^RVOFPRI/VCT^ 
 
 BX 5149 .B2 G6 18A8 
 Gorham, George Cornelius, 
 Examination before admission 
 to a benefice by the Bishop 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/examinationbeforOOgorh 
 
EXAMINATION BEFORE ADMISSION 
 TO A BENEFICE 
 BY THE BISHOP OF EXETER, 
 
 FOLLOWED BY REFUSAL TO INSTITUTE, ON THE 
 ALLEGATION OF UNSOUND DOCTRINE 
 
 RESIT.l TING 
 
 ^i)t ^IJfficaci) of Baptism. 
 
 EDITED BY THE CLEEK^XAMINED, 
 
 GEORGE CORNELIUS GORHAM, B.D., 
 
 VICAR OF ST. JUST-IN PENWITil, COnNWALL; PRESENTED VICAR OP BRAMPFORD 
 SPEKE, DEVON; AND FORMERLY (FOR EIGHTEEN TEARS) FELLOW 
 OF aUEEN's COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 " Est miserabilis animae servitus, Siyim pro Rebus acciperel"— Scs. Augubtinus. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 IIATCHARD AND SON, 187, PICCADILLY ; 
 SEELEYS, FLEET-STREET, AND 2, HANOVER STREET, 
 HANOVER-SQUARE. 
 
 1848. 
 
MACIKTOSH, FRtNTES, 
 REAT NEW-STREET, lONDOK. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 The very serious matter to which this Volume relates, has 
 already been placed before the public, in a general way. 
 Attention was first called to it in the House of Commons, 
 on the 3d of April in the present year, by a Question 
 which was put to the Attorney-General, respecting the 
 fact of the Bishop of Exeter having refused to institute 
 me to a Vicarage, on the presentation of the Crown ;— 
 but, both that Question, and the official Answer which it 
 called forth, must have been obscm-e to all except a few 
 private friends, to whom these extraordinary proceedings 
 had been more freely communicated. 
 
 After such a public announcement of a fact calculated 
 to alarm every member of the Chm-ch of England, it was 
 clearly inexpedient for me to remain silent, any longer, on 
 a subject involving public interests of a magnitude which 
 cannot easily be exaggerated. Accordingly^ I could not 
 hesitate to comply with the wishes of an old and dear 
 friend in the ministry, that I would furnish him with a 
 dispassionate account of an affair wliich, however it may 
 terminate, must inevitably lead to results affecting in no 
 small degree the prosperity of the Church. I did this, by 
 a 2 
 
IV 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 addressing to my friend a Letter,* on the 12th of April, 
 1848, with liberty to make it public. My fellow-Presby- 
 ters, and my fellow-countrymen, had a right to know from 
 myself, generally, what had taken place ; and to have an 
 assurance from me that they should, at my earliest conve- 
 nience, be put in possession of more full details of trans- 
 actions in which their civil and spiritual liberties were 
 directly implicated. I now redeem my pledge, by laying 
 before my readers the Correspondence and Documents 
 relating to this matter : but I most especially invite their 
 attention to the Examination Questions and Answers, as 
 the material and most important part of this Volume. 
 
 I deem it expedient to give a brief preliminary naixa- 
 tive, for the purpose of rendering the course of events 
 more easily intelligible. 
 
 In January, 1846, the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst pre- 
 sented me (after thirty -five years' service as an unbeneficed 
 clergyman) to the Vicarage of St. Just-in-Penwith, the 
 most western parish (except one) in Cornwall, with a 
 population of between 7,000 and 8,000 miners. When 
 the Bishop of Exeter instituted me, he not only expressed 
 his great satisfaction that the Chancellor had listened to 
 his request, that he would not present a young or an inex- 
 perienced man, but he suggested and assisted me (No. I., 
 p. 3) in an application to the Crown, that Her Majesty 
 would condescend to nominate a District Minister, of my 
 own choice, in the north of my Parish ; on the ground that 
 similarity of views was of great importance for effectual 
 ministerial co-operation. Sir Robert Peel at once acceded 
 to my recommendation, so strengthened by the Bishop. 
 
 In a few months, however, the Bishop suddenly altered 
 
 • This Letter was subsequently printed in the " Christian Obser^-er " 
 for May, 1848, No. 125, New Series, pp. 353—357. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 V 
 
 his tone. In the summer he rebuked me (No. II., p. 4) 
 for having used the words,* " The National Estab- 
 lishment" (instead of "THE Church"), in a Circular 
 for building a District Chapel. Soon after, he stated 
 (p. 7) his " high disapprobation " that I had advertised 
 for a Curate "free from Tractarian error ; " he hinted, 
 in a manner not to be misunderstood, that I belonged to 
 " a most dangerous set of men ; " and he plainly told me 
 (p. 16) that he " no longer trusted me," and would nar- 
 rowly watch any one who applied for my Curacy. This 
 determination occasioned me much embarrassment. At 
 length, however, I nominated a Curate, who had been 
 long in Orders ; the Bishop summoned him for an 
 Examination, " especially on Baptism, the foundation 
 of all " Christian doctrine, and intimated to him, that his 
 acceptance of a Cui-acy from me, was unfavourable to him : 
 he was, however, ultimately licensed. 
 
 This matter gave rise to a letter from myself (No. X., 
 p. 9) ; in which (while I did not controvert the Bishop's 
 title to examine a Curate, even though in Priest's Orders) 
 
 * I have given several examples, below (p. 21, note §), of the use 
 of this phi-aseology, without suspicion, by Churchmen whose orthodoxy 
 the Bishop of Exeter will not question. But, when I wrote that note, 
 it had not occurred to me that the Bishop himself, before his advance- 
 ment to the Episcopate, had used similar terms without scruple. In 
 1827, Dr. Phillpotts thus wrote, in his celebrated Letter to the Right 
 Hon. G. Canning : — ■" Most of the Iloman Catholics of Ireland do 
 look to the destruction of the Pkotestant Establishment, and the 
 exaltation of their own Church." (Page 154.) Again: the Iloman 
 Catholic Bishop, Dr. Doyle, having observed, that " the Church Estab- 
 lishment must fall, sooner or later," Dr. Phillpotts rejoins, that this is, 
 "in other words, putting down the Protestant Establishment." 
 (Page 56.) Thus, in 1827, Dr. Phillpotts selected a mode of expres- 
 sion identical in character with that which he 7iow so severely con- 
 demns ; while he left with his Roman Catholic opponent the very term 
 which he now considers as the only phraseology becoming a true 
 Churchman. 
 
vi 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 I remonstrated with his Lordship on his "assumed power," 
 to require a declaration of conformity to his " private Test " 
 of doctrine, in addition to subscription to the Thirty-nine 
 Articles as the recognized " Standard " of the Church. 
 The Bishop was offended. In his reply, [No. XII., p. 15,] 
 he repeated his distrust of me ; charged me with a viola- 
 tion of my Ordination Vows ; and misrepresented * me as 
 denying his right to examine a Curate agreeably to the 
 provisions of Canon XLVIIL I replied to these severe 
 reproaches in a long letter [No. XIII., p. 18], on the 28th 
 of January, 1847. To that letter (to which the Bishop 
 never gave any reply) I earnestly request my reader's par- 
 ticular attention, as containing my sentiments, deliberately 
 weighed, firmly declared, and, I trust, becomingly expressed : 
 it is, in fact, the document upon which liinge the extraordi- 
 nary proceedings which commenced seven months after. 
 
 In August, 1847, the present Lord Chancellor, having 
 understood that I wished to exchange my Vicarage of St. 
 Just, (which, besides being inconveniently remote from my 
 connexions, devolved upon me too heavy a charge,) signi- 
 fied his willingness to present me to the Vicarage of 
 
 * The Bishop has repeated this charge, for the fourth time, in his 
 Letter to his Clergy, dated the 26th of April, 1848 (inserted in the 
 " Guardian" newspaper) ; where he has not thought it unbecoming to 
 say, that I am " a person who indulges in a peculiar license of lan- 
 guage." His Lordship has attempted to sustain the truth of his 
 accusation, by citing a very short sentence (see below, p. 11, lines 18, 
 19, 21,) from my letter; though he had under his eye long paragraphs 
 (pp. 10, 11, 12,) preceding and succeeding that sentence, irhich 
 expressly guard against such a possible misrepresentation, — and a 
 passage (see p. 27, sect. IIL) tchich distinctly declares that I had 
 "not" made the assertion imputed to me! My readers have now 
 those letters before them in extenso : they will decide whether, as the 
 Bishop affirms, I denied his right to " examine ;" or whether, as I 
 maintain, I only denied his " assumed power" to set up " a private 
 Standard of doctrine." 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 vii 
 
 Brampford Speke, near Exeter, a small agricultural parish, 
 ■with a population of only 400, the income being 300/. 
 a-year less than that of St. Just. The Bishop took the 
 opportunity, when countersigning my Testimonials for the 
 Lord Chancellor, to inscribe on that Paper an injurious 
 attack on my ministerial character. I remonstrated ; — in vain. 
 Very inconvenient delay vras thus occasioned : but on my 
 explaining the matter fully to my Patron, he was satisfied, 
 and issued his Fiat for the Presentation. Thereupon, on 
 the 8th of last November, I requested Institution from 
 the Bishop ; but, as an appointment on that or the fol- 
 lowing day was not convenient to him, I postponed my 
 Admission, with his concurrence, till I should have re- 
 moved my family from Cornwall; I adopted this plan 
 without hesitation, since he had not given me the remotest 
 hint of his real intentions. But, (my suspicions having 
 been awakened by more than one person, more conversant 
 than myself with the Bishop's proceedings,) I judged it 
 prudent to make an application to him on the sub- 
 ject ; in answer to which I received, two days after 
 my arrival at my distant home, an intimation from 
 his Secretary [No. XXIV.] that the Bishop would 
 not institute me until he had "Examined" me, to 
 satisfy himself "whether I was sound in doctrine." I 
 instantly returned into Devonshire, and I earnestly en- 
 treated that the Examination might take place without 
 delay. The Bishop declined to examine, being about to 
 proceed to Parliament. I offered to follow his Lordship 
 to town ; the proposal was absolutely refused.* I then 
 
 * In his Cii-cular Letter, April 26th, his Lordship points out this 
 statement as an index of my want of "candour;" and quotes a 
 complimentary expression in my own note (No. XXXI., p. 56), as 
 an absolute admission, on my part, that his Lordship could not avoid 
 this vexatious postponement. I refer the reader to that note, and to 
 
via 
 
 INTKODUCTION. 
 
 stated my determination to wait in the neighbourhood of 
 Bishopstowe till he should return, and appoint a day for 
 that purpose ; and I did wait, at Torquay, for a whole 
 month longer, namely, till the 17th of December, on which 
 day he summoned me for Examination. 
 
 The mode of conducting this Examination was as fol- 
 lows.— On the first day, Friday, December 17th, Questions 
 I. to IV. were, successively, proposed to me in a written 
 form ; I was allowed to prepare my written Answers, in an 
 adjoining room; and I brought a copy of each to the 
 Bishop as it was completed. Questions (V., VI., VII.), 
 which I treated in combination, were proposed to me, also, 
 in a written form ; the combined Answers (5, 6, 7), were 
 given in a similar manner, but were not finished * till the 
 next morning, when I resumed the preparation of them 
 at Bishopstowe. On the second, and remaining days, 
 (December 18th, 20th, 21st, 22d), a diflferent plan was 
 followed. The Examination took place in the Bishop's 
 study, in the presence of himself, and of his Chaplain. 
 The Bishop read each question (from No. VIII. inclusive), 
 
 the Bishop's to ^vhich it was a reply, in proof that I merely re-echoed 
 with courtesy his own declaration; not deeming it reverential to 
 dispute, at that moment, the afhi-mcd impracfU-uhiUt,/ of his Lordship 
 examining me in London. That I really considered the refusal as 
 indefensible, is manifest from my instant decision not to leave Devon- 
 shire till his Lordship should have granted me an inter\-ie\v. 
 
 * The Bishop incorrectly states (Letter to his Clergv) that I asked 
 permission to take, and did take, Questions V., \1I.,'to my lodgings, 
 that I mi;iM prepare my Ansiccrs there. I was anxiously engaged "in' 
 replymg to them, at Bishopstowe, till half-past six in the evening, 
 when his Lordship permitted me to close the day's work. I then took 
 my Answers (not fully com])k.ted) to my dwelling, m order to have a 
 dupheate transcrihed by another hand : but I was too fatigued, had I 
 been inclined, to continue the preparation of my Answers, which I 
 reserved till my return to Bishopstowe the next mornin<r. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 
 
 IX 
 
 wliich I transferred to my Note-Book : T prepared each 
 Answer, by a pencil memorandum before delivering it 
 orally. The Chaplain then recorded it from my dictation, 
 and read it aloud for my final assent. 
 
 The series of Answers was perplexingly interrupted, in 
 the early part of the Examination. The combined Answers 
 (5, 6, 7), forming as they do a platform for the subsequent 
 argument, occupied, as may be well imagined, a con- 
 siderable time — the latter part of Friday, December 17, 
 and the early part of Saturday, December 18. The 
 .Bishop was impatient to controvert my earliest Answers, 
 1, 2, 3, 4 ; — he, therefore, proposed the Questions VIII. 
 to XIII., and received from me the Answers 8 to 12, 
 while I was still anxiously engaged in framing my Answer 
 (5, 6, 7,) as a combined reply to the three similar and 
 corresponding Questions. On Qviestion XIII. being pro- 
 posed, I requested that I might reserve my Answer 13, 
 and that I might not be interrupted in my train of thought 
 on the previously-proposed but unanswered Questions. 
 From that point, the continuity of the series of Answers 
 was uninterrupted. 
 
 The Examination was most searching, subtle, and 
 severe ; and it very soon assumed the character of a 
 theological Disputation, in which I was required (not 
 merely to state my views, but) to HKiintain vii) propositions, 
 while the Bishop was my perpetual Opponent. The first 
 part of it, comprehending LXXVI. Questions, was con- 
 tinued during five successive days, (Sunday intervening,) 
 for eight hours, eleven and a-half hours, (to within a 
 quarter of an hour of Sunday morning — ) seven and 
 a-half hours, five hours, and six hours ; in all, thirty-eight 
 hours, during a period of considerable ill-health, which on 
 the first day of my attendance had been certified to the 
 Bishop by my physician, who stated in vrriting that I was 
 
X 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 in too weak a condition to resume my parochial duties. 
 I repeatedly expostulated on its unreasonable protraction ; 
 and especially on the unjust motive assigned by his Lord- 
 ship, at the conclusion of the third day, for its continu- 
 ance ; viz., his impression that I intended to lay it before 
 the world, and my silence when questioned on that 
 assumed intention. On being summoned for the sixth day, 
 I suspended the Examination, that I might seek advice or 
 redress. It was virtually, however, continued for six days 
 longer at my lodging ; the Bishop having sent me a 
 Volume, for comparison with many additional Questions ; 
 and having intimated that still more would follow. 
 
 Wearied with fruitless endeavours to induce the Bishop 
 to desist from such an extraordinary and unreasonable 
 course, I thought it necessary to leave Torquay, and to 
 proceed to London for advice, on the 10th of January of 
 this year. On the 10th of February, being then in 
 London, I renewed my application for Institution. On the 
 14th, his Lordship required a resumed Examination. To 
 this demand, acting under legal advice, I acceded, though 
 under Protest. His Lordship postponed it, at first by 
 reason of the demands on his time in London ; and, on his 
 return into Devonshire on the 25th, by an intimation that 
 he had a charge to prefer against me which must be pre- 
 viously inquired into, and that he had felt it his dut}' to 
 direct that a Commission should issue under 3 and 4 
 Vict. cap. 86. The notice of this Commission * was 
 
 * Of this Commission I shall say as little as possible ; as I do not 
 ■wish the reader's attention to be diverted from the far more important 
 matter to which this volume calls public attention. No one can fail to 
 observe how seasonably this Notice was timed, for my possible em- 
 barrassment in the greater Question. The charges, which related to 
 Rubrical inexactitude, were finally reduced to the allegation of one spe- 
 cific instance ; namely, the omission of the Lord's Prayer and preceding 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XI 
 
 signed by the Bishop on the 28th of February. This being 
 the first intimation of such a complaint, — I protested against 
 the Commission being interposed between the two parts of 
 my Examination. The Bishop then agreed to resume the 
 Examination, which took place on the 8th, 9th, and 10th 
 of March, and lasted fourteen hours. It was brought to 
 a conclusion only by my ultimately giving my Answers 
 (with a few exceptions) in the words prescribed by the 
 Act of Uniformity, 14 Car. IT. cap. 34, and by the 36th 
 Canon, — the former requiring " consent " to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, — the latter exacting subscription to " the 
 use" of that Book as containing "nothing contrary to the 
 "Word of God," and to the XXXIX. Articles as " agree- 
 able to the "Word of God." 
 
 This extraordinary Examination occupied, therefore, in 
 the whole, fifty-two hours, during eight days, besides six 
 days of full employment at my lodgings in Torquay. In 
 the course of it, 149 Questions were proposed to me, on 
 the single subject of Baptismal Efficacy. I shall make 
 a few remarks, below, on the character of this Examina- 
 tion. It will be sufficient, here, to state the result. On 
 the 11th of March, his Lordship signified his decision to 
 
 versicles, in the Churching of a woman, nearly two years ago, in July, 
 1846. I proved an alihi on the Sunday on which that Churching 
 actually took place, the 19th of July ; and also on the preceding and 
 succeeding Sundays, the 12th and 26th; leaving the witness (—the 
 husband of the party Churched — ) no possibility of escape from the 
 disgrace of having made a doubly false deposition, since he main- 
 tained that the Service was performed on the 26th, and that I myself 
 officiated. After the Commissioners had (though not unanimously) 
 reported on the 2d of May a prima facie case, the Bishop decided, on the 
 6th, not to proceed further. The case affords a lamentable (and yet 
 valuable) instance of the practical oppression of which the Cliuich 
 Discipline Act may be made the instrument. Should it help to bring 
 about a revision of that law, I shall not regret the inconvenience and 
 expense which I sustained. 
 
Xll 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 refuse me Institution; and, on the 21st of March, sent 
 THE Patron and myself formal notices of that 
 
 REFUSAL on THE ALLEGATION OF MY "UNSOUNDNESS 
 
 IN doctrine:" — notwithstanding my solemnly declared 
 adoption of the doctrines of the Church, as deliberately set 
 forth in her XXXIX. Articles ; and in the face of my 
 repeated compliances, and readiness for the eleventh time to 
 comply, with all the requirements of the Canons of 1603-4 
 and the Act of Uniformity of 1662. 
 
 Such is the extraordinary and alarming FACT. Let 
 it be most seriously considered whether I give it too great 
 prominence when I state it as a fact which involves 
 a VITAL question in the government of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 While I earnestly entreat the attention of my readers 
 to the Correspondence and Documents now laid before 
 them, in connexion with this matter, I beg clearly to state 
 that it is by no means my leading object to claim public 
 sympathy for the private wrong which I have suffered. I 
 forbear, therefore, to dwell on my personal trials, on my 
 family troubles, or on the indignity to which I am sub- 
 jected as a Clergyman advanced in life, who graduated in 
 no obscure rank thirty-nine years since. My sense of 
 personal injury is far less keen than is my conviction, that 
 the proceedings, of which I complain, involve the liberties 
 of the whole body of the Clergy and the Laity ; — 
 
 " Nam tua res agitur paries cum proximus ai-det." 
 Every Clergyman, who duly reflects upon these transactions, 
 must perceive that his own comfort and his own privileges 
 are in imminent peril, — whatever be his sentiments on the 
 point of doctrine discussed in this Examination, — if the 
 arbitrary decision of an individual Bishop is to be put in 
 the place of the accredited determinations of the Church. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Xlll 
 
 I am anxious, therefore, that the transactions contained 
 in this Volume should be considered in their true 
 character ; as comprehending A matter of the deepest 
 PUBLIC INTEREST, involving the rights of Patrons ( espe- 
 cially of the Crown ), the privileges of the Clergy, and the 
 welfare of our Protestant Church. 
 
 With a view of impressing the Church at large with a 
 sense of the immense importance of the matters to which 
 these proceedings call their attention, I will add a few 
 observations on the subject. , 
 
 I. 
 
 The general right of Episcopal Examination of 
 a Clerk, previously to Institution to a Benefice, is main- 
 tained by the Bishop (p. 146), " on the notorious law of 
 the Church in all ages, and especially on the statute 
 Articuli Cleri" a.d. 1315. (See App. A.) By that 
 Statute, or Order in Council, it was declared, that " if the 
 Bishop refuse to admit " a Clerk presented to a Benefice 
 by the Crown, " an Examination of his fitness " shall not 
 be made by "lay persons," but by "an Ecclesiastical 
 Judge," to whom he must repair "for a remedy." The 
 Statute does not confer any power to examine on the 
 Bishop ; it simply sets forth the nature of the Court by 
 which an Examination must be made of the fitness of the 
 person whom the Bishop has rejected. Moreover, as 
 Lord Coke * has observed upon this Statute, the 
 decision of the Bishop "concludes not the plaintiff." 
 
 But, however undefined might be the power of Exa- 
 
 * Coke's Instit. part ii. 631 ; where may be seen some valuable 
 observations on the remedy which the laws of England afford, in cases 
 of unjust refusal to institute to a Benefice. — See some curious matter 
 on the claim of Bishops to exercise a Veto on Admissions, in p. 182, 
 note Xt to which I particularly invite attention. 
 
XIV 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 mination possessed by a Bishop, or by a superior authority 
 on appeal from a Bishop, in early and mediaeval ages, the 
 legitimate subject of investigation now is, — what is the 
 extent of that power, as defined by the law or practice of 
 the Church since the Reformation. 
 
 At that period a Standard of sound doctrine was estab- 
 lished, for the very purpose of controlling arbitrary deci- 
 sions on doctrinal fitness. The Church and her Supreme 
 Governor in 1562, and Parliament in 1571, declared, with 
 a distinct and united voice, that the Thirty-nine Articles 
 were framed " for the avoiding of diversities of opinions," * 
 "for the establishing of consent concerning true reli- 
 gion," * and for " the confession of the true Christian 
 Faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments " \ to which 
 " every Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word," should, 
 "in the presence of the Bishop of some one Diocese 
 where he hath, or sliall have. Ecclesiastical Living, 
 declare his assent and subscribe." f Contemporaneous 
 Canons, put forth with the sanction of the Royal Autho- 
 rity in 1571, decree, that all licensed preachers shall 
 " subscribe " to those Articles, and " defend that doctrine 
 which is contained in them." % In the Canons of 1575, 
 of 1585, and of 1597, the following regulation was made 
 with regard to the Episcopal Examination of a person 
 applying for Institution ; that he " shall then be able to 
 render to the Bishop an account of his faith in Latin, 
 agreeable and consonant to the Articles, and shall first 
 subscribe to the said Articles." § 
 
 This direction, for an Examination on the Articles, 
 which was necessary in the earlier period of the Reforma- 
 
 * Title of the Articles. 
 
 t Stat. 13 Eliz. cap. 12, sec. 1. 
 
 X Card well's S)Tiodalia, vol. i. p. 112. 
 
 § Cai-dweU's SynodaHa, vol. i. pp. 132, 135, 141, 142, 149. 
 
INTRODUCTION, 
 
 XV 
 
 tion, by reason of the notorious ignorance of many of the 
 Romish Priests who had conformed,) was discontinued in 
 the Canons of 1603-4, in the case of Ministers applying 
 for Institution. A better educated race of Clergymen 
 had sprung up, by the improvement of the Public Schools 
 and of the Universities. It was, therefore, now judged 
 inexpedient to subject the beneficed Clerk to the same 
 ordeal as the candidate for Ordination, and the Bishop 
 was only required (Canon XXXIX.) to ascertain " on due 
 examination" that he is ''worthy of his ministry." A 
 further relaxation of the practice of more ancient times, 
 is distinctly recognised in Canon XCVI., in which the 
 Convocation thus declares its mind: "Albeit, by former 
 Constitutions of the Church of England, every Bishop 
 hath had two montlis space to inquire and inform himself of 
 the sufficiency and qualities of every Minister, after he has 
 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 eight and 
 twenty days only." Thus mildly and %visely, as regards 
 this matter, did the Canons, which constitute the existing 
 law of the Church, suggest (if they do not absolutely 
 limit and define) the character and extent of the Exami- 
 nation of beneficed Clergymen. Should the Diocesan 
 think it proper to examine at all, he is to bear in mind 
 what is "due" to his Presbyter: he is not at liberty 
 to indulge a love of controversy and disputation, nor 
 to make that minute inquiry in the case of a well-reputed 
 and experienced scholar, which may be justifiable when 
 applied to a totally unknown, and therefore possibly 
 illiterate person. He is not, for reasons however plau- 
 sible, to extend the inquiry to an indefinite period; 
 harassing, perplexing, or ruinous to the Presentee. The 
 mild intentions of these two Canons, and the practical 
 
XVI 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 wisdom of the Church of England in the administration 
 of her laws, in this respect, are both well illustrated by 
 the desuetude into which an Examination on Institution 
 has fallen. The frequent exercise of that discretionary 
 power, would manifestly give opportunities for oppression, 
 by the indulgence of party feeling, of religious prejudice, 
 or of personal animosity : it has been, therefore, so rare 
 an occurrence to examine a Presentee, and so extravagant 
 to do so when the Clergyman is already beneficed, that, in 
 by-gone times, no instances can be adduced except in 
 cases of notorious immorality, incompetency, or heresy. 
 
 Nevertheless, after the lapse of two centuries and a-half 
 from the early part of the reign of King James I., the 
 Bishop of Exeter has thought fit to revive that power. 
 In my own case, no fewer than 149 Questions,* of a subtle 
 character, were proposed to me ; on a doctrine on which 
 the most eminent Prelates and distinguished Clergymen 
 take difiereiit views. The limitation of twenty-eight days 
 from exhibiting the Presentation, prescribed by the 
 Canon, was disregarded : the Examination was not 
 
 * The Bishop has stated emphaticall)- (Letter to his Clergy, April 
 24th, in Answer to my Circular, April 12th), that he had no intention 
 to propose more than Jive [corresponding to my numeration of the first 
 «e('en] Questions, provided that I had answered them categorically. 
 His Lordship's memory is inaccurate. I have mentioned above, page 
 ix., that thirteen Questions were proposed to me, ai.d that No. L to 
 No. IV. and also No. VIII. to No. XII. were answered by me hcfore I 
 had even finished the preparation of the Answers 5, 6, 7,) and of course 
 before those Answers were seen by the Bishop. And yet his Lordship 
 intimates that the elaborate and argumentative character of that com- 
 hined Answer (5, 6, 7), compelled him to proceed ! I have judged it 
 necessary to mention these details, in proof that it was NOT especially 
 my " combined Answers," (as the Bishop alleges.) which occasioned a 
 prolongation of the Examination ; but that there was an animus for 
 disputation, on his part, from the very commencement. "That Answer," 
 (5, 6, 7,) so distinctly and honestly declared my views, that the Exami- 
 nation might well have closed with it. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xvii 
 
 commenced till the 39th day, — it was continued to the 
 45th, — it was resumed on the 121st, — and it was con- 
 cluded on the 123d! 
 
 Such an innovation on the discipline of our Church, 
 by the Examination of Clergymen, however long they may 
 have been in orders, or whatever may be their reputation, 
 without any offence being specially charged, or any 
 particular heresy alleged, — is not only a proceeding 
 dangerous to the liberties, and destructive of the comfort 
 of the Clergy, but is also an invasion of the rights of 
 Patrons. The endeavour to extract, if possible, by a 
 long Inquisition, and a subtle Disputation, some expres- 
 sions by which the Bishop may seem to be justified in his 
 refusal to admit to a Benefice, will, unless opposed, 
 become an Episcopal Veto on all the patronage in the 
 kingdom. 
 
 II. 
 
 The second point to which I think it most important 
 that public attention should be directed, is, — the principle 
 on which the Bishop of Exeter assumes the power to 
 conduct his Examinations ; I mean, his requirement of 
 submission to his own private test of sound doc- 
 trine, in the place of subscription to the accredited 
 Standard of the Church, her XXXIX. Articles, as 
 " agreeable to the Word of God," and a declaration 
 of assent to the use of the Book of Common Prayer, as 
 *' containing nothing contrary to " that Word. 
 
 The mode by which the Bishop examines into the 
 doctrinal views of any Clergyman whose sentiments he 
 suspects, is to propose certain Questions, generally four or 
 five, on the single subject of Baptismal Efficacy, — (his 
 Lordship's mono-dogmatical test,) and to demand " cate- 
 gorical" Answers, with little or no liberty of explanation. 
 6 
 
XVIU 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 His Lordship has affirmed, indeed, that he does not 
 propose any doctrine stated in his own words; that 
 " the Questions " (I. to VII. of my numeration) " were 
 taken from the Catechism, and from the Offices of 
 Baptism."* Had they been so extracted, with exactness, 
 and with completeness of signification, I could have had no 
 scruple to return a categorical " Answer, in the precise 
 words prescribed by the Act of Uniformity, or of Canon 
 XXXVI. : a mode of response wliich would have vir- 
 tually reduced the Examination to the usual form of 
 Declaration of consent to the Liturgy. But, in truth, 
 his Lordship's affirmation, that his Questions are " taken 
 from" the Formularies, requires considerable qualifica- 
 tion. For instance, in Question V., the declaration in the 
 Catechism, — " wherein I was made a member of Christ," 
 is proposed with the very important variation, — " wherein 
 I was made by God a member of Christ." That the 
 Bishop did not insert those words as unimportant to the 
 establishment of his private view of the doctrine of Bap- 
 tism, is demonstrated by his own admission in Question 
 LX. ; where he insists on those very words as giving to 
 his proposition in tvhich they occur, a sense perfectly 
 distinct from that which they might bear in a proposition 
 in which they are omitted. Other connecting words will 
 be noticed by every discriminating jjerson. I adduce 
 only one other instance. In Question XIII. ( — which is a 
 second version of Question V., and which I was requested 
 to answer before I had given my Answer 5, — ) the italic 
 words, " receive the benefit of Baptism," are obtruded upon 
 the Catechism ; which simply states, what is the inward 
 and spiritual grace, without declaring that that benefit is 
 actually received by every baptized person. 
 
 * Letter of the Bishop of Exeter to his Clergy, April 24th and 
 26th, in the " Guardian " newspaper. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xix 
 
 Independently of these variations, the questions, being 
 detached from their contexts, qualifying paragraphs, and 
 Liturgical connexion, — being, moreover, strung together 
 for the avowed support of a certain system, — were not such 
 as could be safely answered in the concise " categorical " 
 manner which the Bishop desired. 
 
 Abundant proof was also in my possession, that my 
 Diocesan would not be content with any " categorical " 
 Answers which did not distinctly adopt Ids oion sense of 
 the propositions cited from the Formularies. I had 
 evidence of this from his Lordship's dealings with other 
 Clergymen, both stipendiary and beneficed. I had seen 
 Examination Papers of rejected candidates. In one of 
 these, now under my eye, only three Questions were pro- 
 posed but the Answers being such as contravened the 
 Bishop's private opinion, the interrogations were immedi- 
 ately ramified into thirteen : it is not surprising that the 
 perplexed Examinee soon became entangled in the meshes 
 of this Theological net ; the most expert controversialist, 
 when once so committed, by abandoning his right to limit 
 and qualify his assent or dissent, would have found it 
 exceedingly difficult to extricate himself ; — this Clergy- 
 man, in two hours and a-half, was denied admission to his 
 Perpetual Curacy by this short " categorical" process, 
 more convenient to the Bishop than equitable to the 
 Presbyter. Every reflecting mind will at once perceive 
 how unreasonable it is to require a brief T^iswer to 
 Questions on difficult points in Divinity, which may 
 demand large consideration. In defence of my refusal to 
 give simple affirmations and negations, I quoted an apposite 
 remark of St. Augustine (see p. 100) ; but his Lordship 
 disregarded it, and continued to complain of my persisting 
 to express my doctrine in such terms as appeared to me 
 suited to the exact enunciation of my meaning. It is 
 b 2 
 
XX 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 remarkable that, having departed from the custom of past 
 generations, by requiring an Examination from a Clergy- 
 man of my age and standing in the Church, his Lordship 
 could yet have calculated that I should abstain from 
 freely and fully discussing the subtle Questions proposed 
 to me; — Questions which have always been subjects of 
 controversy in the Church, but which the Bishop of 
 Exeter claims to decide by the stet-pro-ratione method of 
 official authority. 
 
 The long discussion which followed this attempt to 
 impose A private test of doctrine upon my acceptance, 
 alFords a lamentable proof of the danger of departing 
 from the Standard which the Church has adopted in 
 her Articles of Faith. 
 
 If a simple subscription to those Articles be not con- 
 sidered as satisfactory to the Bishop, and if an Examination 
 be thought due to a Diocesan, in any case in which he 
 has cause to be jealous for the purity of the Chuixh, — she 
 has herself declared her mind as to the principles on 
 which the Examination shall be conducted. It is re- 
 quired * (Canon XXXIV.) that the Minister " be able 
 to yield an account of his faith according to the Ai'ticles 
 of Religion, .... and to confirm the same by sufficient 
 
 TESTIMONIES OUT OF THE HoLY ScRIPTURES." What a 
 
 manifest departui'e from this requirement is the attempt 
 to set up the Liturgical Formularies as the interpreters of 
 the Articles, and to impose a private sense of either the 
 Articles or the Liturgy on the consciences of the clei-gy ! 
 To such fearful aggression on the principles of our 
 
 * The Canons of 1595 requu-ed this of the applicant for Institution, 
 as well as for Ordination. The direction was discontinued (as before 
 observed) in 1C03-4, as regards beneficed clerks ; but, if an Examina- 
 tion be exacted, it must of course be conducted on the principles which 
 the Church laid down, when such Examination was directed. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXI 
 
 Protestant Church, I felt bound, firmly and yet respect- 
 fully, to oppose myself. I cannot be sufficiently thankful 
 that I was enabled, without wavering, to go through the 
 painful trials to which I was consequently exposed. For 
 if, in my case, such a precedent had been quietly estab- 
 lished, any Bishop, acting as the influential leader of a 
 reckless party, would be able — not only to exclude from his 
 Diocese Stipendiary Curates (as the Bishop of Exeter 
 does, and, it is said, can do without appeal in the existing 
 state of the law), but — to prevent any Clergyman from 
 being appointed to Benefices, whatever be their ages or 
 qualifications, whose religious sentiments are opposed to 
 the Diocesan's peculiar Standard. 
 
 Long before I myself was brought under the application 
 of the Bishop's private test, in my letter. No. X. (see 
 p. 11), I used the freedom which, I conceive, the cir- 
 cumstances of the Examination of my Curate justified, 
 of pointing out to my Diocesan the anti-catholic character 
 of such a system, and the schism which would inevitably 
 ensue by the formation of separate Diocesan Churches in 
 the place of the indivisible Church of England. During 
 m)' own Examination for Institution, I remonstrated 
 against this proceeding (p. 143), as fearfully risking the 
 peace of the Church. How lamentable would be the 
 disruption of the bond of charity, or rather, how fatal 
 would be the blow to all that is valuable in the Estab- 
 lished Church, were a system to prevail which would 
 enable semi-Romanizing Bishops in some Dioceses, and 
 thoroughly-Protestant Bishops in others, by the exaction 
 of the acceptance of their individual Standards of 
 doctrine, to exclude from Benefices Clergymen who could 
 not conscientiously abandon the Thirty-nine Articles for 
 private interjiretations. 
 
XXll 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 III. 
 
 In this Examination, it is impossible not to observe a 
 sensitive shrinking, on the part of the Questioner, from 
 
 THE DETERMINATE CONCLUSIONS OF THE ThIRTY-NINE 
 
 Articles, as the dogmatic Umpire of interpretations on 
 the doctrine of the Sacrament of Baptism (Questions 
 CXXXIII., CXXXIX.), and an effort to assert a co- 
 ordinate or even superior authority for hypothetical and 
 less-precisely defined statements in the Formularies (Ques- 
 tions XLIII., LXV., CXXVII.— CXXXVIII.). From 
 the Formularies, when found too stringent, recourse is had 
 to some doubtful expression in the still earlier, and in 
 some res;^ects less carefully worded (though in their 
 place valuable) Books of Homilies. (Questions IV., 
 ex. — CXXVI.) And when these "wholesome" trea- 
 tises fail to yield the support wliich is needed, the argu- 
 ment is, without scruple, maintained by retrograding 
 into the very border land of Popery, where some aid 
 will of course be found for dogmas which Protestant 
 authorities repudiate. (Questions CIV. — CIX.) 
 
 A careful study of the gradual progress of Divine truth, 
 during the several periods of the blessed Reformation, 
 will surely lead us to a process of reasoning the very 
 reverse of this. At the early dawn, Latimer, Ridley, 
 Cranmer, were still in the communion of a corrupt 
 Church, but were struggling to be free from its bondage : 
 we must, therefore, read with caution even the best 
 productions of an age in which the cloudy errors of 
 Popery still lay on the bosom of the Church like mists 
 upon the mountains at the peep of morning. As the day 
 advanced, the right doctrine of the Sacraments gradually 
 shone forth ; but some portion of error still cast its 
 shadow over, and obscured the truth. In the beautiful 
 Formularies of the Church of England, that doctrine was 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXIU 
 
 scripturally developed; but a figurative language was 
 I'etained, in some respects liable to misconception. At 
 length the Sacraments were set in the full light of the 
 Divine Word, by the Scriptural Articles of our Church. 
 To that Standard (in subordination to the Bible) we 
 adhere ; and view with the utmost jealousy the attempts of 
 any party, or individual, to lead us back towards the dark- 
 ness from which, by the blessing of God, we have emerged. 
 
 IV. 
 
 I cannot conclude this Introduction, without expressing 
 my view of the character of the particular doctrine 
 which forms the subject of this discussion. 
 
 The Church has cause for alarm : for, should his 
 Lordship succeed in this bold attempt to exclude from 
 Benefices all Clergymen who hold, that Sacramental Effi- 
 cacy is conditional on the disposition of the receiver, 
 a fearful blow will have been dealt at Protestantism. 
 
 For, — what in simple truth is the dogma which, the Bishop 
 of Exeter, claiming to be the Expositor of the meaning of 
 the Church, endeavours to force on the acceptance of his 
 Clergy? It is this : — the unconditional efficacy of 
 THE Sacrament of Baptism. I observe, indeed, that, 
 now, his Lordship repudiates * this description of the 
 matter, on which he has thought proper to risk so 
 fearful an exercise of Episcopal power. But, while 
 the Bishop denies the correctness of m>/ represen- 
 tation of the doctrine, he has not ventured to announce 
 his own account of it. Having carefully abstained, 
 in his formal Notice of refusal to Institute, (p. 219), 
 from giving any description whatever of the character of my 
 alleged heresy ; he contented himself, in his Letter 
 to his Clergy,* a month afterwards, with a vague statement 
 
 * The Bishop of Exeter's Letter to his Clergy, in the " Guardian" 
 newspaper, April 21, 1818. 
 
xxiv 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 that I held doctrines which, *' in his judgment, are con- 
 trary to Christian truth." * TJnder such continued reti- 
 cence on the part of the Bishop, I must be forgiven if the 
 term which I have adopted, with a sincere desire not to 
 misrepresent, be considered by him as not strictly appli- 
 cable to the doctrine which he has actually selected as the 
 Test of orthodoxy. (See p. 9 and p. 15.) I am well 
 aware, indeed, of the extreme difficulty of stating, with 
 theological nicety, and yet concisely, that particular view 
 of Sacramental Efficacy which his Lordship considers as 
 indubitably set forth by the Church of England, and 
 which I could not admit to be consistent with her dogmatic 
 determinations : but, after a deliberate review of the whole 
 argument, I must maintain, that the unconditional 
 EFFICACY of Baptism, f when rightly administered, was 
 the point enforced by the Bishop ; and that the condi- 
 tional EFFICACY of that Sacrament, as dependent on due 
 reception, was the doctrine defended by myself. I refer 
 my readers to Questions X., XL, and XIX., in prelimi- 
 nary proof of this ; but, in truth, every page of the 
 Examination Papers will sustain, if I do not greatly err, 
 the accuracy of the description which I have here given of 
 its subject. 
 
