xmmif:^//;^. r 6 ic ..atiirrap^-,- x^; .,vin';AMnrir- )l P^' -* T . .W3-iU-' viiaiiiv^^ % A>clOSANr,[lff — n ^1 = <: %133NVS01^^ im^ -%ij]AINrt-3UV^ ^^1 IMI I Ml i^i^^i "^(^AHvaani^ ^b^ ^^OJI1V3JO^ ^^il3DNVS01^ %J13AINfl-3ViV^ IFO/?^ ^OFCAllFOMi^ \WEUNIVER5/4 ^, ^HIBRARYQc. ,OfCALIF0fr "^^Aavagni^ -n 3 ^lOSANCELfj> !^ %a3AiNn-3ftV^ -^IIIBRARYQ/: -v^lUBRARY^?/ -^s^ UUNlVERV/i % o >■ .>;,OFCAiiFO% OS _ _ ^6'Aavaan-#' -CAiiViiaii-i^ ^^WEUNIVER5y/i : ^ i 5 Uj -n i -n O ?3 ^ ft? i ii—^ ^ FO/?^ ^OFCALIFOff^ ^waaii^" ,^\\EUNIVERy/A -s^l-LIBRARY^^ ^HIBRARYd>/^ ^WEUNIVERS/zi ^1 %QzA luiTi iui;! Ii^ 5?- C3 ^ •U Mr. R. Sinith'.i' Cartem Princqila. 471 Virgineis habitatre animis : — apparet in alto ^5, V Pura quies ccelo, liquidisque innantia niundi cp*^ ^^ Sidera vorticibus, et late lucldus setlier. '^jij^ Felix qui placidum sophifc libaverit amnem ! / Cui secura suos aperit sapientia fontes ! ^ Pluribus ilia quidem : sed enim circumstat acerba Dirarum facies, proliibetque attingere ripani ; V ' i Anxietas, vacuoque ferox Insania risu, Et quaecumque fatigato comes addita cordi Hscret inexpletum, atqiie animo febricitat cegro. Quid tibi tantopere est, mortalis, multa querentcm Ducere, sollicitamque gravi formidine vitam ? Quidcrecum studio vivendi deterere sevom? Necquicquam ; quoniam brevia atque incerta labascunt Tempera, et iufecta jamjam ad caput adstitit bora Mors operumque quies, et respiratio curae. Nos autem lucis non intellecta cupido Alligat, atque animum dulcedine pascit inani." Art. VII. — TiiK Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Oxford, 1841. — Vols. I. II. III. Ninety-six Sermons. Bj the Right Honourable and Reverend Father in God Lancelot Andrewes, sometime Loi'd Bishop of Winchester. T T is not with any intention of entering into the personal contro- -°- versy which is now prevailing in the Churcli, that we have taken up the present publication, however closely connected with it. Controversy, indeed, must arise, whenever truth is to be defended in the world ; especially under any sound system, which, like the Church of England, holds its course steadily beneath the guidance of a higher power, swerving neither to the right nor to the left, presenting two fronts to two different antagonists, and emiiracing in its wise and tolerant moderation two different classes of minds, the two great recognised divisions of human nature. The very function and condition of the Church is to battle for the truth. And. when, the battle is earnest, however mixed with human errors, then we may be sure that men's •^ minds /ire at least interested in the subject of religion ; and that %\\G Church is not paralysed, nor sleeping. A cloud of dust may be raised, but the dust is a proof of life and motion underneath. ' Tiic real e\ il to be feared and avoided in religious, even more ban in any other controversy, is personality. It is the gathering a contest A O^/f Ai\^. •17.2 The Church of England. contest round living' individuals ; the making their works a standard of opinion, or their names a watchword. It is the intru- sion of private and party jealousies and interests into discus- sions, which above all others should be approached in charity, tliough thoy must be decided in truth. By this intrusion, not only half instructed and unchastened minds, but the worldly and unholy, are drawn into the conflict ; subjects of ' which angels fear to speak ' are profaned irreverently in common mouths and places ; religion becomes part of the scandal of the day ; until all men are ashamed to seem ignorant of it, and therefore speak of it with the boldness of ignorance. They take up the nickname, or the jest, or the calumnious tale forged probably by those who have an interest in distracting the Church, and thus drive the timid into violent opposition, the strong into obstinacy, leaders into ex- asperation, followers into a blind servility, and all into party : while those who have the strength or the coolness to keep them- selves aloof, look on; a few, as Christians, with sorrow; but the many, as worldly spectators gaze on a contest of gladiators. \ et we must not try to escape from the evil of such contro- versies by affecting indifference to them, or treating them as ques- tions of ' words and names.' They are words, and names, but only as symbols of deep truths within them ; and Christians must be interested in all that interests the Church. The alternative is, to clear them in our own minds, as much as possible, from all con- siderations of the day and of persons; and to examine them, where it can be done, in some past time, where, as we study, we may possess our souls in quietness and humility; conversing rather with the dead than with the living ; and sobered at the sight of even occasional harshness by the remembrance, that the hands which gave vent to it are now mouldering in the dust. With these feelings it may be satisfactory and interesting, without speaking of modern theories and writers, to look back to the old standard Theology of the English Church, and to ascertain the sentiments of our acknowledged great Divines on some of the debated questions of the present day. If we are afraid of party in the Church — that at least cannot be called a ^;ay/y which collects itself round those whom the Church has so long regarded as her own especial teachers. If we desire in any matters to resort to sounder principles than prevailed in the last century ; no reform can be safe which does not proceed in a track already marked out — and we shall find one here. If peace and unity are to be bought ; it naust be by rallying round authorities whom all sides may be willing to acknowledge, or at least none can repudiate. And it assistance is wanted in determining questions, apart from a formal decision of the Church; it is wise to ask it of those whom the Church Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 473 Church herself has so long held up to our respect, and not to permit ourselves, or others equally incompetent, to sit in judgment upon the controversy. Among the many signal proofs of a Divine favour shown to the English Church, and of its own internal strength, is the crea- tion within it, since the Reformation, of this body of standard Theology, formed principally in the seventeenth century. It is peculiarly her own. And the value and authority of it are to be estimated, scarcely more by its doctrinal soundness in par- ticular points, than lay certain a jjriori marks of truth, which give weight and character to a witness previous to any examina- tion of his testimony. It pleased God that in England two distinct developments of two seemingly distinct principles should be brought close to- gether, and exhibited to the eyes of the Church — the excesses of Popery which brought on the Reformation ; and the excesses of Puritanism which produced the Rebellion; and that from the oscillation thus caused both the Church and the State should right themselves at the Restoration. Not only this spectacle, but the lengthened struggles of our Church against the Jesuits on the one side, and the Noncon- formists on the other, placed full before her view both the ex- tremes which endanger truth and goodness, whether in religion or any other duty. They placed her also in the position most favour- able for the formation of a sober, watchful, and discriminating temper ; where, instead of leading on a charge and attack in one direction, at the risk of intemperance and incaution, she was compelled to defend a post; maintaining her ground against opposite adversaries, and so bi'ought to scrutinize every weak point, and to weigh every movement, lest success in one part should hazard loss in another. Her great theologians of that day were also matched directly with the most learned and acute defenders of popery.^ They came to the contest, not, as too many of the present day must come, from a life of thought- lessness, armed only with weapons snatched up in haste for the emergency, with fragments of Fathers picked up in pamphlets and reviews, but from years of deep and patient study. There is no appearance of shifting their ground, as if they began the controversy in twilight views of truth, and changed as it dawned upon them farther. On the contrary, the uniform definiteness and consistency of their teaching throughout is most remarkable. ^ See a particular account of the Controversy and its chief managers in Lindsay's Preface to Mason's 'Vindication of the Chuixh of England, p. xxxvii. et seq. Fol. 172S. VOL. Lxix. NO. cxxxviii. 2 I Again, 474 The Church of England — Asraln. there is no S3mptom of combination, as if they derived their opinions from some one modern teacher, instead of by independent study from the great fountain-head of Scripture and antiquity. They were, abuost without exception, placed in high official stations in the Church; where every word was open to attack, and required to be weighed ; and every act was to be determined under a most solemn responsibility ; and in which their prayers and holiness may well entitle us to believe that they were blessed with no common guidance from their Lord and Master. All were, to a singular degree, practical men,^ not pledged to any theory ; and, by the circumstances of the times and of their lives, brought into contact with the realities of life ; and saved from the infection of that ' disease,' which Lord Bacon has so well described as naturally seated in L' niversities ; by which one kind of persons are led to delight ' in an inward authority, which they seek over men's minds, in drawing them to depend upon their opinions, and to seek knowledge at their lips ;' and another sort, ' for the most part men of young years and super- ficial understanding,' are ' carried away with partial respects of persons, or with the enticing appearance of godly names and pretences.'^ And if they defended the system of the Church of England with their understandings, they realized it in their lives. There is a longing in this day for the rise of some light of surpassing holiness within the Church of England, such as we are wont to dream of in the monasteries of former times : and this would be wilUngly accepted as a proof that, amidst all the dangers which seem to threaten our Church as a system, and the defects which may disgi-ace some of its individual members, yet we still have life within us, and need not seek for any outward change to assure us of the favour of God.— ^ What !' exclaims Bishop Hall — re- ferring to the lives and actions of those ' eminent scholars, learned preachers, grave, holy, and accomplished divines,' such, and so many, as no one clergy in the whole Christian world did yield — ' What! could you see no colleges, no hospitals built? no churches re- » Thonidike seems to have partaken least of this practical character, and to have been most wedded to a theory. And altliough his learning is always spoken of with respect by his fellow Divines, it is not without doubt as to his soundriess. '1 have not seen his book," says Bishop Taylor,— [Life by Heber, p. Ixxxviii.] ' You make me desirous of it, because you call it elaborate; 'but I like not tlie title nor the subject; and the man is indeed a very good and a learned man, but I have not seen much pros- perity^ m his writings : but if he have so well chosen the questions, there is no peradven- ture but he hath tumbled into his heap many choice materials.' Stillingfleet (vol. vi. p. 61) seems to accord in the same view ; and Barrow wrote his Treatise on the Supre- macy expressly to meet Thorndike's theory. * On Church Controversies, vol. vii. p. 41. 8vo. edified ? Divines of the Sevenleentli Century. 475 edified? no learned volumes -written? no heresies confuted? no seduced persons reclaimed? no hospitality kept? no great offenders punished? no disorders corrected ? no good offices done lor the public ? no care of the peace of the Church? no diligence in preaching? no holiness in living ? ' ' It is a great word that I shall speak,' he says elsewhere, ' and yet I must and will say it, without either arrogance or flattery ; stufor mundi clerus Britannicus : the wonder of the world is the Clergy of Britain. So many learned divines, so many eloquent preachers, shall in vain he sought elsewhere this day, in whatever region under the cope of Heaven." And we may well bless God, who gave us such models to imi- tate. Think of Laud's patience under martyrdom, a martyrdom not of one stroke but of many years, passed under ' barbarous libellings, and other bitter and grievous scorns' - — of Hammond's fastings and prayers, fastings fur six-and-thirty hours, and prayers more than seven times a-day^ — of Hooker, the profound and philosophical Hooker's childlike meekness — of Whitgift's ' solace ' and ' repose ' amidst the grandeur which he maintained for his office, ' in often dining at his hospital at Croydon among his poor brethren'^ — of Sanderson's abstinence and temperance, so that during the whole of his life he spent not five shillings upon himself in wine^ — of Bramhall's noble exertions for the Church of Ireland'' — of Mor- ton's daily alms, his single meal, his straw bed at eighty years of age, his maintenance of scholars and hospitality to all, his in- tense studies, like those of so many others of the same writers, begun daily, to the end of his life, at four o'clock in the morning' — of Jackson's charity and generosity,^ — of Patrick's devotional spirit — of Cosin's ' princely magnificence ' to his ' first-born, the Church' " — of Usher's ' dove-like simplicity, his slowness to take offence, and readiness to forgive and forget '^"^ — of Beveridge's pastoral zeal" — of Nicholson's 'episcopal gravity,' 'legenda scri- bens, et faciens scribenda' ^^ — of Taylor's ' total forgetfulness of self'^^ — of Bishop Wilson, whose mere fame for piety procured from the King of France, in time of war, an order that no French privateer should pillage the Isle of Man' — of Ken's J Vol. X. p. 284, 35i, vol. xi. p. 17. Compare Clarendon's account of the Visifa- tion of Oxford, 1647, 1). x'. ; and Bishop Nicholson's Apology, p. 172. * History of Troubles, p. 225. ^ Fell's Life of Hammond, Works, vol. i. pp. 25, 27. * Wordsworth's Eccl. Biog., vol. iv. p. 392. * Walton's Lives, by Zouch, pp. 289, 295. * See Life prefixed to liis Works. 7 Biograph. Biitann. ^ Life prefixed to his Works, p. G. 3 Life by Basire. lo Bramhall's Works, p. 937. '' Memoir prefixed to Works, vol. i, p. xxxvi. \l I^pitaph by Bishop Bull, Heber'slife of J. Taylor, p. cccxiv. Heber's Life, p. cxxvii. '•» Life by Stowell, p. 243. 2 I 2 Sunday 476 The Church of England — Sunday feasts with his twelve poor parishioners' — of Andrevves's 'life of prayer,' and his book of private devotions, found ' worn in pieces bv his fingers, and wet with his tears.' ^ And remember that these lights of holiness and goodness were not kept burning, as in a monastic system, under an artificial shelter, and fed with extra- orilinary excitements, but exposed to the blasts of persecution, and to the chilling atmosphere of the world ; that they are not as accidents and strange phenomena in the system of the English Church which make us wonder how they could be found in such a place under such principles of government ; but true and faithful portraitures of her character and doctrines — and then ask, whe- ther personal holiness be wanting to that Church as a test of her truth — whether we need any other outward system to make us as holy as they were, than the system in which they were bred. One Father of our Church has been reserved, that he may be spoken of separately — spoken of, as these his brethren always spoke of him, turning aside whenever mention of him occurred, as if their pious humility would not allow them to pass without some token of gratitude and reverence, — the recognised defender of the Church of England, Bishop Jewell. If one fault be enough to blot out a whole ' angelic life,' a life spent in the service of the Church, between his chapel and his study ; if some hasty words are to condemn as unworthy of confidence the man who set an example to all, that in treating of holy things he did not ' set abroad in print twenty lines ' till he had studied twenty years,' — then we may presume to speak lightly of Bishop Jewell.^ But not so the true and grateful and humble-minded sons of the Church of England. They will reverence him with Hooker, as ' the worthiest divine that Christendom hath bred for the space of some hundreds of years;'* with Bilson as 'that learned father;'^ with Laud, as 'that painful, learned, and reverend prelate;'^ with Usher, as ' o yiaKxpiTV}? Juellus, ille nunquam satis laudatus Episcopus ;' ' with Bancroft, as ' a man to be accounted of as his name doth import, and so esteemed, not only in England, but with all the learned men beyond the seas, that ever knew him or saw his writings ;' ^ with Morton, as ' that admirable doctor in God's Church,' ' that godly bishop,' ' whose name we acknowledge to be most worthily honourable in ^ Life of Ken, p. 8. Prose Works, by Round. ^ Preface to Andi-ews's Private Devotions, translated by the Rev. P. Hall, p. xv. Wordswortb-s Eccles. Biog., pp. 62, 69, 70. ^ Eccles. Pol. ii. s. 6. ' Survey of Christ's Sufferings, p. 82. ^ Speecli at the Censure of Bastwick. 7 De Eccles. Success., Praef. e Survey of Discipline, p. 336. the Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 477 the Church of Christ;'^ with Mountagu, as 'that Jewel of England ;' ^ with Cosin, as ' that worthy and reverend prelate ' (' prsestantissimus praesul ') ;^ with James, as 'one of the most precious and peerless Jewels of these later times, for learning, knowledge, judgment, honesty, and industry;'* with Bramhall, as * that learned prelate ;' ^ with Carleton, as ' Master Jewel, the reverend Bishop of Salisbury, for piety and learning the mirror of his time ;' " with Hall, as 'that precious Jewel of Eng- land,' 'whom moderate spirits may well hear;' 'who alone with all judicious men will outweigh ten thousand separatists;"^ with Field, as ' that worthy bishop ; ' ^ with the martyr Charles, as one ' whose memory he much reverenced, though he never thought him infallible ;' ^ with Heylin, as ' that most reverend and learned prelate, a man who very well understood the Church's meaning ;' that ' reverend prelate, of whom I would not have you think but that I hold as reverend an opinion, as you or any other, be he who he will ;' ^^ with Godwin, as ' felicissimae memoriae ;'^^ with Bishop Bull as ' clarissimus ;' ^" with Sancroft, as ' our reve- rend and learned Jewel ;' ^^ with Stillingfleet, as ' that incom- parable bishop'' — ' that great light and ornament of this Church, whose memory is preserved to this day with due veneration in all the Protestant Churches ;' ^* and, lastly, with Whitgift, as ' that so notable a bishop, so learned a man, so stout a champion of true religion, so painful a prelate.' — ' Pardon me,' he concludes, as we will conclude also, 'though I speak somewhat earnestly; it is in the behalf of a Jewel that is contemned and defaced. — He is at rest, and not here to answer for himself. — Thus have I answered in his behalf, who both in this, and other like controversies, might have been a great stay to this Church of England, if we had been worthy of him. But whilst he lived, and especially after his notable and most profitable travails, he received the same reward of ungrateful tongues, that other men be exercised with, and all must look for that will do their duty.' 15 Such are some of the considerations which entitle the judg- ment of our old Divines to the highest respect from every true member of the Church ; and the more they are studied, the more there will be found in them those marks of discretion and ' Defence of Ceremon. pp. 241, 242. ^ Appeal to Csesar, p. 159. ^ Hist, of Transub. p. 9. * Treatise of the Corrupt, of Scripture, p. 78. 5 Works, p. 472. <■' Thankful Remembrance, p, 219. 7 Works, vol. X. pp. 73, 74. s Qf the Church, p. 749. » King Charles's Works, p. 176. '" Heylin on the Creed, j). 475 ; Antidot. Lincoln, p. 214. " De Praesul. Angliae, p. 22. i^ gui]-s Works, vol. Iv. p. 130. '■' D'Oyly's Life, vol. ii. p. 337.'' ^* Works, vol. ii. pp. 439, 457. '* Defence of the Answer to the Admonition, pp. 423, 435. temperance, 478 The Church of England— temporanoo, that absence of partial views, renunciation of self as an authority, adherence to primitive antiquity, dislike of needless change, and yet willingness to change for good ; refusal to compromise truth for peace, and yet earnest struggles after peace ; patient and laborious pursuit of accurate information, strict and accurate reasoning, and largeness of comprehension, which, as \a as said before, when a witness is summoned to give evidence, compel respect to his testimony, even without reference to his statements. One point more is deserving of attention. It is their profound and extensive knowledge of Popery in all its bearings. They did not shape their judgment of it by some imaginary hope of effecting an impossible reconciliation ; nor from some favourable specimen of the Gallican Church, the least popish of all popish communions ; nor from the face which Popery can assume when addressing itself to an educated mind ; nor from the Catholic por- tions retained in it, and by some confounded with the Papal. They saw it before them, practically engaged in its real and characteristic work ; that work which it has been about from the beginning, and which constitutes the very charter and essence of its existence, — the acquisition of poAver — power of all kinds, at all hazards, by all means, over all minds; using for this purpose all instruments, whether of good or of evil ; professing reverence for all holy things, that it may win the holy, and practising in- dulgence to all sin, that it may retain the sinner.^ JNIoreover they had before their eyes, and were brought into immediate contact with, that final and matured development of Popery, its great engine and full representative, the system of Jesuitism ; of which we in this day know little, and believe less ; but which, though expelled from every country where it had settled, as if its very existence was incompatible with either society or religion, had been created, and is now again restored, unchanged and uncensured, by the Romish Church, to wield in her service a machinery of such gigantic power, and such atrocious principles, that the best and greatest men, not only of our own, but of the Roman communion, have been compelled to confess that, if the foreshadowed form of the Antichrist, which is still to come, can anywhere be traced, it must be here. All this must be borne in mind, when wa approach the writings of our divines of the seventeenth century ; and especially it will 1 See the masterly Survey of the Popish System by Sir Edwin Sandys, Hooker's pupil, ill his Europse Speculum, an account which is as accurate at this day as ever, and well deserves to be reprhited. See also J. Taylor's Letter I., to One seduced to the Church of Rome, Works, vol. xi. p. 187; and Bishop Bull's Sermon on the Necessity of Works of Righteousness, vol, i. p. 9, et seq. prepare ! Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 479 prepare us for many facts which must strike a student, when he inquires into their mode of managing that controversy with Popery and Puritanism, which the EngUsh Church, now, as throughout the whole of her existence, will in some shape or other be obliged to sustain. I. There is a disposition in the present day to shrink from all strong and harsh expressions, when speaking of Popery. It may be that the general tone of our mind is relaxed in regard to strict lines of religious truth ; or the infection of a spuri- ous liberality has crept in, even where it is most repudiated ; or we think little of the sins of Popery, as compared with those of Dissent ; or so much of our own sins, that we dare not con- demn the sins of others. Or we overvalue the preservation of many outward apostolical ordinances in the Church of Rome, till we undervalue its departure from an apostolical spirit ; as if suc- cession without Doctrine was not rather a curse than a blessing. Or, what is most probable, we know little of its real nature; or we are shocked by the unthinking abuse and calumny, which have been too often heaped on it by men who would equally revile our own Church ; or are perplexed in drawing the line between the good and evil of the Romish system, and so fear to censure at all ; or are unwilling that one sister Church (much less an individual) should sit in judgment upon another. Whichever of these reasons prevails (and many of them are symptoms of an humble and amiable spirit), it is certain that the tendency of our modern theologians on all sides is, to use a language in respect to Rome far milder than that of our old divines. All these do, indeed, write, as Bishop Morton, one of the most eminent among them, wrote, adopting the words of St. Augustine : — ' Although they be divided from our body, yet we, confessing one head, Christ, let us deplore them as our brethren ; for we will not cease lo call them brethren, whether they will or no, so long as they say " Our Father" in invocation of one God, and do celebrate the same sacraments which we do, and answer, although not with us, the same " Amen." ' ' Nor, although nearly the whole of their labours were, from the necessity of the times, controversial, was it any harsh spirit of controversy that animated them to their tasks. ' Far more comfort it were for us,' says Hooker, and Bishop Nichol- son with him, ' (so small is the joy we take in these strifes,) to labour under the same yoke, as men that look for the same eternal reward of their labours, to be enjoined with you in bands of indissoluble love and amity, to live as if, our persons being many, our souls were but one ; rather than in such dismembered sort to spend our few and wretched * Preface to A Catholic Appeal for Protestants. 480 The Church of England^ davs in a tcilious prosecuting of wearisome contentions : the end whereof, if they liavc not some speedy end, will be heavy, even on both sides.' ^ Nor should we forget a remark of Bishop Taylor, where he employs the very words which the Fathers used in condemning the doctrine of tradition as now held by Popery : — * Now let any man judge whether it be not our duty, and a necessary work of charitv, and the proper office of our ministry, to persuade our charges from the "immodesty of an evil heart," from having a "devilish spirit," from doing that " which is vehemently forbidden by the Apostle," from "infidelity and pride ;" and, lastly, from that "eternal woe which is denounced" against them that add other words and doctrines than what is contained in the Scriptures, and say, " Dominus dixit," the Lord hath said it, and he hath not said it. If we had put these severe censures upon the Popish doctrine of tradition, we should have been thought uncharitable; but, because the holy fathers do so, we ought to be charitable, and snatch our charges from the ambient flame.' * There is therefore in all a sternness of warning against what Hooker calls ' the gross and grievous abominations ' of Popery, even while yet he gladly acknowledges that Papists may be ' of the family of Jesus Christ' ^ — which may prove of salutary example to those who have the same battle to fight, and the same watch to exercise over the fold intrusted to their care, against the seductions of a most subtle enemy.* Thus Field, ' in his time esteemed a principal maintainer of Protestancy, and so admirable well-knowing in the controversies between the Protestants and Papists, that few or none went be- yond him — and one that much laboured to heal the breaches of Christendom, and whose desires, prayers, and en4eavours were for peace, not to widen differences, but to compose them/ ^ sums up his great work on the Church : — * We are well assured that all these [apostolical traditions, general councils, and primitive fathers] do witness against her, that she is an erring, heretical, and apostatical church ; that she hath forsaken her first faith ; departed from her primitive sincerity ; plunged those that adhere unto her into many gross and damnable errors, and defiled herself with intolerable superstition and idolatry, so that, as well in respect of her errors in faith, superstition and idolatry in divine wor- ship, as of her slanderous, treacherous, bloody, and most horrible and hellish practices, to overthrow and destroy all that do but open their mouths against her abominations, we may justly account her to be the ' Preface to Eccles. Pol. s. 9. Apology, p. 240. ^ Preface to Dissuasive from Popery, vol. x, p. cxviii. ^ Eccles. Pol. book iii. s. 1. * See the remarkable Epilogue to Bishop Hall's Old Religion, vol. ix. p. 385, where he sums up his admonitions thus : ' Shortly, let us hate their opinions, strive against llieir practice, pity their misguiding, neglect their censures, labour their recovery, pray for tlieir salvation.' 5 Wood's Atben. Oxon., by Bliss, vol. ii. p. 184. svnagoKue Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 481 synagogue of Satan, the faction of Antichrist, and that Babylon out of which we must flee, unless we will be partakers of her plagues.' Thus Jackson, speaking of Jesuitism, which he, like the rest, most justly identifies with Popery, as the creature and instrument of its policy : — ' Our purpose is not to charge them with forgery of any particular, though grossest Heresies ; or Blasphemies, though most hideous ; but for erecting an entire frame, capacious of all Villanies imaginable, far sur- passing the hugest mathematical form human fancy could have con- ceived of such matters, but only from inspection of this real and mate- rial pattern, which by degrees insensible hath grown up with the Mystery of Iniquity as the bark doth with the tree.' ' Again : — ' If all such particulars [speaking of papal dispensations] were duly collected, and examined with the circumstances, we might refer it to any heathen civilian, to any whom God hath not given over to a repro- bate sense to believe lies, whether the supposed infallibility of the Romish Church, or the prerogative given to the Pope by his followers, be not, according to the evangelical law and their own tenents, worse than Heresy, and worse than any branch of infidelity whereof any Jew or Heathen is capable ; yea, the very ok-^j; or period of Antichristian- ism ' because ' it makes sin to be no sin.' So even Thorndike, a little before his death, giving his judg- ment of the church of Rome : — ' I do not allow salvation to any that shall change, having these reasons before him How can any Christian trust his soul with that Church which hath the conscience to bar him of such helps ' [service in a known tongue, and the Eucharist in both kinds] ' provided by God ? " So Hickes : — ' If false and dangerous, or absurd and impossible, nay, pernicious and impious doctrines, contrary to Scripture expounded by Catholic tradi- tion, derogatory to the honour of Jesus Christ and the Christian religion, and destructive of the rights and liberties of the Catholic Church, be damnable heresies, then your religion, by which I mean the Popery of it, is a multiform damnable heresy : as we doubt not but a truly free and general council, could such a one be had, would soon determine; and to such a council we are ready to appeal.' " So Barrow blesses God, * who rescued us from having impious errors, scandalous practices, and superstitious rites, with merciless violence obtruded upon us by that Romish zeal and bigotry — (that mint of woeful factions, and combustions of treasonable conspiracies, of barbarous massacres, of horrid assassina- ^ Vol. i. p. 365 ; vol. iii. p. 899. * Hickeg, Several Letters, vol. i. Appendix, Pap. i. " Several Letters, vol. i. p. 174. tions, 4^2 The Church of En gland— tionp, of intestine rel)ellions, of foreign invasions, of savage tortures and butchories, of holy leagues and pious frauds through Christendom, and particularly among us) — wliich, as it without reason danincth,so it -would by any means destroy all that will not crouch thereto.' ' E\cn Laud, who pleads so strongly against the use of ' ill lan- guage against an adversary'- — that if, of coarse words, which implvonlv abuse without discriminating truth — yet, when truth is to be spoken, speaks out: — ' For a church may hold the fundamental point literally, and as long as it stays there be without control; and yet err grossly, dangerously, nay damnably, in the exposition of it. And this is the Church of Rome's case.' ' All Protestants unanimously agree in this, " that there is great peril of damnation for any man to live and die in the Roman persuasion." '^ So Bishop Mountagu, 'esteemed one of the most indulgent among them :' * ' I do not, I cannot, 1 will not deny that idolatry is grossly committed in the Church of Rome.' And, though he would not allow ' that the Bishop of Rome personally was that Antichrist,' the individual man of sin^ — 'an Antichrist/ he adds, * I hold him or them, carrying themselves as they do fn the Church.' And, in another place, — ' Surely if the general of the Jesuits' order should once come to be pope, and sit in Peter's chair, as they call it, I would vehemently suspect him to be the party designed " the Antichrist :" for out of what nest that accursed bird should rather come abroad than out of that seraphical society, I cannot guess.' * So Bishop Bull : — ' I look upon it as a wonderful both just and wise providence of God, that he hath suffered the Church of Rome to fall into sucli gross errors, (which otherwise it is scarce imaginable how men in their wits, that had not renounced not only the Scriptures, but their reason, yea, and their senses too, could be overtaken with,) and to determine them for articles of faith.' ^ So Brett: — ' The Bishop of Rome, the grand subverter and confounder of the true primitive and apostolical discipline, as well as doctrine of the Christian church, in all places where he could at any time usurp an authority and find the means to execute it.'^ So Stillingfleet : ' We charge them [the Romanists] with those reasons for separation which the Scripture allows, such as idolatry, perverting the gospel and 1 Sermon on Gunpowder Treason, vol. i. p. 113. « History of tbe Troubles, p. 398. » Conference with Fisher, pp. 197, 208. * Bramhallj.lust Vhidic, toni. i. Dis. iii. p. 358. * Appeal to Caesar, pp. 249, 145, 159. Answer to the Gagger, p. 75. 6 \A oiks, vol. ii. p. 187. 7 On Cliurch aovenimeut, p. US. institutions Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 483 institutions of Christ, and tyranny over the consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so. But none of these can with any appearance of reason be charged on the Church of England — since we profess to give religious worship only to God ; we worship no images ; we invocate no saints ; we adore no host ; we creep to no crucifix; we kiss no relics. We equal no traditions with the gospel; we lock it not up from the people in an unknown language; we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his apostles did ; we set up no monarchy in the Church to undermine Christ's, and to dispense with his laws and institutions. We mangle no sacraments, nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his blood than he did himself. We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead ; nor in turning the bottomless pit into the pains of purgatory by a charm of words and a quick motion of the hand. We do not cheat mens souls with false bills of exchange, called indul- gences ; nor give out that we have the treasure of the Church in our keeping, which we can apply as we see occasion. We use no pious frauds to delude the people, nor pretend to be infallible, as they do when they have a mind to deceive. These are things which the divines of our Church have with great clearness and strength of reason made good against the Church of Rome; and since they cannot be objected against our Church, with what face can men suppose the cases of those who separate from each of them to be parallel ? ' ' So Bramliall says : — ' That church which hath changed the apostolical creed, the apostolical succession, the apostolical regiment, and the apostolical communion, is no apostolical, orthodox, or catholic church. But the Church of Rome hath changed the apostolical creed, the apostolical succession, the apos- tolical regiment, and the apostolical constitution. Therefore the Church of Rome is no apostolical, orthodox, or catholic church.' And again : — 'The Church of Rome resolves its faith, not into divine revelation and authority, but into the infallibility of the present church, not knowing, or not according, what that present church is. Therefore the Church of Rome hath not true faith.' ^ There is no pleasure in multiplying such passages, nor is it ne- cessary. That Popery, considered as a system, without reference to individual members of it, is not only ' in error,' and * super- stitious,' but ' heretical,' ' in schism,' ' rebellious,' ' idolatrous,' ^ ' an Antichrist,' if not the Antichrist ; that it is ' a wonder how any learned man can with a good and quiet conscience continue in it;'* and that, notwithstanding the validity of its ordinances, it risks ' Works, vol. ii. p. 619. 8 Works, tome i. Disc. 5. pp. 43, 4t. See also tome i. Dis. iii. p. 1G5. ^ See the Testimonies ol'our divines against tlie idolatry of Rome, collected by S'lil- lingfleet. Preface, vol. v. ' Bull, Corrujit. of Clmrcli of Rome, vol. ii. p. 311, the 484 The Church of England-^ the salvfttlon of those who trust to it — is the uniform language of the mon who have always been held up by our Church as her greatest ornaments and pillars, and as the firmest defenders of her catholic and apostolical character, especially against Popery — ' those eminent and learned bishops of our Church tliat have stood up in the gap, and fought the battles of the Lord against that Goliah of Rome ;' ' that have borne the burden and heat of the day, and have beaten these Philistines at their own wea- pons;' ' and who, in the judgment of Laud, laid grounds in their works, 'from which, whensoever the Church of England shall depart, she shall never be able, before any learned and disen- gaged Christians, to make good her difference with, and her sepa- ration from, the Church of Rome.' ^ And when called to answer for this language before God they will have a noble defence to make — that they spoke, not as enthusiasts of the day now speak, condemning what ought to be praised, and substituting abuse for reason, but thoughtfully and deliberately ; ^ with discrimination of truth from falsehood ; with the records of Catholic antiquity as their guide ; and with a deep insight into the whole mystery of iniquity. They condemned Rome, not for exalting, but destroy^- ing episcopacy ; not for magnifying, but degrading sacraments ; not for reverencing, but despising antiquity ; not for honouring saints, but for dishonouring God through them ; not for observing forms, but for converting religion into forms ; not for retaining, but for abandoning tradition, and setting up a religion of novelty ; not for preserving scriptural truth in apostolical creeds as well as in Scripture, but for tampering with those creeds and adding to them ; not for severity of discipline, but for laxity and licentious- ness. They will plead with Hooker, with Sanderson, with Stil- lingfleet, with Hall, that they did not confound the persons of papists with the system which oppresses them — that they rejoiced and blessed God for all the good and holy men within it whom He had saved from its pollutions, as men escape the plague in a pest-house.* They spoke as members of a Church who had spoken strongly also. As her children, they were called on to justify her acts before Christendom — under lier, as the only re- presentative of the Catholic Church capable of raising her voice with effect, to protest in behalf of Catholic truth, though all around were silent, and ' to speak none but their mother's tongue.' ^ With her they warned both those who refused to come within her ' Bishop Nicliolson, Apology, pp. 156, 172. * History of Troubles, pp. 160, 418. 3 See, lor instance, Hickes, Coiit. Lett. vol. ii. pp. 92, 172. * See a noble passage in Sanderson's VI. Serm. ad Pop. s. 17, quoted by Stilling- fleet, Works, vol. vi. p. .51. Hooker, book iii. s. i. ; and Life of Hooker, by I, Walton. See also Usher's Sermon on the Universality of the Church of Christ. * Bishop Hall, Christ. Mod. Works, vol.vi. p. 416. fold. Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 485 fold, and those whom a most subtle enemy was seducing from her, of the peril of defection ; warned them with no uncertain sounds — by bold words — not putting bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter, or drawing subtle lines which common eyes could not discern — not ' doing small benefit to the Church of God by dis- puting with them according unto the finest parts of their dai'k conveyances, and suffering that sense of their doctrine to go uncon- trolled, wherein by the common sort it is ordinarily received and practised ;' ^ nor yet presumptuously, from their own private passion, but as men set in authority and answerable for the souls which might be lost, either by blinding papists to their danger, or offending weak brothers by provoking their suspicion. And they might add, what in this day of weak indulgence would be heai'd with most excuse, that to speak with words of the utmost severity of the system, but in the spirit of charity to individuals, is found, by experience, the surest mode of awaking attention without pro- voking bitterness. To speak softly is to exasperate the more, be- cause, if there is little evil in Popery, why needlessly oppose it ? II. There is another remarkable feature in this body of divines. It is their deep, hearty, unshaken affection and devotion Xp their * dear Mother Church of England.' They did not contemplate it as perfect. No institution that passes through human hands can be perfect. They felt, in the spirit of the martyr Cliarles, that, ' the draught being excellent as to the main, both in doctrine and government, some lines, as in very good figures, may haply need some sweetening or polishing.'^ With Laud, they would not deny that, if the liturgy of the Church were ' well ' as it is, and might 'easily be made worse,' it might in 'the order of the prayers ' also ' be made better.' ^ They prayed with Bishop Andrewes ' that its deficiencies be supplied.' * But deficiencies — ' defectus ' ^ — with Bishop Andrewes did not mean faults and vices in the constitution of the Church, but the want of means for carrying on its work and practising its principles — the wants which we all feel at this day — of more bishops, more clergy, more learning, more individual piety, more alms, more developed organisation for missionary exertions, more institutions for the nurture and education of souls at home — more blessings from heaven to rain down its dew upon us, and bring out in full per- fection all the seeds of holiness and power which arc lying in the womb of our Church ready to spring forth. ' Hooker, book iii. s. 7. ^ Icon Basil., j). 138. ^ Troubles, pp. 115, 208. * Prayers, Mouilay, Intercession. _ ' Tliis word 'defectus' has been sometimes referred to as if it implied in tiie uiind of Bishop Andrewes distrust and dissatisfaction at the system of the Church of England. How far this was from his meaning may be seen in the concluding passage, too long to be quoted, in \m Concio in Diaceasu Palatini, 1C13, Still 486 The Church of Eu gland— Still less did llicy condemn the Church for the faults of her individual members, or for the evils of the times with which she had to strusrgle. If such a principle of judgment be once ad- mitted — if the existence of sin, and anarchy, and dissension, be an argument against the goodness of that government under which they may break out — let men look to the very gi'ounds of their faith, and think how they can stand to defend (with all reverence let us venture to speak) the government of God himself. ^ If anything could have tempted them to waver in their faith and allegiance, it must have been the state into which England fell when the yoke of Popery was shaken off — fell, by the weak- ness which that yoke had caused — and which has been perpetuated on it, more or less, directly or indirectly, by the same agency, ever since. They had seen a time, in which one of the greatest favourers of the Reformation could say of it, ' no kind of blas- phemy, heresy, disorder, and confusion, but is found among us.' ^ They did not witness, as we witness, a new spring-tide of piety dawning among them, churches rising on all sides, the clergy multiplying their duties, the laity returning to their allegiance, dissent becoming weaker; the irregular movements of religious feeling reorganizing themselves spontaneously under the Heads of the Church ; every day more demands upon men's alms for pur- poses of religion and charity, and those demands every day more willingly complied with. The movement with them seemed all to retrograde — communions to become less frequent — confirmations disregarded^ — discipline more abused and despised* — the prayers of the Church more neglected — the divisions of schism more mul- tiplied — devotion more cold, and faith more faint ; — everything but the life within the Church — within a small and despised portion of it — dead or dying — and yet they never despaired.^ ' He is pleased,' exclaims Bramhall, ' to style it a dead church, and me the advocate of a dead church : even as the trees are dead in winter when they want their leaves ; or as the sun is set when it is behind a cloud ; or as the gold is destroyed when it is melting in the furnace. When I see a seed cast into the ground, I do not ask where is the greenness of the leaves? where is the beauty of the flowers ? where is 1 See tliis whole question admirably argued in Hickes' Apologetical Yindicalion of the Clmrch of England. 3 Dugdale"s Troubles, p. 574. 3 Jackson, vol. iii. p. 272; Bishop Hall, vol. x. p. 464; Brett's Church Govern- ment, p. 237. "Bishop Hall, vol. x. p. 436; Andrews, Opuscula, p. 41; Mountagu, Answer to the Gagger, p. SI. * For most striking passages illustrative of the .state of the times in which these authors wrote, see Hickes, Controversial Letters, vol. ii. pref. 68 ; Nicholson's Apology, p. 151 ; Wordsworth's Christian Institutes, vol. \v. p. 580 ; Bishop Hall, vol. vi. p. 231 ; Hooker's Eccl. Polity, book v. s. 31; Sanderson's Sermons, vol. i. p. 129, folio. And, if it were wanted, it might be easy, from the history of the Primitive Church, as Jewel has done in his Apology, to draw a lamentable parallel. the Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 487 the sweetness of the fruit? But I expect all these in their due season : stay awhile and behold the catastrophe. The rain is fallen, the wind hath blown, and the floods have beaten upon their church ; but it is nut fallen, for it is founded upon a rock. The light is under a bushel, but it is not extinguished.' ^ Side by side with the most melancholy pictures of the conduct of individuals, there are to be found, throughout them all, the most glowing defence of her System, and the most earnest protesta- tions that it was not the Church, but her sons, who were to blame. It was ' when the Church was pestered with a generation of godless men, and with all other irregularities ; when her lands were in clanger of aliena- tion, her power at least neglected, and her peace torn in pieces by several schisms, and such heresies as do usually attend that sin ; when the common people seemed ambitious of doing those very things which were attended with most dangers, that thereby they might be pmiished, and then applauded and puied ; when they called the spirit of oppo- sition a tender conscience, and complained of persecution because they wanted power to persecute others ; when the giddy multitude raged, and became restless to find out misery for themselves and others ; and the rabble would herd themselves together, and endeavour to govern and act in spite of authority ; — in this extremity, fear, and danger of the Church and State,' ^ — it was that Hooker came forward to defend that ' present form of Church government which the laws of this land have established,' and which he declared to be ' such as no law of God nor reason of man hath hitherto been alleged of force sufficient to prove they do ill, who to the uttermost of their power withstand the alteration thereof. ' ^ ' This I dare boldly affirm,' says Archbishop Whitgrft, ' that all points of religion necessary to salvation, and touching either the mystery of our redemption in Christ, or the right use of the sacraments, and true manner of worshipping God, are as purely and as perfectly taught, and by public authority established, in this Church of England at this day, as ever they were in any church since the apostles' times.' * • I have lived,' says Laud, ' and shall (God willing) die in the faith of Christ, as it was professed in the ancient primitive Church, as it was professed in the present Church of England.' ' So (it seems) I was confident for the faith professed in the Church of England, else I would not have taken the salvation of another upon my soul. And sure I had reason of this my confidence. For to ])elieve the Scripture and the creeds, to believe those in the sense of the ancient primitive Church, to receive the four great general councils, so much magnified by antiquity, to believe all points of doctrine generally received ^ Works, p. 175. '■^ Walton's Life of Hooker, p. 4(5. ^ Preface to Eccl. I'olity, vol. i. s. 1. * Preface to tlie Defence of (he Answer, fol, 157i. as 488 The Church of Encjland— as fundamental in the Church of Christ, is a faith in which to live and die cannot but give salvation.' ' ' My conscience assures me,' says Hammond, ' that the grounds on which the established Church of England is founded are of so rare and excellent mixture, that, as none but intelligent truly Christian minds can sutliciently value the composition, so there is no other in Europe so likely to preserve peace and unity, if what prudent laws had so long ago de- signed they were now able to uphold. For want of which, and which only, it is that at present the whole fabric lies polluted in confusion and in blood.'* ' I verily believe,' says Hickes, ' that the Church of England, as it now stands without any further reformation, is apostolical in doctrine, worship, and government ; and would have been esteemed by the faith- ful, in all ages from the time of the apostles, a pure and sound member of the Catholic Church. I heartily thank Almighty God, by whose good providence I have been bred up in her communion, and called to the great honour of being one of her priests; and I beseech Him of His infinite goodness, to give all her clergy and people grace to live up strictly to her principles of piety, loyalty, justice, charity, purity, tem- perance, and sobriety. I am sure it must be ours, and not her fault, if we be not the best Christians, the best subjects, and the best friends and best neighbours in the world.' ^ For this Ken did not hesitate to pray : — • Glory be to thee, O Lord, my God, who hast made me a member of the particular Church of England, whose faith, and government, and worship are holy, and Catholic, and Apostolic, and free from the extremes of irreverence or superstition ; and which I firmly believe to be a sound part of the Church Universal.'^ Of this Leslie declared — ' Though the events of life have given me occasions to take a nearer view of the doctrines and worship of other Christian Churches, yet from thence I have been confirmed in my belief that the Church of Eng- land — abuses notwithstanding — is the most agreeable to the institutions of Christ and his apostles.' * Li this Bull resolved to die, — - ' As the best constituted Church this day in the world ; for that its doc- trine, government, and way of worship were in the main the same with those of the primitive Church.' And he blessed God that he ' was born, baptized, and bred up in her communion,' as ' the best and purest Church at this day in the Christian world.' ^ ' Do I anywhere,' says Bishop Moimtagu, • profess correspondency with them ' [the Lutherans] ' or others beside the Church of England, » Coiif. with Fisher, pp. 219, 211. ^ Preface to Treatise on the Infallibility, vol. ii. p. 560. ^ Apologetical Vindication, p. 145. * Exposit. of Church Catech., Prose Works, p. 251. ' Introd. Epist. Works, vol. i. « Life of Bull, p. 398. Works, vol. ii. p. 239. Burton Edit. the Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 489 the absolutest representation of antiquity this day extant ? What that Church believeth, I believe ; what it teacheth, I teach ; what it rejecteth, I reject ; what it doth not tender, I am not tied unto. I was bred a member of the Church of England, brought up a member of the Church of England — therein, Ijy the means and ministry of that Church, I received that earnest of my salvation, when by baptism I was inserted into Christ. In the union and communion of that Church I have lived, not divided with papist, nor separated with puritan. Through the assistance of the grace of God's spirit, which is never wanting unto any that seek him, I hope to live and die in the faith and confession of that Church ; than which I know none, nor can any be named, in all points more conformable unto purest antiquity in the best times. ... If there be in any writing, preaching, saying, or thought of mine, anything deli- vered or published against the discipline or doctrine of This Church, I am sorry for it, I revoke it, recant it, disclaim it — viiUu IcBdUur jnetas — if I have done so in anything unto my Mother, in all humility I crave pardon, and will undergo penance.'^ ' And here I do profess,' says Bishop Sanderson, in his last will, ' that as I have lived, so I desire and (by the grace of God) resolve to die, in the communion of the Catholic Church of Christ, and a true son of the Church of England ; which, as it stands by law established, to be both in doctrine and worship agreeable to the word of God, and in the most, and most material points of both conformable to the faith and practice of the godly Churches of Christ in the primitive and purer times, I do firmly believe : led so to do, not so much from the force of custom and education (to which the greatest part of mankind owe their particular different persuasions in point of religion), as upon the clear evidence of truth and reason, after a serious and unpartial examination of the grounds, as well of popery as puritanism, according to that mea- sure of understanding and those opportunities which God hath afforded me . . . Wherefore I humbly beseech Almighty God, the Father of Mercies, to preserve the Church, by his power and providence, in peace, truth, and godliness, evermore to the world's end : which doubtless he will do, if the wickedness and security of a sinful people (and particularly those sins that are so rife and seem daily to increase among us, of unthank- fulness, riot, and sacrilege) do not tempt his patience to the con- trary.' ' ' The third sort of good seed,' says Bramhall, ' which King Charles did bear forth with him was a good religion. A religion, not reformed tumultuously, according to the brain-sick fancies of an half-witted mul- titude, dancing after the pipe of some seducing charmer, l)ut soberly, according to the rule of God's word, as it hath been evermore, and everywhere interpreted by the Catholic Church, and according to the purest pattern of the primitive times. A religion, against wliich the greatest adversaries thereof have no exception, but that it prcferreth grace before nature, the written word before uncertain traditions, and the all-sulTicient blood of Jesus Christ before the stained works of ^ Appeal to Caesar, pj). 47, 'IS, ^ Walton's Life of Suiidcrsoti, by Zouch, vol. ii. p. 290. VOL. i-xix. NO. cxxxvin. 2 k mortal 490 The Church of England^ mortal men. A religion, which is neither garish with superfluous ceremonies, nor yet sluttish, and void of all order, decency, and majesty in tlie service of God. A religion, which is as careful to retain old articles of faith, as it is averse from new articles Religion which is not likely to perish for want of fit organs, like those imperfect creatures produced by the sun upon the banks of Nilus, but shaped for continuance.. . .The terror of Rome. They fear our moderation more than the violent opposition of others.. .The watch-tower of the Evan- gelical churches I have seen many churches of all sorts of com- munions, but never any that could diminish that venerable estimation which I had for my mother the Church of England : from her breasts I received my first nourishment, in her arms 1 desire to end my days. Blessed be he that blesseth her.' ' ' Men, brethren, and fathers,' says Bishop Beveridge, ' give me leave to speak freely to you of the Church you live in ; a Church, not only in its doctrine and discipline, but in all things else, exactly conformable to the primitive, the apostolical, the catholic Church. For was that no sooner planted by Christ but it was watered by the blood of martyrs ? — So was ours. Did the primitive Christians suffer martyrdom from Rome? — So did our first reformers. Hath the Catholic Church been all along pestered with heretics and schismatics ? — So hath ours. Have they endeavoured in all ages to undermine, and so to overthrow her ? — In this also ours is but too much like unto her. And it is no wonder : for the same reason that occasioned all the disturbances and oppositions that the Catholic Church ever met with, still holds good as to ours too ; even because its doctrine is so pure, its discipline so severe, its worship so solemn, and ^11 its rules and constitutions so holy, perfect, and divine, that mankind, being generally debauched in their principles and prac- tices, have a natural averseness from it, if not an antipathy against it.' He concludes — * Be but you as pious towards God, as loyal to our queen, as sober in yourselves, as faithful to your friends, as loving to your enemies, as charitable to the poor, as just to all, as our Church enjoins 5-ou ; in a word, be but you as comformable to her as she is to the Catholic Church in all things, and my life, my eternal life for yours, you cannot but be happy for evermore.' ^ And if we at this day, with hopes revealed to us by God's pro- vidential working far brighter than ever dawned upon the eyes of these great men — with far longer experience of that wonderful strength which has supported the Church of England through so many fearful struggles, and is now rising up within her more vigorous than ever — if we, like Bishop Hall, as her ' true sons/ unto her ' sacred name would in all piety devote ourselves,' as to our "^reverend, dear, and holy Mother' ^ — if with Heylin we com- fort our soul with our 'adhesion to a Church so rightly consti- ' Bratnhall, Sermon on the Coronation, 1661. Works, p. 957. ^ Sermon on ' Form of Sound Words,' ^ Dedic. of Common Apology, vol. x. tuted. Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 491 tuted, so warrantably reformed, so punctually modelled by the pattern of the purest and most happy times of Christianity ; a Church which, for her power and polity, her sacred offices and administrations, hath the grounds of Scripture, the testimony of antiquity, and consent of fathers ' ' — if, with Bishop Andrews, we point to ' that, our religion in England, ancient, holy, purified, and truly one which Zion would acknowledge' (^prisca, casta, defaecata, et vero quam Sion agnoscat') ^ — if, with Bishop Cosin, we believe it to be ' no other than what we have received from Christ and his universal Church ' ^ — if, in the spirit of the martyr Charles, (words which Sancroft thought ' deserve to be writtezi in letters of gold, and to be engraved in brass or marble,') "* we charge our children ' not to suffer their hearts to receive the least check or disaffection from the true religion established in her, as being the best in the world ; ' ' I tell you I have tried it;'^ — if, with Bishop White, we feel that, in building our faith upon the Church of England, ' we are building on a rock ' ^ — if, with Hooker, we regard her as the ' sustainer of the Churches' "^ — with Nelson, as ' the glory of the Reformation ' ® — with Bishop Nicholson, as ' every way consonant to the doctrine and discipline of the primi- tive times,' and in her constitutions ' nearest the apostolic church of any church in the Christian world ;' ^ — with Bishop Bilson, as ' wholly and truly Catholic, such as the Scriptures do pre- cisely command, and the ancient fathers expressly witness was the faith and use of Christ's Church for many hundreds ' ^" — if, with Archbishop Bancroft, we call her ' the most apostolic and flourishing Church, simply that is in all Christendom ;' and, like him, ' pray unto Almighty God, with all our very souls, for the long and happy continuance of the blessed example, which it and this realm of England hath showed, in this last age of the world, unto all the kingdoms and countries on the earth that profess the gospel with any sincerity ' " — if, with Brett, we allow that her government is ' modelled, as near as may be, to that which was founded by Christ and his apostles, and that there are no altera- tions made from the primitive constitution but what the different state of the Church made in some manner necessary ' '^ — even if, with Archbishop Sancroft in his touching expostulation to the ^ The Reformation of the Church of England Justified, General Preface, s. 1. ^ Concio in discessu Palatini. 1613. ^ Scholast. Hist., Pref. ■* Life of Sancroft, vol. i. p. 168. * Icon Basil., s. xxvii. * Reply to Fisher, p. 588. 7 Book iv. 8. 14. 8 Life of Bull, p. 24, s. vi. * Exposit. of Church Catech., Epist. Dedic. Apology for the Discipline, p. 42. i" True Differ. Epist. Dedic. ^' Preface to Dangerous Positions, b. i. p. 2. Survey, p. 460. 1* Ou Church Government, p. 441. 2 K 2 Duke 40-2 Th e Ch urch of England— Duko of York, wc liken her to ' that lily among thorns/ ' the purest certainly on earth ;' ' or, — in language not uncommon in lips which never used irreverence, — to her blessed Lord himself, exposed to persecution on all sides, and ' crucified between thieves' — are such words of gratitude to God, and of loyalty to the mother that bore us, to be construed into arrogance and boasting ? Are they not compatible with the greatest charity to the defects of others ; with the deepest penitence for our own sins, which have been committed against the warnings and example of such a parent? Are they not lessons of humility and shame, rather than vauntings of presumption? And so, with these great men, if we do suspect defects even in this admirable system, will it not be wise to follow the law laid down by the greatest legislator of antiquity, and 'shutting up all such questions from the young, deliberate of them only in secret with the old ? '.^ Shall we be ashamed of cherishing that 'ancient simplicity and softness of spirit, which sometime pre- vailed in the world, that they whose words Avere even as oracles amongst men seemed evermore loth to give sentence against any- thing publicly received in the Church of God, except it were wonderfully apparently evil ; for that they did not so much in- cline to that severity wdiich delighteth to reprove the least things it seeth amiss, as to that charity which is unwilling to behold any- thing that duty bindeth it to reprove ? ' Alas ! to continue with Hooker, ' the state of this present age, wherein zeal hath drowned charity, and skill meekness, will not now suffer any man to marvel, whatsoever he shall hear reproved, by whomsoever.' ^ Another remarkable fact in the history of our old divines is the steadiness of their adherence to the Church throughout all her trials and afflictions. As they never confounded the excellence of her principles as a system with the sins of her children, who refused to act on them, so neither did they regard the punishment of those sins as any indication of the displeasure of God upon herself. They saw her indeed in a state in which they might well have doubted if God's favour were with her ; just as the prophets in Babylon might have distrusted his favour on Jerusalem, and have abandoned the love of Jerusalem itself, because the Jews had deserved to be exiled from it. Instead of this, they humbled themselves in sackcloth; they laid the burden on them- selves, but did not deny that still their church was Zion. ' O never let any Christian,' says Bishop Nicholson, 'of what rank soever, add that talent of lead to that sin which hath so highly provoked our good God to pour out the vials of his wrath against this our Church, and these three Nations, (that I mention not the others of Christendom,) as 1 DOyly's Life of Sancroft, vol. i. p. 166. 2 Plato de Legib., lib. i. » Eccl. Pol., book iv. s. 1. not Dhines of the Seventeenth Centunj. 493 not to lay it to heart. . . . God sinking the gates, his destroying the walls, his slighting the strongholds of Zion, his polluting the kingdom, his swallowing the palaces, his cutting off the horn of Israel; God hating our feasts, his abominating our sabbaths, his loathing our solemnities ; God's forgetting his footstool, his abhorring his sanctuary, his suffering men to break down all the carved work thereof with axes and hammers, are all evidences to me, that in the indignation of his anger he hath despised the king and the priest.'' ' So Hammond with the same voice, after enlarging on the two great excellences of the Reformation — its adherence to antiquity and its union of faith and works : — * 'Tis but just that they which have walked unworthy of such guides and rules as these, lived so contrary to our profession, should at length be deprived of both, not only to have our two staves broken, Beauty and Bands, the symbols of order and unity, both which have now for some 5'ears taken their leaves of us ; but even to have the whole fabric de- molished, the house to follow the pillars' fate, and so to be left — and abide without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an Ephod, and xoithout Teraphim, deprived of all our ornaments — left naked and bare, when we had misused our beauty unto wantonness. Thus when the Devil was turned out of his habitation, and nothing followed but the sweeping and garnishing the house, and keeping it empty of any better guest ; the issue is, the Devil soon returns again, from whence he came out, and brings seven spirits worse than himself, and the end of that state is worse than the beginning. And so still the taking of the ark, and the breaking the high priest's neck, and the slay- ing his sons, and many more, in that discomfiture, are all far from new or strange, being but the natural effects of the profanations, which not the ark itself (that was built, every pin of it, according to God's direction) but the sacrificers, not the religion but the worshippers, were so scanda- lously guilty of.' ^ Instead of being shaken from their allegiance by the cap- tivity and sufferings of the Church, they clung to her the more affectionately and dutifully. They anticipated with sanguine hope the day of their restoration, when, according to Bramhall's dream, the cathedral which he had seen fall suddenly on his head should rise up as suddenly without noise. ^ They ceased not, as Bishop Taylor prayed, * to love and to desire the Liturgy, which was not publicly permitted to their practice and profession,' * nor felt inclined to borrow more exciting and enthusiastic forms from a n/ breviary or missal, as if the sobriety of our own sei'vice-book were insufficient to raise the heart, and had been proved so by the defections from the Church. Bull, Sanderson, and Hammond ' Apology, p. 151. * Hiinimoiiil, Par.'Bnesis, c. ii. s. 25, 20. Works, vol. i. p. 378. ^ Liib ))rt(ix(!d to his Works. Sue the same fact ciilargod on in Dr. Wonlswortli'a Cliristiau Institutes, vol. iv. p. 573. * Works, vol. vii. p. 312. learned 491 The Church of England— learned from it by rote, when not allowed to use the Book.' They exerted tliein selves as strenuously as ever against Popery, when exiled Ironi their country Ijy Puritanism ; and several of their most valuable works against it were written under every temptation to attempt a reconciliation, and join with it against a common foe. So the recollection of their Church was their solace and hope in all their distress : — ' I shall only crave leave,' says Bishop Taylor, * that I may remember Jerusalem, and call to mind the pleasures of the temple, the order of her services, the beauty of her buildings, the sweetness of her songs, the decency of her ministrations, the assiduity and economy of her priests and Levites, the dady sacrifice, and that eternal five of devotion that went not out by day nor by night; these were the pleasures of our peace, and there is a remanent felicity in the very memory of those spiritual delights which we then enjoyed, as antepasts of heaven, and consignations to an immortality of joys.' ^ They even triumphed in their afflictions for the sake of truth : — ' Yet neither with us,' says Hammond, ' nor with our dearest mother the Church still (by God's providence) of England, sorrowful as she is, yet still beauteous, and from her very humiliation more deeply to be reverenced, (and by us more preciously esteemed, since, hung upon the cross, she hath been conformed to the image of our Lord,) is there room for complaints or discontentments. Yea, rather do we think that we may rejoice and be giad, that now for ten full years our constancy and dutiful obedience, sealed with the loss of all our fortunes, with long imprison- ment, with banishment, with blood itself, being made a spectacle to God, and angels, and men, with none to support and aid but Him who appointed for us the trial, we have boldly, and like to wrestlers in the games, made good and proved. He, our most merciful Father, whom even now with constant prayers we sorrowfully resort to, will grant, as we do hope, to the other parts of the universal church, after so many vicissitudes of storm, a calm and blessed peace. He will grant unto Christendom halcyon and tranquil days. With us our sufferings, our wounds, and scars — as " spiritual pearls, " says Ignatius — yea, rather as " diadems of God's truly elect," says Polycarp — not to be repurchased from us by any bribe of a flattering world, by any price of deep and unbroken rest — as being that wherewith we are conformed to the death of Christ, are to be counted by us among the donatives of our king, among his favours, and our privileges. Let posterity judge of us from this, that we complain of no one; that we give thanks for all men — Father, forgive them. " Lord, lay not this sin to their charge." '^ And their voice was then as earnest and as faithful as e\er in recalling wanderers to their duty : — ' I beseech you,' says Bishop Nicholson, ' hear me speak ; it may be » Life by Nelson, s. ix. Walton's Lives. .^ Works, vol. vii. p. 2Si. 2 Diss. iv. contra Bloudell. Epist. s. 8. Works, vol. iii. p. 716. "in Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 495 " in voce hominis tuba Dei," God's trumpet at my mouth ; and if you will but listen and suffer yourself to be roused by the shrillness of the sound, you may perhaps yet make a stand. Consider where you are, and retreat. The enemy smiles at your separation ; the angels would rejoice to behold j'ou return back to your mother the Church of Old England. She is indeed now " as the teyl-tree, or as the oak, when they cast their leaves, yet the substance is in her." Her beauty is decayed through bitter affliction, and her face fiirrowed with sorrows, there is nothing now left about her to make her lovely ; yet she is your Mother still ; she washed you with water, she gave you milk when a babe, she fed you with strong meat when a man ; she honoured you with orders when grown ; for a Mother's sake I crave one good look, some pity, some regard ! Why fly you from her ? I cannot conceive you think her so dishonest as some separatists report; if you should, I should grow angry ; and tell you, that in her constitutions she came nearest the apostolic church of any church in the Christian world, and this I openly profess to make good against any separatist whatsoever. Many'ungracious sons I confess she had, and they brought an aspersion upon her, and the vials of God's wrath have been justly, justly I pro- claim, poured upon her for their iniquities. The constitution was good and sound, the execution passing through some corrupt hands too often subject to reproof. Let not her then who had declared her mind by rules and cautions against all abuses, and taught what only she would have done, be charged with her sons' irregularities.' ^ And few indeed there were who thus required to be recalled to the fold of their mother : — ' 1 cannot deny,' says Bramhall, ' but that some of us have started aside like broken bows, out of despair in this their bitter trial, wherein they have had their goods plundered, their estates sequestered, their persons imprisoned, their churches aliened ; Avherein they have been divorced from their nearest relation, and disabled to discharge the duties of their callings to God ; wherein some of them have been slaughtered, others forced to maintain themselves by mechanic labours, others thrust out of their native countries, to wander like vagabonds and exiled beg- gars up and down the merciless world. But, God be praised, they are not many. If we comparethis Avith any the like persecution in Europe, you shall never find that so few apostated.'^ God forbid that any different voice should be heard in the Church of England at this day ! Thexj did not despair or permit themselves to utter one faithless or disparaging word of its system, when it had been cut down to the ground, and salt had been sown where it grew. We have seen it spring up again more vigorous than ever. It has now stood more storms and shocks than have beaten upon any otlier member of the Catholic Church — a ' Bisliop Nicholson's Apology, p. 42. ^ Archbishop Bramhall, Sennou on (he Restoration, Works, p. 057. Reformation, 496 The Church of England— Reformation, a Rebellion, a Revolution — the political conflicts and corruptions which followed them — that fearful convulsion in France, which shook popery to its centre, and led it captive in the person of its head ; — and the spread of a manufacturing system which has done so much to corrupt the whole framework of society. She is now about to enter once more into the conflict with popery, her in- veterate and strongest enemy, against which she has hitherto stood alone and triumphed. She is entering on this by herself, not de- pending on foreign aid, nor even on the arm of her own natural supporter, the State. Within the last ten years she has roused herself, like one that has been paralysed from a bed of sickness, and is feeling for her weapons and planting herself for the com- bat, and stretching out her arms to the most distant countries, with an energy and strength which have astounded all who have beheld it. The Church on all sides is gathering round her. The East is willing that she should come and help it. Germany is seeking from her the great blessing of episcopacy. Four whole continents, India, Australia, Africa, and America, are, with small exceptions, open before her, in which England may plant the truth, as in her own peculiar province, without violating any Catholic principle, or exposing herself, as po- pery must expose itself, to a battle with existing rights, and to ultimate expulsion. Such a field was never before opened to any Christian Church, not even in the time of Constantine. And if, as yet, she is weak, and faltering, and unable to realize such a prospect, her weakness is from past disease : it is not inherent. Had we done everything we should do, then indeed we might despair. Had we taught men to love their Church, had we cherished obedience to our bishops, had we given alms and offerings as she exhorts ; had we been diligent in her service, regular in her prayers, constant in seeking at her hands the strength and nourishment which she offers — had we brought out and acted up to her principles — and then failed — then we might have doubted if God had given to her power to guide and save us. But this has been neglected : let it be tried; and then we shall be able to estimate the enormous strength of Catholic truth as established in our own blessed Church. And let us fight the battle manfully and honestly, without those artificial aids and unnatural excitements, by which popery endeavours to stimulate morbid imaginations, and to force a hot-house piety. Let us fight it, as God himself has placed us here to fight with the world. It is better, it is a sign of more real and healthy strength, to be able to contend, however unsuccessfully, against myriads of enemies, than to enjoy peace without any. There is Dimnes of the Seventeenth Century. 497 is more real unity ^ of faith in the adherence of ten men to a definite creed like our own, than in the acquiescence of ten millions in such a lax profession as popery. There is more true unity of heart in the free accordance of a few minds, permitted to differ, than in the subjection of the whole world to a yoke which it dares not shake off. And there is more true holiness in the discharge of a single duty in the midst of the temptations of the world, than in the flight from temptations and duties alike, in the artificial atmosphere of a monastery. But, above all, let us not commit treason to our Church, by accustoming the young and the ignorant to think of her with misgivings or contempt. When he, who knew so well how to rule and mould the minds of the Athenian people, was called to rouse them to the conflict in defence of all they loved, while the enemy was ravaging their fields, and the plague devastating their homes, he spoke to them not in words of despondency, as if they had no strength to fight ; nor disparagingly of their country and its fame, as if they had nothing worth contending for. He knew that, if one thought more than others can ' strengthen the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees ' — if anything can make the bad to cast off his sins, and the coward to rush into danger, and the effeminate to steel himself for the stake, it is the sense that they are members of a body glorified in past time, full of hope to be glorified hereafter, and now beset with perils and distresses. He never turned their eye upon some dream of imagined peace and happiness — least of all on the pleasant fields which their enemies possessed in quiet. He never thought to nerve them in the cause of their country, by telling them how much happier they might have been, if it were other than it was ; or bidding them stay by it now, merely because they could find refuge in no other. He told them rather of its greatness and its power. He bade them 'gaze on and feed their eyes with the sight of this greatness day by day ;' that they might become ' enamoured of it,' as men devoted to some beloved being, and so sacrifice their lives and all to its service, like those 1 'What manner of peace and unity was that,' says Jackson, speaking of this boast of popery, 'any other than such as usually is found in any political Argus-eyed tyranny, before the sinews of it slirunk or the ligaments be dissolved? Where no man may move but he is seen, nor mutter but lie is heard ; where the least secret signification of any desire of freedom in speed), or liberty in action, is interpreted for open mutiny, and the least motion unto mutiny held matter sutKcient for a cruel deatli. These were the bonds of your peace and unity in tliis point of your ecclesiastic monarcliy. As for your jjeace in other speculative points of less use or commodity to your state, it was like the revellings or drunken consorts of servants in tlieir night- sportings, when the master of the house is asleep in a retired room. Any sclioolman might broach what opinion lie list, and make his auditors drnnk with it ; others niiglit cpiarrel witli liim and them, in as uncivil sort as they list, so no weapon were drawn against tlie Pope's peace, albeit in the mean time the Scripture suffered open violence and abuse,' — vol. i. p. 314. who 498 TJic Church of England— who tbrougfli sufferings and toil had won for it its past glories.^ And so \ox\(i as this voice was heard, so long the Athenians triumphed. God forbid ! let us repeat once more, that any other voice should be heard in the Church of England among us now ! If indeed we are lying in darkness, under a curse from God, for some sin of ourselves, or of our forefathers, let the sin be wiped out — if for sacrilege, let the sacrilege be restored — if for rebellion, let us be more earnest in our allegiance — if for intemperance in asserting our Christian independence, let us pray more fervently for the peace and reunion of all Christian churches — if for neglect of the talent committed to us, in failing to bring our heathen empire into the fold of Christ, let us go forth more boldly and more heartily into that vast field of Christian labour. But let us not lay upon the parent the sins of the children; or think that Abraham is despised before God, because the Jews have been rejected. ' De ordine dico,' says Bishop Andrews, ' non de ho- minibus (nihil attinet) qui quales quales sunt Domino suo slant vel cadunt.'^ III. There is one especial point in the constitution of the English Church, which requires to be guarded at present against a disposition to censure and mistrust her; which in any mind is sad, but in the young and ignorant is unspeakably unseemly. They have been awakened to a sense — a right and worthy sense — of the spiritual independence of the Church, as holding her spiritual privileges and spiritual being wholly and immediately from God. And it is difficult, without more thought and learning than it is possible for them to possess, to reconcile this always wth the claims of the civil power to take a part in ecclesiastical affairs. That the line is hard to draw all must acknowledge — as hard as to distinguish the confines between mind and body ; between the respective provinces of the husband and the wife ; between the free agency of man and the influence of external causes ; between the action and counteraction of any two bodies co-operating to the same work, in the mixed circumstances of all human relations. And the jealousy has undoubtedly been fretted in many minds by recent acts of a Parliament, no longer essentially bound to the communion of the Church. Into these specific cases it is unne- cessary to enter. The general principle of the intimate association between the Church and the State, as maintained by the Church of England, derived from the ancient Church, and enforced by our greatest divines, is all that need be touched on. And the testimony of these last is of the greatest weight, because they spoke ^ See the Speeches of Pericles. Thucydides, lib. ii. * Concio in discessu Palatini. 1613. under Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 499 under circumstances far more trying than any to which we are exposed. The Church of England is not now in a worse position with respect to the State^ than when Whitgift was compelled to remon- strate Avith Queen Elizabeth against sacrilege ; ^ when Hooker bewailed the ' daily bruises that spiritual promotions used to take by often falling ;' ^ when Jackson remonstrated against Simony ; when Hacket was compelled to plead before a House of Com- mons, not against a re-distribution, but an alienation of cathedral property ; when the whole power of Parliament was in the hands of the Puritans ; when the Monarch himself in his own person was the author of that lax toleration, through which heresies and Atheism first, and popery under their cloak at last, established themselves in the bosom of the empire ; and when the Primate, five Bishops, and 400 Clergy, were suspended and deprived for refusing the oath of allegiance. ^ If under such trials the loyalty of the suffering Church of Eng- land, and her devotion to the State, never forsook her, how would she now grieve over any outbreak of impatience, when the throne is still established and bound to her by the coronation oath, when the great majority of the Parliament is once more with her, and mainly sins against her by officious offers of assistance ; and when every day she is obtaining a deeper hold on the affections of the people, and the respect of government ? Let us remember that these great men were the firmest assert- ers of the spiritual independence of the Church. With Nazi- anzen, they magnified the spiritual authority, as ' far more ample and excellent than that of civil princes, insomuch as it is fit the flesh should yield to the spirit, and things earthly to things heavenly.' With Chrysostom, they placed ' the priest's tribunal much higher than that of the king ; who hath received only the administration of earthly things — but the priest's tribunal is placed in heaven, and he hath authority to pronounce sentence in heavenly affairs.'* ' Our king,' says Bishop Andrews, speaking authoritatively, ' under the name of supremac}^ introduces not a new papacy into the Church. As not Aaron the priest, so not Jeroboam the king, may set up a golden calf of his own for the people to adore ; or frame new articles of faith, or new forms of worship. He claims not, he does not permit liimself to possess, tlie power of burning incense with Oziah, or of touching the ark with Uzzah. The office of teaching or of explaining the law he never assumes ; nor of preaching, nor of leading in divine worship, nor of celebrating the sacraments, nor of consecrating either ^ Walton's Life of Hooker. ^ Life of Saricroft, vol. i. p. 447. "" B. V. s. 31. 4 Field, B.v. p. 611. persons 500 The Church of England— persons or things ; nor the power of the keys or of ecclesiastical cen- sure. In one word, nothing docs he assume to himself, and nothing do we hold it lawful for him to toucii, which belongs to the priestly oliice or to the privileges of the priestly order,' ' So Hooker.- So Bramhall.^ So Sanderson/ And thus Bilson, with them, distinguished : — ' The government of princes is public, of bishops is private ; of princes is compulsory, of bishops is persuasive ; of princes is lordly with rule, of bishops is brotherly with service; of princes is external and ordereth the actions of the body, of bishops is internal and guideth the motions of the mind. . . .And therefore, though bishops may be called governors in respect of the soul, yet only princes be governors of realms : pastors have ilocks, and bishops have dioceses : realms, dominions, and coun- tries, none have but princes and magistrates ; and so the style, " go- vernor of this realm," belongeth only to the prince and not to the priest, and importeth a public and princely regiment with the sword, which no bishop by God's law may claim or use.'* Yet, with this solemn protest against Erastianism, they never swerve from their loyal and hearty recognition of the Civil power, as united with the Church. By Beveridge, side by side with the divine authority of the apostolical office, this loyalty is set as an especial proof of ' the same spirit still working in our Church, which wrought so effectually upon the Apostles.' '^ — With Hooker so strong is the sense of the joint and inse2:)arable func- tions of the State and the Church for ' the preservation and safety ' of God's people, that he proposes this as ' the true inscription, style, or title of all churches, as yet standing within this realm : — By the goodness of Almighty God and his servant Elizabeth, ive are.' ~ So Bishop Mountagu connects them : — ' Them, myself, whatsoever I have said or done, or shall hereafter do any way — " Libens, merito, more raajorum" — 'uow and ever I have, I do, I will refer and submit, and in most lowly, devoted, humble sort, prostrate upon bended knees unto this Church of England, and the true defender thereof, his most sacred Majesty ; humbly craving that royal protection which sometime William Ockham did of Lewis of Baviera, the emperor, " Domine imperator, defeude me gladio, et ego te defendam calamo." ' ® So Bishop Bilson : ' The strife betwixt us (against popery) is not for bishoprics and benefices; but for Christ's glory and the prince's safety.'^ If in the convulsions of the Reformation the great blessing of 1 Tortura Toiti. p. 3S0. * B. viii. vol. iii. p. 351,, Svo., 1793. 8 Works, pp. 25, 190, 191, 340. •• Episcopacy not Piejud., s. xi. » True Diflerence, p. 238. ^ Sermon on Cluisfs Presence with liis aiinisters. ' Epist. Dedicat. to Eccl. Pol., vol. i., p. 125. » Appeal to Caesar, p. 321. ' True Difference, p. 8. episcopacy Divines of /he Seventeenth Century. 501 episcopacy was preserved to us, it was due, according to Bishop Andrews, under God, to the fact that 'our Vm^s were pro- pitious.' ^ — So Bishop Hall.^ So Hickes.^ So Stillingfleet.* And this their obedience to the State was not a mere passive subjection, but a hearty reverence. They taught, with Bramhall, ' that the most high and sacred order of Kings is of Divine right, being the ordinance of God himself, founded on the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express texts both of the Old and New Testament. Moreover, that this power is extended over all their subjects, ecclesiastical and civil.' ^ They recognised ' that absolute and sovereign civil princes, [even] while they were infidels, had true dominion, rule, and authority, holding it as immediately from God, not depend- ing on any ruler of the Church.' " They acknowledged with Laud, that ' great and undoubted rule given by Optatus, that wheresoever there is a Church, there the Church is in the Com- monwealth, not the Commonwealth in the Church : — Non enim rexpuhlica est in Ecclesici, sed Ecclesia in republicd est^ With Laud also they alleged it as a proof against the claims of the Pope : — ' For if the Church be within the empire or other kingdom, it is impossible the government of the Church should be monarchical : for no emperor or king will endure another king within his dominion that shall be greater than himself; since the very enduring it makes him that endures it, upon the matter, no monarch.'^ They never took it for granted * that the ecclesiastic power, as well directive as coercive, is entirely seated in the body of the clerjjy, as it is an order of men distinct from the laity.' They never invested ' the body of the clergy with all the privileges and prerogatives of an absolute independent commonwealth, able to make laws by itself;' not permitting '^the body or community of the laity (no, not as it consists of prince and people, of magistrates and private men) to be any parts or members of the Church, or of that society which hath power to make laws ecclesiastic' Knowing, as Jackson continues, and he repeats the warning more than once, that ' these be the premises, which, once granted, will necessarily bring forth that dangerous conclusion' [the formation of some visible centre of unity in the Church] ' which will inevitably draw all states and kingdoms, as well heathen as Christian, into the Romish net.'^ They show no sympathy with Hildebrand, — ^ Third Letter to Du Moulin; Wordsworth's Clirist. Inst., vol. iii. p. 2.5!). 2 Vol. X. p. 281. ^ Senti. 13, vol. ii. p. 21fi, ■• Defence of Discourse concerning; Idolatry. Epist. Dedicat. vol. v. * Answer to De la Militiere, p. 28. ^ Y\v\A, book v. p. COO. "> ()))tat. lib. iii. c. 3. I^ud, Coufeience with Fisher, p. 132. 8 Vol. ili. pp. 90G, 'J07. that 502 The Church of England— that ' Firebrand,' as Brett calls him, ' both of Church and State;' * — Casaubon's ' Hildebrandinae liereseos auctor ;'- — Usher's ' Fatale Portentum Prodigium({ue Ecclesiae ;' ^ — Bishop Patrick's ' First Great Troubler of the Christian World;' * — ' That man of admiralile pride,' savs Bishop Overall, ' over whose heretical novelty, and most insolent attempt, many false colours have since been cast, to cover the lewdness and deformity of it.' ^ Still less would they hold up Becket to reverence, or allow him to be a martyr : — ' We do abominate that murder, as lawless and barbarous,' says Bramhall. ' 13ut we do not believe that the cause of his suffering was sufficient to make him a martyr; namely, to help foreigners to -pull the fairest flowers from his prince's diadem by violence, and to perjure himself, and violate his oath. All his own suff'ragau bishops were against him in the cause, and justified the king's proceed- ings.'^ And Bishop Bilson goes still farther. His quarrel, he says, was one of those ' of their own nature wicked and irreligious ; his pride was into- lerable ; his contention with the king detestable ; his end miserable. We conclude him to be a shameful defender of wickedness, an open breaker of his oath, and a proud impugner of the sword which God hath authorised, as the Scripture teacheth. And albeit .we like not the manner of his death, that private men should use the sword which is delivered unto princes, yet the cause for which he withstood the king was enormous and impious ; and dying in that, though his death were violent, he could be no martyr.'^ If jealousy is felt of the appointment of bishops by the Crown, Bramhall pronounces that *the nomination and investiture of bishops in England doth belong to the Imperial Crown, by law and custom immemorial ;' and hath been so practised both before the Conquest and since — a practice ap- proved by the canons and constitutions of councils, of Popes, and re- ceived into the body of the law — a power which the Christian emperors of the primitive times practised both in the eastern and western em- pires ; which the most Christian King of France and odrer monarchs of the Roman communion do in effect retain at this day.' * And so Bilson sums up this question, though not without first 1 Church Govern., c. xviii. p. 403. ^ Ded. to King James. Wordsworth's Christ. Inst. iv. p. 63. ^ De Eccles. Success, p. .58 et seq. * Devotions of the Romish Churcli, p. 212. ' Convocation Book, b. iii. c. 8. Bishop Hall's quaint language is to the same eflecf, but far stronger. Works, vol. ix. p. 269. * Just Vindication, p. 95. 7 True Difl'er., p. 483. So, at great length; SjlUjpgfleet. Answer to Cressy, vol. v. p. 710 et seq. 8 Tom. iv. Dis. vi. p. 989. dwellins: Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 503 dwelling upon the answer to be made to God, ' if hands be hastily laid on ;' and upon ' the burden of conscience/ which princes undertake, if in choosing those that shall guide the Church under them, they fail ' to provide, by the best means they can, that no venomous, nor unclean thing, so much as enter the House of God to defile it with his presence, or disorder it with his negli- gence :' ' If the allowance given at first to the ministers of each parish by the lord of the soil were matter enough in the judgment of Christ's Church to establish the right of patrons, that they alone should present clerks, because they alone provided for them, the prince's interest to confer bishoprics hath far more sound and sufficient reason to warrant it. For, besides the maintenance which the kings of this land yielded when they first endowed bishoprics with lands and possessions, to unburthen the people of the support and charges of their bishops, and in that respect have as much right as any patrons can have; the pre-eminence of the sword whereby the prince ruleth the people, the people rule not the prince, is no small enforcement, that in elections, as well as in other points of government, the prince may justly challenge the sovereignty above and without the people, God's laws prescribing no certain rule. And, lastly, though the people in former ages, by the sufferance of magistrates, had somewhat to do with the election of their bishops, yet now, for the avoiding of such tumults and uproar as the primitive church was afflicted with, by the laws of this realm and their own consents, the people's interest and liking is wholly submitted and inclosed in the prince's choice; so that whom the prince nameth the people have bound themselves to acknowledge and accept for their pastor, no less than if he had been chosen by their own suffrages. And had they not hereunto agreed, as by parliament they have, I see no let by God's law but in Christian kingdoms, when any difference groweth even about the election of bishops, the prince, as head and ruler of the people, had better right to name and elect than all the rest of their people. If they concur in judg- ment, there can be no variance; if they dissent, the prince, if there were no express law for that purpose (as there is witli us), must bear it from the people ; the people by God's law must not look to prevail against their prince.'' 'And this,' says Field, ' can in no way prejudice or hurt the state of the Church, if bishops (to whom examination and ordination per- taineth) do tlieir duties in refusing to consecrate and ordain such as the canons prohibit.'^ If men, unversed in ecclesiastical history, hesitate at the de- privation of bishops, Sanderson does not scruple to pronounce that ' the king hath power, if he shall see cause, to suspend any bishop from * rerpetual Govern., p. 362, 366. So Sanderson, Episcop. not Prejud. s. iii. 32. 2 Field, b. V. p. 695. the 504 The Church of En gland— the execution of his office, for so long a time as he shall think good; yea and to dc])rivc him utterly of the dignity and office of a bishop, if he deserve it.' ' He is spealiinp:, of course, only of the external exercise of the episcopal oflice. The internal or spiritual authority he distinctly asserts to exist jure d'lvino, and of this no one can deprive him but the power which conferred it. But he ec^ually denies the principle that ' bishops living under Christian kings may exercise [even] so much of their power as is of divine right, after their own pleasure, without, or against, the king"'s leave, or without respect to the laws and customs of the realm.' * If they scruple at the arrangement of dioceses by the Crown, 'the length or breadth of them,' says Bishop Bilson, and Cosin with him, ' must wholly be referred to the wisdom and consideration of the state.'* If they would exempt the clergy from the secular jurisdiction, Field will answer ' that God hath given princes the sword to punish all offenders against the first or second table, yea, though they be priests or bishops ; that neither the persons nor the goods of churchmen are exempted from their power.' * ' That princes may command that which is good, and prohibit that which is evil in matters of religion, as well bishops as others, is,' accord- ing to Bilson, ' an evident truth, confirmed by the Scriptures, confessed by the Fathers, reported by the stories of the Church, and] infinitely repeated in the laws and edicts of religious and ancient emperors, made for persons and causes ecclesiastical.' * Even in matters of faith, says Field, there is indeed ' no question but that bishops and pastors of the Church (to whom it pertain eth to teach the truth) are the ordinary and fittest jxidges ; and that ordinarily and regularly princes are to leave the judgment thereof unto them. But because they may fail, either through negli- gence, ignorance, or malice, princes, having charge over God's people, and being to see that they serve and worship him aright, are to judge and condemn them that fall into gross errors, contrary to the common sense of Christians, or into any other heresies formerly con- demned. And though there be no general failing, yet, if they see violent and partial courses taken, they may interpose themselves to stay them, and cause a due proceeding, or remove the matter from one company and sort of judges to another. And hereunto the best learned in former times agreed, clearly confessing that when something is necessary to be done, and the ordinary guides of the Church do fail, or are not able to yield that help that is needful, we may lawfully fly to others for redress and help.' ° 1 Episcop. not Prejiul. s. iii. 33. 2 Ibid. s. ii. p. 12. 3 Perpetual Government, p. 320; Cosin's Regni Anglise Religio Cathol. * Book iii. c. 25. » True Diflerence, p. 206. « Field, book v. p. CSl. And D' vines of tlie Secenteenth Centunj. 505 And so of the pnit which the Civil Power took in the Reform- ation of the Chui'ch of England : — ' It is true,' savs even Thorndike, ' it was an extraordinary act of secular power in Church matters to enforce the change witliout any con- sent from the greater part of tlie Church. But if the matter of the change he the restoring of laws, which our common Christianity as well as the ])riniitive orders of the Church (of both which Christian powers are born protectors) make requisite, the secular power acteth within the sphere of it, and the division is not imputable to them that make the change, but to them that refuse their concurrence to it.' ^ And the blessing- of such an interposition of the Civil Power in the work of our Reforination they fully recognised. ' Do you not now,' says Bishop Hall, ' in all this which hath been said, see a sensible difterence betwixt their condition and yours [the Scotch] ? Can you choose but observe the blessing of monarchical re- formation amongst us, bevond that popular and tumultuary reformation amongst our neighbours? Ours, a council; theirs, an uproar: ours, beginning from the head ; theirs, from the feet : ours, proceeding in a due order ; theirs, with confusion : ours, countenancing and encourag- ing the converted governors of the Church ; theirs, extremely overawed with adverse power, or totally overborne with foul sacrilege : in a word, ours, comfortably yielding what the true and happy conditionof a church required ; theirs, hand over head, taking what they could get for the pre- sent. And what now ? Shall we, instead of blessing God for our happi- ness, emulate the misery of those whom we do at once respect and pity ?' * And, to close this head : — ' A special evidence,' says Hammond, ' which most men have used, to conclude the papacy to be 6 Arrtxptoroc. the Antichrist, is this, that the Pope exalteth himself above all that is called God, i. e., the kings of the earth ; that he, in case the king be not a Catholic, absolves subjects from their allegiance to him, that he pretends power over them in spi- ritual things, and in temporal in ordine ad spiritualia.'^ IV. One very serious evil of a departure from these Catholic principles of loyalty to the Civil Power is the disjiosition which it fosters to depart likewise from the true Catholic constitution of the Church itself. If in any country the Church feels herself engaged in a struggle against the Civil Power, or jealous of its authority, she will be tempted to look around for foreign help, and thus will introduce that principle, destructive ultimately even of the faith of Christianity, the establishment of some visible permanent centre of unity, for the whole of Christendom. Per- manent, it is said ; because no one contests the necessity of having such a centre occasionally, when the Church is gathered together under its true head upon earth, a General Council. ' Epilogue (o tlie Tia.^edy of tlie Cli. of Eiig. p. 231. * Episcop. by Divine Riglit. Iiih-otl. s. 5. vol. x. p. 154, '' Of Resisting the liawfiil Magistrate, vol. i. p. CS. VOL. LXIX. NO. CXXXVIII. 2 L The 50G The Clnrrcli of England— Tho Almijrlitv lias set tlio bounds of the nations, and divided tlic earth, not to promote v.ars, hut to preserve peace. It is by a balance of counteractintj forces that equilibrium is maintained ; l)y the independence and separation of witnesses that testimony is jruaranteed ; by a chain of many fibres that durability is secured, while perpetual reparation is made easy; by the distinctness of the functions of government that tyranny is prevented ; by divid- ing the honey into cells that it is saved from corruption. And so it is with the great body politic of men, in the State as in the Church: unitv, indeed, must be preserved in both ; but unity reconcilable with a multiplicity of parts, and by that very mul- tiplicity to be preserved, ' one body with many members.' Love of our country, therefore, is as much a Christian virtue as love of our parents ; National Churches are as much an integral element in the constitution of the Catholic Church as provinces and kingdoms are in the great family of man. The Church, from the earliest times, by ' a rule ' which Thorndike calls ' as evident as the common Christianity is evident,' ^ has followed the divisions of the State, and moulded herself upon its sections ; and it is only when enthusiasm, or rationalism, or disloyalty, or want of faith, or some ambitious theory has crept in, that minds have been tempted to abandon this law of God, and to dream of rallying Christians round some universal local centre of unity, distinct from the government of their country ; in the place of their invisible Head in heaven ; and in addition to that visible centre, which is supplied by each bishop in his own diocese, and by the patriarch in the civil province or kingdom. Unity, indeed, an unity excluding diversity, is a tempting dream to a rationalizing mind ; and the vision of a spiritual empire resorting to one local centre, bowing down to one visible head, binding together the most distant countries to the footstool of one man, and by forms all emanating from him, and so crushing all anarchy and rebellion with the rod of a priestly power — this vision is to the humble as well as to the ambitious a temptation scarcely to be resisted. It constitutes, v.ith weak minds as with strong, the great charm of Popery. And though, as Barrow has so com- pletely shown," opposed to Scripture, to apostolical sanctions, to primitive antiquity, to the analogy of God's dealings, to true reason, to expediency, nay, to the very essence and object of the Church — though it has been found that in thus building all on one plank we hazard all — ' ecclesia universa corruit, si unus universus cadit '^ — and that by forcing too great an unity we only split the body into fragments, — there are not wanting persons in 1 Due Way, p. 240. Just Weights and Measures, 2iid edit. 16S0. 2 Treatises on the Supremacy and Unity. ^ Greg., lib. vi. ep. 21. all Divine,? nf the Seventeenth Cenliinj. 507 all ages who are led away by tlie seduction. But the Churcii of England has alwajs stood firm. The independence of national churches, as linked hand in hand with their sovereign — the free- dom of national life — is the very essence of the English Reform- ation. 'God,' says Stillingfleet, 'hath intrusted every national church with the car.e of her own safety.'' That 'they arc formed into a national church, and are for national churches, and detest sovereign independent communions,' is one of the chief apologies made by Hickes for the French Protestants."^ Arid, as he says elsewhere, ' It is good to know what kind of Christians and Churclies they were, wliom the brother of James so passionately exhorts to contend earnestly for the faith. They were free episcopal churches; neither churches without hishops, nor churches under bishops who were all subject to the authority of one ; but churches under bishops who were all sharers or colleagues of one common Episcopat, and whereof none, as St. Cyprian said of the African bishops, made himself a bishop of bishops, or forced his brethren, by tyrannical terror, to a necessity of obedience. Such an apostolical primitive Episcopat has the Church of England long enjoyed, by the blessing of God, and the favour of her princes.' ^ 'The Church of Rome,' says Thorndike, 'cannot hinder us of restoring ourselves to the primitive right of the church, by which a Christian kingdom duly may maintain the worship of God.' * A remarkable acknoAvledgment from one, who laid so much more stress than other divines upon the ' pre-eminence of the Chui'ch of Rome in the West,' as, in his view, ' the only reasonable means to preserve so great a body in unity.' So Bishop Hall makes ' all the particular National Churches, through the whole Christian w'orld, no other than sisters, daughters of the same father, God ; of the same mother, the spiritual Jerusalem, which is from above;' of which none may ' usurp a mistress-ship over the rest, or make herself a queen over them,' without being ' guilty of a high arrogance and presumption against Christ and his dear Spouse the Church.' ^ If the Reformation had asserted no other principle but this, it would be entitled for this alone to our deepest gratitude ; to be regarded as, under God, the saviour of our common Christianit}-. For Christianity is built upon the faith; and the faith upon the Bible ; and the Bible, whether in its authenticity or interpretation, comes to us on the testimony of the Church ; and this testimony is the historical testimony of independent branches, which cannot bo ' ^'indication of Laud, part ii. cb. iv. vol. iv. p. 362. ^ True Notion ol' Persecution, .Serm. iv. vol. i. p. 200. ^ Serm. xiii., vol. ii. p. 21o; Serni. iv. vol. i. p. 190. ■* .Just Weights, c. vii. p. 'V'"^. ^ Kesolutions for Religion, vol. vi. p. oOG. S'o Nicliolson, Apology, p. 108. 2 L 2 merged 508 The Church of Emjland— merged in one, as Popery has endeavoured to merge them, with- out absolutely destroying the foundation of truth, and \yith truth, of all things. Until this principle is heartily recognised, there \yill always be danger from Popery. It has been, to say the least, neglected of late ; and to this neglect, humanly speaking, will be mainly due Avhateyer mischief may arise within the bosom of the Church at the present day. •^Tlie Church's unity,' says Tertullian, quoted by Stillingfleet, consists in the ' adliering to that doctrine which was first preached by the Apostles, who, havhig first delivered it in Judaea, and planted churches there, went abroad and declared the same to other nations, and settled churches in cities, from whence other churches liave the same doctrine propa- gated to them, which are therefore called apostolical churches, as the offspring of those which were founded by them. Therefore so many and so great churches are all that one prime apostolical church from whence all others come. And thus they are all prime and apos- tolical in regard of their unity, as long as there is that communication of peace, title of brotherhood, and common mark of hospitality.' ' Communion upon earth, union in heaven, is the great prayer of a catholic mind. Whatever may be hereafter, at present the Church is ' one house with many chambers,' ^ ' one family of many sisters, one continent Avith many cities,'^ 'one episcopacy of many bishops.'^ ' Our ground,' says Bramhall, ' for unity of faith is our creed ; and for unity of government, the very same form of discipline which was used in the primitive church, and is derived from them to us.' ^ ' The communion of saints,' says Bilson, ' and near dependence of the godly each of other, and all of their head, standeth not of external rices, customs, and manners, as you would fashion out a church observing the pope's canons, and deserving his pardons as his devote and zealous children ; but in believing the same truth, tasting of the same grace, resting on the same hope, calling on the same God, rejoicing in the same spirit.' ' And that this unity was not preserved but destroyed by Popery is the unanimous agreement of all our greatest English divines : — ' I cannot choose but wonder,' says Bramhall, ' to see }-ou cite St. Cyprian against us in this case, who separated himself from you, as well as we, in the days of a much better bishop than we, and upon much Aveaker grounds than we, and pubHshed his dissent to the world in two African councils. He liked not the swelling title of Bishop of bishops, nor that one bishop should tyrannically terrify another into obedience; no more do we. He gave a primacy, or principality of order to the chair of 1 Works, vol. iv. p. 2S8. ' ^ Irenaeus. * Tlieodoret. * Cyprian. * Schism Guarded, tym. i. Disc, iv. p. 407. « True Dili', p. 223. St. Divines of the Sevenlecntli Coifitrj/. !;00 St. Peter, as Principium Uuitatis ; so do wc. But he believed that every bishop had an equal share of episcopal ])OAver ; so do we. lie provided apart, as he thought fit, in a provincial council for his own safety, and the safety of his flock; so did we. He writ to your great bishop as to his brother and colleague, and dared to reprehend him for receiving but a letter from such as had been censured by the African bishops. In St. Cyprian's sense you are the beam that have separated yourselves from the body of the sun ; you are the bough that is lopped from the tree ; you are the stream which is divided from the fountain ; it is you, principally you, that have divided the unity of the church.'^ And again, speaking of ' that presumptuous, and (if a pope's word may pass current) anti-christian, term of the Head of the Catholic Church:'' — ' If the pope be the head of the catholic church, then the catholic church is the pope's body, which would be but a harsh expression to Christian ears; then the catholic church should have no head when there is no pope ; two or three heads when there are two or three popes ; an unsound head when there is an heretical pope ; a broken head when the pope is censured or deposed ; and no head when the see is vacant. If the church must have one universal, visible, ecclesiastical head, a general council may best pretend to that title.' ^ This is a summary of the general declarations of the divines of England on that ' the prime and leading article of all popery, the pope's supremacy.'* For as such, like the Romish controver- sialists, they always regarded it : — ' Etenim de Cjua re agitur,' says Bellarmin, ' cum de primatu pontificis agitur ? Brevissime dicam, de summa rei Christianae. Id enim qua?ritur, debeatne ecclesia diutius consistere, an vero dissolvi et considere.''* And unless this point be strongly guarded, there can be no solid security against the seductions of Rome ; especially when the too common mode of warring by vague abuse is wisely abandoned, and minds are led to think of it as still a true church, however corrupted — as retaining much that is venerable — as the church, to which in former times we were indebted in some degree for our second conversion — and as professing, though only pro- fessing, those Catholic principles, which have been so sadly neglected by sects calling themselves Protestant. Where this line of thought has been encouraged — particularly if at the same time any slur, or disparagement, or doubt has been thrown upon the Church of Eng-land — it Avill be in vain to warn ardent and unthinking minds against Rome by suggesting its doctrmal errors. For the error must always be tested by an appeal to authority ; and as no private judgment, nor even a sister church, can pro- nounce authoritatively against another sister — as no general ' Answer to De la Militicre, \). 38. '^ Ibid., p. 26. ^ South, Tol. vi. Serm. i. * Prsefat. de Rom. Pont. council 510 The Church of Enyland — council lias condemned, nor under the system of popery could be summoned to condemn it — as Rome has carefully guarded her authoritative statements, so as to secure herself some plausible defence against attacks on her formal system, while she reaps the full benefit of the errors which she privately encourages in her popular teaching — as truth is intimately mixed with error in all she professes — and as both Scripture and the language of the Fathers, forged and interpolated as they have been with this object, may be artfully wrested to confound the distinction — a mind therefore imbued with true catholic principles, little versed in the controversy, and knowing nothing of poperij, may be easily led to pause ; and suspect, that the erroneous principles charged against Rome may not really be professed by her ; or, that they are exaggerated by enemies, and modified in practice ; or, lastly, even that they are truths, which the extravagances of sectarians, and our own imperfect acquaintance with antiquity, had kept from our sight. And with the yearning which now prevails for more visible unity in the Church, the first question which wdl be asked, previous to any examination of doctrine, will be that which the Romish controversialists so ostentatiously put for- ward—the question of schism. If we are in schism, then the first step must be to place ourselves within the bosom of the true church, as it is called, and to think afterwards of reforming her. And whether or not we are in schism, depends on this one question of the papal supremacy, and by this is it to be tried. If controversialists are weak here — if they have doubts and misgivings, from whatever source arising — and teach others to entertain them likewise — every advance which they make and encourage in Catholic principles must lead them nearer to Rome ; and every effort to hold their followers back when they reach the final barrier, must be powerless. They are teaching them to steer on a lee shore, and place no beacon on the rock to warn of danger. But not so our old divines, who knew that on the firm repu- diation of Rome, as a centre of unity, everything dej)cnded : — ' In omnibus nostri temporis controversiis,' says Bishop Andrews, ' primas tenent illae de ecclesia. In his de ecclesia, nihil magis quseritur quam de summo pontifice ; in h§,c de pontifice, nihil magis quam de potestate quam vindicat.' ' ' It will be to little purpose,' says Bishop Morton, ' for Protestants to dispute against Romanists from the judgment of ancient fathers, because in the end tliey make their own pope — " papam tanquam patrum patrem," that is, the father of fathers, preferring one before all ; or to oppose the authority of ancient councils ; for they reject the ancient councils, account- ' Andrews, Praefat. ad Respons. Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 511 ing them not legitimate so long as they were not allowed by the pope ; or yet to produce any evidence out of Scripture, for when all is said, the supreme judge of the exposition of Scriptures must be the pope.'^ And thus with the same great man the supremacy is ' the chief arch, and that Ave may so say, the highest pinnacle of their Rojnish temple,' ' the beginning and head of our controversies,' the ' pillar and foundation of the Romish church.' ^ ' There can be no peace possible,' says Bishop Hall, ' unless they Avill be content to be headless, or we can be content to be the slaves of Rome.' ■^ ' The difference between us,' says Clarendon, 'depends AvhoUy upon the personal authority of the pope within the king's dominions. . . .It was that, and that only, that first made the schism, and still continues it, and is the ground uf all the animosity of the English [Roman] Catho- lics against the Church of England. . . .This is the only argument I wish should be insisted on between us and our fellow-subjects of the Roman persuasion. . . . This is the hinge upon which all the other con- troversies depend. . . . This is the material argument.' ■* ' Upon that only point,' says Arciibishop Usher, ' the Romanists do hazard their whole cause, acknowledging the standing or falling of their church absolutely to depend thereupon.' ^ ' To this one,' says Dodwell, ' are reduced all the disputes be- tween us ;' and he adds a warning which cannot be too strongly urged : — - ' A fourth use,' he says ' of this hypothesis, is for the direction of peace- makers, to let them see what it is that renders our reconciliation impos- sible ; and which, if it be not first accommodated, must render all their endeavours in i)arlicular questions unsuccessful ; and therefore against which they ought more earnestly to strive by how much they are more zealous for catholic •peace. The way hitherto attempted has been to en- deavour to reconcile our particular differences. This has been either by clearing their respective churches from all those things for which they have not expressly declared, and of which express professions are not exacted from persons to be reconciled unto them : Or where the churches have declared themselves, there by allowing the greatest latitude of exposition, and putting the most favourable sense on their decrees of which they are capable. Thus Grotius has dealt with the Comicil of Trent, and S. Clara with our English Articles.' ^ And then he proceeds to show that, although such a way of pro- ceeding ' must needs be very acceptable to any who is more a lover of the catholic church's peace than of disputation,' yet ' it will fall very short of reconciling the different communions/ and that ' it ' Protestant Appeal, lilj. v. 28, p. 677. * Il)id., pp. 272, (!G.5, 670. ^ No Peace witli Koine, c. iii. s. il. vol. xi. p. 310. ■* Aiiirnadversious by a Person of Honour (Earl of Clarendon), pp. 10, 13. * Preface to Speecli on the Oath of Sujireniacy. ^ Two Short Discourses, Pref. s. 13, 19, 22. will 512 Th c Ch inch of Engia n d — A\ ill concern all hoartv wcll-wlslicrs to catliolic peace to lay out their zeal and industry principally to discredit this one doctrine (the papal supremacy). Avhich is so extremely pernicious to it.' To omit it indeed — to pass it by as a matter which common minds cannot understand, although there are none so intelligible to the meanest as the right of personal authority — to lead men to think it possible that any safe union can be effected with Rome, until she has retired from her present claims into her simple position as an ancient bishopric, honoured by the church of old with a degree of pre-eminence and precedency which the church might at any time withdraw — or to familiarise the minds of the young to thoughts and proposals of peace in a besieged city, while the enemy, instead of laying down their arms, are thundering at the walls — this is idle, and worse than idle. It encourages the assailants ; it paralyses the defenders ; it stirs sedition and defection within our own camp ; it cuts away the very ground under our feet ; it tempts the young to dreams which never can be realised ; it makes them willing to j^alliate, and even deny the sins and errors which seem to stand in the '\\ ay of reconciliation ; it leads them away from their own blessed Church to a foreign centre of their aflections and their duties ; and it gives scandal to weak brothers, who cannot draw the subtle line be- tween a primacy of order and a primacy of power, and who cannot understand why it should be needful to open a mere speculative question as to what the Church might do, if Rome were other than she is, while she shows not a symptom of change ; unless indeed some thought be cherished of accepting her authority as she is. No, let us indeed, with Laud, ^ ' ever wish and heartily pray for the unity of the whole Church of Christ, and the peace and reconciliation of torn and divided Christendom,' — reconciliation with the great churches of the East, which now seems opening to us — reconciliation of our own strayed flocks to the bosom of their Mother Church, which our daily increasing labours, under God's blessing, may obtain — such union with other Reformed Churches as may be effected by giving them that great privilege of episcopacy, which they so deeply need : ' such union, as may stand vith truth, and preserve all the foundations of religion entire.' But let us never wish (speaking once more with Laud) ' that England and Rome should meet together, but with forsaking of error and superstition ; especially" such as grate upon and fret the foundations of religion"' — as ' God forbid, but that, if this were done, we should labour for a reconciliation.' If this trere done; but not without. And if we doubt whether this be possible, we but agree wiih Laud and all our soundest divines. ' History of Troubles, p. 159. ' Princes,' Divines of the Seventeenth Century. 513 ' Princes,' says Jackson, speaking of the Romish doctrine of infalli- bility, ' may conclude a peace, for civil and free commerce of their people, though professing sundry religions; and they and their clergy might perhaps procure a mitigation of some other points, now much m controversy ; hut though all others might, yet this admits no terms of parley for any possible reconcilement. The natural separation of this island from those countries wherein this doctrine is professed, shall serve as an everlasting emblem of the inhabitants' divided hearts, at lt?st in this point of religion. And let them, O Lord, be cut off speedily from amongst us, and their posterity transported hence, never to enjoy again the least good thing this land affords : let no print of their memory be extant, so much as in a tree or stone within our coast ; or let their names, by such as remain here after them be never mentioned, or always to their endless shame, who, living here amongst us, will not imprint these or like wishes in their hearts, and daily mention them in their prayers. " Littora littoribus contraria, fluctibus undas Imprecor, arma armis, pugnent ipsique nepotesque.' " ' Our ancestors knew that the essence of the Papacy was the claim to dominion, and her spirit the lust of power — and that when this spirit was exorcised, if ever by a miracle from God it Avere accom- plished, she would be left so humbled, so stripped of authority, so penitent, yet so exposed to the fresh temptations of her past crimes, that it would be her wisdom and the wisdom of the Church that she should rather retire from the world, and sit apart in some post of shame, than once more be placed on the pinnacle of the temple of God, and be tempted again to throw herself down. Even of what the Church, and ' such as are by God intrusted with the flock to judge of this politic problem, i.e. princes, the nursing fathers of every Church,' ^ in their wisdom might decide in fixing the patriarchal authority, under such distant or even im- possible contingencies, they did not think it safe to speak ' except in the Syrian language — not in the Jews' language, in the ears of the people that are on the wall.' But of anything beyond a primacy of order and honour, they did speak most earnestly and constantly. Even the patriarchate character of Rome they only recognised as ' a human institution,' ^ as ' introduced by the canons or customs of the Church,' as * depending on the con- cessions of princes,' ■* and therefore mutable by the Church. Even this they declared that she had * lost by seeking to turn sjjiritual monarch.' ■' Even if she could retain it, ' Britain was never rightly a part of her patriarchate.' " Even as patriarch ' the Pope hath ' Vol. i. p. 317. * Hainmoiid on Schism, c. viii. vol. i. p. .305. ^ Bramliall, Vindication of Giofius, p. 630. * Hammond, Dispatchir Dispatclif, c. ii. s.ii., vol. ii. ]i. 101. * Bramliall, .lust Viiidic. of llie Church of England, Works, ji. 211. " Ibid.; Johnson's Clergyman's ^'ade Mecum, part ii. p. 84 ; Leslie, True State. not 514 The Clmrch ofEngland- i)()\ver to impose laws in his own patriarchate, nor power to ;)vate anything, without the consent of his bishops.'^ If any not innovi such title was supposed to be acquired upon the first planting of the Gospel here, vet, says Hammond, ' it is, and hath always been in the power of Christian Emperors and Princes within their dominions to erect patriarchates, or to translate them from one city to another.'- And, as Bishop Bull adds after the same assertion, — ' If it be objected, that our British Church afterwards submitted herself to the Bishop of Rome as her patriarch, which power he enjoyed for many ages, and that therefore our first reformers cannot be excused from schism, in casting off that power which by so long a prescription he was possessed of; we answer, we did indeed yield ourselves to the Roman usurpation, but it was because we could not help it : we were at first forced, awed, and affrighted into this submission. . . .When this force ceased, and we were left to our liberty and freedom of resuming our primitive rights, why might we not do it, as we saw occasion, without the imputation of schism ?'^ Rather, how could we be justified in not doing so, when the question was not one of men's device, but of re-establishing the divine constitution of the Church, on which the faith of the Church depends ? They went still further : — ' If a bishop acts as the Bishop of Rome has acted,' says Barrow, ' he by such behaviour ipso facto depriveth himself of authority and office ; he becometh thence no guide or pastor to any Christian ; there doth in such case rest no obligation to hear or obey him, but rather to decline him, to discast from him, to reject and disclaim him. This is the reason of the case — this the Holy Scripture doth prescribe — this is accordino; to the primitive doctrine, tradition, and practice of the Church.'"^ Even to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as permanent pre- sident of a general council is, according to Bishop Cosin, cri- minal — ' Porro summum concilii cujusvis praesidem alium quam Christum quaerere aut agnoscere nefas ducimus.' ' To think the communion of Christ's Church,' says Bishop Bilson, ' dependeth upon the Pope's person or regiment, is a most pernicious fancy.' ^ ' To make him chief pastor of our souls,' he says again, ' or to give him an episcopal or apostolical authority over the whole Church, though it be no treason, is yet a wicked and frantic heresy." As for a ' union of all the Churches of Christ through- * Bramhall, Vindication of Grotius, p. 630. ^ Of Schism, ch. vi. s. 9, vol. i. p. 355. 3 CoiTupt. of Church of Rome, sec. iii. vol. ii. p. 203. So Bishop Hall, Resolut. for Religion, vol. vi. p. 306. * See a very strong^ passage, Treatise on the Suprem., vol. i. p. 741, Sup. vii. 9. * Regni Aiigliae Religio, cap. iv. ^ True Difl'er., p. 223. 1 Ibid., Preface. out Divines of the Seventeenth Centurtj. 515 out the world, under one visible head, having a jurisdiction over thein all, and that head the Bishop of Rome for the time being — such an union as this,' says Bishop Bull, ' was never dreamed of amongst Christians for at least the first six hundred years.' ' And he adds a remark, of no little importance to those who indulge a dream of restoring an ecclesiastical supremacy apart from the political usurpations of Popery : — ' The universal pastorship and jurisdiction of the Roman bishops over all bishops and churches is now no longer a mere court opinion, maintained only by the Pope's parasites and flatterers, but is become a part of the faith of the church of Rome ; it being one of the articles of the Trent creed, to which all ecclesiastics are sworn themselves, and which, by the same oath, they are obliged to teach the laity under their care and charge. So that now there is no reason for that distinction, wherewith some have soothed and pleased themselves, between the Church and court of Rome ; for the court is entered into the Church of Rome, or rather the court and Church of Rome are all one.' "'' Lastly, to admit in the Pope anything beyond a precedency of order and honour, has been the cause of ' horrible confusion in the Christian Church, and almost the utter ruin and desolation of the same :' — ' For,' continues Field, ' after that this chUd of pride had in this Lucifer-like sort advanced himself above his brethren, he thrust his sickle into other mens harvests ; he encroached upon their bounds and limits; he pretended a right to confer all dignities, whether elective or presentative, to receive appeals of all sorts of men, out of all parts of the world ; nay, without appeal or complaint, immediately to take notice of all causes in the dioceses of all other bishops ; so overthrowing their jurisdiction, and seizing it in his own hands. He exempted presbyters from the jurisdiction of their bishops, bishops of their metropolitans, and metropolitans of their primates and patriarchs; and, leaving unto the rest nothing but a naked and empty title, took upon him to determine all doubts and questions of himself alone, as out of the infal- libility of his judgment ; to excommunicate, degrade, and depose; and again to absolve, reconcile, and restore ; and to hear and judge of all causes, as out of the fulness of his power. Neither did he there stay ; but having subjected unto him, as much as in him lay, all the members of Christ's body, and trampled underneath his feet the honour and dig- nity of all his brethren and colleagues, he went forward and challenged a right to dispose of all the kingdoms of the world, as being Lord of Lords and King of Kings. To this height he raised himself by in- numerable sleights and cunning devices, taking advantage of the ignorance, superstition, negligence, and base disposition which he found to be in many of the guides of the Church in those days, and by their help and concurrence prevailing against the rest that were of another spirit.'^ ' IJuU, Corrupt, of Church of Rome, sec. i., vol. ii. p. 2i3. ^ Ibid., s. ii. p. 318-9. » Field, book v., Epistle to the Ueadcr, p. 107. He 516 The Clnirch of Emjlaml— He prevailed, let it be remembered, by degrees, slcp by step, line tipon line,^ beirinninjj with a complimentar}" title and a con- ceded poAver of arbitration, passing: on from this to intrusive admonitions, and ending in a tyrannical usurpation ; till this ter- minated, as a natural development, in ' that allegiance which the Jesuits seek to establish unto the Romish Church,' and which Jackson — the sound-minded, deep-thinking Jackson^ — does not hesitate to pronounce, upon ' irrefragable demonstrations,' to be ' a solemn apostacy from Christ ; and the belief of it to be the very abstract of sorcery, the utmost degree of Antichristianism that can be expected;'^ — in which they make it, in their ow-n words, ' sacrilege, to dispute of his fact ; heresy, to doubt of his power ; paganism, to disobey him ; blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, to do or speak against his decrees and canons; and, that which is most horrible, presumption, not to go to the devil after him ■without any grudging. — Oh, shameful and. sinful subjection,' exclaims Bilson, ' such as Lucifer himself never offered the bond- slaves of hell !' '■" V. With this deep sense of the Christian duty of maintaining the independence of national churches, with this affectionate loyalty to their civil governors, and this firm conviction of the blessings of their own Mother Church of England, it is scarcely necessary to inquire what was the language of our divines on the English Reformation. As if they could not be too thankful for its bless- ings, or to its authors, under God, they scarcely ever mention it without some expression of admiration. It is with Jackson, that 'discreet and judicious,' 'that happy Reformation ;' * with Hall, 'that blessed Reformation;' with Sanderson, a Reformation 'with- out constraint or precipitancy, freely and advisedlv,' and ' brought to a happy end ;' ^ with Hooker, wonderfully marked ' by Divine grace and favour,' and ' God's miraculous workings.' ' What can we less conclude,' he says, ' than that the thing wliich lie 60 blesseth, defendeth, keepeth so strangely, cannot choose but be of him? "Wherefore, if any refuse to believe us disputing for the verity of religion established, let them believe God himself thus miraculously working for it, and wish life, even for ever and ever, nnto that glorious and sacred Instrument whereby he worketh.''' ' I earnestly exhort you,' ?ays Ken, ' to a uniform zeal for the Refor- mation, that as, blessed be God, you are happily reformed in your faith, and in your worship, you would become wholly reformed irr your lives.' ' ' For ail historical account of the degrees and practices by which the bishops of Rome attained their greatness, see Bishop Overalls Convoc. Book, b. iii. c. 2, &-c. * Preface to Book iii. " Bishop Bilson. See the?e assertions confirmed in Bishop Bilson's -wovk by quota- tions. True Difl'er., sec. v. p. 230 ; and Patrick's Devot. of the Romish Ch., p. 217. * Vol. iii. pp. 685, 691. » Preface to Sermons, vol. i.s. 15. « Book iv. s. 11. 7 Sermon on Passion Sunday, at Whiteliall. 'Its Dicines of the Seventeentli Centiinj. 517 ' Its characters or discriminative marks,' says Hammond, * are prin- cipally two — one, the conforming all our doctrines to the primitive anti- quity, receiving all genuine apostolical traditions for our rule both in matters of faith and government ; the other, in uniting that KciXrjy (Tvi'ojpica, fair, beautiful pair of Faith and Works, in the same degree of necessity and conditionality, both to our justification and salvation ; and to all the good works of justice and mercy whicli the Romanist speaks of, adjoining that other most eminent one of liumility ; attributing nothing to ourselves, when we have done all, but all to the glory of the mercy and grace of God, purchased for us by Christ.' ' And so of the Reformers themselves — ' those illustrious men,' says Bishop Andrews, 'never to be mentioned without the deep- est reverence, whose services God employed in the restoration of religion.'^ So Jackson: 'the sage and reverend reformers of our Church.'^ So Stillingfleet : ' such holy, learned, and excellent men, as our first reformers; men of so great integrity, such inde- fatigable industry, such profound judgment.'* So Hickes : ' the reformers were as eminent for virtue and learning as any of that age ; their judgment was and is approved by millions of Christians.' ^ So Bishop Morton: 'that goodly vine, which many Pauls, the industrious bishops and pastors, have planted by preaching-; and many Apollos', the faithful martyrs of Christ, have watered with their blood.'" So Sanderson : ' our godly fore- fathers, to whom (under God) we owe the purity of our religion.' ^ So Bishop Nicholson, of Cranmer : 'that glorious martyr of our Church.'^ So Brett, also of Cranmer: 'truly styled that great reformer and glorious martyr ' — ' that great man and glorious martyr, who was the first and chief instrument in our happy Reformation.'* So Bishop Bull, of Latimer: 'martyr constau- tissimus .... sanctissimus .... beatisslmus pater.' '" So Bishop Hall: 'the composers of it (the Liturgy), we still glory to say, were " holy martyrs and confessors of tlie blessed Reformation of religion ; " and if any rude hand have dared to cast a foul aspersion on any of them, he is none of the tribe I plead for ; I leave him to the reward of his own merits.' ^' So the LT^niversity of Oxford would not hear of a new Reformation, nor yield ' the cause which our godly bishops and martyrs, and all our learned divines, ever since the Reformation, have both by their writings and sufferings ' Hammond, Paraiiiesis, cli. ii. sec. 25, vol. i. p. 078. * lllustres illi viii, iiec uiiquam sine siimma honoris praefatione nonilnanili. Concio ad Cler. pro gradu Doct., Optiscula, p. 25. '•' Bookx.c. 39, vol. iii.p. 187. * Unreasonableness of Separat. vol. ii. p. 473. ^ Vol. i.of Conr. Lett. p. 219. '^ Defence of Ceremonies, Epistle. ^ Preface to Sermons, vol. i. s. 15. 8 Apology, p. 102. « On Cliurcli (loveni., pp. 100, 104. '" W orks, vol. iv. pp. 428, 457, 459. " Defence of Kemonstraucn, vol. x. p. 29S. maintained. ' 5 IS Th e Ch II rcli of Encjland— maintained.'' So Bancroft : "^ tliey v.ero most loarnod men, and manv of thorn godlv maitvrs, who were the chief penners and approvers of the Communion Hook in King; Edward's time.' ^ So Whitfjift, of the same first compilers: 'they were singular learned men, zealous in God's religion, blameless in life^, and martyrs at their end.' ^ And so Bishop Taylor : ' The zeal which Archbishop Grindal, Bishop Ridley, Dr. Taylor, and other, the holy martyrs and confessors in Queen Mary's time, expressed for this excellent liturgy, before and at the time of their death, defending it by their disputations, adorning it by their practice, and sealing it with their bloods, are arguments which ought to recommend it to all the sons of the Church of England for ever, infinitely to be valued beyond all the little whispers and murmurs of argument pretended against it.' * Not only in this, hut in many other points, is their language respecting the Reformation worthy of attention, and imitation by ourselves. In the first place they do not boast of it with any thoughtless exultation. It was a rent, or rather the occasion of a rent, in the cme undivided garment of Christ's church. It was a publication, and in some sort a condemnation, of the sins of a sister church. And in neither of these lights can it be viewed bv a truly Christian mind without sorrow. ' As our separation,' says Archbishop Bramhall, ' is from their errors, not from their churches ; so we do it with as much inward charity and moderation of our aflections as we can possibly ; willingly indeed in respect of their errors, and especially their tyrannical exactions and usurpations, but unwillingly and with reluctation in respect of their persons, and much more in respect of our common Saviour. As if we were to depart from our father's or our brother's house, or rather from some contagious sickness wherewith it was infected. Not forgetting to pray God daily to restore them to their former purity, that ihey and we may once again enjoy the comfort and contentment of one another's Christian society.'^ But with this prayer they coupled no regret that peace had been sacrificed to truth. ' Luther,' says Jackson, ' and all that followed him, did well, in pre- ferring a most just, most necessary^ and sacred war, before a most unjust and shamefully execrable peace ; a peace, no peace, but a band- ing in open rebellion against the supreme Lord of heaven and earth, and his sacred laws, given for the perpetual government of mankind throughout their generations."' They believed that the Reformation ' was a reformation, and not as our adversaries blasphemously traduce it, an heretical innova- ' Oxford Reasons, sec. 3. ^ Survey, p. 357. ^ Defence, pp. 710, 711. ^ Preface to Apology for Authorized Form, vol. vii. p. 291. Just Viiidicat., c. vi. p. lUO. * B. 2, c. xxvii. s. 3, vol. i. p. 315. tion.' Divines of ihe Sevenieenili Century. 519 tlon.' ^ They had studied history far deeper than we liave, and knew that that which was done ' was long^ before wished for, ex- pected, and foretold by the best men that lived in former times in the corrupt state of the Church.' ^ Was reformation not necessary ? ' No tongue,' says Field, using the words of Gerson, ' is . 529. '' Brambull, Answer to Dela Militieic, p. 2'J. So 530 The Church of Enrjland— So Andrewes : ' Ubi mutatum quid, id co factum, quod in ritu vestro discessum est a casto iutcgioque Dei cultu; et quod " ab initio non fuit sic." ' ' And liiviiiii' this j)raise to the Reformation, and believing', as our divines did, that the Church of England is ' the most excellently instructed with a body of true articles, and doctrines of holiness, with a discipline material and prudent, with a grovernment apos- tolical, with everything that could instruct or adorn a Christian church' * — what w'ould have induced them, were they laow living, to contemplate any change in her system, which would be felt or perceived to be a change, and not a natural development and practical application of principles already acknowledged ? What would they have thought to hear young men — full of earnestness and zeal indeed, but only just awakened by the teaching of others, and as yet unlearned themselves — as Whltgift describes the Puri- tans, ' so far from acknowledging this singular and unspeakable benefit [the purity of religion taught in the Church of England, and, not least, of its establishment by the State], proceeding frorn the mere mercy of God ; so far from being thankful for the same, from desiring the continuance of it with hearty prayers, — seeking rather to obscure it, and to deface it, because in certain acci- dental points they have not their fantasies and proper devices ?' ^ Surely anything Avhich encourages such a spirit ought to be carefully avoided ; all needless complaints ; all suggestions of possible changes under more favourable circumstances, which only irritate and discontent, however the intimation may be guarded; all disposition to regard the Church that bore us, cri- tically and curiously, hy a standard other than her own ; all de- spondency as to her prospects ; all censure of her own authorised character, as distinct from warnings to individuals. ' Dearly beloved,' says Jackson, 'let us, in the bowels of Christ Jesus, I beseech you, content ourselves with the Reformation already established by authority. It is no time to sally out against the adversary in suigle bands or scattered companies ; liut rather with the joint forces of our united affections, of prayers, and endeavours, either to batter the found- ation of their Churches' walls, or manfully to defend our own ; keeping ourselves witlxin the bounds whereuuto authority hath confined us.'* ' Never,' says Bramhall, speaking of Grotius's plan of reconciliation — ■ ' never were there any genuine sons of the Church of England who tiiought upon any change either in doctrine or discipline.' '" ' Surely,' says Hooker, ' I cannot find any great cause of just com- plaint tiiat good laws liave so much been wanting unto us, as we to them. ' Tortura Toiti, p. 309. ^ Bishop Taylor, Preface to Hie Doctrine of Repentance, vol. viii. p. 24t. 3 VVhitgift, Preface to the Defence of the Answer, fol. 1574. ■» Tom. iii. p. 094. s Vindication of Grotius, c. iii. p. 612. To Divines of the. Seventeenth Century. 531 To seek reformation of evil laws is a commendable endeavour ; but for us the more necessary is a speedy redress of ourselves. We have on all sides lost much of our first fervency towards God ; and therefore, con- cerning our own degenerated ways, we have reason to exhort with St. Gregory, oTrsp ijfxev ytrw^ieQa, let us return again unto that which we sometimes were; but touching the exchange of laws in practice with laws in device, which they say are better for the state of the Church, if they might take place, the farther we examine them, the greater cause we find to conclude, /itVojuev uwep eV/^ej', though we continue the same we are, the harm is not great.' ' VII. Secondly, the divines of the seventeenth century were placed by Providence, like ourselves, to contend against the principles of sectarianism and dissent, which cover themselves under the common name of Protestant. But this never made them either insensible to those seeds of good, of which, as in every case of error, those errors w^ere the rank and unchecked growth ; nor distrustful of the name of Protestants ; nor suspicious of the safety of their own ground, on which, in the deluge of evil which Popery had spread round them, so many creeping things and noxious animals had come to seek shelter by their side, with them, but not of them. They did not think to check puritanism by encouraging Popery. Rather they knew that both are^ under different forms, one and the same spirit of evil — here gathered into a tyranny — there let loose in a democracy ; and that they could not depart from the straight path of their own blessed Church, without involving themselves in a circle, in which, step by step, they would unconsciously return back to the very point from which they were flying. ' Redit labor actus in orbem, Atque in se sua per vestigia volvitur error.' ' He,' says Hooker, again and again, ' that will take away extreme heat, by setting the body in extremity of cold, shall undoubtedly remove the disease, but together with it the diseased too.' ^ ' And if/ as Jackson says, 'to oppose the Romish Church by way of contrariety, is but to seek the overthrow of a tyranny by the erec- tion of an anarchy,'^ to oppose puritanism on the same principle Avill only overthrow an anarchy to erect a tyranny. Though the Bible had been abused by the licentiousness of pri- vate interpretation, they never omitted the o])p()rtunity of magni- fying it, in its true inlerpretatiun, as ' the only infallible rule of faith ;' as ' containing all the ])rincii)les of faith and points of salvation,' as needing no associate, no addition of any authority as ec[ually infallible, nor more persjncuous than itself to supply what it wants.'* Though the service of the Church was threatened to ' Eocl. Pol., the Epistle Dedicat. « Hook iv. s. 8. ^ Jackson, vol. iii. p. 692. * Jiickioii, vol. i. p. 22G. y.\2 The (liifnh of EnglamJ — !)(• stripped of all docencv and order, they speak soberly and cau- tiously of ceremonies. Though Episcopacy was made a badge of Antichrist, thev do not reduce all religion to a matter of church discipline. Though the doctrine of faith had been per- verted to the wildest excesses, there is no mention in them of justification by works, or of works at all, without immediate antl solemn reference to the faith which alone can sanctify them, Tiiese points, and many others of their doctrinal teaching, might be advantaiTcously examined. For much of this caution and com- prehensiveness of view they were undoubtedly indebted to the proximity of Popery, and to their thorough acquaintance with its nature, and dread of its poison. Yet apparently they had more to fear from Puritanism than from Popery; and if we in this day might be reluctant to retain the name of Protestant, from the fear of being confounded with sectarians, much more might thev. Anj)ortion of ihezn reside at some, many at a considerable dis- tance 254 Rvbrics and Ritval tance from their churches. Four additional walks every day — mornins: and evening, — and in all the vicissitudes of weather! It may be said that they are even now, and of necessity, subjected to whatever inconvenience these walks may produce. Yes, for about sixty days in the year — but three hundred days addi- tional is quite a different thing. Nor would much allowance be made for delicate health — and under such a process the most robust health would run a risk of becoming delicate — for, on the hypothesis that the practice is successful in drawing congre- gations, when once established it could never be departed from. An occasional absence — even from sudden illness — would dis- satisfy and offend the disappointed congregation, but any pro- longed interruption of the services would be held to disqualify the invalid altogether. The clergy are already subject to much inconvenience in cases of illness, or other unavoidable hindrance, and often find it difficult to provide for the duty ; but what will it be when for about 120 chances of such an accident you substi- tute 730 ? The number of the clergy who are able to assist a sick or absent brother are even now barely sufficient to supply such accidental occasions. What is to be done when for the same number of clergy the accidental occasions shall be multi- plied sevenfold — aye, much more than sevenfold, from the accu- mulated severity of the duty both on mind and body ? We con- clude Avith the opinion — which we should for a great many rea- sons be glad to find erroneous — that the scheme of two full daily services — psalms, lessons, and all — in every parish church or chapel, throughout the year, is in our days and the present state of the Church — which can barely give food to her present number of ministers — nearly impracticable; and we cannot but fear that, even if partially successful in favourable localities, it would pro- bably occasion a further deviation from uniformity, and give rise to invidious comparisons between one minister and another, whose general zeal might be equal, though their health and strength, and pecuniary means of obtaining assistance, should not be. But of course none of these reasons apply to cathedrals — nor to other town churches in which there may happen to be a sufficient number of clergy to perform the duty, and in which there shall be found on experience a corresponding disposition in the people to supply a daily congregation. In all such cases the experiment should be pertinaciously tried. The Litany service in the fore- noon of Wednesdays and Fridays would, we are satisfied, be emi- nently successful. But of all the deviations from the Rubric, that which is the most observed upon — less perhaps for its own importance than for its consequences — is the omission in the performance of the ordinary of the Church of England. 255 ordinary communion service — (formerly known as ' Missa sicca^ or ' Dry mass,' but which we shall call, as we find, it in some editions of the Prayer-Book, the Sunday Altar service) — of the ' Offertory' and the prayer for the ' Church militant.' The Rubric is clear — * Upon the Sundays and other holy days (if there be no Communion) shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion until the end of the General Prayer (for the lohole state of Christ's Church miiilant here iipon earth), concluding with the blessing.' But it cannot be denied, that this Rubric has been for a long time and in most, if not all, parish churches generally neglected, and the usual custom is to conclude the service with the sermon and the blessing from the pulpit. Some worthy and well-mean- ing people, whom we do not confound with the Tractarians, and whom, not in disrespect, but for shortness' sake, we will call L lira- Rubricians, insist that the letter of the Rubric shall be fulfilled ; and their wish seems at first sight reasonable ; but when it comes to be acted upon, there arrives, in ordinary parish churches, where there is but one minister, a difficulty not con- templated and not resolved by the Rubric. The minister has left the communion table — he has retired to the vestry and changed his surplice for a gown — in which he has preached his sermon — and is then, instead of blessing and dismissing his con- gregation in the usual way, expected to return to the altar to perform these other offices; and for this it is necessary that he should again retire to the vestry, and change his gown for a surj)lice. This second shifting of vestments is so manifestly inconvenient — to use the softest term — that the Ultra- Rubricians, the declared enemies of innovation, are driven to another inno- vation to get rid of the difficulty they have raised; and their solution is that the minister need not change his gfarb at all — that he may preach in a surplice even better than in a gown, and may ascend from the altar to the pulpit, and again return from the pulpit to the altar, without passing through the vestry ; and this interpretation we regret to see that the Bishop of Lon- don has expressed a kind of dubious inclination to confirm — by advising or rather suggesting something that seems to us still less reasonable — viz., that his clergy shall preach in the morning in a surplice, and in the afternoon (the communion service not then intervening to perplex the vestiary arrangements) in a black gown — and thence a feud of white gowns and black gowns — thence diversity of practice — even, as we have said, at the two ends of London Bridge. Nothing, as it seems to us, can be less satisfactory, because less reasonable, than such a compromise : — black or white may be perhaps a matter of no great moment (though 256 Rubrics and Ritual (thoug:h we think it is) ; but surely black and white appears ridi- culous, and we are exceedingly glad that the Bishop of London has advanced it with symptoms of doubt and hesitation that authorise our examination of the question, and an expression of our opinion that the whole of this case has been in some points misinterpreted and misunderstood, and that a larger consideration of the hisio- rici/m as well as of the rationale of the case will save the Church of England from the schism of black gowns and white gowns ! It is easy to make a jumble and confusion, but not so easy to set it right again, and we must therefore beg the patient attention of our readers while we endeavour to develope this somewhat com- plicated question. The first and perhaps most important fact of the case is a very obvious one, but one which we have not seen noticed in any part of these discussions, that the Sunday altar-service ' when there is no communion ' — of which the Offertory and the Prayer for the Church militant are rubrically portions — is not by any Rubric enjoined, and was not in fact designed, to form any part of the Morning Service to which it has been in modern times appended. There were four services established in the Reformed Church — Morning and Evening service, in theory at least, every day — on Wednesdays and Fridays the Litany — on ordinary Sundays and holy days an Altar-service — and on Communion days the full Communion-service. The distribution and hours of these services were, as far as we know, as follows : — the morning and evening service, called in King Edward's first book. Matins and Even Song, were the first and last works of the day ; on Wednesdays and Fridays the Litany was said at any time after matins, and on Sundays at any time before the noon or Altar-service ; then, on Sundays and Holy days came — after the Litany, and generally but not, by Rubric, necessarily at the same time — the Com- munion ; but when the actual celebration of the Lord's Supper was not intended, this Communion became what we have called the Altar-service, and ended with the Prayer for the Church militant and the Benediction. Now it is remarkable that each of these services, Avhich were originally distinct, has within itself the elements of a complete Liturgy — and the Liturgical Reformers of ten years ago, who cen- sured our ordinary liturgical service as tautologous, and the ultra- Rubricians of the present day, who insist on a simultaneous ob- servance of Rubrics originally intended lor three distinct services, are equally unreasonable. It is only when the services come to be performed all at one time that their objections have any plausibility. There is no Rubric, and no other reason than the personal convenience of the minister and the congregation, why Matins, of the Church of England. 257 Matins, and the Litany, and the Altar-service — each of which is both in matter and form perfectly distinct — should be of the Sunday mornings joined altogether and executed in immediate suc- cession ; the authors of the Rubric meant — the Rubrics at least indicate that meaning — that they should occur at intervals.* In many cases the practice of intervals has survived, particu- larly in colleges and cathedrals, where the primitive custom was most likely to be preserved ; we could, but need not, quote par- ticular instances. But very wisely, we think, has it been generally arranged to unite, on Sundays and Holy-days, the three earlier services in one. We will not enter into all the reasons that may be assigned for this union of services. We are satisfied that, par- ticularly on the Sundays, and in common parish churches, it is highly beneficial,! and that it would be seriously injurious to the religious interests of the people if any ultra- Rubrician should insist — as he might, with as much reason as can be alleged for him in some other particulars — on performing all these services dis- tinctly and separately. Yet the union of the services, though on the whole beneficial, is not without some drawbacks. There is never, says Johnson, a junction which does not leave a seam more or less unsightly. The most remarkable in this case is the tau- tology — the reiteration of prayers for the same object. For in- stance (and which marks very strongly the original dhtivctness of each formula), the Sovereign is prayed for at least four, and might be five, different times, whenever the united service is performed : first in the Morning Prayer — then in the Litany — then in the Collect of the Communion service — then in the Prayer for the Church militant — and, finally, a fifth time, if the Canon were to be strictly complied with, in the Bidding Prayer from the pulpit; and the Lord's Prayer might be repeated seven or eight times. This prayer cannot, we feel, be said too often ; it can never weary nor cloy ; and it occurs nowhere (except perhaps in the pulpit prayers) where it is not perfectly in tone with the context. We only notice the fact as showing that we have made a union of services, which, however advantageous in other respects, retains * There is indeed a notice at tlie end of the third Collect (inserted in IfiGl), by which it miglitbe vmderstood that the Litany must form apart of the Morning Service on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; hut tliougli the Litany must be used on those days, and, if used tvith tlie Morning service, must come in after the third Collect, we do not see that the junction of the services is imperative, and we ourselves have heard them disjoined and separately performed by very accurate Rubricians ; but there has been a great variety of i)ractice in all these matters. The early liijintctions connected the Litany and the Communion ; but w('r(! not repeated. Arclibishop Grindall, in L'')71, directed that in York there should he no pause between Morning Service, Litany, and Communion (Strype's Life, p. 168); but how far this extended, or how long it lasted, we know not. f See Quarterly Review on Liturgical Ileform, v. 1. p. 529. VOL. Lxxii. NO. cxLiii. s somc 258 Rubrics and Ritual some traces of tlieir original separation ; and of this tlie Church Militant Prayer is another example. That prayer is, as we may call it, the Litany of the Communion- service : and if the altar-service were (as it seems to have been originally intended) performed as a separate service, would be in- dispensable ; but when the services are united, it is anticipated in every point, except one.