YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE DANGERS

ATTENDING AN

IMMEDIATE REVIVAL OF CONVOCATION,

DETAILED IN

A LETTER

THE EEV. G. HUTTON, EECTOE OF GATE BUETON.

THE EEV. C. S. BIED, M.A. r.L.S.,
CANON OF LINCOLN, VICAK OP GAINSBOROUGH, AND LATE FELLOW OF TRINITY
COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
AUTHOR OF "defence OP THE ENGLISH REFORMATION."

LONDON :
T. HATCHAED, 187, PICCADILLY.
1852.

LONDON :
G. J. PALMER, SAVOY STREET, STRAND.

J53

BY THE SAMEJAUTHOR.
On Sale.
ROMANISM NOT PRIMITIVE. Cloth, 5s.
FOUR SERMONS ON THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER.
Chiefly for the Young. Preached before the University of Cam
bridge. Cloth, 2«. 6c?.
LECTURES ON THE DECALOGUE. Cloth, 2«. &d.
SERMON ON THE FIFTH OF NOVEMBER, with Copious
Notes. Is.
FOR EVER. And other Devotional Poems. Silk, 2s. &d.

LONDON :
G. J. PALMER, SAVOY STREET, STRAND.

A LETTER, <&c.

My dear Sir,
We had a conversation, you may remember, some time
ago, on the subject of the revival of Convocation. I then said
that I was not unfavourably disposed towards the project. I
thought that a Convocation, remodelled and having the indis
pensable addition of a lay house, might afford a wholesome
vent. I hoped that clergymen, meeting one another, might find
how much they agreed, where they imagined that there was
nothing but disagreement. Under these vague impressions,
though I.would not assist, yet I was not prepared to oppose, the
efforts made for the revival. The truth is, I had at that time
paid only a cursory attention to the question. It had seemed
highly improbable, that it would ever become more than a spe
culative one; and we have questions enough of a practical
nature, to occupy our deeper thoughts in general. The late
Government was resolutely opposed to the trial of the experi
ment. The House of Lords had pronounced against it; andthe
present Govemment might be conceived to be too cautious to
run the risk, which must necessarily attend it. For all these
reasons I had allowed myself, in common, perhaps, with many
of my brethren, to listen to the abstract arguments on both
sides with something of a philosophic indifference. But there
are reasons (of which I will presently speak), which make the

longer continuance of this indifference inexcusable. I have
therefore carefully considered the subject, and have been led to
a very decided conclusion, adverse to the proposed revival, at
least at the present time. I say, at least at the present time ; for
I do not affirm that the time will never arrive, when that which
would now be dangerous, may seem safe. Better days may
come. The existing heats may cool down; the irregular
action (such as that of " Church Unions ") may cease ; the
minds and hearts of men are in God's hands, and He may move
them in one and the right direction. Whether, when those days
shall arrive, men will wish for a Convocation, is not so certain.
They may prefer to " let well alone." But that we must leave
to them. Taking our own eyes off from the future, let us fix
them on the aspect of the times.
According to that aspect, the immediate dangers attending
the projected revival appear greater, the longer they are con
templated. The good, on the other hand, which it is alleged it
might do, seems attainable by other means, unaccompanied with
these dangers. Such is the conclusion to which I have been
led by mature consideration. You have a right to be informed
of it, and to hear from me the grounds of my persuasion. And
I, on my part, have a right to appeal to you as a witness, that I
have not been a prejudiced partizan, but have approached the
examination of the subject with all possible candour and fair
ness. The reasons why none of us ought to be any longer unde
cided, arise from late events. I allude to the elections of
proctors in August last, to represent the clergy in the present
nominal Convocation — (for it is a mere " nominis umbra.") The
one-sided character of almost all those elections, is a pheno
menon of much consequence. If the clergy, as a body, had
concemed themselves in them, it would have become a serious
question, whether any govemment could properly resist the
demand for a revived Convocation. It should be known, there
fore, that a small proportion of the clergy attended the meet
ings. For instance, not one in six belonging to this diocese
attended that at Lincoln. We were not aware that it would be
more than a pro forma, meeting, such as it had always been for

the last hundred years. We had not been seriously requested
to attend. The formidable word " contumacious" applied to
absentees, had become a mere sound signifying nothing. We
did not know, however, that on the late occasion, there was real
cause for our attendance. We did not know that the old proc
tors were prepared to resign, and that new ones were ready to
be proposed. Still less did we know, that this was part of a
systematic plan, pursued all over the kingdom, to send in men
favourable to the revival, in order to produce the impression
that the clergy unanimously desire it. The plan has succeeded,
but the impression would be a false one. The late elections are
not to be regarded as a criterion of the sentiments of the clergy
at large. The country must wait till a dissolution of Pariia
ment shall afford another opportunity to the clergy of manifest
ing what these sentiments are. Meanwhile we must make up
our minds. We are called upon to study the subject. We
shall not be able to say again, that we are taken by surprise.
On the next occasion we must attend the meetings, and he ready
to give an unmistakeable and well considered decision.
At the Lincoln meeting, as you are aware, I was proposed as
proctor, on the spur of the moment, without my knowledge, and
in my absence. An inquiry was naturally made, what was my
opinion respecting the revival of Convocation ? My kind friends,
who saw fit to propose me, the vicars of Louth and Boston,
could not answer the question, because they had held no pre
vious communication with me. I mention this circumstance,
because it appears to me a call to come forward myself, and
answer the question. To do so, appears but to pay a due tribute
of respect to my clerical brethren. Let me now proceed to
furnish the reply, by detailing the process of reasoning and re
flection through which I have been led to my present conclu
sion.

Convocations do not constitute a necessary or divinely or
dained mode of Church Government — otherwise there could be
no dispute respecting the revival of ours. In that case, there
B 2

would have been a strange remissness on the part of our Church
rulers, who have so long endured their virtual disuse without
remonstrance. But we do not find them mentioned in Scrip
ture, either in the way of precept or command. Bishop Eidley
says : " That all men should meet together out of all parts of
the world to define the articles of our faith, I neither find it
commanded of Christ, nor written in the Word of God."* If
this can be said truly of general councils, how much more of
inferior ones ! The Council held by the Apostles at Jerusalem
(in which the people took part), was called to settle, and to
settle with a desirable pubhcity and harmony, a matter of vital
importance to all the Gentiles. That there should have been
one Apostolic Council, and only one, proves the rule to be this,
that councils are a legitimate, but not a necessary or ordinary,
instrument to be used by the Church in the performance of her
great function of upholding and spreading the faith — especially
since the Apostles, after that Council committed to writing all
tbat is to be believed by us. Convocations, then, appear fitted
for emergencies or peculiar conditions of a Church; as, for in
stance, when a Church is in its infancy, in a newly converted
land, — or when it is struggUng with a hostile state, — or when it is
emerging from corruption, and needs to declare its amended
faith. But when a Church has been long settled, and possesses
a good machinery for ordinary operations, there is no absolute
obligation to hold Convocations. The whole question is one
of expediency .
The first four General Councils were not held till long after
the departure of the Apostles, namely, in the fourth and fifth
centuries. They did the Church an inestimable service in
asserting and defending the articles of the Creed. But of
Synods or Convocations in general, we have an unfavourable
character given us by one who had attended many of them, but
declared that he would attend no more. I allude to Gregory
Nazianzen, Patriarch of Constantinople, who presided over the
second General Council. His celebrated words are, " He would
fly from all Synods of Bishops, for he had never seen the re-
* "Conferences with Latimer," p. 132. Ridley's Works, Parker
Soe. Ed.

suit of any Council to be happy and propitious, nor one which
did not contribute rather to the increase of evils, than to their
removal."* It is sufficient to infer from these expressions,
that the good which even the great Councils effected was at
tended with much evil, and that Gregory did not look upon any
Council whatever as a divine ordinance, or as infallibly assured
of having the help and illumination of the Holy Ghost.

Nevertheless, the idea of a Convocation, I confess, is a capti
vating and imposing one.
We picture to ourselves our right reverend prelates and our
reverend brethren assembled in grave and dignified state. We
imagine the assembly all it should be, and then we naturally
admire it. We invest it with all the attributes which would be
desirable. We suppose the love of the truth, and the love of
each other, to reign in it. Nothing could be more beautiful,
more eamestiy to be longed for, than the realization of such a
picture. But we must not draw on our imagination for the idea of a
Convocation, even an English one. We must sternly ask,
what have Convocations in this country generally been ? and
what would our Convocation probably be, if convened and
allowed to act under the circumstances of the present times ?
It can be no wonder, if after more than a century of prac
tical disuse, we have but vague notions of the way, in which a
Convocation, with life in it, would probably act. It can also
be no wonder, if in our divided state we are ready to catch at
any expedient which seems to promise a remedy. But the
immense importance of a Church like ours not taking a false
step, and entering on a course from which she could not after
wards recede without loss and shame, should cause us to hesi
tate, and not listen to hope till we have consulted experience.
Let us look at the records of past times when our Convocations
* See Bishop Gibson's " Preservative," or Lardner's " Credibility,"
for references to many similar speeches made by Gregory. See Arch
deacon Sinclair's recent Charge for the words quoted.

met for business as often as Parliament met. Bishop Burnet,
in the " History of his Own Times," gives us a particular ac
count of all the Convocations which he witnessed during a
space of forty years. It is a wholly uniform account of dis
sensions. The Lower House did nothing but contend with the
Upper House. The most Presbyterian spirit prevailed in the
Lower House. Do we wish to see such a state of things, and
such a spirit renewed ? Certainly not. But what says a very
sagacious observer of mankind, and profound reader of history,
Mr. Burke ? He thinks the renewal a probable one. i" Convo-
vocations," he says, "are a partof the Constitution, and may
be called iuto act and energy whenever there is occasion, and
whenever those who conjure up that spirit will choose io abide
the consequences. It is wise to permit its legal existence ; it
is wiser still to continue it as a legal existence only." These
are words not to be despised from such a man. Burke has
already secured to himself the name of a prophet. We all
know that Mr. Pitt neglected his prophecy conceming the
intensity and duration of the Eevolutionary War, to the loss
of the early and only opportunity of shortening it by an exer
tion of vigour. Let us not shght his prophecy conceming the
dangers which he shadows forth so darkly and mysteriously, at
tendant on the bold measure of a revival of Convocation.

I grant that it is somewhat mortifying, to look around us and
see other religious denominations holding their Conferences
and Councils, whilst we are practically deprived of the liberty
of holding ours. We are vexed at the disparaging contrast
which is thus presented between ourselves and them. We are
apt to regard the withholding of our liberty as an indignity.
We see the Methodists enjoying their annual Conference ;
the Quakers meeting and putting forth their yearly Epistle;
the Romanists convening their Councils at Thuries and Oscott ;
and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland holding its General
Assembly. We know that the comparison between us and
these bodies of Christians is turned by unreflecting persons to
our disadvantage.

