RMmer

h 0 ')

A NARRATIVE OF EVENTS

CONNECTED WITH THE PUBLICATION

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES,

WITH REFLECTIONS ON

EXISTING TENDENCIES TO ROMANISM,

AND ON THE

PRESENT DUTIES AND PROSPECTS OF
MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.

REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A.
'V
OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD.

OXFORD:
JOHN HENRY PARKER.
LONDON: J. BURNS, PORTMAN STREET, PORTMAN SQUARE;
: J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, & WATERLOO PLACE.
1843.

¦ TON DON :
GILBERT Si RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,
ST. John's ssuare.

THE RIGHT REVEREND FATHER IN GOD
RICHARD, LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD,
Sfc.

My Lord,
In thus submitting to your Lordship the humble results of an
effort to separate Church principles from certain tendencies,
which, to the grief of all true Churchmen, have recently mani
fested themselves, I am encouraged by the remembrance of
the desire which your Lordship has evinced on several occa
sions to discriminate between the advocacy of orthodox and
Catholic principles, whicli has been the privilege of many in
this place, and any exaggerations or unsound tendencies with
which it may have been occasionally combined.
The spirit of equity and of discretion in which your Lord
ship has, on several occasions, stated, that your " fears arose
for the most part rather from the disciples than the teachers,"
seems to render it peculiarly fitting, that a work which is cal
culated to show the justice of those apprehensions, and of
the distinction by which their expression is accompanied,
should be inscribed to a Prelate, to whom Divine Providence
has given an especial interest in the theological movement
now in progress, and to whom every member of the Church
a2

IV DEDICATION.
must feel deeply grateful, for the mode in which the demands
of duty in most critical times have been met. I forbear to
say what might be added on this subject, sensible that any
words of mine would but imperfectly express the general sen
timent of gratitude and respect.
I could have much wished, that a task which has been
undertaken with reluctance, and only under a sense of urgent
necessity, should have fallen into other and worthier hands.
Strengthened, however, by the advice of many wise and emi
nent men, I venture thus firmly, but, I trust, in no spirit of
unkindness, to draw a line between principles which many in
this place and elsewhere have maintained, and certain novel
theories and doctrines which seem fraught with danger to the
cause of truth. I have the honour to be,
my Lord,
Your obedient and grateful humble Servant,
WILLIAM PALMER.

PREFACE.

It is the design of the following pages to clear those who uphold
Church principles from the imputation of approving certain re
cent tendencies to Romanism. It is hoped that a plain state
ment of facts, avoiding controversy altogether, may conduce to
the removal of mistakes on a point of so much importance. It
seems a duty to truth, not to countenance, even by silence,
what we feel to be erroneous and mischievous ; and although
it may sometimes be diflScult to express our sentiments in
regard to such matters, without a feeling of apprehension that
our words may cause offence to some of our brethren ; we
must still endeavour to discharge this duty, however painful
and difficult, in a spirit of steadfast reliance on the Divine
assistance, of recollection and humility as regards ourselves,
and of charity towards those from whom we are obliged to
differ ; and I trust that such feelings have not been wholly
absent during the preparation of these pages.
I am aware, that some respected friends are of opinion, that
it is unnecessary at present to draw any line of demarcation
between our principles and those of the " British Critic ;" that
the views of this periodical, and of its supporters, are not gene
rally identified with Church principles — or that it will be
found impossible to persuade the public at large that there is

VI PREFACE.
any Une of demarcation between them. These objections
seem to refute each other ; but they shall be separately
considered. It may be, then, that some good and fair-minded men in this
place and elsewhere, make such distinctions as we should wish.
But is this generaUy the case ? How few, for instance, are
aware, that some of the principles advocated in the " British
Critic " are displeasing to the authors of the Tracts, and to
the great body of their friends ! I apprehend that such distinc
tions are generally unknown, and if no line of demarcation is
publicly drawn by the advocates of Church principles, it will
be altogether impossible that they should not be identified with
what they themselves disapprove.
With regard to the other objection — the alleged impossibility
of separating Church principles, in the public apprehension,
from Romanizing tendencies, I must admit that it may be diffi
cult to persuade those who are opposed to Church principles,
that they do not lead to Romanism ; but it does not seem that
there would be so much difficulty in setting the public right on
a mere question oifact, i. e. whether such and such men are in
reality favourable to Romanism — whether they intend to promote
its interests — whether they actuaUy receive its tenets or no.
I think it may be very possible to prevent mistakes on
such a question from becoming prevalent, or, at least, per
manent. All that seems necessary in this case is, a sufficient
degree of openness.
We only want an explicit statement of men's views ; plain
and open speaking; avowals of what is our actual belief;
praise where we think it due, and censure where any (be their
merits in some respects ever so great) have deserved reproofs.
This candour will restore mutual confidence ; will reassure

PREFACE. VU

those whose minds have been disturbed and unsettled by novel
theories, wiU encourage the timid, strengthen the weak, recal
fugitives, give a safe and firm rallying-point to all who are
wiUing to uphold Church principles.
I now proceed to offer a few remarks on the contents of this
pamphlet. It seemed advisable, in the first place, to place on
record some account of the views on which the movement at
Oxford, in 1833, was commenced, in order to show that our
objects were wholly unconnected with party, or with any ten
dency to Romanism. A few other subjects of interest have
been touched on, partly to afford desirable explanations, and
partly to afford illustrations of principles and feelings. Such a
selection from facts, documents, and correspondence in my
possession, as could be made, consistently with the sanctity of
private intercourse, is offered in corroboration of the statements
which it has been deemed expedient to make.
Our movement in 1833 consisted of two branches.
Our Association speedily expanded itself throughout all
England, and was responded to in Scotland and Ireland, But
it speedily came to an end ; after producing several important
and beneficial effects, as regarded the security ofthe Church,
and the State. I hope that I shall not be understood to repre
sent these effects as having been amongst the objects of our
movement in 1833. That movement was solely for the pur
pose of defending the Church herself in her spiritual capacity
against the prevalent spirit of Latitudinarianism, and of re
viving her salutary principles ; but effects which we had not
contemplated, and which, indeed, it would have been folly to
have speculated on, followed from our movement.
The other branch of this movement was the publication of
the Tracts. This was the more immediate province of my

viii PREFACE.
colleagues, as wiU be seen in the foUowing pages. I readily
admit the far greater importance of this effort, which under the
management of a few eminent men, assumed a character of
permanence, and has produced great and lasting effects on the
Church. It may be thought, perhaps, that unnecessary advantages
will be given to opponents of Church principles by the admis
sions which are made in this pamphlet, of faults and indiscre
tions on the part of some friends. But surely such an objec
tion will not be urged by those who exercise freely the right of
pointing out defects in our ecclesiastical system. A scruple
which is not felt in regard to the Church herself, cannot con
sistently be advanced for the protection of any class of her
members. I hope, however, that no uncandid or unfair
use will be made of these admissions. I am content to appeal
to the better feelings of our opponents.
With especial reference to those who have recently deviated
so far from all sound Church principles, and from the doctrines
even of the Tracts for the Times, and of their authors, I
would hope, that the following pages will be found to express
no sentiments inconsistent with good-will, and charity. It has
been necessary to refer to the " British Critic," in illustration
of their views. An unwillingness to direct public attention to
the errors of individuals, has induced me to refrain from ad
ducing many objectionable passages from other publications.
With reference to the quotations from the " British Critic,"
I think it necessary to direct particular attention to the state
ment in page 47, that the object has been only to establish
the general character and tendency of a system ; and that no
opinion is meant to be expressed as to the exact nature or
amount of impropriety in each particular passage adduced.

PREFACE.

Had any such opinion been attempted, this pamphlet must
have been greatly enlarged,
In the foUowing pages, a hope is expressed, that the
" British Critic" may before long be placed under some differ
ent management ; but on further consideration, I fear that little
advantage can be anticipated from such a change. The in
jury which has been inflicted by that periodical cannot be re
paired by any mere change of management. A permanent
evil has been done. Henceforward every advocate of the
Church of England will be involved in most serious difficulties:
his Romish opponents will always be able to quote against
him the concessions and the doctrines of this periodical. I am
convinced that extensive use will be made by Romanists of
these concessions, for the purposes of proselytism ; and even
supposing the " British Critic" to recover the confidence of the
Church, the danger will be in some degree enhanced, because
the doctrines advanced in former numbers will only acquire
new weight and consideration. These remarks are submitted
with deference to better judgments.
I trust that in speaking of recent theories of "Development,"
a sufficient distinction has been drawn between the views of an
eminent and much respected writer, and those of other men.
I would not be understood to offer any opposition to the former,
when rightly understood ; but there is much vague and dan
gerous theory elsewhere afloat on the subject. The continual
cry of the "British Critic" for "development," "progress,"
" change," " expansion of ideas," the actual and fearfully
rapid progress of individual minds, the unsettlement of princi
ples and notions openly avowed ; all is calculated to create very
serious uneasiness and alarm. Such impetuosity and reckless
ness seem better fitted to revolutionize than to reform. We

X PREFACE.
shall, I trust, be always ready most earnestly to support
rational and well-considered plans for increasing the efficiency
of our ecclesiastical system, and for removing all proved de
fects ; but we should remember, that hasty and unnecessary
alterations may only involve us in difficulties even greater
than those which may now be felt.
In the latter part of this pamphlet will be found a brief
statement of some of the leading Church principles, with a
view to mark the difference between them, and the errors of
Romanism on the one hand, and of ultra Protestantism on the
other. In so brief a sketch, many features of interest will
necessarily have been unnoticed ; but I trust that enough will
have been said, to remind the reader of the general character
of the Church system.
I have now to offer the expression of deep gratitude to
many respected and valued friends for their support and en
couragement, and for the valuable suggestions which I have
received from various quarters. They have tended materially
to relieve anxieties which the peculiar circumstances of the
time had excited; and I shall always feel thankful for the
assurance which they have afforded, that real and substantial
agreement in all great principles is generally combined with
a most cordial attachment to the National Church, and with a
resolution to maintain her distinctive principles with as much
zeal against any approaches to Romanism, as against ten
dencies towards the opposite class of errors.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I. PAGE
The Association of Friends of the Church in 1833 — Its
Results  1

CHAPTER II.
Tracts for the Times — The Hampden Controversy  20
CHAPTER IIL
Party Spirit— Tendency to Romanism  33
CHAPTER IV.
Church Principles stated — Duties of Churchmen — Pros
pects OF Church Principles  70
Appendix, comprising additional Notes, and Correspondence  gi

NARRATIVE,

CHAPTER I.
THE ASSOCIATION OF FRIENDS OF THE CHURCH IN 1833 
ITS RESULTS.
I AM desirous of placing on record some circumstances con
nected with the origin of the theological movement, which has
for some years occupied so large a space of public attention.
They wiU not be without interest, proceeding, as they do, from
an eye-witness of the events which he is about to relate ; from
one, who was zealously engaged in the promotion of this now
celebrated movement at its very origin, and whose personal
friendship and regard for those, who have been so long known
as the more prominent of its supporters, has never suffered the
slightest diminution.
To Mr. Perceval we are indebted for an account of the pro
ceedings in 1833 and 1834, and for copies of various documents
connected with those proceedings. For reasons which will
appear in the course of the following remarks, I was unwilling
that my name should be published in Mr. Perceval's narrative,
as having taken any share in the original movement ; but sub
sequent circumstances have induced me to throw off this re
serve, and to acknowledge and avow my. responsibility. I shall
now proceed, without further preface, to a statement of the

2 the association of friends
events of which I was an eye-witness; and shall not hesitate
to express my sentiments, with the freedom and openness, which
circumstances seem imperatively to require.
At the beginning of the summer of 1833, the Church in
England and Ireland seemed destined to immediate desolation
and ruin. We had seen in 18-28, the repeal of the Test and
Corporation Acts cutting away from the Church of England
one of its ancient bulwarks, and evidencing a disposition to
make concession to the clamour of its enemies. In the
next year— the fatal year 18-29 — we had seen this principle
fully carried out, by the concession of what is called " Roman
Catholic Emancipation;" a measure which scattered to the
winds public principle, public morality, public confidence, and
dispersed a party, which, had it possessed courage to adhere to
its old and popular principles, and to act on them with manly
energy, would have stemmed the torrent of revolution, and
averted the awful crisis which was at hand.
Deep as was the consternation, and almost despair of the
friends of order and religion at this time, when we beheld our
rulers sacrifice (avoioedly under the influence of intimidation)
a constitution, which, in the very moment of its ruin, they
admitted to be essential to the security of the Church — Deep
as was then our alarm and indignation, at being thus delivered
over, bound hand and foot, into the power of a hostile Ascen
dency ; into the hands of a parliament reckless ofthe high and
sacred interests of religion, and now for the first time number
ing by law amongst its members, Romanists and Dissenters;
there were yet in store for us events of a more fearful nature.
The first sound ofthe tocsin of revolution at Paris in 1830,
ought to have re-uuited the scattered friends of established
order in England : it left them engaged in violent dissensions ;
and, with the exception of the " Morning Post," the whole
Press of England threw itself into the cause of the revolu
tionary party in France. Ere long the tide began to flow
upon our own shores ; and the Tory Aristocracy which had for
saken the Church in yielding Emancipation, were now hurled
from their political ascendency ; and the Reform Bill of
1831, a just retribution for their offence, made for a time the
democratic principle all-powerful in the State.

OF THE CHURCH IN 1833. 3
It was then that we felt ourselves assailed by enemies from
without and from within. Our prelates insulted and threatened
by ministers of state — continual motions made for their expulsion
from the legislature — demands for the suppression of Church-
rates, on the avowed principle of opening the way for a total
separation of Church and State — clamours, loud and long, for
the overthrow of the Church — Dissenters and Romanists
triumphing in the prospect of its subversion, and assaiUng
it with every epithet calculated to stimulate popular hatred.
In Ireland, some of our clergy assassinated ; the rest deprived
of their incomes, and reduced to the verge of starvation ; while
the government looked calmly on, and seemed to encourage this
terrible persecution. In fine, an uninterrupted series of
injuries, dangers, and desertions, was closed by the sacrifice of
ten bishoprics in Ireland ; and we were advised to feel thankful
that a more sweeping measure had not been adopted '. What
was next to come ? Was this to lead to similar measures in
England ? Was the same principle of concession to popular
clamour, which had led to the desolation of the Irish Church
to gratify the Romish democracy there, next to be exemplified
in the dismemberment of the English Church, in the hope of
conciliating its antagonists ? Who could tell ? We had seen
even prelates of our own Church make concession after con
cession, on this and other points which should have been de
fended at all hazards.
Nor was this the worst. The prevailing spirit of innova
tion had begun deeply to infect the Church itself. Writers
had been at work for some time, disseminating superficial and
fanciful novelties on reUgious questions ; disdaining all appeal
to authority; and encouraging a taste for a rationalizing
theology. The publications of the author of " The Natural
History of Enthusiasm," which went directly to the subversion
of all existing religious systems, as well amongst the Dissen-
1 If the report be well founded, as I believe it to be, that the original intention
ofthe Ministry was to suppress a considerably larger number of sees, and that
they were dissuaded from this design by a Prelate whom they had recently nomi
nated to his high office, the gratitude of the Church is eminently due to that
distinguished Prelate. The recent exertions made in the same quarter to revive
the bishopric of Leighlin, and the personal sacrifices which were offered on that
occasion, are beyond praise.
B 2

4 THE ASSOCIATION OF FRIENDS
ters as in the Church, had been unsuspectingly and greedily
absorbed by the pubUc mind. The theory of Church and
State had been handled by adherents of a rationalizing school
which had grown up in Oxford ; on various principles in
deed, but in such modes as to generate dissatisfaction with
existing institutions. Elements thus prepared were stimulated
into unnatural activity by poUtical convulsions. We were
overwhelmed with pamphlets on Church Reform. Lord
Henley (brother-in-law of Sir Robert Peel), Dr. Burton,
Regius Professor at Oxford, and others of name and influence,
led the way ; and nothing was heard but dissatisfaction with
the Church — with her abuses — her corruptions — her errors !
Each sciolist presented his puny design for reconstructing this
august temple built by no human hands. Such was the
disorganization of the public mind, that Dr. Arnold of Rugby
ventured to propose, that all sects should be united by Act of
Parliament with the Church of England, on the principle of
retaininar all their distinctive errors and absurdities. Re-
ports, apparently well founded, were prevalent, that some of
the prelates, especially the Bishop of London ', were favour
able to alterations in the Liturgy. Pamphlets were in wide
circulation, recommending the abolition of the Creeds (at least
in public worship), and especially urging the expulsion of the
Athanasian Creed ; the removal of all mention of the blessed
Trinity ; of the doctrine of baptismal Regeneration ; of the
practice of absolution. In fact, there was not a single stone of
the sacred edifice of the Church, whicli was not examined,
shaken, undermined, by a meddling and ignorant curiosity.
Such was our condition in the early part of the summer of
1833. We knew not to what quarter to look for support. A
Prelacy threatened, and apparently intimidated ; a Government
making its powers subservient to agitators who avowedly sought
the destruction of the Church. The State, so long the guardian
of that Church, now becoming its enemy and its tyrant. Ene
mies within the Church seekinsf the subversion of its essential
characteristics. And what was worst of all — no principle in the

2 That excellent prelate, on being informed of the report, took immediate
measures to contradict it.

OF THE CHURCH IN 1833. 3
public mind to which we could appeal ; an utter ignorance of all
rational grounds of attachment to the Church ; an obUvion of
its spiritual character, as an institution, not of man, but of God ;
the grossest Erastianism most widely prevalent, especially
amongst all classes of politicians. There was in all this
enough to appal the stoutest hearts ; and those who can recal the
feelings of those days, will at once remember the deep depres
sion into which the Church had fallen, and the gloomy fore
bodings which were universally prevalent.
But in those hours of darkness, there were hearts, many
hearts, burning with shame and grief for the general apostasy
around them ; hearts which were yet beating high at the
thought, that amidst the universal shipwreck and treason, there
was One, whose protection might be relied on; and which
were ready at the first opening of possibility, to devote them
selves to the service of the Church. I had myself the gratifi
cation of promoting in some degree the first movement of
re-action in 1832, by publishing in the " British Magazine,"
which had been just established by a lamented friend, the Rev.
Hugh J. Rose, a series of articles on dissent, which by means
of a large mass of evidence derived from dissenting publica
tions, directed public attention to the small number, the diffi
culties, and declining state of the dissenting interest. I had the
satisfaction to find, that those articles not only attracted earnest
and uneasy attention amongst dissenters themselves, but that
they were extensively quoted and copied by many writers of
the Church (often without acknowledgment) ; and that they
formed the basis of several books, (such as the " Letters of
L. S. E. to a Dissenting Minister,") which were directed against
the principles and practice of dissent, with the most perfectly
satisfactory results.
These efforts, however, could do little to dispel the fears to
which we were continually subject; and in the early part of
] 833, the suppression of bishoprics in Ireland, accompanied by
most grievous persecutions of the Church, brought our evils to
the climax.
I had not been very intimately acquainted with Mr. Newman
and Mr. Froude, — and was scarcely known to Mr. Keble, or Mr.

6 THE association OF FRIENDS
Perceval, — when our deep sense of the wrongs sustained by the
Church in the suppression of bishoprics, and our feeUng of the
necessity of doing whatever was in our power to arrest the tide
of evil, brought us together in the summer of 1833. It was at the
beginning of long vacation, (when, Mr. Froude being almost
the only occupant of Oriel College, we frequently met in the
common room,) that the resolution to unite and associate in
defence of the Church, of her violated liberties, and neglected
principles, arose. This resolution was immediately acted on ;
and while I corresponded with Mr. Rose ', Mr. Froude commu
nicated our design to Mr. Keble. Mr. Newman soon took part
in our deliberations, on his return from the continent. The
particular course which we were to adopt, became the subject
of much and anxious thought ; and as it was deemed advisable
to confer with Mr. Rose on so important a subject, Mr. Froude
and myself, after some correspondence, visited him at Hadleigh,
in July, where I also had the pleasure of becoming personally
acquainted with Mr. Perceval, who had been invited to take
part in our deliberations. The conference at Hadleigh, which
continued for nearly a week, concluded without any specific
arrangements being entered into ; though we all concurred as to
the necessity of some mode of combined action, and the expe
diency of circulating tracts or publications on ecclesiastical sub
jects, intended to inculcate sound and enlightened principles of
attachment to the Church. On our return to Oxford, frequent
' The necessity of associating in defence of the Church had already suggested
itself to many minds. I have before me a series of Resolutions for the forma
tion of a General Church Association, agreed on by some Clergy in Cheshire in
February and March, 1832 ; but this design was unsuccessful. I had been in
correspondence with Mr. Rose early in 1833 on the same subject ; but the par
ticular plan suggested seemed to be open to objections. In a letter dated
Hadleigh, Feb. 1, 1833, he says, " That something is re(iuisite, is certain. The
only thing is, that whatever is done ought to be quickly done : for the danger
is immediate, and I should have little fear if I thought that we could stand for
ten or fifteen years as we are." In another communication on the same subject,
dated March 8, be says, " You will see we quite agree as to the end, quite agree
as to what is desirable, but I cannot allow myself to hope that the means would
be feasible. *»•»**»* Still I think the notion of creating a
spirit of attachment and closer union, is so valuable, that I wish you would give
me a letter for the Magazine on the subject."

OF THE CHURCH IN 1833. 7
conferences took place at Oriel College, between Mr. Froude,
Mr. Newman, Mr. Keble, and the writer S in which various
plans were discussed, and in which especial attention was given
to the preparation of some formulary of agreement, as a basis
for our Association.
Mr. Perceval has published three forms of association (pp.
12, 13, and 17). The first two of these papers were, I believe,
principally composed by Mr. Keble ; and considerable discus
sion took place on various parts of them. It is, however, a mis
take to suppose that either of them was finally adopted as the
actual formulary of agreement. It always seemed to me, that,
however true in a certain sense might be some of the doctrines
comprised in those documents, their introduction as funda
mental conditions of our union might create much embarrass
ment, and might limit the sphere of our utility, in prematurely
obtruding on the friends of the Church questions, which either
from want of knowledge, or from the difficulty of adopting
unobjectionable phraseology, might cause offence rather than
promote harmony and co-operation. There was some differ
ence of opinion on the question of the union of Church and
State, which some of our friends seemed inclined to regard as
an evil ; while I (and perhaps another) was desirous to main
tain this union, notwithstanding the evidently hostile disposi
tion of the State, and its tyrannical suppression of the Irish
sees, because, as it appeared to me, we could not attain
absolute independence, and the power of self-legislation, and
liberty to elect our bishops, except by sacrificing the endow
ments of the Church, on which our whole parochial system,
and the dissemination of reUgious truth throughout the land,
are practically dependent; and, considering that no plan had
been suggested for the election of bishops whicli was not liable
to objections and to evils, fully as great as any which may exist
under the present system of nomination by the Crown ; con
sidering also the fearful consequence of leaving our clergy as
a body dependent on the voluntary contributions of the people,
' Mr. Keble and Mr. Perceval were not resident in the University. The
former occasionally visited us. Mr. Rose was at Durham, and could no longer
be consulted.

8 ASSOCIATION OF 1833.
who were wholly unaccustomed to the discharge of such a
duty, and would be disposed to shrink from it; I could not but
think that any efforts which went towards the separation of
Church and State, would be injurious to the Church, as well
as unavailing in themselves, and prejudicial to our union.
Circumstances might be supposed indeed, in which the Church
should be prepared to make the sacrifice of her endowments ;
i. e. if she could only retain them by relinquishing her vital
principles ; but on the occasion now under consideration, we
were not reduced to this extremity.
It was after many discussions on these and similar subjects,
that I prepared a draft of the third formulary, printed by Mr.
Perceval, (p. 17.) which was revised and improved by a
friend and was finally adopted as the basis of our further
proceedings ; it was as follows : —

Suggestions for the Formation of an Association of Friends
of the Church.
It will readily be allowed by all reflecting persons, that events have
occurred within the last few years, calculated to inspire the true Members
and Friends of the Church with the deepest uneasiness. The privilege
possessed by parties hostile to her doctrine, ritual, and polity, of legis
lating for her, their avowed and increasing efforts against her, their close
alliance with such as openly reject the Christian Faith, and the lax and
unsound principles of many who profess and even think themselves her
friends, these things have been displayed before our eyes, and sounded in
our ears, until from their very repetition we almost forget to regard them
with alarm.
The most obvious dangers are those, which impend over the Church as
an Establishment ; but to these it is not here proposed to direct attention.
However necessary it may be on the proper occasion to resist all measures
which threaten the security of Ecclesiastical property and privileges, still
it is felt that there are perils of a character more serious than those which
beset the political rights, and the temporalities of the Clergy ; and such,
moreover, as admit and justify a more active opposition to them on the
part of individual Members of the Church. Every one who has become
acquainted with the literature of the day, must have observed the sedulous
attempts made in various quarters, to reconcile Members of the Church
to alterations in its Doctrines and Discipline. Projects of change, which
include the annihilation of our Creeds and the removal of doctrinal state-

ITS RESULTS. 9
ments incidentally contained in our worship, have been boldly and assi
duously put forth. Our Services have been subjected to licentious criti
cisms, with a view of superseding some of 'them, and of entirely remodel
ling others. The very elementary principles of our ritual and discipline
have been rudely questioned. Our Apostohcal polity has been ridiculed
and denied.
In ordinary times, such attempts might safely have been left to the
counter operation of the good sense and practical wisdom, hitherto so dis
tinguishing a feature in the English character. But the case is altered,
when account is taken of the spirit of the present age ; which is con
fessedly disposed to regard points of religious belief with indifference, to
sacrifice the interests of truth to notions of temporary convenience, and to
indulge in a restless and intemperate desire of noveUy and change.
Under these circumstances it has appeared expedient to Members of
the Church in various parts of the kingdom, to form themselves into an
Association on a few broad principles of union, which are calculated from
their simplicity to recommend themselves to the approbation and support
of Churchmen at large, and which may serve as the grounds of a defence of
the Church's best interests against the immediate difficulties of the pre
sent day. They feel strongly, that no fear of the appearance of forward
ness on their part should dissuade them from a design, which seems to be
demanded of them by their affection towards that spiritual Community, to
which they owe their hopes of the world to come, and by a sense of duty
to that God and Saviour who is its Founder and Defender. And they
adopt this method of respectfully inviting their Brethren, both Clergy and
Laity, to take part in their undertaking.
OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
1. To maintain pure and inviolate the doctrines, the services, and the
discipline of the Church ; that is, to withstand all change, which involves
the denial and suppression of doctrine, a departure from primitive practice
in religious offices, or innovation upon the Apostolical prerogatives, order,
and commission of bishops, priests, and deacons.
2. To afford Churchmen an opportunity of exchanging their sentiments,
and co-operating together on a large scale ^
The formulary thus agreed on was printed, and was privately
and extensively circulated amongst our friends in all parts of
England, in the autumn of 1833. Our intention was not to
form a society merely at Oxford, but to extend it throughout
all England, or rather to form similar societies in every part of
^ Appendix, Note A.