 In what respect, at all essential to saving Christian truth, 
 this dogma, of Baptism absolutely efficacious on 
 
 * These italics are the Bishop's : ^hat words could more plainly set 
 forth his Lordship's own avowal that he is setting up " a private 
 Staixlard " of Christian truth ? 
 
 t The Bishop endeavoured, I admit, to limit his dogma, by eon- 
 fining it to the case of Infants — an effort which is invariably made by 
 all who hold his Lordship's doctrine. But, very early in the discus- 
 sion, I withheld my assent from that position, as utterly untenable. 
 Whatever be the doctrine of the Church, the all-but-identical construc- 
 tion of her Baptismal Services for Adults and for Infants, (to say 
 nothing of the dogmatic determinations of Article XXVII., unre- 
 stricted as to age,) demonstrates that the same principle of interpreta- 
 tion must be held to govern the meaning of both Formularies. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXV 
 
 RIGHT ADMINISTRATION, differs from the Popish doctrine 
 of the unconditional regenerating efficacy of that initiatory 
 Sacrament, ex opere operate, I am unable to discover. 
 True it is, that the Bishop of Exeter endeavours to save 
 his doctrine from the discredit of being assimilated to that 
 of the Church of Rome, by the introduction of two 
 qualifying words. He says, that the blessings which 
 invariably accompany this divinely instituted Rite, are to 
 be ascribed " to God in Baptism," and not " to Baptism." 
 (See Question V., and more particularly Question LX.) 
 No Romanist, I think, would scruple to make a similar 
 admission, in effect, if not in precise words. Though 
 the more ignorant Papist might attribute a regene- 
 rative work to the very element of water, consecrated 
 to a Sacramental use ; yet the intelligent Romanist would 
 doubtless allow that it was " to God"* giving his blessing 
 to this opus operatum, that its never-failing efficacy 
 must be ascribed : just as the Bishop of Exeter C — at once 
 rejecting, as so acute a mind could not fail to do, the more 
 
 * In the Council of Nice (a. D. 325) it was thus expressed: — 
 " Thou beholdest water ; consider the power of God, which is hidden 
 in the waters." '^'Yba>p Spas' vorjaov ttjv ev tois vdaui KpyTTTOfxevriv 
 TOY eEOY Swa/juv." (Gelasius, Hist. Concil. Niceni, in Concil. Labbei 
 et Cossarti. Tom. ii. col. 233, edit. Paris. 1671—2.) The idea is thus 
 enunciated by Bishop Paulinus : " the water conceives God." " Con- 
 cipit unda Deum." (Pauhni Epist. xii. p. 144, edit. Antverp, 1622.) 
 Bellarmin says : " water is the sign and instrumental cause of the 
 invisible grace which is effected hy God through the minister." ''Aqua 
 est Signum et causa instrumentalis invisihiUs gratia qua a Deo per 
 ministrum efficitur." (Bellarm. de Sacr. Eucharist. Lib. iv. cap. iii. 
 col. 780, vol. iii., edit. Ingoldstad, 1601.)— He maintains that, " God 
 washes us through Baptism ; " though he distinguishes this from the 
 proposition, that " God washes us at the same time " in which we are 
 baptized. " Per Baptismum Deus lacal nos." (Bellarm. de Effectu 
 Sacram. Lib. ii. cap. iii. vol. iii. col. 154.) Are not these expressions, 
 exact counterparts to that of the Bishop of Exeter — " to God in Bap- 
 tism ? " 
 
xxvi 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 palpable error — ) endeavours to guard his faintly-dis- 
 criminated, or, rather, scarcely-dissimilar, dogma, by a 
 recognition of the Divine Author of that Sacramental 
 Rite, invariably jDresent to bless its outward and legiti- 
 mate application. Thelatentmischief of the Romish error — 
 the TTpcoTOV A^evSo? — did not consist chiefly, I conceive, in 
 the unphilosophical ascription of a spiritual elFect to a mate- 
 rial element ; in the idea that " the work " was " wrought " * 
 by water, rather than by " God," through the means of 
 water, (gross as is the conception that a moral influence 
 can be produced by a merely physical cause) : but rather 
 in the unscriptural belief that a change of nature in- 
 variahly takes place in the soul, (by whatever cause 
 produced, tuhenever the external Sign of regeneration is 
 
 * If the reader will turn to the note, p. 120, in which I have com- 
 pared the corresponding Articles of 1552 and of 1562, " Or the 
 Sacraments," he will observe a very remarkable omission in the later 
 Elizabethan Article, of the words which condemn the Popish " ojms 
 operatum." Why was this? Undoubtedly it was not that the Re- 
 formers had modified theu* opinions on the efficient cause of Sacra- 
 mental Efficacy : the contemporaneous controversies (especially that of 
 Bishop Jewel with Cole and Harding) afford demonstration of the very 
 reverse of such an hypothesis. I venture to think it was, — that they 
 considered that the notion of the " tcork icroiiffht," ( — though truly 
 there described as " a word strange and unknown to Holy Scripture, 
 which engendered no godly but a very superstitious sense," — ) was 
 not, chiefly, that which corrupted the doctrine of the Sacraments, but 
 that the danger rather consisted in overlooking the qualijication of the 
 receiver as essential to the benefit of the Ordinance. Hence they 
 struck out this intermediate clause, as somewhat interfering with the 
 more important point at which they were directly aiming ; — and thus 
 they brought into a close and undisturbed view, the " effect" of 
 " worthy" and of " unworthy" reception. If this solution of the 
 curtailment of the XXVth Article be correct, it confii-ms the views 
 which I have taken in the text. It fully satisfies my own mind ; but, 
 of course, I do not insist upon it. The reader who feels critically 
 interested in this subject, — the " cause" of the eflficacy of the Sacra- 
 ments, — will find a further illustration of the wisdom of the framers 
 of our Aiticles, in Questions XXVIII., XXIX., and Answers 28, 29. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 XXVll 
 
 applied to the body by a lawful Minister — which is the 
 notion which the Bishop appeared to me to maintain. The 
 poison lies hid in the one doctrine as well as in the other. 
 No metaphysical subtleties, no nicety of scholastic distinc- 
 tion, can obviate the fatal effects of the virus which lurks 
 in such a system. It vitiates the elementary principles of 
 religion : it disconnects the earliest work of the Spirit 
 from FAITH, and ties the regenerating operations of that 
 Holy Being to an outward Sign, independently of the 
 dispositions of the heart : it banishes the Scriptural 
 truth, that that life-breathing Agent infuses His vital 
 influences into the soul tvhen, where, and as He listeth : 
 and it limits His new-creating power to the moment of 
 application of the Sacramental Symbol lawfully adminis- 
 tered. Thus, one of the worst errors of Popery is 
 perpetuated in the essence of its unscriptural character, 
 though disguised by the specious dress of a few plausible 
 words. A doctrine which thus confounds, and invariably 
 connects, the figure with the -reality, — the token with the 
 benefiti — the Sacramental Sign with the spiritual Thing, 
 — has a lamentable tendency to enslave, if not to destroy, 
 the soul.* 
 
 Such, in my deliberate opinion, is the dangerous 
 character of a doctrine which affirms the positive, uncon- 
 ditional, invariable connexion ( — whether in infiints or in 
 adults, — ) of the outward Sign or Sacrament, with the 
 inward Grace of which that Sacrament is a Seal. 
 
 * Scripturally, as well as beautifully, wi-ites the pious Bisliop of 
 Hippo : " It is carnal wisdom to take that which is spoken figuratively, as 
 though it were spoken actually. Nothing can be more fitly called the 
 death of the soul, than when, by following the mere letter, the under- 
 standing is subjected to the flesh. To take Siyns for Thixgs, and not 
 to be able to lift up the eye of the mind so as to drink in the eternal 
 light, is a miserable bondage of the soul." — St. Augustine, " On the 
 Christian Doctrine," Book iii. chap. v. section 9. 
 
xxviii 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 If my view of its pernicious tendency be correct, it is 
 deeply to be lamented that, in every age of the Church, 
 there has been a propensity to indulge in symbolical 
 language, with reference to Sacramental Signs, far beyond 
 safe limits ; by the dangerous use of what Bishop Jewel 
 so well calls "vehement," "violent," and " excessive kinds 
 of speech." * That our pious Reformers, while they restored 
 the pure doctrine of the Sacraments, should not have at 
 once and entirely cast aside a phraseology which for ages 
 had been the vernacular language of the Church, is by no 
 means a matter of surprise : though, to myself, I confess, 
 it is a subject of painful regret, when I contemplate the 
 elfect which that metonymical phraseology has had, in the 
 perpetuation of controversies dangerous to the peace 
 and contaminating to the purity of the Church. Some- 
 thing must be allowed to their early habits of speech ; 
 very much to their difficult position, which rendered 
 it, in their view, necessary to accommodate the lan- 
 guage of public Serxdces to the prejudices of the 
 only-half-protestantized people; but nothing to their 
 hesitation as to the plain Scriptural truth, respecting the 
 immediate and necessary connexion of Regeneration with 
 
 * Bingham (Orig. Eccl. XI. i.) has collected some of these fervid ex- 
 pressions for Baptism, as common in the third and fourth centuries. It 
 ■was called the illumination, the phylactery, or preservative, the investi- 
 ture of incorruption, the salvation. Cyril styles it, the ransom to cap- 
 tives, the garment of light, the holy seal indissoluble, the chariot to 
 heaven, the luxury of paradise. Such hyperbolical terms being fami- 
 liarly current in the Church, it is not surprising that our Liturgical 
 Offices should be tinged with a figurative colouring beyond the sim- 
 plicity of chastely defined language : the hypothetical expressions of our 
 Services would, however, be understood by our pious Reformers, in 
 what Bishop Jewel calls (with more immediate application to the 
 style of the Fathers) " a gentle, courteous, and mollified construc- 
 tion." (See p. 179, note.) 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xxix 
 
 repentance and faith, of which Baptism is the divinely- 
 appointed Sign. The doctrine of conditional Sacramental 
 Efficacy, which they actually held, and intended to set 
 forth, is so repeatedly developed (though still with more 
 or less of human infirmity), in their own writings ; so 
 brightly illustrated by their dying testimonies, even when 
 tried in the fires of the Marian persecution ; and (above 
 all) so distinctly declared, and Scripturally stated, in those 
 Ai-ticles by which they built up the Church of God in 
 this land ; — that, to my mind, it seems impossible to mis- 
 apprehend their meaning, even in the less-accurately- 
 defined and freely-figurative language of the devotional 
 Formularies. Those Articles are (in subordination to 
 the Word of God,) the charter of our ecclesiastical 
 liberty ; and those especially * which define the character 
 of the two Sacraments, are of the utmost importance, 
 as establishing Protestant truth in opposition to Romish 
 delusion. 
 
 The attempt of an individual Bishop to assume the 
 power of dictating to the Church his own sense of those 
 Articles, or to set up any co-ordinate Standard to over- 
 rule their dogmatic teaching, — is an endeavour to place on 
 our necks a yoke, which we are as little able to bear, and 
 which we would be as determinately resolved to shake off, 
 if for a season imposed, as were the Fathers of the Refor- 
 mation. An attempt of this kind is the more intolerable, 
 because it is, manifestly, in direct opposition to the con- 
 scientious belief of a very large body of the Prelates and 
 Clergy of the Church of England ; held, as they firmly 
 maintain, in strict conformity with those definite ex- 
 positions of her doctrine which, — after having stood the 
 test of a fiery trial — were solemnly adopted by her 
 
 • See those five Aiticles, XXV. to XXIX., in Appendix (C). 
 
XXX 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Ministers, formally ratified by the Sovereign, and deli- 
 berately sanctioned by the Nobles and Commons of the 
 Realm. From the memorable day when that pure Stand- 
 ard of Faith was framed by the Church, and accepted by 
 the Nation, to the present moment, and amidst the 
 various conflicts of religious opinion, that doctrine of the 
 Sacraments, which I have maintained before my Diocesan, 
 has been held by a considerable proportion of the members 
 of our Church. This is a fact which cannot be con- 
 troverted. To over-rule this belief, by individual autho- 
 rity, would be to ensure speedy ruin. If such an attempt 
 remain unchecked, no Official buttresses, however solid, 
 could long sustain the tottering fabric of our Protestant 
 Establishment. 
 
 Several of the unbeneficed Clergy, in the Diocese of 
 Exeter, — thus repudiated by its Ecclesiastical Ruler, — have 
 been compelled to seek a more favourable sphere for the 
 exercise of their ministrations. Since the Bishop's refusal 
 to institute me, a similar course was open to myself : it 
 would have greatly promoted my personal comfort, and, 
 for a little time, perhaps, have saved the Church from the 
 interruption to her peace which this event may possibly 
 produce. But it would have been a self-interested course; 
 and, therefore, one which I dare not pursue, under the 
 peculiar circumstances in which Providence has placed me, 
 for the defence of a momentous public question. A firm per- 
 suasion, that doctrinal piu'ity, Protestant liberty, and invalu- 
 able privileges both of the Clergy and of the Laity, would 
 have been lamentably compromised, had I given up my Pre- 
 sentation, and sought a quiet refuge in some other Benefice, 
 — forbad the thought of shrinking from long-continued 
 and very considerable personal trials. The same feeling 
 has influenced my decision, to avail myseif of such legal 
 remedies as I may be advised are open to me ; in the 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 xxxi 
 
 maintenance of a principle, the struggle for which, if per- 
 severed in with Christian firmness, must, by the blessing 
 of God, lead to important results. 
 
 With this deeply-seated conviction, I now lay my 
 Examination Papers before the Christian public ; together 
 with the whole of the Correspondence which may serve to 
 thi'ow light upon these extraordinary proceedings. From 
 these Documents I am content that the Church at large 
 should form its estimate, of the character of my doctrine, 
 and of the manner in which I have conducted its defence. 
 
 To a different tribunal I must refer the decision, whe- 
 ther or no the law of the Church has been transgressed, 
 by the refusal of the Bishop to give me Admission to the 
 Benefice to which I was nominated. Under the sense of 
 duty which I have so fully stated, I' have determined to 
 persist in my claim of Institution, whatever expense and 
 anxiety may attend that course. It is impossible for me 
 to retire from an earnest defence of the cause, until a 
 result shall have been obtained which shall place the 
 privileges of both Patrons and their Presentees in a posi- 
 tion beyond the reach of arbitrary control. 
 
 Such is my unshaken resolution ; formed, I trust, with 
 humble reliance on Him, whose "continual J^ity" will 
 both " cleanse and defend" His Church. 
 
 G. C. G. 
 
 Tlie Vlcarwje, St. Just-ln-Penwlth, 
 June 10th, 1848. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Note, p. 26, for 1826, read 1846. 
 
 P. 90, note, line 3, for XXV., read XXXII. 
 
 8, for 25, read 32. 
 
 P. 191, line 6 in note, for 114, read 112, in some copies. 
 P. 196, line 1, for Rubric, read Declaration. 
 
CONSPECTUS 
 
 OF THE CORRESPONDENCE AND EXAMINATION. 
 
 1. 
 
 COKRESl'ONDENCE, ETC., RESPECTING THE NOMINATION OF A 
 PRESBYTER, AS A CURATE FOR ST. JUST-IN PENWITH. 
 
 I. Feb. 6, 1846. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. The 
 
 importance of ministerial co-operation— a reasonable 
 ground for his being permitted to recommend a Clergy- 
 man to the Crown for nomination to a district in his 
 parish: p. 3. 
 
 II. Aug. 18, 1846. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. Dis- 
 
 approbation of his expression, " National Estahlish- 
 ment :" p 4. 
 
 III. Aug. 26, 1846. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Jus- 
 
 tification of the term, "National Establishment :" p. 5. 
 
 IV. Sept. 12, 1846. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Dif- 
 
 ficulties and discouragements in his parish, St. Just: p. 6. 
 V. Sept. 8, and Oct. 13, 1846. Advertisements for a Curate 
 ''free from Tradarian error:" p. 6. 
 VI. Sept. 14, 1846. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. High 
 disapprobation of his term, " Tractarian error, ' and 
 suspicions of any Curate nominated by him under such 
 an announcement : p. 7. 
 VII. Memorandum. On the difficulty of finding a Curate, not 
 objected to by the Bishop : p. 8. 
 VIII. Nov. 23, 1846. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. No- 
 mination of the Rev. Mr. A., as Curate for St. Just: 
 p. 8. 
 
 IX. Nov. 25, 1846. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. Re- 
 quii-ement to examine the Rev. Mr. A.., " especially on 
 BAPTibJi, the foundulion of all" Christian doctrine : p. 9. 
 
xxxiv 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 X. Dec. 3, 1846. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Alarm 
 
 at the intimation, that the Bishop's private Standard of 
 doctrine on " Baptism " may deprive the Vicar of a 
 Curate, whose views accord with his own: p. 10. 
 Such intimation inconsistent with the Bishop's principle 
 of ministerial co-operation : p. 11. Episcopal Tests, 
 in the place of the Articles, as a Standard of doctrine, 
 dangerous to the Church, and anti-catholic: p. 11. 
 The Bishop's suspicions of the Vicar unreasonable : p. 12. 
 Determination to oppose " Tractarian error : " p. 12. 
 
 XI. Dec. 5, 1846. From the Bishop to the Rev. Mr. A. 
 
 Summons to Examination on " Baptism" in consequence 
 of the Vicar's advertisement for an assistant " free from 
 Tractarian error:" p. 14. 
 XII. Dec. 5, 1846. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. The 
 Vicar's " confidence, " in charging the Bishop with " in- 
 consistency : " p. 1 5. His low Churchmanship, assumed 
 from his non-Tractarian phraseology : p. 16. Reca- 
 pitulation of the Bishop's former accusations: pp. 16, 17. 
 Claim to examine the Rev. Mr. A., by the Forty-eighth 
 Canon: p. 17. Charge of the Vicar's violation of his 
 Ordination Vow : p. 17. 
 XIII. Jan. 28, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Gene- 
 ral presumption, that the Bishop's imputations are unde- 
 served, followed by particular proofs : p. 18. I. Repu- 
 diation of the charge of " confidence." The Bishop's 
 inconsistency, in embarrassing an Incumbent in the choice 
 of a Curate, demonstrated: p. 19. II. Repudiation of 
 the averment, that the Vicar is unworthy to be taken as 
 a voucher for sound doctrine : 1. Because he used the 
 term " Kational Estahlishment : " p. 21. In what sense 
 the term is correct : p. 22. 2. Because he expressed 
 his opposition to " Tractarian Error : " p. 23. That 
 term clearly sets forth the errors it reprobates: p. 
 23. The Bishop throws his shield over the Trac- 
 tarian party : p. 24. Oxford secessions to Rome : p. 24. 
 Leeds perverts : p. 25. St. Just tendencies to Popery, 
 and the Romish character of its parish Church : pp. 24, 
 25. The Reformed Chiu-eh disdains via media men : 
 p. 26. The Ught of the Reformation fading : p. 27. 
 III. Repudiation o'f the charge of ignorance of the 48th 
 Canon : p. 27. Protest was not against Examination, 
 but against a substitution of the Bishop's Standard of 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XXXV 
 
 doctrine for that of the Articles : p. 27. IV. Repudiation 
 of the charge of violation of the Ordination Vow : p. 28. 
 Peculiar circumstances of the Vicar's Ordination in 
 1811 : p. 28. The Ordination Vow is one of Canoni- 
 cal not implicit obedience : p. 29. 
 
 II. 
 
 DOCUMENTS AND COEEESPONDENCE CONNECTED WITH A TESTIMONIAL 
 FOE THE PEESENTATION OF THE VICAK OF ST. JUST-IN-PENWITH, 
 TO THE VICAKAGE OF BEAMPFOKD SPEKE, DEVON, BY THE CEOWN. 
 
 XIV. Aug. 12, 1847. Testimonial for the Chancellor (pre- 
 vious to his giving his Fiat for the Presentation) by three 
 beneficed Clergymen : p. 33. The Bishop's imputation 
 (annexed to his Counter-signature) of Mr. Gorham's lax 
 opinions on discipline, and his "apprehension" of his 
 unsound doctrine : p. 34. 
 
 XV. Aug. 29, 1847. From the Bishop to Mi-. Gorham. On 
 the same subject : p. 34. 
 
 XVI. Sept. 3, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Re- 
 monstrance, on his attempt to prejudice the Vicar in the 
 mind of the Chancellor, — and so to prevent a Presenta- 
 tion — by insinuation, without instance of an offence : 
 p. 35. 
 
 XVII. Sept. 4, 1847. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. De- 
 fence of his mode of Counter-signature : p. 39. 
 
 XVIII. Sept. 1 7, 1 847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Cha- 
 racter of the Testimonial : pp. 41—44. 
 
 XVIII. f(. Sept. 11, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Chancellor. 
 
 View of the character of a Testimonial : p. 44 a. 
 XVIII. h. Sept. 21, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Chancellor. 
 
 Further observations on the character of a Testimonial : 
 
 p. 44 e. 
 
 XVni. c. Oct. 11, 1847. From the ChanceUor to Mr. Gorham. 
 
 His purpose to sign the Fiat : p. 44 g. 
 XVIII. f7. Oct. 11, 1847. From the Chancellor to the Bishop. 
 
 Notice of having signed the Fiat : p. 44 g. 
 
xxxvi 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 III. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE, ETC., ON APPLICATION BT THE VICAR OF 
 ST. JUST-IN-PENWITH, FOR INSTITUTION TO THE VICARAGE 
 OF BRAJIPFORD SPEKE, ON PRESENTATION BT THE CROWT*. 
 
 XIX. Nov. 2, 1847. Presentation to Brampford Speke, by 
 the Crown through the Chancellor : p. 47. 
 
 XX. Nov. 6, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Appli- 
 
 cation for an early Institution to Brampford Speke ; or 
 request that it may be deferred till the Vicar has removed 
 his family from Cornwall to Devon : p. 48. 
 
 XXI. Nov. 8, 1847. From the Bishop's Secretary to Mr. Gor- 
 
 ham. Option of Nov. 12th, for an appointment with 
 the Bishop ; or of deferring it : p. 49. 
 XXII. Nov. 9, 1847. From ;\Ir. Gorham to the Bishop's Secre- 
 tary. Decision to defer the Institution : p. 49. 
 
 XXIII. Nov. 10, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. 
 
 Request that he will candidly say, whether "Institu- 
 tion will take place in the usual course : " p. 50. 
 
 XXIV. Nov. 13, 1847. From the Bishop's Secretary- to Mr. 
 
 Gorham, Notice that the Bishop will " ascertain by 
 Examination" whether the Vicar is " sound in doctrine" 
 before Institution. Disclaimer of the Bishop having 
 given, or being willing to give him, " advice :" p. 50. 
 XXV. Nov. 19, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop's Secre- 
 tary- Notice of return to Exeter, for immediate Insti- 
 tution. Readiness to submit to any lawful Examination, 
 and proposal that it should take place on Nov. 22 : 
 p. 51. 
 
 XXVI. Nov. 19, 1847. From the Bishop's Secretary to Mr. 
 
 Gorham. Information that the Bishop will be in Exeter 
 this evening : p. 53. 
 XXVII. Nov. 19, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop's Secre- 
 tary. Readiness for immcdiafe Examination : p. 53. 
 XXVIII. Nov. 19, 1847. From the Bishop's Secretary to Mr. 
 
 Gorham. The Bishop declines examining till his return 
 from London : p. 54. 
 
 XXIX. Nov. 19, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Wil- 
 lingness to attend for Examination in London. Serious 
 inconveniences of delay : p. 54. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XXXVll 
 
 XXX. Nov. 19, 1847. From the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. De- 
 clines an appointment in London : p. 55. 
 XXXI. Nov. 19, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. 
 
 Decision to remain at Torquay till the Bishoj) will name 
 a day for Examination : p. 56. 
 XXXII. Nov. 20, 1847. From the Bishop's Secretary to Mr. 
 
 Gorham. Notice that the Bishop's stay in London may 
 be three weeks : p. 66. 
 XXXIIL Nov. 22, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop's Secre- 
 tary. Decision to remain at Torquay, till the claim 
 for Institution shall have received some decided 
 response : p. 57. 
 
 XXXIV. Dec. 11, 1847. From Mr. Gorham to the Bishop's Secre- 
 tary. Serious inconvenience of delay. Request that 
 an early day for Examination may be named : p. 57. 
 XXXV. Dec, 15, 1817. From the Bishop's Secretary to Mr. 
 
 Gorham. Appointment of Friday, Dec. 17, at Bishop- 
 stowe, for Examination : p. 58. 
 
 IV. 
 
 EXAMINATION, 
 
 Br THE BISHOP OF EXETER, PREVIOUS TO INSTITUTION, OF THE 
 VICAR OF ST. JUST-IN-PENVTITH, CORNWALL, TO THE VICARAGE 
 OP BRAMPFORD SPEKE, DEVON. WITH DOCUMENTS AJJD 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 Preliminary Observations, on the mode of conducting, and recording 
 the Examination : p. 61. 
 
 First Day's Examination. December 17, 1847. 
 Verbal Protest : p. 63. (See written Protest, on the third day.) 
 
 Questions I.— VII. 
 The two Sacraments severally, p. 63, and generally necessary to 
 salvation: p. 65. Sacraments have grace "annexed:" p. 66. 
 Infants duly baptized are unconditionally regenerated, adopted, 
 &c. : p. 67. 
 
xxxviii 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Answers 1 — 7. 
 
 The two Sacraments, in what sense necessary to salvation : pp. 63 — 65. 
 The argument for their being Mwco«c?(<(ona?ty "annexed" to grace, 
 from the Homily on Common Prayer, inconclusive : p. 66. 
 Axjparently unconditional affirmation of the regeneration, adoption, 
 &c., of duly baptized infants, how to be understood: pp. 67, et 
 seqq. General principle of interpretation of the Ritual Services 
 laid down : p. 67. Hypothetical construction of the affirmations 
 on the efficacy of the Sacraments, as contingent on Worthy 
 liccejdioii, confii-med by ; I. The Articles : p. 68. H. The 
 Formularies; (1.) The Catechism: p. 69. (2.) The Baptismal 
 Services: p. 70. (3.) The Burial Service: p. 7'2. (4.) Collects, 
 and other prayers for regeneration : p. 73. (5.) The phraseology 
 of the Formularies compared with that of Scripture : p. 74. 
 (6.) The distinction between the "Sacrament" and the "Thing:" p. 74. 
 HI. The Writings of the Reformers: p. 76. Jewel, instar 
 omnium, selected : p. 79. Extracts, in the notes, from Cover- 
 dale : p. 76. Latimer: p. 77. Ridley: p. 77. Cranmer: p. 77. 
 Hooper : p. 78. Jewel : p. 78. Jewel, the brightest gem of the 
 Church, survived the other Reformers till the Articles were finally 
 established : p. 79. 
 
 Second Day's Examination. December 18, 1847. 
 Questions Vin.— XLI. 
 Reference of John iii. 5, to Baptism, is decided : p. 80. The great 
 necessity of Baptism : p. 80. Faith not indispensable in 
 infants : p. 81. New birth of bajjtized infants: p. 82. Stipu- 
 lations not absolutely essential to infants : pp. 82 — 85. Baptism 
 a Sign of Grace actually bestowed : pp. 86, 87. Latin Articles 
 binding : p. 87. (See App. C, note.) Argument from " Signum 
 ^jcrquod:" pp. 87, 88. Who is the efficient cause of grafting by 
 Baptism into the Church ? p. 88. Argument from " effectual 
 Signs :" pp. 89, 90, 91, 92. Sacraments are, without reference to 
 qualifications, and in their own nature, effectual Signs : p. 90, and 
 note. Adoption given by God in and by Baptism : pp. 93, 94. 
 The faith required, is faith in some special truth stated by the 
 Church : p. 94. 
 
 Answers 8 — 41. 
 
 Reference of John iii. 5, to Baptism, not denied : p. 80. The great 
 necessity of Baptism : p. 80. Worthy Reception essential in all 
 cases of effectual Baptism: pp. 81, 83, 86. New bii-th of baptized 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xxxix 
 
 infants, how affirmed : p. 82. Stipulations always required by 
 the Church : p. 82. Stipulations, in private Baptism, tacitly 
 implied : p. 84. Argument for tacit Stipulations, from the Cate- 
 chism : p. 84. Case of baptized infants who die before actual sin, 
 considered : p. 85. Baptism a sign of profession, in all cases ; 
 and of grace conferred only in cases of worthy reception : p. 86. 
 Nullity of the argument, from " Signum per quod:" pp. 87, 88. 
 The sign, seals, does not give, the promises : p. 87. Article XXVII. 
 silent on the efficient cause of grafting into the Church : p. 89. 
 God " works" by the Sacraments only in worthy receivers : p. 89. 
 Sacraments are "Effectual Signs," to such only as receive them 
 " rightly and by faith : " pp. 89—93. Sacraments are not effectual 
 signs of grace in their own nature, and without regard to qualifica- 
 tions : p. 90, and note. The grace of Baptism stated in tlie case of 
 worthy receivers : p. 93. Adoption is sealed and assured by, but was 
 given before, Baptism : pp. 93, 94. The faith required in worthy 
 receivers, is not faith in any special truth, but in all the saving truths 
 of the Gospel : p. 94. 
 
 His Majesty's Declaration shuts out curious Questions : p. 83. (See 
 its authority: p. 116, and its date: p. 115, and note.) 
 
 Latin Articles admitted : p. 87. (Bishop Bilson's opinion of their 
 authority. Appendix C, note.) 
 
 Third Day's Examination, December 20, 1847. 
 Protest against this Examination : p. 98. 
 
 Expostulation of Mr. Gorham on the unmerciful length of the second 
 day's Examination ; and conversation with the Bishop thereupon : 
 pp. 98—100. 
 
 [St. Augustin on the unreasonableness of requiring short Answers to 
 large Questions: p. 100, also note.l 
 
 Question XLII.— LX. 
 
 The Catechism misinterpreted, as teaching tacit stipulations: p. 100. 
 The Catechism a Standard of dogmatic teaching: pp. 101 — 103. 
 Mr. Gorham's quotation from the Preface to the Book of Common 
 Prayer (1662), insinuated to have been designedly uncandid: 
 pp. 104 — 107. The framers of that Preface intended then- remark 
 to apply merely to Edward Vl.'s Book, and not to Charles Il.'s : p. 1 05. 
 It was simply apologetic: p. 108. The Ritual affirmations of 
 regeneration in Baptism, taken unconditionally, do not contradict 
 Scripture: p. 109. The Church ascribes to God in Baptism, the 
 blessing of being made his child: pp. Ill, 112. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Ans-weks 42—60. 
 In the Catechism, the Church declares her " meaning," in the way of 
 " Instruction" for the young Catechumen, rather than puts forth her 
 dogmatic " teaching," in the strict sense of a Standaed of doctrine 
 like that of the XXXIX. Articles: pp. 100—103. [This view, 
 illustrated by a remark by James I., at the Hampton Court Con- 
 ference : p. 101 ; and by the fact, that, at the Savoy Conference, the 
 Nonconformists wished to make the Catechism, what the Bishop of 
 Exeter says it is, a Staxdaed of doctrine : p. 101, 7tote.} Dis- 
 tinction between the Prayer Book (as consistent v;hh Scripture), and 
 the Book of Thu-ty-nine Articles (as the Standaed dogmatically 
 declaring the doctrines of Scripture), recognised in Canon XXXVI. : 
 p. 102. The Catechetical Instruction on the Sacraments, added 
 in 1604: p. 103. Quotation from the Preface to the Prayer- 
 Book ( — touching the demand of a "just and favourable construc- 
 tion " of the Services — ) : proof given that it was cited with perfect 
 candour; it applies to the present Book, as well as to the former 
 Book : pp. 105 — 108. The Ritual affirmations of Baptismal 
 benefits, if taken in naked verbality, and not hypothetically, would 
 flatly contradict Scripture; e.g., John iii. 8 ; i. 12, 13; Gal. iii. 26; 
 James i. 18; 1 Peter i. 3, 23, and a class of texts of which Rom. 
 viii. 14, is the type: pp. 104, 109, 110; and are opposed to fact: 
 p. 111. The blessing of Adoption precedes Baptism in worthy 
 recipients; this illustrated by the Baptism of Christ: pp. 112, 113. 
 
 Fourth Day's Examination. December 21, 181^7. 
 
 Expostulation on the unjust motive assigned by the Bishop for 
 continuing this Examination ; namely, his apprehension of publica- 
 tion, and 3L: Gor ham's silence tchen questioned on that sus- 
 picioii : p. 113. The Argumentum ad Verecundiam addressed to 
 the Bishop on the "injustice and imprudence" of his pro- 
 ceeding: p. 114. 
 
 Explanation of his motive, by the Bishop: p. 114. 
 
 Questions LXL— LXXI. 
 Gal. iii. 27, cited in proof that the grace of Christ is given to all'm and by 
 Baptism: p. 114. The notion of an act of grace, ^wevenient to 
 Baptism, inconsistent with the Church's declai-ation, that the grace and 
 mercy of Christ are not denied to children wrath: p. 124. Worthy, 
 and unworth) recijuents, expressions for which there are no equiva- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xli 
 
 lents in the Articles: pp. 119, 122. They would imply that man 
 
 merits the grace of God : p. 1 22. 
 Doctrines may be held contrary to the Prayer-Book and Catechism, 
 
 though not contrary to the Articles : pp. 117, 118. 
 The King's Declaration prefixed to the Articles, not authorized by 
 
 Convocation, or by Parliament : pp. 115, 117. See p. 83. 
 
 Answers 61—71. 
 
 Gal. iii. 27, with its context, shows that faith is a prerequisite to 
 receiving the grace of Christ in Baptism: p. 1 15. A /jrevenient act 
 of grace takes place in children of lorath who receive benefit from 
 Baptism: pp. 124, 125. Worthy and ?<«worthy recipients, ex- 
 pressions justified by the Articles and Services: pp. 119 — 122: 
 illustrated by King Edwards Articles, p. 119, lude ; by a com- 
 parison of the Liturgies, 1549, 1552, 1559, p. 121 note ; and by an 
 equivalent in Canons XXXIX., XCV. : p. 123. Fallacy of the 
 argument that worthy recipients must be meritorious: p. 122. 
 
 Doctrines cannot be contrary to the Prayer-Book and not contrary to 
 the Articles : pp. 117, 118. 
 
 The King's Declaration, and all expressions of the Royal will (not con- 
 travening doctrines), ought to be respected, p. 116. Its date and 
 author: p. 115, note. See p. 83. 
 
 Fifth Day's Examination. December 22, 1847. 
 
 Renewed Expostulation, on the Bishop's apprehension of publication, 
 as his motive for continuing this Examination ; — which has become 
 a Scholastic Act. Renewed appeal, on the " injustice and impru- 
 dence" of the Bishop's continuance of it: p. 126. 
 
 The Bishop's justification : p. 127. 
 
 Questions LXXIL— LXXVIII. 
 
 No act of grace prevenient to Baptism : p. 127. The Thanksgiving 
 for regeneration, after Private Baptism, added in 1662 : p. 128. 
 Comparison of the Services for Private Baptism of 1549, 1552, 
 1 662 ; and arguments for unconditional Baptismal efficacy, inde- 
 pendent of stipulations, drawn from verbal and other changes : 
 p. 129. The hypothesis of tacit stipulations in private Baptism, 
 implies the absurdity ol double stipulations by difi"erent sponsors : 
 p. 131. Mr. Gorham's arguments for pre-Baptismal faith, in 
 infants, is illogically deduced from pre-Baptismal stipulations : p. 
 132. Argument from the fact, that the Exhortation to sjwnsors 
 
xlii 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 in Public Baptism is omitted in the address to sponsors in the Office 
 for Admission after Private Baptism : p. 133. The demand of 
 stipulations from sponsors grounded merely on the promise of 
 Christ: p. 133. Argument for infant regeneration, from the fact 
 that the minister certifies it : p. 136. 
 
 Answers 72 — 78. 
 
 Objection to adopting the Bishop's precise terms in stating my own 
 propositions on intricate, finely-drawn Questions : p. 127. Pre- 
 venient grace already sufficiently explained, in Answers 18 and 71 : 
 p. 128. The verbal and other changes in the Services for Private 
 Baptism, as put forth in 1549, 1552, and 1662, afford no solid 
 inferential arguments for unconditional Baptismal efficacy, in 
 the face of the direct doctrine of the Articles ; examination 
 of those changes: pp.130, 131. That faith is required to be 
 stipulated for infants is a fact, not as the Bishop states, an argument : 
 p. 132. Pos<-baptismal stipulations, an erroneous notion, even 
 as regards Private Baptisms: p. 131; but more largely shown 
 in p. 134. Omission of the Exhortation to sponsors, in the 
 service for Admission of infants privately baptized, satisfac- 
 torily accounted for: p. 135. The form of demand of stipu- 
 lations from sponsors, " I demand, therefore," not grounded 
 on the promise of Christ, but on the necessity of a cor- 
 responding covenant by sponsors for the infant ; the Bishop's 
 omission of a whole clause unjustifiable, and his inference per 
 saltum, illogical: pp. 135, 136. The Bishop's unrubrical asser- 
 tion, and palpable mistake, that the minister " certifies " the rege- 
 ration of infants: p. 138. 
 
 The Standard of the Articles, the Umpiee, in cases of ambiguity in 
 the Services : p. 128. (See, also, pp. 103, 118, 130.) 
 
 Suspension of Examination. 
 Thursday, Dec. 23, 1847, etc. 
 
 Dec. 24, 1847. Memoeandum on the suspension of the Examina- 
 tion, Dec. 23 ; with request that the Bishop will transmit Question 
 LXXVII.: p. 139. 
 
 Dec. 24, 1847. Remonstrance against further Examination : p. 141. 
 
 Dec. 27, 1817. Note from the Bishop to Mr. Gorham, with the trans- 
 mission of nine additional Questions ; namely LXXVII. to LXXXV. : 
 p. 144. 
 
 Dec. 27, 1847. Letter from the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. Renewed 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xliii 
 
 avowal that he continues this Examination because Mr. Gorham 
 " declines to disclaim the purpose of publication :" p. 145. Other 
 Questions will follow the nine now sent: p. 145. Claims Ex- 
 amination on the authority of the ^4 r^i'cw?* Cleri : p. 146. Such 
 an Examination not unprecedented ; proved by his own precedent : 
 p. 146; it was instituted because Mr. Gorham denied his right to 
 examine his Curate : p. 146. 
 
 Dec. 29, 1847. Letter from Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. He accepts 
 Questions LXXVII. and LXXVIII. : p. 146. Will consider 
 the character of Questions LXXIX. to LXXXV. : p. 147. The 
 Bishop's own precedents for Examination considered : p. 148. 
 His title to examine was never denied ; but his right to examine 
 ad libitum is disallowed: p. 149. The Bishop's continuance of 
 Examination, by reason of Mr. G.'s non-compliance with his 
 attempt to extort a promise that he will not publish, is a private 
 and a public -wTong: p. 151. Appeal to the Bishop to desist 
 from that injury : p. 152. 
 
 Jan. 7, 1848. Memorandum. — Transmission of Answers 77, 78, to 
 Questions LXXVH., LXXVIII. ; Repudiation of the seven 
 Questions, LXXIX.— LXXXV., as unauthorized : p. 153. 
 
