Mary as the highest and purest of creatures; to regard the Roman Church with affection and reverence; and to hold a Pope's dogmatic decree, as at least exempt from our criticism and comment. It is impossible for our opinions to

d

It then only in Even

It has been considered by some, that subscription to our XIXth Article requires the formation and expression of an opinion that the formal doctrine of the Roman Church is erroneous in some particular; but a very little consideration will shew, that no one is at all committed by this Article to so painfully presumptuous a sentiment. The article gives a definition of the Visible Church, and then at once proceeds to call the Church of Rome a Church; so much then at once follows, that the Article implies the (local) Church of Rome to be part of that "congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." asserts that, like other Churches the Church of Rome hath erred "not their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith." without commenting on the significant use of the word 'their,' which really seems to me at once to point to members of the Church of Rome, the general scope of the Article is quite sufficient for my purpose. For, as is plain, the Church of Rome is here asserted to have erred in matters of faith,' exactly in the same sense in which she is asserted to have erred in 'living.' Now there is literally no meaning in the assertion, that the abstract Church of Rome has erred in their living;' it must by absolute necessity be certain of her concrete members who have so erred: certain of her concrete members then it is, who are here asserted to have erred in matters of faith, i. e. of religious belief. This sentiment I most fully hold; for instance, many of the opinions held by some in Rome, at various times, on the subject of purgatory, are held, I suppose, by very few educated Roman Catholics at the present day.

I subscribe then the Article in the following sense: I take it to affirm, that whereas the Visible Church of Christ is a certain congregation of faithful men, &c., every local Church, included in that body, will contain members not only who act wickedly, not only who are superstitiously addicted to outward observances, but also who err on one point or other of religious belief. If this appears the solemn enunciation of a mere truism, I quite admit that it is so: but so far am I from allowing that a probability thence follows of its not having been a sense intended by the Convocation of the time to be admissible, that, on the contrary, nothing seems so natural, as that when a large number of persons meet together of most opposite opinions, each protesting against what clashes with his own, the result of the various eliminations shall be a formula, which gives no offence to any, because it contains no specific meaning whatever. The reader should be reminded, that in my pamphlets, three years since, I distinctly charged the Reformers with fully tolerating the absence from the Articles of any real anti-Roman determination, so only they were allowed to preserve an apparent one: a charge which I here beg, as distinctly, to repeat. I should not close this note without observing, that at first sight of the Latin Version, (which according to Bp. Burnet's account is neither of greater nor of less authority than the English,) the interpretation I have given

pain them, more than theirs pain us; yet it will, I think, be confessed by all, that the British Critic has, in a surprising degree, refrained from all unfavourable comment on highchurchmen' of a different complexion. Speaking again merely of myself; I have used language of very considerable respect and deference to Archdeacon Manning, Mr. Dodsworth, Mr. Heurtley, Dr. Hook, Dr. Jelf, Mr. Ernest Hawkins; and have in no one instance spoken of such divines in a different tone; and so, with regard to the other two writers I just now mentioned, for Mr. Wilson, though most slightly acquainted with him, I entertain feelings of extreme regard and respect; to Mr. Williams I look up with (I trust) single-minded love and reverence. On any positive doctrine which persons, such as some of these, should maintain as dear and precious to them, it would indeed be a matter of long and painful deliberation before I could bring myself to dissent from their judgment; but I have pleasure in believing that such is not the case: on the other hand, even Saints may be wholly mistaken on matters beyond their personal experience; much less can I follow even such excellent men as these, when they venture to attack Saints. But why may we not hold our respective opinions

appears less obvious than it does in the English; mainly from the words 'agenda' and 'credenda,' which seem at first sight to speak of formal appointment. This mistake, however, is removed on closer inspection; for the words are 'quæ credenda sunt,' not fuerunt; things which are matters of belief, or things which (as being true) ought to be believed.

