reasonable men. Each successive
feature that comes out — every syllable — every step betrays
it. We have looked on some lineaments : a few shadows
will complete the portrait.
§ 1 7. Monasticism and the Confessional.
I said that monasticism and the confessional were
amongst the elements of Papal tyranny. The one gives
sanctimony, if not holiness : the other rules, if it does not

MONASTICISM AND THE CONFESSIONAL. 61
bless. Both are distinctly developing in the Tractarian
system. In Froude's Remains, so early edited by the
master minds, we have the nascent horn, " It has lately
come into my head, that the present state of things in Eng
land makes an opening for reviving the monastic system."1
The desirableness of reviving it is settled : the opportunity
is a discovery. But it is no mere desideratum : " Un
doubtedly you owe a debt to your destinies which, as a mere
parish priest, you can never repay."2 So says the British
Critic, " Disengagement from earthly cares, if not from
human ties, seems to be an almost indispensable condition
of that singleness of devotion, &c."3 So says the British
Magazine, " You must have Dissent or Monachism in a
Christian country; so make your choice:"4 and, " Great
towns will never be evangelized merely by the parochial
system ; they are beyond the sphere of the parish priest,
burdened as he is with the endearments and anxieties of a
family."5 So thinks Faber, for he puts into the mouth
of his Demon an elaborate, and unanswered defence of
monastic orders, of which he observes, that Rome was only
occasionally jealous, " as knowing their tremendous power." e
So apostolic succession is again to set aside apostolic rule ;
and draw a line through the being " the husband of one
wife," to evangelize great towns.
The Confessional comes next in order. This topic has
been anticipated ; yet we must not fail to observe the biting
and perfectly Romish character of the Tractarian view of it.
Now as to the apostolic exhortation, " Confess your faults
one to another," there is no question. The point in dispute
is confessing, not to one another, but to the priest. Nor is
there any question as to what our Church of England
advises, that " If there be any of you who cannot quiet his
own conscience herein, but requireth further comfort or coun
sel, let him come to me, &e."7 The point is, the duty — the
necessity of confession, with or without the all-important if.
Nor, lastly, is it, even then, the benefit of absolution simply
which is questioned ; because this, if it extend no further
(and I deny that it does extend further) than the remission
of offences against the discipline of the Church, is no doubt
a benefit ; and one to which allusion is very properly made
1 Vol. I. p. 322. 2 Ibid. p. 397. 3 No. LXVI. p. 338.
* Vol. IX. p. 866. s Ibid. p. 368. 6 Sights and Thoughts, p. 356.
7 Exhortation prefixed to the Communion Service.

62 MONASTICISM AND THE CONFESSIONAL.
in the Rubric — " and if any of these be, &c. so that the con
gregation be thereby offended, &C."1 The. Popish tyranny
against which we object is that which, by making confession
to the priest a necessary part of repentance, makes the priest
the lord, of conscience, "sitting as God, in the temple of God."
We have then a sermon preached by one ofthe Tractarian
school in Winchester College, and afterwards published
under the title of " Evangelical Repentance," in which is
urged the necessity of confession, priestly absolution, and
corporeal penance. The full stringency of this necessity
— the last turn of the heart-screw — must not of course be
looked for amongst " indeterminate statements." The last
number of the British Critic talks mysteriously of " what
the Church would be to us, could she speak her own mind."
Meanwhile the following hints are worth attending to.
There being " no special confession to the Church at all; . . .
we have impaired our right to call ourselves Catholic
and apostolical, when, in one most material point — one too,
of even vital moment to the soul's health, we are at
variance &C."2 "Whether confession to the Church, and
especially to the individual minister as representing it, be
regarded as a mere relief of conscience and means of
guidance, or more directly and theologically, as the indispen
sable condition of sacramental absolution, Sfc." 3 " The Con
fessor stands toward the penitent in loco Dei ... as a priest
of the Most High God, authorized to dispense the gifts of
pardoning grace which are deposited in Holy Church — whose
instructions carry with them the imperativeness ofa divine com
mand; and to falsify," &c. " in whose presence is to be guilty
of a deception analogous in kind, and equally heinous in
nature with that of the persons who, as Holy Scripture tells
us, ' kept back part, &c.' " * I need scarce quote again the
1 The Absolution in the Form of Visiting the Sick, is sometimes thought to
go beyond what is maintained above. On this I would observe, that  1. Tlie
confession on which it proceeds is voluntary, and, as in the other case, ushered
in with an " if he feel his conscience troubled."— 2. The assertion that Christ
hath left power to absolve, terminates in the prayer, " forgive thee thine
offences :" and the absolution thereafter pronounced is followed by a prayer for
God's forgiveness : which is inconsistent with the notion that the priest's abso
lution is absolute pardon.— 3. There is a difference between the form of abso
lution here and that in the Common Prayer. In the one case the priest
absolves : in the other he declares that God absolveth those that truly repent.
If we take the offence in the one case as against discipline, in the other as
against God, there iB a propriety in each form, and a propriety in their difference •
if otherwise, the priest does in the chamber what he does not in the church
2 No. LXVI. p. 331. 3 Ibid. p. 307. * Ibid. pp. 302, 303. '

