for thence we derive it by transmission. The plain truth is that which our Divines have ever maintained-that we must meet them upon Scripture; for this is the only source from which an Anti-Romanist can draw his doctrines. Why, then, does Mr. Gresley pass by in silence, except for the purpose of a sneer, the doctrine of Justification by Faith, and the many errors of the Romish Creed? Is it because he sympathises with Rome in these points, or is it because he thinks doctrines unimportant? If it arises from the latter cause, why is he not a Romanist? for Rome is our equal in Discipline. But we believe the cause may be found in this-that he identifies all doctrines with one; and hence he is ambitious of calling some of our Articles an "annexation," which give a peculiar character to our Church. We Protestants have an intelligible ground, and have no need to discuss whether or no we have the succession; for we know, and are sure, that Rome can claim no allegiance from us, because it is a corrupt Church, and teaches false doctrine upon fundamental points. It has no mark of Apostolical doctrine; it has made many of God's commands of none effect by its traditions. The doctrine of a standing and falling Church it has stripped of its excellency, and compressed it into the limits which enervate and destroy its vitality. And all the energies of the writers of this school will be strained in vain, unless they can persuade their followers of this, which Hooper held to be a fundamental verity. There is no barrier which is so effectual as this, and it has been the aim of Tractarians to make this doctrine unpopular and hateful, by ascribing it as the main prop of a party, and concealing the obvious truth which Bishop Horsley so well enunciated, that it is older than Fathers or even Apostles, and is an eternal truth declared by God to man. The comprehension of our every relation to our Maker depends upon a clear and true understanding of this doctrine. Still the Anglo-Catholicism before us omits it and rejects it, as if our Articles were not worthy of notice, or as if Rome and England were one in their reception of it. Meagre must be the system which deems this unimportant in its outline or filling up; and such will be every daubing of men who had rather follow the cry of a party than obey the voice of God. This is one of the things which union with Tractarianism has palmed upon the writer. But another mark of sympathy which "Anglo-Catholicism" exhibits with No. 90, will be found in the following baseless distinction between the authorship of our Articles and other Formularies. In alluding to the Continental Reformers, he writes-"The mass of English Churchmen, of that period, rejected their ill-advised attempts at 66 "further change, and formed a conservative body, which served as a drag on the more impetuous spirits. This more sound and judicious "class of men, though less conspicuous at the time, have, in reality, " left a more decided impress of their views on the English Church than "the more prominent Reformers. To the latter we are indebted, "generally speaking, for the changes that were made; to the former, "for what remained unaltered: to the one, for the addition of the "Articles; to the other, for the preservation of the Liturgy. Hence it "is an erroneous view to take the opinion of the most active Reformers, "as indicating the character of the English Church. They represent only one party; whereas our Prayer-book was the work of both.” We have given the passage as quoted in the original, and would draw our readers' attention to it. 66 It is desirable that we should have had some authority upon which to rest so plain and positive an assumption; but, alas! we are not so highly favoured-nor, indeed, is Mr. Gresley, we believe: but his wishes have induced him to pen this manifest contradiction to history and probability, without having duly weighed either its evidence or its import. Thus much is, however, known to all-that Cranmer, Ridley, and Jewell, were among, not the mass, but the most active; and we know that their sentiments had as much weight in selecting the Liturgy as in compiling the Articles. Indeed, the mass had very little to do in our Reformation. But, even if they were intimately connected with that delightful process of becoming a drag upon the wheels of the Church, where have we any testimony that the leaders were stopped short in their career? Their writings indicate no such feeling; and we will leave Mr. Gresley to prove his own hardy assertion. But let us ask-for we have a right to ask-what is the essential difference between our Articles and Prayer-book? We read that "they," i.e., the authors of the Articles, "represent only one party;" and, accordingly, we conclude that they do not represent the party of Lichfield in these times. Mr. Gresley leaves us no room for hesitation, for he commends the mass, and yet does not allow that they were represented by the authors of the Articles. Whether they were represented by the Articles or no, it is quite certain that they put their signature to them, and it will be a question of no great difficulty to decide which of the two classes is more commendable. The one sign that with which they agree, but the mass lived as slaves of a fewer men in higher places, and bore the stamp of deep falsehood * P. 87. upon their commission to teach. This is the honourable dilemma in which Anglo-Catholicism places the Church of England at the Reformation; and not only at that period, but in our own days also; for no man can give his unfeigned assent and consent to opinions which "represent only one party"—and this one which is opposed to his own. "Irreverence is very nearly allied," says our author, "to "irreligion;" and we may say that men who sign Articles or Formularies—and, by a solemn oath, take upon themselves, in the sight of God and man, such doctrines as do not represent their opinions are incurring a fearful responsibility. We are induced to lay considerable stress upon these remarks, for two reasons-of which the first is, that Mr. Gresley himself rests very much upon the fact that we swear to abide by our Formularies; and the second reason is one of more general importance, and one on which we can scarcely dwell too strongly that it is alike dangerous and erroneous to say that there is any difference either in character or even tone between our Articles and Liturgy. They are our birthright, and our rallying point against foes without and within the pale; and we cannot discharge