Skip to main content

Full text of "The judgments on baptismal regeneration"

See other formats 


iiiliii'^^lMliiiiiiiii^^ 


O  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  '^* 


Presented  by  M--.  S:muel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agncw  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


M2^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2011  witin  funding  from 

Princeton  Tiieoiogicai  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/judgmentsonbaptiOiron 


''I  / 

/ 


THE   JUDGMENTS 


BAPTISMAL    REGENERATION, 


I.  THE  CHURCH-COURT  OF  ARCHES. 

II.  THE  STATE-COURT  OF  PRIVY  COUNCIL. 

III.  THE  PRESENT  ENGLISH  BISHOPS. 

IV.  THE  PRESENT  SCOTTISH  BISHOPS. 

(APPENDICES.) 

OPINION    OF    THE    IRISH    CHURCH.       (a.) 

A    bishop's    RIGHT    TO    EXAMINE    CLERGY.       (b.) 

NOTE    ON    THE    REV.    W.    GOODE's    LETTER.       (c.) 


IS  PREFIXED. 


WILLIAM     J.  '^IRONS,     B.D.. 


VICAR    OF    BROMPTON. 


LONDON  : 
JOSEPH    MASTERS,    ALDERSGATE    STREET, 

AND  78,  NEW  BOND  STREET. 

MDCCCL. 


LONDON : 

PRINTED    BY   JOSEPH    MASTERS, 

ALDERSGATK   STREET, 


CONTENTS. 


>  interpaged,  with  Mar- 


Preface  .  .  .  .  ,  .  . 

Preliminary  Discourse  of  Heresy,  False  Doctrine,  and  "  Open 
Questions "     . 

Outlines  of  "The  Two  Judgments"  (in  Gorham  v.  the  Bishop  of 
Exeter) — "  The  Church  Court,"  and  the  "  State  Court,"  in 
parallel  columns    ...... 

1.  The  Judgment  of  the  Church  Court, 

2.  The  Judgment  of  the  State  Court, 

ginal  Notes  and  Analysis         .  .  .  .  .4 

3.  The  Judgments  of  the  English  Bishops  (of  the  Province  of 

Canterbury)  on  Baptism    .  .  .  .  .  83 

4.  The  Judgment  of  the  Scottish  Bishops,  in  Synod  assembled  : 

in  the  same  matter      .  .  .  ,  .  .96 

Appendices  : — A.  Opinion  of  the  Irish  Church     ...  99 

B.  Bishop's  "  Right  to  Examine  "  Clergy         .  .     106 

C.  Note  on  "Mr.  Goode's  "   Letter  to  the  Bishop  of 

Exeter  .  .  ...  110 


PREFACE. 


The  whole  Church  has  received  with  astonishment 
the  Judgment  of  the  Privy  Council  in  the  case  of 
Mr.  Gorham.  Her  enemies  look  on  with  triumph : 
her  best  children  with  deep  despondency.  We  refused 
beforehand  to  believe  that  a  Court  so  constituted  as 
the  Judicial  Committee  would  have  given  so  much 
as  an  opinion  on  doctrinal  questions :  but  that 
such  opinions  could  be  put  forth,  and  so  supported, 
was,  until  it  came  to  pass,  wholly  incredible. 

In  a  pamphlet  on  *'  The  Present  Crisis,"  published 
on  the  second  of  March,  I  ventured  to  anticipate  a 
dry  decision  on  the  legal  facts  of  Mr.  Gorham's 
case  (p.  47,)  as  the  worst  that  could  happen.  The 
doctrine  of  Baptism  is  so  unequivocally  declared 
in  the  Articles,  Creeds,  and  Formularies  of  our 
Church — our  enemies  themselves,  Roman  and  Pro- 
testant, being  judges — that  it  was  thought  among 
us  that  no  ignorance  could  mistake,  and  no  wilful- 
ness deny  it.  Our  Church  since  the  Reformation 
had  attempted  to  tie  down  the  Royal  Supremacy  to 
the  definition  of  the  37th  Article,  according  to 
which,  the  vague  example  of  "  all  godly  kings  "  is 


vi  Preface. 

interpreted  as  a  supremacy  in  legal  "  causes,"  and 
a  restraining  "  with  tlie  civil  sword  the  stubborn 
and  evil  doers."  This  is  all  that  our  Church  was 
bound  to  by  her  own  act — all  that  her  priests  are 
required  to  mean  by  their  subscriptions — all  that 
our  great  doctors  have  from  age  to  age  defended. 

This  we  believed  to  be  an  impregnable  position,  and 
we  had  been  accustomed  for  many  years  past  to  say 
that  neither  crown,  nor  parliament,  nor  convocation, 
alone,  could  alter  this  position.  Who  has  not  been 
familiar  with  the  remark  that  the  joint  action  of 
the  three  was  necessary  to  give  authority  to  any 
change — whether  enlargement  or  diminution — of 
the  settlement  of  1 662  ?  When  vexed  by  Dis- 
senters with  the  charge  of  the  "  Royal  Supremacy," 
and  "  Acts  of  Parliament,"  making  our  doctrines 
or  discipline,  we  thought  it  a  sufficient  answer  to 
point  to  our  37th  Article,  which  contained  a  far 
more  moderate  theory  than  the  facts  of  Henry 
the  Eighth's  reign,  or  of  Edward  the  Second's  would 
require  for  their  justification.  And,  since  the 
revolution  of  1688,  we  thought  that  the  course  of 
modern  ideas  had  still  farther  so  much  restrained 
all  "  prerogative,"  that  the  Ecclesiastical  prerogative 
had  no  less  faded,  and  become  more  and  more 
indistinct. — For  maintaining  this  position,  as  that 
to  which  I  had  been  accustomed  for  twenty  years, 
that  on  which  alone  I  had  thought  the  Church  of 
England  defensible,  from  the  day  I  first  entered  her 
communion,  I  have  been  subjected  to  the  strange 


Preface.  vii 

misunderstanding  of  many  of  my  brethren,  who, 
new  to  the  whole  subject  themselves,  have  forgotten 
that  others  had  thought  of  it  before ;  and  have  even 
supposed  me  to  be  a  defender  of  the  present  decision 
of  the  Privy  Council,  as  an  exertion  of  the  Royal  Pre- 
rogative no  greater  than  had  been  submitted  to  of 
old  time  !  I  can  only  account  for  this  strange  mis- 
conception of  my  whole  argument  and  object  by 
supposing  the  friends  to  whom  I  refer  to  have 
read  the  Roman  Catholic  reviews  of  my  pamphlet 
more  attentively  than  the  pamphlet  itself. 

Now  that  the  decision  of  the  Judicial  Committee 
is  known,  it  is  plain  to  all  men  that  the  "  State  " 
has  attempted  an  interference  in  spiritual  matters, 
unsurpassed,  and  perhaps  unequalled,  in  the  history 
of  our  Church.  The  most  wanton  tyranny  of 
Plantagenet  or  Tudor  monarchs  cannot  be  com- 
pared with  the  present  act  of  "  the  State  "  towards 
the  Church.  What,  let  us  ask,  are  some  of  the 
strongest  efforts  of  State  tyranny  in  past  genera- 
tions ? — William  I.,  who  thought  himself  justified  in 
deciding  for  the  English  Church  practically  who  was 
the  true  Pope,  and  demanded  to  ratify  the  Canons  by 
his  royal  authority,  yet  did  not  mean  to  make  him- 
self a  Judge  of  Doctrine. — Henry  II.,  who  demanded 
that  appeals  in  causes  within  the  cognisance  of  the 
Archbishop  should  be  referred,  without  exception,* 
to  himself,  and  decided  by  his  precept  in  the  Arch- 
bishop's Court,  if  the  Archbishop  had  failed  to  do 
*  See  Pusey  on  the  Supremacy,  p.  199, 


viii  Preface. 

justice,  still  does  not  appear  to  have  acted  on  this  in 
any  purely  spiritual  matter. — Edward  II.,  (perhaps 
the  worst  case,)  though  subjecting  the  Clergy,  in 
gravest  causes,  to  the  most  ignominious  trials, 
before  a  jury  of  twelve  laymen,  (Wilkins,  ii,  326,) 
and  administering  absolution,  or  not, — forbidding 
the  ordinaries,  then  or  afterwards,  to  interfere 
according  to  the  Canons, — yet  did  not  long  persevere 
in  this  iniquity. — Edward  III,,  and  Richard  II., 
though  declaring  the  Crown  subject  to  none  but 
God  in  anything,  and  therefore  lifting  it  above  all 
law,  and  even  flattered  with  the  pretence,  it  is  said, 
of  "  Spiritual  Jurisdiction,"*  were,  both,  milder  in 
deed  than  in  word.  Perhaps  they  were  strong 
enough  to  be  able  to  afford  to  be  gentle.  Henry 
VIII.,  though  professing  to  restrain  new  "here- 
sies," acknowledges  the  sufficiency  of  the  "  Spi- 
ritualty "  in  such  matters,  and  so  may  be  under- 
stood to  mean  the  restraint  of  the  "  civil  sword." 
(See  Bishop  Beveridge  on  the  37  th  Article.) 
Queen  Elizabeth,  as  anxious  as  any  to  assert  the 
prerogatives  of  her  "  most  noble  progenitors,"  the 
ancient  kings  of  England,  yet  thought  (Eliz.  c.  i.,) 
that  General  Councils  and  Convocations  had  a  right 
to  a  voice  in  questions  of  heresy.  But  the  British 
Parliament  in  the  nineteenth  century,  having  no  one 
religion  of  its  own,  but  admitting  all  creeds  alike, 
has  a  tribunal  whose  six  lay  judges  have  sat  in 
solemn  conclave  on  an  Article  of  the  Christian 
*  See  the  "  Sequel  to  the  Present  Crisis,"  p.  14,  «fec. 


Preface.  ix 

Faith,  and — unbidden  and  unneeded — decided  whe- 
ther that  Article  was  sufficiently  held  by  a  con- 
demned Priest  of  the  Church  !  and  also,  how  all 
the  members  of  the  Church  may  henceforth  inter- 
pret that  Article  !— There  is  nothing  like  this  to  be 
found  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  few  examples  of  State  interference  which  I  had 
referred  to  in  my  first  pamphlet,  which  have  been 
since  enlarged  in  an  article  in  the  "  Christian  Re- 
membrancer "  for  April,  and  in  Dr.  Pusey's  learned 
book  on  the  Royal  Supremacy,  (both  so  amply 
vindicating  the  argument  I  had  put  forth,)  fail  to 
furnish  excuse  for  the  now  attempted  usurpation. 
— But  has  the  Church  acquiesced  in  it  ?  God 
forbid  !  It  has  reclaimed  against  it  from  one  end 
of  England  to  the  other;  and  will  yet  assert  and 
maintain,  as  ever,  the  Orthodox  Faith  as  to  the 
Holy  Sacrament  of  Baptism  which  has  been  prac- 
tically impugned. 

If  the  few  who  are  pleased  with  the  subject 
matter  of  the  Privy  Council's  decision, — (for  I  speak 
not  of  the  lax  millions  who  hail  with  applause  the 
mere  laxity,) — if  they  take  time  to  reflect,  they 
will  see  that  with  such  a  tribunal  no  doctrine  is 
safe.  Whether  the  present  decision  be  right  or 
wrong,  nothing  but  servihty  and  absence  of  all 
principle  should  be  found  to  applaud  the  system 
which  has  produced  it.  Even  now,  (it  is  said, 
without  contradiction,)  an  attack  has  begun  on  the 
Doctrine  of  the  Eternal  Trinity.  An  Archbishop,  we 


X  Preface. 

know,  may  be  found  who  has  thought  the  "three  per- 
sons "  may  be  "  three  characters."  The  Creed  of  St. 
Athanasius  has  been  objected  to,  in  a  Chapel  Royal 
— contrary  to  law.  Will  it  be  many  years  before 
Arianism  is  distinctly  tolerated  as  admissible,  and 
not  legally  "  repugnant  "  to  our  Articles,  because 
our  Articles  do  not  define  the  word  "  Person,"  or  fix 
the  meaning  of  the  term,  "  Substance  f 

Our  sky  is  surely  overcast  as  never  before ;  and 
woe  to  him  that  has  a  feeble  hand  and  faint  heart  1 
May  we  have  faith  in  Him,  Who,  ere  now,  has  ruled 
the  storm — and  we  yet  may  hear  "It  is  I,  be 
not  afraid  !"  If  He  indeed  have  favour  towards 
us.  He  will  not  leave  us  in  our  extremity.  Only 
let  us  not  desert  whatever  in  our  hearts  we  have 
known  to  be  His  Truth ;  and  there  shall  be  hope 
in  our  end. 

So  much  has  been  said  of  late — and  said  with 
such  power — of  the  untruthfulness,  evasions,  and 
doubts  of  High  Churchmen,  that  I  cannot,  ere  I 
pass  on,  help  uttering  my  deep  astonishment,  while 
I  protest  that  I  know  not  the  meaning  of  the  self- 
accusations  I  hear,  more  terrible  by  far  than  any 
enemies  could  have  brought.  Doubtless  there  are 
always  found  some  mean  and  inferior  spirits  appa- 
rently attaching  themselves  to  any  great  movement : 
yet  I  should  have  thought,  I  did  think,  that  my 
High  Church  brethren  were  pre-eminently  high- 
minded,  generous,  and  true.  Even  now  I  so  believe 
them  to  be,  as  a   body ;    and  as  individuals   too, 


Preface.  xi 

so  far  as  I  know  my  brethren.  I  protest  that 
I  do  not  comprehend  the  self-accusations  I  have 
heard.  All  that  I  now  am  about  to  say  is  in  the 
belief  that  I  am  speaking  to  those  who  are  honest 
before  God,  and  truthful  with  their  fellow  men. 
If  of  some  it  be  true  that  there  has  been  a  "  private 
holding "  of  more  than  they  publicly  avowed, 
assuredly  I  have  not  been  in  their  secret.  We 
have,  perhaps,  instinctively  avoided  each  other — 
moved  in  different  lines,  and  never  met.  But  I 
persuade  myself  that  thej^  are  but  a  narrow  class. 

Yet  if  it  be  necessary  to  urge  honesty  and  truth 
on  all  at  this  present,  let  me  urge  it  also  on  those 
who  are  our  antagonists  in  this  controversy.  First 
on  the  Judges  in  the  Judicial  Committee  ;  that  they 
would  honestly  review  their  own  judgment  as  here 
set  forth  before  their  eyes.  For  surely  it  would  in- 
crease our  hope  of  a  happy  issue  to  our  present 
troubles  if  the  Judges  themselves  saw  and  acknow- 
ledged with  manfulness  the  wrong  they  have  done. 
Secondly,  on  the  political  defenders  of  this  Judg- 
ment. It  cannot  be  the  wish  of  any  of  the  leading 
and  responsible  statesmen  of  this  age  and  country 
to  break  up  and  destroy  the  Church  of  England. 
Yet  they  have  begun  to  do  it. — Lord  John  Russell 
has  said  that  he  is  defending  the  "  Queen's  Pre- 
rogative" in  the  course  he  is  taking  in  Church 
questions.  I  beseech  his  truthful  attention  to  this. 
However  pardonable  it  may  be  in  a  lawyer  to  speak 
for  instance  of  the  recent  Judgment  (by  a  legal  fie- 


xii  Preface. 

tion,)  as  "  Her  Majesty's,"  this  is,  among  practical 
people  in  the  nineteenth  century,  a  mere  playing 
with  words.  Do  let  things  be  called  by  their  right 
names.  The  personal  prerogative  of  the  Queen  in 
these  matters  is  a  bygone  dream.  The  Church 
receives  the  37th  Article,  but  nothing  more.  No 
real  friends  of  the  Crown,  any  more  than  of  the 
Church,  must  make  the  Crown  ridiculous  by  assign- 
ing to  it  in  things  sacred  what  is  denied  even  in 
things  temporal ;  lest  they  soon  teach  men  to  suspect 
that  the  temporal  rights  of  Royalty  may  have  as 
little  foundation  as  the  spiritual,  in  which  no  one 
believes.  The  Supremacy  of  the  Crown  might  seem 
respectable  so  long  as  it  supposed  something  pecu- 
liarly resident  in  the  person  of  the  monarch ;  but 
with  the  departure  of  that  theory  the  Supremacy 
is  in  the  State.  And  a  terrible  reality  we  are 
finding  that  State  Supremacy  to  be. 

Then,  finally,  let  us  all  aim  at  truthfully  dealing 
with  things  as  they  really  are  ;  abandoning  techni- 
calities and  reserves,  and  looking  without  prejudice 
and  stubbornness  to  what  must  come  to  pass. 

The  Essay  which  precedes  this  volume  will  not 
find  favour  with  any  class  of  hollow  and  artificial 
readers.  It  is  open  to  a  thousand  cavils,  but  it  is 
written  with  unreserve  and  sincerity.  May  it  aid 
the  minds  of  those  who  would  escape  the  cant  of 
party,  political  or  religious,  and,  while  avoiding 
Heresy  and  false  doctrine,  would  cling  to  Charity 
and  Truth ! 


ON 


HERESY,  FALSE  DOCTRINE, 


"OPEN    QUESTIONS." 


I.  The  revered  and  thoughtful  author  of  the 
"  Christian  Year,"  both  before  and  since  the  de- 
cision of  the  Privy  Council  in  Mr.  Gorham's  case, 
has  observed,  that  "it  would  need  to  be  proved  that 
a  Bishop  or  Archbishop  acting  on  that  decision 
would  not  involve  in  direct  Heresy  both  himself  and 
all  in  communion  with  him."  By  which  I  do  not 
understand  him  to  deny  that  such  proof  might  be 
given ;  because  he  adds,  that  a  Judicial  decision,  after 
all,  could  not  overthrow  "  what  is  beyond  all  ques- 
tion Synodically  decreed  :"  but  I  take  him  to  be 
using  words  of  warning  and  caution ;  to  be  urging 
that  the  minds  of  Churchmen  ought  to  be  at  once 
directed  to  the  subject  of  dogmatic  Authority  in 
general,  the  danger  of  Heresy,  or  Communion  with 
Heresy,  and  the  duty  of  formally  witnessing  to  the 
Truth  as  it  is  in  Christ  ;  and,  in  brief,  to  be  re- 
minding us  that  we  are  called  to  consider  well  what 


xiv  Introduction. 

our  duty  to  God  and  the  Church  may,  at  this  crisis, 
require  of  us. 

That  there  is  indeed  a  deep  necessity  for  consider- 
ing these  subjects  can  need  no  proof.  On  every 
side  one  has  heard  the  saying,  that  "  we  should 
withdraw  from  the  communion  of  Heretics,"  with 
httle  apparent  thought  of  the  danger  and  sin  of 
Schism,  and — must  I  not  say  it  ? — a  forgetfulness 
that  if  it  be  a  duty  to  withdraw  from  false  brethren, 
it  is  also  a  grief  and  a  sin  to  wound  the  weak. 

It  has  been  taken  for  granted,  too,  by  some,  that 
forbearance  to  those  in  error  is  equivalent  to  indif- 
ference to  truth.  A  rigid  theory  of  Dogmatism  is 
assumed,  altogether  alien,  as  it  seems  to  me,  from 
the  spirit  of  the  Primitive  Church,  and  of  our  own  ; 
and  so  we  are  to  be  driven  to  extremities  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  position  and  principles  of 
Churchmen  of  the  school  of  Andrewes,  Wilson, 
and  Ken.  —  Certainly  from  the  moment  it  was 
apprehended  that  the  decision  of  the  Privy 
Council  would  be  hostile  to  the  orthodox  Faith,  a 
different  language  began  to  be  used  by  those  who 
had  previously  seemed  satisfied  with  the  prospect  of 
the  Judgment  of  the  Arches  Court  being  confirmed. 
A  stern  and  exclusive  formula  was  called  for  by 
some  such  of  our  brethren,  which,  if  attained,  would 
have  divided  the  Church  asunder, — not  orthodox 
from  heretic,  but  brother  from  brother.  And 
resistance  to  this  sternness  was  regarded  as  a  timid 
and  time-serving  surrender  to  the  spirit  of  Heresy. 


Authority  and  Jurisdiction.  xv 

But  it  seemed  to  some  of  us  that  it  was  altogether 
wrong  to  struggle  for  a  new  test  of  orthodoxy  such 
as  was  demanded ;  wrong  to  our  brethren,  because 
it  put  the  truth  before  their  minds,  already  preju- 
diced, in  such  a  form  as  could  not  fail  to  provoke 
them  to  schism ;  wrong  to  our  Church,  because  it 
would  have  seemed  to  stake  her  character  for  ortho- 
doxy on  a  new  and  dangerous,  and  probably  unat- 
tainable, test.  It  was  plain  that  they  who  were 
urging  Churchmen  on  this  issue,  reserved  no  alter- 
native for  themselves  or  others,  on  failure,  save  an 
immediate  departure  from  the  communion  of  our 
Church.  Such  persons  then  must  have  adopted, 
consciously  or  unconsciously,  a  principle  of  dog- 
matic Authority  unrecognized  as  yet  among  English 
Churchmen.  That  minute  precision  which  they  re- 
quired, the  more  it  is  examined,  will  be  the  more 
seen  to  be  inconsistent  with  every  theory  of  dog- 
matic truth,  except  perhaps  the  Roman. 

Then  immediately  in  connexion  with  this  demand 
of  a  new  test  of  orthodoxy  on  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tism, arose  the  question  as  to  the  erection  of  a  Court 
of  Appeal  in  matters  of  Doctrine,  and  the  inquiry 
as  to  the  origin  of  the  Jurisdiction  of  such  Court, 
even  if  erected.  This  elicited  the  still  further  dis- 
covery that  the  Roman  theory  of  Jurisdiction  (which 
deduces  all  ecclesiastical  power,  even  in  foro  ex- 
terno,  from  their  one  centre  of  ecclesiastical  unity) 
had  taken  possession  of  the  minds  of  some  of  our 
brethren.      But  they  seemed,   nevertheless,    to    be 

c2 


xvi  Authority  and  Jurisdiction  : 

astonished  that  their  adopted  Roman  theories  of 
dogmatic  Authority  and  of  Jurisdiction  were,  in  their 
result,  incompatible  with  the  position  of  English 
Churchmen.  The  truth  is,  that  if  they  had  adopted 
the  same  principles,  or  reasoned  from  them  in  the 
same  way,  ten  years  ago,  they  would  have  discarded 
our  Church  then  as  much  as  now" :  and  they  have  no 
reason  surely  to  be  surprised  at  us  who  continue  to 
believe  as  our  great  Anglican  Fathers  have  believed ; 
and  hope  to  defend  our  Church  as  they  defended  it, 
and  not  on  Roman  ground. 

According  to  the  Roman  theory  of  dogmatic 
Authority,  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  are  not  only 
infallibly  preserved  and  sufficiently  taught,  and  ac- 
companied by  the  grace  of  the  Divine  Spirit  for  the 
salvation  of  all  who  believe  and  obey — for  all  this  we 
steadfastly  maintain — but  that  those  doctrines  are 
ever  subject,  in  all  their  details,  to  the  immediate  de- 
cision of  a  living  infallible  Judge.  On  Roman  princi- 
ples the  legislator  and  the  judge  are  alike  practically 
infallible :  hence  the  facihty  with  which  the  fallacy 
was  of  late  adopted,  that  a  Court  by  a  "judicial  sen- 
tence assumed  finally  to  determine  doctrine  .'"  On 
Roman  principles,  I  say,  this  was  true  :  but  on  ours  it 
could  not  be ;  as  I  hope  still  further  to  explain. 

So  again,  according  to  the  Roman  theory  of 
Jurisdiction,  all  power  flows  from  the  Pope ;  and 
its  logical  result  is  and  must  be  a  hierarchy  such  as 
was  contemplated  by  Gffegory  VII.  They  speak  of 
Jurisdiction,  and  Mission,  as  though  they  were,  dis- 


Roman  Theories.  xvii 

tinctly,  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  and  then  declaim 
easily  on  the  preposterous  assumption  that  tem- 
poral governors  can  impart  any  such  gifts.  The 
fallacy  succeeds  through  the  medium  of  ambigu- 
ous terms. 

"  Jurisdiction,"  for  example — which  (as  often  used) 
is  a  mere  abstraction — does  in  the  truest  sense 
pertain  to  the  Christian  Priesthood.  The  spiritual 
Power  of  governing  the  mystical  body  of  Christ  was 
given  to  the  rulers  of  His  Church  when  He  breathed 
on  them,  and  bestowed  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  Right, 
however,  to  exercise  that  power  "  to  edification  and 
not  to  destruction  "  was  afterwards  regulated  and 
adjusted  by  the  laws  of  His  Church.  But  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  modern  notion  of  a  Gift  of  spiritual 
Jurisdiction,  separate  from  holy  Orders,  in  the  first 
ages  after  Christ.  Is  it  not  mere  wilfulness,  then, 
to  tell  us  that  we  confound  holy  Orders  and  Juris- 
diction ?  We  do  nothing  of  the  kind.  The  ideas 
are  distinct  enough,  though  we  claim  no  Jurisdiction 
except  that  which  Christ  gave  when  He  imparted 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  His  Apostles.  All  the  Power 
of  Jurisdiction  which  we  do  possess  is,  doubtless, 
imparted  by  holy  Orders  :  but  all  the  Right  spiri- 
tually to  exercise  that  power,  over  persons,  things, 
or  places,  is  regulated  by  the  Laws  of  the  Church, 
under  the  ordinary  course  of  Providence  in  the 
world.  —  If  the  Church  accepts  or  exercises  any 
kind  of  power  for  the  government  of  Christian  men, 
beyond  what  Christ  gave,  she  must  receive  it  from 


xviii  Authority  and  Jurisdiction  : 

the  State,*  and  hold  it,  while  she  holds  it,  under  the 
laws  of  the  State. 

Christianity  is  destined  to  have  its  true  sphere  in 
eternity.  But  if,  meanwhile,  it  is  designed  to  in- 
fluence the  course  of  this  world,  it  must  mingle  with 
it,  and  come  under  its  laws,  which  for  this  present 
have  the  sanction  of  the  Moral  Governor  of  man- 
kind, Whose  will  it  is  that  the  world  should  exist 
under  Government.! 

The  following,  from  the  greatest  doctor  of  the 
Schools,  will  illustrate  how  he  regarded  the  spiritual 
Power  when  imparted  as  of  a  twofold  use  and 
character  :  and  that  Jurisdiction  is  not  a  distinct 
gift  of  God,  but  is  the  right,  given  by  roan,  of 
using  the  spiritual  power  imparted  in  consecra- 
tion. "  Spiritual  power  is  twofold,  sacramental  and 
jurisdictional.  The  sacramental  is  conferred  by  any 
consecration.  All  the  consecrations  of  the  Church 
are  irremovable  so  long  as  that  which  is  consecrated 
remains ;  as  also  is  apparent  in  things  inanimate  ; 
for  the  altar  once  consecrated  is  not  consecrated 
again,  unless  it  has  been  mutilated,  (or  removed  ? 
"  dissipatum,")  And  therefore  such  Power,  according 
to  its  essence,  remains,  in  a  man  who  by  consecra- 

*  As  an  illustration  of  which  I  may  mention  the  Holy 
Governing  Synod  of  the  Russian  Chui'ch,  whose  exterior  "  juiis- 
dictioD,"  in  all  things  not  pertaining  to  their  sacerdotal  func- 
tion and  grace,  is  wholly  derived  from  the  emperor. 

t  I  have  examined  this  question  more  at  large  in  the  "  Lec- 
tures on  Jurisdiction."     (The  Synod  and  the  Diocese.) 


Roman  Theories.  xix 

tion  has  received  it,  as  long  as  he  lives,  whether  he 
fall  into  schism  or  even  heresy :  which  is  manifest 
from  this,  that  if  he  returns  to  the  Church  he  is  not 
consecrated  again.  But  because  inferior  power  [as 
a  priest's  for  instance,]  ought  not  to  go  forth  into 
action  except  as  it  is  directed  (movetur)  by  superior 
power,  (as  in  things  natural  also,)  it  follows,  that 
such  do  lose  the  use  of  their  power,  so  that  it  is  not 
lawful  to  use  their  power.  But  if  they  do  use  it, 
their  power  has  effect  in  things  sacramental,  be- 
cause in  them  man  only  works  as  God's  instrument ; 
whence  the  sacramental  effects  are  not  excluded  on 
account  of  the  fault  of  the  minister. 

"  But  jurisdictional  power  is  that  which  is  given 
by  the  mere  injunction  of  man,  and  is  not  immov- 
able ;  does  not  remain  in  heretics  and  schismatics ; 
so  that  they  cannot  absolve,  excommunicate,  give  in- 
dulgences, &c.,  and  if  they  do  it  is  null  and  void. 
So  when  we  deny  the  spiritual  power  of  such,  we 
mean  not  its  essence,  but  its  lawful  wse."  (legitimum 
usum.)     S.  Aquin.  2.  2dce.  xxxix.  3. 

The  fallacy  of  recent  mystifications,  as  to  Jurisdic- 
tion and  Mission,  will  be  transparent  to  any  one  who 
thus  sees  they  are  to  be  resolved  into  the  legal  and 
sometimes  temporal  use  of  an  already  possessed 
spiritual  power. 

Thus  much  I  have  thought  it  necessary  here  to 
say  concerning  dogmatic  Authority,  and  concerning 
Jurisdiction.  For  it  has  been  a  matter  of  common 
inquiry  of  late  years  when  some  have  departed  from 


XX         "  The  Faith;"  a  Deposit  of  Truth, — 

us  to  the  Church  of  Rome,  "  where  did  they  begin 
to  go  wrong  ? — at  what  point  did  they  diverge  from 
that  ground  whence  Laud,  and  Ken,  and  others  in 
most  troubled  times  could  never  be  seduced  ?"  It 
is  surely  a  question  of  some  interest.  Let  the  most 
striking  examples  of  those  who  have  left  us  be  consi- 
dered, and  it  will  not  be  difficult,  1  think,  to  trace 
their  first  deflection  to  a  gradual  and  unconscious 
adoption  of  the  Roman  theory,  both  as  to  Doctrine 
and  Discipline,  as  here  indicated.* 

But  now,  let  not  what  has  been  defensively  said 
in  behalf  of  our  Church's  authority  and  theory,  in 
opposition  to  those  who  deny  the  one  and  mistake 
the  other,  be  taken  as  indicating  a  want  of  sym- 
pathy with  others  who  are  alarmed  lest  what  has 
thus  far  been  our  theory  should  be  at  length  aban- 
doned ;  and  what  has  thus  far  been  relied  on  as 
authority  should  fail  us. 

Though  I  do  not  beheve  that  the  Enghsh  Church 
is  yet  coraniitted  to  Heresy,  nor  that  she  can  be 
charged  with  any  real  surrender  of  her  authority  to 
teach  the  law  of  Christ,  I  cannot  but  think  our 
prospects  are  dark.  I  feel  that  our  dangers  must 
be  arrested  now  or  never.  In  the  meantime  it  may 
lead  to  some  juster  appreciation  of  the  subjects  we 
have  to  deal  with  if  we  subject  them  to  a  brief 
analysis. 

*  Both  may  be  traced  in  Mr.  Newman's  Essay,  and  in  the 
effect  produced,  it  is  said,  on  him  and  others  by  Dr.  Wise- 
man's powerful  Tracts  on  Protestantism  in  the  East. 


A  Record  of  Realities.  xxi 

II.  "A  man  that  is  an  heretic  reject,  after  one  or 
two  admonitions."  Such  is  the  Apostle's  command 
to  the  rulers  of  the  Church ;  a  command  which  im- 
plies the  existence  of  a  "  deposit  "  of  truth  in  the 
Church,  and  the  sacred  duty  of  keeping  it  against 
all  corrupters,  whether  from  within  or  without. 

The  deposit  of  Truth — the  received  Faith — the 
"  one  Commandment  which  we  have  heard  from  the 
beginning," — has  been  found  in  the  Creeds  of  all  the 
"churches  of  the  saints  "  from  the  Apostles'  days. 
The  Creeds  are  realities,  and  mysteries ;  not  opi- 
nions. To  depart  from  them  is  "to  believe  a  lie." 
Some  of  the  Churches,  as  we  read  in  the  Apocalypse, 
have  "  fallen;"  and,  if  yet  surviving,  have  need  of 
repentance.  (Rev.  ii.  5.)  Some  even  have  suffered 
false  teachers  among  them,  "  saying  they  are  pro- 
phets when  they  are  not ;"  (Rev.  ii.  20  ;  iii.  9  ;)  and 
such  have  been  evermore  warned  by  the  Spirit  to 
put  away  heresy  from  among  them,  and  return  and 
"  do  the  first  works."  But  the  Universal  Creed  has 
not  changed,  nor  the  universal  Church  failed  to  guard 
the  apostolic  Truth.  If  in  any  Church  heresy  be 
ever  found  to  be  the  rule, — unsuppressed  formal 
heresy — its  teaching  henceforth  becomes  "  another 
Gospel:"  the  truth  brought  to  us  by  God  Incar- 
nate has  then  and  there  been  supplanted  by  another 
religion  :  it  is  no  more  a  Church  of  Christ  :  it  may 
have,  for  a  time,  a  "  name  to  live,  but  it  is  dead." 
His  truth,  thus  forsaken  and  cast  out,  lives  and 
abides  elsewhere. 


xxii       Imperfections  of  our  present  perceptions. 

But  are  we  to  think  that  every  erroneous  opinion 
among  Christians  is  thus  fatal  ? — Perhaps  it  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  every  error,  every  mistake  in 
doctrine,  however  sUght,  is  of  the  nature  of  heresy, 
and  only  would  need  consistent  and  truthful  develop- 
ment to  become  formally  what  from  the  first  it 
tended  to  be.  For  Truth  is  one  and  eternal :  and 
Error  is  its  opposite. 

III.  But  there  are  different  degrees  as  well  as 
kinds  of  error.  We  must  distinguish  between 
abstract  falsehood,  as  it  stands  opposed  to  essential 
truth,  and  that  imperfect  knowledge  and  partial 
perception  of  truth  which  are  inevitable  in  our 
moral  education  here  as  finite  intelligences.  If  we 
could  examine  the  intellectual  form  of  many  of  our 
Christian  doctrines  as  existing  in  the  mind  of  the 
ordinary  believer,  what  inaccurate,  what  fearfully 
erroneous,  conceptions  should  we  discover  in  thou- 
sands who  nevertheless  are  both  in  heart  and  by 
education  consciously  orthodox  !  The  more  intel- 
lectual and  busy  class  of  minds  from  time  to  time 
will  give  expression  to  their  erroneous  conceptions  ; 
but  are  they  therefore  to  be  always  deemed  heretics 
at  once  ?  God  forbid  !  Only  when  they  persevere 
in  doctrines  or  expositions  formally  condemned  by 
the  Church,  as  contrary  to  the  faith  of  Christ, 
can  they  be  thought  to  be  any  more  heretical  than 
are  the  multitudes  of  less  intellectual  believers  all 
around  them  whose  modes  of  thought  or  expression 
would  by  no  means  bear  analysis. 


What  Heresy  is.  xxiii 

We  are  here  in  a  state  of  probation ;  learning- 
first  the  words,  and  year  by  year  the  ideas,  of  our 
Catechism  and  our  Creed.  While  learning,  we  all 
have  very  imperfect,  and  even  at  times  untrue,  per- 
ceptions :  yet  we  are  not  heretics,  but  dutiful  chil- 
dren of  the  Church  of  God,  if  we  are  putting  from 
us  continually,  as  we  proceed,  all  that  our  Heavenly 
Guide  discovers  to  us  to  be  crude  and  imperfect, 
and  therefore,  so  far,  untrue. 

From  this  we  may  see  the  reason  of  the  ordinary 
definition  of  a  heretic  ;  and  understand  the  various 
gradations  of  erroneous  doctrine  which  the  charity 
of  the  Church  forbears  awhile  to  pronounce  to  be 
formal  heresy ;  and  further,  the  necessity  which  at 
times  exists  for  "open  questions,"  (in  one  sense  of 
the  term,)  arising  from  the  fact  that  our  moral  pro- 
bation is  concerned  in  our  reception  of  the  Gospel 
as  truth  :  so  that  the  Apostle  to  the  Corinthians 
said,  "  it  is  necessary  that  there  be  heresies  "  among 
Christians,  "  that  the  faithful  may  be  proved." 

IV.  It  is  not  every  error,  we  say,  that  is  to  be  at 
once  assailed  by  the  name  of  Heresy,  among  Chris- 
tians ; — I  say  among  Christians,  for  the  false  doc- 
trines of  unbaptized  men,  who  profess  not  Christian 
religion,  are  not,  of  course,  to  be  described  as  "  here- 
sies "  at  all; — but  we  so  describe  the  pertinacious 
errors  of  false  believers.  In  the  primitive  Church, 
(though  the  term  was  more  widely  used  by  some,  as 
Epiphanius,)  "  Heresy"  was  in  a  special  way  the  name 
of  false  doctrine  concerning  God,  the  Persons  of  the 


xxiv  What  Heresy  is. 

ever  blessed  Trinity,  or  the  Divine  and  human  na- 
tures of  Christ.  Thus  Origen  describes  the  here- 
tic : — "  Omnis  qui  se  Christo  credere  profitetur,  et 
tamen  alium  Deum  legis  et  prophetarurn,  alium 
evangehorum  Deum  dicit,  et  Patrem  Domini  nostri 
Jesu  Christi,  non  eum  dicit  esse  qui  k  lege  et  pro- 
phetis  prsedicatur,  sed  alium  nescio  quem  ignotum 
omnibus  atque  omnibus  inauditum,  hujusmodi  ho- 
mines hsereticos  designamus."  Then  he  instances 
Marcion,  Basilides,  and  others,  and  his  apologist  goes 
on  and  names  later  heretics.*  Not,  of  course,  that 
the  false  doctrines  promulgated  on  the  other  points 
of  Christianity  were  not  heretical ;  but  that  false 
teaching  in  the  early  Church  was  at  first  specially 
busy  in  distorting  the  truths  and  mysteries  of  pure 
theology  ;  (S.  Basil,  Ep.  72,  &c.)  the  course  of  con- 
troversy advancing  to  the  mixed  and  moral  theology, 
much  later.  Thus  the  general  councils  of  the  first 
four  ages  were  concerned  almost  exclusively  with  the 
doctrines  of  primary  theology  ; — the  Object  of  our 
worship  ;  the  one  God  in  three  Persons  ;  the  one 
Christ  of  two  perfect  natures,  Divine  and  Human. 

Indeed  it  is  startling  to  us,  with  our  more  defined 
notions  at  this  distance  of  time,  to  find  what  latitude 
was  permitted,  for  the  first  two  or  three  centuries, 
on  the  doctrines  of  Grace,  and  even  in  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Holy  Scripture.  It  is  hard  to  deny  that  Origen 
himself,  greeted  as  he  was  in  his  day  as  a  master  in  the 
Church,  had  a  narrow  escape  of  being  a  formal  heretic 

*  Painpliili  Apol.  in  Orig.  Op.  vol.  i.  p.  760.     Basiloae,  1571. 


Distinctions  between  Errors  and  Heresies,     xxv 

on  more  than  one  doctrine  ;  was  certainly  appealed 
to  for  generations  as  a  supporter,  if  not  founder,  of 
heresies ;  and  stood  in  need  of  the  most  generous 
defence  of  the  later  fathers  (as  S.  Athanasius) :  though 
on  the  other  hand,  his  zeal  and  goodness  have  raised 
a  wonder  in  many,  that  he  attained  not  the  honours 
of  a  canonized  saint.  So,  too,  the  opinions  of  St. 
Clement  of  Alexandria — his  great  master — are  on 
some  points  what  would  be  deemed  intolerable  now. 
And  it  would  be  difficult  to  mention  any  one  primi- 
tive father,  whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us, 
in  which  modern  Christianity,  Roman,  Anglican, 
and  Greek,  would  not  find  something  to  denounce. 

V.  With  true  wisdom,  therefore,  the  canonists 
and  casuists  of  the  Church  have  distinguished  heresy 
into  "material"  and  "formal;"  and  concede  that 
"  material  heresy,"  or  error  of  Christians  proceeding 
from  ignorance,  without  intention  of  persevering  in 
an  opposite  doctrine  to  that  of  the  Church,  is  not 
to  be  reckoned  among  real  heresies.  Hence  to  the 
guilt  of  formal  heresy  two  things  are  required  :  the 
understanding,  and  the  will. 

It  is  agreed  on  all  hands,  I  believe,  (and  it  is  the 
only  point  which  seems  so  agreed  in  this  matter,)  that 
an  opinion  or  doctrine  can  be  declared  heretical  by 
the  ordinary  judge,  i.e.,  the  Bishop — or  the  Chapter, 
if  the  see  is  vacant, — when  it  informally  opposed  to 
truth  revealed  by  God,  and  defined  by  the  Church ; 
or  whose  contradictory  is  de  fide.  But  an  error  may 
proceed  very  far  before  it  amounts  to  this  :  it  may 


XX vi  Restraint  of  Heresy. 

be  "  rash,"  "  scandalous,"  "  offensive  to  pious  ears," 
&c.;  it  may  be  "  bordering  on  heresy,"  (hseresi  prox- 
ima,)  i.  e.,  by  an  immediate  consequence ;  it  may 
be  "suspected  of  heresy,"  (suspecta  de  hseresi,)* 
though  in  grammatical  exactness  it  may  be  made 
good;  it  may  even  be  '' savouring  of  heresy,"  (sa- 
piens hseresin,)  and  yet  not  definitively  pronounced 
"  heretical."  So  grave  a  matter  is  it  thought  among 
theologians  to  fix  the  charge  of  heresy  on  a  Chris- 
tian man, — such  careful  discernment  is  manifested 
lest  that  mortal  guilt  should  be  wrongfully  attributed 
to  any. 

It  does  not  follow,  from  what  is  now  said,  that 
every  question  may  be  an  "  open  question  "  which 
has  not  been  formally  closed  by  a  definition  of  the 
Church ;  but  1  suppose  it  does  follow  that  indivi- 
dual Christians  have  no  right  to  pronounce  a  sen- 
tence of  "  Heresy"  where  the  Church  has  not  very  dis- 
tinctly pronounced  it.  Our  duty  may  be,  no  doubt, 
to  delate  a  suspected  heretic  to  the  Ordinary  ;  and 
if  a  just  decision  cannot  be  had  from  him,  through 
his  unfaithfulness,  or  mistake,  or  through  the  ty- 
ranny of  the  world  intruding  to  cast  a  secular  shield 
between  spiritual  wickedness  and  its  rightful  con- 
demnation, then  it  must  be  ours  to  wait  the  will  of 

*  This  is,  perhaps,  the  truest  definition  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Privy  Council,  "  that  Eegeneration  may  take  place  before, 
in,  or  after  Baptism."  It  is  "  suspecta  de  haTcsi,"  if  judged 
as  a  general  proposition  ;  Mr.  Gorham's  doctrine  seems  to  be 
"  lifcresis  formaHs,  et  mortalis." 


Of  Dogmatic  Definition.  xxvii 

God  in  patience,  faith,  and  prayer;  for  it  is  His 
cause. 

VI.  But  another  conclusion  must  also  be  ob- 
viously drawn  from  what  has  been  brought  forward  ; 
viz.,  that  the  Definitions  of  the  faith  of  Christians 
become  enlarged  from  age  to  age.  The  first  age 
knew  not  the  terms  of  the  creed  of  St.  Athanasius  ; 
St,  Athanasius  expressed  not  the  truth  in  language 
formed  by  the  following  generation.  And  so  on  until 
now,  had  the  Church  remained  united,  and  general 
councils  freely  met^  Heresy  had  been  more  and  more 
shut  out,  and  dogmatic  teaching  had  grown  more 
and  more  perfect :  but  in  the  mean  time,  and  sub- 
ject to  an  appeal  to  a  general  council,  whenever  the 
providence  of  God  may  give  it  to  His  Church,  we 
remain  on  many  doctrines  without  dogmatic  guid- 
ance ;  even  as  the  primitive  Church  remained,  far 
more  so  than  ourselves. 

If  the  dogmatic  truths  stated  in  the  Constantino- 
politan  creed  be  insufficient  for  the  salvation  and 
edification  of  the  Church,  then  were  the  Churches 
of  Christ  uninstructed  for  salvation  for  nearly  four 
hundred  years.  But  no  man  will  affirm  that.  We 
believe,  then,  that  supposing  it  should  have  pleased 
God  to  draw  a  line  in  His  providence  to  shut  up  the 
Church  from  further  synodal  action  (just  as  the 
inspired  canon  of  Scripture  was  eventually  closed) ; 
had  it,  in  fact,  seemed  good  to  Him  to  grant  us  but 
four  general  councils,  just  as  He  has  given  us  but 
four  canonical  gospels — (a  notion  almost  implied  in 


xxviii  Of  Dogmatic  Definition. 

that  parallel  between  the  two  cases  which  St.  Gre- 
gory and  other  fathers  glanced  at,)  then  it  would 
have  been  our  duty  to  believe  that  what  had  been 
sufficient  dogmatic  truth  for  450  years  was  sufficient 
until  the  end  of  the  dispensation. 

VII.  The  ground  on  which  we  receive  the  synodal 
declarations  of  the  whole  Church,  as  definitive  ex- 
positions of  the  faith,  is  the  promise  of  Christ  that 
His  Spirit  should  guide  His  Church  into  all  truth. 
That  this  promise  did  not  preclude  the  rise  and 
long  continuance  of  error  at  times,  the  whole  his- 
tory of  the  Church  clearly  shows ;  but  it  did  surely 
guarantee  the  essential  casting  out  of  falsehood,  and 
the  practical  instruction  to  salvation  of  all  Chris- 
tians who  would  learn  and  obey.  And  if  this  be  so, 
we  cannot  doubt  that  what  is  at  any  time  defined  is 
sufficient  for  that  time.  The  absence  of  all  dog- 
matic definition  in  the  hundred  years  after  the 
Ascension,  was  not  unsafe  for  souls.  The  outlines 
of  creeds  in  the  next  hundred  were  not  unsafe  for 
souls.  To  be  baptized  into  Christ,  and  be  mysti- 
cally one  with  the  Incarnate^  was  as  easy  to  the  un- 
learned and  unwise  of  Rome  or  Corinth,  as  to  the 
then  better  taught  believers  of  Alexandria.  And 
even  in  our  late  age  of  the  Church,  as  has  been  said, 
the  dogmatic  knowledge  of  the  millions,  who  con- 
stitute the  body  of  the  baptized  community  every- 
where, is  probably,  after  all  our  definitions,  in  no 
respect  clearer  or  truer  than  in  the  first  generation  of 
believers.    It  is  not  knowledge — it  is  grace  that  saves. 


Restraint  of  Error,  inforo  externo.        xxix 

I  am  not  undervaluing  dogmatic  truth ;  I  am 
trying  to  estimate  aright  its  true  value  and  position, 
as  the  vital  test  of  a  Church  which  would  have  its 
people  "  wise  unto  salvation."  As  the  want  of 
intellectual  accuracy  in  the  individual  Christian  is 
no  test  of  his  spiritual  state  before  God  ;  so,  also, 
the  absence  of  dogmatic  precision  in  a  Church  is  no 
impeachment  of  its  vitality, — provided  that  Church 
be  clear  of  heresy  formally  acknowledged. 

VIII.  But  here  it  may  be  rightly  inquired,— If  a 
Definition  of  the  faith  can  only  be  received  with  cer- 
tainty from  an  QEcumenical  synod,  what  is  to  be  done 
at  times  or  in  circumstances  when  an  appeal  to  such 
a  synod  is  practically  impossible  ?  Is  new  error, 
and  probable  heresy,  to  have  free  scope,  wherever 
there  has  been  no  previous  definition  ?  Of  course 
not ;  why  may  it  not  be  dealt  with  as  it  would  have 
been  in  any  primitive  diocese  ?  Why  not  be  judged 
by  the  Ordinary  ?  Not  that  his  decision,  whatever  it 
be,  is  equivalent  to  adecree  of  the  CEcumenical  Synod, 
or  touches  the  Faith ;  but  that  it  is  the  practical 
rule  for  the  case  which  has  arisen  :  not,  as  such, 
binding  on  the  conscience,  but  a  temporary  resort, 
an  expedient  —  (and  on  practical  expedients,  ra- 
ther than  infallible  rules,  all  moral  probation  seems 
to  proceed  from  day  to  day) — the  best  moral  and 
legal  provision  for  the  time  being,  in  a  matter  where 
the  Church's  doctrine,  though  morally  certain,  has 
not  been  formally  fixed  from  the  beginning. 

It  is  undeniable,  indeed,  that  there  is  a  large  class 

d 


XXX         Restraint  of  Error,  in  faro  externa. 

of  truths,  connected  rather  with  what  has  been  called 
the  "anthropology"  than  the  theology  of  our  religion, 
which,  though  not  Synodically  defined,  are  not  "  open 
questions,"  in  the  widest  sense  of  the  term,  after  the 
deep  investigations  of  the  Schools,  and  the  disquisi- 
tions of  Fathers  and  Doctors  for  the  last  thousand 
years.  But  we  must  not,  (especially  as  individuals,) 
identify  false  doctrine  on  such  matters  with  false 
doctrine  on  matters  settled  at  Chalcedon  or  Nicaea. 
While  "  earnestly  contending  for  the  faith,"  (I  mean, 
for  example,)  against  the  errors  of  many  of  our  Evan- 
gelical brethren,  we  must  not  denounce  them  as  we 
must  the  heresies  of  the  Arians  and  Socinians. 
There  need  not  be  thought  to  be  the  infinite  dis- 
tance of  mortal  "heresy"  between  Andrewes  and 
Leighton,  although  we  may  find,  in  the  latter,  doc- 
trines which  could  only  logically  result  in  heresy. 

No  doubt  it  will  often  be  a  duty  to  bring  to  a  judi- 
cial decision  such  differences  of  doctrinal  teaching  as 
may  for  a  time  have  co-existed  in  a  Church  without 
heretical  pravity ;  and  in  such  cases  the  differmg 
parties  will,  (if  truly  Christian,  and  in  intention  or- 
thodox,) invite  rather  than  hinder  such  decision. 
But  what  the  effect  of  any  such  judicial  decision 
would  be,  cannot  be  ruled  a  priori.  Suppose  the 
plainest  decision,  even  of  a  general  council,  were 
disputed,  before  a  court  of  law  admitting  fully  the 
authority  of  that  council,  but  having  to  pronounce 
on  its  actual  meaning ; — take,  for  example,  a  dis- 
pute about  the  exact  meaning  of  the  Homoousion 


Restraint  of  Error,  inforo  interno.        xxxi 

of  Nicsea  :  and  suppose  the  judge  to  be  sincerely 
persuaded  that  it  was  an  unfortunate  adoption  of 
an  old  Sabellian  term  ;  or  that  it  was  a  merely  verbal 
dispute ;  and  allege  that  the  pious  semi-Arians  held 
communion  with  both  parties  in  the  fourth  century  ; 
and  that  it  might  be  the  same  again  in  the  nine- 
teenth ?  Surely  no  orthodox  Christian  would  think 
such  a  decision  of  the  least  value  ;  nor  that  it  com- 
promised the  Church  ;  nor  that  it  showed  the  need 
of  a  more  accurate  formula  than  that  of  Nicsea. 
The  judge  in  the  supposed  court  in  such  a  case 
would  have  made  a  bad  decision  ;  and  temporary 
injury  of  some  kind  might  legally  result.  But  I  say 
no  one  would  think  the  judge  had  dogmatic  autho- 
rity, nor  that  the  creed  needed  amendment,  nor 
that  the  conscience  of  the  Church  was  aggrieved,  or 
her  orthodoxy  compromised.* 

Exactly  the  same  is  to  be  said  of  the  value  of  any 
legal  decision  in  a  Church  which  acknowledges  the 
Catholic  faith.  It  may  be  fortunate  or  unfortunate, 
right  or  wrong ;  for  the  most  infallible  of  laws  are 
among  us  not  administered  by  infallible  judges.  The 
Faith  of  the  Church  remains  as  it  is  synodically  de- 
fined. 

IX.  It  seems  almost  superfluous,  however,  to 
add  that  heresies,  before  they  are  denounced,  are 

*  Thus  tlie  Archbisliop  of  Dublin's  notion  of  the  Personce  of 
the  Teikitt  might  not  improbably  be  ruled  by  those  in  autho- 
rity in  the  State  as  "  open  "  and  tenable:  but  is  it  the  less  a 
heresy  ?  or  shall  we  make  the  Athanasian  Creed  plainer  ? 

fZ2 


xxxii  Of  Open  Questions. 

yet  deeply  pernicious.  They  affect  the  spirituality 
and  life  of  a  Church  as  truly  as  immorality  affects 
it ;  the  former  tampering  with  the  faith  of  individual 
Christians,  the  latter  destroying  their  holiness.  And 
hence  there  is  a  most  solemn  duty  incumbent  every- 
where immediately  on  the  rulers  of  the  Church,  who 
have,  according  to  their  place  and  station,  the  cus- 
tody of  the  faith ;  a  duty  to  which  they  are  sworn, 
both  Bishops  and  Priests,  in  their  solemn  ordina- 
tion and  consecration,  "to  be  ready  with  all  dili- 
gence to  banish  and  drive  away  all  erroneous  and 
strange  doctrine  contrary  to  God's  Word,"  and 
"  privately  and  openly  call  on  and  encourage  others 
to  do  the  same."  Nor  is  the  individual  function  of 
the  least  gifted  faithful  parish  Priest  of  light  import, 
in  relieving  the  burden  and  sin  of  heresy  when  it 
has  oppressed  and  injured  those  committed  to  him 
by  the  law  of  the  Church.  "  Hseresis  pure  men- 
talis,  cum  excommunicationem  annexam  non  habeat, 
potest  absolvi  a  quocumque  etiam  simplici  confes- 
sario."     (Ferraris,  in  verb.) 

X.  But  something  should  now  be  said  as  to  wdiat 
perhaps  may  long,  or  always,  remain  "  open  ques- 
tions." 

It  will  be  apparent,  of  course,  that  in  the  earliest 
periods  of  the  Church  there  would  be  the  most  pos- 
sibility of  such  undecided  points  of  doctrine  as 
might  bear  diversity  of  judgment  among  true  be- 
lievers in  Christ.  The  question,  for  example,  as 
to  the  obhgation  of  the  law  of  Moses,  was  an  "  open 


The  Early  Church.  xxxiii 

question"  before  the  Council  of  Jerusalem ;  but  not 
afterwards.  Subsequent  to  that  council,  Judaising 
was  "  heresy."  "  If  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall 
profit  you  nothing."  And  it  is  but  just,  in  reading 
the  fathers  of  the  primitive  days,  to  bear  in  mind 
that  that  was  pardonable  error,  or  even  seemed  pro- 
bable truth,  before  it  was  pronounced  on  by  the 
Church,  which  was  false  doctrine  and  even  heresy 
afterwards.  Thus  it  would  be  unjust  to  Origen  to 
call  him  a  heretic  for  much  which  has  been  con- 
demned distinctly  since  that  time  ;  but  it  wouJd  be 
also  unjust  to  the  Church  to  say,  that  all  the  errors 
to  be  found  in  the  writings  of  Origen  were  regarded 
as  "  open  questions "  by  the  Church  of  his  day, 
simply  because  uncondemned.  An  undefined  point 
of  theology  is  very  different  from  an  "  open  ques- 
tion ;"  for  it  may  be  undefined  because  undebated, 
unraised  5  but  it  can  only  be  thought  an  open  ques- 
tion when  openly  and  consciously  permitted  as  such 
by  the  Church,  after  it  has  risen. 

The  undefined  theology  of  the  first  era  of  Chris- 
tianity might  be  exemplified  at  a  length  which 
would  soon  exceed  the  limits  of  an  essay  like  the 
present.  But  even  the  "  open  questions,"  then  al- 
lowed to  be  such,  were  neither  unimportant  nor  few. 
The  opinions,  for  example,  of  Justin  Martyr,  the 
public  defender  of  Christianity,  were  subjected  to 
no  formal  rebuke,  as  far  as  we  are  aware :  and  in 
his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  he  says  he  had  been 
taught  to  believe  the  Millennium,  and  the  restoration 


xxxiv  Of  Open  Questions 

of  Jerusalem  ;  and  not  to  believe  in  the  eternity  of 
future  punishments  of  the  wicked.  With  respect 
to  the  former,  he  plainly  says  it  was  an  open  ques- 
tion, and  that  other  Christians  did  not  believe  it. — 
So  again,  the  five  "  philosophizing  fathers,"  as  they 
have  been  called, — Athenagoras,  Tatian.  Theophilus, 
Hippolitus,  and  Novatian, — expressed  themselves 
on  even  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  without  offence 
apparently  at  the  time,  in  language  which  we  should 
know  at  once  to  be  heretical. 

But  the  example  most  interesting  to  us  at  this 
time  is  that  of  St.  Cyprian  and  his  African 
synods :  to  which  I  shall  at  once  pass  on.  The 
mode  in  which  they  express  themselves  betrays 
a  very  undefined  state  of  public  opinion,  in  some 
respects,  even  on  the  subject  of  Baptism.  I  refrain 
altogether  from  referring  to  professed  Christian 
eclectics,  so  tolerated  in  the  early  Church.  I  refer 
to  the  orthodox  teachers  of  the  people.  Let  it  not 
be  said,  in  order  to  put  aside  the  illustration  now 
adduced,  that  the  dispute  between  St.  Cyprian  and 
the  rest  of  the  Western  Churches,  as  to  the  reception 
of  heretical  Baptism,  "  involved  no  doctrine,"  but 
only  affected  the  discipline  of  the  Church.  It  was 
far  otherwise ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  mark  the 
course  of  that  controversy,  without  observing  how 
undefined,  on  some  very  vital  points,  were  the  ideas 
of  the  African  Bishops  ;  and  how  rightly,  therefore, 
"  rebaptization  "  has  been  ranked  among  heresies. 
[Gaulter]     The  doctrines  of  the  Church's  unity, — 


connected  ivith  Baptism.  xxxv 

the  effect  of  Baptism,  —  its  necessity,  and  other 
points,  were  found  to  be  involved  in  the  inquiries  of 
the  Council  of  Carthage.  For  example  : — Neme- 
sianus,  one  of  the  Bishops,  there  argues,  from  our 
Lord's  words  to  Nicodemus,  that  "  neither  can  the 
Spirit  operate  without  the  Water,  nor  the  Water 
without  the  Spirit."  But  St.  Augustin,  writing 
against  the  Donatists,  gives  the  case  of  the  thief 
saved  on  the  Cross,  (iv.  c.  23,)  as  proof  that  the 
necessity  of  the  sacrament  of  Baptism  is  to  be 
limited  by  the  proviso, — "  where  it  may  be  had  " — 
"  Complente  Deo  quod  non  ex  voluntate  defuisset." 
Many  others  of  the  African  Prelates  urged  that  out 
of  the  Church  there  could  be  no  remission  of  sins  ; 
no  salvation;  and  therefore  no  Baptism.  The 
answer  of  St.  Augustin  admits  the  premises,  but 
denies  the  conclusion.  Hence  he  acknowledges  that 
Baptism,  given  in  an  heretical  communion,  was  a 
Sacrament  ivithout  the  gj-ace  of  the  Sacrament ;  and 
that  the  grace  would  follow  at  a  subsequent  time, 
on  the  person  being  reconciled  to  the  Church  : — a 
decision,  it  must  be  observed,  that  makes  no  pro- 
vision for  baptized  infants  dying  among  heretics. 

Nothing  is  more  apparent,  on  the  very  face  of 
the  subject,  than  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Council 
of  Carthage  had  no  defined  theories  as  to  points 
involved  in  their  own  sentences  ;  but  spoke  with  the 
simplicity  and  faith  of  unscholastic  Christians. 
While,  on  the  one  hand,  there  is  the  most  perfect 
unity  among  them  as  to  the  fact  that  Baptism  con- 


xxxvi  Of  Open  Questions 

fers  Grace ;  so  that,  indeed,  their  whole  difficulty 
arose  from  not  conceiving  how  grace  could  in  any 
sense  be  given  by  the  ministry  of  heretics  out  of  the 
Church ;  the  replies  and  explanations  of  St.  Augus- 
tin,  on  the  other  hand,  discover  how  undefined  their 
notions  were  as  to  the  precise  gift,  inseparable  from 
the  Sacrament  itself,  as  such.  This  point  is  every 
way  worthy  of  our  observation,  especially  as  the 
consideration  of  it  may  teach  forbearance  among 
brethren  now. 

St.  Cyprian,  and  the  Bishops  who  thought  with 
him,  all  began  with  the  undoubting  assumption,  that 
the  "  one  Baptism  "  conferred  "  remission  of  sins ;" 
and  how  this  could  be  given  out  of  the  one  Church 
where  the  Holy  Spirit  dwells,  they  could  not  com- 
prehend. St.  Augustin's  answers  point  out  that  the 
worthiness  of  the  minister  hinders  not  the  effect  of 
a  sacrament  at  any  time ;  and  that  a  Christian 
who  apostatized,  either  secretly  or  openly,  and  yet, 
after  so  (really)  leaving  the  Church,  gave  Baptism 
to  others,  would  not  confer  a  doubtful  sacrament. 
The  Church  would  never  re-baptize  those  who  had 
been  so  baptized  by  unworthy,  or  even  by  fallen  mi- 
nisters ;  otherwise,  who  could  be  certain  of  Baptism  ? 
So  far  his  argument  was  easy  :  but  when  he  went  on 
to  carry  out  his  principle  to  its  full  extent,  and  say 
that  valid  Baptism — Baptism  never  to  be  repeated 
— depended  in  no  sense  on  the  quality  of  the  minis- 
ter, he  still  refused  to  affirm  that  remission  of  sins 
coirtd  be  conferred  out  of  the  Church  ;  and  he  con- 


as  to  Baptism.  xxxvii 

sequently  made  a  distinction  (as  has  been  said)  be- 
tween the  Sacrament  and  the  plenary  Grace  of  the 
Sacrament;  holding  that  the  Sacrament  was  con- 
ferred by  the  water  and  the  words,  and  that  the 
remission  of  sins,  in  the  case  of  heretics,  followed 
afterwards,  on  their  reconciliation  with  the  Church. 
This  placed  St.  Augustin  in  a  difficulty :  the 
distinction  seemed  new  to  the  Church.  Little  trace 
of  it  is  to  be  found  among  the  Carthaginian 
Bishops  in  St.  Cyprian's  council;  nor  even  in 
the  days  of  St.  Basil,  who,  in  his  first  Canonical 
Epistle,  is  content  with  broadly  separating  purely 
heretical  from  schismatical  Baptism,  in  the  spirit 
of  the  Nicene  canons.  And  the  distinction  now 
made,  did  not  provide  for  the  case  of  infants  bap- 
tized and  dying  in  an  heretical  communion.  St. 
Augustin's  theory  was  complete,  and  his  distinc- 
tions available,  in  the  case  of  adults ;  but  for  infants 
a  further  consideration  was  evidently  required.  And 
the  difficulty  remained,  I  believe,  with  but  little  fur- 
ther elucidation  for  a  thousand  years,  and  (as  we  shall 
see)  occupied  the  schoolmen  almost  till  the  Reforma- 
tion. "  No  Christian,  however,"  says  St.  Augustin, 
"  would  ever  say"  that  infants  are  not  baptized  for 
remission  of  sins,  and  so  for  salvation ;  and  then  he 
attempts  to  reconcile  this  to  that  part  of  his  argu- 
ment, in  which  he  had  maintained  the  salvation  of  the 
thief  on  the  Cross  :  'As  the  thief,  in  a  case  of  necessity, 

*  was  saved  by  inward  sanctification  and  faith  in  the 

*  heart,  when  external  Baptism  was  impossible,  so  the 


xxxviii  Of  Open  Questions. 

'  inward  faith  and  outward  confession  being  by  an 
'  equal  necessity  impossible  to  the  infant,  he  may  be 
*  saved  by  the  Sacrament  alone.'  This  certainly  se- 
cures the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  by  the  Sacra- 
ment, but  does  not  explain  how  the  Sacrament  could 
have  such  effect  when  administered  by  heretics,  who 
(as  he  previously  laid  it  down)  cannot  give  "  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  nor  the  saving  effect  of  Baptism  ;  but 
only  such  sacramental  gift  as  becomes  saving  on  that 
subsequent  reconciliation  to  the  Church,  which 
dying  infants  have  not. 

The  whole  passage  is  so  worthy  of  consideration, 
as  the  earliest  clear  exposition  of  that  which  was 
developed  in  the  mediaeval  schools,  that  I  must 
desire  the  reader  to  consider  it  in  all  its  parts,  some 
of  them  singularly  bearing  on  present  questions. 

"  Quid  autem  valeat  et  quid  agat  in  liomine  corporaliter 
adhibita  sanctificatio  sacramenti,  (sine  qua  tamen  ille  latro  nou 
fuit,  quia  non  ejus  accipiendse  voluntas  defuit,  sed  nou  acci- 
piendse  uecessitas  adfuit,)  difficile  est  dicere.  Nisi  tamen 
plurinium  valeret,  nou  servi  bajitismum  Dominus  accepisset. 
Verum  quia  per  se  ipsa  consideranda  est,  excepta  salute 
hominis  cui  perficienda;  adhibetur,  satis  indicat  quod  et  in 
malis,  et  in  eis  qui  sseculo  verbis,  non  factis  renuntiant,  ipsa 
Integra  est,  cum  illi  nisi  corrigantur,  salutem  babcre  non 
possint.  Sicut  autem  in  latrone,  quia  per  necessitatem  cor- 
poraliter defuit,  perfecta  salus  est,  quia  per  pietatem  spirita- 
liter  adfuit ;  sic  et  cum  ipsa  prsesto  est,  si  per  necessitatem 
desit  quod  latroni  adfuit,  perficitur  salus.  Quod  traditum  tenet 
vuiiversitas  Ecclesia>,  cum  parvuli  infantes  baptizantur,  qui 
certe  nondum  possunt  corde  credere  ad  justitiam,  et  ore  con- 
litori    ad  salutem,  quod    latro    potuit :   quiu    etiam    flendo    et 


St.  Augustin.  xxxix 

vagiendo  cum  m  eis  mysterium  celebratur,  ipsis  mysticis  voci- 
bus  obstrepunt ;  et  tamen  niollus  Christianorum  dixerit  eos 
inaniter  baptizari. 

"  Et  si  quisquam  in  hac  re  auctoritatera  divinam  quserat, 
quainquam  quod  universa  tenet  ecelesia,  nee  conciliis  institu- 
tum,  sed  semper  retentum  est,  non  nisi  auctoritate  apostolica 
traditum  rectissime  creditur:  tamen  veraciter  conjicere  pos- 
sumus,  quid  valeat  in  parvulis  baptismi  sacramentum,  ex  cir- 
cumcisione  cai-nis,  quam  prior  populus  accepit,  quam  prius 
qviam  acciperet  justificatus  est  Abraham.  Sicut  Cornelius 
etiam  dono  Spiritus-sancti,  prius  quam  baptizaretur,  ditatus 
est.  Dicit  tamen  Apostolus  de  ipso  Abraham,  Siguum  accepit 
circumcisionis,  signaculum  justitise  fidei ;  qui  jam  corde  credi- 
derat,  et  deputatum  illi  erat  ad  justitiam.  Cur  ergo  ei  prsecep- 
tiim  est,  ut  omnem  deinceps  infantem  masculum  octavo  die 
circumcideret,  qui  nondum  poterat  corde  credere,  ut  ei  depu- 
taretur  ad  justitiam  ;  nisi  quia  et  ipsum  per  se  ipsum  sacramen- 
tum multum  valebat  ?  Quod  in  filio  Moysi  per  Angelum 
manifestatum  est,  qui  cum  adhuc  incircumcisus  a  matre  ferre- 
tur,  praesenti  et  evidenti  periculo  ut  circumcideretur  exactum 
est ;  et  cum  factum  esset,  depulsa  est  pernicies.  Sicut  ergo 
in  Abraham  prsecessit  fidei  justitia,  et  accessit  circumcisio 
signaculum  justitise  fidei :  ita  in  Cornelio  praecessit  sanctificatio 
spiritalis  in  dono  Spiritus-sancti,  et  accessit  sacramentum 
regenerationis  in  lavacro  baptismi.  Et  sicut  in  Isaac,  qui 
octavo  suae  nativitatis  die  circumcisus  est,  prseeessit  signaculum 
justitife  fidei ;  et  quoniam  patris  fidem  imitatus  est,  secuta  est 
in  crescente  ipsa  justitia,  cujus  signaculum  in  infante  prseces- 
serat:  ita  in  baptizatis  infantibus  praecedit  regenerationis 
sacramentum  ;  et  si  Christianam  tenuerint  pietatem,  sequetur 
etiam  in  corde  conversio,  cujus  mysterium  praecessit  in  corpore. 
Et  sicut  in  illo  latrone  quod  ex  baptismi  sacramento  defuerat 
complevit  omnipotentis  benignitas,  quia  non  superbia  vel  con- 
temptu,  sed  necessitate  defuerat :  sic  in  infantibus  qui  baptizati 
moriuntur,  eadem  gratia  omnipotentis  implere  credenda  est, 
quod  non   ex  impia  voluntate,  sed  ex  aetatis  indigentia,  nee 


xl  Of  Open  Questions. 

corde  credere  ad  justitiam  possunt,  nee  ore  confiteri  ad  salutem. 
Ideo  cum  alii  pro  eis  respondent,  ut  impleatur  erga  eos  cele- 
bratio  sacramenti,  valet  utique  ad  eorum  consecrationem  quia 
ipsi  respondere  non  possunt.  At  si  pro  eo  qui  respondere 
potest  alius  respondeat,  non  itidem  valet.  Ex  qua  regula  illud 
in  Evangelic  dictum  est,  quod  omnes  cum  legitur  naturaliter 
movet :  ^Etatem  habet,  ipse  pro  se  loquatur. 

