TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
BY
MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.
VOL. III.
FOR
1835–6.
"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
SECOND EDITION.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL
& J. H. PARKER, OXFORD.
1837.
ADVERTISEMENT.
The present Volume will be found to persevere in the change of plan adopted in the latter part of the Second, the substitution of Tracts of considerable extent of subject for the short and incomplete papers with which the publication commenced. The reason of this change is to be found in the altered circumstances under which they now make their appearance. When the series began, the prospects of Catholic Truth were especially gloomy, from the circumstance that irreligious principles and false doctrines, which had hitherto been avowed only in the closet or on paper, had just been admitted into public measures on a large scale, with the probability of that admission becoming a precedent for future. A great proportion of the Irish Sees had been suppressed by the State against the Church's wish, all parties who were concerned to resist the measure, acquiescing either in utter apathy or in despair. Scarcely a protesting voice was heard, and the attempt to remonstrate was treated on all hands with coldness and disapprobation. A sense of the dreariness of such a state of things naturally led to those anxious appeals and abrupt sketches of doctrine with which the Tracts opened. They were written with the hope of rousing members of our Church to comprehend her alarming position, of helping them to realize the fact of the gradual growth, allowance, and establishment of unsound principles in the management of her internal concerns; and, having this object, they spontaneously used the language of alarm and complaint. They were written, as a man might give notice of a fire or inundation, to startle all who heard him, with only so much of doctrine and argument as might be necessary to account for their publication, or might answer more obvious objections to the views therein advocated.
This peculiarity in their composition has occasioned them to be censured as intemperate and violent. If this be true in such sense that they discover any personal feeling, bitterness, wrath, want of candour, unkindness, or reviling, of course nothing can be said in their defence. Or if they contain an extravagant doctrine, crudely imagined, confusedly or hastily expressed, and unsanctioned by our standard Divines, then, too, they are entitled to very little respect. But if the charge of intemperance simply means that they contain strong expressions upon high and delicate matters, suddenly introduced, unexplained, and therefore obscure and harsh, though not intrinsically erroneous, then by intemperance is meant nothing else than want of judgment. Want of judgment, however, is commonly imputed to proceedings which tend to defeat their object, though allowable in themselves, and based upon true principles; and if so, the style of the Tracts in question is not injudicious, for their object has not been defeated. Naked statements, which offend the accurate and cautious, are necessary upon occasions to infuse seriousness into the indiiferent.
These are the reasons, whether satisfactory or not in the judgment of others, for the style and manner of the earlier Tracts. When, however, from the circumstances of the times or from other causes, more interest seemed to be excited among Churchmen concerning those doctrines which it was their object to enforce, discussion became more seasonable than the simple statements of doctrine with which the series began; and their character accordingly changed.
It would be unbecoming to go into this detail in this place, were not a prejudice entertained against these Tracts by many who know them only by a few detached sentences, complete indeed in themselves, and on the whole not unfairly selected, but which, so detached, will not be understood in their true sense and bearings by readers unacquainted with the language of our old divinity. Dr. Pusey's valuable Pamphlet in answer to one objector, is, with the kind consent of the Author, appended to this Advertisement.
Oxford,
The Feast of All Saints, 1836.
NOTE TO THE ADVERTISEMENT.
The following is Dr. Pusey's answer to an Anonymous Pamphlet, reflecting on these Tracts, which appeared in the end of March 1836. The Pamphlet professed to be a "Pastoral Epistle from the Pope to some Members of the University of Oxford." Dr. Pusey's answer was entitled "An Earnest Remonstrance to the Author of the Pope's Letter," &c. Tract 74 was added to it as an Appendix. Two extracts have been added by the Author in the second reprint.
Sir,—Two reasons induce me to appeal to you, in reference to your recent Letter: First, that I have escaped your censures: Secondly, that (if report speaks right) you are one from whose straight-forwardness, sincerity, and love of truth, I once anticipated much. In both ways, therefore, I am freed from the risk of personal feelings.
I would, then, regard you as the representative of a certain class (as every one is, more or less); and would direct my observations to an evil prevalent in these times, not to you. That evil (and there could scarcely be a greater) is the use of banter and jest in things serious. It is true that the minds of a large portion of our countrymen seem to have become so inured to this, that persons have even despaired of addressing them, except in a tone even lower than that low tone to which they have sunk. It is true, that even among the better-instructed orders, persons, in their degree serious-minded, have often thought themselves obliged to condescend to the conventional language of the day, as their only hope to gain a hearing. It is true, also, that the appetite has grown with its unwholesome nourishment; and now, as by a self-created necessity, all seem to be absorbed into the tide; and it is rare to find any cause advocated in the plain, open, straightforward tone which was once the characteristic of our land. Not simply our periodical literature, or our journals, but our courts of law, and that branch of the legislature which is liable to be affected by popular taste, are infected by the mal-aria of this destructive habit. Man's happiness, or God's displeasure, domestic misery or national sin, are continually a jest. Adultery, fornication, theft, drunkenness, lying, are daily matters of sport. If justice is to be perverted, men's minds blinded, sin to escape unpunished, a jest is the refuge; caricatures are the vehicles of public instruction, and "a mock at sin" the source of public amusement.
It is indeed strange, and a lamentable part of this sad merriment, that many right-minded people are so little sickened at it, or so little express their weariness. But so it is with every other prevailing sin; those who live amidst it are, in their several degrees, infected by it: the fineness of our moral perceptions is blunted by the very acquaintance with sin, all mention whereof we at first loathed; our ears become untuned to the chords of Heaven, by listening constantly to the jarring sounds of earth, and are less offended by their discordancy. Most men feel themselves compelled to an over-acquaintance with the things of the day, and so are insensibly inured to its wretchedness, and deem it irremediable. They are indeed mistaken; the more earnest spirit is not fled: it sleeps only, or rather is drugged by these continued poisonous appliances; and brighter days may yet come, when our countrymen shall again be spoken to, not as members of a vast machine, or as the slaves of temporal interests, but as responsible immortal agents, as Christians, as members of Christ the Son of God.
It is one consolation, that if all our outward privileges, yea, every thing except truth, be lost, then the temptation of appealing to any other principle but truth and holiness, will be removed also.
These however have been, in many cases, worldly things, treated of by men of this world: a pernicious principle was admitted; but the source of truth and holy earnestness was not yet poisoned; banter had not yet been employed upon things Divine. This is now inadvertently commenced, and the more dangerously because inadvertently. Hitherto it had scarcely been found except among Infidels.
I would then, Sir, request you for a while to lay aside the thoughts of the amusement which your Letter has caused to yourself or others, and to consider in earnestness some of the evils into which it has betrayed you, and may and must betray others. I will confine myself to three:—
- Irreverent treatment of holy things.
- Sacrifice of truth.
- False insinuation, and consequently slandering.
And these I impute, not to yourself: on the contrary, I think that, in your natural character, you would be very far from them. I would speak of them only as inseparable consequences of the line which you have taken.
I. Irreverence.—It may sufffice, Sir, to mention some of the subjects which were necessarily brought into your ill-advised jest.
- Persons' belief as to our Lord's presence in the Communion.
- The mode in which the Commission ordained for the preaching and maintenance of the everlasting Gospel has been continued to this day.
- The maintenance of the form of our public worship, and the doctrines therein contained.
- The comfort which the dying Christian obtains from the provisions of our Church.
- The unity of the Church of Christ.
- The authority of His bishops, or of His Church.
- The quiet frame of mind of a simple, undisputing Christian.
It is not here the question, whether any of the writers whom you ridicule, over-stated the truth upon any of these points. I am convinced that they have not. But granting that they had, is ridicule a safe, a Christian, a godly, weapon to employ in such matters? Is it possible that those who should have been thereby made ashamed of, or scared from, any of these statements, would approach the consideration of the truth itself with that deep and considerate earnestness and reverence of mind which the subject requires,—if, indeed, you yet hold that there be any truth at all connected even with these subjects? Is it not too probable that the infection of this ridicule will extend to other truths; some of which, I presume, you would not wish to see thus assailed? since the efficacy of Baptism, the strengthening of the believer's soul by the Body and Blood of his Lord in the holy Eucharist, the Divinity of our Redeemer, and His sacrifice for sin, have been, and still are by some, represented as relics of Popery? The Socinians, and, more recently, the Rationalists of Germany, regarded or represented themselves as carrying on the work of the first Reformers, in purging Christianity from Papal corruptions.
Ridicule cannot be employed with impunity as a test of truth: error and truth often lie so closely together, nay, most religious error has so much of truth mingled up with it, that the very love of truth ought to preclude the use of jesting; not to say that the fearfulness of the subject, and the majesty of Almighty God, might well instinctively awe man into sobriety. For, through this close connexion of truth and error, mire cannot be cast at error, without defiling the truth also. To take the most palpable errors,—Could a man jest at Transubstantiation, and not thereby unfit his mind for the reception of the holy mystery of the Communion? or would not a mocking at the false doctrine of the Mediation of the Saints lower men's notions of their high and holy state? or has not the jesting, even at the most unreal delusions of the imagination, injured men's faith in the influences of God's Blessed Spirit? Throughout, Sir, we are standing upon holy ground; and it beseems us to pull the shoes from off our feet, and tread reverently. Let error be removed as a disease, gently handling those who suffer under it, or repressing those who wilfully propagate it; but let us not sport with the Enemy of men's souls.
