Latimer's Opinions

HIS GENERAL CHARACTER AS A PREACHER — A BOLD, UNWORLDLY, KIND, AND DILIGENT MAN — IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING HIS THE-OLOGICAL VIEWS — HIS OPINIONS ON SCRIPTURE, JUSTIFICATION, REGENERATION, THE LORD’S SUPPER, AND OTHER LIKE POINTS — GENERAL CONCLUSION ON THE DUTY OF NOT BEING ASHAMED OF EVANGELICAL RELIGION, AND OF RESISTING POPERY.

I turn from the subject of Latimer’s life, to his opinions. I have given a brief sketch of his history, from his birth to his death. My readers will easily believe that-I have left many things untold.

I might dwell on the good man’s preaching. Few, probably, have ever addressed an English congregation with more effect than he did. No doubt his sermons now extant would not suit modern taste. They contain many quaint, odd, and coarse things. They are very familiar, rambling, and discursive, and often full of gossiping stories. But, after all, we are poor judges in these days of what a sermon ought to be. A modern sermon is too often a dull, tame, pointless, religious essay, full of measured, round sentences, Johnsonian English, bald platitudes, timid statements, and elaborately concocted milk and water. It is a leaden sword,

~

Lishop Latimer — His Opinions. 103

without either point or edge: a heavy weapon, and little likely to do much execution. But if a combination of sound Gospel doctrine, plain Saxon language, boldness, liveliness, directness, and simplicity, can make a preacher, few, I suspect, have ever equalled old Latimer.

I might supply many proofs of his cowrage and Jatthf{ulness as a minister. He did not shrink from attacking anybody’s sins, even if they were the sins of a king. When Henry VIII. checked the diffusion of the Bible, Latimer wrote him a plain-spoken letter, long before he was a Bishop, remonstrating with him on his conduct. He feared God, and nothing else did he fear. “Latimer, Latimer,’ he exclaimed at the beginning of one of his sermons, “thou art going to speak before the high and mighty King Henry VIII, who is able, if he think fit, to take thy life away. Be careful what thou sayest. But Latimer, Latimer, remember also thou art about to speak before the King of kings and Lord of lords. Take heed that thou dost not displease Him.”

I might speak of his wnworldliness. He gave upa rich bishopric, and retired into private life, for conscience-sake, without a murmur. He refused that same bishopric again, because he felt too old to fulfil its duties, when he might have had it by saying “Yes.” I might speak of his genuine kindliness of heart. He was always the friend of the poor and distressed.

Much of his time, while he stayed at Lambeth, was occupied in examining into the cases of people who applied to him for help. I might speak of his diligence. To the very end of his life he used to rise at two o’clock in the morning, and begin reading and study. All this, and much more, I might tell, if I entered into more particulars in this biography.

I trust, however, I have given facts enough to supply some faint idea of what the man was. I trust my readers will agree with me, that he was one of the best bishops this country has ever had, and that it would have been well for the Church of England if more of her bishops had been like Bishop Latimer.

Let us never forget, as we think over the history of his life, that he is a glorious instance of the miracles which the grace of God can work. The Spirit can take a bigotted, fierce Papist and make him a faithful Protestant. Where the hand of the Lord is, nothing is impossible. Let us never think that any friend, relative, or companion is too much opposed to the Gospel to become a true Christian. Away with the idea! There are no hopeless cases under the Gospel. Let us remember Latimer, and never despair.

From all these topics, however interesting, I turn to one which is even more important in the present day. That topic is, the nature of Latimer’s theological opinions. For dwelling on this topic at some length I shall make no apology. The circumstances of the times we live in, invest the subject with more than ordinary importance.

We live in days when very strange statements are made in some quarters, as to the true doctrines of the Church of England. Semi-Popish views about the rule of faith, — about justification, — about regeneration, — about the sacraments, — about preaching, are continually urged upon the attention of congregations, while the advocates and teachers of these views are coolly arrogating to themselves the credit of being the only sound Churchmen.

It is to no purpose that those who repudiate these semi-Popish views challenge their advocates to prove them by Scripture. The ready answer is at once given, — that, whether these views are Scriptural or not, there can be no doubt they are “Church views.” It is to no purpose that we deny these views are to be found in the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies of the Church of England, when honestly and consistently interpreted. — We are quietly told that we know nothing about the matter. We are stupid! We are dense! We are blind! We are ignorant! We do not understand plain English! They are the true men! Their views are the true “Church views;” and if we disagree with them, we must be quite wrong! In short we are left to infer that, if we are honest and consistent, we ought to leave our dear old Church, and give it up to the Ritualists. I appeal to the experience of every one who lives with his eyes open, and marks the signs of the times. My readers know well I am describing things which are going on in every part of the land.