 Character of the seven repudiated Questions on the Savoy Con- 
 ference; and reasons for their rejection : p. 154. Vain expecta- 
 tion, that Mr. G.'s view of the doctrine of the Church, touchmg the 
 Sacraments, would be modified by the results of the Savoy Confer- 
 ence: p. 156. I. The twelve Bishops were not authorized 
 expounders of doctrine : p. 156. 11. They themselves were con- 
 strained to admit a charitable construction of Baptismal professions 
 in the Liturgy: p. 157. III. They were tinctured with the semi- 
 Papistical theology of Laud, and were bigoted partisans : p. 158. 
 
 Ultimate Remonstrance against the Bishop's Examination, as now 
 extended to Liturt/ical Biblioffraphi/ : p. 159. 
 
 Jan. 7, 1848. Letter from Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Institution to 
 Brampford Speke once more required, unconditionally, within three 
 days : p. 160. 
 
 Jan. 8, 1848. Letter from the Bishop to Mr. Gorham. Appointment 
 for a renewed Examination on January 10th: p. 161. His reca- 
 pitulation of the manner in which the sixty days, elapsed since the 
 Presentation was tendered, have passed: p. 162. 
 
 Jan. 10, 1848. Letter from Mr. Gorham to the Bishop. Suppression 
 of facts, in the Bishop's recapitulation of the sixty days' delay, since 
 Presentation was tendered: p. 163. Decision to quit Torquay: 
 p. 161. 
 
RESUMPTION OF EXAMINATION. 
 
 Application for Institution, Feb. 10, 1848. The Bishop's demand of 
 iceneyiieCi Examination, Yeh. 14; acceded to, under protest. Attempt 
 of the Bishop to defer it, Feb. 25. Finally arranged: p. 16o. 
 
 Sixth Day's Examination. March 8, 1848. 
 Questions LXXX\T— XCSail. 
 
 Gal. iii. 26, 27, declares that by Baptism we put on Christ : pp. 166 — 
 168. Being in Christ, we are members of his body: pp. 169 — 
 171. And are made such by Baptism: p. 171. In John i. 12, 
 13, the " power" to become the sons of God, means the " privilege" 
 of coming to Baptism for adoption : pp. 1 72, 1 73. 
 
 Answees 86—98. 
 
 Refusal to remodel Answer 59, by the insertion of the word " only": 
 p. 166. The Bishop's threat to Mr. Grylls, for the use of that 
 word: p. 167, note. Difference between " baptized," and " bap- 
 tized into Christ," in Gal. iii. 26, 27, by which act we put Him on: 
 pp. 168, 169. Distinction between the visible and invisible 
 Church: pp.169 — 171. Bishop Nicolson's discrimination between 
 "equivocal" and " univocal " members of Christ: p. 170, nofe. 
 In John i. 12, 13, the " power" or " privilege" to become sons of 
 God, is linked to faith, not to Baptism: pp. 172, 173. Cranmer's 
 declaration, that possession of Christ synchi-onizes ^ith Belief, not 
 necessarih with Baptism: p. 174. 
 
 Seventh Day's Examination. March 9, 1848. 
 Questions XCIX.— CXXXI. 
 Cranmer's meaning not fairly quoted, as to the sj-nchronism of 
 possession of Christ, with belief: p. 174. Cranmer maintained 
 that we put on Christ by Baptism : pp. 175, 180. Cranmer's view 
 of Baptism in the " Institution," 1537: pp. 181 — 185. Doctrines 
 of the Church once stated, have permanent authority till distinctly 
 repealed: p. 186. Cranmer's view of Justification in the " Neces- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xlv 
 
 sary Doctrine," 1543: p. 187; coincides with his view in the Homily 
 of Salvation, 1547 : pp. 188, 189; and in Article XL, which adopts 
 it: p. 190. That Homily coincides with the Catechism, on Bap- 
 tism : pp. 194, 1 95 ; and holds remission of sins, in infants, to be con- 
 ditional on Baptism : pp 195, 196 ; and in adults also : p. 197. In 
 that Homily, " baptized,'" " justified," are equivalents : p. 197. In 
 that Homily, "Faith only" includes Baptism : p. 199. The 
 Articles do not deny the propositions in the Catechism respecting the 
 grace conferred in Baptism : p. 200. Mr. Gorham cannot deny 
 that the Catechism states those propositions : p. 200 ; nor that they 
 contain doctrines of the Church: p. 201. The Articles do not 
 expressly state those doctrines : p. 204. 
 
 Answers 99—131. 
 Cranmer more fully cited : p. 174; and his argument stated in proof 
 that we possess Christ whenever we believe: note, 174, 175. 
 The term, Sacrament, defined in (1), its simple, and (2), its complex 
 sense ; Cranmer's Caveat on those senses quoted : illustration from 
 Cranmer, of the importance of those distinctions : Jewel's admission 
 on the incautious mctonymical use of this term : 7iotc, pp. 176 — 179. 
 Cranmer not always consistent : pp. 178, 181 ; retained the cere- 
 mony of the white robe in Baptism, in 1549, but abolished it in 
 1552 : p. 179, note. Jewel maintains that Faith gives possession 
 of Christ, and Baptism increases that conjunction : pp. 180 andnote. 
 The "Institution," 1537, had Cranmer's ojfieial authority only: 
 p. 181 ; is a Popish book: p. 182, note; its dogma, on the 
 authority of Bishops to reject presentees, quoted by the Bishop of 
 Exeter in the House of Lords, was, in 1543, repudiated by Henry 
 VIII. : p. 183, note. Review, from 1216 to 1848, of the claims of 
 Prelates to have a Veto on Benefices : pp. 183 — 186, note. The 
 "Necessary Doctrine," 1543, written more under the influence of 
 Gardiner than Cranmer : p. 188, note. Alarming attempt of the 
 Bishop of Exeter to establish a coincidence between this semi-Popish 
 Book, and the Articles and Homilies of the Church, on Baptism and 
 Justification : p. 188, note. Article XL does not delegate its 
 authority to the Homily on Justification : p 190, and note, pp. 191, 
 192. That Homily sets forth the sacrifice of Christ as the ground 
 of the salvation of baptized infants ; the Catechism sets forth 
 Baptism as its Seal: p. 195. That Homily does not say that 
 Baptism is an absolute cowcWf'on ; p. 195. The exclusive words, — 
 " Ob else not " — of the " Institution " ( 1 537), omitted in the " Neces- 
 sary Doctrine" (1543), and in the Rubrics (1549, 1552, 1662) : pp.195, 
 196, and note. The Bishop's change of the .sense of the terra 
 
xlvi 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 " condition :" p. 196, 7mte. " Baptized" — "Ji«^;^erf," NOT equiva- 
 lent : J)]). 107, 198, note. Bishop Burnet's opinion of that dangerous 
 tenet: p. 198, wofe. Luther's accurate distinction between Baptism 
 and Justification : p. 198, note. " Faith ONLY," does not t«clude 
 Baptism: p. 199, and note. The Thirtj'-nine Articles rule the 
 Formularies : p. 200. The sense, not the letter, of the proposi- 
 tions in the Catechism, is the real subject of discussion : pp. 200, 
 202, 203, and especially : note (X) p. 202. Bishop Hooper on 
 the Sense of the word Sacrament: note (X), p. 203. Attempt to 
 induce me to vary my Answers, with incaution : p. 201. The 
 Articles are the acceedited Umpiee of Chuech docteines : 
 p. 204. Refusal to answer more Questions, except in conformity 
 with the 36th Canon: p. 205. 
 
 Eighth Day's Examination. March 10, 1848. 
 
 The Bishop refuses to allow an addition to Answer 130; but will 
 receive it as a separate statement ; pp. 206, 208. 
 
 Mr. Gorham claims to record liis addition to Answer 130, and com- 
 plains of arbitrary conduct on the part of the Bishop ; pp. 206, 207. 
 
 Question CXXXII.— CXLIX. 
 
 Compilers of a Catechism would take care to use words in their ordi- 
 nary acceptation : p. 208. The Thirtj'-nine Articles not the 
 accredited Umpire, to the exclusion of the FonntJaries : p. 209. 
 The Catechism authorized in 1662, by persons who had subscribed 
 the Articles: p. 210. Mr. Gorham solemnly consented to it: 
 p. 211. No Articles Kmit the efficacy of Baptism, as declared in 
 the Catechism : p. 212. Article XVI. implies, that every baptized 
 person receives the Holy Ghost : p. 212 ; and the Latin phrase, 
 " la2>sis a Baptismo" implies the same: p. 213. Article XV. 
 makes "baptized" sjnonymous with "born again": p. 215. 
 Article IX. makes " regenerated," and " baptized" each correspond 
 to " renatis," and, therefore, equivalent to each other: p. 215. 
 In Article IX., the word " baptized" of 1552 (selected by Cranmer, 
 p. 218), was changed to " regenerated," in 1571, which proves the 
 equivalency of those terms : p. 216. 
 
 Ans-weks 132—149. 
 
 Defence of the position, that the Ai-ticles are the accredited Umpire of 
 doctrines : p. 209. The Bishop's implied imputations, that Mr. Gor- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xlvii 
 
 ham's " assent," and " solemn declaration," are insincere : p. 211, and 
 7totes. I have NOT stated that the Articles oppose the docti'ine of 
 the Catechism : p. 212. Fallacy of the argument from " lapsis a 
 Baptismo," in Article XVI. : p. 214, and note. The Bishop's 
 iUogical generalization of the use of the term " baptized," from its 
 special use in Article XV. : p. 215, note. Similar fallacy : p. 216, 
 note. In Article IX., the change of Cranmer's term, " baptized'^ 
 (1549), into Jewel's term, "regenerated" (1571), was essential to 
 doctrinal accuracy, and therefore a proof of their no«-equivalence : 
 p. 217, note. 
 
 The authority of the Latin Articles doubtful ; Bishop Bilson's opinion, 
 1599: p. 213, and wo^e. 
 
 March 11, 1848. Letter from the Bishop's Chaplain to Mr. Gorham. 
 
 The Bishop will decline to Institute : p. 219. 
 March 21, 1848. Formal notice from the Bishop, to Mr. Gorham, 
 
 that he refuses to Institute him to the Vicarage of Brampford Speke, 
 
 by reason of his unsound doctrine : p. 219. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 (A.) Articuli Cleri, 9 Edw. IL, cap. xiii., a.d. 1315 : p. 223. 
 
 (B.) An Act to reform certain Disorders touching Ministers of the 
 
 Church, 13 Eliz., cap. xii., A.D. 1571. [The Act by which the 
 
 XXXIX. Articles were established.] : p. 224. 
 (C.) Articles of 1571 (XXV., XXVI., XXVII., XXVIII., XXIX.), 
 
 relating to the two Sacraments : p. 227. 
 (D.) Canons of 1603 (XXXIX., and XCV.), relating to Institution to 
 
 Benefices : p. 229. 
 
I. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE, 
 
 ETC., 
 
 RESFECTING 
 
 THE NOMINATION OF A PRESBYTER, 
 AS A CURATE 
 
 FOR 
 
 SAINT JUST-IN-PENWITH. 
 
alter which is not expressly documentary, 
 included in hooks.] 
 
CORRESPONDENCE, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 No. I.* 
 
 Bishopstowe, Feb. 6, 1846. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — There is a particular of much moment to 
 your own comfort, and to (what I am more bound to con- 
 sider) the good of your parish, which it may be well to 
 bring to your attention immediately. 
 
 A District has recently been assigned, out of the parish 
 of St. Just, under Sir R. Peel's Act. I think it most 
 desii-able, under the very peculiar circumstances of this 
 parish, that the Incumbent of the new District should be 
 one with whom you can co-operate, and who can co-operate 
 with you. 
 
 I advise you, therefore, to state this matter to the Lord 
 Chancellor, who will probably mention it to Sir Robert 
 Peel. Sir Robert, I am sure, by experience, does not 
 I'egard the matter as one of patronage, but wishes solely 
 to use the power of the Crown, in such a case, for the 
 
 • [This was put into my hands by the Bishop, at Bishopstowe, im- 
 mediately after he had instituted me to the Vicarage of St. Just-in- 
 Penwith, Cornwall. I sent a copy of this note to Sir Rc »rt Peel, 
 who condescended, on the part of the Crown, to accept my recom- 
 mendation of a clergj man, as minister of the District of Pendeen, in 
 my parish; who was soon after nominated under the Queen's Sign 
 Manual, and duly licensed by the Bishop.] 
 B 2 
 
4 
 
 spiritual good of the parish. If, therefore, you know any 
 clergjTnan who would, in your judgment, be likely to 
 suit well so peculiar a charge, submit his name to your 
 friend the Lord Chancellor, who may, perhaps, not be 
 unwilling to submit it to Sir Robert Peel. 
 
 1 am, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your faithful servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 No. II. 
 
 Bishopstowe, August 18, 1846. 
 Dear Sir, — I have received your "Circular,"* and 
 will frankly say, that I am sorry to see you call " the 
 Church" "the National Estahlishnient." I could not 
 permit my name to be appended to a document using such 
 a phrase to express such a sacred idea as "the Church" in 
 this land. 
 
 Neither could I contribute to the building, on the con- 
 dition that the patronage should be granted to trustees, 
 approved by the " Church Extension Society," or any 
 other Society. 
 
 To a subscription for the building of a church, without 
 such condition, I would subscribe 50/., to be paid out of 
 the monies promised by me to the Cornwall Committee of 
 the Church Building Society, from the dues which may 
 accrue from the mineral property of the see, whenever 
 more than half of the whole sum for the building shall 
 have been raised. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 Your faithful friend and brother, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 * [It was an invitation for subscriptions towards the erection of a 
 Church in the District of Pendeen, for about 3,000 people in the north 
 of my parish.] 
 
p. S. — 1 should be quite content that an individual 
 should acquire the advowson by the payment of such a 
 sum as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners may approve ; whe- 
 ther to pay the whole out of his own means, or raise it by 
 subscriptions, distinct from the fund to which you invite 
 contributions. 
 
 No. Ill, 
 
 St. Just, Aug. m, 184G. 
 My Lord, — I beg to acknowledge your conditional pro- 
 mise of a donation of 50/. for the erection of a church, &c. 
 
 * * « » 
 
 I shall be careful not to connect your Lordship's name 
 with the phraseology to which you have objected. I can 
 sincerely say that, in using the term " National Establish- 
 ment," it never occurred to me that any reader could 
 imagine that I considered " the Church " as the mere 
 creature of the nation, or that I took a low view of its 
 sacred character. I am very far from entertaining any 
 such opinion. I adopted a conventional term of very 
 general usage (in former times, at least), and which I 
 consider as simply expressive of the fact, that the Church 
 of which I am a minister is established and endowed by 
 national consent. 
 
 * * * * 
 
 I am your Lordship's, &c., &c., 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 Tlie Right Rev. Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 St. Just, Penzance, Sept. 12, 1846. 
 
 My Lord, — 
 
 * * * * 
 
 I feel very grateful for your Lordship's promise of 10/. 
 
6 
 
 (from a Trust Fund) for my National School. I have 
 been (I may truly say), indefatigable in my earnest 
 applications to every landed proprietor whom I can trace. 
 My success has been .10 small, that I feel greatly cast 
 down. Meantime, the Wesleyans have just opened their 
 school, with a well-trained master from Glasgow, while 
 the friends (?) of the Church withhold their aid from my 
 school, though entreated in the most earnest way to assist me. 
 
 I am not easily discouraged ; on the contrary, I have 
 been borne up amidst many difficulties, both personal and 
 ministerial, and I never yet resigned my post on account 
 of discouragements. But I really feel so abandoned of 
 all efficient aid at St. Just, and so exposed to difficulties 
 and ingratitude, unparalleled, I hope, in any other 
 parish, that I sometimes doubt whether I can remain in 
 this banishment for another year. 
 
 Once more expressing my sincere gratitude to your 
 Lordship for the kind aid which you have promised, and 
 which I really had no right to expect, 
 
 I remain. 
 Your faithful and dutiful servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 Extract from the Ecclesiastical Gazette, September 8, 
 atid October 13, 1846. 
 
 " A Curate is wanted by the resident Incumbent of St. 
 Just, Cornwall. He must be an active, pious man, free 
 from all tendency to what is well understood by the term 
 Tractarian error, &c." 
 
 [N.B. This advertisement was in the next month's 
 Gazette thus altered, with a view to obviate some of the 
 objections stated to me by the Bishop in his next letter, Sep- 
 tember 14.] 
 
7 
 
 " A Curate is wanted by tlie resident Vicar ol' St. Just, 
 Cornwall, He must be an active, pious man, who honestly 
 embraces the doctrines, and approves the discipline, of the 
 Church of England, but who is free from all tendency to 
 what is well understood by the term Tractarian error." — 
 Ecclesiastical Gazette, Tuesday, Oct. 13. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 Bishopstowe, Sept. 14, 1846. 
 
 Dear Sir, — 
 
 * * * * 
 
 I saw in the last " Ecclesiastical Gazette " an adver- 
 tisement from you, inviting candidates who are opposed 
 to Tractarian error, or heresy, or something of that kind. 
 
 Now, although I should be sorry to admit any person 
 who holds unsound opinions in the direction to which, I 
 conclude, that your advertisement looks, yet I cannot 
 but highly disapprove of a clergyman giving his name, in 
 a public advertisement, to a vague, and therefore mis- 
 chievous description, which may be, and often is, applied 
 by the ignorant and thoughtless to some of the best and 
 soundest ministers of the Church. Such an advertise- 
 ment, besides encouraging (however unintentionally) 
 party-spirit (which is little better than schismatical), has 
 a manifest tendency to bring offers from those who hold 
 extreme opinions on the opposite side, — a most unsound 
 and dangerous set of men, I wish you had been content 
 to invite those only who avoid connecting themselves with 
 any party. 
 
 As it is, I decline receiving either of the persons whom 
 you propose, and I shall feel it my duty to institute par- 
 ticular inquiry in respect to any one who may come to 
 you under such an invitation. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 Your faithful friend and brother, 
 Jiev. G. C. Gorham. H. Exeter. 
 
8 
 
 No, VII. 
 
 MEMORANDUM. 
 
 [Several letters passed between myself and the Bishop 
 from May 23 to September 14, 1846, respecting his 
 acceptance of my nomination for a licensed curate in my 
 parish. From this correspondence I learned that he would 
 decline candidates for Holy Orders educated in Dublin, 
 whose hist year had not been spent in England; — that he 
 would refuse a person with a degree from Dublin who had 
 been two years in England, was a good classical and 
 Hebrew scholar, but had not a certificate of attendance 
 on the lectures of tlie Divinity Professor ; — that he would 
 not accept any one from a distant diocese in England who 
 had not special testimonies to his fitness ; — that he would 
 reject applications from St. Bee's ; — that his rule (generally) 
 excluded persons above thirty years of age, and, conse- 
 quently, two candidates, (one of whom I wished to nomi- 
 nate,) graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. I was thus very 
 much perplexed in my earnest desire to procure the 
 assistance of a licensed Curate for my populous parish.] 
 
 No. VIII. 
 
 St. Just, Penzance, Nov. 23, 1846. 
 
 My Lord, — I have at length succeeded in engaging 
 the services of a valuable assistant, the Rev. Mr. A., 
 Master of Arts, of B. College, Cambridge. He is 
 twenty-eight years of age, in priest's orders. I have given 
 him my nomination, and have directed him to transmit it, 
 with his testimonials, to Mr. Barnes, and to apply to your 
 Lordship for a licence. 
 
 Mr. A. is a gentleman of good family, resident at C. 
 He took a very creditable degree at Cambridge in 1840, 
 and is still a member of the senate. I have more than the 
 ordinary assurances from three clergymen that he is a 
 
<) 
 
 sound Cliurchmaii, and an active, pious minister. He 
 has recently left a curacy near D., simply on account of 
 its very slender stipend. 
 
 I remain, 
 Your Lordship's respectful servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev, the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 No. IX. 
 
 Bishopstoive, Nov. 25, 1846. 
 
 Dear Sir, — I am glad that you have succeeded in 
 obtaining the assistance of a clergyman, of whom you 
 hope so well. But, as he is not personally known to you, 
 nor, so far as your letter states, the clergymen who vouch 
 to you for him, I feel it my duty to desire that he see me, 
 in order that I may satisfy myself of the soundness of his 
 views on the great points of Christian doctrine, especially 
 on Baptism, the foundation of all. Before I receive a 
 stranger into my diocese, I must satisfy myself that 
 he, on this point, agrees with the teaching of the Church 
 in its Articles and Liturgy. And, as Mr. A. lives in so 
 remote a part of England, it may be desirable that he 
 should be apprised of this my expectation before he 
 undertakes so long a journey. 
 
 If he writes to me, telling me of his movements, I will 
 appoint a time for seeing him here. 
 
 I am, dear Sir, 
 
 Your faithful friend and brother, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 No. X. 
 
 St. Just, Dec. 3, 1846. 
 My Lord, — Your letter, dated 2oth November, has 
 given me much concern. 
 
10 
 
 After many disappointments, and much anxiety, in my 
 search for a curate whom I could with perfect confidence 
 present for a title or nominate for a license, I had at 
 length engaged the sei'vices of a gentleman who is conform- 
 able to your Lordship's rules, is in full Orders, is supplied 
 with every certificate which the Diocesan can legally 
 require, and is recommended to the Incumbent by assur- 
 ances which leave me no ro(mi to doubt that he would be 
 a blessing to my parish and a comfort to myself. To my 
 great surprise and alarm, your Lordship intimates, that he 
 may be rejected, however sincere in his acceptance of the 
 doctrines of the Articles and Liturgy, should he not assent 
 to that interpretation of " the teaching of the Church, 
 especially on Baptism," which your Lordship may affirm 
 to be the true one. I trust that you will not carry into 
 effect an intimation ( — I write frankly, but not unmindful 
 of the respect due to my Diocesan) — so oppressive to 
 myself, so unjust to my cm-ate elect, and so dangerous to 
 the Church of England. 
 
 To myself, such an act would be a most serious injury. 
 It would not only deprive me of the valuable ser%'ices of 
 my present nominee, but it would amount to a declaration 
 that I shall virtually lose my right of nomination altogether, 
 and that I shall never have a curate of my own choice in 
 this populous parish. I informed your Lordship that I 
 had more than the ordinary assurances from three clergy- 
 men, that he is a sound Churchman. You endeavour to 
 neutralize this testimony by the inconclusive remark, that, 
 so far as my letter states, they are not personally known 
 to me. As your Lordship will receive the fonnal certifi- 
 cates of three Presbyters, I did not deem it necessary to 
 name my private correspondents ; their testimony was 
 alluded to simply from my desire to satisfy you that, in 
 the selection of my curate, I had used gi'eat prudence. I 
 received also, from Mr. A. himself, a full statement of 
 his views, " especially on Baptism." His doctrines are 
 essentially those which I myself embrace. If, therefore, 
 
II 
 
 he be rejected, 1 can have no hope thai any other person 
 will be accepted; for, of course, I cannot nominate any 
 one whose views are, materially, different from my own. 
 Upon my institution, last February, your Lordship stated 
 to me, by letter, your conviction that it was most desir- 
 able, under " the very special circumstances of this 
 parish," that the District-Minister should be " one with 
 whom I can co-operate, and who will co-operate with me ; " 
 and you counselled me to submit to the Premier the name 
 of a clergyman " who would, in my judgment, be likely to 
 suit so peculiar a charge."* Such was the principle you 
 laid down when the Crown happily condescended to 
 appoint the minister of my selection for the north of this 
 parish ; you cannot, therefore, with consistency, reject 
 the application of the very same principle, when requested 
 to license the curate whom I have nominated to assist me 
 in the south of this parisli, and in my own church. 
 
 To the Church of England, the assumed power of re- 
 fusing a licence to a duly nominated and certified curate, 
 appears to me to be full of dangerous consequences. 
 
 The Bishops who ordained Mr. A., satisfied them- 
 selves of his correctness in doctrines : — three Presbyters, 
 and their Diocesan, by his counter-signature, have attested 
 that he has not swerved from these doctrines ; and he will 
 present himself to your Lordship, to subscribe the Thirty- 
 nine Articles, and to declare his conformity to the Liturgy. 
 If the Bishop of Exeter should nullify all these solemn 
 acts — the acts of at least one, possibly three or four, Pre- 
 lates, and of three Presbyters — by declining to grant a 
 licence to my nominee, in case of his inability to conform 
 to a private standard of doctrine, — then the much-talked-of 
 catholicity of the Chm-ch of England will be violated ; and 
 if such a practice should become general, there will have 
 sprung up in its place as many Episcopal Churches as there 
 may be Bishops discrepant in their interpretation of the 
 Articles and Liturgy. Nor would the schism end here. 
 * See No. I., p. 3. 
 
\2 
 
 These separate Diocesan Churches might themselves fluctuate 
 in their standards, on the succession of every new Prelate, 
 while un-beneficed, and therefore unprotected clergymen, 
 would have no security for the permanence of their licences. 
 The confusion and disunion resulting from such a state of 
 things, would be deplorable and fatal. 
 
 I must be permitted, therefore, to protest, most respect- 
 fully, but most decidedly, against the possible exercise of 
 such a dangerous power. With these views, I could not 
 give effect to your Lordship's wishes that I would apprise 
 Mr. A. of your " expectation, before he undertakes so 
 long a journey;" although I appreciate the courtesy of 
 that suggestion, as intended to save him very serious, if 
 fruitless, expence. For should such an intimation dis- 
 courage him from proceeding for his licence, I should have 
 made myself the instrument of the loss of his valuable 
 services ; or, should he see, as I do, the propriety of per- 
 severing in his object, the intimation of your Lordship's 
 criterion might unnerve so young a minister, and might 
 unfit him for examination on a subject sufficiently difficult 
 and perplexing to the coolest and \\dsest even of veteran 
 theologians. But in truth, I have no option ; for I have 
 reason to believe that he commenced his journey before 
 any letter from me could have reached him. 
 
 I cannot conclude this letter without adverting to ano- 
 ther matter, which has occasioned me considerable pain. 
 I mean the tone of unmerited suspicion of my oivn views, 
 which was for the first time manifest in your Lordship's 
 letter of Aug. 18,* and has been more decided in those of 
 Sept. 14,f and Nov. 25. ^ That of Aug. 18, seemed to 
 assume that I had an inadequate idea of the sacred cha- 
 racter of the Church of England, because I had, in perfect 
 simplicity, used in a printed circular the expression, " Na- 
 tional Establishment." I immediately disabused your 
 Lordship of that suspicion, and should have been glad to 
 • No. II., p. 4. t No. VI., p. 7. X No. IX., p. 9. 
 
know that you were satisfied. Your letter of Sept. 14, com- 
 mented, with a more distinct note of disapprobation (faintly 
 qualified by some complimentary reservations), on my 
 advertisement for a Curate, free from " Tractarian error; " 
 and concluded with a declaration, that you would " insti- 
 tute particular enquiry in respect to any one who may 
 come to me under such an invitation." Your last letter, 
 Nov. 25, is still more clear in your distrust of my views, 
 and intelligibly hints the possibility of the rejection of my 
 nominee, on the ground of doctrinal opinions, which, 
 from the very fact of my selection of him, cannot differ 
 materially from my own. Having already noticed that 
 letter at great, but unavoidable length, it only remains for 
 me respectfully to request your attention to a few remarks 
 on the one [Sept. 14,] to which I have hitherto given no 
 reply. 
 
 With a sincere wish to avoid controversy with my 
 diocesan, and being truly grieved at the necessity of 
 maintaining any views not in accordance with his, I 
 advisedly abstained from replying to your Lordship's 
 letter dated 14th September. But now that the declara- 
 tion in that letter is so far brought towards a practical 
 bearing as to render it doubtful whether your Lordship 
 may not feel it your duty to nullify my right of nomi- 
 nation of a curate, made under the guards which have 
 been provided for its discreet exercise, I must not forbear 
 from a distinct statement of my opinion. My use of the 
 words, " Tractarian eri'or," was grave and deliberate. 
 I know of no words which, without inconvenient circum- 
 locution, could describe so well and so inoffensively what 
 I really mean, and what is " well understood " * 
 
 Firmly believing that the errors, which the Oxford 
 Tracts revived with mischievous popularity, are most 
 dangerous, and effective in recruiting the ranks of the 
 iZo??/a»-Catholic from (what is called in un-Protestant 
 phraseology) tlie //«(//o-Catlu)lic Church, and of cor- 
 rupting those who professedly remain in communion with 
 • See my Advertisement, No. V., p. 6. 
 
14 
 
 hei-; it is my determination, by the help of God, in 
 opposition to the " strange doctrines" of that school, to 
 uphold plain scriptural truth in its untainted purity, both 
 by my own teaching, and by that of my assistant. I feel 
 constrained, by the prevalence of those perilous delusions, 
 in conformity with that noble admonition in the Charge 
 given at my Ordination, " so to teach and premonish, to 
 " feed and provide for the Lord's family, that there be no 
 " place left among" my parishioners " for error in 
 " religion." To accomplish this end, I must use unam- 
 biguous language ; and pained as I am that it calls forth 
 your Lordship's disapprobation, I must still claim the 
 liberty, when occasion requires it, of adopting the 
 expression above alluded to, or some equivalent term, 
 without which it would be impossible distinctly to advert 
 to the prevailing errors of the present day. That the 
 " ignorant" may misapply the most judicious terms, is 
 very true ; but, if there should be one or other 
 " thoughtless " applicant for my curacy, under such 
 an invitation" as mine, — I have, I trust, sufficient judg- 
 ment to sift and reject him, — otherwise I have spent a 
 long ministerial life to very little purpose. 
 I remain. 
 
 Your Lordship's respectful and obedient servant, 
 
 George Cornelius Gorham. 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 No. XL 
 
 Bishopstowe, Torquay, December 5th, 1846. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — I recognise with pleasure the candour 
 which has induced you to state thus frankly yoiu: " pre- 
 vious nautical life and nautical predilections," as a 
 possible disqualification for a curacy in this diocese. 
 
 I must in return, with equal frankness, avow, that, 
 without regarding them as an absolute disqualification, I 
 cannot but look on them as not a recommendation for the 
 
15 
 
 spiritual care of a large population of Cornish miners, — a 
 class of men, not only very acute and observant, but also 
 deeply tinged with Dissent and hostility to the Church, 
 and fond, I believe, of controversy. 
 
 Therefoi-e, under the circumstances of your case, espe- 
 cially taking into the account the terms of an advertise- 
 ment in a public newspaper, on the invitation of which 
 you may have been advised to offer yourself for this cure, 
 I must request you to give me an opportunity of personal 
 communication, in order that I may examine you on the 
 soundness of your views of Christian doctrine, and, in 
 particular, of Baptism, the foundation of all. 
 
 Be assured that I shall do this with no desire or inten- 
 tion of subjecting you to a long and vexatious enquiry, 
 but with a sincere wish to find you to hold the doctrines 
 which are plainly and distinctly stated in the Articles and 
 Liturgy of our Church. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. A. 
 
 No. XII, 
 
 Bishopstowe, Dec. 5, 1846. 
 Rev. Sir, — Your letter of the 3d inst. is now before 
 me, and though I have neither time nor inclination to 
 answer it in extenso, I think it right to notice its principal 
 particulars. 
 
 You are, I believe, the only Clergyman in this diocese, 
 and probably, in any other, who would have had the confi- 
 dence to reproach his Bishop for having once been devoid 
 of suspicion of him, and for generously concluding that 
 he was worthy of being taken as a sufficient voucher for 
 the soundness of the opinions of another Clergyman. 
 Yet this you think fit to do, and to charge me with 
 
16 
 
 inconsistency, because I subsequently declared that I 
 could not absolutely rely on your judgment. 
 
 I trusted you till I found you in a printed paper indi- 
 cating so low an opinion of the Church, as to call it, — 
 " the National Establishment," * and advertising for an 
 assistant, "free from Tractarian error." ■\ 
 
 On the latter occurrence, I told you, that " although I 
 should be sorry to admit any person who holds unsound 
 opinions in the direction to which your advertisement 
 looked, yet I could not but highly disapprove of a clergy- 
 man giving his name, in an advertisement in a public 
 newspaper, to a vague, and therefore, mischievous descrip- 
 tion, which may be, and often is, applied by the ignorant 
 and the thoughtless, to some of the best and soundest 
 ministers of the Church ; that such an advertisement, 
 besides encouraging (however unintentionally) party 
 spirit, which is little better than schismatical, has a 
 manifest tendency to bring offers from those who hold 
 extreme opinions on the opposite side, — a most unsound 
 and dangerous set of men ; that I wished you had been 
 contented to invite those only who avoid connecting 
 themselves with any party ; and that I should feel it my 
 duty to institute particular inquiry, in respect to any 
 one who might come to you inider such an invitation." 
 
 Accordingly, when you nominated to me Mr. A. 
 from Carlisle, the most distant diocese of England, I told 
 you, that *' as both he, and the clergymen who vouched 
 for him, appeared to be personally unknown to you, I 
 must satisfy myself of the soundness of his ^^ews, on 
 the great points of Christian doctrine, especially on 
 Baptism, the foundation of all ; that before I admitted a 
 stranger into my diocese " — (I did not add on that occasion, 
 invited by your unhappy advertisement, — ) "I must be 
 satisfied that he, on this point, agrees with the teaching 
 of the Church in its Articles and Liturgy ; and that, as 
 he lived in so remote a ])art of England, it might be 
 • See No. II., p. 4. f See Nos. V. and VI., pp. 6, 7. 
 
IT 
 
 desirable that he shoukl be apprised of niy expectation, 
 before he should undertake so long a journey." 
 
 Your letter of the 3d inst. informs me, that you have 
 purposely avoided making this communication to Mr. A. 
 That gentleman, however, has himself informed me of 
 some particulars of his case, which it would have been 
 well if I had heard from you : — that, before he was 
 ordained, "he had served for three years as a naval instruc- 
 tor in Her Majesty's navy ; tliat he is at present on half- 
 pay as such officer, with a promise of a chaplaincy in the 
 service, whenever he may feel disposed to make applica- 
 tion for one, of which he cannot give up all intention ; — 
 that he mentioned this, lest a previous nautical life, with 
 nautical predilections, should be a disqualification for a 
 curacy in my diocese." 
 
 An individual so circumstanced, answering such an 
 advertisement as yours, it is, in my judgment, necessary 
 to examine on the great points of Christian doctrine. 
 
 You think it necessary to " protest " against my so 
 doing, as " an assumed power ; " " full of dangerous con- 
 sequences to the Church of England ; " fatal to " the 
 much-talked of Catholicity of the Church ; " necessarily 
 leading to " schism ; " and to " confusion and disunion " 
 in a degree not only " deplorable," but " fatal." 
 
 Now, when you allowed yourself to write in this strain, 
 had you altogether forgotten that the Forty-eighth Canon 
 expressly says, that " no curate or minister shall be per- 
 mitted to serve in any place, without examination and 
 admission of the Bishop of the diocese, having respect to 
 the greatness of the cure, and meetness of the party ? " 
 
 You cite more than one portion of the ordination 
 service, testifying your faithfulness in observing them. I 
 am sorry to find it my duty to remind you of one other 
 portion of that service, even of your ordination vow, 
 which you have unhappily forgotten ; — and, solemnly, and 
 in the Name of God, I now call on you to keep it: 
 that "you will reverently obey your Ordinary, unto whom 
 c 
 
18 
 
 is committed tlie government and cliarge over you, follow- 
 ing with a glad mind and will his Godly admonitions, and 
 submitting yourself to his Godly judgments." 
 
 I am. Rev. Sir, 
 with sincere regret and pain in so subscribing myself, 
 your grieved and offended Overseer in the Lord, 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Thf^ Iter. (r. C. Gorhovi. 
 
 No. XIIl. 
 
 St.Just-in-Pemvith, January 28///, 1847. 
 My Lord, — I would have immediately replied to your 
 letter of 5th December, had I not deemed it more respect- 
 ful to wait the issue of my protest against youi- Lordship's 
 intimation, that a license to my curate might hinge on his 
 adopting your private interpretation of the Articles and 
 Liturgy, *' especially on Baptism." The license having 
 now been granted, and one matter of painful controversy 
 having thus been practically disposed of, I take the earliest 
 opportunity, which the state of my health and my engage- 
 ments admit, to express my sentiments on some portions 
 of your Lordship's letter on which it is impossible for me 
 to be silent. 
 
 For a period of thirty-five years, and in six English 
 dioceses, I have exercised my ministry without the 
 slightest reproach ( — I might say, with respect — ) from my 
 Ecclesiastical Superiors. In the early part of last year, I 
 was brought by Providence into the diocese of Exeter, — 
 a diocese unhappily distinguished by troubles in the 
 Church, — and in a few months I became the object of 
 suspicion, and, at length, of censure, from the Bishop. 
 
 My Lord, this plain fact gives rise to a presumption 
 that the reproof is unmerited, but I proceed to establish 
 
If) 
 
 that point, by a direct examination of the Imputations on 
 whicli your censure is founded. 
 
 J. Your Lordship affirms that 1 have " had the con- 
 " Jidence to reproach the Bishop for having once been 
 " devoid of suspicion of me, and for generously concluding 
 " that I was worthy of being taken as a sufficient voucher 
 " for the soundness of the opinions of others, and to 
 " charge him with inconsistency because he subsequently 
 " declared that he could not absolutely rely on my judg- 
 " nient." Your Lordship is mistaken in imagining that 1 
 have committed myself to such a futile proposition. Tlie 
 inconsistency which I really pointed out is, — not that you 
 once trusted and now suspect me ( — a mere truism, however 
 painful a fact — ), but that in your letter of February (jth, 
 1846,* you laid down a principle, that the appointment 
 of an assistant " who can co-operate with an Incumbent, 
 " and with whom he can co-operate, is a particular of 
 " much moment to his own comfort and to the good of 
 " his parish ; " while in your letter of November 25th, f 
 viewed in connexion with its precursor of September 
 14th,| you intimate a course calculated to obstruct and 
 embarrass me in the selection of a curate of my own 
 sentiments : — thus materially impairing my private com- 
 fort, and fearfully risking the welfare of my people. 
 
 This reasoning is too stringent to be put aside, either 
 by your mis-statement (however unintentional) of the 
 proposition I really advanced, or by your mis-application 
 to me of a term which significantly hints that I am as 
 deficient in modesty as I am weak in argument. 1 am, 
 your Lordship " believes," an unparalleled instance of 
 such " confidence" I must be permitted to dissent from 
 this belief, for I have not the vanity to imagine that I am 
 " the only clergyman, either in this diocese, or probably 
 " in any other," who would have the good sense, the 
 • No. I., p. 3. t No. IX., p. 9. \ No. VI., p. 7. 
 
 c 2 
 
20 
 
 faithfulness, and, if needed, the courage, to place before 
 his Bisho]), in respectful language, the inconsistency 
 which I have above referred to. But, be your Lordship's 
 belief as to this supposition, correct or otherwise, the 
 inconsistency still remains. The principle is not the less 
 binding on your Lordship, in fair argument, even though 
 you may have discovered that some of my views are not 
 those which you believed them to be when you insisted 
 on its importance. You might think it, indeed, expedient 
 to set tliat principle aside in my particular case, but I 
 myself cannot so easily abandon it. I never could, with- 
 out a protest, and every struggle which the law admits, 
 allow the Bishop arbitrarily to over-ride the strongest 
 testimonials, and to drive me to the nomination of a 
 curate whose views are not generally in consonance with 
 mine. " My own comfort," indeed, I could sacrifice, as 
 I have done, in this untoward place, to an extent which is 
 ruining my health, and has deprived me of peace; but 
 " the good of my parish," which I, as well as your Lord- 
 ship, "am more bound to consider," absolutely requires 
 that I should have a like-minded assistant. In this 
 peculiar parish, where sectarianism prevails to such an 
 extent as almost to deprive the Church of England 
 minister of the slightest influence, — where the vast 
 majority of professing Christians are jealous of his sup- 
 posed intrusion, and the multitude of the worldly vex and 
 harass him to an extent almost incredible, — where infidelity 
 has made great inroads, and Popery lias begun to plant 
 its foot, — in such a parish, disunion in doctrines between 
 the parochial ministers would be fatal. While the Vicar 
 is permitted, and is willing, to retain his post, it is of 
 overwhelming importance that he should have a curate 
 " who can co-operate with him, and with whom he can 
 co-operate." Under this conviction, I pointed out the 
 inconsistency which would attach to your Lordship, if you 
 persevered in giving effect to the hint thrown out that I 
 
21 
 
 might possibly be disappointed in my application for his 
 license. 
 
