Wewma^n

i/^

A LETTER

RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
RICHAED,
LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,
ON OCCASION OF No. 90,
IN THE SERIES CALLED
THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

BY J. H. NE¥MA1, B. D.
VICAK OF ST. MARY THE VIRGIn's, OXFORD.

OXFORD,
JOHN HENRY PARKER :
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON.
MDCCCXLI.

oxford: printed by i. shrimpton.

A LETTER,

My dear Lord,
It may seem strange that, on receipt of a
message from your Lordship, I should proceed at
once, instead of silently obeying it, to put on paper
some remarks of my own on the subject of it ; yet,
as you kindly permit me to take such a course, with
the expectation that I may thereby succeed in ex
plaining to yourself and others my own feelings and
intentions in the occurrence which has given rise to
your Lordship's interference, t trust to your Lord
ship's indulgence to pardon me any discursiveness
in my style of writing, or appearance of familiarity,
or prominent introduction of myself, which may be
incidental to the attempt.
Your Lordship's message is as follows : That your
Lordship considers that the Tract No. 90. in the
Series called the Tracts for the Times, is "objection
able, and may tend to disturb the peace and tran
quillity of the Church," and that it is your Lord
ship's " advice that the Tracts for the Times should
be discontinued."
Your Lordship has, I trust, long known quite
enough of my feelings towards any such expression
of your Lordship's wishes, to be sure I should at

once obey it, though it were ever so painful to me,
or contrary to the course I should have taken if left
to myself. And I do most readily and cheerfully
obey you in this instance; and at the same time
express my great sorrow that any writing of mine
should be judged objectionable by your Lordship,
and of a disturbing tendency, and my hope that' in
what I write in future I shall be more successful in
approving myself to your Lordship,
I have reminded your Lordship of my willingness
on a former occasion to submit myself to any wishes
of your Lordship, had you thought it advisable at
that time to signify them. In your Lordship's
Charge in 1838, an allusion was made to the Tracts
for the Times. Some opponents of the Tracts said
that your Lordship treated them with undue indul
gence. I will not imply that your Lordship can
act otherwise than indulgently to any one, but cer
tainly I did feel at the time, that in the midst of the
kindness you shewed to me personally, you were
exercising an anxious vigilance over my publication,
which reminded me of my responsibility to your Lord
ship. I wrote to the Archdeacon on the subject, sub
mitting the Tracts entirely to your Lordship's dis
posal. What I thought about your Charge will appear
from the words I then used to him. I said, " A Bishop's
lightest word ex Cathedra, is heavy. His judgment
on a book cannot be light. It is a rare occurrence."
And I offered to withdraw any of the Tracts over
which I had control, if I were informed which were
those to which your Lordship had objections. I after
wards wrote to your Lordship to this effect : that

" I trusted I might say sincerely, that I should feel
a more lively pleasure in knowing that I was sub
mitting myself to your Lordship's expressed judg
ment in a matter of that kind, than I could have
even in the widest circulation of the volumes in
question." Your Lordship did not think it necessary
to proceed to such a measure, but I felt, and always
have felt, that, if ever you determined on it, I was
bound to obey.
Accordingly on the late occasion, directly I heard
that you had expressed an unfavourable opinion of
Tract 90, I again placed myself at your disposal,
and now readily submit to the course on which your
Lordship has finally decided in consequence of it. I
am quite sure that in so doing I am not only ful
filling a duty I owe to your Lordship, but consulting
for the well-being of the Church, and benefiting
myself. And now, in proceeding to make some explana
tions in addition, which your Lordship desires of me,
I hope I shall not say a word which will seem like
introducing discussion before your Lordship. It
would ill become me to be stating private views of
my own, and defending them, on an occasion like
this. If I allude to what has been maintained in
the Tracts, it will not be at all by way of maintain
ing it in these pages, but in illustration of the
impressions and the drift with which they have been
written. I need scarcely say they are thought
by many to betray a leaning towards Roman Catho
lic error, and a deficient appreciation of our own
truth ; and your Lordship wishes me to shew that

these apprehensions have no foundation in fact. This
I propose to do, and that by extracts from what I
have before now written on the subject, which, while
they can be open to no suspicion of having been
provided to serve ' an occasion, will, by being now
cited, be made a second time my own.
2. First, however, I hope to be allowed to make
one or two remarks by way of explaining some
peculiarities in the Tracts which at first sight might
appear, if not to tend toward Romanism, at least to
alienate their readers from that favoured com
munion in which God's good providence has placed
us. I know it is a prevalent idea, and entertained by
persons of such consideration that it cannot be
lightly treated, that many of the Tracts are the
writing of persons who either are ignorant of what
goes on in the world, and are gratifying their love
of antiquarian research or of intellectual exercise at
any risk ; or, who are culpably reckless of con
sequences, or even find a satisfaction in the sensation
or disturbance which may result from such novelties
or paradoxes as they may find themselves in a con
dition to put forward. It is thought, that the writers
in question often have had no aim at all in what
they have hazarded, that they did not mean what
they said, that they did not know the strength of
their own words, and that they were putting forth
the first crude notions which came into their minds ;
or that they were pursuing principles to their
consequences as a sort of pastime, and de
veloping their own theories in grave practical mat-

ters, in which no one should move without a deep
sense of responsibility. In fact, that whatever
incidental or intrinsic excellence there may be in the
Tracts, and whatever direct or indirect benefits have
attended them, there is much in them which is
nothing more or less than mischievous, and convicts
its authors of a wanton inconsiderateness towards
the feelings of others.
I am very far from saying that there is any one
evil temper or motive which may not have its share
in any thing that I write myself; and it does not
become me to deny the charge as far as it is brought
against me, though I am not conscious of its justice.
But still I would direct attention to this circum
stance, that what persons who are not in the position
of the writers of the Tracts set down to wantonness,
may have its definite objects, though those objects
be not manifest to those who are in other positions.
I am neither maintaining that those objects are
real, or important, or defensible, or pursued wisely or
seasonably ; but if they exist in the mind of the
writers, I trust they will serve so far as to relieve
them from the odious charge of scattering firebrands
about without caring for or apprehending con
sequences. May I then, without (as I have said) at all assuming
the soundness of the doctrines to be mentioned, or
by mentioning them seeking indirectly a sanction
for them from your Lordship, be allowed to allude
to one or two Tracts, merely in illustration of what
I have said ?
One of the latest Tracts is written upon " The

Mysticism attributed to the Early Fathers of the
Church." It discusses the subject of the mystical
interpretation of nature and Scripture with a
learning and seriousness which no one will wish to
deny ; but the question arises, and has actually been
asked, why discuss it at all? why startle and
unsettle the Christian of this age by modes of
thought which are now unusual and strange ; and
which being thus fixed upon the Fathers, serve
but to burden with an additional unpopularity an
a:uthority which the Church of England has ever
revered, ever used in due measure to support her
own claims upon the attachment of her children ?
But the state of the case has been this. For some
years the argument in favour of our Church drawn
from Antiquity has been met by the assertion, that
that same Antiquity held also other opinions which
no one now would think of maintaining ; that if it
were mistaken in one set of opinions, it might be in
the other; that its mistakes were of a nature
which argued feebleness of intellect, or unsoundness
of judgment, or want of logical acumen in those who
held thejTi, which would avail against its authority
in the instance in which it was used, as well as in
that in which it was passed over. Moreover it was
said that those who used it in defence of the Church
knew this well, but were not honest enough to con
fess it. They were challenged to confess or deny
the charges thus brought against the Fathers ; and,
since to deny the fact was supposed impossible,
they were bid to draw out a case, such, as either to
admit of a defence of the fact on grounds of reason.

