the fifth of November, as remodelled in the reign of King William; and again from the protest of the Lower House of Convocation at that date, on this very subject, which would have had no force, except as proceeding upon recognized usages. The circumstance here alluded to was as follows. In 1689

the Upper House of Convocation agreed on an address to King William, to thank him "for the grace and goodness expressed in his message, and the zeal shown in it for the Protestant Religion in general, and the Church of England in particular." To this phrase the Lower House objected, as importing, as Birch in his Life of Tillotson says, “their owning common union with the foreign Protestants." A conference between the two Houses ensued, when the Bishops supported their wording of the address, on the ground that the Protestant Religion was the known denomination of the common doctrine of such parts of the West as had separated from Rome. The Lower House proposed, with other alterations of the passage, the words "Protestant Churches," for "Protestant Religion," being unwilling to acknowledge religion as separate from the Church. The Upper House in turn amended thus," the interest of the Protestant Religion in this and all other Protestant Churches;" but the Lower House, still jealous of any diminution of the English Church by this comparison with foreign Protestants, persisted in their opposition, and gained at length that the address, after thanking the King for his zeal for the Church of England, should proceed to anticipate, that thereby" the interest of the Protestant Religion in" [not "this and" but]" all other Protestant Churches would be better secured." Birch adds, "the King well understood why this address omitted the thanks which the Bishops had recommended, for .... the zeal which he had shown for the Protestant Religion; and why there was no expression of tenderness to the Dissenters, and but a cool regard to the Protestant Churches."

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 the mistake, already mentioned, of the specific VOL. III.-71.

D

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 tacitly yielded 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 I am 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.

(SECOND EDITION.)

These Tracts are published Quarterly, 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.

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 and 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 Hoadley.-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's Life of Archbishop Laud.-Rivingtons.

Jones (of Nayland) on the Church.

Bp. Bethell on Baptismal Regeneration.-Rivingtons.

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.
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.