such subtlety, as may both teach and tempt the unstable and insincere to comply with the laws, which require them to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to the said Book of Common Prayer, and to subscribe to the said Articles, and nevertheless to retain and propagate the very errors which are most inconsistent with such their declaration and subscription."

"Passages in the Liturgy and Thirty-nine Articles, wrested by Dr. Clarke in such manner, as is complained of in the representation,' are subsequently referred to, particularly In the second chapter he explains many passages in the Liturgy and Articles, contrary to the known sense of the church.'

Dr. Clarke having submitted, and expressed his "sorrow that what he had written had given offence to that synod, and also his hope that his behaviour for the time to come would be such as to prevent any further complaints against him," further proceedings were forborne.

I have dwelt on these cases at greater length than was necessary on the present occasion, not only because of their own important and deeply interesting character, but also because, at a time when every attempt to enforce discipline over the clergy is represented, by some men of that body, as an act of tyranny, if not of usurpation, I think it right to show, how different was the judgment of convocation itself at so recent a period as the early part of the last century. Had convocation been admitted to continue its sittings, were it now to sit and to perform its just and constitutional functions, we can hardly doubt, that much would have been done, and would now be doing, to check the spread of heretical and unsound doctrine in the church. But the silencing of convocation is only an additional reason why all those who cannot be silenced, or restrained, except by passing such laws as the one suggested, those, to whom the laws of God and of the church have committed authority and jurisdiction in these matters, should not be deterred from the discharge of an onerous duty, by the clamour of interested partizans-by the petulance and wilfulness of ignorant multitudes, of both sexes, assembled in one of the Halls of Declamation, under the nominal guidance, it may be, of some not less ignorant, though more exalted individual, than the most ignorant of the crowd before him; no, nor even by the threat of costs, which, in every case, necessarily great, may be swelled to the most extravagant amount, by the reckless profusion of party subscriptions, and the vexatious astuteness of those who profit by them.

But I return to the vindication of the Prayer-book, assailed, as it is, under the specious pretence of a "Defence of the Articles." The author characterizes it as "a collection of national formularies of devotion, written at a period when a large portion of the people were inclined to Romanism, and at the same time compelled to attend the services of the national churches, and consequently carefully drawn up, so as to give as little offence as possible to Romish prejudices."

A more fallacious (I am unwilling to say, a more fraudulent) description of our Prayer-book could hardly be devised. That the Prayers were compiled and arranged at the beginning of the Reformation, is very true that they were written (that is, originally made) at that time, is altogether untrue. They were, for the most part, of a date

*

long anterior to the corruptions and usurpation of Rome-being handed down from the devotions of the ancient church, and thus forming an illustrious monument of our communion with it. So far, indeed, were the compilers from seeking to conciliate the Romanists, that in the 2nd Book of Edward VI., altered from the former Book, of a date only three years earlier, a clause was introduced into the Liturgy, which alone is sufficient to expose the disingenuousness or the ignorance which prompted that description of our Prayer-book which I have just read to you. After the words, "from all sedition and privy conspiracy," was thrust this unchristian addition, "From the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities," Good Lord deliver us. Happily, so monstrous a violation of Christian charity was not permitted long to pollute our Liturgy. Queen Elizabeth (honoured be her memory for it!) in the very commencement of her reign, by the very statute which restored to us the most precious of all the legacies of her martyred reformers, the Book of Common Prayer, struck out of it this one disgraceful passage-and this only.

Is this the particular, by which the "Defender of the Articles" makes good his description of our Liturgy, that it was "carefully drawn up so as to give as little offence as possible to Romish prejudices." If it be, let him, and his abettors, exult in the discovery. But let them contradict, if they can, the assertion, which I now make, that the Book of Common Prayer contains matter incomparably stronger in reprobation of Romish doctrine, than any in the Articles.

Of transubstantiation, for instance, the Articles say, that it. "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture-overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Again, "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped," and this is all. Now, what says the Prayer-book of this worship of bread and wine, of which the Articles pronounce no more, than that it was "not an ordinance of Christ ?" Look to the statement at the end of the office of Communion, in explanation of our kneeling, when we receive the Holy Sacrament. "It is here declared, that hereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental bread and wine, there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For, the sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and, therefore, may not be adored; for that were idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians."

