W,G>o

i''' ':¦-',

THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL.
HOW SHALL THE CLERGY, TEACH? HOW SHALL THE PEOPLE HEAR?

A SEEM

ON, \$

PREACHED ON THE OCCASION OP

THE CEREMONY CALLED "READING IN,"

ST. STEPHEN'S, HAMMERSMITH,

ON
THE Uth SUNDAY AFTER TRINITY, 1850.
BY THE
REV. WILLIAM COOKE, M.A
it*
PEHPETUAL CURATE.

LONDON :
JOHN OLLIVIER, 59, PALL MALL.
1850-

THE CONGREGATION

OF

ST. STEPHEN'S CHURCH, HAMMERSMITH,
THIS SERMON
to affetttmiatrta {rtocrtoett:
WITH AN EARNEST PRATER, THAT GOD WILL BRING THEM ALL
"IN THE UNITY OF THE FAITH, AND OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF
THE SON OF GOD, UNTO A PERFECT MAN, UNTO THE
MEASURE OF THE STATURE OF THE
FULNESS OF

Titus ii. 7 (latter part), 8.
" In doctrine shelving uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound
speech that cannot be condemned."
There is nothing more noticeable in the Apostolic
writings, than the vehement desire that Christians should
with one mind hold in all its purity, its fulness, and its
integrity, the faith of the Gospel. It is not merely the
doctrine that is commended to us — but the soundness of
the doctrine; — not merely instruction in the principles of
Christ — but the certainty of those things wherein instruc
tion is given. St. Paul tells us, that as there is one
Lord, so there is one Faith ; and exhorts the Colossians to
" remain stablished in the faith, as they had been taught."
St. Jude sets it forth as the common obligation of all
Christians, that they should " contend earnestly for the
faith once delivered to the saints." St. John, in his
second Epistle, goes even so far as to forbid the holding
communion or intercourse with those that abide not in
the doctrine of Christ ; " If there come any unto you,
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your
house, neither bid him God speed."
To continue sound in the pure faith, is thus the obli
gation upon all Christians. Much more then must it be
upon those who shall be appointed Ministers of God's Word
and Stewards of His Mysteries. A man's teaching neces*

sarily is influenced by his own opinions ; and unless these
are pure, and sound, and sincere, the lessons he incul
cates must of a consequence be defective. Hence St.
Paul states, " it is required in stewards that a man be
found faithful" Hence, he directs St. Timothy, that
among other conditions, this especially must be fulfilled
in the choice of a Bishop, that "he be able by sound
doctrine to exhort and convince the gainsayers." Hence
in like manner he declares to St. Titus, that a Pastor of
the Church must " in doctrine shew uncorruptness,
gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be con*
demned." And as on the principles of expediency, (to take the
lowest ground,) division and difference of opinion cannot
conduce to the security or stability of any society, but
must hasten its dissolution ; as " a house divided against a
house cannot stand ;" — knowing this, and remembering
the prayer of Christ, that His disciples might be " per
fectly one ;" — we are prepared to meet with exhortations
from the apostles in respect to unity in the faith. St.
Paul writes to the Philippians, "that ye strive together
with one mind for the faith of the Gospel; and again to
the Corinthians " that ye all speak the same thing, and
that there be no divisions among you, and that ye be
perfedly joined together in the same mind, and in the
same judgment."
Again, therefore, we may infer, that if unity in
the faith, sameness of mind, sameness of judgment, is
required of the whole body of Christians, much more so
is it of those on whose teaching this must mainly depend
— the Pastors and Ministers of the Church. And St.

Paul confirms the truth of this inference, when writing
to St. Timothy, he declares, " I besought thee to abide
still at Ephesus, that thou mightest charge some that
they teach no other doctrine, neither give heed to fables
and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather
than godly edifying, which is in faith."
Soundness of faith, and unity of faith have then from
the first been required by the Church of her Ministers.
I do not intend to detain you with an account of the
various means by which it was endeavoured to attain
this object. I would simply suggest that all these direc
tions of the Apostle presuppose the right of examination
into the faith and opinions of any one who is a candi
date for the offices of the Ministry by certain who have
authority given them in the Church for this purpose, and
according to some settled standard of faith. How other
wise than by search and investigation into his opinions,
can it be discovered what a man believes % how but by
some fixed creed can it be determined " if in doctrine he
show uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech
that cannot be condemned V We know it to be a fact,
that from every person previous to participation in the
Sacrament of Baptism, a profession of his belief in the
doctrines of the Gospel is demanded ; which profession is
from time to time renewed, so often as he recites the
Creed in the services of the Church. And we have it
implied in these passages, that in like manner from
every one who seeks the Ministerial office is required a
declaration of his faith and opinions — it may be verbal —
it may be written — or it may be both verbal and written ;
— a declaration to be repeated whenever he undertakes a

