BR 756 .M37 1850 
 Maskell, William, 1814?- 
 
 1890. 
 A second letter on the 
 
 present position of the 
 
A SECOND LETTER 
 
 ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE 
 HIGH CHURCH PARTY IN THE 
 
 C{)utcf) of Cnglano/ ^ 
 
 t^/D 
 
 ^■ 
 
 BY THE REV. WILLIAM MASKELL, 
 
 VICAR OF S. MARY CHURCH. 
 
 THE WANT OF DOGMATIC TEACHING IN THE 
 REFORMED ENGLISH CHURCH. 
 
 ^ j^JL^..-.-^^ 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 
 ILLIAM PICKERING 
 
 1850. 
 
 A, BOLTON, 
 
 1 1 7 Grafton Street, 
 
 DUBLIN. 
 
 
My dear Friend, 
 
 XT^OU need not to be told with what pain and 
 -*- reluctance I feel myself, at last, compelled to 
 approach the second subject upon which, in my for- 
 mer letter, I proposed to write to you. When 
 these letters were commenced, now nearly four 
 months ago, it seemed very probable that they 
 would, both of them, have been published long be- 
 fore the present time. But the delay, unexpected 
 by many of us, in the delivery of the late decision 
 of the judicial committee of the privy council in the 
 case of Mr. Gorham, has necessarily obliged me to 
 defer the publication of this second letter. I men. 
 tion this, in order that you might know, that what 
 I am now about to say, flows not from the hasty, 
 unconsidering, impulse of vexation, or disappoint- 
 ment, or anger, at the decision which has been pro- 
 nounced, but — whatsoever its truth and weight may 
 be — is at least the result of constant and very anxious 
 thought for many weeks and months. 
 
 Nor do I regret the delay itself: it has em- bled 
 me to consider and to reconsider the whole bearing 
 of the case : it has given me time to hear and to 
 pay attention to the opinions of excellent and learned 
 men, upojn several of the points to be spoken of in 
 the following pages : it has been the welcome cause 
 of rightly procrastinating from day to day, from 
 week to week, the doing what must inevitably be 
 productive of great pain and serious consequences 
 to myself; of consequences also little less serious, 
 
it may be, to many others. For myself, I would 
 repeat what has been already said in my first letter : 
 it is my duty to be prepared to listen to reproach 
 and accusation : I must be prepared to be judged 
 harshly, and the more harshly, by oldest friends : 
 to be condemned (it may be) by those, especially, 
 in whom for years our chief reliance has been 
 placed, and to whom we have looked most readily 
 for counsel and support. 
 
 These, however, are but light trials in compari- 
 son with the responsibility which any person must 
 incur, who, at such a time and crisis as the present, 
 ventures to speak plainly what he conceives to be the 
 actual state of things : a responsibility, almost in- 
 finitely increased, if the view which he takes be one 
 of doubt and difficulty, unsettling to himself, and 
 likely to harass and to unsettle others. Thus great 
 is the responsibility on the one hand : upon the 
 other, there would be no less in determining to be 
 silent and quiet, and in allowing persons to go on — 
 so far as he himself does not interfere with them — 
 in the same security and fulness of faith in the 
 church of England as of old, ignorant of much 
 which he believes to be the truth, unwarned and 
 undisturbed. And it is to be remembered by every 
 one of us, who, in our several positions, some more 
 some less, have been before the world during the 
 last ten years, that now to sit still and to be silent, 
 now to say nothing and to advise nothing, is in 
 itself as distinct evidence as can be of the absence 
 of inmicdiate fear or anxiety. 
 
 There might have been, perhaps, one sufficient 
 reason for any one among us to have believed himself 
 
justified in not declaring publicly his own individual 
 opinions, at such a time of doubt and excitement : 
 namely, if our bishops had assembled to consult 
 upon the position in which the Church is now placed, 
 and had taken some first steps to show an intention 
 to meet, as bishops of the Church Catholic are 
 bound to meet, the pressing dangers and difficulties 
 in which we are involved. We will not speak of the 
 anxious weeks which passed away between the 
 closing of the argument before the judicial com- 
 mittee, and the delivery of its judgment. It may 
 seem strange that not a word was heard from any 
 bishop of the English church : because, whilst it 
 need not have had the unseemly appearance of an 
 attempt to influence the pending decision of the 
 Committee, yet, we might reasonably and unobjec- 
 tionably have been told that our bishops were in 
 deliberation upon the whole matter ; that they were 
 preparing and considering what measures should be 
 taken, to vindicate the church ; that they sympa- 
 thized with those who were anxious ; that they 
 would have courage themselves and boldness to de- 
 fend the truth ; that they asked both of the clergy 
 and laity, for the present, our prayers, our patience, 
 and our unshaken hope. 
 
 And since the decision of the judicial committee, 
 more than a month has passed away. Short time 
 indeed for successful action ; quite long enough to 
 have given us some ground of confidence and trust : 
 long enough — as you know well — for many meet- 
 ings and discussions of influential persons, in a lower 
 station, both clergy and laymen. Where is, even 
 now, the evidence of any general movement by our 
 
6 
 
 bishops? where, even, of their own appreciation of 
 the reality of the crisis at which we have arrived ? 
 It is a sign, foreboding evil, when the bishops of a 
 church will stand forward, in defence of the Faith, 
 only when driven to it, and forced, by the pressure 
 of an agitation among their clergy and people, which 
 they are no longer able to control. 
 
 Let these few words, then, serve as some token 
 of the many reasons, which, as I have said, compel 
 me to enter on the consideration of what seems to 
 be the extent and nature of the difficulties by which 
 we are now surrounded. In short, it appears to be 
 something very like dishonesty and deceit, to act 
 and teach, and suffer oneself to be supposed to be 
 unchanged and uninfluenced, just as if nothing of 
 material consequence had happened to the church 
 of England, and as if all things were exactly as 
 they were a year ago. May it not be so, with any 
 of us : let those who are confident and firm, say so, 
 and tell us why we are still to be unshaken, or in 
 what we are still to hope : let us not shrink, how- 
 ever, from looking at our peril and our position 
 fairly in the face ; let us not seek to conceal, either 
 from ourselves or others, wherein our real difficul- 
 ties lie ; rather, let us meet them boldly, and either 
 prove that they are no difficulties, or get rid of them 
 if we can. 
 
 I need not to be told, that (to use the lightest 
 word, as some men say) it was questionable, whe- 
 ther the statements and observations which were in 
 my First Letter, ought to have been published by a 
 clergyman of the church of England, holding his 
 benefice. Indeed this has been charged against me 
 
in the harder terms of accusation. No one could 
 feel that there was some appearance of truth in it 
 more deeply, and none more quickly, than myself. 
 If there was blame — blame of treachery, or disloyalty, 
 or disobedience, or call it by what name we will, — 
 for a time, at least, it was a duty to endeavour to 
 bear it patiently. Perhaps there was one sentence 
 in my former letter somewhat overlooked : " these 
 are days of doubt and peculiar trial, unlike any 
 which our fathers have known for several genera- 
 tions ; and we must not lay down principles, appli- 
 cable enough under common circumstances, by 
 which men are now to be judged." This, therefore, 
 is the indulgence which I would ask. And, if I 
 know myself, there was no unworthy or worldly mo- 
 tive, which prevented resignation of my benefice be- 
 fore a page of either of these letters was begun. On 
 the contrary, to do so has since been a frequent sug- 
 gestion of my own mind. But I remembered, also, if 
 it could be shewn that the difficulties in which we 
 seem to be involved, are, after all, slight and unim- 
 portant difficulties, and that there are remedies and 
 hope plainly and near at hand, that then haste and 
 the impatience of a sudden impulse would have 
 been grievous errors, by which I had been induced 
 to withdraw from the office and spiritual cure to 
 which I had been called. 
 
 But, now, with regard to this present Letter, 
 there is much which many might find impossible to 
 be reconciled with a retaining the position of a 
 beneficed minister of the established church. It is 
 true that the present crisis, the strange occurrences 
 of the last few months, and the unforeseen extremity 
 
of trial into which the English church has almost 
 hurriedly been plunged, might probably allow of 
 much, both speech and action, which would not 
 admit excuse or reason in times of less general ex- 
 citement and enquiry. Yet I could not rely on so 
 uncertain an apology for publishing very plain 
 woi-ds and arguments concerning the position in 
 which we appear to be placed. 
 
 And, moreover, it is my desire that the following 
 pages should be considered as a statement of several 
 chief reasons for which I have resigned my benefice 
 and cure of souls. 
 
 If the publication of these reasons should be con- 
 sidered by some as equivalent to a declaration of 
 an intention to take, speedily, a further step, — 
 namely, to leave the communion of the church of 
 England; — I am able only to say, that this is a 
 matter neither necessary nor proper to be discussed 
 at present. I am concerned only to put forth a 
 statement of doubts and difficulties, to be consi- 
 dered, weighed, and answered, by the high-church 
 party in the English church : and so long as they 
 remain mere doubts and difficulties, no man has a 
 right to say to me, that I should act as if they were 
 certainties and convictions. Unanswered and un- 
 explained they might and will, perhaps, become 
 convictions; but that is a diffi^^rent question. Of 
 course I know that when religion is the subject 
 dealt with, the assertion of doubts is in itself to 
 create doubts in the minds of many others, where 
 all had been simple faith and unshaken trustfulness 
 before : it is to encrease suspicion also, and to ob- 
 struct a return to confidence. Yet, it mav be, that 
 
it is our duty now, as churchmen labouring for the 
 truth of the holy Gospel, to enquire, to hesitate, to 
 doubt. 
 
 And let it not be thought that, so far as regards 
 myself, the existence and recognition of the royal 
 supremacy is the only difficulty and cause of doubt 
 which we are bound, if possible, to remove, as to the 
 sufficiency of the claims of the reformed church of 
 England upon our obedience and faith. In my 
 former letter, I have endeavoured to shew in what 
 that supremacy, in its exercise of the power of finally 
 determining spiritual causes involving doctrine, must 
 be acknowledged to consist : and to shew, also, the 
 extent to which the English church has accepted 
 and upheld that power. But I have not given the 
 reader any ground to suppose that it is the only dif- 
 ficulty in which, as holding what have been called 
 high-church opinions, we must own ourselves to be. 
 And the same may be said of the permitted denial 
 amongst us of the catholic doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation. I do not mean that the existence of 
 these, together or separately, would not be sufficient 
 to excite grave and anxious doubts, but that they are 
 not our only, and not, indeed, our chief difficulties. 
 To pretend that they are not grievous and weighty 
 would be absurd, now, especially, that the archbishops 
 of York and Canterbury — the two primates of the 
 church of England — have given their sanction to 
 both of them : to the exercise of the supremacy in 
 finally determining causes of doctrine, by their pre- 
 sence at the deliberations of the judicial committee, 
 and by their approval of its report to the queen in 
 council ; and to the permitted denial of the truth of 
 
10 
 
 baptismal regeneration, the one by his charge in the 
 autumn of last year, and the other, in a very marked 
 and decided and honest way, by the preface to a new 
 edition of his book on apostolical preaching. 
 
 I have one word more to add. It will be said 
 that they who now despond, and seem ready to de- 
 sert the church of England for some other commu- 
 nion, — and tliat the church of Rome, — have been 
 only waiting for some better reasons than mere pre- 
 ference of the one and mere dislike of the other. 
 It has been already said of myself, and the words 
 were listened to with very bitter pain. It has 
 been said in a general way by an eminent bishop, 
 who spoke of such persons as are without hope, or 
 who take a line of conduct inconsistent with confi- 
 dence and trust, as " seeking a pretext for quitting" 
 the English church. The occurrences of the time 
 in which we live, a pretext and unfounded cause ! 
 But let this pass. And for myself I do deny, 
 entirely, and with the indignation which every 
 man may justly feel, a charge so untrue. Had it 
 not been necessary, far would it have been from 
 any wish of mine to speak of other books which 
 I have written : but I declare solemnly that I have 
 never spoken or written any word at all, upon 
 chief doctrines of the Faith, and that I have never 
 intended to do any one thing by way of public 
 ministration or private duty, which did not, at the 
 time, seem to be, — not merely permitted and al- 
 lowed within the limits of the teaching of our church, 
 but — the one, especial, and exclusive word or thing 
 which alone she authorized and declared right to be 
 said or done. I have never been drawn to, never 
 
11 
 
 been inclined to adopt, what people call (and rightly 
 call) Roman practices, and books, and forms. Nay, 
 the time is not long past, when many, who will be the 
 first now to accuse and to condemn me, blamed the 
 cold, Anglican, view with which I wrote and argued 
 in behalf of the church of England. If I seem to 
 forsake her now, it is because I feel that what I have 
 worked for, dreamt of, prayed for, will not and may 
 not be : others may judge very differently, others 
 may still hope, still labour, still — so they speak — - 
 be patient, trustful, confident. Be it so ; and may 
 God ever be with them : these are not days in which 
 any man should venture to arraign his neighbour ; 
 and before One Alone, Who sees all hearts, must 
 we hereafter stand. 
 
 Pardon so much that has been now said of myself. 
 Let us proceed, without further preface, to the par- 
 ticular subject of this Letter : namely, the want of 
 necessary dogmatic teaching in the church of Eng- 
 land since the reformation. Great part of what I 
 am about to write, springs out of and is connected 
 with the cause of Mr. Gorham against the bishop of 
 Exeter. 
 
 Now that the appeal has been decided by the con- 
 firmation of the report of the judicial committee, 1 
 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 evan- 
 gelical party had been too lightly esteemed. During 
 the last two years, my attention had been constantly 
 
12 
 
 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 exa- 
 mination 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 pro- 
 ceeding, 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. 
 
 My object is not to discuss the especial doctrines 
 which Mr. Gorham acknowledges that he holds : 
 it is a substitution of the real question in dispute 
 between the two great parties in the church of Eng- 
 land, to attempt to heal our differences by obtain- 
 ing some kind of repudiation of his particular mode 
 of interpreting the formularies of our church. The 
 real question, — and no man who loves the truth 
 will seek to evade it, — is this, namely ; Does the 
 reformed church of England teach exclusively the 
 unconditional efficacy of infant baptism f Possibly 
 it may be correct, though I venture to doubt it, 
 that not ten persons agree with Mr. Gorham : but 
 this is a light matter : his particular opinion is not 
 the question which is now upon the point of rending 
 our church asunder, and which, — if nothing else is, 
 — must be settled either the one way or the other. 
 
 After the arguments on both sides were ended 
 before the judicial committee, we were all enabled 
 
13 
 
 calmly to consider what the result of the whole had 
 heen. For myself, I felt, with anxiety and disap- 
 pointment, that the growing impressions and doubts 
 of the preceding six or eight months had been 
 strengthened rather than relieved. And it was im- 
 possible not to own that there could be little hope 
 of further satisfaction to be gained in any way, if 
 the speech of Mr. Badeley, in behalf of the bishop, 
 had failed to give it. That speech was one, which 
 ever must remain a record of all that deep research 
 and eloquence could eifect on behalf of the church 
 of England. Speaking as a lawyer, the present 
 Lord chief justice of the court of Queen's Bench 
 declared, that he had never heard any argument 
 more learned and more able : and it is equally well 
 known, that the clergy who believe Mr. Gorham's 
 doctrine to be unsound, speak, as theologians, in 
 like manner, of Mr. Badeley 's argument, in unqua- 
 lified language of gratitude and admiration. 
 
 When Mr. Gorham was refused institution, more 
 than two years ago, I thought that it was almost 
 impossible for him to raise a reasonable 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 dis- 
 ciples 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. 
 
14 
 
 Let me not be misunderstood in what I am now 
 saying. I mean it to apply only to the earlier refor- 
 mation : for it has been said, and in some sense truly 
 said, that the English reformation did in fact take 
 place, — rather, I suppose, it arrived at its mature 
 and, completed form, — so far as we are concerned, 
 in 1G62, and not in 1552, or 1562. Therefore, in 
 all that regards baptism, it is to be carefully remem- 
 bered on the one hand, that the opinions of the 
 bishops at the Savoy conference are not merely 
 equal with but of greater weight than any opinions 
 of the reformers of Edward's days, or queen Eliza- 
 beth's : on the other hand, there is the fact that the 
 39 articles were framed in 1552 and 1562. 
 
 It is small disgrace perhaps even now, — certainly 
 a few years ago it was so, — not to be well read in 
 the almost forgotten books of Grindal, Fulke, Whit- 
 gift, Jewell, and their contemporaries. To be ac- 
 quainted with Hooker s work of the ecclesiastical 
 polity had become rather a fashion : but, with that 
 solitary exception, we must acknowledge that the 
 divines of the days of queen Elizabeth were little 
 read and little valued, by the party calling itself 
 Anglo-catholic and high-church and the like. Still, 
 from circumstances, 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 commonly do of the 
 theoloo-ical books of the sixteenth and seventeenth 
 centuries. 
 