This subject, however, has been handled by one to whose talents you would perhaps pay deference,—Bp. Warburton; and to him I would refer you. He has not indeed the earnestness or depth of the writers of the seventeenth century, yet he states facts which it were well for this age to lay to heart. For we are now reaping the harvest which the infidels of his day sowed; only in his times men yet looked to principles—in these they regard only their practical efficiency in carrying a point: then the evil was without, now it is admitted within the Church. I will now, then, request your attention to a few extracts only from his address to the Freethinkers, to whom he dedicates the first three books of The Divine Legation.
"Your writers offer your considerations to the world, either under the character of petitioners for oppressed and injured truth, or of teachers to ignorant and erring men. These sure are characters that, if any, require seriousness and gravity to support them. But so great strangers are we to decorum on our entry on the stage of life, that, for the most part, we run giddily on, in a mixed and jumbled character; but have most an end, a strong inclination to make a farce of it, and mingle buffoonery with the most serious scenes. Hence, even in religious controversy, while the great cause of eternal happiness is trying, and men and angels, as it were, attending the issue of the conflict, we can find room for a merry story.—
"This quality [of making men laugh] causing the writer to be so well received, yours have been tempted to dispense with the solemnity of their character, as thinking it of much importance to get the laugh on their side. Hence ridicule is become their favourite figure of speech.—It is inconceivable what havoc false wit makes in a foolish head. 'The rabble of mankind,' as an excellent writer [Addison] well observes, 'being very apt to think, that every thing which is laughed at, with any mixture of wit, is ridiculous in itself.' Few reflect on what a great wit [ Wycherly ] has so ingeniously owned, 'that wit is generally false reasoning.'—
"To see what little good is to be expected in this way of wit and humour, one may go further, and observe, that even the ridicule of false virtue hath been sometimes attended with mischievous effects. The Spaniards have lamented, and I believe truly, that Cervantes's just and inimitable ridicule of knight-errantry rooted up, with that folly, a great deal of their real honour. And it was apparent that Butler's fine satire on fanaticism contributed not a little, during the licentious times of Charles II., to bring sober piety into disrepute. The reason is evident: there are many lines of resemblance between truth and its counterfeits; and it is the province of toil only to find out the likenesses in things, and not the talent of the common admirers of it to discover the differences."
But if these evils result from ridiculing religious error, what shall be said, if vv'hat you have ridiculed be after all the truth? And yet, because ultra- Protestants of the present day think any truth to approximate to Popery, it follows not that it is Popish, or if found in Popery, it follows not that it is untrue, else must all the Catholic verities be untrue also. Whenever you shall be pleased to abandon the ground of ridicule, and to treat questions of religious truth with seriousness, then will we also show, that the positions which you have ridiculed are neither Papistical nor untrue, but that you have been ridiculing the truth. Meanwhile, we propose for your consideration a catalogue[1] of writers (which might easily be swelled to any amount), who, upon the subject which you have chosen for your chiefest ridicule, and which ultra-Protestants of this day are most ashamed of, have spoken as strongly as they, whom you on that ground decry as Papists: I mean, Apostolical Succession.
I would only observe by the way, since persons in these days dispense lightly with truths, the value whereof they do not understand, that in jesting at the doctrine of apostolical succession you despise a fact, wherein one of the acutest writers of any age or land saw an evidence for the truth of our holy faith. The apostolical succession of ministers is a £act which satisfies Leslie's criteria of the truth of the history wherewith it is connected; and the sceptical Middleton in vain attempted, during above ten years, to find any case, to which Leslie's criteria applied, and which yet was untrue.
I will extract such portion of Leslie's words, as may suffice to explain this. (Short and Easy Method with the Deists, iii. 2.)
"Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, were instituted as perpetual memorials of these things (the matters of fact recorded in the Gospel of our Blessed Saviour); and they were not instituted in after-ages, but at the very time when these things were said to be done, and have been observed without interruption in all ages through the whole Christian world, down all the way, from that time to this. And Christ Himself did ordain apostles, and other ministers of His Gospel, to preach and administer these sacraments, and to govern His Church, and that always, even unto the end of the world. Accordingly, they have continued by regular succession to this day; and no doubt ever shall, while the earth shall last. So that the Christian clergy are as notorious a matter of fact, as the tribe of Levi among the Jews. And the Gospel is as much a law to the Christians as the books of Moses to the Jews; and it being part of the matters of fact related in the Gospel, that such an order of men were appointed by Christ, and to continue to the end of the world, consequently, if the Gospel was a fiction, and invented (as it must be) in some age after Christ, then, at that time, when it was first invented, there could be no such order of clergy, as derived themselves from the institution of Christ; which must give the lie to the Gospel, and demonstrate the whole to be false. And the matters of fact of Christ being pressed to be true, no otherwise than as there was at that time (whenever the Deists will suppose the Gospel to be forged) not only public sacraments of Christ's institution, but an order of clergy, likewise of His appointment, to administer them; and it being impossible there could be any such things before they were invented, it is as impossible that they should be received when invented."
Of a truth, you know not wherewith you are trifling; and I would mention this rather as an unexpected benefit, derived from adherence to the truth, than as the use of that truth,—an instance how many hidden values every truth contains within it, though but gradually perhaps evolved to us, how much more than we are aware we lose, if we abandon truth.
The progress of error on this head is indeed a warning how men be ashamed of any, even though it seem to them the least portion of the truth committed to their trust; men first suppressed it as invidious, and an obstacle to charity, then were ashamed of it, then disbelieved it, lastly ridicule it. Those of this generation must look to it, lest the fear of avowing their conviction lead to the same result with regard to the sacraments of their Lord; whether they have not already taken the first steps.
II. Sacrifice of Truth.
This again I would regard as the inevitable result of the use of ridicule; and its ill tendency is the more illustrated by its having corrupted your natural love of fairness. It is part of the character which you have adopted, not of your own. For having once resolved on the fiction which was to be the vehicle of your satire, then the laws of composition required that the fiction should be in keeping, however at variance with the laws of truth. The laws of fiction are indeed stern laws, since they require the sacrifice of whatever is at variance with themselves. Having adopted the fiction of a letter from the Pope to certain members of your Church, as being his emissaries, it became necessary, by disguise, or omission, or perversion, to conceal whatever would have disturbed the unity of the drama. For instance, you play not unfrequently upon the words which one of these writers addresses to the Church of Rome,—"Cum talis sis, utinam noster esses." And who would not echo the wish? Who,—bearing in mind the holy truths which Rome, amid her corruptions, yet holds, how much of the highest Christian truth, which many Protestant bodies have lost, or are in jeopardy of losing, on the mystery of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, and its consequences; or considering, again, the extent of her Communion,—would not wish, and long, and pray that she might be freed from her anti-Christian servitude; that she, as ourselves have been, might be restored to her primeval purity, when she was once the guardian of Christian truth; that God would "break the yoke of her burden, the staff on her shoulder, and the rod of her oppressor?" (Is. ix. 4.) Taken then in their obvious sense, the words are the expression of every Christian heart Your fiction, however, required that they should express a desire for union with Rome as she is; and in this sense, accordingly, you quote them. The very next words of the writer contradict this. He proceeds (and to prevent the possibility of a mistake, he has printed these words in capitals),—
"But, alas! an union is impossible. Their communion is infected with heterodoxy: we are bound to flee it as a pestilence. They have established a lie in the place of God's truth; and by their claim of immutability in doctrine, cannot undo the sin they have committed. They cannot repent. Popery must be destroyed; it cannot be reformed."
Honesty required the insertion of these words; but they would have spoiled the jest, and so they are omitted.
Again, as a member, to all appearance, of our Church, and so having no prejudice against her, it is hardly probable that you should believe what a recent author[2] has well termed "The fable of the Nag's Head consecration." Bishop Bull calls it "a putid fable;" and even Lingard, who shrinks not from any plausible fable, discards it[3]. It suited, however, your assumed character, and so, in answer to the words—
"As to the fact of Apostolical succession, every link in the chain is known, from St. Peter to our present metropolitans."
You reply:
"But surely you are aware of all the circumstances of the Nag's Head consecration. This must at least diminish confidence as to the continuity of your links, and compel every reasonable mind to doubt as to the reality of your succession. Even a doubt on such a point is fatal to all the claims of your Church."
Yet you, Sir, can have no "doubt upon this point;" and still you are raising a doubt in the minds of the ignorant and unwary; and countenancing the only pretext of the Church of Rome to deny us the character of a true Church. Your jest again imposed hard laws upon you.
Again; a lay writer in the tracts had said,
"Ordination, or, as it is called in the case of bishops, consecration, though it does not precisely come within our definition of a sacrament, is nevertheless a rite partaking, in a high degree, of the sacramental character, and it is by reference to the proper sacraments that its nature can be most satisfactorily illustrated."
Now this statement is made, not to exalt the priesthood, (although, if we duly "magnified our office," it were to be hoped, that it would be exercised more earnestly,) but to meet the common-place objection to the transmission of orders by a regular unbroken succession from the Apostles, viz., that some of the bishops, through whom they were transmitted, may have been imholy men. Now the case of the "proper sacraments" does illustrate this; for since we hold that "the effect of Christ's ordinance is not taken away by the wickedness of evil men," even though they "have chief authority in the ministration of the word and sacraments," forasmuch as "the sacraments be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men," (Art. xxvi.), we cannot consistently object, à priori, to the grace of ordination being conveyed down, by virtue of our Lord's institution, even through the hands of evil men. In the words of the layman, (shortly following your extract,) p. 10.
