iiiliii'^^lMliiiiiiiii^^ 
 
O PRINCETON, N. J. '^* 
 
 Presented by M--. S:muel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 Agncw Coll. on Baptism, No. 
 
 M2^ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Arciiive 
 
 in 2011 witin funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieoiogicai Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/judgmentsonbaptiOiron 
 
''I / 
 
 / 
 
THE JUDGMENTS 
 
 BAPTISMAL REGENERATION, 
 
 I. THE CHURCH-COURT OF ARCHES. 
 
 II. THE STATE-COURT OF PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 III. THE PRESENT ENGLISH BISHOPS. 
 
 IV. THE PRESENT SCOTTISH BISHOPS. 
 
 (APPENDICES.) 
 
 OPINION OF THE IRISH CHURCH. (a.) 
 
 A bishop's RIGHT TO EXAMINE CLERGY. (b.) 
 
 NOTE ON THE REV. W. GOODE's LETTER. (c.) 
 
 IS PREFIXED. 
 
 WILLIAM J. '^IRONS, B.D.. 
 
 VICAR OF BROMPTON. 
 
 LONDON : 
 JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET, 
 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET. 
 
 MDCCCL. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY JOSEPH MASTERS, 
 
 ALDERSGATK STREET, 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 > interpaged, with Mar- 
 
 Preface . . . . , . . 
 
 Preliminary Discourse of Heresy, False Doctrine, and " Open 
 Questions " . 
 
 Outlines of "The Two Judgments" (in Gorham v. the Bishop of 
 Exeter) — " The Church Court," and the " State Court," in 
 parallel columns ...... 
 
 1. The Judgment of the Church Court, 
 
 2. The Judgment of the State Court, 
 
 ginal Notes and Analysis . . . . .4 
 
 3. The Judgments of the English Bishops (of the Province of 
 
 Canterbury) on Baptism . . . . . 83 
 
 4. The Judgment of the Scottish Bishops, in Synod assembled : 
 
 in the same matter . . . , . .96 
 
 Appendices : — A. Opinion of the Irish Church ... 99 
 
 B. Bishop's " Right to Examine " Clergy . . 106 
 
 C. Note on "Mr. Goode's " Letter to the Bishop of 
 
 Exeter . . ... 110 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The whole Church has received with astonishment 
 the Judgment of the Privy Council in the case of 
 Mr. Gorham. Her enemies look on with triumph : 
 her best children with deep despondency. We refused 
 beforehand to believe that a Court so constituted as 
 the Judicial Committee would have given so much 
 as an opinion on doctrinal questions : but that 
 such opinions could be put forth, and so supported, 
 was, until it came to pass, wholly incredible. 
 
 In a pamphlet on *' The Present Crisis," published 
 on the second of March, I ventured to anticipate a 
 dry decision on the legal facts of Mr. Gorham's 
 case (p. 47,) as the worst that could happen. The 
 doctrine of Baptism is so unequivocally declared 
 in the Articles, Creeds, and Formularies of our 
 Church — our enemies themselves, Roman and Pro- 
 testant, being judges — that it was thought among 
 us that no ignorance could mistake, and no wilful- 
 ness deny it. Our Church since the Reformation 
 had attempted to tie down the Royal Supremacy to 
 the definition of the 37th Article, according to 
 which, the vague example of " all godly kings " is 
 
vi Preface. 
 
 interpreted as a supremacy in legal " causes," and 
 a restraining " with tlie civil sword the stubborn 
 and evil doers." This is all that our Church was 
 bound to by her own act — all that her priests are 
 required to mean by their subscriptions — all that 
 our great doctors have from age to age defended. 
 
 This we believed to be an impregnable position, and 
 we had been accustomed for many years past to say 
 that neither crown, nor parliament, nor convocation, 
 alone, could alter this position. Who has not been 
 familiar with the remark that the joint action of 
 the three was necessary to give authority to any 
 change — whether enlargement or diminution — of 
 the settlement of 1 662 ? When vexed by Dis- 
 senters with the charge of the " Royal Supremacy," 
 and " Acts of Parliament," making our doctrines 
 or discipline, we thought it a sufficient answer to 
 point to our 37th Article, which contained a far 
 more moderate theory than the facts of Henry 
 the Eighth's reign, or of Edward the Second's would 
 require for their justification. And, since the 
 revolution of 1688, we thought that the course of 
 modern ideas had still farther so much restrained 
 all " prerogative," that the Ecclesiastical prerogative 
 had no less faded, and become more and more 
 indistinct. — For maintaining this position, as that 
 to which I had been accustomed for twenty years, 
 that on which alone I had thought the Church of 
 England defensible, from the day I first entered her 
 communion, I have been subjected to the strange 
 
Preface. vii 
 
 misunderstanding of many of my brethren, who, 
 new to the whole subject themselves, have forgotten 
 that others had thought of it before ; and have even 
 supposed me to be a defender of the present decision 
 of the Privy Council, as an exertion of the Royal Pre- 
 rogative no greater than had been submitted to of 
 old time ! I can only account for this strange mis- 
 conception of my whole argument and object by 
 supposing the friends to whom I refer to have 
 read the Roman Catholic reviews of my pamphlet 
 more attentively than the pamphlet itself. 
 
 Now that the decision of the Judicial Committee 
 is known, it is plain to all men that the " State " 
 has attempted an interference in spiritual matters, 
 unsurpassed, and perhaps unequalled, in the history 
 of our Church. The most wanton tyranny of 
 Plantagenet or Tudor monarchs cannot be com- 
 pared with the present act of " the State " towards 
 the Church. What, let us ask, are some of the 
 strongest efforts of State tyranny in past genera- 
 tions ? — William I., who thought himself justified in 
 deciding for the English Church practically who was 
 the true Pope, and demanded to ratify the Canons by 
 his royal authority, yet did not mean to make him- 
 self a Judge of Doctrine. — Henry II., who demanded 
 that appeals in causes within the cognisance of the 
 Archbishop should be referred, without exception,* 
 to himself, and decided by his precept in the Arch- 
 bishop's Court, if the Archbishop had failed to do 
 * See Pusey on the Supremacy, p. 199, 
 
viii Preface. 
 
 justice, still does not appear to have acted on this in 
 any purely spiritual matter. — Edward II., (perhaps 
 the worst case,) though subjecting the Clergy, in 
 gravest causes, to the most ignominious trials, 
 before a jury of twelve laymen, (Wilkins, ii, 326,) 
 and administering absolution, or not, — forbidding 
 the ordinaries, then or afterwards, to interfere 
 according to the Canons, — yet did not long persevere 
 in this iniquity. — Edward III,, and Richard II., 
 though declaring the Crown subject to none but 
 God in anything, and therefore lifting it above all 
 law, and even flattered with the pretence, it is said, 
 of " Spiritual Jurisdiction,"* were, both, milder in 
 deed than in word. Perhaps they were strong 
 enough to be able to afford to be gentle. Henry 
 VIII., though professing to restrain new "here- 
 sies," acknowledges the sufficiency of the " Spi- 
 ritualty " in such matters, and so may be under- 
 stood to mean the restraint of the " civil sword." 
 (See Bishop Beveridge on the 37 th Article.) 
 Queen Elizabeth, as anxious as any to assert the 
 prerogatives of her " most noble progenitors," the 
 ancient kings of England, yet thought (Eliz. c. i.,) 
 that General Councils and Convocations had a right 
 to a voice in questions of heresy. But the British 
 Parliament in the nineteenth century, having no one 
 religion of its own, but admitting all creeds alike, 
 has a tribunal whose six lay judges have sat in 
 solemn conclave on an Article of the Christian 
 * See the " Sequel to the Present Crisis," p. 14, «fec. 
 
Preface. ix 
 
 Faith, and — unbidden and unneeded — decided whe- 
 ther that Article was sufficiently held by a con- 
 demned Priest of the Church ! and also, how all 
 the members of the Church may henceforth inter- 
 pret that Article !— There is nothing like this to be 
 found in the history of the Church of Christ. 
 
 The few examples of State interference which I had 
 referred to in my first pamphlet, which have been 
 since enlarged in an article in the " Christian Re- 
 membrancer " for April, and in Dr. Pusey's learned 
 book on the Royal Supremacy, (both so amply 
 vindicating the argument I had put forth,) fail to 
 furnish excuse for the now attempted usurpation. 
 — But has the Church acquiesced in it ? God 
 forbid ! It has reclaimed against it from one end 
 of England to the other; and will yet assert and 
 maintain, as ever, the Orthodox Faith as to the 
 Holy Sacrament of Baptism which has been prac- 
 tically impugned. 
 
 If the few who are pleased with the subject 
 matter of the Privy Council's decision, — (for I speak 
 not of the lax millions who hail with applause the 
 mere laxity,) — if they take time to reflect, they 
 will see that with such a tribunal no doctrine is 
 safe. Whether the present decision be right or 
 wrong, nothing but servihty and absence of all 
 principle should be found to applaud the system 
 which has produced it. Even now, (it is said, 
 without contradiction,) an attack has begun on the 
 Doctrine of the Eternal Trinity. An Archbishop, we 
 
X Preface. 
 
 know, may be found who has thought the "three per- 
 sons " may be " three characters." The Creed of St. 
 Athanasius has been objected to, in a Chapel Royal 
 — contrary to law. Will it be many years before 
 Arianism is distinctly tolerated as admissible, and 
 not legally " repugnant " to our Articles, because 
 our Articles do not define the word " Person," or fix 
 the meaning of the term, " Substance f 
 
 Our sky is surely overcast as never before ; and 
 woe to him that has a feeble hand and faint heart 1 
 May we have faith in Him, Who, ere now, has ruled 
 the storm — and we yet may hear "It is I, be 
 not afraid !" If He indeed have favour towards 
 us. He will not leave us in our extremity. Only 
 let us not desert whatever in our hearts we have 
 known to be His Truth ; and there shall be hope 
 in our end. 
 
 So much has been said of late — and said with 
 such power — of the untruthfulness, evasions, and 
 doubts of High Churchmen, that I cannot, ere I 
 pass on, help uttering my deep astonishment, while 
 I protest that I know not the meaning of the self- 
 accusations I hear, more terrible by far than any 
 enemies could have brought. Doubtless there are 
 always found some mean and inferior spirits appa- 
 rently attaching themselves to any great movement : 
 yet I should have thought, I did think, that my 
 High Church brethren were pre-eminently high- 
 minded, generous, and true. Even now I so believe 
 them to be, as a body ; and as individuals too, 
 
Preface. xi 
 
 so far as I know my brethren. I protest that 
 I do not comprehend the self-accusations I have 
 heard. All that I now am about to say is in the 
 belief that I am speaking to those who are honest 
 before God, and truthful with their fellow men. 
 If of some it be true that there has been a " private 
 holding " of more than they publicly avowed, 
 assuredly I have not been in their secret. We 
 have, perhaps, instinctively avoided each other — 
 moved in different lines, and never met. But I 
 persuade myself that thej^ are but a narrow class. 
 
 Yet if it be necessary to urge honesty and truth 
 on all at this present, let me urge it also on those 
 who are our antagonists in this controversy. First 
 on the Judges in the Judicial Committee ; that they 
 would honestly review their own judgment as here 
 set forth before their eyes. For surely it would in- 
 crease our hope of a happy issue to our present 
 troubles if the Judges themselves saw and acknow- 
 ledged with manfulness the wrong they have done. 
 Secondly, on the political defenders of this Judg- 
 ment. It cannot be the wish of any of the leading 
 and responsible statesmen of this age and country 
 to break up and destroy the Church of England. 
 Yet they have begun to do it. — Lord John Russell 
 has said that he is defending the " Queen's Pre- 
 rogative" in the course he is taking in Church 
 questions. I beseech his truthful attention to this. 
 However pardonable it may be in a lawyer to speak 
 for instance of the recent Judgment (by a legal fie- 
 
xii Preface. 
 
 tion,) as " Her Majesty's," this is, among practical 
 people in the nineteenth century, a mere playing 
 with words. Do let things be called by their right 
 names. The personal prerogative of the Queen in 
 these matters is a bygone dream. The Church 
 receives the 37th Article, but nothing more. No 
 real friends of the Crown, any more than of the 
 Church, must make the Crown ridiculous by assign- 
 ing to it in things sacred what is denied even in 
 things temporal ; lest they soon teach men to suspect 
 that the temporal rights of Royalty may have as 
 little foundation as the spiritual, in which no one 
 believes. The Supremacy of the Crown might seem 
 respectable so long as it supposed something pecu- 
 liarly resident in the person of the monarch ; but 
 with the departure of that theory the Supremacy 
 is in the State. And a terrible reality we are 
 finding that State Supremacy to be. 
 
 Then, finally, let us all aim at truthfully dealing 
 with things as they really are ; abandoning techni- 
 calities and reserves, and looking without prejudice 
 and stubbornness to what must come to pass. 
 
 The Essay which precedes this volume will not 
 find favour with any class of hollow and artificial 
 readers. It is open to a thousand cavils, but it is 
 written with unreserve and sincerity. May it aid 
 the minds of those who would escape the cant of 
 party, political or religious, and, while avoiding 
 Heresy and false doctrine, would cling to Charity 
 and Truth ! 
 
ON 
 
 HERESY, FALSE DOCTRINE, 
 
 "OPEN QUESTIONS." 
 
 I. The revered and thoughtful author of the 
 " Christian Year," both before and since the de- 
 cision of the Privy Council in Mr. Gorham's case, 
 has observed, that "it would need to be proved that 
 a Bishop or Archbishop acting on that decision 
 would not involve in direct Heresy both himself and 
 all in communion with him." By which I do not 
 understand him to deny that such proof might be 
 given ; because he adds, that a Judicial decision, after 
 all, could not overthrow " what is beyond all ques- 
 tion Synodically decreed :" but I take him to be 
 using words of warning and caution ; to be urging 
 that the minds of Churchmen ought to be at once 
 directed to the subject of dogmatic Authority in 
 general, the danger of Heresy, or Communion with 
 Heresy, and the duty of formally witnessing to the 
 Truth as it is in Christ ; and, in brief, to be re- 
 minding us that we are called to consider well what 
 
xiv Introduction. 
 
 our duty to God and the Church may, at this crisis, 
 require of us. 
 
 That there is indeed a deep necessity for consider- 
 ing these subjects can need no proof. On every 
 side one has heard the saying, that " we should 
 withdraw from the communion of Heretics," with 
 httle apparent thought of the danger and sin of 
 Schism, and — must I not say it ? — a forgetfulness 
 that if it be a duty to withdraw from false brethren, 
 it is also a grief and a sin to wound the weak. 
 
 It has been taken for granted, too, by some, that 
 forbearance to those in error is equivalent to indif- 
 ference to truth. A rigid theory of Dogmatism is 
 assumed, altogether alien, as it seems to me, from 
 the spirit of the Primitive Church, and of our own ; 
 and so we are to be driven to extremities wholly 
 inconsistent with the position and principles of 
 Churchmen of the school of Andrewes, Wilson, 
 and Ken. — Certainly from the moment it was 
 apprehended that the decision of the Privy 
 Council would be hostile to the orthodox Faith, a 
 different language began to be used by those who 
 had previously seemed satisfied with the prospect of 
 the Judgment of the Arches Court being confirmed. 
 A stern and exclusive formula was called for by 
 some such of our brethren, which, if attained, would 
 have divided the Church asunder, — not orthodox 
 from heretic, but brother from brother. And 
 resistance to this sternness was regarded as a timid 
 and time-serving surrender to the spirit of Heresy. 
 
Authority and Jurisdiction. xv 
 
 But it seemed to some of us that it was altogether 
 wrong to struggle for a new test of orthodoxy such 
 as was demanded ; wrong to our brethren, because 
 it put the truth before their minds, already preju- 
 diced, in such a form as could not fail to provoke 
 them to schism ; wrong to our Church, because it 
 would have seemed to stake her character for ortho- 
 doxy on a new and dangerous, and probably unat- 
 tainable, test. It was plain that they who were 
 urging Churchmen on this issue, reserved no alter- 
 native for themselves or others, on failure, save an 
 immediate departure from the communion of our 
 Church. Such persons then must have adopted, 
 consciously or unconsciously, a principle of dog- 
 matic Authority unrecognized as yet among English 
 Churchmen. That minute precision which they re- 
 quired, the more it is examined, will be the more 
 seen to be inconsistent with every theory of dog- 
 matic truth, except perhaps the Roman. 
 
 Then immediately in connexion with this demand 
 of a new test of orthodoxy on the subject of Bap- 
 tism, arose the question as to the erection of a Court 
 of Appeal in matters of Doctrine, and the inquiry 
 as to the origin of the Jurisdiction of such Court, 
 even if erected. This elicited the still further dis- 
 covery that the Roman theory of Jurisdiction (which 
 deduces all ecclesiastical power, even in foro ex- 
 terno, from their one centre of ecclesiastical unity) 
 had taken possession of the minds of some of our 
 brethren. But they seemed, nevertheless, to be 
 
 c2 
 
xvi Authority and Jurisdiction : 
 
 astonished that their adopted Roman theories of 
 dogmatic Authority and of Jurisdiction were, in their 
 result, incompatible with the position of English 
 Churchmen. The truth is, that if they had adopted 
 the same principles, or reasoned from them in the 
 same way, ten years ago, they would have discarded 
 our Church then as much as now" : and they have no 
 reason surely to be surprised at us who continue to 
 believe as our great Anglican Fathers have believed ; 
 and hope to defend our Church as they defended it, 
 and not on Roman ground. 
 
 According to the Roman theory of dogmatic 
 Authority, the doctrines of Christianity are not only 
 infallibly preserved and sufficiently taught, and ac- 
 companied by the grace of the Divine Spirit for the 
 salvation of all who believe and obey — for all this we 
 steadfastly maintain — but that those doctrines are 
 ever subject, in all their details, to the immediate de- 
 cision of a living infallible Judge. On Roman princi- 
 ples the legislator and the judge are alike practically 
 infallible : hence the facihty with which the fallacy 
 was of late adopted, that a Court by a "judicial sen- 
 tence assumed finally to determine doctrine .'" On 
 Roman principles, I say, this was true : but on ours it 
 could not be ; as I hope still further to explain. 
 
 So again, according to the Roman theory of 
 Jurisdiction, all power flows from the Pope ; and 
 its logical result is and must be a hierarchy such as 
 was contemplated by Gffegory VII. They speak of 
 Jurisdiction, and Mission, as though they were, dis- 
 
Roman Theories. xvii 
 
 tinctly, gifts of the Holy Ghost ; and then declaim 
 easily on the preposterous assumption that tem- 
 poral governors can impart any such gifts. The 
 fallacy succeeds through the medium of ambigu- 
 ous terms. 
 
 " Jurisdiction," for example — which (as often used) 
 is a mere abstraction — does in the truest sense 
 pertain to the Christian Priesthood. The spiritual 
 Power of governing the mystical body of Christ was 
 given to the rulers of His Church when He breathed 
 on them, and bestowed the Holy Ghost. The Right, 
 however, to exercise that power " to edification and 
 not to destruction " was afterwards regulated and 
 adjusted by the laws of His Church. But there is no 
 trace of the modern notion of a Gift of spiritual 
 Jurisdiction, separate from holy Orders, in the first 
 ages after Christ. Is it not mere wilfulness, then, 
 to tell us that we confound holy Orders and Juris- 
 diction ? We do nothing of the kind. The ideas 
 are distinct enough, though we claim no Jurisdiction 
 except that which Christ gave when He imparted 
 the Holy Ghost to His Apostles. All the Power 
 of Jurisdiction which we do possess is, doubtless, 
 imparted by holy Orders : but all the Right spiri- 
 tually to exercise that power, over persons, things, 
 or places, is regulated by the Laws of the Church, 
 under the ordinary course of Providence in the 
 world. — If the Church accepts or exercises any 
 kind of power for the government of Christian men, 
 beyond what Christ gave, she must receive it from 
 
xviii Authority and Jurisdiction : 
 
 the State,* and hold it, while she holds it, under the 
 laws of the State. 
 
 Christianity is destined to have its true sphere in 
 eternity. But if, meanwhile, it is designed to in- 
 fluence the course of this world, it must mingle with 
 it, and come under its laws, which for this present 
 have the sanction of the Moral Governor of man- 
 kind, Whose will it is that the world should exist 
 under Government.! 
 
 The following, from the greatest doctor of the 
 Schools, will illustrate how he regarded the spiritual 
 Power when imparted as of a twofold use and 
 character : and that Jurisdiction is not a distinct 
 gift of God, but is the right, given by roan, of 
 using the spiritual power imparted in consecra- 
 tion. " Spiritual power is twofold, sacramental and 
 jurisdictional. The sacramental is conferred by any 
 consecration. All the consecrations of the Church 
 are irremovable so long as that which is consecrated 
 remains ; as also is apparent in things inanimate ; 
 for the altar once consecrated is not consecrated 
 again, unless it has been mutilated, (or removed ? 
 " dissipatum,") And therefore such Power, according 
 to its essence, remains, in a man who by consecra- 
 
 * As an illustration of which I may mention the Holy 
 Governing Synod of the Russian Chui'ch, whose exterior " juiis- 
 dictioD," in all things not pertaining to their sacerdotal func- 
 tion and grace, is wholly derived from the emperor. 
 
 t I have examined this question more at large in the " Lec- 
 tures on Jurisdiction." (The Synod and the Diocese.) 
 
Roman Theories. xix 
 
 tion has received it, as long as he lives, whether he 
 fall into schism or even heresy : which is manifest 
 from this, that if he returns to the Church he is not 
 consecrated again. But because inferior power [as 
 a priest's for instance,] ought not to go forth into 
 action except as it is directed (movetur) by superior 
 power, (as in things natural also,) it follows, that 
 such do lose the use of their power, so that it is not 
 lawful to use their power. But if they do use it, 
 their power has effect in things sacramental, be- 
 cause in them man only works as God's instrument ; 
 whence the sacramental effects are not excluded on 
 account of the fault of the minister. 
 
 " But jurisdictional power is that which is given 
 by the mere injunction of man, and is not immov- 
 able ; does not remain in heretics and schismatics ; 
 so that they cannot absolve, excommunicate, give in- 
 dulgences, &c., and if they do it is null and void. 
 So when we deny the spiritual power of such, we 
 mean not its essence, but its lawful wse." (legitimum 
 usum.) S. Aquin. 2. 2dce. xxxix. 3. 
 
 The fallacy of recent mystifications, as to Jurisdic- 
 tion and Mission, will be transparent to any one who 
 thus sees they are to be resolved into the legal and 
 sometimes temporal use of an already possessed 
 spiritual power. 
 
 Thus much I have thought it necessary here to 
 say concerning dogmatic Authority, and concerning 
 Jurisdiction. For it has been a matter of common 
 inquiry of late years when some have departed from 
 
XX " The Faith;" a Deposit of Truth, — 
 
 us to the Church of Rome, " where did they begin 
 to go wrong ? — at what point did they diverge from 
 that ground whence Laud, and Ken, and others in 
 most troubled times could never be seduced ?" It 
 is surely a question of some interest. Let the most 
 striking examples of those who have left us be consi- 
 dered, and it will not be difficult, 1 think, to trace 
 their first deflection to a gradual and unconscious 
 adoption of the Roman theory, both as to Doctrine 
 and Discipline, as here indicated.* 
 
 But now, let not what has been defensively said 
 in behalf of our Church's authority and theory, in 
 opposition to those who deny the one and mistake 
 the other, be taken as indicating a want of sym- 
 pathy with others who are alarmed lest what has 
 thus far been our theory should be at length aban- 
 doned ; and what has thus far been relied on as 
 authority should fail us. 
 
 Though I do not beheve that the Enghsh Church 
 is yet coraniitted to Heresy, nor that she can be 
 charged with any real surrender of her authority to 
 teach the law of Christ, I cannot but think our 
 prospects are dark. I feel that our dangers must 
 be arrested now or never. In the meantime it may 
 lead to some juster appreciation of the subjects we 
 have to deal with if we subject them to a brief 
 analysis. 
 
 * Both may be traced in Mr. Newman's Essay, and in the 
 effect produced, it is said, on him and others by Dr. Wise- 
 man's powerful Tracts on Protestantism in the East. 
 
A Record of Realities. xxi 
 
 II. "A man that is an heretic reject, after one or 
 two admonitions." Such is the Apostle's command 
 to the rulers of the Church ; a command which im- 
 plies the existence of a " deposit " of truth in the 
 Church, and the sacred duty of keeping it against 
 all corrupters, whether from within or without. 
 
 The deposit of Truth — the received Faith — the 
 " one Commandment which we have heard from the 
 beginning," — has been found in the Creeds of all the 
 "churches of the saints " from the Apostles' days. 
 The Creeds are realities, and mysteries ; not opi- 
 nions. To depart from them is "to believe a lie." 
 Some of the Churches, as we read in the Apocalypse, 
 have " fallen;" and, if yet surviving, have need of 
 repentance. (Rev. ii. 5.) Some even have suffered 
 false teachers among them, " saying they are pro- 
 phets when they are not ;" (Rev. ii. 20 ; iii. 9 ;) and 
 such have been evermore warned by the Spirit to 
 put away heresy from among them, and return and 
 " do the first works." But the Universal Creed has 
 not changed, nor the universal Church failed to guard 
 the apostolic Truth. If in any Church heresy be 
 ever found to be the rule, — unsuppressed formal 
 heresy — its teaching henceforth becomes " another 
 Gospel:" the truth brought to us by God Incar- 
 nate has then and there been supplanted by another 
 religion : it is no more a Church of Christ : it may 
 have, for a time, a " name to live, but it is dead." 
 His truth, thus forsaken and cast out, lives and 
 abides elsewhere. 
 
xxii Imperfections of our present perceptions. 
 
 But are we to think that every erroneous opinion 
 among Christians is thus fatal ? — Perhaps it is not 
 too much to say that every error, every mistake in 
 doctrine, however sUght, is of the nature of heresy, 
 and only would need consistent and truthful develop- 
 ment to become formally what from the first it 
 tended to be. For Truth is one and eternal : and 
 Error is its opposite. 
 
 III. But there are different degrees as well as 
 kinds of error. We must distinguish between 
 abstract falsehood, as it stands opposed to essential 
 truth, and that imperfect knowledge and partial 
 perception of truth which are inevitable in our 
 moral education here as finite intelligences. If we 
 could examine the intellectual form of many of our 
 Christian doctrines as existing in the mind of the 
 ordinary believer, what inaccurate, what fearfully 
 erroneous, conceptions should we discover in thou- 
 sands who nevertheless are both in heart and by 
 education consciously orthodox ! The more intel- 
 lectual and busy class of minds from time to time 
 will give expression to their erroneous conceptions ; 
 but are they therefore to be always deemed heretics 
 at once ? God forbid ! Only when they persevere 
 in doctrines or expositions formally condemned by 
 the Church, as contrary to the faith of Christ, 
 can they be thought to be any more heretical than 
 are the multitudes of less intellectual believers all 
 around them whose modes of thought or expression 
 would by no means bear analysis. 
 
What Heresy is. xxiii 
 
 We are here in a state of probation ; learning- 
 first the words, and year by year the ideas, of our 
 Catechism and our Creed. While learning, we all 
 have very imperfect, and even at times untrue, per- 
 ceptions : yet we are not heretics, but dutiful chil- 
 dren of the Church of God, if we are putting from 
 us continually, as we proceed, all that our Heavenly 
 Guide discovers to us to be crude and imperfect, 
 and therefore, so far, untrue. 
 
 From this we may see the reason of the ordinary 
 definition of a heretic ; and understand the various 
 gradations of erroneous doctrine which the charity 
 of the Church forbears awhile to pronounce to be 
 formal heresy ; and further, the necessity which at 
 times exists for "open questions," (in one sense of 
 the term,) arising from the fact that our moral pro- 
 bation is concerned in our reception of the Gospel 
 as truth : so that the Apostle to the Corinthians 
 said, " it is necessary that there be heresies " among 
 Christians, " that the faithful may be proved." 
 
 IV. It is not every error, we say, that is to be at 
 once assailed by the name of Heresy, among Chris- 
 tians ; — I say among Christians, for the false doc- 
 trines of unbaptized men, who profess not Christian 
 religion, are not, of course, to be described as " here- 
 sies " at all; — but we so describe the pertinacious 
 errors of false believers. In the primitive Church, 
 (though the term was more widely used by some, as 
 Epiphanius,) " Heresy" was in a special way the name 
 of false doctrine concerning God, the Persons of the 
 
xxiv What Heresy is. 
 
 ever blessed Trinity, or the Divine and human na- 
 tures of Christ. Thus Origen describes the here- 
 tic : — " Omnis qui se Christo credere profitetur, et 
 tamen alium Deum legis et prophetarurn, alium 
 evangehorum Deum dicit, et Patrem Domini nostri 
 Jesu Christi, non eum dicit esse qui k lege et pro- 
 phetis prsedicatur, sed alium nescio quem ignotum 
 omnibus atque omnibus inauditum, hujusmodi ho- 
 mines hsereticos designamus." Then he instances 
 Marcion, Basilides, and others, and his apologist goes 
 on and names later heretics.* Not, of course, that 
 the false doctrines promulgated on the other points 
 of Christianity were not heretical ; but that false 
 teaching in the early Church was at first specially 
 busy in distorting the truths and mysteries of pure 
 theology ; (S. Basil, Ep. 72, &c.) the course of con- 
 troversy advancing to the mixed and moral theology, 
 much later. Thus the general councils of the first 
 four ages were concerned almost exclusively with the 
 doctrines of primary theology ; — the Object of our 
 worship ; the one God in three Persons ; the one 
 Christ of two perfect natures, Divine and Human. 
 
 Indeed it is startling to us, with our more defined 
 notions at this distance of time, to find what latitude 
 was permitted, for the first two or three centuries, 
 on the doctrines of Grace, and even in the interpreta- 
 tion of Holy Scripture. It is hard to deny that Origen 
 himself, greeted as he was in his day as a master in the 
 Church, had a narrow escape of being a formal heretic 
 
 * Painpliili Apol. in Orig. Op. vol. i. p. 760. Basiloae, 1571. 
 
Distinctions between Errors and Heresies, xxv 
 
 on more than one doctrine ; was certainly appealed 
 to for generations as a supporter, if not founder, of 
 heresies ; and stood in need of the most generous 
 defence of the later fathers (as S. Athanasius) : though 
 on the other hand, his zeal and goodness have raised 
 a wonder in many, that he attained not the honours 
 of a canonized saint. So, too, the opinions of St. 
 Clement of Alexandria — his great master — are on 
 some points what would be deemed intolerable now. 
 And it would be difficult to mention any one primi- 
 tive father, whose writings have come down to us, 
 in which modern Christianity, Roman, Anglican, 
 and Greek, would not find something to denounce. 
 
 V. With true wisdom, therefore, the canonists 
 and casuists of the Church have distinguished heresy 
 into "material" and "formal;" and concede that 
 " material heresy," or error of Christians proceeding 
 from ignorance, without intention of persevering in 
 an opposite doctrine to that of the Church, is not 
 to be reckoned among real heresies. Hence to the 
 guilt of formal heresy two things are required : the 
 understanding, and the will. 
 
 It is agreed on all hands, I believe, (and it is the 
 only point which seems so agreed in this matter,) that 
 an opinion or doctrine can be declared heretical by 
 the ordinary judge, i.e., the Bishop — or the Chapter, 
 if the see is vacant, — when it informally opposed to 
 truth revealed by God, and defined by the Church ; 
 or whose contradictory is de fide. But an error may 
 proceed very far before it amounts to this : it may 
 
XX vi Restraint of Heresy. 
 
 be " rash," " scandalous," " offensive to pious ears," 
 &c.; it may be " bordering on heresy," (hseresi prox- 
 ima,) i. e., by an immediate consequence ; it may 
 be "suspected of heresy," (suspecta de hseresi,)* 
 though in grammatical exactness it may be made 
 good; it may even be '' savouring of heresy," (sa- 
 piens hseresin,) and yet not definitively pronounced 
 " heretical." So grave a matter is it thought among 
 theologians to fix the charge of heresy on a Chris- 
 tian man, — such careful discernment is manifested 
 lest that mortal guilt should be wrongfully attributed 
 to any. 
 
 It does not follow, from what is now said, that 
 every question may be an " open question " which 
 has not been formally closed by a definition of the 
 Church ; but 1 suppose it does follow that indivi- 
 dual Christians have no right to pronounce a sen- 
 tence of " Heresy" where the Church has not very dis- 
 tinctly pronounced it. Our duty may be, no doubt, 
 to delate a suspected heretic to the Ordinary ; and 
 if a just decision cannot be had from him, through 
 his unfaithfulness, or mistake, or through the ty- 
 ranny of the world intruding to cast a secular shield 
 between spiritual wickedness and its rightful con- 
 demnation, then it must be ours to wait the will of 
 
 * This is, perhaps, the truest definition of the doctrine of 
 the Privy Council, " that Eegeneration may take place before, 
 in, or after Baptism." It is " suspecta de haTcsi," if judged 
 as a general proposition ; Mr. Gorham's doctrine seems to be 
 " lifcresis formaHs, et mortalis." 
 
Of Dogmatic Definition. xxvii 
 
 God in patience, faith, and prayer; for it is His 
 cause. 
 
 VI. But another conclusion must also be ob- 
 viously drawn from what has been brought forward ; 
 viz., that the Definitions of the faith of Christians 
 become enlarged from age to age. The first age 
 knew not the terms of the creed of St. Athanasius ; 
 St, Athanasius expressed not the truth in language 
 formed by the following generation. And so on until 
 now, had the Church remained united, and general 
 councils freely met^ Heresy had been more and more 
 shut out, and dogmatic teaching had grown more 
 and more perfect : but in the mean time, and sub- 
 ject to an appeal to a general council, whenever the 
 providence of God may give it to His Church, we 
 remain on many doctrines without dogmatic guid- 
 ance ; even as the primitive Church remained, far 
 more so than ourselves. 
 
 If the dogmatic truths stated in the Constantino- 
 politan creed be insufficient for the salvation and 
 edification of the Church, then were the Churches 
 of Christ uninstructed for salvation for nearly four 
 hundred years. But no man will affirm that. We 
 believe, then, that supposing it should have pleased 
 God to draw a line in His providence to shut up the 
 Church from further synodal action (just as the 
 inspired canon of Scripture was eventually closed) ; 
 had it, in fact, seemed good to Him to grant us but 
 four general councils, just as He has given us but 
 four canonical gospels — (a notion almost implied in 
 
xxviii Of Dogmatic Definition. 
 
 that parallel between the two cases which St. Gre- 
 gory and other fathers glanced at,) then it would 
 have been our duty to believe that what had been 
 sufficient dogmatic truth for 450 years was sufficient 
 until the end of the dispensation. 
 
 VII. The ground on which we receive the synodal 
 declarations of the whole Church, as definitive ex- 
 positions of the faith, is the promise of Christ that 
 His Spirit should guide His Church into all truth. 
 That this promise did not preclude the rise and 
 long continuance of error at times, the whole his- 
 tory of the Church clearly shows ; but it did surely 
 guarantee the essential casting out of falsehood, and 
 the practical instruction to salvation of all Chris- 
 tians who would learn and obey. And if this be so, 
 we cannot doubt that what is at any time defined is 
 sufficient for that time. The absence of all dog- 
 matic definition in the hundred years after the 
 Ascension, was not unsafe for souls. The outlines 
 of creeds in the next hundred were not unsafe for 
 souls. To be baptized into Christ, and be mysti- 
 cally one with the Incarnate^ was as easy to the un- 
 learned and unwise of Rome or Corinth, as to the 
 then better taught believers of Alexandria. And 
 even in our late age of the Church, as has been said, 
 the dogmatic knowledge of the millions, who con- 
 stitute the body of the baptized community every- 
 where, is probably, after all our definitions, in no 
 respect clearer or truer than in the first generation of 
 believers. It is not knowledge — it is grace that saves. 
 
Restraint of Error, inforo externo. xxix 
 
 I am not undervaluing dogmatic truth ; I am 
 trying to estimate aright its true value and position, 
 as the vital test of a Church which would have its 
 people " wise unto salvation." As the want of 
 intellectual accuracy in the individual Christian is 
 no test of his spiritual state before God ; so, also, 
 the absence of dogmatic precision in a Church is no 
 impeachment of its vitality, — provided that Church 
 be clear of heresy formally acknowledged. 
 
 VIII. But here it may be rightly inquired,— If a 
 Definition of the faith can only be received with cer- 
 tainty from an QEcumenical synod, what is to be done 
 at times or in circumstances when an appeal to such 
 a synod is practically impossible ? Is new error, 
 and probable heresy, to have free scope, wherever 
 there has been no previous definition ? Of course 
 not ; why may it not be dealt with as it would have 
 been in any primitive diocese ? Why not be judged 
 by the Ordinary ? Not that his decision, whatever it 
 be, is equivalent to adecree of the CEcumenical Synod, 
 or touches the Faith ; but that it is the practical 
 rule for the case which has arisen : not, as such, 
 binding on the conscience, but a temporary resort, 
 an expedient — (and on practical expedients, ra- 
 ther than infallible rules, all moral probation seems 
 to proceed from day to day) — the best moral and 
 legal provision for the time being, in a matter where 
 the Church's doctrine, though morally certain, has 
 not been formally fixed from the beginning. 
 
 It is undeniable, indeed, that there is a large class 
 
 d 
 
XXX Restraint of Error, in faro externa. 
 
 of truths, connected rather with what has been called 
 the "anthropology" than the theology of our religion, 
 which, though not Synodically defined, are not " open 
 questions," in the widest sense of the term, after the 
 deep investigations of the Schools, and the disquisi- 
 tions of Fathers and Doctors for the last thousand 
 years. But we must not, (especially as individuals,) 
 identify false doctrine on such matters with false 
 doctrine on matters settled at Chalcedon or Nicaea. 
 While " earnestly contending for the faith," (I mean, 
 for example,) against the errors of many of our Evan- 
 gelical brethren, we must not denounce them as we 
 must the heresies of the Arians and Socinians. 
 There need not be thought to be the infinite dis- 
 tance of mortal "heresy" between Andrewes and 
 Leighton, although we may find, in the latter, doc- 
 trines which could only logically result in heresy. 
 
 No doubt it will often be a duty to bring to a judi- 
 cial decision such differences of doctrinal teaching as 
 may for a time have co-existed in a Church without 
 heretical pravity ; and in such cases the differmg 
 parties will, (if truly Christian, and in intention or- 
 thodox,) invite rather than hinder such decision. 
 But what the effect of any such judicial decision 
 would be, cannot be ruled a priori. Suppose the 
 plainest decision, even of a general council, were 
 disputed, before a court of law admitting fully the 
 authority of that council, but having to pronounce 
 on its actual meaning ; — take, for example, a dis- 
 pute about the exact meaning of the Homoousion 
 
Restraint of Error, inforo interno. xxxi 
 
 of Nicsea : and suppose the judge to be sincerely 
 persuaded that it was an unfortunate adoption of 
 an old Sabellian term ; or that it was a merely verbal 
 dispute ; and allege that the pious semi-Arians held 
 communion with both parties in the fourth century ; 
 and that it might be the same again in the nine- 
 teenth ? Surely no orthodox Christian would think 
 such a decision of the least value ; nor that it com- 
 promised the Church ; nor that it showed the need 
 of a more accurate formula than that of Nicsea. 
 The judge in the supposed court in such a case 
 would have made a bad decision ; and temporary 
 injury of some kind might legally result. But I say 
 no one would think the judge had dogmatic autho- 
 rity, nor that the creed needed amendment, nor 
 that the conscience of the Church was aggrieved, or 
 her orthodoxy compromised.* 
 
 Exactly the same is to be said of the value of any 
 legal decision in a Church which acknowledges the 
 Catholic faith. It may be fortunate or unfortunate, 
 right or wrong ; for the most infallible of laws are 
 among us not administered by infallible judges. The 
 Faith of the Church remains as it is synodically de- 
 fined. 
 
 IX. It seems almost superfluous, however, to 
 add that heresies, before they are denounced, are 
 
 * Thus tlie Archbisliop of Dublin's notion of the Personce of 
 the Teikitt might not improbably be ruled by those in autho- 
 rity in the State as " open " and tenable: but is it the less a 
 heresy ? or shall we make the Athanasian Creed plainer ? 
 
 fZ2 
 
xxxii Of Open Questions. 
 
 yet deeply pernicious. They affect the spirituality 
 and life of a Church as truly as immorality affects 
 it ; the former tampering with the faith of individual 
 Christians, the latter destroying their holiness. And 
 hence there is a most solemn duty incumbent every- 
 where immediately on the rulers of the Church, who 
 have, according to their place and station, the cus- 
 tody of the faith ; a duty to which they are sworn, 
 both Bishops and Priests, in their solemn ordina- 
 tion and consecration, "to be ready with all dili- 
 gence to banish and drive away all erroneous and 
 strange doctrine contrary to God's Word," and 
 " privately and openly call on and encourage others 
 to do the same." Nor is the individual function of 
 the least gifted faithful parish Priest of light import, 
 in relieving the burden and sin of heresy when it 
 has oppressed and injured those committed to him 
 by the law of the Church. " Hseresis pure men- 
 talis, cum excommunicationem annexam non habeat, 
 potest absolvi a quocumque etiam simplici confes- 
 sario." (Ferraris, in verb.) 
 
 X. But something should now be said as to wdiat 
 perhaps may long, or always, remain " open ques- 
 tions." 
 
 It will be apparent, of course, that in the earliest 
 periods of the Church there would be the most pos- 
 sibility of such undecided points of doctrine as 
 might bear diversity of judgment among true be- 
 lievers in Christ. The question, for example, as 
 to the obhgation of the law of Moses, was an " open 
 
The Early Church. xxxiii 
 
 question" before the Council of Jerusalem ; but not 
 afterwards. Subsequent to that council, Judaising 
 was " heresy." " If ye be circumcised, Christ shall 
 profit you nothing." And it is but just, in reading 
 the fathers of the primitive days, to bear in mind 
 that that was pardonable error, or even seemed pro- 
 bable truth, before it was pronounced on by the 
 Church, which was false doctrine and even heresy 
 afterwards. Thus it would be unjust to Origen to 
 call him a heretic for much which has been con- 
 demned distinctly since that time ; but it wouJd be 
 also unjust to the Church to say, that all the errors 
 to be found in the writings of Origen were regarded 
 as " open questions " by the Church of his day, 
 simply because uncondemned. An undefined point 
 of theology is very different from an " open ques- 
 tion ;" for it may be undefined because undebated, 
 unraised 5 but it can only be thought an open ques- 
 tion when openly and consciously permitted as such 
 by the Church, after it has risen. 
 
 The undefined theology of the first era of Chris- 
 tianity might be exemplified at a length which 
 would soon exceed the limits of an essay like the 
 present. But even the " open questions," then al- 
 lowed to be such, were neither unimportant nor few. 
 The opinions, for example, of Justin Martyr, the 
 public defender of Christianity, were subjected to 
 no formal rebuke, as far as we are aware : and in 
 his dialogue with Trypho, he says he had been 
 taught to believe the Millennium, and the restoration 
 
xxxiv Of Open Questions 
 
 of Jerusalem ; and not to believe in the eternity of 
 future punishments of the wicked. With respect 
 to the former, he plainly says it was an open ques- 
 tion, and that other Christians did not believe it. — 
 So again, the five " philosophizing fathers," as they 
 have been called, — Athenagoras, Tatian. Theophilus, 
 Hippolitus, and Novatian, — expressed themselves 
 on even the doctrine of the Trinity, without offence 
 apparently at the time, in language which we should 
 know at once to be heretical. 
 
 But the example most interesting to us at this 
 time is that of St. Cyprian and his African 
 synods : to which I shall at once pass on. The 
 mode in which they express themselves betrays 
 a very undefined state of public opinion, in some 
 respects, even on the subject of Baptism. I refrain 
 altogether from referring to professed Christian 
 eclectics, so tolerated in the early Church. I refer 
 to the orthodox teachers of the people. Let it not 
 be said, in order to put aside the illustration now 
 adduced, that the dispute between St. Cyprian and 
 the rest of the Western Churches, as to the reception 
 of heretical Baptism, " involved no doctrine," but 
 only affected the discipline of the Church. It was 
 far otherwise ; and it is impossible to mark the 
 course of that controversy, without observing how 
 undefined, on some very vital points, were the ideas 
 of the African Bishops ; and how rightly, therefore, 
 " rebaptization " has been ranked among heresies. 
 [Gaulter] The doctrines of the Church's unity, — 
 
connected ivith Baptism. xxxv 
 
 the effect of Baptism, — its necessity, and other 
 points, were found to be involved in the inquiries of 
 the Council of Carthage. For example : — Neme- 
 sianus, one of the Bishops, there argues, from our 
 Lord's words to Nicodemus, that " neither can the 
 Spirit operate without the Water, nor the Water 
 without the Spirit." But St. Augustin, writing 
 against the Donatists, gives the case of the thief 
 saved on the Cross, (iv. c. 23,) as proof that the 
 necessity of the sacrament of Baptism is to be 
 limited by the proviso, — " where it may be had " — 
 " Complente Deo quod non ex voluntate defuisset." 
 Many others of the African Prelates urged that out 
 of the Church there could be no remission of sins ; 
 no salvation; and therefore no Baptism. The 
 answer of St. Augustin admits the premises, but 
 denies the conclusion. Hence he acknowledges that 
 Baptism, given in an heretical communion, was a 
 Sacrament ivithout the gj-ace of the Sacrament ; and 
 that the grace would follow at a subsequent time, 
 on the person being reconciled to the Church : — a 
 decision, it must be observed, that makes no pro- 
 vision for baptized infants dying among heretics. 
 
 Nothing is more apparent, on the very face of 
 the subject, than that the Bishops of the Council 
 of Carthage had no defined theories as to points 
 involved in their own sentences ; but spoke with the 
 simplicity and faith of unscholastic Christians. 
 While, on the one hand, there is the most perfect 
 unity among them as to the fact that Baptism con- 
 
xxxvi Of Open Questions 
 
 fers Grace ; so that, indeed, their whole difficulty 
 arose from not conceiving how grace could in any 
 sense be given by the ministry of heretics out of the 
 Church ; the replies and explanations of St. Augus- 
 tin, on the other hand, discover how undefined their 
 notions were as to the precise gift, inseparable from 
 the Sacrament itself, as such. This point is every 
 way worthy of our observation, especially as the 
 consideration of it may teach forbearance among 
 brethren now. 
 
 St. Cyprian, and the Bishops who thought with 
 him, all began with the undoubting assumption, that 
 the " one Baptism " conferred " remission of sins ;" 
 and how this could be given out of the one Church 
 where the Holy Spirit dwells, they could not com- 
 prehend. St. Augustin's answers point out that the 
 worthiness of the minister hinders not the effect of 
 a sacrament at any time ; and that a Christian 
 who apostatized, either secretly or openly, and yet, 
 after so (really) leaving the Church, gave Baptism 
 to others, would not confer a doubtful sacrament. 
 The Church would never re-baptize those who had 
 been so baptized by unworthy, or even by fallen mi- 
 nisters ; otherwise, who could be certain of Baptism ? 
 So far his argument was easy : but when he went on 
 to carry out his principle to its full extent, and say 
 that valid Baptism — Baptism never to be repeated 
 — depended in no sense on the quality of the minis- 
 ter, he still refused to affirm that remission of sins 
 coirtd be conferred out of the Church ; and he con- 
 
as to Baptism. xxxvii 
 
 sequently made a distinction (as has been said) be- 
 tween the Sacrament and the plenary Grace of the 
 Sacrament; holding that the Sacrament was con- 
 ferred by the water and the words, and that the 
 remission of sins, in the case of heretics, followed 
 afterwards, on their reconciliation with the Church. 
 This placed St. Augustin in a difficulty : the 
 distinction seemed new to the Church. Little trace 
 of it is to be found among the Carthaginian 
 Bishops in St. Cyprian's council; nor even in 
 the days of St. Basil, who, in his first Canonical 
 Epistle, is content with broadly separating purely 
 heretical from schismatical Baptism, in the spirit 
 of the Nicene canons. And the distinction now 
 made, did not provide for the case of infants bap- 
 tized and dying in an heretical communion. St. 
 Augustin's theory was complete, and his distinc- 
 tions available, in the case of adults ; but for infants 
 a further consideration was evidently required. And 
 the difficulty remained, I believe, with but little fur- 
 ther elucidation for a thousand years, and (as we shall 
 see) occupied the schoolmen almost till the Reforma- 
 tion. " No Christian, however," says St. Augustin, 
 " would ever say" that infants are not baptized for 
 remission of sins, and so for salvation ; and then he 
 attempts to reconcile this to that part of his argu- 
 ment, in which he had maintained the salvation of the 
 thief on the Cross : 'As the thief, in a case of necessity, 
 
 * was saved by inward sanctification and faith in the 
 
 * heart, when external Baptism was impossible, so the 
 
xxxviii Of Open Questions. 
 
 ' inward faith and outward confession being by an 
 ' equal necessity impossible to the infant, he may be 
 * saved by the Sacrament alone.' This certainly se- 
 cures the doctrine of infant salvation by the Sacra- 
 ment, but does not explain how the Sacrament could 
 have such effect when administered by heretics, who 
 (as he previously laid it down) cannot give " remis- 
 sion of sins," nor the saving effect of Baptism ; but 
 only such sacramental gift as becomes saving on that 
 subsequent reconciliation to the Church, which 
 dying infants have not. 
 
 The whole passage is so worthy of consideration, 
 as the earliest clear exposition of that which was 
 developed in the mediaeval schools, that I must 
 desire the reader to consider it in all its parts, some 
 of them singularly bearing on present questions. 
 
 " Quid autem valeat et quid agat in liomine corporaliter 
 adhibita sanctificatio sacramenti, (sine qua tamen ille latro nou 
 fuit, quia non ejus accipiendse voluntas defuit, sed nou acci- 
 piendse uecessitas adfuit,) difficile est dicere. Nisi tamen 
 plurinium valeret, nou servi bajitismum Dominus accepisset. 
 Verum quia per se ipsa consideranda est, excepta salute 
 hominis cui perficienda; adhibetur, satis indicat quod et in 
 malis, et in eis qui sseculo verbis, non factis renuntiant, ipsa 
 Integra est, cum illi nisi corrigantur, salutem babcre non 
 possint. Sicut autem in latrone, quia per necessitatem cor- 
 poraliter defuit, perfecta salus est, quia per pietatem spirita- 
 liter adfuit ; sic et cum ipsa prsesto est, si per necessitatem 
 desit quod latroni adfuit, perficitur salus. Quod traditum tenet 
 vuiiversitas Ecclesia>, cum parvuli infantes baptizantur, qui 
 certe nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam, et ore con- 
 litori ad salutem, quod latro potuit : quiu etiam flendo et 
 
St. Augustin. xxxix 
 
 vagiendo cum m eis mysterium celebratur, ipsis mysticis voci- 
 bus obstrepunt ; et tamen niollus Christianorum dixerit eos 
 inaniter baptizari. 
 
 " Et si quisquam in hac re auctoritatera divinam quserat, 
 quainquam quod universa tenet ecelesia, nee conciliis institu- 
 tum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica 
 traditum rectissime creditur: tamen veraciter conjicere pos- 
 sumus, quid valeat in parvulis baptismi sacramentum, ex cir- 
 cumcisione cai-nis, quam prior populus accepit, quam prius 
 qviam acciperet justificatus est Abraham. Sicut Cornelius 
 etiam dono Spiritus-sancti, prius quam baptizaretur, ditatus 
 est. Dicit tamen Apostolus de ipso Abraham, Siguum accepit 
 circumcisionis, signaculum justitise fidei ; qui jam corde credi- 
 derat, et deputatum illi erat ad justitiam. Cur ergo ei prsecep- 
 tiim est, ut omnem deinceps infantem masculum octavo die 
 circumcideret, qui nondum poterat corde credere, ut ei depu- 
 taretur ad justitiam ; nisi quia et ipsum per se ipsum sacramen- 
 tum multum valebat ? Quod in filio Moysi per Angelum 
 manifestatum est, qui cum adhuc incircumcisus a matre ferre- 
 tur, praesenti et evidenti periculo ut circumcideretur exactum 
 est ; et cum factum esset, depulsa est pernicies. Sicut ergo 
 in Abraham prsecessit fidei justitia, et accessit circumcisio 
 signaculum justitise fidei : ita in Cornelio praecessit sanctificatio 
 spiritalis in dono Spiritus-sancti, et accessit sacramentum 
 regenerationis in lavacro baptismi. Et sicut in Isaac, qui 
 octavo suae nativitatis die circumcisus est, prseeessit signaculum 
 justitife fidei ; et quoniam patris fidem imitatus est, secuta est 
 in crescente ipsa justitia, cujus signaculum in infante prseces- 
 serat: ita in baptizatis infantibus praecedit regenerationis 
 sacramentum ; et si Christianam tenuerint pietatem, sequetur 
 etiam in corde conversio, cujus mysterium praecessit in corpore. 
 Et sicut in illo latrone quod ex baptismi sacramento defuerat 
 complevit omnipotentis benignitas, quia non superbia vel con- 
 temptu, sed necessitate defuerat : sic in infantibus qui baptizati 
 moriuntur, eadem gratia omnipotentis implere credenda est, 
 quod non ex impia voluntate, sed ex aetatis indigentia, nee 
 
xl Of Open Questions. 
 
 corde credere ad justitiam possunt, nee ore confiteri ad salutem. 
 Ideo cum alii pro eis respondent, ut impleatur erga eos cele- 
 bratio sacramenti, valet utique ad eorum consecrationem quia 
 ipsi respondere non possunt. At si pro eo qui respondere 
 potest alius respondeat, non itidem valet. Ex qua regula illud 
 in Evangelic dictum est, quod omnes cum legitur naturaliter 
 movet : ^Etatem habet, ipse pro se loquatur. 
 
