S,i^' r?

A' )

^

"'I'l.' ,
.IW i' ¦

I'v . - \X^j/^ X, . .L^ "V 4* v.^
V* .. ....
1.' i « Ji
'' :yf.
>--y r, '
Is
f.
7.'
" ' 1 - .,-
; Mhg59
w:
YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

A LETTER

THE BISHOP OF EXETER

LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. V, HODGSON, 1, GOUGH SaUARE, FLEET STREET.

A LETTER

TO

THE BISHOP OF EXETER

M

CONTAINING

AN EXAMINATION OE HIS LETTER

Slrd&lii^Jtip oi Cantnturg,

WILLIAM GOODE, M.A., E.S.A.
! ? f
RECTOR OF ALLHALT.OWS THE GREAT AND LESS, LONDON.

SECOND EDITION.

LONDON :
J. HATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY.
1850.

A LETTER,

MY LORD,—
You will not be surprised, that I should feel myself called
upon to take some notice of your recent Letter to the Arch
bishop of Canterbury. The frequent references occurring in
it to my statements on the controversy to which it relates,
and the nature of the observations made upon them, are such
as to require from me an answer. I must be permitted to
add, that the attack which your Lordship has there made
upon our common ecclesiastical Ruler and Primate (to say
nothing of your censure of other and still higher authorities),
would alone justify any of the faithful sons of our Church in
placing before the public a calm review of your statements.
My Lord, in making this attack, you are conscious that
you are assailing one whose position entirely prevents the pos
sibility of his offering any reply, and to whose Christian for
bearance alone you are indebted for being allowed to disturb
the peace of the Church with impunity. Your Lordship, with
characteristic ingenuity, has taken advantage of a phrase in
his Grace's Preface to his new edition of his work on Apo-
stohcal Preaching, to represent him as having descended from
his high position into the field of controversy, on a subject in
which you are one of the parties. And, with your usual accu
racy, you have stated, that, "in the whole history ofthe Church
of England," you are " not aware that anything of a similar
kind has ever before occurred." Have you never heard, then,
my Lord, of Archbishop Cranmer's Answer to Bishop Gar
diner ? Are you really so little versed in the writings of our
Reformers, that such a work as this comes not even within
B

the limits of your recollection ? And, were your statement
correct, could you have placed before the world a fact more
self-condemnatory? If the unparalleled character of your
proceedings had forced His Grace a step out of the usual
course, I leave it to your Lordship's consideration, in what
position it would have left your own cause.
But, my Lord, it is not so. His Grace has done no such
thing; and time will show, whether he has any intention of
so doing. The charge is, like too many of your Lordship's
accusations, groundless, unjustifiable, and offensive. Your
Lordship does not need to be informed, but the public may,
that in the course of the recent controversy, and when it was
known that His Grace would have to sit in judgment upon the
Cause then sub judice, certain parties, on your Lordship's side
of the question, felt it to be consistent with Christian candour,
to cull certain passages from his work on Apostolical Preaching
(first published thirty-five years ago), — separating them from
modifying passages, of 33 years standing, in the context, — and, in
the face of these modifying passages, and also of distinct decla
rations made upon the subject in the course ofthe last few years,
give them to the world as His Grace's sentiments upon the Cause
then sub judice in the Church. My Lord, those who are de
fending the cause of truth can afford to leave such practices to
the fate which, sooner or later, inevitably awaits them, and
therefore your supporters were permitted to enjoy undisturbed
all the aid which such a system of defence could afford them.
They were left unnoticed; and if anything was wanting to
show their true character, it has been supplied by the quota
tions now put forward by your Lordship's own hands, as proving
that His Grace's sentiments were entirely opposed to what
they were thus represented to be. My Lord, under these
circumstances, was there any cause for surprise, was there
any just groiind for charging His Grace with descending into
the field of " controversy," when in the Preface to a new edition
of his work, published after the Judgment had been delivered,
he pointed attention, in an uncontroversial way, to the fact that
there were various passages in the very work which had been
so misused, bearing out the Sentence to which he had just

given his public sanction. Most justly did he " call attention
to what" he had "written concerning the grace of baptism."
And he added, that his mind was confirmed in the correctness
of such a view of the matter by other arguments and testimo
nies which he there adduces. And I believe, that, with the ex
ception of a small and turbulent faction, the Church will thank
fully accept such au exposition of His Grace's views, without
dreaming of his having "descended" (as your Lordship justly
expresses it) into the field of "controversy" with you on the
subject. My Lord, I need scarcely observe, that in the remarks I am
about to make on your Letter, I speak merely as an individual.
I alone am responsible for the statements here made. And
my remarks are made on a copy of your Lordship's Letter,
bearing on the cover the impress of the "fourth edition,"
delivered at my house before three o'clock on the same day on
which it was first published. I call your Lordship's attention
to this fact, in order that you may give such directions on the
subject as you think fit to your respectable publisher, who does
not usuaUy, I believe, adopt such practices.
My Lord, the first five-and-twenty pages of your Letter are
spent in the attempt to prove, that his Grace's sentiments have
recently undergone a great change on the subject ofthe effects
of Baptism. And you intimate at its conclusion, that though
you have been his Grace's " affectionate friend for nearly thirty
years," such change has compelled you to become " now" only
his " afflicted servant." My Lord, if your charge were true,
would there be any cause for wonder or reproach, if, in his later
years. His Grace had thought good somewhat to modify the
statements made by him in a work published more than thirty
years ago ? Would it justify a virulent attack upon one under
whose authority you are placed, and to whom you have solemnly
pledged yourself that you will pay all " due reverence and
obedience ?" What would have been your Lordship's feelings,
if a presbyter of your diocese had adopted the same course
towards yourself, with respect to certain works published
within a very short period of time from one another ? But
your Lordship may perhaps say, that you claim ample scope for
b2

change, " excepting only one single subject, the fundamental
articles of the Creed." " The efficacy of baptism," you add,
" is such an article." And is it really a "fundamental article"
of the Christian creed, that every infant is necessarily a partaker
of spiritual regeneration in and by baptism ? Where is your
Lordship's authority for such a statement, either in Holy
Scripture or in the ancient Creeds of the Chui-ch ? I am quite
aware of the citations made from both sources by heated con
troversialists, who find their own preconceived notions in every
passage that relates to the subject, but I challenge your Lord
ship to produce a single passage from either that wiU bear you
out in this assertion. Is it really a desertion of a fundamental
article of faith, to admit, that all the effects which were at one
time supposed to attend the administration of infant Baptism
do not invariably and necessarily attend it ?
Permit me, my Lord, to remark, that fundamental articles
of faith are not to be created by the dictum of any man, or
body of men. They must rest, as the Creeds themselves are
made by our Church to rest, on " most sure warrants of Holy
Scripture." And such sure warrants, or any warrant, for the
invariable spiritual regeneration of all infants in aud by Baptism,
your Lordship will certainly look for in vain.
But, my Lord, the truth is, that you have, unconsciously,
most incontrovertibly established the fact, (as I shall imme
diately show) that, according to your own view of the matter,
there has been, for even more than this period of " affectionate
friendship," no change at all. You teU us, that the " additions
and omissions " made in the 9th edition, just published, of
his Grace's work on "Apostolical preaching," make its "tone"
on the subject of Baptism " very different from that which it
exhibited" in the original work published in 1815. And
you courteously remark, that while his Grace, in his Preface,
" speaks of it as if it were still substantially the same," it will
be your " painful duty to remark on some most important
changes," &c. And your accusation is, that this change is
recent. You regret that " now," in his " advanced years and
exalted station," he should "almost contradict the sounder
teaching of his earlier years." (p. 5.) Now, my Lord, would

it not be reasonable to claim from any one coming forward
publicly to make such a charge against his Primate and former
" friend," that he should first have ascertained its truth? Is it
too much to expect from your Lordship, that when you utter the
most confident statements, and make them the ground-work
of charges of change, and insinuations of falsehood, against
your ecclesiastical superior, you should have made some inquiry
into the grounds upon which such charges rest ? Or are we
really to conclude, that your most solemn asseverations may be
uttered in a state of complete and conscious ignorance, whether
they are true or false ? Your Lordship, it seems, possesses the
first edition of the Archbishop's work, published in 1815, and
having procured a copy, or the loan of a copy, of the ninth
edition, published in 1850, you straightway publish a " Letter "
in which you compare the two editions, and then tell the world
of the " additions and omissions " made " in this new edition;"
and imply that they were made to meet the circumstances of
the case of Mr. Gorham. Such is the foundation upon which
your Lordship almost wholly rests your charge against His Grace
for contradicting in his later years the teaching of his earlier !
Now, my Lord, what is the fact ? Every one of the passages
(mththe exception of a note which, you yourself think, admits
of a sense to which you do not object) which you have quoted
as "new matter" in this "new edition," occur in every
edition of the work from the second (inclusive) published
thirty-three years ago — that is, in 1817; and therefore, ap
parently,* before the " affectionate friendship " commenced.
And the note certainly dates as far back as the edition of
1833 ; and therefore has co-existed apparently during at least
eighteen years of such " friendship."
The " new matter " in which your Lordship finds so much
unhappy obscuration, if not absolute contradiction, of the sound
views of His Grace, when your " affectionate friendship " of
nearly thirty years commenced, and in which you find " more
than one startling intimation" of His Grace's " altered view," is
just thirty-three years old, and has been seven times before
• I say apparently, because the precise dates ofthe rise and termination
of this " aflfectionate friendship " might aftord matter for controversy.

6
brought before the world in as many distinct editions of the
work — editions not published in the same day, but in different
years during that period.
And as to "omissions," there is not one, except of seven
words in one sentence ; an omission which you yourself do not
pretend to make of any moment.*
With this exception it will, I believe, be found, that the text
ofthe edition of 1850 on this subject remains as it stood in
the second edition of 1817, and the only addition consists of a
few extracts from Bradford in the notes.
So much, my Lord, for your charge of change.
But your Lordship adds still graver accusations. You openly
accuse His Grace of " rank popery " and " heresy."
His Grace, in his comment on St. John, has urged upon
those who bring children to be baptized, the duty and efficacy
of earnest prayer for obtaining a blessing for the child ; and
he adds, that if this were more " generally practised," the full
baptismal blessing would be more generally received. Your
Lordship's observation upon this passage, is, that "to re
quire as necessary to the efficacy of the baptism of infants, that
there be faith on the part of those who present them, is httle
short, if indeed short, of heresy." (p. 13.) Nay, you tell us,
that "this teaching is rank Popery, and worse than Popery,"
for whereas " the Council of Trent makes recourse to other
intercessors and mediators with God than Christ, to be no more
than a 'pious and useful practice,'" His Grace "makes it to
be necessary to salvation ;" and you " stand aghast" when you
"hear such tea"ching from such a place." (p. 14.) T\'ho can
doubt, my Lord, the salutary horror you have of everything
Popish, snuffing it even afar off at the greatest possible distance,
and the keenness of your scent upon the present occasion is
wonderful. And that Popery should have got to Lambeth,
must indeed be a sore affliction to you. You " stand aghast"
at "such teaching from such a place." But, my Lord, how mil
* In the previous editions, there was this sentence : — " It is indeed a
sufficient confutation of the doctnne of special grace, that it absolutely
nullifies the Sacrament of Baptism ; it reduces Baptism to an empty
nte, &c. In the edition of 1850, the words "it absolutelv nullifies the
feacrament of Baptism," are omitted.

you feel when I inform you, that you " stand aghast" fifteen
years too late, and that for fifteen years you have been cherish
ing this " rank Popery and worse" with your " affectionate
friendship." Yes, my Lord, all this new teaching, just con
cocted at Lambeth, has been before the world for fifteen years,
and had during all that time your " affectionate friendship !"
But let us come closer to the point. He who charges his
ecclesiastical superior with heresy, should besome what cau
tious, to say the least, that his inferences are borne out by
the passages he cites. I beg to ask your Lordship, then,
where the Archbishop has intimated in this passage, that
faith on the part of those who bring a child to baptism is
necessary to the efficacy of its baptism ? Can your Lordship
see no difference between God's giving a blessing to a child in
answer to earnest prayer, and His refusing ever to give such a
blessing in baptism except where such prayer has been offered ?
May not such a prayer bring a blessing, though it be not a
sine cpua non to the bestowal of such a blessing ? If the Arch
bishop's statement is " rank Popery," what are St. Paul's ex
hortations to intercessory prayer ? What is the language of
St. James, " The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much," — spoken of intercessory prayer ? Has your
Lordship yet to learn the distinction between the scriptural
doctrine of the duty and value of intercessory prayer and the
Popish doctrine of the mediation of dead saints, in matters
about which they know nothing, issuing in leading the people
to worship stocks and stones ? And certainly the charge of
Popery comes with but an ill grace from one who has boldly
maintained, and inculcated upon his clergy, that the doctrine
of our Church, as to the effects of Baptism, is identical with
that of the Church of Rome.
In fact, if His Grace had expressed himself in still stronger
terms, he would not have gone beyond the language of a do
cument which your Lordship's party earnestly contend for as
favoring their views, and an authority on their side of the
question ; — I mean the Cologne Liturgy. For we there find
the minister, when officiating at the rite of Infant Baptism,
directed to speak thus : " For in what place soever they that

8
believe in him come together in his name, he is present in the
midst of them ; and, when he is called upon with faith, he work
eth in his word and Sacraments, (invocatus fide efficax est in
verbo et sacramentis suis), and he performeth in deed whatso
ever he offcreth in his Sacraments and promiseth in his word."
Were Bucer and Melancthon heretics for speaking thus?
The former, indeed, if your Lordship is better acquainted mth
his views than your advocates shewed themselves to be, may
not find much favor in your eyes ; but will you stamp Me
lancthon also with the brand of heresy ?
But what has caused me still greater amazement, is the
special objection which your Lordship has adduced against
this statement of His Grace. You say, "It is to make the
first moving of God towards them^the grace annexed by
Christ to his Baptism — contingent on the intention of man."
My Lord, would any doctrine that could be devised, make the
"first moving of God towards" infants so completely dependent
upon man's will and intention, as that which absolutely pro
hibits us from supposing its existence in any case, until the
parent chooses to bring the child to Baptism, and the minister
chooses to baptize it ? According to your Lordship's doctrine,
it is entirely in the power of parents or minister to prevent
any "moving of God towards" the child at all; and equally is
it in their power to regulate the time when that "fi)-st moving"
shall take place. In fact, it is as much in their power to give
or withhold, and fix the time for, the first gift of spiritual grace,
as if they were its authors.
Your Lordship proceeds to tell His Grace, that "the shock"
under which you "stood aghast" at his "Popery," was "not
lightened" byhis adding his desire, that what he had been
stating about the importance and value of intercessory prayer
"were better understood, and this primitive, this scriptm-al,
this reasonable Baptism, more generally practised."
You object, first, to its being called "primitive," and ask
His Grace to bring any single Council or Father to counte
nance "such an assertion." If, my Lord, you refer to your
own misrepresentation of the Primate's Mords, such a question
IS intelligible, but at the same time irrelevant. That the opera-

9
tions of God are limited, in the Baptism of infants, to the case of
those for whom earnest and sincere intercessory prayer has been
offered, has never been asserted by His Grace. But I trust
that your Lordship will not venture to deny, that Baptism, so
accompanied, has the best possible claim to the title, "primi
tive Baptism ;" and that modern Christians may well be re
minded, how strongly the mode of dealing with the rite, too
frequent among them, contrasts with that which characterized
the primitive Christians.
In kindness to His Grace, however, and to facilitate his
answer to your inquiry, you present him with a specimen of
your Lordship's researches into the Councils ofthe Church, in
the following words, which are far too valuable not to be given
entire : —
" Meanwhile as you have invited a consideration ofthe doctrine
of the primitive Church on Baptism, you will not consider it irre
levant if I present you with a Canon of the Fourth Council of Car
thage — a Council, as I need not remind your Grace, received gene
rally, and one whose Canons were adopted by the General Council
of Chalcedon. The First Canon ofthe Fourth Council of Carthage,
which is thus seen to have had the authority of the whole Catholic
Church, in giving ' rules for the examination of one elected to be a
Bishop,' directs, among other things, as follows : ' Quasrendum
etiam ab eo si credat, &c. si in Baptismo omnia peccata, id est, tam
iUud originale contractum, quam ilia quse voluntarie admissa sunt,
dimittantur.' Thus it appears that no one in the primitive Church
could properly be ordained a Bishop, without its being first ascer
tained, that he believed original sin to be remitted in Baptism."
(p. 15.)
My Lord, it is deeply to be regretted, that your Lordship
does " need" frequently* to be "reminded," and to a very con
siderable extent, of matters which it might have been hoped
had been familiar to you ; for such a blunder as we have here,
proceeding from one in your Lordship's position, is a discredit
to us all. It shows a want of acquaintance with the very ele
ments of ecclesiastical literature. Are you really unconscious,
my Lord, that these African Canons formed no part of the
Code of the universal Church, no part of the Canons adopted
* See for instance the " Charge" of 1848.

10
by the General Council of Chalcedon ? Nay, they formed no
part of the Code of Canons of the African Church. Hear what
Hardouin says of the Council which you have spoken of in
such terms, —
" Of this Council Ferrandus Diaconus, Dionysius Exiguus,
the Code of Canons ofthe African Church, and all the collectors
of Canons, both Greek and Latin, are silent."* And it ap
pears from Hardouin, that the MSS. in which these Canons
are found vary much in the Title prefixed to them. Their
supposed date lies between the years 398 and 436. So that
this Canon, which is to show us what was required of every
one "in the primitive Church" before his consecration as a
bishop, was not enacted till at least the end of the fourth century.
Such, my Lord, is your Council; which you tell us you
" need not remind" his Grace was " received generally," and
its " canons adopted by the General Council of Chalcedon,"
and " had the authority of the whole CathoUc Church " ! ! A
goodly authority with which to attempt to browbeat your
Metropolitan ! A pregnant proof of your fitness for the office
you have assumed in your Letter !
My Lord, I am really ashamed for our Church in having to
expose such ignorance in one holding such a position in it.
You are unacquainted, it seems, even with the " Code of Canons
of the universal Church," and know not where to find it.
But I am forgetting that your Lordship mil perhaps ask
for some references on this point. My Lord, I beg pardon for
omitting such a necessary piece of information. Not to men
tion, then, the larger Conciliar works, let me ask you to turn
to Justelli et Voelli Bibliotheca Juris Canonici Veteris. (Paris,
1661.) Nay, it is unnecessary to go at all fui-ther than a very
common little English work, compiled for young students in
divinity, with suitable notes, by Johnson the Nonjuror, entitled
" The Clergyman's Vade-Mecwn." Let me commend to yom- at
tention his note (Pt. 3, p. 139) on the first Canon ofthe Council
of Chalcedon, where you will find what " is agreed on all hands "
in this matter.
Silent de hoc Concilio Ferrandus Diaconus, Dionysius Exiguus,
Codex Canonum Ecclesise Africanfe, omnesque Canomim CoUectores,
turn Grfcci, tuni Latini. Hard. Concil. ii. 9'b.

11
Aud now for your Canon itself. The Bishop elect is re
quired by the Canon to testify his belief that all sins, both
original and those ivhich have been voluntarily indulged, are re
mitted in Baptism. I ask you then this question. How are
" sins voluntarily indulged" remitted in Baptism ? Are they
remitted necessarily, unconditionally, by the opus operatum of
Baptism ? No. You yourself admit, that in the case of an
adult, faith and repentance are necessary for the remission of
his sins. Then, my Lord, your Canon leaves the question re
specting the effects of Baptism in infants precisely where it
found it. For the Canon no more requires the belief of the
necessary remission of sins in the case of the Baptism of
infants than in that of adults. That Baptism is the rite in
and by which the gift of remission of sins is formally made
over to mankind, no one denies. The question is, whether it
is made over necessarily and absolutely to everybody in and by
that rite. Your Lordship denies this yourself in the case of
adults. And others take the liberty of denying it also in the
case of infants. It is conditionally made over in and by
that rite to all. The words of the Canon, as Hardouin will
tell you, were directed against the Pelagian heresy, which
denied the existence of original sin. — And the Canon, my
Lord, is excellent. Have you read the whole of it ? You
have called His Grace's attention to one part, showing what a
Bishop was to teach ; may I remind your Lordship of another,
showing what a Bishop was to be ? — " Qui episcopus ordi-
nandus est, antea examinetur, si natura sit prudens, si doci-
bilis, si moribus temperatus. ... si humilis, si affabilis, si
misericors," &c. Oh! that the Canon could be made our
own! You proceed to censure a passage in a Charge of his Grace
delivered by him when Bishop of Chester, in 1841, in which
he objects to a clergyman " speaking of justification by faith as
if Baptism and newness of heart concur towards our justifica
tion." And you say you cannot understand this ; adding, —
"Baptism and newness of heart cannot 'concur towards' the
first act of ' our justification.' For ' newness of heart,' as well as
justification, is a fruit of Baptism, since Holy Scripture calls Bap
tism ' the washing of regeneration, and of the renewal by the Holy

12
Ghost ; ' and it is said to St. Paul, ' Arise, wash away thy sins." "
(pp.15, 16.)
My Lord, this passage requires the language you have your
self in the following page addressed to his Grace. " The text
which you have produced in the passage I am considering has
been, I grieve to be obliged to say, perverted by you, and
' added to' most awfully." Nay more, you have actually mis
quoted the Bible to obtain from it evidence in your favor.
" Holy Scripture," you say, " calls Baptism ' the washing of
regeneration and of the renewal by the Holy Ghost.' " My
Lord, we should hardly expect such misrepresentation and mis
quotation of Holy Scripture at an examination of a National
School. " Not by works of righteousness which we have done,"
says the apostle, " but according to his mercy he saved us, by
the washing of regeneration, and renewing ofthe Holy Ghost"
{bta Xovrpov Tra\i,yyei>€a-ia9, Kai avaKaivaxrecos HvevfxaTos ' Aytov)
(Tit. iii. 5) . Now here, first, it is a mere matter of opinion
whether the phrase "washing of regeneration" refers to Bap
tism, and according to our version and the received* punctua
tion ofthe Greek, the " renewing ofthe Holy Ghost " is spoken
of as distinct from the "washing of regeneration." But from
this you manufacture the statement, " Holy Scripture calls
Baptism 'the washing of regeneration and OF the renewal by
the Holy Ghost ! ! '" For the meaning of the phrase " wash
ing of regeneration " as applied to Baptism, and of the words
used to St. Paul, I refer to the remarks just made as to the
nature of the Baptismal rite.
But let us consider the passage itself of his Grace's Charge,
which has called forth these remarks. It is MTitten with spe
cific and expressed reference to the statements of Tract 90, a fact
which your Lordship has suppressed. Tract 90, commenting
on the Statement of Art. XL, that " ^^¦e are justified by faith
only," uses these words, — " A number of means go to effect
our justification. We are justified by Christ alone, in that he
ha.s purchased the gift ; by faith alone, in that faith asks for it ;
* I say "received," because it is not authoritative, the older MSS.
not havmg stops. Tlie punctuation therefore is open to criticism, and the
passage consequently open to lUfreicnt interpretations. But this is no
justitication of the langua-e referred to above.

13
by Baptism alone, for Baptism conveys it ; and by newness of
heart alone, for newness of heart is the life ofit." (p. 13. 3nd ed.)
His Grace, in the Appendix to his Charge in 1841, observed
upon this, that, —
" In his judgment a Clergyman would be departing from the
sense ofthe Articles to which he subscribes, if he were . . to speak of
Justification by Faith, as if Baptism and newness of heart concurred
towards our justification ; or as if ' a number of means go to effect
it.' Art. xi. ;" expressly referring here in a note to " Tract 90,
p. 13. Letter [i.e. Dr. Pusey's Letter to Dr. Jelf], 141."
This teaching he justly repudiated ; and it is not His Grace
that is responsible for the phraseology, but the author of Tract
90. His Grace says, equally with your Lordship, that " bap
tism and newness of heart" cannot " concur towards our jus
tification." But here I regret to find the agreement terminates,
for the ground on which your Lordship objects to the statement
is, that justification and newness of heart are both " fruits of
Baptism." That is, like the Romanists, you practically deny
the truth of the eleventh Article, that we are justified by faith
only. In short, you take the ground formerly occupied by the
Popish Bishop Gardiner, in his controversy with Archbishop
Cranmer, who tells the Archbishop, that his discussion of the
doctrine of Justification in the " Homily of Salvation," is
wholly unnecessary in a Church where all are baptized as
infants, " in which Sacrament of Baptism all we be justified
before we can talk of this justification we strive for." (See
Fox's Acts and Mon. Ed. 1838. vi. 49.)
And it is to defend the doctrine of Cranmer, and guard
against the introduction of Popish errors, that the Archbishop
objects to our " speaking of justification by faith," as if Baptism
concurred towards our justification, («'. e. in the sense of the
work he was quoting), as a means to effect it. Justification is
promised and given to faith; and Baptism can no more give it
than going through the form of institution can give a man a
living to which he has not been rightly presented, or which he
is not legally qualified to hold. It is not denied, but on the
contrary affirmed, by the Archbishop, that by Baptism the gift
of remission of sins is formally made over to men, in some
cases absolutely, and in all others conditionally ; but it is not.