Now, as matters have come to this pass, Jet us see whether we cannot throw a little light on the subject by looking back 300 years. Let us inquire what were the views of the men who laid the foundations of the Church of England, and are notoriously the fathers of the Articles, Homilies, and Liturgy. Let us put old Latimer into the witness-box to-day, and see what his opinions were upon the points in dispute. An honoured member of the Church of England at the period when the doctrines of the Church were first brought into shape and form, — a near and dear friend and adviser of Archbishop Cranmer, — an assistant in the composition of the first book of Homilies, — a Bishop whose orthodoxy and soundness were never called in question for a moment by his contemporaries, — if any man knows what a true Churchman ought to hold, Bishop Latimer must surely be that man. If his views are not true “Church” views, I know not whose are!

I ask my readers, then, to bear with me for a few minutes, while I give some extracts from Latimer’s works. Quotations from old writers, I am well aware, are very wearisome, and seldom read. ‘But I want to inform the minds of Englishmen on the important question of the present day, Who is, and who is not, a true Churchman?

(1) First of all, What did Bishop Latimer think about ScriPTURE? This is a point with which the very existence of true religion is bound up. Some Churchmen tell us now-a-days, notwithstanding the Sixth Article, that the Bible alone is not the rule of faith, and is not able to make a man wise unto salvation. No! it must be the Bible and the Fathers, or the Bible and Catholic tradition, or the Bible and the Church, or the Bible explained by the Prayer-book, or the Bible explained by an episcopally-ordained man, but not the Bible alone. Now let us hear Bishop Latimer.

He says, in a sermon before Edward VI., “I will tell you what a Bishop of this realm once said to me. He sent for me, and marvelled that I would not consent to such traditions as were set out. And I answered him, that I would be ruled by God’s book, and rather than depart one jot from it I would be torn by wild horses. I chanced in our communication to name the Lord’s Supper. Tush! saith the Bishop. What do you call the Lord’s Supper? What new term is this? There stood by him one Dr. Dubber. He dubbed him by-and-by, and said that this term was seldom read in the doctors. And I made answer, that I would rather follow Paul in using his terms than them, though they had all the doctors on their side.” (Works, i, 121.)

He says again, in his conference with Ridley: “A layman, fearing God, is much more fit. to understand holy Scripture than any arrogant or proud priest; yea, than the Bishop himself, be he ever so great and glistering in his pontificals. But what is to be said of the Fathers? How are they to be esteemed? St. Augustine answereth, giving this rule- — that we should not therefore think it true because they say so, do they never so much exceed in holiness and learning; but if they be able to prove their saying by canonical Scripture, or by good probable reasons; meaning that to be a probable reason, I think, which doth orderly follow upon a right collection and gathering out of the holy Scriptures.

“Let the Papists go with their long faith. Be you contented with the short faith of the saints, which is revealed to us in the Word of God written. Adieu to all Popish fantasies. Amen! For one man having the Scripture, and good reason for him, is more to be esteemed himself alone, than a thousand such as they, either gathered together, or succeeding one another. The Fathers have both herbs and weeds, and Papists commonly gather the weeds, and leave the herbs.” (Ridley’s Works, p. 114. Parker’s Edition.)

I make no comment on these passages, — they speak for themselves.

(2) In the next place, what did Bishop Latimer think about justification by faith? This is the doctrine which Luther truly called the criterion of a standing or falling Church. This is the doctrine which, in spite of the Eleventh Article of our Church, many are now trying to obscure, by mingling up with it baptism, the Lord’s Supper, our own works, and I know not what besides. Now let us hear Bishop Latimer.

