'ill I 
 
 
 <^^: 
 
 
 c:;^; <r ^c 
 
 
 
 •g^^ <^^ 
 
 =^ *^c 
 
 
 
 
 
 . ,. V<- <v<:<: -f 
 
 
 

 
 L I B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVERSITY 
 
 Of 1 LLI NOIS
 
 o
 
 A 
 
 1^- /. A^/^ 
 
 / c 
 CHARGE 
 
 DKLIVERED TO THE 
 
 CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF ST. DAVID'S, 
 
 CONNOP THIRLWALL, D.D. 
 
 BISHOP or ST, davld's, 
 AT HIS SIXTH VISITATION, 
 
 OCTOBER, 1857. 
 
 PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLERGY. 
 
 \\\\) tiuo ^pjpcntffjrc^: 
 
 ON THE DOGMA OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, 
 
 AND 
 
 ON THE HISTORY OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY. 
 
 LONDON: 
 EIVINGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE. 
 
 1857.
 
 LONDON : 
 GlI.bKRT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
 
 ST. John's square.
 
 A 
 
 CHARGE, 
 
 8fc. 
 
 My Reverend Brethren, 
 
 I cannot address you on this occasion without 
 being reminded of that great change in the state of pub- 
 lic affairs which has taken place since our last meeting. 
 The restoration of European peace is an event which 
 affects all interests in the community, even those 
 which are most purely spiritual. For as even these 
 depend in part on material instruments and agencies, 
 they are liable to suffer, more or less, whenever a con- 
 siderable portion of the national wealth is absorbed 
 by objects which, however important and necessary, 
 are foreign to those interests, especially when the 
 public attention and concern are in the same degree 
 withdrawn from them. We have therefore had reason 
 to be thankful, not only as Christians, for the cessa- 
 tion of one of the sorest evils that afflict mankind, 
 
 a2
 
 but also as Churchmen, for the removal of burdens 
 and hindrances which interfered with our proper 
 work. And our thankfulness must be heightened 
 even by the calamitous events which are now passing, 
 when we reflect that it has been through that mercy — 
 little as some of us valued it at the time — that we 
 have been enabled to put forth our undivided strength 
 to meet the danger which threatens our empire in the 
 East. But we have had a motive for still deeper 
 gratitude in that gracious overruling of Divine Provi- 
 dence, by which good was evolved out of evil. The 
 gloomy season of sorrow and anxiety through which 
 we were led, was brightened by glorious examples of 
 heroic charity, which have not passed away with the 
 immediate occasion, but have yielded good and, we 
 trust, lasting fruit, in the upgrowth or improvement 
 of institutions for the mitigation of human suffering, 
 and in the new impulse given to all benevolent exer- 
 tions for like ends. And while we rejoice at this gain 
 to humanity, we cannot but regard it as a hopeful 
 sign for the diffusion and increase of pure religion, 
 that the termination of the eventful struggle has been 
 commemorated by a monument of pious gratitude in 
 which our Church will be witnessing to the truth of 
 the Gospel in the midst of the unbelievers with whom 
 we were allied for the protection of their political 
 independence, and will at the same time be enabled 
 to hold out the hand of Christian fellowship to the 
 ancient Churches of the East, which, however they 
 may have declined from primitive purity of doctrine 
 
 uiuc J.
 
 or practice, are not separated from her by any such 
 insurmountable barrier as is raised by the pretensions 
 of the Roman Papacy. And may we not humbly hope 
 — as we ought undoubtedly to pray, and as far as lies 
 in us in our several spheres, to labour — that our pre- 
 sent sharp trial may in like manner, but in a far 
 higher degree, be made instrumental for the like salu- 
 tary ends ? 
 
 I have glanced at this feature of our late struggle 
 the more gladly, because in so many other quarters 
 the signs of the times appear to me much less cheer- 
 ing with regard to the prospects of the Church. On 
 every side I observe tokens of a spirit which seems to 
 me fraught with mischief and danger, and which no 
 one who has at heart, I do not say the honour and 
 welfare of our Church, but the interests of Chris- 
 tianity, can view without sorrow and uneasiness. I 
 allude to the growing prevalence of dogmatical intole- 
 rance, exhibiting itself sometimes in slight offences 
 against charity, which only kindle irritation and 
 heart-burning in particular circles, sometimes in forms 
 which threaten nothing less than a disruption in the 
 Church at large, and which, even if they should not 
 issue in so lamentable a catastrophe, tend to produce 
 a state of chronic discord and ill-feeling. Things in 
 themselves indifferent are made party badges and 
 shibboleths, to which the one side clings the more 
 tenaciously because they are vehemently disliked on 
 the other. Ambiguous terms and practices are stu- 
 diously selected and brought prominently forward.
 
 6 
 
 because they bear an obnoxious meaning, while by 
 others such a meaning is fastened on the most inno- 
 cent usages and expressions. The fullest and worst 
 demonstration of this intolerant spirit is an eagerness 
 for the making of new heresies, an endeavour to con- 
 tract the terms of admission into the Church or its 
 ministry, so as to exclude or disquiet all who do not 
 belong to the favoured party. If such attempts 
 should succeed, it is easy to see the nature, though 
 impossible to measure the extent, of the calamity 
 which would ensue. In the mean time the contests 
 to which they give rise waste the Church's strength, 
 shake the confidence and chill the affections of her 
 most intelligent and attached members, and afford 
 not only matter of exultation and triumph, but real 
 advantage to her adversaries. 
 
 All this, indeed, is nothing new. It is no more 
 than has occurred at other periods in the history of 
 our Church. Rather it may be said that there has 
 never been one in which the evil has not been more 
 or less felt. What induces me to notice it now is, 
 that it appears to me to be gaining ground, assuming 
 a more and more threatening aspect, ramifying into a 
 greater multiplicity of hateful forms, infecting the 
 life-blood of the Church with growing virulence, and 
 paralysing healthy action in the same degree that it 
 keeps up a morbid excitement. If such be the case, 
 it is but poor comfort to know that this spirit is not 
 confined to our own communion. There may be others 
 in which it has been far more widely and habitually
 
 dominant. But then we have been used to hear our 
 own Church commended in contrast to them on this 
 very ground. For such a spirit is directly opposed to 
 that moderation which has been often and, on the 
 whole, justly claimed as one of her most characteristic 
 qualities. It is true however that the Papal Church 
 has very recently exhibited an instance of such intole- 
 rance, which is perhaps, in all its circumstances, 
 without a parallel even in the annals of that Church. 
 And the subject is one which seems to me to deserve 
 our attention, both as holding out an instructive warn- 
 ing, and because it affects the character and constitu- 
 tion of the Church of Rome in a way which ought to 
 be clearly understood. 
 
 You are no doubt aware, that within the last three 
 years an event has taken place in that Church, which 
 all sincere Romanists, whatever they may think of it, 
 must regard as of the very highest importance. It is 
 the addition of a new article of faith to those which 
 they had been previously bound to profess : namely, 
 the tenet of the Immaculate Conception, or exemption 
 of the Virgin Mary from all stain of original sin, which 
 was publicly proclaimed at Rome with the utmost 
 solemnity, and announced to all members of the 
 Roman communion, by a Papal Bull, dated the 8th of 
 December, 1854. The doctrine itself has two aspects, 
 the one negative, the other positive. On the one hand, 
 it denies the singularity of that perfect sinlessness, 
 which we, in common with all the reformed confessions, 
 ascribe exclusively to our blessed Lord. On the other
 
 8 
 
 band, it invests the Virgin Mary with an equal share 
 of this attribute. I am not going to discuss this new- 
 dogma from the Protestant — which is the primitive 
 and catholic — point of view, or to repeat the proofs 
 which have been accumulated, not only by Protestant, 
 but by Romanist authors, of its irreconcilable repug- 
 nance, not only to Scripture, but to all pure and 
 authentic tradition, as handed down by the most emi- 
 nent doctors of the Church of Rome itself. Great as 
 is the innovation in doctrine, it is of slight importance 
 in comparison with that which has been effected in 
 the constitution of the Papal Church, by the way in 
 which the dogma has been introduced. New articles 
 of faith have from time to time been added to the 
 Romish creed. But it has been done heretofore by 
 the authority of the Pope in council. The recent 
 addition has been made by the individual Pope, act- 
 ing on a claim of personal infallibility and absolute 
 power, which though often advanced, and zealously 
 maintained by the ultramontane party, which is now 
 every where in the ascendant, has never yet been 
 established or recognized by any decree of their 
 Church. Accordingly, notwithstanding the preva- 
 lence of that party, several members of the Roman 
 communion openly deny that the Pope has power to 
 impose a new article of faith, and contend that his 
 recent act is null and void. A French priest — a man 
 of unimpeached character and orthodoxy, according 
 to the previous Roman standard — was delegated by 
 some of his co-religionists, both clergy and laity, to
 
 9 
 
 protest against the threatened innovation, and had the 
 courage to present such a protest at Rome before the 
 publication of the Bull. But instead of gaining a 
 hearing, he was forced immediately to quit the Papal 
 territory, and has since, I believe, paid the penalty of 
 his honesty and zeal for the truth, in a death of 
 miserable destitution. But he has left an account of 
 the whole transaction, which sheds the clearest light 
 on the character of the proceedings by which the 
 object was accomplished'. All appear to have been 
 arbitrary, irregular, and illusory. There was an affec- 
 tation of consulting the bishops, first by an Encyclic 
 Letter -, framed in terms of studied equivocation ^, 
 
 ' His little work, entitled " Eelation et Memoire des Oppo- 
 sants au nouveau dogme de I'lmmaculee Conception, et a la 
 BiiUe IneiFabilis, par M. I'Abbe Laborde," has been bought up, 
 and it is now difficult to procure a copy. It is to be wished that 
 it was made more generally known in England, by means of a 
 good translation, as the narrative part is full of curious and in- 
 structive particulars. 
 
 ^ Issued from Gaeta, during the Pope's exile, after his flight 
 from Home in 1848. 
 
 ^ The inquiry is : " Significare velitis qua devotione vester 
 Clerus Populusque fidelis erga Immaculatae Virginis Concep- 
 tionem sit animatus, et quo desiderio flagret ut ejusmodi res ab 
 Apostolica sede decernatur." The fraudulent ambiguity of such 
 an inquiry, when the point to be ascertained was the faith of the 
 Church, is well exposed by Laborde, p. 90. The value of the 
 answers sent to such a question may be partly estimated 
 from what he states at p. 47, that at Rome itself, the mass 
 of the people did not know the meaning of the doctrine. " Le 
 peuple proprement dit, la masse ne comprenait pas meme ce qu'on 
 voulait faire. . . . Les femmes et les fiUes pratiquant la religion, 
 croyaient qu'on allait decider que la sainte Vierge est vierge, et se
 
 10 
 
 and afterwards by an invitation to personal attendance 
 at Rome. But those who assembled there were ex- 
 pressly informed that they were to have no voice in 
 the definition of doctrine, and in fact were only em- 
 ployed to heighten the pomp of the ecclesiastical 
 pageant in the ceremony of the promulgation. The 
 means adopted to enforce the reception of the new 
 dogma, appear to have been worthy of those which 
 were used to silence all opposition, before it was 
 decreed. In France an organized system of perse- 
 cution, conducted by a so-called religious journal, has 
 been brought to bear on the clergy who showed a 
 disposition to withhold their concurrence \ But the 
 general acquiescence in this last strain of the Papal 
 prerogative, though obviously incapable of rendering 
 it one jot the more legitimate, will no doubt practi- 
 cally establish and perpetuate it, and will probably 
 encourage future Popes to emulate its author by fresh, 
 and, if possible, still grosser corruptions of Chris- 
 tianity ^ 
 
 montraient scandalisees que les pretres ne fussent pas d'accord 
 sur ce point." 
 
 * Laborde, p. 102. " Deja a Paris des cures ont note d'here- 
 tiques du haut de la chaire, quiconque ne croit pas au nouveau 
 dogme. Deja des cures ont refuse a des pretres de leur laisser 
 dire la raesse. Deja des fideles se sont vu refuser I'absolution. 
 Dans les departements deja I'agitation remue tout, et le tocsin du 
 journal (I'llnivers) anime le fanatisme." And p. 07 : " Un jour- 
 nal que soudoie dit-on I'argent inerae de la Propaganda." 
 
 ^ Cardinal Gousset, Archbishop of Eheims, has published a 
 collection of 665 Letters of Eoman Catholic Bishops, partly in 
 answer to the Encyclic of 1849, partly of an earlier date, as part
 
 11 
 
 The point however to which I wish to draw your 
 attention, is quite distinct from this, and wholly in- 
 dependent of the truth or falsehood of the dogma 
 itself, and it is one in which there is no need to rely 
 on any statement, however credible, which might be 
 questioned as proceeding from an adverse partisan. 
 For it rests on the most authentic of all possible 
 evidence, that of the declaratory Bull itself. This 
 is indeed a very remarkable document, as proving, 
 among other things, how much ignorance, misappre- 
 hension, and fallacious reasoning may consist with the 
 Papal claim of infallibility, even in the very act of 
 exercising the asserted prerogative. The present 
 occupier of the chair to which this gift is supposed to 
 be annexed, is generally understood to be very mode- 
 rately versed in theology '', and to depend mainly on 
 others for such light as does not come to him in a 
 supernatural way; and the decree to which he has 
 
 of what he calls a proof of the general and constant belief of the 
 Church in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (La Croy- 
 ance generale et constante de I'Eglise touchant I'lmmaculee Con- 
 ception de la B. V. M.), together with the text of the Bull, and 
 other documents. In this very curious volume, all expressions 
 in the letters which attribute infallibility to the Pope are printed 
 in italics, and at p. 758 the Cardinal draws the reader's attention 
 to the fact, that, with the exception of four or five prelates, who 
 seemed to make their full adhesion to the Pope's judgment depend 
 on that of the majority of their colleagues in the episcopate, none 
 called for the convocation of a general council, none thought such 
 a council necessary. 
 
 ^ Laborde, p. 75. " Le Pape actuel passe pour fort peu initie 
 aux sciences theologiques, et pour peu capable de remuer les pro- 
 fondeurs de la tradition."
 
 12 
 
 given the stamp of his authority, was evidently drawn 
 up by one who either did not understand, or studiously 
 misrepresented the question discussed in it. Its object 
 is to justify the new definition by a review of the 
 history of the opinion which it erects into an article 
 of faith. There was indeed a difficulty in the way 
 which it required no little dexterity to evade. Even 
 the Pope has never yet claimed the power of making 
 an entirely new revelation in matters of faith. On 
 the contrary, it is stated in this very Bull, that the 
 Church, as a careful guardian of the doctrines com- 
 mitted to her charge, never changes aught in them, 
 neither diminishes nor adds to them; though she 
 labours with all diligence to elucidate and unfold those 
 which were but imperfectly delineated in her earlier 
 teaching, but always so that they retain their substan- 
 tial identity of dogmatical import \ It was therefore 
 necessary to show that the doctrine of the Immaculate 
 Conception, which the Bull declares to have been 
 
 ' " Christi Ecclesia, sedula depositoruin apud se dogmatum 
 custos et vindex, nihil in his unquam permutat, nihil minuit, 
 nihil addit, sed omni industria vetera fideliter sapienterque trac- 
 tando si qua antiquitus informata sunt, et Patrum fides servit (sic 
 f. servat) ita limare expolire studet, ut prisca ilia coelestis doc- 
 trinsD dogmata accipiant evidentiain lucem distinctionem, sed re- 
 tineant plenitudiuem, integritatem, proprietatem, ac in suo tantum 
 genere crescant, in eodem scilicet dogmate, eodem sensu, eademque 
 sententia." 
 
 A French translation of the Bull is appended to A. Peyrat's 
 little work, " Un nouveau Dogme," which, among other things, 
 contains some well-selected quotations from writers ancient and 
 modern on the subject.
 
 13 
 
 revealed by God, had in fact always been held and 
 believed in the Church. The proof offered in support 
 of this assertion is composed of a string of rhetorical 
 phrases, (without any reference or means of verifica- 
 tion,) in which the Fathers have celebrated the purity 
 and sanctity of the Virgin Mary ^ : all as utterly and 
 palpably irrelevant to the point for which they are 
 cited, as the single quotation from Scripture — the 
 angelical salutation — which, except in the mistransla- 
 tion of the Vulgate, would not even appear to have 
 the remotest bearing on the question ^. 
 
 But though the Pope, relying on such arguments, 
 does not scruple to affirm that the doctrine was always 
 believed in the Church, even he does not pretend that 
 it was believed by all. On the contrary, he traces the 
 history of its progress, and extols the zeal with which 
 the Church, and especially his own "glorious prede- 
 cessors," had laboured to propagate it. The number- 
 less passages in the writings of the Fathers, in which 
 it is denied, not only by the clearest implication in 
 the unqualified assertion of the truth which it gain- 
 says, but, as in the famous letter of St. Bernard, by 
 
 * Laborde, p. 77. " Si le Pape avait examine, comme il le 
 fallait, la tradition, jamais il n'aurait laisse s'introduire dans une 
 buUe destinee a tout I'univers cette longue tirade de pretendues 
 expressions des Peres." And he proceeds to point out their 
 fraudulent irrelevance : many of them, as he observes, relate not 
 to the conception of the Virgin herself, but to that by which she 
 became the mother of our Lord. 
 
 ^ Gratia plena. The author of the Bull was perhaps unable 
 to construe Ke-)(cipiT(j)nivri. His argument turns entirely on the 
 absolute force of the adjective, which has nothing to answer to it 
 in the original.
 
 14 
 
 express contradiction and elaborate refutation; the 
 long opposition headed by a monastic order which 
 was regarded as the foremost champion of Romish 
 orthodoxy ' — all this is of course passed over in dis- 
 creet silence. But how far from universal the belief 
 has been down to the latest times, appears clearly on 
 the face of the Bull itself. Toward the end of the 
 fifteenth century, a great step was taken in the propa- 
 gation of the doctrine by the Papal sanction being 
 given to a festival — that which had been condemned 
 by St. Bernard — in honour of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception. Still gainsay ers were found to deny that the 
 festival was meant to decide the question. And in 
 the seventeenth century, after one Pope had declined 
 to declare the doctrine an article of faith, expressly on 
 the ground that it had not been revealed to the 
 Church, another issued a decree forbidding it to be 
 impugned or questioned. That, after silence had 
 been thus enforced on the one side, the belief should 
 have spread, may be easily supposed. But still it is 
 not pretended that it has yet become universal, and 
 the contrary is a notorious fact. 
 
 One thing is certain: that, whether the doctrine 
 is ancient or modern, whether held by many or by 
 few, it had never before been a dogma of the Church 
 
 ' The reader will hardly need to be reminded of the long and 
 hot contest between the Franciscans, the sworn champions, and 
 the Dominicans, tlie learned antagonists of the Immaculate Con- 
 ception ; or of the scandalous imposture practised at Bern, in 
 1507, by the Dominicans, the detection of which brought them, 
 and the doctrine which they eiideavoured to commend by their 
 pious fraud, into deep discredit.
 
 15 
 
 of Rome. It was reserved for the latter half of 
 the nineteenth century to see that which had previ- 
 ously been no more than a simple belief or opi- 
 nion, converted into an article of faith. Now for 
 the first time it is promulged as a truth revealed 
 by God, and all members of the Roman commu- 
 nion are enjoined, not as before, to abstain from 
 disputing it, but to believe it in their hearts, under 
 penalty of making shipwreck of the faith, falling away 
 from the unity of the Church, and so forfeiting all 
 their hopes of salvation. This is the consummation 
 which fills the mouth of its author with joy, and his 
 heart with gratitude. This he considers as the great 
 privilege of his reign. Never, he says, will he cease 
 to render most humble and hearty thanks for the sin- 
 gular favour conferred upon him, of having been per- 
 mitted to offer and decree this honour, this glory, and 
 praise to the mother of our Lord. Let it then be 
 observed wherein precisely this honour and glory 
 consist. It is in the new peril to which, according to 
 the belief of the Pope himself, human souls — how 
 many, he does not pretend to know — have been ex- 
 posed by his act. It is, that they who before were 
 safe will be liable to shipwreck ; that they who were 
 before within, will find themselves outside the pale of 
 the Church. The danger, the probable perdition of 
 these souls, is the tribute of honour, glory, and praise, 
 which he offers to her whom he describes as the 
 creature nearest to God, and the absolute model of 
 perfect holiness.
 
 16 
 
 And this view of the subject cannot have escaped 
 his notice. It is clearly pointed out in many of the 
 letters sent in answer to his inquiry by his own 
 prelates. One, for instance, an Italian archbishop of 
 his own territory, writes to him expressly for this 
 purpose, stating that for his own part he should re- 
 joice if the doctrine was universally believed, but that 
 he did not see the necessity of making a dogmati- 
 cal decree on the subject, which might become a 
 stumbling-block to many^ But this was the very 
 thing which, according to the Pope's view, would 
 exalt the glory, delight the heart, and propitiate 
 the favour of the holiest of created beings. This 
 is the feature which strikes me as the most charac- 
 teristic and the most repulsive in the whole trans- 
 action. The superstitious credulity in which it had 
 its origin ^, the artifices by which it was brought 
 about*, the absurdity and gToundlessness of the fig- 
 ment itself, may all find a parallel. But, as a triumph 
 of intolerance, achieved by the wanton imperilling of 
 human souls, it seems to me to stand nearly alone, 
 
 ^ TJrbino. Gousset, p. 633. 
 
 ' One Leonard de St. Maurice, a missionary, was said to have 
 predicted, in the last century, that the definition of the dogma of 
 the Immaculate Conception would be attended with the termi- 
 nation of all wars throughout the world, the extinction of heresy 
 and schism in the Church, and the exaltation of the Apostolic 
 See. This prophecy appears to have made a deep impression on 
 Pius IX., and, in his exile at Gaeta, he believed that a like reve- 
 lation had been vouchsafed to himself. See Laborde, p. 76. 
 
 * Laborde, pp. 67 — 69.
 
 17 
 
 and to betray a moral obliquity hardly to be matched 
 in the darkest ages of the mediaeval Church ^ 
 
 This is an example which may well lead us to 
 examine ourselves, and reflect what spirit we are of. 
 I see much in what is going on around us, which 
 appears to me to difffer rather in form than in sub- 
 stance, rather in degree than in kind, from the pro- 
 ceeding which we have been just reviewing. The 
 Pope naturally places himself at the head of the party 
 in his own Church which is not only the most nume- 
 rous and powerful, but which labours to exalt his 
 authority. He endeavours to crush the feeble dissen- 
 tient minority, and to tread out the last spark of 
 religious freedom. He launches his spiritual thunder- 
 bolts against those who do not submit their convic- 
 tions to his decree. He subjects them, as far as he 
 can, to the penalties spiritual and temporal of heresy, 
 and, where his arm cannot reach, he is seconded by a 
 virulent and calumnious journal, which hunts down 
 all who dare to retain the obnoxious truth, or to ques- 
 tion the authority by which it is proscribed. All this 
 is no more than was to have been expected in such a 
 quarter. But it is painful to think that there should 
 be any thing corresponding to it among ourselves. 
 Yet, after making due allowance for difference of cir- 
 cumstances, I cannot help seeing much that essen- 
 tially resembles it in the spectacle which has been 
 presented of late by our own unhappy divisions. For 
 
 * Some farther remarks and illustrations will be found in the 
 Appendix A. 
 
 B
 
 18 
 
 there too is a contest in which the parties are both in 
 turn callino^ in the aid of the secular arm against one 
 another, and endeavouring to establish their respec- 
 tive opinions and tastes as the exclusive standard of 
 faith and practice in the Church. Even the so-called 
 religious journal has its counterpart here. 
 
 There is, no doubt, a wide difference in the relative 
 importance of the subjects to which these contentions 
 relate ; but not so much in that of the points on which 
 they turn, and still less in the spirit which they ex- 
 hibit. It is the same temper which finds or makes 
 matter of fierce dispute and ruinous litigation in the 
 minutest details of ecclesiastical ornaments, and in the 
 doctrine of the Eucharist; though, no doubt, a right 
 view of the doctrine, even in points not essential, is 
 far more important than a wise rule as to the furni- 
 ture of the sanctuary. On the proceedings and the 
 judgment which have determined the degree of liberty 
 to be henceforward allowed in the decoration of chan- 
 cels and communion tables, I see no need, and feel no 
 temptation to speak, except to express my regi*et that 
 the question should have arisen, and my acquiescence 
 in the decision by which it seems for the present to 
 have been set at rest. The other case to which I 
 have alluded, might invite some observations on the 
 character of the proceedings which have taken place 
 in it; but I abstain from all comments on this part of 
 the subject, as they could answer no purpose, but 
 possibly to irritate the very temper which I deplore. 
 But the occasion seems to call for some remarks on
 
 19 
 
 tHe controversy itself. It is true that it has not, so 
 far as I know, in any way agitated any part of this 
 diocese; but I am not on that account at liberty to 
 presume, connected as it is with our most solemn 
 ministrations, that it can be viewed by any of us with 
 indifference, or that there may not be some among us 
 who have been perplexed by it, and may derive benefit 
 from a correct appreciation of its import. And I 
 believe that I shall be best preparing the way for this, 
 if I begin with a brief statement of the points on 
 which both sides appear to agree. 
 
 It is admitted on all hands, that the reception of 
 the consecrated elements in the Lord's Supper, is in 
 the nature of means to an end. And as to the end 
 itself, however variously it may be described, there is 
 no dispute among those who profess to hold the doc- 
 trine of our Church. All fully assent to the state- 
 ments contained in her Communion Office, as to the 
 nature of the benefit enjoyed by those who " with a 
 true, penitent heart, and lively faith, receive that holy 
 Sacrament," as consisting in that spiritual union with 
 Christ, which is expressed in the words, mainly bor- 
 rowed from the language of Scripture, " then w^e spiri- 
 tually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood; 
 then we dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are 
 one with Christ, and Christ with us." It is no less 
 concordantly admitted on both sides, that the benefit 
 entirely depends on a worthy reception, and that to 
 an unworthy receiver the Sacrament conveys not 
 benefit, but hurt. It is likewise held by all, that 
 
 B 2
 
 20 
 
 whatever also may be the effect of consecration on the 
 bread and wine, it produces no change in their phy- 
 sical substance or qualities. On the other hand, none 
 deny that it produces a relative change in them; as, 
 indeed, it is a merely identical proposition to affirm 
 that the consecrated elements do not remain uncon- 
 secrated. Nor again is it disputed on either side, 
 that this change, whatever may be its nature, is pre- 
 cisely the same as that which passed upon the bread 
 and cup at the institution of the Lord's Supper, or 
 consequently, that in some sense, they become, after 
 consecration, the Body and Blood of Christ. 
 
 It might well be thought that this simple outline of 
 common doctrine aflPorded ample room both for pious 
 sentiment and for practical exhortation. And, I 
 believe, it would not be easy to point out any topic 
 connected with it, that could serve to the use of edify- 
 ing, not comprehended within this range. Only as an 
 arena for controversy, it is not large enough, and must 
 be dilated by speculation on questions which lie out- 
 side of it. 
 
