Church. They were not generally the rulers and governors of their respective churches. As abuses were discovered they protested against them, they called for reform, yet had no wish or intention to separate. But in most of the foreign churches, the Bishops, instead of correcting, defended the corruptions, and in process of time the anti-reformation party succeeded in driving from their communion the friends of a Reformation. Thus the Protestants were obliged, by circumstances, to form for themselves separate and independent religious communions. But in doing so they devised no regular system, for they seem to have regarded the measure to which they were compelled, as one of only a temporary nature, and having solemnly appealed to a general council, they hoped that the time would come when the Western Church would reform itself and receive once again into its bosom those whom it had unjustly expelled for advocating its true principles. But it was not long before, among the less enlightened friends of the Reformation, a spirit of fanaticism was excited; and acting, like the man who continued to whet and whet his knife until at last there was no steel left in it, they wished to abscind every ordinance, phraseology, and doctrine which might seem to connect them even indirectly with Rome, and desired new ceremonies, a new system of theology, a new theological vocabulary, a new Church. And they were not long without aleader in a man of vast mental powers and of ardent piety, but of an austere temper and strong personal ambition, John Calvin. Instead of comparing, like our own Reformers and the early Protestants of Germany, the existing system of theology with Holy Writ and the traditional doctrine of the early Church, he invented an entirely new system of his own, to which, with more than papal intolerance, he called for a prostration of the judgment, and he proceeded to the length of shedding human blood to support it. Instead of seeking to reform the Church, he was ambitious to build up a sect which might serve as a model to all other religious communions, and over which he seemed willing to usurp such authority as to render it doubtful whether he did not intend to divert to Geneva the appeals which had been formerly made to Rome.

When he persecutions of Queen Mary's reign drove so many of the English abroad,

1 See Note D.

there were some of our countrymen who, first at Frankfort and afterwards at Geneva, were prepared to decry the English Reformation for not having proceeded far enough, and to embrace the foreign system of the Swiss sect. By Calvin our Prayer Book was denounced as containing fooleries, only tolerable from the exigency of the times, and it was determined to supply its place by a ritual less accordant with the ancient form of worship, and more conformable to the Genevan model. Instead of coinciding with our English Catholic reformers in their deference to antiquity, they referred, when Scripture was ambiguous or doubtful, to the writings of Calvin, and regarded as heretical all who refused to receive his dogmas as truth.

And thus when the persecuted Protestants1 returned to England, on the accession of Elizabeth, the English Church was composed of three distinct parties, all animated by distinct principles; those who wished not to adopt any foreign system of theology, but merely to complete the Reformation of their ancient national Church, by doing what was absolutely necessary for the purpose, and nothing more; those who were enamoured of the Helvetic Reformation, and complained that our reformers had not gone far enough; and those who, complaining that they had gone too far, were averse to the Reformation altogether.

Many and bitter were the disputes that arose, and it was not long before the bolder and more consistent of the followers of Calvin separated from the Church, which they regarded as semipapistical, and formed independent conventicles. As persons assuming to be the supporters of a purer system of Reformation than that which had been adopted by our English Reformers, they were known by the designation of Puritans.a Their example was soon after followed by those of the opposite extreme, who were the advocates of the discarded corruptions. These persons entered clandestinely into a correspondence with the Pope of Rome, who sent some Spanish and Italian Priests to officiate among them; and, adopting another foreign system, that established at the Council of Trent, they formed that schismatical sect from which the present English Romanists or Papists are descended.

This is a short sketch of the origin of those

1 See Note E.

The name was probably given to them, in the first instance as a nick-name, by their opponents, and they afterwards gloried in it, and so assumed it to themselves,

three distinct classes of Christians, subject, of course, to a variety of subdivisions, which we find in this country. But although the bolder, more consistent, and perhaps more conscientious of the Puritans quitted the Church, a large party who embraced their principles still couformed, some from timidity, some from worldly considerations, and some because they thought that the Church of England, being only comparatively corrupt, i.e. less pure than some of the foreign sects, they were not obliged to secede, and might eventually cause their own principles to triumph in the Church itself. These persons, assisted by the puritans from without, were continually urging our Rulers, spiritual and temporal, to greater measures of reform; and, complaining of the remnants and rags of Popery still preserved in our rites, ceremonies, and ecclesiastical habits, they "inveighed against the established discipline of the Church, and accounted everything from Rome which was not from Geneva."

