Puse, / M IFS I P37 RENEWED EXPLANATION ¦¦**I1T CONSEQUENCE OF REV. W. DODSWORTH'S COMMENTS DR. PUSEY'S LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON. BY THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. REOIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW ; CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH • LATE' FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE. ©ifotto: JOHN HJ1NRT PARKER, AND S77, STRAND, LONDON; AND SOLD BY , llIVINGTONS, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, fc WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON. 1851. RENEWED EXPLANATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF REV. W. DODSWORTH'S COMMENTS DR PUSEY'S LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LONDON. BY THE REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D, REGIUS PROFESSOR OF HEBREW ; CANON OF CHRIST CHURCH ; LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE. £%*- JOHN HENRY PARKER, AND 377, STRAND, LONDON; AND SOLD BY E. & J. RIVINGTON, ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, Se WATERLOO PLACE, LONDON. 1851. LONDON : GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, ST. JOHN'S SQUARE. Mr. Dodsworth has informed me, since the publication of this " Explanation f that he never received the letter alluded to in page 29, which accounts for his being perplexed as to my meaning. RENEWED EXPLANATION, Sf-c. It is with reluctance that I am forced into a second explanation, when I have scarcely finished my first. But the line taken towards me leaves me no choice. Mr. Dodsworth thought it his duty, some time since, under the form of an ex postulation with me, for not joining himself and some others in the line which they took, to publish " certain Facts ', which he thought it important to be known at that crisis." On whatever ground he thought this important, I believed that his " facts " were very much misunder stood. His statement was bandied about, and used to set me in a sort of moral pillory, to raise sus picions of me, and to induce those in authority, whether in the Church or the University, to insti- 1 Mr. Dodsworth's Comments, p. 14. a2 tute proceedings against me. Even the Crown itself has publicly been appealed to. Whether I went, with others, to preach after the Consecration of St. Barnabas, or, with so many other Church men, to the meeting at St. Martin's Hall, or to the consecration of a Church, in which a friend ministered, these " facts " always preceded or fol lowed me. I trusted that this impression would at last be dispelled. I stated my belief and my practice upon the points in question, fully and explicitly; but I did so in a different form and a different language from that used by Mr. Dodsworth. I explained what he had unintentionally left ambiguous ; I declared and explained my adherence to the for mularies of the Church of England ; and in matters of doctrine I justified my statements, as not alien from the English Church, by referring to corre sponding statements 'bf Divines, ever had in repu tation in her. Mr. Dodsworth has thought it right, in vindica tion of himself, to comment on my letter, and to justify his original statement, on the ground that " in 2 some quarters the multitude of my words seems to have drawn off attention from the facts which I admit." I regret that he has omitted to notice, that I, myself, gave a summary of the facts 2 Ibid. p. i. in my own language, in some cases, under the head itself; and as to all of them, at the close. This latter summary takes up only eight, or (printed somewhat closer) five pages 3. One partial oversight I committed (of which more presently) ; but I corrected it for the second edition i, and in the " Morning Chronicle," when Mr. Dodsworth pointed it out to me. I regret the tone in which he speaks of it, since, for the sake of accuracy, and that I might not inadvertently say any thing which might pain him, I had sent him the sheets in proof. This inaccuracy then had escaped him equally with myself. I wished, as I said, to treat the statement, simply as one which I was called upon to explain, for getting (except in the desire not to pain him) who wrote it. Mr. Dodsworth wrings this further ex planation from me. No one could for a moment conceive that Mr. Dodsworth was intentionally "unfair." He wished, of course, in his first statement, to state the exact truth, and believed that he had done so. He knew what was in his own mind, and thought that others would understand him as he meant. But while Mr. Dodsworth entirely guarded him self against saying too little of what he then, for the most part, held or practised, he certainly did not 8 p. 238—245, ed. 1. p. 177—181, ed. 2. 4 See p. 100 note, ed. 2. fi guard against his statement being taken to mean more than in his mind it did. He was anxious to speak strongly enough. He did not, I imagine, take into account the effect which his statements, so strongly worded and so strung together, would have upon the English mind, especially on those unacquainted with my teaching or my " adapted " books. And most of those who have, on the ground of this statement, spoken against me, know nothing of either. Truth must, of course, be para mount to any other consideration ; but truth, which is not stated so as to be understood by those to whom it is stated, is not, to their minds, truth. In order to express one, and that not the most prominent, part of my teaching, Mr. Dodsworth selected terms which, in part, I did not use ; in part, when, retaining them in my " adapted " books, I explained whenever they occurred. Those which I retained, expressed what I believed, when rightly explained, to be in harmony with the doctrine of the Church of England. I could not omit them without seeming to deny that doctrine. I should not have chosen them myself, but, finding them, I retained and explained them. Thus, I never used the words " auricular con fession," or " counsels of perfection," or " sacrament of penance," because I thought that they would be misunderstood. I avoided, on that ground, the word "penance," although used in our Prayer Book5, and I retained the original "penitence." In the three places in which only (as far as I know) I used the word " sacrament," of subordinate means of grace, I explained it by reference to the teach ing in our homilies. The word "propitiatory" in the two places in which I retained it, I explained by the word "deprecatory." This language, too, occurred but rarely. I pre ferred to teach the truth, as held in our Church, in the ordinary language of the Church. I wished to attend to the truth, rather than to words. Where there was any risk of being misunderstood, I changed the language avowedly on that account. Thus when the original spoke together 6 of " the Sacraments of penitence and of the Eucharist," I, avowedly, changed it, either substituting the words " Absolution and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist," or omitting the mention of " the Sacra ment of penitence" altogether, and that expressly on the ground, that " to rank Absolution (although a Divine Ordinance and means of grace, and so, in the larger sense of the word, a Sacrament) at once with the Holy Eucharist, would have seemed con trary to our Church's teaching, and the exceeding greatness of the Holy Eucharist." 5 Commination Service. 5 Surin, Foundations of the Spiritual Life, p. 228, note ; and Avrillon, Guide for passing Advent holily, p. 251. 8 In another place 7, 1 spoke of " the virtue [power] of Penitence, and the Sacramental power of Abso lution," saying that " the word ' sacramental ' is adopted from Hooker." I have dwelt upon this, because simply to ac knowledge these phrases as occurring in my " adapted " books, would not give a true account of them. I believe that, in reading some of them, e. g. " the Year of Affections," a person would not be reminded, even by a note, that he was reading a book written by a member of the Roman Church ; nor do I recollect that I had to omit any thing. Equally, in "the Foundations of the Spiritual Life," (although much, as I have said, may seem severe and is hard to practise, and all are not called to it,) or Nouet's " Risen Life of Christ," there is, I believe, nothing to remind any, that it was not written by one of our own Communion. But, more than this, I did not myself mean to do, what I have regretted in others, — use language not common in the Church of England, to express truth acknowledged by the Church of England. I have not wished to introduce a tone unusual to our Church, but to teach what our Church teaches, in language which should recall to people's minds doctrine which they have already received. Mr. Dodsworth says for himself, that " as 8 a 7 Avrillon on Advent, p. 164. 8 Comments, p. 13, 14. Clergyman of the Established Church," he " never imitated Rome, nor adopted language or phraseo logy peculiar to Rome." It is, therefore, the more remarkable that, in order to designate my belief and practice upon certain points, most of which he himself held and practised, he thus purposely adopted language unusual amongst us, and com mon in the Roman Church, which I had either not used, or, if I retained, had explained in accordance with our own. I regret that now, without any allusion to my summary, he repeats the same things, knowing how they have been employed, and will be again em ployed against holy doctrine and practice. Referring then to my own summary for my own belief or practice in these points, I will only notice such points in this statement as seem to need ex planation. I. Mr. Dodsworth seems to wish particularly to draw attention to the fact, that " confession," when made in the English Church, is as minute as in the Roman. He speaks of our " receiving 9 confessions, both from men and women, of their whole lives, in details as minute as any that can possibly be made to a [Roman] Catholic Priest." " With regard to what English Protestants most object to, — the minute detail of sins in confession, — it is only right " Comment, p. 5, 6. 