MiUer

1841

M; /:

A SECOND LETTER

REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D

IN reference to nis

LETTER TO THE REV. R. W. JELF, D. D.

CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH.

By GEORGE MILLER, D.D.

FOKMERLT FELLOW OF TBINITT COLLEGE, DUBLIN.

LONDON:
DUNCAN AND MALCOLM,
37 PATERNOSTER ROW.

M.DCCC.XLI.

Mhg

iSA I

LONDON:
PRINTED BV MOVES AND BARCLAY, CASTLE STREET,
LEICESTER SQUARE.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Introduction . ' . . . . . . . .3
Art. VI. and XX. Holy Scripture and the authority of
the church . . . . . 18
XIX. 7'he visible church . . . . .28
XXI. General councils . . . . 31
XXV. Number of sacraments . . . .38
XXVIII. Transubstantiation .... 42
XXXI. Sacrifices of masses . . . .48
XXII. Purgatory, pardons, invocation of saints,
and veneration and worshipping of images
and relics . . . . . .51
XXXII. Celibacy of the clergy ... 68
XXXVII. Jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome . . 73
XI. XII. XIII. Of justification ... 80
Conclusion ......... 81

SECOND LETTER,

My DEAR Sir,
As, since the publication of my former letter,
I have had a personal, and even kind communi
cation, with you, I hope you wiU permit me to
address you in a less formal manner than before.
That you have not replied to that letter I am will
ing to attribute to any other cause, rather than to
personal disrespect ; and as your letter, recently
addressed to Doctor Jelf, has been given to the
public as a further vindication of yourself and your
friends, you will, I trust, feel, that 1 could not in
consistency suffer it to remain unanswered. This
other letter indeed having been addressed to a
gentleman of ascertained taciturnity, I am led to
conclude, that it has been in fact addressed to the
public through him, and that I therefore, as a unit
of that great aggregate, may claim a share, though
a small one, in your correspondence, especially as

you have' introduced my name in a note, in which
you complain of certain mistatements, which you
have imputed to me. ' Even such a writer,' you
say, ' as Dr. Miller, gives circulation to the report,
that " the Board of the University " had " actually
instituted the appeal (to the church) which he
(Dr. M.) had resolved to prefer, in the transmis
sion of a most obnoxious tract, of which Mr. N.
had acknowledged himself the writer, to the several
bishops of the English church." ' You have added,
' a private individual did send the tract, on his own
responsibility, to the bishops of England and Ire
land, and this is made the act of the board of the
heads of houses, and that board " the board of the
university." '
In this animadversion I perceive that you admit
the existence of such a report, and only complain of
me for giving it circulation. Nay, you even admit
that the report had some foundation, for you state
that a private individual did send the tract on his
own responsibility. Who this individual was, you
have not particularised ; and, for aught that ap
pears, he may have been one of the individuals
composing the board, and therefore possessing a
much stronger claim to the attention of the church
than I could assert. However that may have been,
the report, which I think had not been contradicted,
was sufficient to preclude me from executing my
' The Articles treated on in Tract 90 reconsidered in a
Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 130. Oxford, 1841.

own purpose of appealing to the church, in the event
of your persevering silence, the precise reason for
which it had been mentioned. I would indeed, on
account of the obscurity of my own position, have
thought it necessary to give to my appeal the ut
most publicity ; but when an appeal had thus been
reported to have been made, even privately, it was
not for me, an humble individual, to prefer one.
As to any mistake, which I may have committed,
in designating the board of the heads of houses as
the board of the university, which you have stated
as an aggravation, your remark, I must say, seems
to me to belong to the auceps syllabarum of the
Roman orator, rather than to you ; and I must
conclude, that my reputation, as a writer, whatever
it may be, is, so far as your animadversion might
affect it, still unscathed.
As in the letter, which you some time ago ad
dressed to the bishop of Oxford, you had under
taken to prove, that the tenets and practices of
yourself and your friends were consonant to the ar
ticles of the church, it seems to me that vou are
placed in an unfortimate position, when you under
take a reconsideration of the same articles. If your
former vindication was satisfactory, why are the
same articles now reconsidered ? If you have been
convinced that it was in any particular inconclusive,
why is not that conviction ingenuously acknow
ledged ? You have not represented your new state
ment as containing further considerations, brought

6
in aid of those, which had been before adduced, to
strengthen them by additional arguments, or to ex
tend their application ; but you have entitled it as
one in which the articles are reconsidered, in which
a new and distinct view is presented of the same to
pics of dispute. A new and distinct statement indeed
I think I shall prove it to be ; and it seems to me
that, when I now address you, because you have
subscribed your name to this other letter, I am ad
dressing myself in reality to Mr. Newman, whose
mode of reasoning you have adopted for his vindi-
cation. This appears to be a sort of metempsy
chosis of argumentation, which imposes not a little
difficulty. Quo teneam vultus mutantem Protea
node f I will however proceed, contrasting, as oc
casion may suggest, your present with your former
vindication ; and will think myself authorised to
regard every topic of your former defence, which
has been tacitly superseded by a new and differing
consideration of the question, as in effect aban
doned, though without acknowledgment, to the
force of conviction.
I am indeed aware of the difficulty of the cir
cumstances, which have imposed upon you the task
of presenting to the public a second vindication on
new and different principles. Mr. Newman, having
twice vindicated his tract, first by his explanatory
letter addressed to Dr. Jelf, and then by his apolo-
getical letter addressed to the bishop, could not so
weU come again before the pubHc on the occasion.

The professor of poetry, on the other hand, might
be thought to be, in virtue of his art, too imagin
ative and excited, to be a safe advocate in a case of
so great subtlety and address. These two gentle
men are understood to constitute with you the triple
guardianship of the invaded mysteries, and you
seem to have been necessarily employed on this
occasion to express your common discontent at the
intrusion of your adversaries. To this triple guard
ianship I have to present, under the guidance of
the sacred word, the golden hough of truth, hoping
stiU that I may prevail with you to forego your
recent, as you appear to me to have abandoned
your former arguments.
You have not indeed wanted well-wishers suffi
ciently friendly to your cause. Mr. Ward has vo
lunteered in your defence, but probably you may
think without much success. Mr. Palmer has ar
gued somewhat rashly in your support, and you
may have thought him deficient in the necessary
management. Mr. Perceval has rather imprudently
enabled us to contrast the principles originally
avowed by the writers of the tracts with their sub
sequent compositions, and thus to estimate the ex
tent of their deviation. Mr. Sewell, lastly, holds in
regard to you and your friends what a military man
would, I suppose, describe as unattached rank,
being not liable to be called into any active service,
but quahfied to assume such a position, if he should
at any time judge it to be expedient for his purposes.

8
Though four several vindications of the Tracts
for the Times have now been given to the world by
yourself and Mr. Newman, you have implied^ in
the commencement of your letter, that you still
leave the vindication of the obnoxious tract to the
care of its author, representing' that your present
object is to communicate the result of an examina
tion of this question, ' what was the amount of the
relaxation of the articles involved in it?' This
your own statement, it must be observed, acknow
ledges a relaxation, which appears fully to justify
the board of the heads of houses, in their applica
tion of the term evasive to the interpretation pro
posed. Who has empowered Mr. Newman to relax
the articles of our church ? When and where has
the synod been convened, by which it has been de
termined, that they should no longer be understood
as dissenting generally, in form and principle, from
the abuses of Rome, but only from those abuses as
they existed at the precise period of the reformation,
and therefore as open to every construction, by
which all minor abuses should be recognised as ad
missible ? I know of none, nor is any pretended.
It is open to you, as it is to me, to institute an
inquiry into the true meaning of that most import
ant document ; but it is not open to you, or to
Mr. Newman, to propose and vindicate what you,
even in your vindication, admit to be a relaxation.
* Letter, page 2. 3 Jbid. page 4.

9
Nor can I suppose that the term has been inad
vertently employed, when I read in the tract* itself,
that the writer professes to consider our church as
now in a bondage, from which it is hoped that it
may in time be released. ' Till her members,' says
Mr. Newman, 'are stirred up to this religious
course, let the church sit still ; let her be content
to be in bondage ; let her work in her chains ; let
her submit to her imperfections as a punishment ;
let her go on teaching with the stammering lips of
ambiguous formularies, and inconsistent precedents,
and principles partially developed. We are not
better than our fathers ; let us bear to be what
Hammond was, or Andrews, or Hooker ; let us
not faint under that body of death, which they bore
about in patience, nor shrink from the penalty of
sins, which they inherited from the age before
them.' I must renounce all the rules of the inter
pretation of language, which I have learned in a
long and studious life, before I can attach to this
portentous passage any other meaning, than that
the existing formularies of our church are to be en
dured as a misery and a punishment, but only until
the opinions and practices of the writer shall have
been so extensively propagated in it, as to render it
practicable to throw them wholly aside, and to con
stitute the church upon other and more accommo
dating principles. What then have you imdertaken
* Tract 90, page 4.

10
to do in vindicating the interpretation, which this
tract has proposed to affix to our articles ? Is it
not to relax that bondage, under which, it is al
leged, the church so grievously suffers ? And what
can such a relaxation mean, but, under the plea of
ambiguous formularies, and inconsistent prece
dents, and principles partially developed, to endea
vour to persuade the clergy of our church, that its
articles really mean something very different indeed
from that which, now during nearly three centuries,
and ever since their formation, they have been
understood to signify?
You have however briefly expressed^ your own
conception of the design of Mr. Newman, that it
was to shew, * that our articles neither contradict
any thing catholic, nor are meant to condemn any
thing in early Christianity, even though not catholic,
but only the later definite system in the church of
Rome.' And you have further observed, ' that the
proposed interpretation of the articles relates almost
entirely to the first of these two points, on which,'
you say, ' no question would be raised, at least by
none except those of extreme views.' To the con
sideration of this then I will first address myself, as
that to which the proposed interpretation almost
entirely relates.
And here I have to observe, that you have not
been more happy in your adoption of the term cath-
^ Letter to Dr. Jelf, page 5.

II

olic, than in the use of that other term relaxation.
Nowhere in our articles does the term catholic
occur ; and yet, if they did propose to refer the
doctrines of the reformation to those at any time
held by the catholic church, it is scarcely conceiv
able that the term should not have been found
among them. Neither do they contain any refer
ence to the tenets of early Christianity, as furnishing
a standard of faith. Notwithstanding, however,
the very questionable absence of these references,
you have quietly assumed, in the introductory part
of your letter, the truth of your opinion, which
would seem to require their presence. You say,®
'it would be generally admitted, except by those
trained in a modern school, that any particular
church owes obedience to the universal church, of
which it is a part — ' I do not know exactly what
you imderstand, when you speak of a modern school,
I conceive that I may claim to be considered as not
being of extreme views ; and yet I positively dis
claim any duty of obedience to the dictation of any
human authority in articles of faith, having learned
in the scripture that one is our master even Chi'ist.
You support this bold assumption, indeed, with an
argument, which however, is stated only as a consi
deration of likelihood. You add, 'that what can be
proved to have been universally received in the pri
mitive ages, is more likely to be true, than any view
s Letter, page 6.

12
promulgated by individuals in modern times ; that
what in times near to the apostles was universally
received by the church, is more likely to be apos
tolic, than any system formed now.' This might be
conceded, if a time sufficiently near to the apostles
were selected, and a respectful consideration were
alone required. But why should we be implicitly
guided, even in such circumstances, by likelihood
or probability, when we can appeal to the written
record of salvation, availing ourselves at the same
time of any such assistance ? You indeed tell us,
that you 'hold much more than this,' behoving,
' that what in early ages can be proved, according
to the rule of Vincentius, to have been held " every
where, at all times, and by all," is, if matter of doc
trine, binding still.' This is a celebrated rule, and
sounds well ; but I believe that, if it were strictly
applied, it would not be found, to extend further
than the articles of the apostles' creed, which I am
not at all disposed to question.
You ^ urge that, ' considering the reverence
which our church has ever paid to christian antiqui
ty, the mode in which our homilies join its teaching
with that of scripture itself, and in which the con
vocation, which inforced subscription to the arti
cles, refers us to it, as our guide in the doctrine of
those scriptures ; considering, again, the reception
of the four or six first general councils, the directions
T Letter, page 7.

IS

obtained by our bishops for the studies of this very
university, the tone which has prevailed among her
great divines, it is little to say that her present
heads could not have meant to have prescribed
to the tutors of their respective colleges to ex
pound the articles according to the private inter
pretations of modern schools, or the supposed opin
ions of the framers, in contradistinction to the
teaching of catholic antiquity.' Now, it is a httle
remarkable that, while I reject your consider
ations, I admit your inference, that your heads of
houses could not have entertained any such intention,
as you have described. Of the homilies I must say
that I do not acknowledge them to be standards of
doctrine, except that on justification, to which a re
ference is made in the eleventh article for fuller
illustration : the canon of 157 1, to which you have
alluded in speaking of the convocation, may best be
understood only of the creeds, as collected from the
sacred writings : and the directions obtained for
guiding the studies of the university, are obviously
given to hinder the students from confining them
selves to compendiums and abbreviatures, and direct
them to the perusal of the authorities, from which
these were compiled, not however as compared with
the scriptures. I can notwithstanding readily be
lieve, that the heads of houses, in their condemna^
tion of the obnoxious tract, had no reference ' to the
private interpretations of modern schools, or the
supposed opinions of the framers,' nor yet 'to the

14
teaching of catholic antiquity,' but to the hteral and
grammatical sense of the articles themselves, in
strict conformity to the prefixed declaration.
'This,' however, you^ say, 'is the real point at
issue, of which there were other indications before
this controversy arose,' namely, whether we should
set up the reformers ' as the founders of a system of
faith and the authorised expositors of our behef.'
I deny that this is the real point at issue, which is
indeed, whether we are bound to yield up our judg
ments implicitly to any human dictation whatsoever.
It is at the same time very remarkable, that you
yourself, in this very part of your discussion, en
deavour to avail yourself of the testimonies of two
of the reformers, Ridley and Cranmer, when you
consider them favourable to your views, though^
the expression cited from the former implies a rever
ence for " God's word," as the true standard of faith,
and the declaration of the latter is merely an asser
tion of conformity of doctrine for his vindication.
But surely I may ask, on the other hand, why you
refer us for authorities to the later divines of the
English reformation. If we should not be influ
enced by the private opinions of the earlier reform
ers, who effected the separation from Rome, why
should we be influenced by those of later divines,
* Letter, page 11.
9 " To depart from that the sentences of the old ancient
writers do more allow, without any warrant of God's word, I
cannot think it any godly wisdom." Ibid, page 8.