 " Quibus rebus omnibus ostenditvir aUud esse sacramentum 
 baptismi, aliud conversionem cordis, sed salutem bominis ex 
 utroque compleri : nee si unum borum defuerit, ideo putare 
 debemus consequens esse, ut et alterum desit ; quia et illud 
 siae isto potest esse in infante, et boc sine illo potuit esse in 
 latrone, complente Deo sive in illo, sive in isto, quod non ex 
 voluntate defuisset : cum vero ex voluntate alterum bormn 
 defuerit, reatu bominem involvi. Et baptismus quidem potest 
 inesse ubi conversio cordis defuerit : conversio autem cordis 
 potest quidem inesse non percepto baptismo, sed contempto 
 non potest. Neque enim ullo modo dicenda est conversio cor- 
 dis ad Deum, cum Dei sacramentum contemnitur. Juste 
 igitur reprebendimus, anatbemamus, detestamur, abominamur 
 perversitatem cordis bsereticorum : sacramentum tamen Evan- 
 gelicum non ideo non babent, quia per quod utile est non 
 babent. Quapropter cum ad fidem et veritatem veniunt, et 
 agentes psenitentiam remitti sibi peccata deposcunt, non eos 
 decipimus neque fallimus, cum correctos a nobis ac reformatos 
 in eo quod depravati atque perversi sunt, ad regnum coelorum 
 sic disciplinis coelestibus erudimus, ut quod in eis integrum est, 
 nullo modo \dolemus ; nee propter bominis vitium, si quid in 
 bomiue Dei est, vel nullum, vel vitiosum esse dicamus." 
 
 In the next book, St. Augustin refers to the 
 case of those who do not receive Baptism here- 
 tically, although it has been given by a heretic, in 
 urgent necessity, (c. 5.) What he there says may 
 fairly include the case of infants baptized among 
 
St. Augustin. xli 
 
 heretics, who cannot be heretical or schismatical 
 receivers of the Sacrament. Still in such a case it 
 would seem that there was a latent or passive gift 
 of Remission, and consequently that such gift is 
 in the Sacrament when given even by heretics, 
 though not sanctifying any adult receiver who 
 has the impediment of heresy or actual sin, which 
 an infant cannot have. In other words, the 
 scholastic doctrine of the "Character" and the 
 " Habitus Fidei," was precisely what was required 
 to give completeness to St. Augustin's exposition 
 of the whole subject. What he says indeed does 
 practically amount to this ; but he does not defi- 
 nitely express it. Hence he is obliged expressly to 
 leave one part of the subject " open " and undecided, 
 viz., the sacramental effect of Baptism insincerely 
 received. 
 
 He felt that he could not, on his own prin- 
 ciples, deny all sacramental effect in any case, 
 if the water and the words, the only essentials, are 
 ministered. Still he refrained from deciding. " Sicut 
 jam praeteritis majorum statutis non dubito etiam 
 illos habere Baptismum qui quamvis fallaciter id 
 accipiant, in Ecclesiam tamen accipiant, vel ubi 
 putatur esse ecclesia ab iis in quorum societate id 
 accipitur, de quibus dictum est. Ex nobis exierunt. 
 Ubi autem neque societas uUa esset ita credentium, 
 neque ille qui ibi acciperet ita crederet, sed totum 
 ludicre et mimice et joculariter ageretur, utrum ap- 
 probandus esset Baptismus qui sic daretur, Divinum 
 
xlii Of Open Questions. 
 
 judicium per alicujus revelationis oraculum et im- 
 pensis supplici devotione gemitibus implorandum 
 esse censerem ; ita sane ut post me dicturos senten- 
 tias," [almost a prophetic anticipation,] " ne quid 
 jam exploratum et cognitum afferent humiliter ex- 
 pectarem : quanto magis ergo nunc sine preejudicio 
 diligentioris inquisitionis vel majoris auctoritatis 
 illud dixisse accipiendus sum." 
 
 The ultimate doctrine arrived at, I may as well 
 express in words which I recently used in an 
 article on the " Scholastic Doctrine of Baptism,"* 
 which may in several points elucidate these open 
 questions on the doctrine of Regeneration in the 
 primitive Church. 
 
 " Theologians make a distinction between ' Sa- 
 cramentum,' and ' rem sacramenti.' A sacrament, 
 being God's gift, has grace in it, whenever, and 
 under what circumstances soever, it may be received. 
 The fulness of its grace is what is understood, how- 
 ever, by ' rem sacramenti.' This is general. f In the 
 Sacrament of Baptism there is impressed on the soul 
 of every receiver, infant, or adult, in every case the 
 indehble * character Christi,' which is Regeneration. 
 In opposition to those who said that this impressed 
 ' character ' was unaccompanied by grace in the 
 case of infants, St. Thomas says, ' hoc patet esse 
 
 * In " Ecclesiastic," Jan., 1850, p. 8, and pages 11, 12, &c. 
 
 t Our own Twenty-ninth Article makes the same distinc- 
 tion ; tlie "wicked" receive the " Sacramentum" in the Euelia- 
 rist, and not " rem Sacramenti." 
 
The next age. xliii 
 
 falsum dupliciter. Primo, quidem, quia pueri sicut 
 et adulti, in Baptismo efficiuntur membra Christi : 
 uiide necesse est quod a Capite recipiant influxum 
 Gratice et Virtutis. Secundo ; quia secundum hoc, 
 pueri discedentes post baptismum non pervenirint 
 ad vitam eternam ; et ita non profuisset eis ad sa- 
 lutem baptizatos fuisse !'* Even adults, who re- 
 ceive the Sacrament 'ficte,' he declares (art. 9) to 
 receive this indehblef character. ' Ad primum ergo 
 dicendum : quod baptizari in Christo potest inteUigi 
 duphciter. Uno modo in Christo id est in Christi 
 conformitate ; et sic quicunque baptizantur in 
 Christo Ei conformati per fidem et caritatem in- 
 duunt Christum per gratiam. Alio modo dicuntur 
 aliqui baptizari in Christo inquantum accipiunt Sa- 
 cramentum Christi : et sic omnes induunt Christum 
 per configurationem characteris, non autem per 
 conformitatem gratise ; (i.e. plense.)' Duns Scotus 
 says the same, ' Omnis baptizatus induit Christum 
 quantum ad hoc quod Christi familicB ascribitur ; 
 sed non induit Christum semper per charitatem vel 
 gratiam.' — Dist. IV. lib. iv. 6 q. The Master of 
 the Sentences had taught the same. And this ' cha- 
 racter ' so impressed on the soul, is defined as ' Sig- 
 naculum spirituale quo anima insignitur ad suscipi- 
 endum . . . . ea quae sunt divini cultus.' Again 
 
 * An "indelible character," we may observe, has in like 
 manner been assigned to Holy Orders, by the judgment of our 
 own ecclesiastical courts. 
 
 t Sum. Tbeol. 3a. Qu. 69, art. 6. 
 
xliv Of Open Questions. 
 
 it is described as ' character Christi,' ' character Sa- 
 cerdotii Christi,' ' character quo distinguuntur fideles 
 Christi a servis diaboU/ &c. And, without further 
 quotations, we may add, that all infants and sincere 
 adults were considered to receive both ' Sacramen- 
 tuni,' and ' rem Sacramenti ;' — and insincere adults 
 ' Sacramentum solum.' 
 
 " This being admitted as the Church's doctrine, 
 the inquiry next arises, How can infants be said to 
 receive ' rem Sacramenti ' as the Church affirms ? — 
 receive it for justification, — receive it for salvation 
 so long as they remain infants? In the case of 
 adults, the ' rem Sacramenti/ the full grace re- 
 ceived, implies on their part (according to ' the order 
 of moral causes ') faith and repentance.* Can the 
 * rem Sacramenti,' the full and justifying effect, be 
 possessed by infants without any grace of faith in 
 them ? The doctors of the Church felt the diffi- 
 culty of so concluding, and therefore (just as they 
 attributed a moral nature to a child though inca- 
 
 * The question in the Catechism, " Why are infants bap- 
 tized when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot perform 
 faith and repentance ?" is answered by saying tliat "they pro- 
 mise " by their sureties to perform " them both " — a promise at 
 once intelligible, if the baptized have the "Habitus fidei," 
 whereby he may hereafter " perform " the " actum fidei," The 
 answer given (it may be added) in the Catechism is not in- 
 tended to assign the Church's reasons for baptizing infants ; 
 but only to remove that one objection to the practice, which the 
 question brings forward. — On this subject see, further, note 19, 
 pp. 38 and 39 of the present volume. 
 
The Medieval Church. xlv 
 
 pable of moral action) they perceived and defined 
 that the regenerated child had the ' Habitus fidei,' 
 as a gift from God, from the first — which Habitual 
 faith, being a heavenly gift, is perfect, and capable 
 of spiritual action in future life. The consequences 
 of any contrary conclusion might, if closely pressed, 
 be fatal to the whole doctrine of the new-birth in 
 Baptism.* Baptized infants would be ' membra 
 Christi,' justified without faith, and baptized adults, 
 ' membra Christi, fide justificati !' — It would be im- 
 possible even to conceive of two such classes of 
 members, as pertaining to the one Mystical Body. 
 If there be no ' supernatural quality,' (to use a 
 recent term) — no ' habitual grace ' infused, — re- 
 generation is not the same among all the chil- 
 dren of the Second Adam, not even among all the 
 ' undoubtedly saved !' A distinction would be set 
 up which the Church has ever denied. But when 
 we identify the ' rem Sacramenti ' with an infused 
 gift of God in all cases, [where there is no " per- 
 sonal obstacle " — ] (which, being perfect when 
 given, is termed a Habit, and not a mere poten- 
 tiality,) we assign the whole work of our salvation, 
 from the first, as the Church has taught us, to the 
 Divine mercy alone ; whether ' moral causes ' have 
 preceded, as with adults ; or not preceded, as with 
 infants." 
 
 * Even Calvinists would say that God gives ffrace to infants 
 who are saved ; and what is that but " Habitus Fidei ?" Very 
 few, I should think, believe that any infants baptized and 
 dying in infancy "perish everlastingly." 
 
 e 
 
xlvi Of Open Questions. 
 
 How many ages these, and other, grave open 
 questions lingered in the Church may be exemphfied 
 indeed by ahnost any text of the Master of the 
 Sentences. Observe (with reference, however, to 
 Holy Baptism), that which is prefixed to the fourth 
 book of Distinctions, (by St. Thomas Aquinas.) 
 No brief quotation could give any fair impression 
 the state of the case, and might be open to cavil. 
 He lays out the whole subject thus : — 
 
 DiSTINCTIO ly. 
 
 Qtiod alii suscipiant saermnentum, et rem ; alii sacramentumy et 
 non rem ; alii rem, et non sacramentum. 
 
 Hie dicendum est, aliquos suscipere saci'amentum, et rem 
 sacramenti ; aliquos saci'ameutuin, et non rem ; aliquos rem, et 
 non sacramentum. Sacramentum, ' et rem simul suscipiunt 
 omnes parvuli, qui in baptismo ab original! muudantur peccato. 
 Quamvis quidam diffiteantur illis qui perituri sunt parvulis in 
 baptismo dimitti peccata, iunitentes illi verbo Augustini, 
 " Sacramenfca in soils electis efiiciunt quod figurant ;" non in- 
 telligentes illud ita esse accipiendum, quia cum in aliis efiiciant 
 sacramenta remissionem, non hoc in eis faciunt ad salutem, 
 sed in solis electis. Nam quod omnibus pam.dis in baptismo 
 remittatur peccatum per baptismum, Augustiuus evidenter 
 dicit (in Encliir. cap. xliii. et habetiu' de consccr. dist. iv. cap. 
 "A parvulo.") "A parvulo (inquit) recenter nato usque ad 
 decrepitum senem, sicut nullus proliibetur a baptismo, ita 
 uullus est qui non peccato moriatur in baptismo." Sed par- 
 vuli tantmn original!, majores vero etiam omnibus quae male 
 vivendo addiderunt ad illud, nisi enormitas vit?e impediat, id 
 est fictio. Adulti vero, qui cum fide baptizantur, sacramentum, 
 et rem suscipiunt. 
 
 De jicte accedentibus. 
 
 Qui vero sine fide, vel ficte acceduut, sacramentum, non rem 
 suscipiunt. Undo Hieronymus (super Ezecliiel. cap. xvi. super 
 
The Mediceval Church. xlvii 
 
 ilia verba, "Aqua non es lota in salutem.") "Sunt lavacra 
 gentUium, haereticorum ; sed non lavant ad salutem. In Ecclesia 
 etiam qui non plena fide accipiunt baptisma, non Spiritum, 
 sed aquam suscipiunt." Augustinus etiam (super Psalm. Ixxvii. 
 in princ.) ait : " Jud^eis omnibus commiinia erant sacramenta, 
 Bed non communis omnibus erat gratia, quae est virtus sacra- 
 mentorum. Ita et nunc communis est baptismus omnibus 
 baptizatis, sed non virtus baptismi, id est ipsa gratia." Item 
 (de poen. med. cap. ii. refertur de consecr. dist. iv. cap. " Omnis 
 qui.") " Omnis qui jam suae voluntatis arbiter constitutus est, 
 cum accedit ad sacramentum fidelium, nisi poeniteat eum 
 veteris vitae, novam non potest incboare. Ab bac poenitentia 
 cum baptizantur, soli parvuli immunes sunt." His, aliisque 
 testimoniis aperte ostenditur, adultis sine fide, et poenitentia 
 vera in baptismo non conferri gratiam remissionis : quia nee 
 parvulis sine fide aliena, qui propriam liabere nequeunt, datur 
 in baptismo remissio. Si quis ergo ficte accedit, non babens 
 veram cordis contritionem, sacramentum sine re accipit. 
 Videtur tanien Augustinus dicere (de baptismo contra Dona- 
 tistas Lib. i. cap. xi. and xii.) quod etiam accedenti, qui etiam 
 habet odium fraternum in ipso momento quo baptizatur, omnia 
 condonentur, et post baptismum mox redeant. Sed non boc 
 asserendo dicit, immo banc opinionem, et praemissam senten- 
 tiam conferendo. Ait enim sic (ut refertur de consecr. dist. 
 iv. cap. " Quomodo.") " His qui ficto corde baptizantur, aut 
 peccata nullatenus dimittuntur, quia Spiritus sanctus discip- 
 linae eflugiet fictum ; aut in ipso temporis puncto per vim 
 sacramenti dimissa, iterum per fictionem replicantur, ut etiam 
 illud verum sit : Quotquot in Cbristo baptizati estis (Gralat. iii. 
 27,) et etiam illud : Spiritus sanctus disciplinae eftugiet fictum 
 (Sapient, i. 5,) ut scilicet induat eum Cbristo sauctitas bap- 
 tismi, exuat eum Cbristo pernicies fictionis. Nam redire 
 dimissa peccata, ubi fraterna caritas non est, aperte Dominus 
 docet (Mattb. xviii.) etiam in illo servo a quo Dominus dimis- 
 sum debitum petit, quia ille conservo dimittere noluit. Sic 
 non impeditur baptismi gratia, quo minus omnia peccata 
 
 e2 
 
xlviii Of Open Questions. 
 
 dimittantur, etiamsi fraternum odium in ejus cui dimittiintur, 
 auimo perseverat. Solvitur enim hesternus dies, et quidquid 
 superest ; et solvitur etiam ipsa hora, momentumque ante 
 baptismimi, et in baptismo. Deinceps autem continue reus 
 incipit esse, non solum consequentium, sed etiam praeteritorum 
 dierum, horarum, momentorum, redeuntibus omnibus quae 
 dimissa sunt." Hoc autem, ut praediximus, non sub asser- 
 tione dixit, quod ostenditur ex eo quod ait in eodem Libro 
 (cap. xii. init.) sic : " Si ad baptismum iictus accedit, dimissa 
 sunt ei peccata, aut non sunt dimissa ? Eligant quod volue- 
 rint," Ecce aperte cernis, si tamen intendis, id dixisse 
 Augustinum non asserendo, sed quaerendo, et aliorum opinionem 
 refereudo. Idem enim ait (ibid.) "Tunc valere incipit ad 
 salutem baptismus, cum ilia fictio veraci confessione reces- 
 serit, quae corde in maHtia perseverante peccatorum ablutionem 
 non sinebat fieri." Non ergo ficte accedenti peccata dimit- 
 tuntur, 
 
 Quomodo mtelligatur illud : Quofcquot in Cbristo baptizati estis, 
 Cbristum induistis. 
 
 Quaeritur ergo quomodo illud (Gralat. iii. 27,) accipiatur: 
 " Quotquot in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis." 
 Potest dici, quod qui in Christo, id est in Christi conformitate, 
 baptizantur, scilicet ut moriantur vetustati peccati, sicut 
 Christus vetustati poenae, induunt Christum, quern per gratiam 
 inhabitantem habent. Potest et aliter solvi. Duobus enim 
 modis Christum induere dicimur, vel assumptioue sacramenti, 
 vel rei perceptione. Unde Augustinus (de baptismo contra 
 Donatistas Lib. V. cap. xxiv.) " Induunt homines Clmstum 
 aliquando usque ad sacramenti perceptionem, aliquando usque 
 ad vitae sanctificationem : atque illud primum bonis, et malis 
 potest esse commune, hoc autem est proprium bonorum, et 
 piorum." Omnes ergo qui in Christi nomine baptizantur, 
 Christum induunt vel secundum sacramenti perceptionem, vel 
 secundum vitae sanctificationem. 
 
The MeditJBval Church. xlix 
 
 De illis qui suscipiunt rem, et non sacramentum. 
 
 Sunt et alii, lit supra posuimus, qui suscipiunt rem, et non 
 sacramentum. Qui enim eftundunt sanguinem pro nomine 
 Jesu, etsi non sacramentum, rem tamen accipiunt. Unde Augus- 
 tinus (de Civ. Dei, Lib. XIII. cap. x.) " Quicumque non per- 
 cepto regenerationis lavacro pro confessione Christi moriuntur, 
 tantum eis valet ad dimittenda peccata, quantum si abluerentur 
 sacro fonte baptismi." Audistis quod passio pro Christi 
 nomine suscepta, supplet vicem baptismi. Nee tantum passio 
 vicem baptismi implet, sed etiam fides, et contritio, ubi neces- 
 sitas excludit sacramentum, sicut aperte docet Augustinus (de 
 baptism, contra Donatistas Lib. IV. cap. xxii.) dicens, baptismi 
 vicem aKquando implere passionem. " De latrone illo, cui non 
 baptizato dictum est (Luc. xxiii. 43,) Hodie mecum eris in 
 paradiso, beatus Cyprianus non leve documentum assumit. 
 Quod etiam ego considerans invenio non tantum passionem pro 
 nomine Christi, id quod baptismo deerat, posse supplere, sed 
 etiam fidem, conversionemque cordis, si forte ad celebrandum 
 mysterium baptismi in angustiis temporum succurri non potest. 
 Neque enim ille latro pro nomine Christi erucifixus est, sed pro 
 meritis facinorum suonun : nee quia credidit, passus est ; sed 
 dum patitur, credit. Quantum ergo valeat sine visibilis bap- 
 tismi Sacramento, quod Apostolus ait (Eom. x. 10,) Corde 
 creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem : in 
 illo latrone declaratum est. Sed tunc irapletur invisibiliter, 
 cum mysterium baptismi non contemptus religionis, sed 
 articulus necessitatis excludit. Et baptismus quidem potest 
 esse ubi ccmversio cordis defuerit ; conversio autem cordis 
 potest quidem inesse non pereepto baptismo, sed contempto 
 baptismo non potest. Nee ullo modo dicenda est conversio 
 cordis ad Deum, cum Dei sacramentum contemnitur." Ecce 
 hie habes non solum passionem, sed etiam fidem, et contri- 
 tionem conferre remissionem, ubi non contemnitur sacramen- 
 tum ; ut in latrone illo ostenditur, qui non per passionem, sed 
 per fidem salvatus est sine baptismo, Sed dicunt quidam hoe 
 
I Of Open Questions. 
 
 argumentum retractasse Augustinum. Retractamt quidem 
 exemplum, sed sententiam non. Ait enim (Lib. II. Ketract. 
 cap. xviii.) " In IV. Libro de baptismo, cum dicerem ^dcem 
 baptismi posse habere passiouem, non satis idoneum posui 
 illius latronis exemplum : quia utrum non fuerit baptizatus, 
 incertum est." Constat ergo sine baptismo aliquis justificari, 
 et salvari. Unde Ambrosius de Valentiniano (in orat. de 
 obitu Valentiniani.) "Ventrem meum doleo, ut propbetico 
 utar eloquio : quia quern regeneraturus eram, amisi. A^erum- 
 tamen gratiam ille, quam poposcit, non amisit." 
 
 Qu(2 videntur ohviare prcedictis. 
 His autem videtur obviare quod Dominus dicit (loan. iii. 5,) 
 " Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu sancto, non 
 potest intrare in regntim cselorum :" quod si generaliter verum 
 est, non videntur esse vera superius posita. Sed illud intelli- 
 gendum de illis qui possunt, et contemnunt baptizari. Yel 
 ita intelligendum est. " Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et 
 Spiritvi sancto," id est ex ea regeneratione quae fit per aquam, 
 et Spiritum sanctum ; non salvabitur. Ilia autem regeneratio 
 fit non tantum per baptismum, sed etiam per poenitentiam et 
 sanguinem. Unde auctoritas dicit, ideo Apostolmn pluraliter 
 dixisse, "Fundamentum baptismatum," quia est baptismus in 
 aqua, in sanguine, in poenitentia. Hoc autem non ideo dicit, 
 quod sacramentum baptismi fiat nisi in aqua ; sed quia ipsius 
 virtus, et sanctificatio datur non tantummodo per aquam, sed 
 per sanguinem, et poenitentiam. Ratio enim id suadet. Si 
 enim non valentibus credere parvulis sufficit baptismus, multo 
 magis sufiicit fides adultis volentibus, et non valentibus bap- 
 tizari. Unde Augustinus (Lib. de unico baptismo contra 
 Petn. cap. vii.) " Quaeris quid sit majus, fides, an aqua ? Non 
 dubito quin respondeam, fides. Si ergo quod minus est, sanc- 
 tificare potest ; nonnc quod majus est ? id est fides, de qiia 
 Christus ait (loan. xi. 25,) Qui crcdiderit in me, etiam si 
 mortuus fuei'it, vivet." Sed dicunt aliqui, nullum adultum in 
 Christum credere, vel caritatem habere sine baptismo, nisi 
 
The Medieval Church. li 
 
 sanguinem fimdat pro Domiuo, subdita introduceutes testi- 
 monia. Augustinus (Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum cap. iii.) 
 ait : " Ex illo tempore quo Salvator dixit : Nisi quis renatus 
 fuerit, &c. absque sacramento baptismi, j)r£eter eos qui iu 
 Ecclesia catbolica sanguinem fundunt, aliquis vitam aeternam 
 accipere non potest," Item (Grennadius de eccl. dogmat. cap. 
 Isxiv.) " Nullum catecbumenimi, quamvis in bonis operibus 
 defunctum, vitam aeternam habere credimus, excepto martyrio, 
 ubi tota sacramenta baptismi complentur." Item (ibid.) 
 " Baptizatis tantum iter salutis esse credimus." Sed quod in 
 bis minus dixit, in aliis capitulis supra positis supplevit. Et 
 ideo bsec sic intelligenda sunt, ut ilK soli babentes tempus 
 baptizandi excipiantur. Si enim aliquis habens fidem, et cari- 
 tatem voluerit baptizari, et non valet necessitate prseventus ; 
 supplet Omnipotentis benignitas quod sacramento defuerat, 
 Dum enim solvere potest, nisi solvat, tenetur: sed cimi jam 
 non jjotest, et tamen vult, non imputat ei Deus, qui suam 
 potentiam sacramentis non alligavit. Quia vero invisibilis 
 sanctificatio sine visibiii sacramento qviibusdam insit, aperte 
 Augustinus tradit super Leviticum (qusest. Ixxxiv.) dicens, in- 
 visibUem sanctificationem quibusdam afiuisse, et profuisse sine 
 visibilibus sacramentis ; visibilem vero sanctificationem, qu£e 
 fit sacramento visibiii, sine invisibili posse adesse, non posse 
 prodesse. Nee tamen visibile saeramentum ideo contemnen- 
 dum est, quia contemptor ejus invisibiliter sanctificari non 
 potest. Hinc Cornelius, et qui cum eo erant jam Spiritu 
 sanctificati, baptizati sunt (Act. x.) Nee superflua judicanda 
 est sanctificatio visibilis, quia invisibilis praecessit. Sine visi- 
 biii ergo invisibilis sanctificatio esse potest, et prodesse ; visi- 
 bilis autem quae sit sacramento tonus, sine invisibili prodesse 
 non potest, cum ilia sit omnis illius Veritas. Simoni Mago 
 visibilis baptismus non profuit, quia invisibiKter non adfuit ; 
 sed quibus invisibilis adfuit, profuit. Nee tantum valet fides 
 aliena parvulo, quantum propria adulto. Parvulis enim non 
 sufiicit fides Ecclesiae sine sacramento : qui, si absque baptismo 
 faerint defuncti, etiam cum deferuntur ad baptismum, damna- 
 
lii Of Open Questions. 
 
 buntur, sicut multis sanctorum auctoritatibus comprobatur. 
 Ad boc unum sufficiat. Atigustinus (Fulgentius de fide ad 
 Petrum cap. sxvii.) ait : " Fii'inissime teue, parvulos qui vel in 
 uteris matrum vivere incipiunt, et ibi moriuntur, vel de matri- 
 bus nati sine sacramento baptismi de hoc sseculo transeunt, 
 ajteruo supplicio puniendos : quia etsi propria? actionis peccata 
 non babuerunt, origiualc tamen peccatum traxeruut carnali 
 conceptione. Et sicut par\'T.di qui sine baptismo n^oriuntur, 
 infidelium ascribuntur numero ; ita qui baptizantur, fidcles 
 dicuntur, quia fideHum consortio non separantur, cum orat 
 Ecclesia pro fidelibus defunctis." Fideles ergo sunt non 
 propter virtutem, sed fidei sacramentum. Unde Augustinus 
 (De baptismo parvulor. ad Bonifacium ut supr.) " Parvukim, 
 etsi nondum fides ilia quae etiam in credentium voluntate con- 
 sistit, jam tamen fidei ipsius sacramentum, id est baptismus, 
 fidelem facit. Nam sicut credere respondetur, ita etiam 
 fidelis vocetur, non rem ipsam mente annuendo, sed ipsius rei 
 percipiendo sacramentum." 
 
 Quid prosit baptismus Ms qui cum fide accedunt. 
 
 Solet etiam queeri de illis qui jam sanctificati Spiritu, cum 
 fide, et caritate ad baptismum accedunt, quid eis conferet 
 baptismus. Nibil enim videtur praestare, cum per fidem, et 
 contritionem jam remissis peccatis justificati sunt. Ad quod 
 sane dici potest, eos quidem per fidem, et contritionem jus- 
 tificatos, id est a macula peccati purgatos, et a debito setemae 
 poena? absolutes ; tamen adbuc teneri satisfactione temporali, 
 qua poenitentes ligantur in Ecclesia. Cum autem baptismum 
 percipiunt, et a peccatis, si qua interim post conversionem 
 contraxcrunt, mundantur, et ab exteriori satisfactione absol- 
 vuntur, et adjutrix gratia omuisque virtus in eo augetur, ut 
 vere novus homo tunc dici possit, fomes quoque peccati in eo 
 amplius debilitatur. Tdco Hieronymus dicit (super Mattb. 
 XXV.) quod fides qua? fidelibus in aquis baptismi datur, vel 
 nutritur, non babenti aliquando ibi datur, ct jam habcnti, ut 
 plenius habeat, datur. Sic et de aliis intelligendum est. Qui 
 
The Mediaval Church. liii 
 
 ergo mundus accedit, ibi fit mundior ; et omni habenti, ibi 
 amplius datur. Quod vero omnis exterior satisfactio ibi 
 relaxetur, Ambrosius (Ambrosiaster) ostendit super ilium 
 locum (Eom. xi.) " Sine poeuitentia sunt dona Dei, et vocatio," 
 dicens : " Gratia Dei in baptismo non requirit gemitum, vel 
 aliquod opus ; sed omnia gratis eondonat." Quod quidem de 
 exteriori gemitu, vel planctu accipiendum est. Nam sine 
 interiore nemo adultus renovatur ; sed exteriores satisfactiones, 
 et afflictiones, scilicet sordes poenitentium, ibi dimittimtur. 
 Multum ergo confert baptismus etiam jam per fidem justifi- 
 cato : quia accedens ad baptismum, quasi ramus a columba, 
 portatur in arcam. Ante intus erat judicio Dei; sed nunc 
 etiam judicio Ecclesise intus est. Cum vero in baptismo pec- 
 catum deleatur, et satisfactio exterior non imputetur ; quseritur, 
 cur poenalitas, cui pro peccato addicti sumus, non tollatur. 
 Hoc ideo tradunt fieri sancti, quia si a poena homines per bap- 
 tismum liberarentur, ipsam putarent baptismi pretium, non 
 seternum regnum. Ideo soluto reatu peccati, temporalis poena 
 tamen manet, ut ilia vita studiosius quseritur quae erit a poenis 
 omnibus aliena. Ideo etiam manet, ut sit fideli et certandi 
 materia, et vincendi occasio : qui non vinceret, si non pugnaret ; 
 nee pugnaret, si baptismo fieret immortalis. 
 
 Cujus rei baptismus qui datur jam justo, sit sacramentum. 
 
 Si quseritur, cujus rei baptismus ille sit sacramentum qui 
 datur jam justo, dicimus, sacramentum esse et rei quce prce- 
 cessit, id est remissionis ante per Jidem dates, et remissionis 
 temporalis poeuae, sive peccati, si habetur quod interim com- 
 mittitur, et novitatis, ac omnis gratise ibi praestitse. Omnis 
 etenim rei signum est, cujus causa est. Nee mireris rem ali- 
 quando prsecedere sacramentum, cum aliquando etiam longe 
 post sequatur ; ut in illis qui ficte accedunt, quibus cum post 
 poenitueriut, incipiet baptismus prodesse, in quibus fuit bap- 
 tismus sacramentum hujus sanctificationis quam poenitendo 
 habent. Sed si nunquam poeniterent, nee a figmento rece- 
 
liv Of Open Questions. 
 
 derent, ciijus rei sacramentum esset baptismus ab illis suscep- 
 tus ? Potest dici, rei quae ibi fieret, si eorum enormitas non 
 impediret. 
 
 Si parvulis datur in baptismo gratia, qua jiossunt in majori estate 
 perjicere. 
 
 Solet etiam qiiferi, si parvulis in baptismo datur gratia, qua 
 cum tempus babueriut utendi libei'o arbitrio, possiut velle, et 
 currere. De adultis enim qui digne recipiunt sacramentum, non 
 ambigitur quin gratiam operantem, et cooperautem perceperint, 
 qvise in vacuum eis cedit, si per liberum arbitrium post morta- 
 liter deliqueriut, qui merito peccati gratiam appositam perdunt. 
 Unde dicuutur contumeliam Spiritui sancto facere, et ipsum a 
 se fugare. De parvulis vero qui nondum ratione utuntur, 
 qusestio est, an in baptismo receperiut gratiam, qua ad majorem 
 venientes fetatem, possint velle, et operari bonum. Yidetur 
 quod non receperint : quia gratia ilia cax'itas est, et fides, quae 
 voluntatem prseparat, et adjuvat. Sed quis dixerit eos accepisse 
 fidem, et caritatem ? Si vero gratiam non receperint, qua bene 
 operari possint, cum fuerint. adulti ; non ergo sufficit eis in 
 hoc statu gratia in baptismo data, nee per dlam possunt modo 
 boni esse, nisi alia addatur ; qua) si non additur, non est ex 
 eorum culpa, quia justificati sunt a peccato. Quidam putant 
 gratiam operantem, et cooperantem cunctis parvidis in baptis- 
 mo dari in munere, non in usu ; ut cum ad majorem venerint 
 setatem, ex munere sortiantur usum, nisi per liberum arbitrium 
 usum muneris extinguant peccando : et ita ex culpa eorum 
 est, non ex defectu gratife, quod mali fiunt, qui ex Dei munere 
 valentis habere usum bonum, per liberum arbitrium renuerunt, 
 et usum pravum elegerunt. 
 
 I have confined myself for obvious reasons to this 
 class of once " open questions," as we are now so 
 specially concerned with the subject of Baptism. A 
 careful study of this passage alone may yet teach a 
 lesson of charity to many. 
 
The Mediaval Church. Iv 
 
 It would be a work of supererogation here to en- 
 large the range of topics, and more than glance at 
 the numerous other undefined questions of primi- 
 tive and later Christianity. But many, I think, 
 will contemplate with more astonishment in its 
 continuance than in its origin this absence of 
 dogmatic definition for so many hundred years ; 
 and that too on other and most important points 
 of the faith. Many, I say, who would hear with- 
 out surprise that the Church of the first centuries 
 had an undefined theology, — (because they would 
 explain it by the comparative fewness of documents, 
 or the simplicity of unsuspecting orthodoxy, which 
 would have been alike astonished by the Trentine 
 decisions, or the Zuinglian,) — will yet be surprised to 
 find what questions were considered debatable in 
 the middle ages. The boldness of discussion, even 
 in the most sacred matters, is what the moderns 
 would not have suspected. 
 
 Thus, even to the days of Aquinas, it might be held 
 that venial or even mortal sin was remitted without* 
 
 * Bradwardine tliouglit (De Causa Dei, lib. i. c. 43,) that a 
 contrary opinion is Pelagian, (in its tendency at least.) The 
 whole of that chapter is full of interest, especially the part 
 about the power of the keys ; and I would especially commend 
 it to the consideration of a recent writer on " Absolution," and 
 those who have imagined the popular Roman theories herein 
 to be the same as those of the middle age of the Church. 
 Bradwardine adopted the views suggested by P. Lombard with- 
 out reserve as to the pardon of sin proceeding from God, and 
 not from the priest ; and even advanced to the almost heretical 
 statement, that neither contrition nor confession precedes the 
 
Ivi Of Open Questions. 
 
 special confession : — and, (to omit minor points) — in 
 respect of the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, 
 it was open to St. Thomas Aquinas to maintain 
 a doctrine of Transubstantiation, which in some 
 respects would scarcely be deemed pardonable 
 now. He denies that either of these forms of 
 speech could be used, either (before consecration) 
 " quod est panis erit corpus Christi," or (after 
 consecration) " quod est corpus Christi fuit panis ;" 
 on the ground that no common subject remains 
 after consecration, which the word " quod "* would 
 
 blotting out of sin, " miilt6 magis nee absolutio saeerdotis cum 
 h£ec, si fiat legitime, sit post illas,^' &c., adding tlie authorities, 
 quoted in P. Lombard, of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome ; and 
 also Origen. Of course Bradwardiue applied his principles 
 also in respect of Baptism ; but I must not enlarge on an in- 
 viting subject. I do wish that people knew something of the 
 enlarged charity and intellectual freedom of the middle ages. 
 
 * So in reply to the question, " "What is broken by the 
 priest ?" Berengarius was made by Pope Nicolas to say, it was 
 the "true Body of Chkist " which was broken. Aquinas 
 thinks this a less probable opinion than another, viz., that it is 
 the form of bread which is broken, according to St. Paul saying, 
 "the bread which we break." The following are from the text 
 of P. Lombard. 
 
 " Aliorum opinio. 
 "Alii vero dicunt, quod sicut ibi species panis est, et non 
 est ibi res, cujus, vel in qua sit ilia species ; ita ibi est fractio, 
 qure non sit in aliqua re, quia niliil ibi frangitur : quod mira- 
 biliter Dei potentia fieri dicunt, ut fiat fractio ubi nihil 
 frangitur. 
 
 " Aliorum opinio. 
 " Alii tradunt, corpus Christi essentialiter frangi, et di^ddi ; 
 
The Mediaeval Church. Ivii 
 
 seem to imply. He dislikes the expression that the 
 consecrated bread becomes, or is made, the Body of 
 Christ. He hesitates to say " out of the bread the 
 Body is made," or " from the bread ;" as such 
 phrases would seem to imply a material cause ; in 
 opposition to which he says, " nihil panis erit 
 unquam aliquid corporis Christi." All that is 
 sensible or perceptible in bread remains after conse- 
 cration as before ; in fact, nothing is annihilated ; 
 and nothing that is sensible or perceptible in the 
 Lord's Body exists in the Sacrament after conse- 
 cration. The " conversion " is a mysterious dis- 
 placing of the inner substance of the one by the 
 sacred and sw^ernatural presence of the other : the 
 "Presence" is not to be even described as "local." 
 — Such is the doctrine both of P. Lombard and St. 
 Thomas, a doctrine which nearly reduces the dis- 
 pute to a question of metaphysical philosophy. 
 
 I do not in this, of course, throw doubt for a mo- 
 ment on the unquestioned orthodoxy of the Angelical 
 doctor, whose precision on many points is so per- 
 ceptibly advanced beyond the looser views of P. Lom- 
 bard : I am quoting his thoughts in order to show to 
 
 et tarnen integrum, et iucorruptibile existere. Quod se 
 colligere asserunt ex confessioue Bereugarii, qui coufessus est 
 coram Nicolao Papa, et pluribus Episeopis (ut in Decret. de 
 cousecr. dist. ii. cap. ' Ego Berengarius,') panem, et vinum, 
 quae in altari ponuntur, post consecrationem non solum sacra- 
 mentum, sed etiam verum corpus, et sanguinem Christi esse ; 
 et sensualiter non solum sacramento, sed in veritate manibus 
 sacerdotum tractari, et frangi, et fidelium dentibus atteri. 
 
Iviii Of Open Questions. 
 
 concise thinkers among ourselves that dogmatic truth 
 may be held vitally and clearly, and yet not be quite 
 so briefly defined as they might desire, nor, at all 
 times, clear of " open questions." Surely it is but 
 impatience or thoughtlessness which reckons inquiry 
 and analysis to be symptoms of want of faith ; and, 
 to be consistent, it should go on to deny that dog- 
 matic teaching could have existed among those 
 doubting doctors of the schools. 
 
 It w^ould not be difficult to furnish examples in 
 illustration concerning the grace of all the Sacra- 
 ments of the Church, — all more or less allied with 
 the most essential realities of our probation, the 
 nature of sin and holiness, the transmission of evil, 
 the law of our justification. But my object is not 
 to raise questions ; only to plead that it is not neces- 
 sarily a sign of heresy to raise them. Of course I 
 do not mean that all the questions raised in the 
 schools were " open questions;" some were but dis- 
 cussed to be exposed ; but many w^ere kept open 
 from generation to generation. 
 
 But further : they who are discontented with our 
 own Church because she has not dogmatically de- 
 cided some points on which they demand decision, 
 should learn that they may, by changing the terms, 
 bring the same complaint against the Trentine 
 Church, not to mention other communions. 
 
 Surely it is no light matter that the doctrine 
 of the Inmiaculate Conception should have been 
 so long an open question, for it is no subordinate 
 
The Trentine Church. lix 
 
 importance which is now assigned to it, though 
 the Council of Trent left it and other points, un- 
 touched. But above all others, what can be thought 
 of the great open question which still exists in the 
 Roman Communion, as to the Infallibility of the 
 Pope, — his Independence of general councils, — 
 his Supremacy over the faith itself? Nothing 
 can well be more vital : and yet this great and 
 fundamental matter, on which everything in Roman 
 Christianity may one day come to depend, is 
 a,n "open" question on wdiich men are allowed 
 to hold the most opposite opinions in the Roman 
 Communion. What can, in truth, be more melan- 
 choly than the position of the Roman Church in 
 respect of all those questions which were so unpar- 
 donably left open by the Council of Trent ? ques- 
 tions of faith and morals such as have since then 
 agitated the wdiole of their Communion throughout 
 Europe ? the timid policy which avoided their con- 
 sideration having contributed probably, as much as 
 any other cause, to the political and moral disasters 
 which have reduced the continent at large to a con- 
 dition so fearfully irreligious ! 
 
 Utterly afraid of ever again meeting a general 
 council of the Church, even if it could be gathered, 
 (which may not be, as yet at least, " without the 
 commandment and will of princes,") the Roman 
 Church has been driven by circumstances to adopt 
 as its theory the dogmatic infallibility of the Pope — 
 a theory possibly subversive of the whole objective 
 
Ix Of Open Questions. 
 
 truth of revelation by no very remote or subtle con- 
 sequence. And henceforth, one by one, questions 
 will be settled as the " Immaculate Conception " 
 has lately been : they will be allowed to settle them- 
 selves in a rough sort of way by the course of events, 
 or by the docility or inclination of the people, till at 
 length their practical resolution in the popular mind 
 receives the imprimatur of the Pontiff. Thus pro- 
 ceeding at a kind of hazard, without a principle of 
 action except the Pope, the Roman Church seems 
 destined to advance to its consummation, adding 
 Heresy to immorality : and a Church which has 
 held possession of Europe for a thousand years, and 
 under whose hands Europe has become, morally and 
 religiously, what it now is, seems likely to end by 
 resolving Christianity into a theory, which may one 
 day ignore all that was deemed truth before ! 
 
 It is an ungracious task to have to dwell on the 
 discordant teachings, the wranglings, and variations, 
 of other Churches,* yet something seems almost to be 
 demanded, by the tone of many in our present con- 
 troversies. The " variations" of Romanism, from the 
 Council of Trent until now, in dogma and in morals, 
 ought, perhaps, by the pen of some Bossuet among us, 
 to be more specifically and popularly enumerated, 
 for the benefit of misguided multitudes who dream 
 of " unity " in the Roman Communion. What a 
 fearful chapter of open questions even in funda- 
 mental morality might not the history of " pro- 
 * Vide Dictiounairc des livros Jansenistes. Autwerp. 1752. 
 
Our present case. Ixi 
 
 bableisra " alone furnish ! And what conflicting 
 theories as to the whole doctrine of grace are dis- 
 covered by such letters as Pascal's Provinciales ! — 
 Nay, not even the primary truths of " natural the- 
 ology," the being and attributes of God, may as 
 yet remain unagitated in the Roman schools, " In 
 what sense God knoivs, or foreknows;" "whether 
 He is free ;" " whether the moral attributes of the 
 Creator are identical with the moral character of the 
 creature ;" these, and countless other high and in- 
 effable matters, are controverted still in the Roman 
 Communion. Nor is the acknowledgment of diffi- 
 culty and doubt deemed unpardonable even in these 
 most awful subjects. "Hie nodus est totius theo- 
 logize intricatissimus, senigma sacrum, cui plena 
 solvendo impar est humana mens : Ecquis enim satis 
 concipiat quomodo stet libertas Dei cum ejus immu- 
 tabilitate, salvis utriusque juribus : vel enim actus 
 liber potuit abesse a Deo, vel non : Si primum, quo- 
 modo immutabilis ? Si secundum, quomodo liber ?" 
 (Billuart, ii. p. 20.) 
 
 But it may be imagined, perhaps, " these are 
 scholastic, and not practical varieties and dis- 
 putes, and do not touch the great body of Chris- 
 tians ?" I know not, however, that this may be any 
 more truly said in these cases, than in others in 
 which we ourselves are thought to be more nearly 
 concerned. I am sure that the bare discussion 
 among our own writers of half the questions of the 
 Roman schools would raise an outcry of scepticism ; 
 
 / 
 
Ixii Of Open Questions. 
 
 and perhaps not unjustly : for few probably might 
 study the scholastics, and canonists, and casuists of 
 the Roman Church without passing through an un- 
 settling process in their own minds the while, not 
 remotely analogous perhaps to what the world calls 
 scepticism. It is a long and dark and solemn work 
 to go down into the mine of truth, and work amidst 
 the elements of the moral world ; if so be we may 
 understand something of the hidden constitution 
 of things beneath the practical surface of ordinary 
 Ufe. 
 
 But, in truth, the Enghsh Church is far less open 
 to the charge of introducing subtle disputes to the 
 people at large than most other Churches. Almost 
 by common consent among us the analysis of pre- 
 destination and free-will has been abandoned. While 
 in the Church of Rome the subtilties of Quietism 
 are revived and are spread among their people in 
 every form, — even to that latest, (Oratorianism I 
 mean,) which is a mixture of the doctrines of Loyola, 
 and Molina, and Jansenius, — the strangest devotion 
 of the first, with the self-annihilation of the second, 
 and the predestinarianism of the last — forming well 
 nigh a new Religion, within the pale of Rome. 
 Indeed, for a long time past, the most popular de- 
 votional books among the laity of the Roman 
 Communion, (such as those of Avrillon and 
 Surin,) imply ethical theories, as to the annihi- 
 lation of the human will, which have been sub- 
 jected to the condemnation of the head of their 
 
Our present case. Ixiii 
 
 Church, as " heretical :" at least it seems to require 
 the greatest skill to reconcile the practical teaching 
 of these books with the solemn denunciations against 
 the doctrines of Molina put forth in detail by Pope 
 Innocent in 1687; beginning " oportet hominem 
 suas potentias annihilare. Et haec est via interna, &c. " 
 Moral theories are often slow in making their 
 way among the multitude ; but when they once 
 penetrate a large portion of a community, their true 
 character becomes manifest. Thus the quietism of 
 the eighteenth century became at last one of the 
 corrupting elements of European society. And now 
 that it is said by some that there is a revival of life 
 in the Roman Communion, it is significant to ob- 
 serve in what quarters it is to be found. It is not 
 in Italy, not in Portugal, or Spain. It is in France, 
 — where Ultra-Roman doctrines had been exiled, and 
 Gallican moderation had prevailed. It is in Eng- 
 land, — where the vitality of the Roman Communion 
 has been sustained by an unlooked-for supply from 
 the best blood of the English Church. And there 
 is this further peculiarity, viz., that the revival par- 
 takes both of the Quietistic and of the Jansenist 
 character in several respects. It is subtle ; and 
 itself depending on "open questions." In France 
 especially, religion, rejected by the nation at large, 
 has fallen back on the theory that it was never de- 
 signed but for the few. Predestination and election 
 are cherished doctrines once more. So in England. 
 They who of late have joined the Roman Church 
 
Ixiv Of Open Questions. 
 
 ascribe it to "special grace." Writing a few years 
 ago, Mr. Newman, in his Lectures on Justification, 
 could say, " The Romanists seem to deny God's 
 secret election !" Now, it is their favourite topic. 
 
 But what more practical doubt could be found 
 than that which has existed as to Jurisdiction 
 among them ? Even their present modification of 
 their theory of Jurisdiction shows how long it has 
 remained " open " in the Church of Rome to be- 
 lieve in the prerogative now said to be divinely 
 guaranteed to the Pontiff. In charity to souls this 
 should have been settled long ere this. For ex- 
 ample, I think it would be contrary to what is now 
 believed as to the Jurisdiction of the Pope, if any 
 monarch were to seek what was conceded in the 
 eleventh century to the king of Sicily ? — Count 
 Roger, the founder of the Norman monarchy in 
 Sicily, (soon after the Norman conquest in our own 
 country,) secured spiritual Jurisdiction to be attached 
 to the Crown though the king is a layman. The 
 king of Sicily, as such, became the Pope's dele- 
 gate in spiritual matters, excluding by law all other 
 legates from Rome, and had his throne in all cathe- 
 drals above the Archbishop ; and even his lord 
 lieutenant, surrounded by his staff, received the 
 ecclesiastical honours in the king's absence.* This 
 
 * A learned friend lias informed me that the " Codice Eccle- 
 siastico Sicolo " is being published in numbers by a lawyer of 
 Palermo ; and therein the original grant to Count Koger, and 
 all other documents, are printed at large. 
 
Communion with Heretics. Ixv 
 
 was the price of the rejection of the Greek Church 
 in favour of the Roman. This hereditary delegation, 
 if it may be so called, of spiritual power to laymen is 
 somewhat repugnant to the present theories. It is 
 best explained, perhaps, by the admission that the 
 limits of Jurisdiction in things spiritual were left 
 " open " and unsettled even till now in the Roman 
 Communion ! 
 
 But it seems unnecessary here to prolong this 
 discourse. 
 
 XL It remains, that we consider now the ques- 
 tion of practical duty, the suggestion of which in 
 the first instance was the occasion of the present 
 essay, viz., the extent to which in any case, espe- 
 cially in our own case, there is danger in the Com- 
 munion of Heretics. It will be apparent at once 
 that a different conduct will be required in the case 
 of pronounced heretics, who are formally external 
 to the Church, from that which might be right in 
 respect of erring Christians not yet formally cast 
 out, but holding a doctrine which cannot but be 
 deemed to be heretical. In the former case duty is 
 plain ; acts of communion must be sternly and at 
 all risks refused, lest we be " partakers of the evil 
 deed," or seem to "bid God speed" to those who 
 are His enemies. In the latter case, and it may be 
 ours before long, — we may learn our duty from St. 
 Augustin : 
 
 Among the many questions which arose in his 
 controversy with the Donatists this was one, — 
 
Ixvi Communion with Heretics. 
 
 Whether by admitting the vahdity of heretical 
 Baptism we do not hold communion with heretics ? 
 The principle on which he replies to this inquiry 
 will avail us in our own case ; and I submit it to 
 the consideration of my brethren, not only for our 
 guidance hereafter, but for our vindication in times 
 gone by. St. Augustin constantly repeats, in little 
 varied terms, the parallel of moral and doctrinal 
 pravity. We do not sanction the immoralities of 
 ungodly Christians by holding communion with 
 Churches where ungodliness has been prevailing ; so 
 neither do we share or hold communion with He- 
 resy necessarily by continuing communion with 
 Churches where it is not yet cast out. St. Epipha- 
 nius too classes together immoralities, and profani- 
 ties, and heresies, as to be alike shunned by all 
 Christians. (Adv. Her. lib. 3.) I confess that this 
 reasoning seems to me even more conclusive in the 
 case for which I would adduce it than in that for 
 which St. Augustin urged it. I commend it, I re- 
 peat then, as a perfect and unanswerable argument 
 to the candid reflection of the theological reader.* — 
 Even when the heresy is so undoubted and so deadly 
 as that which the Bishop of Exeter is trying now to 
 expel from his diocese, the Church is not guilty 
 while she so repudiates it. 
 
 XII. Much more then, so long as justice or cha- 
 rity obliges us to refrain from bringing the extreme 
 charge of deliberate heresy against erring brethren, 
 * Contra Don. L. vi. c. xxii. 
 
Communion with Heretics. Ixvii 
 
 may we safely follow the example of that blessed 
 saint, Cyprian of Carthage, " tanti meriti, tantse 
 ecclesife, tanti pectoris, tanti oris, tantee virtutis 
 episcopus," of whom St. Augustin, in the midst of 
 controversy, could thus speak : " He disjoined not 
 himself by separate communion from those who 
 thought different things, and he ceased not to per- 
 suade others that they should bear with one another 
 in love, striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in 
 the bond of peace. For so the compactness of the 
 body being preserved, if there were infirmity in any 
 members, it might be healed by the healthiness of 
 the rest, instead of being put beyond the reach of 
 cure by being cut off as a mortified limb. If he 
 had separated, what multitudes would have fol- 
 lowed ! what a name among men might he have 
 made ! . . . . But he was not a son of perdition, but 
 the Church's son of peace !"* 
 
 And let us bear in mind the gentleness of the 
 courageous Athanasius, that greatest and most 
 glorious of the saints and doctors of the Church,— 
 his forbearance towards men whom he found to be 
 " better than their creed, "f (men w^hose doctrines 
 touched very nearly, however, the fundamentals of 
 the faith,) I mean the Semi-Arians, such as Basil of 
 Ancyra and others, who in unsettled days, and 
 before the Trinitarian Controversy had run its 
 cycle, had even anathematized, as secret Sabellian- 
 ism, the Nicene formula ! — Let us listen to the 
 Catholic wisdom and charity of St. Hilary, who, 
 
 * Ibid. L. i. in fin. t Newman's Arians, p. 320. 
 
