S»' y

Hesa.il

WiUoi^

,s''

1841

-¦•-•a.

A LETTER

REV. T. T. CHURTON, M.A.

PELLOW AND

TUTOR OF BRASEN'O.SE COLLEGE.

" If I build again the tilings which I have destroyed, I make
myself a transgressor". — GaL ii. 18.

SECOND EDITION. '; ^Ai'^V-

OXFORD :
W. GRAHAM, HIGH-STREET.
J. G. P. AND J. BIVINGTON, LONDON.
1841.

OXFORD ; PRINTED BV J, MlfNDAV, JUN., QUBEN-STREET.

A LETTEE,

&c. &c.

Dear Sir,
You will doubtless have watched with much
interest the proceedings in the University since the
date of our letter addressed to the Editor of Tracts
for the Times. You will have felt no small satisfac
tion that the Hebdomadal Board, on grounds sub
stantially the same with those, on which we presumed
to intrude our names upon that gentleman and the
public, has disavowed any sanction on the part of
the University of the Tract No. 90. You will also
have seen the candid acknowledgment by Mr» New
man of his authorship of the Tract, made to the Vice-
Chancellor. But I now wish to draw your attention to the
letter addressed by Mr. Newman to the Rev. Dr.
Jelf. It is there stated, that the four gentlemen who
signed the "protest" against his Tract No. 90, have
misunderstood him in a very material point ; namely,
that, whereas they said the Tract suggests, that the
Thirty-nine Articles do not contain any condemnation
of the doctrines of purgatory, &c. as taught authori
tatively by the Church of Rome, Mr. N., on the

contrary, does consider that they contain such ; he
only says, that whereas they were written before the
decrees of the Council of Trent, they were not directed
against those decrees. — (Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6.)
I am sure we did not think of pronouncing what
the Author of the Tract himself did or did not consider
the Articles to contain, further than as the Tract
seemed to express an opinion. It is however further
said, (Letter to Dr. Jelf) that the phrase in the Tract,
" the received doctrine of the day, and unhappily of
this day too, or the doctrine of the Roman schools,"
was intended to be equivalent to " authoritative teach
ing"— pp. 9, 10.
You would, I know, much regret with me, that
we should have misunderstood, and by consequence
unintentionally have misrepresented, the meaning of
the Author of the Tract ; but for my own satisfaction
I have, since the appearance of the Letter to Dr.
Jelf, reviewed the grounds, which we seemed to have
on March 8th, for expressing ourselves as we did.
Unhappily, in so doing, these alternatives have
been presented to me, either that we used our terms
incautiously, or that, since we did not represent Mr.
N.'s meaning, his language in the Tract was not
sufficiently precise. That we felt a difficulty at the
time from what we thought a want of definiteness,
in many expressions in the Tract, and were aware,
that if we stated the writer's meaning to be, what
it might be, or most probably was (to our appre
hension) we might; find afterwards that such was not

his real meaning, is doubtless very clearly recollected
by us all.
But we thought, that the general reader would take
as the undoubted meaning, that which appeared to
us on the whole to be the meaning, and it was
desirable for the sake of others, that it should be
repudiated or avowed. At the risk of being tedious,
it will be for our satisfaction to go over the grounds
in detail, on which we decided as we did, which will
oblige me to recite considerable passages of the Tract,
§. 6. And, at the same time, I confess a desire to
keep attention fixed upon the whole Tract for some
while longer.
We judged that the Author designed in §. 6 to open
subscription to the articles to persons holding opinions
which might generally be thought to be incompatible
with it, and that we judged rightly, see letter to Dr.
Jelf, pp. 28-29- His argument in that section was
founded on taking the word Romish in the Article
as a distinctive word ; that the Romish doctrine of
Purgatory, &c., was distinguished from other doc
trine of Purgatory, &c. Of this reading of the
words of the Article, something may be said below ;
but if that were conceded him, then would be ex
cluded, of course, from condemnation in the Article,
all doctrines respecting Purgatory, &c. which could
not be classed as Romish.
Now, though we doubted as to this reading of
the Article, though in fact I have no doubt myself
but that, on the contrary, "Romish doctrine" is the
b2

general term, and Purgatory, &c. the special, it could
not be conveniently insisted on, in the short paper
we issued, which has since been called a protest.
But, on the writer's own scheme, a distinction was
forced upon us, as will be clearly seen, between the
doctrines as taught by the Church of Rome, and the
doctrines as popularly apprehended and received. The
Tridentine doctrine, under its formal decrees, was
excluded from the compass of the Article XXII., by
his express memorandum that it was drawn up before
the decree of the Council of Trent. This exclusion is
really of no importance, because the decrees of that
Council derive their full meaning from the teaching of
the Roman Church, in and about the time when they
were promulgated. However, we put that aside.* The
Tridentine doctrine itself could not, in all its decrees,
historically, be pointed at by the Article, and though
the Tract intimated, on other than historical grounds,
that the Article might be received on some points as
well as the Tridentine decree, it was not worth while
to advert to this.t Neither was it worth while to
* I cannot but wonder why this unimportant fact should be made, in the
Tract itself, the ground of a distinction, from which nothing practical is
drawn ; and should furnish the whole cause of complaint against the four
gentlemen. ¦f " The purgatory contemplated by the Homily was one in which our
" state would be changed " ; (that this was not so will be seen afterwards).
" On the other hand, the Council of Trent, and Augusthi and Cyprian,
" held purgatory to be a place for believers and not unbelievers. The
" Homily then, and therefore the article, does not speak of the Tridentine
" purgatory"— Tract, p. 26. "The Council of Trent is obliged both to
" confess the above-mentioned enormities in a veneration of relics, and
" to forbid them" — p. 36. " Here again the article gains a witness and
" concurrence from the Council of Trent", &c  p. 40.

take any exception, from the fact of the convocation
and statute of 1571, subsequent to the Council of
Trent, being the authorities by which clerical sub
scription to the Articles is now enjoined ; although,
if the Church of England should be thought to be
any the more committed against the Romish errors,
from its articles dating subsequently to the last Ses
sion at Trent, this circumstance deserves the most
attentive consideration of those who now subscribe to
them. But to go on . The passage in the Tract which we
seem to have misunderstood, is the following — "What
is opposed is the received doctrine of the day, and un
happily of this day too, or the doctrines of the Roman
Schools". No doubt, if this passage had stood alone,
and had the statement made in it not been cvempli-
Jied, we could have found no fault with it ; doctrines
of the Roman schools seeming to be a phrase equivalent
to Romish doctrine, because in the Articles of Edw.
VI. the expression was, " The doctrine of the School
men", &c. ; and the received doctrine might have
meant the received teaching. The Article would then
have been represented in the Tract as opposed, not
to the Tridentine decrees themselves, but to the
Romish system of doctrine and practice, which up to
that time had been authoritatively taught, and was
fastened upon the Roman Church by the decrees of
Trent. This would have been intelligible and satisfac
tory; whereas the mere exception, that the Articles
could not point at the Council of Trent, unless it