14
properly speaking, a means to effect it. Take, for instance,
the case of an adult baptized in a state of impenitence and
unbelief. Does Baptism give him justification ? No ; your
Lordship yourself denies that it does. How and when, then,
does justification, if ever, come to him ? When he believes,
i. e. with that sincere and influential belief that is of a saving
nature. And then the covenant made in Baptism as to the
remission of sins to the penitent believer begins to take effect.
But he is justified by faith only.
That " newness of heart " is the invariable fruit of infant
Baptism, is a tenet I may safely leave undiscussed, as your
Lordship is at issue with almost everybody, deserving the name
of an authority, on that point.
Your Lordship proceeds to object to the phrase "scriptural,"
as applied to the Baptism of which His Grace speaks. Of your
repeated misstatement of His Grace's doctrine, as if it made
the efficacy oi Infant Baptism altogether dependent upon the
prayers of parents or sponsors, I take no notice ; but, giving
His Grace's words their obvious sense, I ask you whether the
term is inappropriate to describe a Baptism accompanied mth
earnest and sincere prayer, as distinguished from one per
formed in a spirit of levity and indifference. T\Tiatever your
Lordship's views may be, I shall without fear leave the public
to determine this question.
But you charge His Grace with " perverting " Scriptm-e,
and "most awfully adding to" it, because he said that our
Lord " approved of the zeal of those parents " who brought
their children to him; which, you tell us, "is not said — is not
in any way implied, in the narratives of the Evangelists. On
the contrary, they concur in representing our blessed Lord as
not even alluding to the ' zeal of the parents who brought them,'
— as confining himself altogether (as our Church expressly in
terprets it) to the innocency of the children," and you intimate
that our Church has done the same.
What, my Lord, have you already forgotten (to say nothing
of Holy Scripture) the Prayer Book, and the Baptismal Service
too ? What says that Service ? — " Beloved, ye hear in this
Go.^pel the words of our Saviour Christ; that he commanded,
&c. ; how he blamed those that would hare kipt them jrom him

15
 Wherefore we  nothing doubting but that he favour
ably alloweth this charitable work of ours in bringing this infant
to his Holy Baptism, let us," &c. And are we to be told by
a Bishop of our Church, that there is " in this Gospel " no
intimation of approval ofthe zeal of those parents that brought
their children to Christ, and that our Church avoids any inti
mation of a similar kind ? My Lord, such attacks can injure
only him who makes them.
That this language impHes, that Christ's blessing was de
pendent upon the feelings of the parent, is an inference for
which your Lordship alone is responsible; and one which
touches the Prayer Book as much as the Archbishop.
But then, the worst of all, it seems, is, that His Grace has
actually used the term " this reasonable Baptism," and you
warn him against having anything to do with " human reason "
in such matters ; this " rationahzing process " you " leave to
the schools of modern Germany and Geneva."
My Lord, you stand wholly acquitted of having had any
communings with " human reason " in this matter. But why,
let me ask, do you not quarrel first with St. Paul for having
adopted such a " rationalizing process " as to remind Chris
tians of their "reasonable service" (ttji" XoytKrjv Xarpeiav),
(Rom. xii. 1)), a passage which His Grace evidently had in
his mind when he wrote what has called forth your Lordship's
indignation ? And when you have settled your difference with
the Apostle, then surely it will be time enough, after con
victing the Apostle, to commence with the Archbishop.
And do you really think it a "rationalizing process,"
worthy only of "modern Germany and Geneva," to exhort
Christians that reason as well as Scripture requires, that when
they offer their infants to God for his blessing, they should seek
that blessing by earnest prayer ? My Lord, " modern Ger
many and Geneva" are under great obligations to you for the
admission, but far otherwise the Church of England.
You add two objections to what you call His Grace's
" scheme " of making the efficacy of infant Baptism dependent
upon the prayers of those who bring them; but as the
" scheme" is your Lordship's, and not His Grace's, manufac
tured by yourself for the purpose of casting reproach upon

16
your Primate, I leave them at your Lordship's disposal for
some other occasion, and am glad to assure you, that your
fearful anticipations of having to " shudder " when the answer
is given, will not be realized.
But the worst part of this " new matter," (which, neverthe
less, like the rest, antedates the " affectionate friendship " of
thirty years) remains yet to be told, and which yom- Lordship
has " read with more surprise and concern than any other."
(p. 30.) His Grace has actually referred, in proof of a fact,
(that is, " the abuse of Baptism by some mistaken Christians in
the fourth and fifth centuries") to Gibbon ; and then, of course,
as Gibbon was an infidel, and nobody ever reads or quotes Gib
bon but those who have some regard for his irrehgious views,
it stands to reason, that His Grace, who is already proved to be
so fond of the rationalizing processes of modern Germany and
Geneva, must befar gone towards infidelity ! Alarming discovery!
But, my Lord, is it Gibbon's name, or the fact, which causes
so much pain ? I suspect the latter. It touches a tender
point, — " the abuse of Baptism ;" and moreover, it cannot be
denied that it is " a fact ;" for your Lordship admits, that "the
Fathers of the Church sufficiently avouch it," which makes the
matter more trying ; and, therefore, to get consolation out of
it, you set about proving that even this abuse shows, that the
Sacrament of Baptism " was, and is, a great ' reality,' " which
I would humbly suggest that nobody denies. But it seems
that the Archbishop has ventured to say, that the " abuse of
baptism" thus referred to, (i. e. men waiting to receive it till on
their death-bed ; and fancying that they should thus get full
remission of sins when all opportunity for sinning more had
passed away) is a " lamentable evidence of the facility with
which mankind run away from realities to ceremonies, and
content themselves with the shadow ofthe spiritual substance."
And your Lordship indignantly asks how he "can permit"
himself to say this. What, my Lord, does this grate upon
your ears ? Are you really prepared to maintain, that Baptism
under such circumstances is more than a "ceremony;" aye,
than an impious mockery of God, calculated to bring in
creased condemnation ; that it is more than "the shadow ofthe
spiritual s\iljstance ?" Be it so, then, my Lord. God grant.

17
that His Grace and all to whom the Church of Christ would wish
God-speed, may ever bear the reproach of differing from you !
To prove that the preaching to people as if they were all
regenerate persons, has no tendency to " lull them into a falla
cious security" (as His Grace has stated it to have) you assm-e
him that you never found a single instance of its so doing.
My Lord, I believe that both you and others may have rarely
found any openly resting on such a ground of hope. And for
this reason, — that there are few, comparatively very few, un
godly persons who really believe what I must be permitted to
call the false doctrine of those who would fain teach them,
that they are spiritually regenerate persons. Their conscience,
their common sense, tells them that they are not. But, my
Lord, the false teacher is no less responsible for his erroneous
instruction. The character and the tendency of such teaching
are not to be thus disproved. Nor will I waste time in dis
cussing the question whether few or many are misled by it.
Your Lordship proceeds to criticise the Preface prefixed by
His Grace, to his recent Edition of his work on Apostolical
preaching. And your first charge is one of self-contradiction. His Grace
here says, that though he does not concur in the view, he
"cannot doubt that a minister of our Chm-ch may justly
maintain," that in infants "the spiritual benefit of baptism, 'a
death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,' is only
received where there has been an antecedent act of grace on
the part of God." This, you say, contradicts a statement in the
work itself, as to Baptism conveying regeneration, (pp.33, 33.)
But how is this ? You, my Lord, at least, cannot assert
that the Archbishop has, in his Preface, contradicted the teach
ing of his work, taken (as it ought to be) as a whole. For you
have quoted passages from his work, which have occurred in
every Edition from the second in 1817 inclusive, as maintaining
the very doctrine which he advocates in this Preface. And for
once you are right. You have successfully proved, that so long
ago as 1817, His Grace expressed sentiments of a similar kind
to those contained in the Preface he has just prefixed to the

18
last Edition of his work. But your misfortune is, that when you
are right, you have just proved what you did not want to prove.
You have proved that there has been no change for more than
thirty years. If there is contradiction, at any rate it existed,
according to your own showing, when your " affectionate friend
ship" commenced thirty years ago.
You say, my Lord, that there are two different views main
tained in the Book ; and you tell us that certain passages (which
you charge HisGrace with first introducing into the Edition just
pubhshed, but which in reality were in the book more than
thirty years ago) are in agreement with the statements of the
Preface just prefixed. Then, my Lord, according to your own
admission, you have at least His Grace's determination to
which of the two views he adheres in his mature age. What
more do you want ? The utmost that can fairly be said is,
that when, upon a reconsideration of the arguments of others,
new matter was introduced in the second edition, derived from
a more favourable view of the force of those arguments, it was
not observed, that some ofthe previous statements might need
modification. Nor have you properly attended to the distinction, that is so
necessary, between ivhat His Grace has put forward as his own
vieio, and what he has maintained fo be allowable in others as
reconcileable with an honest subsci'iption to our Formularies.
Your next charge is, that His Grace has said that " Scripture
declares the general necessity of Baptism, without determining
the actual effect of infant Baptism." And having first shown that
"due reverence" you profess yourself so desirous of always giving
to your Primate, by sarcastically reminding him of the assent
and consent he has given to the Book of Common Prayer, you
cite the Rubric, — "It is certain, by God's word, that children
which arc baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are
undoubtedly saved;"— and you ask, whether this Rubric does
not declare that Scripture does determine the actual effect of
infant Baptism. You would " be sorry to deem it possible "
that he should say it does not. You will not "listen to the
avowal" but from his "own lips," orbis "own pen." You
"wait" for the "answer."

19
My Lord, it needs no information from His Grace to enable
any one to assure you, that you vsdll have to "wait" a long
time. And you may well rest more than satisfied with silence.
But, as to the question you propose, you tell us yourself,
that His Grace has " already said so by implication," by having
"consented to the Judgment of the Judicial Committee."
The public, my Lord, will need nothing more in the shape of
an answer. They are well aware, that, whatever may be the
habits of others. His Grace does not say by implication what
he does not believe. You will stand alone, therefore, in seek
ing any further answer.
The Rubric itself I shall consider hereafter, when meeting
your Lordship's objections to the remarks made upon it in the
Judgment which has called forth this unseemly attack upon the
Primate. To that Judgment you now proceed to call attention ; and
you accompany your remarks with the following specimen of
your respect and obedience for the authorities under which the
Providence of God has placed you, and before whom you
recently, without protest, pleaded your cause. Of a Judgment
put forth by Her Majesty in Council, under the advice of five
of her principal lay Judges, and both the Archbishops, you use
the following language : —
You tell the Primate, that "instead of leading," he "misled
those whom he was to instruct, not only by mis-stating the
matters on which he advised, but also by mis-quoting all, or
almost all, the authors cited by him in confirmation of his
statement " (p. 35) ; that he has " sanctioned a decision that
the Church ever which he presides is no part of the Church
of Christ ;" and " done all which a declaration of his could do
to cut off the Church in which he occupies the highest place,
from communion with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
of all ages " (pp. 26, 37) ; that his " advice" to the Judicial
Committee " was founded on grounds which you forbear to cha
racterise, but which, even if they were true, were nihil ad rem ; "
(p. 38) ; that he " permitted " the Judges " to deceive them
selves grossly." (p. 63.)
c3

20
You tell Her Majesty, and the eminent Judges that advised
her on this occasion, that their Judgment is one "marked by
the most palpable misapprehensions, and therefore mis-state
ments of doctrine, and by omissions, unparalleled in any other
similar document, of the true grounds on which justice required
that the Judgment should be founded ;" that it puts forth " a
false and destructive declaration" (p. 36) ; that they "wan
tonly, and in spite of warning, omitted to give attention to a
conclusive Canon ;" and that, " for neglecting it — for deciding
in contempt of it — you scruple not to say, whatever may be
the legal consequences of so saying of such men, that they
were guilty of a grievous violation of their plain
DUTY," and " have given a Judgment on grounds directly con
tradictory to the law of the Church " (pp. 63, 64) ; that their
Judgment is not a precedent, but a warning — a warning to
future Judges to be content with doing their duty as Judges,
which duty is to administer, not to make, laws ; to beware of
listening to clamours from without, or timid caution from
within" (p. 64) ; and you " aver " your " behef," " that other
motives besides mere justice and truth swayed this sentence,
and His Grace in his advice upon it," being "so grievous a per
version of justice." (p. 79.) And, finally, you protest against
it, and avow your intention of disobeying it and setting at
defiance your Primate and your Sovereign.
My Lord, it may be that such language will be permitted
to pass without legal notice. But it will only be on one
ground— that its character, and the quarter from which it pro
ceeds, render it harmless. Among all the ravings of disap
pointed and infuriated Chartists, when the majesty of the law
has put an end to their plans of tumult and revolution, I doubt
whether anything could be found exceeding in violence these
emanations from a Christian Bishop. My Lord, if you have
no regard for your own character, at least remember what is
due to the Church in which you bear so high an office. Is it
in the same breath in which you give vent to such statements as
these, that you venture to remind others of the Catechism and
the Canons ? Is it with such language as this upon your lips,
that you complain of others neglecting their duty, and allowing
themselves to be led away by private feehngs and motives ?

21
And what, after all, is the effect of this Judgment upon
your position ? Simply this. You had made a Procrustean
bed without any authority, to which you were resolved to fit
every body that came to your diocese. Woe to the man that
was either too long or too short. The only choice was the
rack or the knife. Unfortunately for your Lordship, one came
who was resolved to test your right to either rack or knife,
and the consequence is, that you have been most wisely de
prived of both. Do you really suppose, my Lord, that your
violent outcries will cause their restoration ? Rather are they
an additional proof of the necessity of taking them from you.
The parties whom you have been seeking to drive out
of the Church, would sooner have cut off their right hands
than broken'out into such contemptuous revilings against the
authorities under which God has placed them. Prepared they
were, and that in no inconsiderable numbers, to quit a Church
that should make your Lordship's doctrine on the subject of
Baptism its own. Doubtless, also, they would have con
sidered a Judgment that limited the interpretation of our
Articles and Formularies to a sense which would have excluded
the very men who drew them up, erroneous and unjust. But
one thing they certainly would not have done; they would not
have imputed to the Judges unworthy motives and a wanton
disregard to the principles of justice. Least of all would they
have hurled defiance at their Sovereign, and a sentence of ex
communication against their ecclesiastical rulers. While they
would have advocated the rights of conscience and sought to
maintain the truth, they would have done so like peaceable
citizens, like men who endeavoured to obey the precepts of their
holy religion as well as to uphold its trutlis.
But I proceed at once to your arguments.
His Grace has remarked in his Preface (which your Lord
ship connects with the Judgment, I suppose, from the simi
larity ofthe quotations made in the two), that, —
" Unquestionably there is much difficulty, much mystery in the
case, as regards the Baptism of infants ; a difficulty which many
divines have solved, by supposing that the spiritual benefit of Bap
tism, ' a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness,' is only

22
received where there has been an antecedent act of grace on the
part of God."
And then he proceeds to cite a few passages in proof of the
truth of this remark.
Your Lordship observes, that if this were so, it would prove
nothing in Mr. Gorham's case, as this is no^ his view ; and
you quote passages from his answers to your questions to
prove that such is the fact.
My Lord, it will, I think, be convenient if I enter at once
upon the question, what are Mr. Gorham's views ; and how
far your Lordship has, in a subsequent part of your Letter
(pp. 48 — 53), correctly stated them. It is impossible clearly
to understand the point at issue, or the relevancy of the proofs
and arguments that may be adduced on either side, without
having before our eyes the real sentiments of both parties,
disengaged from the imputations and glosses which may be
attached to their words. Your Lordship brings two accusa
tions against Mr. Gorham ; which you state thus : —
" I. Whereas the Nicene Creed declares that there is ' one Bap
tism for the remission of sins,' . . . Mr. Gorham denies that it is
remitted in Baptism to any. For he holds . . . that those infants
only who receive Baptism rightly, i. e. having had an act of prae-
venient grace, receive any benefit from it." " II. The o-ifts
which the Catholic Church, and in it our own, has ever taught and
does teach to be given by God in and by the Sacrament of
Baptism, Mr. Gorham teaches to be given before Baptism, when
ever Baptism is received rightly ; ascribing these gifts either to the
prsevenient act of grace, which, as to infants, he has adopted from
the inventions of men, not from the Word of God, or to faith,
which our Church declares that infants cannot have. These gifts
are ' remission of sins,' or justification ; being * born again,' or re
generation ; being made ' the child of God,' or adoption. Of these
Mr. Gorham declares that regeneration takes place before Baptism,
through the act of praevenient grace, in direct contradiction to our
Lord's words (according to the sense of the whole Church and our
own Baptismal Office), • Except a man be born of water and the
Spirit.' Thus he separates regeneration whollv from Baptism, as
in no way an effect ofit, since, according to him, it precedes it."

23
And you add, that he speaks in the same way of " the new
nature," "adoption," and "remission of sins," &c. And
therefore you say that you rejected him because, —
" 1st. That by declaring original sin to be a hindrance to the
benefit of Baptism, he denied the Article of the Creed, ' One Bap
tism for the remission of sins ;' 2d. That he separated entirely ' the
inward and spiritual grace ' from the Sacrament, inasmuch as he
stated ' regeneration ' to precede Baptism, when Baptism was
rightly received." (See pp. 48 — 52.)
These are your charges, and you tell us that you can " hardly
describe, with what amazement you found these heresies glossed
over, or almost unnoticed, in the Judgment," and wonder how
the Archbishop can have been " betrayed into countenancing
such entire mis-statement of [Mr. Gorham's] unsound doc
trine," as that given in the Judgment.
My Lord, the great question is, on which side lies the guilt
of the incorrect " gloss." And I must also add, that some of
your Lordship's statements, in this endeavour to convict Mr.
Gorham of heresy, are calculated to excite equal " amazement "
with any which your Lordship can have felt in reading the
Judgment. But I will let that pass, and proceed to show the
way in which yourself and others, labouring to establish your
opus operatum doctrine of this sacrament, have misrepresented
Mr. Gorham's views by a partial and defective exhibition of
them. My Lord, you need not to be informed, that there are two
different views on this subject, characterizing the schools to
which you and Mr. Gorham respectively belong, (of any others
I am not now speaking) which, in general terms, may be thus
stated. The former is, that the Sacrament of Baptism is by God's
appointment, and affixed grace, the primary source of all life-
giving influence to man ; so that in and by Baptism, that is,
the opus operatum of the Baptismal Act, and by that alone,
remission of sins and spiritual regeneration are absolutely, and
without reference to conditions or qualifications, conferred upon
man. And that this is the meaning of the Article of the

24
Nicene Creed, "One Baptism for the remission of sins."
Every one baptized is ipso facto spiritually regenerated. The
obvious repulsiveness, however, of such a notion in the case of
adults, has induced the majority of those who inchne in the direc
tion of this view, to stop short at the case of infants, and to deny
this doctrine in the case of adults. Among these is your Lord
ship, though many of your statements are consistent only with
the former view. And thereby you nullify at once a large number
of your proofs and arguments, and make your reference to the
Creed palpably absurd ; for if fhe words themselves, taken alone,
prove that remission of sins is necessarily given in the case of
infants, they must prove the same in the case of adults. This
your advocate, Mr. Badeley, clearly saw ; and, therefore, to pre
serve consistency in his argument, boldly stood to the whole doc
trine in all its integrity. And if your Lordship wishes to see this
doctrine fully insisted on, without any timid reservations or
scruples, such as have usually been observable even in authors
of this school, I commend you to Archdeacon Wilberforce's
last work. You will there find how entirely reconcileable it is
both with reason and revelation, that everybody baptised should
be in and by Baptism spiritually regenerated, and have all the
powers of their nature renovated, and have "Christ dwelling in
them," even though their will remains corrupt and they maybe
none the better for it.* But this by the way.
The other view is, that the Sacrament of Baptism has been
appointed by God as the rite by which the pri^'ilege of sonship,
with its accompanying blessings, is formally made over to man,
af once and absolutely to those who by God's previous favor
have been placed in a position which causes the rite to be effi
cacious, and who possess (jod's, grant ofthe privilege, and condi
tionally, that is, upon the conditions of subsequent faith and
repentance, to all. But no opus operatum efficacy is conceded
to the rite itself. The privilege of sonship is given by it, but
* I would here observe, that I fully purpose taking an early oppor
tunity of further noticing this work; but partly from other occupations,
and partly from wishing to meet at the same time other remarks that
might be made on my work on Baptism, I have hitherto delayed doing
so ; not fearing, I must confess, that such views as those I have noticed
above would be likely to gain many converts.

25
only upon the strength of and in accordance with the grant of
that privilege by God. That privilege is absolutely made over
by it only where it has been previously, or at the time, granted
by God, — a grant independent of Baptism. And where it is
conditionally made over, the rite has efficacy, only when, — the
condition being, by God's grace, fulfilled, — the actual grant is
made by God.
This doctrine, then, leads in the case of infants to more than
one view as to the effects of Baptism upon them. By some it is
held, that all infants of a Christian parent* are so within the
bond of the covenant, that the guilt of original sin, under which
they are born, will not be imputed to them, the apostle dis
tinctly representing such as " holy" (1 Cor. vii. 14), and conse
quently, that in Baptism the remission of original sin (with
which alone they can be chargeable) is in all cases formally
made over to them. They do not, however, consider this to be
equivalent to spiritual regeneration. Others, however, not
prepared to maintain that all these infants are in such a posi
tion by their birth of a Christian parent, believe, that as in
the case of an adult, there must be some previous grant of
grace by God, in order that there may be a present and abso
lute beneficial effect from Baptism, so we must suppose the same
to be necessary in the case of infants, who, being by nature
under the guilt of original sin, cannot be considered as neces
sarily entitled to the remission of sin and the gift of spiritual
life in and by Baptism. This latter is Mr. Gorham's view.
It is clear, then, how easy it is for an antagonist of very
moderate acuteness, by directing attention to certain words
used in different senses, and keeping out of sight the general
doctrine held, to make the views of one who holds tenets of
this kind appear very different from what they are in reality.
Thus your Lordship charges Mr. Gorham with denying
that anything is ever given in Baptism, because he attributes
regeneration and adoption to a prsevenient act of Divine grace.
But this is palpably incorrect. These blessings are not, in-
* There is no sufficient scriptural authority for the baptism of any
infants but those of a Christian parent, except under peculiar circum
stances.

26
deed, supposed by him to be given in Baptism, in the sense
in which your Lordship required him to admit that they were ;
but he does not deny that they are, in suitable cases, formally
made over, and in that sense given, in and by Baptism. And his
denials that they are ever given in or by Baptism are, clearly,
directed only against that opus operatum doctrine of your Lord
ship with which he had to contend ; not against that view of their
being given by Baptism, which I must be permitted to call the
orthodox one. When considering his answers, we must keep in
mind the animus and intentions vrith which the questions were
put to him, and judge accordingly of their meaning. And we
meet, in more than one place, with intimations of his mind in
this matter. Thus, in a passage quoted by your Lordship (p.
51), he says, " the blessing of ' adoption' also precedes Baptism
in its essence [observe the limitation] , but it is declared, attested,
and manifested by that sacrament as (ordained to be) a seal or
sign of the gift ;" and then he adds (what your Lordship has
omitted to cite, though it is part of the sentence), " which I
maintain to be a very different proposition from this other,
namely, that the blessing of regeneration or adoption to be a
member of the family of God, is to be ascribed to Baptism."
Here we see what it was he was opposing — your Lordship's
opus operatum doctrine of ascribing all these blessings to Bap
tism ; and therefore he is so cautious in the expressions he
uses as to the effects of Baptism, that he might not give the
smallest countenance to such unsound doctrine.*
Impartial persons, my Lord, could see this ; and therefore
the eminent Judges who had to decide the question of his
orthodoxy, took that which was the only fair and just course.
They viewed his statements as a whole ; they saw what he was
contending against, and therefore the reason for his cautious
language ; and, by a just and fair mode of reasoning from his
answers, taken together, they correctly deduced his doctrine.
And because it is a fair representation of it, you and others
* Hence the apparent contradiction in the statements, that adoption,
&c. may be given before or m or after Baptism (Exam. p. 71.), and that
.¦uloiition is iiot given in Baptism (p. 113), is onhj apparent and not real.
The former relates to the Divine grant, the latter to the mere opus ope
ratum of the Baptismal act.