He says, in a sermon preached at Grimsthorpe, Lincolnshire, “Christ reputeth all those for just, holy, and acceptable before God, which believe in Him, which put their trust, hope, and confidence in Him. By His passion which He suffered, He merited that as many as believe in Him shall be as well justified by Him as though they had never done any sin, and as though they had fulfilled the law to the uttermost. For we without Him are under the curse of the law. The law condemneth us. The law is not able to help us. And yet the imperfection is not in the law, but in us. The law itself is holy and good, but we are not able to keep it, and so the law condemneth us. But Christ with His death hath delivered us from the curse of the law. He hath set us at liberty, and promised that when we believe in Him we shall not perish, the law shall not condemn us. Therefore let us study to believe in Christ. Let us put all our hope, trust, and confidence only in Him. Let us patch Him with nothing, for, as I told you before, our merits are not able to deserve everlasting life. Its too precious a thing to be merited by man. It is His doing only. God hath given Him to us to be our Deliverer, and to give us everlasting life.” (ii. 125.)

He says again, in another sermon, “Learn to abhor the most detestable and dangerous poison of the Papists, which go about to thrust Christ out of His office. Learn, I say, to leave all Papistry, and to stick only to the Word of God, which teacheth that Christ is not only a judge but a justifier, a giver of salvation, and a taker away of sin. He purchased our salvation through His painful death, and we receive the same through believing in Him, as St. Paul teacheth us, saying, Freely ye are justified through faith. In these words of St. Paul, all merits and estimation of works are excluded and clean taken away. For if it were for our works’ sake, then it were not freely, but St. Paul saith freely. Whether will you now believe St. Paul or the Papists?” (ii. 14:7.)

He says again, in another sermon: “Christ only, and no man else, merited remission, justification, and eternal felicity, for as many as will believe the same. They that will not believe it, shall not have it; for it is no more, but believe and have.” (i. 421.)

Once more, I say these passages require no comment of mine. They speak for themselves.

(3) In the next place, what did Bishop Latimer think about regeneration? This, as you are all aware, is the subject of one of the great controversies of the day. Multitudes of Churchmen, in spite of the Seventeenth Article, and the Homily for Whit-Sunday, maintain that all baptized persons are necessarily regenerate, and receive grace and the Holy Ghost at the moment they are baptized. In a word, they tell us that every man, woman, and child, who has received baptism, has also received regeneration, and that every congregation in the Church of England should be addressed as an assembly of regenerated persons. Now let us hear Bishop Latimer.

He says, in a sermon preached in Lincolnshire, “There be two manner of men. Some there be that be not justified, not regenerate, not yet in the state of salvation, that is to say, not God’s servants. They lack the renovation, or regeneration. They be not yet come to Christ.” (ii. 7.) He says, in a sermon preached before Edward VI., “Christ saith, Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God. He must have a regeneration. And what is this regeneration? It is not to be christened in water, as those firebrands expound it, and nothing else. How is it to be expounded then? St. Peter showeth that one place of Scripture declareth another. It is the circumstance and collection of places that maketh Seripture plain. We be born again, says Peter, and how? Not by a mortal seed, but an immortal? What is the immortal seed? By the Word of the living God: by the Word of God preached and opened. Thus cometh in our new birth.” (i. 202.) He says; in another Lincolnshire sermon, “Preaching is God’s instrument, whereby He worketh faith in our hearts.

Our Saviour saith to Nicodemus, Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God. But how cometh this regeneration? By hearing and believing the Word of God: for so saith St. Peter.” (i. 471.)

Once more, I say these passages require no comment of mine. They speak for themselves.

(4) In the next place, what did Bishop Latimer think about the Lord’s Supper? This, I need hardly say, is a subject about which very unprotestant doctrine is often taught in the present day. Some around us, in the face of the Twenty-eighth Article, speak of this sacrament in such a manner, that it is hard to see the difference between their doctrine and Popish transubstantiation, or the sacrifice of the mass. Now let us hear Bishop. Latimer.

He says, in his disputation at Oxford, “In the sacrament there is none other presence of Christ required than a spiritual presence. And this presence is sufficient for a Christian man, as the presence by which we abide in Christ and Christ in us, to the obtaining of eternal life, if we persevere in the true Gospel. And this same presence may be called a real presence, because to the faithful believer there is the real and spiritual body of Christ.” (ii! 252.) He says, in the same disputation, “Christ spake never a word of sacrificing, or saying of mass; nor promised the hearers any reward but among the idolaters with the devil and his angels, except they repent speedily. Therefore sacrificing-priests should now cease for ever: for now all men ought to offer their own bodies a quick sacrifice, holy and acceptable before God. The Supper of the Lord was instituted to provoke us to thanksgiving, and to stir us up by preaching of the Gospel to remember His death till He cometh again.” (ii. 256.) He says, in his last examination, “There is a change in the bread and wine, and such a change as no power but the omnipotency of God can make, in that that which before was bread should now have the dignity to exhibit Christ’s body.. And yet the bread is still bread, and the wine is still wine. For the change is not in the nature but the dignity.” (i. 286.) He says, in one of his Lincolnshire sermons, “‘ Whosoever eateth the mystical bread, and drinketh the mystical wine worthily, according to the ordinance of Christ, he receiveth surely the very body and blood of Christ spiritually, as it shall be most comfortable to his soul. He eateth with the mouth of his soul, and digesteth with the stomach of his soul, the body of Christ. And, to be short, whosoever believeth in Christ, putteth his hope, trust, and confidence in Him, he eateth and drinketh Him. For the spiritual eating is the right eating to eternal life, not the corporal eating.” (1. 459.)