 In primitive times, and wherever religious feeling 
 was pure and strong, the devout communicant naturally 
 identified the instrument with the object to which it 
 ministered. He thought not of the material elements, 
 but was lost in the contemplation of that which they 
 represented to his inward gaze. It was only as faith 
 was darkened, and love waxed cold, that the nature 
 of the instrument itself, apart from its use, could 
 become matter for speculation and controversy. But
 
 21 
 
 in process of time, the language in which the rap- 
 turous devotion of the earlier period had found an 
 appropriate utterance, came to be stereotyped into 
 dogmas, and used to fetter all freedom of thought, 
 and to stifle the very feeling which it was originally 
 meant to express. In the same degree as the instru- 
 ment was really more and more dishonoured by misuse, 
 and so failed to accomplish the object for which it was 
 designed, was it invested with more of outward splen- 
 dour, which served to divert attention from that object. 
 An efficacy was attributed to the consecration, by 
 which it transmuted the material elements into a dif- 
 ferent substance, which, from its association with the 
 person of Christ, might become a proper object of 
 adoration, and was not inconsistently believed to pos- 
 sess a virtue which no unworthiness on the part of 
 the receiver could destroy, and which operated like 
 a charm, independently of all internal dispositions 
 which he might bring to meet it^ This was the 
 source of some of the grossest and most noxious super- 
 stitions into which the Latin Church had sunk before 
 the Reformation, while it ministered, more perhaps 
 than any other cause, to the influence of those who 
 profited by the popular ignorance and credulity. This 
 was therefore one of the main points in the Pro- 
 testant controversy with the Church of Rome. The 
 Reformers applied themselves in various ways to 
 
 * lu the eighth century, a statute of Archbishop Boniface of 
 Mayence (in D'Achery's Spic. i. p. 508, ed. 2) declares : " Non 
 licet mortuis Eucharistiam tradi."
 
 22 
 
 bring out that part of the truth which had been so 
 lamentably obscured by the Romish doctrine, and 
 especially by the consequences which naturally flowed 
 from the metaphysical figment of Transubstantiation, 
 which had been imposed, as an article of faith, in the 
 twilight of the thirteenth century, by the same Pope 
 who proclaimed the ferocious crusade against the 
 Albigenses. It is not surprising, it would have been 
 had the case been otherwise, that some of those who 
 were engaged on the Protestant side of this contro- 
 versy, while they held fast the neglected portion of 
 the truth, should have overlooked that which lay 
 behind the false position of their adversaries. We 
 have the more reason to rejoice and be thankful, that 
 our own Church steered clear of both extremes, and 
 retained the whole of the revealed truth without any 
 human additions. On the one hand, she honours the 
 instrument as one of Divine institution, and in propor- 
 tion to the great purpose which it was appointed to 
 serve, but only as an instrument, in its proper place 
 and degree, of subordination to that purpose. She 
 does not proscribe, but rather seeks to cherish, that 
 devotional fervour, which identifies it in the pious 
 mind with the thing which it represents ; but in her 
 theological definitions she has been careful not to 
 confound them with one another. On the other hand, 
 she is no less decidedly opposed to such a view of this 
 Sacrament as would empty it of all special value, and 
 reduce it to a mere act of devotion, dififering from 
 others only in the outward form, which would thus
 
 23 
 
 become a bare rite, essentially of the same kind with 
 those of the ceremonial law which were abolished by 
 the Gospel. 
 
 It has indeed been made matter of complaint 
 against her, that her language on this subject is not 
 sufficiently explicit and definite : that it lends itself 
 to views and systems which diverge very widely from 
 one another. I fully admit the fact. It is the very 
 thing which, as I conceive, ought to be regarded by 
 every member of her communion as a motive for joy 
 and thankfulness. For it proves that, with respect to 
 this important article of belief and practice, she 
 stands on the same ground as was occupied for more 
 than a thousand years by the universal Church of 
 Christ. During the whole of that period there was 
 no greater uniformity of opinion than now exists 
 among those who difi"er most from one another in the 
 interpretation of her formularies. Each of the oppo- 
 site tendencies, the mystical and the spiritual \ which 
 are now characteristic of conflicting parties within her 
 pale, then also had their representatives, in wTiters of 
 unquestioned orthodoxy, who now serve to give a fair 
 show of authority to both sides : and it often happens 
 that the same writer is so little consistent in his 
 statements, that he may be cited in favour of either 
 view. It was only in the ninth century, that literary 
 
 ^ By the mystical, I mean tliat wliicli seems to confound the 
 properties of body and spirit : by the spiritual, that which keeps 
 them strictly separate from one another.
 
 24 
 
 controversy for the first time arose on the subject ^, 
 and then it was carried on freely until the eleventh, 
 when the doctrine most favourable to the grossest 
 popular superstition was first established in its ascen- 
 dancy by brute force ^ ; and it was only in the thir- 
 teenth century that it was formally exalted into an 
 article of faith. I must own that it appears to me 
 any thing rather than matter for shame or regret, if 
 the Church of England allows nearly as large a liberty 
 of speculation on this mystery, as was enjoyed and 
 exercised for so long a period, including the primitive 
 times, in the whole Catholic Church. 
 
 The dispute on the doctrine of the Eucharist which 
 has lately agitated the Church, has been treated on 
 both sides as one of momentous import. On the one 
 hand we have heard complaints that " a vital doctrine 
 of the Church of England " has been impeached, that 
 an attempt has been made to silence catholic teaching 
 with regard to it, and " to inflict a public penalty on 
 a clergyman, because he holds and teaches the primi- 
 tive and catholic doctrine of the sacraments wholly 
 apart from the additions and omissions of the Church 
 of Rome ' :" and that " the faith of a vast number of 
 
 * This has lately been denied by Mr. Freeman (Principles of 
 Divine Service, Introd. to Part II. p. 36 foil). As it is a point 
 which very nearly involves the essence of the whole controversy, 
 I have examined Mr. Preeman's statements in the Appendix B. 
 
 ' Gladiis et fustihus, as Berengar frequently complains. See 
 especially pp. 52, 53. 
 
 * Archdeacon Denison, Preface to Sermon III,, on the Eeal 
 Presence, p. 147.
 
 25 
 
 her priests and people is at stake ^" On the other 
 hand it has been alleged, that a main principle of the 
 Reformation has been placed in jeopardy by the teach- 
 ing against which legal proceedings were instituted : 
 that an error, against which our martyrs contended to 
 the death, has been openly maintained under a slightly 
 modified form by persons occupying a high position in 
 the Church, and therefore that it became a duty to 
 resort to the means provided by the law for the vindi- 
 cation of the outraged truth. After the closest atten- 
 tion which I could give to the subject, I am unable to 
 go this length with either party, and have been led to 
 the conclusion that the dispute, though undoubtedly 
 indicating a wide discrepancy of views and feelings, is 
 in itself mainly a verbal one, which would either never 
 have arisen, or have been easily settled, if there had 
 been an earnest desire for mutual understanding, in- 
 stead of a disposition to widen the breach. 
 
 As to the doctrine indeed which has been brought 
 forward under the imposing title of "catholic teaching," 
 understood in the sense attached to it by its opponents, 
 my own opinion is very clear and decided. I am con- 
 vinced that it is completely at variance with the mind 
 of the Church of England, as expounded by her 
 Articles, Liturgy, and Catechism; and when a ques- 
 
 ' " Considerations on the Opinion of the Court at Bath," &c., 
 by the Rev. C. S, Grueber, an advocate who caricatures the so- 
 phistry which is so unhappily conspicuous in the writings which 
 he defends, but superadds an exuberance of vituperative virulence, 
 from which they are free.
 
 2G 
 
 tion of orthodoxy is raised within the Church, it is, 
 as I conceive, only by an appeal to her own exposition 
 of her doctrine in her authentic formularies, and not 
 to any other standard, that the question can consis- 
 tently be tried. I believe however that the so-called 
 catholic teaching, understood as I have said, is no less 
 repugnant both to Scripture and to the whole stream 
 of genuine primitive tradition, though, by means of 
 compilations which are bringing the name of a catena 
 into suspicion and disrepute, as equivalent to an 
 engine of polemical delusion, it may be made to 
 appear to have a great mass of patristic evidence in 
 its favour ^ I believe that in itself it involves very 
 nearly as many absurdities and contradictions as that 
 of Transubstantiation, from which it differs rather 
 metaphysically than theologically. But every man 
 has a right, especially when he is on his trial, to 
 explain his own opinions, and to require that they 
 should be judged according to his own interpretation 
 of them, and not by the construction which may be 
 put upon them by his adversaries. It may be that 
 his explanation is perplexed and obscure : it may in- 
 volve manifest absurdity and contradiction: it may 
 resolve itself into mere nonsense. But these are 
 things for which, as I conceive, the author is fairly 
 
 ' A very large part of the passages collected by Dr. Pusey, in 
 his Notes on his Sermon, " The Presence of Christ in the Holy 
 Eucharist," would be deprived of all, even seeming, relevancy and 
 argumentative value, by the simple insertion of the word sacra- 
 mental or sacramentally.
 
 27 
 
 amenable to the bar of literary criticism, not to a 
 tribunal which inflicts penalties affecting civil rights. 
 To sustain a charge of unsound doctrine, involving 
 such penal consequences, nothing, as it appears to me, 
 ought to suffice, but the most direct unequivocal state- 
 ments, asserting that which the Church denies, or 
 denying that which she asserts. 
 
 Now in the present case there is peculiar danger of 
 misapprehension and confusion, arising not only from 
 the difficulty and mysteriousness of the subject, but 
 from the ambiguity of the principal terms employed 
 in the controversy. And I think it will be evident 
 that such confusion has actually occurred, if we com- 
 pare the propositions which were judicially condemned 
 by the Declaration of the Court at Bath, with that 
 which it laid down as the " true and legal exposition " 
 of the Articles which the defendant was charged with 
 impugning. One of the condemned propositions, as 
 cited in the Declaration, runs thus : " That the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, being really present after an 
 immaterial and spiritual manner in the consecrated 
 bread and wine, are therein and thereby given to all 
 and are received by all who come to the Lord's table." 
 It has been made matter of, I think, just complaint, 
 that this statement omits a capital and integral part 
 of the doctrine which it professes to describe : namely, 
 the opposite results of worthy and unworthy receiving, 
 the distinct assertion that the receiving of the Body 
 and Blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper by those 
 receiving unworthily is " unto condemnation," and the
 
 28 
 
 equally distinct denial, " that the holy sacraments save 
 ' ex opere operato,' i. e. by the mere act of receiving." 
 How far this omission may have been justified by any 
 technical rules, I am not competent to say. But I am 
 quite sure that it is absolutely necessary to take into 
 account the part of the doctrine which the Declaration 
 keeps out of sight, in order to appreciate correctly 
 the part which it condemns: and that if truth, not 
 victory, is the object in view, we must place the whole 
 by the side of that which is declared by the Court to 
 be the true and legal exposition of Articles 28 and 29. 
 This exposition stated, " That the Body and Blood of 
 Christ are taken and received by the worthy receivers 
 only, who, in taking and receiving the same by faith, 
 do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, and drink His 
 Blood ; whilst the wicked and unworthy, by eating the 
 bread and drinking the wine, without faith, do not in 
 any wise eat, take, or receive, the Body and Blood of 
 Christ, being devoid of faith, whereby only the Body 
 and Blood of Christ can be eaten, taken, and received." 
 We have then to consider whether these two state- 
 ments are really repugnant to one another. And it is 
 clear that they cannot really contradict each other 
 unless they relate to the same thing; and whether 
 they do so or not, must depend on the sense given to 
 the terms, Body and Blood of Christ. But in the 
 defendant's proposition, the Body and Blood of Christ 
 are manifestly the sacramental Body and Blood, that 
 which the bread and wine become after consecration : 
 and that this sacramental Body and Blood are given
 
 29 
 
 to all, and taken and received by all, worthy and 
 unworthy, is what no one denies. But in the " true 
 and legal exposition," the same words evidently mean 
 not the sacramental Body and Blood, but something 
 else, the reception of which involves that participation 
 of Christ, which, in accordance with the 29th Article, 
 the defendant's proposition, when fully and fairly 
 stated, expressly denies to be enjoyed by those who 
 receive unworthily. To this indeed it may be objected, 
 that in that proposition the Body and Blood of Christ 
 are distinguished from the consecrated bread and 
 wine, in which nevertheless they are affirmed to be 
 really present. And if nothing had been added to 
 qualify the sense of the proposition, it would indeed 
 be hard to reconcile it with the 29th Article. But it 
 is qualified by the words, " after an immaterial and 
 spiritual manner," and the author, when he is brought 
 into court on a charge of heresy, is, I conceive, entitled 
 to the full benefit of this addition. If it renders the 
 proposition ambiguous, contradictory, and unmeaning, 
 this, which would be a ground for censure in another 
 point of view, is just that which may be fairly allowed 
 to protect the author from the legal penalties of false 
 teaching. For thus it appears that he holds with the 
 Church, not only that no change takes place by virtue 
 of the consecration in the natural substance of the 
 bread and wine, but also that no other material 
 substance is thereby added to it. What he himself 
 may understand by matter " present in an immaterial 
 manner," a phrase which seems to amount to as much
 
 30 
 
 as a present absence, or a presence after an absent 
 manner, or any other contradiction in terms, it would 
 be useless to inquire, as he very prudently abstains 
 from all attempts at defining it, and treats the 
 presence of which he speaks as an ineffable mystery. 
 In fact he asserts nothing as to the mode in which the 
 sacramental Body and Blood differ from the unconse- 
 crated bread and wine, except that it is immaterial 
 and spiritual. And this is a description quite con- 
 sistent with the notion of a merely relative change : 
 that is, one by which the elements have become an 
 instrument for conveying that blessing of which the 
 worthy receivers alone partake. A self-contradictory 
 proposition is in itself a mere nullity, and it seems 
 arbitrary and unfair to select a part of it for condem- 
 nation, and to ignore another part which neutralizes 
 the offensive meaning. If either is to be taken apart 
 from the other, it should — in a Court of Discipline — 
 be that which bears an orthodox or innocent sense. 
 
 A somewhat more intricate question arises on the 
 other proposition condemned by the Court, in which it 
 is affirmed that " worship is due to the real, though 
 invisible and supernatural, presence of the Body and 
 Blood of Christ in the holy Eucharist under the form 
 of bread and wine." There can be no doubt that the 
 terms of this proposition have been selected, whether 
 studiously or unconsciously, so as to exhibit the closest 
 approximation to Romish doctrine. For they are the 
 very terms which might be used by a Romanist divine 
 to express the practical inference to which he is led
 
 31 
 
 by his tenet of Transubstantiation : the adoration of 
 the Sacrament. The " form of bread and wine " is 
 that which he believes to remain in the consecrated 
 elements after the substance has been withdrawn, and 
 the Body and Blood of Christ have been substituted 
 for it*. But the question is not now as to the judg- 
 ment shown in the selection of the terms, but as to 
 their meaning in the defendant's proposition, and this 
 can only be determined by reference to the other parts 
 of his own teaching, not to a system which he pro- 
 fesses to reject. And when all is taken together, it 
 is not very easy to ascertain what is the object to 
 which he conceives worship to be due. 
 
 Nominally it is the Body and Blood of Christ. But 
 by this he cannot be understood to mean any material 
 substance superadded to the bread and wine. For 
 this is, as we have seen, expressly excluded by the 
 term "immaterial" in his other proposition. Nor 
 can he be supposed to claim adoration for any thing 
 pertaining only to Christ's human nature, and sepa- 
 rate from his Divinity. For this would be manifest 
 idolatry, from which the Romanist guards himself by 
 his doctrine of concomitance, and which ought not to 
 be imputed to any one by whom it has not been dis- 
 tinctly avowed. It would seem therefore that the 
 
 * Lombard, iv. Di. 8. " De Sacramento et re. Sacramentum 
 est invisibilis gi'atife visibilis forma. Forma ergo panis et vini, 
 quiB ibi videtur, est sacramentum, id est, signum sacrse rei ; quia 
 prseter speciem quam ingerit sensibus, aliquid aliud facit in cogi- 
 tationem venire. Tenent ergo species vocabula rerum quae ante 
 fuerunt, scilicet panis et vini."
 
 32 
 
 presence meant can be no other than a purely spiritual 
 presence of Christ Himself, in the entireness of his 
 person, which is, no doubt, in itself a fit object of 
 worship \ And such a presence in the Eucharist, 
 has been constantly affirmed by our most eminent 
 divines, and, as far as I know, denied by none. 
 
 It may however be contended, that even when this 
 is assumed to be the author's meaning, he still re- 
 mains exposed to the charge of a very serious error, 
 by the local limits which he appears to assign to this 
 presence, when he describes it as " under the form of 
 bread and wine," though it must be observed that the ' 
 phrase does not necessarily imply a local circumscrip- 
 tion ^ But this expression is connected with the 
 construction which he puts upon the language of the 
 Catechism, in its general description of a sacrament, 
 as consisting of two parts, " The outward visible sign, 
 and the inward spiritual grace." From this he infers 
 that the outward part and the inward part make up 
 one indivisible whole, not merely as correlative 
 notions, in which sense it is undoubtedly true that a 
 sign implies a thing signified, but actually, so that 
 
 * "Whether it ought to be adored in the Eucharist, is quite a 
 different question, which is ably discussed by Mr. Freeman, 
 " Principles of Divine Service," Introd. to Part TI. sect. xiii. 
 
 * Local circumscription ("circumscriptio" or "inclusio localis") 
 is expressly denied by all the Lutheran divines. See Chemnitz, 
 Fundamenta S.S. Ccenge, c. iii. : "Nee qusestio est de locali in- 
 clusione corporis Christi in pane ;" and Calov., cited by Kahnis, 
 " Die Lehre vom Abendmahle," p. 459, and Schraid, " Die Dog- 
 matik der Evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche," p. 445.
 
 83 
 
 the outward part cannot exist without the inward 
 part; and consequently that in the Eucharist the 
 inward part or thing signified, which is the Body 
 and Blood of Christ, is so inseparably united with the 
 outward part or sign, the bread and wine, that this can- 
 not be received without the other ; and, therefore, that 
 worthy and unworthy receivers alike partake of both. 
 It is indeed saddening' and humiliatins^ to think 
 that such an interpretation of the Catechism should 
 not only have been adopted by a person filling a high 
 position in our Church, but should have been taken by 
 him as a main groundwork of his system. I should 
 not perhaps be speaking too strongly, if I said that 
 it is a gross and childish mistake, which could only 
 have been suggested by the ambiguity of the word 
 Sacrament, which is sometimes used for the Sacra- 
 mental symbol, and sometimes for the Sacramental 
 rite. The former is the proper, the latter the deri- 
 vative sense. AVhen it is asked, " How many Sacra- 
 ments has Christ ordained in his Church ?" the ques- 
 tion, of course, relates to the rite. When the mean- 
 ing of the word Sacrament is to be explained, the 
 answer shows that the symbol alone can be meant. 
 When again it is asked, " How many parts are there 
 in a Sacrament?" the subsequent applications of the 
 answer to Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord, show, 
 beyond all possibility of doubt, that the question refers 
 to the Sacramental rite; and therefore that the enu- 
 meration of the parts which properly belong to the 
 rite, can prove nothing whatever as to the actual con- 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 nexion between the sign and the thing signified, espe- 
 cially in such a sense as would imply that the thing 
 signified is contained in the sign. But we are not now 
 concerned with the correctness of the author's reason- 
 ing, but with the import of his proposition. And the 
 question is. What is that which he holds to be present 
 in the Eucharist, under the form of bread and wine, 
 and to which he asserts worship to be due ? If it is 
 Christ Himself, the error would lie, not in the worship 
 claimed for Him, not in the assertion of his spiritual 
 presence in the Eucharist, but in that definition of 
 this presence which seems so to annex it to the con- 
 secrated bread and wine, that whoever receives them, 
 receives Christ. This, no doubt, is a proposition, 
 than which it is difficult to conceive one either more 
 absurd and shocking in itself, or more directly repug- 
 nant to the doctrine of the Church of England. But 
 for this very reason we should be the more loath to 
 fasten it on any one who disclaims it. And though 
 the defendant "holds and teaches, that the Body and 
 Blood of Christ, the inward part or thing signified of 
 the blessed Sacrament, is given to, and is received, 
 unto condemnation, by the unbelieving communicant," 
 he, in the same breath, declares that he fully and 
 heartily accepts the statement of the 29th Article, 
 that " the wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, 
 in no wise are partakers of Christ." 
 
 I do not pretend to be able to reconcile these pro- 
 positions with one another, or the former, taken by 
 itself, with the teaching of the Articles or the Cate-
 
 35 
 
 chism. But as that which is orthodox is likewise 
 perfectly clear, while that which seems to contradict 
 it is so obscure and ambiguous, that it is very doubt- 
 ful whether it has any meaning at all, there can be no 
 doubt which of the two we are bound to prefer, when 
 civil rights are at stake, as the true exponent of the 
 author's belief. If the charge had involved no penal 
 consequences, had been brought before the bar of 
 public opinion, and had only affected the author's 
 reputation as a Divine, I have already said enough 
 to intimate what my judgment would have been. The 
 grounds on which alone it seems possible to acquit 
 him of the legal offence, with which he has been 
 charged % would, in the other point of view, constitute 
 a very grave inculpation. It is something worse than 
 trifling in one who is pledged to the formularies of 
 our Church, to use language which not only suggests, 
 but is the very technical expression of a Romish error, 
 
 ' Whetlier the Act of the 13 Elizabeth, c. 12, is applicable to 
 the 29th Article, is quite a distinct question, which has been ably 
 discussed in " An Essay on the History of Article XXIX.," by 
 C. A. Swainson, M.A. But Mr. Swainson appears to me to have 
 entirely missed the point of the controversy, when, at p. 56, he 
 states it thus : " It is essential to his view of the Presence in the 
 Eucharist, that the unworthy comer shall receive the Body of 
 Christ ; it is not essential that he shall eat it. The Archdeacon 
 must "hold that the Presence is removed before the Sacrament is 
 eaten : he denies that it is removed before it is given, before it is 
 received." I am afraid the Archdeacon would not admit that he 
 is bound by this conclusion. He maintains an indiscriminate oral 
 manducatiou, and only confines the spirittial eating to the worthy 
 receiver. 
 
 c 2
 
 36 
 
 which he nevertheless professes to reject. And it 
 matters little whether he is unable or unwilling to 
 express his ideas otherwise. Some other dignitary of 
 our Church may avow his belief in the Immaculate 
 Conception, and, on the authority of such quotations 
 as are to be found in the Pope's Bull, may maintain it 
 to be primitive and catholic doctrine, and therefore 
 the doctrine of the Church of England. And it is 
 probable that he might hold and teach it with legal 
 impunity, if he will at the same time declare that he 
 fully and heartily accepts the 9th and 15th Articles. 
 But he would certainly lay himself open to severe 
 censure, which would not be mitigated by any attempt 
 that he might make to reconcile those Articles with 
 the new Romish doctrine. The violence with which 
 the language of the Church has been recently wrested 
 to a like purpose, is one of the most painful features 
 in the controversy we have been reviewing. But still 
 it appears to me that the law would be made an 
 instrument of something very like persecution, if a 
 clergyman was to be deprived of his preferment for 
 contradicting the Articles, though he professed, appa- 
 rently with perfect sincerity, that he holds every doc- 
 trine contained in them, because his interpretation is 
 deemed by some strained and erroneous. And I 
 should not be the more reconciled to such an abuse 
 of the law, because it had been provoked by dogmati- 
 cal intolerance, indicating a like inquisitorial spirit, 
 on the part of the sufferer. I should only lament 
 that a bad example had been followed, instead of being
 
 37 
 
 shunned. An inquisitor becomes doubly mischievous 
 when he is exalted into a martyr to the cause of reli- 
 gious liberty, and appears as an advocate of free dis- 
 cussion. I am against oppression and injustice, on 
 whatever side they are found; but, as they are the 
 natural allies of error, I deprecate them most of all 
 when they are called in as auxiliaries to the side of 
 truth. 
 
 And I am bound to add that, under the present 
 circumstances of the Church, an appeal to a judicial 
 tribunal for such a purpose is the more to be deplored, 
 and the less justifiable, because it can lead to no 
 decision which can serve any other end than that of 
 inflicting injury or annoyance on an individual, and 
 must leave the doctrinal question just where it was 
 before. The "exposition" of the 28th and 29th 
 Articles, delivered by the Court at Bath, however 
 " true and legal " it may be, and however respectable 
 the authority from which it proceeds, has not the 
 slightest claim to bind the conscience of any member 
 or minister of our Church, any more than one given 
 by a private theologian; and it seems to assume an 
 exclusive authenticity, to which it has no legitimate 
 title, when it is styled " the true and legal exposition," 
 as if every other must be false and illegal. 
 
 But there is still another topic connected with this 
 controversy to which I must briefly advert before I 
 quit the subject. The author whose teaching has 
 been condemned Avould fain represent himself as 
 having been called in question touching the doctrine of
 
 38 
 
 the Real Presence, and as opposed to those who either 
 deny it altogether, or acknowledge it in an incom- 
 plete or erroneous sense; and he pleads this latitude 
 of opinion, which has been allowed, as he thinks, to 
 other ministers of the Church of England, as a ground 
 for claiming the liberty of maintaining his own view 
 " as the one truth of the doctrine ^" It would not 
 seem to follow that, because there is a variety of 
 opinions consistent with the doctrine of the Church, 
 an opinion which differs from all of them must be so 
 too. But it is important to consider how far the 
 doctrine of the Real Presence is involved in this 
 dispute. 
 
 The phrase Real Presence is foreign to the language 
 of the Church of England, and has been wisely avoided 
 as liable to abuse, and likely to deceive or scandalize 
 the simple and ignorant. No minister of our Church 
 is required formally to assert or deny the doctrine of 
 the Real Presence. But there is a sense in which it 
 may be and constantly has been asserted in perfect 
 consistency with her authentic teaching, and in which 
 it could not be denied without great detriment to the 
 truth. And this sense is in perfect accordance with 
 the language of Scripture, and especially with that of 
 our Lord Himself, both on other occasions and on 
 that which is recorded in the sixth chapter of St. John, 
 
 ® Preface to Sermon III., on the Eeal Presence, p. 153. Com- 
 pare the remarlis of Chancellor Martin, at p. 8 of his Preface to 
 his very useful " Extracts from eminent Anglican Divines, on the 
 Eeal Presence in the Eucharist."
 