 This knowledge must have been loose and inde- 
 
15 
 
 finite enough, for 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 particulars, and of the book of homilies, 
 and of the 39 articles — held and taught doctrines 
 inconsistent (I write advisedly) with the true doc- 
 trine of baptism.* 
 
 There are two causes to which such a misappre- 
 hension of fact, so far as regards myself, may per- 
 haps 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 impres- 
 sion that they must have been sound divines, be- 
 cause they were the chief leaders and earliest 
 children of the reformation ; 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 
 
 *■ In order to prevent misapprehension, it must be explained 
 that I mean their doctrines of sacramental grace, and justification, 
 and not of predestination ; which, as all admit, was largely, nay, 
 almost universally held, by the Elizabethan divines, in a very rigid 
 and definite sense. Predestination, as taught by S. Augustine, is 
 not, alone, inconsistent with the acceptance of the truth of the un- 
 conditional regeneration of all infants in holy baptism. 
 
16 
 
 to lead to false conclusions, because whilst it pro- 
 fesses to give fairly the judgement of those ap- 
 pealed to in the matter under dispute, it often does 
 not, and in some cases cannot, in reality do any- 
 thinor of the kind. There are more doctrines than 
 one, — for example, this doctrine of holy baptism — 
 upon which writers may make very strong and 
 catholic statements in one book, or in one part of 
 a book, which are all explained away, or in various 
 degrees qualified, or even, in truth, contradicted, 
 by different statements in the same or in other books. 
 Catense are useful enough, within their proper and 
 reasonable limits ; they create difficulties sometimes, 
 whilst they will very seldom suffice to establish a con- 
 clusion : employed, however, as they have been, of 
 late years, by our own party, they are not merely a 
 packed jury, but a jury permitted to speak only 
 half their mind. In short, the value of catenae can 
 be only justly estimated, where there is also a living 
 Church, ever prepared to speak with an infallible 
 voice. 
 
 Nor is it to be forgotten that whilst many extracts 
 from the Elizabethan books were produced, explain- 
 ing 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 ; it is quite ano- 
 ther that they should be enjoined to teach it, as being 
 certainly and exclusively true. There are some parts 
 
17 
 
 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 ra- 
 ther 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 ne- 
 cessarily to be understood and accepted, by all Eng- 
 lish 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 be- 
 tween the articles of 1536, and the articles of 1552 
 and 1562, seemed to me to be forcible and correct.* 
 
 * The proof derived from a comparison of the articles has been 
 very ably put by Mr. Dodsworth, in the appendix to his late 
 sermon, A house divided against itself. He says : — 
 
 '' I think it only fair to state, that having had the advantage of 
 hearing the arguments in the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council in the late case, my opinion of what was really intended 
 to be the force of the Article XXII. has undergone considerable 
 modification. I cannot noiv feel certain that the Reformers did 
 not intend to leave Baptismal Regeneration an open question. In 
 the very able argument of the Counsel for the a])pellant, INIr. 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 It supplied a cause of one effect of the alteration of 
 the documents and formularies of the English church, 
 which was so visibly and frequently to be observed, 
 
 Turner, it was urged with great effect, that upon a comparison of 
 the Articles of 1336 with those of 1552, it might be fairly in- 
 ferred that the latter were intended to open the question which 
 was closed by the former. These Articles are as follow : — 
 
 1536. 
 
 Article on Baptism, 
 " Baptism is offered unto all 
 men, as well infants as such as 
 have the use of reason, that by 
 baptism they shall have remis- 
 sion of sins, and the grace and 
 favour of God, according to the 
 saying of S. John, ' Nisi quis re- 
 natus fuerit ex aqua et Spiriiu 
 Sancto, non potest intrare in 
 regnum ccelorum ; ' that the pro- 
 mise of grace and everlasting 
 life, which promise is adjoined 
 unto this Sacrament of Baptism, 
 pertaineth not only to such as 
 have the use of reason, but also 
 unto infants, innocents, and chil- 
 dren ; and that they ought there- 
 fore, and needs must, be bap- 
 tized. And that by the sacrament 
 they do also obtain remission of 
 their sin, the grace and favour of 
 God, and be made thereby the 
 very sons and children of God; 
 insomuch that infants and chil- 
 dren dying in their infancy, shall 
 undoubtedly be saved thereby, 
 and else not." — Collier, II. fol. 
 123. 
 
 Now it certainly does seem unaccountable, that if the Reformers 
 of 1552 intended to assert the same doctrine as that enunciated in 
 
 1552. 
 
 Article on Baptism. 
 (The same as now in force.) 
 " Baptism is not only a sign 
 of profession, and mark of dif- 
 ference, whereby Christian men 
 are discerned from others that 
 be not christened, but it is also 
 a sign of regeneration or new 
 birth, whereby, as by an instru- 
 ment, they that receive baptism 
 rightly are grafted into the 
 Church ; the promises of for- 
 giveness of sin, and of our adop- 
 tion to be the sons of God by 
 the Holy Ghost, are visibly 
 signed and sealed; faith is con- 
 firmed, and grace increased by 
 virtue of prayer unto God. 
 The baptism of young children 
 is in any wise to be retained in 
 the Church, as most agreeable 
 with the institution of Christ." 
 
19 
 
 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 
 
 the Articles of 1536, they should have used language (to say the 
 least) so much more open to dubious interpretation. I do not say 
 that this is absolutely decisive on the point ; but it furnishes an 
 argument not easily answered. Having this precise language be- 
 fore them, why did they not use it ? Had they no reason for 
 adopting more ambiguous terms ? One cannot say that it is other 
 than a probable conclusion, that they so worded the Article of 
 1552 as to include the subscription of those who would have re- 
 fused to subscribe the definite language of the previous Article. I 
 cannot but think that great weight was justly given to this consi- 
 deration, in the very able judgment which was delivered. This view 
 of the matter will be confirmed by comparing another article with 
 the devotional formularies. Thus, to place in the same juxta-posi- 
 tion the Articles of 1536 and 1562, on the holy Eucharist. 
 
 1536. 
 
 The Sacrament of the Altar. 
 " As touching the Sacrament 
 of the Altar, we will that all 
 Bishops and Preachers shall in- 
 struct and teach our people com- 
 mitted by us to their spiritual 
 charge, that they ought and must 
 constantly believe that under the 
 form and figure of Bread and 
 Wine, which we there presently 
 do see and perceive by outward 
 senses is very substantially and 
 really contained and compre- 
 hended the very selfsame Body 
 and Blood of our Saviour Je- 
 sus Christ, which was born of 
 the Virgin Mary, and suffered 
 upon the Cross for our redemp- 
 tion. And that under the same 
 form and figure of Bread and 
 Wine, the very selfsame Body 
 
 1562. 
 XXVIII. Of the Lord's 
 
 Slipper. 
 " The Supper of the Lord is 
 not only a sign of the love that 
 Christians ought to have among 
 themselves one to another ; but 
 rather is a Sacrament of our Re- 
 demption by Christ's death: 
 insomuch that to such as rightly, 
 worthily, and with faith, receive 
 the same, the Bread which we 
 break is a partaking of the Body 
 of Christ; and likewise the 
 Cup of Blessing is a partaking 
 of the Blood of Christ. 
 
 " Transubstantiation (or the 
 change of the substance of Bread 
 and Wine) in the Supper of the 
 Lord, cannot be proved by holy 
 Writ ; but is repugnant to the 
 plain words of Scripture, over- 
 
20 
 
 following sentence of the judgment delivered by 
 the judicial committee: they say; " — it appears 
 that opinions, which w^e 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 [42 and 
 39] articles were first established. We do not affirm 
 that the doctrines and opinions of Jew^ell, Hooker, 
 Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, Pearson, Carlton, 
 Prideaux, and many others, can be received as evi- 
 dence 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." 
 
 and Blood of Christ is corpo- throweth the nature of a Sacra- 
 rally, really, and in every sub- ment, and has given occasion to 
 stance exhibited, distributed, and many superstitions, 
 received of all them which re- "The Body of Christ is 
 ceive the said Sacrament: and given, taken and eaten, in the 
 therefore the said Sacrament is Supper, only after an heavenly 
 to be used with all due reverence and spiritual manner. And the 
 and honour, and that every man means whereby the Body of 
 ought first to prove and examine Christ is received and eaten 
 himself, and religiously to try in the Supper is Faith, 
 and search his own conscience " The Sacrament of the Lord's 
 before he shall receive the same, Supper was not by Christ's or- 
 according to the saying of S. dinance reserved, carried about, 
 Paul, * Quisquis ederit panem lifted up, or worshipped." 
 hunc,* &c." 
 
 Now it will be seen that there is here very much the same differ- 
 ence as in the Articles on Baptism. The Article of lo3t) i.-? plain, 
 dogmatic and unmistakable. The Article of 1562, ambiguous, he- 
 sitating, indefinite, and to a great extent negative."' 
 
21 
 
 Speak of it as one would, or regarded under 
 every possible aspect, the proved opinions of the 
 Elizabethan writers pressed upon my mind. The 
 fact, to so great an extent, was unexpected, but it 
 was to be considered, and to be dealt with, whether 
 it were important or unimportant. It shewed, at 
 least, that there were, in that day, many individuals 
 of greater or less learning, of higher or lower station, 
 who did not believe that they were bound by the 
 apparently plain language about regeneration in our 
 ritual, to hold and to teach the unconditional efficacy 
 of the sacrament of holy baptism in the case of all 
 infants. Nor was it only the opinion of private in- 
 dividuals. And I am now about to mention a re- 
 markable fact, which was not brought forward in 
 the late arguments. 
 
 The point at issue was, whether it is necessarily 
 inconsistent with the assertions of certain parts of 
 our formularies to deny the unconditional efficacy 
 of infant baptism : or, in other words, whether the 
 doctrine, that some infants do not receive in baptism 
 the saving grace of regeneration, is excluded by the 
 terms of our ritual and catechism. 
 
 A short time ago, it happened that I was obliged, 
 for another purpose, to refer to the Dublin articles 
 of 1615. In that year, the prayer-book and cate- 
 chism of the reformed Irish church w^ere identical, 
 in all that relates to the sacrament of baptism, with 
 our own. There were the same sentences, " Seeino- 
 now, that this child is regenerate ;" and ''We yield 
 Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it 
 hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant ;" and 
 others which have been so often quoted. Yet the 
 
22 
 
 whole body of the clergy of the established church 
 of Ireland, assembled in convocation, did not hesi- 
 tate to declare, notwithstanding, as follows : '^ A true 
 lively justifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of 
 God, is not extinguished, nor vanisheth away in tJie 
 regenerate, either finally or totally." I do assert 
 that such a statement, whether it may or may not 
 seem to be against the meaning of the words of the 
 public offices of the Church, is utterly and distinctly 
 irreconcilable with the catholic truth of the uncon- 
 ditional efficacy of infant baptism. Nor is it to be 
 answered that this place in the Irish articles means 
 nothing more than the famous Lambeth articles. 
 For although the Lambeth articles were incorpo- 
 rated into those agreed upon at Dublin, and espe- 
 cially marked by references in the margin of the 
 editions printed at the time, yet, in this instance, 
 there is a material alteration ; the Lambeth form 
 says, "non evanescit in electis ;'' the Dublin arti- 
 cles change this into " the regenerate.'''' 
 
 To put this argument in another shape : and it 
 may be best to do so, in the way in which it affected 
 and influenced myself. Some months ago, the lan- 
 guage of our ritual seemed to be an unanswerable 
 evidence of the intention of the reformed Enjxlish 
 church to teach, exclusively, the truth of regenera- 
 tion in holy baptism. There, were the plain words 
 and terms of the baptismal office; and although 
 the articles alone would not prove the doctrine, yet 
 it scarcely appeared requisite that any reference 
 even should be made to it, with a devotional service 
 so remarkably clear and decided. But, in op2)osi- 
 tion to such a conclusion, the Irish articles present 
 
23 
 
 an insurmountable obstacle : and the strongest of 
 all the reasons, which the high -church party in our 
 Church had produced, began to fade away and 
 vanish like a dream. Another established Church, 
 in full communion with our own, using our ritual, 
 unaltered, unmutilated, had obliged its clergy to 
 subscribe and to accept articles of faith, *' for the 
 avoiding of diversities of opinions, and the esta- 
 blishing of consent touching true religion," not 
 merely making doubtful the catholic doctrine of 
 regeneration in baptism, but positively and undeni- 
 ably contradicting it. 
 
 In short it became manifest, that something be- 
 sides and beyond plain words in the public ritual 
 and offices w as necessary to the confirmation of dis- 
 puted truths of the Christian Faith. Before such 
 truths had been denied or doubted, the case would 
 have been very different. A controversy once 
 opened, upon essential articles of the creeds,* and 
 
 * It is not easy to see, how it may be denied that the controversy 
 upon baptismal regeneration had not been opened, before, and at the 
 very period of, the convocations of 1552 and 1562. 
 
 One or two extracts will suffice to prove the fact : nay, more, the 
 advocacy already of the particular form of doctrine insisted on by 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Tyndal says : " The inward baptisme of the soule, is the baptisme 
 that onely auayleth in the sight of God, the new generation, — the 
 earnest of everlastyng lyfe, and title whereby we chalenge our in- 
 heritance." This inward baptism having been just before declared 
 to be, " to loue the law, and to long for the life to come." Expos, 
 of 5th ch. ofS. Matt. prol. p. 187. 
 
 So, also, John Frith : " This outward signe [baptism] doth nei- 
 ther geue us the spirite of God, neither yet grace that is the favour 
 of God. Baptisme bringeth not grace, but doth testifie unto the 
 congregation that he which is baptised had such grace geuen hym 
 before ; it is a sacrament, that is, a signe of an holy thyng, euen a 
 
24 
 
 formally brought before the notice of the Church, 
 cannot be left to be settled by an interpretation of 
 terms used in very ancient public services, but 
 must be decided either the one way or the other, or 
 evidently left open, in some concurrent formulary 
 of equal authority. Thus, whilst (for example) the 
 Articles of 153G, and the King's book, and the Bi- 
 shops' book, were in force, there could be no 
 question made about the doctrine of the English 
 church, regarding baptism. But a very different 
 state of things was produced by the alterations and 
 omissions made first in 1552, and continued in the 
 39 articles of 1562. 
 
 Thus w^e have the same ritual of the administra- 
 tion of holy baptism — the same, I mean, in points 
 which bear upon the doctrine of regeneration — 
 under three several aspects. Namely ; in connexion 
 with another formulary distinctly and exclusively 
 teaching the whole Catholic truth, as did the ar- 
 ticles of 1536; or, with a formulary which left it 
 
 token of the grace and free mei^cy whiche was before geuen hym." 
 A declaration qfhaptisme.p. 91. 
 
 Soon after, bishop Hooper: "Baptism sanctifieth no man: — 
 external baptism is but an inauguration or external consecration of 
 those, that first believed and were cleansed of their sin." Again, 
 he says, that the interrogatories and answers of sponsors in public 
 and solemn baptism, show that baptism is but " the confirmation of 
 Christ's promises, which be in the person that receiveth the sacra- 
 ment before, or else these external signs availeth nothing:" those 
 answers being made, " then is the child christened in the name of 
 God. The which fact doth openly confirm the remission of sin, 
 received before by faith.'* A declaration of Christ and His Office- 
 ch. 10. 
 
 Far be it from me to say, that doctrine such as this has been ac- 
 cepted by the English church : but that, as a fiict, the baptismal 
 controversy had been plainly opened, by persons of name and au- 
 thoritv, before the convocation of IoG2. 
 
25 
 
 open to be received or not, as do the 39 articles of 
 1 562 ; or, with a formulary which denied and re- 
 jected it, as do the Dublin articles of 1615. 
 
 But it is not only on the doctrine of the sacra- 
 ment of baptism, that the articles of the reformed 
 Irish church claim oar especial attention ; and I 
 shall therefore devote to them another page or two. 
 That which I must now write will bring on me 
 probably much reproof from more quarters than one : 
 it will be written also with reluctance and sorrow 
 by myself. Still, these are days in which we must 
 endeavour to find out the truth, and the truth alone. 
 
 These Dublin articles of 1615 have never been 
 formally repudiated by the church of Ireland : and 
 in statements not contrarient, are now, equally with 
 the English 39 (agreed to and approved of about 
 twenty years later), the "standard of doctrine" in 
 that communion. They contain other heretical 
 statements. What are we to think, therefore, of 
 her position? — Yet, it will be said, the Churches 
 are United ; and they must stand or fall together. 
 