or of its surrender without surrendering the
authority of the Fathers altogether.
Such challenges, and they have not been unfrequent,
afford, I conceive, a sufficient reason for any one
who considers that the Church of England derives
essential assistance from Christian antiquity in her
interpretation of Scripture, to enter upon the ex
amination of the particular objections by which cer
tain authors have assailed its authority. Yet it is
plain that by those who had not heard of their
writings, such an examination would be considered
a wanton mooting of points which' no one had called
in question.
Again, much animadversion has been expressed,
and in quarters which claim the highest deference,
upon the Tract upon " Reserve in Communicating
Religious Knowledge." Yet I do not think it will be
called a wanton' exercise of ingenuity. Not only
does it bear marks, which no reader can mistake, of
deep earnestness, but it in fact originated in a con
viction in the mind of the writer of certain actual
evils at present resulting from the defective appre
ciation with which the mass of even religious men
regard the mysteries and privileges of the Gospel.
And another Tract, which has experienced a
great deal of censure, is that which is made up of
Selections from the Roman Breviary. I will not here
take upon me to say a word in its defence, except
to rescue its author from the charge of wantonness.
He had observed what a very powerful source of
attraction the Church of Rome possessed in her
devotional Services, and he wished, judiciously or

10
not, to remove it by claiming it for ourselves. He
was desirous of shewing, that such Devotions would
be but a continuation in private of those public
Services which we use in Church ; and that they
might be used by individuals with a sort of fitness,
(removing such portions as were against the Angli
can creed or practice,) because they were a aontinua-
tion. He said, in the opening of the Tract,
" It will be attempted to wrest a weapon out of our
adversaries' hands ; who have in this, as in many other
instances, appropriated to themselves a treasure which was
ours as much as theirs. ... It may suggest  character and
matter for our private devotions, over and above what our
Reformers have thought fit to adopt into our pubHc Ser
vices ; a use of it which wiH be but carrying out and com
pleting what they have begun." Tract 75.
I repeat it, that I have no intention here of
defending the proceeding except from the charge of
wantonness ; and with that view I would add, that
though there is a difference not to be mistaken
between a book published by authority and an
anonymous Tract, yet, as far as its object is con
cerned, it is not very unlike the publication of
Bishop Cosin's Hours of Prayer, of which I hope
I may be permitted to remind your Lordship in the
words of the recent Editor.
" At the first coming of the Queen Henrietta into Eng
land, she and her French ladies, it appears, were equally sur
prised and dissatisfied at the disregard of the hours of
Prayer, and the want of Breviaries. Their remarks, and per
haps the strength of their arguments, and the beauty of many
of their books, induced the Protestant ladies of the house-

11
hold, to apply to King Charles. The King consulted Bishop
White as to the best plan of supplying them with Forms of
Prayer, collected out of already approved Forms. The
Bishop assured him of the ease and the great necessity of
such a work, and chose Cosin as the fittest person to frame
the Manual. He at once undertook it, and in three months
finished it and brought it to the King. The Bishop of
London (Mountain), who was commanded to read it over
and make his report, is said to have liked it so well, that
instead of employing a- Chaplain as was usual, he gave it an
"imprimatur" under his own hand. There were at first only
two hundred copies printed. There was, as Evelyn tells
us, nothing of Cosin's own composure, nor any name
set as author to it, but those necessary prefaces, &c.,
touching the times and seasons of Prayer, aU the rest being
entirely translated and collected out of an Office published
by authority of Queen Elizabeth and out of our own Liturgy.
' This,' adds Evelyn, ' I rather mention to justify that in
dustrious and pious Dean, who had exceedingly suffered by
it, as if he had done it of his own head to introduce Popery,
firom which no man was more averse, and who was one
who, in this time of temptation and apostasy, held and con
firmed many to our Church.'
" The book soon grew into esteem, and justified the
judgment which had been passed upon it, so that many who
were at first startled at the title, ' found in the body of it so
much piety, such regular forms of divine worship, such
necessary consolations in special exigencies, that they
reserved it by them as a jewel of great price and value.'
' Not one book,' it was said, ' was in more esteem with the
Church of England, next to the Office of the Liturgy
itself It appears, in fact, to have become exceedingly
popular, and ran through ten editions, the last of which was
published in 1719." Preface to Cosines Devotions, p. xi. — xiii.
3. There has been another, and more serious pecu-

12
liarity in the line of discussion adopted in the Tracts,
which, whatever its merits or demerits, has led to
their being charged, I earnestly hope groundlessly,
with wanton innovation on things established. I mean
the circumstance that they have attempted to defend
our Ecclesiastical system upon almost first principles.
The immediate argument for acquiescing in what is
established is that it is established : but when what
has been established is in course of alteration, (and
this evil was partly realized, and feared still more,
eight years since,) the argument ceases, and then one
is driven to considerations which are less safe because
less investigated, which it is impossible at once to sur
vey in all their bearings, or to have confidence in, that
they will not do a disservice to the cause we are de
fending as well as a benefit. It seemed safe at the
period in question, when the immediate and usual
arguments failed, to recur to those which were used
by our divines in the seventeenth century, and by the
most esteemed in the century which followed, and
down to this day. But every existing establishment,
whatever be its nature, is a fact, a thing sui simile,
which cannot be resolved into any one principle,
nor can be defended and built up upon one idea.
Its position is the result of a long history, which
has moulded it, and stationed it, in the form and
place which characterize it. It has- grown into
what it is by the influence of a number of concur
rent causes in time past, and in consequence no one
first principle can be urged in its defence, but what
in some other respect or measvire may also possibly
be urged against it. This applies, I conceive, as to

13
all social institutions, so to the case of our religious
establishment and system at this day. It is a
matter of extreme difficulty and delicacy, to say the
least, so to defend them in an argumentative dis
cussion in one respect as not to tend to unsettle
them in another. And all but minds of the greatest
powers, or even genius, will find nothing left to them,
if they do attempt it, but to strike a balance between
gain and loss, and to attempt to do the most good
on the whole.
I hope I shall not be misunderstood as if, in thus
speaking, I meant to justify to your Lordship the
consequences which have followed under these cir
cumstances from the attempts of the Tracts for
the Times in defence of the Church. I am but
shewing that, even though evil has resulted, it need
not have been wanton evil. Nor am I at all in- ,
sinuating, that our established system is necessarily
in fault, because it was exposed to this inconvenience ;
rather, as I have said, the cause lies in the nature
of things, abstract principles being no sufficient
measure of matters of fact. There cannot be a
clearer proof of this than will be found -in a
reference to that antagonist system, which it has
been the object of the Tracts in so great a measure
to oppose. I do not put the case of Rome and
her defenders as parallel to that between the Tracts
and our own Church, of course ; it would be pre
posterous to do so ; but it may avail as an a fortiori
argument, considering how systematic and complete
the Roman system is, and what transcendent ability
is universally allowed to Bossuet. Yet even Bossuet,

14
so great a controversialist, could not defend
Romanism, so perfect a system, without doing a
harm while he did a service. At least we may
fairly conclude, that what the authorities of the
Church of Rome thought to be a disservice to it,
really was so at the time, though in the event it
might prove a benefit. Dr. Maclaine in a note on
his translation of Mosheim, observes of Bossuet's
Exposition : " It is remarkable that nine years
passed before this book could obtain the Pope's
approbation. Clement X. refused it positively.
Nay, several Roman Catholic Priests were rigorously
treated and severely persecuted for preaching the
doctrine contained in the Exposition of Bossuet,
which was moreover formally condemned by the
University of Louvain in the year 1685, and
declared to be scandalous and pernicious. The
Sorbonne also disavowed the doctrine contained in
that book." (Vol, v. p. 126.)
I am not presuming to draw an illustration from
the history of Bossuet, except as regards his in
tention and its result. No one can accuse him of
Wantonness. What happened to him in spite of
great abilities, may happen to others in defect of
them. Several obvious illustrations may be given from
the controversies to which the Tracts for the Times
have given rise. Much attention, for instance, has
of late years been paid by learned men to the
question of the origin of our public Services. The
Tracts have made use of the results of their, inves
tigations with a view of exalting our ideas of the