meant, that they did not point at the teaching of the
time recognised by that Council, appeared to be
made to no end.*
But there was another passage in §. 9, apparently
very deliberately penned, which appeared to confine
the meaning of received doctrine, or Romish doc
trine, to the actually existing practical corruptions
then before the eyes of men.
" Nothing can show more clearly than this passage, that
the Articles are not written against the creed of the Roman
Church, but against actual existing errors in it, whether taken
into its system or not. Here the sacrifice of the Mass is not
spoken of, in which the special question of doctrine would be
introduced ; but 'the sacrifice'(s) oi Mass€s,certsxn observances,
for the most part private and solitary, which the writers of
the Articles saw before their eyes, and knew to have been in
force in time past, and which involved certain opinions and
a certain teaching. Accordingly the passage proceeds, ' in
which it 'was commonly said' ; which surely is a strictly histo
rical mode of speaking". — Tract, p. 9.
Here the creed of the Roman Church could not
mean the entire creed of the Roman Church ; for no
writer could possibly think of saying, that an Article,
headed " Of the one oblation", &c., was not directed
against the entire creed of that Church, including the
doctrine of the Trinity, with others which the Church
• In fact, nothing was done in the way of reformation at Trent— even
the correction of ecclesiastical abuses, pretended to be made, became of
no effect, from the reservation of the Pope's dispensing power. Of the
doctrines, &c., with which we are now concerned, the decree concerning
the mass embodied the floating teaching that it was a sacrifice propitiatory
for living and dead. As to Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, &c., they
were all hurried over on the last two days of Session, Dec. 3-4, 1563,
and left as they were.

of England, as well as of Rome, holds with the rest
of Christendom : it must therefore mean the doc
trine of the Romish Church on that point of the one
oblation — namely, as to the sacrifices of masses. The
Tract, therefore, would say, that not the creed of the
Romish Church respecting the mass (which is what
the four Tutors would mean by authoritative teaching
as to the mass) is condemned in the Articles, but
certain existing errors in that doctrine of the mass — -
namely, of (private) masses, and masses for money
payments. " On the whole", says the Tract, " it is
conceived that the Article before us neither speaks
against the mass in itself, nor against its being an
offering for quick and dead for the remission of
sin".— p. 63.
In the above passage, the creed of the Roman
Church, on speciiil points, be it observed, is said not
to be condemned in the Articles ; the " received doc
trine", equivalent to " authoritative teaching", and
"established creed", (Letter, p. 6, 10,) is thought
to be spoken against by the Thirty-nine Articles.
What " all the best writers" say is " authoritative
teaching", and is censured by the Articles, (Letter, p.
12.) Also in page 15 of the Letter, "existing
creed" is what the gentlemen who signed the protest
call the " authoritative teaching". Nothing however
can be more unsatisfactory than the attempt to follow
this writer through the shifting of his terms, both in
the Letter and the Tract.
But as to tho application of the principle advocated

in the Tract, it seemed to be this ; whatever the
Article does not condemn it permits ; the tenets and
practices it condemns will be pointed out chiefly by
means of the comment which the Homilies afford ;
whatever is found not to be therein condemned may
be believed with subscription.*
We come, then, to — 1. Purgatory. — Tract, p. 25.
" What the doctrine is which is reprobated, is plain,
from the following passage in the Homilies". Then
follows the extract, in which occur these expressions —
" Where is, then, the third place which they call
purgatory ? or, where shall our prayers help and
profit the dead ? 8. Augustin doth only acknow-
' I say subscription from p. 4, Tract. " Articles may be subscribed
" by those who aim at being Catholic in heart and doctrine" Compare
Letter, p. 25, after quotations from Bramhall, Laud, Hall, Taylor, Bull,
and Stillingfleet, " which go far beyond every thing he has said". " This
" view of the Articles, conveyed in these extracts, evidently allows of much
" greater freedom in the private opinion of individuals subscribing them,
" than I have contended for". Here is a remarkable instance of the
fallacy of quotations so frequent with this writer. His citations do not ap
ply, they go to the granting a freedom in the private opinions of individuals,
but not of subscribers. Bull is the only one who mentions subscription ;
she (the Church) " propounds them as a body of safe aud pious principles,
" for the preservation of peace to be subscribed, and not openly contradicted,
" by her sons. And therefore she requires subscription to them only from
" the clergy and not from the laity". Burnet makes the distinction very
clearly, where our Author would confound. " And therefore though they
" drew up a large form of doctrine, yet to all her lay-sons this is only a
" standard of Church Communion. The citations that are brought from
" those two great Primates, Laud and Bramhall, go no further than this
"  they do not seem to relate to the clergy who subscribe them, but to the
" laity and body of the people". Intr. Exp. XXXIX Art.
If it be desired to open the question as f o a latitude in clerical subscrip
tions to the Articles which are pointed against the Romish errors, let it
be openly done, and argued upon the principles stated, p. 26, or any
other ; but let not conclusions be intimated under authority of great names,
which in fact make nothing for them.

ledge two places after this life, heaven and hell. As
for the third place, he doth plainly deny that there is
any such in all Scriptwe". — Horn, concern. Prayer.
Tract, p, 26. — " Now it is plain, from this passage, that l\ie
Purgatory contemplated by the Homily, was one, for whi(;h no
one will for an instant pretend to adduce even those Fathers
who most favour Rome, viz. one in ivhich our state would he
changed, in which God's sentence could be reversed. ' The
sentence of Goo', says the writer, ' is unchangeable, and cannot
be revoked again ; there is no place for repentance' . On the
other hand, the Council of Trent, and Augustin and Cyprian,
S3 far as they express or imply any opinion approximating to
that of the Council, held Purgatory to he a place for believers,
not unbelievers, not where men who have lived and died in God's
wrath, may gain pardon, but where those ivho have already heen
pardoned in this life, may be cleansed and purified for heholding
the face of God. The Homily, then, and therefore the Article,
does not speak of the Tridentine Purgatory".
" The mention of Prayers for the dead in the above passage,
affords an additional illustration of the limited and conditional
sense of the terms of the Article now under consideration.
For such prayers are obviously not condemned in it in the
abstract, or in every shape, but as offered to rescue the lost
from eternal fire" . — lb.
The inference here intended in the Tract seemed to
us undoubted, that one might remain untouched by
the Article — believing, not only that men dying in a
state of acceptance with God should be subjected to
purgatorial pains hereafter, but that the prayers of
others might alleviate their pains ; and in the face of
a much more distinct statement than that quoted
above as to the ' received doctrine', we should have
been justified in saying, that the Tract ' suggested', that
the authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome as to