But we should reflect, and teach people to reflect, that there
is a great difference between our state and that of these bodies,
which not only explains the contrast, but explains it to our
advantage. The denominations around us all belong to one or
other of two kinds of Churches, to neither of whioh do we
belong. Their communions are either voluntary, that is,
supported on the voluntary principle, or they are Presbyterian.
They either want the support of the State and the possession
of an endowment, or they want the government of Bishops.
There is a necessity of one kind or another for their holding of
assemblies of a popular character, from which necessity we are
happily free. We are an Established Church, and we are an
Episcopal Church, — both in one, — which none of these are.
I trust we shall never be so childish as to seek a dangerous
or doubtful liberty, for the mere sake of showing that we have
it. This would be, indeed, undignified.
Let us not grudge our neighbours their necessary privilege.
We may perceive that it is not a safe one. Is not the greatest,
and perhaps fatal, weakness of the Methodist body likely to be
found lurking in their hitherto boasted Conference — the sup
posed triumph of Wesley's skill ? May not a short time serve
to show, that the proceedings at Thuries and Oscott have
alarmed and aUenated the best portion ofthe Eomish laity ? And
have we forgotten the ominous spectacle, seen by the world not
many years ago, when nearly the half of the Scotch Presby
terian ministers walked out of the room of their General
Assembly, after a long debate, never to enter it again, but
destined henceforth to oppose and weaken the Established
Church of their country ? So much for the actual working of
the Convocations of those around us ! Let us be content with
our own pecuUar position, combining all we need, and enabling
us to dispense with a mode of self-government suited only to
those who want one or other ofthe elements of that combination.
We have the Sovereign a member of our communion, and
holding the throne on condition of supporting us.* We have
the Bishops sitting in the House of Lords, as a spiritual estate
* See Hooker's Eccl. Pol. b. viii, chap, on " Authority in making
Laws.''

ofthe realm, watching over our interests, preventing hostile legis
lation, and forwarding that which is favourable. We have them
meeting together at the Archbishop's palace when they please (as
they did last year, when they put out their well-timed and valu
able address to their clergy, connected with the rubrical contro
versy, and the false principles in which that controversy had origi
nated). We have our Church courts ready to settle disputed
cases of Church property, to try causes of alleged heresy, or to
correct instances of immorality. Lastly, we have the parishes
in our hands — the tithes, whether commuted or not, as our
own — and the church-rates, which bear witness that we are the
National Church. May we not well be contented with these
solid advantages, which are enjoyed in their combination by
none but ourselves ?

I know that there are many among us, who would gladly give
up some of these advantages to purchase the privilege of having
a Convocation. There are many who ardently desire the sepa
ration of Church and State. With these I cannot stop to
argue. You and I, my dear sir, are not of their number. We
view the union of Church and State as a benefit to both par
ties. On this supposition, I proceed as a thing granted. I
view the State as a well-disposed partner, whose regard and
affection the Church at present possesses, and may continue to
possess, so long as she does her pecuUar duty quietly and
efficiently, and shows no uncalled-for jealousy. I feel satisfied
that the State has no wish to interfere with the doctrines we
teach— that we have fuU liberty to feed our people with the
food we desire to give them, the food gathered from Scripture,
and stored up in our Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies. In
agreement with the sentiments expressed by our revered
Bishop in his late charge, I question not the express assertion
ofthe Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, including the
two Archbishops, that in the sentence pronounced by them
concerning the institution to Brampford Speke, there was no
intention whatever of deciding the truth of any doctrine, or re-

straining the liberty of any man's opinions, provided he will
not take away the same liberty from his neighbour. The sen
tence has left the doctrine what it found it. As to any theo
retical objection to the present constitution of the Judicial
Committee, it may be removed, and I doubt not will be, by
an easy alteration, adapted to cases where none but Churchmen
should decide, and where the presence of some of our prelates
is required ex officio. ParUament can make this alteration,
without our having a Convocation. So it is with most of the
changes we need. We have means of pressing them on the
attention of Govemment without a Convocation. The press is
open to us. PubUc opinion may be influenced, and brought
to bear on Govemment. If we have a good and strong case,
and we state it calmly and clearly, we shall always prevail.
There would be more chance of a Convocation injuring us, in
every such case, by the tone it might assume, than promoting
our object.
I have spoken of the State as a partner. In this relation,
what indignity is it that the Church is not so much at Uberty
as if no such connection existed ? What indignity is it to a
wife, that she cannot walk abroad and act as freely as a single
woman ? What cares she for the taunts of the latter ? She
can do what the other cannot, she can use not only her own
energies, but the energies of her husband. She can put in
motion resources and powers which the unwedded cannot*
She has parted with a Uttle, to secure much. If she is but
affectionate and worthy, she will have all the freedom she needs
— and more she will not ask. If she cares for doing the most
good, and not for her own glory or independence, she will re
main as she is, and do nothing to disturb a relation for whieh
she is thankful.

But it is often said, and said plausibly, that Convocation is
to a Church what Parliament is to a country, — and that the
Church is as much crippled and impoverished without a Con
vocation, as the country would be without a ParUament.

10
We all know the value of Parliaments. We all pride our
selves in having such as ours. We know that the whole
history of England has been that of a battle for free Parlia
ments. They are the barometer of a nation's freedom. The
Stuarts ruined themselves by opposing them in this country.
In France, the termination of the battle for Parliaments was
the reverse of what it was here ; and the consequence has been,
that that unhappy country has oscillated between the wildest
extremes of despotism and anarchy ever since, whilst we have
steadily preserved a well-regulated liberty since the last of the
Stuarts sat on our throne. It is true, that our reformed reli
gion is to be thanked for our stability and happiness ; but the
freedom of Parliament, and the purity of religion, have been
inseparably linked in our history. The free use of the Scrip
tures opens the door to all other freedom.
It is, therefore, assailing an Englishman on his weak side,
when the advocate for Convocations likens them to Parlia
ment. It is enlisting his national pride and gratitude in be
half of the revival.
But plausible as is the idea of a Convocation as a Church
parliament, yet it will not bear examination.
We cannot safely reason from the kingdoms of this world to
Christ's kingdom, which " is not of this world." The truths
of reUgion do not experience mutation Uke the maxims of
poUtical economy. They are not to be gathered by a scien
tific use of experience, by a gradual development from age to
age ; they are clearly revealed in Scripture, once for all, from
the age of the Apostles. Debates on poUtics are necessary,
because mistakes are continually made, and must be corrected ;
but debates on the doctrines of Christianity cannot be neces
sary, unless we are dissatisfied with our Eeformation, or dis
trustful of the sufficiency of Scripture. To be continually
stirring our foundations would be the most unwise and mis
chievous of employments.
And if we do not wish for a Convocation to unsettle doc
trines, what other employment should we find it, which would
be hke that of Parliament ? We cannot legisUte for the
Church, unless we first sever our union with the State. We

11
cannot make a single canon, which would be binding, till it
had received the sanction of the two Houses of Parliament and
the Queen. We cannot alter a single rubric without the same
authority. Not being a voluntary Church, we have no power
to make new laws, and excommunicate those who will not obey
them. The chief function of a Parliament, therefore, that of
legislation, would be wanting in our Convocation, — unless we
are prepared first, to resign our privileges as an Establishment —
which, I trust, the great majority of us are far from being pre
pared to do. No doubt many, as I have before said, are so
prepared, and desire the revival of Convocation, because they
foresee that it will tend to dis-establishing us. These persons,
and these alone, can properly speak of Convocation as a Church
parliament ; for in their hands it would both dogmatise and
legislate, at aU risks, and in defiance of all authority. What
doctrines, what canons, what new articles and rubrics, it would
then put forth, I must leave it to my readers to conjecture.
If it be said that there are minor matters — neither doctrinal
nor legislative, but practical or parochial — sufficient to occupy
Convocation, such, for instance, as recommendations to the
clergy to adopt this or that arrangement of the Sunday ser
vices (looking at St. Martin's, Birmingham, as an example), or
to assist this or that reUgious or charitable society, in pre
ference to others of the same kind, we may answer, that these
matters can as well be recommended by pastoral letters or
charges from the Bishops. There is no need of anything like
a Church parliament to effect these purposes. And indeed,
with regard to societies, it is to be feared that much harm would
be done, if any attempt were made to prescribe, with an appear
ance of authority, what societies Churchmen should exclusively
support. The laity, as part of the Church, would be very
jealous of clerical interference with their liberty in this respect.
They consider that it is as open to them to judge, in this res
pect, as it is to the clergy.
In short, the clergy may be much better and more fittingly
employed, than in becoming debaters in the supposed parUa
ment, — a function for which they are eminently disqualified by
their habit of speaking to their people as teachers without con-

12
tradiction, and by their eamestness in upholding their opinions
and their fear of yielding any point, lest they should be giving
up some portion of the truth. Yet without debaters, what par
liament can there be? Its very etymology shows that debaters
are its Ufe and soul. Now St. Paul's words occur to one's
mind: "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be
gentle, apt to teach, patient." The clergy should be pastors in
the true sense of the word ; leading their flocks to quiet pas
tures, and beside still waters. Their business is to allay, not to
excite, heats. They should be constantly engaged in doing
good, studying the Scriptures, setting an example of love and
meekness. They must not " strive, nor cry, nor let their voice
be heard in the street." They must not be of the number of
the " murmurers and complainers," so common at all times in the
State, — and not unknown, as St. Jude tells us, in the Church, —
" who despise dominion and speak evil of dignities." What
would be the inevitable effect of a system of Church parhaments,
but to generate a brood of these troublers of the Church ? What
could be more alien from the very idea of a Church — " chosen
out " from the world, — intended to leaven society with heavenly
mindedness, and to diffuse harmony and peace? None would
gain by the exhibition of strife and debate, which would take
place, but the enemies of the Church and of religion. The
parishes would lose their pastors who might be elected proctors,
during the sitting of the Convocation. In all cases, they would
be the scenes of an agitation. The lookers-on, disgusted with
what they saw, and wearied with what they heard, would be in
danger of flying to Eomanism or infidelity for relief:
" Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur Atridae."