10 to say, so far as I know, that confession is required to be at least quite as minute, when observed in the Established Church, as it is in the [Roman] Catholic Church." I certainly do believe that the great change which the English Church made as to Confession was, that it ceased to be compulsory. Confession, when made, must be made in one and the same way. Only, in the English Church, it is, from beginning to end, voluntary. And such, I am sure, has been the practice of English Priests. Mr. Dodsworth always uses the strongest words for fear of understating any thing ; and as he before used "enjoined," so now he uses the word "required." I conclude that he means, that the confession as usually practised in the Church of England is as minute as that in the Church of Rome. But the word " required " suggests to English minds the idea of compulsion, or authority insisting upon the thing " required." I have no doubt that Mr. Dodsworth, as well as myself, never had any occasion to " re quire " any thing ; but only to receive confessions which those who made them, wished to make, and to assist those who made them, to make them as complete as they wished. I ought to say for some others, whom I respect, that they have received confessions of particular sins which burdened the conscience ; and I have on one occasion formerly done the same. I would 11 not say that there might not be cases, such as ex treme illness, in which one might be authorized to pronounce special absolution of some special sin. Yet such is not ordinarily the mind of the Church of England. The Church of England says nothing to encourage this, but suggests the opposite. She does not seem to contemplate partial con fession. She herself speaks, not of some one or two sins, but of " making special confession of his sin*," i.e. all, whatever they be. She says, "Here shall the sick person be moved [she does not say " to confess his sin," but] to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter." One weighty matter requir ing absolution draws after it confession of sins gene rally. So that, strictly speaking, private absolution is not allowed by the Rubric to any but a full con fession of sins. The Church of England does not require any one to make confession, but if he makes confession, the confession which she contem plates is a real confession. And this meaning of the Rubric corresponds with the Absolution which the Church of England directs the Priest to use in absolving him individually, "by His Authority, committed unto me, I absolve thee from all thy sins." Clearly she could not direct her priests to pronounce a special absolution of all sins, unless the penitent had confessed all which he knew of. Nor 12 can it be said, that she simply retained the ancient form ; for she did not. She exercised her own judgment in omitting that part of the ancient form which related to the censures of the Church l0 ; and, thereby, the more acknowledged as her own, what she retained. And this instruction of the Church is what, I doubt not, the conscience itself suggests. A confession of single sins would, I believe, be un satisfactory to the penitent himself. Penitents wish to get to the bottom of themselves. It is, I be lieve, the only practical way of making Confession at all. To profess to confess sins, and purposely to hold back any, is a contradiction. There is, of course, no deceit, if a person wishes only to confess some one sin which weighs heavily upon his conscience. But conscience itself will not let a person rest. When the choked conscience has begun to open itself, the whole gushes out. It is not content till it has discharged itself of the whole burden of sin. It cannot open itself and close itself at the same time. Sins are so interwoven together, so work into one another, and branch out into one another, and aggravate one another, that a person cannot lay open his conscience partially. A person does not go to a physician of the body, and tell half his symptoms. At least, if he does, he does not expect 10 See Entire Absolution ofthe Penitent, Serm. ii. p. 11. 13 to be cured. He does not hold back symptoms because it costs him shame to disclose them. But it is plain that all this bears upon the seventh Commandment. People would not mind what minuteness was used upon any other subject, so that this could be blotted out. Would to God all occasion of it could ! But since it is thought that more souls perish through breach of this com mandment than of any other, and it is the first fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which gives rise to so many other sins ; to ignore the fact that this commandment is in different degrees broken, is but to leave full scope to Satan to lay his snares unhindered. The misery of all these statements is, that they go before persons entirely unacquainted with the whole subject, and who therefore must misunder stand them. The prejudice is, however, so very deep, that it is best to say something. I am, of course, entirely unacquainted with the details of Roman confessionals, except what I have gathered from books on the subject. But it needs to know very little, to be quite satisfied that the common outcry on this ground is utterly unfounded. Undoubtedly there have been evils through indiscreet Confessors. For their own writers speak against this, with a strength of language which I avoided repeating, lest it should swell the prejudice against Confession. But I believe that the source of the 14 confusion is this. Roman books give, mostly in Latin, supposed dialogues between a priest and a penitent, with a view to instruct the priest how to proceed most tenderly upon a very painful subject. Such dialogues are of course very shocking, because the subject is so. But what is overlooked is, that such dialogues would never actually take place, except when a person had been guilty of such sins. To one who had been pure, no word would be said which any one, father or husband, might not speak or hear. I will just give one statement as to the care enjoined in the Roman Church, from the Pretre Sanctifie, in the Manuel des Confesseurs, from the section, "On Questions as to Purity." " When you question children, do it in such a way as to be understood only by one who had sinned against this commandment. If the child answers that he has had ' bad thoughts,' ask him of what nature they were; for very often they are mere thoughts of childish revenge. Then go no farther. Should you suspect any thing worse, simply remind them that God is present every where, that they may do nothing which they would not dare to do in their parents' presence. " But with adults, too, be prudent and reserved1." It is right to say this generally as to all confes- 1 See further Postscript to the Letter to Rev. W. U. Richards, p. 300—305, in answer to the same remarks from the Rev. W. Maskell. 15 sion. But when confession, as with us, is wholly voluntary, painful questions can be much less needed, or may be entirely dispensed with, unless to aid one who wishes to be helped to know the whole extent of his sin. For the need of such question ing must, one should think, be chiefly for those who are unwilling or too ignorant to confess aright. Such there must be when confession is compulsory. S. Francois de Sales had to complain, " It 2 is an intolerable abuse, that sinners accuse themselves of no sin of their own, but only so far as they are questioned. They must then be taught to accuse themselves, in the first place, as far as they can, and then they must be helped by questions." With us, those who come to confession, come be cause they themselves wish to " open their griefs," whatever they may be. A Priest may therefore, for the most part, wait for their own account, or may put previously into their hand some book, which would convey no idea to a mind which knows not of these things, and yet would reach those who unhappily do. But then, I must again ask, is it a part of our "Anglican liberties" that no one is to be at liberty to confess his sins? or, if confession is used, and is known to be used, are vile imaginations to be 2 Manuel des Confesseurs, n. 197, p. 202. Direct questions on the Commandments are placed under the head " Questions to be put to uninstructed penitents." 