10
the doctrine of purgatory was not condemned in the
Thirty-nine Articles.
Now see, in juxta-position, a quotation from Bull,
(page 14, Letter to Dr. Jelf): —
" This Article (the Tridentine) of purgatory after this life,
as it is understood and taught by the Roman Church (thai is,
to be a place and state of misery and torment whereunto
many faithful souls go presently after death, and there remain
till they are thoroughly purged from their dross or * delivered
thence by masses, indulgences, Sj-c.) is contrary to Scripture and
the sense of the Catholic Church for at least the first four
centuries", &c.
Now Mr. Newman conceives, (Letter, page 12,)
that what all the best writers say is authoritative
teaching, and a sufficient object for the censures con
veyed in the Articles, though the decrees of Trent,
taken in themselves, remain untouched. And yet he
can make his quotation from Bull, as descriptive, on
the authority of the teaching of the Roman Church, of
a doctrine of purgatory, which, apart from any chrono
logical exception,t would be reached by the spirit of
the Article, and, say in the Tract ; " The Homily
then, and therefore the Article, does not speak of the
Tridentine purgatory" ; "the Homily (and therefore
the Article) contemplates only a purgatory in which
* I am obliged to a correspondent of the Oxford Herald for having
pointed out an inaccuracy in the early part of the impression of this
Letter, in which, in the above quotation, the word " thence" was omitted,
" prayers" written for " masses", and the italic neglected. It is believed
the argument will not be found to have depended on this variation.
-)- Not that the historical exception would avail here, for the Romish
view of purgatory must have been well known at this time, since in Sess.
Cone. Trident. VI. de Justificatione, the Canon quoted p. 11, was pro
mulgated.

11
our state would be changed, so that they who have
died in God's wrath may gain pardon" ; and therefore
does not condemn the Romish purgatory of Bull, " a
place where many faithful souls", &c.
I confess myself surprised to see, that Mr. New
man, (Letter, p. 26), still seems to think, that the
doctrine concerning purgatory condemned in the
Article, as the doctrine held by Rome is, " that
temporary punishment is a substitute for hell in the
case of the unholy". He quoted a small phrase from
the Trent decree of purgatory in the Tract ; the im
portant portions he seems to have overlooked : — -
" Quum catholica ecclesia  docuerit, purgatorium
esse, animasque ibi detentas fidelium suffragiis, potissimum
vero acceptabili altaris sacrificio juvari, praecipit sancta syno-
dus episcopis, ut sanam de purgatorio doctrinam a Sanctis
Patribus et sacris conciliis traditam a Christi fidelibus credi
 Curent autem episcopi, ut fidelium vivorum suf-
fragia, missarum scilicet sacrificia, orationes, eleemosynae,
aliaque pietatis opera, quae a fidelibus pro aliis fidelibus de-
fiinctis fieri consueverunt, fiant".
In the sixth session of the Council, which was held
January 13, 154<7, De Justificatione, be it observed,
sixteen years before the Articles were drawn up.
Canon XXX. is as follows : —
" Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam cuilibet pec-
catori poenitenti ita culpam remitti et reatum eeternee poense
deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus poenee temporalis
exsolvendsB vel in hoc sseculo, vel in futuro in purgatorio,
antequam ad regna ccelorum aditus patere possit : anathema
sit". Harding's definition of purgatory : —
" Quum. nihil inquinati aditum habeat in coelum, quidam
autem vita excedant quamvis homines isti Christian! et ccelestis

12
regni hoiredes non ita tamen penitus puri atque undique pur-
gati, restat ut qui ejusmodi sunt post banc vitam priusquam
ad ilium sempiternse felicitatis locum perveniant, purgatione
jnsta defungantur". Quoting 2 Cor. vii. 1, he says — " Quis
non hinc sequi videt, multis qui justificati sint, deesse tamen
aliquid ad satisfactionem et sanctimoniam ? qui si prius e
rebus humanis auferantur quam legitiinos omnes sanctitatis
numeros expleverint, an non in ea causa sunt, ut post hinc
vitam elui debeant ac perpurgari". — Contra Juelli ^pol.
Upon this Jewell joins issue with him.
Nay, the conclusion on the whole of this must be,
that Mr. Newman holds, that the Article does not
condemn the doctrine of purgatory, as promulgated
by the Tridentine decrees, expressing, as they do, the
authoritative teaching of the Church of Rome ; or,
if he prefers it, as taught by its best writers ; upon
his principle, I do not see why it might not be taught
in our Lecture Rooms and from our pulpits.
After two quotations exemplifying the grievous
extent to which the popular notions of purgatory
might be carried, nothing further is added ; and this
is all on the subject of purgatory.
2. Pardons, or Indulgences.
Tract, p. 28. — " The history of the rise of the Reforma
tion will interpret ' the Romish doctrine concerning pardons',
without going further".
Then follows a passage from Bishop Taylor. The
Authors cited, not only declare the enormous height
to which the old doctrine was carried, but also the
ill-foundation of the doctrine at all, that it originated
in a gross misapplication of an authority given by the
Council of Nice to the Bishops, to shorten the terms
of penance inflicted by ecclesiastical censures.

13
" They gave it high names, aud called it a plenary remission, and the
pardon of all sins : which the world was taught to look on as a thing of a
much higher nature, than the bare excusing of men from discipline and
penance. Purgatory was then got to be firmly believed, and all men were
strangely possessed with the terror of it : so a deliverance from purgatory,
and by consequence an immediate admission into heaven, was believed to
be the certain effect of it"  Burnet.
" It would be considered what is meant by so many years of pardon,
and so many years of true pardon. I know but of one natural interpreta
tion of it ; and that it can mean nothing, but that some of the pardons are
but fantastical, and not true ; and in this I find no fault, save only that it
ought to have been said, that all of them are fantastical". — Taylor.
The conclusion of the Tract-writer is subjoined in
these words and no more — "The pardons then spoken
of in the Article are large and reckless indulgences from
the penalties of sin obtained on money payments".
That such should be the conclusion, we were naturally
surprised ; but thinking that he had missed that, to
which his quotations should have led him, if he con
sidered them exponents of the Article, namely, that
it condemns all indulgences from the penalties of sin
(in penalties of sin, I do not include ecclesiastical cen
sures) we did imagine him to hold, that this Article
did not condemn the doctrine of indulgences as taught
by the Romish Church, but only the corruption of that
doctrine, which was perhaps never authoritatively
taught, though practised with effrontery, the giving
large and reckless indulgences upon money payments.
3. Veneration and worshipping of images and
relics. He says " that the Homilies" (and the Homilies
through this section of the Tract are taken as repre
senting the Articles) " do not altogether discard reve
rence towards relics has been shewn. Now let us