I am aware, that a very different view of the probable effect
of assembUng the clergy is hopefully and charitably entertained.
It was this view which weighed much with you and me, when
we conversed. We thought that when our brethren looked one
another in the face in a solemn assembly, they would not be
able to retain their animosities and jealousies. They would be

13
ashamed to speak openly what they had allowed themselves to
say privately. Moreover, explanations would be made, which
would remove misconceptions. They would find how much they
agreed, rather than disagreed. A Convocation would be a
clerical club enlarged. It would lead to mutual kind feeling
and good opinion. But I am sorry to say that on closer inspec
tion, this hope vanishes. The analogy fails. The scale of a
Convocation is so large, that the features of a clerical club
would be lost. There would be no opportunity for quiet con
versation, or communion of spirit. Violent individuals would
take the lead. It is said, indeed, " Look at the House of Com
mons, and see how one who is a fierce demagogue out of doors,
is awed into silence and modesty within." But here the analogy
fails again, for this is explained by his finding that he stands in
the presence of a band of men, the recognized leaders of the
great parties in that House. He would find nothing of this
kind in our supposed Convocation — an assembly waking up
after a long sleep, and with so much that would be wholly new
and untried. It would be a clear stage for a young zealot, or a
self-sufficient theorist, or an ambitious medieevalist. I grant,
that in due time there would arise a state of things like that in
an old Assembly. Superior speakers and trusty counsellors,
the possessors of real eloquence or of weighty wisdom, would
assume their natural position. The House would smile down
youth and vanity, or frown down fierceness and bigotry.
But this could only take place on the supposition that time
was granted. Could we be sure of that? It is to be feared
that the evils attending the Convocation would curtail its
duration. The Assembly would, probably, not last long
enough, — but the evils which destroyed it might survive too
long. Take the annual meetings of the National Society, which
have been held on an unusually large scale for the last three
or four years, as a specimen of the temper and spirit likely to
be displayed in the Convocation. To judge by them, we have
a poor prospect. Even in the presence of the hierarchy, and
with the paltry subject of the management clause as the apple
of discord, what a scene have we witnessed under the shade of

14
Westminster Abbey, — a scene such as I hope never to witness
again ! Tbe clause, though somewhat unceremoniously forced
upon the clergy, as the condition of a building grant from
Govemment, I take to have been framed with the best inten
tions, and calculated to ensure us the confidence of the laity,
whom we ought by all possible means to remind that they form
a part of the Church. That such a trifling regulation in the
management of the school should excite such fierce opposition
— that so small a spark should kindle such a flame* — that the
connection between the Society and the Government, between
the Church and the State, should be assailed — that the
" Churchmanship" and " CathoUoity" of those who were will
ing to accept the grant should be impugned — that such deep-
mouthed threatenings should be uttered — and all for such a
poor ostensible cause — is this an omen of good ? If all the
" odium theologicum," which at present is pent up in the
breasts of so many, out of sixteen thousand clergymen, and
might be comparatively harmless if kept there, should find vent
in a lower House of Convocation, what might we look for ?
There would not be the presence of the Bishops to afford re
straint. There would be something' more than management-
clauses to dispute about What thunders and lightnings would
burst forth ! And would these thunders and lightnings be
confined to the walls of Convocation ? No — they would burst
forth afresh in the organs of public opinion — their flashes would
be seen in the daily newspapers — their echoes would be heard
in the monthly and quarterly periodicals — they would be re
peated and reverberated in pamphlets and " fly-sheets." Above
all, they would reach the Houses of ParUament, and resound
within their walls. Is this a desirable prospect? Yet is it not
the only probable one ?
I am really sorry to be obUged to speak so disparagingly of
my brethren in these prognostications. But it is only when
they are out of their sphere, that they act in a manner un
worthy of themselves. And I am compelled to speak the
* The late meeting at Lincoln, in the Bishop's presence, was not
ominous of good. From the mere mention of the words, " High Church
principles," arose no small excitement.

15
truth, in order to dissipate the fond hopes which rest upon
a false analogy — whether between Convocation and a small
clerical club, — or between Convocation and a large assembly
like our House of Commons, which has acquired in the course
of time a settled majesty and order.

There remains one plausible argument more, in favour of the
revival, which has to be examined.
It is this: thatwe should, by means of a revived Convo
cation, be enabled to bring the claims of our Church to the
allegiance of the people more strikingly and prominently before
their eyes. As it is expressed by the advocates of the revival,
" they would see life in the Church." Dissent would be dimi
nished. We all love our Church. We see in her the best and purest
National Church that has existed since the conversion of Con
stantine ; — scriptural in doctrine — primitive in regimen — mild
and tolerant in practice. We view in her no creation of modern
times, much less of Parliament, — ^but the old Church of the
country, — reformed by her own act and will, from the corruptions
which had accumulated upon her during the lapse of more than
a thousand years. We firmly hold her to be Catholic, — because
she is a branch, and a healthy branch, of Christ's Universal
Church ; agreeing with the Early Church in the Creeds,* which
it put forth to distinguish " Catholics," the inheritors of the one
Scriptural faith, from " Heretics," who, under the pretence of
* Our Churches agree with the " Catholics " of the early centuries in
the Creeds, settled hy the first four Councils, as the Church of Rome
does ; — ^but on a very diff'erent principle. She agrees with them, because
they agree with Scripture. Art. VIII. "For they may be proved by
most certain warrants of Holy Scripture." She nowhere speaks of " an
illuminating power," necessarUy preserving Councils from error. On the
contrary, she says in Art. XXL, " General Councils may err."
When mathematicians agree with Euclid's propositions, it is not be
cause they are Euclid's propositions, but because they are capable of
demonstration. Yet if any mathematical heretics should arise and deny
them, we should call ourselves " Euclidians," for the sake of distinction.

tradition, broached new and false doctrines.* We at the same
time entitle her Protestant, — and are not ashamed of the term,
because it reminds us of the glorious contest, from which, by
God's help, she emerged, clean from her former pollutions, and
for ever protesting against the errors, both in faith and prac
tice, of the unreformed Church of Eome. The wisdom — the
necessity — of keeping alive this protest, has been brought home
to us, by the recent loud and intolerable assumptions of that
imperious Church; and also by the alarming fact, which would
have formerly appeared incredible, that many of our own mem
bers, and even ministers, have openly apostatized from our
communion to hers.
Having such a Church of our own to love and defend, we
naturally desire to Uft her up as high as possible. We wish all
men to admire and honour her as we do. It fills us with a
mixture of sorrow and indignation, to see how little she is esti
mated as she deserves. We behold thousands standing apart
from her with little or no cause. Nay, we often hear them say,
with a boastful kindliness, that they love our Church, though
they have quitted her pale ; that they love her, and love all.
This is a kindly speech, which at once disarms us and vexes
us. It disarms us as regards the well-meaning individuals ; it
vexes us as regards their thoughtlessness. Have they no care
for unity, even when they own the presence of purity ? Surely
if they have no fault to find with the old Church, it is their duty
to adhere to her. In the name of unity, order, and law, she
has the first claim on them. The law of God commands out
ward unity, where there is no sacrifice of truth. The law of
the land commands adherence to the Church of the land,
established, though not created, by Act of Pariiament,— where
there is no plea of conscience for separation. But how are
we to make them sensible of their duty ? The advocates for
*The early Fathers appealed to tradition, only because the heretics/rsi
appealed to it, and not to Scripture. See Bishop Kaye's "Tertullian "
third edition, note 7, to p. 279.
So we appeal to the Fathers, because Rome does, and will not admit
Scripture alone. We meet her in her own court of appeal, and defeat her
there.

17
the revival of Convocation reply — by adopting the measure
they advocate. I have already shown cause to doubt the efficacy
of this remedy. I will now endeavour to show further cause.
However anxious we may he to set off our Church, let us re
strain our impatience till we see whether this would be a good
mode of doing it.
If Convocation is to be revived that men " may see life in
the Church," it must, as we have before observed, be materially
altered. Let us consider the necessary alterations.
At present, the whole number of the clergy in the Lower
House is stated as less than 150. Of this number, more than
two-thirds represent the cathedral chapters. That is to say,
the proctors for the chapters more than double those for the
parochial clergy. This should not be. It originated in the
fact, that our Convocations of old met chiefly for the purpose
of settling what taxes Church-property should bear. Now the
cathedral property exceeded the rest, so that it was natural that
it should be guarded by the larger number of representatives.
That property has lost its relative value in our times, from the
transfer of prebendal incomes to the clergy-fund, under the
Ecclesiastical Commission. And were it not so, the Ohurch has
parted with the right of self-taxation, since the restoration of
Charles II. So that the reasons for the disproportion of the
proctors having ceased, the disproportion should cease with it :
or rather it should be reversed. Also a new class of electors
should be created. When more than financial wisdom is
required in a representative, why should not the unbeneficed
clergy have a voice in the election ? Curates, alas ! are often as
venerable, and as wise, as vicars and rectors. Livings confer
property, but not necessarily wisdom. Eich ones may even
lessen it. The satirist's words may be verified :
" The mind subsides, and wickedly inchnes
To prove but mortal, e'en in sound divines.''
We may presume, then, that under the new constitution of a
revived Convocation, all the clergy, whether beneficed* or un-
* The beneficed must include the incumbents of district churches. c

18
beneficed, would have votes in the election of proctors. I do
not say, that all would be eligible — because the performance of
the office of proctor, and the previous necessary preparation for
its new duties, would demand a degree of leisure, which does
not fall to the lot of curates. There would be another change
necessary. The Convocations of York and Canterbury are at
present distinct assemblies, meeting, though it be but for form's
sake, at York and in the metropolis. They would, of course,
be amalgamated, and meet in one place. Moreover, the pre
lates of Ireland would, as a matter of right, be summoned to
attend ; since the Churches of England and Ireland form one
united Church. For the same reason, the Irish chapters and
clergy would be entitled to send proctors. And to make the
new Convocation complete (such as it is in the American Epis
copal Church), it would be requisite to add a house of laity ;
according to some mode which would have to be devised.
Since the laity form an essential part of the Church, and have
as great an interest in its welfare and purity as the clergy, to
exclude them, would be to return to the false and fatal principle,
which characterizes the mediaeval times and the Church of
Eome, that the Church, as regards God's promises of illumina
tion, consists of the clergy alone.*
Suppose the difficulties conquered, which would attend the
making of all these changes. Suppose the altered Convocation
sitting. The spectacle, no doubt, would be imposing, and would attract
universal attention. But to reward that attention, to impress
the people with the value of our Church, the assembly must not
only sit, but act. I have already shown the danger of the mem
bers quarrelling vehemently. If to avoid this, the assembly
employed itself in apparent trifles, it would fall into contempt.
Better to have no Convocation at all, than one which either
* I find it reported in the newspapers of the date of September, 1850,
that the Bishop of Chichester said at a visitation dinner at Lewes, " That
if a synod of the Church be held in Convocation or otherwise, it is the
unanimous opinion of the whole Bench of Bishops, without a single ex
ception, that there should be a considerable infusion of the lay element in
its constitution."