27
quarrel with it. Like too many hot and prejudiced controver
sialists, you want to give such a description of it as will do it
most damage, and therefore you give isolated portions of his
statements, which, taken alone, and with your interpretation of
their meaning, would give an erroneous impression of his views.
My Lord, it is perfectly true, that, in the sense in which you
use fhe word "given," nothing is ever given to man, woman,
or child, by Baptism ; that is, nothing is given through the
mere performance of ike Baptismal act. But there is no denial
here that in the proper sense of the word " given," as apphed
to the Sacrament of Baptism, a great deal is given by Baptism.
There is no denial here of its value and efficacy for the purpose
for which it was instituted.
That Baptism is the formal and official act by which the
minister, acting in the name and authority of Christ, gives re
mission of sins, is denied by no one with whom we are now con
cerned. But the act is a ministerial act, and its value depends
upon its being subservient to a Divine grant made before, or
in, or after the act, on grounds agreeable to the Divine will,
whatever we may consider them to be. Mr. Gorham does not
deny that remission of sins is given by Baptism, in the sense
in which alone the phrase can be scripturally used. But he
denies it in the sense for which your Lordship contended ; that
is, in the opus operatum sense of the Church of Rome. He
denies what youx Lordship, with the Church of Rome, in effect
though not in words, maintains, — that every minister of Christ
has power and authority given him by God to make over to
any infant, at his pleasure, remission of sins and spiritual rege
neration, by performing upon him the rite of Baptism ; and
that God's acts are dependent upon those ofthe minister ; which
is, in fact, a daring assumption of the Divine prerogative to
forgive sins, cloaked only by the thin veil of the admission that
the performance of a certain rite is necessary for the exercise
of that prerogative.
My Lord, the Article of the Creed, to which you refer, will
prove nothing for your cause. Do the words, " One Baptism
for the remission of sins," prove that every one baptized has
remission of his sins ? No ; you yourself admit that they do
not in the case of adults. Neither, therefore, do they of ne-

28
cessity in the case of infants. Moreover, whence are these
words taken ? Clearly from Acts ii. 38. " Then Peter said
unto them. Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins {eis aipeaiv
apapTLcov), and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
So the Creed says, 'OixoXoyovpev ev fia-nTia-fxa ets a<j)e(nv
ajxapTiuiv. Precisely so ; " Repent," and then, as God has pro
mised forgiveness to repentance, the rite of Baptism will for
mally and visibly make over to you remission of sins. But the
gift of remission comes really and truly through repentance,
and only visibly, formally, and ministerially through Baptism.
Take the case of St. Paul. What was our Lord's testimony
to Ananias respecting him before his Baptism ? He is " a
chosen vessel unto me, &c." (Acts ix. 15.) But Ananias, after
hearing these words, when he comes to him, says, " Arise, and
be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord." (Acts xxii. 16.) Remission of sins was given to him
formally, and visibly, and officially by Baptism. Why ? On
a(3count of Baptism itself ? No ; but because he was in the
eye of God an accepted person. To use the words of P.
Lombard himself (spoken with reference to a similar case),
"ante intus erafjudicio Dei, sed nunc etiam judicio Ecclesia
intus est."
Again; what does St. Peter say? "The like figure where
unto, even Baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting
away of the filth ofthe flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." (1 Pet.
iii. 31.) It is not the outward rite, but " the answer of a
good conscience toward God," that brings the blessing.
The case of infants, therefore, must be judged of accordingly.
And if your Lordship had taken the ground that our infants are
the proper subjects of Baptism as the children of Christians, inas
much as such children are called " holy" by the apostle, and
are to be considered as interested while infants in the Covenant
made with their parents,* so that they must be viewed as, to a
certain extent, objects ofthe Divine mercy, and therefore that
Baptism seals and makes over to them the remission ofthe guilt
* It should be remembered, that the chief arguments for the practice
of Infant Baptism are derived from these considerations.

29
of original sin, your Lordship would have stood on very different
ground from that on which you now stand. But this doctrine
you distinctly repudiate. Nothing will satisfy you, but the ab
solute power of giving remission of sins to every infant at your
sovereign will and pleasure, by the mere act of baptizing it. And
further, the question, be it remembered, between your Lordship
and Mr. Gorham, is not, what precise view has the best foun
dation to rest upon ; but whether Mr. Gorham's view is not
tenable in strict consistency with all the Articles and Formu
laries of the Church of England. And the truth is, that it has
been undeniably held in our Church by multitudes of our most
eminent divines from the period of the Reformation.
Moreover, beyond all this, the doctrine which your Lordship
has been endeavouring to force on Mr. Gorham and the Church,
is, that every infant is, of necessity, in and by Baptism, made
partaker of spiritual regeneration in its highest sense of im
parting a new nature ; which is a totally distinct question from
that which relates to the remission of the guilt of original sin
in Baptism, on which you and your party are now almost solely
insisting ; but which you can never prove to be required to be
held by all who minister in our Church, even in the limited sense
to which I have just alluded.
Look, my Lord, at the consequences of your doctrine. You
say, for instance, that spiritual regeneration is given, and only
given, in and by Baptism. Take, then, the case of an impeni
tent and unbeheving adult, not yet baptized. Does Baptism
confer upon him the gift of spiritual regeneration? Your
Lordship admits that it does not. Then, if such a man after
wards repents and believes, he must be rebaptized to obtain
spiritual regeneration. But rebaptization you acknowledge to
be inadmissible. Consequently you deny the possibihty of
such a man ever obtaining spiritual regeneration, even if he
afterwards repent and believe.
And your admission that spiritual regeneration is not in all
cases the necessary effect of Baptism, nullifies more than half
your proofs and arguments for the inseparability of spiritual
regeneration from infant Baptism ; because they apply to the
case of Baptism generally, and therefore, if you admit that
they are to be understood with a limitation in the case oi adults,

30
they will not prove that spiritual regeneration always attends
infant Baptism ; but you are driven to rest the onus of proof
on an entirely different consideration, that is, on an unsup
ported assumption as to the state of infants, contradicting the
doctrine of original sin. Mr. Badeley, therefore, resolving to
be at least consistent in his arguments, boldly maintained that
spiritual regeneration was given in and by Baptism, even to im
penitent and unbelieving adults. And your Lordship has no
option, but either to relinquish your doctrine, or to do the
same. Again ; mark the self-contradiction in which you are in
volved. You say that all infants receive remission of sin and
spiritual regeneration in and by Baptism, because of their inno
cency (pp. 17, 18), and yet that the guilt of original sin rests
upon them in all its force, until it is w^ashed away by Baptism.
They are guilty, but yet they are innocent beings. This is
the consequence of your incorrect view of the natm-e of the
Baptismal rite, to which, in itself, you ascribe everj^thing.
View it in its true light, as the public and formal act by which
the minister makes over the Divine grant, in some cases abso
lutely and at once, and in all others conditionally, and we see
at once how infants may be considered as washed fi-om the
guilt of original sin by their Baptism, aud yet may have had a
previous interest in the Divine favour, either (as Mr. Gorham
holds) from a prsevenient act of Divine grace, or as the chil
dren of a believing parent, or otherwise. And thus we are not
required to suppose them innocent, to make them suitable reci
pients of the Divine blessing, and at the same time guilty, to
make them need remission of sins.
And there is this ludicrous inconsistency in your Lordship's
statements. That while you are professedly contending for a
high view of the efficacy of the Sacrament of Baptism, over
stating it in the case of infants, you are making it a nullity in
the case of unbelieving adults. For spiritual regeneration being,
according to your notion, the effect of Baptism, if that is not
given, nothing is given. Now, my Lord, even in their case it
is not a nullity. For this is made over even fo them in it,
that, upon faith and repentance, they shall have remission of
sins. They so far become interested in the Gospel Covenant,

31
that it is confirmed and sealed to them individually in and by
Baptism. Otherwise they ought, upon faith and repentance,
to be re-baptized. In all cases it is " baptism for the remis
sion of sins." And the benefit of it is enjoyed by them as
soon as their state corresponds with its conditions.
And so with our infants. They are all made partakers of an
interest in the Gospel Covenant in and by Baptism, so far as this,
that they have a right by promise to all its blessings, so soon as
their state corresponds with its conditions. Their state may cor
respond with its conditions at the moment of Baptism, having
been made so in or even before Baptism ; for who shall dare to
limit the Holy One of Israel in his gifts ? Or it may not so cor
respond with its conditions till some years after. And this is
what is meant when it is said (as by Mr. Gorham) that spiritual
regeneration may take place in, or before, or after Baptism.
There is no denial here that the gift of spiritual regeneration,
even where made, in one sense, previous to baptism, is sealed
and formally made over in and by Baptism, and therefore may
be said to be conferred sacramentally by Baptism. And where
regeneration takes place after Baptism, there it is made over
conditionally in and by Baptism. The privilege of sonship is
given sacramentally, and therefore the party is made, in the eye
ofthe Church, a member of Christ and a child of God ; but the
real enjoyment of the privilege is postponed and conditional.
That regeneration may be granted previous to Baptism, and
yet be properly said to be formally made over by Baptism, we
may see by comparing Baptism with the required form of
admission into any society or brotherhood to which the right
of nomination lies with the Sovereign, and for which certain
qualifications are necessary. There are certain officers ap
pointed, whose duty it is to perform the required form of
admission. Does the performance of that form make any one
a member of that society ? Doubtless in one sense it does.
It is, in fact, the appointed mode of entry into it. The public
do not recognize any one as belonging to it, until he has been,
in this way, introduced into it. And, strictly speaking, he
does not belong to it, before he has been thus made a member of
it. But is he made a member of the society by the mere opus

32
operatum of going through this form ? No; in that sense the
performance of the rite does not ever give it to him. And in
this sense (which is your Lordship's sense), Mr. Gorham most
justly denies that Baptism ever gives spiritual regeneration.
There must be in the party who goes through the form the
necessary qualifications and the necessary nomination by the
Sovereign, or the form, of itself, the mere opus operatum, will
do nothing.
But are we to be told that those who should speak of the
form in such terms would make it a thing of no value, of no
efficacy — a mere form, bestowing nothing ? No ; it is ofthe
greatest value and efficacy ; it gives the privilege of brother
hood ; but only where the due qualifications are present, and
only in the way of an instrument by which a gift previously
bestowed by the Sovereign is formally made over.
The object for which I bring this illustration,* is to show
that it may be held, that spiritual regeneration has been given
before Baptism, and yet that in that same case the party bap
tized is made the son of God in and by Baptism ; because the
former words refer to God's original act, corresponding to the
act ofthe Sovereign in the case of which we have been speaking;
and the latter to the act of the Chm-ch which, as God's minis
ter, publicly and formally makes over to the party that which
God had given.
And we must observe, that, as it respects Baptism, the per
formance of the rite makes over the blessings of the Covenant
conditionally to all who partake of it.
All that is necessary to understand this matter aright is,
to keep in view the real nature of the Baptismal rite ; that
it is not a rite by the mere use of which man can absolutely
give to whom he pleases, even in the case of infants, the bless
ings of God's covenant of mercy; but is the rite by which
the blessings of the Covenant are publicly and formally made
over to man in accordance with the terms of the Cove
nant; in some cases absolutely and at once, and in others

* I mention this, because I do not bring forward the illustration as
holding good in every respect.

33
conditionally. Almost all the errors respecting Baptism arise
from its not being viewed as only the instrument by which
God's gifts are bestowed in the way and upon the terms that
are accordant with his promises.
The case of infants may be illustrated by that of adults.
Baptism is the rite which, by the appointment of God, makes
over to men, publicly and formally, the privilege of being sons
of God and members of Christ. Consequently, if you baptize
a number of adults, you call them all, after their Baptism, mem
bers of Christ and children of God ; and you say, and justly
say, that they were made so in and by their Baptism, that
being the rite appointed by God for admission to such a state.
But will you affirm dogmatically, that they are all, of neces
sity, true members of Christ and children of God ? You are con
scious that you could not do so. Yet, nevertheless, if you were
to draw up a Catechism for their use, you would speak of what
took place in Baptism precisely as you do in the Catechism
for children in the Prayer Book. It would be understood as a
matter of course, that the language was used on the hypothesis
that Baptism had been rightly received, and had therefore
really made over this character to the baptized; while
the fact would be, that such character had only been, in
many cases, conditionally made over, and the parties might
really be, in the sight of God, though not in the eye of
the Church, " in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of ini
quity." Is there anything unintelligible, anything disinge
nuous, in this ? The disingenuousness, my Lord, would be in
those who, for the purpose of maintaining the false doctrine
that all adults are of necessity made really and truly and ab
solutely members of Christ and children of God by their Bap
tism, charged others with perverting such language, because
they received it in a sacramental sense. Apply, then, the same
reasoning to the case of infants.
And further, in the case of adults, it is clearly seen, that the
supposition of an act of prsevenient regenerating grace before
Baptism, is perfectly consistent with the view, that regenera
tion, or the privilege of being members of Christ and children
of God, is publicly and formally made over to men in and by
D

84
Baptism ; and that Baptism, even in cases where it is imme
diately effectual, is only the instrument by which a gift, which
in a sense is already possessed, is publicly and formally made
over. The inward and spiritual grace of Baptism is the
being made members of Christ and children of God ; and the
outward rite of Baptism is the means by which that grace is
publicly and formally made over to men ; and a pledge to assure
us of its reception — of its immediate reception, if our state is
at the time such as is requisite for its reception, and at least of
its future reception, if our state, though not such then, should
afterwards become so.
But that such a privilege should be, at the moment of Bap
tism, absolutely made over to adults, it is necessary that rege
nerating grace should have heen previously received, and there
fore that, in the eye of God, the party baptized should be a
person spiritually regenerate ; his condition being, in fact,
precisely similar to that of one who presents himseK to receive
formal admission into a society or body of which he has a right,
by the grant of the proper authority and the possession of the
necessary qualifications, to demand to be made a member.
Technically, no doubt, he is not a member until he has gone
through the required form of admission ; but by right, and
intrinsically, he is. And so we find St. Peter grounding the
claim of Cornelius and his friends to Baptism, upon their hav
ing already " received the Holy Ghost." (Acts x. 47.) And
Cyril of Jerusalem, referring to this case, says that St. Peter
directed him to be baptized, " in order that, his soul having
BEEN REGENERATED through faith, his body also might,
through Baptism, receive grace."* And in the context he dis
tinctly recognizes the separability of the outward Baptism and
the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit.f
And how little idea the early Fathers had of intimating, that
regenerating grace was not possessed before Baptism, when they
* 'Ij/a, rrjs ^v^ris Bin rrjs ma'recos avayevvq6ei,ar)S, /ifToXa/Si; Km to (rcofia
Sm Tov iiSaros TTji vapiros. Cyril. IIieros. Catech. 3. § 2. ed. 1703.
p. 36.
t On John iii. 5. he remarks, — Ovhe Tin iSan fianTi^ojj.ivos, pr] Kara-
^ttodeis fie TOV Hvevparos, TcXaav ep^ci ttjv xcpi^v- Id. ib. p. 36.

35
spoke of regeneration taking place in or by Baptism, and how
far they were fr-om meaning to imply the modern opus opera
tum view of that sacrament, may be seen from the language
used by St. Clement of Alexandria in the second century as to
the Baptism of our Blessed Saviour. For, quoting the words
of Scripture (putting two passages together), " Thou art my
beloved Son, this day have I begotten thee," he speaks of them
as fulfilled at Christ's Baptism, and that our Lord was then " re
generated."* And your Lordship will not fail to remember Mr. Gorham's
reference f to what took place at the Baptism of our Lord as
" illustrating " his view of what takes place at our Baptism ;
that the blessing of adoption is not to be ascribed to Baptism
itself, but is only formally attested and made over by it to
those to whom it belongs. And you here see that Clement
uses the very word " regeneration," with reference to that very
case, in a sense implying no more than this. So that the use of
the word " regeneration " by the Fathers in connexion with
Baptism, can be of no avail to show, that they did not hold that
a rightful claim to sonship might be possessed before Baptism.
And I would just add, that in the context Clement clearly mani
fests his view of the necessity of faith to salutary Baptism ; and
also observes, that "where faith is, there is the promise."f
But, nevertheless, you will, no doubt, contend, (and I agree
with you) that, whatever previous regenerating grace may have
been given to any persons, they are properly said to be made
members of Christ and children of God in and by Baptism ;
because that is the rite appointed by God for the formal making
over by the Church, as his minister, of that character, and ad
mitting the party into the fellowship of the saints. How, then,
can you deny, that the same thing may be justly said, for the
same reason, in the case of infants ? How can you assert, that
he who requires in their case a prsevenient act of regenerating
grace, does thereby deny that they are made in Baptism mem
bers of Christ and children of God ?
* Sij/iepov avay£wri6ei.s 6 Xpia-Tos. Psedag. I. 6. init. (Ed. Col. 1688.)
+ Examination, p. 112.
X 'Ol/ Se fj ma-Tis, evravda rj tirayyekia.
D 3

86
The gi-eat, vital, and fatal objection to your Lordship's doe-
trine, is briefly this ; that you make the mere opus operatum of
Baptism the source of spiritual life to the soul. Tou thereby
place yourself almost in the position of God himself. You
boldly aver, that in the case of all infants, wherever found, and
tinder whatever circumstances, you can give or withhold remis
sion of sins and spiritual life ; that these gifts are so tied to
Baptism, that until you choose to give Baptism, God himself
cannot (without some extraordinary interference) give those
gifts ; that you have only to sprinkle the child with water and
utter a few words, and the thing is done. Prayers may be
offered if people think fit; you do not (as your apologist "C."
coolly observes,) " in any way object to that." But that, and
everything else except the act of baptizing, is a matter of indif
ference. Remission of sins and spiritual life are the necessary
and invariable result of your act. You therefore can leave in
a state of spiritual death, and you can make alive. My Lord,
this is of the essence of that apostasy whose characteristic is to
" sit in the temple of God, showing himseK to be God ;" to be
(as the Head of that apostasy has been called) a Yice-God
upon earth.
Having thus cleared the way for a consideration of yom- ani
madversions on the Judgment and the authorities adduced in
its support, by a statement of the leading featm-es of the doc
trine of the two parties to the cause, I proceed at once to the
remarks which stand next in order in yoiu- " Letter." They
relate to the extracts given by His Grace in his " Preface" from
various authors, and repeated in the " Judgment ;" and your
Lordship undertakes to prove to the world, that those authors
are " all, or almost all," misquoted, their views being entirely
different from what His Grace there represents them to be;
with what success, I shall now endeavour to show.
I must first observe, however, that when you say that these
quotations, if correct, would be irrelevant, your remark is
grounded only upon your misrepresentation of Mr. Gorham's
doctrine already adverted to,— that is, your charge against him,
that because he does not consider spiritual privileges to be

37
given by Baptism in your sense, therefore he denies in toto
that they are in any sense given or made over by Baptism.
And having thus pointed this out, I shall not consider it neces
sary to revert to it every time you repeat the remark.
The Archbishop first cites Hooker, remarking, — " Hooker
alludes to this, when he speaks of Baptism as ' a seal, perhaps,
of the Grace of election before received.' "
These words are surely plain enough. And the context
which your Lordship quotes only makes the sense of the pas
sage more clear in favour of what the Archbishop adduces it to
prove- For it commences thus, " Predestination bringeth not
to life without the grace of external vocation wherein our Bap
tism is implied." And then Baptism is spoken of as " a seal,
perhaps, of the grace of election before received," Hooker
adopting and admitting the truth of these words of Cartwright.
His Grace, therefore, merely states an obvious fact, when he
says, that in these words Hooker alludes to, and sanctions,
the view of grace being received before Baptism. What
Hooker corrects in Cartwright is, the erroneous statement,
that we arc not " made Christians by Baptism," because,
although there may have been such prsevenient electing
grace, yet the order of God's dispensations is not thus set aside,
and the rite of Baptism is that by which we are formally
admitted into God's Church, and, therefore, that which (as
your Lordship cites the words,) " both declareth and maketh
us Christians," " the door of our actual entrance into Christ's
house, the first apfarent beginning of life," and " to our sanc
tification here, a step that hath not any before it." Clearly so.
Is there anything here contrary to Mr. Gorham's view ? Not
one word.
Your Lordship "heartily wishes" that His Grace "had
read the whole of the sentence."
My Lord, it is to be " heartily wished " that you had given
yourself time to understand it.
And your Lordship will remember, that this is but one out
of various passages of Hooker that might be, and have been,
quoted against you.
You proceed to the quotation from Archbishop Usher, which

38
is given from the work called " A Body of Divinity," first pub
lished, as I have long ago pointed out,* without his consent,
and not " in the state in which he himself would have pub
lished it ;" and you say that " the words are not Usher's,"
quoting a letter of Usher's, given in Dr. Elrington's Life of him,
stating that the Book consisted of collections from Cartwright
and Crook, and " some other English divines," and " not ap
proved in all places by the collector ;" and catching at the
offensive name (though not, it seems, to Usher) of Cartwright,
you at once maintain, (though necessarily in total ignorance
of the fact) that the words were Cartwright's, and that Usher
disapproved of them ! My Lord, the great question is, whether
the words may not be properly considered as conveying Usher's
doctrine. And what are the facts ? The portion of the work
devoted to the subject of Baptism occupies several foho pages,
and the whole of it proceeds upon the doctrine contained in
the words quoted. Two or three editions of the work appeared
in Usher's lifetime, attributing its method and substance to him
as the compiler, after its first publication as his work had been
thus objected to by him, and no repudiation of any portion of
it was ever made by him. On the contrary, we are told by the
Editor of one of the later editions of it, that he, " in his elder
days, blessed God for its publication, though at first it started
into the world loithout his consent, because he perceived it had
done much good; ivhich those have affirmed to hear him say,
ivhich had no fondness for the book."-f Think you, my Lord,
he would have blessed God for its publication, if he had held
its whole doctrine on the subject of Baptism to be erroneous ?
You quote his Chaplain, Dr. Bernard, as saying, " Being so
unpolished, defective, and full of mistakes, he was much dis
pleased at the publishing it in his name." But you, or the
author from whom you cite this, ought to have added, that Dr.
Bernard further says, " but hearing of some good fruit which hath
been reaped by it, he hath permitted it." (Life of Usher, p. 43.)
But you add, that you will " adduce some evidence that he
* Effects of Infant Bapt. 1st ed. p. 312; 2nd ed. p. 344, 345.
t I quote from the eighth edition, 1/02, 4to. The words appeared
first, I believe, in the 7th ed. a. 1677.

39
held a doctrine the very contrary to what " His Grace " ascribes
to him," and you quote a passage from his Sermons, in which
he says, that " God hath appointed his Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper to strengthen and continu.e that hfe which we received
in Baptism as by spiritual novirishment. In Baptism om- stock
of hfe is given us, by the Sacrament is confirmed and continued."
Why, my Lord, these are almost the very words, and precisely
the sense, of the note to 1 Cor. xii. 13. in the Geneva Bible,
which runs as follows, —
" That we might be one body with Christ, and the whole Church
one Christ : of the which conjunction Baptism and the Lord's Sup
per are effectual signs : for by Baptism we are regenerate into one
Spirit, and by the Lord's Supper we are incorporate into Christ's
Body, to be governed by the same Spirit."
Here, then, is the old blunder again, of quoting statements
such as the highest Calvinists use on the subject, as authorities
on your side of the question. And I might say to your Lord
ship what you have said to the Archbishop ; that after all, you
have only been quoting an author like Cartwright — the Geneva
comment on the Bible. It might have been hoped, my Lord,
that recent experience would have taught you the necessity of
a little more caution on this subject. But I am compelled to
say, that, even to the present time, you seem to have no clear
idea of the real point at issue. Indeed, if it had not been so, your
case could never have been presented to the Courts which have
had to decide upon it in such a state of confusion as it was,
and which called forth the complaints of both respecting the
condition of uncertainty in which they were left as to the pre
cise question before them. The great point at issue between
yourself and those whom you are assailing is, whether the Sa
crament of Baptism is placed by God in the hands of man as
the SOURCE of remission of sins and spiritual life to the soul, to
be used by him ad libitum in the case of infants, (the more
consistent of your party adding, the case of adults also) ; or
whether it is the rite for formally conveying and making over
to man a state of pardon, regeneration, and adoption, in accord
ance with and dependence upon the provisions and conditions

40
of the Gospel Covenant. The different estimate formed under
different theological systems, of the nature of that Covenant,
will of course produce differences of opinion among those who
agree in adopting the latter view. But the great question now
at issue in the Church is, which of those two views of the Sacra
ment of Baptism is the correct one. And they who hold that a
prsevenient act of grace, as for instance the grace of election, is
necessary to qualify infants for the reception, at the moment of
Baptism, of the full Baptismal blessing, declare nevertheless,
in full accordance with that doctrine, that the state of spiritual
life is made over in and by Baptism, agreeably to the latter
view given above of the nature of the Baptismal rite. But,
reasonably enough, when they are disputing with one who
wants to drive them to the maintenance of the former view,
they are exceedingly cautious as to the expressions they use
respecting the way in which Baptism works to that end.
This passage, therefore, will not afford your Lordship the
smallest aid. And why do you pass over those that have been
placed before you from writings that, beyond all question, are
Usher's ? Take the following, —
" Election being nothing else but the purpose of God, resting in
his own mind, makes no kind of alteration in the party elected, but
only the execution of that decree aud purpose, which, in such as
have the use of reason, is done by an effectual calling, in all by
spiritual regeneration, which is the new birth, without which no
man can see the kingdom of God . . . but if any shall say, that bv
all, thereby I should understand the universality of all and every
one in the world, and not the universality of all the elect alone, he
should greatly wrong my meaning."*
Can words be found more clearly maintaining what His
Grace has quoted Usher as holding, namely, " that the spu-itual
grace of Baptism, ' a death unto sin and a new birth unto
righteousness,' is only received where there has been an ante
cedent act of grace on the part of God ?" I have added else
where other passages from Usher,t but I need not here quote
any more proofs of his doctrine.
• Letter 23. Parr's Life, pp. 60,"51.
t Effects of Infant Baptism, Isted. p. 310 et seq.; 2d ed. p. 343 etseq.

41
There is, however, one remark in what he has written on
this point which I would earnestly commend to yom- Lordship's
notice. You speak of " the illustrious name of Usher " (p. 31) .
You will not doubt his profound erudition, or the value of his
judgment on theological questions. Hear then, my Lord, the
modest language in which this profound theologian speaks to
a brother theologian. Dr. Ward, on the subject, and judge of
the estimate he would have formed of the course you are now
pursuing. "You have done me," he says, " a great pleasvu:e in communi
cating unto me my Lord of Salisbury's and your own determina
tion, touching the efficacy of Baptism in infants, for it is an
OBSCURE POINT, and such as I desire to be taught in by such as
you are, rather than deliver mine own opinion thereof."*
So spoke Usher in 1630, when Archbishop of Armagh, to
his friend Dr. Ward. What a contrast does the language of
this profoundly learned prelate present to that with which the
Church is now echoing ! But the emptiest vessels make the
loudest noise.
Before I pass on to the next witness, I cannot help quoting
Usher's testimony to what was the view then commonly received,
which occurs in the very next sentence to that which I have
just quoted. Speaking of Bishop Downham's work on Perse
verance (in which he strongly insists upon what is called the
Calvinistic view of the effects of Baptism, and expressly inter
prets the Baptismal Service on the hypothetical principle) ,t he
gays, — " He there determineth that point of the efficacy of
Baptism far otherwise than you do, accommodating himself to
the opinion more vulgarly received among us."
My Lord, I think you will be cautious how you again direct
attention to Usher.
"Turn we to youx third witness," adds your Lordship,
" another very illustrious name. Bishop Jeremy Taylor ... he
shall be proved to bear testimony directly against you." And
* Letter 15.9. Parr's Life, p. 434.
t Given in my Work on the Effects of Infant Baptism, 1st ed. p. 306
et seq. ; 2d ed. p. 338.

