JW\x^ 
 
 $ v 
 
 m$ s. 
 
 
 ' 
 
 , 
 
 i - r ''' r 
 
 ' T ,' 
 
 \ ! , ( ; 
 
 *: r- 
 
 < < < 
 ' 
 
 * 
 - 

 
 Ex Libris 
 [ C. K. OGDEN 
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 \ 
 
 Dl 
 
 V V

 
 INFANT-BAPTISM CONSIDERED, 
 
 IN 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVEBED BY 
 
 RICHARD WHATELY, D.D. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OP DUBLIN.
 
 INFANT-BAPTISM CONSIDEKED, 
 
 A CHARGE 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 AT THE TBIENNIAL VISITATION OF THE PBOVINCE 
 OF DUBLIN, 
 
 IN JULY, 1850. 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD WHATELY, DD. 
 
 ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 
 
 SECOND EDITION, WITH ADDITIONS. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN W. PARKER, WEST STRAND. 
 DUBLIN: HODGES & SMITH, GRAFTON STREET. 
 
 MDCCCL.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, CHANDOS STREET, 
 COVENT GARDEN.
 
 TO THE REVERED MEMORY OF 
 
 EDWARD COPLESTON, D.D. 
 
 LATE BISHOP OP LLANDAFF, 
 
 THIS TRACT, 
 
 THE SUBSTANCE OP WHICH WAS PRINCIPALLY DERIVED 
 FROM CONVERSATIONS WITH HIM, 
 
 IS INSCRIBED, 
 
 WITH AFFECTIONATE AND SORROWING VENERATION, 
 BY HIS ATTACHED PUPIL AND FRIEND, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
 1057836
 
 C N T E N T S. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Evils connected with religious dissensions ... 1 
 
 Evil dispositions not created by a contest .... 2 
 Misapprehension relative to recent decisions ... 3 
 Strictness and laxity in the interpretation of formularies . 5 
 Questions relative to regeneration ..... 7 
 Verbal controversy arising from ambiguous terms . . 9 
 Points of agreement between those at variance in their 
 
 expressions . . . . . . . .12 
 
 Attempts to reconcile, not popular . . . . .13 
 
 Controversies that are not verbal . . . . .14 
 
 Infant-baptism rejected by some . . . . .15 
 
 Ordinary meaning of a Sign . . . . . .17 
 
 Practice of the Apostles . . . . . . .18 
 
 Reference to the analogy of the Levitical Law . . .18 
 Jewish habits of thought to be considered . .. . .21 
 
 Jewish view of the admission of infants into the Mosaic 
 
 Covenant ......... 22 
 
 Reasonings of a Jew who should have embraced Christianity, 24 
 By whom infants are to be brought for enrolment among 
 
 God's people . 25 
 
 Remission of sins ........ 27 
 
 New-birth 29 
 
 Inheriting of the Kingdom of Heaven . . . .30 
 Natural or probable attributes spoken of as actual . .31 
 Verbal questions and real to be carefully distinguished . 34 
 Verbal questions not unimportant . . . 35 
 
 Undesigned favouring of the rejection of Infant-Baptism . 35 
 Importance of Confirmation, and of right preparation for it, 36 
 
 Appendix ......... 38
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 MY REVEREND BRETHREN, 
 
 IT will, I presume, be expected that, on an 
 occasion such as the present, I should advert to the 
 contests respecting points of Christian doctrine which 
 have been lately agitating and, indeed, are still 
 agitating our Church : contests which have doubt- 
 less excited the exulting scorn, not only of infidels, 
 but also of many of those Christians of various de- 
 nominations, whose zeal for their own sect or church 
 outweighs their regard for the Universal Church of 
 Christ, and in whom party-spirit has nearly swal- 
 lowed up the true spirit of the Gospel. 1 
 
 1 Among others, we must expect to find some of the members 
 of a Church, which professes to be, not a branch, but the whole, 
 of tfie Catholic, i. e., Universal Church, (and which, if so, must 
 comprehend all Christians, of whatever various denominations,) 
 taunting other Churches (parts of itself, supposing its pretensions 
 just) with their internal dissensions, and representing its (alleged) 
 exemption from discord, and prompt condemnation of all depar- 
 tures from the system laid down, as a mark of divine trnth. 
 
 Most of the persons to whom such reasoning is addressed will 
 not know, or will not recollect, that this mark belonged most 
 emphatically to Pagan Rome under the persecuting emperors, 
 and to Babylon when Nebuchadnezzar set up his " image of gold." 
 They decreed, and promptly executed their decrees, that whosoever 
 refused to worship as commanded, should be cast into the fire. 
 
 On the incompatibility of the two claims, to universality, and 
 
 B
 
 2 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Evils can- And proportionate must be the grief 
 nected with f e i t j^y tnose o f tne mos t truly christian 
 
 religious dis- 
 
 sensiaw. character whether m our own com- 
 munion, or in any other at the spectacle 
 of dissensions among professing Christians, and of 
 the evil passions which are almost always called 
 forth and displayed on such occasions. 
 
 I have said, " called forth and displayed," be- 
 cause one cannot but reflect and it is one of the 
 most mortifying reflections suggested by the circum- 
 stances attendant on any kind of controversy that 
 the evil dispositions thus called into action must 
 have existed before, in persons in whom perhaps 
 they had never been suspected. 
 
 Uncharitable bigotry, unscrupulous 
 sitions nS and reckless party-spirit, spiritual pride, 
 created by revengefulness, malice, and the like, are 
 
 a contest. 1 . . . .. n 
 
 not dispositions which could be sud- 
 denly created, though they may be suddenly aroused 
 and called into activity (and also fostered and in- 
 creased) by the excitement of a contest. They 
 must have been in existence already; unknown, 
 probably, to the agents themselves, as well as to the 
 bystanders ; under an appearance, perhaps, of Chris- 
 tian meekness, and candour, and charity. 1 When 
 
 to exemption from divisions <md errors, I have treated formerly, 
 in works, from which extracts are subjoined in the Appendix (A). 
 
 1 In the course of the controversy now alluded to, the inso- 
 lence of tone and unchristian acrimony displayed by some of the
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 3 
 
 a pool of transparent water, and which seemingly 
 contains no impurity, becomes, on being agitated, 
 suddenly turbid and foul, we are certain that the 
 offensive impurities thus thrown up are not called 
 into existence by that agitation, but must have been 
 lying at the bottom during the period of tranquil- 
 lity and apparent purity. 
 
 And even so, we are compelled to admit the 
 mortifying conclusion, that the faults and follies 
 which we see stirred up by an agitating contest, 
 must have been all along latent in the breast of 
 many a one who had been regarded by others, and 
 probably by himself, as of a far different character. 
 
 What any one's conduct would be under each 
 particular kind of trial, none but the Searcher of 
 hearts can know with complete certainty before the 
 trial is actually made. It is for us, especially to 
 examine and distrust ourselves, to keep a vigilant 
 guard over our own hearts, and to act on the 
 apostolic precept, " let him that thinketh he standeth 
 take heed lest he fall." 
 
 As for the particular contest I have 
 
 T i n i Misappre- 
 
 now been alluding to, 1 shall abstain hension rela- 
 from entering on any discussion of the twe , *? rec ent 
 
 . . 1.11 i decisions. 
 
 ments ot the decisions which nave been 
 pronounced, further than to remark upon one mis- 
 
 disputants have been severely and justly censured by some of 
 their opponents, who have yet themselves been guilty, to at least 
 an equal degree, of the very same faults. 
 
 B 2
 
 4 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 conception of them which I have observed to be not 
 a little prevalent. The recent sentence, which has 
 attracted so much public attention, was not, as several 
 persons seem to have apprehended, a decision as to 
 the soundness or unsoundness of such and such 
 views of a Scripture-doctrine, but on a very different 
 question. That question was, whether the main- 
 tainers of a certain tenet are, as such, excluded from 
 holding office in our Church ; whether our Formu- 
 laries are so distinct and decisive on the point, as in 
 fact to excommunicate all who hold that tenet. And 
 the decision actually given be it a right or a wrong 
 one is one which might conceivably have been 
 given (without any just imputation of inconsistency) 
 by judges who did not themselves entertain such 
 views. 
 
 Thus much, at least, is what no one, I conceive, 
 will, on reflection, at all doubt : that if the opinions 
 of the contending parties had been reversed, and a 
 candidate for Institution had been rejected on the 
 ground of his not holding the doctrines which were 
 recently objected to as heterodox, the decision would 
 have been, at least as promptly as in the present 
 case, given in his favour. For it ought to be re- 
 membered, that in the case of any penal enactment, 
 the established rule is, to incline always (where any 
 doubt exists) towards the most lenient interpreta- 
 tion. And exclusion from a Benefice is evidently 
 of the character of a penalty. 
 
 As for the degree of latitude that is to be
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 5 
 
 allowed in the interpretation of the Strictness 
 articles and formularies of a Church, **% 
 
 the interpre- 
 
 it would be manifestly impossible to tation of far- 
 lay down any general rule that would 
 be a sufficient guide in all particular cases. But 
 every one must admit, I conceive, that there is a 
 just medium which should be aimed at (however 
 men may differ in fixing that medium in each 
 individual instance) between excessive strictness 
 and excessive laxity. For, on the one hand, if 
 each of us should insist on excluding from church- 
 membership all who did not fully coincide with 
 himself in the precise interpretation of every 
 passage in our Formularies, and in every inference 
 which appeared to him fairly deducible from such 
 interpretation, it can hardly be doubted that the 
 result would be a virtual division of the Church 
 into several different Churches, mutually excom- 
 municating each other. And yet it is no less 
 evident, on the other hand, that if, through dread 
 of such a result, we should adopt the principle, that 
 every one is to be at liberty to assign to our Formu- 
 laries whatever meaning he may think fit, interpret- 
 ing them in any " non-natural" sense that may suit 
 his own views, no form of religion, or of irreligion 
 atheism not excepted would be excluded. 1 Our 
 
 1 As this may perhaps appear to some of my readers an 
 exaggerated statement, I have subjoined in the Appendix (B) 
 some remarks in confirmation of it, extracted from works pub- 
 lished several years ago.
 
 6 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Church would be ONE in nothing but in name ; and 
 language would have completely failed of the very 
 object for which language exists to convey an 
 intelligible sense. 
 
 The medium between these opposite extremes 
 we must expect to find, in practice, placed some- 
 what differently by different persons. But thus 
 much, at least, may in fairness be required of all 
 that whatever degree of strictness, or of laxity, of 
 interpretation, each person may deem right, he 
 should allow as right for all men alike ; and that he 
 should not have one rule for himself, and those who 
 agree with him, and another rule for such as may 
 think differently. 
 
 Self-evident as is the justice of this maxim, no 
 one will think the mention of it superfluous who 
 considers how widely it has been departed from by 
 many persons of opposite parties. One may hear the 
 most vehement and indignant censures pronounced, 
 and that from both sides, on such as put a forced 
 and unnatural interpretation on the language of 
 such and such portions of our Formularies, while 
 the complainants themselves are no less boldly ex- 
 plaining away the language of certain other portions 
 into a conformity with their own views. 1 
 
 1 One among many instances that might be given of this 
 kind of unfairness, is, the conduct of some persons who, at public 
 meetings, and in various other ways, have been protesting against 
 the disingenuousness of those who depart from the plain sense of 
 our Formularies, though they not only never expressed any dis-
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 7 
 
 Whatever allowance may be made for sincere 
 errors of judgment, one cannot but regard those as 
 self-condemned who adopt without scruple, in their 
 own favour, a mode of procedure which, in their 
 opponents, they loudly condemn as disingenuous. 
 
 As for the particular questions- Qmstions 
 those relating to Regeneration which relative to re- 
 have been of late so much agitated, it , 
 is evident that the full discussion of them, were I 
 otherwise disposed to enter on it, would far exceed 
 the limits of such an occasion as this. But I 
 consider it as most important to remark that, 
 among many persons (I do not say all) who are in 
 language very much opposed to each other on this 
 point, the opposition is much greater in appearance 
 than in reality. They are engaged, without being 
 aware of it, in a controversy chiefly, if not altogether, 
 verbal. 
 
 Now, it must be regarded by all who possess 
 anything of a genuine Christian spirit as a most 
 desirable object, to obviate as far as possible all 
 unnecessary dissensions among Christians, and to 
 bring to a mutual good understanding, as nearly as 
 can be done without compromise of truth, " all 
 who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." 
 
 approbation of the celebrated Tract 90, and other such publica- 
 tions, but even (some of them) protested publicly against the con- 
 demnation of these by the University of Oxford ! I have sub- 
 joined in the Appendix (C) a few extracts from that Tract, as it 
 may perhaps not be in the hands of some of my readers.
 
 8 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 For besides the immediate dangers to those 
 who are themselves engaged in any controversy, 
 there is this additional danger also to the Christian 
 People generally, that many of them will be dis- 
 posed to say, " Here are questions which are 
 declared by all to be of vital importance, yet on 
 which the most learned Divines are not agreed. If 
 men apparently pious, and of far greater knowledge 
 and ability than ours, find so much difficulty in 
 understanding the sense of Scripture on these 
 points, what is to them a difficulty, must be to us 
 an impossibility ; and Scripture can therefore con- 
 tain no Revelation, properly so called, or, at least, 
 no Revelation to the mass of mankind." And the 
 result of these reflections will often be, that some 
 will betake themselves to some supposed infallible 
 Church or person, 1 to whose guidance they will 
 implicitly resign themselves ; while others will be, 
 by the same cause, led into infidelity. They see 
 that there is no such infallible and universally 
 accessible guide on earth. 2 And moreover, that if 
 there were, it could not possibly be ascertained by 
 men incompetent (by supposition) to exercise 
 private judgment, and who consequently could 
 never have any good reason for trusting that their 
 own private judgment could rightly decide that 
 most difficult question who is the appointed guide ? 
 
 1 See the Search after Infallibility. 
 
 2 See Lesson VI. on Religious Worship.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 And they accordingly reject the belief of any divine 
 revelation at all. 
 
 It is doubly important, therefore, to point 
 out when this can be done with truth how 
 far difficulties and disputes may have been either 
 created or aggravated by Theologians themselves, 
 either from their seeking to explain more than 
 God has thought fit to reveal, 1 or from interpreting 
 Scripture according to the technical phraseology 
 of some theological school, or from overlooking 
 variations in the senses in which several words are 
 employed, and thus introducing confusion of thought 
 and undetected verbal controversy. 
 
 -The terms " regenerate," and " re- 
 generation" [or New-birth] are com- 
 monly employed (as I have remarked 
 in a work which has been now for many terms. 
 years well known to the Public) in 
 different senses by different persons. 2 " Regenera- 
 tion" denotes, in the language of some, merely that 
 admission to Christian advantages and privileges 
 which is the necessary preliminary to a Christian 
 life. Others employ it to signify the condition 
 into which a man is brought by that use of those 
 advantages and privileges which constitutes a de- 
 cided Christian character. And " regenerate," 
 
 1 See Lessons on Religious Worship, Lesson VII., 1, 2. 
 See also, Discourse on tJie Shepherds at Bethlehem. 
 
 2 See Logic. Appendix, Article " Regeneration."
 
 10 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 accordingly, is applied by these persons, respec- 
 tively, to conditions as widely different as that of a 
 new-born infant, and of a fully formed adult. 
 
 Without attempting to enter into a minute dis- 
 cussion of all the modifications of meaning that 
 have ever been attached to these words, we may, at 
 least, recognise the employment of them in the two 
 widely different senses just mentioned. And not 
 only by different persons, but sometimes even by 
 the same, these words (as well as several others) 
 will be found to be occasionally used in different 
 significations. Undesignedly, and unconsciously, a 
 person will sometimes, even at a short interval, 
 slide from one sense to another of some of the ex- 
 pressions he is employing. 
 
 Now, whatever may be the importance of ad- 
 hering to the most correct use of any term, and 
 whichever may be, in this instance, the more correct, 
 it is surely the first point the first in order, and the 
 first also in importance to perceive distinctly the 
 ambiguity that actually does exist, and to keep clear 
 of the many injurious misapprehensions which may 
 arise from attributing to those who use a term in 
 one sense, conclusions which depend on its employ- 
 ment in a different sense. 
 
 For example, a person may be exposed to a 
 groundless imputation of leading men into a vain 
 and dangerous reliance on baptismal privileges, and 
 of teaching them that all who have been duly 
 baptized are in a satisfactory and safe state; when,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 11 
 
 perhaps, in fact, he may have never said or implied 
 anything of the kind, but may have merely been 
 using the word " regenerate" according to what he 
 regards as the most scriptural usage ; and then has 
 had imputed to him inferences which would have 
 followed if he had employed the word in quite 
 another sense. 1 And, perhaps, it may turn out, on 
 calm investigation, that such a person, and some 
 who had at first been disposed very strongly to 
 censure him, do not in reality disagree to any con- 
 siderable extent as to the substance of the doctrines 
 they maintain. 
 
 For let any one but consider and this is an 
 inquiry well becoming those who would cherish a 
 
 1 I have seen something like such an imputation thrown out 
 in a work which, several years ago, obtained some popularity. 
 It was professedly a description (veiled under a slight tale) of 
 various prevailing religious opinions and modes of conduct; and 
 some of the pictures drawn were both just and striking. But 
 among others, a careless clergyman is introduced deprecating 
 any anxiety felt by any of his people about their spiritual state, 
 and saying, that " of course all Christians will be saved; and 
 whoever is baptized is a Christian." 
 
 Now I feel convinced, from long experience and attentive 
 observation, that there is no ground for such an imputation : I 
 mean, that it is not true (as is evidently meant to be implied) 
 that there exists any party, school, or class of men among our 
 clergy even the worst of them who teach such a doctrine. 
 Yet it is probable that the representation was not designedly 
 untrue, but was an " idle word," originating in a misconception, 
 such as I have been alluding to, as the result of a hasty and 
 inconsiderate interpretation of another's expressions, and of rash 
 inferences therefrom.
 
 12 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Points of spirit of Christian charity how much 
 agreement be- ^here may be of agreement, and that on 
 
 tween those at ... 
 
 variance in the most essential practical points, be- 
 
 their expres- t men wh &t the firgt g l ance 
 
 &wns. 
 
 might appear widely opposed, and who, 
 
 perhaps, are inclined to think hardly of each other. 
 Two persons accustomed to employ the word "rege- 
 neration" in the different senses, respectively, which 
 have been just alluded to, may agree in reverencing 
 the Kite of Baptism, and in administering it accord- 
 ing to the same rules ; both may be accustomed, also, 
 to warn men that we must not place an indolent 
 confidence in Gospel privileges; and that to have 
 been enrolled as members of Christ's Church is an 
 advantage, for the use of which we are responsible, 
 and which will but increase the condemnation of 
 such as do not "walk worthy of their vocation." 
 Both may teach that (in the words of our 16th 
 Article) " after we have received the Holy Ghost, 
 we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin ; 
 and, by the grace of God we may arise again, and 
 amend our lives." 1 And they may agree in teach- 
 ing that " God desireth not the death of a sinner, 
 but rather that he should turn from his wickedness 
 and live ;" and in exhorting every one who does live 
 a careless, an irreligious, or a vicious life, to repent, 
 and seek Divine mercy through Christ, and strength 
 to accomplish a thorough reformation; though, in 
 
 1 See Appendix (D).
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 13 
 
 many instances, to the same sort of change which 
 the one would call "regeneration" (or "new-birth") 
 the other might apply the terms " conversion," 
 " revival," " renewal," &c. Both might agree in 
 teaching that a holy life is the test of effectual, 
 profitable regeneration, and in exhorting all men to 
 lead such a life. On this, the important practical 
 point, they would not differ at all. 
 
 Now, if this be so, it cannot but be desirable that 
 men should be at least guarded against supposing 
 themselves (through the influence of the language 
 they employ) to be more at variance than they 
 really are. And it is accordingly our duty, when 
 any such occasion arises, to point out this danger, 
 and thus to promote reconcilement, or, at least, mi- 
 tigate hostility, between those engaged in any con- 
 troversy. 
 
 But I should mislead you if I were Attempts to 
 to represent such a procedure as likely ' I^^f' n 
 to obtain, for the present, at least, the 
 favour or good opinion of the disputants. 1 On 
 the contrary, the most vehement of these will usually 
 applaud most the most eloquent champion of their 
 own cause ; and will even be likely to charge those 
 who seek to mediate between them, with lukewarm- 
 ness, or cowardice, or dissimulation ; with ignorance 
 of important truths, or with a readiness to make a 
 base compromise for the sake of human favour. 
 
 1 See Appendix (E).
 
 14 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 It is true, the most calm and considerate will, at 
 once and many others, after a time be disposed 
 to do justice to your motives, and to listen to your 
 reasons. But no one is less likely to gain present 
 popularity than he who seeks to convince the parties 
 engaged in a contest that they are in reality less op- 
 posed than they appear to be. 
 
 I speak, therefore, as to persons who are seeking 
 the approbation, not of men, but of their heavenly 
 Master; of Him who has pronounced a blessing on 
 the " Peacemakers." His true followers, though 
 they would not sacrifice Gospel-truth for the sake 
 of Church-concord, will be ready to sacrifice for it 
 anything and everything else. 
 Controversies But though some are liable to be 
 tliat are not engaged (in reference to these points) 
 in a controversy chiefly verbal, there 
 are others, as I have already hinted, between whom 
 an apparently similar controversy will be found to 
 turn on a real opposition of doctrine. 
 
 Those who hold that, (1) of persons duly ad- 
 mitted into the visible Church by baptism, some are, 
 by an absolute, eternal, divine decree, excluded from 
 all the benefits of Christ's redemption, and moreover 
 (2) that this is a truth set forth in Scripture as an 
 essential point of Christian faith, 1 these, and the 
 parties opposed to them, must, of course, differ, not 
 in the words only, but in the matter of their teaching. 
 
 1 These two very distinct points are often confounded together. 
 See Essays, Second Series, Note (A) to Essay IV.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 15 
 
 Taking Regeneration to imply (as is generally 
 agreed) some kind and degree of benefit some 
 spiritual gift, or at least offer of a gift they, of 
 course, deny the term " regenerate" to be applicable 
 to those baptized Christians whom they consider as 
 excluded, by the decree of Omnipotence, from all 
 spiritual benefit whatever of Baptism. And the 
 Visible Church, into which members are, through 
 this rite, admitted, they regard as a community not 
 possessing any spiritual endowments whatever; 
 these being, by Divine decree, reserved for certain 
 individuals arbitrarily selected from the rest. 
 
 Of those who maintain the predes- infant bap- 
 tinarian views now alluded to, a consi- tism rejected 
 
 derable proportion belong to the sect 
 
 which altogether rejects Infant Baptism. 1 And I 
 
 1 The proper designation of these is Antipsedobaptists. But 
 this, though otherwise unexceptionable, is so awkwardly long a 
 title, that it is not in common use. The title of " Baptists," and 
 that of " Anabaptists," are both alike objectionable, as being 
 both, what Jeremy Bentham calls "question-begging-appellatives:" 
 the former implying that their distinctive tenet is right; the 
 latter, that it is an error. 
 
 For, when an adult who had been baptized in infancy joins 
 their communion, they administer to him the rite of baptism 
 according to their own system. And to call this a " re-bap- 
 tizing," (as is implied by the term Anabaptist) is to assume that 
 his original baptism was real and valid, which is the very point 
 they deny. On the other hand, the term Baptist, as a distin- 
 guishing appellation, implies that tJiey alone really baptize, and 
 that the (so-called) Baptism of all others is void and unreal; 
 which is equally to prejudge the question on the other side. 
 
 It should be added, that those I have been alluding to are
 
 16 INFANT BAFI'ISM. 
 
 cannot but admit, that in this they are perfectly 
 consistent. 1 Regarding the rite of Baptism as " an 
 outward and visible Sign of an inward spiritual 
 grace," they deem it necessary, I apprehend, not to 
 " put asunder what God has joined together;" and 
 therefore confine the administration of this sign to 
 those respecting whom there is some presumption, 
 at least, of their being admitted to a participation 
 in the thing signified the divine grace ; which grace, 
 they hold, is, by an eternal and absolute decree, be- 
 stowed on one portion of mankind, and denied to 
 the rest. And to which of the two classes any in- 
 dividual infant belongs, there cannot possibly be 
 any ground for even the slightest conjecture. 
 
 In the case of adults, they can have, they sup- 
 pose (just as in the case of the other sacrament 
 the Lord's Supper,) if not a complete and certain 
 knowledge whether he belongs to the class of the 
 
 what are called " Particular-Baptists." There is another deno- 
 mination (I understand, very far from numerous) called "General- 
 Baptists," who do not hold the predestinarian views alluded to. 
 
 On the subject of " terms of reproach," I have offered some 
 remarks in the Appendix (A) to the third series of Essays. 
 
 Any one who deprecates, as a term of reproach, or for any 
 other reason, the application of some name 'to the church or 
 class he belongs to, should be careful to adopt for it a designation 
 which does not imply a reproach to his neighbours; else, though 
 these may be wrong in the term they employ, lie at least has no 
 right to complain of them. 
 
 1 See Essay on " Election." (Essay III. Second Scries.) 
 See also Archbishop Sumner's Apostolical Preaching, from which 
 I have subjoined an extract in Appendix (F).
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 17 
 
 elect or of the non-elect at least, some indication 
 from his professions and his conduct ; indications 
 which an infant, of course, cannot afford at all. 
 And they consider, I apprehend, that this being 
 the case, Baptism administered to infants cannot be 
 a Sign of Regeneration, since it cannot furnish 
 even any presumption of being accompanied or 
 followed by it. 
 
 And certainly we must admit that, Ordinary 
 according at least to the ordinary use ^^ inff 
 of language, a Sign of anything is 
 understood to be such from its being regularly 
 accompanied by that thing of which it is a sign, 
 or at least by some reasonable presumption of its 
 existence. When, for instance, we speak of a 
 certain dress or badge being a sign of a man's 
 belonging to a certain regiment, or order of knight- 
 hood, or the like, we understand that it is to be 
 something peculiar to them, and serving to dis- 
 tinguish them from others. If the dress or badge 
 were worn indifferently by an indefinite number of 
 persons, some belonging to this regiment or order, 
 and some not, we should consider that it had ceased 
 to be a sign at all, having no longer any signification. 
 
 It is on these grounds, I conceive, that many of 
 those who hold the doctrine of absolute decrees 
 I have been alluding to, adhered to, or have joined 
 the communion of those calling themselves, and 
 commonly called Baptists. 1 
 
 1 See Appendix (G). 
 C
 
 18 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Our safest and most pious course, 
 however, is, in any practical question, 
 to endeavour to ascertain, in the first 
 instance, what was the practice of the Apostles, 
 and to adhere to that, whenever we have reason to 
 think that the rules and customs they sanctioned 
 were not of a merely local or temporary character, 
 but were equally suited to our own age and 
 country. Not only is respect due to thSir practices, 
 but moreover these practices will often throw light 
 on their doctrine. And we ought surely rather to 
 put ourselves under their teaching, where it is to 
 be had, than to adopt and act upon the inferences 
 drawn from any theological theory of our own. 
 
 Now, with respect to the question of 
 
 Reference to . ., . , , 
 
 thecmodogyof iBHHit baptism, though there is not in 
 the Ltmtwal Scripture any express injunction or 
 prohibition relating to it, any one who 
 inquires with an unbiassed mind may, I think, 
 arrive at a perfect moral certainty as to what was 
 the practice of the earliest Christians. 
 
 For several years, we should remember, they 
 were all Jews. And even after Gentiles had begun 
 to be engrafted into the Church, the Gospel was 
 still, in each place, preached first in the Jewish 
 Synagogue ; and a considerable portion of the most 
 eminent teachers were of that nation. 
 
 Now, men brought up under the LAW would, 
 of course, adhere to the principles of that law 
 wherever these were not at variance with Chris-
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 19 
 
 tianity, and would be disposed to view everything 
 in the Gospel according to the analogy of Judaism, 
 except when taught otherwise. And their inspired 
 instructors did teach them otherwise, whenever 
 there was need. Whenever this disposition was 
 carried to a faulty excess as in the well-known 
 instance of the attempt to make the Mosaic Law 
 binding on Christians the error was, we may be 
 sure, as in that instance, promptly corrected, and 
 firmly resisted, by the Apostles. 
 