16 suggested about those who use it, as if such sub jects as these, entered into confession generally? Mr. Dodsworth seems to know strangely little of English nature, or he could not throw down such subjects as these, for the coarse ribaldry of those who know nothing of them, except what they have gathered from the infidel Michelet, or for the tender sensitiveness of those whose first dread is, lest the ears and souls of our English wives and daughters should be offended with the mention of things which ought not to be spoken of. He knows himself how purely confessions are, and may be, heard ; he knows that what English people dread, is a mere phantom which writers, with an almost fana tical prejudice against confession, have cherished ; and therefore, it is a subject of sorrow that he should have thus unwittingly helped to call into fresh action a prejudice, which he, from his own experience, knows to be unfounded. It is another instance of the mischief of those vague generalities, which, while saying nothing which is not true, leave scope and verge enough for people of prejudiced imaginations to fill up as they will. But I would again ask those before whom these subjects are now brought, " Supposing a person to wish to confess his sins, in order to humble himself, and in hopes of ' the benefit of absolution ;' suppos ing him to desire, in order to know himself and his sins more thoroughly, that one, more experienced in 17 the human heart than himself, should ask him questions which should enable him to know him self; is it a part of our English freedom, not to be free to do what he wishes ? May he not be ques tioned if he desires ? Would not any poor person who really wished to confess his sins, wish also to be helped to know them?" I have known them come to the priest to help them to examine them selves. But this I would again say, that as far as I know of confessions in the English Church, (I suppose that it would be the same with all true penitents in the Roman,) those who confess are anxious to be asked such questions as shall help them to make their confession more complete. They themselves ask the priest to ask them, or are distressed often, if on any ground he do not ask them. This relates to all questioning in confession. But, as to that painful part of the subject, I must say further, that people who rail at the use of confes sion, or have an undefined dread of it, imagine — what exists only in their imaginations. First, it is a special rule on this subject, " Enter 3 into no detail, except what is necessary to learn the quality and nature of the act." Then what injury can any ima gine to be done to a soul by such questions as these, the sin having been confessed generally ? " Was it occasional or habitual ? When begun ? How 3 Manuel des Confesseurs, n. 166, p. 155. B 18 often in a given time ? How long continued ? If habitual, have there been intervals of repentance ? or relapses ? Can you form any estimate how often you offended Almighty God by this sin ? Was there any special aggravation of it?" Or, (if it be some sin not yet broken off, and in which a peni tent needs to be guarded against relapses) " In what way have you commonly been led into it?" These, and the like questions, will increase penitence, by bringing before the penitent's soul the number of his offences against the goodness and love of Almighty God, or they may enable one experienced to suggest cautions against relapses. But how can any imagine that these would hurt the soul ? It would seem as if people thought that sin never hurt the soul ; nor " to flatter himself in his own sight, so that he discovereth not his sin, to hate it ;" but that one only evil there is, — that which the na tural heart most hates, to know itself and its sins. Mr. Dodsworth gives rise to popular miscon ception, I think again, by the words "enjoining penance." The rigour of the Ancient Church, which this would convey to most minds, is, I believe, every where, except in special cases, laid aside. Every thing which is contrary to corrupt human nature and the corrupt human will, whatsoever is a correc tive or medicine for it, is classed by eminent Roman Catholic writers, under the name of " penance." In one, perhaps, of the most popular of their books, 1.9 "The Garden of the Soul," the question is put, "Have you neglected to perform the "penance" en joined in Confession; or said it with wilful distrac tion? How often?" In the "Manuel des Confes- seurs," the "penances" suggested by some of the most eminent Confessors in the Roman Church, are mostly the recitation of certain prayers. I do not mean that they do not adapt the penitential acts to the nature of the sins, but, (whether it be on account of the weakness of most frames, in civilized society, or any other cause,) the rigour of the peni tence of the Ancient Church, is almost universally relaxed. I mention this, because I know that the word "penance" has been misunderstood. In our own Church, in which confession is voluntary, confession itself is certainly, at first, the greatest penance which could be imposed. It may well supersede all penance, because it is so deep and contrite a humiliation in the sight of God. None also, I suppose, would prepare for it without the use of penitential prayers, or prayers for grace, or for a loving penitence, or (if there had been grievous falls,) for restoration of the fuller Presence of the Holy Spirit, such as would be enjoined as penance. One, endued with great knowledge of human nature, and who first mentioned the subject to me, had this opinion as to the nature of a First Confession. I suppose that whatever may be re commended or enjoined among us, would be of a b 2 20 remedial nature, i. e., something which should aid the individual to conquer his besetting sin, or to form some valuable religious habit. In certain sins, greater strictness may be necessary, for the very purpose of subduing sins destructive to body and soul ; but even here, I suppose that, whatever any would put upon another, would be with the desire of that other, in order that he might the more effectually subdue, by God's grace, foes too strong for him. Mr. Dodsworth still dwells upon the word "enjoin" confession. He says, " I might be of opinion that a course of advice amounts in effect to the ' enjoining' of the practice, which he thinks no more than an ' encouragement' to it." I have already explained again and again, the very limited occasion which I have had to give individual "advice" as to using confession. For most who have come to consult me about their souls, have come with the earnest desire to use it. I do not recollect above two or three cases in which I have suggested confession to individuals. I cannot say what I might have done, had I had any parochial charge, or any " cure of souls," besides those who came to me. I should have been brought more in contact with souls who needed it, yet did not use it. But I did and do mean to deny, that I did what, in any sense in which the word is ever used, could be expressed by the English word " enjoin." 21 Mr. Dodsworth says, that in a sisterhood of Mercy which he and I were "associated in establish ing," " it was certainly an implied and understood thing, although not absolutely enjoined, that the sis ters should use confession." I am quite sure that as to both, the accurate statement would have been, " We certainly anticipated that the sisters would use confession." This, certainly, I did anticipate. From my experience as to the class of minds likely to be drawn by the grace of God to devote them selves to the service of Christ in His poor, I could not doubt that the same minds would most pro bably be drawn to confession. I should expect this of any institution formed by any one in the English Church, which (on whatever principle it was established) should propose as its end and aim, to serve Christ Himself in His poor and sick. I should .expect that it would either melt away, or that its members would sooner or later, one by one, come to use confession. It is probable also that many or most of those, led by God's Good Spirit to this devoted service to Him, would have used confession before, or have been actually wishing to use it. But I should think it wrong to aid in forming a society in which it should be " an implied and understood thing " that the members " should use confession4." For the use of confession should 4 It may obviate further discussion to insert a sentence from a letter of my own in Sept. 1844, which has been put into my 22 have no other end, and be connected with no other end, than that of obtaining grace of Almighty God, or the comfort of His forgiveness. I should be very sorry to mix up in any mind any other subject, however sacred, with the use of confession. Of the sisterhood itself, I purposely, upon principle, abstain from speaking. I must again (as I did before, with regard to Mr. Maskell) protest against any allusion to private individuals. Confession being, amongst us, a voluntary act, ought to be held sacred ; and no one has, I think, a right to publish to the world whether ladies who have retired from the world to serve Christ in His poor, do, or do not use Confession. It, as well as every other circum stance of their devotional life, is sacred between God and their own souls. The remaining statement which I must notice on this subject, is : " Dr. Pusey admits that he administers penance ' as a sacrament.' He only denies what I did not impute to him, that he holds it to be 'such a sacrament' as Baptism and the Holy Eucharist. No one could suppose that I meant to charge him with an explicit contradiction, in terms, of one of the Articles of the Anglican Church." hands for this purpose by the member of the society to whom it was written : — " The desire of confession must come from the individuals themselves. We are empowered by our Church to receive it, not to urge it, unless there be something on the conscience ; much less to make it a condition of any association." 