ROMISH ACCOUNT  WITH PROOFS. 63
assertion, that " it must seem superfluous to draw distinctions
between confession to God, and confession to man." But
it is, it seems, equally superfluous to question the equal right
of God and man to demand confession. " We put entirely
out of sight, as unworthy the notice of professing Church
men, all such objections to the ordinance as presume a
doubt of the Church's absolute right to a knowledge of the
hearts of her children. We are not going, thus late in the
day, to set about proving that she is a divine ordinance,
and invested with divine prerogatives." * Should the Reader
think it needful, after this, to enquire how much further
Rome-ward this authority has travelled, he may consult the
passages referred to beneath. . I will not trifle with him by
quoting them.2 He will find Dr. Wiseman and the
Manuel des Confesseurs quoted as to the rules, and St.
Philip Neri, and " the great St. Francis de Sales," as
to the practice of confession — " their best and most
popular books of private devotions and instruction," such
as " The Garden ofthe Soul," recommended — and the perse
cution ofthe Port- Royalists by the Jesuits defended, as only
" at first sight unaccountably severe." 3
On the whole, then, it seems that between English whips
and Romish scorpions there is not, after all, so very much to
choose. § 18. Romish Account — with Proofs.
Into minute examination of incidentals I will not enter.
The distinctions between what Tractarianism calls primitive,
and what she admits to be Popish, though many of them
of the texture of Number Ninety, would take time to
ravel out. Their value may be estimated when we examine
the asserted relationship between the two systems. Having
stumbled, however, upon a Papal account of the matter
whilst sojourning in Rome, I may be allowed to quote it,
and add one illustrative comment. It is from a magazine
published weekly at " La Pia Tipografica unione in Roma,"
the principal contributors to which are enumerated on the
cover, Monsignore Segretario di Propaganda being at the
head 'ofthe list, and in due course Dr. Wiseman, " Rettore
de Coll. Inglese." At p. 15 of Number XXIX. is the fol
lowing notice. .
" We cannot sufficiently excite the attention ot all good
' Ibid. p. 323. 2 Ibid. pp. 322, 323, 324, 326, 327, 329. ? No. LXVI. p. 343.

64 THE BREVIARY.
Catholics, and chiefly of the holy congregation of the Pro
paganda Fide, to the state of Anglicanism, in its pursuit of
the new doctrines propagated with such force and such
success by Messrs. Newman, Pusey, and Keble. With
arguments drawn from the works of the most holy fathers,
of which they have undertaken a new edition in English,
they labour for the restoration of the ancient Catholic
liturgy — of the breviary, (which many of them, as it is
known to our correspondent, recite every day) — of fasts —
of the monastic life — and of many other religious practices.
Besides, they teach the insufficiency of the Bible as a rule
of faith — the necessity of tradition — and of ecclesiastical
authority — the real presence — prayers for the dead — the
use of images — the power of absolution in the priesthood —
the sacrifice of the eucharist — devotion to the most holy
Madonna — and many other Catholic doctrines ; so that but
very little (pochissimo) stands between them and the true
faith, and that little becomes less and less every day."
This document has transpired elsewhere ; and shifts have
been resorted to to deaden its effects. It has been of
course alleged that this is the Popish account. We have
already tested its fidelity in the most important points ; let
us look how far it is borne out as regards the Breviary and
its kindred subjects.
The longest of the Tracts for the Times is (I think) No.
LXXXI. which professes to prove the Lord's supper " a
eucharistic sacrifice." Next in length (if I mistake not) is
No. LXXV. of which this is the title, " On the Roman
Breviary, as embodying the Substance of the Devotional
Services of the Church Catholic." This Breviary Mr.
Newman calls " a sacred and most precious monument of
the apostles."1 Its use is so estimated by Tractarians
generally, that the British Critic informs us, " We are
learning to appreciate much" (only a part, it seems, as yet)
" of that ' beauty of holiness' which she has preserved in
her services, but of which we had unhappily lost sight."2
It seems, however, that No. LXXV. has a special object;
it opens thus, " There is so much of excellence and beauty
in the services of the Breviary, that were it skilfully set
before the Protestant by Roman controversialists as the
book of devotions received in their communion, it would
undoubtedly raise a prejudice in their favour. To meet
1 Letter to Faussett, p. 46. 2 No. LIX. p. 158.

THE BREVIARY. 65
this danger is one principal object of the following pages."
It is really amazing how much need there is to print extra
ordinarily long Tracts to keep these "Catholics" from
becoming Papists. But— the means !
" Vera incessu patuit Dea."
At p. 9, we read, " Graver and sounder matter being ex
cluded, apocryphal legends of saints were used to stimulate
and occupy the public mind ; and a way was made for those
invocations to the virgin and other saints, which heretofore
were unknown in public worship." Then follows an enu
meration of the addresses to the blessed Mary. " These
portions of the Breviary carry with them their own plain
condemnation in the judgment of English Christians." Do
they? If they do not — there is something not a little signi
ficant in this putting forth of the Breviary. Now, as I
suppose that, with the publishers of these Tracts, Mr.
Froude, Mr. Newman, and British Critics pass for Eng
lish Christians, I shall take the liberty of testing the pro
bable effect of these portions upon their minds : readers
may then form their own judgment as to this publication of
the Breviary.
There is at p. 37 of Number Ninety much acute reasoning
upon a very simple subject. The author has signed an Ar
ticle to the effect that " invocation of saints is a fond thing,
vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scrip
ture, but rather repugnant to the word of God." What then?
First. " By invocation here is not meant the mere cir
cumstance of addressing beings out of sight— because the
Psalms are frequent in invocations of angels to praise and
bless God." Granted — -apostrophes to sun and moon are
no less frequent : this is but an expression of our sympathy
with their declaration of " the glory of God :" (Psalm xix.)
" Nor is it a fond invocation to pray that unseen beings may
bless us." No, certainly; nor that our food may nourish
us : but who would call this an invocation of food ? But
when we pray — not for the help of angels, whom Scripture
calls "ministering spirits," but oi saints, of whose ministra
tion Scripture gives us not the slightest hint; and when we
not only pray for but to such unseen beings, who does not
see that the case is wholly changed ? This is the " fond
thing" condemned by the Article in the very intelligible
words, " invocation of saints." On this subject, the Inter-