42
after accusing His Grace of citing a writer " as authority for
a statement which he contradicts," and reading him a lecture
upon the duty of greater caution in such a matter, you add
these words, — " Your citation of Bishop Taylor, which you
have so unsuspiciously received, is absolutely and palpably
fraudulent." My Lord, on which side lies the " absolute and palpable
fraudulence " — ^they are your own words, not mine — shall very
soon be proved. And you know that the whole context,
including the few words you quote, (and which you charge
the Archbishop's " informant " with keeping out of sight),
together with much more, was placed in extenso before the
Court of Arches by Mr. Gorham's Advocate, and was before
His Grace when he wrote, but doubtless not considered to
require reproduction as a whole.
I give the passage as it was placed before the Court of
Arches by Mr. Gorham's Advocate, and under your Lordship's
eye in his published speech, and then all can judge, to whom
belongs the charge of " absolute and palpable fraudulence ;"
and I willingly leave to the right owner, without qualification
or abatement, the name you have chosen.
" When the ordinary effect of a Sacrament is done already by
some other efficiency or instrument, yet the Sacrament is still as
obhgatory as before : not for so many reasons or necessities ; but
for the same commandment. Baptism is the first ordinary current
in which the Spirit moves and descends upon us ; and where God's
Spirit is, they are the sons of God ; for Christ's Spirit descends
upon NONE BUT THEM THAT ARE HIS ; and yet Cornelius, who
had received the Holy Spirit, and was heard by God, and visited
by an angel, and accepted in his alms and fastings and prayers,
was tied to the susception of Baptism. To which may be added,
that the receiving the effects of Baptism beforehand, was used as
an argument the rather to administer Baptism. The effect of
which consideration is this — that Baptism and its effect may be
separated, and do not always go in conjunction ; the effect may be
before, and therefore much rather may it be after its susception,
the Sacrament operating in the virtue of Christ, ' even as the
tSpirit shall moce ;' according to that saying of St. Austin, 'The

43
work of regeneration that is begun in the ministry of Baptism, is
perfected in some sooner, in some later ;' and St. Bernard, ' We
may soon be washed ; but to be healed is a work of a long cure.' "
 " The Church gives the Sacrament, God gives the grace of
the Sacrament. But because he does not always give it at the
instant in which the Church gives the Sacrament (as if there be a
secret impediment in the suscipient), and yet afterwards does give
it when the impediment is removed (as to them that repent of that
impediment), it follows that the Church may administer rightly,
even before God gives the real grace of the Sacrament ; and if
God gives this grace afterwards by parts, and yet all of it is the
effect of that covenant which was consigned in Baptism, he that
defers some may defer all, and verify every part, as well as any
part. For it is certain that in the instance now made, all the grace
is deferred ; in infants it is not certain but that some is
collated or infused ; however, be it so or no, yet upon this
account the administration of the Sacrament is not hindered."
(Works, ed. Heber, vol. 2. pp. 248 & 253.)
Is it possible, my Lord, that words could be used more
completely justifying Mr. Gorham's view ? Mr. Gorham
holds that spiritual regeneration may be given before, or in,
or after Baptism ; and that it is never given by virtue of Bap
tism ; and consequently that if the rite is effectual for making
over this privilege at the moment of Baptism, there must have
been a prsevenient act of Divine grace towards the child, which
nevertheless may take place at the very period of Baptism.
Now what does Bishop Taylor say ? He expressly maintains
in this passage, that the grace of the Sacrament, which is
regeneration, may be given before, or in, or after Baptism.
He says expressly of the case of infants, in direct opposition to
what your Lordship is contending for, that "in infants it is
not certain but that some [grace] is collated or infused ; how
ever, be it so or no, yet," &c. He, however, himself thinks
that " Baptism is the first ordinary current in which the Spi
rit moves and descends upon us," but only in the cases of
those who are Christ's; for he immediately adds, "Christ's
Spirit descends upon none but them that are his ;" which is
only another mode of expressing Mr. Gorham's view.

44
My Lord, what object, think you, can be accomplished by
your thus exposing yourself in the face of the Church ? But
alas ! to such consequences do steps taken in the spirit in
which your Lordship met Mr. Gorham in his appUcation for
institution, usually lead.
Moreover, as to this witness also, I ask your Lordship how
you have reconciled it to your conscience to pass over all the
other passages opposed to your views which have been placed
before you from Bishop Taylor, in a work from which you
yourself quote, and to which, therefore, I may fairly refer ?
For instance, take the following passage, given fuUy in my
Work,* but, of necessity, more briefly here, —
" Although, by the present custom of the Church, we are bap
tized in our infancy, and do not actually reap that fruit of present
pardon which persons of a mature age in the Primitive Church did
. . . yet we must remember that there is a baptism of the Spirit as
well as of water : and whenever this happens, whether it he toge
ther with that baptism of water, as usually it was when only men
and women of years of discretion were baptized; or whether it be
ministered in the rite of confirmation . . . or that lastly, it he per
formed hy an internal and merely spiritual ministry, when we, by
acts of our own election, verify the promise made in Baptism, and
so bring back the rite, hy receiving the effect of Baptism ; that is,
whenever the ' filth of our flesh is washed away,' and that we have
' the answer of a pure conscience towards God,' which St. Peter
affirms to be the true baptism . . then let us look to our standing,"
&c. (Life of Christ, Part 2. §. 12. disc. 9.)
Or the following, given in the same place ; —
" Our hearers make use of sermons and discourses evangeUcal
but to fill up void spaces of their time . . . The reason of this is a
sad condemnation to such persons ; they have not yet entertained
the Spirit of God, they are in darkness ; they were washed in
water, but never baptized with the Spirit ; for those things are
spirituaUy discerned." (Serm. 1. for Whitsunday.)
To use your own words, then, (though uttered by you in
* Effects of Infant Baptism, pp. 446, 447; or, 2d ed. pp. 486, 487.

45
sarcasm) "these are" and are likely to remain, notwithstand
ing your vain attempts to discredit the reference to them. His
Grace's " witnesses, a sample of the ' many divines ' of our
Church " who have advocated the view which they are cited by
him as maintaining.
And before I pass on, I would ask your Lordship, what you
suppose to be the feelings of the unprejudiced portion of the
Church, as to the testimonies that have been placed before it,
respecting the doctrines formerly entertained on this subject
by various other of its most eminent prelates and divines.
For a long period after the Reformation you have not a single
witness that you can lean upon in our Church. And even
when the current tone of theology among us began to change,
in Laud's time, so entirely different were even Laud's views
from those of your Lordship, as to the character of such doc
trine as that of Mr. Gorham, that he not only made no oppo
sition to the promotion in the Church of men holding it, but
actually recommended them for the Episcopal office.
Thus Bishop Prideaux, who, after filling the Regius Divinity
Professor's chair at Oxford for a quarter of a century, was con
secrated by him to the bishopric of Worcester, had taught
publicly at Oxford, and in print, that the language respecting
regeneration in the Baptismal Service was only the language
of charity (ex charitate Ecclesise), and had delivered precisely
the same doctrine as that of Mr. Gorham.*
Thus, again, the apostolic Bishop Bedell, who was promoted
to his See at the especial recommendation of Laud, advocates
the same doctrine in his able and admirable Letters to Dr.
Ward, to be found in Parr's Life of Usher, f
Are you, then, my Lord, to be permitted to brand such men
as these with the stamp of heresy ? Have we really got so far
on the way to Rome, that Laud himself has been left in the
distance, as a patronizer of heretics, as a friend to those who
denied an Article of the Creed, because he supported men hold
ing these views ?
* I have given the passages in my work on the Effects of Infant Bap
tism, 1st ed. p. 258, 269 ; 2nd ed., p. 285.
t Reprinted ib. p. 318 et seq. ; 2nd ed. p. 359 et seq.

46
My Lord, there is one advantage, I will admit, accruing
from such an attempt. It reveals the real position which you
and your party now occupy.
But to proceed with your Letter. Your Lordship next
(p. 34) animadverts on the Archbishop's reference to BulUnger's
Decades, in which he states that doctrine simUar to that of Mr.
Gorham was " at one time authoritatively taught in our Church;
for it is uniformly laid down in the Decades of Bullinger, that
'in Baptism that is sealed and confirmed to infants, which
they had before ; ' so that ' the first beginning of our uniting
and fellowship with Christ is not wrought by the Sacraments.'
And in the year 1586, it was ordered by the Queen and the
Upper House of Convocation, that those Decades of Bullinger
should be studied and taken as a model by every minister who
had not passed the Master of Arts' degree."
And you remark first, " respecting Bullinger himseK," that
" the truth is, that Bullinger, as well as Calvin and others of
their school, made two sorts of statements, which, taken in
their plain meaning, fiatly contradict one another," and that
" our di\dnes" " took those better passages in their plain
meaning, and so quoted the writers as agreeing with the doc
trine of the Church of England;" "overlooking" and "neg
lecting" the contradictory statements ; " for, taken in their real
meaning, those passages which" the Archbishop cites, "really
contradict the very Articles and Formularies which those divines
established." (p. 34, 35.)
My Lord, when we read this charge oi flat self-contradiction
urged against such divines as Bullinger and Calvin, and your
estimate of the wisdom and learning of our own greatest
divines, Jewell, Parker, Whitgift, &c.&c. (who, it seems, could
not see what sort of book BuUinger's Decades was,) we are in
voluntarily driven to ask, Quis vitupe7-avit? who is the accuser?
Because the world has been hitherto accustomed to think, that
such men, whether right or wrong in their belief, were not the
most likely to have laid themselves open to such accusations.
And when we recollect how confidently, in your recent Charge,
your Lordship (all unconscious of the heretical source from
which you were quoting) cited the words of Calvin as decisively

47
delivering your own doctrine on the subject of Baptism,* we
cannot help seeing how the hard "necessities of your position"
(as Mr. Newman would say) left you only the alternative either of
bringing this accusation, or of retracting a previous statement.
My Lord, I think it quite unnecessary to go into the ques
tion, whether BuUinger's statements are self-contradictory,
though I entirely deny that they are so. I am quite satisfied with
yom- Lordship's own admission, that the testimonies referred
to by His Grace (a few out of many of the same kind), "really
contradict the very Articles and Formularies" of our Church, that
is to say, your interpretation of their meaning. I ask no better
evidence, that the doctrine of BuUinger's Decades and that of
your Lordship are entirely opposed to each other on the point
in question. And your charge of self-contradiction entirely
arises fi-om your confounding such language as that which both
Bullinger and Calvin unhesitatingly use (and in which Mr.
Gorham would fully acquiesce) as to the efficacy of the Sacra
ment in cases that come within the provisions of the Covenant,
with the Romish doctrine of its opus operatum efficacy.
Your endeavour to get over the fact of such a volume being
set forth " for the better increase of learning in the inferior
clergy" — of which they were to read a sermon every week, and
make notes of it, and be afterwards examined in their notes, —
by the supposition, that this was only from its being considered
"in the main" "an useful manual," (p. 39, 40), though in
some most essential points its statements " contradict the very
Articles and Formularies" of our Church, — I leave to the
reader's reflections.
Then comes the question, Was the doctrine of BuUinger's
Decades "authoritatively taught in our Church?" This, it
seems, your Lordship is prepared to deny. Let us compare
this denial first with what your Lordship admits on the sub
ject. You admit, that these " Orders" were " agreed upon by
the Archbishops [read Archbishop] and Bishops," and that
they were publicly read at the request of the Prolocutor before
the Lower House. But you add, — " There is not a trace of
* " It is impossible not to see in these words," &c.

48
the consent ofthe Lower House having been given to the mea
sure. No Canon, no Act whatever, relating to it, appears in
the Acts of that Convocation. Therefore that this book was
' authoritatively taught' seems a mere gratuitous dictum."
My Lord, the Order has never been cited as an Act of the
whole Convocation, but only of " the Upper House ;" and that
you should consider "the consent ofthe Lower House," so ne
cessary to the validity of such an " Order," that it could have
no " authority" without it, is not a little surprising. Certainly
the Lower House did not itself tMvak its " consent" necessary,
when it asked as a favor, by its Prolocutor, that the Orders
should be read before it, and took no action on the subject.
Has your Lordship forgotten your own reference, in your recent
Charge,* to the Canons of 1571, agreed upon only by " the
Upper House of Convocation," which you put together with
the Canons of 1604, and caU both "high authorities," nay
"the Laws or the Church" (which, by the way, the Canons
of 1571 certainly are not) ? It seems, then, that when the
Upper House of Convocation passed Orders or Canons agree
able to your Lordship's views, such Orders are " the Laws of
the Church," even though lacking the written sanction of the
Crown, but when such Orders are opposed to your Lordship's
doctrine, then you are wholly unprepared to admit that they
have any authority at all !
And what is more extraordinary, though you admit that these
" Orders" were " agreed upon by the Archbishop and Bishops "
met in Convocation, you say, " as to any order made by the
Bishops I am equally at a loss to find it." Permit me, my
Lord, to ask you this question. If you published a set of
" Orders for the discipline of the Chm-ch" (the title of those
in question) in your Diocese, what would you think of any of
your clergy who should plead in excuse for not attending to
them, that you had issued no "Order" ordering these" Orders"
to be foUowed ?
And it so happens in this case, that the last " Order" does
contain an "order" for their observance, for it runs thus, —
* pp. 25, 26.

49
" 8. It is concluded, that the exercises above written, and no
other, shall be henceforth publicly or privately used within any
part of this Province."
You then tell us, that " it is not a light confirmation of the
improbability that the book was ever ' authoritatively taught,'
that it is one which is now of extreme rarity ;" and add, — " The
only copy I have been able to find is in English, printed in
1577 ; and I am assured by an excellent authority in such a
matter, that no subsequent edition of it was published in Eng
land during that century. None therefore at the time when the
demand for the hook, if your Grace's statement be correct, must
have been greatest, [your own italics]." (p. 41.)
My Lord, I stand perfectly amazed at the temerity of such
statements, when made under the circumstances and with the
views in which your Letter originated. The volume, though
not of course a common book, is by no means of extreme
rarity, and far less so than volumes of the same period which
indisputably must have had the largest possible circulation
among the clergy, as for instance the Bibles, the Prayer-books,
the Articles, the Catechisms of that period. BuUinger's
" Decads" was superseded by other works, and moreover fell
of course into disrepute when the tone of the theology of our
Church became changed, and few copies comparatively have
remained to this period. But you say, that you have been
" assured by an excellent authority" that no edition of it was
pubUshed here after 1577. My Lord, (to say nothing ofthe
" Typographical Antiquities " of Ames and Herbert, which any
literary man would at once have consulted,) the commonest book
upon such subjects, and one which it might be supposed could
hardly be unknown to you. Watt's Bibliotheca, tells you that
there were two English editions after this period, one of 1584,
and another of 1587, and one in Latin in 1586. Copies ofthe
edition of 1587 are not of unfrequent occurrence, and I myself
possess one of them.
But His Grace has said also, that these "Orders" were
issued under the Queen's authority as well as that of the
Bishops; that is, that they had the Queen's sanction; and
your Lordship teUs us, that you have searched and " can

50
find no authority at all for the Qtueen's having had anything
to do with such an Order." My Lord, success in a search
depends much upon a willingness to find. Permit me to ad
vise you to make inquiry at the office where the State Papers
are kept, and you will there find the original copy of these
"Orders" lodged with the Secretary of State in January 1586
(1587, new style), the month after they were agreed upon by
the Bishops, and deposited there as a public State document,
and endorsed " Orders for the Discipline of the Church."
Will this satisfy your Lordship that they had the sanction,
through its proper officers, ofthe Crown? or will you tell us that
the Secretary of State carefully presei-ved among the public do
cuments ofthe State a paper of Orders di-awn up by the Bishops,
to which the State had given no sanction ? And it appears
that this was one of those more important documents of which
Sir Joseph Williamson, Secretary of State in the time of
Charles II., had copies made for greater secm-ity.
And what adds to the evidence, is the fact, that on the title-
page of the edition of 1587 are the words [not to be found
in the edition of 1577) "Cum gratia et privilegio Regise Ma-
jestatis." It is not here said, be it observed, that these "Orders"
were Acts of Convocation, nor that they were authoritatively
enforced by the Crown under the great seal. But that they
were agreed to by the Upper House of Convocation, sanc
tioned by the Crown, and preserved as a State document, aud
then read in the Lower House of Convocation as Orders to be
followed, has been clearly proved.
And so fully had these " Orders" been brought under the
eye of the State, and sanctioned by it, that the Archbishop
expected that it would be inquired into in the following Parlia
ment how they had been observed. For we find in Strype a
circular letter sent by the Archbishop to the Bishops of his
Province, in Nov. 1588, in which these "Orders" are thus
spokeij of, —
" That whereas the 2nd of December, when they were assembled
in the Synod kept in the year 1586, it was thought fit and necessary
to him and the rest of his brethren then present in that Synod,

51
(although not as a judicial act or conclusion by the authority of tire
Convocation), that the Articles ofthe tenor ofthe copy therein
inclosed should be put in execution by their Lordships and all the
rest of his said brethren, the Bishops of this Province : forasmuch
as it was likely it would be looked for at this next Parliament,
how the said Articles had heen accordingly used .... That these
were heartily to pray their Lordships with all speed by their letters
to certify him," &c. (Strype's Whitgift, bk. 3.c. 20. i. 531.)
One word more as to the doctrine of BuUinger's Decads
" having been authoritatively taught in our Church " at this
period, cannot, I suppose, be needed.
My Lord, when you next undertake to vilify and bring into
contempt all the highest authorities, civil and ecclesiastical,
under which God has placed you, will it be too much to ask
you to make sure of your facts ?
Your Lordship next proceeds to the consideration of citations
made by His Grace to show that " the principle of charitable
presumption," which he applies to the interpretation of the
language of our Formularies, has been recognized by several of
our greatest divines, as that on which we ought to proceed when
speaking of the state of baptized Christians. Your Lordship
will have the kindness to mark what was the object in view,
as clearly expressed by the Archbishop.
The first quotation is the following from Bishop Pearson.
" When the means are used, without something appearing to
the contrary, we presume the good effect." (Comm. on Creed,
Art. Comm. of Saints.)
On this your Lordship exclaims, " He says it of adults . . .
He says nothing of infants here ; nothing of the effect of Bap
tism to them." I beg to ask where your Lordship picked up
this piece of information. Are we to receive it upon your
ipse disci ? Mark the position in which you leave Bishop
Pearson ; — that in a Church where all, with scarcely the excep
tion of one in five thousand, receive Baptism in their infancy,
he meant to limit what he said generally about baptized per
sons to those cases which hardly ever occur I Truly, a very
reasonable hypothesis ! But, my Lord, we shaU find more to
e2

52
our purpose in the context of these words. Allow me, there
fore, to introduce it to your notice.
" For being baptism is a washing away of sin, and the purification
from sin is a proper sanctification ; being every one who is so called
and baptized is thereby separated from the rest of the world which
are not so, and all such separation is some kind of sanctification ;
being, though the work of grace be not perfectly wrought, yet
when the means are used, without something appearing to the con
trary, we ought to presume of the good effect ; therefore all * such
as have been received into the Church may be in some sense called
holy. But because there is more than an outward vocation, and a
charitable presumption, necessary to make a man holy, therefore
we must find some other qualification which must make him really
and truly such, not only by an extrinsical denomination, but by a
real and internal aff'ection. What this sanctity is, and who are
capable of this title properly, we must learn out of the Gospel of
Christ ; by which alone, ever since the Church of Christ was
founded, any man can become a Saint. Now, by the tenor of the
Gospel, we shall find, that those are truly and properly saints,
which are ' sanctified in Christ Jesus,' ( I Cor. i. 2.) First, in respect
of their HOLT faith BY WHICH THEY ARE REGENERATED;
for, ' whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is bom of God '
(1 John V. 1) ; by which they are purged, God himself 'purifying
their hearts by faith ' (Acts xv. 9), whereby they ' are washed,
sanctified, and justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus' (I Cor.
vi. 11), 'in whom also, after that they believe, they are sealed
with the Holy Spirit of promise.' (Eph. i. 13.) Secondly, in
respect of their conversation," &c.
Such, my Lord, is the help which Bishop Pearson gives
you. But you quote a passage from his " Determinations," which
you tell His Grace is " absolutely inconsistent " with the notion
for which the Archbishop cites him. Let us see. Your Lord
ship gives the passage thus, —
" Nothing in the whole compass of our religion is more sure
* According to your Lordship's interpretation, the " all" here would
mean about one in five thousand.

53
than the exceeding great and most certain efficacy of Baptism to
spiritual good ; that it is an outward and visible sign indeed, but
by it an invisible grace is signified ; and the sign itself was instituted
for the very purpose that it should confer that grace."
No doubt it was ; and that invisible grace is the state of
spu:itual regeneration as a chUd of God ; which is formally
made over by the rite of Baptism, and by that only. But how
made over ? Not by the opus operatum virtue of Baptism, but
agreeably with the provisions ofthe Gospel Covenant, and there
fore in the case of many infants, just as in the case of impeni
tent adults, only conditionally made over. And even where it
is absolutely and at once made over, it is not made over by
the opus operatum virtue of Baptism ; so that though conferred
instrumentally by Baptism, as an office is conferred upon a
properly quaUfied person by the appointed form of admission
to it, it is never given by virtue of Baptism itself.
Your own admission, that it is not always conferred in the
case of adults, wholly nuUifies the argument you attempt to
derive from such passages as this. Before you can make use
of any such passages, you must take the ground that Baptism
always produces this effect in the case of all adults as well as
aU infants, and then you are in open opposition to the Thirty-
Nine Articles.
The next authority quoted by His Grace is Hooker, whom
he cites as saying, " We speak of infants as the rule of charity
aUoweth." Here, no doubt, His Grace has inadvertently put
the word "charity" instead of "piety." But the context
most incontrovertibly shows, that Hooker's meaning has not
been misrepresented. And I can assure your Lordship, that
however " distressing " it may have been to you to deliver
your criticisms upon His Grace's remarks, it is at least equaUy
distressing to others to witness their tone and character. The
passage from which these few words are taken has been, as
your Lordship is aware, presented to the public in full with
the foregoing and subsequent context, and precisely as it
stands in Hooker, in connexion with this controversy.* And
* Effects of Infant Baptism, p. 336, 337 ; or, 2d ed. p. 369.

54
we could desire no other words, and no other context, than
those of Hooker. In reply to Cartwright's objection (founded
upon the old Service, where the child was supposed to make the
answers), that " it can be no more precisely said that it hath
faith, than it may be said precisely elected," Hooker says, —
" Were St. Augustine now living, there are which could tell him
for his better instruction, that to say of a child, ' it is elect,' and to
say it doth beheve, are all one, for which cause, sith no man is able
precisely to affirm the one of any infant in particular, it followeth
that ' precisely' and ' absolutely' we ought not to say the other.
Which 'precise ' and ' absolute ' terms are needless in this case.
We speak of infants as the rule of piety alloweth both to speak
and think. They that can take to themselves in ordinary talk a
charitable kind of Kberty to name men of their own sort God's
dear children (notwithstanding the large reign of hypocrisy) should
not methinks be so strict and rigorous against the Church for
PRESUMING AS IT DOTH of a Christian innocent."
Here " the rule of piety" is put in contrast with the use of
" precise and absolute terms," which shows, it might be sup
posed, tolerably plainly what was meant by the phrase. But
if there was any doubt, the words that follow would remove it,
when they speak of " the Church p-esuming as it doth of a
Christian innocent." What is your Lordship's answer ? Oh !
all this is only an " argumentum ad hominem." Hooker does
not by any means intend to say, that the Church does presume
as to the state of an infant (though he expressly says "pre
suming, AS it doth ") ; he held that the tei-ms used are
precise and absolute. And he says all this only as an " argu
mentum ad hominem" against Cartwright I Wliat ! my Lord,
this from one who flings his accusations of disingenuousness
and fraud, and what not, recklessly over the land against all
who maintain that our devotional Services ai-e constructed upon
the principle of charity ! Hooker, when he says that the Church
does presume, does not mean that it does presume, but is only
using an argumentum ad hominem!
But in the next sentence we find your Lordship, with Pro
tean agility, shifting your ground, for you there teU us, that jore-
sumes mca.ns presumes " not merely charitably but absolutely."