23 I stated carefully in my " Notice " to my letter, that I referred solely to popular objections and criticisms. I wished to forget from whom the statement came, except so far as not by any word of mine to pain him. His statement, as he put it forth unexplained, in this particular also, caused those unacquainted with the homilies, and accustomed to take the articles in a certain sense, to think that I contradicted them. I have been taunted with it, in very bitter terms, on the ground of this very state ment of Mr. Dodsworth. But I did not mean merely to deny " an explicit contradiction, in terms, of one of the articles." I meant to say, that I could not have, by implication, denied Absolution to be, in some sort, a sacrament, without contra dicting the teaching of the English Church in the Homilies, which in matters of doctrine have the sanction of the Articles. II. On the Eucharistic Sacrifice, I must refer to what I have already written. Mr. Dodsworth, in this, thinks that I acted unfairly to himself in not " having mentioned more pointedly," that he had specially guarded against any such erroneous infer ence, [as though I had looked upon the Eucharistic sacrifice separately from the One Sacrifice of the Cross,] by introducing the words, " as applicatory of the one sacrifice of the Cross." I did make this very statement. I said that in two places only did I retain the words " propi- 24 tiation," or " propitiatory," that in both I explained them by adding the words, " or deprecation," " or deprecatory," and I added: "The prayers them selves sufficiently explained, that the word was limited to the sense which Mr. Dodsworth assigns to it, 'as applicatory of the One Sacrifice of the Cross.'" I said this expressly, in order not to impute to Mr. Dodsworth the mistake which had been made. But I do think that that mistake would have been less likely to have been made, had he retained the words by which I explained the term, and with out which I did not use it, " a Sacrifice propitiatory or deprecatory, as applicatory of the One Sacrifice on the Cross." III. Mr. Dodsworth again clothes my belief in his own language. What I do believe, as I said, in the language of the Book of Homilies, is that we do " receive the Body and Blood of Christ under the form of bread and wine." I do believe with St. Augustine and good Bishop Andrewes, that " Christ truly present is truly to be adored." When I kneel there, as the Church of England enjoins, I do (in language, which has been used on this occasion) " believe Him to be present, whom we must adore wherever He is." But, receiving this as a mystery, without (as I have said) any con ceptions of the mode of His Presence, I do worship Him, directing my worship to Him, as present 25 there, but not as confined, or contained, or circum scribed in place. I may supply here, for others, two statements, the one of Archbishop Laud, the other of Dr. Pocklington, once President of a College at Cam bridge. Laud 5. " His Altar, as the greatest place of God's residence upon earth (I say, the greatest), yea, greater than the pulpit. For there 'tis, ' This is My Body.' But in the pulpit 'tis at most, ' This is My Word.' And a greater reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body than to the Word of our Lord. And so in relation, answerably to the throne, where His Body is usually present, than to the seat where His Word useth to be proclaimed." Pocklington6. "Let us first, saith the most holy and blessed Archbishop" [the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Fifth (Ecumenical Coun cil] "adore, and do our reverence at the Holy Altar, and then you shall receive mine answer. The people that forgot their duty to the sacred majesty of their Soveraigne, their regard to their most holy Patriarch, were not so prophane and unchristian to presse rudely into the Lord's house, ' the place where His Honour dwelleth,' and not to performe their most humble and lowly reverence towards the holy and most sacred Altar, where 5 Speech at the Star Chamber, 1637, p. 47. 6 Altare Christianum, c. 16. p. 107. 26 Christ is most truly and really present in the Blessed Sacrament, being put in mind thereof by their Archbishop." " Because 7 they [the Altars] are the seats and chairs of Estate, where the Lord vouchsafeth to place Himself amongst us, (for what is the Altar, save the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ ? as Optatus speaketh) they have been in all ages so greatly honoured and regarded of the most wise, most learned, and most blessed Saints of God." IV. As to my adapted books, Mr. Dodsworth says . — " I may say, indeed, that I never could agree with him in the propriety of publishing his ' adapted' books. Besides other objections, I do not think it fair to the writers of those books (still alive to the Church, though dead to the world) to mutilate them for such a purpose'.' To "mutilate" is a hard word ; and I do not understand the stress laid by the Italics upon the words "for such a purpose." The " purpose " was no other than to promote holi ness, devotion, the love of God, through works written by holy men in other parts of the Church, retaining what was held in common, omitting what the English Church does not hold. All would not hold this unjust. Had I published works, pro fessing them to be the exact works of authors, when they were not so, this would have been 7 lb. p. 153. 27 untrue, and, a Roman Catholic might have said, "not fair" to the writers. But when I profess only to take so much of a writer's work, as we teach in common, and not what we do not, I do not see what unfairness there can be. On this principle, it would be unfair to quote any passage from any author ; for no one passage would exhibit the whole of a person's mind. Had I, instead of publishing " adapted " books, published " selections from Ro man Catholic writers," and professed to select what they said on the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation of our Lord, or on Christian Graces, as Faith, Hope, Charity, Humility, Conformity to the Will of God, no Roman Catholic, I suppose, would have blamed me because I did not include in them "devotions to the Blessed Virgin," or Hymns upon " the Imma culate Conception," or passages upon Purgatory, or Indulgences. Now, I do not see any difference, in principle, between this, and giving, as I did, so much of the entire work of an author as did not touch upon certain subjects. A very eminent and, I believe, pious Roman Catholic publisher, gave leave to an individual in our Communion, some nine years ago, to republish any of the standard works of which the copyright belonged to him, in any form, saying, " If it were only the morality of the books, I should be glad that good should be done, by circulating that." Two grounds of objection might be taken to that plan. 1. The 28 fact of adapting Roman books at all. 2. The mode in which I adapted them. To the first I have pleaded that it had been done before me, ever since the Reformation, at least from the latter part of the sixteenth century, until now. I mentioned, too, names held in repute, or love, in the Church of England, as Laud, the then Bishop of London, Robert Boyle, Dr. Nicholl, Dr. Lucas, Dean Stan hope, besides others less known, and the publica tion of the work of a Spanish Jesuit by Nicholas Farrer and George Herbert, with the official sanc tion of Dean Th. Jackson. I may add, another eminent writer, Rodriguez' "Treatise on the Virtue of Humility " was published in au ' adapted ' form in 1654; and the writer of the preface to the fourth edition 8, says of the first edition, that " the late reverend and learned Dr. Hammond is said to have recommended it to the press." Dr. Hickes twice edited " Devotions in the Ancient way of Offices, with Psalms, Hymns, and Prayers for every day in the week, and every holiday in the year." They were adapted from a popular Roman Catholic work. Dr. Hickes lived to enlarge his Preface to the fifth edition, 1717. The other point, whether in that adaptation I admitted any thing which I ought not, as a Priest in the English Church, to have admitted, is the ques tion involved in the rest of my explanation, since 8 London. Printed for C. Rivington & Co., 1733. 29 most of the statements, which have been so com mented upon against me, are founded on my " adapted " books. V. Rosaries. Mr. Dodsworth professes himself to be " unable to understand what" I wrote, for that from my "words any one would understand that although Dr. Pusey's translation of the Paradisus retained the name of Rosary, it did not recommend, nay, nor even admit 9 ' the use of the string of beads, called a Rosary.' " Then he prints, in a very pecu liar-type, a passage in the Paradise, which I had overlooked. If Mr. Dodsworth had known how I was obliged to write against time, he would not have been surprised at my overlooking it. He had referred me to the Devotions themselves, and my eye rested on these, and I did not observe what was in a smaller and finer type. It was an oversight, although I must say, one to which Mr. Dodsworth was a party, since he had seen and written to me on what I wrote upon " rosaries," and was not himself, at that time, aware of any omission. I had explained to him that it was an oversight I0, as soon as he told me of 9 Mr. Dodsworth forgot that the next sentence after that which he quotes (p. 138) begins, " Another form does allow of it." 10 I certainly wished Mr. Dodsworth, if he should write against me, not to make use of my private letters (written often in haste, and on other grounds imperfect statements) ; but I think it would have given a different impression, if he had said " Dr. Pusey has committed an oversight." 