Once more I say, I make no comment on these passages. They speak for themselves.

It would be easy to multiply quotations of this kind to an endless length, if it were necessary or desirable. There is hardly a controverted subject in the present day on which I could not give some plain, Scriptural, sensible, sound opinion of Bishop Latimer.

Would my readers like to know what he thought about the ordinance of preaching? Did he think little of it, as some do in this day, and regard it as a means of grace very subordinate to sacraments and services? No! indeed he did not. He calls it “the office of salvation, and the office of regeneration.” He says, “take away preaching, and take away salvation.” He says, “this office: of preaching is the only ordinary way that God hath appointed to save us all. Let us maintain this, for 1 know no other.” He declares that, “preaching is the thing the devil wrestled most against. It has been all his study to decry this office. He worketh against it

as much as he can. He hath made unpreaching prelates, and stirred them up by heaps to persecute this office in the title of heresy.” (i. 208, 155, 306, 349, 302.)

Would my readers like to hear what he thought about a gorgeous ceremonial and candles in Churches? He says plainly that these things come from the devil. “Where the devil is resident, and hath his plough going, there away with book and up with candles; away with Bible and up with beads; away with the light of the Gospel and up with the light of candles, yea, even at noon-day. Where the devil is resident, that he may prevail, up with all superstition and idolatry, censing, painting of images, candles, palms, ashes, holy water, and new services of man’s inventing.” (i. 71.)

- Would my readers like to know what he thought about the foreign reformers? Did he lightly esteem them, as some do now-a-days, because they did not retain episcopacy? No! indeed he did not. He says, “I heard say, Melancthon, that great clerk, should come hither. I would wish him, and such as he is, to have £200 a-year. The king would never want it. There is yet among us two great learned men, Peter Martyr and Bernard Ochin, which have a hundred marks a-piece. I would the king would bestow a thousand pounds on that sort.” (i. 141.)

Would my readers like to know what he thought about wnity? Did he think, as some do now, that it is the one thing needful, and that we should give up every thing in order to attain it? No, indeed! He says, “Unity must be according to God’s holy Word, or else it were better war than peace. We ought never to regard unity so much that we should forsake God’s Word for her sake.” (i. 487.)

Would my readers like to know what he thought about councils and convocations? Did he regard them as the grand panacea for all ecclesiastical evils, like those around us, whose cry is, “Give us synodical action, or we die”? He says to Ridley, ‘Touching councils and convocations, I refer you to your own experience to think of our own country’s parliaments and convocations. The more part in my time did bring forth the Six Articles. Afterward the more part did repeal the same. The same Articles are now again restored. Oh, what uncertainty is this!” And he says, in another place, “More credence is to be given to one man having the holy Word of God for him, than to ten thousand without the Word. If it agrees with God’s Word, it is to be received. If it agrees not, it is not to be received, though a council had determined it.” (Ridley, 130; Latim. i. 288.)

Would my readers like to know what he thought of thorough-going Protestant preaching? Did he think, as some do now, that if a sermon contains a good deal of truth, a little false doctrine may be excused and a allowed? No! indeed he did not. He says, “Many preach God’s Word, and shall preach a very good and godly sermon, but at the last they will have a blanched almond, one little piece of Popery patched in to powder their matter with, for their own lucre and glory. They make a mingling of the way of God and man’s way, a mingle-mangle, as men serve pigs in my country.” (i. 290.)

