ordinances, we must have also primitive purity and primitive discipline. To restore privileges before we restore strictness of life, were to begin at the wrong end. But our Church, as has recently been in a very elaborate sentence decided', condemns not such prayers, and why should we take upon ourselves to pronounce, where she has thought it most becoming to be silent, or restrain the liberty, which she has left unfettered?

Invocation of Saints.

There is however another subject ordinarily connected with this (though in truth not very naturally) upon which our Church has not been silent, "Invocation of the departed saints," and it is not without some amazement, even with continued experience of the carelessness of controversy, that I find it supposed that we have on this point contravened the direct teaching of our Church. I can scarcely adequately represent to your Lordship how much care was taken to prevent any mistakes upon the subject, or how strange the mis-statements which have been made. In brief, they consist in representing us as approving that which was in the Tracts directly condemned. The case was this: on several grounds it was thought useful to translate a portion of the Breviary; such were the following 2, "to claim whatever is good and true "in those devotions for the Church Catholic in oppo

1 The office of the Judge promoted in Breeks v. Woolfrey, given fully in the Brit. Mag. vol. xv. p. 91.

2 Tracts, No. 75. p. 1, 2.

"sition to the Roman Church, whose only real claim "above other Churches is that of having adopted into

the Service certain additions and novelties, ascer"tainable to be such in history, as well as being cor"ruptions doctrinally." (2) To illustrate our own Prayer-book as being taken from it; (3) to suggest matter for our private devotions; (4) to "impress a "truer sense of the excellence and profitableness of

66

the Psalms, than it is the fashion of this age to “entertain;” (5) by showing the corruptions to be of a later date, to add one more "fact, discriminating "and separating off the Roman from the Primitive "Church." It was observed again that " these 1 por"tions of the Breviary" [the invocations to the Virgin and other Saints] "carry with them their own plain "condemnation in the judgment of an English Christ"ian; no commendation of the general structure and "matter of the Breviary itself will have any tendency "to reconcile him to them; and it has been the "strong feeling that this is really the case, that has "led the writer of these pages fearlessly and se"curely to admit the real excellences, and to dwell upon the antiquity of the Roman ritual. He has "felt, that since the Romanists required an unquali"fied assent to the whole of the Breviary, and that "there were passages, which no Anglican could "ever admit, praise the true Catholic portion of it as "much as he might, he did not in the slightest de

66

gree approximate to a recommendation of Roman"ism." This however was not all; for after distinguishing the different parts of these corrupt additions, it was said that even those least objectionable, "now " do but sanction and encourage that direct worship of "the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, which is the great

66

66

practical offence of the Latin Church, and so are a "serious evil." Then it was pointed out that the oldest of these forms were the least objectionable, and were of a different kind from those now common in the Roman Church; still though "more could be said "towards their justification than for those other addresses," they " are now," it was said, "a serious evil;" it was not said that they could be justified, much less were they recommended; it was only said that more could be said towards it; but that they were “a se"rious evil.” Having, as it would seem, thus guarded against all possibility of mistake, the writer of this Tract proceeded to translate whole portions of the Breviary, as it stands, exhibiting together both the true Catholic portion and the Romanist additions, but referring back in almost every case to the pages of the preface in which these had been thus decidedly condemned. Now it will scarcely seem credible, my Lord, that the sole foundation for the allegation, that we" advocate prayers to the saints," are those very extracts from the Breviary in which they are so manifoldly condemned; that because we would "reappropriate to the Catholic Church, in opposition to the Roman Church," "the true Catholic portion" of the

66

Breviary, (which the Romanists have never entrusted their people with in their own tongue,) therefore it is asserted that we would reappropriate those very prayers which we distinguish from it; that when we speak of the least of these corruptions as a “se"rious evil," we would wish to "reappropriate" the greatest as a "treasure." But neither is this the whole extent of the misrepresentation, for in another Tract in the same volume, to which the attention could not but be called, as it was expressly “on the

1

"The 75th number of the Tracts for the Times is composed "of selections from the Romish Breviary, prepared and recom"mended for Protestant use; in the preface to which the editor

66

says, 'our adversaries have in this, as in many other instances, "appropriated to themselves a treasure' [viz. 'the true Catholic portion,' see above, p. 193] which was our's as much as their's. The "publication then of these selections is, as it were, an act of re'appropriation.' And among these prayers thus reappropriated to "Protestant use, we find the following," [whereon follows one of the class, p. 61. which had been expressly designated as "a serious evil" and two others, which fell under the same class.] "Prayers for "the dead, and prayers to the Saints are both advocated" [whereon follows a hymn, of which it is yet noted in the very margin, “It is "remarkable, that this hymn, which is the only one of those here "translated, which savours of Romanism, is the only one, except

66

one other, which is not known to be ancient ;" so that the translator again remarks the coincidence of Romish corruption and absence of proof of antiquity,] Essays, p. 289. Another writer says, "the whole is declared in the preface, to be a 'reappropriation of a treasure, which had long been lost."" Fraser, p. 23; and yet this same writer in the next page refers to the Tract in which "invocation of the saints" is mentioned among the "chief points to be "urged in controversy with Rome."

66

66

66

Controversy with the Romanists," "the invocation of "saints" is mentioned among "the1 practical grievances "to which Christians are subjected in the Roman "Communion, and which should be put in the fore"ground, in this controversy." The grounds also taken in that Tract are so decided that it may be satisfactory to transcribe what is said on this head 2. "6. The Invocation of Saints. Here again the practice should be considered, not the theory. Scrip"ture speaks clearly and solemnly about Christ as "the sole Mediator. When prayer to the Saints is "recommended at all times and places, as ever present guardians, and their good works pleaded in God's sight, is not this such an infringement upon the plain word of God, such a violation of our allegiance "to our only Saviour, as must needs be an insult to "Him? His honour, He will not give to another. "Can we with a safe conscience do it? Should we act "thus in a parallel case even with an earthly friend? "Does not St. John's example warn us against falling "down before angels? Does not St. Paul warn us against a voluntary humility and worshipping of

66

66

66

66

66

angels? And are not these texts indications of "God's will, which ought to guide our conduct? Is "it not safest not to pay them this extraordinary "honour? As an illustration of what I mean, I will quote the blessing pronounced by the Pope on the "assembled people at Easter:

66

1 No. 71. p. 9.

2 Ib. p. 13, 14.