15

who in their opposition to the puritans, were driven
towards Rome ? Let both classes of divines be left
out of the discussion, and the articles be considered
fairly by themselves.
Among the assumptions of which I have to com
plain, I have particularly to note, in* the introduc
tion premised to your argument, the following pass
age : ' if, even on points of doctrine or practice
not-catholic, there be a distinct line between what
is early and what is romanist, it will, of course, be
no relaxation of the articles to maintain, that when
they speak of what is " romish," they do not con
template any thing in early Christianity.' What is
this but to maintain, as an inference made of course,
and not to be contested, that a doctrine or practice
admitted to be not-catholic, though agreeing in
principle with a romish doctrine or practice, may
yet be considered as not condemned by an article
proscribing the romish doctrine or practice, if only
¦ a distinct line can be drawn between them ? Error
and abuse are naturally progressive, and their seve
ral stages of progress may often be distinguishable,
though the principle of deviation be throughout
the same, and each stage of the progress naturally
conduct to the next the wanderer from truth.
In the very same sentence indeed you have made
a yet more important assumption, and which is in
truth the foundation of all your peculiarities of
1 Letter, page 12.

16
teaching, in taking for granted that no distinction
exists between the visible and invisible church of
Christ, whence you infer at once that the authority
ascribed to the latter is to be attributed to the
former. I had, in my former, represented, that these
have been actually distinguished by our Lord himself
in that series of parables, in which he has variously
illustrated the nature of his kingdom, the parable
of the net designating the visible, and that of the
leaven the invisible church ; and that they had been
the subjects of two distinct promises, a perpetual
continuance having been simply promised to the
visible church in the declaration made to Peter,
and the divine assistance and support being assured
to the invisible church of true believers in the final
exhortation addressed generally to the apostles. I
moreover remarked that the nineteenth article of
our church, in defining a visible, necessarily recog
nises the distinct existence of an invisible church,
the terms being correlative, and the use of the one
implying the admission of the other. These consi
derations I must suppose that you would have
thought it proper to notice, if you had offered your
second vindication in your own character, though in
the adopted character of Mr. Newman you appear
to have deemed it unnecessary to advert to what had
been addressed to you in your o\vn, and have again
assumed as if it had never been contested, that the
two views of the christian church are identical.
To the words just now cited you have added ;

17

' on the other hand, in what forms, as we shall see,
the main object of the tract — to shew on points,
where there is a cathohc doctrine, that our articles
are in harmony with the teaching of the church
cathohc ; this view, so far from relaxing the meaning
of the articles, gives them greater stringency, and
lays us under a deeper obligation ; since now we are
bound to receive them not only on the authority of
our immediate mother, but of her, " the Jerusalem
from above, who is the " common " mother of us all."'
These words contain a very remarkable specimen of
inconclusive vagueness of language, extent of appli
cation and stringency of obhgation being here con
founded together, as if, while the former was nar
rowed, the latter might not be more authoritatively
enforced. They however give occasion to a remark
of much greater importance, for they appear to
involve an assumption, which pervades indeed the
whole of your reasoning, namely, that we are united
to Christ, as Christians, solely by our connection
with his visible church, so that, so far as we cease
to be connected with it, we cease to maintain our
connection with him. This I conceive to be the
purport of the mention of the .Jerusalem from above,
as the common mother of us all. The apostle in
these words (Gal. iv. 26) only contrasts the freedom
of the christian with the bondage of the Jewish
covenant. You however appear to have introduced
them, as implying a right to claim obedience by
maternal authority.

f

18

Our Saviour himself, in describing the connec
tion of his foUowers with himself (John, xv. 4),
represents himself as the vine and them as the
branches, saying to them ' as the branch cannot
bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine,
no more can ye, except ye abide in me.' The
union which was to give vitality to the Christian,
was however to be maintained with the vine itself, not
with the branches. I do not mean that a Christian
was to be at liberty to separate from his church. On
the contrary, in his last solemn address to his father
on behalf of his church (John, xvii. 11), he prayed
that his followers might be one, as he and the father
were one. Still, as the apostle has since admonished
us (Ephes. i. 22, 23 ; Col. i. 18), he is to be regarded
as the head, the church as the body ; our vital union
is to be sought with him, though through the exte
rior and visible framework of the church he com
municates to us the benefits to be administered by a
regularly commissioned clergy, and to be enjoyed in
christian communion.
I now proceed to review your examination of the
articles in dispute.
Articles VI. and XX. Holy scripture and the
authority of the church,
' With regard to these two articles,' you^ say,
' little has been done except to combine their
2 Letter, page 13.

19
teaching ; an ultra-protestant sense can only be
given to the sixth article by detaching it from the
twentieth.' Here again, in your new character, as
Mr. Newman, you have not deemed it necessary to
notice my observation, that the word authority in the
twentieth article, being in the article itself distin
guished from the word power, cannot be understood
to signify more than a claim of respectful considera
tion, which I by no means wish to withhold from any
solemn determination of the church. From the
word enforce too in the same article you argue, as
if you had not yourself cited the Latin word ohtru-
dere, of which it is in the English form given as a
translation. This Latin term however involves no
meaning beyond the formal act of prescribing a
creed, which must of course be the act of a church
in directing the rehgious profession of its members.
A church must of necessity have terms of agreement
among its members, and these must hkewise of neces
sity be propounded by the authority of the church.
This is all which the twentieth article maintains.
' The church has authority in controversies of faith.'
It belongs to the church to determine what opinion, in
any disputed matter, shall be held and taught by its
ministers ; but it must do this in strict accordance
with the holy scriptures. And the use of the word
although in this article is particularly remarkable :
' wherefore, although the church be a witness and a
keeper of holy writ, yet,' &c. The meaning of this
expression I conceive to be, that the church ought

20
not on this account to claim any right of dictation,
but to confine itself strictly to such doctrines, as
may be collected from the scripture. This accord
ingly the church has actually done, in the eighth
article, by propounding the three creeds, as forms of
doctrine which ' ought thoroughly to be received and
believed : for they may he proved hy most certain
warrants of holy scripture.' The article does not
assign as the reason for thus propounding the
creeds, that the church, as being a witness and
keeper of holy writ, is therefore its lawful and
unquestionable expositor, and has accordingly pro
nounced such to be its true meaning, but simply that
this may be proved from the scripture itself.
' And this power of the church,' you^ proceed to
say, ' we ourselves practically acknowledge when
ever we repeat the Athanasian creed.' As you have
selected this creed for your proof of our practical
acknowledgment, I must suppose that you had the
damnatory clauses in your contemplation. Now this
is a subject which I have long ago much and deeply
considered, for I could not recite the creed in my
public ministrations without bestowing upon it my
most serious attention ; and I am accordingly pre
pared to meet you in discussing the true character
of these clauses. To repeat them you represent as
a practical acknowledgment of the absolute author
ity of the church. In my opinion they afford no
^ Letter, page 14.

21

warrant for such an inference. That ' he who
beheveth not shall be damned,' is a declaration of
our Saviour himself (Mark, xvi. 16), not of his
church. Further than this solemn and awakening
denunciation, the Athanasian creed, I contend,
does not proceed with any damnatory declaration.
It pronounces, as our Lord had done before, that
whosoever doth not keep the catholic or right faith,
shaU perish. It then states in detail the particulars
of the faith held by the church to be that catholic
or right faith ; but it does not declare that whosoever
doth not wholly keep all these particulars shall con
sequently perish. In the beginning of the creed,
and again in the conclusion, we find two distinct
propositions ; one stating, under the authority of
our Saviour, the indispensable necessity of holding
the catholic faith ; the other stating, under the
authority of the church, what are the particulars
constituting that faith. Whether the sentence
denounced in the former should be extended to the
latter, must be left to the mind of the individual
adopting and reciting the creed. In an intermediate
sentence it is indeed said, ' he therefore, that will
be saved, must thus think of the Trinity,' a declara
tion certainly relating to the particulars detailed in
the creed. But, in the first place, there is here no
denunciation, and the words, even as they occur in
the English version, may, fairly be understood to
express only an earnest recommendation, must
appearing to be used instead of should; and.

22
secondly, the original Latin conveys only a recom-
mendation of the simplest kuid, for a literal trans
lation would be, ' let him thus think of the Trinity,'
an inference indeed, but not enforced by any assump
tion of authority to dictate the faith of individuals.
How indeed could the creed be adopted in any
other sense by a church, which has taught in its
nineteenth article that all the ancient churches have
actually erred, and in the twenty-first that general
councils ' may err, and sometimes have erred, even
in things pertaining unto God ? '
In the subjoined considerations concerning the
Apocrypha I have found a very perfect and valuable
specimen of the method of relaxation, invented by
Mr. Newman for the more satisfactory application
of the articles. The received mode of ascertaining
the meaning of any such document is to examine
first the fair import of each of the several terms con
tained in it, and then how far this is controlled and
modified by the combination of the context. But it is
evident that this process could not be employed with
any success for effecting a relaxation. Mr. Newman
has therefore adopted a proceeding which is exactly
the reverse of this. Instead of examining the
meaning of the terms contained in an article, he
looks out for some term not contained in it, but
connected in signification with those which are found
in it : he then argues that this term, not having
been introduced into the article, must denote some
thing, to which it was not intended that the article

23

should be at all applied : lastly, the term so found
is applied to explain away by limitation the direct
object of the article which is specifically mentioned.
Mr. Newman has chosen to describe our protestant
church as actually in bondage ; and truly to me
this process of relaxation, applied to our articles,
suggests very distinctly the image of a prisoner
filing his fetters for an escape.
In applying this process to the question of the
authority of the Apocrypha, it was perceived that
inspiration was a term not occurring in the sixth
article, the term used to characterise the scriptures
admitted to be authoritative being canonical. The
latter term is indeed evidently apphed in reference
to inspiration ; but stiU the latter is not directly in
troduced. It is hence inferred that the question of
inspiration, as applied to the apocryphal writings,
is not decided by the article. As however it would
be too much to assume that these should in this
respect be classed with the canonical books, the term
is graduated by the introduction of the epithet ple
nary, in its application to the latter. It is accord
ingly insinuated, for there is no direct assertion, that,
though a plenary inspiration must be reserved to the
canonical scriptures, yet there is not any reason why
the apocryphal writings may not be considered as
being in a sense inspired, beyond the writing of anv
men after the apostolic age. In support of this in
sinuation* it is intimated that certain fathers, and
* Letter, page 18.

24

our own homilies, cite them at times indiscriminately
with the higher scriptures, and under the same titles,
though, it is admitted, not as canonical, ' believing
apparently that, even after the spirit of prophecy
was suspended in its fulness and authoritativeness,
during the intervening period before it again de
scended in its fulness on our Lord, it still continued
to guide the thoughts of some in a more authorita
tive way than was permitted to any after our Lord
came — ' I readily admit that the spirit of prophecy
did manifest itself in some instances to hail his
coming, and thus to apply to him the predictions of
the ancient prophets, for this I find in our canoni
cal scriptures ; but I know no reason whatever, why
any person should have believed, that it had been
at all manifested in the period, which had inter
vened between these instances and the previous sus
pension of its fulness and authoritativeness.
Our article has very distinctly stated, in the
language of Jerome, that ' the church doth read the
apocryphal books, for example of life and instruc
tion of manners, but yet doth it not apply them to
establish any doctrine.' Why is the distinction,
thus plainly marked, to be disregarded and oblitera
ted ? I can discover no reason except a desire that a
determination of the council of Trent, which asserted
the canonical authority of the apocryphal books,
may not stand in the way of our approximation to
the church of Rome ; or possibly, that the practice of
praying for the dead may among us also, as among the

25

Romanists, receive some support from a passage
foimd in the second book of the Maccabees, xii. 44.
I cannot proceed to another part of your letter
without commenting on the practice of insinuation,
observable in the remarks which you have made on
these two articles. ' So that,' you say,^ ' so far
from drawing the article (the twentieth) to any ex
treme view, our friend only shews that it does not
contain any thing contradicting the authority of the
church and tradition, leaving others free possession
of their opinion, provided that they ascribe not to
the article un-catholic statements, to which it is
rather opposed.' Here tradition is slipped into an
observation on the twentieth article, though plainly
excluded by the sixth, which is yet here considered
in conjunction with it. And what is the meaning
of the phrase, to which it is rather opposed ? Are
these words employed to intimate indirectly, that
some un-catholic statements may be reconcilable to
our article ? Again, in a passage® cited as an au
thority from Thomdike, we find tradition men
tioned, as " serving chiefly to determine the true
meaning of it (the Scripture), when it comes in
debate," in which the words serving chiefly ob
scurely intimate some other purpose, to which oral
tradition may be auxiliary, besides its application
in determining the true meaning of scripture.
I do not indeed attribute to you this practice of
* Letter, page 14. ^ Ibid, page 15.

26
insinuating half-expressed meanings, having seen
nothing of this kind in your former letter. It ap
pears to me on the contrary to belong to the new
character, into which, as I have remarked, you
appear to have passed on the present occasion.
And I am confirmed in this ascription of it by the
high authority of Mr. Benson, in his excellent
Discourses on the Powers of the Clergy, recently
published. ' So much,' says he,^ speaking gene
rally of the Tractarians, 'is implied rather than
expressed, or expressed in that obscure and am
biguous manner in which it is so frequently the
choice or misfortune of these writers to indulge ; so
many quotations are made from the works of others
in a tone of apparent approbation, yet without any
positive approbation being formally declared ; so
many hints as to the apostolical origin of the prac
tice (of praying for the dead) are mingled up with
admissions of the inexpediency of its pubhc restor
ation to our liturgy, and implied recommendations
to introduce it into our private devotions ; in short,
so many reasonings, references, replies to others
and appeals to our feelings, are scattered through
various tracts, or through various pages of the same
tract, without ever being brought into any con
densed and definite form, that it is really and ex
tremely difficult to be quite sure that none of the

'' Disc, on the Powers of the Clergy, etc. page 176. Lond.
1841.