"  Quibus  rebus  omnibus  ostenditvir  aUud  esse  sacramentum 
baptismi,  aliud  conversionem  cordis,  sed  salutem  bominis  ex 
utroque  compleri :  nee  si  unum  borum  defuerit,  ideo  putare 
debemus  consequens  esse,  ut  et  alterum  desit ;  quia  et  illud 
siae  isto  potest  esse  in  infante,  et  boc  sine  illo  potuit  esse  in 
latrone,  complente  Deo  sive  in  illo,  sive  in  isto,  quod  non  ex 
voluntate  defuisset :  cum  vero  ex  voluntate  alterum  bormn 
defuerit,  reatu  bominem  involvi.  Et  baptismus  quidem  potest 
inesse  ubi  conversio  cordis  defuerit :  conversio  autem  cordis 
potest  quidem  inesse  non  percepto  baptismo,  sed  contempto 
non  potest.  Neque  enim  ullo  modo  dicenda  est  conversio  cor- 
dis ad  Deum,  cum  Dei  sacramentum  contemnitur.  Juste 
igitur  reprebendimus,  anatbemamus,  detestamur,  abominamur 
perversitatem  cordis  bsereticorum  :  sacramentum  tamen  Evan- 
gelicum  non  ideo  non  babent,  quia  per  quod  utile  est  non 
babent.  Quapropter  cum  ad  fidem  et  veritatem  veniunt,  et 
agentes  psenitentiam  remitti  sibi  peccata  deposcunt,  non  eos 
decipimus  neque  fallimus,  cum  correctos  a  nobis  ac  reformatos 
in  eo  quod  depravati  atque  perversi  sunt,  ad  regnum  coelorum 
sic  disciplinis  coelestibus  erudimus,  ut  quod  in  eis  integrum  est, 
nullo  modo  \dolemus ;  nee  propter  bominis  vitium,  si  quid  in 
bomiue  Dei  est,  vel  nullum,  vel  vitiosum  esse  dicamus." 

In  the  next  book,  St.  Augustin  refers  to  the 
case  of  those  who  do  not  receive  Baptism  here- 
tically,  although  it  has  been  given  by  a  heretic,  in 
urgent  necessity,  (c.  5.)  What  he  there  says  may 
fairly  include  the  case  of  infants  baptized  among 


St.  Augustin.  xli 

heretics,  who  cannot  be  heretical  or  schismatical 
receivers  of  the  Sacrament.  Still  in  such  a  case  it 
would  seem  that  there  was  a  latent  or  passive  gift 
of  Remission,  and  consequently  that  such  gift  is 
in  the  Sacrament  when  given  even  by  heretics, 
though  not  sanctifying  any  adult  receiver  who 
has  the  impediment  of  heresy  or  actual  sin,  which 
an  infant  cannot  have.  In  other  words,  the 
scholastic  doctrine  of  the  "Character"  and  the 
"  Habitus  Fidei,"  was  precisely  what  was  required 
to  give  completeness  to  St.  Augustin's  exposition 
of  the  whole  subject.  What  he  says  indeed  does 
practically  amount  to  this ;  but  he  does  not  defi- 
nitely express  it.  Hence  he  is  obliged  expressly  to 
leave  one  part  of  the  subject  "  open  "  and  undecided, 
viz.,  the  sacramental  effect  of  Baptism  insincerely 
received. 

He  felt  that  he  could  not,  on  his  own  prin- 
ciples, deny  all  sacramental  effect  in  any  case, 
if  the  water  and  the  words,  the  only  essentials,  are 
ministered.  Still  he  refrained  from  deciding.  "  Sicut 
jam  praeteritis  majorum  statutis  non  dubito  etiam 
illos  habere  Baptismum  qui  quamvis  fallaciter  id 
accipiant,  in  Ecclesiam  tamen  accipiant,  vel  ubi 
putatur  esse  ecclesia  ab  iis  in  quorum  societate  id 
accipitur,  de  quibus  dictum  est.  Ex  nobis  exierunt. 
Ubi  autem  neque  societas  uUa  esset  ita  credentium, 
neque  ille  qui  ibi  acciperet  ita  crederet,  sed  totum 
ludicre  et  mimice  et  joculariter  ageretur,  utrum  ap- 
probandus  esset  Baptismus  qui  sic  daretur,  Divinum 


xlii  Of  Open  Questions. 

judicium  per  alicujus  revelationis  oraculum  et  im- 
pensis  supplici  devotione  gemitibus  implorandum 
esse  censerem  ;  ita  sane  ut  post  me  dicturos  senten- 
tias,"  [almost  a  prophetic  anticipation,]  "  ne  quid 
jam  exploratum  et  cognitum  afferent  humiliter  ex- 
pectarem :  quanto  magis  ergo  nunc  sine  preejudicio 
diligentioris  inquisitionis  vel  majoris  auctoritatis 
illud  dixisse  accipiendus  sum." 

The  ultimate  doctrine  arrived  at,  I  may  as  well 
express  in  words  which  I  recently  used  in  an 
article  on  the  "  Scholastic  Doctrine  of  Baptism,"* 
which  may  in  several  points  elucidate  these  open 
questions  on  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration  in  the 
primitive  Church. 

"  Theologians  make  a  distinction  between  '  Sa- 
cramentum,'  and  '  rem  sacramenti.'  A  sacrament, 
being  God's  gift,  has  grace  in  it,  whenever,  and 
under  what  circumstances  soever,  it  may  be  received. 
The  fulness  of  its  grace  is  what  is  understood,  how- 
ever, by  '  rem  sacramenti.'  This  is  general. f  In  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism  there  is  impressed  on  the  soul 
of  every  receiver,  infant,  or  adult,  in  every  case  the 
indehble  *  character  Christi,'  which  is  Regeneration. 
In  opposition  to  those  who  said  that  this  impressed 
'  character '  was  unaccompanied  by  grace  in  the 
case  of  infants,  St.  Thomas  says,  '  hoc  patet  esse 

*  In  "  Ecclesiastic,"  Jan.,  1850,  p.  8,  and  pages  11,  12,  &c. 

t  Our  own  Twenty-ninth  Article  makes  the  same  distinc- 
tion ;  tlie  "wicked"  receive  the  "  Sacramentum"  in  the  Euelia- 
rist,  and  not  "  rem  Sacramenti." 


The  next  age.  xliii 

falsum  dupliciter.  Primo,  quidem,  quia  pueri  sicut 
et  adulti,  in  Baptismo  efficiuntur  membra  Christi  : 
uiide  necesse  est  quod  a  Capite  recipiant  influxum 
Gratice  et  Virtutis.  Secundo  ;  quia  secundum  hoc, 
pueri  discedentes  post  baptismum  non  pervenirint 
ad  vitam  eternam ;  et  ita  non  profuisset  eis  ad  sa- 
lutem  baptizatos  fuisse  !'*  Even  adults,  who  re- 
ceive the  Sacrament  'ficte,'  he  declares  (art.  9)  to 
receive  this  indehblef  character.  '  Ad  primum  ergo 
dicendum  :  quod  baptizari  in  Christo  potest  inteUigi 
duphciter.  Uno  modo  in  Christo  id  est  in  Christi 
conformitate ;  et  sic  quicunque  baptizantur  in 
Christo  Ei  conformati  per  fidem  et  caritatem  in- 
duunt  Christum  per  gratiam.  Alio  modo  dicuntur 
aliqui  baptizari  in  Christo  inquantum  accipiunt  Sa- 
cramentum  Christi :  et  sic  omnes  induunt  Christum 
per  configurationem  characteris,  non  autem  per 
conformitatem  gratise  ;  (i.e.  plense.)'  Duns  Scotus 
says  the  same,  '  Omnis  baptizatus  induit  Christum 
quantum  ad  hoc  quod  Christi  familicB  ascribitur ; 
sed  non  induit  Christum  semper  per  charitatem  vel 
gratiam.' — Dist.  IV.  lib.  iv.  6  q.  The  Master  of 
the  Sentences  had  taught  the  same.  And  this  '  cha- 
racter '  so  impressed  on  the  soul,  is  defined  as  '  Sig- 
naculum  spirituale  quo  anima  insignitur  ad  suscipi- 
endum  .  .  .   .  ea  quae  sunt  divini  cultus.'     Again 

*  An  "indelible  character,"  we  may  observe,  has  in  like 
manner  been  assigned  to  Holy  Orders,  by  the  judgment  of  our 
own  ecclesiastical  courts. 

t  Sum.  Tbeol.  3a.  Qu.  69,  art.  6. 


xliv  Of  Open  Questions. 

it  is  described  as  '  character  Christi,'  '  character  Sa- 
cerdotii  Christi,'  '  character  quo  distinguuntur  fideles 
Christi  a  servis  diaboU/  &c.  And,  without  further 
quotations,  we  may  add,  that  all  infants  and  sincere 
adults  were  considered  to  receive  both  '  Sacramen- 
tuni,'  and  '  rem  Sacramenti ;' — and  insincere  adults 
'  Sacramentum  solum.' 

"  This  being  admitted  as  the  Church's  doctrine, 
the  inquiry  next  arises,  How  can  infants  be  said  to 
receive  '  rem  Sacramenti '  as  the  Church  affirms  ? — 
receive  it  for  justification, — receive  it  for  salvation 
so  long  as  they  remain  infants?  In  the  case  of 
adults,  the  '  rem  Sacramenti/  the  full  grace  re- 
ceived, implies  on  their  part  (according  to  '  the  order 
of  moral  causes  ')  faith  and  repentance.*  Can  the 
*  rem  Sacramenti,'  the  full  and  justifying  effect,  be 
possessed  by  infants  without  any  grace  of  faith  in 
them  ?  The  doctors  of  the  Church  felt  the  diffi- 
culty of  so  concluding,  and  therefore  (just  as  they 
attributed  a  moral  nature  to  a  child  though  inca- 

*  The  question  in  the  Catechism,  "  Why  are  infants  bap- 
tized when,  by  reason  of  their  tender  age,  they  cannot  perform 
faith  and  repentance  ?"  is  answered  by  saying  tliat  "they  pro- 
mise "  by  their  sureties  to  perform  "  them  both  " — a  promise  at 
once  intelligible,  if  the  baptized  have  the  "Habitus  fidei," 
whereby  he  may  hereafter  "  perform  "  the  "  actum  fidei,"  The 
answer  given  (it  may  be  added)  in  the  Catechism  is  not  in- 
tended to  assign  the  Church's  reasons  for  baptizing  infants ; 
but  only  to  remove  that  one  objection  to  the  practice,  which  the 
question  brings  forward. — On  this  subject  see,  further,  note  19, 
pp.  38  and  39  of  the  present  volume. 


The  Medieval  Church.  xlv 

pable  of  moral  action)  they  perceived  and  defined 
that  the  regenerated  child  had  the  '  Habitus  fidei,' 
as  a  gift  from  God,  from  the  first — which  Habitual 
faith,  being  a  heavenly  gift,  is  perfect,  and  capable 
of  spiritual  action  in  future  life.  The  consequences 
of  any  contrary  conclusion  might,  if  closely  pressed, 
be  fatal  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  new-birth  in 
Baptism.*  Baptized  infants  would  be  '  membra 
Christi,'  justified  without  faith,  and  baptized  adults, 
'  membra  Christi,  fide  justificati !' — It  would  be  im- 
possible even  to  conceive  of  two  such  classes  of 
members,  as  pertaining  to  the  one  Mystical  Body. 
If  there  be  no  '  supernatural  quality,'  (to  use  a 
recent  term) — no  '  habitual  grace  '  infused, — re- 
generation is  not  the  same  among  all  the  chil- 
dren of  the  Second  Adam,  not  even  among  all  the 
'  undoubtedly  saved  !'  A  distinction  would  be  set 
up  which  the  Church  has  ever  denied.  But  when 
we  identify  the  '  rem  Sacramenti '  with  an  infused 
gift  of  God  in  all  cases,  [where  there  is  no  "  per- 
sonal obstacle " — ]  (which,  being  perfect  when 
given,  is  termed  a  Habit,  and  not  a  mere  poten- 
tiality,) we  assign  the  whole  work  of  our  salvation, 
from  the  first,  as  the  Church  has  taught  us,  to  the 
Divine  mercy  alone  ;  whether  '  moral  causes  '  have 
preceded,  as  with  adults ;  or  not  preceded,  as  with 
infants." 

*  Even  Calvinists  would  say  that  God  gives  ffrace  to  infants 
who  are  saved  ;  and  what  is  that  but  "  Habitus  Fidei  ?"  Very 
few,  I  should  think,  believe  that  any  infants  baptized  and 
dying  in  infancy  "perish  everlastingly." 

e 


xlvi  Of  Open  Questions. 

How  many  ages  these,  and  other,  grave  open 
questions  lingered  in  the  Church  may  be  exemphfied 
indeed  by  ahnost  any  text  of  the  Master  of  the 
Sentences.  Observe  (with  reference,  however,  to 
Holy  Baptism),  that  which  is  prefixed  to  the  fourth 
book  of  Distinctions,  (by  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.) 
No  brief  quotation  could  give  any  fair  impression 
the  state  of  the  case,  and  might  be  open  to  cavil. 
He  lays  out  the  whole  subject  thus  : — 

DiSTINCTIO    ly. 

Qtiod  alii  suscipiant  saermnentum,  et  rem  ;  alii  sacramentumy  et 
non  rem  ;  alii  rem,  et  non  sacramentum. 

Hie  dicendum  est,  aliquos  suscipere  saci'amentum,  et  rem 
sacramenti ;  aliquos  saci'ameutuin,  et  non  rem  ;  aliquos  rem,  et 
non  sacramentum.  Sacramentum, '  et  rem  simul  suscipiunt 
omnes  parvuli,  qui  in  baptismo  ab  original!  muudantur  peccato. 
Quamvis  quidam  diffiteantur  illis  qui  perituri  sunt  parvulis  in 
baptismo  dimitti  peccata,  iunitentes  illi  verbo  Augustini, 
"  Sacramenfca  in  soils  electis  efiiciunt  quod  figurant ;"  non  in- 
telligentes  illud  ita  esse  accipiendum,  quia  cum  in  aliis  efiiciant 
sacramenta  remissionem,  non  hoc  in  eis  faciunt  ad  salutem, 
sed  in  solis  electis.  Nam  quod  omnibus  pam.dis  in  baptismo 
remittatur  peccatum  per  baptismum,  Augustiuus  evidenter 
dicit  (in  Encliir.  cap.  xliii.  et  habetiu'  de  consccr.  dist.  iv.  cap. 
"A  parvulo.")  "A  parvulo  (inquit)  recenter  nato  usque  ad 
decrepitum  senem,  sicut  nullus  proliibetur  a  baptismo,  ita 
uullus  est  qui  non  peccato  moriatur  in  baptismo."  Sed  par- 
vuli tantmn  original!,  majores  vero  etiam  omnibus  quae  male 
vivendo  addiderunt  ad  illud,  nisi  enormitas  vit?e  impediat,  id 
est  fictio.  Adulti  vero,  qui  cum  fide  baptizantur,  sacramentum, 
et  rem  suscipiunt. 

De  jicte  accedentibus. 

Qui  vero  sine  fide,  vel  ficte  acceduut,  sacramentum,  non  rem 
suscipiunt.     Undo  Hieronymus  (super  Ezecliiel.  cap.  xvi.  super 


The  Mediceval  Church.  xlvii 

ilia  verba,  "Aqua  non  es  lota  in  salutem.")  "Sunt  lavacra 
gentUium,  haereticorum ;  sed  non  lavant  ad  salutem.  In  Ecclesia 
etiam  qui  non  plena  fide  accipiunt  baptisma,  non  Spiritum, 
sed  aquam  suscipiunt."  Augustinus  etiam  (super  Psalm.  Ixxvii. 
in  princ.)  ait :  "  Jud^eis  omnibus  commiinia  erant  sacramenta, 
Bed  non  communis  omnibus  erat  gratia,  quae  est  virtus  sacra- 
mentorum.  Ita  et  nunc  communis  est  baptismus  omnibus 
baptizatis,  sed  non  virtus  baptismi,  id  est  ipsa  gratia."  Item 
(de  poen.  med.  cap.  ii.  refertur  de  consecr.  dist.  iv.  cap.  "  Omnis 
qui.")  "  Omnis  qui  jam  suae  voluntatis  arbiter  constitutus  est, 
cum  accedit  ad  sacramentum  fidelium,  nisi  poeniteat  eum 
veteris  vitae,  novam  non  potest  incboare.  Ab  bac  poenitentia 
cum  baptizantur,  soli  parvuli  immunes  sunt."  His,  aliisque 
testimoniis  aperte  ostenditur,  adultis  sine  fide,  et  poenitentia 
vera  in  baptismo  non  conferri  gratiam  remissionis :  quia  nee 
parvulis  sine  fide  aliena,  qui  propriam  liabere  nequeunt,  datur 
in  baptismo  remissio.  Si  quis  ergo  ficte  accedit,  non  babens 
veram  cordis  contritionem,  sacramentum  sine  re  accipit. 
Videtur  tanien  Augustinus  dicere  (de  baptismo  contra  Dona- 
tistas  Lib.  i.  cap.  xi.  and  xii.)  quod  etiam  accedenti,  qui  etiam 
habet  odium  fraternum  in  ipso  momento  quo  baptizatur,  omnia 
condonentur,  et  post  baptismum  mox  redeant.  Sed  non  boc 
asserendo  dicit,  immo  banc  opinionem,  et  praemissam  senten- 
tiam  conferendo.  Ait  enim  sic  (ut  refertur  de  consecr.  dist. 
iv.  cap.  "  Quomodo.")  "  His  qui  ficto  corde  baptizantur,  aut 
peccata  nullatenus  dimittuntur,  quia  Spiritus  sanctus  discip- 
linae  eflugiet  fictum ;  aut  in  ipso  temporis  puncto  per  vim 
sacramenti  dimissa,  iterum  per  fictionem  replicantur,  ut  etiam 
illud  verum  sit :  Quotquot  in  Cbristo  baptizati  estis  (Gralat.  iii. 
27,)  et  etiam  illud  :  Spiritus  sanctus  disciplinae  eftugiet  fictum 
(Sapient,  i.  5,)  ut  scilicet  induat  eum  Cbristo  sauctitas  bap- 
tismi, exuat  eum  Cbristo  pernicies  fictionis.  Nam  redire 
dimissa  peccata,  ubi  fraterna  caritas  non  est,  aperte  Dominus 
docet  (Mattb.  xviii.)  etiam  in  illo  servo  a  quo  Dominus  dimis- 
sum  debitum  petit,  quia  ille  conservo  dimittere  noluit.  Sic 
non  impeditur  baptismi   gratia,   quo    minus   omnia    peccata 

e2 


xlviii  Of  Open  Questions. 

dimittantur,  etiamsi  fraternum  odium  in  ejus  cui  dimittiintur, 
auimo  perseverat.  Solvitur  enim  hesternus  dies,  et  quidquid 
superest ;  et  solvitur  etiam  ipsa  hora,  momentumque  ante 
baptismimi,  et  in  baptismo.  Deinceps  autem  continue  reus 
incipit  esse,  non  solum  consequentium,  sed  etiam  praeteritorum 
dierum,  horarum,  momentorum,  redeuntibus  omnibus  quae 
dimissa  sunt."  Hoc  autem,  ut  praediximus,  non  sub  asser- 
tione  dixit,  quod  ostenditur  ex  eo  quod  ait  in  eodem  Libro 
(cap.  xii.  init.)  sic  :  "  Si  ad  baptismum  iictus  accedit,  dimissa 
sunt  ei  peccata,  aut  non  sunt  dimissa  ?  Eligant  quod  volue- 
rint,"  Ecce  aperte  cernis,  si  tamen  intendis,  id  dixisse 
Augustinum  non  asserendo,  sed  quaerendo,  et  aliorum  opinionem 
refereudo.  Idem  enim  ait  (ibid.)  "Tunc  valere  incipit  ad 
salutem  baptismus,  cum  ilia  fictio  veraci  confessione  reces- 
serit,  quae  corde  in  maHtia  perseverante  peccatorum  ablutionem 
non  sinebat  fieri."  Non  ergo  ficte  accedenti  peccata  dimit- 
tuntur, 

Quomodo  mtelligatur  illud :  Quofcquot  in  Cbristo  baptizati  estis, 
Cbristum  induistis. 

Quaeritur  ergo  quomodo  illud  (Gralat.  iii.  27,)  accipiatur: 
"  Quotquot  in  Christo  baptizati  estis,  Christum  induistis." 
Potest  dici,  quod  qui  in  Christo,  id  est  in  Christi  conformitate, 
baptizantur,  scilicet  ut  moriantur  vetustati  peccati,  sicut 
Christus  vetustati  poenae,  induunt  Christum,  quern  per  gratiam 
inhabitantem  habent.  Potest  et  aliter  solvi.  Duobus  enim 
modis  Christum  induere  dicimur,  vel  assumptioue  sacramenti, 
vel  rei  perceptione.  Unde  Augustinus  (de  baptismo  contra 
Donatistas  Lib.  V.  cap.  xxiv.)  "  Induunt  homines  Clmstum 
aliquando  usque  ad  sacramenti  perceptionem,  aliquando  usque 
ad  vitae  sanctificationem :  atque  illud  primum  bonis,  et  malis 
potest  esse  commune,  hoc  autem  est  proprium  bonorum,  et 
piorum."  Omnes  ergo  qui  in  Christi  nomine  baptizantur, 
Christum  induunt  vel  secundum  sacramenti  perceptionem,  vel 
secundum  vitae  sanctificationem. 


The  MeditJBval  Church.  xlix 

De  illis  qui  suscipiunt  rem,  et  non  sacramentum. 

Sunt  et  alii,  lit  supra  posuimus,  qui  suscipiunt  rem,  et  non 
sacramentum.  Qui  enim  eftundunt  sanguinem  pro  nomine 
Jesu,  etsi  non  sacramentum,  rem  tamen  accipiunt.  Unde  Augus- 
tinus  (de  Civ.  Dei,  Lib.  XIII.  cap.  x.)  "  Quicumque  non  per- 
cepto  regenerationis  lavacro  pro  confessione  Christi  moriuntur, 
tantum  eis  valet  ad  dimittenda  peccata,  quantum  si  abluerentur 
sacro  fonte  baptismi."  Audistis  quod  passio  pro  Christi 
nomine  suscepta,  supplet  vicem  baptismi.  Nee  tantum  passio 
vicem  baptismi  implet,  sed  etiam  fides,  et  contritio,  ubi  neces- 
sitas  excludit  sacramentum,  sicut  aperte  docet  Augustinus  (de 
baptism,  contra  Donatistas  Lib.  IV.  cap.  xxii.)  dicens,  baptismi 
vicem  aKquando  implere  passionem.  "  De  latrone  illo,  cui  non 
baptizato  dictum  est  (Luc.  xxiii.  43,)  Hodie  mecum  eris  in 
paradiso,  beatus  Cyprianus  non  leve  documentum  assumit. 
Quod  etiam  ego  considerans  invenio  non  tantum  passionem  pro 
nomine  Christi,  id  quod  baptismo  deerat,  posse  supplere,  sed 
etiam  fidem,  conversionemque  cordis,  si  forte  ad  celebrandum 
mysterium  baptismi  in  angustiis  temporum  succurri  non  potest. 
Neque  enim  ille  latro  pro  nomine  Christi  erucifixus  est,  sed  pro 
meritis  facinorum  suonun  :  nee  quia  credidit,  passus  est ;  sed 
dum  patitur,  credit.  Quantum  ergo  valeat  sine  visibilis  bap- 
tismi Sacramento,  quod  Apostolus  ait  (Eom.  x.  10,)  Corde 
creditur  ad  justitiam,  ore  autem  confessio  fit  ad  salutem :  in 
illo  latrone  declaratum  est.  Sed  tunc  irapletur  invisibiliter, 
cum  mysterium  baptismi  non  contemptus  religionis,  sed 
articulus  necessitatis  excludit.  Et  baptismus  quidem  potest 
esse  ubi  ccmversio  cordis  defuerit ;  conversio  autem  cordis 
potest  quidem  inesse  non  pereepto  baptismo,  sed  contempto 
baptismo  non  potest.  Nee  ullo  modo  dicenda  est  conversio 
cordis  ad  Deum,  cum  Dei  sacramentum  contemnitur."  Ecce 
hie  habes  non  solum  passionem,  sed  etiam  fidem,  et  contri- 
tionem  conferre  remissionem,  ubi  non  contemnitur  sacramen- 
tum ;  ut  in  latrone  illo  ostenditur,  qui  non  per  passionem,  sed 
per  fidem  salvatus  est  sine  baptismo,     Sed  dicunt  quidam  hoe 


I  Of  Open  Questions. 

argumentum  retractasse  Augustinum.  Retractamt  quidem 
exemplum,  sed  sententiam  non.  Ait  enim  (Lib.  II.  Ketract. 
cap.  xviii.)  "  In  IV.  Libro  de  baptismo,  cum  dicerem  ^dcem 
baptismi  posse  habere  passiouem,  non  satis  idoneum  posui 
illius  latronis  exemplum :  quia  utrum  non  fuerit  baptizatus, 
incertum  est."  Constat  ergo  sine  baptismo  aliquis  justificari, 
et  salvari.  Unde  Ambrosius  de  Valentiniano  (in  orat.  de 
obitu  Valentiniani.)  "Ventrem  meum  doleo,  ut  propbetico 
utar  eloquio  :  quia  quern  regeneraturus  eram,  amisi.  A^erum- 
tamen  gratiam  ille,  quam  poposcit,  non  amisit." 

Qu(2  videntur  ohviare  prcedictis. 
His  autem  videtur  obviare  quod  Dominus  dicit  (loan.  iii.  5,) 
"  Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua,  et  Spiritu  sancto,  non 
potest  intrare  in  regntim  cselorum  :"  quod  si  generaliter  verum 
est,  non  videntur  esse  vera  superius  posita.  Sed  illud  intelli- 
gendum  de  illis  qui  possunt,  et  contemnunt  baptizari.  Yel 
ita  intelligendum  est.  "  Nisi  quis  renatus  fuerit  ex  aqua,  et 
Spiritvi  sancto,"  id  est  ex  ea  regeneratione  quae  fit  per  aquam, 
et  Spiritum  sanctum ;  non  salvabitur.  Ilia  autem  regeneratio 
fit  non  tantum  per  baptismum,  sed  etiam  per  poenitentiam  et 
sanguinem.  Unde  auctoritas  dicit,  ideo  Apostolmn  pluraliter 
dixisse,  "Fundamentum  baptismatum,"  quia  est  baptismus  in 
aqua,  in  sanguine,  in  poenitentia.  Hoc  autem  non  ideo  dicit, 
quod  sacramentum  baptismi  fiat  nisi  in  aqua ;  sed  quia  ipsius 
virtus,  et  sanctificatio  datur  non  tantummodo  per  aquam,  sed 
per  sanguinem,  et  poenitentiam.  Ratio  enim  id  suadet.  Si 
enim  non  valentibus  credere  parvulis  sufficit  baptismus,  multo 
magis  sufiicit  fides  adultis  volentibus,  et  non  valentibus  bap- 
tizari. Unde  Augustinus  (Lib.  de  unico  baptismo  contra 
Petn.  cap.  vii.)  "  Quaeris  quid  sit  majus,  fides,  an  aqua  ?  Non 
dubito  quin  respondeam,  fides.  Si  ergo  quod  minus  est,  sanc- 
tificare  potest ;  nonnc  quod  majus  est  ?  id  est  fides,  de  qiia 
Christus  ait  (loan.  xi.  25,)  Qui  crcdiderit  in  me,  etiam  si 
mortuus  fuei'it,  vivet."  Sed  dicunt  aliqui,  nullum  adultum  in 
Christum  credere,  vel   caritatem  habere  sine    baptismo,  nisi 


The  Medieval  Church.  li 

sanguinem  fimdat  pro  Domiuo,  subdita  introduceutes  testi- 
monia.  Augustinus  (Fulgentius  de  fide  ad  Petrum  cap.  iii.) 
ait :  "  Ex  illo  tempore  quo  Salvator  dixit :  Nisi  quis  renatus 
fuerit,  &c.  absque  sacramento  baptismi,  j)r£eter  eos  qui  iu 
Ecclesia  catbolica  sanguinem  fundunt,  aliquis  vitam  aeternam 
accipere  non  potest,"  Item  (Grennadius  de  eccl.  dogmat.  cap. 
Isxiv.)  "  Nullum  catecbumenimi,  quamvis  in  bonis  operibus 
defunctum,  vitam  aeternam  habere  credimus,  excepto  martyrio, 
ubi  tota  sacramenta  baptismi  complentur."  Item  (ibid.) 
"  Baptizatis  tantum  iter  salutis  esse  credimus."  Sed  quod  in 
bis  minus  dixit,  in  aliis  capitulis  supra  positis  supplevit.  Et 
ideo  bsec  sic  intelligenda  sunt,  ut  ilK  soli  babentes  tempus 
baptizandi  excipiantur.  Si  enim  aliquis  habens  fidem,  et  cari- 
tatem  voluerit  baptizari,  et  non  valet  necessitate  prseventus ; 
supplet  Omnipotentis  benignitas  quod  sacramento  defuerat, 
Dum  enim  solvere  potest,  nisi  solvat,  tenetur:  sed  cimi  jam 
non  jjotest,  et  tamen  vult,  non  imputat  ei  Deus,  qui  suam 
potentiam  sacramentis  non  alligavit.  Quia  vero  invisibilis 
sanctificatio  sine  visibiii  sacramento  qviibusdam  insit,  aperte 
Augustinus  tradit  super  Leviticum  (qusest.  Ixxxiv.)  dicens,  in- 
visibUem  sanctificationem  quibusdam  afiuisse,  et  profuisse  sine 
visibilibus  sacramentis ;  visibilem  vero  sanctificationem,  qu£e 
fit  sacramento  visibiii,  sine  invisibili  posse  adesse,  non  posse 
prodesse.  Nee  tamen  visibile  saeramentum  ideo  contemnen- 
dum  est,  quia  contemptor  ejus  invisibiliter  sanctificari  non 
potest.  Hinc  Cornelius,  et  qui  cum  eo  erant  jam  Spiritu 
sanctificati,  baptizati  sunt  (Act.  x.)  Nee  superflua  judicanda 
est  sanctificatio  visibilis,  quia  invisibilis  praecessit.  Sine  visi- 
biii ergo  invisibilis  sanctificatio  esse  potest,  et  prodesse ;  visi- 
bilis autem  quae  sit  sacramento  tonus,  sine  invisibili  prodesse 
non  potest,  cum  ilia  sit  omnis  illius  Veritas.  Simoni  Mago 
visibilis  baptismus  non  profuit,  quia  invisibiKter  non  adfuit ; 
sed  quibus  invisibilis  adfuit,  profuit.  Nee  tantum  valet  fides 
aliena  parvulo,  quantum  propria  adulto.  Parvulis  enim  non 
sufiicit  fides  Ecclesiae  sine  sacramento :  qui,  si  absque  baptismo 
faerint  defuncti,  etiam  cum  deferuntur  ad  baptismum,  damna- 


lii  Of  Open  Questions. 

buntur,  sicut  multis  sanctorum  auctoritatibus  comprobatur. 
Ad  boc  unum  sufficiat.  Atigustinus  (Fulgentius  de  fide  ad 
Petrum  cap.  sxvii.)  ait :  "  Fii'inissime  teue,  parvulos  qui  vel  in 
uteris  matrum  vivere  incipiunt,  et  ibi  moriuntur,  vel  de  matri- 
bus  nati  sine  sacramento  baptismi  de  hoc  sseculo  transeunt, 
ajteruo  supplicio  puniendos  :  quia  etsi  propria?  actionis  peccata 
non  babuerunt,  origiualc  tamen  peccatum  traxeruut  carnali 
conceptione.  Et  sicut  par\'T.di  qui  sine  baptismo  n^oriuntur, 
infidelium  ascribuntur  numero ;  ita  qui  baptizantur,  fidcles 
dicuntur,  quia  fideHum  consortio  non  separantur,  cum  orat 
Ecclesia  pro  fidelibus  defunctis."  Fideles  ergo  sunt  non 
propter  virtutem,  sed  fidei  sacramentum.  Unde  Augustinus 
(De  baptismo  parvulor.  ad  Bonifacium  ut  supr.)  "  Parvukim, 
etsi  nondum  fides  ilia  quae  etiam  in  credentium  voluntate  con- 
sistit,  jam  tamen  fidei  ipsius  sacramentum,  id  est  baptismus, 
fidelem  facit.  Nam  sicut  credere  respondetur,  ita  etiam 
fidelis  vocetur,  non  rem  ipsam  mente  annuendo,  sed  ipsius  rei 
percipiendo  sacramentum." 

Quid  prosit  baptismus  Ms  qui  cum  fide  accedunt. 

Solet  etiam  queeri  de  illis  qui  jam  sanctificati  Spiritu,  cum 
fide,  et  caritate  ad  baptismum  accedunt,  quid  eis  conferet 
baptismus.  Nibil  enim  videtur  praestare,  cum  per  fidem,  et 
contritionem  jam  remissis  peccatis  justificati  sunt.  Ad  quod 
sane  dici  potest,  eos  quidem  per  fidem,  et  contritionem  jus- 
tificatos,  id  est  a  macula  peccati  purgatos,  et  a  debito  setemae 
poena?  absolutes  ;  tamen  adbuc  teneri  satisfactione  temporali, 
qua  poenitentes  ligantur  in  Ecclesia.  Cum  autem  baptismum 
percipiunt,  et  a  peccatis,  si  qua  interim  post  conversionem 
contraxcrunt,  mundantur,  et  ab  exteriori  satisfactione  absol- 
vuntur,  et  adjutrix  gratia  omuisque  virtus  in  eo  augetur,  ut 
vere  novus  homo  tunc  dici  possit,  fomes  quoque  peccati  in  eo 
amplius  debilitatur.  Tdco  Hieronymus  dicit  (super  Mattb. 
XXV.)  quod  fides  qua?  fidelibus  in  aquis  baptismi  datur,  vel 
nutritur,  non  babenti  aliquando  ibi  datur,  ct  jam  habcnti,  ut 
plenius  habeat,  datur.     Sic  et  de  aliis  intelligendum  est.     Qui 


The  Mediaval  Church.  liii 

ergo  mundus  accedit,  ibi  fit  mundior ;  et  omni  habenti,  ibi 
amplius  datur.  Quod  vero  omnis  exterior  satisfactio  ibi 
relaxetur,  Ambrosius  (Ambrosiaster)  ostendit  super  ilium 
locum  (Eom.  xi.)  "  Sine  poeuitentia  sunt  dona  Dei,  et  vocatio," 
dicens :  "  Gratia  Dei  in  baptismo  non  requirit  gemitum,  vel 
aliquod  opus  ;  sed  omnia  gratis  eondonat."  Quod  quidem  de 
exteriori  gemitu,  vel  planctu  accipiendum  est.  Nam  sine 
interiore  nemo  adultus  renovatur  ;  sed  exteriores  satisfactiones, 
et  afflictiones,  scilicet  sordes  poenitentium,  ibi  dimittimtur. 
Multum  ergo  confert  baptismus  etiam  jam  per  fidem  justifi- 
cato  :  quia  accedens  ad  baptismum,  quasi  ramus  a  columba, 
portatur  in  arcam.  Ante  intus  erat  judicio  Dei;  sed  nunc 
etiam  judicio  Ecclesise  intus  est.  Cum  vero  in  baptismo  pec- 
catum  deleatur,  et  satisfactio  exterior  non  imputetur  ;  quseritur, 
cur  poenalitas,  cui  pro  peccato  addicti  sumus,  non  tollatur. 
Hoc  ideo  tradunt  fieri  sancti,  quia  si  a  poena  homines  per  bap- 
tismum liberarentur,  ipsam  putarent  baptismi  pretium,  non 
seternum  regnum.  Ideo  soluto  reatu  peccati,  temporalis  poena 
tamen  manet,  ut  ilia  vita  studiosius  quseritur  quae  erit  a  poenis 
omnibus  aliena.  Ideo  etiam  manet,  ut  sit  fideli  et  certandi 
materia,  et  vincendi  occasio  :  qui  non  vinceret,  si  non  pugnaret ; 
nee  pugnaret,  si  baptismo  fieret  immortalis. 

Cujus  rei  baptismus  qui  datur  jam  justo,  sit  sacramentum. 

Si  quseritur,  cujus  rei  baptismus  ille  sit  sacramentum  qui 
datur  jam  justo,  dicimus,  sacramentum  esse  et  rei  quce  prce- 
cessit,  id  est  remissionis  ante  per  Jidem  dates,  et  remissionis 
temporalis  poeuae,  sive  peccati,  si  habetur  quod  interim  com- 
mittitur,  et  novitatis,  ac  omnis  gratise  ibi  praestitse.  Omnis 
etenim  rei  signum  est,  cujus  causa  est.  Nee  mireris  rem  ali- 
quando  prsecedere  sacramentum,  cum  aliquando  etiam  longe 
post  sequatur ;  ut  in  illis  qui  ficte  accedunt,  quibus  cum  post 
poenitueriut,  incipiet  baptismus  prodesse,  in  quibus  fuit  bap- 
tismus sacramentum  hujus  sanctificationis  quam  poenitendo 
habent.      Sed  si  nunquam  poeniterent,  nee  a  figmento  rece- 


liv  Of  Open  Questions. 

derent,  ciijus  rei  sacramentum  esset  baptismus  ab  illis  suscep- 
tus  ?  Potest  dici,  rei  quae  ibi  fieret,  si  eorum  enormitas  non 
impediret. 

Si  parvulis  datur  in  baptismo  gratia,  qua  jiossunt  in  majori  estate 
perjicere. 

Solet  etiam  qiiferi,  si  parvulis  in  baptismo  datur  gratia,  qua 
cum  tempus  babueriut  utendi  libei'o  arbitrio,  possiut  velle,  et 
currere.  De  adultis  enim  qui  digne  recipiunt  sacramentum,  non 
ambigitur  quin  gratiam  operantem,  et  cooperautem  perceperint, 
qvise  in  vacuum  eis  cedit,  si  per  liberum  arbitrium  post  morta- 
liter  deliqueriut,  qui  merito  peccati  gratiam  appositam  perdunt. 
Unde  dicuutur  contumeliam  Spiritui  sancto  facere,  et  ipsum  a 
se  fugare.  De  parvulis  vero  qui  nondum  ratione  utuntur, 
qusestio  est,  an  in  baptismo  receperiut  gratiam,  qua  ad  majorem 
venientes  fetatem,  possint  velle,  et  operari  bonum.  Yidetur 
quod  non  receperint :  quia  gratia  ilia  cax'itas  est,  et  fides,  quae 
voluntatem  prseparat,  et  adjuvat.  Sed  quis  dixerit  eos  accepisse 
fidem,  et  caritatem  ?  Si  vero  gratiam  non  receperint,  qua  bene 
operari  possint,  cum  fuerint.  adulti ;  non  ergo  sufficit  eis  in 
hoc  statu  gratia  in  baptismo  data,  nee  per  dlam  possunt  modo 
boni  esse,  nisi  alia  addatur ;  qua)  si  non  additur,  non  est  ex 
eorum  culpa,  quia  justificati  sunt  a  peccato.  Quidam  putant 
gratiam  operantem,  et  cooperantem  cunctis  parvidis  in  baptis- 
mo dari  in  munere,  non  in  usu ;  ut  cum  ad  majorem  venerint 
setatem,  ex  munere  sortiantur  usum,  nisi  per  liberum  arbitrium 
usum  muneris  extinguant  peccando  :  et  ita  ex  culpa  eorum 
est,  non  ex  defectu  gratife,  quod  mali  fiunt,  qui  ex  Dei  munere 
valentis  habere  usum  bonum,  per  liberum  arbitrium  renuerunt, 
et  usum  pravum  elegerunt. 

I  have  confined  myself  for  obvious  reasons  to  this 
class  of  once  "  open  questions,"  as  we  are  now  so 
specially  concerned  with  the  subject  of  Baptism.  A 
careful  study  of  this  passage  alone  may  yet  teach  a 
lesson  of  charity  to  many. 


The  Mediaval  Church.  Iv 

It  would  be  a  work  of  supererogation  here  to  en- 
large the  range  of  topics,  and  more  than  glance  at 
the  numerous  other  undefined   questions  of  primi- 
tive and  later  Christianity.      But  many,  I   think, 
will    contemplate   with   more   astonishment   in   its 
continuance   than    in    its    origin    this    absence    of 
dogmatic    definition   for  so   many  hundred   years ; 
and  that  too  on  other  and  most  important  points 
of  the  faith.     Many,  I  say,  who  would  hear  with- 
out surprise  that  the  Church  of  the  first  centuries 
had  an  undefined  theology, — (because  they  would 
explain  it  by  the  comparative  fewness  of  documents, 
or  the  simplicity  of  unsuspecting  orthodoxy,  which 
would  have  been  alike  astonished  by  the  Trentine 
decisions,  or  the  Zuinglian,) — will  yet  be  surprised  to 
find   what  questions  were  considered  debatable   in 
the  middle  ages.     The  boldness  of  discussion,  even 
in  the  most  sacred  matters,  is  what  the  moderns 
would  not  have  suspected. 

Thus,  even  to  the  days  of  Aquinas,  it  might  be  held 
that  venial  or  even  mortal  sin  was  remitted  without* 

*  Bradwardine  tliouglit  (De  Causa  Dei,  lib.  i.  c.  43,)  that  a 
contrary  opinion  is  Pelagian,  (in  its  tendency  at  least.)  The 
whole  of  that  chapter  is  full  of  interest,  especially  the  part 
about  the  power  of  the  keys ;  and  I  would  especially  commend 
it  to  the  consideration  of  a  recent  writer  on  "  Absolution,"  and 
those  who  have  imagined  the  popular  Roman  theories  herein 
to  be  the  same  as  those  of  the  middle  age  of  the  Church. 
Bradwardine  adopted  the  views  suggested  by  P.  Lombard  with- 
out  reserve  as  to  the  pardon  of  sin  proceeding  from  God,  and 
not  from  the  priest ;  and  even  advanced  to  the  almost  heretical 
statement,  that  neither  contrition  nor  confession  precedes  the 


Ivi  Of  Open  Questions. 

special  confession  : — and,  (to  omit  minor  points) — in 
respect  of  the  most  Holy  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist, 
it  was  open  to  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  to  maintain 
a  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation,  which  in  some 
respects  would  scarcely  be  deemed  pardonable 
now.  He  denies  that  either  of  these  forms  of 
speech  could  be  used,  either  (before  consecration) 
"  quod  est  panis  erit  corpus  Christi,"  or  (after 
consecration)  "  quod  est  corpus  Christi  fuit  panis  ;" 
on  the  ground  that  no  common  subject  remains 
after  consecration,  which  the  word  "  quod  "*  would 

blotting  out  of  sin,  "  miilt6  magis  nee  absolutio  saeerdotis  cum 
h£ec,  si  fiat  legitime,  sit  post  illas,^'  &c.,  adding  tlie  authorities, 
quoted  in  P.  Lombard,  of  St.  Ambrose  and  St.  Jerome  ;  and 
also  Origen.  Of  course  Bradwardiue  applied  his  principles 
also  in  respect  of  Baptism  ;  but  I  must  not  enlarge  on  an  in- 
viting subject.  I  do  wish  that  people  knew  something  of  the 
enlarged  charity  and  intellectual  freedom  of  the  middle  ages. 

*  So  in  reply  to  the  question,  "  "What  is  broken  by  the 
priest  ?"  Berengarius  was  made  by  Pope  Nicolas  to  say,  it  was 
the  "true  Body  of  Chkist  "  which  was  broken.  Aquinas 
thinks  this  a  less  probable  opinion  than  another,  viz.,  that  it  is 
the  form  of  bread  which  is  broken,  according  to  St.  Paul  saying, 
"the  bread  which  we  break."  The  following  are  from  the  text 
of  P.  Lombard. 

"  Aliorum  opinio. 
"Alii  vero  dicunt,  quod  sicut  ibi  species  panis  est,  et  non 
est  ibi  res,  cujus,  vel  in  qua  sit  ilia  species  ;  ita  ibi  est  fractio, 
qure  non  sit  in  aliqua  re,  quia  niliil  ibi  frangitur :  quod  mira- 
biliter  Dei  potentia  fieri  dicunt,  ut  fiat  fractio  ubi  nihil 
frangitur. 

"  Aliorum  opinio. 
"  Alii  tradunt,  corpus  Christi  essentialiter  frangi,  et  di^ddi ; 


The  Mediaeval  Church.  Ivii 

seem  to  imply.  He  dislikes  the  expression  that  the 
consecrated  bread  becomes,  or  is  made,  the  Body  of 
Christ.  He  hesitates  to  say  "  out  of  the  bread  the 
Body  is  made,"  or  "  from  the  bread ;"  as  such 
phrases  would  seem  to  imply  a  material  cause ;  in 
opposition  to  which  he  says,  "  nihil  panis  erit 
unquam  aliquid  corporis  Christi."  All  that  is 
sensible  or  perceptible  in  bread  remains  after  conse- 
cration as  before  ;  in  fact,  nothing  is  annihilated ; 
and  nothing  that  is  sensible  or  perceptible  in  the 
Lord's  Body  exists  in  the  Sacrament  after  conse- 
cration. The  "  conversion  "  is  a  mysterious  dis- 
placing of  the  inner  substance  of  the  one  by  the 
sacred  and  sw^ernatural  presence  of  the  other  :  the 
"Presence"  is  not  to  be  even  described  as  "local." 
— Such  is  the  doctrine  both  of  P.  Lombard  and  St. 
Thomas,  a  doctrine  which  nearly  reduces  the  dis- 
pute to  a  question  of  metaphysical  philosophy. 

I  do  not  in  this,  of  course,  throw  doubt  for  a  mo- 
ment on  the  unquestioned  orthodoxy  of  the  Angelical 
doctor,  whose  precision  on  many  points  is  so  per- 
ceptibly advanced  beyond  the  looser  views  of  P.  Lom- 
bard :  I  am  quoting  his  thoughts  in  order  to  show  to 

et  tarnen  integrum,  et  iucorruptibile  existere.  Quod  se 
colligere  asserunt  ex  confessioue  Bereugarii,  qui  coufessus  est 
coram  Nicolao  Papa,  et  pluribus  Episeopis  (ut  in  Decret.  de 
cousecr.  dist.  ii.  cap.  '  Ego  Berengarius,')  panem,  et  vinum, 
quae  in  altari  ponuntur,  post  consecrationem  non  solum  sacra- 
mentum,  sed  etiam  verum  corpus,  et  sanguinem  Christi  esse ; 
et  sensualiter  non  solum  sacramento,  sed  in  veritate  manibus 
sacerdotum  tractari,  et  frangi,  et  fidelium  dentibus  atteri. 


Iviii  Of  Open  Questions. 

concise  thinkers  among  ourselves  that  dogmatic  truth 
may  be  held  vitally  and  clearly,  and  yet  not  be  quite 
so  briefly  defined  as  they  might  desire,  nor,  at  all 
times,  clear  of  "  open  questions."  Surely  it  is  but 
impatience  or  thoughtlessness  which  reckons  inquiry 
and  analysis  to  be  symptoms  of  want  of  faith  ;  and, 
to  be  consistent,  it  should  go  on  to  deny  that  dog- 
matic teaching  could  have  existed  among  those 
doubting  doctors  of  the  schools. 

It  w^ould  not  be  difficult  to  furnish  examples  in 
illustration  concerning  the  grace  of  all  the  Sacra- 
ments of  the  Church, — all  more  or  less  allied  with 
the  most  essential  realities  of  our  probation,  the 
nature  of  sin  and  holiness,  the  transmission  of  evil, 
the  law  of  our  justification.  But  my  object  is  not 
to  raise  questions  ;  only  to  plead  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sarily a  sign  of  heresy  to  raise  them.  Of  course  I 
do  not  mean  that  all  the  questions  raised  in  the 
schools  were  "  open  questions;"  some  were  but  dis- 
cussed to  be  exposed ;  but  many  w^ere  kept  open 
from  generation  to  generation. 

But  further :  they  who  are  discontented  with  our 
own  Church  because  she  has  not  dogmatically  de- 
cided some  points  on  which  they  demand  decision, 
should  learn  that  they  may,  by  changing  the  terms, 
bring  the  same  complaint  against  the  Trentine 
Church,  not  to  mention  other  communions. 

Surely  it  is  no  light  matter  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  Inmiaculate  Conception  should  have  been 
so  long  an  open  question,  for  it  is  no  subordinate 


The  Trentine  Church.  lix 

importance  which  is  now  assigned  to  it,  though 
the  Council  of  Trent  left  it  and  other  points,  un- 
touched. But  above  all  others,  what  can  be  thought 
of  the  great  open  question  which  still  exists  in  the 
Roman  Communion,  as  to  the  Infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  —  his  Independence  of  general  councils,  — 
his  Supremacy  over  the  faith  itself?  Nothing 
can  well  be  more  vital :  and  yet  this  great  and 
fundamental  matter,  on  which  everything  in  Roman 
Christianity  may  one  day  come  to  depend,  is 
a,n  "open"  question  on  wdiich  men  are  allowed 
to  hold  the  most  opposite  opinions  in  the  Roman 
Communion.  What  can,  in  truth,  be  more  melan- 
choly than  the  position  of  the  Roman  Church  in 
respect  of  all  those  questions  which  were  so  unpar- 
donably  left  open  by  the  Council  of  Trent  ?  ques- 
tions of  faith  and  morals  such  as  have  since  then 
agitated  the  wdiole  of  their  Communion  throughout 
Europe  ?  the  timid  policy  which  avoided  their  con- 
sideration having  contributed  probably,  as  much  as 
any  other  cause,  to  the  political  and  moral  disasters 
which  have  reduced  the  continent  at  large  to  a  con- 
dition so  fearfully  irreligious  ! 

Utterly  afraid  of  ever  again  meeting  a  general 
council  of  the  Church,  even  if  it  could  be  gathered, 
(which  may  not  be,  as  yet  at  least,  "  without  the 
commandment  and  will  of  princes,")  the  Roman 
Church  has  been  driven  by  circumstances  to  adopt 
as  its  theory  the  dogmatic  infallibility  of  the  Pope — 
a  theory  possibly  subversive  of  the  whole  objective 


Ix  Of  Open  Questions. 

truth  of  revelation  by  no  very  remote  or  subtle  con- 
sequence. And  henceforth,  one  by  one,  questions 
will  be  settled  as  the  "  Immaculate  Conception  " 
has  lately  been :  they  will  be  allowed  to  settle  them- 
selves in  a  rough  sort  of  way  by  the  course  of  events, 
or  by  the  docility  or  inclination  of  the  people,  till  at 
length  their  practical  resolution  in  the  popular  mind 
receives  the  imprimatur  of  the  Pontiff.  Thus  pro- 
ceeding at  a  kind  of  hazard,  without  a  principle  of 
action  except  the  Pope,  the  Roman  Church  seems 
destined  to  advance  to  its  consummation,  adding 
Heresy  to  immorality  :  and  a  Church  which  has 
held  possession  of  Europe  for  a  thousand  years,  and 
under  whose  hands  Europe  has  become,  morally  and 
religiously,  what  it  now  is,  seems  likely  to  end  by 
resolving  Christianity  into  a  theory,  which  may  one 
day  ignore  all  that  was  deemed  truth  before  ! 

It  is  an  ungracious  task  to  have  to  dwell  on  the 
discordant  teachings,  the  wranglings,  and  variations, 
of  other  Churches,*  yet  something  seems  almost  to  be 
demanded,  by  the  tone  of  many  in  our  present  con- 
troversies. The  "  variations"  of  Romanism,  from  the 
Council  of  Trent  until  now,  in  dogma  and  in  morals, 
ought,  perhaps,  by  the  pen  of  some  Bossuet  among  us, 
to  be  more  specifically  and  popularly  enumerated, 
for  the  benefit  of  misguided  multitudes  who  dream 
of  "  unity  "  in  the  Roman  Communion.  What  a 
fearful  chapter  of  open  questions  even  in  funda- 
mental morality  might  not  the  history  of  "  pro- 
*  Vide  Dictiounairc  des  livros  Jansenistes.   Autwerp.  1752. 


Our  present  case.  Ixi 

bableisra "  alone  furnish  !  And  what  conflicting 
theories  as  to  the  whole  doctrine  of  grace  are  dis- 
covered by  such  letters  as  Pascal's  Provinciales  ! — 
Nay,  not  even  the  primary  truths  of  "  natural  the- 
ology," the  being  and  attributes  of  God,  may  as 
yet  remain  unagitated  in  the  Roman  schools,  "  In 
what  sense  God  knoivs,  or  foreknows;"  "whether 
He  is  free  ;"  "  whether  the  moral  attributes  of  the 
Creator  are  identical  with  the  moral  character  of  the 
creature ;"  these,  and  countless  other  high  and  in- 
effable matters,  are  controverted  still  in  the  Roman 
Communion.  Nor  is  the  acknowledgment  of  diffi- 
culty and  doubt  deemed  unpardonable  even  in  these 
most  awful  subjects.  "Hie  nodus  est  totius  theo- 
logize intricatissimus,  senigma  sacrum,  cui  plena 
solvendo  impar  est  humana  mens  :  Ecquis  enim  satis 
concipiat  quomodo  stet  libertas  Dei  cum  ejus  immu- 
tabilitate,  salvis  utriusque  juribus  :  vel  enim  actus 
liber  potuit  abesse  a  Deo,  vel  non  :  Si  primum,  quo- 
modo immutabilis  ?  Si  secundum,  quomodo  liber  ?" 
(Billuart,  ii.  p.  20.) 

But  it  may  be  imagined,  perhaps,  "  these  are 
scholastic,  and  not  practical  varieties  and  dis- 
putes, and  do  not  touch  the  great  body  of  Chris- 
tians ?"  I  know  not,  however,  that  this  may  be  any 
more  truly  said  in  these  cases,  than  in  others  in 
which  we  ourselves  are  thought  to  be  more  nearly 
concerned.  I  am  sure  that  the  bare  discussion 
among  our  own  writers  of  half  the  questions  of  the 
Roman  schools  would  raise  an  outcry  of  scepticism  ; 

/ 


Ixii  Of  Open  Questions. 

and  perhaps  not  unjustly  :  for  few  probably  might 
study  the  scholastics,  and  canonists,  and  casuists  of 
the  Roman  Church  without  passing  through  an  un- 
settling process  in  their  own  minds  the  while,  not 
remotely  analogous  perhaps  to  what  the  world  calls 
scepticism.  It  is  a  long  and  dark  and  solemn  work 
to  go  down  into  the  mine  of  truth,  and  work  amidst 
the  elements  of  the  moral  world ;  if  so  be  we  may 
understand  something  of  the  hidden  constitution 
of  things  beneath  the  practical  surface  of  ordinary 
Ufe. 

But,  in  truth,  the  Enghsh  Church  is  far  less  open 
to  the  charge  of  introducing  subtle  disputes  to  the 
people  at  large  than  most  other  Churches.  Almost 
by  common  consent  among  us  the  analysis  of  pre- 
destination and  free-will  has  been  abandoned.  While 
in  the  Church  of  Rome  the  subtilties  of  Quietism 
are  revived  and  are  spread  among  their  people  in 
every  form, — even  to  that  latest,  (Oratorianism  I 
mean,)  which  is  a  mixture  of  the  doctrines  of  Loyola, 
and  Molina,  and  Jansenius, — the  strangest  devotion 
of  the  first,  with  the  self-annihilation  of  the  second, 
and  the  predestinarianism  of  the  last — forming  well 
nigh  a  new  Religion,  within  the  pale  of  Rome. 
Indeed,  for  a  long  time  past,  the  most  popular  de- 
votional books  among  the  laity  of  the  Roman 
Communion,  (such  as  those  of  Avrillon  and 
Surin,)  imply  ethical  theories,  as  to  the  annihi- 
lation of  the  human  will,  which  have  been  sub- 
jected to   the  condemnation  of  the  head  of  their 


Our  present  case.  Ixiii 

Church,  as  "  heretical :"  at  least  it  seems  to  require 
the  greatest  skill  to  reconcile  the  practical  teaching 
of  these  books  with  the  solemn  denunciations  against 
the  doctrines  of  Molina  put  forth  in  detail  by  Pope 
Innocent  in  1687;  beginning  "  oportet  hominem 
suas  potentias  annihilare.  Et  haec  est  via  interna,  &c. " 
Moral  theories  are  often  slow  in  making  their 
way  among  the  multitude ;  but  when  they  once 
penetrate  a  large  portion  of  a  community,  their  true 
character  becomes  manifest.  Thus  the  quietism  of 
the  eighteenth  century  became  at  last  one  of  the 
corrupting  elements  of  European  society.  And  now 
that  it  is  said  by  some  that  there  is  a  revival  of  life 
in  the  Roman  Communion,  it  is  significant  to  ob- 
serve in  what  quarters  it  is  to  be  found.  It  is  not 
in  Italy,  not  in  Portugal,  or  Spain.  It  is  in  France, 
— where  Ultra-Roman  doctrines  had  been  exiled,  and 
Gallican  moderation  had  prevailed.  It  is  in  Eng- 
land, — where  the  vitality  of  the  Roman  Communion 
has  been  sustained  by  an  unlooked-for  supply  from 
the  best  blood  of  the  English  Church.  And  there 
is  this  further  peculiarity,  viz.,  that  the  revival  par- 
takes both  of  the  Quietistic  and  of  the  Jansenist 
character  in  several  respects.  It  is  subtle ;  and 
itself  depending  on  "open  questions."  In  France 
especially,  religion,  rejected  by  the  nation  at  large, 
has  fallen  back  on  the  theory  that  it  was  never  de- 
signed but  for  the  few.  Predestination  and  election 
are  cherished  doctrines  once  more.  So  in  England. 
They  who  of  late  have  joined  the  Roman  Church 


Ixiv  Of  Open  Questions. 

ascribe  it  to  "special  grace."  Writing  a  few  years 
ago,  Mr.  Newman,  in  his  Lectures  on  Justification, 
could  say,  "  The  Romanists  seem  to  deny  God's 
secret  election  !"     Now,  it  is  their  favourite  topic. 

But  what  more  practical  doubt  could  be  found 
than  that  which  has  existed  as  to  Jurisdiction 
among  them  ?  Even  their  present  modification  of 
their  theory  of  Jurisdiction  shows  how  long  it  has 
remained  "  open  "  in  the  Church  of  Rome  to  be- 
lieve in  the  prerogative  now  said  to  be  divinely 
guaranteed  to  the  Pontiff.  In  charity  to  souls  this 
should  have  been  settled  long  ere  this.  For  ex- 
ample, I  think  it  would  be  contrary  to  what  is  now 
believed  as  to  the  Jurisdiction  of  the  Pope,  if  any 
monarch  were  to  seek  what  was  conceded  in  the 
eleventh  century  to  the  king  of  Sicily  ? — Count 
Roger,  the  founder  of  the  Norman  monarchy  in 
Sicily,  (soon  after  the  Norman  conquest  in  our  own 
country,)  secured  spiritual  Jurisdiction  to  be  attached 
to  the  Crown  though  the  king  is  a  layman.  The 
king  of  Sicily,  as  such,  became  the  Pope's  dele- 
gate in  spiritual  matters,  excluding  by  law  all  other 
legates  from  Rome,  and  had  his  throne  in  all  cathe- 
drals above  the  Archbishop  ;  and  even  his  lord 
lieutenant,  surrounded  by  his  staff,  received  the 
ecclesiastical  honours  in  the  king's  absence.*     This 

*  A  learned  friend  lias  informed  me  that  the  "  Codice  Eccle- 
siastico  Sicolo  "  is  being  published  in  numbers  by  a  lawyer  of 
Palermo  ;  and  therein  the  original  grant  to  Count  Koger,  and 
all  other  documents,  are  printed  at  large. 


Communion  with  Heretics.  Ixv 

was  the  price  of  the  rejection  of  the  Greek  Church 
in  favour  of  the  Roman.  This  hereditary  delegation, 
if  it  may  be  so  called,  of  spiritual  power  to  laymen  is 
somewhat  repugnant  to  the  present  theories.  It  is 
best  explained,  perhaps,  by  the  admission  that  the 
limits  of  Jurisdiction  in  things  spiritual  were  left 
"  open  "  and  unsettled  even  till  now  in  the  Roman 
Communion ! 

But  it  seems  unnecessary  here  to  prolong  this 
discourse. 

XL  It  remains,  that  we  consider  now  the  ques- 
tion of  practical  duty,  the  suggestion  of  which  in 
the  first  instance  was  the  occasion  of  the  present 
essay,  viz.,  the  extent  to  which  in  any  case,  espe- 
cially in  our  own  case,  there  is  danger  in  the  Com- 
munion of  Heretics.  It  will  be  apparent  at  once 
that  a  different  conduct  will  be  required  in  the  case 
of  pronounced  heretics,  who  are  formally  external 
to  the  Church,  from  that  which  might  be  right  in 
respect  of  erring  Christians  not  yet  formally  cast 
out,  but  holding  a  doctrine  which  cannot  but  be 
deemed  to  be  heretical.  In  the  former  case  duty  is 
plain ;  acts  of  communion  must  be  sternly  and  at 
all  risks  refused,  lest  we  be  "  partakers  of  the  evil 
deed,"  or  seem  to  "bid  God  speed"  to  those  who 
are  His  enemies.  In  the  latter  case,  and  it  may  be 
ours  before  long,  — we  may  learn  our  duty  from  St. 
Augustin : 

Among  the  many  questions  which  arose  in  his 
controversy   with   the   Donatists   this   was   one, — 


Ixvi  Communion  with  Heretics. 

Whether  by  admitting  the  vahdity  of  heretical 
Baptism  we  do  not  hold  communion  with  heretics  ? 
The  principle  on  which  he  replies  to  this  inquiry 
will  avail  us  in  our  own  case ;  and  I  submit  it  to 
the  consideration  of  my  brethren,  not  only  for  our 
guidance  hereafter,  but  for  our  vindication  in  times 
gone  by.  St.  Augustin  constantly  repeats,  in  little 
varied  terms,  the  parallel  of  moral  and  doctrinal 
pravity.  We  do  not  sanction  the  immoralities  of 
ungodly  Christians  by  holding  communion  with 
Churches  where  ungodliness  has  been  prevailing ;  so 
neither  do  we  share  or  hold  communion  with  He- 
resy necessarily  by  continuing  communion  with 
Churches  where  it  is  not  yet  cast  out.  St.  Epipha- 
nius  too  classes  together  immoralities,  and  profani- 
ties, and  heresies,  as  to  be  alike  shunned  by  all 
Christians.  (Adv.  Her.  lib.  3.)  I  confess  that  this 
reasoning  seems  to  me  even  more  conclusive  in  the 
case  for  which  I  would  adduce  it  than  in  that  for 
which  St.  Augustin  urged  it.  I  commend  it,  I  re- 
peat then,  as  a  perfect  and  unanswerable  argument 
to  the  candid  reflection  of  the  theological  reader.* — 
Even  when  the  heresy  is  so  undoubted  and  so  deadly 
as  that  which  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  is  trying  now  to 
expel  from  his  diocese,  the  Church  is  not  guilty 
while  she  so  repudiates  it. 

XII.  Much  more  then,  so  long  as  justice  or  cha- 
rity obliges  us  to  refrain  from  bringing  the  extreme 
charge  of  deliberate  heresy  against  erring  brethren, 
*  Contra  Don.  L.  vi.  c.  xxii. 


Communion  with  Heretics.  Ixvii 

may  we  safely  follow  the  example  of  that  blessed 
saint,  Cyprian  of  Carthage,  "  tanti  meriti,  tantse 
ecclesife,  tanti  pectoris,  tanti  oris,  tantee  virtutis 
episcopus,"  of  whom  St.  Augustin,  in  the  midst  of 
controversy,  could  thus  speak  :  "  He  disjoined  not 
himself  by  separate  communion  from  those  who 
thought  different  things,  and  he  ceased  not  to  per- 
suade others  that  they  should  bear  with  one  another 
in  love,  striving  to  keep  the  unity  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  bond  of  peace.  For  so  the  compactness  of  the 
body  being  preserved,  if  there  were  infirmity  in  any 
members,  it  might  be  healed  by  the  healthiness  of 
the  rest,  instead  of  being  put  beyond  the  reach  of 
cure  by  being  cut  off  as  a  mortified  limb.  If  he 
had  separated,  what  multitudes  would  have  fol- 
lowed !  what  a  name  among  men  might  he  have 
made  !  .  .  .  .  But  he  was  not  a  son  of  perdition,  but 
the  Church's  son  of  peace  !"* 

And  let  us  bear  in  mind  the  gentleness  of  the 
courageous  Athanasius,  that  greatest  and  most 
glorious  of  the  saints  and  doctors  of  the  Church,— 
his  forbearance  towards  men  whom  he  found  to  be 
"  better  than  their  creed,  "f  (men  w^hose  doctrines 
touched  very  nearly,  however,  the  fundamentals  of 
the  faith,)  I  mean  the  Semi-Arians,  such  as  Basil  of 
Ancyra  and  others,  who  in  unsettled  days,  and 
before  the  Trinitarian  Controversy  had  run  its 
cycle,  had  even  anathematized,  as  secret  Sabellian- 
ism,  the  Nicene  formula  ! — Let  us  listen  to  the 
Catholic  wisdom   and  charity  of  St.  Hilary,  who, 

*  Ibid.  L.  i.  in  fin.  t  Newman's  Arians,  p.  320. 


Ixviii  Communion  with  Heretics. 

when  upbraided  by  too  hasty  brethren  for  his  re- 
luctance to  separate  from  the  "  Orientals,"  and 
for  praising  their  piety,  defended  himself  thus,  (in 
his  Apologetics  :)  "In  eo  vero  quod  laudans  eos  in 
invidiam  deducor  a  quibusdam  ;  parum  intellectus 
sum.  Non  enim  eos  veram  Fidem,  sed  spem  re- 
vocandse  verse  Fidei  attulisse,  dixi."  He  saw  their 
faith  to  be  defective,  and  even,  in  some  sense,  not 
true ;  but  he  regarded  their  position  as  a  whole 
with  hope,  and  thankfulness,  and  brotherly  love,  as 
a  step  towards  that  great  truth  from  which  they  had 
receded,  and  his  heart  yearned  towards  them,  as 
men  who  might  yet  be  a  blessed  medium  of  unity 
and  peace  in  the  divided  Church — "  viros  studiosos 
apostolicee  et  evangelicse  doctrinse,  quos  Fidei  calor 
in  tantis  tenebris  hereticse  noctis  accendit."  (De 
Synodis,  78.)  Nor  was  there  less  forbearance  to- 
wards the  same  Orientals  at  Rome,  than  in  Africa 
and  Gaul.  And  in  how  high  and  solemn,  and  fun- 
damental a  doctrine  ! 

It  is  an  extreme  example  truly,  and  one  of  course 
which  could  never  afterwards  be  urged  in  the  same 
subject  matter ;  since  the  definition  of  the  faith  has 
therein  been  long  fixed  beyond  the  toleration  of 
denial.  Even  in  their  days  it  was  rapidly  becoming 
impossible  to  regard,  as  "  open,"  the  terms  in  which 
Christians  might  speak  of  the  Divine  nature  :  it  was 
a  charity  then  which  was  extended,  as  for  the  last 
hour,  to  those  who  thus  were  won  back  to  the 
Catholic  Faith  !  Their  vessel  had  touched  the  quick- 
sands, and   they  knew  it  not :  and  their  brethren 


Communion  with  Heretics.  Ixix 

would  not  depart  from  them,  but  ventured  near, 
and  drew  them  off. 

And  if  there  be  in  our  days  other  questions  of  our 
rehgion,  still  undefined,  concerning  which  men  of 
sanctity  and  faith  may  yet  speak  a  different  lan- 
guage, let  us  not  refuse  to  act  in  the  spirit  of  those 
ancient  Bishops,  "  not  judging — not  dividing  from 
Communion  " —  "  neminem  judicantes  aut  a  jure 
communionis  aliquem,  si  diversum  senserit,  amo- 
ventes."  (St.  Cyprian.)  "  Istum  nondum  haereti- 
cum  dico,  nisi  manifestata  sibi  doctrina  Catholicae 
Fidei  resistere  maluerit,  et  illud  quod  tenebat  ele- 
gerit."     (St.  Augustin.)* 

The  charity  of  the  Church,  imitating  after  her 
measure  the  long-suffering  of  her  heavenly  Lord, 
forbears  at  times  to  cut  off  her  erring  members, 
"  lest  she  root  up  the  wheat  also."t  And  if  in  trying 
days  we  hear  a  voice  of  Providence  saying  to  us, 
"  Let  both  grow  together  until  the  harvest,"  let  us 
remember  that  we  may  sometimes  hold  communion 
with  a  Church  without  communicating  with  the 
errors  of  its  children ;  let  us  remember  that  all  is 
not  heresy  which  is  error ;  and  join  faithfully  in 
the  prayer :  "  We  beseech  Thee  to  hear  us,  good 
Lord  ;  That  it  may  please  Thee  to  strengthen  them 
that  do  stand,  to  comfort  and  help  the  weak-hearted, 
to  raise  up  them  that  fall,  and  finally  to  beat  down 
Satan  under  our  feet !" 