10

fresh duty or fresh charge in the Church. And the
right to examine the candidates for the Ministry, so
as to maintain one sound doctrine, being thus established
by Holy Scripture, I proceed now to show you how this
is exercised by the Church of England ; how provision
is made that " uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound
speech" shall be maintained in that branch of Christ's
Holy Catholic Church, in which our lot is happily, of
God's great goodness to us, cast.
I. You have heard this morning read to you the
document called the Articles of Religion, and a declara
tion that I, now licensed to be your Minister, conform to
the Liturgy of the Church of England and Ireland. To
the whole contents of the Book of Common Prayer, pro
perly so called — that is the Order of Morning and Even
ing Prayer, the Administration of the Sacraments, and
the other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, together
with the Psalter or Psalms of David, and the Ordinal, —
and to the Articles, I have assented, as being entirely in
conformity with the Word of God ; and as containing the
one, true, sound interpretation which in the judgment of
the Church of England is to be attached to that word of
God. It was not to the Articles alone without the
Prayer Book, nor to the Prayer Book without the
Articles, that either before the Bishop, or to-day, I gave
my unfeigned consent* ; but to them both as one, as
agreeing in their teaching ; each beiDg intended to clear
up any apparent doubt or difficulty in the other ; the
Articles to defend the Liturgy, if attacks be made on its
••' Vide Appendix A,

11
doctrinal statements ; the Liturgy to support the Articles ;
to amplify wherever they are deficient; to explain wherever
they are obscurely worded ; to limit wherever they are
liable to a variety of senses and interpretations.
To the Prayer-Book the Clergy conform, together
Math their lay brethren, because it contains that which
is common to us all, prayer, the administration of the
Sacraments and of other Rites, praise, and the Articles of
Faith in the strictest sense of that expression ; that is,
such truths as are fundamental in the Christian scheme ;
such as are comprised in the Apostles', and enlarged upon,
and explained, in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.
To the Articles of religion the Clergy alone subscribe ;
for though containing some statements of fundamental
doctrines, they consist chiefly, as says Bishop Cony-
beare* " of such truths, as being founded in Scripture,
have a certain evidence; but not bearing so close and im
mediate a relation to the main branches of the Christian
scheme, are, therefore, of an inferior nature:" and are
designed to promote unity among the teachers, rather
than soundness of faith amongst all.
The history of the Articles will perhaps best ex
plain their use, and the reasons for which the Clergy are
called upon to subscribe to them. You are aware, that
from the seventh century the Bishop of Rome began to
usurp a ruling power over what had previously been in
dependent branches of the Church of Christ ; and until
the commencement of the sixteenth century, had been
regarded as the supreme head, under Christ, of the
* On subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles. Enchiridion
Theologicum.

12

Visible Church. At this latter period the Pope's position
was disputed, and finally denied, as in other countries
so in England. Together with the rejection of the
usurped powers of the Church of Rome, was carried on
a reformation of those abuses in doctrine and practice,
which had become encrusted upon primitive faith, and
primitive discipline. " And it is the pride of English
men to reflect, that nowhere was the reformation carried
on, nowhere were the principles of Christianity dis
cussed, with more candour and ability, or with more
clearness, solidity, and force of conviction, than in their
own country."*
But such is human nature, out of every good springs
some evil. Happy, glorious, and divinely ruled as was
the Reformation, it was not unattended with abuses,
nor free from very many things which we must bitterly
lament. In order to expose error, freedom of enquiry
was encouraged. And now, liberated from the restraints
of the Church of Rome, men's minds, by a reaction, ran
into an almost infinite variety of opinions, insomuch that
a very Babel of doctrines was heard throughout the
land ; each man putting forth his views as scriptural and
true ; discord being in the Church where unity ought
to reign. To check this discordance, and to promote unifor
mity of sentiment on those points which were then more
immediately in dispute ; to guard against the errors of
the Church of Rome on the one hand, and to restrain
the licentious principles of the free-thinkers on the other;
the Reformers at once saw it to be necessary, that they
* Archbishop Laurence. Bampton Lectures, p. 2.