Ixviii Communion with Heretics. 
 
 when upbraided by too hasty brethren for his re- 
 luctance to separate from the " Orientals," and 
 for praising their piety, defended himself thus, (in 
 his Apologetics :) "In eo vero quod laudans eos in 
 invidiam deducor a quibusdam ; parum intellectus 
 sum. Non enim eos veram Fidem, sed spem re- 
 vocandse verse Fidei attulisse, dixi." He saw their 
 faith to be defective, and even, in some sense, not 
 true ; but he regarded their position as a whole 
 with hope, and thankfulness, and brotherly love, as 
 a step towards that great truth from which they had 
 receded, and his heart yearned towards them, as 
 men who might yet be a blessed medium of unity 
 and peace in the divided Church — " viros studiosos 
 apostolicee et evangelicse doctrinse, quos Fidei calor 
 in tantis tenebris hereticse noctis accendit." (De 
 Synodis, 78.) Nor was there less forbearance to- 
 wards the same Orientals at Rome, than in Africa 
 and Gaul. And in how high and solemn, and fun- 
 damental a doctrine ! 
 
 It is an extreme example truly, and one of course 
 which could never afterwards be urged in the same 
 subject matter ; since the definition of the faith has 
 therein been long fixed beyond the toleration of 
 denial. Even in their days it was rapidly becoming 
 impossible to regard, as " open," the terms in which 
 Christians might speak of the Divine nature : it was 
 a charity then which was extended, as for the last 
 hour, to those who thus were won back to the 
 Catholic Faith ! Their vessel had touched the quick- 
 sands, and they knew it not : and their brethren 
 
Communion with Heretics. Ixix 
 
 would not depart from them, but ventured near, 
 and drew them off. 
 
 And if there be in our days other questions of our 
 rehgion, still undefined, concerning which men of 
 sanctity and faith may yet speak a different lan- 
 guage, let us not refuse to act in the spirit of those 
 ancient Bishops, " not judging — not dividing from 
 Communion " — " neminem judicantes aut a jure 
 communionis aliquem, si diversum senserit, amo- 
 ventes." (St. Cyprian.) " Istum nondum haereti- 
 cum dico, nisi manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae 
 Fidei resistere maluerit, et illud quod tenebat ele- 
 gerit." (St. Augustin.)* 
 
 The charity of the Church, imitating after her 
 measure the long-suffering of her heavenly Lord, 
 forbears at times to cut off her erring members, 
 " lest she root up the wheat also."t And if in trying 
 days we hear a voice of Providence saying to us, 
 " Let both grow together until the harvest," let us 
 remember that we may sometimes hold communion 
 with a Church without communicating with the 
 errors of its children ; let us remember that all is 
 not heresy which is error ; and join faithfully in 
 the prayer : " We beseech Thee to hear us, good 
 Lord ; That it may please Thee to strengthen them 
 that do stand, to comfort and help the weak-hearted, 
 to raise up them that fall, and finally to beat down 
 Satan under our feet !" 
 
 * Contr. Donat. iv. c. 23. f Ibid. iv. 13. 
 
 9 
 
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH COURT, 
 
 (ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S,) 
 
 THE JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COURT, 
 
 (PRIVY COUNCIL.) 
 
 WITH NOTES. 
 
OUTLINES OF THE TWO JUDGMENTS. 
 
 THE CHURCH COUET. 
 
 THE STATE COUET. 
 
 I. Origin of this Case, of Gorham». the Bishop 
 
 of Exeter. 
 
 History of the C&se, fully stated. 
 
 a How Mr. Gorham's examination arose. 
 4 (The Bishop's right to examine is as'^umed.) 
 c How tlie Chancellor (as patron) acted herein. 
 d The result of the examination ; and tlie 
 Bishop's reasons. 
 
 II. Mode of Legal Proceeding: (by " act on 
 
 Petition.") 
 The Bishop's pleadings : 
 
 (charg-es Mr. Gorham with false doctrine.) 
 Mr. Gorham's rejoinder. 
 Tliis mode not satisfactory. 
 
 III. Method to be adopted by the Judge 
 in this Court.] 
 
 a To ascertain what is the Church's Doctrine of 
 
 Baptism ; 
 b To ascertain Mr. Gorham's views also; and 
 e To pronounce accordingly. 
 The Standard of Doctrine ; 
 
 According to Mr. Gorham, the Articles ; 
 According to the Bishop the Articles and For- 
 mularies. 
 
 The Doctrine of Baptism : 
 
 The Bishop calls on Mr. Gorham to confess it. 
 
 Mr. Gorham's answers, stating in his own words 
 his views of the Doctrine. 
 
 Mr. Gorham considers tlie Formularies "defen- 
 sible, if allowed a favourable construction." 
 
 IV. The Articles are to be referred to, pri- 
 marily. 25th and 27th Articles, (on 
 Baptism.) 
 
 Two points raised (as to Infant Baptism) out 
 of these Articles, viz., 
 
 1. "Worthy reception." 
 
 2. " Regeneration." 
 
 What Mr. Gorham suggests on these-. 
 
 1. That original sin hinders "worthy re- 
 
 ception." 
 
 2. That Sponsors "stipulate" for subse- 
 
 quent "Faith." 
 
 3. That there is an Act of " Prevenient 
 
 Grace " whicli regenerates before Bap- 
 tism. 
 The Court thus elicits tliat Mr. Gorham's 
 opinion is, " that Regeneration is 7iot by 
 Baptism, nor through lioptism." 
 
 Origin of this Appeal. 
 
 History of the case, briefly stated. 
 
 a That the Bishop examined Mr. Gorham. 
 
 b (The question of the Bishop's right to exa 
 mine is evaded by this Court.) 
 
 c 
 
 d The result of the examination. 
 
 II. Mode of Legal Proceeding: (by "act on 
 Petition.") 
 The Bishop's pleadings : 
 
 (charges Mr. Gorham with fcdse doctrine.) 
 Mr. Gorham's rejoinder. 
 . (The Court thinks Mr. Gorham not straightfor- 
 ward, and the Bishop not dogmatical.) 
 
 [III. Method to be adopted by the Judges 
 , in this Court.] 
 
 o To " endeavour" to harmonize Mr. Gorham's 
 views : 
 
 b To obtain the desired "result" by genera- 
 lizing ; and 
 
 c To pronounce accordingly. 
 
 The Doctrine of Baptism : 
 
 The Court states in its own words a view of this 
 
 doctrine; 
 and attributes this view " generally" to Mr. 
 
 Gorham ; 
 omitting peculiarities, and abating distinctions. 
 
 IV. Tlie Articles and Formularies may be 
 legally construed with wide latitude, and 
 admit variety of opinion. 
 
 Latitude probable — 
 
 1. From the History of the Articles. 
 
 2. From some Doctrines being left undecided 
 
 by the Articles. 
 
 3. From the f;<ct that Henry Vlll. once had 
 
 some " Articles " of a more rigid kind. 
 
 4. From the book of "Necessary Doctrine," 
 
 much plainer than the Articles of our 
 Church. 
 
 5 From the Articles on Baptism requiring 
 " worth;/ reception," while sonic older forms 
 speak only of •' due reception." 
 
 0. From the Royal Declaration of Charles I. 
 acknowledging diversity of " opinion " in 
 tlie Church on some points (perhaps there- 
 fore ou this.) 
 
Outlines of the tivo Judgments. 
 
 THE CHURCH COURT. 
 
 V. The Formularies of the Church. 
 
 "Favourable construction" and "charitable 
 hypotliesis " pleaded for by Mr. Gorham, and 
 examined by the Court in all the services. 
 
 THE STATE COURT. 
 
 V. The Formularies of the Church. 
 
 " Latitude " of interpretation pleaded for, by 
 
 this Court, in respect of all the Services. 
 Latitude of the " Burial Service," the primary 
 
 illustration. (It "hopes" that all men are 
 
 " saved.") 
 
 . " Construction " of the Service for Public 
 Baptism of Infants. 
 By an examination of the whole Service 
 
 "in extenso." 
 (Mr.Gorham's interpretation willnot stand.) 
 
 1. "Latitude" of the Service for Public Bap- 
 tism of Infants. 
 
 (It calls, in one place. Infant Baptism a 
 " charitable work," and so, perhaps, im- 
 plies it may be a doubtful blessing.) 
 
 2. " Construction " of the Service for " Private 
 Baptism." 
 By au examination of the whole Service 
 
 "in extenso." 
 (Mr. Gorham's interpretation will not stand.) 
 
 2. "Latitude" of the Sen'ice for Private Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 (Argued (1), " from its being provided for e.r- 
 Cf/)/fon«; cases," and proceeding, perhaps, 
 on exceptional principles; and (2), from 
 the ««certainty of our inferring that in a 
 mere case of exigency all that was ne- 
 cessary would be done.) 
 
 . " Construction " of the Service for Adult 
 Baptism. 
 
 By an examination of the distinctive fea- 
 tures of the Ser\'ice. 
 
 (Equally against Mr. Gorham.) 
 
 3. (This Service is unexamined by this Court.) 
 
 ' Construction " of the Catechism, 
 By an examination of it in all its parts. (All 
 against Mr. Gorham's view.) 
 
 [The Court finds no trace of Mr Gorham's prin- 
 ciples; nor of his doctrine of " Prevenient 
 Grace " in the Services, thus far : nor in 
 contemporaneous authorities.] 
 
 4. " Latitude " of the Catechism. 
 
 Probably from an examination of one of its 
 passages, and from the saying in it, that 
 "the HoLV Ghost sanctifies all the elect," 
 which the Court thinks cannot be universalli/ 
 affirmed. 
 
 (The Court does not examine Mr. Gorham's 
 doctrine of " Prevenient Grace.") 
 
 5. " Construction " of the Sei-vice for Confirma- 
 tion. 
 
 By a careful examination of its parts. (Ut- 
 terly opposed to Mr. Gorham.) 
 
 5. The Court does not undertake to apply the 
 principle of Latitude throughout, 
 
 and will not examine this Service of Confirma- 
 tion. 
 
 VI. " What Regeneration is," is aflSrmed by 
 
 this Court. 
 The Regenerate are saved, unless they fall. 
 The other ai-guments adduced for Mr. Gorham 
 
 considered : — 
 
 1. That the Burial Service is framed "cha- 
 
 ritably." 
 
 2. That the Articles are not to be judged by 
 
 the Formulaiies. 
 
 3. That the Reformers \^ere Calvinists. 
 
 4. That the Doctrine of Predestination is 
 
 affirmed by the Church, (but, as the 
 Court conceives, 7iot as matter of faith.) 
 AU these and similar pleas ai-e set aside by the 
 Court after examination. 
 
 VII. CONCLUSION :— The Doctrine of Bap- 
 
 tismal Regeneration is the Doctrine of 
 the Church ; Mr. Gorham denies it ; and 
 is condemned by this Ecclesiastical 
 Court. 
 
 VI. This Court refuses to affirm any Doctrine. 
 
 Baptized Infants dying are saved, (perhaps not 
 
 by Baptism.) 
 The Court lays down fully the principle of Lati- 
 
 TUDK. 
 
 Quotes specimens of supposed Latitude respect- 
 ing Baptism. 
 
 VII. CONCLUSION :— That Mr. Gorham, not 
 having been proved to this Court to hold 
 Doctrines repugnant to the Church's 
 Doctrine, is to be tolerated in the 
 Church. 
 
JUDGMENT or THE CHURCH COURT,' 
 
 ^AECHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY'S.) 
 
 I. Origin Tiie case wliicli tliG Court lias now to decide was most elaborately 
 
 of Gorham argued in the early part of this year. The nature of the question, the 
 
 V. the Bishop Yj^gt i,Q^j of learning imported into the discussion, and the important 
 
 of Exeter. ^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ dccisiou may possibly lead, have created in the 
 
 mind of the public a more than ordinary interest, and, as may be 
 
 imagined, in the mind of the Court a corresponding anxiety and sense 
 
 of responsibility. ... 
 
 G-reatly as it is to be lamented, when any difference of opinion in 
 religion arises between those professing themselves members of the 
 same Church,— stUl more is it to be lamented when the parties litigant 
 stand in the relation, as in the present instance, of a beneficed Clergy- 
 man and his Diocesan. 
 
 1 The Title which I have given to these two Judgments may need vindication to 
 some persons. I shall briefly express the ground on which I regard them as speaking, 
 the former in the name and spirit of the Church, the latter in the name and spirit, and , 
 by the sole authority, of the State; and I shall do so in Mr. Keble s words. " Our 
 consciences are quite clear of any obligation ... (by oaths, or otherwise, as yet) to 
 receive the doctrinal decisions of the Privy Council." . . . "If we accept or connive 
 at the claim of the Privy Council to settle controversies of Faith, what do we but ren- 
 der ourselves actual and wilful partakers in that sin?" . . . " Those who believe the 
 Church's Divine Commission will hardly, if ever, think it right to recognize the Privy 
 Council Court, as fit to overrule the Courts of the Church." And, " {/ i^e Court 
 vere as lerjitimate [which the Church Court is, in its own sphere of action] as it ij. irre- 
 gular, a Judicial decision would not overthrow what is beyond all question syiwdtcally 
 decreed." — Trial of Doctrine, \^^. 2?,, 2b, 21 . 
 
 Further : the Privy Council declared its own incompetency to decide questions ot 
 doctrine, saying it has " no jurisdiction " in matters of faith, and is " not competent, ' 
 p. 71, and expressly allowed the right of the Church, through her individual Bishops to 
 accept or reject, concur in, or not concur in, the Judgment. " The Bishop of London 
 
 does not concur." r xl r i. tv, ^ ti. 
 
 Nor indeed, did any single organ of public opinion seem unaware of the fact that the 
 polia/ of the State, and not the mind of the Church, gave itself utterance in the Privy 
 Council Judgment. The day after the decision the daily papers spoke in the fol- 
 lowing terms : — . „ , r. • n. ■^ ■ ^\. 
 
 " The judgment pronounced by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the 
 case of Gorham v. the Bishop of E.xeter, will probably prove perfectly satisfactory to 
 no one who has taken a real interest in the question at issue, except, perhaps, Mr. 
 Gorham himself. Observing at once how much it decides, and how little— what it 
 grapples with, and what it shuns— we may, perhaps, entertain a rational suspicion that 
 the judges who framed it were sensibly alive to the conseqitcncps whicli might flow trom 
 a sentence directly adverse to either party, and naturally solicitous to avert them. For 
 ouch a result the public was not unprepared. Considering all things, it was certainly 
 not unreasonable to augur the i.ossibility of some deflection from that serene impar- 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE STATE COUR'l', 
 
 (THE PRIVY COUNCIL.) 
 
 This is an appeal by the Eev. George Cornelius Gorliam against tlie i. oruun 
 sentence of the Dean of the Arches Court of Canterbury, in a proceed- of Gorham^^ 
 ing termed a Duplex Querela, in which the Eight Bev. the Lord Bishop u.theBistiop 
 of Exeter, at the instance of Mr. Gorham, was called upon to show ° 
 cause why he had refused to institute Mr. Gorham to the vicarage of 
 Brampford Speke. 
 
 The Judge pronounced that the Bisliop had shown sufficient cause 
 for his refusal, and thereupon dismissed him from all further observance 
 of justice in the premises ; and, moreover, condemned Mr. Gorham in 
 costs. 
 
 From this sentence Mr. Gorham appealed to her Majesty in Council. 
 The case was referred by her Majesty to this Committee. It has been 
 
 tiality and that stern disregard for consequences which ordinarily characterize the judg- 
 ments of an English Court of Law." — Morning Chronicle. 
 
 "The Judicial Committee cf the Privy Council has reversed the decision of the 
 Court of Arches, and pronounced in favour of Mr. Gorham against the 15ishop of 
 Exeter. It has based this judgment on the ground that the Article is not suflicieutly 
 defined to justify the Bishop in his late proceedings. The right honourable tribunal 
 would probably have best consulted its own popularity by declining to assign any reason 
 for its sentence. But we heartily congratulate that learned body on having arrived at 
 the conclusion which gives the slightest triumph to either litigant, and on having, in 
 doing so, obeyed the wise traditions favoured by the Fathers of tlie English Church.'" — 
 Globe (State organ.) 
 
 " The judgment of the Judicial Committee is simply an evasion of every point in the 
 case. We must confess that we are ourselves surprised that a judge of Lord Lang- 
 dale's ability, speaking in a question which is to go to posterity, and fortified by the 
 opinions and suggestions of his colleagues in tlie committee, should, after so long a 
 deliberation, have come forward with so exceedingly feeble an effort to sustain his views. 
 The Calvinistic party, of course, will be still more surprised, and disappointed to boot." 
 — Morning Post. 
 
 " We are satisfied that no other decision could be arrived at consistently with the 
 strict rules of legal construction, and with those high considerations of public policy 
 which are indissolubly united to the peace and stability of the Church. It is not 
 necessary, in order to justify and maintain this view of the case, that we should enter, 
 any more than the Lords of the Council have entered, into a theological discussion, 
 which is beyond our province and above our powers; and we do not intend to imply 
 any participation in the peculiar opinions of Mr. Gorham, or any doubt that the doc- 
 trine of regeneration by and in baptism is the doctrine of the Church of England. We 
 apprehend that nothing has been said or decided in the course of these proceedings 
 which can impugn the faith of the Church in tliis doctrine ; and that however Mr. 
 Gorhani's opinions may be grafted on the peculiar interpretation of an article, those of 
 the Bishop of Exeter rest upon the broad ground of orthodoxy." — The Times. 
 
6 Judgment of the Church Co\nt {Archbishop of Canterbun/s.) 
 
 The circumstauces out of which the present proceedings originated 
 arc these : — Mr Gorliam, an ordained Minister of the Cliurch of Eng- 
 land and Ireland, a Bachelor in Divinity, was presented to the Vicarage 
 of St. Just, in the county of Cornwall, and diocese of Exeter, in the 
 month of January in the year 1846, by the then Lord Chancellor. On I 
 that occasion Mr. Gorham, on presenting himself for institution to the 
 Bishop of Exeter, produced such testimonials, as to his learning, ability, 
 moral conduct and sound religious principles, that the Bishop did not 
 History of think it necessary to subject him to an examination with a Adew of 
 
 i''i) '^stated fi-scertaining for himself the correctness of those testimonials. Mr. 
 Gorham accordingly Avas instituted and inducted, and entered upon, 
 the duties of that benefice, which he still continues to possess. Cir-I 
 cumstances however occurred, which made it desirable for him tol 
 exchange that living for another : and he was presented by the Lord! 
 Chancellor to the vicarage of Brampford Speke, in the county of Devon, 
 and the same diocese of Exeter, in the month of November, in the year 
 1847. On the 6th of that month, Mr. Gorham wrote to the Bishop of 
 Exeter, requesting his Lordship to appoint an eai4y day for his admis- 
 sion to that benefice, and suggesting that, as he was not removing into 
 another diocese, neither a testimonial, nor the exhibition of his letters 
 of orders, was requisite, but at the same time stating he should cheer- 
 fully comply with his Lordship's wishes as far as practicable in those 
 
 Gorhalivs"^' matters. An interchange of letters thereupon took place, between Mr. 
 
 examination Gorham aud Mr. Barnes the Bishop's Secretary, to which it is not 
 necessary at present to refer further, than to state that the Bishop 
 declined to institute Mr. Gorham to the liA^ng of Brampford Speke mitil 
 he had had an opportunity of satisfying himself as to Mr. Gorham's 
 qualifications and fitness for that chai'ge. 
 
 This determination on the part of the Bishop appears to have 
 originated from certain expressions made use of by Mr. Gorham, in the 
 course of correspondence with his Lordship, ^ from which he, whether 
 rightly or wronglj', conceived that some doubts existed as to the sound- , 
 uess of Mr. Gorham's religious principles, and more particularly with 
 respect to Baptism, whicli, in his Lordship's letter, was stated to be the 
 foundation of all Christian doctrine. Whether the suspicions of the 
 Bishop had any sufficient foundation or not, is immaterial to the present 
 question. It is sufficient to state, that the examination of Mr. Gorham 
 did take place, and the result of that examination forms the subject of 
 the present inquiry. 
 
 It may be proper here to state, that the Lord Chancellor, in exer- 
 cising his offi.cial patronage in the Church, very properly requires^ that 
 the intended presentees to benefices should produce a testimonial fi-om 
 three beneficed clergj^men of the neighbourhood in which they reside, 
 
 ■-^ It appears from what the Ecclesiastical Judge says, and from Mr. Gorham's own 
 account of the matter, that the Bishop had been led to suspect Mr. Gorham's doctrines, 
 owing to " certain expressions made use of by Mr. Gorham in a correspondence with 
 the Bishop." Mr. Gorham in the prefoce to his book, informs us that he became Vicar 
 of St. Just in 1846, and was presented to Brampford Speke in 1847. The correspon- 
 dence he had in the interval was respecting the appointment of a Curate to St. Just, 
 and Mr. Gorham's most open indications of unsoundness were made in his letter, 
 Jan. 28, 1847. (Gorham, p. 18—30.) The presentation to the new living in that year 
 after the recent corresi)ondenee, not only enabled, but obliyed his lordship to test Mr. 
 Gorham's soundness ; as he had said he should test his Curate's, and could not have 
 one measure for an Incumbent and another for a Curate. 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 7 
 
 fully heard before us ; and, by the dii'ection of her Majesty, the hearing 
 was attended by my lords the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 
 and the Bishop of London, who are members of her Majesty's Privy 
 Council. We have the satisfaction of being authorised to state that 
 the most reverend prelates the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York, 
 after having perused copies of tliis judgment, have expressed their 
 approbation thereof. The Bishop of London does not concur. 
 
 The facts, so far as it is necessary to state them, are as follows : — 
 
 Mr. Gorham, being vicar of St. Just-in-Penwith, in the diocese of History 
 Exeter, on the 2d November, 1847, was presented by her Majesty to briefll*^'*^''' 
 the vicai-age of Brampford Speke, in the same diocese, and soon after- stated. 
 wards applied to the Lord Bishop of Exeter for admission and institu- 
 tion to the vicarage. 
 
 The Bishop, on the 13th November, caused Mr. Gorham to be 
 informed that his lordship felt it his duty to ascertain, by examination, 
 whether Mr. Gorham was sound in doctrine, before he should be 
 instituted to the vicarage of Brampford Speke. 
 
 The examination commenced on the 17th December, and was con- That the 
 tinued at very great length for five days in the same month of Decem- Bishop exa- 
 
 ./ o ^ , 1 * -. . . mined Mr. 
 
 bex', and (after some suspension) for three more days m the following Gorham. ' 
 month of March. 
 
 ' The Ecclesiastical Judge, here and in the next paragraph, endeavours to justify the 
 Lord Chancellor, but not with much success ; for if the patron of the living (the 
 Chancellor) might rightly proceed with his presentation without the Bishop's signature, 
 it was useless to apply for it, as he did ; and as the Court above says " very properly " 
 did. Or, does the Judge here mean, that it was very " proper," but not legally 
 necessary, to apply to the Bishop ? This looks as if the having the Bishop's sanction 
 was agreeable if possible, but the asking for it were only a compliment, as, in the event 
 of his refusal, the patron would proceed without it. 
 
8 Judgment of the Church Court [Arclibishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 and that siicli testimonial should be countersigned by the Bishop of the 
 diocese. Mr. Gorham having obtained the testimonial from three 
 beneficed clergymen, as required, forwarded it to the Bishop, but his 
 Lordship not only declined to affix his signature, but apprized the Lord 
 Chancellor of his doubts as to the soundness of Mr. Grorham's religious \ 
 views on certain points of docti'ine, and upon the margin of that docu- ^ 
 ment wrote certain observations expressive of his impressions on that 
 point. The testimonial of the three beneficed clergymen runs thus : — 
 " We, whose names are hereunto written, testify and make known that ; 
 George Cornelius Gorham, Clerk, Bachelor in Divinity, late Fellow of 
 Queen's College, Cambridge, now A'icar of St. Just, in Pen^^yth, in the 
 coimty of Cornwall, and diocese of Exeter, about to be presented by 
 your Lordship to the vicarage of Brampford Speke, in the county of 
 Devon, and said diocese of Exeter, hath been personally known to us 
 from June, 1846, to the date of these presents; that we have had op- 
 portunities of observing his conduct ; that during the whole of that 
 time we verily believe that he lived piously, soberly and honestly — nor 
 have we at any time heard anything to the contrary thereof; nor hath 
 he at any time, so far as we know or believe, lield, written, or taught 
 anything contrary to the doctrine or discipline of tlie United Church of 
 England and Ireland ; and, moreover, we believe him in our consciences 
 to be, as to his moral conduct, a person worthy to be presented to the 
 said benefice. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands 
 this 12th day of August in the year of our Loud 1847." This is signed 
 by the three clergymen whose names appear at the bottom of the 
 instrument. 
 
 The memorandum of the Bishop, to whicli I have alluded as written 
 in the mai'gin, is in these words : — " The clergymen, who have sub- 
 scribed this testimonial, are highly respectable ; but as I consider the 
 Bishop's countersignature of such a document, if it be unaccompanied 
 by any remark, as implying his own belief that the party, to Avhom it 
 relates, has not ' held, written, or taught anything contrary to the doc- 
 trine or discipline of the United Church of England and Ireland ;' and 
 as my owti experience vmfortunately attests that the Eev. George 
 Cornelius Gorham did, in the course of the last year, in correspondence 
 with myself, hold, write, and maintain what is contrary to the discipline 
 of the said Church ; and as what he further wrote makes me apprehend 
 that he holds also what is contrary to its doctrine, I cannot conscien- 
 tiously countersign this testimonial." It appears that this testimonial, 
 with the comment of the Bishop thereon, was sent to Mr. Gorham ; 
 tliat some correspondence upon the su.bject took place between them ; 
 that the Bishop declmed to take any other course than that which he 
 had already adopted ; and that Mr. Gorham, after some time, com- 
 municated the circumstance to the Lord Chancellor, by a letter dated 
 the 11th of September, 1847, and also in an additional letter dated the 
 21st of the same month. 
 
 Now tlie Lord Chancellor, having considered the statements in the 
 two letters, together with the testimonial and the comment by the Bis- 
 hop, on the 11th of October, in the same year informed Mr. Gorham 
 that he proposed to sign the fiat for his presentation notwithstanding, 
 declining on liis part to enter into the question wliich had arisen 
 between the JJisliop and Mr. Gorham ; and, on the same day, tlie Lord 
 Chancellor wrote to the Bishop, informing him that he liad tliought it 
 right to sign tlie fiat for presentation, adding, that having been furnished 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 
 
10 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.^ 
 
 with the most satisfactory testimonials from various quarters in favour 
 of Mr. Gorham, he the Lord Chancellor, did not think it became him 
 to take upon himself the office of deciding conflicting opinions. 
 
 As to the propriety of the decision of the Lord Chancellor not to 
 take such an office on himself, there cannot be two opinions : he 
 deemed it right to satisfy himself by tlie best means in his power of the 
 due qualifications of the person intended to be presented to the bene- 
 fice; and, although the testimonial was not sanctioned by the Bishop, 
 he wisely and rightly — if I may so speak — considered " that, whatever 
 Bilho 's power the law may give to the Bishop, upon the ground of life or doc- 
 riKht to exa- trine, over the presentee, must follow, and not precede the pre- 
 sumed^iT' sentatiou ;" and accordingly, as I have already intimated, a presen- 
 this Court, tation was made out and tendered to the Bishop, who declined to 
 proceed to institute Mr. Gorham till he had been subjected to an 
 examination. 
 And the Whether the Bishop exceeded the discretion with which he is 
 act^'as^'^°''^ entrusted, or exercised that discretion Avisely, by adding to his declara- 
 Patron are tion of tlio respectability of the clergymen M'ho signed the testimonial, 
 discussed, ^j^^ representation of his impressions with respect to Mr. Gorham's 
 quahfications for the benefice, — whether the testimonial ought to have 
 been considered by his Lordship simply as a record of the respectabiUty 
 of those clergymen whose signatures were attached, — or whether some- 
 thing more was due from him to the Lord Chancellor, who had required 
 the testimonial to be countersigned, — are matters into which the Court 
 will not enter. All that it will venture to say is, it may possibly admit 
 of some doubt whether the Bishop was not justified in considering his 
 counter-signature, to a testimonial of this kind, as attesting more than 
 the mere respectability of the clergymen whose signatures it bore."^ But 
 be that as it may, the Bishop determined to proceed to an examination 
 of Mr. Gorham, and the examination having been commenced upon the 
 17th of December in the year 1847, pi'oeeeded upon the IStli, 20th, 
 21st, and 22nd of the same month, and after an interruption of some 
 duration was renewed, I think, on the Stli of March, in the year 1848, 
 and continued on the following day, and finally terminated on the 10th 
 of that month. On the 11th, Mr. Goi'ham was informed that the Bis- 
 hop declined to institute him to the living of Brampford Speke, and on 
 The result the 21st of the samo month a formal notice to that eflect was given to 
 niuiation ;" Mr. Gorliam, assigning, as the reason for refusal, unsound doctrine, 
 BishoD^s without entering into the particulars of that unsoundness. There the 
 reasons. matter rested till the month of June following, when a monition was 
 extracted from the registry of this Court on behalf of Mr. Gorliam, in 
 which it was stated in substance that he had been presented to the 
 living of Brampford Speke ; that he had offered himself to the Lord 
 Bishop of Exeter for institution ; that he was prepared to sign the 
 three articles required by the 36th Canon, and to make the declaration 
 I'equired by the Act of Uniformity, and to take all oaths as by law 
 i-cquired ; and that although he was, and still is, capable and duly 
 
 * The common sense of tins matter seems to be this : — If the Bishop knows nothing 
 against the nominee, he trusts to the testimony of three known beneficed Clergymen ; 
 and his counter-signature honestly means that he trusts them. But if he knows any- 
 thing serious against the nominee, then his countersignature of what he knows, or 
 gravely suspects, to be untrue, would surely be a deceitful and fraudulent evasion of his 
 own responsibility. It would be setting aside the plainest rules of moral " right and 
 wrong " by a subterfuge and a technicality. 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 11 
 
 The questions proposed by the Bishop related principally to the sac- 
 rament of Baptism and were very numerous, much varied in form, 
 embracing many points of difficulty, and often referring to the answers 
 given to previous questions. 
 
 Mr. Gorham did not at first object to the nature of this examination ; 
 but, during its progress, he at various times remonstrated against the (Tiieques- 
 manner in which it was conducted, and the length to which it ex- B°Jhop's'^ 
 tended. We are, however, relieved from the necessity of considering right to exa- 
 whether he could or could not lawfully have declined to submit to such ™ade'd by 
 a course of examination ; because he did in fact answer nearly all the this coiut.) 
 questions, and no complaint is made of his not having answered them 
 all.5 
 
 The examination being concluded, the Bishop refused to institute Mr. 
 Gorham, for the reason (as stated in the notification) that " he had 
 upon the examination found Mr. Gorham unfit to fill the vicarage, by 
 reason of his holding doctrines contrary to the true Christian faith, and 
 the doctrines contained in the articles and formularies of the United 
 Church of England and Ireland, and especially in the Book of Common 
 Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and 
 ceremonies of the Chui'ch, according to the use of the United Church 
 of England and Ireland"— (Gorham, p. 219). 
 
 Mr. Gorham, being refused institution, commenced proceedings in 
 the Arches Court of Canterbury ; and at his promotion, a monition The result 
 with intimation issued on the 15th June, 1848, and thereby the Bishop n[iJfa.tion*' 
 was monished to admit Mr. Gorham to the vicarage, and to institute 
 and invest him therein ; or otherwise to appear and show cause why 
 Mr. Gorham should not be admitted and instituted by the ofiicial prin- 
 cipal of the Arches Court of Canterbury. 
 
 ^ The right — and more, the duii/ — of every Bishop to examine the soundness as well 
 as morality of a Clergyman ought not to have been evaded by tiie " State Court." The 
 ultra jealousy of this Court as to the spiritual prerogatives of the Church is here betrayed. 
 If the Bishop's right admitted of question, it ought not to have been passed over ; if it 
 were unquestionable, the evasion is ungracious and unmeaning. The decision of the 
 Ecclesiastical Court on this point may be seen in the Appendix, p. 89, tkc. 
 
12 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 qualified, as well by his private character, age, and learning, as also by 
 the purity, probity, and integrity of his life, to be instituted into, 
 invested in, and admitted into, the said church with all its rights, mem- 
 bers, and pertinents, — nevertheless the Lord Bishop of Exeter, who was 
 well acquainted with aU and each of the premises, and wlio ought there- 
 fore, in virtue of the premises, to have admitted the aforesaid Reverend ^ 
 George Cornelius Grorham, Clerk, into the vicarage and parish church \ 
 aforesaid, declined and refused to do right and justice in that behalf — 
 or, in the formal words of the monition, " unjustly and unrighteously — 
 saving always all due reverence and honour — has delayed, and does 
 delay, to institute him to that benefice." 
 
 The tenor of the monition was to call upon the Bishop to institute 
 Mr. Gorham within the time therein specified, to the vicarage of! 
 Brampford Speke, or to show cause why Mr. Gorham sliould not be I 
 instituted into it, and intimating that if the Lord Bishop did not I 
 appear, or if appearing, he did not set forth lawful cause to the con- \ 
 trary, the Court would proceed to admit and institute Mr. Gorham to | 
 the vicarage and parish church aforesaid, in the absence of the Bishop ' 
 in pain of his contumacy. This monition having been served upon the 
 Bishop of Exeter, he appeared thereto by his Proctor, who prayed to be 
 heard on his petition — the object of which was to state the grounds 
 upon which his Lordship sought to justify his refusal to institute Mr. 
 Gorham. Tliat act on petition Mr. Gorham answered by his Pi'octor, 
 and a reply was given on behalf of the Bishop. 
 ., ,. Before entering: into the merits of the case, I must make some obser- . 
 
 II. Mode ■ • • . ■ 
 
 of legal pro- vatious on the manner in which the question has been brought before I 
 adot'ted ^'^® Court. Upon a former occasion, I took the opportunity of stating ' 
 "Acton that the proceeding by act on petition was neither convenient nor con- 
 petition." gistent with practice, and I have not been satisfied by anything which 
 has since occurred, that the opinion I then threw out was erroneous : 
 on the contrary, I am more strongly convinced that the formal pro- i 
 ceeding, by plea and proof, was not only the most proper mode, but I 
 that it was the best calculated to bring the real question immediately I 
 before the Court. In this petition, the pleading is, as is usually tlie ' 
 case, vague and loose ; the answer to it is also of the same character ; 
 but had the proceeding by plea and proof been adopted, the Court 
 would then have had the entire case brought clearly and distijictly to 
 its notice — the doctrine of the Church of England, upon which it was 
 meant to rely on behalf of the Bishop, would have been specifically and 
 precisely stated, as well as those points of doctrine which it is said Mr. 
 Goi'ham has impugned. As the pleadings stand it was not without 
 foundation stated, in tlie course of the argument, that it was extremely 
 difficult to collect and discover what are Mr. Gorham's real opinions on 
 the subject of Baptismal Regeneration — tlie question with which alone, 
 as it will presently appear, the Court has to deal. 
 
 Moreover the evidence wliich has been produced, if evidence it may 
 be called, is most unsatisfactory. It consists merely of one short 
 affidavit by Mr. Gorliam, no affidavit on the part of the Bishop at all, 
 but a book is annexed to his act on petition, containing upwards of 250 
 pages of introduction, correspondence, and li9 questions addressed to 
 Mr. Gorham, with his answers to those questions: upon tliis so calleil 
 evidence tlie whole case turns ; and the Court is left to find its way, as 
 \\o\\ as it can, and to ascertain what is the doctrine of the Church of 
 England, and what are the points on which Mr. Gorham is stated to 
 
I 
 
 Judgment of the State Court [the Prwy Council.) 13 
 
 After litigation had tlius commenced, and Mr. Gorham had called jj ^^^^^^^ 
 upon the Bishop to state why institution was refused, it became evident of legal pro- 
 that the reasons must be considered upon legal principles, aiid it was to adopted, 
 be expected that both parties Avould require a strict and formal pro- "A'=!^°"„ 
 ceeding, in which the particular unsound doctrine imputed to Mr. ^^ ' '°''" 
 Gorham would have been distinctly alleged. 
 
14 Judgment of the Church Court {Arc/ibishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 have expressed and entertained opinions contrary to that doctrine. "^ I 
 say this is not a convenient mode of proceeding, nor is it the correct 
 mode according to the pi*actice of the Court. 
 
 I am well aware of the difficidty in which, from tlie want of prece- 
 dents in a case of this description, the parties may have been placed ; 
 but still recourse might have been had to those books of practice to 
 which we are in the habit of almost daily resorting ; — I mean Clarke ' 
 and Oughton. There it would liave been found that the proceedings 
 should have been by plea and proof on the one side, as weU as on the 
 other. The form of proceeding is distinctly set forth by Oughton, 
 under the head " De causis heneficialibus,^' Vol. I. p. 237, &c. ; it 
 would, however, be a waste of time to refer more particularly to those 
 works, as the evil to which I have adverted cannot and could not be 
 remedied by the Court ; for it had no opportunity of ascertaining the 
 form of the proceeding, tiU the case was ready for hearing. 
 
 In the course of the argument it was made a question, who was to be i 
 considered the party proceeding in the case — upon whom the onus \ 
 frohandi lay. Now, though I think that question not very material, I 
 still, inasmuch as Mr. Gorham has, in his affidavit, to lead the monition, 
 alleged that his presentation was oifered to the Bishop, that the Bishop 
 delayed to institute him, though he was qualified by age, by ordination, 
 by presentation, by an offer to do all that he was required by law to do 
 ^ before he was instituted to that living, I am bound to say Mr. Gorham 
 
 made out 2^, 'prima facie case, which called for an answer on the part of 
 the Bishop to justify his refusal to institute him. 
 The Bis ^ ^^^ procecd to see what the pleadings are on each side. On 
 
 hop's plead- behalf of the Bishop, it is represented ' that Mr. Gorham having in the 
 ings ; month of November, 1847, been presented by the Crown to the vicarage 
 
 of Brampford Speke, in the county of Devon and diocese of Exeter, 
 GoTham ^' soon after applied to the Lord Bishop of Exeter for institution, that 
 wiUi false j^ig Lordship proceeded to examine Mr. Gorham in order first to ascer- 
 tain his sufficiency and fitness to hold the said vicarage, as he was both 
 of right entitled, and in duty hound to do, as well by the statutes of 
 the realm as by the constitutions and cauous of the Churcli.' [Though I 
 the right of the Bishop to examine Mr. Gorham was not positively 
 denied, it was asserted by his counsel to be an unprecedented act, 
 under the circumstances of Mr. Gorham's position in the church, that 
 the Bishop should have proceeded to examine him as to his sufficiency 
 to hold the ncarage.] It was then alleged, on behalf of the Bishop, 
 ' that it appeared to him, in the course of the examination, that Mr. 
 Gorham was of misound doctrine respecting that great and fundamental 
 point, the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, inasmucli as he held, 
 and persisted in holding, that spiritual regeneration is not given or con- 
 ferred in that Holy Sacrament, in particular, that infants are not made 
 therein members of Chkist and the childreii of God,' [These then are 
 the points on which Mr. Gorham is alleged to be of unsound doctrine,] 
 
 " No Court surely is expected to deduce " what is the doctrine of the Church of ' 
 England " from anything written by the litigant parties ? Whatever they might allege, 
 on the present form or any other, the Court would have had the duty of "ascer- 
 taining,'' in whatever way it thought right, the " doctrines " of the Church, (according 
 to the opinion of the Court.) It seems, then, to be exaggerating the alleged difficulty, 
 to say what is said in the text. And further, in defence of the present mode of pro- 
 ceeding, might be urged its apparent fairness to the accused, as it takes liis own book 
 without note or comment. Not, indeed, that the " Bishop's pleadings " in the act on 
 petition are open to the least charge of indistinctness or looseness. The Bishop keeps 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Priinj Council.) 15 
 
 Unfortunately, this course was not adopted. The Bishop praj'ed to 
 be heard on petition ; and, in his act on petition, he stated his charge 
 against Mr. Gorham, and alleged that it appeared to him, in the course 
 of examination, that ]\ir. Grorham was of unsound doctrine respecting 
 that great and fundamental point of Baptism, inasmuch as Mr. Gorham hop's piead- 
 held, and persisted in holding That Spiritual EEaENEHATioN is not '"^^ • 
 given or conferred in that holy Sacrament — in particidar, that infants 
 are not " made therein members of Cheist, and the children of Gob " Mr^orhan 
 — contrary to the plain teaching of the Church of England, iu her w'tii fa'^e 
 Articles and Liturgy ; and especially contrary to the divers offices of 
 Baptism, the office of Confirmation, and the Catechism, severally con- 
 tained in the Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the 
 Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church, according to 
 the use of the United Church of England and Ireland. 
 
 And in part supply of proof of the premises, the Bishop referred to a 
 book written and caused to be printed and published by Mr. Gorham, 
 containing amongst other things the several questions put by the 
 Bishop to Mr. Gorham in the coiu'se of the examination, and Mr. 
 Gorham's several answers to the same questions. 
 
 to the exact words of the Church, in brmging the charge of unsoundness, Mr. Gorham 
 shows, however, that any other mode of proceeding against him would have baffled 
 inquiry ; for he would have assented to the bare ivords of any proposition extracted 
 from the Prayer-Book, reserving his own sense and " favourable construction." Had 
 the Bishop offered Mr. Gorham any proposition of his own framing, Mr. Gorham would 
 have called it a " private standard," (Gorham, p. 29,) and raised an outcry against the 
 Bishop, similar to that which was raised against Bishop Marsh, on account of his ques- 
 tions to candidates for Orders, and against the Bishop of Ripon, and others, in like 
 cases. 
 
16 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 contrary to tlie plain teaching of the Cluircli of England in her articles 
 and liturgy, and especially contrary to the divers offices of Baptism, the 
 office of Confirmation, and the Catechism, severally contained in the 
 Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and 
 other rites and ceremonies of the Church, and on that account, the 
 Lord Bishop refused to institute Mr. Gorham to this vicarage ; and it 
 is further alleged, that the holding of that unsound doctrine concerning 
 that Sacrament by Mr. Grorham, was a good and sufficient cause for the 
 Lord Bishop's refusal to institute him to the vicarage. Then the book 
 already mentioned by the Court, which is stated to contain the whole of 
 the examination of Mr. Gorham before the Bishop, is referred to in 
 supply of proof. 
 
 Such is the case set up on behalf of the Bishop in justification of his 
 refusal to institute Mr. Gorham. In consequence of this course of 
 pleading, it must be obvious the Court has been forced to travel through 
 the various questions and answers, and other particulars contained in 
 the volume, in order to ascertain for itself, as well as it can, what the 
 doctrine of the Church of England is, and also in what respects Mr. 
 Gorham holds opinions contrary thereto. 
 Mr. Gor- The auswcr of Mr. Gorham to the statement of the Lord Bishop is 
 jolnde/.^ to this efiect : first of all, there is an admission that the book brought 
 in by the Bishop's Proctor contains a true and accurate account of what 
 passed, and then it is alleged that Mr. Gorham, a Bachelor in Divinity 
 of the University of Cambridge, and for nearly eighteen years a Fellow 
 of Queen's College in that University, was made deacon in the United 
 Church of England and Ireland on the 10th of March, 1811, and that 
 in the month of February, 1812, he was ordained a priest of that 
 Church. That Mr. Gorham discharged the duties devolving on him as 
 such minister in six several dioceses as a licensed curate for a period of 
 thirty-five years, and that on no single occasion diu-ing such time did he 
 ever incur the reprehension of any of the Bishops in whose dioceses he 
 ofiiciated. ' It is further alleged, that Mr. Gorham was presented to the 
 living of St. Just by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Crown in the 
 year 1846, and that the Lord Bishop instituted him without previous 
 examination. [It does not follow from these averments that the 
 Bishop of Exeter was not justified in adopting the course he did in 
 examining Mr. Gorham, though no imputation was cast upon him in 
 the former instance, when the Bishop was satisfied with the testimonial 
 produced as to his fitness and qualification to hold the living of St. 
 Just.] That he continues in possession of that vicarage, and that no 
 attempt has been made to deprive him thereof* by reason of his holding 
 any alleged unsound doctrine. That in June, 1847, he was offered the 
 living of Brampford Speke by the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the 
 Crown, and the testimonial signed by three beneficed clergymen, with 
 the Bishop's remarks, to which the Court has already adverted, is 
 
 ' This is very boldly said ; but in 1840 Mr. Gorham was Curate of a Chapel at 
 Maidenhead, in Berkshire, and was called on publicly to defend himself from the charge 
 that he had said that water was sufficient, without wine, in the administration of the 
 Lord's Supper. Mr. Gorham's pamphlet on that occasion is anything but satisfactory 
 on this and other points, illustrating in what sense he held that the sacraments are " not 
 absolutely, but only generally necessary to salvation." What amount of "repre- 
 hension " was due may be best judged by a perusal of Mr. Gorham's own account of 
 his dispute with his congregation on tl)at occasion. He certainly denied the charge ; but 
 the magistrate who publicly brought it refused to retract it. And it is certain, on his 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 17 
 
 Mr. Grorham made no objection to the mode of proceeding by act on 
 petition, but put in his answer thereto ; and thereby, after alleging that 
 the book published by him, and brought into court by the Bishop, con- 
 tained a full, true, and accurate account of all the questions and 
 answers which were given in the course of the examination, he dis- Mr. goi 
 tinctly and emphatically denied that he in his examination did main- jjil^^rter!^" 
 tain, or had at any time maintained, unsound doctrine respecting the 
 efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism — or that he had held, or persisted 
 in holding, any opinions thereon at variance with the plain teaching of 
 the Church of England, in her Articles and Liturgy ; and further ex- 
 plicitly and expi'essly denied that he either held, or persisted in hold- 
 ing, that infants are not made in Baptism members of Christ and the 
 children of God ; and he alleged that he did not maintain any views 
 whatever contrary to the true doctrine of the Church of England, as 
 dogmatically determined in her Articles, familiax4y taught in her 
 Catechism, and devotionally expressed in her Services — it haxdng been 
 his desire and endeavour throughout the examination to explain the 
 language both of her Articles and Liturgy (in compliance with the 
 express directions of the Church herself) by such just and favourable 
 construction as would secure an entire agreement, not only of each 
 with the other, but of all alike, with the plain tenor of Holy Scripture, 
 declared by the said Articles to be of paramount aiid absolute authority, 
 
 The Bishop replied to Mr. Gorham's answer generally. The book 
 published by Mr. Gorham was the only CAddeuce adduced on either 
 side ; and with such allegations as are contained in the Bishop's act on 
 petition, and Mr. Gorham's answer, the case was brought on to be 
 heard, with no statement on the part of the Bishop of what was, in his 
 lordship's view, the true doctrine of the Church of England, in respect 
 of the efiicacy of the Baptism, either of adults or infants ; nor any 
 specification of the doctrine imputed to Mr. Gorham, except the general 
 charge before stated ; and no distinct statement on the part of Mr. 
 Gorham, of what in his view is the true doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land — what is the particular doctrine which he himself maintains on 
 the subject in question — or in what particulars, or for what particular 
 
 own showing, that he thought so little of the other sacrament, that he allowed children 
 to die unbaptized, rather than compromise his own rights with the Incumbent, and then 
 wondered that he met with the " reprehension " of the people I 
 
 8 This seems a frivolous allegation ; because it cannot be supposed that two actions 
 were necessary at the same time to convict Mr. Gorham of false doctrine. The decision 
 of the one would rule and include the other. And surely an action to eject him from 
 St. Just would have been called oppressive, pending the other decision. This therefore 
 seems an unworthy point. 
 
pro-* 
 lace,\ 
 T oil 
 
 18 Judgment of the Church Cow't {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 referred to. That various ineffectual efforts were made to induce the 
 Bishop to withdivaw his remarks, but that the testimonial with the said 
 remarks was forwarded to the Lord Chancellor. That on the 2d of 
 November, 1817, the presentation to Brampford Speke was made out, 
 and Mr. Gorham on the 8th of tliat month presented himself at the 
 Bisliop's Begistry, and prayed to be instituted to that benefice ; thai^i 
 he also made other similar applications ; that in reply thereto an inti- 
 mation was for the first time conveyed^ to him in a letter from the 
 Bishop's secretary, dated 13th November, 1847, that it was the inten- 
 tion of the Bishop to examine him previously to instituting him. That 
 the Bishop was repeatedly urged, if he meant to proceed to an examina- 
 tion, to commence immediately, but that no day was fixed till the 15th 
 of December, when the 17th of that month was appointed. The plea 
 then states that Mr. Gorham attended at the time appointed for hia 
 examination ; that he underwent the examination, though imder pro^ 
 test, — the days then are specified on which the examination took plr 
 and the length of time occupied on each of those days, the number 
 questions put, amounting to 149, with their answers. That the ques- 
 tions proposed, and the answers given to them, were reduced into 
 writing by the chaplain of the Lord Bishop and Mr. Gorham, and that 
 the same are now in the possession of the Lord Bishop. That several 
 conversations took place between his Lordship and Mr. Gorham, which 
 were also reduced into writing ; that the same also is in the possession 
 of the Bishop ; that the book already referi'ed to contains a full, true, 
 and accurate account and copy of all the questions, answers, conversa- 
 (The tions between the Bishop and himself, the protest, testimonial of the 
 scribes the tlircc beneficed clergymen with the Bishop's remarks, and also of eer- 
 fairness of ^jiin Icttcrs wluch passod in regard to the subject of this suit ; and that 
 nation ; and sucli Originals as are in the possession of Mr. Gorham, \d\\, if required, 
 of Ito^'^*"^'* be prodiiced. That by reason of the premises, and referrmg to the 
 contents of the said book so brought in, he denied that tlie said Lord 
 Bishop of Exeter was of right entitled, either by the statutes of tlie 
 realm, or by the constitutions and canons of the Churcli, to proceed to i 
 examine him the said Eevei-end George Cornelius Gorham at the time 
 when such examination began, for that by reason of tlic 95th Canon, 
 the period in which he might have been examined according to law liad 
 elapsed. [The construction of this Canon was made the subject of a 
 preliminary discussion before the Court,^*^ and the Court was of opinion 
 that the Lord Bishop was not deprived of the exercise of that discretion 
 with which he was entrusted by law, even though the twenty-eight 
 days allowed by the Canon had expired.] 
 
 Mr. Gorham's plea further states, that he distinctly and emphatically 
 denies that he, in his examination, as recorded in tlie book referred to, 
 did maintain, or has at any time maintained, unsound doctrine res- 
 pecting the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, or that he has held or 
 persisted in holding any opinions thereon at variance with the plain teach-, 
 ing of the Church of England in her articles and liturgy, as wi'ongfullyl 
 
 ' The Bishop had intimated his opinion of Mr. Gorham's unfitness on the 1 1 th of 
 October ; i. e., immediately after the " Testimonial of the Clergymen " was sent to him. 
 But he could not determine on examining him until lie knew that tlie patron was per- 
 sisting in his presentation. Mr. Gorham presented himself for institution on the 8th of 
 November, and the Bishop intimated liis intention to examine him on the 13th. 
 
 '" See Appendix. 
 