*  Contr.  Donat.  iv.  c.  23.  f  Ibid.  iv.  13. 

9 


THE  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  CHURCH  COURT, 

(ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY'S,) 


THE  JUDGMENT  OF  THE  STATE  COURT, 

(PRIVY  COUNCIL.) 

WITH    NOTES. 


OUTLINES  OF  THE  TWO  JUDGMENTS. 


THE  CHURCH  COUET. 


THE  STATE  COUET. 


I.  Origin  of  this  Case,  of  Gorham».  the  Bishop 

of  Exeter. 

History  of  the  C&se,  fully  stated. 

a  How  Mr.  Gorham's  examination  arose. 
4      (The  Bishop's  right  to  examine  is  as'^umed.) 
c  How  tlie  Chancellor  (as  patron)  acted  herein. 
d  The    result    of   the    examination ;    and    tlie 
Bishop's  reasons. 

II.  Mode  of  Legal  Proceeding:  (by  "  act  on 

Petition.") 
The  Bishop's  pleadings : 

(charg-es  Mr.  Gorham  with  false  doctrine.) 
Mr.  Gorham's  rejoinder. 
Tliis  mode  not  satisfactory. 


III.  Method  to   be   adopted   by  the  Judge 
in  this  Court.] 

a  To  ascertain  what  is  the  Church's  Doctrine  of 

Baptism  ; 
b  To  ascertain  Mr.  Gorham's  views  also;  and 
e  To  pronounce  accordingly. 
The  Standard  of  Doctrine  ; 

According  to  Mr.  Gorham,  the  Articles ; 
According  to  the  Bishop  the  Articles  and  For- 
mularies. 

The  Doctrine  of  Baptism  : 

The  Bishop  calls  on  Mr.  Gorham  to  confess  it. 

Mr.  Gorham's  answers,  stating  in  his  own  words 
his  views  of  the  Doctrine. 

Mr.  Gorham  considers  tlie  Formularies  "defen- 
sible, if  allowed  a  favourable  construction." 

IV.  The  Articles  are  to  be  referred  to,  pri- 
marily. 25th  and  27th  Articles,  (on 
Baptism.) 

Two  points  raised  (as  to  Infant  Baptism)  out 
of  these  Articles,  viz., 

1.  "Worthy  reception." 

2.  "  Regeneration." 

What  Mr.  Gorham  suggests  on  these-. 

1.  That  original   sin   hinders  "worthy  re- 

ception." 

2.  That   Sponsors   "stipulate"  for   subse- 

quent "Faith." 

3.  That  there  is  an    Act  of    "  Prevenient 

Grace  "  whicli  regenerates  before  Bap- 
tism. 
The  Court  thus  elicits  tliat   Mr.    Gorham's 
opinion  is,  "  that  Regeneration  is  7iot  by 
Baptism,  nor  through  lioptism." 


Origin  of  this  Appeal. 

History  of  the  case,  briefly  stated. 

a  That  the  Bishop  examined  Mr.  Gorham. 

b      (The  question  of  the  Bishop's  right  to  exa 
mine  is  evaded  by  this  Court.) 

c 

d  The  result  of  the  examination. 


II.  Mode   of  Legal  Proceeding:  (by  "act  on 
Petition.") 
The  Bishop's  pleadings : 

(charges  Mr.  Gorham  with  fcdse  doctrine.) 
Mr.  Gorham's  rejoinder. 
.  (The  Court  thinks  Mr.  Gorham  not  straightfor- 
ward, and  the  Bishop  not  dogmatical.) 

[III.  Method  to  be  adopted   by  the   Judges 
,  in  this  Court.] 

o  To  "  endeavour"  to  harmonize  Mr.  Gorham's 
views : 

b  To  obtain  the  desired  "result"  by  genera- 
lizing ;  and 

c  To  pronounce  accordingly. 


The  Doctrine  of  Baptism  : 

The  Court  states  in  its  own  words  a  view  of  this 

doctrine; 
and  attributes  this  view   "  generally"  to  Mr. 

Gorham ; 
omitting  peculiarities,  and  abating  distinctions. 

IV.  Tlie  Articles  and  Formularies  may  be 
legally  construed  with  wide  latitude,  and 
admit  variety  of  opinion. 

Latitude  probable — 

1.  From  the  History  of  the  Articles. 

2.  From  some  Doctrines  being  left  undecided 

by  the  Articles. 

3.  From  the  f;<ct  that   Henry  Vlll.  once  had 

some  "  Articles  "  of  a  more  rigid  kind. 

4.  From   the  book   of    "Necessary  Doctrine," 

much  plainer  than  the  Articles  of  our 
Church. 

5  From  the  Articles  on  Baptism  requiring 
"  worth;/  reception,"  while  sonic  older  forms 
speak  only  of  •'  due  reception." 

0.  From  the  Royal  Declaration  of  Charles  I. 
acknowledging  diversity  of  "  opinion  "  in 
tlie  Church  on  some  points  (perhaps  there- 
fore ou  this.) 


Outlines  of  the  tivo  Judgments. 


THE  CHURCH  COURT. 

V.  The  Formularies  of  the  Church. 

"Favourable  construction"  and  "charitable 
hypotliesis  "  pleaded  for  by  Mr.  Gorham,  and 
examined  by  the  Court  in  all  the  services. 


THE  STATE  COURT. 

V.  The  Formularies  of  the  Church. 

"  Latitude "  of  interpretation   pleaded   for,  by 

this  Court,  in  respect  of  all  the  Services. 
Latitude  of  the  "  Burial  Service,"  the  primary 

illustration.     (It  "hopes"  that  all  men  are 

"  saved.") 


.  "  Construction  "  of  the  Service  for  Public 
Baptism  of  Infants. 
By   an  examination   of  the  whole  Service 

"in  extenso." 
(Mr.Gorham's  interpretation  willnot stand.) 


1.  "Latitude"  of  the  Service  for  Public  Bap- 
tism of  Infants. 

(It  calls,  in  one  place.  Infant  Baptism  a 
"  charitable  work,"  and  so,  perhaps,  im- 
plies it  may  be  a  doubtful  blessing.) 


2.  "  Construction  "  of  the  Service  for  "  Private 
Baptism." 
By  au  examination  of  the  whole  Service 

"in  extenso." 
(Mr.  Gorham's  interpretation  will  not  stand.) 


2.  "Latitude"  of  the  Sen'ice  for  Private  Bap- 
tism. 

(Argued  (1),  "  from  its  being  provided  for  e.r- 
Cf/)/fon«;  cases,"  and  proceeding,  perhaps, 
on  exceptional  principles;  and  (2),  from 
the  ««certainty  of  our  inferring  that  in  a 
mere  case  of  exigency  all  that  was  ne- 
cessary  would  be  done.) 


.  "  Construction  "  of  the  Service  for  Adult 
Baptism. 

By  an  examination  of  the  distinctive  fea- 
tures of  the  Ser\'ice. 

(Equally  against  Mr.  Gorham.) 


3.  (This  Service  is  unexamined  by  this  Court.) 


'  Construction  "  of  the  Catechism, 
By  an  examination  of  it  in  all  its  parts.   (All 
against  Mr.  Gorham's  view.) 


[The  Court  finds  no  trace  of  Mr  Gorham's  prin- 
ciples; nor  of  his  doctrine  of  "  Prevenient 
Grace  "  in  the  Services,  thus  far  :  nor  in 
contemporaneous  authorities.] 


4.  "  Latitude  "  of  the  Catechism. 

Probably  from  an  examination  of  one  of  its 
passages,  and  from  the  saying  in  it,  that 
"the  HoLV  Ghost  sanctifies  all  the  elect," 
which  the  Court  thinks  cannot  be  universalli/ 
affirmed. 

(The  Court  does  not  examine  Mr.  Gorham's 
doctrine  of  "  Prevenient  Grace.") 


5.  "  Construction  "  of  the  Sei-vice  for  Confirma- 
tion. 

By  a  careful  examination  of  its  parts.     (Ut- 
terly opposed  to  Mr.  Gorham.) 


5.  The  Court  does  not  undertake  to  apply  the 
principle  of  Latitude  throughout, 

and  will  not  examine  this  Service  of  Confirma- 
tion. 


VI.  "  What  Regeneration  is,"  is  aflSrmed  by 

this  Court. 
The  Regenerate  are  saved,  unless  they  fall. 
The  other  ai-guments  adduced  for  Mr.  Gorham 

considered : — 

1.  That  the  Burial  Service  is  framed  "cha- 

ritably." 

2.  That  the  Articles  are  not  to  be  judged  by 

the  Formulaiies. 

3.  That  the  Reformers  \^ere  Calvinists. 

4.  That  the  Doctrine  of  Predestination  is 

affirmed  by  the   Church,   (but,   as  the 
Court  conceives,  7iot  as  matter  of  faith.) 
AU  these  and  similar  pleas  ai-e  set  aside  by  the 
Court  after  examination. 

VII.  CONCLUSION  :— The  Doctrine  of  Bap- 

tismal Regeneration  is  the  Doctrine  of 
the  Church  ;  Mr.  Gorham  denies  it ;  and 
is  condemned  by  this  Ecclesiastical 
Court. 


VI.  This  Court  refuses  to  affirm  any  Doctrine. 

Baptized  Infants  dying  are  saved,  (perhaps  not 

by  Baptism.) 
The  Court  lays  down  fully  the  principle  of  Lati- 

TUDK. 

Quotes  specimens  of  supposed  Latitude  respect- 
ing Baptism. 


VII.  CONCLUSION :— That  Mr.  Gorham,  not 
having  been  proved  to  this  Court  to  hold 
Doctrines  repugnant  to  the  Church's 
Doctrine,  is  to  be  tolerated  in  the 
Church. 


JUDGMENT  or  THE  CHURCH   COURT,' 

^AECHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY'S.) 


I.  Origin      Tiie  case  wliicli  tliG  Court  lias  now  to  decide  was  most  elaborately 

of  Gorham    argued  in  the  early  part  of  this  year.     The  nature  of  the  question,  the 

V.  the  Bishop  Yj^gt  i,Q^j  of  learning  imported  into  the  discussion,  and  the  important 

of  Exeter.     ^^^^^^^  ^^  ^^^^^  ^^^  dccisiou  may  possibly  lead,  have  created  in  the 

mind  of  the  public  a    more  than  ordinary  interest,  and,  as  may  be 

imagined,  in  the  mind  of  the  Court  a  corresponding  anxiety  and  sense 

of  responsibility.  ... 

G-reatly  as  it  is  to  be  lamented,  when  any  difference  of  opinion  in 
religion  arises  between  those  professing  themselves  members  of  the 
same  Church,— stUl  more  is  it  to  be  lamented  when  the  parties  litigant 
stand  in  the  relation,  as  in  the  present  instance,  of  a  beneficed  Clergy- 
man and  his  Diocesan. 


1  The  Title  which  I  have  given  to  these  two  Judgments  may  need  vindication  to 
some  persons.  I  shall  briefly  express  the  ground  on  which  I  regard  them  as  speaking, 
the  former  in  the  name  and  spirit  of  the  Church,  the  latter  in  the  name  and  spirit,  and , 
by  the  sole  authority,  of  the  State;  and  I  shall  do  so  in  Mr.  Keble  s  words.  "  Our 
consciences  are  quite  clear  of  any  obligation  ...  (by  oaths,  or  otherwise,  as  yet)  to 
receive  the  doctrinal  decisions  of  the  Privy  Council."  .  .  .  "If  we  accept  or  connive 
at  the  claim  of  the  Privy  Council  to  settle  controversies  of  Faith,  what  do  we  but  ren- 
der ourselves  actual  and  wilful  partakers  in  that  sin?"  .  .  .  "  Those  who  believe  the 
Church's  Divine  Commission  will  hardly,  if  ever,  think  it  right  to  recognize  the  Privy 
Council  Court,  as  fit  to  overrule  the  Courts  of  the  Church."  And,  "  {/  i^e  Court 
vere  as  lerjitimate  [which  the  Church  Court  is,  in  its  own  sphere  of  action]  as  it  ij. irre- 
gular, a  Judicial  decision  would  not  overthrow  what  is  beyond  all  question  syiwdtcally 
decreed." — Trial  of  Doctrine,  \^^.  2?,,  2b,  21 . 

Further  :  the  Privy  Council  declared  its  own  incompetency  to  decide  questions  ot 
doctrine,  saying  it  has  "  no  jurisdiction  "  in  matters  of  faith,  and  is  "  not  competent,  ' 
p.  71,  and  expressly  allowed  the  right  of  the  Church,  through  her  individual  Bishops  to 
accept  or  reject,  concur  in,  or  not  concur  in,  the  Judgment.     "  The  Bishop  of  London 

does  not  concur."  r  xl    r    i.  tv,  ^  ti. 

Nor  indeed,  did  any  single  organ  of  public  opinion  seem  unaware  of  the  fact  that  the 
polia/  of  the  State,  and  not  the  mind  of  the  Church,  gave  itself  utterance  in  the  Privy 
Council  Judgment.  The  day  after  the  decision  the  daily  papers  spoke  in  the  fol- 
lowing terms : —  .  „    ,      r.  •       n.         ■^  ■    ^\. 

"  The  judgment  pronounced  by  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  in  the 
case  of  Gorham  v.  the  Bishop  of  E.xeter,  will  probably  prove  perfectly  satisfactory  to 
no  one  who  has  taken  a  real  interest  in  the  question  at  issue,  except,  perhaps,  Mr. 
Gorham  himself.  Observing  at  once  how  much  it  decides,  and  how  little— what  it 
grapples  with,  and  what  it  shuns— we  may,  perhaps,  entertain  a  rational  suspicion  that 
the  judges  who  framed  it  were  sensibly  alive  to  the  conseqitcncps  whicli  might  flow  trom 
a  sentence  directly  adverse  to  either  party,  and  naturally  solicitous  to  avert  them.  For 
ouch  a  result  the  public  was  not  unprepared.  Considering  all  things,  it  was  certainly 
not  unreasonable  to  augur  the  i.ossibility  of  some  deflection  from  that  serene  impar- 


JUDGMENT   OF   THE   STATE   COUR'l', 

(THE  PRIVY  COUNCIL.) 


This  is  an  appeal  by  the  Eev.  George  Cornelius  Gorliam  against  tlie     i.  oruun 
sentence  of  the  Dean  of  the  Arches  Court  of  Canterbury,  in  a  proceed-  of  Gorham^^ 
ing  termed  a  Duplex  Querela,  in  which  the  Eight  Bev.  the  Lord  Bishop  u.theBistiop 
of  Exeter,   at  the  instance  of  Mr.    Gorham,  was  called  upon  to   show  ° 
cause  why  he  had  refused  to  institute  Mr.  Gorham  to  the  vicarage  of 
Brampford  Speke. 

The  Judge  pronounced  that  the  Bisliop  had  shown  sufficient  cause 
for  his  refusal,  and  thereupon  dismissed  him  from  all  further  observance 
of  justice  in  the  premises ;  and,  moreover,  condemned  Mr.  Gorham  in 
costs. 

From  this  sentence  Mr.  Gorham  appealed  to  her  Majesty  in  Council. 
The  case  was  referred  by  her  Majesty  to  this  Committee.     It  has  been 

tiality  and  that  stern  disregard  for  consequences  which  ordinarily  characterize  the  judg- 
ments of  an  English  Court  of  Law." — Morning  Chronicle. 

"The  Judicial  Committee  cf  the  Privy  Council  has  reversed  the  decision  of  the 
Court  of  Arches,  and  pronounced  in  favour  of  Mr.  Gorham  against  the  15ishop  of 
Exeter.  It  has  based  this  judgment  on  the  ground  that  the  Article  is  not  suflicieutly 
defined  to  justify  the  Bishop  in  his  late  proceedings.  The  right  honourable  tribunal 
would  probably  have  best  consulted  its  own  popularity  by  declining  to  assign  any  reason 
for  its  sentence.  But  we  heartily  congratulate  that  learned  body  on  having  arrived  at 
the  conclusion  which  gives  the  slightest  triumph  to  either  litigant,  and  on  having,  in 
doing  so,  obeyed  the  wise  traditions  favoured  by  the  Fathers  of  tlie  English  Church.'" — 
Globe  (State  organ.) 

"  The  judgment  of  the  Judicial  Committee  is  simply  an  evasion  of  every  point  in  the 
case.  We  must  confess  that  we  are  ourselves  surprised  that  a  judge  of  Lord  Lang- 
dale's  ability,  speaking  in  a  question  which  is  to  go  to  posterity,  and  fortified  by  the 
opinions  and  suggestions  of  his  colleagues  in  tlie  committee,  should,  after  so  long  a 
deliberation,  have  come  forward  with  so  exceedingly  feeble  an  effort  to  sustain  his  views. 
The  Calvinistic  party,  of  course,  will  be  still  more  surprised,  and  disappointed  to  boot." 
— Morning  Post. 

"  We  are  satisfied  that  no  other  decision  could  be  arrived  at  consistently  with  the 
strict  rules  of  legal  construction,  and  with  those  high  considerations  of  public  policy 
which  are  indissolubly  united  to  the  peace  and  stability  of  the  Church.  It  is  not 
necessary,  in  order  to  justify  and  maintain  this  view  of  the  case,  that  we  should  enter, 
any  more  than  the  Lords  of  the  Council  have  entered,  into  a  theological  discussion, 
which  is  beyond  our  province  and  above  our  powers;  and  we  do  not  intend  to  imply 
any  participation  in  the  peculiar  opinions  of  Mr.  Gorham,  or  any  doubt  that  the  doc- 
trine of  regeneration  by  and  in  baptism  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England.  We 
apprehend  that  nothing  has  been  said  or  decided  in  the  course  of  these  proceedings 
which  can  impugn  the  faith  of  the  Church  in  tliis  doctrine  ;  and  that  however  Mr. 
Gorhani's  opinions  may  be  grafted  on  the  peculiar  interpretation  of  an  article,  those  of 
the  Bishop  of  Exeter  rest  upon  the  broad  ground  of  orthodoxy." — The  Times. 


6      Judgment  of  the  Church  Co\nt  {Archbishop  of  Canterbun/s.) 

The  circumstauces  out  of  which  the  present  proceedings  originated 
arc  these  : — Mr  Gorliam,  an  ordained  Minister  of  the  Cliurch  of  Eng- 
land and  Ireland,  a  Bachelor  in  Divinity,  was  presented  to  the  Vicarage 
of  St.  Just,  in  the  county  of  Cornwall,  and  diocese  of  Exeter,  in  the 
month  of  January  in  the  year  1846,  by  the  then  Lord  Chancellor.  On  I 
that  occasion  Mr.  Gorham,  on  presenting  himself  for  institution  to  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  produced  such  testimonials,  as  to  his  learning,  ability, 
moral  conduct  and  sound  religious  principles,  that  the  Bishop  did  not 
History  of  think  it  necessary  to  subject  him  to  an  examination  with  a  Adew  of 

i''i) '^stated   fi-scertaining  for  himself  the  correctness  of   those  testimonials.      Mr. 
Gorham  accordingly  Avas  instituted  and   inducted,   and  entered  upon, 
the  duties  of  that  benefice,  which  he  still  continues  to  possess.     Cir-I 
cumstances    however  occurred,  which    made   it    desirable   for   him   tol 
exchange  that  living  for  another :  and  he  was  presented  by  the  Lord! 
Chancellor  to  the  vicarage  of  Brampford  Speke,  in  the  county  of  Devon, 
and  the  same  diocese  of  Exeter,  in  the  month  of  November,  in  the  year 
1847.     On  the  6th  of  that  month,  Mr.  Gorham  wrote  to  the  Bishop  of 
Exeter,  requesting  his  Lordship  to  appoint  an  eai4y  day  for  his  admis- 
sion to  that  benefice,  and  suggesting  that,  as  he  was  not  removing  into 
another  diocese,  neither  a  testimonial,  nor  the  exhibition  of  his  letters 
of  orders,  was  requisite,  but  at  the  same  time  stating  he  should  cheer- 
fully comply  with  his  Lordship's  wishes  as  far  as  practicable  in  those 

Gorhalivs"^'   matters.     An  interchange  of  letters  thereupon  took  place,  between  Mr. 

examination  Gorham  aud  Mr.  Barnes  the  Bishop's  Secretary,  to  which  it  is  not 
necessary  at  present  to  refer  further,  than  to  state  that  the  Bishop 
declined  to  institute  Mr.  Gorham  to  the  liA^ng  of  Brampford  Speke  mitil 
he  had  had  an  opportunity  of  satisfying  himself  as  to  Mr.  Gorham's 
qualifications  and  fitness  for  that  chai'ge. 

This  determination  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  appears  to  have 
originated  from  certain  expressions  made  use  of  by  Mr.  Gorham,  in  the 
course  of  correspondence  with  his  Lordship,  ^  from  which  he,  whether 
rightly  or  wronglj',  conceived  that  some  doubts  existed  as  to  the  sound- , 
uess  of  Mr.  Gorham's  religious  principles,  and  more  particularly  with 
respect  to  Baptism,  whicli,  in  his  Lordship's  letter,  was  stated  to  be  the 
foundation  of  all  Christian  doctrine.  Whether  the  suspicions  of  the 
Bishop  had  any  sufficient  foundation  or  not,  is  immaterial  to  the  present 
question.  It  is  sufficient  to  state,  that  the  examination  of  Mr.  Gorham 
did  take  place,  and  the  result  of  that  examination  forms  the  subject  of 
the  present  inquiry. 

It  may  be  proper  here  to  state,  that  the  Lord  Chancellor,  in  exer- 
cising his  offi.cial  patronage  in  the  Church,  very  properly  requires^  that 
the  intended  presentees  to  benefices  should  produce  a  testimonial  fi-om 
three  beneficed  clergj^men  of  the  neighbourhood  in  which  they  reside, 

■-^  It  appears  from  what  the  Ecclesiastical  Judge  says,  and  from  Mr.  Gorham's  own 
account  of  the  matter,  that  the  Bishop  had  been  led  to  suspect  Mr.  Gorham's  doctrines, 
owing  to  "  certain  expressions  made  use  of  by  Mr.  Gorham  in  a  correspondence  with 
the  Bishop."  Mr.  Gorham  in  the  prefoce  to  his  book,  informs  us  that  he  became  Vicar 
of  St.  Just  in  1846,  and  was  presented  to  Brampford  Speke  in  1847.  The  correspon- 
dence he  had  in  the  interval  was  respecting  the  appointment  of  a  Curate  to  St.  Just, 
and  Mr.  Gorham's  most  open  indications  of  unsoundness  were  made  in  his  letter, 
Jan.  28,  1847.  (Gorham,  p.  18—30.)  The  presentation  to  the  new  living  in  that  year 
after  the  recent  corresi)ondenee,  not  only  enabled,  but  obliyed  his  lordship  to  test  Mr. 
Gorham's  soundness  ;  as  he  had  said  he  should  test  his  Curate's,  and  could  not  have 
one  measure  for  an  Incumbent  and  another  for  a  Curate. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  7 

fully  heard  before  us ;  and,  by  the  dii'ection  of  her  Majesty,  the  hearing 
was  attended  by  my  lords  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  York, 
and  the  Bishop  of  London,  who  are  members  of  her  Majesty's  Privy 
Council.  We  have  the  satisfaction  of  being  authorised  to  state  that 
the  most  reverend  prelates  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury  and  of  York, 
after  having  perused  copies  of  tliis  judgment,  have  expressed  their 
approbation  thereof.     The  Bishop  of  London  does  not  concur. 

The  facts,  so  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  state  them,  are  as  follows : — 

Mr.   Gorham,  being  vicar  of  St.   Just-in-Penwith,  in  the  diocese  of    History 
Exeter,  on  the  2d  November,  1847,  was  presented  by  her  Majesty  to  briefll*^'*^''' 
the  vicai-age  of  Brampford  Speke,  in  the  same  diocese,  and   soon  after-  stated. 
wards  applied  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter  for  admission  and  institu- 
tion to  the  vicarage. 

The  Bishop,  on  the  13th  November,  caused  Mr.  Gorham  to  be 
informed  that  his  lordship  felt  it  his  duty  to  ascertain,  by  examination, 
whether  Mr.  Gorham  was  sound  in  doctrine,  before  he  should  be 
instituted  to  the  vicarage  of  Brampford  Speke. 

The  examination  commenced  on  the  17th  December,  and  was  con-    That  the 
tinued  at  very  great  length  for  five  days  in  the  same  month  of  Decem-  Bishop  exa- 

./    o  ^  ,  1         *  -.  .  .         mined  Mr. 

bex',  and  (after  some  suspension)  for  three  more  days  m  the  following  Gorham. ' 
month  of  March. 


'  The  Ecclesiastical  Judge,  here  and  in  the  next  paragraph,  endeavours  to  justify  the 
Lord  Chancellor,  but  not  with  much  success ;  for  if  the  patron  of  the  living  (the 
Chancellor)  might  rightly  proceed  with  his  presentation  without  the  Bishop's  signature, 
it  was  useless  to  apply  for  it,  as  he  did  ;  and  as  the  Court  above  says  "  very  properly  " 
did.  Or,  does  the  Judge  here  mean,  that  it  was  very  "  proper,"  but  not  legally 
necessary,  to  apply  to  the  Bishop  ?  This  looks  as  if  the  having  the  Bishop's  sanction 
was  agreeable  if  possible,  but  the  asking  for  it  were  only  a  compliment,  as,  in  the  event 
of  his  refusal,  the  patron  would  proceed  without  it. 


8      Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Arclibishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

and  that  siicli  testimonial  should  be  countersigned  by  the  Bishop  of  the 
diocese.  Mr.  Gorham  having  obtained  the  testimonial  from  three 
beneficed  clergymen,  as  required,  forwarded  it  to  the  Bishop,  but  his 
Lordship  not  only  declined  to  affix  his  signature,  but  apprized  the  Lord 
Chancellor  of  his  doubts  as  to  the  soundness  of  Mr.  Grorham's  religious  \ 
views  on  certain  points  of  docti'ine,  and  upon  the  margin  of  that  docu-  ^ 
ment  wrote  certain  observations  expressive  of  his  impressions  on  that 
point.  The  testimonial  of  the  three  beneficed  clergymen  runs  thus  : — 
"  We,  whose  names  are  hereunto  written,  testify  and  make  known  that ; 
George  Cornelius  Gorham,  Clerk,  Bachelor  in  Divinity,  late  Fellow  of 
Queen's  College,  Cambridge,  now  A'icar  of  St.  Just,  in  Pen^^yth,  in  the 
coimty  of  Cornwall,  and  diocese  of  Exeter,  about  to  be  presented  by 
your  Lordship  to  the  vicarage  of  Brampford  Speke,  in  the  county  of 
Devon,  and  said  diocese  of  Exeter,  hath  been  personally  known  to  us 
from  June,  1846,  to  the  date  of  these  presents;  that  we  have  had  op- 
portunities of  observing  his  conduct ;  that  during  the  whole  of  that 
time  we  verily  believe  that  he  lived  piously,  soberly  and  honestly — nor 
have  we  at  any  time  heard  anything  to  the  contrary  thereof;  nor  hath 
he  at  any  time,  so  far  as  we  know  or  believe,  lield,  written,  or  taught 
anything  contrary  to  the  doctrine  or  discipline  of  tlie  United  Church  of 
England  and  Ireland ;  and,  moreover,  we  believe  him  in  our  consciences 
to  be,  as  to  his  moral  conduct,  a  person  worthy  to  be  presented  to  the 
said  benefice.  In  witness  whereof,  we  have  hereunto  set  our  hands 
this  12th  day  of  August  in  the  year  of  our  Loud  1847."  This  is  signed 
by  the  three  clergymen  whose  names  appear  at  the  bottom  of  the 
instrument. 

The  memorandum  of  the  Bishop,  to  whicli  I  have  alluded  as  written 
in  the  mai'gin,  is  in  these  words  : — "  The  clergymen,  who  have  sub- 
scribed this  testimonial,  are  highly  respectable ;  but  as  I  consider  the 
Bishop's  countersignature  of  such  a  document,  if  it  be  unaccompanied 
by  any  remark,  as  implying  his  own  belief  that  the  party,  to  Avhom  it 
relates,  has  not  '  held,  written,  or  taught  anything  contrary  to  the  doc- 
trine or  discipline  of  the  United  Church  of  England  and  Ireland ;'  and 
as  my  owti  experience  vmfortunately  attests  that  the  Eev.  George 
Cornelius  Gorham  did,  in  the  course  of  the  last  year,  in  correspondence 
with  myself,  hold,  write,  and  maintain  what  is  contrary  to  the  discipline 
of  the  said  Church  ;  and  as  what  he  further  wrote  makes  me  apprehend 
that  he  holds  also  what  is  contrary  to  its  doctrine,  I  cannot  conscien- 
tiously countersign  this  testimonial."  It  appears  that  this  testimonial, 
with  the  comment  of  the  Bishop  thereon,  was  sent  to  Mr.  Gorham ; 
tliat  some  correspondence  upon  the  su.bject  took  place  between  them ; 
that  the  Bishop  declmed  to  take  any  other  course  than  that  which  he 
had  already  adopted ;  and  that  Mr.  Gorham,  after  some  time,  com- 
municated the  circumstance  to  the  Lord  Chancellor,  by  a  letter  dated 
the  11th  of  September,  1847,  and  also  in  an  additional  letter  dated  the 
21st  of  the  same  month. 

Now  tlie  Lord  Chancellor,  having  considered  the  statements  in  the 
two  letters,  together  with  the  testimonial  and  the  comment  by  the  Bis- 
hop, on  the  11th  of  October,  in  the  same  year  informed  Mr.  Gorham 
that  he  proposed  to  sign  the  fiat  for  his  presentation  notwithstanding, 
declining  on  liis  part  to  enter  into  the  question  wliich  had  arisen 
between  the  JJisliop  and  Mr.  Gorham ;  and,  on  the  same  day,  tlie  Lord 
Chancellor  wrote  to  the  Bishop,  informing  him  that  he  liad  tliought  it 
right  to  sign  tlie  fiat  for  presentation,  adding,  that  having  been  furnished 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.) 


10   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.^ 

with  the  most  satisfactory  testimonials  from  various  quarters  in  favour 
of  Mr.  Gorham,  he  the  Lord  Chancellor,  did  not  think  it  became  him 
to  take  upon  himself  the  office  of  deciding  conflicting  opinions. 

As  to  the  propriety  of  the  decision  of  the  Lord  Chancellor  not  to 
take  such    an  office    on  himself,  there  cannot  be    two  opinions :    he 
deemed  it  right  to  satisfy  himself  by  tlie  best  means  in  his  power  of  the 
due  qualifications  of  the  person  intended  to  be  presented  to  the  bene- 
fice;  and,  although  the  testimonial  was  not  sanctioned  by  the  Bishop, 
he  wisely  and  rightly — if  I  may  so  speak — considered  "  that,  whatever 
Bilho  's       power  the  law  may  give  to  the  Bishop,  upon  the  ground  of  life  or  doc- 
riKht  to  exa-  trine,   over  the   presentee,   must   follow,   and  not   precede    the    pre- 
sumed^iT'    sentatiou ;"   and  accordingly,  as  I  have   already  intimated,  a  presen- 
this  Court,    tation  was   made  out   and  tendered  to   the  Bishop,  who  declined  to 
proceed  to  institute  Mr.  Gorham  till  he  had  been   subjected  to   an 
examination. 
And  the         Whether  the    Bishop   exceeded   the    discretion   with   which   he  is 
act^'as^'^°''^  entrusted,  or  exercised  that  discretion  Avisely,  by  adding  to  his  declara- 
Patron  are    tion  of  tlio  respectability  of  the  clergymen  M'ho  signed  the  testimonial, 
discussed,     ^j^^  representation  of  his  impressions  with  respect  to  Mr.   Gorham's 
quahfications  for  the  benefice, — whether  the  testimonial  ought  to  have 
been  considered  by  his  Lordship  simply  as  a  record  of  the  respectabiUty 
of  those  clergymen  whose  signatures  were  attached, — or  whether  some- 
thing more  was  due  from  him  to  the  Lord  Chancellor,  who  had  required 
the  testimonial  to  be  countersigned, — are  matters  into  which  the  Court 
will  not  enter.     All  that  it  will  venture  to  say  is,  it  may  possibly  admit 
of  some  doubt  whether  the  Bishop  was  not  justified  in  considering  his 
counter-signature,  to  a  testimonial  of  this  kind,  as  attesting  more  than 
the  mere  respectability  of  the  clergymen  whose  signatures  it  bore."^    But 
be  that  as  it  may,  the  Bishop  determined  to  proceed  to  an  examination 
of  Mr.  Gorham,  and  the  examination  having  been  commenced  upon  the 
17th  of  December  in  the  year  1847,  pi'oeeeded  upon  the  IStli,  20th, 
21st,  and  22nd  of  the  same  month,  and  after  an  interruption  of  some 
duration  was  renewed,  I  think,  on  the  Stli  of  March,  in  the  year  1848, 
and  continued  on  the  following  day,  and  finally  terminated  on  the  10th 
of  that  month.     On  the  11th,  Mr.  Goi'ham  was  informed  that  the  Bis- 
hop declined  to  institute  him  to  the  living  of  Brampford  Speke,  and  on 
The  result  the  21st  of  the  samo  month  a  formal  notice  to  that  eflect  was  given  to 
niuiation ;"    Mr.  Gorliam,  assigning,  as  the  reason  for  refusal,  unsound  doctrine, 
BishoD^s       without  entering  into  the  particulars  of  that  unsoundness.     There  the 
reasons.       matter  rested  till  the  month  of  June  following,  when  a  monition  was 
extracted  from  the  registry  of  this  Court  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Gorliam,  in 
which  it  was  stated  in  substance  that  he  had  been  presented  to  the 
living  of  Brampford  Speke  ;  that  he  had  offered  himself  to  the  Lord 
Bishop  of  Exeter  for  institution ;  that  he  was  prepared  to  sign  the 
three  articles  required  by  the  36th  Canon,  and  to  make  the  declaration 
I'equired  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  to  take  all  oaths  as  by  law 
i-cquired ;    and  that  although    he  was,  and  still  is,  capable  and  duly 


*  The  common  sense  of  tins  matter  seems  to  be  this  : — If  the  Bishop  knows  nothing 
against  the  nominee,  he  trusts  to  the  testimony  of  three  known  beneficed  Clergymen ; 
and  his  counter-signature  honestly  means  that  he  trusts  them.  But  if  he  knows  any- 
thing serious  against  the  nominee,  then  his  countersignature  of  what  he  knows,  or 
gravely  suspects,  to  be  untrue,  would  surely  be  a  deceitful  and  fraudulent  evasion  of  his 
own  responsibility.  It  would  be  setting  aside  the  plainest  rules  of  moral  "  right  and 
wrong  "  by  a  subterfuge  and  a  technicality. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  11 


The  questions  proposed  by  the  Bishop  related  principally  to  the  sac- 
rament of  Baptism  and  were  very  numerous,  much  varied  in  form, 
embracing  many  points  of  difficulty,  and  often  referring  to  the  answers 
given  to  previous  questions. 

Mr.  Gorham  did  not  at  first  object  to  the  nature  of  this  examination ; 
but,  during  its  progress,  he  at  various  times  remonstrated  against  the     (Tiieques- 
manner  in  which  it  was  conducted,   and  the  length   to  which  it  ex-  B°Jhop's'^ 
tended.     We  are,  however,  relieved  from  the  necessity  of  considering  right  to  exa- 
whether  he  could  or  could  not  lawfully  have  declined  to  submit  to  such  ™ade'd  by 
a  course  of  examination  ;  because  he  did  in  fact  answer  nearly  all  the  this  coiut.) 
questions,  and  no  complaint  is  made  of  his  not  having  answered  them 
all.5 

The  examination  being  concluded,  the  Bishop  refused  to  institute  Mr. 
Gorham,  for  the  reason  (as  stated  in  the  notification)  that "  he  had 
upon  the  examination  found  Mr.  Gorham  unfit  to  fill  the  vicarage,  by 
reason  of  his  holding  doctrines  contrary  to  the  true  Christian  faith,  and 
the  doctrines  contained  in  the  articles  and  formularies  of  the  United 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland,  and  especially  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  rites  and 
ceremonies  of  the  Chui'ch,  according  to  the  use  of  the  United  Church 
of  England  and  Ireland"— (Gorham,  p.  219). 

Mr.  Gorham,  being  refused  institution,  commenced  proceedings  in 
the  Arches  Court  of  Canterbury ;  and  at  his  promotion,  a  monition  The  result 
with  intimation  issued  on  the  15th  June,  1848,  and  thereby  the  Bishop  n[iJfa.tion*' 
was  monished  to  admit  Mr.  Gorham  to  the  vicarage,  and  to  institute 
and  invest  him  therein ;  or  otherwise  to  appear  and  show  cause  why 
Mr.  Gorham  should  not  be  admitted  and  instituted  by  the  ofiicial  prin- 
cipal of  the  Arches  Court  of  Canterbury. 


^  The  right — and  more,  the  duii/ — of  every  Bishop  to  examine  the  soundness  as  well 
as  morality  of  a  Clergyman  ought  not  to  have  been  evaded  by  tiie  "  State  Court."  The 
ultra  jealousy  of  this  Court  as  to  the  spiritual  prerogatives  of  the  Church  is  here  betrayed. 
If  the  Bishop's  right  admitted  of  question,  it  ought  not  to  have  been  passed  over ;  if  it 
were  unquestionable,  the  evasion  is  ungracious  and  unmeaning.  The  decision  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Court  on  this  point  may  be  seen  in  the  Appendix,  p.  89,  tkc. 


12    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

qualified,  as  well  by  his  private  character,  age,  and  learning,  as  also  by 
the  purity,  probity,  and  integrity  of  his  life,  to  be  instituted  into, 
invested  in,  and  admitted  into,  the  said  church  with  all  its  rights,  mem- 
bers, and  pertinents, — nevertheless  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  who  was 
well  acquainted  with  aU  and  each  of  the  premises,  and  wlio  ought  there- 
fore, in  virtue  of  the  premises,  to  have  admitted  the  aforesaid  Reverend  ^ 
George  Cornelius  Grorham,  Clerk,  into  the  vicarage  and  parish  church  \ 
aforesaid,  declined  and  refused  to  do  right  and  justice  in  that  behalf — 
or,  in  the  formal  words  of  the  monition,  "  unjustly  and  unrighteously — 
saving  always  all  due  reverence  and  honour — has  delayed,  and  does 
delay,  to  institute  him  to  that  benefice." 

The  tenor  of  the  monition  was  to  call  upon  the  Bishop  to  institute 
Mr.    Gorham   within   the   time   therein   specified,   to   the   vicarage  of! 
Brampford  Speke,  or  to  show  cause  why  Mr.  Gorham  sliould  not  be  I 
instituted    into  it,  and    intimating  that  if   the   Lord  Bishop  did  not  I 
appear,  or  if  appearing,  he  did  not  set  forth  lawful  cause  to  the  con-  \ 
trary,  the  Court  would  proceed  to  admit  and  institute  Mr.  Gorham  to  | 
the  vicarage  and  parish  church  aforesaid,  in  the  absence  of  the  Bishop  ' 
in  pain  of  his  contumacy.     This  monition  having  been  served  upon  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  he  appeared  thereto  by  his  Proctor,  who  prayed  to  be 
heard  on  his  petition — the  object  of  which  was  to  state  the  grounds 
upon  which  his   Lordship  sought  to  justify  his  refusal  to  institute  Mr. 
Gorham.     Tliat  act  on  petition  Mr.  Gorham  answered  by  his  Pi'octor, 
and  a  reply  was  given  on  behalf  of  the  Bishop. 
.,   ,.  Before  entering:  into  the  merits  of  the  case,  I  must  make  some  obser-  . 

II.  Mode  ■  •  •  .  ■ 

of  legal  pro-  vatious  on  the  manner  in  which  the  question  has  been  brought  before  I 
adot'ted        ^'^®  Court.     Upon  a  former  occasion,  I  took  the  opportunity  of  stating  ' 
"Acton       that  the  proceeding  by  act  on  petition  was  neither  convenient  nor  con- 
petition."     gistent  with  practice,  and  I  have  not  been  satisfied  by  anything  which 
has   since  occurred,  that  the  opinion  I  then  threw  out  was  erroneous : 
on  the  contrary,  I  am  more  strongly  convinced  that  the  formal  pro-  i 
ceeding,  by  plea  and  proof,  was  not  only  the   most  proper  mode,  but  I 
that  it  was  the  best   calculated  to   bring  the  real  question  immediately  I 
before  the   Court.     In  this  petition,  the  pleading  is,  as  is  usually  tlie  ' 
case,  vague  and  loose ;  the  answer  to  it  is  also  of  the  same  character ; 
but  had  the  proceeding  by  plea  and  proof  been  adopted,  the  Court 
would  then  have  had  the  entire  case  brought  clearly  and  distijictly  to 
its  notice — the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  upon  which  it  was 
meant  to  rely  on  behalf  of  the  Bishop,  would   have  been  specifically  and 
precisely  stated,  as  well  as  those  points  of  doctrine  which  it  is  said  Mr. 
Goi'ham  has  impugned.     As  the  pleadings  stand  it  was   not  without 
foundation  stated,  in  tlie  course  of  the  argument,  that  it  was  extremely 
difficult  to  collect  and  discover  what  are  Mr.  Gorham's  real  opinions  on 
the  subject  of  Baptismal  Regeneration — tlie  question  with  which  alone, 
as  it  will  presently  appear,  the  Court  has  to  deal. 

Moreover  the  evidence  wliich  has  been  produced,  if  evidence  it  may 
be  called,  is  most  unsatisfactory.  It  consists  merely  of  one  short 
affidavit  by  Mr.  Gorliam,  no  affidavit  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  at  all, 
but  a  book  is  annexed  to  his  act  on  petition,  containing  upwards  of  250 
pages  of  introduction,  correspondence,  and  li9  questions  addressed  to 
Mr.  Gorham,  with  his  answers  to  those  questions:  upon  tliis  so  calleil 
evidence  tlie  whole  case  turns  ;  and  the  Court  is  left  to  find  its  way,  as 
\\o\\  as  it  can,  and  to  ascertain  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  what  are  the   points  on  which   Mr.  Gorham   is  stated  to 


I 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Prwy  Council.)  13 


After  litigation  had  tlius  commenced,  and  Mr.  Gorham  had  called     jj  ^^^^^^^ 
upon  the  Bishop  to  state  why  institution  was  refused,  it  became  evident  of  legal  pro- 
that  the  reasons  must  be  considered  upon  legal  principles,  aiid  it  was  to  adopted, 
be  expected  that  both  parties  Avould  require  a  strict  and  formal  pro-  "A'=!^°"„ 
ceeding,  in  which    the  particular  unsound  doctrine   imputed   to    Mr.  ^^ ' '°''" 
Gorham  would  have  been  distinctly  alleged. 


14    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Arc/ibishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

have  expressed  and  entertained  opinions  contrary  to  that  doctrine.  "^  I 
say  this  is  not  a  convenient  mode  of  proceeding,  nor  is  it  the  correct 
mode  according  to  the  pi*actice  of  the  Court. 

I  am  well  aware  of  the  difficidty  in  which,  from  tlie  want  of  prece- 
dents in  a  case  of  this  description,  the  parties  may  have  been  placed ; 
but  still  recourse  might  have  been  had  to  those  books  of  practice  to 
which  we  are  in  the  habit  of  almost  daily  resorting ; — I  mean  Clarke  ' 
and  Oughton.  There  it  would  liave  been  found  that  the  proceedings 
should  have  been  by  plea  and  proof  on  the  one  side,  as  weU  as  on  the 
other.  The  form  of  proceeding  is  distinctly  set  forth  by  Oughton, 
under  the  head  "  De  causis  heneficialibus,^'  Vol.  I.  p.  237,  &c. ;  it 
would,  however,  be  a  waste  of  time  to  refer  more  particularly  to  those 
works,  as  the  evil  to  which  I  have  adverted  cannot  and  could  not  be 
remedied  by  the  Court ;  for  it  had  no  opportunity  of  ascertaining  the 
form  of  the  proceeding,  tiU  the  case  was  ready  for  hearing. 

In  the  course  of  the  argument  it  was  made  a  question,  who  was  to  be  i 
considered    the  party  proceeding  in  the  case — upon  whom  the    onus  \ 
frohandi  lay.      Now,  though  I  think  that  question  not  very  material,    I 
still,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Gorham  has,  in  his  affidavit,  to  lead  the  monition, 
alleged  that  his  presentation  was  oifered  to  the  Bishop,  that  the  Bishop 
delayed  to  institute  him,  though  he  was  qualified  by  age,  by  ordination, 
by  presentation,  by  an  offer  to  do  all  that  he  was  required  by  law  to  do 
^  before  he  was  instituted  to  that  living,  I  am  bound  to  say  Mr.  Gorham 

made  out  2^, 'prima  facie  case,  which  called  for  an  answer  on  the  part  of 
the  Bishop  to  justify  his  refusal  to  institute  him. 
The  Bis  ^  ^^^  procecd  to  see  what  the  pleadings   are  on  each  side.     On 

hop's  plead-  behalf  of  the  Bishop,  it  is  represented  '  that  Mr.  Gorham  having  in  the 
ings ;  month  of  November,  1847,  been  presented  by  the  Crown  to  the  vicarage 

of  Brampford  Speke,  in  the  county  of  Devon  and  diocese  of  Exeter, 
GoTham  ^'  soon  after  applied  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter  for  institution,  that 
wiUi  false  j^ig  Lordship  proceeded  to  examine  Mr.  Gorham  in  order  first  to  ascer- 
tain his  sufficiency  and  fitness  to  hold  the  said  vicarage,  as  he  was  both 
of  right  entitled,  and  in  duty  hound  to  do,  as  well  by  the  statutes  of 
the  realm  as  by  the  constitutions  and  cauous  of  the  Churcli.'  [Though  I 
the  right  of  the  Bishop  to  examine  Mr.  Gorham  was  not  positively 
denied,  it  was  asserted  by  his  counsel  to  be  an  unprecedented  act, 
under  the  circumstances  of  Mr.  Gorham's  position  in  the  church,  that 
the  Bishop  should  have  proceeded  to  examine  him  as  to  his  sufficiency 
to  hold  the  ncarage.]  It  was  then  alleged,  on  behalf  of  the  Bishop, 
'  that  it  appeared  to  him,  in  the  course  of  the  examination,  that  Mr. 
Gorham  was  of  misound  doctrine  respecting  that  great  and  fundamental 
point,  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  inasmucli  as  he  held, 
and  persisted  in  holding,  that  spiritual  regeneration  is  not  given  or  con- 
ferred in  that  Holy  Sacrament,  in  particular,  that  infants  are  not  made 
therein  members  of  Chkist  and  the  childreii  of  God,'  [These  then  are 
the  points  on  which  Mr.  Gorham  is  alleged  to  be  of  unsound  doctrine,] 

"  No  Court  surely  is  expected  to  deduce  "  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  ' 
England  "  from  anything  written  by  the  litigant  parties  ?  Whatever  they  might  allege, 
on  the  present  form  or  any  other,  the  Court  would  have  had  the  duty  of  "ascer- 
taining,'' in  whatever  way  it  thought  right,  the  "  doctrines  "  of  the  Church,  (according 
to  the  opinion  of  the  Court.)  It  seems,  then,  to  be  exaggerating  the  alleged  difficulty, 
to  say  what  is  said  in  the  text.  And  further,  in  defence  of  the  present  mode  of  pro- 
ceeding, might  be  urged  its  apparent  fairness  to  the  accused,  as  it  takes  liis  own  book 
without  note  or  comment.  Not,  indeed,  that  the  "  Bishop's  pleadings  "  in  the  act  on 
petition  are  open  to  the  least  charge  of  indistinctness  or  looseness.     The  Bishop  keeps 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Priinj  Council.)  15 


Unfortunately,  this  course  was  not  adopted.     The  Bishop  praj'ed  to 
be  heard  on  petition ;  and,  in  his  act  on  petition,  he  stated  his  charge 
against  Mr.  Gorham,  and  alleged  that  it  appeared  to  him,  in  the  course 
of  examination,  that  ]\ir.  Grorham  was  of  unsound  doctrine  respecting 
that  great  and  fundamental  point  of  Baptism,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Gorham  hop's  piead- 
held,  and  persisted  in  holding  That  Spiritual  EEaENEHATioN  is  not  '"^^  • 
given  or  conferred  in  that  holy  Sacrament — in  particidar,  that  infants 
are  not  "  made  therein  members  of  Cheist,  and  the  children  of  Gob  "  Mr^orhan 
— contrary  to   the  plain  teaching  of  the  Church  of  England,  iu   her  w'tii  fa'^e 
Articles  and  Liturgy  ;  and  especially  contrary  to  the  divers  offices  of 
Baptism,  the  office  of  Confirmation,  and  the  Catechism,  severally  con- 
tained  in  the   Book  of   Common  Prayer,  and  Administration   of  the 
Sacraments,  and  other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  according  to 
the  use  of  the  United  Church  of  England  and  Ireland. 

And  in  part  supply  of  proof  of  the  premises,  the  Bishop  referred  to  a 
book  written  and  caused  to  be  printed  and  published  by  Mr.  Gorham, 
containing  amongst  other  things  the  several  questions  put  by  the 
Bishop  to  Mr.  Gorham  in  the  coiu'se  of  the  examination,  and  Mr. 
Gorham's  several  answers  to  the  same  questions. 


to  the  exact  words  of  the  Church,  in  brmging  the  charge  of  unsoundness,  Mr.  Gorham 
shows,  however,  that  any  other  mode  of  proceeding  against  him  would  have  baffled 
inquiry ;  for  he  would  have  assented  to  the  bare  ivords  of  any  proposition  extracted 
from  the  Prayer-Book,  reserving  his  own  sense  and  "  favourable  construction."  Had 
the  Bishop  offered  Mr.  Gorham  any  proposition  of  his  own  framing,  Mr.  Gorham  would 
have  called  it  a  "  private  standard,"  (Gorham,  p.  29,)  and  raised  an  outcry  against  the 
Bishop,  similar  to  that  which  was  raised  against  Bishop  Marsh,  on  account  of  his  ques- 
tions to  candidates  for  Orders,  and  against  the  Bishop  of  Ripon,  and  others,  in  like 
cases. 


16    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

contrary  to  tlie  plain  teaching  of  the  Cluircli  of  England  in  her  articles 
and  liturgy,  and  especially  contrary  to  the  divers  offices  of  Baptism,  the 
office  of  Confirmation,  and  the  Catechism,  severally  contained  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments,  and 
other  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church,  and  on  that  account,  the 
Lord  Bishop  refused  to  institute  Mr.  Gorham  to  this  vicarage ;  and  it 
is  further  alleged,  that  the  holding  of  that  unsound  doctrine  concerning 
that  Sacrament  by  Mr.  Grorham,  was  a  good  and  sufficient  cause  for  the 
Lord  Bishop's  refusal  to  institute  him  to  the  vicarage.  Then  the  book 
already  mentioned  by  the  Court,  which  is  stated  to  contain  the  whole  of 
the  examination  of  Mr.  Gorham  before  the  Bishop,  is  referred  to  in 
supply  of  proof. 

Such  is  the  case  set  up  on  behalf  of  the  Bishop  in  justification  of  his 
refusal  to  institute  Mr.  Gorham.  In  consequence  of  this  course  of 
pleading,  it  must  be  obvious  the  Court  has  been  forced  to  travel  through 
the  various  questions  and  answers,  and  other  particulars  contained  in 
the  volume,  in  order  to  ascertain  for  itself,  as  well  as  it  can,  what  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  is,  and  also  in  what  respects  Mr. 
Gorham  holds  opinions  contrary  thereto. 
Mr.  Gor-  The  auswcr  of  Mr.  Gorham  to  the  statement  of  the  Lord  Bishop  is 
jolnde/.^  to  this  efiect :  first  of  all,  there  is  an  admission  that  the  book  brought 
in  by  the  Bishop's  Proctor  contains  a  true  and  accurate  account  of  what 
passed,  and  then  it  is  alleged  that  Mr.  Gorham,  a  Bachelor  in  Divinity 
of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  for  nearly  eighteen  years  a  Fellow 
of  Queen's  College  in  that  University,  was  made  deacon  in  the  United 
Church  of  England  and  Ireland  on  the  10th  of  March,  1811,  and  that 
in  the  month  of  February,  1812,  he  was  ordained  a  priest  of  that 
Church.  That  Mr.  Gorham  discharged  the  duties  devolving  on  him  as 
such  minister  in  six  several  dioceses  as  a  licensed  curate  for  a  period  of 
thirty-five  years,  and  that  on  no  single  occasion  diu-ing  such  time  did  he 
ever  incur  the  reprehension  of  any  of  the  Bishops  in  whose  dioceses  he 
ofiiciated. '  It  is  further  alleged,  that  Mr.  Gorham  was  presented  to  the 
living  of  St.  Just  by  the  Lord  Chancellor  on  behalf  of  the  Crown  in  the 
year  1846,  and  that  the  Lord  Bishop  instituted  him  without  previous 
examination.  [It  does  not  follow  from  these  averments  that  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter  was  not  justified  in  adopting  the  course  he  did  in 
examining  Mr.  Gorham,  though  no  imputation  was  cast  upon  him  in 
the  former  instance,  when  the  Bishop  was  satisfied  with  the  testimonial 
produced  as  to  his  fitness  and  qualification  to  hold  the  living  of  St. 
Just.]  That  he  continues  in  possession  of  that  vicarage,  and  that  no 
attempt  has  been  made  to  deprive  him  thereof*  by  reason  of  his  holding 
any  alleged  unsound  doctrine.  That  in  June,  1847,  he  was  offered  the 
living  of  Brampford  Speke  by  the  Lord  Chancellor  on  behalf  of  the 
Crown,  and  the  testimonial  signed  by  three  beneficed  clergymen,  with 
the  Bishop's  remarks,   to  which   the  Court    has  already  adverted,  is 


'  This  is  very  boldly  said  ;  but  in  1840  Mr.  Gorham  was  Curate  of  a  Chapel  at 
Maidenhead,  in  Berkshire,  and  was  called  on  publicly  to  defend  himself  from  the  charge 
that  he  had  said  that  water  was  sufficient,  without  wine,  in  the  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.  Mr.  Gorham's  pamphlet  on  that  occasion  is  anything  but  satisfactory 
on  this  and  other  points,  illustrating  in  what  sense  he  held  that  the  sacraments  are  "  not 
absolutely,  but  only  generally  necessary  to  salvation."  What  amount  of  "repre- 
hension "  was  due  may  be  best  judged  by  a  perusal  of  Mr.  Gorham's  own  account  of 
his  dispute  with  his  congregation  on  tl)at  occasion.  He  certainly  denied  the  charge  ;  but 
the  magistrate  who  publicly  brought  it  refused   to  retract  it.     And  it  is  certain,  on  his 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  17 

Mr.  Grorham  made  no  objection  to  the  mode  of  proceeding  by  act  on 
petition,  but  put  in  his  answer  thereto  ;  and  thereby,  after  alleging  that 
the  book  published  by  him,  and  brought  into  court  by  the  Bishop,  con- 
tained a  full,  true,  and  accurate  account  of  all  the  questions  and 
answers  which  were  given  in  the  course  of  the  examination,  he  dis-  Mr.  goi 
tinctly  and  emphatically  denied  that  he  in  his  examination  did  main- jjil^^rter!^" 
tain,  or  had  at  any  time  maintained,  unsound  doctrine  respecting  the 
efficacy  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism — or  that  he  had  held,  or  persisted 
in  holding,  any  opinions  thereon  at  variance  with  the  plain  teaching  of 
the  Church  of  England,  in  her  Articles  and  Liturgy ;  and  further  ex- 
plicitly and  expi'essly  denied  that  he  either  held,  or  persisted  in  hold- 
ing, that  infants  are  not  made  in  Baptism  members  of  Christ  and  the 
children  of  God  ;  and  he  alleged  that  he  did  not  maintain  any  views 
whatever  contrary  to  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  as 
dogmatically  determined  in  her  Articles,  familiax4y  taught  in  her 
Catechism,  and  devotionally  expressed  in  her  Services — it  haxdng  been 
his  desire  and  endeavour  throughout  the  examination  to  explain  the 
language  both  of  her  Articles  and  Liturgy  (in  compliance  with  the 
express  directions  of  the  Church  herself)  by  such  just  and  favourable 
construction  as  would  secure  an  entire  agreement,  not  only  of  each 
with  the  other,  but  of  all  alike,  with  the  plain  tenor  of  Holy  Scripture, 
declared  by  the  said  Articles  to  be  of  paramount  aiid  absolute  authority, 


The  Bishop  replied  to  Mr.  Gorham's  answer  generally.  The  book 
published  by  Mr.  Gorham  was  the  only  CAddeuce  adduced  on  either 
side  ;  and  with  such  allegations  as  are  contained  in  the  Bishop's  act  on 
petition,  and  Mr.  Gorham's  answer,  the  case  was  brought  on  to  be 
heard,  with  no  statement  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop  of  what  was,  in  his 
lordship's  view,  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  respect 
of  the  efiicacy  of  the  Baptism,  either  of  adults  or  infants  ;  nor  any 
specification  of  the  doctrine  imputed  to  Mr.  Gorham,  except  the  general 
charge  before  stated ;  and  no  distinct  statement  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Gorham,  of  what  in  his  view  is  the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land— what  is  the  particular  doctrine  which  he  himself  maintains  on 
the  subject  in  question — or  in  what  particulars,  or  for  what  particular 

own  showing,  that  he  thought  so  little  of  the  other  sacrament,  that  he  allowed  children 
to  die  unbaptized,  rather  than  compromise  his  own  rights  with  the  Incumbent,  and  then 
wondered  that  he  met  with  the  "  reprehension  "  of  the  people  I 

8  This  seems  a  frivolous  allegation  ;  because  it  cannot  be  supposed  that  two  actions 
were  necessary  at  the  same  time  to  convict  Mr.  Gorham  of  false  doctrine.  The  decision 
of  the  one  would  rule  and  include  the  other.  And  surely  an  action  to  eject  him  from 
St.  Just  would  have  been  called  oppressive,  pending  the  other  decision.  This  therefore 
seems  an  unworthy  point. 


pro-* 
lace,\ 
T  oil 


18    Judgment  of  the  Church  Cow't  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

referred  to.  That  various  ineffectual  efforts  were  made  to  induce  the 
Bishop  to  withdivaw  his  remarks,  but  that  the  testimonial  with  the  said 
remarks  was  forwarded  to  the  Lord  Chancellor.  That  on  the  2d  of 
November,  1817,  the  presentation  to  Brampford  Speke  was  made  out, 
and  Mr.  Gorham  on  the  8th  of  tliat  month  presented  himself  at  the 
Bisliop's  Begistry,  and  prayed  to  be  instituted  to  that  benefice  ;  thai^i 
he  also  made  other  similar  applications  ;  that  in  reply  thereto  an  inti- 
mation was  for  the  first  time  conveyed^  to  him  in  a  letter  from  the 
Bishop's  secretary,  dated  13th  November,  1847,  that  it  was  the  inten- 
tion of  the  Bishop  to  examine  him  previously  to  instituting  him.  That 
the  Bishop  was  repeatedly  urged,  if  he  meant  to  proceed  to  an  examina- 
tion, to  commence  immediately,  but  that  no  day  was  fixed  till  the  15th 
of  December,  when  the  17th  of  that  month  was  appointed.  The  plea 
then  states  that  Mr.  Gorham  attended  at  the  time  appointed  for  hia 
examination ;  that  he  underwent  the  examination,  though  imder  pro^ 
test, — the  days  then  are  specified  on  which  the  examination  took  plr 
and  the  length  of  time  occupied  on  each  of  those  days,  the  number 
questions  put,  amounting  to  149,  with  their  answers.  That  the  ques- 
tions proposed,  and  the  answers  given  to  them,  were  reduced  into 
writing  by  the  chaplain  of  the  Lord  Bishop  and  Mr.  Gorham,  and  that 
the  same  are  now  in  the  possession  of  the  Lord  Bishop.  That  several 
conversations  took  place  between  his  Lordship  and  Mr.  Gorham,  which 
were  also  reduced  into  writing ;  that  the  same  also  is  in  the  possession 
of  the  Bishop  ;  that  the  book  already  referi'ed  to  contains  a  full,  true, 
and  accurate  account  and  copy  of  all  the  questions,  answers,  conversa- 
(The  tions  between  the  Bishop  and  himself,  the  protest,  testimonial  of  the 
scribes  the  tlircc  beneficed  clergymen  with  the  Bishop's  remarks,  and  also  of  eer- 
fairness  of  ^jiin  Icttcrs  wluch  passod  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  this  suit ;  and  that 
nation ;  and  sucli  Originals  as  are  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Gorham,  \d\\,  if  required, 
of Ito^'^*"^'*  be  prodiiced.  That  by  reason  of  the  premises,  and  referrmg  to  the 
contents  of  the  said  book  so  brought  in,  he  denied  that  tlie  said  Lord 
Bishop  of  Exeter  was  of  right  entitled,  either  by  the  statutes  of  tlie 
realm,  or  by  the  constitutions  and  canons  of  the  Churcli,  to  proceed  to  i 
examine  him  the  said  Eevei-end  George  Cornelius  Gorham  at  the  time 
when  such  examination  began,  for  that  by  reason  of  tlic  95th  Canon, 
the  period  in  which  he  might  have  been  examined  according  to  law  liad 
elapsed.  [The  construction  of  this  Canon  was  made  the  subject  of  a 
preliminary  discussion  before  the  Court,^*^  and  the  Court  was  of  opinion 
that  the  Lord  Bishop  was  not  deprived  of  the  exercise  of  that  discretion 
with  which  he  was  entrusted  by  law,  even  though  the  twenty-eight 
days  allowed  by  the  Canon  had  expired.] 

Mr.  Gorham's  plea  further  states,  that  he  distinctly  and  emphatically 
denies  that  he,  in  his  examination,  as  recorded  in  tlie  book  referred  to, 
did  maintain,  or  has  at  any  time  maintained,  unsound  doctrine  res- 
pecting the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  or  that  he  has  held  or 
persisted  in  holding  any  opinions  thereon  at  variance  with  the  plain  teach-, 
ing  of  the  Church  of  England  in  her  articles  and  liturgy,  as  wi'ongfullyl 

'  The  Bishop  had  intimated  his  opinion  of  Mr.  Gorham's  unfitness  on  the  1 1  th  of 
October  ;  i.  e.,  immediately  after  the  "  Testimonial  of  the  Clergymen  "  was  sent  to  him. 
But  he  could  not  determine  on  examining  him  until  lie  knew  that  tlie  patron  was  per- 
sisting in  his  presentation.  Mr.  Gorham  presented  himself  for  institution  on  the  8th  of 
November,  and  the  Bishop  intimated  liis  intention  to  examine  him  on  the  13th. 

'"  See  Appendix. 

"  In  this  passage  the  "  State  Court"  is  very  severe  on  Mr.  Gorham,  but  not  more  sol 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Privy  Council.)  19 

expressions  he  requires  the  just  and  favourcable  construction  which  he 
considers  to  be  necessary  and  sufficient  to  secure  the  entire  agreement 
between  the  Articles  and  the  Liturgy  and  his  doctrine.     As  this  form 
of  pleading  was  acquiesced  in  on  both  sides,  neither  party  has  any 
reason  to  complain  of  the  other  ;  but  those  who  are  called  ujjon  to  judge 
of  the  matters  in  difference  liave  great  reason  to  complain,  that,  instead 
of  their  attention  being  directed,  as  it  ought  to  have  been,  to  specific    (The  court 
propositions  distinctly  stated,  and  to  the  evidence  directly  applicable  to  ^ishoVnot 
those  propositions,  instead  of  having  a  specific  and  precise  statement  of  sufficiently 
that  which  the  Bishop  alleged  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng-  "losn^aticai, 
land  upon  the  matters  in  question,  and  upon  which  he  meant  to  rely, 
and  of  the  specific  doctrine  held  by  or  imputed  to  Mr.  Grorham,  and 
alleged  to  be  unsound,  the  case  is  brought  forward  and  left  in  such  a 
form,  that,  without  being  supplied  with  any  allegations  distinctly  stated, 
or  any  issue  distinctly  joined,  we  are  called  upon  minutely  and  accurately 
to  examine  a  long  series  of  questions  and  answers — of  questions  upon  a 
subject  of  a  very  abstruse  natin-e,  intricate,  perplexing,  entangling,  and  and  Mr. 
many   of  them   not   admitting    of  distinct   and   explicit    answers — of  uot'st^alffiit 
answers  not  given  plainly  and  directly  but  in  a  guarded  and  cautious  forward.) 
manner,  with  the  apparent  view  ^^  of  escaping  from  some  apprehended 
consequence  of  plain  and  direct  answers. 


than  the  facts  probably  warrant.  It  is  singular,  however,  that  the  judges  take  such  an 
acknowledged  offender,  whose  tortuous  answers  they  must  admit,  undei-  their  own  pro- 
tection. Surely  "  answers  plainly  and  directly  given  "  would  have  saved  trouble  to  all 
parties,  except  Mr.  Gorham.  The  Judges,  however,  joerceij^e  his  disingenuousness — 
perceive  that  Mr.  Gorham  will  not  "  plainly  "  own  the  Church's  doctrine,  and  yet  they 
do  not  infer  that  he  is  avoiding  that  Doctrine,  or  is  liable  to  condemnation — but  protect 
him. 

c2 


20   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  (Arc/iblshop  of  Canterbury's.) 

laid  to  liis  charge  on  tlic  part  and  behalf  of  the  said  Bishop.  He 
further  explicitly  and  expressly  denies  that  he  held  or  persisted  in  hold- 
ing that  infants  are  not  made,  in  ]3aptism,  members  of  Curist  and  the 
children  of  God,  as  untridy  charged  on  the  part  of  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Exeter ;  and  that  he  did  not  maintain  any  views  whatever  contrary  to 
the  true  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England,  as  dogmatically  determined 
in  her  articles,  familiarly  tanght  in  her  catechism,  and  devotionally 
expi'esscd  in  her  services ;  it  having  been  his  desire  and  endeavour 
througliout  that  examination  to  explain  the  language  both  of  her  articles 
and  liturgy  (in  compliance  with  tlie  express  directions  of  the  Church 
herself),  by  such  just  and  favourable  construction  as  would  secure  an 
entire  agreement,  not  only  of  each  with  the  others,  but  of  all  alike,  with 
the  plain  tenor  of  Holy  Scripture,  declared  by  the  said  ai'ticles  to  be  of 
paramount  and  absolute  authority.  That  he  presented  himself  on 
several  occasions  to  the  Bishop  for  institution,  and  was,  on  all  occasions, 
ready  and  prepared  to  subscribe  the  three  articles,  as  required  by  tlie 
36th  Canon,  in  that  behalf,  and  to  make  the  declaration  required  by  the  i 
Act  of  Uniformity  in  the  words  prescribed  by  that  act,  and  to  take  all ' 
the  necessary  oaths  as  by  law  required,  and  that  there  is  not  contained 
in  the  said  examination,  or  to  be  fairly  inferred  therefrom,  any  just  or 
legal  ground  for  the  refusal  of  the  said  Bishop  of  Exeter  to  institute 
him  to  the  vicarage  of  Bi'ampford  Speke  aforesaid. 

The  Bishop's  reply  to  Mr.  G  or  ham's  answer  is,  in  substance,  a  repe- 
tition of  what  he  had  before  stated,  namely,  that  Mr.  Gorham  did  main- 
tain and  persist  in  maintaining  unsound  doctrine, — did  hold  and  persist 
in  holding  divers  opinions  contrary  to  the  articles  and  liturgy. 

Such  is  a  general  outline  of  the  pleadings  on  the  one  side  and  the 
This  mode  other ;  and  though  many  complaints  were  made  by  the  counsel  on  each 
hiK ["mi-      side,  I  must  say  I  think  no  one  has  so  great  a  right  to  complain  as  the 
satisfactory.  Court  itself,  which  is  left,  by  reason  of  the  form  of  pleading  adopted,  to 
find  its  way  as  well  as  it  can  through  1-19  questions  and  answers,  divided 
and  subdivided,^^  and  occupying  no  less  than  156  pages,  in  order  to  ascer- 
tain precisely  in  what  respects  Mr.  Gorham  maintains,  as  charged,  doc-l 
trines  and  opinions  at  variance  with  the  Church.  " 

The  arguments  of  counsel,  which  occupied,  I  think,  no  less  than 
thirty-four  hours,  (of  which  fifteen,  though  the  Court  by  no  means  com- 
plains, were  occupied  by  the  leading  counsel  for  Mr.  Gorham,)  have^ 
doubtless  thrown  considerable  light  upon  the  subject ;  but  though  those 
argviments  were  most  able,  and  supported  by  a  vast  body  of  learning,  i 
still  that  part  of  the  arguments,  on  the  one  side  and  the  other,  which  \ 
had  relation  to  the  opinio7is  of  ecclesiastical  authors,  and  occupied  by  far 
the  greatest  portion  of  the  time,  has  tended,  in  no  slight  degree,  to 
increase  the  difficulties  with  which  it  is  the  lot  of  the  Court  to  contend, 

'-  This  (once  more)  is  exaggerating  the  alleged  "  difficulty"  of  the  case  :  for  first,  "  the! 
149  questions  and  answers"  arenot  "  divided  and  subdivided''  at  all.  They  are  the  actual: 
questions  and  answers  of  the  examination  ;  so  many,  and  no  more.  And  next,  thel 
number  of  these  questions  is  ridiculously  exaggerated  by  Mr.  Gorham,  "Yes,"  ot\ 
"  No,"  or  "  I  refer  you  for  an  answer  to  my  former  answer,''  "  No.  fcl,  7,"  &c.,  are  all 
spaced  out  and  numberL-d,  as  so  many  distinct  "  questions  and  answers,"  as  if  to  stretch 
out  a  hard  case.  The  "  State  Court  "  it  will  be  seen,  however,  no  less  than  the  "  Church 
Court,"  finds  it  "difficult"  to  deal  with  this  whole  matter.  One  respected  writer  in 
the  present  controversy  has  praised  the  Judges  of  the  "State  Court,"  for  taking  so 
much  pains  to  understand  the  question  submitted  to  them.  He  could  hardly  be  accus- 
tomed to  witness  the  proceedings  of  other  Courts  of  Justice,  or  his  feeling  might  rather 
have  been  that  of  the  public  journalists  who  were  present,  one  of  whom  thus  expressed 


Judgment  of  the  Statk  Court  {the  Privij  Council.] 