27
premises have been omitted, or that some qualifying
epithet or phrase has not been accidentally over
looked.' Let it not be imagined that, while I contend
against ascribing to the articles the maintenance of
the authoritative dictation of the church, on which
you insist, I would maintain that every individual,
in all the varied circumstances of condition and in
tellect, should set aside all regard for authority,
and proceed to form for himself his own notions of
religion ; but I hold that he is bound to study the
sacred writings in the best manner, which his cir
cumstances wiU allow, and to the extent of that
ability which God has given him, respecting all to
whom respect is due for learning and wisdom, and
humbly seeking from God that guidance of his
Spirit, which has been promised to all who humbly
ask it. This is not to oppose the judgment of each
individual, separately considered, to the authority of
the general church, but to reserve to the Christian
the conscientious exercise of his own judgment,
while he availed himself of all the aids placed with
in his reach, from books and teachers, if he be a
scholar ; from teachers alone, if he be uneducated ;
and in all cases regarding with a respectful deference
the authority of his church. This is not, as you
have represented, to oppose the moderns to the an
cients, but to substitute a voluntary act of christian
duty for a blind submissiveness to the dictation of
others. How is even a Romanist peasant to be

28
withdrawn from the enthralment, in which he is
held by his priest, except by satisfying him that
there is a written record of his religion, which that
priest has ever kept back from his knowledge, and
from which he learns a religion of purity and love,
most manifestly different from all which he had
been taught to believe and to practise ? He could
not indeed examine proofs of evidence, nor could he
convince himself of the true meaning of obscure
and difficult passages ; but his heart would answer
responsive to the impressive lessons of christian
duty taught him in the gospel, and the Holy Spirit
would assist his efforts, if prompted by a sincere
and pious desire of attaining to the knowledge of
the truth. Here is an appeal to private judgment
in circumstances the most unfavourable. What on
the other hand would be the result, if you would
speak to him of the authority of the catholic church,
as it existed in the fourth century, and of the trans
mission of that authority to the protestant church
of the present day ? He knows nothing of centu
ries, and he is wholly unable to compare the autho
rities of contending churches.
Article XIX. The visible church.
Concerning the main object of your remarks on
this article I have not any controversy with you,
holding, as you do, that the church of Rome hath
been a visible church of Christ, through which the

29

christian faith and the succession of a christian
ministry have been transmitted to ourselves. The
chief difficulty is found in the imperfect adminis
tration of the eucharist. In regard to this you
seem to be distressed for argument, as you have
had recourse to recrimination, which could not
much assist your own case. You say,® 'they who
against the churches in the communion of Rome
would on this ground press the words " duly mi
nistered according to Christ's ordinance in all those
things that of necessity are requisite to the same,"
should shew how (sad as the loss is) it is more
essential, than the absence of consecration by a
minister, who through the apostles has derived his
commission from Christ.' I am willing to assist
you in your difficulty by furnishing you with some
arguments more direct and conclusive. I would
accordingly suggest that the eucharist is not, even
in the church of Rome, wholly and absolutely cur
tailed, for it is preserved entire for the priests as a
distinguishing privilege of their priesthood : the
laity too are taught, not that the bread is even for
them the sole sacramental element, but that, under
the element of bread, they actually receive the be
nefit of both : and moreover it is admitted that this
curtailment is not held to be necessary and unalter
able, but merely a matter of disciphne and regula
tion. It may thus appear, that we have not on this
8 Letter, page 22.

30
account a sufficient reason for withholding from the .
church of Rome the title of a visible church, though
our reformers had abundantly sufficient reason for
withdrawing from its communion, that the sacra
ment might be administered in more strict con
formity to the appointment of our Saviour.
Your concluding observation^ however, derived
from Mr. Palmer, that there is no assertion in the
article, that the church of Rome does now err in
the faith, is an extraordinary instance of the new
method of relaxation, by which the words of an ar
ticle are pared down to the narrowest application
possible. The expression in the article is very
comprehensive. ' The church of Rome,' it states,
• hath erred, not only in their hving and manner oi
ceremonies, but also in matters of faith.' It is not
indeed said that it continues to err, but neither is it
said that it has ceased from error ; and the continu
ance of the charge is abundantly justified by the
creed of pope Pius IV., which, though formed sub
sequently to our articles, but embodied the pre
viously existing doctrines of his church. It appears
indeed to have been introduced into the article, not
merely, as you and Mr. Palmer say, ' to deny the
infalhbility of the particular church of Rome,' but
also for the more urgent purpose of justifying the
separation of the reformers. It is not said, as your
interpretation would require, that the church of
9 Letter, page 23.

31

Rome hath formerly erred, though it had since re
turned to the truth ; and it is therefore an idle sup
position to imagine, that in framing this part of the
article they were looking back to an obsolete error
of Liberius in the fourth, or of Honorius in the
seventh century. Article XXI. General councils.
In relaxing this article you avail yourself of the
term oecumenical, as not appearing in the words of
the article, and contend that, though the article has
declared that general councils may err in the faith,
and sometimes have erred, yet that this judgment
should not be extended to certain councils, which
you characterise as oecumenical, on which, you say,*
' God has set his seal.'
I am aware that you disclaim the doctrine of
the infalhbility of the church, and I rejoice that
you do so, as it indicates, I would hope, some ap
proximation to agreement between us ; but I feel
much embarrassment in regard to your present
opinion on this subject, when I consider that you
hold, that God has preserved these oecumenical
councils from error, and have adopted the word
inerrancy from Mr. Palmer, who has contended for
the strict infalhbility of every council received by
the church dispersed. Your statement is now, it
1 Letter, page 28.

32

seems, reduced to a pious persuasion, instead of a
dogmatical tenet ; and, if I could further prevail
with you to relinquish the use of the term inerrancy,
and to claim only for the determinations of councils
the most respectful consideration, I do not see
that I at least should have any objection to urge, or
that your opinions would require in this particular
any relaxation of the articles of our church. But
however this mitigation of statement might satisfy
me, it would I apprehend in the same proportion
fail to make good your vindication ; and you your
self^ have admitted, that even the moderated state
ment, which you have made, is very far from ex
pressing your own private opinion in its entire
extent. The question still presents itself, how is the ex
emption from error, ascribed to oecumenical coun
cils, to be determined ? You say, that God has set
his seal to such councils in the general acquiescence
of the church : I say that it is determined by a
comparison with the written word, and so by a
reference to private judgment, however qualified
and assisted, in instituting that comparison. You
appear indeed to hold your opinion with some doubt
and hesitation, for in support of it you have merely
argued,^ that 'there would be something so shock
ing in the thought, that the whole church should
accept an erroneous decision in a matter of the
- Letter, page 6. 3 ibid, page 30.

33

faith, that one should think it would be a relief to
any one, not to think himself obliged to aver (as a
thing certainly determined) that councils, in such
sort oecumenical, " may err." ' Nor does Ham
mond, whom you have cited as an authority, con
tend for more, than that your opinion is among the
pie credihilia. I, for my part, would think it not
less shocking to be taught, that I must implicitly
yield up the exercise of my own judgment to the
dictation of other men in any imaginable circum
stances ; and I apprehend that, in a matter of so
vast importance, we should require a better ground
of opinion, than that it may be held among things,
which may be piously believed.
But I cannot see how any opinion can be rea
sonably maintained, which should be intermediate
between the doctrine of the infallibihty of the church
and that of the right and duty of exercising private
judgment. If God has exempted oecumenical coun
cils from habihty to error, though we could not be
assured of it until their determinations had received
the general acquiescence of the church, then was
the church in these cases actually infalhble. If
they were not so exempted, then was their actual
inerrancy, to use your own term, the result of an
appeal to private judgment, their determinations
having been submitted to the judgment oithe church
dispersed. You appear to have relinquished your
reliance on the promise of our Saviour, which you
had conceived to imply an assurance of inerrancy.

54
but to have been addressed to the church only as
one ; but, in adopting the language of Mr. Palmer,
you maintain an infallibility in fact, while you seem
to imagine that you hold some doctrine inconceiv
ably placed between the two.
I perceive that, in your remarks upon this ar
ticle, you have in one main particular deserted Mr.
Newman, whom you had undertaken to defend;
for he has laboured to reconcile us Protestants to
the decrees of the council of Trent, whereas you*
say, ' they (the Romanists) might, if God hereafter
should give them repentance, rescind the council of
Trent, as not being a council truly general or
oecumenical, being neither free, nor adequately re
presenting the whole church (but being rather an
Italian council), nor having been subsequently re
ceived by the church cathohc' I agree with you
that to rescind the council of Trent would remove
a very great difficulty, which now obstructs our
union ; but I do not see how the Romanists could
reconcile such a proceeding with their claim of in
fallibility, nor how you can make your peace with
Mr. Newman, who has so laboured to recommend
the decrees of that council to our acceptance.
You have added,= that the distinction between
general and oecumenical councils may serve as an
instance, how an approximation between us and
certain divines of the romish communion 'may
* Letter, page 32. s ibid, page 33.

35

open a prospect (however faint and distant it may
now be) how, ivithout the sacrifice of any truth, the
church may, on the principles of our own, again, if
God vouchsafe, become one.' This is indeed a
most important consideration, and worthy of every
attention. You argue thus : ' for it is not the
holding cEcumenical councils not to have erred, or
trusting assuredly that they never wiU err, which
approximates to romanism, but holding that general
councils (be the bishops present exceeding few, as
the non- Italian bishops at the council of Trent) are
oecumenical and authoritative, if confirmed by the
pope.' In this argument however you have mistated
the question at issue between us. That question is
not, whether an oecumenical council, or a general
council, or a general council confirmed by the pope,
should be acknowledged as authorised to dictate
the faith of Christians ; but whether any human
authority whatsoever, whether council or pope, or
council and pope conjointly, should be so acknow
ledged. This is the great question of the reform
ation, which is conceded if it be maintained that
councils, in any circumstances, are entitled to be
esteemed exempted from liability to error. Your
distinction then between oecumenical and general
councils is unavailing to the object, which you con
template ; and in relying upon it, you are, however
imconsciously, compromising the fundamental prin
ciple of our protestant church, namely, that every
individual not only possesses a strict right, but is

36

also bound by a sacred obhgation, to form for him
self his own opinions in religion, availing himself
however, in the exercise of this right and the dis
charge of this duty, of all the aids afforded to him
by the instruction of others, more favourably cir
cumstanced than himself for acquiring a knowledge
of the truth, and especially supplicating the divine
assistance. To admit the application of your dis
tinction, in explaining away the purport of this
article, would be to abandon the essential principle
of our protestant church, and to yield ourselves up
to the dominion of that other principle of authori
tative dictation, which has been the fruitful origin
of the errors and abuses of romanism.
Mr. Newman,® while he assumes with you, that
we hold in common with Romanists, ' that the
church cathohc is unerring in its declarations of
faith, or saving doctrine,' has sought to quahfy the
maintenance of this common principle by a distinc
tion, which he appears to have considered as per
fectly satisfactory. ' They,' says he, ' understand
by the faith whatever the church at any time de
clares to be faith ; we, what it has actually so de
clared from the beginning.' If in this distinction
he would understand by the beginning the apo
stolic period of the church, I should have no dis
agreement with him in this particular ; for he
would thus characterise the church only as ' a
« Mr. Newman's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, p. 25.
Oxf. 1841.

37
witness and a keeper of holy writ,' in conformity to
the twentieth article, and would refer all the au
thoritative dictation of doctrine to the period of
inspired teaching. But Mr. Newman, in all his
reasonings, understands by it the church of the
fourth century; and thus, to give any importance
to his distinction in the present discussion, must be
considered as one who takes the advantage of an
ambiguous term. I do not know whether Mr.
Hallam would consider Mr. Newman as a worthy
adversary in argument ; but I will venture to sug
gest to him that here is an eminent example of
such a paralogism, as, he has contended,' is not to
be found among persons of that description.

T Hallam's Introduction to the Literature of Europe, vol. iii.
p. 220, note. Lond. 1839. The same able and accomplished
writer, in his preference of the Baconian method of reasoning
by exclusion, has applied it (p. 214, note) to the controversy
concerning the disputed verse in the first epistle of St. John.
The silence of some of the fathers as to the text, even while
expounding the context, is, he argues, a decisive proof that they
did not know it, or did not believe it genuine ; ' because, if
they did, no motive can be conceived for the omission.' I how
ever apprehend, that the exclusion in this argument is not com
plete ; for a knowledge of the existence of a controversy about
its genuineness, and still more the extraordinary obscurity of
the passage itself, might have been a sufficient motive for the
omission : as we find that Jerome, though he has given the
verse in his revision of the old Italic versions, has yet passed it
unnoticed in his commentary. I cannot concede to Mr. Hallam
either the credit of my old friend syllogistic reasoning, or the
genuineness of the disputed verse so summarily decided. If the
latter question has little connexion with the present discussion,
it had however at least ss little with his subject.

38

Before I quit this most important part of my
subject, I will remark that, as in my former letter
I proved, that the claim of infallibility was not
maintained by the first general council, in which,
if such was then the belief of the church, it might
be expected to have been loudly proclaimed ; nor
by Athanasius, who was so deeply interested in
magnifying the authority of the council, by which
he had been protected : so now I think I am en
abled to prove that it was not the behef of Augus
tine, who may I suppose be considered as closing
the utmost period, to which you and Mr. Newman
would ascribe the character of the primitive church.
' I,' says Augustine,* in a letter addressed to Je
rome, 'have learned to give to those books alone,
which are named canonical, this honour, that I
should most firmly believe that none of their writers
has erred : but of others, however they may prevail
in learning or sanctity, I do not believe that any
thing is therefore true, because they so thought.'
It would seem from this letter, that the venerable
father had never even heard of the collective pre
tension of the church to the right of authoritative
dictation, since to the paramount and exclusive
authority of the sacred writings he has opposed
only the sanctity and learning of individuals.
Article XXV. Number of sacraments.
The controversy concerning the purport of this
" Oper. torn. ii. p. 190. Venet. 1729-.

39
article is a dispute about the application of the
term sacrament, as it is used by our church. And
here I must protest against the citation of homilies
as authorities, except in the single instance of the
homily on justification, to which a reference has
been expressly made in the eleventh article. The
others I must consider, agreeably to the thirty-fifth
article, as containing a godly and wholesome doc
trine, and necessary for the times in which they
were pubhshed ; but I do not think myself re
quired to yield to every thing which may be cited
from them, as having authority in the church.
But to what purpose is this argument main
tained in favour of applications of this term to
things, some of which this very article has stigma
tised, as having grown ' of the corrupt following of
the apostles ? ' By what use of the new method of
relaxation can it be shewn, that, as you say,^ after
Mr. Newman, " this article does not deny the five
rites in question to be (in some sense) sacraments,"
when it has so expressly condemned some of them
as corrupt? It may, you argue, for the article
speaks only of sacraments of the gospel, and we
contend for these only as sacraments of the church.
You contend then that the church has authority to
institute sacraments not instituted by the gospel,
and thus recur to an assumption of the main ques
tion at issue, the question of the authority of the
9 Letter, page 33.