 Now, Baptism having always been clearly un- 
 derstood to be the initiatory rite by which members 
 were admitted into the Christian Church, 1 it cannot, 
 I think, be doubted, by any unprejudiced inquirer, 
 that the early Christians must have been prepared 
 to observe the same rules in admitting (by Baptism) 
 members into the Christian Church, which they had 
 been accustomed to in the admission into the Jewish. 
 If it had been the rule to admit adults only into the 
 Mosaic covenant if infancy had been a bar to any 
 one's reception then, they would never have thought 
 of baptizing children into the Christian Church, unless 
 expressly commanded to do so. If as is the fact 
 they had been accustomed to enrol in the Jewish 
 
 1 Agreeably to our Lord's charge to bis Apostles (Mat. xxviii.) 
 the exact rendering of which is, " make disciples of all nations," 
 (i. e., enrol them as members of the Church) " by baptizing them 
 in the name," &c. 
 
 The marginal rendering of /^aSr/rei/trart in our Bible is pre- 
 ferable to that in the text. See also Acts, viii. 36, and x. 47. 
 
 c2
 
 20 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Church their own infant-children, and proselytes, 
 of all ages, then they would, as a matter of course, 
 adhere to the same rule in reference to the Christian 
 Church, unless they were expressly forbidden. 1 And 
 so strong and universal must have been the dispo- 
 sition to bring to Baptism the children of believers, 
 that if this had not been allowable, we should un- 
 doubtedly have found in the New Testament most 
 distinct and frequent notices of its prohibition. As 
 for distinct injunctions or recommendations, these 
 were evidently not at all needed, in reference to 
 any practice about which there had never been any 
 hesitation. 
 
 And as for the many scruples and questions that 
 have been raised relative to infant-baptism, none of 
 these would be likely even to occur to their minds ; 
 because they had been familiar all their lives with 
 the admission into the Mosaic Covenant, of infants, 
 incapable, at the time, of availing themselves of, or 
 at all understanding, the benefits of that Covenant. 
 
 We have therefore, I conceive, a complete moral 
 certainty that the earliest Christians did practise 
 infant-baptism, and that it received the tacit sanc- 
 
 1 " There is a presumption in favour of every existing institu- 
 tion. Many of these (we will suppose the majority) may be sus- 
 ceptible of alteration for the better; but still, the 'burden of 
 proof lies with him who proposes an alteration, simply on the 
 ground that since a change is not a good in itself, he who de- 
 mands a change should show cause for it." Rhetoric, p. i. c. 3, 
 2.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 21 
 
 tion and approval of the Apostles; whose prohi- 
 bitions of it we should not have failed to find 
 recorded, had it been at all objectionable. 
 
 But in this, and in several other Jewishha _ 
 points also, difficulties, and sometimes bitsof thought 
 
 vi i s. to be consi- 
 
 serious errors, are likely to arise from 
 
 not being sufficiently careful to view 
 the Gospel through the medium of the Law; to 
 recollect, that is, not only that the Mosaic Dispen- 
 sation itself was the forerunner and type of the 
 Christian, which fulfilled and extended it, but also 
 that Christianity was first preached by, and to, men 
 who had been brought up Jews; and that accord- 
 ingly we must carefully consider, and keep in mind, 
 what were the habits and modes of thought of Jews 
 of that Age and Country, and in what way they would 
 be likely to understand the precepts and the doc- 
 trines delivered to them. For, the interpretations 
 which were the most obvious to them, will often 
 differ from what may be the most obvious to us of 
 the present day. And, again, it will often happen 
 that what were to them the greatest difficulties, (as, 
 for instance, the admission of Gentiles to be "fellow- 
 heirs,") will be, to us, no difficulties at all. And 
 whatever meaning presented itself to their minds, 
 must be presumed to be the right one, so far as 
 they were not taught otherwise by their inspired 
 guides the Apostles, who were at hand to correct 
 any mistakes they might fall into. 
 
 Thus, for instance, if we would inquire what
 
 22 INT ANT BAPTISM. 
 
 we are to understand by " Saints" " God's people" 
 and the " Elect" [or chosen], our safest course 
 is, (as I have pointed out, long since, on several 
 occasions,) to look to the sense in which an Israelite 
 had been accustomed to hear those terms employed, 
 and to consider how he would be likely to under- 
 stand them, by analogy, in reference to the Gospel 
 dispensation. 1 And so also, if we would ascertain 
 what is meant by the "baptizing of a household," 
 which we read of in the New Testament whether 
 it included, or not, the children of the believing 
 parents our guide should be, the practice of the 
 Israelites in reference to any Gentile-family, the 
 heads of which had renounced idolatry, and desired 
 to be admitted, as Proselytes as Israelites by adop- 
 tion into the number of God's chosen people under 
 the Old Dispensation. " Let all his males be circum- 
 cised, and then let him draw near and eat the 
 passover," was the direction of the Law under which 
 they acted. 
 Jewishvieu) And if an intelligent and well-dis- 
 
 of the admw- posed Israelite had been asked, what 
 
 sionofmfants 
 
 into tlie Mo- benefit he contemplated as accruing 
 sale Covenant. from enro i men t in the number of God's 
 people to an infant, incapable of either obeying or 
 disobeying the law, and of enjoying, or understand- 
 ing, the promised blessings of the Covenant, he 
 
 1 See Essay " On Election," First Series; and Discourse on 
 " Christian Saints," in the Vol. of Sermons.
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 23 
 
 would probably have replied, that the child being 
 dedicated to the Lord by Jewish parents or guar- 
 dians, solemnly bound to instruct and bring him 
 up as a Jew might be expected, as soon as he 
 should be able, and as far as he should be able, to 
 understand these things, to become, gradually, an 
 observer of the Law, and a partaker of its benefits ; 
 and that, then, he would not obtain a new possession 
 of something which, before, was not his, but would 
 merely enter on the full enjoyment of a benefit for- 
 merly conferred on him. 
 
 The case, in short, would be viewed as analo- 
 gous to one which occurs every day; that of an 
 infant inheriting an estate, or a title, or the free- 
 dom of some corporation. Though not capable at 
 the time of either profiting by, or understanding 
 these advantages, he will subsequently become so; 
 and will then, if he use them aright, not acquire a 
 new possession, but derive the suitable advantages 
 from that to which he was already entitled. 1 And 
 even as the inheritor of a fortune may, when he 
 grows up, make either a good or an ill use of his 
 wealth, so, any one, whether the child of an Israelite 
 
 1 In the ordinary language of secular business, a person is 
 said to have received as a gift or a payment such and such a 
 sum of money, even when no money is literally handed to him, 
 but only a draft on some banker, who is ready to pay it as soon 
 as presented. And we speak of his having received this sum, 
 though we know that he may possibly not present the draft for 
 some days, or may even never present it at all.
 
 24 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 by birth, or of a proselyte, who was admitted into 
 the Jewish Church, might, in after life, either avail 
 himself rightly of the privileges thus bestowed on 
 him, or convert them into a curse, by his neglect 
 or abuse of them. 
 
 And supposing this latter case, supposing the 
 son of some devout proselyte to have grown up an 
 idolater, or otherwise a transgressor of the Law, he 
 would, I conceive, have been admonished (by a pro- 
 phet, or other pious Jew) not, to become an Israelite, 
 
 not, to seek admission into the number of God's 
 chosen people but, to repent, and return to the 
 Lord, to reform his life, and to walk worthy of the 
 privileges to which he had been admitted. 
 
 All this, an intelligent and pious 
 
 Seasoning, Jew who ghould haye embrace d the 
 oj a Jew wlu) 
 
 should have Gospel, would naturally be inclined to 
 
 embraced -, , ^ .-, f ,1 
 
 Christianity. a PP ! y> b 7 analo g7> to tne case of the 
 
 Christian-Dispensation . 
 
 And accordingly, one of the most eminent of 
 these, the Apostle Paul himself, directs the atten- 
 tion of his converts to such an analogy ; applying 
 the very word " baptized" to the Israelites on their 
 deliverance from Egypt; whom he represents as 
 being all " chosen" to be partakers of special divine 
 favours ; while yet as he reminds the Corinthians 1 
 
 most 2 of these very men were " overthrown in 
 the wilderness ;" not according to any eternal divine 
 
 1 1 Cor. x. 1 12. 2 rote
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 25 
 
 decree (at least, he mentions none), excluding them 
 from the promised blessings, but as a consequence 
 of their obstinate rebellions. It was because "they 
 thought scorn of that pleasant land, and gave no 
 credence unto his word," that the Lord "sware 
 unto them that they should not enter into his 
 rest." And all " these things," Paul tells the Corin- 
 thians, " are written for the admonition" of Chris- 
 tians. 1 
 
 It is thus that (as I remarked above) we may 
 plainly learn, from the practice of the early Church, 
 what were the doctrines taught in it. Having as- 
 certained what the first Christians were accustomed, 
 under the guidance of the Apostles, to do, in refer- 
 ence to the administration of Baptism, we may thence 
 safely infer what were their sentiments on the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 And here I would remind you, by By whmn 
 the way, that I have been representing infants are to 
 a pious and inteUigent Israelite as ^2^ 
 speaking all along, of the case of chil- among God's 
 
 f)&yDlc. 
 
 dren brought forward for dedication to 
 the Lord by parents designing to educate them ac- 
 cordingly. He would not, I conceive, suppose that 
 any one had a right, or a power, to admit into the 
 Mosaic covenant a Gen tile -infant who was to be 
 brought up as a heathen. And, by parity of rea- 
 soning, he would not, as a Christian, regard as of 
 
 See Essay " On Election," Second Series.
 
 26 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 any avail, or as a valid Baptism at all, the perform- 
 ance of an outward ceremony on an infant that is 
 to be brought up, as far as we know and believe, in 
 entire ignorance of Christian duties and privileges. 
 No one would be regarded as sowing seed to any 
 purpose or indeed, properly speaking, as sowing it 
 at all who should scatter corn on the trodden way- 
 side, with a full knowledge that it would be imme- 
 diately " devoured by the fowls of the air," instead 
 of springing up and producing, " first the blade, 
 then the ear, and afterwards the full corn in the 
 ear." 
 
 I mention this, because there are (as most of you 
 probably are aware), instances recorded of priests 
 administering by stealth (through mistaken pious 
 charity), what they regard as the rite of Christian 
 Baptism, to the infants of savages, or of Chinese or 
 Hindoo idolaters. 1 But in our Church, it is plain, 
 
 1 I have heard the question raised, what should be our pro- 
 cedure in reference to a person to whom an intended baptism had 
 been thus rashly administered, supposing him (as is not incon- 
 ceivable) to come, subsequently, to a knowledge of the Gospel; 
 are we, it has been asked, to repeat, in such a case, the external 
 ceremony? 
 
 The question, in any such case, evidently amounts to this : 
 whether he Jias been really baptized or not? For it has always 
 been universally held that Baptism is a rite which cannot be re- 
 peated ; since no one can be admitted a member of a society of 
 which he is a member already. 
 
 In every case, then, in which there is a doubt as to the answer 
 to that question, our Church has expressly provided a conditional 
 form to meet such a case. [See Rubric to the Office for Private
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 27 
 
 no such procedure is recognised. Our Formularies 
 all along most plainly contemplate the case of a 
 child brought to Baptism by persons pledging them- 
 selves to its education as a Christian. In the nar- 
 rative so earnestly dwelt on in the baptismal ser- 
 vice, the children brought to our Lord for His 
 blessing must evidently have been the children of 
 believing parents. And all the declarations made in 
 our Formularies the hopes expressed the prayers 
 the exhortations in short, every thing that is 
 said must be, in fairness, understood as proceeding 
 on this supposition. 
 
 Accordingly, the very reason assigned in the 
 Catechism for its being allowable to administer 
 Baptism to infants is, that as there are certain in- 
 dispensable conditions of the benefits promised to 
 them, so the fulfilment of these conditions is pro- 
 mised by them through their sureties. 1 
 
 As for the " remission of sins" at 
 Baptism, so frequently alluded to in R $*j^ 
 our Services, this, it is plain, cannot be 
 understood of actual sins, in the case of an infant, 
 which is not a moral agent at all, nor capable of 
 either transgressing, or obeying God's laws; of 
 
 Baptism.] As for the question, who are the persons to whom 
 the office is, or should be, entrusted, of administering the Rite of 
 Baptism 1 on this I have made some remarks [extracted in the 
 Appendix (H)] from the Second Essay, " On the Kingdom of 
 Christ." 
 
 1 See Appendix (I).
 
 28 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 resisting, or of following, the suggestions of his 
 Spirit. Nor, again, can it mean a removal of the 
 frail and sinful nature, the " phronema sarkos" 
 inherited by every descendant of Adam; since our 
 9th Article expressly declares that this " remaineth 
 even in those that are regenerate. 1 But it seems 
 to denote that those duly baptized are considered 
 as no longer children of the condemned and 
 disinherited Adam as no longer aliens from 
 God disqualified for his service and excluded 
 from the offers of the Gospel, but are received into 
 the number of God's adopted children, and have 
 thrown open to them, as it were, the treasury of 
 divine grace, through which, if they duly avail them- 
 selves of it though not otherwise, they will attain 
 final salvation. 
 
 This seems to be the most simple and unforced 
 interpretation of the language of our Church in 
 various passages of her Formularies : as for instance 
 in the Catechism, where the Catechumen speaks 
 of " Baptism, wherein I was made a child of God 
 * * * and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven ;" 
 and again where it is said that, " being by nature 
 born in sin, * * * we are hereby made the children 
 of Grace." 
 
 1 Of the " imputation" of Adam's transgression (and also of 
 Christ's righteousness) I have treated fully in Essay VI. (Second 
 Series). On the same subject, Archbishop Sumner has some 
 valuable remarks, which I have taken the liberty of extracting in 
 the Appendix (K).
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 29 
 
 Now this placing of a person in a dif- 
 
 ,. . i . i-ii New-birth. 
 
 ferent condition from that in which he 
 was originally born, may not unaptly be designated 
 (as it appears to be by our Reformers) by the term 
 " Regeneration" or New-birth. 1 
 
 But no one can suppose that they regarded the 
 sowing of seed as the same thing with the full matu- 
 rity of the corn for harvest, or as necessarily imply- 
 ing it. To be born into the natural world is not the 
 same thing as to be grown up ; nor can it be pro- 
 nounced of every infant that is born, that it will, 
 necessarily, grow up to manly maturity. So, also, 
 our Reformers never meant to teach that every one 
 who is baptized is sure of salvation, independently 
 of his " leading the rest of his life according to this 
 beginning :" 2 or again, that we can be infallibly sure 
 that he will do this ; any more than we can pronounce 
 with certainty ( according to the analogy of a temporal 
 inheritance, above alluded to) that one who has an 
 estate bequeathed to him, will claim his inheritance 
 in proper form, and will make that right use of his 
 wealth on which depends its becoming a real blessing 
 to him. 
 
 1 The Ninth Article has in the original Latin the word 
 " renati" twice; once, where it is translated " regenerate," and 
 again where it is rendered " baptized." 
 
 1 have inserted in the Appendix (L) an extract from a Charge 
 by the late Bishop Ryder; one from the works of the late Mr. 
 Simeon ; and one from Archbishop Sumner's Apostolic Preach- 
 ing; all bearing on the point now before us. 
 
 2 Baptismal Service.
 
 30 INTANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Inheritinq ^ ne ex P ress i n " an inheritor of the 
 of the King- Kingdom of Heaven" seems to be used 
 Vffn in reference to the tendency and suitable 
 
 result, of an admission into the Church 
 of Christ. And such a kind of language is often 
 employed by all writers, and not least, by the 
 Apostles. When, for instance, the Apostle John 
 says that " whatsoever is born of God overcometh 
 the World," and that " every one who is born of 
 God doth not commit sin," it cannot be supposed 
 that he meant to attribute moral perfection, and im- 
 peccability to Christians ; whom, on the contrary, he 
 exhorts to " confess their sins," and seek to be 
 " cleansed from all unrighteousness." Far was it 
 from his design, to teach that one who did but feel 
 convinced of having experienced the new-birth 
 might safely remit his exertions, and relax his vigi- 
 lance against sin, and " count himself to have 
 apprehended," and to be thenceforward sure of the 
 divine acceptance, and of everlasting life. On the 
 contrary, he was writing as is well known in 
 opposition to those Gnostics of his day, who were 
 gross Antinomians, and who, while they professed to 
 " have no sin" in God's sight, and to be sure of salva- 
 tion through their pretended "knowledge" (Gnosis) 
 of the Gospel, lived a life of flagrant immorality. 
 
 In contradiction to their monstrous tenets, he 
 declares that every one who hath a well-grounded 
 "hope inChrist,purineth himself, even as He is pure :" 
 that a sinful life is inconsistent with the character
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 31 
 
 of " the sons of God :" that the tendency, in short, 
 and suitable result, of being born of God, is opposed 
 to the commission of sin. 
 
 And indeed in all subjects, it is far 
 
 , , . Natural or 
 
 from an uncommon mode 01 speaking, 
 
 to attribute to any person or thing, some butes spoken 
 
 / J .77 of as actual. 
 
 quality, which, though not an invariable, 
 is a suitable, or natural attribute, and may reason- 
 ably be looked for therein. 1 And in like manner, 
 we often, figuratively, deny some title to an object 
 that is wanting in those qualities which ought to be- 
 long to it, or which that title suggests as a natural 
 and consistent accompaniment, and what may fairly 
 be expected. 
 
 Thus, for instance, in speaking of some act of 
 excessive baseness or depravity, it is not uncommon 
 to say " one who could be guilty of this, is not a 
 MAN :" meaning of course, that such conduct is un- 
 worthy of the manly character; inconsistent with 
 what may be fairly expected from a man, as such, 
 and more suitable to the brutish nature. 2 But so 
 
 1 In this way, many words have come to vary gradually from 
 their original signification. For instance, to " cure," in its etymo- 
 logical sense (from " curare") signifies to take care of a patient, 
 and to administer medicines. In its present use, it implies the 
 successful administration. 
 
 So it is also with the word dtpcnrevw, which, in the language 
 of the New-testament writers, signifies, not to tend, but to heal. 
 2 " I dare do all that may become a man; 
 Who dares do more, is none." Macbeth. 
 
 Some remarks on this kind of language, in reference to another 
 subject, will be found in the Treatise on Rlietoric, p. 3, ch. iii. 3.
 
 32 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 far are we from understanding that any one who 
 acts thus unworthily is not, strictly and literally, a 
 man, that, on the contrary, this is the very ground 
 of our censure. We condemn a man who acts the 
 part of a brute, precisely because he is a man, a 
 Being from whom something better might have been 
 looked for, and not one of the brute-creation. 
 
 Again, any one might say of a garden that was 
 greatly neglected, and over-run with wild plants, 
 " this is not a garden" or " it does not deserve the 
 name of a garden :" though it is precisely because it 
 is, literally, a garden, that we speak thus con- 
 temptuously of it; since, in an uncultivated spot, 
 the sight of a luxuriant wild vegetation does not 
 offend the eye. 
 
 It is in a similar mode of speaking that Paul 
 declares, that "he is not a Jew who is one out- 
 wardly ; neither is that circumcision which is outward 
 in the flesh ; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, 
 and circumcision is of the heart," &c., meaning as, 
 no doubt, every one must have understood him, that 
 one who is not in his heart, and in his conduct, a 
 servant of the Lord, is wanting in what ought to 
 characterize the Lord's people, is inconsistent with 
 his profession, and an unworthy member of the 
 Jewish Church: one who will derive no benefit, 
 but the contrary, from the privileges to which he 
 has been admitted as a Jew. 
 
 He might equally well have said and doubtless 
 would have been ready to say according to the
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 33 
 
 same kind of figure that he is not a " baptized " 
 Christian he is not " regenerate" who is so, out- 
 wardly alone, and has nothing of the Christian 
 character within. And, indeed, the Apostle Peter 
 actually does employ similar language in speaking 
 of Baptism (which, he says, " saveth us"), when he 
 says that it is "not the putting away the filth of the 
 flesh," (i. e. the outward application of water to the 
 body,) "but the answer of a good conscience towards 
 God :" not meaning that a person deficient in this 
 has not been, literally, and in the strict and proper 
 sense of the word, baptized at all, and needs to have 
 that rite administered; but that he is wanting in 
 that which is the proper and beneficial result of an 
 admission into the Christian Church. 
 
 And corresponding forms of expression are very 
 common, on various subjects; and seldom give rise 
 to error, or confusion of thought, or obscurity, ex- 
 cept in those cases (and religious discussions are 
 among the principal of them) in which men under 
 the influence of some strong prejudice exercise their 
 ingenuity in seeking for anything that may serve as 
 an argument, and in interpreting words accord- 
 ing to the letter and against the spirit, for the sake 
 of supporting some favourite theory. 
 
 Several important points connected with the 
 present subject I have been compelled either to pass 
 by unnoticed, or to touch upon very briefly, because 
 they could not have been fully discussed within
 
 34 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 limits suitable to this occasion. And, moreover, 
 several of them I have already treated of in dif- 
 ferent parts of works long since published ; and I 
 was unwilling to detain you by repeating, in the 
 same, or in other words, what I have there said. 1 
 
 Verbalgues- But P ermlt m6 eamestl 7 tO Cal1 
 
 tions and real your attention, once more, to the im- 
 Pounce of examining carefully, in any 
 controversy that may arise, how far it 
 may turn on differences in the expressions em- 
 ployed. Let any two persons, whose views appear 
 at the first glance widely at variance, be prevailed 
 on to depart from the strict technical language of 
 a theological school, and to state in as many dif- 
 ferent forms as possible, what is the practical advice 
 they would give to each Christian, under various 
 circumstances : and it will often come out that one 
 whom his neighbour had been at first disposed to 
 condemn as having abandoned some fundamental 
 truths of Christianity, has, in fact, merely avoided 
 the particular terms in which the other has been 
 accustomed to express them; and that the differ- 
 ence between the parties is not such, either in kind 
 or in degree, as had been supposed. 2 
 
 1 Particularly in Essay IX. (2d Series) 8. 
 
 2 At the time when the outcry was raised against Bishop 
 Haropden's Bampton Lectures, many persons, no doubt, who 
 joined in it, had no design to commit injustice, but had been 
 taught to think that the work was really unsound. 
 
 He had traced to the Schoolmen many of the phrases which 
 are commonly employed to express certain doctrines; and hence,
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 35 
 
 In guarding, however, against verbal _ 
 controversies mistaken for real, 1 I would tions not un- 
 not be understood as thinking little of ^P"*"* 
 the importance of careful accuracy of language. 
 Indeed, the very circumstance that inattention to 
 this may lead to serious mistakes as to our meaning, 
 would alone be sufficient to show how needful it is 
 to be careful as to our modes of expression. 
 
 For instance, cases have come under Undesigned 
 my own knowledge in which an active favouring of 
 
 .... i T the rejection of 
 
 minister, sincerely attached to our i n f<mt-Bap- 
 Church, has found, to his astonishment tism - 
 and mortification, that his people were, one by one, 
 dropping off into the sect of the Baptists ; and that 
 these seceders were almost exclusively those very 
 persons who had been the most attentive to his in- 
 structions, and the most promising. This circum- 
 stance induced me, when consulted on such a case, 
 to inquire carefully into the language which he had 
 employed in speaking of Baptism and points con- 
 nected therewith. And I found, and pointed out 
 to the complainant, " that he had been, in fact, un- 
 designedly preparing the way for these conversions, 
 by using such expressions as were likely to be un- 
 derstood, and actually were understood, in a sense 
 
 that he intended to represent the doctrines themselves as of human 
 devising was rashly inferred ; by those especially (a very large pro- 
 portion of his censurers) who had never read the work itself, but 
 only artfully-garbled extracts. 
 
 1 See Logic : " Verbal Questions." 
 
 D2
 
 36 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 favouring the Baptist doctrines; so that his most 
 attentive hearers, whenever they came in the way 
 of a teacher of that persuasion, were induced to 
 adopt at once the inferences from the premises 
 already established in their minds." However chari- 
 tably we may judge of the members of that com- 
 munion, it is clearly our duty as sound members of 
 a Church which does allow infant-baptism, to guard 
 against being so understood as to encourage seces- 
 sion from that Church. 1 
 
 Importance On aU the P ints which have been 
 
 of Confirma- here alluded to, you have, my reverend 
 
 tion, and of , ,, . , . i 
 
 right prepa- brethren, an especial opportunity, and 
 ration/or it. an especial call for giving early, and 
 full, and systematic instruction, in your discharge 
 of that most important branch of your duty, the 
 preparing of children for the solemn Ordinance of 
 CONFIRMATION. The course of that preparation will 
 afford you a most fitting occasion for explaining to 
 them clearly the character of the Sacraments accord- 
 ing to the views of our Church; which evidently 
 designs to make Confirmation, not, a distinct Sacra- 
 ment, but the connecting link between the two : 
 a kind of supplement and completion to the one, 
 and the introduction to the other. 2 And this sacred 
 
 1 See Appendix (D.) 
 
 2 It was with a view to impress this the more strongly on the 
 minds of all the parties concerned, that I adopted in my own 
 diocese the plan of adding on the Communion-service to that of
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 37 
 
 rite has the advantage, when duly administered to 
 persons properly prepared, of obviating every rea- 
 sonable objection to the practice of infant-baptism, 
 and thus justifying and exhibiting as an harmonious 
 whole, the system of Church-ordinances established 
 by our reformers. 
 
 Confirmation, and receiving no candidates for Confirmation but 
 such as were prepared to attend the Lord's Table immediately. 
 The error was thus the more effectually guarded against, (and I 
 well knew what need there was to guard againt it,) of bringing 
 forward for Confirmation persons unfit or unwilling to partake of 
 the Eucharist, and who, too often, never do partake of it at all. 
 
 That this is quite at variance with the design of our Church, 
 I took occasion to set forth in the Tract, on Confirmation, 
 (printed for circulation in the diocese,) from which an extract is 
 subjoined in the Appendix (M). 
 
 The experience of nearly eighteen years, during which this 
 course has been blessed with the happiest results, and the strong 
 testimony of the most judicious and assiduous of the Clergy, have 
 fully confirmed my original conviction of its expediency.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (A), page 2. 
 
 Extract from Appendix to Essay II. On tlie Kingdom 
 of Christ. 
 
 "I have seen reproaches full of scornful exultation cast on 
 Protestants for having recourse, when treating of the subject of 
 Church-government, to reasonings drawn from general views of 
 Human Nature, and to illustrations from secular affairs : and for 
 calculating what are likely to be the decisions of a Synod so and 
 so constituted, without adverting to the promises of Divine pre- 
 sence and protection to the Church, and without expressing confi- 
 dence of providential interpositions to secure it from discord, 
 error, and other evils. 
 
 This kind of language has, at the first glance, a plausible air; 
 and is well calculated, one cannot but think, designed, to im- 
 pose on pious and well-intentioned, but ignorant, weak, and un- 
 reflecting minds among the multitude. But a sober examination 
 will shew it to be either wholly irrelevant to the matter in hand, 
 or else a mere groundless pretence. 
 
 It is indeed true that the Lord has promised to be with his 
 People ' even unto the end of the world,' and that ' the Gates of 
 Hell' (i. e. Death) ' shall not prevail against his Church;' that is, 
 that Christianity shall never become extinct. And his ' Spirit 
 which helpeth our infirmities' will doubtless be granted to such as 
 sincerely exert themselves in his cause : though not necessarily so 
 as to crown those exertions with such complete success, as, we 
 know, was not granted to the Apostles themselves. Our efforts, 
 however, in that cause, whether He in his unsearchable wisdom 
 shall see fit to make them a greater or a less benefit to others, 
 will doubtless, as far as regards ourselves, be accepted by him. 
 And a pious confidence in whatever God has really promised, 
 Protestants do not fail to inculcate on suitable occasions. 
 
 But when the question is as to the probable results of such and 
 such a procedure in a Synod, and as to the measures likely to be
 
 APPENDIX (A.) 39 
 
 adopted by a Government so and so constituted, it would mani- 
 festly be irrelevant to dwell on those general promises of the divine 
 blessing. If there were a question what means should be used to 
 protect a certain district from hurtful inundations, no one would 
 think of cutting short the discussion by a reference to the promise 
 made to Noah, that the whole Earth should never again be laid 
 waste by a deluge. It is evident, therefore, that the reproaches 
 I have alluded to must be understood as having reference to (that 
 which alone is pertinent to the present question) confidence in a 
 promise of supernatural interference to secure the Church for ever 
 from strife, schism, and corruption. 
 
 And certainly if we had received any such promise, all appre- 
 hensions, all calculations of probabilities, all reasonings from the 
 analogy of other human transactions, would be superseded ; and 
 we should have only to ' stand still and see the salvation of God.' 
 
 But every one, except the grossly ignorant and unthinking, 
 must be well aware that no such promise has ever been fulfilled, 
 and consequently (if the Scriptures are to be taken as a record of 
 divine truth) that none such was ever made. 
 