I will not multiply these extracts, though it would be easy to do so. Those who have never studied the works of Latimer, published by the Parker Society, have little idea of the loss they have sustained. They are rich to overflowing with pithy, pointed Protestant truths. I will only ask my readers to remember well whose words [ have been quoting, and when they were spoken. These words were not spoken last year. They did not fall from the lips of modern Evangelical or Low Church clergymen. They were not spoken by the ministers of Park Chapel, Chelsea; or of Portman Chapel; or the Lock; or Belgrave Chapel; or by some platform orator at Exeter Hall. No: the words I have quoted are three hundred years old. They are the words of one of the best bishops the Church of England ever had. They are the words of the man who helped to compose our first book of Homilies. They are the words of the friend and adviser of Archbishop Cranmer. They are the words of one whom king and parliament delighted to honour. Why was the speaker of these words not cast out of the Church of England? Why was he not reprimanded? Why was he not reviled as a man of low, unchurchman-like opinions? Why was he not proceeded against and persecuted for his views? How is it that he was persecuted only by Papists, but always honoured by Protestants? persecuted by Bonner, Gardiner, and bloody Mary; but honoured by Cranmer, Ridley, and Edward VI.?

I will give a plain answer to these questions. I answer them by saying that, three hundred years ago no man in his senses doubted that Latimer’s opinions were the real opinions of the Church of England. I go on further to affirm, that the truest and best members of the Church of England, at the present day, are those whose views are most in harmony with those of good Bishop Latimer. And I say, that to tell men who love the Church of England with deep affection, that they are not sound Churchmen, merely because they agree with Latimer, and not with Laud, is to bring against them a most unfair and unwarrantable charge.

And now let me conclude this biography of Latimer with two practical remarks.

For one thing, let me earnestly exhort my readers, as individuals, never to be ashamed of holding what are called Evangelical views within the Church of England. Listen not to those supercilious gentlemen, on the one side, who would have you believe that if you are not high Churchmen, like themselves, you are no Churchmen at all. Listen not to those exceedingly kind friends, on the other side, who try to persuade you that the Established Church is a regular Popish concern, and ought to be left at once. Both these are ancient tricks. Against both these tricks be on your guard.

Do not be bullied out of the Church of England by the High Churchman’s assertion, that you are only a tolerated party, and have no business by his side. No doubt you live in a communion where great freedom of opinion is allowed. But to tell men of Evangelical views that they are merely tolerated, is a downright insult to the memory of the Reformers. Let us make answer to people who tell us so, that if they have forgotten Latimer and three hundred years ago, we have not. Let us say that we are not going to desert the Church of Latimer, in order to please men who wish to lord it over God’s heritage, and have things all their own way. Sure I am that, if might should ever pre — vail over right, and the friends of Latimer should be thrust out of the Church by force, and the House of Commons should be mad enough to sanction it, — sure am I that the men thrust out would be better Churchmen than the men left behind.

And do not be wheedled out of the Church by the arguments of men outside, who would probably be glad to be in it if they only saw the way. When the fox, in an old fable, could not reach the grapes, he said they were sour. When the fox, in another fable, lost his tail in a trap, he tried to persuade his friends that foxes did much better without tails, and advised them to get rid of their own. Do not forget the moral of that fable; do not be enticed into biting off your own tails. Rest assured, that with all its faults and defects the Church of England has very high privileges to offer to its members. Think well about these privileges. Do not be always poring over the defects. Resolve that you will not lightly cast these privileges away.

Above all, never, never forget that Evangelical views are not only theoretically sound, and agreeable to the mind of the Reformers, but that they are also of vital importance to the very existence of the Church of England. Never has our beloved Church stood so low in this country as when Evangelical views have been at zero, and almost forgotten. Never has she stood so high as when the views of Latimer and the Reformers have been honestly preached and carried out. So far from being ashamed of Evangelical opinions, you may be satisfied that the maintenance of them is rapidly becoming a matter of life or death to your own communion. Take away Latimer’s views, and I firmly believe the whole Establishment would collapse before the pressure from without, and come to the ground.

For another thing, let me entreat all English readers of this biography to beware of countenancing any retrograde movement in this country towards the Church of Rome, and to resist such movement by every possible means, from whatever quarter it may come.