u
see what they do discard". But here I wish to draw
your attention to the passage referred to, with the
quotations from the Homilies.
Tract p. 23. " And a verification of such an understanding
of the Article is afforded us in some sentences in the Homily
on Peril of Idolatry, in which, as far as regards relics, a
certain ' veneration' is sanctioned by its tone in speaking of
them, though not of course the Romish veneration,
" The sentences referred to run as follows :— _
" In the Tripartite Ecclesiastical History, the Ninth Book, and Forty-
eighth Chapter, is testified, that ' Epiphanius, being yet alive, did work
miracles : and that after his death, devils, being expelled at his grave or
tomb, did roar'. Thus you see what authority St. Jerome (who has just
been mentioned) and that most ancient history give unto the holy and
learned Bishop Epiphanius".
Here the quotation in the Tract ends, but the
Homily goes on.
" Thus you see what authority St. Jerome, and that most
ancient history, give unto the holy and learned Bishop Epi
phanius, whose judgment of images in churches and temples,
then beginning by stealth to creep in, is wm'thy to he noted"
His judgment having been shewn in
" That when he entered into a certain church to pray, he
found there a Hnen cloth hanging on the church door painted,
and having in it the image of Christ as it were, or of some
other saint ; therefore when I did see the image of a man
hanging in the Church of Christ, contrary to the authority of
the Scriptures, I did tear it, and gave counsel to the keepers
of the church that they should wind a poor man that was
dead in the said cloth, and so bury him". — Hom. ib.
Again : —
" St. Ambrose, in his Treatise of the Death of Theodosius the Emperor,
saith, ' Helena found the Cross, and the title on it. She worshipped the
King, and not the wood, surely (for that is an heathenish error and the
vanity of the wicked) but she worshipped Him that hanged on the Cross ,
and whose Name was written on the title', and so forth. See both the

15
godly empress's fact, and St. Ambrose's judgment at once ; they thought
it had been an heathenish error, and vanity of the wicked, to have wor
shipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our Saviour Christ's
own precious blood". — Peril of Idolatry, part 2, circ. init.
" In these passages the writer does not positively commit
himself to the miracles at Epiphanius's tomb, or the invention
of the true Cross, but he evidently wishes the hearer to think
he believes in both. This he would not do, if he thought all
honour paid to relics wrong". — Tr. p. 24.
But if the latter passage is finished to the end of
its paragraph, it stands thus : —
" They thought it had been an heathenish error to have
worshipped the Cross itself, which was embrued with our
Saviour Christ's own precious blood. And we fall down before
every cross piece of timber, which is hut animage of tliai cross'' .
— Hom. This is but an argument a fortiori, by no means
shewing that the writer wished the hearer to think
he believes in the invention of the true Cross, but
— if they who thought they had found it would
not worship even that, much less, &c. Neither
does the Homilist at all concern himself as to his
hearers believing in the mirade at Epiphanius's
tomb. The miracles (he says) were believed of old,
which shows in what great estimation he was held.
And if he of so great estimation tore a cloth painted
with an image &c. neither of the passages bear upon
the question of relics, much less convey any judg
ment of the Homilist.
This is a very small matter in itself, that in ex
tracting a quotation, a line or two of the succeeding
context should have escaped the eye ; but in this
case these few lines would give a totally different

If)
character to the passages taken, and to the thread of
the argument of the writer. The inference from
these citations was very material ; an inference which
depends solely on the places, and which I do not be
lieve could be derived from any other extracts from
the Homilies, unless equally incomplete.
" This he (the Homilist) would not do, if he thought all
honour paid to relics wrong".
" Ifj then, in the judgment of the Homilies, not all doctrine
concerning veneration of rehcs is condemned in the Article
before us, but a certain toleration of them is compatible with
its wording : neither is all doctrine concerning purgatory,
pardons, images, and saints, condemned by the Article, but
only ' the Romish' ". — Tr. p. 24.
From this example or partial induction in the case
of relics he assumes his general proposition, the truth
of which as applied to each particular he then pro
ceeds boldly to verify. To return to p. 31. It has not
then been already shewn that the Homilies do not
altogether discard reverence towards relics. How
ever, after quoting four close pages from the Homilies
on the subject of image worship, the writer comes
to this conclusion.
" Now the veneration and worship condemned in these
and other passages are such as these : kneeling before images,
lighting candles to them, offering them incense, going on pil
grimage to them, hanging up crutches, &c. before them, lying
tales about them, belief in miracles as if wrought by them
through illusion of the devil, decking them up immodestly,
and providing incentives by them to bad passions ; and, in
like manner, merry music and minstrelsy, and licentious
practices in honour of relics, counterfeit relics, multipliqation

17
of them, absurd pretences about them. This is what the
Article means by ' the Romish doctrine' ".
As if there were any veneration or adoration per
missible by the Article as interpreted by the Homilies.
For my own part I am not inclined either to restrain or
to expand the sense of the Articles, as men may think
the Homilies expound them ; nor do I recognise the
Homilies as the sole or best interpreter of their sense,
though they are most valuable historical documents^
and contain a doctrine necessary for the times when
they were composed. But Mr. N. undertook to
make out his principles as applied to the XXII. and
XXXL Articles, chiefly by a reference to them as
representing the sense of the Articles. " The Homily
and therefore the Article", p. 26. He rested his
case on ground chosen by himself ; his own ground
even betrays him. For it would seem, if the ques
tion be decided by the Homilist, that he would
deem even the having of images, if not Popish, un
lawful. " Wherefore the images of God, our Saviour Christ, the
Blessed Virgin Mary, the Apostles, Martyrs, and others of
notable holiness are, of all other images, most dangerous for
the peril of idolatry, and therefore greatest heed to be taken
that none of them be suffered to stand in Churches and
Temples".— Peril Idol. 3rd part.
And if there should be no images, neither, were
there any, should there be any adoration of them ;
for, in a passage not quite correctly quoted in the
Tract, " What a fond thing is it for man, who hath life and
c

18
reason, to bow himself to a dead and insensible image, the
work of his own hand. Is not this stooping and kneeling
before them, adoration of them, which is forbidden so earnestly
by God's word".
The words in italic are not in the passage as
quoted in the Tract.
Upon this clause our impression was, that
whereas the Article (as interpreted by the Homi
lies) would condemn all adoration and worshipping
of images and relics, would consider as Romish
all doctrine which taught such regard might be paid
to them ; the writer of the Tract asserted or implied
the contrary.
4. Invocation of Saints.
I think we all felt a degree of vexation, that the
writer should draw the distinction made in the follow
ing passage. It is to be hoped that no one is so weak
as to think, that the Articles condemn, as Romish
invocation, poetical or rhetorical apostrophes ; nor,
on the other, that saints might be lawfully invoked
for their aid aud intercession, because they might be
apostrophised in figure of speech.*
" By ' invocation' here is not meant the mere circumstance
of addressing beings out of sight, because we use the Psalms
* " They make the rhetorical flourishes and apostrophes of the Fathers,
in their panegyrics of the Martyrs, to be solemn invocations of them.
Now, what is there in all this, but what is usual in all authors, sacred and
profane ? What is there more in this than in those apostrophes frequently
found in the sacred writings, even to insensible creatures — ' Hear, O
Mountains, and give ear, 0 Earth' — ' Praise the Lord, ye Dragons and all
Deeps" — and who will infer from this that insensible creatures were thereby
invoked and addressed unto ?" — Discourse concerning the Invocation of
Saints, by S. Freeman, D.D, : 1684,

