Another great practical error of members of our Church, has been their mode of defending its doctrines; and this has arisen, not from any direction of the Church itself, but, as it would appear, from mistaking, as already mentioned, the specific protests contained in its Articles for that Catholic system, which is the rightful inheritance of it as well as other branches of the Church. We have indeed too often fought the Romanists on wrong grounds, and given up to them the high principles maintained by the early Church. We have indirectly opposed the major premise of our opponents' argument, when we should have denied the fact expressed in the minor. For instance; they have maintained that Transubstantiation was an Apostolical doctrine, as having been ever taught every where in the Church. We instead of denying this fact as regards Transubstantiation, have acted as if it mattered very little whether it were true or not, (whereas the principle is most true and valuable,) and have proceeded to oppose Transubstantiation on supposed grounds of reason. Again, we have argued for the sole Canonicity of the Bible to the exclusion of tradition, not on the ground that the Fathers so held it, (which would be an irrefragable argument,) but on some supposed internal witness of Scripture to the fact, or some abstract and antecedent reasons against the Canonicity of unwritten teaching. Once more, we have argued the unscripturalness of image worship as its only condemnation; a mode of argument, which one would be very far indeed from pronouncing untenable, but which opens the door to a multitude of refined distinctions and pleas; whereas the way lay clear before us to appeal to history, to appeal to the usage of the early Church Catholic, to review the circumstances of the introduction of image worship, the Iconoclast controversy, the Council of Frankfort, and the late reception of the corruption in the West.

So much then, on the objections which may be urged against the English Church, which relate either to mere omissions not positive errors, or again to faults in the practical working of the system, and are in these respects dissimilar from those which lie against the Church of Rome, and which relate to clear and direct perversions and corruptions of divine truth. Should it, however, be asked, whence our knowledge of the truth should be

derived, since there is so much of meagreness and mistake in our more popular expounders of it, it may be replied, first, that the writings of the Fathers contain abundant directions how to ascertain it; next, that their directions are distinctly propounded and supported by our Divines of the seventeenth century, though little comparatively at present is known concerning those great authors. Nor could a more acceptable or important service be done to our Church at this present moment, than the publication of some systematic introduction to theology, embodying and illustrating the great and concordant principles and doctrines set forth by Hammond, Taylor, and their brethren before and after them.

Lastly, Should it be inquired whether this admission of incompleteness in our own system does not lead to projects of change and reform, on the part of individuals; it must be answered plainly in the negative. Such an admission has but reference to the question of abstract perfection; as a practical matter, it will be our wisdom as individuals to enjoy what God's good providence has left us, lest, striving to obtain more, we lose what we still possess.

OXFORD.

The Feast of the Circumcision.

[THIRD EDITION.]

These Tracts are continued in Numbers, and sold at the price of 2d. for each sheet, or 7s. for 50 copies.

LONDON: PRINTED FOR J. G. & F. RIVINGTON,

ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE.

1838.

GILBERT & RIVINGTON, Printers, St. John's Square, London.

The following Works, all in single volumes, or pamphlets, and recently published, will be found more or less to uphold or elucidate the general doctrines inculcated in these Tracts :

Bp. Taylor on Repentance, by Hale.-Rivingtons.
Bp. Taylor's Golden Grove.-Parker, Oxford.

Vincentii Lirinensis Commonitorium, with translation.— Parker, Oxford.

Pusey on Cathedrals and Clerical Education.-Roake & Varty.
Hook's University Sermons.-Talboys, Oxford.

Pusey on Baptism (published separately).-Rivingtons.
Newman's Sermons, 3 vols.-Rivingtons.

Newman on Romanism, &c.-Rivingtons.

The Christian Year.-Parker, Oxford.
Lyra Apostolica.-Rivingtons.

Perceval on the Roman Schism.-Leslie.
Bishop Jebb's Pastoral Instructions.-Duncan.
Dodsworth's Lectures on the Church.-Burns.
Newman on Suffragan Bishops.-Rivingtons.
Keble's Sermon on Tradition.-Rivingtons.
Memoir of Ambrose Bonwick.-Parker, Oxford.
Hymns for Children on the Lord's Prayer.-Rivingtons.
Law's first and second Letters to Hoadly.-Rivingtons.
Bp. Andrews's Devotions. Latin and Greek.-Pickering.
Hook's Family Prayers.-Rivingtons.