 II. Your Lordship distinctly imputes to me, that my 
 views are so incorrect, that I am not " worthy to be taken 
 " as a voucher for soundness of opinion," or to be " trusted" 
 by my Diocesan in my judgment of others. The grounds 
 for this distrust, as far as alleged, are — that, 
 
 1. I used the expression,* " National Establisii- 
 " MENT." Those words occur in a printed paper, inviting 
 subscriptions for my Disti'ict Church. In preparing that 
 Circular, it did not seem to me wise to adopt any term 
 which might be offensive to the numerous separatists who 
 have covered this parish with their chapels ; and I think 
 that the absolutely exclusive designation which your 
 Lordship would have preferred, " The C/iurch," would 
 have been very ill received among my parishioners. I 
 repudiated, on the 26tli August,-)- your Lordship's 
 insinuation, that I considered the Church as the mere 
 creature of the nation, and that I took a low view of its 
 sacred character; and, again, in my letter | of 3d De- 
 cember, I disabused your Lordship of that suspicion. 
 After these unreserved disavowals, is it either generous 
 or just to return to tliat charge ? Is it fair still to adhere 
 to that early prejudice against me ? Is it honourable to 
 seize on a casual expression, and to rivet on one of your 
 clergy a meaning which he disclaims ? — that expression 
 being one of common usage by the soundest Churchmen, § 
 
 * See No. II., p. 4. t No. III., p. 5. 
 
 t No. X., p. 9. 
 
 § [Thus, Dr. Cardwell, in a book put into my hands by the Bishop 
 of Exeter liimself, in December, 1847, :idopts the same phraseology ; 
 " after tliey liad dechired themselves in favour of THE Establish- 
 ment," — " to secure the good will of the lisTABMSHMENT." (Card- 
 well's Conferences, pp. 392, 404.) So a High-Churchman, Arch- 
 deacon Daubeny, in older time, did not scruple to speak of " the 
 clergy of the Establishment." (Vindiciie Eccl. Anglic, p. vii.. 
 
22 
 
 until very recent times, when the Tractarian Party have, 
 by the artful introduction of their peculiar phraseology, 
 vitiated the simplicity of our mother tongue, and thus 
 rendered the most justifiable* terms liable to miscon- 
 struction. 
 
 — For surely, my Lord, there is a sense in which the 
 Church of England is both' " national" and " estab- 
 " LISHED." Your Lordship was admitted to your own 
 High Office after solemnly declaring your persuasion that 
 you were called to your ministration (not only by the 
 Divine will, but) " according to the order of this realm." 
 Every Priest and Deacon similarly recognises the national 
 support of the Church in which he is allowed to officiate. 
 By wliat otlicr title arc the revenues of the Bishops, and 
 their scats in Parliament, secured ? By what other means 
 are the Cleruy protected in their lienefices ? Do not the 
 Heads, as well as the inferior ministers of the Church, so- 
 lennily acknowledge the supremacy of the reigning monarch 
 in all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil ? Does not the 
 Act of Uniformity regulate the proceedings of all her 
 members? That our Church could have no existence 
 separate from tlic State, is a proposition which I did not 
 assert, and do not hold ; but, so long as that intimate asso- 
 ciation exists, I may surely make occasional use of the 
 
 and passim.) Even bigoted Churchmen did not shrink from the 
 term. Thus, Dr. Marsh, then Margaret Profe.ssor of Divinity at Cam- 
 tjridge, afterwards Bishop of Peterborough, uses the expressions, 
 " the support of the Est.iblishment,"— " support the Est.^beish- 
 ME.NT," — " the security of THE Establish.ment." (Letter to Simeon, 
 on the Sacrament of Baptism, in 1813, pp. 8, 9.) And yet the Bishop 
 of Exeter, carried away from common candour by his party feeling, 
 in his haste to hold me up to scorn, when he found I was an anti- 
 Tractarian, could bring himself to write to me thus: — " I trusted yon 
 TILL I found you indicating so ton; an opinion of the Church as to coll 
 if ' THE NATIO.\AL ESTABLISHMENT.' "] 
 
 * [I do not .say that this particular term is one which I would 
 deliberately select as the best, or even good ; but it is one to which 
 it was unjust to attach suspicion.'] 
 
23 
 
 term, " National Establishment," without being 
 justly open to suspicion, or liable to a sncei", — least of all 
 from my Bishop, — as entertaining " a low opinion of the 
 Church." 
 
 2. Your Lordship finds a stronger indication of my 
 incorrect opinions, in my having publicly declared my 
 wish to have an assistant " free from all tendency to 
 Tractarian error." Your letter* of 14th September, 
 in which your "high disapprobation" of that expression 
 was first communicated to me, intimated pretty clearly, 
 under the very slight veil of complimentai-y qualification, 
 your suspicion of my views ; but the circumstance of your 
 having taken the needless trouble, in your letter f of 
 5th December, to recite, totidem verbis, the whole of the 
 former communication, with the distinct avowal that your 
 distrust of me, called into birth by my use of the phrase 
 " National Establishment," was matured into full 
 growth when you found me thus repudiating " Trac- 
 tarian ERROR," leaves me no longer room for doubt, that 
 in your Lordship's opinion I am one of " a most unsound 
 " and dangerous set of men." % • 
 
 It surely becomes me, after the grave repetition of so 
 serious a reproof, either to submit myself with humble 
 contrition to my Spiritual Overseer, or to reject, with 
 respectful firmness, the unmerited censure. The former 
 / cannot do with sincerity ; from the latter / cannot 
 refrain, under the feelings awakened by the consciousness 
 of ministerial uprightness. I must be permitted, then, 
 my Lord, once more, deliberately to defend my use of the 
 term which has occasioned your suspicions. I defend it, 
 because it is conveniently current among fair contro- 
 versialists ; because it is as little calculated to give offence 
 as any term could be which clearly and honestly sets 
 forth the errors which it reprobates ; and, chiefly, because 
 it is (as I stated in the advertisement in wliich it occurs) 
 • No. VI., p. 7. t No. X., p. 9. 
 
 I See tlu' Bishop's letler, p. 16. 
 
24 
 
 " well understood." That it may be occasionally misap- 
 plied, is only true of this expression in common with 
 every other ; an incidental evil, inseparable from the 
 imperfection of human language and the frailty of human 
 judgment : that it is broadly characteristic of a party 
 which hates the distinguishing doctrines of the Protestant 
 Reformation, and which is striving dishonestly to intro- 
 duce into the Church of England some of the worst errors 
 of Popery, has been abundantly demonstrated. It is 
 lamentable that your Lordship, while disclaiming " unsound 
 opinions in the direction to which you conclude" that 
 expression " alludes," has, nevertheless, throwni your 
 shield over some at least of that Party, by stating, that 
 the term is often applied to " the best and soutidest members 
 "of the Church;" while, on the other hand, you have 
 cast obstacles in the way of more than one among your 
 clergy (I did not know, when I last wrote, that there was 
 any case of complaint in the diocese besides my own) 
 who is anxious to obtain the assistance of a curate "free 
 from Tractarian error," by the application of a 
 doctrinal test unsanctioned by the laws of the Church. 
 That the Bishop of Exeter theoretically adojjts those 
 errors, in toto, I do not believe, for he has disavowed 
 " unsound opinions in that direction ; " but it is manifest 
 to which of the two conflicting parties in the agitated 
 Church he practically gives most encouragement : 
 
 " Dat veniam corvis, vexat censura columbas." 
 
 As a presbyter of the Church of England, having as 
 deep an interest in, and being as solemnly bound to main- 
 tain, her welfare, as are her highest dignitaries, I cannot 
 contemplate these facts without awe, amazement, and a 
 determination not to yield to any, even the most com- 
 manding influence, drawing me towards the sti'eam which 
 is gliding into the gulf of Popery. Mr. Newman, Mr. 
 Oakeley, and many others, were lately esteemed by the 
 Tractarian body, as "some of the best members of the Church." 
 
25 
 
 Where, and of what cliaracter, are they note ? Of wliat 
 character were they, themselves being judges, at the very 
 time when they were so highly accredited by their Party ? 
 The number of perverts to Rome from these men, recently 
 "the soundest" Chui-chmen, is so great that every real 
 friend of that Church which, under God's blessing, was 
 planted in this land by our martyred Reformers, feels alarm. 
 The late secession at Leeds* must surely have convinced 
 the most hesitating, that the simple Protestantism of the 
 Church of England cannot admit the slightest approxima- 
 tion to Romish habits and observances, without tremendous 
 risk. And yet these observances are often introduced 
 into our parish churches, without reproof, or at least 
 without the decided reprobation of the Bishop. My own 
 remote corner of the kingdom, has afforded one of the 
 most remarkable and deplorable instances of this. When 
 I took possession of my living last yeai-, the chancel, 
 crowded with Popish furniture, and the services, affecting 
 a Popish model, imparted to my Church f rather a Roman 
 
 * [On the 1st of January of this year (1847), the Rev. R. G. 
 Macmullen, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, (whose Roma- 
 nizing tendencies drew him into difficulties in the way of obtaining 
 his degree in divinity,) Mr. D. H. Haigh, (who had lately offered 
 10,000/. to build a church in Leeds,) and Mr. T. W. Wilkinson, B.A., 
 of Durham, were received into the Communion of the Church of 
 Rome, by the senior priest of St. Anne's Roman Catholic chapel in 
 Leeds. Mr. Macmullen had been for some time officiating at Saint 
 Saviour's ( — at first named the Holy Cross — ) church in Leeds (built at 
 the cost of an un-named friend of Dr. Pusey), though without the 
 Bishop's license ; and the other two gentlemen were regular attendants 
 at ■ that church, and were living with the incumbent, the Rev. Mr. 
 Ward. St. Saviour's, both in its architectural details, and in the 
 conduct of its services, was so decidedly after a Romish model, as to 
 have become exceedingly objectionable to all sober-minded Pro- 
 testants in Leeds, and to have been well calculated to draw aside weak 
 or unreflecting minds to the Popish communion.] 
 
 t [The Chancel of St. Just Church exhibited some peculiar 
 vagaries of Tractarian absurdity, besides the usuul Romish and semi- 
 Romish decorations. The altar (duly furnished with tinsel candle- 
 sticks) towered stage upon stage, and consisted of wooden panels 
 
26 
 
 Catholic tlian a Protestant character, and laid a dangerous 
 snare for my people. Is it at such a time, my Lord, and 
 in such a parish that I ought to have been rebuked for 
 inviting offers for my curacy from persons "free from 
 Tractarian error ; " or that I ought to have been 
 advised to be "content" with seeking assistance from 
 those who do " not hold extreme opinions, nor connect 
 themselves with any Party ? " The Reformed Church of 
 England, in her present exigencies, hemmed in by her 
 open enemies, and betrayed by priests of Jesuitical spirit 
 within her borders, disdains the aid of men of no party, or 
 of nicely poised opinions ; of men who affect to follow, 
 with delicate precision, the via media between Popery and 
 (so called) Puritanism ; of men who axe sensitively fearful 
 
 which encased the ancient " honest table" literally entombed within, 
 and of course concealed from the view of the parishioners. Imme- 
 diately behind it, and connected with it by a parapet, was an ancient 
 door-front, twenty-seven inches high, detached from a 'I'abemacle, or 
 Shrine, which once held the Pyx upon a really Popish altar ; this oaken 
 panel exhibited, in rich carving, a gilded representation of the 
 chalice and the transubstantiated wafer, in the midst of rays of glory. 
 On the north wall, within the communion raUs, was a defaced and 
 unsightly stone cross, ten inches high, elevated on a projecting 
 granite pedestal, found in my parish near Cape Cornwall ; below was 
 a pompous description of this Inrentio Crncis on a brass plate. On 
 the south wall, a Norman capital, from the ruins of a more ancient 
 church, was scooped out into a modern piscina, and placed in a niche. 
 The reading-desk was, of com-se, turned away from the people. In 
 the conduct of the service, all the versicles were chaunted, and the 
 psalter was Intoned throughout, superseding the more simple congre- 
 gational responses. Such, with other corresponding absurdities, was 
 tlie apparatus by which the eyes and ears of my people were to be 
 reconciled to, and prepared for, the abominations of Popery, by 
 " smoothing the way," as the Bishop of London has so well expressed it, 
 " for their passing into the bosom of a corrupt and deceitful Church." 
 — (Charge, 1826, p. 14.) I need scarcely add, that in repaiiing my 
 chancel, on coming into residence, I at once cleared away, or reduced 
 to a state of Protestant simplicity, this Romish fm-niture — introduced 
 without the sanction of the ordinary, and objected to, as I have been 
 told, by him, but not removed.] 
 
27 
 
 of being marked by the stigma with which the faithful 
 ministers of Christ are invariably branded. If, 300 years 
 ago, Latimer, Ridley, Cranmer, had been men of " no 
 party," of "no extreme* views," the Reformation would 
 not have been accomplished. And if, at the present crisis, 
 the clergy of the Churcli of England, encouraged by her 
 Prelates, do not promptly and unequivocally assert the 
 great principles of the Reformatio7i, in direct opposition to 
 " Tractarian error" — the glorious light which once blazed 
 over this favoured land, but now begins to flicker and to fade, 
 will soon be utterly extinguished. For my own part, 
 my Lord, I have resolved, by the grace of G od, to oppose 
 that fearful system of "error" by every means in my 
 power — in my public ministrations, — in my private con- 
 verse, — by decision in my acts, — and by distinctness in 
 my words. 
 
 III. Your Lordship imputes to me ignorance of the 
 laws by wliich the Church of England is regulated, in the 
 examination of ministers, and asks, " Have I altogether 
 forgotten the Forty-eighth Canon?" 
 
 I had not forgotten, nor do I think lightly of, that 
 Canon. The regulations of the Bishops, with regard to 
 Testimonials, appear to me to meet, for the most part, as 
 they were designed to do, that ecclesiastical injunction. 
 My protest was not against such a reasonable " examina- 
 tion" as that Canon directs, "having respect to the 
 " greatness of the cure and the meetncss of the party," 
 but against the erection of a peculiar standard of doctrine 
 in your Lordship's diocese, and the imposition of a 
 private test as an essential supplement to subscription to 
 the Thirty-nine Articles accepted honestly and in their 
 natural sense. Such power, when exercised, I not only 
 "allowed" myself to call, but 1 seriously maintain to be 
 
 * [This term has a good sense ; but it has been so abused, and has 
 now become so manifestly an expression unworthily used to cover 
 dislike to religions decision, that it has become the mere watch- 
 word of a party-] 
 
28 
 
 " assumed ; " for, hajipily, neither the Forty-eighth Canon 
 nor any other law of the Church, invests your Lordship 
 with so dangerous an authority. 
 
 IV. Youi- Lordship's heaviest charge was reserved for 
 the close of your letter, and a serious reply to it must 
 form the conclusion of mine. You state that " I have 
 unhappily forgotten my Ordination Fow" of obedience to 
 my Ordinary, and " in the Name of God you solemnly 
 call on me to keep it." 
 
 Very many years — more than half the number which 
 we are impressively reminded sums up the period of 
 human life — have passed away since that Awful Name 
 was invoked, in one of the Chapels Royal, to add weight 
 to the record of my several Ordination Vows. But time, 
 my Lord, has not, as you inconsiderately affirm, effaced 
 from my mind the recollection of any one of tliose 
 solemn obligations, nor obliterated the deep impressions 
 which each and all of them made on my heart. If 
 memory could for one moment have slept, it must have 
 been awakened by the remarkable similarity of the 
 earliest and of the most recent circumstances which 
 attended my coming under the notice of a Bishop. On 
 my Ordination, in 1811, an attempt was made by the 
 then * Bishop of Ely, to stretch Episcopal authority beyond 
 Canonical bounds, by placing his private exposition of the 
 declai-ations of the Church, with regai'd to the effects of 
 Baptism, on a level with the Thirty-nine Articles ; and he 
 demanded from me an acceptance of his opinion, as 
 essential to admission to holy orders. Though I was 
 then a very young man, — the only candidate, among 
 many, subjected, without notice, to that trying ordeal, — 
 and though non-ordination would have involved the loss 
 of the College preferment 1 then held, as well as have 
 debarred me from the ministry into which I was earnestly 
 desirous of entering, I had the courage to reject his 
 * [Dr. Dampier.] 
 
authoritative proposition of a private test of orthodoxy. 
 Shame would it be, if iu nion> mntnre, or even in 
 declining years, I had less firmness in protesting ( — ^on the 
 behalf of another, as I then did for myself — ) against a 
 similar innovation on the principles of the Chuixh of 
 England. A weak or an ill-informed conscience may be 
 terrified into compliance by a peremptory allegation of a 
 broken vow, and a call witii the Highest Appeal for 
 implicit submission. It requires nerve, my Lord, as well 
 as integrity, to meet such an onset as this. But soberly- 
 judging clergymen, when placed in such a painful position 
 with their Diocesan, will not hesitate to inquire — Whether 
 the charge be founded on fact, and — Whether the demand 
 be sustained by legitimate authority ? 
 
 I am as fully prepared, as I am solenuily pledged, to 
 follow cheerfully and with a glad mind, your Lordship's 
 " godly admonitions," and to submit myself to your 
 " ^oc//?/ judgments." But the "obedience" to which I 
 am sworn is limited by " Canonical" requirements, and 
 the " authority " which you can justly claim is " such as 
 " to you has been committed by the ordinance of this 
 " realm." A dutiful compliance with your Lordship's 
 requirements " in all things honest and lawful," is not 
 inconsistent with the free expression of my opinion on 
 any matter in which I may conceive the welfare of the 
 Church to be involved. Your Lordship could not be 
 justified in making so grave a charge, as that I have vio- 
 lated my ordination engagements, while you contented 
 yourself with a vague and general imputation, and abstained 
 from a tangible and definite specification of the instances 
 in which I have committed that serious offence. To a 
 charge so utterly unsustained by proof, I reply with con- 
 fidence, because with integrity, — I am not guilty. 
 
 It gives me considerable pain to read your Lordship's 
 declaration, that you are " grieved and offended ; " but it 
 yields me much consolation to reflect, that you have no 
 good reason for indulging either of those feelings — feelings 
 
.'30 
 
 which might more naturally have found a place in the 
 bosom of one of your clergy who has been unjustly sus- 
 pected, and is no longer deemed worthy of being trusted. 
 I desire, however, to repress every other sentiment than 
 that of deep concern; and I hope that the time may come 
 when youi- Lordship vdll admit that you have not estimated 
 me according to my deserts. 
 I remain, 
 
 Your Lordship's 
 
 Respectful and obedient servant, 
 
 George Cornelius Gorham. 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
II. 
 
 DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 CONNECTED WITH THE 
 
 PRESENTATION OF THE VICAR OF ST. JUST 
 
 VICARAGE OF BRAMPFORD SPEKE, DEVON, 
 
 BY THE CROWN. 
 
DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 No. XIV. 
 
 TESTIMONIAL. 
 
 To the Right Honourable the Lord High Chancellor of 
 England. 
 
 We whose names are hereunto written, testify and make 
 known that George Cornelius Gorham, Clerk, Bache- 
 lor in Divinity, late Fellow of Queen's College, Cambridge, 
 now Vicar of St. Just-in-Penwith, in the county of Corn- 
 wall, 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 knovra to us from June, 1846, to the date 
 of these presents ; that we have had opportunities 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, as far as we 
 know or believe, held, written, or taught, anything con- 
 trary to the doctrine or discipline of the 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. 
 
 D 
 
34 
 
 In witness wliereof, we have hereunto set oui* hands, 
 tliis 12th clay of August, in tlie year of our Lord 1847. 
 
 John Punnett, M.A., Vicar of St. Erth, Cornwall. 
 Thomas Pascoe, Vicar of St. Hilary. 
 Henry Comyn, Vicar of Sancreed. 
 
 The clergymen who have subscribed this Testimonial 
 are highly respectable ; but, as I consider the 
 Bishop's counter-signature of such a document, if 
 it be unaccompanied by any remark, as implying 
 his own belief, that the party to whom it relates, 
 " has not held, written, or taught anything con- 
 trary to the doctrine or discipline of the United 
 Church of England and Ireland ; " and as my own 
 experience unfortunately attests, that the Rev. 
 George Cornelius Gorham did, in the course of 
 the last year, in correspondence with myself, hold, 
 write, and maintain, what is contrary to the disci- 
 pline 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 counter-sign this Testimonial. 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Jugust 29, 1847. 
 
 No. XV. 
 
 Chumleigh, August 29, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — Your letter, enclosing a Testimonial to 
 the Lord Chancellor, for my counter-signature, has reached 
 me here. 
 
 That, after what passed last year, it must be unpleasant 
 to me to be obliged to deal vdth such a matter, I need 
 not say ; but I have no other course to take but that which 
 
35 
 
 1 have taken, in giving my signature to the paper which 
 you have sent to me. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 No. XVI. 
 
 The Flcarage, St. Just-in-Penwith, 
 September 3, 1847. 
 
 My Lord, — Your refusal to annex to my Testimonials 
 the simple and usual attestation, that the three clergymen 
 who have signed them, " are beneficed in your diocese, 
 and are worthy of credit," has given me deep concern. 
 I am entitled by the well-known usages of the Church of 
 England, to receive your Lordship's unqualified Certificate 
 of tliat fact, since you do not doubt it; and I have just 
 reason to complain tliat you have defaced that Memorial by 
 inserting extraneous matter in the margin, and that you 
 have made your (so-called) refusal of counter-signature, 
 the injurious vehicle of unsupported imputations on my 
 ministerial character. 
 
 That document, I must maintain, is simply a record of 
 the estimate of my conduct by three clergymen, whose 
 signatures and trust-worthiness your Lordship was respect- 
 fully asked, and was officially bound, either to attest or to 
 repudiate. It was not the proper channel for the declara- 
 tion of your Lordship's opinion of my disqualifications ; 
 much less for ungenerous insinuations, (for not a particle 
 of proof, nor even of specification is offered,) tending to 
 prejudice me in the mind of the Chancellor. Had the 
 ofiences which you there impute, indefinitely, been really 
 chargeable upon me, they would have demanded the 
 clearest indication and the gravest evidence. My dis- 
 tinguished Patron, as well as his humble nominee (and 
 D 2 
 
:3fi 
 
 possibly hereafter a disceniiiijj public), may naturally 
 ask, — Why is a clergyman who already enjoys by the 
 patronage of the Crown, a benefice of no inconsiderable 
 value in the diocese of Exeter, with a very responsible 
 charge of more than 4,000 souls (it might, in one sense,* 
 be stated, of nearly 8,000), unworthy to be presented by 
 the same Patron, and to be instituted by the same Bishop 
 ( — " having respect to the greatness of the cure, and the 
 meetness of the party " — ) to a benefice of less than half 
 that value, in the same diocese, with the lighter superin- 
 tendence of a population under 400 ? And, — Why has he 
 not been long ago subjected to penalties, or to depriva- 
 tion, if the offences now alleged by his Diocesan to have 
 been committed under his own eye, nearly a year since, 
 were capable of being substantiated ? 
 
 To these questions, my Lord, I will respectfully venture 
 to give replies which I think are incontrovertible. 
 
 To the first, I answer (and I write it with unfeigned 
 regret), — that my Diocesan is unhappily inconsistent ; for, 
 without even the shadow of benefit to the Church in such a 
 proceeding, he is endeavouring to vex me as one of his 
 clergy (who has had the sincerity and honest independence 
 to question the prudence and the legality of some of the 
 Bishop's acts), by disappointing me of my earnest wish, to 
 seek peace of mind and health of body, at great pecuniary 
 sacrifice, by retirement, in the decline of life, from a very 
 harassing charge, to one better suited to my present 
 inclinations as to pastoral connexion. 
 
 To the second question, I reply, — that I confess I should 
 have merited, and I am confident I should have suffered, 
 penalties or deprivation, could the accusations so intempe- 
 rately made, be judicially sustained : but substantiation of 
 these serious charges is impossible ; and happily for me, 
 conviction under these accusations is impracticable, so long 
 as the proposed " Act for regulating Proceedings in the 
 
 * If the District of Pendeen be included, the surplice duties of which 
 fall to the Vicar of the Parish till a Church is built. 
 
37 
 
 Cases of Clerks in Holy Orders offending against the Laws 
 Ecclesiastical,'' shall continue to be rejected in its present 
 form (as it justly has been) by the British Senate. I 
 thank God, the humane laws of England still throw their 
 shield between the unoffending beneficed clei'gy and those 
 ecclesiastical oppressors* who would eject them from their 
 preferments on the pretence of doctrinal error : may they 
 long, by the Divine favour, continue to do so ! 
 
 The utter futility of your Lordship's imputations in 
 my case will appear, should I consider it necessary (and 
 I seem to be now driven to such a step), for the vindica- 
 tion of my Churchnianship, and for the maintenance of 
 my civil and ecclesiastical rights, to publish the whole of 
 that painful correspondence, the real purport and character 
 of which your Lordship has so grievously misrepresented, 
 by the injurious insinuations inscribed by your hand on 
 the face of my Testimonials. My last remonstrance with 
 my Bishop, by private letter,f having received no other 
 notice, after eight months' suspense, than an unjust 
 aspersion now endorsed on an official document, and 
 addressed to the highest authority under the Crown, — 
 I may at length, perhaps, deem it my duty to appeal 
 to more candid judges, than the Bishop of Exeter, of the 
 correctness of my views as a Presbyter of our Protestant 
 Church. It may thus be more fairly decided, — Whether 
 I have " written and maintained what is contrary to the 
 DISCIPLINE of the Church of England," when I stated 
 
 * [When I wrote this passage, I by no means intended to apply 
 this term, specifically and personally, to my Diocesan ; but simply to 
 show -what a dangerous power the Bill alluded to would place in the 
 hands of the Bishops, generally, especially of such as might be disposed 
 to use it to clear their dioceses of anti-Tractarian clergymen. How 
 far my statement is illustrated by the subsequent proceedings of the 
 Bishop of Exeter, in his hesitation to institute me to the Vicarage to 
 which the Chancellor (notwithstanding the Bishop's endeavours to 
 prejudice his mind) presented me, I leave my readers to judge, after 
 they shall have perused the whole of this publication.] 
 
 t [See Letter, January 28, 1847. No. XIII., p. 18.] 
 
38 
 
 my honest opinion that your Lordship exceeded the 
 authority vested in the Bishop by the Forty-eighth Canon, 
 by your insisting on youi' imaginary right to impose on 
 an ordained priest, my nominated curate, a private test of 
 orthodoxy ? — and, Whether " I have held what is contrary 
 to its DOCTRINE," when I avowed to your Lordship that, 
 on my admission thirty-six years ago to holy orders, 
 I declined (as I would still decline) to submit to a simi- 
 larly private test of doctrine, with which the ordaining 
 Bishop desired to fetter myself ? — and, above all. Whether 
 my Diocesan's mere "apprehension" that I am heretical, 
 is an honourable ground for impeaching my character 
 before the Lord High Chancellor of England, and for 
 intruding injurious suspicions into a Testimonial, which is 
 not the Testimonial of the Bishop, but that of three 
 of his clergy, who have as much right to judge 
 of my character as my Diocesan, It cannot be that 
 I should any longer permit your Lordship thus to trifle 
 with what is dearer to me than life, and to endeavour to 
 bar me from the preferment which the Ci-own has offered 
 me; and which (notwithstanding the great diminution of 
 income) is, under the circumstances, very acceptable to 
 me ; — without seeking a suitable remedy for my injured 
 reputation, by bringing forward the proofs of my inno- 
 cence, and, if necessary, defending my rights through the 
 protection which the laws may afford me. 
 
 The injury whicli your Lordship is striving to inflict 
 upon me is serious ; not only in the higher view of my 
 reputation, but also as regards my personal discomfort and 
 my family perplexities. In the full confidence that, as the 
 Bishop had no right, so he could have no disposition, to put 
 any obstacle in the way of my admission to the Vicarage of 
 Brampford Speke, I accepted it, three months ago, though 
 the actual presentation has been deferred to this period by 
 the Chancellor's kind consideration of my convenience. 
 Consequently, 1 have taken active measures for my removal. 
 My furniture is packed, to a great extent ; the property 
 
.39 
 
 which I have here, and the crops on my glebe, are 
 virtually disposed of ; many other arrangements have 
 been made with a view to this change of residence ; my 
 successor has been selected by the Chancellor, and very 
 important domestic plans have been fixed by him, in 
 reliance on the steadiness of my intentions and a faithful 
 adherence to my plans. Are two families to be thrown 
 out of all their calculations by the unjustifiable impedi- 
 ments which are now cast in my way ? 
 
 I respectfully request your Lordship to reconsider the 
 very serious step which you have taken ; a step tending to 
 inflict a severe injury upon me in my civil rights, and 
 even to throw the Church itself into confusion. With 
 the hope that yoU may take a different view of what is 
 really implied by your counter-signature to this Testi- 
 monial, as a Certificate simply of the fact that the subscribing 
 clergymen ai-e beneficed in your diocese, and are worthy 
 of credit, I enclose the duplicate, to which I earnestly 
 request your attention : I forbear, out of respect for your 
 venerable and venerated Office, even at this crisis — and I 
 will forbear, as long as the circumstances render it 
 possible — to say that I demand it as my right. 
 I remain. 
 
 Your Lordship's dutiful and obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 No. XVU. 
 
 Heanton Sackorville, Sept. 7, 1847. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — Your letter of the 3d inst. has reached me 
 here, where I now am on a tour of Confirmations. 
 
 I decline withdrawing what I deemed it my duty to 
 state, when I signed the former paper, which you trans- 
 mitted to me for my counter-signature. 
 
 Such a document, when addressed to a Bishop, means 
 that the countersigning Bishop thereby states his own 
 
40 
 
 belief, on the authority of the attesting clergymen, that 
 the party in question " hath " during the time specified, 
 " lived piously, soberly, and honestly, and hath not held, 
 written, or taught anything contrary to the doctrine or 
 discipline of the United Church of England and Ire- 
 land." 
 
 If the Bishop is aware, of his own knowledge, that, 
 within the period stated, the party has lived immorally — 
 or has held, written, or taught anything contrary to the 
 doctrine or discipline of the Church, he is bound to decline 
 attesting simply the Testimonial presented to him for that 
 purpose. 
 
 I conclude, that the Lord Chancellor, in requiring a 
 similar Testimonial to be addressed to him, expects that 
 the Bishop should regulate his counter-signature by the 
 same rule as he obsei-ves when the paper is addressed to 
 another Bishop. Be this as it may, you have it in your 
 power (and I do not make objection to your taking such 
 a course), to transmit this letter, and all the previous 
 Correspondence between us, to the Lord Chancellor, who 
 will thus be enabled to decide for himself, whether the 
 Testimonial, so signed and countersigned, be satisfactory 
 to him. 
 
 I have not sought, nor should I have unnecessarily 
 seized, an opportunity of expressing the judgment of 
 you, which I have been compelled to form. 
 
 I am. Rev. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 [With this letter the Bishop returned the duplicate 
 copy of my Testimonials, with the following Memorandum 
 subscribed : — ] 
 
 I refer to the former paper, of the same tenour, for 
 the qualification with which 1 countersigned it, and 
 I adopt the same qualification now. 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 "ifh September, 1847. 
 
41 
 
 No. XVIII. 
 
 St, Just Vicarage, 11 th September, 1847. 
 
 My Lord, — Although only a faint hope remains of 
 my inducing you to give youi- counter-signature to my 
 Testimonials, without annexing to it matter ungenerously 
 and unfairly intrusive, I once 7nore respectfully entreat 
 you to perform this act of justice. 
 
 After my strong remonstrance with your Lordship for 
 having defaced the Testimonial first transmitted, by your 
 insertion of an injurious imputation, — I must complain 
 that it was gratuitously oifensive to treat the duplicate 
 Testimonial in the same * way : it ought, as my private 
 paper, to have been returned to me without the objection- 
 able comment, if your Lordship could not conscientiously 
 give me a counter-signature in the usual form. 
 
 I am constrained again to protest against the view which 
 your Lordship takes of a Testimonial of this sort, and 
 I claim the liberty of stating my deliberate opinion upon 
 that subject. 
 
 The laws and usages of the Church invest the Bishop 
 with adequate and well-defined powers for the exposure 
 of oifenders against her discipline or doctrine. He may 
 cite the delinquent to answer for his conduct before his 
 own, or some competent, Ecclesiastical Court; he may 
 examine into his " meetness," previously to admission to 
 a cure (Canon 48) ; and into his " worthiness," before 
 institution into a benefice, requiring, if he sees fit, " a 
 sufficient testimony of his former good life and beha- 
 viour " (Canon 39), and of his " honesty, ability, and 
 conformity to the Ecclesiastical laws," if he removes 
 from one diocese to another. (Canon 48). 
 
 But, as it is still possible for an undeserving minister 
 to elude the Bishop's vigilance, a wise custom has pro- 
 vided an additional security, — that of the Testimonial of 
 
 • [See the Bishop's Memorandum (attached to the duplicate of my 
 Testimonial), dated September 7, 1847.] 
 
42 
 
 beneficed clergymen, to whom the party has been per- 
 sonally known for three years, and for whose credibility 
 the diocesan must vouch by his countersignature. On 
 the very face of such a document it appears, that the 
 Bishop merely accredits these witnesses, and that he is not, 
 as far as regards that paper, responsible for the averments 
 of their Testimonial ; it is a record independent of, and 
 supplementary to, his estimate of the person on whose 
 behalf it is given. The Bishop has had, or may hereafter 
 have, a full opportunity of declaring his unfavourable 
 testimony, if he have any to produce ; and the fact of having 
 had no reason to do so, or of his having abstained from 
 any proceedings by which alone the conduct of the party 
 might have been judicially declared, may fairly be claimed 
 as evidence, touching the discipline and doctrines of the 
 Church of England, that his character is as unblemished 
 as that of any one of the three subscribing attestors of 
 his probity, or even as that of the countersigning Bishop. 
 
 Such, I am bold to affirm, is the real aspect of these 
 Testimonials; by which the purity of the Church, and the 
 privileges of her ministers, are at one and the same time 
 guarded. Your Lordship has, I am concerned to say, 
 stepped beyond that even-handed discipline which, while it 
 intrusts power to you, yields protection to me. You have 
 not found legitimate occasion — I thank my God — to put 
 any brand upon my conduct, by the direct exercise of the 
 power lodged in your hands ; but, out of time and out of 
 place, you have slipt aii oblique imputation of misconduct 
 into the favourable Testimonial of others. 
 
 Is it possible that your Lordship can have persuaded 
 yourself, that you "have not sought, nor should you have 
 unnecessarily seized, an opportunity of expressing the 
 judgment of me which you have formed," and that you 
 have been " compelled" to take these hostile steps ! This 
 averment excites my surprise. I had scarcely come into 
 your diocese, when, with a keen look-out, you picked up * 
 * See No. II., p. 4. 
 
43 
 
 an innocent expression from my printed district Circular — 
 "The National Establishment" — and, a few weeks 
 after, with a penetrating seaixh, you found* in my 
 advertisement for a Curate, my open-hearted avowal that 
 I wished my assistant to be free from " Tractarian 
 ERROR." You declared that, from the first moment of 
 your discovery of my adopting a phraseology dissonant 
 to your taste or opinions, you no longer trusted" me.-j- 
 A correspondence was naturally induced by these suspi- 
 cions : it terminated by my long letter, % written on the 
 28th January of the present year, — a letter which, I 
 venture to think, was worthy of your Lordship's gravest 
 consideration. But, if it was imperiously required, by 
 the dignity of your Lordship's office, that you should 
 decline replying to a close and respectfully conducted 
 argument, urged in self-defence, but ui'ged only by a 
 Presbyter ; was it also becoming the due discharge of your 
 high duties to omit then to call me judicially to account 
 for offences now stated to have been of the most serious 
 character, — and, after eight months' silence, to embrace the 
 easy opportunity of harassing me by insinuations, extra- 
 officially thrust before the eye of my Patron, in a form, 
 and at a time, dexterously " seized," so as to prevent the 
 possibility of my meeting my accuser with that complete 
 refutation which a direct charge, followed up by a legiti- 
 mate examination, would have enabled me to give ? 
 
 Li private life, your Lordship would disdain such an 
 unmanly course as this ; allow me to hope that, upon 
 reflection, you will see that it is not defensible in the view 
 of the conscientious discharge of official duties. Your 
 Lordship is fallible. May I hope that you will yet allow 
 me to forward to you a Testimonial for your counter-signa- 
 ture, in the simple form of attestation of the authenticity 
 and respectability of the three signatures ? If your 
 Lordship still feels constrained to contradict their testi- 
 mony, let your accusations, I entreat you, be in some 
 
 • See No. VI., p. 7. f See p. 16. J See No. XIII., p. 18. 
 
44 
 
 separate form, on which the Presbyter and his Bishop may 
 each have a fair hearing ; — at my Institution, agreeably to 
 the Thirty-ninth Canon ; — or in any other open proceeding 
 sanctioned by ecclesiastical law. 
 
 While I earnestly request this, in order that myself and 
 my family may be speedily relieved from the dismay and 
 distress into which your Lordship has thrown us, I am 
 anxious not to be misinterpreted. I shall accept, indeed, 
 with those feelings which ought to have place in the 
 bosom of a gentleman, much more in the heart of a 
 minister of Christ, every act of courtesy ; but I am not 
 cringing to your Lordship for a favour which is to be 
 considered as a veil thrown over my imaginary offences. 
 Clear as I am in my conscience, — and clear I shall be 
 found to be in the judgment (whenever, and however, it 
 may be pronounced) of every true member of the Church 
 of England, — I could not meanly condescend to ask, 
 what I am not justly entitled to receive, from my 
 Diocesan ; even though it were to extricate me from diffi- 
 culties a thousandfold greater than those which now 
 beset me. 
 
 If, in the preceding or the present letter, I have made 
 use of any expression unnecessarily painful to your 
 Lordship, I regret it : they have both been written, not, 
 indeed, in haste, but with less deliberation than I could 
 have wished ; for the urgency of the circumstances did not 
 admit of delay. 
 
 I remain, 
 Your Lordship's obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
44 
 
 * No. XVIII. a. 
 
 Vicarage, St. Just-in-Penwith, 
 September 11, 1847. 
 
 My Lord, — With a view to my presentation to the 
 Vicarage of Brampford Speke, I transmitted to your Secre- 
 tary a Testimonial, for the usual period of three years, 
 from the Diocese of * * * * signed by three beneficed 
 Clergymen who liave known me for thirty-six years, and 
 counter-signed by the Bishop who has been acquainted 
 with mc for a still longer period. I expect a similar 
 Testimonial from the Diocese of * * * * and I could easily 
 procure more from other Dioceses, f 
 
 Your Secretary, however, informs me that you usually 
 require a Testimonial from the Diocese in which the party 
 resides. 
 