 We find the Apostle Paul declaring that ' there must needs 
 be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest;' 
 we find him labouring to repress the irregularities and party spirit, 
 which even in his own time had crept into the Church of Corinth ; 
 and warning the Elders of Ephesus and Miletus to ' take heed, 
 because after his departure grievous wolves would enter into the 
 fold.' Corruptions in doctrine, disorders, dissension, and insub- 
 ordination, are evils of which he is continually giving notice to 
 his People as what they must be prepared to encounter. 
 
 And when we look to the ecclesiastical history of subsequent 
 Ages exhibiting the sad spectacle of contests, almost equally 
 dividing the Church, between the Arians, for instance, and the 
 Athanasians, on points of doctrine, and between the Donatists and 
 their opponents, on a question of Ecclesiastical Polity, besides 
 the mutual anathemas of the Eastern and Western Churches, and 
 besides all the cabals and intrigues, and secular motives, and evil 
 passions, which have notoriously found their way into Councils, 
 and Conclaves, and ecclesiastical Courts when we contemplate 
 all this, we see but too well what reason the Apostle had for his 
 warnings. 
 
 But there is no need in the present case to resort to ancient
 
 40 APPENDIX (A.) 
 
 history. The very existence of Protestants (to say nothing of the 
 Greek Church) is sufficient to nullify, in respect of the Church of 
 Home at least, the notion of an exemption from error and from 
 schism being promised to that, as to the Universal or Catholic 
 Church. For, the Church of Rome claims all professing Christians 
 as properly belonging to it; considering Protestants as children, 
 though disobedient children; subjects, though revolted subjects. 
 The very rise, therefore, and continued existence, of Protestantism, 
 proves the non-existence in the Catholic Church (if the Church of 
 Rome be supposed such) of any immunity from heresy and schism. 
 And if it be attempted to avoid this conclusion by allowing that 
 Protestants and members of the Greek Church are not to be 
 regarded as in any way belonging to the Church of Rome, then 
 the pretensions of that Church to be the Catholic (i. e. Universal) 
 Church, must be given up. 
 
 Whatever plausibility therefore there may appear at first sight 
 in the pretensions, separately taken, of that Church, on the one 
 hand to perfect purity of doctrine, and Unity, and on the other 
 hand to Universality, it is evident that both conjointly cannot be 
 maintained with even any show of reason. Either the one or the 
 other must be abandoned. Like the pictures of a Thaumatrope, 
 the two will be found, on careful and steady observation, to be 
 painted on opposite sides; and it is only by a confused whirl that 
 they can be made to appear in conjunction. If Protestants, and 
 members of the Greek, the Armenian, and other Churches, do not 
 belong to the Romish Church, it cannot be Universal; if (which 
 is what its advocates actually maintain) all Christians do belong 
 to it, then, it manifestly is not exempt from divisions, and con- 
 trariety of doctrine. It is in vain (as far as the present question 
 is concerned) to urge that the doctrine and procedure of Protest- 
 ants, &c., are condemned by the authorities of the Church of Rome, 
 and by all its sound members. For, an exemption from a certain 
 evil must consist, not in its being censured when it arises, but in 
 its not arising at all. Indeed it would be very easy, and also 
 quite nugatory, for any Church whatever to set up the boast that 
 its doctrines are received by all, except those who dissent from 
 them; and that all submit to its authority, except those who 
 refuse submission. 
 
 So also, the most insignificant State existing might pretend to 
 Universal Empire. It is said that it is, or was, the custom for
 
 APPENDIX (A.) 41 
 
 the Kham of Tartary, every day, as soon as he has dined, to send 
 out a herald to his tent-door to make proclamation in a loud 
 voice, that all the kings of the earth are now at liberty to go to 
 dinner. This may be considered as putting forth a claim to uni- 
 versal supremacy : but it would hardly be regarded as establishing 
 the claim. 
 
 And as for exemption from error and dissension, let any one 
 but consider what would be thought if an Englishman were to 
 boast to a Hindoo or a Chinese, that London enjoys the happiness 
 of being exempt from all crimes, and also from conflagrations; 
 and should afterwards explain his meaning to be, that all crimes 
 are forbidden by law; the perpetrator being liable, when detected 
 and apprehended, to be punished as the law directs; and that 
 though fires do break out from time to time, there are fire-engines 
 ready to be called out on such occasions. Every one would at 
 once perceive that all this does not amount to what can be pro- 
 perly termed an exemption. 
 
 The extraordinary Providence, therefore, which is boasted of 
 as securing the true Church from division and from error, and 
 which Protestants are reproached with not trusting to or claiming, 
 has evidently no existence in the very Church to which those who 
 utter the reproach belong. And one can hardly doubt that they 
 must themselves be aware of this ; and that when they speak, in 
 a tone of exulting confidence, of the miraculous exemption of their 
 Church from the inroads of false doctrine and dissension, they are 
 only seeking to quiet the minds of the unthinking Vulgar with a 
 delusive consolation. 
 
 How far this kind of language may work an opposite effect 
 on the minds of the more educated Classes, how far the great 
 prevalence of infidelity among those Classes on the Continent may 
 be accounted for by their continually hearing (from those who, 
 they will conclude, ought to know what their own Scriptures say) 
 of promises having been made to the Church which, it is evident, 
 as a matter of experience, have not been fulfilled, is an inquiry 
 into which I will not now enter. My own conviction is, that 
 every kind of pious fraud is as much at variance, ultimately, with 
 sound policy, as it is with Christian principle."
 
 42 APPENDIX (A.) 
 
 Extract from Note B to Sermon XVIII., on the Search after 
 Infallibility. 
 
 " I am well aware that when the two claims, that to univer- 
 sality, and that to exemption from dissension and from error, 
 are brought forward in conjunction, and it is undertaken to recon- 
 cile them with each other, it is usual to explain one or both of 
 them in a sense different from the obvious and natural meaning 
 of the words, so as to render the two claims compatible. Then it 
 is that we are told that ' Catholic' or ' Universal ' means only 
 the religion of a considerable majority of professing Christians, or 
 the religion the most widely diffused throughout Christendom: or 
 we are told that the Universal Church means merely that which 
 all professed Christians ought to belong to ; and that adults of 
 sound mind who have received Christian baptism, and deliberately 
 profess Christianity, are not, necessarily, members of the Universal 
 Church, or Christians at all. 
 
 And we are also told that exemption from dissension and from 
 error belongs to those only who submit in all points to the deci- 
 sions of the rulers of the Catholic Church. And doubtless if all 
 mankind, or any number of men, would but come to a perfect 
 agreement in any one religion, be it true or false, they could 
 not but be exempt from religious dissension, and, if not from 
 error, at least from anything that they themselves would account 
 an error. 
 
 But surely this is to < keep the word of promise to the ear, 
 and break it to the hope.' It is not in any such sense that the 
 pretensions I have been speaking of are usually put forth, and 
 naturally understood, when taken separately. And it is not under 
 any such explanations as the above, that those pretensions are 
 found so alluring and so satisfactory as, to a great number of per- 
 sons, they are; but in the natural and ordinary sense of the words. 
 The expression ' Catholic,' or ' Universal,' Church is naturally 
 understood to denote that which comprehends att Christians. 
 And by the word Christians is understood those who acknowledge 
 and professedly embrace the religion founded by Jesus Christ. 
 And those who designate any of these as Heretics are so far from 
 denying them the title of Christians (though unsound and per- 
 verted Christians), that they imply it; since Pagans or avowed 
 Atheists are never reckoned Heretics.
 
 APPENDIX (A.) 43 
 
 I am not, be it observed, defending this use of the word 
 ' Christian' as the most advisable to be adopted, if we were 
 framing a new language. It might, we will suppose, have been 
 advisable so to define the term that no two Christian Sects or 
 Churches should apply it to the same persons. I am simply stat- 
 ing a. fact as to the actual sense conveyed by the word in our 
 existing language. And that such is the sense conveyed by it, is as 
 much a fact as that we actually call the ninth month of the year, 
 September, and the tenth, October ; though if we were remodel- 
 ling our language, the impropriety of such names would be obvious. 
 
 And again, exemption from dissension and from error natu- 
 rally conveys the idea, not of these evils being condemned by cer- 
 tain Authorities when they arise, but of their never arising at all. 
 
 And it is in these obvious and natural senses of the words 
 that the above pretensions are, in general, when taken sepa- 
 rately, put forth with boastful confidence, and prove so attractive 
 and so consolatory to the minds of many, as to be at once admitted 
 without any close scrutiny as to how far they are well founded. 
 
 But when the two claims are brought into juxta-position, and 
 it is inquired how far they are compatible, then they are explained 
 away in the manner above alluded to. The promise is made in 
 one sense, and kept in the other. If King George III. and his 
 predecessors had boasted that the English language was in use in 
 all their European dominions, and also that they were Kings of 
 France, every one would have seen, that, whatever might be said 
 for each of these claims separately, they were incompatible with 
 each other." 
 
 Waiving, however, all reference to those who reject the supre- 
 macy of Rome, the differences that have occurred and that have 
 been permitted among those who do acknowledge it, are such 
 that one cannot but wonder at the boldness with which the claim 
 is put forward of a miraculous exemption from everything of the 
 kind. The long and violent disputes indeed between Franciscans 
 and Dominicans about the doctrine of the " Immaculate Concep- 
 tion," or those between the Jesuits and the Jansenists as to sundry 
 important points of faith, these, the unlearned multitude, in many 
 countries, may have never heard of. But they must surely have 
 heard of books deliberately sanctioned and recommended for the 
 use of schools, by Prelates of the highest rank, and moreover 
 approved by the Pope himself, being denounced by other Pre-
 
 44 APPENDIX (B.) 
 
 lates of the same Church, as not only dangerous, but full of un- 
 sound doctrine. 
 
 In the face of all this, to boast of unbroken peace and concord 
 is surely a large demand on popular credulity. 
 
 (B), page 5. 
 
 " This disingenuous system is a tree which has, of late, borne 
 fruits that have startled many, even of those who could not see, 
 when first pointed out to them, the natural tendency of the sys- 
 tem. The fundamental doctrines of our Reformers have been 
 explained away by interpreting their words in a non-natural sense, 
 so as to allow members of our Church to hold tenets the most 
 opposite. Now, how can any one be sure that the application of 
 the principle is arbitrarily stopped short at this point 1 Let any 
 one examine, and compare together, these non-natural interpreta- 
 tions, and the language, in reference to Christianity, of the foreign 
 Transcendentalists; who profess to believe that Christianity came 
 from God, in the same sense in which every thing comes from 
 God; who teach the Incarnation, explaining to the initiated 
 that this means the presence of the Deity, i. e., of the ' spiritual 
 principle' which pervades the universe the God of Pantheism 
 in man, generally, as well as in all other animals ; and who pro- 
 fess a belief in man's immortality, that is, that the human spe- 
 cies will never become extinct, &c. Let any one, I say, compare 
 together these two systems, (if indeed they are to be reckoned as 
 two,} and say whether there is ANY GREATER VIOLENCE DONE TO 
 
 THE ORDINARY SENSE OF WORDS BY THE ONE THAN BY THE OTHER; 
 
 whether he who professes himself a churchman according to the 
 one system, may not, with perfect consistency, profess himself a 
 Christian according to the other. Even supposing therefore that 
 all the disciples of the School in question do inwardly believe in 
 the truth of Christianity, they cannot give any sufficient assur- 
 ance that they do so." Introd. to Essays on Peculiarities, 5th 
 ed., pp. 8, 9. 
 
 " It might be added that, among those who express the greatest 
 dread and detestation of ' German Neology,' ' German Philo- 
 sophy,' the ' daring speculations of the Germans,' &c., are to be 
 found some of that class of Anglican Divines, whose doctrines 
 apparently correspond the most closely (as far as we can judge
 
 APPENDIX (B.) 45 
 
 respecting two confessedly mystic schools) with those of that very 
 Neology. The very circumstance itself that both are schools of 
 Mysticism, that both parties have one system for the mass of 
 mankind, and another whether expressed in different language, 
 or in the same words understood in a totally different sense for 
 the initiated, affords a presumption, when there are some points 
 of coincidence in the doctrine divulged, that a still further agree- 
 ment may be expected in the reserved doctrines. 
 
 As the advocates of reserve among us speak of not intending 
 to inculcate generally such conclusions as a logical reasoner will 
 correctly deduce by following out their principles, and again speak 
 of an ordinary reader being likely to ' miss their real meaning, 
 by not being aware of the peculiar sense in which they employ 
 terms,' so those German Transcendentalists whom I allude to, 
 whose system of Theology or rather of Atheology is little else 
 than a new edition of the Pantheism of the ancient Heathen Phi- 
 losophers, of the Brahmins, and the Buddhists, use a similar 
 double-meaning language. They profess Christianity, and em- 
 ploy profusely such terms as a ' God,' ' Faith,' ' Incarnation,' 
 ' Miracle,' ' Immortality,' &c., attaching to these words, a mean- 
 ing quite remote from what is commonly understood by them. 
 Their ' God' is the God of Pantheism; not a personal agent, but 
 a certain vital principle diffused through the Material Universe, 
 and of which every human soul is a portion ; which is at death to 
 be reabsorbed into the infinite Spirit, and become just what it was 
 before birth, 1 exactly according to the ancient system of philo- 
 sophy described by Virgil : " Mens agitat molem et toto se corpore 
 miscet ; Inde hominum pecudumque genus," &c. And the other 
 terms alluded to are understood by them in a sense no less wide 
 from the popular acceptation. 
 
 Both parties again, agree in deprecating all employment of 
 reasoning in matters pertaining to religion : both decry the his- 
 torical evidence of Christianity, and discourage as profane, all 
 appeal to evidence; and both disparage Miracles considered as a 
 proof of the divine origin of Christianity ; alleging that every event 
 that occurs is equally a miracle ; meaning therefore exactly what 
 in ordinary language would be expressed by saying that nothing 
 is miraculous. 
 
 See Essay 1st, First Series.
 
 46 APPENDIX (C.) 
 
 Other coincidences may be observed ; such as the strong de- 
 sire manifested by both parties to explain away, or soften down 
 the line of demarcation between what ordinary Christians call the 
 Scriptures, and every thing subsequent; between what we call 
 the Christian Revelation, considered as an historical transaction 
 recorded in the New Testament; and any pretended after-revela- 
 tion, or improvement, or completion or perfect development, of 
 ' the system of true Religion.' To Christianity as a Revelation 
 completed in our sacred books, both parties, more or less openly, 
 according to circumstances, confess their objection. 
 
 And it is remarkable that even the vehement censures pro- 
 nounced by one of these schools, on the speculations of the other, 
 is far from being inconsistent with their fundamental agreement 
 in principles. For of the German Neologists themselves, some 
 of the leading writers strongly condemn the rashness, with which 
 some conclusions have been openly stated by others, of the same 
 school, and confessedly proceeding on principles fundamentally 
 the same. 1 
 
 If any one therefore who belongs to a school of mystical re- 
 serve, should be suspected, in consequence of a remarkable agree- 
 ment between some of his acknowledged tenets and the German 
 Neology, of a further degree of secret concurrence, beyond, per- 
 haps, what he is really conscious of, he must not wonder at, or 
 complain of such suspicion ; nor expect at once to repel it by the 
 strongest censure of those writers, and professed renunciation of 
 their doctrines; unless he can also make up his mind to renounce 
 likewise the system of a ' Double doctrine' altogether, resolving, 
 and proclaiming his resolution to speak henceforth ' the truth, 
 the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,' respecting his reli- 
 gious tenets, and forswearing totally the practice of employing 
 language ' in a peculiar sense' different from what is ordinarily 
 understood by it." Kingdom of Christ, Appendix, Note P. 
 
 (C), page 7. 
 
 " It may be objected that the tenor of the above explanations 
 is anti-Protestant, whereas it is notorious that the Articles were 
 drawn up by Protestants, and intended for the establishment of 
 
 1 See Dr. West's Discourse on Reserve.
 
 APPENDIX (C.) 47 
 
 Protestantism ; accordingly, that it is an evasion of their meaning 
 to give them any other than a protestant-drift, possible as it may 
 be to do so grammatically, and in each separate part. ***** 
 
 But I. It is a duty we owe both to the Catholic Church and to 
 our own, to take our reformed Confessions in the most catholic 
 sense they will admit. * * * * 
 
 V. The Articles are evidently framed on the principle of leaving 
 open large questions, on which the controversy hinges. They 
 state broadly extreme truths, and are silent about their adjust- 
 ment. For instance, they say that all necessary faith must be 
 proved from Scripture ; but do not say who is to prove it. ***** 
 
 They say that Councils called by Princes may err : they do 
 not determine whether Councils called in the name of Christ will 
 err. * * * * 
 
 VI. * * Since both Homilies and Articles appeal to the 
 Fathers and Catholic Antiquity, let it be considered whether, in 
 interpreting them by these, we are not going to the very authority 
 to which they profess to submit themselves," &c. 4th Ed. Feast 
 of St. John Evang., 1841. J. H. N. 
 
 In accordance with the principles here laid down, the Tract 
 itself is composed throughout. See, especially 1. On Holy 
 Scripture and the authority of the Church. 2. On Justification 
 by Faith. 3. Works before and after Justification. 4. The 
 Visible Church. 5. General Councils. 6. Purgatory, &c. 
 7. Sacraments. 8. Transubstantiation. 9. Masses. 
 
 On all these points, and throughout the Tract, doctrines are 
 maintained totally opposite to the plain sense of the Articles, and 
 to the known design of their framers. And the whole object of 
 the Tract is, evidently, to show that a person may, with a safe 
 conscience, hold the doctrines of one Church, and the endowments 
 of another quite opposed to it. 
 
 The Author of the Tract, however, did at length, some years 
 after, as is well known, openly join the Church of Rome ; having, 
 some years previously, acknowledged that the censures he had 
 been publicly passing on that Church were, at the time, not at all 
 in accordance with his real sentiments ! 
 
 Yet the public protest against the condemnation of this and 
 similar publications has never been retracted ! 
 
 And here a question suggests itself which all must allow to 
 be quite pertinent to the matter in hand. Suppose an applicant
 
 48 APPENDIX (D.) 
 
 for Institution to a Benefice, who should hold either such doctrines 
 as the foregoing, or the extreme contrary ones, or any others 
 whatever, to adopt that system of interpretation just alluded to, 
 might he not thus avoid all the difficulties and contests which 
 might otherwise be apprehended 1 He would only have to give 
 to all inquiries such answers as might he most satisfactory to the 
 Diocesan ; and when in possession of his Living, might preach the 
 direct contrary of what he had before said : alleging that he had 
 been " using words in a peculiar sense." 
 
 Those who would regard such a procedure, or anything even 
 remotely approaching to it, as unpardonable in one whose doc- 
 trinal views they disapprove, but allowable in the cause of what 
 they consider as orthodoxy, these, if their sincerity is doubted 
 when they profess to abhor disingenuousness, cannot surely com- 
 plain of uncharitable treatment. 
 
 (D) 3 page 12. 
 
 Some Divines of the present day (professedly of our Church) 
 express doubts pretty nearly if not quite amounting to a denial 
 of the doctrine of this Article ; teaching that sins committed 
 after Baptism are either totally unpardonable, or are to be atoned 
 for by Penance. See Rogers 's Essays, vol. ii. Essay ii., pp. 85, 
 86. 
 
 Should such doctrines prevail, they may be expected to lead to 
 a rejection of infant-baptism, and indeed to the practice (of 
 which there were frequent instances in the early Church) of de- 
 ferring Baptism till the death-bed. 
 
 It would to many appear a cruelty to place a person, without 
 his own consent, and in a state of infantine unconsciousness, in a 
 situation, so far, much more disadvantageous than that of one 
 brought up a Pagan, that if he did ever (suppose, at the age of 
 fifteen or twenty) fall into sin, he must remain for the rest of his 
 life perhaps for above half a century deprived of all hope, or 
 at least, of all confident hope, of restoration to the Divine favour ; 
 shut out from all that cheering prospect which, if his Baptism 
 in infancy had been omitted, might have lain before him. 
 
 (E), page 13. 
 
 I may add that not only the disputants themselves, but many 
 of the by-standers also (even those of them who take little
 
 APPENDIX (E.) 49 
 
 interest in the issue of the contest) will be disposed to heap abuse 
 or derision on any one who appears to come forward as a mediator. 
 For, the vulgar-minded, of all countries and ages, and of all ranks, 
 find an amusing excitement in the spectacle of a controversy, analo- 
 gous to that which attracted the ancient Romans to their gladi- 
 atorial shows. And hence they are disposed to feel, or to affect, 
 contempt for any one who seeks to mitigate hostility, or to put 
 an end to a contest. 
 
 Many also, when they hear of any discussion relating to the 
 employment of terms, are disposed at once to turn aside with dis- 
 dain, or at least indifference, as from some trifling, or at least not 
 very important question. For there are many who have unthink- 
 ingly adopted, as self-evident, a theory of IDEAS, which they sup- 
 pose themselves to understand : though it is, I am convinced, 
 absolutely unintelligible, and tends to throw an indistinctness and 
 confusion over almost all subjects : and they are, in consequence, 
 almost unaware of the important function of Language as an 
 Instrument of Thought ; imagining its sole use to be, the express- 
 ing of our thoughts to others. (See Logic, Introd. and also Lessons 
 on Reasoning, 1. 8.) 
 
 Of course, the advocates of either party in a dispute are likely 
 to be as severely censured by the other party, as the peacemaker, 
 \>yatt. 
 
 And since this severity is so far from being mitigated in cases 
 where Religion is concerned, that on the contrary the phrase 
 " odium theologicum" has become proverbial, I cannot but wonder 
 that, in a very able Article in the Edinburgh Review (April, 
 1850) theological literature "should be spoken of as a protected 
 literature." Indeed, the Reviewer himself seems, in what he had 
 said just above (p. 526) to establish the opposite conclusion. 
 Some remarks on this point, introduced into a recent edition of a 
 vol. of Essays (1st Series) I here subjoin. 
 
 " The case of Bishop Warburton, however, is only one out of 
 many that could be adduced in disproof of what has been said as 
 to ' theological literature being a protected literature.' The 
 fear of odium may indeed sometimes deter a man from writing 
 against the prevailing religion; but if any one in writing for it 
 calculates on exemption from attacks, he is not unlikely to be 
 greatly disappointed. If he write in defence of the tenets of his 
 own communion, he may perhaps be assailed (supposing his work 
 
 E
 
 50 APPENDIX (E.) 
 
 to attract any considerable notice) not only by the members of 
 other communions, but by very many fellow-members of his own; 
 who will perhaps charge him with 'paradox,' or 'heresy;' or 
 with going too far, or not far enough; or with having advanced 
 or not having advanced beyond his own original principles; or 
 perhaps with all of these faults at once. 1 Or if, again, he write 
 in defence of Christianity generally, he will probably be censured 
 by a greater number of Christians, of various denominations, than 
 of anti-christians. In the extracts from several writers (to which 
 many others might have been added), printed in .parallel columns 
 at the end of the Appendix to the Logic, a specimen may be seen 
 of the sort of 'protection' likely to be enjoyed by a work on 
 Christian Evidences. Some who are sincere believers, if not in 
 the truth of Christianity, at least in its utility to the mass of the 
 People, are afraid that these would be shaken in their belief by 
 inquiry and reflection. 8 Others, again, being anxious that the 
 People should believe not only in the divine origin of Christianity, 
 but in several other things besides, of which no satisfactory proof 
 can be afforded, are fearful of giving any one the habit of seeking, 
 and finding good grounds for one portion of his faith, lest he 
 should require equally valid reasons for believing the rest, and 
 should reject what cannot be so proved; and, accordingly, they 
 prefer that the whole should be taken on trust on the strength 
 of mere assertion. And enthusiasts, again, of all descriptions, 
 being accustomed to believe whatever they do believe on the 
 evidence of their own feelings and fancies alone, are most indignant 
 against any one who in compliance with the apostolic precept 
 endeavours to give and to teach others to give ' a reason of the 
 hope that is in them.' 
 
 On the whole, therefore, it does not appear that anything like 
 'protection' can be reckoned on, for works either on Christianity 
 itself, or on any particular doctrines of it." 
 
 " * That all these complaints have been made not only of the same indi- 
 vidual, but by members of the same religious party, may seem something 
 almost incredible; but it is a fact. 
 
 " 2 A speaker in an illustrious assembly professed (according to the 
 reporters) his firm adherence to the religion of the Established Church, as 
 being 'the religion of his ancestors.' And this sentiment was received 
 with cheers : some of the hearers probably not recollecting that on that 
 principle the worship of Thor and Woden would claim precedence.
 
 APPENDIX (F.) 51 
 
 (F), page 1 6. 
 
 " II. Another practical evil of the doctriue of special grace, is 
 the necessity which it implies of some test of God's favour, and of 
 the reconcilement of Christians to him, beyond and subsequent to 
 the covenant of baptism. St. Paul, it has been seen, insists upon 
 the necessity of regeneration : he declares that ' the natural man 
 receiveth not tlie things of God, neither can know them,: 1 he calls 
 the heathen nations ' children of wrath,' and ' sinners of the 
 Gentiles : he speaks of the ' old mem as being corrupt according 
 to the deceitful lusts :' in short, he expresses, under a variety of 
 terms, 1 the assertion of our Saviour, that ' except a man be 
 born again, of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God.' John iii. 3. 
 
 " With equal clearness he intimates, that the Christians he 
 addresses were thus regenerate: as having 'put off the old man 
 with its deeds ; and having become the ' temple of the Holy 
 Ghost, 1 and 'the members of Christ ;' as having the 'spiritual 
 circumcision, and being buried with Christ in baptism / 
 Rom. vi. 3; Col. ii. 12; as having 'received the spirit of 
 adoption,' Rom. viii. 15; and as ' being washed, sanctified, and 
 justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our 
 God.' To the Galatians, 'bewitched' as he says they were, 'that 
 they should not obey the truth,' he still writes, 'Ye are the 
 children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For, as many of you 
 as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ? Gal. iii. 26. 
 These addresses and exhortations are founded on the principle 
 that the disciples, by their dedication to God in baptism, had 
 been brought into a state of reconcilement with Him, had been 
 admitted to privileges which the Apostle calls on them to 
 improve. On the authority of this example, and of the un- 
 deniable practice of the first ages of Christianity, our Church 
 considers Baptism as conveying regeneration, instructing us to 
 pray, before baptism, that the infant ' may be born again, and 
 made an heir of everlasting salvation;' and to return thanks, 
 after baptism, ' that it hath pleased God to regenerate the infant 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 6, &c. 
 E 2
 
 52 APPENDIX (F.) 
 
 with his Holy Spirit, and receive him for his own child by 
 adoption.' 
 
 " But, on the contrary, if there is a distinction between special 
 and common grace, and none are regenerate but those who 
 receive special grace, and those only receive it who are elect; 
 baptism is evidently no sign of regeneration, since so many after 
 baptism live profane and unholy lives, and perish in their sins. 
 Therefore, the preacher of special grace must, consistently with 
 his own principles, lead his hearers to look for some new con- 
 version, and expect some sensible regeneration. This brings him 
 to use language in the highest degree perplexing to an ordinary 
 hearer. To take an example from the same writer, whose only 
 fault is the inconsistency to which he is reduced by his attach- 
 ment to the system of election : ' The best duties of unregenerate 
 men are no better in God's account and acceptance, than abomi- 
 nation. There is nothing that such men do, in the whole course 
 of their lives, but at the last day it will be found in God's 
 register-book, among the catalogue of their sins. This man hath 
 prayed so often, and heard so often; made so many prayers, and 
 heard so many sermons, and done many good works ; but yet, all 
 this while, he was in an unconverted estate : these, therefore, are 
 set down in God's day-book in black; and they are registered 
 among those sins that he must give an account for : not for the 
 substance of the actions themselves, but because they come from 
 rotten principles, that defile the best actions which he can perform.' 1 
 
 " Suppose this language addressed now, as it was originally, 
 to a congregation dedicated to Christ in baptism. What would 
 be the feelings of a plain understanding, or a timid conscience, 
 unable to unravel the windings of these secret things, on learning 
 that the sinfulness or innocency of actions does not depend upon 
 their being permitted or forbidden in the revealed law, but on the 
 doer being in a regenerate or unregenerate state at the time when 
 he performs them ? How is this fact of regeneracy, upon which 
 no less than eternity depends, to be discovered ? The Apostle 
 enumerates the works of the flesh and the fruits of the Spirit; 
 but his test is insufficient, for the two lists are here mixed and 
 
 " l Hopkins on the New Birth. Observe the difference between his 
 language and our judicious Reformer's : ' Since actions which spring not of 
 faith in Christ, are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be 
 done, we doubt not but that they have the nature of sin.' Art. xiii.
 