66 INVOCATION OF SAINTS.
prefer has given us a collection of Roman subtleties about
" prayer direct and prayer oblique — prayer absolute and
prayer relative — prayer sovereign and prayer subaltern —
prayer final and prayer transitory — prayer sacrificial and
prayer out of, or from the sacrifice." All this is vastly
curious : but who wants such means of knowing the English
of the Article ? It is more to the purpose to hear the In
terpreter's own conclusion, that by invocation of saints is
not meant invocation simply, but " all addresses to them
which intrench upon the incommunicable honour due to
God alone." These he would have us believe the Article
calls — not "blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits," as
another Article calls the sacrifices of masses, but — " a fond
thing, vainly (inaniter) invented, grounded upon no war
ranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of
God !" This distinction between invoking saints at all,
and invoking them as possessed of divine attributes, is just
the very distinction between primary and secondary wor
ship, (the latria and dulia) by which Rome defends the
adoration of relics and images : and it is observable that,
before stating this conclusion, he quotes the same identical
distinction from the Jesuit Bellarmine. — " It is not lawful
to ask of the saints to grant to us, as if they were the
authors of divine benefits." So that the Jesuit and the
Interpreter have the same views on this point. How far a
virtual ubiquity, or the power of hearing addresses from all
terrestrial space at the same time, be, or be not, an incommu
nicable attribute, I leave these learned persons to settle be
tween them. For ourselves, it cannot be too distinctly borne
in mind, that almost all which has made Rome an abomina
tion is, professedly, within these limits. Her multitudinous
and master sin is her practically drawing the soul from God
by a something which, to use the quoted words of Cardinal
Perron, is but oblique, relative, subaltern, and transitory.
The " ora pro nobis" is a perfect illustration : and it is not a
little singular that, since the indeterminate statements of
Number Ninety, the Interpreter has confessed that " friends
and opponents discovered that my premises required, what
I was very unwilling to state categorically, for various rea
sons, that the ' ora pro nobis' was not, on my shewing,
necessarily included in the invocation of saints which the
Article condemns." 1 Thus the door is quietly opened for
1 Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 18.

APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. 67
the invocation of saints. What follows ? The British Critic
acknowledges that " it is a very difficult and trying task to
offer to the blessed saints that veneration which is their due,
without encroaching on the worship we owe to God alone."1
(What but Romanism ever made it trying to distinguish
between the veneration of a saint and the worship of God ?)
" The blessed virgin, for instance, is an object of contem
plation so full of that which will naturally engage and
engross our affections, that, under all circumstances, there
is a certain danger, and if she be looked upon as the sole
channel of grace, then there is the most imminent danger
lest men allow their thoughts to rest finally on her, rather
than through her, on God." We may well have a long
Tract to keep us from such danger, when we find Mr.
Newman asking his hearers, " What think ye was the
sanctity and grace of that human nature of which God
formed His sinless Son ? How is it possible we should bear
to gaze on the creature's holiness in its fulness!"2 Well, if
it be so, might the plain-spoken Froude exclaim, " I think
people are injudicious who talk against the Roman Catholics
for worshipping saints and honouring the virgin, images,
&c. These things may perhaps be idolatrous : but I cannot
make up my mind."3
Now I have put these things together, not only to sub
stantiate the Romish account of Tractarianism, but to give
candid English readers a specimen of Tractarian tactics. I
grieve to be compelled to close this subject ofthe Breviary
with the following discreditable passages from Froude.
" A thing of that sort might sneak into circulation as a
book of antiquarian research, and yet, if well managed,
might undermine many prejudices."4 Doubtless the Bre
viary did sneak under admirable management in a Tract
for the Times, the principal object of which was to keep
the Papists from giving it to us. " I believe he would
have gladly consented to our own Communion Service
being replaced by a good translation of the Liturgy of
St. Peter, a name which I advise to be substituted for the
obnoxious phrase ' Mass Book.' "5
§ 19. Apostolical Succession.
I cannot follow Tractarianism through the subjects of
1 British Critic, No. LX. p. 356. 2 Sermons, p. 8. 3 Remains, Vol. I. p. 294.
4 Ibid. p. 245. 5 Ibid. p. 387.
F2

68 RELATIONS WITH ROME.
purgatory and prayers for the dead, pardons, images, and
relics. The sentiments maintained by the Movement on
these subjects are rather Romanesque than Romish. But
on one, the Apostolic Succession, there is no difference
between Roman and Anglo-Catholics. The matter is con
cisely stated in the third volume of " Froude's Remains."
" To dispense with episcopal ordination is to be regarded,
not as a breach of order merely, or a deviation from Apos
tolical precedent, but as a surrender of the Christian priest
hood, a rejection of all the powers which Christ instituted
episcopacy to perpetuate; and the attempt to substitute any
other form of ordination for it, or to seek communion with
Christ through any non-episcopal association, is to be re
garded, not as a schism merely, but as an impossibility"1
This catholicity differs only in phase and temper from that
of Mr. Palmer's Anathema. Alas ! then, for the so-called
saints of so many ages, who, submitting themselves to
God's word, praying for the Holy Ghost, confessing their
sins, trusting in Christ's atonement, making mention of His
righteousness, and adorning His doctrine with all " the
fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentle
ness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance," have not
only, in seeking communion with Christ, sought an impos
sibility, but lived and died — the Calvins, Luthers, Melanc-
thons of other countries— the Knoxes, Baxters, Howes,
Henrys, Wattses, Doddridges of our own- — in the enor
mous guilt of surrendering the Christian priesthood, and
rejecting all the powers which Christ instituted episcopacy
to perpetuate.2 § 20. Tractarian Relations with Rome.
One more topic remains — the acknowledged relations
between " Catholicity" and Rome. Now, whatever essen
tial Romanism there may be in the Movement, one fact is
indisputable, Tractarianism is engaged in a controversy
with Rome — nay, she boasts that she alone is capable of
maintaining it. We have seen what Rome thinks on the
1 Remains, Vol. I. p. 43. 2 Froude declares, " I never mean, if I can,
help it, to use any phrase even, which can connect me with such a set," (" Lu
ther, Melanctbon, and Co.") ;* and speaks of " the Rural Dean and the Clergy"
going " a whoring after the Wesleyans, Moravians, and the whole kit beside, to
concoct a joint plan of general education. "t
* Remains, Part I. p. 395. t Ibid. p. 397.