I am of course quite aware that the whole of the present argument will be considered as dishonest special pleading by those who will not give themselves the trouble to look candidly at the wording of our Articles, and fairly to examine the allegation of disingenuousness brought against their framers. Nor do I deny, rather I have plainly said, that the first blush of the Article appears to imply some reflection on the formal doctrine of the Church of Rome: this indeed will make it a more unexceptionable evidence, for the truth of the view which I maintain. For I challenge any objector to give any meaning to the Article, word by word, which can, by possibility, bring the formal doctrine of Rome within its scope. For example, if the phrase had been their precepts, although the pronoun their' would still have been a difficulty, it might have been plausibly enough maintained, that the formal teaching of Rome on moral points is condemned in the first clause, and by parity of reasoning her formal teaching on doctrinal points in the last. But the phrase being, as it is, their living,' any such attempt is impossible.

in mutual love and charity, and possess our souls in peace? Why may we not hope, that by building on our many subjects of agreement, their number may be even increased? Why, when heresy and infidelity are at our very doors, shall we waste that force in intestine divisions, which should rather be directed by our united efforts against the common foe? When the Spartan in time of war was challenged by a fellowsoldier to single combat, 'rather,' he replied, let us decide the quarrel by our comparative prowess in to-morrow's engagement with the enemy.' Let our zeal, accordingly, whether for the more Anglican or more Roman phase of doctrine, lead us not to barren and wasteful invectives; but to a fair trial of the experiment, which will give us the most effectual help in evangelizing our large towns, in promoting holiness of life, in restoring essential orthodoxy of faith.

8. In a word then, if it be asked by high-churchmen' of what are called more moderate opinions, on what grounds a person can feel real attachment to our Church, who should hold such opinions as those maintained in several parts of the British Critic, how he can defend himself for remaining in our Church, and in what course of action such attachment will display itself; the following answers may be given :

I. We feel attachment to our Church, because through it we were born again, and because through its ordinances we obtain communion with Christ. I have never for one moment wavered in this conviction, from my first article in the British Critic to my last; and here is a marked difference between the attachment entertained by English Churchmen to their Church, and that felt by Dissenters of various classes to their respective Societies. If Dissenters enjoy Communion with Christ, (and I rejoice in believing that very many do enjoy it,) it is not through their Church that they enjoy such Communion, nor do they profess it to be so; but our Church is a channel of Sacramental grace.

II. On the second head, an answer to the objectors is equally ready. The English Church, they are even forward in asserting, had not its origin in the Reformation, but has existed from far earlier times. Whereas then no one accuses

them of disloyalty in preferring the seventeenth century to the nineteenth, what shadow of ground can there be for accusing us of disloyalty any more, in preferring the thirteenth century to either?

III. To the last question the foregoing pages, for some way back, have been one continued reply. In addition to the other demonstrations of attachment, specified in an earlier part of the chapter, we now see much more strongly, how great a scope her children have at the present time for indulging that sentiment: by fixing their thoughts mainly on the circumstances of her position;' by studying foreign systems, past and present, with the one object of gathering from them what may be suitable to these circumstances; by endeavouring to obtain some little insight into that hitherto unexplored abyss, our doctrinal and practical corruptions; above all, by endeavouring to save her from that root of all other national and ecclesiastical sins, which for three hundred years has been our peculiar note of disgrace, I mean pride.

CHAPTER IV.

DOES OUR EXISTING SYSTEM RESEMBLE THAT OF THE EARLY

CENTURIES?

1. THAT Our Church differs, in a vast number of most important particulars, from the Church abroad, is agreed on all hands; but it is usual for high-churchmen' to say, that Rome has departed from the primitive model, and England has not. This is an opinion which stands directly in our way, before entering on the proposed examination of the English practical system; for certainly, if that system be substantially the same which prevailed in the Church of the Fathers, the most ordinary modesty must forbid one from assailing or questioning it. By 'primitive model,' it may be taken for granted, is meant the first five centuries,' at least; for although Mr. Stanley Faber speaks of the fourth century as grossly apostatical,' and one or two other modern highchurch' writers may hold similar language, nothing can be adduced in proof of our Church professing to follow Antiquity at all, which does not include those centuries under the name of Antiquity. The period of the four first Councils, on this, if on any, has the English' high-churchman' ever taken his stand. In this moderately sized volume of sermons, [the Homilies,]' says Mr. Perceval, 'I have noted forty citations from Augustine only. It is not necessary, however, to say more on so plain a matter. This opinion then, which maintains the substantial agreement of our present system with the primitive, must be briefly considered; not that I profess in the least to exhaust the subject, but on the contrary, only to throw out hints, which others may follow up who are versed in the history of those times.