* by the preceding services ; and the framers of the Rubric which seems to direct its use, * when there is no communion,' could hardly have intended that it should be used in the same sernce and by the same congregation that had, half an hour before, made the same requests in the general Litany. We admit, of course, that if the Rubric were really as clear as it appears to be, this would be no reason for omitting that prayer any more than one of the prayers for the Sovereign, or one of the repetitions of the Lord's Prayer — it might be a good reason for reconsidering the Rubric, but not for departing from it without authority. But we do not think that the Rubrics (for there are more than one), taken altogether, are by any means decisive. The general Rubric at the end of the office is positive, that, when there is no communion, the Church militant prayer shall still be read ; but there is a special Rubric in its proper place in the service which seems to imply the contrary: — ' Then [aftei- the serni07i] shall the priest return to the Lord's table ; .... and, when there is a communion^ the priest shall place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient. ' After which done, the priest shall say, — *' Let us pray for the whole estate of Christ's Church militant here upon earth." It seems, then, that after the priest has arranged the bread and wine for the communion, he is to say the Church militant prayer — is not that very like saying, that when there is not to be a com- munion, this prayer is not to be said ? Here then are two Rubrics at variance at least, if not contradictory ; and the clergy, in their doubt and choice of difficulties, decided, we think wisely, to adopt the interpretation which best accorded with the rationale of the ser'vice, and was most convenient and seemly in practice. The return therefore to the vestry to change the gown, and to the Lord's table to repeat the Church militant prayer, became generally dis- used, and was so at least as early as the beginning of the last cen- * ' We bless thy holy name for all thy servants departed this life in thy faith and fear.'' — And even this is anticipated in the Bidding piayer whenever it is used. We have not time to enter fully into an explanation of our view of this paragraph, which, however, we believe to be a main object with the Tractarians in stickling for the con- stant use of the prayer. We have already stated that we would not enter into doctrinal discussions, as they would inevitably lead us away from the practical objects of our present inquiry. tury ; of the Church of England. 259" tury ; for in the old pamphlet of 1709, already quoted, we find a complaint, that ' the prayer for the Chm'ch militant was [even then] ivholly omitted, and that the minister concluded in the pulpit.' (p. 9.) So there seems to have been at least a century and a half of disuse. Bishop Beveridge attempts a solution of the discrepancy between the two Rubrics, by supposing that the Church intended that the 2)Teparatio7i ior an actual communion should be always made, and that the minister should proceed to the end of the Church militant prayer with the intention of going through the whole office, if any should offer to communicate with him ; but that if he should not have a sufficient number of com- municants, he must then of necessity stop short at the Church militant prayer. {Beveridge, uhi supra, part ii. p. 44.) This construction, we think, is contradicted by several Rubrics, In- junctions, and Canons ; and^ in a word, the best, indeed the only solution of the difficulty that we can discover, is the general prac- tice of omitting the Church militant prayer, and, when there is no communion, concluding in the pulpit. There are two im- portant corroborations of the correctness of this course which we must here notice. The one is, that in King Edward's first book it was provided that the Litany should precede the altar-service on Wednesdays and Fridays, and tlien the altar-service stopped short of the Church militant prayer. In King Edward's second and all subsequent books, where the Litany may be disjoined from the altar-service, this service includes the Church militant prayer. The inference from both these facts seems clear — that it was most probably not intended that the Litany and the Church militant prayer should be said in the same service, unless there was a communion. The other corroboration of the oixlinary practice is the Liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America. We have before mentioned, with respectful approba- tion, the care and judgment with which that Liturgy was arranged — reverentially following that of the Church of England — except in some very few particulars, where not unreasonable objections had been already made even amongst ourselves ; or where there seemed to be a needless repetition; or where the Rubrics ap- peared discrepant or obscure. The compilers of that Liturgy — untrammelled by authority, yet guided by experience — adopted the view that has been generally taken in England on this point ; their Rubric — episcopally sanctioned — directs the altar-service to conclude at the sermon — and assigns the Offertory and Church militant prayer to the full Communion-service.* * This practice has become so general in England that some private editions of the Prayer-book separate the fdlar-aervice (under tliat denomination) from the Commu- nion-service, assigning tiie Church militant prayer to the latter. s 2 With 260 Rubrics and Ritual With regard to the Offertory we have a different feeling'. It does not stand in the same circumstances as the Church militant prayer, not being excluded by the local Rubric, though it has shared its fate. It cannot be objected to, as the prayer is, as being a repetition of former parts of the service ; but it has been suggested (Bishop of JVorcesfers Charge, p. 12, and Scohell, p. 9) thai there may have been a special motive for the disuse of this invitation to ahnsgiving — namely, the introduction of a legal and permanent relief for the poor, which did not exist for many years after the first setting forth the Office, This alone would have no great weight with us ; but it may be worth observing, that while the practice of making collections for the poor became very rare in England, it was, we are informed, constantly maintained in Ire- land, where no permanent relief was provided. But let us now see how this part of the service is managed where it has been revived. The clergyman descends from his pulpit — returns to the Lord's table — reads pro forma one or two of the Offertory sentences ; no plate being sent round, nor any collection made (except on the occasions on which it has been always made). Now we confess that, in spite of, or rather because of our respect for Rubrics, we should prefer the decent omission of the rite to such a formal mockery of it. We suppose that the Offertory has become disused partly because it was found that on ordinary days no collection was made, and partly because it seemed not worth while to resume the surplice and return to the altar for the purpose of reading a few sentences that were to produce no practical effect. It therefore, as we have said, shared the fate of the Church militant prayer, or indeed fared rather worse, for we have known it omitted when the prayer has been read. But for our own parts, if we may venture to offer an opinion — which on anything involving a change of practice we do with reluctance and diffidence — feeling that almsgiving is so whole- some and comfortable an indulgence of the impulses which the Church service must excite in a pious heart ; and knowing that, notwithstanding the poor-law, and even sometimes because of the poor-law, there are so many cases in which a small charitable fund in the bands of a parochial minister may do incalculable good — we should rejoice to see the Offertory Rubric really and effec- tually adhered to on all occasions; but with allowance to the minister to perform it before or after the sermon, at his discretion. He would probably do it ordinarily before he quitted the com- munion-table for the pulpit ; but, on communion-days, in its present place — or, after charity-sermons, or on other special occa- sions, after the sermon, from the pulpit ; — nor would this be un- precedented, for in Knig Edward's injunctions/ and Queen Elizabeth's, of the Church of England. 2G1 Elizabeth's, almost all of what we call the altar-service was ordered to be read from the jndpit. Having shown that the interpretation of the Rubric which led to the new practice of preaching in a surplice is not quite so free from doubt as was at first assumed, we shall look to the reasons for and against that practice considered on its own merits. Indeed we should rather say that for the introduction of the prac- tice no merit is pleaded, but the mere convenience of relieving the minister from an additional visit to the vestry — on which it might be enough to remark that those who think proper to return to the Lord's table contrary to the general custom, cannot with much reason complain of the slight inconvenience attendant on their own formality. May we not venture to deplore that — because a few clergymen have thought proper to interpret the Rubric about the Church militant prayer in a way different from the usage of at least a cen- tury and a half, and then dislike the consequent trouble of changing their gown — the Church of England is to be involved in obsolete, yet, when revived, thorny and angry controversies as to the old rivalry between that * rag of Popery,' the white surplice, and that ' badge of Calvinism, the Genevese gown .'" Surely it is not safe nor decent to leave undetermined a matter of which, even if it were a trifle, we might truly say, — hcc nugce seria ducunt in mala. But it is in truth no trifle ; and though we do not see in it a struggle between Arminianism and Calvinism, we do see a question between common sense and the vagaries of hypercritics — which ought to 1)6 set at rest — by argument, we hope — but, if not, by authority. And the argument appears to us so short, so clear, so irresistible, that it looks as if the mere stating of it must be sutficient. We shall not follow several of those who have taken a part in this controversy in looking back for the origin of surplices and gowns — there is a deal of learning collected on the subject, but it seems of little use to our present purpose ; we need not go beyond the l)road fact, that ever since the Church of England has been a Reformed Church, there is every reason to believe her ministers have performed her sacred offices in a surplice, and her preachers have (with exceptions that only prove the general rule) preached in black gowns. The first cause of this distinction has been looked for in the fact, that in the early times of our Church, while the disruption of the great change was yet felt in all directions, the preachers were frequently not the parochial mi- nisters,* nor the ministers preachers, and that the surplice was the * It lias been doubted whether preachers were necessarily in holy orders. We think they were; though the frequent mention of their being licensed (nn, however, they still 262 Rubrics and Ritual the proper habit of the ministers, and the gown the ordinary dress of the ]>roachers, as indeed of all classes of scholars whatsoever. All this is true, but the real cause lies a little deeper : — the ministerinp: the divine offices is of a sacred character, and the per- formance thereof is reverentially marked by a peculiar vestment, while preaching is a mere personal act of the individual, from which the peculiar sanction of the garb appropriated to divine offices was carefully and reasonably withheld — that there should be a visible distinction between the worship of God and the teaching of man ! Mr. Scobell's is, as far as we know, the only one of the publications to which this controversy has given rise, which even alludes to this plain and, we think, incontrovertible view of the matter. After stating the history of surplices and gowns, and the notes or Rubrics of King Edward's first book, confirmed and explained by the Canons — by which it clearly ap- pears that ministers performing divine service were to wear sur- plices, and preachers not — he condenses the pith of the case into these words, — ' The main intention both of the law then, and of the canonical order now, is distinctly this'. — that the sacerdotal, liturgical, sacramental dress of the priests and ministers of the Church in all the public solemni- ties of prayer, and her devotional agencies in holy things, is to be the surplice ; and that she shall be invariably represented by them in every such specified ritual ministration of her liturgy in that g'arb, and no other. But preaching is not once included in the specification, and this of itself is decisive of the question. The surplice never was worn by the preacher in the second year of Edward the Sixth. For preaching is a distinct, and in its use a contingent ordinance : preaching is neither litur- gical nor sacramental, nor, with us, even actually sacerdotal.' — p. 37. He then shows that the minister does not put on a gown for the purpose of preaching — he is supposed to be already in his cassock and gown, which was, and continued down to the middle of the last century (as even Fielding and Hogarth remind us), the ordinary clerical dress. So that the question never was between gown and surplice, but the minister when performing divine ser- vice put on the surplice, as the name implies, over his gown. Those who look into Johnson's Dictionary for the meaning of the word ' surplice,' will find that Shakspeare (whom nothing escapes) designates the distinctive use of the surplice and gown: — The Clown, in ' All "s Well that Ends Well,' when forced to do some- thing which he dislikes, consoles himself by saying, that he ' will wear the surplice of humility over the black gown of a big heart.' still must be), without any positive provision, that we remember, that they must be in holy orders, may seem to afford some colour to the opposite opinion ; but we need not enter into that subject — for our assertion in the text is beyond dispute, that they were very frequently not parochial ministers, but hired to preach for the occasion. — See Canons, from 46 to 57. Mr. of the Church of England. 263 Mr. Scobell concludes : — ' And the law ordains this distinction warily ; with a special design and good reasons. As a ministering priest, a clergyman is the repre- sentative and voice of the Church, speaking in her own words, and in the use of the Liturgy delivering her written, deliberate, unalterable doctrines; and therefore she clothes him, not only with a power, but with a specific dress for that solemn purpose. . . . ' But in the regular sermon, and as a regular preacher, high and holy as his employment may be, and sincerely as the Church hopes for the best, still the preacher is no longer her sacerdotal organ ; no longer, as her voice, is he giving forth her Liturgy, or speaking that sure and " godly and wholesome doctrine '' for which the Church holds herself alone responsible ; but he stands expounding the Law of Christ, in the exercise of his own private judgment, conscientiously we trust, and by the Church's permission, but, at the same time, entirely in his personal and individual capacity, with his own " glosses and additions," at his own hazard as to doctrine, liable to error, and sometimes in actual error : — and on these accounts it is, that the Church purposely disrobes him, in his new function, (by giving him no licence to appear in them,) of those ornaments with which, in her reading-desk, and at her com- munion-table, she had invested him by authority, and suffers him to speak his own private thoughts in his own private dress;* and thus it is that the preacher (if the office be united), when in the pulpit he ceases to be a priest, puts on no new dress for the purpose, but simply takes off the surplice, and remains in his original gown.' — pp. 41, 42. To this explanation we can imagine no possible objection or answer but that arising from the fact that in cathedrals and col- leges the preachers do wear surplices. This, though it seems to puzzle Mr. Scobell, and induces him to question the practice even in cathedrals, is really the exception Avhich proves the rule, and is the strongest corroboration of his theory. For in cathedrals and colleges the surplice is the official dress of all — laics as well as clerics — at comrnunion-service ; and at that time the surplice is as much the ordinary dress as the gown was and is under ordinary circumstances. In college chapels, f as far as our experience goes, * The word private bardly conveys Mr. Scobell's meaning to those who do not bear in mind that not long since every clergyman wore a gown as his ordinary dress. ■\ There are, we believe, some diflerences of practice in different Universities, and even in dilVerent Colleges of the same University ; tiie general principle, however, is as we have stated it ; but it really seems doubtfnl whether, in early times, the jealousy of the surplice in the pulpit did not extend even to both colleges and cathedrals. ' Quite illustrative of this (and in exact accordance with the Rubric of Edward VI., wliere preaching graduates, who were not allowed to wear their hoods with their sur- ])lice, are desired all to have them on in preaching, fully implying on their parts a change of dress), we read in the Advertisements of Klizabeth, a.d. 1504 — which clearly are not without authority, being ex])ress]y recognized as such in the twenty-fourtli Canon — the following order: " That the dean and prebendaries weare a surplice with a silk hood in the quire; and when they preache, to weare their hood." Tliat is, their hood 264 Rubrics and Ritual goes, on ordinary occasions, all attend in go>\'ns except tlie reader, Avbo wears bis surplice ; and when, as sometimes happens on week days, there is a lecture, the lectvu-er preaches in his black goivn ; but on Sundays and holy days, as we have said, all — we mean all those on the foundation of the house — are bound to wear sur- plices; and, therefore, the preacher's wearing a surplice on these occasions is no exception, but, on the contrary, a carrying out of the general rule. He wears his own personal dress. That the preacher, even when a minister, should not wear the minister's robe is clearly proved by the Liber qiiorundam Cano- ■luim, 1571, article Concionofores : — *' Inter concionandum utentur veste quam maxime modestS. et gravi, quae deceat atque ornet ministrum Dei, qualisque in Libello Admonitionum descripta est.' This LiheUus Adynonitioniim is clearly the Book of Advertisements, 1564, and by which the minister's vestment would be a surplice, while the preacher's, like that of all other ecclesiastical persons not actually employed ' in saying pidjlic jjvayers or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the church,' would be a gown.* Thus, then, it appears to us that the black and white goicn controversy is, or ought to be, at an end ; and that it is as clear as any rubrical question that ever was mooted, that the use of the surplice in the pulpit (except in colleges and cathedrals) is wholly unsanctioned and, as we think, forbidden Ijy ecclesiastical autho- rity, and is an innovation on the practice of the Church, and contrary to the true reason and distinction on which the varieties of clerical dress were instituted. If, therefore, ministers think it their duty to return, on ordinary occasions, to the altar after the seimon, they must needs take the slight trouble of resuming the surplice; for there seems little reason to doubt that to preach in the surplice is as uncanonical and unreasonable as it is unusual. The Rubric we have been discussing offers another difficulty — not nrno indeed first made, though now, we believe, first prac- tically dealt with. It is ordered, as we have seen, that between the Offertory and Church militant prayer, — ' % AVhen there is a communion the jiriest shall then place upon the table so much bread and wine as he shall think sufficient.' Upon which Wheatly exclaims, with more warmth, and, we think, less judgment than he usually shows, — hood alone; which, whatever else is taken off, must not be removed : intending, evi- dently, if the latter clause has any meaning-, tlie retention of tlie hood when the surplice is gone — the legitimate academical appendage to the remaining academical gown." — Scobell, pp. 44, 4.5. * It may be worth remarking, that in the Roman Catholic Cliurch a like prin- ciple prevails : when the same priest jierforms the service and preaches, he takes otV, before he ascends tlie ])u]pit, the peculiar vestment (chasuble or cope) in which he per- forms the ri/es, and assumes it again when he returns to the altar. ' From of the Church of England. 265 ' From whence it appears that the placing of the elements upon the Jjord's table, before the beginning of the Morning Prayer, by the hands of a clerk or sexton (as is nov/ the general practice), is a profane and shameful breach of the said Rubric j and consequently that it is the duty of every minister to prevent it for the future, and reverently to place the bread and wine himself upon the table, immediately after he has placed on the alms.' — Wheatly on the Common Prayer, sec. x. § iii. Wheatly wrote this above one hundred years ago; but notwith- standing his warmth, and his authority, which is highly respectable, the old practice has continued. We venture to think, with good reasons : the Clergy no doubt observed, first, the difficulty before noticed — that this placing of the bread and wine is always to be done immediately before the Church militant prayer — but the Church militant prayer is to be said sometimes when there is no Communion, — therefore the elements are to be placed on the holy table when there is no Communion. This, with all submission to Bishop Beveridge (see ante, p. 259), seems to us a perfect reductlo ad ahsurdiim, and are we to wonder that the Clergy did not adopt a manifest absurdity? But suppose that difficulty sur- mounted, and that they were to proceed to a literal execution of the Rubric — they find that it does not say where the bread and wine are to be previously deposited, nor how the priest is to get at them to place them on the table ; that, moreover, however they may be placed on the table, they must be brought into the priest's reach by a clerk or sexton, and must arrive at the church by even still less orderly hands; and it was conceived, not unjustly, we think, that the having the elements on the table, covered from sight with a fair linen cloth, was the most reverential mode of bringing them within the reach of the minister, and that the uncovering and bringing them forward at the proper time was a more decent fulfilment of the Rubric than could be otherwise attained. The innovators, however, profess to adhere to the Rubric ; and in their adherence the first thing they do is to fall into two very different and dis- cordant processes. In some of their churches, as we are informed, the elements are placed in the vestry, and the minister, after the Offertory, proceeds to the vestry, and brings them forth and places them on the altar. This is easy enough to write or read, but look at it jiractically. The vestry may be, and generally is, at some distance from the table, which, therefore, the minister must quit, and proceed to the vestry, and make as many trips backwards and forwards as may be necessary to enable him to carry, not only the elements themselves, but the ' c:ups, chalices, and flagons,' and ' the corporas, or the paten, or other comely thing ' in which they are to be placed. We need do no more than hint at the many unseemly accidents to which this process would 266 Jhihrics and Ritual would be liable, and to express our decided opinion that the pre- sent usa2:e is far preferable, and quite as Rubrical ; for the Rubric savs nothing: of this parading up and down the church, but indeed seems tacitly* to forbid the minister's leaving the table when he has returned to it after the sermon. But the other inode, and that adopted, as we hear, by the high Tractarians, is the placing a relique of Poperyf almost forgotten amongst us, called a credence- table — that is, a side-table, within the rails close to the Com- munion-table, on which the elements are placed (but still we sup- pose by the clerk or sexton) before the service. They may then be, we will suppose, conveniently and decently reached by the priest, and by him offered reverently at the table. But then, ob- ser^ng that all this new ceremony is introduced for a more exact compliance with the Rubric, we are entitled to ask what Rubrical authority there is for this side-table ? There is none ; and when vou come to be exact in such a case, silence is prohibition. We will not enter into the doctrinal question of how far the laying the elements on the table is an oblation ; but we will observe on this point, that the alms of the congregation are their alms before the minister sets the basin that contains them on the table ; and if the bread and wine be an oblation, they are neither more nor less an oblation when they are presented for sacramental pur- poses on the credence-table, than when they were placed under a napkin on the communion-table. But again: — In what shape are the elements to be presented on the credence-table : is the wine to be in a bottle, and the bread in a loaf?;]; Is the minister, coram popido, to decant the wine into the holy vessels, and to cut the bread into such portions as may be convenient for the ulterior proceedings at the holy table ; or must that be still done by the profane hands of the clerk or sexton ? These and many such questions we have a right to put to men who disturb an ancient and established order on the plea of a strict interpretation of the Rubric. The reader sees that all these additional ceremonies have the same Popish taint as the others we have commented on, and are intended to give to the elements something of anticipated sanctity, and confer on the table the character of a sacrificial altar. These designs, we admit, * The old canons expressly forbid any kind of ' procession about the church ;' and certainly this proceeding would have very much the air of the Corpus Christi pro- cession. f Any one who will take the trouble of reading the formula of an episcopal mass in the Romish Church, will see to what sy^mbolical and superstitious mummeries the credence is subservient. On this, as indeed on many other subjects, we agree with a learned and judicious essay on the ' Principles of Church Arrangement,' lately pub- lished, and on which we shall hereafter say more. \ In old times the parishioners, in turn, were bound to present the ^ holi/ loaf (EeverJdge, ubi supra, p. 40) : which seems to have been done at the Oflertory. are of the Church of England. '267 are very clumsily worked out ; but, considering the whole series of circumstances, can we doubt that they are meant to dis- play a superstitious reverence of the elements which the Church of England has never sanctioned? The result of all is, that no form of words — no law, ecclesiastical or civil — can be so framed as to prevent question and doubt ; and, therefore, the common sense of mankind seeks for and acquiesces in the interpretation of usage and precedent;* and we are decidedly of opinion that the usage and precedent which have, time out of mind, prevailed in this matter, are more convenient, more decent, more reverent, and not further from the letter of the Rubric, than either of the recent practices of using the vestry as a pantry, or the setting out the elements of the Lord's Supper on a side-board. f Another practice, of more importance, which had nearly fallen into desuetude, has been recently revived, in stricter compliance with the Rubrics — we mean the performance of the rite of Baptism in the course of the ordinary service, and before the whole congregation. Great stress has been laid on this point by those who practise it, for the reasons alleged in the Rubric itself: — ' The people are to be admonished, that it is most convenient that baptism should not be administered but upon Sundavs and other holy days, when the most number of people come together ; as for that the congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that be newly baptized into the number of Christ's Church ; as also because in the baptism of infants every man present may be put in remem- brance of his own profession made to God in his baptism.' This portion of the Rubric has existed ever since the first book of King Edward; but, until the last revision in 1662, it was pre- ceded by these words : — ' It appeareth by ancient writers that the sacrament of baptism in the old time was not commonly ministered but at two Limes in the year — at Easter and Whitsuntide — at which times it was openly ministered in the presence of all the congregation : which custom now being grown out ofvse (although it cannot, for many considerations, he well restored again), it is thought good to follow the same as near as conveniently may be. Wherefore the people are to be admonished,' &c. [as above].' * The only real departure we have ever seen from what we think a fair execution of the Sacramental Rubric is one that these hypercritics liave not, that we know of, hit on, namely — the rultuig up all the bread into dies, so that tlie breaking tiie l)read is a mere formality opi'rated on one little piece. It seems to us that it would be better if the bread were to (k' cut no^ into dies, but into narrow slices, from which the minister could conveniently break olf a small [liece for eacli communicant. We presume to suggest ti)is, because, in this particular, tlie words of tlie Rubric are tiie sacramental words of tt)e (lospe.l — '■took bread and hkakk it.' \ Literally a sideboard or cupboard — ' Tabula seu mensa in qua vasa ad conviuia repommtur, vel etiam meiimla quee vasa altar is conlinet.' — Da Cange. ' Crtdence,' says Menage, ' sig/iifie un buffet.'' This 268 Rubrics and Ritual This preface to the rite, which is to be found in the Prayer- Books of Edward VI., Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I., was omitted at the Restoration — we suppose, as being rather historical than rubrical ; but it is still worth remembering. Then follows the Rubric now insisted on as to the time of celebration : — ' And then the godfathers and godmothers, and the people with the children, must he ready at the font, either imviediaicly afltr the last lesson at morning prayer, or else immediately after the last lesson at evening prayer^ as the priest at his discretion may appoint.' This is very clear; and yet, like the early ceremony, 'it had grown out of use :' and some, who are nevertheless very zealous rubricians in other points, doubt whether, 'for many considera- tions, it can be restored.' The Bishop of London says nothing exactly as to the time of baptism : — ' Baptism is never to be administered in private houses, except in cases of urgent necessity ; and all such baptisms should be duly regis- tered within the time prescribed by law. This I request you to take as my authoritative direction.' — Charge^ p. 63. It might be supposed that his Lordship did not think it neces- sary to mention the time, as the Rubric is so clear upon that point. But JNIr. Haverfield — after stating that the Bishop of London had some private communication with the incumbents of the principal parishes of his diocese in explanation of his printed Charge — adds these sentences : — ' The Rubric requires that the ceremony shall be performed, " either im- mediately after the last lesson at Morning Prayer, or else after the last lesson at Evening Prayer," and yet in large and populous parishes the number of baptisms is so great as to render the strict observance of the Rubric extremely inconvenient to the congregation. As far as I have imderstood, the Bishop has refrained from laying any positive injunctions upon the clergy in this particular, seeing that so much inconvenience is likely to arise from the practice ; and therefore leaves them to follow their own discretion as to the time of administering baptism, but bind- ing them in the most rigid and proper manner with respect to the place.' —p. 33. Mr. Haverfield proceeds to illustrate the great inconvenience of the practice in populous parishes ; but he sees no alternative but proposing a new Rubric — to allow the performance to be ' administered after the service (as is not unfrequently the practice) ; notice being given thereof before the congregation depart, that such of them as choose might remain to witness it.' — p. 35. In this case again we beg leave to observe, that most, if not all, of the inconvenience arises^ not from the original Rubric, but from of the Church of England. 2G9 from our alterations of the services. In the first place, the Rubric directs that this rite shall be performed in the middle of the 'Morning and Evening /Service^ — that is to say, according to the strict letter, not with the Litany — not with the Altar service — not with the Communion — not vnih the Sermon — and it is when any of these are added to the Morning or Evening Prayer, that the superaddition of the Baptismal othce extends so inconveniently the length of the whole service. The consequence is, that on the Sunday mornings Baptisms have been rarely performed; of Sunday evenings they are less infrequent, particularly where there is no sermon. Now, seeing that the Rubric in its utmost strict- ness only ' admonishes ' (not enjoins) that the rite shall take place on Sundays and holy-days as ' most convenient ' — and whereas it is required that timely notice of baptisms should be given to the minister — it appears to us that the Clergy are not blameable for having exercised the discretion of performing the rite so as to be ' most convenient/ instead of persisting in doing so at a time when by change of circumstances it became ' most inconvenient;' but we agree with Mr. Haverfield that if there is to be any authoritative explanation of the Rubrics, it would be de- sirable to explain this Rubric so as to give the minister a distinct discretion as to the time of celebrating the Baptismal rite accord- ing to the local circumstances of the parish — the celebration, however, to be always in open church, and preferably, with the largest congregation that can be ' conveniently ' and voluntarily assembled. Connected with this discussion is another of minor importance — the font and its place. Here, again, changes of arrangement have produced dithculties not easily to be surmounted. The an- cient and in general the present site of the font is at the church- door. We are very far Irom falling in with the fancy of symbol- izing all the material forms of our churches and their accessories with spiritual meanings, and we do not tliink, with the inrationale of Durandus, that the font was generally formed of sto7ie as a type of the rock from which water flowed in the wilderness ; but we do believe that its situation near the door of the church, and some- times even in a baptistery outside, was designed to show that baptism marked the entrance into the church, both materially and spiritually ; and therefore we have no doubt that as in those early tunes there were no seats nor any other obstructions in the nave of any church, the priest proceeded after the lesson Irom the desk to the font, where the parties to the baptism were all enjoined to wait, and there performed the rite, the rest of the congregation no doubt turning round that way, and, if we may use the expression, worshippimj to the west. When, however, scats and praying- desks 270 Rubrics and Ritual desks were introduced, which all (in general) fronted towards the east, the rite at the font came to have an appearance the reverse of that intended, namely, the edification of the rest of the con- gregation, who could very imperfectly either see or hear the cere- monial. Then, we suppose, grew up the practice of baptizing in the body of the church, and as the stone font was not moveable, some kind of basin was irreverently used — but this irreverence was not, as has been sometimes represented, wanton — for if the minis- ter was, according to the Rubric, to perform the service to the edification of the congregation, he w-as forced to get some substi- tute for the font. But this is not the only difficulty. Those clergymen who now comply with the Rubric as to time are forced to disregard the Rubric as to place, for they do not ' come to the font^ as is ex- pressly ordered. A few have endeavoured to reconcile all by moving the font up to the reading desk; that is, by making the font ' come to them, as they cannot •' come to the font f but this is in some cases impossible — in others very inconvenient and unsightly — and in all it is a contravention of the old canon w hich forbids equally the displacing of the font and the use of the basin, and it is moreover a departure from the ancient symbolical position of the font near the church-door, which is older than the Rubrics, and with which the Rubrics were intended to harmonise : — so that, as in all the rest, this overstraining after precision only pro- duces fresh difficulties ; and therefore in a case where the ancient Rubric itself had sanctioned the abandonment of "^a custom that had grown out of use,' and w^here all Rubrics profess the principle of ' convenience^ we think the prevailing usages need hardly have been altered, particularly when the alteration confessedly produces considerable inconsistency and inconvenience. A question has also been raised on the marriage ceremony, and we find that the clergy of Essex — at a late meeting at Chelms- ford, in which they have, very unnecessarily we think, but no doubt with the best intentions, adopted several of the new prac- tices of preaching in the surplice, «S:c. — have resolved ' That the whole of the marriage ceremony being to be used, the first part be read as directed in the body of the church — the clergj-man re- citing the psalm as he walks to the altar. ^ Now we beg leave to say that this seems to be a most unneces- sary, inconvenient, and unauthorized alteration of the present custom, and is fo\inded, as it appears to us, on a positive mis- representation of the Rubric — which does not, as we understand it, direct the first part of the service to be read in the body of the Church. The Rubric is — ' That persons to be married shall come into the body of the churcli with of the Church of England. 271 with their friends and neighbours, and there standing together, the man on the right and tlie woman on the left, the priest shall say,' &c. It does not say that the priest shall stand in the body of the Church — nor indeed where he shall stand, but it implies that he shall stand so as to be in easy communication Avith those who are standing before him, and we are satisfied that the intention was, that the priest should stand, as has always been the case, on the steps of the chancel, or at the rails of the Communion-table, the parties standing in the Church before him. Where else indeed is the priest to be ? This the Essex clergy have not resolved ; — yet surely, when they deprive him of his usual position, they — advocates for precision — should appoint him another. He cannot be in his reading-desk; ,for he has to receive the woman at her father's hands, and to join the parties' hands — and to deliver the ring — all of which is impossible from the reading-desk ; — and in most churches there is now no other open space in which these acts could be decently performed, but just in front of the steps or rail of the Communion-table : where accordingly it is the prac- tice for the parties and their friends to stand before the minister in strict compliance with the rubric. The second rubric upon which the Essex clergy found their procession yrom — they do 7iot tell us what part of the Church to the Lord's table, is only this : After the actual union is pronounced and the blessing given, ' The minister going to the Lord's table, shall say or sing this psalm following,' &c. Now this rubric does surely not require that the actual ceremony should have been performed in some distant part of the church, and that a procession must then be made to the table : — It is fully satisfied by the priest going from the steps or rails where he had performed the first and effective part of the ceremony back to his usual place at the north side of the Lord's table where he com- pletes the rite, and is in readiness to conclude with administering the sacrament, which by the old rubrics it was directed, and by the present rubric it is advised as convenient, that the parties should then and there receive — a duty, however, which, in spite of all the rubrics in the world, we must think that it is more prudent and proper to postjione, as is generally done, to a quieter opportu- nity. We really cannot but consider this alteration in the mar- riage rite the most wanton of all these innovations : it is not re- quired by the strictest construction of the rubric — it is contrary to all our habits and feelings. We talk of leading a lady to the altar: that phrase must be changed; the ceremony — the real ceremony — must be performed somewhere — forsooth — in the body of the church — and ladies in Essex, instead of kneeling at the steps 272 Jiubrics and Ritual steps of the altar, and there — in that peculiarly conspicuous and revered place — receivinij the nuptial benediction as their mothers, and sjrandmotliers, and all the other women of England have done ever since there has been a Christian altar in England, they are to be crowded into any corner of the ' body of the church ' where the Essex clergy shall find room for two or three people to stand abreast. We confidently hope that the bishop will interfere to reverse this absurd resolution, and will preserve to the women of England their ancient and cherished riffht of bein": married at the immediate altar of God. Next we arrive at a series of innovations introduced by the Tractarians and their imitators, which in fact deserve no other title than fooleries, and are individually so puerile, that if it were not as symptoms of a Papistical spirit, we really should be ashamed to waste time and paper in exposing thein ; but as they have been noticed by higher authority — some with indulgent counte- nance, and othei's with less gravity of censui'e than they seem to us to deserve — we cannot omit them from our general review of these matters. ' A question has arisen about placing lights upon the communion table. Some doubt may be entertained as to the law in this parcicular. They were forbidden by the Injunctions of King Edward VI. in 1549, but they were in use when the first Liturgy of that monarch received the authority of Parliament, and therefore seem to be sanctioned by the Rubric in our present Common Prayer-book. But whether it be so or not, they have always been retained in the chapels royal, in cathedrals, and in college chapels; and I see no objection to them, provided that the candles are not burning except when the church is lighted up for evening service.' — Bishop of London'' s Charge, pp. 48, 49. With all our sincere esteem and respect for the Bishop of London, we cannot think that this matter is here satisfactorily dealt with. We might smile at the indulgence which does not object to lights, provided they be not lighted, and wonder a little at the supposition that candles on the communion table could ever be of any practical use in the performance of evening service ; but there is graver matter at bottom. The first Injunctions of King Edward VI., of 1547, allow of two lights on the communion table, with a very remarkable explanation : — ' No torches, nor candles, or tapers, are to be set before any image or picture; hut onli/ hco lights upon the High Altar, before the saci'a- ment, which /or tJie signification that Christ is the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain stdl.' — Injunct. 1547, p. 2. And these 'two lights on the High Altar' are equally allowed in Archbishop Cranmer's Visitation Articles, 2 Ed. VI. We do not find that the subsequent Injunction in 1549 positively forbids of the Church of England. 21?^. forbids them, but it directs that ministers shall omit the reading of that part of the former Injunctions which authorizes the two candles ; and they may be considered as expressly prohibited by Queen Elizabeth's ' Injunctions,' 1559, under the general term of * candlesticks,' — as they had before that time been inferential ly forbidden, by the abolition of altars. We cannot presume to dispute the Bishop of London's opinion that these prohibitions are abrogated by the general Rubric which he quotes, and there is no doubt that in cathedrals, colleges, and perhaps some ancient churches, this practice has been continued to our day ; and we have no wish to see it in such a case altered ; but the real question is — shall they be now introduced as a general ceremonial in places where they have never before been heard of? Surely the Bishop of London must know that those who introduce these lights into new places do not do so for any pretence of their utility, or if they do, that it is a mere pretence. The object — the plain and, we believe, avowed object — is to imitate the Popish altar, and his Lordship seems to sanction that imitation. He will not, indeed, allow the candles to be actually burning at noon- day ; but why should they be seen at all where they have never been before ? We have a great reverence for the communion-table ; nay, we have no Puritanical objection to call it God's Altar — the altar where the sacrifice of our Saviour is — not made, but — com- memorated — but then the higher we carry our reverence for the altar, the less are we disposed to see it degraded into a side- table on which candles are placed merely to help to light the church ^i evening service; still less can we tolerate that, under such a shallow pretence, it should be made a vehicle of Popish superstitions — for such, with all deference to King Edward's and Archbishop Cranmer's original toleration of the practice, we cannot but consider that the revival of it at this day would be. The lighting the Church, we apprehend, belongs neither to bishop nor minister, but to the churchwardens ; and, if it were really a question of mere lighting, has, we think, no claim to the honour of the Bishop's notice ; and if it be anything more, we now, with all deference, think that it requires to be forbidden at in this formula — ' Let us sing to the praise and glory of God' — so and so. Now these gentlemen have discovered that the Rubric^ which says that immediately after the Nicene Creed, between the altar-service and the sermon, ' shall briefs, citations, and excommunications be read, and nothing shall be of the Church of England. 283 be proclaimed and published in the Church during divine service but by the minister,' forbids the clerk to give out the psalm ! We really cannot conceive any grounds for this opinion. We think we shall be able to show that it is founded on a misinter- pretation of the Rubric, and, though it seems in itself trifling, in- volves ulterior considerations of some importance. Who that will look closely into the terms, the position, and the context of this Rubric, and will apply to them the ordinary rules of interpreta- tion, can doubt that the prohibition as to proclamations and jjub- lications has relation only to extraneous or secular matters, and not to such a point of ritual routine as the giinng otit the psalm, which cannot in common sense be called either proclaiming or publislmig ? Then see the practical consequences ; the minister assumes the duty hitherto performed by the clerk, which clerk the canon directs to be chosen 'for his competent skill in singing'' — so that when the minister shall say ' Let us sing to the praise and glory of God,' it might be expected that he would indeed sing out the psalm as the clerk used to do. But no such thing — at least in the few churches in which we have seen this new prac- tice — the minister says ' let us sing,' but never attempts to sing, he reads out the first verse, and leaves the clerk and the con- gregation to do the rest. Now if it be proper that the minister shall proclaim or jmblish the first verse of the psalm before the congregation shall presume to sing it — why not the second, why not the third verses ? — with which, however, we have never heard him meddle ; for, alas ! after having exclaimed from the altar ' let us sing,' and given out the first verse, he forthwith retires into the vestry to put on his gown for the serinon, and does not reappear until the psalm is nearly done, in which, even then, he does not pretend to join, but kneels down in the pulpit in private prayer. Here is a tissue of contradictions, whereas in the old practice there was con- sistency, and, what is still better, good sense. When the altar- service was over, and the minister was about to retire to the vestry, the clerk, ' chosen for his competence in singing,' filled up the in- terval of the minister's absence by inviting the congregation ' to sing to the praise and glory of God,' and this they did and con- tinued to do till the minister was ready to resume his duty in the pulpit. It may be said that this rationale of ours only applies to the psalm in this one part of the service — just so ; but, according to the new practice, this is the only place where a psalm can be properly sung, because ns, ex hi/j)otliesi, the giving out the psalm is a proclamation or publication, and as there is no other place appointed for proclamation or publication than between the Nicene Creed and the sermon, no psalm ought to be given out except in 281 RubricH and Ritual in that interval ; and lo ! in that interval there is no rubrical au- thority for singing at all ! Nor indeed is there any authority for any extraneous singing, except as to the anthem, in places where //uy slnij ; that is, not the minister nor even the congregation, but choristers and persons appointed to sing. But this is not all. If the minister is bound to give out the psalm and repeat the first verse, why is he not equally bound to give out and repeat the anthem ? This would be — if the point be worth reasoning — much more necessary, because the psalm is an authorized form of words — the anthem is anything that the chief of the choir chooses to sing: — to be sure he acts under orders — but so does the clerk ; but if the one may not give out the psalm, how can the other give utterance to the anthem ? But again : we would respectfully observe to those who countenance this practice (which is certainly not a tractarianism) that by this over-strict interpretation of the Rubric they are establishing, in this trifle, a serious departure from the Rubric. Can they show us by what Rubric the metrical psalms are sung in churches at all ; by what Rubrical authority the minister can announce them ? — We believe there is none. The metrical psalms are not recognised by any rubric, unless introduced in quires and 'places where they sing ' as an anthem, and therefore the wise and prudent usage has been — not that the minister shall make the metrical version part of the Liturgv, but that, at certain intervals of the minister's duty, the clerk should invite the rest of the congregation to sing to the praise and glory of God one of the metrical psalms, which, although no part of the Liturgical office, and therefore not to be given out by the minister, are allowed by royal authority, and may be volun- tarily sung in the intervals we have stated by the congregation, of whom the clerk is the coryphaeus. We might add much more on this subject, but we have said enough to awaken the attention of our clerical readers ; and we have confident hopes that this practice, which in the London diocese has been expressly sanc- tioned and in some others individually imitated, will be on better consideration abandoned — that the minister may be relieved from an embarrassing and almost ridiculous position, and that the metrical psalms may not be treated as if they formed (which they do not) an integral part of the Liturgy."^ The consideration of this same Rubric leads us to another in- stance of remedies proposed for difficulties which are either ima- ginary or very inconsiderable. There is, we are told, an Incon- * Those hypcrcritics who fancy they can (hul in the Rubric a prohibition to the clerk's giving out the psalm would find it much more difficult to find any Rubrical authority for having a clerk at all. Clerks are only authorized by custom and by the Canon. - sistency of the Church of England. 285 slstency between the Rubric before the sermon and a subsequent one relative to the giving notice of the Sacrament." Mr. Haveifield, who, though a sensible and well-judging m.in and no Tractarian, is sometimes rather too much disposed to defer to the authority which countenances some of what he no doubt thinks Rubrical restorations, but which we think unnecessary inno- vations (such as the minister's giving out the psalm) — Mr. Haver- field, we say, suggests • that it might be well if the time for giving notice of the Holy Sacra- ment were distinctly stated ; since at present one Rubric requires it to be done after the Nicene Creed, and another after the sermon. The way in which AVheatly gets over this difficulty is by no means satisfactory.' — Letter, p. 35, And Mr. Scobell — who, in general, takes enlarged and ju- dicious views of all these subjects in defence of the existing usages of the Church against the ultra- Rubricians — says, ' What but Church usage causes the two notices of the Communion not to be given one before and one after the sermon ? Is not this equity cor- recting law ? For although it may be a mistake, as Wheatly calls it, yet it stands on the legal letter.' — Scobell, p. 10. We think that it is these gentlemen, as well as others who have insisted on this supposed discrepancy, that are under the mistake ; and neither of them, but particularly Mr. Scobell, does justice to Wheatly, whose explanation appears to us good as far as it goes, and who certainly does not call it ' a mistake,' but says that he at first thought it a mistake of the printers, but w^as afterwards, on reconsideration, inclined to suppose that the double notice was purposely provided ; and this, though Wheatly does not give any detailed reasons for his opinion, is, we think, a probable if not a satisfactory construction. The first of these two Rubrics says that * then also [before the sermon], if occasion be, shall notice be given of the Communion ;' while the subsequent Rubric directs that ' when the minister giveth warning for the celebration of the holy Com- munion (which he shall always do on the Sunday, or some Holiday immediately preceding), after the sermon or homily he shall read the exhortation following.' ' Here,' says one party, * is your Rubric obliging the minister to do one thing at two different times — before and after the ser- mon — which is impossible :' and the ultra- Rubricians hang their heads, and admit that it is but too true. Now we doubt whether there is really any inconsistency. Befoi-c the sermon, at the usual and appointed time for ' proclaiming and publishing, and giving notices,' 286 Rubrics and Ritual notices,^ the minister is desired, amongst the rest, to give notice of his intention to celebrate the Communion ; but the second Rubric does not apply to notices — but to an exhortation — that is, a spiritual invitation to attend the sacrament of which the secular notice or warning had been already given. But whether this distinction be sufiicient to justify the theo- retic consistency of the Rubrics or no, we must add that, in point of fact, the two warnings are seldom if ever given, and that the most usual practice is to deliver the exhortation from the communion-table before the sermon ; but this, like other appa- rent deviations from the letter of the Rubric, is consistent with its spirit, and is an instance in which we think the usage of the Church may be safely followed. In truth it is hardly a deviation ; for the Rubric which directs the notice does not say in what form of words the notice shall be given, and the exhortation is itself a notice ; witness the opening words — ' Dearly beloved, on . day next I purpose, through God's assistance, to administer,' &c. ; and therefore in cases in which the minister does not intend to return to the table after the sermon, we think he may not improperly read the exhortation by way of notice, and so ^-^6- stantially satisfy both Rubrics. This we say on the supposition that the exhortation is meant to be read from the table — which however we think there is some reason to doubt ; in fact, we think we could show that it was meant to be read from the place where the homily or sermon is delivered — but our object is to reconcile, and not make difficulties: we are perfectly satisfied with the present practice, and we only notice the doubt as a hint to those who deny the authority of usage, that they will have more cases to deal with than they at first imagine. But there is still another difficulty, which it is proper to state — the Rubric, we see, directs the notice to be given in the Coimnun ion-service, but the Canon (xxii.) directs that it shall be done at Morning Prayer. Now, certainly, no part of the Communion-service can be legally entitled Morning Prayer, even when it follows Morning Prayer; and so those who insist on a strict and inexorable execution of both the Canons and Rubrics would here have another contradiction to reconcile. This additional circumstance, therefore, only cor- roborates what we before said, that it is safer to abide by the established usages of the Church than attempt that worst of inno- vations, the rigid execution of obsolete and ambiguous laws. We have now noticed the most prominent of the innovations * * We had intended to have offered some observations on the subject of pews, but as it does not properly belong to the i-itual, and as we have already trespassed we feai- too far on our readers' patience, we must defer that, as we think, much misrepresented ques- tion to another occasion. , recently of the Church of Englmul. 287 recently attempted on the usages of the Church, and we think \ve may confidently appeal to our readers Avhether we have not proved them, or at least the majority of them, to have been not merely innovations — of itself a m.ost serious objection — but for the most part unwarranted, either in law or reason, and some of them absolutely contrary to both. At least we feel assured that, after our observations shall have been duly weig;hed, it will be doubted whether any of the alleged difficulties were of such vital import- ance and urgency — with reference either to the conscience of the ministry or to the edification of the people — as to justify such strange proceedings as we have recently witnessed; and which, as we have before said, but can never loo often repeat, how- ever individually unimportant or venial they may seem, are rendered formidable by their collective tendency to Popery, and by the effect which they have notoriously produced of familiaris- ing, and even of reconciling, men's minds to superstitious rites and formulas, and the doctrines connected with them — of which it used to be our boast that the Reformation has delivered us. It is in vain — even when they are perfectly sincere — that persons who have adopted these practices may tell us that they have no leaning to Popery, and are in fact what they profess to be, zealous members of the Anglican Church: granted : their private convictions may be untainted — we cannot search their consciences, and we v/ill give credit to their assertions ; but then, on the other hand, we must insist that their private feelings cannot, in any forum, either of law or conscience, justify their countenance of practices which are Init too generally understood, and have been by their original promoters avowedly adopted and recom- mended, as a solemn and continuous protest against the Reforma- tion — 'the odiona Reformation T — and which have, in some notorious instances, led to downright apostacy. Rut open de- fection, even when wc suspect it to be the result of an irregular intellect or a morbid vanity, is less deplorable and infinitely less dangerous than the masquerade orthodoxy whose heart is already reconciled to Rome, though its hands are slill willing lo carry the bcKj and to take tlie ^op, and to ])articij)ate in tlio communion of the Anglican Church, as .Judas did at the Last Supper. Again wc beg that we n;ay not be misunderstood : we do not mean to Insinuate that all those, nor even the luajority of those, who adopt even the most Popish of these ceremonies, are at heart deserters from the Church of England ; we mean no such thing — we know that many of them ar(! zealous and orthodox an- tagonists of Rome, and adoj)t these practices in the sincere feel- ing that they are C()mf(ntal:)le to themi^olves and likelv to edify ''' their 288 Evhrics and Riiiial their flock : — but we do assert that, whatever be their own good intentions, they are bhndly working out the designs and objects of such men as we ha\e described, and giving to the very worst lorm ot" a})osta( V their unintentional, but very effective, coun- tenance and support. We entreat these well meaning, but in general young and inexperienced, clergymen to recollect that those very men who affect to revei'ence the traditions of the dark ages are those v>ho reject the less doubtful traditions of our own Ciiurch, and Avhile they deprecate and condemn the exercise of private judgment in such matters, are themselves doing nothing else but setting up their own private judgments against the prin- ciples and the usages that have l)een taught and practised by the Church to which they profess to belong ever since it had a dis- tinctive character and ritual. Surely it needs no urgency of argument to show that such inconsistency (even if there were no graver objection to their proceedings) cannot be safelv trusted. But we are glad to be able to say that, with regard to the in- fluence of these practices, even on the younger clergy, we see a considerable change for the better. In numerous recent publi- cations we find satisfactory evidence that many of those whom we have designated as ultra- Rvhricians are certainly not inten- tionally Tractarians — nay, we believe that some of them have adopted what we consider as objectionable formalities from the notion (a mistaken one, as we think we have shov.n) that they are strictly Anglican; at least they began in that view, and now that a better opinion begins to prevail, they find it difficult to retrace their steps and to acknov. ledge in the face of their congregations that they have been mistaken. It requires great and unusual moral courage to make such a confession ; and this we own is another reason that induces us to wish that the bishops should think it expedient to consider all those varieties of practice, Avhich, under the pretence of uniformity, have been intro- duced amongst us, and come to some general expression of opinion — or what perhaps would be easier and safer — convey, each bishop to his own clergy, an opinion concerted with the other prelates, which we have little doubt could, upon all these points of form, be easily arranged among their lordships, and would be dutifully and readily adopted and followed by the whole Anglican Church. Indeed, according to our view of the whole case, there would be little more to l)e done than to maintain the ritual usages which have been followed lor the last 1.50 or 200 years, and — in some points where the usages appear to infringe the strict letter of the law, and in others in which tlie letter of different laws is conflict- ing — to give to whatever course or interpretation may be thought * preferable. of the Church of England. 289 preferable, some kind of authoritative sanction. The very case that has now occurred seems provided for by the prophetic eye of the fathers of our church in the prefatory Rubric — ' and, forasmuch as nothing can be so plainly set forth, but doubts may arise in the use and practice of the same, to a])peaRe all such diversity (if any arise), and for the resolution of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and execute the things contained in this book, the parties that so doubt or diversely take anything shall alvvay resort to the bishop of the diocese, v.ho by his discretion shall take order for the quieting and appeasing of the same; so that the same order may not be contrary to anything contained in this book; and if the Bishop of the diocese be in doubt, he may send for the resolution thereof to the Arch- bishop.'' It may be said that the example of the Bishop of London, who has ber but one, the principal Romanist Periodical in these realms had politely said — ' We may say that * for some time past we have read the British Critic with great in- * terest ; to which we may add, as Catholics, that our pleasure in ' perusing it has increased in each successive Number ; but the one ' now before us surpasses all its predecessors, not in the proportion * observable between any former ones, but in such a degree as al- * most to defy any comparison whatever.' * Admirable dialec- ticians must they have been on behalf of the Church of England, who could extort such praises even from her very enemies ; and thrice candid the enemies who could thus award them ! ' Behold ' how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together ' in unity !' In defence of the statements of the British Critic, and in op- position to Mr Palmer's Pamphlet, Mr Ward (for some time, we believe, the Editor of that periodical, and author of the greater part of the obnoxious articles) has recently published a volume, which may be considered the latest ' development ' of all His conduct offers a practical exemplification of the principles of the ' Tracts,' of the most odious kind, and justifies the worst fears that were ever expressed or entertained of their tendency. The extent to which he carries his principles of subscription may be estimated, when w-e mention that, amongst other things, he explains away the natural sense of the Twelfth Article, and subscribes it in ^ a non-natural sense !' — we are quite certain he does it in a ' non-moral sense ; ' t and that he understands the Nineteenth Article, which declares that the Roman church hath erred in matters of faith, to mean — not that the Roman church hath erred in matters of faith, but that some individual members of it have departed more or less from the faith ! % But the fol- * Dublin Review, September 1843, p. 114. t ' Our Twelfth Article is as plain as words can make it on the evan- gelical side : (observe, in particular, (lie worci necessarily :) of course I think its natural meaning may be explained away, for I subscribe it my- self in a non-natural sense.'— P. 593. :j: ' It has been considered by some that subscription to our Nineteenth Article requires the formation and expression of an opinion, that the formal doctrine of the Roman church is erroneous in some particulars; 1844. Recent Developmenis of rmeyl&m, 313 lowing paragraph fully explains his views : — ' For my own part * I think it would not be right to conceal, indeed I am anxious * openly to express my almost firm and undoubting conviction, that * were we, as a church, to pursue such a line of conduct as has * here been sketched, in proportion as we did so, we should be * taught from above to discern and appreciate the plain marks of * divine wisdom and authority in the Roman church — to repent, * in sorrow and bitterness of heart, our great sin in deserting her * communion, and to sue humbly at her feet for pardon and res- * toration.' — (P. 473.) Yet, in the same paragraph, he tells us with a simplicity truly admirable — ' If it be granted that the aim- ' ing at such objects, as I have ventured to put forward as de- ' sirable, implies of itself no set purpose of Romanizing our ' church, I must beg leave to doubt whether any single one of ' her members entertains any such purpose.' We quite agree with him ; if he can get any one to concede so modest a postu- late, he may well expect a cordial admission of the inference. Mr Ward elsewhere contends for his liberty of private judg- ment in the following terms : — ' Let Mr Williams, if he so * please, still publish his opinion that human support and hu- * man comfort were needful to St Mary after our Lord's as- * cension. Let Dr Hook continue to call Roman Catholics * Mariolaters; but let others have equal liberty, and with no ' greater remonstrance, to honour St Mary as the highest and * purest of creatures, to regard the Roman church with affection ' and reverence, and to hold a Pope's dogmatic decree as at least ' exempt from our criticism and comment. It is impossible for ' our opinions to pain them, more than theirs pain us.' — ' That * a sustained and vigorous attack on the principles of the Re- ' formation is the only course by which this object can be obtain- ' ed, is my deep and certain conviction. I mean an humble and ' religious carrying out of those great principles which the Refor- * mation denied — obedience and faith.' — (P. 100-588.) His work is full of pious sentiments on the duties of obedience and faith — and both, in his case, are of an unparelleled charac- ter. His faith is such, that he can swear assent to Articles in a * non-natural sense;' and his obedience is such, that he will yield allegiance neither to that church to which he has actually but a very little consideration will show that no one is at all committed by this Article to so painfully presumptuoiiH a sentiment.' He then gives his interpretation, and adds — ' If this appears the solemn annuncia- tion of a mere truism, I quite admit that it is so.' — P. 100, 314 Recent Developments of Puseyism, Oct. sworn it, nor to that wlncb, hy his own admission, has the great- est claim to it. He resembles the wife, who said she was willing enough to obey her husband, only she would not be nded. Dis- claiming the right of ' private judgment,' his opinions, viewed in conjunction with his position, proclaim a mind filled to overflow- with crotchets and inconsistencies. The two principal men of the movement are in a condition almost equally anomalous. Dr Pusey, having, in the course of his ' developments,' affirmed, in his celebrated sermon on the * Eucharist,' doctrine which the University authorities condemn- ed as heterodox, has been ordered to expiate his offence by a two years' silence. It is true he affirmed, with engaging innocence, that he was not at all aware of having advanced aught at variance with the formularies of the Church of England. But his opi- nions, so far as we can discov^er them, as well as his particular line of defence, we shall more particularly consider hereafter. Mr Newman having retracted almost all his objections to the Church of Rome, from which, however, he is still a separatist, and having not retracted any of the severe things he has uttered against the Church of England, in which he still remains — having also, in his zeal for the dark ages, undertaken the defence of an indefinite number of primitive and mediceval miracles, and affixed his Editorial imprimatur on a series of publications advocating the religious system of the middle ages, and, amongst other things, the supremacy of the Apostolic see, (which, neverthe- less, he will not obey,) may be considered to be by this time a Church of himself; and if he proceeds in this felicitous accumu- lation of paradoxes and anomalies, will probably have to employ at last language something like that of the dying Hegel. * Alas !' said the philosophic mystic, ' I shall leave behind me but one * man in all Germany who understands my doctrines, and he does * not understand them !' Mr Palmer is anxious to show that, within the last two or three years, * a new school ' * has been formed at Oxford. Alas ! for * « Within the last two or three years, however, a new school has made its appearance. The Church has unhappily had reason to feel the existence of a spirit of dissatisfaction with her principles, of enmity to her reformers, of recklessness for her interests. We have seen, in the game quarter, a spirit of almost serviliti/ and achttation to Rome, an en- thusiastic and exaggerated praise of its merits, an appeal to all deep feel- ings and sympathies in its favour, a tendency to look to Rome as the model and the standard of all that is beautiful and correct in art, all that 1844. Recent Developments ofPuseyism. 315 the rapid changes of the one unchangeable Catholicism — the original school is but little more than ten years old ! — To us it appears clearly enough that the ' new school ' is but a consistent and natural ' development' (to use once more the favourite term of these gentlemen) of the ' old.' Mr Palmer seems to be un- conscious that the more recent extravagances are the legitimate, the inevitable fruit of those high church principles — of that re- verence for antiquity and tradition, which he still continues to extol. Yet his own misgivings, soon after his more zealous or more persevering coadjutors entered upon their career, and the emphatic predictions of both Protestants and Romanists as to the result, ought to have made him suspect that his ' new school' is but an expansion of the * old.' That he and others had no intention of promoting such a result, he loudly affirms, and we care not to deny it ; that the principles advocated involved that result — that they were the acorn, the other the oak — is all that v/e maintain ; and this connexion, long since asserted by almost every body, experience has abundantly confirmed. To the argument, however, on which we are about to insist, it little matters whether Mr Palmer's assertion of a * new school' be correct or not — whether there be one Oxford school or two, or twenty — whether recent extravagances are but 'developments' of the original system, or new formations upon it — vs'hether there be one pretended system with hopelessly discordant expounders thereof, or diverse systems, each pretending to be the only one possessing catholic authenticity. We say we accept either of these alternatives ; and, in either case, proceed to ask — ' But ' what becomes of that fair vision of the one indivisible Catholic ' system — professed by the one visible church of all ages, which * was to be so easily deduced by the aid of antiquity and tra- * dition — which was to require no exercise of private judgment — * or rather which superseded and forbade it, and which we might * have expected that the Oxford school itself would have deliver- ' ed with some degree of unanimity ?' Their positions were suffi- ciently hazardous and self-contradictory even before their present is sublime in poetry, all that is elevated in devotion. ... In con- versation, remarks have been sometimes heard indicating a disposition to acknowledge the supremacy of the see of Rome, to give way to all its claims, however extreme.' .... And in the same spirit those who are in any way opposed to the highest pitch of Roman usurpations, are sometimes looked on as little better than heretics.' — Palmer's Nar- rntive, p. 44. 31G Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. differences. Of that ' one visible church,' as constituted by them- selves, consisting of Romanists, Greeks, and Anglicans, they could not persuade one hundredth part to admit that they, the very authors of the figment, belonged to the Catholic church at all — and now it appears they cannot agree about the one system of truth amonofst themselves ! Singular illustration of the infallible guidance of tradition, and of the danger of admitting the exercise of private judgment ! ' Our judge of controversies,' as Chilling- worth truly said of the dispute respecting Papal infallibility, * has ' become itself our greatest controversy.' Despite the attacks on the Oxford system from without, and the formidable symptoms of disorganizatiom from within, we have seen it recently maintained, in an elaborate Paper,* attributed to Mr Gladstone, and which bears strong internal marks of his pen — having all the cloud-like formation, and unsubstantial mistiness of his style — that the cause of ' Catholic principles ' is still aus- piciously advancing. This is an assertion which, in the absence of any definition or catalogue of these principles, it is very easjr to make and very difficult to disprove — for we are too familiar with the way in which these vague terms are employed by such writers, not to know that they may mean any thing — and still more frequently, nothing. With regard to the diversities of opi- nion in the party itself, the extreme views recently manifested, this writer admits and laments them : those w^ho hold them form, he tells us, the ' extreme droite ' of the Oxford school — but they do not interfere with the progress of ' Catholicism.' ' When we * speak,' says he, « of the country and of the church at large, it is * evident the body, as a body, moves forward from year to year, * we might almost say from day to day, in the line of Catholicism.* For any definite meaning which such misty language conveys — and the article is throughout composed in it — we verily believe that, if it had been stated that the nation was moving forward from day to day in the line of a transcendental curve, it would have conveyed just as intelligible a notion to sober-minded readers. The fallacy consists in manoeuvring, so to speak, with the word * Catholicism ' as if it indicated some fixed, well-defined point to which all things are tending, and then allowing each reader tacitly to substitute his own notion of it for a universal one. The fallacy proclaims itself the moment we ask — ' What are Catholic principles ? ' We then find they are just those of the present ex- * Foreign and Colonial Eeview. No. IV. October 1843. 1 S 44 . Recent Developments ofPuseyism . 317 positor, whoever he may be. Each in turn exercises the calum- niated right of private judgment, while all, in the same breath, repudiate it.* No sooner do we force an answer to this awkward query, ' What is Catholicism ? ' than the silent unanimity, which had been maintained in using certain terms without a definite mean- ing, vanishes in a Babel-like confusion. ' You will find it in its ' integrity, stereotyped in the Tridentine decrees,' exclaim the millions of Rome. ' You will find no such thing,' coolly reply the millions of the Greek church. ' If you want to find Catholicism * in its purity, you must consult one of our patriarchs.' ' Either * church will indeed answer the purpose,' blandly admits the more advanced disciple of the Oxford school ; ' but as each is apt to in- * elude in Catholicism somewhat more than is catholic, you can find * it in its purity only in the Oxford Tracts — with the addition, " if ' so be," of certain developments, " so to speak," which the writers ' have, " as it were," reserved^ * You will find it there,' rejoins a move timid disciple of the same school, ' if you will deduct certain * doctrines which they have not reserved.' * Grieved and hum- ' bled I am,' says Mr Gladstone, ' that our beloved friends have ' gone somewhat beyond that precise point at which, vmdoubtedly, * absolute and unchangeable Catholicism is found.' — Each employs the term 'Catholicism 'as Mr Thwackum the term 'religion.' 'When ' 1 mention religion,' says that worthy, ' I mean the Christian ' religion ; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant ' religion ; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church ' of England.' Thus, while each abjures his private judgment in fixing this fugitive ' Catholicism,' we find in fact we have nothing else. It is Rome — it is Greece — it is Anglicanism — it is a species of Anglicanism — it is a subordinate species of Anglicanism — it is a theory of Mr Newman — of Mr Palmer — of Mr Gladstone — but still, be assured, it is all Catholicism ! Nor is this all. Many hundreds of those authorized guides of the Anglican church, whom the Tractarians themselves admit to be ' authorized,' exclaim — ' All these parties are in delusion * So ludicrously do these writers play with this abused torm, < Catho- lic,' that we observe some of them do not scruple to speak of the church as more or less Catholic at one period than another, (Newman's Essay, p. 35 ;) forgetting that Catholicism can have no degrees, and that the church must, on their principles, be either Catholic or not. It would be just as logical to speak of triangles which are eminently triangular, or of a universality which is more or less than universal ! 318 Recent Developments ofPmeijism, Oct. * together. Even Mr Gladstone's " church principles" are no * more than ancient superstitions, not only without the warrant, ' but against the whole spirit of Scripture.' Amongst these * authorized guides' are included Bishops, and even an Arch- bishop ; and the same sentiments are echoed by thousands of the members of that ' branch ' of the Catholic Church, to which the Tractarians themselves belong. Such is the answer to the question, ' What is Catholicism ? • C'est mot\ reply half-a-dozen distinct churches, and half-a-dozen variously judging members of the same church. These diversities of result afford a most irrefragable proof, of the futility of the attempt to deduce the one catholic system from antiquity and tradition. The attempt is in fact an experimentum crucis ; for the result, by the very terms of the theory, can be but one ; all diversity is excluded. The problem is not an inde- terminate equation ; it admits of but one solution. In arriving, therefore, as they have done, at different results, these pretenders to Catholicism may well all be wrong, for error is infinite; but they cannot all be right, for truth is but one. If it be replied, that though all cannot be right, one is so, it is sufficient to ask, which is in that happy predicament ; and whether we are to regard Mr Ward, Mr Newman, Mr Palmer, or Mr Gladstone, as the one infallible ? When these precious logicians have de- cided this question, (which they well know is but to invite them to a restatement of their difficulties,) it M'ill be time enough to consider the value of the all-reconciling theory. Such diversity of result was inevitable. Professedly rejecting their individual judgment, these dreamers yet had nothing else to trust to. It was still a question of interpretation — as much so as with the Protestant — only with the pleasant addition that it was to extend over a whole library, instead of a book, embrace evi- dence infinitely more complicated, and term.inate in but one result. The decrees of Councils and the writings of Fathers, as Chillingworth well observed, are at least as difficult to be inter- preted as the Bible ; and it may be modestly conjectured, that inspired men could express themselves with as much per- spicuity as even a Chrysostom or a Jerome. The theory of the Oxford Tractarians — at least as that theory was originally developed in the remote antiquity of some seven years ago — only increased the difficulty which they affirm so insurmountable to the Bible Protestant. All this, Dr Wiseman, who is, of course, anxious to arrive at something more stable — even an ever-present oracle, a perpetual infallible guide — is not slow to perceive or ad- mit. ' Antiquity, as deposited in the writings of the early ages, is a 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 319 * dead letter, as much as the Bible ; it requires a living interpreter * no less. It has its obscurities, its perplexities, its apparent con- * tradictions as much : it requires a guide no less, to conduct us ' through its mazes. It cannot step in, and decide between con- ' flicting opinions and rival claims ; it can at most be a code * which requires a judge to apply it. It is more voluminous, ' more complex, more uncompact, than Scripture ; it needs more * some methodizing and harmonizing authoritative expounder.' * Having, in our former Article, given more space to the subject of Tradition and the Fathers, than is usually bestowed upon it even in works which formally treat of the Oxford Tract system, we do not feel disposed to resume it here. In that Article, we de- tailed the causes which must inevitably lead to the diversities of opinion which have appeared. We also examined the much vaunt- ed rule ofVincentius Lirinensis ; and after our best, and, we will add, honest efforts to understand and expound it, we were com- pelled to dismiss it as utterly vague und uncertain. We showed, that, if taken without any limitations, it is a manifest absurdity ; and if with all the limitations it requires, as manifest a nullity ; that at the very best, as fully expounded by its author, it is but a barren truism — assuring us that the Catholic faith is — the faith of Catholics, and reducing the great problem we have to solve, to this — ' Given the Catholic faith, to Jind it ! ' That we have proved this to the satisfaction of every unbiassed mind, in the Article referred to, we humbly venture to believe. If not, we invite a refutation of our reasonings. But though we believe that there are few propositions out of the exact sciences susceptible of such complete demonstration as the uncertainty and vagueness of all such methods of extracting the one system of Catholicism from tradition and antiquity,f * High Church Claims ; or, a Series of Papers on the Oxford CoU' trover sy. By Nicholas Wiseman. 1841, p. 37. f Next to Chillingwortb, we know none of our older authors by whom the uncertainty of tradition, and the egregious folly of trusting to it, have been more completely demonstrated than hy Jeremy Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, and his Dissuasive frorn Popery. His learning is so profuse, and his imagination so brilliant, as to throw into the shade Ids other s|)lendid endowments. But when he does himself full justice, his logic is quite equal to his rhetoric. — Of modern refuta- tions of the theory of tradition, or some of its main j)rincij)Ies, the pre- sent controversy lias elicited many worthy of the highest commendation. They will, we trust, he useful in promoting the ultimate settlement of this great question, when the works which immediately provoked them are read no more. Archbishop Whately has touched on the subject in 320 Recent Developments of Fuseijism. Oct. and the impossibility of obtaining uniform results, even with the aid of Vineentius to boot, the most striking argument to the popular mind is perhaps the^c^ of the diversities in which the attempt has actually issued. There are, first, thousands of un- questionable learnijig, candour, and perspicacity, who deny that any stable and uniform system can be deduced from such sources at all ; and secondly, those who affirm that such a system can be deduced, cannot agree about what it is. As variety of result was inevitable, so we need not wonder at the successive ' developments ' to which the advocates of the theory have been driven ; or that each has issued in a nearer approximation to Rome. Rome is, in fact, the only port on that open and stormy coast. The period called ' Antiquity ' is so ab- •^olutely uncertain — the exaggerations of scriptural doctrines and rites into errors and corruptions, so gradual — the errors and cor- various publications, with all his characteristic clearness, precision, and ability. Mr Powell's Tradition Unveiled, with the ' Supplement,' are well worthy of general perusal. Mr Alexander, in his Anglo- Catholicism not Apostolical, (chap. II., sec. 3, 4,) has treated the sub- ject with equal skill and moderation. To these authors it would be most ungrateful not to add Dr Conybeare — ISampton Lectures, for the year 1839, Analytical Examination of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. His work is one of the most candid and able we have ever read. It inciden- tally takes up, and with admirable moderation, the main questions con- nected with the claims of tradition, and the authority of the Fathers ; and though the lenience towards patristic infirmities and extravagances is carried quite as far as historical justice will allow, the conclusions ar- rived at are only the more striking on that very account. The work is not printed with an accuracy worthy of the Oxford press. To a small list of errata at the end, we have added about a score in the copy we perused. This we mention for the sake of one, which, in its way, is a literary curiosity. In a note, p. 166, we find an allusion to " the evo- cation of the spirit of Saul by the witch of Endor!" It is singular that so gross a blunder should have been written and copied by the author — seen in the proof — seen in the revise — read and re-read by the printer, and yet have passed without detection. If such errors, we are ready to exclaim, can creep into deliberately printed documents, what can we expect from tradition ? There are many other works on various points of this great contro- versy, (some written by authors in the church, and some by authors out of it,) which want of space alone prevents us from noticing with deserved approhation. Some of the principal were mentioned in our former article, and others will hereafter be alluded to. But the controversy is so volumi- nous, that it is impossible for a Quarterly Journal to criticize half the works with which the press is teeming. 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 321 ruptions themselves so concatenated — the citations and contra- citations from the Fathers so conflicting — that it is much more easy to admit the tlieory of ' development,' now so much in vogue, and to regard Romanism as a consistent evolution of pri- mitive Christianity, than to determine the point at which ' Tra- dition ' is exhausted, and ' Antiquity ' becomes modern. Having no reason to stop at any one point, these theorists are led on, according as caution or zeal predominates, from the second cen- tury to the third — from the third to the fourth or fifth, and so on. It was for this reason that we stated in our previous article, that ' thousands of Anglicans were contending for the system of ' the fourth or fifth century, and even there felt their footing in- ' secure.' Not a few have now conceded the supremacy of the Apos- tolic see, and seem to want no one thing which should make them return to the bosom of Rome, except the troublesome virtues — honesty and courage. For a long time, indeed, these writers were contented to use that plausible generality of ' antiquity,' just as they use the word ' Catholicism ' — as if it were quite determinate, when nothing is less so. One might imagine, to hear some of their expressions, that antiquity was as definite a measure of time as a century or a day ; that there was no more dispute about it than about a yard of tape, or a pound of tea. But when we consult Mr Newman, he sends us away disconsolate, by assuring us that the ' era of purity' cannot be fixed within a nearer approximation than four hundred years. Some will perversely take the term ' antiquity ' to mean the first two centuries — others the first three — others four ; and at these points pitch their frail tents — perfectly con- vinced in their own minds that there they have found that ' Ca- tholic consent' which excludes all exercise of private judgment — of which their uivn private judgment is of course their infalli- ble informant. The result corresponds. One man adopts this ' development ' of the apostolic r,Ocjt, as Mr Froude expressed it — another tbat. One man clutches a fragment of antiquity as a precious prize, which another looks at with contempt. Whatever time has ' brought down in his huge drag-net,' as Milton phrases it, is carefully raked out of the turbid stream, and appropriated by some one or other as a treasure. It is a scrap of apostolic doctrine — a sacred symbol — a martyr-relic. It is very easy for writers, by a careful abstinence from defini- tions, and a tacit reference to their oicn ophdonSi as if they were a standard, (each man they address of course doing the same friendly office for himself,) to assume the precise point in the movement, where alone resides Catholic truth ; and on each side 322 Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. of which is error, either in excess or by defect. This, as we have already remarked, is the fallacy into which Mr Gladstone has fallen. But there are in fact a hundred such points, and those perpetually shifting. At each stands, for a moment, some one who charitably warns those who are in advance, and benignly beckons onward those who are behind — assuring both parties, that in that very spot where he has planted his foot, is i\ie juste milieu — the golden mean of Catholic truth. Each man assumes his visible horizon to be a substantial limit, and threatens those who venture beyond it with the fate with which Columbus was me- naced by some philosophers of his day, that they will infallibly topple over the world's edge into the infinite void. In fact, however, the whole is in motion — it is a caravan of pilgrims, having, of course, its front and its rear ; and those who pitch their tents at night, imagining that they have taken up their abode for ever, are by no means certain that they will not be a stage nearer Rome before the next sun goes dovv'n. The confidence which the more moderate may feel that they have at- tained the place where enquiry terminates, and weary faith may repose herself, ought to be abated, when they reflect that the originators of the movement — those who have studied their common principles most intensely — who first expounded them — have already gone furthest, and have been convinced that the limit of Catholicity still lies beyond them. They are surely as likely as any to understand the common principles of the party, and upon these principles to be in the right. And we firmly believe that on those principles they are right — consistent in their progress, though not in any one position they have as- sumed ; they must say to Antiquity — ' A little onward, lend thy guiding hand To these dark steps — a little further on ' — and they will then find themselves, where alone they can be fully consistent, within the sheltering embraces of their Roman mother. At the existence of the now acknowledged tendencies to Romanism in a large portion of those who have advocated the ' Oxford Tract' system, none ought to wonder. As we have seen, the difficulties of applying their theory — the impossibility of ar- riving at one uniform result — will naturally prepare the way for such consequences. To allow weight to the tolerably concurrent opinion of antiquity, as a probably correct interpretation of some few very subordinate points in which Scripture may be regarded as obscure, is one thing ; quite another it is to regard it as ciulho- Titative, and that not only where Scripture is obscure, but where it says nothing, or even seems to say the contrary. Those who maintain this — who believe that tradition affords a supplementary 1 844. Recent Developments ofPuseyism. 323 Revelation co-ordinate in authority with Scripture — and who at- tempt to deduce the integral system of Catholic Christianity from it, find the difficulties in the evidence so insurmountable — such unreasonableness in stopping at any one point — such an equality of plausible arguments for the doctrines they would fain retain, and the doctrines they would fain reject — such variations in the views of different advocates of the very same principles, that they are apt, in very weariness of mind, to throw themselves into the arms of that church where enquiries are silenced, if not satisfied, and doubts are extinguished, though not solved. The system of the Oxford Tracts is in fact an inclined plane, and he who plants his foot upon it may think himself fortunate, if he does not ultimately find hijmself, after many gyrations, and with much vertigo, at the very bottom. This tendency to Romanism has been, doubtless, also increased by the intolerable absurdity of the position, which the Oxford Tract system compelled its advocates to occupy. According to that theory, the Catholic church is One and Visible, and con- sists of the * independent branches ' of the Romish, Greek, and Anglican churches. Now, the two first, after having excom- municated each other, both agree in excommunicating the last, and deny it the title of Catholic altogether. The Tractarians are equally unsuccessful in gaining unanimous assent to their views, even amongst the Catholics of their own church — thousands of whom, including, as we have said, Bishops and an Archbishop among them, deny both that the Catholic church is one visible community, and that the system of doctrines which these divines would impute to it, is a true system. The pressure of this difficulty could not but be felt by every reflecting disciple of the Oxford Tract School ; and has, in fact, led to the most desperate efforts for relief.' Dr Wiseman has un- mercifully, but most reasonably, exposed this curious theory of hostile alliances ; and denies, for Ms church, any knowledge whatsoever of this novel form of Catholicism. Mr Gladstone endeavours, as usual, to wrap up the difficulty in a soft phrase or two — to hide the cracks and crevices of the surface, by a glutin- ous varnish of plausible words, lie tells us — *In her (the Church's) ' apostolically descended ministry, such as we receive it upon * historical evidence, we are to acknowledge the organ of her ' collective action ; the medium of the intercommunication of ' those subordinate, yet also integral members, into which she is * not separated, but distributed or disposed.* * Exquisite euphem- * Church Principles, p. Bl-l. 324 Rece^it Developments of Puseyism. Oct. ism ! ' Distributed or disposed ! ' Communities at open war — mu- tually anathematized — reciprocally excommunicated, are still one community — they are only ' distributed or disposed ! ' The synecdoche is as bold as Ancient Pistol's for stealing. ' A fico 'for the phrase ! Convey^ the wise it call.' There is something both startling and melancholy, yet most true, in the reflection, that it is in their reasonings on the gravest of subjects that man- kind most laughably expose themselves. From the vagaries in question, the consistent Romanist and the consistent Protestant are, at all events, free. The former, though the unity of which he boasts is specious rather than solid, as many controvertists have conclusively shown, yet does not dream that it can be found in communities that are under each other's anathema. He cannot even comprehend so curious a harmony of discords — a union of communities which have no communion — a confederacy made up of nations at war — a body, the mem- bers of which are absolutely severed ; and of which, in every sense it may be said, ' the left hand knoweth not what the right ' hand doeth.' This is not his notion of organic unity. Consistent Protestants again are as little troubled v, ith any such difficulty ; for they do not admit that there is any one universal visible church at all.* In their view all true Christians, of what- soever communion, are members of the one universal, invisible church ; which consists of the faithful, not only of one age, but of all ages ; and is gathering to itself from the many visible churches, whatsoever is devout and holy in each — to assemble at last in that ' all-reconciling world,' where Bossuet and Leibnitz shall dispute no more, and where ' Luther and Zuingle shall be well agreed.' — * Variations,' which Catholics pretend to ex- clude, but never do, Protestants not only admit may exist, but con- tend that they cannot but exist. Their theory is very simple and intelligible. Theymaintain, with Chillingworth, that every man of * If there be any point which can be made clear, either from Scripture, or from the history of the first two centuries — and if that be not ' pri- mitive antiquity ' we know not what is — it is the independence of separate churches of one another. This is the conchision of all the most learned and candid ecclesiasticalhistorians — of Mosheim, Gieseler, Augusti, Wad- dington, Carapbell. It was the conclusion, also, of Barrow and Gibbon ; each, in a different way, likely to arrive at an opposite conclusion, if truth had not been too strong for prejudice. On this subject we recom- mend an admirable chapter on < The Holy Catholic Church,' in Mr Alex- andei-'s very able M-ork ; and Wbately's Essays on the Kingdom of Christ.— (Pp. 1-38, 1S9.) 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 325 sane mind, who honestly enquires, will arrive at sufficient truth to save him ; that, if there be any one who thus honestly enquires, and falls into perfectly involuntary error, that that error will not condemn him; that, if a man has no^ honestly enquired, his error is chargeable upon him in the degree in which he has, by his own negligence and wilfulness, invited it ; that these principles have, in fact, secured as great an approximation to unity, as the system which, after admitting the maxims which must infallibly issue in spiritual despotism to attain it, fails to do so ; and that, lastly, this is shown by the general harmony of Protestant con- fessions on points which as much transcend ' church principles' in importance, as they surpass them in clearness. Which of these two views of the subject is the nobler, the worthier — which best harmonizes with the instincts and exercises of Christian charity — which affords the more reasonable hope of an essential, though not an external union, we cannot now stay to enquire. But the Anglo-Catholic finds himself in a desperate dilemma. He manages to combine upon his theory every conceivable diffi- culty, and to unite all the lofty pretensions of Papal unity, with all the ' variations of Protestantism.' Having defined his one visible Catholic church, ninety-nine out of every hundred of that very church reclaim against its being any such thing. If the Tractarians be right, it clearly appears that the Catholic church, so far from being agreed as to the very essence of its Catholicism, not only does not know its own mind, but does not even know itself. It is of no avail to tell us that there are some points, some ' church principles,' in which they are all agreed, and that this constitutes them one visible community; for, 1. Such agreement in some principles can no more make separate commu- nities one visible community, than the agreement, and on much higher points, between the English and Scottish churches can make them one visible community. 2. The allegation is not true ; thousands and tens of thousands of that so-called church, nay, of the Anglican branch of it, deny that the said ' church principles' are any ' church principles' at all. 3. If there be some points in which they are agreed, it is equally true that there are many more, and those infinitely more important, in which Romanists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, and Lutherans all agree ; and these had surely better be made the basis of the one visible church, if there must be such a thing. Whether those principles, which make a man a Christian, and without which he is none, ought not to be a more reasonable basis ot Catholicity, we leave every reader to judge. 4. If they VOL. LXXX. NO. CLXII. Y 32G Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. were ever so much agreed in the alleged ' church principles,' that agreement cannot avail for the purpose, or neutralize the distinct assertion of the vast majority of the so-called Catholic church, that that agreement is not sufficient to constitute it. For hy the very principles of Catholicism, that and that only is catholic which is admitted every where, always, and by all ; hence the very asser- tion that the principles in question constitute the one Catholic church^'^annot itself be a catholic truth. Catholics are allowed, of course, to be at variance about what they admit not to be catho- lic, but they must not disagree about what is. Otherwise ' each * branch' of the Catholic church is at liberty to form its own ca- talogue of catholic essentials ; and, as the Oxford divines have done, constitute their catholic church accordingly. And there- fore we say to these divines, — 5. The points you select as Ca- tholic are just of your own arbitrary selection, the result of the exercise of your abjured private judgment. You have no reason for the limit you have found. Why have you not restricted your catalogue to the points of agreement amongst all Christians, or extended it to those of the Romish church ? They reply — because the one embraces fewer, and the other more, than the true principles of Catholicism — ' Catholicism as defined by whom ?' we reply. — ' By ourselves, to be sure.' — ' We thought ' so. On what authority?' — ' On that of the Ancient Church.' * What do you call ancient?' * We don't know exactly — some- * thing between the third and seventh centuries — more or less.* * And who interprets, after all, the sentence of antiquity ?' ' We * do.' ' All just as we supposed,' we reply, — ' that is, you fix * on your own test of Catholicism, and the Romanists have just * as much reason for fixing on another. And yet you are the * men who have nothing to do with private judgment I ' Can we wonder, that, oppressed by the portentous figment of one visible church — made up of mutually excommunicated com- munities, and constituted by principles which no inconsiderable minority deny to be true, which, however true, the immense majority deny to be the essence of Catholicism, and which are determined by a small knot of divines on that private judgment which they abjure, and who themselves are now splitting into opposite parties — can we wonder that many of the disciples of this school feel compelled to go a little further in search of that one visible church which they are persuaded exists, and sigh for that unity which they have as yet found only in name? Let none be surprised, then, at the formation of a ' new school,' or the expansion of the ' old school ; ' — we care not which they call it, for the fact of hopeless diversities is the point on which we principally insist. That fact shows us, that the Oxford theory 1844. Recent Developments of Piiscyism. 327 is an ignominious failure: what was early predicted, experience has now confirmed. Never were there such lofty pretensions conjoined with such a miserable result. These divines were to render themselves, and us, independent of the exercise of private judgment, by appealing to the oracle of the ' Church,' and we find the responses of that very oracle dictated by nothing but pri- vate judgment ; they were to give us a determinate and infallible view of the one Catholic system, and they give us a dozen in- stead; they promised us absolute unity, and they end in universal confusion; they were to construct a symmetrical fabric on the model of antiquity, and they show us a medley of the architecture of all ages ; they were to ' build a tower whose top should reach * to heaven,' and like those who first made such an attempt, they find themselves suddenly paralysed, and in a similar way ; even by discovering that they are babbling all the dialects of Babel. Absolute agreement as to what is Catholic, would seem to be peculiarly necessary and becoming in these theorists, if we con- sider that it is a corollary from their system, that the people are to dispense with the duty of private judgment. They profess to provide each man with an ' authorized guide' to religious truth, whom he is implicitly to follow. Now it must be suf- ficiently puzzling even to him who has not yet resolved to take his priest's ipse dixit, to find so many different versions of Catholicism, and so much ' private judgment' exercised among those who renounce it. But what cruel perplexity does it entail on the thousands in every country, who are willing to accept the grateful offer of relieving them of the too onerous cares of immor- tality, and to deposit their souls, without further thought, in any spiritual bank of decent credit ; — on that large class who, to use Bishop Earle's phrase, ' are ready to take their religion as part * of their copyhold ;' on those docile and humble spirits, who only want to know what they are to believe, and are ready to believe it incontinently ! What cruel perplexity must it cause in them, to see so many varied and flexible forms of Catholi- cism—to hear what is called momentous truth on the one side of the parish boundary, denounced as deadly error on that; — one ' au- * thorized guide,' proclaiming the doctrines of Mr Newman or Dr Pusey, another expressly contradicting them ; and a multi- tude of others taking their stand at every intermediate point be- tween these extremes, and rebuking the excesses on cither side. Nor docs their perplexity end here ; for to their astonishment they are informed, that not only are two contiguous parishes bound to receive the doctrine of two ' authorized guides,' who in effect teach contrarieties, but that the authorized guides of the 328 Recent Developments of Puscyism. Oct. one Catholic cliurch of Rome, Greece, and England, are en- titled to the same allegiance wherever they are found ; that therefore the Romish priest is the ' authorized guide' to truth in Italy and Spain; the Greek priest in Russia ; and the" Angli- can in England, — though a Romish priest in England, somehow or other, instantly becomes a schismatic. So Mr Gladstone and others affirm, but how it happens, they have not clearly ex • plained. On the whole, however, it would appear, that it does }iot much matter to which of these forms of Catholicism a man belongs; and hence our tourists who visit the Continent are told by some Oxford writers, that they will there find nothing but Romanism to be the genuine Catholic article. After diligently reading most of the principal works, and no small number of the tracts and pamphlets which this voluminous controversy has produced, the greatest and most irrefragable argu- ment against ' church principles,' appears to us not their absur- dity, though that is flagrant enough, but their essential unchari- tableness. We stand absolutely confounded at the fatuity of men, who, with the New Testament in their hands, profess to be willing to fraternize with Rome, but cannot fraternize with Lutherans and Presbyterians ; who affect to consider the points of differ- ence between the church of Spain and the church of England less vital than those between the church of England and that of Scotland ; who, for the sake of such a figment as apostolical suc- cession, and other figments as shadowy, remorselessly exclude a large portion of the communities of Christendom from the very name, rights, and privileges of Christian churches; who can ima- gine the great doctrines in which both they and their opponents coincide, and which form the theme and triumph of inspired elo- quence, of less moment than doctrines and rites on which the Scripture is ominously silent, or which seem to stand in shocking contrast to the moral grandeur and magnanimous spirit of the Christian institute. Yet so it is : and we need no other evidence of the degrading and narrowing effects of such principles, than that this most melancholy result of them should inspire so little sorrow ; or rather should be so frequently proclaimed more in triumph than regret. The generality of the Oxford School pro- claim the consequences of their ' principles,' not only with an ar- rogance which ill befits such equivocal conclusions ; but without a particle of the sorrow which, even if true, they should excite in the breast of every benevolent man. There is only one ex- ception to this remark, so far as we recollect, and that is Mr Gladstone. He is so impressed with the importance of rescuing, 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 329 if possible, his cherished ' church principles' from the charge of uncharitableness, that he returns once and again to the attempt; and, however futile his arguments, we honour the feeling which prompts them. If he at length joins his fellow disciples in stabbing charity to the heart, it is with an averted eye and a re- luctant hand — with something of the yearning with which Aga- memnon may be supposed to have sacrificed his Iphigenia. AAA ijx,Ofisii yx^ ilg d^^ayKottug Tvy^xg &uycirq6g ccificiTYi^ou ix,7r^Ai,cii (fouov. This renitency of Mr Gladstone's to accept, without an effort to alleviate them, the consequences of his church principles, is the more remarkable, that in general he does not, any more than his friends of the 'Tracts,' hesitate to glide away from any real objection, and evade any real difficulty. In truth, he gene- rally selects the very weakest arguments to exercise his prowess upon ; he acts on the prudent advice given by the rabble to Ivanhoe : ' Touch the Hospitaller's shield — he is your cheapest bargain.' We can attribute his unusual courage, therefore, on the present occasion, only to his solicitude to relieve, if pos- sible, his hypothesis of a difficulty which his own amiable and conciliatory disposition tells him is, if real, the greatest difficulty of all. His principal arguments may deserve a brief notice. He sometimes retorts the charge of intolerance by saying, that those who deny church principles are still more uncha- ritable, for they deny the Romish and Greek churches to be churches. If there be such Protestants, as there undoubtedly are, they would reply that it is not for professing church principles that they deny the title of Christian churches to these corrupt communities, but on account of far more vital and tremendous abuses, and which — whether the charge of such abuses be well- founded or not — are of infinitely greater moment than the nonsense of apostolical succession. But we may say more. To the great bulk of Protestants the retort is indeed telum imhelle. They do not deny that these churches hold what is es- sential to constitute true Christianity, and therefore true churches of Christ; they merely affirm that they hold much more, and have incrusted the truth with the gravest and most destructive errors. Where is the Protestant who does not consider the names of Pascal, Fenelon, Massillon, and many more, dear not to Romanism only, but to our common Christianity ? Another argument, which Mr Gladstone is fond of urging, and which he has treated at length in his ' Church Principles,' is not a little curious. He argues that those principles are not in effect uncharitable at all ; inasmuch as they do not deprive 330 Hecent Developments of Puseyisni. Oct. the opponent of any thing to which he lays claim. For example : in denying the Presbyterian or Lutheran churches to be true churches of Christ on account of not having the episcopate, he would say that he does not deny them any thing they claim, for they abjure episcopacy. It must surely have been an unusual stress of weather which induced him to seek refuge in such a port. Is it possible, we are ready to ask, that Mr Gladstone was unconscious of so transparent a fallacy? or shall we ex- change the charge of controversial dishonesty for the hypothesis, that his prejudices have wholly clouded his common sense, or produced an incurable strabismus of intellect? Does it not seem obvious that the Presbyterian or the Lutheran would r.'ply, ' You assume that the "church," which is a divine in- * stitution, and the privileges of which every Christian is anx- * ious to claim, is exclusively episcopal; and in assuming this, * you exclude me from it, and therefore deprive me of some- ' thing I claim to possess. In denying my church to be episco- * pal, you do me no wrong ; in denying my church to be a church ' at all, you do me much.' We will endeavour, if possible, to make our meaning still clearer. The late Dr Southey once ventured on the preposterous declaration that he who was not a Churchman was only half an Englishman. If a Dissenter, indig- nant at being thus characterized as a sort of alien, were to com- plain, would it not sound odd to say, ' Friend, I do you no wrong; ' I say you are not a churchman, and you say the same.' ' True,' would be the reply, ' and in that you do me no wrong; but you * are pleased to assume that the distinction in question is essen- * tial to my being an Englishman — a title on which I justly value ' myself, and in that assumption you do me wrong.' But Mr Gladstone shall refute himself. He knows he does not apply his reasonings with equity. He every where chafes at the lofty pretensions — though far more consistent than his own — of the Romish church; and bitterly complains of that exclusiveness which prompts her to deny the title of a true church to the church of England. Would he be satisfied if the Romanist were to retort his argument, and say, ' Heretic, I do thee no * wrong ; I deprive thee of nothing thou claimest to possess ; ' thou thyself deniest those doctrines which I say are essential * to the one only Holy and Catholic church. The very mea- * sure which thou, in thy ignorance and presumption, metest to ' thy miserable brother heretics of Germany, England, and Scot- ' land — that very measure I mete to thee !' As far as this argu- ment goes, therefore, we hardly think it relieves Mr Gladstone's * Church Principles' from the blot which still stains, and must ever stain them — of extreme uncharitableness. In truth, nothing 1844. Ttecent Developments of Piiseyism. 331 can obliterate it — it pervades the very texture of the * Church * Principles' themselves, and it passes all the artifices of his logic to conceal it. The solvent which should obliterate the stain ■would dissolve the texture too. Mr Gladstone himself seems half afraid of this, for, after one strenuous effort of his charity, he exclaims — ' Perhaps, however, it may seem to some, that, under * the explanations here suggested, the essence of church princi- ' pies is allowed to escape.' — {Church Principles, p. 423.) Never- theless, for efforts so seldom made by disciples of his school, we honour and applaud him. We must not quit this division of our subject without making one or two remarks on that most daring hypothesis of * developments,' as applied to the whole history of Christianity, which has been adopted by some continental champions of the Romish church, and of which a modification seems much in favour with a section of the Oxford school. According to this theory, the whole enormous expansion of the Papacy is but a * development' of primitive Christianity — and the analogy be- tween them is that of the germ to the plant, or the infant to the man. According to its most eminent expositors, we are at liberty to suppose that many parts of this mature and fully evolved Christian system were absolutely unknown to the foun- ders of Christianity — and so far we most sincerely agree with them. We are to suppose, that when Christianity ' was a child, ' it spake as a child, it thought as a child, it understood as a * child ; but when it became a man, it put away childish things' — and amongst other things, we fear, the simplicity, innocence, and guilelessness of childhood. The Apostolic writings might do all very well in the dawn of the Church's history, but it is in the blaze of the eighth, or better still, the twelfth century — in the age of Gregory VII. or Innocent III. — that we are to recognise the meridian glories of Christianity ! Without charging him with going the full lengths of so extra- vagant a theory, Mr Newman, in one of the sermons of his recent volume — that entitled ' Religious Developments,' has conceded enough to alarm Mr Palmer. The style, as in the other pro- ductions of this singular writer, and as in the ' Tracts,' gene- rally, is admirably constructed to convey more than is expressed — though more than enough for any ordinary mind is plainly enough expressed. On this theory, as adopted by Romish writers, we briefly re- mark, 1. That it is just a speculation as purely rationalistic as any of those which the Church of Rome professes so intensely to abhor. Extremes meet — and here we find the professed cne- 332 Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. mies of rationalism adopting principles which might delight the heart even of a Paulus or a Strauss. But let it not be forgot- ten, that many can play at this game of ' developments.' If those portions of the Romish system may be true, of which Apostles never dreamt, why may not similar portions of other sys- tems be true? If primitive Christianity was adapted only to the exigencies of the then state of the world, why not improve it into other systems as well as that of the Papacy ? If we are at liberty to assume the truth of deductions, unvouched and unproven by revelation, what are the limits to be placed on this license of speculation? 2. The theory is in direct, almost whimsical, con- trast with the oldfashioned methods of defence which Rome had for ages employed. Its ancient defenders used to exclaim, ' No * innovation — let every thing be proved by antiquity;' and there is no art which sophistry can devise, or effrontery practise, which has not been employed to make venerable documents speak their mind — no violence of exegesis^ no necromancy of criticism, which has been left untried, to m.ake the dead Fathers utter, though with dire contortions, oracles in their favour. But this was often found difficult, sometimes impossible, and the theory of development offers a more facile method. As to the Fathers — requiescant in pace — we need conjure with their ashes no more; let them be left to their ignorance of points which it may well be supposed they could not know. As we possess many ' de- ' velopments' which they were not blessed withal, so our poste- rity will have an equal advantage over us ! 3. As this last propo- sition is gravely maintained, we are disposed to be rather sur- prised at the zeal with which Roman Catholics, and our Oxford friends with them, are contending for nearly the whole religious life of the Middle Ages. They ought, in consistency, rather to have their eyes fixed on the future, and indulge prophetic visions of a yet more splendid Avatar of Christianity. ' If you urge,' ' says Mr Palmer, ' the silence of Scripture, or of the Fathers * and Councils, or their apparent inconsistency with Romish ' doctrines or practices, the reply is at hand — " The doctrines ' or practices in question were not developed during those ages." ' Thus it is continually assumed that Romanism is the develop- ' me)it of Christianity ; and this assumption apparently rests on * the further assumption, that whatever is extensively prevalent ' in the Church — whatever is allowed or tolerated by her autho- * rities — cannot be a corruption.' * This last assertion he of course * Narrative, p. 61. 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 333 denies ; but we would forewarn him that he must take heed — he is between Scylla and Chary bdis — for, if he admits that there have been corruptions so widely spread in the church as transubstantia- tion, and purgatory, who shall assure him that his church princi- ples — the very proof of which is their supposed universality — are not among' the number? Whether Mr Palmer chooses to affirm, that he knows them to be true, though real corruptions may Lave been equally universal, or that they, and they alone, were truly universal, we know not. But it little matters; for all that Mr Palmer can allege for either assertion is, ' / think so, and * those who think with me think so.' Very true; and those who do not think with you do not think so. We come back again to our old friend ' private judgment.' Sure we are, he would find it difficult to bring forward evidence for many of his church principles which would not equally apply to the doctrine of the Chiliasts — the administration of the eucharist to infants — the invocation of saints — purgatory — clerical celibacy— and the monastic institute. M/ We now proceed to make a few observations on some of the specific extravagances into which some of the principal leaders of the Oxford school, more especially Dr Pusey and Mr New- man, have plung'ed since our former survey of this subject — extravagances which hardly leave room for wonder that they should be regarded as very extraordinary members of the church of England ; or that the school which they have founded has exhibited its recent phases, or, if Mr Palmer will, that it has issued in a ' new school.' We commence with Dr Pusey's celebrated ' Sermon on the Eucharist,' which, about a year ago, convulsed Oxford, and immediately led to those proceedings which terminated in a sen- tence of silence for two years. On the proceedings of the Uni- versity itself — whether they were expedient as well as just — whether less should have been done, (if less could have been done,) or more — we shall not trouble our readers. They will find a very temperate defence of these proceedings in Professor Garbett's Letter to the Vice- Chancellor, elicited by the 'Protest' which was presented against them. We meddle only with the sermon itself. All persons must have been struck by the contrast between the intensity of feeling- excited by the delivery of the discourse, and the rapidity with which ' twenty thousand copies' of it were disposed of; and the remarkable apathy with which it was perused by the country at large, and the unusually swift pace 334 Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. at which it proceeded towards its predestined oblivion. Profes- sor Garbett not unnaturally attributes this to the prompt and vio^orous measures .which were taken to vindicate the insulted majesty of the Church ; but we suspect that this is not the whole, nor even the chief part of the wonder. We apprehend that the true but lowly reason was, that the great majority of the twenty thousand purchasers found themselves miserably dis- appointed when they came to look into the sermon, and heartily wished that the small sum which they had improvidently ex- pended thereon were in their pockets again. Obscure, and ap- parently self- contradictory in statement, feeble and prolix in style, in some parts a mere tissue of scraps and fragments from the Fathers, followed by a soporiferous appendix of some sixty pages of tedious citations from English Divines — we question whether one twentieth part of them read a half of it, and are confident that those who gave it a patient perusal, at any rate, form a most insignificant minority. In truth, we have no fear of Dr Pusey's making many proselytes by his writings. All his polemical pro- ductions are insupportably heavy, both in point of matter and style. His page is so tattooed ys'xih. quotations and references, that we can hardly discover the native complexion of his own thoughts. Many a page of his tedious work on baptism is little else than a patch-work of quotations from the Fathers, flounced with a deep margin of references. He reminds us of that class of controvertists of whom Milton says, ' When they have, like good sumpters, * laid you down their horse-load of citations and Fathers at your * door, you may take off their packsaddles ; their day's work is * done.' The author of the Article which we have presumed to attribute to Mr Gladstone says, that Mr Garbett, in his Letter, has not ventured to controvert one of the positions in the celebrated discourse on the Eucharist, and intimates that it must have been because they were incontrovertible. We must suppose, there- fore, that this author adheres to Dr Pusey's views of the Eucha- rist ; to which, indeed, from some expressions in the Church Principles, so far as we can flatter ourselves that we understand them, we should imagine Mr Gladstone can have little objection. But with respect to the above statement, we must remind him, that there are other reasons for not controverting dogmas, besides that of their being inontrovertible. They must, at all events, be definite ; and he who will engage to say what are those of Dr Pusey on this subject, must be a bold interpreter indeed. That they are not those of the Church of England, was all that was necessary for his censors to aSirm. What they 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 335 are, may well pass their skill to decide. When Tertullian declares, that the ' soul ' is ' capable of being grasped in the * hand, soft, shining, transparent, and in form exactly resembling ' the body,' we may certainly conclude that he did not believe it immaterial ; but what he did believe it to be, could be known, we imagine, only to Tertullian himself, if even to him. The case would seem, in brief, to be this. Dr Pusey has sworn and subscribed, ex animo^ the Thirty-nine Articles ; of which the Twenty-eighth says, amongst other things, that ' the * bodyof Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, ow/?/ after ' a heavenly and spiritual manner ; ' but in his * sermon ' (in the preface of which he avows, that he receives the words of institu- tion ' in their literal sense ') he declares — * To him [the com- ' municant] its [the sacrament's] special joy is, that it is his ' Redeemer's very broken Body ; it is His Blood which was shed ' for the remission of his sins. In the words of the ancient church, * he drinks his ransom, he eateth that, the very Body and Blood ' of the Lord.* .... His Flesh and Blood in the sacra- ' ment shall give life, not only because they are the Flesh and ' Blood of the Incarnate Word, who is Life, but also because ' they are the very Flesh and Blood which were given and shed ' for the life of the world This is said yet more ' distinctly in the awful words whereby he consecrated for ever ' elements of this world to be His Body and Blood, t .... * Touching with our very lips that cleansing Blood.' % To these we might also add many other expressions equally strong. Now, the question is, whether he who holds the latter views can, in any intelligible sense, be considered as holding the doc- trine of the Church of England ; and on this, issue is joined. Dr Pusey, in his defence, says, that he is quite surprised that he should be suspected of any inconsistency with the Church of England, as he has said no more than what is warranted, not merely by many of the ancient Fathers, but by many Divines of the English church itself. On which remarkable line of defence we have to remark — \. That we imagined it was to the Thirty- nine Articles that Dr Pusey had sworn his consent, and not to the writings of Laud, Cosins, or Ken. 2. That we imagined it was the former, and not the latter, that were presumed to convey the doctrine of the Church of England. 3. That, on the supposi- tion that other Anglican divines have said the same as Dr Pusey, it assuredly follows, that if he be wrong, they also are equally wrong ; and that, if Ite be innocent, they also are innocent ; but * Sermon on ike Eucharist, p. 18. | Ibid. p. 20. % Ihid. p. 23, 336 Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. that the plea will avail any further, we cannot perceive — it being neither more nor less than just the schoolboy's argument, that B did no more than A did, whereupon it requires to be seen whether A did right or wrong. 4. That if Dr Pusey fur- ther say, that as they were not rebuked, he ought not to be, his censors may well reply, that if they said what he has said, they ought to have been rebuked ; but that, as his censors did not happen to live two or three hundred years ago, and if they had, might not have been in a condition to censure, the impunity of the aforesaid parties cannot be charged upon them. 5. That, after a diligent inspection of the passages cited by Dr Pusey, we find comparatively few which at all come up in strength to those which are found in Dr Pusey's sermon ; while a large number are so qualified by the context as to show that, however willing the writers might be to hyperbolize on the subject of the Eucharist, they were hardly prepared to stand by a literal in- terpretation of their figures or rhetoric. 6. That Dr Pusey does not contend that these divines are all consistent wdth themselves — very far from it, we should say. Now, it is clear, that all such as are inconsistent in their statements (and they would include his principal authorities) are to be subducted from his catalogue. If A shall say that a thing is white, and also that it is black, what right have we to plead his authority for supposing him to mean the one rather than the other ? Surely it is more natural to assume, that he had some method of reconciling his state- ments inconsistent with the absolute assertion of either, or, more probably, did not know his own mind at all. 7. That in some of the cases to which appeal is made, it is manifest that the doc- trine of the authors cited, let it have been what it may, could not have been such as to aftbrd any apology for Dr Pusey. Let us take, for example, Hooker. Dr Pusey, or rather the friend who compiled the appendix for him, has given us no less than four pages of extracts from Hooker's writings ; but, in the first of them, has discreetly stopped short at the very sentence which shows incontrovertibly that, be his meaning what it may, or let him have no consistent meaning at all, it cannot be the doctrine of Dr Pusey, or any thing like it. The omitted sentence (con- cluding a paragraph by the bye,) is as follows : — ' The real ' presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not, there- ' fore, to be sought for in the sacrament, but in the worthy re- ' ceiver of the sacrament.' * Precisely the same thing is done in the case of Jeremy Taylor. Ecclesiastical Polity. Book v. sect. 67. 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. S37 III the very paragraph from which the first extract is given, we find the words, ' Christ is present spiritually — that is, by effect * and blessing, which, in true speaking, is rather the consequent ' of his presence than the formality;' while the very sentence, at which the second citation stops short, affirms that there is no more change in the elements at the Eucharist than in Baptism — * It is here as in the other sacrament ; for, as there, natural water ' becomes the laver * of regeneration, so, here, bread and wine * become the body and blood of Christ ; but there, and here ' too, the first substance is changed by grace, but remains the ' same in nature.' All which expressions, and thousands more of the like nature, would seem only to imply a very obscure way of stating, that the formula of institution is not to be understood, as Dr Pusey expressly says he does understand it, ' literally.' f But, after all, we must not forget, that th'\sjascine of cita- tions, however ingeniously interwoven, is in truth nothing to the purpose ; the real standard of appeal being not this or that divine, or half-a-dozen of them, but those documents to which Dr Pusey has sworn. If he may defend himself behind every thing which a Laud or a Cosins may have uttered, his shitld will, indeed, be broad enough ! Similar observations apply to Dr Pusey 's appeals to the Fa- thers. They are not the Thirty-nine Articles to which Dr Pusey has sworn ; and afford, therefore, about as sound a plea as a rule of Roman law would, if alleged against the enactments of our own. Nor is this all; the Fathers are themselves most obscure, inconsis- tent, and contradictory on this question ; as all who have waded through any of the principal controversial works of Romanists * Printed, ludicrously enough, < the lava of regeneration,' in Bishop Heber's edition of Taylor's works. f It may perhaps be said that, as Dr Pusey has warned us that some of the writers he cites are not consistent with themselves, he was not bound to give their inconsistencies. We reply, first, that he was bound not to cite the inconsistent at all — since it is impossible to tell in what sense they intended their language should be understood ; secondly, that he was doubly so bound, when the discrepancies are such as to show, that whatever the meaning of the writers, they could not have had his mean- ing; and, lastly, that the studied exclusion of inconsistent expressions resembles too much those controversial arts — that packing of literary juries — which distinguished the construction of the ' Catence Patruiiiy^ and other portions of the ' Tracts ;' and which compelled Mr Goode to exclaim — ' However we may account for it, truth has been sacrificed.' Any fault, however, on the present occasion, we do not attribute to Dr Pusey, who clearly had no hand in it ; it must be charged on the friend, more zealous than wise, who compiled the Appendix. 338 Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. and Protestants on the subject of Transubstantiation, know full woU. We have one Father against another, and the same Father often against himself. If Chrysostom,in his extravagant rhetoric, tells us of the ' tongue reddened with the most awful blood,' and ' that to those who desire it. He hath given Himself, not only to ' see but to touch, and to eat, and to fix their teeth in his flesh ;' he kindly balances the statement by saying, that ' the bread is es- ' teemed worthy to be called the Lord's body, although the na- ' ture of bread remains in it.' If Tertullian in one place assures us, that ' believers partake of the grace of the eucharist, by the ' cutting up and distribution of the Lord's body ;' he in another also assures us, that the meaning of the Scripture phrase, ' this * is my body,' is, ' this is the representation of my body.' If Justin magnifies the rite by affirming, ' that the food which has ' been blessed with the word of blessing from him, is likewise the ' flesh and blood of the same incarnate Jesus,' he none the less affirms, that ' the eucharist is the commemoration of our Lord's * passion.' We may remark, by the way, that many of the expressions cited from the Fathers are so irreverent and absurd, that if they had but occurred in modern writers — if they were not covered by the ' hoar of ages,' — Dr Pusey and his school, we are convin- ced, would be the first to condemn them. Strange, we are ready to exclaim, that what would be pronounced fanatical nonsense in the mouth of a Whitefield or a Wesley, is denominated sacred and holy if uttered by the lips of Chrysostom or Jerome. Yet so it is ; ' the nonsense of one age becomes the wisdom of an- * other, and an ancient farthing moulders into infinitely more * value than a modern guinea.' * With sharpen'd sight pale antiquaries pore, Th' inscription value, but ih^rust adore ; This the blue varnish, tbat the green endears, The sacred rust of twice ten hundred years.' That many of the English Divines, partly participating in the solicitude of the Fathers to invest the Eucbaristwitha supernatural character, partly yielding to the superstitious prejudices which the long triumph of the doctrine of Transubstantiation had nurtured, have given expression to opinions quite as incompre- hensible and transcendental as those of the Romish church, cannot be denied. It is equally clear, as Dr Pusey admits, that not a few are inconsistent with themselves, and defy all inter- pretation. Many of them contend, indeed, that there is a ' real * presence' in the sense that Christ is truly present ; but then it is not a ' natural' or a ' carnal' presence ; his ' body' is present, but then it is * spiritually,' ' mystically,' present. In spite of all 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 339 this jargon, one might suppose, from many expressions, that they, after all, mean nothing more than the consistent Pro- testant means — that there is no change in the elements at all — that the words are to be understood figuratively, and not literally — that the bread and the wine are but symbols, vividly suggesting through the senses and imagination the great and mo- mentous truths they commemorate; and the analogy which sub- sists between the elfects of the one upon the physical, and of the other upon the spiritual nature of man. Such are certain ex- pressions of Jeremy Taylor, such many of Hooker. Yet is it certain, that many of the Anglican Divines contend for some- thing much more than this, though they know not what ; some- thing as perfectly unintelligible as transubstantiation itself, and which seems, at all events logically, to involve it. They use ex- pressions, in fact, which irresistibly suggest the idea, that they wished, under a cloud of words, to glide away from the con- troversy, and to strike a hollow truce with Rome by the aid of an ambiguity. They affirm that there is a change, a stupendous change, ef- fected in the elements by the formula of consecration, but not transubstantiation ; those elements literally, not figuratively, become the very flesh and blood of Christ, while there is no change of the natural substance of bread and wine ; the ' body ' of Christ is there, only it is there ' spiritually ;' it is ' really' present, but not 'corporeally;' it is a presence not 'local,' but' super-local,' — to use Mr Newman's explanatory jargon in ' Tract No. 90.' Now what may be the spiritual presence of a body^ what its ' substan- ' tial,' but not ' corporeal' presence;* what it is for a body to be not ' locally,' but ' super-locally' present, is, at all events, as incom- prehensible as the Romanist proposition of the ' accidents' re- maining without the ' substances;' and both alike we may hope to understand when we have solved the noted question propounded in Martinus Scriblerus, ' whether, besides the real being of actual * being, there be any other being necessary to cause a thing to be.' Well may Mr Alexander exclaim, ' What between the anxiety * of the Anglicans to maintain the real presence, on the one * hand, and their dread of using words that would fix upon them ' the advocacy of transubstantiation on the other, their state- ' ments are to common understandings somewhat impenetrable.'! * See particularly the extracts from Cosins, cited in Dr Pusey's A]i- pendix. f Anglo- Co tJioUcism not Apostolical p. 393. The whole passage is well worthy of perusal. 340 Recent Developments ofPuseyism. Oct. It is in vain for Dr Pusey to tell us that such things are great mysteries, and that, by the very nature of mysteries, they are totally incomprehensible. We refuse not to believe mysteries, merely on the ground that they are such, for we believe many; we ask oidv the extrinsic evidence that we are called on to believe them; and that the mysteries themselves, though we cannot solve them, should be at least capable of being conveyed in terms that are neither absolutely devoid of meaning, nor absolutely con- tradictory. To deal with the second condition first ; we affirm, that in the present case, the very propositions are either incom- prehensible or contradictory. A change, which changes a thing, and which yet leaves it as it was — a change, these are the words, by which bread and wine literally become flesh and blood, and yet remain bread and wine — a body spiritually present — present, not locally, but super-locally — are, in any ordinary meaning of the terms, either wholly unintelligible or diametrically contradictory. The Romanist himself is not driven to more desperate straits in the management of his theory, and can evade objections with a more plausible sophistry. When we remind him of Bel- larmine's expression, ' that the body of the Lord is sensibly * touched with the hands, broken and bruised with the teeth ;* * Ah !' he replies, ' it is through the medium of the sacramental * species, — mediantihus speciebus,' As to the first condition ; it surely well behoves those who thrust these metaphysical subleties into theology, and then call them ' sacred truths,' to be ready, at all events, with that extrin- sic evidence which can alone justify us in receiving any mystery. To this the answer is prompt, — ' It is expressly said, *' This is * my body;" ' and we admit, that if this expression is to be un- derstood literally, the answer is plain enough, — so plain, that we wonder that any controvertists should trouble themselves to accumulate strong quotations from the Fathers ; for scarcely one is so strong as the words of institution, and none can be stronger. This the Romanists truly allege. And the an- swer to the plea, thus narrowed, is equally plain. We say to those who thus reason, — ' Then fairly apply the same rea- * soning to other passages — to the metaphorical language of the * Bible generally — to analogous expressions of our Lord him- ' self; or as fairly show why you do in the one case what you do ' not in the other. Do not interpret Him, who, being the wisest ' of teachers, and knowing the nature of man, employed parable ' and metaphor more largely than any other teacher ever did — * do not interpret Him, on this single occasion, as you never do on ' any other. When our Lord says, " I am the vine," — " I am the *' door," — " I am the resurrection," — or (to adduce passages 1844. Becent Developments of Puseyism. 341 * which are equally conclusive, thoug-h we do not recollect seeing ' them urged by controvertists,) — when he says, " He that doeth * the will of God, the same is my mother, and sister, and bro- < ther;" — " My meat and my drink is to do the will of my Fa- * ther;" when he says, on the cross, to his mother, concerning John, " Woman, behold thy son," and to John, " Behold thy mo- ' ther," not to mention numberless other cases; no man feels any ' temptation to talk metaphysical nonsense, or proposes to dis- ' cover any transcendental mysteries. We conclude, therefore, ' that you find such mysteries in this one passage, only because * you v:ant to find them there.' — What Selden said so truly of Transubstantiation, may be equally said of every other theory which depends on the literal interpretation of the words of insti- tution, — ' It is nothing but rhetoric turned into logic.'* Meantime, as Jeremy Taylor truly observes, all men, in fact, whatever may be their pretences, must come to the figurative at last. On the words, * This cup,' &c., he asks, ' To what can * To-jTo refer but to rro-riPiov, " this cup," and let whatsoever sense ' be aflfixed to it afterwards, if it do not suppose a figure, then ' there is no such thing as figures, or words, or truth, or things. 'f He afterwards affirms and shows, ' that there is in the words of ' institution such a heap of tropes and figurative speeches, that ' almost in every word there is plainly a trope.' :j: Dr Pusey bears the general character of an amiable and mo- dest man. We regret, in common with Professor Garbett, that he should, in the preface to his Sermon, § have departed from his usual character. He talks of the opposition or ridicule which his theory of the Eucharist may meet with as blasphemy and profanity. Not a shadow of a misgiving does he seem to have, that he may by possibility be mistaken, or that a doctrine which * We had written our remarks on Dr Piisoy's Sermon before the valuable pamphlet of Professor Lee attracted our notice. Mis views of the inconcliisiveness of Dr Pusey's defence, and of the fallacy of his cafena, coincide with our own. And his denunciation of the vvhole Oxford sys- tem is equally honest and eloquent. I On Transubstantiation, Sect. 5. | Ibid. Sect. G. § ' It is with pain that the following Sermon is pul)lished. For it is im- possil)le for any one not to foresee one portion of its effects ; what floods, namely, of blasphemy af,'-ainst holy truth will be poured forth by the in- fidel, or heretical, or secular and anti-religious papers with which our church and country are at this time afflicted. It is like casting, with one's own hand«, that which is most sacred, to be outraged and profaned.' — Preface. VOL. LXXX. NO. CLXII. Z 342 Recent Developments of Puseyism. Oct. his fellow Christians, members of the very same church, are either constrained to denominate jargon, or, so far as they can catch a glimpse of his meaning, to denounce as contrary to the very Articles which he has sworn that he believes, can be any other than absolute truth. The whole OjDening para- graph is worthy rather of Hildebrand than of Dr Pusey. But we forbear to comment longer on this mournful spectacle, and content ourselves with recommending to the attention of our readers the mild and dignified rebuke of Professor Garbett. With regard to the charge of ' blasphemy and profanity,' so lightly preferred against those who merely question Dr Pusey's infallibility, we can only say, that we trust no conscientious man will hesitate freely to denounce, and, if necessary, ridicule, what he sincerely believes most pernicious ' nonsense,' merely because some are pleased to call it a ' sacred mystery.' Ineffably painful as it may be to a devout mind to speak of follies, which even touch on subjects truly sacred, in the terms they deserve, still it is only the more necessary from that very connexion ; and on them be the scandal who create the necessity. If to do this be ' blasphemy,' we have an ample warrant in the con- duct of some of the best of the Anglican divines, who, in deal- ing with transubstantiation, (which cannot be less sacred in the eye of Romanists than is Dr Pusey's theory in his own,) have, as Jeremy Taylor expresses it, much of that ' Mace- * donian simplicity which calls things by their right names.' We feel that we have kept far within the limits of South, who calls transubstantiation ' the most stupendous piece of nonsense ' that ever was owned in the face of a rational world ;' and of Jeremy Taylor, who scruples not to say, in his long enumera- tion of its absurdities — ' By this doctrine, the same thing ' stays in a place and goes away from it ; it removes from it- ' self, and yet abides close by itself, and in itself, and out of ' itself; .... it is brought from heaven to earth, and yet is * nowhere in the way, nor ever stirs out of heaven .... It ' makes a thing contained bigger than that which contains it, * and all Christ's body to go into a part of his body ; his whole ' head into his own mouth, if he did eat the eucharist, as it is ' probable he did, and certain that he might have done.' In fact, a great part of his treatise on the subject, and especially the eleventh section, is conceived in a spirit of the severest ridicule. But probably Dr Pusey is of the opinion of Clement of Alexan- dria, who condems laughter in toto. Verily, if laughter be sinful, neither Dr Pusey nor Clement ought to have written. We may well say, as Pascal to the Jesuits — that we are far enough from ridiculing sacred things, in ridiculing such things as Dr Pusey's theory of the Eucharist — ' Je me suis deja justifie sur ces points; 1844. Recent Developmerds of Puseyism. 343 * et on est bien eloigne d'etre expose a ce vice, quand on n'a qu'a * parler des opinions que j'ai rapportees de vos auteurs.'* But whatever the extravagances of Dr Pusey may be, they are not to be compared with those of Mr Newman. The latter advances much more rapidly on the ' line of Catholicism ;' and if we may judge from the extraordinary ' development' which has recently characterized his comet-like career, he must surely be now near his perihelion. His recantation of his unfilial speeches against Rome, uttered in the comparative darkness of a Trac- tator, are well known. His last volume of sermons, like Mr Ward's Articles in the British Critic, has been received with shouts of rapture by the principal Catholic Periodicals of the empire. In his Essay on Miracles, he has endeavoured to establish princi- ples which would serve at once to authenticate the ' church system' of the Middle Ages ; and tales which have hitherto been regard- ed as the very dotage of superstition, are gravely propounded as worthy of all belief and reverence. These principles have al- ready been applied in the series of ' Lives of the English Saints,' now in course of publication, under his auspices and with his appro- bation ; in which the monasticism, the pilgrimages, the miracles, the superstitions, and, in a word, the whole religious life of the Middle Ages are recommended to our faith and veneration. Cer- tainly the most conclusive method of maintaining the ' church system,' is by affirming the quasi-inspiration of the men who de- veloped it, and the miraculous attestations with which their doctrine has been confirmed. Towards the former, an initial attempt was made in ' Tract 89,' ' On the mysticism of the Fa- thers,' in which so many of the stupendous errors of patristic allegory are not only defended but eulogized. Of interpre- tations, which, apart from inspiration, no man could have ima- gined to be warranted by the text, and which, except on that supposition, must seem the merest dreams of a crazed fancy, it is said, ' the holy fathers well knew what they were about ; they ' proceeded in interpreting Scripture on the surest ground — the * warrant of Scripture itself in analogous cases.' This, it will be recollected, applies to examples no less fanciful than that by which the ' five barley loaves' in the miracle, are by some made to represent ' the five senses;' and by others, the ' five books « of Moses!' Now, to justify the Fathers because they imitate inspired men in doing only what inspiration can enal)lc men to do, is to attri- bute to them — what some of them, indeed, on particular occa- sions are not slow to attribute to themselves — the gift of inspira- tion. Pascal's Lettres Provinciales, (No. xi.) 344 Recent Developments ofPuseyism, Oct. The same desperate courag^e which led the writer of the above Tract to claim preternatural wisdom for an indefinite portion of the worst inanities of patristic allet^ory, and to convert the very bab- blinjrs of dotage into proofs of a quasi-inspiration, has led Mr "Newman to j)atronize an indefinite, but very large portion of the monkish miracles; thus boldly accepting the challenge of ]\Ir Baden Powell, in his able Essay on Tradition. That gen- tleman justly contends, that the Traditional system requires the attestation of miracles as much as that of the New Testament. Very well ; JNIr Newman has consistently provided it ; so that now the church system, disclosed by inspired Fathers, is confirmed by monki>h miracles ; and surely they are worthy of each other. It is hard to say which are more celestial, the allegorical mysteries of the P'athers, or the thaumaturgic achievements of the Monks. Mr Newman's Essay on Miracles is prefixed to an English translation of a portion of Fleury's Ecclesiastical History. The Essay originated in a kind desire to assist the reader in dealing- with 'those supernatural narratives* which are so plentifully spread over the voluminous work of the Romanist historian. ' It will naturally suggest itself to the reader,' says Mr New- man, ' to form some judgment upon them ; and a perplexity, ' perhaps a painful perplexity, may ensue from the difficulty of ' doing so. This being the case,' adds the provident Essayist, * it is inconsiderate, and almost wanton, to bring such subjects * before him without making at least the attempt to assist him * in diiiposing of them.' * Some may doubt whether it was neces- sary for a clergyman of the English church to bring the subject be- fore the reader at all, in so questionable a shape as that of a Roman- ist's history ; but having chosen to conduct us into a labyrinth, it was kind to provide us at the same time with a clue. Mr Newman's benevolence reminds us of that of the early settlers in America, who, it is said, bestowed inestimable benefits on the aborigines by making them acquainted with certain valuable medicinal agents; and that the aborigines might not be ignorant of their obligations, they took care to introduce the diseases for which those medicines were specifics, at the same time. It should be observed, that Mr Newman contends not only for a multitude of primitive miracles, but of medicBval miracles also — in fact for miracles in all ages — for ' there have been at all * times true miracles and false miracles.' T So that here again we should be left in an ecstacy of wonder that he did not repair to that church which, whether any other has the like privilege or not, must have had its system thus preternaturally authenticated, * Page xii. f Page xiii. 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyism. 345 were it not that he leaves us in doubt whether he does not be- lieve that the English church has been favoured with similar authentication. Indeed, on his principles, as we shall shortly see, it is hard to say what may not be a miracle. We shall devote a page or two to the consideration of his principles. No theist, we presume, can have any doubt about the possibi- lity of miracles. He who believes in a Creator of all things, can have little difficulty in believing that He who imposed the laws of nature can alter, suspend, or dispense with them, at His almighty will. And if any probable reason can be assigned worthy of such an interposition, a philosophic mind will allow that it fairly meets the merely a priori presumption, arising from the admitted infrequency of such an occurrence. To infer from that infrequencv alone that miracles never have occurred, and never will, is just as unphilosophic a prejudice as that which led the Indian prince — to employ Hume's celebrated instance, and which, by-the-by, is sufficient to demolish his theory — to deny that there ever was or could be such a thing as ice — a conclu- sion, which, however natural to his uniform experience, was certainly any thing but Baconian : or it is as unphilosophic a prejudice as that which generally makes the young natural phi- losopher stand aghast when he first hears propounded the first law of motion — to him an incomprehensible paradox. All such prejudices are of the same nature. They lead us hastily to infer that that cannot be which is not familiar to us. Purging his mind, therefore, from any such idola tribus, the philoso- phic enquirer will make the question of an alleged miracle simply a question of evidence; and if that be sufficient, he will not reject it, sim|)]y because it is a phenomenon unfa- miliar to him. Nor will he forget that there may be cases in which the evidence is so strong, that it would be yet more unphilosophic to reject the evidence than to admit the pheno- menon ; that it may be in fact so strong as to allow him only the alternative of admitting one of two miracles ; — of admitting either a partial violation of the laws of the material world, or a total subversion of the laws of the moral world ; which, as operating in a number of minds, are just as invariable. If, therefore, (to ' try the theorem upon a simple case,' as Paley has remarked,) a number of men, of previously good character, were all to de- pose to the same facts, not explicable, except on the hypothesis of miracle; — were to persist in the same story, not only without any assignable motive, but against every assignable motive; separately and collectively ; under the severest examinations, amidst menaces, tortures, and in death itself — we do not believe 346 liecait Devehpmcnls of Puseyisn. Oct. that there is any sane man in the world who would not rather believe in the truth of the Tacts, than in this total subversion of every principle, both of man's physical and moral nature.* But whether we are justified in believing that a miracle has occurred or not, will depend entirely on the amount and quality of the evidence. If Mr Newman's tests be thought sufficient, we hardly know any legend wild enough to be un- worthy of human belief. INIr Newman insinuates, with that perilous disregard of Scrip- ture which will give no little delight to infidelity, but which quite corresponds with the tone of No. 85 of the Tracts, that if we reject the ' ecclesiastical miracles,' we shall be grievously troubled in defending those of the Bible. Yet he himself has fully admitted that the latter are precisely catalogued and ascertained, instead of being intermingled, like those for which he contends, with a * An inability to weigh the force of moral evidence — to see when, in effect, it would be a miracle that it should prove false — is a striking- cha- racteristic of German theologians : they would rather admit a thousand moral miracles than a single physical one. We not only see this in the writings of Neologians, in whom it might more naturally be expected, but even in those who have no occasion for such violent hypotheses ; those, in fact, who admit the most stupendous supernatural events of the New Testament, and the truth of the documents which record them ! We may instance Keander, who, in his Geschichte der PJlanzung und Leiiung der Christlichen Kirche, and in his Lehen Jesu, not seldom resorts to most violent methods of interpretation, and most improbable sur- mises, to reduce a miracle to the stature of an ordinary event. Thus he thinks the judgment on Ananias and Sapphira may be accounted for, by supposing them to have died of a sudden pang of remorse, and the shame of public detection ! Query — What is the probability that two persons, within an hour or so, each unwitting of the other's fate, should both drop down dead of remorse, for a crime which they had not for a moment hesi- tated to conspire and commit, and which they had carried off, up to the moment of detection, with unfaltering effrontery ! In the same manner, we constantly find this class of theologians endeavouring to render miracles (far less stupendous than those they admit to be truly such) easy to Omnipotence — not caring, meanwhile, what burdens of absurdity, contradiction, and improbabilitv, they lay upon poor humanity, by whose agency they are performed, or by whose pen they are recorded. It is not a little curious that such universal horror of a miracle should be ma- nifested, in a country in which, from the days of Paracelsus, to those of Mesmer, the wildest and most visionary theories of physics have found thousands of credulous admirers. On behalf of such theories, many a German speculator will exercise a thousand times as much faith as would be necessary to make him a sober Christian. 1844. Recent Developments of Puseyistn. 