 " In this passage the " State Court" is very severe on Mr. Gorham, but not more sol 
 
Judgment of the State Court [the Privy Council.) 19 
 
 expressions he requires the just and favourcable construction which he 
 considers to be necessary and sufficient to secure the entire agreement 
 between the Articles and the Liturgy and his doctrine. As this form 
 of pleading was acquiesced in on both sides, neither party has any 
 reason to complain of the other ; but those who are called ujjon to judge 
 of the matters in difference liave great reason to complain, that, instead 
 of their attention being directed, as it ought to have been, to specific (The court 
 propositions distinctly stated, and to the evidence directly applicable to ^ishoVnot 
 those propositions, instead of having a specific and precise statement of sufficiently 
 that which the Bishop alleged to be the doctrine of the Church of Eng- "losn^aticai, 
 land upon the matters in question, and upon which he meant to rely, 
 and of the specific doctrine held by or imputed to Mr. Grorham, and 
 alleged to be unsound, the case is brought forward and left in such a 
 form, that, without being supplied with any allegations distinctly stated, 
 or any issue distinctly joined, we are called upon minutely and accurately 
 to examine a long series of questions and answers — of questions upon a 
 subject of a very abstruse natin-e, intricate, perplexing, entangling, and and Mr. 
 many of them not admitting of distinct and explicit answers — of uot'st^alffiit 
 answers not given plainly and directly but in a guarded and cautious forward.) 
 manner, with the apparent view ^^ of escaping from some apprehended 
 consequence of plain and direct answers. 
 
 than the facts probably warrant. It is singular, however, that the judges take such an 
 acknowledged offender, whose tortuous answers they must admit, undei- their own pro- 
 tection. Surely " answers plainly and directly given " would have saved trouble to all 
 parties, except Mr. Gorham. The Judges, however, joerceij^e his disingenuousness — 
 perceive that Mr. Gorham will not " plainly " own the Church's doctrine, and yet they 
 do not infer that he is avoiding that Doctrine, or is liable to condemnation — but protect 
 him. 
 
 c2 
 
20 Judgment of the Church Court (Arc/iblshop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 laid to liis charge on tlic part and behalf of the said Bishop. He 
 further explicitly and expressly denies that he held or persisted in hold- 
 ing that infants are not made, in ]3aptism, members of Curist and the 
 children of God, as untridy charged on the part of the Lord Bishop of 
 Exeter ; and that he did not maintain any views whatever contrary to 
 the true doctrine of the Church of England, as dogmatically determined 
 in her articles, familiarly tanght in her catechism, and devotionally 
 expi'esscd in her services ; it having been his desire and endeavour 
 througliout that examination to explain the language both of her articles 
 and liturgy (in compliance with tlie express directions of the Church 
 herself), by such just and favourable construction as would secure an 
 entire agreement, not only of each with the others, but of all alike, with 
 the plain tenor of Holy Scripture, declared by the said ai'ticles to be of 
 paramount and absolute authority. That he presented himself on 
 several occasions to the Bishop for institution, and was, on all occasions, 
 ready and prepared to subscribe the three articles, as required by tlie 
 36th Canon, in that behalf, and to make the declaration required by the i 
 Act of Uniformity in the words prescribed by that act, and to take all ' 
 the necessary oaths as by law required, and that there is not contained 
 in the said examination, or to be fairly inferred therefrom, any just or 
 legal ground for the refusal of the said Bishop of Exeter to institute 
 him to the vicarage of Bi'ampford Speke aforesaid. 
 
 The Bishop's reply to Mr. G or ham's answer is, in substance, a repe- 
 tition of what he had before stated, namely, that Mr. Gorham did main- 
 tain and persist in maintaining unsound doctrine, — did hold and persist 
 in holding divers opinions contrary to the articles and liturgy. 
 
 Such is a general outline of the pleadings on the one side and the 
 This mode other ; and though many complaints were made by the counsel on each 
 hiK ["mi- side, I must say I think no one has so great a right to complain as the 
 satisfactory. Court itself, which is left, by reason of the form of pleading adopted, to 
 find its way as well as it can through 1-19 questions and answers, divided 
 and subdivided,^^ and occupying no less than 156 pages, in order to ascer- 
 tain precisely in what respects Mr. Gorham maintains, as charged, doc-l 
 trines and opinions at variance with the Church. " 
 
 The arguments of counsel, which occupied, I think, no less than 
 thirty-four hours, (of which fifteen, though the Court by no means com- 
 plains, were occupied by the leading counsel for Mr. Gorham,) have^ 
 doubtless thrown considerable light upon the subject ; but though those 
 argviments were most able, and supported by a vast body of learning, i 
 still that part of the arguments, on the one side and the other, which \ 
 had relation to the opinio7is of ecclesiastical authors, and occupied by far 
 the greatest portion of the time, has tended, in no slight degree, to 
 increase the difficulties with which it is the lot of the Court to contend, 
 
 '- This (once more) is exaggerating the alleged " difficulty" of the case : for first, " the! 
 149 questions and answers" arenot " divided and subdivided'' at all. They are the actual: 
 questions and answers of the examination ; so many, and no more. And next, thel 
 number of these questions is ridiculously exaggerated by Mr. Gorham, "Yes," ot\ 
 " No," or " I refer you for an answer to my former answer,'' " No. fcl, 7," &c., are all 
 spaced out and numberL-d, as so many distinct " questions and answers," as if to stretch 
 out a hard case. The " State Court " it will be seen, however, no less than the " Church 
 Court," finds it "difficult" to deal with this whole matter. One respected writer in 
 the present controversy has praised the Judges of the "State Court," for taking so 
 much pains to understand the question submitted to them. He could hardly be accus- 
 tomed to witness the proceedings of other Courts of Justice, or his feeling might rather 
 have been that of the public journalists who were present, one of whom thus expressed 
 
Judgment of the Statk Court {the Privij Council.] 
 
 _ The inconveuieuce of this course of proceeding is so great, and the This mnde 
 difficulty of coming to a right conclusion is thereby so unnecessarily in- 9^ proceed. 
 creased, that, in our opinion, the Judge below would have been well 'satisfactory, 
 justified in refusing to pronounce any opinion upon the case as appear- 
 ing upon such pleadings ; and in requiring the parties even at the last 
 moment, to bring forward the case in a regular manner by plea and 
 proof. 
 
 himself: — " The honest truthfuhiess of the nation is shocked by this most unheard-of 
 decision, which is now beginning to be analysed, part by part, with a sternness which 
 will go far to revolutionise the faith of Englishmen as to the purity of public professions, 
 the meaning of public declarations, the uprightness of public administration of law. It 
 is not the first time that the religious feeling of the country has been revolted by the 
 open assertion of the principle of political expediency as superior to all considerations 
 of religious right and wrong." — (The Monmiff Post, March '21st.) — Without attributing 
 any personal motives whatever to the Judges in the " State Court," (which they clearly are 
 beyond the imputation of,) it seems too little doubtful that they were under the influence 
 of three sentiments which impeded their judicial serenity — 1st. A fear of oflfending the 
 evangelical party in the Church ; '2ndly, A sensitive regard to the rights of patrons ; 
 3rdly. A still more sensitive consideration of the special patron in this special case. 
 
22 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 A great deal was said in respect to the Bishop requiring Mr. Grorham 
 to undergo an examination ; and though his Lordship's power to require 
 an examination was certainly not denied, it was stated to be an unpre- 
 cedented act. I pi'esiune it is not a veiy common course for a Clergy- 
 man of long standing, in possession of a benefice, to be called upon, on 
 being presented to another benefice in the same diocese, to undei'go an 
 examination, as it is to be supposed, from the circumstance of the pre- 
 vious institution, that the Bishop was satisfied with his character, 
 learning, and sound doctrine ; but circumstances may occur, and will 
 occur, to render that course necessary ; and experience in these Courts 
 tells us that the opinions of some Clei'gymcn have, unfortunately, 
 after their institution, undergone a change ; that the subscription in the 
 first instance to the articles of religion, as required by the Canon, and 
 the making of the declaration according to tlie Act of Uniformity, are 
 not altogether to be depended upon as proof of the soundness of x'eli- 
 gious principles at the present day. : 
 
 It was also urged that the Lord Bishop prolonged the examination 
 beyond that which the nature of the case required. The only remarks 
 I will here make are, that the course of an examination must alwaj'-s 
 depend on the nature of the answers given ; that in the present instance 
 the Bishop was the proper judge of what was necessary, and it is reason- 
 able to suppose that the length of the examination would have been 
 much curtailed, had the answer to even the first question been of a dif- 
 ferent character. I pretend not to determine, or to ofter an opinion, 
 whether there was or was not a greater or less degree of courtesy ob- 
 served, or respect shown, on one side or the other. It is not witliin my 
 province to notice what the Bishop may have said in any of his charges 
 I'eferred to iu argument, or in any of his letters addressed to a clerk, 
 even to Mr. Gorham himself. It is not my duty to consider whether it 
 is an oftence in the diocese of Exeter to allude to the Church as a 
 " National Establishment,'^ or to advertise for a curate "y>Te from Trac- 
 tarian error.'''' These are matters extremely well suited for declamation, 
 and may be calculated to raise in the minds of some persons a prejudice 
 against the Bishop ; but they cannot, and ought not, to have any weight 
 in the mind of a judge. i 
 
 Dismissing, then, all such topics from my mind, I proceed to consider 
 
 the question which I am called upon to decide : that question is allowed to 
 
 III Mk- ^^' '^^'^^^ is ^^6 efficacy of baptism in the case of infants only ? Although 
 
 Ttton to lie the question is admitted to be confined to this single point, the doctrines 
 
 the'j'udg'e'in °^ infant and adult baptism are so mixed up together in the volume con- 
 
 this Court, taiuiug Mr. Gorham's examination, that it has become a matter of 
 
 extreme difficulty^^ to the Court to separate the one from the other, and 
 
 to select those passages which are to be the test of Mr. Gorham's 
 
 opinions in regard to infant baptism, as distinguished from the doctrines , 
 
 of the Church. I 
 
 I am particularly anxious iu the outset, to have it distinctly under- ' 
 stood, that I guard myself against being supposed to ofter any opiuion 
 
 " The Judges in both Courts find Mr. Gorham's views " difficult ;" the former 
 " difficult to separate," — the latter " difficult to be reconciled." The reason of the 
 former difficulty is to be found in the fact, that Mr. Gorham's theory forbids his sepa- 
 rating the cases of infants and adults. It is not to be blamed as obscurity, against Mr. 
 Gorham, that he fails to " distinguish " where his theory is that he must not, and can- 
 not, distinguish. The " Church Court " found this difficulty, it seems, by first making it. 
 But the " State Court " boldly charges Mr. Gorham with such obscurity, " that some of 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 23 
 
 The case comes before us iu precisely the same state ; and, although m- me- 
 the counsel on both sides have used their best endeavours to remove adioptca by 
 the vagueness and uncertainty found in the pleadings, as well as iu the [^^l^ifig^^®* 
 examination, and have thereby much assisted us, they have not been court, 
 able entirely to remove the difficulty. 
 
 In considering the examination, which is the only evidence, we must 
 have regard not only to the particular question to which each answer 
 is subjoined, but to the general scope, object, and character of the 
 whole examination ; and, if under circumstances so peculiar and per- 
 
 his answers are difficult to be reconciled with one another." Nothing, I am persuaded, 
 could be more unfair than such a charge against Mr. Gorham. The acuteness and con- 
 sistency with which Mr. Gorham carries out his view through his whole book, without a 
 shadow of wavering, or want of clearness, must strike every one who will take the i^ains 
 to master his logical exposition of his theory. They who ivill not take that pains may 
 think him inconsistent ; others will only be surprised that so much could be said for the 
 theory, and so well. 
 
24 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's. 
 
 To ascer- ^^ ^^^^ purely theological point at issue between the parties. I am not 
 tain the going to prouounce an opinion whether unconditional regeneration, in 
 doctrine! the case of the baptism of infants, is or is not a doctrine deducible from 
 anciMr.^ the Sacfcd Writings ; it is no part of the duty of the Court, nor is it i 
 viewf.'and withiu the proviucc of the Court, to institute any such inquiry. All , 
 accordii""*^^ that thc Court is called upon to do, is to endeavour to ascertain whether 
 ly." the Church has determined any thing upon the subject, and, having so 
 
 done, to pronounce accordingly. 
 
 The authoritative declaration of the Church constitutes the law which 
 this Court is bound to follow implicitly, without indulging in any 
 opinion of its own as to its correctness or erroneousness. The Court is 
 to administer the law as it finds it laid down. I x'epeat, therefore, I 
 desire it to be distinctly understood, that the observations I am about 
 to make are to be considered as applied to the doctrine of the Church 
 solely, as far as I am able to understand that doctrine, without any 
 allusion to those passages of Holy Writ which are supposed to refer to 
 the effect of baptism on those to whom it is administered. 
 
 Having thus endeavoured to guard myself from being misunderstood 
 
 — from being supposed to enter into the purely theological and scrip- 
 
 The Stan- tural alignment, I must consider whether the Church has pronounced 
 
 (lard of Doc j^j^y declaration on the question at issue, and, also, to what source I 
 
 1. Articles, am bouud to look. Mr. Gorham, it appears, takes his stand upon 
 
 amiKorau- ^^"^^ Ai'ticles : — the Bishop takes his upon the Articles and Formularies 
 
 laries. of the Chiu'ch conjointbj. Having said thus much, I proceed to collect 
 
 as well as I can, from the volume before me, what are Mr. Gorham'a 
 
 views, and I think his answer to the very first question addressed to him 
 
 by the Lord Bishop tends, in some degree, to account for the protracted 
 
 examination to which he was subjected. The first question is in these 
 
 words (see p. 63) : " Prove from Scripture that Baptism, and thc Supper 
 
 of the Lord, are severally necessary for salvation : 1st, of Baptism ; 
 
 2ndly, of the Lord's Supper." 
 
 To this question, by no means accurately framed to draw out a specific 
 answer, Mr. Gorham proceeds to give the following answer, — " I do not 
 find in Scripture that the necessity of baptism to salvation is declared 
 in terms «o absolute as this proposition." He then proceeds in a long 
 discourse on the question of baptism, in which we have a reference to 
 tlie words of Scripture, " Except a man be born of water and of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." "If the allusion 
 be to baptism, (wliich, however, had not been then instituted,) it un- 
 doubtedly aflirms the necessity of complying with that solemn insti- 
 riic Doc- tution, where no unavoidable impediment intervenes. Having been 
 Ar- Qpj^ijjgj Qf Christ, it cannot be slighted without the awful consequence 
 of disobedience to His express command." He then draws his own 
 conclusion with respect to the first point — baptism — that it is not indis- 
 pensably necessary ; that it was only generally necessary as a duty to 
 be observed ; and thc same observation, he says, applies to the text, 
 " He that believeth and is baptized sliall be saved." Then as to "the 
 Supper of tlie Lord," the second point. " The participation of the 
 Supper of the Lord is stated in Scripture in the same maimer, as yene- 
 rutly necessary, not essentially requisite, to salvation." This answer 
 evidently suggested to the Bishop thc necessity of being more precise in 
 his furtlier questions. Accordingly, we fiud the second question framed 
 in this form : " Hoes our Church hold, and do you hold, that Baptism 
 and the Supper of the Lord are generally necessary to salvation, iu 
 
 TIS.M. 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 25 
 
 plexing, some of the answers sliould be found difficult to be reconciled To"en- 
 with one another (as we think is the case), justice requires that an harm°o"i'iz'e'^*' 
 endeavour should he made to reconcile them in such a manner as to Mr. Gor- 
 obtain the result which appears most consistent with the general inten- and "obtain 
 tion of Mr. Gorham in the exposition of his doctrine and opinions. ^^^ "^enerlf 
 
 izing. 
 
 Adopting this course, the doctrine held by Mr. Gorhatn appears to Theooc 
 us to be this — that baptism is a sacrament generally necessary to salva- b""/t1sm. 
 tion, but that the grace of regeneration does not so necessarily accom- 
 pany the act of Baptism that i-egeneration invariably takes place iii 
 
26 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury' s.) 
 
 The terms as absolute as this proposition ?" The word " severally " was in 
 Bishop calls the former question introduced ; here the word " generally" is substituted. 
 Go"rha'^u to To this Mr. Gorhaui gives answer, — " Our Chui'ch does hold this doc- 
 coiitess it. trine, and I hold it of course :" that is, Baptism and the Supper of the 
 Lord are generally necessary. | 
 
 The third question is, " Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that 
 by the express words of our Lord in the text, John iii. 5, ' Except a 
 man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God,' we may perceive tlie great necessity of the Sacrament of 
 Baptism where it may be had?" The answer is, "The Church states 
 Mr. Gor- this iu her Service for Adult Baptism ; and the statement containeth in 
 I'.i"" i^wfin it nothing contrary to the Word of God." Eeference is made to the 
 iiis own thirty-sixth Canon ; " Tour Lordship has already had my subscription | 
 \\oi(i!,. ^^ ^^^^^ acknowledgment on my institution to St. Just ; for my assent to 
 the wliole Book of Common Prayer includes my assent to this part 
 of it." 
 
 The fourth question is, " In the Homily of Common Prayer and the 
 Sacraments, it is said that, ' According to the exact signification of a 
 Sacrament, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, are visible signs 
 expressly commanded in the New Testament, whereunto is annexed the 
 promise of free forgiveness of our sins, and of our holiness and joining 
 in Christ :' do you hold this to be godly and wholesome doctrine ?" 
 Then the Bishop gives this intimation to Mr. Gorham. " This question 
 is proposed in the words of the Homily ; not thereby to intimate that 
 you are bound to assent to it without reserve, because of the authority | 
 of tlie Homilies." To this Mr. Gorham replies: " My subscription to ' 
 the Articles, and among them to the thirty-fifth, appears to me to involve 
 a sufficient reply to this question. I prefer, and 1 claim the privilege of 
 giving my assent to the two Books of Homilies, generally, as containing 
 '« godly and loholesome doctrine, and necessary for tliese times,' " [tliat 
 is in the times in which they were published] " to my basing any par- 
 ticular doctiiue upon any detached sentence taken out of these books. 
 In claiming this privilege, I by no means intend to intimate that I 
 ' assent with reserve ' to this passage. On the contrary, I consider it as , 
 expressing a wholesome truth, when fairly construed ; but as it has been I 
 often adduced, in controversies on tlie eflicacy of the Sacraments," &c. ' 
 . ..." I fully assent to the wholesome truth contained in this quota- 
 tion when fairly brought into connection with the Articles of our 
 Church, on the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments^ These words, 
 jirinted in capital letters, seem to intimate on the part of IMr. Gorham, 
 that he rests his case in an especial manner on the Articles ; that he is 
 disposed to make them the principal standard by which he wished to be I 
 judged. '' 
 
 Then follow the questions which specially raise the point under the 
 consideration of the Coui-t, the 5tli, 6th, and 7th questions are put by 
 the Lord Bishop in this manner : — "Does our Church hold, and do you 
 hold, that every infant baptized by a lawful minister witli water in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is made 
 l)y God, in such Baptism, a member of Christ, the child of God, and 
 an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven?" The 6th is, "Does our 
 Church hold, and do you hold, that such children, by the laver of rege- 
 neration in baptism, are received into the number of the children of 
 God, and heirs of everlasting life ?" The 7th is, " Does our Churcli 
 hold, and do you hold, that all infants so baptized are born again of 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privy Council.) 27 
 
 Baptism ; that the gi'ace may be granted before, iu, or after Baptism ; a view 
 that Baptism is an eiiectuai sign of grace, by which God works iu- court mitf 
 visibly in us, but only in such as worthily receive it — in them alone it own words, 
 has a wholesome effect ; and that, without reference to the qualification 
 of the recipient, it is not in itself an eftectual sign of grace. That in- ^"^ ^"". 
 fants baptized, and dying before actual sin, are certainly saved ; but Gorham. 
 that in no case is regeneration in Baptism unconditional. 
 
28 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 water and of tlie Holy Gkost ?" These questions were proposed sepa- 
 rately to Mr. Gorliam ; lie answers them collectively in the manner 
 following : — " As these three questions all imply the same description of 
 Mr. Gor- answer, I will discuss them together. And generally, I reply, that these 
 dcrsth""^'" pi'opositions being stated in the precise words of the Eitual Services, or \ 
 Formularies of the Catcchism, undoubtedly must be held, by every honest member 
 I)'ie''^1f^!'ai. of ^^^® Church, to contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of 
 lowed a fa- GoD, or to souud doctriue, or which a godly man may not with a good 
 cnnirr^uc- conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly defensible, . . . 
 tiuii." {y ii shall he allowed such just and favourable construction as in common 
 
 equity ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as are set 
 forth by authority.'" Here I may observe, that Mr. Gorham does not 
 give a precise answer to the question proposed to him ; he scarcely 
 answers for himself, but adopts, in part only, certain words to be found 
 in the preface to the Book of Common Prayer, with the qualification, 
 which he makes still more emphatic than the original by his use of 
 italics, — " if it shall be allowed such just and favourable construction as in 
 common ecpiity ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially such as 
 are set forth by authority .''' Then he goes on thus: — " Now the '^just 
 and favourable construction'' of passages like these, (occurring in ser\dces 
 intended for popular use,) which, taken in their naked verbality, might 
 appear to contradict the clearest statements of Scripture, and of the 
 Church herself, must be sought, chiefly, — I., by bringing them into 
 juxta-position with the precise and dogmatical teaching of the Church i 
 
 in IIER EXPLICIT STANDARD OF DOCTRINE, THE TlIIRTY-NlNE ARTICLES ; I 
 
 in the next place, II., by comparing the various parts of her Formu- 
 laries with each other ; and, collaterally, III., by ascertaining the 
 
 VIEAVS of those BY WHOM HER SERVICES WERE REFORMED, AND HEB 
 
 Articles sanctioned." 
 
 Such are the means proposed by Mr. Gorham of seeking the "just 
 and fovourable construction " of the ritual services of the Church, — a 
 course adopted, in part at least, by his learned counsel, who brought I 
 forward a great deal of learning to show what were, in his view, the I 
 opinions of tlie reformers of the Church, in accordance with which | 
 opinions, as he contended, the formularies of the Church must be con- f 
 strued ; and he laboured with great learning, endeavoui-ing, as I under- 
 stood, to establish that the reformers were Calvinists, and that, in 
 accordance with that system, the Articles and the formularies of the 
 Church, framed by those persons, must be interpreted. I have no in- 
 tention, at present at least, of directing my attention to this branch of 
 the argument, or of following Mr. Gorham through his three heads or ■ 
 divisions, in wliich he considers the efficacy of the Sacraments not merely i' 
 in infants, but in adults ; it is sufficient for me to observe that I have no 
 
 ^* The " Church Court'' makes a similar avowal (in p. 24) ; but the " State Court" hat 
 ventured into matter thus confessedly beyond its jurisdiction, in affirming many doc- 
 trinal propositions of its own as the basis of its present decisions ; as, for instance 
 (p. 57,) that some of the " elect are not sanctified." But a further question has here 
 been raised, viz. Whether any judicial decision in such a matter is not tantamont, 
 practically, to a decision on doctrine .' Whether to decide that such and such is the 
 doctrine of the Church's articles and formularies is not to decide the Doctrine .' On 
 this subject I must refer to the discourse prefixed to this volume ; but may here ob- 
 serve that such an objection if valid would go the length of disparaging all Judicial 
 Courts, as being practically an infringement, (in certain cases) on tlu- Legislative 
 Council of the State or of the Church. I think it amounts, when ever £o fully admitted, 
 
Judgment of the State Couj-t {the Privy Council.) 29 
 
 These being, (as we collect them,) tlie opinions of Mr. Gorliam, the Mr. Gor- 
 question which we have to decide is, not whether they are theologically {laHtferarl' 
 sound or unsound ^^ — not whether upon some of the doctrines comprised abated by 
 in the opinions, other opinions opposite to them may or may not be adopteti. 
 held with equal, or even greater reason, by other learned and pious 
 ministers of the Church ; but whether these opinions now under our 
 consideration are contrary or repugnant to the doctrine which the 
 Church of England, by its articles, formularies, and rubrics, requires to 
 be held by its ministers, so that upon the ground of those opinions the 
 appellant can lawfully be excluded from the benefice to which he has 
 been presented. 
 
 to no more than a concession that no institutions which deal with our present moral 
 agency are mathematically exact in their functions. Some imperfection both theoretical 
 and practical seems unavoidable. But no acute and thoughtful reasoner should con- 
 found the incidental decision of a question by a Judge with the formal and responsible 
 act of a legislature. In reply to Archdeacon Manning's speech at Chichester, I would 
 simply say — a court of law may, and indeed must, decide on what is the law ; but a 
 council of legislation alone can make, or re-make the law. The Church in Synod can 
 frame a definition of the faith — the courts of law must of course ascertain it, when they 
 act on it. A parent may frame rules and define duties for his household. His servants 
 may ascertain them and act on them. Who then can imagine their functions and powers 
 to be identical ? 
 
IV. Tlie 
 
 30 Judf/ment of the Chuiicii Court {Archbishop of Canterburifs.) 
 
 intention of carrying my inquiry beyond the real question, namely, the 
 case of tlie baptism of infants. 
 
 With a view to ascertain the doctrine of the Church on any subject, 
 ahtklk'^ no one, I think, can doubt that it was rightly stated by the learned 
 referred^to, couuscl for Mr. Gorham, that the Tliirty-nine Articles are, in the fii-st 
 primarily, ' place, to be cousulted ; and when on inquiry it is found that they leave 
 nothing short, but speak on any point of doctrine plainly, precisely, and 
 definitely, then there can be no occasion to search further. This posi- 
 tion was fortified by a reference to several writers, and amongst the 
 number to Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft. That learned 
 author, in his preface, § 35, to his work on the Articles, states, " The 
 purpose of our Church is best known by the doctrine Avhich she doth 
 profess ; the doctrine by the Thirty-nine Articles established by Act of 
 Parliament ; the Articles, by the words whereby they are expressed, and 
 other purpose than the public doctrine doth minister, and other doctrine 
 than in the said Articles is contained, our Church neither hath nor 
 holdeth ; and other sense they cannot yield than their words do impart. 
 The words be the same, and none other, than erst and first they were ; 
 and, therefore, the sense the same, the Articles the same, the doctrine 
 the same, and the purpose and intention of our Church still one and the 
 same." 
 
 To the same efiect are the passages cited by the learned counsel from 
 other writers and commentators — from Bishop Hall and xlrchbishop 
 Whitgift, The latter, in his preface to the " Defence of the Answer to 
 the Admonition," says, " It were but a needless labour to make any par- 
 ticular recital of those points of doctrine which this Church of England 
 at this day doth liold and maintain, for they be at large set out in sundry 
 English books, and especially in the Apology of the Church of England, 
 and the Defence of the same " [alluding to Bishop Jewell's Apology and 
 Defence] ; " summarily also collected together in the Book of Articles, 
 agreed vipon in the Convocation at London, ayino 1562." 
 
 Again, to the same efliect are the quotations from Bishops Prideaux 
 and Stillingfleet. The latter, in his " Unreasonableness of Separation," 
 (Pt. II., Sect. 1., p. 95. London, 1681,) observes, . . . . " The Doctrine 
 of the Church of England is contained therein [in the Thirty-nine Arti- 
 cles] ; and whatever the opinions of private persons may be, this is the 
 standard by Avhich the sense of our Church is to be taken." There are 
 passages quoted from other writers by the learned counsel, but they are 
 all to the same eflect. 
 
 Prima facie, then, the Thirty-nine Articles are the standard of doc- 
 trine ; they were framed for the express purpose of avoiding a diversity 
 of opinion, and are, as sucli, to be considered, and, in the first instance, 
 appealed to, in order to ascertain the doctrine of the Church. But if 
 they fall short, if they arc silent on any particular point, to what tlien 
 are we to resort ? Arc we to resort to the supposed opinions of those 
 by whom the Articles may have been framed and the Formularies of the 
 Chiu'ch compiled, or are we to appeal to the Eoruuilaries themselves. 
 We have it, I think, most clearly and distinctly stated by one whose 
 
 ^* It is difficult to understand why the " State Court " here introduces a remark of 
 this kind, the only effect of which could possibly be to raise a feeling of jealousy against 
 those who might take an opposite view of the case. The Court would seem to pretend 
 that all such are assuming j)rinciples of action or rules of judgment " dangerous to the 
 rigfits of her Majesty's subjects." This is a very unworthy pretence ; but having thrown 
 it out, it is extremely surprising that the Court afterwards proceeds in its judgment (as 
 
 \ 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 31 
 
 This question must be decided by the Articles and Liturgy ; and we iv. The 
 must apply to the construction of those books the same rules which articlks 
 have long been establislied, and are, by law, applicable to the construe- lariesmay 
 tion of all written instruments. We must endeavour to attain for our- eoilsu-u'cd 
 selves the true meaning of the language employed, assisted only by the with wide 
 consideration of such external or historical facts as we may find necessary ^"''''"'^ ' 
 to enable us to vuiderstand the subject matter to which the instruments 
 relate, and the meaning of the words employed. 
 
 In our endeavours to ascertain the true meaning and effect of the 
 articles, formularies, and rubrics, we must by no means intentionally 
 swerve from the old established rules of construction, or depart from 
 the principles which have received the sanction and approbation of the 
 most learned persons in times past, as being, on the whole, the best 
 calculated to determine the true meaning of the documents to be 
 examined. If these principles are not adhered to, all the rights,^'' both 
 spiritual and temporal, of her Majesty's subjects would be endangered. 
 
 will be seen) by trying, though with ill success, to find an historical meaning for the 
 words of the articles, which the "words themselves" and the "subject matter" fail 
 to furnish. (See p. 34.) The " Church Court" it will be found by examining the very 
 words of ALL the Church documents, really acts on the principle to which the " State 
 Court" only pretends. 
 
32 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 authority I presume will not be questioned, I mean Bishop Burnet, in 
 his " Pastoral Care," at tlie commencement of C. VI., that " The truest 
 indication of the sense of a Church is to he taken from her language in 
 her public offices ; this is that which she speaks the most frequently and 
 the most pubhcly. Even the articles of doctrine are not so much read 
 or so often heard of as her Liturgies are. And as this way of reasoning 
 has been of late made use of, with great advantage, against the Church 
 of Eome, to make her accountable for all her public Offices in their plain 
 and Kteral meaning ; so I will make use of it on this occasion. It is the 
 stronger in our case, whose Offices being in a tongue understood by the 
 people, the argument from them does more evidently conclude her." 
 
 Again : Dr. Waterland, whose extensive learning entitles him to some 
 weight, states : — " The Church's public acts are open and common, and 
 he is the best Church of England man that best understands the prin- 
 ciples there laid down, and argues closest from them ; the rest are but as- 
 sertions, fancies, or practices of private men, and are not binding on us." 
 
 To the same effect is Bishop Conybeare, in his " Treatise on the case 
 of Subscription to Articles of Keligion considered ;" a treatise contained 
 in the third volume of the "Enchiridion Theologicum," Oxford edition, 
 1792, speaking of the mode in which ambiguities of language are to be 
 solved, at p. 262 he says : " If words singly and separately taken are 
 loose and indeterminate, yet their sense may be fixed by the circumstances 
 of the Article in which they are found, and expressions of themselves 
 doubtful may become certain by considering their coherence with other 
 parts of the proposition." ... At p. 263 : "But if expressions should 
 occur, which cannot be determined by passages in other Articles, then 
 will it be proper to inquire whether they may be fixed by our public 
 liturgy, or by any other monuments which have the sanction of ecclesi- 
 astical authority. The propositions set forth in any of our Articles ouglit 
 to be understood in such a sense as is consistent with every other deter- 
 mination of the Church ; because the Church cannot be supposed to in- 
 tend one thing in some of her public acts, and the direct contrary in 
 others : to which we may add that those who subscribe the Ai'ticles of 
 religion are obliged to admit those other determinations also ; and conse- 
 quently must subscribe them in such a sense as will make them agree 
 and be consistent viiih. each other." . . . Again, p. 267: "Where the 
 meaning of the Articles is already fixed by some j^n-blic act of the Chiu-ch 
 there no liberty can be allowed of altering the sense of it, and of adjust- 
 ing it to our own interpretations of Scripture. . . . He who subscribes 
 one Article, equally subscribes the rest ; and, what is more, equally pro- 
 fesses submission to every other determination of tlie Church," &c. 
 
 The positions contained in these extracts, independently of the high 
 respect due to those from whom they emanated, rest not only upon the 
 principles of common sense, but also upon judicial authority. I fiud 
 that my Lord Brougham, in delivering the judgment of the Superior 
 Court in Escott v. Mastin, on the question of lay baptism, 4 Moore's 
 P. C. C. observed at p. 137, in reference to the opinions of many distin- 
 guished divines cited by counsel, that " the question is not to be decided 
 by a reference to tlie opinions, however respectable, of individuals emi- 
 nent for their learning, or distinguished by their station in the Church." 
 This doctrine alone, then, is sufficient for my guide. 
 
 Taking this principle so laid down by the Judicial Committee for my 
 guide, I proceed now to consider whether there is anytliing doubtful 
 upon the question of the efficacy of infant baptism, so as to render it 
 
Judgment of the StxVTK Court {the Privy Cotmcil.) 33 
 
 As the subject matter is doctrine, and its application to a particular 
 question, it is material to observe that there were difierent doctrines or 
 opinions prevailing or under discussion at the time when the articles 
 and liturgy were framed, and ultimately made part of the law ; but we 
 are not to be in any way influenced by the particular opinions of the ^Hety'"of 
 eminent men who propounded or discussed them ; or by the authorities opinions. 
 by which they may be supposed to have been influenced ; or by any 
 supposed tendency to give preponderance to Calvinistic or Arminian 
 doctrines. The articles and liturgy, as we now have them, must be con- 
 sidered as the final result of the discussion which took place — not the 
 representation of the opinions of any particular men — Calvinistic, 
 Arminian, or any other ; but the conclusion which we must presume to 
 be deduced from a due consideration of all the circumstances of the 
 
34 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Cantei'hury^s.) 
 
 necessary to bave recourse to any authority beyond tbe Article treating 
 on tbe subject ; for sbould it be necessary to look to any otber source 
 for assistance, it is clear I must look to otber declarations of tbe Cburch 
 as manifested in ber services and oflices. 
 The 25tti Tbe 25tli Article is to tbis eftect : — " Sacraments ordained of Christ 
 Artieiel'^: on ^^ ^^t only badges, or tokens of Cbristian men's profession, but rather 
 Baptism. tbey be certain sure witnesses and eflectaal signs of grace and God's 
 good ^Yill toward us, by tbe wbicb He doth work invisibly in us, and 
 not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him. 
 There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel ; 
 that is to say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." [I pass over tbe 
 otber five Saci'aments of the Eomish Church, as they relate not to the 
 present inquiry : the Article proceeds,] — -"The Sacraments were not or- 
 dained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we 
 should didy use them ; and in such only as worthily receive the same 
 tbey have a wholesome efiect or operation ; but they that receive them 
 unworthily purchase to themselves damnation, as S. Paul saitb." 
 
 It was suggested in the course of the argument, that the latter part 
 of the Article which I bave just read applies only to the Sacrament of 
 tlie Lord's Supper. That suggestion seems to me to be perfectly im- 
 material, but I will take it that the passage does apply to both Sacra- 
 ments alike ; since worthy reception, whatever that expression may mean, 
 is, if I mistake not, according to the doctrine of the Cliui'ch as contained 
 in this Article, as necessary to Baptism as it is to the Supper of the 
 Lord. I 
 
 Two points It is to be obscrved, however, tliattbis Article leaves it doubtful what! 
 '^1*'' What is ■"'ortliy reception is. "Taith and repentance," says Mr. Gorbam, "are 
 "worthy re. necessary — are pre-requisites to tbe Sacrament of Baptism, as well as 
 infants?'"^ to tliat of the Lord's Supper." But where docs Mr. Gorbam find 
 that ? Certainly not in tbis Article. 
 
 Again : how is the 27th Article to be construed ? " Baptism is not 
 only a sign of profession, and mai'k of difference, whereby Christian men 
 2 whati. ''^'^ discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of 
 Rcgenera. regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that ro- 
 fantsT'"" ceive baptism J'igbtly are grafted into the Church ; tlie promises of for- 
 giveness of sin, and of our adoption to be tbe sons of God by tbe Holy 
 Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed and grace in- 
 creased by virtue of prayer n.nto God." We have here described 
 
 "• All which considerations these Judges admitted were irrelevant, (see p. 31 ,) because 
 the "woids" and " plain meaning'' of the document as now authorized are alone to 
 be considered. So this Court is immediately departing from the principle it had laid 
 down as the only just one, the violation of which would " endanger all our rights." 
 This " due consideration" of the circumstances of the 16th century, in a decision for 
 the 19th century is a total surrender of the principle they professed. 
 
 ■'^ The Court cannot mean to say " intended." The Church may have allowed for 
 differences, but could not have intended them. Their design avowedly was " uni- 
 formiiij " and " agreement." 
 
 "* This is a sini;i'lar statement on the part of the " State Court." The mere " suppos- 
 ing " of such eslahlishment of doctrine, would not, of course, affect the " law," or its 
 decisions, one way or other. 15ut as to Baptism, it is notorious that the Church of 
 England at the Reformation was not so much as charged with changing the doctrine. The 
 question was not adduced, in the controversies between the Churches. 'i'Le celebrated 
 controversialist " Stapylton " prefi,\es to his translation of Bede, a.d. 1565, a statement 
 of the "differences" between us. I am indebted for the following extract to the 
 pamphlet of E. Macdonnell, Esq., (himself a charitable member, I believe, of the Roman 
 Catholic CImrch.) 
 
 "Jn the volume containing the translation of Bede's History may be seen, prefixed to 
 that translation, a statement entitled ' Differences between the primitive fiiith of Eng- 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 35 
 
 case, includiug both the sources from which the declared doctrine was 
 derived, aud the erroneous opinions which were to be corrected. 
 
 It appears from the resolutions and discussions of the Church itself, 
 and from the history of the time, that, from the first dawn of the 
 Eeformation until the final settlement of the Articles and Formularies, 
 the Chm'ch was harassed by a great variety of opinions respecting Bap- 
 tism, as well as upon other matters of doctrine.^^ 
 
 The Church, having resolved to frame articles of faith, [!] as a means Latuuda 
 of avoiding diversities of opinion, and establishing consent touching true P''°''^^'^ — 
 religion, must be presumed to have desired to accomplish that object as 
 far as it could, and to have decided such of the. questions then under 
 discussion as it was thought proper, prudent, and practicable to decide ; 
 but it could not have intended to attempt the determination of all the 
 questions which had arisen or miglit arise, or to include in the articles 
 an authoritative statement of all Christian doctrine ; and in making 
 the necessary selection of those points which it was intended to decide, 
 regard was had to the points deemed most important to be made known 
 to, and to be accepted by, the members of the Church, and to those 
 questions upon wOiich the members of the Church could agree; and 
 that other points and other questions were left for future decision by 
 competent authority, and in the meantime to the private judgment of 
 pious and conscientious persons. 
 
 Under such circumstances, it would perhaps have been impossible, i.From 
 even if it had been thought desirable, to employ language which would and wstory 
 not admit of some latitude of interpretation: if the latitude were con- of the case, 
 fined Avithin such limits as might be allowed without danger to any 
 doctrine necessary to salvation, the possible or probable difference of 
 interpretation may have been designedly intended^^ even by the framers 
 of the Articles themselves ; and in all cases in which the articles con- 
 sidered as a test admit of diflerent interpretations, it must be held that 
 any sense of which the words fairly admit may be allowed, if that sense 
 be not contradictory to something which the Church has elsewhere 
 allowed or required ; and in such a case it seems perfectly right to con- 
 clude that those who impose the test command no more than the form 
 of the words employed in their literal and grammatical sense conveys or 
 implies ; and that those who agree to them are entitled to such latitude 
 or diversity of interpretation as the form admits. 
 
 If it were supposed^*^ that all points of doctrine were decided by the 
 
 land continued almost these thousand years, and the late pretended faith of Protestants ; 
 gathered out of the History of the Church of England, compiled by Venerable Bede, 
 an Englishman, above 800 years past.' Under the head of ' Differences in Doctrine,' the 
 Rev. author enumerates eighteen differences, on various points, but does not include bap- 
 tismal regeneration, or infant baptism, or any doctrine concerning baptism, in his list. 
 
 " Again, in the same volume, and immediately following his translation of the History, 
 he inserts a long article entitled, ' A Fortress of the Faith first planted among us 
 Englishmen, and continued hitherto in the universal Church of Christ, these m. 
 years and upwards, the failh of which time Protestants call Papistry.' In the second 
 part of this article he enters again, and at much greater length, upon the exposition of 
 differences in faith and discipline between the two Churches, and enumerates no less 
 than twenty-one such differences ; but still, does not include baptismal regeneration, or 
 infant baptism, or any doctrine concerning baptism as matter of difference between 
 them, as he certainly would have done if such difference had then existed. 
 
 " I do not recollect having heard in the course of the late arguments any statement 
 or suggestion that would induce me to suppose that the doctrine of the Church of 
 England upon the subject has been altered since that time." 
 
 Bossuet confesses the same: " Hie observatu dignum est Lutheranos," (from whose 
 confession the English article is taken,) ^ ^ pariter cnm ecclesia Catholica credere Oir.» 
 nimodam in parvulis Baptismi uecessitatem.'' — Expositio, p. 113. 
 
 p2 
 
36 Judgment uf the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterburies.) 
 
 what baptism is. and what are its effects. But how does the Article 
 proceed? "The baptism of young children is in any wise to be 
 retained in the Church, as most agreeable with tlie institution of 
 Cheist." 
 
 Now the first question which suggests itself to one's mind is, — if faith 
 is to be confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God, — \ 
 how is it that young children are to be baptized ? They can have nei- 
 ther faith nor repentance. They cannot have faith, because they know 
 not the promises ; they cannot have repentance because they have not 
 committed actual sin. They may have faith and repentance in after 
 life, but in infancy they can have neither the one nor the other ; the 
 one they cannot have for want of understanding ; the other they cannot 
 have, and are not required to have, since they have not been guilty of 
 actual sin. 
 
 Comparing then the 25th and 27th Articles together, it is clear, I 
 think, that we find no solution of the point, what constitutes " worthy 
 reception.^'' We must appeal then to some other source, to some other 
 authority, but what is that to be ? Is it to be the opinions of private 
 individuals ? I apprehend what I have already stated is quite sufficient 
 to dispose of any such suggestion. I apprehend that the authoritative 
 declarations of the Church are the soui^e to which we must look for an 
 explanation of what is meant by " worthy reception," what is meant by 
 "regeneration," and what is also meant by the direction given, that 
 " tlie baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the , 
 Church, as moat agreeable with the institution of Christ." "We must | 
 find from these sources the means by which children are to be brought ' 
 within the description of those who are to be regenerated, — to be " as 
 by an instrument" .... "grafted into the Church," and become 
 persons to whom "the promises of forgiveness of sin" and of their 
 " adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost are visibly signed 
 and sealed." 
 
 Before, however, entering into a consideration of this part of the case, 
 
 Mr. Gor- ^^ ^^^^7 ^^ ^^ ^'^^^ ^° ^*-^^ what more Mr. Gorham has to suggest. Now, 
 
 ham sug- it will be seen, on reference to his answers to other questions to which 
 
 *^'''' ^ ■ I am about to refer, that he tells las that children " being born in sin " 
 
 . . cannot as such be worthy recipients ; that "worthy reception " is neces- 
 
 siii hinders sary in order to produce beneficial eftccts from the administration of the 
 
 cepuon'" In" ^^^^ "^^ baptism ; that children being born in sin cannot receive the 
 
 iniaiits ge- Sacramcut of Baptism with beneficial effect. Thus much I think appears 
 
 iiciaiiy. ^^,Qj^^ what follows. The 15th question is : " Not taking here into 
 
 accoimt wliat it may have pleased God to give to any infants before 
 
 baptism, does our Church hold, and do you hold, that the entering of 
 
 infants into these stipulations by tlieir representatives is necessary to 
 
 their receiving the spiritual grace of baptism ?" The Bishop pressed Mr. 
 
 Gorham upon this point, as in former answers, he, in substance, stated 
 
 that the stipulations for repentance and faith are required to be entered 
 
 into on behalf of infimts about to be baptized. The answer to the 15th 
 
 question is : " Our Church holds, and I hold, that no spiritual grace is 
 
 conveyed in baptism, except to worthy recipients, and as infants are by 
 
 nature ?««worthy recipients, ' being born in sin and the children of 
 
 wrath,' they cannot receive any benefit from baptism, except there shall 
 
 have been a prevcnient act of grace to make them worthy." Such is 
 
 the hypothesis of Mr. Gorham, that in order to bring infimts within the 
 
 description of" worthy recipients" tlicre must be "a prevcnient act of 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privij Council.) 37 
 
 Ohurcli of England, the law could not consider any point as left doubt- 
 ful. The application of the law, or of the doctrine of the Church of 
 England, to any theological question which arose, must be the subject 
 of decision; and the decision would be governed by .the construction of 
 the terms in which the doctrine of the Church is expressed, viz., the 
 construction which, on the whole, would seem most likely to be right. 2 From 
 But if the case be, as undoubtedly it is, that in the Church of Eng- some doc- 
 land many points of theological doctrine have not been decided, then [eJ't^u^D^g*^ 
 the first and great question which arises in such cases as the present is, cided by the 
 whether the disputed point is or was meant to be settled at all, or ^''*'°^^*- 
 whether it is left open for each member of the Church to decide for 
 himself, according to his own conscientious opinion ? If there be any 
 doctrine on which the Articles are silent or ambiguously expressed, so 
 as to be capable of two meanings, we must suppose that it was intended 
 to leave that doctrine to private judgment, unless the Rubrics and for- 
 mularies clearly and distinctly decide it. If they do, we must conclude 
 that the doctrine so decided is the doctrine of the Church. But, on 
 the other hand, if the expressions used in the Rubrics and formularies 
 are ambiguous, it is not to be concluded that the Church meant to es- 
 tablish indirectly as a doctrine that which it did not establish directly 
 as such by the articles of faith — the code avowedly made for the avoid- 
 ing of diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touch- 
 ing true religion. 
 
 (The Court 
 
 We must proceed, therefore, with the freedom which the administra- 
 tion of the law requires, to examine the Articles and the Prayer Book, wisVe's'to'' 
 for the purpose of discovering what it is, if anything, which, by the law ^'j.g'^aw with 
 of England, or the doctrine of the Chui'ch of England as by law estab- freedom "— 
 lished, is declared as to the matter now in question ; and to ascer- gxartness^O 
 tain whether the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham, as we understand it to 
 be disclosed in liis examination, is directly contrary or repugnant to the 
 doctrine of the Church. 
 
38 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 grace." He proceeds with liis answer : "Baptism is the sign or seal, 
 either of the grace ah'eady given, or of the repentance and faith which 
 are stipidated, and must be hereafter exei'cised." According to this, 
 Mr Gorham does not admit that it is by baptism or through baptism 
 that grace is conferred ; but he maintains there must be " a prevenient 
 act of grace " conferred either before, at, or after baptism, in order to 
 render infants worthy recipients, and, without that, baptism has no 
 beneficial eftect. 
 
 The 18th question is thus pointedly put : — " Has the Church not 
 
 2. That declared her mind, that infants baptized by a lawful Minister, in the 
 
 ^npulafe for name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holt Gthost, do 
 
 future faith rcceivc the spiritual grace of baptism, even if they have not entered into 
 
 hisome"*" the stipulations by their representatives?" The answer is: — "The 
 
 cases. Chiirch has declared that, to infants privately baptized, the grace and 
 
 mercy of Christ is not denied. In this case of emergency, I consider 
 
 that stipulations, though not formally made by sponsors, are made hy 
 
 implication through those who earnestly desire their baptism, and by 
 
 the person who administers it ; which implied stipulations the Church 
 
 requires to he formally adopted as soon as the circumstances will suffer 
 
 it. This case of ' present exigence ' cannot, therefore, be fairly urged as 
 
 an exception to the requirements of the Church." Mr. Grorham thus 
 
 proceeds to state the grounds on which he founds his answer : — " In 
 
 the Catechism, the Chui'ch puts the question, ' Why, then, are infants 
 
 baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ?' 
 
 (the 'promises ' made by their sureties) — without limitation to infants 
 
 baptized imder any particular circumstances. It is a question stating a 
 
 difficulty in its broadest and most general character. 
 
 " Now the answer, which the Church gives, brings us of necessity to 
 one of three conclusions : — Either, 1st, the Church intended unworthily 
 to evade the principalis difficulty ; namely, the case of infants baptized in 
 emergency, without the formal stipulations, the exaction of which is 
 
 '^ Mr. Gorham here mnkes a " difficulty " in order to solve it by his own principles : 
 The case is this. The Church (in that part of the Catechism which was written nearly a 
 hundred years after our doctrine was settled at the Reformation) puts the question, 
 " Why are infants baptized, when they are unable to perform " the required conditions, 
 viz. repentance and faith? I'he Church answers, that (as to all who "come of age," 
 and have sins to repent of,) they are "bound to" repent, by the promises of their 
 sureties in tlieir behalf, and (when they have faculties for it) they are bound also to an 
 active faith. — Let any one reflect whether the answer in the Catechism can possibly 
 mean other than this. It does not profess to be an account of all the reasons for bap- 
 tizing infants, but only to be an answer to one objection raised in consequence of what 
 was said about faith and repentance being "required." Mr. Gorham, however, here 
 wishes to make infant baptism dependent, for all benefit, on the " stipulations " of the 
 spionsors, which " stipulations," he says, are implied, though not expressed, in private 
 baptism without sponsors. So, according to this, a dying infant (who has no sponsors) 
 receives the benefit of baptism, through an " implied " stipulation, that he irill repent 
 of sins he never will commit (because he dies), and an implied stipulation that he will 
 perform an act of faith wlien he r,cver will, and, as far as appears, never can ! Can 
 absurdity go farther? The exigencies of Mr. Gorham's theory actually require that 
 dying infants shall be supposed to promise what they do not promise, viz. a repen- 
 tance for sins uncommitted, and acts of faith which imply developed faculties ! All 
 this comes of his resistance to the common sense interpretation of tlie question and 
 answer in the Catechism, viz. tliat repentance and faith have an ex post facto bajjtismal 
 validity, and tliat all who have aught to " repent" of are baptismally '' bound to " it, 
 as well as to an active faith, beyond the " Habitus fidei," of the regeneration, as the 
 Schoolmen speak. Mr. Gorham see* a service prepare! for infants supposed to be in 
 danger of dying, and to be onli/ used for such ; and he supposes its benefit to result 
 from imagined stipulations of imaginary ^ponsors for imaginary repentance of imaginary 
 ,«;ins ! So much then for Mr. Gorham's theory of Regeneration of dying infants by Stipu- 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privy Council.) 39 
 
 Considering, first, the effect of the Articles alone, it is material to 
 observe that very different opinions as to the Sacrament of Baptism 
 \\ ere held by different promoters of the Eeforraation, and that gi-eat 
 .iterations were made in the Articles themselves-^ upon that subject. 
 
 The articles about religion drawn up in 1536 state that it is offered 
 unto all men, as well infants as such as have the use of reason, that by theVa^t'th 
 Baptism they shall have remission of sin, and the grace and favour of Henry vm. 
 ,GoD; — that the promise of grace and everlasting life (which promise ^'^^g^^'^J^ 
 is adjoined to the Sacrament of Baptism) pertaineth not only to such statements, 
 \ as have the gift of reason, but also to infants, innocents, and children ; much more 
 and that they ought, therefore, and must needs be baptized ; and that [j^'V^^^'f 
 by the Sacrament of Baptism they do also obtain remission of their of the 
 sin, the grace and favour of God, and be made thereby the very sons cimrch. 
 and children of God. Insomiich as infants and children dying in 
 tlieir infancy shall undoubtedly be saved thereby, and else not. That 
 infants must needs be christened, because they be born in original sin, 
 which sin must needs be remitted, which cannot be done but by the 
 Sacrament of Baptism, whereby they receive the Holt Ghost, which 
 executes His grace and efficacy in them, and cleanseth and purifieth 
 them from sin by His secret virtue and operation ; and that men or 
 children, having the use of reason, and willing and desirous to be Bap- 
 tized, shall, by the virtue of that Holy Sacrament, obtain the grace and 
 remission of all their sins, if they shall come thereto pei'fectly and truly 
 repentant, and contrite of all tlieir sins before committed, and also per- 
 I'ectly and constantly confessing and believing all the articles of our 
 laith ; and finally, if they shall also have firm credence and trust in the 
 promise of God adjoined to the said Sacrament — that is to say, that in 
 and by this said Sacrament which they shall receive, God the Father 
 giveth unto them, for His Son Jesus Cheist's sake, remission of all 
 their sins, and the grace of the Holt Ghost, whereby they be newly 
 regenerated, and made the very children of God," &c. 
 
 lation, for repentance never to be " performed." It has been suggested to me that Mr. 
 Gorham may still cling to his theory in behalf of such infants as happen after all to sur- 
 vive. I can only say, that if he is determined to do so, I shall not be suiprised ; but 
 other persons will perceive that the Church has not a separate theory for the regeneration 
 of infants in such cases. 
 