RELATIONS WITH ROME. 69
subject: what we Protestants should think of it I proceed
to shew.1
1. The claims of Rome as a Church are by Tractarianism
held unimpaired. Not only are Rome's corruptions never
permitted to damage her claims ; but, in direct contradic
tion to the Article which asserts that the Church of Rome
has erred, it is maintained that the errors controverted by
Tractarianism are " not ofthe Church, but in it merely."2
The British Critic asks, of the Churches of Rome and
England, " Are they not one in faith, so far as they are
viewed in their essential Apostolical character? Are they
not in discord, so far as their respective children and dis
ciples have overlaid them with the errors of their own indivi
dual minds?"3 Nothing can be clearer. The unity of these
controverting* churches exists in the essential character of
both. Their controversies are the simple result of errors —
in individual members— and these errors mutual.
2. It follows of course, that, if Rome's claims be unim
paired, they are, at least, on a level with those of the
Church of England. The British Critic has a long article
on private judgment, in which the claims of the two
Churches are formally discussed. What will English
readers think of the following extracts ? Rival claims to
Church authority being adverted to, it is asked, " How
shall we discriminate between them ?  Tests are given
us : the one teacher is represented to be the minister of
God, and the other the child and organ of evil. But
1 It may be said that the article in the Romish Magazine referred to above
was written some time since, when Rome mistook the Movement. Rome does
not often make mistakes : but if this be one, subsequent experience has con
firmed it. I subjoin a passage, this moment handed to me, from a sermon
just preached in the Cathedral of Tours, by the Secretary to the late Arch
bishop, at the funeral of his patron. " II taut rendrecette justice a l'Angleterre,
qu'elle se montra genereuse envers les Francais exiles, et ce n'est pas ici une
des pages les moins belles de son histoire. II semble qu'elle en recoit aujourd'-
hui la recompense. La semence jetee, par les Pretres Catholiques, sur l'an-
tique terre des saints n'a pas ete sterile. Evidemment les passions se calment —
les prejuges se dissipent — les mellieurs esprits travaillent sans relache a ap-
planir les difficulties, et a operer un rapprochement si dhirHble: de nom-
breuses conversions viennent consoler l'Eglise; chacque jour voit erouler
quelque pau du vieux mur de separation : et si ce Movement continue, l'Angle
terre ne tardera pas a devenir ce qu'elle fut autrefois, la Fille la jilus soumise
et la plus devouee de l'Eglise Romaine." Can any thing be more instructive'.'
Rome rejoices from first to last in the Movement, and declares, that " if it do
but continue, England will not be long in becoming again the most submissive
and the most devoted daughter of the Church of Rome."
2 British Critic, No. LIX. p. 134. 3 Ibid. p. 120.

70 RELATIONS WITH ROME.
now will any one say that the contrast between the English
and Roman Churches is of this description? Again, we
shall be referred perhaps to the false prophets of Israel and
Judah. This parallel is not more happy than the former.
The test is the divine accomplishment of the prophet's
message, or the divine blessing on his teaching — a test
under which neither Church will fail, and neither is pre
eminently foremost  However there is a third type of
rival teaching  The state of the Corinthian Christians
will exemplify what we mean : Paul, Cephas, and Apollos
were all friends together, yet parties were formed round
each separately, which made the apostles themselves seem
in disagreement. Is not this, at least in great measure, the
state of the Churches of England and Rome ?" J I will not stop
to condemn an argument which puts differences between
England and Rome on a level with the personal partialities
of raw Corinthian converts, and the two churcheson the same
footing of unity as Paul, Cephas, and Apollos. Yet this is
all — in substance positively all this Tractarian can find, as
regards the respective claims of these dissociated Churches.
Not so much as an allusion to the ground on which our own
Church founds her authority, the reiterated appeal to the
written Word of God : not an allusion to the Apostolic
appeal, " though I, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other Gospel, &c. :" not a hint of the prophetic appeal (an
appeal which interprets all Church obedience, and agree
ably with which the command about Scribes sitting in
Moses' seat must, of course, be understood) " to the law
and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to this
word, it is because they have no light in them." Such tests
soon dispose of Rome's claims as a Church. Tractarianism
has other tests ; the result is very natural, " We believe
that our own Church has certain imperfections : the Church
of Rome certain corruptions : such a belief has no tendency
to lead us to any view as to which on the whole is the better." 2
3. It follows that conversions, as we are used to call them,
are high crimes and misdemeanors against Catholic Church
principles. In another article of the same Journal, after
some defamatory remarks on the Church Missionary So
ciety, we read as follows, " The instances in which such se
cessions have taken place are trumpeted forth in published
accounts ; as though it were a matter of triumph not of la-
1 British Critic, No. LIX. pp. 117, 118, 119. 2 Ibid. p. 121.