13

should establish an authoritative standard of public
opinion. Accordingly, in the commencement of the
reign of Edward VI., Archbishop Cranmer, as he owned
at his martyrdom, set about the work. Taking counsel
with Melancthon, one of the leading Lutheran divines in
Germany, and aided probably by the advice and ap
proval of Bishop Ridley and Bishop Latimer, he drew
up forty-two Articles, to which it was proposed that the
Clergy should subscribe and give in their assent.
The death of King Edward, and the succession of
Queen Mary, who was devoted to the ancient Roman
rule, and hence hostile to the Reformation, prevented
the adoption of this formulary by Convocation, so as to
become an authoritative document of the Church. And
it was not until the year 1562, in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, when Archbishop Parker filled the see of
Canterbury, that the long-wished for and much needed
Articles of Religion were actually put forth.
And here it is necessary to remark, that, although
during Queen Mary's reign, many of the English Re
formers had fled to the Continent, and had become
acquainted with the doctrines of Calvin; yet, when
they set about the reconsideration of the Articles, instead
of bringing forward a new code of opinions, or insert
ing clauses to modify the former statements, and make
them accord with Calvin's views, they not only took
" the Articles of Cranmer as the basis of their system,
but actually adopted them, in general word for word."*
Now Cranmer's Articles had been borrowed from a
* Archbishop Laurence. Bampton Lectures, p. 39.

14

Lutheran Creed, as opposed to the Creed of Calvin as is
light to darkness. And further, whatever alterations were
made in these by the Elizabethan Reformers, appear also
to have been taken from the same source. Consequently
we have here a strong presumptive proof, that the
Articles of the Church of England were not compiled,
so as to be Calvinistic in their tendency.
The Articles then, reduced from the original forty-
two of Cranmer to thirty-nine in number, were com
piled and set forth, as their title states, " for the avoid
ing of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing
of consent touching true religion." And by the Canon of
1603, it was ordered that no person shall hereafter be
received into the Ministry, unless he acknowledge these
to be agreeable to the Word of God.
II. And now an important point arises for conside
ration, how are we to interpret these Articles % — That a
great part of them are clear in meaning all will agree.
But that there are portions which are not so easily under
stood, and, owing to the imperfection of the strictest
human phraseology, are even liable to two or more inter
pretations, is also very evident. How then are we to
decide which is the right interpretation ?
It cannot be that a man may interpret them, accord
ing as he himself thinks is most agreeable to Scripture ;
for that would be to open the door to the very evil, which
this subscription is intended to exclude ; and, moreover,
would be to allow the Arian, the Romanist, and any
other sectarian, to teach in the Church of England. And,

15

again, this view of subscription is expressly forbidden in
the Declaration of King Charles* the First, prefixed
to the Articles, that every Clergyman submit to them,
" in the plain and full meaning thereof," in " the literal
and grammatical sense," and " not put his own sense or
comment to be the meaning of the article."
Neither may we regard them as intended to answer
the purpose of a body of Divinity, because on very many
matters of the greatest importance they are entirely
silent ; such as, for instance, the office of the Holy
Ghost as the Sanctifier, — the Providence of God, — the
Covenants of God, — the Lord's Day,— the Inspiration of
Scripture, — and many other tenets essential to the inte
grity of faith and practice. Neither may we interpret one
article so as to be contradictory to what is clearly stated
in others, for that were clearly to make them absurd.
Neither, again, if the words are capable of several mean
ings, may we adopt any one which is contrary to the
doctrine expressed in any of the Formularies of the Book
of Common Prayer. For it must be remembered, that
the same Canonf which obliges the clergy to declare the
Articles to be agreeable to the Word of God, obliges them
to declare with the very same breath, in as strong, if not
stronger language, that the Book of Common Prayer,
and of Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, con
tains in it nothing contrary to the Word of God. To
make, then, the Prayer Book and the Articles speak diffe
rently, is to cause a diversity of opinion, to do that which
we are expressly forbidden to do. — " A good man will
be cautious in this matter, but not subtle," says Bishop
* Vide Appendix B. f Vide Appendix A.