15
sacredness of our Eucharistical Rite ; but in propor
tion as they have discerned what may be truly called
an awful light resting on its component parts, they
have discovered also that those parts have expe
rienced some change in their disposition and cir
cumstances by the hand of time ; and accordingly,
the higher appreciation the Traces tend to create of
the substance of the Service iriihe minds of their
readers, the greater regret do'they incidentally in
fuse, were they ever so unwilling to do so, that any
external causes should have interfered with the
shape in which we at this day receive it. The
effect then has been to raise our reverence towards
the whole indefinitely, yet to fling, around that
reverence somewhat of a melancholy feeling. I am
not defending either process or result, but shewing
how good and evil have gone together.
Again, as regards the doctrine of Purgatory, that
the present Roman doctrine was not Catholically
received in the first ages, is as clear as any fact of
history. But there is an argument which Roman
controversialists use in its favour, founded on a fact
of very early antiquity, the practice of praying for
the faithful departed. To meet this objection, the
Tracts gave a reprint of Archbishop Ussher's chapter
on the subject in his Answer to a Jesuit, in which he
shews that the objects^ of those prayers were very
different from those which the Roman doctrine of
Purgatory requires. Thus the argument in ques
tion is effectually overthrown, but at the expense
of incidentally bringing to light a primitive practice
confessedly uncongenial to our present views of reli-

16
gion. In other words, if the Churchman is by the
result of the discussion confirmed against Romanism,
he has been incidentally, and for the moment, (I
cannot deny it,) unsettled in some of his existing
opinions. Or again, the charge brought against the
defenders of Baptismal Regeneration has commonly
been, that such a doctrine explained away regenera
tion, and made a mere name and a shadow of that gift
of which Scripture speaks so awfully. We answer,
*' So far from it, every one is in a worse condition
for being regenerate, if he is not in a better. If he
resist the grace he has received, it is a burden to
him, not a blessing. He cannot take it for granted,
that all is right with his soul, and think no more
about it ; for the gift involves responsibilities as
well as privileges." And thus, while engaged in
maintaining the truth, that all Christians are in a
state of grace, we incidently elicit the further truth,
that sin after Baptism is a heavier matter than sin
before it ; or, in maintaining the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration, we introduce the doctrine of repent
ance. We fortify our brethren in one direction ; and
may be charged with unsettling them in another.
Or again, in defending su.ch doctrines and prac
tices of the Church as Infant Baptism or the Epis
copal Succession, the Tracts have argued that they
rested on substantially the same basis as the Canon
of Scripture, viz. the testimony of ancient Chris
tendom. But to those who think this basis weak,
the argument becomes a disparagement of the
Canon, not a recommendation of the Creed.

17
My Lord, I have not said a word to imply that
this disturbing and unsettling process is indissolubly
connected with argumentative efforts in defence of
our own system. I only say, that the good naturally
runs into the evil ; _and so, without entering into
the question whether or how they might have been
kept apart in the Tracts, I am accounting for what
looks like wantonness, yet I trust is not.
And perhaps I may be permitted to add, that our
difficulties are much increased in a place like this,
where there are a number of persons of practised
intellects, who with or without unfriendly motives
are ever drawing out the ultimate conclusions in
which our principles result, and forcing us to
affirm or deny what we would fain not consider or
not pronounce upon. I am not complaining of this
as unfair to us at all, but am shewing that we may
have said extreme things, yet not from any wanton
disregard of the feelings and opinions of others.
The appeal is made to reason, and reason has its
own laws, and does not depend on our will to take
the more or less ; and this is not less the case as
regards the result, even though it be false reason
which we follow, and our conclusions be wrong from
our failing to detect the counteracting considera
tions which would avert the principles we hold from
the direction in which we pursue them. And a con
scientious feeling sometimes operates to keep men
from concealing a conclusion which they think they
see involved in their principles, and which others see
not ; and moreover a dread of appearing disingenuous
B

18
to others, who are directing their minds to the same
subjects. An instance has occurred in point quite lately as
regards a subject introduced into Tract 90, which
I am very glad to have an opportunity of mention
ing to your Lordship. I have said in the Postscript
of a Letter which I have lately addressed to Dr. Jelf,
that the " vagueness and deficiency" of some parts of
the Tract, in the conclusions drawn from the
premises stated, arose in great measure from the
author's being "more bent on laying down his
principle than defining its results." In truth I was
very unwilling to commit the view of the Articles
which I was taking, to any precise statement of
the ultimate approaches towards the Roman system
allowed by our own. To say how far a person may
go, is almost to tempt him to go up to the boundary
line. I am far from denying that an evil arose
from the vagueness which ensued, but it arose
mainly from this feeling. Accordingly I left, for
instance, the portion which treated of the Invocation
of Saints without any definite conclusion at all,
after bringing together various passages in illus
tration. However, friends and opponents discovered
that my premises required, what I was very un
willing to state categorically, for various reasons,
that the ora pro nobis was not on my shewing
necessarily included in the invocation of Saints
which the Article condemns. And in my Letter to
Dr. Jelf, I have been obliged to declare this, under
a representation that to pass it over would be con
sidered disingenuous. I avail myself, however, of

19
the opportunity which this Letter to your Lordship
affords me, without any suggestion as your Lordship
knows, from yourself, or from any one else, to state
as plainly as I can, lest my brethren should mistake
me, my great apprehension concerning the use even
-of such modified invocations. Every feeling which
interferes with God's sovereignty in our hearts, is
of an idolatrous nature ; and, as men are tempted
to idolize their rank and substance, or their talent,
or their children, or themselves, so may they easily
be led to substitute the thought of Saints and
Angels for the one supreme idea of their Creator
and Redeemer, which should fill them. It is nothing
to the purpose to urge the example of such men as
St. Bernard in defence of such invocations. The
holier the man, the less likely are they to be
injurious to him; but it is another matter entirely
when ordinary persons do the same. There is much
less of awe and severity in the devotion which rests
upon created excellence as its object, and worldly
minds will gladly have recourse to it, to be saved the
necessity of lifting up their eyes to their Sanctifier
and Judge. And the multitude of men are in
capable of many ideas ; one is enough for them,
and if the image of a Saint is admitted into their
heart, he occupies it, aaid there is no room for
Almighty God. And moreover there is the addi
tional danger of presnmptuousness in addressing
Saints and Angels; by which I mean cases when
men do so from a sort of curiosity, as the heathen
might feel towards strange and exciting rites of
worship, not with a clear conscience and spontane-
b2

20
ously, but rather with certain doubts and mis
givings about its propriety, and a secret feeling that
it does not become them, and a certain forcing of
themselves in consequence.
4. Unless your Lordship had ordered me to
speak my mind on these subjects, I should feel that
in these reflections I was adopting a tone very unlike
that which becomes a private Clergyman addressing
his Diocesan ; but, encouraged by the notion that I
am obeying your wishes, I will proceed in what I
feel it very strange to allow myself in, though I
do so. And, since I have been naturally led into
the subject of Romanism, I will continue it, and
explain the misapprehension which has been en
tertained of my views concerning it,
I do not wonder that persons who happen to fall
upon certain writings of mine, and are unacquainted
with others, and, as is natural, do not understand the
sense in which I use certain words and phrases,
should think that I explain away the differences
between the Roman system and our own, which I
hope I do not. They find in what I have writ
ten, no abuse, at least I trust not, of the individual
Roman Catholic, nor of the Church of Rome, viewed
abstractedly as a Church. I cannot speak against the
Church of Rome, viewed in her formal character, as a
true Church, since she is " built upon the foundation
of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief Corner-stone." Nor can I speak against
her private members, numbers of whom, I trust,
are God's people, in the way to Heaven, and one
with us in heart, though not in profession. But what