"He who receives unworthily, or in an improper state of mind, either ordination or consecration, may probably receive to his own soul no saving health from the hallowed rite; but while we admit, as we do, the validity of sacraments administered by a priest thus unworthily ordained, we cannot consistently deny that of ordination, in any of its grades, when bestowed by a bishop as unworthily consecrated. The very question of worth, indeed, with relation to such matters is absurd. Who is worthy? Who is a fit dispenser of the gifts of the Holy Spirit? What, are, after all, the petty differences between sinner and sinner, when viewed in relation to Him, whose eyes are too pure to behold iniquity, and who charges His very angels with folly?"
This would have been the question to be considered, had you been in earnest; but it was an earnest question, and so afforded no room for pleasantry. You turn aside, then, to lay hold of the expression, "our definition of a sacrament," and make the Pope to say, (p. 13.):
"We do not blame you, beloved brethren, for its not coming perfectly within your Church's definition of a sacrament; but we feel convinced that, when opportunity may serve, you will so alter the definition as to increase the number of your sacraments."
Yet since the "layman" distinguished "orders" from the "proper sacraments," it was an ill pleasantry, which would represent him, as wishing to include them therein, although you need not have gone as far as Rome for a definition which would have included them. St. Augustine's definition of a sacrament, (with which Calvin wishes to show that his own agrees, Instit. iv. 14. I.) had sufficed: "a visible sign of a sacred thing," or "a visible form of invisible grace." The word "sacrament" has namely, (as every one knows,) a larger use, although the "two proper sacraments " have always had their distinct reverence, as not conveying grace only, but directly uniting men with their Redeemer. In this larger sense, however, even foreign reformers have not scrupled to call ordination not merely "a rite, partaking in a high degree of the sacramental character," but "a sacrament." Thus even Calvin says (Instit. iv. 14. 20.):
"I am speaking of the sacraments instituted for the use of the whole Church. For the imposition of hands, whereby the ministers of the Church are initiated to their office, as on the one hand I am not unwilling that it should he called a sacrament, so on the other I do not count it among the ordinary sacraments."
And again (iv. 19. 31.):
There remaineth imposition of hands, which, as in true and lawful ordinations, I allow to be a sacrament, so I deny that it has any place in this farce, (those of Rome,) wherein they neither obey Christ's command, nor regard the end, to which the promise ought to lead us."
And Melanchthon (Apolog. Confess. de numero et usii sacram.):
"If orders be understood of the 'ministry of the word,' we should not scruple to call orders a sacrament. For the ministry of the word has the command of God, and magnificent promises, Rom. i. Is. lv. If orders are understood in this sense, neither should I scruple to call imposition of hands a sacrament. For the Church hath the command to appoint ministers, which ought to be most acceptable to us, for we know, that God approves that ministry, and is present thereat. And it is of moment, to set forth and extol, as much as may be, the ministry of the word, against fanatical men, who dream that the Holy Spirit is given, not by the word, but for some preparations of their own if they sit idle," &c.
And again (Loci, de numero sacram.):
"I approve most thoroughly that ordination be added thereto, (to the sacraments,) i.e., the calling to the ministry of the Church, and the public attestation of that calling. For all these are ordained by a command of the Gospel, as Tit. i. 5. and there is added a promise, the greatest of all, which attests that God really worketh effectually by the ministry of those who are chosen by the voice of the Church, as that universal saying beareth record of the apostles, and all who transmit the word delivered through the apostles, 'The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.' And Christ saith, John xvii., 'I pray not for these alone,' &c. and John xx. 23. Eph. iv. 8–11. Luke x. 16. John xv. 5. 2 Cor. v. 18. 20. 2 Cor. iii. 6. These, and many like sayings, evidently testify that God worketh effectually by this very ministry of those who teach the Gospel, which ministry He wills to preserve in the Church by a continued calling."
We do not, however, need such authorities; we would rather refer you to the wisdom of our English writers, as Hooker, who speaketh of things as being "as sacraments," or Archbishop Wake, who objects not to its being called "a kind of Particular Sacrament"
But before you repeat your jest, allow me one earnest question; When one is set apart for the ministry, and the bishop pronounces over him the words,
"Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a priest in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands,"
do you think that he receives no spiritual benefit? or that no spiritual benefit is thereby implied? if not, are not the words blasphemy? but if the Holy Ghost be thereby bestowed, if the ordained person "receive the Holy Ghost for the office of a priest in the Church of God," is not ordination to him a means of grace, and so, although not a sacrament, does it not "possess in a high degree the sacramental character?" and ought this subject to be treated of in merriment?
Again, a writer after having, in a very interesting paper, pointed out the notices of an extensive Christian ritual contained in Scripture itself, adduced two passages, "in further illustration of the subject" from Tertullian, a.d. 200, and St. Basil, a.d. 350, both of whom maintain the binding character of usages, which, though not in Scripture, had come down from the Apostles by a "continuous tradition." And who would not? Is not our argument against the modern Church of Rome, that she has introduced "a corrupt following of the Apostles," (Art. 25.) "fond things vainly invented" and grounded upon no "warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God" (Art. 22.)? The ground taken by the Church of Rome is that all her present traditions are to be received, as of equal validity with the written word, because she holds them; our ground, that they are not to be so received, because they cannot be proved to be apostolic, and some are corrupt and vainly invented. Our controversy then with Rome is not an à priori question on the value of tradition in itself, or at an earlier period of the Church, or of such traditions, as, though not contained in Scripture, are primitive, universal, and apostolical, but it is one purely historical, that the Romanist traditions not being such, but, on the contrary, repugnant to Scripture, are not to be received. It has manifestly, then, nothing to do with the question between Rome and ourselves, what Tertullian and St. Basil held of traditions which could be proved to be apostolical; nor does our accepting the traditions of the universal Church in their day, involve our accepting those of the particular Church of Rome, after so many centuries of corruption, in the present.
In your Romanist character it is natural to say,
"These are the principles which have ever guided the Catholic Church; by deviating from these the nations of Europe have fallen into anarchy and confusion; and it is only by zealous efforts, such as our children of the University are now making for the restoration of those principles, that peace and harmony and unity can be reproduced."
But in your real character how will you excuse the fallacy which your assumed one palmed upon your readers? especially when the writer had accompanied his citations with the remark:
"Tertullian is, on the one hand, a very early witness for the existence of the general doctrine which this passage contains, while on the other he gives no sanction to the claims of those later customs on our acceptance, which the Church of Rome upholds, but which cannot be clearly traced to primitive times."
Do you really believe that Tertullian and St. Basil bear out the claims of modern Rome? If not, your assumed character was too hard for your honesty—if you do, I leave you to arrange the question with a really learned divine and Bishop of our day;
"In the passage to which reference has just been made, Tertullian speaks of written and unwritten tradition; but the cases in which he lays any stress upon the authority of the latter, are precisely those which our reformers allowed to be within its province—cases of ceremonies and ritual observances. Of these he enumerates several for which no express warrant can be found in Scripture, and which must consequently have been derived solely from tradition; the forms, for instance, observed in baptism, in the administration of the Lord's Supper, and in public prayer."
Bishop Kaye is here referring to the very passage of Tertullian, the quotation of which, together with that of St. Basil, calls forth your reprobation; and we cannot do better than refer you, and ultra-Protestants generally, to the masterly manner in which he treats this whole subject, (Tertullian, p. 202–307. ed. 2.) and especially his refutation of Mr. Thirlwall, (p. 297. sqq. note.)
Or I may refer you to the learned Dr. Hammond, "Seasonable exhortations to all true sons of the Church of England, wherein is inserted a discourse of heresy in defence of our Church against the Romanist." (§3.)
I will cite one passage only, but the whole essay is well deserving of study.
"To this also my concession shall be as liberal as any Romanist can wish, that there are two ways of conveying such revelations to us; one in writing, the other by oral tradition; the former in the Gospels and other writings of the Apostles, &c. which make up the Sacred Writ, or Canon of the New Testament; the latter in the Apostles' preachings to all the Churches of their plantation, which are no where set down for us in the Sacred Writ, but conserved as deposita by them to whom they were entrusted."
"And although in sundry respects the former of these be much the more faithful, steady way of conveyance, and for want thereof many things may possibly have perished, or been changed by their passage through many hands (thus much being on these grounds confessed by Bellarmine himself, that the Scripture is the most certain and safe rule of belief), yet there being no less veracity in the tongues than the hands, in the preachings than the writings, of the apostles; nay, 'prior sermo quam liber, prior sensus quam stylus,' saith Tertullian; 'the apostles preached before they writ—planted Churches before they addressed epistles to them;' on these grounds, I make no scruple to grant that apostolical traditions, such as are truly so, as well as apostolical writings, are equally the matter of that Christian's belief, who is equally secured by the fidelity of the conveyance, that as the one is apostolical writing, so the other is apostolical tradition."
In the subsequent chapters. Dr. Hammond illustrates from the rules of Vincentius Lirinensis, "where these qualifications may be found."
I will add one more writer, the great Hooker (and I may note that Whitaker, whom He, quotes, leans in some things over-much to Geneva, and so to ultra- Protestantism, and yet is here on the same side). Truly, if we are herein Papistical, we are so in goodly company, and no otherwise than our whole Church and Hooker were by ultra-Protestants always so accounted.