Thus we see, that if the Articles were, as this writer contends they ought to be, our sole standard, a clergyman might, openly in his church, worship the consecrated elements, with the adoration due to God Himself, yet not be liable to any censure; for he would only do something not ordained by Christ. Whereas, so long as the Book of Common Prayer shall be permitted to retain its doctrinal authority, he wouldas we rejoice to know-be judged guilty of " Idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians."

Shall we then tamely and quietly submit to the introduction of one of the worst corruptions of Rome? Must this be the price, or part of

[* There is probably some incorrectness on the part of the reporter in this passage, as the sentence in question was introduced into the Litany by Henry VIII—ED.]

the price-for it would be only part-which we have to pay for the high privilege of denying the catholic faith of the first fifteen centuries, and rejecting God's regenerating grace in his own holy baptism?

True it is, that the very nature of a book of prayer does not often admit of its thus directly giving expression to dogmatic truths. Yet in no way is the doctrinal soundness of a church tested more perfectly than by its Liturgy; for its Liturgy, be it remembered, is its religion. 1 What is the case of the Church of Rome? and how do we dea with it? Its professed Articles of Faith are known to be a most inadequate exponent of its real doctrine, as carried out in its public worship. In order to ascertain, for instance, the nature of the honour and veneration paid to the blessed Virgin and the saints, we look not merely to the Decrees of Trent, or the Creed of Pius IV.-for there is little in them, which, if the Virgin and the saints are really cognizant of what we do on earth, could be severely censured-but we have recourse to the ritual, the breviary, and other authoritative offices of devotion, and from what we find in them, we justly charge that church with doing dishonour to the sole mediatorship of Christ, even if it offend not still more fatally.

Now, if we make Rome answerable for the doctrine carried out in its public worship, we cannot refuse to recognise the same principle, as applicable to ourselves-we must admit, therefore, that our church's doctrine is, in part, and in a very main part, to be sought in our Common Prayer.

But I return to the alleged Romanizing tendency of the Prayer-book. The only instance ever specified now-a-days, so far as I am aware, is the acknowledgment of the power of absolution in our priesthood, and the terms in which absolution is pronounced in the office of visitation for the sick. We all know that this part of our Liturgy has been remarked upon, as a remnant of Popery, in quarters where more of soundness, at least, if not of knowledge, might reasonably be looked for.

In answer to such remarks, by whomsoever made, suffice it to say, that the form, which they thus condemn, is no more than the exercise of a power left by our Lord to His church, in the Apostles, with whom He promised to be "always, even unto the end of the world." Will the Defender of the Articles" join in saying, that this is a concession to Romish prejudices? If he does, let him be aware how far the charge will reach. The Articles are as open to it as the Prayer-book; for the thirty-sixth says of "the Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons," in which this power is conferred, that it "doth contain all things necessary to such consecration and ordering; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly." To you, my reverend brethren, I will not say anything in vindication of the assertion of this power. You know that it is a power which the church has ever thankfully acknowledged to have been given to her by her Divine Head-and which no particular church can ever surrender, without cutting itself off from the catholic church of Christ, and therein from Christ himself.

I have done with this writer's insinuations of the Romanizing character of the Prayer-book. But I must still detain you with some observations on the most surprising (and, in truth, the most important)

of all his claims of superiority for the Articles over the Liturgy-that which relates to the doctrines of the Sacraments. Here, indeed, we find what is at the bottom of the whole. "It is well known," he says, "that the attempt to raise a private interpretation of a portion of the Prayer-book, with reference to one of the Sacraments, into a standard of faith, overruling the Article on the subject, is one great source of disquiet, and an instrument of oppression in the church." (I disdain to notice the personal attack here intended.) "But," he proceeds, "in the statute, the Articles on the doctrine of the Sacraments are especially and pointedly singled out, as the test, by assent to which soundness of doctrine on these points is to be judged."

Now, what is the fact? The 13th Elizabeth, imposing the duty of subscription to the Articles, requires that every priest or minister of God's Word, shall "declare his assent, and subscribe to all the articles of religion, which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a book, intituled "Articles, &c."

It has been doubted what Articles were here meant; whether all the Thirty-nine, or only such as are in the Act specified, as above, some of the Thirty-nine having manifestly no direct concern with either "the confession of the true Christian faith, or the doctrine of the Sacraments."