 39 
 
 when He was speaking, as some have thought, with 
 direct reference, as almost all admit, in a manner 
 applicable to the Eucharist. When He says, " I am 
 the vine," it may be enough to say that He speaks 
 figuratively. But when He says, " I am the true vine," 
 this would be hardly a correct, certainly not an 
 adequate explanation of His meaning. It is not 
 simply as much as to say, " I am like the vine," but, 
 " I am in truth, reality, and effect, that of which the 
 natural vine is only a figure and a shadow. For, by 
 the natural union between the stock and the branches, 
 it represents that far higher and more intimate union 
 which subsists between me and my faithful people." 
 Thus, in this instance, true or real is contradis- 
 tinguished from natural. So, " My Father giveth you 
 the true bread from heaven;" that of which the manna 
 was but a sign : not natural, but spiritual food. So 
 again: "My flesh is meat indeed., and my blood is 
 drink indeed.'^ It would not be so, if it was fitted to 
 nourish the body, as natural meat and drink. It is 
 so, because it is nourishment for the soul, spiritual 
 meat and drink. And according to the same analogy, 
 the Catechism teaches that " the Body and Blood of 
 Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by 
 the faithful in the Lord's Supper:" that is, not 
 figuratively and unsubstantially, as would be the case 
 if they could be received by the mouth, but really and 
 effectually, so as to impart a solid benefit to the soul. 
 And it is in this sense that so many of our most 
 eminent divines have asserted the real presence of
 
 40 
 
 Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist: real^ as 
 possessing a spiritual, life-giving power, for the 
 strengthening and refreshing of the soul, which could 
 not belong to the natural Body and Blood, considered 
 apart from the whole person of Christ. It would be 
 at variance with this analogy, to speak of a real pre- 
 sence of any thing merely natural or neutral, and 
 capable of being received unto condemnation. A 
 thing of this kind would want some other real pre- 
 sence to make it effectual for the desired end. As an 
 instrument of a Divine power, the consecrated bread 
 and wine, though utterly powerless in themselves, are 
 quite adequate to the purpose, and cannot require 
 the addition either of any other substance, or even of 
 any mysterious supernatural virtue. And it is no 
 slight objection to the supposition of such an adjunct, 
 that a stupendous miracle would be wrought without 
 any assignable object. Where there is such a real 
 presence, nothing more can be needed to ensure the 
 fulness of the blessing which the Sacrament was 
 designed to convey to all who worthily partake of it. 
 And without such a presence, no preparation could be 
 of any avail. This is a presence which is independent 
 of nearness or distance, and belongs perhaps more 
 properly to time than to space. But with respect to 
 both, we may say that Christ is really present in the 
 Eucharist, that is, in the celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper. And as the consecrated elements are the 
 instrument by which this presence operates in the 
 worthy receiver, it might have been said — innocently.
 
 41 
 
 though not wisely — that He is present under the form 
 of the bread and wine ; and the phrase has been 
 allowed to remain in a notice at the end of the first 
 Book of Homilies. But it cannot now be used either 
 wisely or innocently by a divine of the Church of 
 England, because it is a phrase which must scandalize 
 or mislead, until it is explained ; and, when explained 
 according to her doctrine, is found to signify some- 
 thing which would have been more properly expressed 
 in different words. 
 
 Such a presence is, in the highest sense of the 
 word, to the full as real as that which, in the Romish 
 and Lutheran systems, and apparently according to 
 the view of the author whose propositions have been 
 recently condemned, is held to be lodged in the sacra- 
 mental symbols, though not so as to render them the 
 more certainly effective for any beneficial operation. 
 It is therefore a mere polemical artifice to allege that 
 one who rejects all those systems is opposed to the 
 doctrine of a real presence in the Eucharist ; and I do 
 not know that there is any other gi'ound for the asser- 
 tion, that there are ministers of our Church who deny 
 it altogether. But I am not sure that all pay sufficient 
 attention, or attach due importance to this part of 
 the truth. And it would not be surprising if many, 
 recoiling with just aversion from the innovations 
 which have been lately attempted in the language, if 
 not in the essential doctrines of the Church on this 
 head, should have fallen into the opposite extreme, 
 and have lost sight of what I will venture to call the
 
 42 
 
 objective reality in the Sacrament. It may be that 
 they hold rightly, that the simple sign is sufficient as 
 the divinely appointed instrument, and a suitable 
 frame of mind in the receiver as the requisite condi- 
 tion, of the benefit to be conveyed ; but that they are 
 apt to overlook the necessity for something beside the 
 instrument and the condition, which is more indispen- 
 sable than either; namely, the Presence, the Power, 
 the spiritual agency, by which the instrument is 
 effectually applied. The practical tendency of this 
 oversight is, to rob the Sacrament of its specific 
 character, to reduce it to a mere form of prayer or 
 mode of preaching ; virtually to contradict the teach- 
 ing of the Church in her Articles, and to divest the 
 language of her Liturgy of all its propriety and signifi- 
 cance. It is true that all sacred ordinances have a 
 common end, and that the efficacy of all depends on 
 their common author. But it does not follow that all 
 are of equal dignity or value. And if there is a point on 
 which the witness of Scripture, of the purest ecclesias- 
 tical tradition, and of our own Church, is more express 
 and uniform than another, it is the peculiar and tran- 
 scendant quality of the blessing which this Sacrament 
 both represents and exhibits, and consequently of the 
 Presence by which that blessing is conferred. How 
 this Presence differs from that of which we are assured 
 by our Lord's promise, where two or three are gathered 
 together in His name — whether only in degree or in 
 kind — it is beyond the power of human language to 
 define, and of human thought to conceive. It is a
 
 43 
 
 subject fit, not for curious speculation, but for the 
 exercise of pious meditation and devotional feeling; 
 and it is one in which there is no danger of ever going 
 beyond the mark, but rather a certainty that the 
 highest flight of contemplation will always fall short 
 of the Divine reality. 
 
 It is our happiness that the bread w^hich nou- 
 rishes our bodies, is not the less nutritive to any 
 of us, because he knows nothing either of the 
 processes, natural and artificial, by which it is pre- 
 pared, or of those by which it is digested and assi- 
 milated to the texture of his bodily frame. And we 
 do not withhold it from the hungry, until we have 
 either ascertained their knowledge, or enlightened 
 their ignorance on these points. It is to be lamented, 
 that the case is often far otherwise with regard to our 
 spiritual food: that we suffer ourselves to be diverted 
 from its proper use, by speculations on its nature, and 
 on the mode of its operation, and that we are ready to 
 exclude those who differ from us on such questions 
 from the Table of our common Lord. 
 
 The topic on which I have been dwelling is so 
 intimately connected with one which has lately occu- 
 pied a considerable share of public attention, and has 
 excited much warmth of feeling, that I cannot forbear 
 touching upon it; the rather as it affords another 
 illustration of the spirit to which I adverted at the 
 outset. The points of difference between the Commu- 
 nion Office proper to the Scottish Episcopal Church, 
 and our own, have been urged as reasons for regard- 
 ing all who prefer the former with suspicion, and for
 
 44 
 
 excluding them from privileges to which they might 
 otherwise have seemed to be fairly entitled. I cannot 
 say that I am at all surprised at the jealousy which 
 has been displayed with regard to those points, but I 
 am convinced not only that it is not justified by the 
 contents of the Scottish Office, but that it was not in 
 fact suggested by them, but, having arisen from other 
 causes, has happened to fall upon it. There is indeed 
 a very considerable difference between the two Offices, 
 both in their structure and their language. But this 
 I cannot consider as an evil in itself, still less as any 
 thing which ought to be a bar to the freest brotherly 
 intercourse between two Churches which so closely 
 agree with one another in doctrine and discipline. 
 Liturgical uniformity is no doubt very desirable within 
 the pale of each Church, though even there it may be 
 too rigidly enforced, or carried too far into details 
 which it would be better to leave to the choice of the 
 several congregations. But in the case of two inde- 
 pendent Protestant Churches, a far greater latitude 
 may be perfectly consistent with their essential unity 
 and concord, and may even yield some benefit, espe- 
 cially with regard to that rite which presents such a 
 variety of aspects, that they can hardly be all fully 
 brought out by any human composition. And it is by 
 no means certain that, where the Scottish Communion 
 Office differs from the English, the advantage is always 
 on our side. There are passages in the Scottish 
 Office, which, as it appears to me, add much to its 
 solemnity, without being liable to any misconstruction 
 in point of doctrine. They express that, which in the
 
 45 
 
 English Office is tacitly implied, but is left to be 
 understood, and therefore may easily be overlooked. 
 But the main difference between the two Offices con- 
 sists in the greater prominence which is given in the 
 Scottish to the commemorative character of the rite. 
 This is indicated, partly by the language used in the 
 form of Consecration, which dwells much more em- 
 phatically than our own on the Memorial, and partly 
 by the number of prayers and other acts of devotion 
 which are interposed between the Consecration and 
 the Communion, while in our Office the one follows 
 immediately after the other. This portion of the 
 Scotch service includes the Prayer for the Church 
 militant, the Lord's Prayer, Invitation to the Holy 
 Communion, the General Confession, and Absolution, 
 the hortative sentences of Scripture, and the Prayer for 
 a meet and salutary reception of the consecrated ele- 
 ments. It is clear that in the view of the framers 
 of this Liturgy, the interval between consecration 
 and communion is the most appropriate season 
 for all manner of supplications general and special, 
 which are founded upon the great sacrifice commemo- 
 rated in the Eucharist. I must own that I do not 
 see any valid doctrinal objection to this view, 
 though I am aware that it may be carried out in a 
 manner liable to great abuse. The structure of the 
 English Office is grounded upon a different, but not a 
 conflicting view of the subject; and it possesses two 
 important practical advantages. One is, that it em- 
 bodies the truth, which seems to be so clearly signified
 
 46 
 
 by the terms of the original institution, that the 
 reception of the Sacrament is an integral part of the 
 divinely appointed memorial. The other is, that it 
 precludes, as far as possible, all danger of a very 
 serious error, that is, of confounding the eucharistic 
 sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving with the one 
 Oblation once offered, which it commemorates; in 
 other words, that it leaves no room for any approach 
 to the Romish false doctrine of a propitiatory sacrifice 
 in the Eucharist. I think that at the present junc- 
 ture it would be difficult to overrate the value of these 
 advantages, and that we cannot be too thankful for a 
 Liturgy which bears such clear and decided witness 
 to a main Article of our Protestant faith. But, at the 
 same time, it would, in my opinion, be very unjust to 
 charge the framers of the Scotch Office, or those who 
 make use of it, with the intention either of questioning 
 the truth, or sanctioning the error to which I have 
 just adverted. 
 
 An eminent divine of our Church, one of the most 
 learned of my predecessors in this see. Bishop Horsley, 
 did not hesitate to declare that he "thought the 
 Scotch Office more conformable to the primitive 
 models, and in his private judgment more edifying, 
 than that which we now use." And he expressed his 
 belief that "our form of consecration of the ele- 
 ments is sufficient," in a way which clearly intimates 
 his opinion, that it is not more than sufficient, and 
 might have been much more satisfactory. The sup- 
 posed defect to which he alludes, has been noticed by
 
 47 
 
 many others, divines of unquestioned orthodoxy, some 
 of whom have thought it desirable to supply it in 
 manuals of private devotion. It consists in the omis- 
 sion of the Prayer of Invocation, which in the primitive 
 Church appears to have been regarded as no less essen- 
 tial to the form of consecration than the narrative 
 which recites the words of institution ^. And it can 
 hardly be denied, that our ritual would lie open to the 
 charge of deviating in an important particular from 
 our Lord's example, and from apostolic usage, as 
 recorded in Scripture, if there was nothing in it to 
 represent that giving of thanks or blessing, by which 
 we find the bread and the cup to have been constantly 
 hallowed before the distribution. But it should be 
 remembered that we know absolutely nothing as to 
 the mode or the terms in which this was done by our 
 
 " See Bishop Eussell (of Glasgow), Charge, 1845, p. 35. " Most 
 of us agree in the opinion so well expressed by Bishop Horsley, 
 that the holy Sacrament is regularly administered by the common 
 Office, though the doctrine of the Church is not distinctly brought 
 out. By the ignorant and dishonest, the Scottish is said to ap- 
 proach nearer than the other to the canon of the mass. Never 
 was there a greater mistake ; for while a Eoman Catholic might 
 receive the Sacrament according to the English form, he could not 
 possibly receive it according to the Scottish. In this last, the 
 prayer of invocation is held indispensable, a prayer which an in- 
 telligent member of the Church of Eome could not tolerate, 
 because it would imply that the bread and wine, after being tran- 
 substantiated, made the very Body and Blood of our Lord, required 
 to be blessed and sanctified." With this may be compared Bishop 
 Mant's "Letter on the Scotch Communion Office," and "A 
 Letter to Bishop Skinner," by the Eev. John Alexander.
 
 48 
 
 Lord or his Apostles ; and that, whatever may be the 
 imperfection of our form of consecration, though the 
 recital, which contains the groundwork of the whole 
 ordinance, is treated as the most essential part, still 
 it is in substance and effect a prayer for the same 
 blessing which is implored more formally and ex- 
 pressly in the Scotch form, and that it is preceded 
 by a most solemn ascription of thanks and praise. I 
 cannot therefore subscribe to the opinion, that there 
 is even an apparent material defect in this part of our 
 Office, however I may sympathize with the regret 
 which has been so frequently expressed, that it does 
 not include a more distinct and explicit petition for 
 the Divine blessing on the elements. It is quite 
 another question whether the language of the Scotch 
 prayer may not be open to reasonable objection. And 
 I think it can hardly be denied that it is not free 
 from ambiguity ; and that although its meaning may be 
 perfectly consistent with sound doctrine, that meaning 
 might have been more clearly expressed, so as to avoid 
 the danger of even remotely suggesting the error of 
 the corporal presence. This object seems to me to 
 have been best accomplished in the American Liturgy, 
 which retains the Invocation in a form which' is effec- 
 tually guarded against any such misconception. But 
 the same object is also attained in the first Liturgy of 
 Edward VI., by the insertion of two words, which 
 suggest the distinction between the instrument, the 
 material elements, and the spiritual blessing, which 
 it is designed to convey to the worthy receiver. And
 
 49 
 
 it is solely in the omission of these two words, or the 
 substitution of the word " become " for " be unto us," 
 that the Scotch Prayer of Invocation diifers from that 
 of the above-mentioned Liturgy. It may be true, that 
 this omission does not necessarily affect the sense; 
 that the context may still bear an orthodox construc- 
 tion ; the change indicated by the word " become " be 
 merely relative or sacramental; and, therefore, that 
 the omission may be defended on the ground that 
 " the phrases are," as has been said, " equal in value, 
 theologically and grammatically '." But if the ques- 
 tion was to be argued on the ground of Christian 
 prudence and charity, I think that the difference 
 would not appear so unimportant, and that when one 
 of the phrases is unequivocal, and capable of none but 
 an orthodox sense, while the other is liable to a mis- 
 construction, which may offend or mislead, it cannot 
 be doubted which of the two ought to be preferred. 
 And under certain circumstances, the deliberate re- 
 tention of a phrase which was originally harmless, 
 may assume the character of an act, intended to main- 
 tain the doctrine which the phrase has been supposed 
 to imply ^ For there seems to be hardly any other 
 motive than the assertion of that which is considered 
 as an important truth, that could justify the refusal of 
 
 ' Bishop Eussell, Charge, 1845, note iv. p. 42. 
 
 * By persons however who are perhaps Bot aware that tlie 
 expression which they prefer is that of the Canon of the Mass, 
 where the words of the prayer before tlie consecration are, " Ut 
 NOBIS corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui." 
 
 D
 
 50 
 
 such an easy satisfaction to doubting minds and tender 
 consciences, as the insertion, or rather the restoration, 
 of two words in a prayer. But with these qualifica- 
 tions, I cannot wonder, much less regard it as ground 
 for censure or suspicion, that members of the Scotch 
 Episcopal Church should be warmly attached to their 
 own peculiar Liturgy ; and I think it neither liberal 
 nor reasonable, that they should be required to sur- 
 render it as the price of any advantage which they 
 might derive from a closer outward communion with 
 the Church of Enoland. 
 
 The controversy on the Eucharist has followed that 
 which agitated the Church on the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism, not simply in order of time, but in the relation 
 of an eifect to its cause. It was almost avowedly a 
 counter-movement of a party which resented an ad- 
 vantage that had been gained by its antagonists, and 
 desired to counterbalance it by an equivalent success. 
 One had made good the right of holding an opinion 
 which some wished to have condemned as heretical 
 on the efficacy of Baptism ; another therefore would 
 claim the like liberty of teaching what was considered 
 on the opposite side as a pernicious heresy on the 
 nature of the Eucharist. But unhappily — as indeed 
 it was but too easy to foresee — the later controversy, 
 though it has in some measure superseded the earlier 
 one in the hold which it took on public attention, has 
 made no change in the relative position or views of 
 the parties, unless so far as it has served to embitter 
 the spirit of their contest, and to render it more
 
 51 
 
 exclusive and intolerant. Those who had success- 
 fully maintained their ground when it was legally 
 threatened, have not been content with this victory, 
 but have been animated by it with the hope of be- 
 coming sole masters of the field. A movement appears 
 to have been set on foot for effecting this object by 
 means of what is called a purijication of the Liturgy? 
 which has been lately recommended in an elaborate 
 work^, w^ritten with considerable ability, but not so 
 remarkable on this account, as because there is reason 
 to believe that it represents the views of an active 
 party, which is bent on accomplishing a radical change 
 in the character of the Church. I am not aware that 
 these views had been ever in our day so clearly ex- 
 pressed or so openly avowed. It is, as far as I know, 
 the first time in our memory that a revision of the 
 Liturgy has been proposed, or rather demanded, for 
 the express purpose of adapting it to a peculiar system 
 of doctrine, for which its partisans had hitherto been 
 satisfied with the shelter which it found in the lan- 
 guage of our present formularies. And in this point 
 of view the attempt may be regarded as perhaps the 
 most glaring example that has occurred in our own 
 Church of that dogmatical intolerance to which I 
 have been directing your attention. The pretext for 
 this attempt has been furnished by a polemical artifice 
 which is verv common, thouoh not on that account 
 
 * " Liturgical Purity, our Eightful Inheritance." By John 
 C. Fisher, M.A., of the Middle Temple. 
 
 D 2
 
 52 
 
 the more creditable, by which the disputant first 
 affixes his own definition to an ambiguous term, and 
 then charges his opponents with the worst conse- 
 quences which he can deduce from the meaning which 
 he imputes to them. The author's historical review 
 of the various phases through which our Liturgy, and 
 other Formularies, have passed, before they were 
 brought to their present shape, will perhaps, so far as 
 it is correct, lead others to a very different conclusion, 
 and will inspire a feeling of gratitude for the result 
 which has been worked out through this long conflict 
 of jarring opinions, prejudices, and passions, together 
 with a resolution not to throw away that which has 
 been thus providentially preserved. Of the conse- 
 quences that would probably ensue from the success 
 of this attempt to the peace and welfare of the Church, 
 I need not speak, as I believe the danger of such an 
 event to be very remote, and I have only adverted to 
 it as an illustration of an evil which is manifesting 
 itself among us in a great variety of forms. The most 
 mischievous effect that there seems room to apprehend 
 from the attempt itself, is the prejudice which it may 
 raise against all proposals for Liturgical changes, 
 though conceived in a widely different spirit, and 
 directed to a wholly distinct object. I trust however 
 that it will only serve as a salutary warning against 
 the principle which it so boldly avows, and will not 
 deter the more liberal and enlightened friends of the 
 Church from persevering in their endeavours to bring 
 about such modifications of her Liturgical usages, as
 
 53 
 
 may adapt them to the altered circumstances and 
 growing needs of our times. It would indeed be sur- 
 prising if, while all around us has been undergoing 
 such vast and momentous changes, the regulations of 
 public worship continued to be as well suited as ever 
 to their original purposes, and if no inconvenience 
 could now arise from an Act of Uniformity, always 
 of questionable expediency, and passed two centuries 
 ago. There is a strong conviction in many minds, 
 one which has of late been fast gaining ground, and 
 is making itself more and more distinctly audible, 
 that such a supposition would be no less contrary to 
 fact than to antecedent probability, and that it is 
 highly desirable to provide a remedy for the incon- 
 venience which has arisen from the existing incongruity 
 between the state of the law and the wants of the 
 Church *. But the most important among the objects 
 which such friends of the Church have in view, might 
 be accomplished without any change in the language 
 of our Formularies, simply by enlarged facilities for a 
 freer use of the contents of the Prayer Book and the 
 Bible. Out of this treasure might be brought " things 
 new and old," which, by means of a judicious selection 
 and arrangement, would amply suffice for the ordinary 
 use of the household of faith. This therefore would 
 seem to be the object which should take precedence 
 of all others in every plan for the improvement of the 
 
 * See " The People's Call for a Eevlsion of the Liturgy, in a 
 Letter to Lord Palmerstou," by the Eev. James Hildyard, 1857.
 
 54 
 
 Liturgy. It would be effected mainly by some slight 
 alterations in the Rubric and the Calendar. But 
 after this had been done, there would still remain 
 some deficiencies to be supplied, and there might be 
 yet room for a farther revision, which would con- 
 tribute, though in an inferior degree, to the usefulness 
 of the materials already at our disposal. It might be 
 desirable to provide a greater number of Services for 
 special occasions of regular and frequent occurrence, 
 as well as a greater variety of extraordinary Prayers 
 and Thanksgivings. It would then be time to con- 
 sider, whether the language of the Prayer Book re- 
 quired or admitted of improvement for purposes as to 
 which, in principle, all would agree, however they 
 might differ from one another in the details of its 
 practical application. For in the abstract none would 
 deny the expediency of removing all needless occasions 
 of offence or mistake arising from an obsolete or am- 
 biguous phraseology. 
 
 This subject has already engaged the attention of 
 the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, chiefly 
 in connexion with the larger question of a better pro- 
 vision for the spiritual wants of our growing popu- 
 lation : and that Convocation has been praised by the 
 author, to whose work I have been referring, for the 
 readiness which it has shown to address itself to this 
 subject, and the desire it has manifested for a revision 
 of the Prayer Book\ But I believe that, if there 
 
 ' See p. 572 and foil.
 
 oo 
 
 was a principle on which the Convocation was more 
 unanimous than any other, it was that the first, the 
 indispensable condition on which any such proposals 
 for Liturgical changes could be entertained, was the 
 strictest abstinence from all attempt at dogmatical in- 
 novation, and that even the remotest suspicion of an 
 intention to purify the Liturgy in the author's sense, 
 would in their judgment have been fatal to any plan 
 by which such an intention was betrayed. But, how- 
 ever little that praise was merited by any apparent 
 conformity to the author's views on the point to which 
 he attaches supreme importance, it is, as coming from 
 such a quarter, highly significant and worthy of 
 notice. It marks a great change in public opinion 
 with regard to Convocation. When I last addressed 
 you, I felt it necessary to point out the groundlessness 
 of any alarm about the mode in which Convocation 
 might exercise whatever powers it possesses, even 
 though unrestricted as to the time allowed for its de- 
 liberations. It then seemed to me not superfluous to 
 observe : " Not only has it no independent legislative 
 authority, by which it could encroach upon existing 
 rights, or introduce perilous innovations, but it is 
 liable at any moment to be reduced to silence and 
 inaction." The apprehensions which this remark was 
 designed to allay, had been alleged, in the same quarter 
 from which Convocation has been just receiving this 
 tribute of praise, as a ground for stifling the first 
 signs of its returning life, and keeping it in perpetual 
 silence and inaction. Now it is applauded by one
 
 56 
 
 who puts himself in the van of those who were its 
 most violent opponents, because he thinks it is, or 
 hopes it may become, favourable to an encroachment 
 on existing rights, which it deems most sacred, and 
 may serve to introduce innovations which it regards 
 as both perilous and unjustifiable. But now that the 
 fears which were at first held out as reasons for si- 
 lencing Convocation, have been too generally recog- 
 nized as idle and visionary, to be any longer available 
 for such a purpose, its adversaries have shifted 
 their gi'ound, and endeavour to represent its pro- 
 ceedings as a mere waste of time, because they have 
 not been attended with any immediate palpable results 
 in a legislative form. As however there would be 
 some diflaculty in urging this as a reason for sup- 
 pressing those proceedings, the fact that this is the 
 strongest objection that is any longer alleged against 
 them, may be considered as affording some security 
 that they will not in future be forcibly interrupted, or 
 compressed within narrower limits. Persons however 
 who watch them with a friendly and enlightened in- 
 terest, believe that they no more deserve to be de- 
 nounced as useless, than as dangerous. To such 
 observers they appear to be a necessary preparation 
 for a most important work, in which the welfare of 
 the Church is far more deeply concerned than in any 
 particular legislative enactment : and such persons 
 would regard any attempt at ecclesiastical legislation, 
 even if it were practicable under present circum- 
 stances, as premature and mischievous. But they see
 
 57 
 
 room to hope, that out of these consultations, without 
 any direct appeal to secular authority, there may grow 
 that which in time, with Grod's blessing, may renew 
 the face of the Church, and infuse the vigour of a 
 second youth into all parts of her system. Consider 
 for a moment what we have, and what we want. 
 There is no lack of energy, or of wisdom, or of zeal, 
 or devotedness, though all no doubt capable of in- 
 crease, in the Church, either among the Clergy or 
 the Laity : there is a superabundance of material 
 wealth in their public and private property ; there are 
 manifold advantages attached to their legal and social 
 position. What is wanted is that these various re- 
 sources should be drawn forth, combined, and applied 
 for a common end. But it is clear, that union of will 
 must precede and prepare the way for unity of action, 
 and such union can only be elicited and expressed by 
 means of conference and free discussion. But it is 
 evident that Convocation, as it is at present consti- 
 tuted, is utterly inadequate to such a purpose ; and it 
 is more than doubtful, it is altogether improbable, 
 that its constitution will ever be so modified as to 
 render it a fit instrument for so great a work. It 
 may however be found, — and the thought appears to 
 be ffrowinor more and more familiar to those who have 
 most carefully considered the subject, — that Convo- 
 cation, however useful in its measure, is very far from 
 exhausting the Church's legal capacity for united de- 
 liberation on her own concerns ; and that a mode 
 might be devised, in perfect harmony with her ancient
 
 58 
 
 institutions, for gathering the sense hoth of the Clergy 
 and the Laity on questions affecting their common 
 interests and objects, as faithful members of her com- 
 munion ^ No doubt many difficulties will have to be 
 overcome, before any such plan can be matured and 
 carried into effect. It will probably be fashioned only 
 by degrees, with the aid of experience, and arrive at 
 whatever success it may attain through many failures 
 and disappointments. But it should be observed, that 
 it will not have to contend — as would be the case with 
 any attempt at a re-construction of Convocation — 
 with difficulties depending on the will of any who are 
 foreign or hostile to the Church, but only with such 
 as may arise from a divergency of views and opinions 
 on secondary points, among those who are perfectly 
 unanimous on the main object, and equally desirous 
 of promoting her interests. It is true that such a 
 representation of the Church, however complete, would 
 be even less capable than Convocation now is of any 
 action that would possess legal force, or exert any 
 other than a purely moral influence. But the weight 
 which its deliberations would carry with them would 
 be in proportion to the completeness of its organi- 
 zation, and its moral influence would probably make 
 itself felt in quarters where the judgment and wishes 
 of Convocation could command no respect or sympathy. 
 The relation in which Convocation would stand to 
 
 " See " Convocation and the Laity ; a Letter to Archdeacon 
 Grant," by Francis Henry Dickinson, Esq.
 
 59 
 
 such a representative body, would determine itself ac- 
 cording to circumstances which cannot be exactly cal- 
 culated. But there would be nothing in the new 
 institution either to chan^^e the leg-al character, or to 
 supersede the ordinary functions, of the ancient eccle- 
 siastical synod. In the meanwhile the recent sessions 
 of Convocation have served the important purpose of 
 satisfying every impartial mind, that our party di- 
 visions would not be likely to raise any formidable 
 obstacle to the success of such an attempt as I have 
 been indicating, but rather that, in proportion as the 
 basis of the representation is enlarged, prudence and 
 moderation may be expected to preside over the 
 counsels of the Church, and there will be the less 
 danger from the spirit of intolerance and persecution 
 in any direction. 
 