19
quarrelled or was inactive. Yet how could one or other of
these alternatives be avoided ?
To do the advocates for a Eevival justice, they have no idea
of having an inactive Convocation, merely for show. They long
to make the Church " self-acting i' " self-governing:' But
before there can be action in the Convocation, before any parti-
lar subject can be taken into consideration, the Queen's permis
sion must be asked and obtained. A discussion without her
permission would incur the penalties of a premunire.
Now either the Queen would grant permission to discuss what
ever subject is most important, and most in the minds of those
who ure so eager to have a Convocation — or she would not.
If the Queen refused the permission, the Convocation would
sit with its hands tied. What effect would this produce ?
There would be no exhibition of "Ufe," — of a desirable kind of
life at least. There would be loud murmurs heard ; and probably
soma disloyalty produced, such as marked the days ofthe three
or four sovereigns who reigned immediately after the Revolution
of 1688. There would be attempts to evade the restriction,
and to kindle a flame, by allusions to prohibited topics. But
all this would not supply the place of the " life " desired — the
full power of " self-action." The Convocation would appear
reduced to insignificance. Its grandeur and solemnity would
contrast strangely with its doings. What should we gain by
such an exhibition ? Those within our pale who already taunt
us as " working in chains," would triumph in this confirmation
ofthe reproach they have uttered. Those without our pale, who
are on the watch to injure and degrade us, would mock our in
action, and call it slavery. The lamented Duke of WeUington
said well : " England cannot afford to have a little war." We
may say with equal truth : The Church of England cannot afford
to have a sham Convocation !
If, however, the Queen did not refuse the permission desired —
if some Prime Minister, in spite of Burke's prophecy, was bold
enough to advise her to grant it — then we have the other alter
native, the discreditable exhibition of a noisy and discordant
assembly. To convince any one more completely of this, if he
is not convinced already, I must beg leave to specify some of
G 2

20
the leading topics, which would infallibly engage the attention
bf Convocation, the moment fuU freedom of discussion was ob
tained. The " Gorham Case " would be the first. There are not a
few among us, who would make it a point of conscience to suf
fer no other topic to take precedence. They writhe under the
supposed injury inflicted by the sentence, pronounced in Mr.
Gorham's favour by the Judicial Committee and the two Arch
bishops ; though, as has been before observed, it contained an
express disavowal* of any intention to disturb them in their
view of baptism, — only it refused them the liberty of disturbing
their neighbour in his. It proceeded on the plain historical
ground, that Mr. Gorham had but used a freedom, which the
Church of England had silently granted to all her children
since the Reformation, and which some of the most illustrious
had used. Nevertheless, these men insist on having the power
to take that freedom away. In demanding this power from
the Convocation, they would necessarily assail the Reformers
and their successors, the fathers of our Church. For Mr.
Maskell, who was the Bishop of Exeter's chaplain, and took
part in the examination of Mr. Gorham, has informed us, that
in the course of the judicial trials, his eyes were opened to the
fact (a very affiicting fact for him, and one which ultimately
severed him from our Church), that Mr. Gorham, in taking the
view he did of the operation of Divine grace in infant baptism,
was but doing that which it was originally and purposely
left open to him to do. Mr. Maskell's words are : " I
was not prepared to learn, as I have learnt, that perhaps
* The words of the sentence on this point are : —
" We express no opinion on the theological accuracy of these opinions.
"The case not requiring it, we have abstained from expressing any
opinion of our own upon the theological correctness or error of the doc
trine of Mr. Gorham."
And more to the same effect.
In fact, the question was not the animus edentis Ecclesice, i. e. of the
Church at the time of her putting forth the articles and formularies, but
rather the animus semper Ecdesim, of the Church uninterruptedly from
that time to this,— whence was gathered the animus imponentis, by which,
Paley says, subscribers are bound.

21
wiihout two exceptions, all the divines. Bishops and Arch
bishops, doctors and professors of the Elizabethan age,
— the age, be it remembered, of the present Common
Prayer Book, in its chief particulars, and of the Book of the
Homilies, and of the Thirty-nine Articles, — held and taught
doctrines inconsistent (I speak advisedly) with the true doctrine
of baptism;" that is to say, they all favoured Mr. Gorham's
view. (" Second Letter, 1850.") Though I believe that he goes
too far in saying this of the private sentiments of the eminent
persons he mentions, the compilers of our Articles and Formu
laries, yet I agree with him, that they did not intend to pro
scribe a view like Mr. Gorham's. They left the door open.*
In fact, how could they intend to excommunicate the Cal
vinistic divines by proscribing a view wbich they must necessa
rily take ? (I do not mean to say that Mr. Gorham takes his
view on Calvinistic grounds — he has told the public that he
does not.) Some of them were themselves Calvinistic — all were
on the most brotherly terms with the disciples of Calvin. A
Calvinist, it is well known, considers grace, when once given,
as given past recall. It is true, some of them are able to dis
tinguish between a higher and a lower grace ; the higher, in
defectible ; the lower, not so. But others of them are unable
to make this distinction. We may show it them in Augustine.
But they will answer, Augustine is not St. Paul. They will
demand Scripture. Now Scripture has not given us data suffi
cient to determine this mysterious point. The operation of
God's grace is not within the reach of precise definition. Are
we, then, to do what our Eeformers and the compilers of our
* Mr. Dodsworth pubhshed his view, similar to Mr. Maskell's. He
was brought to take it, principally by observing the difference which
exists between the Article on Baptism, put forth in 1536, and the Article
put forth in 1552 (the present one). The alterations and omissions must
have been designedly made. And they are all in favour of Mr. Gorham's
liberty. Mr. Dodsworth sorrowfully bowed before this conviction, and
left the Church— as did Mr. Maskell.
But surely they had left it in heart long before. For, as Dr. Hook
manfully said, to quit our Church for so small a matter, and enter the
Roman, is like straining at a gnat, and swallowing, not one, but fifty
camels.

22
services, would not do ?— are we to anathematize all views
which are Calvinistic, merely because we do not agree with
them ? Are we to do this under cover of the very formularies
which the Eeformers compiled ? Ought we not rather to sup
pose, that the positive language which appears to be used in
those formularies is the language of charity and hope ? Few
can doubt that this is the case as respects the language of the
Burial Service — (whatever special pleading the Bishop of
Exeter may have used, in his painful Letter to the Archbishop
of Canterbury) — why not as respects the rest ? At least let
us, while we rejoice in our own meaning, allow our brethren to
have theirs. Let us not close a door so long left open. Bishop
Horsley has declared, that our Articles and Formularies were
expressly so framed as to admit the highest Calvinist and the
lowest Arminian to walk hand in hand within the pale of our
communion.* And the Bishop of this diocese, in his recent
Charge, has brought to Ught a distinct proof, from a disputa
tion carried on in Cambridge, in the year 1652, between Dr.
Samuel Ward, the Divinity Professor, and the very learned
Gataker, that the view taken by Mr. Gorham of prevenient
(or, as it is commonly called, preventing) grace, is not a new
or pecuUar view, but was taken by Gataker on that occasion.
Throughout the public disputation not a doubt was made, that
any one was perfectly at liberty to take it, though any one else
was equally at Uberty to impugn it. Dr. Ward did not take
it — and our Bishop agrees with him, and so do most of us ;
but to take it was not then called heresy — and I trust it never
will be called such. Are we wiser than our fathers ? Do we
understand our formularies better than they who composed
them ? Will our Church ever violate the condition she has
* Bishop Horsley's own language, used fifty years ago, is as follows : —
" I confess I cannot understand upon what principle .... our Armi
nian brethren should insist that we should set forth their opinions, as if
they were asserted in our Articles in their true and plain meaning, in con
demnation of the .Calvinistic. I know not what hinders but that the
highest supralapsarian Calvinist may be as good a Churchman as an Armi
nian ; and if the Church of England, in her moderation, opens her arms
to both, neither can, with a very good grace, desire that the other should
be excluded."

imposed on herself by her sixth Article, that she will not re
quire anything to be believed as a matter of faith, unless it is
read in Scripture, or can be proved thereby ? Shall we narrow
our pale, and thin our ranks, when Eomanism is making
gigantic efforts to destroy us? " Divide et impera'' is her
motto ; — let us baffle her device by avoiding all occasions of
division. To this end, let us not give such an opportunity, as
a revived Convocation would afford to unquiet spirits among us,
to discuss the " vexata qucestio" of Baptismal Eegeneration.
Let us not betray to the whole world the disaffection which
exists in too many of our body (I grieve and blush to say it)
towards the Eeformation, and its most honoured instruments.
The next subject which would enforce its claim to a hearing,
would be the delicate one of the Queen's supremacy. It is not
indeed probable, that she would ever give permission to moot
this point ; — just as the Pope forbad the Council of Trent to
meddle with the question of his supremacy. But we are sup
posing that she gives permission to discuss any point we please.
If so, we must be prepared for a perilous debate on this point.
We know the opinions of many of the clergy upon it. They
affixed their names to a declaration, of a very bold character,
set forth by Archdeacons Manning and Wilberforce, and Dr.
Mill. It is not for me, or any man of ordinary mind, to pass
a judgment on that declaration ; denying, as it does, the
Queen's supremacy in the sense in which it has been formerly
acknowledged, and in which, as they confess, it was acknowr
ledged by themselves at the time when they took the " Supre
macy Oath," — and limiting it to " the temporal accidents of
spiritual things!' These are words hard to be understood.
They need a modem Pascal to deal with them — as the great
genius of that name formerly did with the dark phrase, " next
power/ or with the subtle distinction between " sufficient" and
" efficacious grace!' But we may be sure, that in one shape
or another, this difficult, deUcate, and dangerous question
would be stirred up. The discussion would be attended with
imputations of slavery against the supporters of the supremacy
as it is, — and perhaps of perjury against the subscribers of the
declaration. No good could come from such a debate, in the

24
present inflamed state of men's minds. The question would
require the calmest discussion. It would meet with the very
reverse. The Convocation would be convulsed. No credit
would accrue to the Church by its being assembled.
In all probabiUty the " Oawthorne Correspondence" would
furnish the next matter for discussion. It would raise the
question of the absolute necessity of episcopal ordination for
the valid administration of the word and sacraments. We
have had it already discussed in print, and ought to consider it
settled. Our mild and tolerant Primate — as wise, as he is tole
rant — in his answer to Mr. Palmer, supplied whatever might
be thought wanting in his brief letter to the disguised apostate
Gawthome, to the perfect satisfaction of Mr. Palmer, and of
all moderate men, who know the sentiments of former Arch
bishops and Bishops since the Eeformation, and the formula in
which those sentiments are wrapped up — that episcopacy is
necessary to the " bene esse!' but not to the " esse" of a
Church — to its perfection, but not to its being. Yet many are
still dissatisfied up to the present hour. What would hinder
their calling up this invidious subject ? I term it invidious,
because we may well be content, I think, with our own felicity
in having preserved the ancient orders in our Church (as the
preface to our Ordination Service reminds us, and goes np
further), without unchurching those who paid the price of
losing episcopacy to regain true doctrine and Christian liberty.
It was their misfortune, not their fault, that their Bishops did
not stand by them in their great struggle at the Eeformation.
If they are to be blamed for not reverting to the primitive form
of Church government since that time, let us remember how
difficult it is for large bodies of men to go back to what is
abolished, unless they can be convinced that there is an ex
press Divine command; and how unpropitious is the memory
of the Hierarchy which once oppressed them. Those among us
who take the highest views on this subject, have thrown the
greatest difficulties in the way of the restoration of episcopacy,
by their leaning to Eome. The present King of Prussia sent
over some learned divines to report on the state of our Church.
Their report was unfavourable, from their observation of the