 I am quite aware that there are technical objec- 
 tions to the fact itself of such an Union between the 
 two Churches ; but whatever the force of them may 
 be, our connexion with the established Irish church, 
 and our recognition of her in all acts of outward 
 intercourse and communion, is a very fearful ques- 
 tion.* An avowed and distinct denial of the Ca- 
 
 * There are few priests of the church of England now living, 
 who did not acknowledge this Union at an hour, the most solemn, 
 perhaps, of their whole lives : " Do you think in your heart, that 
 you he truly called, according to the will of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, and the order of this United Church of England and Ire- 
 land, to the order and ministry of Priesthood ? Answer. I think it.'' 
 
26 
 
 tholic doctrine of the eucharist and of baptism 
 would be sufficient to prove an individual to be in 
 heresy : and suck a denial has been synodically 
 agreed to by the church of Ireland. And I must 
 say, that it is not easy to understand why any 
 one person should be condemned for reasons which 
 we are not equally prepared to press to a like con- 
 clusion, in the case of a reformed Church. Perhaps 
 some Irish clergyman will be able to defend his 
 Church from this charge which I have brought de- 
 liberately against her. Let him however remember, 
 that he must either prove the formal renunciation 
 of the articles of 1615 : or show that the heretical 
 doctrine of those articles has been plainly corrected 
 by some clear statement to the contrary, contained 
 in the 39 articles, since approved of. And we, on 
 our side, shall have to show, how it was that, at the 
 time of their publication, no sign or mark of even 
 disapprobation was made by the church of England. 
 As to the authority of the Dublin articles, we 
 cannot have better evidence than that of Dr. Ber- 
 nard, the biographer of archbishop Usher : " Now 
 whereas" he says *'some have doubted whether they 
 were fully established as the articles of Ireland ; I 
 can testify that I have heard him [Usher] say, that 
 in the forenamed year, 1615, he saw them signed 
 by archbishop Jones, then lord chancellor of Ire- 
 land, and speaker of the house of bishops in convo- 
 cation ; signed by the prolocutor of the house of the 
 clergy in their names ; and also signed by the then 
 lord deputy Chichester, by order from King James, 
 in his name. And" he proceeds " whereas some 
 have rashly affirmed that they were repealed by act 
 
27 
 
 of parliament, anno 1634, or recalled by a decree 
 of the synod then, needs no further confutation than 
 the sight of either." * 
 
 The canon by which in 1634 the English arti- 
 cles were approved, proves distinctly that no inten- 
 tion existed of annulling the previous articles of 
 1615. The object aimed at was to shew, that ac- 
 cording to the judgment of the church of Ireland, 
 the two Churches agreed in doctrine : and in or- 
 der to this, our 39 articles were admitted to be 
 true. And any person would be very acute, as it 
 seems, who could discover any material contradic- 
 tion between the two confessions of faith : the only 
 difference — and a considerable difference — being, 
 that the Irish articles contained in full, plain, and 
 express terms, a legitimate exposition — it may be, 
 one of many possible expositions — of the doctrine 
 of the English articles. 
 
 o 
 
 On so important a question, it is w^ell that we 
 should quote the canon : "1. For the manifestation 
 of our agreement with the church of England in 
 the confession of the same Christian faith, and the 
 doctrine of the sacraments ; we do receive and ap- 
 prove the book of articles of religion, agreed upon 
 by the archbishops, and bishops, and the whole 
 clergy in the convocation holden at London in the 
 year of our Lord, 1562, for the avoiding of diver- 
 sities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent 
 touching true religion. And therefore if any here- 
 after shall affirm, that any of those articles are in 
 any part superstitious and erroneous, or such as he 
 
 * cit. Mant's hist, of the Irish Church, vol 1. p. 388. 
 
28 
 
 may not with a good conscience subscribe unto, let 
 him be excommunicated, and not absolved before 
 he make a public recantation of his error." 
 
 It has been held, says bishop Mant, that the 
 English articles were only received in the sense oJ\ 
 and as they might he expounded by, those of Ire- 
 land. And, as they certainly are not contradictory, 
 this seems to be the just and obvious state of the 
 matter. But archbishop Usher, a contemporary, is 
 the best possible witness we can have, on such a 
 question. In a letter to a friend, giving, a few 
 months afterwards, an account of the late convoca- 
 tion, he observes, " The articles of religion, agreed 
 upon in our former synod, anno 1G15, we let stand 
 as they did before. But, for the manifesting of our 
 agreement with the church of England, we have re- 
 ceived and approved your articles also, as you may 
 see in the first of our canons." * 
 
 Could the Church Catholic, or, might any Church 
 claiming to be a part of the Church Catholic, speak 
 of being " United" with, or admit to communion, 
 the reformed Irish church, unless a distinct and 
 formal renunciation of the several heresies contained 
 in the Dublin articles of 1615, had previously and 
 solemnly been made ? f 
 
 • cit. Hist, of Irish Church, p. 493. 
 
 -f- The case also of the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, 
 sprung from ourselves, and with which we are ( I believe) in full 
 communion, might also be brought forward, if it were requisite. 
 But her diOerenccs chiefly consist in declining to insist on certain 
 things, generally supposed to be of very great importance in the 
 Catholic Church, rather than in the plain and avowed acce}itance 
 of error. However, as a fact, we readily have given our support 
 
29 
 
 But as these articles may not be very well known 
 to some of my readers, it may be right to extract one 
 or two of the statements which they contain. " By 
 His eternal counsel God hath predestinated some 
 unto life, and reprobated some unto death : of both 
 w^hich there is a certain number, known only to 
 God, which can neither be encreased nor dimi- 
 nished." " None can come unto Christ, unless it 
 be given unto him, and unless the Father draw him. 
 And all men are not so drawn by the Father, that 
 they may come unto the Son : neither is there such 
 a sufficient measur(f of grace vouchsafed unto every 
 man, whereby he is enabled to come unto everlasting 
 life. All God's elect are in their time inseparably 
 united unto Christ, by the effectual and vital in- 
 fluence of the Holy Ghost, derived from Him, as 
 from the Head, unto every true member of His mys- 
 tical body. And being thus made one with Christy 
 they are truly regenerated^ and made partakers of 
 Him and all His benefits." In the whole of a very 
 long article of justification, not one syllable is said 
 of holy baptism : it begins, '' We are accounted 
 righteous before God, only for the merit of our 
 Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, applied by faith : 
 and not for our own works or merits. And this 
 righteousness which we so receive of God's mercy, 
 and Christ's merits, embraced by faith, is taken, ac- 
 
 and fellowship to a Protestant Church, which does not oblige the 
 acceptance of all the articles of the Apostles' creed; which does 
 not read in her public service, at any time, the Athanasian creed ; 
 and which does not require her bishops to give in words to her 
 priests at their ordination the power of remitting and of retaining 
 sins ; in other words, the power of absolution. 
 
30 
 
 cepted, and allowed of God, for our perfect and full 
 justification." And it ends ; "By justifying faith 
 we understand not only the common belief of the 
 articles of Christian religion, and a persuasion of 
 the truth of God's word in general ; but also a par- 
 ticular application of the gracious promises of the 
 Gospel, to the comfort of our own souls ; whereby 
 we lay hold on Christ, with all His benefits, having 
 an earnest trust and confidence in God, that He 
 will be merciful unto us for his only Son's sake. So 
 that a true believer may be certain, by the assurance 
 of faith, of the forgiveness of his sins, and of his 
 everlasting salvation by Christ. A true lively jus- 
 tifying faith, and the sanctifying Spirit of God, is 
 not extinguished, nor vanisheth away in the rege- 
 nerate, either finally or totally." *' The Catholic 
 Church, (out of which there is no salvation,) — con- 
 sisteth of all those, and those alone, which are elec- 
 ted by God unto salvation, and regenerated by the 
 power of His Spirit." '^ God hath given power to 
 His ministers, not simply to forgive sins, (which 
 prerogative He hath reserved only to Himself) but 
 in His name to declare and pronounce unto such as 
 truly repent and unfeignedly believe His holy Gos- 
 pel, the absolution and forgiveness of sins." *' Bap- 
 tism is not only an outward sign of our profession, 
 — but much more a sacrament of our admission into 
 the Church, sealing unto us our new birth (and con- 
 sequently our justification, adoption, and sanctifica- 
 tion) by the communion which we have with Jesus 
 Christ." " The Lord's supper is not only a sign of 
 mutual love — but much more a sacrament of our 
 preservation in the Church, scaling unto us our s})i- 
 
31 
 
 ritual nourishment and continual growth in Christ . 
 — In the outward part of the Holy Communion, the 
 Body and Blood of Christ is in a most lively manner 
 represented ; [the italics are in the original ;] being 
 no otherwise present with the visible elements, than 
 things signified and sealed are present with the signs 
 and seals, that is to say, symbolically and rela- 
 tively." 
 
 I now ask for the reader's grave consideration of 
 the position of the established Church of Ireland ; 
 and of the effect, as regards ourselves, of our long 
 continued fellowship and communion with her. 
 Perhaps we are not bound to a necessity of commu- 
 nion with the Irish church ; and the matter which 
 we now have to discuss and to determine, is far too 
 solemn to allow of our passing lightly over any 
 particular connected with it, because of probable 
 consequences. If the reformed clturch of Ireland 
 he not in heresy, according to the judgment of the 
 reformed church of England, let it he shoicn.^ 
 
 We will now pass on to the consideration of the 
 
 * A week or two ago, a series of resolutions was published 
 signed by some whose names are amongst the most eminent of the 
 members of our Church. 1 quote three of them : 
 
 " 5. That, inasmuch as the faith is one, and rests upon one 
 principle of authority, the conscious, deliberate, and wilful aban- 
 donment of the essential meaning of an article of the Creed de- 
 stroys the Divine foundation upon which alone the entire faith is 
 propounded by the Church. 
 
 " 6. That any portion of tlie Church which does so abandon the 
 essential meaning of an article of the Creed forfeits not only the 
 Catholic doctrine in that article, but also the office and authority to 
 witness and teach as a member of the universal Church. 
 
32 
 
 subject to which I particularly proposed to direct 
 vour thouofhts. 
 
 In former years, it never happened to cross my 
 mind, that the foundations of the reformed church 
 of England were less strong or real than the high- 
 church or Anglican party declared them to be. As a 
 system or theory, in its position with respect either 
 to the church of Rome, or to the countless forms 
 and communities of dissent, the modern church of 
 England seemed to be sufficiently according to the 
 words of Holy Scripture and to the traditions of 
 the ancient Church. 
 
 If, at any time, in endeavouring to establish the 
 truth of some important doctrine, difficulties seemed 
 to arise from various statements in her formularies, 
 these were put aside upon the supposition, that the 
 English church could not mean to deny or dispute 
 the Catholic faith, being herself unquestionably a 
 part of the Church Catholic. And, upon some 
 doctrines, further confirmation was furnished, not 
 by the partial support of one, or two, or three of 
 her earlier writers, — such as Andrewes, or Laud, 
 or Mountagu — but, by the concurrent testimony 
 of an overwhelming majority, including Ridley, 
 and Hooker, and Whitgift ; Bramhall, Bull, Pear- 
 son, and such as they were. 
 
 " 7. That by such conscious, wilful, and deliberate act such por- 
 tion of the Church becomes formally separated from the Catholic 
 body, and can no longer assure to its members the grace of the 
 sacraments and the remission of sins." 
 
 Now I fhmand of those who subscribed these resolutions suffi- 
 cient proof how far, and in what way, they do not apply to, and 
 are not fatal to the claim of, the reformed Irish Church. 
 
33 
 
 But the last twelvemonths has changed this much 
 and materially. The case of Mr. Gorham, with its 
 immediate and, if we may say so, its personal points, 
 as well as the very many collateral difficulties con- 
 nected with and springing out of it, forced one to en- 
 quire somewhat more accurately than before, into 
 the exact facts and history and consequences of the 
 reformation. It forced one to prove by somewhat 
 sterner and, it may be, surer tests, the sufficiency 
 of the claims advanced by the church of England. 
 
 It scarcely admits of enquiry, whether it be ne- 
 cessary that the Church Catholic, or that every 
 religious body professing to be a portion of the 
 Church Catholic, should lay down dogmatically, as 
 truths, certain statements upon great Christian 
 doctrines. I pass by (for the sake of argument) the 
 two doctrines of the mystery of the Ever-Blessed 
 Trinity,^ and of holy baptism. The one is of too 
 sacred and aweful a character to be spoken of, when 
 it may be avoided ; the other (we will say) has just 
 been determined, to some extent, by the Civil power 
 in its appellate jurisdiction. f 
 
 Let us suppose then that w^e have these two doc- 
 trines clearly, fully, and distinctly taught by the 
 church of England. What are the other doctrines 
 which she teaches with like distinctness ? 
 
 What is her especial doctrine, for example, upon 
 
 * See my First Letter, note p. 31. 
 
 f This sentence was written many weeks ago, before any ru- 
 mour even of the nature of the decision of the judicial committee 
 was abroad, and upon the supposition that it would be distinctly in 
 confirmation of the judgment of the court below. I leave it unal- 
 tered, to be corrected as the reader may himself think fit. 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 the number of the Sacraments,* upon the blessings 
 and spiritual graces which the sacraments convey, 
 upon the distinctions between one sacrament and 
 another, upon the necessity or advisableness of some 
 
 * We are accustomed to speak in rather glowing terms of the 
 dogmatic character of the common prayer book, and of the cate- 
 chism in particular. Few things have struck me more — and for 
 some time past — than the manner in which the first question and 
 answer is made in the second part of the catechism. The ques- 
 tion is; " How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in His 
 Church ?" I suppose the plain answer would be, two ; seven ; ten; 
 or twenty, as the case may be. For, let it be carefully observed 
 that the question is not concerning sacraments necessary to salva- 
 tion. And the answer is ; " Two only, as generally necessary to 
 salvation, that is to say. Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord." 
 Now I do assert, that such an answer evades — neither more nor 
 less — evades the question : it is, strictly, no answer at all: it is 
 an answer for which a witness would be justly rebuked in a court 
 of law. However, the catechism (as if glad to escape from a 
 difficulty) accepts the answer, and asks, " What meanest thou by 
 this word [as used by you] Sacrament?" I say, "as used by 
 you," because concerning a sacrament in the catholic and true 
 sense, it is incomplete to say " I mean an outward and visible 
 sign, etc." The more correct word would, in that case, be sensible 
 sign. But the word visible may perhaps be right, when referred to 
 two sacraments, " as generally necessary to salvation." 
 
 I am writing, it must be recollected, for those, who make much of 
 the catechism. Therefore I would suggest two other places of this 
 same second part. Namely ; the following question and answer : 
 " Why then arc infants baptized, when by reason of their tender 
 age they cannot perform [repentance and faith] ? Because they 
 promise them both by their sureties ; which promise, when they 
 come to age, themselves are bound to perform." What are we to 
 understand by this ? And another answer : teaching truth, but 
 not excluding error ; " For the continual remembrance of the sacri- 
 fice of the death of Christ, &c." I allude in this last to the equi- 
 vocal meaning of the term "remembrance:" excellent and suffi- 
 cient in its catholic sense, as so applied to the blessed Eucharis^t : 
 but most miserably deficient indeed if it is, as certainly (I suppose) 
 
35 
 
 of them, or upon their virtue, powers, and efficacy ? 
 and do they contain, as well as convey, grace ? 
 Again, take the sacrament of the blessed Eucharist : 
 what is the doctrine which the church of Eng- 
 land openly, plainly, and distinctly, teaches about 
 it ? does she tell us that it is a sacrifice ? does 
 she tell us that it is not a sacrifice ? if a sacrifice, 
 what is the Thing sacrificed? and, is it or is it not 
 propitiatory for the living, or for the dead, or for 
 neither ? are the elements after the words of conse- 
 
 it may be, understood in any other and a lower sense. And the 
 difficulty is increased when we recollect, that this word " remem- 
 brance" is to be carried on to the second clause of the sentence, 
 " and of the benefits which we receive thereby." It will explain 
 my meaning to quote the following passage from a sermon lately 
 published on the sacrament of the Eucharist, 
 
 " Here I would warn you against a hasty and, therefore, an 
 inadequate understanding of the answer in the Church catechism, 
 where we are told that the sacrament of the liord's Supper was 
 ordained, ' for the continual Remembrance of the Sacrifice of the 
 Death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive Thereby.' 
 