40

church. You have accordingly quoted' with ap
probation from Thomdike, this statement of the
distinction to be observed between the two acknow
ledged sacraments and the rest : " these two imme
diately bring forth God's grace, as instruments of
his promise, by his appointment ; the rest must
obtain it by the means of God's church, and the
blessing annexed to communion with it."
I have observed^ that, in speaking of those
other rites, for which you claim some subordinate
degree of the sacramental character, you have par
ticularised the sanctity required of the confirmed,
the married, the priesthood, but have not alluded
to penance and extreme unction. Are you pre
pared to acknowledge these also as sacramental
ordinances ? If you are, it would have been candid
to specify them with the others, as it would thus
have been more plainly apparent to what issue you
are desirous of leading our church,
I will here remark that your favourite authority,
' the sound and judicious Thomdike,' as you have
described him, has, in a passage cited by yourself*
with approbation, placed himself in direct oppo
sition to the article. " The rest," says he, " are
actions appointed to be solemnised in the church
by the apostles." The article however says, on the
contrary, that they have grown ' partly of the cor
rupt foUowing of the apostles.' This goes beyond
1 Letter, page 37. "- Ibid, page 40. 3 Ibid, page 38.

41

relaxation, as it sets the determination of the article
aside as inconvenient.
You have said,* ' I feel assured that a more
reverend estimation and a more hallowed use of
these gifts of the church, as means whereby grace is
bestowed, or enlarged, or restored, so far from
placing them on a level with the two high sacra
ments, would the rather raise men's veneration for
these, as being so far above them.' This appears
to be a most unwarranted assurance, since, as you
have admitted,* ' the Romanists (who fondly cherish
this multiphcity of sacramental institutions) studi
ously confound the difference between the two great
sacraments' and the others. The reason why they
cherish it is plain. Their object is to magnify, not
the genuine sacraments, but the priesthood.
While with, as I conceive, the true sense of the
article, I refuse the sacramental character to all
these observances, except the two instituted by our
Lord, baptism and the eucharist, I must also decline
to concur in your special reason for highly estima
ting their sanctity, that they ' issued from his
pierced side, in the hour when our redemption was
completed.' This notion of the significance of the
blood and water, which issued from the wounded
side of our Saviour, is defective in regard to the
eucharist, as it could indicate it only by one of the
sacramental elements. It was indeed long under-
* Letter, page 39. ^ ibid, page 35.

42

stood that the fact had been so particularly and
earnestly attested by the evangelist in quite another
reference, to prove that our Sa^dour had truly died ;
but this interpretation of the passage has been lat
terly rejected, because it is now known, that such an
occurrence is not an unequivocal indication of death,
nor is it indeed reasonable to believe that the apostle
could, even in error, have wished to suggest such
an inference. The late professor Burton has, I
think, somewhere assigned a much more satisfactory
reason, namely, that the occurrence has been thus
solemnly recorded as a proof, that our Saviour had
been on the cross a really hving man, and not, as
certain gnostics held, a mere phantom substituted
for his person.
Article XXVIII. Transubstantiation,
Of this article, which is very long and particu
lar, you have cited only one clause, containing the
direct condemnation of the doctrine of transubstan
tiation, omitting the others, by which, as also by the
following article, which has likewise been omitted,
this part is supported and justified. This, it must
be remarked, is a considerable extension and im
provement of the method of relaxation. In other
cases Mr. Newman has employed his method only
in paring down the sense of an article to the small
est magnitude, without interfering, at least directly,
with its words. In this case however, as it had been

43
much detailed, it was necessary to pare away much
of the words also. The greater part has accordingly
been omitted in the statement, and neglected in the
argument. Your object appears to have been to establish
some sort of corporeal presence of Christ in the
eucharist, distinct both from transubstantiation,
which is so explicitly condemned by the article,
and from consubstantiation, which is scarcely dis
tinguishable from it, and was imagined in the first
effort to escape from the former. How have you
succeeded? By the words® 'spiritual unseen pre
sence' you must understand a corporeal presence,
though of a sprituahsed character, for to a purely
spiritual presence the epithet unseen would have
been inapplicable. You' complain too of those who
differ from you, that, ' not knowing what presence
it is which is implied in the doctrine of transubstan
tiation, as defined in the roman schools, and popu
larly received, they shrink from holding any actual
presence at all, other than in the believer's soul,
which they dimly apprehend ; not knowing what
change is implied by transubstantiation, they dread to
avow that there is any change at all, but look on the
consecrated elements as remaining simply what they
were before, and what to sight they seem.' From
these words it sufficiently appears that the presence,
which you contemplate, consists in some sort of
6 Letter, page 43. ^ ibid, page 44.

44

superaddition of the presence of Christ to the sacra
mental elements, by which these cease to be ' what
they were before, and what to sight they seem.'
How this opinion differs from consubstantiation I
am unable to apprehend. You, I am aware, plead
that, according to the doctrine of consubstantiation,
the body of Christ is understood to be in, or under,
the elements. But of what importance, as a distinc
tion, is it, whether the body of Christ be understood
to be in, or under, or in any other manner con
nected with them ?
Sure I am, that such is not the doctrine of our
article, as expressed in that part of it, which you
have omitted to cite. This states distinctly that
' the body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the
supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner.
And,' it adds, ' the mean whereby the body of
Christ is received and taken in the supper is faith.'
There is here no mention of a superaddition of the
presence of Christ to the sacramental elements,
however imagined. The whole is described as per
formed ' only after an heavenly and spiritual man
ner,' and as applied by ' faith ' to the soul of the be
liever, not through any previous connexion with the
elements. In justifying your interpretation you* have cited
these words from Mr. Newman, " we see then, that,
by transubstantiation, our article does not confine
^ Letter, page 45.

45

itself to any abstract theory, nor aim at any defini
tion of the word substance, nor in rejecting it rejects
a word, nor in denying a mutatio panis et vini is
denying every kind of change." It is indeed, very true,
that, in the part of the article which you have cited, the
doctrine of transubstantiation, as 'generally received
or taught both in the schools and in the multitude,'
is, as you admit, proscribed. But how have you proved
that no kindred or approximating doctrine is also
proscribed ? By omitting all of the article, which
would convey such a meaning. I contend that it
does confine itself to the abstract theory of a com
munion merely spiritual, in pronouncing that ' the
body of Christ is given, taken and eaten, in the sup
per, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner ;'
and that, in adding that 'the mean whereby the
body of Christ is received and eaten in the supper
is faith,' it rejects every notion of a sacramental
change in the elements themselves. It is indeed,
dfficult to reason with men, who are able to per
suade themselves, that to deny a mutatio panis et
vini is not to deny every kind of change, as if to
deny a doctrine in one language were not equivalent
to denying it in another.
I observe that Mr. Newman has, in his tract,'
employed much metaphysical argument, to protect
his opinion concerning the eucharist against the ru-
brick, which has so inconveniently stated that ' the
9 Tract 90, pages 52-58.

46

natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in
heaven, and not here, it being against the truth of
Christ's natural body to be at one time in more
places than one.' The object of all this reasoning
is to prove, that the true meaning of that rubrick is
that there may be ' a presence such as not to be here,'
in other words, that there may be a presence, which
yet is not a presence ; and that the doctrine for
which he contends, as taught in our formularies, is
that of ' a real super-local presence in the holy sa
crament,' or of a presence which has no connexion
with locality. I doubt whether this subtihsation of
argument has been surpassed by the most eminent
of those scholastic disputants, who were once the
oracles of the church, and have been by the most
magnificent appellations consigned, though in vain,
to the respectful admiration of succeeding ages.
Yet I think that I can, however dimly, perceive,
how all this mist of subtlety may be dispelled. The
principle of the whole argument seems to me to
consist in expertly confounding the qualities of spirit
and body, the sort of presence conceived to be attri
butable to the former, being assumed to belong to
the latter, so that the presence, for which Mr. New
man so strenuously contends, is after all a spiritual
one, which we do not at all dispute. ' Loco-motion,'
he observes, ' is the means of a material presence ;
the sacrament is the means of his spiritual presence.'
Here is another eminent specimen of paralogism for
the consideration of Mr. Hallam.

47

I need not say, that you have, in my opinion,
acted wisely in abandoning this metaphysical argu
ment to its fate. But in citing theological authori
ties, have you made a more effectual defence?
Bishop Jewell, whom you have strangely enough'
cited, as favourable to your view of this article, says
of the sacramental elements, in the very passage
which you have given from him, "that by them
Christ himself, being the true bread of eternal life,
is so presently given unto us, as that hy faith we verily
received his body and blood." Bishop Ridley ^ again :
" I confess Christ's natural body to be in the sacra
ment by spirit and grace," &c. With your later
authorities I wiU not concern myself, because it is
well known, that an aversion to the prevailing spirit
of Puritanism did subsequently dispose the clergy
of our church to express their opinions in language
more nearly approaching to that of the church of
Rome. But I must remark of yourself, that you
have most seriously mistated the question concern
ing the doctrine of the church in regard to this sa
crament. You describe the ' modem view' of it as
one, 'which would make the only presence of
Christ in the behever's soul, and that as resulting,
not from the consecrating words, but from the be
hever's faith.' We hold indeed, that 'the mean
whereby the body of Christ is received and eaten in
the supper is faith ;' but no sound member of our
1 Letter, page 46. » Ibid, page 48,

48
church ever held, that this is independent of the
consecrating words, by which the sacrament itself is
constituted. Article XXXI. Sacrifices of masses.
In the relaxation of this article both the ordinary
and the extraordinary method have been employed ;
the ordinary in the introduction of the mention of
private masses into the argument, the extraordinary
in the omission of the former part of the article to
gether with the title. And good reason was there
for employing both expedients, since the object was
even to prove, that our article does not reject the
public service of the romish mass, and that we are
therefore still at liberty to conform in this important
particular, to the liturgy of Rome.
You contend, ' after Mr. Newman, that by the
" sacrifices of masses," mentioned in the article, is
not meant ' the sacrifice of the mass.' This statement
you reinforce by characterising the former as for the
most part private, and thus distinguishable from the
public service of the church. It is indeed manifest
that the part of the article, which you have selected
for citation, does not treat of the public service, but
of the ' blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,'
which had grown out of that service. But if we
look to the title of the whole, and to the preceding
' Letter, pages 59-60.

49
part of the article, which you have omitted to cite,
we find in the former, ' of the one oblation of Christ
finished upon the cross,' a formal protest against the
notion of a sacrifice, in any proper signification of
the term, to be now publicly offered in the church ;
and in the latter that, besides ' the offering of Christ
once made,' there is ' none other satisfaction for sin,
but that alone.' I know no words, which might
more plainly express a rejection of " the sacrifice of
the mass" itself. The article does indeed proceed
to condemn the gross abuses, which had sprung from
the notion of a continuahy repeated sacrifice ; but it
had previously in the plainest language protested
against the admission of any other sacrifice, than
that which had been once made ' for all the sins of
the whole world.' It must however be admitted,
that Mr. Newman,* has in his argument professed
to reason from the title, and the preceding part of
the article, in support of his conclusion ; but the
connexion of his inference wholly escapes my power
of apprehension. You seem to have experienced the
same difficulty.
So far indeed have you failed in this part of the
defence of your friend, that you have even found it
necessary to make admissions, which are fatal to his
justification. ' Of course,' you say,* ' as far as the
ordinary oblation of the mass was considered as
relating to the same ends, the romish doctrine would
* Tract 90, page 60. « Letter, page 62.
D

50

be condemned in it also — ' And® again more dis-
tinctly : ' I cannot then but think that the writers
of the article had, as our friend says, the " private
special masses" mainly in view, although including
the " public mass," as far as in doctrine it agreed
with them.' But Mr. Newman has not expressed
his interpretation of the article in terms thus quali
fied. ' On the whole, then,' he' concludes, ' 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 the dead for the remission
of sin — .' Whatever may have been the meaning
affixed by Mr. Newman to these words, it is at least
evident, that he has not held, as you do, that the
article had any intended relation to the public mass.
I am much inclined to believe, that the words
spoken by our Saviour in instituting this sacrament,
have not yet been understood in their fuU import.
When he uttered the words, ' this is my body which
is given for you,' I conceive that his meaning was,
that the paschal lamb, which had to that time pre
figured his death, should no longer represent him,
because that had been a sacrificial emblem, and the
sacrifice, so prefigured, was then to be completed,
so that there should be ' no more sacrifice for sins ;'
but that new emblems were to be thenceforward
adopted, which should represent, not a sacrifice, hut
that spiritual nutriment, which our souls should
s Letter, page 63. r Tract 90, page 63.

51

receive, as a consequence of the great sacrifice once
performed, and never to be repeated. Our sacra
ment is accordingly, not sacrificial, but eucharistical,
and has therefore been denominated the eucharist.
Article XXII. Purgatory, pardons, invocation of
saints, and veneration and worshipping of
images and relics.
To the relaxation of this article, which enumer
ates and prescribes, as ' vainly invented and ground
ed upon no warranty of scripture, but rather repug
nant to the word of God,' several romish doctrines
and practices, fifty-eight pages of your letter have
been devoted, out of a hundred and forty-seven em
ployed in commenting upon the whole thirty-nine,
or considerably more than a third part. This in
deed is not surprising, when we consider what those
doctrines and practices are, to some, however qualified,
admission of which you endeavour to reconcile the
members of our reformed church. The article has,
as has been stated, pronounced on them a condem
nation, one would suppose, sufficiently full and expli
cit, not only as to excess and abuse, but also as to
principle, and consequently as to every modification
of them, which might be found to have at any time
existed in the church. It is not easy to anticipate,
how any palliation, at all reconcilable to the acknow
ledgment of an article framed in such language,
could be pleaded ; yet such a plea you have under-

52

taken to urge, and it may well have required your
utmost efforts to bring the new method of relaxation
to bear upon a form of words so precise and deter
minate. Nor is it strange, that a process so new
and difficult should have been deemed to demand a
special introduction, occupying nine of your pages.
In proceeding to relax this article, you premise,"
' it is necessary to bear in mind, as our friend has
said, that the question is, not what is aUowable to he
taught, not what it is expedient to practise, hut
what private opinions a person may or may not hold,
consistently with the tenor of the articles.' This
preliminary observation, which is indeed most neces
sary to your argument, appears to rest upon a prin
ciple, which cannot be at all admitted, namely, that
our articles are merely articles of peace, arranged for
the external government of the ministry, without
any reference to the internal persuasion of the heart,
for thus only can they be conceived to be limited to
that, which is allowable to be taught, or expedient
to be practised, without having any relation to private
opinion. He who regards our articles in this aspect, must
surely have forgotten that the eighth, which pro
nounces that the three creeds ' ought thoroughly to
be received and believed,' cannot be subjected to
this kind of interpretation. If this one must be
withdrawn from it, how can the others be placed
* Letter, page 71.