A contest between parties disagreeing in principle is always a contest of life and death, a war of extermination,-for principles may be broken, but can never be bent-may be silenced but can never yield. And so was it with the Protestants of England. The contest was whether the country should adhere to the principles of the English or to those of the foreign Reformers, and the war was carried on unremittingly from the accession of Elizabeth to the fatal termination of the reign of Charles, who died a martyr for the principles of the English Reformation, or (which is the same thing) for the principles of the Catholic Church. During the great rebellion the advocates of the foreign system triumphed, and the Church, with the Crown, was laid prostrate in the dust. But at that period a modification of their principle was introduced among those who, in opposing the system of the English Reformation, had till then been united. Hitherto the question had been whether the Bible was to be received according to the interpretation of the ancient Church, or according to the interpretation of the Genevan Sect. But when the descendants of the original Puritans endeavoured to force their system upon the country as the one to be exclusively established, they in their turn were opposed by founders of new sects who regarded their own interpretations of Scripture to be as irrefragable as that of Calvin. It was then, and under such circumstances, that the real ultra

Protestant principle, which has ever since prevailed, as contrasted with the principles of the Church of England, was brought to light;that principle being not merely that the Bible and the Bible only ought to be our religion, but also that the Bible is to be understood by each person in that sense which he is persuaded by argument to regard as the true sense; and that he is then to unite himself with that society of Christians with whom the same or similar arguments have been productive of the same effect. This principle is, of course, subversive of union. For on these grounds the only difference between the coldest Socinian who acknowledges the truth of Scripture, and the highest supralapsarian Calvinist, is a difference in their logic or their powers of biblical criticism,—and while both parties may argue, neither may consistently censure. And thus the ultra-Protestant party gradually split into various hostile factions, and their divisions led eventually to the restitution of the Church with the restoration of the Monarchy.

At the same time a change took place in the policy of the Dissenters from the Church. The attempt had been to supplant the Church and to supply her place by the establishment of the Genevan system. The experiment was made and it had failed. And the demand was now, for what they had themselves, in times past, vehemently protested against—a civil toleration They asked for themselves that toleration which, when dominant, they refused to extend to the Church, and a toleration was obtained ;-a toleration which, just in itself, has been peculiarly advantageous to the Church; for it has enabled her to do what before she was unable to dowithout breach of charity to insist upon the observance of her principles, and to proclaim the most unwelcome truths; it has introduced that moral discipline among us which no external powers could enforce. In vain did our Reformers appeal to the strong arm of the law to compel that conformity to the regulations of the Church which is now rendered, according to the best of his understanding and ability, by every clergyman of common honesty and honour; the Church is now able to say, without any spirit of persecution, "Assent to my fundamental doctrines, and adhere to my internal regulations, or depart from my communion. However blameworthy I may think your conduct, for such a departure, you are no longer subjected to tem

poral penalties, and, therefore, as a man not merely of religion but of honour, depart."

Our principle is thus reduced within a very narrow compass, intelligible to the least enlightened mind. Every conscientious English Clergyman acts on the principle that while Scripture and Scripture only is his rule of faith, he is, in the interpretation of Scripture, to defer to the Ritual, Liturgy, Articles, and Formularies of the Church of England; he is to promote the glory of God in the highest, peace upon earth, and good will among men, but to do so, not in the way which he may imagine to be the wisest, but according to the Regulations, Canons, Rubrics, and Customs of the Church. To these he is bound by vows the most solemn to conform.

And where are we to look for unity and union, if we find it not here? And what terms of reprobation can be sufficiently strong to designate the conduct of those who, by causing discord among brethren who in principle are united, would thereby make music for our enemies? Alas! in every community such persons are found to exist, whose element is strife, who live by faction, who, mistaking party spirit for Christian zeal, in their contest for what they allege to be truth, forget that Christianity is also a religion of Peace and Love.

Now let us rip open the apple of discord which the enemies of peace would throw among us and see what it actually contains ; let us briefly advert to the subjects most freely discussed among us, and sure I am that when we perceive how the case really stands, all moderate men, all who are not far gone in party spleen, will be ready to admit, that, if in opinion upon several points we may some of us differ, there can be no just ground,-I do not say for the rancour which is sometimes exhibited in these discussions, for this can under no circumstances be justifiable-but for the disturbance of that unanimity and Christian harmony by the existence of which we are commanded to give proof that we are the Disciples of the Prince of Peace.

Let us take, in the first place, the subject of Tradition, and only assume in charity, that the disputants on both sides are in their intention honest and conscientious Churchmen, men, that is to say, desirous of holding opinions in con

[Written before the rise of the extreme Ritualistic or Romanizing Schools.-ED.]

formity with the principles of the English Church.