21
I have spoken, and do strongly speak against is, that
energetic system and engrossing influence in the
Church by which it acts towards us, and meets our
eyes, like a cloud filling it, to the eclipse of all that
is holy, whether in its ordinances or its members.
This system I have called in what I have written,
Romanism or Popery, and by Romanists or Papists
I mean all its members, so far as they are under the
power of these principles ; and while^, and so far as
this system exists, and it does exist now as fully as
heretofore, I say that we can have no peace with that
Church, however we may secretly love its particular
members. I cannot speak against its private mem
bers ; I should be doing violence to every feeling of
my nature if I did, and your Lordship would not
require it of me. I wish from my heart we and
they were one ;" but we cannot, without a sin, sacri
fice truth to peace ; and, in the words of Archbishop
Laud, " till Rome be other than it is" we must be
estranged from her.
This view which, not inconsistently, I hope, with
our chief divines, I would maintain against the
Roman errors, seems to me to allow at once of zeal
for the truth, and charity towards individuals and
towards the Church of Rome herself It presents her
under a twofold aspect, and while recognizing her
as an appointment of God on the one hand, it leads
us practically to shun her, as beset with heinous and
dangerous influences on the other. It is drawn out
in the following extracts, under which I have
thought it best to set it before your Lordship, rather
than in statements made for the occasion,' for the

22
reason I have given above. I think they will setve
to shew, consistently with those which I made in my
Letter to Dr. Jelf, both the real and practical stand
I would make against Romanism, yet the natural
opening there is for an unfounded suspicion that I
feel more favourably towards it than I do.
" Our controversy with Romanists," I say, " turns more
upon facts than upon first principles ; with Protestant secta
ries it is more about principles than about facts. This general
contrast between the two religions, which I would not seem
to extend beyond what the sober truth warrants, for the sake
of an antithesis, is paralleled in the common remark of our
most learned controversialists, that Romanism holds the
foundation, or is the truth overlaid with corruptions. This is
saying the same thing in other words. They discern in it
the great outlines' of primitive Christianity, but they find
them touched, if nothing worse, touched and tainted by
error, and so made dangerous to the multitude, — dangerous
except to men of spiritual minds, who can undo the evil,
arresting the tendencies of the system by their own purity,
and restoring it to the sweetness and freshness of its original
state. The very force of the word corruption, implies that
this is .the peculiarity of Romanism. All error indeed of
whatever kind, may be called a corruption of truth ; still we
properly app y the term to such kinds of error as are not
denials but perversions, distortions, or excesses of it. Such
is the relation of Romanism towards true Catholicity 
"Tlie same view of Romanism is implied, when we call our
ecclesiastical changes in the sixteenth century a Reforma
tion. A building has not been reformed or repaired, when
it has been pulled down and built up again ; but the word
is used when it has been left substantially what it was
before, only amended or restored in detail. In like manner
we Anglo-Catholics do not profess a different religion from

23
the Romanists, we profess their Faith all but their cor
ruptions. "Again, this same character of Romanism as a perversion,
not a contradiction of Christian Truth, is confessed as often
as members of our Church in controversy with it contend,
as they may rightly do, that it must be judged, not by the
formal decrees of the Council of Trent, as its advocates are
fond of doing, but by its practical working and its existing
state in the countries which profess it. Romanists would
fain confine us in controversy to the consideration of the
bare and acknowledged principles of their Church; we
consider this to be an unfair restriction ; why ? because we
conceive that Romanism is far more faulty in its details
than in its formal principles, and that Councils, to which its
adherents would send us, have more to do with its abstract
system than with its practical working ; that the abstract
system contains, for the most part, tendencies to evil, which
the actual working brings out, thus supplying illustrations
of that evil which is really though latently contained in
principles capable in themselves of an honest interpretation.
Thus for instance, the decree concerning Purgatory might
be charitably made almost to conform to the doctrine of
St Austin, or St. Chrysostom, were it not for the comment
on it afforded by the popular belief as existing in those
countries which hold it, and by the opinions of the Roman
schools." On Romanism, p. 50 — 54.
Again,
" I have been speaking of Romanism, not as an existing
pohtical sect among us, but considered in itself, in its
abstract system, and in a state of quiescence. Viewed
indeed in action, and as realized in its present partisans, it
is but one out of the many denominations which are the
disgrace of our age and country. In temper and conduct
it does but resemble that unruly Protestantism which lies on
our other side, and it submits without reluctance to be

24
allied and to act with it towards the overthrow of a purer
religion .... The reproach of the present Romanists, is
that they are inconsistent ; and it is a reproach which is
popularly felt to be just. They are confessedly unlike the
loyal men who" rallied round the throne of our first
Charles, or who fought, however ill-advisedly, for his exiled
descendants .... I have here considered Romanism in its
abstract professions for two reasons. First, I would wil
lingly believe, that in spite of the violence and rancour of
its public supporters, there are many individuals in its com
munion of gentle, affectionate, and deeply religious minds ;
and such a belief is justified when we find that the necessary
difference between us and them is not one of essential
principle, that it is the difference of superstition, and not of
unbelief, from religion. Next, I have insisted upon it, by
way of shewing what must be the nature of their Reforma
tion, if in God's merciful counsels a Reformation awaits
them. It will be far more a reform of their popular usages
and opinions, and Ecclesiastical policy, or a destruction, of
what is commonly called Popery, than of their abstract
principles and maxims." On Romanism, p. 56, 57.
And again,
"They profess to appeal to primitive Christianity; we
honestly take their ground, as holding it ourselves ; but
when the controversy grows animated, and descends into
details, they suddenly leave it, and desire to finish the
dispute on some other field. In like manner in their
teaching and acting, they begin as if in the name of all the
Fathers at once, but will be found in the sequel to prove,
instruct, and enjoin, simply in their own name. Our differ
ences from them, considered not in theory but in fact, are in
no sense matters of detail and questions of degree. In
truth, there is a tenet in their theology which assumes quite a
new position in relation to the rest, when we pass from the
abstract and quiescent theory to the practical workings of the

25
system. The infalUbility of the existing Church is then
found to be its first principle, whereas, before, it was a
necessary, but a secondary doctrine. Whatever principles
they profess in theory, resembling or coincident with our
own, yet when they come to particulars, when they have to
prove this or that article of their creed, they supersede the
appeal to Scripture and Antiquity by the pretence of the
infallibihty of the Church, thus solving the whole question,
by a summary and final interpretation both of Antiquity and
of Scripture." On Romanism, p. 59, 60.
In the following passage the Anglican and Roman
systems are contrasted with each other.
" Both we and Romanists hold that the Church Catholic is
unerring in its declarations of Faith, or saving doctrine ; but
we differ from each other as to what is the faith, and what
is the Church Catholic. They maintain that faith depends
on the Church, we that the Church is built on the faith.
By Church Catholic, we mean the Church Universal, as
descended from the Apostles; they those branches of it
which are in communion with Rome. They consider the
see of St. Peter, to have a promise of permanence ; we the
Church Catholic and Apostolic. Again, they understand by
the Faith, whatever the Church at any time declares to be
faith ; we what it has actually so declared from the begin
ning. We hold that the Church Catholic will never depart
from those outlines of doctrine, which the Apostles formally
published ; they that she will never depart in any of her acts
from that entire system, written and oral, public and private,
explicit and implicit, which they received and taught; we
that she has a gift of fidelity, -they of discrimination.
"Again, both they and we anathematize those who deny
the Faith; but they extend the condemnation to all who
question any decree of the Roman Church ; we apply it to
those only who deny any article of the original Apostolic
Creed. The creed of Romanism is ever subject to