RELATIONS WITH ROME. 71
mentation, that a member of a Roman or Greek communion
should throw off the great tenets of the faith, which all
Catholic Churches hold in common, to embrace the system of
irreverence and semi-infidelity, which such teachers as we
have been referring to," (the ordained ministers of the
Church of England Missionary Society) " designate by the
name of Protestantism ; but which our Anglican Liturgy "
(interpreted, of course, like the Articles, on Catholic prin
ciples) " comprises under the denomination oi false doctrine,
heresy, and schism."1
4. We now understand the denial that our martyred re
formers were, properly speaking, either martyrs or reformers.
The differences between the two Churches, even where the
reformers might be right, were immeasurably too small for
either martyrdom or reform.
5. We cannot stop here. If no reformers, no reform : if
no reform, what was our so called Reformation? If the
conversion of individuals be what we have just read, the
secession of the Church itself must be something of the
same kind. If it were not right, just, and our bounden
duty to secede, our Ridleys, Latimers, and Jewels were
something below so called reformers. This is a critical
question. Tractarianism has not dared to grapple with it.
We members, however, of the Church of England have
something at stake.
The article on Bishop Jewel opens with this auspicious
notice of the Reformation. " Without at all saying, as it
would be highly presumptuous," (not impudently false, but,
only highly presumptuous) "that it could have beenavoided,
or may not be defended : 2 . . . .to say that Rome exacts
arbitrary and impracticable terms of submission, is at least
intelligible"3 ..." We talk of the blessings of emancipa
tion from the Papal yoke, and other phrases of a like bold
and undutiful tenour"4 (stout champions these to come to
close quarters with the man of sin) "free though we may
be in theory, we have jet practically lost by the change, even
in point of freedom."5 . . . How far we have gained, as
regards truth, is not, it seems, less questionable, for " the
Protestant tone of doctrine and thought is essentially anti-
christian ;" and the Church of England " has been made
such as it is, chiefly through the instrumentality of persons
1 British Critic, No. LIX. p. 148. " Ibid. p. 1.
3 Ibid. p. 2. "Ibid. p. 2. 5 Ibid. p. 3.

72 RELATIONS WITH ROME.
disavowing the judgment of Rome, not merely in this or that
particular, but in its general view of Christian truth." x It
would seem that our separation from Rome has not done us
much good either way : what then was it?
How does Tractarianism regard Rome ? Does she bear
in memory the secrets of the prison house? Dr. Pusey
asks, " Is it then a duty to forget that Rome was our
mother, through whom we were born to Christ?"2 " She is
our mother," says the British Critic, "to whom, by the
grace of God, we owe it that we are what we are."3 So,
what we are as to the antichristian tone of doctrine, we owe
to our reformers; what we are as a true Church, we owe to
Rome ! Her faults, therefore, at their worst, are " the note
of dishonour in a sister or a mother, towards whom we feel
so tenderly and reverently."4 She is not the abomination
so circumstantially described in prophecy. She has not
upon her garments — unabjured — " the blood of the inno
cents." That she is immaculate is not pretended ; nor are
we. Which is worse, or which most unhappy, is not for us
to ask. We are sisters in calamity. " Our separation is a
most grievous penalty for sin somewhere (italics) : upon the
corruptions which provoked, or the sacrilege which assailed,
or both together."5 " Nay," says a Tract for the Times,
" the sense of the wants and imperfections of the English
Church is calculated, more than any thing else, to arm us"
(beautiful armoury) "against the arguments of Rome — they
will but lead us to confess that she is in a measure in that
position which we fully ascribe to her Latin sister, in cap
tivity" (italics). We are not told who is the jailor, or who
the prisoner : nor have we reference to those holy fathers
of the Inquisition, who know all about it. There is a sort
of mysterious Tractarian light thrown on the subject, by a
passage quoted from a book of poetry almost as pellucid
as Number Ninety. " At Rome, she wears it as of old,
Upon the accursed hill :
By monarchs clad in gems and gold,
She goes a mourner still.
" Speak gently of our sister's fall," &c.6
1 British Critic, No. LIX. p. 29. 2 Advertisement prefixed to Tract LXXVII.
p. 33. 3 No. LIX. p. 3. ? Ibid. p. 125. 5 Ibid. p. 2.
6 Tract LXXI. p. 31. Whether such expressions are among poetic licenses,
I leave to critics. Asa servant of God I must solemnly protest against them in
Tracts for the Times, or any other works which profess to teach. If some stop be