25
leaning to which I have referred. The cause of episcopacy
has been thrown back, by the intemperate zeal of these its ad
vocates, and by the principles on which they have advocated
it— the priestly principles of Eome. These remaiks apply to
the Presbyterians of the Scotch Ohurch ; and, in a less degree,
to our orthodox Dissenters. We cannot but wish that they
would all come back to the Episcopal Church, but we cannot
expect it at present. In Scotland, they remember the treat
ment they experienced in the days of the good Bishop Leighton.
who thrice took a wearisome journey from Glasgow to London
to entreat the King to moderate the violence of the other
Bishops. In England, they are in great measure the descend
ants of the 2,000 pious ministers, who were unwisely expelled
from the Church at the Eestoration. That our Church does
not consider episcopacy as indispensable, is clear from the
fact, that the ministers who had been ordained abroad were
allowed to hold Uvings under Queen Elizabeth without fresh
ordination ; as also by the fact, that our divines, including
Bishops, were sent by King James I. to the Synod, held at
Dort by the Presbyterian Hollanders. How could the Church
sit in judgment on such men as Doddridge in the last century,
and Chalmers in this, and pronounce dogmatically that they
exercised an invaUd ministry ? We may be assured that we
should not, serve the cause of episcopacy by such unauthorised
intolerance. It is curious, that the last occasion of the meeting of the old
Convocation described by Bishop Burnet in the " History of
his Own Times," is to the purpose. Some Churchmen had
written strong books, denying the validity of baptism not ad
ministered by the Episcopalian clergy, and calling upon the
Dissenters to be re-baptized. Antiquity, we know (as is proved
by the interesting case of Athanasius, related by Cave in his
life of Bishop Alexander, of Alexandria), and the Church of
Eome itself, were against them on this point ; admitting the
validity of lay baptism, in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, by water — however irregular. The ancient judg
ment was well expressed: " Fieri non debuit ; factum valet."
" The Bishops," says Burnet, " thought it necessary to put a

26
stop to the new and extravagant doctrine. So a declaration
was agreed to, first against tbe irregularity of aU baptism by
persons who were not in holy orders, but that, according to the
practice of the primitive Church, and the constant usage of the
Church of England, no baptism, in or with water, in the name
of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ought to be reiterated."
" The Archbishop of Canterbury, with most ofthe Bishops ofhis
province, resolved to offer it to the Convocation. It was agreed
to in the Upper House, the Bishop of Eochester only dissent
ing ; but wlien it came to the Lower House, they would not so
much as take it into consideration, but laid it aside, thinking
that it would encourage those who struck at the dignity of the
priesthood. This was all that passed in Convocation," A. D.
1712. Here we have a spirit exhibited by the clergy which is
not very edifying, whether as regards their modesty, or their
tolerance. It does not hold out an encouragement to us to
revive our Convocation, for the sake of showing what some call
" life in the Church."
On the very point raised by the " Gawthorne Correspond
ence," a letter appeared in the "Times," withthe signature,
never disavowed, of a clergyman, who was made an Archdeacon
shortly afterwards, beginning with these astounding words :
" Either the Archbishop of Canterbury is in heresy, or I am in
heresy." Let us remember that Archdeacon Denison, who
wrote these words, would be a member ex officio of the new
Convocation. I might now proceed to mention the very exciting and dan
gerous topics of confession, — absolution, — penance, — monastic
I'n stitutions, dc, — topics calculated to alarm the laity, and pro
duce great dissensions among ourselves— topics which belong
peculiarly to our day, and would have been thought, twenty
years ago, the last we should ever be called to discuss in our
Church ; each of these, in its turn, would undoubtedly come
before the Houses of Convocation — each would stir up an ex
citement among the people. EeUgious newspapers would in
crease in number. Debates in the Houses of Parliament on
reUgious subjects, and the state of the Church, would be more
frequent and more animated. The pulpit would acquire an

27
unhealthy, disputatious tone. Good Christians would be
shocked and perplexed. Worldly persons would look on with
smUes at the contentions of the religious. Scepticism would
be the refuge of the weary half-thinkers. Others would betake
themselves in despair to Church- authority, tradition, general
consent, infallibility, and Eome, as the only remedies for into
lerable strife — as the unhappy French have betaken themselves
to Louis Napoleon. Surely I have said enough to make i^
probable, that, if we had a Convocation sitting, with full free
dom of discussion at the present day, we might indeed strike
men with the exhibition of " life in the Church," but it would
be with a life most undesirable for the Church itself, ending in
the destruction of spiritual life. Surely it were better to seek
safer and more suitable means, of bringing home to the people
the paramount claim of our Church to their allegiance, than
that of holding an assembly, which must needs expose us to
one of two most disagreeable altematives — either that of having
a liberty ruinous to our best interests, or that of sitting in an
ignominious fashion, forbidden to discuss the subjects which
occupy aU men's thoughts.

You will think me tedious, I fear, my dear sir, in the fore
going attempt to convince all moderate men, who are prepos
sessed in favour of a revival of Convocation, that their prepos
session is founded on fallacious hopes, not capable of bearing
the Ught of examination. I have argued some of the disputed
points on which I touched— holding, that controversy is an
opportunity for conveying information, and setting the truth
before the readers, not merely for refuting error — that what is
positive should accompany what is negative — that the contro-
versiaUst should aim, not only at rooting up what is harmful or
useless, but at having his steps tracked by the beneficial pro
duce of the seeds he scatters as he goes along. May I not
hope, that you will accept this explanation of my lengthiness in
what has preceded ?
But I have not done. The dangers I have set before you

28
have been principally two— the loss of all remaining peace
within the Church, and the forfeiture of that degree of public
estimation which we now enjoy. There are, however, other,
and if possible, worse dangers than these, attending the pro
posed measure. There is the possibiUty of a secession of one
or other great body of the clergy from our communion. There
is the consequent probabiUty of a separation of the Church
from the State, owing to the weakness which would ensue, and
the advantage taken of it by our enemies. The downfaU of
the estabUshment might endanger also the other great and old
institutions of the country — including the throne itself. If we
begin to imitate our brethren of the United States of America
ecclesiastically, we may end in imitating them poUtically. I
can aver, of my own knowledge, that the American Episco
palians, who urge us to copy the plan of their conventions, are
as proud of their repubhcan freedom as they are of their eccle
siastical independence.
fVho are the men amongst ourselves who are the most urgent
for the revival of Convocation ? It is notorious, that they are
the men of the "Movement" which has disturbed our Church
for the last twenty years. Though many have joined these men
on the present occasion, who are agreed with them on the point
of the revival alone, and for whom I have the highest regard,
yet they are but auxiliaries. The cry for a Convocation has
proceeded from the " Church Unions!' — and the " Church
Unions" were set on foot by the men of whom I speak. In
short, to give them the name by which they are best known,
they are the " Tractarians." We all know, that though the
" Tracts for the Times" ceased, when they had completely done
their work, and culminated in Tract 90 — though the " British
Critic" expired many years ago — and though many of the
writers of the Tracts have gone from us to the Church of Eome
— yet the party is by no means defunct. It has changed its
tactics, and does not obtrude itself on public notice so boldly
and uublushingly as formerly ; but it is, perhaps, the more for
midable, and the more on the secret increase, on that very
account, — because itis less seen and watched. Now I believe,
that the reason why the Tractarian party is anxious to obtain

29
a Convocation, is this : thnt they may have an Arena on which
to fight their last battle. This we ought to prevent. We
ought not to give them such a battle-ground. We ought not
to enable them to appear in a body. Whatever might be the
issue of that final hand-to-hand contest, it would be disas
trous, more or less, to the Church. It would weaken us, either
way. If they were successful, which I cannot imagine they
would be, thousands of the clergy, and tens of thousands of
the laity, would immediately quit the Church, — which they would
identify with the Eoman Antichrist. If they were defeated,
(as I doubt not, and perhaps they themselves* doubt not, they
would be) they would depart from us with pomp and eclat, and
would carry with them a large body of youthful sympathisers,
who had been drawn in by various means to support them
during the debates in the Convocation. Both these events are
to be deprecated, and if possible, prevented. " Cunctando
restituemus rem!'
To see the truth of this view, and understand our present
position, let me take a brief historical retrospect- Let me show
how this terrible intestine war first arose, and what two battles
have been already fought.
We of this generation in the Church are in a peculiarly cri
tical state — ^one of those critical states which seem to occur
periodically to try a Ohurch — at intervals of a century or two ;
— from the undue predominance of one or other of the great
contending principles within the Church, on the proper balance
of which depend its health and tranquillity.
There are, it is well known, two modes of viewing Chris
tianity, two kinds of sentiment and feeling, or y)&o% as it may
be called, always existing among Christians. The one regards
religion in an objective light, the other in a subjective; that is,
the one looks at what is done for us, the other at what is done
* The " 'Voice from the 'North," pubhshed two years ago, earnestly de
precated the agitation for a Convocation,- on the ground that the Convo
cation would act in such a way, in order to meet the feelings of the
people of England, that the writer and his friends would be compelled to
leave the Church. He has since thought fit to leave the Church, without
waiting to be thus compelled.

30
in us. The one makes Christianity corporate, the other makes
it individual; that is, the one looks at the union with the
Church, — Christ's body ; the other with Christ, — the Church's
Head. In a healthy and happy state, these should exist in
friendly union within a Church, and within each man's bosom.
There should be a combination, or mutual fusion — for they
both spring from great and scriptural truths. We are members
of Christ individually, as we are united to Him by faith ; and
corporately, as we are united to his body the Church, and to
Him as its Head, by love. But neither of these principles should
predominate to the virtual exclusion of the other. Like the
chemical elements of water, oxygen and hydrogen, they should
combine, and that in certain proportions. Thus, and thus
only, will the genial showers and refreshing streams be gene
rated, which are necessary to the life of the Church.
In the Church of England we enjoy a religion happily tem
pered with these principles, as it was bequeathed to us by the
Eeformers. In the Church of Eome, the objective aud cor
porate ri6o<s unduly predominates. And the same is unhappily
the case among our Tractarian brethren.* The sacraments and
ordinances, wherein we regard what is done for us, are exalted
to the detriment of faith and prayer, and the exercise of the
inward graces, wherein we regard what is done in us. And
the body of Christ is made to supersede its Head, by ascribing
to the visible Church a power and authority, such as belong to
His Word alone ! Thus the " Sacramental system," as it is
called, on the one hand, and the claim of the Priesthood, on
the other hand, to a perpetual inspiration, residing in itself col
lectively, and speaking from age to age by Church-rulers and
* The writer of the article on Jewel, in the British Critic for 1842, in
a published letter to the author, entitled an " Explanation, &c.,'' says, that
the object of Tractarianism (an object which he called in the Review, " a
matter of life and death,") is to introduce into our Reformed Church a
" new tone," a " new spirit." This, he says, is the explanation of the
words he used in the Review ; namely, " an object thus momentous " is
the " unprotestantizing of the National Church" — the " receding more
and more from the principles of the English Reformation." We see by
this, of what consequence our ^flos is ; and we see of what character the
Tractarian one is.

31
councils,— quite change the character of Christianity, such as it
was left us by the Apostles, and such as we evidently behold
it in their inspired writings. The rjOoi, which contained a por
tion of truth originally, has, by swelling out and grasping all,
become downright error.
Against this error, "which has invaded us, and threatens to
deliver us up to Eomanism, we have to guard ourselves and our
beloved Church. It is not new to us. It appeared in the
form of Laudism in the days of Charles I. Our present critical
state is in one respect a recurrence of that which then existed.
We have a party similar to the one which brought temporary
destruction on our Ohurch. Eead Bishop Hacket's " Life of
Archbishop Williams," andyou will be surprised at the similarity
between Laudism and Tractarianism, which developes itself in
even small and apparently trifling particulars. There is, how
ever, God be praised ! a difference between our state and that
which characterized the time of the EebelHon. Though one of
'the contending principles in the Church has broken loose, and
has assumed the features, and attained the full strength of
Laudism, and far more ; yet tbere has been no corresponding
opposite development, in the form of Puritanism. The rest of
the Church, both clergy and laity, have retained their equiU
brium, — great as is thetendency of extremes to produce extremes.
This has, perhaps, partly, under God, been owing to our having
neither a Sovereign nor an Archbishop tainted with a distrust
of liberty, reUgious or civil. The laity have not been alarmed
at the danger to the Eeformation which has attended the move
ment, to the degree the nation was in the days of Charies and
Laud. The clergy have had confidence in the means they have
used to check its progress, an appeal to Scripture, to the Arti
cles, and to the reason of the people. But it should be our
wisdom to prevent any violent and pubUc colUsion. We ought
to the utmost of our power to withhold from the Tractarians,
such an opportunity oi gathering strength tmder various pre
tences, and making a display, as a meeting of the Convocation
would afford. It would be impossible to predict into what ex
cesses the impatience of the people of England might lead them,
if once they lost their confidence in the Ohurch.