 APPENDIX (G.) 53 
 
 confounded. The hearers appeal to the Church, an authorized 
 interpreter of Scripture. The Church acquaints them, that they 
 were themselves regenerated, and made the children of grace, by 
 the benefit of baptism; while the preacher evidently treats them 
 as if it were possible they might be still unregenerate." 
 Sumner's Apostolical Preaching. 
 
 (G), page 17. 
 
 It seems not unlikely that the same causes may have operated 
 in favour of that sect also which rejects the Sacraments alto- 
 gether. As for the argument which I have known put forward 
 with apparent seriousness, that the word SACRAMENT does not 
 occur in Scripture, and that, therefore, we ought not to have any, 
 this can hardly have had any real influence on intelligent minds. 
 For, one might as well urge, that since the word "virtue" does 
 not occur in our Lord's ^discourses, therefore He did not mean his 
 followers to practise virtue. 
 
 But at the time when that sect arose, a very large proportion 
 of Christian ministers, while they were administering to infants 
 a Rite which they spoke of as a Sign of Regeneration, (or New- 
 birth,) at the same time taught at least, were understood as 
 teaching that there is no intelligible connexion whatever between 
 the sign and the thing signified, nor any real benefit attached to 
 the Rite. The new-birth they taught their people to hope for at 
 some future indefinite time. And they taught them to believe, 
 as a part of the Christian revelation, that, of infants brought to 
 baptism, an uncertain, indefinite number of individuals undis- 
 tinguishdble at that time from the rest are, by the divine decree, 
 totally and finally excluded from all share in the benefits of 
 Christ's redemption. 
 
 Now, men accustomed to see and hear all this, would be not 
 unlikely to listen with favour to those who declared professedly 
 by divine inspiration that "water-baptism," as they call it, is an 
 empty and superstitious ceremony, originating in a misapprehen- 
 sion of our Lord's meaning; of which meaning they gifted with 
 the same inspiration as his Apostles are commissioned to be 
 interpreters. 
 
 And when one Sacrament had been thus explained away, the
 
 54 APPENDIX (G.) 
 
 rejection of the other also, according to a similar kind of reasoning, 
 would follow of course. 
 
 And, after all, this rejection was but the carrying out of a 
 principle of procedure which had been long before sanctioned by 
 others. It had been long before decided that, at the Eucharist, 
 one of the appointed symbols might safely be omitted, and that 
 the perfect spiritual participation by the Communicants in the 
 benefit of the Sacrament is not thereby at all impaired. To 
 dispense with the other symbol also, and likewise with the symbol 
 of the other Sacrament, and then to call this a spiritual celebra- 
 tion of the Sacraments, was only taking a step further in the same 
 direction. 
 
 In truth, the abolition of the Sacraments by explaining away, 
 as figurative, words of our Lord which were undoubtedly under- 
 stood by his hearers at the time literally; or, again, the literal 
 interpretation of his words, " this is my body," which must have 
 been understood at the time figuratively, (for the Apostles could 
 not have supposed that at the Last Supper He was holding in his 
 hands his own literal body;) or the addition of fresh Sacraments 
 not instituted by Him or his Apostles; or a departure from the 
 mode He appointed of celebrating the Eucharist, by the with- 
 holding of the cup, all these, and any other similar liberties 
 taken with Scripture, stand on the same ground, and are equally 
 justifiable, or equally unjustifiable. If certain individuals, or 
 Councils, or other Bodies of men, are really inspired messengers 
 from Heaven, "moved by the Spirit" to declare with infallible 
 certainty the Will of the Lord, then their words are to be received 
 and obeyed with the same deference as those of Peter or Paul. 
 And if they announce any change in the divine dispensations, or 
 give any new interpretation of any part of Scripture, we are 
 bound to acquiesce, even as the Jews were required to do in that 
 great " mystery of the Gospel," the opening of the Kingdom of 
 Heaven to Gentiles. It is God who speaks by their mouths; 
 and he who has established any ordinance has evidently the 
 power to abrogate or alter it. 
 
 And when persons who make such a claim (or admit it in 
 their leaders) profess to take Scripture for their guide, they must 
 be understood to mean that it is their guide only in the sense 
 attached to it by the persons thus divinely commissioned, and in 
 those points only wherein no additional or different revelation
 
 APPENDIX (G.) 55 
 
 has been made through these persons. When there has, the 
 later revelation, of course, supersedes the earlier. 
 
 Nor does it make any real difference whether something be 
 added to the Bible, claiming equal divine authority, or whether 
 merely an alleged infallible interpretation be given of what is 
 already written. For an interpretation coming from any Church 
 or person divinely commissioned, and speaking " as the Spirit 
 moveth," is of the same authority with Scripture itself, and must 
 be implicitly received, however at variance with the sense which 
 any ordinary reader would, of himself, attach to the words. And 
 those who completely surrender their own judgment to any 
 supposed infallible interpreter, are, in fact, taking him not 
 Scripture for their guide. 
 
 " It is most important, when the expression is used of ' re- 
 ferring to Scripture as the infallible standard,' and requiring 
 assent to such points of faith only as can be thence proved, to 
 settle clearly, in the outset, the important question 'proved to 
 whom?' If any man, or Body of men refer us to Scripture, as 
 the sole authoritative standard, meaning that we are not to be 
 called on to believe anything as a necessary point of faith, on their 
 word, but only on our own conviction that it is scriptural, then, 
 they place our faith on the basis, not of human authority, but of 
 divine. But if they call on us, as a point of conscience, to receive 
 whatever is proved to their satisfaction from Scripture, even 
 though it may appear to us unscriptural, then, instead of releasing 
 us from the usurped authority of Man taking the place of God, 
 they are placing on us two burdens instead of one. 'You require 
 us,' we might reply, ' to believe, first, that whatever you teach is 
 true; and, secondly, besides this, to believe also, that it is a truth 
 contained in Scripture; and we are to take your word for both ! ' " l 
 
 When, therefore, any such claim is set up, we are authorized 
 and bound to require 'the signs of an Apostle.' Professed 
 ambassadors from Heaven should be called on to show their 
 credentials the miraculous powers which alone can prove their 
 inspiration on pain of being convicted of profane presumption 
 in daring to ' say, thus saith the Lord, when the Lord hath not 
 spoken.' 
 
 Hence, there are probably many intelligent persons who do 
 
 Essay on the Kingdom of Chritt, pp. 211, 212.
 
 56 APPENDIX (G.) 
 
 not really believe in the existence, in the present day, of inspi- 
 ration, properly so called, though they continue to employ a 
 language (derived from their predecessors) which implies it. I 
 have adverted to this case in another work, from which I will 
 take the liberty of extracting a passage : 
 
 " It is well known, that there are sects and other parties of 
 Christians, of whose system it forms a part, to believe in imme- 
 diate, sensible, inspiration that the preachers are directly and 
 perceptibly moved to speak by the Holy Spirit, and utter what 
 He suggests. Now suppose any one, brought up in these prin- 
 ciples, and originally perhaps a sincere believer in his own 
 inspiration, becoming afterwards so far sobered, as to perceive, or 
 strongly suspect, their delusiveness, and so to modify at least his 
 views of the subject, as in fact to nullify all the peculiarity of 
 the doctrine, which yet many of his hearers, he knows, hold in its 
 full extent; must he not be strongly tempted to keep up what 
 will probably seem to him so salutary a delusion? Such a case 
 as this I cannot think to be even of rare occurrence. For a man 
 of sound judgment, and of a reflective turn, must, one would 
 think, have it forced on his attention, that he speaks better after 
 long practice, than when a novice better on a subject he has 
 been used to preach on, than on a comparatively new one and 
 better with premeditation, than on a sudden; and all this, as is 
 plain both from the nature of the case, and from Scripture, is 
 inconsistent with inspiration. Practice and study cannot 
 improve the immediate suggestions of the Holy Ghost, and the 
 Apostles were on that ground expressly forbidden to ' take 
 thought beforehand what they should say, or to premeditate; 
 because it should be given them in the same hour what they 
 should say.' Again, he will perhaps see cause to alter his views 
 of some passages of Scripture he may have referred to, or in 
 other points to modify some of the opinions he may have 
 expressed; and this again is inconsistent with the idea of inspi- 
 ration, at least on both occasions. 
 
 " Yet with these views of his own preaching, as not really and 
 properly inspired and infallible, he is convinced that he is incul- 
 cating the great and important truths of Christianity that he is 
 consequently, in a certain sense, under the guidance of the Holy 
 Spirit, from whom all good things must proceed and that his 
 preaching is of great benefit to his hearers ; who yet would cease
 
 APPENDIX (G.) 57 
 
 to attend to it, were he distinctly to declare to them his own real 
 sentiments. In such a case, he must be very strongly tempted 
 to commit the pious fraud of conniving at a belief which he does 
 not himself sincerely hold ; consoling perhaps his conscience with 
 the reflection, that when he professes to be moved by the Spirit, 
 he says what he is convinced is true, though not true in the sense 
 in which most of his hearers understand it; not true in the 
 sense which constitutes that very peculiarity of doctrine wherein 
 perhaps originated the separation of his sect or party from other 
 Christians." 1 
 
 It is probable, however, that many persons deceive both 
 others and themselves by confusing together in their minds 
 differences of degree, and differences of amount? and thence 
 imagining (what a little calm reflection must show to be impos- 
 sible, and, indeed, unintelligible) that there may be different 
 degrees of what is properly and strictly termed INSPIRATION: that 
 is, the miraculous influence under which we conceive anything 
 that we call an inspired Work to have been written. The ex- 
 istence or non-existence of this inspiration is a question of fact; 
 and though there may be different degrees of evidence for the 
 existence of a fact, it is plain that one fact cannot be, itself, more 
 or less a fact than another. 
 
 Inspiration may extend either to the very words uttered, or 
 merely to the subject-matter of them, or merely to a certain 
 portion of the matter; to all, for instance, that pertains to 
 religious truth, so as to afford a complete exemption from doo 
 
 1 Errors of Romanism, pp. 87, 88. 
 
 2 The imperfection of modern languages conduces much to this confusion. 
 In Greek, more and less in quantity are expressed by irXeiov (or ptiZov) and 
 tXarrov ; more and less in degree, by /mXAov and I'ITTOV. To a beginner, 
 Aristotle's remark, that though the category of TTOIOV (" of what quality") 
 admits of degrees, that of iroaov ("how much") does not, is apt to appear 
 paradoxical. In quantity five is less a smaller number than ten ; but it 
 is what it is five as much as the other is what it is ten. On the other 
 hand, a beautiful object, for instance, may be more beautiful than another ; 
 each of them being what it is in a different degree (jiaXXov or r/rror) than 
 the other. So also the quality of being rich admits of degrees. One man is 
 richer than another rich man, if he possesses more in quantity of money than 
 the other : but the money itself does not admit of degrees ; since a penny is 
 no less a penny than a pound is a pound. The Greeks would say, with that 
 distinctness which their language enabled them to attain with ease, that TO 
 irXovTfiv admits of degrees \jtaXXov or tjrrov], but that irXovroc does not.
 
 58 APPENDIX (G.) 
 
 trinal error though not, to matters of Geography, Natural Philo- 
 sophy, &c. But in every case we understand that to whatever 
 points the inspiration does extend, in these it secures infalli- 
 bility; and infallibility manifestly cannot admit of degrees. 
 
 When we are speaking of the instructive, the eloquent, the 
 entertaining, &c., we may call one discourse tolerably well-written, 
 another rather better written, and a third better still. Each of 
 them is what it is in a different degree from the others. But we 
 could not with propriety speak of one discourse as being " some- 
 what inspired," another, as " rather more inspired," and again, 
 another, as a good deal inspired. 
 
 If any one is distinctly commissioned to deliver a message 
 from Heaven, in any one instance, with infallible proof to himself 
 and to others, that it is such, he is as truly inspired, and his 
 revelation as much a revelation as if he had had revealed to him 
 a hundred times a greater quantity of superhuman knowledge. 
 That one message is as much God's Word as any part of 
 Scripture. Even so Paul, who " spoke with tongues more than 
 all" the disciples he was addressing, 1 had not more that miraculous 
 gift (though he had the gift of more tongues) than any one of them 
 who had been supernaturally taught a single foreign language. 
 
 If a man has ascertained, and can prove, that he has had, 
 either in words, or merely in substance, a revelation of some doc- 
 trine, or again, an infallible divine assurance of safety from reli- 
 gious errors, he is to be listened to in reference to those points 
 to which the inspiration extends as speaking with divine autho- 
 rity. But on the other hand, if he has no infallible proofs to give of 
 having received a divine communication, then, though most or all of 
 what he says may be, in fact, perfectly true, he has no right to 
 use such an expression as " the Spirit moveth me to say so and 
 so." He ought rather to say what a pious and humble preacher 
 must mean I hope and trust that what I am setting forth is 
 sound and useful doctrine; and so far as it is so, it must be the 
 gift of Him " from whom all good things do proceed ;" but how 
 far it is so, both you and I must judge as well as we can, by a 
 careful reference to Holy Scripture, with a full consciousness of 
 
 our own fallibility. 
 
 
 
 > 1 Cor. xiv. 18.
 
 APPENDIX (H.) 59 
 
 (H), page 27. 
 
 " Concerning several points of this class, such as the validity 
 of lay-baptism, or of baptism, by heretics or schismatics, &c., 
 questions have been often raised, which have been involved in 
 much unnecessary perplexity, from its being common to mix 
 up together what are in fact several distinct questions, though 
 relating to the sortie subject. For instance, in respect of 
 the validity of Lay-baptism, three important and perfectly dis- 
 tinct questions may be raised ; no one of which is answered by 
 the answering, either way, of the others : viz. 1st. What has a 
 Church the right to determine as to this point 1 2ndly. What is 
 the wisest and best determination it can make ? and, 3rdly. What 
 has this or that particular Church actually determined 1 Now 
 persons who are agreed concerning the answer to one of these 
 questions, may yet differ concerning the others; and wee versa. 1 " 
 Kingdom of Christ, Essay II. 39, p. 282, 283. 
 
 With respect to the first question (in reference to lay-baptism) 
 it is plain that, according to the above principles, a Church has a 
 right to admit, or refuse to admit, Members. This right it pos- 
 sesses as a Society: as a Christian Society, sanctioned by our 
 Heavenly Master, it has a right to administer his Sacraments ; 
 and it has a right to decide who shall or shall not exercise certain 
 functions, and under what circumstances. If it permit Laymen 
 (that is, those who are excluded from other spiritual functions) to 
 baptize, it does, by that permission, constitute them its functionaries, 
 in respect of that particular point. And this it has a right to 
 do, or to refuse to do. If a Church refuse to recognise as valid 
 any baptism not administered by such and such officers, then, the 
 pretended administration of it by any one else, is of course null 
 and void, as wanting that sanction of a Christian Church, which 
 alone can confer validity. 
 
 With respect to the second question, it does appear to me ex- 
 tremely unadvisable derogatory to the dignity of the ordinance 
 and tending both to superstition and to profaneness, that the 
 admission, through a divinely-instituted Rite, of members into 
 the Society, should be in any case entrusted to persons not ex- 
 
 " * See Appendix, Note (0). Hooker, in his 5th Book, maintains at great 
 length the validity of Baptism by laymen and women.
 
 60 APPENDIX (H.) 
 
 pressly chosen and solemnly appointed to any office in that 
 Society. 
 
 Nearly similar reasoning will apply, I think, to the case of 
 Ordinations. What appears to me the wisest course, would be 
 that each Church should require a distinct appointment by that 
 Church itself, to any ministerial office to be exercised therein ; 
 whether the person so appointed had been formerly ordained or 
 not, to any such office in another Church. But the form of this 
 appointment need not be such as to cast any stigma on a former 
 Ordination, by implying that the person in question had not been 
 a real and regular minister of another distinct Society. For any 
 Church has a fair right to demand that (unless reason be shown 
 to the contrary) its acts should be regarded as valid within the 
 pale of that Church itself : but no Church can reasonably claim a 
 right to ordain ministers for another Church. 
 
 As for the remaining question, What is the actual determi- 
 nation as to this point, this is of course a distinct question in 
 reference to each Church. 
 
 On this point it is only necessary to remark how important 
 it is, with a view to good order and peace, that some determination 
 should be made, and should be clearly set forth, by any Church, 
 as to this and other like practical questions ; and that they should 
 not be left in such a state of uncertainty as to furnish occasion 
 for disputes and scruples. 1 Many points of doctrine, indeed, that 
 may fairly be regarded as non-essential, it may be both allowable 
 and wise for a Church to leave at large, and pronounce no deci- 
 sion on them ; allowing each Minister, if he thinks fit, to put forth 
 his own exposition as the result of his own judgment, and not as 
 a decision of the Church. But it is not so, in matters even in- 
 trinsically indifferent, where Church-discipline is concerned. A 
 minister ought to be as seldom as possible left in the predicament 
 of not knowing what he ought to do in a case that comes before 
 him. And though it is too much to expect from a Church com- 
 posed of fallible men that its decisions on every point should be 
 such as to obtain universal approbation as the very best, it is but 
 fair to require that it should at least give decisions, according to 
 the best judgment of its Legislators, on points which, in each 
 
 " l See Appeal on behalf of Church-government, reprinted in Bishop 
 Dickinson's Remains.
 
 APPENDIX (H.) 61 
 
 particular case that arises, must be decided in one way or 
 another. 
 
 That so many points of this character should in our own 
 Church be left in a doubtful state, is one out of the many evils 
 resulting from the want of a Legislative Government for the 
 Church : which for more than a century has had none, 1 except the 
 Civil Legislature; a Body as unwilling, as it is unfitted to exer- 
 cise any such functions. Such certainly was not the state of 
 things designed or contemplated by our Reformers ; and I cannot 
 well understand the consistency of those who are perpetually 
 eulogizing the Reformers, their principles and proceedings, and 
 yet so completely run counter to them in a most fundamental 
 point, as to endeavour to prevent, or not endeavour to promote, 
 the establishment of a Church-government; which no one can 
 doubt they at least regarded as a thing essential to the well-being, 
 " if not to the permanent existence, of a Church. 2 " Kingdom 
 of Christ, App. (O), pp. 340342. 
 
 In reference to this subject, I insert an extract from a letter 
 from a very intelligent and well-informed pastor in France, 
 relative to the decisions and practices of the Church of Rome. 
 
 I have only to add the remark, that if it had been definitively 
 pronounced that baptism by heretics is totally invalid, the Church 
 of Rome could have claimed no power over them (any more than 
 over Pagans or Mussulmans) as members, though rebellious 
 members, of that Church. [See Note A. of this Appendix.] 
 
 "Les theologiens du concile de Trente, qui avaient e"tudie 
 Aristote plus que 1'evangile, sigualerent 7 canaux de la grace 
 divine; ce sont les 7 sacraments. Sur les 7, 6 sont confere"s 
 exclusivement par les pretres. Un seul, le bapteme, peut 1'etre 
 par un main lai'que; mais dans le cas de n6cessite\ Deplus, le 
 bapteme est administre" alors avec de Veau benite par les pretres. 
 Chez nous la sage femme qui preVoit un accouchement laborieux, 
 est obligee, par son serment, de porter avec elle de Veau benite. 
 A peine 1'enfant est il venu au jour qu'elle Vondoie avec cette eau 
 consacr6e, et meme si elle pense que 1'enfant meurra avant de 
 sortir du sein de la mere, elle introduit Veau benite; voila ce 
 
 " ' See Case of Occasional Days and Prayers, by John Johnson, A.M., 
 Vicar of Cranbrook, in the Diocese of Canterbury. 
 
 " f See Speech on presenting a Petition from the Diocese of KUdare, with 
 Appendix," reprinted in a volume of Charges and other Tracts.
 
 62 APPENDIX (l.) 
 
 qu'une sage femme me racontait 1'autre jour. D'ou je conclus 
 qu'en definitive, tout remonte au pretre Romain. 
 
 " Quant a la validite du bapteme des here"tiques, c'est une 
 anomaliecurieuse dans 1'eglise Romaine. Les theologiens du concile 
 se partagerent sur la question de savoir si la grdce du bapteme 
 precede ex opere operato ou ex opere operantis. Les cardineaux 
 diplomates du concile, se rappelant qu'un pape avait decid6 la 
 validite du bapteme c61ebr6 par les heYetiques, et ne voulant pas 
 convener qu'un pape s'etait trompe", laisserent la question inde'cise', 
 et firent de"cre"ter que les enfans des he"re"tiques ne seraient pas 
 rebaptise"s, pourvu que le bapteme fut fait suivant la formule 
 consacree, et les intentions de VEglise. Alors, se fondant sur 
 cette restriction, nos pretres Franais rebaptisent toujours ceux 
 qu'ils convertissent a leur religion." 
 
 (I), page 27. 
 
 The solicitude of our Reformers on this point is manifested in 
 their requiring Sponsors over and above the parents, (if any,) for 
 an infant brought to baptism ; and that the sponsors should be of 
 mature age, and communicants. [See Canons.] They permitted, 
 indeed, that, in cases of necessity, the Rite should be administered 
 without sponsors; but no candid person can doubt that they 
 always contemplated the application for baptism being made by 
 some one who should be understood as engaging for the Christian 
 education of the child. 
 
 I am aware that it is often difficult, and sometimes impossible, 
 to enforce rigidly the directions of our Church respecting sponsors; 
 but ministers are bound to do their best towards complying with 
 those directions, and in every way to guard against the thought- 
 less carelessness and the irregularities which are so apt to find 
 their way into the administration of this holy Ordinance. One 
 may too often see evinced, in the way in which, by many, the one 
 sacrament is blindly shunned, and the other, as blindly sought, a 
 similar superstition and ignorance. 
 
 How much of ignorance and misconception, and of con- 
 sequent superstition and profaneness, prevails on this subject, 
 you must be but too well aware. One instance would alone 
 suffice to shew this the shocking profanation so often exhibited 
 the " christening," as it is called, of a newly-built ship ; a ceremony
 
 APPENDIX (l.) 63 
 
 commonly attended and sanctioned by (so called) educated 
 persons ; who would not, it must be hoped, but through gross 
 ignorance and thoughtlessness, take a part in a solemn mockery 
 of one of Christ's sacraments. 
 
 In reference to another point connected with the same 
 subject, I subjoin an extract from an Address to the Clergy of 
 the Diocese, written in 1846 : 
 
 " Some cases of irregularity having come under my notice, ori- 
 ginating, I have no doubt, in inadvertence, it seems to me not 
 improbable that other instances also, of a like inadvertence, may 
 have occurred, that have not come to my knowledge. 
 
 I have accordingly judged it best not to delay noticing this 
 matter till the Visitation, but to bring it before you, at once, and 
 in a general way ; as I would always rather prevent, than censure, 
 any irregularity. 
 
 I find that in some instances a practice has grown np of bap- 
 tizing in private houses, administering the rite according to the 
 order for Public Baptism; and accordingly many of the infants 
 thus baptized are, I apprehend, never publickly presented at all 
 to be received into the Congregation, in the parish-church. And 
 this has been done, I have reason to fear, even in some cases 
 in which the Rubric does not contemplate any private baptism at 
 all ; merely in compliance with the fancy of the parents to con- 
 vert into a mere domestic ceremony what ought to be treated as 
 a Church-Sacrament. If such a misapprehension be blameable 
 in any lay-member of the Church, the encouragement of it must 
 be much more censurable in a minister, whose business is to in- 
 struct those committed to his charge, and to correct any errors 
 they may fall into. 
 
 If you will put before your people the directions contained in 
 the Prayer Book, they will readily understand that you are bound 
 never to administer baptism at all in a private house, except in a 
 bond fide and duly certified case of pressing danger; and that, 
 when such a case does occur, you are bound to proceed according 
 to the directions so precisely and plainly given in the Rubric. 
 
 Other disadvantages likely to result from irregularity in this 
 matter, such as the danger of a total omission of registration, I 
 do not advert to at present, because it is sufficient to have pointed 
 out what is, independently of all such considerations, the clear 
 duty of a minister of our Church "
 
 64 APPENDIX (K.) 
 
 (K), page 28. 
 
 " First, I observe, that though St. Paul clearly refers back to 
 Adam the origin of that natural corruption which requires the 
 atonement of Christ, as the passages already cited have proved ; 
 yet he does not in his general practice insist upon Adam's guilt 
 as the immediate cause of divine wrath against those he is ad- 
 dressing, but prefers to take his argument from its effects upon 
 their own personal character. These consequences he represents 
 as indisputable and universal, which must be constantly borne in 
 mind both in the first application to Christ as the author of 
 salvation, and throughout the whole of the Christian's life and 
 conflict with the world. The first consequence of that ' fault and 
 corruption of nature,' which we derive from Adam, is actual sin 
 and transgression of the moral law. The converts at Rome he 
 humbles by a commemoration of the ' idolatry, fornication, 
 wickedness, maliciousness, covetousness, and all unrighteousness,' 
 to which they had been given up in their unconverted state. 
 i. 29, &c. 
 
 " To the Corinthians, after enumerating the heinous sinners 
 who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, he adds, 
 
 " ' Such were some of you.' I. vi. 11. 
 
 " To the Ephesians he says, ' You hath (God) quickened, who 
 were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in times past ye walked 
 according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the 
 power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children 
 of disobedience : among whom also we all had our conversation in 
 times past in the lust of our Jlesh, fulfilling the desires of the Jlesh 
 and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even 
 as others.' ii. 4. And very emphatically, 
 
 " ' Let no man deceive you with vain words ; for, on account 
 of these things, (fornication, uncleanliness, covetousness) cometh 
 the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.' Eph. v. 6. 
 
 " The Colossians he thus reminds of what they owed to 
 Christ : ' You that were sometime alienated and enemies in your 
 mind by wicked works, yet now hath (Christ) reconciled.' i. 21. 
 
 " In the Epistle to the Thessalonians the Gentiles are con- 
 demned as living ' in the lust of concupiscence.' I. iv. 5. In that 
 to Timothy, St. Paul declares himself to have been the chief of 

 
 APPENDIX (L.) 65 
 
 sinners, because he had been a ' blaspJiemer, a persecutor, and 
 injurious? I. i. 13. 
 
 " Titus he instructs to put his flock in mind of their former 
 sinful life. ' For we ourselves also were sometime foolish, dis- 
 obedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in 
 malice and envy, hateful and hating one another.' iii. 3. 
 
 " To the Hebrews it was sufficient to show that ' the high 
 priest needed daily to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and 
 then for those of the people? vii. 27. 
 
 " So 1 Peter iv. 3, ' The time past of our life may suffice us 
 to have wrought the will of tlie Gentiles, when we walked in 
 lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, reveUings, banquetings, and 
 abominable idolatries? 
 
 " This, then, is the first consequence of the fall of Adam, 
 evinced by actual sin : ' that every mouth may be stopped, and 
 all the world become guilty before God;' and ready to embrace 
 with humility and consciousness of guilt the righteousness which 
 is by faith." Summer's Apostolical Preaching, ch. iii. 
 
 " I next observe, that, as far as we may be allowed to judge 
 from the mode in which St. Paul introduces this leading doctrine 
 of Christianity, it appears that he deemed it more necessary and 
 advisable to enforce among his disciples the positive effect of 
 original sin upon their own hearts and lives, than the punishment 
 to which they were liable from the fall of Adam, considered as 
 their federal head. He was well aware, that the guilt of actual 
 transgression comes immediately home to the hearer's conscience. 
 Whereas, ' it is the hardest thing in the world to bring carnal 
 reason to submit to and approve of the equitableness of God's 
 proceedings against us for the sin of Adam. Flesh and blood 
 can hardly brook the acknowledgment that it is most righteous, 
 that we should be actually and personally wretched, who were 
 federally disobedient and rebellious.'*" Sumner's Apostolical 
 Preaching, ch. iii.- 
 
 (L), page 29. 
 
 " I would wish," remarks Bp. Ryder, " generally to restrict 
 the term (regeneration) to the baptismal privileges; and con- 
 sidering them as comprehending not only an external admis- 
 
 " ' Hopkins on the Covenants. 
 F
 
 66 APPENDIX (L.) 
 
 sion into the visible Church, not only a covenanted title to the 
 pardon and grace of the Gospel, but even a degree of spiritual 
 aid vouchsafed, and ready to offer itself to our acceptance or 
 rejection at the dawn of reason. I would recommend a reference 
 to these privileges in our discourses, as talents which the hearer 
 should have so improved as to bear interest ; as seed which should 
 have sprung up and produced fruit. 
 
 " But at the same time I would solemnly protest against that 
 most serious error (which has arisen probably from exalting too 
 highly the just view of baptismal regeneration) of contemplating 
 all the members of a baptized congregation as converted, as 
 having, all, once known the truth, and entered upon the right 
 path, though some may have wandered from it, and others may 
 have made little progress, as not therefore requiring (what all 
 by nature, and most it is to be feared through defective principle 
 and practice, require) that ' transformation by the renewing of the 
 mind;' that 'putting off the old man, and putting on the new 
 man,' which is so emphatically enjoined by St. Paul to his baptized 
 Romans and Ephesians." Extract from Bishop Ryder s (ofLich- 
 field) Primary Charge to his Clergy. 
 