 "In this answer the term ' Remembrance' does not only mean, 
 no, nor chiefly mean, what I have first spoken of as ' commemora- 
 tion.' Which last word I have used as referring to ourselves; 
 that is; we commemorate: we solemnly recall to our recollec- 
 tions : we remember. But the ' Remembrance' intended by the 
 catechism must, in order that that formulary should not fall short 
 of the full doctrine of the Catholic Church, — for, so to fall short 
 would in this case be heresy, — must, I say, be understood in its 
 perfect and complete theological sense. In which sense the term 
 refers, in a lower way certainly to ourselves, but in a far higher 
 and more correct way, to the Almighty Father : — putting Him, as 
 it were, solemnly in remembrance of the Passion and the Atonement 
 of the Son, and of the Sacrifice of His Death : bringing before 
 Him the appointed Memorials, the Bread and Wine made to be 
 the Body and the Blood." — Sermons preached at S, Mary Church, 
 2nd edit. p. 39. 
 
3(i 
 
 cration bread and wine, as they were before, or are 
 they the Body and the Blood of our Lord ? are they 
 both? if only one, which of these are they? ought 
 we, or ought we not, to pay outward honour and 
 reverence to our Blessed Lord, Present upon His 
 altar, after the consecration? Again; take Confirma- 
 tion : is this a sacrament, or is it not ? if a sacrament, 
 what is meant by saying that it has not the like nature 
 of a sacrament with baptism and the Lord's supper ? 
 is it a ceremony in which the candidates confirm 
 the vows and promises made for them by others, 
 long before, when they were baptized, or is it an 
 ordinance in which they receive also after a sacra- 
 mental and mysterious manner, by the laying on 
 of hands, the gift of the Holy Ghost, never in like 
 manner to be again given or received ? and is this 
 last the chief, or not the chief, end and object of 
 confirmation? Take, again, Extreme Unction : is 
 this, or is it not, lawful to be received and adminis- 
 tered in the church of England?^ if it be, what 
 are its effects ? if it be not, why is it not ? is ex- 
 treme unction ^' a corrupt following of the apos- 
 tles," or not? if it be, in what sense is it, and 
 
 * 1 am aware that an argument may be raised on the omission 
 of the ancient office from our revised ritual: and that a clergyman 
 might be punishable for administering Extreme Unction, under his 
 subscription to the 36th canon, in which he promises to use the 
 rites and ceremonies and sacraments, as contained in the Prayer 
 Book, " and none other." 15ut this prohibition would include 
 equally all modern offices of consecration of churches : for there is 
 not one law for bishops and another for priests. And if so, a 
 prelate (now living) would be right, after all, when he mocked at 
 any form of consecration, and walked irreverently into the church, 
 saying, " It is merely a signing of papers." 
 
37 
 
 confirmation or orders not equally so ? Again, take 
 Matrimony : what is the especial teaching of the 
 church of England about this ? Again, Orders : 
 is episcopacy essential or not essential to the exis- 
 tence of a Church? can the blessed Eucharist be 
 given in a religious body — for example, in the 
 kirk of Scotland — where there is no pretence of 
 episcopal ordination, in fact, where there are no 
 priests ? is there a " character " given, or not 
 given, in ordination? does a priest at his ordina- 
 tion receive power to remit and to retain sins ? 
 and if so, in what sense ? Once more, before we 
 pass from sacraments, or what the Catholic Church 
 for 1 000 years called sacraments, take Absolution : 
 what does the church of England teach about this ? 
 is it a sacrament or is it not ? is it, or is it not, an 
 ordinance appointed by our Lord to be for ever 
 continued and used in His Church, in order that 
 penitents might through it obtain remission of 
 mortal sin? is previous auricular confession — full, 
 detailed, and particular — necessary, or not neces- 
 sary, to the grace of forgiveness by means of priestly 
 absolution ? do the general public absolutions, pro- 
 nounced in the daily prayers, convey remission of 
 mortal sin, or do they not ? are pardons and penance 
 fond things vainly invented, rather repugnant to 
 the word of God than otherwise, and grown of the 
 ''corrupt following of the apostles"? and, if pardons 
 and penance be not so, in what sense and within 
 what limits are they agreeable with God's word and 
 with the tradition of the apostles ? in short, is abso- 
 lution a power to forgive and to retain sins, inherent 
 in and to be exercised by all priests, or is it a mere 
 
38 
 
 word loosely and improperly retained in some of 
 the formularies of the church of England, signi- 
 fying nothing ? if the first of these be too high a 
 way of speaking of it, and the second be too low 
 and mean, what else is it ? 
 
 , This much, then, upon the sacraments. I shall 
 trouble you with one or two more questions only : 
 for, surely, enough has been already said to startle 
 some, who have not hitherto thought upon the 
 matter ; but, contented with the liberty of teaching 
 or believing what they please, have further taken 
 for granted that the reformed church of England 
 definitely taught the same. 
 
 For example ; praying for the dead : is this, or 
 is it not, a pious, lawful, and catholic duty ? Is 
 there, or is there not, a purgatory ? Is invocation 
 of saints an unlawful practice, contrary to the 
 written word of God ? May the sacrament of the 
 Lord's supper be reserved, carried about, lifted up, 
 and worshipped, by authority and custom of the 
 Church, although " not by Christ's ordinance ;" or 
 may It not? In what sense is Faith ^' the mean 
 whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten 
 in the Supper?" and do they only, who rightly, 
 worthily, and with faith receive the Sacrament, 
 partake of the Body and the Blood of Christ ? 
 
 No one will deny that those last also, in various 
 degrees, are grave questions, involving and connected 
 with chief truths of Christ's Holy Gospel, and in- 
 fluencing the daily life and practice of the members 
 of His Church. 
 
 And I must instance in two more particulars only. 
 
39 
 
 First, what does the church of England now teach us 
 respecting the blessed virgin Mary ? Is it w^rong 
 — I do not ask, is it right, but is it wr^ong — especi- 
 ally to invocate her, or is it not wrong ? did the 
 EnHish church at the reformation chancre at all the 
 doctrines which she taught before the year 1540, 
 regarding Mary, and if so, where are we to find the 
 statement of that change, and to what extent does it 
 reach ? ought the acceptance, to which we are 
 obliged, of the Catholic test "Mother of God" to 
 aiFect our thought and practice ; and, if so, in what 
 way ? 
 
 Second ; the doctrine of Justification : and, on 
 this, with respect to one particular alone. Namely ; 
 in what sense is it true " that we are justified by 
 faith only," and that it is a most wholesome doc- 
 trine, and very full of comfort? is it true in the 
 Roman sense ? or in the Lutheran ? or in neither ? 
 and — not delaying to enquire whether the doctrine 
 of justification by faith only, which seems to be put 
 forth in the homily " of salvation," is sound or 
 sufficient — I further ask, where are we to find " the 
 homily of j ustification ? " 
 
 I again repeat, that all these doctrines, last speci- 
 fied, are of very high importance : some of them 
 not less than the others, beforementioned, connected 
 with the sacraments : indeed, several of them are 
 also so connected. And, at any rate, upon the 
 vital and essential character of one, justification by 
 faith, protestants are agreed. Nevertheless, it is 
 quite at the option of every minister of our reformed 
 Church, to hold and to teach any one of them, 
 
40 
 
 according to either of the two or (as the case may 
 be) twenty modes in which he may choose to fancy 
 it : in other words, every one of these great and 
 solemn doctrines, is an " open question ;" a mere 
 matter of " opinion." 
 
 Has the world ever before seen, — does there now 
 exist anywhere — another example of a religious 
 sect or community which does not take one side, or 
 the other, clearly and distinctly, upon at least a 
 very large proportion of the doctrines which we have 
 just been speaking of? 
 
 If it shall appear to some, that the examples given 
 are not all to be allow ed to be ^^ open questions," let 
 them take two only ; namely, the doctrines of Justifi- 
 cation and of the holy Eucharist. When they can 
 tell us what the teachinir of the reformed church of 
 England is regarding these two, we will proceed 
 to enquire a little more accurately concerning the 
 rest. 
 
 We need not to be reminded that " open ques- 
 tions," and doctrines of the gospel left to be matters 
 *' of opinion," are as objectionable to the evangelical 
 party in the church of England, as to ourselves. I 
 can quite understand how the late decision of the 
 judicial committee must offend all who are sincere 
 and honest amongst them. It w'as good policy per- 
 haps (to use the language of the world) wliich 
 prompted them, whilst the cause continued, to speak 
 in a liberal and humble way of being suffered and 
 allowed to teach what they would : and which in- 
 duced their advocate before the court of Arches to 
 say, that "- the arms of the church of England are 
 wide enough to embrace both parties." But the 
 
41 
 
 recognition of such a principle is fatal to their old 
 condemnation of the doctrine of regeneration in the 
 sacrament of baptism, as being " a delusion of Sa- 
 tan;" " a soul-destroying heresy ;" and the like. 
 
 It is not, however, within my purpose to consider 
 the position of the evangelical, but of the high-church 
 party : of that party by whom the very notion of a 
 truth of the Christian Faith being an " open ques- 
 tion" is to be utterly disavowed ; who know nothing 
 about " matters of opinion" in the place of dog- 
 matic teaching upon essential doctrines, on which 
 our daily Ufe and future salvation must depend. 
 
 Here, very probably, some one may object against 
 me my own language, published rather more than a 
 year ago. I allude to my book on the doctrine of 
 absolution. Let me quote it. " We declare there- 
 fore that the church of England now holds, teaches, 
 and insists upon, all things whether of belief or prac- 
 tice, which she held, taught, and insisted on, before 
 the year 1540, unless she has since that time, plain- 
 ly, openly, and dogmatically asserted the contrary. 
 This w^e declare in general. And, in particular, as 
 regards that most important question, the right in- 
 terpretation of the various services in our common 
 prayer book, we further add : that whatsoever we 
 find handed down from the earlier rituals of the 
 church of England, and neither limited nor extend- 
 ed in its meaning by any subsequent canon or ar- 
 ticle, must be understood to signify (upon the one 
 hand) fully and entirely all, and (on the other hand) 
 no more than it signified before the revision of the 
 ritual." p. 49. 
 
 When that passage was written, it was written 
 
42 
 
 in entire assurance that eyery word might be esta- 
 blished. I do not think so, now. And with w^hat 
 ever pain I say this, it is not because my belief has 
 altered from accepting the fixed principle that all 
 essential Christian truth is one, and eternal ; and 
 that every part of the Church Catholic is bound of 
 necessity to hold it whole and undefiled. Believing, 
 as at that time I did, with the strongest confidence 
 and trust, that the church of England was a living 
 and sound portion of the One Holy Catholic Church, 
 I could not but assert, as being capable of undeniable 
 proof, her claims to teach authoritatively and un- 
 deniably every single doctrine of the Catholic Faith. 
 If I searched into her foundations, it was with no 
 shadow of fear lest they should be seen not to be 
 resting on the Rock, but much rather, in the un- 
 doubting hope that the more she was tested and 
 examined, the more triumphantly she would declare 
 herself to be Divine. 
 
 If the end of long enquiry and consideration has 
 resulted in disappointed hope, and what seems to be 
 evidence of the fallacy of former expectations ; if I 
 am compelled to owm that the utmost we are justified 
 in declaring seems to be, — not that the church of 
 England now ^' holds and teaches " &:c., but — that 
 the church of England now suffers and permits to 
 be held and taught : and ao^ain, as to the rioht in- 
 terpretation of the prayer book, not ''must be un- 
 derstood," but, " ma?/ be understood :" let none sup- 
 pose that I have lightly yielded up that ground upon 
 which, alone, a minister of the church of England, 
 as a minister of the Church Catholic, can stand 
 securely. 
 
43 
 
 I would speak here one or two words more, upon 
 confirmation. It is remarkable that in the catechism, 
 to be learned of every child before confirmation, 
 there is not one word said concerning it. Neither 
 to tell us what it is, nor, what it is not. If we go to 
 the homilies,— not that their every sentence is of 
 authority or true —we find but little there. The 
 index of the late Oxford university edition has one 
 reference, under this head ; " Confirmation, not a 
 sacrament." As if the faith of the reformed English 
 church, about sacraments and sacramental grace, 
 consists of negations. Turning, however, to the 
 place, we read nothing which can give us any ex- 
 alted notion of its great benefit and necessity, but 
 rather otherwise. 
 
 And having spoken above of the acts done in 
 1662, it is remarkable (to say the least) that the 
 long preface and promise by the candidates were 
 then added. Until that time, with the exception of 
 some ceremonies, the office stood much as it had been 
 in the ancient books. And a very solemn, holy, ser- 
 vice it must have been. There was in it -nothing 
 which could have led to the low and miserable 
 notion, now so prevalent, that candidates go to 
 '' confirm themselves :" to make their promise, by 
 their own word of mouth ; to take on themselves — 
 as if unobhged before— the vows made for them, at 
 baptism. Alas ! we cannot wonder at the scandals 
 and irreverence so often shewn at confirmations. 
 
 Among all the things done by the English bishops 
 and convocations since the reformation, I know 
 nothing so unaccountable, as this addition made in 
 1662 to the office of confirmation. We are told 
 
44 
 
 that the Savoy conference * most clearly proves 
 that the catholic doctrine of holy baptism, was then 
 intended — whatever might have been the case for 
 the preceding hundred years — to be at last declared 
 as exclasiveli/ the truth according to the teaching 
 of the church of England. Yet, at this very period, 
 for the first time in the history of any part of the 
 Christian Church, and of which no example can be 
 found in our ancient rituals, a new tone was given 
 to the office of confirmation : and something very 
 like an authoritative assent was made to the doctrine, 
 that the grace of baptism depends or is suspended 
 upon the personal faith and promise of the recipient, 
 
 * It is not to be forgotten that there were some long rubrics, in 
 the Prayer books of 1549, and the intermediate Books till 1662, 
 prefixed to the catechism and order of confirmation, in which there 
 are assertions of the propriety of persons ratifying in after life, the 
 promises made for them by others at their baptism. There can be 
 no doubt that all this is right, properly understood : and it scarcely 
 could be misunderstood, so long as this ratifying and " confirming" 
 of promises formed no part of the office ; or, so long as there was 
 also to be found in the same rubrics, the following declaration of 
 the benefit of the holy ordinance itself. This declaration would 
 have corrected perhaps, in some measure, the effect of the promi- 
 nence given in 1662 to the renewal and ratification, in a very solemn 
 way, of the baptismal promises, if it had been suffered to remain, 
 l>ut it was at that same time removed. " Forasmuch as confirma- 
 tion is ministered to them that be baptized, that, by imposition of 
 hands and prayer, they may receive strength and defence against 
 all temptations to sin, and the assaults of the world and the devil, 
 it is most meet to be ministered when children come to that age 
 that partly by the frailty of their own flesh, partly by the assaults 
 of the world and the devil, they begin to be in danger to fall into 
 sundry kinds of sin." Why have we not, now, this statement? why 
 have we not something, at any rate, of the same kind ? is it too 
 dogmatic? or, is it untrue and tending towards a superstitious re- 
 gard of confirmation ? 
 
45 
 
 and that confirmation is not a distinct gift of the 
 Holy Ghost, but the completion of the sacrament of 
 baptism. We know well that any sign even of 
 leaning to so unsound a doctrine, is entirely incom- 
 patible with a right and full acceptance of the truth 
 of baptismal regeneration. Far be it from me to say 
 that this addition to the office of confirmation posi- 
 tively contradicts the spirit of the replies made by 
 the bishops at the conference : but I do repeat that 
 it is an unaccountable and strange proceeding, sup- 
 posing — as for a long time we have supposed — that 
 they believed the teaching of the church of England 
 and of the church of Rome to be identical upon the 
 sacrament of baptism.* 
 
 Before I pass altogether from the subject of our 
 differences on essential doctrines of the Faith, it 
 must be observed, that there is an objection likely 
 enough to be urged by the evangelical party : name- 
 ly, that, so far as they are themselves concerned, 
 these differences do not reach, in any degree, to the 
 
 * Not less unaccountable, perhaps — admitting the Catholic spirit 
 of the convocation and bishops of 1662, — is the restoration of the 
 very important statement about the Presence of our Blessed Lord 
 in the Eucharist. This, which first made its appearance in the se- 
 cond Book of king Edward, was rejected by queen Elizabeth in 
 1559, and might almost have been thought forgotten after an in- 
 terval of 100 years. Doubtless there are some verbal alterations 
 between the present rubric and that of 1552 : but this does not re- 
 move the difficulty of discovering the reason of its being replaced 
 at all, upon the principles which we are anxious to attribute to the 
 convocation of 1662. Would such a course be now recommended 
 or even consented to by the Anglo-catholic party of the present day ? 
 If this statement about the Real Presence had never been heard of, 
 since its brief existence in the Book of 1552, should we allow it to 
 be received once more, and from such a source ? 
 