19
in our daily service, which are frequent in invocations of
Angels to praise and bless God. In the Benedicite too we
address ' the spirits and souls of the righteous', and in the
Benedictus, St. John Baptist".
" On the other hand, judging from the example set us in
the Homilies themselves, invocations are not censurable, and
certainly not ' fond', if we mean nothing definite by them,
addressing them to beings which we know cannot hear, and
using them as interjections. The Homilist seems to avail
himself of this proviso in a passage, which will serve to begin
our extracts in illustration of the superstitious use of invoca
tions". An example set by the Homilist being the follow
ing:— " We have left Him neither heaven, nor earth, nor water, not country ,
nor city, peace nor war to rule and govern, neither men, nor beasts, nor
their diseases to cure ; that a godly man might justly, for zealous indig
nation, cry out, O heaven, O earth, and seas, what madness and wicked
ness against God are men fallen into" !
After some passages from the Homilies, the text
is taken up thus : —
" Whereas, then, it has been already shown, that not all
* invocation is wrong (the only invocation as yet excepted is
that of the apostrophe), this last passage plainly tells us what
kind of invocation is not allowable, or what is meant by in
vocation in its exceptionable sense : viz., ' a thing proper to
God', as being part of the ' honour that is due and proper
unto God'. And two instances are specially given of such
calling and invocating, viz., sacrificing and falling down in
worship. Besides this, the Homilist adds, that it is wrong
to pray to them for ' necessaries in this world', and to accom
pany their services with 'piping, singing, chanting, and play
ing' on the organ, and of invoking saints as patrons of particular
elements, countries, arts, or remedies"

* Aid TO truveyyv^ elvai rriv Ofiuvvfilav \avOavu fiaWov.
c2

20
Now, a part of one of the passages quoted is the
following, which, at the risk of being tedious, I must
transcribe : —
" There are certain conditions most requisite to be found in every such
a one that must be called upon, which if they be not found in Him unto
whom we pray, then doth our prayer avail us nothing, but is altogether
in vain.
" The first is this, that He, to whom we make our prayers, be able to
help us. The second is, that He will help us. The third is, that He be
such a one as may hear our prayers. The fourth is, that he understand
better than ourselves what we lack, and how far we have need of help. If
these things be to be found in any other, saving only God, then may we
lawfully call upon some other besides God. But what man is so gross,
but he well understandeth that these things are only proper to Hira who is
omnipotent, and knoweth all things, even the very secrets of the heart ;
that is to say, only and to God alone ? Whereof it followeth that we
must call neither upon angel, nor yet upon saint, but only and solely upon
God, as St. Paul doth write"-
In the following passage it will be observed, that
if the Article coincide or is consistent, or so far as
it is, with the decrees of the Council of Trent, so
far it does not condemn, in the judgment of the
Tract, the Roman doctrine which was embodied in
them : —
" Here again, as before, the Article gains a witness and
concurrence from the Council of Trent. ' Though', say the
divines there assembled, ' the Church has been accustomed
sometimes to celebrate a few masses to the honour and re
membrance of saints, yet she doth not teach that sacrifice is
offered to them, but to GoD alone, who crowned them ;
wherefore neither is the priest wont to say, / offer sacrifice to
thee, 0 Peter, or 0 Paul, but to God". (Sess. 22.)
If the passage means, that the celebrating masses
to the honour of saints is not condemned in the Article,
the Article does not so far condemn the Romish
doctrine of invocation of saints.

21
After quoting a passage from Bishop Andrews, in
which he seems to consider the practical teaching of
the Romish Church in its formularies to be of direct,
absolute, and final prayer to saints, and that if it
were indirect or " prier pour prier", it would not be
unlawful, " Bellarmine's admissions quite bear out
the principles laid down by Bishop Andrews and the
Homilies" — but certainly the Homilies never laid
down such as the following: : —
" Secondly, from the usage of tlie Church ; for in the mass-prayers, and
the saints' offices, we never ask any thing else, but that, at their prayers,
benefits may be granted to us by God. Thirdly, from reason : for what
we need surpasses the powers of the creature, and therefore even of saints ;
therefore we ought to ask nothing of saints, beyond their impetrating from
God what is profitable for us. Fourthly, from Augustine and Theodoret,
who expressly teach that saints are not to be invoked as gods, but as able
to gain from God what Ihe'y wish. However, it must be observed, when
we say, that nothing should be asked of saints but their prayers for us,
the question is not about the words, but the sense of the words. For, as
far as words go, it is lawful to say : ' St. Peter, pity me, save me, open
for rae the gate of heaven' ; also, ' give me health of body, patience, forti
tude', &c., provided that we mean ' save and pity rae bg praying for me' ;
' grant me this or that by thy prayers and merits". For so speaks Gregory
Nazianzen, and many others of the ancients, &c". — De Sane. Beat. i. 17.
Now, if the Author holds, that the Article does not
condemn prayer to the saints for their intercession ;
in the judgment of the Homily, to which the Tract
appeals, as showing the sense of the Articles, such
prayer is unlawful and heathenish.
" For it is evident, that our image-maintainers have the
same opinion of saints which the Gentiles had of their false
gods, and thereby are moved to make them images, as the
Gentiles did. If answer be made, that they make saints but
intercessors to God, and means for such things as they would
obtain of God ; that is, even after the Gentiles' idolatrous
usage, to make them of saints, gods, called Dii Medioximi,

22
to be mean intercessors and helpers to God, as though he did
not hear, or should be weary if he did all alone. So did the
Gentiles teach, that there was one chief power working by
other, as means ; and so they made all gods subject to fate or
destiny ; as Lucian in his Dialogues feigneth, that Neptune
made suit to Mercury, that he might speak with Jupiter.
And therefore in this also, it is most evident, that our image-
maintainers be all one in opinion with the Gentiles idolaters.
 Against Peril of Idolatry, part 3.
But how could we conclude otherwise, from the
expression of the Tract, than that it was thought
the Article did not convey a condemnation of the
Romish doctrine of invocation of saints, but only of
the corruption and abuse of it ?
5. Of the Sacrifice of the Mass.
" Here the sacrifice of the mass is not spoken of, but ' the
sacrifice(s) of masses, certain observances, for the most part
private and solitary'', — Tract, p. .'59.
" On the whole, then, it is conceived that the Article before
us, neither speaks against the mass in itself, nor against its
being an offering for the quick and dead for the remission of
sins". — p. 63.
The Tract, very evidently, here draws a distinction
between the doctrine of Rome, and the error in
it ; maintains that the doctrine of the mass is not
condemned by the Article, that sohtary and venal
masses are. But this distinction was not allowed
by the Romanists themselves, in the age when the
Articles were composed.
Henry VIII.'s Answer to the German Ambas
sadors : —
" Nam si ideoniissee privatse abolendee sunt in totum, quia
de illia Thomas Aquinas, Gabriel, atque alii doctrinas ut