32
If we ask what circumstances gave occasion to the rise of
Tractarianism, we must go back to the time of the " Reform
Bill." Previously to that time, from the very beginning of this cen
tury, there had been a striking and providential improvement
in the Church. The spiritual torpor, whioh lay upon it during
most part of the last century, had passed from it. The clergy
were no longer liable to the charge which Bishop Horsley
brought against a majority of them in his day, that of preach
ing mere morality, and of preaching it on grounds not pecu
liar to Christianity. He did not hesitate to call them " apes of
Epictetus." Men were at length raised up, with all the zeal of
Wesley and Whitfield, but without their irregularity, who wiped
off this reproach from the Church, by awakening their brethren
to their duty as ministers ofChrist. The change for the better
was seen and felt by all men. The house of prayer was again
flocked to. The services were devoutly performed. The preach
ing became earnest and scriptural. Sunday-schools came into
existence. A new impetus was given to the educational and
missionary spirit. Fresh societies were founded ; and the old
and venerable ones put forth a strength and vigour in the
conrse of a few years, which a whole previous century had failed
to impart to them. But let me employ the eloquent words of
the present Bishop of Oxford, to describe the change: " Out of
the deadnesi of the eighteenth century, our fathers were allowed
to rouse the slumbering spiritual life of England ; and faithfully
amidst obloquy and scom, they did their work. The great
doctrines of God's grace, the very sound of which had almost
passed away, were heard on every side. The work of God in
the soul of the believer was again declared and vindicated. The
access of every faithful soul to Christ, as its true Ufe, was simply
and earnestly declared." In these words, we have the spiritual
revival ofthe present century, in its chief features, well described.
The hearts of the Eeformers were brought back to their children.
" Christ was Ufted up, and all men were drawn to him." The
Church speedily recovered her place in the affectionate attach
ment of tbe people. " The life " which was now seen in her,
was one calculated not merely to strike the eyes, but to win the

33
heart. She did not talk of her authority and her excellence 
but she recovered the one by displaying the other. But lhe
time of the Eeform in Parliament arrived. The separatists
availed themselves of the excitement caused by that poUtical
storm, to aim a deadly blow at the Church as an Establishment.
I do not accuse allthe Dissenters of joining in the discreditable
assault then made; but the " PoUtical Dissenters" took the lead,
and the rest were silent. The year 1882 put the people's attach
ment to the proof. They stood by their Church. They refused
to give up the inheritance of their fathers. The Church was
saved. Providence had prepared her, by the revival she had
experienced, for the trial she had then to pass through.
But the extreme danger, the agony, through which she had
passed, produced a strange and unexpected effect. Instead of
encouraging and impeUing all to pursue, with steady and in
creasing ardour, the path which had restored the Church to the
affections of the people, it induced many to cast about for some
new means, which might secure her from the possibility of having
to pass through such a trial in the time to come. They
sought these means in the exaltation of the episcopal clergy.
They desired to crush Dissent for ever, by introducing and
spreading what they called " Church principles." They went to
the armoury of the Church of Eome for the weapons, by which
the enemy at home was to be beaten down. The temptation was
great; for no Church was ever so skilled in the art of domina
tion, as the Church of Eome. But they did not foresee how
these weapons, which they thus hastily snatched up, could be
turned against themselves by those who originally forged them.
They did not perceive to what legitimate consequences their new
principles might be carried out ; and how, whilst they were think
ing only of beating down Dissent, they had put themselves in
the power of Eomanism. Too many of them have experienced
this to their infinite cost ; and are now blindly assailing our
Church with the very arms, which they first as blindly took up
to defend her. Let me, however, go back to their eariiest pro
ceedings, when they meant only what was good in itself; and
were unconscious of the lengths, to which their first deviation
from the principles of Scripture and the Eeformation would lead

31
them. At a private meeting in Oxford, it was resolved, as Mr.
Perceval has informed us, to commence a series of Tracts forthe
Times, on the basis of the foUowing resolution : — " That the body
ofChrist is conveyed to individual Christians only" [sic) " by
the hands of the successors of the Apostles, and their delegates."
Here was the doctrine of ApostoUcal Succession laid down ; by
which all, who are non-episcopalians, are cut off from a partici
pation in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. In accordance
with this, when the " Oxford Tracts " came out, Tract 4,
(Edition 1st), contained the following words: "Our Church is
the only Church in this realm, which has a right to be quite
sure that she has the Lord's Body to give to his people." And
Tract 10 (same edition), says, in words subsequently modified: —
" Then will you, the laity, honour us with a purer honour
than you do now, namely, as those who are entrusted with the
keys of heaven and hell, as the heralds of mercy, as the
denouncers of woe to wicked men, as entrusted with the awful
and mysterious gift of making the bread and u'ine the Body
and Blood of Christ!' This was written in 1833. I need
scarcely remark, that this language could not be sustained,
except by resorting to arguments derived from tradition and
Church authority, exactly such as the Eomanists use in sus
taining their pretensions, and condemning the Church of Eng
land. Scripture was necessarily depreciated, because it does not
uphold, but opposes, such exclusive and exaggerated views.
Moreover, Scripture is in the hands of the Dissenters ; and it
is one of the greatest evils accompanying a reUgious contest,
that in the hostility felt against an opponent one is apt to in
clude whatever he uses in his defence. Thus, whatever the
orthodox Dissenters hold in common with our Church became
distasteful to the writers of the Tracts ; Scripture therefore
ceased to be considered as the sole and sufficient rule of faith.
The doctrine of justification by faith was cast off, because the
Dissenters prize it as much as we do ourselves. For the same
reason the Eeformation, and our own Eeformers, feU into dis
credit with these men. " Jewel," said Mr. Froude, " had he
Uved in our days, would have been an irreverent Dissenter."
The editors of " Froude's Eemains," Mr. Newman and Mr.

35
Keble, saw no fault to be found in this judgment. Mr. Oake-
ley, in the " British Critic," long afterwards, in his article on
Bishop Jewel, justified it. What a compliment to the Dissen
ters to identify Jewel with them !
How unUke is this spirit of hostility to everything which
Dissent approves, right or wrong, to the spirit of Hooker, who,
whilst he combats Puritanism in his immortal work, does it with
weapons drawn from the armoury of God, not of man ; extols
the Eeformation to the skies ; holds in the highest honour all
the Eeformers, particularly Jewel, of whom he speaks in terms
of unbounded reverence and affection ; makes the doctrine of
justification by faith the glory of our Church ; and bows be
fore the sole and undisputed majesty of Holy Scripture. He
had a noble confidence in the power of the truth, though his
opponents appealed to the same court with himself. He did not
on that account change the court of appeal — in points where
Holy Scripture had given a decision. He did not ignore the
distinction between the visible and invisible Ohurch ; or assign
to the former those inspired assurances of Divine preservation
and illumination, which belong to the latter.* He did not con
found the Church with the clergy. If he erred, it was in the
warm and mystical language, which his fervida vis animi led
him, Uke the Early Fathers, to use, when speaking of the Sacra-
ments.t Would that, with this single caution in mind, all our
* Hooker's words are: — "The Body Mystical of Christ can be but
one, neither can that one be sensibly discerned by any man." " Whatso
ever we read in Scripture concerning the endless love, and the saving
mercy which God showeth towards his Church, the only proper subject
thereof is this Church." " And as those everlasting promises of love,
mercy, and blessedness belong to the Mystical Church, even so on the
other side when we read of any duty which the Church of God is bound
unto, the Church whom this doth concern is a sensible known company."
— (E. P., book iii.)
t Hooker's language cannot easily be mistaken, if one passage be com
pared with another, and insulated pages be not picked out.
For instance, concerning the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper, he
says:— "The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is
not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in, the worthy receiver of the
Sacrament. I see not which way it should be gathered hy the words of
Christ, when and where the bread is His body, or the cup His blood, but
D 2

30
clergy would study his " Ecclesiastical PoUty," and imbibe the
spirit they find there, and combat Dissent as he did, with weapons
such only as he employed !* Taking a very different course,
and imbibing from another source a very different spirit, our
Tractarian brethren developed the corporate v^og more and
more — till they united themselves, first with the Fathers, — and of
them with such as Jerome and John of Damascus, not Augus
tine, — then with the Mediaeval Saints, including Hildebrand ;
with the Schoolmen, Thomas Aquinas and his followers ; with
Church rulers in all ages ; with Councils, in general ; in short,
with the visible Church, in whatever state of corruption it might
be — till they found themselves at last, proh nefas, sitting at the
very door of the Vatican, hesitating whether or not to ask ad
mission, and regarding our Church in all her distinctive fea
tures with aversion. Sad, but inevitable, consequences of for
saking the right path, and fleeing for help from the everlasting
Word to refuges of human invention, the fatal legacy of the
dark ages, and the stronghold of priestly domination ! I need
only refer to the Tracts between No. 80 and No. 90,
including those two, for ample confirmation of what I
only in the very heart and soul of him which receiveth them." — (E. P.>
book V.) This passage occurs between two much longer ones containing
high and mystical language, which two passages are quoted in the col
lection of authorities added to Dr. Pusey's Sermon on the Eucharist, but
this connecting and explanatory passage was left out J
One of the Fathers of the Tractarian party is Froude. Mr. Keble had
said in his beautiful " Christian Year" (written long before), that in the
Eucharist, Christ was " not in our hands, but in our hearts." Mr.
Froude, in the letter pubJished in his " Remains," reproves his friend :
" How do you know that He is not in our hands ?" Hooker, at any rate,
was with Keble.
* Mr. Maskell, in his " Second Letter," whilst yet in our Church, has
the following acknowledgment of the way, in which the writings of the
Reformers and the Elizabethan divines have been treated. " It is small dis
grace perhaps even now, certainly a few years ago it was so, not to be well
read in the almost forgotten books of Grindal, Fulke, Whitgift, Jewel,
and their contemporaries. To be acquainted with Hooker's work of the
ecclesiastical polity had become raiAer a /asAiore ; but with that solitary
exception, we must acknowledge, that the divines of the days of Queen
Elizabeth were Uttle read and little valued by the party calling itself
Anglo-Cathohc, High Church, and the hke."