30 it, and that I should correct it in the second edition (which I was then printing, and which is now pub lished). I also sent a correction to the Morning Chronicle, which I here insert : — "It has been pointed out to me, that in one place in the ' Paradise for the Christian Soul,' in ' Devo tions to the Holy Trinity,' consisting of words of Holy Scripture, or of devotions used in our own Church also, there is mention of the actual Rosary. I had forgotten it, since it occurs in this place only. " Those devotions consisted in-^- " 1. The Apostles' Creed. " 2. Petitions like those in our Litany : — " ' O God the Father of Heaven, have mercy upon us. O God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy upon us. O God the Holy Ghost, have mercy upon us. Holy Trinity, one God, have mercy upon us.' " 3. The Lord's Prayer. " 4. Rev. vii. 12 : — " ' Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honour, and power, and might be unto our God for ever and ever.' " 5. Is. vi. 3 :— " ' Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabbaoth : the whole earth is full of His glory.' " ' Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost ; " ' As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end.' 31 " My principle in my ' adapted books ' (as I have stated more at length in my letter) was to exclude nothing which was not opposed to any principle or rule of the Church of England. But I can imagine no principle upon which any member of the English Church should not use such devotions as these, or why he may not repeat again and again (as it is done in our anthems), ' Blessing and glory, and wisdom, &c.' " This, however, is the whole principle involved in this ' rosary.' " In rosaries, as well as any other form of devo tion, the objection must be either to the devotions used, or to the mode of using them. On the first point, I have explicitly said that I have always omitted those devotions to which the Church of England excepts, and against which I have so often spoken, viz., devotions to the Blessed Virgin ; and I have been, on that ground, very hardly blamed by some who have left the Church of England. On the second point, I have, in my Letter to the Bishop of London, dwelt at great length, in order to show that the repetition of the same words in private devotion lies very deeply in human nature — is used in the Old Testament — is sanctioned by our Lord Himself — and, in a few solemn prayers, occurs in our own Prayer Book. I noticed also that there is 'nothing more mechanical in saying the Lord's Prayer seven times consecutively, than in saying it 32 seven times in the course of the public service. They who have said it most devotionally would most miss it the seventh or the eighth time.' " The actual rosary, as thus used, is a mere help to the memory. Surely it is an object not to multiply differences, nor to make the mere mode of using scriptural devotions a ground of offence. The objection may, in principle, rebound upon our own Prayer Book." It may have been inconsistent, (as Mr. Dods worth has pointed out,) to have discouraged the use of the actual rosary, in private, as I have done, when persons did not already use it, and to have retained the mention of it in my " adapted " books. The ground was, that there is no principle or doctrine involved in the use of the " rosary " in itself. I, therefore, left it in my " adapted " book, because the devotion with which it was connected was very beautiful, and I knew of no principle which required its omission ; I dissuaded individuals from beginning to use it, when there was no ground for using it, for fear of multiplying grounds of of fence; I did not advise others giving it up, when there was no ground for so doing. But Mr. Dodsworth overlooks what, in my mind, was the serious misunderstanding which his unexplained statement occasioned ; and, I own, that I think that it was a great mistake to make that statement " by encouraging the use of rosaries and crucifixes," 33 without explaining further what he meant by them. He does not seem to think himself accountable for the misconceptions of others, so long as he does not say any thing untrue. I think it is our duty to guard, not only that our statements be true, but that they be not such, that false inferences could naturally be drawn from them. The two impressions connected, in the English mind, with "rosaries" are, one false, the other true. The false impression is, that prayers are muttered over them indevotionally ; the true is, that they are almost always united with devotions to the Blessed Virgin, so that, unless the contrary were stated, people would at once suppose that one, said to "encourage the use of rosaries," encouraged those devotions. I cannot doubt that this is the reason why "the use of rosaries" has been echoed from platform to platform. I take a statement before me, contained in a paper adverse to me : " The Popish rosary, as every one knows, is a succession of ten Ave-M arias, with one Paternoster at the end of each ten." " Mr. Dodsworth must know the usual meaning of the word — the string of beads wherewith to tell off Paters and Aves." And they are right in this. I doubted about retaining the use of the word " Rosary," because it was associated with devotions which I could not use. I retained it, because it had not necessarily c 34 this meaning, and it was evident from the place where it was used, that it had not. But the Rosary had become so appropriated to those other devo tions, that this very devotion to the Holy Trinity was an "adaptation" of it. Cornelius a Lapide1, says, " God is to be praised on two grounds, 1st, His Divine Essence, Majesty, Wisdom, Goodness, &c, which boundless in themselves, call for boundless praises : 2ndly, His countless and daily benefits towards us, with which He on all sides crowns and fills us ; and those, both common to all, and special to ourselves, for which we ought, with our whole hearts, to be always thanking God with overflowing joy. Take then, these three hymns of the Church militant and triumphant,and use them frequently day and night as an ejaculatory prayer, and dart them up to Heaven to GOD, THREE and ONE, in Whom is all good. " The first, is this hymn of the Seraphim, Is vi. 3. The second, that of the Angels, Rev. vii. 12. The third, that of the Church, 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,' &c. Yea, of these, either apart or combined, weave and offer a chaplet or rosary to the All-Holy Trinity, that like as thou recitest the rosary of the Blessed Virgin, reciting five times 'Our Father,' and fifty times 'Hail, Mary,' so thou mayest recite the Rosary of the All-Holy Trinity at the same beads, 1 On Is. vi. 3. 35 reciting at the five larger five times, ' Our Father,' with ' Hail, Mary ;' and at the fifty smaller fifty times, Is. vi. 3, and ' Glory be to the Father,' &c. that is, at the little beads of the rosary, substituting the above doxology for the 'Hail, Mary.' So do many learned and pious men with great benefit." I have not brought this long passage, for the mere object of showing what is the usual character of Rosaries, which is well-known; but rather to show what is the nature of the beautiful devotion which I retained; a devotion, uniting in one the praises of the Seraphim, the Angels, and the Church below. And now I would again say, not " in a tone of triumph," but as an appeal to the consciences of those who, with so little thought, bandy words of reproach against their fellow-Christians ; " And now I might venture to ask any one who has read or repeated this statement about me, whether they imagined that this was all which was meant by the use of * rosaries,' — forms of devotion, addressed to the Holy Trinity, or to our Lord, pleading to Him His own life and sufferings and Death, that He should have mercy upon us, and forgive us our sins, or give us His graces?" I am much mistaken if the question of using any mechanical help in saying prayers, is of any account at all, in people's minds, when the devotions are such as these. Who would think it mechanical, if one, wearied and dry and tempted to inde- c 2 36 votion, were to say, "At least, by God's help, I will pray for five minutes ?" Who would not think that such an one was likely, by his perseverance in asking, to obtain grace to pray more, and to receive what he prayed for? And what is there more mechanical, if any one, using either his fingers, or beads, were to say three times the Lord's Prayer, with the hymn of the Angels, Rev. vii. 12, and thirty times, that of the Seraphim, "Holy, holy, holy," and "Glory be to the Father," &c. ? Who shall say that it could not be so used devotionally ? And yet, if used devotionally, it would be heard by the All-Holy Trinity. I should not doubt that if any one who has, for these last months, tossed about this word " rosary," were quietly to set before him, what the devotions were, which he unknowingly blamed, he would be sorry that he had so done. Crucifixes. Mr. Dodsworth blames me that I " speak as if reluctantly in their defence." [" I could not, when asked," but say that the Crucifix in itself was not forbidden by the Second Command ment] " and as being able to shelter myself behind the opinions of a most estimable man indeed, but an avowed latitudinarian. Thus fortified he [I] would not refuse to say that Christians who use the Crucifix are not actually Idolaters ! What must we think of a position which forces such a man as Dr. Pusey to write in this strain ?" My statement was founded on the recollection of my own feelings. 