16

Conybeare ;* " he will first examine, with impartiality
and care, whether the Articles are, when thus fairly in
terpreted, consistent with the Word of God, and having
so determined, will assent to them with sincerity and
plainness," and thus, " in doctrine will show uncorrupt-
ness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot be
condemned." III. According to this method of interpretation, I
have this day before you all, and before God and His
Church, expressed my assent to, and belief in, the Ar
ticles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer. I
have acquiesced in, and do firmly accept their doctrinal
statements to be the pure Word of God ; that inter
pretation of Holy Scripture which from my heart I am
persuaded, and so long as I am a member and Minister
of the Church of England, I must, if I am honest, boldly
acknowledge, to be nearest to the Divine Mind. The
Creeds, the Offices, the Rubrics, the Catechism, and
all the contents I have declared, and do believe to be,
Scriptural. But these are times when, painful as it is, we must
do more than make mere statements of this kind without
a few further explanations. You may be aware, that
some have signed the Articles in what has been called
a non-natural sense ; affixing a Romish or Roman
meaning to them, and adopting the statements in such
a way as not to prevent their holding the peculiar and
erroneous tenets of the Church of Rome. You may be
aware also, that some, who have stated that they
* On subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles.

17
believe the Liturgy to be not contrary to Scripture, omit
or explain away, or non-naturally interpret, certain
portions of it in the Administration of the Sacraments,
and other parts, because they find the Book, as at
present existing, opposed to that Calvinistic sense in
which they receive the Articles.* Both of these, much
as they differ in other respects, and unwilling as they
each would be to allow the same liberty to the other
which they claim to themselves, agree in advocating a
principle that strikes an honest mind as evidently
fallacious ; that the Articles, were, drawn up with
intentional ambiguity, to enable as . many as possible
to conform to the Church of England. Now there
cannot be much doubt, when we see the shifts
resorted to, to enable: each of them to subscribe,
that the practice is- alike reprehensible, because dis
honest, in each.
On this account then I cannot consider the Articles
capable of bearing a Roman sense, because they were
compiled to oppose the errors of the Papacy, and to set
forth clearly the points of difference between the two
branches of the Church of Christ. Nor can I think
that they may be forced to bear a Calvinistic sense ;
* The result of such teaching is to be seen in the publication of
what is called " The Layman's Prayer Book, being the Book of
Common Pra3rer, altered so as not to contradict the Scriptures,
according to the plain meaning of words, adapted to be used in
Churches." If, on the one hand, it is dishonest for some Clergy of
the Church of England to add words to the appointed Office in the
Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; surely, on
the other hand, it is equally dishonest for other Clergy to omit
words, or to add words, in the Office for the Administration of the
Sacrament of Baptism. C

and this, for many reasons. We have seen that the
original from which they were framed was a Lutheran
and not a Genevan Creed. We have seen, that the
Bishops and Clergy of Elizabeth's age, who were
acquainted with Calvin's doctrine, did not attempt to
introduce it into the Articles, but adopted, almost
word for word, the previous document of Archbishop
Cranmer; the variations which they did introduce being,
moreover, traceable to the same Lutheran source. But
besides this, there are other points which strengthen
the assertion made against the possibility of a Calvin
istic interpretation. We have Calvin's own words,
with regard to the Reformers of the Church of
England, which show how little to his mind they re
garded or valued his opinions : " In vain," he writes,
" I address myself to those who do not probably grant
me thus much, to deign to receive advice that comes
from such an authority as myself."* And moreover, we
have it on record, that at the Hampton Court, and the
Savoy Conferences, the Calvinists expressly asked for
alterations in certain of the Articles, because they were
opposed to their peculiar views.f Add to this the fact
that Arminius, the remodeller,! and in certain respects
the modifier, of the Genevan scheme, was only two years
of age when the Articles were published ; and it may
be stated, with somewhat of certainty, that they could
not have been made ambiguous, to conciliate the feelings
* Vide Appendix C.
| Vide Appendix C.
J Arminius was born A.D. 1560. The Articles were published
a.d. 1562.