Hooker then says (Eccl. Pol. i. 14.):
"We do not reject them (the Romish traditions) only because they are not in the Scripture, but because they are neither in Scripture, nor can otherwise sufficiently, by any reason, be proved to be of God. That which is of God, and may be evidently proved to be so, we deny not but it hath in his kind, although unwritten, the self-same force and authority with the written laws of God. It is by ours [4]acknowledged 'that the apostles did in every Church institute and ordain some rites and customs serving for the seemliness of Church regimen; which rites and customs they have not committed imto writing.' Those rites and customs being known to be apostolical, and having the nature of things changeable, were no less to be accounted of in the Church than other things of the like degree, that is to say, capable in like sort of alteration, although set down in the apostles' writings. For both being known to be apostolical, it is not the manner of delivering them unto the Church, but the Author from whom they proceed, which doth give them their force and credit."
Again, one of these writers, among the dangers of altering the Liturgy, notices the tendency of change itself to produce the love of changing, the appetite growing with what it feeds on. With this view, he instances objections, which men of opposite characters might take to the commencement of the service; as, one might think, "the introductory sentences not evangelical enough;" another, "the form of absolution not strong enough." Now the very object of the Tract, and the character of the illustrations, showed the writer to be (as he indeed is), content with things as they stand. The jest, however, required that you should represent the contrary as the opinion of the writers of the Tracts, and the Pope feeling for them when they lament concerning the absolution (p. 12),
"that it is a mere declaration, not an announcement of pardon to those who have confessed."
Yet granting that a writer had thought this "absolution" not strong enough, thb would not make out the writer a Papist, since the absolution in the Communion-service is, (as is right,) stronger than this; and that in the Visitation for the Sick stronger still; so that a person might even wish for a much "stronger" form of absolution, and yet remain within the bounds of our Church. And so little strong did our form appear to the American Episcopalians, that in the Rubric before the absolution, they substituted the words, "A declaration concerning the Forgiveness of Sins," &c. Yet herein we fare better than usual; for you have equally treated (ibid.) as Papistical, words wherein another writer (Tracts, No. xvii. p. 4.) embodies our Church's language in the Visitation for the Sick. If a minister, you must, when called upon, use that same language; whether then it be Papistical or no, we may leave you to decide.
Again, another writer, now asleep in the Lord, gave an historical statement of the gradual compression of the Church services, and especially that which went on in the Romish Church, "long before the abolition of the Latin service." (Tract ix. p. 2.) This the Reformers carried on; it is not Papistical, surely, to say, "unadvisedly;" a person may regret that the Communion and Morning Service are conjoined, and think that, but for this, the Communion would probably have been administered more frequently, and yet not be a Papist. For this compression of services had begun in Papistical times, and the error of the Reformers (if it was one) was compliance with the "spirit of [a Papistical] age." This, however, would have afforded no room for pleasantry; and so the whole is represented as being, in our eyes, a departure from Rome, and an error of "our misguided Reformers."
One expression of this writer demanded a candid judgment: he said,
"The idea of united worship, with a view to which identity of time and language had been maintained in different nations, was forgotten."
It is plain that what the writer herein lamented was the loss not of the Latin language as a medium qf prayer, but the loss of that feeling of unity, "with a view to which identity of time, as well as language, had been maintained in different nations." He could not, and did not, object to the disuse of a "language not understanded by the people." (Art. xxiv.) Accordingly he added, "the identity of time had been abandoned, and the identity of language could not be preserved." This last sentence would have embarrassed the fiction, and so you have omitted it.
These instances may illustrate the almost certain risk of sacrifice of truth, entailed by such a fiction as that upon which you have ventured. I need not adduce more; for I have no thought of refuting your statements: this we will do, if ever you take upon yourself seriously to maintain them; at present I would only show you the danger of such trifling in holy things.
Before, however, you venture upon serious controversy, as the champion of ultra- Protestantism, I would recommend you to review your armour;—weapons which you have not proved, however they may make a show in this counterfeit and mockery, will not hold in real earnest. You belong, Sir, to a school which would substitute individual speculation for solid learning and the knowledge of antiquity, and which, consequently, has the reputation of at times reproducing as new, and so giving undue and injurious prominence to, what all divines were before well acquainted with; and at times, also, has fallen into strange unhistorical errors. Now, whether a certain doctrine be Papistical or no, is matter of history, not df speculation; and one not versed in history will be liable, perpetually, to confound the earlier truth, or unobjectionable custom, with the later corruption; especially if he has no very clear idea of Christian theology. Thus you attack—as implying transubstantiation—expressions which convey only the doctrine of the Eucharist, as held in the early Church and our own.
The same want of acquaintance with antiquity, probably led you to confound the early practice of commemorating God's departed servants at the holy communion, and praying for their increased bliss and fuller admission to the beatific vision, with the modern abuse of masses for the dead, and the doctrine of purgatory. You found it stated in the account of the ancient liturgies (Tract lxiii.), that "prayers for the dead" occurred in the several ancient liturgies, founded upon those of St. Peter, St. James, St. Mark, and St. John.
Our departed friend, namely, put together an interesting paper, showing "the antiquity of the existing Liturgies." From the tract itself, it would appear that his main object was to direct persons' attention to the view taken in those Liturgies of the consecration and oblation of the Eucharist (p. 16), since the consecration of the Eucharist is now so often regarded as a mere preliminary, instead of being in itself an essential part of the service; and this falls in with a part of the self-exalting rationalism of the day. In giving an account, however, of the points wherein "all the ancient Liturgies now existing, or which can be proved ever to have existed, resemble one another" (p. 7.), he was necessitated to mention "prayers for the dead" (p. 8, 9.), or, as he explains it, "for the rest and peace of all those who have departed this life in God's faith and fear;" and having mentioned that they "all contain (4.) a prayer, answering in substance to ours for the whole state of Christ's Church militant," he added (5.), "and likewise another prayer (which has been excluded from the English Ritual) for the rest and peace," &c.
He carefully guarded, then, against perplexing men's minds; he did not put the question prominently forward; he did not blame the Reformers under Edward VI. for having yielded to the judgment of foreign ultra-reformers, against their own previous judgment; he stated the simple fact, that this prayer had been excluded, i.e. whereas it had been retained on the first putting together of our Liturgy in "Edward VI.'s 1st book," it was excluded from the 2nd, at the instigation of Bucer and Calvin; and Bucer's alteration was adopted. The original unbiassed judgment, then, of our Reformers was to retain the prayer; and it argues no tendency to Popery, if any one wish that our Reformers had, in this and other points, for which they had the authority of the early Church, adhered to their first judgment. These same Reformers had at that time a clause in the Litany, which has since been excluded, praying against "the tyrannye of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities;" so that you could hardly accuse them of Papistry[5].
The following is the part of the prayer omitted:—
"We commend unto Thy mercy, O Lord, all other Thy servants, which are departed hence from us with the sign of faith, and now do rest in the sleep of peace: grant unto them, we beseech thee. Thy mercy and everlasting peace; and that, at the day of the general resurrection, we, and all they which be of the mystical body of Thy Son, may altogether be set at His right hand, and hear that His most joyful voice 'Come unto me, O ye that be blessed of My Father, and possess the kingdom which is prepared for you from the beginning of the world.' Grant this, O Father, for Jesus Christ's sake, our only Mediator and Advocate."
Now to this prayer neither Calvin nor Bucer objected that it was Papistical. On the contrary, Calvin says, in his letter to the Protector (Epp. p. 39. fol.),
"I hear that in the celebration of the Supper there is repeated a prayer for the departed, and I well know that this cannot be construed into an approbation of the Papistical Purgatory. Nor am I ignorant that there can be brought forward an antient rite of making mention of the departed, that so the communion of all the faithful, being united into one body, might be set forth: but there is this irrefragable argument against it, viz. that the Lord's Supper is a thing so holy, that it must not be defiled with any human addition."
Calvin argues further against the practice, 1st, as "not being founded on Scripture;" 2nd, as "not answering the true and lawful use of prayer."
Bucer, again, says, (Censura in Ordinat Eccl. Opp. Angl. p. 467.)
"I know that this custom of praying for departed saints is very old, although there is no mention of it in the description of the Lord's Supper in Justin Martyr."
And having gone over the testimonies from St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Ambrose, and Dionysius, he subjoins,
"But however old this Dionysius may be, and however great his authority, or that of the other holy fathers, yet we must prefer Divine authority to human, by how much God is greater than man.—Now Holy Scripture teaches neither by word nor example to pray for the dead. And it is forbidden to add or take away from it. Deut. iv. and xii."
Of Scriptural grounds Bucer adduces John v. 24. only, as opposed to this custom, arguing,
"That the common people would think that the departed yet lacked that peace, (and so the full mercy of God, whereby He forgives His servants their sins,) and that our prayers were needed to obtain that mercy. No occasion is to be given to this error, especially when we know with what a sea of more than heathen superstition, and with what plagues Satan has by this false persuasion overwhelmed religion."
It may have been on this ground, as Mr. Palmer conjectured, (English Ritual, tom. ii. p. 94–97.) that these prayers were omitted, as being so connected in the minds of the common people with the idea of purgatory, that their continuance would have involved the risk of propagating that cruel and pernicious error. If so, the Revisers of the Prayer Book, in abandoning their former ground, did wisely and charitably, and as the necessity of the times demanded; and although neither Calvin nor Bucer thought the practice legitimately connected therewith, yet the common people may then well have fallen into the mistake, since yourself, who are said to be a theologian, have now done so: for on this ground alone could you have selected this incidental mention of prayers for God's departed servants, as Papistical.
It may not be amiss to subjoin a few of the remarks of the learned Bp. Collyer[6] on this our first reformed liturgy.
"This recommending the dead to the mercy of God is no innovation of the Church of Rome; but a constant usage of the primitive Church. To justify this reformed liturgy in this point I shall produce unexceptionable authority."