 ^ " Great alterations were made in the Articles themselves upon that subject;" such 
 is the assertion of the " State Court;" and, in proof of it, reference is made to certain 
 "articles" of 1536, which have no more literary connexion as documents with our 
 present articles, than had Magna Charta, or the" articles " of the Council of Clarendon in 
 the reign of Henry II, To build any thing on the fact that two documents are differently 
 worded which were not compared, or collated, neither of them pretending to be derived 
 from the other, is surely an artifice worthy of an able rhetorician (like Mr. Turner, the 
 Council of Mr. Gorham, in whose speech this was a powerful " point,'') felt to be 
 "not easily answered," even by Mr. Dodsworth, but is wholly unaccountable in 
 grave and learned judges. Our baptismal article (25) is derived from the Confession 
 of Augsburg and the " Necessary Erudition." But even had the articles of our Church 
 been, historically, a modification of the, so called, "articles of 1636," the Judges are 
 bound by their own canon laid down (p. 31 ,) viz. to interpret the present documents of 
 the Church according to the " plain meaning " of the words, and not by historical dis- 
 quisition on their origin, &c. ; in which disquisition they omit to notice the onli/ history 
 interpretative of our present Prayer Book or Articles ; viz., the history of the ultimate 
 settlement of them in 1662. The State judges pass it over ! 
 
 The Judge in the " Church Court," of course, never thought of noticing those 
 " articles of 1536," as they are not articles of the Church of England. They 
 occupy (without the preface and signatures) 7^ pages in Burnet, and not a single line 
 bears trace of similarity to our present articles. It happens to have in common with 
 other documents, the expression above quoted, which is not in our articles. 
 
40 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 declared in the answer to solve the difficulty proposed. Or, 2ndly, she 
 intended to impose a charitable silence on her members, with regard to 
 so nice and cui'ious a point, shutting up all fui'ther search in the pro- 
 mises of God, as generally set forth in Holy Scripture. Or, 3rdly, she 
 intended to embrace that case in her general answer, and to consider 
 that tlic stipulations were implied, under these urgent circumstances, \ 
 (to be hereafter absolutely entered into if more favourable circumstances * 
 permitted,) though they were not formally given. The first of these 
 suppositions, of course, I dismiss peremptorily. The second hypothesis 
 would put an end to all further inquiry into the subject. The third 
 conclusion, therefore, which I adopt, is the only solution which is possible, 
 if I am required to declare my view of the meaning of the Church." 
 The 19th question proposed by the Bishop follows in the same course : 
 3. And ill — " Does the Church hold, and do you hold, that infants so baptized are 
 ^"^"Prev^c- regenerated, independently of the stipulations made by their repre- 
 nicntactof seutativcs, or by any otliers for them?" Mr. Grorham says, "If such 
 fenerate the infants die before they commit ' actual sin,' the Church holds, and I 
 chud. hold, that they are ' undoubtedly saved.' " The answer does not end 
 
 here, but thus proceeds, — " and therefore they must have been rege- 
 nerated " [by what means ? mark what follows] " they must have been 
 regenerated by an act of grace prevenient to their baptism, in order to 
 make them worthy recipients of that Sacrament. This case is ruled by 
 the Church." This last passage or sentence Mr. Gorham explains in a 
 note. " I mean, it is ruled that they were actually regenerated, and 
 that they are 'undoubtedly saved.' " Then he continues his answer, — 
 " But if the infant lives to a period in which it can commit ' actual sin,' 
 the declaration of regeneration must be construed according to the 
 hypothetical principle which I have stated in my replies 5, 6, 7, to ques- 
 tions v., VI., VII. That part of the question which relates to sponsor- 
 ship, in these cases, I have replied to in the answer to question 18, so 
 far as the mind of the Church can be ascertained." 
 
 Such, then, is the answer which Mr. Gorham gives to this question. » 
 He admits (for he cannot deny it in the face of the declaration of the I 
 Church) that baptized infants who die before they commit " actual sin," 
 are " undoubtedly saved ;" a doctrine or position which must rest on the 
 ground tliat they are worthy recipients, otherwise the Sacrament could 
 not 2>roduce the benefit declared ; howevei', he resorts to the hypothesis 
 of a "prevenient act of grace." Whether there may be a "prevenient 
 (The Court act," or whether there may be an act concui'rent with the rite, or whe- 
 from Mr!'^ *^6r there may be an act subsequent to the rite, are points on which the 
 Gorham Court is not called upon to express an opinion. It is suflTicient for it to 
 trine lie obscrvc that Mr. Gorham' s position is, that it is not by baptism, or 
 holds.) through baptism, that grace is conferred."^ 
 
 2' This conclusion of the Judge in the " Church Court" ns to what Mr. Gorham 
 holds, may be well compared with that opinion which the " State Court " lays down 
 (p. 25) as Mr. Gorham's. One of the daily journals before quoted thus touches this 
 point : — 
 
 " As to the judgment itself, no amount of official assurance will keep people from 
 looking into it; and as they look they begin to find what it really is : a pretended 
 judgment, which really ' (/ives the (jo-by ' to the whole question brought for trial. 
 Either this is so or it is not. It is impossible to blink the matter. The government 
 nominee, Mr. Gorham, lays before the Court his printed avowal, in every variety of 
 shape, that ' regeneration is in no case conveyed to infants by bajitism.' ' That filial 
 state,' he says, is ' given /je/ore, and not »n baptism.' The italics are his own. 'If 
 there seems any ambiguity,' he says, ' in my former reply, I iris/i this to be considered 
 my explanation: (Gorham, p. 113, and again p. 172 and p. IP8.) Nothing can in- 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 41 
 
 narch. 
 
 In the book entitled A Necessary Boctrine for any Christian Man, 4.An(lthe 
 and called "The King's Book," which was published in 1543, it is thus be"of 
 stated: "Because all men be born sinners, and cannot be saved with- ^"°^j.^^'' 
 out remission of their sin, which is given in Baptism by the working of cessaryDoc- 
 the Holt Ghost ; therefore the Sacrament of Baptism is necessary for fo"th'by'the 
 the attaining of salvation and everlasting life. For which causes also same mo- 
 it is offered and pertaineth to all men, not only such as have the use of 
 reason, in whom the same duly received, taketh away, and purgeth all 
 kinds of sins, both original and actual, committed and done before their 
 Baptism ; but also it appertaineth, and is oiFered unto infants, which, 
 because they be born in original sin, have need and ought to be chris- 
 tened, whereby they, being offered in the faith of the Church, receive 
 forgiveness of their sins, and such grace of the Holt Ghost, that, if 
 they die in the state of their infancy, they shall thereby undoubtedly be 
 saved. Because, as well this Sacrament of Baptism as all other Sacra- 
 ments instituted by Christ, have all their virtue, efficacy, and strength 
 by the word of God, which by His Holt Spirit worketh all the graces 
 and virtues which be given by the Sacraments to all those that worthily 
 receive the same." 
 
 duce him in the slightest degree to modify this total disconnecting of baptism from the 
 grace of regeneration. The [State] Court deliberately lays dovra another doctrine which 
 Mr. Gorham nowherp affirms, viz., ' that regeneration may be held to precede, accom- 
 pany, or follow baptism,' and decides that that doctrine may be held ; and the [State] 
 Court does not notice Mr. Gorham's theory at all, viz., ' that baptism never conveys 
 regeneration.' " 
 
 On the last day of the trial, Lord Langdale actually threw out the hint to Mr. 
 Gorham's counsel that he might express his opinion in these terms. Lord Langdale said 
 to Mr. Turner (we were in court and heard it,) " You mean, then, that regeneration may 
 take place before, in, or after baptism ?" That was an opportunity for Mr. Gorham to 
 have adopted the favoured formula. The learned and eloquent counsel hesitated, 
 coughed a little, and blandly bowed to the Court, as if unwilling to discourage so mer- 
 ciful a tribunal, and instantly went to another point vnthoul taking up the hint. 
 
42 Judgment of Ihc Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 '^- Tliis is not quite truly said. It was not declared that " unbaptized infants were 
 not sai-ed, " hnt not " imdoubtedl;/,^' as the baptised were. This abolishes therefore 
 the supposed distinction between the former and the present doctrine on this subject. 
 
 -^ The First division of each of the "judgments" may now be reviewed. — The 
 " ARTiCLKS " of the Church were proposed for primary consideration in each court, to 
 elucidate the doctrine of the Church and Mr. Gorham's agreement or disagreement with 
 that doctrine. The " Chuich Court,'' it will now have been seen, has analysed our 25th 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 43 
 
 The Articles of 1552 and 1562 adopt very diiferent language from 5, ^^^^^ 
 the x^rticles of 1536, and hare special regard to the qualification of the church's 
 worthy and right reception. The Twenty-fii'th Article of, 1562 dis- qufring ''^" 
 \ inetly states that in such only as worthily receive the same, the Sacra- " ^"oj-thyxe- 
 meuts have a wholesome effect or operation. The Article on Baptism, whii'e those 
 in describing the blessings conferred by it, speaks only of those who °^^ '1°'^"" , 
 
 . 7 , T • 1 J J • i» • 1 f> ■ • 1 nients speak 
 
 receive it rightly ; and with respect to iniants, instead or saying m the ouiy of 
 language of the Articles of 1536, " that they obtain remission of their cetvtag."" 
 sins, and tlie grace and favour of GrOD by Baptism, and that dying in their 
 infancy they shall be undoubtedly saved thereby, and else not," it de- 
 clares only, " that the Baptism of young children is in any wise to be 
 retained in the Churcli ; as most agreeable with the institution of 
 CiTKiST ;" stating notliing distinctly as to the state of such infants, 
 whether baptized or not. The Articles of 1536 had expressly deter- 
 mined two points. 1. That baptized infants dying before tlie com- 
 mission of actual sin were undoubtedly saved thereby. 2. That 
 unbaptized infants-- were not saved. 
 
 The Articles of 1562 say nothing expressly upon either point ; but, 
 not distinguishing the case of infants from that of adults, state in 
 general terms that those who receive Baptism rightly have the benefits 
 there mentioned conferred. 
 
 What is signified by right recej^tion is not determined by the Articles. 
 Mr. Gorham says, that the expression always means or implies a fit 
 state to receive, viz., in the case of adults "with faith and repentance," 
 and in the case of infants "with God's grace and favour." On a con- 
 sideration of the Articles, it appears that, besides this particular point, 
 
 11 there are others which are left undecided. It is not particularly de- 
 
 iclared what is the distinct meaning and eflect of the grace of regenera- 
 Ition, — whether it is a change of nature, a change of condition, or a 
 \change of the relation subsisting between sinful man and his Ceeatob; 
 
 ' and there are other points which may very plainly be open to different 
 
 j considerations in different cases. 
 
 j ! Upon the points which were left open differences of opinion could 
 tiot be avoided, even amongst those who sincerely subscribed to the 
 Articles ; and that such difterences among such persons were thought 
 consistent with subscription to the Articles, and were not contemplated 
 with disapprobation, appears from a passage in the royal declaration, 
 /now prefixed to the Articles, and which was first added in the reign of theRoyai 
 |K-;ng Charles I., long after the Articles were finally settled. "Though ^/^'^^^I'l*^™! 
 iScme diflereuces have been ill raised, yet we take comfort in this, that acUnow- 
 ail clergymen within our realm have always most willingly subscribed 'ffjfffrcficel^'^ 
 to the Articles established ; which is an argument to us, that they all had actually 
 agree in the true, usual, literal meaning of the said Articles, and that, thropinio'ns 
 even in those curious points in which the present difterences lie, men of of t^e clergy 
 all sorts take the Articles of the Church of England to be for them ; points— per- 
 which is an argument again, that none of them intend any desertion of ^^^^^^^l^i^, 
 the Articles established."^^ 
 
 and 2~nh. articles, which treat of baptism ; and examined with minuteness the questions 
 raised respecting them by Mr. Gorham, and his various suggestions and explanations. 
 The " State Court " has exami'ied neither of the Church articles on baptism, just glanced 
 at one phrase ' ' right reception," omitting all notice of Mr. Gorham's exposition of those 
 articles, and diverging into a discourse about the history cf articles in general, and the 
 " Necessary Doctrine" of Henry VIII. ! 
 
V. The 
 
 Formula- 
 ries of the 
 Church. 
 
 Mr. Gor- 
 ham's plea 
 of " favour- 
 able con- 
 struction " 
 for all the 
 Services. 
 
 "Con. 
 
 struction " 
 of the Office 
 for Public 
 Baptism of 
 Infants 
 
 (examined 
 "in exten- 
 so.") 
 
 44 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbisho]} of Canterbury/' s.) 
 
 Ha^dng abeady considered such of tlie "Articles of Eeligion" as have 
 a bearing on the question before me, I now proceed to the Formulaeies 
 of the Churcli, which, as I have said, must be my guide and authority in 
 ascertaining its doctrines. With respect to these formularies, the first 
 to which my attention must be directed is undoubtedly the ofiice for 
 " The Ministration of Public Baptism or Infants." Mr. Gorham's 
 position in respect to that office is, that its language is to be considered 
 as hypothetical, — conditional upon the fulfilment of certain promises which 
 are to be made for children in baptism by their godfathers and god- 
 mothers, — that it is language which requires a ^^just and favoui'ahle con- 
 struction ;^'' namely, that oi charitable hope on the part of the Church. 
 
 On turning to this office, we find the first rubric contains anj 
 admonition, which shows the great importance attached to this Sacra- 
 ment by the Church ; that it is necessary, at all events that it is highly 
 important, it should be administered at the earliest time, is apparent 
 from the rubric prefixed to the office for " The Ministration of Pbivate 
 Baptism of Children. " 
 
 Now the first rubric of the Office of Public Baptism is in these words : 
 — " The people are to be admonished, that it is most convenient that 
 baptism should not be administered but upon Sundays, and other holy 
 days, when the most number of people come together ; as well for that 
 the congregation there present may testify the receiving of them that 
 be newly baptized into the number of Christ's Church, as also because 
 in the baptism of infants every man present may be put in remembrance 
 of his own profession made to God in his baptism. Por which cause 
 also it is expedient that baptism be ministered in the vulgar tongue," 
 &c. After the 2nd and 3rd rubrics, which prescribe the number of 
 godfathers and godmothers, the notice to be given to the curate, ajid 
 the part of the service at which those concerned are to attend at the 
 font, the service thus proceeds; — "The Priest" shall inquire whether 
 the child has been already baptized or not ; and if they answer no, thei. 
 he is directed to proceed as follows :— " Dearly beloved, forasmuch as 
 all men are conceived and born in sin ; and that our Saviour ChriS'} 
 saith. None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate 
 and born anew of water and of the Holt Ghost ; I beseech you to cali 
 upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of His 
 bounteous mercy He will grant to this child that thing which by nattre 
 he cannot have ; that he may be baptized with water and the HdLT 
 Ghost, and received into Christ's Holy Church, and be made a livihj 
 member of the same." 
 
 The exhortation and the instruction to the congregation assembldcl 
 for what they shall pray, are, — " To call upon God the Father through 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, that of His bounteous mercy he will grant to 
 this child that thing which by nature he cannot have, as born in sin ; 
 
 '^* "The Formularies cannot be held to be evidence of faith or doctrine" without 
 (according to the " State Court") reference to two things, 1st. the articles, 2ndly, the 
 "faith, hope, and charity hy wiiich they" [articles or formularies?] "profess to be 
 inspired." I understand what is meant by the first of these references ; but as to the 
 2nd, I ask any one to say whether it is intelligible. It is evidently meant as a vague 
 way of bringing in the " latitude " of " charitable hyi)Othesis," but how it answers the 
 purpose I cannot see. This is the key note however of all the ensuing piece. " The 
 faith, hope, and charily," [whether of individuals, or of the Church, is not said] 
 " which inspire, or accompany," the articles, or formularies, must be taken into 
 account before we receive them as " evidence of faith or doctrine,'' [which the " State 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privy Council.) 45 
 
 If the Articles wliicli constitute the Code of Faith, and from which y ^h 
 any differences are prohibited, nevertheless contain expressions which formula- 
 unavoidably admit of different construction, and members of the Church chwch*"^^ 
 are left at liberty to draw from the Articles different inferences in mat- 
 ters of faith not expressly decided, and upon such points to exercise 
 their private judgments, we may reasonably expect to find such dif- 
 ferences of opinion allowable in the interpretation of the devotional 
 services, which were framed, not for the purpose of determining points 
 of faith, but of establishing (to iise the expression of the statute of 
 Elizabeth) an uniform order of Common Prayer, and of the administra- 
 tion of sacraments, rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England. 
 
 In considering the Book of Common Prayer, it must be observed Latitude 
 that there ai-e parts of it which are strictly dogmatical, declaring what of interpre- 
 is to be believed or not doubted — parts which are instructional— and p*ea°ded for 
 parts which consist of devotional exercises and services. Those parts by the 
 ;which are in their nature dogmatical must be considered as declaratory Suhe ser- 
 of doctrine ; but as to those parts which are devotional, consisting of ^''=^^- 
 prayers framed for the purpose of being " more earnest, and fit to stir 
 Christian people to the due honouring of Almighty God," some 
 further consideration is necessary. It seems to be properly said that 
 the received formularies cannot be held to be evidence of faith or of 
 doctrine, without reference to the distinct declarations of doctrine in 
 tlie Articles, and to the faith,-^ hope, and charity by which they profess 
 to be inspired or accompanied ; and there are portions of the Liturgy 
 ^\ hich it is plain cannot be construed truly without regard to these con- 
 I siderations. Eor the proof of this, the instance which seems to be 
 most usually cited, and which is conclusive, is the service for the burial <.^^*^'l"''^ , 
 
 ,>,,iiorci(» 1 11 p p • 1 of the Burial 
 
 01 the dead.~=' bo far as our knowledge of powers of conception extend. Service, an 
 there are and must be at least some persons not excommunicated from aT-'^j^opes" 
 the Church, who, having lived lives of sin, die impenitent, — nay, some that aii are 
 who perish and die in the actual commission of flagrant crimes ; yet in *^^^ 
 every case, in the burial service, as the earth is cast upon the dead 
 I body, the priest is directed to say, and he does say — " Forasmuch as it 
 I hath pleased Almighty God, of His great mercy, to take unto Him- 
 self the soul of our dear brother here departed, we therefore commit 
 his body to the ground, earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in 
 sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life;" and thanks 
 are afterwards given — " For that it hath pleased Almighty God to 
 deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world;" and 
 this is followed by a collect, in which it is prayed " tliat when we shaU 
 depart this life we may rest in God, as our hope is that this our brother 
 doth." The hope here expressed is the same " sure and certain hope 
 of the resurrection to eternal life," which is stated immediately after 
 the expression, " it hath pleased Almighty God, of His great mercy, to 
 
 Court " fancies to be the same, and so actually calls the Articles of Religion (p. 43) Arti- 
 cles of Faith /] I protest that this seems to me a perfect specimen of jargon. I con- 
 fidently challenge any man to find the least meaning in it. Suppose it to mean, the 
 "faith, hope, and charity which inspired" the compilers of the formularies, then we 
 must take those graces as existing in " our Reformers,''^ as the test of their doctrinal 
 or theological declarations 1 Suppose it to mean " the faith, hope, and charity, accom- 
 panying " the use of the formularies in all individual cases, then we have a latitude of 
 doctrine sufficiently startling — in fact illimitable ! 
 
 -» The reader may compare what the " Church Court " says on the charity of the burial 
 service, in p. 68. 
 
46 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 he must be roleased from that sin before he can be received into 
 Cheisx's Holy Church ; and the mode of delivery from that sin is to 
 pray to GoD ' that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Gthost,' 
 — liot simply v.ater, but 'also with the 'Holy Ghost,' and be received 
 into Chjust's Holy Church, and be made a lively member of the same." 
 
 Then follows the prayer : " Almighty and everlastmg God, "Who of 
 Thy great mercy didst save Noah and his family in the ark from 
 perishing by water ; and also didst safely lead the children of Israel, 
 Thy people, through the Eed Sea, figuring thereby Thy holy baptism ; 
 and iW the baptism of Thy well-beloved Son Jesus Cheist in the river 
 Jordan, didst sanctify water to the mystical washing away of sin;" [here 
 are the grounds] "We beseech Thee, for Thine infinite mercies, that 
 Thou\>iit mercifully look upon this child; wash him and sanctify Am 
 with the Holy Ghost; that he, being delivered from Thy wrath, may 
 be received into the ark of Christ's Church; and being steadfast in 
 faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves 
 of this troublesome world, that finally he may come to the land of ever- 
 lasting life, there to reign with Thee world without end ; through Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. Amen." 
 
 The object of the prayer is, " that he may be washed and sanctified 
 with the Holy Ghost, that he being delivered from wrath, may be 
 received into the ark of Christ's Church." 
 
 Then follows the next : — " Almighty and immortal God, the aid of all 
 that need, the helper of all that flee to Thee for succour, the life 
 of them that believe, and the resiu'rection of the dead ; we call upon 
 Thee for this infant, that he, coming to Thy holy Baptism, may receive," 
 [what ?] " i-emission of his sins by spiritual regeneration. Eeceij^e him, 
 O Lord, as Thou hast promised by Thy well-beloved Son, saying. Ask, 
 and ye shall have ; seek, and ye shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened 
 unto you. So give now unto us that ask ; let us that seek find ; open 
 the gate luito us that knock ; that this infant may enjoy the everlasting 
 benediction of Thy heavenly washing, and may come to the eternal king- 
 dom which Thou hast promised by Christ, our Lord." Therefore it is 
 that this child may receive remission of his sins by spiritual regeneration, 
 not regeneration simply, but spiritual regeneration, the congregation 
 pray. 
 
 Then follows the Gospel, taken from St. INfark x. 13, and after it the 
 "Exhortation," the latter part of which is in these words: . . . "Doubt 
 ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, that He will likewise favourably 
 receive this present infant, that He will embrace him with the arms of 
 His mercy ; that He will give unto him the blessing of eternal life, and 
 make him partaker of His everlasting kingdom. Wherefore we being 
 persuaded of the good will of our heavenly Father towards this infant, 
 declared by His Son Jesus Christ ; and nothing doubting but that He 
 favourably alloweth this charitable A\ork of ours in bringing this infant 
 to His lioly baptism ; let us faithfully and devoutly give thanks unto 
 Him, and say, Almiglity and everlasting God, heavenly Father, we 
 give Thee humble thanks for that Thou hast vouchsafed to call us to 
 the knowledge of Thy grace aud faith in Thee : increase this knowledge, 
 
 *" 'lliis is a singular mistake. The " hoj)e " expressed in the burial service respect- 
 ing the imlividufil then interred is simply a hope that his soul is at " rest '' until the 
 last day ; the hope in the former part of the service is a general hojje, and refers to the 
 resurrection of the body, and not to the soul's intermediate condition at all. Surely the 
 " State Court" did not mean to justify the notion of the " soul sleepers," or hint that 
 the dead will cease to exist until the resurrection .' And yet their identifying these two 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 47 
 
 ;ake to Himself the soul of our brother liere. departed."'*' In this ser- 
 dce, therefore, there are absolute expressions implying positive asser- 
 ;ions ; yet it is admitted that they cannot be literally true in all cases, 
 !but must be construed in a qualiiied or charitable sense — ^^justified, we 
 may believe, by a confident hope and reliance that the expression is 
 literally true in many cases ; and may be true even in the particular 
 case in which to us it seems improperly applied. From this and other 
 eases of the like kind, of which there are several in the services, it 
 ;Seems manifest that devotional expressions, involving assertions, must 
 not as of course be taken to bear an absolute and unconditional sense. 
 The meaning unist be ascertained by a careful consideration of the 
 nature of the subject, and of the true doctrine applicable to it."^ 
 
 If expi-essions in devotional exercises, and exhortations which imply 
 or convey assertions which may be true in any case, and which we are 
 permitted in charity to hope may be true in the particular cases to 
 I which we are directed to apply them, were such that the assertions 
 must be accepted as universal propositions necessarily and uncon- 
 ditionally true in aU cases, they would amount to declarations of doc- 
 trine ; but in the service for the burial of the dead such implied 
 assertions are clearly not to be taken to be universal propositions ; and 
 it is plain that other assertions of the like kind, in other services, may 
 fall within the same category. 
 
 " hopes ''as if they were but one would really imply this ; if it were not evident that 
 this is but an example of the looseness of theological knowledge and want of duly weigh- 
 ing the meaning of words which pervade this whole most loose and defective judgment. 
 
 "^' In fact, as our Church exercises her office of teacher no less by her Forms of 
 Prayer, than by her Catechism, Articles, Homilies, and other Doctrinal Formularies. — 
 lUahop of S. David's Charge, 1842. 
 
48 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 and confirm this faith in us evermore. Give Thy Holy Spibit to this 
 infant, that he may be born agaiu, and made an heir of everlasting sal- 
 vation ; through our Loud Jesus Cheist, AV'ho liveth and reigneth 
 with Thee and the Holt Spirit, now and for ever." 
 
 Then follows an addi-ess to the godfathers and godmothers, reminding 
 tliem for what they have prayed ; and after referring to the promise of 
 Cueist, . . . . " Wherefore, after tliis promise made by Cheist, this 
 infant must also faithfully for his part promise by you that are his sure- 
 ties, (until he comes of age to take it upon himself^ that he will renounce 
 the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy Word, 
 and obediently keep His commandments." Questions are then addressed 
 to the godfathers and godmothers in the name of the child, and the 
 answers of the godfathers and godmothers are then given. 
 
 The prayer, " O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child 
 may be so buried, that the new man may be raised up in him," &c., 
 follows ; then the prayer for the sanctification of t]ie water — " Almighty 
 and everlasting God, AV^hose most dearly beloved Son Jesus Cheist, 
 for the forgiveness of our sins, did shed out of His most precious side 
 both water and blood ; and gave commandment to His disciples, that 
 they should go teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of tlie 
 Fatuee, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; regard, we beseech 
 Thee, the suppHcations of Thy congregation, sanctif^^ this water to the 
 mystical washing away of sin." [The Court had its attention particu- 
 larly directed, in the course of the argument, to the word " mystical," 
 as explaining all that was previously prayed for ; that it was not an 
 actual washing away of sin, but a mystical, or, as it was afterwards 
 expressed, a sacramental washing away of sin ; that the purifying of the 
 child was sacramentally, and not spii'itually. I do not, I confess, exactly 
 see the force of this reasoning ; some mystery, something beyond that 
 which exactly meets the eye is to be the mystical washing awav of sin 
 by the sanctification of the water.] " And grant that this child, now to 
 be baptized therein, may receive the fulness of Thy grace, and ever 
 remain in the number of Thy faithful and elect children ; through Jestjs 
 Cheist our Loed." 
 
 The portion of the service to which I have hitherto referred precedes 
 the baptism of the infant. The child is then baptized in the Name of 
 tlie Fathee, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. He is received 
 into the congregation with the sign of the Cross ; after which the 
 minister addresses, by order of the Church, the congregation thus : 
 " Seeing now, dearly beloved brethren, tliat this child is regenerate, and 
 grafted in the body of Cheist's Churcli," — [here is a declaration that 
 the thing is now done — that the child is regenerate,'] — " let us give 
 tliauks unto Almighty God for these benefits ; and with one accord 
 make our prayers unto Him, that this child may lead the rest of his life 
 according to this beginning." Tlien the Lo'ed's Prayer is said, after 
 wliich follows, " AVe yield Thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, 
 that it liath i)lcased Thee to regenerate this infant witli Thy Holt 
 Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incor- 
 l)orate him into Thy Holy Church." The priest and congregation in 
 the first luotance prayed that God would bo pleased, at the baptism of 
 the infant, to grant that ho might be regenerated by the Holy Spieit ; 
 might be received by incorporation into the Holy Churcli ; and here we 
 see they thank Cod that he has been so received in the following words : 
 " And humbly we beseech Thee to grant tliat he, being dead unto sin, 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privy Council.) 49 
 
 In the office for the administration of the public Baptism of infants, ^J^-^ ofi^e 
 the first Rubric states the reasons why it is convenient that the ad- office for 
 ministration should be when the most number of people come together. ^nt^Bap"' 
 The reasons are stated to be, " as well for that the congregation there tisra. 
 present may testify the receiving of them that be new baptized into the 
 number of Christ's Church ; and also, because in the Baptism of 
 infants every man present may be put in remembrance of his own pro- 
 fession made to God in his Baptism." There is a prayer for the infant that 
 he (being dehvered from wrath), may be received into the ark of 
 Christ's Church: and being steadfast in faith, joyful through hope, 
 and rooted in charity, may so pass the waves of this troublesome world, 
 that he may come to everlasting life ; another prayer, that the infant 
 coming to God's Holy Baptism, may receive remission of his sins by 
 spiritual regeneration ; an exhortation to the congregation, or those 
 present, not to doubt, but earnestly to believe that God will favourably 
 receive the present infant, and give unto him the blessing of eternal 
 life, — " Wherefore, we being persuaded of the good mil of our heavenly pression in 
 Father towards this infant, and nothing doubting but that he favour- ^^^f^^-^^l 
 ably alloweth this charitable work^^ of ours in bringing this infant to His "charitable 
 Holy Baptism, let us faithfully and devoutly give thanks to Him ;" and mean'th"T^ 
 in the prayer which follows, it is thus expressed — " Give Thy Holt Baptism is 
 i Spirit to this infant, that he may be born again, and made an heir of benefit.' 
 everlasting salvation . ' ' 
 
 Before the ceremony is performed, the sponsors are questioned, and 
 make their answers : and then comes the prayer, in which it is said, 
 " Regard, we beseech Thee, the supplications of this congregation ; 
 sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin ; and grant that 
 this child now to be baptized therein may receive the fulness of Thy 
 grace, and ever remain in the number of Thy faithful and elect children." 
 
 28 It would be no "charitable work" to offer a Sacrament without grace. Surely 
 " charity " is on the side of those who affirm the " innocency '' of children as to all 
 actual sin, and their universal reception by Christ in Baptism. 
 
 E 
 
50 Judgment of the Chubcu Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's. 
 
 Mr. Gor- 
 ham's inter- 
 pretation 
 cannot 
 stand. 
 
 2. *■ Con- 
 struction " 
 of the ser- 
 vice for Pri- 
 vate 15ap . 
 lisin 
 
 and living unto righteousness, and being buried with Cheist in His 
 death, may crucify the old man, and utterly abolish the whole body of 
 sin ; and that, as he is made imrtaher of the death of Thy So>', he may 
 also be imrtaher of His resurrection ; so that, finally, with the residue 
 of Thy Holy Church, he may be an inheritor of Thine everlasting king- 
 dom ; through Cueist our Loed." 
 
 Then an exhortation is given to the godfathers and godmothers as to 
 their duties, which concludes the service in these words : " Te are to 
 take care that this child be bi'ought to the Bishop to be confirmed by 
 him, as soon as he can say the Creed, the Loed's Prayer, and the Ten 
 Commandments in the vulgar tongue, and be further instructed in the 
 Church Catechism set forth for that purpose." 
 
 It was argued on behalf of Mr. Gorham, that the reason why the 
 Church admits an infant to baptism in the form prescribed is tliat, 
 although he cannot perform the requisites for baptism, although he 
 cannot have faith and repentance, yet he is baptized on the presumption 
 or hypothesis that he will do all that is promised for him by his 
 sponsors ; that he will renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil when 
 he comes to years of discretion, and is of sufficient capacity to under- 
 stand what has been promised for him. 
 
 Now I confess it does not appear to me that that which is contended 
 ' for is the true construction of the language of the baptismal service for 
 infants. I confine myself to the case of infants ; for the case of adults 
 is totally different. It is allowed, without question, both by the Bishop 
 and Mr. Gorham, that, in the latter case, the declarations of the Church 
 are all on the hypothesis that they (adults) are sincere in their pro- 
 fessions of faith and repentance, —that they intend to perform and will 
 perform to the utmost of their ability, all they themselves undertake : 
 but in the case of infants, the declaration in the service of public bap- 
 tism, of which we are now speaking, is positive, precise, and distinct, 
 that the child " is regenerate," and that thanks are returned to God for 
 tliat benefit. 
 
 I turn now to the office for " The Ministration of Private Baptism of | 
 Children." In respect to it, it was contended that, inasmuch as it is an 
 office administered only in a case of " great necessity," nothing with 
 respect to the efficacy of baptism without stipulations can be fairly 
 drawn from that formulary, — that, though there is an omission of god- 
 fathers and godmothers, there is implied a promise on behalf of the j 
 baptized. 
 
 Here, again, I confess I differ in opinion from the learned counsel. 
 Though this office is to be administered only in " great cause and 
 necessity," is it not one in which the Church intended to declare that 
 the child so baptized is entitled to all the benefits of an infant publicly 
 baptized ? Otherwise, why should the Clmrch direct that " so many of 
 the Collects appointed to be said before in the form of public baptism as 
 the time and present exigence Avill suffer," are to be made use of? If 
 tlie child is baptized in the Name of the Fathee, and of the Son, and 
 
 29 But the same rubric goes on to refer us to the 30th Canon of the Church for a further 
 exi)laiiation on a point of difficulty— (the " sign of the Cross ") — and it happens that in 
 that very canon "infants baptized" are declared to be made perfect members of 
 Christ " by virtue of baptism.'^ 
 
 Not indeed that the rubric as it stands alone can really appear doubtful as to its 
 meaning. The Judge in the " Church Court" (p. 58) states the sense of this rubric un- 
 answerably. " They must be baptized, they must die before they commit actual sin 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 51 
 
 Thus studiously, in the introductory part of tlie service, is prayer 
 made for the grace of Gob ; that the child may receive remission of 
 his sin by spiritual regeneration ; so firm is the belief expressed that 
 Gob will favourably receive the infant ; so confident is the negation of 
 all doubt but that Gob favourably alloweth the charitable work of 
 bringing the infant to Baptism. 
 
 All this is before the ceremony is actually performed ; and after the 
 Baptism has been administered, and during the continuance of the 
 same persuasion, and the same undoubting confidence of a favourable 
 reception and allowance, the priest is directed to say, " Seeing now that 
 the child is regenerate and grafted into the Church, let us give thanks 
 unto Almighty Gob for these benefits :" and after repeating the 
 Loeb's Prayer, thanks are thus given, — " We yield Thee hearty thanks 
 that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with Thy Holt 
 Spirit, to receive him for Thine own child by adoption, and to incor- 
 porate him into Thy Holy Church." The service is followed by the 
 Rubric, — " It is certain by Gob's Word that children which are bap- 
 tized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved. "^9 
 
 And to the short form for the administration of private Baptism of 2. Lati. 
 children in houses, after a thanksgiving, " For that it had pleased Gob service for 
 to regenerate the infant with His Holt Spirit, and to receive him as Private Bap- 
 His own child by adoption, and to incorporate him into His holy 
 Church," there is appended a rubric — "And let them not doubt but 
 that the child so baptized is lawfully and sufficiently baptized, and 
 ouglat not to be baptized again." And if the child has not been so 
 baptized by the minister of the parish, but by some other, the minister 
 
 to bring them within that declaration." In exact accordance with this the Church 
 says (in the Homily to which she expressly refers for her true doctrine, in the IXth 
 Article,) " Infants being baptized and dying in their infancy, are by Chrisf's sacri- 
 fice washed from their sins and brought to God's favour." — Horn, of Salvation, 1 st Part. 
 And again, " we must trust Christ's Sacrifice ... to obtain remission as well of 
 our original sin in baptism, as of all actual sin after baptism, if we truly repent," &c. — 
 Ibid. 2nd Part. 
 
 I e2 
 
53 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 of the Holt Ghost, — if thanks are given to God that it hath pleased 
 Him "to regenerate this infant" with His Holt Spikit, " to receive 
 him " for His own child "by adoption, and to incorporate him " into His 
 Holy Church, then is the full effect of baptism given to the infant so 
 baptized ; the baptism is complete in itself, without the intervention of^ ] 
 godfathers and godmothers. The same declaration as to the regenerate! 
 state of the infant is made,^'' though not absolutely prayed for, as in the 
 case of public baptism ; otherwise, the Church would not have gone oil 
 to declare — " and let them not doubt but that the child so baptized is 
 lawfully and sufficiently baptized, and ought not to be baptized again." 
 The administration of the Sacrament is complete immediately after ' 
 the child is baptized with water in the Name of the Fathee, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holt Ghost. " If this were not so," said the learned 
 counsel for the Bishop, " the child ought to be taken to the church on 
 recovery and baptized again, inasmuch as it would not, according to the 
 argument on the other side, have received the full benefits of baptism :" 
 I must say I think there was something in that observation. But, 
 according to the Church, that, which is directed to be done afterwards, 
 is not a repetition of the baptism, as we shall presently see. 
 
 Again, it was said the Church puts baptism, whether public or private, 
 on the same footing ; for it is required the child should be brought into 
 the church, if it should live, for certain purposes. But what are they ? 
 The direction of the rubric is, . . . " Yet, nevertheless, if the child, 
 which is after this sort baptized, do afterwards live, it is expedient that 
 it be brought into the church, to the intent that, if the minister of the 
 same parish did himself baptize that child, the congregation may be cer- 
 tified of the true form of baptism by him privately before used ; in which 
 case he shall say thus, ' I certify you, that according to the due and 
 prescribed order of the Church, at such a time and at such a place, before 
 divers witnesses, I baptized this child.' " But if the child was baptized 
 by any otlier person, certain questions are to be addressed to those pre- 
 sent, in order to ascertain that the due form and order of the Church 
 had been followed in the baptism : " By whom was this child baptized ? 
 ''ine'x-"" AVho was present when this child was baptized ? Because some things 
 tciiso." essential to this Sacrament may happen to be omitted through fear or 
 haste, in such time of extremity, therefore I demand further of you, 
 "With what matter was tliis cliild baptized ? "With what words was this 
 child baptized ?" Therefore, the matter and tlie words are the essential 
 parts of the baptism. Tlie rubric then directs, " If the minister shall 
 find, by the answers of such as bring the child, that all things were done 
 as tliey ouglit to be, tlien shall not he christen the child again," &c. ; 
 but he is to certify tlie congregation in the words of the Church : " I 
 certify you, that in this case aU is well done, and according unto due 
 order, concerning the baptizing of this child ; who, being born in original 
 sin, and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of regeneration in 
 baptism, received into the number of the children of God, and heirs of 
 everlasting life." Here is a declaration positive and precise in a case 
 
 examined 
 
 '" This is to be observed. The " Church Court " hereupon reasons that all that was 
 necessary for the salvation of the child would be required by the Church in such a case 
 as this. That the " emergency '' of the case induced the Church indeed to omit all that 
 could be omitted without prejudice to the infant's welfare. That therefore a case of 
 " emergency " precisely ascertains what is essential to the eternal salvation of the soul. 
 The " State Court" argues just the reverse, viz. that in an "emergency " less would 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privy Council.^ 53 
 
 of the parish is to inquire by whom, with what matter, and with what 
 words the child was baptized ; and if satisfied, he is to certify that all 
 is well done, and that the child being born in sin, and in the wrath of 
 God, is now,^^ by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, received into the 
 number of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life. The Bap- 
 tism thus referred to, and the effect of which is thus stated or expressed, 
 is a Baptism which may have taken place without any prayer for grace, 
 or any sponsors ; but it seems plainly to have been intended only for 
 cases of emergency, in which death might probably prevent the cere- 
 mony, if not immediately performed ; for such occasions, and the child 
 dying, the Church holds the Baptism sufficient, and not to be repeated. 
 One Baptism for the remission of sins is acknowledged by the Church ; 
 nevertheless, if the child, which is after this sort baptized, do after- 
 wards live, the Rubric declares the expediency of bringing it into the 
 Church, and appoints a further ceremony, with sponsors. The private 
 Baptism of infants is an exceptional case, provided for an emergency, 
 and for which, if the emergency passes away, although there ia to be 
 no repetition of the Baptism, a full service is provided. The adult per- 
 son is not pronounced regenerate until he has first declared his faith 
 
 i and repentance ; and before the act of infant Baptism, the child is (argued 
 pledged by its sureties to the same conditions of faith and repentance. bS^goniy 
 And these requirements of the Church, in her complete and public ser- '' excep- 
 vice, ought, upon a just construction of all the services, to be considered not in'sist- 
 as the rule of the Church, and taken as proof that the same promise, 'JJfa'Jf thar 
 though not expressed is implied in the exceptional case, when the rite might be 
 is administered in the expectation of immediate death, and the exigency sar"^"^'^^^' 
 
 /of the case does not admit of sureties. Any other conclusion would be 
 an argument to prove that none but the imperfect and incomplete cere- 
 mony allowed in the exceptional case would be necessary in any case. 
 
 be done, and (possibly) a vital part of the regenerating rite omitted! Then why- 
 baptize in such cases at all ? 
 
 '• The " State Court " calls private baptism an incomplete " ceremony ;'' but it is not 
 therefore an incomplete Sacrament. The "ceremony'' is not essential, it is owned; 
 but the " Sacrament" is, and therefore is to be administered on pain of suspension of 
 the Clergyman who neglects it. (Canon 68.) 
 
54 Judyment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 where there were no sponsors, (though Mr, Gorham says their stipula- 
 tions are implied,) that this child, so baptized in the Name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holt Ghost, with water, " is now, 
 by the laver of Eegeneration in Baptism, received into the number of 
 the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life," — "for our Lord 
 Jesus Christ doth not deny His grace and mercy unto such infants." ) 
 The form of private baptism, I say, shows that what is required to be 
 done in the church, if the child live, is a matter of order and decency, — 
 that neither godfathers nor godmothers are an essential part of baptism, 
 because the rubric to which I have already referred states that the child 
 " is lawfully and sufficiently baptized." Wliat room is there then for 
 stating that either of the offices of public or private baptism of infants 
 is merely conditional, or founded upon an hypothesis ? True it is, if 
 the child should live to become a responsible being, and commit actual 
 sin, then he may pass from the benefits given in baptism : in this state, i 
 faith and repentance would be requisite, in order, not to regenerate 
 him, for that has ah'eady been done, according to the declaration of the 
 Church in baptism, but to renovate and bring him back into that state 
 in which he was placed by baptism. 
 (Mr. Gor- But, to put the point beyond all doubt, we have a positive declaration 
 ''^'t tio"*^*^" °^^ ^^^^ P^^'^ '^^ ^^^® Church, not a mere hypothetical or charitable hope, 
 will not in these words : " It is certain by God's Word that children which are 
 stanu.) baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." 
 It is not a suppositive declaration of the Church. According to her in- 
 terpretation of God's Word, she declares " It is certain by God's Word, m 
 that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, 
 are undoubtedly saved." Mr. Gorham admits (see p. 85,) that the 
 Church has ruled that children are "undoubtedly saved" who have been 
 baptized and die before committing actual sin. I cannot understand 
 how any qualification can be engrafted on these words : tlie Church 
 bases the declaration on God's Word. I cannot understand upon 
 any principle how the declaration of the Church is to be a mere 
 charitable hope : the supposition is that the child dies without com- 
 mitting actual sin ; and the declaration in baptism is, that the child 
 "is regenerated by the Holy Spirit ;" that he is " the child of God ;" 
 that he is " engrafted into the Church." In the face of this express 
 language it is, I confess, to me extremely difficult to understand it in I 
 Mr. Gorhani's qualified sense. 
 
 There is, however, another baptismal service ^^ i-emaining to be con- 
 sidered, namely, " The Ministration of Baptism to such as are 
 of riper tears, and are able to answer for themselves." 
 
 This Formulary had not a place in our Prayer Book until it was in- 
 troduced on the review after the Eestoration. The ground of its intro- 
 duction is stated in the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer to be 
 by reason of " the growth of anabaptism, through the licentiousness of 
 the late times crept in amongst us," that it " is now become necessary, 
 and may be always useful for the baptizing of natives in our plantations, 
 and otliers converted to the faith." This service is said to be on the 
 same footing and character with the other two, to which I have already 
 
 ^ The " State Court " was bound to consider this service, and examine the principle 
 on which it proceeds, because Mr. Gorham's case stands altogether on his identifying the 
 baptism of infants and adults. To omit this, was to give a judgment apart from the 
 facts of the case. 
 
 But this is but one of the numerous instances in which the " State Court " omitted to 
 
 3. Con- 
 stiiiction 
 of the Ser- 
 vice for 
 Adult Bap. 
 tisni. 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 55 
 
 3. This 
 Service for 
 Adults Is not 
 at all ex 
 amined hy 
 this Court . 
 
 wo^ece the judgment of the " Church Court," which itwas preparing to '* reverse." Surely 
 it was the clear duty of the Court of Appeal to revieiv the grounds of the "Court 
 below " and show their erroneousness. To " reverse " a decision without even thtshoiv 
 of a consideration of it, or of its grounds, is unprecedented in English Courts. 
 
56 Judgment of the Church Court {Archhishoji of Canterbury's.) 
 
 referred ; and it was asked why, if one form out of tlie three is hypo- | 
 thetical, tlie other two are not equally so ? It appears to me that there 
 is this marked distinction. In the case of the public baptism of those 
 of riper years, those who apply for baptism are persons who have not 
 only " committed actual sin," and have need of repentance, but they are 
 persons who also know that such is the case ; they are to be " instructed 
 in the principles of religion " before they are permitted to come to par- 
 take of that holy Sacrament. They are therefore persons who come in 
 their own right, who enter into the promises in their own names, and 
 promise with a sincere intention to perform all they engage to do. 
 Here, then, is the marked distinction : Infants, who promise by their 
 sureties, and are therefore admitted to partake of baptism, if they die 
 before they " commit actual sin," are " saved " according to the declara- 
 tion of the Church : those of riper years, who have been instructed in 
 the principles of religion, who know what they have to perform and do, 
 and make the promises in their own persons, are necessarily considered 
 as entitled to the benefits of baptism only upon the supposition that 
 they are sincere in their promises of faith and repentance ; if they offer 
 themselves for baptism and its benefits, they must do so either hypo- 
 Its (lis- critically or sincerely, but the Church cannot know, except by their out- 
 
 tures^^ ^^^ ward conduct, whether they are sincere or not. There is then, I say, 
 this marked distinction, — that the Church knows in the case of an 
 
 (equally infant that it cannot have committed "actual sin" before baptism; 
 
 cfoThamT ""'^^''^^^' ^^ '^^ case of the adult, it can only rely upon his outward pro- 
 fession of faith and repentance. 
 
 It does appear to me, then, that no legitimate argument can be drawn 
 from the hypothetical sense or charitable judgment with respect to 
 adults, to justify the application of the same to the case of infants, who, 
 it is positively declared, are " by God's Word " saved if they have been 
 baptized and die before they commit actual sin. I say no argument can 
 be drawn from the application of the one case to the other ; in the 
 latter, the case of the baptism of those of riper years, the Church can 
 act only on the charitable supposition that the party is sincere. 1 say 
 the two services are most materially distinguished ; they substantially 
 differ, on separate and distinct grounds, the one from the other. 
 K. "Con- ^ lu respect, however, of the Services of the Church, the question at 
 
 of the Gate- issue rests not here. After childi-en have been baptized, and they have 
 
 chism arrived at a sufficient age to be instructed and to learn the principles of 
 
 the Christian religion, they are, amongst otlier things, to be instructed 
 in the Church Catechism, which thus commences : " AVhat is your 
 name ? Who gave you this name ?" The answer to the latter question 
 is, " My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism, wherein I was made 
 a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom 
 of heaven." This is in strict conformity with the declaration made at 
 the time of baptism, the services are, we see, at the outset, in accord- 
 ance with each other. Then, as to the next question : " What did your 
 godfathers and godmothers then for you ?" " They did promise and vow 
 three tilings in my name. First, that I should renounce the devil and all 
 his works, the pomps and vanities of this wicked world, and all the sinful 
 lusts of the flesh," which is, in effect, the samewith the renunciation of "the 
 carnal desires of the flesh " in the baptismal service. " Secondly, that I 
 
 ™ What can the " State Court" mean by this ? Has it any meaning, oris this another 
 specimen of random theology ? If the Court allowed all the baptized to be " elect " (as 
 
Judgment of the State Court (the Privy Council.) 67 
 
 This view of tlie baptismal service is, in our opinion, confirmed by the 4. LaUtude 
 Catechism, in which, although the respondent is made to state that in °^ism ^^^^ 
 his baptism he " was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and 
 an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," it is still declared that repent- 
 ance and faith are required of persons to be baptized ; and when the 
 question is asked, " Why, then, are infants baptized, when by reason of the phrase 
 their tender age they cannot perform them?" the answer is — not that q^j'^^s"*"''' 
 infants are baptized because by their innocence they cannot be unworthy sancUfieth 
 recipients, or cannot present an obex or hindrance to the grace of rege- which the^*^' 
 neration, and are therefore fit subjects for divine grace ; but " because court thinks 
 they promise them both by their sureties, which promise, when they admitted^ 
 come to age, themselves are bound to perform." The answer has univer- 
 
 • • • • SEu.lv but 
 
 direct reference to the condition on which the benefit is to depend, only'" cha- 
 And the whole Catechism requires a charitable ^^ construction, such as J^^^gjf ,. 
 must be given to the expression " God the Holt Ghost ; Who sancti- 
 fieth me and all the elect people of God." 
 
 the ancient services expressly do) the expression would be consistent, but with their 
 Calvinistic interpretation of the word, it is wholly amazing. 
 
58 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbvri/s.) 
 
 examined 
 throughout 
 
 (equally 
 against Mr. 
 Gorham.) 
 
 The Court 
 finds no 
 trace of Mr. 
 Gorham's 
 doctrine of 
 prevenicnt 
 grace in the 
 formularies, 
 
 should believe all the articles of the Christian faith. And thirdly, 
 that I should keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the 
 same all the days of my life." " Question. Dost thou not think that thou 
 art bound to believe and to do as they have promised for thee ? Answer. 
 Yes, verily; and by God's help so I will. And I heartily thank our 
 heavenly JF'atheb, that He hath called me to this state of salvation," \ 
 [that is, the state in which I was placed by baptism, no longer a child ' 
 of wrath, but a child of grace ; I was born in sin, but by baptism was 
 free,] " through Jesus Christ our Savioue. And I pray unto God to 
 give me His grace that I may continue in the same unto my life's end." 
 " Continue," — there is no doubt, no hypothesis, here expressed as to 
 the state in which he was placed by baptism. He prays for grace that 
 he may continue, that he may not fall away from that state ; that he 
 may not, by sin, lose that grace which was conferred on him in his 
 baptism. 
 
 The child is then desired to say the articles of his belief, the com- 
 mandments, and, after the Lord's Prayer, the catechism proceeds to 
 the questions on the Sacraments, which were added after the Eestora- 
 tion. " Question. How many Sacraments hath Christ ordained in His 
 Church ? Answer. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation ; that 
 is to say. Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. Question. Wliat 
 meanest thou by this word Sacrament P Answer. I mean an outward 
 and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained 
 by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a 
 pledge to assure us thereof." There is, in effect, the same language, — 
 spiritual grace given ; it is a sacrament ordained by Christ as a means 
 whereby we receive the same, that is, the grace given to us. I cannot 
 understand how a doubt can be raised on the baptismal services, or upon 
 these words. " Question. How many parts are there in a sacrament ? 
 Ansiver. Two ; the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace. 
 Question. What is the outward visible sign or form in baptism ? 
 Ansiver. "Water ; wherein the person is baptized, in the name of the 
 ¥ATR'Eii,andofthe8o'S,andof the Holy Ghost. Question. What is 
 the inward spiritual grace ? Answer. A death unto sin, and a new birth 
 unto righteousness:" — Spiritual grace — which was conferred at baptism. 
 — Regeneration, by the Holy Ghost, for the remission of sins ; — " for 
 being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby 
 made the children of grace. Question. What is required of persons to 
 be baptized ? Ansiver. Repentance, whereby they forsake sin ; and 
 faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to 
 them in that sacrament." Then follows this, — " Question. Why, then, 
 are infants baptized, when, by reason of their tender age, they cannot 
 perform them ? Answer. Because they promise them both by their 
 sureties, which promises, when they come to age, themselves are bound 
 to perform." 
 
 The Church, thou, we see, admits infants to partake of the sacrament 
 of baptism upon the supposition that, if they should live and arrive at 
 years of discretion, they will take upon themselves the performance of 
 those vows which were made by their sureties in baptism. But the 
 state of those children who die before " they commit actual sin," is, as I 
 have already observed, declared at the end of the baptismal service, 
 namely, " It is certain, by God's Word, that children which are bap- 
 tized, dying befoi-e they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." 
 They must be "baptized," — they must die " before they commit actual 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 59 
 
 (This 
 Court does 
 not ex a 
 mine the 
 Catechism, 
 but only the 
 passages 
 preceding:.) 
 
 (This 
 Court (toes 
 not examine 
 Mr. Gor- 
 ham'stheory 
 of preve- 
 nient grace.) 
 
60 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 sin," to bring them within that declaration. "Prevenient grace" is not 
 the mode — the Church says nothing about jirevenient grace ; — but if 
 they live, " when they come to age," the Church says they are bound to 
 perform the promises of their sureties. 
 