 "In the baptismal service we thank God for having regene- 
 rated tlie baptized infant by His Holy Spirit. Now from hence 
 it appears that, in the opinion of our Reformers, regeneration and 
 remission of sins did accompany baptism. But in what sense 
 did they hold this sentiment 1 Did they maintain that there was 
 no need for the seed then sown in the heart of the baptized 
 person to grow up and to bring forth fruit; or that he could be 
 saved in any other way than by a progressive renovation of his 
 soul after the divine image ? Had they asserted any such doc- 
 trine as that, it would have been impossible for any enlightened 
 person to concur with them. But nothing can be conceived 
 more repugnant to their sentiments than such an idea as this : 
 so far from harbouring such a thought, they have, and that too in 
 this very prayer, taught us to look to God for that total change 
 both of heart and life which, long since their days, has begun to 
 be expressed by the term ' regeneration.' After thanking God 
 for regenerating the infant by His Holy Spirit, we are taught to 
 pray 'that he being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness, 
 may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of 
 sin;' and then, declaring the total change to be the necessary 
 mean of his obtaining salvation, we add, ' so that finally, with
 
 APPENDIX (L.) 67 
 
 the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine 
 everlasting kingdom.' Is there (I would ask) any person that 
 can require more than this 1 Or does God in his word require 
 more ] There are two things to be noticed in reference to this 
 subject, the term ' regeneration' and the thing. The term occurs 
 but twice in the Scriptures : in one place it refers to baptism, 
 and is distinguished from the renewing of the Holy Ghost, which, 
 however, is represented as attendant on it; and in the other place 
 it has a totally distinct meaning unconnected with the subject. 
 Now the term they use as the Scripture uses it, and the thing 
 they require as strongly as any person can require it. They do 
 not give us any reason to imagine that an adult person can be 
 saved without experiencing all that modern divines {Ultra- 
 Protestant divines] have included in the term ' regeneration :' on 
 the contrary, they do both there and in the liturgy insist upon a 
 radical change of both heart and life. Here, then, the only 
 question is, not ' Whether a baptized person can be saved by that 
 ordinance without sanctification,' but whether God does always 
 accompany the sign with the thing signified 1 Here is certainly 
 room for difference of opinion, but it cannot be positively decided 
 in tJie negative, because we cannot know, or even judge, respect- 
 ing it in any case whatever, except by the fruits that follow ; and, 
 therefore, in all fairness, it may be considered only as a doubtful 
 point; and if he appeal, as he ought to do, to the holy Scripture, 
 they certainly do in a very remarkable way accord with the 
 expressions in our liturgy. St. Paul says, ' By one Spirit we are 
 all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles 
 whether we be bond or free and have been all made to drink 
 into one Spirit.' And this he eays of all the visible members of 
 Christ's body, (1 Cor. xii. 13, 27.) Again, speaking of the whole 
 nation of Israel, infants, as well as adults, he says, ' They were 
 all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all 
 eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual 
 drink ; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, 
 and that rock was Christ,' (1 Cor. x, 1, 4.) Yet, behold, in the 
 very next verse he tells us that, 'with many of them God was 
 displeased, and overthrew them in the wilderness.' In another 
 place he speaks yet more strongly still : ' As many of you (says 
 he) as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ.' Here we 
 see what is meant by the expression, ' baptized into Christ ;' it is
 
 68 APPENDIX (L.) 
 
 precisely the same expression as that before mentioned of the 
 Israelites being ' baptized unto Moses ;' the preposition, tip, is used 
 in both places ; it includes all that had been initiated into his reli- 
 gion by the right of baptism, and of them universally does the 
 Apostle say, ' They Jtave put on Christ.' Now, I ask, have not the 
 persons who scruple the use of that prayer in the baptismal ser- 
 vice equal reason to scruple the use of these different expressions ] 
 " Again, St. Peter says, ' Repent and be baptized every one 
 of you for the remission of sins.' (Acts ii. 38, 39.) And in 
 another place, 'Baptism doth now save us.' (1 Pet. iii. 21.) And 
 speaking elsewhere of baptized persons who were unfruitful in 
 the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, he says, ' He hath for- 
 gotten tJtat lie was purged from his old sins' (2 Pet. i. 9.) Does 
 not this very strongly countenance the IDEA WHICH OUR REFORMERS 
 
 ENTERTAINED, THAT THE REMISSION OP OUR SINS, AND THE 
 REGENERATION OF OUR SOULS, IS ATTENDANT ON THE BAPTISMAL 
 
 RITE ? Perhaps it will be said that the inspired writers spake of 
 persons who had been baptized at an adult age. But if they did 
 so in some places, they certainly did not in others ; and where 
 they did not, they must be understood as comprehending all, 
 whether infants or adults ; and therefore the language of our 
 liturgy, which is not a whit stronger than theirs, may be both 
 subscribed and used without any just occasion of offence. 
 
 " Let me then speak the truth before God : though I am no 
 Arminian, / do think tlie refinements of Calvin have done great 
 harm in the Church : they have driven multitudes from the plain 
 and popular way of speaking used by the inspired writers, and 
 have made them unreasonably and unscripturally squeamish in 
 their modes of expression ; and I conceive that the less addicted 
 any person is to systematic accuracy, the more he will accord 
 with the inspired writers, and the more he will approve the 
 views of our reformers. I do not mean, however, to say that a 
 slight alteration in two or three instances would not be an im- 
 provement, since it would take off a burtJien from many minds, 
 and supersede the necessity of laboured explanations ; but I do 
 mean to say that there is no such objection to these expressions 
 as to deter any conscientious person from giving his unfeigned 
 assent and consent to the liturgy altogether, or from using the 
 particular expressions which we have been endeavouring to 
 explain." Simeon's Works, vol. ii., p. 259.
 
 APPENDIX (L.) 69 
 
 " In the case of infant baptism, there are evidently no similar 
 means of ascertaining the actual disposition. The benefit 
 received is strictly gratuitous, or ' of free grace.' It is promised, 
 however, to faith and obedience, presupposed in the recipient, and 
 pledged in his name by the sponsors : whence it follows that the 
 blessing attached to the sacrament must fail, if the conditions 
 fail in those who are capable of performing them : and that the 
 faith and obedience must become actual and personal, in those 
 who arrive at mature age. It has not altered the nature of 
 Christianity, that its external privileges are become national. 
 Whoever, therefore, professes the hope of the Gospel, must 
 individually embrace the doctrine of the Gospel: must consent 
 as sincerely as the earliest converts, to refer whatever he does in 
 word or deed to the glory of God : with the primitive humility 
 of the Apostles must renounce all confidence in his own strength, 
 and must look for salvation through Christ's death with as much 
 personal gratitude as if Christ had suffered for him alone. 
 Though in many cases it may be impossible, as was formerly 
 acknowledged, for those who have been placed in covenant with 
 God by baptism, to state at what time and by what process the 
 truths of the Gospel became an active principle in the mind, still 
 it is undeniable that in all who attain the age of reason they 
 must become so, or the covenant is made void : and it is a 
 definite and intelligible question whether they have actually taken 
 this hold, or no. How the tree was nourished and invigorated, 
 and enabled to sustain the inclement seasons which opposed its 
 early growth and strength, we may in vain inquire ; but whether 
 it bears fruit or not, and whether that fruit gives evidence of a 
 sound stock, any one may examine either as to himself or others. 
 Is the heart possessed of a sincere conviction of its own sinfulness 
 and need of a Saviour : does it manifest its dependence on the 
 Holy Spirit by an habitual intercourse with God through prayer : 
 does it feel a practical sense of the great business of this life as 
 a probation and preparation for eternity ? These are infallible 
 characters of faith : and though they will be found in different 
 degrees in different individuals, no one should be satisfied with 
 himself, and no one should suffer his congregation to be satisfied, 
 till he can trace these characters in the heart. 
 
 " But if such a frame of mind is indispensable to a Christian's 
 reasonable hope, it is evident that a preacher can in no wise take
 
 70 APPENDIX (L.) 
 
 it for granted that it exists in his hearers as the necessary and 
 certain consequence of baptism; but must require of all who have 
 the privilege of baptism, that they strive to attain it; that, being 
 regenerate in condition, they be also renewed in nature : and 
 constantly examine themselves whether they have this proof within 
 them, that they are born of the Spirit as well as of water, and 
 can make the ' answer of a good conscience towards God.' " 
 Sumner's Apostolical Preaching, ch. vii. 
 
 It is not, however, by those only who approve of the doctrine 
 which I have attributed to our Reformers, that this interpretation 
 of their words is adopted. Several persons also who disapprove 
 it, both Dissenters and (what is very remarkable) Churchmen, 
 concur in adopting an interpretation substantially the same. 
 
 As for the former of these the Dissenters their testimony 
 will, I suppose, be considered as of the less weight in proportion 
 as they may be suspected of being unconsciously biassed by a 
 wish to alienate others from a Church to which they do not them- 
 selves belong. But the reverse is the case with those who are 
 members, and even ministers, of our Church; since their bias, if 
 any, must be on the opposite side. 
 
 Now there is a case recorded of a beneficed clergyman who, 
 not many years ago, felt it his duty to print and circulate among 
 his parishioners tracts censuring the Formularies of the Church 
 on the very ground of their inculcating the doctrine in question. 
 For this procedure he was tried in an Ecclesiastical Court, and 
 sentenced to suspension. 
 
 Some of his parishioners endeavoured thereupon to raise a 
 subscription for him ; and with that view put forth a printed cir- 
 cular (of which a copy was sent to me), representing him as a 
 martyr suffering persecution for conscience-sake. And there 
 might have been some ground for this representation, if he had 
 voluntarily resigned the endowments of a Church which he re- 
 garded as fundamentally unsound, instead of retaining them as 
 long as he was permitted to do so. 
 
 The system of morality whatever it was by which he re- 
 conciled this to his conscience, seems to have been adopted by a 
 portion at least of his flock. 
 
 But at any rate, he could have had no conceivable bias towards 
 an interpretation of the Formularies of his Church which would 
 make them at variance with his own teaching.
 
 APPENDIX (M.) 71 
 
 (M), page 36, 
 Extract from Tract on Confirmation. 
 
 "All persons ought to receive the holy Communion of the 
 Lord's Supper on the very first opportunity after being confirmed. 
 Our Church directs that ' no one shall be admitted to the Com- 
 munion except one who has been confirmed, or is ready and is 
 desirous to be confirmed ;' and again, that ' ALL PERSONS' (that 
 is, of course, all who are not too young or too ignorant for Con- 
 firmation) 'shall receive the Communion at least three times a 
 year.' From this it is plain that though such as have not been 
 confirmed, may, if they are prepared and willing to be so, attend 
 without any scruple, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper; on the 
 other hand, no one, who has been confirmed, ought to delay re- 
 ceiving that Sacrament. The Catechism also, designed for the 
 instruction of children before Confirmation, proves the same thing : 
 since it contains an explanation of the two Sacraments. 
 
 Some persons entertain a groundless notion, fhat a child, who 
 is fit for Confirmation, may yet be too young to receive the Com- 
 munion : and many, it is to be feared, for this and for other reasons, 
 go on from Sunday to Sunday, and from year to year, putting off 
 this duty, in expectation of becoming more fit for it ; when it is 
 likely that they are becoming every day less fit, and are falling 
 into a careless and irreligious state of mind. 
 
 But if you will consider the matter carefully, you will see that 
 our Church is quite right in determining that all, who have been 
 confirmed, should receive the Lord's Supper without delay. For all 
 of them, it is to be hoped, understand and rightly reflect on the 
 one Sacrament that of Baptism ; if they do not, the ceremony of 
 Confirmation is a mere empty mockery : and if they do, they are 
 capable of sufficiently understanding and valuing the other Sacra- 
 ment also : and in that case, they ought not to delay receiving it. 
 
 Accordingly provision has been made to prevent any such de- 
 lay, by celebrating the Lord's Supper in each Church immediately 
 after the Confirmation : and all the young persons who shall have 
 been confirmed, will be expected to attend. 
 
 'To-day therefore, if ye will hear God's voice, while it is called 
 to-day, lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of 
 sin,' accept his gracious offer ; and continue from this time forth 
 to be a regular attendant at his Holy Table.
 
 72 APPENDIX (M.) 
 
 CONFIRMATION HYMN. 
 
 LORD, shall thy children come to Thee ? 
 
 A boon of love divine we seek ; 
 Brought to thine arms in infancy, 
 
 Ere heart could feel, or tongue could speak, 
 Thy children pray for grace that they 
 May come themselves to Thee this day. 
 
 LORD, shall we come ? and come again, 
 
 Oft as we see yon table spread, 
 And tokens of thy dying pain 
 
 The wine pour'd out, the broken bread ? 
 Bless, bless, O LORD, thy children's prayer, 
 That they may come and find Thee there ! 
 
 LORD, shall we come, not thus alone, 
 
 At holy time, or solemn rite, 
 But every hour till life be flown, 
 
 In weal or woe, in gloom or light ; 
 Come to thy throne of grace, that we 
 In Faith, Hope, Love, confirm'd may be ? 
 
 LORD, shall we come come yet again : 
 Thy children ask one blessing more : 
 
 To come not now alone, but then, 
 
 When life, and death, and time are o'er ; 
 
 Then, then to come, LORD, and be 
 
 Confirm'd in heav'n, confirm'd by Thee.' 
 
 THE END.
 
 PROTECTIVE MEASURES 
 
 IN BEHALF OP THE 
 
 ESTABLISHED CHURCH, 
 
 CONSIDERED IN 
 
 A CHARGE, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 DIOCESES OF DUBLIN. GLANDALAGH, AND KILDARE, 
 
 DELIVERED AUGUST, 1851. 
 
 BY 
 
 RICHARD WHATELY, D.D. 
 
 AKCHSISHOP OF DUBLIN. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN W. PARKER AND SON, WEST STRAND. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 
 HODGES AND SMITH, GRAFTON STREET. 
 KDOOOLL
 
 SAVILL AND EDWARDS, PRINTERS, 
 4, CHANDOS STREET.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Importance of keeping distinct, Political and Keligious 
 
 Questions 1 
 
 Assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles by Roman- Catholic 
 
 Functionaries 2 
 
 Effectual Protection against Danger to Religion .... 2 
 
 Claims of the Church of Rome, not novel 3 
 
 Meaning of the Oath of Abjuration 6 
 
 Objections to the passing, and to the rejection of the 
 
 Ecclesiastical-Titles Bill : 8 
 
 Importance of not violating the Act of Union .... 10 
 Supposed Protection to Christianity by the Declaration on 
 
 the true faith of a Christian 15 
 
 Imputation of Indifference to Christianity 19 
 
 Opinions on Convocation, or other Government of the Church 23 
 
 Obstacles to the introduction of a Church-Government . . 28 
 
 Claims of the Gospel-Propagation-Society 31 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (A) 33 
 
 (B) 40 
 
 (C) 45' 
 
 (D) 50
 
 LEGISLATION 
 IN BEHALF OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 1~N calling your attention, my Reverend Brethren, 
 as I now propose to do, to some transactions and 
 discussions that have taken place in Parliament and 
 elsewhere, since we last met, I shall of course con- 
 fine myself as much as possible to the religious 
 rather than the political aspect of each subject. 
 
 It has indeed always been my own practice, as 
 you are well aware, to take little or no part in 
 questions of a purely political character; and to 
 keep aloof entirely from all political parties. 
 
 But there are many questions that Importance of 
 are partly of a political and partly of a keeping dis- 
 
 i. . T A i i ' ! tinct, political 
 
 religious character. And in adverting and r * ligious 
 to any of these, it is important, in all questions. 
 cases, to guard against confusedly blending together 
 the two views, the political and the religious 
 that may be taken of each subject; and to avoid, 
 on such an occasion as the present, any full discus- 
 sion of the former. 
 
 B
 
 2 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 Assumption of Tm " s caution is peculiarly requisite 
 ecclesiastical j n reference to the subject which has 
 man-cLholic of late occupied so much of the public 
 functionaries, attention, the legislation which has 
 taken place relative to the appointment of Koman 
 Catholic Bishopricks. 
 
 Whatever encroachments may have been at- 
 tempted on the rights or the dignity of the Sove- 
 reign, and whatever legislative measures may have 
 been necessary for the maintenance of those rights 
 and of that dignity, it should always be carefully 
 borne in mind that each man's religious persuasion 
 must be defended and can only be defended by 
 himself. As his Faith cannot be wrested from him 
 against his will, by the act of another, so, neither can 
 it be maintained in its purity by legal 
 
 Effectual pro- . ' A 
 
 tection against enactments. Against religious dangers, 
 danger to reli- our People must be taught, and trained, 
 and sedulously warned, to defend them- 
 selves, instead of relying on anything that Govern- 
 ment can do for them. 1 To those who are not 
 
 1 Being desirous of ascertaining how far, in relation to one 
 point, our Protestant Church had been affected, by the existence, 
 or by the removal, of penal laws and civil disabilities, I have ob- 
 tained returns of the numbers of new churches and other places 
 of worship under the Establishment which had been opened during 
 the last century, and during the first half of the present. It 
 appears that (besides some cases of rebuilding) there were but Jive 
 new churches erected in the diocese of Dublin during the whole 
 of the eighteenth century, great as was the increase of population. 
 In the present century, forty-seven new churches have been opened;
 
 OF THE CHUECH. 3 
 
 themselves earnest and vigilant, as no- divine aid 
 is promised, so, no human aid can be availing. 
 
 In reference to the religious portion of the 
 question, there is no need that I should say much 
 at present. My sentiments have long been well- 
 known, on the subject of the claim of the Church 
 of Rome, or of any Church 1 to supreme domi- 
 nion over all Christians. And you are also well 
 aware, that, strong as are my own convictions on 
 this and on several other points, I have always 
 been opposed to the enforcement of them on others 
 by secular means ; to the infliction of civil penal- 
 ties or disabilities on those whom I believe to be in 
 error. 2 
 
 It is important, however, to remem- 
 
 , , Claims of 
 
 ber what some persons seem, very the Church 
 strangely, to have almost forgotten, of Rome, 
 that those claims of the Church of Rome 
 which have been adverted to are nothing new, but 
 have existed for many Ages, and are, in fact, an 
 essential part of that system against which our 
 
 besides twelve licensed places of worship for the accommodation 
 of the remoter parts of populous parishes; making a total of 
 fifty-nine. And this increase has been going on in a continually- 
 accelerated ratio. The number of the clergy increased, during 
 the same interval, from 115 to 206. 
 
 1 Note (A), Appendix. 
 
 2 I took occasion, in this place, to refer my hearers to the little 
 Tracts entitled Cautions for the Times, drawn up with some 
 assistance from me, and under my supervision; as containing a 
 fuller exposition of several points that are here briefly touched on. 
 
 B2
 
 4 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 ancestors revolted and protested, at the Reforma- 
 tion. 
 
 Of this no one can be really ignorant ; and yet 
 some seem to have so far forgotten it, that they 
 have apparently felt wonder mixed with their 
 indignation as at some startling novelty at the 
 language of arrogant assumption employed by the 
 Court of Rome ; as if it were a thing possible, and 
 consistent, to put forth, and act on, the claim to be 
 Christ's Vicegerent on Earth, and supreme spiritual 
 Ruler of the Christian World, in terms that would, 
 to us, appear modest and reasonable I 1 
 
 The only novelty is, as you are aware, the substi- 
 tution, in England of regular Roman-Catholic Bishops 
 for Vicars- Apostolical, exercising all the episcopal 
 functions, but acting as merely deputies of the 
 Pope, and liable to summary removal at his plea- 
 sure. The style, however, in which this change was 
 
 1 Some I believe, have remarked that there is a more modest 
 tone, and less of haughty assumption, in the language of the 
 Apostles, who certainly claimed and possessed immediate divine 
 inspiration, than in that of the Court of Rome. 
 
 But it should be remembered that tJiey appealed to the miracles 
 which they confessedly wrought, before friends and adversaries. 
 And a style of vehement assertion and imperious and proud pre- 
 tension is the more to be expected from any one in proportion as 
 he has the less of decisive proof on which to rest his claims to 
 submission. 
 
 Still, it is hardly conceivable that any claim to immediate 
 absolute authority from Heaven could be put forth or implied by 
 any one, in terms that would not seem arrogant to those who 
 denied that claim.
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 5 
 
 announced was such as to require, in the opinion of 
 many persons, some precautionary measure on our 
 part, to guard some of our fellow-subjects against 
 the mistake of supposing that the acts of the Church 
 of Eome have any legal validity in this country. 
 
 Several intelligent persons with whom I have 
 conversed on the subject were of opinion that this 
 object might have been sufficiently accomplished by 
 a royal Proclamation; or, by simple Resolutions of 
 the Houses of Parliament, declaratory of their unal- 
 terable reverence for the royal prerogative. 
 
 A Proclamation might, it was urged, have set 
 forth and explained to the People, that all acts 
 done, or titles conferred, by any foreign Power (and 
 not ratified by our Government) are in the eye of 
 the Law, totally null and void, whatever submission 
 or compliance any individual may in his own con- 
 science think himself bound to: and that no one 
 need fear any interference with his religious liberty, 
 except such as he may of his own accord determine 
 to submit to. 
 
 Such an explanation it was urged might be 
 not really (as at first sight it might appear) super- 
 fluous and uncalled for, on such an occasion as the 
 present ; considering the strange misapprehensions 
 that exist in some minds as to several points 
 connected with the subject, and among others 
 as to the meaning of the declaration that "no 
 foreign Prelate or Potentate hath or ought to have 
 any power or jurisdiction within this Realm."
 
 6 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 Meaning of ^ ma y seem strange that any one 
 the oath ofab- should need to have it explained to 
 him, that the thing meant is legal 
 power. But some, even Protestants, have been 
 so inconsiderate as to speak of this declaration as 
 manifestly untrue; because, say they, the Pope 
 notoriously does possess power in this country ; that 
 is, influence over the minds of those who feel them- 
 selves bound in conscience to obey him : as if the 
 framers of the declaration could have been ignorant 
 of that fact ; and as if the very reason for its being 
 framed had not been as it evidently was the 
 knowledge that the Pope had adherents in the 
 Country ; which circumstance made it requisite in 
 certain cases to disown his authority; that is, of 
 course, his lawful authority. And as for any 
 precedence, title, or office, granted by the Govern- 
 ment of this Country to any officers appointed by a 
 foreign Prelate, these being of course revocable at 
 pleasure by the Government which grants them, are 
 far from being at all at variance with the above 
 declaration; since, if any one considers such 
 Office, &c., to emanate from a superior Power, 
 superseding that of our Government, he must regard 
 it as what no Government of ours can either confer 
 or take away. 
 
 In like manner, the words in our Thirty-seventh 
 Article declaring that " The Bishop of Rome hath 
 no jurisdiction within this Realm," would have been 
 superfluous, had it not been notorious not only that
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 7 
 
 he claimed supremacy, but also that there were 
 persons who admitted that claim. 1 
 
 Such a Proclamation then (or Resolutions to the 
 same effect) would, it was urged, have been timely, 
 and also sufficient for every desirable object ; and 
 would have obviated the long and irritating debates 
 that have taken place ; while the royal Prerogative 
 since that does not emanate from parliamentary 
 enactment would have been even more effectually 
 vindicated. 
 
 1 " The Emperor of Russia has no power to return members to 
 our Parliament; but it would be possible for him to employ agents 
 to bribe electors. Joanna Southcote had no jurisdiction &c. in 
 England and no Roman-Catholic would have scrupled to say 
 this but she had followers who thought themselves bound to 
 obey her. A private man has not power of life and death (ifavyiav) 
 over his neighbours, but he has the physical power (Svva^iv) to 
 murder one of them. So, also, the Pretender was abjured, and 
 very rightly : but it is well known that many of his adherents, in 
 their hearts, acknowledged and were ready to obey him. And it 
 would have been a folly to ask a man to swear that he knew the 
 inmost thoughts of every British subject. 
 
 " But, in truth, it was precisely because the Pope and the Pre- 
 tender were known to have adherents, and to exercise a control 
 over them, that those oaths were framed, in which the swearer 
 proclaimed his opinion that they had no legal right to obedience, 
 and ought not to be invested with any. The two clauses [' neither 
 hath, nor ought to have'] were aimed specially at two classes of 
 Roman-Catholics : one of whom contended that Queen Mary's acts 
 restoring the Pope's supremacy were never legally repealed for 
 they considered Elizabeth as a bastard, and, besides, solemnly 
 deposed by the Pope ; the other confessed that the Pope had no 
 power by the law of England, but that it ought to be restored to 
 him." From a very sensible pamphlet on Papal Aggressions, 
 p. 13.
 
 8 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 For, the Crown (it was observed) being, by 
 the Constitution, and independently of any new 
 enactment, the "Fountain of Honour," and the 
 royal Prerogative being evidently no less than the 
 rights of Parliament a part of that Constitution, 
 which assigns to each branch of the Legislature its 
 own proper functions, it is important to guard 
 against even the appearance of any interference of 
 one branch with the rights of another. 
 
 As for the course actually adopted, I 
 
 Objections to 
 
 the passing, saw such strong objections both to the 
 and to the passing of the Bill as it stood, and to the 
 
 rejection of . *. v ^u TT rr J J 
 
 the Ecdesi- rejection oi it by the Mouse 01 Lords, and 
 astral-Titles a g am? to the attempt to introduce into 
 it, at that stage, any alterations, that I 
 could not bring myself to be a party to either course ; 
 and accordingly I abstained from voting at all. 
 
 If however, as is expected by many, and wished 
 apparently by many more, the law now enacted 
 shall never be actually enforced, but remain a dead 
 letter, it will, in that case, be nearly equivalent to 
 such a Proclamation or Resolution, as I have been 
 alluding to ; though at the expense of a far greater 
 loss of valuable tune, and with more risk of generat- 
 ing animosity and discontent, and of diminishing 
 men's reverence for the laws. 
 
 When, however, I speak of objections to the 
 passing of the Bill, I do not mean that its provisions 
 are what I could reasonably deprecate, if such a 
 law had been enacted in reference to those of my
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 9 
 
 own Communion. If, for instance, I were an 
 American or Scotch Episcopalian, and it were for- 
 bidden by law that any one should be styled Bishop 
 of Philadelphia, or of Vermont, of Glasgow, or of 
 Edinburgh, &c. ; or Rector or Curate of such and 
 such a Parish, and we were required to designate 
 ourselves as Bishop or as Pastor " of the Protestant 
 Episcopalians" of each District, I do not see that we 
 should be justified in calling this a persecution or 
 an insult. Eor, after all, it is not the territory, but 
 the People, that are placed under our superinten- 
 dence. Over those of our own Communion, our 
 Church gives us a certain degree of authority. And 
 as for those of any other religious persuasion, we 
 are bound, generally indeed to the whole Human 
 Race, but more especially to our own parishioners 
 and our other neighbours, to endeavour to aid in 
 imparting to them whatever benefits we can, and 
 especially whatever useful instruction (be it much 
 or little) they will consent to receive. But in all 
 cases, it is with the persons inhabiting a certain 
 district, not with the district itself considered as a 
 portion of the Earth's surface, that we as Christian 
 Ministers are connected. 1 
 
 1 Those who speak of a Bishop or other Minister possessing, 
 by virtue of apostolical succession, inherent and exclusive right 
 over all Christians within his Diocese or Parish, seem to forget 
 that, on this principle, the Protestant inhabitants of any Diocese 
 and Parish on the Continent, over which a Roman-catholic Bishop 
 and Rector have been duly appointed, would be left to the
 
 10 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 But groundless alarms and fancied affronts will 
 often produce real and great uneasiness and dis- 
 turbance; such as one would gladly avoid, when 
 there is no important object to be gained on the 
 other side. And the danger was so manifest, of 
 agitators in this country taking advantage of the 
 present occasion to excite apprehensions and dis- 
 contents, (though such attempts have, I believe, 
 hitherto, at least though aided by the injudicious 
 language of some well-intentioned but inconsiderate 
 protestants been happily unsuccessful) that it was 
 proposed, as you are aware, by several persons, to 
 exclude Ireland from the provisions of the Act. 
 
 Importance This virtual separation of the Irish 
 
 ofnotmoiating branch of the United Church from the 
 
 the Act of 
 
 Union. English, in violation of a most solemn 
 
 compact in the Act of Union, I have heard defended 
 as a sacrifice of " theory" to " political expediency." 
 