347 vastly greater number ,of admitted impostures ; that they are supported by the same evidence which proves all or none, while the former are insulated, and supported by various de- grees of evidence. What is yet more, he has admitted the gla- ring contrast in spirit, tone, and internal evidence, between the scriptural and ecclesiastical miracles; and that, whatever be their external evidence, there is the widest conceivable ditference in their intrinsic claims to attention. We may further remark, 1st, that if some of the Scripture miracles be wrought on occa- sions apparently as trivial as thousands of those which fill the pages of ecclesiastical history, the proportions in the numbers are altogether reversed ; the exceptions in the former case be- come the rule in the latter. The vast majority of the monkish miracles are visibly stamped with legendary characteristics, which, though difficult to enumerate, are as rapidly seized by the mind as those peculiarities of feature by which we discrimi- nate one face from another. But 2d, (and this is the chief point,) the comparatively few cases of miraculous occurrence recorded in Scripture, which at all resemble those of ecclesiasti- cal history, are admitted to be authenticated, not by their in- trinsic evidence, but by the multiform and independent proofs which substantiate the rest, and, at the same time, the system of which they form a subordinate part. They are sustained only by other facts with which they are in combination ; they float, not from their absolute buoyancy, but on account of the greater specific gravity of the fluid on which they rest; just as iron, which will sink in water, will swim in mercury. This cannot be said of the ecclesiastical miracles; and Mr Newman in effiect admits it, (p. 25,) and in other places, where he is much more successful in stating the objection than in removing it. But not to dwell any longer on the bearing of the general argument upon the Scripture miracles, which may safely be left to their proper evidence, we proceed to enquire what are the claims of the ecclesiastical miracles to attention, and whether they are supported by that degree of evidence which justifies the belief of them. We regret to say that Mr Newman (by a style of logic but too characteristic of him) has kept out of sight all the principal arguments which prove, that the overwhelming majority of those miracles are so evidently fabulous as to make it highly un- reasonable to affirm that any are not ; and that if there be any that are not, it is for such reasons impossible to establish their actual occurrence. We shall endeavour to supply his deficiencies, and to give a fair account of the rjeyieral state of the evidence; from which it will be seen that it is imj)ossible not to regard, with the extremest degree of suspicion, the infinitesimal mino- 348 Recent Developments of Fuseyism. Oct. ritv \vl:itli iiiiu,lit otherwise be thought less suspicious. In order to obviate every cavil, however, we will then proceed to canvass the particular evhlcnce in one or two of Mr Newman's very- strongest cases, and show how utterly inaying the highest Chairs of Theology in our two chief Universities, two Ecclesiastical Judges, the two highest Equity Judges, and three of the most eminent Judges of the common law courts. Of these sixteen persons, nine are spiritual, two others are spiritual judges, and the remaining five temporal judges. A qnoritm will consist of three Bishops, two Professors, one Ecclesiastical Judge, one E(iuity Judge, and two of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, Com- mon Pleas, and Exchequer. I hesitate not to avow my own opinion, and to anticipate the concurrence of yours, in saying, that I think the compo- sition of such a Court of Appeal, in such cases, is free from all reasonable exception. So nuicli for causes which relate to doctrine. Other cases of alleged delinquency, when articles are filed, are to be heard by the Bishop, either in person, having as his assessor an advocate of Doctors' Commons of not less than seven years' standing, or a barrister-at-law of not less than ten years ; or if the Bishop do not sit in person, then by his Vicar-General, if qualified as above, or by a Commissary so qualified, and specially appointed for the occasion. But by far the most important change in the mode of proceeding is that which will give both to the Bishop and to the accused the assistance of a jury of four beneficed clergy- men of the archdeaconry, to be appointed by lot out of twelve, who shall be elected in every third year from among the incumbents of the archdeaconry. This Jury will pronounce on the facts ; and the Bishop, or his Commissary, on the law. I should despair of seeing any scheme less open to valid objections ; and therefore I heartily hope it will hereafter pass into law. I dwell not on the minuter particulars, wliich may or may not be more liable to criticism. From this subject I turn to another closely connected with it, which has deeply interested you and the whole Church, — I mean the avowed intention of introducing in the House of Commons a clause into the new Bill, making " the Thirty-nine Articles to be the sole test of heresy, or false or unsound doctrine, on any points treated of therein." And here let me, in the outset, express the great grati- fication Vvhich I have felt, and with me, I believe, a very large number of the most faithful members of the Church, in witnessing the strenuous resistance declared by you to this most dangerous measure. Rarely, if ever, has any occurrence called forth so general and so zealous a demon- stration at once of your feelings and of your judgment ; for rarely, indeed, if ever, has any occasion so loudly de- manded such a demonstration. It painfully reminds us of the unhappy contest which, two hundred years ago, filled our land with violence, made desolate our Zion, and threw down our altars. Tiien, as now, the Prayer Book was the great object of attack ; then, as now, many who submitted, however reluctantly, to use it, reclaimed against the necessity of professing its precious truths, as a burthen which their conscience found too heavy to be borne. That I am not sounding an idle alarm is manifest from a document which has been put into my hands while I am now making my progress amcmg you. It is entitled ' The Layman's Prayer Book,' " differing," it says, " so little from that published by authority, as not to be rendered unfit for ordinary use in churches, and yet altered so as to avoid every passage which plainly coun- tenances Popish error." By "Popish error" you will not be surprised to learn is here meant Catholic truth, as on several other articles, so especially on spiritual regeneration in baptism, and on the authority and spiritual character of the Church. For this purpose of saving us from " Popish error," not only the Prayer Book, but also the Catechism, the Ordinal, aye, and the Articles themselves — in particular (as is worth remem- bering) the 2.')th and even the 27th— are sul)jected to a process of purification. The Book, so expurgated, is put forth "to be used in churches" by persons professing to join in our worship, nay, even to participate with us in the hoUest mysteries, while they bear this lie to God in their hands, whisper it with their lips, and cherish it in their hearts. Tliat hypocrisy and fanatical treachery have provided such a manual for their devotions ; that the spirit of Puri- tanism, reviving in all the freshness of youth and hope, has already ventured to tell its adherents that "the Prayer Book must be altered ;" that this " must be done, too, by laymen,'' (I cite the very words of the Preface,) " for the clergy are all pledged to support the one now in use, and cannot, for various reasons, even help in the undertaking" — all this gives a vast addition, not of importance only, but also of significance, to the legislative project to which I have referred. For, if the House of Commons, constituted as it is of persons who disdain to bear the trammels of any special religious creed, shall once be pi-evailed upon to rob our Prayer Book of its inherent authority, as a witness of the Church's faith, we can hardly suppose that the same House will make much difficulty in consenting, at the in- stance of the same party, to corrupt the Book itself, and force it to bear testimony to the heresies of its bitterest enemies. But enough of this. I will not now look beyond the measure with which we are immediately threatened ; and in inviting your attention to some remarks upon it, I shall avail myself of what is loudly vaunted by the favorers of the measure as an exposition of the grounds on which it is made to rest, namely, ' A Defence of the Thirty-nine Arti- cles, in reply to the Bishop of Exeter.' I wave, however, all reference to any part of it specially concerning myself, being, in truth, wholly unconscious of the intention, and being unable to perceive that I had the appearance, of saying a single word against the Articles, in the Letter which I recently addressed to you through my archdeacons. Nor, whatever may be the respectability of the author, should I have thought his statements a fit subject on which to address you on this occasion, were they not (as I have said) invested wath something of the authority of the whole party, whose exponent he appears to be. He begins with avowing, that " the object of the clause clearly is, to establish the supremacy of the Thirty-nine Articles, as the standard and test of doctrine, in all points treated of in them :" adding, that in respect to those points, " the Chm'ch's doctrine is delivered with dogmatic precision in that her own sole Confession of Faith." Now, although I could not assent to such a claim as is here made for any Confession of Faith, even if it were our only one, that to it alone we are to look for the doctrine of the Church, so long as the Church herself acknowledges no such claim, I must, in respect to the Articles, protest against the assumption of their being our " sole Confession of Faith." We have another in the Church Catechism, to which I shall have occasion to refer hereafter. At present, I would wish to remind you of the purpose for which the Articles were designed. It was not for " a Confession of Faith," but " for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion." Accordingly, on matters on which little diversity of opinion existed, little is said in the Articles ; they arc, indeed, chiefly employed in declaring the judgment of the Church of England on the matters then in controversy with the Church of Rome, together with a condoaaiation of certain unsound tenets, which were indeed maintained by some ultra-Protestants of the day, and with the odium of which the advocates of Rome were eager to load all her ojjponents. The Articles, therefore, were chiefly directed to one or other of those classes of opinions ; and any particular, which was not the subject of such controversy, even if necessarily 10 montioned, was not set fortli in imicli of detail. In con- tiniiation of tliis stiitemcnt, I will cite the words of one of tl)e greatest divines whom our Church ever numbered among her sons. " Tiie Hook of Articles," says Bishop Pearson,* " is not, nor is pretended to be, a complete body of divinity, or a comprehension and explication of all Christian doctrines necessiiry to be taught ; but an enumeration " {not, be it observed, an explication) " of some truths, which, upon and since the Reformation, have been denied by some persons, who, u})on their denial, are thought unfit to have any cure of souls in this Church or Realm ; because they might, by their opinions, either infect their flock with error, or else disturb the Church with schism or the Realm with sedition." Now, at the time when the Articles w^ere first compiled, in 1552, and even ten years afterwards, when they assumed their present form, the point on which of all others there was the least of difference either between us, or even the German Protestants, and Rome, was the doctrine of Bap- tism, to which this Defence of the Articles is mainly directed. On that all were in the main agreed — the voice of contro- versy was almost or altogether unheard. Look at the formularies set forth in this country during the reign of Henry VIII., in all of which Ci'anmer, the compiler of our Articles, had the principal hand. All of these, t on this great particular, agreed with Rome it- self. Of Baptism, every one of them asserted the cardinal doctrine of its being the blessed instrument by which God * Minor Theol. Works, ii. 215. t I have here withdrawn a statement made by me, when I delivered this Charge, respecting the early Confessions of Faith of foreign Protestants. Closer inspection (especially of the Confessions of those bodies which adopted the doctrines of Zwingle and Calvin) has discovered under a seeming agree- ment with the doctrine of our Articles and Liturgy on Baptism, a real and considerable difference. In more than one of these documents there are statements seemingly inconsistent with each other, which it is not for me to attempt to reconcile. 11 vvorketh in us spiritual regeneration.* Therefore, just as Jewell, in his Apology for the Church of England against the slanders of the Papists — a work adopted, I need not remind you, by the Convocation of 1571 — while he enlarges on every particular in which we differ from Rome, disposes of Baptism, on which we are agreed, in a very few lines,t merely shewing that on this point we hold the faith of the Catholic Church ; so our 27th Article, " Of Baptism," having little to controvert, expressed the same doctrine briefly, without contemplating an adversary. The 25th had already asserted generally of Sacraments, that they are " sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work in^•isibly in us." For, as Jewell says, " They are not bare signs : it were blasphemie so to say. The grace of God doth alvvay work with his Sacraments." J And the 27th * I say "the instrument, by -which God worketh in us" spiritual regene- ration. For, both our 25th and 27th Articles are careful to exclude the doctrine, that the Sacraments, by power that they have of themselves, apart from the effectual operation of God in and by them, contain the grace of which they are the signs. That by the Sacraments ex opere operalo grace is conferred, may be affirmed, if it be understood, that it is God who wurketh by them. t Jewell (Apol. Ecc. Aug. par. II.) — " Baptismum quidem Sacranientum esse remissionis pcccatorura, et ejus ablutionis, quam habemus in Christi sanguine; et ab eo neminem, qui velit profiteri nomen Christi, ne infantes quidem Christianorum hominum, quoniam nascuntur in peccato, et pertinent ad populum Dei, arceudos esse." Again — " Christum enim assciiiiuis, verc sese praseiitcm cxhihere in Saciamenfis suis: in IJaptismo, ut cum iudnamus." X Jewell's Works, fol. Lond. IGO!) {Treatise rf Sacraments,^. 2G3). He adds : " Chrysostom saith. In nobis non simple.K aqua operatur, sed, cum accepit gratiani Spiritas, abluit omnia peccata. So saith Ambrose also: Spiritus Sanctus descendit, ct consecrat aquam. So saith Cyril. So said Leo, sometime a Bishop of Rome. Dedit aipur quod dedit Matri. Virtns enim All issimi et ohumbratio Spiritus Sancli, qua; fecit, ut Maria parcrct, cademfacit, ut retjeneret unda credentcm." Presently afterwards, in the same Treatise, p. 2G5. .lewell says: — "I will now spcake briefly of the Sacra- ments in severall, and leave all idle and vain questions, and only lay open so much as is needful and profitable for you to know. Baptism, therefore, in our licfjcueration or new Birth, whcrchi/ we arc horn anew in Christ, and are made the sons of God, and heirs o/' the himjdom dalL for instance, had written very irreverently of this Sacrament. Among the least ofTensive of his sayings is the following (from his Exposition of Malt. VI.): " The worke of Baptisme, that outward washing, which is the visible sacrament or signe, justifieth us not. — Faith doth receave it (that promise and that righteousness), and God doth geve it and impute it to faith, and not to the washing. And the washing doth testijie it, and certijie us of it, as the Pope's letters do certijie the believers of the Pope's pardons. Now the letters helpe not or hinder, but that the pardons were as good without them, save onely to stablishe weake soules that could not beleve except they reade the letters, looked on the seale, and saw the print of Saint Peter's keyes." — 2. Frith, more decently, " Baptisme br^m/eth nut grace, but doth testijie unto the congregation that he which is baptized had such grace geveu hym before ; it is a Sacrament, that is, a sigue of an holy thyng, even a token of the grace and free mercy whiche was before geven hi/m" (A Declaration of Baptisme, p. 92). — 3. Coverdale {Fruitful Lessons, ch. v.) : " Though the water in Baptism be an outward thing, and cannot cleanse the soul from sin, yet the faithful will not contemn, nor leave unexercised, the ordinance of their Head, to whom they, as members, are incorporated bij faith. For they know that Christ, with these outward tokens, thought to couple and hnit together tlie members of his holij Church m obedience and love one towards another ; wherebij thei/ knowing one another among themselves, might by such exterior things stir and provoke one anotlier to love and godliness." — 4. Hooper, in his Declaration (f Christ and his OJjices (ch. x.) — a work published by him at the end of the year 1.547, two years before the first Prayer Book, and four or five years before the Book of Articles was set forth — writes thus : — " This new life cometli not until Christ be known and received. Now, to put on Christ, is to lead a new life. Such as be baptized must remember that penance and faith preceded this external sign, and in Christ the purgation was inwardly obtained before the external sign was given. So that there are two kinds of baptism, and both necessary ; the one interior, which is the cleansing of the heart, the drawing of the Father, the operation of tlie Holy Ghost: and this Baptism is in man when he believeth and trnstcth that Christ is the onli/ Authur if his salvation. Thus be the infants examined concerning repentance and faith before they be baptized with water, at the contemplation of the which faith God purgeth the soul. Then is the exterior sign added, not to purge the heart, but to con- Jinn, maiii/'esl, and open to the world, that this child is God's. Like as the king's majesty that now is, immediately alter tlie death of his father was the true and legitimate king of England, riglit heir unto the crown, and received his coronation, not to make himself thereby king, but to manifest 14 fcreiit kind, statements which are directly, though quietly, repudiated in the Article, yet our Church herself had always luiiformly maintained the same unvaried doctrine. Through all her previous declarations, the " Articles about Religion in 1536," "the Institution of a Christian Man in 1537," the "xVrticles agreed upon by Cranmer with the German Reformers in 1538," "the necessary doctrine " of 1543— all not only expressed, but largely dilated on, the same blessed effects of Christian Baptism, being put forth for popular use, for the instruction and edification of the unlearned. Cranmer, I repeat, had the chief hand in all of these, and Cranmer's opinions on this point never changed, as is apparent from his Catechism set forth in 1548, his Defence of the Catholic Doctrine of the Sacra- ment, and his answer to Gardiner, extending even beyond the year 1552, when the Article of Baptism was first drawn by him, in the very terms in which, Mith a slight verbal difference, it has ever since continued. Such a chain of external testimony* in illustration of the that the kingdom pertained unto him before. Though this ceremony con- firm and manifest a king in his kingdom, yet it maketh not a king, but the laws of God and of the land, that giveth by succession the right of the king- dom to the old king's first heir male in England and other realms. So is it in the Church of Christ : vian is made tfie brother of Christ, and heir of eternal life hij God's only mercy received by faith, before he received any ceremony to confirm and manifest openly his right and title." We cannot doubt that, against such opinions as these, the expressions of the Article were directed. " Baptism is not only a sign cf profession and mark (f difference whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby (by which sign), as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church, the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed." * To this must be added the testimony of Jewell, already cited — a testi- mony the more important because his Apology had the authority of the Convocation of 1571 ; and to him, by a resolution of that Synod, was com- mitted the publication of the Articles as they were finally agreed upon; he 15 real meaning of a doubtful document (if the meaning of the 27th Article be in itself indeed doubtful) it would be difficult, if it be not impossible, to adduce. But, more than this, the language of the two Prayer Books of King Edward VI. and the Catechisms of 1549, 1552, 1559, all concur in expressing the same great truth of Spiritual Re- generation in Baptism. Even this is not all ; other of the Articles themselves, especially of the Latin Articles, incidentally attest the same truth. Thus the 15th, after speaking of "Christ alone without sin," says " All we the rest (although baptized and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things."' The 16th Article " of sin after Baptism " first states " not every deadly sin committed after Baptism, is sin against tlie must therefore be taken as a true interpreter of the Articles. Neither ought ■we to omit the testimony of Dean Nowell's Catechism, which was submitted to the judgment and correction of the Lower House of Convocation in 15G2, and was sanctioned by a canon of 1571. I transcribe tlie statement in this Catechism of the spiritual grace of Baptism, and also the accompanying explication : — Magister. Qiiaj est arcana et spiritualis Gratia (in Baptismo) ? Auditor. Ea duplex est: remissio videlicet peccatorum, et regeneratio, quaj utraque in externo illo signo solidam et expressam effigiem suani teneut. M. Quomodo ? A. Primum, queinadmodum sordes corporis aqua, ita aninia:; macular per remissionem peccatorum cluuntur: deinde regenerationis iuitium, id est, natura; nostras mortificatio, vel immersione in aquam, vel ejus aspersione expiimitur. Postremo vero, quum al) aqua, quam ad momentum subinius, statim emergimus. nova vita, qua; est regenerationis nostra) pars altera atque finis, repnesentatur. M. Videris aquam clligiem tantum quandam rerum divinarum eflicere. A. Effiyies quidem est, sed minime inanis, aut fallax, ut cut rerum ip.sarum Veritas adjmicta sit atque annexa. Nam sicuti Deus peccatorum condoua- tionem, et vita novitutem nobis vere in liaptismo oJJ'ert, ita a ?wl)is ccrlo recipiuntur. Absit enim, ut Deum vanis nos imaginiljus ludere at(iue frus- trari putemus. It is impossible not to see in these words an exhibition of the same truth as is expressed in the 27th Article — siynuiii reyenerationis, per ijuud, tanquam per inslrumeiitum, &c. 16 Ilolji Ghost, and unpardonable." How could such an imagination have entered into the mind of any one, unless it were a known and acknowledged truth, that the Holy Gho^t is tlie special and aj)propriate gift in Baptism ? The very phrase " deadhj sin " implies, that there was " Life, spiritual Life,'' in the soul, before the sin was committed. The Article proceeds " Wherefore, the grant of repent- ance is not to be denied to such as fall into sin after Bap- tism — in the Latin, lapsis a Baptismo in peccata, fallen from Baptism — from that Blessed State, the State of Grace, in which they were placed in Baptism — Accordingly, it con- tinues " After ice have received the Holy Ghost, We may depart fi"om Grace cjiven, and fall into sin." The phrases " after we have received the Holy Ghost," and " Grace given," express the same idea, as " horn again of the Spirit.^' There remains one passage in the ninth Article, " original or birth sin," of which it should seem impossible, that any one not wilfully blind, should fail to see (whether he will or will not acknowledge), that in the contemplation of its com- pilers the terms " regenerated " and " baptized " were con- vertible or equivalent. AVe read in the English Article, as it now stands, " This infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated — And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized,'' &c. (Even here, Baptism is implied to be necessary to re- generation.) But in the English Article of 1562, the word in the former clause, as well as in the latter, was " baptized," not " re- generated ;" it was the same in the English Article of 1552. Yet, in all these six instances, the word in the Latin is uniformly " renatis," which is, as we have seen, in the English rendered Uterally " regenerated " but once, and baptized five times. Is it possible to resist the manifest 17 inference, that the compilers of the Articles regarded " bap- tized " and " regenerated " as both implying the same thing ? Yes, it is possible. " The Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles" has altogether repudiated the Latin Articles, and has ventured to maintain " that the English Articles of 1571 are alone of any authority, for they are the translation offered by the Bishops to Parliament in that year, and con- firmed by the Statute which then passed." Now, without enquiring into the accuracy of this statement of the fact, I must yet question the soundness of the law, which is here set forth. The Articles were passed, recorded, and ratified in 1562 in Latin only : and those being the Articles, of which the Book presented to Parliament in 1571 (13th EUzabeth), and subscription to it commanded by the Statute of that year, professed to be a Translation, — we are bound to understand the Book so commanded, to be a faith- ful version of the Latin (unless we gratuitously ascribe to Parker, and Jewell, and the other Bishops of 1571, either ignorance or dishonesty beyond all example) ; and there- fore in any case in which the meaning of the words of the English admits of doubt, we may and ought, and every honest man most readily would, have recourse to the original. Even, therefore, if the matter rested here, the Clergy would be bound to subscribe the Articles in the sense of the Latin of 1562. But let this pass, — If any Clergyman can bring liiniself to think that he may, without violating his personal faith, subscribe to the English words, knowingly fastening upon thorn some other sense than that of the original (a plea which, for aught I know, might avail at the Old Bailey), yet in the present question " What is tlie doctrine of the Clivrcli., as expressed in the Articles V no such cavil can ])e listened to — whatever may l)ecome of the matter of sub- 18 scription, the full legal validity of the Canon of 1562, passed by Convocation, and ratified by the Queen, remains untouched. It was, is, and, until repealed by equal au- thority, will ever remain, the law of the Church : and the true meaning of the Articles must be judged of accordingly. But why does this writer go out of the way to decry the Latin Articles, and confine all authority to the English ? He gives no reason ; he states no instance in which there is the slightest difference of doctrine, resulting from the dif- ferent language of the two. We can therefore hardly doubt that he was aware of the argument which might be drawn, as above, from the Latin ; and which, as it is not equally striking in the English, considered by itself, he was desirous to shut out. Were I not afraid of wearying you, I would dwell on another proof, exhibited in the Articles, of the inherent and essential Grace of Christian Baptism. As it is, I content myself with suggesting it to your own examination. The 11th Article of the "Justification of Man" refers to the Homily of Justification in terms which, I would contend, amount to adopting the doctrine of that Homily, on the particular specially set forth, that " We are justified by Faith only," as the doctrine of the Article itself. Now, you will see in the Homily, that " the true understanding of this doctrine includes the acknowledgment of the j-emission of original sin in Baptism." You will also see that the word "baptized" is used as equivalent to "justified," and to being " made Christ's members."* * " Justification is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render unto him, but which we receive of him ; not which we give to him, but which we take of him, by his free mercy, and by the onlj- merits of his most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ. So that the true understanding of tliis doctrine. We be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, 19 Of the Book of Homilies, let me say thus much : while I freely admit that the Cliurch does not adopt all that is in it, by declaring that " it doth contain a godly and whole- some doctrine," we yet can hardly deny that the main doctrine, set forth in every particular Homily, must be con- sidered as adopted by the Church, at least so far as to make it just and reasonable to have recourse to such doctrine, in illustration of any point that may be deemed doubtful in any of the Articles themselves. With this view, I will cite one brief passage, taken from the Homily " of Common Prayer and Sacraments," as illus- trating what is not indeed in my apprehension at all doubtful, but what this writer and others profess to deny in the doc- is not that this our own act to believe in Chi-ist, or this our faith in Christ which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justitication unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within ourselves); but the true tinderstanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God's word and believe it, although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many works thereunto ; yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak, and insuffi- cient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our justification ; and therefore we must trust only in God's mercy and that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus tlie Son of God once offered for us upon the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our Baptism, if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to him again." (Second part of Homily of Salvation.) Jewell, in like manner, says {Defence of ApoL, p. CO), " We be justified before God only hy faith ; that is to say, onlij b;i the merits and cross tf Christ." " You have heard the office of God in our justification, and how we re- ceive it of him freely by liis mercy, without our deserts, through true and lively faith. Now, you shall hear the office and duty of a Clirislian man unto God — what we ought, on our part, to render unto God again for his great mercy and goodness. Our office is, not to pass the time of this present life nnfruitfully and idly after that wc are baptized or justified, not caring how few good works we do to the glory of God and profit of our neighbours. Much less is it our office, after that we be once made Christ's members, to live contrary to the same." (Tliird )):irt of same lloiiiily.l c2 20 trine of the Articles on the Sacraments, especially Baptism : — " As for the number of them (Sacraments), if they should be considered according to the exact signification of a Sacra- ment, namely, for the visible signs expressly commanded in the New Testament, wliej-eunto is annexed the promise of free forgiveness of sins and Joining in Christ, there be but two, namely, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord."* That the Articles respecting Baptism were understood in the sense wliich I have stated by our greatest and soundest divines, in the very age in which subscription to them was enjoined, is manifest fi'om a passage which I will read to you from Jackson, " the ornament " (as Antony Wood truly calls him) " of the University of Oxford in his time," the close of the sixteenth and beginning of the seventeenth century, whose works have recently been republished by that University, as one of the noblest monuments of the labours of her sons in the cause of true religion. " That infants are hij Baptism regenerated" says he, " we may not deny, un- less we will take upon us to put another sense upon the * Of the "advertisements" set forth in 1564 by Archbishop Parker, and other Bishops of the " High Commission" -with him, the first is entitled Articles for Doctrine and Preaching; wherein, after requiring "that all they ■which be admitted to preache, shal bee diligentlye examined for their conformity in unity of doctrine, established by public authoritye," proceeds thus : — " Item, That they sette owte in theire preachinge the reverent esti- mation of the holy Sacramentes of Baptisme, and the Lorde's Supper, ex- citinge the people to thoften and devoute receaving of the holy communion of the body and bludde of Christe, in suche forme as is already prescribed in the booke of common prayer, and as it is further declared in an Homily con- cerninge the vertue and efficacye of the saide Sacramentes." Cardwell, Doc. Ann., 289, 290. This proves that Parker and the other Bishops considered the doctrine of this Hornilji as sound, and as according with the Articles which had been "agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clerej', in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562," onlij two years hifore. These " advertisements " are recognised in the 24th Canon of 1604. 21 Articles tlian they will natr.rally bear." Those, therefore, who deny it, must, according to Jackson, put upon the Articles some non-natural sense — the common refuge of the unsound of every description, of the Romanizer and the Puritan alike.* I have shown that even if the Articles be, as is contended, our sole test of doctrine, they not only do not, when properly considered, afford any real support to the denial of spiritual regeneration in Baptism, but, on the contrary, they fully sustain that prime Article of our faith. But I must resist the claim of their being our sole test. AVithout now dwelling on the necessity of taking Holy Scripture into account, or the decrees of General Councils, * There is an observation which I here feel it necessary to make, on what is said to be the principle and practice of some clergymen even among our- selves, namely, that they consider themselves at liberty to subscribe, whether the Articles or the Book of Common Prayer, in their own sense — whatever they may know to be the sense of the Church. That this is a not uncommon practice I have reason to fear, from answers made to myself when I have thought it necessary to inquire into the doctrines held by particular clergy- men. Some have said, " We have subscribed, or are ready to subscribe, the Articles, and make the Declaration of Conformity," claiming that this be considered as sufficient. Now, if such refusal or reluctance to answer the inquiry proceeds from a supposition that those who are placed in authority over them have not a right to inquire thus particularly, on fit and lawful occasions, such as Insti- tution to Benefices, or Licence to Curacies, the supposition is simply ab- surd, liut if it proceed from a fixed determination — that it is enough for them to subscribe in their own sense, if they can in any way reconcile that sense to the words of the document wliich they subscribe— even though they know, or suspect, that this is not the sense in wliich the Church, imposing subscription, means the words to be taken — a more disingenuous course can- not easily be suggested. I will not dwell on the point: I will ratlier hope, that if any whom I address are conscious of having so acted, they will see the sinfulness of their practice, and will abandon it. If such a subterfuge be allowable, what becomes of oaths, and vows, and engagements of any kind ? What trial of faith remains ? " Then indeed is the ollence of the cross ceased." We will boast no more of Ridley, Latimer, or Cranmer — "The noble Army of Martyrs" are no better than a band of senseless fanatics. 22 or other authorities which might be enumerated, I must insist on the " Book of Common Prayer and Administration of Sacraments," being at least as authoritative as the Articles themselves. This the " Defence of the Articles" takes upon it to deny, and adduces some authoritative documents of the Church in confirmation of the denial. One main argument is derived from the declaration in the 36th Canon, that all and every of the Articles are " agree- able to the Word of God." T\Tiereas of the Book of Common Prayer we declare only that it " contains in it nothing contrary to that word." But surely it is not necessary to remind any reasonable inquirer, that, as in such a book there must be many things which cannot have any higher warrant than human discretion, adopting such a course of outw^ard worship as shall appear best suited to the holy service in which we are engaged ; of such things, however good, be they even the best possible, more cannot be said than that they are " not contrary to God's Word." But this does not in the smallest measure imply that the great body of our public prayers is not, as it ought to be, eminently Scriptural* in its meaning, its tone, and spirit, as it manifestly is in its language. It was, we know, the very folly of the Puritans of old to insist that nothing should be used in the service of God but what was enjoined in Scripture ; and it was the easy task of the defenders of our venerable Prayer Book to show the un- * Accordingly, at the last review in 1662, the Bishops answered the demand of the Non-Conformists, " that all the prayers and other materials of the Liturgy may consist of nothing doubtful or questioned amongst pious, learned, and orthodox persons," by saying, " The Church hath been careful to put nothing into the Liturgy, but that which is either evidenthj the icord of God, or what hath been generally received iu the Catholic Church." — Card well, Cone, 304 and 337. 23 reasonableness of such a demand, and to prove that it is enough that there be nothing contrary to God's Word. There was, too, another reason for this formula. The Roman worship was condemned by those who drew up the Declaration, as being " contrary to God's Word." But an appeal is made to other Canons to prove that the Articles have been used by the Church herself not as one of the tests, but as the test of doctrine and sole standard of faith. The Canons of 1571 are specially referred to. One of them requires that preachers, before they are licensed, " subscribe the Articles of Christian religion publicly ap- proved by that synod, and promise willingly to maintain and defend that doctrine which is contained in them as most agreeable to the verity of God's word." Another is the well-known Canon entitled " Concionatores," which having enjoined the preachers to " teach nothing but that which is agreeable to the doctrine of the Old or New Testament, and that which the Catholic Fathers and ancient Bishops have gathered out of that doctrine," proceeds to say, " and be- cause these Articles are undoubtedly gathered out of the holy books of the Old and New Testament, and in all points agree with the heavenly doctrine contained in them ; and because also the Book of Common Prayer and Consecration of Bishops, &c., contain nothing repugnant to the said doctrine, whosoever shall be sent to teach the people shall not only by their preaching, but also by subscription, confirm the authority and truth of those Articles^ Upon this the writer remarks, " Not only is there a marked difference in the terms applied in the two cases of the Articles and the Prayer Book, showing a clear recognition of the superior authority and pertinency of one to the other, in the determination of points of faith ; but the last clause, 24 which is the most important, refers to the Articles alone.'''' Tlio last chiuse, enjoining subscription to the Articles, is surely not more important than the constant and daily and sole use of the Book of Common Prayer, which was already required by statute of every minister of public worship. But let this pass. Of the reasons for which it is here said that the authority and truth of the Articles is to be impressed on the people, one is very worthy of remark, it is " because the Book of Common Prayer, &c., contains nothing repugnant to the doctrine which is gathered in the Articles out of the Old and New Testament." Can words be plainer than these to mark the superior authority of the Liturgy to the Articles ? The doctrine of the Liturgy is, we see, declared to be one of two tests of the doctrine of the Articles, Holy Scripture being the other — in other words, because the Articles are not contradicted by the Liturgy, therefore preachers must in their preaching set forth the doctrine of the Articles and subscribe to them. But another reason is adduced. Bishops are required by various canons to ordain to the office of priest or deacon no one who, besides professing the doctrines of the Articles, is not able to give an account of his faith agreeable and con- sonant to those Articles. Such are the main proofs of the position that the Articles are not one of the tests, but the test, the standard of doctrine in our Church. Now what will you think of (I might say the honesty, but I content myself with asking of) the value of the re- searches of a writer who selects only those authorities which may seem to favor his own position, and actually omits to acknowledge the existence, even in the very same documents, of others which contradict it? Among the canons of 1571, 25 from which he has made his selection, there is one (the next in order to the first cited by him) which in terms declares the Prayer Book to be a test of doctrine no less than the Articles. It expressly requires Deans and Residentiaries of cathedrals, " if any Preacher licensed by the Queen's Majesty, or by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop, shall set forth in his preaching any strange and impious doctrine, or that is repugnant to the word of God, or to the Articles, or to tlie Book of Common Prayer, immediately to give written notice thereof to the Bishop, in order that he may dispose of the matter according to his discretion," Will it be said that the writer overlooked this canon ? that he is lynx-eyed in detecting everything that makes for his position, and a very mole in respect to everything else ? If so, this peculiar quality of his mental vision may account for what else is unaccountable, his also (after citing for his own purpose the 34th canon of 1604) omitting the 51st canon of the same year, which makes the very same demand on deans and residentiaries as the canon of 1571, namely, that they shall, " as soon as may be, give notice to the Bishop for his determining of the matter," "of any one who in his sermon in their cathedrals shall publish any doctrine, either strange, or disagreeing from the word of God, or from any of the Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Convocation of 1562, or from the Book of Common Prayer^ These two canons, made by two of the most remarkable convocations ever holden in our Church, that of 1571, which established subscription to the Articles, and that of 1604, which has given to us the great body of canons by which our Church is now guided — these two high authorities not only sustain the doctrinal authority of the Prayer Book, but also completely dispose of the remarks made on the snp};osed presumption and tyranny of any bishop who shall put his 20 own construction, as authoritative, on the meaning of any parts of that book ; for they both recognize his authority to do so, anil require him to exercise it. I have thus shewn that the laws of the Church, nay, the very laws appealed to for a contrary purpose, do assert and uphold the doctrinal authority of the Prayer Book, do make it a test of the soundness or unsoundness of the preaching and teaching of every minister of God's word amongst us. Nor has this principle been suffered to lie an idle letter ; we have recorded precedents of its being brought into active operation on occasions of the greatest importance and solemnity. In the year 1710* "the clergy of the Lower House, in Synod assembled, represented to the Archbishop of Canter- bury that a certain book had, during that Session of Convocation, been published by Thomas AVhiston, M.A., containhig assertions in their opinion directly opposite to the fundamental Articles of the Christian Religion, and praying the opmion of their Lordships after what manner it might be proper for that Synod to proceed in relation to that book." In consequence of this representation the Archbishop and Bishops addressed " a humble Petition to Her Majesty to lay the case before her reverend Judges and others whom Her Majesty in her wisdom should think fit, for their opinion, how far the Convocation, as the law now stands, may proceed in the examining, censuring, and condemning such tenets as are declared to be Heresy by the laws of this realm, together w ith the authors and maintainers of them." * Cardwell, Stjnodalia, 753-7G9. 27 The opinion of eight of the twelve Judges, and of the Attorney and Solicitor-General, having been given in favor of the jurisdiction of Convocation in such cases, proceedings took place accordingly. Now, what was the course in consequence taken, as de- clared in " The Judgment of the Archbishop and Bishops, and the Clergy of the Province of Canterbury, in Convoca- tion assembled, concerning divers assertions contained in a Book lately published by William Whiston, particularly by a Book" there specified ? " We have thought ourselves obliged, in maintenance of our most holy faith, and for the vindication of our own sincerity for checking, if possible, the presumption of this author, and for preserving others from being seduced by him, to compare the dangerous assertions he has advanced with the Holy Scriptures, the two first General Councils, and tJte Litm-gy and Articles of the Church of England, in order to give our judgment upon the same." Extracts from the book are then produced, con- taining the heretical matter : and the judgment thus pro- ceeds — " We do declare that the above-mentioned passages, cited out of the books of William Whiston, do contain assertions false and heretical, injurious to our Saviour and the Holy Spirit, repugnant to the Holy Scriptures, and con- trariant to the decrees of the two first General Councils, and to the Liturgy and Articles of our Church." Four years afterwards, in the following Convocation, the clergy of the Lower House made a similar application to th(; Upper House, in the case of Dr. Samuel Clarke, one para- graph of which I think it right to read to you : — " And whereas there are divers passages in the Book of Common Prayer, and in the Thirty-nine Articles, which are directly opposed to such heretical assertions : We do further represent to your Lordships, that even these passages 2S li;ivi> In the said autlior hcon wrested with such subtlety, ns may lioth teai'li and teinpt the unstable^ and insincere to comply with the laws which require them to ' dechire their imfeigned assent and consent to the said Book of Common Prayer,' and to subscribe to the said Articles, and neverfhc- less to retain and ])ropagate the very errors which are most inconsistent with such their declaration and subscription."* "Passages in the Liturgij and Thirty-nine Articles wrested by Dr. Clarke in such manner as is complained of in the Representation," are subsequently referred to : par- ticularly, we read, that "In the said second chapter he explains mamj passages in the Liturgy and Articles directly contrary to the known sense of the Church." Dr. Clarke having submitted, and expressed his " sorrow, that what he had written had given any offence to that synod, and also his hope, that his behaviour, for the time to come, would be such, as to prevent any further complaints against him," further proceedings were forborne. t * Cardwell, St/nodalia, p. 793. + The writer of the Defence of the Articles, &c. (p. 15), insists on tlie " Declaration " prefixed to the Articles by King Charles I., as showing that the Articles are " the supreme standard of doctrine in the Church of England in all matters treated of in them." To this we answer: — 1st. That it is clear from these proceedings of Convocation in 1710 and 1714 that the Articles were not regarded by Convocation (in other words, by the Church of | England) as " the supreme standard of its doctrine :" they were placed not only after Scripture, and the Decrees of the First General Councils, but also after the Book of Common Prayer. 2nd. That the real intent of the Declaration was to put a stop to the Quinquarticular Controversy in England: as Waterland says (ii. 349), this " Declaration was designed chiefly to bridle the Calvinists, but indeed to silence the Predestinarian controversy on both sides. The Calvinists made loud complaints against it : the King had confined them to the general mean- ing of the Articles, the plain and full meaning, had prohibited any new sense, and the drawing the Article (the Seventeenth) aside. This they interpreted to be laying a restraint upon them from preaching the saving doctrines of God's free grace in Election and Predestination." 3rd. That even if we assented to this writer's statement (which we do not) that the Declaration makes the Articles to be " the supreme standard of 29 I have dwelt on these cases, at greater length than was necessary on the present occasion, not only because of their own important and deeply interesting character, but also because, at a time when every attempt to enforce discipline over the clergy is represented, by some even of that very body, as an act of tyranny, if not of usurpation, I think it right to show, how different was the judgment of Convoca- tion itself at so recent a period as the early part of the last century. Had Convocation been admitted to continue its sittings ; were it now permitted to sit, and to perform its ju>t and constitutional functions, we can hardly doubt, that much would have been done, and would now be doing, to check the spread of heretical and unsound doctrine in the Church. But the silencing of Convocation is only an addi- tional reason why all those who cannot be silenced, or restrained, except by passing such laws as the one suggested — those, to whom the laws of God, and of the Church, have committed authority and jurisdiction in these matters — should not be deterred from the discharge of an onerous duty by the clamour of interested partizans — by the petulance and wilfulness of ignorant multitudes, of both sexes, as- sembled in one of the Halls of Declamation, under the nominal guidance, it may be, of some not less ignorant, though more exalted individual, than the most ignorant of doctrine," we must insist that this ducumcnt itself, how mucli soever en- titled to our highest respect, is not the law of the land. So far from it, the Commons at their very first meeting, after the setting forth of this Decla- ration, met it with an opposite resolution: — "We, the Commons in Parlia- ment assemhlud, do claim, protest, and avow for truth, the sense of the Articles of Keligion, which were established hy Parliament in the thirteenth year of our late Queen Elizahitii, which hy the puhlick act of the Church of England, and hy the general and current expositions of the writers of our Church, have been delivered unto us. And we reject the sense of the .Ir.suiTs and Ar.mi.nians, and all others wherein they differ from us." Sec Collier's Etc. Hist. 747. 30 the crowd before him — no, nor even by the threat of costs, which, in every case necessarily great, may be swelled to tlie most extravagant amount by the reckless profusion of party subscriptions, and the vexatious astuteness of those who profit by them. But I return to the vindication of the Prayer Book, assailed, as it is, under the specious pretence of a " Defence of the Articles." The author characterises it as " a collec- tion of national formularies of devotion, written at a period when a large portion of the people were inclined to Roman- ism, and at the same time compelled to attend the service of the National Churches ; and consequently carefully drawn up so as to give as little offence as possible to Romish prejudices." — Defence, &c., p. 10. A more fallacious (I am unwilling to say, a more fraudu- lent) description of our Prayer Book could hardly be devised. That the prayers were compiled and arranged at the begin- ning of the Reformation, is very true — that they were written (that is, originalhj made) at that time, is altogether untrue. They were, for the most part, of a date long anterior to the corruptions and usurpations of Rome — having been handed down from the devotions of the ancient Church, and thus forming an illustrious monument of our communion with that Church. So far, indeed, were the compilers from seeking to concihate the Romanists, that in both the Pi-ayer Books and in the Primer of Edward VI. a clause was inserted in the Litany, which alone is sufficient to expose the disin- genuousness, or the ignorance, which prompted that descrip- tion of our Prayer Book which I have just read to you. After the words " from all sedition and privy conspiracy," was thrust in this most unchristian addition, " from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable 31 enormities," good Lord deliver us ! Happily, so monsiruu:* a violation of Christian charity was not permitted long to pollute our Liturgy. Queen Elizabeth (honoured he her memory for it !) in the very commencement of her reign, by the very statute which restored to us the most precious of all the legacies of our martyred Reformers, the Book of Com- mon Prayer, struck out of it this one disgraceful passage — and this only. Is this the particular, by which the " Defender of the Articles " makes good his description of our Liturgy, that it was " carefully drawn up so as to give as little offence as possible to Romish prejudices ?" If it be, let him and his abettors exult in the discovery. But let them, likewise, contradict, if they can, the assertion which I now make, that the Book of Common Prayer contains matter incomparably stronger in reprobation of Romish doctrine, than any in the Articles. Of Transubstantiation, for instance, the Articles say that it "is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture — over- throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions." Again, "the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, car- ried about, lifted up, or worshipped," and this is all. Now what says the Prayer Book of this worship of bread and wine, of which the Articles pronounce no more than that it was " not an ordinance of Christ" ? Look to the statement at the end of the office of Communion, in explanation of our kneeling, when we receive the holy Sacrament. " It is here declared, that thereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood. For, the Sacraincntal bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances, and 32 thorcforo may not be adored ; for that were idolatry to he abhorred of all faithful Christians."* Thus we see, that if the Articles were, as this writer contends they ought to be, our sole standard, a clergyman might openly in his Church, worship the consecrated ele- ments with the adoration due to God himself, yet not be liable to any censure ; for he would only do something not ordained by Chi-ist. Whereas so long as the Book of Common Prayer shall be permitted to retain its doctrinal authority, he would — as we rejoice to know he would — be judged guilty of "idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians," and deposed from that ministry which he had so gi-ossly disgraced. Shall we then tamely and quietly submit to the intro- duction of one of the worst corruptions of Rome ? Must this be the price, or part of the price — for it would be only part — which we have to pay for the high privilege of denying the Catholic faith of the first fifteen centuries, and rejecting God's own regenerating grace in His holy Baptism ? True it is that the very nature of a Book of Prayer, f does not often admit of its thus directly giving expression to * The history of this Eubric is remarkable. It was introduced by Edward VI., on his own authority, after the statute had passed, which esta- blislied the Second Book in 1552. It was, in consequence, not revived by the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth ; but it was inserted, with the alteration of one phrase, in 16G2, as follows. In the Eubric of Edward VI. the words were, " It is not meant thereby that any adoration be done, or ought to be done, unto any real and essential presence there being of Chi'ist's natural flesh and blood." But, in 1662, the words "real and essential" were changed into " corporal ;" the Convocation of that time properly forbearing to deny the " real and essential," though they denied the " corporal," pre- sence of Christ's flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper. t It is, however, worthy of remark, that there is another instance of directly dogmatic teaching in the Prayer Book, which relates to the efficacy of Baptism of Infants: " It is certain by God's Word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." — Rubric at the end of Public Baptism of Infants. 33 dogmatic truths. Yet in no way is the doctrinal soundness of a Church tested more perfectly than by its Liturgy ; for its Liturgy, be it remembered, is its religion : and so Bishop Bull says " our Liturgy contains the whole religion of the Church of England.'"* What is the case of the Church of Rome ? and how do we deal with it ? Its professed Articles of Faith are known to be a most inadequate exponent of its real doctrine, as carried out in its public worship. Li order to ascertain for instance, the nature of the honour and veneration paid to the Blessed Virgin and the Saints ; we look not merely to the Decrees of Trent, or the Creed of Pius IV., for there is little in them, which, if the Virgin and the Saints are really cognisant of what we do on earth, could be severely censured ; but we have recourse to the ritual, the breviary, and other authoritative offices of devotion, and from what we find in them, we justly charge that Church with doing dishonour to the sole Mediatorship of Christ, even if it offend not still more fatally, if its practice be not, as the declaration made by every Member of either House of Parliament, except Romanists, against Popery declares it to be, " superstitious and idolatrous." Now, if we make Rome answerable for the doctrine carried out in its public worship, we cannot refuse to recognise the same principle as applicable to ourselves ; we must admit, therefore, that our Church's doctrine is, in part, and in a very main part, to be sought in our Connnon Prayer. But I must say one word more of this writer's insinuations of the Romanizing tendency of the Prayer Book. The only instance ever specified now-a-days, so far as I am aware, is the acknowledgment of the jjowcr i.)^ Absolution * Bishop IJiiU's Vindication of the Church of EiKjlaud from tht: Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Home, sect. xxvi. 34 in our Priostliood, and the terms in which Absolution is pro- nounced in the office of " Visitation of the Sick." AYe all know that this part of our Liturgy has been remarked upon as a remnant of Popery, in quarters where more of sound- ness at least, if not of knowledge, might reasonably be looked for. In answer to such remarks, by whomsoever made, suffice it to say, that the form which they thus condemn, is no more than the exercise of a power left by our Lord to his Church in the Apostles, with whom he promised to be " alw^ays even to the end of the world." Will the " Defender of the Articles " join in sajang that this is a concession to Romish prejudices ? If he does, let him be aware how far the charge will reach. The Articles are as open to it as the Prayer Book, for the 36th says of " the Book of Con- secration of Bishops and Ordering of Priests and Deacons," in which this power is conferred, that it " doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering ; neither hath it anytliing that of itself is superstitious and ungodly." To you, my Reverend Brethren, I will not say anything in vindication of the assertion of this Power. You know that it is a power which the Church has ever thank- fully acknowledged to have been given to her by her Divine Head, and which no particular Church can ever surrender, without cutting itself from the Catholic Church of Christ, and therein from Clu-ist himself.* * On this subject, I subjoin the Judgment of Chillingworth, Serm. 7, p. 83, whom no one will charge with a desire to exalt the power of the clergy : — " Can any man be so unreasonable as once to imagine with himself that when our Saviour, after his resurrection, having received (as Himself saith) ' all power in heaven and earth,' having ' led captivity captive,' came then to bestow ' gifts upon men ;' when He, I say, in so solemn a manner (having first ' breathed upon ' His disciples, thereby conveying and insinu- ating the Holy Ghost into their hearts) renewed unto them, or rather con- 35 I have done with this writer's insinuations of the Roman- izing character of the Prayer Book. But I must still detain you with some observations on the most surprising (and, in firmed and sealed unto them, that glorious commission, which before He had given to Peter, sustaining, as it were, the person of the whole Church, whereby He delegated to them an authority of binding and loosing sins upon earth, with a promise that the proceedings in the court of heaven should be directed and regulated by theirs on earth ; — can any man, I say, think so unworthily of our Saviour, as to esteem these words of His no better than compliment ? For nothing but court holy water ?" " Now, that I may apply something of that which hath now been spoken to your hearts and consciences, matters standing as you see they do ; since Christ for your benefit and comfort hath given such authority to His minis- ters, upon your unfeigned repentance and contrition, to absolve and release you from your sins ; why should I doubt, or be unwilling to exhort you to make your advantage of this gracious promise of our Saviour's? Why should I envy you the participation of so heavenly a blessing ? Truly, if I should deal thus with you, I should prove myself a malicious, unchristian- like, malignant preacher ; I should wickedly and imjustlj', against my own conscience, seek to defraud you of those glorious blessings which our Saviour hath intended for you. Therefore in obedience to His gracious will, and as I am warranted, and even enjoined, by my holy mother the Church of Eng- land expressly, in the Book of Conmion Prayer, in the Rubric of Visiting the Sick (which doctrine this Church hath likewise embraced so far), I be- seech you, that by your practice and use you will not suffer that commission, which Christ hath given to his ministers, to be a vain form of words without any sense under tlieni, to be an antiquated, expired commission, of no use nor validity in these days ; but whensoever you find yourselves charged and oppressed, especially with such crimes as they call Peccala vastantia con- scientiam, such as do lay waste and depopulate the conscience, that you would have recourse to your spiritual physician, and freely disclose tlie nature and malignancy of your disease, that he may be able, as the cause shall require, to proportion a remedy, either to search it with corrosives or to comfort and temper it with oil. And come not to him only witli such a mind as you would go to a learned man experienced in the Scriptures, as one that can speak comfortable, quieting words to you, but as to one that hath aiithoriti/ delegated to him from God himself, to uhsolce and najiiit i/nn of your sins. If you shall do this, assure your souls that the understanding of man is not able to conceive that transport and excess of joy and comfort ■which shall accrue to that man's heart, that is persuaded that he hath been made partaker of this blessing, orderly and legally, according as our Saviour Christ hath prescribed. You see I have dealt honestly and freely with you • it may be more freely than I shall be thanked for ; hut I should have sinned against my own soul if I had done otherwise; I should have consj)ired with our adversaries of Kome against our own Church, in aflbrding them such an advantage to blaspheme our most holy and undefiled religion." d2 36 truth, tlu' most important) of all his claims of superiority for the Articles over the Liturgy — that which relates to the doctrine of the Sacraments. Here, indeed, we find wliat is at the bottom of the whole, " It is well known," he says, " that the attempt to raise a private interpretation of a por- tion of the Prayer Book, with reference to one of the Sacra- ments, into a standard of faith, overruling the Article on the subject, is one great source of disquiet, and instrument of oppression in the Church." (I disdain to notice the personal attack here intended.) "But," he proceeds, " in the statute the Articles on the doctrine of the Sacraments are especially and pointedly singled out as the test by assent to which soundness of doctrine on these points is to be judged." Now, what is the fact? The 13th Eliz. imposing the duty of subscription to the Articles, requires that every priest or minister of God's Word shall " declare his assent, and subscribe to all the Articles of religion, whicli only con- cern the confession of the true Christian faith, and the doc- trine of the Sacraments, comprised in a book intituled, Articles, &c." It has been doubted what Articles were here meant ; whether all the thirty-nine, or only such as are in the Act specified, as above ; some of the thirty-nine having mani- festly no direct concern with either " the Confession of the true Christian faith, or the doctrine of the Sacraments."* Mr. Bennet, in his Essay on the Articles (published, London, 1708), is cited by our author, as maintaining that all the Articles were intended by the legislature ; and that the words " Doctrine of the Sacraments" were added, "not as something distinct from the true Christian faith in * Such are those specially excepted in 1 Will, and Mary, c. 18 (the Act of Toleration), namely, the 34th, the 35th, the 36th. Such, too, are the 32nd, the 37th, the 38th, the 39th. 37 general, but to denote that kxt s^o-x,r,v and in a manner remarkably full and express, our Church had delivered her sense concerning the doctrine of the Sacraments, as the greatness, warmth, and importance of the controversies then on foot reqmred." That our author should gladly avail himself of such a testimony as this, cannot surprise us. Neither can we be surprised at his omitting to remark, that the reason given. by Mr. Bennet for the legislature's thus specifying "the doctrine of the Sacraments," is somewhat at variance with the known facts of history. For, at the time •■ivhen the Articles were framed, and even when subscription was enjoined by statute — times abundant, certainly, in reiigious controversy — scarcely any one particular was so little the subject of controversy or question as the Church's doctrine of Baptism of Infants. But I dwell not on this. Any person who has ever read the statute will only smile at Mr. Bennet's ascribing to the legislature so pregnant a meaning as he finds in its specifying the Articles of " the Doctrine of the Sacraments ;" and yet it is only for the sake of this fanciful meaning, that his authority has been quoted on the present occasion. In opposition to it (though it is scarcely worth opposing), I cite a contemporanea expositio of the statute. In 1575 Assemblies were held of the Puritan ministers, at which certain conclusions, drawn up by Cartwright and Travers, their leaders, were delivered to the ministers for their direction. The following is one : " If su])Scnption to the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer be again urged, it is thought that the Book of Articles may be subscribed, according to the statute 13 Eliz., that is, to 'such on/// as contain the sum of the Christian Faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments' But 38 neither the Book of Common Prayer nor the rest of the Articles may be allowed ; no, though a man should be deprived of his ministry for refusing it" (Neal, H. P., i. 278). It may be important to add, that the doubt which existed respecting the meaning of the 1 3th Eliz. is no longer of any practical moment ; for the present Act of Uniformity (as well as the 36th Canon of 1604) requires subscription generally to all the Articles. It is not necessary to deal more largely with such grave trifling as this citation from Mr. Bennet. I proceed to prove that, in the Prayer Book, fally accordant as it is with the Articles in other respects, our Church's doctrine of the Sacraments in particular is exhibited with far more of clearness, and fulness, and precision. From the very nature of the case, indeed, this was to be expected. One of the great uses of a prescribed Liturgy is, to secure a pure stream of Christian truth running through the whole body of prayer, which is addressed to God in the name of the congregation at large ; and so to protect the laity, whose rights are specially involved in all that concerns their Prayer Book, from having their common devotions marred by the ignorance, the conceit, or the heterodoxy of their minister. And as this is true of public prayer in general, so is it more peculiarly true of ministering the Sacraments^ in which the Church not merely prays, but realizes, in outward acts, both devotion and doctrine, and reception of the highest spiritual graces. Besides, there is an especial necessity for its being made apparent that " the Sacraments be duly ministered ;" for this the 19th Article declares to be one of the distinctive notes of a sound branch of the Catholic Church. If Baptism, therefore, be not " duly ministered " — if the form of ministering it do not contain all things neces- 39 sary — if that form be corrupted by false or unsound state- ments as to the necessity and benefits of the Sacrament — the particular Church, in whose baptismal office such corruptions have place, may cease to be, in just consideration, a Church at all. Hence it is plain that the real doctrine of every Church, concerning Baptism, must be sought in the form of its ministration. Let us, for this purpose, make a summary survey of om* own office of Public Baptism, however trite such a survey may seem to be. In this office the Church first declares the absolute neces- sity of Baptism, and the reason of that necessity — namely, " that all men are conceived and born in sin ; and that none can enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate, and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost." The people are, therefore, desired to " call upon God, that of his bounteous mercy^ he will grant to the child brought to baptism in the state of sin in which he was born, that thing which by nature he cannot have — that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost." They accordingly " call upon God for this Infant, that he, coming to God's holy Baptism, may receive remission of sins by spiritual regenera- tion ;" thus expressing their faith according to the Nicene Creed, that is, " acknowledging one baptism for the remis- sion of sins." The Gospel is next read, which contains Christ's command that " little children be brought luito him ;" his gracious reception of those that were brought — his embracing them — his " laying his hands on them, and blessing them." And upon this, the ])eoj)l(; are bidden " not to doubt, but earnestly to believe, that Christ will likewise favourably receive this present infant ;" they, witli thanks- giving for the blessed assurance, ])ray to God to do so — to " give the Holy Spirit to this infant, that he may be born again, and be made an heir of everlasting salvation." The 40 baptismal engagement is next made : the prayer of conse- cration follows, *•' beseeching God to sanctify this water to the mystical washing of sin^ and to grant that the child now to be baptized therein may receive the fulness of his grace, and ever remain (what he is now made to he) in the number of his ftiithful and elect children." The child is then " bap- tized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ;" upon which the minister pronounces him tc be '■^regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." The people are called upon to " give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits ;" and they do accordingly " yield him hearty thanks that it hath pleased him to regenerate this infant with his Holy Spirit, to receive him for his own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into his holy Church." Such is the administration of Baptism in our Church ; proceeding throughout on the principle, that every baptized child is born again of water and of the Spirit. I have made this statement from the baptism of infants ; but this principle becomes still plainer, if we compare with that office the " baptism of such as are of riper years." In the former, the blessing is assured to the baptized infant without reserve : the people are bidden to " doubt not, but earnestly believe, that God will favourably receive this present infant ;" and this is all : while, in the case of adults, the words run " doubt ye not, but earnestly believe, that God will favourably receive these present persons, truly repenting and coming unto Him loitli faith." Again, the passages of Scripture used in the office of bap- tism of children, relate solely to the necessity of the Sacra- ment, and to the grace given in it. In the baptism of adults are added those texts from the Acts of the Apostles and St. Mark's Gospel, which require repentance and faith in the baptized. 41 Still further : The thanhsgivings after Baptism in the two cases are marked by a very broad distinction. In the one, God is thanked " that it hath jdeased Him to regenerate this infant iritli His Holy Spirit, to receive him for His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His holy Church." In the other, God is thanked " for calling us to the knowledge of His grace, and faith in Him ;" — and that is all. The newly baptized adult is, indeed, subsequently spoken of as "being note* born again" — for it would ill accord with Christian charity to refuse so to speak of one v,ho has just before solemnly made his baptismal vow ; but there is no assertion of his " being dead unto sin and living unto righteousness " — as of the baptized infant — and that he " is made partaker of the death of the Son " of God — in other words, hath assuredly received the inward and spiritual gi*ace of Baptism. Surely these differences in the two offices, which in other respects are almost identical, prove that there is a difference in the views taken by the Church of the effects of Baptism in the two cases ; tliat, in infants, God worketh the grace of the Sacrament absolutely, although by reason of their tender age they cannot perform the conditions of the covenant — while in adults the grace is suspended on the conditions. Compare this doctrine of Baptism in our Prayer Book with the statement in the 27th Article, and it will be appa- rent that the very same doctrine is there exhibited, though in less clear terms. That article, indeed, derives some ad- ditional light from the 28th, " Of the Lord's Supper." In the 27th we read, that " They that receive Baptism rightly " * This Morcl now is here very important. We can Iiarilly doubt that it was inserted in order to contradict tlie false and unsound pretension — tliat the baptized was born again liefhre Baptism, by reason of Ihv J'a it /i with which he came unUy that Sacrament. 42 have the whole s])iritiial grace of the Sacrament ; whereas of the Lord's Supper, the grace is given only " to such as rightly, icorthih/, and icith faith receive the same." Now, infants may " receive rightli/" especially as this is expressed in the Latin article, " recte * suscipientes,'" a word implying simple reception — even passive and unconscious — susception. But adults can receive worthily and with faith. These qua- lifications, therefore, are indispensable for the reception of the grace of that Sacrament, which belongs to adults only ; accordingly, in the Articles, while siiscipientes is the word expressing reception of Baptism, the word percipere, involving both action and intention, is uniformly applied wherever the receiving of the Lord's Supper is either ex- pressed or included. If this last observation appear to savor of verbal nicety, I frankly own that I insert it as an exemplification of what I have experienced throughout this inquiry — that every single particular, which has cast up, however minute, has been in favour of the doctrine of spiritual regeneration in Baptism. But 1 return to the superior clearness of our baptismal oflBce, compared with the Article " Of Baptism ;" and I remark upon it, that whenever the Church speaks plainly in one of its authoritative documents, and less plainly in another, the manifest construction of the former must overrule any proposed interpretation of the latter. It was the objection of the Arian AVhiston — who, like our author and his party, found the Liturgy much more difficult to deal with than the * The ■word recte manifestly refers to Baptism having been rightly minis- tered to the baptized ; and is illustrated by the inquiries directed to be made {Rubric to Private Baptism), " With what matter" — '^With icliat words was this child baptized ?" and by the minister's saying thereupon, " I certify you that in this case all is well done, and according unto due order, concerning the baptizing of this child." This point is further illustrated by the words of the Latin Article 19, — " Sacramenta — juxta Christi institutum recte administrantur :" " duly ministered," English Article 19. 43 Articles — that "no law requires any man to explain the Articles by the Liturgy, or to subscribe the Articles in the sense of the Liturgic expressions." And he was thus an- swered by Waterland, ii. 355 : — " The law of common sense " (which is also the law of common honesty) " obliges us to make the Articles and Liturgy consistent, if we admit both; and to believe that both, in reality, mean the same thing, being established by the same authority." The reasonableness, or rather, the absolute necessity, of acting on this rule, is signally manifested in the instance of Confirmation. I need not say that this holy rite has always been most highly regarded by our Church : — that it is, and ever hath been, held to be, either in act or in the desire of it, indis- pensable in every one who seeks to be admitted to the Lord's Supper : — that it was so held, at the very time, when the Articles were framed and imposed, and by the very men who framed and imposed them. Indeed, their sense of the importance of Confirmation is further testified by the Rubric in the two Books of Edward VL, stating the reason for which it is ministered, and which is expressed in these re- markable words : — " Confirmation is ministered to them that be baptized, that by imposition of hands and prayer tlicij may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin, and the assaults of the world and the devil.'' Therefore, of the real and uniform doctrine of our Church concerning the great benefit of Confirmation, there is not, and cannot be, any doubt whatsoever. And yet, if the Articles shall i)e in future, as is threatened, the sole test and standard of doctrine in all points treated of in them, every one will be at liberty to do lawfully what is 44 by some already done unlawfully — to rail at Confirmation, in the favourite phrase of modern Puritans, as "a Popish figment'' More than this, every one will be taught to say of it, not only that it " hath not the like nature of Sacra- ments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper," — " having no visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" — but also that it hath " grown of the corrupt following of the Apostles.'* For, this is what the Articles actually say, and all that they say, of Confirmation, as if it were to be placed on a level with " extreme unction :'^ so that, taken by themselves, in what is called their " precise dogmatic teaching," the Articles expressly condemn, in respect to Confirmation, not only the practice of our own Church, but also the practice and teach- ing of the whole Catholic Church of Christ, from the age of the Apostles to the present. To reconcile them with Catholic truth — in other words, to make them to be not manifestly schismatical — it is necessary to consider their teaching, in this very important instance, not only as neither " precise," nor " accurate," but as so very loose and indefinite, as to need to be construed in conjunction with the ^?7rought to be confirmed by the Bishop" — before, therefore, he can be admitted to the holy Communion — in other words, the Catechism is our Church's Confession of Faith, the confession of every one of its meml)ers, of every layman, as well as of every Clergy- man (which the Articles are not, for they are not a test of Church Connuunion, but of ministerial qualification, so far, that is, as concerns matters determined and concluded, not as * Laud's Coiiference with Fisher, sect. 14, n. i. 46 the proviso expresses ^' treated of, '^ therein) — a consideration which our lay brethren ought seriously to ponder, when they are in\ itctl to join in an attempt to nullify the authority of their Prayer Book. Now, by the Catechism (you well know) we are expressly taught, and required to teach, that in Bap- tism every child is "made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven :" we are taught further, and required to teach, that " a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness," is " the inward and spiritual grace" of Baptism ; "for being by nature bora in sin, and the children of wrath, we are lierehy made the children of grace." This is the precise dogmatic teaching of the Prayer Book ; teaching far more clear, and more precise, nor less dogmatic, though less scholastic, than the teaching of the same precious truths in the Articles. Tliis, therefore, is the " precise dogmatic teaching" of the Church. \\\\\ the party with whom we are contending still insist on " the superior authority and pertinency of the Articles over the Prayer Book in the determination of these points " ? I answer, not in any words of my own, but in the solemn declaration of the Church herself in the Synod of 1604, — at the very time, be it remembered, when this portion of the Catechism was first put forth in confirmation of the former teaching of the Liturgy : — " The doctrine both of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper is sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer, to be used at the administration of the said Sacraments, as nothing can he added unto it that is material and necessary ^ So speaks the Church in the 57th Canon ; and, with her authoritative declaration, I dismiss all argument on the subject, claiming for myself and you the right, or rather deducing from it the manifest duty, of our acknowledging and preaching this plain, sufficient, and complete doctrine of 47 the Church, set down in the Office of Baptism, and attested by the Catechism ; a doctrine conveyed, indeed, but not with equal clearness nor precision, in the 25th and 27th Articles, — that in that blessed Sacrament Spiritual Regenera- tion is the express and assured gift of God. After such plain testimony of the Church herself, what shall we say of those of her clergy, who not only pertina- ciously but contemptuously decry her doctrine ? One of them, who is now gone to his accomit, declared, in terms which it is diflBcult to recite without shuddering, " That the doctrine of baptismal regeneration has destroyed more souls than any one single error icliich has been branded on the black list of heresy T Another, who still lives, and may yet by God's grace be brought to a better mind, states in a sermon, which only last year was largely circulated in some of your own parishes, that " baptismal regeneration is a Popish figment, flatly con- tradicts the Word of God, is directly opposed to the teaching of our Church, overthrows the nature of a Sacrament, is at issue with universal experience, and in the highest degree unmerciful, immoral, and delusive.^' A third minister of our Church, bound by his office to preach in the very highest place — he is chaplain in ordinary to her Majesty — lias put forth a tract, entitled The First Five Centuries of the Church ; or. The Early Fathers no safe Guides, in which, after exulting in the great advance of religious knowledge made by the present very enlightened age, he states, as a signal instance of this improvement, that ''''few serious persons now believe in baptismal regeneration.^^ — P. 33. These "serious persons," as they call themselves, seem to be, in their opinions, the successors of the '■'godly persons" 48 of two cHMiturirs ago. But lot us do tlieir godly predecessors justice ; tlicy wore for tlie most part inconn)arably more honest thau tlieir "serious" followers. Few among them would have been capable of an expedient which I am about to state, but of which it is diflScult to speak without more of disgust and indignation than we would willingly testify towards anything which has proceeded from such a quarter. I wall state the matter without comment, and leave the judgment on it to yourselves. It has been already said, that the contest respecting the use of the Prayer Book constituted the great struggle of our Church in the seventeenth century. The temporary triumph of her opponents, followed by the temporary downfal both of the Church and State, taught the wise and faithful men who legislated for us at the Restoration to guard this precious treasure with a barrier which they reasonably hoped would be impregnable. They introduced a new Act of Uniformity (still, by God's blessing, the law of the land),* which first recites, that, * We are threatened with a repeal of this Act. The Rev. Hugh M'Neile, minister of St. Jude's Church, Liverpool, puhlished lectures on the Church of England, delivered in London, March, 1840, in which he proposed that there should be a " bracketed Prayer Book ;" that is, that " certain passages in some of our services, and those of vital and fundamental importance, which are variously understood by the clergy " (p. 245), should " be placed by authority between brackets, and the clergy authorized to read, or not to read, those bracketed clauses, according to their varijiiig judgment and convictions" (p. 247). He says of it : " The suggestion, which I venture to make, has this advantage, that it would not erase a word, nor add a word, nor alter a word, in any of our services ; and yet, if introduced by the proper and competent authorities, it wc>uld gladden many a heart that trembles, and strengthen many a hand that hangs down among conscientious and devoted Churchmen " (P-246). Of this suggestion, if it were necessary to deal with it, it is obvious to remark, that its end and object would be in direct antagonism to the pur- pose for which " the Book of Articles " was compiled by Convocation, and subscription to it enjoined by Parliament — namely, " for avoiding of diver- sities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true rdigion..'" 49 " by the great and scandalous neglect of ministers in using the said Liturgy, the late unhappy troubles" had arisen " to the great decay and scandal of the reformed religion of the Church of England." It proceeds to provide against the recurrence of such an evil, by enacting, " That every Parson, Vicar, and Minister, in his Church upon some Lord's Day," within a prescribed period, " should openly, publicly, and solemnly read the Morning and Evening Prayer ; and after such reading thereof should openly and publicly, before the congregation there assembled, declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words and no other, — I, A. B., do hereby declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book entitled the Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments and othor Rites and Ceremonies of the Church according to the use of the Church of England." Now of this enactment, thus made Mr. M'Neile's scheme is one " for sanctioning diversities of opinions, and for the ensuring of discordant teaching on points ' of vital and fundamental importance.' " Such a scheme might, one should have hoped, have been regarded as a wild day-dream, which no sober person would think it necessary even to expose. But it acquires importance from the concurrent s('r/«s of the times, and must, in truth, be regarded as a warning. It is in perfect consistency, that the same writer has more recently proposed " a thorough remodelling, if not a total removal, of the Act of Uniforntiti/," as the only "healing" measure for the present disordered state of the Church. See The Church and Churches, &c., by Kev. II. M'Neile, p. 74. He further gives ("with unfeigned admiration " and "an intensity of agreement " which he cannot express) a long extract from 77/e Unity of the Church, by Archdeacon Hare, jip. 32-41, in which that dignitary, forgetting, as it should seem, the liistory of the whole preceding century, " dates the origin of that con- stitut(.'d dissent and schism, wliich is the peculiar opprobrium and calamity of our Church," from " the sin 'f our forrfalhcrs, who formed the Act of Uniformity" — called by him " that most disastrous, most tyrannical, and schismatical Act "—an Act which " could scarcely have been devised except by persons themselves of seared consciences and hard hearts, by persons ready to gulp down any oath without scruple about more or less." £ 50 for tlic very purpose of securing the faithful use of the Liturgy by the only effectual provision, that every minister •' should," under the most imposing circumstances, solemnly " declare his assent and consent to everything contained therein," what says the writer with whom we are dealing ? " With respect to the Book of Common Prayer, there is required only subscription to a declaration that ' it con- taineth nothing contrary to the law of God, and may Imo- fulhj he used.'' " (This, you are aware, had already been prescribed by the 36th Canon, and had been foimd notoriously insufficient : therefore, if the new statute had required nothing more than this, it would have been absolutely nugatory.) But to proceed. " The words of the declaration required by the Act, standing alone, and independent of the context, might seem indeed stronger than the words of the Canon. But the context entirely does away with such a notion, for it expressly restricts the vieaning of the words (assent and consent) to ' the use ' of the Book." Such is the expedient to which a minister of God's Word, with the approbation of many others, has, in these our days, permitted himself to have recourse, in order to escape from the obligation of really " assenting and consenting " to what he yet expressly declares that he does " assent and con- sent," that is, " to everything contained in that Book of Prayer," which he uses in God's house and in God's ser- vice ! He declares, it seems, his " assent and consent " only to the use of it — reserving to himself the right of believing, or not believing, as he may think best !* * One of the highest authorities among persons of this party, the late Rev. Thomas Scott, of Hull, in his Essay on Regeneration, says, " Our pious Reformers, from an undue regard to the Fathers, and the circum- stances of the times, retained a few expressions in the Liturgy, which not only are inconsistent with their other doctrine, but also tend to confuse 51 The Godly Preachers, at the time when the Act of Uni- formity passed, and when therefore its intentions could hardly be misunderstood, were not equally astute. Two thousand of them chose rather to sacrifice their benefices than make this declaration. Calamy the younger, in his Life and Times of Baxter,* (both of whom were ejected as Nonconformists, and were leaders of the party,) has re- corded " the grounds of the nonconformity " of themselves and their brethren. I select one or two passages imme- diately relating to our subject. "They were required to declare their unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer," &c. When they had opportunity to peruse the Book, they " met with several things there, which, after the strictest search they could make, appeared to them not agreeable to the Word of God" — (It seems that they did not hold it suflficient that they were " not contrary to the Word of God " — the sole restriction which our author recognises). " They observed that there must be not consent, but assent too ; and that to every thing in particular contained in this Book. Words could scarcely bo devised more full and significant to testify their highest commendation," &c. " As for the Book of Common Prayer, they found several exceptions to it, which appeared to them of great consequence, viz. : — " First " — and let us observe that this is the first, and, as it is plain, the chiefest — " that it teaches the doctrine of real haptismal regeneration, and certain salvation consequent thereupon : ' AVe yield Thee hearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infimt with Thy Holy Spirit :' men's minds, and mislead their judgments on this important subject." The writer of this j)assagc had repeatedly and solemnly declared liis " assent and consent" to all the expressions which lie thus characterizes. ♦ P. 502—5. !•: •> 52 * It is cortain by God's Word, that children which arc bap- tized, *tc., are saved ;' whereas the Word of God says nothing about it. The sense of the Church," they continue, " as to the efficacy of baptism is clear from the Office for Continuation : ' Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to reijcncrate these Thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost ; and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins,' &c. This was a thing that appeared to our ministers of such dangerous consequence, that they durst not concur in it, or any way approve it. " For them, under their apprehension, to have gone to declare that there was nothing (in the Book of Common Prayer) but what they could assent to (as true) and consent to (as good to be used), and to have subscribed this with their hands, had been doing violence to their consciences, and attempting at once to impose upon God and man." AVith these words I conclude what I have deemed it necessary to say on this subject, first entreating those among you, if there are any such, who agree with these honest Puritans in their exception to the Book of Common Prayer, to examine the matter most carefully and seriously, with humble prayer to God that He will guide them in their inquiry. If the result be that they continue to hold the same opinion, that spiritual regeneration is not given in Holy Baptism, may they have gi'ace to follow the example which those faithful sufferers for conscience' sake have left behind them, to their own honour, and to the shame of those who, believing as they believed, have not faithfulness to suffer as they suffered ! * * One living clergyman, Rev. Andrew Jukes, has acted as the Puritans did in 1C62. He has given up his former position in the Church, and has made public the grounds of his separation — one principal ground being his disbelief of the Church's doctrine of Spiritual Regeneration in Baptism. In his statement, which is marked by much of candour and charity, as 53 For speaking thus, I doubt not that I shall be accused of a wish to drive many pious and conscientious men out of the well as talent, he takes occasion to record the various expedients, by which clergymen, who, like himself, deny that doctrine, do yet, unlike him, en- deavour to reconcile their denial with the words of the Baptismal Service. He tells us, that " at the Annual Clerical Meeting, held at Rev. D. Wilson's, Islington, January 5th, 1842, Archdeacon Hoare in the chair, and nearly a hundred clergymen present, the subject for discussion being the Baptismal Service, and the Doctrine of Regeneration, as connected with that Rite," (I quote his own words,) " the following speakers stated their opinions in eflFect as follows : — "Mr. Cunningham (of Harrow) said, his opinion was, that in Baptism some positive, clear, distinct, intelligible blessing and benefit called by the name of ' Regeneration,' was conveyed to the infant. This benefit is re- conciliation to God: a change of state, but not necessarily a change of nature. Not an alteration of the moral condition, but simply a change by which the child is brought into the oiitirard communion oftfie Church: and this is the state which, in the service, is called ' Regeneration.' This view is very nearly that of Bishop Hopkins, of Derry. " ISIr. Burgess spoke next. He said he could not agree to this view. His opinion was, that in Baptism the infant receives the reynission of oriyinal sin, and a principle of Divine Life imparled hij the Holtj Ghost ; a seed given to fructify or die, but always yiven. He considered that a repenting, believ- ing, converted adult was not pardoned, nor received regeneration, until Baptism. " Mr. C. Bridges diflFered from each of the preceding speakers. His view of the question was, that in Baptism, where the prayers are offered in faith, as contemplated by the framers of our Services, those prayers which we put up for the child's regeneration are heard and answered, and the (/if t (fre- yeneration is granted to praijer. But in other cases, i. e. where there is no really faithful prayer, there is no work of the Holy Ghost, who works not without exerting an energetic power, producing visible effects. " Mr. Venn could not agree with any of these interpretations. He said he believed that, in the Baptismal Service, regeneration is said to he bestowed conditionallji or hi/potheticalli/, i. e. on the hypothesis, that the infant really professes faith, and that when come to years of discretion, it will believe and repent. For it is on this ground only — that is, on the sponsors answering for this faith in the infant — that the ordinance is administered, " Such is a brief sketch of the views advocated at this meeting. I have copied it (says Mr. .lukes) from notes taken at the time. " I will only further observe that the four clergymen who spoke, had each been given some weeks' notice of the meeting; their declarations, therefore, are well-digested statements, which had been prepared for the occasion. Yet the result was, that on the appointed day t/in/ all dij/'crcd. No others spoke," Of the opinion of Mr, Burgess, as it is in accordance with the |)iain sense of the Baptismal Service, Mr. .Jukes says nothing. Of the other three 54 minit^try of our Cliurcli. Now, 1 should be vory sorry (nor am I at all likely) to drive away any single conscientious opinions, exhibiting three different modes of escaping from that plain sense, I will here extract some of Mr. Jukes's remarks. Of tlie expedient adopted by Mr. Cunningham, he tells us that it is "now almost generally exploded as untenable." Yet this was once a very favourite theory. It is that by which Bishop Hopkins, still regarded by many as a high authority, was enabled to with- draw from the Noucouforniists of 1662, (among whom, C'alamy tells us, he was originallj' numbered,) and to resume his position as a beneficed Minister of the Church — in other words, was enabled to satisfy himself of the law- fulness and propriety of " declaring his unfeigned assent and consent to all and every thing contained and prescribed in and by the Book of Common Prayer." Mr. Jukes says, " An advocate of this system would explain the service thus : — ' The office for Baptism declares of every infant who is baptized in the Church of England that he is then and there regenerate, and I allow that every infant who thus partakes of that ordinance is at once regenerate ; but tlien, what do I mean by the word " regenerate " ? simply a change of state, not a change of nature. In applying this word therefore to infants, I do not mean that there is any alteration in the moral condition of the child, but simply that in some way which I confess I cannot very definitely explain, the child is brought into the outward communion of the Church.' Now what does this explanation amoimt to ? Is it not, when reduced to plain English, simply this, — that when we say ' regenerate with the Holy Spirit,' we do not 7neaii ' regenerate with the Holy Spirit,' but something else which cannot exactly be defined, of which the only certain point is, that it is not that which is commonly called 'regeneration.' " But neither does this explanation meet the case ; for observe, the Church does not simply say that the child is ' regenerate ;' she clearly shows that when she says ' regenerate,' she means really ' regenerate,' by expressly declaring that the child is ' regenerate u-ith the Holij Spirit.' Besides, the child is requii'ed, and promises, to ' renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil,' 'to believe in God,' and 'to walk in his ways,'— things which cannot be done without ' a change of nature as well as a change of state.' If, however, a doubt remain with any as to the meaning which the Church attaches to the word ' regenerate,' I refer them to the three following passages from the Prayer Book, which seem quite conclusive upon the subject. " First, in the Baptismal Service, we find the congregation saying — ' We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant loith thjj Holij Spirit, and to receive himjor thine own child by adoption.' Again, in the Confirmation Service, we find the Bishop praying thus — ' Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to retjencrate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given them forgiveness of' all their sins, strengthen them,' &c. And lastly, in the Catechism, we find the 55 man, whose conscience, duly infoiined, tells him that he ought to stay. But I have no scruple in saying, that those child instructed to say, ' Mij Baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ, THK CHILD OF GoD, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven.' " But according to the method of interpretation -srhich we are now ex- amining, all these expressions are really nothing. According to this view of the Service, a person maybe 'regenerate by the Holy Spirit' without discerning or possessing the Spirit, and ' God's own child by adoption' while yet he is the servant of sin ! According to this view of the Service, there may be ' members of Christ ' without justification through Christ, — 'children of God' without the knowledge of God, — and ' inheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven ' without holiness, without love, without understanding ; in a word, without a single grace which characterizes and accompanies salvation. " Such is the principle of interpretation, by which many of the clergy satisfy their consciences. Well, if they can be thus satisfied, let them re- main : I hinder them not. I only say I cannot be thus satisfied, and conse- quently I cannot say of the Service that ' there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God.' " So nmch for the expedient adduced by Mr. Cunningham (of Harrow). Of that which was brought forward by Kev. C. Bridges, Mr. Jukes writes as follows: — " A supporter of this system of interpretation would answer thus: — ' You ask in what way I explain this statement of our Church, and how I recon- cile myself to .say of every child I baptize, that it is then and there " re- generate with the Holy Ghost." I do so on these grounds. Our Saviour says, " Ask, and it shall be given to you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you, if ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, much more shall your Heavenly Father give His Holy Spirit to them that ask him." In the belief of this 1 ask for the regeneration of the child, and I conclude that, according to Christ's words, I have that which 1 ask for. The matter is simply a matter of prayer. I pray for re- generation by the Spirit, and I believe 1 obtain it, because God has said, " Ask and ye shall have." ' "Now I ask, is this a satisfactory explanation, and does this passage of Scripture, on which it professes to rest, justify the conclusion wliich is drawn from it? Let us look at the verse more closely, and 1 think that we shall see that the promise of the Spirit is very obviously limited to the person who ashs-' Much more will your Heavenly Father give his Holy Spirit to them that ask Him;' but the children in the service do not ask Ilim — How then does this Scripture api)l} ? ' But,' says the advocate of tliis system, ' another Scripture is still stronger in support of my vieM's : "this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything accord- ing to His will, He heareth us; and if He hear us, whatsoever we ask we have the petitions which we desired of Him." ' " Now 56 ought to go, whose conscience will not allow them to stay, unless it be first seared, or seduced, by considerations of " Now here again, I answer, the promise is limited ; — ' If we ask ant- thing ACCORDING TO His WILL he hcareth us ;' but where are we told that it is according to God's will, that every infant who is brought to the bap- tismal font should be then and there immediately regenerate? Take a parallel case. Suppose that on the strength of this Scripture, taken in con- nection with others, such as, ' God will have all men to be saved,' and ' the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea' — suppose, I say, that on the strength of these promises a body of Christians were to meet together to ask God to regenerate the world ; and then, having asked, should, within ten minutes, thank him for having done so, and speak of the world as already regenerate, and of the Millennium as being already come ; should we call such conduct credulity or faith ? Yet as far as this promise to prayer is concerned, the one would be just as Scriptural as the other. " And in point of fact one simple question is all that is needed 'to expose this system as insufficient and untenable: for instance, I would ask the sup- porters of it to answer me one question. Do you believe that every child you pray for is then regenerate? Yes, or no? If you do 7iot believe it, why do you say it, as in the Service ? On the contrary, if you do believe it, why do jou not regenerate every town at once ? Souls are perishing ; judgment is coming; your prai/ers you say can regenerate all you pray for ; you are bound then to do it. Why have you not caused the regeneration of all in your family and in your land ? " But this system of explanation labours under still another difficulty, the difficulty, namely, of being in open opposition to the declaration of the Service. The Service says — ' Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is by Baptism regenerate,' and ' is now by the layer of regenera- tion IN Baptism received into the number of the children cf God, and heirs of everlasting life,' &c. Now I simply ask, does the Church, when she says, ' by Baptism,' mean by prayer 9 Surely, if, in selecting these expressions, the Church does not mean to teach us that children are, what she says they are, 'regenerate by Baptism,' there is an end of all certainty in the mean- ing and use of words, for with equal ease and in like manner may it be proved that transubstantiation means nothing but the truth of Scripture, and that purgatory is in accordance with the Word of God. I cannot, there- fore, shelter myself under a system of interpretation, which does such vio- lence to plain language ; and consequently cannot upon this ground consent to say of every child I baptize, that it is ' then and there regenerate ;' and further, that in saying this, ' there is nothing contrary to the Word of God.' " The third expedient to explain away " the difficulty " of the Service (that of the Rev. Mr. Venn), " though not so simple as the preceding methods," is yet (Mr. Jukes says) more plausible to those who can comprehend it. "This is commonly called 'the hypothetical system,' and when fairly stated is pretty nearly what I believed when I entered the ministry ; and 57 temporal convenience, or other unholy motive. The parti- cular on which they differ from the plain teaching of the could the assumptions which it involves be proved agreeable to Scripture (viz., could it be proved that children really possessed faith, and that it was right for their sponsors to promise it for them), would, perhaps, be tolerably satisfactory. It may be stated as follows : — "The Church declares that faith and repentance are pre-requisites for baptism ; agreeably to this, she expects the profession of these from every candidate for the ordinance. Now the adult, or the child, who is baptized, does make this profession — the adult for himself, the child by the lips of others ; and it is upon this profession of faith that the Church pronounces him ' regenerate,' grounding her declaration on those Scriptures which de- clare that ' whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God;* and ' no man can say that Jesus is the Christ, but hi/ the Holy Ghost.' Now, the child professes that Jesus is the Christ ; and the Church, hearing this profession of faith, says of all who make it, that they, too, are ' born of God,' ' regenerate by the Spirit.' To this exactly agrees the 27th Article, which runs thus : — ' Baptism is not only a sign of profession, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that"re- ceive baptism rightly ' (that is, they who receive it possessing the requisites of faith and repentance) ' are grafted into the Church : the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed, and grace increased, by virtue of prayer to God.' Such is the hypothetical system — a system from first to last proceeding upon the assumption, that the vicarious pro- fession, made through the sponsors, is to be taken for faith and repentance in the child. " Let it only be observed, for a moment, upon what foundations this system proceeds : on nothing less than these assumptions — first, that an infant can possess such faith as entitles it to be called 'regenerate;' and, secondly, that a sponsor's profession for a child is equivalent to the child's own pro- fession. But are these points so clearly established that they may be thus readily assumed ? or are they not rather a part of the very question in dis- pute ? And yet the whole hypothesis rests on these assumptions — assump- tions for which, I believe, not a shadow of proof can be produced either from reason or Scripture. In point of fact, the supporters of this hypothetical system of interpreting the Prayer Book, tliough they bring certain passages of Scripture forward in defence of themselves, seem scarcely to trust what they themselves have written. Thus one of the clearest writers in support of this scheme, having attempted to satisfy others by the passages just cited, is evidently not quite satisfied himself. He writes thus:* — 'It appears, then, that the language of the Church, much as it has been objected to, is in perfect agreement with the language of St. Paul, and according to the just theory of a Christian Church. iSlill it may he reasoiiahli/ questioned irhether, * Fawcett, Baptism, considered in Connection with Reyeneration, p. 29. 58 Cliurch is not one of light moment. If infants be not born again of the Spirit of God in baptism, the Church, which t;i the prrs(nt state of things among Jis, the language is not to he regretted. The circumstances of the Church now are very difierent from what they were iu the days of St. Paul. In his time, among many true believers, there were a few hypocrites and disorderly persons ; with us there is a great outfield population, who, though baptized and calling themselves Christians, have nothing of Christianity but the name, llie language, therefore, which might be suitable when the yodli/ were the many, the ungodly the few, maybe very unsuitable when the ungodly are the rule, the godly the exception.' Very true, and therefore I cannot use the Service, nor assent, that there is ' nothing in it contrary to the Word of God.' "But 'charity hopeth all things," and may you not defend the Service under this shield ? I say, no : this Scripture will not shelter you here. If you 'hope' the regeneration of the child, say you hope it: charity may defend you in this, but charity -will never justify you in saying what is not the case. In truth, to a simple mind the matter is very simple ; the only question is. Do we, when we say these words, believe that the child is then and there ' regenerate,' or do we not ? If not, why do we say it ? I cannot but feel, that to have the least feeling of insincerity on such an occa- sion — to have the least approach to professing what we doubt in such con- nexion as this — to tell God -what we do not believe — this is nothing less than to carry the works of darkness into the very presence of the God of light, and thrilliugly brings to mind the solemn charge which was laid against Ananias, ' Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.' " And now, to exchange all this cloud of hypothesis and assumption for the simple daylight of fact and truth, let me put one single question to the advocates of this method of interpreting the Prayer Book. It is this. Do you, or do you not, say of every child you baptize, that it is then and there ' regenerate with the Holy Ghost ?' Yes or no ? Your answer must be, Yes. Do you, then, believe of every child you baptize, that it is then and there ' regenerate with the Holy Ghost ?' Yes or no ? Your answer must be. No. You cannot, and by your own confession you do not, believe that every baptized infant is so regenerate. Then, can any explanation, hypo- thetical or otherwise, justify you in telling God what you do not believe ? One would have thought not : and yet in a solemn religious ordinance you say, more than once, of every child you baptize, that it is ' regenerate,' and all the while you do not believe the fact which you assert so positively. " Such are the systems by which the statements of the Prayer Book respecting the 'regeneration ' of the child are watered down, or defended, by the Evangelical Clergy — systems which, I believe, only require to be examined to be proved untenable. I grant that they are such as may satisfy those already satisfied, and quiet those whose minds have never been dis- turbed : but how they can satisfy an honest mind, once truly alive to the difficulty, I own I cannot conceive." — Jukes, l^he Way which some call Heresy, pp. 13. 25—34. 42—45. 59 affirms that thoy are, not only teaches superstition of the grossest kind, but also teaches a lie both to, and of, the Holy Ghost. But if baptized infants be so born again, those ministers who teach the contrary not only are false to their most solemn vows, but teach, as God's word, what is manifestly sacrilegious and blasphemous. Before I conclude, I must advert to a matter which has excited, and continues to excite, too deep interest in the Church for it to be passed over, in such an address as the present, altogether without notice. I mean the discussion which has arisen between the " Committee of Privy Council on Education " and tlie " National Society." That I deplore the existence of any difference of views between two such bodies, I need not say — still more I la- ment, that so strong a feeling of dissatisfaction and alarm has been raised in a very large number of the best members of the Church. While I feel it my duty to abstain from saying anything unnecessarily to irritate any existing sore- ness, and while I wish, so far as I may, to allay it, I yet must not forbear to express plainly the view which I take of this most unfortunate discussion. I can do so the more dispassicmately, because I have not hitherto taken any part in it. That the Committee of Privy Council, being the dis- pensers of a public grant of money for the purposes of edu- cation, are in the position of donors, who have a right to annex what condition they think proper to their donations, is a proposition which may be in some sense indisj)utable. Yet there are considerations modifying this right, which 1 would not do so much injustice; to that Conunittee, as to doubt that they would themselves most rcjidily admit. 60 They are the dispensers, not of their own bounty, but of the bounty of the State ; and in professing to dispense part of that bounty for the education of poor children by the Church, they place themselves under a strong moral obliga- tion to act strictly according to the principles of the Church. This obligation will be felt by them to become still stronger, when they remember, that they act as sw^orn counsellors and servants of the Sovereign, who has herself sworn to maintain, to the utmost of her power, the Church, of which she is bound to be a member, and is known by them to be a most faithful member. Bearing this principle in mind, we may fairly test by it any regulations adopted by the Committee in administering the funds entrusted to them. Of those which have been the subject of dispute the most important is that which relates to the degree of power which it is proper to leave with the minister of the parish in the management of a school supported or assisted by public aid. For myself, I deeply lament that this matter (I stop not to inquire by whose fault) has been brought into discussion. In the absence of all discussion it would, 1 think, have been likely to adjust itself in the best way. The parochial minister, as such, has the duty, and of course the correlative right, to instruct the children of his parishioners in the principles of true religion set forth in the Church Catechism. And it is the more necessary to assert firmly this right and this duty, because it is notorious that a statement has been addressed to an " Union " of sectaries of various denominations by the highest authorities, that the feelings of every member of the Committee of Council are in harmony with the object of that Union, namely, to get rid of the rule of the National Society, hy which the scholars are required to learn tJte Church Gate- 61 chism. It is notorious, I say, that this statement has been made by the leading members of the Committee, by the First Minister of the Crown, and by the President of Her Majesty's Council. Now, any school which does not insist on the teaching of the Catechism cannot be truly called a Church school, for the Catechism is — I do not say an essential part, but — the very body of Church instruction. It follows that, however discordant tliis may be with the feelings of the Committee of Council, the Catechism must be taught, and taught in all its fulness of principles, by the minister or under his direc- tion. It might further seem to follow, that so much of control over the teacher, as shall be necessary for the due accomplishment of this purpose, ought to be given to the minister : in other words, it might seem that the minister, upon his declaring that the teacher has, by negligence or misconduct, forfeited his confidence, ought to be empowered to remove him. But we must not forget, as seems to have been by some forgotten, that this proceeds on an assumption, which unfortunately we all know is not exactly so accurate as we would wish, that every minister has so much not only of zeal and faithfulness, but also of prudence, as will enable him always to exercise the power, without any danger of its being exercised tyrannically or indiscreetly. As this cannot be ensured, there must be an apix^al fi'om the decision of the clergyman. If there be a Committee of Managers of the school, they would, in the first instance, be appealed to ; and if they confirm the decision of the minister, no further appeal can be necessary. If they differ, surely it ought to be sufficient that the Bishop should be the ultimate referee. The National Society, however, has found it ncH'cs- sary to propose, and the (Committee of (Jouncil has assented to the proposal, that tlie Bishop and the Committee of 62 (Council slijill, in ovory such case, each select an arbiter, and, if tlie two so selected disagree, they are to choose a third, whose decision shall be final, ^^'hatever we may think of the expediency of this com- plicated process of bringing the Bishop and the Privy Council and some high appellate authority to decide on such matters; whatever of the indication of the want of confidence in Bishops on the part of the Committee of Privy Council, in direct contradiction of the 79th Canon, which rendered such a proposition from the National Society necessary — I yet hope that, as the proposition was made for the sake of peace, no lover of peace will continue to resist this part of the Committee's measure. But in saying this, we must express a further hope, that experience of the great evils which have arisen from placing the Church, and the Committee, in a state of almost per- petual antagonism, will prevent those, who have the power, I mean the Committee of Council, fi'om lightly re-exciting that irritation, w^hich can hardly fail to ensue from further alteration of rules — from fi-esh minutes, and explanatory minutes — management clauses A, B, C, D, &c. — which tease, \^ hile they bewilder, those plain, well-meaning persons, who only wish to establish a good Church School in their parish, and to have their share of assistance from a grant made by Parhament, professedly for the purpose of encourag- ing such undertakings. These persons usually look to the clergyman of the parish for the direction of the school, if indeed he be not, as he most commonly is, the real founder of it. Now if, because the Committee of Privy Council be asked to contribute to the building of the school-room, they think themselves entitled to require that a Committee of Management be established, with a qualification of members of such committee fixed at the lowest rate of Churchmanship, 63 which can in decency be proposed — they must not be sur- prised that suspicion and distrust, which previous occur- rences had excited, are not mitigated by this new arrange- ment. The qualification of every member of a School Committee is to be, it seems, that he shall " declare himself to be a hondjide member of the Church of England." Persons who make declarations commonly suppose that they are to be believed to make them bond fide. Therefore these words must be considered as mere surplusage, and the declaration is no better than if it Mere without them. And what is such a declaration really worth ? We have all heard notorious schismatics call themselves — probably fancying themselves — members of the Church. Shall we, then, sec our schools placed under the management of men who go to church in the morning and to a conventicle in the evening, and have really no more notion of the duty of being church- men, than they have of anything the most alien to all their habits of thought and action ? But the Rescript of the Committee of Council, under date of the 3rd of June, rests the sufficiency of this declaration on its being " all that is required of an Ecclesiastical Commis- sioner." Now, this is not exactly the fact : every lay Ecclesiastical Commissioner is required to make his declara- tion in a very special form : — ^" 1 do hereby solenmly, and iu the presence of God, testify and declare that I am a member of the Church of England." Therefore, unless the proposed Declaration be made in equally solemn terms, it is not cor- rect to say that it is the same. Do I, then, wish that every mem])er of a village-school committee shall take this solemn oath that lie is what he professes to be ? I wish no such thing ; it would be at once very irreverent and altogether unsatisfactory. No ; let some plain common-sense rule bo adopted — that no one, for instance, shall belong to the Com- 64 niittoo, who is not a regular communicant ; or who, at any time, joins in worship with any sect ; and then we shall be Siitistii'd that there is no desire to intrude into our schools, through the creation of committees of management, any of the schemes of modern liberalism. Surely we have a right to expect, and to insist, that Church-schools be placed under Church management- If those who dispense the Parliamentary Grant will not con- sent to this, or will not co-operate in devising some rational mode of effecting it, let them say so plainly, and then all parties will know what they have to trust to. Much more might be said (and I would wish to say), on this subject ; there are, too, several other matters interesting to all of us, some peculiarly belonging to our own diocese, on which I would gladly address to you some remarks ; but I have already occupied you too long. If it please God that I ever again meet you on a similar occasion, may we meet under circumstances and with pros- pects — I will not say free from difficulty and alarm, that would not be likely to be for our good — but as free from both difficulty and alarm as shall really be best for ourselves, and for the Church in which we minister ! MEMORANDUM. I think it right to add one remark (in addition to what is said above, p. 45) on the Articles and the Catechism severally. The Catechism is that body of doctrine, which it is the duty of the Clergy of England to teach, and of the Laity to learn : The Articles are designed as a security, that the Clergy shall be qualified by their own belief, as w^ell as knowledge, to teach that doctrine faithfully. 6:5 POSTSCRIPT. I HAVE remarked in p. 25 that the mental vision of the author of the ' Defence of the Thirty- nine Articles ' is of a very peculiar kind. I must now add, that his faculties of moral perception seem to be still more extraordinary. He can see honesty in a course, from which most minds would instinctively withdraw. This requires some little detail. We have seen above (p. 25) that he could not discover the 51st Canon of 1603-4 (though he cited others of the same date), when the production of it would have been fatal to the principle, which he had taken upon him to esta- blish, as the principle of the Church. Yet he had himself, in his work entitled ' Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,' quoted this Canon, as " a rule given in the Canons of 1603 respecting Strangers preaching in Cathedrals." — Divine Rule, &c., ii. 593. But this is a trifle : I proceed to graver matter. Will it be believed that this same writer, who now extols the Canons of 1571, as of the very highest and most unquestionable authority, citing them to establish his great position, that " the Articles have been made use of by the Church, as the test of doctrine and standard of fiiith," and saying of them that they were " pronudgated with the Royal assent in 1571," and " published by authority,"* in the same year — will it, I ask, be believed, that this same writer, in that his • ' Defence,' &c., p. 12. most gravo work, t;i't fortli by him " against the errors of the authors of the Tracts for the Times," one of their errors being that they had cited one of these Canons — which very Canon is now cited by himself — speaks of them in the fol- lowing terms (vol. ii. p. 588) : " The Canons of 1571, having never received the Royal confirmation^ were never put in force, and are of no authority T He actually quotes Collier's ' Ecclesiastical History,' ii. 531, to show that " Archbishop Grindal therefore demurred to the execution of these Canons ; he was afi-aid a Pramunire might reach him !" Nay, he refers to Archbishop Wake's ' State of the Church,' &c. to show that even if they " had received Queen Elizabeth's confirmation, they would not be of any authority now^ for her confirmations extended no further than her own life." Further than this, in order to leave these unfortunate Canons not a crutch to stand upon, he adds, " On this ground, they are expressly excluded from the Canons of our Church, that is, the Canons that are of authority, by Bishop Gibson (Cod. Pref. X. xi.), who limits ' tlie Canons ' to those of 1603 " (the Italics are his own). But even this is not all, no, nor the most surprising of all. Those who have read and admired the ' Defence of the Articles,' &c. know, that resting throughout on the assump- tion that the Book of Common Prayer has no dogmatic teaching, and that the Articles are the sole dogmatic teach- ing of the Church, it argues that therefore the Articles must be taken as " the test, the sole standard of her doctrine on all points treated of in them." Now, what will these ad- miring readers think of their author, when I lay before them the following statements from his former very elaborate work — which has only this day come under my eye, while these sheets are passing through the press ? " The dogmatical works of authority in our Church are, 67 first, those which have received the highest degree ofautliority, namely, the Articles^ Homilies, and Catechism" (of the existence of the Catechism he takes no notice in his ' Defence,' &c.) ; " and, secondly, those which have received the Eccle- siastical and Royal sanction, hut not that of the whole legis- lature, namely, JeicelVs Apology and NoioelVs Catechism. The testimonies given in the note below abundantly prove that these latter ivorks are of no inconsiderable authority as faithful representations of the doctrine of our Church''' (I refer, therefore, to the passages cited from them by me, pp. 11 and 15, " as faithful representations," by the admission of this writer, " of the doctrine of our Church " on Baptism.^ But he proceeds : " The indirect sources from which the doctrine of our Church is to he gathered are, frst, our autho- rized LITURGICAL forms and ecclesiastical laws, &c. By these documents let us test the views of the Tractators," 97, &c. We have not yet done. There remains a passage, richer than all which have preceded, in illustration of his ftiithful- ness to his own principles : " The determination of heresy and error, according to om' Church, rests upon the authority of Scripture and Scripture only." (He was contending, at that time, against the undue authority of tradition.^ " And the authorized guides in our Church for the interpretation of Scripture, and by which, of course, lier members must be judged, are the Articles, Homilies, Catechism, Liturgy, canons of 1603, and those canons, Sfc, received previous to the Reformation, &c." " These I'cceived guides are occa- sionally joined with the Scriptures as the tests of error and heresy in our Church " (ii. 622). What will the writer say to these matters ? Will he set up a literary " statute of limitations," and plead that he is not responsible for anything written by him six years ago— f2 68 1842— the (late of liis work against the Tracts for the Times ? Be this as it may, after what I have seen (this day, I repeat, for the first time), I feel that an apology is due to ray clergy, and I hereby tender it accordingly, for my having occupied so large a portion of my recent address to them in discussing the statements of such a writer — state- ments which would have been far better disposed of by thus simply reciting his own direct, deliberate, repeated con- tradictions of every one of them. H. Exeter. JBishopstowe, August 18, 1848. London: Printed by William Clowes and Sons, SUmford Street. ^^^z A LETTER ^ ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY FROM THE BISHOP OF EXETER. LONDON: • JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1850. Recent Publications of the Bishop of Exeter. Charges delivered at the Triennial Visitations in 1836, 1845, and 1848. 8vo. 2s. each. Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter, on the Ob- servance of the Rubric ia the Book of Common Prayer. 12mo. 6f/. An Ordination Sermon, preached in the Cathedral Church of Exeter. 12mo. Is. A Sermon preached in behalf of the Xational Society ; with a Pastoral Letter to the Inhabitants of Plymouth. 12mo. 6rf. A Letter on the Missionary Exertions of the Church. 8vo. Qd. A Reply to Lord John Russell's Letter to the Remonstrance of the Bishops against the appointment of Dr. Hampden. 8vo. Is. Letter to the Archdeacons of the Diocese of Exeter, on the proposed OfBce of Scripture Readers. Bvo. Is. 6t/. A Letter to liis Grace the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury on the Case of the Rev. James Shore. 8vo. Is. Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter. A Revised and Correct Report of the Speech of Edward Badeley, Esq., on the Appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, on the 17th and 18th of Dec, 1849. 8vo. Sermons preached at the Visitation of the Bishop of Exeter in 1845. 12mo. 6s. Qd, {Published by Command.) A LETTER, My Lord Archbishop, I ADDRESS your Grace under circumstances the most unusual, and with feelings the most painful. In the whole history of the Church of England I am not aware that anything of a similar kind has ever before occurred ; — that the Primate of all England has ever before thrown himself upon the judg- ment of the world as the writer of a controversial book : if he have, the statements contained in it must have been so manifestly accordant with the doctrines of the Church, that they carried with them the universal assent of Churchmen. Your Grace has been pleased to descend from the exalted position in which your predecessors were wisely, I think, con- tent to stand. You have deemed it your duty to deal pub- licly with " a subject," of " which " you say that it " has recently become a matter of distressing controversy " — and you will not think it strange if one of the parties in that controversy shall animadvert on the manner in which you deal with it. Furthermore you say that you " think it right, therefore^ to call attention to what you have written concerning the grace of Baptism." My Lord, I obey your call. 1 am about to give my atten- b2 tion to what you linvo written on this great subject — and as, in executing your purpose, you have detailed only certain state- ments " concerning the grace of Baptism," which are to be found in a single book — the book recently republished by you — not including statements on the same subject made by you in other works, since you have been a Bishop — I shall endea- vour in part to su})ply this deficiency : but, meanwhile, I shall give my first attention to those matters to which your Grace specially invites it — the statements contained in your new book from p. 150 to p. 165. They are indeed statements not new to me. For more than thirty years I have been accustomed to regard them not only with full assent — but also with great, though of late melancholy, gratification — melancholy gratifica- tion, I say, for they present a noble contrast to the lower views on the same high subject which your Grace has for some years adopted. Of this change your Grace does not seem to be conscious ; and so I may hope, that although you have been in some way led to use uncertain and perplexing language on this great doctrine, you still hold the same faith which you once enun- ciated in such clear and instructive statements. I say that your Grace does not seem conscious of any change. For you make no allusion, in your new edition, to the additions and omissions which render the general tone of the chapter " on Grace," in which these statements occur, very different from that which it exhibited in your original work. That work, when it first came out in the year 1815, excited very general attention, and obtained not less general applause. But no part of it gave more general satisfaction than this very chapter iv. " on Grace " — because in it you presented the Church with certain plain, strong, and edifying declarations of your senti- ments on Holy Baptism. Some of those statements, I repeat, still remain : but others of them are, in this new edition, ma- terially altered — others altogether omitted — so that of the whole, the effect is greatly impaired, not only by these omis- sions, but far more by the insertion of much additional matter, whose whole tendency unhappily is, to dilute and weaken what was originally a strong and uniform expression of Catholic Truth. I cannot adequately express my regret, that now, in your advanced years, and exalted station, you should mate- rially impair and almost contradict the sounder teaching of your earlier years — teaching, through which your Grace's name would have gone down as a benefactor to the Church. The change must have been unconscious ; else, with your Grace's known candour, you would have noticed it. If it be said that five and thirty years are a very long time for the opinions of any man to remain altogether unchanged on any subject, I would readily assent — excepting only one single sub- ject — the fundamental articles of his creed. The efficacy of Baptism is such an article. In your preface to this new edition of your old work, you speak of it as if it were still substantially the same as when it first came from your pen. It will be my painful duty to remark on some most important changes, which, had your Grace been conscious of it, you could not but yourself have pointed to your reader's notice. And yet I rejoice to begin my extracts with a most valuable passage, which still remains nearly as it stood at first : — " It is indeed a sufficient confutation of the doctrine of special grace, that it [absolutely nullifies the Sacrament of JBaptism.''] — (Tiicsclast words are omitted in 1850 — still we continue to read — and rejoice to read — what follows.) '• It reduces IJaptism to an empty rite, an external mark of ad- mission into the visible Church, attended with no real grace, and therefore conveying no real benefit, nor advancing a person one step towards salva- tion. But if Baptism is not accompanied with such an effusion of the Holy Spirit towards the inward renewing of the heart, that the person baptized, who, of himself, and of his own nature, could ' do no good thing,' by this amendment or regeneration of his nature is enabled to bring forth ' thirty, or sixty, or a hundred fold/ ' giving all diligence to make his calling and election sure,' — if the effect, I say, of Baptism is less than this, what becomes of the distinction made by John, ' I indeed baptize with water, but He who comes after me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost ?' What becomes of the example of Christ Himself? After his Baptism, the descent of the Holy Spirit in a visible form was surely intended to confirm His followers in a belief, that their Baptism would confer upon them a similar gift: and, besides the washing away of their sins, and the remission of the penalty entailed upon the posterity of Adam, would bestow upcm them a power enabling them to fulfil the covenant laws of their reli- gion." Now here we have a goodly array of catholic truths on the efficacy of this blessed Sacrament. 1. Its distinctive blessing, that which separates it from all preceding Bap- tisms — even that of John, which was a Baptism unto repentance — namely, that it is accompanied with such an effusion of the Holy Spirit towards the inward reneiving of the heart — that the baptized person has his nature amended — that he is regenerated by the Spirit. 2. The evidence afforded of this great truth by the Baptism of our Lord Himself: for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him, after His Baptism, was intended to confirm our belief in this great article of our Faith, that Baptism confers on us a similar gift — and bestows on us a power enabling us to fulfil the covenant laws of our religion. 3. Baptism gives [though not as its principal gift] the washing away of our sins, and deliverance from that wrath of God to which, as descendants of Adam, we are all liable by our natural birth — in other words, it gives us justification. These truths, in full accordance with the teaching of the Catholic Church from St. Paul's days to the present, and in particular of our own Church, as a most pure and apostolic branch of the Catholic — these precious truths, I say, we rejoice still to see thus plainly, clearly, strongly enunciated by your Grace. We rejoice also to see your Grace state these truths, not merely as held and maintained by yourself, but likewise as required by the Church to be held and maintained by all her ministers and all her sons. Thus we read at p. 160 — "On the authority of this example (that of St. Paul, Rom. vi. 3, viii. 15; Gal. iii. 26), and of the undeniable practice of the first ages of Chris- tianity, our Church considers Baptism as conveying Regeneration, instruct- ing lis to pray, before Baptism, that the infant ' 7nai/ be born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation ;' and to return thanks, after Baptism, that it hath pleased God to regenerate this infant with his Holy Spirit, and receive him for his own child by adoption." At page 179, after citing, " Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them," c&c. — " No preacher, therefore, is authorized cither by our Church, or by St. Paul, to leave a doubt on the minds of his hearers, whether they are within tlie pale of God's favour ; but, on the contrary, is bound to enjoin them to seek ' boldly at the throne of grace ' for power to confirm their faith, and work out tlieir repentance, and live worthily of their high calling." At page 183, after citing certain texts from St. Paul — " I do not pretend, that these passages arc strong, or dear, or numerous enough to decide the question ; and even if they wore more in number, or clearer to the point, it might still be argued, tliat such exertion or co- operation was the effect of the renewed will. The matter is of less conse- 8 qiienco, since it is of the jws it ice doctrine of our Church, that such reneioal and such extent of power belongs to all who are baptized in the name of Christ." At page 153 — " IIow is this fact of Rcgencracy, on which no less than eternity de- ])cnds, to be discovered ? The Apostle enumerates the works of the flesh, and the fruits of the Spirit; but his Test is insufficient; for tlie two lists are here mixed and 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." My Lord, I would gladly think that this is still your Grace's belief. It would be reasonable to hope that they are, since we find them thus put forth by you, under circumstances of no common character, and in a manner of more than common solemnity. But, unhappily, they are accompanied with other matter which makes it not less reasonable to fear that they are no longer practically yours, in the fulness and strength in which they are stated above. The assertion of the first great and distinctive gift in Chris- tian Baptism — so plainly stated by your Grace in the passage which I have cited, the gift of the Holy Spirit — becomes un- happily much obscured, if not absolutely contradicted, by what we read in the very commencement of the new matter in page 166 of your new edition : — • " I do not deny, that there may be a danger in addressing a congrega- tion collectively, as regenerate, since the term has neither been accurately defined in Scripture, nor restricted to one sense in the common language of divines. It is, therefore, very possible, that they should imagine some- thing more to be included in that metaphor, than the change of state, in which they were placed by Baptism, and so be lulled into a fallacious so- 9 curity, without examining themselves, as to the important fact, whether they have really those marks, which accompany a ' new creature.' " In this brief passage there is more than one startling inti- mation of your Grace's altered view. First, you remark on " the term regenerate not being accurately defined in Scripture." Now Scripture is not much in the habit of giving " accurate definitions ;" it for the most part addresses itself to the good sense and good feelings of faithful readers, avoiding everything like a dry, technical, scholastic expression. Yet, it does so happen, that in respect to the term regenerate, it goes far towards a definition ; for it tells us that to be born again — that is, to be regenerate — is to be born of water and of the Spirit. If your Grace had said, that Scripture does not fully describe, instead of saying that it does not " accurately define/' the term regenerate, you would have been much nearer the truth. And yet, even in description, it goes farther than you seem to be now willing to recognize : for it says, " That which is born of the Spirit " — as is the regenerate — " is Spirit.^' Now surely these words describe a spiritual change as taking place in the new birth ; especially when they are placed, as they are placed by our Lord as stated by St. John, in contrast with the first, the natural birth — " that which is born of the flesh is flesh." But while Scripture thus clearly and distinctly speaks of the new birth as spiritual, and of the new born as spirit, and although this was quite clear to you when you first published your book, you now are silent as to this — " the trumpet gives an uncertain sound" — you speak of nothing more than " the charn/c of state in which men arc placed by Baptism." 10 The next passage which we meet with in your new matter is as folUiws : — " Happily for our Church, the Iramers of its rituals took their doctrine from the general tenor and promises of Scripture, and by a providential care extending over a Church so framed" (rather whose rituals were so framed,) " the succeeding believers in Calvin" (thus negativing, we rejoice to see, the assertion made by the Archbishop of York,* that the framers of our rituals were Calvinistsf) " were never allowed to introduce their subtleties into her intelligible and rational formularies. Therefore we are instructed to declare, that those who are devoted to Christ, as infants, by Baptism, are regenerate, i. e. accepted of God in the beloved ; and dying without actual sin" (o7-iginal sin being remitted in baptism) " are undoubtedly saved." In this passage you say " regenerate, i.e. accepted in the beloved." Shall I be forgiven, if I avow my regret that your Grace did not express what you mean by the phrase " accepted in the beloved," when you use it in explanation of " rege- nerate " — a terra which many of your readers may think not less clear than that by which you explain it ? I trust that you did not mean — what the preceding passage might make us apprehend — a mere " change of state ;" but that you wished your readers to understand by the words " accepted in the beloved," what is to be understood when they are used b'y St. Paul — "accepted," because they are "m tlie Lord'' — that is, inserted by Baptism into the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and thereby made " partakers of the divine nature," according to " exceeding great and precious promises given unto us " in * See Appendix. t His Grace further says (p. 96), " It is notorious, and has been largely proved, that this Calvinistic tenet (of personal election) was not held, except by those who were reputed heretics for four centuries." 11 Baptism, that we should be therein " born again of water and of the Spirit." My Lord, it is as much my desire as it is my duty, to put the most favourable construction possible on everything which may be doubtful ; and I, therefore, in spite of whatever may appear to be of a contrary tendency in the context, gladly conclude that such is the real, as well as the sound, sense of your Grace's words. Would that every thing which we read there equally ad- mitted a similar construction ! In page 169, you say : — " Many, who have once been pronounced regenerate, have revolted from their baptismal vows, and lived to all outward appearance ' without God in the world.' " My Lord, I am very far from charging this passage as actually unsound ; but, writing as you are, of " persons devoted to Christ in infancy by Baptism," I cannot but regret the absence of every word which indicates the great spiritual change wrought within them in that Sacrament. 1 cannot but ask, why is all this shrinking from the expression of the great, and, as you, in other days, were wont to characterize it — the distinctive property of Christ's Baptism — that it " is accom- panied with such an effusion of the Holy Spirit towards the inward renewing of the heart ; that the baptized person has his nature amended, and is regenerated by the Spirit ?" Why, instead of language like this, do you now neutralize the sound doctrine which you once taught, by the adoption of phrases which cast a doubt upon the grace of the Sacrament of Christ ? But the words in the note which immediately follows (p. 171) are not merely neutralizing: — 12 " How nianv more of them might be saved, if parents and sponsors uni- versally made the baptism of infants a spiritual service, and accompanied it with that prayer of faith, which is expected and taken for granted by the Church I" I would gladly hope that your Grace meant by this, that greater grace might be given to infants at baptism through their parents' prayers ; and that, through those prayers, they might persevere to the end, and so be saved. But another of your Grace's works points to a different sort of efficacy of prayer, an efficacy unknown to Holy Scripture ; whereby the efficacy of vicarious prayer is substituted for that of the Sacraments, " wliich be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise " (Art, 26). In your Commentary on the Gospel by St. John, eh. iii. 5, we meet with the following passage (after speaking of the acknowledgment of the need of renewal and Justification of eVery infant brought to Baptism, which is made by those who bring him) : — '* It were well if every child which is presented in the temple for the outward ceremony of baptism were brought with this intelligent conviction, with a sense of the necessity of this spiritual regeneration, with an earnest desire and prayer that it might be obtained ! The Lord approved of the zeal of those parents who brought their young children to him that he might touch them. It was done in faith that he was a prophet ; it was done in hope that a prophet's blessing might avail. It was done in earnest- ness and full purpose of heart ; for when his disciples rebuked those that brought them, they still persevered till Jesus ' laid his hands upon them and blessed them.' And so there is reason to believe that he will hear and favour the prayers of all parents who concur in like simplicity of heart and faith : who feel that they have bestowed upon their offspring an earthly corrupt nature, which would lead not to life, but to death ; * for that which is bom of the flesh is flesh ;' and who, therefore, present their children to Him who can change and renew that nature, and make it like unto his own. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. " Would to God, my brethren, that this truth were better understood, and this primitive, this Scriptural, this reasonable baptism more generally practised. Then we should not find so many who, though born of water (!), as far as concerns the baptismal rite, are evidently not made new creatures by the Spirit, who renews and sanctifies the soul." My Lord, I have already said that to require as necessary to the efficacy of the Baptism of Infants that there be faith on the part of those who present them, is little short, if indeed short, of heresy. It is to make the first moving of God towards them — the Grace annexed by Christ to his Baptism — con- tingent on the intention of man ; and that not of the baptized, who in this case is incapable of it, but of others. It is, in truth, a near approach to, or absolute identity with, an error of late charged — whether justly ot otherwise— on the Roman Church. Still worse than this : it is to provide another inter- cession than that of Christ — other mediators ; it is to declare that, although our blessed Lord has said, " Sufl'er the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of God ;" and although our Church has in the most direct and absolute terms applied those words to the Baptism of Infants, saying, that our Lord commanded the young children to be brought unto him, blamed those that would have kept them from him, exhortcth all men to follow their innocency : thus making their innocency — that is, the absence of actual sin in themselves — to be their one sufficient qualification : — although, too, our Church declares in its Article that " the Baptism of young children is in anywise to be retained, as most ar/recahle with the Institution of Christ" — that is, more agreeable with it than the Baptism of others — ut qui cum Institutione Christi o])time congruat — which it could 14 not otherwise be than because they by " their innocency " are the best qualified for it — yet your Grace flings to the wind these declarations of Scripture, and of the Church interpreting the Scripture, and makes " the prayer of Faith " of their parents to be necessary to their beneficial reception of the Sacrament. My Lord, there is one observation which is forced upon the mind by this your teaching. It is rank Popery — and worse than Popery. The Council of Trent makes recourse to other intercessors and mediators with God, than Christ, to be no more than a " pious and useful " practice : your Grace makes it to be necessary to salvation — for you make it necessary to the right and beneficial reception of that Sacrament, which is acknowledged by your Grace to be " necessary to salvation." My Lord, I stand aghast when I hear such teaching from such a place ; and certainly the shock is not lightened by reading what your Grace has written in the con- cluding sentence of the passage which I have just cited : — " Would to God, my brethren, that this were better understood, and this primitive, this Scriptural, this reasonable Baptism, more generally practised." My Lord, you here speak of primitive Baptism. I ask your Grace, in the name of the Church which is thus addressed by its Primate, what single Council — what single Father — what single Catholic writer of the Primitive Church, taking the term in its widest comprehension, has given to your Grace any sanc- tion whatsoever for such an assertion ? What your Grace will answer this question I cannot doubt. Meanwhile, as you have invited a consideration of the doctrine 15 of the Primitive Church on Baptism, you will not consider it irrelevant if I present you with a Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage — a Council, as I need not remind your Grace, received generally, and one whose Canons were adopted by the general Council of Chalcedon. The 1st Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, which is thus seen to have had the authority of the whole Catholic Church, in giving " rules for the examination of one elected to be a Bishop," directs, among other things, as follows : " Quseren- dum etiam ab eo si credat &c. si in Baptismo omnia peccata, id est, tam illud originale contractum, quam ilia quae voluntarie admissa sunt, dimittantur." Thus it appears that no one in the Primitive Church could properly be ordained a Bishop, without its being first ascertained that he believed original sin to be remitted in Baptism. I hope that your Grace, when you were made a Bishop in 1828, did hold this doctrine, as you certainly did in 1815, when you first sent forth your work on ' Apostolical Preaching,' but which you seemed to deny in 1841, when you published your Charge of that year to your clergy, in which Charge, or, strictly speaking, in the Appendix, pp. 78-9, is the following startling sentence : — " Lest silence should be misconstrued, I thinic it needful to say, that in my judgment a clergyman would be departing from the sense of the Articles to which he subscribes, if he were to speak of justification by faith, as if Baptism and newness of heart concur towards our justification." My Lord, I know not how to understand this sentence. Baptism and newness of heart cannot " concur towards " the first act of "our justification." For " newness of heart,'' as well as justification, is a fruit of Baptism, since Holy Scripture calls Baptism " the washing of regeneration, and of the renewal 16 by the Holy Ghost ;" and it is said to St. Paul, " Arise, wash away thy ijins." Justification and newness of heart are contem- poraneous gifts in Baptism. But your Grace cannot mean that " a clergyman would be departing from the sense of the Articles " in saying that " Bap- tism concurs towards Justification," since your Grace says Baptism " confers the washing away of their sins," i. e. Justifi- cation. It were heretical to deny that Baptism concurs towards the remission of sins, or, " the being accounted righteous," as your Grace has in your book, p. 199,* truly afiirmed ; for it would distinctly contradict that Article of the Creed which has just been cited, " I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins." The writings to which you refer as containing the tenet thus strongly condemned by you, distinguish the manner in which Baptism concurs towards Justification from that in which Faith so concurs : followincr almost in words the teaching of Waterland * Waterland's ■words are, •' There is j-et another very observable text. I chose to reserve it to the last, for the ■winding up of this summary vie'w of Jus- tification. " 1 Cor. vi. 11. — 'Such -were some of you. But ye -were "washed; but ye •were sanctified ; but ye ■were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.' I think it better to render it were, or have been, as best suiting ■with the original, and ■with the were just going before ; but the sense is much the same either ■way. '• Here are three concurrent causes of Justification (together ■with Sanctifica- tion) mentioned together ; viz. the meritoiious cause, ' the Lord Jesus ;' the efficient and operating cause, ' The Spirit of our God ;' and the instrumental Kite of Conveyance, Baptism. " From these several passages of the Ne-w Testament laid together, it suffi- ciently appears, not only that Baptism is the ordinary instrument in God's hands for conferring Justification, but also that ordinarily there is no Justification con- ferred either before or without it. Such grace as precedes Baptism, amounts not ordinarily to Justification, strictly so called. Such as follows it, o^wes its force, in a great measure, to the standing virtue of Baptism once given." Waterland on Justification, p. 27. 17 on this very subject — a writer of whom even your Grace will not lightly say, that in your judgment, he by so teaching is a clergyman who departs from the Articles to which he sub- scribes. I proceed to consider the second claim made by your Grace for your statement of the necessity of the prayers of faithful parents to the efficacy of the Baptism of their children, namely, that it is " scripturair My Lord, I hope I shall not be deemed to write with needless discourtesy, if I call upon your Grace to produce any text of Scripture which justifies this statement. The text, which you have produced in the passage I am con- sidering, has been, I grieve to be obliged to say, perverted by you, and " added to " most awfully. You speak of our Lord's " approving of the zeal of those parents " who brought their young children to Him, that he might touch them, — as if this were the moving cause of his blessing them.- Now, this repre- sentation rests solely on the dictum of your Grace : it is not said, is not in any way implied, in the narratives of the Evan- gelists. On the contrary, they concur in representing our blessed Lord as not even alluding to " the zeal of the parents who brought them " — as confining himself altogether (as our Church expressly intei-prets it) to the innoccncy of the Chihh-en — " Suffer little children to come unto mc, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. ^^crily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a little child, he shall not enter therein." To " receive the king- dom of God," your Grace will agree with me, is to be admitted into the true Church of God ; and thus wt see tchy our Church, following the guidance of Scripture, teaches that " tlie l?a])tism of young children is most agreeable with the institution of c IS Christ ;" beoause (as was said before) their innocency, their guilelessness, thcnr freedom from all actual sin, and infidelity, makes them a pattern of the mind which ought to be in all tliose who seek to be made one with Christ by the New Birth in Baptism. Before I quit this point, I must not omit to remind your Grace of the implied decision upon it by our Church itself. 'S^Tien the second Book of Common Prayer in the time of Edward \ I. was in preparation, Biicci-, of whose influence on that occasion we have lately heard so much, objected to the phrase in the second Collect of the Office of Baptism, " that they coming to thy Holy Baptism," and required it to be ex- pressed " brought to thy Holy Baptism," as being the truth. Notwithstanding this reason, which our Reformers would not willingly undervalue, they adhered to the phrase which least recognized the agency of man in this heavenly work. They retained " coming," applied even to babes. There remains another, and the crowning characteristic of your Grace's notion of Baptism — it is " this reasonable Bap- tism." My Lord, in dealing with the great mysteries of our religion — such as the grace of our Lord's Sacraments most undoubtedly is — I am not in the habit — and pardon me when I say that others ought not to be in the habit — of referring the judgment of them to human reason. " To the Law and to the Testimony," and to the Church's interpretation of that Law and Testimony when it be doubtful — is the rule by which I hope always to direct myself in such matters. The rationalizing process I leave to the schools of modern Germany and Geneva ; and in the hideous consequences which have resulted from it 19 there, I see a fresh and stronger warning to shun so corrupting a practice. But, even if I looked to reason as my guide in these in- quii'ies, there are one or two objections to your scheme, which my own reason would be unequal to encounter. Perhaps your Grace's may be more successful. 1st. I would object the miserable uncertainty respecting the efficacy of his Baptism, which, on your scheme, every one bap- tized in infancy must feel when he comes to the age of reason. That efficacy, according to you, rests on " the prayer of Faith" poured forth by his parents at his Baptism. Can he be sure that such prayer was then indeed poured forth by them ? If not, what to him was the efficacy of that Baptism, which, how- ever, the Church tells him was " necessary to his salvation ?" Can he be assured of anything so utterly uncertain as the state of his parents or sponsors' souls towards God — and the sin- cerity, fervency, or even faith of their prayer ten, twenty, thirty years ago ? 