37 Knowing the deep prejudice which English people in general have against the Crucifix, and yet feeling that any picture of our Blessed Lord, and a picture of the Crucifixion, and the Crucifix, were one and the same in principle, I did feel a difficulty when some two or three persons have asked me about the use of the Crucifix (not to be worn, but to be placed in a room,) as a means of aiding devotion in prayer, by contemplation of Christ Crucified. In my own judgment, I should much rather that persons should (in any way liable to observation and comment) use pictures of the Crucifixion, on the very ground which I mentioned, that in this great conflict, in which the hearts of the people are to be won back to the depth of the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, it is the part of Christian love to avoid, as far as it is consistent with ihe full main tenance of the truth, what may deter others from receiving it. I did not wish to promote the use of Crucifixes, in the popular sense of that use. I do think that it is right, to respect even mistaken prejudices. On this ground, in my adapted books, I substituted "at the foot of the Cross2" for "at the foot of the Crucifix," or in the only place where I used the words at all, " representation 3 of Christ Crucified;" and this with the very object, not "to encourage the use of the Crucifix." I did so, lest an indiscreet use of it should aggravate 2 Surin, p. 50. 3 Spiritual Combat, p. 198. 38 existing prejudices. But when I was asked indi vidually whether it was wrong to use a Crucifix as a help to devotion, I could not but say, that it was not in itself, provided that no prejudices were uncharitably shocked. Surely there are many things "lawful" in themselves, but which "are not expe dient." I do think that "the use of Crucifixes" publicly is such now, because they are so much mistaken. But this advice given to individuals, with regard to our own circumstances, has abso lutely nothing to do with any imputations on Roman Catholics. They were not even in my mind. Nor again, do I see why, with the avowed object of "removing the prejudice of some," I might not allege "the remarkable concurrence of Dr. Arnold," as well as " the Lutheran and Reformed bodies in Prussia." I see not why I should not try to remove prejudices in any lawful way ; or why, if any are indisposed to listen to me, I should not try to gain access to them, through those whom they will hear. Surely the principle of disarming preju dice in this way, has the sanction of Holy Scripture itself, when even an inspired Apostle uses to this end even a Heathen poet, in speaking to Heathens, and argues as from his words : " As certain also of your own poets have said, ' for we are also His off spring.' Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God," &c. There seems to me no great difficulty in a "position" in which one conceives something 39 to be lawful, although not necessary, against which others in our Communion are deeply prejudiced, whose prejudices one would not wantonly shock. VI. " I have stated * and special devotions to our Lord, as e. g. to His Five Wounds.' This Dr. Pusey has fully admitted. I referred especially to his translation of the ' Paradisus,' where such devo tions are recommended, and given at length." I did so ; but I added, " It would probably, to those who have not seen the ' Paradise,' have con veyed more idea of those devotions, to speak of them (as in the Paradise, c. vi.) as 'in memory of,' or ' in honour of,' or ' with reference to His five Sacred Wounds,' rather than ' to His five Wounds.' The Devotions are (as Mr. Dodsworth has said) ' Special Devotions to our Lord.' They are thanks givings to Him for those Wounds, or for those precious sheddings of His Blood ; prayers to Him, by His love shown in them, to give us grace and shield us from sin, resignation to His will in all things, good or bad ; ' oblation of the Lord's Pas sion, and the five Wounds of our Saviour, to God the Father,' praying, by virtue of them, for forgive ness and grace ; but there are also prayers for ' devotion and love towards them.' And who, that even thought thereon, would not wish to love the Wounds of His Lord ? But the prayers are ex clusively prayers to God the Father and to our Lord. In the Hymns there are five (I should have 40 said seven) stanzas, consisting of Apostrophes to the Wounds themselves. No one can mistake that such an Apostrophe (as these actually are) is in truth a prayer to our Lord by His love as shown in them." VII. The word "inebriated" I have defended, as being a word of Holy Scripture, adopted from it by the Fathers generally. None can blame me who does not blame Archbishop Cranmer. But I do most earnestly wish that Mr. Dodsworth had not taken a word, which does not involve any doc trine which could be questioned in the Church of England, yet which might be commented on so profanely, and cast it abroad at whatever risk. The prolixity, of which Mr. Dodsworth complains, has been chiefly owing to this and similar subjects4, which do not bear upon any doctrine questioned by any one, but which might be spoken of profanely. VIII. There is only one more statement requir ing notice, that in the sisterhood already referred to, " while no vows were exacted, we certainly made it no secret that we expected those who entered the institution, to devote themselves to its * The subject of the Devotions in connexion with our Lord's Blessed Wounds, occupies forty-four pages ; the word " inebri ate," twenty ; the rosaries, thirty-six [ed. 2]. The other longest subject is that of the " adapted " books, the defence of which necessarily involved an appeal to former precedents, as well as a statement of my own objects. These occupy twenty pages, and altogether the largest part ofthe book. 41 objects for life." Mr. Dodsworth must, for fear of understating the truth, have again spoken more strongly than he means. Certainly when I have known that an individual has from her earliest memory longed, perhaps for twenty years, to be a " sister of mercy," I could have no doubt that God would give such an one perseverance. I have anticipated the same from the deep earnestness with which others desired so to devote themselves to the service of Christ. I have also, doubtless, said that such a life was not to be entered upon without earnest thought and prayer, because there might be great risk to the whole religious being, in going back from a life spent directly in the service of Christ, whether in devotion or in ministering to His poor, to the every-day life of the world. Solemn prayers were used for those who entered upon this life. But those who did so enter, knew that they were free to return 5, as some actually have, whose weakness of health was not calculated for active duties, and one, on account of duties to a parent. Those who wished to become sisters were not allowed to give up their property, in part, on the very ground that, although we trusted that the blessing of God would rest upon the sisterhood, and give it con- 5 I extract a sentence from another letter of my own, Sept. 1 844, furnished me by the same individual : " The sisters can not be considered as pledged for any length of time : perhaps, as a sort of protection against occasional disappointment, it would be best to engage themselves mentally for a limited time (as two years), and so to feel their way." 42 tinuance, we could not know, beforehand, that it would. I need not say any more with regard to this statement. But, since Mr. Dodsworth reverts to the occasion which drew down this letter upon me, I would say a few words upon it. Mr. Dodsworth says, " It ought not to be lost sight of by those who so violently object to my Letter to Dr. Pusey, that very soon after that letter, I will not say in consequence of it, Dr. Pusey changed his opinion respecting the necessity of a strong assertion of the doctrine of Baptismal rege neration." Whatever change I made was not in the remotest way connected with that letter ; for it was made before the letter appeared. The outlines of the facts are these : — • The decision of the Privy Council did bring on a crisis, such as I had, for many years, earnestly deprecated. My earnest desire had been, that the truth should prevail, not in the way of legislation, or by majorities, but by its own inherent power and the grace of God. Valuable persons had come to see it, who had once opposed it. Every one ac knowledged, that among the young it was spreading rapidly. Those who opposed it complained of this, in language which brought to mind Tertullian's account of the complaints of the growth of the Gospel. It was a growth unseen, but felt every where, and unaccountable to those who saw not a 43 Higher Hand directing it, and the force of truth. Even those who received it not wholly, were, to a great extent, receiving higher degrees of truth than they did before. This was a great silent work of God. On this my hopes were set. I wished all to grow