our duty unless we denounce all open or insidious attempts, from any quarter, to shield themselves under a pretended diversity in documents which have equally the sanction of an oath and a promise most binding, and which rest on the foundation of the written Word. It is a lax and latitudinarian principle, and one which savours more of Ignatius Loyola, than of simple, open honesty, in the responsibility which an oath engenders; and therefore, irksome as it is to convict men of inconsistency for such dealing, it is, nevertheless, the duty of those who attempt to lay bare the principles which guide Tractarians, and have already conducted so many across the Rubicon. It would be well if each of those who plead the Liturgy against the Articles, would remember the respective offices which they have. The Articles were written expressly to settle controverted points-while the Liturgy is the guide of our devotions; and clearly, therefore, we should first look to the Articles to guide our decisions as to Anglican Doctrine. But, use them as we will, there is no such diversity as will enable the disputant to escape obedience to the one by alleging the authority of the other. Grateful we are to Mr. Gresley for kindly explaining this as one of the principles of modern Anglo-Catholicism; but yet we can hardly consider it as confirmatory of his assumption in the preface-that his own party, alone, are consistent members of our Church. * P. 226. The chapter which professes to show that we have all the essentials of a Church, makes no mention of the Articles, and scarcely alludes to any Doctrine; as if sound practical teaching were not an essential mark of a Church in its integrity; but this is at least consistent. Again, we find that the loss of the Succession in the Protestant communities causes "the fearful doubt as to the validity of their Sacraments ;"* but, we presume, no one will profess that the evidence for Apostolical Succession, as a divinely instituted ordinance, is in any way to be compared with the precise command of our Lord himself-that both kinds should be received into the Eucharist; yet we read that “we "may earnestly hope that the essence of the Sacrament may be "contained in the administration of the bread alone." Mr. Gresley, indeed, declares, that of this there is no certainty; but why, we ask, is the one more essential than the other? Why is our Lord's express command of changeable import, while the three orders, which nowhere in Scripture are commanded or defined, are laid down as essentially necessary? We can easily understand the bias of the writer, for his arbitration shows it; but we will continue our quotation, that the reason of this favouritism may be given in his own words :-"It may "well be questioned whether there exists in the Church any power "competent to make so apparently essential a change as regards obedience to a positive command of Christ, received in one way by the "universal Church."+ We had thought that it admitted of no question whether our Lord's undoubted commands were binding upon men— not to say Anglican Churchmen. But such a polite plan for mitigating the evils of Romanism is its own best refutation; and we will only remind our readers, that Mr. Newman had also a parallel doubt whether the Church could add to the Sacraments. Our answer to each doubter shall be by a reference to the last Chapter of the Sacred Canon, of which our readers will fully comprehend the application; and with this the Article XXX. entirely agrees. We, for our part, have never so far deified the Church as to hesitate upon such a point; and certainly are desirous of remembering our Lord's words, "Whosoever, therefore, "shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but "whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven." Whatever may be the meaning of binding and loosing, it can in no wise qualify the Church to violate any of the Divine commands; unless we go all lengths with Rome, and identify the visible Church with the attributes of God. Among the "peculiarities" which belong to our Church, Mr. Gresley mentions one as introduced by the Reformation—“the marked antipathy "to Rome, and everything savouring of Popery, which characterises "not the vulgar only, but most of our ablest Divines." The author, alluding to Augustine's mission, says " But the prejudice against her, "(i. e., Rome,) on account of recent injuries, preponderates, at present, over our gratitude for past benefits." He also says, that "we have "divested our service of much of its decency and order;" and again, "it might have been thought that, after 300 years of separation from "Rome, we should have been in a condition fairly to consider our respective positions. But such is not the case. Our antipathy still “exists, and effectually prevents us from a calm consideration of events. "We cling to our worst abuses as excellencies, if they appear to contrast "with the practice of Rome." To us it is a matter of surprise, that any clergyman can thus condemn his own Church, as if from his eyes alone the films of prejudice had been removed, and all his brethren were in pitiable error." It might have been thought, that after 300 years of "separation from Rome," Mr. Gresley would have been in a state of mind to view our position calmly and independently of party feeling, but it does not so appear. "It might have been thought" that justification by faith would be as dear to us as to our fathers; but, unhappily, when men are set upon prejudice, it is hard for them to understand truth in all its bearings. What a happy thing it is for the Prebendary of Lichfield, that from his stall he can arrive at the following dispassionate judgement, not to say critical decision: "The isolation which "characterised the Anglican Chureh in early times, was increased by the 'fact, that the Pope of Rome, to whom circumstances had given exten“sive influence, declined to concur in the Reformation, and his successors "have refused to sanction it, to the present day." What can be said against so smooth a period, which, free from "prejudice," characterises the spiritual tyranny and fraudulent invasion of other Churches by the Pope, as "extensive influence" given by circumstances; or again, how shall we dispute such meekness, which can speak of the Pope's bitter anathemas and his wicked oppositions, as the acts of a man who "declined to concur in the Reformation?" Surely these words are used by him whom none would hold to be prejudiced against Papal authority 46 * P. 30. |