37

state. The "British Critic" also, their acknowledged organ,
testifies to its truth. But I will not dwell on these things'
Suffice it to say, that the first battle of Tractarianism was
fought on the subject of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper;
and was brought to an issue, when Dr. Pusey preached his cele
brated sermon at Oxford on that subject, and being accused of
teaching erroneous doctrines was tried by the appointed Oxford
authorities, and silenced for a season ! This, I say, was the
first battle of the Tractarians, fought on the ground of the
Eucharist, and ended by a defeat. From that time to this,
there has been Uttle said by them on that point. The people of
England, who remembered that many of the martyrs died solely
on account of their denial of Transubstantlation, and whose
common sense and knowledge of Scripture caused them to re
ject that doctrine, or anything approaching to it, with loathing
and indignation, confirmed the verdict given against Dr. Pusey
with a degree of unanimity not to be mistaken or defied. The
ground was now changed, and the second battle was fought on
the subject of the other sacrament. Baptism. This was a very
skilful change of the field, because here they appeared to be
merely defending the literal construction of the Baptismal Ser
vice — (though with what consistency they who applauded the
non-natural interpretation of the Articles, in Tract 90, can in
sist on a literal interpretation of the Prayer Book, I know not) ;
— ^but the arguments by which they supported their views were
not the less dangerous and objectionable. Their chief cham
pion on this point has been Archdeacon E. Wilberforce. His
works on the " Sacramental System," the " Incamation," and
" Baptism," have been received by the Tractarians with univer
sal approbation. Now in these works, particularly that on the
" Incarnation," I scruple not to say, there is the doctrine of a
subtle Transubstantlation spread over all Church Ordinances ;
not merely over the sacrament of the Eucharist, but over that
of Baptism, and over aU the rites administered by priests who
possess the ApostoUcal Succession. There is, I say, a subtie
doctrine of this kind extended to all episcopal ministrations,
preparing the mind unawares for that which had been con
demned in Dr. Pusey— and even for the plain doctrine of Eome.

38
So that under the guise of a Baptismal controversy, the contest
was substantially the same that it was before. The Archdeacon
speaks of the "real" body of Ohrist being conveyed by Church
ordinances, and by them alone', to the Christian ; and to make his
meaning of " real" clear, he says, thatin the same sense in which
our bodies have been afi'ected by the transmission of Adam's
humanity, so are they by the participation of Christ's humanity,
i. e. as truly and substantiaUy.* It gives me pain to write
these things — while I write them, I am in twenty minds whether
to publish them or not — and yet, they are so important, it is so
necessary that they should be known, and the impending danger
is so great if we do not stand on our guard against the further
progress of opinions so essentially Eomish, that I cannot with
hold what I am writing. Many will blame me for speaking ill
of my brethren. But the interests of truth, the safety of our
Church, and the good of my fellow-countrymen, compel me to
speak as I do. The blessings due to the Eeformation are all at
stake ; shall he who thinks that he sees this, more distinctly
than his neighbours in general, be silent ? My judgment may
be wrong, but I trust that my motives will not be impugned.
Let me hasten to a conclusion. The second battle, of which I
have spoken, came to an issue in the " Gorham Case." The
Tractarians were once more defeated. Whatever we may think
of the sentence on its own merits, we cannot but rejoice that
they who meant to have made a contrary sentence the base of
further operations, to the expulsion of those whom they most
dread, and to the consummation of their long-avowed design of
" unprotestantizing the National Church," and " receding more
and more from the principles of the English Eeformation,"t
were disappointed. I look upon it as a special Providence, that
we had Judges and Prelates, who could conscientiously pro
nounce that saving sentence.
* I may be allowed to refer the reader to the " Christian Observer,"
March, 1850, where he will find an extended review of Archdeacon R.
Wilberforce's work on the " Incarnation."
t These are the words of the well-known declaration, deliberately
made, and afterwards defended, in the " British Critic," 1842, Article on
Bishop Jewel.

39
And now I ask any one, who doubts not the correctness of
my preceding statement, whether he can doubt my inference
that the Tractarians, who are yet among us, long for a Convo
cation, with a desperate desire that they may either retrieve
their fortunes in a last battle, or depart from us in a manner
which would do them the greatest honour, and us the greatest
harm ? Can he doubt, that if they succeeded in ruling the
assembly, they would succeed in expeUing a vast body of the
clergy from our Church, and would aUenate almost the whole
of the laity ? The clergy, in general, are sound ; and so are the
laity. The pubUc meetings on occasion of the Papal Aggres
sion, two years ago, bear testimony to this fact. Those meet
ings were all of one character ; none of a contrary kind being
attempted to be held. They were, in almost all instances, as
much and as openly opposed to Tractarianism, as they were to
Eomanism. The nation seemed eagerly to avail itself of the
opportunity of making known its sentiments, with respect to
the " Movement," as well as the " Aggression." If, therefore,
they saw the men of the " Movement " triumphing in the Con
vocation, they would be irrevocably alienated from the Church
of their fathers. Then what would happen ? Would it be
possible to preserve the Bishops in the House of Lords ? If
a prime minister could tell the Prelates, twenty years ago, to
" set their house in order," with how much more truth, I do
not say more decency, might the words be repeated in the case
I am supposing ? If Mr. O'Connell, who at one time projected
a tour through England for this purpose alone, — namely, to
stir up the people to demand the expulsion of the Bishops from
the House, — had been still aUve, how would he have hailed the
coming event ? All the enemies of our ancient institutions
would rejoice. It would be hard to predict where the ruin
would end. The separation of Church and State would inevi
tably follow the aUenation of the people from the Church.
Could the monarchy long survive ? But we are supposing
what is highly improbable, nay, almost impossible,— that the
Tractarians would rule the Convocation. The very men of a
moderate character, sound sons of our Eeformed Church,
who have joined them at present in their cry forthe revival.

40
would turn against them in the Convocation itself. The sup
position of their success is not to be entertained. The Lay
House would be against them. They would infaUibly be
worsted both in the Upper and Lower Houses. Then what
would be the consequence ? As I said before, they would go
out with a certain pomp and eclat. As things now are, they
sUp from us one by one — attracting littie regard — making no
procession, — and attended by no admirers and sympathisers.
But numbers of them are waiting to go out in a very different
manner. Mr. Neale, in his " Few Words of Hope on the Pre
sent Crisis," 1850, says : " Itis to be feared that some, impatient
of the insult their Church has received " (in the Gorham sen
tence), " unwilling to wait for the time necessary to mature an
united plan of action, and despairing of any redress," i. e., of
any new declaration or dogma to be made by the Church on
the subject of Baptism,) " will at once go over to Rome 
Clearly it is their duty to wait. The Church will emerge from
this affliction, either the better for it, or the worse: if the
latter, it will be time enough to leave her then." Are not
such men gone already ? Is not their heart already with the
Church of Eome — since, if they cannot assimilate our Church
to her, they are prepared to join her ? Such being the case,
shall we allow them to mature their plans, and give them a
field day on which to exhibit them, and an arena, suoh as
that of the Convocation, on which to appear before the whole
world ? This is the reason of their so anxiously desiring a
Convocation — simply, that they may have a court of appeal
from the Queen's sentence, and may fight the battle over again
which they then lost.

That you may not think that I speak without book, in say
ing this, let me remind you of their own sayings and doings,
to which I have taken the trouble to look back. First, I find
!Mr. Denison putting forth his protest against the sentence :
" Whereas Mr. Gorham has formally denied the Catholic
Faith." " And whereas such sentence is necessarily false!'
" I do enter my solemn protest, &c., — and do warn, &c., — and

41
«o pledge myself to use all lawful means to obtain without
delay some further formal declaration, hy a lawful Synod,
c^c."— (Protest, Nov. 10, 1850.) On the 15th March, tbe
same gentieman wrote to the Times, in these words :— " It is
high time that the Church of England should decide in lawful
Synod, whether heresy is to he maintained and taught by law."
Then came a meeting of the London Church Union, "at
tended," as it was stated, " by a large number of beneficed
clergymen, appointed as delegates from Church Unions in
most of the EngUsh Sees," at which meeting it was laid down,-
" that the only proper means of dealing with such a case as
that which had recently engaged public consideration, was by
means of Convocation, and that Her Majesty should be peti
tioned, dc/ Presently afterwards, a paper of " resolutions "
was sent to the Times, signed by Archdeacons Manning, E.
Wilberforce, and Thorp, by Drs. Mill and Pusey, by the Eev.
Messrs. Keble, Dodsworth, Bennett, H. Wilberforce, and by
four laymen, including Mr. Hope. Of these resolutions, the
first was, that " The Church of England will eventually be
bound by the sentence, unless it shall openly and expressly
reject the erroneous doctrine sanctioned thereby ;" and the
consequence of its not doing this, is expressed by the seventh :
" Th&t thereby it would become formally separated from the
Catholic body, and could no longer assure to its members the
grace of the sacrament ;" and the chief means of avoiding
this loss of its Catholicity, is declared in the eighth : " That
all legal measures be taken without delay to obtain an autho
ritative declaration by the Church of the doctrine of Holy
Baptism, impugned by the sentence, as for instance, by
praying licence for the Church in Convocation to declare
that doctrine, dc." I need scarcely refer to the Bishop of
Exeter's Letter to Archbishop Sumner, except to observe that
it excites aU who agree with him, to do their utmost to obtain
a Convocation, that the Church may purge herself from the
guilt of a silent assent to the sentence. His words are (p. 78),
" Because they (the Judicial Committee) absolutely shut their
eyes against it {the law), I appeal from this legally supreme
court to another and a higher tribunal." And in p. 89,

42
" Very serious doubts have been raised in the minds of many,
whether the Church, if she continued passive under this judg
ment, would uot forfeit her claim to be a portion of the
Church of Christ!' Such language must have had great weight
with those who respect his lordship, to urge them to seek a
revival of Convocation. The great Meeting at St. Martin's
Hall, on July 25, 1850, attended by delegates from aU parts,
lay and clerical, came to the same conclusion in reference to
the sentence. Petitions were immediately presented to the
Queen for a speedy Convocation, and to the Archbishops and
Bishops, desiring them to second the request, " that the
Church in Synod assembled may have freedom to judge
matters of doctrine and discipline!' Archdeacon Thorp, the
President of the " Bristol Church Union," deUvered a Charge,
counselUng "clerical agitation," — adding, " Is it nothing to
have been cut off" for three centuries from Catholic commu
nion ? Are we content to be cut off hopelessly for ever ?" and
declaring, " The Church cannot affiord, after late experience,
to stave this controversy" (the Baptismal) " off ; to wait an
other chance, so long as she has no guarantee against the un
restrained exercise of external authority." Lord Fielding,
who presided at one of the London meetings, and was at tbe
head of the " Coventry Church Union," refused to " wait the
chance" of a Convocation; and in August, 1850, joined the
Church from which we have been " cut off for three centuries."
His plea was, that he could no longer bear to belong to a
Church, which refused to call herself infallible.
In the month of October, Dr. Pusey (concerning whose less
obvious teaching a terrible exposure had been made in the
meantime by Mr. Dodsworth, one of his most intimate friends
and faithful disciples) appeared at a great meeting held by the
London Church Union, where his appearance was hailed " with
enthusiastic cheering" (to adopt the words ofthe report). He
read his speech : " We aim," he said, " to have the fetters
of the Church undone — her voice loosed!' He spoke plainly
of " the synodal action of the Church," as tbe instrument bv
wliich the fetters might be removed, and the tongue loosed.
Such was Dr. Pusey's mind ; and Mr. Palmer told the world