together, and that none should be cast out of the Church, since none knew who might not be won, Had a division come earlier, we might have lost some who now are teaching the full truth. The conduct, then, which so much disappointed Mr. Dodsworth, was, as some have pointed out, in accordance with my whole previous line of thought. My whole previous desire had been, not to "en force " any thing, or to act. I wished to avoid en forcing any thing, and any decision, of any sort, and that there should be full scope for teaching. God was blessing this way, and I wished for no other. I dreaded any severance, lest those might be lost who would do God service. When the decision of the Privy Council came, those public organs, which are indices, more or less, of the popular mind, represented the whole question as a struggle, in which the two parties wished to drive each other out of the Church. I earnestly deprecated any thing which should en courage this feeling. I wished that the so-called Evangelical body should, not be expelled, but won. Something was required through that unhappy decision of the Privy Council. By introducing the 44 theory ofthe "judgment of charity," they declared that it was utterly uncertain whether any child derived any benefit from Baptism. The principle which they specially allowed was, that the benefits of Baptism were never bestowed unconditionally. And that this condition was God's grace and favour. In other words, that some children brought to be baptized are in His favour, some not ; and that those not in His favour receive nothing. The hindrance to this, although not stated in the judgment, was declared by him whose doctrine they allowed, to be original sin ; which was a direct contradiction of the Nicene Creed. I wished, then, to avoid any statements which should be misunderstood; or any thing which, in the then state of people's minds, would be thought to be a " declaration of war " against the Evangeli cal body. And it seemed to me that such a decla ration as, "Original sin is remitted to all infants in, and by the grace of Baptism," would effectually cut at the root of the Judgment, at the same time that it would be received by the main of the Evangelical body. It involves two points — first, the remission of sin ; and second, that that remis sion was bestowed through the gift of grace. I trusted that such a statement, if put forth at once by authority, (as it was then hoped,) would be accepted by the Evangelical party, and would lead them on to the fuller perception of truth. For where sin is remitted, there, (as Mr. Gorham saw 45 clearly) there can be no hindrance to the bestowal of grace. God, by remitting sin, translates the being to whom He remits it, into His kingdom of grace. Instead of "being, by nature, a child of wrath," it is "thereby made a child of grace." And since grace can only come by Christ Jesus, it must be through Him that the grace is bestowed. God, Who is ever ready to communicate Himself to His creatures, does impart Himself whenever He is not shut out by sin. When He remits sin, the hindrance to His entrance to the soul is removed. Since then all pardon, and favour, and grace, come to the Christian through Christ, then, in fact, to say that " all infants have original sin remitted to them in, and by the grace of, Holy Baptism," involves, as its necessary consequence, the gift of grace, and that they become members of Christ, and so, sons of God, and then, if they forfeit it not, inheritors of the kingdom of heaven. This was insisted upon, not by myself, but by the Editor of Tract 76, in the Tracts for the Times, " Testimony of writers in the later English Church, to the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration." The writer laid down in explanation : " By 6 this doctrine is meant — first, that the Sacrament of Baptism is not a mere sign or promise, but actually a means of grace, an instrument, by which, when 6 Quoted in my Letter to the Bishop of Oxford, 1839, p. 123. 46 rightly received, the soul is admitted to the benefits of Christ's atonement, such as the forgiveness of sin, original and actual, reconciliation to God, a new nature, adoption, citizenship in Christ's king dom, and the inheritance of heaven, — in a word, Regeneration. And next, Baptism is considered to be rightly received, when there is no positive obstacle or hindrance to the reception in the reci pient, such as impenitence or unbelief would be in the case of an adult; so that infants are necessarily right recipients of it, as not being yet capable of actual sin." But then, having stated several " ques tions, far from unimportant, which do not at present come into consideration," he sums up, "the one point, maintained in the following extracts, being, that infants are by and at Baptism, unconditionally translated from a state of wrath into a state of grace and acceptance for Christ's sake." I do not in the least imply, what that writer would have done, in such a crisis as that of last year ; but I do mean, that, as I understand his statement, I did maintain, in effect, what was the keystone of the whole building. However, as I stated in the Guardian, — "I said, again and again, both at the meeting of March 19, and at the previous sittings of commit tees, through a whole week, that I wished all that to be re-affirmed (whatever it was) which was im pugned by the late judgment. I believed that a 47 particular statement would meet this end. All which I objected to was any indefinite statement which should give countenance to the impression then circulated in the leading newspapers, that this was a contest between two parties, each of which wished to drive the other out of the Church. " Mr. Dodsworth's proposal was in indefinite terms, and I felt convinced that it would be under stood as pledging the High Church to aim (as the very condition of their remaining in the Church), not only to have the evil which had been done by the Judicial Committee repaired, but to obtain a new and more stringent statement on the doctrine of Baptism, than any now contained in our Formu laries. I should not have objected to Mr. Dods worth's proposal at the second meeting, that the Church must not be content with any statement less than this (which we have been all glad to see put forth by the Bishop of Bath and Wells), ' that all infants are made in Baptism members of Christ, children of God, and inheritors of the Kingdom of heaven.' " I believe, and have for many years been per suaded, that a great deal of the disunion on the doctrine of Holy Baptism arises from misunder standing. As that misunderstanding has been re moved, very many who have been educated or have lived long among the Evangelical party, have explicitly believed the full truth. They have been 48 gained, year by year. I wished then, for the sake of those who are, in some way, involved in mis understanding, and believe better than they speak, that no statement should be put out which should simply affirm more stringently the Church's doc trine, without removing misunderstanding by ihe statement of other truths. This I supposed to be the ultimate object of Mr. Dodworth's proposal. " In one word, I would gladly have concurred in aiming to obtain from the Bishops, or from Convo cation, first, any statement which should have been shown to have been required to meet the heresy of the judgment ; or, secondly, any statement in which it would have been made plain that, in maintaining the doctrine of the Baptismal regene ration of all infants, we did not take the word regeneration in any sense contrary to other truth ; i. e. any statement in which we should not have been misunderstood." Subsequently to that meeting, another plan was suggested by Archdeacon Hare, which coincided with a wish I had already entertained, and which the very fact of his putting it forth, made me hope was practicable. It was, that the doctrine of Baptismal regeneration should be laid down com pletely, but, with this also, a true doctrine as to " conversion," so as not to exclude those whose only anxiety was to maintain that doctrine truly. This suggestion I attempted to embody, in words 49 which to me seemed wholly unambiguous. I put down, in Hooker's words, the full doctrine of Bap tismal regeneration ; and added to it another state ment as to conversion. This statement, however (which was only sug gested for the consideration of " those who, in their sense, doubt about admitting the Baptismal re generation of all infants"), was inadequate, in so far as it did not distinguish (what I had just before stated) the two senses of the word " conversion." — 1. The turning of the soul to God in one turned away from Him. 2. The entire conformation of the whole soul to God. But (as I subsequently said) " I only wished to show, that to hold Baptismal re generation did not, in our belief, exclude the ne cessity of (to use the words of another) ' a con tinuous life-long turning of the whole soul to God,' ' progressive,' ' admitting of degrees,' ' requiring the co-operation of our own active will,' with (as I said) ' the continual grace of God.' " To Mr. Dodsworth the statement seemed ambi guous. His letter to me was founded mainly upon this, combined with the line which I had previously taken, in opposing any vague statement, which I felt certain would be interpreted as indicative of a desire to expel the " Evangelical" Clergy, and proposing the more limited statement, above men tioned. Yet I had, in fact, then made the only change D 50 which I have made at all. Instead of the limited statement, that " original sin is remitted to all infants in and by the grace of Baptism ;" I had suggested the full statement of the universality of Baptismal regeneration, together with a statement on " con version." I had said that "any such statement must be maturely weighed." But by putting forth one such statement, at least the desire had been shown, that the two great parties in the Church should come to a mutual understanding, not that the majority should expel the minority. At this time, I hoped (as I said) that the Bishops would at once have put forth a statement which they all believed, and which would have cut at the root of tbe Judgment. This they decided not to do. It was commonly understood, that (on whatever ground,) a minority did not concur in making any declaration on the doctrine of Baptism, and that the majority thought it best, not to do so alone, for fear of the appearance of a division in the Episcopal Body, which was agreed as to the declaration, whatever it was, but differed as to the expediency of publishing it. It then became necessary for Presbyters to throw themselves upon the Church, according to that constitution of the national Church, which has existed for so many centuries, its two houses of Convocation. 