46 
 
 extent which has been above spoken of. It may be 
 so : nay, in fairness to themselves I must own, it is 
 so. The number and variety of opinions, in reality, 
 begin to exist, after the one characteristic barrier 
 has been passed, which divides the two great sec- 
 tions of our Church. As a whole, the evangelical 
 party are tolerably unanimous in their judgment 
 upon most of the questions above asserted to be 
 matters " of opinion ; " and they would decide rea- 
 dily upon conclusions distinctly denying the ancient 
 doctrine of the church of Enfjland, held and tauf^ht 
 before the reformation, on each and every one 
 of those questions. This is not unimportant : rather, 
 of material weight in such an enquiry as the present. 
 The fact is not to be lightly regarded, that, the two 
 great parties by which the church of England is 
 divided having been distinguished, the further state 
 of conflict and difference of opinion, — scarcely less 
 miserable and fatal than the one great and funda- 
 mental difference, — is to be found chiefly, if not 
 entirely, amongst ourselves. It begins alas ! with 
 the attempt to bring back Catholic teaching and 
 Catholic faith into the reformed church of England, 
 and into agreement with her articles and prayer 
 book. 
 
 There is another point to which I had intended 
 to direct your attention ; namely, to the contradic- 
 tions which appear to exist between the course of 
 teaching which many of our party commonly adopt 
 and the 39 articles, together with an enquiry into 
 the kind of interpretation, and its admissibility, by 
 which such apparent contradictions are avoided. 
 It is, of course, in itself a relief openly to state our 
 
47 
 
 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. Some two or three consi- 
 derations, however, which may be more briefly dis- 
 cussed, will come within my present purpose. 
 
 Scarcely a word need be said of the unbounded 
 ( — really there is no other term — ) of the unbounded 
 variety of opinion upon essential and important 
 doctrines of the Faith, which exists among the clergy 
 and people of the English church. It is a fact 
 notorious and undeniable : deplored as an evil by 
 the majority of us ; yet, regarded by not a few as a 
 thing which is to be approved of rather than other- 
 wise, and evidence that the reformation has given 
 freedom to tender consciences, or to the exercise 
 of a large and charitable liberality. Such a va- 
 riety of opinion must be a necessary consequence 
 of the numerous doctrines which careful considera- 
 tion will show us have been left "open" by our 
 Church. 
 
 It is very commonly urged that this is owing to 
 our bishops not having attempted, for the last hun- 
 dred years, to restrain their clergy, and to enforce 
 a greater unanimity of opinion and teaching ; in 
 short, to the want of discipline. Indeed it cannot 
 be said that the frequent complaints which lately 
 have been brought against our bishops, by persons 
 of both classes of opinion, are all unfounded and 
 untrue. I am not speaking of individuals whom we 
 know to be exceptions, but of the bishops as a body, 
 ruling over, guiding, caring for the Church, her 
 clergy, and her people. It is a very serious, and a 
 
48 
 
 mournful subject : one which I am bound to notice, 
 though it be in fewest possible words. Can we then 
 boldly defend the conduct of our bishops, during the 
 last twenty years? Would that w^e could answer con- 
 tinual complaints, by telling how they have neglected 
 the gathering of wealth, and refused to provide un- 
 duly for near relatives and children ; how they have 
 despised the luxuries or refinements of society, and 
 sought, instead, constant and familiar intercourse 
 with the clergy over whom they have been placed, 
 sometimes sharing the plain fare and resting in the 
 humble lodging of their poorer brethren, yet oftener 
 extending their ow^n liberal hospitality to those who 
 would gratefully have received it, as a token of 
 sympathy, and kindness, and mutual regard, as 
 testifying an approval also of zeal and labour, 
 which could not, perhaps, be otherwise rewarded ; 
 how they have been themselves examples to their 
 dioceses in the practice of a holy and self-denying 
 life ; how, by their diligent and avowed observance 
 of religious rules, as to daily prayer, fasting, and 
 the like, they have led others onwards to obey, by 
 the shewing forth of their own obedience ; how they 
 have endeavoured, so far as they could, to carry 
 out the system and to establish the authority of the 
 rubrics and orders of the Church ; how they have 
 given their support to those who have taught (and 
 taught without running into extremes) catholic doc- 
 trine, and recommended catholic duties ; how, on 
 the other hand, they have refused their support to 
 all who have leaned to the vagueness of puritan doc- 
 trine, and to the laxity of puritan piety. Would — 
 I repeat it — that we might thus have spoken ; but 
 
49 
 
 it may not be ; yet, I must say, it is not quite just 
 to charge our bishops, either of the last century or 
 this, with entire responsibility for the state of con- 
 fusion now existing ; it is not quite just to accuse 
 them of having caused it, solely by their neglect of 
 the proper exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. 
 
 If it be true — and I repeat that it is true — that 
 the English reformation has advisedly and delibe- 
 rately left '' open" all those doctrines which have 
 been specified, and other doctrines besides those, it 
 is impossible, from the very nature of the case, but 
 that as wide a variety of opinion should inevitably 
 follow. It may, or it may not, be right that a 
 church should have one faith ; but it is certain that 
 there is not, and probably cannot be, one faith in 
 the reformed church of England. 
 
 Nor is it to be forgotten that, taken together, the 
 power of the supreme court of appeal, and the 
 number of Christian truths which are allowed to 
 be matters of opinion, increase the force of the 
 objections which, under any circumstances, must 
 lie against either the one or the other, separately, 
 of these two great difficulties. They play into one 
 another. If the English reformation had left us a 
 clear and distinct form of religious teaching ; if it 
 had decidedly explained what the doctrine of the 
 sacraments, or of the eucharist, &c. really is ; if it 
 had not aimed at including, if possible, persons of 
 opposite opinions ; if its principle had not been to 
 leave every man to the exercise of his private judge- 
 ment upon the inspired word of God and the three 
 creeds ; then it would not have been so completely 
 within the jurisdiction of the royal supremacy, to 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 determine these questions to be no longer ** open," 
 as they happen from time to time to be brought 
 forward in appeal. 
 
 For I am ready to admit that the ecclesiastical 
 court first, and afterwards the court of appeal, 
 w hatever its constitution may be, if called upon to 
 do so, might possibly decide some one or two of 
 the particular doctrines above mentioned, not to be 
 " open" doctrines. Even this seems doubtful : but I 
 am not at all in doubt, — very far from it indeed, — 
 that if at any time such one or more doctrines be 
 ruled and defined, it will not be according to the 
 earlier and catholic teaching of our church, but of 
 the reformers, foreign and English, of the sixteenth 
 century. 
 
 Now, as far as our party is concerned, this is a 
 solemn and w^eighty consideration. You may think, 
 perhaps, that I am overstating the matter ; and at 
 the first view, it may seem to be so. But, carefully 
 read again that list of doctrines ; then, with equal 
 care reflect upon the general tone of thought and 
 opinion shewn by writers of the seventeenth and 
 sixteenth centuries, and upon the value also which 
 must in justice be given to certain expressions in 
 our formularies ; and, lastly, if you are not con- 
 vinced, ask the opinion of an ecclesiastical lawyer 
 upon the question on which you may be in doubt. 
 
 In what has just been said, let me not be under- 
 stood as admitting the opinions of individuals, how- 
 ever many in number or eminent in station, to be 
 in any sort conclusive, as to the acceptance or re- 
 jection of doctrine. In the late case of Mr. Gorham, 
 as it was argued before the court of Arches, you 
 
51 
 
 will remember that his advocate relied — to what 
 extent it would be hard to say — upon the numerous 
 extracts which he produced from the works of Cran- 
 mer, Ridley, Latimer, Becon, Jewell, Whitgift, and 
 others. The court listened patiently, treated them 
 with the consideration they deserved, and decided 
 that they could not have any legitimate bearing upon 
 the particular case then at issue. All such extracts 
 were declared to be mere '^ opinions of individuals," 
 and ^' private opinions which must not be taken as 
 authority." I have already made some remarks 
 upon this matter, in explaining how far it has in- 
 fluenced my own views on the subject. It is not 
 necessary now to dispute the correctness of the 
 principle laid down by the judge of the court of 
 Arches : but there are few, however, who would 
 not readily grant, that we must not run into the 
 other extreme, and despise contemporary interpre- 
 tation in all cases, and set aside writers (long looked 
 to and esteemed) as wholly to be disregarded. A 
 moment's thought will shew us, that it is not the 
 same thing to quote the authority of divines in fa- 
 vour of, and to quote it against, the apparent or 
 primary meaning of disputed parts of the formularies 
 of our Church. And, so far as my present purpose 
 is concerned, this is all which I desire to press upon 
 the reader's consideration. 
 
 But the question is, itself, of so much interest 
 and importance, that I should be sorry not to make 
 one or two more observations, in as few words as 
 may be. 
 
 In estimatinof the value of the writincrs of Eliza- 
 bethan divines, we must remember one circum- 
 
52 
 
 stance, which will incliile us to listen to them more 
 favourably than we otherwise might, when they seem 
 to speak in opposition to what we believe to be Catho- 
 lic truth. I mean in those instances, only, where 
 the formularies themselves do not, seemingly, speak 
 also in the same language, or to the same purpose. 
 Even if we chose to admit that there is not one 
 single writer of the church of England, between the 
 years 1548 and 1600, who, upon some point or 
 other, does not appear to have held and advanced 
 heretical doctrine, — some, this doctrine ; some, that ; 
 some, one only ; some, many ; — it is not to be w^on- 
 dered at. It was an age of religious excitement 
 and alteration : all ancient teaching and practices 
 of the Church w^ere undergoing an examination : 
 and every man, whatever his qualifications may 
 have been, brought forward and advocated the re- 
 ception of his own peculiar fancies. It by no means 
 follows because certain opinions were then published, 
 nay, for a time, pressed, that therefore their promo- 
 ters would have been obstinate in the continued as- 
 sertion of them. Probably some opinions, heretical 
 in themselves, were propounded at such a period, 
 rather to be enquired into and tested, than to be 
 accepted. Submission also to the authority of the 
 Church, (within the limits, whatsoever they can be 
 shewn to be, which the reformers approved of,) was 
 a duty which perhaps some would have acted upon 
 as well as talked of. 
 
 But it is further argued that they were chief in 
 station who, during the reigns of Edward and Eliza- 
 beth, held what we believe to be heretical opinions : 
 bishops and archbishops, and professors of theology, 
 
53 
 
 and men who would be, in virtue of their office, mem- 
 bers of convocation. Let it be so. Say, moreover, 
 that they were unanimous, upon any given doctrine 
 which the Church seems to have decided in an op- 
 posite way. It was an unanimity, after all, only of 
 opinions put forth as private men and individuals. 
 We cannot tell what modifications of statement 
 might have been made, what renunciations of erro- 
 neous teaching, what corrections, what retractations, 
 when these same men came together in a provincial 
 synod. This we know, that when the clergy of the 
 church of England did meet in convocation, various 
 private fancies were continually brought before her 
 notice, and as continually rejected, and condemned 
 by the rejection. 
 
 You will see that I am desirous to state this mat- 
 ter as favourably for our Church, as, in justice, I 
 feel one can. And I do believe that the firm and 
 humble piety, the catholic feeling and habit of 
 thought, the accurate knowledge of very solemn 
 questions of divinity, the practised acquaintance 
 with the noble and exact theology of the schools, 
 which in those days characterized, as a body, the 
 parochial clergy of England, often enabled the lower 
 house of convocation to see through the subtleties 
 by which men, from their studies, tried to mislead 
 the people. But it did not enable them also to with- 
 stand, on all occasions, the pressure to which they 
 were exposed : and it is probable that, — still hope- 
 ful under Divine Providence for the best, and unable 
 to foresee the sure consequences which we have learnt 
 from the experience of three hundred years, — they 
 were thankful even for so small a gain, as to have 
 
54 
 
 succeeded in avoiding, as at that time it seemed, 
 the distinct rejection of essential truths. In short, 
 the opinions of individual writers are of importance, 
 and only then, when it can be shewn that the church 
 of England has favourably accepted the teaching 
 which was offered her ; or, that she has deliberately 
 removed statements in her earlier documents and 
 rituals, which, if suffered to remain, would have been 
 in opposition to such new teaching. 
 
 With regard to the acceptance and introduction 
 of changes in doctrinal statements and formularies, 
 which were consented to by the English convocation 
 in the sixteenth century, let me observe, that although 
 it is always right for men — so far as human foresight 
 will enable them — to judge of the fitness of proposed 
 acts by their probable tendencies, yet such a judge- 
 ment may be shewn to be ill-founded and mistaken, 
 by the results of after experience. Thus we may be, 
 nay, we must be, necessarily, better judges of the 
 true tendencies of the reformation, as an act, than 
 they could have been w^ho were its contemporaries. 
 Because the consequences of the religious alterations 
 in that age have shewn themselves to be, surely 
 and certainly, in one direction, namely, to error of 
 all kinds and confusion, it is not true that there- 
 fore men are to be hastily condemned, in that at 
 the beginning of them they expected better things, 
 and at least hoped that no other consequence than 
 good could follow. The wise and prudent among 
 the clergy of England, during the reigns of Henry 
 and Edward, must have regarded the sweeping 
 changes then made in doctrine, worship, and prac- 
 
55 
 
 tice, with hearts fainting in them for fear. To speak 
 of their having had confidence in the chief promoters 
 of those changes, would be to accuse them of putting 
 their trust in evil men, and not in God, and of a 
 deliberate belief that the Divine Blessing would 
 surely rest upon bloodshed, and sacrilege, and im- 
 piety, and hypocrisy, and sin. Nor could a reason- 
 able confidence exist, in the very nature of things, 
 at such a period of hasty reformation and almost 
 unchecked liberty and desire of change, except upon 
 some sufficient evidence that the Spirit of God di- 
 rected all that was being done, whatever might be 
 the character of the instruments He used. Can we 
 say that they received, during their own time, any 
 such evidence ? can we say that we have found it in 
 the years which have since gone by ? This, at least, 
 we know : that a claim to the assistance of the Holy 
 Ghost, which was put forth solemnly in one of the 
 most important documents of the reign of Edward 
 the sixth, was dropt silently as regarded any words, 
 and distinctly denied as regarded action, within the 
 space of four shoi;t years. And, taught by expe- 
 rience, together with a moderation to which we are 
 bound to give due praise, the reformed church of 
 England has never attempted to renew so high a 
 claim. 
 
 Let us return to the subject from which we have 
 digressed. It being undenied, that there does exist 
 amongst us a vast variety of opinion, 1 would go on 
 to observe, that in its chief divisions, as regards the 
 clergy, it may be distinguished into three classes, 
 represented by the high-church, and by the low- 
 
56. 
 
 church, and by those (greater in number than we 
 might like to acknowledge) who care very little or 
 nothing about either the one party or the other. 
 
 With these last, — who are anxious only that mat- 
 ters may be kept quiet, saying, that things did well 
 enough for their fathers and will continue their own 
 tinie, that really all this controversy is about words, 
 and is likely to do no good but rather very much 
 harm, that it may tend — lamentable thought — even 
 to a separation of Church and State, and to a diffi- 
 culty about deaneries and canonries ; about tithes, 
 and houses, and glebe, and gardens, and things of 
 that sort ; — with these last, I say, we w ill not 
 trouble ourselves. 
 
 As to the second of the two classes, namely, the 
 low-church or evangelical, I have no hesitation 
 in making a candid avowal. Whatever my 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 acknowledge- 
 ment, that the very utmost which we can claim for 
 our opinions is, that they are "open" to us. And I 
 would have you very seriously to consider whether we 
 oufjht to be satisfied with teaching and belie vintressen- 
 tial doctrines of the Faith to be only prohahlij true. 
 
 ■* Is there any doctrine on which the two parties differ, upon 
 which we should have had the slightest chance of obtaining a sentence 
 against an evangelical clergyman, except the doctrine of Baptism ? 
 
0/ 
 
 The steps by which this conclusion has been at 
 length forced upon me are similar to those of which 
 I have already spoken to you, with regard to the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration. 
 
 Remember, I am in no degree withdrawing from 
 the full extent of the assertion, repeated more than 
 once, that the church of England leaves " open" so 
 many deep and important doctrines. But what I now 
 say is, that, of the two extremes, the low-church 
 clergy no less than the high-church or Anglo-catholic 
 (as it is called) teach according to the spirit of the 
 English reformation. Or, put it in another way : 
 there are no greater difficulties in making their 
 system, taken as a whole, or parts of their system, 
 consistent with the formularies of the church of 
 England, than we find, by experience, to be in our 
 own. 
 