2nd. I would object the dreadful cruelty of a scheme, which would make the one only opportunity of our " being born again " — " born of water and of the Spirit " — and so " entering into the kingdom of God " — to be dependent solely on the qualities of others, when outward Baptism was performed on them. There is " one Baptism " by Christ's institution — one only—" One Baptism for the Remission of Sins." If the one opportunity of their receiving that " one Ba])tism," to their salvation, was flung away by the faithlcssless or heedlessness of those to whom their infancy was confided, what, on the terms of the covenant of Christ, any longer remains to tiiem ? I shudder at the answer. Thus, then, my Lord, if the soundness c 2 20 of vonr toaching is to be tried by reason (your Grace's test, be it reinembrred, not mine), I a])prebend tbat tbe result would be not more favourable to you, tban if, witli me, you would apjieal " to the Law aud to the Testimony." There is yet one part of your added matter which I have read with more surprise and concern than any other. Your Grace seeks support to your argument from the notorious 20th chapter of Gibbon, which tells us, you say (p. 166), of " the abuse of Baptism itself by some mistaken Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries." My Lord, why do you have recourse to such a record of the sins and follies of some early Christians ? Why do you send your readers to the pages of an infidel historian, and to that very portion of his work of which almost every sentence is a sneer against our holy faith ? Why give authority to his second-hand exaggerated statements by making them your evidence for a fact, which the Fathers of the Church suffi- ciently avouch, while they deplore, reprobating it with the pious zeal which became men charged with their high commis- sion ? Your Grace speaks of this " abuse of Baptism " — the deferring it to the end of life — because it would then clear men of the guilt of the sinful course, in which meanwhile they were resolved to run. My Lord, this abuse of the doctrine of the full remission of sins conferred by Baptism, proves that such icas the doctrine of the age in which it was thus abused — proves, that that Sacrament was and is a great " reality." HoM', then, can you permit yourself to say, that it is a " la- mentable evidence of the facility with Avhich mankind rim away from realities to ceremonies, and content themselves with flie 21 shadow of the spiritual substance" ? My Lord, what you thus write of Baptism may be as truly said of Repentance. Reliance on delayed repentance, in these times, is just as " absurd," just as like " reliance on the virtue of the ojnis operatum''^ (to which neither one nor other bears any resemblance at all), as reliance on deferred Baptism. We warn our people against the sinful foolishness of hazarding their salvation on so rash a venture as death-bed repentance. And in like manner holy men of old warned their people against the danger of trusting to death-bed Baptism. The Church itself — contrary to the statement of your chosen witness Gibbon — marked its reprobation of the practice, by prohibiting those who had re- ceived " clinical Baptism " from being admitted to holy orders, if they should survive the sickness during which they were baptized. What reasonable ground is there, then, for appre- hension that telling men the truth — namely, that they xcei-e regenerate in Baptism, however they may since, by wilful sins, have lost that state of salvation, and thereby incurred " greater damnation " — " should lull them," as your Grace assumes that it will, " into a fallacious security " ? My Lord, I have been permitted to attain to years beyond the ordinary term of man's life, and your Grace is not, I believe, far short of it. Both of us have, during many of our past years, been engaged in the pastoral charge of populous parishes. Now, I solennily aver that, during the whole of that time, during all my inter- course with any portion of my own people or others, among the many beds of sickness and of death by which I have stood, endeavouring, however inadequately, to instruct the ignorant, to awaken the indifferent, aye, and to restrain the conlidcnt, I never met with a single instance of that " fallacious security " '2-1 in the " regcnei*atu)n '' of Baptism, which your Grace deems 80 likely to " lull" the siuuer, and make him heedless whether '' he have really those marks which accompany a new crea- ture.'' Of that heedlessness, too many were the instances I met w ith, but not one proceeding from the abuse of the doctrine of Baptism. \\\\\ your Grace forgive my asking, whether your experience has been materially different ? My Lord, from the new matter introduced into the body of your book, painful as it is, I turn with still greater pain to what you say in your Preface. At p. vii., after referring to the old and sound statements of your old edition — and a passage already cited from your new books — you thus proceed : — " It is scarcely necessary for me to add, that I have nowhere insinuated a doubt which I have never felt, whether a person may be a consistent minister of our church who holds a different opinion concerning the effect of Baptism from that which is advanced in this volume : and believes that the grace of spiritual regenerafion is separable, and, in fact, often se- parated, from the sacrament of Baptism." In the case of adults baptized, no one would question this. But your Grace proceeds : — " Unquestionably there is much difficulty, much mystery in the case, as regards the Baptism of infants : — a difficulty which has more or less per- plexed the Church in every age, since the Baptism of infants has been the general practice, and which many divines have solved by supposing that the spiritual benefit of Baptism, 'a death unto sin and a new birth unto right- eousness,' is only received where there has been an antecedent act of grace on the part of God." — P. ix. " Without concurring in these opinions, I cannot doubt that a minister of our Church may justly maintain them, sanctioned as they have been by some 23 of her worthiest members, and relating to a subject upon ivhich, confesstdly, Sa'ipture does not speak definitively.'* "Why, my Lord, your Grace has said, at p. 160, that " on the authority of the example of St. Paul, our Church considers Baptism as conveying Regeneration," and requires all its ministers to teach accordingly. What are we to say, what are we to think, of this ? It is, doubtless, very amiable on the part of your Grace to forbear from " insinuating a doubt, whether a person may be a consistent member of our Church, who holds a different opinion " from your own : but the ques- tion is, whether such a person may hold a different doctrine from that of the Church. You have strongly and repeatedly declared what is the doctrine of the Church, and what she requires her ministers to hold, and you will surely abide by those declarations. In your Grace, personally, we admire courtesy, modesty, and charity ; but courtesy, modesty, and charity have no place as to the truth of Almighty God, or the "good deposit" of faith committed to the Church, and especially to the keeping of her Bishops. What you have before said, you now continue to say. I appeal to the book which you now publish, from the preface which you prefix to it. You tell us, that " the Church considers Baptism as conveying regeneration ;" that " the Church declares " to her members, that " they were themselves regenerated, and made tlie chil- dren of grace by the benefits of Baptism." You say that " it is of the positive doctrine of our Church that such renewal be- longs to all who are baptized in the name of Christ." Your Grace cannot mean, that the Church allows her ministers to deny what is her own " positive doctrine ;" that her ministers may declare that not to be, wliicli you say that the Church 24 declares to be, her doctrine ; that " whereas no preacher Is authorized, either by our Church or by St. Paul, to leave a doubt upon the mind of his hearers, whether they are loithin the pale of God's favour," her ministers are allowed by her to declare that her baptized infants are " out of the pale of God's favour," unless there have been " an antecedent act of God's favour " (not " authorized by our] Church or by St. Paul "), whereby, not by Baptism, they were (if at all) regenerated. My Lord, we next come to an assertion of yours scarcely less startling than that which has just preceded. You say, p. 11:- " Scripture declares the general necessity of" Baptism, without determin- ing the actual effect of infant Baptism." Your Grace has often yourself declared in God's house to God's people, as the condition on which you were permitted to minister to them in that house, that you give your unfeigned assent and consent to the Book of Common Prayer, &c., and to all things contained therein ; and you are in the constant habit of requiring that the same declaration be made before you by every one whom you ordain or license to any spiritual function, or institute to the cure of souls. In that Book, to all things contained in which you have thus solemnly and repeatedly declared that you give your unfeigned assent and consent, this, besides many other matters of similar import, is contained : " It is certain hy God^s word, that children lohich are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." My Lord, does this Rubric, or does it not, say, that " Scripture," while it " declares the general necessity of Bap- tism, determines not the actual effect of infant Baptism?" 25 Will your Grace say that it does not? I should be sorry to deem it possible that you will. True, it may be thought that you have already said so, by implication, for you have con- sented to the judgment of the Judicial Committee, and thereby have consented to the strange comment by which that Tribunal disposed of the plain statement in this Rubric, and to which I must advert more particularly before we have done. Meanwhile I will not hold you to such an inference, whether it be just or not : from no quarter, but your own lips or your own pen, will I listen to the avowal, that such is your inter- pretation of that Rubric. And yet, if it be not, how can you, in open defiance of it, declare, as we have seen you declare, that " Scripture determines not the effect of infant Baptism ?" My Lord, I wait for your answer, which will, I am sure, be given, and given plainly. You will recognize the right of the Church, in which you hold so high a place, to expect such an answer ; and you will give it with the frankness which belongs to you. But, if self-contradiction were all that I had to object to your Grace's book, I should not think it necessary to trouble you or myself, much less the Church at large, on the matter. My complaint is of a much graver character. My Lord, you were summoned to attend the hearing of the late cause before the Judicial Committee of Iler Majesty's Council, in order that you might assist them in dealing with the (luestions of doctrine which were involved in that cause — and I grieve to think, that, instead of leading, you must have misled those wliom you were to instruct, not only by mis-stating the matters on which you advised, but also by misquoting all, or almost all, the authors cited by you in confirmation of your statement. 26 2. I decplv grieve that you have given the sanction of your autliority, whicli ought, from your station, to be very great, to a judgment marked by the most palpable misapprehensions, and therefore mis-statements, of doctrine — and by omissions, unparalleled in any other similar document, of the true grounds on ^vhieh justice required that the judgment should be founded. Lastly, and above all, I grieve exceedingly that you have concurred in the false, destructive declaration, that the Church of England has not a positive doctrine on the efficacy of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, but permits her ministers to deny that any of her infants are in Baptism made members of Christ, the children of God, and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven ; and to state of many infants, baptized " for the remission of sins," that they remain afterwards, as before, children of wrath, and so to make the statement which our Church's Catechism puts into their mouth a delusion and a lie. If it were uncertain, whether they had been made children of God, it would have been presumptuous and deceitful in the Church to make them affirm it as certain and true. Since it is certain, it is to rob parents of their comfort, children of their hopes, the Church of its faith, to allow it to be taught that it is in any case untrue. But what does he, who sanctions a legal decision that the Church does not hold part of the Faith ? My Lord, as far as in him lies, and as far as the effect of that sentence goes, he sanctions a decision that the Church, over which he presides, is no part of the Church of Christ. Would that I w as not obHged to add, that your Grace has (I believe, unconsciously) done all which a declaration of yours could do to cut off the Church, in which you occupy the highest place, from com- 37 muuion with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of all ages, by ascribing to Her the contradiction of an article of the Creed : " I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins." My Lord, these are grave charges, not to be hazarded lightly by any man — least of all, by one of your Grace's com- provincial Bishops — they are charges, which carry with them a vast weight of responsibility on him who makes them — charges which, if he fails to establish, will fiisten on himself the guilt not only of cakimny, but of schism. It is under a deep sense of this responsibility that I proceed in my task — invitiis, doleus, coactus. My Lord, I enter on my proofs : — Your Grace says (Preface, pp. vii. ix.) : — '' Unquestionably there is much difficulty, much mystery in the case, as regards the Baptism of infants — a difficulty — which many divines have solved, by supposing that the spiritual benefit of Baptism, 'a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,' is only received where there has been an antecedent act of grace on the part of God." Now, I must here express my extreme surprise that your Grace should have made this statement, in reference to the case of Mr. Gorham ; in other words, the " subject which, unhappily, has recently been a matter of distressing contro- versy." p. iv. Mr. Gorham, instead of saying, as your Grace implies that he says, that — "'A death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness ' is the spiritual benefit of Baptism, but is only received in Baptism where there lias been an antecedent act of Grace on the part of God " — expressly, repeatedly, emphatically says the very contrary. 28 In his Answer 10, p. 85, he says: — " If such infants die, before they eonniiit actual Sin, the Church holds, and I hold, that they are undoubtedly saved; and therefore they must have been regenerated, by an act of grace praevenient to their Baptism, in order to make thoni worthy recipients of that Sacrament." In Answer 60, p. 113: — " That filial state" (the becoming sons of God), "though clearly to be ascribed to God, was given to the worthy recipient — before Baptism, and not in IS apt ism." Such are Mr. Gorham's statements : and if it was on the supposition of his concurring with the Divines, of whom your Grace has just spoken, that you advised the Judicial Com- mittee to decide that I was not justified in refusing Institu- tion to him, it is my painful duty to state that your advice was founded on grounds which I forbear to characterize, but which, even if they were true, were ?iihil ad rem — they had nothing to do with the case of Mr. Gorham. This might be enough to say on this point ; but your Grace has given a string of authorities for the tenet " that the spiritual Grace of Baptism, ' a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,' is only received where there has been an antecedent act of Grace on the part of God." To these your authorities I beg leave to call the especial attention of yourself, and of all who take an interest in the Inquiry. The first is Hooker (E. P. v. 60) ; of him your Grace says : — " Hooker alludes to this when he speaks of Baptism as ' a seal, perhaps, of tho Grace of Election before received.' " 29 My Lord, it is very true that Hooker uses these words ; but in stating that he did use them your Grace forgot that it is but a scrap of a sentence written by him in answer to a statement of Cartiorif/ht' s, which was identical in meaning with Mr. Gorham's : — " He which is not a Christian before he come to receive Baptism," says Cartwright, " cannot be made a Christian by Baptism; which is only the Seal of the Grace of God before received" So wrote Cartwright. In answer to this Hooker says : — " Predestination bringeth not to life without the Grace of external vo- cation, wherein our Baptism is implied. For, as we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we Christian men in the eye of the Church of God, but by neiv birth, nor, according to the manifest ordinary course of divine Dispensation, new-born, but by that Baptism which both de- clareth and maketh us Christians. In which respect we justly hold it to be the door of our actual entrance into Christ's house, the first apparerd be- ginning of life, a seal, perhaps, to the (Jrace of Election before received; but to our Sanctification here, a step that hatli not any before it." These, my Lord, are Hooker's words ; he docs not, as your Grace affirms, " allude " to the opinion of the Divines of whom you speak — he expressly controverts and disproves the state- ment of one of them, that there must be an act of praevenient grace ; and I heartily wish, that before you made the state- ment, your Grace iiad read the whole of the sentence, of which you quote a very small pnrt. In short, my Lord, you might have justly claimed the authority of Cartxorif/Jit, if you had thought fit, but you could not claim that of Jlooher. Your Grace's next witness is Archbishop Usher. "Usher says: ' The Sacrament oi' Haplism in Infants is eOectual to all those, and fo those oidv, who beiotiir to the Election of Grace.' " 30 My Lord, if Usher had used the words which your Grace cites as his, he would not thereby liave said what Mr. Gor- ham says, and what you imply that Usher said, that the new birth of the Spirit is " given 7iot in Baptism, but before Bap- tism ;" for the very words say, as plainly as words can say anything, that the " Sacrament of Baptism is effectual to all those infants who belong to the Election of Grace," though " to them only." But, my Lord, the words are not Usher's, He said no such thing, and there is some strong evidence (as I will presently show) of his having said the contrary. But there is no evidence of his having said what your Grace ascribes to him. The book, which you cite as his, he absolutely disclaimed, as will appear from the following statement in his Life, by the late Dr. Elrington — a name which none who knew him can recall without deep emotion : — " During the Primate's residence in Wales, a book was published, under his name, by Mr. Downham ; entitled ' A Body of Divinity, or the Sum and Substance of the Christian Religion.' The Archbishop lost no time in writing to the editor, and sent him the following letter disowning the work : — " ' Sir, — You may be pleased to take notice that the Catechism you write of is none of mine, but transcribed out o^ Air. Cartioight's catechism, and Mr. Crook's, and some other English Divines, but drawn together in one method as a kinde of commmiplacebook, where other men's judgments and reasons are strongly laid down, though not approved in all places by the col- lector ; besides that the collection (such as it is) being lent abroad to divers in scattered sheets, hath for a great part of it miscarried ; and one half of it, as I suppose (well nigh) being no way to be recovered, so that so im- perfect a thing copied verbatim out of others, and in divers places dissonant from my own judgement, may not by any means be owned by me; but if it shall seem good of any industrious person to cut off" what is weak and super- 31. duous therein, and supply the wants thereof, and cast it into a new mould of his own framing, I shall be very well content that he make what use he pleaseth of any the materials therein, and set out the whole in his own name; and this is the resolution of " ' Your most assured loving friend, " ' May 13, 1645.' " ' Ja. Armachanus. " When the Primate thus positively declared that the book teas in divers places dissonant frojn his oivn judgement, and that it could not hi/ any means be owned by him, it might have been supposed that it would never have been republished with his name, or quoted as his work ;* yet the fact is far otherwise. Many editions have been published by those who were aware of this letter, and yet atfixcd the Primate's name ; and every advocate of supralapsarian doctrines quotes in his support the opinions of Archbishop Usher as put fort li in his ' l]ody of Divinity.' I understand that several persons have expressed their disappointment at my not having published the ' Body of Divinity ' among the works of the Archbishop. Had the authorship been a matter of doubtful evidence, there might be a plausible ground for such complaint ; but there can be none for not publishing among the works of Archbishop Usher what Archbishop Usher declared was not his work." Thus, the two first of your Grace's witnesses, bearing tlie illustrious names of Hooker and Usher, are no other, when the mask is withdrawn, than Cartwrir/lit, the notorious leader of the Nonconformist party in Queen Elizabeth's reign. But I have promised that of the second of them — of Usher — I would adduce some evidence that he held a doctrine the very contrary to what you ascribe to him. I say some evidence ; for I should be very sorry to overstate anything. A volume is now * " Dr. Bernard, who could not have been oflended by the extreme doctrines contained in the work, says of it, ' Heing so uiipolislied, defective, and full of mistakes, he was much displtiused at the i)ul)lishiiig it in his name.' An edition •was published in London so late as the year IS 11, and the attention of the edi- tors was drawn to the letter of Arclibisliop Usher. Thru prumiscd to prcjiv the Letter to the Work, bat theij never fitljillcd llic inomisc." before me, jirinted in London, in 1G60, soon after Archbisliop Usher's death, entitled "Eighteen Sermons, preached in Oxford, IG-iO, by the Right Rev. James Usher, late Bishop of Armagh, in Ireland. Published by Jos. Crabb, Will. Ball, Tho. Lye, Ministers of the Gospel, who writ them from his mouth, and compared their copies together. With a Preface concerning the Life of the pious Author, by the Rev. Stanley Gower, sometime Chaplain to the said Bishop." These sermons are included by Dr. Elrington in his edition of the works of Archbishop Usher. From the 13th of these (page 448) I cite what follows : — " There is such an opposition and antipathy between the flesh and the Spirit, that, did not God refresh the Spirit now and then, it might be overborne b}-- the bulk of our corruptions. Now God's ordinances are appointed to kecj) it in heart, and refresh it, as the sick spouse was ' staid with apples, and comforted in flagons.' And God hath appointed his Sacrament of the Lord's Supper to strengthen and continue tltaf life which tee received in Baptism, as by spiritual nourislimcnt. In Baptism otir slock of Life is given lis, by the Sacrament is confirmed and continued. If a child be born only, and after birth not nourished, there is none but Mill know what a death such a soul will die. So it is here : unless Christ be pleased to nourish that Life ichich he breathed into me by Baptism, and by his ordinances to give me a new supply and addition of Grace ; I am a dead man, I am gone for evil." Turn we to your third witness, another very illustrious name. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. Your Grace will be glad to hear that he really wrote wdiat you cite from his " Baptism of Infants :" — " Baptism, and its effect, may be separated, and do not always go in conjunction. The efFecl may be before, and therefore much rather may it be after its susception : the Sacrament operating in the virtue of Christ, even as the Spirit shall move." 33 These words, I repeat, were really written by Bishop Taylor ; yet this witness will help you less than either of the others, for he &hall he proved to bear testimony directly against you. Your Grace, I need not say, would always be sorry tc cite any writer as authority for a statement which he contradicts. Yet such is the fact in the present instance. You have been seduced by an unhappy confidence in some most untrustworthy informant, to quote Bishop Jeremy Taylor as one of " many Divines," who hold " that the spiritual benefit at Baptism, 'a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness,' is only received where there has been an antecedent act of Grace on the part of God." This bears upon the matters charged by me against Mr. Gorham, although a mis-statement of his special distinctive heresy. Surely, therefore, it was the duty of your Grace to be the more cautious before you gave to the Judicial Committee the high authority of your sanction to any state- ment whatever on this particular point. Yet your citation of Bishop Taylor which you have so unsuspiciously received, is absolutely, palpably fraudulent. That eminent Prelate, in the very commencement of the veri/ same ixiragrapk of his work, from which your citation is made, gives this ])lain, distinct, unmistakable contradiction of the doctrine for which you have adduced him as your witness — the doctrine of Mr. Gorham : — " Bajdimn is the first onllnarij current in ic/iich tlie Spirit moves and de- scends u])on us — and where (jJod's S|)irit is, tliey arc tlie sons ol' God ; for Christ's Spirit descends iijjoii none but tlieni that are his." He then proceeds shortly to deal with the case of Cornelius, as an exception; and it is thus that he is brought to the state- ment which your Grace has quoted. D 34 These are your Grace's witnesses — a sample of the "many Divines'' of our Church (for of these we must understand you to be speaking) wlio " have solved the difficulty by supposing that the spiritual benefit of Baptism, ' a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness,' is only received where there has been an antecedent act of grace on the part of God." You have ventured to identify this position with the doctrine of Bishop Jeremy Taylor on the efficacy of Baptism to infiints. With what success, we have just seen. But your Grace waxes still bolder — and at length declares, " Indeed at one time this doctrine was authoritatively taught in our Church." We will look at your evidence for this posi- tion. It is summed up in the following statement ; — " For it is uniformhj laid down in the Decades of Bullinger, that ' in Baptism that is sealed and confirmed to infants, which they had before ;' so that ' the first beginning of our uniting and fellow- ship with Christ is not wrought by the Sacraments.' And in the year 1586, it was ordered hy the Queen and the Ujjper House of Convocation, that those Decades of Bullinger should be stu- died and taken as a model by every minister who has not passed the Master of Arts' degree." My Lord, before 1 examine the evidence of the fact here stated, I beg leave to trouble you with a few remarks respecting Bullinger himself. The truth is, that Bullinger, as well as Calvin and others of their school, made two sorts of statements, which, taken in their plain meaning, flatly contradict one another. They had parted with the truth, but they tried to persuade themselves and others that they had not. The theory which they had adopted from Zwingle did make the Sacraments " empty signs ;" but they 35 shrunk from owning to themselves or the Church that they did so. They frequently protest that they do not. They make statements, which express that the grace of the Sacraments is conveyed through the Sacraments. There is evidence to show that our Divines, even down to a late period, took those better passages in their plain meaning, and so quoted the writers as agreeing with the doctrine of the Church of England. It was charitable to take words in their best meaning ; it was natural that, in their common conflict with the Church of Rome, our early writers should overlook the real differences in the state- ments of those engaged so far in one common cause, neglecting the passages which constrain us to admit that such was not their meaning. This we must believe to have been the case with the Divines in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. For, taken in their real meaning, those passages which you cite, really con- tradict the very articles and formularies which those Divines established. I would now draw your attention to some passages which declare that the grace of Baptism is actually bestowed in Bap- tism. In the context of the passage which you quote, he de- clares, " to be baptized ' Into the name of the Lord,' is to be sealed into his virtue and power (for the name of the Lord gignifieth power), into the favour, mercy, and protection of God, yea, to be grafted, and as it were to be fastened, to be dedi- cated, and to be incorporated into God." Is this a real act, or is it a shadow? Is it a sijiritual truth, or are they mere words ? To be "incorporated into God" — can it be a mere outirard thing, a name, a visible representation, a picture, an outward admission into an outward body ? You would think it profane and deceiving to use words so awfully d2 great of a mere outward act. Again, you well know what Holy lSerij)turo means, by being " grafted into Christ," made mem- bers of Ilis mystical body, branches of the true Vine. Again, " to be sealed into His virtue and power," " into the favour, mercy, and protection of God." Surely such a sealing is not a mere outward act. Bullinger seems, in this passage, to labour for words to express the greatness of what he means, to rise from one to another, " grafted," "as it were fastened," until he ends, " to be incorporated into God." Again, in another place, he says, " truly Baptism is called a cleansing or washing away of sins." It cannot be " truly " so, unless sins are really washed away by it. Again, he adopts the strongest language of Holy Scripture and of the " old doctors of the Church," as to the reality of God's gift in Baptism. " We read," he says, " that they are ■purged from their sins, and regenerated into a new life, ivhich are baptized in the name of Christ, and that Baptism is the washing axcay of all our sins. And after this manner speaketh the Scripture, and this form of speech kept the old doctors of the Church, whom, for so doing, none that is wise can dispraise, neither can any one discommend any man which speaketh after this manner, so that he also abide in the same sincerity wherein it is manifest that those holy men of God did walk " (quoted by Mr. Goode, p. 245). These words he receives with the limita- tion only, that "they used words significatively, sacramentally, mystically, and figuratively." Certainly our Divines might well be slov/ to think that, although Bullingcr joins the woi'd " figuratively," he meant that Sacraments were only figures. For Bulllnger himself says that "Sacraments are effectual, and not without force." "If 37 by bare, they understand things of no force, we openly profess that wc have Sacraments which are holy, and not profane ; effectual, and not without force ; garnished from above, not naked; and therefore full, not void nor empty" (quoted by Mr. Goode, p. 247). And in this impression they might be confirmed by observ- ing some statements to which Bullinger objects : — 1. That "Sacraments justify and save: yea, and that of themselves^'' i. e. not God by them. And 2nd. To those which " attribute the receiving of grace to our tcork, whereby we receive the Sacrament''' (Goode, p 245); i. e. not to Christ's mercy in and through them — statements palpably false, and abhorrent from all Christian truth. He adds, — " They are instituted of God, and for godly men and not for profane persons ; effectual and not without force ; for in the Church, with the godly and ffiithful, they work the same effect and end whereunto they were ordained of God." All must, of course, believe that to " profane " persons Sacraments must be pernicious (as the Article teacheth). But Bullinger cannot here be speaking of infiints ; for infants can neither bo " profime " nor "godly" when they come to Baptism. Now the above passages cannot 1)0 explaini!(l away, except on the supposition that Bullinger used language awfully great of what is simply outward. 'I'lie question is not whether the Sacraments are efficacious in a certain class of persons only, but whether God conveys through them inward grace. This Bullinger really denies And we may be slow to believe that oiu' Divines so understocjd liim, in llie fac(! of those his other Statements, since he would tlicreby coutr;ulict llu; Articles themselves. 38 The real theory of Zwingle and his followers is, that the Sacraments are mere outward signs. This is so important, that I may digress for a moment from Bullinger to his master Zwingle, in a work which Bullinger speaks of as one of his very best. In his Fidei Christianse Expositio, then, Zwingle says* that " the benefits of Sacraments are, that they are instituted by Christ, attest his history, set before us the things which they signify ; signify great things, are fitted to represent the things signified, aid faith to contemplate divine things, are an oath to bind Christians together ;" in all which there is no mention of Divine Grace. In like way, he speaks of the benefits of Infant Baptism, that Infants are therein dedicated to God, grow up in the same doc- trine, are educated as Christians, and listlessness in teaching is removed. He often urges against the Anabaptists that they were unreasonable in objecting to Infant Baptism, since it is " an outward and ceremonial thing." In like way Bullinger also does often represent the sacra- ments as mere pictures and outward seals. His definition of a sacrament does not contain one hint of an invisible grace. " Sacraments are holy actions, consisting of words, promises, or of prescript rites or ceremonies, given for this end to the Church of God from heaven, to he witnesses and seals of the preaching of the Gospel ; to exercise and try faith ; and, by earthly and visible things, to represent and set hefoi'e our eyes the deep mysteries of God ; to be short, to gather together a * P. 555, V. sqq. qusc Sacramentorum virtus. 39 visible Church or congregation, to admonish them of Him and duty." Let any one contrast this explanation of a sacrament with that of our Articles, and he will not dare to say that it is in accordance with them. In a word, my Lord, either Bullinger means that Sacraments are God's instruments by which He confers the grace signified by them on those who receive them worthily — and so he sustains the principle that the grace of the New Birth is conferred in and by Baptism — or he denies that the Sacraments are such instruments of God, and so contradicts the 25th Article, which says that Sacraments are effectual signs of grace and God's goodwill towards us, hy the which He doth toork invisibly in us {efficacia signa, per quce). Your Grace will choose which part of the alternative you may prefer ; if the former, Bullinger is a witness to the Regeneration of Infants by Baptism — if the latter, you make Archbishop Whitgift and the other Bishops of that day require, that a doctrine, which contradicts the 39 Articles, should be " authoritatively taught." It is to me a matter of perfect indifference, as far as concerns our present discussion, which of the two you may choose. But this is not, and cannot be, a matter of indifference, on higher grounds. Archbishop AVhitgift's name, not to mention otliers, is too exalted for us willingly to concur in branding him as a favourer of Heresy. The truth seems to be, that in setting out the " Decades of Bullinger," as a book for the instruction of the more ignorant of the Clergy, he and his comprovincials looked only to the general character of Bul- linger's volume — a volume containing fifty Sermons, of which four only were on the subject of the Sacraments. The volume, 40 in the main, may liavc been an useful Manual, and may have afrordoil a good sample of Sermon-writing — a matter much wanted in our Church in those days, when the paucity of oiu- Homilies was much deplored — and, so far as I am av.are, there was no attempt made by any English Divine to supply the deficiency. But, be the doctrine of this volume good or bad, what is the evidence of its having been autlwritatively taught in our Church ? Your Grace says, " In the year 1586 it was ordered hy the Queen and the Upper House of Convocation, that these Decades of Bullinger should be taken as a model by every minister who had not passed the Master of Arts' degree ;" and you cite, as authority for this assertion, StryjJe's Life of Wliit- gift, i. p. 131. My Lord, I have looked into this Book, and into Wilkins's ' Concilia,' but can find no authority at all for the Queen's having had anything to do with such an order ; and as to any order, made by the Bishops, I am equally at a loss to find it. Wilkins (iv. 321), giving the Register of the Acts of Convoca- tion in 1586, tells us no more than what follows : — " 1586. In 13™* Sessione (Dec, 2) statuta de progressu in studiis ab inferiori Clero faciendo ab Archiepiscopo (quae statim sequuntur) exhibebantur." Afterwards, " In hac Synodo ab Archiep. Cantuar. introducehantur ordines," &c. Strype (Whitgift, App., B. III., No. 32) says, " Orders," &c., adding, " agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops" — which seems to be correct ; for he further says (i. 499), Sess. 7, March 10, 1586, " Then the Prolocutor prayed that the Articles agreed upon by the Bishops formerly mentioned should be read, which was done. And then the Archbishop exhorted all the Clergy to do their duty." 41 Nothing further in the matter was done. Convocation was dissolved on the 24th of the same month. There is not a trace of the consent of the lower House having been given to the measure. No Canon, no Act whatever, relating to it, appears in the Acts of that Convocation. Therefore, that this book was " authoritatively taught " seems a mere gratuitous dictum. True it is, that Archdeacon Aylraer, son of the Bishop of London (seemingly on his own authority), at his Visitation in the year 1587, did make inquiry about the use of this book by the inferior Clergy; but the Articles of Inquiry at the Visita- tion by Archbishop AMiitgift, of the Diocese of Canterbury, of Salisbury, and of Rochester, though very minute, make absolutely no mention of it at all. It is not a light confirmation of the improbability that the book was ever " authoritatively taught," that it is one which is now of extreme rarity — a copy of it cannot, without great diffi- culty, be p/ocured. Considering that it is a qxiarto of above 1000 pages, this could hardly be the case, if every one of the thousands of Clergy who, in those unlearned days, had not " passed his Master of Arts' degree " had been obliged to procure it. Tiie only co])y I have been able to find is in English, printed in 1577 ; and I am assured by an excellent authority in such a matter, that no subsequent edition of it was published in England during that century — none, tJicrcforc, at the time when the demand for the booh, if your Grace's statement he correct, must have hern (jrratcst. I have; made inquiry at the British Museum, and find that the only copy there is in Latin, printed at Zurich, in 3 vols, folio, "Tiguri," 1557. I have also made in- quiries at Oxford, and I find that there is vo copy of the book in Evf/lisJi in the Bodleian, or the Christ Church, MaydalenCf 42 JVcic CoUoqe, BaJIioI, Oriel, Jesus libraries. In tlie Bodleian there is one copy only, in 3 vols, folio, Ticjiiri, 1676, and one in Neic College, exactly like the other, but bearing the date 1666. My Lord, I am really incredulous concerning the order hy the Queen and Upper House of Convocation in 1586. But your Grace says, there is nothing in "such opinions," as deny the saving grace of Baptism of infants, " to prevent the honest use of the formularies of the Church." My Lord, I will not go through the passages in those formularies which notoriously affirm that saving Grace — passages on which, at page 160 of your own book (as I have already shown), you found an assertion, that " on the authority of this example " (the example of St. Paul as deduced from several texts of his Epistles), "and of the undeniable practice of the first ages of Christianity, our Church considers Baptism as conveying re- generation, 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 regenerated^ {\hQ Italics are your own) "the infant with His Holy Spirit, and receive him for his own child by adoption." Such is the declaration in your Book ; but a new light has burst upon you, it seems, while preparing a Preface for it. You have now descried a new principle, which was before hidden from your eyes. You not only say, " all our formu- laries are framed," but you add, "and must be framed, on the principle of charitable presumption." My Lord, without at present dealing with this, I turn to the writers whom you cite as vouchers for it. The first is a greater than any of the very great men to 43 whom you have before appealed, Bishop Pearson, the most judicious, the most accurate, and one of the most learned, of all the theologians of whom our Church can boast. He says, what you cite ; but he says it of adults, and of the actual state of adults, whose lives are before the world. His words are these : — " When the means are used, without something appearing to the con- trary, we presume the good effect." He says nothing of infants Jiei-e ; nothing of the effect of Baptism to them. But it is with the effect of Baptism of Infants that we are now concerned, and I will present your Grace with an extract from another work of his, a formal Determination of his, as Divinity Professor, on Baptism of itself, Baptism simpliciter — Baptism, therefore, of infants, who cannot either place a bar against the Grace annexed in Christ's institution to the Sacrament itself, by unworthily receiving it, nor forfeit that Grace, as adults may, by subsequent sin. Bishop Pearson's words are as follows : — " Nihil in Christiana, Religione certius est, quam vis ilia Baptismi ad bonum spirituale maxima ccrtissimaque. Est quidcm signum externum et visibile ; id autem quod illo significatur est invisibilis gratia; et signum ipsum ideo institutum est, ut earn gratiam conf'crat."' * Your Grace, therefore, will perceive that Bishop Pearson taught what is absolutely inconsistent with the notion that we must speak of the effect of the Baptism of Infants, " on the principle of charitable presumption." On the contrary, he tells us that — " Nothing in the whole compass of oiu' religion is more sure than tlio exceeding great and most certain efficacy of JJaplisiii to spiritiia! aoud ; that * Bp. Pearson, Minor T'lieol. Works, ii. .{13, Vclcnniiiatio YI. 44 it is an outward and visible sign indeed, but by it an invisible Graec is sij?- nified ; and the sicrn itself was instituted/o/- the very jmrjwse tliat it should confer that Grace." My Lord, you again cite Ilooltc?' in confirmation of your present position, as saying " We speak of infants as the rule of charity alloweth." It is very distressing to be compelled to scrutinize every citation which you make, and still more distressing to be obliged to remark on all of them as most incorrect — on some as most fallacious. In the present instance I have to tell your Grace that in the three editions of Hooker, Avhich only I have been able to consult, the folio of 1705, Banbury's, and Keble's, the word is not Charity, but Piety. Whether your Grace's edition of Hooker has Charity I know not ; if it has (which the context makes scarcely credible), it is quite plain that he uses it merely ad homincm. I will present your Grace with that context. Carticriylit, whom, I need not say, Hooker was answering, had said — "If children eould have failh, yet they that present the child cannot precisely tell whether that particular child hath faith or no ; we are to think charitably, and to hope it is one of the Church ; but it can be no more precisely said that it bath faith, than it may be said precisely elected." Hooker answers, — " Were St. Augustine now living-, there are which would tell him for his better instruction, that to say of a child * it is elect,' and to say ' it doth believe,' is all one ; for which cause, sith no man is able precisely to affirm the one" (that it is elect') " of any infant in particular, it followeth that ' precisely ' and ' absolutely,' we ought not to say the other " (that it believeth). " Which precise and absolute terms are needless in this case. We speak of infants as tJie rule of Piety alloweth both to speak and think," 45 Xow the " rule of piety " Is, according to the doctrine of Augustine and of Hooker, " to speak and. think" of baptized infants as having faith, because they have had the Sacrament of Faith (S. Aug. Ep. 23 ad Bonifac.)- But Hooker proceeds with an argumentum ad homincm (I repeat) : — " They that can take to themselves in ordinary talk a charitable kind of liberty to name their own sort God's dear children (notwithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy), should not, methinks, be so strict and rigorous against the Church for presuming as it does of a Christian innocent." Such would be the answer to your Grace's representation of Hooker's words, if it were correct, which it glaringly is not. Let me now tell you, in two sentences of Hooker's, what " the Church presumes " according to him, not merely charitahlg, but ahsolutelg, of a baptized infant. In his 57th section (on " the Necessity of Sacraments unto the Participation of Christ "), after speaking of other properties of Sacraments, he says, — " But their chiefest force and virtue consisteth not herein so much as in that they are heavenly ceremonies, which God hath sanctified and ordained to be administered in His Church, first, as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof; and, secondly, as means conditional, whicii God requireth of them unto whom He imparteth grace." And In Section GO, — ■ " Baptism, therefore, even in the meaning of the law of Christ, bclongelh unto infants capable thereof from the very instant of their birth." My Lord, in the midst of the distasteful work in which necessity had engaged me, it is refreshing to be reminded, and to have occ^ision to remind otlnr.s, of those noljle statements of Catholic doctrine in the words of one of the most illustrious of Enrjlish divines. 46 'My T.ord, I proceed to your citation from Bishop Carleton. I liave not access to his work, but I doubt not that it is cor- rectly exhibited in Mr, Goode's book : — "All that receive Baptism are called the children of God, regenerate, justified ; for to us they must be taken for such in charity, until they show themselves other." This is very apposite to the immediate purpose for which you cite it ; but then the context directly contradicts the doc- trine of Mr. Gorham, on whose account it is cited, for, in the same page, we read — " We, following the ancient Fathers, follow the Church. I pray you, what did antiquity teach ? That young children baptized are delivered from original sin. We teach the same." My Lord, Mr. Gorham teaches not the same : he teaches that original sin, in itself, and unless removed by " an act of prevenient grace," makes children unworthy recipients of Baptism. There remains, I rejoice to say, but one other evidence for your Grace's principle of charitable presumption, the Defence of the Services of the Church by the Bishops at the Savoy Conference. The complaint of the Nonconformists was — " That whereas throughout the several offices the phrase is such as presumes all persons (within the Communion of the Church) to be re- generated, converted, and in an actual state of grace (which, had eccle- siastical discipline been truly and vigorously executed, in the exclusion of scandalous and obstinate sinners, might be better supposed ; but there having been, and still being, a confessed want of that, as in Liturgy is acknowledged, it cannot be rationally admitted in the utmost latitude of charity): we desire that this may be reformed." — Cardwcll Conf., 308, 47 The Bishops answered — " Our prayers and the phrase of them surely supposes no more than that they are saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus, by their baptism admitted into Christ's congregation, and so to be reckoned members of that society till either they shall separate themselves by wilful schism, or be separated by legal excommunication ; which they seem earnestly to desire, and so do we." The Bishops, in another place, explain what tliey mean by " charitable presumption," i. e., that it relates to adults, not to infants ; to those who can, by their own will, retain or lose the grace of God, not to those who are incapable of a.ny will, either to receive or reject it, but upon whom our Saviour Christ con- fers it. In defending the Confirmation Service, they assert jjositively that the grace of Baptism was conferred upon infants, but say that the Church "presumes charitably," not that they have received it, but that, when they come to be confirmed, they have not " totally lost" it. " And it is charitably presumed that, notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their childhood, they have not totally lost what m«s in Baptism conferred upon them, and therefore adds, 'Strengthen them,' &c." — lb. 359. My Lord, I entirely agree with your Grace that on this principle all common prayer must be framed ; for common prayer is no other than the united prayer of all who are gathered together in Christ's name. But tlie bearing which this may have on the charitable hypothesis on which you say that the words which declare childr(;u to 1)c regenerate in their Baptism must be construed, Avill come more jn-operly under consideration in dealing with the Judyment of tlie Judi- cial Committee, to which I now proceed: — 48 The nature of that judgincnt will become clearer if I state the two chief heresies of Mr. Gorham. I. AVhereas the Nicene Creed declares that there is " one Baptism for the remission of sins," and since infants have no actual sins, this would not ])e true of them unless original sin were remitted to them in Baptism ; and the Church has anathematized those who so teach, " ut in eis forma Bap- tismatis in remissionem peccatorum non vera sed falsa sit" (Cod. Eccl. Afr., can. 110) ; and the whole Church has ever believed that original sin is remitted to all infants in Baptism, Mr, Gorham denies that it is remitted in Baptism to any. For he holds, that where it exists, it is a hindrance to the right reception of Baptism, and that those infants only who receive Baptism rigidly^ i. e. having had an act of prgevenient grace, receive any benefit from it. So then whereas the Church teaches that original sin is remitted by Baptism, Mr. Gorham teaches that it is either remitted before, when God bestows this act of prsevenient grace (a limitation of the mercies of God to infants which Holy Scripture does not warrant), or not remitted at all to the infant when baptized. This is clearly stated in the following passages : — Answer 15, p. 83. — " Our Church holds, ami I hold, that no spiritual grace is conveyed in Baptism, except to worthy recipients ; and as infants are by nature ?/;iWorthy recipients, ' being born in sin, and the children of wrath,' they cannot receive any benefit I'rom Baptism, except there shall have been a prevenicnt act of grace to make them worthy." QuESTioy LXX., p. 123.—" In your Answer No. 15 you say, — ' The Church holds, and I hold, that no spiritual grace is conveyed in Baptism, except io worthy recipieiits ; and as infants are by nature w/nvorthy recipients, " being bom in sin, and the children of wrath," they cannot re- ceive any benefit from Baptism, except there shall have been a prevenicnt grace to make them worthy.' [See p. 83.] 41) " Do you there mean that a prcvenient act of grace is necessary to enable infants, being born in sin, and the children of wrath, to receive any benefit from Baptism ? " Answer 70. — " I do." Answer 71, p. 125. — "Secondly-. I hold, and have again and again maintained, that Article 25 dogmatically declares that the Sacraments ' have a wholesome effect or operation on such only as worthily receive the same.' This dogmatical teaching shuts us up in the conclusion, that ' the child of lortfli,' if the wholesome effect of Baptism was absolutely wrought in it, must have been made ' worthy' (that is, have been qualified for the blessing) by a prevenient act oft/race. If we deny this conclusion, we allow that ' the child of wrath,' and ' born in sin,' is in iliat state ' worthy;' or we must deny its sinful condition by nature, and so fall direct info the Pelagian heresy." Answer 74, p. 131. — '' I recur, however, finally to the position — which I early took up, and have so often occupied in this Examination — from which I tliink neither this nor any other indirect consideration can dislodge me, — that the ' wholesome effect' of Baptism in this, because in every case, is rigidly declared by Article 25 to be limited to due reception, and there- fore to an act of grace prevenient to the administration of the Sacrament." ir. The gifts which the Catholic Church, and in it our own, has ever taught and does teach to he given hy God in and hy the sacrament of Baptism, Mr. Gorham teaches to be given before Baptism, whenever Baptism is received rightly, ascribing these gifts either to the praivenient act of grace, which, as to infants, he has adopted from the inventions of men, not from the word of God, or to faith, which our Church declares that infants cannot have. These gifts are "remission of sins," or ju.stilication ; being " born again," or regeneration ; being made " the child of God," or adoption. Of these, Mr, Gorliam declares that rr(jvitcr(ilioii takes ])lace hefore Baptism, through the act of ])rievenient grace, in direct K 50 contradiction to our Lord's vords (according to the sense of the wliole Churcli and our o^vn Baptismal office), " Except a man he born of water and the S})irit." Thus he separates regeneration wholly from Baptism, as in no way an effect of it, since, according to him, it precedes it. Answer 19, p. 85. — " If such infants die before they commit ' actual sin,' the Church holds, and I hold, that they arc ' undoubtedly saved ;' and therefore they must have been regenerated by an act of grace pre- venient to their Baptism, in order to make them worthy recipients of that Sacrament." And without reference to that act of " pra^venient grace," he states that the new nature is given before Baptism : — Answer 27, p. 88. — " In fact, the new nature must have been possessed by those 'who receive Baptism rightly;' and therefore possessed ftp/ore the seal was affixed." And in Answer 23, p. 86, he speaks, in the past, of the ^^ new nature^' having been implantcc?, and faith possessed before, as contrasted with the gift (as he supposes) in Baptism — the confirmation of faith, of which he speaks in the present. " x\ccording to this doctrine of the Church, is Baptism a sign of any- thing else ?" " It 7)iai/ be, and very often is, a sign oi nothing more; but if it be re- ceived ' rightly, worthil3', and by faith,' it is an ^ effectual sign ^ of God's 'grace' bestowed, which implanterf a new nature and produces? the faith, both professed and possessed ; and it is also a sign of ' God's good-will to- wards us,' by which he 'strengthens' and confirms our ' faith' in him." In like way, as to adoption. Whereas our Church from Holy Scripture declares that the child was " therein made a child of God," &c., Mr. Gorham declares that all who receive Baptism rightly have been made children of God before, and in Baptism that is attested which they were made before. 51 These are his Avords : — Answtsr 59, p. 111. — " The Chnrcli hoklf, and I I'.old, that the worthy reception here [i.e. in Question 59] recognised, in)plies Faith (sec Article 27, and see the requirements from the sjjonsors in the 13a])tismal Service), but as the stipulation of ' Failh' goes before Baptism, and as the condition of ^ being the child of God' is a blessing: conferred by ^ Faith' (John i. 12, 13; Gal. iii. 26),— hence the blessing of 'adoption' also precedes Bajjtisni in its essence ; but it is declared, attested, and manifested bij that sacrament, as [ordained to be] a seal or sign of the gift.'' Answer 60, p. 113. — " That ' faith,' and that filial state, though clearly to be ' ascribed to God,' was given to the worthy recipient ( — for we arc here all along assuming this worthiness — ) before Baptism, and not in Baptism." Answer 97. — "If adoption were not co-existent with, or instantly con- sequent on, Fait!), — but were relegated to the period of Baptism, — then the believer would be ' born of the will of the ilesh,' &c., ' of will of man ;' since man can will to select the time.' In like way, again, as to " remission of sins," or justification, he says that it must " precede beneficial Baptism :" Answer 125, p. 197. — "As Faith mmi precede beneficial Ba])tism, and as Justification is invariably consequent on Faith, therefore Justification ixho precedeii beneficial Baptism, and cannot be equivalent to it." And this last statement I could not at all suppose to be qualified by the statement whicli follows : — "Justification, like Faith, and Adoption (three graces which always arc co-existent, or at least immediately consequent to each other), is so hv from being equivalent to Baptism, that it may take i)lacc before, in, or rflcr that sacrament." His system admits of justification ^^brforc" Baptism, or " fiffa-''^ Baptism, but not in Baptism, except by a miracle. Those who receive Baptism, receive it wort])ily or unworthily. Tliere is no third class, and IVIr. Gorham insists on these two. But of these, he had just stated that those who receive l^ajjtipm E 2 52 wortliily must have hecn justified before Baptism. " Justification precedes beneficial Baptism." In tliose who receive Baptism unworthily, if God gives them repentance, justification would take place after Baptism. There is absolutely no place, ac- cording to him, for justification in Baptism, unless it should please Almighty God, by a miracle, at the moment of Baptism, to convert one who had come to it unworthily. The heresies, then, my Lord, which came out in my ex- amination of Mr. Gorhani, and for which I refused him insti- tution, are these : 1st. That by declaring original sin to be a hindrance to the benefit of Baptism, he denied the Article of the Creed, " One Baptism for the remission of sins ;" 2nd. That he separated entirely " the inward and spiritual grace " from the Sacrament, inasmuch as he stated "regeneration " to precede Baptism, when Baptism was rightly received. I can hardly describe with what amazement I found these heresies glossed over, or almost unnoticed in the judgment. I cannot, indeed, be surprised that highly respectable common law judges should not understand theological statements, and this does but illustrate the utter unfitness of such a court for the very responsible office put upon it, to decide upon appeal whether a Clerk, charged with unsound doctrine, was fitted for the cure of souls. But, my Lord, I carmot understand how even your wish to see everything as favourably as you can, can have betrayed you into countenancing such entire mis- statement of unsound doctrine. The heresy which I first named, that original sin is stated by Mr. Gorham to be a hindrance to the right reception of Baptism, instead of being remitted by it, is only noticed in the Judtrmcnt in these terms : — 53 " That in no case is regeneration in Buptism uncondilional ;" and " What is signified by right reception is not determined by tlie Articles. Mr. Gorhani says, that the expression always means or implies a fit state to receive, — viz., in the case of adults ' with faith and repentance,' and in the case of infants ' with God's grace and favour.' " " With God's grace and favour," my Lord ? AVho can deny this? Who could imagine the Sacrament of Christ admi- nistered healthfully vithout " God's grace and favour ?" But these words, although quoted in the Judgment as Mr. Gorham's, I do not find in his answers. What Mr. Gorliam does often and emphatically insist upon, are not " the grace and favour" of Almighty God, " the good will of our Heavenly Father, de- clared hy His Son Jesus Christ," which our Prayer Book speaks of with regard to each infant brought to Baptism ; it is not " the grace and mercy " which our Church teaches that " our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny unto such infants ;" but " an act of preevenient grace" which he supposes (without any authority of God's word or the Church's teaching) to be given to some infants and denied to others ; and that vjwii this, and before Baptism, and wholly independent of it, regeneration is con- ferred, and that it is denied to all besides, although baptized. The attention of the Judges had been called to this subject ; some of tliem had connnented \\\)o\\ it; yet in the Judgment, it, the very heresy, is dropped out of sight, and words are substituted which do not represent Mr. Gorham's doctrine, and which might even be used in a sound sense — " with God"s grace and favour." A\ hat would any one of these Judges have thoupht, if, in the case of any libel iigainst a man, one set of words h;i(l thus been substituted for another; or if a in;ni were ciiarged with wilful nuu'der, and the .Tiulgc were, in 54 summing up, to omit uotlcing any evidence, beyond such as established manslaughter ? The other class of false doctrine is wholly unnoticed. The only phrase bearing upon it which is selected out of 3Ir. Gorhanf s answers is just that one which might, if pressed in one wai/, become sound, but M'hich would thereby contradict what he so repeatedly and emphatically states. The selection made by the Judges of passages to represent Mr. Gorham's doctrine is remarkable. They mingle together — 1. Statements of our formularies, which Mr. Gorham adopts simply (there arc two of these). 2. Statements from the Articles, which, from the context, apply plainly to adults alone, but which Mr. Gorham applies so as to restrain God's mercies towards infants. 3. State- ments which either are not Mr. Gorham's or do not express his general meaning, or not clearly. A fourth class they wholly omit — those wdiich do unequivocally and plainly express that he separates wholly the inward spiritual grace, \Ahich the Church declares to belong to Baptism, from that Sacrament. 1 must crave your Grace's attention to the statement of Mr. Gorham's doctrine, which, in sanctioning his acquittal, you have admitted to be correct. I will first recite the whole. The Judicial Committee says: — "The doctrine held by Mr. Gorham ajjpears to us to be this : — That Baptism is a sacrament generally necessary to salvation ; but that the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of Baptism that regeneration invariably takes place in Baptism ; that the grace may be granted before, in, or after Baptism ; that Baptism is an effectual sign of grace, by which God works invisibly in us, but only in such as worthily receive it ; in them alone it has a wholesome effect ; and that, without re- ference to the ciuulification of the recipient, it is not in itself an effectual 55 sign of grace. That infants baptized and dying before actual sin are cer- tainly saved ; but that in no case is regeneration in Baptism uncondi- tional." Now to consider it, sentence by sentence. It begins with words of the Catechism. " That Baptism is a Sacrament generally necessary to salvation ;" Then ; " But that the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accompany the act of Bajjtism, that regeneration invariably takes place in Bai)tism." Certainly, it is true that Mr. Gorham " supposes that the grace of Regeneration does not invariably take place in Bap- tism,*' since he says that it invariably docs not, when Bajtism is riyhtly received. " They must have been regenerated by an act of grace jij^evenient to Baptism, in order to make them wortliy recipients of that Sacrament" {Ans. 10). " The new nature i7iust have been possessed by those who receive Baptism rightly " {Ans. 27). " That the grace may be granted before, in, or after Baptism." " The grace," as it stands in the Judgment, would seem to be " the grace " of regeneration, since this had been spoken of just before. The words, as they stand in Mr. Gorham's answer, are spoken, not of " regeneration," but of " justifica- tion." Now, as to regeneration they would have been manifestly unsound, separating the inward spiritual grace of the Sacra- ment from the sign, so as only not to deny that Almighty God may, without any promise on His own i);ut, but by His Sove- reign V\'ill, unknown and unrevealed to us, nudvc the grace of regeneration coincide with the act of Baptism. But used of justification (with which it stands grammatically connected in 5G ^fr. (Jorliam's statement), it miglit, as an abstract statement of what in the nature of things is possible, have a sound sense. It is at least so explained, that Jcremiali and St. John Baptist were sanctified from the womb, and " the Holy Ghost fell upon Cornelius " before he was baptized ; those who come to Baptism rightly receive remission of sins in Baptism ; and adults who come to Baptism feignedly, without faith, or from worldly motives, receive only the Sacrament then, and if God gives them repentance, the Sacrament wliicli they had received unworthily, profits them after Baptism. A sound sense might thus be given to the passage, if restrained to an abstract state- ment how justification lias been wrought, and applying in part to extraordinary, and even miraculous cases. For as a practical statement as to God's present workings it would be self-contra- dictory. Justification, if understood of God's first acceptance of one unbaptized, who turns to God in true faith with the desire of Baptism, would in an adult be uniformly before Baptism ; if understood of that act whereby God washes away his sins, it would be in Baptism. " Those which actually do sin after their Baptism, when they convert and turn to God unfeignedly, are washed from their sins by the Sacrifice of Christ," as our homily saith. And so these are aneio justified after Baptism. Justification, then, in those who " after they have received the Holy Ghost, depart from grace given," and by the grace of God, arise again, is both in and after Baptism. But it cannot, ever in the same sense, be according to God's revelation and promise, both before and in Baptism, However, this one vague sentence is selected ; and that just before it, in the same answer of 3Ir. Gorham, in which he declares that "justification precedes beneficial Baptism," as also 57 all the other emphatic statements in which he asserts the same of " regeneration " and " adoption," are ignored. The Judgment proceeds : — *' That Baptism is an effectual sign of grace, by which God works invi- sibly in us, but only in such as worthily receive it; in them alone it has a wholesome effect." This is, of course, true in itself, heing in fact the words of different parts of Art 25 — " of the Sacraments." It is true as to adults, to whose case my examination had no reference, since adults are but seldom baptized now. But the Judgment again ignored the fact, that the only graces which Mr. Gorham sup- poses God to " work invisibly " in Baptism, are graces which according to our Church infants cannot have. That '•'• faith is confirmed," which our Church says infants " cannot " have^ and '•''grace increased," which infants, before Baptism, have not, "being by nature children of wrath." Mr. Gorham states one other thing, which " God works invisibly in us by this external pledge, an assurance that He has adopted us " (Ans. 39), of which, again, inftints are manifestly incapable, l^ut those graces of which infants, by God's mercy, are capable, and which our Church teaches that God does "work invisibly in" them, "remission of j-iiis by spiritual regcneratiou,"' " sanctification by the Holy Ghost," "regeneration with the Holy Spirit," "adoption as His children," "a death unto sin and anew birth unto righteousness," — these Mr. Gorham states to have taken place hefore, wherever Baptism is "rightly received." The Judgment, however, uses the general tci'/n, " by which God works invisibly in lis," omitting to state that Mr. Gorham supposes God to wf)rk by it, what our ( 'luir( b says infants have not or cauiH)! Ii.im-, and denies tluit jf(; 58 M'orks tlicn what our Church teaches that He then ahcai/.s works. This, agaui, may be very natural in common law judges. I regret that it escaped your Grace. The Judgment continues : — "And tliat without reference to the qnalification of the recipient, it i<; not in itself an effectual sign of grace." Most true, as it has ever been held by the whole Catholic Church, and must be held, of all those cajxihle of " qualifi- cation." But when, as in infants, there can be neither faith nor repentance, then God requireth not what He doth not give. " Though," says St. Augustine, "the little one have not yet faith formed in his mind, yet at least he puts no bar of any thought opposed to it ; whence he receives the Sacrament beneficially." —Ep. 99, § 10. And then, at last, mention is made in the Judgment of that upon which the whole does turn — the case of infants : and, first, the words of the Rubric to which Mr. Gorham expressed his assent are repeated, " That infants baptized, and dying before [they commit] actual sin, are certainly saved ;" and so, at the close, all that is said of Mr. Gorham's unsound doctrine is wu'apped up and veiled in the few words, " but in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional." And in this state- ment, meagre as it is, Mr. Gorham's special error is not simply omitted ; it is, by implication, denied. The Judgment states Mr. Gorham's doctrine " in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional." Mr. Gorham's doctrine is, in no case is rege- neration in Baptism, but when Baptism is rightly received, hefore it. 59 So much suppression of the truth converts a formal absolu- tion of Mr. Gorhara into a virtual condemnation of his doc- trine. Grave charges thus glossed over are tacitly acknow- ledged, while the individual is acquitted. My Lord, truth does not usually thus shun the light. My Lord, after this (which may hy many be thought tedious and minute) inquiry into Mr. Gorham's heresies, and the man- ner in M'hich the Judgment deals with them, I turn to other matters. And here it is impossible not to be struck with the absence of certain things, which it were natural to expect in such a document. We find no statement — or very little — of the arguments of Counsel, and, what is still more extraordi- nary, absolutely no notice whatever taken of the grounds of the Judgment of the Court below. The fact that there was such a Judgment, and that it was appealed from, is indeed mentioned, but that is all. Now, with every possible feeling of respect for the learning, the acuteness, and the other high qualities of the Judicial Committee, I must say, tliat when both Judgments are read and compared, few will be disposed to think that the learned persons who j)ronounecd the final Judgment had any right to treat the Judgment of Sir Herbert Jenner Fust with disrespect. But these omissions arc of much less moment than that on which I must next remark. Will it be believed — is it to the honour of the Judges that it can be said— that two main laws, one of the Church, a Canon of 1G04, the other, no less a statute than "the Act of Uniformity " — though they have the most direct, palpable, aye, and I will add conclusive, bearing on the matter in issue — were passed over by the Judges as if no such laws were in 60 existence ? 13iit was the attention of the Court called to them by the Counsel ? My Lord, even if it were not, I must think that such a law as the Act of Uniformity, one of the funda- mental laws of the land (so we have a right to call it, for it is so called in the Articles of Union with Scotland), ought not, in such a case as this, to have been, as it was, absolutely ignored. But the truth is, that both those laws had been pressed on the Court's attention by the Counsel for the Respondent — the Canon by Mr. Badeley, the Act of Uniformity by Dr. Addanis. Of their importance in the decisions of the cause, we shall be better able to judge if we first look at the grounds taken by the Court, on which its judgment was founded. "If there be am- doctrine on which the Articles are silent or ambi- guously expressed, so as to be capable of two meanings, we must suppose it was intended to leave that doctrine to private judgment, unless the Ru- brics and the Formularies clearly and distinctly decide it. If they do, we must conclude that the doctrine, so decided, is the doctrine of the Church. But, on the other hand, if the expressions used in the Rubrics and the For- mularies are ambiguous, it is not to be concluded that the Church meant lo establish indirectly, as a doctrine, that which it did not establish directly, as such, by the Articles — the Code avowedly made ' for the avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true religion.' " My Lord, no one will dispute the soundness of the principle here laid down. Let us look to the manner in which it w^as carried out. In examining the Articles, the Court does not apply itself to a consideration of the terms in which they are expressed, but docs little more than institute a comparison between them and the Articles of 1536, and King Henry VIIL's Book entitled a ' Necessary Doctrine,' &c. 61 Now this is not a very usual, nor, I must take leave to say, a very satisfactory, way of dealing with such matters. The ordinary course, of first examining the document itself which is to be construed, and afterwards, if its language be ambiguous, having recourse to other documents to explain, would, I sub- mit, have been more likely to lead the Court to a right inter- pretation. Bat such was not the method adopted in the present instance. The Judicial Committee, caught apparently by the sound of ^^ Articles of 1536," jump to the conclusion that this was the document which must afford them the best means of ascertaining the meaning of what may be doubtful in the Articles of 1552 and 1562, because, as they were pleased to assume, the Articles of 1536 were the foundation of those of the latter date. My Lord, I must express my astonishment that neither your Grace, nor either of the Prelates associated with you, corrected so very unfounded an imagination of the learned Judges. It is unfortunate that you did not tell them, that the Articles, so called, of 1536, were framed altogether alio intuitu from those of 1562. The former were of a popular character, drawn up, as is distinctly expressed, for that purpose. The latter were merely for tiie Clergy — conceived in lan- guage of a technical, theological character — well known, at the time in which they were framed, to have reference to the words of other Confessions of Faith of other reformed com- numions, especially of the Confession of Augsburgh ; to which, in their general tone of doctrine, and often in words, they bear a very close resemblance. Now, it is to these Confessions of Faith, unknown probably to the Judicial Connnittee, but w(>]l known to the advising Prelates, that attention ought to have 62 been given in the first instance, in order to interpret what may be doubtful in the hmguage of our Artieles. The twenty-fifth, tliat '" of Sacraments," is, in some of its main terms, identical with that of Augsburgh ; but with a most remarkable insertion, proving irresistibly the high and Catholic tone of doctrine which our own C^hurch assumed and declared on this main particular of Christian Faith. My Lord, your Grace knows that the Article "do usu Sacramentorum," in the Confession of Augsburgh, is content with saying, " Quod Sacramenta instituta sint, non modb ut sint notae professionis inter homines, sed mag^s ut sint signa et testimonia voluntatis Dei erga nos, ad excitandam et confir- mandam fidem in his, qui utuntur, proposita :" whereas our own twenty-fifth Article, adojitincj these very icords, inserts a clause which expresses the special, the essential, the distincti^•e characteristic of Catholic teaching on this point, as held by all antiquity, and by every branch of the Catholic Church, from the times of the Apostles to the sixteenth century. Sacraments are not merely " signa et testimonia," as described by the Article of Augsburgh; but they are ^^ certa qusedam testi- monia et efficacia signa Gratia atque bonae in nos voluntatis, per qucB invisibiliter ipse in nobis operatiir^ nostraratjue fidem in se non solvim excitat, vcriim etiam confirmat." The same great truth is set forth in our Catechism, Mhich, being an expression of our Church's teaching, equally autho- ritative with the Articles, and of a later date, was the most obvious, and would, I submit, have been incomparably the fittest, document to explain what might be doubtful to the Judges in the Articles themselves. In that Catechism, the same great truth, I repeat, which distinguishes our teaching in 63 the Article " of Sacraments," is thus still more clearly ex- pressed. A Sacrament is "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us" {i. e. it is not a natural sign), " ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same" (invisible grace), " and a pledge to assure us thereof" (that is, of our receiving it). This, my Lord (as your Grace well knows), is the doctrine of the Church of England, expressed in her twenty-fifth Article and in her Catechism, respecting the Sacraments. This is the doctrine which, as your Grace also well knows, Mr. Gorham expressly contradicted in respect to Baptism, By saying that the grace of that Sacrament, "a death unto sin and a new birth inito righteousness," is not received in or through that Sacra- ment, but must be received previously through a prsevenient act of gi'ace on God's part, he affirmed an awful heresy, distinctly pronounced by the Church to be such ; for which I rejected him as unfit — for which, had I not rejected him, I should have abandoned my duty, not merely to the Church, but to its divine Head. AVill your Grace deny any one single portion of what I here say ? If you will, deny it openly before the Church. If you will not, tell the Church, whose highest functionary you are, why you did not endeavour, at least, to correct the Lay Judges, whom you were summoned by your Queen to advise in matters of spiritual learning — tell us why you permitted them to deceive themselves so grossly — tell us, above all, why you joined them in giving such Judgment to the world. My Lord, much remains to 1)0 said ; but 1 have not time to say all. Some things I must notice. I have charged the Judges with having wantonly, and in G4 spite of warning, omitted to give attention to a conclusive Canon of tlie Church on this matter — it is the fifty- scventli Canon of 1G03. They were bound to notice it; they were bound to submit their own private opinions to it ; they were bound to regulate their judgment by it ; for they sate as an Ecclesiastical Court to administer the Ecclesiastical Law, of which this Canon is, in this cause, a most material part. For neglecting it— for deciding in contempt of it — I scruple not to say, what- ever may be the legal consequences of so saying of such men, that they were guilty of a grievous violation of their plain duty. The Canon says, " The doctrine of Baptism is sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer to be used at the administration of the said Sacrament, as nothing can be added to it that is material or necessary." The Judges virtually say that there is no doctrine of Baptism in those offices by which it is administered. Till they can erase that Canon from the code of the Church, they must be content to hear that they have given a Judgment on grounds directly contradictory to the law of the Church. My Lord, I have heard it sa'id that although this Judgment is not absolutely conclusive, yet it is a precedent, which every inferior Court will be bound to follow, and which even the highest Court will be bound to respect, and not, except on the plainest grounds, hereafter to supersede. I deny that it is a precedent ; technically it may be called so, but morally and really it is not a precedent, but a learning — a warning to future Judges to be content with doing their duty as Judges^ which duty is to administer, not to make, Iciws ; to beware of listening to clamours from without, or timid caution 65 from within, that the consequences of a strictly right decision would be to introduce confusion into the Church, and, it may be, into the State ; to drive hundreds of conscientious men out of the Ministry — to shock the feelings and oppose the pre- judices of a large and valuable portion of the Laity of the Church. My Lord, the Judges had no right to be moved by any such considerations. But, in truth, the danger was visionary ; the cry, if honest, was unfounded. There are not, I venture to believe — for so it has, I understand, been publicly declared by one who was, at first, the loudest and most prominent in raising the cry — there are not probably six men, calling them- selves Churchmen, who partake of Mr. Gorham's special heresy. But I must return to the consideration of one or two re- maining points. The first which I will notice is the following, I will not say contemptible, but (considering whence it proceeded) most amazing specimen of, I cannot call it, reasoning. After remarking that the Article of " Baptism," in 153G, says, that infants receiving Baptism are saved ilicrehy, it cites the first llubric at the close of the office of Public Baptism : " It is certain hij God's icord, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved ;" and the Judgment thereupon gravely pronounces, " But this Rubric does not, like the Article of L'jSO, say that such children are saved bj/ Baptism^ My Lord, where is this Rubric fcjund ? Lninediately after the office, in which several portions of God's inord had been cited ; "Except a man bo born of water and of the Spirit, he F 66 cannot enter Into the kingdom of God." " Almighty God of His great miTcy did save Noah and his family in the Ark from perishing by water, and also did safely lead the children of Israel Mis people through the Red Sea, figuring thereby His holy Baptism; and by the baptism of His well-beloved Son Jesus Christ in the river Jordan, did sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin," Again, " Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God ; verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." It is, I say, after these citations of God's Word, and after the office itself had declared that the baptized child was regenerate, after, in the same office, the thanks of the Church are given to God, that it had pleased Him to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit, to receive him for His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His Holy Church — it is immediateh/ after these Mords that the Rubric declares, " It is certain by God's word, that children,'" which have re- ceived such mighty promises and blessings, in other words, " which have been baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." And upon this Rubric this Judg- ment remarks, tliat it does not say that children which are baptized, dying in their infancy, though undoubtedly saved, are saved hy Baptism. How then, and by what, are they saved ? But I cannot argue such a matter. Suffice it to say, and I say it with a bitterness of feeling which I will not dis- semble, that such is " the Judgment " of the Lord Chief Justice of England, of the Master of the Rolls, of one of the most eminent Barons of Her Majesty's Court of Exchequer, of the Chancellor of the Diocese of London, and of a Right Hon. 67 and learned man, whose name is more exalted than any title of office or dignity could make it ; and that this Judgment has been adopted and sustained by the Lord Archbishop of Can- terbury and the Lord Archbishop of York. I turn to something else ; be it what it may, it must be a relief. It shall be the charitable Jiypothesis, on which we are told, that all the declarations of the blessed efficacy of Baptism in the Church's offices must be construed. Then, my Lord, permit me to ask, what are the declarations in those offices on which the Rubric we have just read are founded ? If all is a mere charitable figure, what is it to which you subscribe your " assent and consent " in that Rubric ? on what, I repeat, do you found it ? True it is, as I have said already, all Common Prayer must be framed on the principle that those who join in it are in a state of acceptance with God. And why ? Because Com- mon Prayer is part of the Communion of Saints. Because the Congregation, be it large or small, is " gathered together in Christ's name " — that is, as members of Him. And when and how were they made His members? When and how were they entitled to admission to the Communion of Saints? In and by Baptism. And arc we then to be gravely told, that the phrases which declare, in the most absolute terms which the wit of man can devise, that infants are in Baptism so made members of Christ, so born anew by s])iritual reg(uieration, are mere words of charity and hope — and not of faith ? Tiiis, too, I will not here argue : but I will refer to the arguineut (if courtesy require us to call it l)y such a name) of the .Judicial Committee. It seems, that a portion of the Book of (Jonunon Prayer can be found in which all will agree that the Cliurch F 2 08 speaks only in the sense of cluiritable hope — '■' at the hnrial of the dead." True, my Lord, but there is one slight distinction in the two cases. In the offices of Baptism of Infants the Church speaks in absolute, categorical, direct terms ; in that of Burial, it professes to use the language of liope. Oh, but we are told, the hope there named is in one instance called " sure and certain hope " — and, therefore, the hoj)e elsewhere spoken of in the same office, though it have not the same qualities of " sure and certain " expressed, must be understood to be the same. In other words, ^vhen the Church speaks, in the language of the Creeds, of the " sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life " of those for whom that blessed resurrection is " prepared of the Father" — it means nothing more sure and cer- tain, than is meant when we pray " that when we shall depart this life we may rest in Christ, as our hope is this our brother doth." My Lord, this, too, is a point which I cannot argue. But I must express my utter astonishment that your Grace assented to the Judgment which declared it. I am scarcely disposed to treat with more respect what, however, is characterised by the Judgment as " conclusive^ " Forasmuch as it has pleased Almighty God to tahe unto Himself the soul of our dear brother here departed." My Lord, the noble and learned Judges seem to have seriously believed that this is thanking God for taking the soul of the departed to live for ever in the beatific presence. Why did not your Grace undeceive them ? why did you not tell them that this is merely the application of a text of Ecclesiastes, which says of every man, be he good or bad, that while the spirit of a beast goes downward to the eartli, the spirit of a man goes upward— z. e. as our Church has explained it, has 69 ascended to Him who made it ? — But " we thank God for the death of the departed — though death, if he died an impenitent sinner, must seal his doom of everlasting damnation — a matter which cannot be an occasion of Ma/i/esgiving — it must therefore be understood as a charitable declaration that the deceased died in a state of Grace." My Lord, I am sure your Grace agrees with me, that this is by no means a necessary consequence. If he departed in an impenitent state, we may and ought to think, that he was nevertheless taken away in mercy — that his case was lost — that if life had been continued to him, he would have added sin to sin, and so would have been sunk in deeper perdition. My Lord, on this subject — on the terms in which the " order to be read at the Burial of the Dead " is conceived — one fur- ther word is necessary — not for the satisfaction of your Grace, but for the information of others. The Burial Service was designed by the Church, when she was able to exercise that discipline, the want of which we now solenmly deplore. That, being designed for such a state of things, it is often found in- congruous in our present unhappy case, cannot surprise ns. But surely it is most unreasonable to argue from such an in- congruity to the disparagement of other services, where no such observation is applicable. I quit this subject — with one remark which makes the Burial Service more gennano to the Judgment in this Cause, than any part of the Service itself. In the Rubric there is an express j)rohibition — as your Grace knows — of the use of that Service over the corpse of any who dies iinbaptized : such a person is declared to be in the same class with thoee who are cut off JVom the Clnn-ch by sentence of excommunication — and those who have cut themselves off 70 by wilful self-destruction. Can it bo necessary for me to draw out tlu> inference in words? But to look a little more closely into " this Charitable Hypothesis." What is the object of Charity in judgment? Surely the actions, internal or external, of others — not what is done fo them, but what may have been done % them. To say, " Seeing uow, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate," is to say of him that God has wrought a mighty work in him — has made him to be " born anew of water and of the Spirit." Whether God has wrought such a work is a question of fact, on which no serious mind w'ould dare to speak thus positively without sufficient warrant. The Church declares that we have such warrant in the words of Scripture, which she cites in the offices of Baptism of Infants ; and she requires us, therefore, to speak accordingly. Faith has here much to exercise it ; but not Charity, except indeed in rejoicing at the great benefit thus given to the unconscious babe. Again, let us look to the declarations to be made by the child in the Catechism : " In Baptism I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven ;" — and " I heartily thank our heavenly Father that He hath called me to this state of salvation." Now, what has Charity to do with these declarations, to be made by the child concerning his own state ? They are either true or false ; if true, the Church does well in teaching him to know his high privileges, since they must carry with them corresponding duties — the first of which is humble thankfulness to the Divine Giver ; but if false, the Church begins her education with teach- ing her children to use towards God the language, not of truth, but of falsehood, combined with the most hideous presumption. 71 I must now say something of the Act of Uniformity, of which, utterly disregarded as it was in the Judgment, your Grace will, I am sure, agree with me, that it contains a very main part of the law, which ought to have guided that judg- ment. This statute is the acceptance by the laity, accompa- nied by a parliamentary sanction, of the Church's Canon which settled the present form of the Book of Common Prayer. It is therefore the law both of the Church and of the State ; and the real import of that Act must be conclusive in all matters which fall within it. In seeking to ascertain the proper construction to be put upon it, the first consideration ought to be given to the statute itself And there, in the recital, we are told, that " for settling the peace of the Church, and for allaying the present distemper. His Majesty had granted his Commission, under the Great Seal, to certain Bishops and other Divines, to review the Book of Common Prayer, and to prepare such alterations and additions as they thought fit to offer." We arc next told that " His Majesty afterwards authorii^ed and re- quired the Convocations of both provinces to review the Book of Common Prayer, and after mature consideration to make such alterations and additions in the said Book as to them should seem most meet and convenient." It further says, that they had accordingly made some alterations — and His Majesty calls on Parliament to join him in giving legal sanction and authority to the same. The Act of Uniformity gives that sanction and authority accordingly. It does more ; it re(}uircs every one admitted to the Ministry of the Church oi)only, publicly, and solemnly to read the Morning and Evening Prayer before the congregation in God's house assembled, and after so reading to declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things 73 in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words, and no other : " I, A. B., do hereby declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book intituled the Book of Common Prayer," &c. The omitting for the space of two months so to read and so to declare assent and consent, is a forfeiture ipso facto of the benefice to which he has been inducted. Now respecting this declaration it is necessary to make one or two remarks. It was required for the first time by this statute. Subscription to the book, with a declaration that it con- tained nothing contrary to the Word of God, had been re- quired before.* But such subscription and declaration had been found ineffectual to secure a faithful adherence to the doctrine, and a loyal observance of the directions of that book. In a petition to King James I. on his first coming to the throne, presented with the names of a thousand Ministers (thence called the Millenary Petition), it was stated, inter alia, " although divers of us that sue for Reformation have for- merly, in respect of the times, subscribed to the book, some upon protestation, some upon exposition given them, some with condition, rather than the Church should have been deprived of their labour and ministry." This petition sufficiently shows the feeling of a powerful party among the Ministers of the Church towards the Book of Common Prayer, in the beginning of the reign of King James I. That the same feeling continued and extended itself during the remainder of that and the following reign — that it Avrought a wide-spread disaffection towards the Church even * It had been required and practised before the Canon of 1604. among the clergy — and that it Avas among the most powerful causes of the disorders which, for a while, overturned both Church and State — is a matter of history so notorious that it requires only to be mentioned, as the reason for the introduction of the stringent form of declaration prescribed in the statute of which we are speaking. Fatal experience had shown the insufficiency of subscription, and of a mere obligation to use the book. The only security for the faithful use of it was " assent and consent " to all that it contained, and such security was given by the statute. I have dwelt on this point because, as your Grace well knows, a construction has recently been put on this Declaration by persons who, in the ordinary intercourse of life, are pro- bably honest men, which, I am quite sure, has been received by your Grace with the same disgust as by myself. It is said, " With respect to the Book of Common Prayer, there is required only subscription to a declaration that ' it containeth nothing contrary to the law of God, and may ImrfiiUy he used.' The words of the declaration required by the Act, standing alone, and independent of the context, might seem indeed stronger than the words of the Canon. But the context entirely does away with such a notion, for it exj)ressly restricts the meaning of the icords (assent and consent) to the use of the hook.'''' My Lord, I here cite these w^ords, not for tlie very idle purpose of exposing their weakness, no less than their wicked- ness, but — 1st. As a proof that there is among the Ministers of our Church at this day a spirit which requires the faithful exercise of vigilance in all among us who have consented to undertake the high office of Bibli()])s in the Church. But I 74 have cited it, 2ndly and principally, in order to show that this party feels that the plain, the direct meaning of the Book of Common Prayer is opposed to some of their own favourite tenets. This observation is most relevant to the matter on which we are now engaged — the doctrine of the Church, as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer, on the efficacy of Baptism. The Act of Uniformity gives full authority to that doctrine there expressed. Does it furnish us with any direction, as to any quarter to which we may resort, in case of any difficulty in the construction of any part of it ? Yes ; it enables us to ascer- tain the sense in which that book is sanctioned by the Legis- lature, by telling us by ichom, after what consideration, and in what sense it was '"made." It was "made" by Convocation, after having been " prepared " by twelve 3Iembers of the Ujq^er House, and many leading Members of the Lower House, after a long and very minute discussion of many portions of it, with the heads of the Nonconformists who sought very important alterations in it. This discussion was holden with the au- thority of a Commission under the Great Seal ; the terms of which Commission required that the Commissioners should " certify and present to the King, in writing under their hands, the matters and things whereupon they shall so determine for his approbation." This, my Lord, was done ; and we have, as your Grace well knows, the result of their " resolutions and determinations," so presented to the King, in the document commonly called " the Savoy Conference." It would probably be impossible to produce another equally clear authority for the meaning of the Legislature, the animus imponentis, in the case of any other Statute which can be named. "Whatsoever particulars, there- 75 fore, are clearly laid down in the Acts of that Conference must be held to be an authoritative exposition of any words of the Book of Common Prayer on which those Commissioners have pronounced plainly, if the proper construction of such words shall be brought into question. Did they so pronounce on any of the words in the offices of Baptism ? If they did, what they pronounced must be taken as the proper construction of those words, and must, therefore, so far as they go, be held to declare the doctrine of the Church on Baptism, according to the Law of the Church in the 57th Canon. It appears that the Nonconformists had desired — 1. That Ministers " may not be enforced to baptize the children whose parents are notoriously sinful, until they have made due profession of repentance." — Cardwell, Conf. 323. The Bishops answered, and the determination was reported accordingly : " AVe think this very hard and uncharitable, to punish the poor infants for the parents' sakes, and giving also too great and arbitrary a power to the Minister to judge which of his parishioners he pleaseth atheists, infidels, heretics, &c., and then in that name to reject tiieir children from being baptized. Our Church concludes more cliaritably, that Christ will favourabhj accept ever)/ infant to Baptism, that is j)re- sented by the Church according to our present order. And this she concludes out of Holy Scripture, as You mai/ see in the ojfice of Baptism, according to the j)ractice and doctrine of the Catholic Church (Cypn. Ep. 5'J, Aug. Ep. 2b, et de Verb. Apost. Scrm. 14)."— 355. 2. The Nonconformists (324j excei)te(l to the ])hrase, " May receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration," in the 2nd prayer before Baptism. 7(; The Bishops answered (356), " ' Receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration.' Most proper : for Baptism is our spiritual regeneration (St. John ill. ' Unless a man be born again of water and of the Spirit,' &c.) ; and by this is received remission of sins, Acts ii. : ' Repent and be baptized every one for the remission of sins.' So the Creed, ' One Baptism for the remission of sins.' " 3. In the prayer after Baptism, " That It hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant by thy holy Baptism," the Nonconformists objected (325), " We cannot in faith say that every child that is baptized is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit ; at least, it Is a disputable point, and therefore it may be otherwise expressed." To this the Bishops answered (356), " Seeing that God's Sacraments have their effects, where the receiver doth not * ponere obicem,' put any bar against them (which children cannot do) ; we may say in faith of every child that Is baptized, that it is regenerated by God's Holy Spirit." I strengthen these determinations respecting what is taught in the offices of Baptism, by reference to similar determinations a s to the Catechism. 4. The Nonconformists (328) took exception to the 3rd answer, " In my Baptism, wherein I was ' made a member of Christ,' &c." saying. We conceive it might be more safely expressed thus, " Wherein I was visibly admitted into the number of the members of the children of God, and the heirs (rather than the ' Inheritors ') of the kingdom of Heaven." Answer of Bishops (357), "We conceive this expression as safe as that wlilch they dosir.', and ir.orc fully cxp:essii!g the efficacy of the Sacrament according to St. Paul, the 26th and 27th Gah iv., where St. Paul proves them all to he childi'en of God, because they were baptized, and in their Baptism had put on Christ ; ' if children, then heirs,' or, which is all one, inheritors." 5. To question 19, " AVhat is required of persons to be baptized?" A. Repentance, &c. ; and question 20, " Wliy then are infants baptized," &c., the Nonconformists said, " We desire (p. 326) that the entering infants into God's covenant be more warily expressed, and that the words may not seem to found their Baptism upon an actual faith and repent- ance of their own ; and we desire that a promise may not be taken for a performance," &c. The Bishops answered (357), " We desire that the enter- ing of infants," &c. " The effect of children's Baptism depends neither upon their own actual faith and repentance (which the Catechism says expressly they cannot perform), nor upon the faith and repentance of their natural parents or proparcnt?, or of their godfathers or godmothers ; but upon the ordinance and institution of Christ. But it is requisite, that when they come to age, they should perform their conditions of faith and repentance, for which their godfathers and godmothers charit- ably undertook in their behalf." My Lord, in these determinations, I affirm, for the reasons which I have given above, that we have a clear statement of what was the mind of the Convocation, and therefore of the Parliament (which simply accci)tcd its decision), respectiiuj; the do(;trine concerning Baptism, in llic offices of Jhijitisiii, which is, I repeat, the doctrine of the Church, as declared by the 57th Canon. Now, this was the Law, which the Judicial Coniiuitoe were bound both to recognise, and to carry out in their Judgment ; and, because they absohitely shut their eyes against it (for, in this instance, nothing of Justice is seen but her bandage), I appeal from this legally supreme Court to another and a higher tribunal. But, my Lord, grievous as this sentence is to the Church of England, it would have been as nothing to the consciences of her members, had it not received the concurrence of your Grace. Your Grace has doubtless, when studying the law of Moses, been struck by that remarkable law, " Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause." We should have expected laws against favouring the rich or powerful, against taking bribes, against oppressing the poor. These are gross sins, to which we are accustomed. Holy Scripture lays open to us a more subtle sin, which human laws do not provide against — an evil, into which men might fall through very ten- derness of heart, wresting of justice in behalf of the poor. It sets before the judges His pattern in whose name they judge, whose name they bear. As in mercy, so in justice, it bids us follow Him who is " no accepter of persons." It bids us be merciful, as our heavenly Father is merciful, who " sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." But it bids us also imitate His jus- tice : " Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment ; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty ; but in righteousness thou shalt judge thy neighbour." So sacred is God's attribute of justice, that He will not have justice wrested, even in favour of those who are special objects of His bounty and tender care, to whom He 79 bids us be compassionate, the poor. He warns us that we dare not, if we would obey and follow Him, allow even our better feelings and compassion to lead us to pervert justice. My Lord, I shall not be thought to impute wrong motives to your Grace beyond the common infirmity of our nature, if I aver my belief, that other motives, besides mere justice and truth, swayed this sentence, and your Grace in your advice upon it. I cannot imagine that English judges could have been betrayed into so grievous a perversion of justice, or your Grace into sanctioning it, had there not been some very power- ful motive, which, through the kindly feelings of our nature, blinded their and your eyes to the evil of tampering with jus- tice. Common report said that such principles were even avowed. It was feared lest, if a true judgment should be given, a large number of Clergymen would be driven to resign their offices, perhaps to leave the Church. And so a tem- porising measure was adopted, which, it was thought, would satisfy both parties, and leave the position of both untouched. My Lord, I have already said that I do not believe that any such effect would have followed, had the judgment of your Grace's Court in this case been affirmed. It was not a com- mon case of false doctrine in which I used the power committed to me by God, and which, before I was consecrated Bishoj), I pledged myself to exercise. I was asked, " Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to Cod's word ; and both privately and openly to call uj)on, and encourage, others to the same?" My answer and your (-'race's answer was, " I am ready, the Lord being my heli)er." Mr. Gorhara's was, I repeat, an extreme case. It was no 80 case of perplexity arising out of a misuse of the word " re- generation ;" it was no question of words, or of allowable and partial differences in stating the same Divine Truth. It was an essential, complete, denial and contradiction of the doctrine of Holy Scripture and the Ciuirch concerning Baptism ; a complete separation of the special grace of the Sacrament of Baptism from the Sacrament itself. Unless it were to be con- ceded that the Church of England had absolutely no doctrine at all on that Sacrament, which is the threshold of the Christian hfe ; unless it were entirely matter of indifference whether any truth whatever were taught as to that Sacrament, whereby we are made members of Christ our Saviour, such false teach- ing could not be passed over. There is, as I said, no heresy on Baptism beyond this, none which involves a more complete denial of truth. It was a thorough, deliberate, systematic denial of all true Sacramental grace. They were not accidental ex- pressions ; there was no confusion, no uncertainty, no phrase which could leave a shadow of doubt. It was, alas ! a clear, considered, decisive statement of uncompromising denial of the special grace of the Sacrament of Baptism. It was a form of heresy which, by God's mercy, very few have at any time held in the Church of England, either before or since the Reformation. It is mere naked Zuinglianism. The way of truth is the way of safety. But " there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Although I refused institution to Mr. Gorham, I did not prosecute him for heresy, hoping that he might be brought to a better mind, when he should be told distinctly that his doctrine contravened Holy Scripture, the Creed, and the formularies of the Church. His publication 81 of the heresy which he mahitained in private in his examination was a distinct offence. But I was content to remain on the defensive. A judgment condemning his teaching >vould have left to him a locus pcenitenfice, and not, I am told, have affected above five or six clergy (if so many) in the Church of England. Even those, I trust, it would have led to amend their error, not to proceed to further error in abandoning the Church. My Lord, our care and office is not limited to the Clergy ; and the Clergy under us are Pastors, not to feed themselves, but " the flock of Christ, purchased by his precious blood." It is not a matter about which we dare to be indifferent, whe- ther they to whom we commit the cure of souls teach true doctrine or false. We, through the authority given to us by Christ, are empowered not only to ordain his ministers, but, when ordained, to give them authority to fulfil that ministry within the dioceses which God has committed to our care, and of which wc are to give account. We cannot escape from this responsibility. If, through our fault, our people arc taught what is contrary to God's word, it is we who teach them. It cannot be matter of indifference, whether our people are taught that tlicir children are in Baptism made members of Christ and children of God, or that they are not so 77iade, but only those who icere so before, were then ^^ dedarecV to be so. It is said that they are ^^ declared f but how any can be then declared to be so, unless all are then made so, I know not. For there is no outward sign of the inward grace con- ferred, except that sign througli which God confers it. It is not, then, a mere matter of discipline. As stewards, and G 82 keeper?, and dispensers of God's trutli, wc dare not knowingly send into our flocks those who deny essential truth. For their false teaching, if we can hinder and yet allow it, is ours. God grant, ray Lord, that our children, and our children's children, may not rue this violation of justice, committed for the sake (it was hoped) of peace. Nothing good ever came from the sacrifice of truth to peace. A false peace ends in more real trouhle. It was charitably hoped, doubtless, that such a judgment would leave things where they were before. It does not so on either side. Those who were in error, it confirms in their special error as to Baptism ; and teaches them a more extensive and dangerous error, that there is no certain truth to be had. They to whom the grace of Baptism was part of their fjiith, as a fruit of the incarnation of their Lord, as a Sacrament which flowed from their dead Saviour's side, as the source of their own new birth, must hold it as a part of their own faith still. We cannot unlearn our faith. But how arc they to teach it ? They must teach it still as matter of faith ; but ichose faith ? Their own ? They have no authority to impose their own faith upon others. They cannot teach authoritatively that it is a part of the faith, only because they individually believe it. On whose, then ? On that of the whole holy Catholic Church at all times? But if it be part of the faith of the Catholic Church from age to age, what would the act of the Church of England have been, had she (as it is alleged in the Judgment) con- structed her Articles so as to leave it open to her ministers to believe or disbelieve, to affirm or contradict, an Article of Faith ? So to imply that it is at our option to believe it or no, 83 would be to deny that it is matter of foith. On the faith of the English Church, too? Yes ! God be thanked, it is part of the faith of the Church of England still, and nothing can rob us of it. Nothing but the Church has power to deny, in her name, that any doctrine is part of the faith of the Church. Yet we cannot speak of any doctrine of Baptism, as matter of faith at all, without contradicting the recent Judgment. The Judgment denies that, from whatever source derived, whe- ther from Holy Scripture or from the Primitive Church, or from our own formularies, there is anything surer, on this whole subject of the Sacrament of our Lord, than opinion ; i. e. there is, according to it, nothing certain at all. Of opinions, one may be true, but only one. The rest must be false ; but all are uncertain. Else it were not opinion, but truth or faith. The judgment says — *' JNIr. Gorham's doctrine may be contrary to the ojjinion of many learned and pious persons — contrary to the opinion which such persons have, by their own particular studies, deduced from Holy Scripture — contrary to the opinion which they have deduced from the usages and doctrines of tlie Primitive Church — or contrary to the opinion which tliey have deduced from uncertain and ambiguous expressions in the formularies." If any one, then, affirm that there is any certain doctrine on Holy Baptism ; if any one declare that the sure word of God contains anything about it surer than human (pinions ; if any one believe that the Primitive Cliurch derived any certain knowledge from the recent teaching of the in.>j)ircd Ajjostles; if any believe that the Church of England teaches the same faith as the Scripture and the Primitive Church ; he must set aside not only this sentence, but the whole Judg- g2 n nur.t. Tor tlio Judpmoiit declare?, tbnt t^vo or more oppc£cd doctrines are tenable in tlie English Church ; i. e. that the Church of England teaches neither, and nothing to be certain truth. But, my Lord, it is no slight evil that they who teach the truth as indeed truth, must now maintain it against the authority of that Court (whatever that Court's authority may he), and, un- happily, of your Grace. It is part of God's ordinance that we should all look up, the lower to the higher, and all to God. "We are severally to act "under authority, having" others "under us." A state of protest against authorities, however constituted, is an unhealthy state. Law is, in itself, something divine. " The powers that be, are ordained of God. Whosoever resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ;" except in that one case, that the ordinance itself should be unhappily against God. Then we must " obey God rather than man." But this is, in fact, anarch?/. An authority against which we must once pro- test, ceases to be any authority to us. Henceforth we obey it (if we obey it) on our own individual judgment. Our whole confidence is gone. If our guide, or our judge, in matters of faith, was wrong once, he maT/ be always. And, especially, to the people of England, in proportian as we love order, rule, and authority, and as our thoughts of the sacredness of the character of the judge and of judgment, are bound up with the sanctions of our holy religion, it is a very sore evil to be obliged to slight them. It is the first stone, whose removal loosens the whole fabric. And yet we have no way of escape. We cannot maintain the Catholic faith as lo Holy Baptism to be the fiiith of the Church of England, with- «5 out maintaining that tlic Court which declJed otlierwise, de ' cided contrary to the faith. But, my Lord, there may be a far worse dislocation than that of any human ordinance, althougli ordained by the Pro- vidence of God, a dislocation of the faith itself Those who have only had opinions, will have their opinions still. But the humble, teachable, gentle minds of the Church, "the poor of the flock," in what condition will they be ? Hundreds of thousands, or millions, my Lord, have, from childhood, believed simply what was taught them in their Prayer-books. The teach- ing of the Catechism, and of the offices of the Church, which they drank in in childhood, has been their instruction still. But now ? Unless they thoroughly reject this whole Judgment, and the very principles upon which it is founded, there is an uncertainty thrown over everything. Plain statements of the Caterhisn), Offices, Collects, Thanksgivings, distinct doctrinal statements in the office of Holy Baptism, are not to be taken undoubtingly. However positively enunciated, they are to be construed as uncertain. My Lord, will not some, alas ! be tempted to ask, " JVliat is truth ? " Some will be tempted to seek truth elsewhere, in the Church of Home, which promises them rest from the search after truth. Some will be tempted to abandon truth altogether. The first doubt is a sore blight. The first entrance of uncertainty may be the destruction of all faith. Your Grace will recollect what a strong feeling there was, some years past, against a certain exposition of the Articles, because it explained their statements in a forced, a non- natural sense, not in their plain meaning. I myself felt it my duty to warn my clergy very strongly against it. But what is 86 this Judginont, my Lord, but an application of the same prin- ciples to what is more sacred still, our devotions to Almighty God ? There is not in the Baptismal office one expression on which to ground the slightest doubt that our Saviour Christ therein and thereby bestows His mercy, His regenerating grace upon all infants. Our people are exhorted " earnestly to believe " it. They are now told, by this Judgment, that they are not to believe what the Church bids them "believe earnestly ;" they are told that all this is matter of opinion : they are told of " opinions deduced from uncertain and am- biguous expressions in the formularies." If what is declared so earnestly to be truth is not, what is ? Why are they not to doubt of any other Article of the Creed, if they are to doubt of this ? If the Church is not in earnest in this which she teaches so earnestly, where is she earnest ? When is she to be supposed to teach what she says ? If these are " ambiguous" words, where are there any unambiguous ? And what follows (except from God's mercy) but a general, hopeless scepticism ? It is of language the most positive and distinct, spoken in the most solemn way, in the presence of Almighty God, and while administering a Sacrament ordained by Christ Himself, that the Judgment says : — " If the Articles which constitute the Code of Faith" [I thought, my Lord, the Code of Faith had been the Creeds], "and from which any differences are prohibited, nevertheless contain expressions which unavoid- ably admit of different construction, we may reasonably expect to find some differences allowable in the interpretation of the devotional services, which were framed not for the purpose of determining points of faith, but of establishing (to use the language of Queen Elizabeth) an uniform order of Common Pravor." 87 " An uniform order of Common Prayer ? " but, alas ! according to this Judgment, not with an uniform meaning ; an outward uniformity, with inward hollowness and uncertainty. It is used as an argument a fortiori, that since " the Articles, which are the Code of Faith," " contain uncertain and ambiguous expressions," much more must the words, however positive, which we use in devotion to Almighty God. The Judges did not apparently know that in the fourth or fifth century, from which, and probably from a still earlier period, some of the doctrinal prayers of the Baptismal OflEice have come down, the Church did not frame devotions to be understood in various senses^ so that the Congregation should utter discordant prayers before God in one outward form with different inward meanings. This were a confusion worse than that which St. Paul censures in the Church of Corinth. It were a strange contrast with the Day of Pentecost. Then the multitude wondered when " they heardj in divers tongues, the wonderful works of God," one and the same truth. Now the same words of prayer are to cover, not different truths (for different truths there cannot be), but conflicting ojnnions. The Judges were reminded that these prayers in our office for Holy Baptism come from times when the " lex supplicandi " was the " lex credendi." Prayer expressed the belief of the Church, and her children believed what tlicy prayed. Our Prayer-book, drawn from those same sources, had the same blessed privilege. Members of the Church believed what they prayed ; and finding therein what expressed and contented their wants, they were, amid all the storms around, in peace and rest. This Judmucnt would take their treasure from 88 them, lor if these solemn prayers, and declarations, and thanksgivings be uncertain, what, which is certain, is left to them ? The Common Prayer binds our people together and to the Church more than anything else. And now the very band is to be loosed. Still stranger, and more amazing, this Judgment uses the very earnestness of these prayers at Holy Baptism as an argu- ment for thinking that they are not uniformly granted. A^^iy (the argument of the Judges seems to be) should we pray earnestly for that which God has promised to give uncondi- tionally ? I could scarcely have believed it possible that Christians could so have spoken. Yet the Judgment does so speak. " Those who are strongly impressed with the earnest prayers which are ojSfered for the Divine blessing and the grace of God, may not unreasonably suppose that the grace is " — What ? "given," surely, so at least our Church teaches us " not to doubt, but earnestly believe," that our Saviour Christ \\dll most surely keep and perform His promise to grant those things that we have prayed for. But no ! the Judgment says, " they may not unreasonably suppose that the grace is not necessarily tied to the rite." So, then, the very earnestness of the prayers of the Church is to be made a ground to think that God doth not always fulfil His promise. The Church, according to this Judgment, must not pray earnestly for what God has promised to give. Man is to be irreverent and lukewarm, else we are to suppose that the grace which God promises in his Sacrament depends upon our prayer.s. You, my Lord, have, I am willing to hope, 89 in one place given another reason for this earnest prayer ; ?, on have implied your belief that although the gift of remission of sins be alike to all, larger grace may be given to some, according to the greater earnestness of those who pray for them. The Judges have ventured into one of the deepest mysteries of religion, why we are to pray earnestly for what God has promised to give, in order to turn the very fact of the Church's earnest prayers into an argument against the unconditional efficacy of Infant Baptism. But, my Lord, not only peace, and rest, and quiet confidence have been broken by this Judgment, and the hands of those made to " hang down," who have laboured zealously for the Church, and men's hearts to faint ; but very serious doubts have been raised in the minds of many, whether the Church, if she continued passive under this Judgment, would not forfeit her claim to be a portion of the Church of Christ. My Lord, I have said that there is too much cause to fear that the effect of this Judgment, bearing, as it docs, your Grace's sanction, will be to drive many from our Church — perhaps to Rome — perhaps to infidelity. Yet I trust in God's mercy that such will not be the issue. If my voice can any- where be heard — if my wishes, my entreaties, my sufferings — for, indeed, my Lord, I have suffered much — not for myself, — but if my sufferings in mourning for the Church, and for the too probable results to her continuance as a sound Branch of the Tree of Life, can avail with any, I inn)]ore thcin to cling more closely, more faithfully, more lovinrr^v, to her in tliis Iirr hour of affliction ; above all, to i)ray humbly to llini who can make 90 all things work together for good, that lie ;Yill be pleased to "correct us, but with judgment, not in His anger, lest he bring us to nothing ;*' that we may learn — practically learn — and feel how miserably weak we are, how great and good He is ! The Churcli of England has hitherto been no ordinary branch of Christ's Church. Let us not rend, let us not weaken her. Let us hope, let us labour for better days ; and we will not cast away the hope that your Grace w-lll even yet not desert us. Call together your com-pi'ovincial Bishops; invite them to declare ichat is the faith of the Church on the Articles impugned in this Judgment. This, permit me to say, is the best, perhaps the only safe, course you can take. Meanwhile, I have one most painful duty to perform. I have to protest not only against the Judgment pronounced in the recent cause, but also against the regular consequences of that Judgment. I have to protest against your Grace's doing what you will be speedily called to do, either in person, or by some other exercising your authority. I have to protest, and I do hereby solemnly protest, before the Churcb of England, before the Holy Catholic Church, before Him who is its Divine Head, against your giving mission to exercise cure of souls, within my diocese, to a clergyman who proclaims him- self to bold the heresies which Mr. Gorbam holds. I protest that any one who gives mission to him till he retract, is a favourer and supporter of those heresies. I protest, in con- clusion, that I cannot, without sin — and, by (xod's grace, I will not — hold communion v.ith him, be he who he may, who shall so abuse the high commission which he bears. I am, my Lord Archbishop, with that " due reverence and 91 obedience" which I have pledged to you, and with earnest prayer that such reverence and obedience to you may never be forbidden by my duty to our common Master, your Grace's affectionate friend for nearly thirty years, and your now afflicted servant, H. EXETER. London, 3Iarch 20, I80O. Since the foregoing sheets were printed, nn error has been discovered in the date of the edition of Bullingcr in the Bodleyan and New College Libraries. Tlie date ought to be in those instances 157G, not 1G76. WORKS LATELY rUBLISHED. THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. With 1000 Borders, Ixitials, and Vignette Engravings. One volume, 8vo., in antique bindings. 21s. cloth. 31s. 6d. calf. 42s. morocco. ADDRESSES AND CHARGES. By Edward STANLEY, D.D., late Bishop of Korwich. Preceded by a Memoir of his Life. By the Rev. Artuur Penryiin STANLEY, M.A. 8vo. {^In preparation) PARISH SERMONS; on the Lessons, the Gospel, or the Epistle, for every Sunday in tlie Year. By Bishop HEBER. Sixth Edition. 2 vols, post 8vo., 16s. SERMONS ON THE LEADING DOCTRINES AND DUTIES taught by the Church of England. Preached in Cathedral Churches. By the Very Rev. Dean PELLEW, 2 vols. 8vo., 21s. HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, from the Birth of Christ to the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empii'e. By the Very Rev. Dean MILMAN. 3 vols. 8vo., 36s. SUGGESTIONS TO THE STUDENT UNDER PRESENT THE- OLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES. By the Very Rev. Dean TAIT. Post 8vo., Gs. (jd. ON THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. By Archdeacon MANNING Second Edition. 8vo., 10s. G'/. ON THE MEANS OF RENDERING MORE EFFECTUAL THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE. By W. F. llOOK, D.D. Tenth Edition. 8vo., 2s. Qd. FRIENDLY AND SEASONABLE ADVICE TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF ENGLAND. By Dean C0MI5ER. A New Edition, with Notes and a Preface. By W. F. HOOK, D.D. Fcap. 8vo., 3s. TWO SERMONS: THE NONENTITY OF ROMISH SAINTS, Miul THE INANITY OF ROMAN ORDINANCES. P.y W. F. HOOK, D.D. Third Edition, with a Preface. 8vo., 2s. M. ( 2 ) THE BOOK OF THE CHURCH ; containing the Authorities and an Iiulox. r.y lloiiLur SOUTIIKV, I.L.D. Sixth Edition. 8vo., 12s. ON THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION OF OUR LORD .n:.SU.S CHRIST, in its Relation to Mankind and to the Church. By Aucil- DEACON WILBERFORCE. Third Edition. 8vo., 12s. ON THE DOCTRINE OF HOLY BAPTISM, with Remarks on the Rev. W. Goode's Eilecti ot" IntUnt Baptism. By ARCHDEACON WILBERFOIiCE. Second Edition, 8vo., 7s. 6t/. SERMONS PREACHED AT HARROW SCHOOL. By Rev. Dr. YAUGIIAX, Head Master of Harrow. Bvo., 10s. Cy.J, NINE SERMONS PREACHED FOR THE MOST PART AT HARROW SCHOOL. By Rev. Dr. YAUGHAN. Fcap. Bvo., 5s, UNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES IN THE WRITINGS OF THE OLD and NEW TESTAMENT, an Argument of their Veracity: with an Appendix containing undesigned Coincidences between the Gospels, Acts, and Josephus. By Rev. J. J. BLUNT, B.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity. Third Edition. Svc, 9s. THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. By Rev. w. sewell, b.d., Exeter College, Oxford. Fcap. Bvo., 7s, 6c/. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE LITURGY AND RITUAL OF THE CHURCH; selected from the works of eminent Divines of the 17th Century. By Rev. James BROGDEN, M.A. 3 rols. post 8vo., 27s. CATHOLIC SAFEGUARDS against the Errors, Corruptions, and No- velties of the Church of Rome ; selected from the Works of eminent Divines of the 17th Century. By Rev. James BROGDEN, M.A. 2 vols. 8vo., 28s. THE ROMAUNT VERSION OF THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN ; originally in use among the Old Waldenses. By Rev, W, S. GILLY, D.D. 8vo., 5s. Qd. PSALMS AND HYMNS, selected, arranged, and adapted to the various Solemnities of the Church. By Rev. W. B. HOLLAND, M.A, 24mo., Is, 6d PRAYERS FOR FAMILY USE, aiTanged from the Liturgy. By the Ri^'ht Hon. W, E. GLADSTONE, M.P. 12mo., 2s. Qd. REMARKS ON ENGLISH CHURCHES, and on rendering Sepulchral Memorials subservient to Pious and Christian Uses. By J. H. MARKLAND. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Fcap. Bvo., 6s. 6c/, ( 3 ) A PAROCHIAL LENDING LIBRARY. The many entertaining works of which Mr. Murray's Home and Colonial Libra?-!/ is composed.' — Johx Bull. MURRAY'S HOME AND COLONIAL LIBRARY, Complete in 37 Volumes. The 'Home and Colonial JjiBUA.YiY ' forms a compact and portable work, the bidk of tchich does not exceed the compass of a si?fgle shelf or of o)ie trunk, suited for all classes and all climates — of which the interest, vabie, and popularity is not likely to be impaired by lapse of time. LIST OF NA^ORKS. THE BIBLE IN SPAIN, OR ADVENTURES IN THE PENINSULA. By George Borrow. JOURNALS IN INDIA. By Bishop Heber. TRAVELS IN EGYPT AND THE HOLY LAND. By Cartaixs Irby and Mangles. HISTORY OF THE SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR. By John Drinkwater. WESTERN BARBARY, OR MOROCCO AND THE MOORS. By Drummond Hay. LETTERS FROM THE BALTIC. By a Lady. THE AMBER WITCH. A Trial for Witchcraft. LIVES OF CROMWELL AND BUNYAN. By Roheut Soutiiey. SKETCHES OF NEW SOUTH WALES. By Mrs. Meredith. LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE. By John Barrow. MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF PEKING. By Father Ripa. A RESIDENCE IN THE WEST INDIES. By M. G. Lewis. SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By Sir John Malcolm. THE FRENCH IN ALGIERS, and ABD-EL-KADIR. BRACEBRIDGE hall. By Washington Irving. THE VOYAGE OF A NATURALIST ROUND THE WORLD. By Charles Darwin. HISTORY OF THE FALL OF THE JESUITS. From the French. LIFE OF LOUIS, PRINCE OF CONDE. By Lord Maiion. THE GYPSIES OF SPAIN. By George Borrow. ( -i ) Murray's Home and iColonial Library — continued. MALE'S BRIGADE IN AFFGLHANISXAN-, Jiy Be^vQ- R-CLl^Cv « THE iAIARQUESAS ISLANDERS. By Hermann Melville. LIVONIAN TALES. By Autiiou of 'Letters from the Baltic' mSSIONARY LIFE IN CANADA. By Rev. J. Abbott. S. LE': A\TLD SPORTS AND NATURAL HISTORY OF THE HIGHLANDS. By Chas. St. John. ROUGH JOURNEYS ACROSS THE PAMPAS. By Sir F. B. Hi^ad. GATHERINGS FROM SPAIN. By Richard Ford. THE SIEGES OF VIENNA. Translated by Lord Eixesmere. SKETCHfc^ OP- GERIVMN LIFE . Translated by ^ir A. Gordon. SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS. By Hermann jMelville. STORY OF THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. A VOYAGE UP THE RIVER AMAZON. By William Edwards. THE WAYSIDElGROSS : A Carlist Tale. V>\ Caitain Milm.vn. MAN'NERS AND CUST03IS OF INDIA. By Rev. Charles Acland. THE BRITISH AR:MY AT WASHINGTON. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. ADVENTURES IN MEXICO. By George F. Ruxton. PORTUGAL AND GALICIA. By Lord Carnarvon. LIFE OF LORD CLH^?, J^y Rev,- f^.>I?.,(>^Ei^^^ ^jjjjY/ BUSH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. By H. W. Haygarth. THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF HENRY STEFFENS. ' TALES OF A TRAVELLER. By Washington Irving. AN ESSAY ON ENGLISH POETRY. By Thos. Campbell. HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By Lord Mahon. STOKERS AND POKERS, and HIGH- WAYS AND DRY- WAYS. ADVENTURES IN THE LIBYAN DESERT. By Bayle St. John. A RESIDENCE IN SIERRA LEONE. By a Lady. LIFE OF SIR THO]\IAS I^IUNRO. By Rev. G. R. Gleig. MEMOIRS OF SIR FOWELL BUXTON. By his Son. LIFE OF OLIVER GOLDSMITH.. By Washington Irving. * Books that you may carry to theJCre, drtd^old readily in your hand, are the most useful after all. A man tvill often look at them, and be tempted to go on, ichen he ivould he frightened at hooks of a laryer size and of a more erudite appearance.^ — Dr. Johnson. JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. A LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER; CONTAININr; AN EXAMINATION OE HIS LETTER 9[rf6i)ii^6op of (Eanterturg^ WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., F.S.A. RECTOR Of ALI.HAF.r.OWH THE r.REAT AND I.EHS, I.OSDOM. THIKl) EDITION. LONDON: J. HATCIIARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY. 1850. A LETTER, MY LOUD,— You will not be surprised, that I should feel myself called upon to take sonic notice of your recent Letter to the Arch- bishop of Canterbury. The frequent references occurring in it to my statements on the controversy to which it relates, and the nature of the observations made upon them, are such as to require from me an answer. I must be permitted to add, that the attack which your Lordship has there made upon our common ecclesiastical Ruler and Primate (to say nothing of your censure of other and still higher authorities), would alone justify any of the faithful sons of our Church in placing before the public a calm review of your statements. My Lord, in making this attack, you are conscious that you are assailing one Vv'hose position entirely prevents the pos- sibility of his offering any reply, and to whose Christian for- bearance alone you arc indebted for being allowed to disturb the peace of the Church with impunity. Your Lordship, with characteristic ingenuity, has taken advantage of a jihrase in his Grace's Preface to his new edition of his work on Apo- stolical Preaching, to represent him as having descended from his high position into the field of controversy, on a subject in which you are one of the parties. And, with your usual accu- racy, you have stated, that, "in the whole history of the Church of England," you are " not awiu'c that anything of a siniihu- kind has ever before occurred." Have you never heard, then, my Lord, of Archbishop Cranmer's Answer to Bishoj) Car- diner? Arc you really so little versed in the writings of our Reforniei's, that such a work as this conies not even within B tlic limits of V'Hir recollection ? And, were your statement correct, could you have placed before the world a fact more seU-condenniatory ? If the unparalleled character of your proceedings had forced His Grace a step out of the usual course, I leave it to your Lordship's consideration, in what position it would have left your own cause. But, my Lord, it is not so. His Grace has done no such thing; and time will show, whether he has any intention of so doing. The charge is, like too many of your Lordship's accusations, groundless, unjustifiable, and ofiensive. Your Lordship) docs not need to be informed, but the public may, that in the course of the recent controversy, and when it was known that His Grace would have to sit in judgment upon the Cause then sub judice, certain parties, on your Lordship's side of the question, felt it to be consistent with Christian candour, to cull certain passages from his work on Apostolical Preaching (first published thirty-five years ago),— separating them from modifying passages, of 33 years standing, in the context, — and, in the face of these modifying passages, and also of distinct decla- rations made upon the subject in the course of the last few years, give them to the world as His Grace's sentiments upon the Cause then sub judice in the Church. My Lord, those who are de- fending the cause of truth can aiTord to leave such practices to the fate which, sooner or later, inevitably awaits them, and therefore your supporters were permitted to enjoy undisturbed all the aid which such a system of defence could afford them. They were left unnoticed; and if anything was wanting to show their true character, it has been supplied by the quota- tions now put forward by your Lordship's own hands, as proving that His Grace's sentiments were entirely opposed to what they were thus represented to be. My Lord, under these circumstances, was there any cause for surprise, was there any just ground for charging His Grace with descending into the field of " controversy," when in the Preface to a new edition of his work, published after the Judgment had been delivered, he pointed attention, in an uncontroversial ivay, to the fact that there were various passages in the very vrork which had been so misused, bearing out the Sentence to which he had just given his public sanction. Most justly ditl he " call attention to what ^' he had "written concerning the grace of baptism.^' And he added, that his mind was confirmed in the correctness of such a view of the matter by other arguments and testimo- nies which he there adduces. And I believe, that, with the ex- ception of a small and turbulent faction, the Church will thank- fully accept such an exposition of His Grace's views, without dreaming of his having "descended ^^ (as your Lordship justly expresses it) into the field of "controversy^^ with you on the subject. My Lord, I need scarcely observe, that in the remarks I am about to make on your Letter, I s])eak merely as an individual. I alone am responsible for the statements here made. And my remarks are made on a copy of your Lordship's Letter, bearing on the cover the impress of the "fourth edition," delivered at ray house before three o'clock on the same day on which it was first 'published. I call your Lordship's attention to this fact, in order that you majr give such directions on the subject as you think fit to your respectable publisher, who does not usually, I believe, adopt such practices. My Lord, the first five-and-twenty pages of your Letter are spent in the attempt to jn'ove, that his Grace's sentiments have recently undergone a great change on the subject of the effects of Baptism. And you intimate at its conclusion, that though you have been his Grace's " affectionate friend for nearly thirty years," such change has compelled yoii to become "now" only his "afflicted servant." My Lord, if your charge were true, would there be any cause for wonder or reproach, if, in his later years, Ilis Grace liad thought good somewhat to modify the statements made by him in a work published nuu-c than thirty years ago ? Would it justify a virulent attack upon one under Avhose authority you are placed, and to whom you have solennily pledged yourself that you will pay all " due reverence and obedience ?" What would have been your Lordship's feelings, if a presbyter of your diocese had adojjted the same course towards yourself, with respect to certain works published within a very short jx-riod of lime from one another'!* But your Lordship may |)crliaj)s say, that you claim ;nn[)le scope for Ij2 chan£;e, '• exci'iiting only ono single subjeclj the I'uiulamciital articlea of the (Jrecd." "The efficacy of baptism/' you add;, '' is such an article." And is it I'cally a " fuuda)nental article^' of the Chvistitui creed, that every infant is necessarily a partaker of spiritual regeneration in and by baptism ? Where is your Lordship's authority for such a statement, either in Holy Scripture or in the ancient Creeds of the Church ? I am quite aware of the citations made from both sources by heated con- troversialists, who find their own preconceived notions in every passage that relates to the subject, but I challenge your Lord- ship to produce a single passage from either that will bear you out in this assertion. Is it really a desertion of a fundamental article of faith, to admit, that all the effects which were at one time supposed to attend the administration of infant Baptism do not invariably and necessarily attend it ? {qq jjqy doidw ni Permit me, my Lord, to remark, that fundamental articles of faith are not to be created by the dictum of any man, ox body of men. They must rest, as the Creeds themselves are made by our Church to rest, on " most sure warrants of Holy Scripture." And such sure w^arrants, or any warrant, for the invariable spiritual regeneration of all infants iu and by Baptism, your Lordship will certainly look for in vain. But, my Lord, the truth is, that you have, unconsciously, most incontrovertibly established the fact, (as I shall imme- diately show) that, according to your oiun view of the matter, there has been, for even more than this period of " affectionate friendship," no change at all. You tell us^ that the "additions and omissions" made in the 9th edition, just published, of his Grace's work on "Apostolical preaching," make its "tone" on the subject of Baptism " very different from that which it exhibited" in the original work published in 1815. And you courteously remark, that while his Grace, in his Preface, " speaks of it as if it were still substantially the same," it will be your " painful duty to remark on some most important changes," &c. And your accusation is, that this change is recent. You regret that " now," in his " advanced years and exalted station," he should "almost contradict the sounder teaching of his earlier years." (p. 5.) Now, my Lord, would it not be ' i^asidnsibki' ' to claim from any oue coming forward publicly to make I siich a cbarge against his Primate and former ^'^ friend/^ that he should first have ascertained its truth? Is it too much to expect from your Lordship^ that wheu you utter the most confident statements, and make them the ground- work of charges of change, and insinuations of falsehood, against your ecclesiastical superior, you should have made some inquiry into the grounds upon which such charges rest ? Or are we really to conclude, that your most solemn asseverations may be uttered in a state of complete and conscious ignorance, whether they are true or false ? Your Lordship, it seems, possesses the first edition of the Archbishop's work, published in 1815, and having procured a copj^, or the loan of a copy, of the ninth edition, published in 1850, you straightway publish a " Letter " in Avhich you compare the two editions, and then tell the world of the " additions and omissions " made "in this neiv edition;" and imply that they were made to meet the circumstances of the case of Mr. Gorham. Such is the foundation upon which your Lordship almost wholly rests your charge against 11 is Grace for contradicting in his later years the teaching of his earlier ! ' Now, lily Lord, vi^hat is the fact ? Every one of the passages (with the exception of a note which, you yourself think, admits of a sense to which you do not object) which you have quoted as "new matter" in this "new edition,^'' occur in every edition of the work froni the second (inclusive) published thirty-three years ago — that is, in 1817; and therefore, ap- ])arently,* before the " afi'ectionate fricndshij) " commenced. And the note certainly dates as far back as the edition of 1833; and therefore has co-existed apparently during at least eighteen years of such " frieiulship." The "new matter" in which your Lordship finds so much unhappy obscuration, if not af)so/n(e roiilradiction, of (Ik; souiul views of His Grace, when your "affectionate I'ricndsbip" of nearly thirty years commenced, and in which you find "more than one startling intimation" of If is Grace's " altered view," is just thirty-three years old, and has been seven times before * I say fl;>;jrt?eniZ;/, beciuisctlic precise dates of the lise and Icriuiiiatioii of tills "atilctionatc friendsliip " iiiiglit aflbrd matter for coiilruvcrjsy. broiiu;ht before tlie Morld in as many distinct editions of the work — editions not published in the same day, but in different yeai's during that period. And as to "omissions/' there is not one, except of seven words in one sentence ; an omission Avhich you yourself do not pretend to make of any moment.* With this exception it will, I believe, be found, that the text of the edition of 1850 on this subject remains as it stood in the second edition of 1817, and the only addition consists of a few extracts from Bradford in the notes. So much, my Lord, for your charge of change. But j'oui' Lordship adds still graver accusations. You openly accuse His Grace of "rank popery'' and "heresy.'^ His Grace, in his comment on St. John, has urged upon those who bring children to be baptized, the duty and efficacy of earnest prayer for obtaining a blessing for the child ; and he adds, that if this were more "generally practised," the full baptismal blessing would be more generally received. Your Lordship's obsen^ation upon this passage, is, that " to re- quire as necessanj to the efficacy of the baptism of infants, that there be faith on the part of those who present them, is little short, if indeed short, of heresy." (p. 13.) Nay, you tell us, that "this teaching is rank Popery, and worse than Popery'^ for whereas " the Council of Trent makes recourse to other intercessors and mediators with God than Christ, to be no more than a 'pious and useful practice,'" His Grace "makes it to be necessary to salvation ;" and you " stand aghast" when you " hear such teaching from such a place." (p. 14.) Who can doubt, my Lord, the salutary horror you have of ever3^thing Popish, snuffing it even afar off at the greatest possible distance, and the keenness of your scent upon the present occasion is wonderful. And that Popery should have got to Lambeth, must indeed be a sore affliction to you. You " stand aghast" at "suet: teaching from such a place.'" But, my Lord, how will * In the previous editions, tlierc was this sentence : — " It is indeed a sufficient confutation of the doctrine of special grace, that it absolutely nullifies the Sacrament of Baptism ; it reduces Baptism to an empty rite," &c. In the edition of 1850, the words "it absolutely nullifies the Sacrament of Baptism," are omitted. you feel when I inform you, that you " stand agliast'^ liftccn years too late, and that for fifteen years you have been cherish- ing this "rank Popery and worse'' vath j'our '''affectionate fricndshiii." Yes, my Lord, all this new teaching, just con- cocted at Lambeth, has been before the world for fifteen years, and had during all that time your '^ affectionate friendship !" But let us come closer to the point. He who charges his ecclesiastical superior with heresy, should be somewhat cau- tious, to say the least, that his inferences are borne out by the passages he cites. I beg to ask your Lordship, tlicn, where the Archbishop has intimated in this passage, that faith on the part of those who bring a child to baptism is necessary to the cfiicacy of its baptism ? Can your Lordship see no difference between God's giving a blessing to a child in answer to earnest prayer, and His refusing ever to give such a blessing in baptism except where such prayer has been offered ? May not such a prayer bring a blessing, though it be not a sine qria non to the bestowal of such a blessing ? If the Arch- bishop's statement is " rank Popery,^' what arc St. Paul's ex- hortations to intercessory prayer ? What is the language of St. James, " The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much" — spoken of intercessory prayer ? Has your Lordship yet to learn the distinction between the scriptural doctrine of the duty and value of intercessory prayer and the Popish doctrine of the mediation of dead saints, in matters about which they know nothing, issuing in leading the people to worship stocks and stones ? And certainly the charge of Popery comes with but an ill grace from one who has boldly maintained, and inculcated upon his clergy, that the doctrine of our Church, as to the effects of Baptism, is identical with that of the Church of Home. In fact, if His Grace had expressed himself in still stronger terms, he would not have gone beyond the language of a do- cument which your Lordshi])'s party earnestly contend for as favoring their views, and an authority on their side of the question ; — I mean the Cologne Ijiturgy. For we there find the minister, when officiating at the rite of Infant Baptism, directed to speak thus : " For in what place soever they that believe ill him come together in his name, he is present in tlic midst of them ; and, wJienhe is called upon toith faith, he v.'OYk- cth in his word and Sacraments, (iuvocatus fide efficax est in verbo ct sacrameutis suis), and he performcth in deed Avhatso-- ' ever he oftcreth in his Sacraments and promiseth in his word." Were Bucer and Mclancthon heretics for speaking thus? >'' The former,, indeed, if your Lordship is better acquainted \nth ■ ' ' his views tiian your advocates shewed themselves to be, may not find much favor in your eyes; but will you stamp Me:-"'^ laucthon also with the brand of heresy ? ' But what has caused me still greater amazement, is the special objection which j^our Lordship hds' adduced against this statement of His Grace. You say, "It is to make the" first moving of God towards them — the grace annexed by ' Christ to his Baptism — contingent on the intention of man." My Lord, M'ould any doctrine that could be devised, make the "first moving of God towards" infants so completely dependent upon man's will and intention, as that which absolutely pro- hibits us from supposing its existence in any case, until thd parent chooses to bring the child to Baptism, and the minister chooses to baptize it ? According to your Lordsliiji's doctrine, it is entirely in the power of parents or minister to prevent any "moving of God towards" the child at all; and equally is it in their povsxr to regulate the time vrhcn that "Jirsi moving",, shall take place. In fact, it is as much in their power to givj^j^ or withhold, and fix the time for, the first gift of spiritual grace,,-, as if they were its authors. ,.; Your Lordship proceeds to tell His Grace, that "the shock"} under which you "stood aghast" at his "Popery," was "not lightened " by his adding his desii-e, that what he had been stating about the importance and value of intercessory prayer "were better understood, and this primitive, this scriptural, this reasonable Baptism, more generally practised." You object, first, to its being called "primitive," and ask His Grace to bring any single Council or Father to counte- nance " such an assertion." If, my Lord, you refer to your own misrepresentation of the Primate's words, such a question is intelligible, but at the same time irrelevant. That the opera- 9 tions of God are limited, in tlie Baptism of infants, to tlie ca;>c of those for whom earnest and sincere intercessory prayer has been offered^ has never hceu asserted by His Grace. Bat I trust that your Lordshij) will not venture to deny, that Baptism, so accompanied, has the best possible claim to the title, '' j^rimi- five Baptism ;" and that modern Christians may well be re- minded, how strongly the mode of dealing with the rite, too frequent among them, contrasts with that which characterized the primitive Christians. In kindness to His Grace, however, and to facilitate his answer to your inquiry, you present him with a specimen of your Lordship's researches into the Councils of the Church, in the following vrords, which are far too valuable not to be given entire : — " Meanwhile as you have invited a consideration of the doctrine of the primitive Church on Baptism, you will not consider it irre- levant if I present you with a Canon of the Fourth Council of Car- thage — a Council, as I need not remind your Grace, received f/ene- rally, and one tchose Canons tvere adopted by the General Council of Chalcedon. The First Canon of the Fourth Council of Carthage, which is thus seen to have had the authority of the tohole Catholic Church, in giving 'rules for the examination of one elected to be a Bishop,' directs, among other things, as follows : ' Qurcrendum ctiam ab eo si credat, &c. si inBaptismo omnia peccata, id est, tarn illud originate contractum, quam ilia qurc voluntaric admissa sunt, dimittantur.' Thus it appears that no one in the primitive Church could properly be ordained a Bishop, without its being first ascer- tained, that he believed original sin to be remitted in Baptism." (p. 15.) iii ,j,i., My Lord, it is deeply to be regretted, that your Lordship does ^* ■nee(['\frefjnently^ to be "reminded," and to a \v,vy con- siderable extent, of matters which it might have b(!cn h()])ed liad been familiar to yrm ; for such a blunder as we have here, proceeding from one in your Lordship'.s position, is a discredit to us all. It shows a want of accpiaintanct; witli tlie very ele- ments of ecclesiastical literature. Are you really unconscious, my Lord, that these African Canons formed no part of the Code of the universal Church, no jjart of the Canons adopted * Sec for instance the '" Clmrj^c" of IS I!-'. 10 by the General Council of Chalccdon ? Nay, they formed no part of the Code of Canons of the African Clmrch. Hear what llardouin says of the Council -which you have spoken of in such tcrniSj — " Of this Council Ferrandus Diaconus^ Dionysiiis Exiguus, the Code of Canons of the African Church, and all the collectors of Canons, both Greek and Latin, arc silent/'* And it ap- pears from Hardoiiin, that the MSS. in which these Canons arc found vary much in the Title ])refixcd to them. Their supposed date lies between the years 398 and 436, So that this Canon, which is to show us what was required of every one "in the primitive Church" before his consecration as a bishop, was not enacted till at least the end of the Jourth century. Such, my Lord, is your Council; which you tell us you ^' need not remind" his Grace was " received generally," and its " canons adopted by the General Council of Chalcedon," and " had the authority of the whole Catholic Church " ! ! A goodly authority with which to attempt to browbeat your JMetropolitan ! A pregnant proof of your fitness for the office you have assumed in your Letter ! My Lord, I am really ashamed for our Church in having to expose such ignorance in one holding such a position in it. You are unacquainted, it seems, even with the " Code of Canons of the universal Church," and know not v^'hcre to find it. But I am forgetting that your Lordship will perhaps ask for some references on this point. My Lord, I beg pardon for omitting such a necessary piece of information. Not to men- tion, then, the larger Concihar works, let me ask you to turn to Justelli et Voelli Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris. (Paris, 1661.) Nay, it is unnecessary to go at all further than a very common little Enghsh work, compiled for young students in divinity, with suitable notes, by Johnson the Nonjuror, entitled "The Clergyman's Vade-Mecum." Let me commend to yom- at- tention his note (Pt. 2, ]). 139) on the first Canon of the Covmcil of Chalcedon, where you will find what '' is agreed on all hands " in this matter. * Silent ii;ff In his judgment a Clergyman would be departing from the sense of the Articles to which he subscribes^ if he were . . to speak of Justification by Faith, as if Baptism and newness of heart concurred towards our justification ; or as if 'a number of means go to effect it.' Art. xi. ;" expressly referring here in a note to "■ Tract 90, p.,^.3. Letter [«. e. Dr. Piisey's Letter to Dr. Jelf ], 14L" This teaching be justly repudiated; and it is not His Grace that is responsible for the phraseology, but the author of Tract 90. ( His Grace says, equally v.'itb your Lordship, that "bap- tism and newness of beart" cannot "concur towards our jus- tification." But here I regret to find the agreement terminates, for the ground on wbicb your Lordship oljjects to the statement is, tliat justification and newness of beart are both "fruits of Baptism." That is, like the Romanists, you practically deny the truth of the eleventli iVrticle, that we are justified by faitli only. In short, you take the ground formerly occupied by the Popish Bishop Gardiner, in bis controversy with Ai'cbbisbop Cramncr, who tells the Archbishop, that his discussion of the doctrine of Justification in the "Homily of Salvation," is' wholly unnecessary in a Church where all arc baptized as infants, "in wbicb Sacrament of Baptism all we be justified before wc can talk of this justification we strive for." (See Fox's Acts and Mon. Ed. 1838. vi. 49.) ivwifm And it is to defend the doctrine of Cranmcr, and guard against the introduction of Popish errors, that the Archbishop objects to our " speaking of justification by faith," as if Baptism concui-red towards our justification, (/. e), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost'/^^''' So the Creed says, 'O/aoAoyou/xei' kv /3a7rricr/xa eis a(j>€<^'tk>'^ afxafrrKoi'. Precisely so j ''Repent," and then, as God has prb^^J' mised forgiveness to repentance, the rite of Baptism will fo^^l-* mally and "\asibly make over to you remission of sins. But tb*f>^ gift of remission comes really and truly through repcntanceiJ^' and only visibly, formally, and ministerially through Baptismisd Take the ease of St. Paul. AVhat was our Lord's testimony!-* to Ananias respecting him before his Baptism ? He is •<"« chosen vessel unto me, ^c." (Acts ix. 15.) But Ananias; afteiP^f hearing these words^, when he comes to him, says, " Arise, and be baptized, and joash aivat/ thy sins, calling on the name of the , Lord." (Acts xxii. 16.) Remission of sins was given to hittPq formally^ and visibly, and officially by Baptism. Why ? Oa^f^ account of Baptism itself? No; but because he was iUitHciJ eye of God an accepted person. To use the words -of ^S?-;"! Lombard himself (spoken with reference to a similar case)^'Ji "ante intus erat judicio Dei, sed nunc ■etiam-judioio EeclesiJ^'^'^ intus est." ' <'V to >;0-)ff.»iJp'i8f[o;> 'Jfft jr AnoJ rm .>!ooJ Again ; what does St. Peter say ? " The like figure wherevBs unto, even Baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toivards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.'''' (1 Petior> iii. 21.) It is not the outward rite, but "the answer ■ irfra) J good conscience toward God," that brings the blessing, r >frrG// The eiase of infants, therefore, must be judged of accordingiyiqe And if your Lordship had taken the ground that our infants ares^nf the proper subjects of Baptism as the children of Christians, inas- - much as such children are called " holy" by the apostle, and are to be considered as interested while infants in the Covenant made with their parents,"^ so that they must be viewed as, to a certain extent, objects of the Divine mercy, and therefore that Baptism seals and makes over to them the remission of the guilty i * It should be remembered, that the chief arguments for the practical?, j^ of lufant Baptism are derived from these consideratious. 29: of original sin, youi" Lordship would have stood on very different ground from that on which you now stand. But this doctrine,, you distinctly repudiate. Nothing will satisfy you, but the abtrr solute power of giving remission of sins to every infant at your sovereign will and pleasure, by the mere act of baptizing it. And further, the question, be it remembered, between your Lordship and Mr. Gorham, is not, what precise view has the best foun- dation to rest upon ; but whether Mr. Gorham's view is not tenable in strict consistency with all the Articles and Forum- laries of the Church of England. And the truth is, that it haftg been undeniably held in oiu- Church by multitudes of our ^log^,^ eminent divines from the period of the Reformation. T Moreovier, beyond all this, the doctrine which your Lordship has been endeavouring to force on Mr. Gorham and the Cliurch, is, that every infant is, of necessity, in and by Baptism, made,,, partaker of spiritual regeneration in its highest sense of ira-<>A parting a new nature ; which is a totally distinct question from that which relates to the remission of the guilt of original sin in Baptism, on which you and your party are noio almost solely insisting^ but which you can never prove to be required to be held by all who minister in oiu- Church, ev^iijiji the limited scnse^ l to which 1 have just alluded. , ■. .\\ Look, my Lord, at the consequences of your doctrine. You say, for in.stancc, that spiritual regeneration is given, and only given, in and by Baptisui. Take, then, the case of an impeni- tent and unbelieving adult, lujt yet baptized. Does baptism confer upon him the gift of spiritual regeneration ? Youi;v,\ Lordship admits that it does not. Then, if such a man after-j,j wards repents and believes, he must be rebaptized to obtain,,o spiritual regeneration. Btit reJjaptiy.ation you acknowledge to be inadmissil)le. Consequently yoa deny the j)ossibiUty o^/ such a man ever obtaining spiritual regeneration, even ifjlji^,ft aftei-wards repent and believe. !, ii-iu>: ?