 The same doctrine runs through all the catechisms which were 
 referred to in the course of the argument. I cannot imderstand that 
 Dean Nowell teaches any other doctrine whatever ; but I will refer to 
 his Catechism, to be found in the Enchiridion Theologicum, Oxford 
 edition, 1792, vol. ii. pp. 212 — 216 : the passage on the subject runs 
 thus : — M. De baptismo ergo primum die quid censeas. A. Quum 
 natura filii irae, id est, alieni ab Ecclesia, quae Dei familia est, simus, 
 baptismus veluti aditus quidam nobis est, per quern in earn admittimur ;" 
 [admitted into Christ's Church by means of baptism] — "unde et testi- 
 monium etiam amplissimum accipimus, in numero domesticorum, adeoque 
 filiorum Dei nos jam esse ; imo in Christi corpus qimsi co-optari, atque 
 nor in con- iuscri, cjusquc membra fieri, et in unum cum ipso corpus coalescere." 
 temporan [Taken iuto and inserted as it were in Christ's body, and made mem- 
 thorities"' bers of Christ, and engrafted into one body with Him.] " M. Sacra- 
 mentum antea dicebas duabas constare partibus, signo externo, et arcana 
 gratia. Quod est in baptismo signum externum ? A. Aqua in quam 
 baptizatus intingitur, vel ea aspergitur, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et 
 Spiritus Sancti. M. Quaj est arcana et spiritualis gratia ? A. Ea 
 duplex est ; remissio videlicet peccatorum, et regeneratio, quae utraque 
 in externo illo signo, solidam et expressam effigiem suam tenent. M. 
 Quomodo ? A. Primum, quemadmodum sordes corporis aqua, ita animae 
 macula) per remissioneni peccatorum eluuntur ; deinde regenerationis 
 initium, id est, naturae nostrae mortificatio, vel immersione in aquam, vel 
 ejus aspersione exprimitur. Postremo vero, quum ab aqua, quam ad 
 momentum subimus, statim emergimus, nova vita, quae est regenerationis 
 nostrae pars altera atque finis representatur." [In accordance with aU 
 the baptismal services, and the Catechism of the Church.] " M. Videris 
 aquam effigiem tantum quandam rerum divinarum efficere. A. Effigies 
 quidem est, sed minime inanis aut fallax ; ut cui rerum ipsarum Veritas 
 adjimcta sit atque annexa." [It is not an empty or deceitful sign.] 
 " Nam sicuti Deus peccatorum condonationem et vitse novitatem nobis 
 vere in baptismo oftert, ita a nobis certo recipiuntiu*. Absit enim ut 
 Deum vanis nos imagiuibus ludere atque frustrari putemus." [They are 
 not mere signs, but beneficial signs, — " effectual signs of grace."] " M. 
 Non ergo remissioneni peccatorum externa aqu® lavatione aut asper- 
 sione consequimur? A. Minime: nam solus Christus sanguine suo 
 animarum nostrarum maculas luit atque eluit. Hunc ergo honorem ex- 
 terno clemento tribueri nefas est." [As expressed in one of the quota- 
 tions by the learned counsel, attributing this to water merely.] " Verum 
 Spiritus Sanctus conscientias nostras sacro illo sanguine quasi aspergens, 
 abstersis omnibus peccati sordibus, puros nos coram Deo reddit. Hujus 
 vero peccatorum nostrorum expiationis obsignatiouem atque pignus in 
 Sacramento habemus." [Sacramental!] '^ M. Eegenerationem vero 
 unde habemus ? A. Non aliunde quam a morte et resurrectionc 
 Christi ; nam per mortis suae vim vetus homo noster quodammodo cru- 
 ciligitur et moi'tificatur, et naturae nostrae vitiositas quasi sepelitur, ne 
 amplius in nobis vivat et vigeat. Ilesurrectionis vero suae beucficio nobis 
 largitur, ut in novam vitam ad obediendum Dei justitiae reformemur. 
 M. An gratiam hanc omnes communiter et promiscue consequuntur. 
 A. Soli fldoles liunc fructuin percipiunt : increduli vero oblatas illic a 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.^ 61 
 
G.2 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's) 
 
 Deo proniissiones respuendo, aditum sibi pra?cludentes, inanes abeunt, 
 non tameu ideo efficiunt, ut suam sacramenta vim et naturani amittant." 
 [The ftiitliful alone receive the benefit of baptism. So we always say in 
 Adult Baptism that those who are not sincere in their faith and repent- 
 ance, receive no benefit from the administration.] " 31. Rectus ergo 
 baptismi usus quibus in rebus sit situs breviter edissere. A. In fide et 
 jienitentia." [Eaith and repentance — that is the doctrine of our 
 Church ; " Repentance whereby we forsake sin, and faith whereby we 
 steadfastly believe the promises of God made to us in that Sacrament."] 
 " Primum enim Christi nos sanguine a cunctis purgatos sordibus Deo 
 grates esse, Spii'itumque ejus in nobis habitare carta fiducia cum animis 
 nostris statutum habere oportet. Deinde in came nostra mortificanda, 
 obediendoque justitise di^dnse, assidue omni ope et opera est enitendum, 
 et pia Adta apud omnes declarandum nos in baptismo Christum ipsum 
 quasi induisse, et ejus Spiritu donates esse." [Then comes the question 
 why infants are baptized ; the answer is, as it appears to me, in con- 
 formity with our catechism, " Because they promise them both by their 
 sureties, which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound 
 to perform."] " M. Quum infantes hsec, quse commemoras, hactenus 
 per ffitatem prsestare non possint, qui fit ut illi baptizentur ? A. Ut fides 
 et poenitentia baptismo prsecedant, tantum in adultis, qui per setatem 
 sunt utriusque capaces, exigitur ; infantibus vero promissio Ecclesiae 
 facta per Christum, in cujus fide baptizantur, in prisons satis erit, deinde 
 postquam adoleverint, baptismi sui veritatem ipsos agnoscere, ejusque 
 vim in animis eorum Adgere, atque ipsorum vita, et moribus repraesentari 
 omuino oportet." 
 
 Dean Newell, in the passages I have read, appears to me to put the 
 case on the same footing as the Church Catechism does ; namely, that, 
 in tlie case of adults, faith and repentance must precede baptism ; but 
 in the case of infants the promises made by their sureties are accepted, 
 though, if they come to age, they themselves must then perform them. 
 I cannot discover any sensible diflerence between the doctrine of our 
 Cluirch as set forth in lier Catechism, and the passages I have referred 
 to in Nowell's Catechism. 
 
 But when the child has come to years of discretion, and is instructed 
 in the principles of religion, and of the nature of the promises made 
 for him in baptism, he is then to be brought to be confirmed by the 
 Bishop. 
 8. '• Con- ^^ow the Preface to the Service of Confirmation states the reason why 
 ofThi'ser" *^"^ Order was framed ; it is ..." To the end that children, being now 
 vice for come to years of discretion, and having learned what their godfathers 
 (•"Np.K.Mv. jjj^^j godmothers promised for tliem in baptism, they may themselves, 
 with their own mouth and consent, openly before the Cliurch ratify and 
 confirm the same: and also promise that by the grace of God they will 
 evermore endeavour themselves faithfully to observe such things as' they, 
 by tlicir own confession, have assented unto." Then the question is put 
 ui!'o"' ^^^ the Bishop : — " Do ye liere, in the presence of God, and of this con- 
 gregation, renew the solemn promise and vow that was made in your 
 
 >NFIK.M 
 TION 
 
 >* This omission is altogether unpardonable, most especially as the " Bishop's plead- 
 ings " (p. 16) make the express charge against Mr. Gorham, to include contradiction of 
 the Confirmation service. But the omission is not unintelligible, as it would really 
 seem to be beyond all the power of human ingenuity to fix a " latitude " and " charita- 
 ble hyjiothesis," on the words of the Confirmation service. Let any one //;/ to do it. 
 
 We have now arrived at the end of the second principal division of these two judg- 
 
Judyment of the State Court [the Privy Council.) 63 
 
 It seems unnecessary for us to go tlirougli tlie other formularies ^^ in 5. The 
 be Prayer-Book. The services abound with expressions which must be conskfedng* 
 onstrued in a charitable and qualified sense, and cannot, with any the c<>n- 
 ppearance of reason, be taken as proofs of doctrine. Our principal servicJ,'(and 
 ttention has been ffiven to the baptismal services; and those who are t^^e rest— ) 
 trongly impressed with the earnest prayers which are oflered for the every one 
 jvine blessing, and the grace of God, may not unreasonably suppose ^^g^eto^the 
 hat the grace is not necessarily tied to the rite ; but that it ought to be rule of 
 larnestly and devoutly prayed for, in order that it may then, or when c„nstruc- 
 jrOD pleases, be present to make the rite beneficial. ti""." ^she 
 
 ■■■ ■*- may be able. 
 
 Qents. It appears that the " Church Court" has carefully scaA fully examined all the 
 j'ormularies of the Church connected with baptism. The " State Court '' has not 
 ixamiued any one in extenso, but picked out two or three passages to support a par- 
 icular view, and " obtain the result,'' and this only with some of the formularies. The 
 )fl5ce for Confirmation is not even glanced at by the " State Court." 
 
64 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 name at your baptism ; ratifying and confirming the same in your own per- 
 sons ; and acknowledging yourselves bound to believe and to do all those 
 things which your godfathers and godmothers then undertook for you?" 
 After the question is answered, what is declared in the prayer ? Almighty 
 and everlasting God, Who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these Thy ser- 
 vants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them for- 
 giveness of all their sins, strengthen them, we beseech Thee, O Lord, 
 with the Holt Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them Thy 
 is equally manifold gifts of grace, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the 
 against Mr. spirit of counscl and ghostly strength ; the spirit of knowledge and true 
 "viewT." gocUiness, and fiU them, O'Lobd, with the spirit of Thy holy fear, now 
 and for ever." In this service, also, we see it is declared that children 
 are " regenerate by water and the Holt Ghost," and that their sins are 
 forgiven ; which positions are directly in accordance with the declara- 
 tions contained in the Baptismal Services and in the Church Catechism. 
 They all show that it is by baptism, that children become " regenerate " 
 and their sins are forgiven. 
 
 These are the services upon which great stress was laid by the learned 
 counsel for Mr. Gorham. They appear to me by no means to show, as 
 was contended, that the whole doctrine of the Church is hypothetical, 
 and involves merely a charitable hope ; the declarations are positive. 
 Taking, then, the words of the services in their natural and literal sense, 
 I am of opinion that the doctrine of regeneration in the baptism of 
 infants is established. 
 
 There may be a difficulty in ascertaining what is meant by the word 
 "regeneration ;" whether it implies an absolute change of nature, cha- 
 racter, and feelings, or whether it implies only a change of state and of 
 relation ; that is, a change of state from " a child of wrath to a child of 
 grace." It appears to me that the meaning of the word is sufficiently 
 explained by the terms made use of, — regeneration " by water and the 
 Holt Ghost ;" for the remission of sins is given by means of the ad- 
 ministration of water and the Holt Ghost accompanying it. It is 
 nothing to say that there may be cases in which the sign may be received 
 VI. wiiat without the thing signified ; that may be often so in the case of adults ; 
 rkoknkua- but the Church can only express a charitable hope that it is not so ; that 
 they are sincere in their promises of faith and repentance ; and if they 
 are sincere, then the Church declares that they are members of Cheist's 
 Church, that their sins are forgiven, in other words, that they receive 
 the benefits of baptism. 
 
 It seems to me, from all the consideration I have been able to give the 
 subject, that the word regeneration does not mean and imply such a total 
 change of character as to preclude persons baptized from ever or finally 
 faUiug, but that the word means such a change of station, character, and 
 relation as places them in a new situation, from children of wrath to cliil- 
 drcn of grace, whereby they become members of Christ and inheritors of 
 the kingdom of lieaveu. This view, I find, accords with the sentiments of 
 distinguished divines : of that number is a living prelate* of the Church, 
 who says: — "No reasonable doubt can be entertained that it" [the 
 word "regeneration"] "was appropriated to that grace, whatever may 
 be its nature, which is bestowed on us in the Sacrament of Baptism, 
 (including perhaps occasionally, by a common figure of speech, its 
 
 • Dr. Bethell, Bishop of Bangor, in his " General View of the doctrine of Rcgencra- 
 tion in Baptism," pp. 6 — 8. Third Edition. 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council) 65 
 
 (What re- 
 generation 
 is, this Court 
 does not 
 consider.) 
 
66 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury s.) 
 
 proper and legitimate effects, considered in conjunction with it), from 
 the beginning of Christianity to no very distant period of ecclesiastical 
 history. In tliose few passages of the ancient Christian writers, where 
 it bears another signification, it is evidently used in a figurative manner, 
 to express sucli a cliange as seemed to bear some analogy in magnitude 
 and importance to the change eflected in baptism. At the time of the 
 lleformation, the word was commonly used in a more loose and popular 
 way to signify sometimes 'justification,' sometimes 'conversion,' — or 
 the turning from sinfid courses, sometimes ' repentance,' or that gradual 
 change of heart and life, which is likewise called 'renovation.' Hence, 
 in popidar language, it came to signify a great and general reformation 
 of liabits and character ; and the words ' regenerate ' and ' unregenerate ' 
 were substituted for the words ' converted ' and ' unconverted,' 
 'renewed' and 'unrenewed,' 'righteous' and 'wicked.' In modern 
 times we have been taught that ' regeneration ' is a thing quite uncon- 
 nected with baptism " [that is Mr. Gorham's position]; "that it may 
 take place in that Sacrament, as well as at any other time, but that to 
 suppose it, in any proper sense, dependent on it, is an unreasonable 
 and unscriptural opinion." 
 
 The same learned prelate to whom I have just referred, gives (Ibid. 
 C. II. pp. 14, 15,) a summary of the view taken by Dr. Waterland in 
 his celebrated discourse, to be found in vol. vi. pp. 341 — 380, of his 
 works, edit. 1823. " Eegeneration is distinguished from renovation. — 
 Eegeneration is a change of the whole spiritual state ; renovation, a 
 change of inward frame or disposition ; which in adults is rather a 
 qualification or capacity for regeneration, than regeneration itself. 
 That in infants regeneration necessarily takes place -nithout renovation, 
 J)ut in adults renovation exists (or at least ought to exist) before, in, 
 and after baptism." 
 
 " Eegeneration," he proceeds, " is the joint work of the water and of 
 the Spirit, or, to speak more properly, of the Spirit only ; renovation 
 is the joint work of the Spirit and the man." 
 
 " Eegeneration comes only once — in or through baptism. Eenova- 
 tion exists before, in, and after baptism, and may be often repeated. 
 Eegeneration, being a single act, can have no parts, and is incapable of 
 increase. Eenovation is in its own nature progressive. Eegeneration, 
 though suspended as to its eftects and benefits, cannot be totally lost in 
 this present life. Eenovation may be often repeated and totally lost." 
 Dr. Waterland illustrates the doctrine thus : — " Grown persons coming 
 to baptism properly qualified, receive at once the grace of regeneration ; 
 but, however well jjrepared, they are not regenerate without baptism. 
 Afterwards, renovation grows more and more within them by the in- 
 dwelling of the Holy Spirit. As to infants, their innocence and in- 
 capacity are to them instead of repentance, which they do not want, 
 and of actual faith, whioli they cannot have : and they are capable of 
 being born again, and adopted by God, because tlicy brmg no obstacle. 
 They stipulate, and tlie Holy Spirit translates them out of a state of 
 nature into a state of grace, favour, and acceptance. In tlieir case, re- 
 generation precedes, and renovation follows after, and tliey are the 
 temple of the Sjjirit, till tliey defile themselves with sin." 
 
 There is one other distinguished divine to whom I will refer as to 
 the meaning of tlie term regeneration in baptism ; I allude to Eisliop 
 A'an IMihlert, wlio, in the sixtli of his Bampton Lectures, at pp. 195, 
 196, 2d edit, says :— " . . . the word regeneration, in the scriptural 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Covncil.) G7 
 
 F 2 
 
G8 Judgment of the Church Court [Archbishoj) of Canterbury's.) 
 
 usage of it, means only our initiation, or entrance, by Baptism, into 
 tliat covenant, -nlncli gives us new privileges, new hopes, and a new 
 principle of spiritual life ; placing us in a totally difterent state from 
 that, to which by nature only we could ever attain. The expression, 
 therefore, cannot, without a direct violation of the verbal analogy of 
 Scripture, be applied to any operation that takes place subsequent to 
 that ]3aptismal change, with which alone it perfectly con'esponds." 
 Such is the view taken by Bishop Van Mildert, — a view which it is un- 
 necessary to observe is in perfect keeping with the language of the 
 Church as used in her baptismal services, — " Grant to this child that 
 thing which by nature he cannot have." 
 The rcfe'e- \i appears to me most clearly and distinctly, from the services them- 
 saved unless sclvcs, that infants are regenerated in baptism in the proper sense of 
 frifmuleir ^^^'^ word, and are placed in a state in which they are made "partakers 
 '• state of of the kingdom of heaven." True it is they may forfeit their title — 
 throu^Kh"'" they may fall away from the grace imparted to them, commit sin, grow 
 actual sin. up and pcrists in it, and may die without faith and without repentance ; 
 fants dying iu sucli cascs the gracc bestowed in baptism would be lost. But in the 
 ''^^"'^'=.*''^y case of those who die immediately after baptism, they are regenerate, 
 actual sin and are undoubtedly saved, because they die " before they have com- 
 do^ubtediy "fitted actual sin," Upon this part of the case I cannot entertain the 
 saved." least doubt. The words of the services themselves, I repeat, show that 
 the infant is regenerated in and through baptism ; the declai'ation of 
 the Chrn-ch to that point is positive and precise, 
 ar'^ume'iits "'" ^^^^-^^^ ^^*^^^ Consider some other arguments which were adduced on 
 adduced for behalf of Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Eeference was made to the burial service, which, it was said, must be 
 The taken to be, beyond controversy, a service expressive of a charitable 
 bie "con- hopc ; that it was framed on the hypothesis that the person deceased 
 str'jction of -^^^g July prepared for death, and therefore that the body is committed 
 n'luiarV, v'iz. to the earth " in sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal 
 luria^of the ^'^^•" •"■ co^^'^ss it does not appear to me that any strong inference is 
 dead. to be deduced by analogy from that office. The Church must neces- 
 
 sarily assume, with respect to the person dead, that God has " taken " 
 him, as it is said, "unto Himself;" the meaning of which I apprehend 
 to be, that God has removed him from this world in the state in which 
 he then was, of which state the Church cannot judge, to a world in 
 which there is no possibility of cominittuig sin. AVe pray that we may 
 rest in Christ ; " As oiu- hope is this our brother doth." This prayer 
 is founded in hope; founded on the hypothesis that the deceased, how- 
 ever wicked, may have repented of his sins. The minister cannot 
 pronounce how the person died ; whether he was or was not a repentant 
 sinner— whether he is to be eventually received into the kingdom of 
 heaven, or whether he is to sutler pimishment for his sins and transgres- 
 sions. Nevertheless, the Church expresses a hope that "this our 
 2. That brother doth " rest in Christ. I cannot see that this service affords 
 !.'rc not'ti'^be "^^'^'^ ^'^^ ^^ ^''^ qucstiou ill wliich Mr. Gorham is concerned. 
 1."- "I'e for' "^'^ ^^^^ ^^^^^ place. The Articles, it was contended, are not to be 
 muiii^ries.''' construed by the Formularies ; it was argued that when a clergyman is 
 required by law to make a public declaration of his assent* to the 
 Articles and the Book of Common Prayer, the assent is not in the same 
 terms in each case— that in the case of the Articles he declares his un- 
 feigned assent to them, and subscribes them as " agreeable to the Word 
 of God ;" wliercas, in tlio case of tlie Book of Common Prayer, lie de- 
 
 Mr. Gor- 
 ham. 
 
Judgment of the State Court [the Privy Council.) 69 
 
 One of the points left open by the Articles is determined by the Baptized 
 Rubric, — " It is certain by God's word that children which are bap- jJJ^^'ij^r^e ''^ 
 tized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." But saved— but 
 this Rubric does not, like the Article of 1536, say""^ that such children byBaptisin. 
 are saved by baptism ; and notliing is declared as to the case of infants 
 dying without having been baptized. 
 
 There are other points of doctrine respecting the sacrament of This court 
 baptism which we are of opinion are, by the Rubrics and Pormu- affinn\n°y 
 laries, as well as the Articles, capable of being honestly understood doctrine. 
 in different senses ; and consequently we think that, as to them, the 
 points wliich were left undetermined by the Articles are not decided 
 by the Rubrics and Pormularies; and that upon these points all minis- 
 ters of the Church, having duly made the subscriptions required by law 
 (and taking the Holy Scriptures for their guide) are at liberty honestly 
 to exercise their private judgment without offence or censure. Upright 
 and conscientious men cannot in all respects agree upon subjects so 
 difficult ; and it must be carefully borne in mind that the question, and 
 the only question, for us to decide, is whether Mr. Gorham's doctrine is 
 contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England as by 
 law established? 
 
 2^ For an answer to this, I refer back to pages 50 and 5 1 . 
 
70 Judyment uf the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 ■.\. That 
 the Reform 
 ers were 
 Calvinists ; 
 and could 
 not there- 
 fore hold 
 Haptismal 
 Rcgeiiera- 
 tiun. 
 
 clares " his unfeigned assent and consent to tlie ?<«e" only of that Book, 
 and subscribes it as containing " nothing contrary to the AYord of 
 God;" in other words it was argued, that it was merely to the use of 
 that Book, and not to the doctrines contained therein that he assents 
 and consents. I apprehend if a clergyman assents and consents to 
 make vse of the Book, that he assents and consents likewise that it 
 " contahieth nothing in it contrary to tlie Word of GrOD," or contrary to 
 tlie Articles which are stated to be "agreeable to the Word of God," 
 in short, tliat he acknowledges the truth of what is contained in that 
 Book. He cannot excuse himself by saying, I consent merely to use it ; 
 the declaration is too strong. " I declare my unfeigned assent and 
 consent to tlie use of the Book of Common Prayer:" he appears to me 
 to make a declaration that he believes what is contained in that Book. 
 I apprcliend, then, that as the Book of Common Prayer contains 
 "nothing contrary to the Word of God," and as the Articles are 
 "agreeable to the AVord of God," the two cannot be construed in op- 
 position, but must be construed together. 
 
 Again, another important question was raised by tlie learned Counsel 
 for Mr. Gorham, tlie discussion of which occupied a considerable por- 
 tion of time, namely, what were the opinions of the Eeformers. It 
 was contended they embraced the opinions of Calvin ; tliat, therefore, it 
 could not have been intended by them to declare in such positive terms, 
 as the words import in the baptismal and other services of the Church, 
 that infants are by baptism regenerate. 
 
 In the first instance, advantage was taken of a statement made by 
 the learned Counsel of the Bishop, that Cranmer had never changed 
 his opinions with respect to baptism— that they always remained the 
 same. I think the learned Counsel of Mr. Gorham has very success- 
 fully argued against that position, and has shown tliat Cranmer did 
 cliauge his views, and necessarily must have done so ; at the same time 
 1 must remark, that I think the learned Counsel for the Bishop never 
 intended his assertion to be carried to the extreme length his words 
 seemed to imply. 
 
 That the Eeformcrs individually embraced the wliole doctrines of 
 Calvin is, I think, a matter of very great doubt. It cannot be denied 
 that the doctrines of Calvin made a certain progress in this country. 
 Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, and many others may have, to a certain 
 degree, embraced some of tlie principles of Calvin ; but the question is, 
 to what extent ? Did they believe in, or rather did they teach his 
 tenets on predestination, election, final perseverance, reprobation ? I 
 was, in effect, told that Cranmer was a Calvinist, — that his principles 
 and opinions are to be gleaned from those with whom he associated in 
 the \\()rk of Bcformation — that he is responsible for Peter Martyr 
 and INliirliu Biicer, whom he placed in the Divinity Chairs of Oxford 
 and (.'ainljridge. lh)w far Martin Bucer, how far Peter Martyr carried 
 Calvin's principles, and how far they were embraced by Cranmer and 
 the rest of the Keforiners, I stop not to inquire ; but as Cranmer, and 
 his associate Kidley, arc generally supposed to have had an active share 
 ni framing our Articles and Service Books in the reign of Edward VI., 
 we may be able at least, to some extent, to ascertain their views, or, 
 perhaps more properly, the sentiments of our Church. 
 ^'I'he learned Counsel for ]\lr. Gorham said that, in his opinion, the 
 I7th Article (for tlu>re is no more than a verbal difference between the 
 ArtK-le of 1552 and 15G2) delennined this question. Let us see and con- 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 71 
 
 Mr. Gorham's doctrine may be contrary to the opinion enter- 
 tained by many learned and pious persons, contrary to the opinion 
 which such persons have, by their own pai'tlcular studies, deduced 
 from the Holy Scriptures ; contrary to tlie opinion which they ha\'e 
 deduced from the usages and doctrines of the primitive Church ; or 
 contrary to the opinion which they have deduced from uncertain and 6. The 
 ambiguous expressions in the formularies ; still, if the doctrine of Mr. lay^down ^ 
 Gorham is not contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Chui'ch of the fuu prin- 
 
 * ^ -L O ^ ClplC 01 
 
 England, as by law established, it cannot afford a legal ground for " latitude," 
 refusing him institution to the living to which he has been lawfully pre- ^o je'dare"^^ 
 sented. This Court, constituted for the purpose of advising her JMajesty any doc 
 in matters which come within its competency, has no jurisdiction or '^""'^' 
 authority to settle matters of faith, or to determine what ought in any 
 particular to be the doctrine of the Church of England. Its duty 
 extends only to the consideration of that which is by law established to 
 be the doctrine of the Church of England upon the true and legal con- 
 struction of her Articles and Formularies ; and we consider that it is 
 not the duty of any Court to be minute and rigid in cases of this sort. 
 We agree with Sir William Scott in the opinion which he expressed in 
 Stone's case, in the Consistory Court of Loudon : — " That if any Article 
 is really a subject of dubious interpretation, it would be highly improper 
 
72 Judymcnt of the Church Court [Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 4. That sider the Article iu its own words. " Predestination to life is the ever- 
 the doctrine lasting purposo of GoD, whercbv (before the foundations of the world 
 uimuonts wcro laid) He hath constantly decreed by His counsel, secret to us, to 
 "he'church deliver irom curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in 
 lurc , ^j^j^jg^ ^^^^ ^f mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting 
 salvation, as vessels made to honoiu". AVherefore they, which be endued 
 with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's pur- 
 pose, by His Spirit working in due season : they through grace obey 
 the calling : they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by 
 adoption: they be made like the image of His only begotten Son, 
 Jesus Christ : they walk religiously, in good works ; and at length, 
 by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity. 
 
 " As the godly consideration of predestination, and our election in 
 Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly 
 persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of 
 Cjirist, mortifying the works of the flesh and their earthly members, 
 and dra-ndng up their mind to high and heavenly things, as weU because 
 it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to 
 be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their 
 love towards God :" — [one would suppose that the compilers of the 
 Articles, and the Church, had they embraced the entire tenets of Cal- 
 vin, woidd have gone on to declare this an article of faith, but instead of 
 that, what do they say ?] — " So, for cm-ious and carnal persons, lacking 
 the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before tl\eir eyes the sentence 
 of God's predestination, is a most dangei-ous downfal, whereby the 
 devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness 
 of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Further- 
 more, we must receive God's promises in such wise, as they be generally 
 set forth to us in Holy Scripture ; and in our doings, that will of God 
 is to be followed, which we have expressly declared unto us in the 
 word of God." We see then that the couipilcrs, and I may add the 
 (not as Church, determine nothing with respect to predestination and election ; 
 faithT °^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ " ^^ ^^^^^ °^ sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly 
 persons," but with respect to " carnal persons," for them "to have coii- 
 
 *■• 'J'he passages here quoted have been subjected to a searching examination by the 
 Bishop of Exeter, and by others. The result appears to be, that 
 
 I. Bishop Juweli/s meaning is witolly dixtortcd by a fragment taken from the 
 middle of a passage of a completely contrary meaning to that which is insinuated. The 
 whole may be seen in Jewkll's controversy irit/i Harding on Private Mass. 
 
 II. Hooker's name and authority are alleged in behalf of the very error he was 
 strongly writing against in that very place. The two j)assages pretended as quotations 
 from iiim are botli mutilated and altered (!) to suit the ineaning of the Privy Council. 
 
 HI. Alien iiisiiop Usii i; II is favoured with a " quotation " purporting to be his, but 
 taken from a book that he did not write, nor sanction, but actually repudiated. 
 
 IV. Bishop Jeukmy Taylor is treated scarcely better ; for he is arguing/or the 
 importance of baptism, even in cases where the Holy Spirit is already given, and 
 showing that thougli God does nut tie himself. He tied us to the rites He has appointed. 
 Tiie I'livy Council ventures to "quote" a y/-fl</we«/ of this argument to prove that 
 baptism is not indispensably necessary ! 
 
 V. Archuishop \Viinc;iKT is not even pretended to be " quoted," but his alleged 
 general sanction to " I5ulliiiger's Decades " is supposed to carry with it his iniprimatur 
 for every proposition that might be extracted from that work 1 
 
 VI. Hisiiop Pkarson, a name ever venerated among the orthodox, is next put for- 
 ward in tins cause. A short sentence of his on adult baptism, is transferred by the 
 I'riyy ( oimcil to infant baptism, iu defiance of every line the learned jirelate ever wrote. 
 
 VII. Bishop Caiu.kton, in the place quoted from him to show that the belief of 
 baptismal regener.ition of infants is charitable, admits as posi tire, the statement that 
 original sin is remitted in ba|>tisin, and so limits the operation of our charity to the 
 
 future eflects of the Sacrament, and not the present. 
 
Judgment of the State Court [the Privy Council.) 73 
 
 that this Court should fix on one meaning, and prosecute all those who 
 hold a contrary opinion regarding its interpretation." 
 
 In the examination of this case we have not relied upon the doctrinal 
 opinions of any of the eminent writers by whose piety, learning, and 
 ability the Church of England has been distinguished ; but it appears 
 that opinions, which we cannot in any important particular distinguisli 
 from those entertained by Mr. Grorham, have been propounded and 
 maintained, without censure or reproach, by many eminent and illus- 
 trious prelates and divines who have adorned the Church from the time 
 when the Articles were first established. 
 
 "We do not alErm that the doctrines and opinions of Jewell, Hooker, 
 Usher, Jeremy Taylor, Whitgift, Pearson, Carleton, Prideaux, and many 
 others, can be received as evidence of the doctrine of the Church of various 
 England; but their conduct, unblamed and unquestioned as it was, proves *P,®"™?"^ 
 at least the liberty ^^ which has been allowed in maintaining such doc- our church, 
 trine. 
 
 Bishop Jewell writes — "This marvellous conjunction and incorpo- 
 
 And lastly, for there are no others mentioned, Bishop Prideaux is adduced as 
 using words, which at least admit of an orthodox meaning ; for they are exactly true 
 of adult baptism, and (in the scholastic sense of the terms) true generally. But 
 Prideaux, whatever his opinions, ought to be one of the last to be quoted by the advo- 
 cates of "latitude " and " charity," as he is as strenuous as any schoolman or father 
 (to whom he appeals) in maintaining salvation to be had eiVchisively in the Church. 
 
 It is melancholy to have to add, that nearly all of these imperfect and untrue quota- 
 tions seem to have been borrowed from the notes of the Archbishop of Canterbury, 
 which he has published in his suicidal preface to his " Apostolical Preaching !" One 
 of Hooker's " quotations," not cited by the Archbishop in his preface, is actually 
 altered by the Judges themselves, — if this part of the judgment be their production. 
 Of course there have been in our Church, as in all, " varieties " of opinion. Examples 
 of tolerated, and at times rampant, Puritanism might easily have been given ; (but not 
 from Hooker, or Pearson ;) but the examples adduced by the Privy Council show the 
 looseness of consideration — the recklessness of those whose conclusion was already 
 arrived at. These " examples," I say, painfully betray the animus of the " State 
 Court.'' They are thrown off, as it were, from the abundance of instances in the pos- 
 session of the Court (" many others "). With such examples of " variety of opinion," 
 how could the " State Court" help adopting a principle of " latituee .'" I'he answer is 
 — these examples are mistakes. The Court adopted the principle of latitude first, and 
 then looked about for respectable support, and fastened on the ivrong instances. The 
 fact is discreditable ; but it has found (as all cases may find, it seems— in all courts) a 
 defender — the now somewhat noted " Mr. Goode." For an exposure of this unhappy 
 person's " Letter," I must refer my readers to Appendix C. 
 
74 Jnd(/ment of the Chvrch Court {Archbishup of Canterbury's.) 
 
 tiuually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination is a 
 
 most dangerous downfal, whereby the devil doth thrust them either 
 
 into desperation or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less 
 
 perilous than desperation." 
 
 The Court It was allowed that this particular question was left open by the 
 
 lie's'thfatufn Reformers ; but it was said it was so left open for the purpose of em- 
 
 cxpressiy is bracing and inducing as many as possible to sign the Articles. I cannot 
 
 "open ques adopt that opinion : I think the Eeforraers must, if they had entertained 
 
 tion " by the the doctriucs of absolute predestination and election, have expressed 
 
 ' "^ "^ °' themselves in terms which could have left no doubt as to their meaning. 
 
 They hardly, I think, could have been guilty of endeavouring to lead 
 
 any into the belief that that was a doctrine of faith to be embraced, 
 
 without declaring themselves in plain language. 
 
 AVe here see to what extent Cranmer and Eidley did not proceed on 
 the 17th Article. Have they elsewhere, in any of the services or offices 
 of the Church, in effect said, in the words of Bishop Hopkins :* 
 " God promises pardon and remission of sins to all that believe and 
 rei)ent ; but He promises grace to believe and repent only to those whom, 
 by His absolute covenant, He has engaged to bring through faith and 
 repentance to salvation ?" Did they go to the extent of what was after- 
 wards laid down in the Synod of Dort, as expressed in the 6th Article of 
 that synod ?...." Secundum quod decretum electorum corda, quan- 
 tumvis dura, gratiose emoUit, et ad credendum inflectit ; non electos 
 autem justo judicio sua? malitia) et duritia^ reliuquit." . . . According 
 to this canon, the hearts of the elect, however hard, are to be gi-aciously 
 softened and turned to faith ; but those who are not among the number 
 of the elect, are to be left to a judgment justly due to theii* hardness of 
 heart. Again, what is the 7th Article of tliat Synod ? " Est autem 
 Electio immutabile Dei propositum, quo, ante jacta mundi fundamenta, 
 ex universo genere humane, ex primajva integritate in peccatum et 
 oxitium sua culpa prolapso, secundum liberrimum voluntatis sua> bene- 
 l)lacitum, ex mera gratia, certam quorundam hominum multitudinem, 
 aliis nee mcliorum, noc digniorum, sed in communi miseria cum aliis 
 jacentium ad salutem elegit in Christo." These are, in substance, the 
 doctrines of Calvin, and are to be found in his Institutes ; but did our 
 Eeformcrs go to that extent P It appears to me that, whatever may 
 have l)een the opinions of some of the Eeformers on any of these points, 
 their opinions have not been expressed in the language of Calvin, with 
 whicli they must have been sufficiently acquainted. But is it possible 
 that Cranmer and Eidley, who are said to have had some share in pre- 
 ])aring the service books set forth in the reign of Edward the Sixth, 
 could have adopted the principles of Calvin, and, at the same time, have 
 been parties concerned iu the preparation and compilation of the Bap- 
 tismal oflices, and the Confirmation service, contained in those books ; — 
 odices which, as far as the present question is concerned, vary in no 
 important resj^cct from the oflices contained in our present Book of 
 Coinmon Prayer ? Even, however, if such a charge coidd bo made good 
 against them — that they expressed opinions privateli/ at variance with 
 those dcdavcd pubfic/i/ in the Offices of the Church,— it would, I appre- 
 hend, be my duty to be guided by such public declarations. 
 
 But I do not collect, even from the passages which were cited from 
 
 * As cited by Archbishop Sumner in his " Apostolical Preaching," p. 75, 8th edition. 
 
 ■"^ This is wholly untrue. Tlicre is no single instance adduced, or even pretended, of 
 the " enforcement " of the Decades, or doctrines, of Bullinger. The degree of favour 
 shown at any moment to the writings of that reformer, would only prove the very oj>po- 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 75 
 
 ration with God, is first begun and wrought by faith ; afterwards the 
 same incorporation is assured to us, and increased by baptism.'" 
 
 J looker ■wi'ites — " We justly hold baptism to be the door of an actual 
 entrance into GtOd's house — the first apparent beginning of life — a seal, 
 ||)erhaps, of the grace of election before received ; but to our sanctifica- 
 xion, a step which has not any other before it." Archbishop Usher, in 
 reply to the question, " What say you of infants baptized that are born 
 in the Church ? Doth the inward grace in their baptism always attend 
 the outward sign ? Answer : Surely, no ; the sacrament of baptism is 
 effectual only to those, and to all those who belong to the election of 
 race." 
 
 Bishop Jeremy Taylor says, " Baptism and its effect may be separated, 
 ,nd do not always go in conjunction. The effect may be before, and 
 therefore much rather may it be after its susception ; the sacrament 
 operating in. the virtue of Cheist, even as the Spirit shall move." 
 i There was even a time when docti"ine to this effect was required to 
 [be studied in our Church ; and Whitgift, by a circular issued in the 
 kear 1588, enforced'^'^ an order made in the year 1587, whereby every 
 ininister under the degree of Master of Arts was required to study and 
 ;ake for his model the Decades of Bullinger, as presented by the (^ueen 
 md the upper house of Convocation. And there it is declared, amongst 
 aiimerous passages of a like tendency, " The first beginning of our 
 uniting in fellowship with Cueist is not wrought by the sacraments " — 
 in baptism that is sealed and confirmed to infants which they had before. 
 So with respect to the charitable interpretation of divine services, 
 'Hooker says, " The Chiu'ch speaks of infants, as the rule of charity 
 plloweth both to speak and to think." Bishop Pearson says, "When 
 ijihe means are used, without something appearing to the contrary, we 
 ought to presume of the good effect." Bishop Carleton says, "All that 
 receive baptism are called the children of God, regenerate, justified; for 
 to us they must be taken for such in charity, until they show them- 
 selves other." And Bishop Prideaus says, " Baptism only pledges an 
 external and sacramental regeneration, while the Chui-ch in chai-ity 
 pr()nounces that the Holt Spirit renders an inward regeneration." 
 
 We express no opinion upon the theological accuracy of these 
 opinions, or any of them. The writers whom we have cited are not 
 always consistent with themselves, and other writers of great eminence, 
 and worthy of great respect, have held and published very different 
 opinions. But the mere fact that such opinions have been propounded 
 and maintained by persons so eminent and so miich respected, as well 
 as by very many others, appears to us sufficiently to prove, that the 
 liberty which was left by the Articles and Formularies has been actually 
 enjoyed and exercised by the members and ministers of the Church of 
 Eufjland. 
 
 site of what is now alleged; viz , that not the favour of an Archbishop, or the Queen, 
 (supiiosing it so,) could force Bullinger on our Clergy. His Decades passed away, 
 leaving no trace behind. 
 
76 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishojj of Cantei'bury's.) 
 
 the private writings of Craumer or Ridley, that they eutertaiued the 
 doctrine of predestination and election. Some of the Eeformers, indi- 
 vidually, may have done so ; but it is clear they have not declared those 
 views either in the Services of the Church or in the Articles. I say 
 they have not so declared themselves in the Book of Common Prayer ; 
 for I find in the service of Confirmation the declaration (afterwards 
 transferred to a rubric at the end of the service for the public baptism 
 of infants) " that it is certain by God's Word that children, being bap- 
 tized, (if they depart out of this life in their infancy,) are undoubtedly 
 saved." I say they have not so declared themselves in the Articles, and 
 that that is instanced most assuredly in reference to the 17th Article of 
 the Cliurcli ; and that, in respect to the Articles generally, there is not, 
 with tlie exception of some verbal alterations, any substantial diflerence 
 between the Articles of 1552 and those of 15G2 ; and in respect of the 
 question in hand — the effects of infant baptism — there is not, as far as 
 I recollect, any variation at all. 
 
 But, again, to suppose that such of the Eeformers who were con- 
 cerned in compiling our service books entertained, or taught the doctrine 
 " that the elect only laave faith and repentance, and that they only have 
 the hope of forgiveness of sin," would be a contradiction, as it appears 
 to me, to the whole structure of tlie Book of Common Prayer. What 
 says the second service book of Edward the Sixth: "At what time 
 soever a sinner doth repent him of his sin from the bottom of his heart, 
 I will put all his wickedness out of My remembrance, saith the Loed ;" 
 or, as the introductory sentence now stands, — " When the wicked man 
 turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth 
 that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive." Again, in 
 "the Absolution." . . . " He pardoneth and absolveth all them which 
 truly repent, and unfeignedly belie\e His holy Gospel." Lastly, in 
 innumerable passages therein contained, we pray that God will give 
 Ilis grace and His Holy Spirit to all — not confined " to the elect, 
 whose fate is fixed and determined, and was so long before they came 
 into existence." 
 
 We know that in the reign of Queen Mary, a vast number of the 
 Clergy left tliis country and went to Germany, where they imbibed, 
 during their residence, Calvinistic tenets, which' in the reigii of Eliza- 
 beth they brought back with them. That such was the fact was clearly 
 made out by the learned counsel of Mr. Gorham, who, in support of that 
 jjosition, referred to AVood's Historia et Antiquitates Universitatis 
 Oxoniensis, vol. i. p. 290, fol. edit. ; as evincing that, from the authors 
 studied at that University in tlie latter part of tlie reign of Elizabeth, 
 the tenets of Calvin were in vogue. The same, too, was shown in respect 
 of tlie University of Cambridge, by reference to Strype's Life of AVhit- 
 gilt, bk. iv. cc. 14, 17, 18. Still these two bodies can be regarded in no 
 other light than as private individuals. 
 
 A good deal was said about Archbishop Bancroft ; or rather not so \ 
 much of him as of INIr. Eogers, his chaplain; but I think there is good 
 reason to doubt whether Archbishop J3ancroft's opinions were accurately 
 expressed by his chaplain, if we take as our authorities. Clarendon's 
 History of the Rebellion, vol. i. p. 15G, oct. edit. 182G, and Cardwell's 
 Conferences, p. 185. [The passages were read at length by the learned 
 judge.] 
 
 There are some undoubtedly, whose names stand very high, who go 
 the length that to receive the benefits of baptism there musl; be, in all 
 
Judgment of the State Court [the Privy Council.) 77 
 
78 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 cases, faith and repentance. Martyr and Buccr may have gone to that 
 extent ; hut I do not think Cranmer is to he made responsihle for all 
 tliey may have said and taught, though lie did consult them in reference 
 to the first service book of Edward the Sixth. It may be that, in the 
 year 1549, when that book was published, the German Eeformers gene- 
 rally entertained the docti'ine of predestination, but I apprehend they 
 did not adhere to that doctrine for any length of time. I find it stated 
 by Burnet, in his History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 234, (Oxford 
 edit. 1829,) speaking of the effects of the Calvinistic doctrine oi dea-ees: 
 " The Germans soon saw the ill effects of tliis doctrine ; Luther changed 
 his mind about it, and Melancthon openly writ against it. And since 
 that time, the whole stream of the Lutheran churches has rim the other 
 way. But both Calvin and Bucer were still for maintaining the doc- 
 trine of these decrees ; only they warned the people not to think much 
 of them, since they were secrets which men could not penetrate into ; 
 but tliey did not so clearly show how those consequences did not flow 
 from such opinions. Hooper and many other good writers did often 
 dehort the people from entering into these curiosities ; and a caveat to 
 that same purpose was put afterwards into the article of the Church 
 about predestination." 
 
 It is quite impossible, howeverj for the Court to follow the learned 
 counsel for Mr. Gorham through all the quotations he cited from the 
 immense number of writers of the period of the Reformation, and sub- 
 sequent thereto. It must be allowed that, though many of them were 
 persons of great learning, there were some equally eminent who enter- 
 tained different views. In this conflict of opinions, the Court would be 
 placed in the greatest possible difficulty in determining the question 
 before it, if it had no other guide. 
 
 But I am of opinion, that to the private views of individuals, however 
 eminent, I am not at liberty to attend. Their opinions can have no 
 binding effect upon my judgment. So long as the Articles and the 
 Services of the Church are reconcileable, and not only reconcileable, 
 but necessarily consistent, I must construe them together. If a doc- 
 trine is laid down in the baptismal and other services, and in the rubrics, 
 all of which were confirmed by Act of Parliament, and adopted by con- 
 vocation, I must look to that source for my guide, if the Articles are 
 silent on the point, — and not indulge in fancy, explaining it by the 
 opinions expressed by private individuals. 
 
 It may be said that there is no evidence to show that Mr. Gorham 
 Rcts'^asidoan ^^^^^^^^ ^\•ithin the description of those who entertain Calvinistic opinions, 
 these picas. Mr. Gorham undoubtedly says that our Church has determined that 
 those children who are baptized, and die before they commit actual sin, 
 are undoubtedly saved. But then Mr. Gorham will not allow that 
 benefit to be by regeneration in baptism : he says that it is by " preve- 
 nient grace," without which tliey could uot be " worthy recipients ;" 
 and that if not "worthy recipients," they could not receive the sacra 
 mvut with advantage. 'That I take to be the doctrine Mr. Gorham 
 holds ; but, in order to justify that position, his learned counsel maiii- 
 iaincd tliat the Ileformers were Calvinists, and that, therefore, we must 
 construe the Services and Articles in a Calvinistic sense. 
 
 Now I am not aware that it is necessary for me to occupy more time 
 upon this case. I have endeavoured to asccrtam what the doctrine of 
 tlie Church of England on infant baptism is, and whether Mr. Gorham 
 entertains opposite views to tlie Church. It is clear from the 
 
Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 79 
 
80 Judgment of the Church Court {Archbishop of Canterbury's.) 
 
 Conclu- 
 sion : the 
 doctrine of 
 the Church 
 of England is 
 " Baptismal 
 Regenera- 
 tion," and 
 Mr. Gorhani 
 denies it, 
 and is con- 
 demned by 
 the Eccle- 
 siastical 
 Court. 
 
 passages I have read from his examination, — from the whole tenor 
 of his examination, as well as of his learned counsers argument, that 
 Mr. Gorham does oppose the Church's doctrine of baptismal rege- 
 neration. He says the child may receive " an act of grace," and 
 must receive "an act of grace" before it receives the Sacrament 
 of Baptism with beneficial efiect; he maintains that that "act of 
 grace" is not conferred by baptism, though it may take place before 
 baptism, in baptism, or after baptism. It was said that the sign is not 
 the thing signified. Undoubtedly it is not ; but the Church has declared 
 that the thing signified is given immediately at baptism, though accord- 
 ing to Mr. Gorham 's coimsel that doctrine may appear to have some 
 resemblance to the Eomish doctrine of the opus operatum. In the case of 
 infants there is no obex in the way: when they are baptized they 
 receive the benefit, whatever it may be ; and that benefit is declared to 
 be, according to the teaching of the Formularies of the Church, " Spi- 
 ritual Eegeneration." Therefore I say, that as the doctrine of the 
 Church of England undoubtedly is, that children baptized are regene- 
 rated at baptism, and are undoubtedly saved if they die without com- 
 mitting actual sin, Mr. Gorham has maintained, and does maintain, 
 opinions opposed to that Church of which he professes himself a member 
 and minister. The only remaining question is, has the Bishop shown 
 sufficient cause why he should not institute Mr. Gorham to the vicarage 
 of Brampford Speke ? I am clearly of opinion that the Bishop has, by 
 reason of the premises, shown sufficient cause ; that, consequently, lie is 
 entitled to be dismissed, and must be dismissed, according to the usual 
 course, with costs. 
 
 The above is, in substance, a correct Eeport of the Judgment. 
 
 J. E. P. EOBEETSON. 
 
 ^ I must conclude the consideration of this melancholy subject, by an extract of a 
 summary kind from the preface to Mr. Badeley's speech, just published, p. 7 and 8 : — 
 
 " Now I cannot help thinking, that this judgment will prove as unsatisfactory to any 
 legal, as it must be to every theological mind, for I find in it no balancing of the 
 arguments on either side, no question canvassed, no proposition met, no authority im- 
 pugned. No notice is taken of the evidence adduced, although, in the opinion of many 
 persons well qualified to decide, that evidence was amply sufficient to remove any 
 doubt, if doubt there could be, respecting the meaning which our formularies were in- 
 tended to express. In short, for anything that appears in this judgment, it might have 
 been written just as well before the case was argued, or by some person who was un- 
 conscious of anything that had been urged. But more than this, the judgment of the 
 Court of Arches is altogether passed by ; the princijiles on which it was founded are 
 not considered ; it is not even mentioned, except in the formal statement of it at the 
 commencement, and the reversal at the end. Yet why, it may be fairly asked, was 
 this unusual course ado])ted .' Why have the learned judges collectively departed from 
 that rule which each of tliera is in the habit of following in his own separate Court ? 
 When a case is argued before any of them, of any importance, and at any length, the 
 judgment usually contains an elaborate examination of the whole question, a review of 
 the points which liave been dwelt upon by the respective parties ; what is weak is care- 
 fully exposed, what is strong is upheld, and the principles of law, on which the 
 decision is ultimately rested, are fairly and directly applied. Again, when the judg- 
 nient of an interior court is reversed upon appeal, its errors are generally specified, its 
 d.fects explained, and the law is rendered clearer and more certain for the future. But 
 will any one pretend to say that this has been done here .' Alas I not only has this judg- 
 ment followed a different model, from those which have been most approved on the 
 records of our jurisprudence, but the very rules of law, on which it professes to pro- 
 ceed, are most signally disregarded." 
 
Judgment of the State Court [the Pi-ivy Council.) 81 
 
 The case not requiring it, we have abstained from expressing any opinion 
 of our o\ATi upon the theological correctness or error of the doctrine of 
 Mr. Gorham, which was discussed before us at such great length, and with elusion : 
 so much learning. His honour the vice-chancellor Knight Bruce dis- '^^^\ ^^''• 
 sents from the opinion we have formed ; but all the other members of having been 
 the judicial committee who were present are unanimously agreed in thfs^courtto 
 opinion, that the doctrine held by Mr. Gorham is not contrary or repug- hold doc- 
 nant to tlie declared doctrine of the Church of England as by law estab- pugnLit'"' 
 lished, and that Mr. Gorham ought not, by reason of the doctrine held *° ^^"^ 
 by him, to have been refused admission to the vicarage of Brampford doctrine, is 
 
 Speke. rated in the 
 
 And we stall, therefore, humbly report to Her Majesty that the sen- Church, 
 tence pronounced by the learned judge in the Arches Court of Canter- 
 bury ought to be reversed,^^ and that it ought to be declared that the 
 Lord Bishop of Exeter has not shown sufficient cause why he did not 
 institute Mr. Gorham to the said vicarage. 
 
 We shall, therefore, humbly advise Her Majesty to remit the cause 
 with that declaration to the Arches Court of Canterbury, to the end 
 that right and justice may there be done in this matter, pursuant to the 
 said declaration. 
 
 Dr. Mill, the Rev. Professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, Chaplain to the late Arch- 
 bishop, thus expresses himself in the preface to a recent sermon before the University : 
 " Instead of the careful abstinence from spiritual judgment which rumour had led us to 
 hope, we were presented by the State Court with a laboured theological argument ; vin- 
 dicating, not only as admissible, but as most probable, a forced and non-natural con- 
 struction of the baptismal office, by which the sacrament of our implantation into our 
 Lord's death is rendered wholly uncertain and precarious in efficacy ; dependent either 
 on the character of the infant's sponsors, or (what were, if possible, more unchristian and 
 heretical) on his own subsequent performance of what were, without the initial grace, 
 impracticable. And the argument is concluded by deciding, in the name of the So- 
 vereign of these realms, what the Church, if retaining any vitality, must ever hold as of 
 Divine faith is a matter of variable human opinion !'' 
 
 Dr. Hook, Vicar of Leeds, (a very different authority, however,) observes, though 
 actually denying that the " State judgment damages our position as a Church," — " Let 
 it not, however, be supposed that those who take this view of the case, and who hope 
 that, by the providence of God, the judgment will be overruled for the good of His 
 Church, regard with any feeling of approbation the line of conduct pursued by the mem- 
 bers of the Privy Council who are appointed to act as Her Majesty's advisers. Her 
 Majesty's advisers appear to have acted as politicians rather than as judges ; and to have 
 decided, not according to the merits of the case, but according to their notions of what 
 was expedient. The whole subject has been perplexed, not so much by the judgment 
 they have advised Her Majesty to give, as by the reasons they have assigned for the 
 conclusions at which they have arrived. But at the same time these reasons, resting as 
 they do on doctrines misunderstood, and on the mis-quotation of authorities, only serve 
 to confirm us in the faith that Regeneration is the grace of Baptism." 
 
