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 naturemay 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.)

66 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 1 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 lɛáv0ρwños, 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."

'The Italics are Bp. Beveridge's.

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 ultraProtestants 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 your 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 noticed1. 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

1 A new series of "Tracts against Romanism" had meanwhile been actually commenced, although not then published.