 It is by suggestions of this kind that the very 
 word " expediency" has come to be, itself, odious to 
 many persons ; as having been associated, in their 
 minds, with the idea of some violation of duty. 
 
 But I have always deprecated such an applica- 
 tion of the term. Besides that, in the highest sense, 
 nothing can be really and ultimately expedient 
 that is at variance with the principles of rectitude. 
 I do not believe that even mere worldly expediency 
 
 alternative of either conforming to what they are convinced is an 
 erroneous religion, or else being left without any Pastor at all, 
 and without the possibility of obtaining any.
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 11 
 
 is ultimately promoted by departure from the strict 
 rules of justice. 1 
 
 In the present case, most assuredly, nothing 
 could have been more ^expedient than the proposed 
 abandonment of (what was called " Theory," i. e.) 
 principle. The advocates of it probably imagined 
 that if any Act were passed extending to England 
 alone, Ireland would remain in the same situation as 
 before the passing of it. But any one may perceive, 
 on a very little reflection, that this could not have 
 been the case. If there are two roads from a 
 certain spot, and a notice be posted upon one of 
 them, warning all persons that it is private, and 
 that they will be guilty of a trespass if they pass 
 along this road, you could not doubt that every one 
 would conclude the other road to be a public tho- 
 roughfare. In like manner, a prohibition by law 
 of any thing whatever, in one part of the empire, 
 
 1 The reader is cautioned to keep in mind the distinction 
 often, in this case, overlooked between two totally distinct 
 questions: (1) Whether any such legislation as has taken place 
 was desirable; (2) whether, in the course adopted, whatever it 
 might be, England and Ireland should be kept together, or 
 separated. 
 
 On the former of these questions, the Address to the Queen 
 from the Irish Prelates pronounces nothing decisive. It is with 
 the latter of the two that it is occupied. 
 
 In the Appendix (B) are subjoined this Address, together 
 with that to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his Grace's 
 answer. And to these is added an extract from the Irish 
 Ecclesiastical Journal, containing a statement of some facts 
 which are too little known.
 
 12 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 excluding another part, is sure to be understood as 
 equivalent to a sanction of it in the latter. 
 
 It would have been understood, therefore, that 
 what had been done in reference to Galway had been 
 deliberately sanctioned by the legislature, and might 
 be allowably repeated to any extent in Ireland. 
 
 It would have been understood, in short, that 
 one portion of the royal prerogative had required, 
 and received, parliamentary confirmation in Eng- 
 land, and was abandoned in Ireland: abandoned, 
 not on any grounds of justice or of kindness, but of 
 fear; thus holding out an encouragement to inde- 
 finite encroachments. 
 
 And, moreover, a virtual violation of one of the 
 Articles of the Act of Union, while that Act remains 
 unrepealed, would have placed us in a most un- 
 favourable position in reference to those who agitate 
 for a repeal of the Union altogether. For, a repeal 
 of any law, in a regular way, however unwise and 
 mischievous, cannot be called illegal; and the advo- 
 cates of such repeal could not well have been 
 censured by those who should have violated its pro- 
 visions indirectly, and as it were by a side-wind, 
 while the law remained unrepealed. And it would 
 have been in vain to allege that the whole question 
 related to a matter of subordinate importance, a 
 mere point of detail j 1 since, however true this may 
 
 1 Such as the uniting of certain dioceses,- those of Bristol 
 and Gloucester, for instance, in England, and several in Ireland.
 
 OF THE CHUECH. 13 
 
 be, (and I do not undertake to disprove it) it is 
 certain the English Public thought quite otherwise. 
 Supposing that it was really a matter of small conse- 
 quence that for so many months agitated the Nation 
 and the Parliament, they at least deemed it one of 
 vital importance. 
 
 And what, after all, would have been the concilia- 
 tion effected by such a compromise as was proposed ? 
 One cannot doubt that those it was designed to 
 conciliate would have said either openly or secretly 
 " if this measure is no hardship no oppression 
 or insult to any one, and is only what is requisite 
 for the reasonable protection of Protestants, why 
 do you not extend this protection to two millions of 
 them in Ireland ? But if it is a hardship and an un- 
 called-for procedure, why do you inflict that hard- 
 ship on two millions of Roman-catholics in England, 
 except it is that these are not yet powerful enough 
 to overawe you? For it has not been shown that 
 there is any difference (as far as regards the present 
 question) between the Roman-catholics of Ireland 
 and those of England, except in numbers; or that 
 this numerical difference furnishes any argument 
 except those addressed to fear. You seem there- 
 fore to be proclaiming, in each country, that you 
 are influenced by no sentiments of justice, or 
 generosity, or kindness, or humanity, towards 
 either party; but that you will yield any thing 
 to fear, and nothing to any other consideration. 
 While, therefore, we hate you for what you with-
 
 14 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 hold, we no less despise you for what you con- 
 cede." 1 
 
 Such, I cannot doubt, would have been the 
 first (though not the last) deplorable consequence 
 of being diverted from the straight path, by the 
 temptation of an apparent, but unreal and delusive, 
 expediency. 
 
 While, therefore, I am unable to profess myself 
 well satisfied with the course that has actually been 
 adopted, I can most heartily congratulate you on 
 the rejection (by the almost unanimous decision of 
 the legislature) of one which would have been in- 
 comparably more dangerous, besides being what, to 
 me and to very many others, appears no less than 
 dishonourable. 2 
 
 1 I should not have expressed myself so strongly (though I 
 should have felt the same) if the proposed course had been 
 actually adopted by Parliament. For when a law is actually 
 passed, and there is no reasonable hope of its repeal, we should be 
 very cautious in publicly uttering predictions of dangers and dis- 
 contents, lest we should thus become the means of engendering 
 or aggravating them. 
 
 2 It is my belief that the proposal in question was advocated 
 by many who had no thought of doing anything that was dis- 
 honourable, or that tended to impair the Union. And I am led 
 to think, by the different tone that prevailed, at first and sub- 
 sequently, that the greater part of them afterwards perceived, on 
 further reflection, the real tendency and probable effects of such 
 a measure, and thereupon abandoned the idea. They perceived 
 probably that such a procedure would have been not unreasonably 
 attributed to fear, even if that motive had not been as it was 
 openly avowed and strongly dwelt on. 
 
 ^-f
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 15 
 
 On the Bill which was brought in 
 (after passing the House of Commons 1 ) protection to 
 for the modification of the oath required Christianity 
 
 T-. T T i lytheDecla- 
 
 oi Members 01 .Parliament, 1 need say ra tion, on the 
 but very little; as my opinions on true faith of a 
 
 -T . i , , Christian. 
 
 that subject have long been before 
 you, and before the public. And accordingly 
 it would perhaps have been hardly necessary 
 on that occasion, to speak at all in the House, 
 but for the prevailing misapprehensions on the 
 subject; which were unfortunately favoured by 
 the form and title of the Bill introduced. I felt 
 myself called on, therefore, to state my objection 
 to that Bill, although I voted for it as being a step 
 in the right direction, and far less objectionable 
 than the law as it now stands. 
 
 But the grounds on which I gave that vote 
 being quite different from that of several other 
 persons who advocated the same conclusion, it be- 
 came necessary to explain briefly what those grounds 
 were. 2 
 
 My object is, as you are doubtless well aware, 
 
 1 One of the curious circumstances connected with the present 
 anomalous state of things on this point, is to find the House of 
 Lords insisting on deciding who shall or shall not be allowed 
 after being duly elected to take his seat in the other House; 
 and repeatedly rejecting (though by diminishing majorities) the 
 decision of the Commons on that question. 
 
 2 For the same reason, the Bishop of Norwich, who took a 
 similar view, spoke to the same effect.
 
 16 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 not the relief or benefit of Jews as such, but the 
 removal of all religious tests connected with civil 
 office. Such tests, which are regarded by some as 
 a safeguard and an honour to Christianity, are, in 
 my view, detrimental and dishonourable to it. 
 What I have always aimed at, is, not that Jews, 
 either many or few, should sit in Parliament, but 
 that electors Christian electors should not be im- 
 peded in their choice of the person they may fix on 
 to represent them, where no detriment to the public 
 can be proved to arise from leaving them thus at 
 liberty. 
 
 And accordingly I have always maintained, that 
 if any one who had advocated the removal of tests 
 which exclude Jews, or Roman-catholics, should 
 afterwards, as an elector, think fit to give a pre- 
 ference to Christian candidates, or to protestant 
 candidates, he would be guilty of no inconsistency. 
 He would be only making a legitimate use of that 
 right of free choice which he was willing to impart 
 to his neighbours. 
 
 But the removal of unnecessary restrictions on 
 liberty strongly as I am opposed to them is far 
 from being the principal object I have in view. 
 Far more anxious am I for the removal of what I 
 regard as a discredit to Christianity, and a depar- 
 ture from the principles of its divine Author: of ^ 
 Him who declared that his " kingdom is not of this 
 world," and who charged men to " render to Ca3sar" 
 (the idolatrous Roman emperor) " the things that
 
 OF THE CHUKCH. 17 
 
 are Caesar's, and to God, the things that are 
 God's." 1 
 
 And his Apostles, in all their preaching, and in 
 all their conduct, explained and confirmed his 
 doctrine. Can any one imagine to himself those 
 Apostles secretly enjoining, or permitting, their 
 disciples to enact, whenever they should become 
 sufficiently powerful, 2 laws to exclude the emperor 
 from his throne, and the magistrate from his bench, 
 and the senator from his seat, unless they would 
 make a declaration " on the true faith of a Chris- 
 tian ?" If I could believe them to have entertained 
 
 1 Our Lord and his Apostles, however, while inculcating the 
 right of a civil governor to obedience from his subjects, as indi- 
 viduals, and in their secular concerns, had certainly no thought of 
 committing the office of governing in spiritual matters the Jewish, 
 or any Christian Church, as such, to any one not a member of 
 the same. 
 
 The case of the sovereign, therefore, (in this country) is a 
 peculiar one ; as the " Headship of the Church" is annexed to the 
 civil office. 
 
 What is the precise character and whole extent of this Head- 
 ship and whether it would be possible and desirable so to 
 explain and so to modify it, as to do away with the necessity of 
 imposing a religious test on the sovereign, these are questions 
 which need much reflection and inquiry, and which could not be 
 suitably discussed on this occasion. 
 
 It is worth remarking, however, that some seem to imagine 
 it a necessary and fundamental law of the Constitution that the 
 sovereign should be a member of the Established Chwrch; for- 
 getting that there are in Britain two established Churches ; and 
 also that the restriction relating to Protestantism was introduced, 
 under very peculiar circumstances, only about a century and a 
 half ago. 
 
 2 See Essays on the Kingdom of Christ, Essay I. 71. 
 
 C
 
 18 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 a secret design (evidently none such was, or could 
 be, avowed) to convert hereafter Christ's Kingdom 
 into one of this world by fortifying it with secular 
 penalties or disabilities inflicted on all who would 
 not profess their faith, I could not regard them 
 (considering all that they said and did) as other 
 than base dissemblers. 
 
 To my mind, therefore, the whole question of 
 the truth or falsity of the Gospel is involved in the 
 decision of the point now before us. And this is 
 a matter of far more importance than the freedom 
 of elections. 
 
 If any sufficient reasons could be offered for 
 thinking these views erroneous, I trust (as I de- 
 clared in my place in the House) that I should not 
 be withheld from changing them by any dread of 
 the imputation of what is commonly though most 
 erroneously called inconsistency. 1 But I am con- 
 firmed in my opinion by finding the arguments on 
 
 1 "A charge of inconsistency, as it is one of the most dis- 
 paraging, is also one that is perhaps the most frequently urged 
 with effect, on insufficient grounds. Strictly speaking, inconsis- 
 tency (such at least as a wise and good man is exempt from) is 
 the maintaining at the same time of two contradictory proposi- 
 tions; whether expressed in language, or implied in sentiments or 
 conduct. As e. g. if an author, in an argumentative work, while 
 he represents every syllogism as futile and fallacious reasoning, 
 admits that aU reasoning may be exhibited in the form of syllo- 
 gisms; or, if the same person who censures and abhors oppression, 
 yet practises it towards others; or if a man prescribes two medi- 
 cines which neutralize each other's effects, &c. 
 
 " But a man is often censured as inconsistent, if he changes his 
 plans or his opinions on any point. And certainly if he does this
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 19 
 
 which it is based, arguments publicly and repeat- 
 edly urged, many years ago, entirely unanswered. 
 Not even any attempt at refutation has ever, as far 
 as I know, appeared, up to this day. The argu- 
 ments and the declamations on the opposite side are 
 still brought forward again and again, without any 
 notice at all of the replies that have been given to 
 them. 1 
 
 For instance, it is continually urged, 
 
 that, to allow a Jew to be eligible to *&*<*&> f 
 
 n i- . -,. indifference to 
 
 .Parliament would imply indifference to Christianity. 
 Christianity: does it then it was 
 replied argue indifference to Protestantism, to 
 remove disabilities from Eoman-catholics ? or indif- 
 ference to our own Church, to allow dissenters to 
 be eligible? If a Christian Country is bound, as 
 such, jealously to exclude Jews, is not a Protestant 
 Country equally bound to exclude Roman-catholics, 
 and an Episcopalian Country, Presbyterians? 2 
 
 This is, I admit, only a personal argument, not 
 applicable to those (now but a small number) who 
 are for making conformity to the Established Church 
 
 often, and lightly, that is good ground for withholding confidence 
 from him. But it would be more precise to characterize him as 
 fickle and unsteady, than as inconsistent ; because this use of the 
 term tends to confound one fault with another; viz. with the 
 holding of two incompatible opinions at once" Elements of 
 Rhet. p. 2, ch. iii., 5. 
 
 1 See Note (C), Appendix. 
 
 8 See Speech on the Jewish Relief Bill, published in the 
 volume of Charges a/nd Tracts. 
 
 c 2
 
 20 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 an essential condition of the enjoyment of civil 
 rights. But the argument is valid as far as it goes ; 
 and ought to put to silence all declamations about 
 indifference to Christianity in those who do not go 
 the whole length of complete and consistent ex- 
 clusiveness. 
 
 Yet to this and to the other arguments urged, 
 I have never heard of any answer being offered. 
 It would be well if those who regard their advocacy 
 of religious tests and disabilities as a mark of their 
 being most emphatically Christian, and who some 
 of them. cast reproaches not savouring of Christian 
 meekness and charity on those who do not agree 
 with them, as showing indifference to Christianity, 
 and a tendency towards Judaism it were well, I 
 say, if these would reflect on what grounds it was 
 that the chief part of the Jewish nation rejected 
 the Messiah. Evidently, it was from their expec- 
 tation of a temporal Messiah, who should establish 
 a " Kingdom of this world," supported by secular 
 power, and secular privileges and penalties. 
 
 And they should next consider, therefore, whe- 
 ther those who seek by such methods to honour 
 and to support Christ's Kingdom, are not them- 
 selves more chargeable with a tendency to corrupt 
 the Gospel by an introduction of Jewish principles. 
 
 With intentional depravation, however, or dis- 
 regard of Christianity, I would not, myself, charge 
 any of my brethren ; even though they should fail 
 to show the same forbearance towards me. Let 
 each study the Christian Scriptures carefully and
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 21 
 
 candidly, and act on the conviction which he de- 
 rives from that guide, without pronouncing harsh 
 judgments on those who may have arrived at a dif- 
 ferent conclusion from his. And remember, my 
 Keverend Brethren, if ever you are tempted to 
 depart from this rule, by finding that your oppo- 
 nents disregard it, remember Him who " when He 
 was reviled, reviled not again," and who " left us 
 an example that we should follow his steps." 
 
 As for the political aspect of the question, 
 though a full discussion of it would be unsuitable 
 to this occasion, I cannot forbear making a remark 
 on one point which has been very generally over- 
 looked. Those who contend for the principle that 
 in a Christian Country no share of legislative power 
 should be conceded to a Jew, ought manifestly if 
 they would be consistent to follow out their prin- 
 ciple, and not to be content with throwing out the 
 Bill I have been alluding to, but to endeavour to 
 deprive Jews of the elective franchise. An elector, 
 it is true, has a much smaller share of legislative 
 power than a member of Parliament; but this is 
 nothing to the purpose, when the question is one of 
 principle and not of amount. It was admitted on 
 all hands that the number of Jews likely to obtain 
 seats in Parliament would be insignificantly small; 
 but the indecorum, and the violation of principle, 
 would, it was urged, (and very justly) be the very 
 same, whether they were many or few, of great or 
 of small influence. Now the principle in question
 
 22 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 is even more completely violated (and this is the 
 point which has been the most generally over- 
 looked) by the law as it now stands, than by the 
 proposed Bill. For the elective franchise is actually 
 enjoyed by the Jew, independently of any per- 
 mission from another party ; while a seat in Parlia- 
 ment is not conferred by the Bill. That Bill only 
 went to enable him to take his seat if duly elected 
 by the constituents. It conferred no legislative 
 power; only enabled them to confer it if they 
 thought fit. It is evident, therefore, that the prin- 
 ciple alluded to is already much more directly 
 violated by the existing law than it would have 
 been by that Bill. 1 
 
 I have always however (as most of you must be 
 well aware 2 ) objected strongly to the anomaly of a 
 Christian Church being governed altogether as ours 
 now is, by a Body which does not consist exclusively 
 of members of that Church. And as on this subject 
 also, my views have been long since 3 very fully laid 
 before the Public, I had no need to say more, in the 
 Debate that lately took place on the subject, than a 
 
 1 Another curious anomaly in the present state of the law is, 
 that a Jew is allowed to act as a Magistrate; and that accordingly 
 it happened very lately that a Jewish Justice of the Peace (who 
 is also a member of Parliament, but was precluded from taking 
 his seat) was applied to for a licence, which he granted, as he 
 was empowered to do, for a dissenting chapel. 
 
 2 See Speech on the Jewish-Belief Bill, and also on the 
 Kildare " Petition for Church Government," in the volume of 
 Charges and Tracts. 
 
 3 See Appendix, Note (D).
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 23 
 
 very few words expressing my adherence to those 
 views. 
 
 It was a very striking, and a very Opinions on 
 interesting circumstance in that Debate Convocation 
 
 or other Go- 
 
 to observe how very large a number of vemment of 
 influential persons had adopted, more or the Churcji - 
 less, certain views respecting the present condition, 
 and the requirements, of our Church. I will not 
 call them, my views, because I know not how far, 
 or whether at all, they had been derived from me : 
 but they certainly were views which I had long since 
 advocated in the House, year after year, when I 
 stood almost alone ; when I could hardly obtain a 
 hearing for the statement of those views ; when they 
 were supported by hardly any one, opposed by 
 some, and, by most, deemed, apparently, not 
 worth opposing. Yet on this last occasion they 
 were earnestly and eloquently discussed by several ; 
 and by all considered worthy of very serious 
 attention. 
 
 As for the arguments employed on both sides, I 
 need not detain you by recounting or commenting 
 on them, because hardly any of much importance 
 were brought forward except what must be already 
 familiar to those of you who take an interest in the 
 subject. It is one which, as you will recollect, I 
 have repeatedly and fully discussed, both in a 
 Charge delivered a few years since, 1 and in several 
 
 other Works. 
 
 1 See Note (D,) Appendix, and also the Speech above referred to,
 
 24 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 It may be needful however to point your atten- 
 tion to the circumstance that those of the speakers 
 who advocated, and those who opposed, the sum- 
 moning of Convocation for actual business, were 
 completely agreed in thinking that Body as now 
 by law constituted utterly unfit to be a permanent 
 government for the Church. Nor did any one 
 advocate, and most, I think distinctly protested 
 against, any government of the Church by the 
 Clergy, exclusively of the Laity. But Convocation 
 it was urged by some ought to be summoned for 
 the purpose of handing over its powers to some 
 differently-constituted Body; in the same manner 
 as the Reform-Bill, which materially altered the 
 constitution of Parliament, was passed, and could 
 only have been passed, by the then-existing un- 
 reformed Parliament. 
 
 Whether these views be sound or not, it is no 
 more than fair, and it is also highly important that 
 they should at least be not misapprehended. 
 
 As for the objection which was urged, that 
 differences of opinion, and contests, and perhaps 
 stormy debates, would be likely to arise, in any 
 assembly of men, whether called Councillors, 
 Commissioners, Delegates, or by whatever other 
 name met to inquire into and to decide on, impor- 
 tant and interesting matters, and that this might be 
 expected, equally, whether they sat as a permanent 
 governing Body, or as a temporary Commission to 
 be finally dissolved when it should have gone
 
 OF THE CHUKCH. 25 
 
 through a certain definite task, all this was folly 
 admitted. But it was remarked, in reply, that still 
 greater, and more widely spread, and far more 
 unsatisfactory contests, and more incurable discon- 
 tents take place, and are sure to take place, in the 
 absence of a government ; when there is no recognised 
 and legitimate channel open for suggestions, for 
 complaints, for arguments, and statements, and 
 proposals. 
 
 It might,' indeed, have perhaps seemed antece- 
 dently probable, that peace and satisfaction, at least 
 within the Church, might have been secured, though 
 at a great sacrifice, by the withdrawal from its 
 Communion from time to time, not only of those 
 radically opposed to its doctrine and worship, but 
 of many others also who might have been retained 
 in it without any compromise of principle. Expe- 
 rience, however, shows that even at this cost internal 
 peace and satisfaction are not to be purchased ; 
 that the health and ease of the remaining portion of 
 the body cannot be obtained even by the successive 
 amputation of limbs. 
 
 In the Houses of Parliament, (it was urged) 
 violent and sometimes factious contests undoubtedly 
 occur, and instances of unwise legislation may be 
 found. But would any one venture on these grounds 
 to propose the discontinuance of Parliaments? 
 Would any one say, " We are satisfied with the ex- 
 isting laws, and want no changes ; ' NOLUMUS LEGES 
 ANGLIC MUTARI:* we would fain avoid all the
 
 26 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 wanton legislation, and all the strife of words, and 
 party-spirit which a Parliament never fails to call 
 forth; let us dispense with it altogether?" 
 
 This experiment we know was actually tried, on 
 grounds which doubtless appeared plausible at the 
 time, by the unhappy Charles the First : and we all 
 know the result. 
 
 Then, as for the apprehended predominance, in 
 any regularly-constituted Assembly, of the mis- 
 judging, and violent and factious, it was maintained, 
 in reply, that such men are incomparably more 
 influential, and their numbers and power more apt 
 to be over-rated, in the absence of any regular 
 government. And an instance was adduced, which 
 I believe might serve as a specimen of thousands of 
 others, in which a factious clamour was raised in a 
 certain parish against some proposed measure; 
 such, that even several of those favourably disposed 
 to the measure were almost overawed by what they 
 had been led to believe was the voice of " The 
 Parishioners." But when the expedient was resorted 
 to, of collecting the votes, it was found that those who 
 had been representing themselvesas " The Parish" 
 were, to those opposed to them, less than one to 
 ten! 
 
 It was urged, again, that, very recently, some 
 Australian Bishops had held a kind of Conference 
 or Synod, at which certain Kesolutions, on several 
 points, had been passed, and which had called forth 
 loud complaints from many lay-members of our
 
 OF THE CHURCH. 27 
 
 Church in those parts : and this was considered as 
 indicating that any kind of Assembly convened by 
 competent authority to deliberate on any ecclesi- 
 astical matters would be most distasteful to the lay- 
 members of our Church, and would be productive of 
 dissension. 
 
 But it seems most probable that that Meeting 
 had been suspected, not unnaturally of a design 
 (which however I am far from, myself, attributing 
 to those Bishops) to claim for those Resolutions 
 what they certainly had no right to claim some 
 binding authority, as emanating from a Body 
 beyond what each bishop already possessed in his 
 own diocese; and that such a (supposed) assump- 
 tion of power was the chief thing that called forth 
 expressions of indignation and of alarm. 
 
 If, as was observed in the Debate some ten 
 or twenty Members of either House of Parliament 
 should think proper to meet in an assembly consti- 
 tuted by their own authority, and to lead or leave 
 men to believe that they regarded themselves as a 
 legislative Body whose decisions were to be binding 
 on all, then, however wise in themselves these deci- 
 sions might be, no one can doubt that such a 
 usurpation would excite resentment and opposition. 
 
 But if any one should infer from that resent- 
 ment that the meeting of a Parliament regularly 
 summoned by the Sovereign must be productive of 
 dissension, and that the whole institution of Parlia- 
 ments had better be abolished, most men would
 
 28 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 perceive that the very opposite conclusion would be 
 the more reasonable. 
 
 Before I dismiss this subject, I wish 
 
 Obstacles to the 
 
 introduction of to call your attention to two very im- 
 a Ckurch- Go- portant, perhaps the most important 
 
 vernment. ' 
 
 obstacles, to the introduction of any 
 remedy for the present anomalous condition of our 
 Church : leaving to your own discretion to deal with 
 those obstacles, on each occasion that may arise, 
 according to the best of your discretion. 
 
 (1.) One is, the expectation, or suspicion, that 
 any Assembly, Council, Convocation, or whatever 
 else it might be called, that should be convened for 
 the regulation of the affairs of our Church, might 
 claim for itself inspiration, and consequent infalli- 
 bility. 
 
 We know that Councils have before now, ad- 
 vanced such a claim; 1 and have rashly not to say 
 profanely applied to themselves the words (of 
 which moreover they manifestly mistook the real 
 meaning) of the decree of that early Council held at 
 Jerusalem, " It hath seemed good to the Holy 
 Ghost and to us." 2 
 
 And the slightest hint, or even the absence of 
 a disavowal of any such claim, would be sufficient 
 
 1 I know that on a late occasion that claim, on behalf of a 
 Convocation, was understood to be maintained by a speaker who, 
 I verily believe, had not really any such intention. 
 
 2 In the case of Cornelius and his Household (to which Peter 
 had just been directing their attention) the Holy Spirit had given
 
 OF THE CHUECH. 29 
 
 to excite such alarm and disgust as would raise up 
 an effectual barrier against the summoning of any 
 such Council. 
 
 (2.) The other obstacle to which I would advert 
 is, the notion of the Universal [Catholic] Church 
 being one Community on Earth, to which all Chris- 
 tians are bound to pay submission ; its governors, 
 and their enactments, claiming obedience from all 
 Christ's followers. 
 
 If there be any such one Community on Earth, 
 it is manifest that no branch of it, no individual 
 members of it, whether few or many can have 
 any right, without its express permission, to assemble 
 for the purpose of deciding or even deliberating 
 on either Articles of faith, or regulations as to 
 Church-discipline and public Worship, or anything 
 whatever that at all concerns any portion of the 
 Church of Christ. 
 
 And how can we obtain, or even apply for, any 
 such permission ? since we do not acknowledge any 
 Vicegerent on earth of Him whom we believe to be 
 the sole Head of the Catholic Church. 
 
 Any meeting of persons who are subjects of the 
 British Empire, in any city or county of it, called 
 together without the sanction of the Imperial Legis- 
 
 a plain decision that those individuals might be admitted into 
 the Christian Church without conforming to the Law of Moses 
 (see Acts, x. 47). And the Council, by an obvious inference 
 from that case, decided that the same rule would apply to all 
 Gentile converts.
 
 30 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF 
 
 lature, who should pretend to enact laws binding 
 on the inhabitants of that district, would be justly 
 regarded as no better than rebels, however good 
 in themselves their enactments might be. The 
 bye-laws of any Corporation must be made with 
 the permission of the central Government; else 
 there would be a most mischievous and dangerous 
 imperium in imperio ; in fact, a complete revolt 
 from the Authority we are bound to obey. 
 
 And if some self-constituted Assembly in this 
 Country should profess to be " called together in the 
 name of the Sovereign" the use of this language by 
 persons who could not produce a royal licence duly 
 signed, would be considered as rather aggravating 
 their offence. 
 
 As long, therefore, and as far as this notion 
 shall exist in men's minds of a Universal Church 
 as one Community on Earth, possessing as every 
 such Community must- a supreme central Govern- 
 ment on Earth, to which all Christians owe submis- 
 sion, so long, and so far, our own Anglican Church 
 (which expressly disclaims being itself that Church) 1 
 must have an insuperable obstacle placed in the 
 way of any Government for itself. 
 
 And it should be remembered also that this 
 notion strikes at the root of all past as well as 
 
 "9 
 
 1 "And in these our doings we condemn no other nations, 
 nor prescribe anything but to our own People only; for we think 
 it convenient that every Country should use such ceremonies as 
 they shall think best, &c." Preface to Prayer-book. See also 
 Art. 34.
 