48
presently afterwards, that " the London Union is Dr. Pusey's
body, and Dr. Pusey the mind of the London Union." If so,
(though Dr. Pusey modestly disclaimed it), we see how strong
was the feeUng, that the Tractarian body were called to agitate
for a revival of Convocation ; and we can have no difficulty in
pronouncing for what purpose, in the hands of Dr. Pusey.
And now, my dear sir, let me ask, whether I have not proved,
that the cry for Convocation arose at the time of the defeat
which the Tractarians experienced in the " Gorham Case ?"
Can we doubt that it arose not only at the time of that defeat,
but in consequence of it ? I do not call all " Tractarians," who
attended the public meetings, — far otherwise — many, I know,
were opposed to Tractarianism ; but the meetings were the off
spring of Tractarian resentment and activity. The sudden cry,
thus for the first time heard at public meetings, was a party
war-cry. It was such in 1850; — and is it not such in 1852 ?
Have the men of the movement changed their minds in the
interim ? This is not to be imagined of such men as they are,
who must be acknowledged to be in earnest, whatever else they
be. No; we may depend upon it, an interval of two years has
not abated their ardour for introducing their y\6og into our
Church — for " changing its tone and spirit,' as Mr. Oakeley
expressed it. Neither have they forgotten the smart of their
discomfiture in their design of narrowing the pale of our com
munion, and depriving us of our best blood. " Manet alia
mente repostum. Judicium !"
It may, indeed, be said, that events have taken place since
their last disastrous battie, which may have mollified their
minds. The " Papal Aggression " gave, as I have said before,
an occasion to the people, to show their feeling towards Trac
tarianism, in a way which could not be misinterpreted. But 1
cannot hope, that this produced any effect on those who are
thoroughly imbued with the spirit of Tractarianism, unless it
was to irritate their temperament, and deepen the loathing
which they feel towards " Protestantism." It caused them to
retire from pubUc view; but, doubtless, they have but nou
rished their resentment, and carefully prepared their schemes

44
for carrying their final purposes. The interruption has been
but temporary.
No danger is so great, as our imagining that the Tractarians
are altered, or have given up their designs. They are the same
men they were two years ago, and their designs are the same.
Whatever we may think to be the source of inspiration, which
dictated Lord John EusseU's Letter to the Bishop of Durham,
there can be no doubt that he was right in saying, that our
chief danger Ues in the existence of this party — tbis cancer
within our bosom. It must be rooted out — or so treated that it
may die away of itself — otherwise the days of our Church are
numbered. There is no choice left us. An unceasing struggle
must be made by the sound part of the Church. If not, the
patience of the people will be wearied out — they will distrust
the Church as the appointed guardian of truth and their reli
gious liberty — they will deem her unfaithful to her trust, com
mitted to her by God and the country — there will be a revival
of Puritanism, and tbe Altar and the Throne may once more
sink before the popular fury.
What says the Bishop of Ossory, whose charges are works
which the future historian will consult ? He tells us, that our
greatest peril arises from our overlooking the continued exis
tence and unremitting exertions of this party, however its
plan of operations may be changed. " The loss of a few mem
bers," he says, " who were so resolved on following their prin
ciples out fearlessly, and on publishing boldly the full deve
lopment of them — and that in a style which was sure to
offend and alarm all sober men — is no loss of strength to the
party." " The injury is more than compensated by the lesson
of caution, which has been given them." After more to the
same purpose, he adds : " It were better, if it were needful, that
the Church should be rent, than that it should be corrupted."
One cannot but agree in these last words. Earnest men of
all parties will agree in them. But my hope is, that, if we act
wisely and cautiously, we may avoid both the rending and the
further progress of the corruption. Let the present leaders of
the party be treated as they deserve. Let them not be listened

45
to.

^6t it lie shown tbem that their scheraes are seen through
eta go from us, one by one, in despair. Let them go,—
not accompanied by a train of youthful foUowers, heated by s
pubhc contest in such an arena as the Convocation would pre
sent to them— to whom we might in vain cry, " Quo ruitisV
when their feelings had been excited (for Tractarianism has
been all along more a matter oi feeling X^ixwi of judgment),
and their honour committed, by the part they had taken in the
debates; — but sorrowful and solitary. We should sorrow over
them, but not for their actual departure. They have long been
lost to us in heart, and cannot be more lost to us. They can
do us less mischief outside of our pale than inside. Let them
go to their own place — Eome. The character of that place is,
providentially, developing itself more and more every day.
God has blinded the Church that has so long deserted Him,
and clung to power at the expense of Christianity. Its worst
and darkest features are exhibited by itself, more and more
openly. What exhibition can be more revolting, than that
which is seen in Ireland ? What more sickening, than that
which is presented in France ? What more odious, than that
in Italy? Was there ever a fiercer tyranny — a more deter
mined hatred of God's word — than that which Tuscany has
exhibited in crushing the Guicciardinis and the Madiais ?
Only let us gain time to allow this daily development to go on,
and make itself better known, and produce its proper effect on
every true English mind ; and we may hope that, in the next
generation, the Tractarian ^^os, deprived of its most violent
spirits, wiU have subsided. Those who have but partially im
bibed that ^6los will, as the Bishop of London expressed it,
draw back from the edge of the precipice, to which, under the
false pretence of " Ohurch principles," and " CathoUc union,"
they had been conducted. They will shrink from the abyss,
when they have obtained a full view of its depth and horrors.
Moreover, the decided bias of the people— the national feehng
—must have its effect on those of the clergy who are not too
far gone if only it has time to exercise its influence. Let us,
therefore', yield nothing to the demands of the leaders of the
art Let all objects of pursuit, aU desires, however lawful,
E"^ ^' «PTided. ratiier than do anything which they might turn
be suspc'.'" '

46
to their immediate advantage. Eather let us run the risk of
exasperating them, than that of giving them power, in the
expectation that we could afterwards take it from them. There
are other influences, besides those already mentioned, which
win tend to abate the plague, if time be granted. The steady
discountenance, which every Government must necessarily exer
cise towards a party adverse to the union of Church and State,
and known to be incUned to clerical despotism, must sooner or
later have its due weight. The fidelity of the Sovereign to the
coronation oath, and to the religion which set the reigning
family on the throne, cannot but tell in the end.
Under the reign of WilUam IIL, when the Popish Stuarts
had been cast out, there was a similar state of things to that
which exists at present. The King and the Government were
steadily opposed to the party of that day which leaned to
despotic principles, civil and religious. What was the conse
quence ? That a cry for a free Convocation arose. Hear the
historian of that period : " When they saw that preferments
went in another channel, they set up a complaint over England
of the want of Convocations, that they were not allowed to sit
nor act with a free liberty to consider of the grievances of the
clergy, and of the danger the Church was in. This was a new
pretension, never thought of since the Reformation. Some
books were written to justify it, with great acrimony of style."
He specifies Atterbury's in particular, "Atterbury/ he says,
" attacked the supremacy of the Crown, with relation to eccle
siastical matters, which had been hitherto maintained by all
our divines with great zeal. But now the hot men of the
clergy did so readily entertain his notions, that in them it
appeared, that those who are the most earnest in the defence of
certain points, when they seem to be for them, can very nimbly
change their minds upon a change of circumstances."—
" Bumet's History of his Own Times" — the year, a.d. 1700.
In short, the struggle in our Church, which some are willing
to forget, is one for life and death. We must use wisdom and
resolution ; we must deny ourselves whatever we might desire
at another time, hut which would be turned to a dangerous
account at the present; we must expel the Tractarian viras,
sooner or later, or the Church is lost. Can we not bear to

47
It is safe to indulge ourselves — if Convocation is really
u gence to be muoh coveted ? Supposing it to be s
e thing in itself, abstractedly, yet, if it is perilous now,
^ •' ® ^'^^^l curb our desire, and abide patiently the coming
p, ^ uays. Eather than be in haste — rather than put our
Ohurch m the least danger— let us be content to spend forty
years in the wilderness (as many would caU our present depri-
n;, 1 need be, till the existing generation of unquiet and
ng spirits shall have passed away, and another genera
tion shall arise, better fitted in temper and good disposition to
enter into the land of promise— (if Convocation must be caUed
such). Should the view I have given be correct, of the origin and
meaning of the present cry for Convocation- interrupted, as it
may have been, by the national excitement against the Papal
Aggression, and swelled, as it may be, now that it is again
taken up, by the voices of many moderate men, ecclesiastical
theorists — should it have originated (as who can doubt?) in
nothing more than disappointment at the failure of the Trac
tarian attempt to narrow the boundaries of our Church — and
should its object be (as aU the public meetings at the time the
first that were ever held in favour of a Convocation significantly
showed) to supersede the Judicial Committee, to reverse the
sentence, and, in fact, to overthrow the Queen's supremacy —
estabUshing a clerical domination in its place, and expelling
from our pale all who either hold Calvinistic opinions or have
tolerant feelings towards non-episcopalian communions — should
this view, I say, be correct, what must be the duty of any
Prime Minister ? what must be the instinctive wisdom of the
Sovereign ? what must be the determination of every patriotic
subject, as weU as of every enlightened Churchman ? — what,
but to oppose the cry, and to defeat all the efforts, whether
openly or insidiously made— whether by alarm or persuasion,
to draw the Church from its moorings ?
" O Navis, referent in mare te novi
Fluctus ? O ! quid agis F Fortiter occupa
Portum. Nonne vides ?" SfC.
]yjay God open all our eyes to see the right and the safe way !

48
I am not infallible. Bnt I think that my eyes are opened, and
I cannot but tell others what I see.
Believe me, my dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely, C. S. BIED.
Gainsborough Vicarage, Oct. 10, 1852.

P.S. — I think it important to lay before my readers the fol
lowing extract from Melancthon s Preface to the " Acta Ratis-
bonensia :" —
" I perceived that they" (the opponents of the Protestants
at Eatisbon) " delineated the Church as a political body ; and
there were circumstances in their description which I passed
over, though I trembled at doing so. But when we came to
speak of the power of interpreting Scripture, I saw that the
foundations for confirming the greatest errors were laid.
Their statement embraced three points : —
" First, that there was a power of interpretation in the
Church, according to the manner of men, very similar to the
way in which lawyers speak of the judicial power to interpret
laws. " Then was added, that it was not lawful for private persons,
or a few individuals, to blame the decisions of the greater
number, or to dissent from their determinations.
" Lastly, that the determinations and decrees of Councils
were to be obeyed ; from whence Eckius contended that Coun
cils lawfully called could not err. It is always thus — poli
ticians, when thinking of the Church, ever form the idea of a
human state or worldly kingdom."
Melancthon adds : " To admit this principle, would be to let
the Trojan horse into the city." Let many of those who
advocate the revival of Convocation, on principles very similar
to those above mentioned, reflect whether they are not deli
vering up the citadel to the Eomanists.
The great error lies in confounding the Visible Church with
the Invisible, and misapplying to the former the promises con
fined by God to the latter.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 0459

m.mm^^m