And having quoted Tertullian, St Cyprian, the Apostolical Constitutions, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and referred to the ancient liturgies, he subjoins:—
"This custom neither supposes the modern purgatory, nor gives any encouragement to libertinism and vice: not to the latter, for St. Austin, with the apostolical constitutions, affirms, that unless a man dies qualified, he cannot receive any assistance from the prayers of the living. That the ancient Church believed the recommending the dead a serviceable office, we need not question; otherwise, to what purpose was it so generally practised? The custom seems to have gone on this principle, that supreme happiness is not to be expected till the resurrection; and that the interval between death and the end of the world is a state of imperfect bliss. The Church might, therefore, believe her prayers for good people departed might improve their condition, and raise the satisfactions of this period."
And, again, having considered Bucer's objections:
"There is another text urged in favour of Bucer's opinions, 'Blessed are the dead, which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours, and their works do follow them.' But this place amounts to no censure, either of the primitive practice, or the reformed common prayer-book before us; for 'tis supposed by the ancients and the office last-mentioned, that the dead are discharged from the fatigues of this life, and their works follow them, and that they are happy on the main; however, it does not follow from hence, but that their condition may be improved, and that they may be served in some measure by the assistance of the living.—I have already observed, prayer for the dead does not imply purgatory; whence it follows, that though the Church of England condemns the Romish doctrine of purgatory, (Art. 22.) we cannot thence infer her dislike of prayer for the dead."
With regard to your insinuation that those who approve of the primitive practice of praying for the dead, "will feel a new proof that the Church, which has retained this office, is alone worthy of their regard," Collyer furnishes the answer, 1. That the Church of England no where restrains her children from praying for their departed friends, if this approves itself to their consciences. 2. That the terms of joining with the Church of Rome are so hard, her corruptions so manifold, that
"supposing the Church of England was chargeable with the omission of a primitive usage, which is more than I affirm: 'tis more eligible to adhere to her, than part with her communion upon so remarkable an exchange."
Since Rome has blended the cruel invention of purgatory with the primitive custom of prayer for the dead, (not to speak now of her other corruptions,) it is not in communion with her that any can seek for comfort from this rite.
It would be well for the modern controversialist with Rome, to weigh Bishop Bull's language on this subject (Sermon iii. ed. Burton, and "Corruptions of the Church of Rome, in answer to the Bishop of Meaux' queries," t. ii. p. 260.) lest he involve himself in difficulty for want of making this distinction. Bishop Bull says,
"Prayers for the dead, as founded on the hypothesis of purgatory (and we no otherwise reject them), fall together with it:"
And with these he contrasts
"the prayers of the ancient Church, either the common and general commemoration of all the faithful at the oblation of the holy eucharist, or the particular prayers used at the funerals of any of the faithful lately deceased. The former respected their final absolution, and the consummation of their bliss at the resurrection, like as that our Church useth both in the office for the Communion, and in that for the burial of the dead, which indeed seems to be no more than that we daily pray for in that petition of the Lord's Prayer (if we rightly understand it), 'Thy kingdom come,'" &c.
Indeed, as Bishop Bull here implies, the very idea of an intermediate state involves in it a degree of prayer for God's departed servants; since, knowing them to be in a state of imperfect bliss until the resurrection, whenever we pray for the final "coming of God's kingdom," we do in fact (if we have any thought for the departed) pray at the same time for the perfecting of their bliss. And thus, in the service of the burial for the dead, when we pray God
"of His gracious goodness, shortly to accomplish the number of His elect, and to hasten His kingdom; that we, with all those that are departed in the true faith of His Holy Name, may have our perfect consummation and bliss both in body and soul;"
this undoubtedly implies a prayer for the consummation of the bliss of the departed. And we, who so lose out of mind God's departed servants, have also almost lost the notion of the intermediate state. On the other hand, as Bishop Bull also points out, these prayers for the departed servants of God, exclude the false invention of purgatory. Bishop Bull writes—
"In a word, let any understanding and unprejudiced person attentively observe the prayers for the dead in the most undoubtedly ancient liturgies, and he will be so far from believing the Romish purgatory on the account of those prayers, that he will be found to confess that they make directly against it. For (to omit other arguments) they all run (as even that prayer for the dead, which is unadvisedly left by the Romanists in their own canon of the mass as a testimony against themselves) in this form:—'For all that are in peace or at rest in the Lord.' Now how can they be said to be 'in peace or at rest in the Lord,' who are supposed to be in a state of misery and torment?"
I may add the following extract from the "Antient Liturgy of the Church of Jerusalem," which formed part of the devotions of Bishop Andrews[7]. As being an antient liturgy, it of course expresses all which could be meant in this reference to "Antient Liturgies."
"Grant that we may all find mercy and favour with all thy saints, who, from the beginning of the world, have pleased Thee in their several generations, Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and every just spirit made perfect in the faith of Thy Christ, from righteous Abel even unto this day; do thou give them and us rest in the region of the living in the bosom of our holy Fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whence sorrow, grief, and lamentation are banished away, where the light of Thy countenance shines continually; and vouchsafe to bring them and us to the full enjoyment of Thy heavenly kingdom."
I have dwelt the longer upon this subject, as being aware that you have reputed it a vulnerable point, and you have served your purpose well, by giving it a prominence, which it did not occupy in our Tracts, nor even in that one of our departed friend, wherein alone it was mentioned, and that but incidentally and of necessity. The object of his tract (and it was a very laudable one) being to point out the agreement as well as the antiquity of the existing liturgies, it would have been dishonest, wilfully to have suppressed any one point, wherein they so agreed. This, therefore, he stated; meanwhile he expressed no opinion on it, attracted no attention to it, but simply set it down, as he found it, a matter of fact; and but for your acute scent of a weak part, it might have remained unnoticed. No evil could have arisen from his simple statement of the fact. You, indeed, may possibly perplex men's minds, little prepared as they are for the discussion of the point, by confounding it with a popish superstition (which Calvin did not do), and thereby giving arms to opponents of our Church: it is ours to vindicate the early Church and our reformers.
It is, meanwhile, not a little remarkable that the main position of this tract which you have selected for censure, is precisely that incidentally, maintained by the learned Archbishop Wake, of whose soundness never was any doubt in the Church. The position was;
"that although the several liturgies have been much interpolated and in parts corrupted, much likewise has been handed down from the first uninterpolated, and that means exist for ascertaining what parts are interpolated and what pure and genuine; the pure and genuine parts being those wherein all agree."
Archbishop Wake says in like manner (Dissert, on the Apostolical Fathers, c. ix. § 20.):—
"However, since it can hardly be doubted but that those holy Apostles and Evangelists [St. Peter, St. Mark, and St. James,] did give some directions for the administration of the blessed eucharist in those Churches; it may reasonably be presumed that some of those orders are still remaining in those liturgies which have been brought down to us under their names; and that those prayers wherein they all agree, (in sense, at least, if not in words,) were first prescribed in the same, or like terms, by those Apostles and Evangelists; nor would it be difficult to make a farther proof of this conjecture from the writings of the ancient fathers, if it were needful, in this place, to insist upon it."
Nor even in these last days, has "prayer for God's departed servants" been by well-instructed writers confounded with purgatory. The following passage evidently proceeds from the heart of one, whom no one will accuse of a blind adherence to the antient Church (Short's History of English Church, § 15):
"To pray for the dead was the dictate of human nature, and the practice of the early Church, and no reasonable Christian will blame Dr. Johnson for the cautious manner in which he mentions his mother in his prayers; but in the hands of the Church of Rome this feeling was soon directed to the uuscriptural object of delivering the souls of departed friends from purgatory, and the practice converted into a source of profit to the priesthood.—There is no necessary connection between praying for the dead, and the belief in purgatory. The Greek church, for instance, prays for the dead, without admitting any idea of purgatory. Prayers and oblations for the dead were probably established in England from the first, and a short form of prayer to that effect is inserted in the Canons of Cloveshoo; with regard to the latter doctrine, the Saxon homilists generally refer to the awards of a final judgment, though traditional notices exist, in which there appears to be at first an indistinct, but afterwards more clear reference to purgatory.—Later writers, and among the rest Alfred, adopted the popular notions of purgatory, which were still very different from the opinions on that subject established as articles of Faith by the councils of Florence and Trent."
Take again the following full statement of another writer, who seems, certainly, over-anxious to vindicate the purity of the foreign ultra- Protestants, against Romish assailants, and so is obviously free from bias. It is from the vindication of the learned Dr. Field[8], against a Romish controversialist, who it seems had set you an example which you have faithfully followed, "drawing me," Dr. F. says, "into the defence of that he knoweth I impugn."