_  The  inconveuieuce  of  this  course  of  proceeding  is  so  great,  and  the     This  mnde 
difficulty  of  coming  to  a  right  conclusion  is  thereby  so  unnecessarily  in-  9^  proceed. 
creased,   that,  in  our  opinion,  the  Judge  below  would  have  been  well  'satisfactory, 
justified  in  refusing  to  pronounce  any  opinion  upon  the  case  as  appear- 
ing upon  such  pleadings  ;  and  in  requiring  the  parties  even  at  the  last 
moment,  to  bring  forward  the  case  in  a  regular  manner  by  plea  and 
proof. 


himself: — "  The  honest  truthfuhiess  of  the  nation  is  shocked  by  this  most  unheard-of 
decision,  which  is  now  beginning  to  be  analysed,  part  by  part,  with  a  sternness  which 
will  go  far  to  revolutionise  the  faith  of  Englishmen  as  to  the  purity  of  public  professions, 
the  meaning  of  public  declarations,  the  uprightness  of  public  administration  of  law.  It 
is  not  the  first  time  that  the  religious  feeling  of  the  country  has  been  revolted  by  the 
open  assertion  of  the  principle  of  political  expediency  as  superior  to  all  considerations 
of  religious  right  and  wrong." — (The  Monmiff  Post,  March  '21st.) — Without  attributing 
any  personal  motives  whatever  to  the  Judges  in  the  "  State  Court,"  (which  they  clearly  are 
beyond  the  imputation  of,)  it  seems  too  little  doubtful  that  they  were  under  the  influence 
of  three  sentiments  which  impeded  their  judicial  serenity — 1st.  A  fear  of  oflfending  the 
evangelical  party  in  the  Church  ;  '2ndly,  A  sensitive  regard  to  the  rights  of  patrons  ; 
3rdly.  A  still  more  sensitive  consideration  of  the  special  patron  in  this  special  case. 


22    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

A  great  deal  was  said  in  respect  to  the  Bishop  requiring  Mr.  Grorham 
to  undergo  an  examination ;  and  though  his  Lordship's  power  to  require 
an  examination  was  certainly  not  denied,  it  was  stated  to  be  an  unpre- 
cedented act.  I  pi'esiune  it  is  not  a  veiy  common  course  for  a  Clergy- 
man of  long  standing,  in  possession  of  a  benefice,  to  be  called  upon,  on 
being  presented  to  another  benefice  in  the  same  diocese,  to  undei'go  an 
examination,  as  it  is  to  be  supposed,  from  the  circumstance  of  the  pre- 
vious institution,  that  the  Bishop  was  satisfied  with  his  character, 
learning,  and  sound  doctrine  ;  but  circumstances  may  occur,  and  will 
occur,  to  render  that  course  necessary ;  and  experience  in  these  Courts 
tells  us  that  the  opinions  of  some  Clei'gymcn  have,  unfortunately, 
after  their  institution,  undergone  a  change  ;  that  the  subscription  in  the 
first  instance  to  the  articles  of  religion,  as  required  by  the  Canon,  and 
the  making  of  the  declaration  according  to  tlie  Act  of  Uniformity,  are 
not  altogether  to  be  depended  upon  as  proof  of  the  soundness  of  x'eli- 
gious  principles  at  the  present  day.  : 

It  was  also  urged  that  the  Lord  Bishop  prolonged  the  examination 
beyond  that  which  the  nature  of  the  case  required.  The  only  remarks 
I  will  here  make  are,  that  the  course  of  an  examination  must  alwaj'-s 
depend  on  the  nature  of  the  answers  given  ;  that  in  the  present  instance 
the  Bishop  was  the  proper  judge  of  what  was  necessary,  and  it  is  reason- 
able to  suppose  that  the  length  of  the  examination  would  have  been 
much  curtailed,  had  the  answer  to  even  the  first  question  been  of  a  dif- 
ferent character.  I  pretend  not  to  determine,  or  to  ofter  an  opinion, 
whether  there  was  or  was  not  a  greater  or  less  degree  of  courtesy  ob- 
served, or  respect  shown,  on  one  side  or  the  other.  It  is  not  witliin  my 
province  to  notice  what  the  Bishop  may  have  said  in  any  of  his  charges 
I'eferred  to  iu  argument,  or  in  any  of  his  letters  addressed  to  a  clerk, 
even  to  Mr.  Gorham  himself.  It  is  not  my  duty  to  consider  whether  it 
is  an  oftence  in  the  diocese  of  Exeter  to  allude  to  the  Church  as  a 
"  National  Establishment,'^  or  to  advertise  for  a  curate  "y>Te  from  Trac- 
tarian  error.''''  These  are  matters  extremely  well  suited  for  declamation, 
and  may  be  calculated  to  raise  in  the  minds  of  some  persons  a  prejudice 
against  the  Bishop ;  but  they  cannot,  and  ought  not,  to  have  any  weight 
in  the  mind  of  a  judge.  i 

Dismissing,  then,  all  such  topics  from  my  mind,  I  proceed  to  consider 

the  question  which  I  am  called  upon  to  decide :  that  question  is  allowed  to 

III  Mk-    ^^'  '^^'^^^  is  ^^6  efficacy  of  baptism  in  the  case  of  infants  only  ?  Although 

Ttton  to  lie    the  question  is  admitted  to  be  confined  to  this  single  point,  the  doctrines 

the'j'udg'e'in  °^  infant  and  adult  baptism  are  so  mixed  up  together  in  the  volume  con- 

this  Court,    taiuiug  Mr.   Gorham's  examination,  that  it  has  become  a  matter  of 

extreme  difficulty^^  to  the  Court  to  separate  the  one  from  the  other,  and 

to  select  those  passages  which  are  to  be  the  test  of  Mr.   Gorham's 

opinions  in  regard  to  infant  baptism,  as  distinguished  from  the  doctrines  , 

of  the  Church.  I 

I  am  particularly  anxious  iu  the  outset,  to  have  it  distinctly  under-  ' 
stood,  that  I  guard  myself  against  being  supposed  to  ofter  any  opiuion 

"  The  Judges  in  both  Courts  find  Mr.  Gorham's  views  "  difficult ;"  the  former 
"  difficult  to  separate," — the  latter  "  difficult  to  be  reconciled."  The  reason  of  the 
former  difficulty  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  Mr.  Gorham's  theory  forbids  his  sepa- 
rating the  cases  of  infants  and  adults.  It  is  not  to  be  blamed  as  obscurity,  against  Mr. 
Gorham,  that  he  fails  to  "  distinguish  "  where  his  theory  is  that  he  must  not,  and  can- 
not, distinguish.  The  "  Church  Court "  found  this  difficulty,  it  seems,  by  first  making  it. 
But  the  "  State  Court  "  boldly  charges  Mr.  Gorham  with  such  obscurity,  "  that  some  of 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  23 


The  case  comes  before  us  iu  precisely  the  same  state  ;  and,  although     m-  me- 
the  counsel  on  both  sides  have  used  their  best  endeavours  to  remove  adioptca  by 
the  vagueness  and  uncertainty  found  in  the  pleadings,  as  well  as  iu  the  [^^l^ifig^^®* 
examination,  and  have  thereby  much  assisted  us,  they  have  not  been  court, 
able  entirely  to  remove  the  difficulty. 

In  considering  the  examination,  which  is  the  only  evidence,  we  must 
have  regard  not  only  to  the  particular  question  to  which  each  answer 
is  subjoined,  but  to  the  general  scope,  object,  and  character  of  the 
whole  examination ;  and,  if  under  circumstances  so  peculiar  and  per- 

his  answers  are  difficult  to  be  reconciled  with  one  another."  Nothing,  I  am  persuaded, 
could  be  more  unfair  than  such  a  charge  against  Mr.  Gorham.  The  acuteness  and  con- 
sistency with  which  Mr.  Gorham  carries  out  his  view  through  his  whole  book,  without  a 
shadow  of  wavering,  or  want  of  clearness,  must  strike  every  one  who  will  take  the  i^ains 
to  master  his  logical  exposition  of  his  theory.  They  who  ivill  not  take  that  pains  may 
think  him  inconsistent ;  others  will  only  be  surprised  that  so  much  could  be  said  for  the 
theory,  and  so  well. 


24     Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's. 


To  ascer-  ^^  ^^^^  purely  theological  point  at  issue  between  the  parties.  I  am  not 
tain  the  going  to  prouounce  an  opinion  whether  unconditional  regeneration,  in 
doctrine!  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  is  or  is  not  a  doctrine  deducible  from 
anciMr.^  the  Sacfcd  Writings  ;  it  is  no  part  of  the  duty  of  the  Court,  nor  is  it  i 
viewf.'and  withiu  the  proviucc  of  the  Court,  to  institute  any  such  inquiry.  All , 
accordii""*^^  that  thc  Court  is  called  upon  to  do,  is  to  endeavour  to  ascertain  whether 
ly."  the  Church  has  determined  any  thing  upon  the  subject,  and,  having  so 

done,  to  pronounce  accordingly. 

The  authoritative  declaration  of  the  Church  constitutes  the  law  which 
this  Court  is  bound  to  follow  implicitly,  without  indulging  in  any 
opinion  of  its  own  as  to  its  correctness  or  erroneousness.  The  Court  is 
to  administer  the  law  as  it  finds  it  laid  down.  I  x'epeat,  therefore,  I 
desire  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  the  observations  I  am  about 
to  make  are  to  be  considered  as  applied  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church 
solely,  as  far  as  I  am  able  to  understand  that  doctrine,  without  any 
allusion  to  those  passages  of  Holy  Writ  which  are  supposed  to  refer  to 
the  effect  of  baptism  on  those  to  whom  it  is  administered. 

Having  thus  endeavoured  to  guard  myself  from  being  misunderstood 

— from  being  supposed  to  enter  into  the  purely  theological  and  scrip- 

The  Stan-  tural  alignment,  I  must  consider  whether  the  Church  has  pronounced 

(lard  of  Doc  j^j^y  declaration  on  the  question  at  issue,  and,  also,  to  what  source  I 

1.  Articles,  am   bouud   to   look.     Mr.  Gorham,  it  appears,  takes   his  stand   upon 

amiKorau-  ^^"^^  Ai'ticles : — the  Bishop  takes  his  upon  the  Articles  and  Formularies 

laries.  of  the  Chiu'ch  conjointbj.     Having  said  thus  much,  I  proceed  to  collect 

as  well  as  I  can,  from  the  volume  before  me,  what  are  Mr.  Gorham'a 

views,  and  I  think  his  answer  to  the  very  first  question  addressed  to  him 

by  the  Lord  Bishop  tends,  in  some  degree,  to  account  for  the  protracted 

examination  to  which  he  was  subjected.     The  first  question  is  in  these 

words  (see  p.  63)  :  "  Prove  from  Scripture  that  Baptism,  and  thc  Supper 

of  the  Lord,  are  severally  necessary  for  salvation :    1st,  of  Baptism ; 

2ndly,  of  the  Lord's  Supper." 

To  this  question,  by  no  means  accurately  framed  to  draw  out  a  specific 
answer,  Mr.  Gorham  proceeds  to  give  the  following  answer, — "  I  do  not 
find  in  Scripture  that  the  necessity  of  baptism  to  salvation  is  declared 
in  terms  «o  absolute  as  this  proposition."  He  then  proceeds  in  a  long 
discourse  on  the  question  of  baptism,  in  which  we  have  a  reference  to 
tlie  words  of  Scripture,  "  Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the 
Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God."  "If  the  allusion 
be  to  baptism,  (wliich,  however,  had  not  been  then  instituted,)  it  un- 
doubtedly aflirms  the  necessity  of  complying  with  that  solemn  insti- 
riic  Doc-  tution,  where  no  unavoidable  impediment  intervenes.  Having  been 
Ar-  Qpj^ijjgj  Qf  Christ,  it  cannot  be  slighted  without  the  awful  consequence 
of  disobedience  to  His  express  command."  He  then  draws  his  own 
conclusion  with  respect  to  the  first  point — baptism — that  it  is  not  indis- 
pensably necessary  ;  that  it  was  only  generally  necessary  as  a  duty  to 
be  observed ;  and  thc  same  observation,  he  says,  applies  to  the  text, 
"  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  sliall  be  saved."  Then  as  to  "the 
Supper  of  tlie  Lord,"  the  second  point.  "  The  participation  of  the 
Supper  of  the  Lord  is  stated  in  Scripture  in  the  same  maimer,  as  yene- 
rutly  necessary,  not  essentially  requisite,  to  salvation."  This  answer 
evidently  suggested  to  the  Bishop  thc  necessity  of  being  more  precise  in 
his  furtlier  questions.  Accordingly,  we  fiud  the  second  question  framed 
in  this  form  :  "  Hoes  our  Church  hold,  and  do  you  hold,  that  Baptism 
and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord  are  generally  necessary  to  salvation,  iu 


TIS.M. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  25 

plexing,  some  of  the  answers  sliould  be  found  difficult  to  be  reconciled    To"en- 
with  one   another  (as  we  think  is  the  case),  justice   requires  that  an  harm°o"i'iz'e'^*' 
endeavour  should  he   made  to  reconcile  them  in  such  a  manner  as  to  Mr.  Gor- 
obtain  the  result  which  appears  most  consistent  with  the  general  inten-  and  "obtain 
tion  of  Mr.  Gorham  in  the  exposition  of  his  doctrine  and  opinions.  ^^^  "^enerlf 

izing. 


Adopting  this  course,  the  doctrine  held  by  Mr.  Gorhatn  appears  to    Theooc 
us  to  be  this — that  baptism  is  a  sacrament  generally  necessary  to  salva-  b""/t1sm. 
tion,  but  that  the  grace  of  regeneration  does  not  so  necessarily  accom- 
pany the  act  of  Baptism  that  i-egeneration  invariably  takes  place  iii 


26    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury' s.) 

The          terms  as  absolute  as  this  proposition  ?"     The  word  "  severally  "  was  in 
Bishop  calls  the  former  question  introduced ;  here  the  word  "  generally"  is  substituted. 
Go"rha'^u  to   To  this  Mr.  Gorhaui  gives  answer, — "  Our  Chui'ch  does  hold  this  doc- 
coiitess  it.     trine,  and  I  hold  it  of  course  :"  that  is,  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord  are  generally  necessary.  | 

The  third  question  is,  "  Does  our  Church  hold,  and  do  you  hold,  that 
by  the  express  words  of  our  Lord  in  the  text,  John  iii.  5,   '  Except  a 
man  be  born  of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  king- 
dom of  God,'  we  may  perceive  tlie  great  necessity  of  the  Sacrament  of 
Baptism  where  it  may  be  had?"     The  answer  is,  "The  Church  states 
Mr.  Gor-   this  iu  her  Service  for  Adult  Baptism  ;  and  the  statement  containeth  in 
I'.i""  i^wfin  it  nothing  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God."     Eeference  is  made  to  the 
iiis  own        thirty-sixth  Canon  ;  "  Tour  Lordship  has  already  had  my  subscription  | 
\\oi(i!,.         ^^  ^^^^^  acknowledgment  on  my  institution  to  St.  Just ;  for  my  assent  to 
the  wliole  Book  of  Common  Prayer  includes  my  assent  to  this  part 
of  it." 

The  fourth  question  is,  "  In  the  Homily  of  Common  Prayer  and  the 
Sacraments,  it  is  said  that,  '  According  to  the  exact  signification  of  a 
Sacrament,  Baptism,  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord,  are  visible  signs 
expressly  commanded  in  the  New  Testament,  whereunto  is  annexed  the 
promise  of  free  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  and  of  our  holiness  and  joining 
in  Christ  :'  do  you  hold  this  to  be  godly  and  wholesome  doctrine  ?" 
Then  the  Bishop  gives  this  intimation  to  Mr.  Gorham.     "  This  question 
is  proposed  in  the  words  of  the  Homily  ;  not  thereby  to  intimate  that 
you  are  bound  to  assent  to  it  without  reserve,  because  of  the  authority  | 
of  tlie  Homilies."     To  this  Mr.  Gorham  replies:  "  My  subscription  to ' 
the  Articles,  and  among  them  to  the  thirty-fifth,  appears  to  me  to  involve 
a  sufficient  reply  to  this  question.     I  prefer,  and  1  claim  the  privilege  of 
giving  my  assent  to  the  two  Books  of  Homilies,  generally,  as  containing 
'«  godly  and  loholesome  doctrine,  and  necessary  for  tliese  times,'  "    [tliat 
is  in  the  times  in  which  they  were  published]  "  to  my  basing  any  par- 
ticular doctiiue  upon  any  detached  sentence  taken  out  of  these  books. 
In  claiming  this  privilege,  I  by  no   means  intend  to  intimate  that  I 
'  assent  with  reserve  '  to  this  passage.    On  the  contrary,  I  consider  it  as  , 
expressing  a  wholesome  truth,  when  fairly  construed ;  but  as  it  has  been  I 
often  adduced,  in  controversies  on  tlie  eflicacy  of  the  Sacraments,"   &c.  ' 
.  ..."  I  fully  assent  to  the  wholesome  truth  contained  in  this  quota- 
tion when  fairly  brought  into  connection  with  the  Articles   of  our 
Church,  on  the  nature  and  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments^     These  words, 
jirinted  in  capital  letters,  seem  to  intimate  on  the  part  of  IMr.  Gorham, 
that  he  rests  his  case  in  an  especial  manner  on  the  Articles ;  that  he  is 
disposed  to  make  them  the  principal  standard  by  which  he  wished  to  be  I 
judged.  '' 

Then  follow  the  questions  which  specially  raise  the  point  under  the 
consideration  of  the  Coui-t,  the  5tli,  6th,  and  7th  questions  are  put  by 
the  Lord  Bishop  in  this  manner : — "Does  our  Church  hold,  and  do  you 
hold,  that  every  infant  baptized  by  a  lawful  minister  witli  water  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  made 
l)y  God,  in  such  Baptism,  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and 
an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven?"  The  6th  is,  "Does  our 
Church  hold,  and  do  you  hold,  that  such  children,  by  the  laver  of  rege- 
neration in  baptism,  are  received  into  the  number  of  the  children  of 
God,  and  heirs  of  everlasting  life  ?"  The  7th  is,  "  Does  our  Churcli 
hold,  and  do  you  hold,  that  all  infants  so  baptized  are  born  again  of 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privy  Council.)  27 

Baptism  ;  that  the  gi'ace  may  be  granted  before,  iu,  or  after  Baptism ;    a  view 
that  Baptism  is  an  eiiectuai  sign  of  grace,  by  which   God  works  iu-  court  mitf 
visibly  in  us,  but  only  in  such  as  worthily  receive  it — in  them  alone  it  own  words, 
has  a  wholesome  effect ;  and  that,  without  reference  to  the  qualification 
of  the  recipient,  it  is  not  in  itself  an  eftectual  sign  of  grace.     That  in-  ^"^  ^"". 
fants  baptized,    and  dying  before  actual  sin,  are  certainly  saved ;  but  Gorham. 
that  in  no  case  is  regeneration  in  Baptism  unconditional. 


28    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

water  and  of  tlie  Holy  Gkost  ?"    These  questions  were  proposed  sepa- 
rately to  Mr.  Gorliam  ;  lie  answers  them  collectively  in  the  manner 
following : — "  As  these  three  questions  all  imply  the  same  description  of 
Mr.  Gor-    answer,  I  will  discuss  them  together.    And  generally,  I  reply,  that  these 
dcrsth""^'"    pi'opositions  being  stated  in  the  precise  words  of  the  Eitual  Services,  or  \ 
Formularies  of  the  Catcchism,  undoubtedly  must  be  held,  by  every  honest  member 
I)'ie''^1f^!'ai.  of  ^^^®  Church,  to  contain  in  them  nothing  contrary  to   the  Word  of 
lowed  a  fa-    GoD,  or  to  souud  doctriue,  or  which  a  godly  man  may  not  with  a  good 
cnnirr^uc-      conscience  use  and  submit  unto,  or  which  is  not  fairly  defensible,  .  .  . 
tiuii."  {y  ii  shall  he  allowed  such  just  and  favourable  construction  as  in  common 

equity  ought  to  be  allowed  to  all  human  writings,  especially  such  as  are  set 
forth  by  authority.'"  Here  I  may  observe,  that  Mr.  Gorham  does  not 
give  a  precise  answer  to  the  question  proposed  to  him ;  he  scarcely 
answers  for  himself,  but  adopts,  in  part  only,  certain  words  to  be  found 
in  the  preface  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  with  the  qualification, 
which  he  makes  still  more  emphatic  than  the  original  by  his  use  of 
italics, — "  if  it  shall  be  allowed  such  just  and  favourable  construction  as  in 
common  ecpiity  ought  to  be  allowed  to  all  human  writings,  especially  such  as 
are  set  forth  by  authority .'''  Then  he  goes  on  thus: — "  Now  the  '^just 
and  favourable  construction''  of  passages  like  these,  (occurring  in  ser\dces 
intended  for  popular  use,)  which,  taken  in  their  naked  verbality,  might 
appear  to  contradict  the  clearest  statements  of  Scripture,  and  of  the 
Church  herself,  must  be  sought,  chiefly, — I.,  by  bringing  them  into 
juxta-position  with  the  precise  and  dogmatical  teaching  of  the  Church  i 

in  IIER  EXPLICIT  STANDARD  OF  DOCTRINE,  THE  TlIIRTY-NlNE  ARTICLES  ;   I 

in  the  next  place,  II.,  by  comparing  the  various  parts  of  her  Formu- 
laries with  each  other ;  and,  collaterally,  III.,  by  ascertaining  the 

VIEAVS    of   those    BY  WHOM   HER   SERVICES  WERE   REFORMED,  AND    HEB 

Articles  sanctioned." 

Such  are  the  means  proposed  by  Mr.  Gorham  of  seeking  the  "just 
and  fovourable  construction  "  of  the   ritual  services  of  the  Church, — a 
course  adopted,  in  part  at  least,  by  his  learned  counsel,  who  brought  I 
forward  a  great  deal  of  learning  to  show  what  were,  in  his  view,  the  I 
opinions  of  tlie  reformers  of  the   Church,  in  accordance  with  which   | 
opinions,  as  he  contended,  the  formularies  of  the  Church  must  be  con-  f 
strued ;  and  he  laboured  with  great  learning,  endeavoui-ing,  as  I  under- 
stood, to  establish  that   the  reformers  were    Calvinists,  and   that,  in 
accordance  with  that  system,  the  Articles  and  the  formularies  of  the 
Church,  framed  by  those  persons,  must  be  interpreted.     I  have  no  in- 
tention, at  present  at  least,  of  directing  my  attention  to  this  branch  of 
the  argument,  or  of  following  Mr.  Gorham  through  his  three  heads  or    ■ 
divisions,  in  wliich  he  considers  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  not  merely  i' 
in  infants,  but  in  adults  ;  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  observe  that  I  have  no 


^*  The  "  Church  Court''  makes  a  similar  avowal  (in  p.  24) ;  but  the  "  State  Court"  hat 
ventured  into  matter  thus  confessedly  beyond  its  jurisdiction,  in  affirming  many  doc- 
trinal propositions  of  its  own  as  the  basis  of  its  present  decisions  ;  as,  for  instance 
(p.  57,)  that  some  of  the  "  elect  are  not  sanctified."  But  a  further  question  has  here 
been  raised,  viz.  Whether  any  judicial  decision  in  such  a  matter  is  not  tantamont, 
practically,  to  a  decision  on  doctrine  .'  Whether  to  decide  that  such  and  such  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church's  articles  and  formularies  is  not  to  decide  the  Doctrine  .'  On 
this  subject  I  must  refer  to  the  discourse  prefixed  to  this  volume  ;  but  may  here  ob- 
serve that  such  an  objection  if  valid  would  go  the  length  of  disparaging  all  Judicial 
Courts,  as  being  practically  an  infringement,  (in  certain  cases)  on  tlu-  Legislative 
Council  of  the  State  or  of  the  Church.    I  think  it  amounts,  when  ever  £o  fully  admitted, 


Judgment  of  the  State  Couj-t  {the  Privy  Council.)  29 


These  being,  (as  we  collect  them,)  tlie  opinions  of  Mr.  Gorliam,  the     Mr.  Gor- 
question  which  we  have  to  decide  is,  not  whether  they  are  theologically  {laHtferarl' 
sound  or  unsound  ^^ — not  whether  upon  some  of  the  doctrines  comprised  abated  by 
in  the  opinions,  other  opinions  opposite  to  them  may  or  may  not  be  adopteti. 
held  with  equal,  or  even  greater  reason,  by  other  learned  and  pious 
ministers  of  the  Church  ;  but  whether  these  opinions  now  under  our 
consideration   are  contrary    or  repugnant  to    the    doctrine   which  the 
Church  of  England,  by  its  articles,  formularies,  and  rubrics,  requires  to 
be  held  by  its  ministers,  so  that  upon  the  ground  of  those  opinions  the 
appellant  can  lawfully  be  excluded  from  the  benefice  to  which  he  has 
been  presented. 


to  no  more  than  a  concession  that  no  institutions  which  deal  with  our  present  moral 
agency  are  mathematically  exact  in  their  functions.  Some  imperfection  both  theoretical 
and  practical  seems  unavoidable.  But  no  acute  and  thoughtful  reasoner  should  con- 
found the  incidental  decision  of  a  question  by  a  Judge  with  the  formal  and  responsible 
act  of  a  legislature.  In  reply  to  Archdeacon  Manning's  speech  at  Chichester,  I  would 
simply  say — a  court  of  law  may,  and  indeed  must,  decide  on  what  is  the  law ;  but  a 
council  of  legislation  alone  can  make,  or  re-make  the  law.  The  Church  in  Synod  can 
frame  a  definition  of  the  faith — the  courts  of  law  must  of  course  ascertain  it,  when  they 
act  on  it.  A  parent  may  frame  rules  and  define  duties  for  his  household.  His  servants 
may  ascertain  them  and  act  on  them.  Who  then  can  imagine  their  functions  and  powers 
to  be  identical  ? 


IV.  Tlie 


30    Judf/ment  of  the  Chuiicii  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterburifs.) 

intention  of  carrying  my  inquiry  beyond  the  real  question,  namely,  the 
case  of  tlie  baptism  of  infants. 

With  a  view  to  ascertain  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  on  any  subject, 
ahtklk'^  no  one,  I  think,  can  doubt  that  it  was  rightly  stated  by  the  learned 
referred^to,  couuscl  for  Mr.  Gorham,  that  the  Tliirty-nine  Articles  are,  in  the  fii-st 
primarily, '  place,  to  be  cousulted ;  and  when  on  inquiry  it  is  found  that  they  leave 
nothing  short,  but  speak  on  any  point  of  doctrine  plainly,  precisely,  and 
definitely,  then  there  can  be  no  occasion  to  search  further.  This  posi- 
tion was  fortified  by  a  reference  to  several  writers,  and  amongst  the 
number  to  Rogers,  chaplain  to  Archbishop  Bancroft.  That  learned 
author,  in  his  preface,  §  35,  to  his  work  on  the  Articles,  states,  "  The 
purpose  of  our  Church  is  best  known  by  the  doctrine  Avhich  she  doth 
profess ;  the  doctrine  by  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  established  by  Act  of 
Parliament ;  the  Articles,  by  the  words  whereby  they  are  expressed,  and 
other  purpose  than  the  public  doctrine  doth  minister,  and  other  doctrine 
than  in  the  said  Articles  is  contained,  our  Church  neither  hath  nor 
holdeth ;  and  other  sense  they  cannot  yield  than  their  words  do  impart. 
The  words  be  the  same,  and  none  other,  than  erst  and  first  they  were  ; 
and,  therefore,  the  sense  the  same,  the  Articles  the  same,  the  doctrine 
the  same,  and  the  purpose  and  intention  of  our  Church  still  one  and  the 
same." 

To  the  same  efiect  are  the  passages  cited  by  the  learned  counsel  from 
other  writers  and  commentators — from  Bishop  Hall  and  xlrchbishop 
Whitgift,  The  latter,  in  his  preface  to  the  "  Defence  of  the  Answer  to 
the  Admonition,"  says,  "  It  were  but  a  needless  labour  to  make  any  par- 
ticular recital  of  those  points  of  doctrine  which  this  Church  of  England 
at  this  day  doth  liold  and  maintain,  for  they  be  at  large  set  out  in  sundry 
English  books,  and  especially  in  the  Apology  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  the  Defence  of  the  same  "  [alluding  to  Bishop  Jewell's  Apology  and 
Defence]  ;  "  summarily  also  collected  together  in  the  Book  of  Articles, 
agreed  vipon  in  the  Convocation  at  London,  ayino  1562." 

Again,  to  the  same  efliect  are  the  quotations  from  Bishops  Prideaux 
and  Stillingfleet.  The  latter,  in  his  "  Unreasonableness  of  Separation," 
(Pt.  II.,  Sect.  1.,  p.  95.  London,  1681,)  observes,  .  .  .  .  "  The  Doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England  is  contained  therein  [in  the  Thirty-nine  Arti- 
cles] ;  and  whatever  the  opinions  of  private  persons  may  be,  this  is  the 
standard  by  Avhich  the  sense  of  our  Church  is  to  be  taken."  There  are 
passages  quoted  from  other  writers  by  the  learned  counsel,  but  they  are 
all  to  the  same  eflect. 

Prima  facie,  then,  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  are  the  standard  of  doc- 
trine ;  they  were  framed  for  the  express  purpose  of  avoiding  a  diversity 
of  opinion,  and  are,  as  sucli,  to  be  considered,  and,  in  the  first  instance, 
appealed  to,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  But  if 
they  fall  short,  if  they  arc  silent  on  any  particular  point,  to  what  tlien 
are  we  to  resort  ?  Arc  we  to  resort  to  the  supposed  opinions  of  those 
by  whom  the  Articles  may  have  been  framed  and  the  Formularies  of  the 
Chiu'ch  compiled,  or  are  we  to  appeal  to  the  Eoruuilaries  themselves. 
We  have  it,  I  think,  most  clearly  and  distinctly  stated  by  one  whose 

^*  It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  the  "  State  Court  "  here  introduces  a  remark  of 
this  kind,  the  only  effect  of  which  could  possibly  be  to  raise  a  feeling  of  jealousy  against 
those  who  might  take  an  opposite  view  of  the  case.  The  Court  would  seem  to  pretend 
that  all  such  are  assuming  j)rinciples  of  action  or  rules  of  judgment  "  dangerous  to  the 
rigfits  of  her  Majesty's  subjects."  This  is  a  very  unworthy  pretence  ;  but  having  thrown 
it  out,  it  is  extremely  surprising  that  the  Court  afterwards  proceeds  in  its  judgment  (as 


\ 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  31 


This  question  must  be  decided  by  the  Articles  and  Liturgy  ;  and  we  iv.  The 
must  apply  to  the  construction  of  those  books  the  same  rules  which  articlks 
have  long  been  establislied,  and  are,  by  law,  applicable  to  the  construe-  lariesmay 
tion  of  all  written  instruments.  We  must  endeavour  to  attain  for  our-  eoilsu-u'cd 
selves  the  true  meaning  of  the  language  employed,  assisted  only  by  the  with  wide 
consideration  of  such  external  or  historical  facts  as  we  may  find  necessary  ^"''''"'^ ' 
to  enable  us  to  vuiderstand  the  subject  matter  to  which  the  instruments 
relate,  and  the  meaning  of  the  words  employed. 

In  our  endeavours  to  ascertain  the  true  meaning  and  effect  of  the 
articles,  formularies,  and  rubrics,  we  must  by  no  means  intentionally 
swerve  from  the  old  established  rules  of  construction,  or  depart  from 
the  principles  which  have  received  the  sanction  and  approbation  of  the 
most  learned  persons  in  times  past,  as  being,  on  the  whole,  the  best 
calculated  to  determine  the  true  meaning  of  the  documents  to  be 
examined.  If  these  principles  are  not  adhered  to,  all  the  rights,^''  both 
spiritual  and  temporal,  of  her  Majesty's  subjects  would  be  endangered. 


will  be  seen)  by  trying,  though  with  ill  success,  to  find  an  historical  meaning  for  the 
words  of  the  articles,  which  the  "words  themselves"  and  the  "subject  matter"  fail 
to  furnish.  (See  p.  34.)  The  "  Church  Court"  it  will  be  found  by  examining  the  very 
words  of  ALL  the  Church  documents,  really  acts  on  the  principle  to  which  the  "  State 
Court"  only  pretends. 


32    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

authority  I  presume  will  not  be  questioned,  I  mean  Bishop  Burnet,  in 
his  "  Pastoral  Care,"  at  tlie  commencement  of  C.  VI.,  that  "  The  truest 
indication  of  the  sense  of  a  Church  is  to  he  taken  from  her  language  in 
her  public  offices ;  this  is  that  which  she  speaks  the  most  frequently  and 
the  most  pubhcly.  Even  the  articles  of  doctrine  are  not  so  much  read 
or  so  often  heard  of  as  her  Liturgies  are.  And  as  this  way  of  reasoning 
has  been  of  late  made  use  of,  with  great  advantage,  against  the  Church 
of  Eome,  to  make  her  accountable  for  all  her  public  Offices  in  their  plain 
and  Kteral  meaning ;  so  I  will  make  use  of  it  on  this  occasion.  It  is  the 
stronger  in  our  case,  whose  Offices  being  in  a  tongue  understood  by  the 
people,  the  argument  from  them  does  more  evidently  conclude  her." 

Again :  Dr.  Waterland,  whose  extensive  learning  entitles  him  to  some 
weight,  states  : — "  The  Church's  public  acts  are  open  and  common,  and 
he  is  the  best  Church  of  England  man  that  best  understands  the  prin- 
ciples there  laid  down,  and  argues  closest  from  them  ;  the  rest  are  but  as- 
sertions, fancies,  or  practices  of  private  men,  and  are  not  binding  on  us." 

To  the  same  effect  is  Bishop  Conybeare,  in  his  "  Treatise  on  the  case 
of  Subscription  to  Articles  of  Keligion  considered  ;"  a  treatise  contained 
in  the  third  volume  of  the  "Enchiridion  Theologicum,"  Oxford  edition, 
1792,  speaking  of  the  mode  in  which  ambiguities  of  language  are  to  be 
solved,  at  p.  262  he  says :  "  If  words  singly  and  separately  taken  are 
loose  and  indeterminate,  yet  their  sense  may  be  fixed  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  Article  in  which  they  are  found,  and  expressions  of  themselves 
doubtful  may  become  certain  by  considering  their  coherence  with  other 
parts  of  the  proposition."  ...  At  p.  263  :  "But  if  expressions  should 
occur,  which  cannot  be  determined  by  passages  in  other  Articles,  then 
will  it  be  proper  to  inquire  whether  they  may  be  fixed  by  our  public 
liturgy,  or  by  any  other  monuments  which  have  the  sanction  of  ecclesi- 
astical authority.  The  propositions  set  forth  in  any  of  our  Articles  ouglit 
to  be  understood  in  such  a  sense  as  is  consistent  with  every  other  deter- 
mination of  the  Church  ;  because  the  Church  cannot  be  supposed  to  in- 
tend one  thing  in  some  of  her  public  acts,  and  the  direct  contrary  in 
others  :  to  which  we  may  add  that  those  who  subscribe  the  Ai'ticles  of 
religion  are  obliged  to  admit  those  other  determinations  also  ;  and  conse- 
quently must  subscribe  them  in  such  a  sense  as  will  make  them  agree 
and  be  consistent  viiih.  each  other."  .  .  .  Again,  p.  267:  "Where  the 
meaning  of  the  Articles  is  already  fixed  by  some  j^n-blic  act  of  the  Chiu-ch 
there  no  liberty  can  be  allowed  of  altering  the  sense  of  it,  and  of  adjust- 
ing it  to  our  own  interpretations  of  Scripture.  .  .  .  He  who  subscribes 
one  Article,  equally  subscribes  the  rest ;  and,  what  is  more,  equally  pro- 
fesses submission  to  every  other  determination  of  tlie  Church,"  &c. 

The  positions  contained  in  these  extracts,  independently  of  the  high 
respect  due  to  those  from  whom  they  emanated,  rest  not  only  upon  the 
principles  of  common  sense,  but  also  upon  judicial  authority.  I  fiud 
that  my  Lord  Brougham,  in  delivering  the  judgment  of  the  Superior 
Court  in  Escott  v.  Mastin,  on  the  question  of  lay  baptism,  4  Moore's 
P.  C.  C.  observed  at  p.  137,  in  reference  to  the  opinions  of  many  distin- 
guished divines  cited  by  counsel,  that  "  the  question  is  not  to  be  decided 
by  a  reference  to  tlie  opinions,  however  respectable,  of  individuals  emi- 
nent for  their  learning,  or  distinguished  by  their  station  in  the  Church." 
This  doctrine  alone,  then,  is  sufficient  for  my  guide. 

Taking  this  principle  so  laid  down  by  the  Judicial  Committee  for  my 
guide,  I  proceed  now  to  consider  whether  there  is  anytliing  doubtful 
upon  the  question  of  the  efficacy  of  infant  baptism,  so  as  to  render  it 


Judgment  of  the  StxVTK  Court  {the  Privy  Cotmcil.)  33 


As  the  subject  matter  is  doctrine,  and  its  application  to  a  particular 
question,  it  is  material  to  observe  that  there  were  difierent  doctrines  or 
opinions  prevailing  or  under  discussion  at  the  time  when  the  articles 
and  liturgy  were  framed,  and  ultimately  made  part  of  the  law ;  but  we 
are  not  to  be  in  any  way  influenced  by  the  particular  opinions  of  the  ^Hety'"of 
eminent  men  who  propounded  or  discussed  them  ;  or  by  the  authorities  opinions. 
by  which  they  may  be  supposed  to  have  been  influenced ;  or  by  any 
supposed  tendency  to  give  preponderance  to  Calvinistic  or  Arminian 
doctrines.  The  articles  and  liturgy,  as  we  now  have  them,  must  be  con- 
sidered as  the  final  result  of  the  discussion  which  took  place — not  the 
representation  of  the  opinions  of  any  particular  men — Calvinistic, 
Arminian,  or  any  other ;  but  the  conclusion  which  we  must  presume  to 
be  deduced  from  a  due  consideration   of  all  the  circumstances  of  the 


34   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Cantei'hury^s.) 

necessary  to  bave  recourse  to  any  authority  beyond  tbe  Article  treating 
on  tbe  subject ;  for  sbould  it  be  necessary  to  look  to  any  otber  source 
for  assistance,  it  is  clear  I  must  look  to  otber  declarations  of  tbe  Cburch 
as  manifested  in  ber  services  and  oflices. 
The  25tti  Tbe  25tli  Article  is  to  tbis  eftect : — "  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ 
Artieiel'^:  on  ^^  ^^t  only  badges,  or  tokens  of  Cbristian  men's  profession,  but  rather 
Baptism.  tbey  be  certain  sure  witnesses  and  eflectaal  signs  of  grace  and  God's 
good  ^Yill  toward  us,  by  tbe  wbicb  He  doth  work  invisibly  in  us,  and 
not  only  quicken,  but  also  strengthen  and  confirm  our  faith  in  Him. 
There  are  two  Sacraments  ordained  of  Christ  our  Lord  in  the  Gospel ; 
that  is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord."  [I  pass  over  tbe 
otber  five  Saci'aments  of  the  Eomish  Church,  as  they  relate  not  to  the 
present  inquiry  :  the  Article  proceeds,] — -"The  Sacraments  were  not  or- 
dained of  Christ  to  be  gazed  upon  or  to  be  carried  about,  but  that  we 
should  didy  use  them  ;  and  in  such  only  as  worthily  receive  the  same 
tbey  have  a  wholesome  efiect  or  operation  ;  but  they  that  receive  them 
unworthily  purchase  to  themselves  damnation,  as  S.  Paul  saitb." 

It  was  suggested  in  the  course  of  the  argument,  that  the  latter  part 
of  the  Article  which  I  bave  just  read  applies  only  to  the  Sacrament  of 
tlie  Lord's  Supper.  That  suggestion  seems  to  me  to  be  perfectly  im- 
material, but  I  will  take  it  that  the  passage  does  apply  to  both  Sacra- 
ments alike  ;  since  worthy  reception,  whatever  that  expression  may  mean, 
is,  if  I  mistake  not,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Cliui'ch  as  contained 
in  this  Article,  as  necessary  to  Baptism  as  it  is  to  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord.  I 

Two  points      It  is  to  be  obscrved,  however,  tliattbis  Article  leaves  it  doubtful  what! 
'^1*'' What  is  ■"'ortliy  reception  is.     "Taith  and  repentance,"  says  Mr.  Gorbam,  "are 
"worthy re.  necessary — are  pre-requisites  to  tbe  Sacrament  of  Baptism,  as  well  as 
infants?'"^  to  tliat  of  the  Lord's  Supper."     But  where  docs  Mr.  Gorbam  find 
that  ?     Certainly  not  in  tbis  Article. 

Again :  how  is  the  27th  Article  to  be  construed  ?     "  Baptism  is  not 
only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mai'k  of  difference,  whereby  Christian  men 
2  whati.  ''^'^  discerned  from  others  that  be  not  christened,  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of 
Rcgenera.     regeneration,  or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they  that  ro- 
fantsT'""      ceive  baptism  J'igbtly  are  grafted  into  the  Church  ;  tlie  promises  of  for- 
giveness of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  tbe  sons  of  God  by  tbe  Holy 
Ghost,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed  ;  faith  is  confirmed  and  grace  in- 
creased  by  virtue  of  prayer   n.nto    God."      We   have   here  described 

"•  All  which  considerations  these  Judges  admitted  were  irrelevant,  (see  p.  31 ,)  because 
the  "woids"  and  "  plain  meaning''  of  the  document  as  now  authorized  are  alone  to 
be  considered.  So  this  Court  is  immediately  departing  from  the  principle  it  had  laid 
down  as  the  only  just  one,  the  violation  of  which  would  "  endanger  all  our  rights." 
This  "  due  consideration"  of  the  circumstances  of  the  16th  century,  in  a  decision  for 
the  19th  century  is  a  total  surrender  of  the  principle  they  professed. 

■'^  The  Court  cannot  mean  to  say  "  intended."  The  Church  may  have  allowed  for 
differences,  but  could  not  have  intended  them.  Their  design  avowedly  was  "  uni- 
formiiij  "  and  "  agreement." 

"*  This  is  a  sini;i'lar  statement  on  the  part  of  the  "  State  Court."  The  mere  "  suppos- 
ing "  of  such  eslahlishment  of  doctrine,  would  not,  of  course,  affect  the  "  law,"  or  its 
decisions,  one  way  or  other.  15ut  as  to  Baptism,  it  is  notorious  that  the  Church  of 
England  at  the  Reformation  was  not  so  much  as  charged  with  changing  the  doctrine.  The 
question  was  not  adduced,  in  the  controversies  between  the  Churches.  'i'Le  celebrated 
controversialist  "  Stapylton  "  prefi,\es  to  his  translation  of  Bede,  a.d.  1565,  a  statement 
of  the  "differences"  between  us.  I  am  indebted  for  the  following  extract  to  the 
pamphlet  of  E.  Macdonnell,  Esq.,  (himself  a  charitable  member,  I  believe,  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  CImrch.) 

"Jn  the  volume  containing  the  translation  of  Bede's  History  may  be  seen,  prefixed  to 
that  translation,  a  statement  entitled  '  Differences  between  the  primitive  fiiith   of  Eng- 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  35 

case,  includiug  both  the  sources  from  which  the  declared  doctrine  was 
derived,  aud  the  erroneous  opinions  which  were  to  be  corrected. 

It  appears  from  the  resolutions  and  discussions  of  the  Church  itself, 
and  from  the  history  of  the  time,  that,  from  the  first  dawn  of  the 
Eeformation  until  the  final  settlement  of  the  Articles  and  Formularies, 
the  Chm'ch  was  harassed  by  a  great  variety  of  opinions  respecting  Bap- 
tism, as  well  as  upon  other  matters  of  doctrine.^^ 

The  Church,  having  resolved  to  frame  articles  of  faith,  [!]  as  a  means  Latuuda 
of  avoiding  diversities  of  opinion,  and  establishing  consent  touching  true  P''°''^^'^ — 
religion,  must  be  presumed  to  have  desired  to  accomplish  that  object  as 
far  as  it  could,  and  to  have  decided  such  of  the.  questions  then  under 
discussion  as  it  was  thought  proper,  prudent,  and  practicable  to  decide  ; 
but  it  could  not  have  intended  to  attempt  the  determination  of  all  the 
questions  which  had  arisen  or  miglit  arise,  or  to  include  in  the  articles 
an  authoritative  statement  of  all  Christian  doctrine ;  and  in  making 
the  necessary  selection  of  those  points  which  it  was  intended  to  decide, 
regard  was  had  to  the  points  deemed  most  important  to  be  made  known 
to,  and  to  be  accepted  by,  the  members  of  the  Church,  and  to  those 
questions  upon  wOiich  the  members  of  the  Church  could  agree;  and 
that  other  points  and  other  questions  were  left  for  future  decision  by 
competent  authority,  and  in  the  meantime  to  the  private  judgment  of 
pious  and  conscientious  persons. 

Under  such  circumstances,  it  would  perhaps  have  been  impossible,     i.From 
even  if  it  had  been  thought  desirable,  to  employ  language  which  would  and  wstory 
not  admit  of  some  latitude  of  interpretation:  if  the  latitude  were  con-  of  the  case, 
fined  Avithin  such  limits  as  might  be  allowed  without  danger  to  any 
doctrine  necessary  to  salvation,  the  possible  or  probable  difference  of 
interpretation  may  have  been  designedly  intended^^  even  by  the  framers 
of  the  Articles  themselves  ;  and  in  all  cases  in  which  the  articles  con- 
sidered as  a  test  admit  of  diflerent  interpretations,  it  must  be  held  that 
any  sense  of  which  the  words  fairly  admit  may  be  allowed,  if  that  sense 
be  not  contradictory  to   something  which  the   Church  has  elsewhere 
allowed  or  required ;  and  in  such  a  case  it  seems  perfectly  right  to  con- 
clude that  those  who  impose  the  test  command  no  more  than  the  form 
of  the  words  employed  in  their  literal  and  grammatical  sense  conveys  or 
implies  ;  and  that  those  who  agree  to  them  are  entitled  to  such  latitude 
or  diversity  of  interpretation  as  the  form  admits. 

If  it  were  supposed^*^  that  all  points  of  doctrine  were  decided  by  the 

land  continued  almost  these  thousand  years,  and  the  late  pretended  faith  of  Protestants  ; 
gathered  out  of  the  History  of  the  Church  of  England,  compiled  by  Venerable  Bede, 
an  Englishman,  above  800  years  past.'  Under  the  head  of  '  Differences  in  Doctrine,'  the 
Rev.  author  enumerates  eighteen  differences,  on  various  points,  but  does  not  include  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  or  infant  baptism,  or  any  doctrine  concerning  baptism,  in  his  list. 

"  Again,  in  the  same  volume,  and  immediately  following  his  translation  of  the  History, 
he  inserts  a  long  article  entitled,  '  A  Fortress  of  the  Faith  first  planted  among  us 
Englishmen,  and  continued  hitherto  in  the  universal  Church  of  Christ,  these  m. 
years  and  upwards,  the  failh  of  which  time  Protestants  call  Papistry.'  In  the  second 
part  of  this  article  he  enters  again,  and  at  much  greater  length,  upon  the  exposition  of 
differences  in  faith  and  discipline  between  the  two  Churches,  and  enumerates  no  less 
than  twenty-one  such  differences  ;  but  still,  does  not  include  baptismal  regeneration,  or 
infant  baptism,  or  any  doctrine  concerning  baptism  as  matter  of  difference  between 
them,  as  he  certainly  would  have  done  if  such  difference  had  then  existed. 

"  I  do  not  recollect  having  heard  in  the  course  of  the  late  arguments  any  statement 
or  suggestion  that  would  induce  me  to  suppose  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England  upon  the  subject  has  been  altered  since  that  time." 

Bossuet  confesses  the  same:  "  Hie  observatu  dignum  est  Lutheranos,"  (from  whose 
confession  the  English  article  is  taken,)  ^ ^ pariter  cnm  ecclesia  Catholica  credere  Oir.» 
nimodam  in  parvulis  Baptismi  uecessitatem.'' — Expositio,  p.  113. 

p2 


36   Judgment  uf  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterburies.) 

what  baptism  is.  and  what  are  its  effects.  But  how  does  the  Article 
proceed?  "The  baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be 
retained  in  the  Church,  as  most  agreeable  with  tlie  institution  of 
Cheist." 

Now  the  first  question  which  suggests  itself  to  one's  mind  is, — if  faith 
is  to  be  confirmed,  and  grace  increased  by  virtue  of  prayer  unto  God, —  \ 
how  is  it  that  young  children  are  to  be  baptized  ?  They  can  have  nei- 
ther faith  nor  repentance.  They  cannot  have  faith,  because  they  know 
not  the  promises  ;  they  cannot  have  repentance  because  they  have  not 
committed  actual  sin.  They  may  have  faith  and  repentance  in  after 
life,  but  in  infancy  they  can  have  neither  the  one  nor  the  other ;  the 
one  they  cannot  have  for  want  of  understanding  ;  the  other  they  cannot 
have,  and  are  not  required  to  have,  since  they  have  not  been  guilty  of 
actual  sin. 

Comparing  then  the  25th  and  27th  Articles  together,  it  is  clear,  I 
think,  that  we  find  no  solution  of  the  point,  what  constitutes  "  worthy 
reception.^''  We  must  appeal  then  to  some  other  source,  to  some  other 
authority,  but  what  is  that  to  be  ?  Is  it  to  be  the  opinions  of  private 
individuals  ?  I  apprehend  what  I  have  already  stated  is  quite  sufficient 
to  dispose  of  any  such  suggestion.  I  apprehend  that  the  authoritative 
declarations  of  the  Church  are  the  soui^e  to  which  we  must  look  for  an 
explanation  of  what  is  meant  by  "  worthy  reception,"  what  is  meant  by 
"regeneration,"  and  what  is  also  meant  by  the  direction  given,  that 
"  tlie  baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be  retained  in  the  , 
Church,  as  moat  agreeable  with  the  institution  of  Christ."  "We  must  | 
find  from  these  sources  the  means  by  which  children  are  to  be  brought ' 
within  the  description  of  those  who  are  to  be  regenerated, — to  be  "  as 
by  an  instrument"  ....  "grafted  into  the  Church,"  and  become 
persons  to  whom  "the  promises  of  forgiveness  of  sin"  and  of  their 
"  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Ghost  are  visibly  signed 
and  sealed." 

Before,  however,  entering  into  a  consideration  of  this  part  of  the  case, 

Mr.  Gor-    ^^  ^^^^7  ^^  ^^  ^'^^^  ^°  ^*-^^  what  more  Mr.  Gorham  has  to  suggest.     Now, 

ham  sug-      it  will  be  seen,  on  reference  to  his  answers  to   other  questions  to  which 

*^''''  ^  ■  I  am  about  to  refer,  that  he  tells  las  that  children  "  being  born  in  sin  " 

.  .      cannot  as  such  be  worthy  recipients  ;  that  "worthy  reception  "  is  neces- 

siii  hinders    sary  in  order  to  produce  beneficial  eftccts  from  the  administration  of  the 

cepuon'"  In"  ^^^^  "^^  baptism  ;  that  children  being  born  in  sin  cannot  receive  the 

iniaiits  ge-    Sacramcut  of  Baptism  with  beneficial  effect.    Thus  much  I  think  appears 

iiciaiiy.        ^^,Qj^^  what  follows.      The  15th  question  is  :    "  Not   taking   here   into 

accoimt  wliat  it  may  have  pleased  God  to  give  to  any  infants  before 

baptism,  does  our  Church  hold,  and  do  you  hold,  that  the  entering  of 

infants  into  these  stipulations  by  tlieir  representatives  is  necessary  to 

their  receiving  the  spiritual  grace  of  baptism  ?"    The  Bishop  pressed  Mr. 

Gorham  upon  this  point,  as  in  former  answers,  he,  in  substance,  stated 

that  the  stipulations  for  repentance  and  faith  are  required  to  be  entered 

into  on  behalf  of  infimts  about  to  be  baptized.     The  answer  to  the  15th 

question  is  :  "  Our  Church  holds,  and  I  hold,  that  no  spiritual  grace  is 

conveyed  in  baptism,  except  to  worthy  recipients,  and  as  infants  are  by 

nature  ?««worthy  recipients,  '  being  born  in  sin  and  the  children   of 

wrath,'  they  cannot  receive  any  benefit  from  baptism,  except  there  shall 

have  been  a  prevcnient  act  of  grace  to  make  them  worthy."     Such  is 

the  hypothesis  of  Mr.  Gorham,  that  in  order  to  bring  infimts  within  the 

description  of"  worthy  recipients"  tlicre  must  be  "a  prevcnient  act  of 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privij  Council.)  37 

Ohurcli  of  England,  the  law  could  not  consider  any  point  as  left  doubt- 
ful.    The  application  of  the  law,  or  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  to  any  theological  question  which  arose,  must  be  the  subject 
of  decision;  and  the  decision  would  be  governed  by  .the  construction  of 
the  terms  in  which  the  doctrine  of  the   Church  is  expressed,  viz.,  the 
construction  which,  on  the  whole,  would  seem  most  likely  to  be  right.         2  From 
But  if  the  case  be,  as  undoubtedly  it  is,  that  in  the  Church  of  Eng-  some  doc- 
land  many  points  of  theological  doctrine  have  not  been  decided,  then  [eJ't^u^D^g*^ 
the  first  and  great  question  which  arises  in  such  cases  as  the  present  is,  cided  by  the 
whether  the  disputed  point  is  or  was  meant  to  be   settled  at  all,  or  ^''*'°^^*- 
whether  it  is  left  open  for  each  member  of  the  Church  to  decide  for 
himself,  according  to  his  own  conscientious  opinion  ?     If  there  be  any 
doctrine  on  which  the  Articles  are   silent  or  ambiguously  expressed,  so 
as  to  be  capable  of  two  meanings,  we  must  suppose  that  it  was  intended 
to  leave  that  doctrine  to  private  judgment,  unless  the  Rubrics  and  for- 
mularies clearly  and  distinctly  decide  it.     If  they  do,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  doctrine  so  decided  is  the  doctrine  of  the   Church.     But,  on 
the  other  hand,  if  the  expressions  used  in  the  Rubrics  and  formularies 
are  ambiguous,  it  is  not  to  be  concluded  that  the  Church  meant  to  es- 
tablish indirectly  as  a  doctrine  that  which  it  did  not  establish  directly 
as  such  by  the  articles  of  faith — the  code  avowedly  made  for  the  avoid- 
ing of  diversities  of  opinions,  and  for  the  establishing  of  consent  touch- 
ing true  religion. 


(The  Court 


We  must  proceed,  therefore,  with  the  freedom  which  the  administra- 
tion of  the  law  requires,  to  examine  the  Articles  and  the  Prayer  Book,  wisVe's'to'' 
for  the  purpose  of  discovering  what  it  is,  if  anything,  which,  by  the  law  ^'j.g'^aw  with 
of  England,  or  the  doctrine  of  the  Chui'ch  of  England  as  by  law  estab-  freedom  "— 
lished,  is   declared  as  to  the  matter  now  in  question ;  and  to  ascer-  gxartness^O 
tain  whether  the  doctrine  held  by  Mr.  Gorham,  as  we  understand  it  to 
be  disclosed  in  liis  examination,  is  directly  contrary  or  repugnant  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Church. 


38    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

grace."  He  proceeds  with  liis  answer :  "Baptism  is  the  sign  or  seal, 
either  of  the  grace  ah'eady  given,  or  of  the  repentance  and  faith  which 
are  stipidated,  and  must  be  hereafter  exei'cised."  According  to  this, 
Mr  Gorham  does  not  admit  that  it  is  by  baptism  or  through  baptism 
that  grace  is  conferred  ;  but  he  maintains  there  must  be  "  a  prevenient 
act  of  grace  "  conferred  either  before,  at,  or  after  baptism,  in  order  to 
render  infants  worthy  recipients,  and,  without  that,  baptism  has  no 
beneficial  eftect. 

The  18th  question  is  thus  pointedly  put : — "  Has  the  Church  not 

2.  That     declared  her  mind,  that  infants  baptized  by  a  lawful  Minister,  in  the 

^npulafe  for  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holt   Gthost,  do 

future  faith  rcceivc  the  spiritual  grace  of  baptism,  even  if  they  have  not  entered  into 

hisome"*"  the  stipulations  by  their  representatives?"       The  answer  is: — "The 

cases.  Chiirch  has   declared  that,  to  infants  privately  baptized,  the  grace  and 

mercy  of  Christ  is  not  denied.     In  this  case  of  emergency,  I  consider 

that  stipulations,  though  not  formally  made  by  sponsors,  are  made  hy 

implication  through  those  who  earnestly  desire  their  baptism,  and  by 

the  person  who  administers  it ;  which  implied  stipulations  the  Church 

requires  to  he  formally  adopted  as  soon  as  the  circumstances  will  suffer 

it.     This  case  of  '  present  exigence '  cannot,  therefore,  be  fairly  urged  as 

an  exception  to  the  requirements  of  the  Church."     Mr.  Grorham  thus 

proceeds  to  state  the  grounds  on  which  he  founds  his  answer : — "  In 

the  Catechism,  the  Chui'ch  puts  the  question,  '  Why,  then,  are  infants 

baptized,  when  by  reason  of  their  tender  age  they  cannot  perform  them  ?' 

(the  'promises  '   made  by  their  sureties) — without  limitation  to  infants 

baptized  imder  any  particular  circumstances.     It  is  a  question  stating  a 

difficulty  in  its  broadest  and  most  general  character. 

"  Now  the  answer,  which  the  Church  gives,  brings  us  of  necessity  to 
one  of  three  conclusions  : — Either,  1st,  the  Church  intended  unworthily 
to  evade  the  principalis  difficulty  ;  namely,  the  case  of  infants  baptized  in 
emergency,  without  the  formal  stipulations,  the  exaction  of  which  is 

'^  Mr.  Gorham  here  mnkes  a  "  difficulty  "  in  order  to  solve  it  by  his  own  principles  : 
The  case  is  this.  The  Church  (in  that  part  of  the  Catechism  which  was  written  nearly  a 
hundred  years  after  our  doctrine  was  settled  at  the  Reformation)  puts  the  question, 
"  Why  are  infants  baptized,  when  they  are  unable  to  perform  "  the  required  conditions, 
viz.  repentance  and  faith?  I'he  Church  answers,  that  (as  to  all  who  "come  of  age," 
and  have  sins  to  repent  of,)  they  are  "bound  to"  repent,  by  the  promises  of  their 
sureties  in  tlieir  behalf,  and  (when  they  have  faculties  for  it)  they  are  bound  also  to  an 
active  faith. — Let  any  one  reflect  whether  the  answer  in  the  Catechism  can  possibly 
mean  other  than  this.  It  does  not  profess  to  be  an  account  of  all  the  reasons  for  bap- 
tizing infants,  but  only  to  be  an  answer  to  one  objection  raised  in  consequence  of  what 
was  said  about  faith  and  repentance  being  "required."  Mr.  Gorham,  however,  here 
wishes  to  make  infant  baptism  dependent,  for  all  benefit,  on  the  "  stipulations  "  of  the 
spionsors,  which  "  stipulations,"  he  says,  are  implied,  though  not  expressed,  in  private 
baptism  without  sponsors.  So,  according  to  this,  a  dying  infant  (who  has  no  sponsors) 
receives  the  benefit  of  baptism,  through  an  "  implied  "  stipulation,  that  he  irill  repent 
of  sins  he  never  will  commit  (because  he  dies),  and  an  implied  stipulation  that  he  will 
perform  an  act  of  faith  wlien  he  r,cver  will,  and,  as  far  as  appears,  never  can  !  Can 
absurdity  go  farther?  The  exigencies  of  Mr.  Gorham's  theory  actually  require  that 
dying  infants  shall  be  supposed  to  promise  what  they  do  not  promise,  viz.  a  repen- 
tance for  sins  uncommitted,  and  acts  of  faith  which  imply  developed  faculties  !  All 
this  comes  of  his  resistance  to  the  common  sense  interpretation  of  tlie  question  and 
answer  in  the  Catechism,  viz.  tliat  repentance  and  faith  have  an  ex  post  facto  bajjtismal 
validity,  and  tliat  all  who  have  aught  to  "  repent"  of  are  baptismally  ''  bound  to  "  it, 
as  well  as  to  an  active  faith,  beyond  the  "  Habitus  fidei,"  of  the  regeneration,  as  the 
Schoolmen  speak.  Mr.  Gorham  see*  a  service  prepare!  for  infants  supposed  to  be  in 
danger  of  dying,  and  to  be  onli/  used  for  such  ;  and  he  supposes  its  benefit  to  result 
from  imagined  stipulations  of  imaginary  ^ponsors  for  imaginary  repentance  of  imaginary 
,«;ins  !     So  much  then  for  Mr.  Gorham's  theory  of  Regeneration  of  dying  infants  by  Stipu- 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privy  Council.)  39 

Considering,  first,  the  effect  of  the  Articles  alone,  it  is  material  to 
observe  that  very  different  opinions  as  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism 
\\  ere  held  by  different  promoters  of  the  Eeforraation,  and  that  gi-eat 
.iterations  were  made  in  the  Articles  themselves-^  upon  that  subject. 

The  articles  about  religion  drawn  up  in  1536  state  that  it  is  offered 
unto  all  men,  as  well  infants  as  such  as  have  the  use  of  reason,  that  by  theVa^t'th 
Baptism  they  shall  have  remission  of  sin,  and  the  grace  and  favour  of  Henry  vm. 
,GoD; — that  the  promise  of  grace  and  everlasting  life  (which  promise  ^'^^g^^'^J^ 
is  adjoined  to  the   Sacrament  of  Baptism)  pertaineth  not  only  to  such  statements, 
\  as  have  the  gift  of  reason,  but  also  to  infants,  innocents,  and  children ;  much  more 
and  that  they  ought,  therefore,  and  must  needs  be  baptized ;  and  that  [j^'V^^^'f 
by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  they  do  also  obtain  remission  of  their  of  the 
sin,  the  grace  and  favour  of  God,  and  be  made  thereby  the  very  sons  cimrch. 
and  children   of  God.      Insomiich  as  infants   and  children  dying  in 
tlieir  infancy  shall  undoubtedly  be  saved  thereby,  and  else  not.     That 
infants  must  needs  be  christened,  because  they  be  born  in  original  sin, 
which  sin  must  needs  be  remitted,  which  cannot  be  done  but  by  the 
Sacrament  of  Baptism,  whereby  they  receive  the  Holt  Ghost,  which 
executes  His  grace  and  efficacy  in  them,  and  cleanseth  and  purifieth 
them  from  sin  by  His  secret  virtue  and  operation ;  and  that  men  or 
children,  having  the  use   of  reason,  and  willing  and  desirous  to  be  Bap- 
tized, shall,  by  the  virtue  of  that  Holy  Sacrament,  obtain  the  grace  and 
remission  of  all  their  sins,  if  they  shall  come  thereto  pei'fectly  and  truly 
repentant,  and  contrite  of  all  tlieir  sins  before  committed,  and  also  per- 
I'ectly  and  constantly  confessing  and  believing  all  the  articles  of  our 
laith ;  and  finally,  if  they  shall  also  have  firm  credence  and  trust  in  the 
promise  of  God  adjoined  to  the  said  Sacrament — that  is  to  say,  that  in 
and  by  this  said  Sacrament  which  they  shall  receive,  God  the  Father 
giveth  unto  them,  for  His  Son  Jesus  Cheist's  sake,  remission  of  all 
their  sins,  and  the  grace  of  the  Holt  Ghost,  whereby  they  be  newly 
regenerated,  and  made  the  very  children  of  God,"  &c. 

lation,  for  repentance  never  to  be  "  performed."  It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that  Mr. 
Gorham  may  still  cling  to  his  theory  in  behalf  of  such  infants  as  happen  after  all  to  sur- 
vive. I  can  only  say,  that  if  he  is  determined  to  do  so,  I  shall  not  be  suiprised  ;  but 
other  persons  will  perceive  that  the  Church  has  not  a  separate  theory  for  the  regeneration 
of  infants  in  such  cases. 

^  "  Great  alterations  were  made  in  the  Articles  themselves  upon  that  subject;"  such 
is  the  assertion  of  the  "  State  Court;"  and,  in  proof  of  it,  reference  is  made  to  certain 
"articles"  of  1536,  which  have  no  more  literary  connexion  as  documents  with  our 
present  articles,  than  had  Magna  Charta,  or  the"  articles  "  of  the  Council  of  Clarendon  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  II,  To  build  any  thing  on  the  fact  that  two  documents  are  differently 
worded  which  were  not  compared,  or  collated,  neither  of  them  pretending  to  be  derived 
from  the  other,  is  surely  an  artifice  worthy  of  an  able  rhetorician  (like  Mr.  Turner,  the 
Council  of  Mr.  Gorham,  in  whose  speech  this  was  a  powerful  "  point,'')  felt  to  be 
"not  easily  answered,"  even  by  Mr.  Dodsworth,  but  is  wholly  unaccountable  in 
grave  and  learned  judges.  Our  baptismal  article  (25)  is  derived  from  the  Confession 
of  Augsburg  and  the  "  Necessary  Erudition."  But  even  had  the  articles  of  our  Church 
been,  historically,  a  modification  of  the,  so  called,  "articles  of  1636,"  the  Judges  are 
bound  by  their  own  canon  laid  down  (p.  31 ,)  viz.  to  interpret  the  present  documents  of 
the  Church  according  to  the  "  plain  meaning  "  of  the  words,  and  not  by  historical  dis- 
quisition on  their  origin,  &c.  ;  in  which  disquisition  they  omit  to  notice  the  onli/  history 
interpretative  of  our  present  Prayer  Book  or  Articles  ;  viz.,  the  history  of  the  ultimate 
settlement  of  them  in  1662.     The  State  judges  pass  it  over  ! 

The  Judge  in  the  "  Church  Court,"  of  course,  never  thought  of  noticing  those 
"  articles  of  1536,"  as  they  are  not  articles  of  the  Church  of  England.  They 
occupy  (without  the  preface  and  signatures)  7^  pages  in  Burnet,  and  not  a  single  line 
bears  trace  of  similarity  to  our  present  articles.  It  happens  to  have  in  common  with 
other  documents,  the  expression  above  quoted,  which  is  not  in  our  articles. 


40   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

declared  in  the  answer  to  solve  the  difficulty  proposed.     Or,  2ndly,  she 
intended  to  impose  a  charitable  silence  on  her  members,  with  regard  to 
so  nice  and  cui'ious  a  point,  shutting  up  all  fui'ther  search  in  the  pro- 
mises of  God,  as  generally  set  forth  in  Holy  Scripture.     Or,  3rdly,  she 
intended  to  embrace  that  case  in  her  general  answer,  and  to  consider 
that  tlic  stipulations  were  implied,  under  these  urgent  circumstances,  \ 
(to  be  hereafter  absolutely  entered  into  if  more  favourable  circumstances  * 
permitted,)  though  they  were  not  formally  given.     The  first  of  these 
suppositions,  of  course,  I  dismiss  peremptorily.     The  second  hypothesis 
would  put  an  end  to  all  further  inquiry  into  the  subject.     The  third 
conclusion,  therefore,  which  I  adopt,  is  the  only  solution  which  is  possible, 
if  I  am  required  to  declare  my  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  Church." 
The  19th  question  proposed  by  the  Bishop  follows  in  the  same  course : 
3.  And  ill  — "  Does  the  Church  hold,  and  do  you  hold,  that  infants  so  baptized  are 
^"^"Prev^c-  regenerated,  independently  of  the  stipulations   made  by  their  repre- 
nicntactof  seutativcs,  or  by  any  otliers  for  them?"     Mr.  Grorham  says,  "If  such 
fenerate  the  infants  die  before  they  commit  '  actual  sin,'  the  Church  holds,  and  I 
chud.  hold,  that  they  are  '  undoubtedly  saved.'  "     The  answer  does  not  end 

here,  but  thus  proceeds, — "  and  therefore  they  must  have  been  rege- 
nerated "  [by  what  means  ?  mark  what  follows]  "  they  must  have  been 
regenerated  by  an  act  of  grace  prevenient  to  their  baptism,  in  order  to 
make  them  worthy  recipients  of  that  Sacrament.  This  case  is  ruled  by 
the  Church."  This  last  passage  or  sentence  Mr.  Gorham  explains  in  a 
note.  "  I  mean,  it  is  ruled  that  they  were  actually  regenerated,  and 
that  they  are  'undoubtedly  saved.'  "  Then  he  continues  his  answer, — 
"  But  if  the  infant  lives  to  a  period  in  which  it  can  commit  '  actual  sin,' 
the  declaration  of  regeneration  must  be  construed  according  to  the 
hypothetical  principle  which  I  have  stated  in  my  replies  5,  6,  7,  to  ques- 
tions v.,  VI.,  VII.  That  part  of  the  question  which  relates  to  sponsor- 
ship, in  these  cases,  I  have  replied  to  in  the  answer  to  question  18,  so 
far  as  the  mind  of  the  Church  can  be  ascertained." 