23
tis irapias induxerunt, viz. missas ex opere operato gra
tiam mereri, et toUere peccata vivorum et mortuorum, et
applicari posse alienum opus ad alterum, quicquid sit, quod
illi asserunt, hoc de omni missa asserunt, non de privata
duntaxat; qua propter si ad tollendas illas opiniones qua-
lescunque missa privata esset abroganda, eadem ratione ab-
roganda esset synaxis et missa puhlica" . — Burnet's Hist. Ref.
Addenda, vol. I., sec. vii.
The Germans had said ; —
" Ex quibus omnibus sequitur missam non esse sacrificium,
quod ex opere operato mereatur, facienti vel aliis remissionem
peccatorum, ut illi (scholastic!) docuerunt. Et quocunque
quidam fuco nitantur excusare missas privatas, semper eis
refragatur et reclamat doctrina ipsorum de missa, qua earn
aliis posse adplicari tradiderunt, et peccata delere hominibus
persuaserunt".— Jb. sec. vi. The date is 1.538.
So also Harding and Jewell. Harding would not
overstate the Romish doctrine. Anno 1563.
" Hoc autem respectu, minime dubitamus, quin hoc sacro-
sanctum missse sacrificium valeat, efficaxque sit ex opere
operato, non quemadmodum Juellus interpretatur, quia missa
dicitur, et fit, in quo opus operatum ad ipsam sacerdotis acti
onem refert : mimime sic : sed propter ipsum opus, quod Deus
ipse operatur  Quod corpus atque sanguis, quando,
juxta ejus mandatum Deo offertur  Gratissimum illi
est sacrificium, pro vivis simul et mortuis, si nullum is, qui
sumit, obicem posuerit. Mortuos intelligo eos solummodo, qui
per fidem se redemptionis per Christum acquisitee commenda-
runt, perque banc fidem a Deo meruerunt, ut postquam hinc
migrarint, quemadmodum Augustinus ait, hoc Hits sacrificium
prodesse posset" . — Qucest. xx., sec. 1.
Then see Jewell :
" Vel felicitatem, vel peccatorum remissionem, quse est
interna sancti spiritus actio, externo cuiquam officio acceptam
referre, erroris cujusdam est superstitiosi, inepti, Judaici. , . .

24
.... De sacrorum autem mysterioruni usu ac ratione Christas
non dixit. Hoc facite in remissionem peccatorum . sed. Hoc
facite in meam commemorationem. Unicum pro peccato per-
petuumque sacrificium est ipse Dei filius crucis supplicio
affectus : qui nunc in carnis nostree natura, atque substantia
patri suo ad dexteram assidet, et pro nobis in seternum inter-
pellat, estque illud unicum pro peccatis nostris sacrificium, et
propitiatio. Quaecunque est huic doctrinse contraria doctrina,
ea impia et blasphema est". — lb. sec. 3.
I do not wish to add more on this particular head ;
but, on the whole, we were forced to the conclusion,
that the Author held, that many doctrines, which we
thought Romish, which turn out to be so, were not
expressly excluded by the Thirty-nine Articles. Nor
can I now see how the " vagueness" in some parts of
the Tract, which gave us this impression, " arose
from the doctrines of the Articles being sometimes
brought out only so far as the Homilies explained
them" — (Letter to Dr. Jelf, postscript) — because,
from the citations made in this Letter, one thing will
be obvious enough, that the Author's conclusions are
brought out much beyond any legitimate inference
from his quotations.
Whereas the Homilist holds with S. Augustin, that
" there be only two states hereafter, heaven and hell",
the Tract thinks the Article would not condemn the
opinion, that there is a third place, wherein prayers
may benefit those who there abide. In another place
of the Homily not quoted, " Let these and such other
places be sufficient to take away the gross error of
purgatory out of our heads, neither let us dream any
more, that the souls of the dead are any thing at all

25
holpen by our prayers". — Hom, cone. Prayer. —
Whereas Jer. Taylor, who is quoted to illustrate
the Article on the point of pardons, " thinketh all of
them to be fantastical" ; the Tract considers the
Article to " speak only of large and reckless indul
gences, obtained on money payments.
While the Homilist, a good interpreter here, says
generally, that " adoration of images is earnestly
forbidden by the Word of God", and nothing what
ever even indirectly in favour of honour paid to relics ;
the Tract thinks only certain veneration and worship
of images to be condemned.
The Homilist ; that we must " call neither upon
angel nor upon saint, but only and solely upon God" ;
the Tract- writer thinks, that what Bellarmin will con
cede ou the one hand, may be admitted by the Article
on the other, " That we may ask of saints their suppli
cating from God what is profitable for us".
Little have the Divines of our Church dreamt,
either that the Articles were not " full against Po
pery", or that any doctrine of purgatory, invocation
of saints, &c., could be other than Popish. If the
origin of some of these doctrines ran up towards the
primitive times, they would only see in this an early
"working of the mystery of iniquity". They would
rather, if there were any connexion between the two,
surrender that which was primitive, than, in regard
to the primitive, look tenderly on that which was
Popish.* ? Primitive, that is iu a certaiu sense. In its highest sense the Primitive

26
I have at hand Bishop Stratford : —
" I need not show, that the doctrine of purgatory, as taught
by the Church of Rome, cannot derive its pedigree from the
Scriptures or the primitive Fathers, because it is freely con
fessed by many of her own members, that it hath no found
ation in either of them. The doctrine of indulgences is another
new article of the Roman creed — Cardinal Caietan grants
that no sacred Scripture, no authority of the ancient Doctors,
Greek or Latin, hath brought the original of them to our
knowledge. Another corruption is the propitiatory sacrifice
of the mass. The Church of England not only grants, but
asserts, that the Eucharist is a commemorative and repre
sentative sacrifice ; but this will not satisfy the present Church
of Rome, and therefore our Church hath deservedly con
demned the sacrifice of masses as blasphemous fables and
dangerous deceits. Another gross corruption in the worship
of Rome, which rendered the Reformation necessary, was the
worship of images. This the Church of England heis con
demned as idolatrous, and proved it to be so by the authority
of God's Holy Word, and by the testimonies of the ancient
Fathers. Add to this their solemn prayers to saints departed.
 The distinctions of worship into supreme and sub
ordinate, absolute and relative, terminative and transient, as
they have no foundation in Scripture, so the Christians of the
first ages were ignorant of them, they having no such different
objects of religious worship to which these different degrees
were to be suited". — Discourse of the necessity of Reformation.
Let me now cordially congratulate you, as in-
is the spring time of the Catholic ; but there is a lower sense, such as when
an opinion begins to shew Itself in one or two respectable Fathers. " Agree
ably, we say that the Sacraments do not profit the living without faith, much
less the dead ; for as to what they pretend concerning their purgatories,
though thai is no very late invention, yet it is nothing but a silly old wives'
story. St. Augustin sometimes saith there is such a place ; sometimes
he doth not deny but there may be such a place ; sometimes he doubts if
there be ; and at other tiraes he positively denies there is any such place
at all ; and thinks that men out of human kindness to the dead are de
ceived on that point". — .lewell's Apology.