 OF THE CHUECH. 31 
 
 future Government of our own or of any other 
 Church. It leads inevitably to the conclusion that 
 all decisions, regulations, ordinances, and enactments 
 of whatever kind, by any Church that can be 
 named, must be utterly null and void from the 
 beginning; and that all Convocations, Synods, or 
 Assemblies, of whatever kind, summoned for the 
 purpose of making any such enactments, must 
 have been chargeable with Schism, as having acted 
 without distinct permission from the supreme cen- 
 tral Authority. 
 
 And hence it is, partly, that the notion I have 
 been alluding to has so often led men to join the 
 Church of Rome ; which does at least claim (though 
 on no sufficient grounds) what our Church dis- 
 tinctly disclaims, to be that supreme central 
 Authority. 
 
 Before I conclude, I wish to call 
 
 Claims of 
 
 your attention to the efforts recently M e Gospel- 
 made in behalf of the truly venerable propagation- 
 
 Society. 
 
 " Society for the Propagation of the 
 Gospel in Foreign Parts," the Jubilee of which, at 
 the close of its hundred and fiftieth year, was 
 honoured with the presence and advocacy of an 
 exalted Personage, distinguished not more by his 
 high station than by his energetic and well-directed 
 zeal in the cause of every institution and every 
 undertaking calculated to benefit his adopted 
 Country, and the whole human Race.
 
 32 LEGISLATION IN BEHALF OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 This Society, to which we owe the very exist- 
 ence of a Sister- Church in America, and the exten- 
 sion of our religious system to almost every part of 
 the World in which our language is spoken, I could 
 not more effectually advocate, even if my limits 
 would permit, than by referring you to the little 
 Tracts circulated by it, containing the speeches 
 delivered before the diocesan Branch of it, in Dub- 
 lin, by the present Bishop of Norwich. And these 
 I earnestly recommend to your attention. 
 
 I also recommend, that, according to the sug- 
 gestion of the Parent- Society, you should urge its 
 claims on the attention of your People, by sermons, 
 or otherwise, as may be judged most suitable for 
 each locality.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (A), page 3. 
 
 AMONG the things excluded from the Christian system, we 
 are fully authorized to include all subjection of the Christian 
 World, permanently, and from generation to generation, to some 
 one Spiritual-Ruler (whether an individual man or a Church) the 
 delegate, representative and vicegerent of Christ ; whose authority 
 should be binding on the conscience of all, and decisive on every 
 point of faith. Jesus Himself, who told his Disciples that it was 
 "expedient for them that He should go away, that He might 
 send them another Comforter, who should abide with them for 
 ever," could not possibly have failed, had such been his design, 
 to refer them to the man, or Body of men, who should, in per- 
 petual succession, be the depositary of this divine consolation and 
 supremacy. And it is wholly incredible that He Himself should 
 be perpetually spoken of and alluded to as the Head of His 
 Church, without any reference to any Supreme Head on Earth, 
 as fully representing Him, and bearing universal rule in his 
 name, whether Peter or any other Apostle, or any successor of 
 one of these, this, I say, is utterly incredible, supposing the 
 Apostles or their Master had really designed that there should be 
 for the universal Church any institution answering to the oracle 
 of God under the Old Dispensation, at the Tabernacle or the 
 Temple. 
 
 The Apostle Paul, in speaking of miracles as " the signs of an 
 Apostle," evidently implies that no one NOT possessing such mira- 
 culous gifts as his, much less without possessing any at all, 
 could be entitled to be regarded as even on a level with the 
 Apostles ; yet he does not, by virtue of that his high office, claim 
 for himself, or allow to Peter or any other, supreme rule over all 
 the Churches. And while he claims and exercises the right to 
 decide authoritatively on points of faith and of practice on which 
 he had received express revelations, he does not leave his converts 
 any injunction to apply hereafter, when he shall be removed from 
 them, to the Bishop or Rulers of any other Church, for such 
 decisions ; or to any kind of permanent living Oracle to dictate to 
 all Christians in all Ages. Nor does he even ever hint at any 
 subjection of one Church to another, singly, or to any number of 
 
 D
 
 34 APPENDIX (A). 
 
 others collectively; to that of Jerusalem, for instance, or of 
 Rome ; or to any kind of general Council. 
 
 It appears plainly from the sacred narrative, that though the 
 many Churches which the Apostles founded were branches of one 
 Spiritual Brotherhood, of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the 
 Heavenly Head, though there was " one Lord, one Faith, one 
 Baptism," for all of them, yet they were each a distinct, inde- 
 pendent community on Earth, united by the common principles 
 on which they were founded, and by their mutual agreement, 
 affection, and respect ; but not having any one recognised Head 
 on Earth, or acknowledging any sovereignty of one of these 
 Societies over others. Essay II. on Kingdom of Christ, 15. 
 
 While questions are eagerly discussed as to the degree of 
 deference due to the " decisions of the universal Church," some 
 preliminary questions are often overlooked : such as, when, and 
 where did any one visible Community, comprising all Christians 
 as its members, exist? Does it exist still? Is its authority the 
 same as formerly? or when, and how, was its authority sup- 
 pressed, or curtailed? And, again, who are its rulers and other 
 officers, rightfully claiming to represent Him who is the acknow- 
 ledged Head of the Universal (or Catholic) Church, Jesus Christ, 
 and to act as his Vicegerents on Earth? For it is plain that no 
 society that has a supreme Governor, can perform any act, as a 
 Society, and in its corporate capacity, without that supreme 
 Governor, either in person, or represented by some one clearly 
 deputed by him, and invested with his authority. And a Bishop, 
 Presbyter, or other officer, of any particular Church, although he 
 is a member of the Universal Christian-Church, and also a 
 Christian Ecclesiastical Ruler, is not a Ruler of the Universal 
 Church ; his jurisdiction not extending beyond his particular 
 Diocese, Province, or Church : any more than a European King is 
 King of Europe. Who then are to be recognised as Rulers of 
 (not merely in) the Universal Church? Where (on Earth) is its 
 central supreme government, such as every single Community 
 must have? Who is the accredited organ empowered to pro- 
 nounce its decrees, in the name of the whole Community? And 
 where are these decrees registered 1 ? 
 
 Yet many persons are accustomed to talk familiarly of the 
 decisions of the Catholic Church, as if there were some accessible 
 record of them, such as we have of the Acts of any Legislative 
 Body; and "as if there existed some recognised functionaries, 
 regularly authorized to govern and to represent that community,
 
 APPENDIX (A). 35 
 
 the Church of Christ; and answering to the king senate or 
 other constituted authorities, in any secular community. And 
 yet no shadow of proof can be offered that the Church, in the 
 above sense, the Universal Church, can possibly give any 
 decision at all; that it has any constituted Authorities as the 
 organs by which such decision could be framed or promulgated ; 
 or, in short, that there is, or ever was, any one community on 
 earth, recognised, or having any claim to be recognised, as the 
 Universal Church, bearing rule over and comprehending all par- 
 ticular Churches." Essay II. on Kingdom of Christ, 22. 
 
 (B), No. 1, page 11. 
 
 From the Irish Prelates to his Grace the Lord Archbishop of 
 Canterbury. 
 
 WE, the undersigned Archbishops and Bishops of the United 
 Church of England and Ireland, have seen in the public prints a 
 document entitled " An humble Address of the Archbishops and 
 Bishops of the Church of England,'' and commencing with the 
 following words : " May it please your Majesty, we the Arch- 
 bishops and undersigned Bishops of the Church of England, 
 approach your Majesty," &c. It is with much regret, and not 
 without apprehension, that we have observed the title by which 
 your Grace and the Archbishop of York, together with the suf- 
 fragan bishops of the two provinces under your jurisdiction, have 
 designated yourselves in addressing our Sovereign a title which, 
 we beg permission to say, is unknown to the law of the land, and 
 which imports a virtual denial of the fifth article of Union 
 between England and Ireland. Your Grace is aware that, by the 
 statute 39 and 40 George III., c. 67, it is enacted, "that the 
 Churches of England and Ireland, as now by law established, be 
 united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called the 
 United Church of England and Ireland." The title-page of our 
 Book of Common Prayer, and the form of ordaining priests, bear 
 their solemn testimony to the incorporation of the two Churches 
 into one, and to the designation by which that one Church is to 
 be known. 
 
 We have painfully felt that of late years, as well in legislating 
 on ecclesiastical affairs, as on many public occasions, a disposition 
 has been manifested to regard the Irish provinces of the United 
 Church as if they did not form an integral portion of the one 
 Church of the nation. We are conscious that the Irish branch 
 
 D2
 
 36 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 of the Church is peculiarly exposed to the attacks of its enemies ; 
 and we are on that account the more apprehensive of any step 
 being taken which has a tendency, even in appearance, to disso- 
 ciate our provinces and bishoprics from that great community with 
 which it is our happiness, and, we hope, our safety, to be iden- 
 tified. We, therefore, not unnaturally, fear the effect which may 
 be produced by a movement on the part of our English brethren 
 against a common adversary, in which they have not only acted 
 without any concert or communication with us, but have styled 
 themselves by a name which would seem to intimate that they 
 are prelates of a separate Church from ours, and wish to appear 
 so before her Majesty. 
 
 We beg to assure your Grace that in submitting this statement 
 to your consideration, we are not actuated by any wounded feel- 
 ing of disappointment or dissatisfaction. But we deem that we 
 owe it to the Church in which we bear office, to guard, as far as 
 in our power, against a separation being made between the com- 
 ponent parts of the National Church, which were most solemnly 
 and authoritatively united together into one. We confidently 
 hope that the form of designation employed in your address was 
 adopted inadvertently, and not from a design to disclaim a con- 
 nexion with the provinces of Armagh and Dublin. And we 
 trust we may reckon on having the aid, the sympathy, and the 
 prayers of the Archbishops and Bishops of the provinces of Can- 
 terbury and York, in whatever difficulties and dangers may yet 
 await our portion of the Church. 
 
 We would respectfully request your Grace to communicate this 
 expression of our sentiments to the several prelates who signed 
 the address to her Majesty. 
 
 JOHN G. ARMAGH. 
 
 ED. DUBLIN. 
 
 THOMAS S. MEATH. 
 
 J. KILMOBE, ELPHIN, and ABDAGH. 
 
 R DEBBY and EAPHOE. 
 
 LUDLOW KILLALOE and CLONFEBT. 
 
 THOMAS TUAM, &c. 
 
 J. T. OSSOBY and FEBNS. 
 
 ROBEBT CASHEL, &c. 
 
 JAMES COBK and CLOYNE. 
 
 EOBEBT DOWN and CONNOB. 
 
 WM. LiMEBiCKj ABDFEBT, and AGHADOE.
 
 APPENDIX (B). 37 
 
 Answer. 
 
 Addington, Croydon, December 31, 1850. 
 
 MY LORD ARCHBISHOP, I beg to acknowledge the receipt of 
 a letter signed by your Grace, by the Archbishop of Dublin, and 
 all the Irish Bishops, referring to the recent address of the 
 E ;glish bench to her Majesty, in which they were styled "the 
 Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England." 
 
 I am anxious to assure your Grace, and my other right reve- 
 rend brethren in Ireland, that this designation did not originate 
 in any desire to represent ourselves as a separate body, but was 
 employed solely because, in the present instance, " the movement 
 of the common adversary" was immediately directed against 
 ourselves. 
 
 It did not appear to any of the Bishops, whom I had the 
 opportunity of consulting, that we could properly invite the 
 Irish Bishops to complain of an aggression which only affected 
 the Church in England. At the same time, I am ready, for my 
 own part, to acknowledge that the document would have been 
 more correctly worded, if it had been written in the name of the 
 English Archbishops and Bishops of the United Church of Eng- 
 land and Ireland. It would have been better to have indicted 
 an inharmonious sentence, than to have given ground for the 
 apprehensions expressed in your Grace's letter. 
 
 I will take an early opportunity of communicating the letter 
 to my episcopal brethren, who, at present, are dispersed in their 
 various dioceses. But I can venture to say, in their behalf, that 
 we all consider the Irish branch of the United Church to be 
 so closely identified with our own, that if one member suffers, 
 the other cannot fail to suffer with it ; and that in all cases where 
 co-operation is desirable or practicable, we shall be ready to act 
 with your Grace, and the other Irish Prelates, as an united body. 
 I remain, my Lord Archbishop, 
 
 Your Grace's faithful servant, 
 
 J. B. CANTUAR. 
 His Grace the Archbishop of Armagh. 
 
 From the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland to the Queen. 
 
 WE, the Archbishops and Bishops of the Irish provinces and 
 bishoprics of the United Church of England and Ireland,
 
 38 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 approach your Majesty at this time with the humble tender 
 of our duty, and the expression of our heartfelt participation 
 in those sentiments of devoted loyalty to the Crown, and of 
 unshaken attachment to the principles of the Reformation, which 
 the recent proceedings of the Bishop of Rome have drawn forth 
 so generally from your Majesty's subjects in England. 
 
 The same laws of the realm which have made one United 
 Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, have no less established 
 one United Church of England and Ireland: and the Irish 
 branch of that United Church, as it has always been faithful in 
 the maintenance of the union of the kingdom, so has it ever 
 been, and now is, no less earnest than the English branch, in 
 denying the pretensions of any " foreign prince, person, prelate, 
 state, or potentate," to any rightful "jurisdiction, power, superi- 
 ority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within 
 this realm." 
 
 The recent exercise of such a pretended right by the Bishop of 
 Rome, in constituting a territorial hierarchy in England, subject 
 to his supreme jurisdiction, is, happily, in that form, as yet a 
 novelty in Great Britain; but, unhappily, it is not the first exer- 
 cise of such pretensions within the bounds of the United King- 
 dom. For in Ireland, where the prerogative of the Crown is by 
 law one and the same as in England, the Bishops of Rome have 
 long ago pursued a course not dissimilar to that now attempted 
 in England. 
 
 At the period of the Reformation, nearly all the Irish bishops 
 renounced the papal authority; and of these the Prelates of the 
 Established Church are indisputably the regular successors. It 
 was not until after the lapse of several years that a new and rival 
 episcopate was gradually introduced by the Popes, which has 
 become politically formidable to the stability of the United 
 Church in this country, besides obstructing its efforts to make 
 known the Word of God, and promote peace, unity, and concord 
 among your Majesty's subjects. 
 
 We have thought it necessary to advert to these well-known 
 facts relating to Ireland, because they seem to have been almost, 
 if not altogether, lost sight of in the indignation which has been 
 excited by the recent attempt of the Pope to exert the like power 
 in England. Uneasy apprehensions have been awakened within 
 ua by observing that in the addresses, and resolutions, and
 
 APPENDIX (B). 39 
 
 speeches, which that bold procedure has called forth in England, 
 all the concern manifested has been for the distinct and special 
 defence of what has been called by a title unknown to the law 
 " The Church of England." 
 
 We are convinced, indeed, that the silence which has been 
 maintained in reference to the case of the Irish branch of the 
 Church, is in most instances to be regarded as merely the result 
 of the peculiar solicitude which men naturally feel for the part 
 immediately assailed, and which for the time banishes from their 
 mind all interest in, or recollection of, every other part; and we 
 are persuaded that it would be wrong to understand it as convey- 
 ing any wish to divide the United Church, or any opinion that, 
 being united as it is, the interests of its component parts may be 
 so dissevered, that while both are exposed to the same hostile 
 power, each may be content to defend itself; and still less, that 
 the stronger may provide for its own safety by sacrificing its 
 weaker associate. 
 
 We trust that a great majority of those who have allowed 
 themselves for a time to forget our case, in their anxiety about 
 their own, must be aware that any permanent disregard of it 
 would be a grievous error in point of prudence as well as of 
 principle. But knowing that different views with reference to the 
 ecclesiastical establishment in the two countries are entertained 
 by not a few in England, and that some such ill-considered com- 
 promise as we have glanced at, is actually contemplated by them, 
 we cannot but feel alarm at whatever may tend to give effect to 
 so short-sighted and fatal a scheme. 
 
 We are deeply impressed with the conviction, that if the 
 excitement now existing in England were to lead to the adoption 
 of any measure calculated to impair the integrity of the United 
 Church, or the completeness of the union between the two por- 
 tions of it, such a proceeding would involve more real injury to 
 the whole Church and to the country than any acts of the Bishop 
 of Rome, or any encroachment from without could possibly effect. 
 
 The Irish branch might, and probably would, be the first 
 sufferer from such false policy; but the English branch would 
 ultimately be no less surely its victim. And how deadly a wound 
 its fall would inflict upon all that constitutes the happiness and 
 greatness of that favoured country, we trust it may not be 
 doomed to know by unhappy experience.
 
 40 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 We confide, under God's good providence, in your Majesty's 
 wisdom, guided and supported by both houses of Parliament, to 
 avert all such evils, by maintaining the union which happily 
 exists between the countries, and between the branches of the 
 Church in both. 
 
 How the aggressive proceedings of the Bishop of Rome ought 
 to be guarded against and counteracted, we do not presume to 
 suggest. But we are anxious distinctly to state, that we have no 
 desire that they should be met by any restraint affecting the just 
 rights of conscience of any of your Majesty's subjects. 
 
 It is our humble prayer, that whatever may be the defensive 
 measures determined on for securing the National Church against 
 injury, the two portions of it may not be regarded or treated as 
 having separate interests, but that one and the same legislative 
 protection may be extended to both branches of the Church in 
 common. 
 
 [Signed by all the Prelates.] 
 
 (B), No. 2. 
 
 Testimonies to show that there is no unbroken line of Roman- 
 Catholic Prelates in Ireland since the Reformation. 
 
 IN the discussions which have lately taken place, both in and 
 out of Parliament, upon the subject of the Papal aggression, many 
 unfounded statements have been put forth respecting the lineal 
 succession of the prelates of the Established Church, and of the 
 Roman-Catholic body in Ireland; and it has been attempted to 
 build an argument upon those statements for permitting the 
 Roman-Catholic bishops to assume territorial titles here as a 
 matter of right, upon the supposition of an unbroken succession 
 of bishops of their church. 
 
 Therefore it may not be out of place to say a word or two upon 
 that question : First, in order to show that the prelates of our 
 Church are not intruders (as asserted), but are the legitimate suc- 
 cessors of the Irish bishops anterior to the Reformation; and, 
 secondly, to prove, from writers of their own communion, that the 
 present Roman -Catholic bishops merely represent persons who 
 were illegally intruded by the Pope into sees already filled. In- 
 deed, many years had elapsed before such an attempt was made 
 in several of the dioceses ; in others, the Pope placed, not bishops
 
 APPENDIX (B). 41 
 
 but vicars apostolic; so that the supposed fact of a full and unin- 
 terrupted succession of bishops in ordinary falls to the ground, 
 and carries with it that conclusion which it was intended to raise 
 and substantiate. 
 
 First. At the time when the Irish Act of Uniformity was 
 passed (January, 1559-60), there were twenty-nine archbishops 
 and bishops in Ireland. [The Primate Dowdall had died three 
 months before Queen Elizabeth's accession.] 
 
 It is notorious, that only two out of that number were deprived 
 for refusing to take the oath of the Queen's supremacy, as set 
 forth in that act ; namely, Walsh, bishop of Heath, and Leverous, 
 bishop of Kildare. All the others retained their bishoprics; there- 
 fore we may presume that they did not scruple to satisfy the 
 Queen in the matter of the oath. Thus, for instance, Hugh 
 Curwin retained the archbishopric of Dublin, and consecrated 
 Archbishop Loftus, Lancaster, and others; and even Hugh Lacy, 
 bishop of Limerick, whom Queen Mary had appointed in place of 
 William Casey, whom she had deprived in 1557, was allowed to 
 retain his see for eleven years; although Casey, whom he had 
 supplanted, was living, and in fact was afterwards replaced in his 
 old see, when Lacy resigned it, in 1571. 
 
 More might be added ; but perhaps these two examples may be 
 sufficient upon this head. 
 
 Secondly. Let us hear what Roman-Catholic authors have ad- 
 mitted respecting the broken condition of their hierarchy after the 
 Reformation, and the methods adopted from time to time by the 
 Popes for replacing it from foreign sources. 
 
 I. D' Alton, in his Memoirs of the Archbishops of Dublin, 
 (8vo, 1838,) writes thus: 
 
 " A.D. 1599. After Hugh Curwin had abandoned the Koman- 
 Catholic faith, the assertion of Queen Elizabeth's supremacy, and 
 the imprisonments, &c., prevented the appointment of a prelate for 
 upwards of forty years. At length, Philip II. of Spain sent over a 
 troop of Spaniards to assist James Fitzmaurice in his rebellion, and 
 with them he sent Matthew de Oviedo, a Spanish friar; but the 
 enterprise failed, and the friar returned home. But in 1600 he was 
 again invited over, and was appointed Archbishop of Dublin by 
 the Pope." D'Alton justly styles him ' an emissary and agent of 
 Phih'p II.' In 1601 he was driven out of the country, and died in 
 obscurity in Spain. 
 
 " In 1611, after a lapse of ten years, Eugene Matthews was ap
 
 42 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 pointed by tkePope. He fled from Ireland about 1617, and died in 
 the Netherlands in 1623. 
 
 " In 1623, Thomas Fleming was sent over by the Pope. He died 
 about 1653. 
 
 " 1660. At the close of the year 1660 there were but three pre- 
 lates of the Roman-Catholic faith in Ireland, those of Armagh, 
 Meath, and Kilmore ; while this see (Dublin) was under the juris- 
 diction and control of James Dempsey, Vicar Apostolic and Capitu- 
 lary of Kildare." 
 
 Mr. D' Alton is a very laborious and inquiring writer, and his 
 statements of these matters need not be disputed. But he does 
 not stand alone ; he is abundantly supported by other historians 
 of the same creed, who lived much nearer to the events in ques- 
 tion, and who would not be likely either to omit or understate any 
 circumstance seemingly favourable to the credit or power of their 
 Church. 
 
 II. Thus, Philip O'Sullevan, in his Historic^ CatJiolicce Com- 
 pendium, (4to, Ulyssipone, 1621,) admits, that in 1579,, Patrick 
 O'Hely was consecrated Bishop of Mayo, by Pope Gregory XIII., 
 and sent over to Ireland, to oppose the English heresy. He states 
 that in his time (about 1620), very few Irish bishops were ap- 
 pointed, because they could not live in honour and dignity with- 
 out ecclesiastical revenues; wherefore the four archbishops, 
 appointed by the Pope, nominated vicars-general, by papal autho- 
 rity, to their suffragan sees. Eugene Mac Mahon, Archbishop of 
 Dublin, and David O'Kearney, Archbishop of Cashel, remained in 
 Ireland; but Peter Lombard, of Armagh, and Florence O'Mel- 
 conry, of Tuam, delegated their provinces to vicars. (p. 229.) 
 
 III. Peter Lombard, in his work, De Eegno Hibernice, (4to, 
 1624,) gives this, among other urgent reasons, why the Pope, and 
 the King of Spain, and other Roman-Catholic princes, ought to 
 assist Ireland in her rebellious attempts ; viz., that most, indeed 
 all, the metropoles and dioceses were deprived of the consolation 
 of their pastors. (p. 464.) 
 
 He speaks of the dioceses of Ireland, as passim vacantes. 
 (p. 490.) 
 
 He owns that, in 1 600, Dermit, Bishop of Cork, was the only 
 Roman-Catholic bishop of the province of Muster, then alive. 
 (p. 431). 
 
 IV. Father Peter Walsh, a Franciscan friar, (called by C. 
 O'Conor " the most learned man of that learned order,") in his
 
 APPENDIX (B). 43 
 
 extremely valuable work, The History of the Loyal Irish Remon- 
 strance, (fol. 1673,) gives a vast deal of curious and important 
 information about the broken state of the hierarchy, from about 
 1640 to 1672; and furnishes evidence that several of the dioceses 
 were under the government of vicars apostolic. At p. 4 he states 
 that the titular Archbishop of Armagh, the Bishop of Meath, and 
 the old bed-ridden Bishop of Kilmore, (Owen M'Swiney, of whom 
 see some account in Burnetfs Life of Bishop Bedell,) were the 
 only three bishops in Ireland. James Dempsey was Vicar Apos- 
 tolic of Dublin, and Capitulary of Kildare. Limerick was under 
 custodiam. The other bishops were in foreign parts. 
 
 Page 573, &c. The sees of Clonfert, Elphin, Killaloe, and Kil- 
 macduagh, (all of the province of Tuam,) were vacant, and under 
 vicars-general. Only three bishops were then alive in Ireland, 
 viz., of Kilmore, Ardagh, and Tuam. 
 
 All the dioceses of Dublin province, except Ferns, were vacant 
 in November, 1665. 
 
 All the sees of Cashel province were vacant, their bishops being 
 dead; except Kilfenora, the bishop of which was in France. And 
 the only bishops then surviving, and residing in foreign parts, 
 were Edmond O'Reilly, Archbishop of Armagh ; Nicholas French, 
 Bishop of Ferns ; and Andrew Lynch, Bishop of Kilfenora ; three 
 at home, and three abroad. 
 
 In 1666, Dublin, Cashel, and Killaloe, were under vicars apo- 
 stolic. 
 
 Between 1669 and 1672, thirteen or fourteen new bishops, in- 
 cluding four archbishops, were created at Rome, by tlie Pope. 
 
 V. Francis Porter, in his Compendium Annalium Ecclesiast. 
 Regni Hibemice, (4to, Romae, 1690,) mentions, that the Nuncio at 
 Paris was very anxious that the succession should be kept up ; 
 and therefore he procured the appointment of P. Talbot to 
 Dublin ; Oliver Plunket to Armagh ; John Bourgath to Cashel ; 
 and James Lynch to Tuam ; with others. 
 
 He informs us (p. 343), that the whole province of Ulster, 
 except one or two dioceses, was without bishops for nine-and- 
 twenty years; and states that, in his own time, several sees were 
 vacant, and that there were certain people who used all their 
 efforts to keep them so. 
 
 VI. Anthony Bruodin, another friar, in his book, called "Pro- 
 pugnacutum Catholicce Veritatis" (4to, Pragee, 1669,) a most
 
 44 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 abusive and mendacious work, speaks of Matthew Roche as 
 having been, in 1644, for thirty-five years Vicar Apostolic of 
 Leighlin. 
 
 VII. Thomas De Burgo, in his Hibernia Dominicana, (4to, 
 Kilkenny, 1763-73,) tells us 
 
 Page 869, that " Bishop Thonory, of Ossory, died in 1565, and 
 the bishopric was not filled up till 1582, when the Pope appointed 
 Thomas Strong. He resided in Spain, and died there in 1601. His 
 place was not filled up till 1618, when David Both was appointed." 
 
 Page 817. " Eugene Matthews was made Archbishop of Dublin, 
 on May 2nd, 1611. Before him was Matthew de Oviedo, who had 
 been appointed on May 5th, 1600. Before him the see of Dublin 
 was without a pastor for thirty-three years" 
 
 Thus we see that Bourke admits Hugh Curwin (who resigned 
 in 1567) to have been its lawful bishop, although he had con- 
 formed to the Reformed faith. 
 
 " In 1646, Ross, and also Tuam, were under Vicars Apostolic. 
 
 " 1667, Nicholas French presented a petition to the Pope, which 
 contained the names of the Roman-Catholic bishops who had died 
 since 1649. The list comprises 
 
 Nine bishops, who had died in Ireland. 
 
 Three, who had been executed. 
 
 Ten, who had died in exile in foreign parts ; and 
 
 Four, who were then alive." 
 
 VIII. In the Catholic Directory, annually published in 
 Dublin, we have, in the volume for the year 1837, lists of the 
 successive bishops of each diocese of Ireland. How far the com- 
 pilers were able to make out a full and unbroken succession, the 
 following specimens may show : 
 
 " "WATEBFOBD AND LISMOEE. 
 
 Nicholas Cummin resigned in 1551. 
 Patrick Comerford was Bishop in 1646, Ac. 
 
 CLONFEBT. 
 
 Roland de Burgo was elected in 1534. 
 Thaddeus O'Ferral was Bishop in 1602, &c. 
 
 ACHONBY. 
 
 Cormac was Bishop in 1523. 
 
 Eugene (at the Council of Trent) died 1623. 
 
 Dr. Durcan was Vicar Apostolic. 
 
 Dominic O'Daly was consecrated in 1726, &c.
 
 APPENDIX (B). 45 
 
 KILFENOBA. 
 
 John O'Hinalan, 1552. 
 
 Andrew Lynch was Bishop in 1649, &c. 
 
 KILMACDTJA&H. 
 
 Christopher Bodkin translated to Tuam, 1536. 
 Hugh Burke 1609, &c. 
 
 CORK AND CLOYNE. 
 
 John Hovedon, appointed 1542. 
 Edmond Tanner, Bishop in 1580. 
 William Therry, Bishop in 1620. 
 
 ABDFEBT. 
 
 James Fitzmaurice, Bishop in 1556. 
 Tlichard Connell, in 1648. 
 