10 ASSOCIATION OF 1833.
England. But, finding that jealousy was expressed in several
high quarters at the formation of any associations, and the
notion being also unacceptable to Froude and others at Ox
ford, we ceased, after a time, from circulating these papers, or
advising the formation of societies. Some permanent effects,
however, were produced. Societies were organized at Bath,
Bristol, Ripon, Cheltenham, Winchester, and, I believe, in
other places, which have on many occasions done eminent ser
vice to the Church. The expressions of approbation which
were received from the clergy in all parts of the country in
spired us with increased hopes and confidence of success. We
thus learned that the principle of ancient loyalty and devotion
was deeply rooted in the parochial clergy of England, and
that they were prepared to unite with us in vindicating the
spiritual rights of their despised and almost persecuted
Church. It was suggested by friends in the country, that this object
might be forwarded if some deputation were to proceed from
Oxford to different parts of England, with a view to explain
more definitely our intentions and designs. Having no other
engagements at the time, I readily undertook this mission ; and
at Coventry, Winchester, and in London, had the pleasure of
meeting many of the parochial clergy, and several eminent
dignitaries ofthe Church, to whom I detailed the circumstances
which had led a few retired and studious clergymen to combine
together for the Church of England, against its opponents,
whether Romanists, Dissenters, or Rationalists. The exposi
tion of our views was received with general approbation, and I
returned to Oxford with a heart full of the deepest gratitude to
that Providence which had so far signally blessed our under
taking, and of confidence in the high principle and unshaken
constancy of the parochial clergy of England.
Thus encouraged, our next proceeding was to devise some
mode of giving public and combined expression to that sound
and healthy feeling which we found so generally prevalent in
the Church ; to obtain some pledge of loyalty and attachment
to ancient principles, which might inspire mutual confidence,
and re-unite the scattered and despondent friends of religion.
Some declaration of attachment to the Church which might be

ITS RESULTS. 3 1
subscribed by the clergy was then thought of, and it speedily
assumed the form of an Address to the Archbishop of Canter
bury, which I drew up, and which was communicated to the
most influential of our friends in London for revision, and was
finally printed, and circulated in the following form : —
To the Most Rev. Father in God, William, by Divine Providence
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Primate of all England.
We, the undersigned Clergy of England and Wales, are desirous of
approaching your Grace with the expression of our veneration for the
sacred office, to which by Divine Providence you have been called, of our
respect and affection for your personal character and virtues, and of our
gratitude for the firmness and discretion, which you have evinced in a
season of peculiar difficulty and danger.
At a time, when events are daily passing before us which mark the
growth of latitudinarian sentiments, and the ignorance which prevails
concerning the spiritual claims of the Church, we are especially anxious
to lay before your Grace the assurance of our devoted adherence to the
Apostolical Doctrine and Polity of the Church over which you preside,
and of which we Eire Ministers ; and our deep-rooted attachment to that
venerable Liturgy, in which she has embodied, in the language of ancient
piety, the Orthodox and Primitive Faith.
And while we most earnestly deprecate that restless desire of change
which would rashly innovate in spiritual matters, we are not less solicitous
to declare our firm conviction, that should any thing from the lapse of
years or altered circumstances require renewal or correction, your Grace,
and our other Spiritual Rulers, may rely upon the cheerful co-operation
and dutiful support of the Clergy in carrying into effect any measures,
that may tend to revive the discipline of ancient times, to strengthen the
connection between the Bishops, Clergy, and People, and to promote the
purity, the efficiency, and the unity of the Church.
Much discussion arose on the question, whether this Address
should include an expression of confidence in the other prelates,
as well as in the Archbishop of Canterbury, which our friends
in London considered as essential, in order to obviate jealousies.
This difference of opinion caused extreme embarrassment, for
the Address was already printed and in circulation amongst
the clergy, when it arose. Many of our friends were in great
alarm ; and from Mr. Rose I received letters expressing very
serious apprehension that this Address would cause schism in
the Church. , Our difficulties, indeed, soon became very great.

12 ASSOCIATION OF 1833.
Some of the clergy were apprehensive that the Address might
lead to counter-addresses from the party in favour of Church
Reform. Others were unwUling to subscribe any thing which
seemed to contemplate the possibility of reform in our ritual
or discipline. Others again supposed the Address to be in
tended as a condemnation of all change and improvement.
Besides this, we found the superior clergy, dignitaries of the
Church, &c. in general, extremely timid and apprehensive ; in
a few cases, very strongly opposed to us. We had no en
couragement from any bishop. The prelates in general,
permitted the matter to take its course ; but two or three of
the bishops were decidedly opposed to the Address until near
the conclusion, and their clergy were the last to subscribe it.
There was, indeed, much misapprehension abroad as to our
motives, and we had no means of explaining those motives,
without the danger of giving publicity to our proceedings,
which, in the then state of the public mind on Church matters,
might have led to dangerous results. There was also no incon
siderable jealousy at the apparent presumption of young men
without station in the Church, undertaking so great a work ;
and we found this to be particularly the case in Oxford.
1 had ample opportunity for observing the difficulties which
surrounded us ; for, being comparatively free from other
engagements, the management of the Address, and of the
extensive correspondence to which it led, chiefly devolved on
me. The correspondence with the diocese of Chichester, and
parts of London, Bristol, and Carlisle, was in other hands ; but
that with the remainder of England and Wales, was carried on
by the writer. It was his effort to remove the prevalent miscon
ceptions of our objects; and in this, aided by several friends, he
was so far successful, as to witness the gradual accession of the
great body of the clergy to the Address. As its completion ap
proached, he went to London to receive the signatures from all
parts of the country, which were appended to the Address; and
in February, 1834, this document with the signatures of nearly
7000 clergy" (and more were pouring in) was presented to his
^ The Addresses from several dioceses had been previously transmitted to his
Grace.

ITS RF.SULTS. 13
Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Lambeth Palace, by a
Deputation consisting of members of the Lower House of Con
vocation, and representatives from the Universities ; including
many of the Deans, Archdeacons, Proctors of Chapters and of
Diocesan clergy, Professors and Heads of Houses from Oxford
and Cambridge, some of whom have since been strongly opposed
to the theology of the Tracts '. To the history of those Tracts,
attention shall presently be directed; but in the mean time I
shall proceed in my narrative of proceedings connected with
the Address to the Archbishop.
During the circulation of the Address amongst the clergy,
applications had been received from many stedfast members
of the Church amongst the laity, expressing their desire to
sign that or some similar declaration. It was impossible to
refuse a request so honourable to those who preferred it, and
promising so important an aid to the Church. We applied
in the first instance to an eminent member of the House of
Commons, whose devotion to the Church had been nobly
proved, and to another gentleman of distinguished character
and rank ; and they proceeded to Cambridge in December, for
the purpose of conferring with some of our leading friends in
high official station there. The result of their deliberations
appears in the following Address, which it was proposed to
circulate amongst the laity: —
To His Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.
May It please your Grace,
We the undersigned lay members of the Church, over which, by Divine
Providence, your Grace, as Primate of all England, most worthily presides,
approach you with the assurance of our respectful and dutiful confidence,
at a period when that Church is attacked with more than usual violence,
and by efforts more than ever combined.
We desire to assure your Grace, that in maintaining in all their integrity
the institutions of our venerable and apostolical Establishment ; your
Grace and the several rulers of the Church, who in their respective orders
may be associated with your Grace in the maintenance of our Ecclesiastical
polity, will be supported by our cordial and zealous exertions.
We are attached alike from conviction and from feeling to the Church
' Note B.

14 ASSOCIATION OF 1833.
of England. We believe it to have been the great and distinguishing
blessing of this country ; and as laymen, we feel, that in the preservation
of that Church, we have an interest not less real, and not less direct, than
its more immediate ministers.
While we are not insensible to the possibility of advantage to be derived
to all its members from such revived exercise of discipline and superin
tendence on the part of its bishops, priests, and deacons, as may be sanc
tioned by the competent authority within the Church, we desire to uphold
unimpaired its doctrines, as set forth in its Creeds and Articles, and to
preserve that venerable Liturgy, in which is embodied, in the language of
ancient piety, the orthodox and primitive faith.
Our earnest hope, and our humble prayer is, that God may still bless
all the labours of the friends of the Church, may overthrow the designs of
all its enemies, may cause kings still to be its nursing fathers, and queens
its nursing mothers, and may render it from age to age the means of pro
moting his glory, and the advancement of his kingdom upon earth.
It seemed, however, that the honourable and high-minded
men who had drawn up this admirable document, found
themselves so circumstanced, that the address could not be
put in circulation by them. Considerable difficulties pre
sented themselves in various directions °. Under these circum
stances it was requisite to look elsewhere for the management
of our measure. I was now in London, deputed to arrange
this affair, in company with a friend ", from whose judgment
and zeal, great advantages were derived. Observing the diffi
culties which had arisen, we deemed it necessary to begin again
de novo, by placing the matter in other hands. A declaration
was accordingly prepared in London by a layman, whose vir
tues, abilities, and munificence had for many years procured
for him the veneration of all true churchmen, and very exten
sive influence in the management of its principal Societies.
This declaration was conceived in the following terms : —
A Declaration of the Laity of the Church of England.
At a time when the Clergy of England and Wales have felt it their duty
to address their Primate with an e.xpression of unshaken adherence to the
doctrines and discipline of the Church of which they are Ministers, We
the Undersigned, as Lay-members of the same, are not less anxious to
« Note C.
0 The Rev. Richard Greswell, M.A., Fellow of Worcester College.

ITS RESULTS. 15
record our firm attachment to her pure faith and worship, and her apo
stolic form of government.
We further find ourselves called upon, by the events which are daily
passing around us, to declare our firm conviction, that the consecration of
the State by the public maintenance of the Christian Religion is the first
and paramount duty of a Christian People ; and that the Church Esta
blished in these realms, by carrying its sacred and beneficial influences
through all orders and degrees, and into every corner of the land, has for
many ages been the great and distinguishing blessing of this Coimtry, and
not less the means, under Divine Providence, of national prosperity than
of individual piety.
In the preservation, therefore, of this our National Church in the
integrity of her rights and privileges, and in her alliance with the State,
we feel that we have an interest no less real, and no less direct, than her
immediate Ministers ; and we accordingly avow our firm determination to
do all that in us lies, in our several stations, to uphold, unimpaired in its
security and eflBciency, that Establishment, which we have received as the
richest legacy of our forefathers, and desire to hand down as the best
inheritance of our posterity.
It was considered necessary to place the management of the
declaration in the hands of a committee of lay members of the
Church, who continued for some months to sit in London.
The correspondence in which we had been engaged, enabled
me immediately to place the committee in communication
with zealous and influential laity in seventy of the princi
pal towns and districts of England and Wales, who were
ready and willing to lend their assistance in the good work.
The committee, however, though animated by the best spirit,
and sincerely desirous of the welfare of the Church, were not
successful in obtaining such a number of signatures to the
declaration as might fairly have been expected, under efficient
management '. The committee having resolved to receive
only the names of heads of famiUes, the declaration when pre
sented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in May, 1834, con
tained 2.30,000 signatures '.
The circulation of the declaration amongst the laity, how
ever, which took place under the auspices of the committee,
produced far more important and decisive effects than could
have resulted from any assemblage of signatures. It pro-
¦ Note D. ' Note E.

16 ASSOCIATION OF 1833. •
duced the first awakening from that torpor of despair into
which the friends of order and reUgion had been plunged by
the triumph of hostile principles under the Reform BiU. The
country was still under the formidable domination of political
unions : it was still trembling at the remembrance of insurrec
tion and devastation at Bristol and Nottingham \ It beheld a
feeble band of patriots in the House of Commons, struggling
for the remnants of the British Constitution against a majority
of revolutionists fivefold more numerous than themselves.
The House of Lords, indeed, nobly stemmed wave after wave
of revolution, but we knew not how soon the threats and
execrations of the disappointed democracy might rise into
another storm, and sweep away this last bulwark of law and
order. It was then that the principle of attachment to the
Church of England called forth the first public demonstration
of attachment to all that Englishmen should hold most dear
and sacred. The Declaration ofthe laity was sent to all parts,
and meetings of Churchmen were convened in all the principal
towns. So great was the apprehension at this time, that they
did not venture at first to assemble openly, for the purpose of
recording their attachment to the Established Church; admis
sion was in general restricted to those friends who were pro
vided with tickets.
The result, however, was beyond what the warmest friends of
the Church could have ventured to anticipate. Day after day
did the " Standard," then our steady friend and coadjutor in
defence of the Church*, teem with accounts of meetings of her

' In Oxford we were more than once alarmed by reports, that the Birmingham
Political Union intended to march through Oxford on their way to London, and
to sack and burn the colleges.
* I had taken the liberty of suggesting to the accomplished Editor of this
Journal, in the preceding autumn, the expediency of writing a series of articles
designed to encourage the friends of the Church, by showing the numerical weak
ness ofthe Dissenters. This policy was most admirably pursued by the "Stan
dard," and its good effects became instantly visible. Although the writer deeply
regrets that the " Standard" has, for some time past, taken so much of a party
tone in religious questions, he gratefully tenders to one of the most powerful
and consistent political writers of the age, the expression of warm gratitude for
services to tile Church in former years, the value of which cannot be too
highly appreciated. This journal, however, and the " St. James's Chronicle,'"

ITS RESULTS. 17
faithful children in all parts of England. Nottingham, York,
Cheltenham, Northampton, Derby, Plymouth, Dorchester,
Poole, Liverpool, Norwich, Newcastle, Hull, Bristol, Bath,
Gloucester, and many other places, vied with each other in
heart-stirring declarations of devotion and fidelity to the Church
of their fathers, and resolutions to maintain its rights and its
doctrines. Petitions in support of the Church began rapidly
to pour into the House of Commons. It seemed as if feelings
long pent up had acquired energy from restraint and compres
sion ; and the Church beheld with astonishment the power and
the substantial popularity of which it was possessed.
Nor was this the whole amount of benefit derived. The
resolute declarations of attachment to the Church which thus
emanated from the people, found an echo in the heart of
Royalty itself, and his most gracious Majesty, King William IV.,
in May, 1834, took occasion to address to the Prelates of
England, assembled on the anniversary of his birth-day, his
royal declaration of devoted affection to the Church, and of his
firm resolution to maintain its doctrines', a declaration which was
hailed by all friends of the Church with the strongest feelings
of gratitude and loyal attachment *. I may here add, that in
the autumn, shortly after these events, King William availed
himself of an opportunity to call the Conservative party to the
head of affairs ; and the impulse which had been given to loyal
and constitutional principles by the Ecclesiastical movements
of the spring and summer, at once displayed itself in the pre
sentation of thousands of addresses of thanks and congratulation
to the King, on the dismissal of the ministry, which were suc
ceeded by more solid proofs of principle, in the return of so
great a body of Conservative members of parliament as in
stantly and permanently arrested the march of revolution, and
raised the Conservative party in parliament nearly to an
equality with that of its opponents.
Here we must pause in this branch of the narrative, having
have ceased to merit the confidence of the friends of Church principles. That
confidence never ought to be extended to any journal which fosters divisions in
the Church. 3 Note F. ¦¦ Note G. C

18 ASSOCIATION OF 1833.
carried on the series of our efforts and their consequences, to
the revival of sound political feeling in the nation, and the
elevation of the Conservative party. Our movement, how
ever, had no political object of any kind. We understood
itideed that it was rather disapproved by some Conservative
leaders. We were certainly never aided or encouraged by
them in any way.
It will always be some pleasure to reflect that we were instru
mental, in some degree, under Divine providence, in awakening
the slumbering spirit of religion and of patriotism, a spirit which
mere poUtical Conservatism might not have found it easy to
evoke ; and I trust that the narrative of our obscure and humble,
but devoted exertions in the cause ofthe Church, may encourage
the friends of that Church to rely for its defence, not on the
professions of political parties, or on the gratitude of those
whom they may have raised to power, but on their own good
cause, andon the affectionate loyalty of its adherents ^
One more result of our exertions, however, must not be
passed over in silence. I can sincerely say, that if there was
one object more than another which we should have been
happy to realise, it was the union of the Church. Separated as
we were from existing party-feelings and associations, we only
looked to the general good''. I am sure that we felt as kindly
towards one set of men as towards another. None of our pub
lications alluded to party differences. Mr. Rose, in establish
ing the " British Magazine," had resolved to keep clear of
questions which had divided the Church ', and in this we cheer
fully concurred. I knoiv the kind and charitable feelings which
existed in others towards the party called " Evangehcal," and
am sure that no different sentiment has ever existed in my
own mind. The controversies which have since arisen, and
have been carried on in a spirit tending to widen our divisions,
are a source of grief and disappointment.
How great, then, was our rejoicing to find that in the course
of our exertions, men of different theological schools were
brought nearer together, were inspired with feelings of
= Note H. " Note I. ' Note K.

ITS RESULTS. 19
mutual respect and esteem, and were convinced that religion,
and religious truth, were more widely extended than they had
been accustomed to think. The wounds of the Church were
every day healing by the balm of brotherly love.
This plain and unvarnished statement of facts will, it is
hoped, exculpate those who were engaged in the Association of
1833 and 1834, from any imputation of designs hostile to the
doctrines or discipline of the Church of England, or favourable
to the introduction of Romanism. The views which were en
tertained in common by those who took the lead in that move
ment, are represented by the documents which they circulated,
and by them alone. The " Suggestions for the formation of
an Association of friends of the Church," and the " Address to
the Archbishop of Canterbury," were the results of our con
ferences, and they alone represent our united sentiments. In
those documents, which were received with favour by the
great body of the Clergy, we expressed our disapprobation of
" alterations in the doctrines and discipline of the Church," our
resolution " to maintain pure and inviolate the docfi-ines, the ser
vices, and the discipline ofthe Church." We asserted " our de
voted adherence to ihe Apostolical doctrine and polity of the
Church, . . . and our deep-rooted attachment to the Liturgy, in
lohich she has embodied, in the language of ancient piety, the
orthodox and primitive faith." Our attachment to the Church
of England is therefore unquestionable.
Our combination was for the purpose of resisting Latitudi
narian attempts against the established doctrine and disci
pline, and of defending the principles of the Church. It
is, of course, impossible to assert positively that individuals
amongst us may not have had private views more or less fa
vourable to Romanism, but most assuredly the existence of
such tendencies was wholly unknown ; and from all that passed,
I have no hesitation in saying, that had there been any suspi
cion of a tendency to Romanism, our combination would have
been impossible. And as far as one individual can answer for
the sentiments of others, with whom he was on terms of inti
mate and unreserved communication, I can safely say, that not
one of my friends or colleagues had any designs in favour of
Romanism.
c2

20 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

CHAPTER IL

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.  THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.
We now turn to the history of the " Tracts for the Times,"
and for this purpose must retrace our steps to the autumn of
1833. It had been unanimously agreed amongst those who
originated the movement, that the press ought to be made the
means of bringing before the clergy and laity the great prin
ciples on which the Church is based, and which had been
almost wholly forgotten. We felt it necessary to teach people
that the duty of adhering to the Church of England rested on
a basis somewhat higher than mere acts of parliament, or the
patronage of the State, or individual fancy. We were anxious
to impress on them, that the Church was more than a merely
human institution; that it had privileges, sacraments, a mi
nistry, ordained by Christ; that it was a matter of the highest
obligation to remain united to the Church.
In the necessity of such teaching we all concurred most
heartily; but no particular arrangements had been made as to
the composition or revision of Tracts, their title, form, &c. ' ;
when the publication of the Tracts commenced, and was conti
nued by several of our friends, each writer printing whatever
' The difficulties which were felt in regard to the publication of Tracts by an
Association, led to the designed omission of any mention of Tracts in the " Sug
gestions" which formed the original basis of our Association. I have now before
me a paper containing proposed additions to the " Suggestions," in the following
terms : " In this early stage of its proceedings, the Association does not feel itself
competent to publish Tracts on its own authority; but it invites its friends to
write Tracts upon the subjects which are the basis of its union, and undertakes
to circulate them, pledging itself to no more than an approbation of the general
sentiments they contain."
"Or should it be thought an awkwardness for the Association to circulate Tracts
which it is not expressly to sanction, thus :"
" ' In this early stage, &c. But it invites its friends to distribute Tracts, after
first submitting tliem to the Committee, as well as otherwise exert themselves
with a view of recommending the general objects which it is pledged to further.' "
This addition, however, was not thought advisable. The reyisz'oii of the Tracts,
which here seems to be contemplated, was not afterwards approved of. It was
even decidedly opposed.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 21
appeared to him advisable or useful, without the formality of
previous consultation with others. Several Tracts were thus
privately printed and dispersed amongst friends and corre
spondents in the country. I received these Tracts, which were
published during my absence, and aided in their distribution at
first, because their general tendency seemed good, though I con
fess that I was rather surprised at the rapidity with which they
were composed and published, without any previous revision
or consultation ; nor did it seem to me that any caution was
exercised in avoiding language calculated to give needless
offence. Circumstances had induced me to pay some atten
tion to the writings of Romish and Dissenting controversialists,
and it seemed clear that the Tracts contained gratuitous ad
missions, of which these opponents would almost certainly avail
themselves. Unwilling, however, to interrupt the harmony of our pro
ceedings, I did not at first express my sentiments, further
than urging the necessity of greater caution and discretion.
The respect and regard due to the authors of the Tracts
rendered me anxious to place the most favourable construction
on every thing whicli they wrote, and to hope that my appre
hensions might be ill-founded. In the course, however, ofthe
extensive correspondence in the autumn and winter of 1833
whicli has been mentioned, so many objections were raised by
the clergy against parts of the Tracts, and so many indiscre
tions were pointed out, that I became convinced of the neces
sity of making some attempt to arrest the evil. With this
object I made application in a direction where much influence
in the management of the Tracts was exercised, and very
earnestly urged the necessity of putting an end to their publi
cation, or, at least, of suspending them for a time ". On one
occasion I thought I had been successful in the former object,
and stated the fact to several correspondents ; but the sequel
proved that I was mistaken ^

2 Note L.
= This effort is alluded to in Fronde's Remains. I cannot but think that
Fronde's influence, which was very great, was on many occasions exerted in a
direction contrary to mine. He has expressed his disapprobation of the only

22 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
I did not, however, entirely relinquish the hope of being of
some use, and therefore eariy in 1834, after the conclu
sion of a protracted visit to London, on the affairs ofthe Associa
tion, I most earnestly urged in the quarter where most influence
existed, the absolute necessity of appointing some Committee
of revision, to which all the Tracts might in future be sub
mitted previously to publication ; and that authors should no
longer print in the series whatever might seem advisable to
themselves. I urged this, on many grounds, and with all the
arguments which I could think of, observing that although it
was true, that the Tracts were really only the productions of
individuals, and although those individuals disclaimed every
where the notion that the Tracts emanated from any body of
men, yet still the mere circumstance of their being pubUshed
anonymously, in the same place, and in a series^, did, and would
continue to impress the public with a belief, that they were not
the writings of individuals — that they represented the doc
trines held by our Association — and that we should be held
responsible for all the statements contained in the Tracts. I
observed, that in proposing a system of revision by some Com
mittee, there was not the least wish to lower the tone of doc
trine, or to conceal any part of Catholic truth ; but that the
only object was to obviate the use of mere incautious expres
sions, of language likely to give needless offence, and to be
laid hold of by enemies. It seemed that no sufficient answer
This was the substance of our discussion, whicli was renewed
more than once on successive days ; but in the conclusion I
had the mortification of finding my endeavours wholly fruitless,
and that there was a fixed and unalterable resolution to admit
no revision of the " Tracts for the Times."
It may be, perhaps, that a greater amount of benefit to the
Church has resulted from the continuation of the Tracts than
Tract, in the composition of which I was in any degree concerned (Tract 15.
" On the Apostolical succession in the English Church.") At the request of a
friend I furnished a few notes for this Tract, which were filled up and expanded
by another, so that I am not in any way responsible for the Tract.
^ The title of " Tracts for the Times" had not yet been adopted.
¦¦• J am not at liberty to publish the remainder of the conversation, including
tlie objections to my proposal.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 23
would have been attained, had these suggestions been adopted.
Perhaps, too, others perceived more clearly than I did that
my views on doctrine and discipline were not in perfect har
mony on all points with those of the writers of the Tracts, and
that a Committee of Revision, of which I should have been a
member, would really have imposed a far greater restraint on
those writers than I should have been conscious of, or de
signed. Certainly I had, in private conversation with Mr.
Froude, and one or two others, felt that there were material
differences between our views on several important points. I
allude more particularly to the question of the union of Church
and State, and of the character of the English and the Foreign
Reformers. Mr. Froude occasionally expressed sentiments on
the latter subject which seemed extremely unjust to the Re
formers, and injurious to the Church; but as his conversation
generally was of a very startling and paradoxical character,
and his sentiments were evidently only in the course of forma
tion, I trusted that more knowledge and thought would bring
him to juster views.
The disappointment which had been experienced in the
efforts to obtain some system of revision for the Tracts, and the
apprehensions which I could not but feel for the result, toge
ther with a growing perception ofthe differences which existed
between my views and those of my colleagues, led to the con
viction that any further direct co-operation with them was im
possible. I accordingly ceased to take any active part in their
proceedings, or to be possessed of that intimate confidence, with
which I had previously been honoured ; while, at the same
time, the friendship which had been cemented by a commu
nity of principles on the more important and sacred subjects,
and by a community of interest and exertion in the cause of the
Church, prevented me from adopting any course of opposition
which might have been calculated to cause pain or embarrass
ment" 
" Actuated by such sentiments, I could not resolve to allow my name to be
mentioned in Mr. Perceval's narrative, because it would have imposed on me an
obligation of stating the reasons why I had ceased to co-operate with the authors
of the Tracts. The circumstances, however, of the present time, oblige me to
lay aside such personal considerations.

24 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
But, though thus reduced to silence and inaction, I was a
deeply interested spectator of the progress of events. I could
distinctly see (and with regret), that the theology of the Non
jurors was exercising a very powerful influence over the writers
of the Tracts. Collections of Non-juring works had been
made, and Hickes, Brett, Johnson, LesUe, Dodwell, &c. were
in the highest esteem. To this source it was easy to trace
much of that jealousy of State interference, much of that
assertion of unlimited independence of the Church, and above
all, much of that unfavourable judgment of the English and
foreign Reformation, which so largely characterised the Tracts
and other connected works. The Non-jurors, from whom
these views were, perhaps unconsciously, borrowed, had been
pressed by their opponents with precedents of civil interference
in Church matters at the period ofthe Reformation; and their
remedy too frequently was to assail and vilify the Reformation
itself ^ Their separation from the Established Church also led
gradually to their discovery of various supposed defects in our
Liturgy and institutions. Certain ceremonies whicli had been
prescribed in the first Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI.,
and which had been subsequently omitted, were represented
by several Non-juring writers as essentials; and their views
on this subject had been partially adopted by various authors
of merit, even in the Church of England, as by Wheatley (in
his book on the Common Prayer). Having devoted great atten
tion to the study of the ancient Liturgies, I was perfectly
satisfied, that the Non-juring writers (such as Johnson, &c.)
were by no means qualified, by the amount of their information,
to form a sound judgment on such points. It was, therefore,
a matter of great concern to observe, that their views were
developing themselves in the writings of friends.
Deeply uneasy as some of us felt on witnessing such ques
tionable doctrine gradually mingling itself with the salutary
truths whicli we had associated to vindicate, and often as we
were driven almost to the verge of despair, in observing what
appeared to be a total indifference to consequences ; yet, find-
" Heylin liad adopted too much ofthe same tone in his History of the Refor
mation, and from causes somewhat similar.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 25
ing that more experienced members of the Church, in Lon
don and throughout the country, were not equally appre
hensive ; and seeing also the sort of miraculous success which
Truth was obtaining, notwithstanding these mistakes ; we
hoped that all would still be well, and consoled ourselves with
the reflection, that no great religious movement had ever
taken place without a certain amount of accompanying evil.
There seemed also to be little probability that extreme and
questionable views would prevail ; for they had already be
come the subject of hot controversy ; and the disapprobation
which was so generally expressed, would, it might be hoped,
have rendered their reception impossible; so that, in fine,
they would probably have but little influence, and the only
result would be, to establish great Ecclesiastical principles,
and a firmer attachment to the English Church, in the public
mind. Had we not been restrained by these considerations and
hopes, there can be no doubt, that many of those who have
been identified with the Tract theology, would have publicly
avowed that dissent on some points, which they took no pains
to conceal in conversation with friends. I am satisfied, in
deed, that such considerations alone would not have sufficed
to keep us silent ', had we not been reluctant to join in the
ungenerous and furious outcry, which had been raised by cer
tain periodicals ; and which confounded and mingled in com
mon denunciation truth and error, the most sacred principles
of the Church and the questionable theories of some of its ad
herents. We shrank from being made the instruments of
party-hate ; and from seeing our language perverted and dis
torted to ends the most remote from our intention; perhaps
to the assault of truths, which we held most dear and sacred,
or to the destruction of brethren, whose'principal fault seemed
to be indiscretion, and whose faults were more than balanced
by their merits and their services.
At this distance of time, and after all the discussion which

7 It should be added, indeed, that several leading friends of church principles,
such as Dr. Hook and Mr. Perceval, felt themselves obliged at last publicly to
announce their dissent on various points.