27
terested with the rest of us in the well being of our
Church and people, on the events here of the last
few days. We may well be thankful, that the atten
tion of a writer, who for some time past has been
thought to exercise a considerable influence in the
formation of clerical and Church opinion, should have
been drawn forcibly, but not I trust rudely, to the
possible tendency of some of his opinions, and of his
method of putting them forth. We may well be glad
for the sake of numbers at a distance from this place,
some of whom might not perceive that the Tract
contained any thing strange ; some might consider
the Author already a Romanist ; others be utterly
bewildered as to its meaning ; that the Letter to Dr.
Jelf has appeared, from which certain of the writer's
views may with a degree of distinctness be gathered.*
For to say nothing else, it is most desirable, that
one who acknowledges himself to be opposed to the
" traditionary" " modern" interpretation of the for
mularies of our Church,t should place himself in a
distinct position. I do not think, that the opinions he
advocates will, in consequence, gain fewer adherents
than otherwise, but they will be expressed with more
definiteness and precision, than is usually met with in
fugitive and anonymous Tracts : and wherever they
* I cannot say that, on the whole, this Letter is much more satisfactory
to me than the Tract. There is found in it the same ambiguity of terms 
the same shifting of terms — the same inapplicability of quotations to that
which they are to prove j — yet there are some views of the writer's brought
forward distinctly.
t Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 18.

28
may be thought to be erroneous, or of an ill tendency,
those, who are competent to discuss them, will not
avoid the controversy, from a dislike to enter the lists
with an opponent who has no bearing on his shield.
We have been accustomed now, for many gene
rations, to consider the Articles exponents of the
Catholic faith. Should there really have been formed
any deliberate design of referring the interpretation of
them back again to Catholic and primitive tests, (and
who is to collect, and who is to decide upon the
suffrages of antiquity,) it will be necessary for those
who have more leisure, and are better qualified than
myself, to vindicate the existing position, in respect
of her Articles at least, of the Anglican Church. I
must indeed confess a suspicion, that from the struggle
of close and legitimate controversy the maintainers of
this vague Catholicity will shrink. If one may judge
from partial examples, they have not formed the
necessary habits of accuracy in definition, in division,
in inference, in method, in citation.
But there will not be wanting men to show the
true character of our Church ; that she has her
strength in a legitimate formal constitution ; whereby
she is an authorized channel of grace in the sacra
ments ; while in fact her teaching is so Scriptural,
that she almost discourages the holding, as matter
even of opinion, on religious subjects, that which may
not be proved by the Word of God. While she re
cognizes, as in fact she must, if she would teach a
reasonable faith and service, that the ultimate appeal

29
as to the interpretations of Scripture will, from the con
stitution of man, be to the reason and spirit of the in
dividual ; she would lead her children, and instruct
them, but they must finally, with the aids she gives,
judge for themselves ; they must " search the Scrip
tures, whether these things be so". She would have her
disciples say, " Now we believe, not because of thy
saying, but we have seen Him ourselves, and know
that this is indeed the Christ the Saviour of the
world". And I know not where scope may be found
for the " feelings of awe, mystery, tenderness, reve
rence, and devotedness", when they struggle for utter
ance in the breast of the spiritual man, more freely
than in our communion. Where our sons are taught
without adding thereto, or diminishing aught from
it, the " great mystery of Godliness ; God manifest
in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory".
But if without any theory or scheme of recon
structing our Church according to some ideal primi
tive model, amiable and benevolent men might desire
by a relaxation of certain articles to comprehend some
who might otherwise wander from our communion
in the direction of Rome ; surely there are other
" arrows within the quiver" of a well-furnished theo
logian, other arts of a " fisher of men", for the saving
of such souls. The fact of any hesitating between
the Roman and Anglican communion, because men
feel "led" to doctrines and practices, which at least lie

30
on the very verge of the Popish system, might rather
induce a suspicion that they have already gone some
what too far ; that there has been something unsound
in their previous teaching and institution. It is a
good maxim, a necessary one, that no dogma may be
believed, which is contrary to Scripture. It is a safer
practical one, to reckon, that none, which may not
be proved by it, is of much worth in the Christian's
belief, possibly injurious to its purity ; he had better
be taught to suspend his judgment on such points,
than endeavour where scripture is silent, to decide
them by some other authority. And schemes of com
prehension, of necessity defeat their own design ; if
weak brethren are included on the one hand, weak
brethren will take offence on the other.
In conclusion, I would seriously beg the attention
of those who, in an amiable, a pious affection for that
which is ancient, would gladly see some practices
called primitive restored among us, which the wisdom
of the Church of England (which is to us the channel
of grace and salvation) has thought fit to dispense
with or disallow — I would beg their attention to the
following passage concerning the setting up of images
in Churches, and that they would generalize the
warning conveyed in it : —
" And thus you see how, from having of images privately,
it came to public setting of them up in churches and temples,
although without harm at the first, as was then of some
wise and learned men judged: and from simply having
them there, it came at the last to worshipping of them. So
that I conclude, as it may be possible in some one city or little

31
country to have images set up in temples and churches,
and yet idolatry, by earnest and continual preaching of
God's true Word, and the sincere Gospel of our Saviour
Christ, may be kept away for a short time : so it is impos
sible that (images once set up and suffered in temples and
churches) any great countries, much less the whole world,
can any long time be kept from idolatry. And the godly
virill respect, not only their own city, country, and time, and
the health of men of their age, but be careful for all places
and times, and the salvation of men of all ages. At the least
they will not lay such stumbling blocks and snares for the feet
of other countrymen and ages, which experience hath already
proved to have been the ruin of the world. — Against Peril of
Idolatry ; 3rd part.

I am, dear Sir,
Yours very faithfully,
H. B. WILSON.
St. John's College, March 26, 18-11.

ADDENDUM

Mr. Newman quotes Archbishop Laud, in his Letter to Dr.
Jelf, with a design of inferring, that principles of allowing great
diversity of doctrine with subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles
were entertained by that Prelate. I am very glad that my
attention should have been drawn by one of the public Journals
to the History and Writings of one Davenport, otherwise Fran-
ciscus a Sancta Clara, to whom the subjoined notice refers;
from which it will appear that the Archbishop was not a man
to surrender the pure doctrine of the Church of England, or
the independence of its Constitution.
The extracts which follow from the writings of Sancta Clara,
and which I regret time does not permit me to carry to a greater
length, will shew, in juxta-position with some passages in Tract
No. 90, that we may well regard its principles with suspicion,
when they so resemble the propositions of such a propagandist
as Davenport.

