168 BONNER ANd the traCTARIANS We do not desire entirely to overthrow the second as he did. We will wish it to continue for some time longer till our principles make further progress. But we trust the day will come, when we, also, shall exult as he exulted, when he saw the old system restored, and the second temple overthrown. The only difference in the parallel between the first and second temples of the Jews, and the first and second temples of ourselves and Bonner, is this; that the Jews rejoiced when they saw the second temple completed, and they wept when they remembered the first, and in this they resembled the Ultra-Protestants in the reign of Mary. Bonner and ourselves, on the contrary, weep over the second temple, and rejoice to restore the first. I defend Bonner on this point, to this extent only, that he desired to build that antient Catholic system, which I have called by way of distinction from the present Church of England, “the First Temple." He desired to reform, that is, to re-establish in England the foundations of the first templeprayers for the dead-the Roman Breviary-the doctrine of an actual sacrifice in the Eucharist-and all the things which we desire also to restore. He differed with us in this respect only. That he would have rebuilt, and he did rebuild, many of the pinnacles and battlements which he deemed an essential part of the temple of God, but which we do not. The question between Bonner and ourselves, therefore, is not one of principle, but of degree. We would not build quite so much as he did, but we do DESIRE A BETTER CHURCH AND WORship. 169 with him feel very anxious to make the second temple which our Reformers built, as much like the first temple as we can. The difficulty is to discover the precise model of the first temple. We cannot quite agree upon the exact plan. We are architects of the same school of design, but we are not fully agreed on the outline or the elevation, the interior or exterior, of the house we would build. This only we are agreed upon, that the second temple which our Reformers have created does not please us; and we are resolved, slowly, gradually, and patiently, with all submission to expostulation and reproof, with all contempt for ridicule, with silence when we cannot answer, with scorn for all who differ with us, and with canonizing praise of those who do agree with us; we are resolved to persevere till the second temple is more perfectly reformed after the model of the first; and the work of Cranmer, Ridley, Bucer, Peter Martyr, and the Ultra-Protestant Convocations of Edward the Sixth shall be changed till we are satisfied. If we do not thus restore the second temple to the model of the first, I would ask, why were our Tracts written at all? The second temple was built-it is built. The people, we must say, have long, too long indeed, been satisfied with its fair proportions. They go round about our Jerusalem, and tell the towers thereof. They mark well her bulwarks, that they may tell them that come after, and pray for the peace of their Jerusalem-but the city is still the second city-its walls are not its first 170 WE DESIRE TO RESTORE "ALTARS" walls-its temple is still the second temple, and, therefore, our Tracts are written to change all. If this is not so, why, I again ask, why were our Tracts written? The Protestant people did not ask for them. The Clergy did not require them. The young men were taught by their elders, and their elders were taught by the Fathers of the second temple, who were the Reformers of the first. All but ourselves were content with the Church as it is; we alone desired to make it such as those Reformers had not left it, and such as we think it ought to be. We alone thought that the Church demanded a second reformation. In the exercise of our own private judgment (we deride the private judgment which is not ours) we resolved to change the second temple. We are resolved, if we cannot pull down and destroy the second temple, to alter it as much as we can to the resemblance of the first temple, and never to rest till we recover the lost rod of Aaron, and the lost ark of the covenant. We are resolved, above all things, to restore "Altars" and remove "Tables;" to revive the actual sacrifice, and to destroy the mere commemorative feast, upon a sacrifice which is past and not present. We will restore prayers for the dead also as a portion of our communion with the Catholic Church. We will remove the present Ultra-Protestant prayers, to establish in their place the Catholic ritual, and the antient liturgy, and the approvable selections from the Breviary, which I have republished for this express purpose. We would remove, as Bonner would AND TO EXPel the ten COMMANDMENTS. 171 have removed them, the ten commandments; for "the introduction of these into the inner sanctuary of our worship is an anomaly. The Jews' Decalogue was never used in the service of the Christian Church, in any liturgy, old or new, before the liturgy of Edward the Sixth."* In all these plans we agree with Bonner, and, because we thus agree, we praise and we defend him. My second reason for defending Bonner is, that as our object is the same-so also are our opinions. I do not of course refer to those opinions which are authoritatively pronounced by the Church of England, or by the Church of Rome, to be the articles of faith of the respective Churches, neither do I refer to those opinions which are common to Bonner, to ourselves, and the principal theologians of the Church of England, whether they be in our articles or not. I refer to those pious opinions which are common to Bonner, to ourselves, and to the chief doctors of the Church of Rome. Now these opinions, and indeed all other theological opinions, may be divided into three parts, those which relate to the object of worship in the visible world—those which relate to the soul of man in the present visible world-and those which relate to the communion and modes of communion, between the object of worship and the soul, and between the world that is visible and the world that is invisible. In opinions relating to each * Tract 86, p. 60, and note. THE PRIEST MAKIS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST of these, we, the Tractarian British Critics, agree wish Booner. I begin with the objects of worship. Omitting that of the blessed Trinity, in which Rome, England, Bonner, myself and my friends alike unite, I first is upon the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Exterist. The Ultra-Protestant professes to beSere only in the ecmmemorative and figurative sacriice of the Eucharist. He believes in the spiritual presence dice. We boldly say with our beloved and evez estimable end Fronde, that “I am more and more infect the Protestant doctrine on the subject oʻtle Enchrist, and think that the princhie en rhich it is founded is as proud, irreverent, and folis was that of any heresy, even Socinianism." These are myfriend's words, and I add, therefore, with him, that “Island like to know why we flinch from saying that the power of making the body and blood of Christ is rested in the successors of the Apostles."† If it is vested in them, then I believe that they may use that power, and make Christ's body, and therefore I believe with my friend Dr. Pusey, that "there * Froude's Remains, part 1. p. 391. + Frode's Remains, part 1. p. 326. I am sorry my friend Dr. Pusey shrinks so painfully, and in a manner so cowardly, from the unavoidable inference, from his own doctrine. He visited the Churches of the Roman communion in Dublin. The Host was on the "Altars." They do not there call the Lord's board - Tables." That Host was, he believed to be, the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Dr. Milley, therefore, naturally believed that Dr. Pusey adored |