53
under a different rule ? Must we suppose that the
framers of the articles, in proposing thirty-nine to
our acceptance, offered one to be thoroughly received
and beheved, and, without noticing any distinction
existing between them, presented the others only for
outward observance, leaving ministers free to cherish
in secret the doctrines and practices, which they
forbid to be taught to their congregations ? The
articles are in truth but an extended creed ; ex
tended because prevailing errors required an en
largement, but on this account inconvenient for the
public use of the church, and therefore limited to
the regulation of the opinions and practices of its
ministers, especially as, in separating from the
church of Rome, the obnoxious observances had
been removed from the view of Protestants. The
appellation articles may have led to a misconception
of this their real character, by suggesting the notion
of some stipulation between contracting parties.
But, when it is considered that the name^ was first
so applied in the reign of Henry VIIL, who was too
arbitrary to admit stipulations in such matters, it
must be evident that the merely continued use of it
does not warrant any such acceptation. The true
reason indeed of the change from the title confes
sion of faith, which had been used in the German
reformation, was that among us the reformation was

9 Carwithen's History of the Church of England, vol. i.
p. 208. Lond. 1829.

54

begun by authority, which dictated the particulars,
requiring acquiescence and approval, whereas in
Germany the particulars were presented to an
adverse council. Our articles accordingly consti
tute essentially a confession of faith under an altered
title, to be however made with unfeigned assent and
ex animo.
This very objectionable principle of concealed
latitudinarianism you have premised to warrant a
very large use of the method of relaxation, in ex
plaining away this twenty-second article. The
medium of proof assumed in the argument is the
practice of the church' at the close of the fourth
century. It is assumed that this practice could not
have been contemplated in the condemnation ex
pressed in the article, because the practices con
demned in it are described as romish, and must
therefore have been only those found in their great
est enormity in that church. ' They (the framers
of the articles) were not,' you say,^ ' drawing up a
system of faith, which should comprehend the whole
compass of the subject on which they spoke, but
setting definite marks against certain corruptions
existing and maintained in their own times, and
before their eyes ; they were practically providing
against a certain existing practical evil ; they were
not concerned to trace the origin of existing cor
ruptions, but to warn against them as they existed ;
1 Letter, page 72. - Ibid, page 73.

55

every thing else lay beyond their horizon, and they
were not contemplating it — .'
I conceive that, if this were indeed a just view
of the purport of the article, some such words as at
this time existing should have been introduced, to
apprise the ministers of the church that they and
their congregations were still permitted to go every
length except the last, and had only to form a
precise notion of that completion of these doctrines
and practices, which had provoked the reformation,
that it might be ascertained, how nearly they could
approach to it, without infringing the article. But,
instead of words thus narrowly defining the rule, I
find on the contrary words, which to my apprehen
sion give it the largest application. The doctrine
of such practices is pronounced to have been ' vainly
invented and grounded upon no warranty of scrip
ture,' which words surely go to the principle, and
cannot be understood as limited to the last practical
excess, to which that principle had been carried in
the church of Rome. Nay, it is even said to be
' rather repugnant to the word of God ; ' not only to
have no authority of scripture, but to be rather
opposed to its dictates. Strange, that a doctrine so
described and condemned in the terms of the article,
should yet be held to have been contemplated by it
only in its extreme character, all minor degrees of
its application, however, growing out of the same
principle, and practically tending to this result,
being freely permitted ! Such however is the pro-

56

cess of the method of relaxation, and without a
liberal application of it the article cannot be accom
modated to the sentiments of our new teachers.
You say indeed,* ' it would be trifling with the
deposit of a pure faith, which God has committed
to our keeping, and tampering with the souls of our
people, whom we might be leading into sin, were
any one to teach such points as these,' namely the
less corrupted doctrines, which have graduaUy, hut
naturally, degenerated into gross abuses. ' Their
introduction ' you remark, ' would too probably
favour the bringing back of those errors, which were
once derived from them, and which yet exist.' Why
should you suppose that the same apprehension was
not present to the minds of the framers of the
articles, so that they should have contemplated the
incipient tendencies and intermediate prevalence of
these corruptions, together with their consummated
aggravations in the church of Rome ? The romish
practices were before their eyes, as they are before
ours ; and the danger of teaching the minor depra
vations must have been then as apparent as at
present. But what sort of system is this, by which the
ministers of the church are permitted to cherish in
their own minds opinions, which yet they must not
teach, because to teach them ' would be triflincr with
the deposit of a pure faith, which God has com-
3 Letter, page 72.

57

mitted to our keeping, and tampering with the souls
of our people, whom we might be leading into sin.'
I can understand this of Mr. Newman, who has
professed to consider our church as actually in
bondage, and evidently looks forward to a reunion
with Rome on the terms of the romish church. He
may consistently hold, that we should keep back
those doctrines for a more favourable occasion ; but
he has not applied to them terms so condemnatory,
as you have used, and could not indeed in consist
ency with the views, which he appears to entertain.
In your case I must consider the recommendation
of such a system, which in my respect for you I will
not characterise, as a result of that transition,
which you seem to have made into his character,
for the purpose of better conducting his defence.
I must here notice a topic of your great author
ity Thomdike, whom you have* characterised as
' sound and judicious,' because it appears to afford
an insight into the principle of his approximation
towards the church of Rome, and perhaps may be
fairly considered as indicating hkewise that of the
tendency of your own mind. " Only," says he,*
" the church of England, having acknowledged the
church of Rome a true church, though corrupt, ever
since the reformation, I am obliged so to interpret
the prayers thereof, as to acknowledge the corrup
tions so great, that the prayers which it alloweth,
* Letter, page 36. ^ ibid, page 113.

58

may be idolatries, if they be made in that sense
which they properly signify, but not that they are
necessarily idolatries. For if they were necessarily
idolatries, then were the church of Rome neces
sarily no church, the being of Christianity presup
posing the worship of one true God." Now it does
not appear to me, that practices necessarily and in
all their forms idolatrous should deprive the church
of Rome of the title of a church. The essential
character of a christian church in my opinion con
sists, not in the forms of its worship, but in the
profession and acknowledgement of the two main
doctrines, of justification by the death of Christ and
sanctification by the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I cannot indeed think that the intermixture of idol
atrous practices, however they may furnish an
abundantly sufficient reason for separating from its
worship, can deprive of its character a church still
acknowledging the main principles of christian
faith, and transmitting them to succeeding ages,
when I consider that the Jewish church was sent
into a long captivity for the chastisement of its in
veterate idolatry, and yet continued to be the church,
through which was transmitted to succeeding ages
the precious hope of salvation.
Holding this opinion of the character of a true
church, I do not perceive any necessity, like Thorn-
dike, and possibly Hke yourself also, for palhating, as
not necessarily idolatrous, the practices which you
would defend as not forbidden by the article. Even

59

the incipient practices of the fourth century, far
from regarding them as entitled to claim authority
and respect, I view with utter alienation of mind, as
the beginnings of a gross depravation ; and I cling
more firmly to the simple truth of the scripture, as
the sure and only guide of man in his religious
concerns, though to be interpreted by whatever
means may best be supplied.
I rejoice indeed in finding, both in your® own
text, and in a' citation from Thorndike, an expres
sion of some misgiving upon this subject. ' It were
well,' you say, ' if the romish church, which so
gladly pleads in her behalf the charitable allow
ances made by Thomdike, that he need not neces
sarily pronounce her idolatrous, although she toler
ates what leads to idolatry, would also consider his
warning against her sanctioning practices, which
naturally lead to it, and his strong conviction that
the existence of such practices, unforbidden by au
thority, must be " one of the most considerable
titles," as for our original " reformation without
consent of the whole," so also for continued separa
tion.' And even in your citation I read, " And is
it enough, that the church enjoins not, nor teaches
idolatry ? Is it not further bound to secure us
against it ? " In these sentiments I so fully agree,
that I would apply them to ourselves also in this
very discussion ; and I contend that our church has
acted upon this very principle, proscribing all prac-
6 Letter, page 116. 7 Ibid, page 117.

60

tiees, which if not themselves idolatrous, yet lead to
idolatry, and have practically evinced that tendency
in the progress of the corruptions of Rome. Nor
can I refrain from saying of you, as you have said"
of Dr. Butler, ' it is sad to see a serious person
thus defend ' practices so unauthorised in them
selves, except by the example of an earlier age, and
so proved by experience to have, in their conse
quences, most grievously perverted the church.
Among the inconveniences arising from what
you conceive to be an undue extension of the articles,
you have remarked,^ that the recommendation
of confession and the doctrine of an authoritative
absolution of a sinner, which ' may alter the state of
the soul in God's sight,' are disregarded as belong
ing to popery. Of private and particular confession
it is sufficient to remark, on the other hand, that it
is recommended, not as a practice generally bene
ficial, but only as an expedient for satisfying the
minds of those, who have been unable to quiet their
own consciences by that religious self-examination,
to which all are exhorted, and in that state propose
to offer themselves to communicate in the eucharist.
The question again of the authoritative absolution of
the priest, which occurs only in the form of prayer
for the visitation of the sick, has been so fully con
sidered by Mr. Benson in' a recent publication, that
8 Letter, page 117. 9 ibid, page 75.
1 Discourses upon the Powers of the Clergy, &c. pp. 47-49.
Loudon, 1841.

61

I have only to place before you, chiefly in his own
words, a summary of his observations.
On this latter question Mr. Benson has justly
remarked, that 'there are, however, several wise
limitations both to the use and the apparent positive-
ness of the pardon there proclaimed ; for the minister
is to observe many cautions and directions before he
proceeds to absolve the sinner.' He has then given
a fuU and correct interpretation of the absolution
itself in the following words. 'The remission of sins
is to aU, and upon all, whatever may have been their
transgressions, who have an earnest repentance and
true faith ; and I, having examined thy repentance
and faith, have obtained from thee all the outward
marks of their sincerity. The church of Christ is,
moreover, authorised to assure all who are thus duly
quahfied, that they are in fact forgiven, and I, as a
minister of that church, am entrusted to speak in
her name. Thou also, considering thyself a true
behever and penitent, hast earnestly desired, for the
relief of thy troubled conscience, that absolution
which the church has to bestow. I, therefore, in
comphance with that humble and hearty desire, and
not with any intention of representing the absolution
of the church as an indispensable condition of par
don, or as of itself capable of giving thee more than
thou wouldst otherwise obtain, do absolve thee by
the power committed to me, and therefore, of course,
as far, and as far only, as my power extends. Now
my power extends only to pronounce to the penitent

62

believer the remission of his sins by God ; and so,
upon the supposition that thou art indeed a penitent
believer, I absolve thee, not in my own name, but in
his ; and that absolution can, it is evident, be effec
tual only in case my supposition, with regard to thy
repentance and faith, is correct.' That the church,
he adds, still acknowledges, that the pardon so pro
nounced may not be sealed in heaven, is manifest
from the most earnest prayer which immediately
follows, as if the preceding act of forgiveness was
still doubtful.
Of the veneration of images and relics you have
distinctly admitted, ^ that no trace can be found in
the ancient church. ' There is no question then,'
you* acknowledge, 'as to the interpretation of the
article — ' Yet you abandon the interpretation as
hopeless with regret and sorrow, adding — ' only as
to the tone of mind of those who expound them, lest
they speak slightingly of sacred feelings, and, as I
said, foster the principle of rejecting the evidence of
miracles, like the Jews or modern Deists, on a pri
ori grounds.' You add too, ' nor is it strange, that
the lying miracles of later days, connected with sup
posed relics, should create a repugnance to believe
true miracles, wrought by God in connexion with
the true.' And again* — 'since God did work mi
racles by them in those days, one should on that
ground adhere the more closely to that faith, which
2 Letter, pages 124, 125. 3 Ibid, page 126.
* Ibid.

63

he attested by miracles — and seek by a holy life
the mdwelling of that Holy Spirit, which so hallowed
even " the dry bones" of those, who had been so
eminently his temple, that they still lived, and
" being dead, yet spake," and became to others the
source of earthly, and thereby also spiritual, life and
healing.' I am unable to express the concern and amaze
ment, with which I read these passages. The very
apprehension suggested in them has no foundation
so far as the Jews were concerned, for they did not
deny the reality of the miracles of our Saviour, though
they would not infer from them his divine nature,
and the truth of his gospel. Nor do I know how
the credit of the miracles of the gospel would be
better supported by being classed with a multitude
of claims of miraculous power so utterly dissimilar
in their general character, and so confounded with,
as you have yourself described them, ' the lying mi
racles of later days, connected with supposed relics.'
I can believe that miraculous powers were contin
ued in the church, so long as those survived, on
whom apostles had laid their hands in prayer ; but
I cannot perceive any sufficient reason for carrying
my belief in miracles further, and least of all can I
beheve that the Almighty had attached such powers
to the mortal relics of even his most distinguished
servants. In one instance our Saviour did employ mate
rial means in the exercise of his supernatural power ;

64

but when he anointed with clay the eyes of the blind
man, we cannot suppose that he wished it to be un
derstood, that any holiness or supernatural power
was attached to the earthy substance, which he mixed
with his spittle ; and we may easily apprehend, that
the act, was, like his other miracles, symbolical, the
clay representing that earthly obstruction of the
mental vision, which was to be removed by washing
in obedience to his command.
Nor can I pass without animadversion your mis
application of scriptural language in this part of your
defence, as if to afford a scriptural sanction to this
vain pretension to supernatural power. What ana
logy, which might justify such an application, can
be conceived to have existed between miracles alleged
to have been wrought by the mortal remains even of
holy persons, and the figurative description of the
restoration of Israel in Ezekiel xxxvii, or the reli
gious instruction still to be derived from the example
of the faith of Abel ; Hebrews, xi. 4 ?
How strange is it that you should* have con
ceived that in the following passage, which you have
cited from your great authority Thorndike, ' no one,'
as you say, ' of our church (whatever vague impres
sions he may have had) will probably find any thing
which he would wish to gainsay !' " He that could
wish that the memories of the martyrs, and other
saints who lived so as to assure the church they
^ Letter, page 127.