 I am glad to be here able to add the striking testimony of Mr. Newman, as to the 
 character of this Judgment of the " State Court," and the orthodoxy of our Church's 
 
82 Judgment of the State Court {the Privy Council.) 
 
 formularies. It is the more important, because Mr. Maskell and others have, in their 
 recent excitement, |)raised that Judgment for its fairness and candour, and appeared as 
 if half convinced by it that the Church of England had not been definite as to the 
 doctrine of Baptism. Mr. Newman — showing himself more just to the Church he once 
 loved than some who are yet numbered among her sons — in his first lecture on the " Dif- 
 ficulties of Anglicans," delivered by him a few days ago in the Strand, as Priest of the 
 Oratory of St. Philip Neri, thus writes : — " The antiquarian, the reader of history, the 
 theologian, the philosopher, the Biblical student may make his protest ; he may quote St. 
 Austin, or appeal to the canons, or argue from the nature of the case ; but la Reinele veut ; 
 the English people is sufficient for itself; it wills to be Protestant and progressive ; and 
 Fathers, councils, schoolmen, Scriptures, saints, angels, and what is above them, must 
 give way. What are they to it .' It thinks, acts, and is contented, according co its own 
 practical, intelligible, shallow religion ; and of that religion its Bishops and its divines, will 
 they or will they not, must be exponents. In this way, I say, we are to explain, but in this 
 way most naturally and satisfactorily, what otherwise would be startling, the late Royal 
 decision to which I have several times referred. The great legal authorities, on whose 
 report it was made, have not only pronounced that, as a matter of fact, persons who 
 have denied the grace of Baptism had held the highest preferments in the National 
 Church, but they felt themselves authorized actually to interpret its ritual and its doc- 
 trine, and to report to Her Majesty that the dogma of Baptismal Regeneration is not 
 part and parcel of the national religion. They felt themselves strong enough, in their 
 position, to pronounce ' that the doctrine held by ' the Protestant Clergyman who 
 brought the matter before them ' was not contrary or repugnant to the declared doctrine 
 of the Church of England as by law established.' The question was not whether it was 
 true or not, as they most justly remarked, whether from heaven or from hell ; they 
 were too sober to meddle with what they had no means of determining ; they ' abstained 
 from expressing any opinion of their own upon the theological correctness or error of 
 the doctrine ' propounded: the question was, not what God had said, but what the 
 English nation had willed and allowed ; and though it must be granted that they aimed 
 at a critical examination of the letter of the documents, yet it must be granted, on the 
 other hand, that their criticism was of a very national cast, and that the national sen- 
 timent was of great use to them in helping them to their conclusions. What was it to 
 the nation or its lawyers whether Hooker used the word ' charity ' or ' piety ' in the 
 extract which they adduced from his works, and that ' piety ' gave one sense to the pas- 
 sage, and ' charity ' another .' Hooker must speak as the existing nation, if he is to be 
 a national authority. What though the ritual categorically deposes to the regeneration 
 of the infant baj)tized ? The Evangelical party, which had had the nerve years before 
 to fix the charge of dishonesty on the explanations of the Thirty-nine Articles put forth 
 by its opponents, could all the while be cherishing in its breast an interpretation of the 
 Baptismal Service, simply contradictory of its most luminous declarations. Inexplicable 
 proceeding, if it were professing to handle the document in the letter ; but not dis- 
 honourable nor dishonest, not hypocritical, but natural and obvious, on the condition or 
 understanding that the nation, which imposes the document, imposes its sense ; that by 
 the breath of its mouth it had, as a god, made Establishment, Articles, Prayer-Book, 
 and all that is therein, and could by the breath of its mouth as easily and absolutely 
 unmake them again whenever it was disposed! Counsel, then, and pamphleteers may 
 put forth unanswerable arguments in behalf of the Catholic interi)retation of the Bap- 
 tismal Service ; a Ion;/ succension of Bishops, an unbroken tradition of writers, may 
 have faithfully and anxiously guarded it. In vain has the Caroline school honoured it 
 by ritual observance ; in vain has the Restoration illustrated it by varied learning ; in 
 vain did the Revolution retain it as the price for other concessions ; in vain did the 
 eighteenth century use it as a sort of watchword against Wesley ; in vain has it been 
 persuasively developed and fearlessly proclaimed by the movement of 1833; all this 
 is foreign to the matter before us. ^^'e have not to inquire what is the dogma of a col- 
 legiate, antiquarian religion, but what, in the words of the Prime Minister, will give 
 ' general satisfaction !' " 
 
JUDGMENTS OF THE ENGLISH BISHOPS, 
 
 (PROVINCE OF CANTERBURY,) 
 
 On the Doctrine of the Regenerating Efficacy of Holy Baptism. 
 
 The passages liere reprinted from tlie published works of the Prelates 
 of our Church, who at present occupy the various sees in the province of 
 Canterbury, are designed to exhibit the fact that Baptismal Regenera- 
 tion is among us, de facto, the doctrine of the living Church, so far as her 
 Bishops may be thought to represent her authority. The intention and 
 value, however, of such a " catena" must not be mistaken. The doctrine 
 to which our Prelates bear unanimous testimony is not true, because 
 they voluntarily, or involuntarily, please to aflB.rm it ; but we receive it 
 because the universal Church has ever maintained it, from the Apostles' 
 days. "We believe in the Holy Catholic Church. These Prelates are 
 rather testifying to their own soundness of faith in this matter, than 
 testifying to the doctrine. 
 
 Neither may it be imagined that I am referring to all the Bishops as 
 orthodox and wise theologians, or witnesses indeed of anything beyond 
 the plain fact, (which alone might vindicate them from any conscious 
 heretical departure from truth in other less perfectly understood doc- 
 trines,) that they all make an orthodox profession on this fundamental 
 article, "the one Baptism for the remission of sins." Not one of the 
 Bishops holds Mr. Gorham's views. All condemn them — if to profess 
 truth imply condemnation of error, as most of us have thus far sup- 
 posed. 
 
 If time had permitted, it was intended to add the testimony of the 
 other Bishops in our Communion, — the province of York, the provinces 
 of Ireland, the Colonial, American, and other Churches. These may be 
 hereafter added. For several of the passages here given from the Eng- 
 lish Bishops I am indebted to my kind friends Mr. Eussell of Enfield 
 and Mr. Watson of Cheltenham. 
 
 g2 
 
84 Judgments of English Bishops. 
 
 1. 
 
 The Aechbishop of Canterbuet, 
 The Most Rev. John Bird Sumner, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 " It is a sufficient confutation of the doctrine of Special Grace, that it 
 reduces Baptism to an empty rite ; an external mark of admission into 
 the visible Church, attended with no real grace, and therefore conveying 
 no benefit,* nor advancing a person one step towards salvation. But if 
 Baptism is not accompanied with such an effusion of the Holy Ghost 
 towards the inward renewing of the heart, that the person baptized, who 
 of himself and of his own nature could do no good thing, by this amend- 
 ment or Eegeneration of his nature, is enabled to bring forth fruit thirty, 
 or sixty, or an hundred fold, and giving all diligence, to make his calling 
 and election sure, — if, I say, the effect of Baptism be less than this, what 
 becomes of the distinction made by the Baptist, ' I indeed baptize with 
 water, but He Who comes after me shall baptize Avith the Holt 
 Ghost?' What becomes of the example of Cheist Himself ? After 
 His Baptism, the descent of the Holt Ghost in a visible form was 
 surely intended to confirm His followers in a belief that their Baptism 
 would confer upon them a similar gift ; and, besides the washing away 
 of their sins, and the ^'emission of the penalti/ entailed upon the posterity 
 of Adam, would bestow on them a power enabling them to euleil 
 the covenant laws of their religion." 
 
 " No preacher is authorised, either by our Church or by St. Paul, to 
 leave a doubt on the minds of his hearers whether they are within the 
 2)ale of God's fixvour ; but, on the contrary, is bound to enjoin them to 
 seek boldly at the throne of grace for power to confirm their faith, and 
 work out their repentance, and live worthy of their high calliug."t — 
 Apostolical Preaching, pp. 177, 179, edit. 1850, (first published 1815.) 
 
 Again : — " How is the fact of Regeneracy, upon which no less than 
 eternity depends, to be discovered ?" .... "By the benefit of Bap- 
 tism." .... —Ibid. p. 163. 
 
 " All might be so nurtured in the ' fear and admonition of the Lord,' 
 as to grow up with a sense of the holiness of God, — of the aw^l nature 
 of offending Him to Whom, as infants, they had been solemnly dedi- 
 cated, of the inestimable blessing of being at peace with Him, through 
 the washing of llegeneration and receiving of the Holy Ghost." — Jubilee 
 Sertnon, preached at St. PauVs, March 8, 1849. 
 
 2. 
 
 The Bishop of London, 
 
 The Right Rev. Charles James Blomfield, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 " I HATE already observed, that in tlic interpretation of the Articles 
 which relate more immediately to doctrine, our surest guide is the 
 Liturgy. It may safely bo pronounced of any explanation of an article 
 which cannot be reconciled with the plain language of the Offices for 
 
 * Which is Mr. Gorham's doctrine — and is (the Archbishop says) " sufficiently 
 
 COXDKMNED." 
 
 t Mr. Newman, at p. 25 in liis lecture, (referred to at p. 82), declares that it was 
 thin book of the Archbishop's that first " brought him to a belief in Baptismal Regene- 
 ration;" and so originated his theological career in 1824. 
 
Judgments of English Bishops. 85 
 
 Public Worship, that it is not the doctrine of the Church. The opinion, 
 for instance, which denies Baptismal Regeneration, might possibly, 
 though not without great difficidty, be reconciled with the language of 
 the Twenty-seventh Article ; but by no stretch of ingenuity, nor lati- 
 tude of explanation, can it be brought to agree with the plain, unquali- 
 fied language of the Offices for Baptism and Confirmation." — Charge of 
 the Bishop of London, 1842, 8vo. p. 23. See also p. 25. 
 
 " Holding it to be unquestionably the doctrine of the Church of Eng- 
 land that infants receive remission of original sin in baptism, through 
 the merits of our LoEU and Saviour Jesus Christ, applied to them by 
 that Sacrament, and finding in Mr. Gorham's answers to the Bishop of 
 Exeter's questions, a distinct denial of that doctrine, I could not bring 
 myself to concur in the reasons assigned by the Judicial Committee for re- 
 commending her Majesty to reverse the judgment of the Court of Arches. 
 
 " Mr. Grorham holds that the Remission of original sin, adoption into 
 the family of GtOD, and Regeneration, must all take place, in the case of 
 infants, not in Baptism, nor by means of Baptism, but before Baptism — 
 an opinion which appears to me to be in direct opposition to the plain 
 teaching of the Church, and utterly to destroy the Sacramental character 
 of Baptism. 
 
 " I cannot admit that this opinion is to be reconciled, by any latitude 
 of interpretation which can reasonably be claimed, with the Church's 
 Articles and Eormidaries ; nor do I believe that it is an opinion which 
 is held by more than a very small number indeed of our Clergy." — Letter 
 of the Bishop of London to the Scottish Bishops. 
 
 Copy of a Letter to A. J. B. Hope, Esq. 
 
 " London House, March 11, 1850. 
 
 " My dear Mr. Hope, — My knowledge of your devoted and consistent 
 attachment to the Church of your Baptism, and the assurance which you 
 have given me of your willingness to be guided by my counsels at the 
 present crisis, seem to impose upon me the duty of repeating, in a more 
 connected form, and with some additional remarks, the considerations 
 which I suggested to you in conversation on Saturday last. 
 
 " You then stated to me how greatly you were distressed at the recent 
 judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council in Mr. Gorham's 
 case ; and you expressed your apprehension that some excellent men 
 might be driven by that decision to quit, if not the communion of our 
 Church, yet, the offices which they hold in it. 
 
 " I remarked, in answer to yoiir statement, that I could readily under- 
 stand the uneasiness which you, in common with many others, felt at 
 the position in which the Church appeared to be placed by that judg- 
 ment ; but that I thought it to be your plain and unmistakeable duty 
 not to desert the Church at such a moment, when she was most in need 
 of your support and assistance, but to remain firm in your allegiance to 
 her, and to use your best endeavours to remove existing anomalies and 
 defects. This appears to me very clearly to be the line of conduct which 
 you ought to pursue. 
 
 " If a vessel in which you were embarked should spring a leak, you 
 would surely do your best to stop the leak before you thought of aban- 
 doning the ship, and leaving it to the mercy of the winds and waves. 
 
 " I would desire you to consider in what respect the recent judgment 
 has so altered the character of our Church, as to justify any of her mem- 
 bers in severing their connection with her. 
 
 " That judgment may be erroneous ; may be a wrong interpretation of 
 
86 Judgments of English Bishops. 
 
 the Churcli's mind ; but it is the interpretation adopted by a few fallible 
 men, not by any body authorised by the Church to settle any point of 
 doctrine ; nor can it have the effect of changing any of the Church's 
 doctrine. That of Baptismal Regeneration stands in her Articles and 
 Liturgy as it did before. That is not denied, nor even questioned by 
 the judgment, the purport of which is, that to those who admit the 
 Church's doctrine of Baptismal Grace a greater latitude of explanation 
 is permitted than you or I think right. But this, after all, is only the 
 opinion of a court of law, not the decision of the Church itself in con- 
 vocation. 
 
 " I hold that, until the Church's Articles and Formularies are altered 
 by the authority of convocation, or of some synod equivalent to con- 
 vocation, her character as a teacher of truth remains unchanged. 
 
 "I cannot regard any sentence of an ecclesiastical court as finally 
 settling a question of doctrine. That can only be done by a synodical 
 decree ; and even then judges may err in their interpretation of that 
 decree, and yet the decree itself will hold good, and in another appeal 
 respecting the very same point of doctrine another court might give a 
 different judgment. I think, therefore, that nothing short of a formal 
 act of the Church itself, repudiating what it has hitherto asserted as 
 truth, can warrant a man in quitting her communion. 
 
 " What we really want is a court of appeal, so constituted that the 
 members of our Church can place reasonable confidence in its decisions ; 
 but it must still be borne in mind, that any such court will be liable to 
 errors in judgment, and that it belongs to the office of a judge, not to 
 make laws, but to expound them to the best of liis ability. 
 
 " Again, then, I say, that when the convocation shall, by a solemn act, 
 reject the doctrine of Baptismal Eegeneration, it will be time enough to 
 think of quitting the Church's pale ; but, till that shall happen, (which 
 heaven forfend !) to leave her would be an act of schism. 
 
 "I will add one other observation. Every member of our Church 
 who is not seeking a pretext for quitting her communion, must desire to 
 remove whatever blemishes and imperfections there may be in her con- 
 stitution . 
 
 " But the way to do this is not to abandon her, and so to render 
 amendment less practicable and probable, by weakening her resources 
 and diminishing the number of her true friends ; but to abide firmly by 
 her, to be ' watchful, and strengthen the things which remain that are 
 ready to die.' 
 
 " You are at liberty to show this letter to any person who is interested 
 in this most important question. 
 
 " Believe me, my dear Mr. Hope, 
 
 " With the truest regard and esteem, 
 " Yours most faithfully, 
 
 " A. J. B. Hope, Esq., M.P. (Signed) C. J. London." 
 
 3. 
 
 The Bisnor of Banqor, 
 
 The Right Rev. Christopher Bethell, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 " The doctrine of Eogoncration in Baptism fixes the conunencement 
 of tlic Christian life in the right place, and secures the doctrine of uni- 
 versal grace within the pjile of the Church, and the comprehension of 
 
Judgments of English Bishops. 87 
 
 the covenant, against every system wliicli savours of necessity or favour- 
 itism, of absolute decrees, or capricious pi'eferences. ... It teaches us 
 that sucli baptized adults as are believers and penitents, and baptized 
 infants, who can present no bar of unbelief and impenitence, receive in 
 this Sacrament the forgiveness of sins, and the gift or earnest of the 
 Holt GtHOST, as a principle of a new and spiritual life ; and are placed 
 in a state of salvation, of wbich nothing but buman negligence and de- 
 fault can deprive them. The Christian minister . . . need not fear to 
 advocate a doctrine gromided on the sure basis of Scripture, witnessed 
 by all antiquity, and unequivocally asserted by our own Church." — 
 A general view of the dochnne of Regeneration in Bajjfism. By the Eight 
 Eev. Christopher Bethell, D.D., Lord Bishop of Bangor, pp. 234—237. 
 8vo. 1845. 
 
 " We find that our Liturgy, in strict conformity to the doctrine of the 
 universal Church, makes no mention of regeneration, except in conjunc- 
 tion with Baptism ; and that its compilers were so far from attempting 
 to separate what had been intimately connected with the faith and dis- 
 cipline of their forefathers in Christianity, that they have never intro- 
 duced the word into their services, even in a popular sense," — Ibid. 
 pp. 92, 93, 
 
 " Our Liturgy everywhere teaches and assumes our adoption and re- 
 generation in Baptism." — Ibid. p. 92. 
 
 " Prom a review of our Articles and Liturgy we may derive the fol- 
 lowing conclusions : 
 
 " 1. They maiatain the doctrine of regeneration in Baptism in the 
 most decided manner, grounding it on the same texts of Scripture from 
 which the ancient Christians had deduced it ; including under it forgive- 
 ness of sin, the gift of the Holt Ghost, and the inheritance of the 
 kingdom of heaven ; and never introducing the word itself, except in 
 conjunction with Baptism. 
 
 " 2. They teach, in common with the writings of the ancient Chris- 
 tians, the necessity of faith and repentance as qualifications for the 
 salutary effects of Baptism. But they never contemplate any person, 
 however qualified, as regenerate, till he is actually baptized. 
 
 " 3. They suppose that infants, who are necessarily free from actual 
 sin, are duly qualified for Baptism, and are looked on by God pre- 
 cisely in the same light as penitents and believers ; and they unequivo- 
 cally assert that every baptized child, without exception, is born again," 
 —Ibid. pp. 95, 96. 
 
 The Bishop or Bath and Wells, 
 
 The Right Rev. Richard Bagot, D.D., Oxford, 
 
 " The wonderful and miaute instincts and contrivances which the 
 Almighty has implanted in the whole animal world, for the preservation 
 of the natural life of the young, are but analogies and types of His mer- 
 ciful care and providence over the spiritual life of the infant, whereby 
 He has shown forth His good will that ' not one of these little ones 
 should perish,' 
 
88 Judgments of English Bishops. 
 
 " The rite of Circumcision, wliicli hallowed the children of the faithful 
 to the terms of the covenant so early as the eighth day of their being, 
 and the more solemn sacrament of holy Baptism, which the Church (so 
 strictly in accordance with the spirit of God's recorded dealings with 
 His creatures) urges upon her members not to defer 'longer than the 
 first or Second Sunday next after the birtli ' of their children, are in 
 themselves the distinct and avxthoritative declarations of God's goodwill 
 towards the weakest end lowliest of His creatures. But if, in addition 
 to these clearly speaking ordinances, we consider the instances of God's 
 especial favour to the young, both in the Old and New Testament ; and 
 observe the significant gesture and manner with which ' our Saviour 
 Christ commanded the little children to be brought unto Him,' — how 
 ' He blamed those who would have kept them from Him,' — how ' He 
 exhorted all men to follow their iunocency,' — how ' He embraced them 
 in His arms, laid His hands upon them, and blessed them,' — we shall 
 scarcely doubt that there is, in the least of these little ones who come to 
 Him, something more precious and pleasing in the eye of God, than in the 
 purest and most perfect of those whose lengthened years have necessarily 
 brought them more or less in contact with the vanities and vices of the 
 world. ... I might almost say in some instances a fatalism (even among 
 those who are generally alive to the advantages of education) with regard 
 to the spiritual nurture of their children. It seems by a very large class of 
 persons almost to be taken for granted, that the youthful mind is suscep- 
 tible of little, and that only very general, religious instruction, and that 
 the life of the soul must follow the maturity of the understanding ; and 
 the result practically is, that they are very indifferent in what degree, 
 and by whom, religious truths are implanted in the minds of their chil- 
 dren, provided that their judgment be, as they say, sufficiently cultivated 
 to enable them to choose their own rule of faith when they come to years 
 of discretion. 
 
 " Now, specious as this reasoning may appear to many on the first 
 hearing, and satisfactory as it may be to the careless or unbelieving 
 mind, it can have no couclusive weight with him who takes the way 
 of God for his path, and the word of God for his law. This cannot 
 be at least following after Him Who has made infant heirs of both His 
 covenants; — this cannot be owning Him for our Lord AVho sanctified 
 the infant Samuel to His service ; — this cannot be obeying the voice of 
 Him "Who said, ' Suffer little children to come unto Me, and forbid them 
 not.' It is a view which no sound member of the Church can consis- 
 tently hold. Convinced by the general declarations of Holy "Writ, no 
 less than by the express terms in which the earlier sacrament is spoken 
 of, he cannot look upon the mind of the baptized infant as the ' blank 
 tablet ' of the philoso])hcr, nor as the ' barren,' if not ' weed-choked ' soil 
 of the schismatic, but rather as a field bedewed and cleansed by the living 
 water of the Holy Spirit, to which God will give the increase, accord- 
 ing as, in good time, the good seed lias in good faith been sown, — 
 according as the stealthy inroads of the Enemy who scatteretli tares 
 by night have been watched and thwarted."' — Sermon before the Society 
 for Promoting Christian Knowledge, June 4, 1840. 
 
Judgments of English Bishops. S9 
 
 6. 
 
 The Bishop of CnionESTEE, 
 
 The Right Rev, Ashurst Turner Gilbert, D.l)., Oxford. 
 
 " It is a failiug of the darkened human mind, that it is inclined to 
 strive to interpret all things as if they had a being and a nature inde- 
 pendent of God. So man contiaually attempts to explain the outward 
 universe. He leaves out the immediate hand of God. And in appre- 
 hending our Regenerate state in Chbist, we do not come near enough 
 to God in Him. We still interpose a sort of natural system between 
 ourselves and God. Instead of fully recognising our New birth unto 
 Him by Baptism in Christ — that we are ideally begotten of Him anew — 
 brought into new positive relations and privileges which constitute us a 
 distinct and separate people — we practically estimate ourselves as merely 
 somewhat advanced only beyond the rest of mankind, but as still in- 
 volved in a natural religious system, which, in a degree, belongs to us as 
 well as to them." — Sermon before the Society for Promotiuff Christian 
 Knowledge, June 3, 1847. 
 
 6. 
 
 The Bishop of Ely, 
 
 The Right Rev. Thomas Turton, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 [I have not been able to learn that the Bishop of Ely has written any- 
 thing on the subject of Baptism ; though I have made inquiiy through 
 the booksellers : and I am unable to defer the present publication.] 
 
 The Bishop of Exetee, 
 
 The Right Rev. Henry Philpotts, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 " The Church tells us that it is certain by God's Word that children 
 which are baptized, dying before they commit sin, are undoubtedly saved. 
 It tells us too that every baptized infant is regenerate and grafted into 
 the body of Cheist's Church ; nay, it teaches and commands us to give 
 thanks to Almighty God as a most merciful Eather for having pleased 
 thus to regenerate him, for having received him for His own child by 
 adoption, for having incorporated him into His holy Church. That any 
 one, after having again and again solemnly subscribed to the lawfulness, 
 and therefore to the truth of all this, — after having engaged before God 
 and man that he will use this form of words in administering Baptism, — 
 and after having, in accordance with that ministerial engagement, con- 
 tinued to use it during the whole of his ministerial service, can yet deny 
 or dispute the position that our Church maintains, that always to in- 
 fants, and to adults rightly receiving, regeneration is given in Baptism, 
 and (so far as man is authorised to pronounce,) in Baptism only, might 
 appear incredible if the experience of more than two hundred years had 
 not unhappily furnished us with too many instances to the contrary." 
 Charge of 1839, p. 67. 
 
90 Judgments of English Bishops, 
 
 8. 
 The Bishop of Gloucester akd Bristol, 
 
 The Right Rev. James Henry Monk, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 Not being able to learn tliat the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol has 
 printed anything on the subject of Baptism, I extract the following from 
 a letter recently printed, in reply to an address expressing anxiety at 
 the doubt thrown on Baptismal Regeneration by the late decision. 
 
 "I SYMPATHISE in the feelings of uneasiness expressed in this address, 
 at the idea of a doubt being cast upon a tenet of the Church distinctly 
 enunciated in the Nicene Creed — as well as at the constitution of a 
 tribunal of ultimate appeal, to which Churchmen cannot look up as safe 
 exponents of doctrine." 
 
 The following address, signed by a large portion of the clergy of his 
 diocese, was presented to the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 
 
 " To the Eight Eeverend Father in God, James Henry, by Divine per- 
 mission. Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 
 
 " Right Eeverend Father, — "We, the undersigned clergy in your lord- 
 ship's diocese, desire to address your lordship, in much trouble and 
 perplexity, occasioned by the judgment recently given by the committee 
 of Privy Council in the case of ' Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter.' 
 
 " We are troubled at the thought that the guilt of sanctioning heretical 
 opinions, especially that of denying, or questioning, the doctrine of ' One 
 Baptism for the Remission of Sins,' should appear for a moment to be 
 incurred by our own Church. 
 
 " And we are perplexed to know how to act for the best under these 
 circumstances, with reference particularly to the constitution of the 
 existing Court of Appeal in matters ecclesiastical; a constitution, as 
 it seems to us, not merely anomalous, but utterly indefensible, and in 
 its consequences ruinous both to the doctrine and discipline of the 
 Church. 
 
 " And our perplexity is increased when we call to mind the obligation 
 which is laid upon us to keep and to transmit inviolate the sacred deposit 
 of the faith which has been committed to us. 
 
 " We therefore most earnestly and solemnly beg of your lordship, in 
 concert with your right reverend brethren, to take without delay, and to 
 guide and assist us in taking, such steps as to your lordship shall seem 
 most suitable in this emergency — an emergency unparalleled, as far as we 
 know, in the history of the Church of England, and in whicli, as it 
 appears to us, we cannot venture to remain silent or inactive without 
 incurring a fearful responsibility." 
 
 [Here follow the signatures.] 
 
 The Bishop's Reply. 
 
 "Dean's Yard, April 25, 1850, 
 " Dear Mr. Archdeacon, — I beg to acknowledge tlie receipt of an 
 address, which you have forwarded to me, on tlio subject of tlie late 
 judgment pronounced in the case of * Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter.* 
 
Judgments of English Bishops. 91 
 
 " This address, in vrliicli so large a portion of the clergy of my diocese 
 have concurred, calls for my sympathy ; and I deeply regret the 
 occurrence of a matter which has diffused such extensive uneasiness 
 among Churchmen. 
 
 " I agree with you in thinking the constitution of the present Court 
 of Appeal in matters ecclesiastical unsatisfactory. 
 
 " In reply to the request that I should, in concert with my right 
 reverend brethren, take steps which may seem most suitable in this 
 emergency, I can inform you that all the members of the English 
 Episcopate are, at this time, in anxious deliberation on the subject ; and 
 I hope that we shall have the prayers of yourself, and all who have con- 
 curred in this address, that, by the Divine guidance, we may come to 
 such a conclusion as may obviate what is at present anomalous and ob- 
 jectionable, and promote the peace and unity of our beloved Church. 
 " Believe me, dear Mr. Archdeacon, 
 
 " Tour faithful brother and servant, 
 
 " J. H. Gloucester ajsb Beistol. 
 
 "The Venerable Archdeacon Thorp." 
 
 9. 
 
 The Bishop of Herefoed, 
 
 The Right Rev. Renn Dickson Hampden, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 " LooEirNG to Christ as the only Fountain of Salvation, he (the 
 Christian) keeps himself sober and watching unto prayer, that he may 
 obtain the continual siqjpli/ of the Spirit of Christ. Eejoiciiig that he 
 has already been made a partaker of the Spirit in Baptism, he clings 
 with aflectionate devoutness to every other means of grace." — Sermon on 
 the " Trial by Fire;' p. 23. 
 
 " Such an efficacy in the two Sacraments, instituted by the Lord 
 Himself, our own Ciuu-ch thankfully acknowledges, and doubts not that 
 He gives the life of grace to the child baptized in the Name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holt Ghost, and imparts the spi- 
 ritual sustenance of His Body and Blood to the faithful communicant."* 
 — Two Sermons on " The Work of Christ, and the JFork of the Spirit." 
 Sermon II. Published, or re-published, after his nomination to the See 
 of Hereford. 
 
 * " The elements and words have power of infallible signification, for 
 which they are called seals of God's truth ; the spirit affijxed unto these 
 elements and words, power of operation vrithin the soul, most admirable, 
 divine, and impossible to be expressed. For so God hath instituted and 
 ordained, that together ■udth due administration and receipt of sacra- 
 mental signs, there shall proceed from Himself grace effectual to sanctify, 
 to cure, to comfort, and whatsoever else is for the good of the souls of 
 men." (Eccl. Pol. VI. ch. vi. § 10, ed. 1845.) 
 
 " For we take not Baptism nor the Eucharist for bare resemblances 
 or memorials of things absent, neither for naked signs and testimonies, 
 assuring us of grace received before ; but (as they are indeed and in 
 verity) for means effectual whereby God, when we take the Sacraments, 
 delivereth into our hands that gi'ace available unto eternal b'fe, which 
 grace the Sacraments represent or signify." (lb. V. ch. Ivii. § 5, ed. 1815.) 
 
9.2 Judgments of English Bishops. 
 
 10. 
 
 The Bisnop or LiciiriELD, 
 
 The Right Rev. John Lonsdale, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 " That, by the birth of ' Water and of the Spirit,' our Loed here 
 means Baptism as declared to be the way by which men must enter into 
 God's kingdom of grace on earth, has been the constant doctrine of the 
 Christian Church in all ages. The Church of England accordingly, in 
 her form for the ministration of Baptism, expressly grounds the neces- 
 sity of our being baptized upon this declaration of CniiiST, and in the 
 Catechism teaches us that the Water of Baptism is an outward and 
 visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, given unto us therein, by 
 which we, who were born in sin, and children of wrath, are made chil- 
 dren of grace." — Commentary on the Four Gospels. By the Bishop of 
 Lichfield, and Archdeacon Hale. p. 237. 
 
 11. 
 
 The Bishop of Lincoln, 
 
 The Right Rev. John Kaye, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 "Bt Baptism the converts [in the primitive days] had been made 
 partakers of all the benefits of Cheist's death; had died and been 
 buried to sin, not merely with reference to its consequences, but also to 
 its power ; and that as Christ, after He had risen from the grave, 
 entered on a new state of being, or rather resumed that glorious state 
 which for a season He had laid aside, so they, after emerging from 
 the waters of Baptism, ought to consider themselves new creatures, dead 
 indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Christ. " — Family Ser- 
 mons. Vol. II. J. W. Parker, 1833. 
 
 12. 
 The Bishop oe Llakdaef, 
 
 The Right Rev. Alfred Ollivant, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 [I am not aware of any work published by this Prelate, in which the 
 subject of Baptism is alluded to.] 
 
 13. 
 
 The Bishop of Norwich, 
 
 The Right Rev. Samuel Hinds, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 •' While, therefore, to the Christian vohune was committed the whole 
 of Gospel revelation, it was doubtless a wise and merciful provision to 
 select the two most important features for the record of type and 
 
Judgments of English Bishops. 93 
 
 symbol, as well as of language. The doctrines of Regeneration by tbe 
 Holt Spikit, and of Atonement by the death of CnRiST, followed by 
 His spiritual indwelling in us, — these form the epitome of Chris- 
 tianity." — HincTs Three Temples, p. 91. 
 
 " It is plain that Christians are properly baptized unto Christ : they 
 are a continuation of His Disciples, and ia that title, as well as ia the 
 title of Christians, is implied that it is so. . . . The baptismal form 
 connects the earlier with the later dispensation, — the dispensation of 
 the Law with that of the Gospel, as provided by the Son, and taught 
 and perfected by the Spirit. It stamps the baptized with the character 
 of the true Israel, the true children of Abraham, and heirs of the 
 promise." — Ibid. p. 131. 
 
 14. 
 
 The Bishop of Oxtord, 
 
 The Right Rev. Samuel Wilberforce, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 "TuET [sectarians] are led to undervalue the appointments of GrOD Him- 
 self. They cannot believe that every baptized infant is so really grafted into 
 Christ, that he does receive some gift of the Holy Spirit whereby the 
 first principle of the new life is given to him ; that he is, in the plain 
 sense of the words, ' born anew of water and of the Holt Ghost ;' that 
 he is become a ' son of God ;' because they do not see in all such that 
 outward acting of life which they confound with its first gift. And so 
 they introduce new terms, and with them infinite confusion, into the 
 simplicity of Christ's teaching. They speak of an outward Church, and 
 an inner ; of being admitted into the visible Church, but not into the 
 spiritual ; as if God coidd mock His creatures by giving them dead and 
 deceitful signs, in the stead of true and quickening realities." — Bishop 
 of Oxford's Sermons. Sermon 3, preached at Claremont, July 17, 1812. 
 ■ith edition, 1817. 
 
 15. 
 
 The Bishop oe Peterborough, 
 
 The Right Rev. George Davys, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 On Private Baptism of Infants. 
 
 " Our Saviour has appointed His Sacraments as the ' outward signs ' 
 by which we receive ' inward and spiritual grace,' and are made partakers 
 of the promises of the Gospel. Water is the outward sign in the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism ; and therefore, when the water is used, then is the 
 Baptism. . . . We should not call this being half baptized, for it is 
 being xoholly baptized ; the other part is the public admission into the 
 Church.* — Village Conversations on the Liturgy, p. 7. Society for the 
 Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1842. 
 
 * " Our Church calls a Christian state a New birth unto righteous- 
 ness : showing that Christian privileges are not instead of righteousness, 
 but to lead to righteousness.'' 
 
94) Judgments of English Bishops. 
 
 16. 
 The Bishop of Eochesteb, 
 
 The Right Rev. George Murray, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 " The low notions wliicli have been entertained by some of the Clergy 
 with respect to our sacramental ordinances and the services of our 
 Church, have, I fear, in a great degree, led to the adoption of extreme 
 views in an opposite direction ; and if I were obliged to unite with either 
 of tlie parties, I should certainly much prefer the opinions of tliose which 
 exalt, to those which depreciate the value of these sacred rites. Thus I 
 cannot entertain any unity of religious feeling with a body of Christian 
 ministers, who, having declared that they will conform to the Liturgy of 
 tlie Church of England, and having been admitted to partake of its en- 
 dowments, offer up the prayers of that Church with their lips, whilst 
 they disbelieve the doctrines involved in them, and return thanks to 
 Almighty God that the children they baptize are Eegeneeated, Avhen 
 they at the same time deny that any such influence of the Holy Spibit 
 has been exercised in their behalf!" — Charge, 184:3, p. 9. 
 
 17. 
 
 The Bishop oe Salisbtjet, 
 The Right Rev. Edward Denison, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 " It is not my purpose [in this place] to treat either of the Sacrament 
 of Baptism, wherein the stam of inherited corruption is washed out, and 
 the principle of a new life imparted in tlie soul ; or of the Supper of the 
 Lord, wherein that same Hfe is, by the spiritual reception of the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, renewed, and strengthened, and sustained. These 
 have their proper work in the Begeneratiou and edification of the be- 
 liever." — University Sermons, pp. 13, 14. 
 
 18. 
 The Bishop of St. Asaph's, 
 
 The Right Rev. Thomas V. Short, D.D , Oxford. 
 
 " Few will venture to deny that grace is granted to the baptized 
 infant upon his outward admission into the Church of Christ. The 
 Church of England teaches that such grace is given, and declares the 
 child, ivhen baptized, to be Regenerate, applying this term to tlie grace so 
 given. She teaches, too, that after we liave received the Holt Ghost, 
 we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin. So tliat in this \dew 
 of the question, it is no proof that the man is not regenerate because he 
 is not walking under grace ; he may have fallen from grace ; he may 
 indeed never have been under grace, in the sense which some persons 
 apply to the term ' regenerate,^ but such persons must remember that 
 such a use of the word arises from thetnselves, and not from the Church." 
 — What is Christianity ? 3rd edition, p. 48. 
 
Judgments of English Bishops. 95 
 
 19. 
 
 The Bishop or St. David's, 
 
 The Right Rev. Connop Thirlwall, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 " It is not, I believe, disputed by any one that what is called the high 
 doctrine of apostolical succession, (including, i. e., not only the historical 
 fact that the ministry of our Church is derived by uninterrupted descent 
 from the Apostles, but likewise that it was established by them as a 
 permanent and unalterable institution, to be continued according to 
 certain invariable regulations,) — I say it is hardly disputed that this 
 doctrine has been held by so large a part of our best divines, and has 
 received so much apparent countenance from the anxiety shown to pre- 
 serve the succession when it was in danger of interruptions, that it would 
 be unreasonable to complain of it as a novelty, or even to represent it as 
 being now exclusively held by a particular school. 
 
 " Again, whatever ground there may be for the charge brought against 
 one party in the controversy, that it has exaggerated the importance and 
 efficacy of the Sacratnents, it does not appear to involve any question of 
 principle. Indeed, since the Church herself teaches that the Sacraments 
 are generally necessary to salvation, it seems difficult for any one to 
 exaggerate their importance, imless he were to hold, what I believe no 
 one maintains, that the necessity is not merely general, but universal 
 and absolute." — Charge, 1842, p. 55. 
 
 20. 
 The Bishop oe Winchestee, 
 
 The Right Rev. Charles Sumner, D.D., Cambridge. 
 
 " The appointment of an outward visible sign in Baptism might be 
 quoted, as designed to be emblematical of the inward spiritual grace. 
 Thus the insignificance of the external ceremony becomes sanctified by 
 the spiritual application, and through the medium of visible things, things 
 invisible, and hard to be understood, are rendered more obvious to 
 human capacities." — Ministerial Character q/" Cueist, p. 231. 
 
 " Our Church refers for her doctrines to Holy Writ, and expounds 
 the sense in which she understands it in her Liturgrj and Articles^ — 
 Ibid. p. 429.* 
 
 21. 
 
 The Bishop oe "Woecestee, 
 
 The Right Rev. Henry Pepys, D.D., Oxford. 
 
 " These Articles (9th and 27th) and the Church Catechism set forth, 
 in a very strong light. Baptismal Regeneration as a doctrine of the 
 Church. And this view is amply supported by the Offices for Baptism 
 and Confirmation. ... In the face of this concurrent testimony, it is 
 impossible to deny that the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration is a 
 doctrine of the Church." 
 
 * [These passages seem undecisive ; and, if so, I can only say that this Prelate is the 
 only one whose testimony is doubtful.] 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. 
 
 " The Episcopal Synod, at their Meeting at Aberdeen, agreed on tlie 
 following 'Declaration' as to the interpretation which our Scottish 
 Church puts on those Articles and Formularies which she has received 
 aud adopted from the Church of England. Satisfactory enough in itself, 
 as a definite statement, in very fitting terms, of the Catholic doctrine on 
 the subject of Holy Baptism, we cannot concur with the majority of their 
 Lordships in believing that ' the present declaration ' is all that is ne- 
 cessary to vindicate the purity of the Faith ; and we regret that tliey 
 sliould have thus prematurely expressed their synodical opinion that 
 there is ' no need of adding, by any canonical enactment of theibs, to 
 the definitions of that doctrine as tliei'ein set forth.' This, we humbly 
 venture to believe, is an opinion which could be justified only by a much 
 more lengthened experience than the Church has yet had of the efiects 
 which may arise from this judgment of tlie Privy Council ; and we much 
 question whether the Church will consent to permit its interpretation of 
 one of the prime doctrines of Nicene Faith, which has, by this judgment, 
 been declared at least ambiguous, to rest on the mere ' declaration ' of 
 the Bisliops, unanimous thougli it has been, which, however valuable it may 
 be as a record of tlieir individual orthodoxy, has no legal weight, nor any 
 authority beyond its moral influence. We are at a loss, too, to under- 
 stand how, according to the constitution of this Church, any ' canonical 
 enactment ' on tlie subject could have been made by their Loi'dships. 
 Unless we greatly misunderstand the constitution of tlie Scottish Clmrcli, 
 ' canonical enactments ' can be passed only by gcueral synods. AVe 
 ])resume the expression has been an oversight ; but, at a time wlien some 
 Prelates seem disposed to claim despotic and absolute powers, the over- 
 sight is an unfortunate one. 
 
 " Decla-Hation by the Bishops of tlie Church in Scotland, occasioned 
 by the recent decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
 Council, given at their Synod on the 17th of April, 1S50, Aberdeen. 
 
 " To the Very lievereud the Deans, and the Keverend the Presbyters of 
 the Scottish Episcopal Church ; the liishops in Synod assembled 
 send greeting ; Grace be with you, brethren, and Peace from God 
 the Fatiieu, aud from our Loun Jesus Chuist. 
 
Judgment of the Scottish Bishops. 97 
 
 " Whereas certain memorials and addresses have been presented to us 
 from various Diocesan Synods, expressing much uneasmess respecting the 
 recent decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the 
 appeal of the Eev. Gr. C. Gorham, v. the Eight Rev. the Lord Bishop of 
 Exeter, and requesting our paternal advice for the allaying of doubts, 
 hence arising, as to the true meaning of our authoritative formularies ; 
 — "We, the Bishops of the Church, deeply sympathising with our Reverend 
 bi'ethren the Presbyters, in their anxiety to maintain unimpaired the 
 purity of ' the faith which was once delivered to the Saints,' declare that 
 we do not consider the sentence, in the case referred to, as having any 
 authority to bind us, or to modify in any way the doctrines which we 
 and tlie Episcopal Church in Scotland hold, and have always taught, re- 
 specting the nature of Baptismal grace. We have always held, as we 
 were taught by those who preceded us in the Episcopate, that the doc- 
 trine of the Church in Scotland is to be collected from the Scripture, 
 the Creeds, the Articles, and other Formularies jointly, and not from 
 the Articles or Formularies separately ; and that, on the subject of Bap- 
 tismal grace, there is no discrepancy between the teaching of the Church 
 in her Twenty-seventh Article, in the Baptismal Ofiices, and in the 
 Catechism. We declare, then, that we teach, and always have taught ; 
 and we entreat, and, to the extent of our Episcopal authority, do enjoin 
 you, brethren, severally to teach, — 
 
 " 1. In the words of our Blessed Sayiour, that ' Except a man be born 
 of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;' or, 
 as expressed in our office for Holy Baptism, ' No one can enter into the 
 kingdom of God except he be regenerated and born anew of water, and 
 of the Holy Ghost.' 
 
 " 2. In the words of the Nicene Creed, with every branch of the lioly 
 Church throughout all the world, which continues in ' tlie one faith,' lives 
 in ' the one hope,' and acknowledges the ' one baptism,' we acknowledge 
 one baptism for the remission of sins. 
 
 " 3. In the words of the Twenty-seventh Article, that ' Baptism is a 
 sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they 
 -that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church ; the promises 
 of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the 
 Holt Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ;' or, in the words of ' The 
 Office for Public Baptism of Infants,' that every child baptized according 
 to that office, is then and there ' regenerated and grafted into the body 
 of Christ's Church.' 
 
 " 4. With the ' Catechism, or instruction to be learned of every per- 
 son before he be brought to be confirmed by the Bishop,' and which 
 teaches him to say, ' In my Baptism I was made a member of Christ, 
 a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.' 
 
 " 5. That the doctrine of Baptismal Grace is so clearly expressed in 
 the Offices and Formularies of the Church, as they now exist, and as 
 they were adopted by the Episcopal Church in Scotland, that we see no 
 need of more than the present declaration, or of adding, by any canonical 
 enactment of ours, to the definition of that doctrine aa therein set forth. 
 
 " All the preceding statements, reverend brethren, we teach, and by 
 the authority committed to us, we enjoin you to teach to the flocks 
 under your charge, in their plain and natural and grammatical sense, 
 without the intervention of any hypothesis, charitable or otherwise. 
 
 " And now, brethren, beseeching you to join with us in prayer that the 
 Church over which the Holt Ghost hath made us overseers, may be 
 
98 Judgment of the Scottish Bishops. 
 
 kept in the unity of the Spirit, and in the bond of peace — we commend 
 you to God, and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up, 
 and to give you an inheritance among all which are sanctified. 
 
 « W. J. Teoweu, D.D., 
 " Bishop of Glasgow, Clerk to the Episcopal Synod." 
 
 " This paper was adopted unakimouslt, with the exception of Reso- 
 lution 5, in lieu of which the two undersigned Bishops adhere to the 
 following resolution : — 
 
 " That the doctrine of holy Baptism is so clearly expressed in our 
 Formularies, that although the fact of the late decision has given occa- 
 sion for the present declaration, we do not mean hereby to assert that 
 the language in those documents is not precise and sufficient. 
 
 " A. P. FoEBES, Bishop of Brechin, 
 " W. J. Tkowek, Bishop of Glasgow." 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The Judgment of the State Court has thus been reviewed by a Journal 
 of the Ikish Church. 
 
 " "We must protest against the doctrine that differences of interpreta- 
 tion of the Articles ' may liave been designedly intended even by the 
 framers of the Articles themselves.' We really could scarcely believe 
 our eyes in reading these words [in the State- Judgment], having read, 
 only two or three sentences before, a reference to the title of the articles, 
 stating their object most truly, viz., the avoiding of diversities 0/ opinion, 
 and establishing consent touching true religion. How agreement in opinion 
 was to be insured, if the document which was to be the bond of agreement 
 was designedly intended to admit of difterent interpretation, passes our 
 humble capacity to comprehend. And if we were not restrained by 
 respect for the learned propounders of this doctrine, we should say that 
 the words were simply without meaning. So far as the Articles were 
 designed to conciliate conflicting parties, that result was aimed at by 
 stating truth common to both sides. The framers may have failed to 
 express themselves in all cases so clearly as to preclude differences of 
 interpretation ; but we indignantly disclaim, on the part of the Church, 
 the intention of requiring subscription from the Clergy to words without 
 definite meaning. It is true Lord Langdale supposes this ' latitude of 
 interpretation ' to be ' confined within such limits as might be allowed 
 without danger to any doctrine necessary to salvation.' This, however, 
 is to talk with a looseness wholly unsuited to the gravity of the occasion. 
 All articles of faith (as he designates the Thirty-nine Articles) are 
 necessary to salvation ; and, therefore, on his Lordship's principle, none 
 are open to this ' latitude of interpretation.' But if he should say (as 
 of course he would) that all the Thirty-nine Articles, though articles of 
 faith, are not necessary to salvation, then he ought to have informed us 
 by what rule we are to go in determining which of them are. Or is a 
 latitude of determination on this point also left to us ? That is, is every 
 clergyman free to determine at his pleasure that this or that doctrine is 
 not necessary to salvation, and then to apply his ' latitude of interpre- 
 
 G 2 
 
100 Appendix. 
 
 tation ' to the Article which enunciates it ? What is this but to throw 
 open the whole of the Thirty-nine Articles to this latitude ? And is 
 this unbridled ' liberty of prophesying ' what we are to suppose is meant 
 by ' consent touching true religion ?' 
 
 "But not only in the passage on which we have been commenting, 
 but through the whole document, there is a looseness and vagueness of 
 expression, under cover of which the most palpable fallacies are in- 
 sinuated, and which at the same time serves effectually to hide from the 
 writer himself the glaring inconsecutivenesa of his own reasoning. 
 
 " 1. Por instance, he says : — 
 
 " ' In considering the Book of Common Prayer, it must be observed 
 that there are parts of it which are strictly dogmatical, declaring what 
 is to be believed or not doubted ; parts whicli are instructional, and parts 
 which consist of the devotional exercises aud services :' — as if 'instruc- 
 tional ' was contrasted with ' dogmatical ;' and as if insti'uction in 
 doctrine does not ' declare what is to be believed or not doubted,' i.e. 
 is not necessarily dogmatical. But he proceeds : — 
 
 " ' Those parts which are in their nature dogmatical must be con- 
 sidered declaratory of doctrine ; but as to those parts which are devo- 
 tional, consisting of prayers framed for the purpose of being 'more 
 earnest ' (prayers framed for the purpose of being earnest we profess not 
 to understand) ' and fit to stir Christian people to the due honouring of 
 Almighty God,' some further consideration is necessary.' 
 
 " Here he fairly gives the go-by to the instructional section. He had 
 insinuated that it was not dogmatical : it would be preposterous to call 
 it devotional — it was a very awkward customer to deal with— and ac- 
 cordingly we hear no more of it, until, after a good deal of ' further 
 consideration ' of the devotional division, we come, all of a sudden, on 
 a short paragraph on the Catechism, referring to two answers, and part 
 of a third, and containing the startling and (considering that the Creed, 
 the Ten Commandments, the Loed's Prayer, and the definitions of the 
 Sacraments form part of it) the unintelligible assertion, that ' the ivhole 
 Catechism requires a charitable construction.^ AYe would ask the most 
 prejudiced of the supporters of Mr. Gorham, whether he honestly thinks 
 the argument from the Catechism has been fairly and manfully met in 
 this judgment. 
 
 " 2. Li the following paragraph he opens his ' further consideration ' 
 thus : — 
 
 " * It seems to be properly said (by whom r) that the received formu- 
 laries cannot be held to be evidence of faith or of doctrine, without refer- 
 ence to the distinct declarations of doctrine in the Articles, and to the 
 faith, hope, aud charity by which tliey profess to be inspired or accom- 
 panied ; and there are portions of the Liturgy which it is plain cannot 
 be construed truly witliout regard to these considerations.' 
 
 " We have applied our best powers to the latter part of this passage, 
 and have totally failed to attach any definite meaning to it. We say, 
 unfeignedly, tliat we know not what on earth is tlie meaning of ' for- 
 mularies ' being ' inspired, or accompanied by faith, liope, and charity ;' 
 and we arc quite at a loss to discover where our foruuilaries ' profess ' 
 such inspiration or companionship. All that we see in the passage is, 
 that the writer is laying tlie gi'oundwork for wholly evacuating the 
 force of the fonnulai-ies as declaratory of the Church's doctrine. In a 
 previous place he had said : — 
 
 " ' If tlicrc bo any doctrine on wliich the Articles are silent or am- 
 
Appendix. 101 
 
 biguously expressed, so as to be capable of two meanings, we must sup- 
 pose that it was intended to leave that doctrine to private judgment, 
 unless the rubrics and formularies clearly and distinctly decide it. If 
 they do, we must conclude that the doctrine so decided is the doctrine 
 of the Church.' 
 
 " Subject to our protest against ambiguity ever being intentional, this 
 seems perfectly true and fair ; and, on first reading it, we confess we 
 anticipated a very different decision of the question before the Com- 
 mittee ; for, if anything does seem ' clearly and distinctly decided ' by 
 the formularies, it is the regeneration of aU infants by baptism. This 
 retreat upon the formularies, from the ambiguity of the Articles, is, 
 however, cut off by the passage now before us ; for according to it, it is 
 impossible ever to be certain that the formularies 'clearly and dis- 
 tinctly decide ' anything. Combining the two passages together, the 
 process indicated seems to be this. We find in the formularies what 
 seem a ' clear and distinct decision ' on a matter of doctrine. This, 
 however, ' cannot be held to be evidence ' of the Church's belief, 
 ' without reference ' to the Articles, to see whether they contain any 
 ' distinct declaration ' ou the subject. Well, we do refer to the 
 Articles : they contain no such declaration — they are * silent or am- 
 biguous.' We accordingly fall back on our ' clear and distinct 
 decision,' and are about to repose in the comfortable assurance that we 
 have at last discovered the Church's doctrine, when lo ! three new 
 authorities are introduced to us. We are desii'ed to refer ' to faith, 
 hope, and charity.' We do refer to them, and, in some inexplicable 
 manner, we find that our ' clear and distinct decision ' has vanished 
 into thin air — plain words have lost their meaning — positive assertions 
 are converted into ambiguities — and the straightforward honesty of the 
 English nation is startled by the judicial declaration that their Church 
 considers it lawful for her clergy, on the most solemn occasions that can 
 be imagined — in the instruction of children in their religion — in the 
 administration of the sacraments of Christ — and in direct addresses to 
 Almiglity God — to affirm distinctly and categorically what they do not 
 believe to be true. 
 
 " ' 3. In this service (that of Burial) there are absolute expressions, 
 implying positive assertions ; yet it is admitted (by whom ?) that they 
 cannot be literally true in all cases, but must be construed in a qualified 
 or charitable sense.' 
 