51 I joined unreservedly in an appeal to this body, since it had now been made clear (which in the first excitement would not have been understood), that the object of those who appealed to it was to come to a right understanding with members of the Church, not the one to expel the other. Some time before Mr. Dodsworth's letter ap peared, I had, upon the very first opportunity, been employed, together with others, in promoting two petitions, which received the signatures of above one thousand members of Convocation in the University to which I belong. Cm the very same day on which his letter to me was advertised in the Guardian, as, " published this day r," there were inserted in the same paper, as, " in the course of signature at Oxford," two petitions, the one to the Queen, the other to the Archbishop of Canter bury; in which members of Convocation prayed that measures might be taken whereby the Church of England might enjoy her full liberties of declar ing and judging in all matters purely spiritual, and that the matter of doctrine lately questioned, might be referred to the Church herself. These petitions had been drawn up, as soon as it was ascertained that the Heads of Houses in this University, declined to take any part, as a body, in endeavouring to obtain any remedy for either grievance. They had been agreed to, some time ' Guardian, May 15, 1850, D 2 52 before the appearance of Mr. Dodsworth's letter, at a meeting of members of Convocation, and were in circulation. I was, from the first, a party to them. The petition to the Crown being very long, T will give the conclusion, which bears directly on this subject, as well as the whole of that to the Arch bishop. The desire expressed in both, was that the sense of the Church should in some way be had, and to her the decision was committed. The petition to the Crown concluded thus : — " Your petitioners — feeling convinced that both the doctrine and discipline of the Church of En gland, are endangered by the reference of causes, involving that doctrine, to the above Court, and also that doubt and uncertainty have been cast upon her doctrine as to the Sacrament of Baptism by the recent decision, Humbly pray — That your Majesty will be pleased to give your Royal assent, that all questions touching the doctrine of the Church of England, arising in Appeal, or in your Majesty's Temporal Courts, shall hereafter (as suggested to your Majesty's predecessor, King Edward VI.), be referred to a provincial Synod. " That your Majesty will be pleased to give your royal sanction to a bill for enacting that the judg ment of such Synod shall be binding upon the Temporal Courts of these realms. " And further, that your Majesty will be pleased 53 to refer the matter of doctrine already questioned, to the Church itself, in such way as your Majesty may be advised by the collective Episcopate. " That so the members of the Church of En gland may know certainly what is the doctrine of the Church on the Sacrament of Baptism, and that the Church itself may enjoy full freedom to exercise its inherent and inalienable office of declaring and judging in all matters, purely spiritual, to the welfare of your Majesty and these realms, the salvation of souls, and the glory of its Divine Head." The Petition to the Archbishop stated : — " That, apart from the doctrine involved in the decision of the Privy Council, it appears from the decision itself, that the ' authority in controversies of faith,' which we have all declared to be lodged in the Church, is transferred to a Court appointed by the Civil Power, and consisting of civil judges. "That for the future, accordingly, there is no doctrine of faith, however sacred, which may not, as to its meaning, or even existence, incidentally be submitted for final decision to a tribunal composed of civil judges, so as entirely to supersede the functions of the Church. " That at this present time the Supreme Court appears to have ruled that the Church of England has no certain doctrine at all on the Sacrament of Baptism, and that words, solemnly enunciating doc trine, may be construed in two contradictory senses. 54 "That if the assertions ofthe Church on Baptism may be taken as ambiguous, great uncertainty would be thrown upon very many other declara tions of her faith. " That the continuance of such a state of things would endanger the faith among us, and would tend to produce an universal scepticism. " We therefore humbly beg your Grace to be pleased to take such measures, with the advice of the Bishops of both Provinces, whereby all ques tions touching the doctrine of the Church of Eng land, arising in appeal from the Spiritual Courts, or incidentally in the Civil Courts, shall be referred to a Provincial Synod. " And whereby the doctrine of the Church of England, called in question in the late judgment, may be authoritatively re-affirmed." Mr. Dodsworth concluded his appeal to me in affecting words, " Hitherto, as you say," p. 226, " we have been fighting side by side for the same holy truths. To me such companionship, I trust, has been a great blessing; and if you will still fight for the same truths, by God's grace, you will not find us separate." In that struggle for the truths committed to the Church, and for her own right to declare the truth committed to her, I have ever since been engaged, except when he or others have called me to other questions, such as those on the rule of the English Church as to Absolution, or the varied subjects 55 which he comprised in his appeal to me. What he himself did in that cause, at any time after he had created this suspicion of myself, by those unex plained statements, he himself knows. But, to prevent misunderstanding, I would say, that what I have wished to do, has not been, (ac cording to the popular cry,) to interfere with any lawful authority of the civil Sovereign, but to con tend against abuses of it, through those who wish themselves to wield it in the name of the Sove reign, and to make the Church a mere engine of the State. Those with whom I have thought and have acted have not objected even to the nomination to Bishop rics by the Crown, with the limitations, under which we believed it to be exercised ; but they do claim, that the ancient right of the Laity and Clergy to offer objections, either as to faith or morals in the Bishops elect (to be legally sustained, and under penalties against any vexatious opposition), shall not be trampled under foot. They do object to a power being lodged in the Minister of the day, to advise the appointment of any second Hoadley, and that the Laity and Clergy, whose shepherd he is to be, should not be heard before a lawful tribunal to inquire whether the charges alleged be true. They do not object to the Crown having the right to require that justice be done to any of Her Majesty's subjects, by the Courts in which such matters ought to be determined. But they do 56 object to the departure from the principles of the Church from its foundation, that matters concern ing the faith, and, virtually, for all purposes of dis cipline, the Faith itself, should be determined by any other than the Church itself. Perhaps the chief difficulty in carrying on this struggle, is owing to the suspicions which he and another have raised. If, after the full statement which I have made, the same strong feeling prevails among the main body of those who read it 8, I will readily admit, that no mistake was committed either towards me, or to the principles which I hold, by putting forth a statement so unexplained. If, on the contrary, Churchmen who spoke against me find, when they read that statement, that they have spoken too strongly, I will hope that truth, and peace, and charity may gain in the end, if some, at least, learn to hear before they condemn. 8 I say this, because I happen to know how very few of the first edition of my letter (consisting of 1000 copies) passed through the hands of the booksellers who mostly supply those, who chiefly speak against me. Christ Church, 5th Week after the Epiphany, 1851.