Such,  then,  is  the  answer  which  Mr.  Gorham  gives  to  this  question.  » 
He  admits  (for  he  cannot  deny  it  in  the  face  of  the  declaration  of  the  I 
Church)  that  baptized  infants  who  die  before  they  commit  "  actual  sin," 
are  "  undoubtedly  saved ;"  a  doctrine  or  position  which  must  rest  on  the 
ground  tliat  they  are  worthy  recipients,  otherwise  the  Sacrament  could 
not  2>roduce  the  benefit  declared ;  howevei',  he  resorts  to  the  hypothesis 
of  a  "prevenient  act  of  grace."     Whether  there  may  be  a  "prevenient 
(The  Court  act,"  or  whether  there  may  be  an  act  concui'rent  with  the  rite,  or  whe- 
from  Mr!'^    *^6r  there  may  be  an  act  subsequent  to  the  rite,  are  points  on  which  the 
Gorham        Court  is  not  called  upon  to  express  an  opinion.     It  is  suflTicient  for  it  to 
trine  lie        obscrvc  that  Mr.  Gorham' s  position  is,  that  it  is  not  by  baptism,  or 
holds.)         through  baptism,  that  grace  is  conferred."^ 


2'  This  conclusion  of  the  Judge  in  the  "  Church  Court"  ns  to  what  Mr.  Gorham 
holds,  may  be  well  compared  with  that  opinion  which  the  "  State  Court  "  lays  down 
(p.  25)  as  Mr.  Gorham's.  One  of  the  daily  journals  before  quoted  thus  touches  this 
point :  — 

"  As  to  the  judgment  itself,  no  amount  of  official  assurance  will  keep  people  from 
looking  into  it;  and  as  they  look  they  begin  to  find  what  it  really  is  :  a  pretended 
judgment,  which  really  '  (/ives  the  (jo-by  '  to  the  whole  question  brought  for  trial. 
Either  this  is  so  or  it  is  not.  It  is  impossible  to  blink  the  matter.  The  government 
nominee,  Mr.  Gorham,  lays  before  the  Court  his  printed  avowal,  in  every  variety  of 
shape,  that  '  regeneration  is  in  no  case  conveyed  to  infants  by  bajitism.'  '  That  filial 
state,' he  says,  is  '  given /je/ore,  and  not  »n  baptism.'  The  italics  are  his  own.  'If 
there  seems  any  ambiguity,'  he  says,  '  in  my  former  reply,  I  iris/i  this  to  be  considered 
my  explanation:     (Gorham,  p.  113,  and  again  p.  172  and   p.  IP8.)      Nothing  can  in- 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  41 


narch. 


In  the  book  entitled  A  Necessary  Boctrine  for  any  Christian  Man,  4.An(lthe 
and  called  "The  King's  Book,"  which  was  published  in  1543,  it  is  thus  be"of 
stated:  "Because  all  men  be  born  sinners,  and  cannot  be  saved  with-  ^"°^j.^^'' 
out  remission  of  their  sin,  which  is  given  in  Baptism  by  the  working  of  cessaryDoc- 
the  Holt  Ghost  ;  therefore  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  is  necessary  for  fo"th'by'the 
the  attaining  of  salvation  and  everlasting  life.  For  which  causes  also  same  mo- 
it  is  offered  and  pertaineth  to  all  men,  not  only  such  as  have  the  use  of 
reason,  in  whom  the  same  duly  received,  taketh  away,  and  purgeth  all 
kinds  of  sins,  both  original  and  actual,  committed  and  done  before  their 
Baptism  ;  but  also  it  appertaineth,  and  is  oiFered  unto  infants,  which, 
because  they  be  born  in  original  sin,  have  need  and  ought  to  be  chris- 
tened, whereby  they,  being  offered  in  the  faith  of  the  Church,  receive 
forgiveness  of  their  sins,  and  such  grace  of  the  Holt  Ghost,  that,  if 
they  die  in  the  state  of  their  infancy,  they  shall  thereby  undoubtedly  be 
saved.  Because,  as  well  this  Sacrament  of  Baptism  as  all  other  Sacra- 
ments instituted  by  Christ,  have  all  their  virtue,  efficacy,  and  strength 
by  the  word  of  God,  which  by  His  Holt  Spirit  worketh  all  the  graces 
and  virtues  which  be  given  by  the  Sacraments  to  all  those  that  worthily 
receive  the  same." 

duce  him  in  the  slightest  degree  to  modify  this  total  disconnecting  of  baptism  from  the 
grace  of  regeneration.  The  [State]  Court  deliberately  lays  dovra  another  doctrine  which 
Mr.  Gorham  nowherp  affirms,  viz.,  '  that  regeneration  may  be  held  to  precede,  accom- 
pany, or  follow  baptism,'  and  decides  that  that  doctrine  may  be  held  ;  and  the  [State] 
Court  does  not  notice  Mr.  Gorham's  theory  at  all,  viz.,  '  that  baptism  never  conveys 
regeneration.'  " 

On  the  last  day  of  the  trial,  Lord  Langdale  actually  threw  out  the  hint  to  Mr. 
Gorham's  counsel  that  he  might  express  his  opinion  in  these  terms.  Lord  Langdale  said 
to  Mr.  Turner  (we  were  in  court  and  heard  it,)  "  You  mean,  then,  that  regeneration  may 
take  place  before,  in,  or  after  baptism  ?"  That  was  an  opportunity  for  Mr.  Gorham  to 
have  adopted  the  favoured  formula.  The  learned  and  eloquent  counsel  hesitated, 
coughed  a  little,  and  blandly  bowed  to  the  Court,  as  if  unwilling  to  discourage  so  mer- 
ciful a  tribunal,  and  instantly  went  to  another  point  vnthoul  taking  up  the  hint. 


42   Judgment  of  Ihc  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 


'^-  Tliis  is  not  quite  truly  said.  It  was  not  declared  that  "  unbaptized  infants  were 
not  sai-ed, "  hnt  not  "  imdoubtedl;/,^'  as  the  baptised  were.  This  abolishes  therefore 
the  supposed  distinction  between  the  former  and  the  present  doctrine  on  this  subject. 

-^  The  First  division  of  each  of  the  "judgments"  may  now  be  reviewed. — The 
"  ARTiCLKS  "  of  the  Church  were  proposed  for  primary  consideration  in  each  court,  to 
elucidate  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  Mr.  Gorham's  agreement  or  disagreement  with 
that  doctrine.    The  "  Chuich  Court,''  it  will  now  have  been  seen,  has  analysed  our  25th 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  43 

The  Articles  of  1552  and  1562  adopt  very  diiferent  language  from    5,  ^^^^^ 
the  x^rticles  of  1536,   and  hare  special  regard  to  the  qualification  of  the  church's 
worthy  and  right  reception.      The  Twenty-fii'th  Article  of,  1562   dis-  qufring  ''^" 
\  inetly  states  that  in  such  only  as  worthily  receive  the  same,  the  Sacra-  "  ^"oj-thyxe- 
meuts  have  a  wholesome  effect  or  operation.     The  Article  on  Baptism,  whii'e  those 
in  describing  the  blessings  conferred  by  it,  speaks  only  of  those  who  °^^  '1°'^""  , 

.    7    ,  T       •   1  J     J        •     i»  •  1      f>  ■         •        1       nients  speak 

receive  it  rightly  ;  and  with  respect  to  iniants,  instead  or  saying  m  the  ouiy  of 
language  of  the  Articles  of  1536,  "  that  they  obtain  remission  of  their  cetvtag."" 
sins,  and  tlie  grace  and  favour  of  GrOD  by  Baptism,  and  that  dying  in  their 
infancy  they  shall  be  undoubtedly  saved  thereby,  and  else  not,"  it  de- 
clares only,  "  that  the  Baptism  of  young  children  is  in  any  wise  to  be 
retained  in  the  Churcli ;  as  most  agreeable  with  the  institution  of 
CiTKiST ;"  stating  notliing  distinctly  as  to  the  state  of  such  infants, 
whether  baptized  or  not.  The  Articles  of  1536  had  expressly  deter- 
mined two  points.  1.  That  baptized  infants  dying  before  tlie  com- 
mission of  actual  sin  were  undoubtedly  saved  thereby.  2.  That 
unbaptized  infants--  were  not  saved. 

The  Articles  of  1562  say  nothing  expressly  upon  either  point ;  but, 
not  distinguishing  the  case  of  infants  from  that  of  adults,  state  in 
general  terms  that  those  who  receive  Baptism  rightly  have  the  benefits 
there  mentioned  conferred. 

What  is  signified  by  right  recej^tion  is  not  determined  by  the  Articles. 
Mr.  Gorham  says,  that  the  expression  always  means  or  implies  a  fit 
state  to  receive,  viz.,  in  the  case  of  adults  "with  faith  and  repentance," 
and  in  the  case  of  infants  "with  God's  grace  and  favour."  On  a  con- 
sideration of  the  Articles,  it  appears  that,  besides  this  particular  point, 

11  there  are  others  which  are  left  undecided.     It  is  not  particularly  de- 

iclared  what  is  the  distinct  meaning  and  eflect  of  the  grace  of  regenera- 
Ition, — whether  it  is  a  change  of  nature,  a  change  of  condition,  or  a 
\change  of  the  relation  subsisting  between  sinful  man  and  his  Ceeatob; 

'    and  there  are  other  points  which  may  very  plainly  be  open  to  different 

j    considerations  in  different  cases. 

j  !     Upon  the  points  which  were  left  open  differences  of  opinion  could 
tiot  be  avoided,  even  amongst  those  who  sincerely  subscribed  to  the 
Articles ;  and  that  such  difterences  among  such  persons  were  thought 
consistent  with  subscription  to  the  Articles,  and  were  not  contemplated 
with  disapprobation,  appears  from  a  passage  in  the  royal  declaration, 
/now  prefixed  to  the  Articles,  and  which  was  first  added  in  the  reign  of  theRoyai 
|K-;ng  Charles  I.,  long  after  the  Articles  were  finally  settled.     "Though  ^/^'^^^I'l*^™! 
iScme  diflereuces   have  been  ill  raised,  yet  we  take  comfort  in  this,  that  acUnow- 
ail  clergymen  within  our  realm  have  always  most  willingly  subscribed  'ffjfffrcficel^'^ 
to  the  Articles  established  ;  which  is  an  argument  to  us,  that  they  all  had  actually 
agree  in  the  true,  usual,  literal  meaning  of  the  said  Articles,  and  that,  thropinio'ns 
even  in  those  curious  points  in  which  the  present  difterences  lie,  men  of  of  t^e  clergy 
all  sorts  take  the  Articles  of  the  Church  of  England  to  be  for  them  ;  points— per- 
which  is  an  argument  again,  that  none  of  them  intend  any  desertion  of  ^^^^^^^l^i^, 
the  Articles  established."^^ 

and  2~nh.  articles,  which  treat  of  baptism  ;  and  examined  with  minuteness  the  questions 
raised  respecting  them  by  Mr.  Gorham,  and  his  various  suggestions  and  explanations. 
The  "  State  Court  "  has  exami'ied  neither  of  the  Church  articles  on  baptism,  just  glanced 
at  one  phrase  ' '  right  reception,"  omitting  all  notice  of  Mr.  Gorham's  exposition  of  those 
articles,  and  diverging  into  a  discourse  about  the  history  cf  articles  in  general,  and  the 
"  Necessary  Doctrine"  of  Henry  VIII.  ! 


V.  The 

Formula- 
ries of  the 
Church. 


Mr.  Gor- 
ham's  plea 
of  "  favour- 
able con- 
struction " 
for  all  the 
Services. 


"Con. 

struction  " 
of  the  Office 
for  Public 
Baptism  of 
Infants 


(examined 
"in  exten- 
so.") 


44  Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbisho]}  of  Canterbury/' s.) 

Ha^dng  abeady  considered  such  of  tlie  "Articles  of  Eeligion"  as  have 
a  bearing  on  the  question  before  me,  I  now  proceed  to  the  Formulaeies 
of  the  Churcli,  which,  as  I  have  said,  must  be  my  guide  and  authority  in 
ascertaining  its  doctrines.  With  respect  to  these  formularies,  the  first 
to  which  my  attention  must  be  directed  is  undoubtedly  the  ofiice  for 
"  The  Ministration  of  Public  Baptism  or  Infants."  Mr.  Gorham's 
position  in  respect  to  that  office  is,  that  its  language  is  to  be  considered 
as  hypothetical, — conditional  upon  the  fulfilment  of  certain  promises  which 
are  to  be  made  for  children  in  baptism  by  their  godfathers  and  god- 
mothers,— that  it  is  language  which  requires  a  ^^just  and  favoui'ahle  con- 
struction ;^''  namely,  that  oi  charitable  hope  on  the  part  of  the  Church. 

On  turning  to  this  office,  we  find  the  first  rubric  contains  anj 
admonition,  which  shows  the  great  importance  attached  to  this  Sacra- 
ment by  the  Church ;  that  it  is  necessary,  at  all  events  that  it  is  highly 
important,  it  should  be  administered  at  the  earliest  time,  is  apparent 
from  the  rubric  prefixed  to  the  office  for  "  The  Ministration  of  Pbivate 
Baptism  of  Children. " 

Now  the  first  rubric  of  the  Office  of  Public  Baptism  is  in  these  words  : 
— "  The  people  are  to  be  admonished,  that  it  is  most  convenient  that 
baptism  should  not  be  administered  but  upon  Sundays,  and  other  holy 
days,  when  the  most  number  of  people  come  together ;  as  well  for  that 
the  congregation  there  present  may  testify  the  receiving  of  them  that 
be  newly  baptized  into  the  number  of  Christ's  Church,  as  also  because 
in  the  baptism  of  infants  every  man  present  may  be  put  in  remembrance 
of  his  own  profession  made  to  God  in  his  baptism.  Por  which  cause 
also  it  is  expedient  that  baptism  be  ministered  in  the  vulgar  tongue," 
&c.  After  the  2nd  and  3rd  rubrics,  which  prescribe  the  number  of 
godfathers  and  godmothers,  the  notice  to  be  given  to  the  curate,  ajid 
the  part  of  the  service  at  which  those  concerned  are  to  attend  at  the 
font,  the  service  thus  proceeds; — "The  Priest"  shall  inquire  whether 
the  child  has  been  already  baptized  or  not ;  and  if  they  answer  no,  thei. 
he  is  directed  to  proceed  as  follows  :— "  Dearly  beloved,  forasmuch  as 
all  men  are  conceived  and  born  in  sin  ;  and  that  our  Saviour  ChriS'} 
saith.  None  can  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  except  he  be  regenerate 
and  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the  Holt  Ghost  ;  I  beseech  you  to  cali 
upon  God  the  Father,  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  of  His 
bounteous  mercy  He  will  grant  to  this  child  that  thing  which  by  nattre 
he  cannot  have  ;  that  he  may  be  baptized  with  water  and  the  HdLT 
Ghost,  and  received  into  Christ's  Holy  Church,  and  be  made  a  livihj 
member  of  the  same." 

The  exhortation  and  the  instruction  to  the  congregation  assembldcl 
for  what  they  shall  pray,  are, — "  To  call  upon  God  the  Father  through 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  of  His  bounteous  mercy  he  will  grant  to 
this  child  that  thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have,  as  born  in  sin ; 


'^*  "The  Formularies  cannot  be  held  to  be  evidence  of  faith  or  doctrine"  without 
(according  to  the  "  State  Court")  reference  to  two  things,  1st.  the  articles,  2ndly,  the 
"faith,  hope,  and  charity  hy  wiiich  they"  [articles  or  formularies?]  "profess  to  be 
inspired."  I  understand  what  is  meant  by  the  first  of  these  references  ;  but  as  to  the 
2nd,  I  ask  any  one  to  say  whether  it  is  intelligible.  It  is  evidently  meant  as  a  vague 
way  of  bringing  in  the  "  latitude  "  of  "  charitable  hyi)Othesis,"  but  how  it  answers  the 
purpose  I  cannot  see.  This  is  the  key  note  however  of  all  the  ensuing  piece.  "  The 
faith,  hope,  and  charily,"  [whether  of  individuals,  or  of  the  Church,  is  not  said] 
"  which  inspire,  or  accompany,"  the  articles,  or  formularies,  must  be  taken  into 
account  before  we  receive  them  as  "  evidence  of  faith  or  doctrine,''  [which  the  "  State 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privy  Council.)  45 

If  the  Articles  wliicli  constitute  the  Code  of  Faith,  and  from  which     y  ^h 
any  differences  are  prohibited,  nevertheless  contain  expressions  which  formula- 
unavoidably  admit  of  different  construction,  and  members  of  the  Church  chwch*"^^ 
are  left  at  liberty  to  draw  from  the  Articles  different  inferences  in  mat- 
ters of  faith  not  expressly  decided,  and  upon  such  points  to  exercise 
their  private  judgments,   we  may  reasonably  expect  to  find  such  dif- 
ferences of  opinion  allowable  in  the  interpretation  of  the   devotional 
services,  which  were  framed,  not  for  the  purpose  of  determining  points 
of  faith,  but  of  establishing  (to  iise  the  expression  of  the  statute  of 
Elizabeth)  an  uniform  order  of  Common  Prayer,  and  of  the  administra- 
tion of  sacraments,  rites,  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church  of  England. 

In  considering  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  it  must  be  observed     Latitude 
that  there  ai-e  parts  of  it  which  are  strictly  dogmatical,  declaring  what  of  interpre- 
is  to  be  believed  or  not  doubted — parts  which  are  instructional— and  p*ea°ded  for 
parts  which  consist  of  devotional  exercises  and  services.     Those  parts  by  the 
;which  are  in  their  nature  dogmatical  must  be  considered  as  declaratory  Suhe  ser- 
of  doctrine ;  but  as  to  those  parts  which  are  devotional,  consisting  of  ^''=^^- 
prayers  framed  for  the  purpose  of  being  "  more  earnest,  and  fit  to  stir 
Christian  people   to   the  due   honouring  of  Almighty   God,"   some 
further  consideration  is  necessary.     It  seems  to  be  properly  said  that 
the  received  formularies  cannot  be  held  to  be  evidence  of  faith  or  of 
doctrine,  without  reference  to  the  distinct  declarations  of  doctrine  in 
tlie  Articles,  and  to  the  faith,-^  hope,  and  charity  by  which  they  profess 
to  be  inspired  or  accompanied ;  and  there  are  portions  of  the  Liturgy 
^\  hich  it  is  plain  cannot  be  construed  truly  without  regard  to  these  con- 
I  siderations.     Eor  the  proof  of  this,  the  instance  which  seems  to  be 
most  usually  cited,  and  which  is  conclusive,  is  the  service  for  the  burial    <.^^*^'l"''^  , 

,>,,iiorci(»  1  11  p  p  •  1    of  the  Burial 

01  the  dead.~='     bo  far  as  our  knowledge  of  powers  of  conception  extend.  Service,  an 
there  are  and  must  be  at  least  some  persons  not  excommunicated  from  aT-'^j^opes" 
the  Church,  who,  having  lived  lives  of  sin,  die  impenitent, — nay,  some  that  aii  are 
who  perish  and  die  in  the  actual  commission  of  flagrant  crimes ;  yet  in  *^^^ 
every  case,  in  the  burial  service,  as  the  earth  is  cast  upon  the  dead 
I  body,  the  priest  is  directed  to  say,  and  he   does  say — "  Forasmuch  as  it 
I  hath  pleased  Almighty  God,  of  His  great  mercy,  to  take  unto  Him- 
self the  soul  of  our  dear  brother  here  departed,  we  therefore  commit 
his  body  to  the  ground,  earth  to  earth,  ashes  to  ashes,  dust  to  dust,  in 
sure  and  certain  hope  of  the  resurrection  to  eternal  life;"  and  thanks 
are  afterwards  given — "  For  that  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God  to 
deliver  this  our  brother  out  of  the  miseries  of  this  sinful  world;"  and 
this  is  followed  by  a  collect,  in  which  it  is  prayed  "  tliat  when  we   shaU 
depart  this  life  we  may  rest  in  God,  as  our  hope  is  that  this  our  brother 
doth."     The  hope  here  expressed  is  the  same  "  sure  and  certain  hope 
of  the  resurrection  to  eternal  life,"  which  is  stated  immediately  after 
the  expression,  "  it  hath  pleased  Almighty  God,  of  His  great  mercy,  to 

Court  "  fancies  to  be  the  same,  and  so  actually  calls  the  Articles  of  Religion  (p.  43)  Arti- 
cles of  Faith  /]  I  protest  that  this  seems  to  me  a  perfect  specimen  of  jargon.  I  con- 
fidently challenge  any  man  to  find  the  least  meaning  in  it.  Suppose  it  to  mean,  the 
"faith,  hope,  and  charity  which  inspired"  the  compilers  of  the  formularies,  then  we 
must  take  those  graces  as  existing  in  "  our  Reformers,''^  as  the  test  of  their  doctrinal 
or  theological  declarations  1  Suppose  it  to  mean  "  the  faith,  hope,  and  charity,  accom- 
panying "  the  use  of  the  formularies  in  all  individual  cases,  then  we  have  a  latitude  of 
doctrine  sufficiently  startling — in  fact  illimitable  ! 

-»  The  reader  may  compare  what  the  "  Church  Court  "  says  on  the  charity  of  the  burial 
service,  in  p.  68. 


46    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

he  must  be  roleased  from  that  sin  before  he  can  be  received  into 
Cheisx's  Holy  Church ;  and  the  mode  of  delivery  from  that  sin  is  to 
pray  to  GoD  '  that  he  may  be  baptized  with  water  and  the  Holy  Gthost,' 
— liot  simply  v.ater,  but 'also  with  the  'Holy  Ghost,'  and  be  received 
into  Chjust's  Holy  Church,  and  be  made  a  lively  member  of  the  same." 

Then  follows  the  prayer :  "  Almighty  and  everlastmg  God,  "Who  of 
Thy  great  mercy  didst  save  Noah  and  his  family  in  the  ark  from 
perishing  by  water ;  and  also  didst  safely  lead  the  children  of  Israel, 
Thy  people,  through  the  Eed  Sea,  figuring  thereby  Thy  holy  baptism ; 
and  iW  the  baptism  of  Thy  well-beloved  Son  Jesus  Cheist  in  the  river 
Jordan,  didst  sanctify  water  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin;"  [here 
are  the  grounds]  "We  beseech  Thee,  for  Thine  infinite  mercies,  that 
Thou\>iit  mercifully  look  upon  this  child;  wash  him  and  sanctify  Am 
with  the  Holy  Ghost;  that  he,  being  delivered  from  Thy  wrath,  may 
be  received  into  the  ark  of  Christ's  Church;  and  being  steadfast  in 
faith,  joyful  through  hope,  and  rooted  in  charity,  may  so  pass  the  waves 
of  this  troublesome  world,  that  finally  he  may  come  to  the  land  of  ever- 
lasting life,  there  to  reign  with  Thee  world  without  end ;  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord.     Amen." 

The  object  of  the  prayer  is,  "  that  he  may  be  washed  and  sanctified 
with  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  he  being  delivered  from  wrath,  may  be 
received  into  the  ark  of  Christ's  Church." 

Then  follows  the  next : — "  Almighty  and  immortal  God,  the  aid  of  all 
that  need,  the  helper  of  all  that  flee  to  Thee  for  succour,  the  life 
of  them  that  believe,  and  the  resiu'rection  of  the  dead ;  we  call  upon 
Thee  for  this  infant,  that  he,  coming  to  Thy  holy  Baptism,  may  receive," 
[what  ?]  "  i-emission  of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration.  Eeceij^e  him, 
O  Lord,  as  Thou  hast  promised  by  Thy  well-beloved  Son,  saying.  Ask, 
and  ye  shall  have ;  seek,  and  ye  shall  find  ;  knock,  and  it  shall  be  opened 
unto  you.  So  give  now  unto  us  that  ask  ;  let  us  that  seek  find  ;  open 
the  gate  luito  us  that  knock ;  that  this  infant  may  enjoy  the  everlasting 
benediction  of  Thy  heavenly  washing,  and  may  come  to  the  eternal  king- 
dom which  Thou  hast  promised  by  Christ,  our  Lord."  Therefore  it  is 
that  this  child  may  receive  remission  of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration, 
not  regeneration  simply,  but  spiritual  regeneration,  the  congregation 
pray. 

Then  follows  the  Gospel,  taken  from  St.  INfark  x.  13,  and  after  it  the 
"Exhortation,"  the  latter  part  of  which  is  in  these  words:  .  .  .  "Doubt 
ye  not,  therefore,  but  earnestly  believe,  that  He  will  likewise  favourably 
receive  this  present  infant,  that  He  will  embrace  him  with  the  arms  of 
His  mercy  ;  that  He  will  give  unto  him  the  blessing  of  eternal  life,  and 
make  him  partaker  of  His  everlasting  kingdom.  Wherefore  we  being 
persuaded  of  the  good  will  of  our  heavenly  Father  towards  this  infant, 
declared  by  His  Son  Jesus  Christ  ;  and  nothing  doubting  but  that  He 
favourably  alloweth  this  charitable  A\ork  of  ours  in  bringing  this  infant 
to  His  lioly  baptism ;  let  us  faithfully  and  devoutly  give  thanks  unto 
Him,  and  say,  Almiglity  and  everlasting  God,  heavenly  Father,  we 
give  Thee  humble  thanks  for  that  Thou  hast  vouchsafed  to  call  us  to 
the  knowledge  of  Thy  grace  aud  faith  in  Thee  :  increase  this  knowledge, 

*"  'lliis  is  a  singular  mistake.  The  "  hoj)e  "  expressed  in  the  burial  service  respect- 
ing the  imlividufil  then  interred  is  simply  a  hope  that  his  soul  is  at  "  rest ''  until  the 
last  day  ;  the  hope  in  the  former  part  of  the  service  is  a  general  hojje,  and  refers  to  the 
resurrection  of  the  body,  and  not  to  the  soul's  intermediate  condition  at  all.  Surely  the 
"  State  Court"  did  not  mean  to  justify  the  notion  of  the  "  soul  sleepers,"  or  hint  that 
the  dead  will  cease  to  exist  until  the  resurrection  .'     And  yet  their  identifying  these  two 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  47 

;ake  to  Himself  the  soul  of  our  brother  liere.  departed."'*'  In  this  ser- 
dce,  therefore,  there  are  absolute  expressions  implying  positive  asser- 
;ions ;  yet  it  is  admitted  that  they  cannot  be  literally  true  in  all  cases, 
!but  must  be  construed  in  a  qualiiied  or  charitable  sense — ^^justified,  we 
may  believe,  by  a  confident  hope  and  reliance  that  the  expression  is 
literally  true  in  many  cases ;  and  may  be  true  even  in  the  particular 
case  in  which  to  us  it  seems  improperly  applied.  From  this  and  other 
eases  of  the  like  kind,  of  which  there  are  several  in  the  services,  it 
;Seems  manifest  that  devotional  expressions,  involving  assertions,  must 
not  as  of  course  be  taken  to  bear  an  absolute  and  unconditional  sense. 
The  meaning  unist  be  ascertained  by  a  careful  consideration  of  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  and  of  the  true  doctrine  applicable  to  it."^ 

If  expi-essions  in  devotional  exercises,  and  exhortations  which  imply 
or  convey  assertions  which  may  be  true  in  any  case,  and  which  we  are 
permitted  in  charity  to  hope  may  be  true  in  the  particular  cases  to 
I  which  we  are  directed  to  apply  them,  were  such  that  the  assertions 
must  be  accepted  as  universal  propositions  necessarily  and  uncon- 
ditionally true  in  aU  cases,  they  would  amount  to  declarations  of  doc- 
trine ;  but  in  the  service  for  the  burial  of  the  dead  such  implied 
assertions  are  clearly  not  to  be  taken  to  be  universal  propositions ;  and 
it  is  plain  that  other  assertions  of  the  like  kind,  in  other  services,  may 
fall  within  the  same  category. 


"  hopes  ''as  if  they  were  but  one  would  really  imply  this  ;  if  it  were  not  evident  that 
this  is  but  an  example  of  the  looseness  of  theological  knowledge  and  want  of  duly  weigh- 
ing the  meaning  of  words  which  pervade  this  whole  most  loose  and  defective  judgment. 

"^'  In  fact,  as  our  Church  exercises  her  office  of  teacher  no  less  by  her  Forms  of 
Prayer,  than  by  her  Catechism,  Articles,  Homilies,  and  other  Doctrinal  Formularies. — 
lUahop  of  S.  David's  Charge,  1842. 


48   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

and  confirm  this  faith  in  us  evermore.  Give  Thy  Holy  Spibit  to  this 
infant,  that  he  may  be  born  agaiu,  and  made  an  heir  of  everlasting  sal- 
vation ;  through  our  Loud  Jesus  Cheist,  AV'ho  liveth  and  reigneth 
with  Thee  and  the  Holt  Spirit,  now  and  for  ever." 

Then  follows  an  addi-ess  to  the  godfathers  and  godmothers,  reminding 
tliem  for  what  they  have  prayed  ;  and  after  referring  to  the  promise  of 
Cueist,  .  .  .  .  "  Wherefore,  after  tliis  promise  made  by  Cheist,  this 
infant  must  also  faithfully  for  his  part  promise  by  you  that  are  his  sure- 
ties, (until  he  comes  of  age  to  take  it  upon  himself^  that  he  will  renounce 
the  devil  and  all  his  works,  and  constantly  believe  God's  holy  Word, 
and  obediently  keep  His  commandments."  Questions  are  then  addressed 
to  the  godfathers  and  godmothers  in  the  name  of  the  child,  and  the 
answers  of  the  godfathers  and  godmothers  are  then  given. 

The  prayer,  "  O  merciful  God,  grant  that  the  old  Adam  in  this  child 
may  be  so  buried,  that  the  new  man  may  be  raised  up  in  him,"  &c., 
follows  ;  then  the  prayer  for  the  sanctification  of  t]ie  water — "  Almighty 
and  everlasting  God,  AV^hose  most  dearly  beloved  Son  Jesus  Cheist, 
for  the  forgiveness  of  our  sins,  did  shed  out  of  His  most  precious  side 
both  water  and  blood ;  and  gave  commandment  to  His  disciples,  that 
they  should  go  teach  all  nations,  and  baptize  them  in  the  name  of  tlie 
Fatuee,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  regard,  we  beseech 
Thee,  the  suppHcations  of  Thy  congregation,  sanctif^^  this  water  to  the 
mystical  washing  away  of  sin."  [The  Court  had  its  attention  particu- 
larly directed,  in  the  course  of  the  argument,  to  the  word  "  mystical," 
as  explaining  all  that  was  previously  prayed  for ;  that  it  was  not  an 
actual  washing  away  of  sin,  but  a  mystical,  or,  as  it  was  afterwards 
expressed,  a  sacramental  washing  away  of  sin  ;  that  the  purifying  of  the 
child  was  sacramentally,  and  not  spii'itually.  I  do  not,  I  confess,  exactly 
see  the  force  of  this  reasoning ;  some  mystery,  something  beyond  that 
which  exactly  meets  the  eye  is  to  be  the  mystical  washing  awav  of  sin 
by  the  sanctification  of  the  water.]  "  And  grant  that  this  child,  now  to 
be  baptized  therein,  may  receive  the  fulness  of  Thy  grace,  and  ever 
remain  in  the  number  of  Thy  faithful  and  elect  children ;  through  Jestjs 
Cheist  our  Loed." 

The  portion  of  the  service  to  which  I  have  hitherto  referred  precedes 
the  baptism  of  the  infant.  The  child  is  then  baptized  in  the  Name  of 
tlie  Fathee,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  is  received 
into  the  congregation  with  the  sign  of  the  Cross  ;  after  which  the 
minister  addresses,  by  order  of  the  Church,  the  congregation  thus  : 
"  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  tliat  this  child  is  regenerate,  and 
grafted  in  the  body  of  Cheist's  Churcli," — [here  is  a  declaration  that 
the  thing  is  now  done — that  the  child  is  regenerate,'] — "  let  us  give 
tliauks  unto  Almighty  God  for  these  benefits ;  and  with  one  accord 
make  our  prayers  unto  Him,  that  this  child  may  lead  the  rest  of  his  life 
according  to  this  beginning."  Tlien  the  Lo'ed's  Prayer  is  said,  after 
wliich  follows,  "  AVe  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful  Father, 
that  it  liath  i)lcased  Thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  witli  Thy  Holt 
Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  Thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incor- 
l)orate  him  into  Thy  Holy  Church."  The  priest  and  congregation  in 
the  first  luotance  prayed  that  God  would  bo  pleased,  at  the  baptism  of 
the  infant,  to  grant  that  ho  might  be  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spieit  ; 
might  be  received  by  incorporation  into  the  Holy  Churcli ;  and  here  we 
see  they  thank  Cod  that  he  has  been  so  received  in  the  following  words : 
"  And  humbly  we  beseech  Thee  to  grant  tliat  he,  being  dead  unto  sin, 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privy  Council.)  49 


In  the  office  for  the  administration  of  the  public  Baptism  of  infants,  ^J^-^  ofi^e 
the  first  Rubric  states  the  reasons  why  it  is  convenient  that  the  ad-  office  for 
ministration  should  be  when  the  most  number  of  people  come  together.  ^nt^Bap"' 
The  reasons  are  stated  to  be,  "  as  well  for  that  the  congregation  there  tisra. 
present  may  testify  the  receiving  of  them  that  be  new  baptized  into  the 
number  of  Christ's  Church ;   and  also,  because   in   the  Baptism  of 
infants  every  man  present  may  be  put  in  remembrance  of  his  own  pro- 
fession made  to  God  in  his  Baptism."     There  is  a  prayer  for  the  infant  that 
he  (being  dehvered   from  wrath),  may  be    received  into  the  ark    of 
Christ's   Church:  and  being  steadfast  in  faith,  joyful  through  hope, 
and  rooted  in  charity,  may  so  pass  the  waves  of  this  troublesome  world, 
that  he  may  come  to  everlasting  life ;  another  prayer,  that  the  infant 
coming  to  God's  Holy  Baptism,  may  receive  remission  of  his  sins  by 
spiritual  regeneration  ;    an  exhortation  to  the   congregation,  or  those 
present,  not  to  doubt,  but  earnestly  to  believe  that  God  will  favourably 
receive  the  present  infant,  and  give  unto  him  the  blessing  of  eternal 
life, — "  Wherefore,  we  being  persuaded  of  the  good  mil  of  our  heavenly  pression  in 
Father  towards  this  infant,  and  nothing  doubting  but  that  he  favour-  ^^^f^^-^^l 
ably  alloweth  this  charitable  work^^  of  ours  in  bringing  this  infant  to  His  "charitable 
Holy  Baptism,  let  us  faithfully  and  devoutly  give  thanks  to  Him  ;"  and  mean'th"T^ 
in  the  prayer  which  follows,  it  is  thus  expressed — "  Give  Thy  Holt  Baptism  is 
i  Spirit  to  this  infant,  that  he  may  be  born  again,  and  made  an  heir  of  benefit.' 
everlasting  salvation . ' ' 


Before  the  ceremony  is  performed,  the  sponsors  are  questioned,  and 
make  their  answers  :  and  then  comes  the  prayer,  in  which  it  is  said, 
"  Regard,  we  beseech  Thee,  the  supplications  of  this  congregation ; 
sanctify  this  water  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin  ;  and  grant  that 
this  child  now  to  be  baptized  therein  may  receive  the  fulness  of  Thy 
grace,  and  ever  remain  in  the  number  of  Thy  faithful  and  elect  children." 

28  It  would  be  no  "charitable  work"  to  offer  a  Sacrament  without  grace.  Surely 
"  charity  "  is  on  the  side  of  those  who  affirm  the  "  innocency  ''  of  children  as  to  all 
actual  sin,  and  their  universal  reception  by  Christ  in  Baptism. 

E 


50   Judgment  of  the  Chubcu  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's. 


Mr.  Gor- 
ham's  inter- 
pretation 
cannot 
stand. 


2.  *■  Con- 
struction " 
of  the  ser- 
vice for  Pri- 
vate 15ap . 
lisin 


and  living  unto  righteousness,  and  being  buried  with  Cheist  in  His 
death,  may  crucify  the  old  man,  and  utterly  abolish  the  whole  body  of 
sin ;  and  that,  as  he  is  made  imrtaher  of  the  death  of  Thy  So>',  he  may 
also  be  imrtaher  of  His  resurrection ;  so  that,  finally,  with  the  residue 
of  Thy  Holy  Church,  he  may  be  an  inheritor  of  Thine  everlasting  king- 
dom ;  through  Cueist  our  Loed." 

Then  an  exhortation  is  given  to  the  godfathers  and  godmothers  as  to 
their  duties,  which  concludes  the  service  in  these  words :  "  Te  are  to 
take  care  that  this  child  be  bi'ought  to  the  Bishop  to  be  confirmed  by 
him,  as  soon  as  he  can  say  the  Creed,  the  Loed's  Prayer,  and  the  Ten 
Commandments  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  and  be  further  instructed  in  the 
Church  Catechism  set  forth  for  that  purpose." 

It  was  argued  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Gorham,  that  the  reason  why  the 
Church  admits  an  infant  to  baptism  in  the  form  prescribed  is  tliat, 
although  he  cannot  perform  the  requisites  for  baptism,  although  he 
cannot  have  faith  and  repentance,  yet  he  is  baptized  on  the  presumption 
or  hypothesis  that  he  will  do  all  that  is  promised  for  him  by  his 
sponsors ;  that  he  will  renounce  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  the  devil  when 
he  comes  to  years  of  discretion,  and  is  of  sufficient  capacity  to  under- 
stand what  has  been  promised  for  him. 

Now  I  confess  it  does  not  appear  to  me  that  that  which  is  contended 
'  for  is  the  true  construction  of  the  language  of  the  baptismal  service  for 
infants.  I  confine  myself  to  the  case  of  infants ;  for  the  case  of  adults 
is  totally  different.  It  is  allowed,  without  question,  both  by  the  Bishop 
and  Mr.  Gorham,  that,  in  the  latter  case,  the  declarations  of  the  Church 
are  all  on  the  hypothesis  that  they  (adults)  are  sincere  in  their  pro- 
fessions of  faith  and  repentance,  —that  they  intend  to  perform  and  will 
perform  to  the  utmost  of  their  ability,  all  they  themselves  undertake : 
but  in  the  case  of  infants,  the  declaration  in  the  service  of  public  bap- 
tism, of  which  we  are  now  speaking,  is  positive,  precise,  and  distinct, 
that  the  child  "  is  regenerate,"  and  that  thanks  are  returned  to  God  for 
tliat  benefit. 

I  turn  now  to  the  office  for  "  The  Ministration  of  Private  Baptism  of  | 
Children."  In  respect  to  it,  it  was  contended  that,  inasmuch  as  it  is  an 
office  administered  only  in  a  case  of  "  great  necessity,"  nothing  with 
respect  to  the  efficacy  of  baptism  without  stipulations  can  be  fairly 
drawn  from  that  formulary, — that,  though  there  is  an  omission  of  god- 
fathers and  godmothers,  there  is  implied  a  promise  on  behalf  of  the  j 
baptized. 

Here,  again,  I  confess  I  differ  in  opinion  from  the  learned  counsel. 
Though  this  office  is  to  be  administered  only  in  "  great  cause  and 
necessity,"  is  it  not  one  in  which  the  Church  intended  to  declare  that 
the  child  so  baptized  is  entitled  to  all  the  benefits  of  an  infant  publicly 
baptized  ?  Otherwise,  why  should  the  Clmrch  direct  that  "  so  many  of 
the  Collects  appointed  to  be  said  before  in  the  form  of  public  baptism  as 
the  time  and  present  exigence  Avill  suffer,"  are  to  be  made  use  of?  If 
tlie  child  is  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Fathee,  and  of  the  Son,  and 

29  But  the  same  rubric  goes  on  to  refer  us  to  the  30th  Canon  of  the  Church  for  a  further 
exi)laiiation  on  a  point  of  difficulty— (the  "  sign  of  the  Cross  ") — and  it  happens  that  in 
that  very  canon  "infants  baptized"  are  declared  to  be  made  perfect  members  of 
Christ  "  by  virtue  of  baptism.'^ 

Not  indeed  that  the  rubric  as  it  stands  alone  can  really  appear  doubtful  as  to  its 
meaning.  The  Judge  in  the  "  Church  Court"  (p.  58)  states  the  sense  of  this  rubric  un- 
answerably.    "  They  must  be  baptized,  they  must  die  before  they  commit  actual  sin 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  51 

Thus  studiously,  in  the  introductory  part  of  tlie  service,  is  prayer 
made  for  the  grace  of  Gob  ;  that  the  child  may  receive  remission  of 
his  sin  by  spiritual  regeneration ;  so  firm  is  the  belief  expressed  that 
Gob  will  favourably  receive  the  infant ;  so  confident  is  the  negation  of 
all  doubt  but  that  Gob  favourably  alloweth  the  charitable  work  of 
bringing  the  infant  to  Baptism. 

All  this  is  before  the  ceremony  is  actually  performed ;  and  after  the 
Baptism  has  been  administered,  and  during  the  continuance  of  the 
same  persuasion,  and  the  same  undoubting  confidence  of  a  favourable 
reception  and  allowance,  the  priest  is  directed  to  say,  "  Seeing  now  that 
the  child  is  regenerate  and  grafted  into  the  Church,  let  us  give  thanks 
unto  Almighty  Gob  for  these  benefits :"  and  after  repeating  the 
Loeb's  Prayer,  thanks  are  thus  given, — "  We  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks 
that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regenerate  this  infant  with  Thy  Holt 
Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  Thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incor- 
porate him  into  Thy  Holy  Church."  The  service  is  followed  by  the 
Rubric, — "  It  is  certain  by  Gob's  Word  that  children  which  are  bap- 
tized, dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved. "^9 


And  to  the  short  form  for  the  administration  of  private  Baptism  of    2.  Lati. 
children  in  houses,  after  a  thanksgiving,  "  For  that  it  had  pleased  Gob  service  for 
to  regenerate  the  infant  with  His  Holt  Spirit,  and  to  receive  him  as  Private  Bap- 
His  own  child  by  adoption,  and    to    incorporate  him  into  His  holy 
Church,"  there  is  appended  a  rubric — "And  let  them  not  doubt  but 
that   the   child  so  baptized  is  lawfully  and  sufficiently  baptized,  and 
ouglat  not  to  be  baptized  again."     And  if  the  child  has  not  been  so 
baptized  by  the  minister  of  the  parish,  but  by  some  other,  the  minister 

to  bring  them  within  that  declaration."  In  exact  accordance  with  this  the  Church 
says  (in  the  Homily  to  which  she  expressly  refers  for  her  true  doctrine,  in  the  IXth 
Article,)  "  Infants  being  baptized  and  dying  in  their  infancy,  are  by  Chrisf's  sacri- 
fice washed  from  their  sins  and  brought  to  God's  favour." — Horn,  of  Salvation,  1  st  Part. 
And  again,  "  we  must  trust  Christ's  Sacrifice  ...  to  obtain  remission  as  well  of 
our  original  sin  in  baptism,  as  of  all  actual  sin  after  baptism,  if  we  truly  repent,"  &c. — 
Ibid.  2nd  Part. 

I  e2 


53    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

of  the  Holt  Ghost, — if  thanks  are  given  to  God  that  it  hath  pleased 
Him  "to  regenerate  this  infant"  with  His  Holt  Spikit,  " to  receive 
him  "  for  His  own  child  "by  adoption,  and  to  incorporate  him  "  into  His 
Holy  Church,  then  is  the  full  effect  of  baptism  given  to  the  infant  so 
baptized ;  the  baptism  is  complete  in  itself,  without  the  intervention  of^  ] 
godfathers  and  godmothers.  The  same  declaration  as  to  the  regenerate! 
state  of  the  infant  is  made,^''  though  not  absolutely  prayed  for,  as  in  the 
case  of  public  baptism  ;  otherwise,  the  Church  would  not  have  gone  oil 
to  declare — "  and  let  them  not  doubt  but  that  the  child  so  baptized  is 
lawfully  and  sufficiently  baptized,  and  ought  not  to  be  baptized  again." 
The  administration  of  the  Sacrament  is  complete  immediately  after ' 
the  child  is  baptized  with  water  in  the  Name  of  the  Fathee,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holt  Ghost.  "  If  this  were  not  so,"  said  the  learned 
counsel  for  the  Bishop,  "  the  child  ought  to  be  taken  to  the  church  on 
recovery  and  baptized  again,  inasmuch  as  it  would  not,  according  to  the 
argument  on  the  other  side,  have  received  the  full  benefits  of  baptism :" 
I  must  say  I  think  there  was  something  in  that  observation.  But, 
according  to  the  Church,  that,  which  is  directed  to  be  done  afterwards, 
is  not  a  repetition  of  the  baptism,  as  we  shall  presently  see. 

Again,  it  was  said  the  Church  puts  baptism,  whether  public  or  private, 
on  the  same  footing ;  for  it  is  required  the  child  should  be  brought  into 
the  church,  if  it  should  live,  for  certain  purposes.  But  what  are  they  ? 
The  direction  of  the  rubric  is,  .  .  .  "  Yet,  nevertheless,  if  the  child, 
which  is  after  this  sort  baptized,  do  afterwards  live,  it  is  expedient  that 
it  be  brought  into  the  church,  to  the  intent  that,  if  the  minister  of  the 
same  parish  did  himself  baptize  that  child,  the  congregation  may  be  cer- 
tified of  the  true  form  of  baptism  by  him  privately  before  used ;  in  which 
case  he  shall  say  thus,  '  I  certify  you,  that  according  to  the  due  and 
prescribed  order  of  the  Church,  at  such  a  time  and  at  such  a  place,  before 
divers  witnesses,  I  baptized  this  child.'  "  But  if  the  child  was  baptized 
by  any  otlier  person,  certain  questions  are  to  be  addressed  to  those  pre- 
sent, in  order  to  ascertain  that  the  due  form  and  order  of  the  Church 
had  been  followed  in  the  baptism :  "  By  whom  was  this  child  baptized  ? 
''ine'x-""  AVho  was  present  when  this  child  was  baptized  ?  Because  some  things 
tciiso."  essential  to  this  Sacrament  may  happen  to  be  omitted  through  fear  or 
haste,  in  such  time  of  extremity,  therefore  I  demand  further  of  you, 
"With  what  matter  was  tliis  cliild  baptized  ?  "With  what  words  was  this 
child  baptized  ?"  Therefore,  the  matter  and  tlie  words  are  the  essential 
parts  of  the  baptism.  Tlie  rubric  then  directs,  "  If  the  minister  shall 
find,  by  the  answers  of  such  as  bring  the  child,  that  all  things  were  done 
as  tliey  ouglit  to  be,  tlien  shall  not  he  christen  the  child  again,"  &c. ; 
but  he  is  to  certify  tlie  congregation  in  the  words  of  the  Church  :  "  I 
certify  you,  that  in  this  case  aU  is  well  done,  and  according  unto  due 
order,  concerning  the  baptizing  of  this  child  ;  who,  being  born  in  original 
sin,  and  in  the  wrath  of  God,  is  now,  by  the  laver  of  regeneration  in 
baptism,  received  into  the  number  of  the  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of 
everlasting  life."     Here  is  a  declaration  positive  and  precise  in  a  case 


examined 


'"  This  is  to  be  observed.  The  "  Church  Court "  hereupon  reasons  that  all  that  was 
necessary  for  the  salvation  of  the  child  would  be  required  by  the  Church  in  such  a  case 
as  this.  That  the  "  emergency  ''  of  the  case  induced  the  Church  indeed  to  omit  all  that 
could  be  omitted  without  prejudice  to  the  infant's  welfare.  That  therefore  a  case  of 
"  emergency  "  precisely  ascertains  what  is  essential  to  the  eternal  salvation  of  the  soul. 
The  "  State  Court"  argues  just  the  reverse,  viz.  that  in  an  "emergency  "  less  would 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privy  Council.^  53 

of  the  parish  is  to  inquire  by  whom,  with  what  matter,  and  with  what 
words  the  child  was  baptized  ;  and  if  satisfied,  he  is  to  certify  that  all 
is  well  done,  and  that  the  child  being  born  in  sin,  and  in  the  wrath  of 
God,  is  now,^^  by  the  laver  of  regeneration  in  Baptism,  received  into  the 
number  of  the  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of  everlasting  life.  The  Bap- 
tism thus  referred  to,  and  the  effect  of  which  is  thus  stated  or  expressed, 
is  a  Baptism  which  may  have  taken  place  without  any  prayer  for  grace, 
or  any  sponsors ;  but  it  seems  plainly  to  have  been  intended  only  for 
cases  of  emergency,  in  which  death  might  probably  prevent  the  cere- 
mony, if  not  immediately  performed ;  for  such  occasions,  and  the  child 
dying,  the  Church  holds  the  Baptism  sufficient,  and  not  to  be  repeated. 
One  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins  is  acknowledged  by  the  Church ; 
nevertheless,  if  the  child,  which  is  after  this  sort  baptized,  do  after- 
wards live,  the  Rubric  declares  the  expediency  of  bringing  it  into  the 
Church,  and  appoints  a  further  ceremony,  with  sponsors.  The  private 
Baptism  of  infants  is  an  exceptional  case,  provided  for  an  emergency, 
and  for  which,  if  the  emergency  passes  away,  although  there  ia  to  be 
no  repetition  of  the  Baptism,  a  full  service  is  provided.  The  adult  per- 
son is  not  pronounced  regenerate  until  he  has  first  declared  his  faith 

i  and  repentance  ;  and  before  the  act  of  infant  Baptism,  the  child   is  (argued 
pledged  by  its  sureties  to  the  same  conditions  of  faith  and  repentance.  bS^goniy 
And  these  requirements  of  the  Church,  in  her  complete  and  public  ser-  ''  excep- 
vice,  ought,  upon  a  just  construction  of  all  the  services,  to  be  considered  not  in'sist- 
as  the  rule  of  the   Church,  and  taken  as  proof  that  the  same  promise,  'JJfa'Jf  thar 
though  not  expressed  is  implied  in  the  exceptional  case,  when  the  rite  might  be 
is  administered  in  the  expectation  of  immediate  death,  and  the  exigency  sar"^"^'^^^' 

/of  the  case  does  not  admit  of  sureties.  Any  other  conclusion  would  be 
an  argument  to  prove  that  none  but  the  imperfect  and  incomplete  cere- 
mony allowed  in  the  exceptional  case  would  be  necessary  in  any  case. 


be  done,  and  (possibly)  a  vital  part  of  the  regenerating  rite  omitted!     Then  why- 
baptize  in  such  cases  at  all  ? 

'•  The  "  State  Court  "  calls  private  baptism  an  incomplete  "  ceremony  ;''  but  it  is  not 
therefore  an  incomplete  Sacrament.  The  "ceremony''  is  not  essential,  it  is  owned; 
but  the  "  Sacrament"  is,  and  therefore  is  to  be  administered  on  pain  of  suspension  of 
the  Clergyman  who  neglects  it.     (Canon  68.) 


54   Judyment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 


where  there  were  no  sponsors,  (though  Mr,  Gorham  says  their  stipula- 
tions are  implied,)  that  this  child,  so  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holt  Ghost,  with  water,  "  is  now, 
by  the  laver  of  Eegeneration  in  Baptism,  received  into  the  number  of 
the  children  of  God,  and  heirs  of  everlasting  life," — "for  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  doth  not  deny  His  grace  and  mercy  unto  such  infants."  ) 
The  form  of  private  baptism,  I  say,  shows  that  what  is  required  to  be 
done  in  the  church,  if  the  child  live,  is  a  matter  of  order  and  decency, — 
that  neither  godfathers  nor  godmothers  are  an  essential  part  of  baptism, 
because  the  rubric  to  which  I  have  already  referred  states  that  the  child 
"  is  lawfully  and  sufficiently  baptized."  Wliat  room  is  there  then  for 
stating  that  either  of  the  offices  of  public  or  private  baptism  of  infants 
is  merely  conditional,  or  founded  upon  an  hypothesis  ?  True  it  is,  if 
the  child  should  live  to  become  a  responsible  being,  and  commit  actual 
sin,  then  he  may  pass  from  the  benefits  given  in  baptism  :  in  this  state,  i 
faith  and  repentance  would  be  requisite,  in  order,  not  to  regenerate 
him,  for  that  has  ah'eady  been  done,  according  to  the  declaration  of  the 
Church  in  baptism,  but  to  renovate  and  bring  him  back  into  that  state 
in  which  he  was  placed  by  baptism. 
(Mr.  Gor-  But,  to  put  the  point  beyond  all  doubt,  we  have  a  positive  declaration 
''^'t  tio"*^*^"  °^^  ^^^^  P^^'^  '^^  ^^^®  Church,  not  a  mere  hypothetical  or  charitable  hope, 
will  not  in  these  words  :  "  It  is  certain  by  God's  Word  that  children  which  are 
stanu.)  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved." 
It  is  not  a  suppositive  declaration  of  the  Church.  According  to  her  in- 
terpretation of  God's  Word,  she  declares  "  It  is  certain  by  God's  Word,  m 
that  children  which  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin, 
are  undoubtedly  saved."  Mr.  Gorham  admits  (see  p.  85,)  that  the 
Church  has  ruled  that  children  are  "undoubtedly  saved"  who  have  been 
baptized  and  die  before  committing  actual  sin.  I  cannot  understand 
how  any  qualification  can  be  engrafted  on  these  words :  tlie  Church 
bases  the  declaration  on  God's  Word.  I  cannot  understand  upon 
any  principle  how  the  declaration  of  the  Church  is  to  be  a  mere 
charitable  hope  :  the  supposition  is  that  the  child  dies  without  com- 
mitting actual  sin ;  and  the  declaration  in  baptism  is,  that  the  child 
"is  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  ;"  that  he  is  "  the  child  of  God  ;" 
that  he  is  "  engrafted  into  the  Church."  In  the  face  of  this  express 
language  it  is,  I  confess,  to  me  extremely  difficult  to  understand  it  in  I 
Mr.  Gorhani's  qualified  sense. 

There  is,  however,  another  baptismal  service  ^^  i-emaining  to  be  con- 
sidered, namely,  "  The  Ministration  of  Baptism  to  such  as  are 
of  riper  tears,  and  are  able  to  answer  for  themselves." 

This  Formulary  had  not  a  place  in  our  Prayer  Book  until  it  was  in- 
troduced on  the  review  after  the  Eestoration.  The  ground  of  its  intro- 
duction is  stated  in  the  Preface  to  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  to  be 
by  reason  of  "  the  growth  of  anabaptism,  through  the  licentiousness  of 
the  late  times  crept  in  amongst  us,"  that  it  "  is  now  become  necessary, 
and  may  be  always  useful  for  the  baptizing  of  natives  in  our  plantations, 
and  otliers  converted  to  the  faith."  This  service  is  said  to  be  on  the 
same  footing  and  character  with  the  other  two,  to  which  I  have  already 

^  The  "  State  Court  "  was  bound  to  consider  this  service,  and  examine  the  principle 
on  which  it  proceeds,  because  Mr.  Gorham's  case  stands  altogether  on  his  identifying  the 
baptism  of  infants  and  adults.  To  omit  this,  was  to  give  a  judgment  apart  from  the 
facts  of  the  case. 

But  this  is  but  one  of  the  numerous  instances  in  which  the  "  State  Court "  omitted  to 


3.  Con- 
stiiiction 
of  the  Ser- 
vice for 
Adult  Bap. 
tisni. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  55 


3.  This 
Service  for 
Adults  Is  not 
at  all  ex 
amined  hy 
this  Court . 


wo^ece  the  judgment  of  the  "  Church  Court,"  which  itwas  preparing  to  '*  reverse."  Surely 
it  was  the  clear  duty  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  to  revieiv  the  grounds  of  the  "Court 
below  "  and  show  their  erroneousness.  To  "  reverse  "  a  decision  without  even  thtshoiv 
of  a  consideration  of  it,  or  of  its  grounds,  is  unprecedented  in  English  Courts. 


56   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archhishoji  of  Canterbury's.) 

referred ;  and  it  was  asked  why,  if  one  form  out  of  tlie  three  is  hypo-  | 
thetical,  tlie  other  two  are  not  equally  so  ?  It  appears  to  me  that  there 
is  this  marked  distinction.  In  the  case  of  the  public  baptism  of  those 
of  riper  years,  those  who  apply  for  baptism  are  persons  who  have  not 
only  "  committed  actual  sin,"  and  have  need  of  repentance,  but  they  are 
persons  who  also  know  that  such  is  the  case  ;  they  are  to  be  "  instructed 
in  the  principles  of  religion  "  before  they  are  permitted  to  come  to  par- 
take of  that  holy  Sacrament.  They  are  therefore  persons  who  come  in 
their  own  right,  who  enter  into  the  promises  in  their  own  names,  and 
promise  with  a  sincere  intention  to  perform  all  they  engage  to  do. 
Here,  then,  is  the  marked  distinction :  Infants,  who  promise  by  their 
sureties,  and  are  therefore  admitted  to  partake  of  baptism,  if  they  die 
before  they  "  commit  actual  sin,"  are  "  saved  "  according  to  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Church  :  those  of  riper  years,  who  have  been  instructed  in 
the  principles  of  religion,  who  know  what  they  have  to  perform  and  do, 
and  make  the  promises  in  their  own  persons,  are  necessarily  considered 
as  entitled  to  the  benefits  of  baptism  only  upon  the  supposition  that 
they  are  sincere  in  their  promises  of  faith  and  repentance ;  if  they  offer 
themselves  for  baptism  and  its  benefits,  they  must  do  so  either  hypo- 
Its  (lis-      critically  or  sincerely,  but  the  Church  cannot  know,  except  by  their  out- 

tures^^  ^^^   ward  conduct,  whether  they  are  sincere  or  not.     There  is  then,  I  say, 
this  marked  distinction, — that  the  Church  knows  in  the  case  of  an 

(equally       infant  that  it  cannot  have  committed  "actual  sin"  before   baptism; 

cfoThamT   ""'^^''^^^'  ^^  '^^  case  of  the  adult,  it  can  only  rely  upon  his  outward  pro- 
fession of  faith  and  repentance. 

It  does  appear  to  me,  then,  that  no  legitimate  argument  can  be  drawn 
from  the  hypothetical  sense  or  charitable  judgment  with  respect  to 
adults,  to  justify  the  application  of  the  same  to  the  case  of  infants,  who, 
it  is  positively  declared,  are  "  by  God's  Word  "  saved  if  they  have  been 
baptized  and  die  before  they  commit  actual  sin.  I  say  no  argument  can 
be  drawn  from  the  application  of  the  one  case  to  the  other ;  in  the 
latter,  the  case  of  the  baptism  of  those  of  riper  years,  the  Church  can 
act  only  on  the  charitable  supposition  that  the  party  is  sincere.  1  say 
the  two  services  are  most  materially  distinguished ;  they  substantially 
differ,  on  separate  and  distinct  grounds,  the  one  from  the  other. 
K.  "Con-   ^    lu  respect,  however,  of  the  Services  of  the  Church,  the  question  at 

of  the  Gate-  issue  rests  not  here.     After  childi-en  have  been  baptized,  and  they  have 

chism  arrived  at  a  sufficient  age  to  be  instructed  and  to  learn  the  principles  of 

the  Christian  religion,  they  are,  amongst  otlier  things,  to  be  instructed 
in  the  Church  Catechism,  which  thus  commences :  "  AVhat  is  your 
name  ?  Who  gave  you  this  name  ?"  The  answer  to  the  latter  question 
is,  "  My  godfathers  and  godmothers  in  my  baptism,  wherein  I  was  made 
a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  This  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the  declaration  made  at 
the  time  of  baptism,  the  services  are,  we  see,  at  the  outset,  in  accord- 
ance with  each  other.  Then,  as  to  the  next  question  :  "  What  did  your 
godfathers  and  godmothers  then  for  you  ?"  "  They  did  promise  and  vow 
three  tilings  in  my  name.  First,  that  I  should  renounce  the  devil  and  all 
his  works,  the  pomps  and  vanities  of  this  wicked  world,  and  all  the  sinful 
lusts  of  the  flesh,"  which  is,  in  effect,  the  samewith  the  renunciation  of  "the 
carnal  desires  of  the  flesh  "  in  the  baptismal  service.     "  Secondly,  that  I 

™  What  can  the  "  State  Court"  mean  by  this  ?  Has  it  any  meaning,  oris  this  another 
specimen  of  random  theology  ?     If  the  Court  allowed  all  the  baptized  to  be  "  elect  "  (as 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  (the  Privy  Council.)  67 


This  view  of  tlie  baptismal  service  is,  in  our  opinion,  confirmed  by  the    4.  LaUtude 
Catechism,  in  which,  although  the  respondent  is  made  to  state  that  in  °^ism  ^^^^ 
his  baptism  he  "  was  made  a  member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and 
an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"   it  is  still  declared  that  repent- 
ance and  faith  are  required  of  persons  to  be  baptized  ;  and  when  the 
question  is  asked,  "  Why,  then,  are  infants  baptized,  when  by  reason  of  the  phrase 
their  tender  age  they  cannot  perform  them?"  the  answer  is — not  that  q^j'^^s"*"''' 
infants  are  baptized  because  by  their  innocence  they  cannot  be  unworthy  sancUfieth 
recipients,  or  cannot  present  an  obex  or  hindrance  to  the  grace  of  rege-  which  the^*^' 
neration,  and  are  therefore  fit  subjects  for  divine  grace  ;  but  "  because  court  thinks 
they  promise  them  both  by  their  sureties,  which  promise,  when  they  admitted^ 
come  to    age,  themselves   are   bound   to   perform."     The   answer   has  univer- 

•    •  •  •  SEu.lv   but 

direct  reference  to  the  condition  on  which  the  benefit  is  to  depend,  only'"  cha- 
And  the  whole  Catechism  requires  a  charitable  ^^  construction,  such  as  J^^^gjf ,. 
must  be  given  to  the  expression  "  God  the  Holt  Ghost  ;  Who  sancti- 
fieth  me  and  all  the  elect  people  of  God." 

the  ancient  services  expressly  do)  the  expression  would  be  consistent,  but  with  their 
Calvinistic  interpretation  of  the  word,  it  is  wholly  amazing. 


58   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbvri/s.) 


examined 
throughout 


(equally 
against  Mr. 
Gorham.) 


The  Court 
finds  no 
trace  of  Mr. 
Gorham's 
doctrine  of 
prevenicnt 
grace  in  the 
formularies, 


should  believe  all  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.  And  thirdly, 
that  I  should  keep  God's  holy  will  and  commandments,  and  walk  in  the 
same  all  the  days  of  my  life."  "  Question.  Dost  thou  not  think  that  thou 
art  bound  to  believe  and  to  do  as  they  have  promised  for  thee  ?  Answer. 
Yes,  verily;  and  by  God's  help  so  I  will.  And  I  heartily  thank  our 
heavenly  JF'atheb,  that  He  hath  called  me  to  this  state  of  salvation,"  \ 
[that  is,  the  state  in  which  I  was  placed  by  baptism,  no  longer  a  child  ' 
of  wrath,  but  a  child  of  grace  ;  I  was  born  in  sin,  but  by  baptism  was 
free,]  "  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savioue.  And  I  pray  unto  God  to 
give  me  His  grace  that  I  may  continue  in  the  same  unto  my  life's  end." 
"  Continue," — there  is  no  doubt,  no  hypothesis,  here  expressed  as  to 
the  state  in  which  he  was  placed  by  baptism.  He  prays  for  grace  that 
he  may  continue,  that  he  may  not  fall  away  from  that  state  ;  that  he 
may  not,  by  sin,  lose  that  grace  which  was  conferred  on  him  in  his 
baptism. 

The  child  is  then  desired  to  say  the  articles  of  his  belief,  the  com- 
mandments, and,  after  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  catechism  proceeds  to 
the  questions  on  the  Sacraments,  which  were  added  after  the  Eestora- 
tion.  "  Question.  How  many  Sacraments  hath  Christ  ordained  in  His 
Church  ?  Answer.  Two  only,  as  generally  necessary  to  salvation ;  that 
is  to  say.  Baptism  and  the  Supper  of  the  Lord.  Question.  Wliat 
meanest  thou  by  this  word  Sacrament  P  Answer.  I  mean  an  outward 
and  visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace  given  unto  us,  ordained 
by  Christ  Himself,  as  a  means  whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a 
pledge  to  assure  us  thereof."  There  is,  in  effect,  the  same  language, — 
spiritual  grace  given  ;  it  is  a  sacrament  ordained  by  Christ  as  a  means 
whereby  we  receive  the  same,  that  is,  the  grace  given  to  us.  I  cannot 
understand  how  a  doubt  can  be  raised  on  the  baptismal  services,  or  upon 
these  words.  "  Question.  How  many  parts  are  there  in  a  sacrament  ? 
Ansiver.  Two  ;  the  outward  visible  sign,  and  the  inward  spiritual  grace. 
Question.  What  is  the  outward  visible  sign  or  form  in  baptism  ? 
Ansiver.  "Water ;  wherein  the  person  is  baptized,  in  the  name  of  the 
¥ATR'Eii,andofthe8o'S,andof  the  Holy  Ghost.  Question.  What  is 
the  inward  spiritual  grace  ?  Answer.  A  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth 
unto  righteousness:" — Spiritual  grace — which  was  conferred  at  baptism. 
— Regeneration,  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  for  the  remission  of  sins  ; — "  for 
being  by  nature  born  in  sin,  and  the  children  of  wrath,  we  are  hereby 
made  the  children  of  grace.  Question.  What  is  required  of  persons  to 
be  baptized  ?  Ansiver.  Repentance,  whereby  they  forsake  sin ;  and 
faith,  whereby  they  steadfastly  believe  the  promises  of  God  made  to 
them  in  that  sacrament."  Then  follows  this, — "  Question.  Why,  then, 
are  infants  baptized,  when,  by  reason  of  their  tender  age,  they  cannot 
perform  them  ?  Answer.  Because  they  promise  them  both  by  their 
sureties,  which  promises,  when  they  come  to  age,  themselves  are  bound 
to  perform." 

The  Church,  thou,  we  see,  admits  infants  to  partake  of  the  sacrament 
of  baptism  upon  the  supposition  that,  if  they  should  live  and  arrive  at 
years  of  discretion,  they  will  take  upon  themselves  the  performance  of 
those  vows  which  were  made  by  their  sureties  in  baptism.  But  the 
state  of  those  children  who  die  before  "  they  commit  actual  sin,"  is,  as  I 
have  already  observed,  declared  at  the  end  of  the  baptismal  service, 
namely,  "  It  is  certain,  by  God's  Word,  that  children  which  are  bap- 
tized, dying  befoi-e  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved." 
They  must  be  "baptized," — they  must  die  " before  they  commit  actual 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  59 


(This 
Court  does 
not  ex  a 
mine  the 
Catechism, 
but  only  the 
passages 
preceding:.) 


(This 
Court  (toes 
not  examine 
Mr.  Gor- 
ham'stheory 
of  preve- 
nient  grace.) 


60   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

sin,"  to  bring  them  within  that  declaration.  "Prevenient  grace"  is  not 
the  mode — the  Church  says  nothing  about  jirevenient  grace  ; — but  if 
they  live,  "  when  they  come  to  age,"  the  Church  says  they  are  bound  to 
perform  the  promises  of  their  sureties. 