<« il-jiim And your admission tliat s])iritual regiiueration is not in all cases the necessary etfcet of Baptism, nidUlies more than half your proofs and arguments for the insepai'ability of spiritual regeneration from infaiit Baptism ; l)ecause they apply to the case of Baptism (jeiwrnllij, and therefore, if you admit that they are to be understood with a limitation in tlie vn^aoi' adults, 30 they will not prove that spiritual regeneration always attends infant Baptism; but you arc driven to rest the onus of proof on an entirely different consideration, that \%, on an imsup- ported assumption as to the state of infants, contradicting the doctrine of original sin. Mr. Badclcy, therefore, resolving to be at least consistent in his arguments, boldly maintained that spiritual regeneration was given in and by Baptism, even to im- penitent and unbelieving adults. And your Lordship has no option, but either to relinquish your doctrine, or to do the same. Again ; mark the self-contradiction in -which you are in- volved. You say that all infants receive remission of sin and spiritual regeneration in and by Baptism, because of their inno- cency (pp. 17, 18), and yet that the guilt of original sin rests upon them in all its force, until it is washed away by Baptism. They are guilty, but yet they are innocent beings. This is the consequence of your incorrect view of the nature of the Baptismal rite, to which, in itself, you ascribe everything. View it in its true light, as the public and formal act by which the minister makes over the Divine grant, in some cases abso- lutely and at once, and in all others conditionally, and we see at once how infants may be considered as washed from the guilt of original sin by their Baptism, and yet may have had a previous interest in the Divine favour, either (as Mr. Gorhatn holds) from a preevenient act of Divine gi-ace, or as the chil- dren of a believing parent, or otherwise. And thus we are not required to suppose them innocent, to make them suitable reci- pients of the Divine blessing, and at the same time guilty, to make them need remission of sins. And there is this ludicrous inconsistency in your Lordship^'s statements. That while you are professedly contending for a high view of the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, over- stating it in the case of infants, you are making it a nullity in the case of unbelieving adults. For spiritual regeneration being, according to your notion, the effect of Baptism, if that is not given, nothing is given. Now, my Lord, even in their case it is not a nullity. For this is made over even to them in it, that, upon faith and repentance, they shall have remission of sins. They so far become interested in the Gospel Covenant, 31 that it is confirmed and scaled io them individitalbj in and by Baptism. Otherwise they ou2;lit, upon faith and rejK'ntance, to be rc-baptizcd. In all cases it is ^'' baptism for the remis- sion of sins/' And the benefit of it is enjoyed by them as soon as their state corresponds with its conditions. And so with onr infants. They are all made partakers of an interest in the Gospel Covenant in and by Baptism, so far as this, that they have a right by promise to oil its blessings, so soon as their state corresponds with its conditions. Their state inay cor- respond with its conditions at the moment of Baptism, having been made so in or even before Baptism ; for who shall dare to limit the Holy One of Israel in his gifts ? Or it may not so cor- respond with its conditions till some years after. And this is what is meant when it is said (as by Mr. Gorham) that spiritual regeneration may take place in, or before, or after Baptism. There is no denial here that the gift of spiritual regeneration, even where made, in one sense, previous to baptism, is sealed and formally made over in and by Baptism, and therefore may be said to be conferred sacramentally by Baptism. And where regeneration takes place after Baptism, there it is made over conditionally in and by Baptism. The privilege of sonship is given sacramentally, and therefore the party is made, in the eye of the Chui'ch, a member of Christ and a child of God ; but the real enjoyment of the privilege is postponed and conditional. That regeneration may be granted previous to Baptism, and yet be properly said to be formally made over by Ba])tism, we may see by comparing Baptisni with the required form of admission into any society or brotherhood to which the right of nomination lies with the Sovereign, and for which certain qualifications are necessary. There are certain officers ap- pointed, whose duty it is to ])erforin the required form of admission. Does the performance; of that form make any one a member of that society ? Doubtless in one sense it does. It is, in fact, the appointed mode, of entry into it. Tlic public do not recognize any one as Ijelonging to it, until he has been, in this way, introduced into it. And, strictly speaking, ho does not belong to it, before he has been /////6'made a member of it. But is he made a member of the society by the mere opus uperafum of going tluough this lorin ? No; in that sense the performance of the rite does not ever give it to him. And in this sense (which is your Lordship's sense), Mr. Gorham most justly denies that Baptism ever gives spiritual regeneration. There must be in the party who goes through the form the necessary qualifications and the necessary nomination by the Sovereign, or the form, of itself, the mere opus operatum, will do nothing. But are we to be told that those who should speak of the form in such terms would make it a thing of no value, of no efficacy — a mere form, bestowing nothing ? No ; it is of the greatest value and efficacy ; it gives the privilege of brother- hood ; but only where the due qualifications are present, and only in the way of an instrument by which a gift pi-eviously bestowed by the Sovereign is formally made over. The object for which I bring this illustration,* is to show tbat it may be held, that spiritual regeneration has been given before Baptism, and yet tbat in that same case the party bap- tized is made the son of God in and by Baptism ; because the former words refer to God's original act, corresponding to the act of the Sovereign in the case of which we have been speaking; and the latter to the act of the Church which, as God's minis- ter, publicly and formally makes over to the party that which God had given. And we must observe, that, as it respects Ba])tism, the per- formance of the rite makes over the blessings of the Covenant conditionally to all who partake of it. All that is necessary to understand this matter aright is, to keep in view the real nature of the Baptismal rite ; that it is not a rite by the mere use of which man can absobitely give to whom he pleases, even in the case of infants, the bless- ings of God's covenant of mercy ; but is the rite by which the blessings of the Covenant are publicly and formally made over to man in accordance with the terms of the Cove- nant; in some cases absolutely and at once, and in others * I mention this, because I do not bring forward the ilUistration as holding good in eveiy respect. conditionally. Almost all the eri'ors respecting Baptism arise from its not being viewed as oiily tlie instrument by which God's gifts arc bestowed in the way and uppu the terms that '«re accordant With Ills promises. • '' r. • r r • The case of infants may be ilfiis&afea by that of adults. Baptism is the rite which, by the a])i)ointment of God, makes 'Over, to men, Jiublicly and formally, the privilege of behig sous of God and members of Christ. Consequently, if you baptize a number of adults, you call them all, after their Baptism, mem- bers af'Gfcist and children 'of God; ^' and yon say, and justly say, that they were riiadc so in and by their Baptism, that being the rite appointed by God for admission to such a state. But^ill^you^rm; dogmatically, ttiB(t' mey'are "all,' pf neces- sity, true members of Christ and children of iGod ? You are con- scious that you could not do so. Yet, nevertheless, if, you werp to draw up a Catechism for their use|,"y6u would speak of wliat took place in Baptism precisely as you do in the Catechism for children in the Prayer Book. It would be understood as a matter of course, that the language was used on the hypothesis that Baptism had been rightly received, and had therefore really mad6 over this characfcr io the baptized j while the fact would be, that such character had only been, in many cases. Conditionally inade over, , and the parties might realhj be, in the sight of God, though not in the eye of the Church, " in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of ini- quity." Is there anything unintelligible, anything disiiiffe- mious, in this? The disingcnuousness, my Lord, would be in those who, for the purpose of maintaining the false doctrine tliiit all advdts are of necessity made really and truly and ab- solutely members of Christ and children of God by their Ba])- tisni, charged others with perverting such language, , beeau.se they received it in a sacramental sciise. -Apply, then, tiie same reasoning to the case of infants.' '" And further, in the case of adiiks, it iseh.urly se^ii, Li. at the supposition of an act of prievenient ref/eneratint/ grace Ijcfoie Baptism, is perfectly consistent with the view, that regenera- tion, or the privilege of being members of Christ and children of God, is publicly and formally made over to men in and by D 34 Baptism ; aucl that Baptism, even in cases where it is imme- diately ertVc'tual, is only the instrument by which a gift, which in a sense is already possessed, is pubhcly and formally made over. The inward and spiritual grace of Baptism is the being made members of Christ and children of God ; and the outward rite of Baptism is the means by which that grace is publicly and formally made over to men ; and a pledge to assm'e us of its reception — of its immediate reception, if our state is at the time such as is requisite for its reception, and at least of its future reception, if our state, though not such then, should afterwards become so. oaa'iaJgi But that such a privilege should be, at the moment of Bap- tism, absolutely made over to adults, it is necessary that rege- nerating grace should have been j9reuio2o' o'r •' ^ ' ^ r , .J ■,"'■"'' -n " view given above of the natiire of the Baptismal rite. But,,, reasonably enough, M'hen they are disputing with one who wants to drive them to the maintenance of the former view, they are exceedingly cautious as to the expressions they use respecting the way in which Baptism woi-ks to that end. This passage, therefore, will not afford your Lordship the smallest aid. And why do you pass aver those that hav'e been' placed before you from writings that, beyond all question, 'ar6' Usher's? Take the following^,— ' ;"" "Election being nothing else but the purpose of God, resting i,n , his own mind, makes no kind of alteration in the party elected, but only the execution of that decree and purpose, which, in such as have the use of reason, is done by an effectual calling, in all by spiritnal recjenerafion, ichich is ilie new birth, ivitJioiit ivhicJi no man can see the Idngdom of God . . . but if any shall say, that' by all, thereby I should understand the universality of all and every one in the world, and not the universality of nil the elect alone, he should yreathj lorong my meuniny."'^' Can words be found more clearly mairitaining' wbia^ His Grace has quoted Usher as holding, namely, " tbat the' spirittial grace of Baptism, ' a death unto sin and a new birth imto righteousness,' is only received where there has been an ante- cedent act of grace on the part of God t" I have added else- where other passages from Ushcr,t but I need not here quote any moi'c proofs of his doctrine. ■» Letter 23. Parr's Life, pp. hi), 51. t Effects of Infant Baptism, 1st cd. p. 310 et t^cti. ; iM od. p. 343 ct scq. 41 Tlicrc Is, however, one remark in ^^llat he has written on this point which I would earnestly commend to your Lordship's notice. You speak of " the illustrious name of Usher " (p. 31) . You will not doubt his yn'ofound erudition, or the value of his judgment on theological questions. Hear then, my Lord, the modest language in which this profound theologian speaks to a brother theologian, Dr. Ward, on the subject, and judge of the estimate he would have formed of the course you are now ])ursuing. "You have done me," lie says, "a great pleasure in comnuini- cating unto me my Lord of Salisbury's and your own determina- tion, touching the (fficacy of Baptism in infants, for it is an OBSCURE POINT, and such as I desire to be taugbt in bv such ass you are, rather than deliver mine own opinion thereof."* So spoke Usher in 1G30, when Archbishop of Armagb, to his friend Dr. Ward. What a contrast does the language of this profoundly learned prelate present to that with wbich tbc Church is now echoing ! But the emptiest vessels make the loudest noise. Before I pass on to the next witness, I cannot help quoting Usher's testimony to what was the view then coinmoiihj received, which occurs in the very next sentence to that w^hich I have just quoted. Speaking of Bishop Downham's work on Perse- verance (in which he strongly insists upon what is called the Calvinistic view of the effects of Ba])tism, and cx])r('ssly intcr- ])rets tbe Baptismal Service on the iiypotlietieal ])rinciplc)/|- be says, — "lie there determinetii that point oflbc eibcaey of Bajitism far otherwise tban you do, accommodalinrj himself to the opinion more vuljjurlij received among us." My Lord, I tbiidvyou will be cautious how you again direct attention to Usher. "Turn we to your third witness," adds your Lordship, " another very illustrif)us name, JJishop Jeremy Taylor ... he sliall be proved to bear testimony directly against you." And * Letter 1.',!). Pair's LifV, p. I.il. t Given in niv Work on tlic Eflcets ol' lnl'.\iit J.iiptisni, 1st ciI, )). .'i(Ki et seep ; 2d cd. p. .'i.'iH. 42 alter nccusiug His Grace of citing a writer " as authority for a stateiueut which he contradiets/' and reading him a lecture upon the duty of greater caution in such a matter^ you add these words, — " Your citation of Bishop Taylor, which you have so unsuspiciously received, is absolutely and palpably fraudulent ." My Lord, on which side lies the " absolute and palpable fraudulence " — they are yoiir oivn ivords, not mine — shall very soon be proved. And you know that the whole context, including the few words you quote, (and which you charge the Archbishop's " informant " with keeping out of sight), together with much more, vras placed in extenso before the Court of Arches by ]Mr. Gorham's Advocate, and was before His Grace when he wrote, but doubtless not considered to require reproduction as a whole. I give the passage as it v.'as placed before the Com-t of Arches by Mr. Gorham's Advocate, and under your Lordship's eye in his published speech, and then all can judge, to whom belongs the charge of " absolute and palpable fraudulence ;" and I willingly leave to the right owner, without qualification or abatement, the name you have chosen. " When the ordinary effect of a Sacrament is done ah-eady by some other efficiency or instrument, yet the Sacrament is still as obhgatory as before : not for so many reasons or necessities ; but for the same commandment. Baptism is the first ordinary current in which the Spirit moves and descends upon us ; and where God's Spirit is, they are the sons of God ; for Christ's Spirit descends upon NONE BUT THEM THAT ARE HIS ; and yet Cornelius, who had received the Holy Spirit, and was heard by God, and visited by an angel, and accepted in his alms and fastings and prayers, was tied to the susception of Baptism. To which may be added, that the receiving the effects of Baptism beforehand, was used as an argument the rather to administer Baptism. The effect of which consideration is this — that Baptism and its effect may be separated, and do not always go in conjunction ; the effect may be before, and therefore much rather may it be after its susception, the Sacrament operating in the virtue of Christ, ' even as the Spirit shall move ;' according to that saying of St. Austin, ' The 43 work of regeneration that is beg'iui in the ministry of Baptism, is perfected in some sooner, in some later;' and St. Bernard, 'We may soon be washed; but to be healed is a work of a long cure.' " " The Church gives the Sacrament, God gives the grace of the Sacrament. But because he does not always (jive it at the instant in which the Church gives the Sacrament (as if thei-e be a secret impediment in the suscipient), and yet afterwards does give it when the impediment is removed (as to them that repent of that impediment), it follows that the Church may administer rightly, even before God yives the real (jrace of the Sacrament ; and if God gives this grace afterwards by parts, and yet all of it is the effect of that covenant which was consigned in Baptism, he that defers some may defer all, and verify every part, as well as any part. For it is certain that in the instance now made, all the grace is deferred ; in infants it is not certain but that some is COLLATED OR INFUSED ; howevcr, Lc it so or no, yet upon this account the administration of the Sacrament is not hindered." (Works, ed. Heber, vol. 2. pp. 248 & 253.) Is it possible, my Lord, that words could be used more completely justifying Mr. Gorham^s view ? Mr. Gorham holds that spiritual regeneration may be given before, or in, or after Baptism ; and that it is never given by virtue of Bap- tism ; and consequently that if the rite is effectual for making- over this privilege at the moment of Baptism, there must have been a prsevenient act of Divine grace towards the child, which nevertheless may take place at the very period of Baptism. Now what does Bishop Taylor say ? He expressly maintains in this passage, that the grace of the Sacrament, which is regeneration, may be given before, or in, or after Baptism. He says expressly of the case of infants, in direct opposition to what your Lordship is contending for, that "in infants it is not certain but that some [grace] is collated or infused ; how- ever, be it so or no, yet," &c. He, however, himself thinks that " Baptism is the first ordinary current in which the Spi- rit moves and descends upon us," but only in the cases of those who are Christ's; for he immediately adds, "Christ's Spirit descends upon none but them that are his ;" which is only another mode of expressing Mr. Gorham's view. 44 AJy Lord, what object, think you, can be aecouxplished byi, your thus exposing yourself in the face of the Church ? Bnt) alas ! to such consequences do steps taken in the spirit in i \vhich your Lordship met INIr. Gorhani in his appUcation fpi'i institution, usnally lead. ■lo'^ed hnk Moreover, as to this witness also, I ask your Lordship how. you have reconciled it to your conscience to pass over all the other passages opposed to your views which have been placed before you from Bishop Taylor, in a work from which you yaurself quote, and to which, therefore, I may fairly refer '( i;^or instance, take the following passage^ given fully ia^y// Work,* but, of necessity, more briefly here,: — , ,di nsiif/ \\i the context most iiicontrovertibly shows, that Hooker's vwaiiin;/ has not been misrepresented. And 1 can assure your Lordship, that however "distressing" it may have been to you to deliver your criticisms upon His Grace's remarks, it is at least ecpuilly distressing to others to witness their toiu; and character. The passage from which these few words arc. tal<( ii has been, as your Lordship is aware, presented to the public in fnll with the foregoing and subsequent context, and precisely as it stands in Hooker, in connexion with this controversy.* And * Effects of Infant Baptism, p. 'SM\, 'Ml ; or, 'Jtl cil. p. MWK 54 wc coiild desire uo other words, and uo other context, than those of Hooker. In reply to Cartwright^s objection (founded upon the old Service, where the child was supposed to make the answers), that " it can be no more precisely said that it hath faith, than it may be said precisely elected," Hooker says, — " Were St. Augustine now living, there are which could tell him for his better instruction, that to say of a child, ' it is elect,' and to sav it doth believe, are all one, for which cause, sith no man is able precisely to affirm the one of any infant in particular, it followeth that ' precisely' and ' absolutely' we ought not to say the other. Which 'precise' and 'absolute^ terms are needless in this case. We speak of infants as the ride of piety alloweth both to speak and think. They that can take to themselves in ordinary talk a charitable kind of liberty to name men of their own sort God's dear children (notwithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy) should not methinks be so strict and rigorous against the Church for PRESUMING AS IT DOTH of a Christian innocent." Here " the rule of piety" is put in contrast with the use of " precise and absolute terms," which shows, it might be sup- posed, tolerably plainly what was meant by the phrase. But if there was any doubt, the words that follow would remove it, when they speak of " the Church presuming as it doth of a Christian innocent." What is your Lordship's answer ? Oh ! all this is only an " argumentum ad hominem." Hooker does not by any means intend to say, that the Church dues presume as to the state of an infant (though he expressly says "pre- suming, AS IT doth"); he held that the terms used are precise and absolute. And he says all this only as an "argu- mentum ad hominem" against Cart^aight ! ^ATiat ! my Lord, this from one who flings his accusations of disingenuousness and fraud, and what not, recklessly over the land against all who maintain that our devotional Services are constructed upon the principle of charity ! Hooker, when he says that the Church does presume, does not mean that it does presume, but is only using an argumentum ad hominem! But in the next sentence we find your Lordship, with Pro- tean agility, shifting your ground, for you there tell us, that jsre- sumes mcana presumes " not merely charitably hut absolutely." 55 That is, to "presume" does not meau here to "presume/' but to he certain of; a piece of information which I hope your Lordship will communicate to the next Editor of Johnson's Dictionary, otherwise it will infallibly escape him. But your Lordship has proofs from Hooker's own works that he did so. By all means let us hear them. The first is, that Hooker calls Sacraments " marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof.'^ What then, my Lord ? The very question at issue is. Who are capable thereof ? For Hooker is not here speaking of ca- pability in the sense oi physical ability for receiving grace, be- cause he is speaking of both Sacraments and of the cases both of infants and adults. He is, of necessity, speaking of moral suitability, according to the terms of the Covenant, for re- ceiving it. As to the other passage, I know not how it can help your Lordship's cause. It runs thus, — " Baptism, therefore, even in the meaning of the law of Clirist, belongeth unto infants capable thereof from the very instant of their birth." Does Mr. Gorham hold, my Lord, that Baptism docs not belong to infants, or that they are not capable thereof ? I am glad, however, that yoiu* Lordship feels so much " re- freshed " by " these noble statements of Catholic doctrine," — first, that the Sacraments give grace to worthy recipients, and, secondly, that Baptism belongs to infants. And it is grati- fying, after " distasteful work," to find something in which all can be " refreshed" together, though it be but with ordinary fare. The next citation made by His Grace is from Bishop Carleton, and here you admit (p. 40) that "this is very apposite to the immediate purpose for which" His Grace " cites it." It would have been difficult, indeed, to have quarrelled with this, seeing that it is spoken with express rojerence to the Baptismal Ser- vice. Bishop Carleton expressly maintains that spiritual rege- neration is not necessarily given to all infants in Baptism; which was the doctrine for maintaining which, your Lordship 56 R'fuscd institution to Mr. Gorbam, according to your own re- corded plea in the Courts of Law. But, from some cause or other, there has been a great change recently in the point of attack selected. We hear little now of anything but the remis- sion of original sin to infants in Baptism. And accordingly, leaving the original question which you raised against Mr. Gorham, and in which Bishop Carleton is wholly against you, yoii take refuge in a statement of his respecting the remission of original sin to infants in Baptism, which you say is entirely opposed to Mr. Gorham's doctrine. Be it so, my Lord, Still, in the fii-st place, this fact does not invalidate his testimony in favour of Mr. Gorham, and against your Lordship, in the great question you raised on the subject, and for which his testi- mony was adduced ; and secondly, you must show, that he held that the children of parents not Christian are entitled to Bap- tism, before you can get much out of his words ; and thirdly, as your Lordship dissents from him in one point, Mr. Gorham may in the other, and has a perfect right to maintain, in pre- ference, the doctrine of the Apostolical Bishop Bedell, who held that the ablution of sin in Infant Baptism was only " con- ditional and expectative." You proceed to His Grace's last testimony, which is, that " at the Savoy Conference" the Services of the Church " were defended against objections on this very ground." To meet this, your Lordship adduces instances in which the Bishops at that Conference did not resort to that mode of inter- pretation. But this, I need hardly remind you, proves nothing. The question is, whether they were not compelled to adopt this mode of interpretation with respect to some parts of the Services. And it is undeniable that they were compelled to do so.* And consequently, we have a method of interpreta- tion placed before us supported by their testimony, which we may justly apply to other parts besides those to which they chose to apply it. Their testimony is referred to as establish- ing the principle, not as binding us to use it precisely as they used it. My Lord, I have now gone through that portion of your * I have shown this in my Work, akeady referred to, pp. 390, 391 ; or, 2d ed. pp. A2%, 42/, 57 Letter which refers to the statemeuts of His Grace the Arch bishop of Canterbury. And i would ask you cahiily to look back, and review the result of this examination of the charges you have brought against him. In the w4iole annals of the Church, it would be difficult to find a parallel for such an outbreak on the part of a provincial Bishop against his Metropolitan. The terms of insult and reproach with which you — you who are calling for almost abject submission to your will from those placed under your own Episcopal superintend- ence — have here addressed your Ecclesiastical superior, are such as, even in the heat of controversy, men hesitate to use towards those to whom they owe no obedience, no deference. You have charged him wth " now, in his advanced years and exalted station, materially impairing, and almost contra- dicting, the sounder teaching of his earlier years," and with t/ie falsehood of speaking of a work as if it was substantially the same, though there had been introduced into it " most important changes." What have we found to be the case ? That what you charge upon him as " most important changes," first pubhshed in 1850, "almost contradicting the sounder teaching of his earlier years," have formed part of the work ever since the year 1817. You have arraigned him publicly before the Church as a teacher of " heresy," " rank Popery and ivorse than Popery " (pp. 13, 14.) And we find that the charge is grounded upon a direct and palpable mis-statement of his doctrine. And you betray your capabilities for the office of His Grace^s censor, by directing him to a Canon, as one of the Canons of the Code of the Universal Church, which you ought to have known has noplace there, and as sanctioned by a Council which probably never heard of it. You misquote Scripture itself (p. 15) to make out your case, and send His Grace to an Article of the Niccne Creed which no more establishes your doctrine than the first chapter of Genesis. You charge upon him that, "instead of leading, he has misled those whom he was to instruct, not only by mis-stating the matters on which he advised, but also by inisijuotuiy all, or ahnosi all, the authors cited hy him (p. 25) ; that he has " con- curred in a false and destructive declaration," and, " as far as in 58 him lies," " sanctioned a decision that tlie Churcli over which he ]n-esides is no part of the Church of Christ," and " done all iL'hich a declaration of his could do to cut off the Church in which he occupies the hi(/hest place, from communion ivith the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of all ages/' &c. (pp. 26_, 27.) And what do we find ? That one and all of the citations made by His Grace are strictly applicable for the purpose for which he quotes them, and fully bear him out in the inferences he has deduced fi-om them ; and that your haughty and self- sufl&cient denunciations of youi" Primate, for maintaining Mr. Gorham's doctrine to be thoroughly consistent with an honest adherence to the Articles and Formvilaries of our Church and of the true Catholic Church, are entirely opposed to the tes- timony of a host of the best, and wisest, and most learned men our Church has ever produced. For, be it remembered, the citations we have been considering, are only a few which His Grace happened to select, out of a multitude that had been brought before the public, of a similar kind. My Lord, you have yourself admitted (p. 27), that if you fail to establish your charges, you will have " fastened on your- self the guilt not only of calumny, but of schism." I leave it then to the public to determine in what position you now stand. Your Lordship proceeds to a consideration of the Judgment of the Judicial Committee, and you commence your review of it by a statement of what you are pleased to call 'Hhe two chief heresies of Mr. Gorham." (pp. 48 — 52.) This statement I have abeady met, and shown what are the real points at issue. I therefore proceed at once to your remarks on the Judgment ; only premising, that almost all the difficulties you have contrived to raise against it, proceed, first, from your unwarranted assumptions, and, secondly, from your straining the language of Mr. Gorham, dii*ected only against your unsound doctrine of the opus operatum efficacy of Baptism, as if it denied all efficacy to Baptism. You commence thus, — " The heresy which I first named, that original sin is stated by Mr. Gorham to be a hindrance to the right reception of Baptism, instead of being remitted by it, is only noticed in the Judgment in 59 these terms : — ' That in no case is regeneration in Baptism uncon- ditional ;' and ' What is signified hy right reception is not deter- mined by the Articles. Mr. Gorhara says, that the expression always means or implies a fit state to receive, — viz. in the case of adults, with faith and repentance, and in the case of infants, ivith God' s grace and favor ' " And you then exclaim^ " ' With God's grace and favour/ my Lord ? Who can deny this ?" And you complain that these words are not Mr. Gorham's, for he used the phrase " an act of prsevenient grace ;" and you then inform the Judges, that " each infant brought to Baptism " comes with God's grace and favor, for which you quote passages of the Prayer Book, which of course every body is bound to understand in the sense you affix to them, or be at once branded as a heretic. My Lord, there are so many observations suggested by this passage, that it is difficult to know with which to begin. Li the first place, the Judges have taken up the case precisely as you yourself presented it to their notice. Your charge against Mr. Gorhani was, that he " held, and persisted in holding, that spiritual regeneration is not given or conferred in " Baptism, and that " Infants are not made therein members of Christ and the children of God.'^ To this point, therefore, more especially, they directed their attention. And the specific charge as to the " remission of the guilt of original sin," has been an after-thought upon which you have fallen back when defeated in your great object ; and you are now raising an unjust clamour against yoiir Judges, as if the point you had brought under their notice had not been properly considered by them. My Lord, the artifice will not avail you. The terms of your accusation against Mr. Gorham, as laid before the Judges, arc well known to the pub- lie, and your accusation has been dealt with as made, — not, of course, as it is now put forth by you, cobbled and re-furbished. Your Lordship complains, that the Judges have not rightly stated Mr. Gorham's views, when they represent them as being, that infants, in order to receive at the moment of Baptism the full baptismal blessing, must come "with God's grace and favor," for that Mr. Gorham's ])hrase is, " an act of prrcvcnient grace." A very nice distinction this, my Lord ! ^^'hcre there 60 is " God's grace and favor/' there, certainly, there has been " au act of God's grace." So that when infants come to Ba])- tism " with God's grace and favor/' there has been " an act of preevenient grace." There may be something of a scholasti c rigicUty in Mr. Gorham's phrase, but the meaning is just what is here expressed in the Judgment. But you add, that doubtless they must come " with God's grace and favor /' and you declare that they do all come with it. Why then, my Lord, the only difference between you and Mr. Gorham is this, that he holds that some infants only come to Baptism after an act of prsevenient grace, and ^jou hold that they all come vaih prsevenient grace. You have here, my Lord, with your own hands, torn up your own doctrine by the very roots. For in consistency with your doctrine you ought to have maintained, that Divine grace and favor are not given till the moment that you sprinkle and baptize them. A more awkward slip it would be difficult to conceive. And your apo- logy for "common-law judges" "not understanding theolo- gical statements" is very kind, but here, at least, not needed ; for it is your Lordship that has slipped, and not the Judges. It is really difficult to find out what your Lordship does hold. At one time you protest against any infant being supposed to have an interest in God's favor until it is baptized, and leave it till Baptism under the full weight of the guilt of original sin ; now you say, all infants come to Baptism " with God's grace and favor." And you ask, " Who can deny this ? " Why you yom'self, my Lord. The very essence of yom' doctrine, as hitherto stated, has been, that God's grace and favor was given through the Baptismal act, and not till then. A^Tiat is your doctrine, my Lord ? Are you sure that you yourself know what it is ? For you cannot consistently hold both these views at the same time. It is impossible not to observe here, how important it is to the cause of truth and justice, that the determination of such a cause as that between your Lordship and Mr. Gorham, should rest chiefly with those who, from their habits, and acquii'e- ments, and tone of mind, are able to take a simple, and im- partial, and judicial view of the subject. The question to be Gl determined was one in which legal knowledge and judicial experience were absolutely necessary to secure a fair sentence. And I think we can hardly over-estimate the value of such a check upon the inroads, which the individual feelings and opi- nions of dominant parties in the Church tend to produce upon its primitive faith, by pretended interpretations of it. Your Lordship complains, that no especial notice has here been taken of the question as to the remission of original sin. Who is in fault, my Lord, for this ? The Judges or yourself? If you had put it forward, doubtless they would have expressly noticed it. And your charge against them of substituting one set of words for another, when they have most correctly ex- pressed Mr. Gorham's view, and of meeting an accusation different from that which was really broiight, can only injure yourself. Can you suppose that such a charge, when brought against five Judges of the highest legal and social reputation, can have any other effect than to recoil upon him who makes it ? But that their statements, both here and elsewhere, include in them a justification of Mr. Gorham^s view on the point which you now raise, as well as the other which you raised in your formal charge against him, is manifest. And this is all you were entitled to expect, from the way in which that charge was framed. They, ray Lord, unbiassed by theological prejudices and desires to u})hold a system, could clearly see, that if infants come to Baptism " with God's grace and favor," they do not come \inder the full weight ofunjiardoned original sin, though that pardon may not be formally made over to them but by the rite of Baptism ; and consequently that there has been, from some cause or other, an enjoyment of prajvenient grace and favor, such as we cannot maintain that all infants of necessity partake of; and that if they come under the weight of that original sin that (our Church tells us) " deserves God's wrath and damnation," we arc contradicting ourselves in saying, that they are in the possession of God's grace and favor, or even in a state which necessarily calls for the Divine grace and favor in Baptism. You must not expect lliat old and experienced Judges, unfettered by theological systems and crotchets, will permit themselves to be led away by pal]iable self- con tradic- 62 tions. If you tell them, that every infant enjoys " God's grace and favor," they will tell your Lordship that you must give up the doctrine, that every infant lies by nature under the guilt of sin that deserves God's wrath and damnation. And if they find you endeavouring to compel the minister of a Church that holds the latter doctrine, to maintain your self-contradictions on the subject, they will protect him from such an attempt. And if, further, they find you maintaining (as in consistency with your avowed doctrine you ought to have maintained) that you can give God's grace, and favor, and remission of sins to every infant, though before destitute of it, and requiring your clergy to subscribe to this doctrine, they will take the liberty of examining your claims to this prerogative, and ascertaining whether the Church of which you are a minister recognises such claims. You have, in fact, expressly and in terms, contradicted your- self in this matter within four pages hence in this very Letter. For while you say here, in p. 53, " Who can deny," that infants have " God's grace and favour " when " brought to Baptism ;" in p. 57, speaking of "grace," you say, — "which infants, before Baptism, have not, 'being by nature children of wrath.' " Your Lordship proceeds (p. 54 et seq.) to what you call " the other class of false doctrine," held by Mr. Gorham, namely, that contained in your second charge against him, given p. 22 above. And you again complain, that his doctrine on this sub- ject has not been fairly represented by the Judicial Committee, and spend five pages in criticising their statement of it. My Lord, the only reply necessary to all your remarks in these five pages is contained in the observations already made upon your representation of Mr. Gorham's views. The account of Mr. Gorham's doctrine, given in the Judgment, is a fair, tem- perate, and accurate statement of his views, derived from an im- partial survey of his answers to your Questions, with only a proper allowance for (as the Judgment itself expresses it) " the general scope, object, and character of the whole exami- nation." You complain, that while the Judgment states that Mr. Gorham " supposes that the grace of regeneration does not G3 invariably take place in Baptism/' his own doctrine is, that it never takes place in Baptism, because he says that infants " must have been regenerated by an act of grace prsevenient to Baptism, in order to make them worthy recipients of that Sa- crament." But, in the first place, you are met here by Mr. Gorham's explicit disavowal in both Courts, that he did main- tain " that spiritual regeneration is not given or conferred in the holy Sacrament of Baptism, or that infants are not made therein members of Christ and the children of God.^' It was clear therefore at once, that your Lordship and Mr. Gorham were using similar words in different senses. And it was im- possible to do justice to Mr. Gorham, without considering the purport and object of your Questions, and judging of the answers accordingly. Your evident object was, to drive Mr. Gorham to the admission of your doctrine of the opus operatum efficacy of Baptism ; and the consequence was, that the more you strove to effect that, the more cautious was Mr. Gorham in using words which you could misinterpret as implying that doctrine. Keen and experienced Judges, accustomed to deal with such matters, of course saw this, and took it into account in their estimate of Mr. Gorham's views. Regeneration may be con- ferred previous to Baptism by a Divine grant, and yet be con- ferred in and by Baptism as the rite for formally making over that grant. You hardly seem prepared to deny this yourself in the case of adults, and at any rate we have good authority for saying that it is so in their case. There is no self-contra- diction, therefore, at least, in the statement, when applied to the case of infants. And Mr. Gorham has from the first de- clared in both Courts, that he does not deny that spiritual re- generation is given in Baptism. It is not true, therefore, that his statements about regene- ration and adoption being given before the administration of the Sacrament, liave been "ignored" by the Judicial Com- mittee, as you cliarge them with doing (pp. 5G, 57). Those statements have been fully taken into account, but they have been intcri)rctcd in their riijlit snisc, wliicli your Lordship refuses to see, because notliing will satisfy you but the aduiis- sion of your opus operatum doctrine. And from the nature of 64 the subject, and the opportunity it affords for dialectical ma- noeuvring:, you find no difficulty in throwing dust into the eyes of the public as to the real question at issue. The Judicial Committee were not to be so misled. The Judgment says, that Mr. Gorham holds " That Baptism is an effectual sign of grace, by which God works invisibly in us, but only in such as worthily receive it ; in them alone it has a wholesome effect." " This," you say, " is of course true in itself, being, in fact, the words of different parts of Art. 25 ;" but only (you inti- mate) " as to adults.''^ But this limitation of the meaning of the words merely rests on your unsupported assertion. And you say that your examination had no reference to them, " since adults are but seldom baptized now." And yet you suppose, that at a period when adults were even less frequently baptized than they are now, and such an occurrence was so rare that there was not even any Service appointed for such an occasion, the authors of our Articles, when laying down the doctrine of the Sacrament, spoke of the case of adults only, without any reference to that of infants ! We see again, here, the value of the penetration and impartial eye of lawyers — I might say, of common sense — in determining the disputes of theologians. You add, — " But the Judgment again ignored the fact, that the only graces which Mr. Gorham supposes God to ' work invi- sibly ' in Baptism, are graces which, according to our Church, infants cannot have." There was a good reason, my Lord, for ignoring it, for it is not a " fact." Mr. Gorham (Ans. 38), says generally, that in Baptism worthily received, God " increases the grace wbich he had previously given us." And your objection to the applicability of this to infants, because " infants before Baptism have not " grace, " ' being by nature children of wrath,' " is derived merely from your ovna doctrine that no children can partake in any way of God's grace until they are baptized, which involves the very question at issue. Mr. Gorham holds that infants may be partakers of Divine grace before Baptism, and that from their being all "by nature children of wrath," it is necessary that they should be par- 65 takers of it to make the mere act of Baptism eftectual, at the moment, for the pui'pose for which it was intended, that is, for formally making over to them the state of regeneration and adoption ; the mere opus operatum of Baptism having no power to effect this. And we have already seen the inconsistency of your Lordship on this point, for we have got through only four pages since we heard your Lordship exclaiming, " Who can deny," that it is necessary for infants brought to Baptism, to have " God^s grace and favour," that they may receive benefit from the rite ? "WTien, therefore, you complain of the Judgment " omitting to state, that Mr. Gorhara supposes God to work by it what our Church says infants have not or cannot have, and denies that He works then what our Church teaches that He then always works," and add, " This, again, may be very natiu-al in common- law Judges : I regret that it escaped your Grace " — you are only adding another proof, how much better fitted " common-law Judges " may be, to decide such a question as that involved in Mr. Gorham's case, than a theological partisan. Our Church maintains no such doctrine as that unbaptized infants have not God's grace. In fact, you have contradicted yourself on this point. And Mr. Gorham does not deny, that God works in Baptism what our Church teaches that He works therein. The Judgment adds, in its description of Mr. Gorham's doc- trine, — " And that without reference to the qualification of the recipient, it is not in itself an effectual sign of grace." Upon this you observe, — " Most true, as it has ever been held by the whole Catholic Church, and must be held, of all those capable [your own italics] of ' qualification.'" (p. 58.) My Lord, are infants incapable of qualification ? incapab/n of receiving God's grace ? incapable of having a grant of regenera- tion made to them, to be afterwards scaled and formally made over to them before the Church in Baptism ? If they arc not, on ac- count of their infantine state, capable of this, they are not capable of receiving it in Baptism. If therefore you have proved any- thing, you have proved too much. But capable they certainly are ; and if, in order to receive the bajjtisnial blessing, all must be previously qualified who are capable of qualification, then 6C infants, who all by natiwe lie under the wrath of God, need qua- lification, suited to their years, as much as adults. You may think (and adduce great names in favour of the notion), that as they cannot have faith and repentance, and cannot sinfully oppose the influence of Divine grace upon them, they require no qualification. But that they are capable of it, is undeniable; and the qualification is maintained to be, that, instead of coming in their natm-al state, under God's wrath, they come enjoying his " grace and favor." Whether this may arise from birth of a Chi'istiaii parent, or requires the grace of election or an internal work of grace upon the will and affections, or may be otherwise produced, is a different question, and one which 1 do not here stop to discuss. But that all infants necessarily possess that grace and favor, is a notion entii'ely opposed to the doctrine of our Church that all infants are by nature children of wrath. You proceed, — " And then, at last, mention is made in the Judgment of that upon which the whole does turn — the case of infants." My Lord, this is entirely a misstatement; and you are again contradicting yourself in making it, for you yom-self have been dealing with the whole account of Mr. Gorham's doctrine given in the Judgment, as given with reference to the case of infants, and endeavouring to prove, that though part of the doc- trine there described may be true in the case of adults, it does not apply to the case of infants. The Judgment concludes its description of Mr. Gorham's doctrine wiih the words, — " But in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional." Upon which you remark that, — " In this statement, meagre as it is, Mr. Gorham's special error is not simply omitted ; it is, by implication, denied. The Judgment states Mr. Gorham's doctrine ' in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional.' Mr. Gorham's doctrine is, in no case is regeneration in Baptism, biit when Baptism is rightly received, befoi-eit." (p. 58.) The remarks already made may show your Lordship, that you have here entirely misrepresented the matter. Mr. Gorham has in both Courts distinctly disavowed the doctrine which you thus 67 impute to him ; and I need not here repeat what T have ah'eady said on this subject. Having thus concluded your criticism upon the representation of Mr. Gorham's doctrine given in the Judgment, you denounce a Sentence drawn up by five of the most eminent Judges of the land, and sanctioned by the two Primates, in the following words, — " So much suppression of the truth converts a formal absolution of Mr. Gorhara into a virtual condemnation of his doctrine. Grave charges thus glossed over are tacitly acknowledged, while the indi- vidual is acquitted. My Lord, trvth does not usually thus shioi the Ughtr (p. .')9.) My Lord, on which side has been " suppression of the truth," a resort to the expedient of " glossing over," and a " shunning of the light," is, I trust, tolerably clear from what has been just stated. And it may not be unworthy of your consideration, on a future occasion, before you hurl your reproaches against such individuals as arc responsible for this Judgment, how far j^our accusation is likely to have weight with the public mind. Other- wise your censures may return in tenfold force upon your own head. My Lord, I have now gone through the most important part fly the grounds upon which you bring these charges against them, especially as some of your remarks refer to points which have been already in controversy between us, and with language towards myself which — while I will not pretend to expect any injui-y from it, considering the quarter from which it comes, — demands some notice of the points at issue. You first complain, that they have omitted to notice " two main laws," the .57th Canon of 1604, and the Act of Uni- F 2 68 formity, — which you tell them (in the plenitude of your superior knowledge both oflaw and divinity) "have the most direct, palp- able, aye conclusive bearing on the matter in issue." (p. 59.) But before going into particulars as to the nature of those laws, you turn aside to call in question their mode of dealing with the XXXIX Articles. I must follow your course. You say, that, in " examining the Articles, the Court does not apply itself to a consideration of the terms in which they are expressed, but does little more than institute a comparison be- tween them and the Articles of 1536, and King Henry VIII.'s Book entitled ' Necessary Doctrine ; ' " and then complain, that this was not the proper way to ascertain the meaning of the Articles ; that the Judicial Committee have been " caught by the sound of 'Articles of 1536,'^^ and "jumped to the conclusion that this was the document" by which to ascertain the meaning of what was doubtful in the Articles of 1552 and 1562, and "assumed" that " the Articles of 1536 were the foundation of those of the latter date ; " and you " express your astonishment" that His Grace did not set them right in this matter. My Lord, in "jumping to conclusions" you leave the Judicial Committee no chance of competing with you. Indeed they are satisfied, as it seems to me, with sober walking, step by step. But your leaps are terrific ; you rise in one direction and descend in another ; and though you come down where we expected, it is a marvel how you found your way there. The Judicial Committee have done nothing of what you here charge them with doing, and have done what you charge them with omitting to do. They have expressly stated, in the most decisive terms, that they have grounded their Judgment upon an examination of the Articles and Formularies themselves, inter- preted by the "old-established rules of construction." They say,— "This question must be decided by the Articles and Liturgy, and we must apply to the construction of those books the same rules which have long been established, and are by the law applicable to the con- struction of all written instruments. We must endeavour to attain for ourselves the true meaning of the language employed, assisted only by the consideration of such external or historical facts as we 69 may find necessary to enable us to understand the subject-matter to which the instruments relate, and the meaning of the words em- ployed. In our endeavours to ascertain the true meaning and effect of the Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, we must by no means inten- tionally ^ifje/'i'^yrowz the old-established rules of construction, or de- part from the principles which have received the sanction and appro- bation of the most learned persons in time past, as being, on the whole, the best calculated to determine the true meaning of the docu- ments to be examined," Can words be clearer to show the principle upon which they proceeded ? Their comparison of the Articles of 1552 and 1563 with the Articles of 1536, was made merely to bring out this point, that in the latter document it was expressly determined, '' 1. That baptized infants dying before the commission of actual sin were undoubtedly saved thereby [which was also affirmed in the Necessary Doctrine] . 2. That unbaptized infants were not saved :^^ — while ^' the Articles of 1552 and 1562 say nothing expressly upon either point ; but, not distinguishing the case of infants from that of adults, state in general terms, that those who receive Baptism rightly have the benefits there mentioned confer- red." You say that the Articles of 1536 * were made alio intuitu, and for the people generally. And this is true, but will not aid you. For though they were addressed to the public generally, yet they were put forth also as a f/uide to the clergy as to what doc- trine they were to preach to the people ; for the different Articles commence in this way, — "Secondly" or "Thirdly," &c. "We will that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people . . that," &c. So that they are a similar document to the later Articles. Moreover, in whatever light we view them, they repre- sent the doctrine of the authorities of our Church at that period ; and if the doctrine required to be taught by public authority had remained the same when the Articles of 1552 and 1562 were published, these latter Articles would have similarly maintained it. And the change is of no little importance, because one great * Their i)ro])cr title is,^" Articles devistd by tlir Kiii^rcs Iliglmcs M.a- jestic, to stiiijlyshc Christen qiiietnes and nnitie lunongo uh, and to avoydw eontentious opinions : which Articles be also approved l)y tlic consent and deterniiiiHtion of the hole elcigic of tins realnie." Sec Burton's reprint in " rorniul. of r'aitli." 70 cHarge against Mr. Gorham was, that though he agreed with the Rubric that children baptized, dying before the commission of sin, were saved, he did not hold (as, it was said, he ought) that their salvation was to be ascribed to their Baptism. Tlie fact of the change as to the doctrine of the non-salvation of unbaptized infants, is expressly proved by the language of the " Reformatio Legum," drawn up under Craumer's superinten- dence, and which received his sanction.* And it is admitted by Archbishop LawTcnce himself.f But beyond the notice of this difference in the public docu- ments of the two periods in illustration of this point, (which is so clear and marked a proof of the change in the theology of those periods, as to have obtained a strong testimony to its force from two of the leaders of your Lordship's party]:) no fui'ther reference is made to the Articles of 1536 and the " Necessary Doctrine." The Coiu-t has "applied itself to a consideration of the terms" of the Articles, and has found that " the Articles of 1552 and 1562" "have special regard to the qualifications of worthy and right reception/' and that "the 25th Article of 1562 distinctly states, that in such only as worthily receive the same, the Sacra- ments have a wholesome effect or operation." And this the Coui't rightly considered as going to the root of the question between your Lordship and Mr. Gorham, rejecting your unsup- ported assertion that this applies only to adults. Moreover, as to the Articles, it had been admitted by the lower Court, that Mr. Gorham's doctrine was not opposed to them. On this point, therefore, it was less necessary to enlarge in the Court of Appeal. Hei'e you have both Courts against you. But you tell them, that the words of the Articles "have refe- rence to the words of other Confessions of faith of other reformed communions, especially of the Confession of Augsbmgh ;" and that "to these Confessions of faith" " attention ought to have been given in the first instance, in order to interpret what may be doubtful in the language of our Articles." Her Majesty's Judges, * I have given tbe passage in " Effects of Infant Baptism," pp. 188, 189 ; 2nd Ed. pp: 206. 207. + Bampton Lect. pp. 70, 71- X See Appendix to Mr. Dodsworth's Sermon, entitled "A house divided against itself," and Mr. Maskell's " Second Letter, &c." p. 17. 7L my Lord, must no doubt feel greatly indebted to you for the numerous instructions you have given them in this Letter for the right performance of their duties. But I suspect they will be inclined to prefer their o^\ti mode of proceeding, as stated in the words I have just quoted from the Judgment. This, how- ever, I am sure of, that if they had acted upon the advice you have here given them, you would have been one of the first to cry out, and to complain of their going to the Confessions of other Chm-ches to interpret the words of our own. And you talk of the Confessions of " other Reformed communions," I should have thought former experience had been sufficient to warn you of the danger of such a reference. Does your Lordship really think, that an interpretation of the language of oui- Articles by that of " other Reformed communions" would be of advantage to your cause ? Surely we can only see here fui'ther evidence of that singular want of acquaintance with them, manifested so in- opportunely on a former occasion. But it seems that the great point to be brought out is, that our 2oth Article, while it adopts words very similar to those of the Confession of Augsburgh, adds what you call " a clause which expresses the special, the essential, the distinctive characteristics of Catholic teaching on this point," namely, that Sacraments are (with youi' own italics) "certa qufedam testimonia et efficacia signs, yratice atque bonee in nos voluntatis, per quae invislbiliter ipse in nobis operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, varum ctiam confirmat." My Lord, how often will you require to be reminded, that all this language is used freely by the highest Calvinists, and there- fore is utterly useless for the purpose for which you (piotc it ? You have just had, in the former part of this Letter, a proof that even in the notes of the Geneva Bible the same phraseology is used respecting the Sacraments. You have been comj)ellcd also, on a former occasion, to admit that similar language is used in the Confessions of the foreign " Reformed Communions." You had passages repeatedly placed before you from Calvin, Bui- linger, and others of similar views, to the same effect. But, reckless of anything but the object you have in view, you here again quote the words as proving what you now well know they are quite incapable of proving. 72 Before I pass on^ I would also just point out two uotable fal- lacies iu the arguments raised by your advocates out of the Ar- ticles. It was ui'ged, that because the Articles say that the Bap- tism of infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ, therefore infants must all be entitled to receive the grace of that Sacrament. The fallacy of this may be at once shewn by apply- ing the same mode of reasoning to the case of adults. It is most agreeable with the institution of Christ that all adults, making a profession of faith and repentance, should be baptized. But are they, therefore, all worthy ? Again, it was urged that if infants were not all worthy re- cipients, then some must be unworthy, and therefore by the Ar- ticles "purchased to themselves damnation." It is difficult to conceive how such an argument could be seriously put forward. An infant, supposed to be incapable of actual sin, cannot " pur- chase to itself damnation" by any act of its own, much less by an act performed upon it against its will by others. And yet, nevertheless, the general doctrine laid down in the Articles on this subject refers to aU cases ; but, of course, when apphed to cases differently circumstanced, must be interpreted in accordance with the cu'cumstances of the particular case. If an adult, coming without faith and repentance, pui'chases to himself dam- nation by undergoing Baptism in such a state, then, in accord- ance with this doctrine, an infant lying under God^s wrath, as our Chm'ch teaches us that all do by nature, — though not committing, in its Baptism, actual sin, (of which it is incapable, and of which it could not be rendered guilty by an act performed upon it against its will by another) and therefore not purchasing to itself damnation, — is not entitled to receive the grace of Baptism in that Sacrament. You next urge (p. 62) that the Catechism was "the most ob- vious/^ and " incomparably the fittest document to explain what might be doubtful to the Judges in the Articles." Have you forgotten, my Lord, that to this very document they did refer, and found it testifying against you ? The words to which you refer in it, namely, those which give a definition of a Sacrament, are wholly insufficient for your purpose. If you ask their mean- ing, I have abeady pointed it out, p. 34 above. But there is another part of it, namely, that relating to the promises made 73 fcr infants, to which you have not adverted, which has been justly pointed out in the Judgment as entirely opposed to your doc- trine ; and was given up by your Advocates in both Courts as, according to your view, an incorrect answer.* And if I chose to resort to such weapons, I might here turn your whole artillery of sarcasm, about the assent and consent given to the Book of Common Prayer, against yourself. The " awful heresy " which you proceed to charge upon Mr. Gorham, (and which, you tell us, without a shadow of ground for the assertion, has been " distinctly pronounced by the Church to be such ") being one of your own making, calls for but few words. The " heresy " is the assertion, that the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism, " a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness," is " not received in or through that Sacra- ment, but must be received previously through a pr^evcnient act of grace on God's part.'^ Now, my Lord, if this is "heresy," you must be at least close upon heresy j'ourself; for at p. 23 we find you commenting on His Grace's remark that " the grace of spiritual regeneration is separable, and in fact often sepa- rated, from the Sacrament of Baptism," in these words, — " In the case of adults baptized, no one would question this." So that you allow that, in the case of adults, the grace is often separated from the Sacrament. And if this is undeniable in the case of adults, it can hardly be " heresy " to suppose it to be so in the case of infants. But the truth is, that this is not a fair representation of Mr. Gorham's doctrine, being a partial and defective one. The grant of regeneration previous to Baptism does not evacuate the effect of the Sacrament, or make it of no avail in formally making over the grace of the Sacrament {i. e. the regenerate state) according to the nature of that rite, or, consequently, separate the grace from the Sacra- ment in worthy recipients ; and therefore you have not correctly represented the real question at issue. Hence, your attack here upon His Grace for "permit- ting" the Judges " to deceive themselves so grossly," and for sanctioning their Judgment, returns upon yourself. You next charge the Judicial Committee with having " wan- * Mr. Maskell, in his "Second Letter," jiiht piihlisliod fp. 'M). takrs the same view of the words. 74 tonhj, and in spite of warning, omitted to give attention ^' to the 57tli Canon. And yon tell them, after various remarks of a similar kind, that in not doing so " they were guilty of a grievous violation of their plain duty." Very suitable words, doubtless, with which to address the eminent Judges who gave Judgment against you ! And what is the cause of this language ? Simply that they differed from you in the interpretation of the Canon. My Lord, I need not tell you, that I feel no surprise at their not having thought it worth notice, as this matter has abeady been a subject of dis- cussion between us.* You say, — "The Canon says, 'The doctrine of Baptism is sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer to be used at the administra- tion of the said Sacrament, as nothing can be added to it that is ma- terial or necessary.' The Judges virtually say, that there is no doctrine of Baptism in those offices by which it is administered." And you then proceed to use language towards the Judges whicli can excite only a feeling of pain at the scandal produced by sucli outbreaks on the part of a Bishop of our Church. My Lord, tlie Judges have uttered nothing- of the kind. But they do say, and most justly say, that " the received Formularies cannot be held to be evidence of faith or of doctrine, without reference to the distinct declarations of doctrine in the Articles, and to the faith, hope, and charity, by which they profess to be inspired or accompanied." And they go on to show, how the ex- pressions in such a Service ought to be interpreted, to make that Service speak the doctrine which it 7vas intended to speak. The question is as to the right mode of interpretation. And as I have abeady pointed out to your Lordship on a former occasion, it is only by wresting a portion of the Canon from its context, and concealing its true nature and object, that you manage to get the appearance of an argument out of it. The case is this. The Puritans were in the habit of teach- ing the people that the Sacraments were not valid unless accom- panied by preaching. In opposition to such a notion, the Canon (which is entitled, " The Sacraments not to be refused at the hands of u.npreaching ministers ") enacts as follows, — * See my Vindication of the " Defence of the Thirty-Nine Articles," in reply to the Cliarge of the Bishop of Exeter, j)p. 50, 51. 75 " Whereas divers persons, seduced bv false teachers, do refuse to have their children baptized by a minister that is no preacher, and to receive the Holy Communion at his hands in the same respect, as though the virtue of these Sacraments did depend upon his ability to preach ; forasmuch as the doctrine both of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper is so sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer to be used at the administration of the said Sacraments, as nothing can be added unto it that is material and necessary ; we do require and charge evciy such person, seduced as aforesaid, to reform that their wilfulness, and to submit himself to the order of the Church in that behalf; both the said Sacraments being equally effectual, whether they be ministered by a minister that is no preacher, or by one that is a preacher."' The meaning, therefore, is perfectly clear ; namely, that all which it is " material and necessary " to bring before the people, ivhen administering Baptism, as to the nature of the rite, is con- tained in the appointed Service, and therefore that preaching on the occasion was not requisite. The doctrine is sufficiently set forth in the Service. And so we all hold. This places the words quoted by you from the Canon in a totally different light from that in which you wish them to be viewed. Connected with your unwarrantable attack upon the Judges in this part of your Letter,, as influenced by " clamours from without or timid caution from within," is a statement respect- ing the number of those who support Mr. Gorhain's views which requires to be met, especially as there has been a repetition of it in another quarter. You " venture to believe," that " there are not probably six men, calling themselves Churchmen, who partake of Mr. Gorham's special heresy." If by Mr. Gorham's " special heresy," you mean the doctrine which you have wrongfully imputed to him, you may have cor- rectly stated the number of those who hold such doctrine. But if you mean the doctrine which Mr. Gorham really holds, as the Judicial Committee has represented it from a fair, and general, and impartial survey of his answers and pleas as a whole, or as I have described it above, you should have nniltipiied your units by thousands ; and if you mean doctrine of a similar character, as distinguished from your opus nperatvm doctrine, you may 76 double that mode of reckoning. They who would not use Mr. Gorham's language as to the need of " an act of prsevenient grace/^ arc wholly agreed with him as to the necessity of an infant coming to Baptism under circumstances different from those in which the mass lie — circumstances suitable to the terms of the covenant made in Baptism — in order that they may at the moment enjoy the full effects of that Sacrament. And here lies the substance and essence of the controversy between him and your Lordship. And the phrase used by Mr. Gorham seems intended to be but equivalent to one used by one of the most distinguished of our prelates in a former age, — who had been a chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, — Bishop W. Barlow, who calls Baptism " the seal of a pra-received grace."* I proceed to the next point noticed in your Letter. It relates to the remark of the Judgment upon the following Rubric, — " It is certain by God's word that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." That remark is, that 'Hhis Rubric does not, like the Article of 1536, say that such children are saved bi/ Baptism." And after taking it for granted, ih^A, the phrase "God's word" refers to certain passages of Scripture mentioned in the Service, and that those passages ascribe the salvation of the infant to Baptism, and assuming that the words of the Service necessarily bear the inter- pretation you put upon them, you give vent to youi* anger m the following words, — " How then, and by what, are they saved ? But I cannot argue such a matter. Suffice it to say, and I say it with a bitterness of feeling which I will not dissemble, that such is ' the Judgment' [your own sarcastic italics] of the Lord Chief Justice of England, of the Master of the Rolls, of one of the most eminent Barons of Her Ma- jesty's Court of Exchequer, of the Chancellor of the Diocese of Lon- don, and of a Right Hon. and learned man whose name is more ex- alted than any title of office or dignity could make it ; and that this Judgment has been adopted and sustained by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Archbishop of York." (pp. Q6, 67,) My Lord, look over this list of names again, and see if you could have more effectually written youi- own condemnation than * I have given the whole passage in " Effects of Infant Baptism," p. 291. or 2d ed. p. o24. 77 in thus reminding the reader, by whom the Judgment was given. These are the parties who have pointed out that/ac^ as to the phraseology of the Rubric, the mention of which has called forth your "bitterness of feeling." And it is hardly necessary to add, that it is an important fact, bearing strongly upon the question at issue, because in a previous document (the Articles of 1536) the salvation of the infant had been expressly ascribed to Bap- tism, and salvation denied to the unbaptized. There was, there- fore, a marked change in the language used, and a change which we cannot suppose to have been accidental. In fact it is obvious, that when the Church gave up the doctrine that infants dying unbaptized perish, (and I have proved that our Church did give up that doctrine,) it could no longer maintain, that the salva- tion of baptized infants was the consequence of Baptism. This single consideration shows that your Lordshi})^s tragical excla- mations against the Judges for not giving to the Rubric your interpretation, are as groundless as they are indecent. If we believe, or are not prepared to deny, that infants will be saved dying unbaptized, it is clear that we cannot ascribe the salvation of baptized infants to Baptism. And nothing perhaps can show more clearly how utterly un- reasonable is your inference from this Rubric, than the fact that Peter Martyr (free from the influence of any such Rubric or Canon requiring his acquiescence) voluntarily makes a similar statement in his Lectures at Oxford, as Regius Divinity Pro- fessor, at the same period. He says, — " I hope well concerning such infants [i. e. those who die unbaptized], because I sec them to be born of believing parents .... that infants dying after having received Baptism are saved, we ought to fe.cl assured." * I need not tell your Lordship, however, what, notwithstanding this, were Peter Martvr's sentiments as to tiie efu-ctB of Baptism. But the condition of Baptism is inserted in the Rubric by the Church, because the Church has no right to dispense with God's appointed ordinance for being made a iiKJinbcr of the Church of Christ. Strictlv s])caking, the Chiircli can take no notice of, * Do Imjusinoili jmrviilis bcm: spcro, (jiiod illos vidcam ex fidclibus paicntiljUH natos .... pucros dcccdcntcs cum baptisino salvos esse confi- dendnm est. (In 1 Cor. vii. 14.) 78 aud pronouTice no judgment upon, those who have not been in- troduced by Baptism into her fokl.* And hence it is^ that, in the Rubric to the Burial Service, it is dii'ected that the Service is not to be read over one that dies unbaptized. No one can be treated by the Church as a member of Christ and a child of God, that is, a regenerate person, until after Baptism, the rite appointed for formally and publicly making over that character; just as no one is treated as a member of any society, until after his formal admission into it by the rite appointed for that purpose. But the question — when spiritual life is first granted by God — is not affected by this fact. And the Chui'ch is not called upon, and has not seen fit, to pronounce any judgment upon, or extend her rites to, one who has not been formally made a member of her Communion. And this affords a reply to your Lordship^s re- marks upon this latter Rubric in a subsequent page. (p. 69.) You consider next the claims of the principle oi charitable hy- pothesis, justly maintained by the Judicial Committee to be the principle on w^hich the Churches Offices are constructed. This also, it seems, like everything else opposed to your \iew^s, is a great trial to your patience. And the reasoning with which you commence your attack upon it is too remarkable to be passed over without special notice. You say, — " True it is, as I have said already, all Common Prayer must be framed on the principle that those who join in it are in a state of ac- ceptance with God. And why ? Because Common Prayer is part of the Communion of Saints. Because the congregation, be it large or small, is ' gathered together in Christ's name ' — that is, as mem- bers of Him. And when and how were they made His members ? When and how were they entitled to admission to the Communion of Saints ? In and by Baptism. And are we then to be gravely told, that the phrases which declare, in the most absolute terms which the wit of man can devise, that infants are in Baptism so made members of Christ, so born anew by spiritual regeneration, are mere words of charity and hope — and not of faith .'' " (p. Q7 ■) Let us put this argument in form. Common prayer must be * See this more fully noticed in my Review of Sir H. J. Fust's Judg- ment, pp. 3.3—35. 79 drawn up as if all who joined in it were '' in a state of accept- ance with God," because it is "part of the communion of saints." Very good. This is just what the Judicial Committee say. Let us see, which reasons the most logically from this common proposition. But (you add) all who join in it were ad- mitted to tliis communion in and by Baptism. Very true, again. The visible communion of saints consists of the baptized, and of such only. Now for the inference. Therefore, you conchule. Baptism must have made them all realli/ saints, really " in a state of acceptance wdth God," " born anew, by spiritual regene- tion !" My Lord, to use yom* own words in this very place. This I will not argue. You go on to what you call " the argument (if courtesy re- quire us to call it by such a name) of the Judicial Committee." And your reply to it certainly puts the " courtesy " of your op- ponents to a severe test. But I will remember that it comes from a Septuagenarian and a Bishop, and wall deal with it ac- cordingly. The Juchcial Committee refer to the Burial Sei-vice as one undeniably drawn up upon the principle oi charitable hypo- thesis. You object to this first, that " Li the offices of Baptism of infants, the Church speaks in absolute, categorical, direct terms ; in that of Bui'ial, it professes to use the language of hope." Not so, my Lord. This is but half the truth. A portion of the Service you may explain in this way. But even those expressions are strong, and become more forcible when con- nected with those other expressions in the Service to which the Judgment expressly directs attention. And these latter are not to be explained on any other ])rinci|)le. They stand thus. "Forasmuch as it hath plcas(;d Almighty God, of his great mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother here departed," &c. And, — " We give th(!e heartij thanks for that it hath ])l(;ased thee to tlclirer this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world." Let us h(;ar y(jur Lordship's comment on these passages, — the eoniiiK'nt of one who pro- fesses to be hoiTor-struck at any interpretation of the Prayer Book that docs not give to the words their plain literal honest meaning. On the former passage, — which you, who arc so scrupulous 80 about accurate quotations, misquote, by leaving out the very words (^'^ of his great mercy ") which stamp upon the sentence its real meaning — you angrily ask His Grace why he did not '^ undeceive them/' and "tell them that this is merely the ap- plication of a text of Ecclesiastes, which says of eveiy man, be he good or bad, that while the spirit of a beast goes downward to the earth, the spirit of a man goes upward — i. e., as our Church has explained it, has ascended to Him who made it ?" (p. 68.) I suppose His Grace might reply, by asking yon why you had not cited the passage correctly, and by reminding you, that " the wicked " are " taken away " — not in God's " great mercy," but — " in his ivrath." (Ps. Iviii. 9.) Their end is from the wrath of God coming upon tliem. (Ps. Ixxviii. 31.) On the latter passage, your comment is one of which I am unwilling to speak as it desenes. We may (you tell us) thank God ^'that it hath pleased Him to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world,'' because " if he departed in an impenitent state, we may and ought to think, that he was nevei-theless taken away in mercy, — that his case was lost — that if life had been continued to him, he would have added sin to sin, and so would have been sunk in deeper perdition" ! ! (p. 69.) So that if we kneio, that he had " lifted up his eyes in hell, being in torments," we " ought " to " thank God," that he had delivered him out of the miseries of this sinful world, because if he had lived longer, he would doubtless have " added sin to sin !" My Lord, I will only say, that we are veiy much obliged to you for this explanation of the words. It will be of great service. It will tend to open people's eyes. Such an illustration of the way in which your principle of interpretation acts, will do more with many to place it in its true light, than an}i;hing I could have said. But, after all, you seem to have some uncomfortable mis- gi^-ings on the matter. For you proceed to remind us, that the Sei'vice was " designed by the Church when she was able to ex- ercise that discipline, the want of which we now solemnly de- plore." One question, my Lord, is all I shall offer upon this remark. Will any degree of discipline enable us to pronounce with positive certainty — ^with more than the language of hope and charity — upon the state of the majority of those we buiy ? 81 Your remark upon the Rubric I have ah-eady noticed. Before I pass on, however, I must remind your Lordship of an argument on this point, the weight of which you at least are bound to admit. In your last Charge you pointed our attention to the honesty of the Dissenters at the Restoration, who, seeing that the Prayer Book taught " the doctrine of real baptismal re- generation and certain salvation consequent thereupon," refused their assent to the Book, and quitted the Church. Now, my Lord, these same Dissenters brought another objection against the Prayer Book, equally preventing their giving their assent to it. They could not subscribe (as your own informant, Calamy,* tells us,) because "they could not consent to pronounce all saved that are buried, except the unbaptized, excomnumicate, and self- murtherers." And this they maintain the Prayer Book does pronounce. For " the priest must not only say, that God took away all such persons in mercy, in great mercy, but also posi- tively affirm that God took them to himself, &c They could not see how charity would excuse dangerous errors and false- hood." My Lord, they were at least self-consistent. They applied to both Sei-vices the same princi])lc of inter])retation. They did not play fast and loose with the Prayer Book, ajiplying one principle of intei-pretation to one Semce, and another to another Service, to make it correspond with their own private views and jirtju- dices. They treated it as a consistent whole ; and having un- fortunately been unable to sec the admissibility of the hypothe- tical principle of interpretation, they adopted another which comj)elled them to reject the Book. And in doing so, they were (as I have said) at least self-consistent. And as their example is one to which you have yourself referred us, permit \\\v to ])re- scnt it again to your Jiordshij) in a niorr impartial point of view. Your next statement, that the words " Seiiing now, dearly be- loved bretiiren, that this child is regenerate,'' refer to "a ques- tion of fact on which no serious mind would dare to speak thus positively without sufficient warrant," (p. 70), is, of couise, not * Life of IJaxtiT, &c. o 82 an argument, but an unsupported assertion involving the very , question at issue, and therefore it does not require an answer. But I would just remind your Lordship, that the same remark might be made on various other passages of the Prayer Book, where it is clear that no positive assertion was, or could be, in- tended. The great question is, upon what principle is the Prayer Book di*a-mi up, and according as we determine this, must we decide how far such passages as that referred to bear out your conclusion. The declarations to which you refer in the Catechism must likewise be taken in connexion with the whole doctrine of the Church, and more especially with other parts of the Catechism itself, to which attention has been directed in the Judgment^ and which your Lordship has passed over in profound, but pru- dent, silence. You pass on to the Act of Uniformity, and being of course much better qualified than Her Majesty's Judges to intei-pret Acts of Parliament, or at least much more honest, having no such private feelings to gratify, or personal motives to sway your conduct, as you impute to them, you dii'ectly accuse the Judges of ha^-ing deliberately and consciously passed over a law having a "conclusive bearing on the matter in issue." (pp. 59, 60, 71.) My Lord, the very fact that the Judges who sat on this case did pass over this Act in silence, after having had their atten- tion called to it in the pleadings, will be sufficient to convince all impartial persons that it has no bearing on the question at issue. In fact, it must be obnous to the most ill-informed — to the meanest capacity — that in a question touching the inter- pretation to be given to the Prayer Book, where both sides are agreed in accepting the Prayer Book itself as sound and Scrip- tui-al, an Act merely requiring such acceptance of the Prayer Book is wholly irrelevant to the matter at issue. You might as well send us to a Church-building Act. But your Lordship is well aware, how easy it is to throw dust into the eyes of the public on such matters, so as to blind them to the real question. Tacitly assuming the very point in controversy, that the doc- trine you are opposing is contrary to what is contained in the Prayer Book, and also that your opponents are consciously con- 83 tradicting the doctrine of that Book, you send us to an Act of Parliament requiring the acceptance of the doctrine of the Prayer Book, as if it settled the question, when in fact it does not touch it. But your remarks upon the Act are not of a nature to be passed over in silence. Little as the exposui'e of their real cha- racter may effect as it regards your Lordship^s own mind, it is not the less necessary that public attention should be directed to them. You fii'st notice the Preamble of the Act, in which it is stated that His INIajesty had authorised Convocation to review the Book of Common Prayer, and " make such alterations and addi- tions in the said Book as to them should seem most meet and convenient.^' You put the word "make" in italics, for a piu*- pose which we shall see presently. But the attempt to raise an argument out of it is fruitless ; for in the first place, the altera- tions and additions do not touch the point in question ; and secondly, (as you are well aware) this "making" was only equi- valent to proposing, subject to the approval of the King and the two Houses of Parliament, (as the Preamble also expresses in words which you have suppressed*), and does not imply any power in Convocation to determine the matter. You then proceed to remark, that every one admitted to the ministry is required " to declare his unfeigned assent and con- sent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words and no other : ' I, A. B., do hereby declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book intituled tlu; liook of Common Prayer,' &c." And upon this you favour us with the following remarks. You tell us that the previous subscrij)- tion to the Book, (which had been required, and is still required, by the thiily-sixth Canon), namely, a dccliiriitioii that it " con- taineth in it nothing contrary to the ivord of (Jod, and that it may lawfully so be used ; and that he himself will use tiu; foi-m in the said Book prescribed, in public Prayer and Mdiniuistra- * " All which Ills Majesty hdinnji dull/ coiisidtned, luith fully apjjrovcd and allowed the same, and recommended to the present Parliament, that tlic said Books be the Book which shall he appointed to be used," kc. Si tion of the Sacraments, and none other/' had beenfonnd insuf- ficient. " Fatal experience/' yon say, "had shown the insuf- ficiency of subscription, and of a mere obligation to use the Book. The only security for the faithful use of it was ' assent and consent' to all that it contained, and such security was given by the Statute." So that here, to answer the pui-pose of the moment, you actually represent the stringent declaration of the Canon, directly binding us to the belief that the Prayer Book " containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God," as "a mere obligation to use the Book"!! My Lord, if I was inclined to descend to the use of such language as, in your re- cent Charge, and in the passage which I shall have to notice presently in your Letter, you have addi-essed towards myself, there are no words which would be too strong to denounce such a statement. Having formerly committed yourself to the mis- take, that the Declaration required by the Act of Unifonnity is more stiiiigent than the subscription required by the Canon, (in evident ignorance of the context of that Declaration,) you now disparage and explain away the meaning of the Canon, in order to countenance youi' intei-pretation of the Act. The plain words of the Canon, that the Prayer Book " containeth in it nothing contraiT to the word of God," are to be misintei*preted as in- vohing only " a mere obligation to use the Book," while the equally plain words of the Act, that the Declaration required by it is a Declaration of " unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed," are to be equally misinterpreted in the other direction, or rather put out of sight_, as if there were no such explanation of the meaning of the Declaration to be found in the Act. The object of Parliament, in requii-ing such a Declaration in addition to subscription to the Canon, is obvious. The Declara- tion was to be made publicly, in the house of God, before the people. Subscription to the Canon was only to be made pri- vately before the Bishop. The former, therefore, was a more formal and express and solemn acknowledgment of the views and intentions of the party, than the latter ; and being enforced by Statute, was of still stronger obligation. But so far as con- cerns the obligation laid upon the party subscribing and declar- 85 ing with respect to the Prayer Book, the Canon is stronger than the Declaration. For the Declaration of assent and consent re- quired by the Act is limited in the context to the use of the Book. The very mention, however, of this FACT, (of which your Lordship was evidently in complete ignorance until I pointed it out in my "Defence of the XXXIX Articles,") has called forth from you, both in j'our late Charge and in this Letter^ language as disgraceful to its author as it is harmless to the party assailed. In the face of both, I here repeat the statement of the fact ; and I shall now repeat also the passages with which I accom- panied that statement, and some of the authorities by which I proved, in my reply to your Charge, that that statement was correct. My statement was accompanied by the following among other passages : — "Morally, I must earnestly maintain that they [i.e. the declai*a- tions required by the Act of Uniformity,] are of equal force [with that of the 36th Canon,] because no man ought to give his assent and consent to the use of all things contained and prescribed in the Book, who thinks any part of it ' contrary to the Word of God.' " (Def. of XXXIX Art. p. 10.) "Am I then here advocating liberty being granted to the minis- ters of the Church to give or withhold their assent to the Prayer Book, as accordant with Holy Scripture .'' Far from it By the 3Gth Canon, all ministers will still be required at ordination, institution, &c., to testify by subscription their belief that the Prayer Book * containcth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used.' Any man, therefore, who believes that any 2'ortion of the Prayer Book conveys luiscriptural doctrine, will be bound at once to retire from a ministry which he can only lawfully exercise through the instrumetitality of a subscrijjtion to the contrary effect. And if he docs not do so, and attoni|)t8 to propagate his view of the urij^ciiptural character of any portion of the Prayer Bo(jk, he will still be most justly amenable to the Ecclesiastical Courts, as one who is violating his subscription, anil breaking fail h iri/h flic Church." {lb. pp. 'J(), '27.) Such was the context of the statement icfcrrcd to. 86 Of the aiitlioritics to prove the correctness of the statement, I will here, for the sake of brevity, give but two ; referring you to my reply to your Lordship's Charge for others. Dr. Fulwood, Archdeacon of Totnes, in a work published in 1G6.2, immediately on tJie passing of the Act, writes thus : — " For the perfect removal of any such scruple for ever, let the Act interpret itself. The words immediately foregoing this Declara- tion are these. ' Every minister shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Use of all things in the said Book con- tained and prescribed in these words and no other :' they are the words of this Declaration. Mark : we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent. To what ? Not simply to all things, but to all things with respect to their use : to the use of all things in the said Book. But in what words must we declare for the use of ail things in the said Book ? In these words and no other : and they are, as was said, the words of the Declaration. The plain meaning of the Act appears, therefore, to be but this : while we declare, in these words, viz. of the Declaration, we do but declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of [the] Common Prayer : which if we can lawfully use, we do but declare, that if we do conform, we do nothing against our consciences : or that, we do unfeignedly assent and consent to the use of that which we ourselves either do, or can use. And as if our governors had purjjosed to make this their meari' ing AS PLAIN AS the sun, they have at least twice more given us the same interpretation of those words."* The other testimony shall be from Bishop Stillingfleet, who, in his Sermon on " The Mischief of Separation,^' thus urges the same view : — " It is a very hard case with a Church, when men shall set their wits to strain every thing to the worst sense, to stretch laws beyond the inte)itio7i and design of them, .... and will not distinguish be- tween their aj)probation of the use and of the choice of things ; for upon such terms as these, men think to justify the present divisions. I much question whether, if they proceed in such manner, they can hold communion with any Church in the Christian world." (p. 49.) The same view is maintained by Dr. Falkner in his " Libertas Ecclesiastica," and by other writers living near the time of the * The Grand Case of the present Ministry, 1G62. 12mo. pp. U, 12. SI passing of the Act.* In fact, I know of none, living at that period, who took a different view. Reckless, however, of these authorities, which I brought before you in my Reply to your Charge, showing that the mean- ing I had given to the Act was, beyond all question, the correct intei-pretation — reckless of the proof given that your statement of my views was in direct contradiction to the truth — you here again pour forth a repetition of your former calumnies, as if the strength of your cause lay in false accusations of your oppo- nents. You first inform the Archbishop, that you are " quite sure " that my statement on this point (that is, the statement of a/act) " has been received by His Grace with the same disgust as by yourself.^' Do you suppose, my Lord, that there can be two opinions as to the character of this statement ? And you then proceed thus, — " I here cite these words, not for the very idle purpose of ex- posing their weakness no less than their wickednkss, but — 1st, As a proof that there is among the ministers of our Church at this day a spirit which requires the faithful exercise nf vigilance in all among us who have consented [consented] to undertake the high office of Bishops in the Church. But I have cited it, 2ndly and principally, in order to show that this party feels that the plain, thk DIRECT MEANING OF THE BoOK OF CoMMON PrAYICR [which they have solemnJy vowed that they believe to contain nothing in it contrary to the word of God, and which they are constantly using and putting into the mouths of their people in the House of God,] is opposed to SOME of their own FAVOURITE TENETS." (pp. 73, 74.) To whose statements, my Lord, the charges of " weakness " and "wickedness" belong, I shall willingly leave to the de- termination of the public. That " there is among the minis- ters of our Church at this day a spirit which requires the faithful exercise of vir/ilance in all " the authorities of the Church, and all who desire to uphold the truth among us, I entirely agree with your Lordship ; and that among those ministers will be * Hoc my " Vindiciitioii of tlic Defence of tlic \XXIX Articles," pp. 55— fiS. I iiii^^ht with (use udd otlicrs to those here qiioted ; uud (iiiioii;^ them, if I recollect ri;,dit, I5|i. 15cvL'rid},'t; in one of liis Seruioiis. 88 found some high in office in the Church. Happy would it be for our Cliurch, if its discipline were in such a state that these "ministers" could be more effectually restrained fi'om making their own will their law of action^ and substituting the prejudices of an ill-informed mind for the doctrines of the Church. And ivatched, you may rest assured, they will be. Tliat you have quoted certain words " in order to show " that the party opposed to you is guilty of perjury, is beyond all question ; precisely as but I will let such language speak for itself. My Lord, when I first entered into controversy with your Lordship, I was quite aware of the consequences to which I was exposing myself in the character of the language which I should be called to encounter. But there are some occasions on which duty demands a sacrifice of personal feeling. The position in which you have been placed, gives a publicity to your statements which requires that their real nature should be exposed. Other- wise I need not inform you, that a " Charge " or a " Letter " from the Plaintiff in the Cause of the Bishop of Exeter v. Latimer, would have needed no reply. That one, of whom a jury of his countrjonen, in his own Ca- thedral town, have pronounced, — that language speaking of him (in terms which I shall not repeat) as unworthy of belief, is proper and justifiable, — should fiing around him, with a profuse hand, similar accusations against others, is not more than was to be ex- pected. It is not wonderful that you should seek relief in branding others with the same imputation ; conscious as you must justly feel, that you may give vent to the most unlimited abuse with the most perfect impunity. '^'Vliatever it might be, no cause of action could lie against you for it. I quite grant that you would be triumphantly acquitted, if charged with libelling. For the question would be, A^Tiat damage has it inflicted ? And the in- credulity of any juiy that could be selected, on such a point, would, beyond all qviestion, be insuperable. But what does your cause really gain by all this ? Absolutely nothing. There is no question between you and the parties you are now assailing, as to their obligation to accept the Prayer Book precisely as it stands, and to believe and maintain it to be 89 sound and Scriptural. Tlieir views in this respect have been stated over and over again in the strongest terms. But^ resolved to misrepresent them^ in order that you may have a locus standi with the public, you persevere in statements which it is impos- sible rightly to characterize, without the use of language to which (familiar as contro^'ersy with your Lordship may make it to one's ear) I shall not lend myself. i " 1 1 But I proceed with the task I have undertaken, thankful that ^ laboui" which at almost every step gives fresh cause for aversion di'aws near its conclusion. Tlie very next point I am called to notice is a direct, palpable, and (to use your own word) "wanton" misrepresentation of facts. I will give your own statement of the matter, that its real nature may be the better seen in its full length and breadth. You tell us that the Act of Uniformity — " Enables us to ascertain the sense in which that Book [tlie Prayer Book] is sanctioned by the Legislature, by telling us by whom, after what consideration, and in what sense it was ' made.' It was ' made ' by Convocation, after having been ' prepared ' by twelve members of the Upper House, and many leading members of the Lower House, after a long and very minute discussion of many portions of it with tlie heads of the Nonconformists, who sought very important altera- tions in it. This discussion was holden with the authority of a Com- mission under the Great Seal; the terms of which Commission required that the Commissioners ' should certify and present to the King, in writing under their hands, the matters and things where- upon they shall so determine for his approbation.' This, my Lord, was done ; [read, not done,] and we have, as your Grace well knows, [read, well knows not to he thk case,] the result of their ' resolutions and determinations,' so presented to the King, in the document commonly called ' the Savoy Conference.' It would pro- bably be impossible to produce another equally clear authority for the meaning of the Legislature, [seeing that they cared not one straw for the discussions of the Savoy Conference, of which they probably knew scarcely anything] the animus imponcniis, in the case of any other Statute which can be named. Whatsoever particulars, there- fore, are clearly laid down in the Acts of that Conference, must be held to be an authoritative exposition of any wonls of the Book of Common Praver on which those Commissioners liavu pronouiuLil •90 plainly, if the proper construction of such words shall be brought into question." You then ])rocccd to say, tliat "what they so pronounced" on the words in the Offices of Baptism " must be hekl to declare the doctrine of the Church on Baptism ;" and after giving se- veral extracts from a published Report of the Conference as reprinted by Dr. Cardwell, you conclude, — " In these determinations, [^. e. the answers of a few Bishops to a few Presbyterians in the Conference] I affirm, for the reasons which I have given above, that we have a clear statement of what was the mind of the Convocation, and therefore of the Parliament (which simply accepted its decision), [! ! !] respecting the doctrine concerning Baptism, in the Offices of Baptism." (pp. 74 — 77.) 'Now, my Lord, whether it be from ignorance of the facts of the case, or from any other cause, I shall not stop to inquire, — for it makes little difference as far as your Lordship is concerned, and none as far as tnith is concerned — but this whole statement is one tissue of misrepresentations from the beginning to the end. So far from the Book being " made by Convocation after having been prepared " at the Savoy Conference, as you repre- sent, the Book is expressly recognized in the Act of Uniformity as the Book put forth in the first year of Queen Elizabeth wii\i certain " alterations and additions " made in Convocation and accepted by Parliament. And it is a fact with which your Lordship ought to have been perfectly familiar^ that the Com- mission that sat at the Savoy was appointed for only four months ; and the whole of that time having been spent in use- less altercation between the opposing parties, it came to an end without producing any result of any kind.* So far from the " resolutions and determinations '' of the Savoy Conference being presented to the King, as found in the document called " the Savoy Conference," no report at all of the kind was presented to the King from the Savoy Conference; and for the very best possible reason, namely, that there were no " resolutions and determinations " to present, because nothing was agreed upon there ; and the alterations and additions in the See Cardwell's Conferences, pp. 264--266. 91 Prayer Book are expressly mentioned in the Act as having been presented to the King by Convocation ; and the document called the Savoy Conference^ is only an unauthorized and anonymous account of its proceedings.* So far^ therefore, from the Acts of this Conference being any authority for '' the meaning of the Legislature " in the Act of Uniformity, or any '^authoritative exposition of any words of the Book of Coumiou Prayer/' or any declaration of " the doc- trine of the Church on Baptism/' or anything else, they are merely the record of four months' disputing and quarrelling between a few of the heads of the Episcopalian and Dissenting parties. And it clearly appears that the proceedings of the Conference were (as usual in such cases) principally managed by two or three of the hottest spii-its on both sides, but for whom the Conference might have come to a very different ter- mination. To say, therefore, that we have, in the Acts of this Conference, " a clear statement of what was the mind of Convo- cation," is entirely opposed to fact. But to add that we have, in the statements of a few bishops in the Savoy Conference, a declaration of the mind of Parliament, when it sanctioned Q. Elizabeth's Prayer Book with a few alterations and additions of little moment, is an assertion criminally reckless and unjusti- fiable. The Houses of Parliament did not consider themselves bound to accept the alterations proposed by Convocation ; much less would they suffer themselves to be led by the dogmas of a few disputers at the Sa^■oy Conference. And the recorded pro- ceedings of the Houses of Parliament on the occasion, so com- pletely overturn your Lordship's statements upon this subject, that I make no apology for repeating here the suiniiiary view of them I have already placed before tlie ])ul>lic in a larger work. " We find that the House of Commons (however indisposed to favour the violent Nonconformists) were very jealous of any alte- rations being made in the Book by Convocation, lest they should in- troduce into it Luudian views. So little were they inclined to defer to the views of Convocation ahout the I'rayer liook, tliut on tlie !)th * An account of all the procpodini^s of the Commissioners, &p. Lond. : l)rinte(l for K. II. UKJl. 4to. Tlif Nouconforinists picRcutcd a Petition to tlie Kinj;, coni|)laiiiinfj of what took place in the Conference ; hut the Kpis- copalians do not seem to have made any report to the King of any kind. 92 of July, 1661, before Convocation had had time to make any progress in their revision of the Book, *a " Bill for the uniformity of public Prayer and administration of the Sacraments," was read for a third time, and, together with a copy of the Prayer Book, printed in 1604, was passed and sent to the Upper House ;'* the book of 1604 being selected. Dr. Cardwell supposes, in order to avoid any alterations by Archbishop Laud. The consideration of this Bill was deferred by the Lords, and its first reading did not take place till the 14th of February, 1662. 'Three days afterwards it passed through the se- cond reading, and was placed in the hands of a select committee. The Book of Common Prayer, however, [that is, the Book as revised by Convocation] was not yet delivered to them ; and the Committee having inquired on the 1 3th of February, with strong symptoms of impatience, whether they should still wait for it, or should " proceed upon the book brought from the Commons," they received a Royal message on the 25th of the same month, together with an authentic copy of the corrected Prayer Book confirmed under the Great Seal.'f This revised Book having been substituted for the other, and some other amendments introduced into the Bill, the Bill passed the House of Lords on the 9th of April, 1 662, and was returned to the House of Commons. The House of Lords was satisfied with the alterations made, and passed them sub silentio : but as to the sense in which the Book was understood, each member of course acted upon his own view of it. And it is very clear, that they did not consider them- selves bound to abide by what took place in Convocation, for they proceeded as far as the Committee with the Book of 1 604, when they must have known that Convocation had completed a revision of the Book, and were evidently inclined to have brought the matter to a conclusion upon that Book, if the revised Book had not been at once submitted to them. " But the feeling with which the House of Commons acted in the matter is still more strongly marked ; for when the Bill was returned to them from the Lords with the revised Book of Common Prayer, ' it appears,' says Dr. Cardwell, ' that the Commons were jealous of the preference given to the corrected Book of Common Prayer over the edition of 1604, and suspecting that some diflerences might have been introduced between the two periods when the books were re- spectively printed, directed a close comparison to be made between them. On the 16th of April, they proceeded so far in their fear of change, as to make it a question ivhether they shauhl not reconsider * Card. Conf. p. 376. f lb. p. 377. 9fe the corrections made in Convocation ; and though they decided to adopt them without further examination, the division was only of ninety-six to ninety in their favour. In order to save the dignity of the House, they afterwards divided on the question whether they had the power of reconsidering such corrections, and then obtained a vote in the affirmative.'* And Dr. Cardwell adds, that ' the fear, lohich the Commons seem to have contracted, that occasion would be taken for introducing into the Liturgy the religious sentiments of Arch- bishop Laud and his school of theologians, was not altogether with- out foundation. *t Glad enough, no doubt, would the Laudian party have been, if they could have introduced various alterations into our Formularies at this time. But, providentially, the power of doing so was not in their hands. " So much, then, for the feelings with which the Houses of Parlia- ment were actuated on this occasion." (EfF. of Inf. Bapt. pp.480, 481.) It is difficult to conceive, how your Lordship could venture, in the face of such notorious facts, to advance a string of asser- tions not one of which has the least foundation in truth. And I leave for your consideration the position in which you have placed yourself, when, after such a specimen of your qualifi- cations for the office of supreme adviser of Her Majesty and the Judges of the realm, you wind up your misstatements with the indignant admonition, that " this was the Laio which the Judicial Committee were bound both to recognise and to cany out in their Judgment;" and that, inasmuch as, presuming to decline follow- ing such a ])rofoundly learned authority, they " shut their eyes against it," you " appeal to another and a higher tribunal." I have now, my Lord, gone through everything in your Letter which, by the utmost stretch of courtesy, could be called an argument or an authority. And I leave the determination of the Cjuestions at issue between us to the judgment of the public. Tlu' remainder of the Letter consists of vague charges against the Archbishoj) and the Judges of being swayed by unworthy motives, misrejjrescntations of the facts of the case, self-sufficient denunciations of tlie Jiulgment, a bold avowal that you hav(; introduced into the Cliurcli a statt; of " anarcliy," and finally a * Ih. p. :q^. t III. i>. •5f^'>. 94 Protest announcing that you are prepared to set at defiance the authorities under which tlie Providence of God has placed you. ]My remarks upon all this will be but few. The character of those whom you have assailed renders any defence of their conduct, any vindication of their motives, worse than super- fluous. Your imputations against them I pass over. I will not waste time in noticing them. — Your misrepresentation of Mr. Gorham^s doctrine, and consequently of the light in which it is regarded in the Church, and of the view which would have been taken of a decision adverse to his claims, I have already dealt with ; and shall not, therefore, go over that ground again. — But the false reasoning put forth to justify that state of anarchy which you boldly avow that you have introduced among us, does need a few words. You tell us, my Lord, of your love for obedience to consti- tuted authorities ; and that it is only when their ordinance is " unhappily against God" that we may disobey them ; that " in proportion as we love order, rule, and authority, and as our thoughts of the sacreduess of the character of the judge and of judgment, are bound up wdth the sanctions of our holy religion, it is a very sore evil to be obliged to slight them : it is the first stone, whose removal loosens the whole fabric." (p. 84.) Smooth and plausible words, no doubt, — but prefacing only an apology for rebellion. And why do you introduce this '' sore e^al," and " loosen the whole fabric " of society ? Forsooth, because the authorities under which you are placed as a Minister of our Chm-ch, have decided that you are not to exclude from its mi- nistiy all who do not take what you think an orthodox view on the subject of the effects of Baptism ! Assuming that you and your party are the infallible depositaries of " the Catholic faith," you affix the brand of heresy without hesitation upon all who differ from you, and pronounce, ex cathedra, that "the Com-t which decided otherwise [than agreeably to yom- view] , decided contraiy to the faith," and that its Judgment is to be met by open resistance. The law, as proclaimed by those who have authority to deliver it, is to be despised and set at nought. It is not agreeable to your view of what is just and right, and therefore you will rebel against it. 95 My Lordj be it so that yoiir doctrine is the orthodox doctrine, the genuine " Catholic faith ;" be it even, if you please, — T\hat, with rare powers of self-confidence, you represent it to be, — a fundamental article of faith ; is rebellion against the authorities under which the Providence of God has placed you, the weapon by which it is to be maintained ? Do you propose its establish- ment by the creation of a state of " anarchy,^' which may enable you and your ])arty to seize, in the confusion, the reins of power ? Truly, my Lord, you here afford us a very pregnant proof of the genuineness of youi' " Catholic faith." It is sufficiently cha- racterized by its fruits. Thank God, you have learned no such lesson from your opponents, llieir " Catholic faith," my Lord, teaches them very different conduct, as you are well aware, under adverse decisions of their Ecclesiastical rulers. Prepared to defend the truth with equal vigour", equal firmness, — prepared to maintain the rights of conscience, if necessary, against sinful requirements, — they are not prepared to throw the Church into a state of anarchy, because it is not ruJed according to their mind, — because eveiybody is not expelled from it by its authorities who does not hold what they believe to be the truth ; they are not prepared to excommunicate their ecclesiastical su})eriors, because of decisions that contravene their views of doctrine. The means by which they have endeavoured to propagate the faith, have been of a veiy different kind. They liclieve that the wisdom that produces " confusion and every evil work" " descendeth not from above ;" the wisdom that is from above being " first pure, then peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy." They believe that truth is best seen in the light of holiness and peace ; that it comes with the strongest recommendations when connected with obedience to the practical ])recepts of the Chris- tian faith ; that it has as little comnumion with resistance to "tiie ordinance of God," lawful authority, (when re(|uiring no sinful act,) as light with darkness, or Christ with Jielial. And therefore, however much they might lament a decision ad- verse to their views, they would not ])ro8titute the functions of any office they might hold in the Church to the promotion {yi anarchy, the j)urp()S(;s u^ rebellion. If requirements were nuule (jf tluMU inconsistent with their dutv to God, they would retin; from a 96 position which they coukl uo longer hold with a pure con- science. But what, my Lord, are you asked to do ? Nothing. You are not even called upon to aid ministerially in the performance of the act you so much deprecate. In no way are you affected by the recent Judgment, except in being restrained by it from imposing upon others the iron yoke of your own private dogmas, which you choose to call "the Catholic faith." And the Judg- ment rests for its authority upon those very laws to which you owe your own power. If the Judgment may be disobeyed and despised, you fall with it. The law which has protected those under your episcopal supeiTision, is the law to which you are in- debted for the power of exercising and enforcing that super- ^asion. In assailing the authority of that law, you are over- tm'ning your own. And mournful is the reflection, that such an example of contempt for constituted authorities should have been set by one verging upon the limit of human existence, — called upon by his position to do all in his power to strengthen the bonds of law and order, by which society is kept together, — bound by his own solemn vow to " maintain and set forward, as much as should lie in him, quietness, love, and peace among men." Bewail the Judgment if you please. Uphold what you believe to be the truth. No one will think it worth while to endeavour to stop you, or to impede your efforts in making converts, or, probably, to trouble himself with the question, what doctrine you hold. But take heed how you trample upon the rights of others, — how you set at defiance the majesty of the law, — how you let loose a wild spii-it of insubordination, confusion, and anarchy, from which, if you were successful, you would be one of the first to suffer. If you are convinced that the Judgment has cut off the Na- tional Church of this country from the Chm-ch Catholic, quit her communion. The most perfect liberty is afforded you of going where you will, and maintaining what you wiU, and doing anything you will — except of abusing the power entrusted to yom- hands under the solemn obligation of a vow of the most sacred character, that you will act " according to such authority" " as to you shall be committed by the ordinance of this REALM ;" of an oath of " due reverence and obedience" to your 97 Primate ; of repeated recognitions of the supremacy of your So- vereign " as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or CAUSES as temporal." But what means such language as the following, from one who — by the office he holds in a Church bound by certain re- ceived and recognized laws — by his own voluntaiy vows, decla- rations, and oaths — is pledged, so long as he retains that office, to submit to the determinations of the authorities under which he has placed himself? " I have to protest, not only against the Judgment pronounced in the recent Cause, but also against the regular consequences of that Judgment. I have to protest against your Grace's doing what you will be speedily called to do, either in person, or by some other exercising your authority. I have to protest, and I do hereby solemnly protest, before the Church of England, before the Holy Catholic Church, before Him who is its Divine Head, against your giving mission to exercise cure of souls, within my Diocese, to a clergyman who proclaims himself to hold the heresies which Mr. Gorham holds. I protest that any one who gives mission to him till he retract, is a favourer and supporter of those heresies. I pro- test, in conclusion, that I cannot, without sin — and by God's grace I will not — hold communion with him, be he who he may, who shall so abuse the high commission which he bears." (p. 90.) My Lord, if by these words you mean that you are about to retire to a more suitable communion than the Church of Eng- land, be it so. You will not ask us to lament your departure. Nor shall you hear from me words of exultation or insult. Or if you mean that you will withdraw from the Primate the light of your presence, and the blessing of your communion and " af- fectionate friendship," why then, my Lord, — if you have really made up your mind — so it must be. And I will only hope that His Grace may be enabled to bear the deprivation with equanimity. But if you mean, what your words appear to mean, that, re- taining your position in this Church and country as the Bishop of Exeter, you will set at defiance your Primate and your Sove- reign ; that you will ])lace yourself in a state of open rebellion against the laws of your eonntry ; then, my Lord, I leave yon, without fear, to reap the (liic reward of broken vows aiul violated H 98 oaths ; feeling well assm-cd, that the majesty of the law will ob- tain as easy a triumph over Devonshire and Cornish rebels now, as it did three centuries ago.* But, before you commit yourself to such a course, at least look round and mark the position in which you are just now placed. jNIy Lord, when you commenced your cnisade against Mr. Gorham, you had by your side, aiding, counselling, and supporting you, one upon whose judgment and einidition in such matters you placed no small reliance. ^Vhere, my Lord, do you now find youi' adviser ? What is his present view of the case ? Hear his own words. f "Now that the appeal has been decided by the confirmation of the report of the Judicial Committee, I see no objection to admitting, that on one account it seemed not improbable that it would be given in favour of Mr. Gorham. As the case went on, first, in the Court of Arches, and afterwards before the Privy Council, it was impossible not to feel, more and more, that the reasons and arguments of the evangelical party had been too lightly esteemed. During the last two years, my attention had been constantly directed in other ways to the same matter, and, it must as fairly be confessed, with similar results. Few of our own opinions would dispute, — at least I would not, — the absolute necessity of rejecting Mr. Gorham, after such answers as he gave in his examination before the bishop ; yet every month, as it went by, suggested in my own mind graver and graver doubts as to the final success of such a proceeding, unavoidable as it was. I mean, doubts whether a bishop is really following the intention of the reformed church of England, and speaking in her spirit, when he condemns as heresy the denial of the unconditional efficacy of baptism in the case of all infant recipients." (pp. 11, 12.) " After the arguments on both sides were ended before the Judi- cial Committee, we were all enabled calmly to consider what the result of the whole had been. For myself, I felt, with anxiety and disappointment, that the growing impressions and doubts of the pre- ceding six or eight months had been strengthened rather than relieved." (pp. 12, 13.) * The Popish rebellion of 1549. Your Lordship will recollect that their forces were routed at Exeter by Lord Russell. t I quote from — " A Second Letter on the Present Position of the High Church party in the Church of England. By the Rev. WilUam Maskell, Vicar of S. Mary Church." (Pickering.) 99 " When Mr. Gorliam was refused institution, more than two years ago, I thought that it was almost impossible for him to raise a reason- able question as to the exact teaching of the English church upon baptismal regeneration ; a question, that is, such as a court would entertain. But time went on, and the real state of things and tone of doctrine which prevailed for fifty or sixty years after the reign of Henry the Eighth, during which the first movers of the changes in religion or their immediate disciples still lived, opened, and became clearer from day to day. " It would be dishonest to attempt to exaggerate or put an untrue face upon the real state of the matter." (p. 13.) " I was not prepared to learn, as I have learnt, that perhaps without two exceptions, all the divines, bishops and archbishops, doctors and professors, of the Elizabethan age — the age, be it remembered, of the present common prayer book in its chief par- ticulars, and of the book of homilies, and of the 39 articles — held and taught doctrines inconsistent (I write advisedly) with the true doctrine of baptism. "There are two causes to which such a misapprehension of fact, so far as regards myself, mav perhaps be traced ; and others must decide whether these or some similar reasons will serve to account for their own previous opinions about the orthodoxy of theologians of the Elizabethan age. " First : we have been accustomed both to read and to refer to their books, under the impression of long-established prejudices : under the impression that they must have been sound divines, because they were the chief leaders and earliest children of the Refor- mation ; and because they had arguments, plenty and specious enough, against some of the doctrines and discipline of the church of Rome. " Secondly : we have known their writings, chiefly by means of catenae ; a means very likely indeed to lead to false conclusions, because whilst it professes to give fairly the judgment of those appealed to in the matter under dispute, it often does not, and in some cases cannot, in reality do anything of the kind. There arc more doctrines than one — for example, this doctrine of liuly baptism — upon which writers may make very strong and catholic statcn)ents in one book, or in one part of a book, which are all cxjjlained away, or in various degrees qualified, or even, in trutli, contradicted, by difl'erent statements in the same or in other liooks. Catenic are useful enough, within their projjcr and reasonable limits; they create difficulties sometimes, whilst they will very seldom suffice to establish a conclusion : employed, however, as they have been, of late years, H 2 100 bv our own party, they are not merely a packed jury, but a jury per- mitted to speak only half their mind. In short, the value of cateme can be only justly estimated, where there is also a living Church, ever prepared to speak with an infalliljle voice. " Nor is it to be forgotten that whilst many extracts from the Eliza- bethan books were produced, explaining in a sense inconsistent with Catholic truth, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, on the other hand there were no passages to be found, distinctly asserting that the reformed church of England holds exclusively the sacramental efficacy of baptism in the case of all infant recipients. It is one thing for a religious community to allow its ministers to hold and to teach a particular doctrine j it is quite another that they should be enjoined to teach it, as being certainly and exclusively true. There are some parts of the books of the Elizabethan writers, which are examples of the first of these positions, namely, the permission ; but I do not remember any example of the second : on the contrary, numberless proofs that it could scarcely have been intended. It may rather be a question whether, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, a clergyman would not have been liable to censure who, not content with being suffered to teach what he himself believed with regard to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, should have gone on further to declare that the church of England still pronounced those to be unsound and heretical, who did not acknowledge the unconditional efficacy of infant baptism. Or, to put it in other words, if such an one had further declared that the teaching of the church of Rome and of the reformed church of England, upon the sacrament of baptism, was necessarily to be understood and accepted, by all English clergy, as identical and the same. "I must own, therefore, that the additional argument produced by Mr. Gorham's advocate in his speech before the committee, based upon a comparison between the articles of 1536, and the articles of 1552 andl562, seemed to me to be forcible and correct. It supplied a cause of one efi"ect of the alteration of the documents and formula- ries of the English church, which was so visibly and frequently to be observed, in the language used by men, contemporaries or nearly so, respecting the sacrament of holy baptism. And I cannot dispute the principle involved in the following sentence of the judgment delivered by the judicial committee; they say : ' —it appears that opinions, which we cannot in any important particular distinguish from those entertained by Mr. Gorham, have been propounded and maintained, without censure or reproach, by many eminent and illustrious prelates and divines who have adorned the church from the time when the 101 f42 and 39] articles were first established. We do not affirm tliat the doctrines and opinions of Jewell, Hooker, Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, Pearson, Carlton, Prideaux, and many others, can be re- ceived as evidence of the doctrine of the church of England ; but their conduct, unblamed and unquestioned as it was, proves, at least, the liberty which has been allowed in maintaining such doctrine.' " (pp. 15—20.) " There is another point to which I had intended to direct your attention ; namely, to the contradictions which appear to exist between the course of teaching •which many of our party commonly adopt and the thirty-nine articles, together with an enquiry into the kind of interpretation, and its admissibility, by which such apparent contra- dictions are avoided. It is, of course, in itself a relief openly to state our mode of interpretation, and to leave to our rulers to decide by legal proceedings, whether it is, or is not, within the limits of our subscription. But I shall now pass this by." (pp. 46, 47.) " As to the second of the two classes, namely, the low-church or evangelical, I have no hesitation in making a candid avowal. What- ever ray opinions may have been some time ago, it is impossible for me to conceal from myself that further enquiry has convinced me, that the real spirit and intention of the reformed church of England are shewn and carried out and taught by the low-church party, as truly as by ourselves : I cannot bring myself to say, * rather than ourselves :' but that at least they have amply sufficient argument to oblige us to the acknowledgment, that the very utmost which we can claim for our opinions is, that they are ' open' to us." (p. 56.) " But, by way of illustration, take one or two examples. And these will perhaps show how certain passages which are difficulties, and we feel them to be such, in our own path, are, in the first and plainest sense of the words, in favour of the evangelical system : and not only so, but we have nothing so plain to produce against them. In short, these are passages which we ' get out of or explain away, whilst theij take tliem in their simple and obvious meaning. In these one or two examples you will observe that I refer to the prayer-book aa well as the articles." (p. 58.) Tlie examples referred to are, — Justification, Absolution, Thft Holy Eucharist, &c. " Connected with this, there is another consideration which, for some time, has pre.'rsed heavily and painfully ujjon me. As a fact, the evangelical party plainly, openly, and fully, declare their opinions upon the doctrines which they contend the church of England holds : they tell their people continually, what they ought, as a matter of 102 duty towards God and towards themselves, both to believe aud prac- tise. Can it be pretended tl.at we, as a party, anxious to teach the truth, are equally open, plain, and unreserved ? If we are not so, is prudence, or economy, or the desire to lead people gently and with- out rashlv disturbing them, or any other like reason, a sufficient ground for our withholding large portions of catholic truth ? Can any one chief doctrine or duty be reserved by us, without blame or suspicion of dishonesty ? And it is not to be alleged, that only the less important duties and doctrines are so reserved : as if it would be an easy thing to distinguish and draw a line of division between them. Besides, that which we are disputing about cannot be trivial and unimportant ; if it were so, we rather ought, in christian charity, to acknowledge our agreement in essentials, and consent to give up the rest. " But we do reserve vital and essential truths ; we often hesitate and fear to teach our people many duties, not all necessary, perhaps, in every case or to every person, but eminently practical, and sure to increase the growth of the inner, spiritual life ; we differ, in short, as widely from the evangelical party in the manner and openness, as in the matter and details, of our doctrine." (pp. 65, 66.) " Let me, in this place, sum up briefly what has been said in the two Letters which I have written to you." "3. That the judgment of the Judicial committee in that cause is probably a correct and true judgment ; and, if it be so, that the reformed church of England did not, and at the present time does not, exclusively require her clergy to teach, and her people to believe, the unconditional efficacy of baptism in the case of all infants." " 6. That the evangelical clergy, as a party, no less than the Angli- can or high-church party, represent and carry out the spirit and the system of the English reformation, as declared by contemporary authorities, and sanctioned by the existing formularies." (p. 74.) My Lord, this is uo ordinary testimony. These are the words of one who was, heart and soul, with you ; w^ho w^ould fain have heen so still ; who has been reluctantly compelled to yield an unwilling assent to overpowering evidence ; and now frankly, honourably, nobly admits the change, avows his convictions, and hastens to do justice to those whom (I will not say he had reproached with words of contumely and abuse, because this was not even then his habit, but whom) he had formerly believed to be mistaken in supposing their doctrine to be consistent with the Articles and Formularies of our Church. Of such a man, — 103 widely as we now seem to be separated in our views of Christian doctrine, — I v>i\\ at least say, Cu?n talis sis, utinam noster esses ! Permit me, then, my Lord, to call your attention to the evi- dence which such testimony affords, that you are seeking to de- fend a position that is wholly untenable ; that you are branding and persecuting, as men opposed to the tenets of the Church in which they are ministering, those who are (to say the least) equally attached and faithful adherents to its real doctrines with yourself. Mr. Maskell's words, my Lord, will sink deep into many hearts. Tbcy are the w^ords of truth and soberness ; of calm reflection and impartial scrutiny. They will bear investiga- tion, and be a permanent witness to the truth. Words of angry calumny and passionate reproach and fervent indignation — elo- quent invectives and protests — may be listened to for a moment, as the attention is arrested by the thunders of the storm or the shrill cries of the hurricane. But they will pass away as a cloud, and leave nothing behind them but the recollection of noise, confusion, and mischief. The still small voice of truth will pass into the soul, will produce a lasting impression, will determine the views and influence the conduct of men. Such testimony from such a witness leaves your cause hope- lessly prostrate. Nor will it be found, I suspect, ultimately, that the doctrine which your Lordship is so desirous of inculcating and enforcing upon the Church, has gained any additional strength by your advocacy, still less by the means yoii have made use of to pro- mote it. If you sought the excitement and the perils of con- tention for the shibboleth of a party, you have had full scope for their enjoyment. If your desire was to niak(; yourself a ga/.ing- stock, you have had a triunipli. If vou wislicd for a name as imperishable as that of Erostratus, and for a like reason, vou have attained your object, lint with this success you must re- main content. Tlu; tiimiiplis of i-casoii, the coii(|uests of the Faith, are gained in a very did'ereiit way, and willi far other weapons. My Lord, there is yet one luorc testimony wliieli I must he permitted to brins; under your notice Itefore I conehide this 104 Letter. And tliat shall be an extract from the Charge of a Bishop of our Church, not many years since, to the Clergy of his Diocese. The spii-it which it breathes is one which, under pre- sent circumstances, it is indeed as " refreshing " to contemplate, as " the noble statements of Catholic truth " you have given us from Hooker. Your Lordship will not, I hope, be too much offended with the liberal tone displayed in it towards the Inde- pendent and tVesleyan Dissentei's, and the admission it contains of their agreement with us in all essential points of doctrine, to listen to it with patience. When I tell you the name of the author, I am sure you will feel that it desenes attention. I quote the passage without abridgment, precisely as it stands in the Charge, fonning its concluding remarks. " Of Dissenters of some other denominations, especially of Inde- pendents, there is a larger number ; but these, I rejoice to think, are commonly of a much more Evangelical description. In one sig- nal instance, where an Independent Minister, and almost the whole of his large congregation, have returned to the bosom of the Church, it appeared on inquiry, (and I felt it my duty to make very close in- quiry) that their doctrines and worship were, before their reunion with us, sound and irreproachable. I have heard the same of some other instances, into which I have had an opportunity of inquiring ; and I hope, therefore, that the same might be affirmed of many of the rest. But the great mass of Dissenters amongst us (especially in the Western part of the Diocese) are Methodists, and of these the far greater proportion are Wesleyans, a class of Christians whom I grieve to call Separatists — for Separatists, I am bound to say, is but another word for Schismatics — however those to whom it applies may think of it, and however we may, and ought in charity to hope, that the guilt of wilful schism belongs but to few of them. Be this as it may. Dissenters they scarcely are. They agree with us almost entirely in doctrine — certainly in all which the most rigidly ORTHODOX AMOXG US WOULD DEEM ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THE CHRIS- TIAN CoVENANT ; AND THEY DIFFER FROM US IN NO DOCTRINE WHICH THE Articles of our Church condemn. Would to God that thb NARROW partition, wMch divides them from us, could be broken down ! — that now, when the impugners of our common faith, the enemies of our common Zion, are assailing us (aye, and not only us, but Christianity itself) with a bitterness and rancour unknown in other times, and are unhappily animated in their unhallowed warfare by hopes which they never before dared to breathe — no, nor to enter- 105 tain — within this Christian land — tvould to God that noio all, who look for salvation solely to the cross of our Divine Redeemer, would unite in one holy bond of fellowship , and he on earth as we trust they will be in Heaven, 'onefold under one Shejjherd, Jesus Christ our Lord ! ' Our separated brethren of every denomination (and all, be it retnevibered, are our brethren in Christ, icho hold what is essential in the Christian covenant,) — our separated brethren may be assured, that no idle punctilio would be allowed by us to stand in the way of that blessed result — that no vain scruple would be insisted on — notliing which they themselves would not see to be a grave, even if they could not admit it to be a sound, objection. In truth, THKY KNOW ALREAUY THAT THE WALL OF PARTITION, AS IT WAS NOT BUILT, SO NEITHER IS IT UPHELD BY US. They kuow, aye, and they acknowledge, that the Church imposes no terms of communion which they themselves will dare to call sinful. The more, therefore, doth it behove them (I say it not to reproach, but earnestly and affection- ately to admonish them) to ponder well the reasons which keep them separate, — to be sure that those reasons are such as will justify the separation, not to their own judgment only, but also at the judgment- seat of Him, who is ' not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.' Meanwhile, let us, on both sides, remember that it is not for us to judge ; if we are to be separated in worship, let us not be separated in feeling and in affection. Let each be ready to say to the other, ' For our brethren and comijanions' sake we tvill ivish thee prosperity ; yea, because of the House of the Lord our God, we will seek to do thee good.' While the world, and the men of the world, are troubled and troubling on every side, while they seek to involve both our Church and us in the common ruin of all that is venerable and holy — it is our great consolation that, against our Church, as a sound branch of the Catholic Church of Clirist, while it continues such, ' the gates of hell,' * the powers of darkness,' cannot prevail. ' He that sittcth in the Heavens shall hiugli ; the Lord shall have them in derision !' And even as respects ourselves, we will not forget, that, be they as successful against us as tliey may, their success (unless by our own fault) will and must be brief — that ' our redemption draweth nigh.' May that hour (comk, whkn it WILL, to every ONK AMONG Us) MAY IT UNI) U8 AT PKACK IN OUK OWN MINDS, AND SEEKING PKACK WITH OTIIIvRSl AbOVK ALL, AT PEACE WITH Him, whose choskn title, given to him iiy his own INHPIRED AND KVANOKLICAL PrOI'HKT, TKLLS US ' WHAT SPIRIT WK ARE or,' WHOM, AS DEAR children, WK AKi; MOtrNDTO roi.LO W, ' Til K Prince of Peace.' God grant this to you, to inc, and all his wIkjIi- Church, through .Icsus Christ our Lord !" 106 Thus spoke Dii. Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter, at his Primary Visitation in 1833. My Lord, the Catholic spirit whicli that passage breathes, the solemn words that form its conclusion — alas ! what a contrast do they present to the sounds that are now escaping from the same lips ! Talk you of change, my Lord, in our venerated Primate? of the teaching of his later, contradicting the sounder teacliing of his earlier, years ? Alas ! what a change is here ! Could the prophetic spii'it that fore- warned Hazael of his future acts, have whispered in your ear the circumstances in whiichi the close of your course would find you, how would the same indignant exclamation have betrayed the horror-stricken incredulity with which you received the startling premonition ! Reflect, my Lord ! Is truth changed ? Are the '' essential parts of the Christian Covenant" different now from what they were when you wrote thus ? Are '' the impugners of our com- mon faith, the enemies of our common Zion, assailing us" with less " bitterness and rancour " than they then were ? Is union among " all who look for salvation solely to the cross of our Di- vine Redeemer,'^ less needful, less a duty, than it was seventeen years ago ? Does the " Prince of Peace" warn us to speak less peacefully now to any such — to build up new " walls of par- tition" — to cast out of the fold, as heretics, the followers of the " illustrious " Usher, the Apostohc Bedell, the incomparable Leighton ? Think again, my Lord ; and ponder the concluding words of your own solemn admonitions. The lapse of seventeen years has surely not rendered it less necessary for you to think of that hour for which you have prayed, — " ]\Iay it find us at peace in our own minds, and seeking peace with others ! Above all, at peace with Him, whose chosen title given to him by his own in- spired and evangelical prophet, tells us ' what spirit we are of,' whom, as dear children, we are bound to follow, ' the Prince of Peace' " I am. My Lord, Your obedient humble Ser\ant, W. GOODE. London, April 18, 1850. 107 POSTSCRIPT. Your Lordship will uot^ I suppose, thiuk that your Postscript needs many remarks ; still less the Postscript to the Postscrij)t, which appeared, I believe, only in a few Papers of very limited circulation. In the former (which appeared in the " Times '' of March 29) you intimate j'our having discovered, that you were in- correct in stating, that no edition of Bullinger's Decads had ap- peared here subsequent to the year 1577, a copy of the edition of 1587 having been shown to you, as well as the notice in "VVatt^s Bibliotheca Britannica of this edition, as well as of one in 1584. My remarks on this point were written before that Postscript appeared. And as you still repeat your former ob- jections to His Grace's statement respecting that w^ork, those remarks are as necessaiy as before the appearance of your Post- script. The other point which you there mention, namely, the statement of your having at one time been willing to institute i\Ir. Gorham on his j)romising not to publish an account of the Examination, is one which I do not feel called upon in any way to notice. In the Postscript to the Postscript, which can hardly be known to more than comparatively veiy few individuals, except perhaps from the later editions of your Letter, your Lordship calmly in- forms the Public, in a few lines, that you have learned since the publication of your Letter, that your charge against the Arch- bishop for the "new matter" introduced into the last edition of his work on Apostolical Preaching, is unfounded; for which your aj)ology is, tliut when you wrote you luid access only to "the original edition of 1815, and the one recently set forth;" which appears to nic to be litth; belter than that of the covji- tentem reum. I notice in this way the existence of such a Postscript, lest I should give any oeeasioii for cavil by omitting to mention it. But 1 do not feel caHed upon to make any re- mark upon it. The Public will judge of tlie vahie of such a reparation for your attack u|)on tjie I'riniate, on evidence, the nature of which you now acknowledge. LONDON : PRIN'TED BY C. F. HODGSON, 1 GOUGH SQUARE, FLEET STREET. Ax\ EXAMINATION SOME PORTIONS KEY. W. GOODE'S "LETTER BISHOP OF EXETER." BY TUE REV. THOMAS KERCHEYER ARNOLD, M.A. RECTOR OP LYNDON, AND LATE FELLOW 01' TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. " Sunt qui vidcri volunt do Sacraniciitis lionorificc scntiro, ct tamoii dncciit Sacramcnta taiitiiiii esse bigna ijratiai jam ante ct extra usum Sacranicntonira cotlaUc." — Chemnitz. LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, ST. r-AUI,'s CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO I'LACi; 1850. LONDON : GlLi'.EKT & RIVIXGTON, PRINTERS, ST. John's square. CONTENTS. SECT. PAGE 1 . On the Spirit and Language of Mr. Goode's Pamphlet 1 2. On Mr. Goode's Assertion, that the Bishop " misquotes Scriptui-e itself to make out his case" 2 3. Whether to speak of justification as a fruit of Baptism is Roman- ism 5 4. Efficacy of Parents' Prayers, &c. The Archbishop's Reference to Gibbon 9 5. Fourth Council of Carthage 14 C. On Hooker's supposed testimony to Mr. Gorham's view of Bap- tismal Regeneration 18 7. On Jeremy Taylor's Doctrine with respect to the effects of Infant Baptism 27 8. On the Quotations adduced from Pearson 3(5 9. On the Opinion of the Fathers ; of the Lutheran Divines 42 (Lutheran Statements) 45 10. On the Opinions of the English Reformers, &c 46 11. On the " baptismal views" of Mr. Goode : — of Zwingli and Calvin 50 12. Mr. Goode's representation of what he calls ' the u^ius opcratum doctrine' •'5«' Concluding Remarks tfO EXAMINATION, § 1 . O/i the Spirit and Language of Mr. Goode's Pamphlet. 1. Before the present "Examination" of Mr. Goode's "Letter to the Bishop of Exeter" can appear, many thousands of English Churchmen will have been startled, as well as shocked, by the violent language of that gentleman's pamphlet, and the bitter- ness of spirit that pervades it. It is not merely, that the general tone is that of insulting, sarcastic personality ; it is not merely, that the existence of a violent and rancorous enmity makes itself felt in every page ; but the language of it — language used by a Christian Presbyter to a Christian Bishop — goes far beyond the very extremest bounds of that ordinary courtesy, by which society is held together. The following passage is, probably, unexampled in its kind : " I quite grant that you would be tr'mmphautlij ' aeijuitted, if charged " with libelling. For the questiou would be, What damage has it inflicted ? " And the incredulity of any jury that could bo selected, on such a point, " would, beyond all question, be insuperable " (p. 8fl). T dare not say, what one ought to be able to say, that such passages can injure none but their author ; for I feel, that they may do much to excite a spirit of hostility and strife in undis- ciplined minds on both sides of this distressing but important controversy. Many of them will necessarily be quoted in the course of my Examination ; and a few more I shall place, as they ' In the //a/iV.t, ;iiid all other ])oints of typ(pgrai)hy, Mr. Goode's I'aniphlct will be exactly followed, except where notice is given. B 3 THE EISIIOI' CHARGED WITH occur, at the foot of the page, with a distinctive mark (f) ; for 'since Mr. Goode, who has appeared as a principal disputant in the discussion, has committed the offence of pubhshing such a pamphlet, the character of that pamphlet ought to be widely known, that it may be widely condemned ; and that other dis- putants may be deterred, if only by the force of general opinion, from such an open violation of the ordinary rules of courtesy. There are, indeed, passages in the Bishop of Exeter's Letter, which I wish that he had never wTitten ; passages which, as far as they occur, injure its general effect, by reminding the reader unpleasantly, that the justly indignant Bishop is also the practised and dexterous controversialist, and, as such, rejoices in the exercise of a power, that occasionally betrays him into exaggerated statements and ill-weighed accusations. § 2. On Mr. Goode s Assertmi, that the Bishop "misquotes Scripture itself to make out his case." 2. The Bishop of Exeter asserts (p. 15), that "'newness of " ' heart,' as well as justification, is a fruit of Baptism, since " Holy Scripture calls Baptism ' the washing of regeneration and " ' of the renewal by the Holy Ghost.' " Mr. Goode says, that the text thus produced has been " per- verted " by the Bishop, " added to most awfully^ ;" " nay, more," he proceeds to assert, " you have actually misquoted the Bible to " obtain from it evidence in your favour." — " My Lord, we " should hardly expect such misrepresentation and misquotation " of Holy Scripture at an examination of a National School. " 'Not by works of righteousness which we have done,' says the " apostle, ' but according to his mercy he saved us, by the wash- " ' ing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost' (Sia " Xovt(jov TraXiyyeveaiac, (cai arai;airu)(7£ion of them (the which " washing by water, cleansing from all stains, doth appositely 8 IS JUSTIFICATION A FRUIT OF BAPTISM? " represent), and consequently God's being reconciled unto us, " his receiving us into a state of grace and favour, his freely jus- " tifying us (that is, looking upon us, or treating us as just and " innocent persons, although before we stood guilty of heinous " sins, and thereupon liable to grievous punishments) ; that these " benefits are conferred in Baptism, many places of Scripture " plainly show. And, indeed, wherever a general remission of " sins, or a full sanctification or consecration and justification of •' men's persons in God's sight are mentioned, that remission " of sins, that separation or dedication unto God's Service, that " reception into Grace, which are consigned in Baptism, are, I " conceive, understood ; there being no other season or occasion " wherein ordinarily and visibly God doth exhibit those Benefits." (Of Baptism, p. 518.) 10. The following passage from Waterland is printed at full length in the Bishop of Exeter's Letter : — " There is yet another very observable text. I chose to re- " serve it to the last, for the winding up of this summary view " of Justification. " 1 Cor. vi. 11. — 'Such were some of you. But ye were " ' washed ; but ye were sanctified ; but ye were justified in the " ' name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.' I think " it better to render it were or have been, as best suiting with the " original, and with the were just going before ; but the sense is " much the same either way. " From these several passages of the New Testament laid " together, it sufficiently appears, not only that Baptism is the " ordinary instrument in God's hands for conferring Justification, " but also that ordinarily there is no Justification conferred either " before or without it. Such grace as precedes Baptism amounts " not ordinarily to Justification, strictly so called. Such as fol- " lows it, owes its force in a great measure to the standing virtue " of Baptism once given." {Waterland on Justification, p. 27.) " Here are three concurrent causes of Justification (together " with Sanctification) mentioned together; viz. the meritorious " cause, ' the Lord Jesus ;' the efficient and operating cause, " ' the Spirit of our God, and the instrumental rite of convey- " ' ance. Baptism' " [Compare this with the quotation from Gerhard in p. G, note 3.] EFFICACY OF PAREXTS' PRAYERS. 9 \Yith this passage before him, Mr. Goode tells the Bishop, that, "like the Romanists*, he practically denies the truth of the "Eleventh Article, that we are justified by faith alone t" (p. 13). § 4. Efficacy of Parents' Prayers, SfC. The Archbishop's Reference to Gibbon. 11 . In the remarks that Mr. Goode makes upon the Bishop's criticisms on the Archbishop's later views of Baptism, there are some points upon which I agree with him, as far as the substance of his defence is concerned. Thus I have no doubt that, when His Grace said, that " many more infants might be saved, if " parents and sponsors universally made the baptism of infants a " spiritual service, and accompanied it with the prayer of faith " which is expected and taken for granted by the Church," he did mean, what the Bishop " would gladly hope " that he meant, " that greater grace might be given to infants at Baptism through " their parents' prayers ; and that through those prayers they " might persevere to the end and so be saved." Bishop Bull, in his " Discourse on the Principal Branches of the Pastoral Office," uses very similar language ; " I take leave to add, that 'tis most "for the interest of the Infant to be so baptized [i.e. in the " Church at the time of public worship], that it may have the " benefit of the united prayers of a full Christian congregation, " which is much to be valued**." 12. Again, I cannot but condemn the language of the Bishop, when he speaks of the i^rchbishop's having "perverted" the language of Scripture, and " ' added to it ' most awfully," because he tells us, that our Lord approved of the zeal of those parents wlio brought their cliildrcn to Christ. Though this is certainly not said in any of the Gospel narratives, yet, to my feeling, it is far too strong to assert, that it is not "in any way imi)licd." Jeremy * My Italics. t " Who can doubt, my Lord, tlio Halutary Iiorror you Iiavo of cvory " thing Popish, Hnuffiuf; it even afar oH' at tin- griatiHt |)0Hsil)le (hHtance, " and the keenness of your scent upon tliUtcc."' '■• Works, vol. iii. p. 0C5. 10 EFFICACY OF PARENTS' PRAYERS. Taylor speaks of our Lord as loving the charity of the parents : " Certainly to baptize infants is hugely agreeable to that charity " which Christ loved in those who brought them to Him." (Vol. viii. p. 210, "Anabaptists' Arguments answered" in "Liberty of Prophesying.") 13. Thirdly : I feel sure, that the Bishop (and his advocate Mr. Badeley) are quite wrong (though Mr. Goode overlooks this), in considering the statement of our Article, that Infant Baptism "is in any wise to be retained, as most agreeable with " the Institution of Christ," to mean that " it is more agreeable " with it than the Baptism of others" (Bishop of Exeter's Letter, p. 13). Surely the meaning of it is, that, though the Baptism of Infants is not commanded in so many icords in Holy Scripture, yet it is by all means to be retained, because more agreeable with the Institution of Christ, than any other rule or practice : e. g. to that of deferring the baptism to any later age, for instance, that of dawning intelligence, that of discretion, of free choice, &c. 14. I cannot, however, forbear from calling the reader's atten- tion to two passages, as illustrative of the tone and language of our critic. The Archbishop calls a Baptism accompanied by the fervent prayer of those who present their children to be baptized, " this primitive, this scriptural, this reasonable Baptism." I must own, that this language sounds to me at least incautious, as .seeming to carry with it the notion of a generic difference be- tween this Baptism and that which is now commonly practised ; and even to imply, that Baptism would be rendered unreasonable, if the rite were administered to the children of such parents as, from not feeling the holy character of the rite, should neglect to pray earnestly for its full and final spiritual efficacy. At all events, it would be at once safer and more correct, to speak of a reasonable way of bringing our children to Holy Baptism, than of a " reasonable Baptism." Still, however, I regret that, from this passage, — occurring in a long work, and evidently designed to exhort parents to the performance of what alone can make their active participation in the rite, during the time of its per- formance, a reasonable service, — the Bishop should have taken occasion to warn the Primate against the abuse of reason, and against the rationalising schools of Germany and Geneva. As EFFICACY OF PARENTS' PRAYERS. 11 the Archbishop's character should have saved him from this warning', so the Bishop would not himself consent to be classed with those " who think they cannot admire as they ought the " power and authority of the word of God, if in things divine " they should attribute any force to man's reason "." 15. But let us now see how Mr. Goode (p. 15) defends the Archbishop. " The worst of all, it seems, is, that His Grace has actually " used the term ' this reasonable Baptism,' and you warn him " against having any thing to do with ' human reason ' in such " matters ; this ' rationalizing process ' you ' leave to the schools " ' of modern Germany and Geneva.' " My Lord, you stand wholly acquitted of having had any " communings with ' human reason ' in this matter. But why, " let me ask, do you not quarrel first with St. Paul for having " adopted such a ' rationalizing process ' as to remind Christians " of their ' reasoiiable service ' (r/ji' XoyiKrir XaToeiuv, Rom. xii. 1), " a passage which His Grace evidently had in his mind when he " wrote what has called forth your Lordship's indignation ? And " when you have settled your difference with the Apostle, then " surely it will be time enough, after convicting the Apostle, to " commence with the Archbishop." IG. Leaving the tone and spirit of this passage to produce its own effect upon the reader, let me ask whether it is evident, that the Archbishop had the passage of St, Paul in his mind, when he wrote the words ? "A reasonable Baptism " means in modern English, and would certainly be understood to mean, by the readers of a popular Commentary on the Gospels, one that is consistent with reason, one opposed in character to an unreasonable Baptism. In the passage of St. Paul, XoyiKoc is, in all proba- bility, not opposed to uXoyoc (as reasonable to unreasonable), but rather to what is outwardly and visibly performed : the words denoting an internal, mental, or spiritual service (cultu^), as op- posed to the external and material sacrifices and ordinances of the Mosaic Law. " What is a reasonable service ?" asks St. Chrysof-tom. "It means a spiritual ministering', conversation " according to Christ." And a little below : " by so doing, " Hooker, III. viii. 4. ' Wviv^iaTiK)) SiaKovia. 12 EFFICACY OF PAUENTs' PRAYERS. "thou offerest a reasonable^ service, that is, one that has " nothing bodily about it, nothing gross, nothing perceptible by the " senses^." If, then, Mr. Goode had not been eager to charge the Bishop with having a difference to settle with the Apostle, he must have felt that he has no grounds for assuming the existence of such a difference viiih. respect to the "reasonable service" that is spoken of in the Epistle to the Romans. 17. But the next criticism is very far worse, both in the charges it insinuates and in the manner of preferring them. Speaking in his " Apostolical Preaching, about the abuse of Baptism itself by " some mistaken Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries," the Archbishop has, it seems, referred to " the notorious 20th chapter " of Gibbon." The Bishop asks, " My Lord, why do you have " recourse to such a record of the sins and follies of some early " Christians ? Why do you send your readers to the pages of " an infidel historian, and to that very portion of his work of " which almost every sentence is a sneer against our holy faith ? " Why give authority to his second-hand exaggerated statements, " by making them your evidence for a fact which the Fathers of " the Church sufficiently avowed while they deplore, reprobating " it with the pious zeal which became men charged with their " high commission." 