"In the fourth place he saith: I accept the rule of St. Augustine, that whatsoever is frequented by the universal Church, and was not instituted by Councils, but was always holden, that is believed most rightly to be an Apostolical tradition. And that liberally I add, that whatsoever all, or the most famous or renowned in all ages (or at least in divers ages) have constantly delivered, as received from them that went before them, no man doubting, or contradicting it, may be thought to be an apostolical tradition. Whence he thinketh he may conclude inevitably by my allowance that prayer for the dead may be thought to be an Apostolical tradition, many famous and renowned Fathers in divers ages mentioning Prayer for the Dead, and none disliking or reproving it. For answer whereunto I say; that prayer for the resurrection, public acquittal in the day of judgment, and bliss of them that are fallen asleep, in the sleep of death, is an Apostolical tradition, and so proved by the rule of St. Augustine, and that other added by me; as likewise prayer made respectively to the passage hence, and entrance into the other world: and hereof there is no controversy between us, and our adversaries, but prayer to ease, mitigate, suspend, or wholly take away the pains of any of them that are in hell, or to deliver men out of the supposed purgatory of Papists, hath no proof from either of these rules, as shall appear by that which followeth: and, therefore, this poor novice hath not yet learned his lesson aright, nor knoweth what it is he is to prove. But if he will be content to be informed by me, the thing he must prove (if he desire to gratify his new masters, and to maintain the Romish cause) is, that all the Fathers, or the most famous amongst them, from the beginning of Christianity, did in the several ages wherein they lived, teach men to pray for the deliverance of their friends and brethren, out of the pains of Purgatory; which, if he will undertake to do, he must bring some better proofs, than such as are taken from the mutual dependance and conjunction of Purgatory, and prayer for the dead, which yet principally he seemeth to urge. For many Catholic Christians (whom this gentleman must not condemn) made prayers for such, as they never deemed to be in Purgatory. Neither did the ancient Catholic Church (as he fondly imagineth) in her prayers and oblations for the dead, intend to relieve souls temporally afflicted in a penal estate; but in her general intention (whatsoever private conceits particular men had) desired only the resurrection, public acquittal, and perfect consummation and blessedness of the departed, and respectively to the passage hence, and entrance into the other world, the utter deletion, and full remission of their sins, the perfect purging out of sin, being in, or immediately upon the dissolution in the last instant of this life, and the first of the next, and not while the soul and body remain conjoined. This is strongly proved, because the most ancient amongst the Fathers make but two sorts of men dying, and departing out of this world, the one sinners, the other righteous; the one profane, the other holy: so Dionysius in his Hierarchy; so Epiphanius against Arius; so Ambrose in his Book de Bono Mortis; and Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechism; and all of them teach, that the souls of the just are in a joyful, happy, and good estate, and present with God in an excellent sort, immediately upon their dissolution, and departure hence. 'The falling asleep of the holy ones,' saith Dionysius, 'is in joy and gladness, and immoveable hope, because they are come to the end of their combats; and again, they know they shall altogether be partakers of the rest of Christ, being come to the end and bound of this life: so that they are filled with holy joy and gladness, and with great delight and pleasure, enter the way of the most happy regeneration.'"
And now I would venture to ask any Clergyman, I would even appeal to yourself, if a Parochial Minister, whether, when you have heard of the death of one of your flock, of whom you hoped well, your first impulse has not been to pray to God to make up to the departed whatever had been deficient in your ministrations? whether (as Luther did) you have not prayed for the perfecting and increased blessedness of a departed friend or relation, even though you have subsequently checked yourself? whether you did not find a comfort from that prayer? and whether this dictate of human nature, warranted as it is by the early Church, and distinct from the Romish error, may not after all be implanted by the God of nature—may not be the voice of God within us? If this be but possible, is this a subject to be treated lightly? Are "prayer" and "the souls of God's departed saints" fit topics for a jest?
One word more on a connected subject; you represent the writers as dissatisfied with the changes formerly made in the services, and wishing to introduce others more conformable to the ritual of Rome. (p. 12.)
This (as I have already in part shown) is not so; for, first, you have (as is your wont) confounded the primitive with the Romish ritual: secondly, we never have, nor do we wish for any alteration in the liturgy of our Church; we bless God that our lot has fallen in her bosom,—that He has preserved in her the essentials of primitive doctrine and a liturgy so holy; and although I cannot but think its first form preferable, alteration is out of the question: there can not be real alteration, without a schism; and as we claim to have our own consciences respected, and not to have any doctrines suppressed which the formularies of our Church now express, so, even if we had the power of change, would we respect the consciences of others, and not urge upon our superiors, or seek for support in behalf of the restitution of that more antient form, which we hold abstractedly the better.
The whole course of the Tracts has, as you know, and yourself reproach us with, been against innovation; how, then, is it honest in your assumed character, to give us the following advice;—
"You cannot be certain that those in authority would consent to those alterations which you regard as improvements; and you must not be hasty in urging them too far;"
as if we had ever had any such wish?
I may yet add another instance of the risk, which (for want of better acquaintance with our old divines) you run of involving unawares in your censures those giants of old times, against whom, for very shame, a modern should not open his mouth, while you think you are only attacking men of modern days like yourself, οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσι.
Every system of theology, as indeed every tendency of mind, every good disposition, every performance of religious duty, has its dangers, the danger of degenerating; and so, of necessity, has Protestantism. One of the writers of the Tracts brought forward some of these in warning, especially the tendency to require too rigid argumentation, explicit proof, and not to yield to conviction until compelled. The Romanist is too easy of belief, believes on false grounds; the tendency of the Protestant is, to be over-difficult of belief, not to believe on sufficient and true grounds. This was illustrated by reference to the prevailing feelings in some quarters with regard to episcopacy; and it was shown, that the same principle would, consistently extend not only to infant baptism, but to a case of
"doctrine, of necessary doctrine, doctrine the very highest and most sacred, where the argument lies as little upon the surface of Scripture,—where the proof, though most conclusive, is as indirect and circuitous as that for episcopacy, viz., the doctrine of the Trinity. Where is this solemn and comfortable mystery formally stated in Scripture, as we find it in the Creed? Why is it not? Let a man consider whether all the objections which he urges against the Scripture argument for Episcopacy may not be turned against his own belief in the Trinity. It is a happy thing for themselves that men are inconsistent; yet it is miserable to advocate and establish a principle, which, not in their own case indeed, but in the case of others who learn it of them, leads to Socinianism. This being considered, can we any longer wonder at the awful fact, that the descendants of Calvin, the first Presbyterian, are at the present day in the number of those who have denied the Lord who bought them?"
It certainly was not any common mind, which saw how a principle, now so commonly avowed in the instance of episcopacy, will, when carried out, ultimately affect men's belief in the highest doctrines of the faith: it was also popular ground to take, and a great temptation, to represent these writers, as weakening the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity—and you have fallen into it. I must own that I do not understand all which your words would insinuate; but the tone of triumph in which it is announced, implies that you have found, in your opinion, a weak point. You call it (p. 37, 38.)
"a noble passage, which we can never sufficiently admire;"
you tell us,
"you can always triumphantly appeal to your own writings to prove that you have always maintained on abstract grounds, even when you were not assailing individuals, that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly revealed in Scripture. We shall cite the passage we allude to, because we delight in transcribing truth, and because we would recommend our beloved children to have it engraven on the doors of their houses, as a public announcement of the orthodoxy of their faith, and the righteousness of their conduct."
But what, then, if this statement, for which its author is thus assailed, occur in the writings of those who have been ever regarded as great lights of our Church, and that, in relation to the same subjects? Your irony will reach rather further than you intended.
I will cite two only, Hooker and Bp. Beveridge.
Hooker then says (Eccl. Pol. i. 41.),
"There hath been some doubt, likewise, whether containing in Scripture, do import express setting down in plain terms, or else comprehending in such sort, that by reason we may from thence conclude all things which are necessary. Against the former of these two constructions, instance hath sundry ways been given. For our belief in the Trinity, the co-eternity of the Son of God with his Father, the Proceeding of the Spirit from the Father and the Son, the duty of baptizing infants; these, with such other principal points, the necessity whereof is by none denied, are notwithstanding in Scripture no where to be found by express literal mention; only deduced they are out of Scripture by collection."
Bp. Beveridge is much fuller, speaks upon the whole subject, and yet it would be difficult to point out any difference between his statements and those of the Tracts. The passage is part of the Preface to his learned Essay on the Canons of the Primitive Church:
"Yet, indeed, this holy Scripture, although in those precepts which are absolutely necessary to the salvation of every man, it be very clear and plain to all; yet in things relating to doctrine and the outward discipline of the Church, it is not, on account of its very depth, understood in the same way by all; but 'different people interpret its divine sayings differently, so that it would seem as if as many meanings almost might be extracted from it, as there are men,' as Vincentius Lirinensis of old observed, and it abundantly appears from heretics and schismatics, who each obtain their own perverse opinions and practice from holy Scripture, interpreted after their own way. In matters, then, of this sort, if we would be secure against erring or stumbling, first of all, beyond question, we must beware of adhering too pertinaciously to the private opinions or conjectures, whether of ourselves or others; rather should we review what the whole Church, or at least the majority of Christians thought thereon, and acquiesce in that opinion, in which Christians of all ages agreed. For as 'in all things the agreement of all is the voice of nature,' as Cicero saith, so in things of this nature, 'the agreement of all Christians may well be accounted the voice of the Gospel.' But there are many things, which, although they are not read expressly and definitely in holy Scripture, yet by the common consent of all Christians are obtained from it. For instance, 'That[9] in the Ever Blessed Trinity Three distinct Persons are to be worshipped, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that each of these is very God, and yet that there is only one God: that Christ is θεάνθρωπος, very God and very man in one and the same Person.' These and the like truths, although they are not delivered in so many words and syllables, either in the Old or New Testament, yet all Christians have been agreed upon them, as being founded in both; excepting only some few heretics, of whom in religion no greater account is to be had, than, in nature, of monsters. So, also, 'that infants are to be cleansed by holy baptism, and sponsors to be employed in that Sacrament; that the Lord's Day or the first in each week is to be religiously kept; that the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension of the Lord into heaven, and the coming of the Holy Ghost, are to be commemorated every year; that the Church is to be every where governed by Bishops, distinct from the Presbyters, and set over them.' These and other things of the like nature are no where directed in holy Scripture, expressly and by name; nevertheless, for fourteen hundred years from the apostles, they were everywhere publicly received by this Church; nor can, within that period, any Church be found which does not agree therein. So that they are, as it were, universal notions, implanted in the minds of all Christians from the first, not so much from any particular passages of Scripture as from all; from the general scope and tenor of the entire Gospel; from the nature and design of the religion therein established; and from the uniform tradition of the apostles, who, together with the faith, delivered down Church-rites of this sort, and (so to speak) general interpretations of the Gospel, throughout the whole world; otherwise it were incredible, yea, it were altogether impossible, that they should be received with such universal consent, everywhere and always."