26 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
has taken place in regard to the " Tracts for the Times" and
other connected writings, it can hardly be necessary that those
who have hitherto studiously refrained from engaging in the
controversy, either for or against the Tracts, should deviate
from the course which they have so long pursued. Whether
their judgment has been right or wrong in preserving silence
as far as they could on these agitating topics, and in abstaining
from open opposition where they felt that they could not always
approve, still it were now, at least, too late for them to enter on
the discussion. That discussion, indeed, ought to be con
sidered at an end, as regards various points, in consequence of
the judgments which have emanated from ecclesiastical autho
rity. It may be that we are not prepared to concur in every
particular opinion or statement which occurs in those episcopal
judgments. We may also be of opinion, that an unnecessary
degree of severity has been exercised in some instances. But
on the whole, I am persuaded that the points which have
excited the combined animadversion of the majority of those
Prelates who have spoken, are points which the great body of
those who are really attached to Church principles have never
approved ; and on which they have always looked with distrust
and dissatisfaction.
Admitting, as we do, most cordially and fully, the great
services which have been rendered to the cause of truth and of
piety by the authors of the Tracts, services which have been
acknowledged even by their opponents, and which the chief
pastors of the Church have not scrupled to commend in terms
of the highest approbation ; and deeply sensible as we are that
they have established great verities, called attention to some
distinctive features of our Church which had been too much
neglected, and frustrated the designs of Latitudinarianism : it
is still undeniable, that the friends of Church principles have
not been able to concur in every position which has been ad
vanced by individual writers connected with the Tracts. They
have, indeed, been not unfrequently placed in very serious
embarrassment by the incaution of individuals, by indiscreet
publications, and actions. They have felt that opponents
were, in various ways, furnished with additional objections and
arguments, and that they were themselves committed by pro-

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY. 27
ceedings of which they could not approve ; and I reaUy cannot
but be of opinion that they have exhibited very great patience
and forbearance throughout the whole of these difficulties. If
those whose actual sentiments have met with opposition have
suffered much, surely the position of those who have been
exposed to suspicion, jealousy, and enmity, on account of the
sentiments of others which they really disapprove, is not less dis
tressing. They have, however, endured in silence the impu
tations under which they labour, when they could easily have
relieved themselves by avowing their sentiments, and thus
lending their aid to the opposite party. This is a view of the
subject which has not been taken : it is really deserving of
some consideration. It may suffice at least to show, that those
advocates of Church principles who are not prepared to ap
prove of all the theories advanced in " Froude's Remains," or
in some particular Tracts, have had their own causes of com
plaint, and yet have borne them with patience and kindliness
of feeling.
Explanation seems to be required on one or two points
which are commonly misunderstood and misrepresented. The
case of Dr. Hampden is one of these.
It was in 1836, that the discussions consequent on the ap
pointment of Dr. Hampden to the chair of Divinity at Oxford,
took place. This movement has been generally, but rather
erroneously, attributed to the leaders of the Tract Association :
they only took some share in it. Dr. Hampden had preached
the Bampton Lectures in 1832; and an admirable theologian,
who heard the concluding discourses, agreed with me, that their
tendency was decidedly Rationalistic; that they went to the
extent of representing our articles of faith, and our creeds, as
based on merely human and uncertain theories. The publi
cation of these lectures was unusually protracted. In 1834, on
occasion of the attempt made to force dissenters on the Univer
sities, Dr. Hampden published his pamphlet on Dissent, in
which the boldest latitudinarianism was openly avowed, and
Socinians were placed on a level with all other Christians. If
any doubt could have existed on the tendency of the Bampton
Lectures, it would have been removed by the clue to Dr. H.'s

28 THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.
views furnished by this pamphlet. So great was the excite
ment of the time, however, when the whole University, banded
together as one man, met, confronted, and overthrew the
Ministerial attempt to change the character of its institutions \
that this pamphlet attracted comparatively little notice. In
1834, soon after the appearance ofthe pamphlet, the friend men
tioned above, urged on me the necessity of some protest against
Dr. Hampden's doctrines being made, lest impunity might lead
to a repetition of similar attempts against the Articles. It
seemed to me, however, that any such measure might be pro
ductive of harm, in drawing public attention to statements
which, appearing as they did in by no means a popular form,
would probably attract but little notice.
Thus stood matters when, early in 1836, Dr. Burton,
Regius Professor of Divinity, died. The University was not
long in suspense as to his successor. In a few days we were
electrified by the intelligence that Dr. Hampden was to be
appointed to the vacant chair. This measure seemed a de
signed insult to the University for its resistance to the Mi
nistry in the preceding years. It was like an attempt to
force latitudinarian principles on the Church. It was to
place in the chair of Divinity, with the power of instructing
and guiding half the rising Clergy of England, one who would
undermine the authority of our Creeds and Articles. The
dangerous principles which, we had hoped, would have re
mained unobserved, in writings of no very popular character,
would now be at once brought into public notice, invested with
authority, and received by all the rising generation. Some
influential friends therefore of Church principles, unconnected
with the Tracts, visited all parts of the University, inviting its
members to instant exertion, in the hope of averting the
danger by which we were threatened.
The result was, that a meeting was held in Corpus Christi
common-room, where we elected, as our chairman, the Rev.
Vaughan Thomas, B.D., on whom the independent party had
° On this occasion the Rev. W. Sewell of Exeter College first became gene
rally known to tlie public by his admirable pamphlets in vindication of the
university.

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY. 29
previously fixed, as eminently qualified for the office by his
experience, habits of business, ability, eloquence, soundness
and firmness of principle, and freedom from party connexions ^
Our petition to the Throne against this appointment was
rejected, and Dr. Hampden became Professor. We met again,
and petitioned the Heads of Houses to bring before Convoca
tion a censure of the errors advanced in Dr. Hampden's
writings. It had been previously ascertained that the Pro
fessor refused to retract a single iota of his doctrines. Again
and again was our petition rejected by the majority of the
Board of the Heads of Houses, and again did we return to the
contest with increased numbers and determination. All divi
sions and jealousies were forgotten in this noble effort. It was
at length successful to a certain extent, and the Heads of
Houses concurred in bringing forward a censure on Dr.
Hampden (a different measure, however, from what we had
desired ^), which was passed in Convocation by an overwhelm
ing majority.
That this movement was not guided by the Tract writers,
may be gathered from the fact, that the Principal of Brasenose
College, afterwards Lord Bishop of Chichester, was the firm
and persevering leader of our cause amongst the Heads of
Houses, while the permanent committee appointed to prepare
our addresses, comprised four members who were either
opposed to, or in no degree connected with the Tracts, viz. the
Rev. Vaughan Thomas, B.D. ; the Rev. John Hill, M.A. of
St. Edmund Hall, the Rev. Edward Greswell, B.D. of Corpus
Christi ; and the Rev. W. Sewell, M.A. of Exeter College.
Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey were the other members of the
2 We had previously communicated to Professor Pusey our wish that he should
not take any prominent part in the affair, and our intention of nominating the
Rev. A'. Thomas as our chairman — a communication which was received in the
kindest and most friendly spirit.
3 Our desire was that the specific errors advanced might be censured, in order
that the students of theology might be put on their guard : we did not ask for
the censure olany person. The statute proposed by the Heads of Houses, as a sort
of compromise, condemned Dr. H. personally, without specifying his errors.
We, however, accepted this measure as the best that could be expected under the
circumstances, being satisfied that it was neither unjust nor unprecedented.

30 THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.
Committee, the latter of whom it was essential to appoint in
consideration of his rank in the University.
The condemnation of Dr. Hampden, then, was not carried
by the Tract writers ; it was carried by the independent body
of the University. The fact is, that had those writers taken
any leading part, the measure would have been a total failure ;
for the number of their friends at that time, bore a very small
proportion to the University at large, and there was a general
feeling of distrust in the soundness of their views. I cannot
but regret that the moderation and independence which were
then so general, were afterwards superseded to a certain extent,
by an extreme devotion to particular opinions on the one side,
and a vehemence of hostility on the other, whicli have been
equally injurious to truth and to Christian charity. The
independent body was gradually diminished by the removal
from the University of several wise, sober-minded, and influen
tial men, who were lost to us, either by preferment or by
death. In their place another generation arose, trained in dif
ferent schools. Hence the development of extreme opinions ;
the temerity of assertion which day by day seemed to acquire
fresh vigour from the reproofs which it encountered ; the
adoption of questionable rites and decorations in public wor
ship, and the importance which was attached to them : and on
the other hand, a jealousy of extreme views, gradually rising
into vehement hostility and denunciation. We could even see
a kind of personal enmity, which, with a steady and unremitting
scent for destruction, tracked and hunted down every fault,
each mistake in doctrine, each folly in practice, every un
guarded word, or look, or deed ; and found in them all damning
proof of dishonesty and of all imaginable crimes against the
Church of England.
One measure whicli must have materially, though uninten
tionally, increased the influence of the writers of the Tracts, was
the formation of a Theological Society, in 1835, the meetings
of which were held at Dr. Pusey's house in Christ Church.
This Society was to be managed by a committee, of which the
Regius and Margaret Professors of Divinity were to be ex
officio members, while the other places were to be occupied by

THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY. 31
Mr. E. Greswell, Dr. Pusey, Mr. Newman, Mr. Oakeley
of Balliol College. A wish was kindly expressed, that my
name should also appear on this committee ; but I declined
together with Dr. Faussett, Mr. Greswell, and Dr. Burton \
Theological essays were read at the meetings of the Society,
which were held once a fortnight; and discussion was encou
raged at first, but was afterwards discontinued. I attended
one of their meetings, and felt by no means satisfied of the
wisdom and expediency of the design. Several of the papers
read on these occasions afterwards appeared in the " Tracts
for the Times." They were listened to by attentive audiences,
consisting of bachelors and masters, to the number of fifty,
and upwards.
Although there was certainly much occasionally in the pages
of the " British Critic," which seemed overstrained and fanci
ful ; much also whicli savoured of sympathy with Rome, or
of a spirit of discontent with the English Church; and although
the tide of opposition was continually increasing; yet there was
much on the whole for some time to encourage the sincere
friends of Church principles. The argument was all on their
side: intemperate clamour, invective, unfairness, were wholly
on the other. It sometimes occurred to those friends of Church
principles, who were not exposed to the brunt of public
obloquy, that their warmest sympathies were due to men who,
notwithstanding some errors in judgment, were, in fact, standing
in the fore-front of the battle, breaking down the reign of
ignorance and prejudice, and making way for the gradual
prevalence of enlightened principle — for its triumph over even
their own mistakes.
It was thus that we were circumstanced, when in 1841 the
celebrated Tract 90 was pubUshed. I have already spoken of

' I ought to state, that in the communications which passed on this sub
ject, the most earnest wish was expressed by Dr. Pusey and Mr. Newman to
prevent this Society from assuming any thing of a party character, or developing
any peculiar theological system. With this view they endeavoured to associate
with themselves men who were wholly independent. Had we been able to meet
their wish, some evils might have been obviated : but occupations and difficulties
of various kinds interfered.

32 THE HAMPDEN CONTROVERSY.
the spirit of almost personal hostility, which in some quarters
was so painfully exhibited towards the author of this Tract.
I had with unspeakable concern observed the growth of feel
ings which I will not trust myself to characterize, and had
privately endeavoured in vain to infuse some kinder and more
generous temper, to soothe asperities, and to suggest favourable
constructions. The untiring persecution which the author of
Tract 90 and his friends had sustained, had often excited the
displeasure of those who witnessed it. On the publication of
Tract 90, we learnt that a furious agitation had been set on
foot in the quarter alluded to, and that by dint of condemnatory
letters from Prelates and others, whicli were carried from house
to house, and by other similar means, the Heads of Houses were
to be urged and almost intimidated into some measure, designed
to crush the author of the Tract. I, in common with others
( though by no means prepared to concur in some of the interpre
tations suggested by that Tract, orin some of its other positions^),
yet made every possible effort to prevent the success of this
attempt, because it seemed to emanate from merely personal
hostility; to threaten consequences disastrous to the peace of the
University and the Church ; and, above all, because I could not
but apprehend that an opportunity would be taken by party, to
represent the censure as a censure of Church principles in gene
ral — as a blow aimed, not merely against the author of Tract
90, or the Tract Theology, but against the doctrine of Aposto
lical succession — against all high views and principles — against
all that Churchmen are bound to value and defend. Alarmed
at this prospect, many influential clergy in various parts of the
country concurred in opinion with some members of the Uni
versity of Oxford, who were unconnected with party, that in
consequence of the censure passed by the Heads of Houses,
it was necessary to make some public declaration of our
attachment to Church principles, and to express our sense of
the benefits which had been derived from the writings of those
whom it was now attempted to crush. But this undertaking
was laid aside in deference to the wishes of an authority to
= Note M.

PARTY-SPIRIT. 33
which our obedience was most justly due; and I am as fully
sensible of the wisdom which dictated such injunctions, as of
the condescending kindness with which they were conveyed.
In the then disturbed state of the pubUc mind, our declaration
would have been misunderstood, and might have been only a
signal for fresh divisions.

CHAPTER IIL
PARTY-SPIRIT  TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
What has been stated will suffice to show, that dissent in
some particulars from the Tracts, and from Froude's views,
were combined with personal regard, and with a due sense of
the services which had been rendered to the cause of Church
principles. I have already disclaimed all intention of entering
on the discussion of particular differences ; but there are some
subjects of a general nature, aud so important, that I am im
pelled to invite the friends of Church principles to a serious
examination of them. The subjects to which I allude are,
the existence of party-spirit amongst some of the adherents of
Church principles, and the tendency to Romanism which has
recently been developed.
I would then address myself most respectfully to that large
and important portion of the Church, which is, in various de
grees, favourable to the principles advocated by the " Tracts
for the Times." If warm personal affection and esteem for
the principal authors of those Tracts, cemented by the most
sacred associations, and never in thought, or word, or deed,
diminished; if community of suffering beneath undeserved
imputations ; if anxiety for the welfare of the Church ; if a
life devoted, to the utmost extent of limited powers and attain
ments, to the inculcation of sound and Catholic principles; if
some experience, as one who at the very beginning took part
in that movement which has exercised so deep an influence ;
if these constitute any claim on attention, I trust, in humility,
that I may be heard.
The eminent men themselves, who have taken so conspicu-
D

34 PARTY-SPIRIT.
OUS a part in the movement connected with the Tracts^ are far
too humble and too wise, to conceive themselves exempt from
the possibility of having made some mistakes in matters of opi
nion and judgment. No men can be more remote from a
spirit of dogmatism, or from the wish that their private opinions
or statements should become the standard of beUef. The very
liberty which was claimed for individual developments in the
composition of the Tracts, the total absence of any system of
revision, are sufficient to prove that the Tracts were merely
designed to advocate the truth, without making any sort of
pretence to infallibility. Their authors have often, and most
sincerely, disclaimed all wish to form a party in the Church;
their object was simply to draw attention to neglected truths
— to appeal to the Church itself as their standard ; to be of
no other party.
But notwithstanding this, it is not any longer possible to
conceal from ourselves the growth of something like party
amongst some of their friends and admirers. It cannot excite
any surprise that such rare endowments, such varied abilities,
such noble designs, such abnegation of self, should exercise
profound influence on those who came within their immediate
sphere. We accordingly witnessed the growth of a feeling,
which its objects would have been the first to deprecate had they
been fully conscious of it — a feeUng of implicit submission — of
uninquiring obedience. We even saw every Uttle peculiarity of
speech, or gait, or manner, sedulously copied ; certain names
even were heard with awe. Such things, however trivial or
amusing in themselves, are, when regarded as indications of
the spirit working within, worthy of deep attention. We be
held every peculiarity and novelty of doctrine, every thing that
was startling and perplexing to sober-minded men, instantly
caught up, disseminated, erected into an article of Catholic
faith, by young and ardent spirits. Each novelty of this kind
became for the moment a sort of Articulus stantis cadentisve
Ecclesia:. We could not but see in this, the growth of an in
fluence most dangerous to the Church, a disposition to create
human leaders, to follow them with undiscriminating and head
long fervour, even to urge them onward continually to bolder
and stronger proceedings.

PARTY-SPIRIT. 35
In speaking thus, it is not of course meant that the spirit of
party which has been aUuded to is generally, or even exten
sively, prevalent amongst those who are favourable to the great
principles of the Tracts. Nothing could be more unfounded
or more unjust than any such imputation. But, needless as it
may be to caution the leading friends of Church principles, as
they are exhibited in the Tracts, against a spirit from which
they are very far removed, I yet cannot but endeavour to draw
their attention to the fact, that there is danger of party-spirit
amongst some few ofthe younger adherents of their cause ; that
there is too implicit an adoption of the views of individuals ;
too little tolerance for different opinions ; too Uttle respect for
constituted authorities, when they are supposed to be, or are,
unfavourable to particular tenets.
It is against party, — against the spirit of party, with all its
evil consequences, — that I would most earnestly, and with
great humility, warn and intreat all who adhere to church
principles — to Catholic antiquity. They are especially called
on to be on their guard against this extreme devotion to the
opinions — this zealous vindication of the practices of particular
men. The temptation is, I admit, very strong, to draw more
closely around those whom persecution in every varied form
has been assailing ; whose pure-minded and self- denying ex
ertions for the public good have been thus rewarded. But,
deep as is this trial to all generous minds, I would intreat
them to remember, that the cause of God is yet more sacred
than that of men ; that it is unlawful to array ourselves under
any banner, or unite ourselves in any combination, but that of
Jesus Christ, and of his Church. It is a sense of the evils
resulting from extreme devotion to certain leaders, the danger
of taking human guidance instead of Divine, the divisions
thence arising, the opposition aroused and returned with daUy
increasing irritation, the risk which we run of sacrificing the
interests of truth itself amidst the unreasoning outcry of popular
prejudice, the consequent tendency of things to a state far
more precarious and difficult for churchmen, — it is the sight of
these present and impending evils, which induces me to stretch
forth my hands in earnest supplication to my friends, and to
all adherents of CathoUc principles; and to intreat them to
D 2

36 PARTY-SPIRIT.
discourage, to the utmost of their power, party associations and
party feeling.
I speak not of the name but of the reality of party. The
apprehension of being stigmatized by party names for adhe
rence to unpopular principles, should not deter us from fol
lowing the path of duty ; but we are bound by the most
solemn obligations to God and his Church, not to permit party
spirit really to infiuence our minds, our language, or our con
duct; not to range ourselves under leaders, or to say, Iam
of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas ; not to receive
implicitly their tenets, or to regard those of different tenets as
necessarily wrong or uncatholic, or to withdraw from associ
ation and friendship with them, or to limit our association
only to those who adopt the fullest extent of the doctrine
taught by those whom we especially admire ; not to think that
piety and goodness are restricted to one set of men in the
Church ; not to attempt to force our opinions and practices on
the public, in spite of its evident reluctance and opposition ;
not to permit in ourselves a tone of irony, or bitterness, or cen
sure, unmingled with charity towards opponents ; not to class
them together under party names, and thus assist in forming
amongst them the spirit and combinations of party; not to
permit ourselves to feel unkindness, or irritation, against them,
however great may be the amount of ignorance, of prejudice,
of manifold infirmities and faults, which we have to encounter.
There was a time, not long past, when the advocates of
Church principles did, universally, exemplify this conduct;
when firm and calm in the consciousness of right intention, they
listened with charity to the clamour of their opponents. In
temperance, and intolerance, party-feeling, the spirit of sec
tarianism, appeared not at all amongst them ; at least on the
surface of things. But the spirit of Newman, Pusey, and
Keble, has not been transmitted to all their friends. By the
examples of those eminent and holy men, (if no higher motive
will avail,) I would beseech their disciples to use more gentle
ness, to cultivate a greater spirit of charity, patience, forbear
ance, tolerance.
I must now approach, with the deepest concern, a branch of
this subject, which nothing but a sense of duty could induce

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 37
me to allude to — the tendency, if not to Romanism itself, yet
to the greatest possible approximation towards its views and
practices. If the authors of the eariier Tracts— if all advo
cates of Church principles — if I myself have earnestly desired
that the time might come, when the divisions which have for so
many ages existed in Christendom, might, through Divine
mercy, be removed, and the universal Church from east to
west might rejoice in the restoration of its ancient harmony
and union — if we endeavoured to remove from amongst our
selves, all scandals, ignorances, narrow-mindedness, which
might interpose an obstacle to so grand and glorious a con
summation — if we laboured for the restoration of primitive and
Catholic principles; for the revival of discipline so grievously
collapsed; for the decency and majesty of public worship;
in the hope that all other churches might behold our wish for
unity, and might, in like manner, remove from themselves all
things calculated to offend — if we admitted that the Church of
Christ was not limited merely to our own communion, but even
that those of Rome and Greece, notwithstanding the preva
lence of errors and corruptions amongst them, were still to be
accounted as branches of Christianity ; — if these were our de
signs, our motives, our admissions, I think I can answer for
all advocates of Church principles, that it was never their de
sign to compromise one particle of religious truth ; to diminish
in any degree the attachment of our people to the national
church ; to sacrifice any of its rights, liberties, or laws ; to give
countenance to superstitious or idolatrous practices ; or to sub
vert the principles of the English Reformation.
The charge of Romanizing tendencies, to which so many
advocates of Church principles have been subjected, notwith
standing their exertions in the field of controversy against
Rome, did not excite surprise or uneasiness amongst them,
because they were well aware that the imputation of Popery is
the standing argument of those who have no other mode of
resisting the truth. They knew that the Puritans and the
Independents imputed Popery to the Church of England her
self; that Episcopacy is denounced as Popish by the Presby
terians; the doctrine of the Trinity by Socinians; the reten
tion of Creeds and Articles by Latitudinarians ; the Sacraments

38 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
by Quakers; the union of Church and State by Dissenters.
Satisfied of the truth of their own principles, and of the power
of those principles in sustaining controversy with Romanism,
they heard, without the least uneasiness, the outcry of " Popery"
with which they were assailed by Dissenters ; by those whose
sympathies were with dissent ; and by all the avowed and open
enemies of the Church and of the Constitution. They felt
daily more satisfied of the strength of their position, when
Dissenters, Presbyterians, Romanists, Infidels, and Radicals,
united in assailing them. That any tendency to Romanism
should ever exist amongst themselves ; that Church principles
should ever become the path to superstition and idolatry ; that
they or their disciples should ever become alienated from the
English Church, never entered their imaginations as possible.
When their opponents charged them with such tendencies, the
charge was always steadily denied. They availed themselves
of every opportunity to clear themselves from the imputation
of Popery. They even contended against the errors of Ro
manism. They had no intention to assist in the propagation of
those errors.
I would appeal to the great body of the clergy and laity
who have maintained Church principles, whether their honest
and sincere intention has not ever been to maintain the truth, as
much against Romish corruption on the one hand, as against
Rationalizing infidelity on the other. They know that it has
been their earnest endeavour to guard against, not merely the
imputation of Romanism, but Romanism itself. Individuals,
indeed, may have made concessions now and then, which have
been laid hold of as indications of a tendency towards Roman
ism, and which they probably would not have made had they
been conscious of the interpretation which would be placed on
them. Perhaps almost every one who has written or spoken
on these subjects, may have had something to lament in his
own expressions. But, however such indiscretions may have
been exaggerated, and to whatever surmisings they may have
given rise, the advocates of Church principles themselves know
their real integrity of attachment to the doctrines of the Church
of England, and their firm determination to resist the errors
and corruptions of Romanism. It is this knowledge, this

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 39
humble confidence in their own principle, which has, perhaps, in
some instances led them to a degree of candour and liberality in
the avowal of their sentiments, which has been misunderstood.
I might appeal, in proof of the sincerity of our opposition to
Romanism, and of our attachment to the principles of the
EngUsh Reformation, to the writings of the great body of our
ablest and most popular writers. I might refer to the works of
such men as Hook, Perceval, Gresley, Paget, Churton, Man
ning, Sewell, Gladstone, and very many others. But I would
appeal more especially to those writings which have been more
than others exposed to the imputation of Romanizing ten
dencies, and I have no hesitation in saying, that a candid
examination of the greater part of the " Tracts for the Times,"
and of the writings of their authors, will sufficiently prove that
(whatever may be thought of their individual opinions on
particular points) there is throughout a continual avowal of
opposition to Rome in general, a strong sense of its corruptions
and errors, an earnest wish to resist those errors. Such would
seem to be the principle and the feeling, on the whole °, to
which the Tracts and their writers have given expression, and
in which the great body of those who are friendly to them
have concurred.
Let me be permitted to bring before the reader some proofs
of what has been now said, selected chiefly from the Appendix
to Dr. Pusey's Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, " On the ten
dency to Romanism imputed to doctrines held of old, as now, in
the EngUsh Church." This appendix is entitled " Extracts
from the Tracts for the Times, the Lyra Apostolica, and other
publications ; showing that to oppose ultra- Protestantism is not
to favour Popery."
I first turn to the " Tracts for the Times."
The Tracts maintain, that at the Reformation we were
" delivered from the yoke of Papal tyranny and usurpation," and
from the " superstitious opinions and practices which had
grown up during the middle ages ' ;" that " there is not a word
5 I would not be understood to deny that passages may be pointed out, in
which we do not perceive thaX firmness of tone which ought to have been main
tained. 1 No. 15. p. 4.