55
That is, to " presume" does not mean here to " presume," but
to be certain of; a piece of information which I hope your
Lordship will communicate to the next Editor of Johnson's
Dictionary, otherwise it will infallibly escape him.
But your Lordship has proofs from Hooker's own works
that he did so. By all means let us hear them. The first is,
that Hooker calls Sacraments " marks whereby to know when
God doth impart the vital or saving grace of Christ unto all
that are capable thereof."
What then, my Lord ? The very question at issue is. Who
are capable thereof ? For Hooker is not here speaking of ca
pability in the sense oi physical ability for receiving grace, be
cause he is speaking of both Sacraments and of the cases both
of infants and adults. He is, of necessity, speaking of moral
suitabUity, according to the terms of the Covenant, for re
ceiving it.
As to the other passage, I know not how it can help your
Lordship's cause. It runs thus, —
" Baptism, therefore, even in the meaning of the law of Christ,
belongeth unto infants capable thereof from the very instant of
their birth."
Does Mr. Gorham hold, my Lord, that Baptism does not
belong to infants, or that they are not capable thereof ?
I am glad, hov,?^ever, that your Lordship feels so much " re
freshed " by " these noble statements of Catholic doctrine," —
first, that the Sacraments give grace to worthy recipients, and,
secondly, that Baptism belongs to infants. And it is grati
fying, after " disfasteful work," to find something in which all
can be " refreshed" together, though it be but with ordinary
fare. The next citation made by His Grace is from Bishop Carleton,
and here you admit (p. 46) that " this is very apposite to the
immediate purpose for which" His GraCe " cites it." It would
have been difficult, indeed, to have quarrelled with this, seeing
that it is spoken with express reference to the Baptismal Ser
vice. Bishop Carleton expressly maintains that spiritual rege
neration is not necessarily given to aU infants in Baptism;
which was the doctrine for maintaining which, your Lordship

56
refused institution to Mr. Gorham, according to your own re
corded plea in the Courts of Law. But, from some cause or
other, there has been a great change recently in the point of
attack selected. We hear little now of anything but the remis
sion of original sin to infants in Baptism. And accordingly,
leaving the original question which you raised against Mr.
Gorham, and in which Bishop Carleton is wholly against you,
you take refuge in a statement of his respecting the remission
of original sin to infants in Baptism, which you say is entirely
opposed to Mr. Gorham's doctrine. Be it so, my Lord. StiU,
in the first place, this fact does not invalidate his testimony in
favour of Mr. Gorham, and against youi- Lordship, in the great
question you raised on the subject, and for which his testi
mony was adduced ; and secondly, you must show, that he held
that the children of parents not Christian are entitled to Bap
tism, before you can get much out of his words ; and thirdly,
as your Lordship dissents from him in one point, Mr. Gorham
may in the other, and has a perfect right to maintain, in pre
ference, the doctrine of the Apostolical Bishop Bedell, who
held that the ablution of sin in Infant Baptism was only " con
ditional and expectative."
You proceed to His Grace's last testimony, which is, that
" at the Savoy Conference" the Services of the Church " were
defended against objections on this very ground."
To meet this, your Lordship adduces instances in which the
Bishops at that Conference did not resort to that mode of inter
pretation. But this, I need hardly remind you, proves nothing.
The question is, whether they were not compelled to adopt
this mode of interpretation with respect to some parts of the
Services. And it is undeniable that they were compelled to
do so.* And consequently, we have a method of interpreta
tion placed before us supported by theu- testimony, which we
may justly apply to other parts besides those to which they
chose to apply it. Their testimony is referred to as establish
ing the principle, not as binding us to use it precisely as they
used it.
My Lord, I have now gone through that portion of your
* I have shown this in my Work, already referred to, pp. 390, 391 ;
or, 2d ed. pp. 426, 127.

57
Letter which refers to the statements of His Grace the Arch
bishop of Canterbury. And I would ask you calmly to
look back, and review the result of this examination of the
charges you have brought against him. In the whole annals
of the Church, it would be difficult to find a paraUel for such
an outbreak on the part of a provincial Bishop against his
Metropolitan. The terms of insult and reproach with which
you — you who are calling for almost abject submission to your
will from those placed nnder your own Episcopal superintend
ence — ^have here addressed your Ecclesiastical superior, are
such as, even in the heat of controversy, men hesitate to use
towards those to whom they owe no obedience, no deference.
You have charged him with " now, in his advanced years
and exalted station, materially impairing, and almost contra
dicting, the sounder teaching of his earUer years," and with
the falsehood oi ST^eakmg oi a. work as if it was substantially
the same, though there had been introduced into it " most
important changes." What have we found to be the case ?
That what you charge upon him as " most important changes,"
first published in 1850, " almost contradicting the sounder
teaching of his earlier years," have formed part of the work
ever since the year 1817.
You have arraigned him pubUcly before the Church as a
teacher of " heresy," " rank Popery and worse than Popery."
(pp. 13, 14.) And we find that the charge is grounded upon
a direct and palpable mis-statement of his doctrine. And you
betray your capabUities for the office of His Grace's censor, by
directing him to a Canon, as one of the Canons of the Code of
the Universal Church, which you ought to have known has
no place there, and as sanctioned by a Council which probably
never heard ofit. You misquote Scripture itself (p. 15) to
make out your case, and send His Grace to an Article of the
Nicene Creed which no more establishes yom- doctrine than
the first chapter of Genesis.
You charge upon him that, "instead of leading, he has misled
those whom he was to instruct, not only by mis-stating the
matters on which he advised, but also by misquoting all, or
almost all, the authors cited by him (p. 35) ; that he has " con
curred in a false and destructive declaration," and, " as far as in

58
him lies," " scinctioned a decision that the Church over whicB
he presides is no part of the Church of Christ," and " done all
which a declaration of his could do to cut off the Chnrch in which
he occupies the highest place, from communion with the Hohj
Catholic and Apostolic Church of all ages," &c. (pp; 36, 37.)
And whstt do we find ? That one and all of the citations
made by His Grace are Strictly applicable for the purpose for
which he quotes them^ and fully bear him out in the inferences
he has deduced from them ; and that your haughty and self-
sufficient denunciations of yom- Primate, for maintaining Mr.
Goi-ham'a doctrine to be thoroughly consistent with an honest
adherence to the Articles and Formularies of our Church and
of the true Catholic Church, are entirely opposed to the tes
timony of a host of the best, and wisest, and most leai-ned
men our Church has ever produced. For, be it remembered,
the citations We have been considering, are only a few which
His Grace happened to select, out of a multitude that had been
brought before the public, of a similar kin-d.
My Lord, you have yourself admitted (p. 37), that if you
faU to establish your charges, you will have "fastened on your
self the guilt not only of calumny, but of schism." I leave
it then to the public to determine in what position you now
stand. Your Lordship proceeds to a consideration of the Judgment
of the Judicial Committee, and you commence your review of
it by a stutcmeut of what you are pleased to call "the two
chief heresies of Mr. Gorham." (pp. 48—53.)
This statement I have already met, and shown what are the
real points at issue. I therefore proceed at once to your
reiiiarks on the Judgment ; only premising, that almost all the
difficulties you have contrived to raise against it, proceed, first,
from your unwarranted assumptions, ahd, secondly, from your
straining the language of Mr. Gorham, directed only against
your unsound doctrine of the opus operatum efficacy of Bapti"sm,
as if it denied all efficacy to Baptism. You commence thus,^ —
" The heresy which I first named, that original sin is stated by
Mr. Gorham to bo a hindrance to the right reception of Baptism,
iiiblead of being remitted by it, is only noticed in the Judgment in

59
these terms : — ' That in no case is regeneration in Baptism uncon
ditional ;* and ' What is signified by right reception is not deter
mined by the Articles. Mr. Gorham says, that the expression
always means or implies a fit state to receive, — viz. in the case of
adults, with faith and repentance, and in the case of infants, with
God^ s grace and favor' "
And you then exclaim, " ' With God's grace and favour,'
my Lord ? Who can deny this ?" And you complain that
these words are not Mr. Gorham's, fof he used the phrase " an
act of prsevenient grace ;" and you then inform the Judges, that
" each infant brought to Baptism " comes with God's grace
and favor, for which you quote passages of the Prayer Book,
which of course every body is bound to understand in the sense
you affix to them, or be at once branded as A heretic.
My Lord, there are so many observations suggested by this
passage, that it is difficult to know with w'hieh to begin. In
the first place, the Judges have taken up the case precisely as
you yourself presented if to their notice. Your charge sigainst
Mr. Gorham was, that he " held, and persisted in holding, that
spu-itual regeneration is not given or conferred in " Baptism,
and that " Infants are not made therein members of Christ
and the children of God."
To this point, therefore, more especially, they directed their
attention. And the specific charge as to the " remission of
the guilt of original sin," has been an after-thought upon
which you have fallen back when defeated in yom- great object ;
and you are now raising an unjust clamour against your Judges,
as if the point you had brought under their notice had not
been properly considered by them. My Lord, the artifice vrill
not avail you. The terms of your accusation against Mr.
Gorham, as laid before the Judges, are well known to the pub
lic, and your accusation has been dealt with as made, — not, of
course, as it is now put forth by you, cobbled and re-furbished.
Your Lordship complains, that the Judges have not rightly
stated Mr. Gorham's views, when they represent them as being,
'that infants, in order to receive at the moment of Baptism the
full baptismal blessing, must come "with God's grace and
favor," for that Mr. Gorham's phrase is, " an act of prsevenient
grace." A very nice distinction this, my Lord ! Where there

60
is " God's grace and favor," there, certainly, there has been
" an act of God's grace." So that when infants come to Bap
tism " with God's grace and favor," there has been " an act of
prsevenient grace." There may be something of a scholastic
rigidity in Mr. Gorham's phrase, but the meaning is just what
is here expressed in the Judgment.
But you add, that doubtless they must come " with God's
grace and favor ;" and you declare that they do all come with
it. Why then, my Lord, the only difference between you and
Mr. Gorham is this, that he holds that some infants only come
to Baptism after an act of prsevenient grace, and you hold that
they all come with prsevenient grace. You have here, my
Lord, with your own hands, torn up your own doctrine by the
very roots. For in consistency with your doctrine you ought
to have maintained, that Divine grace and favor are not given
till the moment that you sprinkle and baptize them. A more
awkward slip it would be difficult to conceive. And your apo
logy for "common-law judges" "not understanding theolo
gical statements" is very kind, but here, at least, not needed ;
for it is your Lordship that has slipped, and not the Judges.
It is reaUy difficult to find out what your Lordship does hold.
At one time you protest against any infant being supposed to
have an interest in God's favor untU it is baptized, and leave it
tUl Baptism under the full weight of the guUt of original sin ;
now you say, all infants come to Baptism " with God's grace
and favor." And you ask, "Who can deny this?" Why
you yourself, my Lord. The very essence of your doctrine, as
hitherto stated, has been, that God's grace and favor was given
through the Baptismal act, and not till then. What is your
doctrine, my Lord ? Are you sure that you yourself know
what it is ? For you cannot consistently hold both these views
at the same time.
It is impossible not to observe here, how important it is to
the cause of truth and justice, that the determination of such a
cause as that between your Lordship and Mr. Gorham, should
rest chiefly vidth those who, from their habits, and acquire
ments, and tone of mind, are able to take a simple, and im
partial, and judicial view of the subject. The question to be

61
determined was one in which legal knowledge and judicial
experience were absolutely necessary to secure a fair sentence.
And I think we can hardly over-estimate the value of such a
check upon the inroads, which the individual feelings and opi
nions of dominant parties in the Church tend to produce upon
its primitive faith, by pretended interpretations of it.
Yom- Lordship complains, that no especial notice has here
been taken of the question as to the remission of original sin.
Who is in fault, my Lord, for this ? The Judges or yourself?
If you had put it forward, doubtless they would have expressly
noticed it. And your charge against them of substituting one
set of words for another, when they have most correctly ex
pressed Mr. Gorham's view, and of meeting an accusation
different from that which was reaUy brought, can only injure
yourseK. Can you suppose that such a charge, when brought
against five Judges of the highest legal and social reputation,
can have any other effect than to recoU upon him who makes it ?
But that their statements, both here and elsewhere, include
in them a justification of Mr. Gorham's view on the point which
you now raise, as weU as the other which you raised in your
formal charge against him, is manifest. And this is all you
were entitled to expect, from the way in which that charge was
framed. They, my Lord, unbiassed by theological prejudices
and desires to uphold a system, could clearly see, that if infants
come to Baptism " with God's grace and favor," they do not
come under the full weight of unpardoned original sin, though
that pardon may not be formally made over to them but by
the rite of Baptism ; and consequently that there has been, from
some cause or other, an enjoyment of prsevenient grace and
favor, such as we cannot maintain that all infants of necessity
partake of; and that if they come under the weight of that
original sin that (our Church teUs us) " deserves God's wrath
and damnation," we are contradicting ourselves in saying, that
they are in the possession of God's grace and favor, or even in
a state which necessarily calls for the Divine grace and favor
in Baptism. You must not expect that old and experienced
Judges, unfettered by theological systems and crotchets, will
permit themselves to be led away by palpable self-contradic-

62
tions. If you tell them, that every infant enjoys " God's grace
and favor," they will tell your Lordship that you must give up
the doctrine, that every infant lies by nature under the guilt of
bin that deserves God's wrath and damnation. And if they
find you endeavouring to compel the minister of a Church that
holds the latter doctrine, to maintain your self-contradictions
on the subject, they will protect him from such an attempt.
And if, further, they find you maintaining (as in consistency
with your avowed doctrine you ought to have maintained) that
you can give God's grace, and favor, and remission of sins to
every infant, though before destitute of it, and requiring your
clergy to subscribe to this doctrine, they will take the liberty
of examining your claims to this prerogative, and ascertaining
whether the Church of which you are a minister recognises
such claims.
You have, in fact, expressly and in terms, contradicted your
self in this matter within four pages hence in this very Letter.
For while you say here, in p. 53, " Who can deny," that infants
have "God's grace and favour" when "brought to Baptism;"
in p. 57, speaking of "grape," you say, — "which infants, before
Baptism, h^ye not, 'being by nature children of wrath.' "
Your Lordship proceeds (p. 54 et seq.) to what you call " the
other class of false doctrine," held by Mr. Gorham, namelj',
that contained in your second charge against him, given p. 33
above. And you again complain, that his doctrine on this sub
ject has ];iot been fairly represented by the Judicial Committee,
and spend five pages in criticising their statement of it. My
Lord, the only reply necessary to sdl your remarks in these
five pages is contained in the observations already made upon
your representation of Mr. Gorham's views. The account of
Mr. Gorham's doctrine, given in the Judgment, is a fair, tem
perate, and accurate statement of his views, derived from an im
partial survey of his answers to your Questions, with only a
proper allowance for (as the Judgment itself expresses it) " the
general scope, object, and character of the whole exami
nation." You complain, that while the Judgment states that Mr.
Gorham " supposes that the grace of regeneration does not

63
invariably take place in Baptism," his own doctrine is, that it
nevei- takes place in Baptism, because he says that infanta
" must have been regenerated by an act of grace prsevenient to
Baptism, in order to make them worthy recipients of that Sa
crament." But, in the first place, you are met here by Mr,
Gorham's expUcit disavowal in both Courts, that he did main
tain " that spiritual regeneration is not given or conferred in
the holy Sacrament of Baptism, or that infants are not made
therein members of Christ and the children of God." It was
clear therefore at once, that your Lordship and Mr. Gorham
were using similar words in different senses. And it wa,s im
possible to do justice to Mr. Gorham, without considering the
purport and object of your Questions, aa,d judging of the answers
accordingly. Your evident object was, to drive Mr. Gorham
to the admission of your doctrine pf the opus operatwn efficacy
of Baptism ; and the consequence was, that the more you strove
to effect that, the more cautious was Mr. Goj^ham ip using
words which you could misinterpret as imjilying that 4o.ctrii3ip.
Keen and experienced Ju<Jges, accustomed to dpal witji such
matters, of course saw this, and fopk it iuto apcoijnt in their
estimate of Mr. Gorham's views. Regeneration may be con
ferred previous to Baptism by a Divine gi-a.nt, eind yet be con
ferred in and by Baptism as the rite for formally making over
that grant. You hardly seem prepared to deny this yourself
in the case of adults, and at any rate we have gopd authority
fop saying that it is so in their case. There is, no self-contra
diction, therefore, at least, in the statemesnt, when applied to
the case of infants. And Mr. Gpi;hsim lias from the: ^rst de
clared in both Courts, that he does not deny that spiritual re
generation is given in Baptispi-
It is not true, therefore, that his statements al^out regene
ration and adoption being given before the administration of
the Sacrament, have been " ignored " by the Judicial Com
mittee, as you charge them with doing (pp. 56, 57). Those
statements have been fully taken into account, but they have
been interpreted in tlieii" right sense, which your Lprdship
refuses to see, because nothing will satisfy you biit the admis
sion of your opus operatum doctrine. And from the ng,ture of

64
the subject, and the opportunity it affords for dialectical ma
noeuvring, you find no difficulty in throwing dust into the eyes
of the public as to the real question at issue. The Judicial
Committee were not to be so misled.
The Judgment says, that Mr. Gorham holds " That Baptism
is an effectual sign of grace, by which God works invisibly in
us, but only in such as worthily receive it ; in them alone it
has a wholesome effect."
" This," you say, " is of course true in itself, being, in fact,
the words of different parts of Art. 35 ;" but only (you inti
mate) " as to adults." But this Umitation of the meaning of
the words merely rests on your unsupported assertion. And
you say that your examination had no reference to them,
" since adults are but seldom baptized now." And yet you
suppose, that at a period when adults were even less frequently
baptized than they are now, and such an occurrence was so rare
that there was not even any Service appointed for such an
occasion, the authors of our Articles, when laying down the
doctrine of the Sacrament, spoke of the case of adults only,
without any reference to that of infants 1 We see again, here,
the value of the penetration and impartial eye of lawyers — I
might say, of common sense — in determining the disputes of
theologians. You add, — " But the Judgment again ignored the fact, that
the only graces which Mr. Gorham supposes God to ' work invi
sibly ' in Baptism, are graces which, according to our Church,
infants cannot have," There was a good reason, my Lord, for
ignoring it, for it is not a " fact." Mr. Gorham (Ans. 38), says
generally, that in Baptism worthily received, God " increases
the grace which he had previously given us." And youi-
objection to the applicabiUty of this to infants, because " infants
before Baptism have not " grace, " ' being by nature chUdren
of wrath,' " is derived merely from your own doctrine that no
children can partake in any way of God's grace untU they
are baptized, which involves the very question at issue. Mr.
Gorham holds that infants may be partakers of Divine grace
before Baptism, and that from their being all "by nature
chUdren of wrath," it is necessary that they should be par-

65
takers of it to make the mere act of Baptism eft'ectual, at the
moment, for the purpose for which it was intended, that is, for
formally making over to them the state of regeneration and'
adoption ; the mere opus operatum of Baptism having no power
to effect this. And we have already seen the inconsistency of
yom- Lordship on this point, for we have got through only four
pages since we heard your Lordship exclaiming, " Who can
deny," that it is necessary for infants brought to Baptism, to
have "God's grace and favour," that they may receive benefit
from the rite ?
When, therefore, you complain of the Judgment " omitting
to state, that Mr. Gorham supposes God to work by it what our
Church says infants have not or cannot have, and denies that
He works then what our Church teaches that He then ahvays
works," and add, " This, again, may be very natural in common-
law Judges : I regret that it escaped your Grace " — you are only
adding another proof, how much better fitted " common-law
Judges " may be, to decide such a question as that involved in
Mr. Gorham's case, than a theological partisan. Our Church
maintains no such doctrine as that unbaptized infants have not
God's grace. In fact, you have contradicted yourself on this
point. And Mr. Gorham does not deny, that God works in
Baptism what our Church teaches that He works therein.
The Judgment adds, in its description of Mr. Gorham's doc
trine, — "And that without reference to the qualification ofthe
recipient, it is not in itself an effectual sign of grace."
Upon this you observe, — " Most true, as it has ever been
held by the whole Catholic Church, and must be held, of all
those capable [your own italics] of ' qualification.'" (p. 58.)
My Lord, are infants incapable of qualification ? incapable oi
receiving God's grace ? incapable of having a grant of regenera
tion made to them, to be afterwards sealed and formally made over
to them before the Church in Baptism ? If they are not, on ac
count of their infantine state, capable of this, they are not capable
of receiving it in Baptism. If therefore you have proved any
thing, you have proved too much. But capable they certainly
are ; and if, in order to receive the baptismal blessing, all must
be previously quaUfied who are capable of qualification, then

infants, who all by nature Ue under the wrath of God, need qua
lification, suited to their years, as much as adults. You may
think (and adduce great names in favour of the notion), that as
they cannot have faith and repentance, and cannot sinfully
oppose the influence of Divine grace ujjon them, they require
no qualification. But that they are capable ofit, is undeniable;
and the qualification is maintained to be, that, instead of coming-
in their natural state, under God's wrath, they come enjoying
his " grace and favor." AYliether this may arise from birth of a
Christian parent, or requires the grace of election or an internal
work of grace upon the will and affections, or may be otherwise
produced, is a different question, and one which I do not here
stop to discuss. But that all infants necessarily possess that
grace and favor, is a notion entirely opposed to the doctrine of
our Church that all infants are by nature children of wrath.
You proceed, —
" And then, at last, mention is made in the Judgment of that upon
which the whole does turn — the case of infants."
My Lord, this is entirely a misstatement; and you are
again contradicting yourself in making it, for you yourself have
been dealing with the whole account of Mr. Gorham's doctrine
given in the Judgment, as given with reference to the case of
infants, and endeavouring to prove, that though part of the doc
trine there described may be true in the case of adults, it does
not apply to the case of infants.
The Judgment concludes its description of Mr. Gorham's
doctrine with the words, — " But in no case is regeneration in
Baptism unconditional." Upon which you remark that, —
" In this statement, meagre as it is, jMr. Gorham's special error is
not simply omitted ; it is, by implication, denied. The Judgment
states Mr. Gorham's doctrine ' in no case is regeneration in Baptism
unconditional.' Mr. Gorham's doctrine is, in no case is regeneration
ill Baptit^m, but when Baptism is rightly received, before it." (p. 58.)
The remarks already made may show your Lordship, that you
have here entirely misrepresented the matter. Mr. Gorham has
in both Courts distinctly disavowed the doctrine which you thus

67
impute to him ; and I need not here repeat what I have already
said on this subject.
Having thus concluded your criticism upon the representation
of Mr. Gorham's doctrine given in the Judgment, you denounce
a Sentence drawn up by five of the most eminent Judges of the
land, and sanctioned by the two Primates, in the following
words, —
" So much suppression of the truth converts a formal absolution
of Mr. Gorham into a virtual condemnation of his doctrine. Grave
charges thus glossed over are tacitly acknowledged, while the indi
vidual is acquitted. My Lord, truth does not usually thus shun the
light." (p. 59.)
My Lord, on which side has been " suppression ofthe truth,"
a resort to the expedient of " glossing over," and a " shunning
of the Ught," is, I trust, tolerably clear from what has been just
stated. And it may not be unworthy of your consideration, on
a future occasion, before you hm-l your reproaches against such
individuals as are responsible for this Judgment, how far your
accusation is Ukely to have weight with the public mind. Other
wise your censures may return in tenfold force upon your own
head. My Lord, I have now gone through the most important part
of your Letter to the Archbishop. The rest consists of vehe
ment accusations of the Judicial Committee for omitting to
notice what you are pleased to think authorities and arguments
which they ought to have noticed, and taking a different view
from that entertained by yourself of the authorities they do
mention. This you think unpardonable. — Their cause might
safely be left with the public. It may not, however, be im
proper, or without its use, for me to examine very briefly the
grounds upon which you bring these charges against them,
especiaUy as some of your remarks refer to points which have
been already in controversy between us, and with language
towards myself which — while I will not pretend to expect any
injury from it, considering the quarter from which it comes, —
demands some notice of the points at issue.
You first complain, that they have omitted to notice " two
main laws," the 57th Canon of 1604, and the Act of Uni-
f3

68
formity, — which you tell them (in the plenitude of your superior
knowledge both of law and divinity) "have the most dii-ect, palp
able, aye conclusive bearing on the matter in issue." (p. 59.)
But before going into particulars as to the nature of those laws,
you turn aside to call in question their mode of dealing with the
XXXIX Articles. I must follow your course.
You say, that, in "examining the Articles, the Court does not
apply itself to a consideration of the terms in which they are
expressed, but does little more than institute a comparison be
tween them and the Articles of 1536, and King Henry VIII.'s
Book entitled ' Necessary Doctrine ; ' " and then complain, that
this was not the proper way to ascertain the meaning of the
Articles ; that the Judicial Committee have been " caught by the
sound of 'Articles of 1536,'" and "jumped to the conclusion
that this was the document" by which to ascertain the meaning
of what was doubtful in the Articles of 1553 and 1563, and
"assumed " that " the Articles of 1536 were the foundation of
those of the latter date ; " and j^ou " express your astonishment"
that His Grace did not set them right in this matter.
My Lord, in "jumping to conclusions" you leave the Judicial
Committee no chance of competing with you. Indeed they are
satisfied, as it seems to me, with sober walking, step by step.
But your leaps are terrific ; you rise in one direction and descend
in another ; and though you come down where we expected, it
is a marvel how you found your way there.
The Judicial Committee have done nothing of what you here
charge them with doing, and have done what you charge them
with omitting to do. They have expressly stated, in the most
decisive terms, that they have grounded their Judgment upon an
examination of the Articles and Formularies themselves, inter
preted by the " old-estabUshcd rules of construction." They
say,— "This question must be decided by the Articles and Liturgy, and
we must apply fo the construction of those books the same rules which
have long been established, and are by the law applicable to the con
struction of all written instruments. We must endeavour to attain
for ourselves the true meaning ofthe language emploved, assisted
only by the consideration of such external or historical facts as we

69
may find necessary to enable us to understand the subject-matter to
which the instruments relate, and the meaning of the words em
ployed. In our endeavours to ascertain the true meaning and effect
of the Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, we must by no means inten
tionally swerve from the old-established rules of construction, or de
part from the principles which have received the sanction and appro
bation of the most learned persons in time past, as being, on the
whole, the best calculated to determine the true meaning of the docu
ments to be examined."
Can words be clearer to show the principle upon which they
proceeded ? Their comparison ofthe Articles of 1553 and 1563
with the Articles of 1536, was made merely to bring out this
point, that in the latter document it was expressly determined,
"1. That baptized infants dying before the commission of actual
sin were undoubtedly saved thereby [which was also affirmed in
the Necessary Doctrine] . 2. That unbaptized infants were not
saved:" — while "the Articles of 1553 and 1563 say nothing
expressly upon either point ; but, not distinguishing the case of
infants from that of adults, state in general terms, that those who
receive Baptism rightly have the benefits there mentioned confer
red." You say that the Articles of 1536 * were made alio intuitu,
and for the people generally. And this is true, but will not aid
you. For though they were addressed to the public generally, yet
they were put forth also as a guide fo the clergy as to what doc
trine they were fo preach fo the people ; for the different Articles
commence in this way,—" Secondly" or "Thirdly," &c. "We wiU
that all bishops and preachers shall instruct and teach our people
. . that," &c. So that they are a simUar document to the later
Articles. Moreover, in whatever Ught we view them, they repre
sent the doctrine of the authorities of our Church at that period ;
and if the doctrine required to be taught by pubUc authority had
remained the same when the Articles of 1553 and 1563 were
pubUshed, these latter Articles would have simUarly maintained it.
And the change is of no little importance, because one great
* Their proper title is,— " Articles devised by the Kiiiges Highnes Ma
jestic, to stablyshe Christen quietnes and unitie amonge us, and to avoyde
contentious opinions : which Articles be also approved by the consent and
determination of the hole clergie of this realme." See Burton's reprint in
" Eormul. of Faith."