 It would be hard probably to specify any doctrine, 
 except regeneration in holy baptism, which, upon 
 the face of the formularies themselves, seems to con- 
 tradict their system. Some would suggest absolution 
 also : and to my mind it certainly is an equal stum- 
 bling-block in their way with baptismal regenera- 
 tion : but then I have to recollect that my own 
 teaching upon this doctrine is accepted by very few 
 indeed, as the true interpretation of our forms of 
 absolution ; and that the usual explanation of them 
 which has been commonly advanced amongst us, 
 can scarcely be felt by any low-churchman to be 
 a difficulty at all. I mean that explanation which 
 does not insist upon the necessity of previous auri- 
 cular confession in order to the grace of the sacra- 
 ment of absolution : and which allows that the power 
 
58 
 
 of retaining and remitting sins is fully and properly 
 exercised, when the general forms of absolution are 
 read in the daily offices ; or, as some also put it, 
 when the sacrament of baptism is administered. 
 Such an explanation of the doctrine of absolution 
 cannot be a difficulty in the way of an evangelical 
 clergyman ; and you know well that it is the expla- 
 nation commonly agreed upon and taught amongst 
 us. Moreover it admits, in a satisfactory way, the 
 refusal to accept, and therefore gets rid of, the true 
 and catholic meaning of the awful commission, given 
 at ordination, " Whose sins thou dost forgive, etc.''' 
 
 But, by way of illustration, take one or two ex- 
 amples. 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 sys- 
 tem : and not only so, but we have nothing so plain 
 to produce against them. In short, these are pas- 
 sages which we "■ get out of" or explain away, whilst 
 tliey take them in their simple and obvious meaning. 
 In these one or two examples you will observe that 
 I refer to the prayer-book, as well as the articles. 
 
 Take Justification : we hold and teach that a jus- 
 tified man is really so : that he is not merely called, 
 and reputed to he, righteous, but that he actually is 
 so. The opposite party deny this : and they readily 
 appeal to the first opening of the morning and 
 evening prayer, where this verse of the 143rd ps. 
 is appointed to be read : *' Enter not into judgement 
 with Thy servant, O Lord ; for in Tliy sight shall 
 no man living be justified." And then they may 
 turn to the 1 1th article ; " We are accounted righte- 
 
59 
 
 ous before God." Of course, I am not speaking of 
 the right sense of this verse of the psalm, but of the 
 way in which a person holding unsound views of the 
 doctrine of justification may (as indeed men do) re- 
 fer to it, as having been selected in a marked way 
 by those who compiled our formularies, and as de- 
 claring the mind of the English church. 
 
 Again, Absolution. What answer is to be given 
 to those who assert that previous auricular confes- 
 sion is not essential to the reception of sacerdotal 
 absolution, and that private absolution is not the 
 highest and fittest exercise of the power of " the 
 keys," when we find it to be thus declared in the 
 exhortation before the daily prayers ; "We ought 
 at all times humbly to acknowledge our sins be- 
 fore God ; yet ought we most chiefly so to do, 
 when we assemble and meet together, &c."? Now, 
 if there is any truth in the catholic doctrine of 
 the sacrament of absolution, it is quite certain, 
 that we ought not "most chiefly" to acknow- 
 ledge our sins before God, when we assemble for 
 public prayer. Let it be remembered also, that this 
 assertion is immediately followed by the performance 
 of the thing spoken of : namely, a solemn general 
 acknowledgement of sins : and, moreover, that this 
 declaration was first made by the church of Eng- 
 land, at the very time when she asserted sacramental 
 absolution not to be of necessity, and therefore re- 
 moved also the necessity of auricular confession. 
 Then, again, the articles might be referred to, and 
 in them we find it to be distinctly said that " penance 
 fpoenitentia or absolution] is not to be counted for 
 a sacrament of the Gospel, but has grown of the 
 
60 
 
 corrupt following of the apostles." I can only add 
 upon this, that if absolution, after auricular confes- 
 sion, be not '* a sacrament of the Gospel," it is a 
 most fearful playing with holy things ; and a blas- 
 phemy, both to utter and to listen to, to say, *' I 
 absolve thee from all thy sins." 
 
 Once more, the blessed Eucharist. An evan- 
 gelical clergyman teaches his people that this sacra- 
 ment is a sacrifice only in an improper and secon- 
 dary sense : a sacrifice, in short, only of prayer and 
 praise. Or, he might go on to say, a sacrifice or 
 very solemn dedication of ourselves to Almighty 
 God. And, that it is a sacrifice in no sense other 
 than this. Nor has he any hesitation in pointing 
 out more than one plain passage of the liturgy in 
 which the Eucharist is so spoken of; and, from the 
 fact of its being so spoken of, he concludes, and 
 with great reason, that it is nothing more. For, it 
 must be remembered that our liturgy as well as 
 our other services and offices are not new forms, 
 in the sense of being the first things of their kind. 
 But, on the contrary, they superseded and occupy 
 the place of other services which were declared to 
 be superstitious and erroneous in doctrine. There- 
 fore if the earlier liturgy contained, as it did con- 
 tain, words and passages distinctly admitting and 
 assertintr the catholic truth of the Eucharistic sacri- 
 fice, which words have been carefully excluded from 
 our present service, it may be most forcibly urged 
 that with the words there was rejected also the doc- 
 trine which they contained. Let me remind you 
 that I am not saying that the mere omission of 
 words which were in the ancient liturgy does, in 
 
61 
 
 itself and alone, prove the rejection of the doctrine, 
 but that it looks that way, to say the least of it, in 
 common fairness of interpretation. And we do 
 certainly require a somewhat plain statement else- 
 where, of a contrary kind, to counterbalance the 
 eflPect of the omission. Where are we to find such 
 a statement of the continued recognition by the 
 church of England of the Catholic doctrine of the 
 Sacrifice in the Eucharist ? 
 
 The passages which have been alluded to are 
 these ; both occurring in the prayer in which alone, 
 as our best ritualists agree, the sacrifice — whatso- 
 ever it may be — is in strictness offered. And in 
 them we find the Eucharist styled a ^' sacrifice of 
 praise and thanksgiving:" and the offering to be 
 " ourselves, our souls and bodies, as a reasonable, 
 holy, and lively sacrifice." Very different indeed 
 was the Offering and the Sacrifice of which the an- 
 cient liturgy spoke. Add, as before, to this, the 
 declaration on the same subject in the 31st article. 
 ^' The sacrifices of masses, in the which it was com- 
 monly said, that the priest did offer Christ for the 
 quick and the dead — were blasphemous fables, and 
 dangerous deceits." Again I remind you, that I am 
 very far from saying now that the catholic doctrine 
 is certainly denied and repudiated in this article : 
 for I have for many years taught (and, as you know, 
 have lately published in a sermon) that in the bless- 
 ed Eucharist the Body and the Blood of our Lord 
 are truly offered as a propitiatory sacrifice for the 
 living and the dead. But I repeat, that they are, 
 on the one hand, a difficulty to be " got out of;" 
 and, upon the other, they serve strongly to confirm 
 
62 
 
 the low and heretical notion that there is no actual, 
 real, sacrifice at all. 
 
 Another mysterious and solemn truth connected 
 with the holy Eucharist, is that which is commonly 
 termed the Real Presence. We need not now dis- 
 cuss whether this is a right or wrong term ; the doc- 
 trine which is intended by it is quite sufficiently 
 understood for our present purpose ; namely, that 
 independently of the faith and worthiness, or of the 
 unbelief and unworthiness, of the recipient, our 
 Blessed Lord is Present upon the altar, after the 
 words of consecration, under the appearance of 
 bread and wine ; and that His Body and His Blood 
 are given to every one, worthy or unworthy, who 
 kneels down and offers to receive Them. Is this, 
 or is it not, the teaching which is conveyed by such 
 passages as these ? " The benefit is great, if with 
 a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive 
 that holy Sacrament ; for tlien we spiritually eat 
 the Flesh of Christ, and drink His Blood." Again, 
 at the delivery of the Sacrament to each communi- 
 cant ; '' Take and eat this in remembrance that 
 Christ died for thee, and feed on Him in Thy heart 
 by faith with thanksgiving." Again, the affirma- 
 tion, if it may be so called, at the end of the litur- 
 gy : that " the sacramental bread and wine remain 
 still in their very natural substances :" not merely 
 " in their substances," nor "in their natural" sub- 
 stances, but " in their very natural substances." 
 An accumulation of strong assertions, which we 
 have been often assured do not necessarily exclude 
 the catholic doctrine of the Ileal Presence, but 
 which, in their plainest and obvious meaning, do 
 
63 
 
 support the low view, held and insisted on hy so 
 many of our clergy, that the Real Presence is a doc- 
 trine not approved by the church of England, and 
 not to be distinguished from theEomish error, as they 
 go on to say, of transubstantiation. Again, we are 
 referred to the catechism : and it is scarcely to be 
 disputed that the question and answer on this point 
 there, are against rather than for the catholic doc- 
 trine. " What is the inward part or thing signi- 
 fied ? * The Body and Blood of Christ, which are 
 verily and indeed taken and received by the faith- 
 ful in the Lord's Supper." Still, to all appearance, 
 making the reality of the Presence to depend upon 
 the faith of the recipient. At the risk of weary re- 
 petition, let me once more say, that of course this 
 place of the catechism does not assert that the 
 Body and Blood of Christ are not verily and indeed 
 taken by all : and if there were in other places of 
 our formularies any thing even approaching to a 
 statement of the reality of the Presence of our 
 Blessed Lord in the consecrated bread and wine, 
 independently of any qualifications or dispositions 
 
 * The learned reader is doubtless acquainted with the theologi- 
 cal distinction between the sacramentum and the res sacramenti. 
 But it is not, in any way, according to my present purpose to enter 
 into this subject. Scholastic distinctions, excellent as they are, 
 are of value only in enabling us to show that the words of our for- 
 mularies are not necessarily to be taken in the " evangelical" sense : 
 that is, that our formularies are drawn up with such subtlety and 
 acuteness, as to admit either the high-church or the low- church in- 
 terpretation : sometimes leaning apparently to the one, sometimes 
 to the other : but, as I have said above, on several main points their 
 tendency generally and as a whole seems, at first sight, to favour 
 the last. 
 
04 
 
 in the soul of the receiver, we might be able to 
 show at once and distinctly that these passages in 
 the liturgy and catechism cannot justly mean what 
 they are usually brought forward to prove. In order 
 to find this, we are obliged to turn to the articles : 
 remembering, however, beforehand, that it is for us 
 to show, in a way which shall commend itself to the 
 apprehension of common, simple, and unlearned 
 minds, the distinction which exists between the doc- 
 trines of the Real Presence andof Transubstantiation. 
 For "Transubstantiation," according to the 28th ar- 
 ticle, " is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture." 
 As to our present search, the same article declares, 
 that " the Bread which we break is a partaking of 
 the Body of Christ, and the Cup of Blessing is a 
 partaking of the Blood of Christ to such as rightly, 
 worthily, and with faith, receive the same." And, 
 as if almost it w ere to shut out all further controversy 
 upon the matter — not, of course, that it does so shut 
 it out — a few lines below it is said that ** the mean 
 whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten 
 in the Supper is Faith.''* Surely if the article 
 
 * I have heard both clergy and laity of the church of England, — 
 and that, within the last twelve months, — declare that they accept 
 and believe all Christian truth, as it is explained in the decrees and 
 canons of the council of Trent. With regard to such a statement 
 by any of our laity, it is curious, to say the least of it : and, proba- 
 bly, was never made by any one who had read and understood the 
 Tridentine canons. But as to clergymen, ignorance cannot be sup- 
 posed : and for them, bound as they are by subscription to our for- 
 mularies, thus to speak, has always seemed to me amongst the 
 greatest of all achievements of human intellect. Subtle as we know 
 the mind of man to be, and wide its range, I cannot but confess that 
 
65 
 
 chiefly meant "received and eaten bene/iciallj/,'' it 
 mio'ht have said so : the addition of that one word 
 would not have proved and established the accep- 
 tance of the truth for which we contend, but at any 
 rate it would have removed almost all the force of 
 the aro'ument ao^ainst us : and we are bound not to 
 forget that the word " beneficially," or some word 
 equivalent, is not in the article. 
 
 So much then, for the present, on the point of the 
 general apparent agreement of the formularies of 
 the church of England, in their first and obvious 
 meanino^, with the teachino^ of those who dififer from 
 us, rather than with our own. 
 
 Connected with this, there is another consideration 
 which, for some time, has pressed heavily and painfully 
 upon 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 duty towards God and towards 
 
 the more I think of it, the more I am amazed at so wonderful an 
 example of its power and capability. 
 
 There are not, perhaps, many minds so large: I cannot tell. 
 But there have not been many Homers, Platos, or Isaac Newtons. 
 
 The sentence in the text above has reminded me of this remark- 
 able fact, which seems worth a passing observation in a note. Let 
 us take one question, concerning which, to the common run of 
 minds, the articles of the reformed church of England, and the ca- 
 nons of Trent, do seem to differ. The one asserts that, " The Body 
 of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an 
 heavenly and spiritual manner." The other has this language; 
 " Sess. xiij. can. viij. If any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eu- 
 charist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and 
 really, let him be anathema." 
 
 E 
 
G6 
 
 themselves, both to believe and practise. Can it be 
 pretended that 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 de- 
 sire to lead people gently and without rashly dis- 
 turbing 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 re- 
 served by us, without blame or suspicion of dis- 
 honesty ? 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 
 encrease the growth of the inner, spiritual, life ; we 
 diifcr, in short, as widely from the evangelical party 
 in the manner and openness, as in the matter and 
 details, of our doctrine. Take, for example, the 
 doctrine of invocation of saints ; or, of prayers for 
 the dead ; or, of justification by faith only ; or, of 
 the merit of good works ; or, of the necessity of re- 
 gular and obedient fasting ; or, of the reverence due 
 to the blessed virgin Mary ; or, of the propitiatory 
 sacrifice of the blessed Eucharist ; or, of the almost 
 necessity of auricular confession and absolution, in 
 order to the remission of mortal sin ; — and more 
 
G7 
 
 might be mentioned than these. Now, let me ask 
 you ; do we speak of these doctrines from our pul- 
 pits in the same manner, or to the same allowed ex- 
 tent, as we speak of them to one another, or think 
 of them in our closets ? Far from it : rather, when 
 we do speak of them at all, in the way of public, 
 ministerial, teaching, we use certain symbols and a 
 shibboleth of phrases, well enough understood by 
 the initiated few, but dark and meaningless to the 
 many. All this seems to me to be, day by day and 
 hour by hour, more and more hard to be reconciled 
 with the real spirit, mind, and purpose of the Eng- 
 lish reformation, and of the modern English church, 
 shown by the experience of 300 years. It does seem 
 to be, daily, more and more opposed to that single- 
 mindedness of purpose, that simplicity and truth- 
 fulness and openness of speech and action, which 
 the gospel of our Blessed Lord requires. We are, 
 indeed, to be " wise as serpents ;" but has our wis- 
 dom of the last few years, been justly within the ex- 
 ceptions of that law ? Let me not be understood as 
 if supposing that any motive, except prudence and 
 caution, has caused this reserve : but there are limits 
 beyond which Christian caution degenerates into de- 
 ceit, and an enemy might think that we could forget 
 that there are more texts than one of Holy Scrip- 
 ture which speak of persecution to be undergone, 
 for His sake, and for the Faith. 
 
 And if reserve in teaching carried to such an 
 extent be, as I conceive it to be, unjustifiable, it is 
 equally wrong, and to be condemned, in the practice 
 of those who listen to, and endeavour to obey, such 
 teaching. What can we think — when honestly we 
 
08 
 
 bring our minds to its consideration — what can we 
 think, I say, of the moral evils which must attend 
 upon and follow conduct and a rule of religious life, 
 full of shifts and compromises and evasions ? a rule 
 of life, based upon the acceptance of half one doctrine, 
 all the next, and none of the third ; upon the belief 
 entirely of another, but not daring to say so ; upon 
 the constant practice, if possible, of this or that par- 
 ticular duty, but secretly, and fearful of being "found 
 out ; " doing it as if under the pretence of not doing 
 it ; if questioned, explaining it away, or answering 
 wuth some dubious answer ; creeping out of difficul- 
 ties ; anything, in a word, but sincere, straightfor- 
 ward, and true. It would really seem as if, instead 
 of being Catholics, — as wx say we are — in a Chris- 
 tian land, we were living in the city of heathen 
 Rome, and forced to worship in the catacombs and 
 dark places of the earth. 
 
 People often say, it is wrong to use such terms as 
 " the spirit of the reformed English church ;"' or, 
 " its intention," " purpose," and the like. And is 
 it really so ? was the reformation nothing ? did it 
 effect nothing, change nothing, remove nothing ? is 
 the condemnation by the church of Rome of several 
 doctrines, — doctrines, accepted by the church of Eng- 
 land for the first time in the sixteenth century, — a 
 mere matter of words ; or, is there not rather some 
 essential difference, after all, in the " spirit" of the 
 teachinor of the two communions ? * and if there be a 
 
 * In the year 1714, a Form of admitting- converts from the church 
 of Rome was prepared for convocation, in which the " penitent" was 
 required to renounce '^ the errors of the present Roman church." 
 