Herbert's Poems and Country Pastor.
Evans's Scripture Biography.-Rivingtons.

Le Bas' Life of Archbishop Laud.-Rivingtons.

Jones (of Nayland) on the Church.

Bp. Bethell on Baptismal Regeneration.-Rivingtons.
Bp. Beveridge's Sermons on the Ministry and Ordinances.—

Parker, Oxford.

Bp. Jolly on the Eucharist.

Fulford's Sermons on the Ministry, &c.-Rivingtons
Rose's Sermons on the Ministry.-Rivingtons.
A Catechism on the Church.-Parker, Oxford.
Russell's Judgment of the Anglican Church.-Baily.
Poole's Sermons on the Creed.-Grant, Edinburgh.
Sutton on the Eucharist.-Parker, Oxford.
Leslie on the Regale and Pontificate.-Leslie.
Pusey's Sermon on November 5.-Rivingtons.
Bishop Wilson's Sacra Privata.-Parker, Oxford.

Larger Works which may be profitably studied.

Bishop Bull's Sermons.-Parker, Oxford.
Bishop Bull's Works.-University Press.
Waterland's Works.-Do.

Wall on Infant Baptism.-Do.

Pearson on the Creed.-Do.

Leslie's Works.-Do.

Bingham's Works.-Straker, London.

Palmer on the Liturgy.-University Press.

Palmer on the Church.-Rivingtons.

Hooker, ed. Keble.-Do.

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

ARCHBISHOP USSHER ON PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD.

(Against Romanism.—No. 2.)

ADVERTISEMENT.

ONE great unfairness practised by Roman controversialists, has been to adduce, in behalf of their own peculiarities, doctrines or customs of the Primitive Church, which, resembling them in appearance, are really of a different character. Thus, because the early Fathers spoke of the Holy Communion in such reverent and glowing terms, as became those who understood its real nature and virtue, they have tried to make it appear that they believed in their own theory of Transubstantiation. Whereas they spoke of it as a commemorative sacrifice, they have thence taken occasion to make it a real and proper sacrifice. The doctrine of ecclesiastical penances, they have converted into the theory of satisfactions to Almighty God for sins committed. The existence of Apostolical Tradition, in the early Church, in behalf of the doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation and the like, has been made a pretence for introducing so called Apostolical Traditions concerning various unfounded opinions in faith and practice.

But in no instance is this fallacious procedure more strikingly seen than as regards their doctrine of Purgatory, which they defend by notions and usages in the early Church, quite foreign to the distressing tenet which we challenge them to prove. This is shown with great learning and ability by the celebrated Archbishop Ussher in his Controversy with a Jesuit. At a time like the present, when many persons are in doubt whether they are not driven to an alternative of either giving up the primitive Fathers or embracing Popery, it may be useful to reprint the chapter on this subject from Ussher's work in a separate form.

OF PRAYER FOR THE DEAD.

INTRODUCTION.

PRAYER for the dead, as it is used in the Church of Rome, doth necessarily suppose Purgatory; and therefore whatsoever hath been alleged out of the Scriptures and Fathers against the one, doth stand in full force against the other so that here we need not actum agere, and make a new work of overthrowing that which hath been sufficiently beaten down already. But on the other side, the admittal of Purgatory doth not necessarily infer Prayer for the dead: nay, if we shall suppose, with our adversaries, that Purgatory is the prison from whence none shall come out until they have paid the utmost farthing, their own paying, and not other men's praying, must be the thing they are to trust unto, if ever they look to be delivered out of that jail, Our Romanists indeed do commonly take it for granted, that

"Purgatory and Prayer for the dead be so closely linked together that the one doth necessarily follow the other;"

but in so doing they reckon without their host, and greatly mistake the matter. For howsoever they may deal with their own devices as they please, and link their prayers with their Purgatory as closely as they list; yet shall they never be able to shew, that the Commemoration and Prayers for the dead, used by the ancient Church, had any relation with their Purgatory; and therefore, whatsoever they were, Popish prayers we are sure they were not. I easily foresee, that the full opening of the judgment of the Fathers in this point will hardly stand with that brevity which I intended to use in treating of these questions; the particulars be so many, that necessarily do incur into the handling of this argument. But I suppose the reader will be content rather to dispense with me in that behalf, than be sent away unsatisfied in a matter wherein the adversary beareth himself confident beyond measure, that the whole stream of antiquity runneth clearly upon his side.