"Christopher Davenport, a very learned Englishman,
was born at Coventry, in Warwickshire, about the year 1598,
and educated in grammar learning at a school in that city.
He was sent to Merton College, in Oxford, at fifteen years of
age ; where spending two years, he, upon an invitation from
some Romish priest living in or near Oxford, afterwards went
to Doway. He remained there for some time ; and, then
going to Ypres, he entered into the order of Franciscans among
the Dutch there, upon the 7th of October, 1617. After several
removals from place to place, he became a missionary into
n

34 ADDENDUM.
England, where he went by the name of Franciscus a Sancta
Clara; and at length was made one of the chaplains to Hen
rietta Maria, the royal consort of King Charles I. Here he did
all he could to promote the cause of popery, by gaining dis
ciples, raising money among the English Catholics to carry on
public matters abroad, and. by writing books for the advance
ment of his religion and order. He was very eminent for his
uncommon learning, being excellently versed in school divinity,
in fathers and councils, in philosophers, and in ecclesiastical
and profane histories. He was, Mr. Wood tells us, a person
of very free discourse, while his fellow-labourer in the same
vineyard, Hugh Cressy, was reserved; of a lively and quick
aspect, while Cressy was clouded and melancholy : all which
accomplishments made him agreeable to protestants as well as
papists. Archbishop Laud, it seems, had some knowledge of
this person ; for, in the seventh article of his impeachment, it
is said, that ' the said Archbishop, for the advancement of
popery and superstition within this realm, hath wittingly and
wilUngly received, harboured, and relieved divers popish
priests and Jesuits, namely, one called Sancta Clara, alias
Davenport, a dangerous person and Franciscan friar, who hath
written a popish and seditious book, entitled, Deus, natura,
gratia, &c. wherein the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of
England, established by Act of Parliament, are much traduced
and scandalized : that the said Archbishop had divers con
ferences with him, while he was writing the said book', &c.
To which article, the Archbishop made this answer : — ' I never
saw that Franciscan friar, Sancta Clara, in my life, to the ut
most of my memory, above four times, or five at most. He
was first brought to me by Dr. Lindsell : but I did fear, that he
would never expound the Articles so, that the Church of Eng
land might have cause to thank him for it. He never came to
rae after, till he was almost ready to print another book, to
prove, that episcopacy was authorized in the Church by divine
right; and this was, after these unhappy stirs began. His
desire was, to have this book printed here ; but at his several
addresses to me for this, I still gave him this answer : That I
did not like the way which tho Church of Rome went concern-

ADDENDUM.

35

ing episcopacy ; that I would never consent, that any such book
from the pen of a Romanist should be printed here ; that the
Bishops of England are very well able to defend their own
cause and calling, without any help from Rome, and would do
so when they saw cause i and this is all the conference I ever
had with him'.
" He was the author of several works : — He wrote, 1. Para-
phrastica expositio articulorum confessionis Anglicse. 2. Deus,
natura, gratia: sive, tractatus de praedestinatione, de meritis,
&c."

SANCTA CLARA, Problem.
37, de Invoc. Sanct.
" Verba in frontispicio sine
dubio durissima. Attenden-
dum tamen, quod vi hujus
articuli non reprehenditur In-
vocatio Sanctorum simpliciter
seu in se : ut patet : sed Ro-
mana doctrina de Invocatione,
seu de explicatione invoca-
tionis Sanctorum : sic etiam
diserte astruitur : ut etiam
patet".

TRACT FOR TIMES,
§ 6, p. 23.
" Now the first remark that
occurs on perusing this Article
is, that the doctrine objected
to is 'the Romish doctrine' ".

id. ib.
" Eodem plane modo et
eodem verborum tenore, in
eodem articulo, abjiciunt, non
Purgatorium, indulgentias,
adorationem imaginum et re-
liquiarum in se, sed ut prius
Doctrinam Romaxam de his
omnibus, id est, doctrinam

id. ib. p. 25.
" If, then, the doctrine con
demned in this Article con
cerning purgatory, pardons,
images, relics, and saints, be
not the Primitive doctrine, nor
the Catholic doctrine, nor the
Tridentine doctrine, but the
Romish, doctrina Romanen-

36

ADDENDUM.

falso nobis imputatam. De
Purgatorio putant esse locum
a nostris inventum ad caca-
bum Pontificis concoquendum
(est phrasis Calvinistarum) ad
crucem Christi evacuandam,
&c. mira hujusmodi clamitant.
De Indulgentiis, putant illas
Pontificis venales nundinas,
quasi pro libito suo viatores,
vel defunctos ab omni poena-
rum debito exsolvere (intel
ligo semper de Calvinistis).
De cultu imaginum et reli-
quiarum, putant nos latriam
proprie dictam ipsis termina
tive tribuere, Gentium idola
constituere. Has impias im-
piorum hominum calumnias
et fabellas, sub nomine Doc-
TRTN^ffi Roman.*;, ut ridiculas
abjiciunt, nos ut Dei sponsee
summe injuriosas abhorremus.
Purgatorium vero in se, seu
quo ad substantiam definitionis
Ecclesiee, praesertim in Flo-
rentino, plurimi admittunt, id
est, locum purgationis et emun-
dationis, ut loquitur Cyprianus
tom. I. ep. 52, (licet modus
purgandi et emundandi non
adeo perspicue definitur").

sium, let us next consider
what in matter of fact it is".

id. Paraph. Art. xxxi.
" Totus hie Articulus duris-
simus videtur ; rectius tamen
introspiciendo, non adeo veri-
tati discordem judicem 

id. § 9, p. 63.
" On the whole, then, it is
conceived that the Article be
fore us neither speaks against
the Mass in itself, nor against

ADDENDUM.

37

., .In verbis posterioribus, si
sobri^ intelligantur, nihil agi-
tur contra Sacrificia Missas in
se, sed contra vulgarem vel
vulgatam opinionem de ipsis,
scilicet quod Sacerdotes in
Sacrificiis offerrent Christum
pro vivis et defunctis, in re
missionem poense et culpse,
adeo ut virtute hujus Sacri-
ficii ab eis oblati independen-
ter a Crucis Sacrificio, mere-
rentur populo remissionem,
&c. Hsec est vulgata opinio,
quam hie perstringit Articu
lus".

its being an offering for the
quick and the dead for the re
mission of sin ; but against its
beingviewed, on the one hand,
as independent of or distinct
from the Sacrifice on the Cross,
which is blasphemy, and, on
the other, its being directed
to the emolument of those to
whom it pertains to celebrate
it, which is imposture in ad
dition".

OXFORB: raiNTBD by J. MUNDAY, JUN. QOEEIf-STRBET.

3 9002 08561 6937

<:'

¦m^ , \l')"'M ' h}'.