 The influence which may be exerted on the Legis- 
 lature by an expression of the opinions and feelings of 
 any large portion of the Clergy, has been recently 
 illustrated by the important concession which has 
 been made to the conscientious scruples entertained 
 by many of them, with regard to the celebration of 
 marriasfe in cases where the former marriafi^e of one 
 of the parties had been dissolved on the ground of 
 adultery. I wnsh that this concession, valuable as it 
 is, had been more ample, and had fully met the 
 scruples of those clergymen who, on grounds which 
 are entitled to the highest respect, even from those 
 who do not entirely assent to them, believe marriage 
 to be absolutelv indissoluble. The more extensivelv
 
 60 
 
 this conviction prevails among the Clergy, the stronger 
 must he its claim on the forbearance of the Legisla- 
 ture. And if it was shared by comparatively few, 
 the danger of inconvenience to individuals seeking for 
 the solemnization of their union under such circum- 
 stances, would be proportionately less. I abstain from 
 all discussion of the question itself. Independently 
 of all religious scruples, I cannot help viewing the 
 new facilities given to divorce with strong misgiving ; 
 but only because I fear that they may operate injuri- 
 ously on the domestic interests of society, not because 
 I think that the Legislature has, in this innovation, 
 exceeded its rightful powers, and violated the law of 
 God. I am indeed persuaded that, in a community 
 like the primitive Church, regulated by the pure 
 mind and will of Christ, marriage would invariably 
 be held indissoluble. But I am not equally satisfied 
 that all the precepts which would be binding on such 
 a community, are likewise applicable to one placed in 
 circumstances so widely different as those of our age 
 and nation, or were intended to be universally en- 
 forced by legislative authority. I am afraid that, 
 whatever hardness of heart warranted a relaxation of 
 their rigour under the Mosaic dispensation, may be 
 found in an equal degree in modern English society : 
 and the question how it may be best treated, is one of 
 prudence rather than of principle. But it seems to 
 me clear, that, however this may be, the Legislature 
 cannot reasonably or consistently require the Clergy, 
 whom it obliges to recognize the Scriptures as of
 
 61 
 
 supreme authority, to act in contravention of that 
 which appears to them to be there plainly taught as 
 the commandment of Christ. 
 
 I must now turn to some topics which are more 
 immediately connected with the concerns of our own 
 Diocese. And that which first presents itself, is one 
 which I approach with much pain and reluctance. 
 I had for a time indulged the hope, that I might be 
 spared the necessity of thus publicly adverting to it : 
 but even when I was forced to abandon that hope, 
 I found no reason for anticipating this which seems the 
 most convenient season for that purpose. The subject 
 was first brought under my notice, in a form which 
 called for a practical decision, in the latter part of 
 last year, by a memorial signed by upwards of seventy 
 beneficed clergymen of the Diocese, in which they 
 drew my attention to a volume of Sermons, published 
 by the Vice-Principal of St. David's College ^ ; ' both 
 with regard to its teaching generally, and especially 
 to its statements on Holy Scriptures,' which appeared 
 to the subscribers ' seriously to affect the supremacy 
 and infallibility of Scripture as the Divine rule of 
 faith and practice, and to clash with the language of 
 the Articles and Prayer Book on the subject.' They 
 declared that these statements had ' filled them with 
 alarm, and shaken their confidence in the author as 
 a theologian,' and expressed their fear that ' his con- 
 
 ^ " Rational Godliness after the Mind of Christ and the written 
 Voices of His Church," by Eowland Williams, B.D.
 
 62 
 
 tinuance in the office which he holds, would be at- 
 tended with most serious consequences to the interests 
 of the College and the welfare of the Church in the 
 Principality ;' and therefore ' prayed me to adopt such 
 steps as I might deem best calculated to meet the 
 emergency, and to restore confidence in the Divinity 
 instruction, which candidates for the ministry of our 
 Church receive at St. David's College.' 
 
 The question thus formally raised, had long before 
 engaged my most earnest attention ; but the step by 
 which alone it seemed possible that the confidence, 
 which had been in this respect withdrawn from the 
 College, could be effectually restored, was one which, 
 as I explained in my answer to the memorial, it did 
 not rest with me to adopt. But I must now add that, 
 if my power of dealing with this case had been as 
 ample and absolute as it has been assumed to be by 
 persons unacquainted with its real nature and extent, 
 it would not have been easy for me to reconcile that 
 which might appear to be required for the interests 
 of the College, and the peace of the Diocese, with the 
 respect due to the rights of individuals ; rights which, 
 when clear, I could not think it lawful to sacrifice to 
 any object, however otherwise desirable. There are 
 two or three general principles by which I should 
 wish to be governed, whenever I am called upon to 
 exercise any authority with which I am entrusted for 
 the conservation of sound doctrine. On the one 
 hand, I hold myself bound to resist the introduction 
 of all error contrary to the teaching of the Church ;
 
 63 
 
 on the other hand, I regard it as a no less sacred and 
 important part of my duty, to respect, and, as far as 
 lies in me, to protect that freedom of thought, word, 
 and action, which the Church has hitherto granted to 
 her ministers and members, and neither to make nor 
 to sanction an attempt to place it under any new re- 
 striction which she has not thought fit to impose. 
 I also consider it as a plain rule of equity, that no man 
 shall be held responsible for opinions which he dis- 
 avows, and that every one shall be allowed to interpret 
 his language in his own sense, and shall not be con- 
 victed of heresy — above all when the conviction is to 
 involve penal consequences — on a construction of his 
 words which he does not himself admit. 
 
 It was apparently in conformity with this principle, 
 that one who gave instruction in Divinity in the 
 University of Oxford, having published doctrine 
 which seemed to be at variance with the teaching of 
 our Church, was recently required to renew his de- 
 claration of belief in her Ai'ticles. And it is a fact 
 not without moment, that the sermon which has been 
 considered as especially liable to the charge of false 
 doctrine in the case now before us, was preached before 
 the University of Cambridge, which has since conferred 
 the degree of Doctor of Divinity on the author. 
 
 The difficulty to which I alluded, arises partly 
 from the nature of the subject, and partly from the 
 peculiar manner in which the author has treated 
 it. I trust that I shall not be supposed to be speaking 
 disparagingly of his unquestionable ability, if I ven-
 
 64 
 
 ture to doubt whether his doctrinal statements would 
 have attracted much attention, if they had not been 
 forced into notice by the accident of his position. 
 It may be that the fault lies with myself: but I 
 must own that they appear to me singularly deficient 
 in clearness and precision. They are commonly 
 forcible and striking ; often pregnant and suggestive : 
 not unfrequently epigrammatic and pungent. But 
 these are qualities which, however attractive, are 
 not always favourable to perspicuity, and, however 
 well suited to the ordinary purposes of a sermon, are 
 not equally so to the treatment of controverted points 
 of dogmatical theology, in w^hich they may leave 
 room painfully to miss that dry, homely, sometimes 
 rather wordy and tedious, but unaffected and unpre- 
 tending style, to which we are accustomed in the 
 works of English divines, who have handled such 
 subjects, and which, whatever may be its faults, has 
 the merit of conveying, whether in many or few words, 
 neither more nor less than the wTiter's exact meaning-. 
 This deficiency has perhaps operated injuriously on 
 the general impression produced by the w^ork we are 
 now considering, and certainly increases the difficulty 
 of forming a clear judgment upon it. 
 
 With regard however to the nature of the questions 
 raised by some portions of it, and to which the me- 
 morial expressly refers, there are some distinctions 
 which it is important to keep in view. These ques- 
 tions do not immediately touch any Article of the 
 Christian faith : they relate not to the things them-
 
 C5 
 
 selves " which a Christian ought to know and believe 
 to his soul's health ;" but to the mode of the commu- 
 nication throuofh which these truths are known and 
 believed. And it is gratifying to reflect that no 
 complaint has reached me, imputing any unsoundness 
 to the author's teaching on any such points. Still it 
 cannot be denied, that in one point of view the ques- 
 tions which concern the communication of the truth 
 may be considered as more important, and as lying 
 nearer to the foundation of the whole, than any part 
 of the truth itself. For the certainty and value of all 
 parts alike depend on the Divine character of the 
 communication; and if that should be rejected, must 
 be greatly impaired, if not utterly ruined. But then 
 this applies only to the Divine origin of the communi- 
 cation ; and when that is admitted, the question as to 
 the mode of transmission, though highly interesting 
 and important, becomes one of secondary moment. 
 To individuals indeed, according to the view which 
 they take of it, it may still appear to be fundamental, 
 as involving the very groundwork of their own private 
 belief. And this is a good reason why they should 
 cling firmly to that which is the main stay of all their 
 religious convictions. But it is not a reason why 
 they should attempt to force others to rest their belief 
 on the same ground, still less why they should charge 
 those who take a different view of the subject with 
 unbelief or unsoundness in the faith. One who has 
 been used to regard the authorized translation of the 
 Bible as of equal authority with the original text, will 
 
 E
 
 66 
 
 naturally shrink from a proposal to make any change 
 in the sacred words with which his deepest feelings of 
 veneration are inseparably associated by life-long 
 habit. And he would certainly have a right to com- 
 plain, if any one compelled him to use a new or 
 altered version. But the right would not be on his 
 side, if, not content with opposing those who wish to 
 bring the translation into closer correspondence with 
 the original, he should accuse them of irreverence, or 
 of a design to corrupt and mutilate the Scriptures. 
 Yet I believe this would be neither a purely imagi- 
 nary, nor an extreme case. An eminent person, 
 whose opinion carries much weight with it in some 
 religious circles, is reported to have expressed him- 
 self publicly to the eiFect, " that it would be far better 
 to plunge at once into infidelity or atheism, than to 
 stand in the position of one who denies the plenary 
 inspiration of Scripture ; because this cuts from under 
 us the very ground on which we stand ^" As a de- 
 scription of personal experience, such language may 
 not be extravagant; and the state of mind which it 
 indicates, so long as it is kept within its proper 
 bounds, is entitled to the utmost tenderness and 
 sympathy. But when this individual consciousness is 
 set up as the common measure of truth, to which all 
 are required to conform under penalty of exclusion 
 from Christian fellowship, it becomes an instrument 
 
 ' See '' The Bible and Lord Shaftesbury," by the Eev. Henry 
 Burgess, p. 29.
 
 G7 
 
 of ao'OTession on the riochts of conscience, and usur- 
 pation of authority which belongs only to the Church. 
 If we refer, as we are bound to do, to the Church's 
 standards of doctrine, we find that she has pro 
 nounced no decision, has laid down no definition on 
 this subject. It was indeed hardly possible that she 
 should have done so. For the whole question as to 
 the nature and extent of the inspiration of Scripture, 
 is one of modern, and among ourselves of very recent, 
 origin. And there was nothing in any of the con- 
 troversies in which she was engaged, to call for or 
 suggest a formal exposition of her views on these 
 points. It was only in her dispute with the Church 
 of Rome that she had occasion to assert the sufficiency 
 of Holy Scripture, as containing all things necessary 
 to salvation, and so to reject the claim of equal dignity 
 which had been advanced in behalf of an un scriptural 
 tradition, and of the decrees, whether of pope or 
 council, as living oracles of Divine truth. In this 
 sense she requires her ministers to acknowledge the 
 supremacy of Scripture. And though she does not 
 expressly speak either of its supremacy or its infalli- 
 bility, yet that acknowledgment clearly implies a con- 
 fession of infallibility to the same extent. For it 
 would be mere trifling to assert the sufficiency of 
 Scripture, as containing all things necessary to sal- 
 vation, unless there was an equally sure warrant for 
 their truth as for their necessity. And in the Second 
 Part of the Exhortation to the Reading of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, we are exhorted to " stay, quiet, and certify our 
 
 E 2
 
 6S 
 
 consciences with the most infallible certainty, truth, 
 and perpetual assurance " of " these holy rules, in- 
 junctions, and statutes of our Christian religion." 
 But as the Article confines itself to things necessary 
 to salvation, so the Homily grounds its exhortation 
 entirely on such uses of Scripture as are subservient 
 to the same end. But with regard to things which 
 lie outside of this circle, and have no special con- 
 nexion either with faith or practice, — as in another 
 Homily it is remarked, that " the rehearsal of the 
 genealogies and pedigrees of the fathers is not to 
 much edification of the plain ignorant people," — the 
 Church has not delivered any dogmatical determina- 
 tion as to the infallibility of Scripture, or the mode 
 by which it was divinely secured. She could have 
 had no inducement to frame an Article for avoiding 
 diversities of opinions on these subjects, unless she 
 had been enabled to foresee the speculations and con- 
 troversies which were to spring up in later times with 
 respect to them. Some may wish that she had been 
 endued with such prescience; others may think that 
 it was wisely and graciously withheld. But the fact 
 remains, that she has not bound her ministers by any 
 authoritative statement on these questions, but has 
 left them at liberty to inquire for themselves, and to 
 arrive at such conclusions as best satisfy their own 
 judgments. It would therefore be a waste of time to 
 consider what her decision would probably have been 
 if an occasion had arisen to call for one. To my own 
 mind indeed, independently of historical facts, the
 
 69 
 
 whole tenor of the language in which she expresses 
 her profound veneration for Holy Scripture, seems to 
 leave little room for doubt as to which side she would 
 have taken in any controversy which appeared to 
 affect its dignity and authority. But this, however 
 certain it may appear, though it may raise a pre- 
 sumption in favour of that view which she would have 
 preferred, and though it ought especially to protect 
 those who adhere to that view from hard or con- 
 temptuous language on the part of their opponents, 
 still cannot be allowed to abridge the right of free 
 investigation which has actually been left to the mi- 
 nisters of the Church in this department of theology. 
 Nor ought it to be lightly assumed, that those who, 
 in the exercise of that right, have been led to a dif- 
 ferent conclusion, one perhaps less in accordance with 
 the mind of the Church at an earlier period, do not 
 fully share that veneration for Holy Scripture which 
 breathes through all her formularies. This freedom 
 has been used by men of whom it is impossible to 
 doubt, that they heartily accepted and reverenced the 
 Scriptures as the Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, 
 and yet conceived their infallibility to be not absolute, 
 but relative. And when the principle is conceded, 
 its application must be left to the discretion of each 
 individual, which cannot be rightfully limited by any 
 authority lower than that of the Church. Those only 
 who are not conversant with the subject, can fail to 
 be aware that it is beset with conflicting difficulties, 
 between which a choice has to be made ; and it is an
 
 70 
 
 inevitable incident of our nature that these difficulties 
 should be variously estimated by different minds, so 
 that what to one appears the greater, should to another 
 appear the less. And there can hardly be a case in 
 which that intolerant spirit, to which I have so fre- 
 quently alluded in this address, shows itself in a more 
 unamiable light, or with more pernicious effects, than 
 when it confounds the advocates with the assailants 
 of Christianity, and not only rejects their services in 
 behalf of the common cause, but charges them with 
 treachery and apostasy, because they would wage the 
 contest on a different ground from that on which it 
 has itself been used to take its stand. 
 
 But these general remarks might be in danger of 
 being misapplied, unless I added a few of a more 
 special nature. The author, whose orthodoxy had been 
 impugned on account of his volume of Sermons, re- 
 sorted in self-defence to a course of proceeding which, 
 as far as regards its avowed object, must be admitted 
 to be fair, manly, and every way worthy of his cha- 
 racter and station. " As the most inoffensive mode of 
 correcting some mis-statements about his book, for 
 which," as he says, " he is far from claiming infal- 
 libility, but which he wishes to see represented fairly, 
 and discussed calmly," he published his own expla- 
 nation of its " true meaning " in a series of Propo- 
 sitions. And he has since re-published this statement 
 with some slight alterations, and with the addition of 
 a fresh series of propositions, extracted, either ver- 
 bally or in substance, from his Sermons, and running
 
 71 
 
 parallel to a series of counter-propositions which he 
 conceives must, by logical necessity, be adopted by all 
 who reject his ^ If this was a case for judgment in 
 a Court of Heresy, perhaps the author might be con- 
 sidered as no longer responsible for any statement in 
 his book which is not repeated in this explanation of 
 its true meaning. But if we are not confined to the 
 strictly legal or technical point of view, but are still 
 at liberty — as the author would undoubtedly admit — 
 to examine the whole work with the aid of those pro- 
 positions, and are not bound to treat them as a com- 
 plete substitute for it, then it seems very doubtful 
 whether much has been gained by that explanation, 
 and whether it is well adapted to either of the ends 
 which the author appears to have had in view; that 
 is, "fair representation," and "calm discussion." I 
 am constrained to say that he must have been labour- 
 ing under a very strange and unhappy delusion, when 
 he imagined that calmness of discussion could be pro- 
 moted either by the terms which he applies to his 
 opponents, or by the antithesis in which he exhibits 
 their supposed opinions — being the inferences which 
 he draws from their objections to his doctrine — in 
 contrast to his own. I know not how far this asperity 
 may have been provoked by the language of his as- 
 sailants, but I am sure that it could not tend to allay 
 the heat of controversv, and that it was not better 
 
 ^ " Lampeter Theology Exemplified in Extracts from tlie Yice- 
 Principal's Lectures, Letterci, uud Sermous."
 
 72 
 
 suited to further the interests of truth than those of 
 charity; and I lament that, if he felt himself ag- 
 grieved by the manner in which his writings were 
 attacked, he did not rather endeavour to shame his 
 adversaries by the contrast of a milder and more 
 dignified tone. 
 
 But the graver question is, how far these proposi- 
 tions are an adequate representation of the statements 
 which have given most ofi^ence in his work, considered 
 as a whole. And I must own that I doubt whether, 
 if they had appeared first, they would have prepared 
 any one for all that was to be found on the same head 
 in the Sermons. I am inclined to think that, if they 
 would then have seemed strange or startling to an 
 intelligent reader, it would have been not so much on 
 account of any thing which they distinctly state, as of 
 the difficulty of perceiving their exact drift and their 
 collective import, and because such a reader might 
 conceive a suspicion of something behind them all, 
 which they were meant to suggest, but not to ex- 
 press. It is, as I have observed, characteristic of the 
 author's style, that it is generally apt to make such 
 an impression. But here the effect is produced not 
 merely by the form or wording, but by the substance 
 and nature of the propositions themselves. They 
 look like fragmentary outlines of a system which can- 
 not be fully appreciated, until the parts are put to- 
 gether and viewed as a connected whole. And when 
 such a suspicion is once roused, it will be strengthened 
 by things that would otherwise have served to divert
 
 73 
 
 it. The vagueness, the simplicity, the undeniable 
 truth of some of these propositions, will make them 
 appear, not pointless or commonplace, but the more 
 significant and emphatic. And when it is re- 
 membered that they were framed, not as a simple 
 enunciation of doctrine, but for an apologetic contro- 
 versial purpose, it will be the more difficult to believe 
 that, where their obvious sense is most harmless and 
 self-evident, it does not cover a depth of questionable 
 meaninof. 
 
 Thus the first proposition consists of three parts. 
 It begins with a definition of Revelation, stating what 
 it is, generally and " especially." " Kevelation is an 
 unveiling of the true God, especially as Love and as 
 a Spirit, to the eyes of the mind." AVhen we recol- 
 lect that the true God is a Spirit, it may seem a little 
 strange to find one of his attributes thus coupled with 
 his essential nature. It will however not be denied 
 that both will be included in every complete, or not 
 materially imperfect revelation of the Godhead. And 
 the definition has the advantage of the greatest pos- 
 sible comprehensiveness in other respects ; for it em- 
 braces every conceivable process by which our know- 
 ledge of the true God, in His nature. His attributes, 
 His works, and His will, may be acquired or enlarged. 
 But this advantage is attended with the inconvenience, 
 that the definition is utterly useless for the purpose 
 for which it might have been supposed to have been 
 designed, that of throwing light on the Author's 
 views of Revelation; for it leaves us wholly unin-
 
 formed, whether he admits any distinction among 
 those various processes, by virtue of w^hich the name 
 of Revelation would be more properly applied to one 
 than to another. The proposition proceeds to state 
 wherein " much of the evidence of Revelation con- 
 sists," namely, " in its conformity to whatever is best 
 in the moral nature given, and kept alive in us by 
 our Maker." But here it seems evident, that the 
 author has confounded the object or matter of Re- 
 velation with the process, which was the proper 
 subject of the definition; for that conformity to our 
 moral nature must lie in the things revealed, not in 
 the revealing. So that as to the evidence of this, as 
 distinct from the things themselves, the proposition 
 is still altogether silent. It concludes with the in- 
 ference, that " to vilify mankind overmuch, is not 
 honouring Almighty God so much as degenerating 
 his handiwork, and is injurious to religion;" a senti- 
 ment which will probably command very general 
 assent, but which may also give occasion for surprise, 
 that so large a basis should have been laid for so 
 slight a superstructure. 
 
 The absence of any definite statement on the sub- 
 ject of Revelation, in a proposition which professedly 
 treats of it, is the more remarkable, because in the 
 next there is apparently a plain intimation, that in 
 some sense or other Revelation is common to Jews 
 and Gentiles. For " God," it is said, " left Himself 
 no where without witness, but fashioned the hearts of 
 the heathen, and put a Scripture in their conscience."
 
 75 
 
 It would therefore have been more satisfactory, if the 
 author had explained, in what respect, according to 
 his view, the Revelation made to the Jews differed 
 from that made to the Gentiles. 
 
 On the kindred subject of Inspiration, the proposi- 
 tions are much more explicit. Many of them are ex- 
 pressly devoted to it, and others bear more or less 
 upon it. In these the author dwells on the distinc- 
 tion between " thinos of heaven " and " thing-s of 
 earth," facts which could only have been learnt super- 
 naturally, and facts of daily life and experience, as 
 marking a limit which, however difficult it may be to 
 trace, he believes to exist in Scripture, between " the 
 truth of God" and "the thoughts of fallible men." 
 He insists on the presence of a human element in the 
 sacred writings, as constituting a main condition of 
 their power and efficacy, as an instrument for reach- 
 ing the heart and stirring the affections of men, but 
 at the same time as implying some imperfection of 
 knowledge, and some liability to error, which however 
 in his judgment cannot properly affect the value of 
 Scripture as a book of religion and devotion. And 
 he thinks it necessary to deny that " the Books of the 
 New Testament were dictated in words audible from 
 the clouds of heaven," and that " Inspiration, even in 
 its proper sphere" — that is, as concerning things of 
 heaven — " implies omniscience." 
 
 So far, however open to controversy these state- 
 ments may be, there is nothing new or peculiar to the 
 writer in the general principle which they involve.
 
 7G 
 
 But when he proceeds to explain his own view of the 
 nature of Inspiration, he diverges much further from 
 the ideas commonly associated with the term. For 
 he seems to confine the agency of the Holy Spirit as 
 its author, to his sanctifying influence, and to deny 
 that it ever implies any illumination of the mind, 
 which is not the result of that influence on the heart. 
 Undoubtedly the positive side of this proposition 
 cannot be too strongly affirmed : but it ought not to 
 be confounded with the negative side, as it is by the 
 author, when, having most truly observed that " the 
 fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and a 
 good heart will clear the intellect," he proceeds to 
 say : " Thus, the more spiritual any man's life, the 
 more inspired his writings ; and the Apostles who had 
 most of the temper and mind of Christ, were the 
 most eminently inspired." This, if it only means 
 that those of them were the holiest who had most of 
 the temper and mind of Christ, is a truism : but if it 
 is meant to deny that they were inspired in any other 
 sense, it comes nearer to a paradox, and is at all 
 events an assertion which remains to be proved. 
 The author indeed believes that he has here the 
 authority of the Church expressly on his side, because 
 " in her Collects she teaches all Christians to pray for 
 the Holy Spirit, in terms fully as emphatical as those 
 in which inspiration is ascribed to the sacred writers 
 in the Greek of the New Testament :" from which he 
 infers, that " the Church seems to hold that inspira- 
 tion was not confined to the Apostles." And no
 
 77 
 
 doubt, in his sense of the word, the Church does 
 most firmly hold this : but how it follows that, because 
 she teaches her children throughout all ages to pray 
 for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, she must hold that 
 the sacred writers were not the subjects of inspira- 
 tion in any other sense, and received no more direct 
 illumination than every Christian at this day may 
 reasonably expect in answer to his prayers, is more 
 than I am able to understand. The Church, as I 
 have observed, be it unhappily or happily, has not 
 dogmatized on this point : she has not cast her view 
 of the inspiration of Scripture in any stereotyped 
 formula: but if we wish to gather it by inference 
 from her words, we must at least reason from those in 
 which she is speaking of the peculiar functions of the 
 sacred writers, and not from those which refer to the 
 ordinary experience of Christian men. 
 
 But it would only lead me away from the main point, 
 if I were to proceed farther in the examination of these 
 Propositions. For on the whole it appears to me that 
 they throw very little light on the Sermons, but stand 
 in great need of illustration from them: and that, if 
 it is possible to arrive at a clear insight into the 
 author's system, it will be by the study, not of the 
 propositions, but of the book. It is by means of that 
 alone that any thing like a complete estimate can be 
 formed of his teaching, with regard to Revelation 
 and Inspiration, to the relation between Scripture 
 and the Church, and between the Old Dispensation 
 and that of the New Testament. I shall make a few
 
 78 
 
 remarks on these points : and it will be convenient 
 first to consider the place which he assigns to Scrip- 
 ture in its relation to the Church : especially as this 
 appears to be one, and perhaps the chief, ground 
 of the complaint, that the statements of the book 
 seriously affect the supremacy of Holy Scripture. 
 Several of these statements very emphatically de- 
 scribe the relation of Scripture to the Church, as one 
 of subsequence, of dependence, and therefore, as it 
 may seem, of inferiority. The " volume of Holy 
 Scripture," it is said in one passage, " embodies the 
 experience of the Church of old; the record of her 
 Revelations, and the tradition of her spiritual life; 
 the transfusion, as it were, of her spirit into writing ^" 
 In another it is granted — as an admission which may 
 safely be made to the Romanist as well as to many 
 Anglicans — that " the Church w^as before the Bible, 
 as a speaker is before his voice ; and that Holy Scrip- 
 ture is not the foundation of the Christian faith so 
 much as its creature, its expression, and its embodi- 
 ment." It seems to have been thought that this 
 language is at variance with the Divine origin of 
 Scripture, and traces it to a human source'. But this 
 
 ' Sermon XIX. "Servants of God speaking as moved by the 
 Holy Ghost." I sliall not think it necessary to give the page of 
 each quotation. 
 
 ^ See "Rational Godliness by Eowland "Williams, B.D. An 
 Examination into the Author's Views on Holy Scripture, Sermon 
 XIX. being specially considered. By the Eev. J. Powell Jones, 
 B.D., Eector of Loughor."
 