40 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
in Scripture about our duty to obey the Pope' ;" that "Luther
and others of the foreign Reformers, who did act without the
authority of their bishops," were justified in so doing'; that
one object of the Tracts was to " repress that extension of Po
pery" for which religious divisions are making way *. They
profess " enmity against the Papistical corruptions ofthe Gos-
peP ;" a persuasion that the Romish " Communion is infected
with heterodoxy ; that we are bound to flee it as a pestilence ; that
they have established a lie in the place of God's truth ^" It is
admitted that " our Church is a true branch of the Church
Universal ;" that " it is Catholic and Apostolic, yet not Papis
tical '." Transubstantiation is represented as " a manner of
presence newly invented by Romanists'." It is declared, that
the Romish doctrine of Justification is "unscriptural;" that
the doctrine of Transubstantiation is "profane and impious ;"
that the denial of the cup to the laity ; the sacrifice of masses
as it has been practised in the Roman church ; the honour paid
to images ; indulgences ; the received doctrine of Purgatory ;
the practice of celebrating divine service in an unknown
tongue ; forced confession ; direct invocation of Saints ; seven
Sacraments : the Romish doctrine of Tradition ; the claim of
the Pope to be universal bishop ; and other points, are respect
ively blasphemous, dangerous, full of peril, gross inventions,
at variance with Scripture, corruptions, contrary to Scripture
and antiquity '. We are told to " apply Vincentius's test —
antiquity ; and the Church of Rome is convicted of unsoundness '."
Amongst the " practical grievances" in the Roman commu
nion are, " the denial of the cup to the laity ; the necessity of
the priest's intention ; the necessity of confession ; purgatory;
invocation of saints ; images '." It is held, that " the twelfth
century" was a time '^fertile in false steps in religion'' ;" and
that " the addresses to the blessed Mary in the Breviary carry
with them their own condemnation in the judgment of an Eng
lish Christian ;" that these usages " do but sanction and en-
2 lb. p. 5. ' lb. p. 11. * Vol. i. Advert, p. 5.
= No. 20. p. 1. « Ib. p. 3. ' Ib. p. 4.
s No. 27. p. 2. » No. 38. p. II.
' Records of the Church, No. 24. p. 3. ^ jy,,, yi_ p_ g
3 No. 75 p. 7.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 41
courage that direct worship ofthe blessed Virgin and the Saints,
which is the great practical offence of the Latin Church \"
I next turn to the writings of Dr. Pusey, in which we find
the same sort of disapprobation of Romanism.
We read there, that " the Romanist, by the sacrament of
Penance," would forestall the sentence of his Judge ^ The
" coTTwp^ Church of Rome" is spoken of '. The Reformers
who suffered under Mary are entitled " Martyrs\" Rome is
described as " a seat of Antichrist \" " The error of Tran
substantiation" is said to have " cast into the shade the one obla
tion once offered on the cross '." Rome is admitted to have for
saken " the principles of the Church Catholic;" and to have
" stained herself with the blood of saints '." ' Our Church,
" alone of all the reformed Churches was purified in the fire
and purged by the blood of martyrs, and had the evidence of
affliction that she was a beloved child '." The idolatries com
mitted in the worship of saints in the Church of Rome (with
out any protest or objection from her authorities) are amply
exhibited in the postscript to Dr. Pusey's Letter on the Arti
cles treated of in Tract 90; and the conclusion ofthe whole is
that " while these things are so, although we did not separate
from Rome, yet, since God has permitted that Rome should
separate us from her, we see not how the Anglican Church could
re-unite with her, without betraying the trust which she owes to
her children '."
Few writers have expressed their sentiments more decidedly
on this subject than Mr. Newman. A sort of retractation of
some strong expressions has, indeed, lately appeared, which is
supposed to have proceeded from this eminent writer ; but we
have no right to infer that such retractation (though it may,
perhaps, with some reason have added to the apprehensions
which had been previously excited in the minds of Church
men) was intended to apply to the general view which had been
taken of the Romish system : it seems only to relate to parti
cular modes of expression. I shall therefore, without hesita-

. XVlll.

* Ib. p. 7. 9. ' Pusey on Baptism, p. xiv. * Ib. 3
7 Ib. 105. « Ib. 201. Mb. 2nd ed. p. 6.
1 Sermon on Nov. 5. p. 29. ^ Ib. p. 32.
' Pusey's Letter on Tract 90, p. 217.

42 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
tion, refer to the following passages as confirmatory of the
views developed in the Tracts, and in Dr. Pusey's writings,
" We agree with the Romanist," he says, " in appealing to
antiquity as our great teacher, but we deny that his doctrines are
to be found in antiquity*." We are thus cautioned against
making advances to Rome : " If we are induced to believe in
the professions of Rome, and make advances towards her, as if a
sister or a mother Church, which in theory she is, we shall find
too late that we are in the arms of a pitiless and unnatural
relation ^" With reference to the doctrine of Purgatory it is
said, " it may be shown that its existence is owing to a like
indulgence of human reason, and of private judgment upon
Scripture, in-default of Catholic tradition^." "There have
been ages of the world in which men have thought too much of
Angels, and paid them excessive honour; honoured them so
perversely as to forget the supreme worship due to Almighty
God. This is the sin of a dark age''." " We believe" that
Popery is " a perversion or corruption of the truth '." " We
are restrained by many reasons from such invocations [of
Saints]. . . . First, because the practice was not primitive . . .
next, because we are told to pray to God only, and invocation
may easily be corrupted into prayer, and then becomes idol
atrous '." " The present authoritative teaching of the Church
of Rome, to judge by what we see of it in public, goes very far
indeed to substitute another Gospel for the true one. Instead
of setting before the soul the blessed Trinity, it does seem to
me as a popular system to preach the blessed Virgin and the
Saints '."
In fine, Mr. Keble has spoken of the " exorbitant claims of
Rome" — its "undue claims, and pernicious er7-ors-" — its "image
worship and similar corruptions by authority '." He remarks
that " the reverence of the Latin Church for tradition" has
been unscrupulously applied " to opinions and practices of a
date comparatively recent" — that " had this rule (the exclusion
* Newman on Romanism, p. 47. ' Ib. p. 102.
« Ib. 212. ' Sermons, ii. 400. « Advert, to vol. iii.
» Vol. iv. p. 207. ' Letter to Jelf.
2 Keble, Sermon on Primitive Tradition, p. 6. 20.
3 Ib. p. 40.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 43
of novelty) been faithfully kept, it would have preserved the
Church just as effectually from Transubstantiation on the one
hand, as from the denial of Christ's real presence on the other*."
There cannot then, I think, be any doubt in fair and rea
sonable minds, that the Tracts and their principal writers were
opposed to the Romish system on the whole ; and that they
concurred in this with Protestants, and with the Reformers
themselves. It is true, indeed, that individual writers may
have made unwarrantable concessions to Romanism on parti
cular points ; and it is also true, that writers may not be
willing to justify every particular expression which they may
have employed against Romanism ; that they may even have
withdrawn language which seems to them to have been un
necessarily strong, offensive, &c. ; but, after all, the general
principle and spirit of the passages to which I have referred
(and which might easily be multiplied) was opposed to Rome
and its corruptions, &ad favourable to the Reformation.
The repeated and explicit avowals on these points; the
anxiety which was evinced to disclaim the imputation of Ro
manizing tendencies, obtained for the Tracts and their authors
the support or the toleration of a great and influential portion
of the Church, which would otherwise have been withdrawn.
We endured much of what we could not approve — exagge
rated views of the independence of the Church ; undue severity
to the Reformers ; too much praise of Romish offices ; a
depreciating tone in regard to our own ; not to speak of views
on " Sin after baptism," the " doctrine of Reserve \" and other
points which were more than questionable : but we were satis
fied that the imputation of Romanism was really unjust and
unfounded; and therefore we could not assume any hostile
position. Nor does it seem that any circumstance has yet
occurred which should obUge Churchmen to alter their opinion
of the general views and the intentions of the authors of the
Tracts. * lb. p. 45. 47.
5 It were to have been wished that the excellent writers alluded to had so
expressed themselves at first, as to preclude the necessity for explanations, which
in such cases often come too late. The same remark applies to the anathemas of
a respected namesake against " Protestantism," and, in its degree, to Tract 90.

44 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
Within the last two or three years, however, a new School
has made its appearance. The Church has unhappily had
reason to feel the existence of a spirit of dissatisfaction with
her principles, of enmity to her Reformers, of recklessness for
her interests. We have seen in the same quarter a spirit of —
almost servility and adulation to Rome, an enthusiastic and
exaggerated praise of its merits, an appeal to all deep feelings
and sympathies in its favour, a tendency to look to Rome as the
model and the standard of all that is beautiful and correct in art,
all that is sublime in poetry, all that is elevated in devotion.
So far has this system of adulation proceeded, that translations
from Romish rituals, and " Devotions," have been published,
in whicli the very form of printing, and every other external
peculiarity, have evinced an earnest desire for uniformity
with Rome. Romish catechisms have been introduced, and
formed the models for similar compositions. In conversa
tion remarks have been sometimes heard, indicating a dis
position to acknowledge the supremacy of the See of Rome,
to give way to all its claims however extreme, to represent
it as the conservative principle of religion and society in
various ages ; and in the same spirit, those who are in any
way opposed to the highest pitch of Roman usurpations are
sometimes looked on as little better than heretics. The Gal
lican and the Greek churches are considered unsound in their
opposition to the claims of Rome. The latter is held to be sepa
rated from Catholic unity'. The " See of St. Peter" is described
as the centre of that unity ; while our state of separation from it
is regarded, not merely as an evil, but a sin — a cause of deep
humiliation, a judgment for our sins! The blame of separa
tion, of schism, is openly and unscrupulously laid on the Eng
lish church I Her reformers are denounced in the most vehe
ment terms. Every unjust insinuation, every hostile con
struction of their conduct is indulged in ; no allowance is
made for their difficulties, no attempt is made to estimate the
amount of errors which they had to oppose. Displeasure is
felt and expressed if any attempts are made to expose the
" I cannot but remark on the improper manner in which this term has been
used within the last two or three years. It has become the fashion in some
quarters to speak of every thing Romish as Caiholic.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 45
errors, corruptions, and idolatries, approved in the Roman com
munion. Invocation of saints is sanctioned in some quarters;
purgatory is by no means unacceptable in others ; images and
crucifixes are purchased, and employed to aid in private devo
tion ; celibacy of the clergy — auricular confession, are acknow
ledged to be obligatory. Besides this, intimacies are formed
with Romanists, and visits are paid to Romish monasteries, col
leges, and houses of worship. Romish controversialists are ap
plauded and complimented; their works are eagerly purchased
and studied ; and contrasts are drawn between them and the de
fenders of the truth, to the disadvantage of the latter. The
theory of development advocated in the writings of De Maistre
and Mohler (Roman Catholic controversialists), according to
which the latest form of Christianity is the most perfect, and
the superstitions of the sixteenth or eighteenth century are
preferable to the purity of the early ages, is openly sanc
tioned, advocated, avowed ". In fine, menaces are held out to the
Church, that if the spirit which is thus evinced is not encou
raged, if the Church of England is not " unprotestantized,"
if the Reformation is not forsaken and condemned, it may
become the duty of those who are already doubtful in their
allegiance to the Anglo-Catholic communion, to declare them
selves openly on the side of its enemies. I have no disposi
tion to exaggerate the facts of the case ; all who have had
occasion to observe the progress of events will acknowledge
the truth of what has been said. I would only add, that I hope
and beUeve that the spirit which has been described is only to
be found amongst a very small section of those who are popu
larly connected with the advocates of Church principles. I
believe it is no secret, that the authors of the Tracts, (several of
them at least,) however they may think themselves obliged to
tolerate such excesses, are embarrassed by them, and deplore
their occurrence. I beUeve that the great body of their im-
6 I cannot avoid observing, that the principle of development, as taught
by M5hler, and adopted by the " British Critic," is wholly subversive of that
respect for the authority of primitive tradition and of the early Fathers, which
was so much inculcated in the Tracts, and in other writings of their authors.
The early Fathers and the primitive Church, according to this theory, represent
Christianity only in germ, and undeveloped ; we must look to the latest form of
Christianity, i. e. to modern Romanism, as the most perfect model !

46 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
mediate friends concur in this feeUng; and, most assuredly,
the advocates of Church principles in general most strongly
disapprove of the spirit whicli has now been described, and of
the existence of which I am about to furnish detailed proofs.
I will not say that the writers of the Tracts have not been,
in any degree, instrumental in drawing forth this spirit; I
will not inquire how far it is traceable to the publication of
Froude's " Remains," and to the defence of his views con
tained in the Preface to the second series of the " Remains :"
nor will I examine how far it may be a reaction against ultra-
Protestantism : it is unnecessary now to enter on this painful
and complicated question, on which different opinions may be
entertained. One thing, at least, is most perfectly certain : it
never was the intention of the advocates of Church principles
to promote Romanism : they have always been persuaded that
their principles do not, by any fair and legitimate reasoning,
lead to that system, to which they have ever been conscienti
ously and firmly opposed ; and I am persuaded that they will
feel it a duty to offer to the Church every possible pledge of
their attachment to her doctrines ; that if their names have
been employed to sanction any system which generates a spirit
of dissatisfaction with the English Church, and tends to the
revival of Romish errors and superstitions, they will adopt such
measures as may be sufficient to mark their disapprobation of
such a system, and their sense of its inconsistency with the
principles whicli they maintain.
Before I proceed further in this painful task, let me, at
once, disclaim any unfriendly feeling in regard to those whose
opinions will come under consideration. However great and
grievous may be our differences; however strong may be
the feelings of sorrow, and even indignation, with which the
friends of Church principles contemplate the aberrations of
some brethren ; yet I do most firmly and humbly trust, that
those feelings are, and will be in no degree mingled with hosti
lity to those brethren — that " our heart's desire" and our
prayer will be for their spiritual and eternal welfare, and for
the removal of those shadows, which have (we trust only for a
time), faUen on their path. We will not forsake the hope, that
if the indiscretions of youthful and ardent minds ; if inability
1

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 47
to cope with controversial difficulties ; if a too great readiness
to receive without examination any theory which may be plausi
bly advanced ; if too great confidence in intellectual power,
and in theological attainment, have in fact led to doubts and
difficulties -, to the unsettlement of principles ; to language and
conduct which has deeply shocked every sober-minded and
orthodox believer ; the time may not be far distant, when
such evils may be buried in oblivion ; and the objects of our
present grief and apprehension may have retrieved that good
opinion, whicli has unhappily been, to a certain extent, lost.
The proofs of the tendency to Romanism which I am about
to produce, wUl be chiefly taken from the " British Critic ;"
but let me not be misunderstood as involving in such a charge,
all the writers who have contributed to that periodical. Many
articles have appeared, which are perhaps wholly unexception
able. Many others are only slightly tinged with objectionable
principles. Even in the most Romanizing parts, there is
frequently much which we cannot wholly disapprove. Still,
there is a decided leaning on the lohole to Romanism, and there
is nothing in opposition to this tendency. Even the best
articles present no antidote to the errors which are to be found
elsewhere. They do not sufficiently restore the balance. They
contain no refutation of Romish errors ; no vindication of the
opposite truths ; no attempt to revive affection to the Church
of England ; or to defend her principles or her position. All is
unhappily consistent in fact, and tends to one system only ;
though positive evil is not found in all the articles. Indeed the
excellence of many of them, only renders the danger greater.
I am well aware that I may be exposed to the charge of un
fairness in quoting isolated passages. Undoubtedly it is difficult
to avoid occasional injustice in such cases; but we are abso
lutely without any other alternative, unless we were prepared to
occupy a space altogether beyond reasonable bounds. I can
only say, that I feel very confident, that no substantial in
justice will be found in the following delineation.
With a view to obviate any mistakes or misconstructions, I
woidd also premise, that the intention in adducing the follow
ing quotations, is only to exhibit the general character and
tendencies of the system ; and that no opinion is meant to be

48 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
expressed, as to the extent or nature of the error or impropriety
which e.xists in each particular quotation. It is unnecessary,
and would require too much space, to enter on such a dis
cussion. We need only establish the general character of the
system. I. The advocates of such a system cannot impute to us any
want oi forbearance : we have often privately protested against
the principles developed in the " British Critic ;" and yet the
writers in that periodical have deliberately continued in their
course, under the full and avowed consciousness that it is dis
pleasing to the firmest friends of Church principles ; and that
it may be injurious to the Church of England. Thus, in the
article on Bishop Jewell, in which the question " whether or
not the English Reformers be trustworthy witnesses to Catholic
doctrine" is determined in the negative, we find the following
passage in reference to this question :—
•' If it be urged, on the other hand, that the very agitation of such a
question is inexpedient, as tending to unsettle men's minds, and to fur
nish matter of triumph to our opponents, we can only reply, ' Fiat jus-
titia,' &c. Or if, again, that the mere disposition to agitate it, can
hardly be displayed, wittiout ttie risk of paining, if not alienating, some of
those whom one least wishes to hurt, and could little afford to lose, then we
must close with the lesser of two evils, great as even that lesser is '."
In a later number of the same periodical we find the foUow
ing passage, which distinctly proves, that neither the advice of
friends, nor the interests of the English Church, can restrain
certain writers from pursuing their course : —
" It is sometimes urged, and in quarters justly claiming our deep honour
and respect, that those who feel the real unity in essentials existing
among 'high churchmen' in England, do ill in troubling such unity by
making various statements about other Churches which cannot but give offence.
But we answer, that it is not only among English ' high churchmen,' but
foreign Catholics also, that we recognize such essential unity. And on
what single principle of Scripture or tradition can the position he main
tained, to meet the objectors on their own ground, that the unity of a
national Church is the legitimate object of ultimate endeavour? Both
Scripture and antiquity are clamorous and earnest indeed in favour of
unity of the Church ; but is the English Establishment the Church ? 
' No. LIX. p. 32.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 49
If there is to be an armistice, let it be on both sides : if various highly-re
spected persons will agree never to censure Rome, it is plain that they will
at least be doing their part in removing one reason which exists /or poireied
and prominent descants in her praise^."
Thus, then, our remonstrances are disregarded : the interests
of the Church of England are avowedly set aside : it cannot,
therefore, be any matter of surprise, if the friends of that
Church, if the advocates of her principh^s, feel themselves
obliged to disclaim any alliance, as to views and opinions, with
those who have themselves proclaimed their alienation.
II. It is now admitted on all hands, that there is a tendency
to Romanism in some quarters. The author of Tract 90
stated, that his object was to keep certain persons from
" straggling in the direction of Rome " ¦" Dr. Pusey has written
at some length on the " acknowledged tendency of certain in
dividuals in our Church to Romanism '." Difficult as it has
been for Churchmen to realize to themselves the strange and
almost incomprehensible fact, that any who had ever professed
Church principles should have a tendency to Romanism, they
have been gradually and reluctantly compelled to admit the
lamentable truth. Actual secessions from the Church, few
indeed, but yet sufficiently alarming ; a change of tone in pri
vate society ; and above all, the doctrine continually and
systematically advanced in the " British Critic," can leave no
further doubt of the existence of the evil. That evil has been
distinctly perceived for more than two years by some friends of
Church principles, who have been withheld from taking any
decided and open step in opposition, by apprehension lest such
a proceeding might have the effect of precipitating events
which they would deeply deplore. It seems, however, that
there is mo7'e danger in continuing silent, when we perceive the
increasing dissemination of most erroneous and decidedly Ro
manizing views, under the assumed name of Church principles,
and when the advocates of those principles are universally
identified with doctrines and practices which they most strongly
disapprove. « No. LXIV. October, 1842. p. 411. ' Letter to Dr. Jelf.
' The Articles treated of in Tract 90 reconsidered, p. 153—173. E

50 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
The " British Critic" has for two years been under the in
fluence of those who are uncertain in their allegiance to the
Church of England, and who cannot be considered as friendly
to her. Of this assertion it is but too easy to bring abundant
proof. I shall select a few passages from the successive num
bers of this periodical.
In the Article on Bishop Jewell, the Reformation is de
scribed as " a desperate remedy," nay, almost " a. fearful judg
ment^.'" Bishop Jewell, who is represented " as a very unex
ceptionable specimen of an English Reformer '," is condemned
as a heretic*. We are openly advised to "withdraw our con
fidence" from the English Reformers ^
" To call the earlier Reformers martyrs is, [we are told,] to beg the ques
tion, which of course Protestants do not consider a question ; but which
no one pretending to the name of Catholic can for a moment think of
conceding to them, viz., whether that for which these persons suffered
was ' the truth ».' " " Were the Church of England to be considered as in
any degree pledged to the private opinions or individual acts of her so-
called Reformers . . . One does not see how in that case persons who feel
with iVlr. Froude's Editors . . . could consistently remain of a communion
so fettered. Mr. Froude's Editors have thrown out a rope which, whether
trustworthy or not, is at all events the only conceivable means of escape for
persons in a very embarrassing position ; and for this act of kindness they
deserve our thanks, however we may pause, as is very natural and even
prudent, before availing oursehes of the proffered aid. The question then
is this ; viz. How persons cordially believing that the Protestant tone of
thought and doctrine is essentially Antichristian . . , can consistently 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
mentality of persons disavowing the judgment of Rome, not merely in this
or that particular, but in its general view of Christian truth '."
The solution of this difficulty proposed is the view lately
advanced by a " Party which may be considered as represented
in the Preface to the Second Part of Mr. Froude's Remains,"
that the doctrines of the English Reformers may be separated
from those of our formularies'. It seems that this solution
does not afford satisfaction : " One advantage amongst others,
2 No. LIX. 11. 1. 3 Ib. p. 4. 1 Ib. p. 32, &c.
' Ib. p. 9. « No. LIX. p. 14. ' Ib. p. 28.
« Ib. p. 30, 31.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 31
of such a view if it will but hold," &c. So that, in fine, the
reader is left in doubt whether there is any sort of justification
for his remaining in the communion of the EngUsh Church !
The party which thus avows the uncertainty of its allegiance
to our communion, announces, at the same time, what is to be
the mode of its operations as long as that communion is not
renounced. " It ought not to be for nothing ; no, nor for any thing short of some
vital truth . . . that persons of name and influence should venture upon
the part of ' ecclesiastical agitators' . . . An object thus momentous we
believe to be the unprotestantizing (to use an offensive but forcible word)
of the National Church .... It is absolutely necessary towards the con
sistency of the system which certain parties are labouring to restore, that
truths should he clearly stated which as yet have been hut intimated, and
others developed which are now but in germ. And as we go on, ¦we must re
cede more and more from the principles, if any such there be, of the English
Reformation ^."
This open avowal of a determination to agitate with a view
to alter the character of the Church of England, and to recede
from the principles of the Reformation, proves the existence of
designs to which every churchman is bound to offer his strenu
ous opposition. But I proceed to further proofs of dissatisfac
tion with the Church.
In a subsequent number of the same periodical we have the
following expressions introduced by a quotation from the
Romish controversialist Mohler, comprising the doctrine of
development. " This state of things [the development of doctrine in the Catholic
Church united in communion] has come to an end. The Church has
broken off visible unity and divided against herself; no one branch [not
even the English Church !] retains the faithful image of primitive doctrine . .
That no branch has yetforfeited the power of communicating the gifts of
grace, this we humbly trust; but ... in vain will the humble and teach
able disciple look at this moment in the Engl sh Church for one uniform
pervading spirit which may guide him in his religious course ... To
refer inquirers to primitive tradition, essential though it be, is far from
being all that is wanted '."
In this distress, the English Church being pronounced in-
9 lb p. 45. ' No. LX. p. 333, 334.
E 2

52 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
adequate to satisfy our wants, our only resource, it seems,
must be, " To make ourselves in heart a Catholic Church, to
cling anxiously to the marks of the Holy Ghost wherever we
can find them ^" We are reminded, that the especial note
which would attach certain minds, " the image of a true Chris
tian Church living in that apostolic awe and strictness which
carries with it an evidence that they are the Church of Christ,
is the very one ivhich is noiv most signally wanting "' amongst us.
The cause of the Church is, without scruple, sacrificed,
whenever certain theories seem to require it. Thus we have
in one place a series of arguments to prove that Scripture in
its more obvious meaning is favourable to the objections of Dis
senters and other Protestants against rites and ceremonies and
the ecclesiastical system in general ; the object being to show,
that the private and unbiassed interpretation of the Bible is
dangerous and mischievous *. I cannot but think that suf
ficient arguments may be adduced against the abuses of private
judgment, without pleading the cause of Dissenters \
On a subsequent occasion, the Church of England is charged
with " A' sort of Antinomianism,' i. e. an establishment or creed, the means of
grace necessary to salvation, and some formularies for the most important
occasions, without a system of religious customs, and practices, and acts
of faith, sufhciently numerous, distinct, and specific, to satisfy the wants
and engage the attention of the Christian soul ^."
We are informed, that
" The last remnants of the ancient Catholic system, with all its native good
as well as its engrafted evil, had been withdrawn [in the English Church],
and . . . the glorious privilege of teaching and training the elect to Christian
perfection was taken away from the Church ^."
2 Ib. p. 334, 335. ' Ib. p. 364. * Ib. p. 424—427.
* It is elsewhere contended, that the whole body of ceremonial in the Church
is intimately connected with the Catholic doctrine of the Mass; and that if, e.g.
surplices are used, except as connected with that system, they are mere formal
isms, and burdens on conscience. Thus again Dissent and Puritanism are jus
tified. See No. LIX. p. 24.
» No. LX I. p. 44.
' Ib. p. 53. The right of pointing out defects in the Church of England is
contended for, No. LXV. p. 224. \^'e are elsewhere advised to " claim the right"
of holding that the Reformation introduced worse corruptions than it removed.
No. LXII. p. 270.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 53
It seems difficult, if this be the case, to suppose that the
English forms any part of the Christian Church.
The question of actual separation from our communion and
adhesion to that of Rome, would seem to be as yet undecided :
an opinion is very guardedly expressed, that at present such
steps are not to be taken by individuals. The Romanists, it
is said,
" Seem almost to rejoice more over the accessions to their number, caused
by mere argument, or mere imagination, than over all the indications, now
so general, of reviving earnestness, which (we are arguing with them all
along on their own principles) would seem to promise, in due time, a far
more plentiful, and incomparably more valuable reinforcement . . . the very
proximity of doctrine between the English and Roman Churches . . . must
the more make it a matter for grave and mature deliberation, before a de
cisive step is taken. We repeat, we are speaking ad homines; our own
opinion, as we have before expressed, is, that individuals would, at pre
sent, act (in the abstract) quite unwarrantably in leaving us for Rome^."
III. Let us contrast with this systematic disparagement of
the Church of England, these avowed difficulties in continuing
in communion with her, the equally systematic and unscrupu
lous approbation and adoption of Romish doctrines and prac
tices; their identification with Catholicism, the terms in which
the See of Rome is mentioned, the disposition to make com
mon cause with it, even against the more moderate of its own
adherents. " We talk of the blessings of ' emancipation from the Papal yoke,' and
use other phrases of a like bold and undutiful tenour . . . '. We trust, of
course, that active and visible union with the See of Rome is not of the
essence of the Church ; at the same time we are deeply conscious that in
lacking it, far from asserting a right, we forego a great privilege^.
" T^e lights of the Church in the middle age, Hildebrand, Becket, Inno
cent 2" [these being the chief supporters of exaggerated views of the Papal
authority]. The monastic system, and the superior sanctity of the
Roman Church, are advocated in the following terms :—
" Is it visionary to expect, that he who leads the life most nearly of all
earthly things resembling the divine, [i. e. the monastic hfe,] shall have
8 No. LXII. p. 294, 295. " No. LIX. p. 2.
1 Ib. p. 3. ' II)- P- 15.

54 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
truer sympathy with, and so fuller understanding of words that are divine ?
[1. c. Christian doctrine] . . . Let it be observed whether those who
are so loud in their protests on the uselcssness of a life of seclusion, be
lieve in any true sense the efficacy of intercessory prayer ... Is it the
active Protestant or the contemplative Catholic who has sent forth the
sisters of Charity and Mercy, the devoted priest, the zealous missionary ?
Let not the question then be ruled on the Protestant side, till something
be done to make both reasoning and fact less exclusively on the Catholic '"'
[the latter being evidently the Roman Catholic].
The following note is appended : —
" It is far from our wish to disparage the efforts of Protestant mission
aries, many uf whom deserve our deep reverence and gratitude ; still let
the long quotation made by Mr. Oakeley from the ' Eclectic Review' (the
organ of a class of dissenters), in the Preface to his Whitehall Sermons,
be well considered ... We are free to confess, that for zeal and entire
devotedness to their object, we know of fevv missionaries that surpass, or
indeed at all equal, those of the Romish Church *."
Amongst other evidences of a " holy life" which are held up
to our admiration, in the case of La Mere Angelique, are,
" prayer before the Sacrament, as soon as the perpetual adora
tion [of the Eucharist] was instituted at Port- Royal';" the
use of " shirts of hemp, in which the splinters of the stalks
were left;" the harbouring of vermin; the use of "disgusting"
food^ It is held questionable, whether some saints have not
been " even marked externally by the semblance of the five
adorable wounds'' " We are left in doubt, whether the healing
of a young lady by a thorn, " said to have been one of those
that pierced our Saviour," was miraculous or not. It is argued,
however, that one would naturally look for such miraculous
events in monasteries, " where persons take the kingdom of
heaven by violence, and begin on earth the life of angels,
'neither marrying nor giving in marriage'.'"
Such passages as the following speak for themselves: —
" The idea that to a Christian believing all the astounding mysteries
which are contained in the doctrine of the Incarnation, the further belief
in the real presence, even to the extent of the Tridentine definition,, is a
serious additional tax on his credulity, is not tenable for one moment'."

3 No. LX. p. 317.

* Ibid.

= Ib. p. 380.

