28
friend or relation, even though you have subsequently checked yourself? whether you did not find a comfort from that prayer? and whether this dictate of human nature, warranted as it is by the early Church, and distinct from the Romish error, may not after all be implanted by the God of nature—may not be the voice of God within us? If this be but possible, is this a subject to be treated lightly? Are "prayer" and "the souls of God's departed saints" fit topics for a jest?
One word more on a connected subject; you represent the writers as dissatisfied with the changes formerly made in the services, and wishing to introduce others more conformable to the ritual of Rome. (p. 12.)
This (as I have already in part shown) is not so; for, first, you have (as is your wont) confounded the primitive with the Romish ritual: secondly, we never have, nor do we wish for any alteration in the liturgy of our Church; we bless God that our lot has fallen in her bosom,—that He has preserved in her the essentials of primitive doctrine and a liturgy so holy; and although I cannot but think its first form preferable, alteration is out of the question: there can not be real alteration, without a schism; and as we claim to have our own consciences respected, and not to have any doctrines suppressed which the formularies of our Church now express, so, even if we had the power of change, would we respect the consciences of others, and not urge upon our superiors, or seek for support in behalf of the restitution of that more antient form, which we hold abstractedly the better.
The whole course of the Tracts has, as you know, and yourself reproach us with, been against innovation; how, then, is it honest in your assumed character, to give us the following advice;—
"You cannot be certain that those in authority would consent to those alterations which you regard as improvements; and you must not be hasty in urging them too far;"
as if we had ever had any such wish?