III. Imputation of False Motives, and so Slandering.
There is, however, another class of desertions of the truth, which, in your natural character, as we are persuaded, you would most abhor, but which your assumed one has forced upon you; I mean, imputation of dishonesty to men whom, in your conscience, you believe and know to be honest. This was indeed a necessary part of the fiction; for an agreement with the Church of Rome in things indifferent, or upon which our Church has not deemed it necessary to pronounce, would even to ultra-Protestants appear to involve no very serious charge. It became requisite, then, to insinuate that they agreed with Rome further than was expressed, although prudential or other motives kept them from avowing it. This the fiction enabled you to do covertly, since such dishonesty has ever been part of the corrupt policy of modern Rome. Hence such phrases as—
"We make allowance for those difficulties which impede j^our perception or your avowal of the truth." (p. 6.)
Further, you know that these authors had written also against Popery, and republished older writings against it: their very tracts are known by the name of "Tracts against Popery and Dissent," although, when they were commenced, Dissent was every where a pressing evil: Popery had scarcely began to bestir itself, and was therefore the less noticed[10]. You know that all occasions of guarding against the corruptions of Rome had been used in the very tracts corrective of dissent. Such writers, however, would have been but bad allies to the Pope, and therefore this proceeding must, by the laws of fiction, be represented as insincere. Hence such passages as—
"We pardon some expressions towards us; compelled, no doubt, partly by the unhappy circumstances of your country. You have indeed sometimes employed terms which we well know our adversaries use in derision of us; but, we repeat, we can pardon these, whether they are the result of prejudices still entertained by you, or are employed for some other reason (p. 6, 7.) That communion, of which the present circumstances of your country have made you, almost unavoidably, members, (p. 11.) While we perceive with delight that you have always spoken, in your own persons, in accordance with our sentiments on this head, you have, at the same time, selected some tracts from early writers of your communion, in which our sentiments are impugned. These old tracts will not be read with much attention, compared, at least, with your own more lively productions: they can too be readily withdrawn when it is expedient: for they are not a pledge of your opinions as strong as your own writings. In the mean time, you may appeal to your republication of them as a proof that you have not leagued yourselves with us."
Now of all this, Sir, you do not believe one syllable; you do not think that, either in the republication of the older, or the protests of the more modern tracts against Popery, their editors or authors were actuated by any such motives; [11]while you impute insincerity, you have reason to believe them as sincere as yourself. It is an ill tree which brings forth fruit thus corrupt.
But is it then a duty to forget that Rome was our mother, through whom we were born to Christ; that she was the instrument chosen by God's good providence to bring the Gospel to the wild Heathen tribes from which most of us are sprung? Are we to be so engrossed with modern controversies, and modern corruptions, as to forget ancient heresies, and those the most deadly, those of Arius and Pelagius, against which she maintained the faith once delivered to the Saints?—are we to forget all past gratitude, all bowels of mercy towards her who was our mother? So to pray against her corruptions as not to pray for her, to cherish no memory of what she was, to Europe and to ourselves? and in her present guilt, to forget our own gratitude? What should we think, if in some future age, New Zealand and Taheite were to cast out our name as evil? She has been an unnatural mother, but are we therefore to be unnatural children? Should we glory in a mother's shame?
Let me quote the warm language of a modern writer[12], whose bias lay in an opposite direction, and whose words come fresh from a conscience freeing itself from such ingratitude.
"The aboriginal Briton may dispute the gratitude which he owes to the church of Rome for his conversion; the Englishman, who derives his blood from Saxon veins, will be ungrateful if he be not ready to confess the debt which Christian Europe owes to Rome; and to profess, that whenever she shall cast off those inventions of men, which now cause a separation between us, we shall gladly pay her such honours as are due to the country which was instrumental in bringing us within the pale of the universal church of Jesus Christ."
There is one more evil desertion of truth, which I fear cannot be ascribed to any wish to "adorn your tale," although you have thereby been enabled to convey it in a form less manifestly offensive. You say,
"Another piece of advice which we shall give to you, (as we give it to all our Missionaries,) is, that you should adopt every means to undermine the influence of those whose writings hold out no hope that they may be won over to the true Church. They are, in truth, dangerous men, and you should represent them as such. Be not deceived by their apparent amiability, by their virtuous conduct, or by their extent of learning. These very circumstances render them the more to be dreaded. Suffer not such men to be the instructors of youth. Do not permit them to occupy those places which public spirit alone ought to make you anxious to occupy, even independently of any desire for your individual advancement." (p. 34.)
I can the less lay this to the account of the fiction, because it is manifestly the one object of your whole attack upon these writers; whether out of private friendship to Dr. Hampden, or of alarm for yourself, as a member of the same school—nam tua res agitur, cum proximus ardet Ucalegon—it is notorious that you imagined these writers to be the principal authors of the measures taken in consequence of that unhappy appointment, and that your avowed object was, to "effect a diversion[13]." Herein you were mistaken; since there prevailed throughout Oxford one universal feeling of alarm, (which, under the name of "panic," the heathen, more religiously than we, would have ascribed to "the gods,") as soon as the appointment was known. These individuals but joined what already existed. But I would now speak of the truth of the imputation only; you have known, or have been aided (we have ground to think) by others acquainted with those of whom you speak; and you dare not, in your own person, avow your belief, or even your suspicion, of the truth of the allegation, which, under your assumed character, you have insinuated. You know and believe it to be untrue; and thus there is another evil of these unhappy disguises, that they furnish men the temptation of half saying, what they would shrink from speaking openly, as knowing or suspecting it to be untrue: but now, if untrue, it is to pass as part of the jest, and so they take courage, and stifle their consciences.
For ourselves, you will have done us good service; your attack will fall harmless alike on those who are now with the Lord, or upon those who remain; but your revival of the old Presbyterian cry against "Prelacy and Popery," will show the members of our Church what is really censured under the name of Popery: they will see the necessity of striking back into the old paths, and manfully avowing truths, which many of late have shrunk from, as invidious. You, Sir, have been consistent; it is, if we are rightly informed, a favourite maxim with you that the bishops have been the great hinderers of the development of the Reformation for the last 300 years; i.e., of such development as Germany has suffered under for the last half century, and from which she is now in part recovering. The Rationalists, it is known, ever maintained the same; they also complained that our bishops were the great hinderances to the extension of their theories among us. Therein they saw, indeed, but a portion of the truth; since our bishops were produced by the system, which under God's blessing they contributed to perpetuate; but still they saw that our system possessed a principle of stability, or as they deemed it, stationariness, foreign to their own. Those who wish well to our Church will now see who, under Almighty God, are the real upholders of sound doctrine among us; they who respect the office of a bishop, even antecedently to any consideration of individual merit in the person consecrated thereto, or they who, as yourself, (p. 16.) ridicule such respect; they will see that the cry of Popery is but a feint devised by the archenemy of the Church, whereby to hurry men down the steep descent of ultra-Protestantism to its uniform end, the " denial of the Lord who bought them." And knowing that that Church alone is safe who guards the deposit of sound doctrine committed unto her, they will not be scared by shadows to abandon the reality, or shrinking from the reproach which our forefathers bore faithfully, fall into the toils, on either side spread for them, whether of the Socinian or the Papal anti-Christianism.
Christ Church, St. Mark's[14] Day.
- ↑ See Appendix. Tracts for the Times, No. 74.
- ↑ Short's History of the Church of England, chap. viii. § 409.
"Strype has been very particular in recording every thing which was done on this occasion, from the most authentic documents, in order to refute the fable of the Nag's Head consecration, which was promulgated by the Roman Catholics about forty years after the event had taken place, when it might have been supposed that all direct testimony had been lost. The story is, that the bishops met at a tavern which bore that sign, and that when Oglethorp refused to consecrate them, Scory laid a Bible on each of their heads, and bade them rise up bishops. The tale has been refuted as often as brought forward."
The following also is the statement of the Calvinist Professor, John Prideaux. "The public acts are still extant in Mason and others, honestly brought forward, and they sufficiently annihilate this transparent lie of the calumniators. Archbishop Abbot caused them to be shown to certain priests, to convince them of the impudence of this fiction, that so they might at length cease from seducing so wickedly their credulous Proselites." (Controv. de Disciplina Ecclesiæ, p. 248. The Italics are his.)
- ↑ Hist. of England, Vol. vii. Note I.
- ↑ Whitaker adv. Bellarm. qu. 6. cap. 6.
- ↑ Cranmer had seen and written against the error of Purgatory even under Henry the VIIIth. "The necessary doctrine and erudition of a Christian man," A.D. 1543, is, in this respect, a decided advance beyond "The institution of a Christian man," A.D. 1537. (Comp. Formularies of Faith in the reign of Henry VIIl., p. 210 and 375–7.)
- ↑ Eccles. Hist, of Great Britain, P. ii. Book iv. p. 257.