On the two great points which involve our common principle we are all agreed. We all of us hold, on the one hand, "that holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation ;" and we all of us hold, on the other hand, that in all cases of difficulty or doubt we are to take for our guide the Ritual, Liturgy, Articles, and formularies of the Church of England. But here we are met by those who impugn our principle of interpretation, the Dissenters, whether Romish or Protestant, who very fairly demand why more of deference should be paid to the English Church than to any of their own sects; to the English than to the foreign reformers; to Cranmer, Ridley, and Parker, than to Zuinglius, Calvin, or Beza; to this objection other answers may be given, but I only know of one which is of any weight, and which has always been adduced ever since the Reformation by all the divines who have adhered to the principles of the English reformers.1 Looking to the principles upon which the Reformation of the Church of England was conducted, to the strict regard our reformers paid to the voice of antiquity, to their avowed determination to adhere to the unquestioned and unquestionable tradition of doctrine universally received, they contend, and affirm their readiness to prove, that in our Ritual, Liturgy, Articles and Formularies, is embodied all that is essential of the traditional doctrine of the Universal Church; and that, therefore, in deferring to them, we defer not to the decision of a few individuals, but to the tradition universally received in those early ages when, on all subjects relating to doctrine or to discipline, a strict correspondence was kept up between all the branches of the Church Universal. And this

1 To those who are desirous of seeing how invariably this rule has been observed by our great standard writers, I may recommend "The Judgment of the Anglican Church, posterior to the Reformation, on the sufficiency of the Holy Scripture and the authority of the Holy Catholic Church, in matters of faith, by John F. Russell, B.C.L. of St. Peter's College, Cambridge." See also the incomparable Appendix to Bishop Jebb's Sermons; Churton's "Church of England a Witness and Keeper of the Catholic Tradition;" Poole's very learned Sermons on the Creed: an admirable Discourse on Tradition, by Mr. Cartwright, Minister of the Jews' Episcopal Chapel; and Keble's Visitation Sermon.

tradition they regard, not as the Romanists regard their falsified traditions, as supplementary to Scripture, as conveying doctrines which are not contained in Scripture (for they subscribe to the 6th of our articles), but merely as confirmatory of the true meaning of Scripture, whenever Scripture is ambiguous or doubtful. Now this is, possibly, in the minds of some, a bad answer to the Dissenter, an untenable defence, and any one has a perfect right to supply us with a better if he can. But surely there is no ground for division, no ground here for our splitting into parties and factions, no ground for those fears which the wicked would suggest, and by which the weak are irritated. If those who contend for the authority of tradition contend at the same time that all necesary tradition is preserved in our Church, the very summit of their offending, so far as those who are in the Church are concerned, can only be an error in judgment, a mistake in opinion. By all parties within the pale, the same principle is recognised and acted upon; and the real debate is with those who are without the pale, who ridicule, as inconsistent and absurd, the deference which all clergymen acknowledge themselves bound to pay to the authoritative documents of the Church of England.

So again with respect to the Sacraments. On this subject all must admit that the language of the Church of England is peculiarly strong. In her holy jealousy for the two divine ordinances of Baptism and the Supper of the Lord, she withholds the title of Sacrament, in the sense she applies it to them, from all other religious rites, however sacred, however apostolical in their institution, however much the subordinate means of grace. She declares the Sacraments to be generally necessary to salvation, and she defines a Sacrament thus necessary to salvation, as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof "—a means to convey grace, a pledge to assure the worthy recipient of its illation. Of Baptism she states the inward grace, of which it is the means, to be a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness."1 She quotes the 3rd chapter of St. John,2 in

-See Note F.

2 Bishop Kaye, in his Tertullian, p. 483, observes that the ancients uniformly interpreted our Lord's address, in this chapter, to Nicodemus, as relating to Baptism. This is also shewn by Wall, in his history of Infant Baptism. Bishop