26
increase ; ours is fixed once for all. We confine our
anathema to the Athanasian Creed; Romanists extend it to
Pope Pius's. They cut themselves off from the rest of
Christendom ; we cut ourselves off from no branch, not
even from themselves. We are at peace with Rome as
regards the essentials of faith; but she tolerates us as httle
as any sect or heresy. We admit her Baptism and her
Orders ; her custom is" [conditionally] " to re-baptize and
re-ordain our members who chance to join her." On
Romanism, p. 259, 260.
And I shew, in one of the Tracts, the unfairness
of detaching the Canons of Trent from the actual
conduct of the Roman Church for any practical
purposes, while things are as they are, as follows : —
" An equally important question remains to be discussed ;
viz. What the sources are, whence we are to gather our
opinions of Popery. Here the Romanists complain of their
opponents, that, instead of referring to the authoritative
documents of their Church, Protestants avail themselves
of any errors or excesses of individuals in it, as if the
Church were responsible for acts and opinions which it
does not enjoin. Thus the legends of relics, superstitions
about images, the cruelty of particular Prelates or Kings,
or the accidental fury of a populace, are unfairly imputed
to the Church itself ... Accordingly they claim to be judged
by their formal documents, especially by the decrees of the
Council of Trent.
"Now here we shall find the truth to lie between the two
contending parties. Candour will oblige us to grant that
the mere acts of individuals should not be imputed to the
body;... yet not so much as they themselves desire. For
though the acts of individuals are not the acts of the
Church, yet they may be the results, and therefore illustra
tions, of its principles. We cannot consent then to confine
ourselves to a mere reference to the text of the Tridentine

27
decrees, as Romanists would have us, apart from the teach
ing of their Doctors, and the practice of the Church, which
are surely the legitimate comment upon them. The case
stands as follows. A certain system of teaching and prac
tice has existed in the Churches of the Roman Communion
for many centuries; this system was discriminated and fixed
in all its outlines at the Council of Trent. It is therefore
not unnatural, or rather it is the procedure we adopt in any
historical research, to take the general opinions and con
duct of the Church in elucidation of their Synodal
decrees; just as we take the tradition of the Church
Catholic and Apostolic as the legitimate interpreter of
Scripture, or of the Apostles' Creed. On the other hand,
it is as natural that these decrees, being necessarily concise
and guarded, should be much less objectionable than the
actual system they represent. It is not wonderful then,
yet it is unreasonable, that Romanists should protest
against our going beyond these decrees in adducing evi
dence of their Church's doctrine, on the ground that
nothing more than an assent to them is requisite for com
munion with her: e. g. the Creed of Pope Pius, which is
fi-amed upon the Tridentine decrees, and is the Roman
Creed of Communion, only says, ' I firmly hold that there is
a Purgatory, and that souls therein detained are aided by
the prayers of the faithful,' nothing being said of its being
a place of punishment, nothing, or all but nothing, which
does not admit of being explained of merely an interme
diate state.
" Now supposing we found ourselves in the Roman Com
munion, of course it would be a great relief to find that we
were not bound to believe more than this vague statement,
nor should we (I conceive) on account of the received in
terpretation about Purgatory superadded to it, be obliged
to leave our Church. But it is another matter entirely,
whether we who are external to that Church, are not bound
to consider it as orje whole system, written and unwritten.

28
defined indeed and adjusted by general statements, but not
limited to them or coincident with them.
" The conduct of the Catholics during the troubles of
Arianism, affords us a parallel case and a direction in this
question. The Arian Creeds were often quite unexception
able, differing from the orthodox only in this, that they
omitted the celebrated word Homoiision, and in consequence
did not obviate the possibility of that perverse explanation
of them, which in fact their framers adopted. Why then
did the Catholics refuse to subscribe them? Why did
they rather submit to banishment from one end of the
Roman world to the other ? Why did they become Con
fessors and Martyrs? The answer is ready. They in
terpreted the language of the creeds by the professed
opinions of their framers. They would not allow error to
be introduced into the Church by an artifice. On the other
hand, when at Ariminum they were seduced into a sub
scription of one of these creeds, though unobjectionable in
its wording, their opponents instantly triumphed, and
circulated the news that the Catholic world had come over
to their opinion. It may be added that, in consequence,
ever since that era, phrases have been banished from the
language of theology which heretofore had been innocently
used by orthodox teachers.
" Apply this to the case of Romanism. We are not indeed
allowed to take at random the accidental doctrine or
practice of this or that age, as an explanation of the decrees
of the Latin Church ; but when we see clearly that certain
of these decrees have a natural tendency to produce certain
evils, when we see those evils actually existing far and wide
in that Church, in different nations and ages, existing
especially where the system is allowed to act most freely,
and only absent where external checks are present,
sanctioned moreover by its celebrated teachers and ex
positors, and advocated by its controversialists with the
tacit consent of the whole body, under such circumstances

29
surely it is not unfair to consider our case parallel to that
of the Catholics during the ascendancy of Arianism.
Surely it is not unfair in such a case to interpret the formal
document of beUef by the realized form of it in the Church,
and to apprehend that, did we express our assent to the
creed of Pope Pius, we should find ourselves bound hand
and foot, as the Fathers at Ariminum, to the corruptions of
those who profess it.
"To take the instances of the Adoration of Images and the
Invocation of Saints. The Tridentine Decree declares that
it is good and useful suppliantly to invoke the Saints, and
that the Images of Christ, and the Blessed Virgin, and the
other Saints should ' receive due honour and veneration ;'
words, which themselves go to the very verge of what could
be received by the cautious Christian, though possibly
admitting of a honest interpretation. Now we know in
matter of fact that in various parts of the Roman Church,
a worship approaching to idolatrous is actually paid to
Saints and Images, in countries very different from each
other, as for instance, Italy and the Netherlands, and has
been countenanced by eminent men and doctors, and that
without any serious or successful protest from any quarter:
further that, though there may be countries where no
scandal of the kind exists, yet these are such as have, in
their neighbourhood to Protestantism, a practical restraint
upon the natural tendency of their system.
¦" Moreover, the silence which has been observed, age after
^e, by the Roman Church, as regards these excesses, is a
point deserving of serious attention ; — for two reasons : first,
because of the very solemn warnings pronounced by our
Lord and His Apostle, against those who introduce scandals
into the Church, warnings which seem almost prophetic of
such as exist in the Latin branches of it. Next it must be
considered that the Roman Church has had the power to
denounce and extirpate them. Not to mention its use of
its Apostolical powers in other matters, it has had the civil

30
power at its command, as it has shewn in the case of errors
which less called for its interference; all of which shews it
has not felt sensitively on the subject of this particular evil."
— Tracts for the Times, No. 71. p. 14—18.
And in the following passage, written in the
course of last year, the contrariety between the'
Primitive and Roman systems is pointed out.
" Allowing the Church Catholic ever so much power over
the faith, allowing that it may add what it will, so that it
does not contradict what has been determined in former
times, yet let us come to the plain question. Does the
Church, according to Romanists, know more now than the
Apostles knew ? Their theory seems to be that the whole
faith was present in the minds of the Apostles, nay, of all
Saints at all times, but in great measure as a matter of mere
temper, feeling, and unconscious opinion, 'or implicitly, not
in the way of exact statements and in an intellectual form.
All men certainly hold a number of truths and act on them,
without knowing it; when a question is asked about them,
then they are obliged to reflect what their opinion has ever
been, and they bring before themselves and assent to doc
trines which before were but latent within them. We have
all heard of men changing to so-called Unitarianism, and
confessing on a review of themselves that they had been
Unitarians all along without knowing it, till some accident
tore the bandage off their eyes. In like manner the
Roman Catholics, we suppose, would maintain that the
Apostles were implicit Tridentines ; that the Church held
in the first age what she holds now ; only that heresy, by
raising questions, has led to her throwing her faith into
dogmatic shape, and has served to precipitate truths which
before were held in solution. Now this is all very well in
the abstract, but let us return to the point, as to what the
Apostles held and did, and what they did not. Does the
Romanist mean, for instance, to tell us that St. Paul the

51
Apostle, when he was in perils of robbers or perils by the
sea, offered up his addresses to St. Mary, and vowed some
memorial to her, if she would be pleased 'deprecari pro illo
Filium Dei?' Does he mean to say that the same Apostle,
during that period of his life when as yet he was not
' perfect' or had ' attained,' was accustomed to pray that
the merits of St John the Baptist should be imputed to
him ? Did he or did he not hold that St. Peter could give
indulgences to shorten the prospective sufferings of the
Corinthians in purgatory ? We do not deny that St. Paul
certainly does bring out his thoughts only in answer to
express questions asked, and according to the occasion;
that St. John has written a Gospel, as later, so also more
dogmatic, than his fellow-Evangelists, in consequence of
the rise of heresy. We do not at all mean to affirm, that
the sacred writers said out at one time all they had to say.
There are many things we can imagine them doing and
holding, which yet, in matter of fact, we believe they did
not do, or did not hold. We can imagine them administering
extreme unction or wearing copes. Again, there are many
things which they could neither hold nor do, merely firom
the circumstances of the times or the moment. They
could not determine whether general councils might or
might not be held without the consent of Princes, or deter
mine the authority of the Vulgate before it was written, or
€njoin infant baptism before Christians had children, or
decide upon the value of heretical baptism before there
were heretics, and before those heretics were baptized.
But still there are limits to these concessions; we cannot
imagine an Apostle saying and doing what Romanists say
and do : can they imagine it themselves ? Do they them
selves, for instance, think that St. Paul was in the habit of
saying what Bellarmine and others say, — Laus Deo Vir-
ginique Matri? Would they not pronounce a professed epistle
of St. Paul's which contained these words spurious on this
one ground?"'