70
charge against Mr. Gorham was, that though he agreed with the
Rubric that chUdren baptized, dying before the commission of
sin, were saved, he did not hold (as, it was said, he ought) that
their salvation was to be ascribed to their Baptism.
The fact of the change as to the doctrine of the non-salvation
of unbaptized infants, is expressly proved by the language of the
" Reformatio Legura," drawn up under Cranmer's superinten
dence, and which received his sanction.* And it is admitted by
Ai-chbishop Lawrence himself.f
But beyond the notice of this difference in the public docu
ments ofthe two periods in iUustration of this point, (which is so
clear and marked a proof of the change in the theology of those
periods, as to have obtained a strong testimony to its force from
two ofthe leaders of yom- Lordship's party J) no further reference
is made to the Articles of 1536 and the "Necessary Doctrine."
The Court has "applied itself to a considersrtion ofthe terms"
of the Articles, and has found that " the Articles of 1553 and
1563" "have special regard to the qualifications of worthy and
right reception;" and that "the 35th Article of 1563 distinctly
states, that in such only as worthily receive the same, the Sacra
ments have a wholesome effect or operation." And this the
Court rightly considered as going to the root of the question
between your Lordship and Mr. Gorham, rejecting your unsup
ported assertion that this applies only to adults. Moreover, as
to the Articles, it had been admitted by the lower Court, that
Mr. Gorham's doctrine was not opposed to them. On this point,
therefore, it was less necessary to enlarge in the Court of Appeal.
Here you have both Courts against you.
But you teUthem, that the words of the Articles "have refe
rence to the words of other Confessions of faith of other reformed
communions, especially of the Confession of Augsburgh ;" and
that "to these Confessions of faith" " attention ought to have been
given in the first instance, in order to interpret what may be
doubtful in the language of our Articles." Her Majesty's Judges,
* 1 ^ave given the passage in " Effects of Infant Baptism," pp. 188, 189 ;
2nd Ed. pp. 206, 207. rr j >
+ Bampton Lect. pp. /O, 71-
X See Appendix to Mr. Dodsworth's Sermon, entitled "A house divided
agamst itself," and Mr. Maskell's " Second Letter, &c." p. 17.

7L
my Lord, must no doubt feel greatly indebted to you for the
numerous instructions you have given them in this Letter for
the right performance of their duties. But I suspect they will
be inclined to prefer their own mode of proceeding, as stated in
the words I have just quoted from the Judgment. This, how
ever, I am sure of, that if they had acted upon the advice you
have here given them, you would have been one of the first to
cry out, and to complain of their going to the Confessions of other
Churches to interpret the words of our own. And you talk of
the Confessions of "other Reformed communions." I should
have thought former experience had been sufficient to warn you
of the danger of such a reference. Does your Lordship really
think, that an interpretation of the language of our Articles by
that of " other Reformed communions" would be of advantage to
your cause ? Surely we can only see here further evidence of
that singular want of acquaintance with them, manifested so in
opportunely on a former occasion.
But it seems that the great point to be brought out is, that
our 35th Article, while it adopts words very similar to those of
the Confession of Augsburgh, adds what you call " a clause which
expresses the special, the essential, the distinctive characteristics of
Catholic teaching on this point," namely, that Sacraments are
(with your own italics) "certa qusedam testimonia et efficacia signa
gratia atque bonse in nos voluntatis, per quae invisibiliter ipse in
nobis operatur, nostramque fidem in se non solum excitat, verum
etiam confirmat."
My Lord, how often will you require to be reminded, that all
this language is used freely by the highest Calvinists, and there
fore is utterly useless for the purpose for which you quote it ?
You have just had, in the former part of this Letter, a proof that
even in the notes of the Geneva Bible the same phraseology is
used respecting the Sacraments. You have been compelled also,
on a former occasion, to admit that similar language is used in
the Confessions ofthe foreign " Reformed Communions." You
had passages repeatedly placed before you from Calvin, Bul
linger, and others of similar views, to the same effect. But,
reckless of anything but the object you have in view, you here
again quote the words as proving what you now weU know they
are quite incapable of proving.

72
Before I pass on, I would also just point out two notable fal
lacies in the arguments raised by your advocates out of the Ar
ticles. It was urged, that because the Articles say that the Bap
tism of infants is most agreeable with the institution of Christ,
therefore infants must aU be entitled to receive the grace of that
Sacrament. The fallacy of this may be at once shewn by apply
ing the same mode of reasoning to the case of adults. It is nu.st
agreeable with the institution of Christ that ail adults, making a
profession of faith and repentance, should be baptized. But are
they, therefore, all worthy ?
Again, it was urged that if infants were not all worthy re
cipients, then some must be unworthy, and therefore by the Ar
ticles "purchased to themselves damnation." It is difficult to
conceive how such an argument could be seriously put foiward.
An infant, supposed to be incapable of actual sin, cannot " pur
chase to itself damnation" by any act of its own, much less by
an act performed upon it against its will by others. And yet,
nevertheless, the general doctrine laid down in the Articles on
this subject refers to all cases ; but, of course, when appUed to
cases differently circumstanced, must be interpreted in accordance
with the circumstances of the particular case. If an adult,
coming without faith and repentance, purchases to himseK dam
nation by undergoing Baptism in such a state, then, in accord
ance with this doctrine, an infant lying under God's wTath, as our
Church teaches us that all do by natm-e, — though not committing,
in its Baptism, actual sin, (of which it is incapable, and of which
it could not be rendered guilty by an act performed upon it
against its will by another) and therefore not purchasing to
itself damnation, — is not entitled to receive the grace of Baptism
in that Sacrament.
You next urge (p. 63) that the Catechism was "the most ob
vious," and " incomparably the fittest document to explain what
might be doubtful to the Judges in the Articles." Have you
forgotten, my Lord, that to this very document they did refer,
and found it testifying against you ? The words to which you
refer in it, namely, those which give a definition of a Sacrament,
are whoUy insufficient for your purpose. If you ask their mean
ing, I have already pointed it out, p. 34 above. But there is
another part of it, namely, that relating to the promises made

73
for infants, to which you have not adverted, which has been justly
pointed out in the Judgment as entirely opposed to your doc
trine ; and was given up by your Advocates in both Courts as,
according to your view, an incorrect answer.* And if I chose
to resort to such weapons, I might here turn your whole artillery
of sarcasm, about the assent and consent given to the Book of
Common Prayer, against yourself.
The " awful heresy " which you proceed to charge upon Mr.
Gorham, (and which, you tell us, without a shadow of ground
for the assertion, has been " distinctly pronounced by the
Church to be such ") being one of your own making, calls for
but few words. The "heresy" is the assertion, that the grace
of the Sacrament of Baptism, " a death unto sin and a new birth
unto righteousness," is " not received in or through that Sacra
ment, but must be received previously through a prsevenient act
of grace on God's part." Now, my Lord, if this is " heresy,"
you must be at least close upon heresy yourself ; for at p. 33 we
find you commenting on His Grace's remark that " the grace
of spiritual regeneration is separable, and in fact often sepa
rated, from the Sacrament of Baptism," in these words, — " In
the case of adults baptized, no one would question this." So
that you allow that, in the case of adults, the grace is often
separated from the Sacrament. And if this is undeniable in
the case of adults, it can hardly be " heresy " to suppose it
to be so in the case of infants. But the truth is, that
this is not a fair representation of Mr. Gorham's doctrine, being
a partial and defective one. The grant of regeneration previous
to Baptism does not evacuate the effect of the Sacrament, or
make it of no avail in formally making over the grace of the
Sacrament [i. e. the regenerate state) according to the nature of
that rite, or, consequently, separate the grace from the Sacra
ment in worthy recipients ; and therefore you have not correctly
represented the real question at issue.
Hence, your attack here upon His Grace for "permit
ting " the Judges " to deceive themselves so grossly," and for
sanctioning their Judgment, returns upon yourself.
You next charge the Judicial Committee with having " wan-
* Mr. Maskell, in his " Second Letter," just published (p. 34), takes
the same view of the words.

74
tonly, and in spite of warning, omitted to give attention " to
the 57th Canon. And you tell them, after various remarks of
a similar kind, that in not doing so " they were guilty of a
grievous violation of their plain duty."
Very suitable words, doubtless, with which to address the
eminent Judges who gave Judgment against you ! And what
is the cause of this language ? Simply that they differed from
you in the interpretation of the Canon. My Lord, I need not
tell you, that I feel no surprise at their not having thought it
worth notice, as this matter has aU-eady been a subject of dis
cussion between us.* You say, —
"The Canon says, 'The doctrine of Baptism is sufficiently set
down in the Book of Common Prayer to be used at the administra
tion of the said Sacrament, as nothing can be added to it that is ma
terial or necessary.' The Judges virtually say, that there is no
doctrine of Baptism in those offices by which it is administered."
And you then proceed to use language towards the Judges
which can excite only a feeling of pain at the scandal produced
by such outbreaks on the part of a Bishop of our Church.
My Lord, the Judges have uttered nothing ofthe kind. But
they do say, and most justly say, that " the received Formularies
cannot be held to be evidence of faith or of doctrine, without
reference to the distinct declarations of doctrine in the Articles,
and to the faith, hope, and charity, by which they profess fo be
inspired or accompanied." And they go on to show, how the ex
pressions in such a Service ought to be interpreted, to make that
Service speak fhe doctrine which it ivas intended fo speak. The
question is as to the right mode of interpretation.
And as I have already pointed out to your Lordship on a
former occasion, it is only by wresting a portion of the Canon
from its context, and concealing its true nature and object,
that you manage to get the appearance of an argument out of
it. The case is this. The Pm-itans were in the habit of teach
ing the people that the Sacraments were not rafic? unless accom
panied by preaching. In opposition to such a notion, the
Canon (which is entitled, " The Sacraments not to be refused
at the hands of unpreaching ministers ") enacts as follows, 
* See my Vindication of the " Defence of the Thirty-Nine Articles • ' in
reply to the Charge of the Bishop of Exeter, pp. 60, 51.

75
" Whereas divers persons, seduced by false teachers, do refuse to
have their children baptized by a miinster that is no preacher, and
to receive the Holy Communion at his hands in the same respect, as
though the virtue of these Sacraments did depend upon his ability
to preach ; forasmuch as the doctrine both of Baptism and of the
Lord's Supper is so sufficiently set down in the Book of Common
Prayer to be used at the administration of the said Sacraments, as
nothing can be added unto it that is material and necessary ; we do
require and charge every such person, seduced as aforesaid, to reform
that their wilfulness, and to submit himself to the order of the Church
in that behalf; both the said Sacraments being equally efi'ectual,
whether they be ministered by a minister that is no preacher, or by
one that is a preacher.''
The meaning, therefore, is perfectly clear ; namely, that all
which it is " material and necessary " to bring before the people,
when administering Baptism, as to the nature of the rite, is con
tained in the appointed Service, and therefore that preaching on
the occasion was not requisite. The doctrine is sufficiently set
forth in the Seivice. And so we all hold.
This places the words quoted by you from the Canon in a
totally different Ught from that in which you wish them to be
viewed. Connected with your unwarrantable attack upon the Judges
in this part of your Letter, as influenced by " clamours from
without or timid caution from within," is a statement respect
ing the number of those who support Mr. Gorham's views which
requii-es to be met, especiaUy as there has been a repetition of it
in another quarter. You "venture to believe," that "there
are not probably six men, calling themselves Churchmen, who
partake of Mr. Gorham's special heresy."
If by Mr. Gorham's " special heresy," you mean the doctrine
which you have wrongfuUy imputed to him, you may have cor
rectly stated the number of those who hold such doctrine. But
if you mean the doctrine which Mr. Gorham reaUy holds, as the
Judicial Committee has represented it from a fair, and general,
and impartial survey of his answers and pleas as a whole, or as I
have described it above, you should have multiplied your units
by thousands ; and if you mean doctrine of a simUar character,
as distinguished from your opus operatum doctrine, you may

76
double that mode of reckoning. They who would not use Mr.
Gorham's language as to the need of " an act of prffivenient
grace," are whoUy agreed with him as to the necessity of an
infant coming to Baptism under circumstances different from
those in which the massUe — circumstances suitable to the terms
of the covenant made in Baptism— in order that they may at
the moment enjoy the full effects of that Sacrament. And
here Ues the substance and essence of the controversy between
him and your Lordship. And the phrase used by Mr. Gorham
seems intended to be but equivalent to one used by one of the
most distinguished of our prelates in a former age, — who had
been a chaplain to Archbishop Whitgift, — Bishop W. Barlow,
who calls Baptism " fhe seal of a prce-received grace."*
I proceed to the next point noticed in your Letter. It relates
to the remark of the Judgment upon the following Rubric, —
" It is certain by God's word that chUdren which are baptized,
dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."
That remark is, that " this Rubric does not, like the Article of
1536, say that such children are saved by Baptism." And after
faking if for granted, that the phrase " God's word " refers to
certain passages of Scripture mentioned in the Serrice, and that
those passages ascribe the salvation ofthe infant to Baptism, and
assuming that the words ofthe Service necessarily bear the inter
pretation you put upon them, you give vent to your anger in the
following words, —
" How then, and by what, are they saved? But I cannot argue
such a matter. Suffice it to say, and I sav it with a bitterness of
feeling which I will not dissemble, that such is ' the Judgment' [your
own sarcastic italics] of the Lord Chief Justice of England, of the
Master of the Rolls, of one of the most eminent Barons of Her Ma
jesty's Court of Exchequer, of the ChanceUor of the Diocese of Lon
don, and of a Right Hon. and learned man whose name is more ex
alted than any title of office or dignity could make it ; and that this
Judgment has been adopted and sustained by the Lord Archbishop of
Canterbury and the Lord Archbishop of York." (pp. 66, 67,)
My Lord, look over this list of names again, and see if you
could have more effectually written your own condemnation than
* I have given the whole passage in " Effects of Infant Baptism," p. 291.
or 2d ed. p. 324.

77
in thus reminding the reader, by whom the Judgment was given.
These are the parties who have pointed out that fact as to the
phraseology of the Rubric, the mention of which has called forth
yom- "bitterness of feeling." And it is hardly necessary to add,
that it is an important fact, bearing strongly upon the question
at issue, because in a previous document (the Articles of 1536)
the salvation of the infant had been expressly ascribed to Bap
tism, and salvation denied to the unbaptized. There was, there
fore, a marked change in the language used, and a change which
we cannot suppose to have been accidental. In fact it is obvious,
that when the Church gave up the doctrine that infants dying
unbaptized perish, (and I have proved that our Church did give
up that doctrine,) it could no longer maintain, that the salva
tion of baptized infants was the consequence of Baptism. This
single consideration shows that your Lordship's tragical excla
mations against the Judges for not giving to the Rubric your
interpretation, are as groundless as they are indecent. If we
believe, or are not prepared to deny, that infants will be saved
dying unbaptized, it is clear that we cannot ascribe the salvation
of baptized infants to Baptism.
And nothing perhaps can show more clearly how utterly un
reasonable is your inference from this Rubric, than the fact that
Peter Martyr (free from the influence of any such Rubric or
Canon requiring his acquiescence) voluntarily makes a simUar
statement in his Lectures at Oxford, as Regius Divinity Pro
fessor, at the same period. He says, — " I hope well concernmg
such infants \i. e. those who die unbaptized] , because I see them
to be born of believing parents .... that infants dying after having
received Baptism are saved, we ought to feel assured." * I need
not tell your Lordship, however, what, notwithstanding this,
were Peter Martyr's sentiments as to the effects of Baptism.
But the condition of Baptism is inserted in the Rubric by the
Church, because the Church has no right to dispense with God's
appointed ordinance for being made a member of the Church of
Christ. Strictly speaking, the Church can take no notice of,
* De hujusmodi parvulis bene spero, quod illos videam ex fidelibus
parentibus natos  pueros decedentes cum baptismo salvos esse confi-
dendum est. (In 1 Cor. vii. 14.)

78
and pronounce no judgment upon, those who have not been in
troduced by Baptism into her fold.* And hence it is, that, in
the Rubric to the Burial Service, it is directed that the Service is
not to be read over one that dies unbaptized. No one can be
treated by the Church as a member of Christ and a child of God,
that is, a regenerate person, until after Baptism, the rite appointed
for formally and publicly making over that character; just as no
one is treated as a member of any society, until after his formal
admission into it by the rite appointed for that purpose. But
the question — when spiritual life is first granted by God — is not
affected by this fact. And the Church is not called upon, and
has not seen fit, to pronounce any judgment upon, or extend her
rites to, one who has not been formally made a member of her
Communion. And this affords a reply to your Lordship's re
marks upon this latter Rubric in a subsequent page. (p. 69.)
You consider next the claims of the principle oi charitable hy
pothesis, justly maintained by the Judicial Committee to be the
principle on which the Church's Offices are constructed. This
also, it seems, like everything else opposed to your views, is a
great trial to your patience. And the reasoning with which
you commence your attack upon it is too remarkable to be passed
over without special notice.
You say, —
" True it is, as I have said already, all Common Prayer must be
framed on the principle that those who join in it are in a state of ac
ceptance with God. And why ? Because Common Prayer is part
of the Communion of Saints. Because the congregation, be it large
or small, is ' gathered together in Christ's name ' — that is, as mem
bers of Him. And when and how were they made His members?
When and how were they entitled to admission to the Communion of
Saints? In and by Baptism. And are we then to be gravely told,
that the phrases which declare, in the most absolute terms which the
wit of man can devise, that infants are in Baptism so made members
of Christ, so born anew by spiritual regeneration, are mere words of
charity and hope — and not of faith ? " (p. 67.)
Let us put this argument in form. Common prayer must be
* See this more fully noticed in mv Review of Sir H. J. Fust's Judg
ment, pp. 3.3 — 35.

79
drawn up as if all who joined in it were " in a state of accept
ance with God," because it is "part of the communion of
saints." Very good. This is just what the Judicial Committee
say. Let us see, which reasons the most logically from this
common proposition. But (you add) all who join in it were ad
mitted to this communion in and by Baptism. Very ti-ue, again.
The visible communion of saints consists of the baptized, and of
such only. Now for the inference. Therefore, you conclude,
Baptism must have made them all really saints, really "in a
state of acceptance with God," " born anew, by spiritual regene-
tion !"
My Lord, to use your own words in this very place, This I
will not argue.
You go on to what you call " the argument (if courtesy re
quire us to call it by such a name) of the Judicial Committee."
And your reply to it certainly puts the " courtesy " of your op
ponents to a severe test. But I will remember that it comes
from a Septuagenarian and a Bishop, and will deal with it ac
cordingly. The Judicial Committee refer to the Burial Service
as one undeniably drawn up upon the principle oi charitable hypo
thesis. You object to this first, that " In the offices of Baptism
of infants, the Chm-ch speaks in absolute, categorical, direct
terms ; in that of Burial, it professes to use the language of
hope." Not so, my Lord. This is but half the truth. A
portion of the Service you may explain in this way. But even
those expressions are strong, and become more forcible when con
nected with those other expressions in the Service to which the
Judgment expressly directs attention. And these latter are not
to be explained on any other principle. They stand thus.
"Forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, of his great
mercy, to take unto himself the soul of our dear brother
here departed," &c. And, — " We give thee hearty thanks for
that it hath pleased thee to deliver this oui- brother out of the
miseries of this sinful world." Let us hear your Lordship's
comment on these passages, — the comment of one who pro
fesses to be horror-struck at any intei-pretation of the Prayer
Book that does not give to the words their plain literal honest
meaning. On the former passage, — which you, who are so scrupulous

80
about accurate quotations, misquote, by leaving out fhe very
words ("of his great mercy") which stamp upon the sentence
its real meaning — you angrily ask His Grace why he did not
" undeceive them," and " tell them that this is merely the ap
plication of a text of Ecclesiastes, which says of evei-y man, be
he good or bad, that while the spirit of a beast goes downward
to the earth, the spirit of a man goes upward — i. e., as our
Church has ex])lained it, has ascended to Him who made it ?"
(p. 68.) I suppose His Grace might reply, by asking you why
you had not cited the passage correctly, and by reminding you,
that " the wicked " are " taken away " — not in God's " great
mercy," but—" in his ivrafh." (Ps. lviii. 9.) Their end is from
the wrath of God coming upon them. (Ps. Lxxviii. 31.)
On the latter passage, your comment is one of which I am
unwilling to speak as it deserves. AVe may (you tell us) thank
God "that it hath pleased Him to deliver this our brother out
of the miseries of this sinful world," because " if he departed in
an impenitent state, we may and ought to think, fliat he was
nevertheless taken away in mercy, — that his case ivas lost — that if
life had been continued fo him, he would have added sin fo sin,
and so would have been sunk in deeper perdition" ! ! (p. 69.) So
that if we knew, that he had " lifted up his eyes in hell, being in
torments," we "¦ ought " to " thank God," that he had delivered
him out of the miseries of this sinful nmrld, because if he had
lived longer, he would doubtless have " added sin to sin !" My
Lord, I will only say, that we are very much obliged to you for
this explanation of the words. It will be of great service. It
will tend to open people's eyes. Such an illustration of the
way in whicli your principle of interpretation acts, will do more
with many to place it in its true Ught, than anything I could
have said.
But, after all, you seem to have some uncomfortable mis
givings on the matter, For you proceed to remind us, that the
Service was " designed by the Church when she Avas able to ex
ercise that discipline, the want of which we now solemnly de
plore." One question, my Lord, is all I shall offer upon this
remark. Will any degree of discipline enable us to pronounce
w ith positive certainty — a\ ith more than the language of hope
and charity — upon the state of the majority of those we bury ?