69 
 
 difference and distinction, does it, or does it not, tend, 
 with us, to the acceptance of the evangelical more 
 than of the high-church party? No doubt the re- 
 formed church of England claims to be a portion of 
 the Holy Catholic Church : and it has been common 
 for many of our own opinions, to add also the asser- 
 tion, that she rejects and condemns, as being out of 
 the Church Catholic, the reformed churches abroad, 
 Lutheran, Genevan, and others, together with the 
 kirk of Scotland or the dissenters at home. Upon 
 our principles — nay, on any consistent church prin- 
 ciple at all — such a corollary must follow. But there 
 is a strangeness in it : it commends itself, perhaps, 
 to our intellect, but not to the eye and ear ; nor, it 
 may be, to the heart and conscience. Is there so 
 great a difference between the reformed churches 
 abroad, or the presbyterians, or the better kinds of 
 dissent, — the Wesleyans, for example, — and our 
 own, as between the modern English church and 
 Rome ? Which does our Church most resemble, in 
 doctrine, ceremonies, and practice ? I say, prac- 
 tice, especially : for it is in practice, and in the 
 doing of common, daily, duties, that as time goes on 
 the tendencies of articles of faith, or of doctrine, are 
 declared. What then is commonly thought and 
 said — and the voice of the multitude is sometimes 
 right — when men are seen to imitate Roman forms 
 and ceremonies, or to advocate the observance of 
 forgotten rules of holy living, and self-denial ? * 
 
 and, if in holy orders, to reject all the 12 articles of the creed of 
 pope Pius IV. and to acknowledge the royal supremacy " as by law 
 established." Wilkins. concil. iv. 661. 
 * Illustrations are often useful : I give the following remarks which 
 
70 
 
 Again ; it is usual for numbers to unite with dis- 
 senting teachers for various religious purposes : 
 English clergymen will join with them in prayer, or 
 on the platform : English laity will frequently go to 
 listen to their preaching :— to church perhaps in the 
 morning ; to '' meeting " in the evening : and how 
 frequent is the remark of the lower classes ; "I have 
 no objection to come to church:" — now, whatever 
 of wrongness there may be about such conduct as 
 this, do we ever find any thing in any degree like it 
 with regard to the church of Rome ? Do the com- 
 mon people ever go, in the same manner, to Roman 
 Catholic chapels ? What should we say of them, 
 if they did ? And would they see the same simili- 
 tude of interior arrangement, or listen to sermons 
 which might equally well be preached in half th^ 
 parish churches of the land ? 
 
 It is now more than three months since the last 
 pages of this Letter were written. The rumours 
 
 a bishop — himself very far indeed from being what is called evan- 
 gelical in his opinions — made to a clergyman, who had been com- 
 plained of for adopting Roman practices : the particular objections 
 in this case were bowing at the gloria, and standing before the 
 altar. " I cannot understand," the bishop said, " how any man can 
 place himself, his affections, and sympathies, so totally in opposi- 
 tion to the authority which he has sworn to obey, and to the church 
 in which he ministers. Wlien I look at the spirit and tone of tlie 
 church of England, I am at a loss to reconcile such a course of ac- 
 tion with my sense of what is right and true and straightforward." 
 Then going on to speak of a late secession to the church of Rome, 
 he continued ; " I hope it will be a lesson to those who use Roman 
 Catholic hooks of devotion : and I can only say, the sooner they 
 follow such an example the better : they are disloyal and dishonest 
 members of the churrh of Kn^land." 
 
71 
 
 which, in January, became prevalent as to what the 
 decision of the judicial committee, in the case of 
 Mr. Gorham, would probably be, prevented my 
 going on with some further remarks, bearing on the 
 subject which we have been discussing. Nor can I 
 now bring myself to enter upon them. 
 
 On the other hand, although additions have been 
 made, I do not recall one sentence which had, at 
 that time, been written : if you think such a fact, as 
 a declaration that the truth of baptismal regenera- 
 tion is an open question in the church of England, 
 encreases the weight of the difficulties already spoken 
 of, I should be unwilling to dispute it. 
 
 Yet ; can it be possible that the formularies of 
 the reformed church of England do not teach the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration to be undeniably 
 a certain truth of the Christian Faith ? — again we 
 ask, do they not even teach that doctrine ? — what 
 a reformation ! 
 
 And what have we to fall back upon ? where are 
 we ? can we rest upon " opinions" which demand of 
 us to believe either a great deal too much, or a 
 great deal too little ? upon opinions, which — call 
 them by what name we will — will lead us most 
 surely, by a longer or a shorter road as men may 
 choose to tread it, either to Rome or infidelity. 
 
 Are not our minds very strangely confused ? are 
 we not labouring under doubts, which are doubts 
 only because we refuse to be resolved ? why do we 
 hesitate, and dispute and differ amongst ourselves, 
 but because we wish, and are determined (if it be 
 possible), not to see things as they really are ; be- 
 cause we are determined to reconcile things irrecon- 
 
72 
 
 cilable, and to justify that which, upon our own 
 principles, is not to be justified ? 
 
 Do not think that I would arfjue that one such 
 event, as this decision on the doctrine of holy bap- 
 tism, is sufficient to unchurch the church of Eng- 
 land ; it may, or it may not be ; but w^e need not 
 enter upon the enquiry, until we can show^ that it is 
 the sole difficulty with which, upon high-church 
 principles, we have to deal, and not one among 
 many. As a single circumstance, its extreme im- 
 portance arises from the fact, that regeneration in 
 holy baptism having been supposed to be more 
 clearly taught in our reformed Church, than any 
 Catholic truth whatsoever, (always excepting the 
 doctrine of the Blessed Trinity,) we now discover 
 that even this is, after all, equally with other essential 
 points of the Christian Faith, a matter of " opinion." 
 If the judgement of the court of Arches had been 
 affirmed, distinctly and unequivocally, we miglit 
 perhaps have hoped to have gone on to establish the 
 complete doctrine of sacramental grace. But there 
 can be no doubt, that with the permitted denial of 
 the unconditional efficacy of baptism in the case of 
 infants, the vital truth of sacramental grace is de- 
 clared also to be an ** open question." 
 
 Besides, it is not necessary to pretend to know 
 the dealings of Almighty God with men and nations 
 so accurately as to attempt to lay one's finger, in a 
 positive manner, upon special acts, and distinguish 
 the one or two or three, which should in themselves 
 avail to cut off any portion of the One Holy Catholic 
 Church. And, as regards the church of England 
 in particular, it may bo, that the so-called reforma- 
 
73 
 
 tion contained — perhaps unknown to the original 
 promoters of it — poisonous seeds of evil, bringing in 
 certain though slow decay : and that either new 
 principles were then secretly established, which in 
 their development would most surely lead to the 
 destruction and confusion of essential truths, or old 
 principles were, in ignorance, given up, which the 
 gradual course of time would prove to be necessary, 
 because they lie at the very foundation of Christia- 
 nity itself. Or, once more, it may be with portions 
 of the Church Catholic as with the Vine, her mys- 
 terious type. " I am the Vine, ye are the branches," 
 were the words of our Blessed Lord, speaking of 
 His Body, the Church, of which He is Himself the 
 Head. And we may well conceive how a branch, 
 full of sap and vigour, may be severed from the 
 stem, and yet for a period — longer or shorter — still 
 continue to put forth leaves, and perhaps the blos- 
 soms of fruit also ; nevertheless, cut off all the 
 while, and severed ; requiring time to die, but 
 death itself inevitable at last. 
 
 Let me, in this place, sum up briefly what has 
 been said, in the two Letters which I have written 
 to you. 
 
 1 . That the Crown, at the time of the Reformation, 
 and since that time, in virtue of the supremacy, has 
 claimed, and exercised, the right of finally deciding 
 ecclesiastical causes, involving doctrine ; — that 
 this right has been sanctioned, established, and 
 maintained by several statutes of the realm ; and 
 both recognized and insisted on by canons and arti- 
 cles of the English Church, as accordant with the 
 true spirit of the Gospel ; — and that we, the clergy, 
 
have promised obedience to the due and legal exer- 
 cise of this same right. 
 
 2. That the decision in the particular cause of 
 Mr. Gorham against the bishop of Exeter explains, 
 to some extent, the dogmatic teaching of the church 
 of. England upon the sacrament of holy baptism. 
 
 3. That the judgment of the Judicial Committee 
 in that cause is probably a correct and true judg- 
 ment ; 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 bap- 
 tism in the case of all infants. 
 
 4. That the two questions of the royal supremacy, 
 and of baptismal regeneration, are not the only dif- 
 ficulties in which we are involved. 
 
 5. That the reformed church of England, de- 
 liberately and advisedly, has left many essential 
 doctrines of the Christian Faith to be received as 
 " matters of opinion." 
 
 6. That the Evangelical clergy, as a party, no 
 less than the Anglican or high-church party, repre- 
 sent and carry out the spirit and the system of the 
 English reformation, as declared by contemporary 
 authorities, and sanctioned by the existing formu- 
 laries. 
 
 7. That our church for two hundred and thirty 
 years has been in full communion with the esta- 
 blished church of Ireland, in which church heresy 
 has been synodically and formally received and 
 taught, and " the essential meaning of an article of 
 the Creed abandoned." 
 
 Upon these grounds it is, that I cannot, I dare 
 
75 
 
 not, offer to give any support or aid to those, who 
 seem to be desirous of struggling for the church of 
 England, as if the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 were the sole question in dispute, or the only doc- 
 trine for which we must contend."^ 
 
 There will be a ready answer, I suppose ; namely, 
 that we must wait ; that we must be patient ; that 
 we must see what the bishops are about to do. Wait 
 for the bishops of the church of England ! — and yet, 
 of OJie there are no words in which, if we are true- 
 hearted, and sincere, and earnest for the Truth, we 
 can express all that we ought to feel of gratitude, and 
 sympathy, and regard. He, alone, of all our bishops, 
 has endeavoured to vindicate the Catholic claims 
 which others have feebly spoken of ; he, alone, has 
 dared to keep the promise which he made at his con- 
 
 * " We shall be very much mistaken, if we presume that we 
 may hold a single great doctrine of the Gospel, and be at liberty 
 to accept or not, as we think it agreeable, other doctrines which 
 rest upon precisely the same foundation, and which are supported 
 by the like kind of evidence. For example, it is almost idle to in- 
 sist upon the truth of regeneration in holy baptism, — unless we 
 are prepared to believe and to teach other truths of the one same 
 chain of doctrine, no less important, whether in regard of faith or 
 practice. As a matter of mere argument and speculation, rather 
 than of reality, we may perhaps accept this one and not that : may 
 (so to speak) pick and choose : far otherwise, however, if we re- 
 member what we are doing; if we can but bring ourselves to the 
 conviction that we are not disputing and enquiring about dialecti- 
 cal subtleties, but about the deep things of God ; about His deal- 
 ings with sinful and fallen man ; about eternity ; about the appli- 
 cation of the mystery of the Incarnation of the Son of God, God 
 himself, to the soul and body of each member of the church ; about 
 questions which, dispute as long as we will, are, in some one sense 
 and meaning, true, independent utterly of us, and only in that sense 
 are true." 
 
76 
 
 secration, " to drive away all erroneous and strange 
 doctrine contrary to God's Word :" he, alone, has 
 had sufficient trust in the power and reality of the 
 Christian Faith, to labour in its defence, unsup- 
 ported, amidst calumny and opposition and reproach. 
 Aijd no man living know s, as I in some small mea- 
 sure know, the labours and untiring patience, — the 
 anxious, wearing, toil, — which have been devoted to 
 the cause of the church of England, by him, who 
 looked for nothing, hoped for nothing, but the one, 
 single, glorious end of saving the Church, of which 
 he is the noblest ornament, from the stain and sin of 
 heresy. Oh ! may God ever be w ith him ; now, 
 w^hen, in his declining years, disappointments in the 
 past, and fears for time to come, are darkening round 
 us all ; now% w^hen the weight and anger of the storm 
 seems gathering, before it bursts ; now, when the 
 hopes of the church of England are to be found, not 
 in hearts, faint and desponding as my own, but in 
 such as his, firm, unshaken still, and confident, and 
 bold. Again and again I pray, may all the gifts 
 and blessings of our Almighty Lord and Saviour be 
 upon him, evermore. 
 
 Yet, you will ask me, Do you think then that our 
 case is hopeless? I cannot tell. Fairly, openly, 
 and from my heart I have endeavoured to speak to 
 you upon a matter, not of temporal interests, but 
 concerning the salvation of our souls. I have 
 avoided argument as much as possible, for it is, at 
 present, a question of facts. If these have been 
 misstated, it has been only from the want of know- 
 ing better, and let them be set right. If there is 
 
i i 
 
 any remedy, solemnly and carefully let us ask, 
 Where is it to be found ? 
 
 It will not be found in evasions, and in temporizing, 
 and in compromise : it will not be found, — so that we 
 may think fearlessly of the Great Day in which we 
 must give account, — in attempts to make the church 
 of England last for our own time, careless of the de- 
 posit and the heritage which we are bound to deliver 
 onwards to our children, and our children's children. 
 A very few weeks will shew what course is likely to 
 be ours to follow : I have resigned my cure of souls, 
 because I have no doctrines and no Faith to teach, 
 as certainly the Faith and doctrines of the English 
 Church ; but, for a time at least, I leave not her 
 communion. Brief time, it may be : One Alone can 
 teil. But, if there really be truth and life in our 
 Church, if she indeed be that which she claims to 
 be, — a part of the Church Catholic — she will not 
 shrink from speaking plainly in such a day as is the 
 present, on all essential doctrines of the Faith, and 
 we shall know in what we are to trust. 
 
 It 7nust be said, however reluctantly, that in such 
 a crisis as now^ exists, it is no true remedy to " call 
 together the com-provincial bishops ; and to invite 
 them to declare what is the faith of the Church on 
 the articles impugned in the judgment " of the ju- 
 dicial committee in Mr. Gorham's cause : nor, " to 
 obtain from the said Episcopate, acting only in its 
 spiritual character, a re-afhrmation of the doctrine 
 of Holy Baptism, impugned by the said sentence." 
 Far from it. Such a declaration or re-affirminf]r 
 would not be law ; neither would it be the voice of 
 
78 
 
 the church of England. Besides, that which is re- 
 quired, even upon the suhject of baptism, is not an 
 opinion or judgment of the bishops upon Mr. Gor- 
 ham's particular heresy ; but a new, full, and in- 
 telligible CANON OR ARTICLE OF FAITH, PUT FORTH 
 SYNODICALLY BY THE ChURCH OF EnGLAND, plainllj 
 
 declaring, as exclusively true, the entire Catholic 
 doctrine of the sacrame7it of holy Baptism. I say, 
 without fear of contradiction by any man who holds 
 that doctrine, that nothing less than this can 
 
 BE SUFFICIENT. 
 
 Are we, who so hold and believe, prepared to de- 
 mand that a synod of the reformed church of Eng- 
 land shall re-accept and re -affirm the doctrine of 
 baptism, which was laid down and taught by the ar- 
 ticles agreed upon in the convocation of 1536, with 
 the exception of the few words relating to the future 
 state of infants dying unbaptised ? If it be true that 
 such an article is again necessary, in order to save 
 our Church from being formally and virtually com- 
 mitted to the avowed permission of erroneous teach- 
 ing, let us — in His Name Who is the Truth, the 
 Way, and the Life — determine now to ask for no- 
 thing less, for nothing short of it, for nothing which 
 shall in fact be different, whilst it seems to be the 
 same. 
 
 Let us recollect, also, that if now, roused by the 
 alarm and anxieties of the present time, we are in- 
 duced to use our energies and zeal in pursuing reme- 
 dies, which, however specious looking, will prove to 
 be shadows and deceptions, we are throwing away an 
 opportunity, available only if seized boldly and at 
 once. 
 