The  same  doctrine  runs  through  all  the  catechisms  which  were 
referred  to  in  the  course  of  the  argument.  I  cannot  imderstand  that 
Dean  Nowell  teaches  any  other  doctrine  whatever  ;  but  I  will  refer  to 
his  Catechism,  to  be  found  in  the  Enchiridion  Theologicum,  Oxford 
edition,  1792,  vol.  ii.  pp.  212 — 216 :  the  passage  on  the  subject  runs 
thus : — M.  De  baptismo  ergo  primum  die  quid  censeas.  A.  Quum 
natura  filii  irae,  id  est,  alieni  ab  Ecclesia,  quae  Dei  familia  est,  simus, 
baptismus  veluti  aditus  quidam  nobis  est,  per  quern  in  earn  admittimur ;" 
[admitted  into  Christ's  Church  by  means  of  baptism] — "unde  et  testi- 
monium etiam  amplissimum  accipimus,  in  numero  domesticorum,  adeoque 
filiorum  Dei  nos  jam  esse  ;  imo  in  Christi  corpus  qimsi  co-optari,  atque 
nor  in  con-  iuscri,  cjusquc  membra  fieri,  et  in  unum  cum  ipso  corpus  coalescere." 
temporan  [Taken  iuto  and  inserted  as  it  were  in  Christ's  body,  and  made  mem- 
thorities"'  bers  of  Christ,  and  engrafted  into  one  body  with  Him.]  "  M.  Sacra- 
mentum  antea  dicebas  duabas  constare  partibus,  signo  externo,  et  arcana 
gratia.  Quod  est  in  baptismo  signum  externum  ?  A.  Aqua  in  quam 
baptizatus  intingitur,  vel  ea  aspergitur,  in  nomine  Patris,  et  Filii,  et 
Spiritus  Sancti.  M.  Quaj  est  arcana  et  spiritualis  gratia  ?  A.  Ea 
duplex  est ;  remissio  videlicet  peccatorum,  et  regeneratio,  quae  utraque 
in  externo  illo  signo,  solidam  et  expressam  effigiem  suam  tenent.  M. 
Quomodo  ?  A.  Primum,  quemadmodum  sordes  corporis  aqua,  ita  animae 
macula)  per  remissioneni  peccatorum  eluuntur ;  deinde  regenerationis 
initium,  id  est,  naturae  nostrae  mortificatio,  vel  immersione  in  aquam,  vel 
ejus  aspersione  exprimitur.  Postremo  vero,  quum  ab  aqua,  quam  ad 
momentum  subimus,  statim  emergimus,  nova  vita,  quae  est  regenerationis 
nostrae  pars  altera  atque  finis  representatur."  [In  accordance  with  aU 
the  baptismal  services,  and  the  Catechism  of  the  Church.]  "  M.  Videris 
aquam  effigiem  tantum  quandam  rerum  divinarum  efficere.  A.  Effigies 
quidem  est,  sed  minime  inanis  aut  fallax  ;  ut  cui  rerum  ipsarum  Veritas 
adjimcta  sit  atque  annexa."  [It  is  not  an  empty  or  deceitful  sign.] 
"  Nam  sicuti  Deus  peccatorum  condonationem  et  vitse  novitatem  nobis 
vere  in  baptismo  oftert,  ita  a  nobis  certo  recipiuntiu*.  Absit  enim  ut 
Deum  vanis  nos  imagiuibus  ludere  atque  frustrari  putemus."  [They  are 
not  mere  signs,  but  beneficial  signs, — "  effectual  signs  of  grace."]  "  M. 
Non  ergo  remissioneni  peccatorum  externa  aqu®  lavatione  aut  asper- 
sione consequimur?  A.  Minime:  nam  solus  Christus  sanguine  suo 
animarum  nostrarum  maculas  luit  atque  eluit.  Hunc  ergo  honorem  ex- 
terno clemento  tribueri  nefas  est."  [As  expressed  in  one  of  the  quota- 
tions by  the  learned  counsel,  attributing  this  to  water  merely.]  "  Verum 
Spiritus  Sanctus  conscientias  nostras  sacro  illo  sanguine  quasi  aspergens, 
abstersis  omnibus  peccati  sordibus,  puros  nos  coram  Deo  reddit.  Hujus 
vero  peccatorum  nostrorum  expiationis  obsignatiouem  atque  pignus  in 
Sacramento  habemus."  [Sacramental!]  '^ M.  Eegenerationem  vero 
unde  habemus  ?  A.  Non  aliunde  quam  a  morte  et  resurrectionc 
Christi ;  nam  per  mortis  suae  vim  vetus  homo  noster  quodammodo  cru- 
ciligitur  et  moi'tificatur,  et  naturae  nostrae  vitiositas  quasi  sepelitur,  ne 
amplius  in  nobis  vivat  et  vigeat.  Ilesurrectionis  vero  suae  beucficio  nobis 
largitur,  ut  in  novam  vitam  ad  obediendum  Dei  justitiae  reformemur. 
M.  An  gratiam  hanc  omnes  communiter  et  promiscue  consequuntur. 
A.  Soli  fldoles  liunc  fructuin  percipiunt :  increduli  vero  oblatas  illic  a 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.^  61 


G.2   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's) 

Deo  proniissiones  respuendo,  aditum  sibi  pra?cludentes,  inanes  abeunt, 
non  tameu  ideo  efficiunt,  ut  suam  sacramenta  vim  et  naturani  amittant." 
[The  ftiitliful  alone  receive  the  benefit  of  baptism.  So  we  always  say  in 
Adult  Baptism  that  those  who  are  not  sincere  in  their  faith  and  repent- 
ance, receive  no  benefit  from  the  administration.]  "  31.  Rectus  ergo 
baptismi  usus  quibus  in  rebus  sit  situs  breviter  edissere.  A.  In  fide  et 
jienitentia."  [Eaith  and  repentance — that  is  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church ;  "  Repentance  whereby  we  forsake  sin,  and  faith  whereby  we 
steadfastly  believe  the  promises  of  God  made  to  us  in  that  Sacrament."] 
"  Primum  enim  Christi  nos  sanguine  a  cunctis  purgatos  sordibus  Deo 
grates  esse,  Spii'itumque  ejus  in  nobis  habitare  carta  fiducia  cum  animis 
nostris  statutum  habere  oportet.  Deinde  in  came  nostra  mortificanda, 
obediendoque  justitise  di^dnse,  assidue  omni  ope  et  opera  est  enitendum, 
et  pia  Adta  apud  omnes  declarandum  nos  in  baptismo  Christum  ipsum 
quasi  induisse,  et  ejus  Spiritu  donates  esse."  [Then  comes  the  question 
why  infants  are  baptized ;  the  answer  is,  as  it  appears  to  me,  in  con- 
formity with  our  catechism,  "  Because  they  promise  them  both  by  their 
sureties,  which  promise,  when  they  come  to  age,  themselves  are  bound 
to  perform."]  "  M.  Quum  infantes  hsec,  quse  commemoras,  hactenus 
per  ffitatem  prsestare  non  possint,  qui  fit  ut  illi  baptizentur  ?  A.  Ut  fides 
et  poenitentia  baptismo  prsecedant,  tantum  in  adultis,  qui  per  setatem 
sunt  utriusque  capaces,  exigitur ;  infantibus  vero  promissio  Ecclesiae 
facta  per  Christum,  in  cujus  fide  baptizantur,  in  prisons  satis  erit,  deinde 
postquam  adoleverint,  baptismi  sui  veritatem  ipsos  agnoscere,  ejusque 
vim  in  animis  eorum  Adgere,  atque  ipsorum  vita,  et  moribus  repraesentari 
omuino  oportet." 

Dean  Newell,  in  the  passages  I  have  read,  appears  to  me  to  put  the 
case  on  the  same  footing  as  the  Church  Catechism  does  ;  namely,  that, 
in  tlie  case  of  adults,  faith  and  repentance  must  precede  baptism ;  but 
in  the  case  of  infants  the  promises  made  by  their  sureties  are  accepted, 
though,  if  they  come  to  age,  they  themselves  must  then  perform  them. 
I  cannot  discover  any  sensible  diflerence  between  the  doctrine  of  our 
Cluirch  as  set  forth  in  lier  Catechism,  and  the  passages  I  have  referred 
to  in  Nowell's  Catechism. 

But  when  the  child  has  come  to  years  of  discretion,  and  is  instructed 
in  the  principles  of  religion,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  promises  made 
for  him  in  baptism,  he  is  then  to  be  brought  to  be  confirmed  by  the 
Bishop. 
8.  '•  Con-       ^^ow  the  Preface  to  the  Service  of  Confirmation  states  the  reason  why 
ofThi'ser"    *^"^  Order  was  framed  ;  it  is  ..."  To  the  end  that  children,  being  now 
vice  for        come  to  years  of  discretion,  and  having  learned  what  their  godfathers 
(•"Np.K.Mv.  jjj^^j  godmothers  promised  for  tliem  in  baptism,  they  may  themselves, 
with  their  own  mouth  and  consent,  openly  before  the  Cliurch  ratify  and 
confirm  the  same:  and  also  promise  that  by  the  grace  of  God  they  will 
evermore  endeavour  themselves  faithfully  to  observe  such  things  as' they, 
by  tlicir  own  confession,  have  assented  unto."     Then  the  question  is  put 
ui!'o"'        ^^^  the  Bishop  : — "  Do  ye  liere,  in  the  presence  of  God,  and  of  this  con- 
gregation, renew  the  solemn  promise  and  vow  that  was  made  in  your 


>NFIK.M 
TION 


>*  This  omission  is  altogether  unpardonable,  most  especially  as  the  "  Bishop's  plead- 
ings  "  (p.  16)  make  the  express  charge  against  Mr.  Gorham,  to  include  contradiction  of 
the  Confirmation  service.  But  the  omission  is  not  unintelligible,  as  it  would  really 
seem  to  be  beyond  all  the  power  of  human  ingenuity  to  fix  a  "  latitude  "  and  "  charita- 
ble hyjiothesis,"  on  the  words  of  the  Confirmation  service.     Let  any  one  //;/  to  do  it. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  end  of  the  second  principal  division  of  these  two  judg- 


Judyment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Privy  Council.)  63 


It  seems  unnecessary  for  us  to  go  tlirougli  tlie  other  formularies  ^^  in    5.  The 
be  Prayer-Book.     The  services  abound  with  expressions  which  must  be  conskfedng* 
onstrued  in  a  charitable  and  qualified  sense,   and  cannot,  with  any  the  c<>n- 
ppearance  of  reason,  be  taken  as  proofs  of  doctrine.     Our  principal  servicJ,'(and 
ttention  has  been  ffiven  to  the  baptismal  services;  and  those  who  are  t^^e rest— ) 
trongly  impressed  with  the  earnest  prayers  which  are  oflered  for  the  every  one 
jvine  blessing,  and  the  grace  of  God,  may  not  unreasonably  suppose  ^^g^eto^the 
hat  the  grace  is  not  necessarily  tied  to  the  rite  ;  but  that  it  ought  to  be  rule  of 
larnestly  and  devoutly  prayed  for,  in  order  that  it  may  then,  or  when  c„nstruc- 
jrOD  pleases,  be  present  to  make  the  rite  beneficial.  ti""."  ^she 

■■■  ■*-  may  be  able. 

Qents.  It  appears  that  the  "  Church  Court"  has  carefully  scaA fully  examined  all  the 
j'ormularies  of  the  Church  connected  with  baptism.  The  "  State  Court ''  has  not 
ixamiued  any  one  in  extenso,  but  picked  out  two  or  three  passages  to  support  a  par- 
icular  view,  and  "  obtain  the  result,''  and  this  only  with  some  of  the  formularies.  The 
)fl5ce  for  Confirmation  is  not  even  glanced  at  by  the  "  State  Court." 


64   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

name  at  your  baptism ;  ratifying  and  confirming  the  same  in  your  own  per- 
sons ;  and  acknowledging  yourselves  bound  to  believe  and  to  do  all  those 
things  which  your  godfathers  and  godmothers  then  undertook  for  you?" 
After  the  question  is  answered,  what  is  declared  in  the  prayer  ?  Almighty 
and  everlasting  God,  Who  hast  vouchsafed  to  regenerate  these  Thy  ser- 
vants by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hast  given  unto  them  for- 
giveness of  all  their  sins,  strengthen  them,  we  beseech  Thee,  O  Lord, 
with  the  Holt  Ghost  the  Comforter,  and  daily  increase  in  them  Thy 
is  equally  manifold  gifts  of  grace,  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  the 
against  Mr.  spirit  of  counscl  and  ghostly  strength ;  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  true 
"viewT."  gocUiness,  and  fiU  them,  O'Lobd,  with  the  spirit  of  Thy  holy  fear,  now 
and  for  ever."  In  this  service,  also,  we  see  it  is  declared  that  children 
are  "  regenerate  by  water  and  the  Holt  Ghost,"  and  that  their  sins  are 
forgiven ;  which  positions  are  directly  in  accordance  with  the  declara- 
tions contained  in  the  Baptismal  Services  and  in  the  Church  Catechism. 
They  all  show  that  it  is  by  baptism,  that  children  become  "  regenerate  " 
and  their  sins  are  forgiven. 

These  are  the  services  upon  which  great  stress  was  laid  by  the  learned 
counsel  for  Mr.  Gorham.  They  appear  to  me  by  no  means  to  show,  as 
was  contended,  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  the  Church  is  hypothetical, 
and  involves  merely  a  charitable  hope ;  the  declarations  are  positive. 
Taking,  then,  the  words  of  the  services  in  their  natural  and  literal  sense, 
I  am  of  opinion  that  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  in  the  baptism  of 
infants  is  established. 

There  may  be  a  difficulty  in  ascertaining  what  is  meant  by  the  word 
"regeneration  ;"  whether  it  implies  an  absolute  change  of  nature,  cha- 
racter, and  feelings,  or  whether  it  implies  only  a  change  of  state  and  of 
relation  ;  that  is,  a  change  of  state  from  "  a  child  of  wrath  to  a  child  of 
grace."  It  appears  to  me  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  is  sufficiently 
explained  by  the  terms  made  use  of, — regeneration  "  by  water  and  the 
Holt  Ghost  ;"  for  the  remission  of  sins  is  given  by  means  of  the  ad- 
ministration of  water  and  the  Holt  Ghost  accompanying  it.  It  is 
nothing  to  say  that  there  may  be  cases  in  which  the  sign  may  be  received 
VI.  wiiat  without  the  thing  signified ;  that  may  be  often  so  in  the  case  of  adults  ; 
rkoknkua-  but  the  Church  can  only  express  a  charitable  hope  that  it  is  not  so ;  that 
they  are  sincere  in  their  promises  of  faith  and  repentance ;  and  if  they 
are  sincere,  then  the  Church  declares  that  they  are  members  of  Cheist's 
Church,  that  their  sins  are  forgiven,  in  other  words,  that  they  receive 
the  benefits  of  baptism. 

It  seems  to  me,  from  all  the  consideration  I  have  been  able  to  give  the 
subject,  that  the  word  regeneration  does  not  mean  and  imply  such  a  total 
change  of  character  as  to  preclude  persons  baptized  from  ever  or  finally 
faUiug,  but  that  the  word  means  such  a  change  of  station,  character,  and 
relation  as  places  them  in  a  new  situation,  from  children  of  wrath  to  cliil- 
drcn  of  grace,  whereby  they  become  members  of  Christ  and  inheritors  of 
the  kingdom  of  lieaveu.  This  view,  I  find,  accords  with  the  sentiments  of 
distinguished  divines  :  of  that  number  is  a  living  prelate*  of  the  Church, 
who  says: — "No  reasonable  doubt  can  be  entertained  that  it"  [the 
word  "regeneration"]  "was  appropriated  to  that  grace,  whatever  may 
be  its  nature,  which  is  bestowed  on  us  in  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism, 
(including  perhaps  occasionally,  by  a   common   figure   of  speech,   its 


•  Dr.  Bethell,  Bishop  of  Bangor,  in  his  "  General  View  of  the  doctrine  of  Rcgencra- 
tion  in  Baptism,"  pp.  6 — 8.     Third  Edition. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council)  65 


(What  re- 
generation 
is,  this  Court 
does  not 
consider.) 


66   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury  s.) 

proper  and  legitimate  effects,  considered  in  conjunction  with  it),  from 
the  beginning  of  Christianity  to  no  very  distant  period  of  ecclesiastical 
history.  In  tliose  few  passages  of  the  ancient  Christian  writers,  where 
it  bears  another  signification,  it  is  evidently  used  in  a  figurative  manner, 
to  express  sucli  a  cliange  as  seemed  to  bear  some  analogy  in  magnitude 
and  importance  to  the  change  eflected  in  baptism.  At  the  time  of  the 
lleformation,  the  word  was  commonly  used  in  a  more  loose  and  popular 
way  to  signify  sometimes  'justification,'  sometimes  'conversion,' — or 
the  turning  from  sinfid  courses,  sometimes  '  repentance,'  or  that  gradual 
change  of  heart  and  life,  which  is  likewise  called  'renovation.'  Hence, 
in  popidar  language,  it  came  to  signify  a  great  and  general  reformation 
of  liabits  and  character ;  and  the  words  '  regenerate '  and  '  unregenerate  ' 
were  substituted  for  the  words  '  converted '  and  '  unconverted,' 
'renewed'  and  'unrenewed,'  'righteous'  and  'wicked.'  In  modern 
times  we  have  been  taught  that '  regeneration '  is  a  thing  quite  uncon- 
nected with  baptism  "  [that  is  Mr.  Gorham's  position];  "that  it  may 
take  place  in  that  Sacrament,  as  well  as  at  any  other  time,  but  that  to 
suppose  it,  in  any  proper  sense,  dependent  on  it,  is  an  unreasonable 
and  unscriptural  opinion." 

The  same  learned  prelate  to  whom  I  have  just  referred,  gives  (Ibid. 
C.  II.  pp.  14,  15,)  a  summary  of  the  view  taken  by  Dr.  Waterland  in 
his  celebrated  discourse,  to  be  found  in  vol.  vi.  pp.  341 — 380,  of  his 
works,  edit.  1823.  "  Eegeneration  is  distinguished  from  renovation. — 
Eegeneration  is  a  change  of  the  whole  spiritual  state  ;  renovation,  a 
change  of  inward  frame  or  disposition  ;  which  in  adults  is  rather  a 
qualification  or  capacity  for  regeneration,  than  regeneration  itself. 
That  in  infants  regeneration  necessarily  takes  place  -nithout  renovation, 
J)ut  in  adults  renovation  exists  (or  at  least  ought  to  exist)  before,  in, 
and  after  baptism." 

"  Eegeneration,"  he  proceeds,  "  is  the  joint  work  of  the  water  and  of 
the  Spirit,  or,  to  speak  more  properly,  of  the  Spirit  only ;  renovation 
is  the  joint  work  of  the  Spirit  and  the  man." 

"  Eegeneration  comes  only  once — in  or  through  baptism.  Eenova- 
tion  exists  before,  in,  and  after  baptism,  and  may  be  often  repeated. 
Eegeneration,  being  a  single  act,  can  have  no  parts,  and  is  incapable  of 
increase.  Eenovation  is  in  its  own  nature  progressive.  Eegeneration, 
though  suspended  as  to  its  eftects  and  benefits,  cannot  be  totally  lost  in 
this  present  life.  Eenovation  may  be  often  repeated  and  totally  lost." 
Dr.  Waterland  illustrates  the  doctrine  thus : — "  Grown  persons  coming 
to  baptism  properly  qualified,  receive  at  once  the  grace  of  regeneration  ; 
but,  however  well  jjrepared,  they  are  not  regenerate  without  baptism. 
Afterwards,  renovation  grows  more  and  more  within  them  by  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  to  infants,  their  innocence  and  in- 
capacity are  to  them  instead  of  repentance,  which  they  do  not  want, 
and  of  actual  faith,  whioli  they  cannot  have :  and  they  are  capable  of 
being  born  again,  and  adopted  by  God,  because  tlicy  brmg  no  obstacle. 
They  stipulate,  and  tlie  Holy  Spirit  translates  them  out  of  a  state  of 
nature  into  a  state  of  grace,  favour,  and  acceptance.  In  tlieir  case,  re- 
generation precedes,  and  renovation  follows  after,  and  tliey  are  the 
temple  of  the  Sjjirit,  till  tliey  defile  themselves  with  sin." 

There  is  one  other  distinguished  divine  to  whom  I  will  refer  as  to 
the  meaning  of  tlie  term  regeneration  in  baptism  ;  I  allude  to  Eisliop 
A'an  IMihlert,  wlio,  in  the  sixtli  of  his  Bampton  Lectures,  at  pp.  195, 
196,  2d  edit,  says :— "    .  .  .  the  word  regeneration,  in  the  scriptural 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Covncil.)  G7 


F  2 


G8   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishoj)  of  Canterbury's.) 

usage  of  it,  means  only  our  initiation,  or  entrance,  by  Baptism,  into 
tliat  covenant,  -nlncli  gives  us  new  privileges,  new  hopes,  and  a  new 
principle  of  spiritual  life  ;  placing  us  in  a  totally  difterent  state  from 
that,  to  which  by  nature  only  we  could  ever  attain.     The  expression, 
therefore,  cannot,  without  a  direct  violation  of  the  verbal  analogy  of 
Scripture,  be  applied  to  any  operation  that  takes  place  subsequent  to 
that    ]3aptismal  change,  with   which  alone  it  perfectly   con'esponds." 
Such  is  the  view  taken  by  Bishop  Van  Mildert, — a  view  which  it  is  un- 
necessary to  observe  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the  language  of  the 
Church  as  used  in  her  baptismal  services, — "  Grant  to  this  child  that 
thing  which  by  nature  he  cannot  have." 
The  rcfe'e-       \i  appears  to  me  most  clearly  and  distinctly,  from  the  services  them- 
saved  unless  sclvcs,  that  infants  are  regenerated  in  baptism  in  the  proper  sense  of 
frifmuleir    ^^^'^  word,  and  are  placed  in  a  state  in  which  they  are  made  "partakers 
'•  state  of      of  the  kingdom  of  heaven."     True  it  is  they  may  forfeit  their  title — 
throu^Kh"'"   they  may  fall  away  from  the  grace  imparted  to  them,  commit  sin,  grow 
actual  sin.    up  and  pcrists  in  it,  and  may  die  without  faith  and  without  repentance ; 
fants  dying  iu  sucli  cascs  the  gracc  bestowed  in  baptism  would  be  lost.     But  in  the 
''^^"'^'=.*''^y   case  of  those  who  die  immediately  after  baptism,  they  are  regenerate, 
actual  sin      and  are  undoubtedly  saved,  because  they  die  "  before  they  have  com- 
do^ubtediy     "fitted  actual  sin,"     Upon  this  part  of  the  case  I  cannot  entertain  the 
saved."        least  doubt.     The  words  of  the  services  themselves,  I  repeat,  show  that 
the  infant  is  regenerated  in  and  through  baptism ;  the  declai'ation  of 
the  Chrn-ch  to  that  point  is  positive  and  precise, 
ar'^ume'iits        "'"  ^^^^-^^^  ^^*^^^  Consider  some  other  arguments  which  were  adduced  on 
adduced  for  behalf  of  Mr.  Gorham. 

Eeference  was  made  to  the  burial  service,  which,  it  was  said,  must  be 
The  taken  to  be,  beyond  controversy,  a  service  expressive  of  a  charitable 
bie  "con-  hopc ;  that  it  was  framed  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  person  deceased 
str'jction  of  -^^^g  July  prepared  for  death,  and  therefore  that  the  body  is  committed 
n'luiarV,  v'iz.  to  the  earth  "  in  sure  and  certain  hope  of  the  resurrection  to  eternal 
luria^of  the  ^'^^•"  •"■  co^^'^ss  it  does  not  appear  to  me  that  any  strong  inference  is 
dead.  to  be  deduced  by  analogy  from  that  office.      The  Church  must  neces- 

sarily assume,  with  respect  to  the  person  dead,  that  God  has  "  taken  " 
him,  as  it  is  said,  "unto  Himself;"  the  meaning  of  which  I  apprehend 
to  be,  that  God  has  removed  him  from  this  world  in  the  state  in  which 
he  then  was,  of  which  state  the  Church  cannot  judge,  to  a  world  in 
which  there  is  no  possibility  of  cominittuig  sin.  AVe  pray  that  we  may 
rest  in  Christ  ;  "  As  oiu-  hope  is  this  our  brother  doth."  This  prayer 
is  founded  in  hope;  founded  on  the  hypothesis  that  the  deceased,  how- 
ever wicked,  may  have  repented  of  his  sins.  The  minister  cannot 
pronounce  how  the  person  died  ;  whether  he  was  or  was  not  a  repentant 
sinner— whether  he  is  to  be  eventually  received  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven,  or  whether  he  is  to  sutler  pimishment  for  his  sins  and  transgres- 
sions. Nevertheless,  the  Church  expresses  a  hope  that  "this  our 
2.  That  brother  doth  "  rest  in  Christ.  I  cannot  see  that  this  service  affords 
!.'rc  not'ti'^be  "^^'^'^  ^'^^  ^^  ^''^  qucstiou  ill  wliich  Mr.  Gorham  is  concerned. 
1."- "I'e for'  "^'^  ^^^^  ^^^^^  place.  The  Articles,  it  was  contended,  are  not  to  be 
muiii^ries.'''  construed  by  the  Formularies ;  it  was  argued  that  when  a  clergyman  is 
required  by  law  to  make  a  public  declaration  of  his  assent*  to  the 
Articles  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  the  assent  is  not  in  the  same 
terms  in  each  case— that  in  the  case  of  the  Articles  he  declares  his  un- 
feigned assent  to  them,  and  subscribes  them  as  "  agreeable  to  the  Word 
of  God  ;"  wliercas,  in  tlio  case  of  tlie  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  lie  de- 


Mr.  Gor- 
ham. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Privy  Council.)  69 


One  of  the  points  left  open  by  the  Articles  is  determined  by  the    Baptized 
Rubric, — "  It  is  certain  by  God's  word  that  children  which  are  bap- jJJ^^'ij^r^e ''^ 
tized,  dying  before  they  commit  actual  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved."     But  saved— but 
this  Rubric  does  not,  like  the  Article  of  1536,  say""^  that  such  children  byBaptisin. 
are  saved  by  baptism  ;  and  notliing  is  declared  as  to  the  case  of  infants 
dying  without  having  been  baptized. 


There   are   other  points   of  doctrine  respecting   the   sacrament    of    This  court 
baptism   which   we  are  of  opinion   are,  by  the   Rubrics   and   Pormu-  affinn\n°y 
laries,  as  well  as  the  Articles,  capable  of  being  honestly  understood  doctrine. 
in  different  senses ;  and  consequently  we  think  that,  as  to  them,  the 
points  wliich  were  left  undetermined  by  the  Articles  are  not  decided 
by  the  Rubrics  and  Pormularies;  and  that  upon  these  points  all  minis- 
ters of  the  Church,  having  duly  made  the  subscriptions  required  by  law 
(and  taking  the  Holy  Scriptures  for  their  guide)  are  at  liberty  honestly 
to  exercise  their  private  judgment  without  offence  or  censure.     Upright 
and  conscientious  men  cannot  in  all  respects  agree  upon  subjects  so 
difficult ;  and  it  must  be  carefully  borne  in  mind  that  the  question,  and 
the  only  question,  for  us  to  decide,  is  whether  Mr.  Gorham's  doctrine  is 
contrary  or  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by 
law  established? 


2^  For  an  answer  to  this,  I  refer  back  to  pages  50  and  5 1 . 


70   Judyment  uf  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 


■.\.  That 
the  Reform 
ers  were 
Calvinists ; 
and  could 
not  there- 
fore hold 
Haptismal 
Rcgeiiera- 
tiun. 


clares  "  his  unfeigned  assent  and  consent  to  tlie  ?<«e"  only  of  that  Book, 
and  subscribes  it  as  containing  "  nothing  contrary  to  the  AYord  of 
God;"  in  other  words  it  was  argued,  that  it  was  merely  to  the  use  of 
that  Book,  and  not  to  the  doctrines  contained  therein  that  he  assents 
and  consents.  I  apprehend  if  a  clergyman  assents  and  consents  to 
make  vse  of  the  Book,  that  he  assents  and  consents  likewise  that  it 
"  contahieth  nothing  in  it  contrary  to  tlie  Word  of  GrOD,"  or  contrary  to 
tlie  Articles  which  are  stated  to  be  "agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God," 
in  short,  tliat  he  acknowledges  the  truth  of  what  is  contained  in  that 
Book.  He  cannot  excuse  himself  by  saying,  I  consent  merely  to  use  it ; 
the  declaration  is  too  strong.  "  I  declare  my  unfeigned  assent  and 
consent  to  tlie  use  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer:"  he  appears  to  me 
to  make  a  declaration  that  he  believes  what  is  contained  in  that  Book. 
I  apprcliend,  then,  that  as  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  contains 
"nothing  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God,"  and  as  the  Articles  are 
"agreeable  to  the  AVord  of  God,"  the  two  cannot  be  construed  in  op- 
position, but  must  be  construed  together. 

Again,  another  important  question  was  raised  by  tlie  learned  Counsel 
for  Mr.  Gorham,  tlie  discussion  of  which  occupied  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  time,  namely,  what  were  the  opinions  of  the  Eeformers.  It 
was  contended  they  embraced  the  opinions  of  Calvin ;  tliat,  therefore,  it 
could  not  have  been  intended  by  them  to  declare  in  such  positive  terms, 
as  the  words  import  in  the  baptismal  and  other  services  of  the  Church, 
that  infants  are  by  baptism  regenerate. 

In  the  first  instance,  advantage  was  taken  of  a  statement  made  by 
the  learned  Counsel  of  the  Bishop,  that  Cranmer  had  never  changed 
his  opinions  with  respect  to  baptism— that  they  always  remained  the 
same.  I  think  the  learned  Counsel  of  Mr.  Gorham  has  very  success- 
fully argued  against  that  position,  and  has  shown  tliat  Cranmer  did 
cliauge  his  views,  and  necessarily  must  have  done  so ;  at  the  same  time 
1  must  remark,  that  I  think  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  Bishop  never 
intended  his  assertion  to  be  carried  to  the  extreme  length  his  words 
seemed  to  imply. 

That  the  Eeformcrs  individually  embraced  the  wliole  doctrines  of 
Calvin  is,  I  think,  a  matter  of  very  great  doubt.  It  cannot  be  denied 
that  the  doctrines  of  Calvin  made  a  certain  progress  in  this  country. 
Cranmer,  Ridley,  and  Latimer,  and  many  others  may  have,  to  a  certain 
degree,  embraced  some  of  tlie  principles  of  Calvin ;  but  the  question  is, 
to  what  extent  ?  Did  they  believe  in,  or  rather  did  they  teach  his 
tenets  on  predestination,  election,  final  perseverance,  reprobation  ?  I 
was,  in  effect,  told  that  Cranmer  was  a  Calvinist, — that  his  principles 
and  opinions  are  to  be  gleaned  from  those  with  whom  he  associated  in 
the  \\()rk  of  Bcformation — that  he  is  responsible  for  Peter  Martyr 
and  INliirliu  Biicer,  whom  he  placed  in  the  Divinity  Chairs  of  Oxford 
and  (.'ainljridge.  lh)w  far  Martin  Bucer,  how  far  Peter  Martyr  carried 
Calvin's  principles,  and  how  far  they  were  embraced  by  Cranmer  and 
the  rest  of  the  Keforiners,  I  stop  not  to  inquire ;  but  as  Cranmer,  and 
his  associate  Kidley,  arc  generally  supposed  to  have  had  an  active  share 
ni  framing  our  Articles  and  Service  Books  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI., 
we  may  be  able  at  least,  to  some  extent,  to  ascertain  their  views,  or, 
perhaps  more  properly,  the  sentiments  of  our  Church. 
^'I'he  learned  Counsel  for  ]\lr.  Gorham  said  that,  in  his  opinion,  the 
I7th  Article  (for  tlu>re  is  no  more  than  a  verbal  difference  between  the 
ArtK-le  of  1552  and  15G2)  delennined  this  question.    Let  us  see  and  con- 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  71 


Mr.  Gorham's  doctrine  may  be  contrary  to  the  opinion  enter- 
tained by  many  learned  and  pious  persons,  contrary  to  the  opinion 
which  such  persons  have,  by  their  own  pai'tlcular  studies,  deduced 
from  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  contrary  to  tlie  opinion  which  they  ha\'e 
deduced  from  the  usages  and  doctrines  of  the  primitive  Church ;  or 
contrary  to  the  opinion  which  they  have  deduced  from  uncertain  and  6.  The 
ambiguous  expressions  in  the  formularies  ;  still,  if  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  lay^down  ^ 
Gorham  is  not  contrary  or  repugnant  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Chui'ch  of  the  fuu  prin- 

*  ^     -L        O  ^  ClplC  01 

England,  as  by   law  established,   it  cannot  afford  a  legal  ground   for  "  latitude," 
refusing  him  institution  to  the  living  to  which  he  has  been  lawfully  pre-  ^o  je'dare"^^ 
sented.     This  Court,  constituted  for  the  purpose  of  advising  her  JMajesty  any  doc 
in  matters  which  come  within  its  competency,  has  no  jurisdiction  or  '^""'^' 
authority  to  settle  matters   of  faith,  or  to  determine  what  ought  in  any 
particular  to  be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England.      Its    duty 
extends  only  to  the  consideration  of  that  which  is  by  law  established  to 
be  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  upon  the  true  and  legal  con- 
struction of  her  Articles  and  Formularies ;  and  we  consider  that  it  is 
not  the  duty  of  any  Court  to  be  minute  and  rigid  in  cases  of  this  sort. 
We  agree  with  Sir  William  Scott  in  the  opinion  which  he  expressed  in 
Stone's  case,  in  the  Consistory  Court  of  Loudon  : — "  That  if  any  Article 
is  really  a  subject  of  dubious  interpretation,  it  would  be  highly  improper 


72   Judymcnt  of  the  Church  Court  [Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

4.  That     sider  the  Article  iu  its  own  words.      "  Predestination  to  life  is  the  ever- 
the  doctrine  lasting  purposo  of  GoD,  whercbv  (before  the  foundations  of  the  world 
uimuonts     wcro  laid)  He  hath  constantly  decreed  by  His  counsel,  secret  to  us,  to 
"he'church    deliver  irom  curse  and   damnation  those  whom   He    hath  chosen  in 
lurc  ,  ^j^j^jg^  ^^^^  ^f  mankind,  and  to  bring  them  by  Christ  to  everlasting 
salvation,  as  vessels  made  to  honoiu".    AVherefore  they,  which  be  endued 
with  so  excellent  a  benefit  of  God,  be  called  according  to  God's  pur- 
pose, by  His  Spirit  working  in  due  season :  they  through  grace  obey 
the  calling :  they  be  justified  freely:  they  be  made  sons  of  God  by 
adoption:    they  be  made  like  the  image  of  His  only  begotten    Son, 
Jesus  Christ  :  they  walk  religiously,  in  good  works ;  and  at  length, 
by  God's  mercy,  they  attain  to  everlasting  felicity. 

"  As  the  godly  consideration  of  predestination,  and  our  election  in 
Christ,  is  full  of  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly 
persons,  and  such  as  feel  in  themselves  the  working  of  the  Spirit  of 
Cjirist,  mortifying  the  works  of  the  flesh  and  their  earthly  members, 
and  dra-ndng  up  their  mind  to  high  and  heavenly  things,  as  weU  because 
it  doth  greatly  establish  and  confirm  their  faith  of  eternal  salvation  to 
be  enjoyed  through  Christ,  as  because  it  doth  fervently  kindle  their 
love  towards  God  :" — [one  would  suppose  that  the  compilers  of  the 
Articles,  and  the  Church,  had  they  embraced  the  entire  tenets  of  Cal- 
vin, woidd  have  gone  on  to  declare  this  an  article  of  faith,  but  instead  of 
that,  what  do  they  say  ?] — "  So,  for  cm-ious  and  carnal  persons,  lacking 
the  Spirit  of  Christ,  to  have  continually  before  tl\eir  eyes  the  sentence 
of  God's  predestination,  is  a  most  dangei-ous  downfal,  whereby  the 
devil  doth  thrust  them  either  into  desperation,  or  into  wretchlessness 
of  most  unclean  living,  no  less  perilous  than  desperation.  Further- 
more, we  must  receive  God's  promises  in  such  wise,  as  they  be  generally 
set  forth  to  us  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  in  our  doings,  that  will  of  God 
is  to  be  followed,  which  we  have  expressly  declared  unto  us  in  the 
word  of  God."  We  see  then  that  the  couipilcrs,  and  I  may  add  the 
(not  as  Church,  determine  nothing  with  respect  to  predestination  and  election  ; 
faithT  °^  ^^^^^  ^^^  ^^  "  ^^  ^^^^^  °^  sweet,  pleasant,  and  unspeakable  comfort  to  godly 
persons,"  but  with  respect  to  "  carnal  persons,"  for  them  "to  have  coii- 

*■•  'J'he  passages  here  quoted  have  been  subjected  to  a  searching  examination  by  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  by  others.     The  result  appears  to  be,  that 

I.  Bishop  Juweli/s  meaning  is  witolly  dixtortcd  by  a  fragment  taken  from  the 
middle  of  a  passage  of  a  completely  contrary  meaning  to  that  which  is  insinuated.  The 
whole  may  be  seen  in  Jewkll's  controversy  irit/i  Harding  on  Private  Mass. 

II.  Hooker's  name  and  authority  are  alleged  in  behalf  of  the  very  error  he  was 
strongly  writing  against  in  that  very  place.  The  two  j)assages  pretended  as  quotations 
from  iiim  are  botli  mutilated  and  altered  (!)  to  suit  the  ineaning  of  the  Privy  Council. 

HI.  Alien iiisiiop  Usii i; II  is  favoured  with  a  "  quotation  "  purporting  to  be  his,  but 
taken  from  a  book  that  he  did  not  write,  nor  sanction,  but  actually  repudiated. 

IV.  Bishop  Jeukmy  Taylor  is  treated  scarcely  better  ;  for  he  is  arguing/or  the 
importance  of  baptism,  even  in  cases  where  the  Holy  Spirit  is  already  given,  and 
showing  that  thougli  God  does  nut  tie  himself.  He  tied  us  to  the  rites  He  has  appointed. 
Tiie  I'livy  Council  ventures  to  "quote"  a  y/-fl</we«/ of  this  argument  to  prove  that 
baptism  is  not  indispensably  necessary  ! 

V.  Archuishop  \Viinc;iKT  is  not  even  pretended  to  be  "  quoted,"  but  his  alleged 
general  sanction  to  "  I5ulliiiger's  Decades  "  is  supposed  to  carry  with  it  his  iniprimatur 
for  every  proposition  that  might  be  extracted  from  that  work  1 

VI.  Hisiiop  Pkarson,  a  name  ever  venerated  among  the  orthodox,  is  next  put  for- 
ward in  tins  cause.  A  short  sentence  of  his  on  adult  baptism,  is  transferred  by  the 
I'riyy  (  oimcil  to  infant  baptism,  iu  defiance  of  every  line  the  learned  jirelate  ever  wrote. 

VII.  Bishop  Caiu.kton,  in  the  place  quoted  from  him  to  show  that  the  belief  of 
baptismal  regener.ition  of  infants  is  charitable,  admits  as  posi tire,  the  statement  that 
original  sin  is  remitted  in   ba|>tisin,  and  so  limits  the  operation  of  our  charity  to  the 

future  eflects  of  the  Sacrament,  and  not  the  present. 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Privy  Council.)  73 

that  this  Court  should  fix  on  one  meaning,  and  prosecute  all  those  who 
hold  a  contrary  opinion  regarding  its  interpretation." 

In  the  examination  of  this  case  we  have  not  relied  upon  the  doctrinal 
opinions  of  any  of  the  eminent  writers  by  whose  piety,  learning,  and 
ability  the  Church  of  England  has  been  distinguished  ;  but  it  appears 
that  opinions,  which  we  cannot  in  any  important  particular  distinguisli 
from  those  entertained  by  Mr.  Grorham,  have  been  propounded  and 
maintained,  without  censure  or  reproach,  by  many  eminent  and  illus- 
trious prelates  and  divines  who  have  adorned  the  Church  from  the  time 
when  the  Articles  were  first  established. 


"We  do  not  alErm  that  the  doctrines  and  opinions  of  Jewell,  Hooker, 
Usher,  Jeremy  Taylor,  Whitgift,  Pearson,  Carleton,  Prideaux,  and  many 
others,  can  be  received  as  evidence  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of    various 
England;  but  their  conduct,  unblamed  and  unquestioned  as  it  was,  proves  *P,®"™?"^ 
at  least  the  liberty  ^^  which  has  been  allowed  in  maintaining  such  doc-  our  church, 
trine. 

Bishop  Jewell  writes — "This  marvellous  conjunction  and  incorpo- 

And  lastly,  for  there  are  no  others  mentioned,  Bishop  Prideaux  is  adduced  as 
using  words,  which  at  least  admit  of  an  orthodox  meaning  ;  for  they  are  exactly  true 
of  adult  baptism,  and  (in  the  scholastic  sense  of  the  terms)  true  generally.  But 
Prideaux,  whatever  his  opinions,  ought  to  be  one  of  the  last  to  be  quoted  by  the  advo- 
cates of  "latitude  "  and  "  charity,"  as  he  is  as  strenuous  as  any  schoolman  or  father 
(to  whom  he   appeals)  in  maintaining  salvation  to  be  had  eiVchisively  in  the  Church. 

It  is  melancholy  to  have  to  add,  that  nearly  all  of  these  imperfect  and  untrue  quota- 
tions seem  to  have  been  borrowed  from  the  notes  of  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
which  he  has  published  in  his  suicidal  preface  to  his  "  Apostolical  Preaching  !"  One 
of  Hooker's  "  quotations,"  not  cited  by  the  Archbishop  in  his  preface,  is  actually 
altered  by  the  Judges  themselves, — if  this  part  of  the  judgment  be  their  production. 
Of  course  there  have  been  in  our  Church,  as  in  all,  "  varieties  "  of  opinion.  Examples 
of  tolerated,  and  at  times  rampant,  Puritanism  might  easily  have  been  given  ;  (but  not 
from  Hooker,  or  Pearson  ;)  but  the  examples  adduced  by  the  Privy  Council  show  the 
looseness  of  consideration — the  recklessness  of  those  whose  conclusion  was  already 
arrived  at.  These  "  examples,"  I  say,  painfully  betray  the  animus  of  the  "  State 
Court.''  They  are  thrown  off,  as  it  were,  from  the  abundance  of  instances  in  the  pos- 
session of  the  Court  ("  many  others  ").  With  such  examples  of  "  variety  of  opinion," 
how  could  the  "  State  Court"  help  adopting  a  principle  of  "  latituee  .'"  I'he  answer  is 
— these  examples  are  mistakes.  The  Court  adopted  the  principle  of  latitude  first,  and 
then  looked  about  for  respectable  support,  and  fastened  on  the  ivrong  instances.  The 
fact  is  discreditable  ;  but  it  has  found  (as  all  cases  may  find,  it  seems—  in  all  courts)  a 
defender — the  now  somewhat  noted  "  Mr.  Goode."  For  an  exposure  of  this  unhappy 
person's  "  Letter,"  I  must  refer  my  readers  to  Appendix  C. 


74    Jnd(/ment  of  the  Chvrch  Court  {Archbishup  of  Canterbury's.) 

tiuually  before  their  eyes  the  sentence  of  God's  predestination  is  a 

most  dangerous  downfal,  whereby  the  devil  doth  thrust  them  either 

into  desperation  or  into  wretchlessness  of  most  unclean  living,  no  less 

perilous  than  desperation." 

The  Court      It  was  allowed  that  this  particular  question  was   left  open  by  the 

lie's'thfatufn    Reformers ;  but  it  was  said  it  was  so  left  open  for  the  purpose  of  em- 

cxpressiy  is  bracing  and  inducing  as  many  as  possible  to  sign  the  Articles.   I  cannot 

"open  ques  adopt  that  opinion  :  I  think  the  Eeforraers  must,  if  they  had  entertained 

tion "  by  the  the  doctriucs  of  absolute  predestination  and  election,  have  expressed 

'       "^  "^  °'  themselves  in  terms  which  could  have  left  no  doubt  as  to  their  meaning. 

They  hardly,  I  think,  could  have  been  guilty  of  endeavouring  to  lead 

any  into  the  belief  that  that  was  a  doctrine  of  faith  to  be  embraced, 

without  declaring  themselves  in  plain  language. 

AVe  here  see  to  what  extent  Cranmer  and  Eidley  did  not  proceed  on 
the  17th  Article.  Have  they  elsewhere,  in  any  of  the  services  or  offices 
of  the  Church,  in  effect  said,  in  the  words  of  Bishop  Hopkins  :* 
"  God  promises  pardon  and  remission  of  sins  to  all  that  believe  and 
rei)ent ;  but  He  promises  grace  to  believe  and  repent  only  to  those  whom, 
by  His  absolute  covenant,  He  has  engaged  to  bring  through  faith  and 
repentance  to  salvation  ?"  Did  they  go  to  the  extent  of  what  was  after- 
wards laid  down  in  the  Synod  of  Dort,  as  expressed  in  the  6th  Article  of 
that  synod  ?...."  Secundum  quod  decretum  electorum  corda,  quan- 
tumvis  dura,  gratiose  emoUit,  et  ad  credendum  inflectit ;  non  electos 
autem  justo  judicio  sua?  malitia)  et  duritia^  reliuquit."  .  .  .  According 
to  this  canon,  the  hearts  of  the  elect,  however  hard,  are  to  be  gi-aciously 
softened  and  turned  to  faith  ;  but  those  who  are  not  among  the  number 
of  the  elect,  are  to  be  left  to  a  judgment  justly  due  to  theii*  hardness  of 
heart.  Again,  what  is  the  7th  Article  of  tliat  Synod  ?  "  Est  autem 
Electio  immutabile  Dei  propositum,  quo,  ante  jacta  mundi  fundamenta, 
ex  universo  genere  humane,  ex  primajva  integritate  in  peccatum  et 
oxitium  sua  culpa  prolapso,  secundum  liberrimum  voluntatis  sua>  bene- 
l)lacitum,  ex  mera  gratia,  certam  quorundam  hominum  multitudinem, 
aliis  nee  mcliorum,  noc  digniorum,  sed  in  communi  miseria  cum  aliis 
jacentium  ad  salutem  elegit  in  Christo."  These  are,  in  substance,  the 
doctrines  of  Calvin,  and  are  to  be  found  in  his  Institutes  ;  but  did  our 
Eeformcrs  go  to  that  extent  P  It  appears  to  me  that,  whatever  may 
have  l)een  the  opinions  of  some  of  the  Eeformers  on  any  of  these  points, 
their  opinions  have  not  been  expressed  in  the  language  of  Calvin,  with 
whicli  they  must  have  been  sufficiently  acquainted.  But  is  it  possible 
that  Cranmer  and  Eidley,  who  are  said  to  have  had  some  share  in  pre- 
])aring  the  service  books  set  forth  in  the  reign  of  Edward  the  Sixth, 
could  have  adopted  the  principles  of  Calvin,  and,  at  the  same  time,  have 
been  parties  concerned  iu  the  preparation  and  compilation  of  the  Bap- 
tismal oflices,  and  the  Confirmation  service,  contained  in  those  books  ; — 
odices  which,  as  far  as  the  present  question  is  concerned,  vary  in  no 
important  resj^cct  from  the  oflices  contained  in  our  present  Book  of 
Coinmon  Prayer  ?  Even,  however,  if  such  a  charge  coidd  bo  made  good 
against  them — that  they  expressed  opinions  privateli/  at  variance  with 
those  dcdavcd  pubfic/i/  in  the  Offices  of  the  Church,— it  would,  I  appre- 
hend, be  my  duty  to  be  guided  by  such  public  declarations. 

But  I  do  not  collect,  even  from  the  passages  which  were  cited  from 

*  As  cited  by  Archbishop  Sumner  in  his  "  Apostolical  Preaching,"  p.  75,  8th  edition. 

■"^  This  is  wholly  untrue.  Tlicre  is  no  single  instance  adduced,  or  even  pretended,  of 
the  "  enforcement  "  of  the  Decades,  or  doctrines,  of  Bullinger.  The  degree  of  favour 
shown  at  any  moment  to  the  writings  of  that  reformer,  would  only  prove  the  very  oj>po- 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  75 

ration  with  God,  is  first  begun  and  wrought  by  faith ;  afterwards  the 
same  incorporation  is  assured  to  us,  and  increased  by  baptism.'" 

J  looker  ■wi'ites — "  We  justly  hold  baptism  to  be  the  door  of  an  actual 
entrance  into  GtOd's  house — the  first  apparent  beginning  of  life — a  seal, 
||)erhaps,  of  the  grace  of  election  before  received ;  but  to  our  sanctifica- 
xion,  a  step  which  has  not  any  other  before  it."  Archbishop  Usher,  in 
reply  to  the  question,  "  What  say  you  of  infants  baptized  that  are  born 
in  the  Church  ?  Doth  the  inward  grace  in  their  baptism  always  attend 
the  outward  sign  ?  Answer :  Surely,  no  ;  the  sacrament  of  baptism  is 
effectual  only  to  those,  and  to  all  those  who  belong  to  the  election  of 
race." 

Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor  says,  "  Baptism  and  its  effect  may  be  separated, 
,nd  do  not  always  go  in  conjunction.  The  effect  may  be  before,  and 
therefore  much  rather  may  it  be  after  its  susception ;  the  sacrament 
operating  in.  the  virtue  of  Cheist,  even  as  the  Spirit  shall  move." 
i  There  was  even  a  time  when  docti"ine  to  this  effect  was  required  to 
[be  studied  in  our  Church  ;  and  Whitgift,  by  a  circular  issued  in  the 
kear  1588,  enforced'^'^  an  order  made  in  the  year  1587,  whereby  every 
ininister  under  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  was  required  to  study  and 
;ake  for  his  model  the  Decades  of  Bullinger,  as  presented  by  the  (^ueen 
md  the  upper  house  of  Convocation.  And  there  it  is  declared,  amongst 
aiimerous  passages  of  a  like  tendency,  "  The  first  beginning  of  our 
uniting  in  fellowship  with  Cueist  is  not  wrought  by  the  sacraments  " — 
in  baptism  that  is  sealed  and  confirmed  to  infants  which  they  had  before. 
So  with  respect  to  the  charitable  interpretation  of  divine  services, 
'Hooker  says,  "  The  Chiu'ch  speaks  of  infants,  as  the  rule  of  charity 
plloweth  both  to  speak  and  to  think."  Bishop  Pearson  says,  "When 
ijihe  means  are  used,  without  something  appearing  to  the  contrary,  we 
ought  to  presume  of  the  good  effect."  Bishop  Carleton  says,  "All  that 
receive  baptism  are  called  the  children  of  God,  regenerate,  justified;  for 
to  us  they  must  be  taken  for  such  in  charity,  until  they  show  them- 
selves other."  And  Bishop  Prideaus  says,  "  Baptism  only  pledges  an 
external  and  sacramental  regeneration,  while  the  Chui-ch  in  chai-ity 
pr()nounces  that  the  Holt  Spirit  renders  an  inward  regeneration." 

We  express  no  opinion  upon  the  theological  accuracy  of  these 
opinions,  or  any  of  them.  The  writers  whom  we  have  cited  are  not 
always  consistent  with  themselves,  and  other  writers  of  great  eminence, 
and  worthy  of  great  respect,  have  held  and  published  very  different 
opinions.  But  the  mere  fact  that  such  opinions  have  been  propounded 
and  maintained  by  persons  so  eminent  and  so  miich  respected,  as  well 
as  by  very  many  others,  appears  to  us  sufficiently  to  prove,  that  the 
liberty  which  was  left  by  the  Articles  and  Formularies  has  been  actually 
enjoyed  and  exercised  by  the  members  and  ministers  of  the  Church  of 
Eufjland. 


site  of  what  is  now  alleged;  viz  ,  that  not  the  favour  of  an  Archbishop,  or  the  Queen, 
(supiiosing  it  so,)  could  force  Bullinger  on  our  Clergy.  His  Decades  passed  away, 
leaving  no  trace  behind. 


76   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishojj  of  Cantei'bury's.) 

the  private  writings  of  Craumer  or  Ridley,  that  they  eutertaiued  the 
doctrine  of  predestination  and  election.  Some  of  the  Eeformers,  indi- 
vidually, may  have  done  so  ;  but  it  is  clear  they  have  not  declared  those 
views  either  in  the  Services  of  the  Church  or  in  the  Articles.  I  say 
they  have  not  so  declared  themselves  in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ; 
for  I  find  in  the  service  of  Confirmation  the  declaration  (afterwards 
transferred  to  a  rubric  at  the  end  of  the  service  for  the  public  baptism 
of  infants)  "  that  it  is  certain  by  God's  Word  that  children,  being  bap- 
tized, (if  they  depart  out  of  this  life  in  their  infancy,)  are  undoubtedly 
saved."  I  say  they  have  not  so  declared  themselves  in  the  Articles,  and 
that  that  is  instanced  most  assuredly  in  reference  to  the  17th  Article  of 
the  Cliurcli ;  and  that,  in  respect  to  the  Articles  generally,  there  is  not, 
with  tlie  exception  of  some  verbal  alterations,  any  substantial  diflerence 
between  the  Articles  of  1552  and  those  of  15G2  ;  and  in  respect  of  the 
question  in  hand — the  effects  of  infant  baptism — there  is  not,  as  far  as 
I  recollect,  any  variation  at  all. 

But,  again,  to  suppose  that  such  of  the  Eeformers  who  were  con- 
cerned in  compiling  our  service  books  entertained,  or  taught  the  doctrine 
"  that  the  elect  only  laave  faith  and  repentance,  and  that  they  only  have 
the  hope  of  forgiveness  of  sin,"  would  be  a  contradiction,  as  it  appears 
to  me,  to  the  whole  structure  of  tlie  Book  of  Common  Prayer.  What 
says  the  second  service  book  of  Edward  the  Sixth:  "At  what  time 
soever  a  sinner  doth  repent  him  of  his  sin  from  the  bottom  of  his  heart, 
I  will  put  all  his  wickedness  out  of  My  remembrance,  saith  the  Loed  ;" 
or,  as  the  introductory  sentence  now  stands, — "  When  the  wicked  man 
turneth  away  from  his  wickedness  that  he  hath  committed,  and  doeth 
that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  he  shall  save  his  soul  alive."  Again,  in 
"the  Absolution."  .  .  .  "  He  pardoneth  and  absolveth  all  them  which 
truly  repent,  and  unfeignedly  belie\e  His  holy  Gospel."  Lastly,  in 
innumerable  passages  therein  contained,  we  pray  that  God  will  give 
Ilis  grace  and  His  Holy  Spirit  to  all — not  confined  "  to  the  elect, 
whose  fate  is  fixed  and  determined,  and  was  so  long  before  they  came 
into  existence." 

We  know  that  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Mary,  a  vast  number  of  the 
Clergy  left  tliis  country  and  went  to  Germany,  where  they  imbibed, 
during  their  residence,  Calvinistic  tenets,  which'  in  the  reigii  of  Eliza- 
beth they  brought  back  with  them.  That  such  was  the  fact  was  clearly 
made  out  by  the  learned  counsel  of  Mr.  Gorham,  who,  in  support  of  that 
jjosition,  referred  to  AVood's  Historia  et  Antiquitates  Universitatis 
Oxoniensis,  vol.  i.  p.  290,  fol.  edit.  ;  as  evincing  that,  from  the  authors 
studied  at  that  University  in  tlie  latter  part  of  tlie  reign  of  Elizabeth, 
the  tenets  of  Calvin  were  in  vogue.  The  same,  too,  was  shown  in  respect 
of  tlie  University  of  Cambridge,  by  reference  to  Strype's  Life  of  AVhit- 
gilt,  bk.  iv.  cc.  14,  17,  18.  Still  these  two  bodies  can  be  regarded  in  no 
other  light  than  as  private  individuals. 

A  good  deal  was  said  about  Archbishop  Bancroft ;  or  rather  not  so  \ 
much  of  him  as  of  INIr.  Eogers,  his  chaplain;  but  I  think  there  is  good 
reason  to  doubt  whether  Archbishop  J3ancroft's  opinions  were  accurately 
expressed  by  his  chaplain,  if  we  take  as  our  authorities.  Clarendon's 
History  of  the  Rebellion,  vol.  i.  p.  15G,  oct.  edit.  182G,  and  Cardwell's 
Conferences,  p.  185.  [The  passages  were  read  at  length  by  the  learned 
judge.] 

There  are  some  undoubtedly,  whose  names  stand  very  high,  who  go 
the  length  that  to  receive  the  benefits  of  baptism  there  musl;  be,  in  all 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Privy  Council.)  77 


78    Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 

cases,  faith  and  repentance.  Martyr  and  Buccr  may  have  gone  to  that 
extent ;  hut  I  do  not  think  Cranmer  is  to  he  made  responsihle  for  all 
tliey  may  have  said  and  taught,  though  lie  did  consult  them  in  reference 
to  the  first  service  book  of  Edward  the  Sixth.  It  may  be  that,  in  the 
year  1549,  when  that  book  was  published,  the  German  Eeformers  gene- 
rally entertained  the  docti'ine  of  predestination,  but  I  apprehend  they 
did  not  adhere  to  that  doctrine  for  any  length  of  time.  I  find  it  stated 
by  Burnet,  in  his  History  of  the  Reformation,  vol.  ii.  p.  234,  (Oxford 
edit.  1829,)  speaking  of  the  effects  of  the  Calvinistic  doctrine  oi  dea-ees: 
"  The  Germans  soon  saw  the  ill  effects  of  tliis  doctrine ;  Luther  changed 
his  mind  about  it,  and  Melancthon  openly  writ  against  it.  And  since 
that  time,  the  whole  stream  of  the  Lutheran  churches  has  rim  the  other 
way.  But  both  Calvin  and  Bucer  were  still  for  maintaining  the  doc- 
trine of  these  decrees ;  only  they  warned  the  people  not  to  think  much 
of  them,  since  they  were  secrets  which  men  could  not  penetrate  into ; 
but  tliey  did  not  so  clearly  show  how  those  consequences  did  not  flow 
from  such  opinions.  Hooper  and  many  other  good  writers  did  often 
dehort  the  people  from  entering  into  these  curiosities ;  and  a  caveat  to 
that  same  purpose  was  put  afterwards  into  the  article  of  the  Church 
about  predestination." 

It  is  quite  impossible,  howeverj  for  the  Court  to  follow  the  learned 
counsel  for  Mr.  Gorham  through  all  the  quotations  he  cited  from  the 
immense  number  of  writers  of  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  and  sub- 
sequent thereto.  It  must  be  allowed  that,  though  many  of  them  were 
persons  of  great  learning,  there  were  some  equally  eminent  who  enter- 
tained different  views.  In  this  conflict  of  opinions,  the  Court  would  be 
placed  in  the  greatest  possible  difficulty  in  determining  the  question 
before  it,  if  it  had  no  other  guide. 

But  I  am  of  opinion,  that  to  the  private  views  of  individuals,  however 
eminent,  I  am  not  at  liberty  to  attend.  Their  opinions  can  have  no 
binding  effect  upon  my  judgment.  So  long  as  the  Articles  and  the 
Services  of  the  Church  are  reconcileable,  and  not  only  reconcileable, 
but  necessarily  consistent,  I  must  construe  them  together.  If  a  doc- 
trine is  laid  down  in  the  baptismal  and  other  services,  and  in  the  rubrics, 
all  of  which  were  confirmed  by  Act  of  Parliament,  and  adopted  by  con- 
vocation, I  must  look  to  that  source  for  my  guide,  if  the  Articles  are 
silent  on  the  point, — and  not  indulge  in  fancy,  explaining  it  by  the 
opinions  expressed  by  private  individuals. 

It  may  be  said  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that  Mr.  Gorham 
Rcts'^asidoan  ^^^^^^^^  ^\•ithin  the  description  of  those  who  entertain  Calvinistic  opinions, 
these  picas.  Mr.  Gorham  undoubtedly  says  that  our  Church  has  determined  that 
those  children  who  are  baptized,  and  die  before  they  commit  actual  sin, 
are  undoubtedly  saved.  But  then  Mr.  Gorham  will  not  allow  that 
benefit  to  be  by  regeneration  in  baptism  :  he  says  that  it  is  by  "  preve- 
nient  grace,"  without  which  tliey  could  uot  be  "  worthy  recipients ;" 
and  that  if  not  "worthy  recipients,"  they  could  not  receive  the  sacra 
mvut  with  advantage.  'That  I  take  to  be  the  doctrine  Mr.  Gorham 
holds  ;  but,  in  order  to  justify  that  position,  his  learned  counsel  maiii- 
iaincd  tliat  the  Ileformers  were  Calvinists,  and  that,  therefore,  we  must 
construe  the  Services  and  Articles  in  a  Calvinistic  sense. 

Now  I  am  not  aware  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  occupy  more  time 
upon  this  case.  I  have  endeavoured  to  asccrtam  what  the  doctrine  of 
tlie  Church  of  England  on  infant  baptism  is,  and  whether  Mr.  Gorham 
entertains   opposite   views    to    tlie    Church.       It    is    clear    from   the 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.)  79 


80   Judgment  of  the  Church  Court  {Archbishop  of  Canterbury's.) 


Conclu- 
sion :  the 
doctrine  of 
the  Church 
of  England  is 
"  Baptismal 
Regenera- 
tion," and 
Mr.  Gorhani 
denies  it, 
and  is  con- 
demned by 
the  Eccle- 
siastical 
Court. 


passages  I  have  read  from  his  examination, — from  the  whole  tenor 
of  his  examination,  as  well  as  of  his  learned  counsers  argument,  that 
Mr.  Gorham  does  oppose  the  Church's  doctrine  of  baptismal  rege- 
neration. He  says  the  child  may  receive  "  an  act  of  grace,"  and 
must  receive  "an  act  of  grace"  before  it  receives  the  Sacrament 
of  Baptism  with  beneficial  efiect;  he  maintains  that  that  "act  of 
grace"  is  not  conferred  by  baptism,  though  it  may  take  place  before 
baptism,  in  baptism,  or  after  baptism.  It  was  said  that  the  sign  is  not 
the  thing  signified.  Undoubtedly  it  is  not ;  but  the  Church  has  declared 
that  the  thing  signified  is  given  immediately  at  baptism,  though  accord- 
ing to  Mr.  Gorham 's  coimsel  that  doctrine  may  appear  to  have  some 
resemblance  to  the  Eomish  doctrine  of  the  opus  operatum.  In  the  case  of 
infants  there  is  no  obex  in  the  way:  when  they  are  baptized  they 
receive  the  benefit,  whatever  it  may  be  ;  and  that  benefit  is  declared  to 
be,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Formularies  of  the  Church,  "  Spi- 
ritual Eegeneration."  Therefore  I  say,  that  as  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  England  undoubtedly  is,  that  children  baptized  are  regene- 
rated at  baptism,  and  are  undoubtedly  saved  if  they  die  without  com- 
mitting actual  sin,  Mr.  Gorham  has  maintained,  and  does  maintain, 
opinions  opposed  to  that  Church  of  which  he  professes  himself  a  member 
and  minister.  The  only  remaining  question  is,  has  the  Bishop  shown 
sufficient  cause  why  he  should  not  institute  Mr.  Gorham  to  the  vicarage 
of  Brampford  Speke  ?  I  am  clearly  of  opinion  that  the  Bishop  has,  by 
reason  of  the  premises,  shown  sufficient  cause  ;  that,  consequently,  lie  is 
entitled  to  be  dismissed,  and  must  be  dismissed,  according  to  the  usual 
course,  with  costs. 


The  above  is,  in  substance,  a  correct  Eeport  of  the  Judgment. 

J.  E.  P.  EOBEETSON. 


^  I  must  conclude  the  consideration  of  this  melancholy  subject,  by  an  extract  of  a 
summary  kind  from  the  preface  to  Mr.  Badeley's  speech,  just  published,  p.  7  and  8  : — 

"  Now  I  cannot  help  thinking,  that  this  judgment  will  prove  as  unsatisfactory  to  any 
legal,  as  it  must  be  to  every  theological  mind,  for  I  find  in  it  no  balancing  of  the 
arguments  on  either  side,  no  question  canvassed,  no  proposition  met,  no  authority  im- 
pugned. No  notice  is  taken  of  the  evidence  adduced,  although,  in  the  opinion  of  many 
persons  well  qualified  to  decide,  that  evidence  was  amply  sufficient  to  remove  any 
doubt,  if  doubt  there  could  be,  respecting  the  meaning  which  our  formularies  were  in- 
tended to  express.  In  short,  for  anything  that  appears  in  this  judgment,  it  might  have 
been  written  just  as  well  before  the  case  was  argued,  or  by  some  person  who  was  un- 
conscious of  anything  that  had  been  urged.  But  more  than  this,  the  judgment  of  the 
Court  of  Arches  is  altogether  passed  by  ;  the  princijiles  on  which  it  was  founded  are 
not  considered  ;  it  is  not  even  mentioned,  except  in  the  formal  statement  of  it  at  the 
commencement,  and  the  reversal  at  the  end.  Yet  why,  it  may  be  fairly  asked,  was 
this  unusual  course  ado])ted  .'  Why  have  the  learned  judges  collectively  departed  from 
that  rule  which  each  of  tliera  is  in  the  habit  of  following  in  his  own  separate  Court  ? 
When  a  case  is  argued  before  any  of  them,  of  any  importance,  and  at  any  length,  the 
judgment  usually  contains  an  elaborate  examination  of  the  whole  question,  a  review  of 
the  points  which  liave  been  dwelt  upon  by  the  respective  parties  ;  what  is  weak  is  care- 
fully exposed,  what  is  strong  is  upheld,  and  the  principles  of  law,  on  which  the 
decision  is  ultimately  rested,  are  fairly  and  directly  applied.  Again,  when  the  judg- 
nient  of  an  interior  court  is  reversed  upon  appeal,  its  errors  are  generally  specified,  its 
d.fects  explained,  and  the  law  is  rendered  clearer  and  more  certain  for  the  future.  But 
will  any  one  pretend  to  say  that  this  has  been  done  here  .'  Alas  I  not  only  has  this  judg- 
ment followed  a  different  model,  from  those  which  have  been  most  approved  on  the 
records  of  our  jurisprudence,  but  the  very  rules  of  law,  on  which  it  professes  to  pro- 
ceed, are  most  signally  disregarded." 


Judgment  of  the  State  Court  [the  Pi-ivy  Council.)  81 

The  case  not  requiring  it,  we  have  abstained  from  expressing  any  opinion 
of  our  o\ATi  upon  the  theological  correctness  or  error  of  the  doctrine  of 
Mr.  Gorham,  which  was  discussed  before  us  at  such  great  length,  and  with  elusion : 
so  much  learning.     His  honour  the  vice-chancellor  Knight  Bruce  dis-  '^^^\  ^^''• 
sents  from  the  opinion  we  have  formed ;  but  all  the  other  members  of  having  been 
the  judicial  committee  who  were  present  are  unanimously  agreed  in  thfs^courtto 
opinion,  that  the  doctrine  held  by  Mr.  Gorham  is  not  contrary  or  repug-  hold  doc- 
nant  to  tlie  declared  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  estab-  pugnLit'"' 
lished,  and  that  Mr.  Gorham  ought  not,  by  reason  of  the  doctrine  held  *°  ^^"^ 
by  him,  to  have  been  refused  admission  to  the  vicarage  of  Brampford  doctrine,  is 

Speke.  rated  in  the 

And  we  stall,  therefore,  humbly  report  to  Her  Majesty  that  the  sen-  Church, 
tence  pronounced  by  the  learned  judge  in  the  Arches  Court  of  Canter- 
bury ought  to  be  reversed,^^  and  that  it  ought  to  be  declared  that  the 
Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter  has  not  shown  sufficient  cause  why  he  did  not 
institute  Mr.  Gorham  to  the  said  vicarage. 

We  shall,  therefore,  humbly  advise  Her  Majesty  to  remit  the  cause 
with  that  declaration  to  the  Arches  Court  of  Canterbury,  to  the  end 
that  right  and  justice  may  there  be  done  in  this  matter,  pursuant  to  the 
said  declaration. 


Dr.  Mill,  the  Rev.  Professor  of  Hebrew  at  Cambridge,  Chaplain  to  the  late  Arch- 
bishop, thus  expresses  himself  in  the  preface  to  a  recent  sermon  before  the  University  : 
"  Instead  of  the  careful  abstinence  from  spiritual  judgment  which  rumour  had  led  us  to 
hope,  we  were  presented  by  the  State  Court  with  a  laboured  theological  argument ;  vin- 
dicating, not  only  as  admissible,  but  as  most  probable,  a  forced  and  non-natural  con- 
struction of  the  baptismal  office,  by  which  the  sacrament  of  our  implantation  into  our 
Lord's  death  is  rendered  wholly  uncertain  and  precarious  in  efficacy  ;  dependent  either 
on  the  character  of  the  infant's  sponsors,  or  (what  were,  if  possible,  more  unchristian  and 
heretical)  on  his  own  subsequent  performance  of  what  were,  without  the  initial  grace, 
impracticable.  And  the  argument  is  concluded  by  deciding,  in  the  name  of  the  So- 
vereign of  these  realms,  what  the  Church,  if  retaining  any  vitality,  must  ever  hold  as  of 
Divine  faith  is  a  matter  of  variable  human  opinion  !'' 

Dr.  Hook,  Vicar  of  Leeds,  (a  very  different  authority,  however,)  observes,  though 
actually  denying  that  the  "  State  judgment  damages  our  position  as  a  Church," — "  Let 
it  not,  however,  be  supposed  that  those  who  take  this  view  of  the  case,  and  who  hope 
that,  by  the  providence  of  God,  the  judgment  will  be  overruled  for  the  good  of  His 
Church,  regard  with  any  feeling  of  approbation  the  line  of  conduct  pursued  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Privy  Council  who  are  appointed  to  act  as  Her  Majesty's  advisers.  Her 
Majesty's  advisers  appear  to  have  acted  as  politicians  rather  than  as  judges  ;  and  to  have 
decided,  not  according  to  the  merits  of  the  case,  but  according  to  their  notions  of  what 
was  expedient.  The  whole  subject  has  been  perplexed,  not  so  much  by  the  judgment 
they  have  advised  Her  Majesty  to  give,  as  by  the  reasons  they  have  assigned  for  the 
conclusions  at  which  they  have  arrived.  But  at  the  same  time  these  reasons,  resting  as 
they  do  on  doctrines  misunderstood,  and  on  the  mis-quotation  of  authorities,  only  serve 
to  confirm  us  in  the  faith  that  Regeneration  is  the  grace  of  Baptism." 