 79 
 
 appears to me a misapprehension. There is certainly 
 no contradiction between the statement that Scripture 
 records the revelations of the Church, and the admis- 
 sion that those revelations proceeded from God. It 
 is quite consistent to say that the Church was before 
 the Bible, and that Revelation was before the Church : 
 to say that Holy Scripture is not the foundation so 
 much as the creature of the Christian faith, and yet 
 that Revelation is not the creature so much as the 
 foundation of that faith. One who asserts that the 
 sacred writers only " expressed thoughts that were 
 stirring in the breast of the Church," need not be 
 supposed to deny that what they made known was 
 " the mind of the Lord." No question is raised by 
 such statements as to the origin of the Revelation, 
 but only as to the mode of its transmission. The 
 truth that the Church was before the Bible, is not 
 the less certain because it has been abused by the 
 Romanist: and it is confirmed by the testimony of 
 the Bible itself. And then it follows that there must 
 be a sense in which it is allowable and necessary to 
 aflSrm, that Scripture embodies the experience, ex- 
 presses the thoughts, makes known that which was 
 the mind of the Church, no less than of the Lord. 
 For otherwise it would have revealed a new faith, 
 which had not been delivered to the Church by the 
 teaching of Christ and his Apostles. Even with re- 
 gard to St. Paul, it must be admitted that his doc- 
 trine had been that of the Church which he perse- 
 cuted. Else he would have been the founder of a
 
 80 
 
 new religion. But his case shows that the conformity 
 of the apostolical writings to the faith of the Church, 
 proves nothing as to their immediate origin. As to 
 those who had been deeply imbued with that faith, 
 there might be room for doubt, whether any special, 
 direct, heavenly communication was required, to en- 
 able them to expounjd it accurately. But of St. Paul 
 we know, that he "neither received his gospel of 
 man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of 
 Jesus Christ." So that if his Epistles are said to be 
 " utterances of the Church," it can only be in a sense 
 widely different from that which the phrase naturally 
 suggests, and which the whole context indicates to 
 have been the author's true meaning. 
 
 But there is another point of view in which the 
 supremacy of Scripture may appear to be more se- 
 riously endangered by some of his statements. The 
 grounds on which he rests its claims to our reverence, 
 do not seem to be of the highest order. He thinks 
 it "reasonable to say" that "to ourselves as members 
 of the Church of England, it must be the great 
 standard of theolog-ical doctrine:" and he holds that 
 "we justly regard it with veneration," and "exhorts 
 every one to value it highly." But he appears to 
 intimate that it is entitled to such veneration and 
 esteem, rather as a monument of primitive antiquity, 
 and as a record of the personal experience, thoughts, 
 and feelings of holy men, especially " of those who 
 walked with Christ, and heard the gracious words 
 which He spake," than on account of its intrinsic
 
 81 
 
 value, or its peculiar and paramount authority, even 
 as the perpetual rule of faith and practice. For he 
 would have "it acknowledged, "that this Holy Scrip- 
 ture has also something behind it deeper and far 
 holier still:" and he proceeds to observe that "if that 
 Spirit by which holy men spake of old, is for ever a 
 living and a present power, its later lessons may well 
 transcend its earlier, and there may reside in the 
 Church a power of bringing out of her treasury things 
 new as well as things old," where it is not obscurely 
 implied, that the new things may well be the better. 
 
 I should be sorry to put an invidious construction 
 on this language. Though it may lend itself on the 
 one hand to a Romish theory of development, on the 
 other to the fancies of individual enthusiasts, I am 
 persuaded that the author's meaning is equally re- 
 mote from both. And I would not deny that there is 
 a sense in which the statement may be accepted, and 
 in which it will be found not only not to depreciate 
 but to enhance the value and dignity of Holy Scrip- 
 ture. For the fulness of the stream is the glory of 
 the fountain : and it is because the Ganges is not lost 
 among its native hills, but deepens and widens until 
 it reaches the ocean, that so many pilgrimages are 
 made to its springs. And to the end of time there 
 can be no assignable limit to the true development, 
 and above all to the practical application of the 
 truths contained in Holy Scripture : and so the later 
 stages of this development may well " transcend the 
 earlier, the new things be better than the old." 
 
 F
 
 82 
 
 But yet the very test by which the true development 
 is distinguished from the false, the right application 
 from the wrong, and by which it is discerned that the 
 process is carried on under the guidance of the Spirit 
 of truth, will be its constant subordination to the 
 authority of the original rule, and that, not as a mere 
 conventional standard, but as one superior to every 
 other, in kind as well as in degree. I only lament 
 that here, as in many other parts of his writings, the 
 author's peculiar style or manner has obscured his 
 meaning, so as to leave it doubtful whether he in- 
 tended or would be willing to adopt such a qualifica- 
 tion as I have pointed out. 
 
 But much more serious and perplexing doubts are 
 suggested by his view of the Old Testament, and of the 
 relation between Judaism and Christianity, which is 
 unfolded in a sermon to which he himself refers as one 
 " than which there is none in the volume which better 
 expresses what may seem the peculiarities of his theo- 
 logy, or which he would sooner indicate as a key to the 
 rest ^" The simple but grave question which is raised 
 by this view is : whether there is place or room in his 
 system, for any supernatural communication from God 
 to man, before the coming of Christ. If there be, it 
 is at least not clearly marked. All that others have 
 referred to such a communication, seems there to 
 resolve itself into a phenomenon, either of a law of 
 nature or of God's providential government. There 
 
 =* Sermon XIY. " The Kingdom of God a Kingdom of the Mind."
 
 was indeed, according to this theory, a kind of real 
 correspondence or analogy between the prophecies of 
 the Old Dispensation, and the events of the New. 
 But that correspondence was hidden in the depths of 
 the Divine counsels, and never revealed to man, until 
 Christ came to set up that " kingdom of the mind," 
 in which it was to be made manifest to those who 
 were enlightened to perceive it. " Thus in fact," we 
 are told, " the great and emphatically true prophet 
 was Almighty God." And all that is said of the 
 human prophets points to the conclusion, that they 
 only gave utterance to the religious instincts and 
 aspirations of the Hebrew mind, in which, by the 
 original constitution of its character, and its provi- 
 dential development, thei'e was laid " a train of 
 glowing hopes and vague anticipations," which were 
 destined to be realized only in a sense wholly foreign 
 to their nature and object, as prayer may be said to 
 be answ^ered, when the Divine wisdom, in its mercy 
 and goodness, withholds that which is asked, and 
 gives some totally different, but far better thing in its 
 stead. Those hopes and anticipations were purely 
 natural : for they not only fell far short of the spiritual 
 reality, but were permitted to take a wrong direction, 
 in which they were on the whole utterly disappointed, 
 and the prophecies which expressed them remained 
 unfulfilled. 
 
 It may indeed seem as if a supernatural com- 
 munication was sufficiently implied in the presence 
 of the Holy Spirit, which is represented as filling 
 
 F 2
 
 84 
 
 an important part under the Old, as well as under 
 the New Dispensation \ But when we look a little 
 closer at the description given of the operations 
 of this heavenly Agent, it rather suggests the 
 notion of a regular perpetual universal indwelling, 
 which belongs to the permanent order of Providence 
 in the government of the world, and is no otherwise 
 supernatural than as it is Divine. But so, we are 
 reminded, "every gracious quality, every keen per- 
 ception even of great moral truths, is more or less 
 from God : " and in another remarkable passage it is 
 suggested as consistent with the more reasonable view 
 of Providence, that " the Lord may write the Bible, 
 on the same principle as the Lord builds the city ^ :" 
 " for every part played by man comes from the Divine 
 Disposer of the scene." The author sometimes limits 
 the province of the Holy Spirit to the sphere of the 
 affections and the conscience^; at other times he 
 describes the range of its operations as comprehend- 
 ing every function of man's intellectual nature '' : 
 but in every point of view he appears to extend it 
 to all the families of the human race. The " Di- 
 vine Teacher of mankind" "educates nations and 
 churches," which " represent, throughout fleeting 
 generations, the everlasting Providence and Spirit of 
 God." Also, " by the Spirit of God the ancient 
 heroes founded kingdoms, and legislators devised 
 
 ' Sermon XV. " The Spirit's Operations. 
 
 ' Sermon XIX., p. 2D2. « P. 294. ' Sermon XV.
 
 85 
 
 laws, and the fair fabric of every science was reared," 
 " the greatest triumphs achieved by the human mind, 
 in undertakings which required a complete balance of 
 all its powers, are due in some measure to the inspira- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit." And once more : " if this 
 has been the case with the giants, why not also with 
 the masses ? " why be " afraid of recognizing in the 
 linked march of the nations, a career not unguided of 
 God's good Spirit?" 
 
 I refer to these passages, not as meaning to deny 
 that there may be a sense in which all this may be 
 very truly said, but only to show that there is nothing 
 in this manifold agency of the Holy Spirit that im- 
 plies any thing that can be properly called a super- 
 natural communication of Divine truth. And then 
 it would seem to follow, that in the author's scheme 
 the first, and hitherto the last, communication of that 
 kind in the history of the world is that which was 
 made by what he calls " the positive Incarnation of 
 the Son." This complete insulation may indeed 
 appear to exalt the magnitude and importance of that 
 event: but with reference to other parts of the 
 author's theory, it rather suggests some perplexing 
 doubts. For the main object of our Lord's coming 
 in the flesh is represented to have been, to " produce 
 a change in men's conceptions" of the Divine nature 
 and dealings. And the revelation by which this 
 change was produced, is described as " an expansion 
 of the conscience," and especially as the " putting aside 
 of much natural prejudice with all such local and
 
 86 
 
 personal predilections as acted upon the mind like a 
 veil between its gaze and the true likeness of God." 
 But it is not clear that there was any thing, either in 
 the object or in the process, to require such a stu- 
 pendous intervention of Divine power. For that 
 "change in man's conceptions" — which are said to 
 have been those of "ruder ages" — was apparently 
 not radical and total, but rather a correction and 
 enlargement, than the substitution of any thing abso- 
 lutely new. And that revelation does not seem essen- 
 tially to differ from the ordinary work attributed to 
 the Holy Spirit in the education of mankind. And 
 so, " if," as the author believes, " the destined course 
 of the world be really one of providential progress," 
 it may appear as if the whole of our Lord's propheti- 
 cal office might very well have entered into it with- 
 out any break in the natural sequence of events. It 
 is true that the more mysterious sides of his cha- 
 racter are more or less fully recognized : but it is not 
 quite evident that they properly belong to the author's 
 system, and have not rather been transferred to it 
 from others in which they have a more natural and 
 fitting place. 
 
 I cannot therefore be surprised, that the work 
 should in some minds have left the painful impression, 
 that its ultimate tendency is to efface the distinction 
 between natural and revealed religion. But I gladly 
 declare my conviction, that if there be such a ten- 
 dency in it, it is only in the letter of the book, and 
 not in the consciousness of the author. And I can
 
 87 
 
 readily believe, that in this case, as in so many others, 
 the man is better than his work; and that whatever 
 he has said in depreciation of the letter as compared 
 with the spirit, will be found applicable to himself: 
 that the later lessons will transcend the earlier, and 
 the new things prove better than the old. And 
 especially I both hope and trust that his oral teaching 
 is and will be more judiciously measured, more cau- 
 tiously guarded, more exactly balanced, and in all 
 respects less open to misconstruction than many parts 
 of his writings. And I will add that I feel such con- 
 fidence in his personal character, as assures me that 
 the liberty he enjoys will be to him the most effectual 
 of all restraints; and therefore I cannot even wish 
 that it had been less. Where the constitution of a 
 college invests the governing body with despotic 
 authority, even the publication of a metaphysical 
 paradox may be thought to justify the removal of a 
 teacher, however conspicuous for a rare combination 
 of the noblest qualities of mind and heart ; for genius 
 and eloquence, for piety and virtue, for energy and 
 devotedness to the service of God and man. But I 
 am not sure that the interests of such an institution 
 are promoted by either the exercise or the possession 
 of such a power. That which is actually lodged in 
 the Visitor of St. David's College, only enables him 
 to deprive any of its officers for misconduct or in- 
 capacity. And thus they obtain a degree of inde- 
 pendence in the performance of their duties, which is 
 no doubt liable to abuse, and which renders it the
 
 88 
 
 more important to exert the utmost vigilance in the 
 selection of those who are entrusted with it. But on 
 the whole I regard it as an advantage, which I should 
 he very loath to exchange for any additional security. 
 
 I now turn to a few other topics, on which I shall 
 not need to occupy much more of your time. 
 
 I am happy to be able to speak thankfully and 
 hopefully of the progress which has been made since 
 we last met, in supplying the wants of the Diocese, 
 both as to churches and schools. The number of 
 new or restored churches which have been completed 
 in the course of the present year, denotes an in- 
 creasing ratio ; and the style of them all presents a 
 cheering contrast to the slight, paltry, unsightly 
 edifices which were the result of almost every attempt 
 at church-building among us in the last generation, 
 under the combined influence of bad taste and a false 
 economy, which happily did not aim at providing for 
 a very remote posterity. On the other hand, I have 
 still to lament the difficulty which in small rural 
 parishes continues to impede the execution of the 
 most urgently needed repairs; sometimes from the 
 poverty of the parishioners, sometimes from the inert- 
 ness or positive resistance of lay impropriators, who, 
 though bound by the most sacred obligations of law, 
 justice, honour, and religion, to keep chancels in 
 repair, neglect and elude the performance of that 
 duty. In other cases again, where a church-rate has 
 been duly made, its collection is prevented by an 
 organized system of chicanery, set in motion, as I have
 
 89 
 
 reason to believe, by an association instituted for that 
 purpose. The partial success of such attempts must 
 increase our anxiety for an equitable settlement of the 
 whole question. But the spirit which they indicate 
 is, I fear, rather gaining than losing strength in the 
 quarter to which we have to look for such a settle- 
 ment. 
 
 The work of elementary education is likewise un- 
 happily retarded by causes over which its friends 
 have no control. The general poverty of some ex- 
 tensive districts opposes an obstacle to the establish- 
 ment and maintenance of schools, which can only be 
 surmounted by aid from without. And such aid 
 could not at present be extended to them by the 
 State, without some relaxation of the rules which 
 govern the dispensation of the public funds allotted 
 to this object. In the early part of the year I for a 
 time entertained a rather sanguine hope, that the 
 peculiar circumstances of the Diocese, and particu- 
 larly of the part of Radnorshire included in it, might 
 have been considered as a sufficient ground for such 
 an exceptional relaxation; but there were reasons 
 which were thought to show that it would be an un- 
 seasonable and dangerous departure from the principle 
 on which the Parliamentary Education Grant has 
 hitherto been administered. While I can only la- 
 ment, without presuming to complain of this determi- 
 nation, I may at least hope that the Committee of 
 Council will maintain that impartiality toward the 
 various religious bodies which claim a share of its
 
 90 
 
 funds for their schools, by which its proceedings have 
 hitherto been marked, and that it will not listen to 
 the recommendation which it has received from one 
 of its inspectors, who has thought proper to advise 
 that it should modify its present system for the ex- 
 press purpose of favouring the schools of the British 
 and Foreign School Society, at the expense of those 
 which are connected with our Church throughout the 
 Principality. This proposal is, I am afraid, a sample 
 of the measure of justice which the Church has to 
 expect from her adversaries, whenever they gain an 
 ascendancy in the State; but at present it is, I trust, 
 premature. And I venture to hope that the time is 
 yet distant, when the efforts of the Church to pro- 
 mote the religious education of her children, will be 
 directly and avowedly discouraged by any Government 
 in this country. 
 
 The peculiar difficulties in the way of the progress 
 and extension of such education among us, presented 
 by the prevalence of dissent, and the large number of 
 children who are not members of the Established 
 Church, are noticed for a very different purpose in 
 the excellent Report of the Welsh Education Com- 
 mittee, published this year, not as reasons for abandon- 
 ing the object, but as requiring that " the management 
 of Church schools be adapted to the actual position 
 of the country in a spirit of forbearance and Chris- 
 tian tenderness." The maxim on which the Report 
 grounds its recommendations on this head, is one of 
 very extensive application, one which might have been
 
 91 
 
 thought an axiom of common sense, if it had not been 
 so often practically contradicted : it is, that we should 
 do as much good as we can, and should not refuse to 
 do a little because we cannot do more, or as much as 
 we would. But no doubt even when this principle is 
 admitted to regulate the religious teaching in Church 
 schools under such circumstances, the application of 
 the principle to practice may often be very difficult, 
 and may call for a degree of judgment and tact which 
 is by no means common. It is with reference to the 
 same subject that a startling announcement was made 
 by the Rev. H. L. Jones, Her Majesty's Inspector of 
 Schools, in his General Report, for the year 1855, on 
 the Church of England Schools inspected in Wales. 
 He there expressed his deliberate conviction, that 
 " unless religion in the parochial system of Welsh 
 education is to fall away instead of advancing, the im- 
 mediate and united action of the four Bishops is 
 imperatively necessary." And the specific evils which 
 call for such action are stated to be those which arise 
 from " anarchy, neglect, and incapacity." " These 
 three sources of evil," it is observed, " are of more 
 frequent occurrence than they should be; and some 
 means of obviatino^ them must be found, or religious 
 instruction will suffer gi'eatly from the result." Here, 
 with regard to neglect and incapacity, the only thing 
 that seemed difficult to understand was how, if the 
 remedy of the evil lay within the power of the Bishops, 
 it could be more effectually applied by their united 
 action than by that of each in his own Diocese. But
 
 92 
 
 the allusion to anarchy^ without some farther expla- 
 nation, was quite unintelligible. The Rev. Inspector 
 afterwards explained his meaning in two letters, both 
 of which have been published ^ And it now appears 
 that the " anarchy " which he had in view, consists in 
 the absence of a uniform system imposed by the 
 authority of the Bishops on the Clergy and managers 
 of schools, both as to the amount and the special cha- 
 racter of the religious instruction given in Church 
 schools. That in both these respects a great diversity 
 should be found, was to be expected every where, but 
 above all under the circumstances of the Principality. 
 And it cannot be denied, that such diversity is at the 
 best a necessary evil. But how little desirable it 
 would be, even if possible, to obviate it by a unifor- 
 mity of system, which should compel the Clergy and 
 school-managers to observe the same rule as to the 
 amount of religious instruction, may be gathered — if 
 it is not self-evident — from the observations to which 
 I have already referred in the Report of the Welsh 
 Education Committee. The other point raises a still 
 greater difficulty. The Rev. Inspector " perceives the 
 existence of anarchy still more," when he " finds in 
 neighbouring schools the opposite extremes of the re- 
 ligious opinions which are allowed to divide the Church 
 into two totally distinct sects, strictly maintained in 
 
 * See " A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Lhxiidaff, in 
 reference to the Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools," 
 by the Bishop of the Diocese ; and " A Letter to the Lord Bishop 
 of Llandaff in Eeply," by the Inspector of the District.
 
 93 
 
 the religious instruction given to the children ^" But 
 if this kind of anarchy is to be reduced to order by 
 the united action of the ecclesiastical authorities, it 
 seems clear that their own unanimity on the subject 
 must be an indispensable condition of their mutual 
 co-operation. It must be a pleasure to believe that 
 such unanimity actually exists, without the slightest 
 variance, among the present occupiers of the four 
 Welsh Sees; though it would be hardly safe to as- 
 sume, as the writer appears to do, that it necessarily 
 pervades the whole episcopal body. But even if this 
 were the case, it would not be obvious that the Bishops 
 — still less that any four of them — possess the means 
 either of reconciling the conflicting opinions which are 
 " allowed to divide the Church," or to terminate the 
 dispute by a decision in favour of either party. And 
 until this is done, it would seem that the difference 
 must continue to affect the character of the religious 
 teaching in the school as well as in the Church. 
 
 But though the remedy which has been proposed 
 may be inappropriate and inapplicable, it will not 
 follow either that the evil does not exist, or that we 
 ought to resign ourselves to it, as one which we can 
 neither remove nor mitigate. As to the alleged 
 anarchy indeed, I have heard nothing from any other 
 quarter. But the results of the inquiry instituted in 
 the course of this year by the National Society, 
 through some of the Clergy of the Diocese who kindly 
 
 P. 8.
 
 94 
 
 undertook the task, disclose a lamentable deficiency 
 in the number of schools : and the Reports which 
 I have received from Mr. Stammers of the observa- 
 tions which he has made in the course of his suc- 
 cessive circuits in the Diocese, as organizing master, 
 show that the quality of the instruction, both secular 
 and religious, is in many schools very unsatisfactory. 
 It would no doubt be a mistake to refer either of 
 these defects to any single cause; but I think there is 
 reason to believe that to some extent they might both 
 be corrected by the use of the same means. The 
 Report of Her Majesty's Inspector, on which I have 
 already commented, insists strongly on the need of 
 some modification of the existing Minutes of the Com- 
 mittee of Council, to meet the peculiar exigencies of 
 the Principality. This is a kind of assistance for 
 which we must depend on the will of others, and for 
 which we may yet have long to wait. But it is so 
 much the more important to consider, whether the 
 resources of the Diocese itself have been drawn forth 
 as far as is immediately practicable, and whether all 
 which are actually available are dispensed to the 
 greatest possible advantage. As to this last point, 
 I find but one opinion expressed by those who have 
 had the best opportunities of information, with regard 
 to the general inefficiency of the temporary schools 
 supported by the Bevan Charity; and it seems clear 
 that, while the instruction which they diffuse is of 
 the lowest order, the system under which the Charity 
 is at present administered, rather obstructs than pro-
 
 95 
 
 motes the progi'ess of sound elementary education. 
 " The effect of its present operations," it is observed 
 in one of the Reports which I have received, " is to 
 diminish individual exertion." If the benefits which 
 it yields were far greater than they appear to be, they 
 could never compensate the injury indicated by this 
 simple remark. I am convinced that, under a dif- 
 ferent system, the funds of the Charity might be made 
 to contribute at once to the multiplication of per- 
 manent schools, and to the improvement of those 
 which now exist. This must always depend in a great 
 measure on the amount of remuneration which can be 
 offered to the teacher; not of course as an operative 
 cause, but as a necessary condition. And certainly it 
 cannot be said, that the means to be found within the 
 Diocese, of raising the ordinary standard of that re- 
 muneration to a height at which it would command 
 the services of trained teachers, have yet been ex- 
 hausted. 
 
 I have on previous occasions gratefully acknowledged 
 the exertions which have been made in many parts of 
 the Diocese for the establishment of schools. But its 
 collective efforts for the like purpose are measured by 
 the amount of the yearly subscriptions received by the 
 Church Union Society. And though that amount has 
 of late years been somewhat increased by collections 
 made in churches, it still falls far short of what might 
 be reasonably expected, and, in fact, with the excep- 
 tion of those collections, represents little more than 
 the contributions of the Clergy. I am persuaded that
 
 C7 
 
 96 
 
 it would be unjust to the lay-members of the Church, 
 to attribute this fact to a general indifference on their 
 part, and not to the absence of sufficient information, 
 or the extensive prevalence of misconception with 
 regard to the object to which this branch of the So- 
 ciety's operations are and have been exclusively di- 
 rected. With the view of guarding against the mistake 
 which is so naturally suggested by the name of the 
 Society, that of supposing this object to be one in 
 which the Clergy have some peculiar professional in- 
 terest, it has been resolved that what has hitherto 
 been known as the Committee of the Society, shall in 
 future bear the title of the Education Board of the 
 Diocese; and it is designed to subdivide it, so that 
 there shall be one in each archdeaconry, which shall 
 collect and administer its own funds. And it is hoped 
 that this new organization may attract not only the 
 pecuniary aid, but the personal co-operation, of the laity. 
 Yet I must remind my reverend brethren, that 
 whatever may be the success of this or of any other 
 attempt to augment the funds destined to educational 
 purposes, the real ultimate benefit to the Church will 
 depend mainly on themselves. Praiseworthy as are 
 the exertions and sacrifices which many of them have 
 made in order to provide schools for their respective 
 parishes, it must be remembered that these are only 
 to be regarded in the light of means to an end; and 
 that, if after this has been done, they should withhold 
 their personal attention and superintendence from the 
 work, there will be a certainty that the end will be
 
 97 
 
 but very imperfectly attained, and great danger that 
 the cost and labour may have been almost utterly 
 wasted. 
 
 There is yet another subject on which I feel myself 
 obliged to say a few w^ords. Manifold and urgent as 
 are the wants of this Diocese, they have never pre- 
 vented us — and I trust never will prevent us — from 
 contributing in our measure to the support of the 
 various Societies, through which the Church of Eng- 
 land strives to fulfil certain parts of her duty, for 
 which no provision has been made in her ancient en- 
 dowment, such as the extension of facilities for public 
 worship and of pastoral superintendence, the educa- 
 tion of her poor children, the preservation of the 
 Gospel among our countrymen settled in our colonies, 
 and the propagation of it in all parts of the world. 
 From some of these Societies indeed we have re- 
 ceived so much benefit, that whatever we contribute 
 to their funds, ought to be considered not merelv as a 
 free-will offering, but as the payment of a debt. This 
 remark applies especially to the Church Building So- 
 ciety and the National Society. But with regard to 
 those which have no such special claim upon us, par- 
 ticularly the Societies through which the Church 
 carries on her missionary work, our co-operation is at 
 once a duty and a privilege ; and we could not, without 
 loss and hurt to ourselves, renounce our share in this 
 labour of Christian love. The withdrawal of the Royal 
 sanction which used to be given to periodical collec- 
 tions in behalf of three of those Societies, has in its 
 
 G
 
 98 
 
 immediate effect operated to their disadvantage. But 
 as it cannot affect the ground on which their claims 
 are based, it is to be hoped that it will not per- 
 manently contract their means of usefulness. And it 
 is at least satisfactory to know, that it need not be 
 considered as an indication even of indifference, much 
 less of hostility, to the objects which they seek to 
 promote, on the part of those who are immediately 
 responsible for it. The real origin of the proceeding, 
 which certainly at first wore that appearance, has 
 since been cleared up by a document which I received 
 last year, and which is styled " A Declaration respect- 
 ing the use of ' Episcopal ' in lieu of ' Queen's ' Let- 
 ters." It is now evident that the whole transaction 
 has been a manoeuvre, prompted by a feeling of emu- 
 lation, which, if it had been kept within its proper 
 limits, would have been highly praiseworthy, but 
 which, on this occasion, seems to have degenerated 
 into a very mean and unholy jealousy. Some Societies 
 ■ — or rather most probably the agents of some So- 
 cieties — which had not shared in that mark of Royal 
 approbation which has been recently withheld, appear 
 to have conceived that whatever advantage was with- 
 drawn from those whom they looked upon as their 
 rivals, would be so much gained for themselves. I am 
 afraid it will turn out that they have only succeeded 
 in one half of their object, and have inflicted an in- 
 jury from which none will derive the smallest benefit. 
 It was however quite natural that, having effected 
 the discontinuance of the Queen's Letters, they should
 
 99 
 
 wish to suppress all similar manifestations of senti- 
 ment on the part of the Bishops; though it was less 
 to have been expected that they should have attempted 
 to do so under colour of respect for episcopal authority, 
 which is put forward in the Declaration as one of the 
 principal motives which animated those who affixed 
 their signature to it. And the noble person who, as 
 I learn fi'om a letter which accompanied the copy for- 
 warded to me, has taken the lead in this movement, 
 and to whose influence, as there is good reason to be- 
 lieve, its success, such as it is, has been principally 
 owing, had not previously been so distinguished by 
 his peculiar sensitiveness as to the respect due to 
 episcopal authority, or by his intense solicitude for 
 the maintenance of ecclesiastical discipline, as to war- 
 rant a surmise that this w^as the weak side by which 
 he had been won to lend himself as an instrument for 
 carrvino;' out such a design. 
 