79 
 
 This then and not less than this, let me repeat it, 
 is absolutely required, in order that the church of 
 England shall truly be said to have One Faith upon 
 the " One Baptism for the remission of sins/'* If, 
 in the dispensations of the Most High, the time at 
 last has come, when the discords amongst us must be 
 settled, either the one way or the other, let us not, 
 playing with our peril, loosely talk about hopes, and 
 prospects ; and of life and zeal ; and of Catholic 
 minds and Catholic wishes ; but let us take, — if there 
 is hope indeed, — instantly, firmly, honestly, each 
 man, our side. We may regret that our own lot is 
 cast in troubled days : but it would be as wise to 
 deny that the sun shines in heaven, as refuse to ad- 
 mit the fact— grieve over it how we will — that there 
 are two great parties in the church of England : and 
 that the contest now begun must end — sooner or later 
 — in the victory of the one over the other. It is a 
 fearful particular in the many difficulties against 
 which we are opposed, that " toleration," and " li- 
 berality," and "communions wide enough to embrace 
 both," and " open questions," and " matters of opi- 
 nion," are terms and cries which may not be uttered 
 by us, in the same breath with our defence of vital 
 doctrines of the One Catholic Faith. We must ever 
 remember, that any portion of the Church, which, 
 acting advisedly and deliberately, fails to teach ex- 
 
 * Even though for a season, we venture to pass by a determina- 
 tion upon other doctrines, no less fundamental, which have been 
 declared to be "matters of opinion" in our Church. Is not the ques- 
 tion of the royal supremacy beginning already to be put aside ? if 
 so, it is significant. 
 
so 
 
 clusively essential Christian truths, permits error : 
 and, I suppose, few among us would be prepared to 
 say, that such deliberate permission is not fatal. 
 
 One thing we certainly have no right to expect : 
 namely, an audible or visible interposition of Al- 
 mighty God. It may, of course, be disputed whe- 
 ther this or that event be, or be not, a sign and 
 token by which we are to be guided. But we must 
 not w^ait to see His handwriting on the wall, or to 
 hear His voice amongst us, as once of old time, say- 
 ing, '' Let Us depart." Such are not the usual 
 dealings of God with man. 
 
 And I would end as I began : with a repeated 
 expression of the sorrow and the pain with which I 
 have been writing to you. The Church of England ! 
 — let me say one word more — if, for years past, we 
 have had one object, one hope, one source of com- 
 fort and encouragement, in labours and anxiety and 
 reproach, these have sprung from a most sure and 
 firm belief, in the reality of her claim to be within 
 the pale of the One Catholic Church. Where is 
 the assurance of such faith now ? It is a bitter, 
 bitter thought; alas! how very different from the 
 thoughts of the years that are gone by : and some 
 — old and long-loved friends — will call it wilful 
 and perverse, to speak as I have spoken. 
 
 No one would desire, from mere wilfulness, to 
 make the worst* of any thing : yet, whilst we ac^ 
 knowledge this, looking at our present position and 
 remembering the aweful nature of the subject which 
 we have been considering, there can be very few in- 
 deed, who would set a false face upon the truth, and 
 
81 
 
 try to make the best of it, and prophesy smooth 
 words, because the people love to have it so, and 
 cry, Peace, where there is no peace. 
 
 May the Divine Blessing rest upon and guide 
 us all. 
 
 Ever, your affectionate friend, 
 
 W. M. 
 
 Vicarage, S. Mary Church, 
 April 8th. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. I. 
 
 EXTRACT FROM THE ARTICLES OF 1536, REFERRED 
 TO ABOVE, P. 78. 
 
 " The Sacrament of Baptism,'' 
 
 " O ECONDLY as touching the holy sacrament of Bap- 
 O tisni, we will that all bishops and preachers shall in- 
 struct and teach our people committed by us unto their 
 spiritual charge, that they ought and must of necessity be- 
 lieve certainly all those things, which hath been always by 
 the whole consent of the Church approved, received, and 
 used in the sacrament of baptism ; that is to say, that the 
 sacrament of baptism was instituted and ordained in the 
 New Testament by our Saviour Jesu Christ, as a thing ne- 
 cessary for the attaining of everlasting life, according to 
 the saying of Christ, 'Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et 
 Spiritu Sancto, non potest intrare in regnum sanctorum; 
 that is to say. No man can enter into the kingdom of hea- 
 ven, except he be born again of water and the Holy Ghost. 
 Item, That it is offered unto all men, as well infants as 
 such as have the use of reason, that by baptism they shall 
 have remission of sins, and the grace and favour of God, 
 according to the saying of Christ, Qui crediderit et bapti- 
 zatus fuerit y salvus erit ; that is to say, Whosoever believeth 
 and is baptized, shall be saved. 
 
 Item, That the promise of grace and everlasting life 
 (which promise is adjoined unto this sacrament of baptism) 
 pertaineth not only unto such as have the use of reason, 
 but also to infants, innocents, and children ; and that thev 
 ought therefore and must needs be baptized : and that by 
 
83 
 
 the sacrament of baptism they do also obtain remission of 
 their sins, the grace and favour of God, and be made there- 
 *by the very sons and children of God. Insomuch as in- 
 fants and children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly 
 be saved thereby, (^and else not). 
 
 Item, That infants must needs be christened because 
 they be born in original sin, which sin must needs be re- 
 mitted ; which cannot be done [ordinarily] but by the sa- 
 crament of baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost, 
 which exerciseth his grace and efficacy in them, and cleans- 
 eth and purifieth them from sin by His most secret virtue 
 and operation. 
 
 IteiTij That children or men once baptized, can, nor ought 
 ever to be baptized again. 
 
 Item, That they ought to refute and take all the ana- 
 baptists' and the Pelagians' opinions contrary to the pre- 
 mises, and every other man's opinion agreeable unto the 
 said anabaptists' or the Pelagians' opinions in this behalf, 
 for detestable heresies, and utterly to be condemned. 
 
 Item,Th^t men or children having the use of reason, and 
 willing and desiring to be baptized, shall, by the virtue 
 of that holy sacrament, obtain the grace and remission of 
 all their sins, if they shall come thereunto perfectly and 
 truly repentant and contrite of all their sins before com- 
 mitted, and also perfectly and constantly confessing and 
 believing all the articles of our faith, according as it was 
 mentioned in the first article." 
 
 No. II. 
 
 IF any man could have proved that the Irish Church is not 
 now answerable for, and bound by, the Dublin Articles 
 of 1615, except in so far as they are not distinctly contra- 
 dicted by the 39 articles of 1562, since received and ap- 
 proved, he would have been the late Dr. Elrington. No- 
 thing can be more convincing than the statements which 
 that writer has been forced to admit, in his life of archbi- 
 
84 
 
 shop Usher : proving that not only were the Irish articles 
 opioid not disowned and rejected as heretical by the convo- 
 cation of 1634, but the temper and opinions of the Irish 
 Church at that time to be such, that the chief persons who 
 advocated the reception of our 39 articles, did not dare to 
 permit even a discussion upon the earlier Irish articles, lest 
 they might fail utterly in their attempt. 
 
 Bramhall then bishop of Derry was the most earnest and 
 clever among those who endeavoured to induce the Irish con- 
 vocation to approve the English 39 articles. Bishop Vesey, 
 in his life of Bramhall, gives us some information about 
 this : concerning which I would premise that the " blow to be 
 feared" was a repeated confirmation of the articles of 1615. 
 The bishop of Derry, we are told, replied to an objection 
 against receiving the English articles, and which also urged 
 "that it was more material to conjirm and strengthen the arti- 
 cles of 1615," by arguing that such a course would bring a 
 sort of discredit upon the former synod, an if it required rati- 
 Jication: *' by this prudent dressing of the objection he avoid- 
 ed the blow he most feared, and therefore again earnestly 
 pressed the receiving of the English articles, which were at 
 last admitted." Elrington's lije of Uaher, p. 174. Some 
 further facts which Dr. Ehington mentions, show how 
 great the difficulty was, and that threats even were resorted 
 to, in order to prevent the Irish convocation from delibe- 
 rately reaffirming the articles of 1615, and obliging them 
 to be received, under pain of excommunication, p. 170. 
 
 No. III. 
 
 ILIAD intended to have taken the present opportunity of 
 making such replies as I could, to any objections and 
 arguments which had been published, during the last six 
 weeks, in answer to my First Letter on the Royal Supre- 
 macy. But the fact which I now have to remind the 
 reader of, is this; namely, that there has been no answer 
 at all. 
 
85 
 
 Many remarks have been made upon the tone and tem- 
 per of that Letter : upon the hne of argument being " offen- 
 sive," or "disloyal;" and its general treatment "cold," 
 "hard," "technical," "literal," and the like. 
 
 But there has been nothing, which can be called an an- 
 swer, offered against the argument and facts produced. 
 
 Some have said that I have ascribed to " the church of 
 England, on the strength of certain acts of parliament, the 
 most Erastian doctrines possible." English Review, This 
 is untrue ; I referred, especially and chiefly, to the words 
 of the church of England, as we find them in her canons, 
 articles, and ordinal. And no man would have wished so to 
 misrepresent my statement, except one who knew that the 
 strength of the difficulty which is involved in the question 
 of the royal supremacy, does not lie in acts of parliament 
 and in claims made by the civil power, but in the repeated 
 acknowledgment and recognition of it which has been agreed 
 to and insisted on by the Church herself. 
 
 An old and dear friend has printed a Letter on the sub- 
 ject:* of which I would say, that no one felt more deeply 
 than myself, both the great ability and truthfulness with 
 which it was wrttten, and its spirit of unshaken loyalty and 
 devotion to the reformed English church. But, as it was 
 not intended to be an answer to the facts stated in my First 
 Letter, so it seemed to me to fail in meeting the real diffi- 
 culty of the case. Its poirft was, that even granting an am- 
 biguity to exist in our formularies, yet it might have been 
 an inadvertence at the time when our prayer book and ar- 
 ticles were put forth, and that we must prove that the church 
 of England at the reformation intended that there should be 
 such an ambiguity. But this is a line of argument which 
 must admit that which has been so energetically denied to 
 bear upon the question at issue, namely, the opinions of the 
 reformers and divines of the sixteenth century. And it is 
 to be remembered, that if such are to be referred to, as evi- 
 
 * A LeUer, &c. by the Rev. M. W. Mayow. 
 
86 
 
 dence of the animus of our Church upon the doctrine of 
 baptism, so tliey must equally be appealed to upon the doc- 
 trines, for example, of the eucharist and sacramental grace. 
 In short it is making use of an argument, wisely and long 
 repudiated by the high-church party. 
 
 I cannot refrain from citing one passage from this Letter. 
 Mr- Mayow says ; " Let me be well understood. If such 
 ambiguity of language be intentional on the part of the 
 church ; if she can be proved to have desired in drawing up 
 her articles and services to admit two interpretations on 
 baptismal regeneration : if it be her view and plan to include 
 two such opposite parties within her as those represented 
 by Mr. Gorham and the bishop of Exeter, by such am- 
 biguous, and therefore comprehensive language, I most fully 
 admit she stands convicted of unpalliated heresy both in 
 form and matter." p. 9. Instead of baptismal regeneration 
 in the above sentence, put the Eucharist, ov, justification. 
 
 There is one other pamphlet on which I must say a word 
 or two. More than it deserves for its own sake, but because 
 of the importance which some, who have not been able to 
 find anything better, have pretended to give to it. I mean 
 a publication on " The present crisis in the church of Eng- 
 land, by W. I. Irons, B.D. vicar of Brompton." 
 
 Mr. Irons endeavours to show that the Royal Supre- 
 macy was equally exercised before as well as since the re- 
 formation : and he tells us of various interferences on the 
 part of the Crown between the conquest and the sixteenth 
 century. Of these it must suffice to say, that not one of 
 them bears in the slightest degree upon the true difficulty 
 of our position now. Not one of them is a true example 
 of any claim made by the Civil Power finally to determine 
 spiritual causes involving doctrine, together with evidence, 
 or anything in the remotest way like evidence, of consent 
 given to such a claim by the ancient church of England. 
 Instances of persecution, and injustice, and violence, some 
 of Mr. Irons's cases are ; but they are instances of nothing 
 more : in short, they serve to confirm the novelty of the 
 
87 
 
 present powers vested by our Church in the Crown. And 
 if the learned writer had even taken time to give us refer- 
 ences to his own authorities, it might possibly have been 
 sufficient also to have enabled him to see a little more 
 clearly what is the real question in dispute. 
 
 Mr. Irons mentions, however, the Constitutions of Cla- 
 rendon. I would not pass by these altogether, because of 
 the reference which some other writers have also lately 
 made to them. 
 
 The 8th of these constitutions is that which is supposed 
 to bear upon the present power to determine finally eccle- 
 siastical causes, claimed by the Crown. As printed by 
 Mr. Irons it reads thus : " That all appeals in spiritual 
 causes [the itafics are Mr. Irons' s] should be carried from 
 the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the pri- 
 mate, from him to the king, and should be carried no fur- 
 ther without the king's consent." This seems to have 
 been taken from Hume's history, (vol. i. p. 351) and, with 
 deference to Mr. Irons's further researches, there is nothing 
 in the original constitution which answers to the transla- 
 tion " appeals in 5;?mYwa/ causes." The words "in spiri- 
 tual causes," are interpolated, and Mr. Irons's italics had 
 better not have been ventured upon. 
 
 For, on the contrary, there is an epistle of Gilbert Foliot, 
 at that time bishop of London, and of the king's party 
 against the archbishop of Canterbury, which explains to 
 us in what sense we are to understand the word " appeals," 
 as meant and intended by the king. The bishop is writing 
 to the pope, Alexander the third. " In appellationibus ex 
 antiqua regni sui constitutione id sibi vindicat honoris et 
 oneris, ut ob civilem causam nuUus clericorum regni sui 
 ejusdem regni fines exeat, nisi an ipsius authoritate et man- 
 date jus suura obtinere queat, experiendo cognoscat. Quod 
 si nee sic obtinuerit, ad excellentiam vestram, ipso in nullo 
 reclamante, cum volet quilibet appellabit. In quo si juri 
 vel honori vestro praejudicatur in aliquo, id se totius eccle- 
 siae regni sui consilio correcturum in proximo, jurante Do- 
 
88 
 
 niino, pollicetur." Epist. S^ ThonKE Cantuar. xxxviij. p. 60. 
 So that the causes wliich are spoken of in the constitutions 
 of Clarendon, according to the intention of Henry the se- 
 cond himself, are civil causes, and not ecclesiastical ; a dis- 
 tinction which, as most people will agree, carries with it a 
 difference. 
 
 , Whether Mr. Irons will acknowledge this, is, to ray 
 mind, somewhat doubtful. Because he is prepared to hold 
 and (I suppose) believe, that *• the spirit of the [English] 
 Reformation was altogether hostile to the royal supremacy ; 
 and even when yielding to it, it was able at length to mo- 
 dify it." p. 19. I cannot consent to discuss a very serious 
 question, agitating men's minds to an extent unknown and 
 unfelt for generations, when it is presented to us in so 
 strange a disguise. 
 
89 
 POSTSCRIPT, 
 
 TO THE READER. 
 
 IT will be seen that I have spoken in the follow- 
 ing Letter, of my having already tendered my 
 resignation of my benefice. An utterly unexpected 
 circumstance has occurred, which has delayed my 
 resignation. 
 
 Yesterday, the 6th, I explained to my parish- 
 ioners, at our annual vestry, the obligation, which 
 seemed to lie upon me, of immediately resigning 
 my cure of souls. I had hoped to have received 
 from them the expression of their regret and of 
 personal regard and kindly feelings towards my- 
 self. But I was not prepared to receive, within an 
 hour afterwards, the following resolution which had 
 been adopted at a meeting of the same parishioners, 
 who had constituted the vestry, one of the most nu- 
 merously attended of all that I remember. 
 
 " Mr. Maskell having communicated to the Ves- 
 '' try his intention to resign his ministry on Mon- 
 ^' day next, it is the wish of the undersigned inha- 
 *' bitants to express their deep regret that he should 
 ^' come to this determination ; and considering that 
 ^' the question which has occasioned Mr. Maskell to 
 *' take this step has not been finally settled, ear- 
 " nestly to request him, at least, to defer doing so 
 " for the present." 
 
90 
 
 This is not the place for me to state more than 
 that, in deference to such an expression both of 
 opinion and of desire, on the part of those to whom I 
 am especially bound, by every tie of duty, next after 
 God and His Church, it does seem right that I 
 should delay my resignation for a few days, at least ; 
 in order that my parishioners might be better able 
 to judge, after a consideration of this Letter itself, 
 of the weight and sufficiency of the reasons by which 
 I am influenced. I would not have them think, 
 that I had failed to give the best consideration in 
 my power to their opinion and wishes upon the 
 right course w^hich, under existing circumstances, 
 ought to be taken by their vicar : much more, when 
 they have spoken in a way so solemn and so very 
 seriously entitled to the gravest thought and de- 
 liberation. 
 
 It ought, perhaps, to be added, that besides the 
 above, two other resolutions of the same meeting 
 were also sent to me, bearing on and supporting, in 
 a manner the most kind to myself, the opinion and 
 wish already stated. 
 
 First Svndai/ after Easter. 
 
 PRINTED BY C WII I TTINGHAM, CHISWICK. 
 
tA 
 
BW5062.M39 
 
 A second letter on the present position 
 
 Princeton Theological ^emmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00035 8780