Mr. Bennett, in his "Essay on the Articles," is cited by our author as maintaining that all the Articles were intended by the Legislature, and that the words, "Doctrine of the Sacraments" were added, not as something distinct from the true Christian faith in general, but to denote that kar εoxny, and in a manner remarkably full and express, our church had delivered her sense, concerning the doctrine of the Sacraments, as the greatness, warmth, and importance of the controversies then on foot required.

That our author should gladly avail himself of such a testimony as this cannot surprise us. Neither can we be surprised at his omitting to remark, that the reason given by Mr. Bennett for the Legislature's thus specifying "the doctrine of the Sacraments," is somewhat at variance with the known facts of history.

For at the time when the Articles were framed, and even when subscription was enjoined by statute-times abundant, certainly, in religious controversy-scarcely any one particular was so little the subject of controversy, or question, as the church's doctrine of baptism of infants; but I dwell not on this. Any person who has ever read the statute, will only smile at Mr. Bennett's ascribing to the Legislature so pregnant a meaning as he finds, in its specifying the Articles of "the Doctrine of the Sacraments;" and yet it is only for the sake of this fanciful meaning that his authority has been quoted on the present occasion. In opposition to it (though it is scarcely worth opposing), I cite a contemporanea expositio of the statutes.

In 1575, assemblies were held of the Puritan ministers, at which certain conclusions, drawn up by Cartwright and Travers, their leaders, were delivered to the ministers for their direction. The following is one :

"If subscription to the Articles, and the Book of Common Prayer, be again urged, it is thought that the Book of Articles may be sub

scribed according to the statute 13th Eliz., that is, to such only as contain the sum of the Christian Faith and the Doctrine of the Sacraments. But neither the Book of Common Prayer, nor the rest of the Articles, may be allowed; no, though a man should be deprived of his ministry for refusing it." Neal, H. P. I. 278.-It may be important to add, that the doubt which existed respecting the meaning of the 13th Eliz., is no longer of any practical moment; for the present Act of Uniformity (as well as the 36th Canon of 1604) requires subscription generally to all the Articles.

It is not necessary to deal more largely with such grave trifling as this citation from Mr. Bennett. I proceed to prove that the Prayerbook, fully accordant as it is with the Articles on the doctrine of the Sacraments, does yet exhibit it with far more of clearness, and fulness, and precision.

From the very nature of the case, indeed, this was to be expected. One of the great uses of a prescribed Liturgy is to secure a pure stream of Christian doctrine running through the whole body of prayer, addressed, as it is, to God, in the name, whenever it be not by the lips, of the congregation at large; and so to protect the laity, whose rights are especially involved in all that concerns their Prayer-book, from having their common devotions marred by the ignorance, the conceit, or the heterodoxy of their minister.

And as this is true of public prayer in general, so it is more peculiarly true of ministering the Sacraments, in which the church not merely prays, but realizes both its devotion and its doctrine in outward actions. It is, moreover, necessary that it be made apparent that "the Sacraments be duly ministered;" for this, we know, is one of the distinctive notes of a sound branch of the catholic church. If baptism, therefore, be not " duly ministered"-if the form of ministering it do not contain all things necessary-if that form be corrupted by false or unsound statements, as to the necessity and benefits of the Sacraments the particular church, in whose baptismal office such corruptions have place, may cease to be, in just consideration, a church at all. Hence it is plain, that the real doctrine of every church concerning baptism, ought to be sought in the form of its ministration. Let us, for this purpose, make a summary survey of our own office of public baptism.

In it the church first declares the absolute necessity of that Sacrament, and the reason of that necessity-namely, "that all men are conceived and born in sin, and that none can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew, of water and of the Holy Ghost." The people are therefore desired to "call upon God, that of His bounteous mercy He will grant" to the child brought to baptism in the state of sin in which he was born, "that thing, which by nature he cannot have, that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost." They accordingly "call upon God for this infant, that he, coming to God's holy baptism, may receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration," thus expressing their faith according to the Nicene Creed that is, "acknowledging one baptism for the remission of sins." The Gospel is next read, which contains Christ's command that "little children be brought unto him;" His gracious reception of