 '• Now the writer of this sentence should have remembered, tliat what 
 he had in hand was to interpret the meaning of a written instrument, 
 and not to discuss the suitableness of its use in particular instances ; 
 and he should also have remembered, that if discipline were duly exer- 
 cised, this ofiice would not be used in the case of persons who ' die in 
 the actual commission of flagrant crimes.' But waiving this, we would 
 simply ask to have these rambling expressions put into plain and intel- 
 ligible English. What is the meaning of ' absolute expressions implying 
 positive assertions ?' What are the ' absolute expressions ?' And what 
 are the ' positive assertions ?' Let them be distinguished from one 
 another, and each cleai-ly stated. For our part, in the extracts given 
 from the Burial Service, we see notliing that is not ' literally true.' We 
 say that God has 'taken to Himself the soul of our departed brother; 
 and so He has : for the Scripture saith that at death ' the spirit returns 
 to God, Who gave it.' We say that God has ' delivered our brother 
 out of the miseries of this sinful world ;' and so He has : for when he 
 
102 Appendix. 
 
 left the world, he left its miseries. We say that ' our hope is that our 
 brother rests in God ;' and so it is : and truly sorry should we be tliat 
 our hope should be anything else. (The other passage about ■' sure and 
 certain hope ' we shall come to presently.) We do not know which of 
 these are the ' absolute expressions,' or the ' positive assertions ' alluded 
 to by the writer ; but, on grounds of common sense and common 
 honesty, we must protest against the monstrous inference to which he 
 works his way under cover of this mist of words, that because we say we 
 hope a departed brother rests in God, when we do hope it, therefore, we 
 may positively assert that an iufaut is regenerate, when we have not an 
 idea whether he is regenerate or not. 
 
 " 4. Similar looseness of language, covei'ing, but ill concealing gross 
 fallacies, is used in reference to the private Baptism of infants ; e. g., it 
 is called ' an exceptional case.' Exceptional to what ? The Cliureh has 
 provided three ' Orders of Baptism" for three distinct classes ; infants 
 in danger of dying soon after birth, infants not in that danger, and 
 adults. One class being less numerous than another, does not render its 
 baptism an exception to the baptism of the others. Adult baptism is the 
 most infrequent of the three : why does he not call that an ' exceptional 
 case ?' The truth is, the expression is iiTclevant and meaningless, 
 except as covering a palpable |^e#«72o principii. The whole question at 
 issue is, whether the Church teaches that baptism is ' effectual, because 
 of Christ's institution and promise,' (Art. XXXI.,) or whether she 
 considers its effect tied to certain conditions of human institution. One 
 party appeals to the Office for Private Baptism as irresistibly demon- 
 strating that the former is the Church's view ; for she there distinctly, 
 strongly, stringently, repeatedly declares, that the infant is ' by baptism 
 regenerate ' without any conditions at all. Lord Langdale refuses to 
 receive this office in evidence of the Church's doctrine, as being ' excep- 
 tional.' AVhy is it exceptional ? Because it does not enjoin the con- 
 ditions of human invention, by which the other party limits the effect of 
 Cueist's institution. What is this, but to assume the whole question 
 in debate ? 
 
 " Tlie same fallacy lurks under the expressions ' imperfect and incom- 
 plete ceremony,' applied to the Office for Private Baptism; 'complete 
 service ' applied to that of ' Public Baptism ;' 'full service' applied to the 
 public reception of infants privately baptized. The private office is not 
 ' imperfect and incomplete,' but ' full,' ' perfect,' and ' complete ' for its 
 purpose, to wit, the administi'ation of the Sacrament of Baptism. It 
 does ]iot require any promises from sponsors, as the public service does ; 
 but to call it 'imperfect and incomplete ' on that account, has no foi'ce or 
 meaning in the alignment, except as involving an assumption of tlie 
 question in debate, that the effect of baptism is dependent on these 
 promises being made. 
 
 " We must quote the passage witli which his Lordship closes his re- 
 view of the baptismal offices : 
 
 " ' These re([uirements of the Church ' (viz., the declarations made by 
 adults, and the promises made for infants,) in her comjjlete and public 
 service, ought, upon a just construction of all the services, to be con- 
 sidered as tlic rule of the Church, and taken as proof that the same 
 promise, thougli not expressed, is implied in the exceptional case, when 
 the rite is administered in the expectation of immediate death, and the 
 exigency of the case does not admit of sureties. Any other conclusion 
 would be an argument to prove that none but the imperfect and incom- 
 
Appendix. 103 
 
 plete ceremony allowed iii the exceptional case would be necessary in 
 any case.' 
 
 " It is really bard to deal witb a passage in wbicb almost every word 
 involves a fallacy. 
 
 Upon a just construction of «// tbe services !' Will any man in bis 
 senses say that that is a ^just construction ' of tbe service for private 
 baptism, which could sustain tbe inference which his Lordship draws, 
 except on the supposition that these ' requirements ' are essential to tbe 
 efficacy of baptism, which is the question in debate ? 
 
 These requirements of the Church, in her complete and public ser- 
 vice, ought to be considered as the rule of tbe Church.' Of coiu-se they 
 are the ' rule of the Church ' in the service which contains them. But 
 what is meant is, that they are the 'rule of tbe Church ' in such a sense 
 as would constitute the service wbicb does not contain them ' exceptionaV 
 — wbicb involves the old fallacy. 
 
 " But ' these requirements ' in public baptism ought further ' to be 
 taken as proof that tbe same promise (be means promises, for there are 
 three) though not expressed, is impUed ' in private baptism. Still the 
 old fallacy. In tbe name of common sense, bow is the Church's re- 
 quiring promises on some occasions, a proof that the same promises are 
 implied on other occasions when she does not require them, except on 
 the supposition that tbe efficacy of baptism is dependent on those pro- 
 mises, which is tbe point at issue ? The ' full service ' (as bis Lordship 
 calls it) provided for the public reception of infants privately baptized, 
 we think ' ought to be taken as proof ' that these promises are not im- 
 plied : for if implied, why are they afterwards exacted ? 
 
 " But his Lordship reminds us, with what looks like fatuity, that 
 private baptism is ' administered in the expectation of immediate death.' 
 Now we entreat our readers to remember, that one of the promises said 
 to be 'implied,' is that tbe infant will ' obediently keep Gon's holy will 
 and commandments, and walk in tbe same all tlie days of its life.' So 
 that tbe argument stands thus : — Tbe Church requires, on the part of 
 an infant, a promise that it will lead a holy life, in a service to be used 
 when there is prospect of its living ; and this is a ^ proof '' that a promise 
 to lead a holy life is ' iniplied ' in a service specially intended to be used 
 when there is an expectation of its immediately dying ! ! Verily, we 
 accept the alternative offered to us in the concluding sentence of the 
 above paragraph, and are thankful to bis Lordship for reducing the con- 
 troversy to so short an issue. We are simple enough to think the con- 
 clusion to which be has come excessively absurd ; aud we do believe that 
 ' none but ' what be calls ' the imperfect and incomplete ceremony ' is 
 ' necessary in any case ' for the administration of the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism, and conveying to tbe recipient all tbe benefits that are to be re- 
 ceived thereby. 
 
 " His Lordship rests some of bis arguments on a complete misunder- 
 standing of tbe passages wbicb be adduces. 
 
 " 1. ' Sure and certain hope of tbe resurrection to eternal Hfe,' in the 
 Burial Service. He says this ' hope ' is the same as that subsequently 
 expressed, ' that our brother rests in GrOD.' It is no such thing. We 
 do not say, ' hope of his resurrection,' but ' hope of the resurrection,' i.e., 
 the general resurrection. We will endeavour to make this plain by a 
 reference to certain ' external aud historical facts,' which ought not to 
 be overlooked by an expositor of the passage in its existing shape. 
 Before the last revision the words were, ' sure and certain hope of resur- 
 
104; Appendix. 
 
 rection.' The nonconforming party objected to these words, conceiving 
 tliat ' resurrection ' meant his resurrection, and involved too strongly an 
 assurance of his safety. The Episcopal Commissioners made this con- 
 cession, ' that the words " sure and certain " may be left out.'* This 
 alteration was not adhered to ; but instead of it, the word ' the ' was 
 inserted before ' resurrection.' The original concession shows the temper 
 of mind hi which the latter alteration was made ; and it is plain that the 
 intention was to obviate the Nonconformist objection, not by merely 
 softening the strength of the expression, but by giving a new turn to 
 the sentence. That this was the animus and effect of the change is 
 plain, from the form to be used in burials at sea, introduced for the first 
 time into the Prayer-Book by the very persons who made the change. — 
 ' We therefore commit his body to the deep, to be turned into corrup- 
 tion, looking for the resurrection of the body (when the sea shall give u]) 
 her dead,) and the life of the world to come.' It is not to be supj^osed 
 that the authors of the two forms, as we now have them, did not tliink 
 and intend them to correspond ; or that they had less hope of a man's 
 salvation from the accident of his dying on board a ship. 
 
 " 2. ' When the question is asked, " Why then are infants baptized, 
 when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ?" the 
 answer is — not that infants are baptized because by their innocence they 
 cannot be unworthy recipients, or cannot present an obex or hindrance 
 to the grace of regeneration, and are therefore fit subjects for Divine 
 grace; — but " because they promise them both by their sureties," &c. 
 The answer has direct reference to the condition on which the benefit is 
 to depend.' 
 
 " His Lordship has totally misunderstood both question and answer, 
 which are both of them wholly irrelevant to the point in hand. If, in- 
 deed, the question were, ' Why are infants said to be regenerate by bap- 
 tism ?' then we might expect an answer somewhat to the purpose. And 
 we luiow what answer the revisers of our formularies {from lohose hands 
 we have them as theij now are) would give to this question, because we 
 know the answer they, in effect, did give to it, which is an ' external and 
 historical fact ' not unworthy of Lord Langdale's consideration. ' Seeing 
 that God's Sacraments have their efi'ects, where the receiver doth not 
 ponere obicem, put any bar against them (which children cannot do) ; we 
 may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by 
 Gon's IIoLT SpiiiiT ; and the denial of it tends to anabaptism, and the 
 contempt of this holy sacrament.' (CardwelTs History of Conferences, 
 \). 35G.) To this question, the answer in the Catechism woidd be pal- 
 pably untrue ; for in private baptism children are pronounced to be 
 regenerate in more unequivocal terms than in public baptism, and yet 
 they promise nothiug by sureties, and have no sureties. The question 
 and" answer have reference, not to the regeneration of infants, ]ior ' to the 
 condition on which that benefit is to depend,' for there is no condition ; 
 but to the ' wholesome effect ' of that regeneration in after-life. The 
 sacraments are not bare signs, but ' effectual signs ;' eftectual in all cases, 
 whetlier for good or evil. — (Art. XXV.) The (piestion in tlie Catechism 
 preceding that t[uoted by Lord Langdale is, ' What is required of per- 
 sons to be baptized ?' — that is, required, not to render the sacrament ell'ec- 
 tual, for that it is by Curtst's institution, but to render it effectual of a 
 blessing, and not of a curse. To this the answer is, ' llcpentancc and 
 
 * " Cardwell's History of Conferences," p. 363. 
 
Appendix. 105 
 
 faith ; without which baptism would be to them (not an empty form, 
 but) an instrument of ' damnation.' (Art. XXV.) The difficulty then 
 naturally suggests itsell", ' Why then are infants baptized,' &c. ? How 
 is it that they do not ' receive the grace of God in vain ?' since they can 
 have neither repentance nor faith. The answer is, ' Because they pro- 
 mise them both by their sureties,' &c. ; that is, the Church provides the 
 best security that could be devised against that result, by ensuring that 
 every chikl that ' comes to age,' and so is capable of repentance and 
 faith, shall find himself tied and bound by promise to exercise and cherish 
 those Christian graces, without which the heavenly seed planted in him 
 at baptism would wither and die, and his very regeneration become a 
 curse, and not a blessing." — Froin the Irish Ecclesiastical Journal, April, 
 1850. 
 
106 Appendix. 
 
 B. 
 
 Decision as to a Bishop's right to examine Cleryy. 
 
 Sm H. J. Fust delivered judgment on tliis preliminary point. 
 
 It appeared from all the information which he had been able to 
 obtain, that a similar case to the present had not been brought before 
 the Court during the last 130 years. The question now to be de- 
 cided had arisen incidentally (in the case of Gorham v. the Bishop 
 of Exeter). The merits of the case had not been entered into, 
 and he had now to determine whether the objection taken was or 
 was not maintainable. In former times such proceedings were well 
 known to the practitioners of those days, and were alluded to by the 
 writers on ecclesiastical law. Eeference was made to them in Clarke's 
 " Pi'actice " and in Oughton's " Judiciorum." Although the practice 
 therefore, might have fallen into some degree of desuetude, stiU the 
 remedy was open to a Clergyman who considered himself aggrieved by 
 the rejection of his petition to be instituted into a living. The learned 
 Judge then stated the principal averments contained in the pleas given 
 in by the respective parties, and said that the reason assigned by the 
 Bishop for not instituting Mr. Grorham was, that that gentleman held 
 luisound doctrine on the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism. The 
 point now for consideration was, whether or not the Bishop had a right to 
 call upon Mr. Gorham to undergo an examination after an expiration of 
 twenty-eight days from the presentation of the petition. It had been 
 contended that that was the time allowed by the 95th canon of 1603, 
 and could not be exceeded. The canon was to the following effect : — 
 
 " Albeit by former constitutions of the Church of England every 
 Bishop had two months' space to inquire and inform himself of the 
 sufficiency and qualities of every Minister after he had been presented 
 unto him to be instituted into any benefice, yet for the avoiding of some 
 inconveniences, we do now abridge and reduce the said two months unto 
 twenty-eight days only." 
 
 It had been argued that everything whicli passed between the Bishop 
 and Mr. Gorham during his examination, and which was submitted to, 
 as Mr. Gorham stated, under a protest, vei'bal in tlie first instance, but 
 afterwards reduced into writing, must be considered as a mere nullity, and 
 consequently the Court was not entitled to assume from anything that 
 passed in tlie course of the examination that he did maintain uiisound 
 doctrine on tlie points referred to by the Bishop. The title of the canon 
 was, "The Eestraint of Double Quarrels," and the part read by the 
 Court certainly seemed to have no connexion with the title ; but the 
 canon went on to state : — 
 
 " In respect of which abridgment we do ordain and appoint that no 
 double quarrel shall hereafter be granterl out of any of the Archbishop's 
 Courts, at the suit of any minister whatsoever, except he shall first take 
 his personal oath that the said twenty-eight days at the least are 
 expired, after he first tendered his presentation to the Bishop, and that 
 he refused to grant him institution thereupon, or shall enter bonds with 
 sudicicnt sureties to prove the same to be true, under pain of the sus- 
 pension of the grantor tlicreof from the execution of liis office for half-a- 
 ycar toiies ipwties to be denounced by the said Archbishop, and nullity 
 
Appendix. 107 
 
 of the double qiiarrcl aforesaid, so unduly procured, to all iutents and 
 purposes wliatsoever." 
 
 The purport of the cauou was to restrain a party from suing out a 
 duplex querela till he should have made oath that at least twenty-eight 
 days had expired, and there had been an actual refusal on the part of the 
 Bishop to proceed to the institution. The latter part of the canon was 
 very important, and presented no limitation whatever to the Bishop 
 examining the person presented. The canon thus concluded : — 
 
 " Always provided that within the said twenty-eight days the Bishop 
 shall not institute any other to the prejudice of the said party before 
 presented, snbpcena nuUitatisy 
 
 The canon was relied upon most stringently as absolutely compelling 
 the Bishop to commence, and conclude the examination within a period 
 of twenty-eight days. When the case was argued, the prayers of the 
 proctors were not before the Court, but they had since been given in. 
 Mr. Gorham prayed that the Court would pronounce that the Bishop 
 had no right to continue the examination after the twenty-eight days 
 had expired, and tliat it would now proceed to institute him ; whereas 
 the Bishop prayed that the Court would pronounce that he had proved 
 his case. If the construction put upon the canon by the counsel for 
 Mr. Grorham were the correct one, it woidd lead to very important and 
 very serious consequences, for it would go to this extent tliat whatever 
 might be disclosed to the Bishop, after the twenty-eiglit days had 
 elapsed, as to the conduct of the clerk — whether he were an Atheist, or 
 had been guilty of the grossest irregularities — the Bishop could not in- 
 quire into the truth of those circumstances, but must proceed to insti- 
 tute liim, although the very next day he might be obliged, in the con- 
 scientious discharge of his duty, to take steps to deprive him of the 
 benefice. In order to arrive at a just conclusion of the construction of 
 the canon, it was necessary to consider the circumstances under which 
 it was issued. What was required when a person was presented for the 
 pui'poses of institution ; The presentation was tendered, accompanied, 
 generally speaking, by testimonials of good conduct from persons who 
 had been acquainted with the clerk for many years. If the Bishop were 
 satisfied with the testimonials, lie took the preliminary steps to the insti- 
 tution — namely, to receive the subscription of the Articles, a declaration 
 of conformity to the Liturgy, and an assent and consent to everything 
 contained in the Book of Common Pi'ayer. But it was a duty absolutely 
 incumbent on the Bishop to satisfy himself that the clerk was fit and 
 properly qualified to be a minister of the benefice to which he sought to 
 be instituted. The examination was not a mere right or privilege en- 
 joyed by the Bishop, but was a duty binding upon him. In the case of 
 Mr. Gorham the Bishop was satisfied with the testimonials he received, 
 when that gentleman was presented to the vicarage of St. Just, as to 
 his knowledge, his learning, his morals, and tiie soundness of his doc- 
 trine, and therefore instituted him. Possibly the same course would 
 have been pursued in the present instance if nothing had passed in the 
 intermediate time between the Bishop and Mr. Gorham. Whether the 
 Bishop had sufiicient grounds for an alteration of opinion respecting Mr. 
 Gorham was not the question which the Court had now to consider. It 
 had been said that it was very unusual for a beneficed clerk in a diocese 
 to be examined on his removal to another living in the same diocese. 
 It might be unusual, but if anything had arisen in the meantime to lead 
 the Bishop to doubt the soundness of his doctrine, surely there was 
 nothing to prevent him requiring the clerk to undergo an examination. 
 
108 Appendix. 
 
 It appeared that in the year 1846 a correspondence took place be- 
 tween the Bishop and Mr. Gorham, which had been published in a book 
 referred to in the course of the proceedings, from which the Bishop en- 
 tertained considerable doubts as to the soundness of Mr. Gorham's doc- 
 trine, and which led to the examination. It became necessary, then, to 
 consider what was the foundation of the rule — if such a rule existed — 
 which necessarily precluded the Bishop from examining a Clergyman 
 after the period of twenty-eight days from the presentation had elapsed. 
 The Bishop was invested with a public trust, and it was for the benefit 
 and advantage of the public that it should be executed ; imless, there- 
 fore, there were some stringent rules which led the Court to put that 
 construction on the words of the canon which had been contended for 
 by the counsel for Mr. Gorham, it would be extremely difficult to do it. 
 The argument had rested on the words of the canon itself. Tliere were, 
 however, no prohibitory words in it ; none which said the Bishop should 
 jiot examine after twenty-eight days. There was no analogy then 
 between the canon and the statutes of limitation referred to by Mr. 
 Gorham's counsel, for they expressly enacted that an action should not 
 be commenced after a certain number of years had elapsed. In a 
 number of cases, referring to proceedings in these Courts, time was so 
 limited and defined as to leave no doubt as to the intention of the legis- 
 lature in passing those acts. That was the case in the 27th Geo. 
 III., c. 44, referring to defamation, &c. Those statutes required to be 
 construed strictly, because they were an abridgment of former rights. 
 The Bishops for many centuries were the universal incumbents of every 
 benefice in their dioceses, and received the profits after defraying the 
 salaries of those who officiated. That was adverted to by Godolphin ; 
 the Bishop also applied to his own use the profits of a living which 
 became vacant during the time it so remained, and under the general 
 law there was nothing to compel to proceed to institute a clerk. In the 
 year 1222, Archbishop Langton issued a constitution which limited the 
 time during which tlie Bishop could appropriate to himself the profits 
 of a vacant living to two months ; that was to be found in the third 
 book of Lyndwood. That constitution of Archbishop Langton seemed 
 to lay the foundation for the present canon. If the Bishop delayed the 
 institution beyond two months he incurred the penalty of restoring tlie 
 profits to the clerk appointed to it. He was not allowed to profit by his 
 own wrongdoing. It appeared, however, from Lyndwood, that there 
 must have been an examination of the person appointed, for the Bisliop 
 was to satisfy himself that ho was idoneus. If it were found that the 
 presentee were unsound in doctrine, that would be a valid objection to 
 the Bishop instituting him. The canon law then allowed two months 
 to the Bishop for examination, but it did not limit it to that period : if 
 the party were idoneus the profits were restored to him. Tlie law, as 
 laid down by Degge, Godolphin, Aylifte, Watson, and all writers on 
 these subjects, showed that an examination was necessary. Tlie imjior- 
 tant point, however, was, whether under the canon of 1603 the Bishop 
 was restricted to twenty-eight days. Godolphin spoke of six montlis as 
 being the convenient time within which the institution was to take 
 place, the reason of which was obvious : it was to prevent the appoint- 
 ment to tlie living lapsing to the Bishop. 
 
 If, as contended by the counsel for INIr. Gorham, the Bishop were com- 
 pelled to complete tlie examination NA-ithin twenty-eight days, then, if he 
 were engnged in a visitation, or other important matters eonccrning the 
 affairs of his diocese, he must lay them all aside, and postpone them for 
 
Appendix. 109 
 
 the coBvenienee of the person so presented. That never could be con- 
 sidered reasonable, and could not be the intention of the canon, the 
 design of which was to have the examination so completed that injury 
 would not be inflicted either on the patron or the clerk. It had been 
 held that, if a Bishop neglected to give due notice for the presentation 
 of a second clerk, having rejected the first, he could not take advantage 
 of it. It was said in argument that there were motives which might 
 influence the Bishop to prevent the institution of the clerk. It was on 
 that account that the constitution of Archbishop Langton was framed. 
 That temptation was still further taken away by the 28th Henry VIII., 
 c. 11, from the preamble to which it appeared that the question at that 
 time remained somewhat doubtful. It seemed to him (the learned 
 judge) that a clerk could not insist upon being instituted before twenty- 
 eight days, but if it were not done in that time, then he could sue out 
 the duplex querela, and call upon the Bishop to assign the cause. Be- 
 yond that the canon did not go. It did not require, in the form of the 
 prayer now made, that the party should be instituted. Who was to in- 
 stitute him ? It was expressly laid down in the canon that no person 
 should be instituted without inquiry. What information had he (Sir 
 H. J. Fust) before him upon which he could ground any such proceed- 
 ing ? He had neither the presentation, the testimonials, nor the in- 
 quiry. It appeared that after Mr. Grorham was presented the Bishop 
 was summoned to appear in parliament, and that was alleged as the 
 ground for postponing the examination. Was the Bishop bound to 
 abandon that duty ? It was part of the duties belonging to him to 
 attend the House of Lords as a spiritual peer. The performance of this 
 duty might be attended with some inconvenience, but there was no real 
 loss either to the patron or the incumbent. The latter was still holding 
 the living of St. Just, and he was entitled to the intermediate profits 
 during the vacancy of the living of Brampford Speke if he should be in- 
 stituted hereafter. There was nothing, therefore, which would lead him 
 (the learned judge) to believe that this was done with any sinister 
 motive on the part of the Bishop. Pecuniary interest he coidd have 
 none, and in this case there could be no lapse of the living. It had been 
 said that Mr. Gorham was taken by surprise by the intimation of the 
 Bishop's intention to examine him. Whether that was so or not was 
 immaterial to inquire ; but it was impossible to say tliat he could be 
 taken by surprise when they looked at the correspondence between him 
 and the Bishop in 1846 on the appointment of a Curate to St. Just. 
 But Mr. Gorham submitted to an examination, although under protest, 
 and he must be considered as bound by it, whatever the result might be. 
 Looking to all the circumstances in this part of the case, the only part 
 of it to which his (the learned judge's) attention was now to be directed, 
 he was of opinion that no case had been made out by the argument in 
 reference to the twentj^-eight days. If Mr. Gorham had thought fit to 
 apply for the duplex querela at an earlier period he could have done so ; 
 the Bishop would then have made his return, and it would have been 
 the duty of the Court to consider its sufficiency. As to what had been 
 stated respecting the rights of the patron, Mr. Gorham had nothing to 
 do with that, nor had he (Sir H. J. Fust). That must be argued else- 
 where. The question to be tried in this Court was whether Mr. Gor- 
 ham had been properly or improperly refused institution. The Court 
 was bound to enter into that consideration. On the ground he had 
 stated he pronounced with perfect satisfaction to his own miud that he 
 must overrule the prayer of the proctor for Mr. Gorham. 
 
110 Appendix. 
 
 C. 
 
 Note on the Letter of the Rev. Mr. GooJe to the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 Mt reference to Mr. W. Goode is made -witli no intention of occupying 
 tlie reader unnecessai'ily with an exposure of his recent pamphlet, but 
 with the view of calling attention to the one point in which he is con- 
 cerned in the present controversy, viz., his vindication of the " quota- 
 tions " made from the seven different authors enumerated in the State 
 Court Judgment, and characterized in the note at the foot of p. 73. 
 Others * have, I believe, given Mr. Goode a sufficient answer on the chief 
 points of his letter, which I here shall but briefly allude to, so far as 
 may explain to the reader who may not have seen Mr. Goode's produc- 
 tion the manner in which I have thought it right to mention him. 
 
 i^st, Mr. Goode's language, as addressed to a Christian Bishop, is 
 utterly disgraceful. Of course it does not admit of any answer, nor, in- 
 deed, of any adequate description, except by a measure of quotation of 
 which it is not worthy. Thus he tells the Bishop of Exeter (p. 41) 
 that he is one of the "emptiest vessels," which always "make the 
 loudest noise ;" that his Lordship's solemn and eloquent address to tlie 
 Archbishop exceeds " the ravings of disappointed and infiu'iated char- 
 tists," (p. 20;) that in his knowledge of Scripture the Bishop is below 
 a national schoolboy, (p. 12) ; and, in fact, " falsehood," " calumny," 
 "wickedness," (p. 87,) "recklessness," &c., &c., are tlie usual terms ap- 
 plied throughout Mr. Goode's pamphlet to everything written by the 
 Bishop of Exeter ! AVhile, with unconscious inconsistency, he gives 
 praise to Mr. Mask ell (by which he can feel but little flattered), for his 
 avowal of his former " reserves," &c, and exclaims of him, as of a kin- 
 dred spirit, on seeing his present mood, " Cum talis sis, utinam noster 
 esses!" — though Mr. Maskell, in the same pamphlet which Mr. Goode 
 applauds, thus speaks of the Bishop of Exeter, whom Mr. Goode reviles : 
 
 " Of one there are no words in which, if loe are true-hearted and sin- 
 cere, 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 otliers have 
 feebly spoken of ; he alone has dared to keep the promise which he 
 made at his consecration, ' to drive away all erroneous and strange doc- 
 trine contrary to God's Word ;' he alone has liad sufficient trust in the 
 power and reality of the Clu'istian Faith to labour in its defence, unsup- 
 ported, amidst calumny, and opposition, and reproach. And no man 
 living knows, as I in some small measure know, the labours and imtiring 
 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 Cluu'ch, of 
 which he is the noblest ornament, from the stain and sin of heresy. 
 Oh! may God ever be with him; now, when, in his declining years, 
 disappointments in the past, and fears for time to come, are darkening 
 round us all ; now, when tlie weight and anger of the storm seems 
 gathering, before it bursts ; now, when the hopes of the Church of Eng- 
 land 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 
 
 * The Rev. T. K. Arnold ; the Rev. A. Watson ; the Rev. Dr. Pusey. 
 
Appendix. Ill 
 
 again I pray, may all the gifts and blessings of oiir Almighty Loed and 
 Satiour be upon him, evermore." Such is the testimony of the witness 
 called by Mr. Goode ia this cause. His own approved witness declares, 
 that such as Mr. Groode are, " cannot be thought sincere or earnest for 
 truth !" His own language and spirit are the best comment on this. 
 
 Of Mr. Groode's qualifications as a critic in theology I must give the 
 reader three or four specimens, and will then pass on. 
 
 1. At p. 12 of his letter he attempts to pour out all his indignation 
 on the Bishop for a "false quotation" of Sceipture. The text is 
 Titus iii. 5. Mr. Goode criticizes the Bishop thus : 
 
 " The text which you have produced in the passage I am consider- 
 ing has been, I grieve to be obliged to say, perverted by you, and 
 ' added to ' most awfuUy. Nay more, you have actually misquoted the 
 Bible to obtain from it evidence in yoiu" favour. * Holy Scripture,' you 
 say, ' calls Baptism ' the washing of regeneration and of the renewal by 
 the Holy Ghost.' My Lord, we should hardly expect such misrepre- 
 sentation and misquotation of Holy Scripture at an examination of a Na- 
 tional School ! ' Not by works of righteousness which we have done,' says 
 the Apostle, ' but according to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of 
 regeneration, and renewing of the Holt Ghost.' (cm Xovrpov 
 
 TToXi'^j'^/eveaia^, Kai avaicaivwaew^ Ylvevj.ia70^ 'A<ytov.^ (Tit. iii. 5.) Now 
 
 here, first, it is a mere matter of opinion whether the phrase ' washing 
 of regeneration ' refers to Baptism, and according to our version and 
 the received punctuation of the Greek, the 'renewing of the Holt 
 Ghost ' is spoken of as distinct from the ' washing of regeneration.' 
 But from this you manufacture the statement, ' Holy Scripture calls 
 Baptism ' the washing of regeneration and OF the renewal by the Holt 
 Ghost ! ! ' For the meaning of the phrase ' washing of regeneration ' 
 as applied to Baptism, and of the words used to St. Paul, I refer to the 
 remarks just made as to the nature of the Baptismal rite." 
 
 I suppose that Mr. Goode did not see that the ignorance and error 
 are aU his own. The Bishop had simply translated it from the Greek, 
 which Mr. Goode does not seem to perceive, though it is printed before 
 him. The word "renewal" is in the genitive case, '^ avuKaiuwaetvs,'" 
 exactly as the Bishop read it. The Latin versions, if Mr. Goode will 
 look to them, render the text just as the Bishop does. The Vulgate is 
 " renovationis," and Theodore Beza is the same, (even omitting the 
 " and," and making regeneration and renewal identical.) Both Eoman 
 and Protestant translators, as well as the original Greek, support the 
 Bishop. But who woidd not have fancied, from Mr. Goode's audacious 
 tone of mock triumph, that he had detected the Bishop in a mistransla- 
 tion ? — Such assurance as this, appears unlimited. 
 
 2. Very simdar is Mr. Goode's self-exposure when he attempts to 
 correct the Bishop's knowledge of the canons. The Bishop had quoted 
 a canon of the fourth council of Carthage as "generally received " and 
 adopted at Chalcedon. The Bishop's position that it is "generally re- 
 ceived " — (the matter of real consequence), is unquestionable ; how far it 
 was adopted at Chalcedon is another question. For the council of Chal- 
 cedon, first of all, confirms the canons of all preceding Synods up to that 
 time ; and afterwards refers to some of the primitive Synods (can. 5) 
 as if of distinct authority. I must beg the reader's attention to this for 
 a moment ; for froni Mr. Goode's mode of aUudiag to the subject, he 
 evidently wishes it to be thought not only that he is possessed of exact 
 and learned information respecting it, but that the Bishop has so erred, 
 
112 Appendix. 
 
 in a simple and well-known matter, tliat JNlr. Goodc is quite "ashamed 
 for our Church in having to expose such ignorance in one holding such 
 a position in it !" 
 
 The Bishop's statement is twofold, and we may examine hotli its parts, 
 viz., 1st, Tliat the canons of Carthage IV. were "primitive," and 
 "adopted at Chalcedon ;" 2nd, That they were "generally received," 
 and " had the authority of the whole Catholic Church." The council of 
 Chalcedon, a.d. 451, begins (as has been said) by a decree which con- 
 firms the canons of all previous Synods up to that time. This is com- 
 monly supposed to include the " Codex universalis ecclesiae," consisting, 
 as is commonly understood, of the five provincial councils and the three 
 general councils preceding ; though other Canons seem to be several 
 times referred to. Whether it did not include more has been dis- 
 puted ; but it is not necessary to go into that question. The " Apos- 
 tolical Canons," or code of the pritnitive Church, however, must be re- 
 garded as distinct from the code of the " Universal Chui'ch." Now it 
 is the primitive code which is " adopted " in the fifth canon of Chal- 
 cedon ; as Beveridge has shown, in his dissertation, from the fact that the 
 canons respecting " Bishops passing from one diocese to another " are 
 mentioned with distinctness wholly superfluous if the " Codex of the 
 Universal Church " were again referred to ; since that had been already 
 settled in the first canon. Now exactly the same position which the 
 Apostolical canons held in the east, the council of Carthage seems to 
 have held in Africa. It was, as Du Pin says, a separate Code, apart by 
 itself, and for that reason, he concludes, was not put into " the collec- 
 tions." And there is the same reason for believing the fifth canon of 
 Chalcedon to be referring to the twenty-seventh canon of Carthage, (in 
 the primitive Latin code,) as Beveridge has shown for the reference to 
 the "Apostolical Canons," or the primitive Greek Code. Mr. Goode, 
 however, evidently relying on his "common little English work for 
 young students," (to which he tauntingly ventures to refer the Bishop,) 
 has not turned to " Justellus " at all ; for liad he done so, he would 
 not have found the matter so superficial and easy as he pretends 
 to the "English public," in order (they ate his terms) to "brow- 
 beat the Bishop." I will give in English, for the sake of "the 
 public," what Justellus says in his Proftice to the African Canons, 
 referred to by Mr. Goode. " I have thought it worth while (he 
 says) to give a brief critical history of these, because the most 
 learned men have erred respecting them." And now if Mr. Goode 
 will turn to a very easy authority — Du Pin — he will find tliat though 
 the collectors mentioned by him " are silent " as to this council, yet 
 Isidore, Mercator, Hincmar, Burchardus, Ivo Carnutensis, and Gratian, 
 are not silent ; and that it is not strange that these canons are omitted 
 from the collections of Dionysius Exiguus, and others, if they thus 
 formed a distinct code apart by itself: a " Primitive " code. 
 
 But what does Mr. Goode say to the princi])al part of the Bishop's 
 statement — the really important part — that the canons of Carthage were 
 "generally received," and had the "authority of tlie whole Catholic 
 Church ?" Mr. Goode passes it by, with the hint tliat even the date of 
 the said council is doubtful. " The supposed date (he says) is between 
 A.D. 398 and A.D. 436." This is from a "learned" ecclesiastic! Mr. 
 Goodc's supposition is to me wholly inexplicable. Only one date is ever 
 assigned to this council, which seems to have digested the rules pre- 
 viously established in Africa from the beginning. St. Augnstin's name, 
 
Appendix. 113 
 
 too, is attached to it, and he died in a.d. 430, while Mr. Goode says 
 A.D. 436 ; — so that I cannot understand Mr. Groode at all in this point.* 
 But as to the " general reception " of the fourth canon of Carthage, and 
 more — its incorporation into the body of the canon law of Christendom, 
 and the respect paid it by our own Church, of which Mr. Goode is 
 wholly imaware, a brief reference will satisfy the inquiring reader, to 
 whom alone I must appeal in such a matter, rather than, as Mr. Goode 
 does, "to the public." 
 
 I cannot refer the reader to a more interesting part of the Decretum 
 than the present question leads to, the Distinctions, particularly the 
 twenty-third, where such frequent use is made of this council of Carthage. 
 On tliis council more than any other seem to depend canons of disci- 
 pline, binding for ages throughout the Church. And, what may surprise 
 Mr. Goode, even practices retained by the Church of England, — such as 
 all the Presbyters joining -^vith the Bishop in ordaining others, and laying 
 on their hands with prayer, ^ — may be traced to the enactment of this 
 " apocryphal " coimcil. Nay, the very delivery of the Bible in ordina- 
 tions, and the words "Take," and "be thou a faithful dispenser of the 
 word of God," &c., are derived to us no doubt from this same council. 
 " Accipe, et esto relator verbi Dei, habiturus sis fideliter," &c. As the 
 reader turns over page after page of the Distinctions, he will find this 
 council before him more frequently than any other. — And then let him 
 think of Mr. Goode, who evidently regards the whole council as a mere 
 fancy. 
 
 3. But I must not detain the already satisfied reader with more than 
 one more specimen of Mr. Goode's acquirements. We have seen his 
 powers of sci'iptural criticism ; we have seen his canonical learning ; 
 what he says of the Savoy Conference will show his acquaintance with 
 the histoiy of his own Church. I must refer to p. 91 of his " Letter," 
 in which the reader will see with what superior scorn Mr. Goode treats 
 tlie idea of the " few Bishops " of the Savoy Conference having had any- 
 thing to do mth the last revision of the Prayer-book. He thinks the 
 Bishop "criminally reckless and unjustifiable" for referring to the ordi- 
 nary facts of history, known to every one. The Bishops at that con- 
 ference had put down the Puritans ; and so Mr. Goode resolves to put 
 down the Bishops. And this he thinks he accomplishes by denying that 
 the Savoy Conference re\ised our Prayer-book at all. It is true that 
 they had meetings about it for several months, he says ; but then the 
 Convocation took it in hand ! The truth is even so ; the Convocation 
 took it from the Savoy Conference ; and that is quite enough for 
 Mr, Goode. He omits to add — probably does not know — that the 
 Convocation passed it, chiefly in two days — all within a week, even as 
 the Savoy Bishops had settled it ! 
 
 Mr. Goode's Letter is, however, so full of this unmeasured assurance, 
 and an absence of theological information so complete, that I do not 
 believe that he is aware of it himself.f But now I turn to his " strong 
 
 * Dr. Pusey has pointed out, in a letter, which I have since seen in the " Guardian," 
 that Mr. Goode has mistaken the .Tulian calculation of the year for a separate date ! 
 
 t It is impossible not to be amused with the readiness with which Mr. Goode invents, 
 impromptu, a little piece of 'history' to stop a gap in his argument as he needs it. 
 He is sorely troubled (p. 74) to get rid of the Bishop of Exeter's reference to one of the 
 canons. He says, " The case is this : the Puritans were in the habit of teaching the 
 people that the Sacraments were not valid unless accompanied by preaching," and then 
 he quotes a canon which is directed against the superstition of the lower orders, which in- 
 
 I 
 
114 Ajypendix. 
 
 point," his defence of liis Puritan passages from " our Eeformers." 
 There are seven, it will be seen, that need defence, as the reader may 
 observe in the note which has called for this Appendix. 
 
 I. Jewell. — The reader will see what has been said of the pretended 
 quotation from him. Mr. Goode passes it over. He says nothing here 
 for the "quotation" from Jewell, so I suppose it is a bad case, and 
 nothing can be said for it. 
 
 II. Hooker. — Mr. Goode admits that the passage " quoted" is falsi- 
 fied, " but inadvertently." (Goode, p. 53.) Hooker said that the " rule 
 oi piety " made ns speak of baptized infants as elect. This is altered 
 into the " rule of charity,^^ and applied to regeneration, and not election. 
 And then it is pretended that the meaning is the same ! Why, I appeal 
 to any man to read the whole section in Hooker, and he must be as- 
 tounded at this. Hooker's argument is, that we knoxv the children have 
 the grace of Baptism, and we trust, and as Christians believe, that they 
 are elect too, and will have the grace of perseverance. And this is ad- 
 duced to prove that the Baptism was doubtful ! 
 
 The other "quotation" from Hooker is that in which Hooker declares 
 that Baptism is " to our sanctification here a step that hath not any 
 be/ore it." Mr. Goode, however, still thinks Hooker means the same as 
 he and Mr. Gorham, -vdz., that regeneration takes place before Baptism ; 
 and therefore Mr. Goode must believe that the infant is unsanctijiedy 
 though regenerate, before Baptism ! 
 
 But there is one thing more which Mr. Goode forgets to tell us about 
 this passage. The Privy Council altered Hooker's words to make them 
 say only that "Baptism is the door of an actual entrance to God's 
 house," as if there might be several entrances : Hooker said " our actual 
 entrance !" There ai-e other little verbal touches of the Privy Council, 
 of a like significancy, — " inadvertencies " shall I call them ? — Mr. Goode 
 does not say : he is lUce Dionysius Exiguus with the African Synod — 
 " he is silent." 
 
 III. Akchbishop Usher. — In defending the professed extract from 
 this Prelate, Mr. Goode says, (p. 38,) the great question is, whether the 
 words may not " properly be considered as convexjing Usher's doctrine." I 
 beg his pardon. With honest men the " great question " must first be 
 whether the pretended words of this " quotation " were written by 
 Usher ? All the slippery turns in the world will not enable the quoters 
 of this passage to avoid this question. The truth seems that no one in 
 the world can tell that one ivord of this quotation proceeded from Usher. 
 He repudiated the book : and Mr. Goode knows it, and owns it. 
 
 IV. Bishop Jeremy Taylor. — Mr. Goode quotes the full passage 
 from this Prelate, of which the Privy Coiuicil give a part, in which he 
 lays it down, that the grace of Regeneration is in reality sejmrable from 
 Baptism in certain cases. This, however, is admitted, even in the Church 
 of Home, as an abstract propositioii. Taylor herein uses the very lan- 
 guage that the sclioolmen were allowed to use, who nevertheless be- 
 lieved in the " opus opcratum." And yet Mr. Goode says that Mr. 
 Gorham agrees with Bisliop Taylor ! Now Bishop Taylor, in the very 
 passage quoted by Mr. Goode, assumes throughout that Ilegeneration is 
 
 clined them to think more of tlic ministry of " preaching" than " unjjreaching" ministers. 
 It will really be enlightening the world on a very unknown portion of Puritan history, 
 if Mr. Goode will tell us where to find the proof oi this " habit of teaching " among the 
 Puritans.' I really regard this passage of Mr. Goode as a most unkind blow at his best 
 friends. " Is it an inadvertence .'"' (p. 53.) 
 
Appendix. 115 
 
 ordinarily given by Baptism. Mr. Grorham says it never is given in 
 Baptism. (Gorham, pp. 113, 172, 198.) Mr. Goode says that " Mr. 
 Gorliam holds that Spiritual Regeneration may be given before, or in, or 
 after Baptism." Now this is a simple question of truth or falsehood. 
 I call on Mr. Goode to produce any single passage of Mr. Gorham' s, in 
 which he says this. Until he can produce it, he must be content to lie 
 under the grave imputation of a " reckless assertion " of what is directly 
 contrary to the facts. With the other passages adduced from Taylor I 
 have no concern: they were not adduced by the Judges. It is too 
 much to require of us to vindicate every word of every former writer of 
 our Church. It is very certain that puritan, and even heretical passages 
 might have been furnished to the Privy Council to support their decision. 
 Mr. Goode' s "work" on the Effects of Infant Baptism is quite a little 
 mine in its way. But what we complain of is, that the Archbishop and 
 the Privy Council get hold of the wrong passages, and generally the 
 wrong names too. They were so ready with their conclusion, that they 
 picked up bad premises. 
 
 V. Aechbishop "Whitgift. — This able Prelate is made to answer 
 for the orthodoxy of Bullinger's Decades ; and Mr. Goode argues very 
 earnestly, (from p. 46 to 51,) that Bulhnger's Decades were authorita- 
 tively ' enforced ' in our Church in the primacy of "Whitgiffc. Certainly, 
 Mr. Goode shows that some attempt was made to get these Decades 
 taught and enforced ; and he even arrives at the position (p. 50) that it 
 was ^^ expected that it would be inquired into by Parliament." But 
 beyond this he cannot get. In fact the scheme, by whomsoever favoured, 
 wholly failed. BuUinger, after all, was not enforced on the Church. 
 It would be far better than a long and tedious wrangle about editions, if 
 Mr. Goode would give us some one instance of the " enforcement of 
 Bullinger's Decades." But he cannot do it. BuUinger was put away 
 by "Whitgift as a " State document." (p. 50.) 
 
 VI. Bishop Peaesok. — The attempt to fasten the opinions, or the 
 laxity, of Mr. Goode and Mr. Gorham, on this great Bishop of our 
 Church, has revolted men more perhaps than all the rest, and created 
 more indignation. "With a curious blindness, Mr. Goode prints at length 
 the whole passage from which the Privy Council takes one line ; begin- 
 ning with the words, " Baptism is a washing away of sin, and the puri- 
 fication from sin is a proper sanctification." In this very passage Pearson 
 is saying, that " there is more than an outward vocation and a charitable 
 presumption to make a man holy," and yet Mr. Goode strains him upon 
 a rack of italics and capitals, line after line, to make him contradict 
 himself; — but all in vain. Pearson is inexorable. Every word of the 
 admirable passage quoted might have been written by Aquinas. 
 
 I suspect that Mr. Goode does not see this, from not really knowing 
 what the orthodox doctrine of Baptism is. But Mr. Goode courageously 
 demands how the Bishop of Exeter could possibly know that Pearson 
 was speaking for the case of adults, when he said, " we presume the good 
 effect," unless something appears to the contrary ? We can but point 
 Mr. Goode to the passage itself, in which, to common readers, Pearson 
 seems to be speaking of the subsequent holiness of those who had been 
 baptized. He is speaking, he says, of what is " necessary to make a man 
 holy;" therefore it appears he was not referring to infants. How any 
 one in the world can refer that whole passage to infants, it passes my 
 imagination to conceive. 
 
 VII. Bishop Cableton. — This "quotation " is passed by Mr. Goode 
 
116 Appendix. 
 
 in this letter with slight notice. I wish he would undertake to show 
 that Bishop Carleton denied that original sin is remitted in Baptism. 
 
 VIII. Bishop Pmdeatjx. — There seemed no need to dwell elaboi'ately 
 on the passage from Prideaux. I do not think Mr. Goode quite likes 
 Prideaux ; he has not at least given him a fair share of regard. 
 
 In conclusion, then, it has to be acknowledged, that in evei'y point 
 where the Privy Council quotations needed defence, Mr. Goode has 
 utterly failed ; and that even among all the witnesses he adduces for his 
 false doctrines, there is isroT one to be found who says, as he says, that 
 " Regeneration is neveb given by virtue of Baptism itself," in utter 
 defiance of the canon of the Church of England, which declares that 
 children are made perfect Christians "by viktite of Baptism." (See 
 Canon XXX., to which the Church refers in the last Rubric of the Bap- 
 tismal Office.) 
 
 The "charity" of Mr. Goode is of a very peculiar kind. It fijces, or 
 tries to fix, a meaning on the words of Hooker and Pearson which they 
 would have abhorred, and calls it a "charitable" meaning. Then he 
 finds fault witli High Churchmen for being so charitable, in fact, as the 
 Bishop of Exeter was in liis primary charge, when he expressed a desire 
 for a comprehension of all who might be brought within tlie pale of our 
 Church. The Bishop was charitable to the " AVesleyans," in a degree 
 unintelligible now to Mr. Goode. Let me remind Mr. Goode that the 
 Wesleyans, if followers of their foimder, are far nearer to the Church's 
 doctrine than he or Mr. Gox'ham can pretend to be. "Wesley believed 
 in Baptismal Regeneration. The following words are from his sermons : 
 
 " I do not now speak with regard to infants : it is certain our Church 
 supposes, that all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time 
 born again ; and it is allowed that the whole Office for the Baptism of 
 Infants proceeds upon this siipposition. Nor is it an objection of any 
 weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how tliis work can be 
 wrought in infants ; for neither can we comprehend how it is wrought 
 in a person of riper years." — Wesley's Sermons, " The New Birth." 
 
 Let us find such Wesleyans as tliese, and we will strive to be one with 
 them. Our doctrinal strictness is not uncharitable. We desire such 
 oneness with all the Christian brotherhood as bigots of no class can 
 comprehend. May God grant it to us in His time ! 
 
 J08UPII .MASTKHS, FHINTKIl, AI.DKRSGATK 6TRKBT, LONUUN. 
 
WORKS BY THE REV. W. J. IRONS, B.D., 
 
 INCUMBENT OF HOLY TRINITY, BROMPTON. 
 
 THE PEESENT CEISIS IN THE CHUECH OF ENG- 
 LAND CONSIDERED ; illustrated by a brief Inquiry as to the Royal 
 Supremacy. 8vo., price Is. 6d. 
 
 SEQUEL TO A PAMPHLET ON THE EOTAL SUPEE- 
 
 MACY, entitled "The Present Crisis in the Church of England," in 
 reply to the Rev. W. Maskell and the Rev. T. W. Allies. Demy 8vo.. 
 Is. 6d. 
 
 SHOULD THE STATE OBLIGE US TO EDUCATE? 
 
 A Letter to the Right Hon. Lord John Russell. Demy 8vo., price 6d. 
 
 ON THE WHOLE DOCTEINE OE FINAL CAUSES. 
 
 A Dissertation in Three Parts, with an Introductory Chapter on the 
 Character of Modern Deism. Demy 8vo., price 7s. 6d. 
 
 ON THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHUECH. Parochial Lee- 
 tures. 1 . A Witness against False Philosophising. 2. Romish Cor- 
 ruption, Schism, and Rationalism. 8vo., 4s. 6d. 
 
 ON THE APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION. Parocliial Lee- 
 tures. 1. The Doctrine. 2. The Evidence. 3. The Objections. 
 4. The Summary. Second Series. 4s. 6d. 
 
 ECCLESIASTICAL JUEISDICTION. Being Four Lec- 
 tures on the Synod — the Diocese — The Parish — The Priest. With a 
 Preliminary Essay on the Teaching and Priestly Offices, and Appendices 
 on the Doctrine of Unity and the Royal Supremacy. Demy 8vo., 
 7s. 6d. 
 *^* The above Three Series may be had in one volume, price Tis. 
 
 SEEMON ON THE UNJUST STEWAED. 
 
 THE EECEIVED FAITH— A FAEEWELL SEEMON. 
 
 THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHUECH — A VISI- 
 TATION SERMON. (1839.) 
 
 LETTEE TO THE BISHOP OF EXETEE ON CHUECH 
 
 DISCIPLINE. (1840.) 
 
 SEEMONS AT BEOMPTON. (1844.) 
 
 THE THEOET OF DEVELOPMENT, (Eeply to Mr. 
 
 Newman.) (1846.) 
 
 Price 2d. each, or 15s. per Hundred. 
 
 MANUAL FOE UNBAPTIZED CHILDEEN. No. I. 
 
 MANUAL FOE UNBAPTIZED ADULTS. No. II. 
 
 MANUAL FOE UNCONFIEMED CHEISTIANS. No. 
 IIL 
 
ME. GOODE'S DEFENCE OE IVIE. GOEHAM. Au 
 
 Apology for the Honesty and Catholicity of the Compilers of the Book 
 of Common Prayer, and of our Standard Divines, in the matter of " One 
 Baptism for the Remission of Sins." Rendered necessary by, and con- 
 taining a Reply to, certain Mis-statements and Comparisons contained 
 in a Letter to the Bishop of Exeter from William Goode, M.A., F.S.A., 
 Rector of All Hallows the Great and Less, London. By the Rev. 
 Alexander Watson., M.A,, Curate of St. John's, Cheltenham. 
 
 LETTEE TO ALL I^IEMBEES OF THE CHUECH 
 
 OF ENGLAND, especially those who are Fathers or Mothers, or God- 
 fathers or Godmothers, or have been confirmed ; containing Words of 
 Common Sense for Common People on the " One Baptism for the Re- 
 mission of Sins." By the Rev. Alexander Watson, M.A. Price 
 8d. By post, lOd. 
 
 THE HOLINESS OF A CHEISTIAN CHILD ; being au 
 
 Earnest Appeal to all Christian Parents on the Regeneration of their 
 Children in the Sacrament of Baptism. By the Rev. E. Walford, 
 M.A. Price 3d., or 21s. per hundred. 
 
 A VOICE FEOM THE NOETH. An Appeal to the People 
 of England on Behalf of their Church. By An English Priest. 
 
 L State of the Dogmatic Teaching of the English Church. Demy 
 
 8vo., price 8d. 
 2. The Legal Position of the English Church. Demy 8vo. price 6d. 
 
 FEW WOEDS OF HOPE ON THE PEESENT 
 CRISIS IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. By the Rev. J. M. 
 Neale. Price 3d. By post, 4d. 
 
 CONTENDING FOE THE FAITH. A Sermon on a Late 
 Decision. By the Rev. W. H. Anderdon, Vicar of S. Margaret's, 
 Leicester. 8vo., price 6d. 
 
 HUMAN POLICY AND DIVINE TEUTH. A Sermon 
 Preached on Passion Tuesday, March 17th, 1850, at Great St. Mary's 
 Church, before the University of Cambridge. By the Rev. W. H. 
 Mill, D.D. Demy 8vo., price Is. 6d. 
 
 LONDON: JOSEPH MASTERS, 33, ALDERSGATE STREET,. 
 AND 78, NEW BOND STREET.