 Were I about to change my Diocese, it would, I know, 
 be the regular course to send your Lordship a Testimonial 
 from the one in which I am now beneficed ; but as I shall 
 continue (if presented by your Lordship, agreeably to your 
 promise, to Brampford Speke), to be under the same 
 Bishop, I trust you will not absolutely require a Testi- 
 monial from this Diocese in which I have been beneficed 
 only one year and a-half. 
 
 The reasons for my not having at once transmitted such 
 a paper are very strong, and such as, I trust, will induce 
 your Lordship to be satisfied with the Certificate which 
 you already possess for the whole of the required period. 
 I had, indeed, procured, and I now enclose, a Testimonial 
 from this Diocese, in the common form, signed by three 
 Incumbents, and counter-signed by the Bishop, not only 
 
 * [The following four letters would not have been published, had 
 not the Bisho]) (in a Letter to his Clergy, April 26, 1848), printed, in 
 the London and many provincial newspapers, that part of the coiTe- 
 spondence which took place between /nmse/f and the Chancellor.] 
 
 f [I ultimately transmitted four Testimonials, containing the attesta- 
 tions of twelve Incumbents, duly countersigned by their respective 
 Bishops, excejiting the Bishop of Exeter.] 
 
 [D*] 
 
44 b 
 
 to the full purport of such counter-signature according to 
 the long-accepted usages of the Church of England, but 
 even more forcibly expressed than is usual ; for he 
 admits that they are " ItigJily respectable." But the 
 Bishop has thought it his duty to add to his counter- 
 signature a qualification which is, in effect, a grievous 
 attack on my character as a Clergyman. 
 
 I have remonstrated with the Bishop — but in vain — on 
 the injury he has done me, in thus inscribing (on the face 
 of a Testimonial which is not his, but that of three Clergy- 
 men whose signatures he is requu-ed simply to attest or 
 repudiate — ), his insinuation that I have violated the 
 discipline of the Church, and his " apprehension" that I 
 hold false doctrine, imsustained by any specification of the 
 insta7ice in which I have done so. 
 
 The Bishop refers, I admit, but only in general terms, 
 to a correspondence with himself which affords e-vidence, 
 as he avers, of these charges ; and he states, that he has no 
 objection to my laying the letters before your Lordship. 
 Although I am both ready and desirous to do so, if yom- 
 Lordship wishes to see them, I abstain at present from 
 even requesting the Chancellor to undertake the burden of 
 perusing a long correspondence, beginning with a compli- 
 mentary letter from the Bishop on the 6th of Februaiy, 
 1846, (the day of my Institution to St. Just,) and ending 
 with a defensive letter of mine on the 28th of January, of 
 the present year, to which the Bishop vouchsafed 7io reply, 
 except in his attack in the margin of the Testimonial 
 which I now transmit. It seems, however, to be due to 
 myself to affirm, — that the conduct, which my Diocesan 
 has so wrongfully described, consists simply in the follow- 
 ing particulars : — - 
 
 1. My having used the term "National Establish- 
 ment," in a printed Circular for Subscriptions to my 
 District Church of Pendeen, first objected to me by the 
 Bishop on the 18th of August, 1846. 
 
 2. My having advertised for a Curate "free from 
 
44c 
 
 Tractarian error," a privilege with regard to the 
 selection of my assistant which the Bishop construed into 
 an offence on the 14th of September. 
 
 3. My having, on tlie 3rd of December, remonstrated 
 with the Bishop for his suspicions of me in his declaration 
 that he would " institute particular inquiry in respect to 
 any one who may come to me " as a candidate for my 
 curacy; and my having protested against his endeavour 
 to impose on my Nominee, already in Priest's Orders, his 
 own private Test of the doctrine of the Church " on 
 Baptism." 
 
 4. My acknowledgment, on the 28th of January, 1847, 
 that, thirty-six years ago, I declined to submit to a similar 
 attempt at my Ordination ; basing myself on the doc- 
 trines EXPOUNDED deliberately BY THE ChURCH, at 
 
 the Reformation, (through her gravest Divines, solemnly 
 convoked in their two Houses,) in her Thirty-nine 
 Articles, — and accepted by me, as one of her Ministers, 
 most honestly, and without mental reserv^ in their clear, 
 natural, obvious "grammatical" sense. 
 
 I do not ask the Lord High Chancellor of England to 
 enter into this Controversy between a Bishop of venerable 
 years and a Presbyter of advancing age, — a Controversy, 
 I should rather say, between two large bodies of the 
 Church, in which the most acute theologians, and even 
 the Bishops themselves, are taking an active part; — 
 a Controversy which cannot be stifled by the attempt of 
 an individual Prelate to vex those of his Clergy who take 
 their stand on ground which he abandons, (and there are 
 several Incumbents in this Diocese who are so harassed) ; — 
 but I do most earnestly request that your Loi-dship, as 
 representing the temporal Head of the Church in the dis- 
 pensation of Her patronage, will not allow my Diocesan 
 virtually to deprive me of the preferment which the Crown 
 has offered me, by an oblique attempt to neutralize the 
 Testimonial which nine [ultimately twelve] brother Pres- 
 byters have afforded me, and which hundreds, I am con- 
 
44d 
 
 fident, would willingly give me, even in the face of the 
 correspondence from which the Bishop of Exeter extracts 
 his charges. The Bishop is not entitled, I conceive, to 
 insinuate accusations of offences on which he took no 
 proceedings, though alleged to have been committed in 
 letters to himself nearly a year ago ; but may, on my 
 waiting upon him for Institution, verify or dismiss his 
 apprehensions of my heretical teaching, by " due examina- 
 tion" whether I "appear worthy of my ministry," agree- 
 ably to the provisions of the Thirty-ninth Canon. I 
 humbly implore, that by your Lordship's fulfilling your 
 promise of Presentation, I may at least have the oppor- 
 tunity of justifying my conduct by a canonical trial of my 
 orthodoxy, and that the Testimonials which have been 
 given me by the three beneficed Clergymen may be con- 
 sidered as untouched by the superfluous matter with which 
 the Bishop of Kxeter has attempted to clog them. 
 
 May I be permitted to add, that a speedy determination 
 is of the utmost importance to me ; the greater part of my 
 property has been long since packed, or otherwise disposed 
 of, with a view to my removal into Devonshire, and to the 
 residence of a successor here ; the season for its transport, 
 by sea, as arranged, will soon pass away ; and my family 
 is thrown into afflicting perplexity and the deepest anxiety, 
 by this sudden and (as I think) unjustifiable interruption, 
 by my Diocesan, of the usual course pursued in such 
 transactions. In these distressing circumstances, I throw 
 myself, confidently, upon your Lordship's kind considera- 
 tion ; well assured, that the Chancellor will act as becomes 
 his High Office in the discharge of his duty with regard to 
 this unpleasant matter. 
 
 I, therefore, respectfully and humbly request that my 
 three years' Testimonial from the Diocese of * * * * may 
 be accepted as sufficient, and that tliose from this Diocese 
 may be returned as improper to be filed in your Lordship's 
 Office ; or that those for the shorter period from Exeter 
 may be considered as certifying all that is requisite. 
 
44 e 
 
 without regard being had to the irrelevant matter intro- 
 duced by the Bishop. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 Your Lordship's respectful and obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORIIAM, 
 
 Ficur of St. Just. 
 
 The Lord High Chancellor. 
 
 No. XVIII. 5. 
 
 Vicarage, St. Just-in-Penwith, 
 September 21, 1847. 
 My Lord, — Permit me to add a few observations (or 
 rather to place in a clearer light those which I have 
 already addressed to you), respecting the necessity or 
 expediency of your Lordship absolutely requiring, in my 
 circumstances, a personal Testimonial £i-om the Bishop of 
 this Diocese. 
 
 1. Whether the Chancellor, as Patron, should or should 
 not suspend his gift of a living upon a Testimonial, is, I 
 humbly think, a matter for his private judgment, in each 
 particular case brought before him. 
 
 2. Such a regulation, however, I admit, is generally 
 reasonable, as tending to prevent the inadvertent pi-esenta- 
 tion by the Crown of an unworthy Clerk, who may be 
 under legitimate Episcopal censure. But it ought not, 
 surely, to limit the independence of the Patron, in a case 
 like mine; where the difference is simjyly one of private 
 opinion, respectfully communicated in correspondence to 
 the Bishop by one of his Clergy, and in which, infraction 
 of " the discipline of the Church," or violation of her 
 " doctrine," has not even been thought of, much less com- 
 mitted. That correspondence exists, and will, if circum- 
 stances compel me, for refutation of my Diocesan's report 
 of it, be produced, to attest my averment respecting its 
 simplicity and integrity. 
 
44/ 
 
 3. The " testimony of the Bishop of the Diocese," is 
 required, by Canon 48, only " if the minister remove from 
 one Diocese to another" which is not my case. The Chan- 
 cellor will, I trust, not exact more than the Canon directs 
 even a Bishop to require, — without a strong necessity, 
 clearly made out. The Bishop can have, here, no preten- 
 sion to ask your Lordship to refrain from sending a Cler- 
 gyman into his Diocese, whose character he disapproves : — 
 / am already there, under his watchful eye and strict con- 
 trol. Your Lordship's fulfilment of your promise will 
 only place me nearer to his observation: an object which 
 he ought to desire, if he have a sincere " apprehension " 
 that I am not pure in my doctrine ; and from which / 
 ought not to shrink, if I am honest in my declaration that 
 his. suspicions are groundless. 
 
 4. The Bishop himself instituted me last year, on the 
 presentation of the very same Patron to the Benefice which 
 I now hold in his Diocese. On that occasion, agreeably to 
 the 39th Canon, I brought him (as I had done the Lord 
 Chancellor Lyndhurst) " a sufficient Testimony of my 
 former good life and behaviour," — a Testimony which 
 might easily be carried back unbroken through the thirty- 
 six years of my ministry. For the year and a half of my 
 residence in his Diocese, which has since elapsed, the 
 Bishop has not laid, and cannot lay his finger, canonically, 
 upon a single act of insubordination, or one point of false 
 teaching. If he think he can, it will still be open to him, 
 by the *' cautions for Institution " in the Canon cited 
 above, to subject me to a " due examination ; " — but after 
 the ample opportunities he has had, and still has, of try ing 
 my integrity, I confidently believe j-our Lordship will 
 not allow my Diocesan to interpose indirectly to curb 
 the right of the Patron judiciously exercised, and to injure 
 the reputation and prospects of the Nominee. 
 
 5. On the whole, I must humbly submit — whether (even 
 putting my own slighted reputation out of view,) it would 
 not be an affront to the Crown, that a Clergyman, who 
 
44 g 
 
 holds one of Her Majesty's Livings in one of the most 
 populous parishes, as weW as most difficult to be managed, 
 in this Her far-western Province, — should be deemed 
 unworthy of a nomination by Her Chancellor to a Benefice 
 of less responsibility and trust (in kind consideration of 
 his moderate wish to give up a Vicarage of larger income, 
 and to retire, in the evening of his days, to a more quiet 
 scene), though unimpeached, and, as he believes, unim- 
 peachable in his ministrations in the Church, to which the 
 strength and labour of a long life have been devoted. 
 I remain. 
 
 Your Lordship's respectful and obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GoRHAM. 
 
 The Lord High Chajicellor. 
 
 No. XVIII. c. 
 
 15, Park La7ie, Oct. 11, 1847. 
 
 The Lord Chancellor presents his compliments to 
 Mr. Gorham, and has the honour of informing him that 
 he proposes signing the Fiat for Mr. Gorham's Presenta- 
 tion, notwithstanding the observation added to the Bishop's 
 signature to the Testimonial. The Lord Chancellor de- 
 clines entering into the question which has arisen between 
 the Bishop and Mr. Gorham, and has therefore no wish to 
 see the correspondence between them. 
 
 The Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 * No. XVIII. d. 
 
 Copse Hill, Wimhledon, Oct. 11, 1847. 
 My dear Lord, — Having had under my consideration 
 the observation added to your counter-signature of Mr. 
 Gorham's Testimonial, I think it right to inform you that 
 I have, nevertheless, thought it right to sign the Fiat for 
 
 [• As published by the Bishop, in the " Guardian" Newspaper, in 
 a Letter to his Clergy, April 26, 1848. Reprinted in the " Christian 
 Observer," for June, 1848.] 
 
his Presentation. I consider the object of the Bishop's 
 counter-signature is only to give validity to the Testi- 
 monials of the Clergyman ; and that whatever power the 
 law may give to the Bishop, upon the ground of life or 
 doctrine, over the Presentee, must follow, and cannot 
 precede, the Presentation. The Patron, no doubt, ought 
 to avail himself of all sources of information as to the 
 character of the person proposed to be presented ; but, in 
 a case in which I have been furnished with the most satis- 
 factory Testimonials from various quarters in favour of 
 Mr. Gorham, I do not think that it becomes me to assume 
 the office of deciding between conflicting opinions. 
 
 My sole object, in troubling your Lordship with this 
 letter, is, to explain the ground upon which I have thought 
 it right to sign the Fiat ; and to prevent the possibility of 
 your thinking that, in so doing, I had any intention of 
 undervaluing the opinion you have expressed, or of 
 treating with any want of respect the Office you hold. 
 
 Believe me yours faithfully, 
 
 COTTENHAM. 
 
 The Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 [The Bishop has published his own reply (dated Oct. 15, 
 1847) to the preceding letter from the Chancellor. I do 
 not deem it necessary to reprint it here, as it has no direct 
 relation to the matter of controversy between myself and 
 my Diocesan. It controverts the Chancellor's opinion 
 with regard to " the object of the Bishop's counter- 
 signature ; " finds fault with his use of the word 
 "validity and declines to countersign, in future, any 
 Testimonial in the usual form " for the satisfaction of 
 his Lordshijj."] 
 
III. 
 
 CORRESPONDENCE, 
 
 ETC., 
 
 ON APPLICATION BY 
 
 THE VICAR OF ST. JUST-IN-PENWITH, 
 
 FOR INSTITUTION TO 
 
 THE VICARAGE OF BRAMPFORD SPEKE, 
 
 ON PRESENTATION BY THE CROWN. 
 
PRESENTATION, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 No. XIX. 
 
 Victoria, by the grace of God, of the United Kingdom 
 of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the 
 Faith ; to the Right Reverend Father in God Henry, by 
 Divine permission Lord Bishop of Exeter, or, in his 
 absence, to his Vicar-General in spirituals, or to any 
 other person or persons having, or that may have in this 
 behalf, sufficient authority, greeting. 
 
 We present unto you by these presents, our beloved in 
 Christ, the Reverend George Cornelius Gorham, Clei'k, 
 Bachelor in Divinity, to the Vicarage of Brampford 
 Speke, in our county of Devon, and in your Diocese, 
 now legally void by the death of the last Incumbent 
 thereof, and to our presentation in full right belonging. 
 
 Commanding and requiring you to admit the said 
 George Cornelius Gorham to the Vicarage of Brampford 
 Speke aforesaid, and him there to institute, induct, and 
 invest, with all and every the rights, members, and 
 appurtenances thereof, and to do all and singular other 
 matters and things concerning the Admission, Institution, 
 and Induction aforesaid, which to your Pastoral Office 
 belongeth or appertaineth. 
 
 In testimony whereof, these our Letters we cause t& be 
 
48 
 
 made Patent. Witness ourself, at Westminster, the 
 second day of November, in the eleventh year of our 
 reign. 
 
 By the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, 
 
 Shepherd. 
 
 No. XX. 
 
 Clifton Hot Wells, [Saturday,'] Nov. 6, 1847. 
 
 My Lord, — The Chancellor having presented me to 
 the Vicarage of Brampford Speke, I beg to inqmre 
 whether your Lordship can conveniently appoint an early 
 day for my admission to that Benefice. 
 
 Should it be inconvenient to your Lordship to fix a 
 day for that purpose, within the first half of the vpeek 
 which is at hand, it will, I think, be desirable for me to 
 return immediately to St. Just, that I may remove my 
 furniture and my family into Devonshire, before the 
 winter shall have made more serious advances ; in that 
 case my Institution must, of necessity, be postponed for 
 a fortnight or three weeks. 
 
 As I am not removing into another diocese, neither a 
 Testimonial, nor the re-exhibition of my Letters of Orders, 
 will, I believe, be requisite ; but I shall cheerfully comply 
 with your Lordship's wishes as far as practicable on those 
 matters. I will leave the Presentation at the Registry on 
 Monday, on which day it is my intention to proceed to 
 Exeter, where I shall remain till I have the honour of 
 receiving your Lordship's reply. 
 
 I remain. 
 
 Your Lordship's obedient and respectful servant, 
 
 Gr. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
19 
 
 No. XXI. 
 
 Exeter, [ilfo«t/a^,] November 8, 1847. 
 Dear Sir, — I write this in case I should not be at the 
 Office when you call. You will probably leave with me 
 the Presentation. I have mentioned your intention to the 
 Bishop, who desired me to say that he could not give you 
 an appointment at Bishopstowe earlier than next Friday ; 
 and if, as the Bishop understands, you go into Cornwall, 
 it may be more convenient to you after this week ; and 
 you will be good enough to communicate with me your 
 wishes. 
 
 Yoiirs truly, 
 
 Ralph Barnes. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 No. XXII. 
 
 Exeter, [Tuesdat/,^ November 9, 1847. 
 Dear Sir, — Time being now of such great importance 
 to me for the removal of my furniture and my family 
 before the winter sets in, I have decided to pursue the 
 plan of proceeding immediately to Cornwall, and of 
 deferring my Institution till my return into Devonshire ; 
 as I understand your letter to intimate that the Bishop 
 makes no objection to that course. 
 
 I will give you a week's notice when I am able to fix 
 my return, which will probably bo the end of this month, 
 or very early in December. It cannot be later, for my 
 daughters come away from their school on 10th December, 
 and I shall be anxious that their new home should be 
 ready for their reception. 
 
 1 am, dear Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 G. C. Gorham. 
 RalpJi Bar)ie.i, Esq., Rcyistry, Exeter. 
 
 E 
 
50 
 
 No. XXIII. 
 
 {Wednesday,'] November 10, 1847. 
 My Lord, — In deciding to remove my family imme- 
 diately from Cornwall into Devonshire, before my Insti- 
 tution to Brampford Speke, as I am about to take a step 
 of which your Lordship has not disapproved, so I trust it 
 is one which cannot possibly embarrass me by any uncon- 
 templated impediment to my quiet admission to that 
 Benefice. 
 
 Your Lordship will forgive my anxiety, after the 
 uneasiness which I have already experienced in this 
 matter : but, anxious as I am, I rely with perfect con- 
 fidence on your candidly and kindly correcting me, if 
 I am wrong in concluding that my Institution will take 
 place in the usual course without further difiiculty. 
 
 I have thought it more respectful to address a note, on 
 such an inquiry, to your Lordship direct, rather than 
 through your Secretary. I will not, however, trouble 
 you to give me a reply, unless I am about to take a 
 step which may embarrass me, in which case I shall feel 
 obliged by an immediate communication to St. Just, 
 since my arrangements for removal must commence in 
 a day or two. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 Your Lordship's respectful and obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter. 
 
 No. XXIV. 
 
 Exeter, [Saturday,] Nov. 13, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — The Bishop desires me immediately to 
 acknowledge your letter of the 10th inst., and to say, in 
 answer to it, that his Lordship feels it his duty to 
 ascertain by Examination whether you are sound in 
 
51 
 
 doctrine, before you shall be instituted to the Vicarage 
 of Brampford Speke; but that it will be his wish to 
 conduct the Examination in such a manner as shall not 
 be unnecessarily annoying to you, while it shall be satis- 
 factory to himself. 
 
 The Bishop also requests me to say, that he is not 
 aware what you mean, when you write to him, that you 
 are " about to take a step of which his Lordship has not 
 disapproved;" for, in truth, if you had asked the Bishop 
 whether he approved, or disapproved, any step whatever 
 which you might be about to take, it is not likely that 
 the Bishop would have deemed it right to express any 
 opinion on the matter. The Bishop does not consider 
 that you stand to him in a relation which would 
 authorize his giving you advice, or his telling you, that 
 he disapproved anything which is not immediately con- 
 nected with your conduct as a clergyman of liis diocese, 
 and is not an offence against the law of the Church. 
 I am. Reverend Sir, 
 
 Your very obedient servant, 
 
 Ralph Barnes. 
 
 The Rev. G. C. Gorham, St. Just. 
 
 No. XXV. 
 
 Exeter, [Frida//,] Nov. 19, 1847. 
 Sir, — In reply to your communication, dated 13th 
 instant, I beg to assure the Bishop of Exeter that it 
 was far from my intention to assume that I stand to 
 him in a relation which would authorize me to expect 
 the privilege of his *' advice." My expression, of the 
 meaning of which he says he is unaware, (viz., that I was 
 " about to take a step of which he had not disapproved") 
 was simply intended to signify my respectful desire to 
 conform to his Lordship's wishes, and to avoid, through 
 inadvertency, any course which he might possibly have 
 K 2 
 
52 
 
 considered inconsistent with my conduct as a clergyman, 
 or with the law of the Church. 
 
 It now appears that my projected plan, though not, I 
 believe, exceptionable in either of those respects, might 
 have been very disastrous to myself. The tacit acquies- 
 cence of his Lordship in my avowed intention of going 
 into Cornwall before admission to the Vicarage of Bramp- 
 ford Speke, unaccompanied by the slightest intimation of 
 the unusual step, now announced, of his " examining 
 whether I am sound in doctrine before I shall be insti- 
 tuted," — induced me to undertake along journey, and to 
 enter on a course which, under that unknown circum- 
 stance, would have been most imprudent if further 
 pursued. After your communication to me of his Lord- 
 ship's design, it was impossible for me to hesitate (through 
 any consideration of fatigue and expense) about an 
 immediate return to Exeter, in order that I may claim 
 admission to my Devonshire Benefice before I entirely 
 disfurnish my residence at St. Just, or remove my family 
 from that far-western parish. 
 
 I request you to inform the Bishop, that I shall respect- 
 fully submit to any Examination which he is entitled, and 
 is disposed, to make, touching the conformity of my 
 doctrine with that of the Church of England, as set forth 
 in her authorized standard, her Thirty-nine Articles ; and 
 that I will attend his Lordship at any place and time (not 
 earlier, and not much later, if convenient to hiu), than 
 next Monday), which it may be his pleasure to appoint. 
 
 The Bishop will, I trust, pei'mit me to suggest, that, as 
 the Examination is to relate to matters of doctrine, (possibly 
 on difficult points of theological controversy, though I am 
 not informed what will be the specific subject of inquiry,) 
 it would be more satisfactory if conducted in writing than 
 by conversation, the former mode being less liable to 
 misapprehension ; and, further, that it would afford me a 
 fairer opportunity for calm deliberation, if I might be 
 allowed to receive the Questions, and to frame the Answers, 
 
.53 
 
 at my private lodging instead of at his Lordship's 
 residence. I submit these suggestions in respectful 
 deference to the Bishop's judgment. If his Lordship be 
 now at Bishopstowe, I shall proceed to Torquay to- 
 morrow ; but if the Bishop be in Loudon, I shall remain 
 at Exeter till he has made an appointment for me to wait 
 on him in Town ; unless, indeed, he intends to return very 
 shortly into Devon. You will, I hope, give me immediate 
 information on this fact for my guidance. 
 
 I am. Sir, yours truly, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM, 
 
 Ralph Barnes, Esq., The Registry, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXVL 
 
 [/s'.ir/e/-,] Palace Gate, Twelve o Clock, 
 [Friday,] Nov. 19, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — I have your letter, which it will be my 
 duty to lay before the Bishop at the earliest hour ; and I 
 shall have that opportunity in the course of this evening, 
 when the Bishop proposes being at the Palace on his way 
 to London. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your very obedient servant, 
 
 Ralph Barnes. 
 
 The Rev. G. C. Gorham, Exeter. 
 
 No. xxvn. 
 
 Exeter, [Friday,] Nov. 19, 1847. 
 Sir, — As you have informed me that the Bishop will 
 be in Exeter this evening, I write a second note to say, 
 that, if his Lordship has any wish to see me before he 
 proceeds to Town, I should esteem it my duty not to 
 decline an interview, notwithstanding my having named 
 
,54 
 
 next Monday as tlie earliest day which ' would be con- 
 venient to me. 
 
 1 am, yours truly, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 R. Barnes, Esq., Registry, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXVJJl. 
 Exeter, [Fridatj,'] Nov. 19, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — I have pi-esented to the Bishop this evening, 
 at the Palace, your letter to me of this day ; and his 
 Lordship desires me to say, that, being merely passing 
 through in his way to Parliament, it will not be con- 
 venient to make an immediate appointment. His Lord- 
 ship's stay in London will be uncertain ; but on his return 
 he will appoint as early a day as convenient for receiving 
 you at Bishopstowe. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, yours truly, 
 
 Ralph Barnes. 
 
 The Rev. G. C. Gorham, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXIX. 
 
 Exeter, Friday Evening, Nov. 19, 1847. 
 
 My Lord, — Allow me to state, by a direct address, the 
 very serious inconvenience to which I am subjected by this 
 second postponement of my Admission. 
 
 I freely admit that it would be unreasonable to urge your 
 Lordship to see me this evening, at only an hour's notice ; but 
 I have expressed my willingness to attend your Lordslup 
 at any place, and, therefore, to follow you to London, for 
 personal Examination ; or to give written answers to WTitten 
 questions, which might obviate the necessity for that 
 journey. Can it be right to keep me in suspense while I 
 wait for your return, which you state to be " uncertain," 
 unless, indeed, it is likely to be in three or four days ? 
 
It is my desire to refrain from every expression whicli 
 may have even the appearance of disrespect or of impa- 
 tience ; but I must remind your Lordship that this con- 
 tinued postponement, under the very peculiar circumstances 
 of an intimated hesitation as to my Admission, is a trial to 
 which I ought not to be exposed. I have retraced 250 
 miles of journey, expressly to settle this matter ; my 
 affairs are in confusion ; my large parish is without my 
 superintendence ; my young family is unprotected — my 
 elder daughters will soon be coming from school, without 
 a home either in one Benefice or the other ; and the winter 
 is close at hand. These troubles have not, of necessity^ 
 sprung out of the circumstances of my case ; I therefore 
 confidently appeal to your humanity, to bring them to a 
 speedy termination, by one of the methods which I have 
 suggested, or by some other which you may think proper 
 to adopt. 
 
 I remain. 
 Your Lordship's obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, 
 The Palace, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXX. 
 
 The Palace, \_Exeter,'] 
 [Fridaij,] Nine, p.m., AW, 19, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — While 1 am son-y for any inconveni- 
 ence incurred by you, it is satisfactory to me to know, 
 that it has not been caused by want of consideration on 
 my part. If you had taken the ordinary precaution of 
 ascertaining, by a previous letter, when I could receive 
 you — a precaution the more necessary, by reason of the 
 opening of Parliament, which it might be expected I 
 should attend, — you would have been spared this long and 
 useless journey. 
 
56 
 
 I am merely passing tluougli Exeter, nor can 1 make 
 an appointment to receive you in London, where I shall 
 not be before Tuesday next. My stay there is uncertain, 
 but will be as brief as business will permit. On my 
 return into Devon, you shall receive an early appointment 
 of a day for Examination. 
 
 Meanwhile, 1 decline the unsatisfactory expedient, pro- 
 posed by you, of examining you by letter. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham, Exeter, 
 
 No. XXXI. 
 
 Exeter, Nov. 19, 1847, 
 
 Friday, Half-past Nine, P. M. 
 My Lord, — I thank you for your prompt reply, from 
 which I perceive that you could not make any appoint- 
 ment to receive me in London. 
 
 I will patiently wait, either at Exeter or Torquay, until 
 it is convenient to you to name a day for my Examination 
 on your return. 
 
 I remain. 
 Your Lordship's respectful servant, 
 
 G. C. Gorham. 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, 
 The Palace, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXXIL 
 
 Exeter, [Saturday,] Nov. 20, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — I am desired by the Bishop, with reference 
 to your intended stay here, or in the neighbourhood, and 
 that you may not be unnecessarily in suspense [to say], 
 that his Lordship's stay in London must be uncertain. It 
 
may be for two or three weeks, but at the same time it 
 may be less. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, yours truly, 
 
 Ralph Barnes. 
 
 Jtev. G. C. Gorham, Torquay. 
 
 No. XXXIII. 
 
 Torquay, Nov. 22, 1847. 
 Sir, — I wish you to state to the Bishop my respectful 
 acknowledgments for his having relieved me from un- 
 necessary suspense, by information of the possible duration 
 of his stay in London ; and my confirmed intention, not- 
 withstanding the possibility of so long a delay, to remain 
 here, until my claim for Institution to the Benefice to 
 which the Crown has presented me shall have received 
 some decided response. 
 
 I am. Sir, yours truly, 
 
 G. C. Gorham. 
 Ralph Barnes, Esq., The Registry, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXXIV. 
 
 Torquay, Saturday, Dec. 11, 1847. 
 Sir, — I shall be obliged to you if you will remind the 
 Bishop, that on Monday thirty-five days will have elapsed 
 since I first tendered my Presentation to his Lordship, 
 with my request for early Institution ; and that I shall 
 have been waiting here more than three weeks since I 
 repeated that request. I wdsh that the Bishop should be 
 further informed that this delay occasions me the most 
 serious inconveniences, and that I have been obliged to 
 bring half of my family to Toi-quay, as deprived of any 
 home until I shall have been admitted to my Devonshire 
 Benefice. It is, therefore, important that his Lordship 
 
should fix as early a day as possible for receiving me at 
 Bishopstowe. 
 
 I am, Sir, yours truly, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM, 
 
 Ralph Barnes, Esq., The Registry, Exeter. 
 
 No. XXXV. 
 
 Exeter, December 15, 1847. 
 Rev. Sir, — I received your letter of the 11th, which 
 I forwarded to the Bishop in London, and to-day, on the 
 Bishop's return through Exeter, I have his Lordship's 
 instructions to write to you, to remind you, — that the 
 Bishop offered to receive you on the Friday after the 
 Presentation was tendered, but that you preferred going 
 into Cornwall, — that your return to Exeter, without 
 previous inquiry, which might have regulated your 
 movements, was your own act, — and your remaining from 
 that time at Torquay, having been told that the Bishop's 
 return from London was uncertain, but it was not 
 unlikely it might be three weeks, was your own choice. 
 
 The Bishop now desires me to appoint Friday next, 
 the 17th instant, at Half-past Ten, a.m., at Bishopstowe, 
 to receive you for the business of Institution. 
 I am. Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your very obedient servant, 
 
 Ralph Barnes. 
 
 Rev. G, C, Gorham, Torquay. 
 
IV. 
 
 EXAMINATION, 
 
 BY THE BISHOP OF EXETER, 
 
 PREVIOOS TO INSTITUTION OI" 
 
 THE VICAR OF ST. JUST-IN-PENWITH, CORNWALL, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 VICARAGE OF BRAMPFORD SPEKE, DEVON : 
 
 WITH 
 
 DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
i 
 
 I 
 
EXAMINATION, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 [PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.] 
 
 [This Examination was conducted, at Bishopstowe, in tiie 
 following manner : — - 
 
 On the first day, Friday, Dec. 17, 1847, the Questions 
 I. to VII. were delivered to me by the Bishop, and I was 
 permitted to write my Answers, in an adjoining room. 
 
 On the second day, Saturday, Dec. 18; the third day, 
 Monday, Dec. 20; the fourth day, Tuesday, Dec. 21 ; and 
 the fifth day, Wednesday, Dec. 22; the Questions VIII. to 
 LXXVI. were proposed to mc by the Bishop in his study, 
 and the Answers were given orally in his presence. 
 
 On Thursday, Dec. 23, I suspended attendance for 
 Examination ; but, in accordance with the Bishop's wishes, 
 I answered Questions LXXVII. to LXXVIIL, and I 
 considered Questions LXXIX. to LXXXV. (ultimately 
 declined) at my private lodging. The consideration of these 
 Questions ( — and the perusal of the Volume transmitted 
 with them, which, though not required, was essential to a 
 respectful and deliberate decision on the matters submitted 
 to me — ) occupied me from the evening of Friday, Dec. 31, 
 
62 
 
 to that of Friday, January 7 ; during the intermediate 
 period, from Dec. 23 to Dec. 31, I was in a state of health 
 which incapacitated me from employment. 
 
 On Monday, January 10, the Bishop proposed renewing 
 the Examination ; but I declined any further prolongation 
 of it, that I might seek advice or redress. 
 
 The Examination was continued for five days at Bishop- 
 stowe (thirty-six hours) ; and was virtually prolonged for 
 six days more at my private dwelling (about forty-eight 
 hours) : thus lasting, altogether, eleven days. 
 
 Each Question and Answer was recorded by the Bishop's 
 Chaplain, the Rev. W. Maskell, and by myself, as the 
 Examination proceeded. There was much interlocutory 
 conversation, connected with the arrangement of some of 
 the Questions, the character of some of the Answers, 
 expostulations by myself as to the length of the Examin- 
 ation, and other matters, only part of which were 
 recorded. 
 
 All matter wliich is not strictly documentary, is included 
 in brackets.] 
 
63 
 
 FIRST DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Friday, December 17, 1847. 
 \_Fro7n Half-past Ten, a.m., to Half-past Six, p.m.] 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 [A verbal Protest was made before the Examination 
 began. The Bishop requested that it might be recorded 
 in writing, the first convenient opportunity ; which was 
 accordingly done on the third morning, Monday, December 
 20. See below, p. 96, where the Protest is inserted.] 
 
 Question I. 
 
 Prove from Scripture, that Baptism, and the Supper of 
 the Lord, are severally necessary to salvation. 1st, of 
 Baptism ; 2dly, of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Answer 1. 
 
 I. Of Baptism. — 1 do not find in Scripture that tlie 
 necessity of Baptism to salvation, is declared in terms so 
 absolute as this proposition. 
 
 In our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus it is said, 
 " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) 
 If the allusion be to Baptism (which, however, had 
 not then been instituted), it undoubtedly affirms the neces- 
 sity of complying with that solemn Institution, where no 
 unavoidable impediment intervenes. Having been or- 
 dained of Christ, it cannot be slighted without the awful 
 consequences of disobedience to his express command. 
 But it does not appear to me that the being " born of 
 
64 
 
 water," and the being " born of the Spirit," are so indis- 
 solubly tied together by this declaration, that each is 
 equally and in the same sense, necessary to salvation. 
 This view is confirmed by the fact that the expression, 
 " born again," is used in this discourse* in verses 3, 6, 7, 
 8, without any reference to being " bom of water," but 
 twice with express mention of being " born of the 
 Spirit," as the great essential requisite. It is confirmed 
 also byf verses 16, 17, where "everlasting life" and salva- 
 tion are positively connected with " belief" in the Son of 
 God without reference to Baptism ; as if for the very 
 purpose of showing that faith is an indispensable and essen- 
 tial condition, but that Baptism is orAy generally necessary, 
 a condition to be dutifully performed. 
 
 Precisely the same conclusion must be dra\m from the 
 terms used by our Lord, in his expi-ess institution of 
 Baptism : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved." (Mark xvi. 16.) Tiie ^ewera/ connexion between 
 the sign which he has ordained for admission into his 
 Church, and the faith which that sign certifies, is here 
 distinctly affirmed. But our Lord adds, " He that 
 believeth not shall be damned," Here exclusion from 
 everlasting salvation is grounded, not on the omission of 
 Baptism, but on the withliolding belief in the Son of God. 
 
 • " 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily I say unto 
 thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 
 
 " 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that which is 
 born of the Spirit is spirit. 
 
 " 7 Marvel not that I said unto thte. Ye must be born again. 
 
 " 8 The wind bloweth where it llsteth, and thou hearest the sound 
 thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : 
 so is every one that is born of the Spirit." 
 
 t " 16 I'or God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have 
 everlasting life. 
 
 " 17 For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the 
 world ; but that the world through him might be saved." 
 
65 
 
 II. Of the Supper of the Lord, — The participa- 
 tion of the Supper of the Lord is stated in Scripture 
 in the same manner, as generally necessary, not essentially 
 requisite, to salvation. Our Lord's command, " Take, 
 eat ; this is my body ; " — " drink ye all of it" (Matt. xxvi. 
 26, 27) ; — " This is my body which is given for you : 
 this do in remembrance of me. This cup is the New 
 Testament in my blood, which is shed for you" (Luke 
 xxii. 19, 20); — imply a most solemn ordinance, not to 
 be wilfully neglected, without peril of damnation ; and 
 to be gratefully observed as a lively remembrance of his 
 precious death, as a means of quickening and refreshing 
 the soul, — of confirming faith, — of increasing grace, — and 
 of thus promoting our salvation. In such a sense the 
 Lord's Supper is " necessary " 
 
 Question IL 
 Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that Baptism 
 and the Supper of the Lord are generally necessary to 
 salvation, — in terms as absolute as this proposition ? 
 Answer 2. 
 
 Our Church does hold this doctrine, and I hold it 
 of course. 
 
 Question III. 
 Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that by the ex- 
 press words of our Lord in the text, John iii. 5, " Except 
 a man be born of water and of the Spiritj he cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God," we "may perceive the great ne- 
 cessity of the Sacrament of Baptism, where it may be had ? " 
 Answer 3. 
 
 The Church states this in her Service for Adult Baptism ; 
 and the statement containeth in it nothing contrary to 
 the Word of God."* Your Lordship has already had 
 my subscription to this acknowledgment on my Institu- 
 tion to St. Just ; for my assent to the whole Book of 
 Common Prayer includes my assent to this part of it. 
 • [See Canon XXXVT.l 
 
 F 
 
66 
 
 Question IV. 
 Ill the Homily of Common Prayer and the Sacraments, 
 it is said, that, — 
 
 " According to the exact signification of a Sacra- 
 ment, 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 ? 
 
 This question is proposed in words of the Homily ; not 
 thereby to intimate that you are bound to assent to it, 
 without reserve, because of the authority of the Ho- 
 milies. 
 
 Answer 4. 
 
 My subscription to the Articles, and among them to the 
 XXXV th., appears to me to involve a sufficient reply to 
 this Question. I prefer, and I claim the privilege of 
 giving my assent to the two books of Homilies, generally, as 
 containing " a godly and wholesome doctrine^ and neces- 
 sary for these times," to my basing any particular 
 doctrine upon any detached sentence taken out of those 
 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 often 
 adduced,* in controversies on the efficacy of the Sacra- 
 ments, in a sense in which I do not believe the compiler 
 of that excellent Homily to have written it, my consent 
 could not be given to it, by a naked affirmative without 
 explanatory matter. Consecutive questions framed with a 
 bearing on a particular controversy, replied to without 
 many collateral explanations, might elicit apparent, and 
 
 • [See the Bishop of Exeter's Charge, 1842, p. 21 ; where he censures 
 the Bishop of Chester by the supposed authority of this passage. Sec 
 also his Correspondence with the Rev. C. Grylls. 1845, p. 15.] 
 
67 
 
 only apparent admissions, which would not correctly 
 represent the doctrine of the Church. 
 
 To prevent the possibility of misapprehension, as to 
 my reply to this passage, or others to which I may have 
 to return a similar answer, — I add, that I fully assent 
 to the wholesome truth contained in this quotation, when 
 fairly brought into connexion with the Articles of our 
 Church, on the nature and efficacy of the Sacraments. 
 
 Question V. 
 
 Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that every 
 infant baptized by a lawful minister, with water, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost, is made by God, in such Baptism, a member of 
 Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the king- 
 dom of heaven ? 
 
 Question VI. 
 Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that such 
 children, by the laver of regeneration in Baptism, are 
 received into the number of the children of God, and 
 heirs of everlasting life ? 
 
 Question VII. 
 Does our Church hold, and do you hold, that all infants, 
 so baptized, are born again of water and of the Holy 
 Ghost ? 
 
 Answers 5, 6, 7. 
 