19
and secure the conformity of the Calvinistic or Arminian,
any more than of the Roman School.
But some may say, (and it is in all probability this
mistaken notion which is the cause of so much evil to
us,) that there is not so great injury done, if the Clergy
of the Church of England incline to Calvinism, as there
is if they incline to Romanism. It strikes me, brethren,
that if the Articles do not plainly bear the sense which
is endeavoured to be forced upon them ; if the words
of the Prayer Book have to be altered, or omitted, or
non-naturally interpreted, (as they have to be in either
case,) to make the Liturgy accord with this forced sense ;
the dishonesty is just as gross, the crime is just as
great, on whichever side the offence is committed. Nor
can I think, that if you compare the history of the
two schemes, and look to their effects in this our native
land, which has felt the burden of both, to teach us
to avoid both extremes, — that the one can be preferred
to the other even in this respect. The Papacy advo
cates horrible doctrines. Let me remind you that the
founder of Calvinism himself declared his own interpre
tation of the faith to be horrible.* The Papacy has
been stained with foul crimes, even the shedding of
blood. Can the founder of Calvinism be cleared from
the same charge If The tyranny of Rome enslaved our
* "Decretum quidem horribile fateor; inficiari tamen nemo
poterit, quin prEesciverit Deus quern exitum esset habiturus homo,
antequam ipsum conderet, et ideo prmciverit, quia decreto suo sic
ordinaverat." Institut. lib. iii. cap. 23, sect. 7. Quoted by Arch
bishop Laurence in his Bampton Lectures.
+ Pious as Calvin may have appeared in other respects, the
murder of Servetus must ever remain a stain upon his character.
C 2

20
country, mutilated and corrupted our Church, and slew
our martyrs, our Cranmer, our Latimer, our Ridley.
The licentiousness of Geneva devastated England with
Puritanism, well nigh destroyed our Church, and put to
death our martyr and King.
Because then our Articles will not bear the interpre
tation naturally; because to affix such interpretation is
to mutilate or explain away the statements of the Booh
of Common Prayer; because to do this would be, I
conceive, gross dishonesty, and falsify the declaration I
have lately made; because to encourage the latitudi-
narian view of this matter would be to open a floodgate
for the evils of Calvinism and Romanism to rush in, and
destroy our Church and our country; I cannot admit
THAT THE ARTICLES MAT BE SUBSCRIBED EITHER IN A
Calvinistic, or in a Romish sense. To do so would
be to profess agreement with the Church, and at the
same time disagree with it ; to pretend one thing and
to mean another ; to come into the office of teacher
upon different terms from that which the Church in
tended ; not to enter in by the door of the sheep-fold,
but to get into it as a thief and a robber.*
IV. I have gone into this lengthy statement,
brethren, that you may feel confidence and assurance
that in this Church, so long as we are permitted here
to teach, nothing shall be set forth but the pure
doctrine of the Gospel, as taught by the Church of
England. To this we have pledged ourselves by
* Vide Waterland's Works, vol. ii. p. 289.

21

solemn oath; and this, God helping us, shall be our
earnest endeavour ; that we show in doctrine, " uncor-
ruptness, gravity, sincerity, sound speech that cannot
be condemned." We are fully assured that as we do this, there will
be many on either side who will cavil at and condemn
our teaching. We shall be assailed by Romanists and
Romanizers ; because we shall ever be setting forth
doctrines irreconcileably different from their doctrines,
so long as the Church of Rome remains what she is.
We shall be aspersed by Dissenters and latitudinarians,
and those professing Churchmen, who fraternize with
Dissenters ; because seeing their tenets, opinions, and
statements to be different from those which we have de
clared to be Scriptural, we refuse to cast in our lot with
them. To be claimed by either, as agreeing with them,
would be to prove us false to our Church. And though
it is a little thing, that we be judged of man's judgment,
seeing that He, to Whom we have to render account, is
the Lord our God ; still we have a right to demand,
that you and all consider, not whether we preach
Christ according to your private interpretation of
Scripture ; but whether we preach according as we
have sworn to God and the Church of England we
will; according to that sense of God's Word, which
has been set forth in the Articles and Book of Common
Prayer. And in doing this, let me remind you, that we
are asking no more than any sect or denomination
demands of its members and teachers. Whether it be
Wesleyan, or Independent, or Baptist, or Quaker, or any