which the necessity of a new birth is asserted, as a chapter implying, on that account, "the great necessity of Baptism where it can be had ;" in the Baptismal offices she expressly connects the regeneration of infants always, and of adults duly qualified, with Baptism; in the office for Confirmation she does the same; in the Homilies, the Font is designated as 66 the Fountain of our Regeneration,' "2 while it is insinuated that by Baptism we are justified ;3 and she teaches our children in the Catechism that they were at Baptism made members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven. With reference to the other sacrament, she asserts that the body of Christ is "given, taken, received, and eaten in the Supper;" the Eucharist itself she styles the Communion, (that is, the communication), of the body and blood of Christ our Saviour. And we are told that those who are duly qualified spiritually eat therein the flesh of Christ and drink his blood. We are directed when we receive the Eucharist to pray God to grant that we may so eat the flesh of his dear Son Jesus Christ and drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood ;" and "that receiving the creatures of bread and wine we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood." And after communicating, we thank God for that he doth "vouchsafe to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ." In the homilies, we are exhorted to hold that "in the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent ;" and we are told that the faithful "receive not only the outward sacrament, but the spiritual thing also, not the figure but the truth, not the shadow but the body;" finally, our children are taught that the inward part of the Eucharist is "the body and blood of Christ which are verily and indeed Beveridge, as quoted by Bishop Mant, observes, "What Christ means of being born of Water and of the Spirit, is now made a question; I say now, for it was never made so till of late years. For many ages together none ever doubted it, but the whole Christian world took it for granted that our Saviour meant only by these words, that except a man be baptized according to his institution, he cannot enter the kingdom of God; this being the most plain and obvious sense of the words. forasmuch as there is none other way of being born again of Water as well as of the Spirit, but only in the Sacrament of Baptism."-Bishop Beveridge's Works, i. 304.

taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." Now these expressions are so strong that many pious and well-meaning men have regarded them as sufficient to justify their secession from our communion; while more violent controversialists have not hesitated to denounce the English Church for retaining them, as semipopish, if not absolutely papistical. They both censure our baptismal office, and affirm that our doctrine of the Eucharist differs little, if at all, from the transubstantiation of the Romanist, or, at all events, from the consubstantiation of the Lutheran,-dogmas equally unphilosophical and unscriptural. The English Churchman, then, is here placed on the defensive, and the defence is conducted in two ways. Some persons admit (without questioning) the accuracy of our opponents in their notions of sacramental efficacy; and, seeing the manifest and glaring inconsistency between our services and those notions, regret that our reformers retained the expressions objected to, but at the same time contend that they do not of necessity bear the construction which is generally placed on them, but admit of a restricted meaning, more conformable with the view of the objector. Others there are who receive these expressions in all the simplicity and fulness of their meaning, and, thinking that they are amply borne out by Scripture, maintain that the English reformers, in the retention of them, used a wise discretion, and acted consistently on those Catholic principles to which they professed to adhere. These assume the offensive against our common objectors, and shew that, in confounding, as do the foreign reformers, regeneration with renovation,—a change of spiritual state, circumstances, and relations, and an election to grace, with a subsequent change of disposition, heart, and temper,-the objectors are themselves in error; and are equally unscriptural in the very low notions they entertain of the grace conveyed to the faithful in the other Sacrament. And thus, since no one but a man equally void of integrity, and regardless of the sanctity of an oath, would presume to alter our baptismal office or the Liturgy, to make them square with his private views; the only question among Churchmen is whether the words we use in common will, or will not, by fair construction, bear the interpretation which some persons put upon them. If, after fair disenssion, it is found they cannot, of course those who think that the expressions used in our offices are anti-scrip

tural will quit our communion, and the discus sion will then be one relating to principle, and the debate will be as to the meaning of the words of Scripture. Until it comes to this,our differences of opinion ought surely not to lead to disunion among ourselves.

We now come to the doctrine of the Apostolical Succession. On this subject no controversy existed at the time of the Reformation. It was, at that time, as it had been for 1,500 years, taken for granted that no man might presume to minister in sacred things, unless he were first appointed to the office by persons having authority to make the appointment by their regular succession from the apostles. Upon this point no one is more eloquent or more decided than our own reforming Archbishop, Dr. Cranmer Accordingly, when in the reign of Elizabeth the Thirty nine Articles were agreed upon in a convocation of our clergy, the doctrine was assumed: "It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public preaching or administering the Sacraments in the congregation before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same. And those we ought to judge lawfully called and sent which be chosen and called to this work by men who have public authority given unto them in "—not by, but in—“the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord's vineyard." But the point being settled that there are some persons in the congregation or Church who have powers to ordain, the question is who those persons are? This was the question in debate at the Reformation, and it is easily answered so far as the Church of England is concerned, since it was settled, before the Thirty-nine Articles were received, in the ordinal, in which it is affirmed: "It is evident to all men diligently reading the Scriptures and the ancient authors, that from the Apostles' time there have been these three orders of ministers in Christ's Church, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons." In the order for consecrating Bishops, as well as in the Ordination Service, she speaks of the offices of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons as offices divinely instituted; and, if instituted by God, of course they cannot be lawfully abolished. But it is a point not controverted, that wherever these officers exist, the power of ordination rests with the first, assisted by the second.

It either is a fact that a society of believers, organised without the episcopal order, is not a Church, but merely a sect not organised