 As these three Questions all imply the same description 
 of Answer, I will discuss them together : — 
 
 — And, generally, I reply, that these propositions, 
 being stated in the precise words of the Ritual Services, or 
 of the Catechism, undoubtedly must be held, by every 
 honest member of the Church, to " contain in them 
 " nothing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound 
 " doctrine, or which a godly man may not with a good 
 F 2 
 
68 
 
 " conscience use and submit unto, or which is not fairly 
 " defensible, . ... if it shall be allowed such just and 
 " favoiir able construction as in common equity ought to be 
 " allowed to all Human Writings, especially such as are set 
 "forth by authority." (Preface to the Book of Common 
 Prayer.) 
 
 Now, the "just and favourable construction" of pas- 
 sages like these, (occurring in Services intended for popu- 
 lar 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 in her explicit 
 
 STANDARD OF DOCTRINE, THE XXXIX. ARTICLES; in 
 
 the next place, II., by comparing the various parts of her 
 Formularies with each other; — and, collaterally. III., by 
 ascertaining the views of those by whom her Ser- 
 vices WERE reformed, AND HER ARTICLES SANCTIONED. 
 
 The real point involved in these Questions is, the efficacy 
 of the Sacrament of Baptism, not merely in Infants, but 
 in Adults ; and that Question cannot be fairly dissevered 
 from the efficacy of the other Sacrament, that of the 
 Lord's Supper. 
 
 I. The Articles* distinctly, and with severe pre- 
 cision, lay down the doctrine for both Sacraments ; which 
 is this: — that, not right administration merely, but icorthy 
 reception, is essential to their becoming "effectual Signs of 
 grace." " In such only as worthily receive the same, they 
 have a wholesome effect or operation." (Article XXV.) 
 And " the grace of God's gifts" is said to be conferred only 
 on such as "by faith, and rightly, do receive" them. 
 (Article XXVI.) The doctrine thus generally stated, 
 for both kinds, applies to Baptism of course ; and of that 
 Sacrament it is, eo nomine, declared, that " they that 
 
 • [See the Articles XXV., XXVI., XXMI., XXVni., and XXIX., 
 relating to the two Sacraments quoted at length in the Appendix C] 
 
69 
 
 receive Baptism riyhtly" (that is, not merely by lawful 
 administration, but by worthy reception), "are grafted 
 into the Church ; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and 
 of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, 
 are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed, and 
 grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God." 
 (Article XXVII.) No distinction is made between adults 
 and infants in this Article ; though the case of the latter 
 was expressly in the minds of its framers, as appears by 
 the charitable declaration at its close. " The Baptism of 
 young children is in any wise to be retained in the 
 Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ." 
 Yet, once more ; the three remarkable expressions above 
 cited, are combined in Article XXVIII., in which the doc- 
 trine of the Church is luminously set forth, as in a sun-beam, 
 that none have a beneficial communion of the body and 
 blood of Christ, but " such as rightly, worthily, and ivith 
 faith, receive the same." See also Article XXIX. " The 
 wicked, and such as he void of a lively faith, although they 
 do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as St. 
 Augustine saith) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
 Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ ; but 
 rather to their condemnation do eat and drink the 
 Sign or Sacrament of so great a thing." 
 
 Such — according to the authoritative teaching of the 
 Articles, ( — those grave and formal declarations of Divine 
 Truth, accepted by both Houses of Convocation — ) by 
 which the language of all Formularies, and Services, as well 
 as all Expositions, and Examinations of their import, 
 must be rigorously tested, as their standard, — such is the 
 doctrine of the Church on the efficacy of both Sacraments, 
 and, therefore, of Baptism — Where there is no worthy 
 
 RECEPTION, THERE IS NO BESTOWMENT OF GRACE. 
 
 II. The Formularies teach the same doctrine when 
 fairly construed ; though sometimes in a form less 
 definite. 
 
 1. In the Catechism, "the inward and spiritual Grace" 
 
70 
 
 is carefully distinguished from the " outward and visible 
 Sign," which is its token, its pledge, and its manifestation, 
 when " rightly received." The conditions of " repent- 
 ance and faith" are expressly required of persons to be 
 baptized, even of infants; who must enter into these 
 stipulations by their representatives ; and who, *' when 
 they come of age, are bound to perfoi-m" the covenants 
 which their sponsors have made on their behalf. 
 
 2. In the Baptismal Services (for adults as well as 
 infants, for we are not at liberty to sever the two in this 
 argument,) the benefits of the Sacrament are, in a similar 
 way, suspended on its worthy reception. " Faith" and 
 " repentance," are declared by the adult in his own 
 person, and are stipulated by the infant, through its 
 sponsors, as dispositions which exist, or shall hereafter 
 exist, in the mind of the candidate. The whole Service, 
 therefore, is constructed on the assumption that these 
 promises are sincere, on the hypothesis that the require- 
 ments have been, or shall be, performed. In this charitable 
 hope the Formularies of tlie Church affirm, that the subject 
 of Baptism is, " a member of Christ, the child of God, 
 and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." (Question 
 V.) He was made such, — by solemn dedication with the 
 prayers of the Church, — by open profession with his own 
 lips, — or by the stipulations of liis sponsors (to be here- 
 after, — possibly as soon as the infant faculties are sufficiently 
 developed, or at all events in riper years — fulfilled by 
 himself) ; and he was also made such by the covenant of 
 God, certified by His own seal, that on His part nothing 
 should be wanting to give His adopted child the fuU efiect 
 of these blessings. This interpretation of the affirmations 
 in the Baptismal "Ritual, is confirmed by the language of 
 one of the Homilies, which reminds us, that " by holy 
 promises, with calling the name of God to witness, we be 
 made lively members of Christ, when we profess his religion, 
 receiving the Sacrament of Baptism." (Homily on Swear- 
 ing, Part I.) It is in the same prospective confidence 
 in the sincere performance by infants, of those engage- 
 
71 
 
 raents by which they were bound by their sureties, (as their 
 ripening capacities shall enable them to fulfil those pledges,) 
 that the Church declares ( — but always with an implied 
 conditional reservation, if these promises be not fulfilled, 
 that the blessing is not conferred — ) that *' by the laver of 
 regeneration in Baptism they are received into the number 
 of the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life." 
 (Question VI.) In the same sti'ain of charitable hypo- 
 thesis, it is affirmed that infants "so baptized," namely, 
 not only according to the institution of Christ, but with 
 " the stipulation [ — the answer — ] of a good conscience to- 
 wards God," are "born again of water and of the Holy 
 Ghost" (Question VII.) : it being impossible that such 
 dispositions and fruits should exist, except when the 
 Holy Ghost has imparted a new nature ; which he may 
 do before Baptism, in Baptism, or after Baptism, " as He 
 listeth." 
 
 That the Church did not intend her language to be 
 construed absolutely and unconditionally, may appear from 
 a single instance. 
 
 In the Office for " Pi'ivate Baptism," the Church makes 
 two declarations as absolute as mere verbality can make 
 them : — 
 
 (1st.) She makes a verbally absolute statement of the 
 regeneration (A) of the child in the thanksgiving, " We 
 yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it 
 HATH pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy 
 Spirit," &c. 
 
 (2d.) She makes an equally unconditional assertion as 
 to the future salvation (B) of the infant in the exhortation, 
 " Beloved, ye hear," &c, : where we are told, " not to 
 doubt, but earnestly believe" that result to be certain, 
 [namely, " that he will give unto him the blessing of 
 eternal life, and make him partaker of his everlasting 
 kingdom."] 
 
 Nevertheless, in the concluding petition (" We yield 
 thee," &c.), the Church makes that which had been the 
 subject of positive declaration, (B), again, the matter of 
 
72 
 
 humble prayer, and therefore only of conditional expecta- 
 tion : — [" Humbly we beseech thee to grant, that 
 
 finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be 
 an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom."] Thus she 
 clearly avows that, in this instance, her language of 
 undoubting belief, and unhesitating assertion, is to be 
 "justly construed" as only conditional, hypothetical, cha- 
 ritable, and hopeful. 
 
 It is not, therefore, inconsistent with her phraseology, 
 or, rather, it is fully consonant with her intentions, to 
 construe her verbally absolute declaration (A) Avith regard 
 to the reyeneration of every infant, in the same liypo- 
 thetical manner ; and this construction, being the only one 
 which will reconcile her Liturgy with her Articles, is that 
 which " in common equity ought to be allowed," and 
 which in common sense must be adopted. 
 
 The Church herself has given this intimation of the 
 mode in which her language is to be construed, at the close 
 of the Baptismal Services ; where, exhorting both infants, 
 (through their sureties,) and adults, she reminds them, 
 that "Baptism doth represent unto us our profession;" 
 and that we who are baptized should die from sin, and 
 rise again unto righteousness; although "a death unto 
 sin, and a new birth unto righteousness," (being the inward 
 grace, included in the terms "regenerate," and "born 
 again,") are effects declared verbally to have taken place 
 in, and by, the Sacrament. An hypothetical meaning and 
 conditional construction, is the only one which renders 
 these parts of the Services consistent with each other, as 
 well as conformable to the express teaching of the Church 
 in her standard of doctrine. 
 
 3, The same conclusion follows from that passage in the 
 Burial Service, in which, in absolute terms, we " thank 
 God that it hath pleased him to deliver this our brother 
 out of the miseries of this sinful world ; " although it is 
 manifest that we cannot definitively pronounce on the 
 future state of every individual, in successive generations, 
 to whom that Sei-vice is to be applied ; and although, in a 
 
73 
 
 subsequent part of that Service, the Church falls back 
 into the simply charitable declaration, that '* our hope is 
 that this our brother " rests in Christ. 
 
 4. This construction becomes rivetted on these appa- 
 rently absolute expressions, by the fact that, notwith- 
 standing the declaration that baptized persons are " born 
 again," the Church instructs us (in other Services) to p7-ai/ 
 for this very blessing in after life. The Collect for 
 Christmas Day,* and that for the Circumcision,f are 
 prayers to this effect: the language of each of those 
 prayers, I consider as prospective, — that of the second is 
 so beyond controversy. J The petition which concludes the 
 first part of the Homily for Whit-Sunday is most distinct 
 on this point, in that prayer, " Let us give hearty thanks 
 to God .... humbly beseeching him so to work in our 
 hearts by the power of His Holy Spirit, that we, beinff 
 regenerate, and newly-horn again in all goodness, righte- 
 ousness, sobriety, and truth, may in the end be made 
 
 • ["Grant that we, heing regenerate, and made thy children by 
 adoption and grace, may daily be renewed by thy Holy Spirit." Up 
 to the year 1812, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (in 
 their Tract, "Directions for Decent Behaviour in the House of God") 
 states this as — "Regeneration, a prayer for it. "'I 
 
 t [" Grant us the true circumcision of the Spirit ; that our hearts 
 and all our members, heing mortified from all worldly and carnal lusts, 
 we may, in all things, obey thy blessed will," &c.] 
 
 \ [The Bishop here interposed, and said, that he denied the pro- 
 spective reference of these words, — " heing mortified." I stated, in 
 reply, that it was impossihle that these words could be retrospective, 
 since no Christian, however advanced in grace, could say, that "his 
 heart and ALL his members had been mortified from all carnal and 
 worldly lusts. I cited, also, the expressions, " we being hurt by no 
 persecutions," from the Litany; "being stedfast in faith, joyful 
 through hope, and rooted in charity," from the Baptismal Service; — as 
 instances that that phraseology was olten used by the Church in a 
 prospective sense. I was about to produce other examples, when 
 his Lordship checked the discussion, and remarked that it was "matter 
 of opinion" with regard to the Collect on the Circumcision.] 
 
74 
 
 partakers of everlasting life," * Regeneration, therefore, 
 in Baptism is affirmed absolutely in words, but conditionally 
 in meaning ; it may not have taken place, and is, therefore, 
 to be implored in after years. 
 
 5. In truth, not only many expressions in the Litur- 
 gical Services would be misinterpreted, but the language 
 of Scripture itself might be (as it has been) awfully 
 perverted, if the principle were not allowed that the most 
 absolute terms must be construed sometimes in a sym- 
 bolical, sometimes in a conditional sense, according to the 
 manifest intention of the person who used them. 
 
 (1.) What can be more absolute than our Lord's 
 affirmation respecting the bread, "This is my body?" 
 Transubstantiation f follows fi-om the exaction (con- 
 trary to common sense) of a literal acceptation of these 
 words ; as regeneration, by the opus operatum of Baptism, 
 would follow from an exaction (contrary to the doctrine 
 of the Articles) of an unjustly verbal construction of 
 certain affirmations in the Baptismal Service. 
 
 (2.) We find, in the Apostolic Epistles, absolute declara- 
 tions respecting the sanctified state of every individual 
 included in the Chmxhes to whom they were written 
 (see Romans i. 7 ; 1 Thess. i. 1, 2, 4j): though it is 
 manifest that these affirmations must be understood as 
 conditional and charitable assumptions. 
 
 6. That such is the "just construction" of the language 
 of the Rituals, as cited in these three Questions, and as 
 
 * [Here, again, the Bishop interposed, and denied that this was a 
 prayer for regeneration.] 
 
 t [The Bishop once more stopped my reading, to remark, that 
 Transubstantiation did mt necessarily follow; that he himself held 
 these words ought to be interpreted literally, but did not hold tran- 
 substantiation.] 
 
 X [" To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." 
 (Rom. i. 7.) " Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the Church 
 of the Thessalonians .... we give thanks to God alicays for you 
 all ... . knowing, hwt\\xey\he\o\eA, your election GoA." (1 Thess. 
 i. 1,2, 4.)] 
 
prevailing throughout the Baptismal Services, will appear, 
 if we consider with what care those who compiled the 
 Formularies of the Church discriminate between the 
 Sacraments, or Signs, and the grace or thing signified ; 
 as perfectly distinct conceptions ; as matters separable and 
 often separated. I must illustrate this by both Sacra- 
 ments; distinctions in kind being needless, and only 
 perplexing the argument. The Catechism, logically and 
 most correctly, defines a Sacrament to be a Sign of an 
 inward and spiritual grace. Article XXIX. calls the 
 mere outward element " the Sacrament or Sign," clearly 
 distinguished from, and not even (in the case referred to) 
 accompanied by, " so great a thing " as the inward 
 GRACE. In the Communion of the Sick it is declared, 
 that the faithful may spiritually " eat and drink " the 
 BODY and BLOOD, though from physical weakness he 
 do not receive " the Sacrament," the elemental Sign. 
 The Homilies insist strongly on this distinction. " St. 
 Augustine," (says the Homily on Common Prayer,) 
 " calleth Sacraments holy signs: and, writing of the 
 Baptism of Infants, he saith. If Sacraments had not a 
 certain similitude of those things whereof they be Sacra- 
 ments, they should be no Sacraments at all : and of this 
 Similitude they do for the most part receive the names 
 of the selfsame things they signify." And that Dis- 
 course which was written specially on this subject, warns 
 us to mark the important difference between " the 
 outward Sacrament, and the spiritual thing ; the Figure, 
 and the truth; the Shadow, and the body." (Homily 
 on the Sacrament of the Body, &:c.) So Cranmer 
 writes somewhei-e,* " In Sacraments, saith St. Austin, 
 is to be considered, not what they be, but what they 
 shew; for they be Signs of other things, being one 
 thing, and signifying another." 
 
 • [Cranmer, On the Lord's Supper, B. iv., Edit. Parker Soc. 1844, 
 p. 221 ; where may be seen much more to the same purpose.] 
 
It is true that, by a metonymy, the Sign is often used 
 for THE THING signified ; and this practice of the early 
 fathers, sometimes adopted in the writings of our 
 Reformers, and in one place in our Catechism ( — I mean 
 tlie description of a sacrament as to its "parts," whenever 
 the Sign and the grace are happily united by the worthy 
 recipient — ), has led to confusion in the minds of those who 
 do not carefully mark the distinction, and separability, of 
 these two matters. But the meaning of the Church is 
 clear, if a " just and favourable construction be allowed" 
 (and she herself claims it) for her expressions, 
 
 III. The WRITINGS OF OUR REFORMERS,* Candidly 
 
 • [Co VEKD ALE, Bishop of Exeter, died 1 568. The view s of this venerable 
 and pious Bishop are beautifully developed in one of the most affecting 
 documents connected with the period of the Reformation, preserved by 
 Fox (Martyrs, vol. vi., pp. 552, 553. Edit. Townsend and Cattley.) 
 I allude to the Confession of three Bishops (Ferrars, of St. David's ; 
 Hooper, of Gloucester ; and Coverdale, of E.xeter) ; with John Philpot 
 and six others, several of them being afterwards mart)TS, dated May 8, 
 1 554, in prison, and subscribed, " By mine own hand, MiLES CovEKD.VLE, 
 Bishop of Exeter." In this document, these holy men confess, that 
 "Baptism and the Lord's Supper be no longer S.acraments, than 
 they be had in use, and used, to the end for which they were 
 instituted:" and that "regeneration and inherent righteousness," 
 comes by no outward Sign, but " hy faith only; which faith is not an 
 opinion, but a certain persuasion wrought by the Holy Ghost in the 
 mind and heart of man, wherethrough, as the mind is illuminated, so 
 the heart is suppled, to submit itself to the will of God unfeignedly, 
 and so shineth forth an inherent righteousness." It is true that these 
 remarks are applied to those " who are of years of discretion ;" but 
 the principle laid down is not the less applicable to the subject of 
 infant Baptism ; — for, if regeneration had been, of necessity, conferred 
 by that Sacrament, where would have been place left for the work of 
 " the Holy Ghost," in later years, as here so scripturally spoken of ? 
 Bishop Coverdale states the same doctrine in his Comment on 
 Acts ii. 41. " To use the Sacraments without faith, profiteth not, but 
 
 hurteth Sacraments are evidences of the promise and grace of 
 
 God, which they, after a visible and palpable manner, do set forth, 
 declare, and represent unto us." — Coverdale's Works. Edit. Parker 
 
77 
 
 examined, throw light on the construction of the Church 
 Services. These, of course, I cannot quote at large 
 
 Soc, p. 411. "The outward enjoying of the Sacraments, of itself 
 alone, doth not reconcile us with God ; but, if they be used with 
 FAITH, then, as St. Peter saith, through faith doth God purify the 
 heart."— Ibid., p. 80.] 
 
 [L.ITIMER, Bishop of Worcester, Martyr, 1555. — In a sermon 
 before King Edward VI., in 1549, he sqjfs:— " The preaching of the 
 Gospel is the power of God to every man that doth believe. . . . 
 Christ saith, ' Except a man be born again from above, he cannot 
 see the kingdom of God.' He must have a regeneration. And 
 what is this regeneration ? It is not to be christened in water, as 
 those firebrands expound it, and nothing else. How is it to be 
 expounded, then ? St. Peter showeth, that one place of Scripture 
 declareth another. It is the circumstance and collation of places that 
 makes Scripture plain. Saith St. Peter, ' We be born again.' 
 How ? ' Not by a mortal seed, but by an immortal.' What is this 
 immortal seed ? ' By the Word of the living God ' ; by the Word of 
 God preached and opened. Thus cometh in our new birth." — Works, 
 edit., Parker Soc, page 202.] 
 
 [Ridley, Bishop of Rochester, MartjT, 1655. — The discussion 
 between the Reformers and the Papists, was chiefly on the Lord's 
 Supper and Transubstantiation, — as the controversy is now chiefly on 
 the supposed invariable efficacy of Infant Baptism : but the principles 
 involved are the same. The whole of Ridley's Disputation at Oxford, 
 on the Lord's Supper, sheds light on the present question. — Let it 
 suffice to quote a single passage. " Every Sacrament hath grace 
 annexed to it instrumentally. But there is divers understanding of 
 the word hath ; for the Sacrament hath NOT grace included in it ; 
 but, to those that receive it well, it is turned to grace. After 
 that manner the water in Baptism hath grace promised : and by that 
 grace the Holy Spirit is given ; not that grace is included in water, but 
 that grace cometh by water." — Works. Edit. Parker Society, p. 240.] 
 
 [Cranmek, Archbishop, and Martyr, 1556.— "In Baptism those that 
 come feignedly and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with 
 the Sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy 
 Ghost, and clothed with Christ : so in the Lord's Supper ; both eat 
 and di-ink the Sacramental bread and wine, but both eat not Christ 
 himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which 
 WORTHILY receive the Sacrament."— (On the Sacraments. Edit. 
 Parker Society, p. 221.) — " The washing outwardly in water, is 
 not a vain token, but teacheth such a washing as God worketh 
 
78 
 
 in an extempore Examination. Coverdale, — Latimer, — 
 Ridley, — Cranmer, — Hooper, — have marked the dis- 
 
 inwardly in them that duly keceive the same." — (Works, Jenkyn's 
 Edit., Vol. III., p. 49.) — " The wonder is not how God worketh in 
 the outward visible Sacrament ; but his marvellous work is in the 
 ■WOEXHY KECEIVEES of the Sacraments." — {Ibid., p. 121.) — " In the 
 administration of the Sacraments, as well as the Lord's Holy Supper 
 as of Baptism, God worketh wonderfully, by his omnipotent power, 
 in the teue receiveks, not in the outward visible Signs." — Ibid., 
 p. 524.] 
 
 [Hoopek, Bishop of Gloucester, Martyr, 1555. — "Although Baptism 
 be a Sacrament to be received and honourably used of all men, yet it 
 sanctifieth no man, and such as attribute the remission of sins to 
 the external Sign, doth offend." ..." Such as be baptized must 
 remember, that repentance and faith preceded this external Sign ; and 
 in Christ the purgation was inwardly obtained before the external 
 Sign was given. So that there is two kinds of Baptism, and both 
 necessary. The one interior, which is the cleansing of the heart, the 
 drawing of the Father, the operation of the Holy Ghost : and this Bap- 
 tism is in man, when he believeth, and trusteth that Christ is the only 
 author of .his salvation. Thus be the infants examined concerning re- 
 pentance and faith, before they be baptized with water ; at the contem- 
 plation of the which faith, God purgeth the soul. Then is the 
 exterior Sign added not to purge the heart, but to conjirm, mani- 
 fest, and open unto the world, that this child is God's. And likewise 
 Baptism, with the repetition of the words, is a very Sacrament and 
 Sign that the baptized creature should die from sin all his life, as 
 St. Paul writeth. (Rom. vi.) . . . Though it have no power to 
 purge from sin, yetit conjirmeth the purgation of sin. . . . In the 
 Church of Christ, man is made the . . . heir of eternal life, by God's 
 only mercy EECEIVED by faith, before he receive any Ceremony to con- 
 firm and manifest openly his right and title. . . . Thus, assured of 
 God, and cleansed from sin in Christ, he hath the livery of God given 
 unto him, Baptism, the which no Christian should neglect, and yet 
 not attribute his sanctification unto the external Sign." (Works. Edit. 
 Parker Soc, pp. 74, 75.) ] 
 
 [Jewel, Bishop of Salisbury, died 1571. — This Prelate, the ornament 
 of the English Church, had a great share in compiHng the Second 
 Book of Homilies ; and in all that was done to advance the Re- 
 formation. His WTitings abound with passciges wliich confirm the 
 view I have taken of the Sacraments. " In plain speech, it 
 is not the receiving of the Sacraments that worketh our joining 
 
79 
 
 tinctioii, and the separability of the Sacrament or Sign 
 from the Grace or the Thing signified, in precise and 
 unmistakeable language. Jewel, the great light of that 
 era, who polished the stones which the fathers of the 
 Reformation hewed rough from the quarry, — who (as your 
 Lordship has lately reminded* us, your clergy,) was 
 " the most prominent of the Bishops " of that age, has 
 stated this matter with beautiful accuracy ; when he gives 
 his judgment that, " in Baptism, as the one part of that 
 holy mystery, is Christ's blood, so is the other part the 
 material water : neither are these parts joined together 
 in place, but in mystery ; and therefore they he oftentimes 
 severed, and the one is received without the other." f 
 
 Neither Jewel,:|: nor any other Expositor, is my stand- 
 ard. I base my doctrines on the Thirty-nine Arti- 
 cles ; but the above citation from this eminent Bishop, 
 so well qualified to give his judgment, expresses generally 
 my view of the Sacrament of Baptism. 
 
 with God ; for whosoever is not joined unto God before he receive the 
 Sacraments, he eateth and drinketh his own judgment. The Sacra- 
 ments be seals and icitnesses, and not properly the causes of this 
 conjunction." (Reply to Harding, On Private Mass, &c., page 21, edit. 
 1609.) " Nor do we doubt to call them a kind of visible words, the 
 signets of righteousness, and symbols of grace." (Apology.) " "We say, 
 the Sacraments of Christ, without faith, do not profit" (Def. of ApoL, 
 page 282, edit. 1609.) ] 
 
 * [The Bishop of Exeter's Letter on Scripture Readers, 1847, p. 8.] 
 t [Jewel's Reply to Harding, On Private Mass, &c., p. 285. Edit. 
 London, 1609, folio.] 
 
 X [Among the dispensations of Providence which attended that 
 wonderful event, — the Protestant Reformation in England, — one of 
 the most remarkable was, that Jewel, the brightest gem of the 
 Church, was permitted to survive till her doctrine had been firmly 
 established, by the final setting-forth, by authority of Parliament, the 
 Thirty-nine Articles ; to which his masterly hand applied the latest 
 touch. He died in that same year, a few months after that important 
 work, which was specially committed to his charge, had been com- 
 pleted.] 
 
80 
 
 SECOND DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Saturday, December 18, 1847. 
 [From Noon to Half-past Eleven at Night.'] 
 
 Question VIII. 
 In your reply to Question I., you say, — " If the allu- 
 sion be to Baptism, (which, however, had not then been 
 instituted,)" &c. Do you, by these words, mean to 
 express a doubt whether that text (John iii. 5) does refer 
 to Baptism ? 
 
 Answer 8. 
 
 The Church's quotation of this passage, as referring to 
 Baptism, I consider as " not contrary to Holy Scripture." 
 
 Question IX. 
 Do you then mean, that when the Church says — 
 
 " Beloved, ye hear in this Gospel, the express 
 words of our Saviour Christ, that. Except a man 
 be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God : whereby ye may per- 
 ceive the great necessity of the Sacrament, where 
 it may be had," — 
 this is not contrary to the Word of God ? 
 
 Answer 9. 
 
 In my answer to Question III., I have, I think, replied 
 to the present Question ; and I would adopt it as applicable 
 to it. 
 
 Question X. 
 
 You say — 
 
 " It is confirmed also by John iii. 16, 17 ; where 
 ' everlasting life and salvation ' are positively con- 
 
81 
 
 nected with 'belief in the Son of God, without 
 refei'ence to Baptism ; as if for the very purpose of 
 shewing that Faith is an 'nidispensable and essential 
 condition, but that Baptism is only generally neces- 
 sary." 
 
 Do you mean that Faith is an indispensable and essential 
 condition to salvation in all persons ? 
 
 Answer 10. 
 
 Yes ; I mean that. 
 
 Question XI. 
 What say you of the Baptism of infants, as respects this 
 indispensable condition of salvation ? Is it necessary that 
 they have Faith at the time of their being baptized, in order 
 that the Baptism of tliem may be effectual to salvation ? 
 Answer 11. 
 
 The Church teaches, in Articles XXV., XXVI., 
 XXVII., XXVIII., and XXIX., that all persons, with- 
 out respect to age, must be worthy recipients of the 
 Sacrament, to benefit by it ; and worthy reception is there 
 defined to be by " Faith." 
 
 Question XII. 
 Be so good as to point out to me which Article, or 
 which part of any Article, does so define ? 
 
 Answer 12, 
 
 In Article XXV., it is said, — " In such only as 
 worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome eflTect 
 or operation." 
 
 In Article XXVI., — " The grace of God's gifts" are 
 said to belong to " such as by faith and rightly do receive 
 the Sacraments." 
 
 In Ai'ticle XXVII., — " They that receive Baptism 
 
 rightly are grafted into the Church Faith is 
 
 confirmed, and Grace increased." 
 
 • [See the five Articles which relate to the Sacraments, quoted at 
 length in Appendix (C.) ] 
 
 G 
 
82 
 
 In Article XXVIII., — the efBcacy of the Sacrament 
 is confined to " such as rightly, worthily, and with Faith 
 receive the same." 
 
 Question XIII. 
 Do you hold that infants, baptized by a lawful minister, 
 with water, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost, do receive the benefit of Baptism, — 
 namely, a death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteous- 
 ness ? 
 
 Answer 13. 
 
 My answer is contained in my written Answers, 5, 6, 7, 
 to Questions, V., VI., VII. 
 
 Question XIV. 
 You say in your Answers, 5, 6, 7, to Questions V., 
 VI., VII.,— 
 
 " The conditions of 'repentance and faith' are 
 expressly requix-ed of persons to be baptized ; even 
 of infants, who must enter into these stipulations by 
 their representatives, and who, ' when they come 
 of age, are bound to perform' the covenants which 
 their sponsors have made on their behalf." 
 Is the entering of infants into these stipulations, by their 
 representatives, necessary to their receiving the spiritual 
 grace of Baptism ? 
 
 Answer 14. 
 
 The Church requires these stipulations before admi- 
 nistering the rite of Baptism to infants ; but the spiritual 
 grace may have been given, if it pleased God, before the 
 stipulations were made. 
 
 Question XV. 
 Not taking here into account what 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 their representatives. 
 
83 
 
 is necessary to their receiving the spiritual grace of 
 Baptism ? 
 
 Answer 15. 
 
 Our Church holds, and I hold, that no spiritual grace 
 is conveyed in Baptism, except to wortliy rechpients ; and 
 as infants are by nature wwworthy recipients, " being 
 born in sin, and the children of wrath," they cannot 
 receive any benefit from Baptism, except there shall have 
 been a prevenient act of grace to make them worthy. 
 Baptism is the sign or seal, either of the grace already 
 given, or of the repentance and faith, which are stipulated, 
 and must be hereafter exercised. 
 
 Question XVI. 
 I again ask — Not taking into account what it may 
 have pleased Grod to give to any infants before Baptism, 
 does our Church hold, and do you hold, that the entering 
 of infants into these stipulations by their representatives, is 
 necessaiy to their receiving the spiritual grace of Baptism ? 
 Answer 16. 
 I cannot frame my Answer more distinctly. 
 
 Question XVII. 
 Not understanding the Answer before given to satisfy 
 the Question, I now simply ask, Whether that is the only 
 Answer which you give ? 
 
 Answer 17. 
 
 It is my earnest desire to give an Answer which fairly 
 meets this Question, so far as the Church has declared her 
 mind upon it ; but when thus pressed with a statement, 
 from my Diocesan, that it does not satisfy his inquiry, I 
 make this further Reply, — that he and I are enjoined by 
 his Majesty's Declaration, prefixed to the Articles, to lay 
 aside " further curious search " into such an abstract 
 point, and to ^' shut up " such disputes " in God's pro- 
 mises as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy 
 Scriptures." 
 
 G 2 
 
SI 
 
 Question XVIII. 
 Has the Clmrch not declared her mind, that infants 
 baptized by a lawful minister, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, do receive the 
 spiritual grace of Baptism ; even if they have not entered 
 into the stipulations by their representatives ? 
 
 Answer 18. 
 
 The Church has declared, that, to infants privately 
 baptized, the grace and mercy of Clndst 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 be 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. 
 
 *In the Catechism, the Church puts the Question, 
 " Why, then, are infants baptized, when by reason of 
 their tender age, they cannot perform them " (the " pro- 
 mises " made by their sureties) ? — without limitation to 
 infants baptized under 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 principal difficulty ; namely, the case of infants bap- 
 tized in emergency, without the formal stipulations, the 
 exaction of which is declared in the Answer, to solve the 
 difficulty proposed. 
 
 Or, 2dly, she intended to impose a charitable silence on 
 her members, with regard to so nice and cui-ious a point, 
 shutting up all further search in the promises of God, as 
 generally set forth in Holy Scripture. 
 
 • [On Monday, Dec. 20, Mr. Gorham stated his wish to make this 
 addition to his Answer, which was allowed by the Bishop.] 
 
85 
 
 Or, 3dly, she intended to embrace that case, in her 
 general Answer, and to consider that the stipulations were 
 implied, under these urgent circumstances, (to be here- 
 after absolutely entered into if more favourable circum- 
 stances permitted,) though they were not formally given. 
 
 The 1st of these suppositions, of course, I dismiss 
 peremptorily. 
 
 The 2d hypothesis would put an end to all further 
 inquiry into the subject. 
 
 The 3d 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. 
 
 Question XIX. 
 Does the Church hold, and do you hold, that infants, so 
 baptized, are regenerated, independently of the stipulations 
 made by their representatives, or by any others for them ? 
 Answer 19. 
 
 If such infants die before they commit " actual sin," 
 the Church holds, and I hold, that they are " undoubtedly 
 saved ; " and therefore 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, 
 
 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, (5, 7, to Questions 
 v., VI., VIL 
 
 That part of the Question which relates to sponsorship, in 
 these cases, I have replied to in the Answer to Question 
 XVIII., so far as the mind of the Church can be ascertained. 
 
 Question XX. 
 Having cited the terms used by our Lord in his express 
 
 * [I mean, — it is ruled that they were actually regenerated, and that 
 they are " undoubtedly saved."] 
 
86 
 
 institution of Baptism, " He that believetli and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved," you thereupon say — 
 
 " The general connexion between the Sign which 
 he has ordained for admission into his Church, and 
 the Faith whi<;h that Sign certifies, is here distinctly 
 affirmed." 
 
 What is the Sign of which you here say that our Lord 
 has ordained it for admission into his Church ? 
 
 Answer 20. 
 
 Baptism. 
 
 Question XXI. 
 What do you mean by these words " the Faith which 
 that Sign certifies ?" 
 
 Answer 21. 
 
 I mean : that Baptism is a certification, pledge, and 
 public manifestation, by the individual who is baptized, 
 that he believes, with " all his heart," in the Divine nature, 
 mission, and atonement of the Son of God, 
 
 Question XXII, 
 Of what then is Baptism a Sign ? 
 
 Answer 22. 
 
 It is a Sign, that the person baptized has professed that 
 belief. 
 
 Question XXIII. 
 According to the doctrine of the Church, is Baptism a 
 Sign of anything else ? 
 
 Answer 23. 
 
 It 7iiay be, and veiy often is, a Sign of nothing more. 
 But, if it be received " rightly, worthily, and by faith," 
 it is an " effectual Sign " of God's " grace " bestowed, 
 which implanted a new nature and produced the faith 
 both professed and possessed; and it is also a Sign of 
 " God's good-will towards us," by which he " strengthens" 
 and confirms our "faith" in him. 
 
87 
 
 Question XXIV. 
 What is the antecedent to "which," in the above 
 answer, in the clause, — " An effectual Sign of God's grace 
 which implanted ? " 
 
 Answer 24. 
 The word " Grace" — not the word " Sign," 
 
 Question XXV. 
 Are you aware that the Latin Articles, of 1571, are of 
 the same authority and binding force as the English ? 
 Answer 25. 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Question XXVI. 
 You will perceive that, in the Latin exhibition* of 
 Article XXVII., " de Baptismo," it is said, — 
 
 " Baptismus .... est Signum Regenerationis, per 
 quod, tanquam per Instrumentum, recte Bap- 
 tismum suscipientes Ecclesise inseruntur, proinis- 
 siones de remissione peccatorum atque adoptione 
 nostra in filios Dei per Spiritum Sanctum visi- 
 biliter obsignantur," &c. 
 Does this induce you to withdraw what you have said 
 in your Answer to Question XXIV. ? 
 
 Answer 26. 
 
 Not at all. The " Signum " in this Article is said to 
 graft into the Church, and to seal the promises of God, as 
 by an " instrument," by which I understand a deed ; not 
 
 * [De Baptismo. — Baptismus non est tantum professionis Signum, 
 ac discriminis nota, qua Christiani a non Christianis discernantur, sed 
 etiam est Signum regenerationis, per quod, tanquam per instru- 
 mentum, recte Baptismum suscipientes Ecclesiaj inseruntur, promis- 
 siones de remissione peccatorum atque adoptione nostra in filios Dei 
 per Si)iritum sanctum visibiliter obsignantur, fides confirmatur, et vi 
 Divina' invocationis gratia augctur. 
 
 Baptism us ])arv ulorum oninino in Ecclcsia retinendus est, ut qui 
 cum Chri.sti in.stitutione optinie congruat.] 
 
88 
 
 to implant a new nature, which I affirmed of the " grace " 
 of God. 
 
 Question XXVII. 
 You will perceive that the words in which you have 
 rendered this Latin Article are not an accurate version of 
 the same ; that the words, literally rendered, are, — 
 
 " A Sign of Regenei-ation, by (or through) which 
 (Sign) — -^jer quod — as by (or through) an Instru- 
 ment — tanquam per instrumentum, — those who 
 receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the 
 Church," &c. 
 Do you now wish to alter your former Answer ? 
 Answer 27. 
 
 I do not see that this remark affects* the point of my 
 Reply. But, to make it more exactly confonnable to the 
 structure of the Latin, I frame it as follows : — 
 
 Not at all. In the Latin Article, those only "who 
 receive Baptism rightly," that is, who previously possess 
 " faith," are said to be by " the Sign" grafted into the 
 Church, as by an Instrument, and to have " the promises of 
 God visibl// sealed" by it — " the Sign." It is not said that 
 a new nature is imjjlanted, in such, by this " Sign," — which 
 benefit I affirmed of the " Grace" of God. In fact, the 
 new nature must have been possessed by those " who 
 receive Baptism rightly ; " and therefore possessed before 
 the Seal was affixed. 
 
 Question XXVIIL 
 Who is it that is here said by this Sign as by an Instru- 
 ment to graft into the Church those who receive Baptism 
 rightly, and to seal the promises respecting remission of 
 
 • [I did not pretend to give a literal ( — and, in that sense, 
 accurate — ) version of the Article. But though I used the active, 
 instead of the passive voice, in a free translation, — that circumstance 
 did not, as it seems to me, in the slightest degree affect the argument 
 between the Bishop and myself.] 
 
89 
 
 sins, and our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy 
 Spirit ? whose Instrument, in other words, is this Sign ? 
 Answer 28. 
 
 The Article appears to me to be wholly silent on the 
 matter of this Question. 
 
 Question XXIX. 
 Though it does not express, does it imply, who is the 
 efficient cause of grafting into the Church, of which 
 Baptism is stated to be the instrumental cause ? 
 
 Answer 29. 
 
 The Article states nothing about causation. If it had 
 intended to direct those who subscribe it to t/iat subject, 
 it would, doubtless, not have left it to be gathered from 
 implication, but would, by direct assertion, have pro- 
 pounded the doctrine of the Church with regard to it. 
 The Question appeal's to me to involve a departure from 
 the principle of subscription to this Article in its " literal 
 and grammatical sense ; " and to be virtually (however 
 undesignedly) introductive of a private " sense or 
 comment."* 
 
 Question XXX. 
 Is it the doctrine of the Church that the Sacraments are 
 Instruments of God by which he works in us ? 
 
 Answer 30, 
 
 Yes. 
 
 Question XXXI. 
 Are they effectual Signs by whicli he works invisibly 
 in us ? 
 
 Answer 31. 
 
 When God works by them, they are effectual ; — but 
 " in such ONLY as worthily receive the same they have a 
 
 • [See the Koy;il Declaration, prefixed to the Articles.] 
 
90 
 
 wliolesome effect or operation " and, consequently, in such 
 " ONLY " they are " effectual Signs." 
 
 * Question XXXII. 
 Considered by themselves, and without reference to the 
 qualifications of the recipients of them, are Sacraments, 
 ordained by Christ, "effectual Signs of grace, and of 
 God's good will towards us, by the which Signs he doth 
 work invisibly in us ?" 
 
 Answer S2. 
 