22

of the thousand different sects into which ultra-Pro
testantism is split up ; each binds its teachers to teach
and its members to receive, the peculiar doctrines which
the founder advocated. And the Church of England
does no more; saving that instead of bringing before you
opinions which had no existence for sixteen centuries,
till a Brown, a Fox, or a Wesley arose to coin them ; she
proves by certain records that what she commends to
your reception, are the very doctrines taught by the
Apostles, the interpretation placed upon Scripture in
the earliest and purest ages of Christianity, when the
Church was of one mind, before schism rent, or heresy
defiled her.
So long then as you profess to be members of the
Church of England, be sound in doctrine of the Church
of Eno-land. which is Scriptural doctrine. Let the

• 23
Primitive Church; and that after all possible and lawful
ways have been tried, the evil cannot be remedied ; to
leave, if we are convinced it is our duty, her commu
nion. But oh, brethren, this is not a thing to be lightly
done! This is not a course that may be hastily or
inconsiderately adopted! No sin in Scripture is recorded
as more severely punished than heresy and schism!
And surely we are bound to weigh well if our objection
to doctrine or practice is well founded ; to see that it
be not merely an impatience under control, a wayward
spirit, a desire of notoriety, or love of change, that
impels us ; to pray that, in judging our Church, from
all such feelings our good Lord will deliver us.
Only while we are in this Household of God, while we
own ourselves the children of the Church of England,
let us, my brethren, " stand fast with one mind and one
spirit, striving for" what she bids us receive as "the faith
of the Gospel." Pastors and flock let us be one ; the
pastors as examples, the flock as followers, in believing.
The time and circumstances in which we live peculiarly
call for soundness and unity in the faith. From without,
the Church is attacked by the Romanist and Dissenter ;
from within by foes, under the guise of friends, who
would lead her on the one side back to old errors, on
the other, to rationalism and ultra-protestantism, the
doorway to a denial of Christ. And if the state of
modern Spain deters us from yielding one iota to the
one, the state of modern Germany should warn us
against favouring, in the least degree, the advance of the
other. Besides this, as one* writes, " we live in an age-
* Bishop Doane, Bishop of New Jersey, II. S.

24

of open, assured, and malignant infidelity. Pens, presses,
and by a new and strange appropriation of the sacred to
the profane and impious, even pulpits are enlisted in its
service. With a zeal which would do honour in a holy
cause, these architects of ruin are pursuing their abomi
nable enterprise. And men, who to the calls of benevo
lence, and the claims of morality, have tnrned habitually
a deaf ear and a frozen heart, become prodigal of their
money and lavish of their labours, in making proselytes
to infidelity. Nor is their audacity more wonderful than
their ingenuity. The subtle poison is insinuated into the
unsuspecting minds of thousands, in vehicles as diverse
as the tastes, the capacities, the necessities of the com
munity. It is taught to children in the books of ele
mentary education. It assails the young in the tempting
guise of poetry or romance. While older heads are to
be circumvented and cheated out of their faith and
hope by grave histories, tracts on philosophy, falsely
so called, and extended series of books, and pam
phlets, and papers," styled useful knowledge, but
bearing designedly no one allusion to the one only
thing needful,  the knowledge of Jesus Christ and
Him crucified.
To stem this torrent, which if it overfloods, must
destroy our native land, and make England's happiness
a thing past, and only to be talked of, let us unitedly
show in doctrine, " uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity,
sound speech that cannot be condemned ;" that cannot
be condemned before the judgment seat of God. Believ
ing that the doctrine of the Church of England is such
manfully contend for it. Contend for your Church, because