 I therefore rejoice that the number of the Clergy of 
 my Diocese who have suffered their names to be ap- 
 pended to this Declaration, is exceedingly small — very 
 little over a dozen ; and I feel sure that if they had 
 more maturely considered its contents, they could not 
 have failed to perceive the hoUowness and absurdity of 
 the pretexts which it alleges to cover its real object. 
 As to the Bishops, it proceeds on one of two suppo- 
 sitions. It implies either that in their exhortations to 
 their Clergy, with which they accompanied the Royal 
 Letters, they acted in a purely mechanical subservience 
 to the civil authority, and used language which did 
 
 G 2
 
 100 
 
 not really express any judgment or feeling of their 
 own; or else that, having been in earnest, and having 
 meant what they said, they were bound either to re- 
 tract or to conceal their opinion as soon as it ceased 
 to be endorsed with the Royal sanction, or, more pro- 
 perly, with that of the first Minister of the Crown. 
 This is the substance of that which the framers of 
 this document, and the noble Earl who is chiefly re- 
 sponsible for it, would fain have to be regarded as a 
 delicate mark of respect for episcopal authority. As 
 to the Clergy, the danger which these persons profess 
 to apprehend from the issuing of the Episcopal Letters 
 is, lest " it may oblige the Clergy either to disregard 
 the injunction of their Bisbop, or, out of deference to 
 his office, to advocate a cause they do not cordially 
 approve." But this is simply a palpable mistake as 
 to a matter of fact. No doubt those letters always 
 assume that the cause which they recommend is one 
 with which both the Clergy and the faithful Laity feel 
 some degree of sympathy; as indeed it would be no 
 less hard than painful to believe, that there is any 
 Churchman who deliberately and conscientiously dis- 
 approves of the objects for w^hich the Societies in 
 question were instituted. But if such a case should 
 unhappily occur, the Letters could not be intended to 
 oblige the Clergy to advocate a cause they do not ap- 
 prove ; nor do I believe that any clergyman ever felt 
 himself placed by such Letters in the embarrassing- 
 position which the Declaration describes. None could 
 doubt that, under the circumstances supposed, he
 
 101 
 
 would be doing all that was required of him, if he 
 read the statement and letter transmitted to him, and 
 so left the whole matter in the hands of his congre- 
 gation. This danger therefore is purely imaginary 
 and fictitious. But the supposition involved in the 
 suggestion of it is injurious and insulting alike to the 
 Bishops and to the Clergy. 
 
 But the Declaration points out another like danger 
 which threatens the Laity from the same cause : "It 
 may oblige the Laity either to neglect the appeal of 
 their pastor, or to support, by their offerings, a Society 
 which has not their sympathy." On this it may suffice 
 to remark, that no clergyman who has signed this Paper 
 can ever again consistently preach a sermon in behalf 
 of any religious Society. For he can never have a right 
 to presume that there exists in his congregation a per- 
 fect unanimity on a subject as to which he himself may 
 happen to differ from his Diocesan : and unless such 
 unanimity prevails among them, some of them " must 
 either neglect his appeal, or support by their offerings 
 a Society which has not their sympathy." And thus 
 he usurps that very authority over them, which he has 
 protested against as a yoke and a fetter when exerted 
 by his Bishop toward himself. I wish this had oc- 
 curred to some of my Reverend Brethren, who I be- 
 lieve are in the laudable habit of making pretty fre- 
 quent appeals to their congregations in favour of 
 some Societies, before they signed this document, 
 and that they had reflected for a moment, that their 
 signature must either stop their mouths on such oc-
 
 102 
 
 casions, or convict them of the most glaring incon- 
 sistency. Finally, to complete this series of false 
 pretences, the subscribers to the Declaration are made 
 to profess a tender regard for the welfare of the 
 Societies against which it is levelled. It represents 
 them as suffering, or as in danger of incurring serious 
 detriment from the favour which they receive. The 
 issuing of such letters, it is alleged, " holds out an 
 inducement to the Society to rest its claim to public 
 support, not so much upon the importance of the 
 work in which it is engaged, or the principles on 
 which it rests, as upon the official patronage it may 
 be able to secure." In the mouth of avowed enemies 
 or strangers to our Church, such language would at 
 least be consistent and intelligible. For they would 
 be at liberty to assume, that the episcopal patronage 
 is sought and given without respect either to the im- 
 portance of the work in which the Society is engaged, 
 or to the principles on which it rests. But it is not 
 so clear how such a supposition can be made by 
 clergymen with either justice or decency. And 
 without it, that is, if the patronage is bestowed, not at 
 random or from sinister motives, but just on account 
 of the importance of the work, and in approbation of 
 the principles on which the Society rests, it will be 
 evident that this objection is as groundless as all those 
 which precede it. But it is so contrived as to imply 
 an imputation equally offensive to the Bishops whom 
 the subscribers profess to respect, and to the Societies 
 which they affect to befriend. I am ready however
 
 103 
 
 to believe that they are not chargeable with any 
 thing worse than thoughtlessness and rashness, or at 
 the most that they have only been blinded by party 
 spirit; and I neither know nor care to inquire, who 
 are the real authors of that which I consider as a 
 gross outrage on truth, decency, and common sense. 
 
 I have touched on the special claims of two out of 
 the three Societies to which this Declaration relates. 
 Those of the third, the Society for the Propagation of 
 the Gospel in Foreign Parts, rest upon different 
 ground. I have always felt it my duty to give what- 
 ever support I could contribute to its cause by my 
 "official patronage," not only from my sense of the 
 importance of its work, and my approbation of the 
 principles by which it is governed, but also because 
 I believe that its value and its merits are not duly 
 appreciated in this Diocese. It seems to be com- 
 monly conceived, that the two Societies through 
 which the Church discharges her missionary func- 
 tions, are engaged in precisely the same work, but 
 carry it on in somewhat different ways ; and that the 
 only question between them is, which way is to be 
 preferred. It is not, I believe, sufficiently understood, 
 that they are occupied with different tracts of the 
 vast missionary field : but that the work of the elder 
 Society is entitled to precedence, because it is that 
 which has been most clearly assigned to us as a 
 nation by Divine Providence, as a duty incident to 
 that imperial sway with which we have been entrusted 
 in so many regions of the earth. No missionary
 
 J 04 
 
 efforts in any other direction, however wide their 
 range, can make amends for the neglect of that duty. 
 I will add that the recent events in the East, which 
 have filled our hearts with grief and horror, while 
 they so fearfully illustrate the hollowness and com- 
 parative worthlessness of all civilization which is 
 not rooted in Christianity, serve in my opinion to 
 strengthen the claims of a Society, which combines 
 large views and active zeal with prudent moderation 
 and calm discretion. 
 
 Which is the best plan of providing for this and 
 other objects of Christian charity, is quite another 
 question, one no less important than difficult, and 
 which will, I trust, engage more and more of the 
 attention of the Church, until it has found its true 
 solution. But I will not dissemble my conviction, 
 that none will be entirely satisfactory, which does 
 not at least include amono^ its elements a return to 
 the primitive apostolical method of collection on the 
 first day of the week. Other modes of drawing forth 
 the resources of Christian charity may be, imme- 
 diately, moi"^ productive. That any, or all of them 
 together, would be so on the whole, and at the end 
 of the reckoning, there is good reason to doubt, or 
 rather utterly to disbelieve. But the others are all 
 perfectly consistent with the regular use of this. Its 
 peculiar advantage is, that there is no other which 
 tends so directly and certainly to cherish the spirit 
 which it calls into action. And in comparison with 
 the benefit of nourishing and diifusing this spirit, the
 
 105 
 
 actual amount of any pecuniary offering is quite in- 
 significant. When that which is cast into the trea- 
 sury of the Church is merely the conventional sign of 
 a thinof absent, when it is wruno- from reluctant hands 
 by the force of custom, and even when it is the pro- 
 duce of a transient emotion stirred by an eloquent 
 appeal, it is of little worth in the sight of God, and 
 even with regard to the end for which it is destined, 
 its value is exactly measured by its quantity. But 
 what calculation can estimate the preciousness of the 
 gift which is brought to the altar as the thank-offer- 
 ing of a devout and cheerful heart ! While the false 
 token can yield no increase, this bears a stamp by 
 which it represents a blessing beyond all price. 
 Even in a far lower point of view, I am persuaded 
 that no habit would be more beneficial both to rich 
 and poor, than that, in conformity with the apostoli- 
 cal order, " every one should lay by him in store, as 
 God hath prospered him, on the first day of the 
 week," for charitable and religious purposes. 
 
 And of this at least, my brethren, we may be well 
 assured, that in such a spirit lies the strength and the 
 hope of the Church. Its growth is the surest sign of 
 her prosperity. Her life is not to be quickened by the 
 heat of controversy, but by the fire of love. AVhen 
 that waxes cold, offences must multiply, and iniquity 
 abound. And as the worst tendency of our unhappy 
 divisions is to quench that spirit, so it alone can 
 effectually remedy the other evils which spring from 
 them. This is the surest test by which we can try
 
 106 
 
 the other sph'its, whether they be of God: the test 
 - therefore which we ought to be ever applying to our 
 own. And while we pray that it may be more and 
 more shed abroad in our hearts, let us try it also by 
 its fruits, and beware that we never rest satisfied with 
 any other proof of its presence, than a continual and 
 progressive abounding in the work of the Lord.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 The Immaculate Conception. 
 
 It is to be regretted that whatever attention has been recently- 
 drawn to this subject among English Protestants, has been almost 
 confined to its dogmatical side, and that the historical importance 
 of the innovation, as it marks a new era in the constitution of the 
 Papal Church, has been generally overlooked. The Abbe Laborde 
 justly describes the ultimate object of the whole transaction, as a 
 " coup d'etat ecclesiastique, par ou I'episcopat devait demeurer 
 aneanti" (p. 70, note). This view of the matter is strongly con- 
 firmed by Cardinal Gousset's collection of documents, which will 
 be found extremely instructive by every one who is sufilciently 
 interested in the question to examine its contents. The una- 
 nimity of the prelates, whose opinions he reports, on the tenet 
 itself, is evidently in the Cardinal's eye a secondary point, in com- 
 parison with their belief in the individual infallibility of the Pope. 
 He not only never fails to give the utmost possible prominence to 
 every expression of that belief, but does not hesitate to assure the 
 reader that it exists where it is not expressed. So p. 535, as to 
 the Archbishop of Rouen, " quoiqu'il n'ait point declare formel- 
 lement, qu'il s'en rapportait au jugement infaillible du Vicaire de 
 Jesu-Christ, on n'a pu douter un instant de sa parfaite soumission 
 a I'autorite du Pasteur Supreme de I'Eglise." See p. 20G, as to 
 the Bishop of Chartres, and generally as to the construction to be 
 put on the silence of the Bishops, p. 683 ; and the correction 
 which he administers to the Bishop of Evreux, who had ventured 
 not only to deprecate the definition of doctrine, but to qualify hia
 
 108 
 
 submission with the words, " Je declare me soumettre au jugement 
 du Saiut Siege Apostolique et de la majorite des JEveques.'^ The 
 Cardinal takes that occasion to observe (p. 272), that the judg- 
 ment of tlie Apostolical See includes that of every Bishop who is 
 in communion with the Church of Eome, Mother and Mistress of 
 all the Churches. In the preface indeed he lays down the doc- 
 trine as already beyond controversy; though his anxiety to 
 exhibit the testimonies of the prelates who incidentally profess 
 their belief in it, betrays his consciousness that it stands in need 
 of their suffrage. According to him, the authority of the Pope in 
 matters of faith, far outweighs that of the whole Episcopate in 
 Council, which, without the papal sanction, is null, and, with it, 
 superfluous (p. iii.). But still it would seem, the vote of each 
 Bishop, given in his closet, may conti'ibute its share toward 
 establishing that long disputed supremacy. 
 
 The Pope however, while he reserved the final decision of the 
 question for his own infallible judgment, had condescended to 
 consult his " Venerable Brethren " by his Circular issued from 
 Gaeta. AVhat that inquiry should have been, if it was to furnish 
 a groundwork for a dogmatical decree, is well stated by Laborde, 
 p. 90. " If," says the Abbe, " he had seriously wished to learn 
 from every Bishop the faith of liis Church, and his own episcopal 
 judgment, he might have said. Let us know whether your Church 
 holds and has always held the Immaculate Conception as an 
 article of faith revealed in the Scriptures, preached by the Apos- 
 tles, and handed down by the tradition of the Catholic Church. 
 Judge this question canonically in council with your compro- 
 vincial Bishops, and in a regular synod ; then send your judgment 
 to me, that after having received the testimony and judgment of 
 all the Churches, if this judgment is uniform, I may add my own 
 to it, and declare that such is the faith and the judgment of the 
 universal Church. But instead of this, the question proposed was 
 as to the devotion of the Clergy and people of each Diocese with 
 regard to the Immaculate Conception, and the sentiments and 
 wishes of each Bishop (ut majori qua fieri potest celeritate Nobis 
 significare velitis, qua devotione vester Clerus, Populusque fidelis 
 erga Immaculatse Virginis Conceptionem sit animatus, et quo 
 desiderio flagret, ut ejusmodi res ab Apostolica Sede decernatur,
 
 109 
 
 atque imprimis quid Vos ipsi de re ipsa sentiatis, quidque esop- 
 tetis)." According tlierefore to the Pope's view, the most im- 
 portant evidence tbat could be furnished by the voice of the whole 
 Episcopate to guide or confirm his judgment, was the actual state 
 of opinion and feeling on the subject. And, accordingly, several 
 of the Bishops rely mainly on the present prevalence of the 
 popular persuasion, as the chief ground of their own belief, and as 
 capable of supplementing the acknowledged imperfection of the 
 Scriptural and traditional testimony. (See especially the Letters 
 of the Bishops of Majorca, p. 384, and Terentino, p. 281.) The 
 Abbe Laborde indeed (speaking it must be supposed of France) 
 questions the alleged prevalence of the opinion among the Laity 
 (p. 04), and with regard to the Clergy adds this remarkable 
 statement : " As to the ecclesiastics, members of the monastic 
 orders of either sex, priests, and even bishops, for the most part 
 they do not count. In fact they profess to have no opinion of 
 their own on any thing. According to the system of hlmd obe- 
 dience, which is now in the ascendant, every one of them thinks, 
 says, and preaches only what his superior bids him think, say, and 
 preach, without troubling himself to know whether it is true. 
 They would believe that they w^ere guilty of mortal sin, if they had 
 any conviction. Cceci sunt, et duces ccecorum (Matt. xv. 14). 
 This system of blindness is the rule of the Jesuits, and the actual 
 teaching of the seminaries." 
 
 But assuming the almost universal prevalence of the belief both 
 among the Clergy and the Laity, we have to observe, that it is ad- 
 mitted on all hands to have been constantly spreading, especially 
 in the few last centuries, until it reached its present extent of 
 general reception. And it is no less clear from the documents 
 supplied by Cardinal Gousset, that the present state of opinion on 
 the subject ia the result of a system, partly of violence and in- 
 timidation, partly of misrepresentation and delusion, which was 
 cari'ied on during the same period with increasing activity. Every 
 expression of the adverse opinion was forbidden by the highest 
 authority, and exposed every one who ventured upon it to personal 
 danger. In Portugal (as the Pope is informed by the Bishop of 
 Earo, p. 278) "the three Estates of the realm, in 1646, pledged 
 themselves by oath to defend the Immaculate Conception even at
 
 no 
 
 the peril of life, and decreed that whoever should dare to violate that 
 vow and solemn oath, should, if a citizen, be immediately banished 
 from the territory of tlie empire ; if king, be exposed to the wrath 
 of God and to their imprecation " (and as it would seem to the loss 
 of his crown ; for this appears to be signified by the words of the 
 decree, ' et nostrorum seriem interrumpat '). Similar engagements 
 were very common elsewhere. The Spanish ardour in the cause is 
 well known {propension inne'e cles Espagnols, according to the Bishop 
 of Lugo, p. 374). It appears however from the letter of the Arch- 
 bishop of Valencia (p. 640), that on the 8th of December, 1530, 
 being the Festival of the Immaculate Conception, a preacher named 
 Moner had ventured to maintain the contrary opinion in the pulpit 
 of the cathedral of that city. The result was so great a scandal, 
 that, to satisfy the demands of the Chapter, the indignation of the 
 magistrates, and the tumultuous movements of the crowd, it was 
 found necessary that very day to exile the rash orator (compare 
 p, 497 and 841), and the next day to celebrate the Feast of the 
 Immaculate Conception anew : and on this occasion all the mem- 
 bers of the monastic orders who were present, took an oath to 
 defend the glorious privilege of the Virgin both in public and 
 private, to the utmost of their power ; and it was resolved that in 
 future no chair or diploma of the University should be granted to 
 any one before he had taken the like oath. A statute to the same 
 effect was passed by the Divinity Faculty in the University of 
 Paris in 1496. The Universities of Coimbre, Manilla, Vienna, 
 and Cologne (see Gousset under Lisboune, Manilla, Vienna, and 
 Cologne) exacted the like pledge, as did a great number of other 
 learned bodies and cathedral cliapters. On the whole, it is certain 
 that to be suspected of holding a different opinion, or even of 
 questioning the favourite doctrine, was for every one more or less 
 unsafe and inconvenient, and for a clergj^man a sure bar to pre- 
 ferment. 
 
 Again, the extent to which the popular ignorance and credulity 
 has been abused, may be partly estimated from the unfeigned un- 
 easiness expressed by some of the Bishops, lest the happy security 
 of their flocks should be disturbed when they learnt for the first 
 time that the question remained to be decided. So the Bishop of 
 Santander (p. 559), " les simples fideles vivaient avec une telle
 
 Ill 
 
 securite dans cette croyance, que VEncyclique etait venue les 
 troubler en queJquesorte, en leur faisani croire, que son objet etait 
 encore en question^'' So af'^Sinigaglia (p. 577): " beaucoup de 
 fi deles ignoraient si la question avait ete decidee ou non par 
 I'Eglise, et si elle avait besoiu de I'etre." So at Sion in Switzer- 
 land : " le peuple jouissait paisiblement de sa pieuse croyance, au 
 point qu'il aurait soup^onne d'heresie le moindre^ doute, et qu'on 
 aurait hesoin cVuser de precautions en lui annoncant la definition 
 prochainement attendue, pour eviter de causer aux simples de 
 V etonnement et du trouble^'' (p, 580). So at Wurzburg (p. C74) : 
 " le peuple croit simplement cette verite, comme il croit les dogmes 
 de foi :" no doubt, just as the converts of the Sandwich Islands 
 (p. 558) : " quoique peu instruits des choses de la foi, n'eprouvent 
 aucune difficulte a admettre cette croyance ;" and at Tonquin 
 Oriental (p. 610): '' le clerge indigene et le^ peuple fidele qui 
 n'avaient aucune idee'des controverses theologiques, n'eprouvaient 
 ni doute ni hesitation dans leur croyance." But at^ German Spires 
 also (p. 588) : " ceux qui n'etaient pas inities aux controverses 
 theologiques la rangeaient au nomhre des dogmes^ At Spalatro 
 (p. 587) : " le peuple en etait si penetre, et avait taut de devotion 
 pour cette prerogative de Marie, qu'il avait fallu user de prudence 
 en prescrivant les prieres publiques selon les vues de V JEncy clique.''^ 
 At Sonora (p. 585) : " Proposer au peuple cet article de foi, comme 
 etant encore a dejlnir, ce serait chose etrange a ses yeux. Ignorant 
 les decrets des Souverains Pontifes a ce sujet, il traiterait d'impie 
 et de blasphemateur "quiconque avancerait une assertion en sens 
 contraire." These\ examples might be multiplied. Compare the 
 letters from Livourne, p. 368 ; Coire, p/225 ;" Cabu, p. 197 ; Cas- 
 sano, p. 191 ; Braga, p. 159 ; Albe-Royale, p. 46 ; Agria, p. 35. 
 It is evident that this wide-spread error has been not only per- 
 mitted, but studiously'cherished and inculcated by'^the Clergy. 
 
 It was indeed a very natural, almost unavoidable, consequence 
 of the devotional practices in which the people have been trained. 
 It must be difficult for them to understand how the Church, by 
 the authority of Popes and Councils, could sanction a Festival in 
 honour of a doctrine which was only a pious opinion, and not an 
 article of faith. And most of the Bishops themselves now refer to 
 the Festival as one of the strongest proofs of the truth of the doc-
 
 112 
 
 trine ; mostly appearing to forget that the question proposed to 
 them affected not its truth, but its certainty, as a dogma of the 
 Church, and that this certainty could not be proved, or in the 
 slightest degree confirmed, by the sanction which had been given 
 to the celebration while the tenet was confessedly not an article 
 of faith ; though undoubtedly the argument implies a very grave 
 and well-merited censure on all who had taken a share in so mis- 
 directing the devotion of the people to an uncertain object. But 
 Cardinal Gousset's volume discloses some rather curious facts with 
 regard to the Festival itself, which will help to show how far it 
 can serve to supply the absence of Scriptural and patristic au- 
 thority. The antiquity of the observance is variouslj'^ stated. The 
 faithful people of Cadiz indeed (p. 169) claim it as one of their 
 glories that the Festival had been celebrated in their cathedral 
 from Apostolical times. But the Synod of Baltimore (p. 117) was 
 not aware that it had been introduced in the West before the 
 ninth century. And the English E-omanists do not trace theirs 
 farther back than the end of the eleventh (p. 669). But the more 
 important question is as to the meaning or object of the Festival ; 
 for on this it must entirely depend whetlier it proves any thing 
 even as to the relative antiquity of the belief which it is now 
 alleged to confirm. The Bull Ineffahllis itself alludes to a diver- 
 sity of opinion on this point, and states that the Popes had pro- 
 scribed the opinion of those who affirmed that the Church did not 
 intend by the Festival to celebrate the Conception, but only the 
 Sanctification, of the Virgin. Which however of these inter- 
 pretations is likely to have been the earlier and the more correct, 
 may be safely left to the judgment of every intelligent and im- 
 partial reader. The Papal determination of the dispute can only 
 be accepted as decisive by those who go to the extreme ultra- 
 montane length of asserting the Pope's infallibility even in matters 
 of fact. The Bishop of Aversa still thinks it necessary to observe 
 (p. 103), " that his Church, when it solemnly celebrates the Fes- 
 tival of the Immaculate Conception, does not propose merely to 
 honour the dignity of the person who was chosen to be the Mother 
 of the Son of God, but the sanctification of her soul in the first 
 instant at which it was created and united to her mortal body." 
 The [Synod of Baltimore (p. 117) makes the curious remark, that
 
 113 
 
 in the East the Festival was observed from the fifth century, under 
 the title of the Conception of St. Anne, mother (according to a 
 worthless legend) of the Holy Virgin. So that either St. Anne 
 shared the privilege now attributed to St. Mary, or the title of the 
 Festival in honour of St. Mary may have referred, not to her 
 parentage, but to her maternity ; as the Abbe Laborde justly 
 remarks with regard to a large part of the quotations from the 
 Fathers in the Bull : " les Peres y esaltent, par des eloges souvent 
 figures et hyperboliques, selon le genre oratoire, la saintete, I'inno- 
 cence, la purete inefiable de la conception et de I'enfantement par 
 lequel elle a con9u et enfante le Sauveur, et non point du tout 
 la conception par laquelle elle a ete con9ue elle-meme, comme on 
 I'assure frauduleusement dans ce passage de la bulle." It is in 
 this point of view very remarkable, that the Armenian Archbishop 
 Primate of Constantinople (p. 237), after asserting the universal 
 belief of his nation in the Immaculate Conception, goes on to say, 
 that, having carefully examined what the Armenian Fathers had 
 thought of the question, he had found that, from the first ages of 
 the Church, they confessed in the ecclesiastical hymns, — what? 
 not the modern dogma, but the very doctrine which the Popes, as 
 the Bull states, had proscribed as an erroneous interpretation of 
 the object of the Festival, namely, " que la Yierge Marie a ete 
 benie dans le sein de sa Mere, et qu'elle en est sortie exempte de 
 toute tache." 
 
 Among the various ways In which the belief has been impressed 
 on the minds of the faithful, none is more notable than that 
 described by the Bishop of Amalfi, who (p. 58) " faisait re- 
 raarquer que son Eglise etait en possession des restes mortels de 
 Samt Andre, et il leur attribualt une puissance persuasive en fa- 
 veur du privilege du culte et de V amour de V Immacxilee Concep- 
 tion'' That a Bishop of Amalfi should be capable of such 
 absurdity, or of superstition which can hardly be paralleled except 
 in African Fetish worship, might not be surprising. But it is a 
 French Cardinal, Archbishop of Eheims, who transcribes the re- 
 mark, in utter unconsciousness that there is any thing in it ridi- 
 culous or offensive. The (pretended) epistle of the priests and 
 deacons of Achaia, in which both the Bishop and the Cardinal 
 himself find " a precious testimony in favour of the Immaculate 
 
 H
 
 114 
 
 Conception," is just as irrelevant as the language of the hymns 
 cited by the Armenian Primate. 
 