 Sacraments, are not effectual Signs of grace, "by them- 
 selves and without reference to the qualifications of the 
 recipients." God has no good will towards those who do 
 NOT "receive them rightly and by faith;" and he doth 
 NOT work invisibly in such persons, since they receive the 
 " Sign or Sacrament" "rather to their condemnation." 
 [Article XXIX.] " In such only as worthily receive 
 the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation." 
 [Article XXV.] 
 
 * [The Bishop originally proposed, and Mr. Gorham answered, this 
 Question, in the following form : — ] 
 
 Question XXV. 
 Considered by themselves, and without reference to the recipients 
 of them, are Sacraments, ordained by Christ, in their own nature 
 effectual Signs of grace, and of God's good will towards us, by the 
 ■which Signs he doth work invisibly in us ? 
 
 Answer 25. 
 
 I cannot understand Sacraments, without reference to their reci- 
 pients ; at least, I cannot understand how " taken bt/ fhemselres" ( — I 
 presume, therefore, taken as ahstt-act Signs — ) they can be tokens of a 
 disposition towards any person, or Symbols of a work to be wrought 
 on any persons. 
 
 Sacraments, " in their own nature," are NOT, therefore, sueh Signs 
 as described in this Question. 
 
 [The Bishop, on hearing this Answer, expressed his desire that both 
 the Question and the Answer sliould be re-stated; and they were 
 re-stated, as in the text.] 
 
91 
 
 Question XXXIII. 
 Without denying, or disputing, the necessity of right 
 qualifications, in those, being capable of such qualifications, 
 who receive the Sacraments, — does the Chuixh hold, and 
 do you hold, that the Sacraments, ordained by Christ, are 
 " effectual Signs of grace, and of God's good will towards 
 us by the which he doth work invisibly in us ? " 
 
 Answer S3, 
 
 The Church does not declare, and I do not hold, that 
 a7iy persons ai'e /wcapable of right qualifications. 
 
 I have replied to the latter part of this Question ex- 
 plicitly in my Answer 32, to the preceding Question 
 XXXII. 
 
 Question XXXIV. 
 Do you decline giving any further answer to that 
 Question ? 
 
 Answer 34. 
 
 I would willingly give a fui'ther Answer, if I could do so 
 without manifest tautology. I do not therefore " decline " 
 to satisfy your Lordship more fully 5 but I confess my 
 inahility to make my view more perspicuous. 
 
 Question XXXV. 
 Without in any way entering into the necessity of right 
 qualifications, or into a considei'ation whether infants or 
 others are, or are not, capable of right qualifications, I 
 would ask, whether Sacraments ordained of Christ be 
 effectual Signs of grace and God's good-will towards us, by 
 the which he doth work invisibly in us ? " 
 
 Answer 55. 
 
 With Article XXV. under my eye, during the discus- 
 sion of the last five Questions, it is utterly impossible 
 for me — as bound by that explicit declaration of the 
 doctrine of the Church on this matter — to consider 
 the "wliolcsome eff"ect" of the Sacraments, detached from 
 qualifications in the recipient. The Church has so dis- 
 
92 
 
 tinctly tied these considerations to each other, in this 
 Article, that I am compelled, by her grave decision, to 
 view them as indissoluhly connected. 
 
 Question XXXVI. 
 Fully recognising and asserting the great and unques- 
 tionable truth, that, " in such only as worthily receive " 
 the Sacraments, " they have a wholesome effect or opera- 
 tion," but "they that receive them unvvortluly, purchase to 
 themselves damnation," as is expressed in the concluding 
 sentence of Article XXV., — I ask, in the words of the 
 first clause of the same Article, whether " Sacraments 
 ordained of Christ be effectual Signs of gi'ace and God's 
 good-will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly 
 in us ? " 
 
 Answer 36. 
 
 However this Question be varied, I can only repeat, in 
 somewhat different terms, what I have distinctly said, and 
 must abide by, as the doctrine of the Church, — 
 namely; — that the declaration in the "Jirst" part of this 
 Article with regard to Sacraments, as " effectual Signs of 
 grace, by which God doth work invisibly in us," is to be 
 construed iti close connexion with the declaration at the end 
 of the Article with regard to the " wholesome effect or 
 operation " of the Sacraments, as rigorously limited to 
 worthy recipients.* 
 
 Question XXXVII, 
 Taking your meaning to be so, I ask whether the Sacra- 
 ments are, in the case of those who receive them worthily, 
 " effectual Signs of grace, by the which God doth work 
 invisibly in us ? " 
 
 * [The subject of " worthy reception " as a qualification for the in- 
 crease of grace in the Sacrament of Baptism, discussed in Questions 
 XXX. to XXXVI., (with the Answers to them,) was again examined 
 in Questions LXVII. to LXIX., and, incidentally; in several others. 
 See some further remarks in the notes to Answer 67.] 
 
93 
 
 Answer 37. 
 
 They are. 
 
 Question XXXVIII. 
 In the case of those who receive Baptism worthily, is 
 there any, and, if any, what, special grace which " God 
 doth work invisibly in us " by Baptism, as the " effectual 
 Sign " thereof. 
 
 Answer 38. 
 
 There is. By this Sign and visible Symbol of his 
 grace, he sets his seal to his " promises of forgiveness of 
 sins, and of our adoption to be his sons;" he "confirms" 
 the " Faith " which he had previously implanted in us, and 
 by which he made us " rightly " to receive this Sacrament ; 
 and he "increases" the "Grace" which he had previously 
 given us : he does all * this " by virtue of prayer," for 
 which he has bestowed the disposition. 
 
 Question XXXIX. 
 Does he "work invisibly in us" the grace of our adop- 
 tion to be his sons ? 
 
 Answer 39. 
 
 The grace of adoption he visibly seals by the Sign which 
 he has ordained to be its token, but he " works," also, 
 " invisibly in us," by this external pledge, an assurance 
 that he has adopted us. In other words, he " invisibly " 
 sends his Spirit [" the Spirit of adoption "] into owe 
 
 * [The Bishop justly remarked, that the virtue of prayer is not 
 affirmed with regard to any other blessing than the " confirming grace ; " 
 as is clear from the Latin Articles, — " et, vi Divinoe invocationis, gratia 
 augetur." It is equally clear, however, that the virtue of prayer is 
 not intended to be restricted to the last blessing named, though men- 
 tioned parenthetically in connexion with it ; on the contrary, " the 
 Divine invocation " is beautifully suggested in the closing sentence of 
 the Article, as that without which no blessing can be expected.} 
 
94 
 
 hearts, by which we acknowledge our filial condition, and 
 " cry, Abba, Father ! " * 
 
 Question XL. 
 Does he give to us, or " work invisibly in us," by bap- 
 tism, the filial condition of which you here speak ? 
 Answer 40. 
 
 That filial condition was given us by the qualification 
 of "faith,"^ essential to the right reception of Baptism; 
 and, therefore, was given before Baptism if we were worthy 
 recipients of that Sacrament ; for he gives " power to 
 become the sons of God to as many as believe on his 
 name." f J ohn i. 12. 
 
 Question XLI. 
 Is the faith, that is required of persons who are bap- 
 tized, belief of any special truths stated by the Church ? 
 
 N.B. The Bishop here gave the Book of Common 
 Prayer, open at the Catechism, saying, " You know the 
 Answer in the Catechism." ;{: 
 
 Answer 41. 
 
 The faith required is stated, with diflferent degrees of 
 
 * [" As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of 
 God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear ; 
 but ye have recaved the spirit of adoption, whereby we cit, Abba, 
 Father." Rom. viii. 14, 15.] 
 
 t [" As many as received liim, to them gave he power to become 
 the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name : which were 
 born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of 
 man, but of God." John i. 12, 13.] 
 
 X [This N.B. will not be very intelligible without some explanation. 
 The Question was recorded tcifhout it. " You know the Answer in 
 the Catechism," was said to me aside ; and I understood this 
 remark to be simply a suggestion or hint at the kind of Answer 
 which the Bishop wished to di-aw out. But as an Answer, so re- 
 stricted, was by no means that which I was disposed to give, I tacitly 
 assented to my knowledge of the passage pointed out, and proceeded 
 
95 
 
 distinctness, in different parts of the Formularies and 
 Articles. 
 
 In the Catecliism it is stated, generally, to be a " stead- 
 fast belief of the promises of God made in that Sacra- 
 ment." 
 
 In Article XXVII., those promises are more specially- 
 said to be, "forgiveness of sins, and our adaption to be 
 the sons of God by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 In the Baptismal Ritual, a belief is exacted, from the 
 recipient, of all the articles of the Christian faith embodied 
 in the Creed. 
 
 I conclude, therefore, that tlie " faith " required in 
 Baptism means faith, in the usual acceptation of that 
 word in theology, and not belief in any special truth 
 stated by the Church in any one part of her Services. 
 
 to frame my Answer in my own \^■ay. When the Bishop perceived that 
 I was referring to sereral parts of the Pi'ayer-book, he desired his 
 Chaplain to aUer the Question, by adding after the word " Church " — 
 " in the Catechism." To this I strongly objected, my Answer being 
 then nearly finished. Much discussion followed, and it was finally 
 agreed that the observation (N.B.) should be recorded.} 
 
96 
 
 THIRD DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Monday, December 20, 1847. 
 IFrom Half-past Ten, a.m., to Six, p.m.] 
 
 PROTEST. 
 
 Having already protested, orally, against your Lord- 
 ship's Examination of me, previously to its commence- 
 ment, on Friday morning, the 17th instant, and having now 
 been subject to Examination for more than eighteen hours, 
 during two successive days : — at the renewal of this in- 
 quiry, this morning, into my "worthiness for my ministry," 
 I record my Protest in writing, as your Lordship ex- 
 pressed a wish that it should be stated in that way. I 
 protest : — 
 
 1. Because your Lordship on Friday affirmed that 
 you ground your claim to do so, not on any particular 
 law or canon, but on the general right of a Bishop ; which 
 right is not, as I conceive, given to you by the " autho- 
 rity " which " to you has been committed by the Ordi- 
 nance of this Realm." 
 
 2. Because the right to examine any -Clerk pre- 
 sented to a Benefice, as to his being " worthy of his 
 ministry," given to the Bishop by Canon XXXIX., is 
 limited, by Canon XCV., to a period of twenty-eight 
 days " after he shall have tendered his presentation to 
 such Bishop." 
 
 3. Because, though your Lordship gave me the 
 
97 
 
 option of an interview on the 5th day after my Presenta- 
 tion had been tendered, and Admission thereupon re- 
 quested, you made no mention whatever of a desire to 
 examine me on that day, or at all ; but you stated your 
 supposition that I should proceed into Cornwall, for the 
 purpose (which I had avowed to you) of removing my 
 family to my new Benefice, in consequence of your 
 inability to see me earlier ; — whereas, had not your in- 
 tention to examine been altogether suppressed, I should 
 have attended your Lordship on the earliest day possible 
 for that purpose, and not have taken any step towards the 
 removal of my family, till the Examination had been 
 entered into. 
 
 4. Because, from the moment of my having been ap- 
 prised that you would examine me before you would in- 
 stitute, I returned to Exeter, and earnestly requested that 
 such Examination might take place there, your Lordship 
 being then at the Palace on your way to Parliament ; or^ 
 that I might attend your Lordship in London, or else- 
 where, for that purpose; — both which requests were 
 denied. 
 
 5. Because, being told by your Lordship that you 
 would not examine me till after your return to Bishop- 
 stowe, I informed you that I would, as I did, remain 
 near your Lordship's residence, to wait for a response to 
 my request for Admission ; and I had waited eleven days 
 when this Examination began, and have now waited 
 fourteen days beyond the period by which Canon XCV. 
 limits your right to " enquire and inform yourself as to 
 my sufficiency and capacities," — namely, to the thirty- 
 ninth day after I first tendered my Presentation to your 
 Lordship. I have submitted, however, and will continue 
 (within reasonable limitation) to submit to Examination, 
 under this Protest, asserting my claim for Admission to 
 
 H 
 
98 
 
 the Benefice to which the Crown has presented me, as if 
 no Examination had been either asked or conceded. 
 
 George Cornelius Gorham, 
 Actual Vicar of St. Just-in-Penwith, Cornwall, 
 Presented Vicar of Brampford Speke, Devon, 
 both in the Diocese of Exeter.* 
 Bishopstowe, December 20, 1847. 
 
 [The following conversation was then recorded.] 
 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 As your Lordship has subjected me to Examina- 
 tions protracted to a length which exhausts my mind and 
 body, the last being one of eleven hours and a half, with 
 only three quarters of an hour's intermission ; I must claim 
 the indulgence of limiting the time during which I can 
 conveniently submit to Examination, this day, to six 
 hours. 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 I gladly assent : and with reference to what you say of 
 the length of the Examination at our last meeting, I 
 must observe, that neither youi- body nor mind appeared 
 to me at that time to be exhausted ; but I understood the 
 resuming the Examination after dinner, to have been with 
 your full concurrence, else I should not have resumed it. 
 But I now wish you clearly to understand, that if, in con- 
 sequence of that exhaustion of mind or body, or from 
 any other cause, you are desirous of correcting any of the 
 
 * [I should have added, — " And in the patronage of the Crown by 
 the Lord Chancellor."] 
 
99 
 
 Answers made in that Examination, I fully assent to your 
 right to do so. 
 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 
 I did not formally object to the long continuance of the 
 Examination on Saturday ; believing, every hour, that it 
 must be about to close, and earnestly desiring to satisfy 
 your Lordship : but in the later part of the evening I did, 
 more than once, remind your Lordship, that I hoped it 
 would soon be finished ; and, on separating at half-past 
 eleven, I expressly said that I had, in my University, 
 known what severe Examinations were, but that I be- 
 lieved such an Examination as this was unprecedented. 
 
 I do not desire to correct any one of the Answers made 
 in this Examination ; but I do wish to be allowed to make 
 my Answer to Question XVIIL more complete, by an 
 addition to it. 
 
 Mr. Gorham then read his addition * to his Answer 
 to Question XVIIL 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 I am as much surprised and disappointed, as Mr. Gor- 
 ham can be, by the length to which the Examination has 
 been protracted ; but I have found it necessary, in conse- 
 quence of Mr. Gorham not answering the Questions as at 
 first proposed, (numbered V., VI., VII.,) categorically, 
 but requiring to discuss them together ; and by his so 
 discussing them accordingly in the paper delivered by him 
 as his Answer to those Questions. 
 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 Your Lordship stated your disappointment, three or 
 four times, during my Examination on Saturday. I as 
 often replied, that a simple affirmation or negation, or 
 even assent or dissent given with short explanations, 
 ' [See this addition subjoined to Answer 18, p. 84.] 
 
 H 2 
 
100 
 
 could not possibly declare my mind on some of the 
 critical and difficult points placed before me. I stated 
 this, very pointedly, on our separating on Saturday night ; 
 and I cited a remark of St. Augustin,* to the effect that, 
 to be required to return brief Answers to Questions 
 implying large considerations in Theology, was an un- 
 reasonable demand. 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 As an hour has already been employed on this, except 
 that portion of it which Mr. Gorham has given to stating 
 his [addition to his] Answer to Question XVIII., I 
 decline saying what occurs to me further. 
 
 Question XLII. 
 Do you consider this [namely, the addition to Answer 
 18,] as the teaching of the Church ? 
 
 Answer 42. 
 
 In declaring my view of what the Church holds, when 
 
 * [The remark occurs in a letter from Augustin to Bishop Bonifice, 
 on Baptism : — " Recordatus sum Nebridium amicum meum, qui, 
 cum esset rerum obscurarum ad doctrinam pietatis maxime perti- 
 nentium diligentissimus et acerrimus inquisitor, valde oderat de 
 Qu.ESTiONE MAGNA Responsionem bkeve.m ; et quisquis hoc 
 poposcisset, oegerrime ferebat, eumque, si ejus persona pateretur, 
 vultu, indignabundus, et voce, cohibebat; indignum reputans qui 
 talia quffreret, cum, de re tanta, quam multa dici possent debe- 
 rentque, nesciret." — " I remember that my friend Nebridius, who was 
 a most diligent and eager inquirer into obscure matters intimately 
 connected with religious truth, extremely disliked A SHORT Answer 
 TO A GREAT QUESTION ; he could scarcely tolerate any one who 
 demanded such a thing ; and indignantly checked him, both by his 
 look and his voice, if he could do so without disrespect to the person; 
 whom he considered as unreasonable in making such a requirement, 
 and as having little knowledge of the large discussion which so great 
 a matter rendered possible or necessary." — Augustini Opera, Vol. II., 
 Epist. 98, col. 267, Edit. Paris, 1689.] 
 
101 
 
 her holding is to be gathered (as it must be in the nice 
 Question, No. XVIIL, proposed to me,) from implication 
 merely, I prefer to abide by the word which I have 
 selected in my addition to my Answer to that Question, — 
 namely, " meaning." The Church " teaches " ( — using 
 that word in a strict and definite sense, and not in a 
 popular way — ) in her standard of doctrine, her 
 Thirty-nine Articles. 
 
 Question XLIII. 
 "What say you of the Catechism ? Is it not a part of 
 the Church's dogmatical teaching, and a Standard of its 
 doctrine ? 
 
 Answer 43. 
 
 I have no hesitation in allowing that the Catechism is, 
 as its title declares it to be, " an Instruction ; " * and I 
 
 * [My view of the Catechism is illustrated by a conversation 
 between Dr. Reinolds and King James I., at the Hampton Court 
 Conference, in 1604, with regard to this very part of the Catechism, 
 " On the Sacraments," which was then added to the shorter Form. 
 " It was demanded of him (the King) whether, if to the Short 
 Catechism in the Communion Book, something were added, for the 
 doctrine of the Saci-ament, it would not serve ? His Majesty thought 
 the Doctor's request very reasonable : but yet so, that he would have 
 a Catechism in the fewest and plainest affirmative terms that may be, 
 . . . . adding this excellent gnomical and canon-like conclusion, 
 that, in reforming of a Church, . . . old, curious, deep, and 
 intricate Questions, might be avoided in the fundamental INSTKUC- 
 TION of a people." — Cardwell's Conferences, p. 187. 
 
 It is very curious, also, to observe, that, in the later Savoy 
 Conference, 1661, the Nonconforming Divines submitted whether, as 
 " the doctrine of the Sacraments, which was added upon the Conference 
 at Hampton Court, is much more fully and particularly delivered than 
 the other parts of the Catechism, in short answers fitted to the 
 memories of children, .... it were not convenient to add 
 (what seems to be wanting) something particularly concerning the 
 nature of faith, of repentance, the two covenants, of justification, 
 sanctification, adoptiox, and regexeratiox." In fact, the Non- 
 conformists wished the Catechism to he made, what the Bishop of 
 
102 
 
 admit that the doctrines of the Church, as far as they are 
 expressly stated in it, are " to be learned from it, when 
 this popular form of Instruction has been fairly brought 
 into connexion with the Thirty-nine Articles ; which I 
 still hold to be, in the stricter sense of the term, the 
 
 STANDARD OF THE DOCTRINES OF THE ChURCH." 
 
 But, in the matter before us, it being one confessedly 
 of imj)Ucatio7i, I still adliere to my form of expression, — 
 and I consider that the " meaning," rather than the 
 " teaching" of the Church, is a term best suited to the 
 present inquiry, 
 
 * I think it further important to obsei've, that there is 
 this distinction between the Book of Common Prayer 
 (including the Catechism) and the Thirty-nine Aiticles, as 
 regards critical and theological discussions on the tenets of 
 the Church contained in them respectively, namely : — 
 that every clergyman declares that (Canon XXXVI.) 
 " the Book of Common Prayer containeth in it nothing 
 contrary to the Word of God ; " but he allows " the 
 Book of Articles to be agreeable to the Word of God : " — 
 and they are said, in the King's Declaration prefixed, 
 to " contain the true doctrine of the Church of England 
 agreeable to God's Word." The mind of the Church is, 
 doubtless, to be gathered from both : but her direct, 
 
 Exeter seems to affirm in Question XLIII. it h, " a part of the 
 Church's dogmatical teaching, and a standard of its doctrine." Now, 
 what was the answer of the twelve Episcopal Commissioners ? " The 
 Catechism is not intended as a whole body of divinity, but as a 
 comprehension of the articles of faith, and other doctrines most 
 necessary to salvation ; and, being short, is fittest for childi-en and 
 common people ; and, as it was thought sufficient upon mature de- 
 liberation, so is by us." I do not admit the ojyinion of the twelve 
 Bishops to be any authority ; but their Obiter Dictum may serve to 
 show how far they were from considering the Catechism as being a 
 " dogmatical standard of doctrine." — (See " Cardwell's Conferences," 
 pp. 327, 358.] 
 
 * [The Bishop allowed Mr. Gorham to make this addition to 
 Answer 43, on Tuesday, December 21.] 
 
103 
 
 positive, rigid, dogmatical assertion of Divine Truth, is to 
 be sought, mainly, in her severely exact Standard, the 
 Thirty-nine Articles ; to which we must ultimately have 
 recourse " for the avoiding of diversities of opinions," 
 even should they unhappily originate in the less precise 
 " Instruction " of the Formularies in the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer. 
 
 Question XLIV. 
 You have cited the Title of the Catechism, — An " In- 
 struction." "Will you have the goodness to state the whole 
 of the Title ? 
 
 Answer 44. 
 
 *' A Catechism ; that is to say, an Instruction to be 
 learned of every person before he be brought to be con- 
 firmed by the Bishop." 
 
 Question XLV. 
 Are you aware that that part of the Catechism 
 which commences, " How many Sacraments hath Christ 
 ordained in his Church ? — " and continues to the end, was 
 appended in the reign of King James the First, many 
 years after the Articles were framed ; for it appears by 
 the heading of the Articles, that they were agreed upon, 
 in the Convocation at London, in the year 1 562 ? 
 
 Answer 45. 
 
 I am well aware of this ; and I exhibit a note in my 
 writing, in the margin of my Prayer-book, in evidence of 
 my having paid attention to that fact. 
 
 " Note. — This part was added, in 1604, at the Hampton 
 Court Conference." 
 
 Question XLVI. 
 Proceeding now to your \vritten Answer to Questions 
 v., VI., VII. — which Answer I was not able to read till 
 last night — I read the first portion of it to you. 
 
104 
 
 " As these three Questions all imply the same de- 
 scription of Answer, I will discuss them together. 
 
 And, generally, I reply, that these propositions, 
 being stated in the precise words of the Ritual 
 Services, or of the Catechism, undoubtedly must 
 be held by every honest member of the Church to 
 ' contain in them nothing contrary to the Word of 
 ' God, or to sound doctrine, or which a godly man 
 ' may not with a good conscience use and submit 
 
 • unto, or which is not fairly defensible . , . . if it 
 ' shall he allowed such just and favourable construc- 
 
 * tion as in common equity ought to he allowed to all 
 ' human writings, especially such as are set forth by 
 ' authority.' 
 
 " Now the just and favourable construction of 
 passages like these" — 
 What do you mean by the word " these?" 
 
 Answer 46. 
 
 I mean, in Question V., the passage : — " Made (in 
 Baptism) a member of Christ, the child of God, and an 
 inheritor of the kingdom of Heaven." 
 
 In Question VI. ; — " By the laver of regeneration in 
 Baptism, are received into the number of the children of 
 God, and heirs of everlasting life." 
 
 In Question VII. ; — " Are born again of water and of 
 the Holy Ghost," 
 
 Those words being fairly taken with their contexts. 
 
 Question XLVII. 
 Do you mean, as the context in Question VI., the 
 words, 
 
 " I certify you, that in this case all is well done, 
 and according unto due order, concerning the bap- 
 tizing of this child ; who, being born in original sin, 
 and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of Re- 
 generation in Baptism, received into the number of 
 
105 
 
 the children of God, and heirs of everlasting life : for 
 our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny his grace and 
 mercy unto such infants, but most lovingly doth 
 call them unto him, as the holy Gospel doth wit- 
 ness to our comfort on this wise." 
 
 Answer 47. 
 
 I do. [It is not, however, my intention, by this general 
 admission, to include specifically in the context, the 
 words — " I certify you, that, in this case, all is well done, and 
 according unto due order, concerning the baptizing of this 
 child : " that certification having respect to nothing more 
 than the form of Baptism, without any reference to the 
 doctrine. See Answer 78, below.] 
 
 Question XLVIII. 
 I see that in the passage which I have I'ead [Question 
 XLVI.] as the commencement of your written Answer 
 to Questions V., VI., and VII., you make an extract 
 from the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer. Did 
 you make that extract immediately from the Book itself, 
 when you wrote that Answer ? 
 
 Answer 48. 
 
 I believe I did ; for I see that I had previously marked 
 this passage in my copy of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 which I have used in this Examination. But I cannot 
 undertake to declare this absolutely ; since I am not sure 
 that I might not have cited it 7nemoriter, or from some 
 MS. note. 
 
 Question XLIX. 
 Did you cite this passage, as intended to state the 
 qualifications therein mentioned, with which the Book 
 of Common Prayer, as it is now established, is to be 
 accepted and understood ? 
 
 Answer 49. 
 
 I did. 
 
106 
 
 Question L. 
 
 Are you not aware, that it is a passage expressly 
 applied, by the writers of it, not to the Book of Common 
 Prayer as it now stands, but to the Book as it stood 
 before the Review which resulted in establishing the 
 present Book of Common Prayer 1 
 Answer 50. 
 
 I am aware of this ; for it is expressly so stated in the 
 context of the passage which I cited. 
 
 Question LI. 
 Why, then, did you forbear to state that in making the 
 reference ? 
 
 Answer 51. 
 
 I did not " forbear," — understanding that word to hint 
 at a motive for non-statement. But, I reply, I did not 
 state the fact, simply because I considered it nihil 
 ad rem. 
 
 Question LII. 
 Do you perceive that the passage extracted by you 
 declares the reason for the assertion of the writers of 
 the Preface, that certain alterations of that Book, which 
 they had made, were not made from the conviction of the 
 necessity of making them ? 
 
 Answer 52. 
 I fully perceive that. 
 
 Question LIII. 
 Do you also perceive that they express their general 
 aim in this undertaking to have been : — 
 
 *' Not to gratify this or that party in any of their 
 " unreasonable demands ; but to do that which 
 " to our best understandings we conceived might 
 most tend to the preservation of peace and 
 " unity in the Church ; the procuring of reverence, 
 " and exciting of piety, and devotion, in the 
 
107 
 
 " public worship of God ; and the cutting off 
 " occasion, from them that seek occasion, of 
 " cavil, or quarrel, against the Liturgy of the 
 " Church." 
 
 Answer 53. 
 
 I do. 
 
 Question LIV. 
 Do you wish, at this point of inquiry, to make any 
 further remark ? 
 
 Answer 54. 
 
 I do wish this. — I have been expecting that your 
 Lordship would point out some inconsistency, in my 
 having cited this passage, as pointing out the " just 
 and favourable construction " with which *' in common 
 equity" the language of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 as at present established, ought to be understood ; — 
 with my not having stated facts which I considered as 
 nihil ad rem. 
 
 The " favourable construction which in common 
 equity" was claimed for the former Service Book, is 
 clearly claimed for the Book as at present established; 
 since the writers of the Preface expressly insist that it 
 " ought to be allowed to all human writings, especially 
 such as are set forth by authority ; " and therefore, to 
 that " human writing" which was set forth at the Review, 
 [by authority of the Act of Uniformity, in 1662,] and was 
 not rendered absolutely perfect nor incapable of being 
 misconstrued. 
 
 Question LV. 
 Do you consider, that it was the meaning of the 
 vn-iters of the Preface, in these words, to claim this 
 "just and favourable construction" as necessarily to be 
 allowed to their own Book ? 
 
 Answer 55. 
 
 If we allow them to have been honest, humble, and 
 
108 
 
 Christian men, we must consider that such was their 
 meaning : the negation of this would imply, that they 
 viewed their alterations from the former Book as infallibly 
 the very best that could be chosen, and their own writing 
 as a super-human composition. 
 
 Question LVI. 
 Do you perceive, that they state their alterations to 
 have been made, " not because they were convinced of 
 the necessity of making" them? — for they were "fully 
 persuaded" that the Book, as it stood before, did 
 not contain anything contrary to the Word of God or 
 to sound doctrine, or which a godly man may not with 
 a good conscience use and submit unto ; or which is 
 not fairly defensible against any that shall oppose the 
 same." 
 
 Answer 56. 
 
 I clearly see that. 
 
 Question LVII. 
 Does, then, this appear to you to have been said by 
 them somewhat in the way of apology for the matters 
 which they had altered 1 
 
 Answer 57. 
 
 It may, pei-haps, be considered as a declaration some- 
 what apologetic ; but it is more ; — it is an acknowledg- 
 ment that the Review was, in many respects, demanded 
 by Christian " moderation," and in others was " requisite 
 or expedient" in some "degree;" and it is a humble 
 confession that " all human writings " axe imperfect, and 
 require " just and favourable construction." 
 
 Question LVIII. 
 I recur to the written Answers to Questions V., VI., 
 VII. I there read as follows, immediately after the ex- 
 tract from the Book of Common Prayer : — 
 
109 
 
 " Now the just and favourable construction of 
 passages like these, (occurring in Services intended 
 for popular use,) which, taken in their naked ver- 
 hality, might appear to contradict the clearest 
 statements of Scripture, and of the Church her- 
 self," &c. — 
 
 You state, here, that the passages from the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, referred to in Questions V., VI., VII., 
 " taken in their naked verhality," might appear to contra- 
 dict the clearest statements of Scripture, and of the 
 Church herself. Which of the clearest statements of 
 Scripture might the passage referred to in Question V., 
 " if taken in its naked verbality," appear to contra- 
 dict ? 
 
 Answer 58. 
 
 Scripture declares, that, as " the wind bloweth where 
 it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst 
 not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth ; so is 
 every one that is born of the Spirit." (John iii. 8.) Now 
 if the effects and blessings set forth in " naked verbality," 
 by the passage* cited in Question V., were absolutely, 
 unconditionally wrought in, and conferred on, " every 
 infant," — the Spirit would, of necessity, effect his opera- 
 tion, in EVERY infant," at the moment when man thinks 
 fit to direct He shall effect it ; — -which is a conclusion 
 directly opposed to the declaration of the lip of truth in 
 this Scripture. 
 
 Again: it is declared in Scripture (John i. 12, 13), that 
 those who are "the sons of God," "were born not of 
 blood, NOR of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
 but of God ; " and that they become his sons by " belief 
 on the name " of Jesus Christ. But, if the 7iakedly verbal 
 declaration of the spiritual filiation of "every infant" 
 
 * [Namely, that " every infant, baptized by a lawful minister, in 
 the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is made by 
 God, in such Baptism, ' a member of Christ, the child of God, and an 
 inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.'" 
 
110 
 
 were unconditionally true, then there would be no place 
 left for its regeneration, or its being brought into the 
 relation of a " child of God," by the means of faith, as 
 here stated in the Divine Record ; and the spiritual birth 
 of "every infant " would be, by " the will of man" and 
 at lihe precise moment when man exercises his "will " that 
 such new nature shall be imparted. 
 
 The same line of argument ( — I mean of apparent con- 
 tradiction between the supposed unconditional assertion 
 made by " the naked verhality " of the passage in Question 
 v., and the affirmation of Scripture — ) might be shown 
 from Gal. iii. 26, "Ye are all the children of God by 
 faith in Christ Jesus." 
 
 And, again, from James i. 18, — " Of his own will begat 
 he us, by the Word of truth." 
 
 And, once more, ( — to omit numerous other passages, 
 and not to insist largely on the whole tenor of the Sacred 
 Oracles — ) the proposition which I am maintaining might 
 be established from 1 Peter i. 3 and 23, " The God and 
 Father of our Lord Jesus Christ .... hath begotten us 
 again .... by the resurrectio7i of Jesus Christ from the 
 dead." " Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but 
 of incorruptible, by the Word of God, which liveth and 
 abideth for ever." From which passage Bishop Latimer'* 
 justly insists on the truth, " Thus cometh in our New 
 Birth;" after having directly negatived the dogma of 
 "those firebrands" ( — he clearly means the Papists — ) 
 who maintained that the New Birth was effected abso- 
 lutely, unconditionally, necessarily, instantaneously, indu- 
 bitably, ex opere operato, by Baptism. 
 
 I refer your Lordship, generally, to numerous other 
 passages ( — of the class, " As many as are led by the Spirit 
 of God, they are the sons of God." Rom. viii. 14, &c., 
 &c. — ), which speak of the disposition, character, and 
 effects, wrought in the heart, and manifested in the life, as 
 
 * [Sermon before Edward VI. See the passage, supra, p. 77.] 
 
Ill 
 
 evidences that Regeneration has actually taken place. All 
 such passages would be flatly contradicted by maintaining 
 that Regeneration, or being " made the child of God," 
 absolutely, unconditionally, peremptorily, takes place in 
 " EVERY infant baptized by a lawful minister with water, 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
 Holy Ghost." — FACT overthrows the supposition. 
 
 Question LIX. 
 Fully recognising the necessity of right reception, as 
 well as right administration, I ask — in reference to the 
 texts John iii. 8 and i. 12, 13 — and at the same time, to the 
 words cited in Question V., 
 
 " Wherein (that is, in Baptism,) I was made a 
 member of Christ, the child of God, and an inhe- 
 ritor of the kingdom of Heaven," — 
 Whether you consider the Church as there ascribing, or 
 not ascribing, the blessings there mentioned to the gift of 
 God in Baptism ? 
 
 Answer 59. 
 
 I have very fully answered this inquiry, in the body of 
 my reply to Question V., and have illustrated (by a 
 citation from the Homily on Swearing, Part I.,) the sense 
 in which I maintain that the Church holds these blessings 
 to be conferred in Baptism. [See p. 70.] 
 
 But with a wish to state my view so as to satisfy your 
 Lordship that you understand what I really hold ( — for 
 I have no reserve in my mind — ), I here add : — That the 
 Church holds, and I hold, that the worthy reception here 
 [i.e., in Question LIX.] recognised, implies "Faith" 
 (see Article XXVII., and see the requirements from the 
 sponsors in the Baptismal Service) : but as the stipulation 
 of "Faith" goes before Baptism, and as the condition of 
 being "the child of God" is a blessing conferred by 
 "Faith" (John i. 12, 13; Gal. iii. 26),— hence the 
 blessing of " adoption," also, precedes Baptism, in its 
 essence ; but it is declared, attested, and manifested by 
 
112 
 
 that Sacrament, as [ordained to be] a Seal or Sign of the 
 gift — which I maintain to be a very different proposition 
 from this other, namely — That the blessing of regenera- 
 tion, or adoption to be a member of the family of God, is 
 to be ascribed to Baptism. 
 
 I will illustrate what I mean, by adducing the Baptism 
 of the Divine Founder of that Sacrament. Our Lord was 
 the Son of God, in fact, in the essential character and 
 nature of that relation to him, before Baptism ; but when 
 he submitted to that Sign, he was manifested, attested. 
 Divinely proclaimed to be his " Beloved Son" ; " made " 
 (in such a sense,) the Son of God, by the affusion of 
 water. In plain words. His Sonship must not be ascribed 
 to that Sign, but it was " in and by " that sign solemnly 
 attested. And this I conceive to be a fair (though I do 
 not say it is a perfect) illustration of the way in which 
 each of His disciples is "made the child of God" 
 ( — worthy reception being all along taken for granted — ), 
 " in and by Baptism." 
 
 Question LX. 
 Do you perceive that the Question (LIX.) was, — 
 " Whether you consider the Church as ascribing, or not 
 ascribing," in the words cited in Question V., " the bless- 
 ings cited therein to God in Baptism;" but that your 
 Answer is rather an Answer to the Question, Whether 
 you consider the Church therein as ascribing or not 
 ascribing those blessings to Baptism. 
 
 Answer 60. 
 
 I do not appear, to myself, to have confounded these 
 evidently distinct propositions. The Question (LIX.) 
 relates ( — as far as I apprehend it — ) not to the Author, 
 or Efficient Cause, of the blessing ; but to the time when, 
 and the act by which, the blessing is conferred. 
 
 — The blessing is, " Adoption to be the sons of God ; " 
 that blessing is undoubtedly to be " ascribed to God." 
 For " Faith is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God ; " 
 
113 
 
 and to such as possess Faith, " to them giveth He " (Jesus 
 Christ) " power to become the sons of God." But that > 
 *' faith," and that filial state, though clearly to be *' as- ] 
 cribed to God," was given to the worthy recipient ( — for 
 we are here all along assuming this worthiness — ) before ' 
 Baptism, and not " in Baptism." 
 
 My former reply, therefore, I hold to be quite to the 
 point brought before me ; and, if there seems to be any 
 ambiguity in it, I wish this to be considered as my 
 explanation. 
 
 FOURTH DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Tuesday, December 21, 1847. 
 \From Half-past One, p.m., to Half-past Six, p.m.] 
 
 Mr. Gorhara asked leave (which was given,) to make an 
 addition * to his Answer 43. 
 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 
 Your Lordship having stated, yesterday evening, that 
 the continuance or discontinuance of this Examination 
 depended on my avowing, or disavowing, my intention 
 ( — which you said you apprehended I entertained — ) to 
 lay it before the world, of which intention I had not given 
 the most distant hint ; and, on my declining to say any- 
 thing on that point, your Lordship having thereupon said, 
 that 'you should deem it your duty to resume your 
 Questions ; ' I respectfully submit to my Bishop the fol- 
 lowing considerations : — 
 
 If this Examination be continued, with the declared 
 
 • [See this addition, inserted at the end of Answer 43, p. 102.] 
 
114 
 
 motive in your Lordship's mind to meet the assumed 
 possible contingency of my publication of it, — will it be 
 any longer an Examination in conformity Avith the law 
 and mind of the Church, which has given your Lordship 
 this authority for a certain well-defined purpose ? or will 
 it be calculated to elicit unconstrained replies ? 
 
 I very humbly address to your Lordship this Argumen- 
 tum ad verecundiam ; and I request you gravely to decide, 
 — Whether the time has not 7iow come, when (with such 
 ample materials for a judgment on this inquiry, touching 
 my being " worthy of my ministry,") this Examination 
 ought in justice and prudence, to be terminated ? 
 
 I do not, however, in any degree shrink from further 
 Examination, with reasonable limitations to its extension, 
 if your Lordship decides to pursue it. 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 I have no hesitation in saying, that my reason for asking 
 whether Mr. Gorham intends to publish what has passed 
 in this Examination, and for my stating that if there be 
 such intention, or if the intention be not disclaimed, I 
 must continue the Examination, is this: — that the matter 
 is not sufficiently investigated, to enable me, in that case, 
 to take the course which I may be now prepared otherwise 
 to take, without my seeming to have forborne to place before 
 Mr. Gorham several considerations, which ought in my 
 judgment to be weighed and answered by him. 
 
 Question LXI. 
 You have cited, in your Answer 59 to Question LIX., 
 Gal. iii. 26, " For ye are all the children of God by faith 
 in Christ Jesus." Have the goodness to read, in connexion 
 with it, the verse which immediately follows. 
 
 Answer 61. 
 
 "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, 
 have put on Christ." 
 
115 
 
 * I do not perceive that this verse is, in the sliglitest 
 degree, at variance with the view which I have taken of 
 the preceding verse (Answer 59), as representing *' faith" 
 to be a pre-requisite to beneficial Baptism ; but I hold, 
 on the contrary, that it lj.eautifully illustrates it: — "As 
 many of you (not all who make profession by the out- 
 ward and visible Sign) as have been baptized into Christ, 
 (having " believed with all your heart," and having thus 
 come to Baptism with that lively " faith in Him " which 
 made you " the children of God,") have put on Christ." 
 You have been invested with his righteousness imputed 
 to you for your justification, and you have been clothed 
 with that personal righteousness (Rom. xiii. 14), which 
 shows that you are sanctified by his Spirit. 
 