- ↑ See Dean Stanhope's translation, p. 47, ed. Christian Knowledge Society.
- ↑ Of the Church, App. p. 1, § 4, p. 760, sqq., where is much more on this subject.
- ↑ The Italics are Bp. Beveridge's.
- ↑ A new series of "Tracts against Romanism" had meanwhile been actually commenced, although not then published.
- ↑ Meanwhile, however, the calumny is spread in real earnest. The anonymous compiler of the 'Specimens of Theological Teaching,' &c. among the very few statements on which he ventures, echoes it, 'Indeed, while these writers profess their love and reverence for the Church of Rome [as it is?], they take care to protest against it, as all Protestants of course must do.' (p. 37.)
- ↑ Short's Sketch of the History of the Church of England, sec. 14.
- ↑ The object, thus covertly conveyed in this first essay, is now boldly avowed in the "Specimens of Theological Teaching," and in the Edinburgh Review. To any one acquainted with Oxford, the notion is altogether absurd: there is in Oxford, happily, far too much thoughtfulness and scrupulousness to be influenced by any party, however powerful: men here form their individual convictions, according to their own consciences; party-feeling neither existed, nor had it existed, would it have had any influence; but, in truth, individuals of every shade of religious opinion within the latitude left free by our Articles, were united by one feeling of common danger impending over the Church, and that, independently of each other: they met and acted together spontaneously, actuated only by one common apprehension. The opinions, then, of a certain number of the "Corpus Committee," is, in reality, nihil ad rem; but will any one say that the charges against Dr. Hampden were confined to undervaluing antiquity, or the sacraments, or the authority of the Church, or that the prominent charges were not rather, his vague and Sabellian notions on the doctrine of the Trinity, the rationalizing of the Atonement, and generally, a system, opposed to the Articles? The Articles of our Church, not the teaching of any set of men, were made our standard; and to this standard and primitive antiquity would we appeal for ourselves.
- ↑ See Collect for the Day.
CONTENTS.
| No. 71. | ||
| ON THE CONTROVERSY WITH THE ROMANISTS. | ||
| PAGE | ||
| Against Romanism, No. 1. | 1 | |
| No. 72. | ||
| ARCHBISHOP USSHER ON PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD. | ||
| Against Romanism, No. 2 | 1 | |
| § 1. | Of the Persons for whom after death Prayers were offered in the early Church | 3 |
| § 2. | Of the Primary intention of Prayers for the Dead | 9 |
| § 3. | Of the Place and Condition of Souls departed | 25 |
| § 4. | Of the Opinion of the Heretic Aerius, touching Prayers for the Dead | 40 |
| § 5. | Of the Profit of Prayers for the Dead to the Persons prayed for | 49 |
| Remarks | 54 | |
| No. 73. | ||
| ON THE INTRODUCTION OF RATIONALISTIC PRINCIPLES INTO RELIGION. | ||
| § 1. | The Rationalistic and the Catholic Spirit compared together | 2 |
| § 2. | Remarks on Mr. Erskine's "Internal Evidence" | 15 |
| § 3. | Remarks on Mr. Abbott's "Corner Stone" | 34 |
| Postscript | 54 | |
| No. 74. | ||
| CATENA PATRUM. No. 1. | ||
| TESTIMONY OF WRITERS IN THE LATER ENGLISH CHURCH, TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. | ||
| List of Authors cited:— | PAGE | |
| Bilson.—Perpetual Government of Christ's Church | 3 | |
| Hooker.—Ecclesiastical Polity | 4 | |
| Bancroft.—Sermon preached at St. Paul's Cross | 5 | |
| Andrews.—Sermon on Whitsunday | 6, 7 | |
| Hall.—On Episcopacy | 10 | |
| Laud.—Conference with Fisher | 11 | |
| Bramhall.—Vindication of the Church of England | 12 | |
| Ibid.—Vindication of Grotius | 14 | |
| Mede.—Sermon on Urim and Thummim | 16 | |
| Mason.—Vindiciæ Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ | 17 | |
| Sanderson.—Divine Right of Episcopacy | 18 | |
| Hammond.—On the Power of the Keys | ib. | |
| Taylor.—On Episcopacy | 20 | |
| Heylin.—On Episcopacy | 21 | |
| Allestrie.—Sermons | 22 | |
| Pearson.—On the Creed | 23 | |
| Fell.—On Ephesians v. 9 | 24 | |
| Bull.—Vindication of the English Church | 25 | |
| Stillingfleet.—Unreasonableness of Separation | ib. | |
| Ken.—Exposition of the Church Catechism | 26 | |
| Beveridge.—Sermon on Christ's Presence with His Ministers | 27 | |
| Sharp.—Sermons, Vol. vii. Of the Church | 28 | |
| Scott.—Christian Life | 29 | |
| Wake.—Exposition of the Doctrine of the English Church | 30 | |
| Potter.—On Church Government | 31 | |
| Nelson.—Festivals and Fasts | 32 | |
| Kettleworth.—Practical Believer | 33 | |
| Hicks.—Treatise on the Episcopal Order | ib. | |
| Law.—Second Letter to the Bishop of Bangor | 34 | |
| Johnson.—Unbloody Sacrifice | 35 | |
| Dodwell.—Discourse on the one Priesthood, one Altar | 37 | |
| Collier.—Moral Essays | 39 | |
| Leslie.—Case of the Regale and Pontificale | 40 | |
| Wilson.—Private Thoughts | 41 | |
| Bingham.—Sermons on Absolution, | 42 | |
| Skelton.—Discourse 71 | 44 | |
| Samuel Johnson | 45 | |
| Horne.—Charge and Primary Visitation of his Diocese | 46 | |
| Jones of Nayland.—Lectures on Hebrews iii | 50 | |
| Horsley.—Sermon on Matt. xvi. 18, 19 | 51 | |
| Heber.—Sermons in England | 52 | |
| Jebb.—Pastoral Instructions | 54 | |
| Van Mildert.—Bampton Lectures | ib. | |
| Mant.—Parochial Sermons | 56 | |
| No. 75. | ||
| ON THE ROMAN BREVIARY AS EMBODYING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE DEVOTIONAL SERVICES OF THE CHURCH CATHOLIC. | ||
| History of the Breviary | 1 | |
| § 1. | Analysis of the Seven Daily Services of the Church Catholic, as preserved in the Breviary | 17 |
| § 2. | Service for Sunday, June 21, 1801 | 26 |
| § 3. | Week-day Service | 87 |
| § 4. | Part of the Service for August 6th | 97 |
| § 5. | Part of the Service for August 10th | 117 |
| § 6. | Service for March 21st | 136 |
| § 7. | Service in Commemoration of the Dead in Christ | 146 |
| § 8. | Service for the Sundays in Advent | 158 |
| § 9. | Service for Week-days in Advent | 184 |
| No. 76. | ||
| CATENA PATRUM. No. II. | ||
| TESTIMONY OF WRITERS IN THE LATER ENGLISH CHURCH, TO THE DOCTRINE OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. | ||
| List of Authors cited:— | ||
| Jewell.—Treatise on Sacrament | 4 | |
| Ibid.—Reply to Mr. Harding's Censure | 6 | |
| Hooker.—On Ecclesiastical Polity | 7 | |
| Andrews.—On the Holy Ghost | 9 | |
| Donn.—Sermon | 11 | |
| Field.— Of the Church | 13 | |
| Jackson.—On Christ's Exercise of his everlasting Priesthood | ib. | |
| Ibid.—Of Christ's Session at the right-hand of God | 17 | |
| Laud.—Conference with Fisher | 18 | |
| Bramhall.—Of Persons dying without Baptism | 19 | |
| Hammond.—Sermon xv. A New Creature | 20 | |
| Taylor.—Life of Christ.—On Baptism | 24 | |
| Heylin.—On the Apostles' Creed | 26 | |
| Allestrie.—Sermon | 28 | |
| Barrow.— Of the Holy Ghost | 29 | |
| Thorndike.— Book iii. chap. viii. | 31 | |
| Pearson.—Exposition of the Creed | 32 | |
| Bull.—Sermon vii. | 33 | |
| Comber.—Part iii. sect iii. | ib. | |
| Ken.—Exposition of Church Catechism | 36 | |
| Patrick.—On Baptism | ib. | |
| Beveridge.—On Admission into the Church by Baptism | 37 | |
| Sharp.—Vol. v. Sermon v. | 40 | |
| Scott.—Christian Life | 41 | |
| Jenkin.—On Christian Religion | 43 | |
| Sherlock.—Vol. ii. Discourse vii. | ib. | |
| Wall.— On Infant Baptism | 44 | |
| Potter.—Of Church Government | 45 | |
| Nelson.—Festivals and Fasts | 46 | |
| Waterland.—On Regeneration | ib. | |
| Kettlewell.—On the Creed.—Article, Forgiveness of Sins | 47 | |
| Hickes.—Christian Priesthood | ib. | |
| Johnson.—Unbloody Sacrifice | 48 | |
| Leslie.—On Water Baptism | ib. | |
| Wilson.—Maxims of Piety | 49 | |
| Bingham.—On Lay Baptism | ib. | |
| Skelton.—Vol. ii. Discourse xxi. | 51 | |
| Horne.—Vol. ii. Discourse xviii. | 52 | |
| Jones.—On the figurative Language of the Holy Scriptures | 53 | |
| Heber.—Sermons in England | 54 | |
| Jebb.—Pastoral Instructions | ib. | |
| Van Mildert.—Bampton Lectures | ib. | |
| Mant.—Bampton Lectures | 55 | |