RELATIONS WITH ROME. 73
But gentle speeches are not enough. " We are divided,"
says a British Critic. " We trust" (italics) " of course
that active and visible union with the see of Rome is not
of the essence of a Church — at the same time we are deeply
conscious that in lacking it, far from asserting a right, we
forego a great privilege." " Of course, union of the whole
Church under one visible government is abstractedly the
most perfect state. We were so united, and now are not."1
Another British Critic tells us, that "the object which, of
all external ones, should most especially engross the true
Churchman's attention is, we do not hesitate to say, the
restoration of the Church's uninterrupted unity. The im
portance of missionary proceedings, strictly so called — great
as it abstractedly is, and scrupulously as we would avoid
saying a word respecting it in a slighting tone — is assuredly
as nothing in comparison of such an achievement, or rather,
of such a blessing."2 Another calls the Church of England
" our poor outcast Church."3 Another speaks of " that
greatest and most important of her component portions, the
Roman communion" — and tells us that " in that central
point alone in truth it is, that that communion lives and
acts and energizes, with the proper and essential life of a
Church." '4 Mr. Faber's Demon asserts — without reply — that
" Rome is not as other churches:"5 and maintains that, as
the regal polity of the Jewish people was after some sort
divine, " so that no new change could be attempted without
stirring God's appointment," so " primitive episcopacy was
the pure theocracy of the Christian, and the mysterious re
verential instinct towards Rome implanted in the early
Church was equivalent to the hints and promises made in
the law for the future kingdom. The mediaeval papacy
was like the Jewish monarchy."6 Thus far the irrespon
sible: the acknowledged self speaks of " the haunted hills of
not put by public indignation to such mockeries of language, truth will perish
in the streets. I should really like to know where, when, or how Tractarianism
discovered this lovely mourner. I have myself spent a winter on" the accursed
hill," and seen as much as most, during that time, of the mystic personage re
ferred to : but of sighs, tears, captivity, saw I or heard I nothing, save in the
Inquisition above referred to. There were certainly some days when she could
be fairly examined. I have read of one real mourner, and we all know where
she placed herself: but this — incensed — holy watered — bedizened—" in pride of
place"— doing courtly and self-admiring homage to the Pope's slippered toe — I
thought rather of one who, living " in pleasure, is dead while she liveth."
1 British Critic, LIX. pp. 2, 3^ 2 Ibid, (another article) p. 138.
3 Ibid. No. LXVI. p. 306. * Ibid. No. LIX. p. 140. s Sights and Thoughts,
p. 171. 6 Ibid. p. 385.

74 RELATIONS WITH ROME.
the legitimate capital of Christendom."1 This centralising
Catholicity needs no comment. Every thing now depends
on the centrifugal power. What keeps us then from
" active and visible union ?"
Not indifference. " Our natural affections would of
course guide us in the first place to an union with Rome,
the mother by whom our spiritual infancy was nursed. We
should like, first to wipe out the memory of past unkind-
nesses with her, to explain the mutual misunderstandings
from which our differences arose," (these must be the men
to defend truth from Rome) " and to renew the endearing
connection which bound us to her in those early days, when
the missionaries of her first and holiest Gregory" (preached
the good tidings of great joy ?) " administered the holy
mysteries to our Anglo-Saxon forefathers."2 Faber tells his
Demon, " there are lowly minded men, even in proud
England, whose leaning on the Church Catholic is as bold
and fearless as your own," and utters " a melody of one
who sits uncomplainingly by the waters of our Babylon :"
on which the Demon bursts forth, " See ! the whole world
burns to fling itself in one spontaneous wave of pilgrim
age upon the capital."3 " That amidst all this tumult of
awakening love," says the Reviewer, " our first yearn
ings should be towards Rome, can excite no wonder ; it is
only in the spirit of human affection."4 (I find no yearn
ings for some who agree with every doctrine of the Thirty-
nine Articles.) But " tears and prayers must go before
Catholic unity. It would be well for us to realize in all
its bitterness our humiliation." s What separates us?
Not errors, or corruptions, unrepented of by Rome.
" The Roman Church in Malta, as elsewhere, might still
hold her tenet of Purgatory, and yet cease to set forth, in
disgusting detail, the physical sufferings of the place."
(Error, like vice, may lose more than half its evil, by losing
all its grossness.) " She might maintain what she does on
the subject of indulgences, and yet not hold out the pro
mise of thirty, forty, and fifty days to the reciters of a
pater, &c." " She might maintain transubstantiation," (the
life and death matter in the Marian persecution) " and yet
confine the use of the consecrated host to sacramental ser-
1 Sights and Thoughts, p. 377. 2 British Critic, LIX. p. 142.
3 Sights and Thoughts, pp. 623, 624. 4 Review of Faber's Sights and
Thonghts, Monthly Magazine, June, 1842, p. 622. s Ibid. p. 621.

RELATIONS WITH ROME. 75
vices ; not bringing it out on other occasions, or placing it
on high, in the view of all, to be worshipped as a separate,
an uncommanded, and, as it has always appeared to us, an
irreverent service." x So the gravamen touching transub
stantiation is not idolatry, but irreverence. What then
separates us ?
" There can be no doubt that while the Church is, in
external things, divided within herself, the more her sepa
rate divisions can come into peaceful juxta position, and yet
not into collision," (these champions of truth !) " the more
she will, in each of her branches, become sensible of her real
position .*" (this isolation is all in all : the errors are moon
shine ; and, at the worst, mutual) " the more will each of
these branches become aware of the one-sidedness of the
view which, as standing by itself, it has adopted of the
truth." 2 Once establish this loving and reverend juxta
position, and it is not very clear how long Tractarianism
will maintain even a sham fight. Froude " will never
abuse the Roman Church as a Church, for any thing but
excommunicating us."3 What then, I repeat, separates

us

?

" Painful and humiliating, we must feel is the record of
that angry struggle which has been the means of dividing
against itself the kingdom which should be united against
the world."4 The history of this great struggle " is the
record of that deplorable schism."5 The word schism is not
peculiar to one article in this Review. Another speaks of
the " unhappy schism's unnatural continuance."6 Another
touches very characteristically the question of mutual guilt.
" If the note of schism lies on England, an antagonist
disgrace lies upon Rome, the note of idolatry. Let us not
be mistaken here : we are neither charging Rome with
idolatry, nor ourselves with schism : we think neither charge
tenable : but still, the Roman Church practises what is so
like idolatry, and the English Church makes so much of
what is so very like schism," (the English has the worst
of it) " that without deciding, &c." The result is, that
" even if he be schismatical, he" (the English Churchman)
" is so by the act of providence."7 Nice judgment this, " if
it will but hold." So that, amidst all this recognition of
Rome's imperishable claims— this humiliating sense of
1 British Critic, LIX. pp. 158, 159. 2 Ibid. p. 159. * Remains, p. 395.
4 British Critic, p. 1. 5 Ibid. p. 2. c Ibid. p. 139. ' Ibid. pp. 123, 124.