65

would have been martyrs had they been called to it,
had not been honoured, as it is plain they were so
honoured by Christians, must find in his heart by
consequence to wish that Christianity had not pre
vailed." This your joint inference I absolutely and
utterly deny. I trust that no such sentiment as you
have both inferred, could find admission into my
heart, and yet I most sincerely wish that those me
mories had not been so honoured, as to generate
by a natural consequence a system of paganised
Christianity, which took from God his honour, and
from Christ his exclusive office of mediation.
After all which you have said in this part of
your vindication, you have in effect deserted your
chent Mr. Nevnnan, and abandoned him to his fate,
for he has* said that 'there was a primitive doctrine
on aU these points,' whereas you have set out with ad
mitting that of the veneration of images and relics no
trace can be found in the ancient church. Has he
found out a new meaning of the word primitive, by
which it should be brought nearer to us than the
fourth or fifth century, or are your statements in di-
rect contradiction ? But this is not your worst fail
ure, for you have distinctly declared to me, that you
do not at all hold the invocation of saints, for some
qualified admission of which Mr. Newman has ® con
tended. That, while you utterly rejected the princi
ple, you should yet have devoted about twenty pages
« Tract 90, p. 23. « Ibid. pp. 40-42. E

66

of your letter to the palliation of the practice, and
have subjoined an appendix of equal dimensions, I can
explain only by referring to that entire abdication
of your own character, and assumption of that of
Mr. Newman, whom you had undertaken to defend,
which I have stated in the commencement of this
letter ; I will not however, when he is thus given
up by his advocate, enter upon a consideration of
the seven distinctions between the romish practice
and that of the early church. But I must remark
of your great authority Thorndike, that in a passage
which you' have cited from him, he has gone so far
as to declare, that he considered the prayers ad
dressed to God, according to the canon of the mass,
" to desire his blessings by and through the merits
and intercession of his saints" as being "utterly
agreeable with Christianity, importing only the ex
ercise of that communion, which all members of
God's church hold with all members of it, ordained
by God, for the means to obtain for one another the
grace which the obedience of our Lord Jesus Christ
hath purchased for us without difference, whether
dead or alive — ." But at the same time, I entirely
concur with you in your observation," that persons
cannot be too strongly warned against the risk to
their own souls, in resuming, even in its lightest form,
a practice which does not come recommended to us
by the primitive church, and which scripture, to say
^ Letter, pages 110, 111. » Ibid, page 119.

67
the least, in principle discourages ; which, as a
systematic practice, does not seem to be counte
nanced even by the age in which it was introduced,
the addresses in the fourth century being rather
apostrophes to the blessed saints, who were at the
moment before the minds of those who used them,
than systematic requests for their intercession.
Had you said only this, you would in my opinion
have better maintained your own principles, but
then you would perhaps too plainly have so far
given up the vindication of Mr. Newman.
I must not omit to remark that you have
wisely passed without notice an argument of Mr.
Newman on this subject, which he has himself
seen occasion to omit in a subsequent edition of his
tract. In the original edition, as acknowledged
by himself, he had for an argument misquoted the
Apocalypse, i. 4. ' Indeed,' says he, ' it is not un
natural, if the "seven angels before the throne" have
sent us, through St. John the evangehst, " grace and
peace," that we, in turn, should send up our thoughts
and desires to them.' Now these, according both
to our version and to the original text, are not
angels, but spirits, and by the best commentators
are understood to represent in the vision the Holy
Spirit, the third person of the divine Trinity.
In conclusion, I must remark that, so far as you
may have succeeded in shewing, that some incipient
practices, analogous to those admitted to have been
condemned by the article, did prevail in the church

68

of the fourth century, just so far in my opinion have
you proved the degeneracy of that church from the
original purity of the christian church, as it was
constituted by the apostles, and consequently shewn
that it was disqualified for being that model of doc
trine and practice for the present time, which you
desire it should be esteemed.
Article XXXII. Celibacy of the clergy.
In treating of this article, while you admit' that
there is no subject of controversy in the words, you
yet labour to recommend the celibacy of the clergy,
as more fitted for the due discharge of their spiritual
functions. And here I rejoice to perceive, that you
no longer represent celibacy as the more excellent
way, by which the apostle characterised charity, or
the kindly discharge of the social duties of life, for
which the conjugal relation affords certainly much
more ample opportunity. You are now contented
with representing it as more influential by its pic
turesque operation on the minds of the ignorant and
debased, and with arguing in favour of it from the
supposed meaning of a reply of our Saviour.
In regard to the former of these remaining
topics I must observe, that I cannot perceive in the
conduct of Christ himself, or in that of his inspired
followers, any disposition to seek aid for their
9 Letter, page 129.

69
preaching in an appeal to picturesque effect. They
preached the gospel in simplicity and godly sincer
ity, leaving it to affect the minds of their hearers,
as they, under the influence of the Holy Spirit,
might be more or less favourably disposed to receive
it, not assisted by exhibitions, which, like the deco
rations of a theatre brought in aid of sacred music,
might in regard to the purity of the gospel be not
unfitly denominated meretricious. These they left to
the pharisees, who were the picturesque performers
of that early period. You, on the other hand, have
assured us, that we shaU have sceurs de la charite,
and I grieve to read it. I grieve to read that we
are to meet in our streets and pubhc places that
dramatised representation of charitable devotedness,
which, while it fosters in the minds of the deluded
females an unchristian feeling of meritorious service,
would attract the attention of gazers by other cords
than those of a spiritual conviction. These, you
say,' ' are one of the most powerful attractions to
withdraw feeling but undisciplined minds from the
communion of our own (church) ; they would be a
grace to us, if we had them ; the lack of them
exposes us to loss.' Possibly the introduction of
this beginning of scenic representation might dis
appoint you in its effect, since, while it would
repel the more reflecting as a corruption of the
simphcity of the church, it might lead the igno-
1 Letter, page 132.

70
rant to seek a reunion with the church of Rome,
as affording to their appetite for spectacle a fuller
gratification. But you have"^ admonished those, who speak
against the notion of celibacy as a religious obser
vance, that they should * consider how they escape
therein speaking against their Lord. Certainly,'
you have added, ' the principle of religious celibacy
is so plainly set down by himself, that it seems to
imply a strange ignorance or sad neglect of his
word, to dare to call that principle in question.
And his word is not, like St. Paul's, limited by
" the present distress," but, like himself, eternal.'
This is very strong language, and should be very
strongly supported. Now I, who do dare to call
that principle in question, assert and undertake to
prove, that you have wholly misconceived the mean
ing of our Lord, contending that his reply is even
at variance with your notion of celibacy ' as a religi
ous act,' and strictly consonant to the plain and
obvious meaning of the article, the tone of which
you seek to modify, though you have acknowledged
that there is not any subject of controversy in the
words. And here I have to express my opinion, that
there is generally in your writing, and in that of
your friends, a lamentable deficiency of sound and
conclusive reasoning, which I must in this instance
^ Letter, page 133.

71
endeavour to supply. This may perhaps best be
done in the formal language of the art. The reply
then of our Saviour, I say, consists of a simple
answer given to the question of his disciples, namely,
' all men cannot receive this saying, save they to
whom it is given,' and of an argument brought in
support of it, in the form denominated an euthy-
meme, one premise being, as in conversation is very
usual, left to be understood.
When our Saviour had declared to the phari
sees, who were tempting, or trying him, in regard
to the law of Moses on the subject of divorce, that
by the original law of God marriage was indis
soluble, except for adultery, and that a facility of
divorce had been permitted to the Jews only ' be
cause of the hardness of their hearts,' his disciples,
being themselves Jews, felt that the revival of this
strictness might render marriage ineligible, and ac
cordingly remarked to him, ' if the case of a man
be so with his wife, it is not good (or, according to
the original, it is not expedient") to marry.' It is
manifest that the remark relates merely to a con
sideration of expediency, and has no reference what
ever to any peculiar fitness for discharging the
duties of religion. If therefore the answer of our
Saviour is to be understood in any reference of that
nature, it must be only so far as there is something
in its tenor directing the mind to it. The answer
was, ' all men cannot receive this saying, save they
to whom it is given.' The plain purport of these

72
words I conceive to be merely this, that all men
cannot safely act on this principle of expediency in
abstaining from marriage, because all had not the
gift of continency, and prudential conduct of this
kind might lead some men into immorality.
Then follows the argument in support of his
reply. In this I see only a statement of three cases
of physical unfitness for the married state, adduced
for furnishing an analogical inference concerning a
moral unfitness in regard to the gift of contineincy,
which the disciples had not taken into their con
sideration. I understand therefore the argument,
fully stated, to be this : as there are so many cases,
in which men are physically unfitted for marriage,
so is there a corresponding diversity in the moral
dispositions of men, by which some are capacitated
to lead a single life with innocence, and others are
not so capacitated. The conclusion accordingly is,
' he that is able to receive it, let him receive it ; '
or, let every man consider his own moral tempera
ment, and so form his determination. A moral
consideration is thus substituted for one of mere
expediency, in strict accordance with the direction
of our article, that ministers should make their
choice between marriage and celibacy, ' as they shall
judge the same to serve better to godliness.' The
words of our Saviour cannot be strained to signify
more than this, that continence is a gift, and that a
man, determining in favour of a single life, should
well consider whether he had received it.

73
Our Saviour has indeed said* that ' some had
made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of hea
ven's sake ; ' but he has stated this merely as a fact,
without any observation of approval or condemna
tion, as in the two other cases of physical unfitness,
and can only be understood to imply by analogy,
that some men may be morally determined to ceh-
bacy, as more favourable to rehgion, or, as the
article says, may 'judge the same to serve better to
godliness.' The hteral imitation of the conduct
of such men is surely not understood to have been
recommended. Nor would it be more reasonable to
suppose that our Saviour, in this part of his argu
ment, was doing more than stating a fact as furnish
ing a convenient illustration, than it would be to
imagine that, in the concluding verses of the fifth
chapter of St. Luke, he was desirous of being under
stood to give directions about the best mode of
repairing a worn garment, or the best choice of
bottles for new wine.
Article XXXVII. Jurisdiction of the bishop of
Rome.
You say,* in beginning your observations on this
3 These were probably Jews of the ascetic sect of Essenes,
who seem to have borrowed their penitential exercises and mor
tifications from the Egyptians, as has been remarked by Mos-
heim, Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 44. Lond. 1782.
* Letter, page 135.

74

article, ' I only set this article down, that I may
not seem to omit any thing, yet there is no question
to be raised upon it.* You do, however, very
directly raise a very important question concerning
its import, and you proceed to confirm your own
opinion by passages, which you have cited with
out remark, as explanatory however of your own
interpretation, from archbishop BramhaU and Mr.
Palmer. Your observations and authorities go to
the extent of acknowledging a spiritual preemi
nence in the see of Rome, if a favourable occasion
for asserting it should hereafter occur.
You argue, that " the jurisdiction of the bishop
of Rome " stands contrasted in it with " the chief
power of the king's majesty," and this, in the article
itself, hmited to things temporal. You accordingly
argue, that ' its chief object is to deny the right of
appeal to Rome in the case of ecclesiastical persons
or causes ; * and you conclude, ' clearly, then, from
the whole tenor of the article, the " jurisdiction "
denied is a " temporal jurisdiction as to spiritual
causes or persons." You add, ' this is illustrated
by the oath of supremacy.'
Now what says archbishop* BramhaU in the
passages, which you have cited from him in illustra
tion of these sentiments ? " Whatsoever power our
laws did divest the pope of, they invested the king
with it : but they never invested the king with any
« Letter, pages 136-138.

75
spiritual power or jurisdiction." Here follows an
enumeration of various encroachments of the papacy,
the object of which was to extract money from the
people, concluded with this observation, " but of
them all, there is not one that concerneth jurisdic
tion purely spiritual, or which is an essential right
of the power of the keys ; they are all branches of
the external regiment of the church — " The
purport of this passage is more clearly expressed in
another, which succeeds. " We have only cast out
seven or eight branches of papal jurisdiction in the
exterior court ; which Christ or his apostles never
challenged, never exercised, never meddled with ;
which the church never granted, never disposed.
He might stiU for us enjoy his protopatriarchate,
and the dignity of an apostohcal bishop, and his pri
macy of order, so long as the church thought fit to
continue it to that see, if this would content him."
' Or again,' you say,® ' to take the words of
a recent author, foUowing archbishop BramhaU.
" The learned primate BramhaU has observed, that
these acts were not intended to deprive the Roman
pontiff of any reaUy spiritual power ; they only cast
out some branches of his exterior jurisdiction which
were not instituted by Christ, nor by the cathohc
church. They did not deny the precedency of the
bishop of Rome in the universal church, nor his
right (in conjunction with christian princes) of
6 Letter, pages 138, 139.

76

summoning and presiding in general councils, nor
his power of defining questions of faith in conjunc
tion with the catholic church, nor his right to
exhort all bishops to observe the canons, nor his
being the centre of cathohc unity, when he is in
communion with all the catholic church. None of
these things (the chief privileges of the Roman
primacy according to Romanists) were affected by
the acts of parliament for abolishing the usurped
jurisdiction of the Roman bishop in England ; and
therefore it is vain to impute schism or heresy to
the church of England on this account, even on the
supposition that the primacy of the Roman see is
of divine institution."'
These your observations and citations have fiUed
me with amazement and regret, that persons pro
fessing to be members of our protestant church, and
you a professor in a protestant university, could
have given them to the world ; and that you in
particular should have done this, telling us at the
same time concerning this thirty-seventh article,
that you had set it down merely that you might not
seem to omit any thing, but that no question was to
be raised upon it. What? Is it indeed no question,
whether we are still in our former spiritual relation
with the see of Rome, so that the pope is stiU spiritu
ally the head of our church, and that, by the per
manence of that relation, the church of England
and Ireland is protected against the charge of
schism or heresy ?

77
You indeed, when you cited the last portentous
passage from Mr. Palmer, appear to have shrunk
back with apprehension from the enormity of its
statements. You say,' ' I do not mean, of course,
to imply by this, that the bishop of Rome has any
lawful claims to " spiritual supremacy" over us ;
our very acknowledgement of our articles imphes
our sense of a right committed to us, to regulate
the affairs of our church (whenever this should be
necessary) by and for ourselves.' This is fairly said ;
and, if you had said no more, it would only have
remained for us to wonder how, thinking thus, you
could have cited these several passages with appro
bation. But you have proceeded to say what only
waives the question of existing law, and seems to
shew that you look forward to some more favourable
opportunity for realising your sentiments. ' I only
mean,' you add, ' as a matter of fact, that any dis
cussion as to any spiritual authority of the bishop
of Rome, — supposing that he was in communion
with the whole church, or that he would acknow
ledge its authority to be superior to its own, — is
foreign to this article, which relates to things tem
poral only. Meanwhile it may be said that a pri
macy of order, and the claim that no council should
be considered oecumenical and authoritative which
lacked the concurrence of so eminent a see, as they
wiU abundantly satisfy both the concessions of any
'¦ Letter, page 139.