25

it is thus to you a keeper and witness of Holy Writ;
because it is the Church, true, and pure, and holy. Time
was when men gave up their goods, their lives to defend
her. And time again may come, and we perhaps, (for
the signs of the times are fearful) we perhaps may be
called to do the same. Shall we be found to have
couragel Shall we so love Christ as to give, as He gave,
ourselves for His Church 1 Another question may serve
perhaps to lead us to the answer. Have we courage,
brethren, at this moment to be, and own ourselves
Churchmen? I mean not the mere nominal, but the
real Churchman. Not the establishmentarian, who con
siders it correct and respectable ; but one who believes
and does what the Church, in accordance with Scripture,
bids him ; who is in daily life a man of prayer, a man
of consistent holiness. It is a thing which requires no
little courage, for we suffer martyrdom for it from public
opinion. The world laughs at us, calls us bigots, reli
gious over much, would destroy the strongholds of our
faith, (I quote, brethren, the sentiments of many of the
daily and weekly journals, which are considered generally
to denote the popular mind, and to show the spirit of
the age,) would gladly see the Mystical Body of Christ
in the dust. May the Great God of Heaven, may
Christ, the Great Bishop and Shepherd of souls, Who
is our all things in the Church, put it, my brethren,
into your hearts and minds to say and feel, (as I
now do this day)* "as for me and my house,
because the Church gives us and preserves to us
* This resolve is given chiefly in the words of Dr. Hook, for the
author could write none so good or so forcible.

26
the Gospel in all its purity and fulness, we will
live in the Church ; we will die in the Church ;
and if need shall be, like our martyred forefathers,
we will die for the Church:" — because it is to die for
Christ.

27

APPENDIX A.

It has been considered advisable to append certain of the oaths
and declarations which have to be made and subscribed by all
persons who are to be ordained, or admitted to any curacy or
benefice ; and to which allusion is made in the Sermon.
Besides taking the oath of allegiance, the oath of supremacy,
the oath of canonical obedience, and the oath against simony, the
clergy have to make and subscribe the declaration :
" I, A. B. do willingly and from my heart subscribe to the
Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of the United Church of England
and Ireland, and to the three articles in the thirty-sixth canon ;
and to all things therein contained."
The following are " the Three Articles" referred to.
I. That -the Queen's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme
governor of this realm, and of all other Her Highness's dominions
and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or
causes as temporal ; and that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or
potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority,
pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within her
Majesty's said realms, dominions, and countries.
II. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of Ordering of
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, containeth in it nothing contrary to
the word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used, and that he
himself will use the form in the said book prescribed, in public
prayer and administration of the sacraments, and none other.

28
III. That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion, agreed
upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces and the
whole clergy, in the Convocation holden at London in the year of
our Lord one thousand five hundred sixty and two ; and that he
acknowledgeth all and every the articles therein contained, being
in number nine and thirty, besides the ratification, to be agreeable
to the word of God.
Within two months after License or Induction to a Benefice, the
Clergy are directed to read openly in the Church on some Sunday,
or other appointed day, the Thirty-Nine Articles, agreed upon in
Convocation, in the year of our Lord 1562, and to declare their
unfeigned assent and consent thereto. And further they are
ordered to read, in the Church, publicly and solemnly, the Morning
and Evening Prayer ; and immediately after reading the Evening
Service, openly and publicly, before the congregation there
assembled, to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all
things therein contained and prescribed, in these words, viz. :
" I, A. B., do declare my unfeigned assent and consent, to
all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book,
intituled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the
Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, accord
ing to the Use of the Church of England ; together with the Psalter
or Psalms of David, pointed as they are to be sung or said in
Churches, and the Form and Manner of making, ordaining, and
consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons."
And within three months after institution to any Benefice, or
License to any Curacy, they are yet further to read in the time of
Divine Service a declaration in the following words,
" I, A. B., do declare that I will conform to the Liturgy of
the United Church of England and Ireland, as it is now by Law
established." This constitutes the ceremony called " Beading In."

29

APPENDIX B.

The following passage from Dr. Waterland's works will serve
to confirm this statement.
It is very incautiously and unaccurately said that King Charles
I. patronized the subscribing the same Articles either in contra
dictory or different senses. His order is, that every subscriber
submit to the Articles in the " plain and full meaning thereof," in
the " literal and grammatical sense." What? is the plain send full
meaning more than one meaning? or is the one plain and full
meaning two contradictory meanings? Could it be for the honour
of the Articles or of the King to say this? No. But the Royal
Declaration, by " plain and full meaning" understands the general
meaning, which is but one; and to which all may reasonably
subscribe. And he forbids any one's " putting his own sense or
comment to be the meaning of the Article," or to affix any new
sense to it: that is, he forbids the changing a general proposition
into a, particular. He stands up for the general proposition, or for
the article itself; and prohibits particular meanings, as not belong
ing to the article ; nor being properly explications of it, but additions
to it. This is the plain import of the Royal Declaration; and it is
both wise and just, free from any one of those strange consequences
or inferences which some would draw from it."— Works ii., 313, 314.