" Ib. p. 389, 390.

' Ib. p. 401.

» Ib. p. 40:i.

" No. LXIII. p. 71.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 55
The Pope is spoken of as "the Primate of Christendom'- " as
"that pontiff, whom, to say the least, all antiquity, with one
voice pronounced the first bishop in Christendom'." We are
reminded of the "surprising number of texts to which Bellar
mine appeals" in favour oi Purgatorif . In allusion to pilgri
mages, and the anniversary feasts of patron saints in churches,
which are founded " on a firm belief, that devotions paid in
particular places had a special efficacy about them," we have
this remark : —
" So natural is this feeling that it is really wonderful how it has been
possible so thoroughly to root it out of the Enghsh mind. Cruel and
hard hearted indeed were those who made the baneful attempt, and have
gained such a mournful victory . . . Processions and pilgrimages are useful,
&c. ... It is a mere fact . . that the peasant does find consolation in
praying at places hallowed by the devotions of former generations. Let
them at least enjoy the delusion, say benevolent persons ; the prayers of
the saint may have no power to save her child, but still the mother may
as well fancy that they have ¦•," &c.
With reference to the Papacy we have the following : —
[The Pope is] "the earthly representative of her [the Church's] Divine
Head 5" . . .
"The Holy See [is] the proper medium of communion with the Catholic
Church" . .
" The Church suffered also in the person of its head, Pius VI." . . .
" Many persons about [Napoleon] are known to have urged him to set
up a Gallican church without communion with the rest of Christendom.
With that strange instinct, however, which extrasrdinary men possess,
he rejected the idea; he would have his Church Catholic . . . and the
notion of a Catholic Church out of communion with Rome does not seem to
have struck him . . . From Rome alone could the despot obtain possession
of the heavenly powers of which he wished to make use ^" . . .
1 No. LX. p. 431. 2 No. LXII. p. 266. ^ Ib. p. 296.
* No. LXIV. p. 283. 5 Ib. p. 289.
* lb. p. 290. It is quite curious to observe how, on all occasions, this devotion
to the Papal See manifests itself. The Gallican Church was unfavourable to the
claim of infallibility and absolute power advanced by the popes ; Gallicanism is
condemned by the " British Critic" (No. LXIV. p. 285) ; and its opponent, M.
De Maistre, receives the most unqualified praise (No. LX. p. 365). Jansenism
is obnoxious to Home ; its defence is disclaimed by the " British Critic" (Ibid.)
The Pope condemns certain Roman Catholics at Gibraltar, who appeal to the
temporal courts against some alterations introduced by a new " Vicar Apostolic :"
the "Critic" takes part, of course, with the Pope (No. LX. p. 271). The Con-

56 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
It is intimated that the Papal excommunication oi Napoleon
was amongst the principal causes of his ruin: —
"This little act ofthe Pope is almost imperceptible; but who knows
what unseen powers fought with England against him whom the Church
had condemned 1 ?"
It is contended, that our Reformation was in spirit Calvin
istic ; that a noble episcopate reclaimed us from Calvinism ;
and that this episcopate was inclined to a union with Rome".
Whatever may be the foundation for such a statement, I cannot
but think, that the object for which it is advanced, namely, the
justification of an attempt to alter the doctrine of the English
Church, and to assimilate it to Romanism, renders it most
highly reprehensible.
Romanism is thus identified with Catholicism : —
"The exemption by special gift from venial sin is believed by most
Catholics to be a privilege appertaining to the blessed Virgin . . . We
must abandon either this pious belief, and the religious devotion to the
QtoTOKOQ connected with it, or the heresy advocated by Dr. Whately '."
[We are informed that Rome is] " she to whom we should naturally turn,
our Mother in the Faith . . . [and reminded of] that feeling of regard and
affection (we should rather say deep gratitude and veneration) which is her
due '."
I must abstain from multiplying proofs of a tendency, which
is but too evident^.
stitutional Church in France, and " la petite eglise,^' are condemned by the
" Critic :" they were both opposed to the papal authority. (No. LXIV. p. 286.
290.) 7 No. LXIV. p. 295. 1 Ib. p. 385. ' Ib. p. 397. ' lb. p. 402.
^ From the manner in which the works of Romish theologians, the lives of
Romish saints, the decrees of popes, the Council of Trent, &c. are continually
quoted in the " British Critic," without any intimation that they represent a
system different from that of the writers, one would really often suppose oneself
to be perusing a Roman Catholic publication. The illusion is heightened by the
repetition of most OTofeni attacks on "Protestantism." I cannot but remark on
the extreme temerity of those who thus indiscriminately and vehemently condemn
and assail "Protestantism," when they ought to be aware that the term, in its
ordinary meaning, i. e. as implying opposition fo the See of Rome and to Popery, in
cludes nothing to which any member of ihe English Church can object. We may
not, indeed, think it advisable to designate our Church or our religion by a term
whicli gives them a merely negative or a controversial character: but in a certain
sense, and on proper occasions, individuals need not hesitate to avow themselves
" Protestants :" and certainly recent tendencies have rendered it necessary to
maintain the term. On this subject the reader may profitably consult Dr.
Hook's Church Dictionary (article, Protestant).

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 57
There are, however, some important principles of the writers
in question, to which attention must be drawn.
IV. The principles to which I allude are of the most wide
and comprehensive character, and tend to the restoration of
Romanism in its fullest extent, and the total subversion of the
Reformation. 1. The doctrine of development (derived from the writings
of De Maistre and Mohler, in which it is employed for the
defence of Romanism) has been received without hesitation,
and is now both privately and publicly advocated, Romish
controversiaUsts have, within the last few years, devised this
mode of evading the objection which is founded on the silence
of primitive tradition, in regard to the papal supremacy, the
worship of Saints and Angels, and other Romish doctrines and
practices; or on its actual opposition to Rome in such points.
For a long time Romanists evaded this difficulty, by alleging
the existence of unwritten tradition in the living Church, as a
sufficient proof of the apostolic origin of the points in question.
The uncertainty of such tradition being sufficiently apparent,
they next resorted to the principle oi Reserve, or the Disciplina
Arcani, which accounted for the silence and apparent opposi
tion of antiquity, by pretending that the Fathers systematically
abstained from the mention of certain doctrines and practices,
either through reverence, or from the fear of misapprehension.
The weakness of this system having been demonstrated, the
modern defenders of Romanism have adopted a new theory,
which is essentially opposed to those of their predecessors.
They have adopted the bold expedient of avowing that their
doctrines receive but little aid from the testimony of primitive
antiquity — that in fact, the early Church was perhaps unac
quainted with those doctrines, since it is the nature of Chris
tianity to develope itself gradually in the course of ages, and
under change of circumstances; so that Christianity in the
middle ages, was more perfectly developed than in the primitive
times : it was the expansion of a system which existed at first,
merely in germ; and probably, on the same principle, the
existing system of the Roman Catholic Church may be still
more perfect than that of the middle ages, and be itself less
perfect than that which is to be hereafter.

58 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
Undoubtedly there is much in this theory which is pleasing
to the imagination. The notion that Religion — that Divine
truth, is capable of continual progress ; that we may look for
developments corresponding to the advance of art and science,
and analogous to the processes of change which we see
operating in the natural world around us, has very great
temptations to the human mind. That it has, we need no
further proof than the fact that this theory is upheld by Soci
nians and other Rationalists ; the principal difference between
their system and that of the philosophical Romanists above
alluded to, being, that the latter attribute to the Church that
office of development which the former assign to the reason of
individuals. This is not the only affinity between the systems:
it is the well-known tendency of Rationalism to disregard the
sentiments of former ages ; to esteem itself superior in know
ledge to the primitive Church. Now the doctrine of deve
lopment has the same tendencies ; it leads to the conclusion,
that the religion of the present day is more perfect than
that of the early Church : it teaches us so far to set aside the
testimony of Catholic antiquity, on pretence, that religion was
then but imperfectly understood.
But on what ground is this theory maintained ? It would
seem to be a merely philosophical theory, based on analogies in
nature, which have no necessary connexion with Revelation'.
Scripture does not announce any gradual development of
Christian truth : it speaks of " the faith once delivered to the
Saints ;" of delivering " the whole counsel of God ¦" it supposes
throughout that "all truth" was made known to the Apostles,
and by them to the Church. The principle of the Church has
always been, to hand down and bear witness to the Catholic verities
which she receivedfrom the Apostles, and not to argue, to develop,
to invent. Her decisions are but the expressions of the belief
which she has always entertained. Such, at least, is the prin
ciple which has been always avowed ; and which has hitherto
been asserted by Romanists themselves. On novelties — on
doctrines or practices, either unsupported by the evidence of
' The author has offered some remarks on the theory of development, as ad
vocated by De Maistre and Mohler, in the third edition of the Treatise on the
Church, vol. ii. p. 143 — 445.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 59
Scripture and Antiquity, or inconsistent with them, the Church
has always looked with jealousy and suspicion. It would
seem that those who uphold the theory of development, are
rather inconsistent in regarding Mediceval Christianity as the
model of perfection, whereas, according to their principle, the
system of the Roman Church at the present day ought to be
implicitly adopted.
That Theology is capable of development in a certain sense;
that Reason under the guidance of Faith, may do much to
systematize, harmonize, illustrate ; and that lawful and edifying
practices may be introduced by the Church in different ages,
is quite certain.
I am not prepared to say, that inferences may not be legi
timately deduced from Scripture, and that such inferences or
"developments" can never be matters of faith'. Nor, of
course, would it be possible to maintain that inferences may
not have been gradually made in the course of ages; but there
is certainly danger in theorizing on this important subject
without sufficient care and discrimination. There is the more
necessity for caution, because it would seem that various doc
trines and theories are, at present, comprehended under the
common term of " Development." The term is variously
employed in the sense of " practical application ;" " inference ;"
" expansion ;" " detailed statement ;" and of course such
various uses of the term naturally lead to confusion. If I may
be permitted to express a doubt on the subject, I would say,
with deference to better judgments, that it is questionable
whether an eminent writer has sufficiently distinguished be
tween different theories and notions in his recent view of the
doctrine *. In advocating in general the propriety of making
developments or dogmatic inferences and statements under the
Gospel, it seems that attention is not sufficiently drawn to the
different senses in which the right of development is contended
for, and to the great practical distinctions which exist between
developments in those different senses. That there is such a
difference is indeed evident. " Ideas and their developments,"
•1 This question has been considered by the author, in the Treatise on the
Church. Part III. ch. ii.
4 Sermons before the University, by the Rev. J. H. Newman. (Serm. XIV.)

60 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
it is said, " are not identical, the development being but the
carrying out of the idea into its consequences. Thus the doctrine
of Penance may be called a development of the doctrine of
Baptism, yet still it is a distinct doctrine ; whereas the deve
lopments in the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and the Incarna
tion are mere portions of the original impression, and modes of
representing it, &c. "' Thus, then, there are " developments"
which are inferences from Revelation, and there are also " de
velopments" which are mere expressions of Revelation. There
is a wide and essential difference between these things. The
former need not be, properly speaking, articles of Revelation or
Faith : they may be theological truths : they may not have
been deduced in the primitive ages; they need not be articles
of Catholic Faith. The latter have been at all times held
substantially by the Church ; they are comprised in Scripture,
if not literally, yet in its spirit and meaning ; they are mere
expressions of quod semper, ubique, et ab omnibus creditum est ;
they can only be novel in form ; they are in spirit and life
identical with " the Faith once delivered to the Saints." The
'• numerical Unity of the Divine Nature," or the doctrine of
" the Double Procession," may not have been defined by any
Council till the thirteenth century ^, but certainly those doc
trines are really, in their orthodox sense, comprised in the true
meaning of Holy Scripture; and the testimony of Christian
antiquity is sufficient to prove that the Church was never
ignorant of them. These Catholic doctrines, and others in
cluded in the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation,
should not be confounded with mere theological dogmas de
duced from the truths of Revelation by the action of reason ;
lest in advocating both on the same principles and in the same
mode, the Faith should be in danger of being mingled with
the doctrines of men'.
s Ibid. p. .331. 0 Ibid. p. 324.
' I am not quite prepared to concur in the statement, that "the controversy
between our own Church and the Church of Rome lies, it is presumed, in the
matter of fact, wlietlicr such and such developments are true {e. g. Purgatory a
true development of the doctrine of sin after baptism), not in the principle of
development itself" (Newman, ulii supra, p. 321.) It seems to me, that it is a
question of principle, whether developments, in the sense of inferences made by
human reason, arc, or are not always to be considered as articles of Catholic

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 61
^ The doctrine of the Discourse alluded to, would appear
simply to maintain the possibility of developments, in the sense
of " clearer statements," and " inferences," being made in the
course of ages. But there is another doctrine afloat on this
subject; and it were to have been wished, that the eminent
writer above mentioned had taken some notice of a view,
which is undoubtedly prevalent in some quarters. It is, in
short, maintained, that the Christian Revelation may be com
pared to a plant which only gradually attains its perfection ;
and further, it is conceived, that, in point of fact, all the addi
tions and innovations in doctrine and practice made during the
middle ages, were not corruptions, but developments — that e. g.
the Papal power ; Transubstantiation; Purgatory; Indulgen
ces ; the worship of Images, the Virgin, and the Saints, &c.
are certainly or (at least) not improbably, developments of
Christianity. If you urge the silence of Scripture, or of the
Fathers and Councils; or their apparent inconsistency with
Romish doctrines or practices, the reply is at hand : — " The
doctrines or practices in question, were not developed during
those ages." Thus it is continually assumed, that Romanism
is the development of Christianity; and this assumption ap
parently rests on the further assumption, that whatever is ex
tensively prevalent in the Church — whatever is allowed or
tolerated by her authorities, cannot be a corruption^.
I cannot now discuss this very extensive subject. It will
have been sufficient to have directed attention to the danger
ous theories which are afloat. It is not easy to see what may
be the termination of such theories. Romanism may not be
the only eventual gainer from that theory of Christianity,
which supposes it to have existed originally in germ only.
Faith. If the modern theory of development be true, these developments are as
Divine, and as much parts of Christianity as the great articles of the Creed. The
doctrine of Purgatory, as a development, must be as binding as that of the Trinity ;
the worship of the Virgin, or ofthe Sacred Heart of Jesus, as necessary as the
worship of God. Processions, Pilgrimages, Monastic Vows, the perpetual adora
tion ofthe Sacrament, Indulgences, &c. must be as sacred and as necessary as
the sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist.
' That errors, corruptions, and idolatries, may exist extensively in the Univer
sal Church, the writer has endeavoured to prove, in his Treatise on the Church,
vol. i. p. 82—94 ; vol. ii. p. 101—112. 3rd edition.

62 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
There is a subtle Rationalism in such a notion ; nay, something
StiU worse, if possible. If the Gospel is to be developed by
reason ; if its lineaments are to be filled up by the human
mind ; if it was originally imperfect ; is there not some danger
of supposing that, after all, it is only a philosophy, a science,
a creation of the intellect ? And again, if its processes are
analogous to those which we see in nature, may not the in
ference be drawn that, Uke them, it has its period of decay as
well as perfection ; of extinction as well as of germination ?
A germ infers growth indeed, and change, but it also infers
corruption and death. On this principle, may not the corrup
tion of religion be considered a law of Divine Providence? so
that those who regard the Reformation as an evil, may be,
after all, only opposing such a law ; and, in fine, may not
Revelation itself be supposed to have concluded its course — to
have lost its vitality? I see not how, when men once begin
to theorize on the development of the Christian religion, they
are to prevent such speculations, or to answer them. They
may discover, too late, that a philosophy which has com
menced its speculations in the service of Romanism, may have
found its legitimate conclusion in Rationalism, or in St.
Simonianism. 1 have been lately informed, that the philosophy of develop
ment is taking new and ominous forms in Germany. An emi
nent philosopher has applied it to the doctrine of the Trinity ;
Duality being supposed to be the development of Unity, and
Trinity that of Duality ; and really one does not see what is
to prevent speculative men from conceiving, that Polytheism
may be only the development of Monotheism. In point of
fact, doctrines more or less nearly allied to this, are to be
found in the theological and philosophical systems of Brahman-
ism and other oriental systems of Idolatry. Nor is there ap
parently any stronger presumption that the corruptions of
Romanism are developments of primitive Christianity, than
that the systems of ancient and modern Paganism are develop
ments of the primitive religion of the world. I cannot there
fore but feel and express the deepest uneasiness at the intro
duction of theories which may lead to incalculable evils.
The theory of development has been repeatedly put forth

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 63
in the British Critic within the last two years, though not
to its full extent. The works of Miihler indeed, and De
Maistre, in which it is employed in defence of Romanism,
are favourite authorities with this periodical. The following
passage from the former writer is quoted immediately after
the announcement, that the " French translation . . . has just
come to hand" :" —
" The identity of the Church's knowledge at different epochs of its
existence, in no way requires a mechanical and stationary uniformity . . .
this knowledge developes Itself, this life extends more and more widely,
becomes more precise, clearer ; the Church attains the age of manhood . . .
Tradition then contains within itself the successive developments oi the
principal germs of life . . . This development . . . arrives at maturity at
the period of the great Councils of the Church ^."
This theory is adopted, and referred to again and again ^-
But whatever may be the real views of some of the writers in
that periodical, we do not find them directly maintaining that
Romanism actually is the development of Christianity. They
are contented to hint that such may be the case. It is only
suggested, that the whole Mediceval system, the Papal power
in its full extent, fhe worship of Saints and of the Virgin,
the doctrine of Purgatory, &c. are developments of primitive
Christianity, and have the same claims on our " unqualified
sympathy." " How painful a reflection to any one, who has imbibed so much of
the Cathohc spirit, as to burn for union Nvith all those who so much as
bear the name of Christ . . . that all this agreement [in great matters] is
felt as yet to give no sufficient scope for genuine, hearty, unsuspicious
sympathy, from the vivid perception we have of mutual differences, on
points which, if less fundamental, are unhap|)lly felt as even more obtru
sive and (in a sense) practical ! . . . These differences ... are doctrinally
perhaps reducible to this question ; viz. how far does the Mediceval
Church demand our unqualified sympathy ? How far may it be con
sidered as the very same in its claims upon us with the earlier Church,
as being the external exhibition of the very same spirit, changed only in
that it is in a further state of growth, and that the external circumstances
with which it has to cope are so widely different ? And in speaking of
the Mediaeval Church's exhibition, we are far of course from confining our
view to the mere formal statements of doctrine made at that period ; we
' No. LX, p. 329. ' lb. p. 332. ^ fb. p. 433.

64 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
extend It to the whole system, which virtually received the Church's
sanction . though on the other hand we may equally claim to consider
that system apart from incidental, local, temporary, or popular cor
ruptions.". . . .
" It may be, that while our mind is fixed on high doctrines and primi
tive faith, and occupied with nothing less than our present divisions — it
ma)' be that ' God will reveal even this unto us ;' that many questions con
nected with later ages, may present themselves in new, and (as we shall
then understand) far clearer colours. How far the special prerogatives,
attached from the very first to the Roman See, would prepare us for the
circumstance as healthy, and natural, and designed by God's Providence,
that when the Church's dependence on the civil power, which succeeded
to its state of depression and mutual isolation should in its turn give way
to the period of its Independent action, that at such time, St. Peter's chair
should obtain an unprecedented and peculiar authority .- or how far the
honour (to modern notions most superstitious and extravagant) paid in
early times to Martyrs, marks the existence of a principle, which, when
the special ages of martyrdom have passed, would display Itself in honour
of a different kind . . . to Saints generally, and to the Mother of God: or
how far the idea, universally prevalent in the early Church, on some un
known suffering to be undergone between death and final bliss, would
have its legitimate issue in the doctrine ... at the time of the Council of
Florence [Purgatory] ; ov what light the primitive view of celibacy would
throw on later periods : or what light is thrown on the general question of
doctrinal development . . . these are questions which " [depend on know
ledge of Church history] ^.
In private society however the doctrine of development
is more openly advocated, and carried out to its results. There
are individuals, who on this principle look on the Papal supre
macy, the invocation of Saints, &c. as divinely instituted.
2. In perfect harmony with this theory, is the unwillingness
to permit any censure or disapprobation of " Romish corrup
tions," or to allow their existence*. The religion of the
middle ages is represented as being in essential respects supe
rior to our own'. With reference to the worship of saints and
angels, it is said :
"Till we not only come to believe, but in some fair measure to realize
these solemn truths [the belief in guardian-angels, &c.], and make them
part of our habitual thoughts, of our whole spiritual nature, we are no fair
" No. LXIV. p. 408, 409. See also LXV. p. 111. The works of Aquinas,
Bonaventura, and the other schoolmen, on which the Roman theology is based,
are assiduously recommended in the successive numbers of this periodical.
* No. LXV. p. 223. 229. s No. LX. p. 303 ; LXV. art. iv.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 65
judges of their corruptions as existing in other churches. We have no
wish to apologize for superstition or idolatry ; but if we having only so
recently recovered . . . these truths, go out of our way unnecessarily to
pass judgment on their practical action, &c. . . . will not Matt. vii. 5.
['Thou hypocrite!' &c.] rise up against us in judgment at the last
day 1."
In another place those who profess " high church" princi
ples are requested to abstain from severe condemnation of the
mediaeval system, on the following view :
"That many doctrines and practices were then sanctioned, very alien to
the system in which he [a Churchman] was trained, ani far from congenial
to his own mind, of this such a person may be well aware ; and as this is
quite sufficient to guide his own practice, so surely It is all which charity
can altogether justify him In maintaining'."
We are, then, to content ourselves with abstaining from
what we think superstitious or idolatrous, and to permit others
without warning to embrace such practices. This seems a
new view of Christian charity !
3. One legitimate conclusion of the theory of development
appears to be arrived at in the last number of the " British
Critic," from which it would seem that Rome as she is should
be our actual model in religion. The class of doctrines which
are included under the term " sacramental mediation," are, it
seems, recognized only in theory in the Church of England,
but —
" This whole view, thus distinctly recognized by our Church in theory,
thus wholly abandoned in practice, has been preserved abroad In practice,
as well as in theory. We are absolutely driven then, were we ever so
averse, to consider Rome in its degree our model, for we are met in limine by
objections derived from the witnessed effect of these doctrines in Roman
Catholic countries '."
Why such objections oblige us to make Rome our model
seems difficult to perceive. One would think that sufficient
light might be derived from the practice of antiquity, and of
the Oriental church, without constituting Rome our model, as
is now done habitually by certain persons.
4. The last principle to which I shall direct attention is,
> lb. p. 306. 2 No. LXIV. p. 410. ^ No. LXVIL p. 6.
F

66 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
that Roman Catholics may subscribe the Articles, provided they
do not hold the Pope to be, de jure, the Primate of Christen
dom. I do not here adduce Tract 90, because it would seem
that the leading object of the writer was to show that Catholic
doctrines — the doctrines of the Fathers and the Primitive
Church, or private opinions not inconsistent with faith, are
not condemned in the Articles ; and I should conceive that in
contending for a " Catholic," he did not mean to suggest a
" Roman Catholic" interpretation of the Articles, though cer
tainly some of the expositions in Tract 90 bad a tendency of
that kind : but other persons seem evidently to have adopted
this course. The " British Critic" holds that —
" The fact seems highly probable, as a matter of historj', that in the con
struction of the Articles, an eye was had to the comprehension of all
Roman Catholics, except only those who maintained the Pope to be de '}\ire
the Primate of Christendom*."
And accordingly we are informed, that —
"Mr.  's 'Observations on Tract 90,' and 'Collection of Tes
timonies,' are a very important step towards settling the question of
Catholic subscription to the Articles. He proves historically, that the
Articles were not designed to exclude Roman Catholics, who signed
generally, without being taxed with insincerity for so doing *," &c.
Those who are thus continually labouring to write up the
Church of Rome, and to disseminate doubts and objections
against the EngUsh Church, its Reformation, its doctrines,
articles, liturgies, apostolical succession ; those who are thus
undermining in every way the Church, and preparing the way
for secession from its communion — are either in doubt as to the
propriety of remaining within its pale, or they are not. If
they are not in doubt, they have either made up their minds
that it is a matter of duty to remain in the English Church, or
else to unite themselves with the Roman Communion : no
other alternative can be supposed. Now let us consider how
far the line of conduct which has been pursued by the " British
Critic," and by the individuals to whom I aUude, can be jus
tified under either of these alternatives.
< No. LIX. p. 27. = No. LX. p. 507.

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 67
1. If they are in doubt whether they ought to remain in the
communion of the English Church or not, then it is inex
cusable, nay sinful, to promulgate doubts and difficulties, and
to assume such a tone in regard to Rome, as has a manifest
tendency to unsettle faith in the Church of England, when it
is still uncertain at least whether she is not a true Church. If
it be possible that our duty is due to her, it is surely inconsis
tent in us to let fall a single expression which may have a ten
dency in the slightest degree to place a stumbHng-block in
the way of discharging that duty. I cannot conceive a greater
pain than the feeling that we have been instrumental in rais
ing doubts, when doubts ought not to have existed ; when our
own infirmity of judgment, and our own want of knowledge, were
alone to blame. If any man entertain doubts in regard to the
Church of England, he is bound in conscience to seek silently
for the solution of those doubts; to cease from writing or
speaking- on subjects in which his own opinions are unsettled.
No one deserves any blame for being in doubt on religious
questions, unless, indeed, that doubt has arisen from too great
confidence in his own powers, or from some other moral fault ;
but it is really inexcusable in any man, who is himself involved
in the perplexities and dangers of doubts in religion, to publish
those doubts to the world — to involve others in his own dangers
and temptations.
2. If men are satisfied that it is a matter of duty to remain
in the English Church, then I say, that it is wholly inconsistent
with that duty to excite a spirit of doubt and dissatisfaction in
the Church, and to tempt its members, in every possible way,
to secede from its communion. Nothing can be more incon
sistent than the practice of disregarding its authorities, encou
raging disobedience and disrespect to its prelates, and discon
tent with the Church itself, as if the great mass of its members
were engaged in measures hostile to the true faith. It is sinful
even to contemplate the possibiUty of voluntarily separating
from the Church under circumstances of persecution or obloquy.
Notions of this kind tend to diminish the horror which every
Catholic should feel at the very notion of schism.
3. If there be any who are secretly convinced ofthe duty of
uniting themselves to Rome, and who are waiting the moment
f2

68 TENDENCY TO ROMANISM.
to declare themselves, while in the mean time they are labour
ing to insinuate their own persuasion amongst the duped and
blinded members of the English Church — No — I will not
believe that such disgraceful and detestable treachery and
hypocrisy can exist in any one who has ever partaken of
sacramental privileges in the Church of England. However
appearances may seem to justify such a belief, I cannot for a
moment entertain the notion of such revolting iniquity: — and
yet it is impossible to ofl^er any reasonable answer to those who
suspect that there are individuals who remain in the Church,
only with a view to instil doctrines whicli would otherwise be
without influence — to gather adherents who would otherwise
be safe from -temptation.
Under no conceivable circumstances, then, can the tone
adopted by the " British Critic," since it passed from the
editorship of Mr. Newman in 1841, be excused. I confess my
surprise that this periodical has so long been permitted to con
tinue in the same course. 1 can only say, that I have felt it a
painful duty to discontinue subscribing to it ; and I sincerely
hope that some change may be effected in its management,
which may have the efl'ect of relieving anxieties, and of re
storing confidence in the principles of a Review, which was
formerly a respectable and useful organ of the Church of
England, but which can certainly no longer justly claim that
character. I deeply regret the necessity which exists for
speaking thus strongly and severely. Occasional errors of
judgment, such as we saw in the Tracts, may be excusable;
but when the mistake is perpetuated ; when it is canonized,
and propagated, and multiplied from day to day, the evil
becomes intolerable, and calls for the public disapprobation
of Churchmen. The admission of such articles as that on
" Bishop JeweU" into the " British Critic," the tone and prin
ciples of that periodical in general, and the measures of the
party which it represents, have compelled me to break silence
at length, and to state my dissent from their views ; and I am
deeply thankful to be enabled to add, that all the advocates of
Church principles with whom I have been able to communi
cate, concur in disclaiming the doctrines ofthe British Critic.
In di.sseiiting from these views and principles, we are only

TENDENCY TO ROMANISM. 69
refusing to abandon the position which aU sound and consistent
Churchmen have hitherto maintained. When we associated
ten years since in defence of the Church of England, in vindi
cation of her orthodox and primitive principles, we had already
satisfied ourselves that this Church is justified in holding her
course apart from Romish corruptions. We were not about
to settle our opinions on such points. We were not about to
put the Church of England on her trial. We were, and I
trust still are, conscientiously and devotedly attached to her
communion ; and we have always esteemed it our glory that
her belief is in accordance with Scripture, and with Catliolic
and primitive antiquity. The doctrine and practice of Rome
are not our model or our standard ; and we are resolved, with
God's aid, to "stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has
made us free, and to be in bondage to no man." Such, I am
persuaded, are the principles of the body of Churchmen ; such
seem to me to have been the principles even of " the Tracts
for the Times" in general ; and those who now admit the
Papal supremacy, the worship of saints and angels, purgatory,
and certain theories of development, really hold views as incon
sistent with those Tracts, as with the sentiments of the great
body of Churchmen.
I should not speak thus, had I not ascertained the sentiments
of many influential friends of Church principles who have
looked with pain and uneasiness on the course of events for
the last two or three years. Their opinions ought no longer to
be misunderstood. Their cause should no longer be mingled
with doctrines and practices alien to it. It rests with them to
dispel the illusion.
The only difficulty with which those who uphold Church
principles have had to contend, is the imputation of a tendency
to popery. The continual assertion of our opponents of all
kinds has been, that Romanism is the legitimate conclusion of
our principles. Romanists, Dissenters, Latitudinarians, and
many others have reiterated the assertion, till the world is
nearly persuaded of its truth. But what can we say — what
defence can be made, when it is undeniable that Romanism, in
its very fullest extent, has advocates amongst ourselves ; that
they have influence in the "British Critic;" that they are on

70 CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
terms of intimacy and confidence with leading men, that no
public protest is entered against their proceedings by the ad
vocates of Church principles ? It is a conviction of the neces
sity of making some attempt, however feeble, to arrest an into
lerable evil, which has induced me to publish this narrative of
our proceedings, and these records of our principles and views.
They are written under the apprehension that the dangers
which now threaten us, are not inferior to those whicli sur
rounded the Church in 1833; that the tendency to latitudina
rianism has been replaced by a different, but not less dan
gerous tendency ; while the spirit of disaffection to the Church
has only taken a new form. It seems therefore a plain duty to
hold out some warning to those who might be in danger of
being deceived.