32
It is commonly urged by Romanists, that the Notes
of their Church are sufficiently clear to enable the
private Christian to dispense with argument in
joining their Communion in preference to any other.
Now in the following passage it is observed, that that
Communion has Notes of error upon it, serving
in practice quite as truly as a guide from it, as the
Notes which it brings forward can be made to tell
in its favour.
" Our Lord said of false prophets, ' By their fruits shall
ye know them ; ' and, however the mind may be entangled
theoretically, yet surely it will fall upon certain marks in
Rome which seem intended to convey to the simple and
honest enquirer a solemn warning to keep clear of her,
while she carries them about her. Such are her denying
the Cup to the laity, her idolatrous worship of the Blessed
Virgin, her Image-worship, her recklessness in anathema
tizing, and her schismatical and overbearing spirit. Surely
we have more reason for thinking that her doctrines con
cerning Images and the Saints are false, than that her
saying they are Apostolical is true. I conceive, then, on
the whole, that while Rome confirms by her accordant wit
ness our own teaching in all greater things, she does not
tend by her novelties, and violence, and threats, to disturb the
practical certainty of Catholic doctrine, or to seduce from
us any sober and conscientious enquirer." On Romanism,
p. 3,24, 325.
And in one of the Tracts for the Times, speaking
of certain Invocations in the Breviary, I say,
"These portions of the Breviary carry with them their
own plain condemnation, in the judgment of an English
Christian; no commendation of the general structure and
matter of the Breviary itself will have any tendency to
reconcile him to them ; and it has been the strong feeling

33
that this is really the case, that has led the writer of these
pages fearlessly and securely to admit the real excellencies,
and to dwell upon the antiquity of the Roman Ritual.
He has felt that, since the Romanists required an unquali
fied assent to the whole of the Breviary, and that there were
passages which no Anglica^ ever could admit, praise the
true Catholic portion of it as much as he might, he
did not in the slightest degree approximate to a recom
mendation of Romanism." Tract 75. p. 9, 10.
"They" [the Antiphons to the blessed Virgin] "shall be
here given in order to shew clearly, as a simple inspection
of them wiU suffice to do, the utter contrariety between the
Roman system, as actually existing, and our own ; which,
however similar in certain respects, are in others so at
variance, as to make any attempt to reconcile them together
in their present state, perfectly nugatory. Till Rome
moves towards us, it is quite impossible that we should
move towards Rome ; however closely we may approxi
mate to her in particular doctrines, principles, or views."
Tract 75. p. 23.
In the foregoing passages, protests will be found
against the Roman worship of St. Mary, Invoca
tion of Saints, Worship of Images, Purgatory,
Denial of the Cup, Indulgences, and Infallibility ;
besides those which are entered against the funda
mental theory out of which these errors arise.
5. And now having said, I trust, as much as your
Lordship requires on the subject of Romanism, I
will add a few words, to complete my explanation,
in acknowledgment of the inestimable privilege I
feel in being a member of that Church over which
your Lordship, with others, presides. Indeed, did I
not feel it to be a privilege which I am able to seek no

34
where else on earth, why should I be at this moment-
writing to your Lordship ? What motive have I
for an unreserved and joyful submission to your
authority, but the feeling that the Church in which
your Lordship rules is a divinely-ordained charrael
of supernatural grace to the souls of her menjbers ?
Why should I not prefer my awn opinion, and
my own way of acting, to that of the Bishop's,- ex
cept that I know fiill well that in matters indifferent
I should be acting lightly towards the Spouse of
Christ and the Awful Presence which dwells in her,
if I hesitated a moment to put your Lordship's will
before ray own ? I know full well that your Lord
ship's kindness to me personally, would be in itself
quite enough to win any but the most insensible
heart, and, did a clear matter of conscience occur
in which I felt bound to act for myself, my feelings.
towards your Lordship would be a most severe trial
to me, independently of the higher considerations.
to which I have alluded ; but I trust I have shewn
my dutifulness to you prior to the influence of per
sonal motives ; and this I have done because I think
that to belong to the Catholic Church is the first of
all privileges here below, as involving in it heavenly
privileges, and because I consider the Church over
which your Lordship presides to be the Catholic
Church in this country. Surely then I hav& no
need to profess in words,, I will not say my attach
ment, but my deep reverence towards the Mother
of Saints, when I am shewing it in action ; yet that
words may not be altogether wanting, I beg to lay
before your Lordship the following extract from a

35
defence of the English Church, which I wrote
against a P^oman controversialist in the course of
the last year.
" The Church is emphatically a living body, and there
can be no greater proof of a particular communion being
part of the Church, than the appearance in it of a continued
and abiding energy, nor a more melancholy proof of its
being a corpse than torpidity. We say an energy con
tinued and abiding, for accident will cause the activity of
a moment, and an external principle give the semblance of
self-motion. On the other hand, even a living body may
for a while be asleep. And here we have an illustration
of what we just now urged about the varying cogency of
the Notes of the Church according to times and circum
stances. No one can deny that at times the Roman
Church itself, restless as it is at most times, has been in a
state of sleep or disease, so great as to "resemble death ; the
words of Baronius, speaking of the tenth century, are well
known : " Dormiebat tunc plane alto, ut apparet, sopore
Christus in navi, cum hisce flantibus validis ventis, navis
ipsa fluctibus operiretur. Una ilia reliqua consolatio piis,
quia etsi Dominus dormivit, in eadem tamen navi dormivit."
It concerns then those who deny that we are the true
Church, because we have not at present this special Note,
intercommunion with other Christians, to shew cause why
the Roman Church in the tenth century should be so ac
counted, with profligates, or rather the profligate mothers of
profligate sons, for her supreme rulers. And stiU notwith
standing life is a note of the Church; she alone revive?,
even if she declines ; heretical and schismatical bodies
cannot keep life ; they gradually become cold, stiff and
insensible. They may do some energetic work at first
from excitement or remaining warmth, as the Arians con
verted the Goths, though even this seems, as the history
shews us, to have been an accident, for which they can claim
c2

36
no praise ; or as the Nestorians spread in the East, from
circumstances which need not here be noticed. But wait
awhile, and 'see the end of these men.' 'I myself,'
says the Psalmist, ' have seen the ungodly in great power,
and flourishing like a green bay-tree. I went by, and lo,
he was gone ; I sought him, but his place could no where
be found.' Heresies and schisms, whatever be their promise
at first, and whatever be their struggles, yet gradually and
surely tend not to be. Utter dissolution is the scope to
which their principles are directed from the first, and
towards which for the most part they steadily and con
tinually move. Or, if the principle of destruction in
them, be not so living as to hurry them forward in their
career, then they remain inert and motioAless, where they
first are found, kept together in one by external circum
stances, and going to pieces as soon as air is let in upon
them. Now if there ever were a Church on whom the
experiment has been tried, whether it had life in it or not,
the English is that one. For three centuries it has en
dured all vicissitudes of fortune. It has endured in trouble
and prosperity, under seduction and under oppression.
It has been practised upon by theorists, browbeaten by,
sophists, intimidated by princes, betrayed by false sons,
laid waste by tyranny, corrupted by wealth, torn by
schism, and persecuted by fanaticism. Revolutions
have come upon it sharply and suddenly, to and fro, hot
and cold, as if to try what it was made of It has been a
sort of battle-field on which opposite principles have been
tried. No opinion, however extreme any way, but may be
found, as the Romanists are not slow to reproach us, among
its Bishops and Divines. Yet what has been its career
upon the whole ? Which way has it been moving through
three hundred years ? Where does it find itself at the end ?
Lutherans have tended to Rationalism ; Calvinists have
become Socinians ; but what has it become ? As far as its
Formularies are concerned, it may be said all along to have