81
Your remark upon the Rubric I have already noticed.
Before I pass on, however, I must remind your Lordship of
an argument on this point, the weight of which you at least are
bound to admit. In your last Charge you pointed our attention
to the honesty of the Dissenters at the Restoration, who, seeing
that the Prayer Book taught " the doctrine of real baptismal re
generation and certain salvation consequent thereupon," refused
their assent to the Book, and quitted the Church. Now, my
Lord, these same Dissenters brought another objection against
the Prayer Book, equaUy preventing then- giving their assent to
it. They could not subscribe (as your own informant, Calamy,*
teUs us,) because "they could not consent to pronounce all saved
that are buried, except the unbaptized, excommunicate, and self-
murtherers." And this they maintain the Prayer Book does
pronounce. For " the priest must not only say, that God took
away aU such persons in mercy, in great mercy, but also posi
tively affirm that God took them to himself, &c  They could
not see how charity would excuse dangerous errors and false
hood." My Lord, they were at least self-consistent. They applied to
both Services tlie same principle of interpretation. They did not
play fast and loose with the Prayer Book, applying one principle
of interpretation to one Service, and another to another Service,
to make it correspond with their own private views and preju
dices. They treated it as a consistent whole ; and having un
fortunately been unable to see the admissibility of the hypothe
tical principle of interpretation, they adopted another which
compelled them to reject the Book. And in doing so, they were
(as I have said) at least self-consistent. And as their example
is one to which you have yourself referred us, permit me to pre
sent it again to your Lordship in a more impartial point of
view. Your next statement, that the words " Seeing now, dearly be
loved brethren, that this child is regenerate," refer to " a ques
tion of fact on which no serious mind would dare to speak thus
positively without sufficient warrant," (p. 70), is, of course, not
* Life of Baxter, &c.
G

82
an argument, but an unsupported assertion involving the very
question at issue, and therefore it does not require an answer.
But I would just remind your Lordship, that the same remark
might be made on various other passages of the Prayer Book,
where it is clear that no positive assertion was, or could be, in
tended. The great question is, upon what principle is the
Prayer Book drawn up, and according as we determine this,
must we decide how far such passages as that refen-ed to bear
out your conclusion.
The declarations to which you refer in the Catechism must
likewise be taken in connexion with the whole doctrine of the
Church, and more especially with other parts of the Catechism
itself, to which attention has been directed in the Judgment,
and which your Lordship has passed over in profound, but pru
dent, sUence.
You pass on to the Act of Uniformity, and being of course
much better qualified than Her Majesty's Judges to interpret
Acts of Parliament, or at least much more honest, having no
such private feelings to gratify, or personal motives to sway your
conduct, as you impute to them, you directly accuse the Judges
of having deliberately and consciously passed over a law having
a "conclusive bearing on the matter in issue." (pp. 59, 60, 71.)
My Lord, the veiy fact that the Judges who sat on this case
did pass over this Act in sUence, after having had their atten
tion called to it in the pleadings, wUl be sufficient to convince
all impartial persons that it has no bearing on the question at
issue. In fact, it must be obvious to the most Ul-informed — to
the meanest capacity — that in a question touching fhe inter
pretation to be given to the Prayer Book, where both sides are
agreed in accepting the Prayer Book itself as sound and Scrip
tural, an Act merely requiring such acceptance of the Prayer
Book is wholly irrelevant to the matter at issue. You might as
well send us to a Church-building Act. But your Lordship
is well aware, how easy it is to throw dust into the eyes of the
public on such matters, so as to blind them to the real question.
Tacitly assuming the very point in controversy, that the doc
trine you are opposing is contrary to what is contained in the
Prayer Book, and also that your opponents are consciously con-

83
tradicting the doctrine of that Book, you send us to an Act
of Parliament requu-ing the acceptance of the doctrine of the
Prayer Book, as if it settled the question, when in fact it does
not touch it.
But your remarks upon the Act are not of a nature to be
passed over in sUence. Little as the exposure of their real cha
racter may effect as it regards your Lordship's own mind, it is
not the less necessary that public attention should be directed to
them. You first notice the Preamble of the Act, in which it is stated
that His Majesty had authorised Convocation to review the
Book of Common Prayer, and " make such alterations and addi
tions in the said Book as to them should seem most meet and
convenient." You put the word " make" in italics, for a pur
pose which we shall see presently. But the attempt to raise an
argument out of it is fruitless ; for in the first place, the altera
tions and additions do not touch the point in question; and
secondly, (as you are well aware) this "making" was only equi
valent to proposing, subject to the approval of the King and the
two Houses of ParUament, (as the Preamble also expresses in
words which you have suppressed*), and does not imply any
power in Convocation to determine the matter.
You then proceed to remark, that every one admitted to the
ministry is required " to declare his unfeigned assent and con
sent to the use of all things in the said Book contained and
prescribed, in these words and no other : ' I, A. B., do hereby
declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything
contained and prescribed in and by the book intituled the Book
of Common Prayer,' &c." And upon this you favour us with
the following remarks. You tell us that the previous subscrip
tion to the Book, (which had been required, and is still required,
by the thirty-sixth Canon), namely, a declaration that it " con
taineth in it nothing contrary fo the word of God, and that it
may lawfully so be used ; and that he himself wiU use the form
in the said Book prescribed, in public Prayer and administra-
* " AU which his Majesty having duly considered, hath fully approved
and allowed the same, and recommended to the present ParHament, that
the said Books  be the Book which shah be appointed to be used," &c.
G 3

84
tion of the Sacraments, and none other," had been found insuf
ficient. " Fatal experience," you say, " had shown the insuf
ficiency of subscription, and of a mere obligation to use the
Book. The only security for the faithful use of it was ' assent
and consent' to all that it contained, and such security was
given by the Statute." So that here, to answer the purpose of
the moment, you actually represent the stringent declaration of
the Canon, directly binding us to the belief that the Prayer
Book " containeth in it nothing contrary to the word of God,"
as "a mere obligation to use the Book"!! My Lord, if I was
inclined to descend to the use of such language as, in your re
cent Charge, and in the passage which I shall have to notice
presently in your Letter, you have addressed towards myself,
there are no words which would be too strong to denounce such
a statement. Having formerly committed yourself to the mis
take, that the Declaration required by the Act of Uniformity is
more stringent than the subscription required by the Canon, (in
evident ignorance of the context of that Declaration,) you now
disparage and explain away the meaning of the Canon, in order
to countenance your interpretation of the Act. The plain words
of the Canon, that the Prayer Book " containeth in it nothing
contrary to the word of God," are to be misinterpreted as in
volving only " a mere obligation to use the Book," whUe the
equally plain words of the Act, that the Declaration required by
it is a Declaration of " unfeigned assent and consent to the use
of all things in the said Book contained and prescribed," are to
be equally misinterpreted in the other direction, or rather put
out of sight, as if there were no such explanation of the meaning
of the Declaration to be found in the Act.
The object of Parliament, in requuing such a Declaration in
addition to subscription to the Canon, is obvious. The Declara
tion was to be made publicly, in the house of God, before the
people. Subscription to the Canon was only to be made pri
vately before the Bishop. The former, therefore, was a more
formal and cxjiress and solemn acknowledgment of the views
and intentions of the party, than the latter; and being enforced
by Statute, was of stUl stronger obligation. But so far as con
cerns the obligation laid upon the party subscribing and declar-

85
ing with respect to the Prayer Book, the Canon is stronger than
the Declaration. For the Declaration of assent and consent re
quired by the Act is limited m the context to the use of the
Book. The very mention, however, of this FACT, (of which your
Lordship was evidently in complete ignorance untU I pointed
it out in my "Defence of the XXXIX Articles,") has caUed
forth from you, both in your late Charge and in this Letter,
language as disgraceful to its author as it is harmless to the
party assaUed.
In the face of both, / here repeat the statement of the fact ;
and I shaU now repeat also the passages with which I accom
panied that statement, and some of the authorities by which I
proved, in my reply to your Charge, that that statement was
correct. My statement was accompanied by the foUowing among other
passages : —
"Morally, I must earnestly maintain that they [i.e. the declara
tions required by the Act of Uniformity,] are of equal force [with that
of the 36th Canon,] because no man ought to give his assent and
consent to the use oi aU things contained and prescribed in the Book,
who thinks any part of it ' contrary to the Word of God.' " (Def. of
XXXIX Art. p. 10.)
" Am I then here advocating liberty being granted to the minis
ters of the Church to give or withhold their assent to the Prayer
Book, as accordant with Holy Scripture ? Far from it  By
the 36th Canon, all ministers will still be required at ordination,
institution, &c., to testify by subscription their belief that the Prayer
Book ' containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and
that it may lawfully so be used.' Any man, therefore, who believes
that any portion of the Prayer Book conveys unscriptural doctrine,
will he hound at once to retire from a ministry which he can only
lawfully exercise through the instrumentalily of a subscription to the
contrary effect. And if he does not do so, and attempts to propagate
his view of the unscriptural character of any portion of the Prayer
Book, he will still be most justly amenable to the Ecclesiastical Courts,
as one who is violating his subscription, and breaking faith with the
Church." (Ib. pp. 26, 27.)
Such was the context of the statement referred to.

86
Of the authorities to prove the correctness of the statement, I
wiU here, for the sake of brevity, give but two ; referring you to
my reply to your Lordship's Charge for others.
Dr. Fulwood, Archdeacon of Totnes, in a work published in
1663, immediately on the passing ofthe Act, writes thus: —
" For the perfect removal of any such scruple for ever, let the
Act interpret itself. The words immediately foregoing this Declara
tion are these. ' Every minister  shall declare his unfeigned
assent and consent to the Use of all things in the said Book con
tained and prescribed in these words and no other :' they are the
words of this Declaration. Mark : we must declare our unfeigned
assent and consent. To what .? Not simply to all things, but to
all things with respect to their use : to the use of all things in the
said Book. But in what words must we declare for the use of aU
things in the said Book ? In these words and no other : and they
are, as was said, the words of the Declaration. The plain meaning
of the Act appears, therefore, to be but this : while we declare, in
these words, viz. of the Declaration, we do but declare our unfeigned
assent and consent to the use of [the] Common Prayer : which if we
can lawfully use, we do but declare,, that if we do conform, we do
nothing against our consciences : or that, we do unfeignedly assent
and consent to the use of that which we ourselves either do, or can
use. And as if our governors had purposed to make this their mean
ing AS plain as thb sun, they have at least twice more given us the
same interpretation of those words."*
The other testimony shall be from Bishop Stillingfleet, who,
in his Sermon on " The Mischief of Separation," thus urges the
same view : —
" It is a very hard case with a Church, when men shall set their
wits to strain every thing to the worst sense, to stretch laws beyond
Ihe intention and design of them, .... and will not distinguish be
tween their approbation of the use and of the choice of things ; for
upon such terms as these, men think to justify the present divisions.
1 much question whether, if they proceed in such manner, they can
hold communion with any Church in the Christian world." (p. 49.)
The same view is maintained by Dr. Falkner in his " Libertas
Ecclesiastica," and by other -svi-iters living near the time of the
* The Grand Case ofthe present Ministry, 1662. 12mo. pp. II, 12.

87
passing of the Act.* In fact, I know of none, living at that
period, who took a different view.
Reckless, however, of these authorities, which I brought
before you in my Reply to your Charge, showing that the mean
ing I had given to the Act was, beyond aU question, the correct
mterpretation — ^reckless of the proof given that your statement
of my views was in direct contradiction to the truth — you here
again pour forth a repetition of your former calumnies, as if the
strength of your cause lay in false accusations of your oppo
nents. You first inform the Archbishop, that you are " quite sure "
that my statement on this point (that is, the statement of a fact)
" has been received by His Grace with the same disgust as by
yourself." Do you suppose, my Lord, that there can be two
opinions as to the character of this statement ? And you then
proceed thus, —
" I here cite these words, not for the very idle purpose of ex
posing their weakness no less than their wickedness, but — 1st, As
a proof that there is among the ministers of our Church at this day
a spirit which requires the faithful exercise of vigilance in all among
us who have consented [consented] to undertake the high office of
Bishops in the Church. But I have cited it, 2ndly and principally,
in order to show that this party feels that the plain, the
DIRECT meaning OF THB BoOK OP CoMMON Prater [which they
have solemnly vowed that they beheve to contain nothing in it contrary
to the word of God, and which they are constantly using and putting
into the mouths of their people in the House of God,] is opposed to
SOME OF their OWN FAVOURITE TENETS." (pp. 73, 74.)
To whose statements, my Lord, the charges of " weakness "
and "wickedness" belong, I shall willingly leave to the de
termination of the public. That "there is among the minis
ters of oui- Church at this day a spirit which requires the faithful
exercise of vigilance in aU " the authorities of the Church, and
all who desire to uphold the truth among us, I entu-ely agree
with your Lordship; and that among those ministers will be
' See my " Vindication of the Defence of the XXXIX Articles," pp.
55_58. I might with case add others to those here quoted ; and among
them, if I recoUect right, Bp. Beveridge in one of his Sermons.

88
found some high in office in the Church. Happy would it be
for our Church, if its discipline were in such a state that these
" ministers " could be more effectually restrained from makiag
their own will their law of action, and substituting the prejudices
of an ill-informed mind for the doctrines of the Church. And
watched, you may rest assured, they wUl be.
That you have quoted certain words " in order to show " that
the party opposed to you is guilty of perjury, is beyond aU
question ; precisely as  but I wiU let such language speak
for itself.
My Lord, when I first entered into controversy with your
Lordship, I was quite swaxe of the consequences to which I was
exposing myself in the character of the language which I should
be called to encounter. But there are some occasions on which
duty demands a sacrifice of personal feeling. The position in
which you have been placed, gives a publicity to your statements
which requires that their real nature should be exposed. Other
wise I need not inform you, that a " Charge " or a " Letter "
from the Plaintiff in the Cause of the Bishop of Exeter v. Latimer,
would have needed no reply.
That one, of whom a jury of his countrymen, in his own Ca
thedral town, have pronounced, — that language speaking of him
(in terms which I shall not repeat) as unworthy of beUef, is proper
and justifiable, — should fling around him, with a profuse hand,
similar accusations against others, is not more than was to be ex
pected. It is not wonderful that you should seek relief in branding
others with the same imputation ; conscious as you must justly
feel, that you may give vent to the most unlimited abuse with
the most perfect impunity. Whatever it might be, no cause of
action could lie against you for it. I quite grant that you would
be triumphantly acquitted, if charged with libelling. For the
question would be, Wliat damage has it infUcted ? And the in
credulity of any jury that could be selected, on such a point,
would, beyond all question, be insuperable.
But what does your cause really gain by all this ? Absolutely
nothing. There is no question between you and the parties you
are now assaUing, as to their obligation to accept the Prayer
Book j)reeisely as it stands, and to believe and maintain it to be

89
sound and Scriptural. Their views in this respect have been
stated over and over again in the strongest terms. But, resolved
to misrepresent them, in order that you may have a locus standi
with the public, you persevere in statements which it is impos
sible rightly to characterize, without the use of language to
which (famUiar as controversy with your Lordship may make it
to one's ear) I shaU not lend myself.
But I proceed with the task I have undertaken, thankful that
a labour which at almost every step gives fresh cause for aversion
draws near its conclusion.
The very next point I am called to notice is a direct, palpable,
and (to use your own word) "wanton" misrepresentation of
facts. I wUl give yom- own statement of the matter, that its
real nature may be the better seen in its full length and breadth.
You teU us that the Act of Uniformity —
" Enables us to ascertain the sense in which that Book [the Prayer
Book] is sanctioned by the Legislature, by telling us by whom, after
what consideration, and in what sense it was ' made.' It was ' made '
by Convocation, after having been ' prepared ' by twelve members of
the Upper House, and many leading members of the Lower House,
after a long and very minute discussion of many portions of it with
the heads of the Nonconformists, who sought very important altera
tions in it. This discussion was holden with the authority of a Com
mission under the Great Seal; the terms of which Commission
required that the Commissioners ' should certify and present to the
King, in writing under their hands, the matters and things where
upon they shall so determine for his approbation.' This, my Lord,
was done ; [read, not done,] and we have, as your Grace weU
knows, [read, well knows not to be the case,] the result of their
' resolutions and determinations,' so presented to the King, in the
document commonly called ' the Savoy Conference.' It would pro
bably be impossible to produce another equally clear authority for
the meaning of the Legislature, [seeing that they cared not one straw
for the discussions of the Savoy Conference, of which they probably
knew scarcely anything] the animus imponentis, in the case of any
other Statute which can be named. Whatsoever particulars, there
fore, are clearly laid down hi the Acts of that Conference, must be
held to be an authoritative exposition of any words of the Book of
Common Praver on which those Commissioners have pronounced

90
plainly, if the proper construction of such words shall be brought
into question.''
You then proceed to say, that " what they so pronounced " on
the words in the Offices of Baptism " must be held to declare
the doctrine of the Church on Baptism ;" and after giving se
veral extracts from a published Report of the Conference as
reprinted by Dr. Cardwell, you conclude, —
" In these determinations, [i. e. the answers of a few Bishops to a
few Presbyterians in the Conference] I affirm, for the reasons which
I have given above, that we have a clear statement of what was the
mind of the Convocation, and therefore of the Parfiament (which
simply accepted its decision), [! ! !] respecting the doctrine concerning
Baptism, in the Offices of Baptism." (pp. 74 — 77.)
Now, my Lord, whether it be from ignorance of the facts of
the case, or from any other cause, I shaU not stop to inquire, —
for it makes little difference as far as your Lordship is concerned,
and none as far as truth is concerned — ^but this whole statement
is one tissue of misrepresentations fi-om the begiuning to the
end. So far from the Book being " made by Convocation after
having been prepared " at the Savoy Conference, as you repre
sent, the Book is expressly recognized in the Act of Uniformity
as ihe Book put forth in the first year of Q^een Elizabeth with.
certain " alterations and additions " made in Convocation and
accepted by Parliament. And it is a fact with which your
Lordship ought to have been perfectly familiar, that the Com
mission that sat at the Savoy was appointed for only four
months ; and the whole of that time having been spent in use
less altercation between the opposing parties, it came to an end
without producing any result of any kind.*
So far from the "resolutions and detei-miuations " of the
Savoy Conference being presented to the King, as found in the
document called " the Savoy Conference," no report at aU of the
kind was presented to the King from the Savoy Conference; and
for the very best possible reason, namely, that there were no
" resolutions and determinations " to present, because nothing
was agreed upon there ; and the alterations and additions in the
See Cardwell's Conferences, pp. :26-I--266.

91
Prayer Book are expressly mentioned in the Act as having been
presented to the King by Convocation ; and the document caUed
the Savoy Conference, is only an unauthorized and anonymous
account of its proceedings.*
So far, therefore, from the Acts of this Conference being any
authority for " the meaning of the Legislature " in the Act of
Uniformity, or any "authoritative exposition of any words of
the Book of Common Prayer," or any declaration of " the doc
trine of the Church on Baptism," or anything else, they are
merely the record of four months' disputing and quarrelling
between a few of the heads of the Episcopalian and Dissenting
parties. And it clearly appears that the proceedings of the
Conference were (as usual in such cases) principally managed
by two or three of the hottest spirits on both sides, but for
whom the Conference might have come to a very different ter
mination. To say, therefore, that we have, in the Acts of this
Conference, " a clear statement of what was the mind of Convo
cation," is entirely opposed to fact. But to add that we have,
in the statements of a few bishops in the Savoy Conference, a
declaration of the mind of Parliament, when it sanctioned Q.
Elizabeth's Prayer Book with a few alterations and additions of
little moment, is an assertion criminally reckless and unjusti
fiable. The Houses of Parliament did not consider themselves
bound to accept the alterations proposed by Convocation ; much
less would they suffer themselves to be led by the dogmas of a
few disputers at the Savoy Conference. And the recorded pro
ceedings of the Houses of Parliament on the occasion, so com
pletely overturn your Lordship's statements upon this subject,
that I make no apology for repeating here the summary view of
them I have already placed before the public in a larger work.
" We find that the House of Commons (however indisposed to
favour the violent Nonconformists) were very jealous of any alte
rations being made in the Book by Convocation, lest they should in
troduce into it Laudian views. So little were they inclined to defer
to the views of Convocation about the Prayer Book, that on the 9th
* An account of all the proceedings of the Commissioners, &e. Lond. :
printed for R. H. I66I. 4to. The Nonconformists presented a Petition to
the King, complaining of what took place in the Conference ; but the Epis
copalians do not seem to have made any report to the King of any kind.

92
of July, 1661, before Convocation had had time to make any progress
in their revision of the Book, ' a " BiU for the uniformity of public
Prayer and administration of the Sacraments," was read for a third
time, and, together with a copy ofthe Prayer Book, printed in 1 604,
was passed and sent to the Upper House ;'* the book of 1604 being
selected, Dr. Cardwell supposes, in order to avoid any alterations by
Archbishop Laud. The consideration of this BiU was deferred by
the Lords, and its first reading did not take place till the 14th of
February, 1662. ' Three days afterwards it passed through the se
cond reading, and was placed in the hands of a select committee.
The Book of Common Prayer, however, [that is, the Book as revised
by Convocation] was not yet deUvered to them ; and the Committee
having inquired on the 1 3th of February, with strong symptoms of
impatience, whether they should stiU wait for it, or should " proceed
upon the book brought from the Commons," they received a Royal
message on the 25th of the same month, together with an authentic
copy of the corrected Prayer Book confirmed under the Great Seal.'-f
This revised Book having been substituted for the other, and some
other amendments introduced into the BUI, the Bill passed the House
of Lords on the 9th of AprU, 1662, and was returned to the House
of Commons. The House of Lords was satisfied with the alterations
made, and passed them suh silentio : but as to the sense in which
the Book was understood, each member of course acted upon his own
view of it. And it is very clear, that they did not consider them
selves bound to abide by what took place in Convocation, for they
proceeded as far as the Committee with the Book of 1 604, when they
must have known that Convocation had completed a revision of the
Book, and were evidently incUned to have brought the matter to a
conclusion upon that Book, if the revised Book had not been at once
submitted to them.
" But the feeling with which the House of Commons acted in the
matter is stUl more strongly marked ; for when the BiU was returned
to them from the Lords with the revised Book of Common Prayer,
' it appears,' says Dr. CardweU, ' that the Commons were jealous of
the preference given to the corrected Book of Common Prayer over
the edition of 1604, and suspecting that some differences might have
been introduced between the two periods when the books were re
spectively printed, directed a close comparison to be made between
them. On the 16th of AprU, they proceeded so far in their fear of
change, as to make it a question whether they should not reconsider
« Card. Conf. p. '676. f lb. p. 377.

93
the corrections made in Convocation ; and though they decided to
adopt them without further examination, the division was only of
ninety-six to ninety in their favour. In order to save the dignity of
the House, they afterwards divided on the question whether they had
the power of reconsidering such corrections, and then obtained a vote
in the affirmative.'* And Dr. CardweU adds, that ' the fear, which
the Commons seem to have contracted, that occasion would be taken
for introducing into the Liturgy the religious sentiments of Arch
bishop Laud and his school of theologians, was not altogether with
out foundation. 't Glad enough, no doubt, would the Laudian party
have been, if they could have introduced various alterations into our
Formularies at this time. But, providentiaUy, the power of doing so
was not in their hands.
" So much, then, for the feelings with which the Houses of Parlia
ment were actuated on this occasion." (EfF. of Inf. Bapt. pp.480, 481 .)
It is difficult to conceive, how your Lordship could venture,
in the face of such notorious facts, to advance a string of asser
tions not one of which has the least foundation in truth. And
I leave for your consideration the position in which you have
placed yourself, when, after such a specimen of your qualifi
cations for the office of supreme adviser of Her Majesty and the
Judges of the realm, you wind up your misstatements with the
indignant admonition, that " this was the Law which the Judicial
Committee were bound both to recognise and to carry out in their
Judgment ;" and that, inasmuch as, presuming to decline foUow
ing such a profoundly learned authority, they " shut their eyes
against it," you " appeal to another and a higher tribunal."
I have now, my Lord, gone through everything in your Letter
which, by the utmost stretch of courtesy, could be called an
argument or an authority. And I leave the determination of
the questions at issue between us to the judgment of the public.
The remainder ofthe Letter consists of vague charges against
the Archbishop and the Judges of being swayed by unworthy
motives, misrepresentations ofthe facts ofthe case, self-sufficient
denunciations of the Judgment, a bold avowal that you have
introduced into the Church a state of " anarchy," and finaUy a
* Ib. p. 378. t lb. p. 389.

94
Protest announcing that you are prepared to set at defiance the
authorities under which the Providence of God has placed you.
My remarks upon all this will be but few. The character
of those whom you have assailed renders any defence of their
conduct, any vindication of their motives, worse than super
fluous. Your imputations against them I pass over. I wUl not
waste time in noticing them. — Your misrepresentation of Mr.
Gorham's doctrine, and consequently of the Ught in which it is
regarded in the Church, and of the view which would have been
taken of a decision adverse to his claims, I have already dealt
with ; and shall not, therefore, go over that ground again. — But
the false reasoning put forth to justify that state of anarchy
which you boldly avow that you have introduced among us,
does need a few words.
You teU us, my Lord, of your love for obedience to consti
tuted authorities ; and that it is only when their ordinance is
" unhappUy against God" that we may disobey them ; that " in
proportion as we love order, rule, and authority, and as our
thoughts of the sacredness of the character of the judge and of
judgment, are bound up with the sanctions of our holy religion,
it is a very sore evil to be obliged to slight them : it is the first
stone, whose removal loosens the whole fabric." (p. 84.) Smooth
and plausible words, no doubt, — ^but prefacing only an apology
for rebellion. And why do you introduce this " sore evil," and
" loosen the whole fabric " of society ? Forsooth, because the
authorities under which you are placed as a Minister of our
Church, have decided that you are not to exclude from its mi
nistry all who do not take what you think an orthodox view on
the subject of the effects of Baptism ! Assuming that you and
your party are the infallible depositaries of " the Catholic faith,"
you affix the brand of heresy without hesitation upon all who
differ from you, and pronounce, ex cathedra, that " the Com-t
which decided othei-wise [than agreeably to your view], decided
contraiy to the faith," and that its Judgment is to be met by
open resistance. The law, as proclaimed by those who have
authority to deliver it, is to be despised and set at nought. It
is not agreeable to your view of what is just and right, and
therefore you will rebel against it.