18. It may, I think, well admit of a question, whether any allu- sion to this grievance would not have been better avoided in a controversy where so much of self-control, so much of charity, is required on both sides ; but it was made by the Bishop in the first indignant feeling, that, as he believed and as I believe, a judgement fatally opposed to the pure doctrine of the Universal Church, had been founded, partly at least, upon authorities, some doubtful, some misunderstood, but all supplied, it would seem, to the judges by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. But who " The same word occurs once more in the New Testament (1 Pet. ii. 2), TO \oyiKov aloKov yaXa, in our version : "the sincere milk of the word;" it more probably means the milk that nourishes the spirit, as opposed to the material milk that nourishes the body. Though, therefore, the word is perhaps best translated reasonable, the word must not be understood in its usual English acceptation. The Oxford Translation gives supersensuous in a note ; Fritzsche, ideal. '■' OiiSkv txovaav cw/xartKOj', oviiv Trax^t ovSiv ahOtjrov. EFFICACY OF PARENTS' PRAYERS. 13 can doubt, as to the question itself, that it tfoxdd have been better to place before the general reader — for it is only in form that an Episcopal Charge is now addressed exclusively ad clerum — a Chris- tian censure of this practice derived from the Fathers or Church Historians, than to run the very remotest risk of exciting in any mind a prejudice against the Bishops of the Primitive Church by an assertion like this ? " I believe that this delay of Baptism, " though attended with the most pernicious consequences, was " never condemned by any general or provincial council, or by " any public act or declaration of the Church. The zeal of the " Bishops was easily kindled on much slighter occasion'." A careful enquirer might easily find that, even in the Apostolic Constitutions, a person who thus defers Baptism is declared to he ignorant of God, and to forget his oivn nature- ; and Hooker will tell us, that by the Council of Neocaesarea (which preceded the Nicene Council), one who had received Clinic Baptism (as it was called) was placed under a permanent disqualification for the priesthood, except under certain circumstances set forth in the Canon. " A man which hath been baptized in sickness is not " after to be ordained priest." For it may be thought, " that " such do rather at that time because they see no other remedy " than of a voluntary mind lay hold on the Christian faith, unless " their true sincere meaning be made afterwards the more mani- " fest, or else the scarcity of others enforce the Church to admit "them^" (Lib. v. 51-2.) 19. At all events the Bishop expressly denounces what the Archbishop terms "the abuse of Baptism" by the strong terms sins and follies: stating that it became the Fathers of the Church to reprobate them with pious zeal. Bearing this in mind, let us form a moral estimate of Mr. Goodc's language and insinuated charges : — 20. " But the worst part of this ' nexr matter,' (wliich, ncvcr- ' Gibhon'H note on the paKsago. The Hiinio note gives n sketch of tlie best .arguments Chry.sostom could find against the jn'actiee, tlio argument lieing all stated in the rwjiiest and wrjihgt language, and so TirlwiUij falsified. ^ OvTOQ dyvoiai' t^tt GioTi Kai rj)c iavTOv ipv(Ttu>^ iniXi'itr^on' rvyxn- vn, ap. Gieseler, vol. i. p. 2^^, Kng. Kfl. ^ The original is stronger, ovk i^ npixitfilmwc yvT(>oy 28 JEREMY Taylor's testimony considered. " 7ra\iyy£>£Tmc, 'the laver of a new birth.' Either then infanta " cannot go to heaven any ivay that we know of, or they must be " baptized" (Vol. ii. p. 275). b) And with respect to the " spirit of sanctifcation," he says, beautifully and truly : " As the reasonable soul and all its faculties " are in children, will, and understanding, passions, and powers " of attraction and propulsion ; yet these faculties do not operate " or come abroad till time and art, observation and experience, " have drawn them forth into action : so may the spirit of grace, " the principle of Christian life, be infused, and yet lie without " action, till in its own day it is drawn forth. That which is " certain is, that the Spirit is the principle of a new life, or a " new birth : that Baptism is the laver of this new birth : that it " is the seed of God, and may lie long in the furrows before it " springs up : that from the faculty to the act, the passage is not " always sudden and quick : that the Spirit is ' the earnest of " ' our inheritance,' that is, of resurrection to eternal life : which " inheritance because children we hope shall have, they cannot " be denied to have its seal and earnest ; that is, if they shall " have all, they are not to be denied a part." 45. Having refreshedf our memories and our hearts with these passages of this great and eloquent divine, whose very names are so dear to the Church that we love to use them without any title or epithet prefixed, let us turn to the passage that is supposed by the Archbishop and the Lords of the Judicial Committee to prove that he considered Baptism and its effect to be separable. It is thus quoted by Mr. Goode with its context, and in a connexion with another passage (commencing with the line indi- cates a break) which follows it after an interval of some pages. I have marked the two passages by A, B, placed in the margin. A) 46. " Wheu the ordinary effect of a Sacrament is done already by some " other efficiency or instrument, yet the Sacrament is still as obligatory as be- " fore : not for so many reasons or necessities ; but for the same command- " ment. Baptism is the first ordinary current in which the Spirit moves and + " I am glad, however, that your Lordship feels so much ' refreshed ' by " ' these uoble statements of Catholic doctrine,' — first, that the Sacraments " give grace to worthy recipients, and, secondly, that Baptism belongs to " infants. And it is gratifying, after ' distasteful work,' to find something " in which all can be ' refreshed ' together, though it be but with ordinary " fare." JEREMY Taylor's testimony considered. 29 " descends upon us; and where God's Spirit is. they are the sons of God ; " for Clirht's Spirit descends upon none but them that are his ; and yet " Cornelius, who had received the Holy Spirit, and was heai'd by God, and " visited by an angel, and accepted in his alms and fastings and prayers, '• was tied to the susception of Baptism. To which may be added, that the " receiving the effects of Baptism beforehand, was used as an argument the " rather to administer Baptism. The effect of which consideration is this " — tliat Baptism and its effect may be separated, and do not always go in " conjunction ; the effect may be before, and therefore much rather may it " be after its susception, the Sacrament operating in the virtue of Christ, " * even as the Spirit shall move ,-' according to that saying of St. Austin, ' The " * work of regeneration that is begun in the ministry of Baptism, is pei'- " ' fected in some sooner, in some later ;' and St. Bernard, ' Wc may soon " * be washed ; but to be healed is a work of a long cui-e.' " " The Church (B " gives the Sacrament, God gives the gi-ace of the Sacrament But because " lie does not ahcays give at the instant in which the Church gives the Sacrantent " (as if there be a seci'et impediment in the suscipient), and yet afterwards " does give it when the impediment is removed (as to them that repent of " that impediment), it follows that the Ciiurch may administer rightly, even *•' be/ore God gives the real grace of the Sacrament ; and if God gives this grace " afterwards by parts, and yet all of it is the effect of that covenant which " was consigned in Baptism, he that defers some may defer all, and verify " every part, as well as any part. For it is certain that in the instance now " made, all the grace is deferred; in infants it is not certain but that " SOME IS collated OH INFUSED ; liowever, be it so or no, yet upon this " account the administration of the Sacrament is not hindered." (Works, ed. Ilcber, vol. ii. pp. 248 & 253 [really pp. 253, 2fi7].) 47. These passages (for they are two passages, separated by a wide interval) do indeed prove that in sotne sense Jeremy Taylor did hold this doctrine of separability. To assist us in understanding the passages before us, I will prove from Jeremy Taylor himself, that " the cj^cct of Baptism " is an ambiguous expression, denoting : — 1) The proper and immediate effect of the baptismal act. 2) The effect of Baptism as manifesting itself in acts performed, by the help of the Divine grace, at various times through- out the whole after life of a Christian : the power to perform such acts being properly referred to the initial grace of Baptism. 3) The full and final effect of Baptism in the salvation of those who aie saved by grace, according to tlic nature and conditions of the Christian religion. 48. The following passage will prove that Jeremy Taylor uses the word in ihe first and third of these senses : — 30 JEREMY Taylor's testimony considered. o) " If it be objected, that to the new birth are required con- " ditions of our own, which are to be wrought by and in " them, that have the use of reason : besides that this is wholly " against the analogy of a new birth, in which the person to be " born is wholly a passive, and hath put into him the principle, " that in time will produce its proper actions ; it is certain that " they that can receive the new birth, are capable of it. The " effect of it is a possibility of being saved, and arriving to a super - " natural felicity. If infants can receive this effect, then also the " new birth, without which they cannot receive the effect. And " if they can receive salvation, the effect of the neio birth, what " hinders but they may receive that that is in order to that " effect, and ordained only for it, and which is nothing of itself, " but in its institution and relation, and which may be received " by the same capacity, in which one may be created, that is, a " passivity, or a capacity obediential ?" (Vol. ii. p. 275.) 49. In the following passage (which is also an important illus- tration of our author's baptismal views) we have an instance of the second meaning of the terra, " the effect of Baptism." b) " All our life is to be transacted by the measures of the Gospel " covenant, and that covenant is consigned by Baptism ; there " we have our title and adoption to it ; and the grace that is " then given to us is like a piece of leaven put into a lump of " dough, and faith and repentance do, in all the periods of our " life, put it into fermentation and activity. Then the seed of " God is put into the ground of our hearts, and repentance waters " it, and faith makes it subactum solum, the ground and furrows " apt to produce fruits : and therefore faith and repentance are " necessary to the effect of Baptism, not to its susception ; that is, " necessary to all those parts of life in which Baptism does operate, " not to the first sanction or entering into the covenant. The " seed may lie long in the ground and produce fruits in its due " season, if it be refreshed with ' the former and the latter rain.'" (Vol. ii. p. 265.) In this passage, the effect of Baptism is the actual tvorking of that grace which was first infused at Baptism, in the several parts of the baptized person's after life. 50. Now it is undoubtedly in this sense (the second meaning of the three enumerated in 47), that Jeremy Taylor is using the JEREMY Taylor's testimony* considered. 31 phrase in the passage quoted by the Archbishop (46, A). I say undoubtedly, because the quotations from St. Augustine* and St. Bernard (at the end of A) can have no other meaning. They speak, the one of a gradual advance to a state of Christian perfection, the other of a long process of spiritual cure ; and both the progress and the cure are referred to the Sacrament, operating (= producing its effect) in the virtue of Christ. 51. The general argument of the first passage (marked A) maybe thus stated : Baptism is the first ordinary current of God's grace, and its effect is to make us God's sons ; we might therefore conclude that, when this grace of the Spirit is supplied by an extraordinary current, and men are made by this extraordinary means the sons of God, — all being of necessity God's sons, upon whom God's Spirit descends in any ivay, ordinary or extraordinary, — the ordi- nary means, that of Baptism, would be superseded by the extraor- dinary dispensation, and so rendered unnecessary. This how- ever would be a false conclusion, for Cornelius, who had received the Holy Spirit, and (as having received God's Spirit was a Son of God,) " was heard by God, and visited by an angel, and " accepted in his alms, and fastings, and prayers, was tied to the " susception of Baptism" [in spite of ihe previous grace oi son- ship, anticipated, in his case, by an extraordinary dispensation]. The object Taylor has in view is, to remove the objection that might be made to Infant Baptism, from the absence of any visible effect ; the effect intended being (as I have said) undoubtedly, the performance of those acts of faith and obedience, that the sacra- mental grace is intended to convey. He proves from the example of Cornelius, that grace, as visibly manifesting itself, may precede the baptismal rite ; and he argues that much rather may it follow the susception of Baptism, and the consequent '' The Latin quotation from St. Augufitinc, as given (inforroctly) by Taylor (as well as tliat from St. Bernard) is omitted, without any n)ark of omission, by Mr. Gooflo. Tlie pjiHsagc, as it Htiinds in St Aiiguslino (and as tlie Editor of Ilebcr's edition ought to invo i)rinted it in 'J'ayior) ia Illo sacrosancto lavacro inchoatur iniiovatio novi iiominis, iit jiroficicmlo per- ficiatur [in Taylor it is perJicUmlu j>i-rjicilur] in aliis citius, in nliis lardius : " the renewal of the new man is begun in that sucred iaver, that it may bo " perfected by after jirogres.s, in some sooner, in sonio later." The original of St. Bernard is : " Latari qu'ulem cito potsumus, ted ad satiandum vudlA. curatione opus est." 3.2 JRUEMY Taylor's testimony considered. entrance of the baptized person into a state of grace — the Sacrament operating in the virtue of Christ, " even as the Sjnrit " shall move." 52. Now does the separability of this effect of Baptism from the Baptismal rite prove, that there was no regeneration wrought at Baptism, no spiritual grace received at and in Baptism ? The pas- sage lately quoted (in 49) is a sufficient answer to this question. As " the Sacrament" is said to " operate" here, so there " Baptism" is said to " operate" in the various parts of life, and by that operation to produce the effect of Baptism ; and yet in that very passage we read, that at Baptism grace was given to the baptized person " like a piece of leaven put into a lump of dough :" "the " seed of God" was "put into the ground" of the heart. 53. And this is the passage, of which Mr. Goode says, that Jeremy Taylor " expressly maintains" in it, " that the grace of the " Sacrament, which is regeneration, may be given before or " in, or after Baptism !" And that, though in this very passage, Taylor tells us, in the words of St. Augustine, though loosely ren- dered, that the " work of regeneration" is "begun in the ministry " of Baptism !" 54. But Mr. Goode appears, by his use of capitals, to lay great stress upon the statement, that " Christ's Spirit descends upon " NONE BUT THEM THAT ARE HIS '\" His words are, " ' He " ' [Jeremy Taylor], however, himself thinks that "Baptism is " " the first ordinary current in which the Spirit moves and " " descends upon us," but only in the case of those who are " ' Christ's ; for he immediately adds, " Christ's Spirit descends " " upon none but them that are his ;" which is only another " ' mode of expressing Mr. Gorham's view.' " From this assertion it is plain, that Mr. Goode supposes Taylor to mean, that the Spirit descends upon none, who have not been viade Christ's before, by an act of prevenient grace. How is it that he does not see, that, if we must be God's servants, before 5 The sense in which Jeremy Taylor uses the expression, such as are his, may be illustrated by another passage ; " the Sacraments of the Church " work in the virtue of Christ, but yet upon such only as are serrants of Christy " and hinder not the work of the Spirit of grace." After which he goes on to show his meaning, i. e. that adults must desire to be purified, if Baptism is to benefit them ; " U guilty of sins, must repent of them, and renounce them," &e. &c. Vol. ii. p. 255. JEREMY Taylor's testimony considered. 33 grace can be given us, we can never be his servants at all, unless we can become his servants without grace ? At all events, Jeremy Taylor asserts again and again, that in infants nothing more is required, than their inability to place a bar to the in- fluences of the Spirit. " Because in infants," he says, " there is " nothing that can resist God's Spirit, nothing that can hinder " him, nothing that can grieve him ; they have that simplicity and " nakedness, that passivity and negative disposition, or non-hin- " derances, to which all that men can do in disposing themselves " are but approaches and similitudes ; and therefore infants can " receive all they need, all that can do them benefit." {Anabap- tists' Arguments answered, in Lib. of Proph. vol. viii. p. 207.) 55. The second quotation (that marked B, in49),which sounds so much in favour of Mr. Goode, is seen to have quite a different mean- ing, as soon as the previous sentences are produced and weighed, and the drift of the argument understood. And undoubtedly Mr. Goode ought to have consulted the original (which, to judge by the incorrectness of his references, he probably (//(/ not °) ; and if he was really acquainted with the context, he ought to have produced it. The beginning of the passage is this : " The Holy Spirit which descends upon the waters of Baptism, does not instantly pro- duce its effects in the soul of the baptized ; and when He does, it is irregularly, and as He pleases. ' The Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and no man knoweth whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth.' And the catechumen is admitted into the kingdom, yet in the same discourse . . . our blessed Saviour . . affirms this ' kingdom of God' to belong unto little children,' this kingdom, that ' cometh not with outward significations' or present expresses, this kingdom that is within us. For the present, the use I make of it is this : that no man can conclude that this kingdom of power, that is, the spirit of sanctification, is not come upon infants, because there is no sign or expression of it. It is ' within us,' therefore it hath no signification. // is 'the seed of Cod;' and it is no good argument to say, here is no seed in fhr bowels of the earth, • Ho refers to vol. ii. of llcbor'n Ivl. " |'l'- '-i*" -'nxl 2r)3," for wliicli reml « j.p. 2o9 and 2(J«." V 34 JEREMY Taylor's testimony considered. " because there is nothing green upon the face of it." (Vol. ii. p. 266.) 56. Thus then, in the very passage before us, Taylor asserts that the baptized person has the kingdom of God within him, though it " comes not with observation," i.e. it operates secretly ^ and he draws the express conclusion, that the spirit of sanctification may have come upon infants, though " there is no sign or expression of it ;" the seed may be in the bowels of the earth, though there is nothing green on the face of it. And yet, after this, Mr. Goode prints, " In infants it is not certain but that " SOME [of the grace of the Sacrament] is collated or in- " FUSED," in capitals, as if Jeremy Taylor himself thought it an uncertain point ; whereas his own opinion, both here and ia many other passages, is, that grace is conferred ; the doubtfulness of expression arises solely from its being appropriate to the drift of his argument here ; which is : though no man can prove that grace is not collated or infused in baptized infants, yet if this negative could be proved, even then the administration of the Sacrament would be not hindered. When a logical reasoner, like Taylor, wishing to convince an opponent, assumes a proposition that appears to fall short of the whole truth, we must not infer that he doubts the truth which he does not express, but only that he doubts, whether it would be conceded by his opponent ; and for this reason forbears to express it, because less will serve the pur- pose of his argument. 57. The following passage declares his own opinion with respect to the collation or infusion of grace into infants, in a statement adopted from S. Augustine : " There is the same dispensation of the Di^'ine grace to all " alike, to infants as well as to men. And in this royal priest- " hood, as it is in the secular, kings may be anointed in their " cradles. ' Dat \_Deus'\ sui Spirit tis occultissiraam gratiam, quam " ' etiam latenter infundit in parvulis ^ God gives the most secret " ' grace of his Spirit, which He also secretly infuses into infants.' " And, if a secret infusion be rejected, because it cannot be " proved at the place and at the instant, many men, that hope ' S. Aug. de Pecc. Mer. et Rem. c. 9. JEREMY Taylor's testimony coxsidered. 35 " for heaven, will be very much to seek for a proof of their " earnest, and need an earnest of the earnest. For all that have " the Spirit of God, cannot in all instants prove it, or certainly " know it ; neither is it defined, by how many indices the Spirit's " presence can be proved or signified." (Vol. ii. p. 283.) 58. Mr. Goode (p. 44) produces two more passages from Jeremy Taylor, which make a distinction between the Baptism of water and the Baptism of the Spirit ; two passages of which it will be found that, like those we have already considered, they sound in favour of Mr. Gorham's and Mr. Goode's opinions, but cannot really be interpreted in their sense : — " Although, by the present custom of the Chiu'ch, we are baptized in our " infancy, and do not actually reap that fruit of present pardon which pcr- " sons of a mature age in the Pi-imitive Church did . . . yet we must re- " member that there is a bajitism of the SjArit as well as of water : and '•' whenever this happens, whether it be together with that Baptism of water, as *■ usually it was when only men and women of years of discretion were baptized ; " or whether it he ministered in the rite of confirmation . . . or that lastly, it be " performed by an internal and merely spiritual ministry, when we, by acts of " our own election, verify the promise made in Baptism, and so bring back " the rite, by receiving the effect of Baptism; that is, whenever the ' filth of our " ' flesh is washed away,' and tliat we have ' the answer of a pure conscience " ' towards God,' which St. Peter affrms to be the true BapAism . . . then let " us look to our standing," &c. (Life of Christ, Part II. § 12, Disc. 9.) " Our hearers make use of sermons and discourses evangelical but to fill " up void spaces of their time . . . The reason of this is a sad condemnation " to such persons ; they have not yet entertained the Spirit of God, they arc " in darkness ; they were washed in water, but never baptized with the Spirit ; " for those things are spiritually discerned." (Serni. I. for \\'hit-Sunday.) 59. Here, again, Taylor will be his own best interpreter. In allusion to the text, 1 Pet. iii. 21, he says : " ' Anima non lava- " ' tione sed responsione sancitur' (TertulL), 'the soul is not " ' healed by washing (viz.) alone, but by the answer,' — the iirt- " pu)Tr]fia in St. Peter, — the coiTcspondcnt of our part of the " covenant; for that is the perfect sense of this unusual ex- " pression. And the effect is attributed to this, and denied to the " other, when they are distinguished. Just as we use to deny " the effect to the instrumental cause, and attribute it to the " principal, in the manner of speaking, when our purpose is to " affirm this to be the principal, and of cliicf influence. So we " say, it is not the good lute, but tlie skilful hand, that makes " the music; it is not the body, hut the soul, that is the man : u 2 30 QUOTATIONS ADDUCED FROM PEARSON. '• and yet he is not the man without both. For Baptism is but " the material part in the sacrament ; ' it is the Spirit thatgiveth " 'life;' whose work is faith and repentance, begun by himself " without the sacrament, and consigned in the sacrament, and *' actuated and increased in the co-operation of our whole life." (Vol. ii. p. 257.) 60. I will conclude the discussion of Jeremy Taylor's opinions with one more quotation, which proves that in the case of infants (for he again and again asserts that they cannot hinder God's grace) and in that of rightly disposed adults, the effect of Baptism (as a first grace, accompanied with the full remission of sins) im- mediately accompanies Baptism. " And therefore our Baptism, although it does consign the " work of God presently to the baptized person in great, certain, " and entire effect, in order to the remission of what is past, in " case the catechumen be rightly disposed or hinders not, yet it " hath also influence upon the following periods of our life, and " hath admitted us into a lasting state of pardon, to be renewed " and actively applied by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, " and all other ministries evangelical, and so long as our repent- " ance is timely, active, and effective." (Vol. ii. p. 405.) I cannot but think that many of my readers will think vsrith me, that the Bishop of Exeter had good grounds for saying that the citation from Taylor was (not, in the intention or consciousness of those who cited it, but in effect) " absolutely, palpably fraudu- lent." § 8. On the Quotations adduced from Pearson. 61. " Bishop Pearson," says the Bishop, as quoted by Mr. Goode, " says what you [the Archbishop] cite; but he says it of " adults, and of the actual state of those adults, whose lives are " before the world. His words are these : — " ' When the means are used, without something appearing to the con- " ' trary, we presume the good effect.' " "He says nothing of infants here ; nothing of the effect of " Baptism to them. But it is of the effect of Baptism to infants " that we are now concerned" (p. 43). QUOTATLOXS ADDUCED FROM PEARSOX. 37 Mr. Goode's answer is this : — " On this your Lordship exclaims, ' He says it of adults . . . " ' He says nothing of infants here ; nothing of the effect of Bap- " ' tism to them.' I beg to ask where your Lordship picked up " this piece of information. Are we to receive it upon your " ipse dixi P Mark the position in which you leave Bishop Pear- " son; — that in a Church where all, with scarcely the exception " of one in five thousand, receive Baptisni in their infancy, he " meant to limit what he said generally about baptized persons " to those cases which hardly ever occur ! Truly, a very reason- " able hypothesis! But, my Lord, we shall find more to our " purpose in the context of these words. Allow me, therefore, to " introduce it to your notice." 62. Where your Lordship picked up this piece of information ! If Mr. Goode had really read the context of Pearson — the preceding as well as the following passages — he could not have failed to pick it up himself, if he had but kept his eyes upon the road ; and if he had taken the trouble to understand the Bishop's words, he must have acknowledged their general truth. But what can we expect of a disputant, who, when the Bishop asserts, " he says " it of adults," imagines that he asserts the very different propo- sition : " he says it of [those who were baptized as] adults !" Truly, a very accurate Critic ! 63. No man who reads the whole passage in Pearson with com- mon attention, can fail to understand his meaning, which is, as is usual with that great writer, both clearly and strongly expressed. The subject which Pearson is discussing is, not whether infants are regenerated in Baptism, but, rvho are saints ? in the sense in which that term is used, when we profess our belief in " the " communion of saints" in the Creed. The whole passage is: " In like manner" [as the cliildrcn of Israel were called a holy nation] "those of the New Testament " writing to such as were called, and had received, and were " baptized in the Faith, give unto them all tlie name of Saints, " as being in some manner such, by being called and baptized. " For being baptized is a washing away of sin, and the purifica- " tion from sin is a proper sanctification ; being every one who is " so called and baptized i.s thereby separated from the rest of the " world who arc not so, and all such separation is some kind of 38 QUOTATIONS ADDUCED FROM PEARSON. " sanctification ; being though the work of grace be not perfectly " wrought, yet, when the means are used, without something " appearing to the contrary, we ought to presume of the good " eflfect ; therefore all such as have been received into the Church, " may be in some sense called holy. " But because there is more than an outward vocation and a " charitable presumption necessary to make a man holy ; there- " fore we must find some other qualification which must make " him really and truly such, not only by an extrinsical denomina- " tion, but by a real and internal affection*." 64. In this passage there is surely no difficulty ; the general assertion in the first paragraph is, that all who have been admitted into the Church by Baptism, may be called holy, or saints in the less specific sense, for three reasons. We may call them saints (or holy persons) because they have had a sanctification both in the (1) proper and (2) improper sense of the word. (1) In the proper sense, because Baptism is a real (or proper) sanctification, as being a washing away [surely a real washing away] of sin. (2) In the technical or improper sense [that of a sepa- ration, or setting apart for God's service, which Pearson has before stated to be the first meaning of kodesh, holi- ness'] : because all who are called and baptized, are separated thereby from the rest of the world. But (3) We not only may call, but ought to call them holy, (unless they are living in open contradiction to their profession,) because even ' though the work of grace \i. e. its work in efi'ecting the real, internal holiness of the baptized person] be not perfectly wrought,' yet, when the means are used, we ought to presume [not merely, may presume] of the good effect, without something appearing to the contrary. 65. It cannot be doubted, surely, that the passage has no re- ference to the immediate effect of baptismal regeneration ; but to the after life of the baptized person ; to the development and growth * (Art. Comm. of Saints, p. 353. Ed. 1723.) QUOTATIONS ADDUCED FROM PEARSON. 39 of the life of holiness, of which Baptism was the begiuning, and baptismal grace the seed. To limit the assertion (with the Bishop of Exeter) to adults, in the strict sense of the word, is perhaps to go too far ; but it cannot apply to any baptized persons, but such as are old enough to be capable, as conscious subjects, of real spiritual communion with the other members o/" Christ. Have we not therefore great reason to complain, that such a passage was pressed into the support of the charitable-presumption scheme of interpreting the formularies of the Church } 66. This passage from Pearson is followed, in Mr. Goode's pamphlet, by another (not quoted by the Archbishop), in which he proceeds to describe what the " real and internal affection" is, " that will make a man holi/" (or a saint) in the true meaning of the word, and not merely by " outward vocation," or " chari- table presumption." The passage is this (the Italics and different orders of capital letters being Mr. Goode's) : — " What this sanctity is, and who are capable of this title properly, we " must learn out of the Gospel of Christ ; by which alone, ever since " the Church of Christ was founded, any man can become a Saint. Now, " by the tenor of the Gospel, we shall find, that those ai"e truly and properly " saints, which are * sanctified in Christ Jesus' (1 Cor. i. 2). First, in *' respect of their holy faith by which thky are REGENERATED ; " for, ' whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God' " (1 John V. 1) ; by which they are purged, God himself 'purifying their "hearts by faith' (Acts xv. 9), wJiereby they 'are washed, sanctified, and ''justified, in the name of the Lord .Jesus' (1 Cor. vi. 11), 'in whom also, " ' after that they belieee, they are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,' " (Eph. i. 13.) Secondly, in respect of their conversation," &c. G7. Undoubtedly, Pearson in this passage uses the term, to rer/encrate, in its wider sense ; and so Beveridge occasionally employs the word in his sermons, though in his dogmatic works he teaches the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration in thi' fullest and plainest terms. The word ' reyencrulion (as Gerhard remarks) " is aml)iguous, " being sometimes taken gencrically, so as to embrace both rciiiis- " sion of sins and renovation ; sometimes sprcificallij , to signify "only remission of sins and gratuitous justification"." Much • Moncndum est primo omnium Ihyncrntionie voccm ohhc aml)i;;nam ; quandofiue cnim sumitur ytvticwc, ut et roiniHsionem poccatoruni ct lenova- tiunem simul conplectatur ; r^uandoquc vero i/5»»cwt> accipitur ut n niibftio 40 QUOTATIONS ADDUCED FROM PEARSON. misunderstanding -would have been prevented, if this looser use of the word had heen avoided, and the term regeneration confined to the baptismal change. Undoubtedly, however, the inspired words of St. John teach us, that no man may say that he is born of God, if he is now without faith and love. But this will not justify us in affirming, that even one who is now without faith and love, was not born again, bom of ivater and the Spirit, at his Baptism. 68. The following extract from Pearson, showing his deliberate view of the reality of baptismal grace, is the Bishop of Exeter's translation of a passage in his " Determinationes." " Nothing in the whole compass of our rehgion is more sure than the *' exceeding great and most certain efficacy of Baptism to spiritual good ; " that it is an outward and visible sign indeed, but by it an invisible grace " is signified ; and the sign itself was instituted /or the very purpose that it " should confer that grace." Mr. Goode attempts to explain this testimony (away?), by supposing that "to confer grace" is "formally/ to make it over;" and that, " agreeably with the provisions of the Gospel Cove- " nant, and therefore in the case of many infants, just as in the " case of impenitent adults, only conditionally" (p. 53). Certainly there is no testimony that may not be made to tell in Mr. Goode's favour, if he may always interpret to confer by "formally to make " over," and understand what conditions he pleases to be im- plied. 69. But the opinions of Pearson, as to the remission of sins by the Sacrament of Baptism, are fully declared in his discussion of the Article on " / believe — in the forgiveness of sins." " Two things," he says, "are very observable; the one re- " lating to the initiation, the other concerning the continuation of " a Christian. For the first of these, it is the most general and " irrefragable assertion of all, to whom we have reason to give " credit, that all sins whatsoever any jjerson is guilty of, are re- " milled in the baptism of the same person," &c. Again, with reference to St. Peter's exhortation (Acts ii. 38), Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, he says, " In vain doth doubting and nem peccatonim et gratuitam justificationem tantummodo significet. (Ger- hard, de Just, per fid. vol. iii. p. 714.) QUOTATIONS ADDUCED FROM PEARSON. 41 " fluctuating Socinus endeavour to evacuate the force of this " Scripture, attributing the remission either to repentance with- " out consideration of Baptism, or else to the pubhc profession " of faith made in Baptism; or if any thing must be attributed " to Baptism itself, it must be nothing but a declaration of such " remission. For how will these shifts agree with that which " Ananias said unto Saul, without any mention either of re- " pentance or confession. Arise and be baptized, and ^oash away " thy sins ; and that which St. Paul, who was so baptized, hath " taught us concerning the Church, that Christ doth sanctify " and cleanse it with the zvashing of water ? It is therefore suf- " ficiently certain that Baptism, as it was instituted by Christ " after the pre-administration of St. John, wheresoever it was " received with all qualifications necessary in the person accept- " ing, and conferred with all things necessary to be performed by " the person administering, ivas most infallibly efficacious, as to " this particular, that is, the remission of all sins committed before " the administration of the Sacrament." (Art. X.) " Therefore the Church of God, in which remission of sin is " preached, doth not only promise it at first by the Laver of " Regeneration, but afterwards also upon the virtue of Re- " pentance." {Ibid.) 70. Having now rescued, as I hope and think I have, the doctrine of Hooker, Jeremy Taylor, and Pearson from misrepre- sentation, I must leave the task of examining the extracts from Usher t» Prideaux, Carlton, &c. to others, not having myself an opportunity of consulting the original works. This, however, I must say, that in so important a controversy, the quoting a passage from a work which Usher expressly tells us is not his, and contains some things he did not a])provc of, is quite unjustifiable. What though he did afterwards, on hearing of some good effects that it bad produced, bless God for its un- authorized publication ? His own words prove, that no [larticular + " So spolto Unhcr in lfi.30, wlien Arclibislio]! of ArinaKli, to liis frioiid " Dr. Ward. Wliat a contraHt dooH tlio lanmia^o of tliis profoundly Iciiriu'd " prolate prt-scnt to tliat witii wliicli the (Jliurcii ia now eclioing ! IJiit tlio " emptiest vessels make tlie loudest uoisc." 42 OPINION OF THE FATHERS, &C. Statement in the book can be pronounced with certainty to have his authoriiij in its favour '". § 9. On the Opinion of the Fathers. — Of the Lutheran Divines. 71. In one passage, Mr. Goode, in an ofF-hand way, proves, as he thinks, by a single quotation from St. Clement of Alexandria, how far the Fathers were from entertaining " the modern opus " operatum view " of Baptism. " How little idea the early Fathers had of intimating, that " regenerating grace was not possessed before Baptism, when " they spoke of regeneration taking place in or by Baptism, and " how far they were from meaning to imply the modern opus " operatum view of that sacrament, may be seen from the lan- " guage used by St. Clement of Alexandria in the second century " as to the Baptism of our Blessed Saviour. For, quoting the " words of Scripture (putting two passages together), ' Thou " ' art my beloved Son, tfds day have I begotten thee,' he speaks " of them as fulfilled at Christ's Baptism, and that our Lord was " then 'regenerated^.'" 72. I have already had to explain the context of this passage in my " Remarks on Mr. Faber's Primitive Doctrine of Regenera- " tion" (p. 16). St. Clement is combating an opinion advanced by some of the Gnostics, who argued that by calling themselves 'children' and ' little ones,' the general body of Christians implied their need of further instruction, and thus virtually confessed their inferiority to them, the enlightened few, who had attained to perfect know- ledge {yvwaic). To meet this argument, St. Clement contends that Christians become perfect (TtXeioi) at Baptism ; that they are then instantaneously enlightened, and knoio God at once. He appeals to the example of our Saviour (whether pertinently or not, I need not determine), and asks, whether He, when rege- nerated {ayayevirfdiic, i. e. baptized) was not (teXeioc) perfect P *" At the end of Bernard's Life, &c. of Usher, it is advertised thus : " ^^ The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion, being in part " his, but published without his consent." 1 "'£t]fiipov ai'aytvvr]9nQ 6 Xpturoc. Psedag. I. 6. init. (Ed. Col. 1G88.)" OPINION' OF THE FATHERS, &C. 43 St. Clement asserts in the earlier part of this very passage : " at all events, being regenerated ice hnmediately received the perfec- tion, for the sake of which we were pressing on," i. e. the perfect and complete state of Christians {a.rayErvr\QivTtQ your ivdiwQ to tIXhov ciTTtiXijipafiey ov intca tairevlofxtv). What can this passage have to do with the question of an ' opus oj)eratum ' view of Baptism ? As far as it relates at all to the subject, it implies that baptism is the entrance into a complete state. The example of our Saviour is only quoted, to prove that baptism is a complete entrance into sonship, though of course, in His case, it does not relate to actual sonship, but to solemn inauguration (as Pearson speaks) into his office, as the Son of God, who was at his Baptism consecrated and commissioned to act as such upon earth. 73. With reference to the other passage, in which St. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of Cornelius as having been regenerated in his spirit by the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, before his baptism, Mr. Goode may find in the Oxford translation references to other passages of the Fathers in which the same language is held ; but how can this extraordinary and exceptional case affect the thousands of passages — I speak advisedly — in which the Fathers, now directly and explicitly, now incidentally and by im- plication, declare both the general doctrine of baptismal regene- ration, and the particular doctrine that is now most violently impugned, the unconditional remission of original sin, in the case of all duly baptized infants ? 74. It would be quite unnecessary to quote many such testi- monies. The two following extracts are from St. Augustine : — «) " But little children have committed no sin of their own in ' their life. There remains therefore original sin, by reason of ' which they are captives under the power of the Devil, unless ' they are redeemed from this captivity by the laver of regene- ' ration and the blood of Christ, and pass into the kingdom of ' tlicir Redeemer, the power of him who held them captive being ' frustrated, and a power being given them, by which from the ' sons of this world they may become the sons of God^." 2 Nullum autcni pcccatam parvuli in suA vitA proprium coinniiscrunt. Romanet ergo originalo peccatum, per quod sub Diaboli poteHtatc captivi sunt, nisi inde lavacro regeneration is ct Cliristi sanguine rcdimantur ; et 44 Ol'IXIOX OF THE FATHERS, &C. b) " We say therefore that the Holy Spirit dwells in baptized " little ones, though they know it not. For they know Him not, " although He be in them, in like manner as they know not " even their own mind ; whose intellectual faculty within them, " which they cannot as yet use, is slumbering like some spark, " to be kindled by the advance of years ^." 75. To these I will here only add one or two more passages, as translated and quoted by Beveridge. " Because the word " regenerated is so much carped at in our order for the admi- " nistration of Baptism, I shall next show," he says, " how the " primitive Church did long ago not only hold the same asser- " tion, but also use the same expression. Athanasius : ' He " ' that is baptized, puts off the old man, and is renewed, as being " ' regenerated by the grace of the Spirit.' And so St. Basil : " ' Being baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost we are regene- " ' rated.' The Second Council at Milevi or Milenum : ' Infants " ' who cannot commit any sin as yet of themselves, are therefore " ' truly baptized into the remission of sins, that what they con- " ' traded by generation might be cleansed in them by regeneration.' " To name no more, Justin Martyr himself, long before any of " these, said expressly: 'Afterwards they be brought by us to a " 'place where there is water, and after the same manner of re- " 'generation that we are regenerated by, are they also regenerated.' " And therefore let such as carp at that word in our Liturgy " hereafter know, it is the primitive Church itself, and the most " ancient and renowned Fathers they carp at." (Vol. vii. 458.) 76. Several more passages from the Fathers will be given below (Cf. 79, 80), when we come to consider the language of our own early divines. I will now proceed to show (for it ap- pears to be a point of which Mr. Goode is quite unconscious), that Luther and the Lutheran divines fully and firmly adhered to transeant in reguum redemptoris sui, frustrata potestate captivatoris sui, et datapotestate, cjuS fiant ex filiis hujus steculi filii Uei. — De Nupt. et Concupisc. lib. i. 22. ' Dicimus ergo in baptizatis parvulis, quamvis id nesciant,habitare Spiritum sanctum. Sic enim eura nesciunt, quamvis sit in eis, quemadmodum nesciunt et mentem suam ; cujus in eis ratio, qua uti nondum possunt, velut qusedam scintilla sopita est, excitanda tetatis accessu. {Ep. 187 [.(m the due consideration of " our Baptisme : and as .S. Ilieronte sayes, Certainly he that E 50 BATTISMAI. VIEWS OF MR, GOODE, &C. " thinks upon the last Judgement advisedly, cannot sin then, so " he that saves with S. Augustine, Procede in confessione, fides " mea. Let me make every day to God, this confession, Domine " Deus meus, Sancte, Sancte, Sancte Domine Deus mens, O Lord " my God, O Holy, Holy, Holy Lord my God; In nomine tuo " Baptizatus sum, I consider that I was baptized in thy name, " and what thou promisedst me, and what 1 promised thee then, " and can I sin this sin, can this sin stand with those conditions, " those stipulations which passed between us then ? The Spirit " of God is motion, the Spirit of God is rest too ; and in the " due consideration of Baptisme, a true Christian is moved, and " settled too ; moved to a sense of the breach of his conditions, " settled in the sense of the Mercy of his God, in the Merits of " his Christ, upon his godly sorrow. So these waters are the " waters of Baptisme." {Sermon on Whit-Sunday.) § 11. On the " baptismal views" of Mr. Goode : — of Zwingli and Calvin. 81. Let us now consider, what doctrine we must substitute, if we would follow Mr. Goode and those who think with him, for the old doctrine of the Catholic Church, that the grace of each sacrament is, by God's ordinance, " annexed" to its appropriate sign, and, as it were, " clothed with it^V and conveyed by it; that not only the Word, but also the Sacraments have (as Hooker speaks) "a generative force and virtue^;" that we thereby receive from God " a sacred and seaet gift^." The doctrine, as stated by Mr. Goode (p. 24), is this : — " The other view is, that the Sacrament of Baptism has been " appointed by God as the rite by which the privilege of soa- " ship, with its accompanying blessings, is formally made over ^ Chemnitz. ^ As many as are apparently to our judgement born of God, they have the seed of their regeneration by the ministry of the Church, which useth to that end and purpose not only the Word but the Sacraments, both having gemratite force and virtue. (Hooker, 5, 1. 1.) ' We all admire and honour the Sacraments, not I'especting so much the service which we do unto God in receiving them, as the dignity of that sacred and secret gift which we thereby receive from God. (Hooker, 5, 50, 2.) BAPTISMAL VIEWS OF MR. GOODE. &C. 51 " to man, at once and absolutely to those who by God's previous " favor have been placed in a position which causes the rite to " be efficacious, and who possess God's grant of the privilege, " and conditionally, that is, upon the conditions of subsequent " faith and repentance, to all. But no opus operatum efficacy is " conceded to the rite itself. The privilege of sonship is given " by it, but only upon the strength of, and in accordance with, " the grant of that privilege by God. That privilege is abso- " lutely made over by it, only where it has been previously, or " at the time, granted by God, — a grant independent of Bap- " tism. And where it is conditionally made over, the rite has " efficacy, only when, — the condition being, by God's grace, " fulfilled, — the actual grant is made by God." 82. Divergent vieics of these divines with respect to Infant Bap- tismj] " This doctrine, then, leads in the case of infants to more " than one view as to the effects of Baptism upon them." A. " By some it is held, that all infants of a Christian parent* " are so within the bond of the covenant, that the guilt of origi- " nal sin, under which they are born, will not be imputed to " them, the apostle distinctly representing such as ' holy' " (1 Cor. vii. 14), and consequently, that in Baptism the remis- " sion of original sin (with which alone they can be chargeable) "is in all cases formally made over to them. They do not, " however, consider this to be equivalent to spiritual regenera- " tion." B. [" This latter is Mr. Gorham's view."] " Others, how- " ever, not prepared to maintain that all these infants are in " such a position by their birth of a Christian parent, believe, " that as in the case of an adult, there must be some previous " grant of grace by God, in order that there may be a present " and absolute beneficial effect from Baptism, so we must sup- " pose the same to be necessary in the case of infants, who, " being by nature under the guilt of original sin, cannot be con- " sidered as necessarilij entitled to the remission of sin and the " gift of spiritual life in and by Baptism." In Mr. Gorham's own words : " If such [i. e. baptized] infants ■• " There is no sutticieiit scriptural iititliority fur tlio baijlisin of any " infants but those of a Ciiristian parent, except under peculiar circuni- " stances." K 2 53 BAPTISMAL VIEWS OF MR. GOODE, &C. " die before they commit ' actual sin,' the Church holds, and I " hold, that they are undoubtedly saved : and therefore they " 7nust have been regenerated by an act of grace prevenient " to their Baptism, in order to make them worthy recipients " of that sacrament." [Jhs. 19. — The Italics are mine.] 83. I am at present only stating the doctrines of this school. Indeed, I have not yet seen Mr. Goode's defence of them in his large work upon the "Effects of Infant Baptism." But let me beg the reader to observe, that according to the doctrine of all these divines, no child is ever made at his baptism what every child is taught to say that it was made therein, unless it had received the grant j)7'eviouslj/ to baptism, and independently q/that sacrament. (Cf. 81.) 84. Effects of Baptism in the case of Adults. ~\ With respect to adults, Mr. Goode states the effect of the doctrine which he ad- vocates thus : — " The inward and spiritual grace of Baptism is the being made " members of Christ and children of God; and the outward rite " of Baptism is the means by which that grace is publicly and " formally made over to men; and a pledge to assure us of its " reception — of its immediate reception, if our state is at the time " such as is requisite for its reception, and at least of its future " reception, if our state, though not such then, should afterwards " become so. " But that such a privilege should be, at the moment of Bap- " tism, absolutely made over to adults, it is necessary that rege- " nerating grace should have been previously received, and there- " fore that, in the eye of God, the party baptized should be a " person spiritually regenerate ; his condition being, in fact, " precisely similar to that of one who presents himself to receive " formal admission into a society or body of which he has a right, " by the grant of the proper authority and the possession of the " necessary qualifications, to demand to be made a member. " Technically, no doubt, he is not a member until he has gone " through the required form of admission ; but by right, and " intrinsically, he is." It is here distinctly asserted, that the privilege " of being made members of Christ and children of God " at the time of Baptism, ^ is made over to none but those who have previously received re- BAPTISMAL VIEWS OF MR. GOODE, &C. 53 generating grace. To receive the gift of sonship at Baptism, " it is necessary" that in the eye of God the "party baptized should be a person spiritually regenerate" (p. 34). 85. Mr. Goode's illustration of this is an awkward one to deal with, for though he calls it a " precisely similar" case, he allows, in a note, that it does not hold good in every respect. I may ask, does it hold good in the very respect for which he adduces it ? When a person demands to be admitted, as a member, into any society or body of men, on the ground that he possesses the right of admission "by the grant of the proper authority and the possession of the necessary qualifications/' he is nevertheless really (not technically only, as Mr. Goode would have it) not a member of it, till he has been admitted by the prescribed mode of admission. If the office to which he is admitted, confers emoluments or privileges, the actual enjoyment of these emoluments or privileges dates from the admission ; if it prescribes duties to be performed, the obligation to perform them begins at the same moment. 86. Effects of Baptism in the case of Infants. ~\ "With respect to infants the following passages are important : — " If an adult, coming without faith and repentance, purchases " to himself damnation by undergoing Baptism in such a state, " then, in accordance with this doctrine, an infant lying under " God's wrath, as our Church teaches us that all do by nature, " — though not committing, in its Baptism, actual sin, (of which " it is incapable, and of which it could not be rendered guilty by " an act performed upon it against its will by another,) and there- " fore not purchasing to itself damnation, — is not entitled to " receive the grace of Baptism in that Sacrament." This doctrine, even with its comforting qualification, that an infant that has not received the " prevcnient act of grace," does, nevertheless, not purchase to itself damnation in its Baptism, is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Churcli in every age up to the time of tlie reformation, — a proposition, I allow, which I cannot expect Mr. Goode to grant : — it is oj)])oscd to tliat of the Church of Rome (of which, even Luther said he had little to corni)lain on this subject), and to tliat of all the great symbolical writers of the Lutheran reformation : it is, as far as 1 know, opposed to every Creed or Profession of Faith that has ever been 54 BAPTISMAL. VIEWS OF ZWINGLI. drawn up, except those whose authors were of the school of Cal- vin or of Zwingli. 87. That the doctrine doe?, upon the whole, bear at least a striking resemblance even to the extreme doctrine of Zwingli, the following extracts from that writer will prove. a) " But if we are prepared for the reception of sacramental " grace without a sacrament" [which he assumes *] " then the Spirit " is present of His bountiful kindness before the Sacrament, and " grace is just as much both conferred and present before the " Sacrament is administered. From which we conclude . . . " that sacraments are given for a public testimony of that grace, " which is present with each individual before *." b) By Baptism the Church publicly receives him, who was be/ore received by grace. Baptism, therefore, does not bring grace with it, but gives attestation to the Church, that grace has been granted to him, to whom it is given. I believe, therefore, O Emperor, that a sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing, that is, of grace conferred ^ c) " Though sacraments cannot confer grace, yet they visibly " associate us with the Church, who were before received into it " invisibly." It was against these opinions, as I before observed, that the Lutheran theologians protested, and especially against the doc- trine that " sacraments were only signs of a grace either already " conferred and received, without the use of sacraments, or not " to be conferred till some subsequent time^" ^ Having argued that we iniist be prepared for the reception of sacra- mental grace either by ourselves or by the Spirit, and rejected the first, as implying human merit, he asks whether the Spirit prepares us by a sacra- ment or otherwise. " Not," he says, " by a sacrament, or each sacrament " would require a preceding sacrament ad infinitum." * Si vero citra Sacramentum prseparamur ad sacramentalis gratise accep- tionem, ergo Sjiiritus sua benignitate adest ante Sacramentum, et perinde gratia et facta et prsesens est antequam adferatur Sacramentum. Ex qui- bus hoc colligitur — sacramenta dari in Testimonium publicum ejus gratiae, quse cuique private prius adest. — Zwlnglii F'ldei ratio (Niemeyer. p. 25). ' Baptismo igitur Eeclesia publice recipit eum, qui prius receptus est per gratiam. Non ergo adfert gratiam baptismus, sed gratiam factam esse ei cui datur, Ecclesise testatur. Credo igitur, Csesar, sacramentum esse sacrce rei, hoc est fact^ gratis, signum. — Zmtigl.fd. 7-at. p. 26. * Detrahuut huic efficacise Sacramentorum iv eXXen/zti : — qui decent BAPTISMAL VIEWS OF ZWIXGLI. 55 88. The following passages are from Calvin : — a) " Not that such graces are tied to and contained in the " Sacrament, that thej/ may be conferred upon us by virtue of it; " but only because by this pledge God attests his will towards us, " namely, that He desires to bestow upon us all these things." Compare Mr. Goode's words (in his own type), at p. 53. " And even where it is absolutely and at once made over, it " is not made over bj' the opus operatum virtue of Baptism ; so " that though conferred instrumentally by Baptism, as an office " is conferred upon a properly qualified person by the appointed " form of admission to it, it is never given By virtue of Baptism " itself." b) " But" [says Calvin, it is argued] " there is a danger lest " the sick person, if he depart without baptism, should be deprived " of the grace of regeneration. By no means. God, when He pro- " mises to be a God to us and to our seed after us, pronounces " that He adopts our children for his own before they are born. — " After this the sacrament is added as a seal, not as giving " efficacy to the promise of Go^, as if it were invalid, but only " that it may confirm it to us. Whence it follows, that the " infant children of believers are not baptized that they viay then "first become the children of God, who before wei"e aliens from " his Church, but°," &c. § 12. Mr. Goode's representation of what he calls the opus operatum doctrine. 8!). We have now seen the doctrine of Mr. Goodc, and its sources. Strange, that any English Churchman should be led to Sacramenta esse duntaxat signa Ki-atiio vol jam ante extra usum Sacra- montorum collatic ct iwrcoptrc, vcl postmoiluin future dcniuin tempore con- ferenda;. — Gerli. iv. 2C7. " At periculum est no is <|ui icgrotat, si absque haptiHiiio drccsscrit, rogo- neratioiiis gratia privctur. Miiiimo vero. Infuiitos nostros, aiitc(|uam naseantur, so adoptare in suos |)ronuiiciat Dcus, cum so nobis in Dcum foro proniittit, Bcminiijuo nostro post nos. — Acccdit post oa sacramentum sigiili instar; non fjuod efficaciam Doi proniissioni, rpiasi per so invalida-, confornt, scd cam duntaxat nobis conlirniat. Undo soiniitur, non idco bii[pti/,ari infantes fidelium liberos ut filii Dei tunc fiant primum, qui ante alieni fuerint ab ecclesiA, &c. (iDSlit. cap. Ift, 71) 56 MR. goode's description of prefer this cold and comfortless creed to that blessed sacramental teaching of the Primitive Church, the spirit of which has been already so often brought before us in the course of these Remarks, in the language both of the Fathers and of our own greatest and best divines ! Mr. Goode may, however, well dislike and oppose the view of Baptism, that characterizes the school to which the Bishop of Exeter belongs, if the following description of it (given by him at p. 23) is correct : — " The former view" [that of the Bishop of Exeter] " is, that the " Sacrament of Baptism is by God's appointment, and affixed grace, " the primary source of all life-giving influence to man ; so that in " and by Baptism, that is, the opus operatum of the Baptismal Act, " and by that alone, remission of sins and spiritual regeneration " are absolutely, and without reference to conditions or qualifica- " tions, conferred upon man. And that this is the meaning of the " Article of the Nicene Creed, ' One Baptism for the remission " ' of sins.' Every one baptized is ipso facto spiritually rege- " Derated. The obvious repulsiveness, however, of such a notion " in the case of adults, has induced the majority of those who " incline in the direction of this view, to stop short at the case " of infants, and to deny this doctrine in the case of adults. " Among these is your Lordship, though many of your statements " are consistent only with the former view." 90. This passage is disgraceful to Mr. Goode as a theologian, for it describes the opinion of the school in question in language which it never, I think, uses, an unpardonable fault in describing the opinions of any school or sect : but it is also both unchari- table and unjust, for he knows that the divines in question would not grant, that Baptism confers grace ex opere operato, in the sense which he means the words to bear. The language imputed to them (whether justly or not, I cannot say), that Baptism is " the primary source of all living-giving influence to man," might indeed be justified by a similar assertion of Origen's, ■who calls it (ap^'/ '^'"' TTTjyj) yapitJi-iaTtav Ofov) " the begin- ning and source of the graces of GodK" But would any of them call it " the primary source," so as to exclude the one great and sole Source of all spiritual grace ? Still more, would 1 Cf. Hagenbach (Eng. Trans.), vol. i. 193. THE "opus OPERATUM DOCTRINE." 57 any of them attribute spiritual efficacy to the mere " opus operatum of the baptismal act ?" As to that misunderstood term itself, even Baur, the vigorous opponent of Mohler, allows that in very early times indeed, the Roman Catholic divines pro- tested against the usual and worst meaning of the terra ; at all events, that Church, according to the strict decision taught in its Canon Law, as well as in the Tridentine Decrees and Catechism, re.c\u\rQ?, penitence and faith in adults. Her doctrine, as I find it laid down in Cabassutius's Juris Canonici Theoria et Praxis, p. 254, is this : " In the case of adults to be baptized, the pre- " requisites for receiving the grace of this sacrament are faith, " and also the wish to receive Baptism : moreover, sorroio for their " sins, with the resolution of future amendment ; according to " Acts 2, V, 38, ' Repent every one of you, and be baptized.' " And Augustine says (Lib. de vera et falsa pcenit., cap. 18), "Baptism " without repentance has never profited him who has sinned volun- " tarily." 9L With respect to the dispositions of mind that act as a bar to sacramental grace, some, they teach, " hinder the very substance " of baptism and other sacraments, as when any one is washed in " mere hypocrisy, and without any internal intention : others " are no hindrance to the validity of the Sacrament, but to some " of its effects, e. g. to grace, to the remission of sins, and of the " punishment that is their due ; but not to the character [i. e. " the impress, or mark stamped, as it were, on the baptized " person] or to subjection to the Church. JJut as soon as that " hypocritical state (fctio) shall cease, by virtue of a subsequent " and true repentance, then, and not before, as Augustine teaches " (Lib. i. de bapt., c. 12), all the effects of the Sacrament which " were suspended, will spring uj) and be produced anew." The dispositions of this class arc, he says, defect of penitence, and an affection to any deadly sin. 92. Thus then 7ionc, even in the Cliurch of Rome, teach that in the case of adults " remission of sins and spiritual regcne- " ration are absolutely, and without reference to conditions and " qualifications, conferred upon man." And yet Mr. Goodc reck- lessly asserts, that the minority of those wlio belong to the Rishop of Exeter's school (a minority, which, he tells us, includes Arch- deacon Wilberforce, but not the Bishop) hold this doctrine ! 58 MR. goode's description of 93. The following passage, which occurs at p. 36, must not be passed over without notice ^. " The great, vital, and fatal objection to your Lordship's doc- " trine, is briefly this ; that you make the mere opus operatum of " Baptism the source of spiritual life to the soul. You thereby " place yourself almost in the position of God himself. You " boldly aver, that in the case of all infants, wherever found, and " under whatever circumstances, you can give or withhold rerais- " sion of sins and spiritual life; that these gifts are so tied to " Baptism, that mitil you choose to give Baptism, God himself " cannot (without some extraordinary interference) give those " gifts ; that you have only to sprinkle the child with water and " utter a few words, and the thing is done. Prayers may be " offered if people think fit; you do not (as your apologist ' C " coolly observes,) 'in any way object to that.' But that, and " everything else except the act of baptizing, is a matter of indif- " ference. Remission of sins and spiritual life are the necessary " and invariable result of your act. You therefore can leave in " a state of spiritual death, and you can make alive. My Lord, " this is of the essence of that apostasy whose characteristic is to " 'sit in the temple of God, showing himself to be God ;' to be " (as the Head of that apostasy has been called) a Vice-God " upon earth." 94. This might be considered in itself o. mild view of the character of Antichrist : but in its application, as used by Mr. Goode for the purpose of bringing many of his brethren in the ministry under an indefinite charge of participating in the guilt of the great, mysterious Apostasy, it far exceeds in uncharitable and, I must add, senseless exaggeration any passage that I remember to have read in the pages of an English theologian. 2 The following is a similar passage from p. 27 : " He denies what your " Lordship, with the Church of Rome, in effect though not in words, main- " tains, — that every minister of Christ has power and authority given him " by God to make over to any infant, at his pleasure, remission of sins " and spiritual regeneration, by performing upon him the rite of Bap- " tism ; and that God's acts are dependent upon those of the minister ; " which is, in fact, a daring assumption of the Divine prerogative to " forgive sins, cloaked only by the thin veil of the admission that the per- " formance of a certain rite is necessary for the exercise of that pre- " rogative." THE "opus OPERATUM DOCTRINE." 59 95. I have used the epithet senseless deliberately. To speak of any English clergyman as boldly averring, that he can give or with- hold spiritual life and remission of sins in the case of any infants, tvherever found, and under whatever circumstatices ! As if it were a common thing for English priests to go about looking for un- baptized infants in odd out-of-the-way places and peculiar cir- cumstances ; as if they were not restrained, both by law and custom, from administering the holy rite in any place but the House of God, save in the one excepted " circumstance " of the child's dangerous illness. To give or withhold remission of sins and spiritual life ! as if the law of the Church, the law of the land, the law of custom, did not all compel them to administer this Sacrament to every infant, brought to the font with the attendance of the required sponsors ; as if a strict and penal law did not forbid them, under the circumstances I have just mentioned, ever to with- hold it ; as if, on being summoned to baptize an infant in danger of death, they were not liable to the penalty of suspension, if they do not resort to the place (if it can " conveniently be done ") and baptize it ! " You have only to sprinkle the child with water and utter a few words, and the thing is done !" To sprinkle it ! to utter a few words ! The thing I Let us pass on (without dwelling upon this distressing irreverence of language) to the statement, that "this is of the essence of" the great "apo- stasy !" What must we think of one, who can make the due administration of a Sacrament — such administration being one of the distinctive marks of every particular Church that can claim, with any appearance of right, to be considered as belonging to the Church Catholic — an Antichristian act, because those who administer it, being lawfully appointed and ordained to their holy office, believe, with the Universal Church, that God has been pleased to attach to this sacramental rite a spiritual grace, which lie, who " wisheth (fiiXti) tliat all men should be saved," in- variably (in their belief) imparts to all who, from their age, are incapable of opposing to that grace any such moral resistance, as should unfit tlicm for its reception ! And then, to sit in the temple of Cod showing himself to be God I This of a minister who stands at llic font to administer Christ's Holy Baptism " in the namio of the Fatiikh, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost !" who there tells those who bring the 60 CONCLUDING REMARKS. infant, to believe earnestly that God favorably alloweth that charitable work of his and theirs; words that exclude in every way the notion, that he who uses them is showing himself to he God; for they (1) name Him who is really God; (2) they imply that His favorable allowance of our work is necessary to its beneficial performance ; and (3) they associate those who bring the children tvith the administering clergyman, as joint performers of the same charitable work ! At all events, these "Vice- gods upon earth " have shown but little jealousy in maintaining the prerogatives of their usurped divinity, for so far have they been from clinging to them, as their exclusive and inalienable right, that "yea, baptism by any man in case of necessity^" has been generally, if not universally, allowed and taught ; even baptism by women "in private by occasion of urgent necessity*:" the Church of Rome adds, " baptism by a heretic, a Jew, or a Pagan \" Nor is the validity of such baptism pretended to be derived in any way from the clergy, but referred independently and immediately , as in the case of baptism performed by an ordained minister, to Him, Whose Sacrament it is ! I am almost ashamed of having exposed such a passage at such length. But what a passage it is ° ! Concluding Remarks. 96. Leaving to others the discussion of the Judgement, I cannot conclude these Remarks without expressing a hope, that even the wrong done by it to the Church may be more than compensated by the fuller discussion of this great question, which it must oc- casion. I cannot but think, that some clergymen will be induced to examine the grounds, upon which their rejection (often an almost unconscious rejection) of the old faith of the Church has rested ; and to ask themselves seriously, whether any thing short » Hooker, 5, Ixi. 3. * Ibid. 5, Ixii. 3. * Valet etiam baptismus a non baptizato quovis homine etiam Judajo vel Pagano collatus. Cabassutius Jur. Can. Theor. et Prax. p. 256. * The only passage that I know of, which can be compared for its in- temperate violence with this of Mr. Goode's, is one that is printed at p. 568 of Gerhard's Loc. Theol. " Memno Simonis in fundam. fol. 55 . . . statuit, " f. 40, baptismum infantum esse idolatrlcum, f. 50, et seqq. esse ex Dracoiie et " hestia, nee aliud quam ceremoniam Antichristi" ap. Gerhard, iv. 568. CONCLUDING REMARKS. 61 of a full belief of the Church's statements can justify them in solemnly pronouncing, in the language of an affectionate, personal address to those who have brought an infant to the font, that that child is by baptism regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church ; in allowing their village children to describe each its own personal state, in the plain unqualified terms of the Church Catechism, " My Baptism ; wherein I was made a member " of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of " heaven." 97. We were told not long ago by Mr. Faber, that this was the generic judgement of charitable confidence; that ''the prin- " ciple of Gentrichva pervades all the offices of the Church of Eng- " land^ ." In Mr. Gorham's language we have the "naked verbality " of doctrines held up as a comparatively worthless thing : we hear of statements " as absolute as mere verbalitij can make them." Mr. Ward's "non-natural sense," bad as it was, was, at all events, not more objectionable in meaning, and much plainer, and stronger, and more English (in every sense) than " Genericism " and " naked verbality." 98. But to pass from the name, and the new terminology con- nected with it, to the thing. Mr. Goode asserts, with the most unhesitating confidence, that the principle of charitable presumption is the necessary principle on which, not merely Common Prayer, but a Catechism must be drawn up ! As if it were above either the power of language to express a condition, or of a plain mind to understand one ! Such, however, is his confidence in this axiomatic principle, that in the following passage he assumes an assenting answer, which I for one should certainly not re- turn. " If you baptize a number of adults, you call them all, after " their Baptism, members of Christ and children of God ; and " you say, and justly say, that they were made so in and l)y their " Baptism, that being the rite appointed by God for admission " to such a state. But will you affirm dogmatically that they " are all, of necessity, true members of Christ and children of " God .'' You are conscious that you could not do so. Yet, " nevertheless, if you were to draw up a Catechism for their use, ' ExaiM. \i. 71- 62 CONCLUDING REMARKS. " you would speak of what took place in Baptism precisely as " you do in the Catechism for children in the Prayer Book." [/ certainly should not.'] " It would be understood as a matter " of course, that the language was used on the hypothesis that " Baptism had been rightly received, and had therefore really " made over this character to the baptized ; while the fact would " be, that such character had only been, in many cases, con- " ditionally made over, and the parties might really be, in the " sight of God, though not in the eye of the Church,. ' in the " 'gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.' Is there any " thing unintelligible, any thing disingenuous, in this ?" Nothing that is unintelligible : much that is disingenuous. 99. With respect to a distinction that has been so often of late assumed to exist between devotional offices and dogmatic state- ments, as if the former must be drawn up hypothetically, I would remark, in the first place, that this assertion is not universally true of a devotional office, as such; the assumed necessity depends entirely upon the nature of the statement, and upon the fact, that the same statement is to be made, or the same language used, by many persons at once. Some statements in devotional offices must be understood hypothetically, others need not ; and consequently the necessity of understanding any given sentence in a devotional office hypothetically, depends absolutely and solely upon the nature of the assertion, which that sentence makes or implies. 100. But, secondly, many of the Offices in the Prayer Book are not wholly devotional. The Catechism is (with the exception of the inserted Creed and Lord's Prayer) entirely dogmatic ; and the Baptismal Offices partly dogmatic and partly devo- tional. Now, with respect to dogmatic teaching, the more elementary the principles taught, the more definite and precise ought the language to be ; the more simple and uneducated the pupils to be instructed, the greater the necessity of using words in their natural sense, to express what plain people will at once understand them to mean. In "the mere naked verbality" of our Catechism, aU allow that the statement made by every child that repeats it, is, that in its Baptism it was made " a member of " Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of " heaven." God forbid, that the Church of England should ever desert this faith ; and God forbid, I add, that if she ever should CONCLUDING REMARKS. 63 desert this faith, she should add to her desertion of a fundamental doctrine of the Creed the additional sin, of making the little ones of Christ declare, in plainest words, that very truth, which the Church that teaches them the words, herself no longer holds ! When we shall have come to believe, that none of these bless- ings are made over to infants, except on condition of their future conversion to God (which is the condition, not of their first reception, but of their final benefit to the receiver), let us express this condition in our Catechism : let the child say to its minister, that in Baptism it received a promise from God, that it should hereafter be His child, if it tvotild trust Him as a Father ; should hereafter be made the member of Christ, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, if it would believe in Christ, and obey Him. 101. The reader of these Remarks has had placed before him many declarations, — some of which he may not have before seen, and others, which, though familiar to him, may have acquired additional force, or additional interest, from being placed in connexion with other passages, — which all speak of the grace of Baptism, as a thing really conferred; and what is it, let me again ask, that some of our brethren are now attempting to substitute for the old faith, that the grace of Baptism has a " generative *" force ; does really give to the powers of the infant's soul " their first disposition towards future newness of life';" a "possibility of being saved';" a "capacity obe- diential';" that it is "a seed planted" in the heart by divine grace ; a communion rendered jwssible, and really begun with the glorified Humanity of Jesus Christ ? — the doctrine, that Baptism never conveys this, but only attests it, or at most " formally makes over" what was really possessed before ; a crotchety theory of a " prevenient grace," that must precede the grace of Baptism, which the Church has hitherto believed (in the language of •Jeremy Taylor) to he always the first, " unless, by the superinducing " of actual sins upon our nature, we make it necessary to do " something to remove the hindcranccs to God's Spirit, and that " IIoDlicr. ' Jirtiny Taylor. ' Ibid. ' n>id. Gi CONCLUDING REMARKS. " some grace is accidentally necessary, before that which ordinarily " and regularly is the first grace." 10-2. " Prevenient grace," which has hitherto, I beheve, in Enghsh Theology, borne the name of preventing grace, is indeed absolutely necessary in the case of adults, to incline their hearts to that faith and repentance, which are for them the necessary conditions of a beneficial reception of Holy Baptism ; but, in the case of infants, no "preventing grace" was supposed by the great body of our old divines (walking here, as ever, in the footsteps of the Primitive Church) to be necessary before the grace of baptism. Thus Jeremy Taylor, arguing that those may be baptized rightly, who " are not in " a capacity to * put on the new man' in righteousness, that is, in " an actual holy life," says, " it is done sacram en tally, and that " part which is wholly the work of God, does only antedate the " work of man, which is to succeed in its due time, and is after " the manner of preventing grace." (Vol. ii. 254.) 103. And so Bishop Wilson, in his " Catechetical Instructions for Candidates for Holy Orders : " — " Q. What other names are given in the Gospel to this Sacra- " ment ? "A. It is called Regeneration, or the New Birth, or being made " a Neiv Creatu7-e, etc., or being born again. " Q. Why is it so called ? " A. Because, as we did receive a natural life from our pa- " rents, as descendants of Adam, subject to sin and misery, so " by baptism, we receive the holy Spirit for a principle of a new " and Christian life, and as truly as we did receive a natural life " from our parents : and being thus engrafted into Christ or " His Church, we receive grace and a new life from Christ, as " really as a branch receives life and nourishment from the good " tree, in which it is grafted. This is called the preventing grace " of God, or his free gift, because we have done nothing to " deserve such a favour." 104. But Mr. Gorham appears to think, and Mr. Goode plainly agrees with him, that by the following argument he has established the necessity of "prevenient grace" in the case of infants, as the condition of a beneficial reception of baptism : " Our Church " holds," says Mr. Gorhara, " and I hold, that no spiritual grace CONCLUDING REMARKS. 65 " is conveyed in Baptism, except to worth}/ recipients ; and as " infants are by nature w«wortby recipients, ' being born in sin " ' and the children of wrath,' they cannot receive any benefit " from Baptism except there shall have been a prevenient act of " grace to make them worthy^. " If we state the premisses of this argument syllogistically, using fit and unfit, or duly qualified and not duly qualified, we shall at once see that the minor premiss assumes the very point that is to be proved. a) No spiritual grace is conveyed in Baptism except to fit recipients. b) But infants are by nature unfit recipients. Here we have, as I said, the very proposition that is to be proved : but the assent of an incautious reader may be won, by his readiness to concede, that even the " innocency" of an infant constitutes no claim of merit. To perceive the nature of the fallacy, which the use of worthy and unworthy has favoured, let us consider that the fittest recipients of the spiritual grace conveyed in the other great Sacrament of the Church of Christ must and do acknowledge, that they are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under their Master's table. But does this feeling, does this fact make them really " Mwworthy recipients ?" The premiss assumed by Mr. Gorham, that infants are unworthy (that is, unfit, or not duly qualified) recipients, is maintained indeed by him and by Mr. Goode ; but the Catholic Church in all ages has held, that original sin does not make an infant unfit for the reception of grace : and for the truth of this principle almost any amount of testimony may be produced from our greatest divines. 105. My friend. Archdeacon Hare, expresses the hope (p. 37 of his ' Letter to the Hon. R. Cavendish'), that " if any measure be " adopted, by whatsoever authority, to render the declaration of " the universality of Baptismal llegeneration more explicit and " more stringent, care will also be taken to clear up the am- " biguous meaning of the word Regeneration, and to declare that, " in its ecclesiastical sense, it is no way to be understood as " identical with, or interfering with, or precluding the necessity '■ cf conversion; which requires a conscious, resjionsiblc subject, •^ Jixuiiiiiiatiuii, J). li.'J, .\iibwcr 15. 66 CONCLUDING REMARKS. " and is necessary, through the frailty of our nature, in all at a " later period of life. The popular confusion of these two dis- " tinct acts, which are almost equally indispensable for all such " as attain to years of personal responsibility, is the main ground " of the ever-renewed disputes concerning Baptismal llegenera- " tion : and a brief authoritative exposition of this point, if we " have the wisdom to draw up one, would be of inestimable value " to the Church. Without this, the increased stringency in our " assertion of it would be incalculably disastrous." 106. In the opinions here expressed I entirely agree with the Archdeacon, though the term " conversion" would, I think, itself require explanation. Indeed, I do not myself consider it the best word, to denote the act of an individual, fully and consciously closing with the offers of mercy, through Christ, on the terms of Christ's covenant. But surely, the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, as taught by any of its recent advo- cates, cannot, without a culpable misunderstanding of the doc- trine taught, be accused of, in any degree, encouraging, coun- tenancing, or leading to the dangerous confusion both of terras and notions to which Archdeacon Hare refers. It is no cold or extorted concession on the part of those who hold this doctrine, that Baptism has no saving efficacy without the after life of piety. It is a known and acknowledged fact, that those who agree most nearly with Dr. Pusey upon this point, have also adopted the patristic view of the heinousness of post-baptismal sin ; and of the stern penitential discipline, that is necessary for its cure. In proportion to the power given is the responsibility of all who have received it, and the guilt of those who have neglected, and still more of those who have abused it. I have not yet done more than look into Archdeacon Wilberforce's volume, — just enough to know how shameful ^ are the terms in which Mr. Goode alludes to it — ; but Archdeacon Hare himself could not affirm the * " And if, your Lordship wishes to see this doctrine fully insisted on, " without any timid reservations or scruples, such as have usually been " observable even in authors of this school, I commend you to Archdeacon " Wilberforce's last work. You will there find how eutii-ely reconcileable " it is both with reason and revelation, that every body baptized should be " in and by Baptism spiritually regenerated, and have all the powers of *' their nature renovated, and have ' Christ dwelling in them,' even though " theii' will remains corrupt, and they may be none the better for it." COXCLUUIXG REMARKS. 67 necessity of " conversion" in plainer terras than his brother Archdeacon (p, 47). " In an adult, conversion is essential to the " efficacy, or perhaps it might almost be said, to the completeness " of Baptism." And again (p. 48), " Though the name of con- " version is more exactly applicable when persons have gone " away from God's commandments, and afterwards return to " them, yet it may in some sort be applied even to those, who " yield from the first to the suasions of that better nature which " is given them. And in this manner does St. Augustine ob- " serve, ' that conversion may be said to follow in infants, while " ' in adults it may accompanv regeneration.' " 107. That an " authoritative exposition " of the sense in which the Church of England requires her children to hold the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, would, as Archdeacon Hare observes, be " of inestimable value to the Church," I do most deeply feel ; for I have long been convinced that nothing but the looseness with which the terms "regeneration" and "regenerate" have been too often used, can account for the unwillingness of men to receive in these days what was in the best ages of the Church a fundamental principle of Christian faith, and the groundwork of all Christian teaching. I do therefore earnestly desire, I do earnestly call upon our Bishops to bestow upon us, this boon, of a solemn declaration of the Church's faith in this matter, accom- panied by such an " authoritative exposition " as the Archdeacon recommends. I have no sympathy with those who would impose upon tlitir brethren any novel or doubtful principle; any language that is not the language of the Primitive Church ; any too stringent formula, that should enter into i)rccisc and definite statements of tt'//rtMs done for the soul of a baptized infant. I do not call for the peculiar doctrine of any particular sc/tool of theology ; but only for such a declaration as will, wliilst removing the stumbling-block of an ambiguous term, make it too plain for public denial or private doubt, that the Church of England does hold, with the Church of all ages, that " the mystery of our co- herence with Jesus Christ'" is begun by the Holy Spirit at and in our Baptism ; ahsolutcly in the case of infants, conditionally in the case of adults. * Hooker. 68 NOTE. I cannot forbear adding the following passage, written by an old and valued friend, T. Pell Piatt (late Fellow of Trinity Col- lege, Cambridge), in his Letter to Dr. Pusey. " Let me next advert to the Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. Into " any controversy on this subject it is not my intention to enter; nor do I " recollect any particular books to mention, or steps to trace, by which I " was led to sounder views on this point. Suffice it to say, that since I " have been brought to see the truth of this doctrine, which I was formerly " taught to reject, I have discerned, with more and more clearness, almost " daily on the one hand, its power, in the distinctive character and awful " responsibility imposed on every baptized person ; and, on the other, its " beautj'j and the consolation it so richly administers. How much of " meaning, what a glow of lively faitli, and assured hope, and deep piety, " now shines forth in those baptismal and catechetical offices of our Church, " which before could only be understood, or at all admitted by the help of " cold and laboured explanations ! And, especially, what delightful hope, " what most animating encouragement, does this Truth afford to those, who " are engaged in the education of children, in bringing them up ' in the " ' nurture and admonition of the Lord.' What a chilling, withering " thought, to have the fear before one, that the little ones the mother is " teaching, are still the children of wrath, lying in the wicked one, un- " washed, unsanctified, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers " fi'om the covenants of promise. Yet this, according to the EvangeUe " view, must be the case, unless a secret change has passed upon them, of " which, at that tender age, seldom indeed can any judgement be formed, " and never can it with certainty be known. It must always be with a " trembling hope at the best. And how, with such views, children can " with any consistency be taught the Church Catechism, is more than I can " understand," THK END. Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John's Square, Loudon. L-i ^. 7r: ^,^^ \' I N D I C A T I O N :? p. " DEFENCE OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES, &c IN UKPI.Y TO THE BISHOP OF EXETEU. C. F. HODGSON, PRINTER, COUGH SQUARE, FLEET STREET, LONDON. A VINDICATION OF THK "DEFENCE OF THE XXXIX. ARTICLES AS THE LEGAL AND CANONICAL TEST OF DOCTRINE IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, IN ALL POINTS TREATED OF IN THEM." IN REPLY TO THE RECENT CHARGE OF THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETEli. BY WILLIAM G0013E, M.A. F.S.A UrXTOU OF ST. ANTHOI.IN, LONDON. LONDON: J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, I'lCCADILLV. 1SI8. VINDICATION "DEFENCE OE THE XXXIX. ARTICLES," &c. When a Bishop's Charge to the Clergy of his Diocese is turned into a violent polemical pamphlet, no apology can be needed from the party assailed for meeting it with a Reply. Under ordinary circumstances such a publication might, no doubt, fairly be considered as having some claim to ex- emption from criticism. And no one Avould be more unwil- ling than myself to offer any unnecessary strictures upon a Bishop's expression of his views when giving his counsel and advice to his Clergy. But it is quite clear that the recent Charge of the Bishop of Exeter can lay no claim to exemp- tion from remark on the part of the autlior of the "Dc^fciice of tlie Thirty-nine ArticU's." That "Defence" was written in reply to the note of alarm sounded by his Lordshi]) to the ('Icrgy, on the proposal to obtain a Parliamentary recognition (a derlaralorii enactnu'iit, giving a gentle hint to those otherwise unwilling to recognize the fact) of the Tliirty-nine Articles being the formal and authorized staiulard of doctrine of our (Ihurch on all the points of doctrine treated of in them. It is unnecessary to touch on the history of the proposal, or in what way his Lordship became acquainted with it. 'J'he Bishop evidently considers the whoh; Church his peculiar care, and that it can safely be trusted in no otlirr bauds; that it is his special duty to preside over its interests, and take care ne (jnid dctri- inenti capiat respublica. And it was liis liappiuess to be able, h\ liis privilege of access to the confidential meetings of his brother prelates, to sound the trumpet of alarm to the Church at the earliest possible period after the appearance of the danger. It seems by the account of the matter which liis Lordship has given to the world, that the proposal was men- tioned at one of those meetings, as one which was likely to be made in the course of the Clergy Offences Bill through Parliament; and mentioned (as far as at present appears) without alarm, which no doubt rendered the danger more ui'gcnt. His Lordship, therefore, having most kindly, and with- out solicitation, taken the Church under his paternal care, felt that not a moment was to be lost in rousing the Clerg}' to a sense of their danger ; and certainly his trumpet gave no uncertain sound when it called them to the battle, as one in which the Church's "most sacred and dearest priAilege," nay, " the essential and fundamental particulars of Christ's sa^^ng Truth amongst us,^' were at stake. He commences, therefore, that portion of his Charge to which I have now to offer a reply, by congratulating his clergy upon " the strenuous resistance declared by them to this most dangerous measure ;" and pathetically obsei^es, " It painfully reminds us of the unhappy contest wliieh two hundred years ago filled our land with violence, made desolate our Zion, and threiv down our altars." (p. 7.) There are indeed several points of similarity, though, thank God, others of gi'cat dissimilarity , between the present and that unhappy period. Then as now, a large party in our Chm'ch were straining every nen^e, and using all means, to engraft upon our Protestant Chm'ch and Protestant Formu- laries doctrines and usages abhorrent from the spiiit of those martyred saints to whom, under God, we are indebted for them. And were the same power now in the hands of that party as was then possessed by them, it is not improbable that results might ensue very similar to those which charac- terized that era ; an era in which the lawlessness of tyranny, both in Church and State, on one side, generated a more than equal lawlessness on the other, and plunged both Clmreli and State into one common ruin. With liis Lordship's Congratulations to his Clergy on their response to his trumpet-call upon them to protest against the proposal thus made to " rob the Church of its most sacred and dearest prinlege," &c. &c., (which I am sm'c must have thrilled the hearts of many a village pastor throughout his diocese, ready to do battle to the last for his Church against such atrocious attempts) I will not meddle, except to regret that, for the sake of the credit of the Chiu'ch, they did not take care to avoid committing themselves to such marvellous blunders as pervaded all their addresses ; and which seem to have had a fatal effect upon their \'itality, it being very remarkable how few survived the exposure of them, and ever reached their purposed destination. The spirit in which his Lordship addresses himself to the task of discussing what has been said in favour of the pro- posed clause, may be judged of by the (quotation 1 have already given from his Charge. The successors of those who once " filled our land with violence, made desolate our Zion, and threw down our altars," can hardly be expected to be treated by his Lordship with much consideration ; and cer- tainly to one charge, that of endeavouring to put down " altars," 1 must plead guilty, (believing that m'C have no material sacrifice to offer), though I hope I am not oliargcable, even in the /e/irfenc?/ of my actions, with (illing the land with violence, or making the Churcli (U'solate. How far the crusade against that jjortion of the clergy usually called Evangelical, upon which his Lordship has now confessedly entered, with the view of exterminating them from the Church, has a tendency in that direction, 1 will leave to others to judge. At any rate, it must be admitted that liia liordship is not backward to take the field ; and if it should so happen that the jjroposal which has brought him there was rendered necessary by his own previous hostilities against that portion of the Clergy, in contravention of tlie laws of the Church, it must also be granted that the initiative in this forthcoming scene of vi(;lciu!e and desolation was not taken by the supporters of the jjroposed rlause. 4 But Avill it really till the laud with violeuee and desolate our Church, if his Lordship is obliged to take the Thirty-nine Articles as our Chui'ch's standard of faith in the points upon which she has there delivered her sentiments ? On which side then will the violence be ? The supporters of the clause have not yet unfui'led the flag ofwar^nor \\Q.\etheij tlu'eatened to do so. But the reader must know that there have been great dis- coveries made among us recently on the suljject of "Church principles." It is an age of discoveries and inventions, and it must not be supposed that the Chm'ch was to be distanced in this race. Accordingly it has been discovered that there is a marvellous similarity, nay, identity, in the doctrines of our Church and those of the Church of Rome, in points on which our forefathers had ignorantly supposed that there was a gi'eat difference. Now the presence in the Church of the Clergy of whom we have just spoken is higlily inconvenient for the carrying out of these " Chm'ch principles," and there- fore the Bishop has given them summary notice to quit. They do not hold " Church principles," therefore how can they honestly remain in the Chm'ch? They ought to go voluntarily, his Lordship tells them, and, if they were honest men, would do so, (see p. 48, &c.) without making any dis- turbance about it. And some discoveries which have been recently made on this head are so remarkably described in a recent publication of the Bishop's party, that I cannot refrain from quoting the statement there made on the subject. "They [i.e., "Pearson, Sanderson, Gunning and others"] were the persons who, either directly or indirectly, fixed the formularies of the Church of England at their present standard : and our readers do not need to be informed, that the doctrines of the Church as settled after the con- ference at the Savoy, were in many essential points different FROM those of THE REFORMATION OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. We have in our day witnessed the signal failure of an attempt to impose a particular sense upon the Thirty-nine Articles — viz., tite sense in wliicit they were oi-'iiimally drav:n up or supposed to bt drawn up. Now the sense which the proposers of this test intended to fix upon the Articles is certainly not the sense that the Parliament of 1661, or the Divines of that period, in- tended them to bear. People may reasonably be at issue as to the sense in which Cranmer, Jewel, Ridley, and Latimer understood the Articles ; neither will thev find much to satisfv their doubts after reading: ///e con- 5 f'ustd and of'lcn coutradictori/ stnli incuts. In be found in the works of the reformers ; })ut we will venture to say that the oi)inious of the Divines of the Restoration, on essential points, are quite unmistakeahle. We have the testimony of Whiston (certainly a most unexceptionable witness to such a point) as to the entire change of tone with recjard toone set of doctrines, and one portion of the Articles, ' I remember,' he says, (Me- moirs, p. 11) 'my father's observation on Mr. Iloard'sbook concerning God's love to mankind, as the first that began to set aside the Calvinists' unhappy scheme of election and reprobation, in England, which till then was the cur- rent opinion of the members of the Church of England, as it is still the doc- trine of her Thirty-nine Articles.' Now here is a statement of a most un- prejudiced person as to a matter of fact, viz., the entire change of opinion on the subjects treated of in those articles, which have caused most difference of opinion in our Church. And to whom, we ask, is this change due, but to those Divines to whom was afterwards intnisted the revision of the Prayer Book, who might if they had so pleased have rejected the Articles alto- gether, — who certainly were opjioscd to the Calvinistic scheme, but who retained the Articles in spite of the e.\j)ressions contained in them, irom which many then did, and still do, deduce the doctrines of the school of Geneva. The same obsen'ation may be applied to the doctrine of justifica- tion by faith, and many other doctrines in which there was a manifest change of opinion in this countri/ between the periods of the accession (f James I. and the Restoration. And in this, be it remembered, it is not conceded except for argument's sake that the original sense of the Articles, i. e. that in which they were intended to be understood by their framers, was really Cal- vinistic on the point of Election, or Lutheran on that of Justification, or heterodox in any particular. We have our ow^n opinion on this point : but what we now say is, that it does not matter at all what was the sense of their frumeis, or whether they attached ant/ intelligible meaning to thtir words. What has been said of two statutes in which there is any real or apparent inconsistency, viz., that the latter explains the former, and if necessary .suPERSEDE.s it, applies in this case. There was, if so be, no great difference of opinion between tlie I?isho])s of the time of the Reforma- tion and the Divines who remodelled the Litiu-gy at the Restoration. If there was not, there is no ditfieulty in the case ; the former spoke oljscurelv, the latter ])lainly : if there is sueii difference, we contend tlmt we are Ijound by the latter — and in either case tiic anti-Catliohc view of tlie .Vrtieles, we mean the view which is inconsistent with tlie writings of Hammond, Pear- son, and Gunning, and witli the oi)inions of Sheldon, Alorliy, and Wrenn, has rcdllij mi ground to stand ujxin.'' (Eccl. Jul. 11.) I will not add one word to this very remarkable and in- structive passajTC, execpt to remark tliat there are some who think themselves entitled to j^o baek beyond the divines of the Restoration to those by whom onr Church was fixed upon her present foundations, and that we feel oblif^ed to tlie au- thor of this passage for bearing a testimony so just as to the 6 change of tone which has taken place in the current theology of our Church ; while we beg leave to differ from liis conclu- sion that our Reformers, their views and their productions, have been authoritatively superseded. But, as I have said, it cannot be expected that the succes- sors of those who trampled under foot Church and King in the great Rebellion, should be considered by his Lordship as haAdng much character to lose. And so we find it. At least an infinitesimally small portion of moral character seems to be left to one who is " disingenuous, fraudulent, and dis- honest," (pp. 24, 30, 48), uses "Old Bailey" pleas, (p. 17), whose " mental vision " " is of a very peculiar kind," and " his faculties of moral perception still more extraordinary," and " can see honesty in a course from which most minds would instinctively withdraw," (p. 65), and is one of a party whose consciences, it is strongly insinuated, are " seared or seduced by considerations of temporal convenience or other unholy motive," (pp. 56, 57), and are persons with whom Je- suits have from the first had much in common, (p. 44) . One would not quite have liked to appear before his Lordship as the presiding judge in the Star Chamber with such impres- sions upon his mind. Now certainly there was a time when I might have felt rather warmly about such language ; but time and experience, and, I hope, other causes, have rendered me somewhat indifferent to such attacks. I have generally found them to be characteristic of a bad cause, or at least of a state of mental excitement little favourable to the percep- tion of truth. In a good cause the mind is generally satisfied with a calm, or at most an earnest, statement of the facts and arguments by which it is supported ; while in a bad one there is a continual temptation to substitute abuse for argument. The charge, by the way, of dishonesty, (p. 65) from a sup- posed (though not granted) change of view in the course of six years, as to the precise place to be assigned to the Liturgy among the Formularies of the Church, strikes one as rather singular, because we have heard of conversions occuning in the course of a very much shorter period, and of a much more re- markable kind, in which, however, I think his Lordsliip would not be very ready to admit the justice of such an accusation ; and as it respects "temporal convenience," I will say no more than that I submit it to his Lordship's own consideration, whether he has found the contrary doctrine to that of which he complains to have been ordinarily the most unprofitable of the two. But enough of this. I leave such topics to his Lordship, and proceed at once to his arguments and authorities. The Bishop commences (p. 9) with a complaint as to the title of my pamphlet, that I should have called it a Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles, inasmuch as he does not think that he said " a single word against the Articles " in his Letter re- specting the proposed clause on them. Of course he did not, seeing that by the 5th Canon he would have been ipso facto excommunicated if he had thus directly attacked them, and I do not for a moment suppose that he will voluntarily put his head into such a noose as that. But there are various ways of doing the same thing. There is the undermining method, Avhere the grounds upon which the value of a thing rests are removed from under it ; there is the colouring me- thod, where white is made to appear black or grey ; and there is the go-by method, where a thing is passed over and denied the place and office which it was intended to fill. And against all these modes of attack do the Thirty-nine Articles need in the present day a Defence ; of which the first and last have been, in my humble apprehension, very remarkably exemplified in the treatment those Articles have experienced at the hands of his Lordship. The Bishop next animadverts on my calling the Thirty-nine Articles the "sole confession of faith" our Church has |)iit forth. I beg to ask what other authoritative confession of faith she has. The Catechism, though doubtless a dogmatical work, is only "an instruction" to be learned bychihlren; not a confession of faith put forth by the Church to ensure soundness of doctrine in her clergy, and to be a testimony of her faith to the world. But the Bishop actually denies that they were intended to be "« confession of faith ;" and jiresses the title, that they were i)ut forth "for the avoiding of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching line ndigion," apparently inferring (for there is here, as might he 8 expected, a little obscurity) that therefore their only object was to settle points then in controversy. Now as it respects the point in question, the doctrine of baptism, it would be quite sufficient for our purpose if it were so, for (notwith- standiug the Bishop's extraordinary denial of the fact) it is notorious that between Romanists and Protestants, and also between foreign Protestants among themselves, there was great controversy on this matter. But it is not so. This was not their only object, though an important one which they had in view. I shall not now repeat the autho- lities I have elsewhere given (see Defence) on this head from Rogers (Archbishop Bancroft's Chaplain) and Bishops Hall, Burnet, and TomHne ; but I ask his Lordship whether he intends to set up his or any authority on this point, against that of Archbishop Parker himself, w ho expressly says (see Defence, p. 18), that in the Articles are contained " the prin- cipal Articles of Christian religion." Further ; among the documents given by Strype under the year 1562, just before the convocation of that year, is one entitled, " General notes of matters to be moved by the Clergy in the next Parliament and Synod." The author of it is not known, but the paper contains marginal observations by Archbishop Parker himself. Among these notes occurs the following, — " Certain Articles, containing the principal grounds of Christian religion, are to be set forth (in the which also is to be determined the truth of those things which in this age are called into controversy) much like to such Articles as were set forth a little before the death of King Edward ; of which Articles the most part may be used with addition and correction, as shall be thought convenient." (Strype's Annals, c. 27, i. 1. 474.) It would really be a waste of time to add more on this point. Be it a perfect or imperfect confession, it is the only formal authorita- tive dogmatic confession of faith we have. But the clause that has given rise to this controversy is evidently carefully worded, so as not to exclude points of doctrine which may not be determined there ; but the denial of which may be inconsistent with the subscription required to other Formularies. Nor, I must add, does it shut out reference to other Formidaries in the way oi subordinate LUus- tration of any language \x%cA in the Articles. The representa- tions wliich have been made to a contrary eflPect^ are merely the angry misrepresentations of those avIio, wisliing to make the Articles subordinate and subser\dent to their interpre- tation of the Liturgy, are anxious to get rid of a clause which attributes to them their rightfid place and authority. I pass on to the next statement. It having been laid down that the Articles say next to nothing, and therefore are no standard of faith, on points not then in controversy, it remains of course for his Lordship to show, (to enable him to do away Avith the importance of the xVrticle on baptism), that there was a general agreement on the doctrine of baptismal rege- neration at that time ; and, accordingly, we are presented with the following astounding statement, containing the most extraordinary blunder which I ever recollect to have met with in such discussions. When I first read it in the report of the Charge in the newspapers, I had supposed it hardly possible that, if his Lordship was unconscious of it, his frieiuls woidd have failed to have pointed it out to him before the publica- tion of the Charge. But no ; there it is, fifteen times de- livered to the Clergy of his Diocese in a period of about two months, and now deliberately published by his Lordship himself. " Now at the time wlicn tlie Articles were first compiletl, in 1552, and even ten years afterwards, when tliey assnnicd their jjresent form, the point on which of all otliers tiiere was the least of difference either hitwcen us or even the German Protestants, and Rome, was the doctrine of lidptktn to wliidi this Di/'tnce t)/ the Articles is mainly directed. [The doctrine of Baptism was not discussed at all in it.] On that all were in the main agreed— the voice of controversy was almost or altogether unlieard. Look at the formularies set forth in this country during the reign of Henry VIII., in all of which Cranmer, the compiler of our Articles, had the prin- cipal hand; look at the early confessions of faith of foreign Protestants, the Helvetic, that of Augsburg, the Saxon, the lielgic, and the Catechism of IIeideil)erg— ALL tuksk, on this gukat i'auticulak, aguickd .NOT ONLY WITH EACH OTHEIJ, BUT WITH RoMK ITHKLF. Of Baptism, every one of them asserted the cardinal doctrine of its being the blessed instrument by whicii God workcth in us spiritual regeneration." A note upon which passage adds, " 77ifi/ hij the Sncrniiu'iifs ex opcre operato grace is conferred, nwij he affirmed, if it he nnderslood, Ihal il is God loko iDorkeih hij Ihcm.''' {\)\). 10, 11.) 10 Hear it, Dr. Wiseman : Rome and the Calvinists were per- fectly af:;rccd on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Or rather, for the credit of our Church, licar it not. AV'hy, it is enough to make the earnest and zealous authors of some of these Confessions (the Helvetic, the Belgic, and the Catechism of Heidelberg) rise from theu' graves, to hear such a state- ment made. And this blunder is a very remarkable and instructive one. It shews the extent of his Lordship's knowledge on the very subject on which he is here thundering his dicta with the self-confidence of one who thinks himself infallible, and denouncing all who differ from him as a set of dishonest rogues. I need hardly inform those who are but moderately read in the subject, that the utmost which three at least of the Churches here referred to admitted was, that in baptism regeneration always took place in the case of those whom they would have described as " the elect.'' This was a very common view in the Reformed Churches. But whether they held this view or not, all who held that baptism was more than a sign, hesitated not to speak of it in such terms as were applicable to it when its proper effects were realized, but which they he- lieved to be realized only in certain (and those comparatively very few) cases. His Lordship (utterly unacquainted, as it appears, with their \-iews) points to this language as shewing their agreement with Rome and himself ; giving, by the way, a remarkable proof of the dangers to which such phraseology exposes the doctrine intended to be conveyed by it. And herein his Lordship has supphed his opponents with as forcible an argument in defence of their position as could well be found. For he says, in effect, — Look at all these Con- fessions, and you will see that they say exactly what oui* Church says as to the doctrine of regeneration in baptism. Precisely so, we reply ; and as it is a matter of notoriety that the authors of some of these Confessions meant nothing like the view which your Lordship has affixed to them when using that language, so we affirm that the language of our own Church has been similarly, however unintentionally, misin- terpreted by your Lordship ; and both your Lordship and others may see, by this example, hoAV easy it is to be very 11 self-confident in such a matter, and at the same time very jrrievously in error. The fact is, that too many of those who are attached to his Lordship's system of theology — and others, alas, also — are so Uttle versed in the writings of the Reformers, that they are unacquainted -with the real spirit and meaning of their phraseology, and hence no doubt has arisen this extra- ordinary mistake. And the conclusion from it is that, therefore, " our 27th Article ' of baptism ' having little to controvert, expressed the same doctrine briefly, without contemplating an adversary .'' A most ingenious mode certainly of accounting for an Article not giving expression to his Lordship's view. The Bishop has found out that every body (speaking generally) at that time took his ^^ew of the matter, and therefore it was quite un- necessary that the Article should assert it, because no adver- sary was contemplated. The reference to these Confessions and the 27tli Article at once leads his Lordship away from the abstract question of the standard of doctrine in our Church (which only, vni\\ the exception of some incidental remarks, was discussed in my pamplilet) into an argument on the doctrine of our Church on the subject of the cfFects of baptism. And as his Lordship has, both here and elsewhere in the Charge, chosen to inter- weave the two questions together, I am quite willing to meet liim on both. But I propose on the itrestnt occasion offcnng but a few remarks on the passages that refer to the latter (|uestion, reserviny the full discussion of that point for a future jiuhlication. My answer now will be more particularly directed to tlic question of the character and authority of the Thirty-nine Articles, and the censures directed against the " Defence " of them." It may he, well, however, to oficr some observations at once iqion liis Lordship's statements on i\\c forincr [unnt, according as they may happen to come before us in his Charge. A few words, then, here as to his argument from the Articles. We liavc already sccti that his Lordship admits that the Article docs not impugn the doctrine he opposes, and he en- deavours to account for this by asserting that at that period everybody agreed with him, and so it was uniu;eessary. 12 1 am afraid that I have already irrecoverably disturbed this hain)y dream. But I cannot resist the temptation of adding another testimony upon the subjcet from one whose evidence 1 believe his Lordship will respect ; I mean his own Chaplain, Mr. Maskell, who, about the same time that his Lordship put forth an argument in favor of his view from there really having never been any controversy (to speak of) on the sub- ject, was urging another in behalf of the same ^iew from the fact that the point was very much controverted. After observing that denials of his doctrine of regeneration in baptism had been made in earlier times, but with small success, he adds, — " It was uot uutil the sixteenth century that rejection of it, as a doctrine, was at last established; amidst the uproar which inevitably accom- panied the Reformation Then, at last, the weakened and divided Church gave way : she could no longer repress, as of old, with the over- whelming condemnation of an oecumenical council the errors of her re- bel/iuus cliildren-* and so they took lout, and quickly spread a7id strength- ened amidst the ruins of fallen churches ; NOURISHED AND 'i ENDED BY GREAT NAMES, AUTHORITIES OF THE TIME, ON WHOM MEN FONDLY LEANED. "t " Denial of the doctrine of regeneration in baptism did not spring uj3 after the middle of the sixteenth century ; after, that is, the first altera- tions which took place in our service-books and formularies. Long before the time of the Puritans of the Commonwealth, or of the days of King James and Elizabeth, — before "NVhittaker and Fulke, Cartwright or Tra- vers ; before even their great master Calvin : — there were wTiters who had taught the same doctrine with them ; this, perhaps, not with the help of the numerous supports which was given to their successors, but still with un openness and perseverance utnpli/ sufficient to make their opinions well known; and, whether worthy of it or not, to be deliberated upon AND EITHER APPROVED OR CONDEMNED. "J And, ha%ing subjoined some extracts proving this to be the case, he adds, — " We learn, then, from these extracts out of writings both before and contemporaneous with the revision of the ritual of the Church of England, and her expositions of doctrine set forth during the sixteenth century, the existence of a definite system of teaching upon the effect of, and upon the blessings conveyed by, reception of the sacrament of baptism. This system had been over and over again condemned by councils, both diocesjm and provincial, of the English [i.e., Anglo- Romish,] Church; it was * The reader will observe these words. t Maskell on Holy Baptism ; pp. 356, 357. :{■ Id. ib. ; p. .■362." 13 j)liiinly opposed to tlie rituals which had been in use from the hejiinninn:; it iiad been still insisted nn. enforced, and spread, bynienvvlio nevertheless believed in the correctness of it, and that it was not contrary to tlie truth as contained in Holy Scripture and held by tlie ])riniitive Church ; lastly, us u system, it was known to, and understood by, those to ivkose judyment the alterations which it would be wise to make in the ancient service-books were committed."* And lie then proceeds to construct this argument in favor of his xieyv from this fact. If those ^yho settled our Formularies had intended to con- demn my doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration they would have given distinct expression to that condemnation in the Articles, not (apparently) seeing that his argument has at least equal f(jrcc in the mouth of his opponents^ and that their admitted vagueness makes the balance at least incline in their favour. Thus the Bishop says, there was no controversy at all on the subject at that time, and therefore it was not thought necessary to express my view in the Article. His Chaplain says, it is an historical fact that there was and had for many years been much controversy on the subject, and therefore the Article would have distinctly condemned my \'iew if it had been disapproved of. We might well reply, — Agree upon your facts, and then we will meet your conclusions. But let us note where they do agree, for their agreement is very rcmarkaljle ; for (whether they are willing to state it or not) , the construction of their argument shows that they see tluit the Article does not give expression to their view. And on this point let us again hear Mr. Maskell bewailing its ambi- guity and even tendency to mislead. " If," he says, " there had never been any of tlie unluip|)y disputes upon rcf^eneration whieli have s(» miserably divided our ('hurch, this Article uuf^lit well have been looked on as a sutticient statement of her judgment as to that doctrine, and to be necessarily interi)retcd in strict accordanc e w itli her c)ft(ai-repeatcd decisions in former aj^es. Kut it is not to he denied that there were, even at that time, If^fi^, men ni powerful influence who iu'Id low und imperfect views of the yritce of Hod, us conveyed to man in and III) His sacraments ; and it was a period also, wiuii, in order l»oth to };ain some ami to retain others, nii/i mid ilnliions «i/;/(.vs/f»;/\ were Kou;;;lit for rather than plain distinct and dop^matic assertions, whicli no man cr)uld misinterpret or mistake, of ciithohc trutii. Hence ?vhatsoevcr, in Ids sermon or lecture, do presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the Blessed Trinity, than what is contained in the Holy Scriptures, and is agreeable to the three Creeds, and the Thirty-nineArticles of religion." (Clerg. Assist, p. 56G.) Which is followed by another very important direction, which it may be useful to quote, that they shall take care, "that, above all thinys, they abstain from bitter invectives and scm'rilous lan- guage against all persons whatsoever." Here, then, in the very case quoted by his Lordship, we see what was put forth as the doctrinal standard of oui" Church in the Direction issued by authority on the occasion. As to the verbal criticism (p. 30), upon my remarks on the Book of Common Prayer, from my having used the word " A^Titten," when a large part of the Book is (as every one knows) taken from older ecclesiastical books of a simi- lar kind — of which, in most characteristic language, he says, "a more fallacious, (lam unwilling to say, a move frau- dulent) description of our Prayer Book could hardly be deWsed" — I leave it to the reader to do justice to it. Of the fact there stated, that the Book was "carefully drawn up, so as to give as little offence as possible to Romish prejudices," I shall only say that the Bishop's denial of its truth is merely another proof of his want of acquaintance with the history of that peiiod, of which his next sentence sup- plies us wdth fui-ther e\idence. " So far indeed," he says, (pp. 30, 31.) "were the compilers from seeking to conciliate the Romanists, that in both the Prayer Books and in the Pri- mer of Edward VI. a clause was inserted in the Litany, which alone is sufficient to expose the disingenuousness or the ignor- ance which prompted that description of oui* Prayer Book which I havejustread to you. After the words, ^from all sedi- tion and privy conspiracy,' was thrust in this most unchristian addition, ' from the tyranny of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities,' good Lord deliver us ! Happily so monstrous a violation of Christian charity was not permitted long to pollute our Litui'gy. Queen Elizabeth (honoiu-ed be her memory for it !) in the very commencement of her reign. 29 by the very Statute which restored to us the most precious of all the legacies of our martyred Reformers, the Book of Common Prayer, struck out of it this one disgraceful passage — and this only" Now if the Bishop supposes that the clause of which ho here speaks was first inserted in the Prayer Book of 1549 (which his words certainly seem to imply), this is another error, for it was inserted in a Litany published hy the autho- rity of Henry VIII. in 1545. (Burnet iii. 248. Narcs's Edition.) Moreover it was not the "only" passage struck out of the Book by Queen Elizabeth, for she omitted also the whole of the important rubric in King Edward's second Book, respecting no adoration being intended to any corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist by kneeling, e\idently for the same purpose that she struck out the whole of the 29th Article (which was not replaced till 1571), and altered the 28th, namely, to conciliate the Romanists. In fact, between the delivering of the Charge and its publi- cation, this somehoAV came to his Lordship's knowledge; for in a note appended to the Charge as published by the Bishop, we have, in the next page, a " history of this Rubric," which notices the omission of it in Queen Elizabeth's Book. Respecting the animus with which I have been " disinge- nuous or ignorant" enough to suppose that our Reformers acted with regard to the drawing up of the Book of Com- mon Prayer, it is too well known to well-informed persons to need many testimonies respecting it. But I will give a few. What does Wheatly (a witness to whom his Lord- ship certainly cannot object) say? After stating that the object of our Reformers was only to pnrye the Church's " form of worship," he adds, — " In which reformation they proceeded gradually, according a.s they were able ;" and when noticing the omission of the above-mentioned Rubric by Queen Elizal)eth, he says, " It being the Queen's design to unite the nation in one faith ; it was therefore recom- mended to the Divines to see tiiat there should be no definition made against the aforesaid notion [i. e. of the rcat presence], but that it shonid remain as a speculative opinion not determined, in which evcrv one was left to the free(h)in of" 30 liis own iniiiil." (Tlhistratiou of Book of Common Prayer, ()(h iMlition, pp. 24- — 29.) And has his Lordship forgotten tlio testimony of Heylin, (a great authority with his own party) on this point? I repudiate his language myself, holding it to be much too strong, and not borne out by faets ; but it may be well for the Bishop, who denies even the truth of my statement, to know what one of the highest authorities of his own school states on the subject. Of the Liturgy as first drawn up, Heylin says, — " And now the time draws on for putting the New Liturgy in exe- cution, framed with such judgment out of the common prin- ciples of religion, wherein all parties do agree, that even the Catholics might have resorted to the same without scruple or scandal, if faction more than reason did not sway amongst them." He adds still stronger words in favour of this view, but 1 wdU not even repeat them. (Hist, of Reform. Edw. VI. p. 74.) And in noticing the revision of the Book at the accession of Queen Elizabeth, he says, " In the performance of which service, there was great care taken for expunging all such passages in it as might give any scandal or offence to the Popish party, or be ui'ged by them in excuse for their not coming to church, and joining "wdth the rest of the congrega- tion in God's public worship." And after noticing the various alterations made, he adds, — " By which compliances, and the expunging of the passages before remembered, the Book was made so passable amongst the Papists, that for ten years they generally repaired to their Parish Churches without doubt or scruple." (lb. Queen Eliz. p. 111.) Now I believe I have proved, in my reply to Mr. Oakley, (Tract XC. Historically Refuted, pp.29, &c.,)that such a state- ment as this is much too strong, and the last sentence entirely erroneous ; and when the Bishop accuses me of speaking of " the Romanizing character" of the Prayer Book, from hav- ing used the words he complains of, he may there see that no one has been at greater pains to prove its opposite character. But I say now, as I there said, " In the Prayer-book they did what they could to avoid giving unnecessary offence to the Romanists, because all were required by Act of Parlia- ment to attend the services of the Church." (p. 19.) And 31 the practical consequences necessarily resulting from sucli a course in the ivordmg of the Book are manifest. At a time when the whole nation were compelled by law to attend the services of the Church, and at the same time a large portion attached more or less to Romish doctrines, there was much to be said in favour of such a course ; and I will only take the liberty of adding, that I heartily wish more of the same spirit of Christian charity had been found, at more than one period of our Church, in some of the successors of the Bishops of that age. Whether, when the state of things became altered in Laud's time, and the high places of the Church were occupied by men who " in their hearts turned back again to Egypt,'' and availed themselves of the concessions of Christian charity made by their predecessors, to destroy Christian peace and purity of doctiine among us, by insisting upon the general reception of a Popish interpretation of passages retained or worded with an eye to conciliation, (for which much was to be said at the period when they were sanctioned), — whether then, such a con- structioV of the Prayer Book was the best possible, and has since remained so, is another matter. The introduction of the clause in the Litany is no proof that on doctrinal points the views of the Romanists were not considered ; because that had reference to the tyranny and iisiii-pations of the Bishop of Rome, the gricvousness of Avhich was deeply felt l)y many in. this kingdom, who were still attached to the principal points of the Romish faith. J3ut I will close this point with two extracts from contem- porary witnesses, written immediately after the publication of the Book of Common Prayer in 1549. The first is from a letter of Martin Biicer and Paul Fagius to the ministers of Strasburgh, written from Archbishop Cranmer's residence at Lnmbctli, (by whom they had becni invited to this country for tlie purpose of assisting liim in the work of lieforniatiou), dated April 26, 1549. " As soon as tlic description of the rerciuonies now in nse sliiiU liuve Ijecn translated into Latin, we will send it to you. We liear tliat some concessions have been made both to a respect for antiqnihj, find to (he in- firmifi/ of (he presen( aye ; such, for instance, as the vestments commonly used in the Sacrament of the Kueharist, and the use of candles; so also in retrard to the cominemcn-atioii of tlie dead, and the use of chrism ; 32 fur we kiioiv not to what extent, or in what sort it prevails. Tlicy affirm tliat tlieio is no superstition in these things, and that they are only to be retained for a time, lest the people, not having yet learned Christ, should be deferred by too extensive innovations, and that rather they may be won orer."— (Original Letters relating to the Reform. Park. S. eil. vol. 2> pp. 535, 53(j.) A curious piece of inform atiou is also preserved to vis in a letter of Dryander to Bullinger^ dated June o, 1549^ sliemng the difficulties with which our Reformers had to contend. " You will also," he says, " find something to blame in the matter of the Lord's Supper ; for the book speaks very obscurely, and however you may try to explain it with candour, you cannot avoid great absurdity. The reason is, that the Bishops could not of a long time agree among themselves respecting this Article j and it was a long and earnest dispute among them, whether transubstantiation should be established or rejected.'^ — (lb. vol. 1. p. 351.) But his Lordship has found out " that the Book of Com- mon Prayer contains matter incomparably stronger in repro- bation of Bomisli doctrine than any in the Articles ;" (p. 31) ; and his nroof is^ that the rubric above referred to is to be found there, ha\dng been restored at the revision in 1C62. Now, I quite admit that the language used in tlus rubric respecting adoration of the elements is much stronger than that used in the Article ; and I am glad to see the value which his Lordship has affixed to it, as it may induce him to reconsider liis assertion, that though transubstantiation is not to be held, yet that the words " this is my body" are to be interpreted " literally." (See Mr. Gorham's Exam. p. 74.) But when transubstantiation is distinctly disavowed in the Articles, as " repugnant to the plain words of Scriptui-e," &c., and it is maintained that " the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner, and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is faith," and that the wicked in partaking are not " partakers of Christ," does the Bishop mean to assert, that adoration of the elements is not suffi- deiithj condemned by such language — that it could be legally practised in conformity with the Articles ? The language was less harsh and repulsive to the Romanists than that of the rubric ; and therefore was preferred to what had stood in the Article before, which was like the rubric, but its meaning is the 33 same. Bishop Burnet says of it, that it " seemed to be more theological, and does indeed mnotnit to the same thiny'' . . . " the same sense." (On Art. 28.) And in the same place he gives us another testimony to the truth of the ^dew I have just been maintaining. "The design of the Government," he says, "was at that time [the accession of Queen Ehzabeth] much turned to the drawing over the bocli/ of the nation to the Reformation, in whom the old leaven had gone deep : and no part of it deeper than the beUcf of the corporeal presence of Christ in the Sacrament; therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a definition in this matter, in which the very word real presence was rejected [alluding to the words of the Article of 1552]." The effect of this animus, entertained both in the time of Edward YI. and Elizabeth, upon the ivording of the Book of Common Prayer, is manifest ; and the question with respect to some parts of it, is simply this, — not whether they are suscep- tible of a Protestant interpretation, and were intended to lead to it, about which there can be no doubt in the minds of those who are acquainted Avith the views of the divines who were in authority when it was compiled, and therefore may be sub- scribed without any difficulty, — but whether the circumstances of the times did not unfortunately leave them more o])en to a Popish interpretation than could be desired. But though from 1559 to 1GG2, our Church was without this ndn-ic, his Lordship actually informs us that but for it " a Clergyman might openly in his Church worship the con- secrated elements with the adoration due to God himself, yet not be liable to any censure," (p. .32.) and very tragically asks whether we will " submit to tlie introduction of on(> ol" the worst corruptions of Borne." Of course such a passage as this will oidy excite a smile from every reader. Who they are who are likely to introduce the corruptions of Rome, this Charge pretty clearly manifests. And a sentence standing in the next page of the ('harge affords tolerably good evidence on this point. " In order to ascertain, for instance, the nature of the honour and veneration ])aid to the Blessed \'irgin and tlie Saints, we look not merely to the Decrees of Trent, or tlie Creed of Pins IV., for there is little in them, which, w ruE XiKcw and thk Saints ark kkai.i.y 34 COGNIZANT or WHAT AVE DO ON EARTH, could he scverelij cciism-i'd, but wc have recourse to tlic ritual, &c." And is it really come to this, that it is held by a Bishop to be an open (juestion whether or not the Virgin and the Saints are cognizant of what we do on earth, and consequently whether the " ora pro nobis" may or may not be used ? And that if we determine in the affirmative, there is little in the Decrees of Trent or the Creed of Pius IV. which could be severely censured, but our censures are to be reserved for the more direct applications to the Saints made in Roman Catholic books of devotion ? Here at least his Lordship's tendencies are made suffi- ciently plain. But there is one remarkable passage in the pre\dous page, which I must not allow to pass unnoticed. Such is the power of truth, even in such cases as that before us, that the Bishop himself says, " True it is that the very nature of a Book of Prayer does not often admit of its thus directly gi^dng expression to dogmatic truths." (p. 32.) Now if such is "the very nature" of a Book of Prayer, it follows as a necessary consequence, that the Articles, which are expressly of a dogmatic nature, are the supreme authority so far as they have spoken. The Bishop therefore has here involuntarily answered himself. He here admits the principle upon which the clause is founded, though, for obAdous reasons, he is un- willing to follow it out. In fact, the point at issue is one which the common sense of mankind, when unbiassed by having a purpose to answer, will at once determine. And what are the only cases which the Bishop adduces as instances of " directly dogmatic teaching in the Prayer Book?" Two rubrics di'awn up in the same form as the Articles. " But," says his Lordship, " I must sav one word more of tins writer's insinuations of the Eoma- ni/ing tendencv of the Prayer Book. The only instance ever s])ecifie(l now-a-tlavs, so far as I am aware, is the acknowledgment of the power of Ahsolutiou in our Priesthood, and the terms in which Absolution is pro- nounced in the office of ' Visitation of the Sick.' We all know that this part of our Liturgy has been remarked upon as a remnant of Popery, in quarters where more of soundness at least, if not of knowledge, might reasonably be looked for. In answer to such remarks, by whomsoever made, suffice it to say, that the form which they thus condemn, is no more than the exercise of a power left by our Lord to his Church in the 35 Apostles, vntli whom he promises to be ' always even to the end of the world.' Will the ' Defender of the Articles' join in saying that this is a concession to Romish jirejuihces ? If he does, let him be aware how far the charge wiW reach. The Articles are as open to it as the Prayer Book, for tlie 36th says of ' the Book of Consecration of Bishoj)s and Ordering of Priests and Deacons,' in which this power is conferred, that it 'doth contain all things necessary to such Consecration and Ordering ; neither hath it anything that of itself is superstitious and ungodly.' To you, my Reverend Brethren, I will not say anything in vindication of the assertion of this Power. You know that it is a power which the Cluu-ch has ever thankfully acknowledged to have been given to her by her Divine Head, and which no particular Church can ever sm-render, without cutting itself from the Catholic Church of Christ, and therein from Christ himself." (j)p. 33, 34.) "Insinuations" I leave to his Lordship, as well as such misrepresentation as he has here, as elsewhere, indulged himself in, which in p. 35 is advanced to "this Avriter's in- sinuations of the Romanizimj character of the Prayer Book." What I did say, and affirm as a matter borne out, not merely by a consideration of the circumstances of the case, but by historical testimony, is, that the Book of Common Prayer was " carefully drawn up so as to give as little offence aspossilile to Romish prejudices," which is (as I have proved) an Insloricul fact, — and his Lordshi]) has only shown his dis- creditable ignorance in denying it, — and I asked, " Is such a Book calculated to serve the purpose of a standard of faith ?" I willingly accept the case which his Lordship has here. refer- red to, and shall now proceed to discuss it. Aiul first I beg to ask his Lordshi]) how it is that, if the Pncsthood possess this "power of absolution," it was never exercised for the first twelve centuries that svecee, Hi; 2.5— 2H; :i4.) 40 And, ill direct opposition to Archbishop Whitgift's words, he lays down this Canon of interpretation, that "the soundest principle of interpretation wliich we can use, in enquiring into the true meaning of the various services in otu* Common Prayer Book,^' is "that whatsoever we there find handed doAvn from the earlier rituals of the Church of England, and not limited in its meaning by any subsequent Canon or Ar- ticle, must be understood to signify, fully and entirely, all that it signified before the revision of the ritual." (pp. 32, 33.) Such is the doctrine of one of the leaders of his Lordship's party, who is also his Examining Chaplain, propou.nded before him at the Visitation in which this Charge was delivered. Be it, or be it not^ convenient to his Lordship to make liimself re- sponsible for all that is here advanced,! stop not to enquke. Not to say that this is the doctrine of his Examining Chaplain, there is nothing in it but what immediately follows from the doc- trine avowedly held by his Lordship himself upon the subject. I make no apology for the length of these extracts, and regret I cannot add more^ because it is important that the public should know the real views of the party, and what is in pros- pect for their childi'en. Here the reader may see the doctrine of one whom the Bishop " dehghteth to honour," I say, then, " Noscitur a sociis." And at any rate we may hence pereeive what is the interpretation of our Prayer Book to which a party among us are attempting to bring us ; and that the same principle of interpretation for which they are contending in one service, is to be carried out throughout the Book, and moreover as the only "honest" and admissible one, to the ejection from the Church of those who do not admit of it. It follows, we are told, from the language of the Prayer Book, that " priestly absolution " is a sacrament of great im- portance, conferring grace ; and that, ?/it be admitted that it " is not necessary as a means of grace for the remission of sins," it can be " only upon the most strict interpretation of the word necessity For I hold it," says Mr. Maskell, " to be a most certain truth, that the full grace (Avhatever it may be) of sacerdotal absolution is tied doivn and limited to a previous distinct confession, by word of mouth, of all known and remembered sins : and that, ivhere the one has not gone before, 41 the other can find no place ;" and that " the power of absolu- tion in the priesthood " is our people's " chief privilege and blessing in their Christian state," Here, then, we have auricidar confession to the priest of all known and remembered sins, the full grace of sacerdotal absolution limited to such a distinct confession, and such ab- solution all but (even if it is not) necessary for the remission of sins. " Who can doubt," says Mr. M., that this is the doctrine of the Prayer-book ? When I see then the use which is being made, and has aforetime been made, by various jmrties, of such language, I think the ivording (not the Protestant sense) of such passages to be not the most judicious in the present day; and there- fore as the Declaration in the Act of Uniformity, standing alone, has been interpreted by some parties as requiring such an assent and consent to all and everything contained in the Book as to pledge one to the bcKef that every phrase is the best possible that could have been used, and of the bare literal un- theological sense of the words, which would include even the literal meaning of the words, " This is my body," I felt it right to point out to my brethren that the Declaration was not intended to mean any such thing, but that the previous words distinctly point out that it is only a pledge to the assent and consent to " the use" of all and everything contained and prescribed in the Book ; carefully adding (as I shall show pre- sently) that this (even without taking into account the Canon) necessitates a belief in the truth and Scriptural character of the Book in the view of the Declarer. And I would remind the reader, that all the charges about dishonesty we meet with, against those who do not take the most literal sense of every phrase, are only a stale re})etiti<)n of those which Romanists have all along bronght against Protestants for not nndci'stand- ing the words "This is my body," in their litcial sense. The (jucstion is one, not ol'bc^Iiefor disbclicl" in the doc- trines of the Book of Common Pray(;r, bnt of their openness to misinterpretation, of their susceptibilify of ii. nuiining which Archbishop Whitgift called a " Papistical abusing of them" opposed to the views of our Reformers, bnt which the Bishop of Exeter and his Cha[)lain, .and the whole jjarty. 42 loudly vaunt is their only meaning, and abuse all who differ from themselves in the interpretation they thus put on them, as dishonest. Am I singular in making such remarks ? What said one of the greatest of our more modern Primates when dealing with the case of the noted Dr. Sacheverell, the High Chm'ch firebrand of the last eentmy, whom the Legislature of the country was at last compelled to silence ? When his case (grounded upon his Sermon entitled " Perils among False Brethi'en"), came for discussion before the House of Lords, one point particularly noticed in the speech of Dr. AVake, (then Bishop of Lincoln and soon afterwards Ai'chbishop of Canterbury) was the review of the Liturgy for the sake of meeting some of the objections brought against it, that had been proposed a few years previously, ^vhich had been loaded by Dr. S. with the most oppro- brious re\dlings, and which Dr. Wake there tells us 07'i(ji' nated with Sancroft when Archbishop, who so far from being disposed to Low-Churchism, as it is called, became, on the accession of William and Mary, a Nonjuror. Now on this point. Bishop Wake, after alluding to the fact I have just mentioned, says in defence of such a re\iew, " How would our excellent Liturgy have been the worse, if a few more doubtful expressions had been changed for plainer and clearer; and a passage or two, which however capable of a just defence, yet in many cases seem harsh to some even of oui' own Communion, had either been wholly left at liberty in such cases to be omitted altogether, or been so qualified as to remove all exception against them in any case." (Bp. of Lincoln's Speech in Sacheverell's Case. Lon. 1710. pp. 38, 39.) Such was the view which this well-read and able divine and Clmstian-spirited prelate took of the matter, clearly seeing how deeply the peace and welfare of the Chui-ch were con- cerned in it. And I believe his vicAvs in the matter to have been most just. And that more especially as relating to points not now so directly in controversy, but Avhich are evidently about to be pressed upon the Church. And I refer to the language of Archbishop Wake, given above, not as urging active measnres upon the matter there 43 recommended, but to keep before the public miud the true state of the case, that they may be less opeu to misdirection on the subject. Among the authorities which I quoted was of course the important Act of the 13th Eliz., entitled ''An Act for the Ministers of the Chm'ch to be of sound Religion/' in which the test of that somidness was directed to be assent and sub- scription " to all the Articles of religion which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments." What is his Lordship's answer ? I give it entii'c, only interspersing here and there a remark. " It has been doubted what Articles were here meant ; whether all the thirty-nine, or only such as are in the A.ct specified, as above; some of the thirty-nine having manifestly no direct concern with either 'the Confession of the true Christian faith, or the doctrine of the Sacraments.' Mr. Ben- net, in his Essay on the Articles, (published, London, 170S,) is cited by our Author as maintaining that all the Articles were intended by the Le- gislature " — I interrupt the sentence to place by the side of these words, without remark, the truth. j\Iy words are these, — " I do not here enter into the question, whether this Act contemplated subscription to all the Articles, because it is needless to moot such a question in the present day." (p. 8.) And accordingly I have not touched the point, or Dr. Bennct's view of it. — "And that the words 'Doctrine of the sacraments ' were addod, ' not as something distinct from the ti-ue Christian faitli in general, but to de- note tliat «ar' e^oxrjv, and in a manner remarkal)ly full and express, our Church had delivered her sense concerning the tloetrine of the sacraments, as the greatness, warmth, and im|)urtance of the controversies then on foot required.' That our author should gladly avail himself of such a testimony as tiiis, cannot surprise us." (i)p. '.iii, li'J.) Nor will it surprise any one who knows anytliiiig of " ^Ir." Bcnnct, as he is here called, (as the Bishop evidently docs not, though but a moderate ac(|iiaiiitaiice with the literature of our Church would, it might be HU[)posed, have brought him under his notice) that I give liis testimony as one of importance on such a poiut. " Neither can we be surjinsed at Ins (nnittnig to remark, tliat the reason given by Mr. Beunet for the Legislature's thus specifying ' (he (h)etrine of 44 tlie sacraments,' is somewluit at variance with the known facts of history. For at the time when the Articles were framed, and even when snbscrij)- tion was enjoined by Statute — times abnndant, certainly, in religious con- troversy — scarcely any one particular was so little the subject of contro- versy or question as the Church's doctrine of baptism of infants." This is simply a repetition of his Lordship's blunder of identifying the doctrine of Calvinistic confessions of faith with that of E,ome_, and a specimen of his grievous want of acquaintance himself with " the known facts of history." " But I dwell not on this. Any person who has ever read the Statute will only smile at Mr. Bennet's ascribing to the Legislature so pregnant a meaning as he finds in its specifying the Articles of 'the doctrine of the sacraments ;' and yet it is only for the sake of this fanciful meaning that his authority has been quoted on the present occasion." Thisj in fact, is the only answer attempted ; that one who reads the Statute will smile at the remark. I hope it will induce the reader to make the experiment. I can assm^e him that it wUl probably now afford him a laugh ; but whether of the nature which the Bishop desires, I will not undertake to say. Dr. Bennet's authority A\ill, I suspect, last good, long- after his Lordship's has become worse than nothing. But 1 must not omit the last sentence, as it professes to giA^e the finishing blow to poor Dr. Bennet. " In opposition to it (though it is scarcely worth opposing,) I cite a contemporanea expositio of the Statute." The thing to be opposed, the reader will observe, and the only point at issue, is that the doctrine of the sacraments is fully delivered in the Articles on the Sacraments. "In 15/5, assemblies were held of the Puritan ministers, at which cer- tain conclusions, drawn up by Cartwright and Travers, their leaders, were delivered to the ministers for their direction. The following is one : ' If subscription to the Articles and the Book of Common Prayer be again urged, it is thought that the Book of Articles may be subscribed, accorchng to the Statute 13 Eliz., that is, to " such only as contain the sum of the Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments." But neither the Book of Common Prayer nor the rest of the Articles may be allowed ; no, though a man should be deprived of his ministry for refusing it.' — (Neal, H. P. i. 2/8.)" This is the contemj)oranea expositio which is to prove that the doctrine of the sacraments is not delivered fully in the Articles ; being in fact about a totally different question ! 45 Sucli is his Lordship's attempt to meet the argument from the Act 13th Elizabeth. He commences witli putting into ray mouth a statement precisely opposite to what I did say, in order to lead away his readers from the point in question to one not under discussion; he then proceeds to quarrel with Dr. Bennet's remark on the Articles on the Sacraments, without being able to allege a single reason against it except his ovrn groundless affirmution,i\\2ii it is "^ at variance with the known facts of history/' and concludes by gravely citing " in opposition to it," what he calls " a contemporanea expositio of the Statute/' which turns out to have nothing in the world to do with it, but to relate solely to the question, (not under discussion, but introduced by the Bishop apparently for the purpose of mystification) whether the Act required subscrip- tion to all, or only a portion of the Ai'ticles. Is this to be accounted for from mental excitement whicli has obscured for the moment his Lordship's poAvcrs of per- ception, or is it an attempt to throw dust into the eyes of the reader ? But further ; these observations are very remarkable in another point of view. His Lordship has here again supplied a very forcible argument against himself. He tells us that there was scarcely anything " so little the subject of contro- versy or question as the Church's doctrine of baptism of infants." Now I believe that so far as regards the members of our own Chm'ch, Conformists and Puritans, this was the case. Nay, in matters of doctrine generally we have the testimony of contemporary authorities of the highest order, namely, Pilkington, then Bishop of Durliam, and ])r. Bridges, then Dean of Salisbury, (afterwards Hisbop of Oxford) that there was agreement bctw('en them. "I'be doctrine alone," says Pilkington, sp(>aking of their o})jcctions to the ecclesiastical ])()lity, ceremonies, Mtiirgies, &c., "they leave unlonclied." (Lett, to (jualter, July 1573, Ziir. Lett. 2n(l ed. p. 125.) " The controversies," says Rridj^es, " between the common ii(lv('r.s;iri(s, [tlie Papists] and us, are pro aris el focis, for nmtters, anil that capital matters, of the substance and life of our Cliristian rehgion ; not trifles, as some neutrals would bear the peo])le in hand Whrreas the ronfro- versies betwixt us and our Brethren, [the Puritans] are matters, or rather {as they call them) hut manners nvd farms of tin- Vhitrcli''s rrr/iinrnt." — 46 (Defence of the Government established in Church of England. 1587, 4to. Pref. p. 3.) Aud his Lordship supplies us Avith a proof that they had no objection to subscribing such of the Articles, as, to use their own words, " Contain the sum of the Christian faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments," Now what was their doctrine as to the sacrament of baptism ? Notoriously the CaMnistic doctrine, or some modification of it. What is the consequence? Clearly that that doctrine was the received interpretation of our Liturgy and Articles at that time. But in fact, is it possible that the Bishop can be ignorant what was the doctrine held at this period on the subject by some of the most learned men in our Church, Whitaker for instance, and defended, — not against men in our own Church, but — against Romish divines only ? I refrain from giving proofs, simply because they will come more properly in another place. His Lordship next proceeds to travel out of the " Defence" to give a review of the Baptismal SerAdces, which he considers to be his strong-hold. I think it unnecessary, on the present occasion, to do more than direct the reader's attention to the mode in which the sernce for adults is treated in this review ; because the remarks I shall have to make on that point will, I hope, make manifest to every impartial reader, that the principle of interpretation which I contend is to be adopted in the service for infant baptism, must be applied to that ser- vice, and therefore may honestly be applied to the other ; and we shall see also how far even the Bishop of Exeter himself has been compelled to adopt it. Having informed us that his principle that " every baptized child is born again of water and of the Spirit" becomes still plainer by comparing the office for infant baptism with that for adult, in which latter case he admits that the grace is suspended on conditions, he, after comparing the former part of the two ser\ices, (where the differences he has noticed are merely those arising necessarily out of the difference of the two cases) favours us with the foUomng account of that part of them which comes after the act of sprinldiug ; — " Still further : The thanksgivings after Baptism in the two cases are marked hv a very broad distinction. In the one, God is thanked ' tliat it 47 Imtli pleased him to regenerate this infant with His Holy Spirit, to rceeive him for his o-\ni ohihl hy adojjtion, and to incorporate him into His lioly Church.' In the other, God is thanked ' for calling us to tlic knowledge of His grace and faith in him ;' — and that is all. The newly hajitized adult is, indeed, subsequently spoken of as ' being 7(oit' born again' — for it would ill accord with Christian charity to refuse so to speak of one who has just before solemnly made his ba])tismal vow ; but there is no assertion of his ' being dead unto sin, and living unto righteousness,' as of the baptized infant — and that he ' is made partaker of the death of the Son' of God — in other words, hath assuredly received the inward and spii'itual grace of Baptism." (p. 41.) Such is the account which his Lordship gives the pubhc of the Ser\'ice for adult Baptism. I will not borroAv his phraseology to describe its character, but shall content myself with giving the public a little further information on the matter. What are the words of the Prayer-book? Imme- diately after the act of sprinkling in the service for adult bap- tism come these words, " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that these persons are regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Churcli, let us fflve thanks unto Almiyhtij God for THESE benefits,'' &c. And of this distinct and deli- berate assertion the Bishop takes not the slightest notice. It is of coui'se altogether eversive of his argument, at least in his own view of the meaning of the words. For the declara- tion of regeneration having taken place is as strong and posi- tive as in the ser\dce for infant baptism, while the Bishop himself is compelled to allow that its taking place depends upon the repentance and faith of the party. " In adults," he says himself, " tlic grace [of the Sacrament] is suspended on the conditions." (p. 41.) And now let us observe his comment on the thanksgiving, which it would be dillicult to parallel. He tells us that in the thanksgiving for adults, " (Jod is thanked ' for calling us [o])servc the italics M'hich are liis own] to the knowledge of His grace and faith in liim' — and that is all," that is, he woidd Avish us, apparently, to under- stand that the thanksgiving docs not necessarily inchuk^ the party ba])tizcd, though those present had just l)een called upon to giv(; thaiiks for the benefits tlie />»^//y//rr^/ liad re- ceived. And as to tlic newly-l)aptized being spoken of as " being now born again," that is only tbc language of charity. 48 "for it would /'// accord ivith Christian charity to refuse so to speak of one who has just before solemnly made his baptis- mal vow.'