76 RELATIONS WITH ROME.
separation — this deliberate estimate of foregone privileges —
this conviction of what, of course, is abstractedly the best
state — this passionate yearning and ineffable oneness of
spirit — this longing for the beauty of holiness Romish
Liturgies have kept and we lost — this sense of bondage —
this working in chains — we are kept out of Rome's
maternal gripe — by what? — a something so very like
schism, that we must defend its unnatural continuance
by calling it an act of providence. Truth is not in the
account. Doctrinal pravity cannot unchurch a communion
whose rulers are descended by ecclesiastical lineage from
the apostles. " To desire that doctrinal corruption should
not be in the Church, is to desire that good men and bad
should not be mixed together in it." x As for Roinish
errors, they are " in the Church merely, but not of it."
Councils Rome calls infallible have stereotyped them, it is
true : but infallible Councils do not speak the language of
an infallible Church. The Church of Rome has canonized
their authors : but the Church's canonization of heresy
does not uncanonize the Church herself. " The Church of
Rome has" (not) " erred," (either) " in ceremonies and
manner of living," (or yet) " in matters of faith :" nor has
the Church of England, strictly speaking, condemned her
for so doing, for a true Catholic may read her Articles in a
Catholic sense. The Church of Rome is, in point of fact,
beyond condemnation — a mystic something too impalpable
to be defectible — too intangible to be detected — too mys
terious to be identified even with her own overt and pub
lished acts. She is not Councils— nor Popes — nor a con
gregation of worshippers of bones and wafers — nor St.
Peter's chair — nor any thing (alas ! the while) properly
" visible" — but a certain sacred something, to be seen
going a mourner by the poet's eye — relative to whose
attackable qualities, as to her tenets, " such things as sub
stance, change, accidents, and the like, are but questions
of words" — but for whose shadowy beauties and " holy
home," Tractarianism is nursing the " tumult of awakening
love." Such are the facts : the conclusion does not need
even the discipline of the pons asinorum.
There is one obstacle to the consummation. "To say
that Rome exacts arbitrary and impracticable terms of sub
mission, is at least intelligible." This is really some com-
1 British Critic, p. 198.

RELATIONS WITH ROME. 77
fort, since Protestant Articles have been interpreted by
Number Ninety. But here begins a question. These
words, " terms of submission," are they quite compatible
with Catholic Church principles? What has the obedience
of "little children"1 to do with terms of submission?
Whence comes this bold and undutiful phrase, but from
that nursery of false doctrine, heresy, and schism, private
judgment? Is it not just this disavowing the judgment of
Rome, which has made our Church what it is ? There is
another question. " How persons, cordially believing that
the Protestant tone of doctrine and thought is essentially
antichristian, can conscientiously adhere to a communion
which has by such instrumentality been made such as it
is?2 " Mr. Froude's editors have thrown out a rope,
which, whether trustworthy or not, is at all events the only
conceivable means of escape for persons in a very embarras
sing position : and for this act of kindness they deserve
our thanks, however we may pause, as it is very natural
and even prudent, before availing ourselves of the proffered
aid."3 This is simply to let go that instrumentality; and
admit the fact of a fundamental difference between the
English Reformers on the one side, and the judgment of
the universal Church, and the formularies of the English
Church, on the other.4 "Here is a view, if it will but
hold, which promises us the power of upholding Pope Hil
debrand and the see of St. Peter, for all the Reformers
denied the supremacy of the Church."5
" Stammering lips," then, and " indeterminate state
ments" have brought us to this — the Movement has passed
the Rubicon. Having let go the Reformers — having ab
jured the Reformation — having interpreted Protestant
Articles in a Catholic sense — having upheld that supre
macy of the Church which the Reformers denied — what re
mains is a question, not of truth and error, but of momen
tum on one side and impediment on the other. The irreso
lutions — the inconclusivenesses — the if so he's — the putting
Romish assumptions, unanswered, into the mouth of a
second self6— the equivocations about " Anglicans" being
" almost unchurched by their Protestantism, and Romanists
by their superstitions'" — the " neither accusing Rome of
idolatry, nor ourselves of schism"8 — and the consequent
1 See British Critic, No. LIX. p. 38. " Ibid. p. 29. 3 Ibid. p. 28.
* Ibid. pp. 29, 31. 5 Ibid. p. 31. « Sights
and Thoughts, pp. 171,275, 385,624. 7 BritishCritic p. 131. 8 Ibid.p.123.

78 CASE — ONE OF PRINCIPLES, NOT PERSONS.
prudence of, " without judging Rome on the one hand, or
acquiescing in our own state on the other"1 — these, and
such like things, are the unavoidable results of " a very
embarrassing* position" — " the opposition which the ancient
religion encounters in our age" — .and " the necessity, en
tailed by circumstances, oi restoring it by degrees."2
The plain English is in a nutshell. Politically speaking,
there is " an act of providence" which keeps the main body
of the Movement from Rome. Theologically speaking,
they are all on Romish ground. They confess that they
subscribe Protestant Articles in accordance with the Decrees
of Trent: what remains is simply referrible to the Catholic
authorities. They have no right to decide on a single iota on
which, at present, they dispute with Rome. The Catholic
Church is the accredited teacher : what and wliere is the
authority that dares to differ from her? Appeals to Scrip
ture are not allowed them : the Catholic Church is the sole
judge of the language of Scripture. Appeals to tradition
are no more allowed them : the sole judge of Scripture must
be the sole judge of tradition : what the Catholic Church
holds, the Catholic Church must pronounce. There cannot
be two opinions, there is but " one door."
§ 21. The Case one of Principles, not Persons.
It remains for me to repeat that the. question is altogether
one of principles — not of persons. So I have examined it :
so I would have it judged. I am no more concerned to
modify what I have said of Tractarianism, in consideration
of Tractarians, than to modify what I have said of Popery in
consideration of Papists. I protest against the delusion of
judging principles by persons ; and supposing that a dogma
is not erroneous because a good man may hold it ; or that
in itself it is not deadly, because it does not always produce
death. Much of poison is held in solution— neutralized
more or less by other and better things. We may not
always pronounce positively of persons in such circum
stances ; but, if their errors be unconscious, why should we
doubt that He who pleaded for His murderers, " they know
not what they do," may plead for those who in their ig
norance think they are doing God service? This touches
not our responsibilities, so far as we have the light.
§ 21. Conclusion.
My work then is done : I have stated the case. If any
1 British Critic, LIX. p. 132. " Ibid. p. 45.