I  am  glad  to  be  here  able  to  add  the  striking  testimony  of  Mr.  Newman,  as  to  the 
character  of  this  Judgment  of  the  "  State  Court,"   and  the  orthodoxy  of  our  Church's 


82  Judgment  of  the  State  Court  {the  Privy  Council.) 

formularies.  It  is  the  more  important,  because  Mr.  Maskell  and  others  have,  in  their 
recent  excitement,  |)raised  that  Judgment  for  its  fairness  and  candour,  and  appeared  as 
if  half  convinced  by  it  that  the  Church  of  England  had  not  been  definite  as  to  the 
doctrine  of  Baptism.  Mr.  Newman — showing  himself  more  just  to  the  Church  he  once 
loved  than  some  who  are  yet  numbered  among  her  sons — in  his  first  lecture  on  the  "  Dif- 
ficulties of  Anglicans,"  delivered  by  him  a  few  days  ago  in  the  Strand,  as  Priest  of  the 
Oratory  of  St.  Philip  Neri,  thus  writes  : — "  The  antiquarian,  the  reader  of  history,  the 
theologian,  the  philosopher,  the  Biblical  student  may  make  his  protest ;  he  may  quote  St. 
Austin,  or  appeal  to  the  canons,  or  argue  from  the  nature  of  the  case  ;  but  la  Reinele  veut ; 
the  English  people  is  sufficient  for  itself;  it  wills  to  be  Protestant  and  progressive  ;  and 
Fathers,  councils,  schoolmen,  Scriptures,  saints,  angels,  and  what  is  above  them,  must 
give  way.  What  are  they  to  it .'  It  thinks,  acts,  and  is  contented,  according  co  its  own 
practical,  intelligible,  shallow  religion  ;  and  of  that  religion  its  Bishops  and  its  divines,  will 
they  or  will  they  not,  must  be  exponents.  In  this  way,  I  say,  we  are  to  explain,  but  in  this 
way  most  naturally  and  satisfactorily,  what  otherwise  would  be  startling,  the  late  Royal 
decision  to  which  I  have  several  times  referred.  The  great  legal  authorities,  on  whose 
report  it  was  made,  have  not  only  pronounced  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  persons  who 
have  denied  the  grace  of  Baptism  had  held  the  highest  preferments  in  the  National 
Church,  but  they  felt  themselves  authorized  actually  to  interpret  its  ritual  and  its  doc- 
trine, and  to  report  to  Her  Majesty  that  the  dogma  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  is  not 
part  and  parcel  of  the  national  religion.  They  felt  themselves  strong  enough,  in  their 
position,  to  pronounce  '  that  the  doctrine  held  by  '  the  Protestant  Clergyman  who 
brought  the  matter  before  them  '  was  not  contrary  or  repugnant  to  the  declared  doctrine 
of  the  Church  of  England  as  by  law  established.'  The  question  was  not  whether  it  was 
true  or  not,  as  they  most  justly  remarked,  whether  from  heaven  or  from  hell ;  they 
were  too  sober  to  meddle  with  what  they  had  no  means  of  determining  ;  they  '  abstained 
from  expressing  any  opinion  of  their  own  upon  the  theological  correctness  or  error  of 
the  doctrine '  propounded:  the  question  was,  not  what  God  had  said,  but  what  the 
English  nation  had  willed  and  allowed  ;  and  though  it  must  be  granted  that  they  aimed 
at  a  critical  examination  of  the  letter  of  the  documents,  yet  it  must  be  granted,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  their  criticism  was  of  a  very  national  cast,  and  that  the  national  sen- 
timent was  of  great  use  to  them  in  helping  them  to  their  conclusions.  What  was  it  to 
the  nation  or  its  lawyers  whether  Hooker  used  the  word  '  charity  '  or  '  piety '  in  the 
extract  which  they  adduced  from  his  works,  and  that  '  piety  '  gave  one  sense  to  the  pas- 
sage, and  '  charity  '  another  .'  Hooker  must  speak  as  the  existing  nation,  if  he  is  to  be 
a  national  authority.  What  though  the  ritual  categorically  deposes  to  the  regeneration 
of  the  infant  baj)tized  ?  The  Evangelical  party,  which  had  had  the  nerve  years  before 
to  fix  the  charge  of  dishonesty  on  the  explanations  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  put  forth 
by  its  opponents,  could  all  the  while  be  cherishing  in  its  breast  an  interpretation  of  the 
Baptismal  Service,  simply  contradictory  of  its  most  luminous  declarations.  Inexplicable 
proceeding,  if  it  were  professing  to  handle  the  document  in  the  letter  ;  but  not  dis- 
honourable nor  dishonest,  not  hypocritical,  but  natural  and  obvious,  on  the  condition  or 
understanding  that  the  nation,  which  imposes  the  document,  imposes  its  sense  ;  that  by 
the  breath  of  its  mouth  it  had,  as  a  god,  made  Establishment,  Articles,  Prayer-Book, 
and  all  that  is  therein,  and  could  by  the  breath  of  its  mouth  as  easily  and  absolutely 
unmake  them  again  whenever  it  was  disposed!  Counsel,  then,  and  pamphleteers  may 
put  forth  unanswerable  arguments  in  behalf  of  the  Catholic  interi)retation  of  the  Bap- 
tismal Service  ;  a  Ion;/  succension  of  Bishops,  an  unbroken  tradition  of  writers,  may 
have  faithfully  and  anxiously  guarded  it.  In  vain  has  the  Caroline  school  honoured  it 
by  ritual  observance  ;  in  vain  has  the  Restoration  illustrated  it  by  varied  learning  ;  in 
vain  did  the  Revolution  retain  it  as  the  price  for  other  concessions ;  in  vain  did  the 
eighteenth  century  use  it  as  a  sort  of  watchword  against  Wesley  ;  in  vain  has  it  been 
persuasively  developed  and  fearlessly  proclaimed  by  the  movement  of  1833;  all  this 
is  foreign  to  the  matter  before  us.  ^^'e  have  not  to  inquire  what  is  the  dogma  of  a  col- 
legiate, antiquarian  religion,  but  what,  in  the  words  of  the  Prime  Minister,  will  give 
'  general  satisfaction !'  " 


JUDGMENTS  OF  THE  ENGLISH  BISHOPS, 

(PROVINCE  OF  CANTERBURY,) 

On  the  Doctrine  of  the  Regenerating  Efficacy  of  Holy  Baptism. 

The  passages  liere  reprinted  from  tlie  published  works  of  the  Prelates 
of  our  Church,  who  at  present  occupy  the  various  sees  in  the  province  of 
Canterbury,  are  designed  to  exhibit  the  fact  that  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion is  among  us,  de  facto,  the  doctrine  of  the  living  Church,  so  far  as  her 
Bishops  may  be  thought  to  represent  her  authority.  The  intention  and 
value,  however,  of  such  a  "  catena"  must  not  be  mistaken.  The  doctrine 
to  which  our  Prelates  bear  unanimous  testimony  is  not  true,  because 
they  voluntarily,  or  involuntarily,  please  to  aflB.rm  it ;  but  we  receive  it 
because  the  universal  Church  has  ever  maintained  it,  from  the  Apostles' 
days.  "We  believe  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church.  These  Prelates  are 
rather  testifying  to  their  own  soundness  of  faith  in  this  matter,  than 
testifying  to  the  doctrine. 

Neither  may  it  be  imagined  that  I  am  referring  to  all  the  Bishops  as 
orthodox  and  wise  theologians,  or  witnesses  indeed  of  anything  beyond 
the  plain  fact,  (which  alone  might  vindicate  them  from  any  conscious 
heretical  departure  from  truth  in  other  less  perfectly  understood  doc- 
trines,) that  they  all  make  an  orthodox  profession  on  this  fundamental 
article,  "the  one  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Not  one  of  the 
Bishops  holds  Mr.  Gorham's  views.  All  condemn  them — if  to  profess 
truth  imply  condemnation  of  error,  as  most  of  us  have  thus  far  sup- 
posed. 

If  time  had  permitted,  it  was  intended  to  add  the  testimony  of  the 
other  Bishops  in  our  Communion, — the  province  of  York,  the  provinces 
of  Ireland,  the  Colonial,  American,  and  other  Churches.  These  may  be 
hereafter  added.  For  several  of  the  passages  here  given  from  the  Eng- 
lish Bishops  I  am  indebted  to  my  kind  friends  Mr.  Eussell  of  Enfield 
and  Mr.  Watson  of  Cheltenham. 

g2 


84  Judgments  of  English  Bishops. 

1. 

The  Aechbishop  of  Canterbuet, 
The  Most  Rev.  John  Bird  Sumner,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"  It  is  a  sufficient  confutation  of  the  doctrine  of  Special  Grace,  that  it 
reduces  Baptism  to  an  empty  rite  ;  an  external  mark  of  admission  into 
the  visible  Church,  attended  with  no  real  grace,  and  therefore  conveying 
no  benefit,*  nor  advancing  a  person  one  step  towards  salvation.  But  if 
Baptism  is  not  accompanied  with  such  an  effusion  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
towards  the  inward  renewing  of  the  heart,  that  the  person  baptized,  who 
of  himself  and  of  his  own  nature  could  do  no  good  thing,  by  this  amend- 
ment or  Eegeneration  of  his  nature,  is  enabled  to  bring  forth  fruit  thirty, 
or  sixty,  or  an  hundred  fold,  and  giving  all  diligence,  to  make  his  calling 
and  election  sure, — if,  I  say,  the  effect  of  Baptism  be  less  than  this,  what 
becomes  of  the  distinction  made  by  the  Baptist,  '  I  indeed  baptize  with 
water,  but  He  Who  comes  after  me  shall  baptize  Avith  the  Holt 
Ghost?'  What  becomes  of  the  example  of  Cheist  Himself ?  After 
His  Baptism,  the  descent  of  the  Holt  Ghost  in  a  visible  form  was 
surely  intended  to  confirm  His  followers  in  a  belief  that  their  Baptism 
would  confer  upon  them  a  similar  gift ;  and,  besides  the  washing  away 
of  their  sins,  and  the  ^'emission  of  the  penalti/  entailed  upon  the  posterity 
of  Adam,  would  bestow  on  them  a  power  enabling  them  to  euleil 
the  covenant  laws  of  their  religion." 

"  No  preacher  is  authorised,  either  by  our  Church  or  by  St.  Paul,  to 
leave  a  doubt  on  the  minds  of  his  hearers  whether  they  are  within  the 
2)ale  of  God's  fixvour  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  bound  to  enjoin  them  to 
seek  boldly  at  the  throne  of  grace  for  power  to  confirm  their  faith,  and 
work  out  their  repentance,  and  live  worthy  of  their  high  calliug."t — 
Apostolical  Preaching,  pp.  177,  179,  edit.  1850,  (first  published  1815.) 

Again  : — "  How  is  the  fact  of  Regeneracy,  upon  which  no  less  than 
eternity  depends,  to  be  discovered  ?"  ....  "By  the  benefit  of  Bap- 
tism." ....  —Ibid.  p.  163. 

"  All  might  be  so  nurtured  in  the  '  fear  and  admonition  of  the  Lord,' 
as  to  grow  up  with  a  sense  of  the  holiness  of  God, — of  the  aw^l  nature 
of  offending  Him  to  Whom,  as  infants,  they  had  been  solemnly  dedi- 
cated, of  the  inestimable  blessing  of  being  at  peace  with  Him,  through 
the  washing  of  llegeneration  and  receiving  of  the  Holy  Ghost." — Jubilee 
Sertnon,  preached  at  St.  PauVs,  March  8,  1849. 

2. 

The  Bishop  of  London, 

The  Right  Rev.  Charles  James  Blomfield,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"  I  HATE  already  observed,  that  in  tlic  interpretation  of  the  Articles 
which  relate  more  immediately  to  doctrine,  our  surest  guide  is  the 
Liturgy.  It  may  safely  bo  pronounced  of  any  explanation  of  an  article 
which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the  plain  language  of  the  Offices  for 

*  Which  is  Mr.  Gorham's  doctrine — and  is  (the  Archbishop  says)  "  sufficiently 

COXDKMNED." 

t  Mr.  Newman,  at  p.  25  in  liis  lecture,  (referred  to  at  p.  82),  declares  that  it  was 
thin  book  of  the  Archbishop's  that  first  "  brought  him  to  a  belief  in  Baptismal  Regene- 
ration;" and  so  originated  his  theological  career  in  1824. 


Judgments  of  English  Bishops.  85 

Public  Worship,  that  it  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The  opinion, 
for  instance,  which  denies  Baptismal  Regeneration,  might  possibly, 
though  not  without  great  difficidty,  be  reconciled  with  the  language  of 
the  Twenty-seventh  Article  ;  but  by  no  stretch  of  ingenuity,  nor  lati- 
tude of  explanation,  can  it  be  brought  to  agree  with  the  plain,  unquali- 
fied language  of  the  Offices  for  Baptism  and  Confirmation." — Charge  of 
the  Bishop  of  London,  1842,  8vo.  p.  23.    See  also  p.  25. 

"  Holding  it  to  be  unquestionably  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land that  infants  receive  remission  of  original  sin  in  baptism,  through 
the  merits  of  our  LoEU  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  applied  to  them  by 
that  Sacrament,  and  finding  in  Mr.  Gorham's  answers  to  the  Bishop  of 
Exeter's  questions,  a  distinct  denial  of  that  doctrine,  I  could  not  bring 
myself  to  concur  in  the  reasons  assigned  by  the  Judicial  Committee  for  re- 
commending her  Majesty  to  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Arches. 

"  Mr.  Grorham  holds  that  the  Remission  of  original  sin,  adoption  into 
the  family  of  GtOD,  and  Regeneration,  must  all  take  place,  in  the  case  of 
infants,  not  in  Baptism,  nor  by  means  of  Baptism,  but  before  Baptism — 
an  opinion  which  appears  to  me  to  be  in  direct  opposition  to  the  plain 
teaching  of  the  Church,  and  utterly  to  destroy  the  Sacramental  character 
of  Baptism. 

"  I  cannot  admit  that  this  opinion  is  to  be  reconciled,  by  any  latitude 
of  interpretation  which  can  reasonably  be  claimed,  with  the  Church's 
Articles  and  Eormidaries ;  nor  do  I  believe  that  it  is  an  opinion  which 
is  held  by  more  than  a  very  small  number  indeed  of  our  Clergy." — Letter 
of  the  Bishop  of  London  to  the  Scottish  Bishops. 

Copy  of  a  Letter  to  A.  J.  B.  Hope,  Esq. 

"  London  House,  March  11,  1850. 

"  My  dear  Mr.  Hope, — My  knowledge  of  your  devoted  and  consistent 
attachment  to  the  Church  of  your  Baptism,  and  the  assurance  which  you 
have  given  me  of  your  willingness  to  be  guided  by  my  counsels  at  the 
present  crisis,  seem  to  impose  upon  me  the  duty  of  repeating,  in  a  more 
connected  form,  and  with  some  additional  remarks,  the  considerations 
which  I  suggested  to  you  in  conversation  on  Saturday  last. 

"  You  then  stated  to  me  how  greatly  you  were  distressed  at  the  recent 
judgment  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  Privy  Council  in  Mr.  Gorham's 
case  ;  and  you  expressed  your  apprehension  that  some  excellent  men 
might  be  driven  by  that  decision  to  quit,  if  not  the  communion  of  our 
Church,  yet,  the  offices  which  they  hold  in  it. 

"  I  remarked,  in  answer  to  yoiir  statement,  that  I  could  readily  under- 
stand the  uneasiness  which  you,  in  common  with  many  others,  felt  at 
the  position  in  which  the  Church  appeared  to  be  placed  by  that  judg- 
ment ;  but  that  I  thought  it  to  be  your  plain  and  unmistakeable  duty 
not  to  desert  the  Church  at  such  a  moment,  when  she  was  most  in  need 
of  your  support  and  assistance,  but  to  remain  firm  in  your  allegiance  to 
her,  and  to  use  your  best  endeavours  to  remove  existing  anomalies  and 
defects.  This  appears  to  me  very  clearly  to  be  the  line  of  conduct  which 
you  ought  to  pursue. 

"  If  a  vessel  in  which  you  were  embarked  should  spring  a  leak,  you 
would  surely  do  your  best  to  stop  the  leak  before  you  thought  of  aban- 
doning the  ship,  and  leaving  it  to  the  mercy  of  the  winds  and  waves. 

"  I  would  desire  you  to  consider  in  what  respect  the  recent  judgment 
has  so  altered  the  character  of  our  Church,  as  to  justify  any  of  her  mem- 
bers in  severing  their  connection  with  her. 

"  That  judgment  may  be  erroneous ;  may  be  a  wrong  interpretation  of 


86  Judgments  of  English  Bishops. 

the  Churcli's  mind ;  but  it  is  the  interpretation  adopted  by  a  few  fallible 
men,  not  by  any  body  authorised  by  the  Church  to  settle  any  point  of 
doctrine ;  nor  can  it  have  the  effect  of  changing  any  of  the  Church's 
doctrine.  That  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  stands  in  her  Articles  and 
Liturgy  as  it  did  before.  That  is  not  denied,  nor  even  questioned  by 
the  judgment,  the  purport  of  which  is,  that  to  those  who  admit  the 
Church's  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Grace  a  greater  latitude  of  explanation 
is  permitted  than  you  or  I  think  right.  But  this,  after  all,  is  only  the 
opinion  of  a  court  of  law,  not  the  decision  of  the  Church  itself  in  con- 
vocation. 

"  I  hold  that,  until  the  Church's  Articles  and  Formularies  are  altered 
by  the  authority  of  convocation,  or  of  some  synod  equivalent  to  con- 
vocation, her  character  as  a  teacher  of  truth  remains  unchanged. 

"I  cannot  regard  any  sentence  of  an  ecclesiastical  court  as  finally 
settling  a  question  of  doctrine.  That  can  only  be  done  by  a  synodical 
decree ;  and  even  then  judges  may  err  in  their  interpretation  of  that 
decree,  and  yet  the  decree  itself  will  hold  good,  and  in  another  appeal 
respecting  the  very  same  point  of  doctrine  another  court  might  give  a 
different  judgment.  I  think,  therefore,  that  nothing  short  of  a  formal 
act  of  the  Church  itself,  repudiating  what  it  has  hitherto  asserted  as 
truth,  can  warrant  a  man  in  quitting  her  communion. 

"  What  we  really  want  is  a  court  of  appeal,  so  constituted  that  the 
members  of  our  Church  can  place  reasonable  confidence  in  its  decisions ; 
but  it  must  still  be  borne  in  mind,  that  any  such  court  will  be  liable  to 
errors  in  judgment,  and  that  it  belongs  to  the  office  of  a  judge,  not  to 
make  laws,  but  to  expound  them  to  the  best  of  liis  ability. 

"  Again,  then,  I  say,  that  when  the  convocation  shall,  by  a  solemn  act, 
reject  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Eegeneration,  it  will  be  time  enough  to 
think  of  quitting  the  Church's  pale ;  but,  till  that  shall  happen,  (which 
heaven  forfend !)  to  leave  her  would  be  an  act  of  schism. 

"I  will  add  one  other  observation.  Every  member  of  our  Church 
who  is  not  seeking  a  pretext  for  quitting  her  communion,  must  desire  to 
remove  whatever  blemishes  and  imperfections  there  may  be  in  her  con- 
stitution . 

"  But  the  way  to  do  this  is  not  to  abandon  her,  and  so  to  render 
amendment  less  practicable  and  probable,  by  weakening  her  resources 
and  diminishing  the  number  of  her  true  friends  ;  but  to  abide  firmly  by 
her,  to  be  '  watchful,  and  strengthen  the  things  which  remain  that  are 
ready  to  die.' 

"  You  are  at  liberty  to  show  this  letter  to  any  person  who  is  interested 
in  this  most  important  question. 

"  Believe  me,  my  dear  Mr.  Hope, 

"  With  the  truest  regard  and  esteem, 
"  Yours  most  faithfully, 

"  A.  J.  B.  Hope,  Esq.,  M.P.  (Signed)     C.  J.  London." 

3. 

The  Bisnor  of  Banqor, 

The  Right  Rev.  Christopher  Bethell,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"  The  doctrine  of  Eogoncration  in  Baptism  fixes  the  conunencement 
of  tlic  Christian  life  in  the  right  place,  and  secures  the  doctrine  of  uni- 
versal grace  within  the  pjile  of  the  Church,  and  the  comprehension  of 


Judgments  of  English  Bishops.  87 

the  covenant,  against  every  system  wliicli  savours  of  necessity  or  favour- 
itism, of  absolute  decrees,  or  capricious  pi'eferences.  ...  It  teaches  us 
that  sucli  baptized  adults  as  are  believers  and  penitents,  and  baptized 
infants,  who  can  present  no  bar  of  unbelief  and  impenitence,  receive  in 
this  Sacrament  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  the  gift  or  earnest  of  the 
Holt  GtHOST,  as  a  principle  of  a  new  and  spiritual  life ;  and  are  placed 
in  a  state  of  salvation,  of  wbich  nothing  but  buman  negligence  and  de- 
fault can  deprive  them.  The  Christian  minister  .  .  .  need  not  fear  to 
advocate  a  doctrine  gromided  on  the  sure  basis  of  Scripture,  witnessed 
by  all  antiquity,  and  unequivocally  asserted  by  our  own  Church." — 
A  general  view  of  the  dochnne  of  Regeneration  in  Bajjfism.  By  the  Eight 
Eev.  Christopher  Bethell,  D.D.,  Lord  Bishop  of  Bangor,  pp.  234—237. 
8vo.  1845. 

"  We  find  that  our  Liturgy,  in  strict  conformity  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
universal  Church,  makes  no  mention  of  regeneration,  except  in  conjunc- 
tion with  Baptism  ;  and  that  its  compilers  were  so  far  from  attempting 
to  separate  what  had  been  intimately  connected  with  the  faith  and  dis- 
cipline of  their  forefathers  in  Christianity,  that  they  have  never  intro- 
duced the  word  into  their  services,  even  in  a  popular  sense," — Ibid. 
pp.  92,  93, 

"  Our  Liturgy  everywhere  teaches  and  assumes  our  adoption  and  re- 
generation in  Baptism." — Ibid.  p.  92. 

"  Prom  a  review  of  our  Articles  and  Liturgy  we  may  derive  the  fol- 
lowing conclusions : 

"  1.  They  maiatain  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  in  Baptism  in  the 
most  decided  manner,  grounding  it  on  the  same  texts  of  Scripture  from 
which  the  ancient  Christians  had  deduced  it ;  including  under  it  forgive- 
ness of  sin,  the  gift  of  the  Holt  Ghost,  and  the  inheritance  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven ;  and  never  introducing  the  word  itself,  except  in 
conjunction  with  Baptism. 

"  2.  They  teach,  in  common  with  the  writings  of  the  ancient  Chris- 
tians, the  necessity  of  faith  and  repentance  as  qualifications  for  the 
salutary  effects  of  Baptism.  But  they  never  contemplate  any  person, 
however  qualified,  as  regenerate,  till  he  is  actually  baptized. 

"  3.  They  suppose  that  infants,  who  are  necessarily  free  from  actual 
sin,  are  duly  qualified  for  Baptism,  and  are  looked  on  by  God  pre- 
cisely in  the  same  light  as  penitents  and  believers ;  and  they  unequivo- 
cally assert  that  every  baptized  child,  without  exception,  is  born  again," 
—Ibid.  pp.  95,  96. 


The  Bishop  or  Bath  and  Wells, 

The  Right  Rev.  Richard  Bagot,  D.D.,  Oxford, 

"  The  wonderful  and  miaute  instincts  and  contrivances  which  the 
Almighty  has  implanted  in  the  whole  animal  world,  for  the  preservation 
of  the  natural  life  of  the  young,  are  but  analogies  and  types  of  His  mer- 
ciful care  and  providence  over  the  spiritual  life  of  the  infant,  whereby 
He  has  shown  forth  His  good  will  that  '  not  one  of  these  little  ones 
should  perish,' 


88  Judgments  of  English  Bishops. 

"  The  rite  of  Circumcision,  wliicli  hallowed  the  children  of  the  faithful 
to  the  terms  of  the  covenant  so  early  as  the  eighth  day  of  their  being, 
and  the  more  solemn  sacrament  of  holy  Baptism,  which  the  Church  (so 
strictly  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  God's  recorded  dealings  with 
His  creatures)  urges  upon  her  members  not  to  defer  'longer  than  the 
first  or  Second  Sunday  next  after  the  birtli '  of  their  children,  are  in 
themselves  the  distinct  and  avxthoritative  declarations  of  God's  goodwill 
towards  the  weakest  end  lowliest  of  His  creatures.  But  if,  in  addition 
to  these  clearly  speaking  ordinances,  we  consider  the  instances  of  God's 
especial  favour  to  the  young,  both  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament ;  and 
observe  the  significant  gesture  and  manner  with  which  '  our  Saviour 
Christ  commanded  the  little  children  to  be  brought  unto  Him,' — how 
'  He  blamed  those  who  would  have  kept  them  from  Him,' — how  '  He 
exhorted  all  men  to  follow  their  iunocency,' — how  '  He  embraced  them 
in  His  arms,  laid  His  hands  upon  them,  and  blessed  them,' — we  shall 
scarcely  doubt  that  there  is,  in  the  least  of  these  little  ones  who  come  to 
Him,  something  more  precious  and  pleasing  in  the  eye  of  God,  than  in  the 
purest  and  most  perfect  of  those  whose  lengthened  years  have  necessarily 
brought  them  more  or  less  in  contact  with  the  vanities  and  vices  of  the 
world.  ...  I  might  almost  say  in  some  instances  a  fatalism  (even  among 
those  who  are  generally  alive  to  the  advantages  of  education)  with  regard 
to  the  spiritual  nurture  of  their  children.  It  seems  by  a  very  large  class  of 
persons  almost  to  be  taken  for  granted,  that  the  youthful  mind  is  suscep- 
tible of  little,  and  that  only  very  general,  religious  instruction,  and  that 
the  life  of  the  soul  must  follow  the  maturity  of  the  understanding  ;  and 
the  result  practically  is,  that  they  are  very  indifferent  in  what  degree, 
and  by  whom,  religious  truths  are  implanted  in  the  minds  of  their  chil- 
dren, provided  that  their  judgment  be,  as  they  say,  sufficiently  cultivated 
to  enable  them  to  choose  their  own  rule  of  faith  when  they  come  to  years 
of  discretion. 

"  Now,  specious  as  this  reasoning  may  appear  to  many  on  the  first 
hearing,  and  satisfactory  as  it  may  be  to  the  careless  or  unbelieving 
mind,  it  can  have  no  couclusive  weight  with  him  who  takes  the  way 
of  God  for  his  path,  and  the  word  of  God  for  his  law.  This  cannot 
be  at  least  following  after  Him  Who  has  made  infant  heirs  of  both  His 
covenants; — this  cannot  be  owning  Him  for  our  Lord  AVho  sanctified 
the  infant  Samuel  to  His  service ; — this  cannot  be  obeying  the  voice  of 
Him  "Who  said,  '  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  Me,  and  forbid  them 
not.'  It  is  a  view  which  no  sound  member  of  the  Church  can  consis- 
tently hold.  Convinced  by  the  general  declarations  of  Holy  "Writ,  no 
less  than  by  the  express  terms  in  which  the  earlier  sacrament  is  spoken 
of,  he  cannot  look  upon  the  mind  of  the  baptized  infant  as  the  '  blank 
tablet '  of  the  philoso])hcr,  nor  as  the  '  barren,'  if  not  '  weed-choked  '  soil 
of  the  schismatic,  but  rather  as  a  field  bedewed  and  cleansed  by  the  living 
water  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  which  God  will  give  the  increase,  accord- 
ing as,  in  good  time,  the  good  seed  lias  in  good  faith  been  sown, — 
according  as  the  stealthy  inroads  of  the  Enemy  who  scatteretli  tares 
by  night  have  been  watched  and  thwarted."' — Sermon  before  the  Society 
for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge,  June  4,  1840. 


Judgments  of  English  Bishops.  S9 

6. 

The  Bishop  of  CnionESTEE, 

The  Right  Rev,  Ashurst  Turner  Gilbert,  D.l).,  Oxford. 

"  It  is  a  failiug  of  the  darkened  human  mind,  that  it  is  inclined  to 
strive  to  interpret  all  things  as  if  they  had  a  being  and  a  nature  inde- 
pendent of  God.  So  man  contiaually  attempts  to  explain  the  outward 
universe.  He  leaves  out  the  immediate  hand  of  God.  And  in  appre- 
hending our  Regenerate  state  in  Chbist,  we  do  not  come  near  enough 
to  God  in  Him.  We  still  interpose  a  sort  of  natural  system  between 
ourselves  and  God.  Instead  of  fully  recognising  our  New  birth  unto 
Him  by  Baptism  in  Christ — that  we  are  ideally  begotten  of  Him  anew — 
brought  into  new  positive  relations  and  privileges  which  constitute  us  a 
distinct  and  separate  people — we  practically  estimate  ourselves  as  merely 
somewhat  advanced  only  beyond  the  rest  of  mankind,  but  as  still  in- 
volved in  a  natural  religious  system,  which,  in  a  degree,  belongs  to  us  as 
well  as  to  them." — Sermon  before  the  Society  for  Promotiuff  Christian 
Knowledge,  June  3,  1847. 

6. 

The  Bishop  of  Ely, 

The  Right  Rev.  Thomas  Turton,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

[I  have  not  been  able  to  learn  that  the  Bishop  of  Ely  has  written  any- 
thing on  the  subject  of  Baptism  ;  though  I  have  made  inquiiy  through 
the  booksellers :  and  I  am  unable  to  defer  the  present  publication.] 


The  Bishop  of  Exetee, 

The  Right  Rev.  Henry  Philpotts,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

"  The  Church  tells  us  that  it  is  certain  by  God's  Word  that  children 
which  are  baptized,  dying  before  they  commit  sin,  are  undoubtedly  saved. 
It  tells  us  too  that  every  baptized  infant  is  regenerate  and  grafted  into 
the  body  of  Cheist's  Church ;  nay,  it  teaches  and  commands  us  to  give 
thanks  to  Almighty  God  as  a  most  merciful  Eather  for  having  pleased 
thus  to  regenerate  him,  for  having  received  him  for  His  own  child  by 
adoption,  for  having  incorporated  him  into  His  holy  Church.  That  any 
one,  after  having  again  and  again  solemnly  subscribed  to  the  lawfulness, 
and  therefore  to  the  truth  of  all  this, — after  having  engaged  before  God 
and  man  that  he  will  use  this  form  of  words  in  administering  Baptism, — 
and  after  having,  in  accordance  with  that  ministerial  engagement,  con- 
tinued to  use  it  during  the  whole  of  his  ministerial  service,  can  yet  deny 
or  dispute  the  position  that  our  Church  maintains,  that  always  to  in- 
fants, and  to  adults  rightly  receiving,  regeneration  is  given  in  Baptism, 
and  (so  far  as  man  is  authorised  to  pronounce,)  in  Baptism  only,  might 
appear  incredible  if  the  experience  of  more  than  two  hundred  years  had 
not  unhappily  furnished  us  with  too  many  instances  to  the  contrary." 
Charge  of  1839,  p.  67. 


90  Judgments  of  English  Bishops, 

8. 
The  Bishop  of  Gloucester  akd  Bristol, 

The  Right  Rev.  James  Henry  Monk,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

Not  being  able  to  learn  tliat  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol  has 
printed  anything  on  the  subject  of  Baptism,  I  extract  the  following  from 
a  letter  recently  printed,  in  reply  to  an  address  expressing  anxiety  at 
the  doubt  thrown  on  Baptismal  Regeneration  by  the  late  decision. 

"I  SYMPATHISE  in  the  feelings  of  uneasiness  expressed  in  this  address, 
at  the  idea  of  a  doubt  being  cast  upon  a  tenet  of  the  Church  distinctly 
enunciated  in  the  Nicene  Creed — as  well  as  at  the  constitution  of  a 
tribunal  of  ultimate  appeal,  to  which  Churchmen  cannot  look  up  as  safe 
exponents  of  doctrine." 

The  following  address,  signed  by  a  large  portion  of  the  clergy  of  his 
diocese,  was  presented  to  the  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol. 

"  To  the  Eight  Eeverend  Father  in  God,  James  Henry,  by  Divine  per- 
mission. Lord  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol. 

"  Right  Eeverend  Father, — "We,  the  undersigned  clergy  in  your  lord- 
ship's diocese,  desire  to  address  your  lordship,  in  much  trouble  and 
perplexity,  occasioned  by  the  judgment  recently  given  by  the  committee 
of  Privy  Council  in  the  case  of  '  Gorham  v.  the  Bishop  of  Exeter.' 

"  We  are  troubled  at  the  thought  that  the  guilt  of  sanctioning  heretical 
opinions,  especially  that  of  denying,  or  questioning,  the  doctrine  of '  One 
Baptism  for  the  Remission  of  Sins,'  should  appear  for  a  moment  to  be 
incurred  by  our  own  Church. 

"  And  we  are  perplexed  to  know  how  to  act  for  the  best  under  these 
circumstances,  with  reference  particularly  to  the  constitution  of  the 
existing  Court  of  Appeal  in  matters  ecclesiastical;  a  constitution,  as 
it  seems  to  us,  not  merely  anomalous,  but  utterly  indefensible,  and  in 
its  consequences  ruinous  both  to  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
Church. 

"  And  our  perplexity  is  increased  when  we  call  to  mind  the  obligation 
which  is  laid  upon  us  to  keep  and  to  transmit  inviolate  the  sacred  deposit 
of  the  faith  which  has  been  committed  to  us. 

"  We  therefore  most  earnestly  and  solemnly  beg  of  your  lordship,  in 
concert  with  your  right  reverend  brethren,  to  take  without  delay,  and  to 
guide  and  assist  us  in  taking,  such  steps  as  to  your  lordship  shall  seem 
most  suitable  in  this  emergency — an  emergency  unparalleled,  as  far  as  we 
know,  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  whicli,  as  it 
appears  to  us,  we  cannot  venture  to  remain  silent  or  inactive  without 
incurring  a  fearful  responsibility." 

[Here  follow  the  signatures.] 

The  Bishop's  Reply. 

"Dean's  Yard,  April  25,  1850, 
"  Dear  Mr.  Archdeacon, — I  beg  to  acknowledge  tlie  receipt  of  an 
address,  which  you  have  forwarded  to  me,  on  tlio  subject  of  tlie  late 
judgment  pronounced  in  the  case  of  *  Gorham  v.  the  Bishop  of  Exeter.* 


Judgments  of  English  Bishops.  91 

"  This  address,  in  vrliicli  so  large  a  portion  of  the  clergy  of  my  diocese 
have  concurred,  calls  for  my  sympathy ;  and  I  deeply  regret  the 
occurrence  of  a  matter  which  has  diffused  such  extensive  uneasiness 
among  Churchmen. 

"  I  agree  with  you  in  thinking  the  constitution  of  the  present  Court 
of  Appeal  in  matters  ecclesiastical  unsatisfactory. 

"  In  reply  to  the  request  that  I  should,  in  concert  with  my  right 
reverend  brethren,  take  steps  which  may  seem  most  suitable  in  this 
emergency,  I  can  inform  you  that  all  the  members  of  the  English 
Episcopate  are,  at  this  time,  in  anxious  deliberation  on  the  subject ;  and 
I  hope  that  we  shall  have  the  prayers  of  yourself,  and  all  who  have  con- 
curred in  this  address,  that,  by  the  Divine  guidance,  we  may  come  to 
such  a  conclusion  as  may  obviate  what  is  at  present  anomalous  and  ob- 
jectionable, and  promote  the  peace  and  unity  of  our  beloved  Church. 
"  Believe  me,  dear  Mr.  Archdeacon, 

"  Tour  faithful  brother  and  servant, 

"  J.  H.  Gloucester  ajsb  Beistol. 

"The  Venerable  Archdeacon  Thorp." 


9. 

The  Bishop  of  Herefoed, 

The  Right  Rev.  Renn  Dickson  Hampden,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

"  LooEirNG  to  Christ  as  the  only  Fountain  of  Salvation,  he  (the 
Christian)  keeps  himself  sober  and  watching  unto  prayer,  that  he  may 
obtain  the  continual  siqjpli/  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  Eejoiciiig  that  he 
has  already  been  made  a  partaker  of  the  Spirit  in  Baptism,  he  clings 
with  aflectionate  devoutness  to  every  other  means  of  grace." — Sermon  on 
the  "  Trial  by  Fire;'  p.  23. 

"  Such  an  efficacy  in  the  two  Sacraments,  instituted  by  the  Lord 
Himself,  our  own  Ciuu-ch  thankfully  acknowledges,  and  doubts  not  that 
He  gives  the  life  of  grace  to  the  child  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holt  Ghost,  and  imparts  the  spi- 
ritual sustenance  of  His  Body  and  Blood  to  the  faithful  communicant."* 
— Two  Sermons  on  "  The  Work  of  Christ,  and  the  JFork  of  the  Spirit." 
Sermon  II.  Published,  or  re-published,  after  his  nomination  to  the  See 
of  Hereford. 

*  "  The  elements  and  words  have  power  of  infallible  signification,  for 
which  they  are  called  seals  of  God's  truth ;  the  spirit  affijxed  unto  these 
elements  and  words,  power  of  operation  vrithin  the  soul,  most  admirable, 
divine,  and  impossible  to  be  expressed.  For  so  God  hath  instituted  and 
ordained,  that  together  ■udth  due  administration  and  receipt  of  sacra- 
mental signs,  there  shall  proceed  from  Himself  grace  effectual  to  sanctify, 
to  cure,  to  comfort,  and  whatsoever  else  is  for  the  good  of  the  souls  of 
men."     (Eccl.  Pol.  VI.  ch.  vi.  §  10,  ed.  1845.) 

"  For  we  take  not  Baptism  nor  the  Eucharist  for  bare  resemblances 
or  memorials  of  things  absent,  neither  for  naked  signs  and  testimonies, 
assuring  us  of  grace  received  before ;  but  (as  they  are  indeed  and  in 
verity)  for  means  effectual  whereby  God,  when  we  take  the  Sacraments, 
delivereth  into  our  hands  that  gi'ace  available  unto  eternal  b'fe,  which 
grace  the  Sacraments  represent  or  signify."  (lb.  V.  ch.  Ivii.  §  5,  ed.  1815.) 


9.2  Judgments  of  English  Bishops. 

10. 

The  Bisnop  or  LiciiriELD, 

The  Right  Rev.  John  Lonsdale,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"  That,  by  the  birth  of  '  Water  and  of  the  Spirit,'  our  Loed  here 
means  Baptism  as  declared  to  be  the  way  by  which  men  must  enter  into 
God's  kingdom  of  grace  on  earth,  has  been  the  constant  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  Church  in  all  ages.  The  Church  of  England  accordingly,  in 
her  form  for  the  ministration  of  Baptism,  expressly  grounds  the  neces- 
sity of  our  being  baptized  upon  this  declaration  of  CniiiST,  and  in  the 
Catechism  teaches  us  that  the  Water  of  Baptism  is  an  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  given  unto  us  therein,  by 
which  we,  who  were  born  in  sin,  and  children  of  wrath,  are  made  chil- 
dren of  grace." — Commentary  on  the  Four  Gospels.  By  the  Bishop  of 
Lichfield,  and  Archdeacon  Hale.     p.  237. 

11. 

The  Bishop  of  Lincoln, 

The  Right  Rev.  John  Kaye,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"Bt  Baptism  the  converts  [in  the  primitive  days]  had  been  made 
partakers  of  all  the  benefits  of  Cheist's  death;  had  died  and  been 
buried  to  sin,  not  merely  with  reference  to  its  consequences,  but  also  to 
its  power ;  and  that  as  Christ,  after  He  had  risen  from  the  grave, 
entered  on  a  new  state  of  being,  or  rather  resumed  that  glorious  state 
which  for  a  season  He  had  laid  aside,  so  they,  after  emerging  from 
the  waters  of  Baptism,  ought  to  consider  themselves  new  creatures,  dead 
indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God  through  Christ. " — Family  Ser- 
mons.    Vol.  II.     J.  W.  Parker,  1833. 

12. 
The  Bishop  oe  Llakdaef, 

The  Right  Rev.  Alfred  Ollivant,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

[I  am  not  aware  of  any  work  published  by  this  Prelate,  in  which  the 
subject  of  Baptism  is  alluded  to.] 

13. 

The  Bishop  of  Norwich, 

The  Right  Rev.  Samuel  Hinds,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

•'  While,  therefore,  to  the  Christian  vohune  was  committed  the  whole 
of  Gospel  revelation,  it  was  doubtless  a  wise  and  merciful  provision  to 
select  the  two   most  important  features  for  the  record   of  type   and 


Judgments  of  English  Bishops.  93 

symbol,  as  well  as  of  language.  The  doctrines  of  Regeneration  by  tbe 
Holt  Spikit,  and  of  Atonement  by  the  death  of  CnRiST,  followed  by 
His  spiritual  indwelling  in  us,  —  these  form  the  epitome  of  Chris- 
tianity."— HincTs  Three  Temples,  p.  91. 

"  It  is  plain  that  Christians  are  properly  baptized  unto  Christ  :  they 
are  a  continuation  of  His  Disciples,  and  ia  that  title,  as  well  as  ia  the 
title  of  Christians,  is  implied  that  it  is  so.  .  .  .  The  baptismal  form 
connects  the  earlier  with  the  later  dispensation, — the  dispensation  of 
the  Law  with  that  of  the  Gospel,  as  provided  by  the  Son,  and  taught 
and  perfected  by  the  Spirit.  It  stamps  the  baptized  with  the  character 
of  the  true  Israel,  the  true  children  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  of  the 
promise." — Ibid.  p.  131. 


14. 

The  Bishop  of  Oxtord, 

The  Right  Rev.  Samuel  Wilberforce,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

"TuET  [sectarians]  are  led  to  undervalue  the  appointments  of  GrOD  Him- 
self. They  cannot  believe  that  every  baptized  infant  is  so  really  grafted  into 
Christ,  that  he  does  receive  some  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  whereby  the 
first  principle  of  the  new  life  is  given  to  him ;  that  he  is,  in  the  plain 
sense  of  the  words,  '  born  anew  of  water  and  of  the  Holt  Ghost  ;'  that 
he  is  become  a  '  son  of  God  ;'  because  they  do  not  see  in  all  such  that 
outward  acting  of  life  which  they  confound  with  its  first  gift.  And  so 
they  introduce  new  terms,  and  with  them  infinite  confusion,  into  the 
simplicity  of  Christ's  teaching.  They  speak  of  an  outward  Church,  and 
an  inner ;  of  being  admitted  into  the  visible  Church,  but  not  into  the 
spiritual ;  as  if  God  coidd  mock  His  creatures  by  giving  them  dead  and 
deceitful  signs,  in  the  stead  of  true  and  quickening  realities." — Bishop 
of  Oxford's  Sermons.  Sermon  3,  preached  at  Claremont,  July  17,  1812. 
■ith  edition,  1817. 

15. 

The  Bishop  oe  Peterborough, 

The  Right  Rev.  George  Davys,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

On  Private  Baptism  of  Infants. 

"  Our  Saviour  has  appointed  His  Sacraments  as  the  '  outward  signs  ' 
by  which  we  receive  '  inward  and  spiritual  grace,'  and  are  made  partakers 
of  the  promises  of  the  Gospel.  Water  is  the  outward  sign  in  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Baptism ;  and  therefore,  when  the  water  is  used,  then  is  the 
Baptism.  .  .  .  We  should  not  call  this  being  half  baptized,  for  it  is 
being  xoholly  baptized ;  the  other  part  is  the  public  admission  into  the 
Church.* — Village  Conversations  on  the  Liturgy,  p.  7.  Society  for  the 
Promotion  of  Christian  Knowledge,  1842. 

*  "  Our  Church  calls  a  Christian  state  a  New  birth  unto  righteous- 
ness :  showing  that  Christian  privileges  are  not  instead  of  righteousness, 
but  to  lead  to  righteousness.'' 


94)  Judgments  of  English  Bishops. 

16. 
The  Bishop  of  Eochesteb, 

The  Right  Rev.  George  Murray,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

"  The  low  notions  wliicli  have  been  entertained  by  some  of  the  Clergy 
with  respect  to  our  sacramental  ordinances  and  the  services  of  our 
Church,  have,  I  fear,  in  a  great  degree,  led  to  the  adoption  of  extreme 
views  in  an  opposite  direction ;  and  if  I  were  obliged  to  unite  with  either 
of  tlie  parties,  I  should  certainly  much  prefer  the  opinions  of  tliose  which 
exalt,  to  those  which  depreciate  the  value  of  these  sacred  rites.  Thus  I 
cannot  entertain  any  unity  of  religious  feeling  with  a  body  of  Christian 
ministers,  who,  having  declared  that  they  will  conform  to  the  Liturgy  of 
tlie  Church  of  England,  and  having  been  admitted  to  partake  of  its  en- 
dowments, offer  up  the  prayers  of  that  Church  with  their  lips,  whilst 
they  disbelieve  the  doctrines  involved  in  them,  and  return  thanks  to 
Almighty  God  that  the  children  they  baptize  are  Eegeneeated,  Avhen 
they  at  the  same  time  deny  that  any  such  influence  of  the  Holy  Spibit 
has  been  exercised  in  their  behalf!" — Charge,  184:3,  p.  9. 

17. 

The  Bishop  oe  Salisbtjet, 
The  Right  Rev.  Edward  Denison,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

"  It  is  not  my  purpose  [in  this  place]  to  treat  either  of  the  Sacrament 
of  Baptism,  wherein  the  stam  of  inherited  corruption  is  washed  out,  and 
the  principle  of  a  new  life  imparted  in  tlie  soul ;  or  of  the  Supper  of  the 
Lord,  wherein  that  same  Hfe  is,  by  the  spiritual  reception  of  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ,  renewed,  and  strengthened,  and  sustained.  These 
have  their  proper  work  in  the  Begeneratiou  and  edification  of  the  be- 
liever."—  University  Sermons,  pp.  13,  14. 

18. 
The  Bishop  of  St.  Asaph's, 

The  Right  Rev.  Thomas  V.  Short,  D.D  ,  Oxford. 

"  Few  will  venture  to  deny  that  grace  is  granted  to  the  baptized 
infant  upon  his  outward  admission  into  the  Church  of  Christ.  The 
Church  of  England  teaches  that  such  grace  is  given,  and  declares  the 
child,  ivhen  baptized,  to  be  Regenerate,  applying  this  term  to  tlie  grace  so 
given.  She  teaches,  too,  that  after  we  liave  received  the  Holt  Ghost, 
we  may  depart  from  grace  given,  and  fall  into  sin.  So  tliat  in  this  \dew 
of  the  question,  it  is  no  proof  that  the  man  is  not  regenerate  because  he 
is  not  walking  under  grace ;  he  may  have  fallen  from  grace  ;  he  may 
indeed  never  have  been  under  grace,  in  the  sense  which  some  persons 
apply  to  the  term  '  regenerate,^  but  such  persons  must  remember  that 
such  a  use  of  the  word  arises  from  thetnselves,  and  not  from  the  Church." 
—  What  is  Christianity  ?     3rd  edition,  p.  48. 


Judgments  of  English  Bishops.  95 

19. 

The  Bishop  or  St.  David's, 

The  Right  Rev.  Connop  Thirlwall,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"  It  is  not,  I  believe,  disputed  by  any  one  that  what  is  called  the  high 
doctrine  of  apostolical  succession,  (including,  i.  e.,  not  only  the  historical 
fact  that  the  ministry  of  our  Church  is  derived  by  uninterrupted  descent 
from  the  Apostles,  but  likewise  that  it  was  established  by  them  as  a 
permanent  and  unalterable  institution,  to  be  continued  according  to 
certain  invariable  regulations,) — I  say  it  is  hardly  disputed  that  this 
doctrine  has  been  held  by  so  large  a  part  of  our  best  divines,  and  has 
received  so  much  apparent  countenance  from  the  anxiety  shown  to  pre- 
serve the  succession  when  it  was  in  danger  of  interruptions,  that  it  would 
be  unreasonable  to  complain  of  it  as  a  novelty,  or  even  to  represent  it  as 
being  now  exclusively  held  by  a  particular  school. 

"  Again,  whatever  ground  there  may  be  for  the  charge  brought  against 
one  party  in  the  controversy,  that  it  has  exaggerated  the  importance  and 
efficacy  of  the  Sacratnents,  it  does  not  appear  to  involve  any  question  of 
principle.  Indeed,  since  the  Church  herself  teaches  that  the  Sacraments 
are  generally  necessary  to  salvation,  it  seems  difficult  for  any  one  to 
exaggerate  their  importance,  imless  he  were  to  hold,  what  I  believe  no 
one  maintains,  that  the  necessity  is  not  merely  general,  but  universal 
and  absolute." — Charge,  1842,  p.  55. 

20. 
The  Bishop  oe  Winchestee, 

The  Right  Rev.  Charles  Sumner,  D.D.,  Cambridge. 

"  The  appointment  of  an  outward  visible  sign  in  Baptism  might  be 
quoted,  as  designed  to  be  emblematical  of  the  inward  spiritual  grace. 
Thus  the  insignificance  of  the  external  ceremony  becomes  sanctified  by 
the  spiritual  application,  and  through  the  medium  of  visible  things,  things 
invisible,  and  hard  to  be  understood,  are  rendered  more  obvious  to 
human  capacities." — Ministerial  Character  q/"  Cueist,  p.  231. 

"  Our  Church  refers  for  her  doctrines  to  Holy  Writ,  and  expounds 
the  sense  in  which  she  understands  it  in  her  Liturgrj  and  Articles^ — 
Ibid.  p.  429.* 

21. 

The  Bishop  oe  "Woecestee, 

The  Right  Rev.  Henry  Pepys,  D.D.,  Oxford. 

"  These  Articles  (9th  and  27th)  and  the  Church  Catechism  set  forth, 
in  a  very  strong  light.  Baptismal  Regeneration  as  a  doctrine  of  the 
Church.  And  this  view  is  amply  supported  by  the  Offices  for  Baptism 
and  Confirmation.  ...  In  the  face  of  this  concurrent  testimony,  it  is 
impossible  to  deny  that  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regeneration  is  a 
doctrine  of  the  Church." 

*  [These  passages  seem  undecisive  ;  and,  if  so,  I  can  only  say  that  this  Prelate  is  the 
only  one  whose  testimony  is  doubtful.] 


JUDGMENT  OF  THE  SCOTTISH  BISHOPS. 


"  The  Episcopal  Synod,  at  their  Meeting  at  Aberdeen,  agreed  on  tlie 
following  'Declaration'  as  to  the  interpretation  which  our  Scottish 
Church  puts  on  those  Articles  and  Formularies  which  she  has  received 
aud  adopted  from  the  Church  of  England.  Satisfactory  enough  in  itself, 
as  a  definite  statement,  in  very  fitting  terms,  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  on 
the  subject  of  Holy  Baptism,  we  cannot  concur  with  the  majority  of  their 
Lordships  in  believing  that  '  the  present  declaration  '  is  all  that  is  ne- 
cessary to  vindicate  the  purity  of  the  Faith ;  and  we  regret  that  tliey 
sliould  have  thus  prematurely  expressed  their  synodical  opinion  that 
there  is  '  no  need  of  adding,  by  any  canonical  enactment  of  theibs,  to 
the  definitions  of  that  doctrine  as  tliei'ein  set  forth.'  This,  we  humbly 
venture  to  believe,  is  an  opinion  which  could  be  justified  only  by  a  much 
more  lengthened  experience  than  the  Church  has  yet  had  of  the  efiects 
which  may  arise  from  this  judgment  of  tlie  Privy  Council ;  and  we  much 
question  whether  the  Church  will  consent  to  permit  its  interpretation  of 
one  of  the  prime  doctrines  of  Nicene  Faith,  which  has,  by  this  judgment, 
been  declared  at  least  ambiguous,  to  rest  on  the  mere  '  declaration '  of 
the  Bisliops,  unanimous  thougli  it  has  been,  which,  however  valuable  it  may 
be  as  a  record  of  tlieir  individual  orthodoxy,  has  no  legal  weight,  nor  any 
authority  beyond  its  moral  influence.  We  are  at  a  loss,  too,  to  under- 
stand how,  according  to  the  constitution  of  this  Church,  any  '  canonical 
enactment '  on  tlie  subject  could  have  been  made  by  their  Loi'dships. 
Unless  we  greatly  misunderstand  the  constitution  of  tlie  Scottish  Clmrcli, 
'  canonical  enactments  '  can  be  passed  only  by  gcueral  synods.  AVe 
])resume  the  expression  has  been  an  oversight ;  but,  at  a  time  wlien  some 
Prelates  seem  disposed  to  claim  despotic  and  absolute  powers,  the  over- 
sight is  an  unfortunate  one. 

"  Decla-Hation  by  the  Bishops  of  tlie  Church  in  Scotland,  occasioned 
by  the  recent  decision  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council,  given  at  their  Synod  on  the  17th  of  April,  1S50,  Aberdeen. 

"  To  the  Very  lievereud  the  Deans,  and  the  Keverend  the  Presbyters  of 
the  Scottish  Episcopal  Church  ;  the  liishops  in  Synod  assembled 
send  greeting ;  Grace  be  with  you,  brethren,  and  Peace  from  God 
the  Fatiieu,  aud  from  our  Loun  Jesus  Chuist. 


Judgment  of  the  Scottish  Bishops.  97 

"  Whereas  certain  memorials  and  addresses  have  been  presented  to  us 
from  various  Diocesan  Synods,  expressing  much  uneasmess  respecting  the 
recent  decision  by  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  on  the 
appeal  of  the  Eev.  Gr.  C.  Gorham,  v.  the  Eight  Rev.  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Exeter,  and  requesting  our  paternal  advice  for  the  allaying  of  doubts, 
hence  arising,  as  to  the  true  meaning  of  our  authoritative  formularies ; 
— "We,  the  Bishops  of  the  Church,  deeply  sympathising  with  our  Reverend 
bi'ethren  the  Presbyters,  in  their  anxiety  to  maintain  unimpaired  the 
purity  of  '  the  faith  which  was  once  delivered  to  the  Saints,'  declare  that 
we  do  not  consider  the  sentence,  in  the  case  referred  to,  as  having  any 
authority  to  bind  us,  or  to  modify  in  any  way  the  doctrines  which  we 
and  tlie  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland  hold,  and  have  always  taught,  re- 
specting the  nature  of  Baptismal  grace.  We  have  always  held,  as  we 
were  taught  by  those  who  preceded  us  in  the  Episcopate,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  in  Scotland  is  to  be  collected  from  the  Scripture, 
the  Creeds,  the  Articles,  and  other  Formularies  jointly,  and  not  from 
the  Articles  or  Formularies  separately ;  and  that,  on  the  subject  of  Bap- 
tismal grace,  there  is  no  discrepancy  between  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
in  her  Twenty-seventh  Article,  in  the  Baptismal  Ofiices,  and  in  the 
Catechism.  We  declare,  then,  that  we  teach,  and  always  have  taught ; 
and  we  entreat,  and,  to  the  extent  of  our  Episcopal  authority,  do  enjoin 
you,  brethren,  severally  to  teach, — 

"  1.  In  the  words  of  our  Blessed  Sayiour,  that  '  Except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  ;'  or, 
as  expressed  in  our  office  for  Holy  Baptism,  '  No  one  can  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God  except  he  be  regenerated  and  born  anew  of  water,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.' 

"  2.  In  the  words  of  the  Nicene  Creed,  with  every  branch  of  the  lioly 
Church  throughout  all  the  world,  which  continues  in  '  tlie  one  faith,'  lives 
in  '  the  one  hope,'  and  acknowledges  the  '  one  baptism,'  we  acknowledge 
one  baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins. 

"  3.  In  the  words  of  the  Twenty-seventh  Article,  that  '  Baptism  is  a 
sign  of  regeneration  or  new  birth,  whereby,  as  by  an  instrument,  they 
-that  receive  Baptism  rightly  are  grafted  into  the  Church ;  the  promises 
of  forgiveness  of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  sons  of  God  by  the 
Holt  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed ;'  or,  in  the  words  of  '  The 
Office  for  Public  Baptism  of  Infants,'  that  every  child  baptized  according 
to  that  office,  is  then  and  there  '  regenerated  and  grafted  into  the  body 
of  Christ's  Church.' 

"  4.  With  the  '  Catechism,  or  instruction  to  be  learned  of  every  per- 
son before  he  be  brought  to  be  confirmed  by  the  Bishop,'  and  which 
teaches  him  to  say,  '  In  my  Baptism  I  was  made  a  member  of  Christ, 
a  child  of  God,  and  an  inheritor  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven.' 

"  5.  That  the  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Grace  is  so  clearly  expressed  in 
the  Offices  and  Formularies  of  the  Church,  as  they  now  exist,  and  as 
they  were  adopted  by  the  Episcopal  Church  in  Scotland,  that  we  see  no 
need  of  more  than  the  present  declaration,  or  of  adding,  by  any  canonical 
enactment  of  ours,  to  the  definition  of  that  doctrine  aa  therein  set  forth. 

"  All  the  preceding  statements,  reverend  brethren,  we  teach,  and  by 
the  authority  committed  to  us,  we  enjoin  you  to  teach  to  the  flocks 
under  your  charge,  in  their  plain  and  natural  and  grammatical  sense, 
without  the  intervention  of  any  hypothesis,  charitable  or  otherwise. 

"  And  now,  brethren,  beseeching  you  to  join  with  us  in  prayer  that  the 
Church  over  which  the  Holt  Ghost  hath  made  us  overseers,  may  be 


98  Judgment  of  the  Scottish  Bishops. 

kept  in  the  unity  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  the  bond  of  peace — we  commend 
you  to  God,  and  to  the  word  of  His  grace,  which  is  able  to  build  you  up, 
and  to  give  you  an  inheritance  among  all  which  are  sanctified. 

«  W.  J.  Teoweu,  D.D., 
"  Bishop  of  Glasgow,  Clerk  to  the  Episcopal  Synod." 

"  This  paper  was  adopted  unakimouslt,  with  the  exception  of  Reso- 
lution 5,  in  lieu  of  which  the  two  undersigned  Bishops  adhere  to  the 
following  resolution : — 

"  That  the  doctrine  of  holy  Baptism  is  so  clearly  expressed  in  our 
Formularies,  that  although  the  fact  of  the  late  decision  has  given  occa- 
sion for  the  present  declaration,  we  do  not  mean  hereby  to  assert  that 
the  language  in  those  documents  is  not  precise  and  sufficient. 

"  A.  P.  FoEBES,  Bishop  of  Brechin, 
"  W.  J.  Tkowek,  Bishop  of  Glasgow." 


APPENDIX. 


The  Judgment  of  the  State  Court  has  thus  been  reviewed  by  a  Journal 
of  the  Ikish  Church. 

"  "We  must  protest  against  the  doctrine  that  differences  of  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Articles  '  may  liave  been  designedly  intended  even  by  the 
framers  of  the  Articles  themselves.'  We  really  could  scarcely  believe 
our  eyes  in  reading  these  words  [in  the  State- Judgment],  having  read, 
only  two  or  three  sentences  before,  a  reference  to  the  title  of  the  articles, 
stating  their  object  most  truly,  viz.,  the  avoiding  of  diversities  0/ opinion, 
and  establishing  consent  touching  true  religion.  How  agreement  in  opinion 
was  to  be  insured,  if  the  document  which  was  to  be  the  bond  of  agreement 
was  designedly  intended  to  admit  of  difterent  interpretation,  passes  our 
humble  capacity  to  comprehend.  And  if  we  were  not  restrained  by 
respect  for  the  learned  propounders  of  this  doctrine,  we  should  say  that 
the  words  were  simply  without  meaning.  So  far  as  the  Articles  were 
designed  to  conciliate  conflicting  parties,  that  result  was  aimed  at  by 
stating  truth  common  to  both  sides.  The  framers  may  have  failed  to 
express  themselves  in  all  cases  so  clearly  as  to  preclude  differences  of 
interpretation  ;  but  we  indignantly  disclaim,  on  the  part  of  the  Church, 
the  intention  of  requiring  subscription  from  the  Clergy  to  words  without 
definite  meaning.  It  is  true  Lord  Langdale  supposes  this  '  latitude  of 
interpretation  '  to  be  '  confined  within  such  limits  as  might  be  allowed 
without  danger  to  any  doctrine  necessary  to  salvation.'  This,  however, 
is  to  talk  with  a  looseness  wholly  unsuited  to  the  gravity  of  the  occasion. 
All  articles  of  faith  (as  he  designates  the  Thirty-nine  Articles)  are 
necessary  to  salvation ;  and,  therefore,  on  his  Lordship's  principle,  none 
are  open  to  this  '  latitude  of  interpretation.'  But  if  he  should  say  (as 
of  course  he  would)  that  all  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  though  articles  of 
faith,  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  then  he  ought  to  have  informed  us 
by  what  rule  we  are  to  go  in  determining  which  of  them  are.  Or  is  a 
latitude  of  determination  on  this  point  also  left  to  us  ?  That  is,  is  every 
clergyman  free  to  determine  at  his  pleasure  that  this  or  that  doctrine  is 
not  necessary  to  salvation,  and  then  to  apply  his  '  latitude  of  interpre- 

G  2 


100  Appendix. 

tation '  to  the  Article  which  enunciates  it  ?  What  is  this  but  to  throw 
open  the  whole  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  to  this  latitude  ?  And  is 
this  unbridled  '  liberty  of  prophesying  '  what  we  are  to  suppose  is  meant 
by  '  consent  touching  true  religion  ?' 

"But  not  only  in  the  passage  on  which  we  have  been  commenting, 
but  through  the  whole  document,  there  is  a  looseness  and  vagueness  of 
expression,  under  cover  of  which  the  most  palpable  fallacies  are  in- 
sinuated, and  which  at  the  same  time  serves  effectually  to  hide  from  the 
writer  himself  the  glaring  inconsecutivenesa  of  his  own  reasoning. 

"  1.  Por  instance,  he  says  : — 

"  '  In  considering  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  it  must  be  observed 
that  there  are  parts  of  it  which  are  strictly  dogmatical,  declaring  what 
is  to  be  believed  or  not  doubted  ;  parts  whicli  are  instructional,  and  parts 
which  consist  of  the  devotional  exercises  aud  services  :' — as  if  'instruc- 
tional '  was  contrasted  with  '  dogmatical ;'  and  as  if  insti'uction  in 
doctrine  does  not  '  declare  what  is  to  be  believed  or  not  doubted,'  i.e. 
is  not  necessarily  dogmatical.     But  he  proceeds  : — 

"  '  Those  parts  which  are  in  their  nature  dogmatical  must  be  con- 
sidered declaratory  of  doctrine  ;  but  as  to  those  parts  which  are  devo- 
tional, consisting  of  prayers  framed  for  the  purpose  of  being  'more 
earnest '  (prayers  framed  for  the  purpose  of  being  earnest  we  profess  not 
to  understand)  '  and  fit  to  stir  Christian  people  to  the  due  honouring  of 
Almighty  God,'   some  further  consideration  is  necessary.' 

"  Here  he  fairly  gives  the  go-by  to  the  instructional  section.  He  had 
insinuated  that  it  was  not  dogmatical :  it  would  be  preposterous  to  call 
it  devotional — it  was  a  very  awkward  customer  to  deal  with— and  ac- 
cordingly we  hear  no  more  of  it,  until,  after  a  good  deal  of  '  further 
consideration '  of  the  devotional  division,  we  come,  all  of  a  sudden,  on 
a  short  paragraph  on  the  Catechism,  referring  to  two  answers,  and  part 
of  a  third,  and  containing  the  startling  and  (considering  that  the  Creed, 
the  Ten  Commandments,  the  Loed's  Prayer,  and  the  definitions  of  the 
Sacraments  form  part  of  it)  the  unintelligible  assertion,  that  '  the  ivhole 
Catechism  requires  a  charitable  construction.^  AYe  would  ask  the  most 
prejudiced  of  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Gorham,  whether  he  honestly  thinks 
the  argument  from  the  Catechism  has  been  fairly  and  manfully  met  in 
this  judgment. 

"  2.  Li  the  following  paragraph  he  opens  his  '  further  consideration  ' 
thus : — 

"  *  It  seems  to  be  properly  said  (by  whom  r)  that  the  received  formu- 
laries cannot  be  held  to  be  evidence  of  faith  or  of  doctrine,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  distinct  declarations  of  doctrine  in  the  Articles,  and  to  the 
faith,  hope,  aud  charity  by  which  tliey  profess  to  be  inspired  or  accom- 
panied ;  and  there  are  portions  of  the  Liturgy  which  it  is  plain  cannot 
be  construed  truly  witliout  regard  to  these  considerations.' 

"  We  have  applied  our  best  powers  to  the  latter  part  of  this  passage, 
and  have  totally  failed  to  attach  any  definite  meaning  to  it.  We  say, 
unfeignedly,  tliat  we  know  not  what  on  earth  is  tlie  meaning  of  '  for- 
mularies '  being  '  inspired,  or  accompanied  by  faith,  liope,  and  charity  ;' 
and  we  arc  quite  at  a  loss  to  discover  where  our  foruuilaries  '  profess ' 
such  inspiration  or  companionship.  All  that  we  see  in  the  passage  is, 
that  the  writer  is  laying  tlie  gi'oundwork  for  wholly  evacuating  the 
force  of  the  fonnulai-ies  as  declaratory  of  the  Church's  doctrine.  In  a 
previous  place  he  had  said  : — 

"  '  If  tlicrc  bo  any  doctrine  on  wliich  the  Articles  are  silent  or  am- 


Appendix.  101 

biguously  expressed,  so  as  to  be  capable  of  two  meanings,  we  must  sup- 
pose that  it  was  intended  to  leave  that  doctrine  to  private  judgment, 
unless  the  rubrics  and  formularies  clearly  and  distinctly  decide  it.  If 
they  do,  we  must  conclude  that  the  doctrine  so  decided  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  Church.' 

"  Subject  to  our  protest  against  ambiguity  ever  being  intentional,  this 
seems  perfectly  true  and  fair ;  and,  on  first  reading  it,  we  confess  we 
anticipated  a  very  different  decision  of  the  question  before  the  Com- 
mittee;  for,  if  anything  does  seem  '  clearly  and  distinctly  decided  '  by 
the  formularies,  it  is  the  regeneration  of  aU  infants  by  baptism.  This 
retreat  upon  the  formularies,  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  Articles,  is, 
however,  cut  off  by  the  passage  now  before  us  ;  for  according  to  it,  it  is 
impossible  ever  to  be  certain  that  the  formularies  'clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly decide '  anything.  Combining  the  two  passages  together,  the 
process  indicated  seems  to  be  this.  We  find  in  the  formularies  what 
seem  a  '  clear  and  distinct  decision '  on  a  matter  of  doctrine.  This, 
however,  '  cannot  be  held  to  be  evidence '  of  the  Church's  belief, 
'  without  reference '  to  the  Articles,  to  see  whether  they  contain  any 
'  distinct  declaration '  ou  the  subject.  Well,  we  do  refer  to  the 
Articles :  they  contain  no  such  declaration — they  are  *  silent  or  am- 
biguous.' We  accordingly  fall  back  on  our  '  clear  and  distinct 
decision,'  and  are  about  to  repose  in  the  comfortable  assurance  that  we 
have  at  last  discovered  the  Church's  doctrine,  when  lo !  three  new 
authorities  are  introduced  to  us.  We  are  desii'ed  to  refer  '  to  faith, 
hope,  and  charity.'  We  do  refer  to  them,  and,  in  some  inexplicable 
manner,  we  find  that  our  '  clear  and  distinct  decision '  has  vanished 
into  thin  air — plain  words  have  lost  their  meaning — positive  assertions 
are  converted  into  ambiguities — and  the  straightforward  honesty  of  the 
English  nation  is  startled  by  the  judicial  declaration  that  their  Church 
considers  it  lawful  for  her  clergy,  on  the  most  solemn  occasions  that  can 
be  imagined — in  the  instruction  of  children  in  their  religion — in  the 
administration  of  the  sacraments  of  Christ — and  in  direct  addresses  to 
Almiglity  God — to  affirm  distinctly  and  categorically  what  they  do  not 
believe  to  be  true. 

"  '  3.  In  this  service  (that  of  Burial)  there  are  absolute  expressions, 
implying  positive  assertions  ;  yet  it  is  admitted  (by  whom  ?)  that  they 
cannot  be  literally  true  in  all  cases,  but  must  be  construed  in  a  qualified 
or  charitable  sense.' 

'•  Now  the  writer  of  this  sentence  should  have  remembered,  tliat  what 
he  had  in  hand  was  to  interpret  the  meaning  of  a  written  instrument, 
and  not  to  discuss  the  suitableness  of  its  use  in  particular  instances ; 
and  he  should  also  have  remembered,  that  if  discipline  were  duly  exer- 
cised, this  ofiice  would  not  be  used  in  the  case  of  persons  who  '  die  in 
the  actual  commission  of  flagrant  crimes.'  But  waiving  this,  we  would 
simply  ask  to  have  these  rambling  expressions  put  into  plain  and  intel- 
ligible English.  What  is  the  meaning  of  '  absolute  expressions  implying 
positive  assertions  ?'  What  are  the  '  absolute  expressions  ?'  And  what 
are  the  '  positive  assertions  ?'  Let  them  be  distinguished  from  one 
another,  and  each  cleai-ly  stated.  For  our  part,  in  the  extracts  given 
from  the  Burial  Service,  we  see  notliing  that  is  not  '  literally  true.'  We 
say  that  God  has  'taken  to  Himself  the  soul  of  our  departed  brother; 
and  so  He  has :  for  the  Scripture  saith  that  at  death  '  the  spirit  returns 
to  God,  Who  gave  it.'  We  say  that  God  has  '  delivered  our  brother 
out  of  the  miseries  of  this  sinful  world ;'  and  so  He  has  :  for  when  he 


102  Appendix. 

left  the  world,  he  left  its  miseries.  We  say  that  '  our  hope  is  that  our 
brother  rests  in  God  ;'  and  so  it  is  :  and  truly  sorry  should  we  be  tliat 
our  hope  should  be  anything  else.  (The  other  passage  about  ■'  sure  and 
certain  hope  '  we  shall  come  to  presently.)  We  do  not  know  which  of 
these  are  the  '  absolute  expressions,'  or  the  '  positive  assertions  '  alluded 
to  by  the  writer ;  but,  on  grounds  of  common  sense  and  common 
honesty,  we  must  protest  against  the  monstrous  inference  to  which  he 
works  his  way  under  cover  of  this  mist  of  words,  that  because  we  say  we 
hope  a  departed  brother  rests  in  God,  when  we  do  hope  it,  therefore,  we 
may  positively  assert  that  an  iufaut  is  regenerate,  when  we  have  not  an 
idea  whether  he  is  regenerate  or  not. 