CHAPTER IV.

CHURCH PRINCIPLES STATED — DUTIES OF CHURCHMEN —
PROSPECTS OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
Let me be permitted in this place to attempt some brief out
Une of Church principles, and to mark some of the principal
points of distinction between those principles and certain pre
valent doctrines.
During the earlier part of the present century, the Evidence
of Religion, and Biblical Criticism, occupied much of that
attention which might have been given with greater advantage
to the study of Revelation itself. With a view to obviate
Infidel objections, and to render Christianity more easy of
acceptance, the mysteries of Revelation had been to a certain
extent explained away; its doctrines had been lowered; it had
been made to approximate as closely as possible to the standard
of human reason and philosophy. On the other hand, the e.x-
travagance and irregularities of Sectarianism had led many to
dwell on the necessity of external regularity in the Church,
without, perhaps, duly appreciating the spiritual privileges con-

CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 71
nected with visible ordinances, or seeking after that spiritual
life, which the Church herself, and all her rites, gifts, and in
structions, are designed to cherish and to support. And the re
action against this unconscious formaUsm, did not correct, to
any great extent, the downward tendency of things; for while
it taught us to look within and above ; while it led us beyond
externals up towards the throne of God, and the cross of Jesus
Christ; while it yearned for Communion with God, and was
possessed of a spirit of love toward all who loved the Lord
Jesus in sincerity ; while it magnified Divine grace, and
looked with truth on man and his works, as worthless and
devoid of merit; it still aided the downward tendency of the
age, by concentrating the whole of religion in the acceptance
of one or two dogmas ; by undervaluing the importance of the
remainder of Revelation; and by overlooking the mysteries
and graces of the Sacraments, in the effort after a more imme
diate communion with the Deity.
These remarks are not offered in any spirit of hostility or of
unfriendly censure. We are sometimes inclined to judge too
harshly those who have gone before us. A fair and candid con
sideration of the peculiar circumstances in which they were
placed, and the difficulties tli€y had to encounter, which were
very different from those of the present time, will enable us, I
think, to find much that was laudable in their intention, and
beneficial in their agency. The defence of Christianity on
rational principles ; the reaction against Sectarianism ; the re
action against Formalism, were each valuable in its way, and
to a certain extent : it was only their abuse and excess which
became really injurious. On the whole, however, it is now
generally admitted, that Religion was not generally in a healthy
state when the present theological movement commenced.
Important truths had been well-nigh forgotten, or explained
away. There was a tendency gradually to lose sight of some
of the distinctive doctrines of Christianity and of the English
Church. A dangerous spirit of Latitudinarian Reform had
arisen. A self-indulgent and worldly age was endeavouring to
release itself from the restraints of Conscience and Religion.
Now if such was really the case, it was a necessary conse
quence, that difficulties and evils should arise in the course of

CHURCH PRINCIPLES.

any attempt on the part of individuals to arrest the prevalent
tendencies of things. It was impossible, when certain truths
or principles had to be retrieved, that they should not appa
rently, and in some cases really assume an undue degree of
prominence. Principles relating to the Church, the Sacraments,
&c. were to be dwelt on continually and earnestly, if the
public attention was to be arrested; and yet it was impossible
to prevent many of those who became convinced of the truth
of those principles, from investing them with undue import
ance ; from supposing that the essence of Religion consisted
in their reception and advocacy. It hence followed as a
necessary consequence, that some more earnest minds should,
after a time, discover that they had not, after all, attained to
the great realities of religion ; that they should feel an unde
fined longing for some higher and more satisfying Truth ; that
their attachment to former theories being shaken, they should
enter on newer and bolder paths of speculation, and should
grasp at any theory or design, which seemed to possess some
thing of a deeper and more spiritual character, or to hold out
a promise of allaying the thirst which consumed them. It was
to be expected, that such minds should, after a time, unite
with the opponents of Church principles in attributing i^ormaZ-
ism and a want of reality to those principles — that they should
evince a tendency to Romanism. These evils are most truly
deplorable, and yet they were unavoidable, and had they been
fully foreseen, ought not to have prevented the effort to restore
Church principles.
But oh, how ignorant are we of, I will not say merely the
principles (this term is too cold), but the spirit, the life of
Christ's holy Church, if we for a moment suppose that it is, in
any degree, a spirit of formalism, of superstition, imagination,
speculation, theory, or unreality. No ; as Christians, as mem
bers of that spiritual body of Christ which is his Church, as
those who are united to Him by real ties more deep and tender
than human imagination can conceive; yea, " bone of his bone,
and flesh of his flesh"— as Christians, I say, and members of
his Church, we feel in the inmost recesses of our hearts, that it
is GoD Himself, that Almighty Creator, Redeemer, and Sanc
tifier, who is, and ought to be, the Author, the Object, the End

CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 73
of our existence ; that in Him we both bodily and spiritually
" live, and move, and have our being," that He must be to us,
"all in all," that virtuous actions, religious worship, the sacra
ments and means of Grace, the Ministry, the Church, Revela
tion itself, are only valuable because they are creations of his
power, instruments of his will, conducive to union with Him ;
that He is the only and Eternal Fountain, from whence all
spiritual things derive their vitality ; and that whUe we drink
of that inexhaustible fountain, we shall " never thirst ;" we have
within us " a well of water springing up into eternal life."
And where this is not the habit of the soul ; where God is
not the sum and substance of existence, the heart will be ever
unsatisfied and restless, and devoid of true peace. The ex
ercises of external devotion — ritual observances — the sacra
ments — the Church — the strictest external discipline — inward
mortifications, and even monastic seclusion, may still leave the
soul without its only solid consolation — its only adequate object.
If we are restless and dissatisfied, it is because we attempt to
repose our hopes on inferior objects, whether good or evil.
And it is from this principle alone — this absolute conscious
ness that God Himself is our " life," and our " hope," that all
spiritual obedience, and the whole life of Christianity emanate.
It is because we feel our natural state of danger, and our utter
dependence on Him, that we avail ourselves of every possible
means of grace, and feel true happiness only in conforming
ourselves to the intimations of the Divine will, and thus pre
serving a continual union with the Deity.
It is then no mere dry and speculative principle on which
the orthodox Christian acts, in receiving with the deepest
veneration the holy Scripture. He receives it as the word
OF God — the only undoubted declaration of his will — a decla
ration mercifully vouchsafed for our salvation, and therefore
full and ample, and in no respect deficient, as the Catholic
Fathers have unanimously taught. And consequently he dis
approves of any tendency to undervalue Scripture, to discou
rage its circulation or perusal, or to represent it as insufficient
to establish the great doctrines of the faith ; knowing that the
most eminent defenders of the doctrines of the Trinity, the
Incarnation, and other articles of the true faith, have always

74 CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
relied on Scripture as their strongest support. On the other
hand, it is impossible to approve that exclusive veneration of
Scripture, which would virtually supersede the office of the
Christian ministry, and which, combined as it frequently is,
with an assertion of the unlimited right of private interpretation,
unguided by the instructions of the existing Church, and wholly
independent of the recorded sentiments and tradition of the
whole body of believers from the beginning, has a tendency to
permit each individual to substitute his own view of revelation,
for belief in revealed truth itself. It should never be forgotten
that Scripture is the inestimable, but not the only gift of God.
In the same spirit we should confess the blessed privileges of
the Sacraments ; not like some, viewing them as mere signs of
our duties or our privileges, instituted merely for the purpose
of stimulating our faith ; but recognising in them communica
tions of Divine Grace, means of communion with God; and
therefore most deeply feeling the necessity of availing our
selves of such blessed gifts. Nor can any words be too high,
when we speak of that regenerating Grace, which in holy
baptism transforms the child of Adam's sin into the child of
God ; which clothes him with righteousness, engrafts him into
the body of Christ, enables him to lay hold on the salvation
set before him, and through " faith working by love" to attain
eternal glory. And this divine Ufe, thus implanted in the
soul, is, we believe, sustained and nourished by innumerable
graces and dispensations of the Holy Spirit, but more especi
ally in the sacrament of the holy Communion, in which, by a
mystery beyond human comprehension, the blessed Jesus
Himself becomes the true nourishment and food of our souls,
condescending to enter our earthly tabernacles, that He may
make us partakers of Himself, and afford to our flesh a pledge
of immortality. In all this God Himself should be our im
mediate object and end. The Sacraments (I speak now only
of those great mysteries generally necessary to salvation) are
only precious, as links which bind us to our Creator and to the
Eternal Son which is the Word of God ; but in this point of
view they are awful and inestimable gifts; and we, therefore, can
as little approve of those who venture to undervalue such gifts,
to divest them of their graces, to explain away their high mys-

CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 75
teries, as we can of others, who in their attempt to attain clearer
views of the mystery of the Eucharist, involve themselves in
contradiction to the plain words of Scripture by the doctrine
of Transubstantiation, and needlessly, perhaps dangerously,
compel men to distrust the evidence of their senses. Nor can
we in any degree approve of any system or theory which
tends to the reception of a doctrine so unfounded, and con
nected with such a mass of superstitions. In Romanism the
sacrament becomes Uttle else than a sacrifice; it is rather
something which we offer to God, than something which God
confers on us. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist, in a
sense which is most dangerous and even heretical, (as not
merely a spiritual sacrifice of praise and commemoration, ac
ceptable to God through Jesus Christ, but as the sacrifice of
Jesus Christ Himself for the remission of sins,) is habitually
dwelt upon, apparently with a view to salve the conscience
of those who "assist" at this sacrifice, while they refuse to
partake of the divine gifts of the body and blood of our
Redeemer which are there offered. Thus, an unspeakable
grace of God is rejected, while man identifies his lowly and
unworthy offering with that stupendous sacrifice which was
sufficient to redeem the whole universe.
With reference to the Church, we should maintain such prin
ciples as these. The association of the disciples of Jesus
Christ in his holy Church, and their instruction and guidance
by a ministry commissioned from on High through the
apostles, for their sacred work, are divinely-appointed and
ordinary conditions of our salvation. We would cherish them
as such ; not regarding them merely as privileges or advan
tages vouchsafed to us for our merits, or of which we have any
right to boast, and still less declaiming in any uncharitable
spirit against those who may be deprived of such blessings,
even through their own fault; but feeling it as a deeply im
portant practical truth, that there are such conditions, and that
we are bound to avail ourselves of them. The Church, the
ministry, and the legitimate succession of one and the other,
are then of infinite importance to us ; not in themselves, but
as institutions of God, which we dare not neglect, and which
we are bound to cherish as evidences of his paternal care.

76 CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
We would, therefore, deprecate all views on this subject
which tend to dissolve the obligation of Christian unity in the
Church, to represent it as a merely human institution, or to
deny to its ministers that divine commission which alone
authorizes them to undertake so great an office. But on the
other hand, we would with equal earnestness deprecate theo
ries of a contrary tendency, which have emanated from some
influence alien to the spirit of religion. We would disclaim
that fanciful theory of an absolute external unity; of a perfect
sanctity ; of an unblemished purity in doctrine and discipline,
with which Romanism has deceived itself, and which some
amongst ourselves seem willing to adopt. It is evident from
the Bible and the annals of Christianity, that the Church is
symbolized by its vital members ; that infirmities, sins, and cor
ruptions, are found in it — that it is at one time more pure than
at another; at one time more animated by faith and charity
than at another — and yet that God is still directing and guiding
it amidst many infirmities and backslidings, and sometimes, not
withstanding grievous sins; still urging it onwards, and accom
plishing his promise, that " the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it." We see this in the tare-sown field, the draught of
fishes, the predictions of false teachers, and of heresies privily
brought in.
And therefore we would not venture to maintain, in opposi
tion to the plainest evidence of Holy Scripture and of Chris
tian antiquity, that certain doctrines and practices which
obtained extensively in the middle ages, and which are still
received in the Church of Rome, must necessarily be sound and
healthy, and in accordance with the spirit of the Gospel. We
cannot, on such a theory, set aside the plain and undeniable
evidence, which is opposed to the Invocation and Worship of
Saints and Angels, of images and relics. We cannot conceal
the denunciations of God against idolatry in every shape ; nor
can we sanction any sort of religious worship to created beings.
Even though such worship may not be always in theory or in
intention idolatrous (most assuredly it is often idolatrous even
in theory), yet still, if it has a direct tendency to idolatry ; to
withdraw man from his allegiance to his Creator; then woe be
to us if we in any degree countenance or approve what is so

CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 77
deeply offensive to a " jealous God." I mean not to say
that all who have practised these things were idolaters : God
forbid. We may find excuses for many of those who in ancient
or modern times have done so. They acted thus from want of
knowledge or of consideration ; those doctrines and practices
had not " developed" themselves ; distinctions were made, and
interpretations received, which in many cases saved men from
the guilt of idolatry. But if those who have seen the evils
attendant on such things; if they who have escaped the pol
lutions of the world, " are again entangled therein and over
come, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning."
It is not our place to draw nice distinctions, and to measure
how near we may approach to idolatry. Such is not the ser
vice with which God will be contented. If we be faithful to
Him, we must not fear, in defence of his truth, and in a holy
jealousy for the Lord God of Hosts, to uplift our voice like a
trumpet, and to warn and exhort, against any concession on
points so essential to the purity, nay, to the existence oi religion.
And again ; while we uphold the undoubted truth, that God
has given to us a Ministry invested with authority to preach
the Gospel, and to administer the Sacraments, and ecclesiastical
discipline ; while we believe that the chief pastors of the Church
have succeeded to the ministry of the Apostles ; that great
reverence is due to their admonitions and decisions ; that we
are bound to " esteem them very highly in love for their
work's sake ;" to pray without ceasing for the success of their
apostolical ministry ; and to render their task more easy by
our obedience and humbleness of mind : — while we thus up
hold the sacred mission of the Ambassadors of Jesus Christ,
we are, I hope, equally prepared to reprove any assumptions
which owe their origin to an unholy desire for the " pre-emi
nence" — any power which is based on usurpation ; which de
void, as it is, of any Divine or Apostolical institution, assumes
to be possessed of both, and arrogates the government of the
whole world both in temporals and spirituals. We can never,
for any reason, or with any view whatever, give way to the
claims of the Papacy ; and we cannot but marvel most exceed
ingly, that any persons professing to be members of the
English Church, can be so deceived and blinded by the shallow

78 CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
I
sophistries of the modern advocates of Rome, as to be ready,
not merely to admit the Papal supremacy, but to admit it in all
the wildest extravagance of its assumptions and claims.
Of the doctrines of Satisfaction, Indulgences, and Purgatory,
we can never approve, based as they are on a principle which
strikes at the root of our confidence in the promises of God ;
the assumption, that the sins of those who truly repent are not
wholly forgiven ; that penalties are still to be endured ; that
the wrath and justice of God is still to be appeased. We con
demn the system of Indulgences which subverted the discipline
of the Church, and which is applied to the support of innu
merable superstitions. We condemn the doctrine of Purga
tory, which supposes the justified to endure, after this Ufe,
tortures and sufferings inflicted by the justice of God. We
cannot approve of lying wonders, legends, miraculous images,
and the mass of superstitions which deform and degrade the
popular religion of Rome ; nor can we avoid looking with
jealousy and dissatisfaction on any attempts to reconcile the
public mind to such abuses.
No : this is not the mode in which the union of the Universal
Church can be attained. It is not by concessions on vital
points; it is not by evincing a disposition to give way to claims,
doctrines, and practices, which intelligent Romanists them
selves disapprove ; it is not by sacrificing the truth of the
Gospel and Christian liberty in a vain and hopeless straining
after a communion, whicli God, for his own wise purposes, has
permitted to be interrupted ; it is not thus that the breaches of
the Church can be — ought to be, repaired. When we shall see
in other Churches, as well as in our own, a spirit of improve
ment, a spirit of humility and moderation; when their members
shall have gained the Christian courage to avow and to reform
the abuses of which thousands and tens of thousands of them
are secretly conscious; when superstition and idolatry are not,
as now, gaining ground, but receding; when the Papal power,
and ultramontane principles are not, as now, increasing, but
diminishing ; then, but not till then, may we hope and trust
that the reunion of the Church is at hand. In the mean time
it behoves us to take heed to ourselves, and with a thankful
sense of the spiritual privileges which God hath vouchsafed to

CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 79
this branch of His holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, with a
sense of our deficiencies, and an earnest desire to correct them ;
to stand firm in the old paths, rooted and grounded in the faith,
not carried about with every wind of doctrine, but, in a humble
reliance on Divine assistance, going on unto perfection. We
shall thus have delivered our own souls, and shall have glorified
God in this branch of his Church on earth.
Let me now be permitted to turn to some other subjects,
which are of considerable practical importance at the present
time. And in the first place, I would invite attention to the
difficult question, how far, and under what limitations should
members of the Church of England admit defects inker existing
system. It may be argued, that true filial piety, and zeal for the
interests of Religion oblige us to desire and labour for the
amendment of defects, and that it is only by pointing out
those defects, that the public mind can be awakened to a
sense of their existence. Be it so ; but then much, nay, every
thing depends on the mode in which such a movement is con
ducted. In the first place, men ought to be very careful,
that the defects pointed out should be real and proved defects.
It is not because this or that individual is of opinion that the
revival of certain rites, or the introduction of certain practices
would be conducive to edification, that he has any right to
infer that the Church has not good reasons for her existing
practice, or that she is in any degree deficient, because they
are not recommended by authority. He should remember,
that what might be conducive to his own edification, might be
to another, " destruction." He should reflect, that the rulers
ofthe Church, in times when there was a more practical and
experiinental knowledge of the working of another system than
there can be now, must have had better opportunities of judg
ing of the tendencies of that system by its actual operation on
their own minds than we can have; and that we may now be
totally unable, under any circumstances, even by forsaking the
communion of the Church, to place ourselves really in their
position, or to comprehend fully the working of the system
which they reformed. So that in fact, what men regard as
deficiencies, may be only the results of most pious care, most

80 CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
practical wisdom, most holy jealousy. If such men would as
candidly endeavour to place themselves in the position of the
Reformers, and to comprehend their leading principles and
motives, as they do to enter into the views and feelings of
Roman Catholics ; they would, I am sure, feel more satisfac
tion at the great work which was accomplished in the sixteenth
century. It is not by implicitly receiving the views of modern apolo
gists of the Mediaeval system (such as Mr. Digby), and by
dwelling only on its brighter and more engaging aspect, that
such knowledge can be attained, as is calculated to enable men
to judge rightly and fairly of the Reformation. Such a mode
of investigation is pre-eminently liable to the imputation of
unreality : the Mediaeval system is thus viewed merely as a
theory; its real nature is unknown.
We should then be very careful only to point out real and
proved defects in the Church ; but here again, more especially
under existing circumstances, there must be some further
caution. Nothing can be more injurious and dangerous than
the prevalent habit of pointing out defects, apparently without
any definite object ; but in a mere spirit of complaining. This
habit cannot fail to render men discontented with the Church,
disposed to schism, and to dangerous innovations. It causes
infinite scandal to the weaker brethren, and throws man}^ men
back on existing systems as affording the only refuge against a
spirit of spiritual turbulence and disloyalty. To so great a
length has this evil proceeded, that beardless youths and young
women discuss without scruple the most solemn and difficult
subjects of controversy ; and presume to censure the Church ;
to condemn her existing system ; to canvass and to blame the
conduct and principles of those who sit in the chairs of the
Apostles. This is an abuse whicli demands the interference
of parents, instructors, and the clergy generally.
There are those, however, to whom years, and attainments,
and station, give some right to investigate defects, and to
attempt their removal. But they will, I am sure, act most
wisely, when they endeavour never to point out a defect without
suggesting, at the same time, a feasible remedy. If this be done,
the Church will be encouraged and stimulated by the hope of

CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 81
improvement, instead of being left to mourn in spiritless
despondency over her faults.
I must now bring these observations to a close. It has been
freely admitted that there have been faults on the part of the
writers of the " Tracts for the Times :" there has been, on the
other hand, much to lament in the conduct of those who have
risen in opposition to the " Tracts for the Times." I am per
suaded — -I know indeed, that amongst those whose disapproba
tion of the Tracts has been publicly avowed, many, very many,
deeply regret the tone in which the controversy has been too fre
quently carried on '. The " Record," (a journal which wassub-
ject to presbyterian influence,) was the first to adopt this tone ;
it was followed by the " Christian Observer," and subsequently
by various other periodicals, and by innumerable pamphlets and
other works written in a spirit which it is most painful to
remember. May we never be brought into judgment for these
ebullitions of an ill-regulated zeal, in which charity and
decency were too frequently altogether lost sight of. Party
feeling has led to every species of unfairness. Exaggeration
of facts has almost universally prevailed ; motives have been
unjustly imputed ; character has been traduced; extremes of
doctrine, or mistakes in practice have sometimes led to contrary
extremes. I will not further pursue this grievous subject, and
shall only add a most earnest and respectful prayer, that all
sincere friends of the Church, who may disapprove of the
doctrines or theories advanced in the theological system of
the Tracts, may feel the necessity of repressing intemperate
language, personal reflections, every thing calculated to irritate
without convincing. It would be wholly impossible under
existing circumstances to expect that controversy on such points
1 I cannot but lament the tone adopted by some highly respected prelates on
this subject. The language employed by the Bishop of Chester, and by the Metro
politan of Calcutta, in their charges, seems to me calculated to give countenance
to a spirit which has been most injurious to the Church. The respect which is
due to the abilities and Christian zeal of those prelates, evidenced by their great
exertions in the cause of Christianity within their respective spheres, only adds
to the regret which their controversial tone has excited. Two or three otlier
Prelates might be mentioned, whose words seem not to have been always guided
by that spirit of wisdom and charity which their eminent st:ition demands, and
which has been happily manifested by the great body of our prelacy.
G

82 DUTIES OF CHURCHMEN.
should be discontinued. The sacred interests of Christian
truth would not permit the slightest relaxation in that conscien
tious vigilance which has been exercised, or in the duty of
" contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints."
It may even be necessary to introduce controversial subjects
occasionally in the pulpit, when congregations seem to be in
special danger from the approach of error. But where there
is no such danger; where there is enough and more than
enough of hostility to certain unpopular doctrines, and to their
advocates, it is surely unwise to excite and disturb congrega
tions by continual appeals on controversial subjects. The
frequent application of such stimulants must tend to create a
tone of mind very injurious to practical and spiritual religion,
to promote divisions already but too serious, and to foster a
spirit of criticism, which may at any moment re-act on those
who have been instrumental in drawing it forth, and may create
for them embarrassments of the most serious nature.
I would also venture to suggest (and the suggestion is
offered alike to all parties,) the necessity of abstaining from
the perusal of controversial writings, and especially from the
study of journals and periodicals, the circulation of which de
pends on the amount of excitement which they supply. I am
persuaded, that no one who permits himself the habitual study
of such publications, can fail of imbibing their tone, and of
thus being gradually filled with irritated and angry feeling.
I -am sure that many excellent men would have recoiled with
horror from the perusal of such writings, had they been aware
of the frame of mind to which they were about to be uncon
sciously led. It almost seems to argue distrust in the sound
ness of a cause, when we are for ever seeking for arguments to
sustain it. If " Tractarianism," as it is sometimes called, be
dangerous and pernicious — if it has been marked by censures,
why is it necessary to dwell longer on the subject ? Is it wise
or right to continue the controversy, to the exclusion of almost
every other thought or interest ; to mark all its turns and
windings, to listen to every alleged error, and dwell on every
alleged instance of folly or of guilt? Do not such studies tend
to disturb the heart, and disqualify it from the higher pursuits
of religion ? Do they not engender a spirit of criticism ? Are

DUTIES OF CHURCHMEN. 83
they whoUy exempt from danger, in familiarizing the mind
with the notions of error and evil ? I am convinced that there
is no more clear duty of Christians in these days, than that of
abstaining from the habitual study of controversial journals and
periodicals, in which the power of writing anonymously what
no man would venture openly to avow ; and the pecuniary
interests of publishers or proprietors, which are promoted by
violence of tone and party spirit, combine to keep up an
unwholesome and unnatural excitement. And I would most
earnestly and humbly appeal to the consciences of writers in
periodicals, whether it is right to put forward sentiments under
the veil of anonymous communications, which they would feel
in any degree reluctant to publish with their names. Indivi
duals have it in their power largely to diminish these evils,
and in that power is involved responsibility — a responsibility
to God for the welfare of His Church. With reference to
publishers, I cannot but observe, that they are, and ought to be
held responsible, to a certain extent, for the works which they
are instrumental in bringing before the public. They have
not apparently been sufficiently alive to this responsibility.
Much has been published of late which should never have
made its appearance. The Church has, in a great degree, the
remedy in her own hands. If publishers are in future so forget
ful of their responsibility as to print indiscriminately all that is
offered to them ; if they thus prove themselves careless of the
interests of the Church, let them know the opinions of her
members : let authors and purchasers withdraw their patronage
and support.
More especially would I venture to offer a word of caution,
in regard to parties which have been brought into this con
troversy. Churchmen ought surely to be able to settle their
own differences without calling in the aid of Dissenters or of
Romanists. It may be that these strangers to the Church
speak truly on some of the disputed points; but, however this
may be, I cannot but think it highly derogatory to the dignity
of truth to receive the aid of such auxUiaries ; and when it is
remembered, as it ought to be, that the parties in question are
actuated by the most unremitting hostility to the Church ; that
their craft is equal to their hostiUty ; that their obvious policy
g2

84 DUTIES OF CHURCHMEN.
is to excite jealousies and divisions in the Church to the
very utmost, in the hopes of detaching at some favourable
crisis the more excited of its members, and of uniting them to
their own parties respectively ; seeing all this, I cannot but
think it almost suicidal, to avail ourselves of the assistance so
eagerly proffered by Romanists and Dissenters, and to give
them the satisfaction of witnessing the progress of their
designs. In conclusion, let us consider the present state and prospects
of Church principles. There are some adherents of these
principles, I am aware, who are inclined to look rather
despondingly on the prospects of the truth. The violent
opposition which has been raised against the Tracts and other
connected publications, and against their authors ; the un
popularity of some important principles; the discouragement
given by politicians of all parties ^ ; the censures passed by so
many Prelates ; the particular acts of censure under whicli the
leaders of the Tract theology have been silenced or condemned;
the outcry for further victims daily stimulated by party
journals, all combine to dispirit, to alarm, to alienate some
minds from the English Church, as though it would be impos
sible to continue much longer in the profession of truth
within her bosom. To some, perhaps, it seems doubtful, whe
ther that Church can be indeed a Christian and a Catholic
Church, when she permits truth to be so violently assailed and
oppressed. Such thoughts are passing in the hearts of some brethren ;
but I think that there is another view of the circumstances in
which we are placed, which is at once more reasonable and
more encouraging. Admitting, then, most unreservedly, the
fact, that opposition does exist on questions of great moment;
that essential truths have been, in fact, contradicted ; still it
remains to be inquired, how far that opposition arises from
misconception or not, and how great is its real amount. If
we do not consider the real causes and direction of existing pre-

^ I may be permitted to observe, that after the publication of such articles as
that " on the Tamwortli Reading-room," in the British Critic, we can feel very
little surprise at the evident hostility of an influential party.

DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCHMEN. 85
judices, it will be impossible to comprehend their bearing on
the question of Church principles.
It appears to me, then, that the prejudice, the opposition,
the persecution of which we have to complain were caused in
some degree by indiscretions. Doubtless we should have had a
great amount of obloquy to encounter under any circumstances;
doubtless there would have been suspicions, artifices, and very
much of what we have had to deplore. But had not oppo
nents been given every conceivable advantage by offensive ex
pressions, inconsiderate language, unwise acts, the opposition
could never have become formidable. It was in order to
prevent such evils that I vainly endeavoured to obtain revision
of the Tracts, that I even laboured for their suppression.
I was anxious to see this practical application of the doctrine
of reserve and o'lKOvopia. I was earnest that advantages
should not be given to opponents ; that the public mind should
not be offended by the mode in which truth was presented to
its notice. Had this sincere advice, which was probably, at
the time, regarded as a sort of compromising expediency, been
acted on, I cannot but think that much evU and danger would
^have been avoided.
I am far from presuming to blame those friends who adopted
a contrary course : but it certainly does seem that the oppo
sition which has been gradually swelling into louder and
more vehement wrath, was excited to some extent by mere
indiscretion— mere excesses; that it is directed, and will be di
rected, not so much against Church principles, as against cer
tain mistakes, and against principles which we cannot approve ;
being chiefly directed against those Romanizing tendencies
which we most strongly repudiate ; and I cannot but cherish
the opinion and the hope, that there is no indisposition in the
public mind to afford a fair consideration to Church principles,
if they are not urged in such a form and mode as is extremely,
and, to a certain extent, justly obnoxious; and I confidently
trust that the doctrines of Bancroft and Andrewes Bramhall
and Taylor, Hammond and Beveridge, Bull and Wilson; the
doctrines of antiquity, of our formularies, and ofthe Scripture
itself will finaUy obtain that universal approbation and accept
ance 'to which they are most justly entitled. I would not for

86 DIFFICULTIES OF CHURCHMEN.
a moment deny the fact, that there are parties who are very
unsound in their belief, and who are on principle opposed
to sound and Catholic views. I have not the least hope of
conciliating such men, nor would I make any concession to
them; but they have obtained an influence which would have
been unattainable, had not many indiscretions been committed,
and had not certain writers, within the last two years, mani
fested Romanizing tendencies.
What, in fact, are the principles and the conduct against
which so much vehement opposition has been raised, and
which the Prelates have found it necessary to censure or
oppose ? I am persuaded, that the great body of those who
adhere to Church principles ^ will, on consideration, agree
with me, that they are not bound to vindicate the points which
have been thus objected to. The verj' laudatory terms in
which Romanism has been spoken of, is one great cause of
offence. We are surely not bound to employ such terms, or to
approve their use. The depreciating manner in which the
English Church has been mentioned, the abuse of her Re
formers, the spirit of discontent with her offices, the desire to
alter and assimilate her system to that of Rome, — all this has
been another principal ground of offence. Churchmen are
certainly not obliged to adopt any such course ; they are not
to consider their principles as censured or condemned when
such things are objected to. The hostility against notions of
Tradition, which would either supersede Scripture, or receive
articles of faith not contained therein, does not seem directed
against the sober and rational view, which receives the testi
mony of the primitive Fathers, of the Creeds, of the Uni
versal Church in all ages, as confirmatory of that view of Scrip
ture which the Church of England entertains, in opposition
to the errors of Unitarians, Latitudinarians, Dissenters, Ro
manists. I need not proceed further on this topic: other in
stances will readily suggest themselves.
" Let me not be supposed for a moment to imply that Church principles are
limited to those who approve of the Tracts for the Times. I know, and thank
fully acknowledge, that many of their opponents have always maintained sound
and Catholic principles. The Church is far, very far, more united in great
points than it might be imagined.

PROSPECTS OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 87
However distressing may be our present differences, yet we
should remember that the Church is at all times liable to the
recurrence of such difficulties, which are frequently of long
continuance. The history of Jansenism will show that the
Roman Church has not been able to prevent protracted dis
cussions within her own bosom.
In our own Church differences on certain points of doctrine,
which are now in dispute, were, thirty years ago, as hotly and
vehemently carried on as they are at the present day. Do
not let us suppose, that theological differences on justifica
tion, grace, the influence of the sacraments, and other con
nected points, are ever likely to come to an end in the
Church. Candour and charity may lead us to acknowledge
the excellence of many who hold contrary views on these
subjects, and to walk in Christian communion with them; but
perfect agreement is perhaps unattainable in this world of
imperfection. In conclusion, it is impossible not to advert in a spirit of deep
thankfulness to the prospects of the Church, and the progress
of Christian principles and practice. Who shall say that much
has not been done within the last ten years ? And what may
we not humbly expect from the blessing of God on patient,
and humble, and persevering endeavours for personal and gene
ral improvement ? A Theology deepened and invigorated ; a
Church daily awakening more and more to a sense of her pri
vileges and responsibilities ; a Clergy more zealous, more self-
denying, more holy ; a laity more interested in the great
concerns of time and eternity ; Churches more fully attended ;
sacraments and divine offices more frequently and fervently
partaken ; unexampled efforts to evangeUze the multitudinous
population of our land, and to carry the word of God into the
dark recesses of Heathenism. In aU this there is very much to
awaken our hopes, and to stimulate to continued exertions.
Lethargy and indifference, at least, are at an end. We are
conscious of our deficiencies, and not ashamed to own them ;
and God forbid that we should ever cease to be so ; or that the
effort and straining forward towards greater purity, and sanctity,
and discipline, should ever lose one particle of its energy. No
sincere friend of the Church ; no zealous and faithful servant of

83 PROSPECTS OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
Jesus Christ could wish to impose any restraint or check on
the desire for improvement. He cannot but rejoice at the
existence of such a spirit, and unite himself cordially to its
praiseworthy efforts. He will be verj' careful not to damp the
kindling fervour of devotion and self-denial ; or to restrain the
efforts to restore ecclesiastical discipline. He will be careful,
as far as in him lies, that weak and wavering minds shall not
be alienated by any apparent want of zeal on his part; any
apparent indifference to spiritual things ; any forgetfulness or
compromise of great Catholic principles. We have much to
hope, should Divine Providence mercifully guide us in this
course. It is thus that we shall best promote the cause of
Catholic unity throughout the whole world. But we are
undoubtedly surrounded with difficulties and dangers; and
absolute ruin may be brought on us by the exaggerations and
mistakes of a few men. The bright prospects before us mav
be blotted out for ever, if there be any reasonable suspicion of
Romish tendencies; if there be not most frank, and honest,
and open dealing on this subject. Let the public mind once be
so deeply deceived, as to suppose that the advocates of Church
principles have any concealed designs in favour of Romanism ;
any partiality for that evil system ; any wish to promote the re
vival of that system ; any desire whatever, beyond that of rein-
vigorating the Church in strict harmony with her own genuine
principles, and according to the model of the pure and primi
tive ages : let mistakes on this subject be assiduously instilled
by hostile malignitjr, and permitted to prevail through any
weakness, timidity, or reserve on our part, and the result can
be nothing but ruin ; ruin to sound principles ; destruction to
all hopes of improvement ; annihilation fo all possibility of
ever restoring Catholic unity ; division, and remorse within
the Church ; and perhaps the final triumph of the principles of
anarchy in religion and politics.
Such evils can, and (under the Divine blessing) will, I hope,
be averted from us. But there are great and mighty interests
depending on the conduct even of individuals amongst us.
Unguarded words, thoughtless actions, notions put forth almost
in playfulness, may have deep consequences. They may be
recorded as amongst our most weighty sins at the last day. A
5

PROSPECTS OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES. 89
child may, in his sport, apply a match to a barrel of gunpow
der. An indiscreet word may open the floodgates of schism
or heresy. May we earnestly supplicate Divine grace to guide
our words with discretion and moderation ; and to enable us to
pursue our difficult and anxious path, without swerving to the
right hand or the left, and without leading any astray from
the fold of Him, " who is the Shepherd and Bishop of our
souls." I have now to express an earnest hope, that an indulgent
and favourable construction will be extended by the Christian
reader to this little work. Its object is not to add to our divi
sions, or to create unkindly feeling in any quarter; but to
offer some warning whicli seems greatly needed at the present
time ; and to obviate mistakes which might have a most in
jurious effect on the cause of truth. It will not, I trust, tend
to division, if it should have proved, that those who advocate
Church principles are not unwilling to acknowledge faults
where they really exist, and to act in entire freedom from
party feeling. And, on the other hand, I would hojJt, that if
a line has been drawn between our principles and the theories
which a few brethren have recently advanced, a difference
which exists in reality, and which I have not brought into
existence, will not be increased. And with reference to the
eminent men who have patiently endured much obloquy and
discouragement, and whom I hope always to consider as
friends, it will perhaps be not without use to have shown the
simplicity and rectitude of their intentions in originating this
movement ; and for this cause, I ara content to take share in
a responsibility which has hitherto not been attributed to me.
I humbly trust that our hands and hearts were pure in this
matter — that we have nothing to conceal — nothing of which
we need be ashamed — nothing for which we are not prepared,
in reliance on the merits of Jesus Christ, to render an account
at the LAST GREAT DAY. There was no dishonesty on our
part — no wish to promote Romanism — no disloyalty to the
Church of England — no want of charity towards any of her
members — no design, except that of seeing all the principles
of the English Church in full and active operation— no wish,
but that of promoting the glory of God, " and on earth peace,

90 PROSPECTS OF CHURCH PRINCIPLES.
goodwill towards men." But we were " compassed with in
firmity," were "men of like passions with you;" and therefore
were Uable to error and indiscretion. I think that any in
discretions and mistakes which have been committed, have
been far too harshly judged; and while I would not impute
any intentional injustice to those who have combined circum
stances which had in reaUty no connection, and have deduced
from them a proof of some design on our part to promote the
cause of Romanism, I must say, that such a charge is really
and substantially unjust.

APPENDIX.

NOTE A. p. 9.

Amongst the most gratifying and encouraging circumstances
of that time was the affectionate zeal manifested by many Lay-
members of the Church. I subjoin an extract from a letter
which conveys the sentiments of one whose character, still
more exalted than his rank, had obtained for him the admiration
of all sincere friends of the Church.
FROM A CLERGYMAN. R  , Nov. 8 th, 1833.
On consulting with the Dean, and other warm friends of the Associa
tion, I find it is their unanimous opinion, and in which I agree with them,
that our wisest course in this neighbourhood is to confine ourselves for
the present to the circulation of the " Suggestions," and to getting the
adhesion of all we can, both Clergy and Laity, to the general principles
there laid down '. . . . The Dean has received answers from the Duke of
 , and the Bishop of  , quite In character with the individuals, the
purport of which I shall subjoin. . . . The following is the purport of the
Duke's :—
" My dear Sir, — I am always disposed to attend to your recom
mendations, but on the present occasion particularly so, agreeing, as
you know I do, most anxiously and warmly in the views which are so
spiritedly and wisely exhibited in the Prospectus which you enclosed
to me. I am quite disposed to give my name to the Association, and
I gladly commission you to use it as you please in the defence of the
Church, where the purposes are sound and pure, and the defence
weU-judged and courageous. My services, whatever they may be
worth, are at the feet of the Church, as the most Christian form of
worship, and Inculcating the purest religion of any known faith. My
life or death are whoUy at the service of such a cause ; only be true
1 Some difficulties had already arisen with regard to the " Tracts for the
Times."

92 APPENDIX,
to yourselves, and I trust that no danger or difficulty will ever appal
me, or deter me from meeting your enemies, and contending for the
belief which must bless and consecrate any country that cherishes
and upholds it.
" I most completely subscribe to the two ' Objects,' and as to the
last paragraph of the ' Suggestions' beginning ' They feel strongly,' it
delights me to read it ; it Is the cardinal point, and I have always
said, that if it had hitherto been acted upon, we should not now be
where we are, in a state of anarchy, and almost in a republic of re
ligion. Pray let me hear more about this, as more may arise."
This is noble .... 1 shall be very glad to find that the Bishop's infor
mation ^ is correct ; but we must not relax our endeavours to organize the
whole body of Churchmen to support the Bishops, if they manfully per
form their duty, and to step into the breach If they desert their posts.
The sentiments of an eminent writer on that crisis, which
are conveyed in the following extracts, will be read with in
terest. FROM A CLERGYMAN.  Ripon, Nov. i, 1833.
Mrs.  has called this moment, and left me a letter from Southey,
an extract from which I shall subjoin. She suggests that you should
write to him on the subject. He takes a melancholy view of the subject,
though I believe a just one; but if we can eflfect no more than he sup
poses, we shall be amply repaid for our exertions. If the Association Is
carried on with the same good sense and prudence with which it has
begun, it will be a tower of strength to the Church . . .
Extract from Mr. Southey's Letter.
" I have put Mr,  's papers in circulation. The ' Suggestions'
are drawn up with great judgment, and the objects stated so un
exceptionable, that no person who is verily and essentially a Church
man could object to them. No person can concur more heartily than
myself in the opinion and principles there expressed; hut I do not per
ceive how such an Association is to act, and what can be effected by
it. Can it do anything more than petition King, Lords, and Com
mons, against a destructive system which King and Commons are bent
upon pursuing, and which the Lords are too weak to resist ? They
may indeed circulate pamphlets and Insert wholesome letters in the
newspapers, and this will be doing much eventual good : it is not
likely that it should avert the evils that are intended, but certainly it
will prepare the way for a reaction and a restoration."
2 A contradiction of the report of the intention of the government to make
latitudinarian alterations in the Liturgy.

APPENDIX. 93
I subjoin extracts from a correspondence which took place
about this time, which will throw some light on the principles
on which the Association was based,
TO A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
Oxford, November I2th, 1833.
I take the liberty of forwarding to you, as a tried and proved friend of
the Church, the prospectus entitled " Suggestions," &c. of an Association
or system of correspondence and co-operation which Is rapidly progressing
in almost every part of England. Our principles you will see in the
Prospectus. Our plan is to establish an extensive correspondence with
those who agree with us in principle, and to induce them, by means of
the Prospectus, to unite and co-operate with the clergy and laity in their
respective neighbourhoods. This will enable them to encourage each
other, and to give expression to their feelings in a combined form, if any
attempt should be made to injure our religion, more especially by intro
ducing latitudinarian changes in our Liturgy and other standards of faith.
Amongst our friends are  We are in correspondence with nearly
forty counties, in which we have numerous friends among the laity and
clergy. . . . We are now engaged in getting up an Address from the Clergy
to the Primate, a copy of which I send you. It will help to unite and to
raise the spirits of our friends. It is Intended to follow it up by an
Address from the Laity, expressive of their attachment for the religion of
their forefathers ; and if those who sign the former address, exert them
selves properly in their parishes, with the aid of our lay friends, 1 do not
see why there should not be a most powerful demonstration. We want
the laity to join us in defence of their own Church, and not to leave the
clergy alone to fight the battle of Religion against Infidelity, Popery, and
Dissent. If we could get our clergy and laity to unite, on strong religi
ous principle, such as is contained in the Prospectus, the results might be
most happy; for I believe that it only wants that we should bestir our
selves, to show who has the real strength and influence. I beheve we
shaU not in the Association want for ardour and zeal, at least if I may
judge by what has hitherto come under my observation.
REPLY TO THE ABOVE.
 , Westminster, 13th Nov. 1833.
... I wish to ask thus privately, whether there be, in any of the Tracts
pubhshed by the Association to which you refer, or by its leading mem
bers, any desire to dissolve the remaining connexion between the Church
and the State. I have heard that one individual, whose name you have
given among the supporters of the plan, has been exerting himself In this
way— how far the information may be correct, even as to him individually,
I know not, for I have not yet seen any of his later works ; how far it
may appear In the Tracts of the Association, I know as little, because,

94 APPENDIX,
though I have been favoured with them, I have not been in the house in
which they are, in the country, long enough to open them ; but I own
that I am very anxious to find that I have been misinformed ....
TO THE SAME. Oxford, Nov. lith, 1833.
I feel it due to your Interest in our proceedings to enter into the
fullest and most confidential detail on the subjects to which you allude.
Our plan originally was to promote as far as was in our power Church
principles, and to defend the doctrines of the Church of England in these
days of latitudinarian indifference. We united with this object and Issued
the Prospectus you have seen. Some anonymous Tracts were also written
by various persons, and circulated among our friends as the works of in
dividuals, and not authorized by the Association. They were not in fact
intended to be the Tracts of the Association, but they were not unnaturally
confounded with it, and as they have been disapproved of by many, we
have discontinued circulating them. I beg to observe, however, that I
am not aware of anything in these Tracts tending to separate Church and
State, and so far from there being the least intention of the kind among
our leading friends ', I know that they are most strong supporters of the
union. It is true, that two or three excellent individuals may go rather
far on this subject (I will in the strictest confidence mention Mr. — .
Mr. — , and Mr. — ), but at the same time you will recohect that it is
impossible but that there must he varieties of opinion amongst the indi
viduals of a large Association, . . . and they are not, I may add, our most
influential members. Circumstances, indeed, render it impossible that
they should take a leading part.
With regard to the Address, I am happy to say that it meets the appro
bation of the Clergy generally ; and you wUl observe, that while the thud
paragraph does certainly leave the door open to Improvement, it is only
such improvement as the Archbishop proposes, and as is consistent with
our principles previously stated. Had the Address been put forward
without this paragraph, I believe the Clergy would not generally have
signed it, and we might have been said to be opposed in limine to aU im
provement, while the Primate would not have received the support of such
an Address, and our friends would have been divided.
Pardon the length of this explanation. We want to unite all the
Church, orthodox and evangelical, clergy, nobility, and people, in main
tenance of our doctrine and polity; and standing united once again on
' This statement may appear somewhat inconsistent with the facts stated in
page 7, but in fact the friends there alluded to, as opposed to the union of
Church and State, took no part in our subsequent proceedings. They were en
gaged in writing Tracts, or were absent from the University. They never cor
dially entered into the design of an Association, or of the Address and Declara
tion which emanated from it,

APPENDIX. 95

this strong religious ground, and co-operating with the Primate and
Bishops, with the advice of laymen like yourself, we may surely accom
plish much. The Church of England gives us aU unity; and It is a topic
that wiU find its way to the hearts of our people.

NOTE B. p. 13.
GREAT MEETING OF THE CLERGY.
(^The Standard, Feb. 6, 1834.)
" We refer with much pride to the following report of the proceedings
of a meeting at Lambeth Palace of the Clergy delegated to represent the
dioceses of England and Wales. The report reached our office at too late
an hour to permit us to offer upon it the remarks which we feel Its im
portance demands, and we therefore leave it for the present to the atten
tion of our readers, who will, we are sure, exultingly agree with an
observation made hi the course of the day, that it is ' a triumphant meet
ing for the Church.'
'¦ This morning having been appointed by his Grace the Archbishop of
Canterbury to receive the Address of the Clergy of England and Wales, at
twelve o'clock the following Clergy, who had previously assembled at
the house of Mr. Rivington, in Waterloo-place, proceeded to Lambeth
Palace : —
Ven. James Croft, Archdeacon of Canterbury.
Dean of Lincoln, Dr. Gordon.
Dean of Carlisle, Dr. Hodgson.
Dean of Chichester, George Chandler, LL.D.
Archdeacon of London, Joseph Holden Pott, M.A.
Archdeacon of Middlesex, George Owen Cambridge, M.A.
Archdeacon of Stowe, H. V. Bayley.
Archdeacon of Bedford, Dr. Bonney.
Archdeacon of Sanim, Llscombe Clarke, M.A.
Archdeacon of Brecon, Richard Davies.
Archdeacon of Taunton, Anthony Hamilton, M.A.
Archdeacon of Rochester, Walker King, M.A.
Archdeacon of St. Alban's, John James Watson, D.D.
Rev. Ashurst Turner Gilbert, D.D., Principal of Brazennose, Oxford.
Rev. Godfrey Faussett, D.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford.
Rev. John Keble, Professor of Poetry, Oxford.
Rev. Christopher Wordsworth, D.D., Master of Trinity College, Cam
bridge.
Rev. John Bankes Hollingworth, D.D., Norrisian Professor of Divinity,
Cambridge.
Rev. Ralph Tatham, B.D. Public Orator, Cambridge.

96 APPENDIX.
Rev. I. W. Baugh, M.A., ChanceUor of Bristol, Proctor for Wor
cester.
Rev. W. F. Baylay, M.A., Proctor for Canterbury.
Hon. and Rev. Evelyn Boscawen, M.A., Proctor for the Chapter of
Canterbury.
Rev. H. Fardell, M.A., Prebendary of Ely, Proctor for Ely.
Rev. John Hume Spry, D.D., Proctor for London.
"They were received in the hbrary by his Grace the Archbishop, who
was attended by his Chaplains.
" When the Venerable James Croft, Archdeacon of Canterbury, ad
dressed the Archbishop in the following words : —
" 'As Premier Archdeacon of England, I have the high honour of being
deputed by my reverend brethren to approach your Grace, on the present
important occasion, with the Address of the Clergy of England and
Wales ; nor will I, in my own person, venture to say more than that I
feel entitled thus to designate an address, which, notwithstanding some
few slight and immaterial variations, is in all instances substantially the
same, and has received the signatures of 6530 ministers of our Apostolical
Church.' " The Archdeacon then proceeded to read the
ADDRESS.
" ' We, the undersigned Clergy of England and Wales, are desirous of
approaching your Grace with the expression of our veneration for the
sacred office, to which by Divine Providence you have been called, of our
respect and affection for your personal character and virtues, and of our
gratitude for the firmness and discretion which you have evinced in a
season of peculiar difficulty and danger.
*" At a time, when events are dai ly passing before us which mark the growth
of latitudinarian sentiments, and the ignorance which prevails concerning
the spiritual claims of the Church, we are especially anxious to lay before
your Grace the assurance of our devoted adherence to the Apostolical
doctrine and polity of the Church over which you preside, and of which
we are ministers ; and our deep-rooted attachment to that venerable
Liturgy, in which she has embodied, in the language of ancient piety, the
Orthodox and Primitive Faith.
" ' And while we most earnestly deprecate that restless desire of change
which would rashly innovate in spiritual matters, we are not less solicitous
to declare our firm conviction, that should any thing, from the lapse of
years or altered circumstances, require renewal or correction, your Grace,
and our other spiritual rulers, may rely upon the cheerful co-operation and
dutiful support of the Clergy in carrying into effect any measures that may
tend to revive the discipline of ancient times, to strengthen the connexion
between the Bishops, Clergy, and people, and to promote the purity, the
efficiency, and the unity of the Church.'

APPENDIX. 97
" To which his Grace the Archbishop returned the following answer : —
" ' Mr. Archdeacon, and my Venerable and Reverend Brethren,— I
receive with peculiar pleasure this expression of your kindness towards
me, and your approbation of my humble endeavours to do my duty ; but
I feel still greater satisfaction when I consider the object which you have
principaUy in view, and the good effects which may be anticipated from
this public declaration of your sentiments. If it has been ever surmised
that the Clergy are wanting in attachment to the doctrine and polity of
our United Church ; that they have ceased to venerate the Liturgy, are
distrustful of their spiritual governors, and desirous of change : this mani
festation of your opinions and feelings will correct the mistake, and dissi
pate the hopes which may have been built on it. If, again, they are
charged with partiality for defects and corruptions, and determined aversion
to improvement, from bigotry or baser motives, such imputations are
shown to be groundless by this address.
" 'I regard it as a direct contradiction of misrepresentation and falsehoods
of different kinds, which have been widely circulated ; as an avowal of
your unshaken adherence to our National Church, its faith and its formu
laries ; and as a testimony of your veneration for the episcopal office, and
of your cordial respect for your Bishops. By thus coming forward, you
make known to the public the real dispositions of the Clergy ; you place
their love of order and of ancient principles beyond the reach of suspicion ;
you discourage rash innovation, without shutting the door against any
improvements, which may be deemed sufficiently important to outweigh
the evils incidental to change.
" ' To myself and the other Prelates, although we have never had reason
to doubt of the affection of our brethren, this voluntary assurance of your
co-operation will yield effective support, and impart additional confidence.
The gratlf3ang proofs which you on this day have afforded us, of your ap
proval in respect to the past, and of your reliance on our continued fulfilment
of our sacred duties, are equally calculated to allay our anxieties, and to ani
mate our exertions. For myself, I confess that, while I am deeply impressed
with a sense of our danger, and conscious of my own infirmity, I look to the
future without dismay, in the hope that, through the blessing of Almighty
God, and the aid of his Holy Spirit, the Church may not only be preserved
from the perils which now threaten its existence, but be securely and
permanently estabhshed, with an increase of usefulness and honour.'
" The Archbishop then received and returned the compliments of each
of the Clergy present, when they withdrew.
" We understand that the addresses from some dioceses and archdeacon
ries have not yet been received, but the aggregate number of signatures
will probably exceed eight thousand."

98 APPENDIX.

NOTE C. p. 14,
Some difficulties which interposed to prevent the adoption
of the Address are alluded to in the following letters :
FROM A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT. London, Dec. 16, 1833.
According to the suggestion and request of you and our other friends.
Sir  and I proceeded to Cambridge, and entered into full confidence
and anxious deliberation with  . The result was, the Address, of
which I inclose a copy, which this morning we have submitted to Mr. — .
trusting that we should receive his valuable aid in putting it into circula
tion. To our great regret as weU as surprise, Mr. — (though I do not
think he went so far as to say he would not sign it if issued) disapproves
of it, and declines to take any share in the responsibility of promulgating
it, on the grounds, 1st, That the temporal establishment ofthe Church is
not made sufficiently prominent, and especially because a determination to
support church-rates is not asserted specifically. 2nd, That the aversion
to change (unless by Church authority), in the spiritual concerns of the
Church, is put forward too strongly, so as to be likely, in his opinion, to
deter signatures  It becomes, therefore, now a matter for serious
consideration, whether this Address should be put into circulation, and
how ; or whether we had better give it into other hands, and let it begin
again de novo. . . . Mr.  seems afraid (as indeed did Archdeacon  )
of any Address being circulated avowedly by  and me, who are known
to be strong politicians, and in that caution we very much concur.