^ And so, after all the coarse and vulgar invectives which his Lordship and his party have been in the habit of fulminating against certain parties for understanding the language of the service for infant baptism as hypothetical, and that of Christian hope and charity, here is his own con- fession that he can use the Ser\dce for adult baptism himself only in this sense. Moreover, what his Lordship has quoted is not " all,^^ for (taking the words his Lordship has quoted in his own sense) the following important portion has been omitted. The words " born again" are followed by these, " made heirs of everlasting salvation through om' Lord Jesus Christ ;" and a prayer is offered that they may " continue'' God's " ser- vants." But the richest specimen perhaps of all, is what is added to that which I have just quoted, — " but," he adds, " there is no assertion of his Moeing dead unto sin, and li^dng unto righteousness' — as of the baptized infant — and that he 'is made partaker of the death of the Son of God' — in other words, hath assuredly received the inward and spiritual grace of baptism." That is, the assertion that a man is regenerate and born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation and a servant of God, is not equivalent to saying that he has " received the inward and spiritual grace of baptism" ! ]More- OA^er, what says the Exhortation in this same SerAice? Of this also his Lordship has taken no notice ; and this is more to the point than any other part, because there is no opening for a difference of opinion respecting the meaning of words and the construction of sentences. " And as for you who have now by Baptism put on Christ, it is your part and duty also, being made the children of God, and of the light, by faith IN Jesus Christ, to walk answerably," &c. The language clearly of hope and charity only, for the man may be a thorough hypocrite for aught we can tell ; but certainly equi- valent to anything that can be found in the service for infant baptism. His Lordship must be hard driven for arguments, when he 49 can condescend to such a method of obtaining one as he has here resorted to. The Service for Adult Baptism, then, though it does not use precisely the same words to describe the spiritual grace as that for infants, uses language as clearly maintaining that the Spiritual grace of Baptism has been bestowed. And I wow ask the Bishop of Exeter, why others have not just as much right to maintain that he is dishonest, — because while he tells all baptized adults that they are regenerate, notv born again, and made the children of God, and of the hght, by faith in Jesus Christ, he uses the words merely out of a charitable hope that it is so, but cannot vouch for the fact, — as he has to make a similar charge against them for interpreting the Ser- vice for Infant Baptism in the same way ? The criticism that follows (pp. 41, 42), on Article 27, is overturned at once by the latter words of the Article — "Faith is confirmed and grace increased by Aartue of prayer unto God" — which show that the case more immediately contem- plated in the Article was that of adults. Of his ad captandum quotation from Waterland in reply to " the Arian IVhiston," I shall abstain from further notice than to say that Waterland's reply is precisely what I should have made myself, and that I only wish his Lordship and his party would bear it in mind, that the Articles and Liturgy arc '' consistent," and that both " mean the same thing." His Lordship's next argument is this, (pp.43, II) that whereas one of the Articles says that Confirmation is not a sacrament of the Gospel, and (sj)eaking of all the five addi- tional sacraments of Rome, of which Confirmation is one) that they "have grown i)arthj of the corrupt following of the Apostles, &c.," if the Articles were the sole standard of doc- trine in those points treated of in them, persons might rail at Confirmation with impunity. That is, this indirect notice, in the Articles, of what (Confirmation is not, is to be taken as a regular treatiny o/ Confirmation. And the occurrence of the rite in the Prayer Book is to go for nothing. If the Hishop thinks this argument will help his cause, let him by all means use it, but he must excuse my wasting time in giving a reply to it. 50 AVitli respect to the Catechism, (the next point adverted to by the Bisliop,) so far as concerns its connexion with the Defence of the Tljirty-ninc Articles as tlic standard of doctrine in our Chiu'cli in the points treated of in them, I shall only say that it is obviously absurd to give a catechism of this kind, i. e. one written only for little cliildren, co-ordinate authority wdth a document drawn up as a formal and public statement of our Church's doctrine on all the great points of faith. If any obscure phrase in an Article can be made plainer by a reference to the subordinate teaching of the Catechism, his Lordship is qviite welcome to make use of it ; but let him be sure that he is understanding it as it was intended to be understood, and does not bring his own private view of the meaning of the Catechism to override what is plain in the Article. In fact, as to subordinate illustrations of any phraseology in the Articles that seems to need such illustration, he is quite at liberty to draw them from any documents of public autho- rity in our Chm-ch. Nor does the clause objected to at all exclude such a course, though the Bishop and others (with the usual hot-headedness of mere partizaus, desirous of black- ening what they dislike) have so represented it. What the teaching of the Catechism is, I shall point out where I have more space to do so, and am quite prepared to meet his Lordship on the point. I go to the next argument. " Will the party Avith whom we are contending,^' says his Lordship, " Still insist on ' the superior authority and pertinency of the Articles over the Prayer Book in the determination of these points ?' I answer not in any words of my own, but in the solemn declaration of the Church herself in the Synod of 1604, — at the very time, be it remembered, when this portion of the Catechism was first put forth in confirmation of the former teaching of the Liturgy : — ' The doctrine both of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper is sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer to be used at the administration of the said Sacraments, as nothing can be added unto it that is material and necessary.' So speaks the Church in her 57th Canon; and with her authoritative declaration I dismiss all argu- ment on the subject," &c. (p. 46.) Now here it is at once manifest, that the argument, on the face of it, overreaches itself ; for the Articles were " added" { 51 by the Church herself, to point out more distinctly and clearly her doctrine upon these subjects. And if his Lordship had quoted the Avliole of that portion of the Canon of which he has given only a part, the real meaning of what he has quoted would ha^e been seen at once. The fact was, that the Puritans were in the habit of teaching the people that the Sacraments were not valid unless accompanied by preaching. In opposition to such a notion the Canon enacts, — " WHiereas divers persons, seduced by false teacliers, do refuse to liave their children ba])tized by a Minister that is no preacher, and to receive the Holy Communion at his hands in the same respect, as though the virtue of these sacraments did depend upon his ability to preach ; forasmuch as the doctrine both of Baptism and of the Lord's Supper is so sufficiently set down in the Book of Common Prayer to be used at the administration of the said Sacraments, as nothing can be added unto it that is material and necessary : we do require and charge everj' such person, seduced as aforesaid, to reform that their wilfulness, and to submit himself to the order of the Church in that behalf; both the said Sacraments being equdly effectual whether they be ministered by a ]\linister that is no preacher, or by one that is a preacher," The meaning therefore is clear and obvious enough. Both parties held that some ministration of the word should accom- pany the ministration of the Sacraments, but the authorities of the Church justly said, — all that is "material and ne- cessary " in that respect is contained in the public services appointed to be used at the administration of those Sa- craments, To give the Canon the sense attributed to it by the Bishop, is simply to make the Church stultify herself; for she took good care to «(/(/her Articles upon the same sub- ject, and make her Clergy subscribe them. One word more on this passage. The Bishop's phraseology here in the words, " When this portion of the Catechism was first put forth ^ &c,,'' gives very strong ground for (louhtiug his ac()tuiintancc with the history of the Catccliisin itself. It is not correct to say that tiiis portion of the Catechism was then fimt put forth, for it is but a slight revision of the latter por- tion of Dean Nowell's tliird or smallest Catechism, first pub- lished in 1.j72, It was then first added to the Catechism of the Prayer-book ; but that is another matter. This was long since pointed out by Archdeacon Churton, in liis Life of 52 Nowcll ; tind I can testify to its truth, having been for some years in jjossession of the vohunc. This Catechism of Nowell is no doubt extremely rare, and tlie IJishop's statement has consequently often been nuule, but it is not the less incor- rect. After this maltreatment of the 57th Canou, his Lordship haughtily tunis his heel upon all opponents, as not worth further notice, announcing, " So speaks the Church in the 5rth Canon; and, with her authoritative declaration, I dis- mitts all argument on the subject deducing from it the manifest duty of our acknowledging and preaching that in that blessed Sacrament [of Baptism] spiritual rege- neration is the express and assured gift of God ;" apparently not remembering that he does not believe himself the abstract proposition he has here put forward. And he proceeds to point out the very shocking fact, that some of the Clergy have actually spoken of his doctrine of baptismal regeneration as a grievous error. And he tells us that they " seem to be, in their opinions, the successors of the ' godly persons ' of two centuries ago." But his Lord- ship is wrong here nearly a century. For " theii* opinions " are, that they are the successors, not of the " godly persons " who pulled the Church down two centuries ago, but of those who built it up nearly three centuries ago. Facts, my Lord, will last much longer than fiction. But I will be quite candid with his Lordship, as I love fail* dealing. If his Lordship can find any who, while they dis- believe his doctrine of baptismal regeneration^ do at the same time (from whatever cause) believe it to be the doctrine of our Church, he will not find my humble voice raised in de- fence of such j)ersons. And I will add, that I have always held, supposing the account I heard of a ease occurring in his diocese some years back to be true, — namely, that the rite and Office of Confirmation were opeidy impugned as un- scriptural and superstitious, that his Lordship was more than justified — bound in duty — to call such a person to account for his palpaljle ^^olation of his subscription. But such cases are toto coelo different from that now under consideration. They are no justification of his Lordship's 53 • attempt to eject from tlie Church all the Clergy who do not take all his ^-iews of the meaning of portions of the Liturgy, Avhich he ought to know, if he does not know, were not (to say the least) the prevailing \'iews of theii' meaning in the best times of oiu* Church. There remains one more passage to be noticed ; of which, as it is impossible to characterize it correctly without using terms which I leave for his Lordship's exclusive enjoyment, I shall only take such notice as may enable the reader to form a correct judgment respecting it. I had pointed out iu my pamphlet the plain and undeniable matter of fact that the words of the Act of Uniformity restrict the meaning of the words " assent and consent " in the Declaration, to the use of the Book of Common Prayer. The words of the Act that precede the Declaration are, that the party shall " declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed, in these words, and no othcr.^' There can be no doubt about the meaning of this, where common sense is allowed to act. And it is important to observe this context of the Declaration, distinctly declaring the sense in which it is to be made, because the words of the Declaration itself, standing alone, might be strained (and have been strained both by Churchmen and Dissenters from various motives) to mean that the phraseology Avas in every case the very best that could l)e adopted, wlicreas there are many Avho can heartily assent and consent to the truths and principles which they believe the compilers of the Book of Common Prayer intended it to express, putting a Protestant interpretation on it (as for instance Archbishop Whitgift's in- tcrjjretation of the Consecration and Ordination Service, &:e., instead of the Popish), and consequently to the use of the Book, while at the same time they may think that it would be better now at least, if some parts were not open to a I'ojjisli interpre- tation, especially when they find a Romanizing party actively at work in the bosom of the Church itsclC. And while pointing out this fact, I carefully .iddcd the Inl- lowiug remarks, — " Moralli/, I must earnestly niaintiiin tliat they [i. e. the dcelaratioiis required by the Act of Uniformity] are of equal force [with that of the 54 .36tli Camm], because iin man ouyht to (jive his assent and consent to the use of all things contained and prescrihcd in the Book, who thinks any part of it 'contrary to the IVord of God.' " (p. 10.) Again, — " Am I then here advocating liherty being granted to the Ministers of the Church to give or withhold their assent to the Prayer-book as accor- dant with Holy Scripture? Far from it By the 36th Canon, all ministers will still be required at ordination, institution, &c. to testify by subscription their belief that the Prayer-book ' containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used.' Any man, therefore, who believes that any portion of the Prayer Book conveys unscriptural doctrine, will be bound AT once to retire FROM A MINISTRY WHICH HE CAN ONLY LAWFULLY EXERCISE THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF A SUBSCRIPTION TO THE CONTRARY EFFECT. And if he docs not do so, and attemi)ts to propagate his view of the unscriptural character of any portion of the Prayer Book, he will still be most justly amenable to the Ecclesiastical Courts as one who is violating his subscription and BREAKING FAITH WITH THE GhURCH." (pp. 2fi, 27.) The notice of this fact, however, though thus carefully ac- companied by these explicit statements, guarding it from the possibility of abuse, has roused his Lordship's ire to an extent that has made him lose apparently, for the time, both self-re- spect and self-controlj and, after an abusive invective of which I shall take no notice, and garbled quotations, he concludes his tirade in these words, — " He declares, it seems, his ' assent and consent ' only to the use of it— RESERVING TO HIM- SELF THE RIGHT OF BELIEVING, OR NOT BELIEVING, AS HE MAY THINK BEST." (p. 50.) Fifteen times, and those spread over two months, did the un- happy writer of this passage solemnly deliver it in a Charge to his CJergy, and now deliberately publishes it to the world. He has the temerity to claim the " disgust and indignation " of his hearers and readers towards the party he thus mis- represents. I willingly leave them to apportion those feelings Avhere they believe them to be deserved. And I ^vill add, that if he supposes to carry all before him by foul language, and conduct such as he has here been gviilty of, his triumph will be at most short-lived, and certainly terminate in his own in- delible disgrace. And now for the fact itself which has thus moved his Lordship's ire, and wliich with deplorable ignorance he speaks 55 of as an ''expedient" of mine for invalidating the force of the Declaration. "The Godly Preachers/' says his Lordship, " at the time when the Act of Unifonnity passed, and when therefore its intentions could hardly be misunderstood [which I hope the Bishop will recollect presently] were not eqnally astute." And he then proceeds to quote from Calamy (Life and Times of Baxter) (who, he tells us, by another blunder, was one of the ejected ministers, confounding him with his father, this contemporary authority not liaA'ing been born till ten years after) the objections made by the ejected Ministers to the Declaration required by the Act. I will now therefore give the Bishop, in return, the reply to those objections, from the pen of one of the best of the Church's sons at that very ^erioA, published in 1G62, immedi- ately on the passing of the Act, and "Mhen therefore its intentions could hardly be misimderstood." Thus speaks Dr Fulwood, then Archdeacon of Totnes, in reply to such objectors. After pointing out to them that they had over- strained the meaning even of the Declaration taken alone, he adds, — "But for the perfect removal of any such scruple for ever, let the Act interpret itself. The words immecUately foregoing this Dcchiration are these. 'Every minister. . . .shall declare his unfeigned assent and consent to the Use of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed in these words and no other;' they are the words of this Declaration. Mark; we must declare our unfeigned assent and consent. To what ? not simply to all things, hut to all things witii respect to their use : to the use of all things in the said Hook. Hut in what tvords must we declare for the use of all things in the said Book ? in these words, and no other ; and they are, as was said, tlie words of the Dcchu-ation. The plain mraniur/ of the Act appears therefore to l)e l)nt this : while we declare, in thf'.fc words, viz. of the Declaration, we do l)ut declare our unfeigned assent and consent to the use of [the] Common Prayer : which if we can lawfully use, we do but declare, that if we do conform, we do nothing arjainst our consciences : or that, we do unfeignediy assent and consent to the use of that whicli we ourselves either do, or can use. And, as if our Governours had purposed to make this their meaninr/ as i'lain as thk Sun, they have at least twice more given us the same interpretation of those words. In page 7 1, siu'h as are hereafter inducted must drdan; their unfeigned assent and consent. To what? Why, to the use of all tilings therein ; that is, in the Book of Common Prayer contained and prescrilied. But how, and after what manner? Why, according to the l'"orni l)efore ajipoinfed ; that is. in the Declaration. The like wc have again, page H.'i." (The (Jrand Case of the present Ministry, 1()()2. 12mo. pp. II, ]-J.) 56 And in his " Review of the Grand Case/' in answer to a dissenting reply to it, publislicd in the following year, he repeats and insists upon this as the clear sense of the Act. (pp. 13 et seq.) And to those who stumbled at the Declaration, only from considering it to imply their belief in the absolute perfection and optimist character of everything in the Book, while on the contrary they thought some parts injudiciously worded, though they had no objection to use the Book, this explana- tion might have sufficed. But the fact was, that most of those Avho then refused to take the Declaration were not satisfied that any good sense could be placed upon some portions of the Liturgy, and were dissatisfied with some of the ceremo- nies prescribed and other matters, and therefore could not consent to use the Book; andof coui'se the required Declaration was represented by the whole party (in the usual spirit of party movements) in the blackest possible light. They were glad to avail themselves of the Declaration detached from the context which pointed out its meaning, to misrepresent it. Hence the large number of those who refused to take it. Again, in 1674 was published, by a theologian of well known name and ability. Dr. Falkner, a book entitled "Libertas Ecclesiastica, or a Discourse vindicating the lawfulness of those things which are chiefly excepted against in the Chui'ch of England, especially in its Liturgy and Worship." Now what is his explanation of the Declaration. " It is first to be considered, that as to assent, when referred to things asserted, is to own the truth of them ; so when referred to things to be done ordered or used, it is to allow that they should be put in practice : in which latter sense, assenting is one and the same with consenting. Now the Act of Uniformity, both immediately before this Declaration, and in divers other places, referreth this unfeigned assent and consent to the use of the things in that Book contained and prescribed ; and thereby directeth us to this orcUnary sense of the word assent : as doth also the nature of the things tobe assented to, which for the main part are prayers, 4'C." " Its most jnoper and natural sense [i. e. of the word assent] must import a consent to or allowing of the vse of these things, which is the sense unto which the ei^pressions in the Act of Uniformity do also ijlainly direct." "Wherefore by this Declaration is given such an open vocal approbation of this Book, required by law, as agreeth in sense with the subscription enjoined by Canon. And the intent thereof is, to express such au unfeigned allow- ance or consent, to all things contained and })rescribcd in the Book of Common Prayer, with the Psalms, as that they may warrantably and with 57 a good conscience he used, [liis own italics], as tlicy arc established by au- thority." (Third Edit. 1677, pp. 91—96.) " The subscriptions or declarations required amongst us (besides what for the present concerneth the covenant) ai-e, an acknowledgment of the King's just authority, to secure the Government; of fke Articles of Reli- gion, TO PRKSERVE TRUTH OF DOCTRINE : ami of the Liturgy ami Book of Ordination, to maintain order and uniformity" (lb. p. 88.) These last are nearly the words I have used in my pamphlet. Still more observable are the expressions of one of the most learned and alile prelates our Church ever had, Bishop Stillingfleet. So far from having even any doubt on this subject, he thus complains, in his Sermon on " the mischief of separation/^ of the misinterjjretations of the Nonconformists. " It is a veiy hard case," he says, " with a Church, when men shall set their wits to strain every thing to the worst sense, to stretch laws beyond the intention and design of them, to gather together all the doubtful and obscure passages in Calendars, Translations, &c., and will not distinguish between their APVROBATioyi OF THV. use and of the cuoick of things, for upon such terms as these men think to justify the present divisions. I much question whether, if they proceed in such manner, they can hold communion with any Church in the Christian world." — (Sermon on Mis- ciiief of Separation, 1680. 4to. p. 49.) ^Moreover, this very passage of Calamy, quoted by the Bishop, veas replied to on behalf of the Church by a Clergyman of tlie name of OllyfFe, who defends, expressly and al^ly, at some length, the same view. But it is needless to add to such authorities as I have just quoted. I will give, however, his answer to the Bishop's argument, (borrowed also appa- rently from his dissenting authority. Dr. Calamy), that the Declaration must have greater force than the subscription required by the Canon, otherwise it would not have been ordered ; of which he justly says, " The Common Prayer Book had then been long disused, and many of the people prejudiced against it. The Governors might think it wouUl revive the honour of it before the ])eople, to have such a decla- ration made openly in tiic (Jhiirch. The snbscrij)ti()n was and i.s a private thing, done perhajjs in tlu; Bishop's cliani- l)cr ; and therefore tlie sanu; tiling in snbstanee was oinh-red to be (Icchired pnhliely, ami Ixlbre tin; people." (lid Del", of Minist. Conformity, p. 101.) \\ hidi is sur(;ly a v( ry sulli- rient answer. 58 "Wliat might be the reason that the Avord " use" was not put into the Declai'ation itself, or whether there was any par- ticuhu' reason for omitting it, will never perhaps now be known. Whether it was thought that it might be thus laid open to misinterpretation in the minds of the people, who, knowing generally of no other Declaration or Subseription being made, might take a Avrong view of the light in which the Book was regarded by the Church, or whether the word- ing of the Act was the result of a conflict in Parliament on the subject (which is not the most improbable supposition), it is impossible to say. If the latter, then clearly what is unjustly called the Low Church party carried the day ; for a distinct definition of the sense in which the Declaration is to be made overrides every argument drawn from the Declara- tion itself. At any rate there is a plain statement of the sense in which it is to be taken ; and the abuse of his Lord- ship, or any body else, can make not the slightest difference in the matter : it is as the idle wind beating against a rock. That this sense should appear now to be new, I regret. But if people will not read the whole of a document, or consult con- temporary authorities for its meaning, even in matters so nearly connected with the discharge of their own peculiar duties, but content themselves Avith bits and scraps separated from their context, and the testimony of deeply prejudiced Avriters, it is not my fault; and certainly the case will not be made better, by theii" falling into a passion with one who calmly and histo- rically states a fact of which they were ignorant. The reader is now in a position to estimate the character and value of his Lordship^s attack upon me for my statements on this point. The Bishop is indebted, however, to his dissenting referee for one more argument on this subject. The ejected minis- ters, he triumphantly informs us, (pp. 51, 52), refused to give their assent to the Common Prayer, because (among other reasons) it taught (i. e. they held it to teach) " the doctrine of real baptismal regeneration and certain salvation conse- quent thereupon ;" and his veiy logical conclusion is, that therefore all those who do not hold that doctrine, ought, like them, to refuse to subscribe to the Book, and quit the Church. 59 Now, then, I Avill take his Lordship at his word, and Avill ' prove to him that on his oivn shelving, and according to his own express loords, if he is " honest," and has not regard only to his own " temporal convenience," &c. &c., (for other like phrases, see his Lordship^s Charge) he ought immediately to resign his bishopric, and retire from his ministry in the Chru'ch. For his dissenting friends adduce another objection to the Prayer Book. They could not give their assent and con- sent, &c. &c. because " they could not consent to pronounce all SAVED that are buried, except the unbaptized, excommunicate, and self murtherers." And this they are perfectly clear that the Book does. "The priest must not only say, that God took away all such persons in mercy, in great mercy, but also positively affirm that God took them to himself, i. e. into heaven . . . They could not see how charity would excuse dangerous errors axiA falsehood." And so they left the Church. Ah ! my Lord, they (as you Avould say) were honest men. They would not stay in a Church which forced them to de- clare, that all buried by a priest (with but very few exceptions) were undoubtedly saved. Let us hope, then, that your Lord- ship and party will (to use your own words towards us founded upon a similar argument) " follow the example which those faithful sufferers for conscience' sake have left behind them, to their own honour, and to the shame of those who, believing as they believed, [that all such are declared by the Church to be saved, though they are not'\, have not faithfulness to suffer as they suffered." Which will his Lordship resign? His Bishopric or his iiTcfutablc argument? Pcrliaps, after all, it will be the latter. My Lord, it is dangerous to put one's hand into a liornet's nest (I do not use the word invidiously), for the pleasure of extracting one to sting a neighbour with. Thus ends his Lordshijj's answer to the " Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles." Now certainly this "Charge" is a very choice specimen of the learning, judgment, and other (|ualifications of its author to lay down the law for the Church, i)articularly in the point which lie has taken under his special protection, and selected as the first to do batth- for in his Ecclesias- 60 tlcal Crusade ! IIow great the value of it« Authoi*'s conclii- 5sions, put forth with a \ntupcrative arrogance, by which he seems to expect to brow-beat all opposition ! But he well knows that such a mode of handling a subject has great effect with some persons. If they are unprepared upon the point, it is irresistible. It is like a troubled whirlpool. If their strengtli is unequal to the current, they are ine^dtably carried away by it. I will stake my life upon it, says his Lordship virtvcdhj, that all who do not agree with me in my ^iew of the matter, are, beyond all possible contradiction, fools or knaves. A^'ho can resist such an argument ? Certainly not a very large number of the Clergy, Avho, immersed in parochial duties, ha^Ting never even received a clerical education, away from access to the sources of information, are necessarily unable to meet the statements of one who speaks with all the soiu'ccs of information open to him, able to cull where he pleases, and how he pleases, and moreover speaks, as it were, ex cathedra. Well, but now comes the "Appendix,^' attached to this weary piece of polemical rhetoric; — the especial sting properly reserved to its appropriate place. The Bishop thinks he has found out, that in the coui'se of the last six years I have changed my mind as to the position to be assigned to the Prayer Book in enquiries respecting the doctrines of our Church ; and there- fore, after an endeavour to prove his point by quotations from my Avork, eaUed " The Divine Rule of Faith," he con- cludes his whole effusion by " tendering an apology to his Clergy" for having " occupied so large a portion" of his address to them "in discussing the statements of such a writer." What a contemptible fellow ''such a ivriter" must be for speaking now differently on such a point [which, by the way, he has not done,) from what he did six years ago ! But now, whatever others may think, is Jiis Lordship really of opinion that a period of six years is so very short a time for such a change ? His Lordship asks if I Avill plead for a " Statute of Limitations." Now, if I asked for one for six years, and only for such points, is his Lordship quite sm-e that he would be satisfied with it himself ? Be advised, my Lord, for once. While wc arc about it, let us have a Bill of In- 61 demiiity for Conversions on tlic shortest notice, and on all points great and small. Nothing else wonld be worth having. The characteristic exordium respecting my "fiiculties of moral perception, "honesty/' &c., I have ali'eady noticed. So let it pass. The first crime discovered by his reference to my former work is, that though I had quoted the 51st Canon there, I " coidd not discover" it " when its production would ha\e been fatal to my principle." To this I shall only reply (as I have noticed the point already) that when his Lordship shall have proved, instead of merely asserted, that the 51st Canon is " fatal to the piinciple" I have maintained, (which in fact I have very good reason for calling a mere error of his own), it will be quite time enough to defend my "honesty" and "faculties of moral perception." Until then, I am quite satisfied to permit the Bishop of Exeter to substitute abuse for argument without any further reply from me. " But," adds his Lordship, — " This is a trifle : I proceed to graver matters. Will it be believed that this same writer, who now extols the Canons of 1571 as of the very highest and most unquestionable authority, citing them to establish his great po- sition, that 'the Articles have been made use of bj/ the C/mrc/i, as t/ir test of doctrhie and standard of faith,' and saying of them that they were '))ro- mulgated with the Royal assent in 15/1,' and 'published by authority' in the same year — will it, I ask, be believed, that this same writer, in that his most grave work, set forth by him 'against the errors of the authors of the Tracts for the Times,' one of their errors being that they hud cited one of these Canons — which very Canon is now cited by himself — [his Lordsliip shall have the full benefit of all his italics], si)caks of them in the following terms, (Vol. II. p. 588) : 'The Canons of 1571, haviiuj never received the Royal confirmation, were never ])ut in force, and are of no authority.' He actually quotes Collier's ' Ecclcs. Hist.' ii. 5.'n, to show that ,' Archbisiioi) Crindal therefore dennu-red to the execution of these Canons ; he was afraid a Prccmunire might reach him !' Nay, he refers to Archbishop Wiike's ' State of the Churcli,' &c., to show that even if they ' had received Queen Elizabeth's confirmation, they woulil not be of any authority now, for h(;r confirmations extended no further than her own life.' [Wliich it is imjjortant to ol)servc, as I neither did intend nor do intend to leave these Canons 'a crutch to stand upon' in the point dis- cussed in the ' Rule of faith' respecting tliciu.] Further than this, in order to leave these luifortimate Canons not a crutch to stand ui)()n, lie a(hls, ' f)n this ground they are expressly excluded from the Canons of our Churcli, that is, the Canons that are (f fiiilhorily, \)\ Hisliop (iibson. (C'lxl. 62 I'rof. X. xi.\ wlu) limits ' the Canons' to those of 1()(W,' (tlie itulics lire his own.)" (i)p. ()5, <)().) I give the whole passage, that there may be no possible plea of my having had an object in keeping back any part. I can have no Avish to do so. A very few words are necessary to show the ludicrous impotence of this attempt to establish an inconsistency in any part of these statements, except in one remark, entirely immaterial to the jJoint in question in either work, which 1 shall notice presently. The argument has been got at by tacitly confounding the question of the legal aidhority of the Canons of 1571, — that is, whether they form part of our present Ecclesiastical Laiv, — with that of their historical authority as proof of a fact. The point in question in the " DiA-ine Rule" was the former, and -with a slight mo- dification of one statement quite immaterial to the conclusion, I should repeat word for word what I have there said. The point in question in the " Defence of the Articles" is whether the Articles were intended to be the standard and test of doctrine in the points treated of in them. And of course one "of the very highest and most unquestionable authorities" (I adopt the very words the Bishop has put into my mouth, the better to serve his purpose, though they are not mine) on such a point, is a Canon of the very Convocation (that of 1571), that presented them in their present form to Parlia- ment for its sanction. This is so ob^dous, that while I decline to retort his Lordship^s observations about "honesty" and " faculties of moral perception," I beg to ask him, whether he did or did not see it. If he did not, he had better cease wTiting, or at least bringing such charges against others, until the mist in which his mental excitement on this subject has involved him has cleared off, and he can really distinguish one thing from another. It is as dangerous to walk in an intellectual fog as in a physical one. Surely he must blush to see the puerilities into which his intemperate haste has betrayed him. As it respects the question whether the Royal assent was or was not given to the Canons of 1571, (my statement in the " Divine Rule" being that it was not given, which however made no difference in the point then under discussion, as I there G3 pointed out), I shall merely say, that further research has induced me to think that the Royal assent was given orally but not in writing, and therefore not so as to give them legal force ; which accounts for Griudal's unwillingness to act legally upon them, and also better explains his expression to Parker, when, after saying that the Royal assent ought to have been given " in scriptis,^' he adds, " fine words fly away as the -wind, and will not serve us, if we were cmpleaded in a case of praemunire ;" which was one main reason inducing me so far to modify my view as to think that an oral assent was given. It was unnecessary to notice this distinction specifically in the " Defence," because it made no difl'erence in the historical value of the Canons for the purpose for which they were quoted ; indeed the Queen's sanction at all was not necessary to the validity of the argument. But it so happens, that in the second edition of the "Defence of the Articles" (printed long before the appearance of this " Appendix" to the Bishop's Charge), I have stated this to be my view, and given autho- rities for it. I leave it now to the ingenuity of his Lordship to point out how this affects the point in question, either in one work or the other. " But," the Bishop proceeds, " even this is not all, no nor the most surprising of all." And tlicn comes a quotation, to prove, beyond all contradiction, the inconsistence of the state- ments of the two works ; and certainly the acutcness of his Lordship's perceptions just now deserves to be immortalized for such a discovery. "What will these admiring readers," asks liis Lordship, "think oftlieir author, when I lay before them the following statements from his former very elaborate work — which has oidy this day eome inider my eye, while these sheets are passin;^ thronj^h tlie press? [Ah! my Lord, liiij^^ers are often burnt through undue haste.] ' The dogmatical works of (inthority in our Church are, first, those which have received the highest degree of authority, namely, the Articles, Homilies, and Catechism, (of the existence of the Catechism he takes no notice in his Defence, &c. ;) and, secondly, those which have received the Ecclesiastical and Royal Sanction, l)nt not that of the whole Legislature, namely, Jewell's A])ology, and Nowcll's Catechism. The testimonies given in the Note ixlow. ai)undnntly prove that these latter works are of no inconsideralile (inlhorily as faithful re/ire- sentations of the doctrine of otir Chinch.' (\ refer, therefore, lo the pas- sages cited from them l)y me, j)p. 11 and 1'), ' as faithful representations' by the admission of this writer, 'of the doctrine of our Cinnch' on Baptism . )" Gl I l)rcak oir lor a luonicut to assure liis Lordsliij), in reply to this iiu-itliMital remark, that he has the///// "admission of this M riter" that these passages faithfully represent the doctrine of our Churcli. But is he quite sure that he loves the good old Dean so well himself, now that he knows a little more about his Catechism ? It must be admitted, however, that his Lordsliip^s argument in favour of his view from No well (and Jewell was in the same boat with him) is a striking one. I doubt if it ^^ill soon be forgotten. And in all seriousness I would beg the reader to observe the way in which his Lord- ship here again presses his extract from Nowell's Catechism as something quite conclusive in proof of his doctrine on baptism being the doctrine of the Church of England, while it has turned out to be taken from John Calvin. What possible value can be attached to the conclusions of such a writer? As to the degree of authority here gi^•en to Jewell and Nowell, of course it does not interfere at all with the Clause. And as I have stopped, I will just say a word as to the Homilies and Catechism. Of the former, does his Lordship deny that it is a dogma- tical work of authority in our Church, or does he wish to erect it as a whole into a verbal Standard of doctrine Hke the Articles? If he does not, (as 1 suppose he does not), but leaves it the place assigned to it in the Articles, he cannot charge me with any inconsistency here. Of the Catechism, of which, as he correctly says, I have taken no notice in my " Defence," I say as I have said before, that it is simply absurd to raise a Catechism for little children into a co-ordinate authority with the Articles. And as to its doctrine, I am quite ready to meet his Lordship on that point. But as we have now come to the end of my list of " the dogmatical works of authority in our Chui-ch," I beg to ask his Lordship where he finds the Liturgy. He will reply. Give the next sentence ; which I shall willingly do presently, but I must first remark that, for his Lordship's argument, the Li- turgy ought to have come into this Hst, and here it is expressly excluded. And now let ns see the terms in which it is men- tioned in what follows. "But he proceeds: 'The indirect [mark, indirect,] sources from \\\\n:\i the doalrine of our Church is to be f/athertd are, Jirsf, our Mithor'izcd 65 Liturgical [I willingly repeat the Bishop's capitals] forms and eccle- siastical laws, &c. By these documents [i. e. all that have been men- tioned, and according to the station assigned them] let us test the views of the Tractators.' 97, &c. [597, &c.]" Let us observe^, then, where the Liturgy is placed in this passage, which is to convict me beyond all contradiction of the most woful inconsistency. It is expressly excluded from " the dogmatical works " of our Church, and it is placed among such indirect sources of information on the subject of the doctrine of oiu- Chui'ch as our "ecclesiastical laws." I have no hesitation in saying, that if I wished to make any alteration in this passage, it would be to give the Liturgy a higher, rather than a lower, place, by pointing out that there were some points not treated of in the Articles in Avhich we must meet error by the Prayer ]Jook. His Lordship must have bewildered himself to bring this passage against me ou the present occasion, for it takes expressly and noiniaathn, so far as the great point — that of the Liturgy — is concerned, the very same ground on which the " Defence " is written. To deny that doctrine might to a certain extent be indi- rectly gathered from a Liturgy, woidd be to say, not merely that the worship of all the religions in the world was exactly the same intrinsically, but even that there were no religious truths at the foundation of any of them — a simple absurdity. And bearing in mind the express statement I have made in this passage, respecting the way in which alone the Liturgy can be used as a source of information respecting the doctrine of our Church, the meaning of the next passage, — which his Lordsliip describes as " richer than all which have preceded, in illustration of" my "faithfulness to" my "own princi- ples," — is transparent ; and it does not help the Liturgy to a place one whit hiyher than that r/iven to it in the last. 11 (in; is the passage as his Lordshij) (juotes it, with his own italics. " And the aiitliorized guides in our Church for the intcrpretiitiou of Scri])ture, and hy wliich, of course, fier members must he judyeil, arc the Articles, Homilies, Catechism, Liturffij, Canons ol Ifid.J, nm\ those Canons, i^c, received precious to the Reformation, (^c." " These received yuiihs arc occasionally joined with the Scriptures as tlic tests of error and herrsi/ in our i'hurch. (ii. ()22.j" r The order in which the documents arc given is precisely the same in both passages, hut because I liavc not here again drawn the distinction between the character of these difterent som'ccs of information, although I have done it in the very same volume, his Lordship Avould insinuate that I have made the Liturgy a dogmatical Avork ! His Lordship asks, " What will the writer say to these matters V He has seen already what I have to say to them. And I doubt not every impartial reader will agree with me^ that liis attempt to fix upon me the charge of inconsistency, from the statements of the " Divine Rule " and the " Defence," turns out to be as pitiful and futile an attempt as can well be conceived. Nor Avill his Lordship's self-confident and vitu- perative denunciations bring con-\iction to any but tliose wdio are convinced before-hand of their truth. I have now carefully gone through the whole^ both of the Charge and the Appendix, without leaving a single point un- noticed. The reader will understand, therefore, that this an- swer meets not merely what appeared the most vulnerable statements, but all the statements of the Bishop on the sub- ject. And I cannot but think, and I susjiect few who have followed this review of his Lordship's Charge will differ from me in thinking, that, at least, he has something, nay many things, of very much more gravity and importance to " apologise " for to his clergy and the pubhc, in his Charge, than the fact that he has attempted to answer in it the Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles. 07 POSTSCRIPT. This reply to the Bishop of Exeter has been pubHshed at the earliest possible period after the appearance of his Lord- ship's Charge (in the last week of August) under its author's name and sanction. No Newspaper re])ort of it eould, of course^ be taken as a sufficient authority to act upon. There was therefore no way of avoiding its having the run of the Newspapers for some time (the Visitation alone occupying aljout two months) without a reply. I state this, lest persons unacquainted with the circumstances of the case should think that there has been any unnecessary delay in answering it. W. G. September 19, 1818. C. V. Hodgson, Printer, 1 Gough Square, Fleet Street, Li)iiii THE TRIALS OF THE CHURCH A QUICKENING OF HER ZEAL AND LOVE. TWO SERMONS, UPON THE CONSEQUENCES OK THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF HER ]MA.JESTY'S PRIYY COUNCIL, ^prfacfiei in J^t. fficorgc's, Urigftton, ON THE FIRST AND SIXOND SUNDAYS AFTER EASTER, 1850. uv Tin: REV, JAMES S. M. ANDERSON, M.A. CMAI'LAIN IN ORDINAUY TO THE QL'KE.N, PERPETUAL CURATE OK ST. (JEOROE's, MRIGIITON, AMI l'RE.\(III.U OK M.NCOLN's I.N.N. LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, ST. PAUf.'s CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE; rOLTIIORP, North Street, a>d KING, East Street, BRIGHTON. MDcrri,. r. o N D o N : GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, sr. John's square. SERMON I. 2 Tim. i. 6, 7. " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear ; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." I CITE not these words as a correct description of that which now is, but of that which ever ought to be, the especial duty and safeguard of the Church of Christ, in her day of trial. Let the trial assume what aspect it may, it never can be more appalling than that which was the portion of St. Paul and Timothy. St. Paul, we learn here, was a prisoner at Rome, suffering every pain and ignominy which "the madness of the people," or the cruelty of the tyrant, could inflict. " All they too which " were " in Asia," who had been his disciples and friends, were " turned away from" him. Even Demas, of whom he had spoken but a shoi-t time before, without any misgiving, as one of his " fellow-labourers," and whose gi'eetings, apparently affectionate and sincere, he had conveyed, with those of Timofby and himself and others, to the Ciuuch at Colosse, and to IMiilcinon, is now declared to have "forsaken" bim, " liaving loved fliis present woi'ld." liesides all this, the Apostle speaks of "profane and vain babbUngs " A 2 4 SERMON I. of men, — whose "word" would "eat as doth a canker," who had " erred concerning the truth," and were overthrowing " the faith of some," — increasing " unto more ungodhness." And, further yet, in the "perilous times" that were to folloAv, he adds, " men shall be lovers of their ownselves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce- breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God ; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof;" — "evil men and seducers," that " shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived ;" — men that " will not endure sound doctrine ; but after their ow-n lusts shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears, and shall turn away their ears fi'om the truth, and shall be turned unto fables." Last of all, the Apostle himself was " now ready to be offered, and the time of" his " departure" was " at hand." Not that this made his trial heavier. On the contrary, it was an approach to the fulness of that hope, which had long since assured him that it was " far better to depart, and to be w^ith Christ'." Having "fought a good fight," having " finished" his " course," having " kept the faith," the prospect of that " crown of righteous- ness, — which the Lord, the righteous judge," should " give" him " at that day ; and not to" him " only, but unto all them also that love His appearing," — grew brighter from its very nearness. But unto Timothv, who was still left to "w^atch," to " endure afflictions," to "do the work of an Evangelist," to make " full proof of" his " ministry," the way must, ' Phil. i. 23. SERMON I. 5 in very deed, have appeared more dark and difficult in which his spiritual father walked no longer by his side-. " All these things are against me\" he might have said, had he w^eighed the matter only in the balance of human wisdom. But there is no faltering, no murmuring, no disputing, on either side. The secret of then" everlasting strength, and the assurance of the victory which it would give, are the sole stay and solace of these faithful servants of the Lord. Look now to the lesson taught by their example. The gifts which they possessed and manifested, in this sore crisis of their trial, arc they not precisely those of which we, brethren, stand most in need ; which we should pray most earnestly may be ours ; and, being ours, should diligently strive to exercise, in this our day of trouble ? O ! that we could be now found stirring " up the gift of God," in whatsoever measure or degree impai-tcd to each one of us ! that we could be upheld in the performance of this duty, by the testimony that " God hath not given to us the spirit of fear ; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind!" Our need of such help, I repeat, is urgent, for our danger is imminent. Our house, the Church of our Baptism, is shaken to its very centre by unha})py divi- sions, the causes of which toucii the dearest interests of all that are sheltered within it ; and the progress of which has already produced consequences un[)aralleled in its history. To relate them in detail were needless. The briefest summary will suffice to ])rov{; the fact. A Presbyter »2Tim. ii. f); i. IT); ii. 10— IH; iii. 1 — 5. l.'J ; iv. 1. (5— 8. T) ; Col. i. 1 ; iv. 1 1 ; IMiilum. 24. ' Gen. xlii. .30. 6 SERMON I. of our Church, upon the ground of unsound doctrine respecting the Sacrament of Baptism, is refused insti- tution to a benefice with cure of souls by the Bishop in whose Diocese it is situated, and in whose Diocese he was ah'cady an Incumbent. The authority of the Court of Arches is invoked to decide the controversy. Its sentence is that the refusal to institute was law- ful. From that sentence, the Presbyter appeals to the highest tribunal in our land, that of the Queen in Council. The Bishop responds to the Appeal. And Judgment is finally pronounced, reversing the sentence of the Court below, and declaring that sufficient cause had not been shown why institution should not be gi'anted. It was, w^ith one exception, the unanimous Judgment of the six members of the Judicial Com- mittee of the Privy Council who pronounced it ; and two out of the three Prelates who, being Privy Coun- cillors, were directed to attend the hearing of the cause, and to whom copies of the Judgment were submitted, approved the same. The third did not concur. The Judgment has been received by many persons with satisfaction. Indeed, the assertion has been made upon very high authority in Parliament, and not con- tradicted, that a majority of the nation share this feeling. By others, there can be no doubt, it is viewed with the deepest alarm, and a painful, indignant, sense of the wrong which, they believe, it must cany with it. The language of strong and solemn protest is heard on every side. Some broadly assert that the Judgment is 'false;' that it 'does injury and dishonour to Christ and to His Holy Church;' and that ' all, who, with a full know^ledge of its ' meaning, are, or shall be, concerned SERMON I. 7 in executing it, or shall approve of, or acquiesce in it, are, or will be, involved in heresy'.' Others affirm, in terms of less vehement condemnation, indeed, but not less earnest disapproval, that it sanctions ' an exposition contradictory of the essential meaning of the Article of the Nicene Creed, publicly professed in our solemn assemblies, " One Baptism for the remission of sins ;" that to admit such an exposition ' is to abandon that Article, ' and thereby to destroy ' the Divine Foundation upon which alone the entire Faith is propounded by the Church ; that any portion of the Church, which ' con- sciously and wilfully makes this abandonment, ' forfeits the office and authority to witness and teach as a mem- ber of the Universal Church, becomes formally sepa- rated from the Catholic body, and can no longer assure to its Members the Grace of the Sacraments and the Remission of Sins'.' These opinions have not been thrown out at random, but formally proclaimed, by men of high Ecclesiastical station and yet higher repute, by Professors in our Uni- versities, by Parish Priests, by honoured Laymen. More- over, Bishops of the Church in Scotland have publicly expressed their thanks to the Bishop of the EngUsh Church who refused to concur in the Judgment ; and many of the most distin2;uished Members of both Houses of Parliament, and of the learned professions, zealous and faithful members of the Church, have expressed to the same liishop their apprehension lest the integrity of vital doctrines of Catholic truth be placed in jeoj)ardy, and have entreated him to take such * Protest by the Rev. G. A. Dcnison ; ' prcpnred,' lie lias since said, in a Sermon, p. 17, 'after much deliberation and consultation with others.' ' Resolutions subscribed by Arcl. deacon Manning and others. 8 SERMON I. measures as may avert the threatened danger. The press too is teeming with the expression of men's opinions, in every variety of form, and supplying daily evidence to show how deeply their minds are stiired upon this subject. But louder and more resolute than all is the unresen^ed condemnation of the Judgment, put forth in a Letter to the Primate of all England who concurred in it, by the Bishop who was Respondent in the Appeal. It becomes me not, of course, in this place, to say one word upon the statements of that Letter. But, if the reason for noticing it, or any like document, at all, be to point out the greatness and urgency of the danger which is at our doors, how can the fact be de- monstrated more clearly, or more painfully, than by such testimony ? We know, indeed, the taunts which men, who are not of our communion, must cast upon us, as they gaze upon a conflict which has been thus begun, and is thus maintained. We know the self- complacent words of censure which have been, and will be, repeated by many, who, outwardly indeed, are members of our communion, but heedless of its obli- gations ; and who are glad to find, in the disputes of their professed spiritual guides, an excuse (such as it is) for their continued heedlessness. But I stop not to argue with such men. If they can find any real cause of rejoicing in this matter, or believe that the fact of our di\dsions can in anywise make their path easier, or their burdens Ughter, be it so. I leave it to others to determine the propriety of the arguments, and of the feelings, which can lead any man to such a conclu- sion. The one constraining impulse, which at present drives out eveiy other from my mind, — and must I not believe that it is shared by all who watch and " pray for the peace" of our Jerusalem? — is that of deepest SERMON I. 9 soiTow, that such a conflict should have arisen in such a form. And, if the sight of Hebrews striving together in the land of their bondage could di'aw fi-om the lips of one, whose faith and hope were bound up with theirs, the touching remonstrance, " Sirs, ye are brethren";" shall ministers, or other members, of our own branch of the Church Universal, be deemed irre- verent, hasty, presumptuous, if, in the midst of their tears and prayers and vigils, they lift up their hearts and voices unto those who " are over " them " in the Lord^" and, seeking to avert the terrible spectacle of their disunion, draw near, and say unto them, " Sirs, ye are" fathers ? But I hear it said that the fatal blow has been stinick, and that it is too late to speak of health or peace ; that, although the Article which acknowledges ' One Baptism for the remission of sins' be not denied, it is virtually expunged from the Creed, since it is declared ' that in the English Church it shall no longer be held as an Article of the Christian Faith'.' Brethren, if this declaration had been really made, and wc were to yield to it, I grant that the whole fabric of our salva- tion would be endangered. We should no longer " hold fast the form of sound words, which" we have " heard" from the Ai)ostles of the Lord ; no longer prove that we had any zeal or love " for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints"." But what do I read in the Judgment? 'This Court, constituted for the purpose of advising Her Majesty in matters which come within its comj)etency, has no jiu-isdiction or " Acts vii. 20. ' 1 Tlioss. v. 12. " Leading Article in the ' Guardian,' March 27, IH.'iO. Similar statements are repeated in many (jiiartera. ' 2 Tim. i. 13. .Iiide.'}. 10 SERMON I. authority to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought, in any particular, to be the doctrine of the Church of England.' Now, in the face of so explicit a declaration, how can we fairly assert that it expunges, or attempts to expunge, an Article of the Creed ? ' No,' say the impugners of the Judgment, ' we could not assert this, had nothing else folloAved.' But, masmuch as the Court goes on, in the same passage, to declare that its authority ' duly extends to the consi- deration of that which is by law established to be the doctrine of the Church of England, upon the true and legal construction of her Articles and Formularies;' and, inasmuch as that which it has pronounced to be the true and legal construction of the Articles and For- mularies of the Church, in the present instance, con- travenes the decision of a Bishop, and reverses the judgment of the chief Ecclesiastical Court of the Pro- vince of Canterbury, which had confirmed that decision; it does, in point of fact, indirectly ' exercise jurisdiction and authority to settle matters of faith.' Let me ask you carefully to consider this point. It is one of the most critical points of the whole ques- tion ; and it were vain to advance further, unless we come to some agreement respecting it. The Articles and Formularies of the Church of Eng- land, — these are our inheritance ; and, ' upon the true and legal construction of these, the Privy Council have been called upon to consider ' that which is by law established to be' her ' doctrine.' In the prosecu- tion of this duty, they have stated further their belief, that it is not right ' to be minute and rigid ;' a state- ment, which taken by itself, might seem to countenance a sph"it of latitudinarian indifference destructive of all sound doctrine. But the Privy Council have limited SERMON I. 11 its meaning in the present instance, by citing, with approval, an opinion expressed in the Consistory Court of London by the late Lord Stowell, then Sir Wilhani Scott, one of the ablest Judges who ever presided in any Court, and whose weighty words of truth and wisdom are regarded with profoundest admiration, not only by England, but by the civihzed countries of the whole world. The opinion is, ' That if any Article is really a subject of dubious interpretation, it would be highly improper that this Court should fix on one meaning, and prosecute all those Avho hold a contrary opinion regarding its interpretation.' How is it then ? Are we to believe that the Article which has been now the subject of Appeal, is one respecting which we have any doubt ? Are we to shrink from saying that the regeneration of infants in Holy Baptism is the authoritative doctrine of the Church of England ? Is it now for the first time that light has burst upon us, revealing to you, and to me, and to the whole Church of which we are mem- bers, that our belief is vain ? Assuredly not. For the twenty-one years and more, in which it has been my privilege to minister among you, you will bear me wit- ness that this her authoritative doctrine has always been insisted upon, as the basis upon which the teach- ing of her ministers should rest ; and, from this sure gi'ound, God being our helper, we will not be moved. The Holy Scripture, without whose authority the Church declares that nothing ' whatsoever is to be rc- quiied of any man, that it should be believed as an Aiticle of the Faith, or be thout^ht rc(juisite and neces- sary to salvation ',' her offices for the Ministration of ' Art. VI. 12 SERMON I. Baptism, her Catechism, her Order of Confirmation, her Creed, her Articles, her Collects, — especially that appointed for the Festival which commemorates the Nativity of our Lord, — and also her Homilies, — these are the sources, from which have been brought out, and placed before you, again and again, the evidences which prove the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration to be hers ; and I have ever urged you to beware of forcing, upon any poiiion of this diverse, yet concurrent, testi- mony, an interpretation w^hich does it violence. If, in later years, I have pressed this w^arning upon you the more earnestly, it has been from an increased convic- tion of the evil which we all know has arisen from labouring to attach a non-natural sense to any of the terms, by which our Church has expressed her teach- ing. This conviction, I confess, is present with me now more strongly than ever ; and I would say, therefore, as I have said upon a former occasion, in words most clear and forcible, — in the words, in- deed, of one whose writings upon this subject, no less than upon that of Prophecy, possess a value second to none of those w'hich the present generation has pro- duced, — that, * to depart from this direct admission of the obvious meaning of words which carry in them a kind of importunate perspicuity, is to introduce a principle of universal and incurable scepticism into the interpretation of doctrines ; insomuch that if it were admitted, we should despair for our own part of ever being able to say that any words could ever express a certain and fixed doctrine, or that any doctrine could ever be expressed in intelligible words -.' * Davison's Remarks on Baptismal Regeneration, originally published in the ' Quarterly Review ' for July, 1816, and now- reprinted in his ' Remains,' 277 — 346. SERMON I. 13 It is impossible to express more strongly our be- lief of what should be regarded as the authoritative doctrine of the Church of England, and of the teaching which her ordained ministers should pursue in accord- ance with it. And now let me beseech you, in terms of not less strong assurance, to remember, that this doctrine remains unchanged. The Scripture upon which it rests, the Creed wdiich proclaims it, and the words of prayer, of praise, of exhortation, of instruc- tion, of dogmatic statement, which, throughout her Liturg}" and Articles, bear witness to it, — and which must cease to have any intelligible meaning before their witness can be destroyed, — are all with us in their integrity. The truth which they enshrine came not from man, but God. Its duration is His eternity. No judgment of man can overthrow it. But, if I affirm this, it foUow^s, you will say, that I must of necessity look upon the opinion cited by the Privy Council, with their approval, as wholly irrele- vant ; that, whilst the principle which it enunciates may justly apply in the case of an Article 'really of dubious interpretation,' it cannot, and ought not to, be made to apply in the case of an Article which has been pronounced to be 'clear and unquestionable \' Before I echo the words of your conclusion, let mc ask, What are the facts ? No doubt, the doctrine now under consideration has been pronounced to be * clear and unquestionable ;' and we repeat, that, regard being had only to the plain meaning of the language of oui- Church in her public Forinulai'ies, it ought to be so received. But, remember, l)cf()re we can truly say that the doctrine has been, or is, considered un- ^ Letter of tlie Bishops of tlic Cliurcli of .Scotlaml to the Bislioj) of London. 14 SERMON I. doubted and unquestionable by all, we must look to that Avhicli other members of our Church have said or written upon it. And, if such an enquiry shall prove that men have held and taught views of Baptism, not distinguishable, ' in any important particular,' from those of the Appellant in the present case ; and yet, that, in the language, not less felicitous than true, of the Appellant's Counsel, ' they lived unchallenged, and died in full communion with the Church,' it is a fact which you cannot, and ought not to, ignore. And, if you ad- mit the fact, it follows that your conclusion cannot be adopted literally. We cannot say, in the full and un- qualified sense of the terms, that the interpretation of this Article has been free from doubts, if men have doubted it ; or, that this doctrine is unquestionable, if men have questioned it. Observe, we do not for a mo- ment admit that any doubts or questions, with respect to the true doctrine, can make it untrue. As well might we admit that the current coin of the realm has lost its value, because counterfeit is in circulation ; that hypocrisy or falsehood shall justify us in withholding our belief in the sincerity of any man ; or that the authority of the law is no longer binding, because the interpretation of statutes has been different. All that w^e wish to impress upon you is the fact, that such differences exist, and the causes why they exist. In some, I believe, in most instances, they have arisen rather from the misapprehension of words, than from any refusal to admit their meaning, when really and properly understood ; and have been aggravated by that vagueness of thought, and consequently of lan- guage, which leads men every day, in the ordinary affairs of life, to seem to be at variance, when, in point of fact, no real ground of variance exists. In other SERMON I. 15 instances, they have arisen from a love of subtle dispu- tation, from attempting' to define what no man can define, from party bias, from infirmity of temper, from hasty judgment, from pertinacity in adhering to the opinion that has been once expressed, and from a determination to resist all influences that may seem unduly brought to bear upon it. And, further yet, the subject-matter of those various documents, in the interpretation of which such influences operate, is con- fessedly of a complex character. They were drawn up at different times, under different circumstances, in different forms, and for difterent ends. Hence an ambi- guity, — by some believed to be only apparent, by others, real, — which has given rise to different interpretations. Not that such ambiguity, in any instance, was de- signed. To say this, would be to say what I believe, — in spite of all that is now urged, — can never be established, that the Church, knowingly and wilfully, commanded "the trumpet" to "give an uncertain sounds" Meanwhile, howsoever we may lament the fact of differences thus created, it is important to keep in mind another fact connected with it, that they who have maintained, and maintain them, no where profess, or cherish, any desire to elude the authority of the Liturg}'- and Articles of our Church, or to teach doctrines contrary to them. They have believed, and continue to beheve, that they are faithful members of our Church. Tlie Appellant in the present case, for instance, denies, — so runs tlu; Judgment,- — ' that he either held, or persisted in liolding, that infants are not made in Baptism members of Christ, and the children of God ;' and alleges * that he did not maintain * 1 Cor. xiv, 8. 16 SERMON 1. any views whatever contrary to the true doctrine of the Church of England, as dogmatically determined in her Articles, familiarly taught in her Catechism, and devoutly expressed in her services.' We may not be able, indeed, to understand the process by which such statements are to be reconciled with others w^hich he has made. But, unless we possess some infallible and master key, which shall unlock all the intricacies of the intellect and conscience of man, we cannot take upon us to say that an irre- l^arable outrage has been herein committed against the prerogatives of either. Now, then, call back to your minds the opinion, quoted by the Privy Council with their approval, and see whether it be not applicable to the present case ; the opinion, which pronounces it to ' be highly improper that' the 'Court,' over which that eminent Judge presided, — a Spiritual Court, remember, — ' should,' with respect to an Article of faith of which diiferent interpretations had been given, ' fix on one meaning, and prosecute all those who hold a contrary opinion regarding its interpretation.' I entreat you to give the principle here involved your most earnest conside- ration. It evinces purest justice, and wisdom, and mercy. None can with impunity disregard it, in the abstract ; and the present unhappy controversy is one in which, I believe, it may be lawfully acted upon. There are circumstances, undoubtedly, in which it is our plain, indisputable duty to prefer truth to peace upon any terms, and to endure every pain and penalty that may be in store, rather than break up that strong foundation upon which alone any truth can really and permanently stand. Wheresoever the question is one which compels us to choose between SERMON I. T7 tmth and peace, we cannot be at a loss to know what course we should pursue. At no time, and under no circumstances, may we, from fear, or from respect to the favour of any man or of any set of men, surrender, for the sake of peace, the only grounds upon which any true peace can be maintained. And so, if the sentence should go forth, from any authority having temporal power to enforce its commands, and forbid us to proclaim what we hold to be the authoritative teach- ing of the Church upon the question now before us, that sentence must not, shall not, be obeyed. If re- strained from proclaiming it here, we would cease not, as long as strength remained, to proclaim it elsewhere. Yea, " in deserts and in mountains, in dens and caves of the earth," if need were, should our voice make itself heard. But it is one thing, to hold fast our integi-ity, in the face of persecution, when it comes ; another, to become ourselves the persecutors. Yet the line, it will be said, must be drawn some- where. Men may be willing to allow all reasonable latitude ; but where, as in the present instance, the un- soundness of doctrine is so great, that not six persons, it is alleged, hold it, — not six would have been affected by the decision of the Court of Arches \ — its toleration becomes a sin. Why, then, was not the precise expres- sion of this aggravated and intolerable heresy distinctly made to appear before that Court, and, afterwards, before the Privy Council? So far fioin any such spe- cific character being assigned to it on either occasion, the Judge of the Arches Comt speaks thus : ' I think ■' l»isli(>|) ol' Mxotcr's l/ctlcr, ]). SI . Sec also tlic Answer of tliu Bishop of London to the IJisliop^ of the C'hmeh in Scotland. li 18 SERMON I. it is extremely difficult, from the way in which the case has been brought before the Court, exactly to define the question which the Court is called upon to decide.' Again, the Counsel for the Appellant to the Privy Council states, that, ' at that moment, he had no idea what the views of the ' Respondent ' were as to the doctrines of the Church ;' that, ' from the beginning to the end of this case, there was no allegation of what those doctrines were.' Last of all, the Privy Council in their Judgment, make it a gi'ound of grave com- plaint, that ' no statement ' had been made, ' on the part of the ' Respondent, ' of what was the true doc- trine of the Church of England, in respect of the efficacy of Baptism, either of adults or infants ; nor any specification of the doctrine imputed to' the Ap- pellant ; that, ' without being supplied with any alle- gations distinctly stated, or any issue distinctly joined,' they were ' called upon minutely and accurately to examine a long series of questions and answers ; — of questions, upon a subject of a very abstruse nature, intricate, perplexing, entangling, and many of them not admitting of distinct and explicit answers ; — of answ^ers, not given plainly and directly, but in a guarded and cautious manner, with the apparent view of escaping from some apprehended consequence of plain and direct answers.' Are you prepared, then, — are the Church and nation prepared, — when so grave a question has been brought forward in so unsatisfactory a shape ; when ' not a trace of precedent was to be found in the Ecclesiastical Courts whereby the suit could be regulated*^,' and the •^ Speech of Mr. Turner. The Judge also of the Arclies Court speaks, p. 10, of the difficulty which arose ' from the want of former precedents in cases of this description.' SERMON I. 19 grounds upon which they, whose duty it was finally to adjudicate upon it, were left thus indefinite ; — are you prepared to say, that it was their duty, in their con- struction of the words submitted to them, ' to fix on one meaning, and prosecute all those who hold a contrary opinion regarding its interpretation ? ' I cannot beheve that you either are, or ought to be, prepared deliberately to think, or to say, this. Three hundred years, remem- ber, have passed away, since some of those documents were drawn up, on which the Church rests the authority of her doctrine upon this question, and which have formed the chief subject of the late conflicting argu- ments. Those centuries have witnessed conflicts fiercer even than that which rages now, and the rending asunder of dearest ties more painful, I trust, than any which may ever be in store for the children of this generation. Those centuries have witnessed also the prevalence of diverse opinions, upon the very question of the present controversy; opinions which, the Privy Council affirm, they cannot, ' in any important particular,' distinguish from those entertained by the Appellant. Has the authority of our Spiritual Courts ever been invoked to restrain them? Such opinions, we know, have been avowed by many who iiavc been, or are, ministers of the Church of England ; zealous, affectionate, and holy men ; and upon whose labours, we believe, many a precious token of God's blessing has descended, and continues to descend. Again, then, I ask, has the attempt ever been made to show that their maintenance of such opinions was a bar to Ihcii- institution to a benefice with cure of souls ? Was it ever known, ever thought possible, that such a bar would, or could be, set up? And if now, for the first time, its weight had been made to fall suddenly upon one who had been a B 2 20 SERMON I. Presbyter of the Cliureh, for more than thirty years; who, during that period, had been entrusted with the cure of souls ' in various Dioceses, six or seven in number, without any impediment or objection alleged against him';' and who now professes to hold and teach no other doctrine than that which he has always held and taught before ; — think you that you could have rejoiced in such a Judgment ; that you could have looked back upon it with satisfaction, after the heat and agony of the strife had passed away ; or that future generations would pronounce it to be a Judg- ment, which is marked by " the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind?" Call to mind the words with which Strafford pleaded, so touchingly, though unsuccessfully, against the constructive evidence of treason brought against him in the days of the first Charles : ' If I sail on the Thames, and split my vessel on an anchor; in case there be no buoy to give warning, the party shall pay me damages : But, if the anchor be marked out, then is the striking on it at my own peril. Where is the mark set upon this crime ? Where is the token by which I should discover it*?' You may hold what opinion you will, touching the con- duct of the nobleman who thus pleaded, and the alleged crime for which he suffered ; but no man can deny that reason and truth and justice were on his side, when he urged such an argument as this. And is there less of reason, or truth, or justice in the argument, if it be urged, as men have a right to urge it, in behalf of the Appellant in the present cause ; ' Speech of Mr. Turner. * Hume's History of England, vi. 340. i SERMON I. 21 or of the many who, Hke him, would have been cast out of the ministry, had the sentence of the Supreme Court of Appeal not been what it is ? ' Where ' w^as 'the mark,' they might have asked, 'set upon this crime ? Where ' w^as ' the token by wdiich ' they ' should discover it ? ' Yes, brethren, hundreds w^ould have asked such questions ; and, receiving no other answ^er but that which recorded the sentence of their condemnation, would have been suddenly, cruelly, cast out. It is vain to suppose that this would not have happened ; that not more than six would have been found to take side with the Appellant. Not more than six, perhaps, may have been found ready to subscribe to every proposition which he has w^ritten. But, can any man who knows the w^orking of his own heart, or the influences w^hich aggravate the spirit of strife in others, dream that men, who look upon them- selves as bound to each other by the bonds of a strong and sacred brotherhood, will ever stop to weigh syl- lables, wdien a blow has been struck which vibrates through every member? If the Privy Council, with. all the time and opportunity given to them for delibe- ration, could not see that the Appellant's case was, ' in any important particular' distinguishable from that of many others, we may be sure that the ' many others,' in the present day, who, up to the time of the decision, believed that his cause was theirs, would have been ready to "cast in" their "lot with" his, whatsoever that lot might have been. A rent, more terril)le tlian any which has yet been inflicted upon the Clmrch, must have followed. From such an issue, the Judgment of the Privy Council has saved us. Great and jjcrlloiis as are the evils we suffer, we have not yet brought upon our heads the deadly curse which, sooner or later, must 22 SERMON I. overwliclin a persecuting Church, God be praised, we may still })lcad with, still pray for, these our brethren ; still be "helpers of" their "joy." "By pureness, by knowledge, by long-suifering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteous- ness, on the right hand and on the left^," we may yet win for ourselves a victory more glorious than any which can be extorted by the condemning sentences of earthly Courts. Such a victory will best demonstrate the truth, whereof the Church is a ' witness and keeper;' and the vanity of the reproaches which men have cast upon it '. It will be our strongest defence, our surest gi'ound for belie\dng that the trials through w^iich we pass are the quickening of our zeal ; and that, more and more largely, we receive thereby "the spmt of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." And to this end, brethren, let us pray : ' O God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace ; give us grace seri- ously to lay to heart the great danger we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and preju- dice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly union and concord ; that as there is but one Body, and one Spirit, and one Hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may henceforth be all of one heart, and of one soul, united in one holy bond of Truth and Peace, of Faith and Charity, and may with one mind, and one mouth glorify Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen^.' " 2 Cor. i. 24 ; vi. 6, 7. * See Appendix, Note A. ^ Prayer for Unity, in the Accession Service. SERMON II. 2 Tim. i. 6, 7. " Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. For God hath not given us tlie spirit of fear ; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." In resuming the consideration of the subject treated of in the preceding Sermon, I cannot be insensible to the strong feeUng of uneasiness which prevails in the minds of many persons, who are ready, for the causes that have been assigned, to acquiesce in the Judgment of the Privy Council, but who feel, that, if they are there- by to be understood as approving all the reasons advanced on its behalf, they compromise what they profess to ])e the doctrine of the Church. To this, there is a very simple and ready answer. The reasons are not the Judgment ; and it cannot, therefore, be properly said of any man, that he stands necessarily committed to the one, because he dutifully obeys the other. It is most needful tliat wc sliould keep in mind this distinction. For, doubtless, an admission of the three reasons to which I am about to refer, would involve very great difficulties. The first of them argues, that, be- cause certain phrases occur in '^Phe Ordei- for the Burial 24 SERMON II. of the Dead, which, it is said, ' cannot be hterally true in all cases, but must be construed in a qualified or charitable sense,' therefore, 'other assertions of the like kind, in other services, may fall within the same cate- gory.' And, forthwith, all those passages in The Minis- tration of Public Baptism of Infants, which so clearly and definitely bear witness to the doctrine of the Church, that infants are therein and thereby regenerate, are quoted, for the purpose of showing that they fall within that category, and ' cannot be literally true in all cases, but must be construed in a qualified or charitable sense.' Now, without stopping to show, what might easily be shown, if there were time for it, the propriety of the language cited in the Burial Service', it is sufficient for our present purpose to remind you that the only matter, to which the ' sure and certain hope,' expressed therein, applies, is not the particular condition of the departed, but the universal truth of the resurrection to eternal Hfe through our Lord Jesus Christ. With re- spect to the departed, hope is, indeed, expressed ; but no ' sure' no ' certain hope,' nothing that expresses, or can be understood to express, a firm behef. It is simply the hope of Christian charity, and necessarily conditional. The justice of employing language of a conditional character, in the case of one whose indi- vidual state it is impossible to ascertain, is self-evident. But, when applied to the Baptism of infants, it loses all its force. In proof of this, let me quote the words of the writer whom I named last Sunday, not only be- cause of the singular clearness and force with which he states the truth upon this point, but also because * See the notes from Comber, Wheatly, and others, in Bishop Mant's edition of the Prayer Book. SERMON II. 25 his statement, having been made many years ago, may be regarded altogether apart from the excitement of the present controversy. ' The Church (he says) is in this instance [that of Infant Baptism] fully aware of the present state and condition of the subject to whom the rite is to be applied. The infant is born in a state of sin, and incapable of believing and repenting. It is confess- edly incapable of any moral act whereby to seek its recovery ; not merely incapable in that sense whereby human nature is generally incapable of doing any thing to its restoration, without the aid of grace from above, but by a stronger degree of incapacity, incapable of even seeing its own wants, and feeling its weakness, or knowing how they may be removed. Its cries are full of weakness, but they are not expressive of any moral desire ; its whole imbecility is uninformed by any purpose of heart or determination of thought. This state, which we suppose no one denies, is not unknown to the Church, nor, since it pertains at the same time to the application of the otfice to be admi- nistered, can it be disregarded by the Church in that office. The possible reasons of exception, therefore, which might exist in other cases, can have no place here : and since the actual subject is so definitely and universally known, the language of the service cannot have a concealed reserve in regard to any such reasons of exception. Tacit reserve, without a limit of condi- tion, or without a known ground of possible exception, as against the party to wliom any promise of benefit is assured, seems to us unintelligible in reason, and in- tolerable in good faith. AVe suspect no such dealing in the offices of the Church : we rest, therefore, in this conclusion, that, since the Church, with an entire knowledge of the present state of the individual, and 2G SERMON II. with a strict attention to it, receives an infant into communion by Baptism, and declares the infant to re- ceive a regeneration to Hfe in that Baptism, her sense is as simple as her language, and that all honest subterfuge of supposition by which that which is in terms absolute should be made precarious, and that which is universal in the obvious meaning should be made limited in the true meaning, is, in this present question, necessarily excluded ^' Upon this gi'ound, then, we believe the first of the three reasons men- tioned to be untenable. The second is substantially of the same character ; being drawn from certain expressions in the Catechism, wliich, according to their plain and natural sense, de- clare, as strongly as words can declare any thing, the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration ; but which, it is said, ' must be construed, in a charitable and qualified sense,' to make them intelligible. The example chosen to prove this is the answer which declares, on the part of the Catechumen, ' I believe in God the Holy Ghost, Who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God.' I purposely abstain from meeting, with any words of mine, the statement that this answer is thus to be in- terpreted. Neither wall I have recourse to the answers supplied on the right hand and on the left, by the many disputants who have been forced into the present controversy. I turn rather to the writings of one of the ablest masters of our Israel, in the seventeenth cen- tuiy. Dr. Jackson, and there I find a passage which may best expose its fallacy : ' Can any man (he ^ Davison's Remains, 295 — 297. This passage is immediately followed by that quoted in the preceding Sermon, to which if the reader will refer, he will see how greatly the strength of the whole argument is increased. SERMON II. 27 asks) be persuaded that it was any part of our Church's meaning, to teach children, when they first make profession of their faith, to beheve that they are of the number of the elect, that is, of such as cannot finally perish ? This were to teach them their faith backwards, and to seek the kingdom not ascendendo, by ascending, but descendendo , by descending fi'om it. For higher than this St. Paul himself, in his greatest perfection, could not possibly reach ; no, nor the blessed angels which have kept their first station almost these six thousand years. Yet certain it is, that our Church would have every one at the very first profes- sion of his faith, to believe that he is one of the elect people of God.' ' But those reverend fathers which did compose that Catechism, and the Church our Mother which did approve and authorize it, did in charity presume, that every one which would take upon him to expound this Catechism, or other principles of Faith, should first know the distinction between the elect, that is, such persons as cannot perish, and the elect people of God : or, between election unto God's ordinary grace or means of salvation, and election unto eternal gloiy. EvciT people or nation, every company of men, when they are first converted from Gentilism to Christianity, become an elect people, a chosen generation or com- pany of men ; that is, they and their seed after them arc made capable of Baptism, receive an interest in God's promises mndc unto us in Christ, whicli the heathens, whilst they continue heathens, cannot have. And all of us arc in Baptism thus fm- sanctified, that we are made true members of the visii)lc Church, (|\i;i- lified for hearing the Woi-d, for receiving the Sacra- ment of Christ's Body and Blood, and whatsovcr bene- 28 SERMON II. fits of Christ's Priestly function are committed to the dispensation of His ministers. And thus far sanctified by Baptism no man can be, but by the Holy Ghost ^' It is clear, therefore, that the Catechism does not, as has been stated, ' require a charitable construction ' to make this answer intelligible ; but that, in its literal sense, the answer is both intelligible and true. The thii'd reason, w^hich may be regarded as not more tenable than either of the two preceding, is that which states, that * those who are strongly impressed with the earnest prayers which are offered [in our Baptis- mal Service] for the divine blessing and grace of God, may not unreasonably suppose that the grace is not necessarily tied to that rite ; but that it ought to be earnestly and devoutly prayed for, in order that it may then, or w^hen God pleases, be present to make the rite beneficial.' Brethren, if tliis conclusion be just, it follows that the reception of any gift which God giveth, or promiseth to give, is rendered uncer- tain because we pray for it. Surely the right statement is this, that the more deeply we are persuaded of the certainty of the promises of Divine grace, and of the channels through w^hich their fulness is conveyed to us, the more earnest should be our prayers that the blessing may indeed be ours, the more diligently should w^e strive that we ' may lead the rest of our ' life ac- cording to' that 'beginning.' To cite once more the writer whose words I gave in answer to the first reason : ' If [the Christian] has been once regenerated, daily renovation is still wanted ; and by whatever name that renovation may be called, it is the right object of his ^ Jackson's Works, iii. 470, fol. ed. SERMON II. 29 prayers and liis endeavours, and must be the theme of his reiterated instruction. The beHef, with thankfuhiess, that he has been once aided with the Spirit of God, neither supersedes the duty of prayer for the increase of it, nor of his watchfulness to improve by each acces- sion of it*.' Seeing, then, that to acquiesce in the Judgment of which we have been speaking is not necessarily to admit its reasons ; and seeing that the reasons, here touched upon, do not carry with them that force which requires that we should admit them ; we pass on to considerations of a more compHcated character, which j^ress, I beheve, more or less heavily, upon the minds of very many. Why should such a cause, I hear it asked, have been submitted to such a tribunal at all ? In a matter spiritual, as this was, an Ecclesiastical Court should have been the only tribunal. It is not for Lay- men, however lofty their authority, to intrude into such a province, or to determine matters of faith. But I have already assured you, that they disavow any attempt to determine them. I have reminded you, in the words of these very Laymen, that they had ' no jurisdiction or authority to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought in any particular to be the doctrine of the Church of England.' Nevertheless, you complain, that, in considering ' that which is by law established to be the doctrine of the Church of England, upon the true and legal construction of her Articles and Formu- laries,' they have seriously disturbed Ilu" functions of the Episcopal office, in one of the Dioceses of England, at this moment. Gi-anted, It was not for Laymen, you repeat, to do this ; it should have been the act of an ■• DavisoM, lit Slip. .'Ml. 30 SERMON II, Ecclesiastical Court. And so it was. An Ecclesiastical Court is not one necessarily composed of Ecclesiastics. In fact, the duties of the chief Ecclesiastical Courts throughout the Kingdom, are administered by Laymen learned in the Law ; and, for the best of all reasons ; because they are better able, than we should be, to inves- tigate and determine the causes which come before them. 'The authoritative declaration,' indeed, 'of the Church constitutes the law of ' their Courts ; and the Judge of the Court of Arches, whose sentence has lately been reversed, — himself a Layman, remember, — states this explicitly to be the law to which he was bound to conform. The extent of that ' authoritative declara- tion,' in the present instance, he has interpreted in one way ; the Privy Council in another. But each Court, although the Judgment was delivered by Laymen, was alike authorized to determine the Ecclesiastical cause brought before it ; with this important difference, that, whereas the Judgment of the Court below was that of one man, the Judgment of the superior Court was that of five out of six ; and whereas no Prelate appeared personally in the Court below, two out of the three Prelates, who sat as assessors in the superior Court, concurred in the Judgment there delivered. If you ask. Whence is the authority of this Court derived, whose acts so many hear of now with so much alarm ? We answer, It is no new thing. It is simply the manifestation of the same principle of visitatorial power, exercised on behalf of the Crown, which has obtained from the earliest period in which " kings" have been the "nursing fathers, and queens" the "nursing mothers," of the Church^ : a principle, the justice of which is ' Isa. xlix. 23. SERMON 11. 31 seen in this, that it professes to keep, and does keep, ' all things in their place, and all persons to their duty,' and sees ' to the due execution of all law.' The prin- ciple has been justly described, as governing ' some of the most important and largest developments of Church influence,' and 'the earliest specimens of the most august models of European legislation, — that of the Christian Roman empire, and that of the Christian Frank empire. It is equally shown in the homely and common-sense arrangements of the Anglo-Saxons ; and it is not more distinctly asserted in the uncontradicted and tranquil prerogative of Justinian and Edward the Confessor, than in the contested and balanced royalty of Henry II. or Richard II.*' The time allows me not to speak of the manner in which this principle operated in this country, during the five hundred years before the Reformation ^ Suffice it, therefore, to remind you, that, when that event took place, a Court, called the Court of Delegates, was appointed and authorized to receive appeals from the Archbishop's Courts to the King in Chancery \ That Court con- tinued in the same form, and with the same powers, until the last reign; when it was provided that all wlio might have appealed, under the Statute of Henry, to the Court of Delegates, were authorized then to appeal to ' See an able Article on this subject in the ' Christian Renieni- brancer' for the present month (April, 1850), p. 505. ' The reader, who wishes to see this part of the suliject stated in a clear and compendious fbrnri, may safely be referred to Mr. Irons's pamphlet on ' 'I'he Present Crisis,' Sec, pj). 7 — 29. Mr. Maskcll's unjust and contemptuous notice of tliis pam])hl(t, in his Second Letter, pp. 80 — 88, will not destroy its force. ' 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 19. 32 SERMON II. the Sovereign in Council ; and, by an Act passed in the present icign, it has been further provided, that all Appeals from Ecclesiastical, or other, Courts shall be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council ; which Committee consists of persons holding certain judicial, or other, offices enumerated in the Act^. AMiether the present form of this Appellate Tribunal be the best which can be devised, is another question, which it is obviously impossible to discuss in this place, or at this time. Most earnestly do I pray that it may meet the prompt and careful attention of our rulers ; and that tbeir efforts to remove every real, or apparent, anomaly attending it, be not hindered by the conflict of opinion which rages around them. All that I now seek to do is to reassure hearts which have been disturbed by this conflict ; and to show that there is no just cause for the fears to which such clamorous expression has been given. But, how shall we not fear, it is asked, how shall we not believe that the Church's trust is betrayed, if we have no better safeguard for it, than that which such a tribunal, or any constituted by the same authority, can secure? We want to know the limits by which the power thus exercised, on ' the part of the Crown, by its highest Court, is to be restrained.' If it be 'the Head of the Church,' that has pronounced the decision, what hinders but that decisions may hereafter be pronounced upon other subjects, which shall com- mit the Church to heresy? and, if so, we are justly exposed to all the taunts and reproaches which =• 2 & 3 Wm. IV, cap. 92; 6 & 7 Vict. cap. 38, § 11. See also Stephen's edition of Blackstone's Commentaries, iii. 402 — 405. SERMON II. 33 our enemies heap upon us. Not so, brethren. The Church can never be committed unto heresy, but by her own actual denial of the faith. It is not the Crown that can deny it for her, or bribe, or force, her to deny it. I have told you, more than once, in the words of the highest tribunal in the land, that it has ' no jurisdiction or authority to settle matters of faith.' What avowal can be plainer ? But the Sove- reign, you say, is styled ' the Head of the Church ;' and, as the head moves, so must the body. Believe me that neither this assertion, nor this inference, is correct. The title was given, no doubt, to Henry VIII., by the Roman Catholic Archbishop Warham and his Clergy, and confirmed by Parliament, before the Reformation was completed. But, even then, these words were added to the title, ' in so far as is lawful hy the law of Christ.' And, afterwards, under Elizabeth, the title was changed from 'Head' to 'Governor.' This last change, observe, was made not by chance, but after full deliberation ; and distinctly observed and recorded by those who were then concerned in the administration of the affairs of the Church. Thus Jewel, in a letter to Bullinger, in 1559, writes thus: 'The Queen will not endure the style of Head of the Church of England. She is altogether of opinion that title is too sublime lor any mortal, and ought to be given to none but our blessed Saviour.' And an eminent statesman ^ of the present day, in his notice of this letter, remarks very justly, that ' the difference in spirit between these two titles is very great. Both imply a supremacy ; but ' Burnet's Reformation, i. 227; Collier's Eccl. Hist. vi. 2.')4 ; Leslie's Regale, i. G24, fol. ed. ; Jackson, iii. 921, fol. cd. ; 15rain- liall, V. 231 ; Gladstone's State and C'lmrcli, ii. lOfj. C 34 SERMON II. headship is supremacy by virtue of original position in tlie body ; governorship is supremacy by virtue of an acquired position and power extrinsic to the body. And the great ecclesiastical enactments of [Ehzabeth's] reign were either reversals of irregular and invalid acts done under Queen Maiy, or they w^ere founded upon the preliminary judgment of the Church legitimately assembled.' Mark W' ell these words. The very supre- macy which Elizabeth, as Governor of the Church, exercised, w^as ' founded upon the preliminary judg- ment of the Church legitimately assembled.' And this w^as in literal accordance with, the Injunctions issued by that Sovereign, in 1559. Some persons, it appears, had inferred from the Oath of Supremacy, that thereby the Kings or Queens of this realm, possessors of the Crown, might challenge authority and power of ministry of Divine Service in the Church :' — the very inference, wdiich some are so ready to make now, and which, they think, justifies their worst fears. But the coiTectness of the inference was then denied, and the assertion broadly made, that no other authority was, or would be, exercised by the Queen than that which ' was, of ancient time, due to the imperial Crown of this realm ; i. e. under God, to have the sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons born within these her realms, dominions, and countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or temporal, soever they may be, so as no other foreign powder shall or ought to have any superiority over them.' Again, ten years after issuing these Injunctions, the Queen published another pro- clamation, stating that ' she claimed no other eccle- siastical authority than had been due to her prede- cessors ; that she pretended to no right to define arti- cles of faith, to change ancient ceremonies formerly SERMON II. 35 adopted by the Catholic and Apostolic Church, or to minister the ^Yord or the Sacraments of God ; but that she conceived it her duty to take care that all estates under her rule should live in the faith and obe- dience of the Christian religion, to see all laws ordained for that end duly obsei'ved, and to provide that the Church be governed and taught by archbishops, bishops, and ministers '.' Turn now to the Thirty-seventh Article, and you will see these statements thus re-affirmed : ' The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other his dominions, unto whom the chief govern- ment of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief government, by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended ; we give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments, the which thing the Injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative, which we see to liave been given to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain, with the civil sword, the stubborn and evil-doers. The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.' These statements, the meaning of wliich it seems impossible to misa[)piviicnd, and the force of which no arts of misinterpretation can destroy, are * Bishop Sparrow's Collection of Articles, &c. in loc. ; Ilallain's C!onst. Hist. i. 152, &c. ; Gladstone, ut sup. 24. C 2 36 SERMON II. sufficient to prove that the relations between the Church and State, in this land, are founded upon this broad princi})le of truth ; — that the body of citizens, united under one temporal governor, the Sovereign, seeks to be preserved in peace and order by the exercise, on the one hand, of those means of grace which are ministered through the Church ; and by being protected, on the other hand, from the encroachment of any power, from within or from without, which interferes with the authority of the Crown. The authority, thus esta- blished, is not the intrusion of secular dominion into matters spiritual, or the judgment of human tribunals upon truths which the Spirit of God alone hath revealed, and of which His Church is the appointed keeper and witness. Still less is it any compromise of the truth committed to the Church, — any faithless desu'e to reap temporal benefit, at the cost of her own integrity. The essential characteristics which belong to her, in her separate condition, are not lost by her incorporation with the State, any more than are those of the State itself. It is only a freer course that is opened for the exercise of her proper functions, and for the more distinct and solemn avowal of the truth, that the glory of God is the salvation of His people. Yes, brethren, it is even so. That the glory of God may be realized and seen in the salvation of His people, is the one great end for which the joints and bands of the Ecclesiastical and Civil PoHty of this Realm have been, and are, so closely fastened together. And is this end to be fmstrated, are these joints and bands to be loosened and cast aside, because of our present differ- ences? Are we to indulge ourselves in the use of language, which, with respect to the State, disparages the authority of its highest Court of Law, or which, SERMON II. 37 with respect to the Church, speaks of her as degraded, compromised, half dead ^ ? Om- obedience and love to both will inevitably be endangered, if we permit om'selves to continue thus to speak ; and, losing obedience and love, what follows but estrangement, desertion, — it may be, — bitter enmity ? Already we perceive this to be the course which some of our brethren are fast pur- suing". That they who are our enemies should welcome this sad result, and do what they can to hasten it, is nothing wonderful. But that we, brethren, should prepare the weapons of our own destruction, and sharpen their edge, and, placing them in the hands of our adversaries, lay bare our breasts to receive the wound which is to lay us low, is both folly and sin. It is nothing less than falsely to im- pute to the Church, that she has abandoned the faith ; and then to act, as if the imputation were true. Her faith, be assured, is where it always has been, in the Scriptures of God ; and is as formally and distinctly proclaimed as ever, in her Creeds and Prayers, drawn from those Scriptures, which no earthly power touches, or can touch. Possessing these, she pos- sesses, in all its fulness, the proof that she is, what we believe her to be, ' within the pale of the one Catholic Church.' Where then is the ground for the complaint, that we have no longer ' the as- ^ I j)iirpost'ly refniiii from (|ii()tin}f the passages of Letters, Ser- mons, and other (lociiiiients, in which such language is held, because I do not wish to add bitterness to the conflict in any (juarter. Hut their existence cannot be doubted by the attentive reader ; and it is only left for us to hope tliat the authors are not prepared delibe- rately to adhere to words which the i)ain of controversy has wrung from them. " See Appendix, Note B. 38 SERMON II. surance of such faith ? ' that we ' have no doctrines and no Faith to teach, as certainly the Faith and doc- trines of the Enghsh Church ' ? Truly, it is impiety so to speak of our faithful and holy Mother. We act as wayward, thankless, disobedient children, when wc treat her thus. She still speaks to us as she ever did. She still entrusts to our keeping the selfsame Faith and doctrines, for which her servants, in a former day, have been content to suffer and to die. The torch, re-kindled at the stake of Ridley and Latimer, is not, and cannot be, put out. It shows, in the very bright- ness of its burning, that the words of the expiring martyr have been fulfilled ; and, upon the path of those who do not hate or shrink from it, it " shineth more and more unto the perfect day^" Time has been, indeed, when the tempest of men's fierce passions shook, and threatened to overwhelm, its light ; but the light has lived on still. Time has been, when the hand of the spoiler made both throne and altar de- solate, breaking " down the carved work " of our sanctuary " with axes and hammers," polluting the vessels used in her holy services, and plundering her revenues ; and when his voice was heard, proscribing her ritual, and forbidding, under pain of severest penalties, her scattered Clergy to exercise the office of teacher, or to repeat any where, in public or in private, the prayers and praises which have fallen from our lips this day. But those men clung sted- fastly to the Mother that bore them, and were com- forted in their deep adversity. Time passed on, and, behold ! she was lifted up from her lowly state, to speak once more to those who stood in the high ' Maskell's Second Letter, pp. 77. 80. * Prov. iv. 18. SERMON II. 39 places of the earth, as well as to those who toiled in obscurity beneath them, the sanctifying truths of which all stand alike in need. Not that her restora- tion to outward honour removed her from the danger of evil ; rather let us say that her trials, though changed in character, were heavier than before. In some instances, indeed, those trials did but display her faith- fulness in brighter colours: — witness theresistance made, so nobly and successfully, by her Bishops and Clergy against the tp'annous will and counsels of James II. In other instances, " the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind," seemed wanting. Surrounded by an atmosphere of strife, her children could scarcely fail to be infected by the poison which they breathed. The remembrance of former wrongs, the sharp exaspe- ration of present disputes, the apprehension of future assaults, had, all of them, a tendency to disturb the judgments, and to influence the passions of men. I stand not here as the apologist for the errors thus committed. I freely grant, that, — when the over- wrought strictness of Puritanic rule which prevailed in the middle of the seventeenth century ", gave way to that licentious and shameful wickedness which dis- graced the close of the same period ; and these were, in their turn, followed by that cold indiflerence, which chilled and relaxed the minds of most men in the next century, and so })repared them for the hollow argu- ments, the fallacious subtleties, the ribald scofls of un- ' Mr. Dodsworth states, in his Sermon, 'A House Divided, ^'c' p. 10, tliat ' after tlie first disturbances of tlie Kefornjation, in tlie reigns of Edward VI. and Elizabeth, were past, the Puritan element seemed for a time to sleep, and scarcely manifested itself till the days of Wesley ;' — a statement wholly irreconcileable with the notorious facts of history. 40 SERMON II. believers who, in this and a neighbouring country, then carried on their deadly work ; — I freely grant, I say, that in the midst of such adverse influences, our Church escaped not the evils that attended them. I dare neither equivocate with, nor deny, the fact. But what follows its admission ? Surely this, that a Church, which, — through such great vicissitudes and perils, has kept, and still keeps, the faith, and which shows, by proofs too numerous and clear to be mis- taken, that, at this moment she possesses, by virtue of that faith, a vital energy greater than was ever pos- sessed or manifested by her, in any former period of her history, — is a Church which God hath blessed, and still blesseth. Let us regard, therefore, the errors of a former day, and the schisms which have followed them, as warnings that we renew not the same in our own. The names of Wesley and of Whitfield alone may suffice to tell us how painfully, and, as it seems, irreparably, the bonds of closest brotherhood may be snapped asunder, by causes which neither teacher nor disciple regarded at first as likely to effect the rupture ; and we grieve, as we reflect how much lighter would have been our burdens, how much greater, both at home and abroad, our strength to bear them, had " the spirit of power, and of love, and of a sound mind," then animated the Church, to *' stu' up the gift of God which is in" her. She erred in forgetting that spirit. She has paid the penalty of her error. Yet, blessed be God! His mercy hath visited her, even in the day that now is, with a fulness more abundant than ever. You are yourselves the witnesses of this fact. On every side of you, the proofs of her increasing energy are to be seen. At home and abroad, in works of personal obedience, and in brotherly regard for the SERMON II. 41 souls and bodies of others, in the fresh opportunities and means of holy usefulness springing up on every side, and in the renewed energy imparted to institu- tions the most time-honoured among us, you feel that the Church is striving, in the persons of her Ministers, faithfully to do her work, and that you, her loving and zealous Lay members, rejoice to work with them, " The gift of God wdiich is in" her, — and, because in her, in you also, — is really and effectually stirred up. The prayer, for instance, which, centuries ago, was urged, and urged in vain, from the infant Colonies of our empire, that her Bishops might be sent abroad to feed the flock of Christ, has long since been granted to the men of this generation. In the east, and in the west, and in the south, twenty- three Dioceses belong- ing to the Enghsh Church, exist throughout our Colonies ; of which all but two have been created within the last thirty-five years. The number is in- creasing, and must increase. With them increases likewise, — as reason itself dictates, and experience has so signally confirmed, — the efficiency of every instrument which can serve to the glory of God, or the welfare of His people. And then, the thousand Churches and moi'c which have been raised up, within the same period, in the borders of our father-land ; the numbers still rising ; our Schools, ])reparing and training not less carefully the teacher than the cbild, and gathering and sending forth fresh witnesses for the truth on every side ; the impulses, given to the highest and the lowliest among us, to thoughts of holy enter|)rise ; and tlie con- viction, daily fixing itself deeper in our hearts, that lie who has bestowed upon us His best gifts, will, by His Spirit, bring them to a glorious issue, and enable us to walk before Him " with a perfect heart:" — these are 42 SERMON 11. the evidences which prove the loving-kindness of our God ; these are to us an Ebenezer, " The stone of help," — a monument, which proclaims as clearly God's mercy towards the Church of this nation, as did the stone, which Samuel set up in the plain of Mizpeh, proclaim His mercy towards His people Israel'. This strong and glorious token of the Divine Love may not, must not, be shaken by the hands of men who rest, at this moment, beneath the shadow of it. Neither may others, scared and faint-hearted, flee away, and say that it no longer assures to them peace and safety. Rather let all remember that He, AVho placed it there, is still the Lord their "strength," their "Saviour," their "God, and" their "might, in Whom " they may " trust ;" their " buckler, the horn also of" their salvation, and " their refuge-." And, if it be the battle that tries the soldier, and the storm the pilot, the very pressure of our present trials shall bring out more clearly the secret of our strength, and teach men more heartily to "worship God, and report that God is in " us " of a truth ^" ' 1 Sam. vii. 12. '^ Ps. xviii. 1. M Cor. xiv. 25. APPENDIX. Note A. p. 22. I DESIRE of course to abstain, upon the present occasion, as much as possible, from entering into controversy with those who have cast reproach upon the doctrine of Baptismal Rege- neration. But where, as in the instance about to be referred to, a representation of the abuse of the doctrine is put for the doctrine itself, I must protest against the wrongfulness of the act. The passage in question occurs in the tenth chapter of Mr. Goodc's recent work on Baptism, p. 420 ; where, speaking of the first answer in the Catechism, from which is deduced the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration, he adds : — ' Wliatever a man's conduct may be, if he was baptized in his infancy, he w a regenerate man. Tlicrc may never be, from first to last, any faitli, or repentance exercised by him. But nevertheless, if he has been baptized as an infant, all this must be predicated of him to the end of his life. Such is the doctrine maintained.' Alas ! for ourselves, if it were ! Where does Mr. Goodc find authority for making this statement? True, the baptized child is regenerate by the grace of (iod given to him in that Sacra- ment; but the gift so given, Hke the gift of j)hysic;d life, nuist be properly sustained and nourished, and guarded from evil influence, or it will be irnj)aire(l, and maybe finally lost. And so the Church speaks in her I'^xliortation to Sponsors : ' Bap- 44 APPENDIX. tism doth represent unto us our profession ; which is, to follow the examj)loof ourSaviourChrist,and to be made like unto him; that as lie died, and rose again for us, so should wewho are bap- tized, diefromsin,andrise again unto righteousness; continually mortifying all our evil and corrupt affections, and daily pro- ceeding in all virtue and godliness of living.' It were needless here to show how intimately the language of this Exhortation accords, not only with the other prayers in our Office of Baptism and throughout the whole Liturgy, but also with the language of the Ninth and Sixteenth Articles. All that I am anxious to point out is, that, if this be the harmony of our Formularies with each other and with the Word of God, upon this point, it is impossible to say with truth that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration is such as Mr. Goode has repre- sented it : — impossible, that is, to say, that it maintains faith and repentance to be not needed by the regenerate. Note B. p. 37. Many of the publications referred to in a note at p, 37, indicate, in languao-e painfully significant, the deep dissatis- faction of the writers, and the consequences which cannot fail to ensue, unless this feeling be removed or mitigated. In some instances, the conclusion is no longer left to be inferred, but openly declared. Mr. Dodsworth, for instance, in his 'GorhamCase Briefly Considered,' p. 16, states, 'that, if the present law of the Church of England stands,' he can not, 'in conscience, continue her minister.' Mr. Maskell has gone one step further, 'having already tendered the resignation of his ' benefice;' and is now only delaying this ' resio-nation for a few days,' in order that 'his parishioners' may 'be better able to judge, after a consideration of his Second Letter, ' of the weight and sufficiency of the reasons by which' he is ' influenced.' The apprehension, therefore, which I have expressed in the body of the Sermon, is evidently not without cause. But, whilst I notice this fact, I must be permitted, as a Minister of that Church which Mr. Maskell APPENDIX. 45 is about to abandon, to observe that the reasons which, he says, have led him to take that step, reflect discredit upon none but upon himself. He confesses that he and his party, meaning thereby Avhat he calls (but never was a name so shamefully abused), the High Church party, — have not been 'open, plain, and uni-eserved' in their teaching; that, although ' well enough understood by the initiated few,' it has been ' dark and meaningless to the many ;' ' full of shifts and compromises, and evasions ;' 'any thing, in a word, but sincere, straightforward, and true.' He confesses, that, if they had spoken from their ' pulpits in the same manner, or to the same allowed extent, as ' they ' speak of them to one another, or think of them in ' their ' closets,' they would have been bound to insist upon 'the doctrine of invocation of saints ; or, of prayers for the dead ; — or of the merit of good works ; — or of the absolute necessity of auricular confession and absolution in order to the remission of mortal sin ! ' In another part of the same Letter, he states, in language evi- dently expressive of his own conviction of its truth, 'that the teaching of the Church of Rome and of the reformed Church of England, upon the Sacrament of Baptism,' is ' necessarily to be understood and accepted, by all English Clergy, as identical and the same' !' Next, passing on, from the con- sideration of the doctrines of our Church, to that of the cha- racter of its spiritual rulers, he launches forth (p. 48) against their personal character and conduct in a strain of invective, of which the injustice only is to l)e equalled by its malignity. Of the Clergy also, to whom he had been ciiicfly opposed, — although, in his Second Letter, he finds it in accordance with his present views to speak of them and of their arguments with resj)ect, — it is manifest that his efforts have been long and strenuously directed only to their overthrow. Thus, in a note ' Maskell's Second Letter, pp. fifi — G8. 17. It is (piito refreshing to turn from such miserable statements to that nolile vindication of the trutli (I mean, particularly, with r(!spect to the diU'ercnces i)et\veen the Churcii of Rome and our own, on the sulyect of na|)li.sm), in the Occasionol Sermons (now publishiny), by Dr. Wonlsworlh, No. III. 68 — GO. 46 APPENDIX. .it page 50, he asks, ^ Is there any doctrine on which the two j)artios ditrer, upon which ive should have had tlie sliyktest chance of obtaining a sentence against an evangelical Clergy- man, except the doctrine of Baptism?' Wretched and humi- hating confession ! As if his object, and that of the men associated with him, had been to seek about for a chance of obtaining sentence against an evangelical Clergyman ! And now, forsooth, the writer is amazed to find that the Church of England is not the Church of Rome. Yet, who more for- ward than he has been, to guide and instruct his brethren upon all the various questions, which have arisen in the present day, touching Church Discipline and Church Rituals? Who has been more bold and confident in his assertions ; or more active in leading his followers to believe that his know- ledge was profound and accurate in all matters upon which he professed to teach ? The mass of his brethren, indeed, he regards with contempt, as far as their learning is concerned; and describes them, in his Second Letter, p. 14, as having, with the ' solitary exception ' of Hooker, ' little read and little valued the divines of the days of Queen Elizabeth/ But with wondrous self-complacency, he adds, ' I had examined one part of the literature of that age somewhat carefully, namely, the famous controversy of Cartwright and his friends under the name of Martin Marprelate ; and, in other respects I think that I may claim to have known about as much as people com- monly do of the theological books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.' Will it be believed that the man who could bring himself to write this, was actually, by his own confession, ignorant of the bearings of two great questions of which those books have treated ? Thus, on the subject of the Royal Supremacy, he says, in his First Letter, p. 50, ^ I am ready to acknowledge that the Royal Supremacy, whatever it seemed a year ago, has proved to be, in its actual exercise, something very different from old notions and anticipations.' And, on the subject of Baptismal Regeneration, he says, in his Second Letter, p. 11, '^As the case went on, first in the Court of Arches, and afterwards before the Privy Council, it was impossible not to feel, more and more, that the reasons APPENDIX. 47 and arguments of the evangelical party had been too highly esteemed.' Such a writer clearly stands self-convicted of the gravest charges of which a man, in his position, could have been guilty. And who can venture to take him, from this time forward, as a guide in any thing ? THE END. Gilbert & IIivinoton, Printers, St. John's Square, London. WORKS LATELY PUBLISHED BY THE SAME AUTHOR. I. "GIVING no OFFENCE in any thing that the MINISTRY be uot BLAilED." A Sermon, preaclied at the Visitatimi of tlie Arch- deacon of Lewes, July 2G, 1849. Published by request. 8vo. Is. 6d II. ADDRESSES on MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS : I. The profitable Employment of Hours gained from Business. IL Dr. Johnson. IIL Columbus. IV. Sir Walter Ralegh. V. England and her Colonies. In small 8vo. €>s. Gd. III. Dedicated by Permissmi to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Vols. I. and II. 8vo. 28s. The HISTORY of the CHURCH of ENGLAND in the COLO- NIES and FOREIGN DEPENDENCIES of the BRITISH EMPIRE. IV. The CLOUD of WITNESSES. Discourses on Heb. xi. Two vols. 8vo. 10s. 6d. each. Contents of Vol. I. — From the Creation to Moses. Second Edition. II. — From Moses to Samuel. V. DISCOURSES on ELIJAH and JOHN the BAPTIST. Second Edition. 8vo. lOs. 6d. VI. SERMONS on VARIOUS SUBJECTS. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. C(7. VII. MEMOIR of the CHISHOLM. Second Edition. 8vo. bs. Qd. VIII. CHRISTIAN PHILANTHROPY. A Spital Sermon. 8vo. Is. 6(/. IX. The CHRISTIAN WATCHING AGAINST the SUDDEN- NESS of DEATH. A Sermon for the Humane Society. 8vo. Is. X. The IMPORTANCE of an ESTABLISHED MINISTRY. A Consecration Sermon. 8vo. Is. XI. REDEMPTION in CHRIST the TRUE JUBILEE. A Sermon for the Deaf and Dumb. 8vo. Is. XII. CHRISTIAN SUBMISSION. A Sermon preached on the Sun- day after the Funeral of the late Rev. Robkrt Anderson. Sixth Edition. 8vo. 2s. XIII. CHRIST, the RESURRECTION and the LIFE. A Sermon, preached in St. George's, Brighton, on the Second Sunday in Advent, 1849, being the Sunday after the Death of Adelaide, the Queen Dowager. \ fr: REMARKS ROYAL SUPREMACY. AS IT IS DEFINED BY REASON, HISTORY, AND THE CONSTITUTION. A LETTER THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON, THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P, FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1850. pnivTED BV w. cLo«r.»AM) SONS, Stamford iTKcrr. REMARKS THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. My Lord Bishop, The residents in your Lordship's diocese need, I hope, make no apology, unless it be yourself, for laying before you at this great and unexampled crisis in the history of the Reformed Church of England, either their apprehensions from the dangers that surround her, or their suggestions in regard to the means of relief. Your paternal office affords me this first and chicfest reason for addressing you, and renders it 'needless to dwell upon your signal and unmeasured labours in its discharge as a second. The ferment of the present nour, my Lord, has set many minds and pens in motion. But it is not excitement only with whicl you have to deal. Many of those persons in the Church, if I am not mistaken, who are tiie least excited, are likewise the most profoundly moved. Besides the vehement and sudden emotion of such periods as this, they mini.-ttr food to the slower and more inward, the more permanent and profound processes of the mind. If solicitude may well be felt on account of those whom the storm at once dislodges as leaves that were half ready of themselves to fall, much more should it be wakened if we find that the fond and affectionate, the resolved ami tran([uil, cliildren of the Churcii have arrived, or are arriving, at the conviction that she is in near peril of the forfeiture of iier solemn trust, and that the providence of God, which has hitherto so wonderfully k(;pt her, mukes now the most urgent calls upon the conmgo and t-agacity of all who, B 2 4 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. whctlier as rulers or subjects, and whether in the State or in the Church, have an interest and a share in the determination of her destinies. Your Lordship knows, I doubt not, how many minds, not usually given to violence or precipitancy, are entirely convinced that the principles of the report or recommendation of the Judicial Com- mittee in the case of Gorham versus the Bishop of Exeter, are fatal, in the first instance, to an article of the Christian faith, and in their indirect, but, as they believe, certain results, to all fixed dogmatic teaching w-hatsoever ; as well as to the office and vitality of the Church, which depends upon that teaching, and to its national establishment, which would not long survive, under the circumstances of the day, its surrender of its higher charter. I shall not, on the present occasion, enter upon any scrutiny of these propositions, because it would lead me into great length, and is not necessary for the purpose which I have in hand. Nor shall I inquire whether it be really true, or, on the other hand, egregiously false, that the opinions stated in Mr. Gorham's book are those which have always been tolerated, if they have had no direct sanction, in the Church of England ; or, that they are in substance the opinions of a large number of her clergy at the present day ; or, that there is a general satisfaction with the result of the pro- ceedings (assuming that they have reached their final result). For with the state of law which has led to that result no one pretends that there is a general satisfaction. No one pretends, that the constitution of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council is adapted to the due and solemn decision of cases of doctrine. Before the decision in the Gorham case was delivered, and when no man had an interest in upholding unduly the credit of the court, there was but one voice of reclamation throughout the country against the gross indecency of such a mode of provision for such causes. And even now, when the case is much altered in that respect, there is still a nearly universal acknowledgment, that the law requires material alteration. It is enough for me to stand upon this acknowledgment ; and upon the further fact, that so many persons of the greatest weight, from the episcopal bench downwards, will find themselves precluded in conscience from acquiescence at any time, or under any circumstances, in the law as it now is, because REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 5 they are convinced that it is a state of law which has already led to the violation, and would ultimately lead to the destruction, of the faith and work of the Church. Your Lordship has perhaps also been apprised, that among the evil fruits of the recent proceedings, has been the avowal, which they have drawn from some quarters, of an opinion that the English Church is now reaping as she has sown : that the constitution of the Appellate tribunal is conformable to the principles established at the Reformation for governing the relations between the Church and the State : that the Royal Supremacy, as it was then declared or defined, involved a surrender of the birthright of the Church, and that unless by its destruction she cannot be saved. These opinions coincide, for the immediate and practical pur- poses before us, with others that proceed from opposite points of the compass. They are the opinions which, very naturally and consistently, Roman Catholic writers among us have laboured, and now with heightened hopes are labouring, to propagate ; which for the moment are attractive to such persons, as approve of the late Report on its merits ; which have always found a good deal of favour with a particular political party ; and which, it must be added, are eminently acceptable to the spirit of the world, and the spirit of the age, in so far as these are in conflict with the spirit of Faith, and of the great institution which was appointed for the propagation and support of that spirit. It has, therefore, become vital to many that they should ascer- tain whether they are really placed in so grievous a dilemma, as that either they must condemn the reformation of the Church of England as involving a traitorous abandonnicnt of her trust, and therefore quit her communion ; or else they must accept a system under which, while the legislative organs of the Church are in abeyance, her laws are to be judicially construed and aj)pli( who, 6 REMARKS OiN THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. loving the Church-Establishment of England, and unwilling to dis- entangle elements, which have long and on the whole beneficially coherod, yet must, when they are put to it, not scruple to declare that they love the Church first and the Establishment second, and that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in the choice between them ; or who, loyal in heart to the Reformed Church of Eng- land, yet place the Church first and the redress of abuses in it second, as every good citizen must revere the British constitution itself more than any particular Statute, however grave, however ivise, however restorative. And, vital to these, the inquiry is important at least, if not vital, to all who, with less defined ideas, or even with different estimates of the relative values of the several elements of the case, are nevertheless desirous so to frame their course, as to relieve con- sciences and to promote peace, and who would gladly find that they could best attain their ends by adhering, or by returning, as the case may be, to the principles declared at the Reformation in regard to the relation of Church and State. My Lord, I for one am deeply convinced that it is requisite for the Church, while she continues in possession of her temporal honours and emoluments, to make every effort compatible with her first necessities to disarm even groundless jealousies on the part of the civil power ; not to vaunt in braggart words her readi- ness to abandon her legal privileges rather than her faith, until she actually sees that the hour, appointed for her to make that choice, is at hand ; and to observe the utmost care, that in all de- mands which she may make upon the State for legislative relief, she takes her stand, as to all matters of principle or of substance, upon the firm ground of history and law. The questions then that I seek to examine will be as follows : — 1. Did the Statutes of the Reformation involve the abandonment of the duty of the Church to be the guardian of her Faith ? 2. Is the present composition of the Appellate tribunal conform- able either to reason or to the Statutes of the Reformation, and the spirit of the Constitution as expressed in them ? 3. Is the Royal Supremacy, according to the Constitution, any bar to the adjustment of the Appellate jurisdiction in such a manner as that it shall convey the sense of the Church in questions of doctrine ? REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 7 All these questions I humbly propose to answer in the negative, and so to answer them in conformity with what I understand to be the principles of our history and law. My endeavour will be to show that the powers of the State so determined, in regard to the legislative office of the Church, (setting aside for the moment any question as to the right of assent in the laity,) are powers of restraint; that the jurisdictions united and annexed to the Crown are corrective jurisdictions ; and that their exercise is subject to the general maxim, that the laws ecclesiastical are to be ad- ministered by ecclesiastical judges. If the reply be a correct one, my intrusion upon your Lord- ship's time may be excused. If the main propositions are over- ruled by opposite authority and evidence, I shall retire from the contest with earnest desires, but with the faintest hopes, that any means may yet be discovered of prolonging the existence of the national Establishment of religion without violating the integrity of the Christian Faith, polluting the conscience of the Church as its appointed witness, and destroying alike its authority and its capacity for a due discharge of its work. In the mean time I contest the propositions of the writers to whom I have referred with an unshrinking confidence, in the name and in the interest, as it seems to me, not less of the State than of the Church ; being persuaded that their view proceeds upon a misapprehension of our religious history, and a fundamental and entire misapprehension of the Constitution of this country. I find myself neither bound nor authorised to deliver over to anathema the memories of our forefathers in the Church, who are alleged to have transacted this gigantic simony, this barter of the work of the Holy Gliost for the trappings of power and the lucre of an evil world, for the lust of the eye and the pride of life. I shall contend that, amids^t the great alarms, and the yet greater dangers, of this emergency, we require nothing more than a wise and manly moderation on the part of our temporal rulers ; nothing more — or, rather, some- thing less — than a frank adoption of the constitutional principles of the Reformation, I will not say to heal and close the divisions which the recent proceeding has both disclosed and also fright- fully aggravated, but to put them in the way of the only treat- ment which can either relieve consciences now most grievouijly 8 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. oppressed, or secure to the Church the degree of peace necessary for the avoidance of perpetual scandal, and for the discharge, even the partial discharge, of her sacred function. Let us, then, my Lord, first hriefly sum \ip the concessions made by the Church, and the main statutory enactments of the era of the Reformation respecting her, whether founded on her concessions or not ; and afterwards review in general outline those conditions which, growing out of the nature of the State and of the Church respectively, seem to be indispensable to their full co-operation under all circumstances, and even to their peaceable neighbourship, except under the circumstances which I shall after- wards describe. With these preliminaries, we shall be in a condition to attempt an estimate of the real meaning and the real merits of the great legislative provisions of the Reformation relating to Church power. First then, both houses of the clergy in Convocation acknow- ledged the King, in the year 1530, as being lord and head over the Church, in these terms : Ecclesice et cleri Anglicani singu- larem protectorem, unicum et supremum dominum, et, quantum per Christi legem licet, etiam sujnemum caput tjjsius majestatem recog- noscimus. * I do not enter into the question t whether the qualifying words quantum per Christi legem licet were finally omitted by the Convocation, but simply follow the received opinion. In the Statute,;]; however, though passed " for corroboration and con- firmation thereof," that is, of the submission, there is no notice of them. Secondly, the Clergy acknowledged that the Convocation always had assembled, and ought only to assemble, by the King's writ. It is not required to dwell upon this point : first, because it purports merely to be an acknowledgment of existing practice ; secondly, because the question whether Convocation were to * Collier, ix. 94. In immediate connection with the words are the thanks of the Convocation to Henry for his services to the Church, against quam- plurimos hastes, niaxime Lulheranos. t See Parker, Antiq. Eccl. Brit., p. 487. % 26 Henry VIII., c, 1. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 9 assemble otherwise than by the King's writ, was a secondary one when the Church had likewise the power to legislate in synods which were undoubtedly assembled without any such writ ; and lastly, because the really effective restraint was that conceded by the promise of the clergy, which, it wall be seen, was applicable,'"not to any particular form of meeting, but bound the whole Spiritual Estate, without distinguishing any one mode of formal action from another. 'J hirdly, they promised in verho sacerdotii, according to the recital in 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, never thenceforward " to attempt, allege, claim, or put in ure " any new canons but with the king's licence. Fourthly, that they never would " enact, promulge, or execute " any such canons without his assent. Fifthly, they petition that a Commission may be appointed by the Crown, to consist of thirty-two persons — sixteen to be of the clergy and sixteen to be laymen of the two Houses of Parliament — to review the Church laws then subsisting ; to abolish and annul such part of them as they might think exceptionable ; and to present such of them as they might consider worthy to stand to the Crown for fresh confirmation.* The powers thus proposed to be delegated were vast ; they did not, however, include any right to pass or to propose any new matter for ecclesiastical law. 'i'he ground of the proceeding was recited to be, that there were at the time, as no doubt was true, many decretals and constitutions that were contrary to law, and onerous to the subject as well as the King.f Nor is it necessary to discuss the wisdom or propriety of this petition of the clergy, since the enactments passed in consequence of it never took final eflPect ; and, however material they may be as illustrating the spirit and tendencies of the day, they have not in any direct manner entered into the constitution of the English Church. By these recitals we plainly sec what were the cDiicessions of * The persons actually appointed iindrr Edward VI. may be found in Collier, App. No. LXI. Tliey wore seventeen of tlic clcrpy, with eight lawyers and six civilians. t 25 Henry VIII. c. ]9. 10 KEMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. the spiritual estate of the realm in regard to the power of legisla- tion for the Church. There was no surrender of that power : no acknowlt'dgme-nt that the source of it resided in the Crown : hut the exercise of it was placed under restraints perfectly effective, as it was made dependent on the Royal licence or assent, both as to the power of deliberation, and as to the power of giving effect to its results. Accordingly, both the theoiy and practice of the State have recognised the legislative power of the Church to be in Convoca- tion. The formularies of the Church as they subsist were adjusted by it, and received the sanction of the Legislature. The latest declaration on the subject is perhaps the clearest : that, namely, of 1689, by a joint address from both houses of Parliament, praying, " that according to the ancient practice and usage of this kingdom in time of Parliament, His Majesty would be graciously pleased to issue forth his writs, as soon as conveniently might be, for calling a Convocation of the clergy of this kingdom, to be advised with in ecclesiastical matters."* It is not, however, so clear what the Convocation either augured or intended with respect to executive and judicial power, in making these concessions. An acknowledgment of the headship of the Crown, qualified by the law of Christ, by no means appears ex vi terminorum to imply the annexation to it of a supreme jurisdiction in all ecclesiastical causes. And although we find in the submis- sion the words, " siyigularem protectorem unicum et supremnm do- minum" the framers of the statute have not thought it worth their while to recite these words or to found any construction upon them. Again, the acknowledgment of the King as head of the Church is recited as absolute, contrary as it appears to the facts ; and the enacting part of the statute is not confined to providing that the King shall be reputed its head, and shall have all the jurisdictions and authorities appertaining to that title, but it goes on to make a separate provision, that the Crown shall have full power and authority to correct all errors, heresies, and offences whatsoever, " which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdic- tion ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, re- * Cardwell's Synodalia, Pref., p. xxi. Pari. Hist, v. p. 216, REMARKS ON THE KOYAL SUPREMACY. ll dressed, corrected, restrained, or amended." In these words all corrective jurisdiction whatever was definitely annexed to the Crown, while the privileges appertaining to headship were left quite undefined. The eflfect of the statute, thei'efore, seems to be, that while corrective jurisdiction was secured in legal language to the temporal power, there was no di^tinct provision whatever made with respect to directive' jurisdiction, that is to say, the ordinary authority by which the functions of the Church, whenunobstructed by offence or dispute, are discharged. I have referred in detail to the statute of the 2Gth Henry VIII., because of the importance of its subject matter and the reference to it in subsequent statutes, and because it is sometimes alleged to be still in force.* This allegation, however, appears to be quite erroneous. The note on the Act in the Statutes at large directs our attention to the circumstances that the Act was repealed by the 1 & 2 Phil, and M., c. 8 ; and that, when the repealing Act was itself repealed, the repealing parts of it were saved, in the 1 Eliz., c. 1, except as to certain of the rescinded Acts thereni particularised, among which this is not contained. (See 1 Eliz., c. 1, sections 2 — 13.) The enacting parts of the 1st of Elizabeth make no reference to the consent of the clergy. AVc must then refer to further proceedings to ascertain within what limits the clergy recognised a lawful power, other than legis- lative, in the Crown, for ecclesiastical purj)oses. The Thirty-seventh Article, adopted by the Convocation in 1562, but belonging to the number of those which do not appear to be included in the Act of 1570, (which requires the subscription of the clergy), declares as follows : — "The Queen's Maj(;sty hath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions ; unto whom the chief govern- ment of all estates of this realm whether they be ecclesiastical or civil in all causes doth ap])(.Ttaiii, and is not, nor ought to be, sub- ject to any foreign jurisdiction." The canons of 1G()4 went farthiT ; for tiiey hound the clergy to maintain and cau.se to be maintained all that the civil power had * Stephens's Ecclcs. Statutes, p. 177 n. 12 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. done in regard to the supremacy. It is provided in the first of these canons, that they — " shall faithfully keep and observe, and (as much as in them lieth) shall cause to be observed and kept of others, all and sin- gular laws and statutes, made for restoring to the Crown of this kingdom the ancient jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical, and abolishing of all foreign poAver repugnant to the same." And by the second, excommunication is decreed against those who shall affirm that the King hath not the same authority in causes ecclesiastical that the godly Jewish kings and Christian emperors enjoyed ; or shall — " impeach any part of his regal supremacy in the said causes restored to the Crown, and by the laws of this realm therein esta- blished." In 1640 canons were passed, which were equally complete with those of 1604 as S^modical Acts, and which like them received the Royal assent, though they have never obtained the force of law. In the first of these, the supremacy is defined as attaching to the office of King generally rather than to that of the King of Eng- land in particular ; and among other matter we find the following explanatory clause : — " For any person or persons to set up, maintain, or avow, in any their said realms or territories respectively, under any pretence whatsoever, any independent coactive power, either papal or popu- lar, (whether directly or indirectly,) is to undermine their great royal office, and cunningly to overthrow that most sacred ordinance which God himself hath established ; and so is treasonable against God as well as against the King." Upon the whole it seems very evident that the statutory settle- ment, at the Reformation, of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Crown was in part founded upon the anterior proceedings of the Church, and as to the rest accepted by her subsequently ; and that she is fully and absolutely responsible for it in the most deter- minate manner ; and not merely in the less determinate, though equally real, manner, in which she may become responsible, through continued and general acquiescence, for measures to which she has never directly been a party. The provisions, then, of the temporal law, for which the Church REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 13 thus became answerable by the direct and formal adoption of them, appear to have been as follows. We pass by the 26 Henry VIII., because, as we have seen, it was not in force at any period after the reign of Mary. The 1st of Elizabeth, c. 1 (section 17), provided " that such jurisdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and persons, and for reformation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, shall for ever, by authority of this present parlia- ment, be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this realm." And in the nineteenth section it provides that (among others) all bishops and ecclesiastical persons shall take the oath of the Queen's supremacy, which commences with the following clause : — " I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other Her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual and ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal." But it is important to observe that the words which I have quoted no longer find place in the oath, as they were struck out of it when it was remodelled in the 1 G. & M., c. 8. The main operative enactment, therefore, to which the Church now stands bound by the terms of the canon is that of 1 Eliz., c. 1, sec. 17, uniting and annexing all lawful spiritual jurisdictions to the Crown. The present oath of supremacy merely repudiates the Papal supremacy, though in terms which, relatively to the present state of the law, are open to exception. The clergy, however, at ordination and institution, subscribe to a clause in the thirty-sixth canon containing words similar to those of the oath of Elizabeth. We have now before us the terms of the great statute which, from the time it was passed, has been the actual basis of the royal authority in matters ecclesiastical : and I do not load those pages by reference to declarations of the Crown, and other public docu- ments less in authority than this, in order that we may fix our view the more closely upon the expressions of what may fairly be 14 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. termed a funilamoJital law in relation to the subject-matter before ii?. The first observation I make is this : there is no evidence in the words \\ hicli have been quoted that the Sovereign is, according to the intention of the statute, the source or fountain-head of eccle- siastical jurisdiction. They have no trace of such a meaning, in so far as it exceeds (and it does exceed) the proposition, that this jurisdiction has been by law united or annexed to the Crown. I do not now ask what have been the glosses of laA^vyers — what are the reproaches of polemical writers — or even what attributes may be ascribed to prerogative, independent of statute, and there- fore applicable to the Church before as well as after the Reform- ation. I must for the purposes of tliis argument assume what I shall never cease to believe until the contrary conclusion is de- monstrated by fact, namely, that in the case of the Church justice is to be administered ft-om the English bench upon the same principles as in all other cases — that our judges, or our judicial committees, are not to be our legislators — and that the statutes of the realm, as they are above the sacred majesty of the Queen, so are likewise above their ministerial interpreters. It was by statute that the changes in the position of the Church at that great epoch were measured — by statute that the position itself is defined ; and the statute, I say, contains no trace of such a meaning as that the Crown either originally was the source and spring of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, or was to become such in virtue of the annexation to it of the powers recited ; but simply bears the meaning, that it ■was to be master over its administration. The powers given are corrective, not directive or motive powers — powers for the reparation of defect and the reform of abuse, but not powers on which the ordinary, legitimate, and regular administration of the offices of the Church in any way depends for its original and proper sanction. Is this a mere refinement, or is it a valid and important dis- tinction ? Is the authority entitled to redress evils in a given relation of life, or incorporation of men, of necessity that on which the regular discharge of the duties of that relation, the proper obligations attaching to membership in that society, depend ? ITie answer to this question will, I think, be found to depend REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 15 on an anterior one, namely this, whether the given relation in life, or the given society, is one constituted by the State, or co-ordinate with (or anterior to) it. In the former case the hand of the State, by its own strength, imparts to the machine its movements ; in the other it stands by, and only tempers, when need has arisen, the operation of an independent agency. Of an army, the State is the creative power, and as much directs what ought to be done as corrects what ought not to be done. On the other hand, the State did not create the family, yet it regulates, with a breadth of range that it rests only with itself to define, the relations of its members, yet subject to this great distinction, that whatever inter- ference, as between man and wife, or as between child and parent, it may exercise, is always on the ground of faults committed or defects that have occurred, never to teach duty. The whole office of correction is not a normal office, but it is, as administered by man, an expedient ; the best that the case admits of ; a choice of the lesser evil ; and it would be thought ridiculous to hold that the duties of kin were derived from the law of the land, for this reason, that the family is in fact anterior to the State, and independent of it, and has its duties marked out by the hand of God. But every one of these propositions is, as matter of historical truth, if we believe in the New Testament, no less incontestable concerning the Church, than it is concerning the family. I say, therefore, it does not appertain to the State, by the nature of things, to be the origin of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. If not, then, liy the nature of things, has such an attribute come to it by compact ? I answer, no : the compact of the Church and the State in regard to their constitutional relations is well defined by statutes founded on th(; ])rior or posterior consent of the clergy, and themselves conveying the consent of the laity ; and the com- pact contains no such condition. But another question remains : Has such a claim been de facto made and exercised by the State, say on the ground of prerogative or on any other ground, and is it actually our law, sanctioned on all hands by acquiescence and by use for a long tract of time ? I answer, no. There was indeed such a claim, and such an exercise of it, in the reigns of Henry VHI. and Edward VI.; more or less of it certainly must have been involved in the vicar- 16 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. generalship of Cromwell, and in the episcopal commissions of both those reigns ; for although those commissions only purported to confer on the prelates receiving them powers ■prceter et ultra what had been imparted to them by Holy Scripture, yet they were powers on which the whole exercise of the office was immediately dependent, as was plain from the terms in which they were con- veyed. The claim itself is palpable even in the letter of the pro- ceedings of the reign of Edward VI., for in the Reformatio Legum it is declared respecting the king as follows: — Omnis jurisdiction et ecclesiastica et secularis, ah eo tanquam ex uno et eodem fonte derivantur.* Similar language may be found in the episcopal commissions, and in Statutes of this reign. But the Statutes were repealed, and remain so : the Reformatio Legum never gained the force of law : and with those commissions we have nothing whatever to do. The issue of them was an extravagant stretch of the power sup- posed to be latent in the admission of the royal headship. They were first issued by Henry, and after the demise of Edward VT. we hear of them no more. They were never issued by law : and the headship, of which the power to issue them may have been supposed an attribute, has itself, after subsisting for twenty-five years, been extinct for two hundred and ninety-six, as far as the statute book is concerned. Whatever inference might be dravm from the use of the word Head is more than destroyed by the marked transition to the term Governor ; and the idea which that term conveys is of a negative, not a positive character ; it is that of a power which corrects, but does not actuate. I have read with some surprise and much grief, in the workf of a clergyman of great ability and of undoubted theological learning, the assertion that in the time of Henry VHI. the See of Rome was both " the source and centre of ecclesiastical jurisdiction," and therefore the supreme judge of doctrine ; and that this power of the Pope was transferred in its entireness to the Crown. * Stephens's Eccles. Stat., p. 406. Similar expressions may be found in the reign of Henry VIII. See Collier, App. No. XLI. t The Royal Supremacy viewed in reference to the two Spiritual Powers of Order and Jurisdiction. By T. W. Allies, M.A., Rector of Launton, Oxon. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. it I will not ask whether the Pope was mdeed at that time the supreme judge of doctrine : it is enough for me that not very long before the Council of Constance had solemnly said otherwise, in words which, though they may be forgotten, cannot be annulled. That the Pope was the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the English Church before the Reformation is an assertion of the gravest import, which ought not to have been thus taken for gi-anted. It is one which I firmly believe to be false in history, false in law — which in my view, as an Englishman, is degrading to the nation, and, as a Christian, to the Church. This is simply to make the Pope universal bishop. But even Gratian, with his false Decretals which magnified so enormously the Papal power, denies this office to the Pope in the following words, as cited by Van Espen : " Universalis autem (episcopus) nccetiam Romanus pontifex appellaturr* As to Van Espen's own judgment, it is almost needless to refer to particular passages. But again I go back to the Decretals, which themselves, as cited by him, declare that all the Apostles were sharers with St. Peter in the same honour and power : " Cceteri vero Apostoli cum eodem pari consortio honor em ct potestatem acceperunt.^''\ The fact really is this : a modern opinion, which by force of modern circumstances has of late gained great favour in the Church of Rome, is here dated back and fastened upon ages to whose fixed principles it was unknown and alien ; and the case of the Church of England is truly liard when the Papal authority of the Middle Ages is exaggerated far beyond its real and historical scope, with the effect only of fastening that visionary exaggeration, through the medium of another fictitious notion of wholesale transfer of the Papal privileges to the Crown, upon us, as the tru(; and legal measure of the royal supremacy. It appears to me that he who alleges in the gross that the Papal prerogatives were carried ov(!r to the ('rown at tlici Ri^for- mation, greatly belies the laws and the people of that era. Tlieir unvarying doctrine was, that they were restoring the ancient regal jurisdiction, and abolishing one that had been usui|)(!d. * Van Espcn, Comment, in primam partem Gratiani Dist. 9!». t Van Espen, Jus Eccles., Tart I. lit. xvi. cap. 2. C 18 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. But there is no evidence to show that these were identical in themselves, or co-extensive in their range. In some respects the Crown obtained at that period more than the Pope had ever had 5 for I am not aware that the Convocation required his licence to deliberate upon canons, or his assent to their promulgation. In other respects the Crown acquired less ; for not the Crown, but the Archbishop of (Canterbury was appointed to exercise the power of dispensation In things lawful,* and to confirm episcopal elections. Neither the Crown nor the Archbishop succeeded to such Papal prerogatives as were contrary to the law of the land ; for neither the 26th of Henry VIII. nor the 2nd of Elizabeth annexed to the Crown all the powers of correction and reformation which had been actually claimed by the Pope, but only such " as hath here- tofore been or may laxofuUy be exercised or used."f But what was contrary to statute or to prerogative the Bishop of Rome could not lawfully do ; and therefore, whatever he had done of this kind, the power to do was not annexed to the Crown by the Act. Nay, more, the title of the Act itself, which generally limits and bounds the force of the contents, and which describes in the clearest manner the intention of the Legislature, is not "an Act for annexing to the Crown the powers heretofore claimed or used by the See of Rome," but " an Act to restore to the Crown the ancient jurisdiction over the Estate Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign powers repugnant to the same." The " ancient jurisdiction," and not the then recently claimed or exercised powers, was the measure and the substance of what the Crown received from the Legislature : and, with those ancient rights for his rule, no impartial man would say, that the Crown was the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction according to the sta- tutes of the Reformation. But the statutes of the Reformation era relating to jurisdiction, having as statutes the assent of the laity, and accepted by the canons of the clergy, are the standard to which the Church has bound herself as a religious society to conform. This principle of return to the ancient jurisdiction received in ♦ 25 Hen. VIII., c. 21, sect. 3-6. t 1 Eliz., c. 1, sect. xYi, The words in 26 Hen. VIII., c. 1, are certainly not larger. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 10 the reign of Elizabeth a very special sanction. With the Queen's injunctions of 1559 there was an Admonition declaring it to be the meaning of the oath of supremacy that the Queen should have " sovereignty and rule over all manner of persons," "so as no other foreign power " should " have any authority over them." This was declared to be the ancient jurisdiction of the Crown, and the jurisdiction claimed by Henry VIII. and Edward VI. : and the statute 5 Eliz. c. 1 (sect. 14) refers to the Admonition as fixing the legal construction of the oath, and limiting the obliga- tion contracted by it. At the same time there are cases on record in which the royal jurisdiction was asserted for the supply of defects, so as to go be- yond the general definition of a simply corrective power. Such were the suspensions of Archbishop Grindal and Archbishop Abbot. Of these suspensions I shall only say that I apprehend much stronger instances might be found of interference by sovereigns to defend the Church against her own official rulers, which have been always considered just and laudable under peculiar circumstances, however undesirable as a general rule ; and that the purpose in these eases undoubtedly was so to defend it, and to prevent its laws from being undermined and its system sapped by a latitu- dinarian spirit enthroned in its primatial chair. The absolution of Archbishop Abbot from the canonical incapacity incurred by his having killed a man by accident, luis been named as a signal instance of the height to which the supremacy was carried, but to me it appears a case so purely of the exterior forum ns hardly to touch the question ; and the instriunent of dispensation itself bears the most distinct testimony to the fact that his cha- racter as a Bishop, and not the decree of the Crown, was re- garded as the source of his authority : it was a commission to Bishops, issued on the prayer of the Archbishop : it declared itself to be issued ad cautclam ct ex svpcrahnndduti, ad ahnn- dantiorem caiitelam, ad majorem cantelain : and its purposes is "• iit. in susceptis ordinihus et jurisdictionibus secundum concreditam sihi ratione ordinis et arc}iicjnsco])atus sxd potestatcm Ulierl' miiiistrare .... ralcnty * But besides the executive acts of suspension *. Collier, ix. .'17C. c 2 20 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. above named, we have another remarkable fact, a favourite one with Roman Catholic controversialists, in the Statute 8 Eliz. c. 1, which relates to the consecrations of the first bishops of that reign. As to this Act of Parliament I would observe, in the first place, that it carefully avoids pretending to confer proprio vigore the episcopal character or power. It is entitled " An Act declaring the making and consecrating of the archbishops and bishops of this realm to be good, lawful, and perfect." The doubts or ques- tions which it recites in the preamble, are on the point " whether the same were and be duly and orderly done according to the law or not :"* the remedy is partly to shoio that it has been " duly and orderly done, according to the laws of this realm ;" and partly " to provide for the more surety thereof." It appears that Bishop Bonner had alleged that the Ordinal, repealed along with the Prayer Book in the reign of Mary, had not been separately named in the reviving Statute 1 Eliz. c. 2.t The objection seems to have been Mvolous, since neither was it expressly named in the Statute of repeal. And the true meaning to be assigned to the Act appears to be this : that it was passed ex majori cauteld, not because the doubts entertained were supported by any strength of reasoning, but because the consecration of the Bishops was the comer-stone of the ecclesiastical order, and it was therefore thought necessary to give it all the support and sanction which it could derive as matter of law fi-om the most express and detailed provisions. Let us however suppose, as may be the case, that the Act had a wider purpose than merely to meet this technical cavil on the wording of the Statutes ; that it contemplated, and sought to meet, the whole of the objections urged by the partisans of the Roman See against the consecration of Parker in regard to mission and jurisdiction. Does it in this point of view sustain any such inference as that the Church of England denies the existence " of any special power to govern the Church beyond that which is in the civil magistrate ?" ;|; Be it observed all along, the question is not whether the Statutes of the Reformation affirmed anew that which, according to the laws of the Church, was already sufficiently * Preamble, 8 Eliz. c. 1. f Gibson's Codex, p. 100. X Allies, p. 61. EEMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 21 afcined for ecclesiastical purposes alone ; but whether in making- such affirmation they denied either directly or by implication that the matter in hand might have a distinct spiritual basis inde- pendent of secular legislation. AVe will assume, then, that the Statute intended to exclude and put to silence all objections, to include in its purview all the circumstances of the consecration of Parker, and to assert the validity of his mission and jurisdiction. Now this I allege might be done, with perfect consistency, by those who were most firmly convinced that, for spiritual purposes, all these were already valid ; because upon that validity depended not spiritual acts only, but a great number of secular, and perhaps a yet greater number of mixed transactions, appertaining to bishops, and utterly incapable of deriving validity from theological argument, or from any source whatever except the law of the land. Suppose, for instance, that a tenant of the See of Canterbury had refused to pay rent to Parker under a lease, on the ground that he was not a lawful incumbent. The very best treatise, that a Courayer could have written to show that Parker had mission and jurisdiction in the sense of the Church, would not have availed him ; nothing but a statute would have redressed the wrong ; and it was therefore reasonable to pass a statute for the purpose. And if its general aim did not disparage the inherent faculties of the Church, neither did its language ; for both in title and in preamble, as I have shown, it confined itself to legal regularity ; and in the enacting- clause touching the bishops and clergy concerned, the provision is really worded with the utmost care, so as to avoid the sujiposition of a pretension to give spiritual power; it being this: that the said bishops and clergy " Be in very deed, and also by authority hereof declared and enacted to be, and shall be, archbishojis, bishops, i)riests, minis- ters, and deacons, and rightly made, ordered, and consecrated." Had the intention been confined to clearing up a doubtful point of statute law, the enactment would simply have declared these ])ersons to be bishops and clergy respectively : there was no room for a distinction between what they " be in very deed" and what they are to be "d(H-lared and enacted to be;" but the distinction is marked in the strongest manner by tiie word "also ;" and in 22 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. tnitli, while they were recited to be bishops of the Church simply, thi>y were declared and enacted to be bishops of the Church ac- cording to the laws ha\-ing force within the realm. Nor will it avail to say that the Le^slature herein recognised only what is called the power of order as inhering in the Church, and not jurisdiction. For the exercise of the power of order, or the conveyance of the episcopal character, is itself an act of jurisdic- tion : the whole question in doubt in this case was, whether its exercise had been good, as to certain particular instances, in the eye of the law. It was expressly affirmed by the words which I have cited to be valid in very deed as to the conveyance of the episcopal character, apart from the enactment declaring and constituting it valid for the pui'poses of law, which is only to say, in other words, that the exercise of jurisdiction was aveiTcd to be valid for spiritual purposes apart from the sanction of the Legislature. To sum up the whole, then, I contend that the Crown did not claim by statute, either to be of right, or to become by convention, the source of that kind of action, which was committed by the Sa- viour to the Apostolic Church, whether for the enactment of laws or for the administration of its discipline : but the claim was, that all the canons of the Church, and all its judicial proceedings, inas- much as they were to form parts respectively of the laws and of the legal administration of justice in the kingdom, should run only with the assent and sanction of the Crown. They were to carry with them a double force — a force of coercion, visible and palpable — a force addressed to conscience, neither visible nor palpable, and in its nature only capable of being inwardly appreciated. Was it then unreasonable that they should bear outwardly the tokens of that power to which they were to be indebted for their outward ob- servance, and should work only within by that wholly different in- fluence that governs the kingdom which is not of this world, and flows immediately from its King ? But while I am unable to find in the laws or principles of the Reformation, as it was settled among us, any acknowledgment that the Crown is the source of ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction, I will go a step further and say, that although this is not language which could be legitimate and safe in the mouth of the Church, it is neither unintelligible nor of necessity intolerable as the language of law and of its professors. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 23 "Whether the Church can exist in security and work in peace by the side of a system of law framed on such a principle, or, which I take to have been our case, where the members of the legal profes- sion have favoured the attachment of such a sense to laws not requir- ing and in strictness not properly admitting it, is a question of vital importance, but one, as far as appears to me, to be determined according to times and circumstances carefully considered, and not by hasty inferences from abstract principle. Holding, then, by the proposition, that the Church cannot be made responsible for glosses put upon the law to her prejudice, and for the professional traditions which may influence the courts, but of which she cannot minutely follow the rise, and against which she has no means of contending till a crisis is brought about ; but that she is properly and morally responsible only for those statutes in their plain meaning which she has formally accepted, or else made her own by evident, general, and continued acquiescence — I should wish also and earnestly to represent how much is to be said on be- half of the royal supremacy, even as it is commonly understood by that profession, which has always been jealous, and within certain limits legitimately jealous, of ecclesiastical power. Even if we superadd to the restraints imposed by law upon the legislative power of the Church the doctrine that the Crown is the fountain of ecclesiastical and spiritual jurisdiction : even if we allow this, for argument's sake, as a true description of the legal relation to the Crown which the Reformed Church has inherited, still I say, do not let the men of this day be too hasty in consigning the memory of their forefathers to condemnation and disgrace, but let us con- sider whether, even under these hard and untrue conditions, it can be pleaded against the Churcii of England that she has made over her spiritual trust to a secular power, and sold herself for gold. Strong, indeed, are the gimeral reasons, a])plical)le to the state of society which has until recently prevailed, for a close amalga- mation between ecclesiastical and civil authority. They arc founded in human nature, and in the nature of the societies which are the depositaries of each power respectively. They an; pain- fully illustrated by the convulsive struggles arising out of those collisions that history rcn-ords. W«! have been thus far on the ([U(;.lo, thus broadly laid down, without its pro- per safeguards ; for it was in this very Act of Parliament that, while elainiinp; for England an absolute eontroul over the whole body of law, current or to be current in England, apart from any standing foreign authority, the Parliament inserted the very remark- able section, which imposes a certain limit on the interpretation of the Act, apparently for the purpose of introducing a solemn decla- ration of principle. It commences thus : — " Provided always, that this Act, nor any thing or things therein contained, shall be hereafter interpreted or expounded that your Grace, your nobles and subjects, intend by the same to decline or vary from the congregation of Christ's Church in any things con- cerning the very articles of the Catholic faith of Christendom, or in any other things declared by Holy Scripture and the word of God, necessary for your and their salvations, but only to make an ordinance by policies necessary and convenient to repress vice, and for good conservation of this realm in peace, unity, and tran- quillity, from ravin and spoil, insuing much the old ancient cus- toms of this realm in that behalf."* In this Act, and in the whole legislation of the time, the divine law seems to be taken for granted as something known to all, and never to be the subject of doubt or change. They no more thought of alteration in that respect, or of vindicating a jurisdiction over it, than we should with respect to the laws of arithmetic. In com- paring that period with this, and in construing those laws, we should take into account the declining force and clearness of faith in objective, that is, in substantive, fixed, and independent truth. Now in these observations concerning the common legal doctrine about ecclesiastical jurisdiction, I have not strained, as I believe, the constitution of the country to suit a favoured purpose ; nor, on the other hand, in admissions gone beyond the range of principles that have been held by high and established authorities, even with- in the Church of Rome. I have suggested, that in asserting the Crown to be the source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, we should not necessarily deny that original self-governing authority in the Church, which is so noto- * 25 Hen. VIII. e. 21, s. 19. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 37 rious in history that it the less requires to be guarded by verbal recognitions ; but leave the question entirely open, how and from what source that authority, or any part of it, came to the (.^rown. And this assertion I will support, by pointing out the existence of an exact parallel as regards secular jurisdiction. It is the une- quivocal doctrine of the constitution, that the sovereign is the foun- tain-head, in relation to the subject, not only of all executive and judicial power in civil matters, but of the power of legislation. But yet I apprehend it is open to any man to question, without offence, whether that power is derived to the Crown from the ordi- nance of God, or whether through the popular consent or delega- tion. In the one case there is nothing between the Crown and the Divine ordinance ; which is the Erastian theory when applied to the Church, and, if taken in its native rigour, the theory of the non-jurors as it affects the State. In the other case we may, as political speculatists, either rank with those who nakedly hold the popular sovereignty, or with those who choose a firmer and safer ground in the traditions of English history, and show from them, that according to the actual development of our constitution, the Crown had not only duties towards the nation, but duties founded on compact. And in like manner, we may acknowledge the eccle- siastical jurisdiction of the Crown without in any degree dispa- raging the inherent self-governing capacities of the Church. We may give reasonable effect to the facts of Christian history, re- cording the foundation by our Lord himself of a spiritual society — its endowment with the powers of teaching and self-government — its propagation through the countries of the earth — its succession through the centuries of history— and r(>gard the annexation of its spiritual authority, in any of its branches, to the civil j)()wer, as one of the many incidents of its varied but never failing fortunes, an incident becoming, under a conr.S(; of favourable circumstances, possible, useful, necessary ; and then again, wIhmi tiie tick' has turned, capable of a tendency to become inconvenient, or useless, or even immoral and destructive. The other assertion, that this doctrine is one which lias had high countenance among the most reasonable theologians of the Roman Church, I shall simply support by a (pu)t;iti()n from Van EsjHMi, wliich, when it was called in (luestion, he explained by 38 EEMAKKS OX THE ROYAL SUPKEMACY. stating, agreeably to what I have already cited, that it referred to all jurisdiction properly so called. Vcnim siciifi Ecclesife atque relif/ioiiis curam credideritnt Prin- cipcs Ckristiani ipsis Episcopis tanquam pracipuis ejus viinistris, et Apostoloriim successoribus, ita quoque ipsis correctionem eorum, qtuc Ecclcsiam ct reliqionem, ejiisque disciplinam spectant, de- hderunt ; prcRsertim iamen si quid, quod hanc furbaret, a clericis, seu inferioribus EcclesicB ministris. feri contingei'et.'^' Tlie real question, I apprehend, is this : when the Church as- sented to those great concessions which were embodied in our per- luaneot law at the Reformation, had she adequate securities that the powers so conveyed would be exercised, npon the whole, with a due regard to the integrity of her ftiith, and of her office, which was and has ever been a part of that faith ? I do not ask whether these securities were all on parchment or not — whether they were written or unwritten — whether they were in statute or in common law, or in fixed usage, or in the spirit of the constitution and in the habits of the people — I a?k the one vital question, whether, whatever they were in form, tliey were in substance sufficient ? The securities which the Church had were these : first, that the assembling of the Convocation was obviously necessary for the purposes of taxation ; secondly, and mainly, that the very solemn and fundamental laws by which the jurisdiction of the see of Rome M^as cut oflf, assigned to the spiritualty of the realm the care of matters spiritual, as distinctly and formally as to the temjioralty the care of matters temporal : and that it was an understood prin- c'ple, and (as it long continued) a regular usage of the constitu- tion, that ecclesiastical laws should be administered by ecclesias- tical judges. These were the securities on which the Church relied ; on which she had a right to rely ; and on which, for a long series of years, her reliance was justified by the results. I shall now endeavour to support the representation which I have given of the legal doctrine concerning ecclesiastical jurisdic- tion by citations ; and I shall refer chiefly to Lord Coke, because, as he was both a high prerogative lawyer, and of Erastian tenden- cies in regard to the Church, whatever can be proved from his mouth in her favour may be regarded as proven a fortiori ; sup- * Van Espen, Jus Ecrl. Univ., part iii. tit. iii. rap. 1. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 39 porting, at the same time, my allegations as to the securities on whicli the Church warrantably relied, by reference to the statutes of the period. Lord Coke, then, appears to proceed most unequivocally upon these principles — and to proceed upon them," not as debateablc matter, but as maxims placed beyond all doubt by the thcoiy and practice of the constitution : — That all jurisdiction, as well ecclesiastical as temporal, proceeds from the Crown.* That all the laws of the realm are the King's laws. And all the courts of the kingdom the King's courts : and tliis whether their acts run in the King's name, or in the names of bishops, lords of manor, or other subjects. That the Church of England has no laws cxcei)t such as are laws of the realm. That all the laws of the realm affecting the Church arc likewise laws of the Church. That the 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, is a great constitutional statute, distinctly marking out a province of ecclesiastical, antl another pro- vince of ci\il, causes. That the laws ecclesiastical are for the settlement of " causes of the law divine, or of spiritual learning." f That the laws tcmjjoral are " for trial of property of lands and goods, and for the conservation of the people of this realm in luuty and peace, without rapine or spoil."J; That the laws ecclesiastical are necessarily to be administered in ecclesiastical courts and by ecclesiastical judges :§ as the laws temporal are " admini.-tered, adjudged, and execut(>(l by sundry judges and ministers of the other part of the said body jwlitic, called the temporalty : and both tiiese authorities and jurisdic- tions do conjoin together in the due administration of jnstice, the one to help the other.'"|| That " the archbishops, bishops, and their officers, deans, and other ministers which have s])iritual jurit^diction," are "the King's judges " for ecclesiastical pnr|Joses.1i * Sec also Philliinore's Tiuni, vol. ii. p. 51. t --^ "<""• Vlll. c. 12. J Il)id. § (jawdrcy's Case, p. Ixxvii. II Qiiolcfl in the Inntifutes, ^o]. \i. p;irt iv. (11.74. "', lh\i\. 40 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. That the Convocation of the Clergy is a court of which " the jurisdiction is to deal with heresies and schisms, and other mere spiritual and ecclesiastical causes ;" and " therein they did 'proceed Juxta legevi divinam et canones sanctce ecclesice." That they did so before the Reformation, under the King's writ, often under his prohibition to meddle with civil matters ; often, likewise, with his Commissioners present to take cognizance of all they might do ; so that the statute 25 Hen. VIII. cap. 19, requiring the royal assent to canons, " is but declaratory of the old common law."* That the purpose of the Reformation statutes, as understood and solemnly expressed by their framei's, was to vindicate and restore to the Crow^n the ancient jurisdiction which it had enjoyed in previous times ; and which ancient jurisdiction extended over all ecclesiastical and spiritual causes, f With these principles Blackstone is in accordance ; and in regard to heresy in particular, while he states that the crime might be more strictly defined, that nothing should be prose- cuted as heretical until it has been so declared by proper authority, he also avows that, " under these restrictions, it seems necessary for the support of the national religion that the officers of the Church should have power to censure heretics.'":!: The jurisdiction of Convocation as a court for the trial of heresy was asserted in 1711 by the twelve judges and the law- officers of the Cro\\Ti ; and all of these, except four judges, con- sidered this to be a jurisdiction over the persons as well as over the tenets of the offenders. § If such be the view of the expositors of the law, let us turn now to the law itself The citations I shall make will be for the establishment mainly of these two positions : — First, that all which the civil power claimed, and consequently * Quoted in the Institutes, vol. vi. part iv. ch. 74. t These propositions are chiefly taken from the Institutes. Matter of the same nature will be found in the Report of Cawdrey's Case, particularly at pages xxvi., xxviii., xxxvi.-ix., xlvii., 1., Iv.-viii., Ixii., Ixxvi., Ixxvii. t Vol. iii, p. 49. § Opinion of the Judges, reprinted from Whiston. Parker, 1850. KEMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 41 is entitled to claim, under the Reformation statutes, was the restoration of the ancient rights of the Crown. Secondly, that the administration of the ecclesiastical laws would, according to the terms, as well as the spirit, of those statutes, be placed in the hands of ecclesiastical judges. I. It is well to commence with the Act of the First of Elizabeth, c. 1, because it is even to this day the charter of the Constitution in reference to the subject-matter. Title. — "'An Act to restore to the Crown the ancient juris- diction over the Estate ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign powers repugnant to the same." Preamble. — " In time of the reign of your most dear father, of worthy memory, King Henry the Eighth, divers good laws and statutes were made and established, a> well for the utter extin- guishment and putting away of all usurped and foreign powers and authorities out of this your realm, and other your Highness's dominions and countries, as also for the restoring and uniting to the imperial Crown of this realm the ancient jurisdictions, au- thorities, superiorities, and pre-eminences to the same of right belonging or appertaining." Sect. 2 repeals 1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 8, " for the repressing of the said usurped foreign ])ower, and the restoring of the rights, jurisdictions, and pre-eminences appertaining to the imperial Crown of this your realm." And sect. 17 provides that "such jurisdictions, piivileges, superiorities, and jjre-eminences, spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiritual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath hen>to- fore been or may lawfully be exercised or used for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and jjcrsons, and for refonnation, order, and correction of the same, and of all manner of errore, heresies, .schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, shall for ever, by authority of this present Parliament, be united and annexed to the impcjrial Crown of this nvilm." The language of this A(;t was in entire conformity with that of the Acts of Henry the Eighth — With the preamble of the great statute for the restraint of ap])eals, which is set out lower down — So far as it goes, with the \M Hen. VIII. cap. 17, now re- 42 REMAKKS ON THE KOYAL SUPREMACY. pealed, wliidi declares that "your most royal Majesty is and hath always justly been, by the word of God, supreme head iu earth of the Church of England." But the Act of Elizabeth stops sliort of the enactments of Henry VIII., and, as we know, advisedly. Reference has already been made to the Oath contained in the Act, and to the legislative construction which has been put upon it. II. The preamble of the great Statute of 1532 is full and con- clusive on both points which are under our consideration, and, long as it is, it deserves the most careful perusal and consideration. It is as follows : — " Where by divers sundry old authorities, histories, and chronicles, it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the impenal crown of the same : " Unto whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and degj'ees of people, divided in terms and by names of spirituality and tem- porality, been bounden and owen to bear, next to God, a natural and humble obedience : " He being also institute and furnished by the goodness and sufferance of i\lmighty God with plenary, whole, and entire, power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative, and jurisdiction, to render and yield justice and final determination to all manner of folk, resiants, or subjects within this his realm, in all causes, matters, debates, and contentions happening to occur, insurge, or begin within the limits thereof, without restraint or provocation to any foreign princes or potentates of the world : "The body spiritual whereof having power, when any cause of the law divine happened to come in question, or of spiritual learn- ing, then it was declared, interpreted, and showed, by that part of the said body politic called the spirituality, now being usually called the English Church, which always hath been reputed, and also found of that sort, that both for knowledge, integrity, and sufficiency of number, it hath been always thought, and is also at this hour, sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons, to declare and determine all REMARKS ON THE KOYAL SUPREMACY. 43 such doubts, and to administer all such offices and duties, as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain : " For the due administration whereof, and to keep them from corruption and sinister atFection, the king's most noble progenitors, and the antecessors of the nobles of this realm, have sufficiently endowed the said Church .both with honour and possessions : " And the law temporal, for trial of property of lands and goods, and for the conservation of the people of this realm in unity and peace, without rapine or spoil, was and yet is administered, adjudged, and executed, by sundry judges and ministers of the other part of the said body politic, called the temporalty : " And both their authorities and jurisdictions do conjoin together in the due administration of justice, the one to help the other. ' The second section proceeds to recite that laws had been made at divers times to preserve the independence of the crown and its "jurisdiction spiritual and temporal," but that more were re- quired. In this most remarkable and perhaps unparalleled preamble we are to observe set forth in the most formal manner : — 1. The assertion of the ancient independence of the realm of England. 2. Of the division of the nation into clergy or the spiritualty, and laity or the temporalty. 3. Of the supremacy of the crown, in all causes whatsoever, over both. 4. (Jf the authority, fitness, and usage of the spirituality to administer the laws spiritual. 5. Of its endowment for that very (>nd. 6. Of the parallel authority, fitness, and usage of tiie tem- poralty to administer the laws temporal, which are defined to bo for temporal ends. 7. Of the alliance; betwiicn these two jurisdictions. But will it be said that, though the language of this important statute asserted the piinciple that (Jhurcli laws should \n\ admi- nistered by Church officers, yet subsccpient laws completely altered the case ; jhuI while, according to the first, api)eals ter- minated with the archbishop, according to the latter they went on to the king, and po\v(M- was .t1.-o givpu to the crown, in the 1st of 44 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. Elizabeth, to redress abuses by the instrumentality of any persons being natural born subjects? The answer surely is that the construction of those enactments was fixed by known usage in a manner perfectly accordant to the preamble of the 24 Henry VIII. c. 12 : that such usage was as imperatively required by the spirit of the constitution, as that the crown should appoint for its judges in the temporal courts, men learned in the law ; and that the ground of this usage is fully and constantly recognised by the principle of the lawyers that there must be Ecclesiastical Courts to administer the laws of the Church, and by the practice which prevailed for many generations after the passing of these statutes. I shall produce two more testimonies from the reign of Henry VIII. The first is the title of an Act of Parliament since repealed, and therefore only of use to show the intention of the time. It is the 32 Henry VIII. c. 26, and runs thus :— * "All decrees and ordinances which, according to God's word and Christ's Gospel, by the king's advice and confirmation by his Letters Patents, shall be made and ordained by the archbishops, bishops, and doctors appointed, or to be appointed, in and upon the matter of Christian religion and Christian faith, and the lawful rights,t ceremonies, and observations of the same, shall be in every point thereof believed, obeyed, and performed, to all intents and purposes, upon the pains therein comprised. Provided that nothing shall be ordained or devised which shall be repugnant to the laws and statutes of this realm." The object is to give the force of law to canons of the Church not contrary to the law of the land ; but the Act clearly shows that it was presumed, that such laws would be made only by the bishops and learned clergy. We have another remarkable attestation of the intention and engagement of the State, that the laws of the Church should be administered by ecclesiastical judges, aflbrded by the Act 37 Henry VIII. c. 17. Its object is to render lawful the exercise of ecclesiastical * The title of 32 Hen. VIII. c. 15, has a similar effect. \ Rites ? REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 45 jurisdiction by doctors in civil law, if appointed to the oflBce of chancellor, vicar-general, commissary, official, scribe, or registrar, being either lay or married persons ; and its terms are strictly confined to such doctors, who were by their profession members of the Church and students and teachers of her jurisprudence. It recites that, though any canons forbidding such persons to exercise ecclesiastical jurisdiction had been abolished, yet the bishops and other spiritual persons acted at that date (1545) as if the disqualification had been still in force. And it proceeds to enact — " That all and singular persons, as well lay as those that be now married or hereafter shall be married, being doctors of the civil law .... which shall be made .... to be any chancellor, vicar-general, commissary, official, scribe, or register .... may lawfully execute and exercise all manner of jurisdiction commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and all censures and coercions appertaining or in anywise belonging unto the same, albeit such person or persons be lay, married or unmarried, so that they be doctors of the civil law, as is aforesaid." Thus it appears (1), that up to the year 1545, all ecclesiastical jurisdiction —notwithstanding the appointment of Cromwell — was commonly exercised by the clergy alone : (2), that an Act w\\t of Courts of Appeal, not composed of such persons, ap])ointcd by Par- liamentary majorities, and assented to by the sovereign on the ad- vice of ministers, whom those majorities had constrained him to accept, the Church knows nothing : and this whether such coiu'ts be nominally composed of her members or not, except that if they chance not to be so composed, the evils of such a system, in either case intolerable, are only rendered not perhaps th(> more real, but only the more glaring. Of the permanent .'-nsjien.^ionof her legislative organ, on pretence of its defectiveness, but without any atteni|)t fo amend it, the Church knows nothing — thiit is, knows nothing in the way of acquiescence or approval, tiiough she knows, and to her cost, 58 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. in the deep practical abuses and corruptions, the stagnation of reli- gious life, and the loss of command over her work, and over the heart of the nation, which it brought upon her. As to the mere doc- trine of prerogative, as a repository of vague and undefined powers over .spiritual things, from which they are to be produced, as may suit occasion, to overrule, by the help of some shadowy doubt, the plain meaning of statutes, or to brow^beat the most temperate as- sertions of religious freedom for the members of the Church, such a doctrine deserves no more respect at the hands of Englishmen than the twin doctrine respecting things temporal that was in vogue during the seventeenth century, but has long since been consigned to oblivion or to shame. Over a weaker subject it still some- times utters its indecent vaunts. If it be said these things have been done, and the Church has not remonstrated ; the answer is, that care has been taken, by suspending her legitimate assembly, to make general and formal remonstrance a measure of such diffi- culty, and therefore of such gravity, that it might naturally be re- garded as the almost immediate antecedent of separation. Mat- ters are already at a formidable pass, when great constitutional and public organs come to remonstrate before the world with one an- other. When the Parliament remonstrated with Charles I., the hand that guided the pen was ready to brandish the sword. Nothing but extremities would justify such remonstrances as would alone have fully met the case ; and to extremities themselves the ques- tion had not come. It was not destruction, but danger — danger smiling and decked with flowers, into which she was thus brought. Neither was it any one single act against which she was called to remonstrate ; it is a long and intricate series of changes, most of them affecting directly not herself, but other great constitutional organs, whose action in turn tells upon her state, and the cumula- tive effect of which has been, to bring her out of the sphere of orderly and regulated freedom, too near to the verge, in spiritual things, of imredeemed and abject servitude. Nor does the victim of oppres- sion lose his title to remonstrate when the cup has at length over- flowed, because it may be shown that he was entitled to complain before the sw^elling mass had reached the brim. Further, let it be owned that, in speaking thus of the Church, we speak of that sacred and unworldly si)irit in her, which ever REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 59 conforms to the Spirit of her Lord, which is grieved with all that grieves Him, and draws delight only from that Mherewith He is })leased. The State has used the Church's heart and soul thus ill, stopping up the avenues of spiritual life, warmth, and motion ; restricting, enfeebling, and corrupting it. But to the body of the Church, to the concrete mass of good and bad, to the multitude of carnal-minded rulers and teachers, whom it for a long period of time continued to thrust into her offices — to the Clmrch, as an institution endowed with the goods and privileged by the laws of this world, the State has not been in its own sense unkind. It has treated her in the way in which Wordsworth's noble ode represents the Earth as treating man, the spiritual denizen of her domain : — " With something of a mother's mind The homely nurse doth all she can To make her foster-child, her inmate man, Forget the glories he hath known, And that imperial palace whence he came." Even so the State has guarded with no small rigour — at least, until a very recent period — not the property alone, but the honours, and not the real only, but the imagined privileges and securities of the Church. She has been plied with indulgences that have enervated her vigour ; she has been carried in the arms of power, and has forgotten to tread with her own feet her own narrow upward way. She has seen men debarred of their civil rights and privileges, because any law conferring them would also confer upon them an influence over her fit only to be exeri-ised by her members ; and she learned with ease and long retained, and even yet has but half unlearned, the baleful lesson, that taught her to rely on the.stion whether a marriage might not be declared void on the ground of force and custody, the Commission of Dcdegates contained three lords spiritual along with three lords tinnporal, three conmiou law judges, and three civilians.:!: Enough has now been stated to show tluit, for a long time, the * Pail. l'a|ic-r, No. .JJ-J, Sfj-". 1850. ^•iJlackeloiio, vol. iii. )>. W. % Haggunl's l{c|)orts, \ol. ii, p. 4.;G. 70 ItEMAKKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. pledges of the Reformation epoch were not forfeited, and the theory of our great lawyers kept in vigour by practice, in regard to the vital principle, that the laws ecclesiastical should be admi- nistered by ecclesiastical judges. It may however be said, cer- tainly the coiu'ts spiritual of a certain era were ecclesiastically composed ; but the Crown might have composed them otherwise. I answer, the Crown was fi'ee to compose them otherwise, but only as it was fi'ee to do anything else that is wrong, and that is con- trary to the spirit of its trust. The Crown could not have com- posed them otherwise without acting in violation of the spirit of the Act of the 1st of Elizabeth, and of the letter, not indeed of the enacting part, but of the more solemn preamble, of the Act of the 24th of Henry VIII. If it be asked, why then did later times infuse more and more of the secular element into the Court of Delegates? and why did a commission of bishops and judges recommend that causes in appeal should come to the king in council ? — I answer to the first question, that there is scarcely a single precedent of any kind set in the Church for a century after the accession of the House of Hanover, which is good for any purpose but that of a warning : that (for religion) disastrous century, in whose ecclesiastical archives, not yet nearly unrolled, every loathsome abuse " Hides its dead eye from the detested day." To the second I reply by adopting the sentiment which the Bishop of Bangor has recently expressed in a letter to his clergy. The period of a century and a half or more had pro- duced but three causes * for heresy in the Court of Dele- gates, and none of those causes came to any issue. The first cause, that of Salter against Davis in 1690, was disposed of, in another form, by the Court of Queen's Bench. The second, that of Whiston, went to Convocation. In the third, that of Havard against Evanson, in 1775, the appellant desisted. Under these circumstances it might readily be assumed that that branch of the appellate jurisdiction was virtually extinct, and the recollection of it might easily be lost among the multitude of mixed questions, and questions only in name ecclesiastical, for which an improved ' Pari. Paper, Xo. 32-2, Sess. 1800. REMARKS ON THE KOYAL SUPREMACY. 71 provision had to be made ; and also amid the still greater mass of questions purely civil, that come before the Privy Council in appeal. The trial of doctrine by this Court had become a thing- unheard of in the Church of England ; and what has just now started forth in giant form, was, when the latest statute was framed, probably overlooked, and (according to the saying) given into the bargain. It is not too much to say, the appellate jurisdiction in cases of heresy, legally enacted at the Reformation, has never actually lived. Thrice only has it moved ; and thrice without effect. " Ter conatus erat circum dare brachia collo : Ter frustra comprensa manus efftigit imago Par levibus vcutis, volucrique siniillima soiiino." Since I wrote thus far, Lord Brougham .has declared from his own recollection that the conjecture already made was correct ; and that cases of heresy were not taken into view at all on the passing of the Act of 1833. In the year 1832 an Act * was passed whicli transferred the powers of his Majesty in Chancery over ecclesiastical causes to his Majesty in the Privy Council. This change had been re- commended by the Commission which sat in 18'28 to inquire into the state of the ecclesiastical law. It does not appear what was the precise view of that Commis- sion as to the mode in which these causes were to be tried, as there was at that period no fixed or statutory Court of the Privy Council. But the presumption is, that they contemplated the reference of all such matters to the two Metropolitans and the Bishop of London, together with the Dean of Arches and Judge of the Admiralty, both of whom must necessarily have been bred in Doctors' Commons, and the latter of whom has frcMpieutly been also Judge of the Consistory ('ourt of London ; possibly also with the addition of tin; Lord Chancellor, or one of tlie common law judges. Wlicther a good (.ourt or not, tbis would still witbout impro- priety have been called an Ecclesiastical Court; and its institu- tion would not have destroyed, though it would certainly have • 2 & ;{ Gill. IV., c. t)2. 72 liKMAIJKS ON TllK IJOYAL SUPKEMACY. obscured and impaired, the principle established in law and history by the Koforniation. We cannot, however, do justice to the Com- mission without bearing in mind, that tliey did not intend this Court to be a tribunal for the trial of heresy. But in the year I800* it was enacted that all causes coming to the King in Council should be tried by a Conunittee, to be com- j)osed of at least four out of a number of persons, of whom all nuist be laymen : a very small proportion only could be civilians ; none of the rest, except the Lord Chancellor, need be members of the Church of l^ngland. Nay, the Court might actually be composed in any given case of persons holding their offices only during the pleasure of the Crown, that is to say, of the Minister of the day. This court then was. a court essentially civil, not only in the sense in which, as Lord Coke observes, the bishops' courts, the courts of the lords of manors, and others, are all nevertheless king's courts, but also because its personal composition was in sub- stance temporal : the lay ecclesiastical lawyers, who should have but a secondary place by the side of Ijishops or divines in a court , for the trial of doctrine, were here the only element at all related to the subject-matter ; it could but be an insignificant one, and not even a single civilian need by the constitution of the court have sat upon the Gorham case. It is vain to lay stress upon the un- meaning arrangement for the presence of bishops at the hearing of such a case, which has been unduly embellished wuth the name of assessorship. For, first, they are few in number ; secondly, so many other qualities are of necessity to be regarded in the choice of archbishops, and likewise in filling the sec of London, that the three persons, who are officially Privy Councillors, can very rarely be the best theologians of the Episcopal Bench ; thirdly, their presence is not required by law ; fourthly, they are no assessors at all, have no defined function, and need not when present be consulted at all, or may be consulted on the small points and not on the great ones ; fifthly, the whole system of such consultation is secret, and irregular, and in the highest degree irresponsible, and no blessing can be expected to follow it. Here then we have arrived at a plain and a gross violation of * 3&4Gul. IV., c. 41. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 73 the principle recited in the preamble of the 24th Henry VIII., that the spiritualty, according to the constitution of the realm of Eng- land, administered the law spiritual, as the temporalty adminis- tered the law temporal ; the principle declared by Lord Coke, that the king administers his ecclesiastical laws by his ecclesias- tical judges, a principle of universal application, but of the most especial and vital application, it need hardly be observed, in the trial of doctrine. And thus I arrive at the answer to my second question proposed at the outset, namely this, that the present composition of the appellate tribunal, with regard to causes of doctrine, is unreasonable, unconstitutional, and contrary to the spirit of the Reformation statutes. The cure, it is obvious, must be sought in a return to the prin- ciple, of which those statutes certainly contemplated and pointed out, even if they did not in their letter require, the observance. But we come now to the third question, Is the royal supremacy, according to the constitution, any bar to such an adjustment of the appellate jurisdiction as should qualify it to convey the sense of the Church in matters of doctrine ? I answer in the negative, and for several reasons. First and mainly because the royal supremacy was constitu- tionally exercised in ecclesiastical causes by ecclesiastical judges. Whether therefore we regard the appellate j\u*isdiction as a ])art of the supremacy simply restored to the crown, or as having its origin in the statutory enactment.-i of the 24 and 25 Henry A'lIT., it matters not, in so far as that in the former case no less than in the latter the constitutional niod»; of its exercise through ecclesi- astical judges is chvu'ly ])ointrd out. The culminating ))()lnt of the supremacy was in the reign of Edward VI., that roign when th(! Rvfunnatio Letjiun announcc(l to the world that the decision of grave causes of doctrine was to l)e intrusted to a Provincial Council. But secondly, Are wc (juit(; sure that the ajtjx'llattr ])()wer is a part of the royal supremacy in matters ecclesiastical at all n' I jiropound this question of course with deference ; for Blackstone tells us, "as the head of thi; Chtu-ch, llu; king is likewise the dernier ressort in all ecclesiastical causes."* It would j)erhap8 * Blackstone, vol. i. p. 280. 74 KEMAKKS Oi\ THE ROYAL SUPKEMACY. have been too bold to propound it at all, had Blackstone ai)pa- rently paid uiucli attention to the point ; but he does not appear in any manner to advert to the plain fact that the king had not been declared head of the Church when the appeal was given, nor to have taken it into his view, that the statute, which attaches that title to the Crown, had not been in force for two centuries before he wrote. It is, with a view to clear comprehension of the case, a question of the highest importance. What is this appellate jurisdiction of the Crown ? It did not historically flow out of the doctrine of the supre- macy. It was not established in terms affiliating it to such a parentage. On the contrary, it was established before the legal doctrine of the Reformation concerning the supremacy was an- nounced by the law, and in terras demonstrating its much nearer relationship to a power well known to the canon law, thoroughly incorporated in the system of the Galilean Church — while there was a Galilean Church — and founded in the first necessities of the social order. The High Commission Court, not the Court of Appeal, was the genuine offspring of the statutory provisions concerning the supremacy, and it exercised an original as w^ell as a final juris- diction. It first appeared in the first year of Elizabeth. The course of appeal was determined by statutes of 1532 and 1533, while the statute declaring the king's headship was not passed till 1534 : it was by that statute, and not before it, that all lawful corrective ecclesiastical jurisdiction was annexed or at- tached to the Cro\ra. The statute of 1532, 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, provided* that cer- tain appeals should not go to Rome, but should be from the archdeacon to the bishop, and from the bishop to the archbishop, in his court tobe " definitively and finally ordered."t The act of 1533, 25 Hen. VHI. c. 19, extends these provisions to all ecclesiastical causes,^ and then gives an appeal to the king in chancery, with the remarkable expression that it is to be " for lack of justice " in the archbishop's court.§ * Sect. 4. t Sect. 5, G. t Sect. ii. § Sect. 4. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 75 Now this appeal for lack of justice is very nearly a translation of the French appel comme d'abus. The expression is not employed by the statutes in giving the appeal to the bishop or archbishop, and can hardly have been introduced without a special meaning.* I am far from presuming to assert that this appeal was identical with the appel comme d'abus. But it seems clear, on the other hand — 1. That it was appointed in a sense distinct from that of the common and purely ecclesiastical appeal : 2. That the appel comme d'abus was by no means merely analogous to the power of prohibition exercised in our common law courts for the protection of civil rights. Van Espen says — " Instituuntur appellationes ab abusu, cum adverms decreta con- ciliorum, receptas consuetudines, et jura regni aut jiirisdictionem regiam^ Judex Ecclesiasticus aliquid per abusum attentat ; quod his verbis a Pragmaticis efferri solct ; cum violantur Decreta, con- stitutiones regia;, et Libertates Ecclesia Gallicaiue." f This description of appeal arose in France, as did the appeal in England, in the earlier part of the sixteenth century, under Louis XII. and Francis I. The clergy of France laboured to obtain a definite enumeration of the matters in which these appeals should be allowed ; but the Crown always answered that the right was general. At any rate let this be observed : the Crown possesses the appellate jurisdiction, if we construe the two statutes 24 and 25 Henry VIII. together, under the express cover of the remarkable preamble that assigns to the spiritualty the administration of ecclesiastical laws : and in conformity, as we have seen, with this l)reamble, was the appellate jurisdiction for a very long period actually exercised. Let this be so again in the matter of heresy. The sense of the Church will be sufficiently expressed, and tin* Royal Supremacy consistently maintained. Those who have given their adhesion to tin; system of ("hurcii and State as it has existed in England, may, it is possible, have * There is a marked analogy to the languagi; of the Constitutions ol" Cla- rendon : — " Ab archidiacono del)i'l)it proccdi ad cpiscopiuii, al) cpiscojto ad archicpiscopum, ot, si arr/iujiiscojmsf/rjuent injusfilid cxhibendd, addoniinum regem perveniendum est posfrcinb," &c. (Art. VIII.) t Jus Ecfl. Univ., Tart III. tit. x.cap. iv. sect. -K). 76 KtMAHKS ON THE UOYAL SUPKEMACV. concedcil too uiiich to the civil ])o\ver in respect of coutroul over legislative and judicial action in the Church. But this, at any rate, must be plain to all who think that God has revealed a certain doctrine and appointed an organ for its propagation, that such a scheme as the scheme of the Reforma- tion has here been described to be, and as probably prevailed more or less at former periods of the history of the Church, abso- lutely requires and presupposes in order to its justification on priTiciple, or to its practicability in action, a prevailing and per- vading harmony in the composition of the Church and the State respectively. Whether or not, when such a harmony prevails, the Chmx-h can be justified in consenting to act only within the bounds and for the effects to which the State is willing to attend her with its civil sanctions, it is plain that a system of the kind becomes un- christian, and even directly immoral, as opposed to the first dic- tates of conscience, when the State is composed in great part of those who do not own the authority of the Church at all, and when, in the minds of a further and large portion of the community who profess her name, the idea of their relation to her has become a merely social and legal idea, and no part of the creed in and by which they hope for salvation. The proposal to introduce in some form, and that form the one most favourable to the State and its influence, the voice of the Church into the trial of doctrine, is one that tends not to aggran- disement, and not to strife, but on the contrary to peace. It can hardly be expected that those who acknowledge a spiritual allegiance to the Church will either waive their own con- victions, or yield their place within her pale, because, under a very recent law, there has appeared the wholly novel phenomenon of a court essentially temporal declaring the doctrine of the Church in a matter of the highest nature, and in a sense opposed to that of the Catholic faith : and especially when the lessons, which they learn from the history of their country, induce them to believe that the statute creating that court is truly and properly, with refer- ence to the present purpose, an unconstitutional statute ; the cause, as we now know, having been an oversight on the i>art of its framcrs. HEM ARKS ON TIIK IJOYAL SUPREMACY. 77 Let us consider a little, then, two points : tirst, whether it is unreasonable for those who are now shaken in the very ground- work of their ecclesiastical position to press with urgency for a change in the law, rather than to abandon the communion of the Church ; secondly, whether that change may the more fairly be prayed for, on the ground that the system now prevailing for the trial of causes of heresy, although legal, is iniconstitutional. As to the first, when we consider how the passions of parties contending for what they conscientiously and dearly pri;^e, are apt to be inflamed, and how, with inflamed passions, men must needs make ftilse estimates of their reciprocal positions, and unreason- able demands each upon the patience and liberality of their op])o- nents, it is not difficidt to understand the displeasure of those who say, " Let the opponents of the judgment in the Gorham Case either be contented with the liberty still allowed to them as well as to their antagonists ; or let them leave the Church, in which, with ' consciences set upon hair-triggers,' they are disturbers of the public peace on behalf of their own private opinions." But let these persons be calmly prayed to recollect, that there is in the conviction of their brethren, to whom they thus appeal, a cer- tain body of revealed truth given by God to man, and defined in an intelligible manner for his use, which it is not only the specific office but the divine commission of the Church to teach, and to which the doctrine of baptismal grace belongs. Now, if these things be true, then to propose that the faith and its opposite in any })articu- lar article shall be placed on equal terms within the precinct and by the law of the Church, is simply to demand that she shall be- tray her office. It is precisely — however .-tartling the coniparison may aj)pear — what it would bn, relatively to the marriage state, to enact that fidelity might be maiutaiiied in it, but that adnltiM'y might also be practised at the f»j)tiou of the ])ai-ties. It is a ]»ro- cess to which if the early Church of Cliri>t would have; submitteil, she never need have seen her thlldren uiaiighMl in the jaws of lions, or writhing on the stake or in the liauie. Hut then it is also a process which would ha\(! turned the dwtdliiig-pla(;e of tlu; living- God into a Panth(;on : it is therefore fii.it which simply could not be ; because it is contrarvto the words which His hand had <.rra\('u 7,S REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. upon the Rock with a pen of iron — " The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The question, whether those things be true, is one of Christian doctrine, not to be argued here. The world may not respect it as the belief of Christendom ; but they surely will respect it as the private persuasion of free men, held under the charter of British liberty, and in conformity, as those men are convinced and ready to maintain, with all British history and law, down to our own day. It would therefore be vain to ask of them to do that which, as will be seen, is at utter variance with their own fundamental principles. They who view the Church as a voluntary association of men for the purposes of what they think to be the Christian religion, may well, for the sake of peace, be minded, under supposable cir- cumstances, to quit it, and to form another such voluntary associa- tion, as they would take a new house, or choose a new coat when they might think fit so to do. But they who regard a given body, called the Establishment, as being likewise the Church, and as therefore charged with the care and nurture of their souls, cannot go out of her, until she denies the Faith, and ceases to be the Church, so that they must seek the Church elsewhere. With them, I apprehend, it never can be a matter of option or policy whether to leave the Church, as established by law, or not. Whatever permits them, will likewise drive them to depart. Whatever permits them, will likewise bind them to remain. It seems therefore not unfair, that they should ask that the matter may in some way be brought to a defined issue ; and that the Church, if not in a perfectly free assemblage of all her orders, yet at all events by the mouth of her bishops, may be allowed to say what is her own doctrine. It is not for the love of strife that they ask it ; but it is for the love of peace : for the love of truth certainly, but of peace also. These two great impulses will be found entirely accordant in a case like this, so soon as the Church shall have spoken : if she spoke that which they will not contemplate or name, truth would oblige them to depart in peace ; but on the other hand, as long as she is prevented from speaking, there can be no peace with those REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 79 who would so prevent her, and who would leave them only these two alternatives, to remain in the Church with doubt as to her faith- fulness, or to quit it with doubt as to her treason : and so to have a safe conscience neither way. This would be a mode of conduct going far beyond the licence of any social conflict ; a refinement of cruelty far surpassing the vulgar violence of physical torture ; an engine, too, of demo- ralisation in its working on individual consciences, such as, I should hope, it would be the recognised and common interest of us all to exclude. And now is it unreasonable to say, that the law under which this Judgment has been given is contrary to the principles of the constitution? Tliese words have not been vaguely used. The great primordial charter of the Reformation declares, that the spiritualty of England is the body properly qualified and entitled to administer the law spiritual of the land : as the temporalty administers its law temporal. And this is the maxim on which, for many generations from the Reformation, our practice has actually been founded : the maxim which has been enunciated as indubitable by the greatest oracles of law ; the maxim which in substance, and with little other modification than the admission of the legal element in the persons of civilians, exclusively prevailed until times comparatively recent ; the maxim which, even for causes only in name ecclesiastical, predominated in the consti- tution of the Court of Appeal until the time within our own recent memory, the time not yet reaching the term fixed for a title by prescription to the smallest morsel of property, when the Court of Delegates was abolished, and (one year later) the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was erected. Will it be said, all this movement, away from the statute of Henry VIII. and the maxim of Lord (-oke, which is liere called abuse, has really been progress and iniprov(>ment? Surely it has not the signs of either. It has grown u]) in tlic worst times, the worst for religion and morality ; and now tliat religious life is vigorous again, the materials of a strong resistance ar(» in existence, and in vigour too. It came on in times, when indifFer- ence as to faith was spreading its deadly jjoison. Caring for none of those things, men did not bring heresy into (inestiou 80 UKMARKS ON TIIK IIOYAL SUPREMACY. before courts. Not bringing beresy into question, nor dealing with morals, ir was no wonder that for the scarcely spiritual, scarcely ecclesiastical, causes, wliicli were the common business of the Court of Appeal, they thought less and less of the spiritual clement in its composition. But again. That composition of- fends against first principles. It takes away the function of ad- vising the Crown upon matters of theology from those, who are conversant with it ; and commits it to those, who are not. I speak here the language of the political sphere ; a theologian might have justly said, it takes the function from those who had both a divine and a human title to its exercise, and gives it to those who never had the first, have but just got the last, and have got it nobody know-s how. The transference, then, of these functions to the Court of Privy Council is not progress, but retrogression and decay. The maxim overthrown and disregarded is not one antiquated and imfit for these times, but one deeply founded in the nature of things, and in right human and Divine. It being such a maxim, justly may we say, that the statute which thus tramples it in the mire is an unconstitutional statute. It is a statute as truly un- constitutional as w'ould be oiu* investing the Executive Govern- ment wuth the right of taxation, or with the dispensing power ; as was one which, in the time of Henry YIII., gave to the royal proclamation the force of law ; or one which, in the time of Charles I., perpetuated the Long Parliament. These great maxims, fixing the relations of the chief forces that govern the community, these maxims in which we see Reason plant- ing the land-marks of history for man, are the ler/es hrpim, the v-^i'i'K^iis you.^1 of the ancients — tiy OXvfXTTOC; iraTijp [.toi'OQ, ovci vif dyara (pvaig uripu)!' tTlKTiV"''' they are not impaired by change, but they convict and condemn change : drift away from them imperceptibly we may — it is our misfortune and our imperfection : but when a critical period has * CEd. Tyr., 8t6. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 81 arrived, and the facts of our position are disclosed, it only remains to do as has been done in all our great periods of legislative reform, solemnly to renew our covenant with the truth, and to hand on the sacred torch, when it has been rekindled by our care, to the generation that is succeeding us in the eager race of life. The only consideration that could justify the Church's acqui- escence even for a time in the continuance of such a state of things as that established by the Acts of 1832 and 1833 in their joint effect, was, that it should have worked well : that is, that the temporal judges, most indecently intrusted with the construc- tion and application of laws strictly spiritual, should have cured by their own discretion, and that of such ecclesiastical advisers as the Crown might assign to them within the terras of the Act, the monstrous solecism of their appointment, and should have either affirmed the judgment of the Church Court below, or at any rate if points of law, properly so called, required them to depart from it, should have not departed also from the Faith, or undermined its obligatory power. But it has been ordered other- wise ; and, under the express sanction of the two English Arch- bishops, the Committee has reported to the Crown with the effect, as it appears, in the judgment of high spiritual authorities, of wholly cancelling the obligation to teach within the Church of England that article of the Christian Faith which declares the remission of sins by the Sacrament of Ba])tism. It undoubtedly allows that article of faith still to 1)0 tanght ; an apology which is vauntingly put forward, and can only be received in profound sorrow, because, as an index of the state of mind from which it proceeds, it has a mournful and a deeply ominous signi- ficance. It reminds one to ask the question, why wiis the Gospel the object of persecution in early times? Was it because; of the bigotry and cxclusiveness of the statesmanship of the day, or of the mythology to which it gave its countenance ? No ; but because of its own cxclusiveness. That which is the truth teaches the doctrine of love to all persons ; but by virtue of that love it teaches also to bate the errors which mislead, and tin; delusions which blind them. The truth therefore is necessarily exclusive of its opposite ; and to projiose a peace between them is simply a dis- o 82 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. guised mode of proposing to truth suicide, and obtaining for false- hood victory. For truth itself, when not held as truth, but as a mere prize in the lottery of opinions, loses its virtue ; that, namely, of uniting us to its fountain ; since it is not by any mere abstrac- tions, wliether false or true, that we are to be healed, but by being placed in vital union, through the joint medium of His truth and His grace, with the Source of healing. Yet it is devoutly to be hoped that the Church, while she must ask for all that is needful for the vindication of her faith, and must support the petition by the tender, if necessary, of all her worldly goods as a price for that Pearl of which she is but the setting, should demand no more ; and should rule upon the side of peace, obedience, and acquiescence, every doubt that does not reach to the ver}^ charter of her being. That which she is entitled in the spirit of the constitution to demand, would be, that the Queen's ecclesiastical laws shall be administered by the Queen's ecclesiastical judges, of whom the Bishops are the chief ; and tliis too under the checks which the sitting of a body, appointed for ecclesiastical legislation, would impose. But if it is not of vital necessity that a Church legislature should sit at the present time ; if it is not of vital necessity that all causes termed ecclesiastical should be treated mider special safeguards — if it is not of vital necessity that the function of judgment should be taken out of the hands of the existing court — let the Church frankly and at once subscribe to every one of these gi-eat conces- sions, and reduce her demands to a minimum at the outset. Laws ecclesiastical by ecclesiastical judges, let this be her prin- ciple ; it plants her on the ground of ancient times, of the Reforma- tion, of our continuous history, of reason and of right. The utmost moderation iu the application of the principle, let this be her temper, and then her case will be strong in the face of God and man, and, come what may, she will conquer. The form of the petition as it has now been framed by the wisdom, and sustained by the consenting voice, of the Bishops, is that before us in the Bill lately on the table of the House of Lords : it is a petition that the Judicial Committee shall remain unaltered in REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREIMACY. 83 ".Tts composition ; that it shall still be the single organ for the decision of ecclesiastical and spiritual causes ; but that, judging for itself, and subject only to the ordinary forms of prohibition in case of excess, what matter is matter of mere law, and what of doctrine, it shall refer all points of doctrine when they arise to the Bishops of England and Wales for their report, which when obtained shall be final. Thus much I should have hoped, before the vote of the 3rd of June, w-as plain : that the State could not feel aggrieved ; that the Church would by this measure come far short of securing all that the Reformation gave or left to her, even in this point in which it was supposed least liberal to her interests and honour ; and that practically, having no power of her own to say by law on her behalf what matters were matters of doctrine, her whole security against encroachment, luider such a law, must depend on the justice and moderation of the judicial tribunals of the country. She would still in fact have her causes decided by the civil tribunals ; a dangerous case, it must be owned, in times like these, when the temper of the State as such, by an inevitable necessity, becomes less and less congenial to the spirit of her supreme law that changes not. We must not conceal from ourselves that a great influence would be placed in the hands of those who would preside over the general conduct of the cause, would determine what issues should be referred and in what form of words, would shape every question under the influence of a spirit the least favourable to definite belief, that is, to dogma ; and would ask again and again, until they had got the answer nearest their views of whicli the case admitted. If the amendment, suggested by Lord Stanley, were embodied in the measure, the power of the Judicial (,'ommittee would remain precisely as it is; but for one I should attach so much moral weight to tlie deliberate judgment of the Bishops, that I should greatly scruple to refuse the Bill with that amendment. But it would be a gain that these decisions should come from a court avowedly civil rather than from one pseudo-ecclesiastical. It would be another gain that this eivil court shoidd by law bo bound to refer questions of doctrine to tiu; episcopal body, which o 2 84 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. again might very properly be bound to treat them in the manner most formal and best calculated to ensure deliberate and judicial answers to those references. Whatever may be thought of the influence of the majority of the House of Commons over episcopal appointments, and of the prospects of the Church in connection with its exercise hereafter, every such churchman as I have described, who is also a loyal subject, should feel, that if the collective and judicial voice of the Bishops should deliberately utter as matter of doctrine what he individually believes to be contrary to the Catholic Faith, he could hardly claim to carry on a contest with them, as a member of the Church established by law. It appears then as if this plan, or some such plan as this, repre- sented the extremest point up to which the love of peace, the principle of civil obedience, and a desire to avoid endangering the institutions of the country, might under the circumstances properly carry the concessions of the Church, in the hope of thereby satisfying even the extremest jealousy that the State can feel towards her. And what would be asked of the State ? What would that be which it would have to concede ? It would have to do for that, which it acknowledges as the branch of the Catholic Church established in England, what it is continually doing for the humblest of its subjects, associated or not, namely, redressing proved grievances, wliich have arisen from oversight or otherwise. But in redressing this grievance, it would make no special or exceptional recognition of the authority of the Church. It would act upon the analogy of law, sustained and required by common sense, under which it is already the established practice of the courts to waive all pretensions to universal knowledge — to refer questions of law from a court of equity to a court of common law — questions of fact to a jury ; and so in the courts of common law, to refer for foreign law to the authority of those who know and teach it ; and in particular branches of jurisprudence, as, for example, mercantile or medical, to treat the points which belong to each especial branch of technical knowledge as issues of fact. On this principle it is now proposed to take, with respect to doc- trine, the verdict of the Bishops of England and Wales. REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 85 If, my Lord, it be felt by the rulers of the Church that a scheme like this will meet sufficiently the necessities of her case, it must be no small additional comfort to them to feel that their demand is every way within the spirit of the Constitution, and short of the terms which the great compact of the Reformation would authorise you to seek. You, and not those who are against you, will take your stand with Coke and Blackstone ; you, and not they, will wield the weapons of constitutional principle and law ; you, and not they, will be entitled to claim the honour of securing the peace of the State no less than the faith of the Church ; you, and not they, will justly point the admonitory finger to those remarkable words of the Institutes : — • " And certain it is, that this kingdom hath been best governed, and peace and quiet preserved, when both parties, that is, when the justices of the temporal courts and the ecclesiastical judges have kept themselves within their proper jurisdiction, without encroaching or usurping one upon another ; and where such en- croachments or usurpations have been made, they have been the seeds of great trouble and inconvenience." * Because none can resist the principle of your proposal, who admit that the Church has a sphere of proper jurisdiction at all, or any duty beyond that of taking the rule of her doctrine and her practice from the lips of ministers or Parliaments. If it shall be deliberately refused to adopt a proposition so moderate, so guarded and restrained in the particular instance, and so sustained by history, by analogy, and by common reason, in the case of the Faith of the Church, and if no preferable measure be substituted, it can only be in consequence of a latent intention that the voice of the civil power should henceforward be supreme in the determination of Cliristian doctrine. It is melancholy, it is full not only of sadness but of shame, to hear men protesting against being bound by a doctrinal report from the Bishops of the Church, who are also and at the same time protesting against objections to a doctrinal rcjjort from gentlemen bred in Westminster Hall. Every member of the community, it seems, is on the whole fit for his office, exce])t those whose especial * Cokp, Inst., vol, vi. part iv, ch. 74. 86 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. privilege it is that they, more clearly than any other class, act under the direct transmission of a Divine authority. I tind it no part of my duty, my Lord, to idolise the Bishops of England and Wales, or to place my conscience in their keeping ; I do not presume or dare to speculate upon their particular de- cisions; but I say that acting jointly, publicly, solemnly, responsibly, they are the best and most natural organ of the judicial office of the Church in matters of heresy, and according to reason, history, and the Constitution, in that subject matter the fittest and safest counsellors of the Crown. I am not ashamed to express the deep alarm with which I regard the consequences of such rejection as I have described, because some of those, among whom the evil would most powerfully operate, are not the pertinacious grasshoppers chattering in the sun, but the goodly cattle silent in the shade. I do not speak of the recent vote as constituting the case I have in view, but even that rejection is no inconsiderable step taken towards a disastrous rupture. We should, indeed, have a consolation, the greatest perhaps which times of heavy trouble and affliction can afford, in the reduc- tion of the whole matter to a short, clear, and simple issue ; because such a resolution, when once made unequivocally clear by acts, would sum up the whole case before the Church to the effect of these words : " You have our decision ; take your own ; choose between the mess of pottage, and the birthright of the bride of Christ." Those that are awake might hardly require a voice of such appalling clearness ; those that sleep, it surely would awaken ; of those that would not hear, it must be said, " Neither would they hear, though one arose from the dead." But She that, a stranger and a pilgrim in this world, is wedded to the Lord, and lives only in the hope of His coming, would know her part ; and while going forth to her work with steady step and bounding heart, would look back with deep compassion upon the region she had quitted — upon the slumbering millions, no less blind to the Future, than ungrateful to the Past. And yet, my Lord, I must venture on one word more before I close. The name of the Count de Maistre has become one of European EEMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. 87 celebrity. He is one of the writers who have had the very largest share in sliapiug the modern tendencies of the devout and energetic portion of the Roman Catholics of A\ estern Europe. Ho is, un- happily, of the " most straitest sect " of that church — of that ultramontane school which has been from its first origin alike needful and dangerous to the Roman system ; and he has defined its principles with even an augmented sharpness, and woimd them up to a higher intensity than, they had before attained. Yet listen to the words in which he writes of the Church of England :— "Si jamais les Chretiens se rapprochent, comme tout les y invite, il semble que la motion doit partir de I'Eglise d'Angleterre. Le presbyterianisme fut une oeuvre Fran^aise, et par consequent une CEUvre exageree. Nous sommes trop eloignes des sectateurs d'un culte trop peu substantiel : il n'y a pas moyen de nous en- tendre, mais I'Eglise Anglicane, qui nous touche d'une main, touche de I'autre ceux que nous ne pouvons toucher ; et quoique, sous un certain point de vue, elle soit en butte aux coups des deux partis, et qu'elle presente le spectacle un peu ridicule d'un revolte qui preche I'obeissance, cependant elle est tres precieuse sous d'autres aspects, et peut-etre consideree comme un de ces intermedes chimiques, capable de rapprocher desoelemcns inas- sociables de lour nature." * It is nearly sixty years since thus a stranger and an ahen, a stickler to the extremest point for the prerogatives of his Church, and nursed in every prepossession against ours, nevertheless turning his eye across the Channel, though he could then only see her in the lethargy of her organisation, and the dull twilight of her learning, could nevertheless discern that there was a special work written of God for her in heaven, and that she was veuy i'ke- cious to the Christian world. Oh ! how serious a rebuke to those who, not strangers, but suckled at her breast, not two generations back, but the witnesses now of her true and deep repentance, and of her reviving zeal and love, yet (under whatever provocation) have written concerning her even as men might write that were hired to make a case against her, and by an adverse instinct in the * Conbidcratioiis sur la I'ruiKt;, chaj). ii. 88 REMARKS ON THE ROYAL SUPREMACY. selection of evidence, and a severity of construction, such as no history of the deeds of man can bear, have often, too often in these last years put her to open shame ! But what a word of hope and encouragement to every one who, as convinced in his heart of the glory of her providential mission, shall unshrinkingly devote him- self to defending within her borders the full and whole doctrine of the Cross, with that mystic symbol now as ever gleaming down on him from heaven, now as ever showing forth its inscription ; in hoc signo vinces. I remain, ray Lord Bishop, with dutiful respect. Your most faithful Servant, W. E. GLADSTONE. London, June 4, 1 850. IPUtnTED BT yr. CXK)WE8 AMD SONS^, STAMFORD STREET. LETTERS TO THE PRIMATE IPON THE GORHAM CASE, AND THE DANGER TO WHICH THE LAITY ARE EXPOSED, IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE. BY A LAYMAN OF THE CHUECH OF ENGLAND. PART I. (to be continued.) LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RlVINCiTON, ST. VAUl's ClIURtll YARD, AND WATERLOO I'LACE. l.s:)(). LONDON: GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTKRS, ST. John's s u u a k e. His Grace the Primate, to whom the following Letters were originally addressed in manuscript, has signified to the writer his assent to their publication. They are printed with scarcely any alteration beyond the omission of what was more or less of a personal nature. It is probable that portions of them, having reference to remarks made in private, may appear to the reader, to a certain extent, digressive. But, as this is not accompanied by any obscurity of meaning, and as an alteration in these particulars would give a different character to the whole, it is thought better to pii])hsh them as they are. LETTERS, , IH. 26 being previously satisfied of his sincerity and fitness i* The Church, in her rubric for such cases, enjoins timely notice to the Bishop, or to his deputy, and careful examination; she exhorts the candidates " to prepare themselves with prayers and fasting," and she ad- ministers the Sacrament on the presumption that their profession and vows are real. In pronouncing them regenerate w^ien baptized, her hypothesis is only that they have spoken truth ; that they have not come with a lie in their right hand, but in all sincerity ; in that sincerity which is the very characteristic of uifancy, incapable of deceit. Now can we think so vilely of the Church as to believe she would so abuse her high commission, so squander the treasure of her dearest Lord, as to offer the heavenly mysteries, of which she has the steward- ship, to any who are unworthy of them? Would she so cast her precious pearls before swine, so heed- lessly scatter them among a mixed multitude, to be trodden by many under foot? Would she thus in- discriminately bring all her babes to Christ, if she knew some were hateful to Him ? Would she thus insult Him ? Would she bring all without distinction, if she thought any were to be cast out ? Oh ! thought to rouse one's deepest indignation ! Is it answered, " She hopes the best for all ?" Then why teach otherwise than she bids us hope? Then let the hope be carried on, let each and all be trained as Christ's already; dealt with as new born in Him: this is but consistency; vet is this done? Do not 27 those who affirm only some to be accepted, educate all as it" all were imregenerate ? But no thoughtful Christian will ever believe that, if this were indeed the Church's doctrine, she would make Infant Baptism her rule, since delay would enable her to exercise the same discrimination which she uses in the case of adult candidates whether for Baptism or Confirmation. The Sacraments are no empty rites, and no one de- parts from Baptism as he comes to it. Christ is there ; and none draw near to Christ but are the better, or the worse : so that, in addition to the profanation involved in bringing unworthy persons, there is the awful con- sideration, (and it is impossible for Mr. Gorham, upon his own principles, to deny it.) that all such infants as he would esteem unworthy must " purchase to them- selves damnation " by being brought to holy Baptism. The 25th Article distinctly states this, without excep- tion, of those that receive unworthily. Mr. Goode" says indeed, that these words " must be interpreted in accordance with the circumstances of the particular case ;" but this is not Mr. Gorham's principle. He declares that the Articles are a rigorous standard ; that they " lay down the doctrine for both Sacraments with severe precision;" and, that "we are not at liberty " to dissever the case of infants from that of adults " in this argument'"." Now if these principles arc to be applied in one case, they nuist be aj)i)licd in all. But ' Letter to Bp. of Exeter, p. 71'. '" (/()ili;mi oil IWipt. \)\). 08 — 70. 28 the i'act is, that infants cannot receive unwortliily ; the Church never beheved any poor babe unworthy to come to that good Shepherd, who emptied Himself of glory, and left His throne above " to seek and to save that which was lost;" to rescue from perdition all and eveiy wretched sinner w^ho will but come to Him " that he may have life." That our Church was never so faithless to the Lord that bought her, as to reject one such little one, as to refuse to count as His, one babe brought to the font, this, her language, as well as her practice, will amply prove ; and to show this, with your Grace's kind permission, shall be the object of my next letter. I have the honour to be, Your Grace's obedient humble Serv^ant, M. J. R. IV. May 10th, 1850. My Lord, Archdeacon Hare has but sorry comfort in store for our wounded and fainting spirits. I am quite sure he never means it ; he would not willingly neglect one for whom Christ died ; and yet, now, when the ques- tion is concerning fitness to guide and tend immortal beings in their pilgrimage towards an eternity of bliss or of woe unutterable ; when no less than heaven and hell for thousands are in the balance ; he does seem to forget that the voice of pity and of charity is that which 29 calls aloud for scrutiny the most severe. He writes as if it were a matter " de hseretico comburendo ;" he speaks of the admirable care taken by our courts of justice, to protect from wTong the meanest and the worst criminals ; he shows how they concede every indulgence and advantage to the grossest violators of the laws of God and man ; and how, if they do err, it is apt to be on the side of mercy. So be it ever ! Blessed indeed is heaven -born mercy ! " It is twice bless'd ; It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes : 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest ; it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown : It is an attribute to God Himself, And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice. .... in tlie course of justice none of us Should see salvation : we do pray for mercy. And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy."' Never will I madly forfeit my only hope and stay, by denying mercy to any man. Never will 1 gainsay that blessed word. But, my Lord, I will not profane it. It is mercy to be slow to punish ; it is cruelty to give the sheep in charge to the wolf. Here was no question of punishment ; there was weighty ([uestion as to a Christian flock endangered by false teaching ; and I will never call that an act of mercy, wliicli ex- poses to such grievous peril the tender lambs of Christ, his defenceless poor and little ones. It were greater 30 mercy far, to commit a storm-tossed vessel, crowded with men and women pining for tlicir homes, to be steered amidst rocks and shoals by an ignorant self- willed pilot who set at nought all laws of navigation -. it were greater mercy far to intrust the fullest hospital of disease to the care of one, who, for healing draughts, would deal out deadly poisons. These things peril but the body. Yet who would deem it cruel to bid the pilot remain on shore and lose his paltry hire, rather than risk the gallant ship ? to compel the physician to abandon his drugs of death, and the art he turned from a blessing to a bane ? None w^ould question then. But faith is indeed fast vanishing from the earth ! heavenly love w^axed cold ! for bodily danger, for temporal loss, men have eyes and heart ; the heart is dead, the eyes are dim, when the danger is none other than that of the perishing of bodies, souls, and spirits, for ever and for ever in the fathomless pit, the quenchless flames of hell, " Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched ;" w'hen the riches to be lost are not the crumbUng pelf of this world, " Where the rust and moth doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal," but the treasure, beyond compare, laid up in heaven ; the glo- rious, blissful mansions ; the dazzhng robes of white ; the amaranthine crowns of victory, there prepared ; the priceless joys above, the pleasures for evermore, unseen by mortal eye, unheard of by mortal ear, un- conceivcd by human thought, "where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." 31 Is it really supposed that all this world's " prefer- ment," all its tinsel honours, all it calls its " goods," are worth one single soul? Men do not meditate, and so they do not realize what this Judgment has done : but bid us sleep in peace and be content, not knowing that such sleep is death. This is a fearful picture ! but a true one, if the Bible itself be true : if it be indeed a fact that our only hope is faith in Christ, if indeed a fact, that holy Baptism is the " instrument" w^iich grafts us into Him ; and if the blessings of that Sacrament, which all through life are ours, depend on our belief in God's promises therein made to us, so that by distrust we forfeit them, and lose our hold on Him to w^hom it binds us ; then, to shake men's faith in their Baptism is to shake their faith in Christ ; to loosen their hold on Him ; and thereby to peril their only hope of heaven. If Christ Himself hath indeed ordained Holy Baptism, as a " Sacrament generally necessary to salvation," then it is a part of His religion, of His good news, His glorious Gospel : and, to question of its efficacy, is to (juestion Him who appointed it ; to bid men doubt their Baptism, is to bid them doubt that Gospel, which to believe is life, to deny is death eternal. But if this be false, if the Bible docs not teach all this, then, in mercy, let us use all haste to erase such lan- guage from the Prayer Book ; for no (|ucstion can arise that, to all simple, guileless minds, the Church there teaches plainly as I have said ; and to leave us to be thus deceived, were an evil groat as the other. 32 Archdeacon Hare may seek a loop-hole in techni- cality ; I will leave it for others to decide whether successfully or no ; but he himself acknowledges and rejoices in the fact, that Clergy who virtually deny baptismal grace, may now carry on their baneful system in security ; he hopes in time th'ey may be convinced of their error ; but seems not to remember, that, while he and they are reasoning, we poor sheep have souls to lose, and the deadly work of false doctrine is going on. We laymen have indeed a w^eighty and a practical grievance : the trustees of our goodly heritage, our spiritual treasure, our holy faith, (for the Clergy are none other than this,) are now to be allowed to scatter it to the winds, to rend it heartlessly in tw^ain ; and we are bid to rest content ! We have suffered a grievous wrong, — a wrong, which, in temporal matters, no Englishman would be expected to endure ; and tech- nical excuses never w^ill suffice us. If it was not intended that the Judgment should sanction what in fact it has done, let it be revoked, and the Church w^ill be thus far saved ! I am sure the evil con- sequences w^ere not intended, were not dreamt of Would they might even yet be averted ! It W'ill be said, that the false teaching existed before the Judgment w^as delivered. It is, alas ! too true, otherwise no Judgment w^ould have been called for ; but one w^ould have thought that the existence of the wTong, was the very reason for amending, rather than for sanctioning it. It could before be answered, that such teaching was contrary to the Prayer Book ; and 33 faith had a firm ground, in the authority of the Church, whereon to stand against the assaults of any individual Clergyman ; but this Judgment declares the Church to allow such doctrine to be taught by her commissioned ministers. The evil before existed under sufferance, and deadly has been its work ; but it was diminishing ; and there was found a Christian Bishop who dared to check its progress, in spite of this world's powers. His work of mercy is now forbidden ; the cruel poison is to slay more souls ; the poisoners are even licensed, and it is called an act of charity ! In my last letter I endeavoured to show that the Church would never so profane Christ's sacrament, never so endanger her children, as consciously to bring to Baptism any who were unworthy, so that her doc- trine respecting infants might be learned from her practice alone ; and with this agrees the whole of her language. In that hour of joy to Angels and to Her, when one such little one is presented for admission into the fold of Him who rejoices over each lost lamb that is found ; in that solemn hour, her first words condemn the hateful doctrine, that " as infants are by nature wmvorthy recipients, ' being born in sin, and the children of wrath,' they cannot receive any benefit from Baptism, except there shall have been a preve- nient act of grace to make them worthy'." Not so speak Christ and his Church^. " Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived ' Gorham on Baptism, Answer 15. ' Min. of Pub. Bapt. of Inf. D H^ 34 and born in sin ; and that our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy Ghost : I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of His bounteous mercy He will grant to this child that thing which by nature he cannot have ; that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same." The very reason here assigned for bringing this child to Baptism, is that same original sin, that foul state of leprosy, which Mr. Gorham declares, if not previously removed, must be an insurmountable ob- stacle to every baptismal blessing : he declares the child must be cleansed before it can be washed ; that the disease must have been cured before any benefit can be derived from the healing waters which the Prayer Book holds forth as ordained by Christ to be its true and only remedy. But the Church prays in faith, bringing forth from her rich treasury holy types of old, and telling how by the baptism of God's dear Son, the very element of water was sanctified "to the mystical washing away of sin." She asks, seeks, knocks at the gate, which her Lord has pro- mised shall be opened to her : she calls upon God for this particular infant, " that he coming to thy holy Baptism may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration :" she prays for remission, in Baptism, of that very sin which Mr. Gorham says must 35 have been previously remitted if her prayers are to be heard. Then is recited from the holy Gospel, how "They brought young children to Christ" for His healing, sanctifying touch; and how "He was much displeased" with those that would have kept His dear ones from Him, and spake those blessed words we know so well. "And," as says one from whom I love to quote, " it was highly preceptive when our blessed Saviour commanded that we should 'Suffer little chil- dren to come to Him;' and when they came, they carried away a blessing along with them. He was desirous they should partake of his merits ; He is not willing, neither is it His Father's will, 'that any of these little ones should perish,' and therefore He died for them, and loved and blessed them ; and so He will now if they be brought to Him, and presented as candidates of the religion, and of the resurrection. Christ hath a blessing for our children, but let them come to Him, that is, be presented at the doors of the Church to the sacrament of adoption and initiation ; for I know no other way for them to comc\" On this Gospel is grounded our Church's earnest charge, — "Doubt ye not, but earnestly believe, that He will likewise favourably receive this present infant," &c. But there are those who say we do doubt ; "for all men have not faith ;" and, alas! our darling ones are lefl by this decision to be shipwrecked on the doubt of the faithless, instead of being built up on the earnest belief of the Church. ' Taylor's Life of Christ— Of Baptizing Infants, 12. n 2 36 Alter thanksgiving for our own Christian state and further prayer, the sponsors are assured on the autho- rity of the Gospel, and in the name of Christ, that He will most surely grant all those things that they have prayed for in behalf of this very infant ; and they are required, on the part of the child, to make those solemn vows, which, when he comes of age, he is himself bound to perform, if he would not forfeit his inheritance. Dean Jackson well observes^ — "To com- pel all that come unto the sacred laver to undertake that treble vow (which is and hath been always solemnly made and undertaken, either by the parties themselves, which are to be baptized, in case they be of years, or by their sureties,) were the part rather of a cruel step-dame than the office of a loving mother, unless the Church, our mother, which exacts this vow of all and every one, could give full assurance to all and every one of her sons, that God in Baptism for His part never fails to give means sufficient for quelling the reign of sin, for mortifying the deeds of the body: means (I mean) sufficient not in themselves only, but sufficient to every one of us, unless we will be defective unto our- selves." The vows ended, there follow short collects, and then the consecration of the water by prayer in His name. Who, " for the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out of His most precious side both water and blood, and gave commandment to His disciples, that they should go teach all nations, and baptize them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." The child * B. xi. ch. 17. 3. 37 is then baptized, and, innnediately afterwards, received into the congregation of Christ's flock as being now one of them ; and he is signed with the sign of the Cross, in token that he shall continue — what he has now been made — "Christ's faithful soldier and servant unto his life's end." "Then shall the Priest say," "Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, that this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church, let us give thanks unto Almighty God for these benefits, and with one accord make our prayers unto Him, that this child may lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." Mr. Gorham acknowledges these words to be abso- lute in themselves ; but says they are conditional in meaning; and that, although they affirm "this child is regenerate," we are only to understand from them that it may be so; now, doubtless the continuance of the child in the spiritual life in Christ, and its conse- quent final and perfect regeneration are conditional ; but that it is new born and grafted into Him, the Church affirms to be a present and actual fact, as real and true a fact as was the former birth of the same infant into this world of sin and woe, which no one questions, because it is visible to sense ; although, doubtless, the continuance of the child in this bodily life is, in the fullest meaning of the word, conditional. " It is con- fessed," says Dean Comber', that infants "can show no ' Of the Office of Baptism, part 3. s. 3. 1. 38 visible signs of spiritual life in the operations thereof ; no more can they of their having a rational soul, for some time ; and yet we know they have the power of reason within them ; and since all infants are alike, either all do here receive a principle of new life, or none receive it; wherefore I see no reason why we may not believe, as the ancients did, that God's gi'ace (which is dispensed according to the capacity of the suscipient) is here given to infants to heal their nature, and that He bestowed on them such measures of His Spirit as they can receive ; for the malignant effects of the first Adam's sin are not larger than the free gift obtained by the second Adam's righteousness ^ And if it be asked how comes it to pass then that so many children do afterwards fall off to all impurity ? I answer, So do too many grown persons also, and neither infants nor men are so regenerated in this life as absolutely to ex- tinguish the concupiscence : for the flesh still will lust against the Spirit ; but then God gives the Spirit also to lust against the flesh ^ He leaves the corruption to try and exercise us, but so that He engageth to enable us to get the better, through this new nature planted in us, if we will improve it, and follow the dictates of His Holy Spirit ; but by neglect or wilful complying with the flesh we may lose this grace again. Our gracious Father hath already done His part, and will do it more and more, as the child shall be capable and " Rom. V. 15. 18. ' Gal. v. 39 willing to receive it ; and it' this seem strange to any whose opinions are taken up from later definitions of regeneration, let them dispute with holy Cyprian, (not with mc,) who saith ^, * The grace of God is equally distributed in Baptism, but it may either be diminished or increased afterward by our acts and conversation.'" Our Church speaks positively, and, what she says she means ; she counts not falsehood to be charity ; she will not deceive the humblest nor the most im- learned ; she has not one voice for her people, and another for her ministers ; one in her ritual, and another in her articles ; with the eye of faith she discerns, though the world cannot, the heavenly birth, the washing of the Holy Ghost, in that very laver to which her Lord has annexed it ; she lovingly proclaims the welcome tidings, and, in undoubting joy, breathes forth that blessed prater, which belongs alone to Christians ; and then proceeds, " We yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church:" concluding with earnest supplication that he may duly improve the grace then bestowed, and that, persevering in it to the end, he may finally, with the residue of God's holy Church, attain the everlast- ing inheritance then truly uiado his own, but which ho Mpistk- lo .M.igiui.s. "" 4U may nevertheless forfeit, by wilful neglect of his vows, and by that want of faith in God's baptismal promises, that verv same mistrust, in which our Clergy are now allowed to train their people, I would next refer to the form of admitting into the congregation children who have been privately bap- tized without sponsors. When such a child is brought to the Church, if the minister then present was not himself the one who administered the Sacrament, he is to inquire simply, "By whom? in wdiose presence? with what matter? with what words, was this child baptized?" "And if the minister shall find by the answers of such as bring the child, that all things were done as they ought to be, then shall not he christen the child again, but shall receive him as one of the flock of tnie Christian people, saying thus," " I certify you that in this case all is well done, and according unto due order, concerning the baptizing of this child : who being born in original sin and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of Regeneration in Baptism,''' (not by any act of prevenient grace,) "re- ceived into the number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life ; for our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny His grace and mercy unto such infants, but most lovingly doth call them unto Him, as the holy Gospel doth witness to our comfort on this wise." Then follows the Gospel as in the other office, and the rest of the service with the necessarv alterations ; 41 and, as if to guard against the notion that tlie new birth was to be attributed to any other cause than the Sacrament itself, it is not simply affirmed, as in the other office, " this child is regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's Church," but, " this child is by Baptism regenerate," &c., and the rubric, at the con- clusion, declares the essential parts of Baptism to be water and the w^ord. The Church's training of her new-born babes shall be considered hereafter ; for I trust your Grace will kindly permit me to complete what I have under- taken, and will forgive if in my earnestness I have appeared in any way to transgress. But, before concluding for the present, I would not pass unnoticed those, who, fresh from the baptismal wave, are taken hence to " walk with Christ in white ;" those beloved ones, so bewailed on earth, but whose " lot is among the saints ;" who, " washed in the blood of the Lamb," are numbered with the hundred and forty and four thousand which alone can learn the new song, and "which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth." "And in their mouth was found no guile; for they are without fault before the throne of God." Our Church declares, "It is certain by God's word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, arc undoubtedly saved." The Judgment observes that this rubric docs not say such children are saved by Baptism ; but, if taken together 42 with the context, it can bear no other interpretation. In the first address, which I have above quoted, every child brought for Baptism is treated as unregenerate, and regeneration, the new birth of water and the Holy Ghost, is declared essential to salvation ; immediately after Baptism the child is pronounced regenerate, in one place "by Baptism regenerate," in another, '' hij the laver of Regeneration in Baptism received into the number of the children of God." Regeneration is thus declared essential to salvation, and Baptism is affirmed to be the means ordained for regeneration ; so that to say "this child is by Baptism regenerate," is equivalent to saying, as does the Catechism, " this child is by Baptism placed in a state of salvation ;" and the rubric declares " it is certain by God's word," that, if he dies without having forfeited that state by actual sin, he is "undoubtedly saved." Can it possibly be meant that he is saved by any other means than that Baptism, by which he is declared to be regenerated, and so placed in a state of salvation ? I know that Mr. Gorham says otherwise, and affirms that, in such cases, the children " must have been regenerated by an act of grace prevenient to their Baptism^" But this is not the language of the Prayer Book, nor of the Bible. I should have been glad to have submitted some further observations upon the passage wherein the Holy Ghost declares, through St. Peter, that "baptism doth now save us." ' Gorham on Baptism, Answer 19. 43 But I must bring this letter to a close ; although in hopes I may not be forbidden to speak of the above-mentioned and other texts, on a future occa- sion ; so gi'eatly do I presume on your Grace's for- bearance and generosity. I beg to have the honour to be, Very respectfully, Your Grace's obedient humble servant, M. J. R. V. May 25tli, 1850. My Lord, 1 concluded my last letter with the thought of those blessed babes, who, washed in the laver of Regeneration, are early " perfected," and " taken away from the evil to come," wdio " enter into peace," who depart hence, " to be with Christ." It is difficult to understand how any one can question our Church's clear and unequivocal teaching that such infants arc saved by Baptism. In her Creed, she ac- knowledges that Sacrament to be " for the remission of sins;" without which remission there can be no salva- tion. She commences the service for Baptism with the words of Christ, — " None can enter into the kingdom of God, except lie be regenerate and horn anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost ;" and, as Heurtley ' says, " throughout her service till the bap- ' On Justification, p. 287, Oxford. \H\'.). 44 tismal clement is applied, she speaks of the infant to be baptized, as sinful and defiled. But, from that moment, she entirely changes her language. She thanks God, that it hath pleased Him to regenerate him, to receive him for His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His Holy Church. And all her prayer thenceforward is, that he may continue in this blessed fellowship, and lead the rest of his life according to this beginning." The silence of the Church of England respecting infants who die unbaptized, affords no ground for a contrary opinion ; " The secret things belong unto the Lord our God." Bishop Hall" says, "That the con- tempt of Baptism damneth, is past all doubt ; but, that the constrained absence thereof should send infants to hell, is a cruel rashness." — "That Spirit which works by means will not be tied to means." — " Ambrose doubted not to say his Valentinian was baptized, because he desired it ; not, because he had it ; he knew the mind of God ; who accounts us to have what we unfeignedly wish. Children cannot live to desire Baptism : if their parents desire it for them, why may not the desire of others be theirs, as well as, according to Austin's opinion, the faith of others' believing and the mouth of others' confessing? In these cases, therefore, of any souls but our own, it is safe to suspend, and dangerous to pass judgment." Our Church presumes not to limit God's mercy ; ^ Epistle 4, Decade v. 45 she asserts, that without the grace of regeneration none can be saved, and tliat holy Baptism is the ordained channel, through which God is pleased to convey that grace ; but she docs not deny, that He may vouchsafe to bestow it in cases where the means are heartily desired, but cannot be had ; yet still the gi'ace is that of Baptism. Such cases are the exception, the point now at issue concerns the ordinary rule ; it would be as reasonable to doubt whether food be the ordained means for the support of our bodily life, because Moses and Elijah w^ere sustained without it for forty days and forty nights, as to question whether Baptism be the ordained means of salvation, because it may please God, in some extraordinary cases, to confer the saving sacramental grace before, or without, the actual Sacrament. No one will deny that the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost were ordinarily conveyed by the laying on of the hands of the Apostles, although Cornelius and his friends received those gifts and spake with tongues before such laying on of hands, and even before baptism. " That Spirit which works by means will not be tied to means," but I pray God to pre- serve me from the rashness of that man, who dare presume, on his own authority, to sever the operations of that Blessed Sjjirit fiom the channels l^le has Him- self ordained. Rather will I say with Dr. Donne', ' Scrm. xxix. vol. i. |>. TiKl, I'.d. IH.U). E 46 " We know no ordinary means of any saving grace for a child but baptism ; neither are we to doubt of the fulness of salvation in them that have received it." Before I proceed to show how contrary to the " mind of Christ," and of his Church, and how dan- gerous to the justifying faith of her children, is any sjT^stem of training which has not its foundation in the baptismal " remission of sins by spiritual regeneration," I must beg permission to speak more fully on the point now^ before us, and with which my last letter closed, as containing in brief the whole question. I would ask, if all baptized infants, who die un- stained by actual sin, cannot be certainly affirmed to be "saved by baptism," by what are they saved? Mr. Gorham *, to judge from his book, would reply, by "an act of grace prevenient to their baptism,'' by which " they must have been regenerated, in order to make them worthy recipients of that Sacrament." Their death is, to him, the proof of their having been regenerated before baptism. Had they lived, their baptism would not, in his opinion, have been even so much as a certain sign of their regeneration. But a doctrine so strange and new to our ears, needs the support of strong authority. These are days in which, if ever, it behoves Christians, in the words that head the 4th chapter of St. John's 1st Epistle, " not to believe all teachers who boast of the Spirit, but to try them by the rules of the Catholic faith," and * Answ. 19, and passim. 47 this, more especially, because there are no slight gi'ounds for apprehension, that, even now amongst us, there actually lurks the very " spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh," that truth of truths so intimately bound up with right faith respecting the Sacraments. The coming and the working of that spiiit is "with all deceivableness ;" he well knows how to hide his loathsome and distorted visage under a mask of seeming unity and peace. I would remind Mr. Gorham that our Church does not say one word about " an act of prevenient grace," but declares her children to he ''by baptism regenerate," and to be therein and thereby " made members of Christ, and the children of God." He replies ' by acknowledg- ing these to be the words of the Prayer Book, but asserts that they must not be understood in their plain sense, or, as he expresses it, " in their naked verbality," be- cause, if thus taken, " they might appear to contra- dict the clearest statements of Scripture, and of the Church herself." To this I might very well answer, that the (|Ucstion debated is concerning the right interpretation of Scri])- ture, that the passages I have (quoted from the Prayer Book are taken out of a most solemn service, and from that Catechism in which the Church has authoritatively instructed me ; that iier Creed uses the same language ; and, that I cannot conceive it possible she would be guilty of carelessness so cruel, as to teach her young l>. (is. i; 2 48 children, and to address her unlearned poor, at the most solenm times, on a point affecting their ever- lasting welfare, in words whose plain and obvious meaning is contrary to the Bible ! Perhaps it would better become such a one as my- self to be content with this simple and conclusive answer ; but I have examined the authority adduced by Mr. Gorham from Scripture and the Articles ; I am thoroughly convinced he is most grievously in error, from which I pray God to rescue him ; and I will do what I can to explain my grounds for this conclusion ; but if, on this or any other point, I say one word that is amiss, or contrary to sound doctrine, I earnestly beseech it may be shown me, that I may unreservedly retract it. Mr. Gorham is asked by his Bishop, — "Which of the clearest statements of Scripture might the passage referred to," (viz. the 2nd Answer in the Church Catechism) " ' if taken in its naked verbality,' appear to contradict ^ ? " To which he answers, — " Scripture de- clares, that, as ' the wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit.' (St. John iii. 8.) Now if the effects and blessing set forth in ' naked verbality' by the passage cited, (namely, that ' every infant,' baptized by a lawful minister, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is made by God " Gorham on Baptism, p. 109. 49 ill such baptism, ' a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven,') were absolutely, unconditionally wrought in, and con- ferred on, ' EVERY infant,' — the Spirit would, of neces- sity, effect His operation, in ' every infant,' at the moment when man thinks fit to direct He shall effect it ; — which is a conclusion directly opposed to the de- claration of the lip of truth in this Scripture. " Again : it is declared in Scripture (John i. 12, 13), that those who are ' the sons of God,' were ' born, not of blood, NOR of the will of the flesh, nor of the ivill of man, but of God ;' and that they become His sons by 'belief on the name of Jesus Christ.' But, if the nakedly verbal declaration of the spiritual filiation of * every infant ' were unconditionally true, then there would be no place left for its regeneration, or its being- brought into the relation of a ' child of God,' by the means of faith, as here stated in the Divine Record ; and the spiritual birth of * every infant ' would be by * the will of man,' and at the precise moment when man exercises his ' will ' that such new nature shall be im- parted." Now, my Lord, as regards the first passage quoted by Mr. Gorham (St. John iii. 8), it will be found, on reference to the original Greek, that the words " is bora" are to be understood of a birth which has taken place ; for the perfect, not the present, is the tense used. There are other similar instances in our authorized translation ; and this may help also to the proper understanding ol \\\v words " being regenerate" 50 ill the collect for Christmas -day, where, by the same rule, the word " being" must be regarded as in the past tense (although it is of course never meant that perfect and final regeneration is conveyed at once by baptism). This seems to have been an old manner of speaking ; according to our present mode it would have been more accurate to translate the passage, "so is every one that hath been born of the Spirit ;" and this agrees with the context. Our Saviour Christ had been setting forth the necessity of being born anew, or from above; He had declared this birth to be of " Water and Spirit," and had taught that, just as we became flesh from having been born of the flesh, so, in order to be spiritual, we must have been born of the Spirit, which makes evident the necessity of the second birth so marvellous to Nicodemus. Our Lord then proceeds to describe the effiect of the Spirit upon such a man. And, if we understand it as regards his appearance in the eyes of the world, it is as easy for the carnally-minded to comprehend the move- ments of the wind, as to understand the secret prin- ciple which prompts the spiritually-minded to actions and a life so different from his own. Or, if we take it to refer to the hidden action of that Holy One within the heart of the baptized, then it will be illustrated by the parable related, St. Mark iv. 26, &c. " And He said. So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground, and should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring aad grow up he knoweth not how. For the 51 earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." Who knoweth why, in the fields around us, one seed fails and another springs up ? why one plant of wheat outstrips anotlier, one is destroyed by blight or worm gnawing at the root, while another escapes, grows, and brings forth abundantly ? Why doth one yield thirty, another sixty, another a hundredfold? Who in this spring tide, so joyous outwardly, but oh ! how bhghted to our souls by this heavy spiritual chastise- ment ! who shall tell, why, on the same tree, one bud bursts forth and blossoms, whilst its neighbour is still enwrapped in its tender covering? or, when golden Autumn comes, why shall one fi'uit grow ripe and mellow, while another is still all crude and hard ? Nay, who shall say why one branch withers and dies away, bearing no fruit at all, which, in all outward show, was last year healthy as the rest ? When man has fathomed nature's mysteries, and yet not even then, let him dare to say of what God teaches, " How can these things be ?" We know not how the grass can spring, or the acorn become the oak ; but we do know that, to ensure healthy growth, there must be due cultivation ; there must be watchful guard against fowls of tiic air, beasts of the field, and thistles or thorns of the ground. And this is one of the most im|)ortant practical reasons which rendei- it so ncccssaiy that the Church should sufTer no doul)t to be entertained, that God 52 hath sown the good seed of eternal hfe in baptism, for if its existence in the heart be questioned, there is Uttle hope of careful culture ; and if even in spite of human unbelief, through the wondrous tender mercy of the Divine Husbandman the plant survive and spring at all, yet it will be crippled and shorn of the goodly boughs which it should have put forth, as a " cedar tree beside the waters." But to explain this verse, as is sometimes done, in reference to the first marvellous influence of God the Holy Ghost upon us worms of the earth, (whereby, through the new bu'th into Christ, He w^ashes off our sins,) — instead of understanding it to speak of His subsequent action in and upon the heart ; — even then I do not see that it affords any authority for Mr. Gor- ham's doctrine, which assumes that the Spirit "list- eth" to desert those channels which He has Himself revealed it to be His good pleasure to follow. All the ways of the Most High are "a great deep ;" and not the least wonderful, and humbling to proud rebellious man, is that certain truth, that His Omnipo- tence is pleased to subject itself to laws. In the words of that venerable and truly philosophic poet ^ one of the glories of our age, so lately departed from amongst us, He hath been pleased that there should stand " . . . . laws (Submission constituting strength and power) Even to His Being's infinite Majesty ! " Wordsworth, Excursion, B. iv. p. 118, Ed. 1841. 53 *' I am the Lord, I change not ; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed ^" It doth that uncreated Majesty no honour to speak of His free gifts, — free indeed in undeserved, uncalled- for mercy, — as if their freedom lay in a course, wild, disorderly, and capricious, as are the ways of His fallen creature, man. The yet w^eak faith of Nicodemus could not grasp the work of mighty love to be wrought in the holy laver, to human eye so simple and so mean an instru- ment, and our gracious Lord was leading him on to embrace that mystery of regeneration by "Water and Spirit." He had declared Christian Baptism to be the means through which it was the good pleasure of the Blessed Trinity to work that wondrous change ; and, in this verse. He show^s how idle and unreason- able a thing it is, to cavil, and raise difficulties, be- cause the manner in which this can therein take place is beyond all human comprehension, since, in the natural world, we know not even the laws which govern the winds of heaven, blowing hither and thither as they list, and penetrating every where. To quote from St. Chrysostom's Homily, on the passage ^. " ' If,' saith He, ' thou knowest not how to explain the motion nor the path of this wind which thou perceivcst by bearing and touch, why art thou over- anxious about the working of the Divine Sjnrit, wlitii ' Mill. iii. f). ■' Oxford 'I'r.ins. p. 218. 54 thou understandest not that of the wind, though thou hearest its voice ? ' The expression, hloweth where it listeth, is also used to establish the power of the Comforter; for if none can hold the wind, but it moveth where it listeth, much less will the laws of nature, or limits of bodily generation, or any thing of the like kind, be able to restrain the operations of the Spirit." What has been said will, in great measure, apply also to the other text quoted by Mr. Gorham ; the only real question is, whether or no Christ has ordained Holy Baptism as the Sacrament whereby, through the agency of the Holy Ghost, we are first made members of His sacred body, born again by real and true union with His Deified Humanity. This is what the Church teaches, and, if this be the truth, then it is plain that the office of faith is to embrace this, together with all the other blessed truths of the Gospel, and through such faith accepting and cordially embracing the appointed means, we become members of Christ, and therefore the children of God, and heirs of heaven. But faith cannot exist without its object, and as the Catechism teaches, one of its essential offices is " stedfastly to believe the promises of God made" to us in Holy Baptism. This faith is requisite when the Sacrament is first received, in all who are of age to exercise it ; as for infants, that of others is accepted in their behalf both in this and other particulars ; moreover, it is into the faith and the name of Christ that they, and all, are ab- 55 solutelj' baptized ; but I must beg permission to defer this very important part of the subject for a future occasion, when I hope to consider the other texts brought forward by Mr. Gorham. It is not easy to understand, why a gift conveyed through human agency and outward means, should not be considered as free, and as entirely " of the will of God," as one more immediately imparted by Him to our souls. The Gospel dispensation is one of mediate and human agency : such is its very essence : " For there is one God, and one Mediator betw^een God and men, the man Christ Jesus ';" and mediation is not mere intercession, though it includes it. " Truly our" very ''fellowship is with the Father, and wdth His Son Jesus Christ -." "And He is the Saviour of the body^'' as w^ell as of the soul and spirit. We might have presumed then, even if it had not been revealed, that His gifts to us would be conveyed through human instruments, and through external means, sanctifying our bodies as well as our souls ; means far above those of the Law, when " the Holy Ghost w^as not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified*:" means full of heavenly light, and life, and warmth, because they are the channels through which He, Who " hath gone up on high and led cap- tivity captive'," bestoweth the giftslle hath "received," as man, " for men ; yea even for His enemies, that the Lord God might dwell among them. Praised be the ' 1 Tim. ii. 5. ' 1 John i. .J. ' Epli. v. 23. ' Jolin vii. 39. '- Vs. Ixviii. 18—20. 56 Lord daily ; even the God who helpeth us and poureth His benefits upon us, He is our God even the God of whom Cometh salvation, God is the Lord by whom we escape death." He, our great " High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens''." He, our King, "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting ^" He, our very and true God. He, as truly, the Son of Man, " of our bone and of our flesh." He, our only stay, our life, our all in all. And our Baptism it was which made Him ours, which made us His ! And our Baptism it is which our teachers may now call in question ! Wlien our gracious Queen is pleased to exercise her royal power, whether to confer high honour on a faithful servant, or to pardon a guilty criminal, no one attributes the favour to the will of the officer who bears it. In earthly things we may oftentimes discern likenesses of heavenly : so it is here ; Christ hath commanded His servants to go forth and baptize all nations ; and is His royal bounty said to flow from the will of His ministers ? Such language as Mr. Gorham's might be used of any mere human ordinances, but it is a fearful thing to breathe such thoughts as his, respecting those blessed and awful Sacraments given and commanded by God. In the words of Hooker, — " The grace of Baptism cometh by donation from God alone. That God hath committed the ministry ' Heb. viii. 1. ' Micah v. 2, 57 of Baptism unto special men, it is for order's sake in His Church, and not to the end that their authority might give being, or add force to the Sacrament itself «." Christ's ministers cannot, in accordance with His laws, refuse holy Baptism to any single infant where the requirements of the Church are complied with : how then can it be said, that the fact of His gi'acious promise never failing in all such instances, renders the conveyance of His free gift dependent on their will ? It is His command, not their pleasure, that they are fulfilling. And now, my Lord, as a layman in full communion with the Church, I do very solemnly call marked attention to a passage in Mr. Goode's published letter to the Bishop of Exeter. I almost dread to copy the words. He says, at page 36, " You boldly aver that in the case of all infants, wherever found, and under whatever circumstances, you can give or withhold remission of sins and spiritual life ; that these gifts are so tied to Baptism, that until you choose to give Baptism, God Himself cannot (without some extra- ordinary interference) give those gifts ; that you have only to sprinkle the child with water and utter a few words, and the thing is done.'' My Lord, these are the words of one who is an ordained minister and steward of God's mysteries, and the water to which he refers is none other tlian that » B. V. di. 02. 19. 58 river of life, with types and symbols of which, both the dispensations of God, old and new, teem through- out, from the time when His Spirit first " moved upon the face of the waters," and out of chaos, brought forth goodly order ; from the time when God spake the word of might, and those waters " brought forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open fir- mament of heaven ;" just as the Christian mounts on high, spurning this lower world, his affec- tions set on things above, his " life hid with Christ in God." Full is all Scripture of these types, even from those early days till the Evangelist's last vision of the end of all things. Full of the blessings of that living stream are all " the goodly fellowship of the Prophets." — ' ' I give waters in the wilderness and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen ^" — "And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water '." — "And thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not ^" — " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean ^ " — "And all the rivers of Judah shall flow with waters, and a foun- tain shall come forth of the house of the Lord, and shall water the valley of Shittim \" " And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jeru- salem \" These are the very waters in which God ' Is. xliii. 20. ' Is. XXXV. 7. ' Is. K'iii. 11. ' Ezek. xxxvi. 25. ' Joel iii. 18. ' Zech. xiv. 8. 59 " laj^eth the beams of His chambers ^ ;" the waters sanctified by the Baptism of Him, the Holy One, from Whom they derive all their virtue ; the " hving water" " He alone can give ; the " well of water springing up into everlasting Ufe^;" the water He declares essential to the new birth ^; which Siloam's pool prefigured ; nay, which flowed from His very own wounded side, the side of the Rock of ages opened for our salvation ; thence those waters still flow on — "And the Spirit and the Bride say. Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely '^" I have repeated but a very small portion of what the Holy Ghost saith of these "wells of salvation",'' of which Mr. Goode thus lightly speaks. And what are those " few words" he mentions in the same manner? They are none other than that "glorious and fearful Name '-" which "is from ever- lasting'^;" "which is great, wonderful, and holy";" " great in might '%" " great in Israel ' ;" " gi'cat among the Gentiles ^ ; " that great Name by which God sweareth '; that Name which none shall take in vain and be held guiltless; that Name "put upon the children of Israel^;" the Name which was "in" the angel that led the Israelites ' ; that Name which is our " Ps. civ. 3. ' John iv. 10. " .loliii iv. 11. ' John iii. 5. '" Rev. xxii. 17. " Is. xii. 3. " Deut. xxviii. r)8. '■• Is. Ixiii. 10. '* Ps. xcix. 3. '■' Jer. X. 0. ' Ps. Ixxvi. 1. '■' Mai. i. 1 1. ' Jer. xliv. 2G. ' Num. vi. 27. * Kxod. xxiii. 21. GO defence ; in which " we will set up our banners^;" and ''tread them under that rise up against us'," wherein " standeth our help ^" " The Name of the Lord is a strong tower ; the righteous runneth into it and is safe ^•" that Name wherein we " walk up and down " as foretold by Zechariah '"; in which we " lift up our hands " ;" for the sake of which we entreat pardon for our iniquity which is "great" indeed'-; that Name which "is as ointment poured forth '";" to which " is the desire of our soul '*;" that Name by which of old the Holy Ark was "called '^ ;" that for which Solomon ^ built that glorious house, in that Jerusalem which the Lord did choose "to put His Name there'';" that house and that Jerusalem which shadowed forth our more glorious "city of God," even the "true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man'*;" wherein now dwelleth that most Holy Name, and shall for ever dwell, identical with that other, and yet the same Name, at which " every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth'," and in which we "Gentiles trusts" "In my Name shall they cast out devils'';" that Name which God hath "both glorified and will glorify*;" which His Son hath "manifested^" to us; and He * Ps. XX. ^ Ps. xliv. 6. * Ps. cxxiv. 7. 3 Prov. xviii. 10. " Zech. x. 12. '' Ps. Ixiii. 5. '" Jer. xiv. 21. 7. Ps. xxv. 10, &c. '* Cant. i. 3. " Is. xxvi. 8. " 2 Sam. vi. 2. '* 1 Kings viii. 16—20. '^ 1 Kings xiv. 21. '* Heb. viii. 2. ' Phil. ii. 10. ' Matt. xii. 21. ' Mark xvi. 17- ' John xii. 28. ' John xvii. 6. 61 prayed, '^ Holy Father, keep through Thine own Name those whom Thou hast given me'' ;" that Name which Pergamos held fast, even where was Satan's seat, and Philadelphia had not denied ' ; that Name " which hath power over plagues ^" — "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with Him an hundred forty and four thousand, having His Father's Name written in their foreheads ^" — " And they shall see His face ; and His Name shall be in their fore- heads '°." " There is none other Name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved"." That Name contains, in germ, the whole Christian Faith into w^hich we are baptized : that Name the Church would never so take in vain, as indiscriminately to baptize in it a mixed multitude, of whom she thought some to be unfit (and yet this is what Mr. Gorham affirms to be her constant practice in the case of infants) . For ever and for ever " Hallowed be Thy Name," O Lord, my God. And the solemn sacramental use of this glorious and terrible Name, Mr. Goode can call " uttering a few words!" Can it be for nothing, that the Bible, from beginning to end, so exalts this Water and this Word ? Can it be for nothing, that " Jesus came and spake unto them, saying. All power is given unto Me in heaven and in ' John xvii. 1 1. ' Rev, ii. l.T. iii. 8. " Rev. xvi. 9 •' Hev. xiv. 1. '" Rev. xxii. 4. " Arts iv. 12 I' G2 earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen'?" Can it be for nothing, that He "loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the ^cashing of umter by the ivord- .?" And have we laity of the Church no cause to weep and tremble, when we find our goodly heritage, our rich pastures, our heavenly treasure, the very means and Gospel of our salvation, entinisted to the keeping of men who can use such language respecting it, as do Mr. Gorham and Mr. Goode ? when we find the immortal souls of ourselves and those who are dear to us, committed to the guidance and the training of Clergy, who can make so light of what the Holy Ghost declares to be one of " the principles of the doctrine of Christ^?" of Clergy who can teach us to ques- tion the very foundation of our whole Christian being ? My Lord, we should be lost indeed, if these things were as nothing to us ! The follo^dng quotation from Hooker may perhaps form an apt conclusion to my present letter : speaking of the Sacraments, he says,* — > Matt, xxviii. 18—20. ' Eph. v. 25, 26. ^ Heb. vi. 1. * B. v. ch. Ivii. 3. 63 " Their chiefest force and \drtue consisteth in that they are heavenly ceremonies, which God hath sancti- fied and ordained to be administered in His Church, first, as marks whereby to know when God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all that are capable thereof; and, secondly, as means conditional which God requireth in them unto whom He imparteth grace. For sith God in Himself is invisible, and cannot by us be discerned working, therefore when it seemeth good in the eyes of His heavenly wisdom, that men, for some special intent and purpose, should take notice of His glorious presence. He giveth them some plain and sensible token whereby to know what they cannot see. For Moses to see God and live was impossible, yet Moses by fire knew where the glory of God extraordi- narily was present. The angel, by whom God endued the waters of the pool called Bethesda with super- natural virtue to heal, was not seen of any, yet the time of the angel's presence known by the troubled motions of the waters themselves. The Apostles, by fiery tongues which they saw, were admonished when the Spirit, which they could not behold, was upon them. In like manner it is with us. Christ and His Holy Spirit, with all their blessed effects, though entering into the soul of man, ive are not able to apprehend or express how, do notwithstanding give notice of the times when they use to make their access, because if plcascth Almighty God to communicate, by sensible means, those blessings which are incouiprehensible.'" I 2 64 I beg most humbly to express my sense of your Grace's undeserv^ed kindness, in permitting this con- tinuance of my letters ; and I have the honom' to be, Your Grace's very respectful and obedient servant, M. J. R. Note. — The foregoing was the last of the jnanuscript \etters, it was afterwards finally decided to publish, with his Grace's approval. VI. July nth, 1850. My Lord Archbishop, Mr. Gorham and Mr. Goode, whom 1 quoted in my last Letter, have raised no new difficulty. When our incarnate God " said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee, there were certain of the Scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts. Why doth this Man thus speak blasphemies ? who can forgive sins but God only?" They thought they believed in God, but they knew not the truth sur- passing knowledge, — the Word made flesh ; by which it comes to pass that " the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins'." We are apt to take it for granted, that we should have had more laith ; that in the humble lowly " car- penter, the Son of Mary^" we should have discerned "the Christ, the Son of the living God^" and yet, ' Mark ii. 5—7. 10. ' Mark vi. 3. ' Matt. xvi. 16. 65 may it not be that the Church and the Sacraments still afford the same test to our faith ? May it not be, that those who refuse to see Christ now present there, would have turned from Him in unbelief had they lived among the Jews ? That boundless power which is given unto Him, as Man, in heaven and in earth, it hath mercifully pleased Him to depute to other men. We read in St. John's Gospel: — " Then said Jesus to them again. Peace be unto you : as My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. And when He had said this. He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost : Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are re- tained \" And this authority ended not with the Apostles ; our Church still claims it, still commits it to her Priests ; Christ hath assured it to her. His promise cannot fail : — •" Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world '." So that to the Church and her ministers, even amongst ourselves, those other words apply : "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth Me : and he that re- ceiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me"." He deals with us now as He did with those of old. We are told by the beloved disciple, whose mind was so filled with the one great mystery of the Incarnation, tliat Jesus tarried with His cUsciples, "and baptized." ' John XX. 21—23. ' Matt, xxviii 20. * John xiii. 20. ' John iii. 22. 66 Again, that " the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John^" — then it is added — " though Jesus Himself baptized not, but His disciples." — Again, it was the same Lord who fed the five thousand in the mountain, yet " He distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down^" Surely the Holy Ghost hath not told us this for nought ! May we not therein read how it is with ourselves ? Our great High Priest hath gone up into the mount, and we see Him not, yet it is He Who, in His ministers, still baptizeth ; it is He Who still, through them, distributeth the miraculous bread of life. He is with them alway in all their ministra- tions, according to His most gracious promise. The treasure is "in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God ' ;" but the unworthiness of the minister, if he be even a Judas, hinders not the effect of his ministrations, " forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by His commission and authority," and the Sacraments " be effectual because of Christ's institu- tion and promise, although they be ministered by evil men''. The whole visible Church is a continuance of the Incarnation, and this seems to be the truth which forms the very test and trial of our faith. " Hereby know ye the Spirit of God : Every spirit that con- * John iv. 1, 2. ' John vi. 11. ' 2 Cor. iv. 7. ' Art. XXVI. 67 fesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is ot God : and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God : and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in the world ^" Where it is observable that the original Greek word translated "is come," is in the perfect tense; and therefore must be understood, " is come and abiding^." The Incarnation, wliich took place in centuries long past, is still an ever-present fact. Wliere His Church is, there is Christ the Son of Man ; His presence unseen and spiritual, but no less real ; the manner above our comprehension, but the truth visible to our faith. How else should His own name be fulfilled, "Emmanuel, which, being interpreted, is God with US'?" Yes, He is still amongst us, still calling to us, still weeping over the hardness of our hearts, marvel- ling at our unbelief; — " Ye will not come to Me that yc might have life"." And still do men turn away in pride, to devise means of salvation for themselves, to wrest the Scriptures " unto their own destruction ' !" ' 1 John iv. 2, 3. * Thus Matthia;, in his Greek Grammar, § 197, " The Perfect ex- presses an action which has taken place, indeed, at a previous time, hut which is connected either in itself or its consccjuences, or its accompanying^ circimistanccs with the present time." — § .'>()(), " In the Perfect tlie chief regard is paid to the pcrmaiuiicc of the conse- (piences of an action." — "The Perfect is used when tlie writer wishes to show that the conihtion mentioneil is to i)e continued." •' Matt. i. 2.'i. " John v. 40. ' 2 Pet. iii. IG. 68 The Jews had read the Law aright, when they learnt from it "that Christ abideth for ever*," even upon earth ; but their carnal hearts could not perceive the fulfilment of this truth in the Gospel ; and so it is still. Yet He spake to Nicodemus of the " Son of Man which is in Heaven^," even when He was visibly upon earth, as if to help us now^ to believe the incomprehensible mystery of His abiding presence here below, \vhile His natural Body is above. Cold and dead indeed, — lifeless, empty forms, — would be our holy Christian services, were not He, Who alone is life, really and truly there ! This it is, and this only, that makes them the very and actual substance, of which circumcision, and all the Jewish rites, were but the tvpe and shadow\ They are indeed the substance and the reality ; for they are the ordained and only revealed means by w^hich the Holy Ghost effects our union with that one Mediator, through ■whose Di\dne manhood alone we have access to the Father. This blessed truth is an essential part of that "most w^holesome doctrine and very full of comfort," that " we are justified by faith only '." But Mr. Gorham appears to think otherwise ; he thus proceeds with the answer I referred to in my last Letter : — " The same line of argument [I mean of apparent contradiction between the supposed unconditional assertion made by the naked verbality of the passage " (before cited), * John xii. 34. ' John iii. 13. ' Art. XI. 69 " and the affirmation of Scripture] miglit be shown from Gal. iii. 26 : 'Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus -.' " Now I must again beg for reference to the original Greek, and to the context. It will there be seen, that the inspired Apostle is teaching how the Gos- pel fulfils and supersedes the Law ; the word " faith " in this verse has the article prefixed ; it should be read, " the faith," i.e. the whole Gospel of Christ, in- cluding the Sacraments, and all other means of grace, in opposition to the Law and all its w^orks, just as the two dispensations are contrasted in the 1 6th verse of the second chapter : "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ : even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that w^e might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law ; for by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." The seventeenth verse describes it as being "justified by Christ;" and the twentieth, " I am crucified with Christ : nevertheless T live ; yet not T, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the fiesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." This is that whole life of active justifying faith ; that real and living union with Clirist which is the very essence of the Gospel ; which the Holy Ghost prima- rily conveys through the Sacraments, and which is increased and strengthened by prayer in public and in ' Gorham, EfTicacy of I5.ii)(isni, p. 109. 70 l)rivate, and by the whole heavenly conversation of the Christian. Again, in chap. i. 23, the Apostle is said to preach " the taith wliich once he destroyed." All these passages necessarily include Baptism, as the door of entrance to the Christian life. The twenty- ninth verse expressly mentions that Sacrament as a part of the faith. So St. Chrysostom understands it in his commentary on the place : " ' For ye are all the children of God by faith which is in Christ Jesus ;' by the Faith, not by the Law. Then, in regard of its great and wonderful nature, he names also the mode of their adoption, ' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' Why does he not say, ' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have been born of God ? ' for this was what directly went to prove that they were sons ; because he states it in a much more awful point of view. If Christ be the Son of God, and thou hast put on Him, thou who hast the Son within thee, and art fashioned after His pattern, hast been brought into one kindred and nature with Him^" Mr. Gorham, on the other hand, interprets these two verses as follows : — " The Apostle does not say, ' For as many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ ; ' but, ' For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.' I have, in my Answer Sixty-one, noticed this remarkable distinc- ^ Oxf. Trans. 71 tion, as clearly implying that the Apostle had a charitable hope, that ' they had believed with all their heart,' and thus had come to Baptism with that lively \faith in Him ' which made them ' the children of God.' His affirmation, therefore, is, that they had 'put on Christ ;' not in Baptism, but ' by that faith in Him,' which made them ' the children of God,' and of which they had given a public attestation by the sign or sacrament of Baptism. The expression, to ' put on Christ,' is applied here to the act of justifying faith; in Rom. xiii. 14, it is applied to the work of sanctification, — but in neither passage to Baptism ^." A general answer to the above will be found in the following quotation from Bishop Pearson : — "St. Peter made this the exhortation of his first ser- mon, 'Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.' In vain doth doubting and fluctuating Socinus endeavour to evacuate the evidence of this Scripture, attributing the remission either to repentance without considera- tion of baptism, or else to the public profession of faith made in baptism ; or, if any thing must be attri- buted to baptism itself, it must be nothing but a decla- ration of such remission. For how will these shifts agree with that wliich Ananias said unto Said, without any mention cither of repentance or confession, ' Arise and be baj)tizc(i, and wash away thy sins i" and tliat which St. Paul, who was so baptized, hath taught us * Alls. Lvin. 72 concerning the Church, that Christ doth ' sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water ^ ?' " But, to enter into particulars, it is manifest, that, in order to arrive at the true meaning of language, the whole context and attendant circumstances must be borne in mind. The same word may be differently used and applied in different places. The verse quoted from Rom. xiii. 14, is evidently an exhor- tation to advance in holiness : " Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ" more and more; it presumes the pre- vious existence of faith and repentance, as well as of Baptism; but Gal. iii. 27, declares Baptism to be the commencement of that blessed putting on, which is ever after to form the daily task of the Christian, and will only be accomplished in its fulness when the time arrives for " perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul." I understand the having been "baptized into Christ," to mean simply the having received Christian Baptism, in distinction to legal and other baptisms then frequent. Thus, Acts xix. 3 : "Unto what then were ye baptized? and they said, Unto John's Baptism." The preposition "unto," in the original, is the same as that which at Gal. iii. 27, is rendered "into." Again, 1 Cor. i. 13: " Were ye baptized in (or into) the name of Paul?" the same preposition ac is made use of. This is the evident meaning of the words ; but if it be granted that the worthy reception of the Sacrament * Pearson on the Creed, Art. X. 73 is implied, still there is nothing from which it can he concluded that " infants are by nature unworthy re- cipients," or that any one of them is not, in and by Baptism, litei-ally and truly made " a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the king- dom of heaven," in spite of his inability to exercise faith and repentance ; and yet this is the object for which the passage is quoted by Mr. Gorham. The Apostle proceeds : — " There is neither Jew nor Greek ; there is neither bond nor free ; there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Is it not evident to any simple-minded person; that throughout, he intends the whole Christian faith, in- cluding Baptism and all those means whereby the Holy Ghost is pleased to effect, and continue, that mystic union with the God-Man, which fulfils and su- persedes circumcision, and all other legal ordinances ? But, to speak of the inward act of faith, — which is, as it were, the hand or the mouth whereby our spiritual food is received, — it is surely very strange and danger- ous to argue as if the grace of Baptism were not one of the most necessary objects of such faith, 'i'lie Catechism defines it to be an act or state of mind, whereby men " stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament," and those ]iromises contain nothing less than the whole Gospel. Thus, in the extraordinary case of Cornelius and his friends, it is remarked by St. Chrysostom" : " W'luii tlicy ' Horn. xxiv. In A(t;i Aposf. 74 showed their understanding- to be marvellous, and there was a commencement of the instruction, and they believed that the Baptism is altogether remission of sins, then the Spirit came upon them," &c. &c. An essential test of saving faith is, whether it will trustfully embrace the means of salvation offered. And Baptism is as necessary for our eternal safety as was its figure, the ark of old, for temporal. It was Christ Himself who said, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned ^" Even thus may we imagine (I hope, without irreverence) the call of the patriarch Noah, when the flood was coming upon the earth, — " He that believeth and entereth the ark shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall perish." It will be evident at once, that to say of any who gave heed, they were saved by faith, would necessarily imply that they actually embraced the external means ; that they were led by their faith into the ark provided. Now, Holy Baptism is the door of entrance to our spiritual ark, the binding of us to that cross, by close hold upon which alone we can ever reach our longed-for haven, ever pass in safety over the stormy waves of this present weary world. Hooker says : " There were of the old Valen- tinian heretics some which had knowledge in such admiration, that to it they ascribed all, and so despised the Sacraments of Christ, pretending that as ignorance had made us subject to all misery, so the full redemp- ' Mark xvi. 16. 75 tioii of the inward man, and the work of our restora- tion, must needs belong unto knowledge only. Tiiey draw veiy near unto this error, who, fixing wholly their minds on the known necessity of faith, imagine that nothing but faith is necessary for the attainment of all grace. Yet is it a branch of behef that Sacra- ments are, in their place, no less required than belief itself. For when our Lord and Saviour promiseth eternal life, is it any otherwise than as He promised restitution of health unto Naaman the Syrian, namely, with this condition, ' Wash and be clean ? ' or, as to them which were stung of serpents, health by be- holding the brazen serpent '^ ?" It is a fearful delusion to speak of faith in Christ's merits, and all the while to make light of the external means whereby it hath pleased Him that those merits, nay, that He Himself, should become in very deed our own. Would that it were remembered, how a constant abiding hold upon Him can only be main- tained by a constant faith in the Sacraments ! Would, indeed, we had more in mind the acting faith ot" Abraham and all that noble company, given as our very pattern, that by careful contemplation we mighl discern what is truly the faith that justifies, and be preserved from its modern counterfeit ! The total rejection of Infant Ba[)tism, dreadful as it is, seems at any rate more consistent tlian Mr. Gor- ham's notion that no infants can be worthy recipients • 1}. V. Ix. 4. 76 of that Sacrament, who have not been previously rege- nerated. May it not be that the whole difficulty arises from an imperfect appreciation of that blessed and glorious Gos- pel under which it is our privilege to live ? May not the origin of the perplexity lie in the idea that Holy Baptism is a mere entrance upon a covenant ? a mere formal grant of forgiveness, conveyed by God on the fulfilment of certain conditions by man ? In short, has not this Christian Sacrament been viewed, more or less, as if it were a Jewish rite ? so that, even to our Holy Baptism there is a disposition to apply the declaration of the Apostle, that circumcision was given to Abra- ham as " a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ^" But, if W'C follow the teaching of Holy Scripture and the Church, and regard Baptism as no mere Jewish rite and shadow, but as a life-giving Christian Sacrament, as the real door of admission into the one fold of the good Shepherd, into the very ark of our salvation ; if, in accordance with the language of our service, w^e con- sider the bringing of infants to the font as a real and true bringing of them to Christ ; if we call to mind His gTacious sayings respecting them, and remember how our salvation is the effect of His free and boundless mercy, and depends not on works internal or external that we have done ; I think considerations such as these will tend to remove the difficulty, and to banish, as the Church bids us, all doubt that " He will favour- ' Rom. iv. 11. 77 ably receive" each infant that is presented ; " that He will embrace him with the arms of His mercy ; that He will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and make him partaker of His everlasting kingdom." To doubt the reality of these gifts from Him, is to doubt the Gospel ; but it cannot be too often repeated, that all these blessings may be forfeited and lost, if not duly used and improved during our time of probation in this wicked world. Though infants cannot exercise faith at their tender age, the Gospels teach us plainly that in such cases the faith of others is accepted as sufficient. Thus it was with the paralytic borne of four, with the daughter of the Syrophenician woman, and many others, and thus doth the Church bring her little ones in faith. Doubt- less great faith will draw down great blessings, and it is sad to think how such teaching as Mr. Gorham's weakens, if it does not destroy, the faith of many who bring children to the font. Still the very fact of Baj) tism being administered at all, implies faith somewhere; even to suppose so dreadful a case as si)onsors and parents all wanting in faith, all regarding Christ's Sacra- ment as a mere form, still there remains the faith of the Church, wliich at her Lord's command ])rovided for its due admini-stration. It is owing to the faith of some, perhaps long fallen aslcej), that the clergyman and the font exist at all, that the custom ol" Haptisni |)rc'\ails. And shall not this suffice to carry the chihi into tlie ark ';' will not sucli faith be accepted in behalf of the |)oor babe, by that Loid Who willcth not that an\ should 78 perish, and Who hath especially sanctioned the bringing of all our little ones to Him ? In the sense above mentioned it is quite true there must have been prevenient grace. But the very exist- ence of the Gospel dispensation amongst us,impHes such grace ; it brings it to each one of us ; it is not partial ; the very fact of any infant being brought to the holy font at all, proceeds from Divine grace and favour to- wards that particular child ; each such little one is thereby called, but whether each shall finally be found among the few that are chosen, must depend on his due improvement of the grace bestowed ; and again and again do I beseech your Grace to weigh well, how fearfully endangered must be the hope of our children's final acceptance, if they are to be trained on the sup- position that the call and the grace of their Baptism is uncertain. It needs but little knowledge of the human heart, " deceitful above all things," to enable us to perceive the advantage given to every subtle and deadly temptation (an advantage the enemy well knows how to use), by any doubt as to the existence of strength within, and of power to tread on the lion and the dragon. Without such shield of faith how shall the fiery darts of the wicked one be quenched ? And is not the sense of responsibility involved in the due appreciation of the baptismal gift, is not the sense of the amazing greatness of that gift, in itself a shield which it is madness to throw away ? Fain would our deadly foe rob us of that priceless armour of defence ! 79 But, to return to the question of the faith requisite for the due reception of Baptism, St. Augustine, in his celebrated Epistle to Boniface, says : — " Let it not disturb thee that some bring infants to Baptism not in the faith that they will, by spiritual grace, be born again to eternal life, but because they think that, by this remedy, they retain or receive temporal soundness. For they are not therefore left unregenerate, because they are not presented with that intention" (regenera- tion) " by those who bring them. For by their means are performed the necessary ministrations and words of the Sacrament, without which the child could not be hallowed. But that Holy Spirit Who dwells in the Saints, through whom that one silvery dove" (the Church) " is inflamed with the fire of love, works His operations also through the ministry sometimes ol those who are not only simply ignorant, but who arc even damnably unworthy. For infants arc presented to receive spiritual grace, not so much by those by whose hands they are carried, (although by these also, if they themselves are good faithful ones,) as by the universal society of the Saints and the faithful. For they are rightly understood as presented by all to whom it is pleasing that tliey are presented, and by whose holy and individual charity they arc assisted to the communication of the Holy Si)irit '." It seems to be forgotten, that Holy iJapiism is the very Sacrament of faith ; it is actually into the liiitli ' Ep. xcviii. p. 2<'>'), I'M. |{inc(l. G 2 80 that our children are baptized ; and thus, while yet unconscious, really and tinily numbered among the faithful. Dr. Jackson says, " From this everlasting virtue of this His" (Christ's) "bloody sacrifice, faith, by the ministry of Baptism, is immediately gotten in such as had it not before ^" And the following quotation from Hooker bears directly upon the sub- ject^ :— " Touching which difficulty, whether it may truly be said for infants at the time of their baptism that they do beHeve, the effect of St. Augustine's answer is Yea, but with this distinction, a present actual habit of faith there is not in them ; there is deUvered unto them that Sacra- ment, a part of the due celebration whereof consisteth in answering to the articles of faith, because the habit of faith, which afterwards doth come with years, is but a farther building up of the same edifice, the first foundation whereof teas laid by the Sacrament of Baptism. For that which there we professed without any understanding, when we afterwards come to ac- knowledge, do we any thing else but only bring unto ripeness the veiy seed that was sown before? We are then believers, because theji ice begin to be that which process of time doth make perfect. And till we come to actual belief, the very sacrament of faith is a shield as strong as, after this, the faith of the sacrament against all contrary infernal powers ; which, whosoever doth think impossible, is undoubtedly farther off from - B. X. 55. ' B. V. Ixiv. 2. 81 Christian belief, though he be baptized, than are those innocents, which, at their Baptism, albeit they have no conceit or cogitation of faith, are, notwithstanding, pure and free from all opposite cogitations, whereas the other is not free. If, therefore, without any fear or scruple, we may account them and term them believers, only for their outward profession's sake, which inwardly are farther from faith than infants, why not infants much more at the time of their solemn initiation by Baptism, the Sacrament of faith, whercunto they not only conceive nothing opposite, but have also that grace given them which is the first and most effectual cause out of which our belief groweth ? " In sum, the whole Church is a multitude of be- lievers ; all honoured with that title, even hypocrites for their profession's sake, as well as Saints because of their inward sincere persuasion, and infants as being in the first degree of their ghostly motion towards the actual habit of faith ; the first sort are faithful in the eye of the world ; the second, faithful in the sight of God ; the last, in the ready direct way to become both, if all things after be suitable to these their pre- sent beginnings. * This,' saith St. Augustine, * would not haply content such persons as are uncapable or unquiet ; but to tliem which, Iiaving knowledge, are not troublesome, it may sullice.'" So far, then, from the literal meaning of the Creed ()!• the Catechism being in any way contrary to what Scripture or the Articles teach respecting justification 82 by faith, 1 maintain, that it is an essential part of such faith to believe, that in and by the grace of Holy Baptism, every infant receives " remission of sins by spiritual rege- neration," being therein and thereby " made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the king- dom of Heaven." With your Grace's permission, the other texts ad- duced in this Answer by Mr. Gorham, shall be con- sidered in a future Letter. I have the honour to be, My Lord Archbishop, Your Grace's obedient humble servant, M. J. R. END OF PART I. »'NIVF' '-^v OF -in'kM "^■s ^WtUN' \ ^. ■iUillVJi^ '/-aj ^. ■^mwi 7?/- ,\\\El!NIVER.% .xvli LlBRARYCk CAlIFOfi'^, ,^\^EUNIVER.C/> •rAllFO/?f MFC ]AINn-3\^ "^i .# ''^' CALIFO/?^ r?^ '>:lOSANCElfx^ 1^ >• 4 r" Co ^)i i)^^ UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY AA 001 182 375 4 \\u I .^ JUJI I V J 3 -' Wf^ rc^ ■^ d f 'i: ;::; I ii