CONCLUSION. 79
ask, What are we to do ? I reply, do what conscience dictates
and Providence permits. All I undertake to say is this,
Whatever you do, do it under the settled conviction that
Tractarianism is Popery, developing itself by degrees— that
it is no more the religion of the Church of England, than it
is the religion of the Bible — that it can never subserve the
interests of the Church of England — that its whole differen
tial character as compared with the Church of England is
Popish. Put it in the same category with Popery; and
then act accordingly. If it be your duty to give heed to
Popish teachers, hear Tractarian sermons, read Tractarian
works. If it be your duty to make our Church system a
Popish system, help forward, by fair speeches, by literary
curiosities, by what other means are given you, the Trac
tarian Movement. If you really think it would be well to
retrograde— to substitute for the chaste solemnities, and
grave proprieties, and sober realities of the religion of the
Church of England, " the gorgeous machinery of oriental
superstition" — if, for the awful consciousness of God's pre
sence, you will have the " mediatorial system" and the " one
vast sacrament" — if, for the simple pathos of a minister's
beseeching you to accompany him to the throne of grace,
you will revive the old dramatic spectacle miscalled public
prayer — if, instead of self-denying exhortations leading you
at every step to " the sincere milk of the word," you will
have arbitrary assumptions of traditional truth, scattered
through volumes of a shadowy antiquity, here a bit and
there a bit, which none may put together but that mystical,
undefinable, irresponsible character, the Church Catholic —
if, instead of the light and liberty the Church of England
has left inviolate, you deem it safer and better to have what
some call Church principles ; and, resigning these things
into the keeping of the priest, to take again what your
forefathers indignantly put from them, shadow for substance,
the symbol for the thing signified, priestcraft for religion,
and amusement for salvation — if it be thus, and you have
counted the cost — you have, in sober truth, almost nothing
to do. Let Tractarianism alone, and it will come peaceably
about. Above all, as this Catholicity does not yet style itself
Roman, give into Tractarian hands the defences of truth.
Nothing on earth can so infallibly Romanize us as Trac
tarian defence against so called Romish errors. The Move
ment stands on the battlements of the Church of England,
and claims the exclusive privilege of fighting with Rome ;

80 CONCLUSION.
and all it does is, by a subtle but irresistible process, under
mining, loosening, honey-combing the wall. There can be
no doubf as to the result. One only mistake- is to be
shunned, the supposition that such work can be done by
halves — that these champions can be left to do just what
some may think good service ; and that, whilst breaches are
here and. there betraying themselves beneath their care,
these are really but sally posts for aggressive defence.
They v may go, by this name; but, depend on it, this is a
mistake. The whole wall is to come down beneath Trac
tarian defence. It is in the Order Book that the present
lines are to.gp. The " Media via" was an indeterminate
statement : but it was even then understood at head quarters
that " generally speaking, the tone of the fourth century is
so unlike that ofthe sixteenth, that it is impossible for the
same mind to sympathize with both. You must choose between
the two lines; they are not only diverging, but contrary."1
Keep your eye, then, on these lines; . and believe those
who profess to understand one of them, that there can be
no such thing as a compromise between them. You have
seen that what Tractarianism finds in the fourth century is,
in point of fact, Popery. This is the very alternative
I set out with — Protestantism or Popery — honest, truth
ful, English Protestantism, or Popery in every respect,
thoroughly un-English — pointing to Nice and marching for
Rome — subscribing Protestant Articles on Catholic princi
ples—pleading the prerogatives, teaching the doctrines,
acting out the practices, but evading the name, of that awful
accursed mystery portrayed in Holy Scripture, which
stamps on its forehead its own condemnation, by proclaim
ing itself infallible, and therefore un-improvable.
1 It is impossible not to advert a moment, ere I close, to a foolish defence —
to say no worse — of the Oxford Tracts for the Times that,, with whatever of
error, they are, on the whole, strengthening the Church againstDissent. I will
not stop after such a demonstration of the pure Romanism of the system, to
ascertain whether we should do well " if so be, to mend schism with idolatry" —
I simply ask, what are we to think of a scheme for counteracting Dissent by
principles and practices which obliged the nation to dissent from Rome 1
Were I asked to characterize the Movement as regards Dissent, I should call
it a scheme for upholding the Church by decretals long known to be false— for
strengthening it by provoking the just jealousies of its friends— and for en
nobling it by verifying the worst slanders of its foes.
Erratum. — At p. 31, an extract beginning " the Reformers refused to dis
cover," &c. was, by an oversight, printed without a reference. It is from the
British Critic, No. LIX. p. 25.
J. Dennett, Printer, 121, Fleet Street.

3 9002 03720 5722