"  4.  Similar  looseness  of  language,  covei'ing,  but  ill  concealing  gross 
fallacies,  is  used  in  reference  to  the  private  Baptism  of  infants ;  e.  g.,  it 
is  called  '  an  exceptional  case.'  Exceptional  to  what  ?  The  Cliureh  has 
provided  three  '  Orders  of  Baptism"  for  three  distinct  classes  ;  infants 
in  danger  of  dying  soon  after  birth,  infants  not  in  that  danger,  and 
adults.  One  class  being  less  numerous  than  another,  does  not  render  its 
baptism  an  exception  to  the  baptism  of  the  others.  Adult  baptism  is  the 
most  infrequent  of  the  three  :  why  does  he  not  call  that  an  '  exceptional 
case  ?'  The  truth  is,  the  expression  is  iiTclevant  and  meaningless, 
except  as  covering  a  palpable  |^e#«72o  principii.  The  whole  question  at 
issue  is,  whether  the  Church  teaches  that  baptism  is  '  effectual,  because 
of  Christ's  institution  and  promise,'  (Art.  XXXI.,)  or  whether  she 
considers  its  effect  tied  to  certain  conditions  of  human  institution.  One 
party  appeals  to  the  Office  for  Private  Baptism  as  irresistibly  demon- 
strating that  the  former  is  the  Church's  view ;  for  she  there  distinctly, 
strongly,  stringently,  repeatedly  declares,  that  the  infant  is  '  by  baptism 
regenerate '  without  any  conditions  at  all.  Lord  Langdale  refuses  to 
receive  this  office  in  evidence  of  the  Church's  doctrine,  as  being  '  excep- 
tional.' AVhy  is  it  exceptional  ?  Because  it  does  not  enjoin  the  con- 
ditions of  human  invention,  by  which  the  other  party  limits  the  effect  of 
Cueist's  institution.  What  is  this,  but  to  assume  the  whole  question 
in  debate  ? 

"  Tlie  same  fallacy  lurks  under  the  expressions  '  imperfect  and  incom- 
plete ceremony,'  applied  to  the  Office  for  Private  Baptism;  'complete 
service  '  applied  to  that  of  '  Public  Baptism  ;'  'full  service'  applied  to  the 
public  reception  of  infants  privately  baptized.  The  private  office  is  not 
'  imperfect  and  incomplete,'  but  '  full,'  '  perfect,'  and  '  complete  '  for  its 
purpose,  to  wit,  the  administi'ation  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  It 
does  ]iot  require  any  promises  from  sponsors,  as  the  public  service  does ; 
but  to  call  it  'imperfect  and  incomplete  '  on  that  account,  has  no  foi'ce  or 
meaning  in  the  alignment,  except  as  involving  an  assumption  of  tlie 
question  in  debate,  that  the  effect  of  baptism  is  dependent  on  these 
promises  being  made. 

"  We  must  quote  the  passage  witli  which  his  Lordship  closes  his  re- 
view of  the  baptismal  offices  : 

"  '  These  re([uirements  of  the  Church  '  (viz.,  the  declarations  made  by 
adults,  and  the  promises  made  for  infants,)  in  her  comjjlete  and  public 
service,  ought,  upon  a  just  construction  of  all  the  services,  to  be  con- 
sidered as  tlic  rule  of  the  Church,  and  taken  as  proof  that  the  same 
promise,  thougli  not  expressed,  is  implied  in  the  exceptional  case,  when 
the  rite  is  administered  in  the  expectation  of  immediate  death,  and  the 
exigency  of  the  case  does  not  admit  of  sureties.  Any  other  conclusion 
would  be  an  argument  to  prove  that  none  but  the  imperfect  and  incom- 


Appendix.  103 

plete  ceremony  allowed  iii  the  exceptional  case  would  be  necessary  in 
any  case.' 

"  It  is  really  bard  to  deal  witb  a  passage  in  wbicb  almost  every  word 
involves  a  fallacy. 

Upon  a  just  construction  of  «//  tbe  services  !'  Will  any  man  in  bis 
senses  say  that  that  is  a  ^just  construction '  of  tbe  service  for  private 
baptism,  which  could  sustain  tbe  inference  which  his  Lordship  draws, 
except  on  the  supposition  that  these  '  requirements '  are  essential  to  tbe 
efficacy  of  baptism,  which  is  the  question  in  debate  ? 

These  requirements  of  the  Church,  in  her  complete  and  public  ser- 
vice, ought  to  be  considered  as  the  rule  of  tbe  Church.'  Of  coiu-se  they 
are  the  '  rule  of  the  Church  '  in  the  service  which  contains  them.  But 
what  is  meant  is,  that  they  are  the  'rule  of  tbe  Church  '  in  such  a  sense 
as  would  constitute  the  service  wbicb  does  not  contain  them  '  exceptionaV 
— wbicb  involves  the  old  fallacy. 

"  But  '  these  requirements  '  in  public  baptism  ought  further  '  to  be 
taken  as  proof  that  tbe  same  promise  (be  means  promises,  for  there  are 
three)  though  not  expressed,  is  impUed '  in  private  baptism.  Still  the 
old  fallacy.  In  tbe  name  of  common  sense,  bow  is  the  Church's  re- 
quiring promises  on  some  occasions,  a  proof  that  the  same  promises  are 
implied  on  other  occasions  when  she  does  not  require  them,  except  on 
the  supposition  that  tbe  efficacy  of  baptism  is  dependent  on  those  pro- 
mises, which  is  tbe  point  at  issue  ?  The  '  full  service  '  (as  bis  Lordship 
calls  it)  provided  for  the  public  reception  of  infants  privately  baptized, 
we  think  '  ought  to  be  taken  as  proof '  that  these  promises  are  not  im- 
plied :  for  if  implied,  why  are  they  afterwards  exacted  ? 

"  But  his   Lordship  reminds  us,  with  what   looks  like  fatuity,  that 
private  baptism  is  '  administered  in  the  expectation  of  immediate  death.' 
Now  we  entreat  our  readers  to  remember,  that  one  of  the  promises  said 
to  be  'implied,'  is  that  tbe  infant  will  '  obediently  keep  Gon's  holy  will 
and  commandments,  and  walk  in  tbe  same  all  tlie  days  of  its  life.'     So 
that  tbe  argument  stands  thus : — Tbe  Church  requires,  on  the  part  of 
an  infant,  a  promise  that  it  will  lead  a  holy  life,  in  a  service  to  be  used 
when  there  is  prospect  of  its  living  ;  and  this  is  a  ^  proof ''  that  a  promise 
to  lead  a  holy  life  is  '  iniplied '  in  a  service  specially  intended  to  be  used 
when  there  is  an  expectation  of  its  immediately  dying !  !     Verily,  we 
accept  the  alternative  offered  to  us  in  the  concluding  sentence  of  the 
above  paragraph,  and  are  thankful  to  bis  Lordship  for  reducing  the  con- 
troversy to  so  short  an  issue.     We  are  simple  enough  to  think  the  con- 
clusion to  which  be  has  come  excessively  absurd ;  aud  we  do  believe  that 
'  none  but '  what  be  calls  '  the  imperfect  and  incomplete  ceremony  '  is 
'  necessary  in  any  case  '  for  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament  of  Bap- 
tism, and  conveying  to  tbe  recipient  all  tbe  benefits  that  are  to  be  re- 
ceived thereby. 

"  His  Lordship  rests  some  of  bis  arguments  on  a  complete  misunder- 
standing of  tbe  passages  wbicb  be  adduces. 

"  1.  '  Sure  and  certain  hope  of  tbe  resurrection  to  eternal  Hfe,'  in  the 
Burial  Service.  He  says  this  '  hope  '  is  the  same  as  that  subsequently 
expressed,  '  that  our  brother  rests  in  GrOD.'  It  is  no  such  thing.  We 
do  not  say,  '  hope  of  his  resurrection,'  but  '  hope  of  the  resurrection,'  i.e., 
the  general  resurrection.  We  will  endeavour  to  make  this  plain  by  a 
reference  to  certain  '  external  aud  historical  facts,'  which  ought  not  to 
be  overlooked  by  an  expositor  of  the  passage  in  its  existing  shape. 
Before  the  last  revision  the  words  were,  '  sure  and  certain  hope  of  resur- 


104;  Appendix. 

rection.'  The  nonconforming  party  objected  to  these  words,  conceiving 
tliat  '  resurrection  '  meant  his  resurrection,  and  involved  too  strongly  an 
assurance  of  his  safety.  The  Episcopal  Commissioners  made  this  con- 
cession, '  that  the  words  "  sure  and  certain  "  may  be  left  out.'*  This 
alteration  was  not  adhered  to ;  but  instead  of  it,  the  word  '  the '  was 
inserted  before  '  resurrection.'  The  original  concession  shows  the  temper 
of  mind  hi  which  the  latter  alteration  was  made ;  and  it  is  plain  that  the 
intention  was  to  obviate  the  Nonconformist  objection,  not  by  merely 
softening  the  strength  of  the  expression,  but  by  giving  a  new  turn  to 
the  sentence.  That  this  was  the  animus  and  effect  of  the  change  is 
plain,  from  the  form  to  be  used  in  burials  at  sea,  introduced  for  the  first 
time  into  the  Prayer-Book  by  the  very  persons  who  made  the  change. — 
'  We  therefore  commit  his  body  to  the  deep,  to  be  turned  into  corrup- 
tion, looking  for  the  resurrection  of  the  body  (when  the  sea  shall  give  u]) 
her  dead,)  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come.'  It  is  not  to  be  supj^osed 
that  the  authors  of  the  two  forms,  as  we  now  have  them,  did  not  tliink 
and  intend  them  to  correspond  ;  or  that  they  had  less  hope  of  a  man's 
salvation  from  the  accident  of  his  dying  on  board  a  ship. 

"  2.  '  When  the  question  is  asked,  "  Why  then  are  infants  baptized, 
when  by  reason  of  their  tender  age  they  cannot  perform  them  ?"  the 
answer  is — not  that  infants  are  baptized  because  by  their  innocence  they 
cannot  be  unworthy  recipients,  or  cannot  present  an  obex  or  hindrance 
to  the  grace  of  regeneration,  and  are  therefore  fit  subjects  for  Divine 
grace; — but  " because  they  promise  them  both  by  their  sureties,"  &c. 
The  answer  has  direct  reference  to  the  condition  on  which  the  benefit  is 
to  depend.' 

"  His  Lordship  has  totally  misunderstood  both  question  and  answer, 
which  are  both  of  them  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  point  in  hand.  If,  in- 
deed, the  question  were,  '  Why  are  infants  said  to  be  regenerate  by  bap- 
tism ?'  then  we  might  expect  an  answer  somewhat  to  the  purpose.  And 
we  luiow  what  answer  the  revisers  of  our  formularies  {from  lohose  hands 
we  have  them  as  theij  now  are)  would  give  to  this  question,  because  we 
know  the  answer  they,  in  effect,  did  give  to  it,  which  is  an  '  external  and 
historical  fact '  not  unworthy  of  Lord  Langdale's  consideration.  '  Seeing 
that  God's  Sacraments  have  their  efi'ects,  where  the  receiver  doth  not 
ponere  obicem,  put  any  bar  against  them  (which  children  cannot  do)  ;  we 
may  say  in  faith  of  every  child  that  is  baptized,  that  it  is  regenerated  by 
Gon's  IIoLT  SpiiiiT ;  and  the  denial  of  it  tends  to  anabaptism,  and  the 
contempt  of  this  holy  sacrament.'  (CardwelTs  History  of  Conferences, 
\).  35G.)  To  this  question,  the  answer  in  the  Catechism  woidd  be  pal- 
pably untrue  ;  for  in  private  baptism  children  are  pronounced  to  be 
regenerate  in  more  unequivocal  terms  than  in  public  baptism,  and  yet 
they  promise  nothiug  by  sureties,  and  have  no  sureties.  The  question 
and"  answer  have  reference,  not  to  the  regeneration  of  infants,  ]ior  '  to  the 
condition  on  which  that  benefit  is  to  depend,'  for  there  is  no  condition  ; 
but  to  the  '  wholesome  effect '  of  that  regeneration  in  after-life.  The 
sacraments  are  not  bare  signs,  but  '  effectual  signs  ;'  eftectual  in  all  cases, 
whetlier  for  good  or  evil. — (Art.  XXV.)  The  (piestion  in  tlie  Catechism 
preceding  that  t[uoted  by  Lord  Langdale  is,  '  What  is  required  of  per- 
sons to  be  baptized  ?' — that  is,  required,  not  to  render  the  sacrament  ell'ec- 
tual,  for  that  it  is  by  Curtst's  institution,  but  to  render  it  effectual  of  a 
blessing,  and  not  of  a  curse.     To  this  the  answer  is,  '  llcpentancc  and 

*  "  Cardwell's  History  of  Conferences,"  p.  363. 


Appendix.  105 

faith  ;  without  which  baptism  would  be  to  them  (not  an  empty  form, 
but)  an  instrument  of  '  damnation.'  (Art.  XXV.)  The  difficulty  then 
naturally  suggests  itsell",  '  Why  then  are  infants  baptized,'  &c.  ?  How 
is  it  that  they  do  not  '  receive  the  grace  of  God  in  vain  ?'  since  they  can 
have  neither  repentance  nor  faith.  The  answer  is,  '  Because  they  pro- 
mise them  both  by  their  sureties,'  &c.  ;  that  is,  the  Church  provides  the 
best  security  that  could  be  devised  against  that  result,  by  ensuring  that 
every  chikl  that  '  comes  to  age,'  and  so  is  capable  of  repentance  and 
faith,  shall  find  himself  tied  and  bound  by  promise  to  exercise  and  cherish 
those  Christian  graces,  without  which  the  heavenly  seed  planted  in  him 
at  baptism  would  wither  and  die,  and  his  very  regeneration  become  a 
curse,  and  not  a  blessing." — Froin  the  Irish  Ecclesiastical  Journal,  April, 
1850. 


106  Appendix. 

B. 

Decision  as  to  a  Bishop's  right  to  examine  Cleryy. 

Sm  H.  J.  Fust  delivered  judgment  on  tliis  preliminary  point. 

It  appeared  from  all  the  information  which  he  had  been  able  to 
obtain,  that  a  similar  case  to  the  present  had  not  been  brought  before 
the  Court  during  the  last  130  years.  The  question  now  to  be  de- 
cided had  arisen  incidentally  (in  the  case  of  Gorham  v.  the  Bishop 
of  Exeter).  The  merits  of  the  case  had  not  been  entered  into, 
and  he  had  now  to  determine  whether  the  objection  taken  was  or 
was  not  maintainable.  In  former  times  such  proceedings  were  well 
known  to  the  practitioners  of  those  days,  and  were  alluded  to  by  the 
writers  on  ecclesiastical  law.  Eeference  was  made  to  them  in  Clarke's 
"  Pi'actice  "  and  in  Oughton's  "  Judiciorum."  Although  the  practice 
therefore,  might  have  fallen  into  some  degree  of  desuetude,  stiU  the 
remedy  was  open  to  a  Clergyman  who  considered  himself  aggrieved  by 
the  rejection  of  his  petition  to  be  instituted  into  a  living.  The  learned 
Judge  then  stated  the  principal  averments  contained  in  the  pleas  given 
in  by  the  respective  parties,  and  said  that  the  reason  assigned  by  the 
Bishop  for  not  instituting  Mr.  Grorham  was,  that  that  gentleman  held 
luisound  doctrine  on  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  The 
point  now  for  consideration  was,  whether  or  not  the  Bishop  had  a  right  to 
call  upon  Mr.  Gorham  to  undergo  an  examination  after  an  expiration  of 
twenty-eight  days  from  the  presentation  of  the  petition.  It  had  been 
contended  that  that  was  the  time  allowed  by  the  95th  canon  of  1603, 
and  could  not  be  exceeded.     The  canon  was  to  the  following  effect : — 

"  Albeit  by  former  constitutions  of  the  Church  of  England  every 
Bishop  had  two  months'  space  to  inquire  and  inform  himself  of  the 
sufficiency  and  qualities  of  every  Minister  after  he  had  been  presented 
unto  him  to  be  instituted  into  any  benefice,  yet  for  the  avoiding  of  some 
inconveniences,  we  do  now  abridge  and  reduce  the  said  two  months  unto 
twenty-eight  days  only." 

It  had  been  argued  that  everything  whicli  passed  between  the  Bishop 
and  Mr.  Gorham  during  his  examination,  and  which  was  submitted  to, 
as  Mr.  Gorham  stated,  under  a  protest,  vei'bal  in  tlie  first  instance,  but 
afterwards  reduced  into  writing,  must  be  considered  as  a  mere  nullity,  and 
consequently  the  Court  was  not  entitled  to  assume  from  anything  that 
passed  in  tlie  course  of  the  examination  that  he  did  maintain  uiisound 
doctrine  on  tlie  points  referred  to  by  the  Bishop.  The  title  of  the  canon 
was,  "The  Eestraint  of  Double  Quarrels,"  and  the  part  read  by  the 
Court  certainly  seemed  to  have  no  connexion  with  the  title  ;  but  the 
canon  went  on  to  state : — 

"  In  respect  of  which  abridgment  we  do  ordain  and  appoint  that  no 
double  quarrel  shall  hereafter  be  granterl  out  of  any  of  the  Archbishop's 
Courts,  at  the  suit  of  any  minister  whatsoever,  except  he  shall  first  take 
his  personal  oath  that  the  said  twenty-eight  days  at  the  least  are 
expired,  after  he  first  tendered  his  presentation  to  the  Bishop,  and  that 
he  refused  to  grant  him  institution  thereupon,  or  shall  enter  bonds  with 
sudicicnt  sureties  to  prove  the  same  to  be  true,  under  pain  of  the  sus- 
pension of  the  grantor  tlicreof  from  the  execution  of  liis  office  for  half-a- 
ycar  toiies  ipwties  to  be  denounced  by  the  said  Archbishop,  and  nullity 


Appendix.  107 

of  the  double  qiiarrcl  aforesaid,  so  unduly  procured,  to  all  iutents  and 
purposes  wliatsoever." 

The  purport  of  the  cauou  was  to  restrain  a  party  from  suing  out  a 
duplex  querela  till  he  should  have  made  oath  that  at  least  twenty-eight 
days  had  expired,  and  there  had  been  an  actual  refusal  on  the  part  of  the 
Bishop  to  proceed  to  the  institution.  The  latter  part  of  the  canon  was 
very  important,  and  presented  no  limitation  whatever  to  the  Bishop 
examining  the  person  presented.     The  canon  thus  concluded  : — 

"  Always  provided  that  within  the  said  twenty-eight  days  the  Bishop 
shall  not  institute  any  other  to  the  prejudice  of  the  said  party  before 
presented,  snbpcena  nuUitatisy 

The  canon  was  relied  upon  most  stringently  as  absolutely  compelling 
the  Bishop  to  commence,  and  conclude  the  examination  within  a  period 
of  twenty-eight  days.  When  the  case  was  argued,  the  prayers  of  the 
proctors  were  not  before  the  Court,  but  they  had  since  been  given  in. 
Mr.  Gorham  prayed  that  the  Court  would  pronounce  that  the  Bishop 
had  no  right  to  continue  the  examination  after  the  twenty-eight  days 
had  expired,  and  tliat  it  would  now  proceed  to  institute  him ;  whereas 
the  Bishop  prayed  that  the  Court  would  pronounce  that  he  had  proved 
his  case.  If  the  construction  put  upon  the  canon  by  the  counsel  for 
Mr.  Grorham  were  the  correct  one,  it  woidd  lead  to  very  important  and 
very  serious  consequences,  for  it  would  go  to  this  extent  tliat  whatever 
might  be  disclosed  to  the  Bishop,  after  the  twenty-eiglit  days  had 
elapsed,  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  clerk — whether  he  were  an  Atheist,  or 
had  been  guilty  of  the  grossest  irregularities — the  Bishop  could  not  in- 
quire into  the  truth  of  those  circumstances,  but  must  proceed  to  insti- 
tute liim,  although  the  very  next  day  he  might  be  obliged,  in  the  con- 
scientious discharge  of  his  duty,  to  take  steps  to  deprive  him  of  the 
benefice.  In  order  to  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion  of  the  construction  of 
the  canon,  it  was  necessary  to  consider  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  issued.  What  was  required  when  a  person  was  presented  for  the 
pui'poses  of  institution  ;  The  presentation  was  tendered,  accompanied, 
generally  speaking,  by  testimonials  of  good  conduct  from  persons  who 
had  been  acquainted  with  the  clerk  for  many  years.  If  the  Bishop  were 
satisfied  with  the  testimonials,  lie  took  the  preliminary  steps  to  the  insti- 
tution— namely,  to  receive  the  subscription  of  the  Articles,  a  declaration 
of  conformity  to  the  Liturgy,  and  an  assent  and  consent  to  everything 
contained  in  the  Book  of  Common  Pi'ayer.  But  it  was  a  duty  absolutely 
incumbent  on  the  Bishop  to  satisfy  himself  that  the  clerk  was  fit  and 
properly  qualified  to  be  a  minister  of  the  benefice  to  which  he  sought  to 
be  instituted.  The  examination  was  not  a  mere  right  or  privilege  en- 
joyed by  the  Bishop,  but  was  a  duty  binding  upon  him.  In  the  case  of 
Mr.  Gorham  the  Bishop  was  satisfied  with  the  testimonials  he  received, 
when  that  gentleman  was  presented  to  the  vicarage  of  St.  Just,  as  to 
his  knowledge,  his  learning,  his  morals,  and  tiie  soundness  of  his  doc- 
trine, and  therefore  instituted  him.  Possibly  the  same  course  would 
have  been  pursued  in  the  present  instance  if  nothing  had  passed  in  the 
intermediate  time  between  the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Gorham.  Whether  the 
Bishop  had  sufiicient  grounds  for  an  alteration  of  opinion  respecting  Mr. 
Gorham  was  not  the  question  which  the  Court  had  now  to  consider.  It 
had  been  said  that  it  was  very  unusual  for  a  beneficed  clerk  in  a  diocese 
to  be  examined  on  his  removal  to  another  living  in  the  same  diocese. 
It  might  be  unusual,  but  if  anything  had  arisen  in  the  meantime  to  lead 
the  Bishop  to  doubt  the  soundness  of  his  doctrine,  surely  there  was 
nothing  to  prevent  him  requiring  the  clerk  to  undergo  an  examination. 


108  Appendix. 

It  appeared  that  in  the  year  1846  a  correspondence  took  place  be- 
tween the  Bishop  and  Mr.  Gorham,  which  had  been  published  in  a  book 
referred  to  in  the  course  of  the  proceedings,  from  which  the  Bishop  en- 
tertained considerable  doubts  as  to  the  soundness  of  Mr.  Gorham's  doc- 
trine, and  which  led  to  the  examination.  It  became  necessary,  then,  to 
consider  what  was  the  foundation  of  the  rule — if  such  a  rule  existed — 
which  necessarily  precluded  the  Bishop  from  examining  a  Clergyman 
after  the  period  of  twenty-eight  days  from  the  presentation  had  elapsed. 
The  Bishop  was  invested  with  a  public  trust,  and  it  was  for  the  benefit 
and  advantage  of  the  public  that  it  should  be  executed  ;  imless,  there- 
fore, there  were  some  stringent  rules  which  led  the  Court  to  put  that 
construction  on  the  words  of  the  canon  which  had  been  contended  for 
by  the  counsel  for  Mr.  Gorham,  it  would  be  extremely  difficult  to  do  it. 
The  argument  had  rested  on  the  words  of  the  canon  itself.  Tliere  were, 
however,  no  prohibitory  words  in  it ;  none  which  said  the  Bishop  should 
jiot  examine  after  twenty-eight  days.  There  was  no  analogy  then 
between  the  canon  and  the  statutes  of  limitation  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Gorham's  counsel,  for  they  expressly  enacted  that  an  action  should  not 
be  commenced  after  a  certain  number  of  years  had  elapsed.  In  a 
number  of  cases,  referring  to  proceedings  in  these  Courts,  time  was  so 
limited  and  defined  as  to  leave  no  doubt  as  to  the  intention  of  the  legis- 
lature in  passing  those  acts.  That  was  the  case  in  the  27th  Geo. 
III.,  c.  44,  referring  to  defamation,  &c.  Those  statutes  required  to  be 
construed  strictly,  because  they  were  an  abridgment  of  former  rights. 
The  Bishops  for  many  centuries  were  the  universal  incumbents  of  every 
benefice  in  their  dioceses,  and  received  the  profits  after  defraying  the 
salaries  of  those  who  officiated.  That  was  adverted  to  by  Godolphin ; 
the  Bishop  also  applied  to  his  own  use  the  profits  of  a  living  which 
became  vacant  during  the  time  it  so  remained,  and  under  the  general 
law  there  was  nothing  to  compel  to  proceed  to  institute  a  clerk.  In  the 
year  1222,  Archbishop  Langton  issued  a  constitution  which  limited  the 
time  during  which  tlie  Bishop  could  appropriate  to  himself  the  profits 
of  a  vacant  living  to  two  months ;  that  was  to  be  found  in  the  third 
book  of  Lyndwood.  That  constitution  of  Archbishop  Langton  seemed 
to  lay  the  foundation  for  the  present  canon.  If  the  Bishop  delayed  the 
institution  beyond  two  months  he  incurred  the  penalty  of  restoring  tlie 
profits  to  the  clerk  appointed  to  it.  He  was  not  allowed  to  profit  by  his 
own  wrongdoing.  It  appeared,  however,  from  Lyndwood,  that  there 
must  have  been  an  examination  of  the  person  appointed,  for  the  Bisliop 
was  to  satisfy  himself  that  ho  was  idoneus.  If  it  were  found  that  the 
presentee  were  unsound  in  doctrine,  that  would  be  a  valid  objection  to 
the  Bishop  instituting  him.  The  canon  law  then  allowed  two  months 
to  the  Bishop  for  examination,  but  it  did  not  limit  it  to  that  period  :  if 
the  party  were  idoneus  the  profits  were  restored  to  him.  Tlie  law,  as 
laid  down  by  Degge,  Godolphin,  Aylifte,  Watson,  and  all  writers  on 
these  subjects,  showed  that  an  examination  was  necessary.  Tlie  imjior- 
tant  point,  however,  was,  whether  under  the  canon  of  1603  the  Bishop 
was  restricted  to  twenty-eight  days.  Godolphin  spoke  of  six  montlis  as 
being  the  convenient  time  within  which  the  institution  was  to  take 
place,  the  reason  of  which  was  obvious :  it  was  to  prevent  the  appoint- 
ment to  tlie  living  lapsing  to  the  Bishop. 

If,  as  contended  by  the  counsel  for  INIr.  Gorham,  the  Bishop  were  com- 
pelled to  complete  tlie  examination  NA-ithin  twenty-eight  days,  then,  if  he 
were  engnged  in  a  visitation,  or  other  important  matters  eonccrning  the 
affairs  of  his  diocese,  he  must  lay  them  all  aside,  and  postpone  them  for 


Appendix.  109 

the  coBvenienee  of  the  person  so  presented.  That  never  could  be  con- 
sidered reasonable,  and  could  not  be  the  intention  of  the  canon,  the 
design  of  which  was  to  have  the  examination  so  completed  that  injury 
would  not  be  inflicted  either  on  the  patron  or  the  clerk.  It  had  been 
held  that,  if  a  Bishop  neglected  to  give  due  notice  for  the  presentation 
of  a  second  clerk,  having  rejected  the  first,  he  could  not  take  advantage 
of  it.  It  was  said  in  argument  that  there  were  motives  which  might 
influence  the  Bishop  to  prevent  the  institution  of  the  clerk.  It  was  on 
that  account  that  the  constitution  of  Archbishop  Langton  was  framed. 
That  temptation  was  still  further  taken  away  by  the  28th  Henry  VIII., 
c.  11,  from  the  preamble  to  which  it  appeared  that  the  question  at  that 
time  remained  somewhat  doubtful.  It  seemed  to  him  (the  learned 
judge)  that  a  clerk  could  not  insist  upon  being  instituted  before  twenty- 
eight  days,  but  if  it  were  not  done  in  that  time,  then  he  could  sue  out 
the  duplex  querela,  and  call  upon  the  Bishop  to  assign  the  cause.  Be- 
yond that  the  canon  did  not  go.  It  did  not  require,  in  the  form  of  the 
prayer  now  made,  that  the  party  should  be  instituted.  Who  was  to  in- 
stitute him  ?  It  was  expressly  laid  down  in  the  canon  that  no  person 
should  be  instituted  without  inquiry.  What  information  had  he  (Sir 
H.  J.  Fust)  before  him  upon  which  he  could  ground  any  such  proceed- 
ing ?  He  had  neither  the  presentation,  the  testimonials,  nor  the  in- 
quiry. It  appeared  that  after  Mr.  Grorham  was  presented  the  Bishop 
was  summoned  to  appear  in  parliament,  and  that  was  alleged  as  the 
ground  for  postponing  the  examination.  Was  the  Bishop  bound  to 
abandon  that  duty  ?  It  was  part  of  the  duties  belonging  to  him  to 
attend  the  House  of  Lords  as  a  spiritual  peer.  The  performance  of  this 
duty  might  be  attended  with  some  inconvenience,  but  there  was  no  real 
loss  either  to  the  patron  or  the  incumbent.  The  latter  was  still  holding 
the  living  of  St.  Just,  and  he  was  entitled  to  the  intermediate  profits 
during  the  vacancy  of  the  living  of  Brampford  Speke  if  he  should  be  in- 
stituted hereafter.  There  was  nothing,  therefore,  which  would  lead  him 
(the  learned  judge)  to  believe  that  this  was  done  with  any  sinister 
motive  on  the  part  of  the  Bishop.  Pecuniary  interest  he  coidd  have 
none,  and  in  this  case  there  could  be  no  lapse  of  the  living.  It  had  been 
said  that  Mr.  Gorham  was  taken  by  surprise  by  the  intimation  of  the 
Bishop's  intention  to  examine  him.  Whether  that  was  so  or  not  was 
immaterial  to  inquire  ;  but  it  was  impossible  to  say  tliat  he  could  be 
taken  by  surprise  when  they  looked  at  the  correspondence  between  him 
and  the  Bishop  in  1846  on  the  appointment  of  a  Curate  to  St.  Just. 
But  Mr.  Gorham  submitted  to  an  examination,  although  under  protest, 
and  he  must  be  considered  as  bound  by  it,  whatever  the  result  might  be. 
Looking  to  all  the  circumstances  in  this  part  of  the  case,  the  only  part 
of  it  to  which  his  (the  learned  judge's)  attention  was  now  to  be  directed, 
he  was  of  opinion  that  no  case  had  been  made  out  by  the  argument  in 
reference  to  the  twentj^-eight  days.  If  Mr.  Gorham  had  thought  fit  to 
apply  for  the  duplex  querela  at  an  earlier  period  he  could  have  done  so  ; 
the  Bishop  would  then  have  made  his  return,  and  it  would  have  been 
the  duty  of  the  Court  to  consider  its  sufficiency.  As  to  what  had  been 
stated  respecting  the  rights  of  the  patron,  Mr.  Gorham  had  nothing  to 
do  with  that,  nor  had  he  (Sir  H.  J.  Fust).  That  must  be  argued  else- 
where. The  question  to  be  tried  in  this  Court  was  whether  Mr.  Gor- 
ham had  been  properly  or  improperly  refused  institution.  The  Court 
was  bound  to  enter  into  that  consideration.  On  the  ground  he  had 
stated  he  pronounced  with  perfect  satisfaction  to  his  own  miud  that  he 
must  overrule  the  prayer  of  the  proctor  for  Mr.  Gorham. 


110  Appendix. 

C. 

Note  on  the  Letter  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  GooJe  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter. 

Mt  reference  to  Mr.  W.  Goode  is  made  -witli  no  intention  of  occupying 
tlie  reader  unnecessai'ily  with  an  exposure  of  his  recent  pamphlet,  but 
with  the  view  of  calling  attention  to  the  one  point  in  which  he  is  con- 
cerned in  the  present  controversy,  viz.,  his  vindication  of  the  "  quota- 
tions "  made  from  the  seven  different  authors  enumerated  in  the  State 
Court  Judgment,  and  characterized  in  the  note  at  the  foot  of  p.  73. 
Others  *  have,  I  believe,  given  Mr.  Goode  a  sufficient  answer  on  the  chief 
points  of  his  letter,  which  I  here  shall  but  briefly  allude  to,  so  far  as 
may  explain  to  the  reader  who  may  not  have  seen  Mr.  Goode's  produc- 
tion the  manner  in  which  I  have  thought  it  right  to  mention  him. 

i^st,  Mr.  Goode's  language,  as  addressed  to  a  Christian  Bishop,  is 
utterly  disgraceful.  Of  course  it  does  not  admit  of  any  answer,  nor,  in- 
deed, of  any  adequate  description,  except  by  a  measure  of  quotation  of 
which  it  is  not  worthy.  Thus  he  tells  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  (p.  41) 
that  he  is  one  of  the  "emptiest  vessels,"  which  always  "make  the 
loudest  noise  ;"  that  his  Lordship's  solemn  and  eloquent  address  to  tlie 
Archbishop  exceeds  "  the  ravings  of  disappointed  and  infiu'iated  char- 
tists," (p.  20;)  that  in  his  knowledge  of  Scripture  the  Bishop  is  below 
a  national  schoolboy,  (p.  12)  ;  and,  in  fact,  "  falsehood,"  "  calumny," 
"wickedness,"  (p.  87,)  "recklessness,"  &c.,  &c.,  are  tlie  usual  terms  ap- 
plied throughout  Mr.  Goode's  pamphlet  to  everything  written  by  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter !  AVhile,  with  unconscious  inconsistency,  he  gives 
praise  to  Mr.  Mask  ell  (by  which  he  can  feel  but  little  flattered),  for  his 
avowal  of  his  former  "  reserves,"  &c,  and  exclaims  of  him,  as  of  a  kin- 
dred spirit,  on  seeing  his  present  mood,  "  Cum  talis  sis,  utinam  noster 
esses!" — though  Mr.  Maskell,  in  the  same  pamphlet  which  Mr.  Goode 
applauds,  thus  speaks  of  the  Bishop  of  Exeter,  whom  Mr.  Goode  reviles  : 

"  Of  one  there  are  no  words  in  which,  if  loe  are  true-hearted  and  sin- 
cere, and  earnest  for  the  truth,  we  can  express  all  that  we  ought  to  feel 
of  gratitude,  and  sympathy,  and  regard.  He  alone,  of  all  our  Bishops, 
has  endeavoured  to  vindicate  the  Catholic  claims  which  otliers  have 
feebly  spoken  of ;  he  alone  has  dared  to  keep  the  promise  which  he 
made  at  his  consecration,  '  to  drive  away  all  erroneous  and  strange  doc- 
trine contrary  to  God's  Word ;'  he  alone  has  liad  sufficient  trust  in  the 
power  and  reality  of  the  Clu'istian  Faith  to  labour  in  its  defence,  unsup- 
ported, amidst  calumny,  and  opposition,  and  reproach.  And  no  man 
living  knows,  as  I  in  some  small  measure  know,  the  labours  and  imtiring 
patience — the  anxious,  wearing  toil, — which  have  been  devoted  to  the 
cause  of  the  Church  of  England  by  him,  who  looked  for  nothing,  hoped 
for  nothing,  but  the  one  single,  glorious  end  of  saving  the  Cluu'ch,  of 
which  he  is  the  noblest  ornament,  from  the  stain  and  sin  of  heresy. 
Oh!  may  God  ever  be  with  him;  now,  when,  in  his  declining  years, 
disappointments  in  the  past,  and  fears  for  time  to  come,  are  darkening 
round  us  all ;  now,  when  tlie  weight  and  anger  of  the  storm  seems 
gathering,  before  it  bursts ;  now,  when  the  hopes  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land are  to  be  found,  not  in  hearts  faint  and  desponding  as  my  own,  but 
in  such  as  his,  firm,  unshaken  still,  and  confident,  and  bold.     Again  and 

*  The  Rev.  T.  K.  Arnold  ;  the  Rev.  A.  Watson  ;  the  Rev.  Dr.  Pusey. 


Appendix.  Ill 

again  I  pray,  may  all  the  gifts  and  blessings  of  oiir  Almighty  Loed  and 
Satiour  be  upon  him,  evermore."  Such  is  the  testimony  of  the  witness 
called  by  Mr.  Goode  ia  this  cause.  His  own  approved  witness  declares, 
that  such  as  Mr.  Groode  are,  "  cannot  be  thought  sincere  or  earnest  for 
truth  !"     His  own  language  and  spirit  are  the  best  comment  on  this. 

Of  Mr.  Groode's  qualifications  as  a  critic  in  theology  I  must  give  the 
reader  three  or  four  specimens,  and  will  then  pass  on. 

1.  At  p.  12  of  his  letter  he  attempts  to  pour  out  all  his  indignation 
on  the  Bishop  for  a  "false  quotation"  of  Sceipture.  The  text  is 
Titus  iii.  5.     Mr.  Goode  criticizes  the  Bishop  thus  : 

"  The  text  which  you  have  produced  in  the  passage  I  am  consider- 
ing has  been,  I  grieve  to  be  obliged  to  say,  perverted  by  you,  and 
'  added  to  '  most  awfuUy.  Nay  more,  you  have  actually  misquoted  the 
Bible  to  obtain  from  it  evidence  in  yoiu"  favour.  *  Holy  Scripture,'  you 
say,  '  calls  Baptism  '  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  of  the  renewal  by 
the  Holy  Ghost.'  My  Lord,  we  should  hardly  expect  such  misrepre- 
sentation and  misquotation  of  Holy  Scripture  at  an  examination  of  a  Na- 
tional School !  '  Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,'  says 
the  Apostle,  '  but  according  to  His  mercy  He  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of 
regeneration,    and    renewing    of    the    Holt   Ghost.'       (cm    Xovrpov 

TToXi'^j'^/eveaia^,    Kai   avaicaivwaew^  Ylvevj.ia70^  'A<ytov.^       (Tit.  iii.  5.)      Now 

here,  first,  it  is  a  mere  matter  of  opinion  whether  the  phrase  '  washing 
of  regeneration '  refers  to  Baptism,  and  according  to  our  version  and 
the  received  punctuation  of  the  Greek,  the  'renewing  of  the  Holt 
Ghost  '  is  spoken  of  as  distinct  from  the  '  washing  of  regeneration.' 
But  from  this  you  manufacture  the  statement,  '  Holy  Scripture  calls 
Baptism  '  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  OF  the  renewal  by  the  Holt 
Ghost  ! ! '  For  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  '  washing  of  regeneration  ' 
as  applied  to  Baptism,  and  of  the  words  used  to  St.  Paul,  I  refer  to  the 
remarks  just  made  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Baptismal  rite." 

I  suppose  that  Mr.  Goode  did  not  see  that  the  ignorance  and  error 
are  aU  his  own.  The  Bishop  had  simply  translated  it  from  the  Greek, 
which  Mr.  Goode  does  not  seem  to  perceive,  though  it  is  printed  before 
him.  The  word  "renewal"  is  in  the  genitive  case,  '^ avuKaiuwaetvs,'" 
exactly  as  the  Bishop  read  it.  The  Latin  versions,  if  Mr.  Goode  will 
look  to  them,  render  the  text  just  as  the  Bishop  does.  The  Vulgate  is 
"  renovationis,"  and  Theodore  Beza  is  the  same,  (even  omitting  the 
"  and,"  and  making  regeneration  and  renewal  identical.)  Both  Eoman 
and  Protestant  translators,  as  well  as  the  original  Greek,  support  the 
Bishop.  But  who  woidd  not  have  fancied,  from  Mr.  Goode's  audacious 
tone  of  mock  triumph,  that  he  had  detected  the  Bishop  in  a  mistransla- 
tion ? — Such  assurance  as  this,  appears  unlimited. 

2.  Very  simdar  is  Mr.  Goode's  self-exposure  when  he  attempts  to 
correct  the  Bishop's  knowledge  of  the  canons.  The  Bishop  had  quoted 
a  canon  of  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage  as  "generally  received  "  and 
adopted  at  Chalcedon.  The  Bishop's  position  that  it  is  "generally  re- 
ceived " — (the  matter  of  real  consequence),  is  unquestionable ;  how  far  it 
was  adopted  at  Chalcedon  is  another  question.  For  the  council  of  Chal- 
cedon, first  of  all,  confirms  the  canons  of  all  preceding  Synods  up  to  that 
time ;  and  afterwards  refers  to  some  of  the  primitive  Synods  (can.  5) 
as  if  of  distinct  authority.  I  must  beg  the  reader's  attention  to  this  for 
a  moment ;  for  froni  Mr.  Goode's  mode  of  aUudiag  to  the  subject,  he 
evidently  wishes  it  to  be  thought  not  only  that  he  is  possessed  of  exact 
and  learned  information  respecting  it,  but  that  the  Bishop  has  so  erred, 


112  Appendix. 

in  a  simple  and  well-known  matter,  tliat  JNlr.  Goodc  is  quite  "ashamed 
for  our  Church  in  having  to  expose  such  ignorance  in  one  holding  such 
a  position  in  it !" 

The  Bishop's  statement  is  twofold,  and  we  may  examine  hotli  its  parts, 
viz.,  1st,  Tliat  the  canons  of  Carthage  IV.  were  "primitive,"  and 
"adopted  at  Chalcedon ;"  2nd,  That  they  were  "generally  received," 
and  "  had  the  authority  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church."  The  council  of 
Chalcedon,  a.d.  451,  begins  (as  has  been  said)  by  a  decree  which  con- 
firms the  canons  of  all  previous  Synods  up  to  that  time.  This  is  com- 
monly supposed  to  include  the  "  Codex  universalis  ecclesiae,"  consisting, 
as  is  commonly  understood,  of  the  five  provincial  councils  and  the  three 
general  councils  preceding ;  though  other  Canons  seem  to  be  several 
times  referred  to.  Whether  it  did  not  include  more  has  been  dis- 
puted ;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  go  into  that  question.  The  "  Apos- 
tolical Canons,"  or  code  of  the  pritnitive  Church,  however,  must  be  re- 
garded as  distinct  from  the  code  of  the  "  Universal  Chui'ch."  Now  it 
is  the  primitive  code  which  is  "  adopted  "  in  the  fifth  canon  of  Chal- 
cedon ;  as  Beveridge  has  shown,  in  his  dissertation,  from  the  fact  that  the 
canons  respecting  "  Bishops  passing  from  one  diocese  to  another "  are 
mentioned  with  distinctness  wholly  superfluous  if  the  "  Codex  of  the 
Universal  Church  "  were  again  referred  to ;  since  that  had  been  already 
settled  in  the  first  canon.  Now  exactly  the  same  position  which  the 
Apostolical  canons  held  in  the  east,  the  council  of  Carthage  seems  to 
have  held  in  Africa.  It  was,  as  Du  Pin  says,  a  separate  Code,  apart  by 
itself,  and  for  that  reason,  he  concludes,  was  not  put  into  "  the  collec- 
tions." And  there  is  the  same  reason  for  believing  the  fifth  canon  of 
Chalcedon  to  be  referring  to  the  twenty-seventh  canon  of  Carthage,  (in 
the  primitive  Latin  code,)  as  Beveridge  has  shown  for  the  reference  to 
the  "Apostolical  Canons,"  or  the  primitive  Greek  Code.  Mr.  Goode, 
however,  evidently  relying  on  his  "common  little  English  work  for 
young  students,"  (to  which  he  tauntingly  ventures  to  refer  the  Bishop,) 
has  not  turned  to  "  Justellus  "  at  all  ;  for  liad  he  done  so,  he  would 
not  have  found  the  matter  so  superficial  and  easy  as  he  pretends 
to  the  "English  public,"  in  order  (they  ate  his  terms)  to  "brow- 
beat the  Bishop."  I  will  give  in  English,  for  the  sake  of  "the 
public,"  what  Justellus  says  in  his  Proftice  to  the  African  Canons, 
referred  to  by  Mr.  Goode.  "  I  have  thought  it  worth  while  (he 
says)  to  give  a  brief  critical  history  of  these,  because  the  most 
learned  men  have  erred  respecting  them."  And  now  if  Mr.  Goode 
will  turn  to  a  very  easy  authority — Du  Pin — he  will  find  tliat  though 
the  collectors  mentioned  by  him  "  are  silent "  as  to  this  council,  yet 
Isidore,  Mercator,  Hincmar,  Burchardus,  Ivo  Carnutensis,  and  Gratian, 
are  not  silent ;  and  that  it  is  not  strange  that  these  canons  are  omitted 
from  the  collections  of  Dionysius  Exiguus,  and  others,  if  they  thus 
formed  a  distinct  code  apart  by  itself:  a  "  Primitive  "  code. 

But  what  does  Mr.  Goode  say  to  the  princi])al  part  of  the  Bishop's 
statement — the  really  important  part — that  the  canons  of  Carthage  were 
"generally  received,"  and  had  the  "authority  of  tlie  whole  Catholic 
Church  ?"  Mr.  Goode  passes  it  by,  with  the  hint  tliat  even  the  date  of 
the  said  council  is  doubtful.  "  The  supposed  date  (he  says)  is  between 
A.D.  398  and  A.D.  436."  This  is  from  a  "learned"  ecclesiastic!  Mr. 
Goodc's  supposition  is  to  me  wholly  inexplicable.  Only  one  date  is  ever 
assigned  to  this  council,  which  seems  to  have  digested  the  rules  pre- 
viously established  in  Africa  from  the  beginning.     St.  Augnstin's  name, 


Appendix.  113 

too,  is  attached  to  it,  and  he  died  in  a.d.  430,  while  Mr.  Goode  says 
A.D.  436 ; — so  that  I  cannot  understand  Mr.  Groode  at  all  in  this  point.* 
But  as  to  the  "  general  reception  "  of  the  fourth  canon  of  Carthage,  and 
more — its  incorporation  into  the  body  of  the  canon  law  of  Christendom, 
and  the  respect  paid  it  by  our  own  Church,  of  which  Mr.  Goode  is 
wholly  imaware,  a  brief  reference  will  satisfy  the  inquiring  reader,  to 
whom  alone  I  must  appeal  in  such  a  matter,  rather  than,  as  Mr.  Goode 
does,  "to  the  public." 

I  cannot  refer  the  reader  to  a  more  interesting  part  of  the  Decretum 
than  the  present  question  leads  to,  the  Distinctions,  particularly  the 
twenty-third,  where  such  frequent  use  is  made  of  this  council  of  Carthage. 
On  tliis  council  more  than  any  other  seem  to  depend  canons  of  disci- 
pline, binding  for  ages  throughout  the  Church.  And,  what  may  surprise 
Mr.  Goode,  even  practices  retained  by  the  Church  of  England, — such  as 
all  the  Presbyters  joining  -^vith  the  Bishop  in  ordaining  others,  and  laying 
on  their  hands  with  prayer, ^ — may  be  traced  to  the  enactment  of  this 
"  apocryphal  "  coimcil.  Nay,  the  very  delivery  of  the  Bible  in  ordina- 
tions, and  the  words  "Take,"  and  "be  thou  a  faithful  dispenser  of  the 
word  of  God,"  &c.,  are  derived  to  us  no  doubt  from  this  same  council. 
"  Accipe,  et  esto  relator  verbi  Dei,  habiturus  sis  fideliter,"  &c.  As  the 
reader  turns  over  page  after  page  of  the  Distinctions,  he  will  find  this 
council  before  him  more  frequently  than  any  other. — And  then  let  him 
think  of  Mr.  Goode,  who  evidently  regards  the  whole  council  as  a  mere 
fancy. 

3.  But  I  must  not  detain  the  already  satisfied  reader  with  more  than 
one  more  specimen  of  Mr.  Goode's  acquirements.  We  have  seen  his 
powers  of  sci'iptural  criticism  ;  we  have  seen  his  canonical  learning ; 
what  he  says  of  the  Savoy  Conference  will  show  his  acquaintance  with 
the  histoiy  of  his  own  Church.  I  must  refer  to  p.  91  of  his  "  Letter," 
in  which  the  reader  will  see  with  what  superior  scorn  Mr.  Goode  treats 
tlie  idea  of  the  "  few  Bishops  "  of  the  Savoy  Conference  having  had  any- 
thing to  do  mth  the  last  revision  of  the  Prayer-book.  He  thinks  the 
Bishop  "criminally  reckless  and  unjustifiable"  for  referring  to  the  ordi- 
nary facts  of  history,  known  to  every  one.  The  Bishops  at  that  con- 
ference had  put  down  the  Puritans  ;  and  so  Mr.  Goode  resolves  to  put 
down  the  Bishops.  And  this  he  thinks  he  accomplishes  by  denying  that 
the  Savoy  Conference  re\ised  our  Prayer-book  at  all.  It  is  true  that 
they  had  meetings  about  it  for  several  months,  he  says ;  but  then  the 
Convocation  took  it  in  hand  !  The  truth  is  even  so ;  the  Convocation 
took  it  from  the  Savoy  Conference ;  and  that  is  quite  enough  for 
Mr,  Goode.  He  omits  to  add — probably  does  not  know  —  that  the 
Convocation  passed  it,  chiefly  in  two  days — all  within  a  week,  even  as 
the  Savoy  Bishops  had  settled  it ! 

Mr.  Goode's  Letter  is,  however,  so  full  of  this  unmeasured  assurance, 
and  an  absence  of  theological  information  so  complete,  that  I  do  not 
believe  that  he  is  aware  of  it  himself.f     But  now  I  turn  to  his  "  strong 

*  Dr.  Pusey  has  pointed  out,  in  a  letter,  which  I  have  since  seen  in  the  "  Guardian," 
that  Mr.  Goode  has  mistaken  the  .Tulian  calculation  of  the  year  for  a  separate  date ! 

t  It  is  impossible  not  to  be  amused  with  the  readiness  with  which  Mr.  Goode  invents, 
impromptu,  a  little  piece  of  'history'  to  stop  a  gap  in  his  argument  as  he  needs  it. 
He  is  sorely  troubled  (p.  74)  to  get  rid  of  the  Bishop  of  Exeter's  reference  to  one  of  the 
canons.  He  says,  "  The  case  is  this  :  the  Puritans  were  in  the  habit  of  teaching  the 
people  that  the  Sacraments  were  not  valid  unless  accompanied  by  preaching,"  and  then 
he  quotes  a  canon  which  is  directed  against  the  superstition  of  the  lower  orders,  which  in- 

I 


114  Ajypendix. 

point,"  his  defence  of  liis  Puritan  passages  from  "  our  Eeformers." 
There  are  seven,  it  will  be  seen,  that  need  defence,  as  the  reader  may 
observe  in  the  note  which  has  called  for  this  Appendix. 

I.  Jewell. — The  reader  will  see  what  has  been  said  of  the  pretended 
quotation  from  him.  Mr.  Goode  passes  it  over.  He  says  nothing  here 
for  the  "quotation"  from  Jewell,  so  I  suppose  it  is  a  bad  case,  and 
nothing  can  be  said  for  it. 

II.  Hooker. — Mr.  Goode  admits  that  the  passage  "  quoted"  is  falsi- 
fied, "  but  inadvertently."  (Goode,  p.  53.)  Hooker  said  that  the  "  rule 
oi  piety  "  made  ns  speak  of  baptized  infants  as  elect.  This  is  altered 
into  the  "  rule  of  charity,^^  and  applied  to  regeneration,  and  not  election. 
And  then  it  is  pretended  that  the  meaning  is  the  same  !  Why,  I  appeal 
to  any  man  to  read  the  whole  section  in  Hooker,  and  he  must  be  as- 
tounded at  this.  Hooker's  argument  is,  that  we  knoxv  the  children  have 
the  grace  of  Baptism,  and  we  trust,  and  as  Christians  believe,  that  they 
are  elect  too,  and  will  have  the  grace  of  perseverance.  And  this  is  ad- 
duced to  prove  that  the  Baptism  was  doubtful ! 

The  other  "quotation"  from  Hooker  is  that  in  which  Hooker  declares 
that  Baptism  is  "  to  our  sanctification  here  a  step  that  hath  not  any 
be/ore  it."  Mr.  Goode,  however,  still  thinks  Hooker  means  the  same  as 
he  and  Mr.  Gorham,  -vdz.,  that  regeneration  takes  place  before  Baptism  ; 
and  therefore  Mr.  Goode  must  believe  that  the  infant  is  unsanctijiedy 
though  regenerate,  before  Baptism  ! 

But  there  is  one  thing  more  which  Mr.  Goode  forgets  to  tell  us  about 
this  passage.  The  Privy  Council  altered  Hooker's  words  to  make  them 
say  only  that  "Baptism  is  the  door  of  an  actual  entrance  to  God's 
house,"  as  if  there  might  be  several  entrances  :  Hooker  said  "  our  actual 
entrance  !"  There  ai-e  other  little  verbal  touches  of  the  Privy  Council, 
of  a  like  significancy, — "  inadvertencies  "  shall  I  call  them  ? — Mr.  Goode 
does  not  say :  he  is  lUce  Dionysius  Exiguus  with  the  African  Synod — 
"  he  is  silent." 

III.  Akchbishop  Usher. — In  defending  the  professed  extract  from 
this  Prelate,  Mr.  Goode  says,  (p.  38,)  the  great  question  is,  whether  the 
words  may  not  "  properly  be  considered  as  convexjing  Usher's  doctrine."  I 
beg  his  pardon.  With  honest  men  the  "  great  question  "  must  first  be 
whether  the  pretended  words  of  this  "  quotation "  were  written  by 
Usher  ?  All  the  slippery  turns  in  the  world  will  not  enable  the  quoters 
of  this  passage  to  avoid  this  question.  The  truth  seems  that  no  one  in 
the  world  can  tell  that  one  ivord  of  this  quotation  proceeded  from  Usher. 
He  repudiated  the  book  :  and  Mr.  Goode  knows  it,  and  owns  it. 

IV.  Bishop  Jeremy  Taylor. — Mr.  Goode  quotes  the  full  passage 
from  this  Prelate,  of  which  the  Privy  Coiuicil  give  a  part,  in  which  he 
lays  it  down,  that  the  grace  of  Regeneration  is  in  reality  sejmrable  from 
Baptism  in  certain  cases.  This,  however,  is  admitted,  even  in  the  Church 
of  Home,  as  an  abstract  propositioii.  Taylor  herein  uses  the  very  lan- 
guage that  the  sclioolmen  were  allowed  to  use,  who  nevertheless  be- 
lieved in  the  "  opus  opcratum."  And  yet  Mr.  Goode  says  that  Mr. 
Gorham  agrees  with  Bisliop  Taylor !  Now  Bishop  Taylor,  in  the  very 
passage  quoted  by  Mr.  Goode,  assumes  throughout  that  Ilegeneration  is 


clined  them  to  think  more  of  tlic  ministry  of  "  preaching"  than  "  unjjreaching"  ministers. 
It  will  really  be  enlightening  the  world  on  a  very  unknown  portion  of  Puritan  history, 
if  Mr.  Goode  will  tell  us  where  to  find  the  proof  oi  this  "  habit  of  teaching  "  among  the 
Puritans.'  I  really  regard  this  passage  of  Mr.  Goode  as  a  most  unkind  blow  at  his  best 
friends.     "  Is  it  an  inadvertence  .'"'     (p.  53.) 


Appendix.  115 

ordinarily  given  by  Baptism.  Mr.  Grorham  says  it  never  is  given  in 
Baptism.  (Gorham,  pp.  113,  172,  198.)  Mr.  Goode  says  that  "  Mr. 
Gorliam  holds  that  Spiritual  Regeneration  may  be  given  before,  or  in,  or 
after  Baptism."  Now  this  is  a  simple  question  of  truth  or  falsehood. 
I  call  on  Mr.  Goode  to  produce  any  single  passage  of  Mr.  Gorham' s,  in 
which  he  says  this.  Until  he  can  produce  it,  he  must  be  content  to  lie 
under  the  grave  imputation  of  a  "  reckless  assertion  "  of  what  is  directly 
contrary  to  the  facts.  With  the  other  passages  adduced  from  Taylor  I 
have  no  concern:  they  were  not  adduced  by  the  Judges.  It  is  too 
much  to  require  of  us  to  vindicate  every  word  of  every  former  writer  of 
our  Church.  It  is  very  certain  that  puritan,  and  even  heretical  passages 
might  have  been  furnished  to  the  Privy  Council  to  support  their  decision. 
Mr.  Goode' s  "work"  on  the  Effects  of  Infant  Baptism  is  quite  a  little 
mine  in  its  way.  But  what  we  complain  of  is,  that  the  Archbishop  and 
the  Privy  Council  get  hold  of  the  wrong  passages,  and  generally  the 
wrong  names  too.  They  were  so  ready  with  their  conclusion,  that  they 
picked  up  bad  premises. 

V.  Aechbishop  "Whitgift. — This  able  Prelate  is  made  to  answer 
for  the  orthodoxy  of  Bullinger's  Decades ;  and  Mr.  Goode  argues  very 
earnestly,  (from  p.  46  to  51,)  that  Bulhnger's  Decades  were  authorita- 
tively '  enforced  '  in  our  Church  in  the  primacy  of  "Whitgiffc.  Certainly, 
Mr.  Goode  shows  that  some  attempt  was  made  to  get  these  Decades 
taught  and  enforced  ;  and  he  even  arrives  at  the  position  (p.  50)  that  it 
was  ^^  expected  that  it  would  be  inquired  into  by  Parliament."  But 
beyond  this  he  cannot  get.  In  fact  the  scheme,  by  whomsoever  favoured, 
wholly  failed.  BuUinger,  after  all,  was  not  enforced  on  the  Church. 
It  would  be  far  better  than  a  long  and  tedious  wrangle  about  editions,  if 
Mr.  Goode  would  give  us  some  one  instance  of  the  "  enforcement  of 
Bullinger's  Decades."  But  he  cannot  do  it.  BuUinger  was  put  away 
by  "Whitgift  as  a  "  State  document."     (p.  50.) 

VI.  Bishop  Peaesok. — The  attempt  to  fasten  the  opinions,  or  the 
laxity,  of  Mr.  Goode  and  Mr.  Gorham,  on  this  great  Bishop  of  our 
Church,  has  revolted  men  more  perhaps  than  all  the  rest,  and  created 
more  indignation.  "With  a  curious  blindness,  Mr.  Goode  prints  at  length 
the  whole  passage  from  which  the  Privy  Council  takes  one  line  ;  begin- 
ning with  the  words,  "  Baptism  is  a  washing  away  of  sin,  and  the  puri- 
fication from  sin  is  a  proper  sanctification."  In  this  very  passage  Pearson 
is  saying,  that  "  there  is  more  than  an  outward  vocation  and  a  charitable 
presumption  to  make  a  man  holy,"  and  yet  Mr.  Goode  strains  him  upon 
a  rack  of  italics  and  capitals,  line  after  line,  to  make  him  contradict 
himself; — but  all  in  vain.  Pearson  is  inexorable.  Every  word  of  the 
admirable  passage  quoted  might  have  been  written  by  Aquinas. 

I  suspect  that  Mr.  Goode  does  not  see  this,  from  not  really  knowing 
what  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  Baptism  is.  But  Mr.  Goode  courageously 
demands  how  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  could  possibly  know  that  Pearson 
was  speaking  for  the  case  of  adults,  when  he  said,  "  we  presume  the  good 
effect,"  unless  something  appears  to  the  contrary  ?  We  can  but  point 
Mr.  Goode  to  the  passage  itself,  in  which,  to  common  readers,  Pearson 
seems  to  be  speaking  of  the  subsequent  holiness  of  those  who  had  been 
baptized.  He  is  speaking,  he  says,  of  what  is  "  necessary  to  make  a  man 
holy;"  therefore  it  appears  he  was  not  referring  to  infants.  How  any 
one  in  the  world  can  refer  that  whole  passage  to  infants,  it  passes  my 
imagination  to  conceive. 

VII.  Bishop  Cableton. — This  "quotation "  is  passed  by  Mr.  Goode 


116  Appendix. 

in  this  letter  with  slight  notice.  I  wish  he  would  undertake  to  show 
that  Bishop  Carleton  denied  that  original  sin  is  remitted  in  Baptism. 

VIII.  Bishop  Pmdeatjx. — There  seemed  no  need  to  dwell  elaboi'ately 
on  the  passage  from  Prideaux.  I  do  not  think  Mr.  Goode  quite  likes 
Prideaux  ;  he  has  not  at  least  given  him  a  fair  share  of  regard. 

In  conclusion,  then,  it  has  to  be  acknowledged,  that  in  evei'y  point 
where  the  Privy  Council  quotations  needed  defence,  Mr.  Goode  has 
utterly  failed ;  and  that  even  among  all  the  witnesses  he  adduces  for  his 
false  doctrines,  there  is  isroT  one  to  be  found  who  says,  as  he  says,  that 
"  Regeneration  is  neveb  given  by  virtue  of  Baptism  itself,"  in  utter 
defiance  of  the  canon  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  declares  that 
children  are  made  perfect  Christians  "by  viktite  of  Baptism."  (See 
Canon  XXX.,  to  which  the  Church  refers  in  the  last  Rubric  of  the  Bap- 
tismal Office.) 

The  "charity"  of  Mr.  Goode  is  of  a  very  peculiar  kind.  It  fijces,  or 
tries  to  fix,  a  meaning  on  the  words  of  Hooker  and  Pearson  which  they 
would  have  abhorred,  and  calls  it  a  "charitable"  meaning.  Then  he 
finds  fault  witli  High  Churchmen  for  being  so  charitable,  in  fact,  as  the 
Bishop  of  Exeter  was  in  liis  primary  charge,  when  he  expressed  a  desire 
for  a  comprehension  of  all  who  might  be  brought  within  tlie  pale  of  our 
Church.  The  Bishop  was  charitable  to  the  "  AVesleyans,"  in  a  degree 
unintelligible  now  to  Mr.  Goode.  Let  me  remind  Mr.  Goode  that  the 
Wesleyans,  if  followers  of  their  foimder,  are  far  nearer  to  the  Church's 
doctrine  than  he  or  Mr.  Gox'ham  can  pretend  to  be.  "Wesley  believed 
in  Baptismal  Regeneration.     The  following  words  are  from  his  sermons  : 

"  I  do  not  now  speak  with  regard  to  infants :  it  is  certain  our  Church 
supposes,  that  all  who  are  baptized  in  their  infancy  are  at  the  same  time 
born  again  ;  and  it  is  allowed  that  the  whole  Office  for  the  Baptism  of 
Infants  proceeds  upon  this  siipposition.  Nor  is  it  an  objection  of  any 
weight  against  this,  that  we  cannot  comprehend  how  tliis  work  can  be 
wrought  in  infants ;  for  neither  can  we  comprehend  how  it  is  wrought 
in  a  person  of  riper  years." — Wesley's  Sermons,  "  The  New  Birth." 

Let  us  find  such  Wesleyans  as  tliese,  and  we  will  strive  to  be  one  with 
them.  Our  doctrinal  strictness  is  not  uncharitable.  We  desire  such 
oneness  with  all  the  Christian  brotherhood  as  bigots  of  no  class  can 
comprehend.     May  God  grant  it  to  us  in  His  time  ! 


J08UPII    .MASTKHS,    FHINTKIl,   AI.DKRSGATK    6TRKBT,    LONUUN. 


WORKS  BY  THE  REV.  W.  J.  IRONS,  B.D., 

INCUMBENT    OF    HOLY    TRINITY,    BROMPTON. 

THE  PEESENT  CEISIS  IN  THE  CHUECH  OF  ENG- 
LAND CONSIDERED  ;  illustrated  by  a  brief  Inquiry  as  to  the  Royal 
Supremacy.     8vo.,  price  Is.  6d. 

SEQUEL  TO  A  PAMPHLET  ON  THE  EOTAL  SUPEE- 

MACY,  entitled  "The  Present  Crisis  in  the  Church  of  England,"  in 
reply  to  the  Rev.  W.  Maskell  and  the  Rev.  T.  W.  Allies.  Demy  8vo.. 
Is.  6d. 

SHOULD   THE  STATE   OBLIGE  US  TO  EDUCATE? 

A  Letter  to  the  Right  Hon.  Lord  John  Russell.     Demy  8vo.,  price  6d. 

ON  THE   WHOLE  DOCTEINE   OE  FINAL   CAUSES. 

A  Dissertation  in  Three  Parts,  with  an  Introductory  Chapter  on  the 
Character  of  Modern  Deism.     Demy  8vo.,  price  7s.  6d. 

ON  THE  HOLY  CATHOLIC  CHUECH.  Parochial  Lee- 
tures.  1 .  A  Witness  against  False  Philosophising.  2.  Romish  Cor- 
ruption, Schism,  and  Rationalism.     8vo.,  4s.  6d. 

ON  THE  APOSTOLICAL  SUCCESSION.  Parocliial  Lee- 
tures.  1.  The  Doctrine.  2.  The  Evidence.  3.  The  Objections. 
4.  The  Summary.     Second  Series.     4s.  6d. 

ECCLESIASTICAL  JUEISDICTION.  Being  Four  Lec- 
tures on  the  Synod — the  Diocese — The  Parish — The  Priest.  With  a 
Preliminary  Essay  on  the  Teaching  and  Priestly  Offices,  and  Appendices 
on  the  Doctrine  of  Unity  and  the  Royal  Supremacy.  Demy  8vo., 
7s.  6d. 
*^*  The  above  Three  Series  may  be  had  in  one  volume,  price  Tis. 

SEEMON  ON  THE  UNJUST  STEWAED. 

THE  EECEIVED  FAITH— A  FAEEWELL  SEEMON. 

THE  DIFFICULTIES  OF  THE  CHUECH  —  A  VISI- 
TATION  SERMON.     (1839.) 

LETTEE  TO  THE  BISHOP  OF  EXETEE  ON  CHUECH 

DISCIPLINE.     (1840.) 

SEEMONS  AT  BEOMPTON.     (1844.) 

THE    THEOET    OF    DEVELOPMENT,    (Eeply  to    Mr. 

Newman.)     (1846.) 

Price  2d.  each,  or  15s.  per  Hundred. 

MANUAL  FOE  UNBAPTIZED  CHILDEEN.     No.  I. 

MANUAL  FOE  UNBAPTIZED  ADULTS.     No.  II. 

MANUAL  FOE  UNCONFIEMED  CHEISTIANS.  No. 
IIL 


ME.    GOODE'S    DEFENCE    OE    IVIE.    GOEHAM.      Au 

Apology  for  the  Honesty  and  Catholicity  of  the  Compilers  of  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  and  of  our  Standard  Divines,  in  the  matter  of  "  One 
Baptism  for  the  Remission  of  Sins."  Rendered  necessary  by,  and  con- 
taining a  Reply  to,  certain  Mis-statements  and  Comparisons  contained 
in  a  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Exeter  from  William  Goode,  M.A.,  F.S.A., 
Rector  of  All  Hallows  the  Great  and  Less,  London.  By  the  Rev. 
Alexander    Watson.,    M.A,,    Curate    of  St.   John's,    Cheltenham. 


LETTEE  TO   ALL  I^IEMBEES   OF  THE   CHUECH 

OF  ENGLAND,  especially  those  who  are  Fathers  or  Mothers,  or  God- 
fathers or  Godmothers,  or  have  been  confirmed  ;  containing  Words  of 
Common  Sense  for  Common  People  on  the  "  One  Baptism  for  the  Re- 
mission of  Sins."  By  the  Rev.  Alexander  Watson,  M.A.  Price 
8d.     By  post,  lOd. 


THE  HOLINESS  OF  A  CHEISTIAN  CHILD ;  being  au 

Earnest  Appeal  to  all  Christian  Parents  on  the  Regeneration  of  their 
Children  in  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism.  By  the  Rev.  E.  Walford, 
M.A.     Price  3d.,  or  21s.  per  hundred. 


A  VOICE  FEOM  THE  NOETH.     An  Appeal  to  the  People 
of  England  on  Behalf  of  their  Church.     By  An  English  Priest. 

L  State  of  the  Dogmatic  Teaching  of  the  English  Church.     Demy 

8vo.,  price  8d. 
2.  The  Legal  Position  of  the  English  Church.     Demy  8vo.  price  6d. 


FEW  WOEDS  OF  HOPE  ON  THE  PEESENT 
CRISIS  IN  THE  ENGLISH  CHURCH.  By  the  Rev.  J.  M. 
Neale.     Price  3d.     By  post,  4d. 


CONTENDING  FOE  THE  FAITH.  A  Sermon  on  a  Late 
Decision.  By  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Anderdon,  Vicar  of  S.  Margaret's, 
Leicester.     8vo.,  price  6d. 


HUMAN  POLICY  AND  DIVINE  TEUTH.  A  Sermon 
Preached  on  Passion  Tuesday,  March  17th,  1850,  at  Great  St.  Mary's 
Church,  before  the  University  of  Cambridge.  By  the  Rev.  W.  H. 
Mill,  D.D.     Demy  8vo.,  price  Is.  6d. 

LONDON:  JOSEPH  MASTERS,  33,  ALDERSGATE  STREET,. 
AND  78,  NEW  BOND  STREET.