78
of the earlier fathers, and the claims of the earlier
popes, so may they be obviously conceded without
any risk to the safety of our provincial church.'
The fundamental principle of all this reasoning
has been stated by archbishop BramhaU, in the
beginning of the first of the passages, which
you have cited from him with so much gratification.
It is this: "whatsoever power our laws did divest
the pope of, they invested the king with it." Now,
as I admit that the article speaks only of jurisdiction,
whether spiritual or temporal, I would also admit,
that it divests the pope of no other relation to our
church, which was at the time in existence, because
the article would not extend to it. But I deny that
there was any such spiritual relation in existence,
as every thing of that kind had been abrogated by
previous acts of the church in effecting the reform
ation. If this can be shewn from the history of the
time, the proposition is disproved, for the king was
not invested with aU that, of which the pope had
been divested, the spiritual relation in question
having been, not transferred to the king, but abro
gated as unchristian, so that nothing remained,
which might be conceived to be still reserved to the
see of Rome.
The first" act of the church, in effecting the
reformation, was the declaration of the convocation,
which was the foundation of the statute of supremacy
" Carwithen, vol. i. p. 105.

79
enacted in the year 1534. This declaration pro
nounced the king supreme head of the church of
England (and a similar statute was three years after
wards enacted in Ireland,) ' as far as is agreeable to
the law of Christ.' It is not said that the king was
to exercise jurisdiction of every kind, while the pope
still remained chief bishop of the western church,
but that the king was to be supreme head, so far as
the law of Christ permitted christians to acknow
ledge any other head than himself. That this was
the meaning of the expression appears from the
corresponding declaration of the statute, that 'the
king shaU be taken, accepted and reputed the only
supreme head in earth of the church of England.'
It follows, that whatsoever of the papal headship
was not transferred to the king, did not remain to
the pope, but was abrogated, the spiritual relation
ship of the church to its head having Christ, and
not any person on earth, for its object. And to this
corresponds the thirty-sixth of the forty-two articles
of Edward VI., which states that 'the king of
England is after Christ the supreme head on earth
of the church of England and Ireland.' When
therefore the article of Elizabeth was limited to the
question of jurisdiction, every other part of the rela
tion of our church to the see of Rome had by its
previous acts ceased to exist. The formal title of
head was omitted in the article of Elizabeth, because
it was felt to be incongruous that such a title should
be given to a female.

80

In your observations on this article you appear
to have gone further than him, whom you had
undertaken to defend, for I do not find in his tract,
that he has under this article advanced any thing,
in which I might not concur. How this is to be
explained I know not, unless it may have arisen
from some secret disposition existing in your mind,
to compensate by a superfluity of vindication for a
deficiency in those other instances, in which, as I
have remarked, you had abandoned his defence.
Articles XI. XII. XIII. Of justification.
Concerning these three articles I have only to
remark, that the new method of relaxation does not
appear to have been applied to them, and that I
have accordingly perceived nothing objectionable in
the observations, which have been made upon them
in your letter. Mr. Newman indeed, in the second
edition of his tract, has introduced a new passage,
in which he has quietly assumed, in reference to the
sixth article, not in this place under consideration,
the truth of the main question at issue between us
concerning the authority of the church. 'This
argument (that the silence observed in the article
about a state between that of justification and grace
and that of neither, is a proof that there is none
such) however,' he says,^ ' would prove too much ;
9 Tract 90, page 16, second edition.

81

for in Uke manner there is a silence in the sixth
article about a, judge of the scripturalness of doctrine,
yet a judge there must be.' I deny that the article
can fairly be understood to be silent in regard to
this matter, for it appears to me to have very plainly
referred the judgment to each individual, consulting,
as he may be best enabled to do, the scriptures for
himself; and I consequently deny, that any other
'judge there must be,' though this can scarcely
have been what Mr. Newman intended to convey.

In an observation, which you' have subjoined
to your vindication, I cannot by any means concur,
namely, that the object of a change made in the
twenty-eighth article, when the thirty-nine articles
were, in the reign of EUzabeth, formed out of the
forty-two of Edward VL, was 'to include persons
who did not go so far from doctrine existing in the
church of Rome as their authors,' if by these words
be understood, that it was to relax the meaning of
the article, though you have represented your ob
servation as certain from bishop Burnet's statement,
as quoted by your friend. Burnet has, on the con
trary, stated most precisely, that the sense was the
same in both articles, and that the object of the
change was merely to avoid giving offence to those,
' in whom the old leaven had gone deep,' but who,
1 Letter, page 148.

82

it was hoped, might yet be drawn over to reform
ation. The observation, which follows, is but a reasser-
tion of the relaxing principle, namely, that the arti
cles ' are not directed against any thing occurring
here and there, in the early church, even though
not catholic, but against the existing system in the
church of Rome.' The existing system in the church
of Rome was doubtless the immediate object, as it
had given occasion to the reformation maintained
in the articles. But I strenuously protest against
the principle, which you have here asserted, that
to understand them 'in conformity and subordina
tion to the teaching of the church catholic, is not
only an admissible, but the most legitimate inter
pretation of them.' Our articles themselves have
expressly appealed to the written word, as that by
which the church must be guided in all judgments
of the faith ; and I do not see by what authority
you undertake to set up another standard, 'the
teaching of the church catholic,' by which you un
derstand the church of the fourth century, extending
that standard even to things admitted to be 'not
catholic,' and indeed to every doctrine and practice
of the church of Rome itself, which had not attained
to the full maturity of abuse existing at the time of
the reformation.
I have thus to the best of my ability reviewed
the several topics of this your second vindication. I
now beg of you to consider most seriously in its whole

83
extent the system of teaching, which you have under
taken to advocate, I must suppose, not seeing very
clearly the result to which it very directly tends. This
may best be collected from that periodical journal,
which has advocated the same cause with more
openness than you could find in the pages of Mr.
Newman, because its statements are protected by
the mysterious secrecy belonging to a Review. That
journal has, in' a recent number, revealed to us
with sufficient plainness the true spirit of the new
teaching, and the issue in which it is proposed that
it should terminate. Jewell, the able advocate of
the church of England against popery, is naturally
the object of its most sublimated wrath. A review
of his life and character has accordingly afforded
occasion for the strongest expressions of that adverse
feehng, which in a greater or less degree pervades
the whole system. We there read, that ' protestant
ism in its essence, and in all its bearings, is so cha
racteristically the religion of corrupt human nature,
&c.' In another passage we read, ' the question
then is this : viz. how persons, cordially believing
that the protestant tone of doctrine and thought is
essentially antichristian (a class, we can assure our
readers, by no means inconsiderable) can conscien
tiously adhere to a communion, which has been made
such as it is, in contradistinction from other portions
of the catholic church, chiefly through the instru-
2 Theological Review for July 1841.

84
mentality of persons disavowing the judgment of
Rome, not merely in this or that particular, but in
its general view of christian truth.' Lastly, we read,
' and, as we must go on, we must recede more and
more from the principles, if any such there be, of
English reformation.*
I would by no means be understood to imply
that your sentiments accord with these, which I
have quoted from the reviewer. I have, on the con
trary, been assured by yourself, that you are not
unfriendly to that reformation, which he has charac
terised as having constituted the religion of corrupt
human nature, as having generated a tone of doc
trine and thought essentially antichristian, as that,
from the principles of which we must, as we go on,
recede more and more. How unsuitable then is it
to you to come forward, now a second time, as the
apologist of tenets, the true form or character of
which you have here distinctly and fuUy presented
to you, but under the protection of anonymous
obscurity. That you should be thus engaged in a
common cause with such a writer as this, brings
indeed to my mind the strange contrivance occasi
onally employed in the theatres of ancient Rome,
in which one person, concealed from observation,
recited a tragic monologue, while another came for
ward to the people, to recommend by the graces of
appropriate gesticulation the recitation of the hidden
performer. You, whether consciously or not, present
yourself as gesticulator to the concealed reviewer.

85
to concihate the favour of the pubhc to his unmea
sured declarations. I suppose that I may consider
Mr. Newman as the manager of this new Roman
drama. Fortunately this anonymous enemy of our re
formed church has in the very same article furnished
an effectual antidote of his own virulence, for he has
admitted as ' undoubted fact, that bishop JeweU
contrives, with the help of the fathers, to reduce to
atoms nearly the whole stately and well-proportioned
fabric of cathohcism.' For what then does the
reviewer contend ? Is it for the maintenance of a
system, which he acknowledges to have been almost
wholly reduced to atoms on the testimony of anti
quity nearly three centuries ago ? He seems, in the
vehemence of his wrath against Jewell, to have for
gotten its origin. And I must thank him for re
calling my attention to the memorable Apology
of that distinguished man, because it* furnishes
testimonies to the exclusive authority of the written
word, which may powerfully reinforce that already
cited from Augustin. ' St. Augustin,' says Jewell,
' in his controversy with Petilian, the Donatist, ex-
claimeth, " let not these words, / say, or you say,
be heard between us ; but rather let us argue, thus
saith the Lord, there let us seek the church, hy
him let our cause he judged, our doubts settled."
And St. Jerom declares, " all things which are
3 Apology, etc. pp. 21, 22. Lond. 1829.

86

affirmed to be apostolical traditions, unless esta
blished by the authority of scripture, are van
quished by the sword of God's word." St. Ambrose
also, in his address to the emperor Gratian, says,
" let the scriptures, the apostles, the prophets, and
Christ himself, be consulted." '
I do not wonder that this great luminary of our
church should have been characterised by this
reviewer as an irreverent dissenter, however the
words may have shocked me when I read them ;
for an irreverent dissenter he certainly was from
the church of Rome and all its abuses. Nor could
the reviewer, consistently with the truth of history,
have applied to him this appellation in any other
sense ; for Jewell,* in his retreat at Zurich, had
laboured, with his utmost power, to compose the
differences which had begun to manifest themselves
among the exiles of the reign of Mary, and he was
consecrated a bishop in the very commencement of
that of Elizabeth, before dissent openly shewed
itself in the church of England.
It is not for me to pretend to vindicate the
Board of Heads of Houses from the charge of pre
cipitation in condemning the tract, of which you
have become the apologist. They best know with
what solicitude and apprehension they have contem
plated the publication of the long series of anony
mous tracts, begun indeed with proposed objects
* Life of Bishop Jewell, Apology, p. xxxi.

87
which every serious churchman regarded with ap
probation, but speedily deviating into a concurrence
with the doctrines and practices of Rome, and at
length advocating a departure so decided from the
articles of our church, that an important relaxation
of their obvious import became indispensable to the
protection of the new teachers. With that Board
accordingly I wiU leave the care of maintaining
what they have done, contenting myself with offering
them my sincere and humble thanks for their most
seasonable interposition. I have written not for their
vindication, but as an individual member of the
united church, anxious to protest for myself against
the erroneous teaching of high authority, and espe
cially to repel it from the yet uncorrupted clergy of
my own part of the empire.
In your eloquent and interesting conclusion you
have* told us, that ' our true position seems to be,
to acknowledge that we have fallen, and that God
is raising us up — ' Most willingly do I acknow
ledge, that we have too generally become insensible
to the mercy of God, in bestowing upon us the
inestimable advantage of having been bom in a
church purifled from the abuses of Rome ; and with
joy do I regard the increasing spirit of religion,
which is every where manifesting itself in an invigo
rated attention to its solemn duties, and a growing
anxiety for propagating its sacred influences among
5 Letter, page 176.

88

ourselves, and throughout the world. It is a great
crisis of the best interests of men, fitted to rouse to
active exertion every slumbering member of our
church. But in such a crisis it is more especially
incumbent on us to take care, that the energies of reh
gious persons should be rightly directed, lest we
should inconsiderately go backward to the errors,
which we formerly abandoned, instead of pressing for
ward to reach, if possible, the mark of a truly christian
perfection. I do not however charge you individually
with proposing to bring us nearer to the church of
Rome, because this intention you have® expressly
condemned — ' it is sad,' you say, ' to see people
apparently prizing what is catholic for its novelty,
not for its holiness ; or tempting God by approxi
mating as near as they may to Romanism, and
thinking they shaU not fall into it — .* This is
indeed, I agree with you, a sad spectacle for our
protestant church ; but I cannot avoid considering
you, as unintentionally and unconsciously assisting
to do the very thing, which you have so distinctly
condemned. You have' told us that ' a high destiny seems
to be yet in store for our church.' This I firmly
believe, and would most strenuously maintain. But
how should we prepare ourselves for fulfilling this
high destiny ? You and Mr. Newman say," " we
are to go back, not to go over." You send us back
« Letter, page 172. T Ibid, page 177. s ibid, page 182.

89
to the church of the fourth century, assuming its
doctrines and practices as our true and authorised
standard. I would urge my brethren of the united
church to look to ' the everlasting gospel,' as it has
been recorded in the scriptures of our salvation.
Whenever I have contemplated the moral govern
ment of God, and I have spent almost all the best
years of a long hfe in the study, I have perceived a
scarcely interrupted progress towards some consum
mation, worthy of the high attributes of the all-per
fect ruler, even the occasional or partial interrup
tions being conducive, though indirectly, to the
general result. Nowhere have I beheld the main
plan of operation stationary, nowhere retrograde.
To be stationary belongs to brute and unintelligent
natures, to be retrograde not even to these. It is
the high privilege of our rational and moral nature
to be ever progressive, passing onward in continued
improvement to an eternity, which may perhaps itself
he a scene of everlasting advancement. Nor need we
to fear that our progress in this present life may be
checked by the attainment of our object. Who can
seriously imagine, that we shaU ever actually attain
to the full measure of the righteousness of the
gospel ? There indeed is a model of christian
sanctity, fitted to exercise for ever in still growing
improvement the utmost energies of our moral
nature ; not in the factitious doctrines and practices
of the church, removed by three centuries from the
simphcity and purity of its divine original.