37
grown towards a more perfect Catholicism than that with
which it started at the time of its estrangement ; every act,
every crisis, which marks its course, has been upward. It
never was in so miserable case as in the reigns of Edward and
Elizabeth. At the end of Elizabeth's there was a conspicu
ous revival of the true doctrine. Advancements were
made in the Canons of 1603. How much was done under
Charles the First, need not be said; and done permanently,
so as to remain to this day in spite of the storm which im
mediately arose, sweeping off the chief agents in the work,
and for a time levelling the Church to the ground. More
was done than even yet appears, as a philosophical wTiter
has lately remarked, in the Convocation of 1661. One
juncture there was of a later date (1688) which seemed to
threaten a relapse ; yet it was the only crisis in which no
Ecclesiastical act took place. The temper, however, of the
Church, certainly did go back; a secular and semi- sceptical
spirit came in. Now then was the time when the Church
lay open to injury; yet, by a wonderful providence, the
Convocation being, during this period, suspended, there
was no means of making permanent impressions on its
character ; and thus civil tyranny was its protection against
itself. That very Convocation too expired in an act of zeal
and faith. In our own times, temporal defences have been
removed which the most strenuous political partisans of the
Church considered essential to its well-being, and the loss
of which they deplored as the first steps towards its ruin.
To their surprise these well-intentioned men have beheld
what they thought a mere establishment, dependent on
man to create and destroy, rise up and walk with a life of its
own, such as it had before they and their constitution came
into being. How many learned Divines have we had, even
our enemies being judges ! and in proportion as they were
learned, so on the whole have they approximated towards
the full ancient truth. Or take again those whom by a
natural instinct ' all the people count as Prophets,' and will

38
it not be found that either altogether or in those work;
which are most popular, those writers are ruled by primi
tive and Catholic principles ? No man, for instance, wai
an abler Writer in the last century than Warburton, or mon
famous in bis day; yet the glare is over, and now Bishops
Wilson and Home, men of far inferior powers, but o;
CathoUc temper and principles, fill the doctor's Chair in
the eyes of the many. What a note of the Church is the
mere production of a man like Butler, a pregnant fact
much to be meditated on ! and how strange it is, if it be as
it seems to be, that the real influence of his work is only just
now beginning ! and who can prophecy in what it will end ?
Thus our Divines grow with centuries, expanding after their
death in the minds of their readers into more and more
exact Catholicism as years roll on. Nay even our errors
and heterodoxies turn to good. Wesleyanism in itself
tends to heresy, if it was not heretical in the outset ;
but so far as it has been in the Church, it has been
overruled to rouse and stimulate us, when we were asleep.
Moreover look at the internal state of the Church
at this moment ; much that is melancholy is there,
strife, division, error. But still on the whole, enlarge on
the evils as you will, there is life there, perceptible, visible
life ; rude indeed, undisciplined, perhaps self-willed, but
life ; and not the life of death, not that heretical restless
ness, which, as we have observed, only runs out the quicker
for its activity, and hastens to_be no more, but, we may
humbly trust, a heavenly principle after all, which is
struggling towards development, and gives presage of truth
and holiness to come. Look across the Atlantic to the
daughter Churches of England in the States; shall one that
is barren bear a child in her old age ? yet ' the barren hath
borne seven.' Schismatic branches put out their leaves
at once in an expiring effort ; our Church has waited three
centuries, and then blossoms, like Aaron's rod, budding and
blooming and yielding fi-uit, while the rest are dry. And

39
lastly look at the present position of the Church at home ;
there too we shall find a Note of the true city of God, the
Holy Jerusalem. She is in warfare with the world as the
Church MiUtant should be ; she is rebuking the world, she
is hated, she is pillaged by the world. And as if it were
providentially intended to shew this resemblance between
her and the sister branches, what place .she has here, that
they have there ; the same enemies encompassing both them
and her, and the same trials and exploits lying in prospect.
She has a common cause with them, as far as they are
faithful, if not a common speech and language; and is
together with them in warfare, 'if not in peace.
"Much might be said on this subject At all times, since
Christianity came into the world, an open contest has been
going on between religion and irreligion; and the true
Church, of course, has ever been on the religious side.
This then is a sure test in every age, where the Christian
should stand. . . . Now applying this simple criterion to the
public parties of this day, it is very plain that the Enghsh
Church is at present on God's side, and therefore so far
God's Church; — we are sorry to be obliged to add that
there is as httle doubt on which side English Romanism is.
It must be a very galling thought to serious minds who
profess it, to feel that they are standing with the enemies of
God, cooperating with the haters of truth and haters
of the light, and thereby prejudicing religious minds even
against those verities which Rome continues to hold.
"As for the Enghsh Church, surely she has Notes enough,
' the signs of an Apostle in all patience, and signs and
wonders and mighty deeds.' She has the Note of posses
sion, the Note of fi-eedom from party-titles ; the Note of
life, a tough Hfe and a vigorous; she has ancient
descent, unbroken continuance, agreement in doctrine
with the ancient Church. Those of Bellarmine's Notes,
which she certainly has not, are intercommunion with
Christendom, the glory of miracles, and the prophetical

40
light, but the question is, whether she has not enough of
divinity about her to satisfy her sister Churches on their
own principles, that she is one body with them."
6. This may be sufficient to shew ray feelings
towards my Church, as far as statements on paper
can shew them. I have already, however, referred
to what is much more conclusive, a practical evidence
of them ; and I think I can shew your Lordship besides
without difficulty that my present conduct is no
solitary instance of such obedience, but that I have
observed an habitual submission to things as they
are, and have avoided in practice, as far as might
be, any indulgence of private tastes and opinions,
which left to myself perhaps I should have pursued.
And first, as regards my public teaching; though
every one has his peculiarities, and I of course in
the number, yet I do hope that it has not on the
whole transgressed that liberty of opinion which is
allowed on all hands to the Anglican Clergyman.
Nay I might perhaps insist upon it, that in the
general run of my Sermons, fainter and fewer traces
will be found than might have been expected of those
characteristics of doctrine, with which my name is
commonly associated. I might without offence
have introduced what is technically called High-
Church doctrine in much greater fulness ; since
there are many who do not hold it to my own
extent, or with my own eagerness, whose teaching
is more prominently coloured by it. My Sermons
have been far more practical than doctrinal ; and
this, from a dislike of introducing a character and
tone of preaching very different from that which is

41
generally to be found. And I hope this circum
stance may serve as my reply to an apprehension
which has been felt, as if what I say in Tract 90
concerning a cast of opinions which is not irre-
concileable with our Articles, involves an introduction
of those opinions into the pulpit. Yet who will
maintain, that what merely happens not to be for
bidden or denied in the Articles, may at once be
made the subject of teaching or observance ? ¦
There is nothing concerning the Inspiration of
Scripture in the Articles ; yet would a Bishop allow
a Clergyman openly to deny it in the pulpit ? May
the Scripture Miracles be explained away, because
the Articles say nothing about them ? Would your
Lordship allow me to preach in favour of duelling,
gaming, or simony ? or to revile persons by name
from the pulpit ? or be grossly and violently poli
tical ? Every one will surely appreciate the im
portance and sacredness of Pulpit instruction ; and
will allow, that though the holding certain opinions
may be compatible with subscription to the Articles,
the publishing and teaching them may be inconsis
tent with ecclesiastical station.
Those who frequent St. Mary's, know that the
case is the same as regards the mode in which
worship is conducted there. I have altered no
thing I found established ; when I have increased
the number of the Services, and had to determine
points connected with the manner of performing
them for myself, if there was no danger of offend
ing others, I have followed my own judgment, but
not otherwise, I have left many things, which I