 DTTBLIN. 
 
 No Archbishop from 1559 till 5th May, 1600. 
 Matthew de Oviedo, 1600, &c., &c." 
 
 There is little doubt that those wide gaps would gladly have 
 been filled up, if satisfactory materials for doing so were at hand. 
 And when to all the foregoing evidence we add the recent admis- 
 sion of Archbishop MacHale, in his sermon preached before the 
 Synod of Thurles, that there was a " disastrous time when only 
 two bishops could be found in the land;" it is hoped, from a spirit 
 of fairness, that the loose assertions ignorantly hazarded respect- 
 ing the hierarchy of the Church of Ireland may henceforth be 
 discontinued ; and that we may hear no more of an uninterrupted 
 line and perpetual succession of Romam-Catholic bishops from the 
 time of St. Patrick to this day, when the contrary is undeniably 
 and notoriously the truth. 
 
 HENRY COTTON. 
 
 (C), page 19. 
 
 I HAVE thought it advisable to reprint in this place an extract 
 from a work published some time ago : 
 
 The Bill I have been alluding to is apparently regarded by 
 many as a Bill to admit Jews into Parliament; because, inciden- 
 tally, such is likely to be, in one or two instances, the result; 
 and the question, accordingly, which presents itself to the mind 
 of many persons is, whether a Jew is or is not the fittest person, 
 or a fit person, to have a seat in the Legislature. But in
 
 46 APPENDIX (c). 
 
 reality the question is, not this, but a very different one; namely, 
 whether the ELECTORS shall be left to their own unrestricted 
 choice, or whether it is right and necessary to tie them up by 
 legislative enactments. Now if each man were to hold himself 
 bound in conscience to endeavour to compel all others to act, in 
 every case, in the way in which he would himself think it right to 
 act, and to restrain them by law from the exercise of any of their 
 rights in a way which to him might seem objectionable, the 
 result would evidently be a most intolerable tyranny exercised by 
 the majority over the minority. There would be an end of all 
 liberty, if men were to be deprived of all rights and all power 
 which they may possibly make an ill use of, or such a use as 
 their rulers might think not to be the best. That paternal govern- 
 ment, as it is called, which in ruder ages well-meaning men have 
 often attempted to introduce, a government which prescribes 
 to the subjects, as a parent to his children, their diet, their dress, 
 their expenditure, their studies, and their whole mode of life, 
 such a government is evidently quite incompatible with rational 
 liberty, and unsuited to the character of man considered as a 
 rational agent. In a free country, though restrictions must 
 indeed be imposed when the public welfare requires it, they 
 should be strictly reserved for such cases. The general rule must 
 be, that each man should be left to act according to his own dis- 
 cretion ; and the exceptions to this rule should rest on the ground 
 of some manifest and important public advantage sufficient to 
 counterbalance the evil of a restriction. 
 
 Accordingly those who in any case oppose the limitation of 
 their neighbour's rights, are not to be therefore considered as 
 necessarily approving of the mode in which he may think fit to 
 exercise those rights. Any one, for example, who may have voted 
 for the removal of civil disabilities from Roman-Catholics and 
 Dissenters, might, with perfect consistency, give the preference, 
 as an elector, to a candidate who was a member of our Church. 
 And in like manner a man would be guilty of no inconsistency 
 who should, as a legislator, vote for the alteration of the law as 
 it now stands, even though he should himself, as an elector, 
 prefer to vote for one whom he believed to be a sincere Christian. 
 For the question is, as I have said, not whether one not profess- 
 ing Christianity is well qualified for a seat in Parliament, but 
 whether the electors should be left to decide for themselves in
 
 APPENDIX (c). 47 
 
 each case, or should have the decision made for them : whether, 
 in short, there is or is not any such danger to the State, or to any 
 of our institutions, in leaving them their choice, as to warrant 
 our interference with the freedom of election. 
 
 And here it may be needful to observe by the way, that I do 
 not attach much weight to the argument of those who urge that, 
 as it is, we have no security against insincere professions of Chris- 
 tianity, and that probably several members of Parliament are 
 in reality not more Christians than those who decline making 
 the declaration now required. The argument was, I think, suffi- 
 ciently answered in the late debate, by those who replied that 
 the Legislature has at least not sanctioned the admission of such 
 persons ; that, having required a profession of Christianity, it has 
 done all that it can do; and that we are not responsible for any 
 unavoidable evasion of our regulations. This reply appears to 
 me conclusive. And indeed (to take the case of bribery by way 
 of illustration) all persons, I apprehend, would admit that it 
 would ill become the House of Commons to allow a man to retain 
 his seat who was convicted of bribery; although we must always 
 expect that there will be cases of persons obtaining a seat by such 
 means, and escaping detection. In like manner, if it be our 
 duty to exclude, as far as in us lies, all persons from Parliament, 
 or from any other situation, who do not assent to such and such 
 doctrines, we are bound to exact a profession, which is all we can 
 exact; and if any evasion of our enactments take place, we may 
 plead that, at least, they have not our sanction. 
 
 But then it is to be remembered, on the other hand, that the 
 Legislature does sanction the election of Roman-Catholics, and of 
 Dissenters of all descriptions, to sit in Parliament. The words, 
 " on the true faith of a Christian," are not followed by " of the 
 Church of England ;" and if, therefore, it be contended that the 
 omission of the former words must imply indifference to Chris- 
 tianity, it must be admitted that the omission of any further pro- 
 fession implies indifference as to all Churches and sects of 
 professing Christians ; including Romanists and Protestants, Mor- 
 monites and German Transcendentalists, &c., so long as a man 
 does but style himself a Christian. It must imply what no 
 sincere Christian of any denomination would admit, that all 
 differences among those who bear the Christian name are utterly 
 insignificant.
 
 48 APPENDIX (B). 
 
 It is quite irrelevant to urge, as some do, that the difference is 
 greater between a Jew or Mussulman and a professed Christian, 
 than between Christians of different denominations. The ques- 
 tion is not one of degrees. Either the removal of a religious test 
 implies indifference, or it does not. If it does not, which ia 
 the principle on which all those who supported the Bill (pro- 
 fessedly at least) proceeded, then there is an end of the argu- 
 ment against that Bill. If it does, then it follows inevitably that 
 the removal of every other religious test implies indifference as 
 to all forms of nominal Christianity. 
 
 Evidently, therefore, unless we are prepared to acknowledge 
 this indifference, we are at present in a false position. We are 
 bound, in all consistency, either to go one step farther, or else to 
 retrace our former steps. 
 
 As for those who do seriously recommend this latter course, 
 who are for recalling Test-Acts, and Roman-Catholic disabilities, 
 and penal laws, although their idea of the character of Christ's 
 religion is one which appears to me an utterly erroneous one, 
 they are at least not chargeable with that gross inconsistency I 
 have just been alluding to. Their principle, which I cannot but 
 think altogether wrong, is at least fairly followed out. 
 
 Some persons of this class are accustomed to resort to bitter 
 vituperation of such as differ from them in opinion; denouncing 
 them as infidels, irreligious, &c. Such "railing accusations" of 
 course add no strength, and bring no credit, to any cause. They 
 are to be deprecated and dreaded only on account of the scandal 
 they occasion to the name of Christianity. But some again there 
 are who sincerely lament this resort to fierce and violent invective 
 in place of argument, but who hold themselves bound, in reli- 
 gious duty, to advocate such a system as I have been deprecating. 
 To such persons I would suggest this consideration. There once 
 was a man so circumstanced as to have it completely in his power 
 to oblige all governments, and this without need of resorting 
 to actual violence, to exclude from civil rights all who would 
 not profess Christianity; nay, to oblige all men to make this 
 profession: yet who deliberately chose to leave Christianity to 
 be propagated among those who would voluntarily embrace it 
 through the agency of persuasive means alone; though he fore- 
 saw that these means would not be universally effectual. Now 
 was this person, or was he not, a traitor to the cause of true
 
 APPENDIX (c). 49 
 
 religion? The greater part of the Jewish nation decided that he 
 was; and they put him to death accordingly, for disappointing 
 the expectations they had formed of his being about to establish 
 a kingdom of this world. 
 
 Surely those are in reality treading in the steps of the unbe- 
 lieving Jews, however vehemently they may declaim against 
 them, who insist on fortifying the religion of Jesus with secular 
 penalties or civil disabilities, and on establishing a legal monopoly 
 of secular rights and privileges in behalf of Christians generally 
 as such, or of the members of some particular Church. 
 
 No one of common sense, who reads the New Testament his- 
 tory with any degree of attention and of candour, can doubt that 
 the Apostles were accused before the Romans, and were sus- 
 pected by them, of designs to set up " another king, one Jesus," 
 whose empire would interfere with the existing political institu- 
 tions; in short, of an intention, as soon as their disciples should 
 have obtained sufficient numerical strength, to compel all men, 
 on pain of exclusion from political rights, to embrace the Gospel. 
 Nor can any one, I conceive, have the least doubt that to these 
 charges they pleaded " not guilty ;" that they strenuously dis- 
 avowed all designs of either using secular coercion, or of mono- 
 polizing for Christians, as such, civil power and privileges, either 
 immediately or at any future period. They must have been so 
 imderstood; they must have known that they were so understood, 
 and they must have intended to convey that meaning. Now, 
 were they, in these professions and disavowals, sincere, or insin- 
 cere ? If they were insincere, if they expressed themselves, to 
 serve a present purpose, in a language which was intended to be 
 understood in one sense by their heathen accusers at the time, 
 and in a totally different sense by their followers in after-ages, 
 they cannot have been real messengers of the God of Truth. If 
 they were sincere, and if we believe in them as God's messen- 
 gers, we are bound to conform to their precepts and their 
 example, even though by so doing we should incur the reproach 
 of infidelity from those who " know not what manner of spirit 
 they are of." 
 
 The question now before us, therefore, involves the whole ques- 
 tion of the truth or falsity of the Christian religion. 
 
 These considerations are overlooked by many well-meaning 
 persons, who allow their minds to be occupied with other ques- 
 
 E
 
 50 APPENDIX (c). 
 
 tions, in reality quite distinct (as I observed above) from that 
 really at issue. And much ingenuity and eloquence have been 
 expended in the discussion of various points, such as the present 
 state of the Jewish creed and worship, &c., which are quite irre- 
 levant to the real question to be decided. But anything that 
 can be called an answer to the above argument has never, as far 
 as I know, been even attempted. 
 
 As for the particular measure alluded to, no one, I believe, 
 feels, now, any anxiety respecting that. That a Bill substan- 
 tially the same with that which lately passed the House of 
 Commons, will, before long, pass both Houses, no one of any 
 parliamentary experience, whom I have met with, seems to feel 
 any doubt. But my anxiety is, that the final decision of the 
 Legislature should not appear to be a triumph over Christianity, 
 but a triumph of Christianity, a result of the better understand- 
 ing of the genuine principles of the gospel; that it should be 
 recognised not as an anti-Christian revolt, but as a more com- 
 plete submission to the kingdom which is " not of this world." 
 And I have thought it right to digress somewhat from the more 
 immediate subject of this note, in order to elucidate as clearly as 
 possible the principles by which I have been guided in the 
 present question. Those principles have indeed no pretensions 
 to novelty, being, I trust, as ancient as the gospel itself, and 
 having been applied by me to the present case about fourteen 
 years ago, and in several publications subsequent to that time ; 
 during which interval, nothing (as far as I know) even pretend- 
 ing to be a refutation, has been put forward. But the grounds 
 on which my decision has been formed being quite different from 
 those taken by a large proportion of the advocates on both sides, 
 I am anxious to avoid, as far as lies in me, any misapprehension 
 of the principles I feel bound to maintain. 
 
 (D), page 22. 
 
 I SUBJOIN some extracts from a publication The Charge of 
 1844 which is now, I believe, nearly out of print: 
 
 " If we could suppose it possible for the Church, or for any 
 Community of whatever kind, to subsist in a safe and prosperous 
 condition without a Government, then, the manifest disadvantages 
 of one kind or another which must attend every possible or con-
 
 APPENDIX (D). 51 
 
 ceivable form of government administered by fallible mortals, 
 would justify us in declining to try an unnecessary and hazardous 
 experiment. 
 
 But I have spoken of "government," generally, and of "a 
 Community," generally, because I wish to call attention to a con- 
 sideration which seems to me decisive of the whole question. Let 
 any one consider whether he has ever heard any reasons (I cer- 
 tainly never have) against a Church-government, which would not 
 equally apply to civil-government also ; whether the objections 
 urged many of which I confess to be valid and strong objections 
 against a Church-synod, would not equally lie against a Parlia- 
 ment. No one surely will deny that party-spirit, sometimes 
 violent and factious, does exist among political legislators; 
 that many of them, and also of the Electors, are subject to bias 
 from private interests, ambition, and other feelings ; that the 
 ill-informed or the prejudiced will sometimes obtain a mischievous 
 influence; and that occasional injudicious legislation is the 
 result. 
 
 For the prevention or mitigation of such evils, various schemes 
 many of them unwise or visionary, have from thne to time 
 been suggested. But a man would be reckoned, not injudicious 
 or visionary, but absolutely insane, who should seriously propose 
 to avoid such evils by a total discontinuance of Parliaments ; by 
 dispensing with all legislative-government for ever; or again by 
 merely suspending the functions of government, and deferring the 
 summoning of Parliament till party-spirit should have become 
 extinct, and till all men should have become duly qualified by 
 perfect purity of mind and dispassionate sobriety of judgment for 
 exercising aright the duties of Electors and of Legislators. 1 
 
 No one, I say, would be considered (if believed to be speaking 
 seriously) as of sound mind, who should, in political concerns, 
 rest on such arguments as are, in ecclesiastical, satisfactory to 
 many minds. In the State, that anarchy would be regarded, 
 
 1 Such an experiment, though, as I have said, it is what no one would, 
 in the nineteenth century, seriously propose trying, is not unlike what 
 actually was tried in the reign of Charles I. Doubtless a dread of what 
 would be considered by him a factious and insubordinate spirit in a House of 
 Commons, and of demands such as he would deem unreasonable, was among 
 the reasons which induced that unhappy prince to endeavour to govern 
 without a Parliament, or at least to defer as long as possible the summoning 
 of one. And we all know what were the consequences. 
 
 E2
 
 52 APPENDIX (D). 
 
 even in prospect, with horror, which, in the Church, when 
 actually existing, many are willing to submit to, rather than 
 attempt the remedy. 
 
 In truth, in almost all human transactions, we can seldom 
 hope for anything better than a choice of difficulties and disad- 
 vantages. And no one would be fit to live in the world a single 
 day, who would accept no benefit, and take no step, unless under 
 a perfect certainty of unalloyed good, without the drawback of 
 any risk, or of any call for vigilant care, and exertion. No rational 
 decision therefore can be formed from a mere contemplation of 
 the difficulties and objections on one side, without taking into 
 account the alternative. For in that way a case may be made out 
 against every institution or course of conduct or measure, that 
 can even be conceived. * * * * 
 
 I do not mean, nor did I ever mean, to be understood as de- 
 precating all consideration of objections, and wishing them to be 
 passed by unnoticed. I only deprecate the practice not an un- 
 common one of requiring that all objections shall be removed 
 before any step is determined on : which amounts virtually (since, 
 as Bacon observes, " not to resolve, is to resolve") to a determina- 
 tion to take no step. So far, however, am I from recommending 
 that objections should be left unnoticed, that what I have always 
 urged has been to contemplate and compare togetJi&r the objections 
 on both sides of an alternative, and to decide accordingly. 
 
 If, therefore, any one is convinced, on such a comparison, that 
 the evils to be apprehended from any form of Church-government 
 that can reasonably be hoped for are really greater than either 
 the existing evils or that increase of them which there is reason 
 to apprehend, such a one is at least consistent in deprecating the 
 efforts which many are now making towards the attainment of a 
 Government. And though the number of these last is very con- 
 siderable, and (as I remarked at the outset) has been for some 
 time past very much on the increase, still, I do believe that, 
 as yet, the predominant feeling among the greater number of the 
 members of our Church, including many of the most influential, 
 is one of strong apprehension of the danger of unwise decisions 
 being adopted by any Church-government that might be estab- 
 lished, and of a consequent aggravation of the existing evils. 
 
 Now at the first glance, it may be deemed paradoxical to infer 
 from the very existence of these apprehensions, that there is no
 
 APPENDIX (D). 53 
 
 ground for alarm; to argue that we have the less to fear because 
 much fear is felt by a great number, and by those whose opinions 
 deservedly carry most weight ; and that the greater in their esti- 
 mation the danger is, the less it is in reality. But on a moment's 
 reflection any one will perceive that in the present case such an 
 inference is perfectly just. 
 
 In the case indeed of any kind of evil which no human efforts 
 can avert, such as an unfavourable season, an earthquake, or an 
 inundation the anticipations of such a calamity, by persons whc 
 are competent judges, afford just ground of alarm : and the greater 
 the number of these persons, and the stronger their apprehensions, 
 the greater we should conclude the danger to be. But it is quite 
 the reverse in a case where the very persons who apprehend the 
 danger are those with whom it rests to avert it, by the vigilance 
 
 and exertion which are called forth by those very apprehensions. 
 
 ***** 
 
 With those who maintain that the present is not the best time, 
 on account of the violence of contending parties for the restora- 
 tion of a Church-government, I so far agree, that I am convinced 
 it would have been much better to have taken the step eleven 
 years ago; before the excitement caused by one of those parties 
 had arisen; and yet better, some years earlier still, when the 
 removal of religious disabilities first left the Church destitute of 
 any Legislature consisting exclusively of its own members : and 
 that, again, a still earlier period would have been preferable, when 
 considerable attention was for a time attracted to a work on the 
 subject by a person, then, and now, holding the office of Archdeacon. 
 
 But it is far from being sufficient, as seems to be the notion 
 of some persons to show that the present is not foe fittest con- 
 ceivable occasion for taking a certain step. Besides this, it is 
 requisite to show, not merely that a better occasion may be 
 imagined, or that a better occasion is past; that the Sybilline 
 Books might have been purchased cheaper some time ago; but 
 that a more suitable occasion is likely to arise hereafter: and how 
 soon; and also, that the mischief which may be going on during 
 the interval will be more than compensated by the superior suit- 
 ableness of that future occasion ; in short that it will have been 
 worth waiting for. And in addition to all this, it is requisite to 
 show also the probability that when this golden opportunity shall 
 arise, men will be more disposed to take advantage of it than they
 
 54 APPENDIX (D). 
 
 have heretofore appeared to be; that they will not again fall into 
 apathetic security and fondness for indefinite procrastination. 
 
 This last point is as needful to be established as any : for it is 
 remarkable that those who deprecate taking any step just now, in 
 these times of extraordinary excitement, did not, on those former 
 occasions, come forward to propose taking advantage of a com- 
 paratively calmer state of things. They neither made any call, nor 
 responded to the call made by others. 
 
 And indeed all experience seems to show comparing the 
 apathy on the subject which was so general at those periods, with 
 the altered state of feeling now existing, that a great and press- 
 ing emergency, and nothing else, will induce men to take any step 
 in this matter; and that a period of dissension and perplexing 
 difficulty, is, though not in itself, the most suitable occasion for 
 such a step, yet constituted as human nature is, the best, because 
 the only occasion on which one can hope that it will be taken. 
 
 When the valley of Martigny in Switzerland was threatened 
 (about twenty -five years ago) with a frightful deluge from the 
 bursting of a lake formed by a glacier which had dammed up a 
 river, the inhabitants were for some time not sufficiently alarmed 
 to take steps for averting the danger, by cutting channels to let 
 off the water. They cannot therefore be said to have chosen the 
 best time for commencing their operations; for had they begun 
 earlier, as soon as ever the dam was formed the work would 
 have been much easier, and probably all damage would have been 
 prevented. As it was, they had to encounter much difficulty, and 
 after all were but partially successful : for the undrained portion 
 of the lake did at length burst the barrier, and considerable 
 damage ensued ; perhaps a fourth part of what would have taken 
 place had things been left to themselves. But they were wise in 
 not deferring their operations yet longer, in the hope that matters 
 would mend spontaneously, when they saw that the evil was daily 
 increasing. And after having mitigated in a great degree the 
 calamity that did ensue, they took measures to provide against the 
 like in future. 
 
 Still, however, we must expect to be told by many that, sooner 
 or later, matters will come right spontaneously if left untouched ; 
 that, in time, though we cannot tell how soon, a period of ex- 
 traordinary excitement is sure to be succeeded by one of com- 
 parative calm. In the meantime it is forgotten at what cost such 
 spontaneous restoration of tranquillity is usually purchased how
 
 APPENDIX (D). 55 
 
 much the fire will have consumed before it shall have burnt out 
 of itself. The case is very similar to what takes place in the 
 natural body : the anguish of acute inflammation, when left to 
 itself, is succeeded by the calm of a mortification : a limb is ampu- 
 tated, or drops off; and the body but no longer the whole body 
 is restored to a temporary ease, at the expense of a mutilation. 
 Who can say that a large proportion of those who are now irre- 
 coverably alienated from the Church, might not have been at this 
 moment sound members of it, had timely steps been taken, not, 
 by any departure from the principles of our Reformers, but by 
 following more closely the track they marked out for us? 
 
 If the ultimate result of the present state of things should be 
 as there seems reason to apprehend that a considerable num- 
 ber of persons fall away to the Church of Rome, a far greater 
 number to infidelity or indifference, and again, a great number, 
 to some dissenting sects, we shall be told, I suppose, that the 
 
 Church that is, what remains of it has regained tranquillity. 
 
 ***** 
 
 I have more than once heard the questions discussed whether 
 Convocation the kind of Assembly so called which formerly 
 governed the Church, and which still, legally, though not practi- 
 cally, exists, was a Body originally well-adapted for its object, 
 whether it would be suitable in the present age, whether we 
 should do well to revive it, and whether any alterations, and 
 what should be introduced into its constitution. I have heard, I 
 say, these questions discussed as if they were the very ones which 
 I have brought forward; as if, in short, I had proposed the 
 revived of Convocation in its original form, and with its original 
 powers; and as if the point to be decided were, whether this 
 revival would or would not be desirable. 
 
 I take this occasion therefore of reminding the reader that I 
 am not making any such proposal, nor intend to enter at once 
 on the discussion of any such questions. The question I have 
 raised is that which is obviously the preliminary one, and which 
 ought to be first decided, whether the Church should have a 
 Government, and one consisting exclusively of its men members. 
 Whether this should be termed a Convocation, or a Synod, or a 
 Convention, or a General Assembly, or designated by whatever 
 other name, and how it should be constituted, these are questions 
 which evidently should be reserved for a subsequent discussion.
 
 56 APPENDIX (D). 
 
 To argue however conclusively against the restoration of the 
 ancient Convocation, and thereupon to speak as if the whole ques- 
 tion were decided, is manifestly irrelevant, and an utter misappre- 
 hension of my argument. 
 
 ***** 
 
 I have even seen the paucity of new enactments by Convocation 
 urged as a proof of the inutility of a Church government. 
 
 The constitution, or the proceedings, of the Convocation, I will 
 not undertake to vindicate. But it certainly is a great mistake 
 to suppose that the proper business of a legislative body is to 
 make laws. Its business is, to judge whether there be or be not, 
 in each case, any need for a new enactment ; and to make such 
 enactments, then, and then only, when there is such need; and 
 to frame them as far as possible in such a manner that there shall 
 very seldom be a fresh necessity for alteration. 
 
 Most persons I conceive would regard Parliament not a less 
 but a more efficient Legislature if it passed much fewer Acts than 
 it does, and framed them with so much more care that there 
 should not be (as now) a necessity for fresh legislation on the 
 same points every Session ; for " An Act to amend an Act,'' 
 &c., in a most perplexing series. 
 
 The occasions for the exercise of a certain power may be very 
 few, and yet the existence of the power not the less important ; 
 because when such an occasion does arise, (and it is the more 
 likely to arise, if there be no provision to meet the emergency,) 
 the consequences of not being prepared for it may be most disas- 
 trous. If any one should be so wearied with the monotonous 
 " all's well" of the nightly guardians of a Camp, hour after hour, 
 and night after night, as to conclude that their service was super- 
 fluous, and accordingly to dismiss them, how much real danger, 
 and how much unnecessary apprehension would be the result. 
 
 It is to be observed, however, that, in almost every department 
 of life, the want of government, or of good government, where 
 such want has very long existed, will often be less clearly per- 
 ceived, and less complained of, than in proportion to the actual 
 extent of the evil. When, indeed, the business of a State, or a 
 Diocese, or a Parish, has been for some time efficiently conducted, 
 and then negligence succeeds to activity and care, every one is 
 struck with the amount of business left undone, or imperfectly 
 done, and complaints are likely to arise. But where neglect has
 
 APPENDIX (D). 57 
 
 long existed, business seems, as it were, to dispose of itself, and 
 wear away spontaneously ; like a stream whose regular channel 
 is choked, and which accordingly diffuses itself around till it 
 forms a stagnant marsh, without any outlet but evaporation. 
 
 If you look to any department of Government, or to any 
 Parish or Diocese, that has long been left to the management of 
 apathetic or inefficient persons, you will usually find that there 
 are few or no complaints ; because complaints having long since 
 been found vain, will have long since ceased to be made : there 
 will be no great arrears of business undone, and of applications 
 unanswered ; because business will not have been brought before 
 those who it is known will not transact it ; nor applications made, 
 to which no answer can be hoped for : abuses, and defects, and 
 evils of various kinds, which ought to have been prevented or 
 remedied, men will have learned to submit to as to visitations of 
 Providence; having been left without redress till they have at 
 length forgotten that any redress is due, or is possible : and this 
 stagnation will have come to be regarded as the natural state of 
 things. 
 
 Hence, it will often happen that in a parish, for instance, where 
 for a long time very little has been done, it will appear at first 
 sight as if there were in fact very little to do : the spiritual wants 
 of members of the Church not appearing to be unattended to, 
 because many persons will have ceased to be members of the 
 Church, and many others will be unconscious that they have any 
 spiritual wants. 
 
 And in a Church accordingly that has been long without an 
 efficient government, the want of such government will often be 
 very inadequately perceived, from its not even occurring to men 
 to consider whether the enormous increase of Dissent, of internal 
 discord, and of indifference to the Church, are evils which it 
 comes within the province of a government in any degree to 
 prevent or mitigate." 
 
 I have thought it advisable to print in this place a letter 
 written by me to a clergyman, in answer to an application made 
 to me to subscribe to a testimonial to commemorate the holding 
 of a Synod in the Diocese of Exeter. 
 
 I had no thought originally of publishing my answer, but it
 
 58 APPENDIX (D). 
 
 accidentally found its way into the newspapers through the mis- 
 apprehension of a friend. 
 
 And as it did thus become public, it is as well that a record of 
 it should be here inserted. 
 
 " REVEREND SIR, I have to acknowledge a letter of application 
 from you relative to a proposed Memorial of a Synod held in 
 the Diocese of Exeter. 
 
 But I do not understand (nor have I met with any one who 
 could explain to me) the character and objects of the Memorial 
 and of the Synod. 
 
 Whether it is designed to commemorate a meeting held once 
 for all, or the commencement of a series of such meetings ; and, 
 again, whether the resolutions passed at that meeting are to be 
 understood as merely the expression of the opinions of certain 
 individuals claiming just whatever degree of deference may be 
 thought due to those individuals personally ; or whether these 
 decisions claim to have a binding force (like that of Acts of Par- 
 liament, or Bye-laws of a Corporation,) on those who were not 
 parties to them ; and, on this latter supposition, whether such 
 claim is extended to the whole Church, or is limited to one 
 Diocese; leaving (and by example encouraging) the Bishop and 
 Clergy of any other diocese to meet, if they shall think fit, and 
 pass resolutions perhaps very different ones 1 on the same, and 
 on other points ; on all these, and many other important par- 
 ticulars, I am wholly uninformed." 
 
 I remain, &c. &c. 
 
 1 One Synod, for instance, might appeal, for the decision of some points 
 to a " General Council" of the Universal Church ; and another might pro- 
 test against such appeal. And this difference might involve questions of 
 great importance. For though there can be neither hope nor fear of any 
 such council being actually assembled, many probably most would feel 
 certain that if it were assembled, a large majority would be in favour of the 
 doctrines and practices of the Romish and Greek Churches ; since else, those 
 Churches could not subsist in their present state. And the principle, of 
 appealing, in religious matters, to mere human authority, acknowledging 
 that to be inspired- and holding ourselves ready to abandon, on such autho- 
 rity, our own conscientious convictions of Scripture-truth, this is what 
 many would feel bound most vehemently to protest against. 
 
 THE END.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-Series 4939
 
 
 1 
 
 --> 
 
 BV 
 
 813 
 v/5571 

 
 ^'