I am sure that this warning is one which the times loudly call for. The Church of Rome has risen up amongst us with renewed strength in the last few years. She does not disguise her hope that England, the lost planet, will soon resume her orbit in the so-called Catholic system, and once more revolve in blind obedience round the centre of the Vatican. She has succeeded in blinding the eyes of ignorant persons to her real character. She has succeeded in securing the unexpected aid of misguided men within our own Establishment. A hundred little symptoms around us tell us how real the danger is. Laud and the nonjurors are cried up, while Latimer and the Reformers are cried down. Historical works are industriously circulated, in which bloody Mary is praised, and Protestant Elizabeth blamed. A morbid tenderness towards Romanists, and a virulent bitterness towards Dissenters, have sprung up side by side. An unhealthy attention is paid to what is called medieval taste. Thousands of tracts are sown broad-cast over the land in which the three leading phrases to be seen are generally those three ominous words “priest,” “catholic,” and “church.” The use of the rosary, auricular confession, prayers for the dead, and the “Hail, Mary,” are deliberately recommended to the members of the English Church. Little by little, I fear, the edge of English feeling about Popery is becoming blunt and dull. Surely I have good reason to tell my readers to beware of the Church of Rome.

Remember the darkness in which Rome kept Eng-Jand when she last had the supreme power. Remember the gross ignorance and degrading superstitions which prevailed in Bishop Latimer’s youth. Think not for a moment that these are ancient things, and that Rome is changed. The holy coat of Tréves, the winking picture at Rimini, the mental thraldom in which the Papal States are kept, the notorious practices which go on in the Holy City to this day, are all witnesses that Rome, when she has the power, is not changed at all. Remember this, and beware.

Remember the horrible persecutions which Rome carried on against true religion, when she last had uncontrolled sway in this country. Remember the atrocities which disgraced the days of bloody Mary, and the burning of Bishop Latimer. Think not for a moment that Rome is altered. The persecution of Bible readers in Madira, and the imprisonment of the Madiai, are unmistakeable proofs that, after three hundred years, the old persecuting spirit of Rome still remains as strong as ever. Remember this also, and beware.

Shall we, in the face of such facts as these, return to the bondage in which our forefathers were kept? Shall we give up our Bibles, or be content to sue for sacerdotal licence to read them? Shall we submit ourselves humbly to Italian priests? Shall we go back to confessional-boxes and the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass? God forbid! I say for one — God forbid! Let the dog return to his vomit. Let the sow that was washed return to her wallowing in the

Bishop Latumer — His Opinions. 123

mire. Let the idiotic prisoner go back to his chains. But God forbid that Israel should return to Egypt! God forbid that England should go back into the arms of Rome! God forbid that old Latimer’s candle should ever be put out!

Let us work, every one of us, if we would prevent such a miserable consummation. Let us work hard for the extension of pure, scriptural, and evangelical religion at home and abroad. Let us labour to spread it among the Jews, among the Roman Catholics, among the heathen. Let us labour not least to preserve and maintain it by every constitutional means in our own Church.

Let us cherish, every one of us, if we would prevent the increase of Romanism, — a brotherly feeling towards all orthodox Protestants, by whatever name they may be called. Away with the old rubbishy opinion, that the Church of England occupies a middle position, a wa media, between Dissent and Rome. Cast it away, for it is false. We might as well talk of the Isle of Wight being midway between England. and France. Between us and Rome there is a gulf, and a broad and deep gulf too. Between us and orthodox Protestant Dissent there is but a thin partition wall. Between us and Rome the differences are about essential doctrines, and things absolutely necessary to salvation. Between us and Dissent the division is about things indifferent, things in which a man may err, and yet be saved. Rome is a downright open enemy, attacking the very foundation of our religion. Dissent ought to be an ally, and friendly power; not wearing our uniform, nor yet, as we think, so well equipped as we are, — but still an ally, and fighting on the same side. Let not this hint be thrown away! Let us keep up a kind, brotherly feeling towards all who love the same Saviour, believe the same doctrines, and honour the same Bible as ourselves.

Finally let us pray, every one of us, if we would prevent the increase of Romanism, — let us pray night and day that God may preserve this country from Popery, and not deal with it according to its sins. It is a striking fact, that almost the last prayer of good king Edward VI., on his death-bed, was a prayer to this effect: “O my Lord God, defend this realm from Papistry, and maintain Thy true religion.” There was a prayer in the Litany of our Prayer-book, in 1549, which I think never ought to have been cast out of it. ‘From all sedition, and privy conspiracy, — FROM THE TYRANNY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME, AND ALL HIS DETESTABLE ENORMITIES, — from all false doctrine and heresy, — from hardness of heart, and contempt of Thy Word and commandments, good Lord,!” To that prayer may we ever be able to say heartily, Amen, and Amen!

deliver us