95
My Lord, be it so that your doctrine is the orthodox doctrine,
the genuine " Catholic faith ;" be it even, if you please, — what,
with rare powers of self-confidence, you represent it to be, — a
fundamental article of faith ; is rebellion against the authorities
under which the Providence of God has placed you, the weapon
by which it is to be maintained ? Do you propose its establish
ment by the creation of a state of " anarchy," which may enable
you and your party to seize, in the confusion, the reins of power ?
Truly, my Lord, you here afford us a very pregnant proof of the
genuineness of your " Catholic faith." It is sufficiently cha
racterized by its fruits. Thank God, you have learned no such
lesson from your opponents. Their " Catholic faith," my Lord,
teaches them very different conduct, as you are well aware,
under adverse decisions of their Ecclesiastical rulers. Prepared
to defend the truth with equal vigour, equal firmness, — prepared
to maintain the rights of conscience, if necessary, against sinful
requirements, — they are not prepared to throw the Church into a
state of anarchy, because it is not ruled according to their mind, —
because everybody is not expelled from it by its authorities who
does not hold what they believe to be the truth ; they are not
prepared to excommunicate their ecclesiastical superiors, because
of decisions that contravene then- views of doctrine. The means
by which they have endeavoured to propagate the faith, have
been of a very different kind. They believe that the wisdom
that produces " confusion and every evil work" " descendeth not
from above ;" the wisdom that is from above being " first pure,
then peaceable, gentle and easy to be intreated, full of mercy
and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy."
They beUeve that truth is best seen in the light of holiness and
peace ; that it comes with the strongest recommendations when
connected with obedience to the practical precepts of the Chris
tian faith ; that it has as little communion with resistance to
"the ordinance of God," lawful authority, (when requiring
no sinful act,) as light vrith darkness, or Christ with Belial.
And therefore, however much they might lament a decision ad
verse to their views, they would not prostitute the functions of any
office they might hold in the Church to the promotion oi anarchy,
the purposes of rebellion, li requirements were made of them
inconsistent with their duty to God, they would retire from a

96
position which they could no longer hold with a pure con
science. But what, my Lord, are you asked to do ? Nothing. You
are not even called upon to aid ministerially in the performance
of the act you so much deprecate. In no way are you affected
by the recent Judgment, except in being restrained by it from
imposing upon others the iron yoke of your own private dogmas,
which you choose to call "the Catholic faith." And the Judg-,
ment rests for its authority upon those very laws to which you
owe your own power. If the Judgment may be disobeyed and
despised, you fall with it. The law which has protected those
under your episcopal supervision, is the law to which you are in
debted for the power of exercising and enforcing that super
vision. In assailing the authority of that law, you are over
turning your owTi. And mournful is the reflection, that such
an example of contempt for constituted authorities should have
been set by one verging upon the limit of human existence, —
called upon by his position to do aU in his power to strengthen
the bonds of law and order, by which society is kept together, —
bound by his own solemn vow to " maintain and set forward, as
much as should lie in him, quietness, love, and peace among men."
BewaU the Judgment if you please. Uphold what you beUeve
to be the truth. No one wUl think it worth whUe to endeavour
to stop you, or to impede your efforts in making converts, or,
probably, to trouble himself with the question, what doctrine
you hold. But take heed how you trample upon the rights of
others, — how you set at defiance the majesty of the law, — how
you let loose a wild spirit of insubordination, confusion, and
anarchy, from which, if you were successful, you would be one
of the first to suffer.
If you are convinced that the Judgment has cut off the Na
tional Chm-ch of this country from the Church Catholic, quit
her communion. The most perfect liberty is afforded you of
going where you will, and maintaining what you will, and doing
anything you will — except of abusing the power entrusted to
your hands under the solemn obligation of a vow of the most
sacred character, that you will act " according to such authority"
" as to you shall be committed by the oedinance op this
REALM ;" of an oath of " due reverence and obedience" to your

97
Primate ; of repeated recognitions of the supremacy of your So
vereign " as well in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things or
causes as temporal."
But what means such language as the following, from one
who — by the office he holds in a Church bound by certain re
ceived and recognized laws — by his own voluntary vows, decla
rations, and oaths — is, pledged, so long as he retains that office,
to submit to the determinations of the authorities under which
he has placed himself ?
" I have to protest, not only against the Judgment pronounced in
the recent Cause, but also against the regular consequences of that
Judgment. I have to protest against your Grace's doing what you
will be speedily caUed to do, either in person, or by some other
exercising your authority. I have to protest, and I do hereby
solemnly protest, before the Church of England, before the Holy
Cathohc Church, before Him who is its Divine Head, against your
giving mission to exercise cure of souls, within my Diocese, to a
clergyman who proclaims himself to hold the heresies which Mr.
Gorham holds. I protest that any one who gives mission to him
till he retract, is a favourer and supporter of those heresies. I pro
test, in conclusion, that I cannot, without sin — and by God's grace
I wiU not — hold communion with him, be he who he may, who shall
so abuse the high commission which he bears," (p. 90.)
My Lord, if by these words you mean that you are about to
retire to a more suitable communion than the Church of Eng
land, be it so. You will not ask us to lament your departure.
Nor shall you hear from me words of exultation or insult. Or
if you mean that you will withdraw from the Primate the light
of your presence, and the blessing of your communion and " af
fectionate friendship," why then, my Lord, — if you have really
made up your mind — so it must be. And I wiU only hope that His
Grace may be enabled to bear the deprivation with equanimity.
But if you mean, what your words appear to mean, that, re
taining your position in this Church and country as the Bishop
of Exeter, you will set at defiance your Primate and your Sove
reign ; that you wUl place yourself in a state of open rebellion
against the laws of your country ; then, my Lord, I leave you,
vrithout fear, to reap the due reward of broken vows and violated
H

98
oaths ; feeling well assured, that the majesty of the law will ob
tain as easy a triumph over Devonshire and Cornish rebels now,
as it did three centuries ago.*
But, before you commit yourself to such a course, at least
look round and mark the position in which you are just now
placed. My Lord, when you commenced your crusade against
Mr. Gorham, you had by your side, aiding, counselling, and
supporting you, one upon whose judgment and erudition in such
matters you placed no small reliance. Where, my Lord, do you
now find your adviser ? What is his present view of the case ?
Hear his own words.f
" Now that the appeal has been decided by the confirmation ofthe
report of the Judicial Committee, I see no objection to admitting,
that on one account it seemed not improbable that it would be given
in favour of Mr. Gorham. As the case went on, first, in the Court
of Arches, and afterwards before the Privy CouncU, it was impossible
not to feel, more and more, that the reasons and arguments of the
evangelical party had been too lightly esteemed. During the last two
years, my attention had been constantly directed in other ways to the
same matter, and, it must as fairly be confessed, with similar results.
Few of our own opinions would dispute, — at least I would not, — the
absolute necessity of rejecting Mr. Gorham, after such answers as he
gave in his examination before the bishop ; yet every month, as it
went by, suggested in my own mind graver and graver doubts as to
the final success of such a proceeding, unavoidable as it was. I
mean, doubts whether a bishop is reaUy foUowing the intention of the
reformed church of England, and speaking in her spirit, when he
condemns as heresy the denial of the unconditional efficacy of baptism
in the case of all infant recipients.'' (pp. 11, 12.)
" After the arguments on both sides were ended before the Judi
cial Committee, we were aU enabled calmly to consider what the
result of the whole had been. For myself, I felt, with anxiety and
disappointment, that the growing impressions and doubts of the pre
ceding six or eight months had been strengthened rather than
relieved." (pp. 12, 13.)
* The Popish rebellion of 1549. Your Lordship will recollect that
their forces were routed at Exeter by Lord Russell.
t I quote from — " A Second Letter on the Present Position of the High
Church party in the Church of England. By the Rev. WiUiam Maskell,
Vicar of S. Mary Church." (Pickering.)

99
" When Mr. Gorham was refused institution, more than two years
ago, I thought that it was almost impossible for him to raise a reason
able question as to the exact teaching of the English church upon
baptismal regeneration ; a question, that is, such as a court would
entertain. But time went on, and the real state of things and tone
of doctrine which prevailed for fifty or sixty years after the reign of
Henry the Eighth, during which the first movers of the changes
in rehgion or their immediate disciples still lived, opened, and became
clearer from day to day.
" It would be dishonest to attempt to exaggerate or put an untrue
face upon the real state ofthe matter." (p. 13.)
' ' I was not prepared to learn, as I have learnt, that perhaps
without two exceptions, aU the divines, bishops and archbishops,
doctors and professors, of the Elizabethan age — the age, be it
remembered, of the present common prayer book in its chief par
ticulars, and of the book of homilies, and of the 39 articles — held
and taught doctrines inconsistent (I write advisedly) with the true
doctrine of baptism.
" There are two causes to which such a misapprehension of fact,
so far as regards myself, may perhaps be traced ; and others must
decide whether these or some similar reasons will serve to account
for their own previous opinions about the orthodoxy of theologians
of the Elizabethan age.
" First : we have been accustomed both to read and to refer to
their books, under the impression of long-established prejudices :
under the impression that they must have been sound divines,
because they were the chief leaders and earliest children of the Refor
mation ; and because they had arguments, plenty and specious enough,
against some of the doctrines and discipline of the church of Rome.
" Secondly : we have known their writings, chiefly by means of
catenae ; a means very likely indeed to lead to false conclusions,
because whilst it professes to give fairly the judgment of those
appealed to in the matter under dispute, it often does not, and in
some cases cannot, in reality do anything of the kind. There are
more doctrines than one — for example, this doctrine of holy baptism
— upon which writers may make very strong and catholic statements
in one book, or in one part of a book, which are aU explained away,
or in various degrees quaUfied, or even, in truth, contradicted, by
difi'erent statements in the same or in other books. Catenae are
useful enough, within their proper and reasonable limits ; they create
difficuUies sometimes, whUst they wiU very seldom suffice to establish
a conclusion : employed, however, as they have been, of late years.
H 3

100
by our own party, they are not merely a packed jury, but a jury per
mitted to speak only half their mind. In short, the value of catense
can be only justly estimated, where there is also a living Church,
ever prepared to speak with an infaUible voice.
"Nor is it to be forgotten that whilst many extracts from the EUza
bethan books were produced, explaining in a sense inconsistent with
Catholic truth, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, on the other
hand there were no passages to be found, distinctly asserting that
the reformed church of England holds exclusively the sacramental
efficacy of baptism in the case of all infant recipients. It is one
thing for a religious community to aUow its ministers to hold and to
teach a particular doctrine ; it is quite another that they should be
enjoined to teach it, as being certainly and exclusively true. There
are some parts of the books of the Elizabethan writers, which are
examples of the first of these positions, namely, the permission ; but
I do not remember any example of the second : on the contrary,
numberless proofs that it could scarcely have been intended. It may
rather be a question whether, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, a
clergyman would not have been liable to censure who, not content
with being suflTered to teach what he himself believed with regard to
the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, should have gone on further
to declare that the church of England stUl pronounced those to be
unsound and heretical, who did not acknowledge the unconditional
efficacy of infant baptism. Or, to put it in other words, if such an
one had further declared that the teaching of the church of Rome
and of the reformed church of England, upon the sacrament of
baptism, was necessarily to be understood and accepted, by aU
English clergy, as identical and the same.
"I must own, therefore, that the additional argument produced by
Mr. Gorham's advocate in his speech before the committee, based
upon a comparison between the articles of 1536, and the articles of
1552 andl562, seemed to me to be forcible and correct. It supplied
a cause of one effect of the alteration of the documents and formula
ries of the English church, which was so visibly and frequently to be
observed, in the language used by men, contemporaries or nearly so,
respecting the sacrament of holy baptism. And I cannot dispute the
principle involved in the following sentence of the judgment delivered
by the judicial committee ; they say : ' — it appears that opinions,
which we cannot in any important particular distinguish from those
entertained by Mr. Gorham, have been propounded and maintained,
without censure or reproach, by many eminent and illustrious prelates
and divines who have adorned the church from the time when the

101
[42 and 39] articles were first established. We do not affirm that
the doctrines and opinions of JeweU, Hooker, Usher, Jeremy Taylor,
Whitgift, Pearson, Carlton, Prideaux, and many others, can be re
ceived as evidence of the doctrine of the church of England ; but
their conduct, unblamed and unquestioned as it was, proves, at least,
the liberty which has been allowed in maintaining such doctrine.' "
(pp. 15— -20.)
" There is another point to which I had intended to direct your
attention ; namely, to the contradictions which appear to exist between
the course of teaching which many of our party commonly adopt and
the thirty-nine articles, together with an enquiry into the kind of
interpretation, and its admissibUity, by which such apparent contra
dictions are avoided. It is, of course, in itself a relief openly to state
our mode of interpretation, and to leave to our rulers to decide by
legal proceedings, whether it is, or is not, within the limits of our
subscription. But I shaU now pass this by." (pp. 46, 47.)
" As to the second of the two classes, namely, the low-church or
evangelical, I have no hesitation in making a candid avowal. What
ever my opinions may have been some time ago, it is impossible for
me to conceal from myself that further enquiry has convinced me,
that the real spirit and intention of the reformed church of England
are shewn and carried out and taught by the low-church party, as
truly as by ourselves : I cannot bring myself to say, ' rather than
ourselves :' but that at least they have amply sufficient argument to
oblige us to the acknowledgment, that the very utmost which we can
claim for our opinions is, that they are ' open' to us." (p. 56.)
" But, by way of illustration, take one or two examples. And
these will perhaps show how certain passages which are difficulties,
and we feel them to be such, in our own path, are, in the first and
plainest sense of the words, in favour of the evangelical system : and
not only so, but we have nothing so plain to produce against them.
In short, these are passages which we ' get out of or explain away,
whilst they take them in their simple and obvious meaning. In these
one or two examples you wUl observe that I refer to the prayer-book
as well as the articles." (p, 58.)
The examples referred to are, — Justification, Absolution, The
Holy Eucharist, &c.
" Connected with this, there is another consideration which, for
some time, has pressed heavily and painfully upon me. As a fact,
the evangelical party plainly, openly, and fully, declare their opinions
upon the doctrines which they contend the church of England holds :
they tell their people continually, what they ought, as a matter of

102
duty towards God and towards themselves, both to believe aud prac
tise. Can it be pretended that we, as a party, anxious to teach the
truth, are equally open, plain, and unreserved ? If we are not so, is
prudence, or economy, or the desire to lead people gently and with
out rashly disturbing them, or any other like reason, a sufficient
ground for our withholding large portions of catholic truth } Can
any one chief doctrine or duty be reserved by us, without blame or
suspicion of dishonesty ? And it is not to be aUeged, that only the
less important duties and doctrines are so reserved : as if it would
be an easy thing to distinguish and draw a line of division between
them. Besides, that which we are disputing about cannot be trivial
and unimportant ; if it were so, we rather ought, in christian charity,
to acknowledge our agreement in essentials, and consent to give up
the rest.
" But we do reserve vital and essential truths ; we often hesitate
and fear to teach our people many duties, not aU necessary, perhaps,
in every case or to every person, but eminently practical, and sure to
increase the growth of the inner, spiritual life ; we difier, in short,
as widely from the evangelical party in the manner and openness, as
in the matter and details, of our doctrine." (pp. 65, 66.)
" Let me, in this place, sum up briefly what has been said in the
two Letters which I have written to you." 
" 3. That the judgment of the Judicial committee in that cause is
probably a correct and true judgment ; and, if it be so, that the
reformed church of England did not, and at the present time does
not, exclusively require her clergy to teach, and her people to
believe, the unconditional efficacy of baptism in the case of aU
infants." 
" 6. That the evangehcal clergy, as a party, no less than the AngU
can or high-church party, represent and carry out the spirit and the
system of the English reformation, as declared by contemporary
authorities, and sanctioned by the existing formularies." (p. 74.)
My Lord, this is no ordinary testimony. These are the words
of one who was, heart and soul, with you ; who would fain have
been so stiU ; who has been reluctantly compelled to yield an
unwilling assent to overpowering evidence ; and now frankly,
honourably, nobly admits the change, avows his convictions,
and hastens to do justice to those whom (I will not say he had
reproached with words of contumely and abuse, because this was
not even then his habit, but whom) he had formerly believed to
be mistaken in supposing their doctrine to be consistent with
the Articles and Formularies of our Church. Of such a man, 

103
widely as we now seem to be separated in our views of Christian
doctrine, — I will at least say. Cum talis sis, utinam nosier
esses !
Permit me, then, my Lord, to call your attention to the evi
dence which such testimony affords, that you are seeking to de
fend a position that is wholly untenable ; that you are branding
and persecuting, as men opposed to the tenets of the Church in
which they are ministering, those who are (to say the least)
equally attached and faithful adherents to its real doctrines with
yourself. Mr. Maskell's words, my Lord, wUl sink deep into many
hearts. They are the words of truth and soberness ; of calm
reflection and impartial scrutiny. They will bear investiga
tion, and be a permanent witness to the truth. Words of angry
calumny and passionate reproach and fervent indignation — elo
quent invectives and protests — may be listened to for a moment,
as the attention is arrested by the thunders of the storm or the
shriU cries of the hurricane. But they will pass away as a cloud,
and leave nothing behind them but the recollection of noise,
confusion, and mischief. The still small voice of truth will pass
into the soul, will produce a lasting impression, will determine
the views and influence the conduct of men.
Such testimony from such a witness leaves your cause hope
lessly prostrate.
Nor wUl it be found, I suspect, ultimately, that the doctrine
which your Lordship is so desirous of inculcating and enforcing
upon the Church, has gained any additional strength by your
advocacy, still less by the means you have made use of to pro
mote it. If you sought the excitement and the perils of con
tention for the shibboleth of a party, you have had full scope for
their enjoyment. If your desire was to make yourself a gazing-
stock, you have had a triumph. If you wished for a name as
imperishable as that of Erostratus, and for a like reason, you
have attained your object. But with this success you must re
main content. The triumphs of reason, the conquests of the
Faith, are gained in a very different way, and with far other
weapons. My Lord, there is yet one more testimony which I must be
pei-mitted to bring under your notice before I conclude this

104

Letter. And that shall be an extract from the Charge of a
Bishop of our Church, not many years since, to the Clergy of his
Diocese. The spirit which it breathes is one which, under pre
sent circumstances, it is indeed as " refreshing " to contemplate,
as " the noble statements of Catholic truth " you have given us
from Hooker. Your Lordship will not, I hope, be too much
offended with the liberal tone displayed in it towards the Inde
pendent and fVesleyan Dissenters, and the admission it contains
of their agreement with us in all essential points of doctrine, to
listen to it with patience. When I tell you the name of the
author, I am sure j^ou will feel that it deserves attention. I
quote the passage without abridgment, precisely as it stands in
the Charge, forming its concluding remarks.
" Of Dissenters of some other denominations, especially of Inde
pendents, there is a larger number ; but these, I rejoice to think,
are commonly of a much more Evangehcal description. In one sig
nal instance, where an Independent Minister, and almost the whole
of his large congregation, have returned to the bosom of the Church,
it appeared on inquiry, (and I felt it my duty to make very close in
quiry) that their doctrines and worship were, before their reunion
with us, sound and irreproachable. I have heard the same of some
other instances, into which I have had an opportunity of inquiring ;
and I hope, therefore, that the same might he affirmed of many of
the rest. But the great mass of Dissenters amongst us (especially
in the Western part of the Diocese) are Methodists, and of these the
far greater proportion are Wesleyans, a class of Christians whom I
grieve to call Separatists — for Separatists, I am bound to say, is but
another word for Schismatics — however those to whom it applies
may think of it, and however we may, and ought in charity to hope,
that the guilt of wilful schism belongs but to few of them. Be this
as it may. Dissenters they scarcely are. They agree with us almost
entirely in doctrine — certainly in all which the most rigidly
ORTHODOX among US WOULD DEEM ESSENTIAL PARTS OF THB CHRIS
TIAN COVENANT ; AND TMEY DIFFER FROM US IN NO DOCTRINE WHICH
THF, Articles of our Church condemn. Would to God that the
NARROW PARTITION, wMch divides them from us, could he broken
down ! — that now, when the impugners of our common faith, the
enemies of our common Zion, are assailing us (aye, and not only us,
but Christianity itself) with a bitterness and rancour unknown in
other times, and are unhappily animated in their unhallowed warfare
by hopes which they never before dared to breathe — no, nor to enter-

105
tain — within this Christian l-dnd— would to God that noiv alt, who
look for salvation solely to the cross of our Divine Redeemer, would
unite in one holy bond of fellowship, and be on earth as we trust
they will be in Heaven, ' onefold under one Shepherd, Jesus Christ
our Lord ! ' Our separated brethren of every denomination (and
all, be it remembered, are our brethren in Christ, who hold what is
essential in the Christian covenant,) — our separated brethren may be
assured, that no idle punctilio would be allowed by us to stand in the
way of that blessed result — that no vain scruple would be insisted
on — nothing which they themselves would not see to be a grave, even
if they could not admit it to be a sound, objection. In truth,
they know already that the wall of partition, as it was not
BUILT, so neither IS IT UPHELD BY US. They know, aye. and they
acknowledge, that the Church imposes no terms of communion which
they themselves wiU dare to caU sinful. The more, therefore, doth
it behove them (I say it not to reproach, but earnestly and aflection-
ately to admonish them) to ponder well the reasons which keep them
separate, — to be sure that those reasons are such as will justify the
separation, not to their own judgment only, but also at the judgment-
seat of Him, who is ' not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in
aU the churches of the saints.' Meanwhile, let us, on both sides,
remember that it is not for us to judge ; if we are to be separated in
worship, let us not be separated in feeling and in affection. Let each
be ready to say to the other, ' For our brethren and companions' sake
we will wish thee prosperity ; yea, because of the House of the Lord
our God, we will seek to do thee good.' While the world, and the
men of the world, are troubled and troubling on every side, while they
seek to involve both our Church and us in the common ruin of all
that is venerable and holy — it is our great consolation that, against
our Church, as a sound branch of the Catholic Church of Christ,
while it continues such, ' the gates of hell,' ' the powers of darkness,'
cannot prevail. ' He that sitteth in the Heavens shall laugh ; the
Lord shall have them in derision !' And even as respects ourselves,
we wiU not forget, that, be they as successful against us as they may,
their success (unless by our own fault) wiU and must be brief — that
' our redemption draweth nigh.' May that hour (comb, when it
WILL, to every one AMONG Us) MAY IT FIND US AT PEACE IN OUR
OWN MINDS, AND SEEKING PEACE WITH OTHERS ! AbOVE ALL, AT
PEACE WITH Him, whose chosen title, given to HIM BY HIS OWN
INSPIRED AND EVANGELICAL PrOPHET, TELLS US ' WHAT SPIRIT WE
ARE OF,' WHOM, AS DEAR CHILDREN, WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW, ' THE
Prince of Peace.' God grant this to you, to me, and aU his whole
Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord !"

106
Thus spoke Dr. Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter, at
his Primary Visitation in 1833. My Lord, the CathoUc spirit
which that passage breathes, the solemn words that form its
conclusion — alas ! what a contrast do they present to the sounds
that are now escaping from the same lips ! Talk you of change,
my Lord, in our venerated Primate? of the teaching of his later,
contradicting the sounder teaching of his earlier, years ? Alas !
what a change is here ! Could the prophetic spirit that fore
warned Hazael of his future acts, have whispered in your ear
the circumstances in which the close of your course would find
you, how would the same indignant exclamation have betrayed
the horror-stricken incredulity with which you received the
startling premonition !
Reflect, my Lord ! Is truth changed ? Are the " essential
parts of the Christian Covenant" different now from what they
were when you wrote thus ? Are " the impugners of our com
mon faith, the enemies of our common Zion, assailing us" with
less " bitterness and rancour " than they then were ? Is union
among " all who look for salvation solely to the cross of our Di
vine Redeemer," less needful, less a duty, than it was seventeen
years ago ? Does the " Prince of Peace" warn us to speak less
peacefully now to any such — to build up new " waUs of par
tition" — to cast out of the fold, as heretics, the followers of the
" illustrious " Usher, the ApostoUc BedeU, the incomparable
Leighton ?
Think again, my Lord ; and ponder the concluding words of
your own solemn admonitions. The lapse of seventeen years
has surely not rendered it less necessary for you to think of that
hour for which you have prayed, — " Jlay it find us at peace in
our own minds, and seeking peace with others I Above all, at
peace with Him, whose chosen title given to him by his own in
spired and evangelical prophet, tells us ' what spirit we are of'
whom, as dear chUdi-en, we are bound to follow, ' the Prince of
Peace.' "
I am. My Lord,
Your obedient humble Servant,
W. GOODE.
London, April 18, 1860.

107

POSTSCRIPT.
Your Lordship will not, I suppose, think that your Postscript
needs many remarks ; stUl less the Postscript to the Postscript,
which appeared, I believe, only in a few Papers of very limited
chculation. In the former (which appeared in the " Times " of
March 29) you intimate your having discovered, that you were in
correct in stating, that no edition of BuUinger's Decads had ap
peared here subsequent to the year 1577, a copy of the edition
of 1587 having been shown to you, as well as the notice in
Watt's Bibliotheca Britannica of this edition, as well as of one
in 1584. My remarks on this point were written before that
Postscript appeared. And as you still repeat your former ob
jections to His Grace's statement respecting that work, those
remarks are as necessary as before the appearance of your Post
script. The other point which you there mention, namely, the
statement of your having at one time been willing to institute
Mr. Gorham on his promising not to publish an account of the
Examination, is one which I do not feel called upon in any way
to notice.
In the Postscript to the Postscript, which can hardly be known
to more than comparatively very few individuals, except perhaps
from the later editions of your Letter, your Lordship calmly in
forms the Public, in a few lines, that you have learned since the
pubUcation of your Letter, that your charge against the Arch
bishop for the " new matter " introduced into the last edition of
his work on ApostoUcal Preaching, is unfounded ; for which
yom- apology is, that when you wrote you had access only to
"the original edition of 1815, and the one recently set forth;"
which appears to me to be little better than that of the confi-
ientem ream. 1 notice in this way the existence of such a
Postscript, lest I should give any occasion for cavil by omitting
to mention it. But I do not feel called upon to make any re
mark upon it. The Public will judge of the value of such a
reparation for your attack upon the Primate, on evidence, the
natme of which you now acknowledge.

LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. K. HODGSON, I GOUGH SftUARE, FLEET STREET.

Jl ¦ / I*

!^t.. > d??i?' ^-i^^i

f r-; -:>•
* .
.J^
<!,'