 The late Archbishop of Paris, M. Sibour, "after having con- 
 sulted the ablest theologians of his diocese, and having himself 
 most carefully examined and weighed the whole matter as in the 
 Divine presence," arrived at the following conclusions : — " 1st, That 
 according to the principles of theology, the Immaculate Concep- 
 tion of the most Holy Virgin does not admit of being defined 
 (n'est pas definissable) as a truth of Catholic faith (comme 
 verite de foi catholique), and in no case can be imposed as a 
 belief binding under penalty of eternal damnation. 2nd, That 
 a definition of any kind, even if the Church or the Holy See 
 believed it had power to make one, would not be seasonable 
 (opportune), for it would add nothing to the glory of the Imma- 
 culate Virgin, and might be detrimental to the peace of the 
 Church, and the welfare of souls, especially in his diocese." The 
 sole advantage which could result from the definition deprecated 
 by M. Sibour, is very plainly stated by the Bishop of Valladolid, 
 who wished for one. The answer which he received from his 
 Clergy was this (p. 643), " que tons tenaient a la pieuse croyance 
 de rimmaculee Conception, comme si deja elle eut ete rangee 
 parmi les dogmes de la foi, et que sa definition solemnelle ne leur 
 apporterait desormais que le droit de reconnattre des lieretiqties 
 dans ceux qui pourraient s'en ecarterT That was all they would 
 gain by the definition : the right of denouncing as heretics all who 
 might difier from them on this point. Therefore, as the Bishop 
 assures the Pope, they would welcome the decree with extreme joy. 
 Por the same reason the Archbishop of Cuba, elected Archbishop 
 of Bui'gos, was transported with delight by the prospect of this 
 event (p. 253) : " Oh ! quel heureux jour, que celui ou Ton en- 
 tendra cet oracle du Siege Apostolique : II faut croire que la Tres- 
 Sainte Mere de Dieu a ete exempte de la tache originelle, dont le 
 genre humain a ete souille a cause du peche d'Adam. Celui qui 
 ne croira pas que la Vierge, Mere de Dieu, a ete con9ue sans 
 peche, qu^il soit anatheme. Ce sera le jour que le Seigneur aura 
 fait: Nous nous rejouirons, et nous tressaillerons d'' allegresse.^'' 
 
 This would be bad enough in itself But the worst is, that the 
 same fiendish wickedness is, by du-ect necessary implication, im-
 
 115 
 
 puted to the Blessed Virgin herself, for whose greater lionour and 
 glory the damnatory decree has been pronounced. May we not 
 here more fitly apply the words of the Psalmist : " His delight 
 was in cursing, and it shall happen unto him. He clothed himself 
 with cursing like as with a raiment : and it shall come into his 
 bowels like water, and like oil into his bones." A new right — not 
 of believing, not of worshipping, for that existed before to the 
 fullest extent, but — of cursing, of branding with heresy, is, so far 
 as the faithful are concerned, the single result of the proceedings, 
 which, from February, 1849, to December, 1854, appear to have 
 occupied so large a part of the attention of the whole Eoman 
 Communion. The Abbe Laborde does not speak too strongly 
 when he calls that which has been done at Eome, " un veritable 
 crime, dont rendront compte a Dieu ceux qui y ont participe " 
 (p. 74). Yet the perversion of moral feeling which it indicates is 
 the smallest part of the evil or the sin. The final and complete 
 centralization of all authority in the person of the Pope, the 
 virtual absorption of the Episcopate in the Papacy, as it was pro- 
 bably the main object of the whole transaction, is certainly its 
 most important and most pernicious efl:ect. The nature of the 
 occasion on which this power has been usurped, marks and deter- 
 mines the spirit in which it will be continually exercised. It may 
 seem difiicult to conceive that the state of Christianity can ever 
 sink below that which is exhibited in Cardinal Gousset's volume. 
 But it is certain that the malign influence of the spiritual despot- 
 ism which has just reached its climax, will make itself felt more 
 and more the longer it lasts. The recent triumph over historical 
 truth. Christian charity, and ecclesiastical order, is no doubt only 
 one of a long series yet to come. The debasement of Chris- 
 tianity, the extinction of all true spiritual life, must henceforward 
 be progressive, and will probably manifest themselves in many still 
 more extravagant and monstrous forms : but only until the designs 
 of Providence shall be revealed upon this mystery of iniquity, 
 which, however it may work and seemingly prosper for a season, 
 is assuredly reserved for destruction in His appointed time. 
 
 n2
 
 116 
 
 (B.) 
 
 On tJie History of the Eucharistic Controversy. 
 
 Mb. FfiEEMAN lias shown so much ability and research in the first 
 part of his work on the " Principles of Divine Service," that any 
 opinions which he may advance in the course of it must carry 
 great weight with his readers, and, if erroneous, will be likely to 
 lead many astray. I am therefore sorry to be obliged to express 
 my dissent from many of the statements contained in the Intro- 
 duction to Part II. Its "design" — as he describes it in the 
 Monitum prefixed to it — " is to unravel, by means of an historical 
 survey of the ancient belief concerning the Holt Euchaeist, 
 viewed as a mystery, and of the later departures from it, the 
 manifold confusions which have grown up around the subject, 
 more especially since the fatal epoch of the eleventh century." 
 In this Introduction the author appears to me to have indulged in 
 a licence of speculation for which I was not prepared by the 
 sobriety of judgment which he shows in the first Part. But it is 
 M-ith his " historical survey " that I am at present concerned. I 
 believe that it is not only incorrect in many particulars, but 
 fundamentally erroneous, and that it places the great turning- 
 point of the history of the Eucharistic controversy in a totally 
 false light. He himself is aware that his view of the origin of 
 the controversy is opposed to the generally received opinion : 
 indeed he has not been able to cite any writer who agrees with 
 him in it : though it may be questioned whether he knows the 
 amount of authority which might be set in array against him, as 
 I believe it includes every writer on the subject who deserves to 
 be named. He is also conscious that his view is not only singular, 
 but paradoxical. Eor he admits (p. 38) that " there is indeed at 
 first sight a clear opposition" between two statements of doctrine, 
 which he nevertheless holds to be consistent with each other. It 
 is therefore the more to be lamented, that while standing thus 
 absolutely alone on the most momentous point of the whole dis-
 
 117 
 
 cussion — the origin of the controversy — he should have treated it 
 so lightly and superficially as he has done, and should have pro- 
 pounded a paradoxical novelty with scarcely any ground to sup- 
 port it but his own naked assertion. 
 
 Mr. Freeman believes that the controversy first arose in the 
 eleventh century, and not, as is generally supposed, in the ninth. 
 His proposition is this : " It is commonly represented that con- 
 troversy concerning the Eucharist commenced early in the ninth 
 century; Paschasius Eadbertus (in 820) on the one hand, and 
 Eatramnus, Eabanus Maurus and others (840 — 850) on the other, 
 having maintained diametrically opposite views upon the subject. 
 But in truth, on a careful examination of their writings, no such 
 opposition can be discovered. That the writers no where impugn 
 each other by name, is confessed. And the views maintained by 
 them respectively prove on enquiry to be no more than the carry- 
 ing out of one or the other term of the Eucharistic mystery, as 
 anciently held. On neither side is this accompanied by a denial 
 of the other term." 
 
 This is an assertion which must startle those who are even 
 moderately conversant with the literature of the subject, and »till 
 more those who are in some degree at home in the circle of the 
 Eucharistic ideas belonging to the period in question. If Mr. 
 Freeman has been brought to his conclusion by a more " careful 
 examination of the writings" to which he refers, than had been 
 instituted by any of those who have gone before him, it is much 
 to be lamented that he should not have thought it worth while to 
 communicate the process as well as the result, instead of re- 
 quiring his readers to take so important a point upon his sole 
 authority, supported only by such very slight and worthless argu- 
 ments as those which he has actually produced in the few pages 
 which he has devoted to this part of his inquiry. 
 
 My own examination of the writings of Paschasius and Ea- 
 tramn has led me to the opposite conclusion. I believe that it 
 may be clearly shown from them, that the two lines of thought 
 which Mr. Freeman represents as parallel, do in fact run directly 
 counter to one another; that the doctrine of Paschasius differs 
 from Transubstantiation in little more than the name : only falling 
 short of the last stage of its development : while that of Eatramn
 
 118 
 
 is the genuine doctrine of the Church of England, as opposed 
 both to the Eomish Transubstantiation and the Lutheran Co-sub- 
 sistence. 
 
 Mr. Preeman believes his position to be strengthened by some 
 external evidence, which may therefore deserve a preliminary 
 remark. But I need only express my surprise, that he should for 
 this purpose have seriously referred to the gross blunder by which 
 Paschasius and Ratramn have been confounded with one another 
 (p. 39). Whether there is any such identity (ibid.) in their 
 language as to prevent any one who has carefully examined their 
 writings from perceiving that their opinions are irreconcilably 
 repugnant to each other, will be considered presently. But no 
 doubt the "further and more convincing indication" of the alleged 
 agreement which, as Mr. Freeman conceives, " is furnished by the 
 silence of the Church at the time and for a long while after," is 
 entitled to more attention ; though, even if no other account could 
 be given of it, its force as an argument would entirely depend on 
 our ignorance of circumstances which might have enabled us to 
 explain it. But it does not seem difficult to account for the fact 
 otherwise. The gross carnal view maintained by Paschasius, was 
 no doubt prevalent among the vulgar, whose belief was confirmed 
 by such miracles as those which he reports in his treatise, c. 14. 
 But it is evident from the questions proposed by King Charles to 
 Eatramnus, as well as from his answer, that it was not yet gene- 
 rally received even among the more intelligent Laity, still less 
 among the more learned of the Clergy. Even two centuries later, 
 Hildebrand would fain have eluded the necessity of sanctioning it 
 by the condemnation of Berengar. But by that time the tide had 
 become too strong even for him. In the earlier period, the Popes 
 were still able to preserve a discreet neutrality: the rather as 
 Eatramn appears to have destined his treatise for the private 
 reading of Charles the Bald, avoided all personal allusion to 
 Paschasius, who was his abbot at Corbey, and — conscious no doubt 
 that he was on the unpopular side — shrank from publicity (see 
 Lauf in the Stud, and Ivrit. 1828, p. 775). All this however is, 
 as much as Mr. Ereeman's inference from tlie " silence of the 
 Church," matter of surmise, which ought not of itself to appear 
 "convincing" to any one. The main question is, whether these
 
 119 
 
 two writers have expressed tbemselves so obscurely and ambigu- 
 ously, that it is impossible to ascertain tbeir meaning from their 
 own language. And first, as to Paschasius. 
 
 Mr. Freeman (p. 36) denies that " Paschasius affirmed the 
 annihilation of the elements in their proper nature." He acknow- 
 ledges that the contrary "opinion has very widely prevailed:" 
 but among the authors who have held it, he only notices the most 
 ancient and the most modern: Berengarius and Dean Milman. 
 Both, he thinks, were mistaken, and Dean Milman "probably 
 misled by the authority of Berengarius :" who " overstates the 
 view of Paschasius." On this I must observe that, if Dean 
 Milman deferred to the authority of Berengarius, he acted both 
 modestly and -wisely, and as became a writer of Ecclesiastical 
 History. For Berengarius was, by his familiarity with the medi- 
 aeval language and trains of thought, incomparably better qualified 
 to understand the meaning of Paschasius than any scholar at this 
 day, and could be under no temptation needlessly to rank so 
 eminent a person among his opponents. IVIr. Freeman's assertion, 
 that the doctrine which Berengarius attributes to Paschasius, 
 "does not appear in his regular treatise on the subject," is just 
 the point which we have to examine, and on which I believe Mr. 
 Freeman to have been "misled," in opposition to the highest 
 authority, by his preconceived theory. He also thinks that on 
 this point he has Bishop Cosin on his side. And, indeed, the 
 Bishop ventured to assert (Hist, of Trans, p. 117) that " in that 
 whole book of Paschasius there is nothing that favours the tran- 
 substantiation of the bread, or its destruction or removal:" and 
 that " he hath many things repugnant to transubstantiation." 
 And of these things he gives several specimens. But if his 
 extracts proved any thing, they would prove a great deal too much 
 for the purpose : namely, that transubstantiation is not now a 
 doctrine of the Church of Eome. For all turn upon the words 
 spiritual and spiritually. But these are admitted by Bellarmine 
 to be applicable to the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist 
 (De Eccl. i. c. 2, "Non habet Christus in Eucharistia modum 
 existendi corporum, sed potius spirituum, cum sit totus in qualibet 
 parte. Itaque dicemus, Christum esse in Eucharistia vere, 
 realiter, substautialiter, sed nun dicemus corporaliter. Immo
 
 120 
 
 contra dici posset esse spiritualiter, ut Beriiardus dlcit in Sermone 
 de S. Martino, ubi affirmat in Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram 
 carnis substantiam, sed spiritualiter, non carnaliter : tameu non 
 videtur Lsec vox multum frequentanda, quia periculum asset ne 
 traheretur ab adversariis non tarn ad modura quam ad ipsam 
 naturam siguificandara : propter quod item periculum non videtur 
 valde usurpandum illud, non esse corporaliter, nisi addatur con- 
 tinue explicatio "). Prom this we may judge of the value of the 
 statement with which the Bishop sums up the import of his 
 extracts : " In these he teacheth, that tlie mystery of the Lord's 
 Supper is not, and ought not to be, understood carnally, but 
 spiritually : and that this dream of corporal and oral transubstan- 
 tiation was unknown to the ancient Church." Bishop Cosin also 
 treats the chapter (14) which contains the legendary miracles as " a 
 spurious interpolation," added " by the craft of some superstitious 
 forger," though its intimate connexion with the chapter imme- 
 diately preceding, and the reference to the Jewish tradition about 
 the manna, related in the third chapter, seem sufficiently to prove 
 its genuineness, which Mr. Freeman does not dispute, but considers 
 these stories as " illustrations," " of themselves proving that he 
 conceived Christ's body to be present under a veil and in a 
 mystery." 
 
 Mr. Preeman bids his readers " see the Treatise De Corpore 
 throughout " (note d, p. 37), but he has himself quoted only three 
 very short passages. Of these the first is, as he admits, an " ap- 
 proach to a denial of the existence of the elements," and therefore, 
 as far as it goes, makes not for, but against his opinion. The 
 second he has, as I shall show, entirely misunderstood. And the 
 third will be found equally unavailable for his purpose. As this 
 is all he has produced, I will consider each of them successively 
 before I proceed to the positive part of my proof. 
 
 The first had been quoted by the Oxford editor of Bishop Cosin's 
 "History of Transubstantiation " (p. 116), with the remark, that 
 " though nearly approaching, it hardly amounts to the Roman doc- 
 triae of Transubstantiation." Mr. Freeman says : " The nearest 
 approach to a denial of the existence of the elements in Paschasius 
 is in his first chapter, ' Licet figura panis et vini maneat, hsec 
 nihil allied quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem ere-
 
 121 
 
 denda sunt.' But this may well mean tbat the outward visible 
 elements are really the Body and Blood, and nothing less. And 
 Eatramn himself says the same : ' Post mysticam consecrationem 
 nee panis jam dicitur nee vinum, sed Christi corpus et sanguis.' " 
 It may be as well to give the passage with a little of the context, 
 according to the reading of Sirmondus in the Paris edition of 
 1618. After some general statements on the Divine omnipotence, 
 Paschasius proceeds : " Et ideo nullus moveatur de hoc corpore 
 Christi et sanguine, quod in mysterio vera sit caro et verus san- 
 guis : dum sic iUe voluit qui creavit. Omnia enim qusecumque 
 voluit Dominus fecit, in coelo et in terra. Et quia voluit, licet in 
 figura panis et vini hsec sic esse [1. licet in figura panis et vini, 
 hsec sic esse], omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post 
 consecrationem credenda sunt." The Oxford editor, who reads 
 "licet figura panis et vini hie sit," prints credenda in italics, ap- 
 parently intending to suggest, that Paschasius might mean that 
 the bread and wine became the Body and Blood only to the appre- 
 hension of faith. But when Mr. Freeman asserts that nihil aliud 
 in this passage may " well mean " nothing less, he is bound, I think, 
 at least to show that such an interpretation is warranted by the 
 usage of the period, and was that which would be likely to occur 
 to the minds of the readers of Paschasius. That such was not the 
 case appears, as I think, very clearly from the following passage 
 of Berengarius (De Sacra Ccena, Berolini, 1834, p. 109) : " Omnis 
 enim qui nihil aliud esse confirmat post consecrationem panis in 
 altari, quam portiunculam carnis Christi, panem altaris per conse- 
 crationem absumi secundum subjecti corruptionem astruit, et si 
 nihil aliud est in altari, nisi carnis Christi portiuncula sensualis, 
 non mentitur, qui dicit, post absumptum sensualiter panem esse 
 solummodo corpus Christi in altari." That is, in the opinion of 
 Berengarius, Paschasius could not have used such language, unless 
 he had meant to say that, after consecration, the elements ceased 
 to exist in their proper nature. To him nihil aliud is the exact 
 equivalent of solummodo. Whether, however, this is " the nearest 
 approach to a denial of the existence of the elements in Pas- 
 chasius," and whether " Eatramn himself says the same," we shall 
 see presently. 
 
 In the second of the three passages Mr. Freeman has fallen into
 
 122 
 
 error for want of sufficient attention to liis own direction : " See 
 the Treatise De Corpore throiigliouty If be had not considered 
 the words which he quotes by themselves, but in connexion with 
 other parts of the treatise, he would have seen that they have an 
 entirely different meaning from that which he attributes to them, 
 and, in fact, imply exactly the reverse of it. " Paschasius," he 
 says (p. 37, note d), "affirms, in clear contradiction to the doc- 
 trine which obtained in the eleventh century, that ' Christum fas 
 vorari dentibus non est.' " The words occur in c. 4. And even 
 the immediate context might have led him to doubt the soundness 
 of his interpretation. It runs thus : " Utique et panis qui de coelo 
 descendit verus panis. Sed quia Christum vorari fas dentibus non 
 est, voluit in mysterio hunc panem et vinum vere cai'nem suam et 
 sanguinem consecratione Spiritus Sancti potentialiter creari ; cre- 
 ando vero quotidie pro mundi vita mystice immolari, ut sicut de 
 virgine per Spiritum vera caro sine coitu creatur, ita per eundem 
 ex substantia panis ac vini mystice idem Christi corpus et sanguis 
 cousecretur." No doubt, according to Paschasius, Christ may not 
 be devoured with the teeth ; but his real natural flesh may. And 
 how this comes to pass is clearly explained in the twelfth chapter. 
 He there shows that although Christ himself, having entered once 
 for all into the heavenly places, remains there a High Priest for 
 ever after the order of Melchisedec, his flesh possesses an in- 
 exhaustible productivity, through which, by the power of the 
 Divine word, it may and does multiply itself. " Verbo enim Patris 
 dictum est, Crescite et multiplicamini, et ecce adhuc hodie ex eo 
 cuncta creantur animantia, non nova, sed ex eodem semine. Ita 
 et caro Christi eodem verbo fit caro, quo Verbum caro factum est, 
 et habitavit in nobis. TJnde si ex ilia benedictione tanta manat 
 multitudo, quid putas ex carne Christi? Nunquid inefficax est ex 
 se, qui tanta fecit ex nihilo ? Et sicut panes auxit ex nihilo quan- 
 titate substantise, quam naturae non dederat : nunquid impotens 
 est facere ex aliquo, quod sine semine in utero creaverat ? Pul- 
 lulat ergo ilia ubertas carnis Christi, et manet integer Christus : 
 quia natura manente Integra, etiam in creaturis ad jussum ejus 
 cuncta exuberant. Propterea licet semel dixerit, Germinet terra 
 lierham virentem, adhuc hodie ex eo qua3 per singulos nascuntur 
 annos omnia creantur. Sic utique et in eo quod semel voluit, ct
 
 123 
 
 delnceps earnern et sanguinem in hac commemoratione jussit esse, 
 fit quod jubetur." It is evident from this that, according to the 
 view of Paschasius, although, or rather because, Christ himself 
 remains for ever in heaven entire and untouched, his very natural 
 flesh may be, and in the Eucharist always is, eaten upon earth ; 
 and therefore that the assertion, " Christum vorari fas dentibus 
 non est," does not " contradict," but is perfectly consistent with 
 " the doctrine which obtained in the eleventh century :" " Christi 
 corpus sensualiter sacerdotum manibus tangi et frangi." 
 
 The third passage, also from c. 4, is quoted by Mr. Preeman as 
 confirming his inference from that which has been just examined. 
 *' So again, ' Yeram carnem et verum sanguinem, sed mijstice : 
 mysticum est sacramentum nee figuram illud negare possumus.' 
 Eatramn himself could not say mox'e." I am obliged to say, that 
 this remark as to Eatramn is not only frivolous and irrelevant, 
 but must mislead the reader who relies on Mr. Freeman's autho- 
 rity as to the nature of the question. Eatramn might certainly 
 have used the same language, but he would have required that it 
 should be understood in his own sense, and not in that of Pas- 
 chasius. Neither Paschasius nor Eatramn has left room for any 
 reasonable doubt as to the meaning which each of them attached 
 to the terms Veritas and figura in the Eucharist. And I shall 
 show that their views are so directly opposed to each other, that 
 what to the one is the reality, is to the other the figure, and vice 
 versa. That there was something of mystery d^ndi figure in the 
 Sacrament, followed from the nature of the thing, according to 
 every account that could be given of it, and particularly from that 
 of Paschasius himself in the preceding chapter, where he discusses 
 the question: " Quid sint sacramenta, vel qiiare dicantury This 
 therefore is quite independent of any particular speculation on 
 the import of the mystery. It is common neutral ground, which 
 may and must be taken by those who are most completely at 
 variance with one another in their doctrine of the Sacraments. 
 But it will be still more apparent how little the words quoted by 
 Mr. Freeman can serve any purpose of his argument, when they 
 are set down with the context which he has omitted. The passage 
 from which they are extracted follows immediately after that 
 which I have already transcribed, in which Paschasius affirms, as
 
 124 
 
 we have seen, that the same Body and Blood of Christ which were 
 created from the Virgin through the Spirit, are through the same 
 Spirit mystically consecrated (that is, formed by consecration) out 
 of the substance of bread and wine. And he then proceeds with 
 another quotation from our Lord's discourse at Capernaum: "De 
 qua videlicet carne ac sanguine. Amen, amen, inquit, dico vohis, 
 nisi manducaveritis carnem Jilii hominis, et biberifis ejus sangui- 
 nem, no7i lialebitis vitmn cBternmn in vobis. Ubi profecto non 
 aliam quam veram carnem dicit, et verum sanguinem ; licet mys- 
 tice. Unde quia mysticum est Sacramentum, nee figuram illud 
 negare possumus." That is, our Lord's words are to be taken 
 literally, but yet not according to the error of the Capernaites, 
 but with reference to the Sacrament, and therefore mystically and 
 in a figure. How can it be gathered from this that Paschasius 
 did not hold the annihilation of the elements ? That he really 
 did so, I shall now endeavour to prove ; and by a method which 
 will at least be admitted to be more satisfactory, and more likely 
 to lead to the discovery of the truth, than that which has been 
 adopted by Mr, rreeman. For I shall not, like him, content 
 myself with two or three detached passages, — though those which 
 I shall produce will, I trust, appear more to the point than any 
 to which he has referred, — but shall endeavour to show that the 
 doctrine in question is so involved in the whole argument of Pas- 
 chasius, that several entire chapters of his treatise would be absurd 
 and unintelligible on any other supposition. 
 
 I have already incidentally quoted some expressions which are, 
 as I think, a much nearer " approach to a denial of the existence 
 of the elements," than that which has been selected by Mr, Free- 
 man as alone worthy of notice, where all depends on the literal 
 sense of nihil aJiud. Such are those in c, 4, where the Body and 
 Blood are said to be created out of the substance of the bread 
 and wine ; or, in precisely the same sense, the bread and wine are 
 said to be created the Body and Blood by consecration through 
 the power of the Holy Ghost. When we remember that this 
 creation is repeatedly compared by Paschasius to the miracle of 
 the Incarnation, it must be evident that in his system it implies 
 the abolition of the substance out of which the new substance is 
 formed, A little farther on in the same chapter, in his explanation
 
 125 
 
 of Veritas as opposed to Jigura In the Sacrament, he varies his 
 phrase, so as perhaps to make the meaning still clearer : " Veritas 
 est, dum corpus Christi et sanguis virtute Spiritus in verbo ipsius 
 ex panis vinique substantia efficitur." How could he have used 
 such language, if he supposed the bread and wine to remain 
 physically unchanged ? But there are passages still stronger than 
 these, where the change is expressly affirmed. One occurs (c. 2) 
 in his mystical interpretation of a passage of Leviticus, where he 
 says that the words (Levit. xxii. 14) signify one, " qui advertat 
 omnem sanctificationem mystici sacrificii, et efficaciam, quomodo 
 sensibilis res intelligibiliter virtute Dei per verbum Christi in 
 carnem ipsius ac sanguinem divinitus transfer aturT Intelligi- 
 hiliter, because the change, though real, was not perceptible by 
 the senses, but not the less implying that the elements which 
 underwent the change ceased to exist in their proper nature. 
 Again (c. 8), " Cogita igitur si quidpiam corporeum potest esse 
 sublimius, cum substantia panis et vini in Christi carnem et san- 
 guinem efficaciter interius commutatur, ita ut deinceps post con- 
 secrationem vera Christi caro et sanguis veraciter credatur et non 
 aliud quam Christus panis de coelo a credentibus sestimetur." It 
 seems hardly possible to " approach " nearer than this to " a denial 
 of the existence of the elements," without the technical term tran- 
 substantiatiou which however could scarcely be defined better, 
 than as that change by Avhich '^ substantia panis et vini in Christi 
 carnem et sanguinem commutatur.'''' 
 
 I proceed to that which I consider as the more cogent, if I may 
 not say the absolutely conclusive and irresistible proof of my 
 position. Mr. Freeman thinks that " the immediate design of 
 the treatise of Paschasius was " only " to affirm that the Body 
 and Blood which our Lord meant when He instituted the Eu- 
 charist, were no other than those which He gave for our redemp- 
 tion on the cross," but that, although " his language to this effect 
 is strong, with a tendency towards the merely physical," "he con- 
 fines himself to the positive statement of that side of the mystery 
 ■with which he is dealing," and does not mean to reject the other, 
 " by denying the existence of the material elements " after conse- 
 cration. But to one who reads the treatise with this notion of 
 the author's doctrine, how strange must appear the heading of the
 
 126 
 
 tbirfceenth cbapter : " TJt quid liaec colorem et saporem in Sacra- 
 mento minime permutant," the inquiry why the elements undergo 
 no change in colour or taste. Sui'ely, if they remained in " their 
 proper nature," the wonder would be if they did not retain their 
 sensible qualities. And when we look into the contents of the 
 chapter, we find that the object for which this was so ordained is 
 stated to be twofold : to conceal the mystery from the profane 
 gaze of unbelievers ; and to enhance the merit of faith, and quicken 
 the longings of the faithful for the full manifestation, and eternal 
 fruition of Christ : " ita ut et Veritas non desit in Sacramento, et 
 ridiculum nullum fiat paganis, quod cruorem occisi hominis bi- 
 bamus. Avidius enim requiritur quod latet, et preciosius est, 
 quod cum fide quferitur. Ideo quoque sic debuit hoc mysterium 
 temperari, ut et arcana secretorum celarentur infidis, et meritum 
 cresceret de virtute fidei, et nihil deesset interius vere credentibus 
 promissa? veritatis. Insuper et quod majus est, per hsec secretins 
 prsestita ad illam tenderent speciem satietatis, ubi jam non pro 
 peccatis nostris quotidie Christus immolabitur, sed satietate mani- 
 festationis ejus sine ulla corruptione omues sine fine fruemur." 
 The end of concealment would indeed be equally attained, whether 
 the elements did or did not continue to exist in their proper 
 nature, so long as they presented the same sensible appearance. 
 But it could be no trial of faith, that bread and wine looked and 
 tasted like bread and wine, and not like flesh and blood. On the 
 contraiy, it would have been a stupendous miracle if they had 
 done so. But if, as we have seen Paschasius repeatedly aflBrming 
 to be the fact, the substance of the bread and wine had been 
 changed into tlie real flesh and blood of Christ, then it was very 
 natural to inquire why the change went no farther, and left the 
 outward appearance, the colour and taste, of the transmuted ele- 
 ments unaltered ? And this it is the object of the chapter to 
 explain. 
 