FROM A FRIEND. London, Dec. 24, 1833.
 I have seen Sir  . He is more than ever convinced how
important it is that the Clerical Address, which must be considered the
greatest victory that has been achieved since the battle of Waterloo,
should be presented in due form. Upon this point, therefore, you must,
as one of the Oxford Committee, insist. . . .
Sir — is now of opinion, that for some little time at least, nothing can
he done for the Lay Address. He has not yet received answers from
Lord Eldon, Lord Chandos, Sir R. Peel, or the Duke of Newcastle.
From the Duke of WeUington, Mr. Goulbourn, and one or two others, he
has received answers, not favourable to the doing any thing at this present
moment, which seems to be quite a critical one.

APPENDIX. 99
NOTE D. p. 15,
I subjoin some extracts from letters received from various
correspondents which will, in some degree, account for the
limited measure of success which attended the Declaration of
the Laity. FROM ARCHDEACON  W  , Jan. 11, 1834.
The Duke of Buckingham highly approves the Declaration, but says,
" From what authority does it proceed ?" Now surely you should print
in the papers some account of the committee, chairman, secretaries, trea
surers, &c. I really am at a loss what to say, not having one paper or
scrap of information.

FROM ARCHDEACON

 E  , Jan. 23, 1834.
You led me to suppose, about a fortnight since, that I should immedi
ately receive a packet of the Declarations for the signatures of the Laity.
I gave you the name of  , as the person to whom the packet might
be sent ; but we have never received it, and are anxiously expecting it.
I believe you wish to receive the names of peers, &c. who would subscribe,
and therefore I beg to give you Lord Rolle, who is desirous of adding his
name. I would beg to suggest to your Committee, that this Declaration should
be immediately followed up by Petitions, in answer to the four several
points now claimed by Dissenters, namely, the abolition of church-rates,
burial, marriage, and registration. FROM THE SAME,  E  , Jan. 30, 1834.
I am exceedingly anxious that our friends in London should take some
more direct and regular means of obtaining signatures to the Lay Declara
tion. At present some packets of the papers have been sent to one or
two gentlemen in E  , and to a few in the country, but no instructions
are given, no notice as to whom the papers are sent, and what is to be
done with them. In consequence a very few signatures are made, and no
one takes any active part, and with some the papers remain positively as
lumber. This is a sad state of things, but it is literaUy the case ; all is
confusion ; our best friends are disheartened and discouraged— they con
fide in others, and nothing is done ; a good cause is lost from want of
purpose and active direction ; and there wUl not be one-tenth, nay, not
one-hundredth oi the signatures obtained, which might have been pro
cured by good management. If it be not too late, I most earnestly solicit
that a communication be made from the Central Committee to  , who
H 2

100 APPENDIX.
will put them in the way of engaging agents in every district, perhaps in
every parish. FROM A CLERGYMAN.
Sherington, Newport Pagnel, Feb. 11th, 1834.
I this morning received a letter from a very influential friend of mine
connected with the county, and a firm friend of the Church, in which he
says he has been " much reproached" for not sending up the Declaration
of the Laity. Col. C  has as yet had no communication of any sort
respecting it ; you I hope received a letter from me in which I recom
mended his name as the properest to further the object in this part of the
county, and he is quite ready to do anything that may be desired.
Copy of a letter received by Mr. W. Joy, Oxford, from a clergy
man in fhe neighbourhood of Ashby-de-la-Zouch. Jan. 22nd, 1834.
If you have any knowledge of, or any influence with, the members of
the Central Committee in London, who sent out the Declaration of the
laity of the Church of England, which you showed me when in Oxford,
do counsel them to take more efficient measures for having it signed. If
they reaUy had the cause at heart, they would not have sent it about in
the careless way they have. I expected on my arrival at my parish to
have found a copy of the Declaration ; but instead of this, I heard that a
neighbouring clergyman, an acquaintance of one of the members, had a
sheet of foolscap paper sent to him with the Declaration printed on one
side, and the direction on the other "For Ashbyand its Neighbourhood;"
so that the Ashby declaration and that of all the adjoining parishes has
already gone back with ninety-three signatures ; when Ashby alone would
have furnished five hundred. Not a single name from . . . . ; and many
other parishes have been attached, because there was no room on the
paper. If the Declaration is to be of use, it must be sent to every parish
in the kingdom, and if I know any one of the gentlemen who compose
the Committee, or where they could be addressed, I would write this my
opinion to them. Pray do what you can to remedy this fatal supineness
of the Committee.

NOTE E. p. 15.
I annex extracts from letters received about this time from
Laymen. FROM A GENTLEMAN. Monmouth, Dec. 10.
.... If you will send me some printed Addresses, I will get the signa
tures of the clergymen in this town and neighbourhood, and also forward

APPENDIX. 101

some for signature to other parts of the county, unless you think proper
yourself to write to those gentlemen I have named.
And if you will send me the Lay Address, or a copy, I wiU get that
signed by the mayor, bailiffs, town clerk, common council, and principal
inhabitants of this town, and also send it to the other towns in the county
for signature. And if I can render any further assistance in the good
cause in which you are engaged, you may command my services.

FROM A GENTLEMAN.

 Park, Feb. 26.
In reply to yours just received, I beg to state that I have taken no part
in circulating any Declaration oi the Laity in this neighbourhood, having,
prior to the publication of such by the Suffolk Street Committee, circu
lated and obtained signatures to the enclosed Address from every parish
in this division of the county. Mr.  , of Ufflngton, by whom the
Address was drawn up, undertook a similar duty in the Wantage and
Farringdon districts .... [This letter enclosed an Address from " the
magistrates and other laymen resident in the county of Berks" to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, expressive of their attachment to the Church
of England.] FROM A GENTLEMAN. Lichfield Close, 26th March, 1834.
I have the pleasure to send you Declarations from the Laity in Lichfield,
Norton, and Courley, and Shenstone, in Staffordshire, and also one from
Sir Robert Peel and several highly respectable gentlemen in this neigh
bourhood. Sir Robert has authorized me by letter to add his name, which
letter I can forward if necessary.

NOTE F. p. 17.
The foUowing is a copy of His Majesty's most gracious
speech to the Bishops on the anniversary of His Majesty's
birth-day, in May, 1834 :
My Lords, — You have a right to require of me to be resolute in de
fence of the Church. I have been, by the circumstances of my life, and
by conviction, led to support toleration to the utmost extent of which it is
justly capable ; but toleration must not be suffered to go into licentious
ness : it has its bounds, which it is my duty, and which I am resolved to
maintain. I am from the deepest conviction attached to the pure Pro
testant faith, which this Church, of which I am the temporal Head, is the
human means of diffusing and preserving in this land.

102 APPENDIX.
I cannot forget what was the course of events which placed my family
on the throne which I fill ; those events were consummated in a revolu
tion which was rendered necessary, and was effected, not as has sometimes
been most erroneously stated, merely for the sake of the temporal liberties
of the people, but for the preservation of their religion. It was for the
defence of the religion of the country, that was made the settlement of
the crown which has placed me in the situation that I now fill; and that
religion and the Church of England and Ireland it is my fixed purpose,
determination, and resolution, to maintain.
The present bishops, I am quite satisfied, (and I am rejoiced to hear
from them, and from all, the same of the clergy in general under their
government,) have never been excelled at any period of the history of our
Church, by any of their predecessors, in learning, piety, or zeal, in the
discharge of their high duties. If there are any of the inferior arrange
ments in the discipline of the Church, (which, however, I greatly doubt,)
that require amendment, I have no distrust of the readiness or abUity of
the prelates now before me to correct such things, and to you I trust they
will be left to correct, with your authority unimpaired and unshackled.
I trust it will not be supposed that I am speaking to you a speech
which I have got by heart. No, I am declaring to you my real and
genuine sentiments. I have almost completed my sixty-ninth year, and
though blessed by God with a very rare measure of health, not having
known what sickness is for some years, yet I do not blind myself to the
plain and evident truth, that increase of years must tell largely upon me
when sickness shall come. I cannot, therefore, expect that I shall be very
long in this world. It is under this impression that I teU you, that while
I know that the law of the land considers it impossible that I should do
wrong, that while I know there is no earthly power which can call me to
account, this only makes me the more deeply sensible of the responsibility
under which I stand to that Almighty Being, before whom we must all
one day appear. When that day shall come, you wiU know whether I am
sincere in the declaration which I now make, of my firm attachment to the
Church, and resolution to maintain it.
I have spoken more strongly than usual, because of unhappy cir
cumstances that have forced themselves upon the observation of all. The
threats of those who are enemies of the Church make it the more neces
sary for those who feel their duty to that Church to speak out. The words
which you hear from me are indeed spoken by my mouth, but they flow
from my heart.
His Majesty was observed to be much affected in the course
of this speech, whicli was delivered with great emphasis.

APPENDIX. 103

NOTE G. p. 17.
The "British Magazine" for July and August contains
accounts of numerous meetings and addresses to the King in
gratitude for his declaration. Amongst the places from which
such addresses were sent, maybe mentioned Wisbeach, Tiver
ton, Poole, Colchester, Bristol, Cheltenham, Tewkesbury,
Cirencester, Canterbury, Manchester, Liverpool, Warrington,
Leicester, Oxford, Coventry, Salisbury, Leeds, Doncaster,
Brecon, &c. On the 9th and 25th August, the King held
levees, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dukes of Wel
lington, Rutland, Beaufort, and Newcastle ; Earls of Falmouth,
Winchelsea, Amherst, Cawdor, Warwick ; Bishop of Exeter,
the Mayor of Liverpool, and many other gentlemen and no
blemen presented several hundreds of addresses to His Majesty
from aU parts of the United Kingdom, and from aU classes and
orders of society, expressive of attachment to the Church, and
heartfelt gratitude for the royal declaration. Petitions in
favour of the Church were at the same time pouring in by
hundreds into the two Houses of ParUament.

NOTE H. p. 18.
I was desirous of recording in this place the names of those
who co-operated in our exertions for the defence of the Church,
in the latter part of 1833, and the beginning of 1834. It
would have shown that the movements which I have described
were not in any respect connected with religious party — that
men of very different views and connexions were equally
zealous in the common cause. But I do not feel justified in
mentioning names without special permission. I have before
me a list, comprising the names of twenty-six Archdeacons, five
Deans, and a great number of other dignitaries and beneficed
Clergymen, fourteen Peers, and many members of ParUa
ment, mayors of cities and boroughs, and private gentlemen,
who took part in the effort which was made in support of the
Church.

104 APPENDIX,

NOTE I. p. 1?,
It was our sincere endeavour to unite all parties in defence
of the Church. This we did not hesitate to avow on all proper
occasious. Some of our friends were by no means satisfied of
our discretion on this point. In iUustration of this, I subjoin
some extracts from the letters of a very influential and re
spected friend, Oc*o5er 24, 1833.
I thank you much for the copy of the " Suggestions," which I duly
received, and think them drawn up with both ability and caution, and
defining very accurately the object of the Association, and supporting the
measure by reasons which must satisfy every reasonable mind. Your letter
I confess staggers me, for I am no novice in the points *; issue, between
the two parties designated Orthodox and Evangelical, and my conviction
is, that without compromising fundamentals, no union between them can
be formed. Such a union I admit to be most important; I could almost
say vitally so to us both, and 1 am quite prepared to forget all the past, and
to give to every individual of the latter class the right hand of fellowship
with all the cordiality possible, if they will lay aside Wesley's conceits, and
return to the genuine doctrines of the Reformation. ... 1 do not say these
things to throw cold water upon your measures, but merely to urge deli
beration, and the obtaining a clear understanding of the views of those
to whom you join yourselves.
FROM THE SAME.
November 4, 1833.
I have this day several letters from persons to whose judgments much
deference is due, and who all approve generally of our design, to which
they will lend their best assistance, if the measures are well-advised, and
seem calculated to effect not a hollow assemblage of differently-minded
persons, but a solid substantial union. They urge caution and deliberation,
being convinced that if the good is not effected, serious evil will ensue,
and all express themselves not very sanguine in their hopes that the circu
lation of Tracts in the present stage of our affairs will contribute much to
rouse that Church feeling which has so lamentably fallen to decay.
The union of parties was, notwithstanding these objections,
accomplished in various places to a considerable extent, and
quite sufficiently to secure co-operation in the same measures,
A clergyman writes thus: —

APPENDIX. 105
Norwich, Feb. 1, 1834.
I have heard of only five or six persons in this radical county, who
have positively refused to sign the Address ; and their opinions in general
have very little weight in the Church. Whigs and Tories, Evangelicals
and High Churchmen, who have on no occasion been induced to act toge
ther before, have readUy united in the present measure.

NOTE K. p. 18.
The views of this eminent man are stated in the following
extract from one of his letters : Trin. Coll. April 19, 1832.
. . . Let me inquire of you particularly what you had in view in saying
that the success of the Magazine would depend on its boldly advocating the
cause of the Church. I am very anxious to do whatever can be done,
and my plan is this: — I have called on a person in whose ability I have
reliance, for a series of papers on the advantages of an Establishment,
Ordinances, and a Liturgy, Discipline, on Episcopacy, &c. These things
seem to me much wanted. I mean to follow them up by strong papers on
the necessity of observing Church discipline, as far as the Clergy are con
cerned. . . . Pray teU me what more is expected, for whatever can be done
I wiU do cheerfully. But if you think that there is a general wish and
expectation that the Magazine should become an arena for the cause of the
High Church against the Low Church as to doctrine, then I would
rather leave the thing to others. I am a thorough High Churchman my
self, both as to doctrine and discipline, but I can see little good to be done
just now as to doctrine by fresh controversy, and have a strong confidence
that if the Church holds out, we should get nearer one another by the
adoption of sound discipUne than by any other way.
I need not add that my friend had mistaken the purport of
my letter : his sentiments were entirely in accordance with
my own.

NOTE L. p. 21.
The following extracts, from letters received from the Clergy
of various parts of England, will suffice to show the objections
to which the Tracts gave rise, and the embarrassment which
was felt.

106 APPENDIX.

FROM ARCHDEACON CAMBRIDGE.
College, Ely, Nov. 19, 1833.
I beg to offer you my best thanks for the copy of the Address to his
Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to assure you that I shall do
my utmost to call the attention of the Clergy to it, and to obtain as many
signatures as possible. I had previously seen it in manuscript, and
received a printed copy through the kindness of my friend Mr. N  ,
and immediately went over to Cambridge to confer with the  on the
subject. On his table I found a number of Tracts which were proposed
to be extensively circulated. We neither of us knew then, nor do I now
kno%v, how the Committee from which they are to be circulated is to be
formed ; but we are both agreed in opinion, that some obvious objections
offer themselves to such a measure, at a moment when every other man
thinks he can discover defects in our Church polity, and is willing to
show how to reform them ; and that however carefully these Tracts may
be worded, they will be sure to give rise to controversy, which it ill
becomes those distinguished characters who unite for the sole purpose
expressed in the Address, to enter into. . . .
FROM A CLERGYMAN. Sherington, Dec. 7. 1833.
I regret that I was premature in saying that  's name might be
added to the intended Association : he is a warm friend to the Establish
ment, an able man, and an excellent Christian, . . . but he and many
others do not approve of certain publications said to have their origin
with some ofthe principal promoters of the forthcoming Lay Address. He
would wish it to contain general declarations of attachment to the Liturgy,
the Doctrines, and the Establishment of the Church of England, without
going into any such questions as those relating to episcopacy, apostolicity,
and so forth. The expressions " conveying the sacrifice to the people,"
of being " intrusted with the keys of heaven and hell," and being " in
trusted with the awful and mysterious gift of making the bread and wine
Christ's body and blood" — I lament to see used in the publications I
allude to, and I feel sure that they wiU not tend to strengthen the Church
in these days : we must take care how we aid the cause of Popery.
FROM THE SAME. Dec. 13, 1833.
I was much gratified by the receipt of your letter to-day. I mad part
ofit to  , and I have little doubt of his signing the intended Address
or Declaration. I ventured to copy, for  , the following words of
yours : — " These tracts, however, never had the sanction of any associa-

APPENDIX, 107
tion : they were not written by leading members of the Association, and,
on the contrary, they were written by persons who always opposed most
strongly the idea of any association, and who are stUl opposed to it." . . .
I think it probable that  wUl be the means of checking the unfair line
of conduct adopted by the Record.

FROM A CLERGYMAN.  , Newark, Dec. 23, 1833.
I heard the other day (what I hope is true), that those of our Clergy
who have set on foot this Address, have disclaimed that it has any con
nexion with certain publications that have issued from Oxford lately, and
which have justly excited so much animadversion. I am sure that we
should have lost many signatures in this county, if It had been under
stood that those who signed this Address would have thereby identified
themselves with a Society which has sent forth publications which are far
more likely to be prejudicial than beneficial to the Church at this junc
ture, and some of which contain statements that can by no means, I think,
admit of proof from Scripture. FROM A CLERGYMAN, Cheltenham, Jan. 9, 1834.
We had a preparatory meeting here yesterday, for the purpose of stir
ring up the laity. It was only caUed to deliberate, and therefore nothing
was done except to adopt the first resolution [alluding to resolutions in
favour of the Church, inclosed]. ... I do hope that the example of this
diocese wiU be foUowed generally. The Clergy, I believe, are unanimous
in the measure.
When I was in London I undertook, on the authority of your letter, to
state that the Tracts had been bond fide given up. I have since seen what
I suppose were they, advertised in the " Record." I do sincerely wish
that this was not so. They have been the cause of more injury to the
united operations of the Church than can weU be calculated.
FROM A CLERGYMAN.  , Derby, Jan. 17, 1834.
Many (Clergy) have refused their signatures on account of a supposed
connexion between the Address and the Oxford Tracts  I ought to
mention, that last night I accidentaUy fell in with a Clergyman, a stranger
to me, who resides at some distance from Derby, and who had refused his
signature to the Address on account of the Oxford Tracts, or rather, per
haps, some remarks upon them in the " Record." Your letter enabled me
to remove his scruples, and he gave me his signature. I gave him a
number of the copies of the Address, which he would, on his return home
1

108 APPENDIX,
to-day, give to several Clergymen of his acquaintance, who had refused
for the same reason, and who, he thought, would now send their signa
tures. I hope they will arrive in time  I think it a sacred duty to do
what lies in my power in behalf of our Holy Mother, both in the present
struggle, and in that more important one which wUl, to all appearance,
follow.

NOTE M. p. 32.
The writer feels extremely reluctant to express any dif
ference of opinion from the respected author of Tract 90. It
will be sufficient for him to say, that he is of opinion that the
Bishop of Exeter, in his Charge, has afforded a safer exposition
of certain Articles, and of the general principles of interpreta
tion. With reference to the principle of interpreting the
Articles " in the most Catholic sense they will admit," the
writer has spoken in a work recently published, in the follow
ing terms : —
The sense of the Church of England, therefore, is the sense in which
the Articles are to he understood, and the Church has always understood
them as she did in the sixteenth century ; because she has never, by any
act whatsoever since that time, expressed any change of interpretation. In
StiU continuing, without remark, the same law which she enacted in the
sixteenth century, she has afforded a pledge of her retaining the same
sense she then had. How then is this sense of the Church to be ascer
tained ?
I reply, first, that the Articles being designed to produce unity of
opinion, the meaning of a large part oi them is doubtless plain and clear, as
every one admits it to be. This wiU, in itself, furnish the first rule for
the interpretation of the remainder, viz. that it shall not be contradictory
to what is elsewhere clearly stated in the Articles themselves.
Secondly, the formularies of public worship, comprising creeds, solemn
addresses to God, and instructions of the faithful, which have been also
approved, and always used by these Catholic Churches, furnish a sufficient
testimony of the doctrine taught by them in the Articles ; for they could
never have intended that their Articles should be interpreted in a sense
contrary to the doctrine clearly and uniformly taught in their other approved
formularies. This then fuinishes a second rule for interpreting the
Articles. Thirdly, since it is the declaration of the Church of England, that "a
just and favourable construction ought to be allowed to all writings, espe-

APPENDIX. 10.9
cially such as are set forth hy authority," it is apparently her desire that
where any fair and reasonable doubt of her real sense shall remain, after
the above rules have been applied unsuccessfully, that sense may be always
understood to be the best j i. e. the sense most conformable to Scripture and
to Catholic tradition, which she acknowledges as her guides. The very
Convocation of 1571, which originally enjoined subscription to the
Articles, declared at the same time the principle of the Church of Eng
land, that nothing ought to be taught as an article of faith except what
was supported by the authority of Scripture and Catholic tradition.
It must here, however, be most particularly observed, that the rule of
interpreting the Articles in the most Catholic sense, is one which must not
be vaguely and Indiscriminately applied to all the Articles, as if we were
at liberty to affix to them whatever meaning seems to us most consistent
with Scripture or with tradition. The principle thus applied would lead
to most dangerous tampering with the authorized formularies of the
Church ; would open the way for evasions of their most evident meaning,
and thus render them wholly useless as tests of belief or persuasion. But
if the principle of interpreting the Articles in the most Catholic sense be
restricted to those particular cases where a legitimate doubt of the meaning
of any article exists, and when it cannot be solved either by the language of
other parts of the articles, or of the other formularies of the Church, it is
wholly devoid of any latitudinarian tendency, and only tends to the benefit
of the Church and of Christian tmth.— Treatise on the Churc\of Christ,
vol. ii. pp. 213, 214. ed. 1842.

ADDITIONAL NOTE to p. 13.
The expression of attachment to the formularies of the
Church of England, whic?h was conveyed in the Address to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the evident danger in
which those formularies were placed by the continual demands
of innovators, drew from the sister Churches of Scotland and
Ireland Declarations designed to encourage the English Church
under the difficulties which surrounded her. These important
Declarations were as follow : —
DECLARATION OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
We, the undersigned Bishops, Presbyters, and Laity of the Episcopal
Communion in Scotland, deem it expedient, under existing circumstances,
to declare —
1 . That the Protestant Episcopal Church in Scotland is a branch of the

110 APPENDIX.
Catholic Apostolic Church of Christ, and has, by the blessing of Almighty
God, maintained, through all the vicissitudes of our history, the scriptural
and primitive system of prelacy for the ordering of her pastors and the
government of her community.
2. That this Church did voluntarily adopt the Book of Common Prayer,
as it has hitherto been prescribed by the united Church of England and
Ireland, being persuaded that it contains a form of worship agreeable to
the word of God, conformable to the practice of antiquity, and eminently
fitted to cherish sound opinions and spiritual affections in the minds of
those who use it ; and that while on the one hand we admit the Liturgy
to be imperfect, as all human compositions must be, and on the other
hand consider the great body of popular objections to it to have no foun
dation in truth, and often by their discordant and contradictory nature
to refute or neutralize each other, we fear the majority of objectors wear
too decidedly the graver aspect of heresy or schism to be as yet conciliated
by any alterations which we might deem expedient, judicious, or safe.
3. That while we thankfully recognize our entire freedom as a Church
to choose our mode of worship, we sincerely rejoice that hitherto no im
pediment has arisen to our accordance in this respect with the sister
Church in England, and cordiaUy sympathise with her in the dread of
any hasty or undue interference with her Liturgy ; and we trust that as
the Book of Common Prayer was originaUy ratified and confirmed in
England by an Act of Convocation, and as an ecclesiastical synod is the
only source from which such alterations should proceed, the constitution
and integrity of that Church wUl yet be respected as it ought to be, and
no attempt be made to effect a change in her formularies by an extraneous
and incompetent authority.
From a copy sent to the Hon. and Rev. A. P. Perceval, by the Bishop of
Ross and Argyle, 10th March, 1834.

DECLARATION OF THE CHURCH OF IRELAND.
The Archbishop of Armagh presented to his Majesty, at
the levee held upon his birth-day, the Address, of which the
following is a copy. The Address we are informed was signed
by seventeen out of the twenty Irish prelates, and by the
clergy, with few exceptions, of those dioceses in which it was
circulated : 1441 names are affixed to it. The Archbishop of
Dublin and the Bishop of Kildare, it is understood, objected
to the Address. The Bishop of Meath approved of it, but
did not sign it.

APPENDIX. Ill

TO THE king's MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.
We, the undersigned Archbishops, Bishops, and Clergy of the Irish
branch of the united Church of England and Ireland, dutifully crave
permission to approach your Majesty with a declaration of our deliberate,
unshaken, and cordial attachment to the polity, the doctrine, and worship
of the Church, as by law established.
Admitted, as we have been, to the ministry of that Church, on the faith
of our avowed adherence to its principles and institutions, such a declara
tion on our part might he deemed superfluous in ordinary seasons.
But the times in which our lot is cast are not of an ordinary character.
We trust, therefore, that it will not be deemed unbecoming in us, if,
actuated solely by a sense of duty, we openly make profession of our sen
timents, hoping that we may thereby contribute, under the Divine bless
ing, to check the prevailing fondness for Innovation, to give mutual
encouragement and support to each other, and to remove that disquietude
and distrust, which have been produced by the apprehension of ill-advised
changes, in the minds of those who are committed to our spiritual
care. We conscientiously believe that the polity of our Church is modelled,
as closely as diversity of circumstances will permit, on the ecclesiastical
institutions founded by our Lord's Apostles, and transmitted to us by their
successors ; that the system of our doctrine embodies the faith once
declared unto the saints ; and that our Liturgy is framed after the pattern
of the best remains of primitive Christianity, conveying at all times the
fundamental truths of the Holy Scripture, and not seldom in its express
words. In a Church thus pure in doctrine and apostolical in formation, whose
religious services are endeared by long usage to the doctrinal feeUngs of its
members, and whose polity harmonizes with the institutions of the State,
to which it has ever proved itself a faithful and judicious aUy, we deprecate
the introduction of undefined changes and experiments ; and we humbly
trust that no alteration wiU be made in the discipUne and services of our
Church, but by the sanction and recommendation of its spiritual guar
dians. Should, however, abuses be found to exist in our ecclesiastical esta
blishment, we profess our readiness to co-operate for their removal.
But we humbly submit to your Majesty, in the language of the preface
to our " Book of Common Prayer," that ' experience showeth that where a
change hath been made of things advisedly established, no evident neces
sity so requiring, sundry inconveniences have thereupon ensued, and those
more and greater than the evUs that were intended to be remedied by
such change.'
That accordingly it is wiser to submit to smaU and questionable incon
venience, than by impatiently attempting its removal to expose ourselves
to the risk of great and undoubted evil.

112 APPENDIX.
That if it be ' reasonable,' as in the language of the same preface we
admit it to be, ' that upon weighty and important considerations, according
to the various exigency of times and occasions, such changes and altera
tions should be made in our forms of divine worship, and the rites and
ceremonies appointed to be used therein, as to those that are In place or
authority should from time to time seem either necessary or expe
dient ;' it is no less reasonable that such alterations as are at any time
made, should be shown to be either 'necessary or expedient;' and that
we do not apprehend this to have been done in respect of the changes
which various persons, widely differing among themselves, are understood
to have in contemplation.
That a general agreement as to the things requiring correction, the
nature and extent of such correction, and the mode of applying it, may be
reasonably demanded from the persons desirous of change, as an indis
pensable preliminary to the concurrence of others with their views.
That an opening once made for innovation gives occasion to alterations
not limited to the particulars which were supposed to stand in need of
redress, but indefinitely extended to others, which were previously
esteemed to be free from all objection.
And that thus incalculable danger, arising from comparatively small
beginnings, may accrue to our apostolical form of polity, and to the purity
of the Christian doctrine incorporated in our public services. — British
Magazine, July, 1834.

THE END.

Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John's Square, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 9956