90
In this consideration of the progressive character
of our church I am confirmed, when I look back to
the recorded dealings of the Almighty with the
Jewish church, which exhibited a shadowed repre
sentation of better things to come. When that
church had so sunk into idolatry, as to be unfitted
for carrying on the scheme of his gracious dispensa
tions, he separated two of the twelve tribes, chas
tened however by a long captivity, and these he
constituted his selected agents, to transmit to future
ages the precious deposit of the hope of Israel.
When the christian church again had, in the like
manner, sunk into the manifold corruptions of the
romish superstition, a portion was similarly sepa
rated from the rest by the reformation, to bear
onward the all-important message of salvation, while
the remainder was to be suffered to continue in the
mystic captivity of the Babylon of the Apocalypse.
Is this separated portion to be now told, that they
should at least endeavour to place themselves on
some common ground, on which they might hope to
form a reunion with those, from whom they had
been thus separated in the gracious providence of
God ? No, I say. God will, in his own fit time,
bring in this rejected portion of his christian church,
as he will doubtless bring in the rejected of the lost
tribes of Israel. Our duty is to press forward. We
have been separated for a great and lofty purpose in
the religious progress of our species. We should be
careful to fulfil that purpose, looking exclusively to

91
the scriptures of our salvation, and coUecting from
them new ardour in the observance of a scriptural
religion. And when I look upon that field of christian
activity, which is open to the exertions of our
church, I persuade myself that I plainly discover in
it an especial designation of the protestant church
of these countries to be the instrument of the gra
cious plan of a beneficent providence. The church
of Rome, however accommodated to all the feelings
of a corrupt humanity, however aided by the energy
of a devoted hierarchy, has failed to bring within
its pale the ancient churches of Greece and of the
east. To us the way is open through the scriptures,
which in them have never been proscribed. In the
east too our government has at length been roused
from its unworthy indifference to the religious inter
est of its own people, and its still more unworthy
concurrence in the idolatrous practices of the sub
ject natives. Throughout all the dependencies of
this widely extended empire a beginning has been
made of an ecclesiastical establishment, connecting
them with ourselves in a community of religious
observances. Even China, so long separated from
European intercourse, so long held as it were in
reserve for the more extended relations of mankind,
has at length reached a crisis, which cannot fail to
terminate in opening to us new facilities even of reli
gious communication with all her numerous millions.
And, to crown all, a measure is at this very time

92
in its progress through our legislature, for more effec
tually extending our episcopal consecration through
independent countries, wherever congregations may
be found, desirous of placing themselves under its
superintendence. These appear to me to have been
the grand objects, for which the church of this great
empire was separated from the corruptions of Rome
at the reformation ; and we should gird ourselves
in christian zeal and holy union for the fulfilment of
this our christian warfare, rejecting the things
which are behind, and looking forward to those
which are before.
Doctor Wiseman has^ very naturally, and with
much ability, availed himself of the present dis
sension of our church, to expatiate on the blessings
of christian union, as the panacea for all our trou
bles religious and pohtical, indicating at the same
time an ecclesiastical unity with Rome, as the means
by which alone this religious unity is to be obtained.
Most heartily do I concur with him in his descrip
tion of the blessings to be derived from a truly
christian union. For what is this but the accom
plishment of the solemn prayer, in which our
Saviour recommended to the protection of the
Father the church to be formed by the preaching
of his immediate followers? This indeed would
constitute a heaven upon earth, so far as might be

9 Letter on Catholic Unity to the Earl of Shrewsbury.
Lond. 1841.

93
compatible with the necessary evils and imper
fections of our mortal condition. But how is this
most desirable consummation to be attained ? Doc
tor Wiseman says, by effecting an ecclesiastical
union with the Roman see. Nor for this purpose
does he present any hope of an amendment of that
church, by which it might be rendered less objection
able in our eyes. The curse of arrogated infaUibihty
is upon her, and amendment, he well knows, is
impracticable. It is with the church of Rome, as
she now is, that we are invited to enter into ecclesi
astical unity. This is to be the remedy of every
grievance, because it is to be esteemed the sure and
only means of attaining to christian perfection.
Let the proposal be tried by the unerring test
of historical experience. What is the testimony of
France ? There the sovereigns were distinguished
as the eldest sons of the church ; there the first
movements of religious separation were suppressed
by the institution of the inquisition and by the pro
hibition of the Bible ; and there the military vio
lences of an arbitrary government suppressed, or re
duced to inactivity, the last remnant of an abortive
reformation of the church. What was the final
issue of this strenuous adherence to ecclesiastical
unity ? The reason of the people, cut off from a
purer instruction by the combined authorities of the
church and of the state, rose in its blindness against
the powers by which it was so oppressed, and in
volved all in the common ruin of an infidel revo
lution.

94
But it may be urged, and with truth, that the
unity had not in this case been as complete and
intimate as might be desired. The papacy, in its
extreme exertions to disorganise the German empire,
its immediate and most formidable adversary, was
compelled to enter into some compromise with
France, and thus to make those concessions, which
were denominated the liberties of the Gallican
church. To form a just judgment on the question
we should seek for a case, in which the unity was
entire and perfect. Look then to Spain, and judge
of this sovereign remedy, as it operated where it was
free from the interference of any counteracting
influence. In that country a war waged against infidels
during seven centuries, had so attached the people
to the church of Rome, that in the immediate
struggle of the reformation it became, under the
emperor Charles V., the wilhng supporter of the
papacy, and under his son Philip II. maintained
against our Elizabeth the contest, in which its sta
bility was finally secured ; there too, the inquisition
was established with a severity, from which even
Italy recoiled, and dared to give to the solemn mur
der of all who ventured to withdraw themselves,
even in secret, from the corruptions of the church,
the impious appellation of an act of faith. There
no compromise of expediency enfeebled the domi
nion of papacy. The iron sway of its supremacy pene
trated to the souls of men. Reason could not there
raise itself against the church even in the form of a

95
false philosophy, for reason itself was subdued to her
power. The ecclesiastical unity with Rome was
entire and complete. What was the issue ? The
spirit and character of the nation withered under
its influence. It sunk almost immediately after the
reign of the latter sovereign into an imbecility, in
which it scarcely maintained a political existence.
It was long afterwards compared by Burke to a
whale stranded on the sea-shore of Europe, because
foreign to all its interests, and incapable of exertion ;
and since by British arms it had been rescued from
the thraldom of a fierce and mighty invader, it has
exhibited to the world, during twenty-six years, the
melancholy spectacle of a nation striving without
success to reconstitute its government, because it
scarcely retains within itself the first elements of
social combination.
If yet more proof be required of the influence
of ecclesiastical unity with Rome, turn to Italy, the
country of its presence and immediate dominion.
There by the fall of Florence, that spirit of liberty,
which might have created obstruction, was sup
pressed amidst the earher struggles of the German
reformation ; and the bloody rigours of the inquisi
tion extinguished the spirit of religious reformation,
wherever it had arisen out of the freedom of in
quiry transmitted from the philosophy of a preced
ing age. Has then religious unity displayed in
that once favoured country those blessed fruits, on
which Dr. Wiseman dwells with so much compla-

96
cency ? The papacy sits enthroned amidst the moral
desolation of the peninsula, as Rome is surrounded
by the sterility of its own campagna. Even Chester
field, lax as was his code of morals for the educa
tion of his son, forbade him to visit Italy, lest he
should be corrupted.
Turn now to England, the subject of the christ
ian compassion and charitable interference of doc
tor Wiseman. Is the blighting influence of her
separation from ecclesiastical unity discoverable in
the general neglect of the obligations of social exist
ence? In this particular, whatever may be the
failings of individuals, the nation may well chal
lenge a comparison with those of the romish com
munion, corrupted as they are by the contaminating
inquiries of the confessional, by the convenient
system of penitential performances, and by the
authoritative and unquestioned absolution of the
priest. Is it found in the general relaxation of the
bonds of political society ? She has had, and still
has, her socialists and chartists, but her people have
by their own returning good sense recovered from
a crisis of change, which elsewhere would have
issued in a subversion of the government, and in
volved all ranks in one disastrous confusion. And
where can the state be pointed out, which has put
forth such energies, with means so inconsiderable, and
has so spread them over the earth, not in the wild
spirit of an all-grasping ambition, but for the diffu
sion of commerce and the maintenance of protection ?

97
What then is there in the circumstances of the
English people, which has so strongly excited a
compassionate interest in the mind of doctor Wise
man ? Conflicting interests and disunion are, he
tells us, the bane of our national happiness, and the
sole remedy is ecclesiastical unity with Rome. But
the unceasing struggle of conflicting interests is the
very principle of that unexampled energy, which
has raised to so high an eminence the compara
tively small population of two islands otherwise in
considerable. Out of this struggle has arisen the
pecuhar constitution of our yet unrivalled gov
ernment; and even our church perhaps maintains
itself in its scriptural truth and purity, because in
it also contending parties are mutuaUy checked and
counteracted. Nor am I disposed to deplore with
him the ecclesiastical isolation, which he deems a
calamity so distressing. Our church is isolated ;
but it is the isolation of the beacon -light, which
sends its saving radiance over a benighted world, a
light not kindled by the device of man, but sent
down from heaven for his guidance, which will I
trust dispel ere long the darkness of the romish
superstition, and shine more and more unto the per
fect day. ' Come out from among them, and be ye
separate, saith the Lord.' We have obeyed the
mandate. In conclusion, permit me to express the gratifi
cation which I have felt in perceiving, as it seems
to me, a considerable approximation of your own

98
particular opinions to those, which I conceive to
contain the genuine principles of our common
church. You no longer rest your persuasion of the
authoritative dictation of the church upon a mis
conceived interpretation of the divine promise of
assistance, to be given to the preaching of its sound
and pious ministers, though you still maintain the
actual inerrancy of the councils, which you distin
guish as oecumenical. You, I am aware, disclaim,
in every the most mitigated form, the invocation of
saints, which has paganised the church, though in
a chivalrous spirit of protection you have pleaded
for your friend every topic of palliation. Though
you have in your vindication said much of purga
tory, you appear to have avoided aU mention of
prayers for the dead, which however have been
introduced' and maintained in the obnoxious tract.
You have assured nie explicitly, that you are not
unfriendly to the reformation, though that friend,
whom you have so zealously vindicated, has pro
fessed to regard it as an unfortunate schism, dis
turbing the unity, and paralysing the efficacy of the
church of Christ. Lastly, you have spoken of the
council of Trent as a synod, the decrees of which
the church of Rome should begin with rescinding,
in preparation for a legitimate reunion with our
church of the reformation, though your friend had
laboured to prove, that those decrees are such as we
1 Tract 90, p. 26.

99
might consistently acknowledge, and thus be again
united to the Roman see.
I can well understand how powerfully you may
have been influenced by an anxiety for some trans
cendental expression of pious humiliation, some
deep prostration of every sentiment connected with
self, beyond what could be found in the general
worship of our church. In this anxiety you have
sought to ascribe an authority to the external
church, which the scripture has not given ; and
you have thus set up as your standard of religious
doctrine the church of the fourth century, instead of
the recorded revelation of God. You have however
seen occasion to withdraw yourself from many of the
erroneous consequences, which others have fairly
enough deduced from the same original. Why will
you continue to suffer human authority to be inter
posed between yourself and the oracles of truth,
so that you will not permit yourself to contemplate
the truth, except as it has been transmitted to
you through the darkened medium of human inter
pretation ?
For myself, I have engaged in this controversy
chiefly that I might protect against the influence of
the new opinions that part of the united church, of
which I am a member, conceiving that these could
not be encountered with effect, except in the univer
sity, in which they had their origin, and from which
they were propagated through the church. Perhaps
too in the deep providence of God it may be

100
designed, that the protestant clergy of Ireland,
severely exercised as they have been, and stiU are
exercised, in a domestic struggle, should yet act
beneficially on the character and spirit of their
brethren in England. Great indeed has been our
remissness, and many are the deficiencies, with
which we are justly chargeable. But we have
undergone, and many of us are still undergoing, a
severe probation, to which our brethren of England
have not been exposed. We indeed, hke them,
have our division between the advocates of high-
church and of low-church opinions, a division which
perhaps, in the infirmity of our nature, may always
in some degree subsist ; but we have been acting in
the presence, and under the hostility, of our common
adversaries, and I apprehend that in these circum
stances our division is less decided, and that we may
more easily be drawn towards that unity of faith
and practice, which befits our christian ministry.
I have had like others my views of worldly
advancement, and have felt their disappointment ;
but I can truly say that I have learned to acquiesce
in that disappointment with gratification and even
thankfulness, since I found that it had eventually
placed me in a judicial position, sufficient for afford
ing me an opportunity of reducing to order the over-
ranging zeal of the Irish clergy, by convincing them
of the necessity of abandoning the intrusive insub
ordination of their home-mission, and afterwards of
protecting their congregations by a sounder interpret-

101
ation of the law of marriage, especially in the north-
em districts, against the intermeddling of the minis
ters of protestant dissenters by irregular marriages. I
hope that I should now esteem it beyond any worldly
advantage, if in this the concluding hour of my pro
tracted day, by maintaining to the best of my ability
that middle position between extreme parties, which
I conceive to belong to a church truly scriptural, I
should be in any degree instrumental in bringing
our clergy to one common acknowledgment of its
genuine principles, rejecting on the one hand all
over-wrought notions of ecclesiastical authority, and
on the other an unworthy disparagement of the
scriptural ordinances of our holy religion. This is
what I have endeavoured to do for the entire church.
If I should unhappily fail to succeed to the whole
extent of my undertaking, I would however carry
with me to the grave the consoling reflection, that I
have withstood, to the utmost of whatever power
God had given me, and I hope with not a little
success, the introduction of the new extravagances
of religion among the clergy of my own country.
Believe me, dear Sir,
With sincere regard.
Very faithfully yours,
GEORGE MILLER.
Armagh, 21rf September, 1841.

102
Of the disposition to substitute human for divine au
thority we find a remarkable example in a recent tract
by doctor Wiseman, the head of the church of Rome
in England. In his Remarks on a Letter from the Rev.
William Palmer, p. 40, he has thus quoted Justin Martyr.
' St. Justin Martyr, in his apology for the Christians,
makes no scruple of thus addressing the emperor Anto
ninus Pius: "Him (God) and his Son, who came from
him, and taught us these things, and the army of good
angels, who follow and resemble him, and the Spirit of
prophecy, we venerate and adore. — Apol. i. 6."' In this
citation, in which he' has, in direct contradiction to the
written word, Col. ii. 18, even intermixed angels with
the persons of the sacred Trinity as objects of adoration,
he has however not perceived, or not chosen to remark,
that the original words are perfectly ambiguous in gram
matical construction, and that a very different interpret
ation, not exposed to any scriptural objection, is equally
admissible. The other construction, furnished by Grabe,
makes the army of good angels depend, together with us,
on the preceding verb taught, not on those which follow,
venerate and adore. And this other construction Grabe
has justified from the following passage of Irenaeus, ii. 55,
p. 185. " Semper coexistens filius patri olim et ah
initio semper revelat patrem et angelis et archangelis et
virtutibus, et omnibus quibus vult revelare Deus." See
Justin M. Thirlbii, p. 11, Lond. 1722. It is to be re
marked that, if the doctor insists upon a construction
opposed to St. Paul, he condemns his own authority
Justin M.

LONDON:
PRINTBD HY MOVES AND BARCLAY, CASTLE STREET, LRrcESTER SftXTARK

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 8636

\

a