42
did not like, and which most other persons would
have altered. And here, with your Lordship's
leave, I will make allusion to one mistake con
cerning me which I believe has reached your Lord
ship's ears, and which I only care to explain
to my Bishop. The explanation, I trust, will be
an additional proof of my adherence to the prin
ciple of acquiescing in the state of things in which
> I find myself It has been said, I believe, that in
the Communion Service I am in the practice of
mixing water with the wine, and that of course on
a religious or ecclesiastical ground. This is not
the case. We are in the custom at St. Mary's of
celebrating the Holy Communion every Sunday,
and most weeks early in the morning. When I
began the early celebration, communicants repre
sented to me that the wine was so strong as to
distress them at that early hour. Accordingly I
mixed it with water in the bottle. However, it be
came corrupt. On this I mixed it at the time. I
speak honestly when I say that this has been my
only motive. I have not mixed it when the Service
has been in the middle of the day.
If I were not writing to my Bishop, I should feel
much shame at writing so much about myself; but
confession cannot be called egotism. Friend and
stranger have from time to time asked for my
cooperation in the attempt to gain additional power
for the Church. I have been accustomed to answer
that it was my duty to acquiesce in the state of
things under which I found myself, and to serve
God, if so be, in it. New precedents indeed, con-

43
firming or aggravating our present Ecclesiastical

defects, I have ever desired to oppose ; but as regards
changes, persons to whom I defer very much, know
that, rightly or wrongly, I have discountenanced,
for instance, any movement tending to the repeal
even of the Statutes of Prcemunire, which has
been frequently agitated, under the notion that
such matters were not our business, and that we
had better "remain in the calling wherein we wera
called." Of course I cannot be blind to the fact that
" time is the great innovator ;" and that the course
of events may of itself put the Church in posses
sion of greater hberty of action, as in time past it
has abridged it. This would be the act of a higher
power ; and then I should think it a duty to act
according to that new state in which the Church
found itself. Knowledge and virtue certainly are
power. When the Church's gifts were doubled,
its influence would be multipHed a hundred fold ;
and influence tends to become constituted autho
rity. This is the nature of things, which I do not
attempt to oppose ; but I have no wish at all to
take part in any measures which aim at changes.
And in like manner I have set my face altogether
against suggestions which zealous and warm
hearted persons sometimes have made of reviving
the project of Archbishop Wake, for considering
the differences between ourselves and the foreign
Churches with a view to their adjustment. Our
business is with ourselves — to make ourselves more
holy, more self-denying, more primitive, more
worthy our high calling. Let the Church of Rome

44
do the same, and it will come nearer to us, and
will cease to be what we one and all mean, when
we speak of Rome. To be anxious for a composi
tion of differences, is to begin at the end. Did God
visit us with large measures of His grace, and the
Roman Catholics also, they would be drawn to us,
and would acknowledge our Church as the Catholic
Church in this country, and would give up what
ever offended and grieved us in their doctrine and
worship, and would unite themselves to us. This
would be a true union ; but political reconciha-
tions are but outward and hollow, and fallacious.
And till they renounce political efforts, and manifest
in their public measures the light of holiness and
truth, perpetual warfare is our only prospect. It
was the prophetic announcement concerning the
Elijah of the first Advent, that he should " turn the
hearts of the fathers to the children, and the heart
of the children to their fathers."' This is the only
change which promises good and is worth an
effort. What I have been saying as regards Roman
Catholics, I trust I have kept steadily before me
in ecclesiastical matters generally. While I have
considered that we ought to be content with the
outward circumstances in which Providence has
placed us, I have tried to feel that the great busi
ness of one and all of us is, to endeavour to raise
the moral tone of the Church. It is sanctity of
heart and conduct which commends us to God.
If we be holy, all will go well with us. External
things are comparatively nothing ; whatever be a

45
rehgious body's relations to the State — whatever
its regimen — whatever its doctrines — whatever its
worship — if it has but the life of holiness within it,
this inward gift will, if I may so speak, take care
of itself. It will turn all accidents into good, it
will supply defects, and it will gain for itself from
above what is wanting. I desire to look at this
first, in all persons and all communities. Where
Almighty God stirs the heart, there His other gifts
follow in time ; sanctity is the great Note of the
Church. If the Established Church of Scotland
has this Note, I will hope all good things of it ; if
the Roman Church in Ireland has it not, I can
hope no good of it. And in like manner, in our
own Church, I will unite with all persons as
brethren, who have this Note, without any distinc
tion of party. Persons who know me can testify
that I have endeavoured to cooperate with those who
did not agree with me, and that again and again I
have been put aside by them, not put them aside,
I have never concealed my own opinions, nor
wished them to conceal theirs ; but have found
that I could bear them better than they me. And
I have long insisted upon it, that the only way in
which the members of our Church, so widely dif
fering in opinion at this time, can be brought
together in one, is by a " turning of heart" to one
another. Argumentative efforts are most useful
for this end under this sacred feehng ; but till we
try to love each other, and what is holy in each
other, and wish to be all one, and mourn that we

46
are not so, and pray that we may be so, I do not
see what good can come of argument.
7. Before concluding, there is one more subject on
which I wish briefly to address your Lordship,
though it is one which I have neither direct
claim nor encouragement to introduce to your
Lordship's notice. Yet our Colleges here being
situated in your Lordship's diocese, it is natural for
me to allude to the lately expressed opinion of the
Heads of Houses upon the Tract which has given
rise to this Letter. I shall only do so, however,
for the purpose of assuring your Lordship of the
great sorrovy^ it gives me to have incurred their
disapprobation, and of the anxiety I have felt for
some time past from the apprehension that I was
incurring it. I reverence their position in the
country too highly to be indifferent to their good
opinion. I never can be indifferent to the opinion
of those who hold in their hands the education of
the classes on which our national well-being,
spiritual and temporal, depends ; who preside over
the foundations of "famous men" of old, whose
" name liveth for evermore ;" and from whom are
from time to time selected the members of the
sacred order to which your Lordship belongs. Con
sidering my own peculiar position in the University,
so much have these considerations pressed upon me
for a long while, that, as various persons know, I
seriously contemplated, some time since, the resig
nation of my Living, and was only kept from it by
the advice of a friend to whom I felt I ought to
submit myself. I say this, moreover, in explanation

47
of a Letter I lately addressed to the Vice-Chancellor,,
lest it should seem dictated either by a mere percep
tion of what was becoming in my situation, or
from some sudden softening of feeling under an
unexpected event. It expressed my habitual defer
ence to persons in station.
And now, my Lord, suffer me to thank your
Lordship for your most abundant and extraor
dinary kindness towards me, in the midst of the
exercise of your authority. I have nothing to be
sorry for, except having made your Lordship
anxious, and others whom I am bound to revere.
I have nothing to be sorry for, but every thing to
rejoice in and be thankful for. I have never taken
pleasure in seeming to be able to move a party^
and whatever influence I have had has been found
not sought after. I have acted because others did
not act, and have sacrificed a quiet which I prized.
May God be with me in time to come, as He has
been hitherto ! and He will be, if I can but keep
my hand clean and my heart pure. I think I can
bear, or at least will try to bear, any personal
humiliation, so that I am preserved from betraying
sacred interests, which the Lord of grace and power
has given into my charge.
I am. My dear Lord,
Your Lordship's faithful and affectionate Servant,
JOHN HE^RY NEWMAN.
Oriel College,
March 29th, 1841.

3 9002 08561 8651

m »<('