30

APPENDIX 0.

Foe example: At the Hampton Court Conference, A.d. 1604,
the following request was made. " In the Sixteenth Article it is
said that ' after we have received the Holy Ghost we may fall from
grace given.' Reynolds very naturally imagined that this passage
was adverse to the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the
elect; and therefore requested that the words ' yet neither totally
nor finally' might be added by way of explanation." This was
refused; as well as another petition that the Lambeth Articles
might be admitted into a public Confession of Faith.
Carwithen's Hist, of the Church of England, vol. i. p. 577.
At the Savoy Conference again " certain exceptions were ten
dered against the Book of Common Prayer by Nonconformist
Divines," who held Calvanistic tenets, They objected to subscrip
tion to the Thirty-Nine Articles; and further, that "we cannot
in Faith say that every Child that is baptized is regenerated by
God's Holy Spirit; at least, it is a disputable point, and there
fore we desire it may otherwise be expressed." But so far from
regarding this matter as disputable, or regarding it as an open
question, the Bishops retained the expression as it was; and they
give their reason as follows : — " God's Sacraments have their effects
where the receiver does not, ' ponere obiceni,' put any bar against
them. We may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it
is regenerated by God's Ploly Spirit ; and the denial of it tends to
anabaptism and the contempt of this Holy Sacrament."
See Wordsworth's Occasional Sermons, p. 156.
It may be as well to give an extract from Calvin's letter, and to

31
quote from Dr. Wordsworth's Sermons an account and translation
of it. " In Anglicana. liturgia, qualem describitis, multas video fuisse
tolerabiles ineptias. His duobus verbis exprimo, non fuisse earn
puritatem, quse optanda fuerat : quse tamen primo statim die corrigi
non poterant vitia, cum nulla subesse manifesta impietas, ferenda
ad tempus fuisse  Nunc cum eversis illis principiis, alibi
instituenda vobis sit Ecclesia, et liberum sit formam qua3 ad usum
et asdificationem Ecclesise maxime apta videbitur, de integro com<-
ponere: quid sibi velint nescio, quos fsecis Papisticse rehquise
tantopere delectant. Amant ea quibus assueti sunt. Hoe primo
et nugatorium et puerile est : deinde multum interest hsec nova
institutio a mutatione. Ego vero si quorundam infirmitas ad
summum gradum non conscendat, ut vos ultra modum rigidos esse
nolim : ita rursus alios monitos esse cupio, ne sibi in sua inscitia
nimis placeant: deinde ne sua pervicacia sancti sedificii cursum
retardent. Tertio, ne stulta eos semulatio abripiat. Nam qua illis
rixandi causa, nisi quia pudet melioribus cedere ? Sed ego frustra
ad eos sermonem converto, qui forte non tantum mihi tribuunt,
ut consilium a tali auctore profectum admittere dignentur.
Calvini Ep. et Respon. page 213. Geneva, MDCXVII.

"After King Edward's death, some of the English refugees
settled at Frankfort, where a question arose whether the English
Service should be celebrated according to the Book of Common
Praver. Some desired it; others were dissatisfied with the cere
monies prescribed in that book; and they addressed a letter to
Calvin, giving him a description of the English Prayer Book, and
asking his advice whether with a good conscience they might con
form to it? He replied from Geneva, on the 18th of January,
1555, as follows— 'In the English Book of Prayer, such as you
describe it to me' (whence it would appear that he had never seen it)
' I perceive that there were many sufferable absurdities, by which I
mean that it did not possess that purity which was to be wished.
However, those evils could not be remedied at once; and since the

32

Book did not contain any open impiety, they were to be tolerated
for the time. It was lawful to begin with such rudiments as these,
in order that pious ministers might afterwards make further pro
gress, and aim at something better. But now, since you may com
pose another Prayer Book, I cannot understand what those persons
mean who are in love with the dregs of Popery, and cling to the
old.'" Occasional Sermons, pp. 133, 134.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08867 9155