 The same thing appears even more plainly from the sixteenth 
 chapter, in which Paschasius discusses another question, which 
 must sound very strange to one who takes Mr. Preeman's view of 
 the subject. Por it is, whether this body after consecration may 
 be rightly called bread. " Utrum hoc corpus post consecrationem 
 panis jure queat vocari." It is clear from the terms of the question,
 
 127 
 
 tliat Paschasius did not conceive more tlian one substance to be 
 present in tbe Sacrament of the Body, namely, the very Flesb of 
 Christ. If he had beheved that bread existed along with it, it 
 would have been needless to raise such a question, as there would 
 have been no difficulty to be solved. But if the bread had ceased 
 to exist, there was good reason to inquire, whether the Body 
 which had been created in its room, could be rightly called by the 
 same name. But at all events, according to Mr. Freeman's view, 
 the answer to such a question should have been an explanation of 
 the distinction between the two co-existing substances, and of 
 the synecdoche by which both together might be properly de- 
 scribed by the name of either. But how totally different from 
 this is the answer which Paschasius really gives ! He starts from 
 the fact that the name of hread is actually given to the Sacrament 
 by St. Paul, and then proceeds to show in what sense this is to be 
 understood ; and it is, not as Mr. Preeman would have said, 
 because the existence of the bread is " one side of the mystery," 
 but because the Plesh of Christ is itself the living Bread which 
 came down from heaven. And he goes on to say, that the Blood 
 may in like manner be figuratively (typice) called wiue ; not 
 because there is really wine in the cup, but because it is the pro- 
 perty of wine to gladden the heart of man. " Quod panis etiam, 
 quamvis vera caro sit, hoc mysterium possit nominari, probat 
 Apostolus ubi dicit, JProlet se homo, et sic de pane illo edat et de 
 calice libaf, quia Christi caro et vera caro, et tamen panis vivus 
 qui de ccelo descendit jure catholice prsedicatur. Caro quidem 
 secundum gratiam, panis vero secundum efficientiam, quia sicut 
 hie panis terrenus vitam subministrat temporalem, ita ille coelestis 
 vitam prsestat jeternam et coelestem, quia vita est sempiterna. Deni- 
 que et sanguis hie secundum efficientiam simili mode vinum typice 
 potest vocari: quia sicut vinum laetificat cor hominum sobrie 
 potatum, ita longe locupletius hoc vinum sanguinis Ijetificat cor 
 hominis interioris et inebriat mentem amore spiritali." If there 
 could be a shadow of doubt about the meaning of this language, it 
 would be removed by the fact, that the view here expounded is 
 precisely that of Humbert and Lanfranc. Lanfranc, De Corpore 
 et Sanguine Domini, c. 8 : " Confitetur Ecclesia toto orbe ter- 
 rarum diffusa, panem et vinum ad sacrandum proponi in altari : 
 sed inter sacrandum incomprehensibiliter et ineffabiliter in sub-
 
 128 
 
 stantiam carnis et sanguinis commutari. TTon tamen panem 
 negat, immo confirmat. Sed panem qui de coelo descendit, et dat 
 vitani mundo : . . . . Vinum quoque non qualecunque, sed quod 
 liominum, nou quidem omnium, sed servorum Dei corda Isetificat, 
 quod animas iuebriat, et a peccatis purgat." To which Berengarius 
 replies (p. 113 and foil, of the Berlin edition. Compare especially 
 p. 125) : " Illud insistendum, quod vere beatus Ambrosius in eo 
 libello sentiat, non deesse secundum sua subjecta mensse dominicaB 
 non panem qui de coelo descendit quod dicitur tropice corpus Christi, 
 quo tu sophistice contendis elabi, sed panem, qui de pistrino venit 
 ad communem aut dominicam mensam, qui propria locutione 
 dicitur panis non tropica, et non vinum qui Icetificat cor, quod 
 dicitur Christi sanguis similiter locutione tropica, sed vinum quod 
 non tropica locutione dicitur vinum, quod de torculari ad com- 
 munem paratur vel ad dominicum calicem." It was, in the opinion 
 of Berengarius, a sophistical evasion of a difficulty which pressed 
 on the doctrine of Transubstantiation. 
 
 Mr. Freeman deals with Eatramn in the same easy, but very 
 unsafe and unsatisfactory way as with Paschasius ; citing a very 
 few passages, or rather phrases, ambiguous in themselves, and 
 detached from the context, which can alone determine their precise 
 meaning. And he is so unfortunate, even in this very scanty 
 selection, that two of his extracts are taken from a chapter (28) 
 which contains, as we shall see, one of the clearest illustrations of 
 that " direct contrariety and incompatibility " which he denies to 
 exist between the views of Paschasius and Ratramn. But I believe 
 that he has not only failed to produce any sufficient evidence of 
 his assertion, but has misapprehended the state of the question as 
 proposed by Eatramn, the general drift of his argument, and the 
 master thought of the treatise. He says first : " The treatise of 
 Eatramn however proves that there were some at that time who 
 represented that the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist 
 were discernible by the senses." If so, the darkness of "that 
 time " must have been grosser than it had ever before entered into 
 the mind of any one, however disposed to look down with con- 
 tempt on the mediaeval intellect, to imagine. But Mr. Freeman 
 only makes this statement to withdraw it in the next sentence, 
 and he shows in the same paragi-aph, that the treatise not only 
 does not "prove" this, but proves that it was impossible; for, as
 
 129 
 
 he truly observes, " Eatramnus appeals to the evidence of the 
 senses as decisive, hy universal admission, of the reality of the 
 elements ;" that is, of their sensible properties, form, colour, taste, 
 and smell (c. 9 and 10, " exterius quidem panis, quod ante fuerat, 
 forma prsetenditur, color ostenditur, sapor accipitur. Gusta, 
 vinura sapit : odora, vinum redolet : inspice, vini color intuetur. 
 . . . Usee ita esse nemo potest abnegare "). " But," Mr. Freeman 
 proceeds, " they seem to have dreamed not so much of the natural 
 Body and Blood being exhibited in their natural condition, as of a 
 new Body and Blood, consisting of bread — a ' corpus panaceum ' — 
 and wine ; so that there was no veiling or mystery, no outward 
 and inward part." The " dream " therefore, instead of being, as 
 would have appeared from the preceding sentence, a mere halluci- 
 nation, was the opinion, that the bread and wine remained after 
 consecration physically unchanged, but nevertheless became, in 
 some sense, the Body and Blood of Christ ; an opinion, which so 
 far from being gainsayed by the treatise, was the belief of Eatramn 
 himself, and is that of the Church of England. But when Mr. 
 Freeman adds, " so that there was no veiling or mystery, no out- 
 ward or inward part," this is quite another thing; not a necessary 
 consequence of that opinion, but a proposition which both 
 Eatramn and the Church of England utterly deny. 
 
 All this can only serve to divert attention from the real object 
 of the treatise, which is at the same tim.e to answer the two 
 questions proposed by the King, and to refute the two proposi- 
 tions advanced by Paschasius at the outset of his work, to which 
 those questions manifestly refer. Paschasius had aihrmed (c. 1), 
 " Quia voluit, licet in figura panis et vini, ha3c sic esse, omnino nihil 
 aliud quam caro Christi et sanguis post consecrationem credenda 
 sunt. Unde ipsa Veritas ad discipulos ITcec, iuquit, caro mea est 
 pro mundi vita." This, with the subsequent fuller and more 
 definite statements to the same effect, several of which have been 
 already cited, suggested the first of the two questions, which is 
 thus stated by Eatramn (c. 5) : " Quod in Ecclesia ore fidelium 
 sumitur Corpus et Sanguis Christi, quserit Vestrse Magnitudinis 
 Excellentia, in mysterio fiat an in veritate." I pass over, for the 
 present, the farther explanation of the question, introduced by id 
 est, which unfortunately is so worded as itself to stand in great 
 
 I
 
 130 
 
 need of elucidation. Paschasiiis proceeds: "Et, ut mirabilius 
 loquar, non alia plane quam quse nata est de Maria, et passa in 
 cruce, et resurrexit de sepulcbro." This raises the second question, 
 thus stated by Eatramn : " et utrum ipsum Corpus sit, quod de 
 Maria natum est, et passum, mortuum, et sepultura, quodque re- 
 surgens et coelos ascendens, ad dexteram Patris consideat." 
 
 The explanation of the first question, subjoined to the id est, 
 runs thus : " Utrum aliquid secreti contiueat quod oculis solumtnodo 
 fidei pateat ; an sine cujuscunque relatione mysterii hoc aspectus 
 intueatur corporis exterius, quod mentis visus aspiciat interius, 
 ut totum, quod agitur, in manifestationis luce clarescat." I will 
 just remark that the Oxford editor, whose translation is in general 
 much better than that of Canon Hopkins, has not observed that 
 aspectus corporis corresponds to mentis visus, and was correctly 
 rendered by Hopkins, "bodily sight." But the whole paraphrase 
 is no doubt very obscui'e, and can only be understood by reference 
 to the definitions which follow of Figura and Veritas. With 
 regard to these, Mr. Freeman observes (note Ji, p. 38) on the word 
 Jigiirate in c. 10 (" claret quia panis ilia Vuwxmc^e Jigurate Christi 
 Corpus et Sanguis existit"), "He does not mean unreally or 
 metaphorically, but under another, which he elsewhere calls a 
 spiritual, manner of being. So he explains jigxira \. c." This 
 reference is certainly candid, almost to naivete. For when we 
 turn to Eatramn's definitions oi jigura and Veritas, we find that, 
 so far from confirming Mr. Freeman's assertion, they relate en- 
 tirely to the distinction between metaphorical and literal language. 
 "Figura," he says (c. 7), "est obumbratio qusedam, quibusdam ve- 
 laminibus quod intendit ostendens." So far he might be speaking 
 either of a type or a metaphor. But what follows makes it un- 
 mistakably evident that he means a figure of speech. " Verbi 
 gratia, Yerbum volentes dicere Panem mmctipamus : sicut in ora- 
 tione Dominica ' panem quotidianum dari nobis ' expostulamus ; 
 vel cum Christus in Evaugelio loquitur dicens, ' Ego sum Panis 
 vivus, qui de ccelo descendit,' vel cum Seipsum Vitem, discipulos 
 autem Palmites appeTlat. 'Ego sum,' dicens, 'Vitis vera, vos 
 autem Palmites ;' hsec enim omnia aliud dicunt et aliud innuuntP 
 This is the explanation which Mr. Freeman considers as a proof, 
 that by figurate Eatramn " does not mean metaphorically," but
 
 131 
 
 "under another manner of being." And in perfect conformity 
 with this is the explanation of Veritas. " Veritas vero est rei mani- 
 festae demoustratio, nullis umbrarum imaginibus obvelatse, sed 
 puris et apertis, utque plauius eloquamur, naturalibus significa- 
 tiouibus insinuat^e." Here again, so far, the meaning is undeter- 
 mined ; but what follows shows that the author is speaking of 
 language : for he goes on : " utpote cum dicihir Christus natus de 
 Virgine, passus, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus ; nihil enim hie 
 figuris obvelantibus adumbratur, verum rei Veritas naturalium 
 significationibus verhorum ostenditur, neque aliud hie licet intelligi 
 qiiam dieitur. At in superioribus non ita ; nam substantialiter 
 uec Panis Christus, nee Vitis Christus, nee Palmites Apostoli. 
 Quapropter hie Pigura, superius vero Veritas in narratione mon- 
 stratur, id est, nuda et aperta significatio." 
 
 I have transcribed these two definitions in full, that the reader 
 may compare them with the terms in which Eatramn states the 
 first of the two questions. And I think it must now be clear what 
 is the real import of that long circumlocution with which be ex- 
 plains what he meant by in mysterio fiat an in veritate. The 
 question was, whether the expression Corpus et Sanguis Christi 
 was to be understood literally or figuratively. Paschasius had 
 maintained the literal interpretation of the words, and conse- 
 quently the natural reality of the Body and Blood created out of 
 the substance of the bread and wine. Ratramn contends for the 
 figurative interpretation, according to which the bread and wine 
 undergo no other than a relative change, becoming the Body and 
 Blood only in spiritual significance and efficacy. The contrast 
 between the two views which Mr. Preeman represents as har- 
 monizing with one another, is as complete as can well be con- 
 ceived. To Paschasius the Sacrament is, in veritate, in the literal 
 sense of the words, the Body and Blood of Christ : figuratively, it 
 is bread and wine. To Eatramn, on the contrary, it is bread and 
 wine in veritate, the Body and Blood, figurate. 
 
 But Mr. Preeman has cited (note h, p. 38) three passages, one 
 from c. 9, two from c. 28, as containing " clear expressions, which 
 are as strong as any thing Paschasius says," by which we must 
 judge of Eatramn's meaning when he speaks of the bread as " the 
 figure of Christ's Body, and the like expressions." The passages 
 
 I 2
 
 182 
 
 are : " Panis per sacerdotia ministerium Christi corpus conficitur 
 c. 9. Non enim putaraus iillum fidelium dubitare, panem ilium 
 faisse Christi corpus effectum :" and " Panis substantiam et vini 
 creaturam convertere potuit in proprium corpus." It is ouly fair 
 to Mr. Preeman to remark, that the Magdeburg centuriators were 
 also struck by Ratramn's use of the term convertere, and observed 
 (as they are triumphantly quoted by D'Achery, Spic. i. p. 52), 
 *' Transubstantiatiouis habet semina Bertramus, utitur enim vo- 
 cabulis commutationis et converslonis." On the other hand, it 
 might have occurred to him to reflect, that if there was any force 
 in this expression apart from the context, it would prove that 
 Berengarius also perfectly agreed with Lanfrauc. Por he says 
 (p. 161, ed. Bei'olin.), " Est vera procul dubio panis et vini per 
 consecratiouem altaris conversio in corpus Christi et sanguinem :" 
 which, if we look no farther, is surely as "clear" and "as strong 
 as any thing" Lanfrauc saj^s, being, in fact, an echo of his words. 
 But then Berengarius proceeds to distinguish : " Sed attendendum, 
 quod dicitur per consecratiouem, quia hie est hujus conversionis 
 modus:" that is, as he explains by numerous examples in the 
 context, a purely relative change. And therefore it is equally ne- 
 cessary to look a little farther in Eatramn's context before we can 
 be sure whether he means the same kind of change as Paschasius, 
 And the context is this : " Sicut ergo paulo antequara pateretur, 
 panis substantiam, et vini creaturam convertere potuit in pro- 
 prium Corpus quod passurum erat, et in Suum Sanguinem, qui 
 post fundendus extabat, sic etiam in deserto manna et aquam 
 de petra in Suam Carnem et Sanguinem convertere prsevaluit, 
 quam^-is longe post et Caro Illius pro nobis in cruce pendenda, et 
 Sanguis Ejus in ablutionem nostram fundendus superabat." So 
 that it turns out that the change signified by this " clear and 
 strong expression" is no other than that which took place (ac- 
 cording to Eatramn's interpretation of St. Paul's language, 1 Cor. 
 X. 1 — 4, which he has been expounding in several preceding 
 chapters) in the manna and water, by which they were made the 
 vehicles of spiritual nourishment. And he describes this nourish- 
 ment still more plainly in c. 26, where, commenting on the words 
 of the Psalm Ixxviii. 25, " Panem angelorum manducavit homo," 
 he says, " ostendit certe Psalmista, quid patres nostri in illo
 
 133 
 
 manna ccelesti perceperint, vel quid fideles in mysterio Christi 
 credere debeant. In utroque certe Cbristus innuitur, qui et cre- 
 dentiura animas pascit, et Angelorum cibus existit. Utrumque 
 boc non corporeo gustu, nee corporali sagina, sed spiritualis A^erbi 
 virtute." Pascbasius took a totally different view of tbis subject, 
 whicb be explains in tbe fiftb cbapter of bis treatise. He con- 
 sidered tbe mauna as a type of tbe Sacrament : " Manna spiri- 
 tualiter percipientibus typus fuit escse corporis Cbristi, et aqua 
 ilia qusB de petra fluxerat figura sanguinis. Siquidem in prse- 
 figuratione idem, sed non idem in adimpletioue veritatis." Here 
 again, we see, tbat wbat to tbe one was figura, was to tbe otber 
 Veritas. Eatramn again illustrates bis view of tbe subject by re- 
 ference to Baptism. Consecration effects no otber kind of cbange 
 in tbe bread and wine of tbe Eucbarist tban in tbe water of tbe 
 Pont (c. 17 — 19). In eacb case tbe material element becomes tbe 
 vebicle of a spiritual power ("spiritualis potentia," c. 21). Tbis 
 power or virtue be is constantly insisting upon, as tbat by wbicb 
 alone tbe Sacrament differs from tbe unconsecrated elements. 
 And tbis is tbe doctrine against wbicb Pascbasius vebemently 
 protests in bis Commentary on S. Mattbew (c. xxvi.) and bis 
 Letter to Frudegard, and witb an evident reference to liatramn's 
 treatise : " Miror quid velint nunc quidam dicere, non in re esse 
 veritatem carnis Cbristi vel sanguinis, sed in Sacramento virtutem 
 quandam carnis, et non carnem, virtutem sanguinis et non san- 
 guinem ; figuram et non veritatem, umbram et non corpus." A 
 direct antitbesis to tbe proposition witb wbicb Eatramu sums up 
 bis answer to tbe first question, c. 49 : " Corpus et Sanguis Cbristi 
 quae fidelium ore in Ecclesia percipiuntur, figurae sunt secundum 
 speciem visibilem. At vero secundum invisibilem substantiam, id 
 est, divini potentiam A^erbi, vere Corpus et Sanguis Cbristi ex- 
 istunt. Unde secundum visibilem creaturam corpus pascunt, 
 juxta vero potentioris virtutem substantise, fidelium mentes et 
 pascunt et sanctificant." 
 
 Witb regard to tbe second question, Mr. Freeman admits tbat 
 " tbere is at first sigbt a clear opposition" between Pascbasius 
 and Eatramn, " tbe one asserting tbat tbe Body received in tbe 
 Eucbarist is tbe same wbicb Cbrist bad on eartb, and gave for our 
 redemption ; tbe otber, tbat it is not. But wben tbey come to
 
 134 
 
 explain themselves, they clearly show that what they both alike 
 believed was a different mode of manifestation or existence of the 
 same Body." I believe they have explained themselves clearly 
 enough to prove that neither of them would have accepted the 
 compromise by which Mr. Freeman seeks to reconcile them Avith 
 one another. Neither of them held that there was more than one 
 substance in the Sacrament. This was believed by Paschasius to 
 be the very Body and Blood of Christ, though not manifested to 
 the senses, but veiled under what were afterwards called the acci- 
 dents of bread and wine. Eatramn, on the contrary, believed that 
 the bread and wine remained after consecration without any 
 change but the accession of a new spiritual efficacy, which he 
 describes as the power of the Divine Word, which not only feeds 
 but purifies the soul (c. 64) : " Diviui potentia Verbi quiB non 
 solum animas pascit, verum etiam purgat." It is true Paschasius 
 conceived the Plesh and Blood of Christ to be endued with a 
 spiritual virtue, though still they could only profit those who 
 eat and drink of them spiritually (c. 6) : " Alius carnem Christi 
 spiritualiter manducat et sanguinem bibit ; alius vero non, quam- 
 vis buccellam de manu sacerdotis videatur percipere . . . non 
 utique sibi carnem utiliter et sanguinem, sed judicium." But 
 this does not bring his doctrine nearer to that of Eatramn, if it 
 may not be said to widen the distance between them. But the 
 question between them is as to the nature of the thing contained 
 in the Sacrament, not, as Mr. Freeman represents, as to the 
 " mode of its manifestation or existence." Paschasius asserted 
 this thing to be the very natural Flesh and Blood of Christ ; and 
 hence he teaches that Christ now dwells in us, not merely by har- 
 mony of will, but by nature (c. 9, " non solum per concordiam 
 voluntatis, sed per naturam"). For how, he asks, could it be 
 otherwise ? " Nam si Yerbum caro factum est, et nos vere Ver- 
 bum carnem in cibo dominico sumimus : quomodo Christus in 
 nobis manere naturaliter jure non sestimatur, qui et naturam car- 
 nis nostrse inseparabilem sibi homo natus Deus assumpsit, et na- 
 turam carnis suae ad naturam aeternitatis sub sacramento hoc nobis 
 commuuicandse carnis admiscuit ?" Eatramn, on the other hand, 
 denies that the bread and wine are the Body and Blood otherwise 
 than as vl pledge and an image. And, let it be carefully observed,
 
 135 
 
 not, as some would wist sucli language to be understood, a pledge 
 and image of a thing present, but of a thing absent and to come: 
 c. 86, " apparet quod hoc Corpus et Sanguis pignus et imago rei 
 sunt futurce." And c. 87, " Qua de re et Corpus Christi, et San- 
 guis est quod Ecclesia celebrat, sed tanquam imago. Yeritas vero 
 erit, cum jam nee pignus nee imago, sed ipsius rei Veritas appa- 
 rebit." It seems impossible to say that this is a difference of 
 views which only relates to the " mode of manifestation or existence 
 of the same Body :" as if both admitted the same body to be 
 present, only in different modes : unless it might be truly said, 
 that the whole difference between a portrait and its original con- 
 sists in the " mode of manifestation or existence of the same " 
 person. 
 
 The intrinsic impoi^tance of the difference is another matter, 
 which cannot at all affect its nature or reality. And as Pascha- 
 sius and Eatramn no doubt frequently communicated at the same 
 altar, so, notwithstanding the wide divergency of their opinions, 
 they may have done so with equal benefit to themselves. But the 
 consequences of their dispute were not of slight moment, and are 
 seen and felt at this day. Paschasius contributed more tlian any 
 individual before Lanfranc to the preponderance of that belief 
 which became the dogma of Tran substantiation. Eatramn's 
 treatise, as is well known, exercised a most powerful influence on 
 the mind of Eidley, and was thus mainly instrumental in fixing 
 the doctrine of the Church of England on the Eucharist, or 
 rather in restoring that of the Anglo-Saxon Church, as ex- 
 pounded, in exact conformity to the ideas, and partly in the very 
 words of Eatramn, by iElfric in the Paschal Homily, where he 
 teaches : " This mystery is a pledge and a symbol ; Christ's body 
 is truth. This pledge we hold mystically, until we come to the 
 truth, and then will this pledge be ended " (Mr. Thorpe's transla- 
 tion, vol. ii. p. 273, in the publication of the iElfric Society). 
 Most justly therefore did Canon Hopkins observe (in the Disser- 
 tation prefixed to his edition of the Treatise, ed. 1G88, ch. v. 
 p. 105) that " the doctrine of Eatramn was the very same doctrine 
 which the Church of England embraced as most consonant to 
 Scripture and the Eathers. Which is not what our adversaries 
 would put upon us, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is a
 
 186 
 
 naked Commemoration of our Saviour's Death, and a mere Sign 
 of his Body and Blood, but an efficacious Mystery, accompanied 
 with such a Divine and Spiritual Power, as renders the conse- 
 crated Elements truly, tho' Mystically, Christ's Body and Blood, 
 and communicates to us the real Pruits, and saving Benefits of his 
 bitter Passion. And this is the Doctrine of Bertram, in both 
 parts of his work." 
 
 Mr, Freeman also asserts — though with an appearance of some 
 misgiving — that before the eleventh century, " no writer perhaps 
 came forward to vindicate in a special manner that (side of the 
 mystery) which had been selected by Paschasius." This supposed 
 silence would indeed be favourable to Mr. Freeman's hypothesis. 
 But the fact is far otherwise. The views of Paschasius were 
 strenuously enforced by several eminent writers of the ninth and 
 tenth centuries. Hincmar, in his twelfth Letter to Charles the 
 Bald, asks (tom. ii. p. 100, ed. Par. 1615): "Si valuit scrmo 
 HelisD ut ignem de coelo deponeret, non valebit Christi sermo, ut 
 species mutet elementorum ? Sermo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo 
 facere quod non erat, non potuit quae sunt in id mutare quod non 
 erant ? Non enim minus est, novas dare res, quam mutare 
 naturas." Haimo (in D'Acher}^, Spic. ed. ii. 1, p. 42), " Credimus 
 et fideliter confitemur et tenemus quod per operatiooem divinse vir- 
 tutis, natura panis et vini substantialiter convertantur in aliam 
 substantiam, id est, in carnem et sauguinem ... In quo quidem 
 Christi corpore et sanguine, propter sumentium honorem, sapor 
 panis et vini remanet et figura, substantiarum natura in Corpus 
 Christi et Sanguinem omnino conversa." Eatherius of Verona 
 (ibid. p. 37G), " Crede, frater, quia sicut in Cana Galila'se vinum 
 Dei imperio verum et non figurativum fuit ex aqua factum, ita istud 
 Dei benedictione vinum verus et non figurativus efficitur sanguis, 
 et caro panis." And he goes on to compare this change to that by 
 which at the creation the dust of the earth, though its substance 
 remained, was transfigured into human flesh. " Ita ergo et hie 
 manente colore, atque sapore, eadem sapientia operante, veram 
 carnem et sanguinem quod percipis esse crede ; sicut e contra 
 mutata hominis specie hominis creatione, limi tamen substantiam 
 manere non diffiteris." But he discourages any curious specula- 
 tions as to the precise mode of the change, as, " si panis forsitan
 
 137 
 
 iuvisibiliter sublatus, aut ipse panis in carnetn mutatus." No exe- 
 getical artifices, I thiuk, can reconcile the doctrine laid down in 
 these passages with tliat of Eatraran. 
 
 But widely as Eatramn differs from Paschasius, I believe they 
 would have agreed in rejecting Mr. Preeman's view, as far more 
 at variance with both of theirs, than either of them with the 
 other. Mr. ^Freeman's "account" of that which takes place in 
 the Eucharist is this (p. 154-) : " The natural body of Christ once 
 slain, and no longer to be accounted as Christ by reason of the 
 separation of It from his Human Soul, was nevertheless, after 
 being duly received into the receptacle of God's appointing, the 
 heart of the Earth, re-united to That Soul by the operation of the 
 interposed Divinity; and so Christ Himself was once more 
 truly alive, and rose again. And even so, when His Body and 
 Blood, existing in a new and specially provided manner, have been 
 received into the duly qualified bodies and souls of men, does the 
 same vital re-union, as it should seem, take place, and so Christ 
 Himself, in Body, Soul and Divinity, is in them of truth, and 
 raises them, together with Himself, to a glorious immortality." 
 
 I lament to see such a hypothesis proposed in a work which is 
 in any way entitled to respectful notice. It may be said that it 
 is a harmless speculation, which, however new, singular, and 
 fantastical, does not exceed the bounds of that liberty which the 
 Church allows. It may be so. But I cannot regard the diffusion 
 of such a speculation as harmless. It must tend to infect the 
 Church with a false unhealthy mysticism, which, as far as it 
 spreads, will corrupt the chai-acter of her theology, weaken and 
 pervert the minds which may be leavened with it, destroy their 
 faculty of sober judgment, and prepare them for the reception of 
 the wildest dreams that may spring up in disordered brains, as 
 "high Catholic teaching." 
 
 THE END. 
 
 GILHERX AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHn's SQUARE, LONDON. 
 
 K
 
 ^JB>JK»> I>! 
 
 .J»>>;, 
 
 ^ ? 
 
 
 r^^^->; 
 
 
 ' >'>J>'^ u^ 
 
 -"^4 
 
 :>>j» :^'>^^»^_ 
 
 
 / > •> > 
 
 ,■■?.> -•?. 
 
 
 
 »5 >^ >- 
 
 •. > 3*>»>" 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 >■> 13 :»-^ 
 
 
 ;'>:>^^?E>:> 
 
 
 
 :3 >TX 
 
 t3i> v^ >^> 
 
 
 
 
 7> > \ 
 
 '>r>>3^