 Question LXII. 
 Are you aware that the King's Declaration, prefixed to 
 the Thirty-nine Articles, has not the authority of Con- 
 vocation or of Parliament ? 
 
 Answer 62.t 
 
 I have understood that it is not known at what time % 
 
 * [This passage was added on January 7, 1848, by permission of 
 the Bishop.] 
 
 t [See also Answer 1 7, which seems to have occasioned the Bishop's 
 Question LXII.] 
 
 t [The earliest copy of the Articles to which this Royal Declaration 
 is attached, is a small black letter quarto, " Printed by Bonham 
 Norton, and John Bill, 1628" (Bishop Hacket's Copy in the Uni- 
 versity Library, Cambridge, Ff. 14, 28). There can be no rational 
 doubt that the Declaration was issued by Charles I., in that year, at 
 the request of Laud, then Bishop of London. Prynne says : " It was 
 compUed by (Laud) himself, and other Bishops, of which the most part 
 were Arminians." He adds, that a letter to Laud, endorsed with his 
 own hand, from Dr. Baron, of Aberdeen, April 20, 1634, found 
 in the Archbishop's study, contained the following passage, which 
 alludes to the Royal Declaration : — " Piam banc Amplitudinis tuae, 
 de pace Ecclesia; tuenda et conservanda, soUicitudinem, illustri speci- 
 mine, jarapridem notam omnibus et testatam fecisti, cum Majestas 
 I 2 
 
116 
 
 that Declaration was made, though it is believed to have 
 been in the reign of Charles I. ; and therefore I suppose 
 that the contemporary authority of Convocation for it has 
 not been found. 
 
 * But, assuming that this Declaration had not the 
 authority of Convocation or of Parliament, still, in my 
 view, it is binding as an " Injunction" of "external 
 policy," issued by the " Supreme Governor of the 
 Church of England ; " and I think that the " Kingly 
 Office " was therein wisely exercised in a pious endeavour 
 " to maintain the Church in unity of true religion, and 
 " in the bond of peace, and not to suffer unnecessary 
 " disputations, altercations, or Questions to be raised, 
 " which may nourish factions, both in the Church and 
 " commonwealth." It is, moreover, my view, that, in 
 these times, especially, it is dangerous to moot delicate 
 
 Regia, te Authore et Snasore, exitiali isti dissidio de Predestinatione 
 sua authoritate finem imposuit," &c. (Prynne's Canterburie's Doom. 
 Lond. folio, 1646, p. 160.) 
 
 Dr. T. "Winchester (in his Dissert, on Art. XVII.) refers to Prynne, 
 for the date of this Declaration; but he has not given the extract 
 from Baron's Letter, nor even its date. For the rest, he seems to 
 have completely exhausted all the materials which exist for ascertaining 
 the date of the Royal Declaration, which was erroneously attributed 
 by Bishop Hoadly, BLshop Gibson, Dr. Nicholls, and others, to King 
 James I. Among other curious matter, he quotes King Charles I. 
 himself : — " By a Declaeation before those Articles (Elizabeth's) we 
 did tie and restrain all opinions to the sense of those Articles, that 
 nothing might be left for private fancies and innovations," &c. (See King 
 Charles I.'s Declaration, on the causes which moved him to dissolve 
 the Parliament, March 10, 1628, in Rushworth's Historical Col- 
 lections, Vol. I., Appendix, p. 4.) 
 
 The highly probable, or rather all but indubitable fact, that this 
 Declaration was procured from the King, by the influence of Laud, 
 for the purpose of oppressing the Calvinists, affords no reason why 
 it should not be urged, on suitable occasions, (as it was by myself in 
 my Answers 17 and 29) on those who would push to unfair extremes 
 intricate Questions in other departments of theology.] 
 
 * [Mr. Gorham had the Bishop's assent, on Wednesday, December 
 23, to make this addition to Answer 62.] 
 
117 
 
 points of controversy, of the class to which this Question 
 seems to me to belong : and that, so long as it shall please 
 God to keep a sincerely Protestant Sovereign on tlie 
 throne, it is the duty of the clei-gy to respect every 
 expression of the Royal will, touching the government of 
 the Church of England, which does not enforce any 
 doctrines not sanctioned by Convocation. 
 
 Question LXIII. 
 Did you ever hear or read of Convocation having had 
 its attention called to his Majesty's Declaration which you 
 have cited ? 
 
 Answer 63. 
 I have not directed my attention to that subject. 
 
 Question LXIV. 
 Was it not in Queen Elizabeth's reign that the Articles 
 were agreed upon, and subscription to them required ? 
 Answer 04. 
 
 Undoubtedly.* 
 
 Question LXV. 
 In reference to the main subject introduced into the 
 statement you have just made, I ask, — Do you then 
 insist, that a clergyman is not liable to Ecclesiastical 
 judgment for setting forth doctrines contrary to those which 
 are plainly included in the Book of Common Prayer, and 
 contrary even to the dogmatical teaching of the Cate- 
 chism ; provided that they be not also contrary to what is 
 called by you the " direct, positive, rigid, dogmatical 
 assertion of Divine Truth," which " is to be sought 
 mainly in the Thirty-nine Articles ? " 
 
 Answer 65. 
 
 I cannot adopt, much less can I insist on, any propo- 
 sition, neither stated in my own terms, nor, in fact, at all 
 advanced by myself. But I remark, generally, on your 
 
 • [They were agreed on by Convocation, and published by Royal 
 Authority, in 1562 ; and set forth by Act of Parliament, with final 
 corrections by Bishop Jewel, in 1571.] 
 
118 
 
 Lordship's language in this Question, that the hj'pothesis, 
 — that a doctrine can he set forth " contrary to those 
 which are plainly included in the Book of ' Common 
 Prayer,' and yet ' not contrary to what I have called* 
 the " direct, positive, rigid dogmatical assertion of Divine 
 Truth in the Thirty-nine Articles," ' — is an hypothesis 
 not to be entertained ; since it would make the Church 
 contradict herself, by doctrinal statements in her Formu- 
 laries, differing from those set forth in her more formal 
 Standard of Truth. 
 
 Question LXVI. 
 Do you mean, that everj^ doctrine which is really 
 included in the Book of Common Prayer, or which is 
 plainly taught in the Church Catechism, must, as such, be 
 in accordance with the truth, as set forth in what you call 
 the Church's "more formal Standard of truth," the 
 Thirty -nine Articles ? 
 
 Answer 66. 
 
 They must be so in accordance, on the supposition 
 (which I adopt,) that the Framers of the Book of Com- 
 mon Prayer, and the Compilers of the Thirty-nine Articles, 
 or those persons who gave authority to them both, were 
 consistent with themselves. But I hold this on the princi- 
 ples of "just and favourable construction," claimed by the 
 Church for her Formularies, which I have considered 
 largely in my Reply to Questions V., VI., VII. ; and I 
 hold it also in the view which I have there given (of what 
 I consider her more deliberate declarations in her severely 
 accurate Standard,) in the following passage : — 
 
 " The authoritative teaching of the Articles, ( — those 
 grave and formal Declarations of Divine Truth, ac- 
 cepted by both Houses of Convocation — ) by which 
 the language of all Formularies and Services, as well 
 as all Expositions, and Exam inations of their import, 
 must be rigorously tested as their Standard." 
 [See above, p. 69.] 
 
 • [See Answer 43, p. 103.] 
 
119 
 
 Question LXVII. 
 
 Looking to the high and paramount authority ascribed 
 by you to the Thirty-nine Articles, — especially to the cha- 
 racter you have just now given to them, as the Church's 
 " more deliberate declarations in her severely accurate 
 Standard of Divine Truth," — I would ask, — In which of 
 those Articles you find the expressions, or anything equi- 
 valent to the expressions, or anything which justifies the 
 expressions, on which you have laid the main stress of 
 your argument, " worthy recipients," and " unworthy 
 recipients," of the Sacraments ? 
 
 Answer 67. 
 
 I find the expressions, — 
 
 In Ai-ticle XXV.,* " Such only as worthily receive 
 
 * [In King Edward's Ai'ticles (1552), this restriction of the benefit 
 is introduced at the heginning of the Article, " In such only as 
 worthily receive the same they have a wholesome effect and opera- 
 tion ; " this jjrinaple being laid duu ti, they are safely spoken of in the 
 last clause as " effectual signs of grace." In Elizabeth's Articles 
 (1562), these clauses were inverted; simply, it should seem, because 
 the definition of Sacraments naturally precedes any discourse about 
 them. Had our Reformers contemplated that the modern argument 
 for essential and unconditional grace in the Sacraments would be 
 drawn from their expression " effectual Signs," — " efficaciu Signa, — it 
 is impossible to doubt that they would have kept the restrictive de- 
 claration as to WORTHY EECEFTlON in the prominent position it ori- 
 ginally occupied. The corresponding Articles of these two periods 
 are subjoined, in paraUel columns, to render the observation in this note 
 more clear.] 
 
 Edward VI.'s Articles, 1552. 
 (XXVI. Of the Sacraments.) 
 Our Lord Jesus Christ hath 
 knit together a company of new 
 people with Sacraments, most few 
 in number, most easy to be kept, 
 most excellent in signification, 
 as is Baptism, and the Lord's 
 Supper. 
 
 Elizabeth's Articles, 1562. 
 
 (XXV. Of the Sacraments.) 
 
 Sacraments ordained of Christ 
 be not only badges or tokens of 
 Christian men's profession, but 
 rather they be certain sure wit- 
 nesses, and EFFECTUAL Signs of 
 grace and God's good will to- 
 wards us, by the which he doth 
 
120 
 
 the same ;" and, " They that receive them un- 
 worthily." 
 
 In Article XXVI., " Such as by faith and rightly do 
 receive the Sacraments." 
 
 In Article XXVII., " They that receive Baptism 
 rightly." 
 
 In Article XXVIII., " Such as rightly, worthily, and 
 with faith receive the same ; " and, " The mean whereby 
 the body of Christ is received is Faith." 
 
 In Article XXIX., " Such as be void of a lively 
 
 Faith, although they do carnally and visibly 
 
 press with their teeth (as Saint Augustin saith) the 
 Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ ; yet, in no 
 wise are they partakers of Christ : " 
 
 The Sacraments were not or- 
 dained of Christ to be gazed ujwn, 
 or to be carried about, but that 
 we should rightly use them. And 
 m such only as worthily receive 
 the same, they have an wholesome 
 EFFECT and operation ; and yet 
 not that of the work wrought, as 
 some men speak, which word, as 
 it is strange and unknown to 
 Holy Scripture ; So it engen- 
 dereth no godly, but a very 
 superstitious sense. But they 
 that receive the Sacraments un- 
 worthily, purchase to themselves 
 damnation, as Saint Paul saith. 
 
 Sacraments ordained by the 
 Word of God be not only badges 
 and tokens of Christian men's 
 profession, but rather they be cer- 
 tain sure witnesses and effectual 
 sif/ns of grace and God's good will 
 toward us, by the which he doth 
 work invisibly in us, and doth not 
 only quicken, but also strengthen 
 and confirm our faith in him. 
 
 work invisibly In us, and doth 
 not only quicken, but also 
 strengthen and confirm our Faith 
 in him. 
 
 There are two Sacraments or- 
 dained of Christ our Lord in the 
 Gospel, that is to say. Baptism, 
 and the Supper of the Lord. 
 
 Those five commonly called Sa- 
 craments, that is to say, Confirma- 
 tion, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, 
 and Extreme Unction, . . . have 
 not like nature of Sacraments with 
 Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, 
 for that they have not any visible 
 sign or ceremony ordained of God. 
 
 The Sacraments were not or- 
 dained of Christ to be gazed upon, 
 or to be carried about : but that 
 we should duly use them. And in 
 such only, as worthily receive the 
 same, they have a wholesome 
 EFFECT or operation : but they 
 that receive them unworthily, pur- 
 chase to themselves damnation, as 
 S. Paul saith. 
 
121 
 
 Which expressions are respectively ( — applying them, 
 of course, to their proper characters — ) equivalent to, and 
 justify, the expressions used by me ; " worth}' recipients " 
 and " unworthy recipients." 
 
 These deliberate declarations in the Church's exact 
 STANDARD, are confirmed and illustrated by similar expres- 
 sions in her more popular and devotional statements. 
 For instance, — 
 
 In the Communion Service : — 
 
 " The benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart, and 
 lively faith, we receive that Holy Sacrament." 
 
 " The danger is great if we receive the same unworthily." 
 
 " Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us who liave duly 
 received these Holy Mysteries."* 
 
 I find, therefore, my expressions fully f justified by 
 deliberate statements in many Articles, as compared with 
 and illustrated by devotional statements in the Ser- 
 vices. X 
 
 • [In King Edward's 1st Book (1549) this limitation of the benefit 
 to worthy recipients does not appear so early in this passage, but it 
 stands thus: — "Thou hast vouchsafed to feed us in these Holy 
 Mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious body and blood 
 of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, and hast assured us (du!i/ 
 receiving the i^ame) of thy favour," &c. In Edward's 2d Book (1552), 
 this most imj)ortant restriction of the efficacy of the Sacrament, was 
 prominently brought forward to the VEllY FIKST place in which any 
 benefit is mentioned : — " Thou dost vouchsafe to feed us xcho have 
 duly received these Holy Mysteries," &c. And so it was retained in 
 the Liturgy of Elizabeth (1559). Is it possible that this change of 
 place was accidental ? Assuredly it shows what stress our Reformers 
 laid on the doctrine which I defend.] 
 
 t [The expression " worthy recipients," is not only fully justified 
 by the equivalents cited in my Answer ; but actually occurs in the 
 Declaration after the Rubrics at the end of the Communion : — " The 
 benefits of Christ therein (that is, in the Lord's Supper,) given to 
 
 all WORTHY RECEIVERS."] 
 
 \ [A comparison of the three Liturgies, 1549, 1552, 1559, will 
 throw an interesting light on this doctrine of DUE KECEPTION, as 
 necessary for a beneficial participation— gradually coming out of 
 
122 
 
 Question LXVIII. 
 Do you really mean, that to " receive worthily " and 
 to be " worthy recipients" are equivalent expressions? 
 Answer 68. 
 They seem to me to imply the same thing. 
 
 Question LXIX, 
 Do you mean that any man is "worthy" to receive the 
 grace of God, given in the holy Sacraments ? 
 
 Answer 69. 
 
 I have not stated any such proposition. It appears to 
 me, that your Lordship is gliding, through the use of 
 this same word " worthy " — in very different senses — into 
 a very different statement from mine, — a statement from 
 
 Popish obscui'ity into the clear day of Protestant truth. In the form 
 for administration of the Lord's Supper, the Service stands thus : — 
 
 FlEST LiTUEGY OF EdWARD VI., 1549. 
 
 " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, 
 preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life." 
 
 We have here the Benefit, unguardedly expressed, without the 
 Qualification essential to the effectual operation of the Sign. 
 
 Second Lituegy of Edwakd VI., 1552. 
 
 " Take and eat This in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and 
 feed on liim in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving." 
 
 We have here the Benefit and the Qualfication brought into close 
 connexion, as an important restriction ; but all mention of " the 
 Body" excluded, with an evident view of discountenancing the Popish 
 dogma of Transubstantiation — then so prevalent. 
 
 Liturgy of Elizabeth, 1559. 
 
 " The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, 
 preserve thy body and soul into [sic] everlasting life, and [«/c] take 
 and eat This, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on 
 him in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving." 
 
 We have here the Benefit, and the essential QuaUfication still 
 retained as one of the distinguishing doctrines of our Protestant 
 Church ; with a scriptural introduction of " the Body," notwithstand- 
 ing the Popish error derived from a gross misinterpretation of Christ's 
 ■words of institution.] 
 
123 
 
 which my mind is abhorrent, if I correctly apprehend it 
 to imply merit or desert. With our Church I humbly and 
 heartily confess that — 
 
 " All we who are partakers of this Holy Com- 
 munion," even when "filled with God's grace and 
 heavenly benediction .... be M7«worthy through 
 our manifold sins," 
 The fallacy lurks in the imperfection of human lan- 
 guage ; which here applies the same word to different 
 ideas. 
 
 * My justification [of the use of the expressions, which 
 form the subject of this and the preceding Question,] may 
 be further confirmed by reference to two passages, — the 
 more fairly adduced, because they are unaffected by any 
 consideration of a controverted point in theology, — in 
 which the Church has herself given equivalents to the 
 term "worthy." In Canon XXXIX., the Bishop is 
 directed to inquire, whether the Clerk presented is 
 " worthy of his ministry ; " and, that she means, not 
 necessarily highly meritoi-ious, but simply duly qualified 
 for his benefice, is evident from Canon XCV., where she 
 herself adopts the terms "sufficiency^' and "qualities^"' as 
 equivalents to the former expression. 
 
 Question LXX. 
 In your Answer, number 15, you say, — 
 
 " The Church holds, and I hold, that no spiritual 
 grace is conveyed in Baptism, except to worthy 
 recipients ; and as infants are by nature wwworthy 
 recipients, being ' born in sin and the children 
 of wrath,' they cannot receive any benefit from 
 Baptism, except there shall have been a pre- 
 venient act of grace to make them worthy." 
 [See p. 83.] 
 
 * [This addition was made by i)ermission of the Bishop, on Wednes- 
 day, Dec. 22, 1847.] 
 
124 
 
 Do you there mean, that a prevenient act of grace is 
 necessary to enable infants, being bom in sin and the 
 children of wrath, to receive any benefit from Baptism ? 
 Answer 70. 
 
 I do. 
 
 Question LXXI. 
 Have the goodness to look at the Office of Private 
 Baptism, and read, — 
 
 " I certify you, that in this case all is well done, 
 and according unto due order, concerning the bap- 
 tizing of this child ; who being bom in original sin, 
 and in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of 
 Regeneration in Baptism, received into the number 
 of the childi-en of God, and heirs of everlasting 
 life ; for our Lord Jesus Christ doth not deny 
 his grace and mercy unto such infants, but most 
 lovingly doth call them unto him, as the holy 
 Gospel doth witness to our comfort on this wise. 
 St. Mark x. 13." 
 The assertion being here, absolutely and generally, that 
 *' our Lord Jesus Christ does not deny his grace and 
 mercy to such infants," — the antecedent to "such" being 
 " born in original sin and in the wrath of God," — I ask, 
 which of the XXXIX. Articles affirms that they cannot 
 receive any benefit from Baptism, except there shall have 
 been a prevenient act of grace to make them worthy reci- 
 pients of that Sacrament ? 
 
 Answer 71. 
 
 First, I reply, that, on the principle claimed by the 
 Church herself, and so repeatedly claimed for her (in this 
 discussion) by me, namely, that of " a just and favom-able 
 construction " of the terms used in this Service, I cannot 
 allow that the relative " such infants," is so indissolubly 
 tied to the antecedent clause ("This child, who, being 
 born in original sin, and the wrath of God"), as that tliis 
 
125 
 
 Certification* shall be held to be an absolute, uncondi- 
 tional affirmation that beneficial Baptism is applied to 
 " a child of wrath" so that it cannot possibly have expe- 
 rienced an intermediate and prevenient act of grace. 
 
 Secondly, I hold, and have again and again maintained, 
 that Article XXV. dogmatically declares that the Sacra- 
 ments " have a wholesome effect or operation in such 
 ONLY as worthily receive the same." This dogmatical 
 teaching shuts us up in the conclusion, that " the child 
 of wrath," if the wholesome effect of Baptism was abso- 
 lutely wrought in it, must have been made "worthy" 
 (that is, have been qualified for the blessing), by a preve- 
 nient act of grace. If we deny this conclusion, we allow 
 that "the child of wrath" and "born in sin," is in that 
 state, " worthy ; " or we must deny its sinful condition by 
 nature, and so fall direct into the Pelagian heresy. 
 
 Thirdly, I remark, that Article XXVII. limits the 
 benefits of Baptism to such " as receive it rightly ; " and 
 I have repeatedly shown that, by " rightly," the Church 
 means " by faith," or by the gracious disposition which 
 leads to faith, juxta modicm recipieiitis. And that this 
 Article does not except infants from the necessity of that 
 due qualification, is manifest from the express mention of 
 them at its close. This Article, therefore, teaches that 
 there must have been a prevenient act of grace to render 
 such infants worthy. 
 
 • [I should have said Declaration, for the Certification ends with 
 the words " baptizing of this child ; " as I prove in my Answer 
 78, p. 137, below.] 
 
126 
 
 FIFTH DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Wednesday, December 22, 1847. 
 l^From Half-past Eleven, a.m., to Half-past Five, p.m.] 
 
 Mr. Gorham said he wished to make some additions 
 to his Answers in yesterday's examination. 
 
 To Answer 62, he would add : — " But assuming that 
 this Declaration, &c." * 
 
 To Answer 68 : — " My justification may be further con- 
 firmed by reference, &c." f 
 
 The Bishop said, " I assent to the additions being 
 made." 
 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 
 On the resumption of this Examination, (of which the 
 fifth day and the tliirty-frst hour is now commencing,) I 
 again most humbly call the Bishop's serious attention to 
 the paper which I read at the beginning of the proceed- 
 ings yesterday. 
 
 I further respectfully record my deliberate opinion, 
 that this Examination has, throughout, and of late more 
 pointedly, assumed the character of a Scholastic Exercise ; 
 in which the Clerk examined is expected to keep the 
 Theological Act, and to maintain his Thesis, while the 
 examining Bishop is, re vera, his perpetual Opponent. 
 
 I again gravely ask my Ecclesiastical Superior, in the 
 view of my own rights, and with a more anxious conside- 
 ration of the peace of the Church ; — has not the time 
 
 * [See this addition inserted at the end of Answer 62, p. 116.] 
 •j- [See this addition inserted at the end of Answer 69, p. 123.] 
 
127 
 
 come when this Examination ought, in justice and pru- 
 dence, to be terminated ? 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 To the first part of Mr. Gorham's representation, 
 referring to what he had stated before the commencement 
 of Mr. Gorham's Examination yesterday, I simply answer 
 in the words of my own answer of yesterday. 
 
 To what he now says of the character which the 
 Examination has assumed, — That it appears to me that it 
 was Mr. Gorham who gave that character to it by the 
 course he took in answering my Questions. 
 
 I am anxious that the Examination should terminate as 
 soon as possible ; and again lament that nearly an hour 
 has been employed in this representation, and the dis- 
 cussion of it. 
 
 Question LXXII. 
 Do you really mean, that " the direct, positive, rigid, 
 dogmatical assertion of Divine truth, as it is contained in 
 her severely-exact Standard, the XXXIX. Articles," 
 does assert, that there must have been a prevenient act of 
 grace, to make infants thus baptized, according to the 
 Office of Private Baptism, and so spoken of in it, to have 
 been worthy recipients of the grace of that Sacrament ? 
 Answer 72. 
 
 Your Lordship must, I think, have observed, and I 
 here distinctly avow, that I have, throughout this 
 Examination, carefully avoided expressing what I mean, 
 in the precise terms propounded hy your Lordship in your 
 Questions. I have done this, — not from the slightest 
 wish to evade a distinct Answer, — but on the contrary, for 
 the purpose of giving my Reply as clearly as possible. I 
 deem it exceedingly unsafe, in replying to Questions of 
 immense difficulty in theology, — Questions avowed to be 
 intricate by the greatest divines, — Questions which, when 
 pursued in every possible form, and finely drawn out, 
 perplex the soundest and most acute minds; — I repeat, 
 
128 
 
 I deem it exceedingly unsafe to express my ideas 
 in any other than in words precisely my own. To 
 require to do so, is surely a just demand. 
 
 I have nothing, therefore, to say, in reply to the present 
 Question, beyond what I have said in reply to the similar 
 Question LXXI. ; which I think fully explains my view 
 on the matter placed before me. I wish, however, that 
 that Answer should be taken in connexion with my 
 Answer to Question XVIII., and especially with the 
 addition which I was allowed to make to that Answer : 
 holding, as I do, that the language of the Formularies 
 must be compared with that of the Articles ; though, in 
 all cases of ambiguity, the rigid Standard of the latter 
 must be THE UMPIRE, whenever they speak plainly 
 on any matter in doubt on account of the more popular 
 language of the former. 
 
 Question LXXIII. 
 Leaving the Articles for the present, I request you to 
 look again at the Office for Private Baptism. You 
 observe, that, immediately after the Bajjtism of the 
 infant, is a Thanksgiving : — 
 
 " We yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful 
 Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate 
 this infant with the Holy Spirit, to receive him 
 for thine own child by adoption, and to incorpo- 
 rate him into thy Holy Church." 
 Are you aware that this Thanksgiving was added at the 
 last Correction of the Book of Common Prayer, conse- 
 quently long after the Articles had been set forth ? 
 Answer 73. 
 
 I am well aware of it. [It was added in the year 
 1662.] 
 
 Question LXXIV. 
 I place in your hands the Book of Common Prayer,* 
 
 • Cardwell's "Two Books of Common Prayer, of King Edward VI., 
 Compared," 1841. 
 
129 
 
 which was the last one authorized before that which is 
 enjoined by the present Act of Uniformity, in order that 
 you may observe the alterations made by the last Act. 
 
 First. You observe the insertion of the Thanksgiving, 
 of which I spoke in my last Question. 
 
 Secondly. You observe, that immediately after the 
 Minister has examined and tried whether the Child is 
 lawfully baptized, he says, both in the former and in the 
 present Book, " I certify you," &c. 
 
 You observe, that in the Exhortation after the Gospel, 
 Mark x. 13, as it stood in the former Book, were these 
 words : — 
 
 " Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe, 
 " that he hath likewise favourably received this 
 " present Infant ; that he hath embraced him with 
 " the arms of his mercy ; that he hath given to 
 " him the blessing of eternal life, and made him par- 
 " taker of his everlasting kingdom : " 
 
 and that in our present Book, while it is still said, — 
 
 *' That he hath likewise favourably received this 
 " present Infant, that he hath embraced him with 
 " the arms of his mercy :" 
 
 an insertion is made, and afterwards the tense is then 
 
 changed from the perfect to the future : 
 
 " And (as he hath promised in his holy Word) 
 " WILL GIVE unto him the blessing of eternal life, 
 " and make him partaker of his everlasting king- 
 " dom." 
 
 Thirdly, You observe that, after the Lord's Prayer, in 
 the present Book, there is inserted the Prayer, — 
 
 " Almighty and everlasting God, &c., give thy 
 Holy Spirit to this Infant ; that he being born 
 again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation," 
 (as had been certified* by the minister before) 
 " may continue thy servant and attain thy pro- 
 mise, &c." 
 
 * [See my Answer 78. These italics denote words marAerf by the Bishop.] 
 K 
 
130 
 
 Which Prayer, in the former Book, follotvs the Stipula- 
 tions. 
 
 Does this appear to you to show the great and special 
 care with which the Church made the last Cori'ection of 
 the Book of Common Prayer, as respects this particular 
 of the grace given to the Infant privately baptized, pre- 
 viously to the Stipulations ? 
 
 Answer 74. 
 
 I have carefully studied, in the late Archbishop Lau- 
 rence's Book, 1816," on the EfBcacy of Baptism," thesubject 
 of these criticisms (or of some of them,) on the alterations 
 made in the last Correction (1662) ; and I have satisfied 
 myself generally, that no solid inferential argument on the 
 matters in hand, can be derived from them, in the face 
 of the direct arguments drawn from the Articles. 
 
 But I remark on your Lordship's Question, — 
 
 1. As regards the first observation: that the Thanks- 
 giving, — 
 
 " We yield thee most hearty thanks, most mer- 
 ciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate 
 this Infant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for 
 thy own child by adoption, and to incorporate him 
 into thy Holy Church ; " — 
 had been already introduced in King Edward's second 
 Book (1552), into the Office for Public Baptism, [as 
 also in Elizabeth's, 1559,] and, therefore, before the 
 Articles were set forth (1562): that, consequently, their 
 introduction into the Office for Private Baptism, in 
 the present book (1662), seems to have been simply 
 with a view to make the Public and the Private Offices 
 correspond, as nearly as the difference of circumstances 
 would allow. 
 
 2. As regards the second observation : the change of 
 tenses, by the introduction of the word " will" in place 
 of " HATH," seems to me to have no bearing on the point 
 to which my attention has been called ; but to have been 
 adopted only for the purpose of stating more simply 
 
131 
 
 the evident futurity of " the blessing" [" of eternal 
 Ufe"]. 
 
 3. Touching the third observation : whatever might 
 have been the motive of the Correctors for inserting the 
 Prayer — (" Almighty and everlasting God, &c.") — before 
 instead of after the Stipulations ; the place in which it 
 occurs is perfectly immaterial. We are bound fairly to 
 construe the Service as it actually stands nou\ I have 
 ali'eady said, and have given what I consider a proof of 
 my statement, (in my Answer to Question XVIII., and 
 in my addition to it,) that tacit Stipulations must be con- 
 sidered as (in this exigent and special case) having been 
 already given before the administration of Baptism in a 
 private house ; and that those \tacit and\ implied stipula- 
 tions are here oxAy formally given to be recognised in the 
 face of the Church. 
 
 I recur, however, finally to the position, — which I early 
 took up, and have so often occupied in this Examination, 
 — from which I think neither this nor any other indirect 
 consideration can dislodge me, — that the " wholesome 
 effect" of Baptism, in this, because in every case, is 
 rigidly declared by Article XXV. to be limited to due 
 reception, and therefore to an act of grace prevenient to 
 the administration of the Sacrament. 
 
 Question LXXV. 
 Do you observe that the formal Stipulations are made, 
 in the Office of Private Baptism, by the Godfathers and 
 Godmothers, who are not commonly the same persons as 
 those by whom you here say the tacit Stipulations must have 
 been already given before Administration of Baptism in 
 a private house ; that, therefore, on this supposition of 
 yours, the Stipulations must be made twice, and by dif- 
 ferent parties ? 
 
 Answer 75. 
 
 I do observe this: but, as the Stipulations are the same 
 in substance, I do not allow the consequence that they are 
 K 2 
 
132 
 
 made* twice; though I admit that generally speaking 
 they would be made by different parties. 
 
 Question LXXVI. 
 In your 59th Answer, you say : — 
 
 "As the Stipulation of faith goes before 
 Baptism, (in the Office for Public Baptism) ; and 
 as the condition of being a child of God is a 
 blessing conferred by faith (John i. 12, 13 ; Gal. 
 iii. 26) ; hence the blessing of adoption, also, pre- 
 cedes Baptism, in its essence." 
 Do you not here draw an argument, in favoiir of 
 the infant's faith necessarily preceding Baptism, from 
 the fact of the Stipulations preceding Baptism in the 
 Office of Public Baptism. 
 
 Answer 76. 
 
 I do not perceive, that I have drawn an argument in 
 favour of the infant's faith preceding Baptism ; I seem 
 simply to have adduced the fact, that the Church will not 
 permit the Infant to be baptized until "faith" has been 
 stipulated. 
 
 f "Faith " and "adoption" are correlative conditions, and 
 are so declared to be in the two texts which I have cited 
 (John i. 12, 13; Gal. iii. 26.) Where one exists the 
 other (or the disposition for it) exists. With regard to 
 infants, the difficulty, of their not being able to perform 
 the condition of "faith," is stated in the Catechism, and 
 is resolved by the Stipulation for its performance. There 
 the difficulty is wisely left by the Church. The capability 
 of infants to have "faith," (juxta modum recipientis,) or 
 rather the new disposition which, if the Child live to years 
 of discretion, will hereafter issue in " faith," is one of 
 those deep Questions which I leave where the Scriptures 
 
 • [My meaning is explained more at large and more clearly in 
 Answer 77.] 
 
 t [This passage was added, January 7, 1848, by permission of the 
 Bishop.] 
 
133 
 
 and the Church leave it. " The promise is to us and to 
 our children : " — with that gracious assurance all curious 
 inquiry must be closed. 
 
 * Question LXXVII. 
 Do you observe that, in this Office of Private Baptism, 
 the infant, having been baptized privately, at some pre- 
 vious time, and the Stipulations being, therefore, after 
 Baptism, there is an omission of the Exhortation to the 
 Godfathers and Godmothers which is in the Office of Public 
 Baptism — which Exhortation is founded on their having 
 just before, — 
 
 " Prayed that our Lord Jesus Christ would 
 " vouchsafe to receive him, to release him of his 
 " sins, to sanctify him with the Holy Ghost, to 
 " give him the kingdom of heaven and everlasting 
 " life :" 
 
 and that it is upon this ground that the Minister addresses 
 his demand to the Godfathers and Godmothers ? 
 " I demand, therefore; 
 
 " Dost thou in the name of this Child, &c., &c. ?" 
 A.NSWER 77. 
 
 If I riglitly apprehend the drift of this Question, — its 
 purport is, to ascertain whether I am prepared to make 
 several admissions, and from these to pass on to the in- 
 ference, that the Stipulations made in Baptism are — 
 (not an assurance rigorously demanded by the Church, 
 that the person who has been privately, or is about to be 
 publicly, baptized, was, or is " rightly " qualified as a 
 
 * [Question LXXVII. was not answered this day ; but having been 
 actually read at the close of the Examination, was subsequently trans- 
 mitted to me by my desire, (together with Question LXXVIII. by the 
 Bishop's own wish) ; and Answers to bofh were returned on Friday, 
 Jan. 7, 1848, — when I dcKnitively declined to reply to seven more 
 Questions, with an intimation that others would follow. The two 
 Questions, with the Answers, are inserted in this place to exhibit 
 their connexion and to complete the series.] 
 
134 
 
 worthy recipient, — but that they are) simply a dutiful 
 return for the promises of Christ made to us in, and sealed 
 to us by, that Sacrament. I can concur in only some of 
 the several admissions ; and I withhold my assent altogether 
 from the inference. 
 
 1. I do not admit that the promises (required in the 
 name of infants who, having been previously and pri- 
 vately baptized, are brought to the Church to be 
 " received into the congregation of Christ's flock,") are 
 Stipulations made after Baptism. They are, indeed, 
 subsequent to Baptism in their absolutely chronological 
 occurrence ; but they are still prevenient to Baptism in 
 their theological and spiritual import. Tacit and implied 
 Stipulations preceded, or at the least accompanied, the 
 private Baptism : and, when the child is brought for 
 public Admission, those Stipulations are only orally 
 and openly declared ; they are virtually a continuation of 
 one and the same act, at first tacitly commenced, and now 
 verbally completed in the face of the Church, as required 
 by her law if circumstances permit. The seal was affixed 
 iraformally, by reason of the existing " exigence," to a 
 valid deed ; the party now, formally (though being an 
 Infant, by his Sponsors as his trustees), places his hand, 
 as it were, on that seal, and more deliberately accepts his 
 title : but who shall say that this latter act was a second 
 sealing, after the conveyance of the estate ? I have 
 shown in my Answer 18, that my holding of implied 
 Stipulations (where formal Stipulations cannot be made) 
 follows of necessity from the doctrine dogmatically set 
 forth in the Articles, and illustrated by the teaching of 
 the Catechism. It has, also, a higher authority ; it reSts 
 on the Divine Word ; which connects efficacious Baptism 
 with the inseparable conditions of " faith" and "repent- 
 ance," (Mark xvi. 16; Acts ii. 38, and viii. 37,) — " the 
 answer of a good conscience towards God," (1 Pet. iii. 21,) 
 — without exception of tender age. "Whether, therefore, 
 man formally exacts these conditions or not, God requires 
 
135 
 
 them, as far as he gives capacity for their being pledged, 
 and opportunity for their being fulfilled ; they are, there- 
 fore, in every case tacitly implied, if not openly declared, 
 and can never be considered as made after Baptism. I 
 have been the more explicit in this statement here, 
 because I appear, in my endeavour to be brief, to have 
 become somewhat obscure in my Answer 75 ; and because 
 the view which I here take, on the authority of the 
 Church, entirely destroys the inference in this Question, 
 derived from what I hold to be a wrong idea, — namely, 
 that of post-Baptismal Stipulations, as dissevered from 
 the covenant previously to be entered into, and essential 
 to a right reception of the Sacrament. 
 
 2. I do observe in the Service for the Reception of 
 infants who are previously baptized in private, the 
 omission of the Exhortation ( — ** Dearly beloved, ye have 
 brought this Child here to be baptized," &c. — ) con- 
 tained in the Service for Public Baptism. — The omission 
 is very naturally accounted for ; since the preamble 
 of that Exhortation, being meant for the circumstances 
 of ^dL^Usm-requested, is inapplicable to the fact of 
 'Qa.T^t\s,m-administered ; and the whole form must have 
 been recast had it been retained, which might not have 
 been undesirable. But no inference, beyond that of an 
 intention to make the Service correspond to the fact, — 
 assuredly none as to " the ground" of the Minister's 
 demand of Stipulations, follows from that omission. 
 
 3. I do further observe, that the first clause in that 
 Exhortation is, a Declaration of the promises of remission 
 of sins, and of eternal life, made by Christ. I observe 
 also, at the close, the requirement of Stipulations by the 
 Minister from the Sponsors in the terms, *' I demand, 
 THEREFORE, &c., &c." But I deny the inference that 
 tliis term ( — " therefore " — ) connects that promise with 
 the demand, as " the ground" on which it is exacted ; if 
 I rightly apprehend the assumed inference to be, that 
 the Stipulations are not demanded in evidence, for the 
 
136 
 
 Church's satisfaction, that the candidate for Baptism is 
 a duly qualified recipient, as professing (and charitably 
 believed to be possessing, or sincerely pledging) repent- 
 ance and faith. For the Exhortation recites a covenant 
 of two parts ; 1st. The promises of Christ, declared by 
 his Minister ; 2d. The pledges by his disciple, to be 
 now exacted by the Minister, and given by the candi- 
 date, in person, or by surety. The Church has con- 
 sistently connected the first part of this covenant (which 
 Christ "will surely keep and perform") with the second 
 part (which the adult or infant " must also faithfully 
 promise,") by the term, " Wherefore, &c. ;" the pro- 
 mise of Christ being " the ground" on which the engage- 
 ments of the person to be baptized are encouraged and 
 required : — and as this second part of the covenant 
 " must" be pledged, to render Baptism an effectual 
 Sign of grace, the Church proceeds to exact the pledge, 
 and she connects this second clause with the Stipulations 
 themselves, by the inquiry, " I demand, therefore, 
 &c." 
 
 A clearer proof cannot I think be given, that the 
 doctrine which I hold, — namely, that of worthy reception 
 as essential to beneficial administration, — is the doctrine 
 of the Church. 
 
 But this Question (LXXVII.) appears to me to draw 
 a very diiferent inference, per saltum, — by leaping over the 
 second and intermediate clause, with its copula " Where- 
 fore," and connecting the term " Therefore " with 
 the first clause ; — to which (when dissevered from the 
 intervening sentence) it has ^ (in my humble judgment) 
 neither a natural nor a logical application. 
 
 Question LXXVIII. 
 Do you also observe that, in this Office of Private Bap- 
 tism, when the infant has been brought to the Church, the 
 Minister having first, — " examined and tried whether the 
 child be lawfully baptized or no ; " 
 
137 
 
 and having found that he was baptized with the right 
 
 matter and proper words, thus certifies ? — 
 
 " I certify you, that in this case all is well done, 
 and according to due order concerning the Baptism 
 of this child, — who, being born in original sin, and 
 in the wrath of God, is now, by the laver of rege- 
 neration in Baptism, received into the number of 
 the children of God, and heii-s of everlasting 
 life," &c. 
 
 Answer 78. 
 
 I observe the fact, of the Service being so framed ; but 
 I deny the inference which seems to be intimated by this 
 Question. I have repeatedly stated in what way such 
 declarations must, by "a just and favourable construction," 
 be understood, so as to be conformable to the doctrine of 
 Article XXV., on the efBcacy of this Sacrament, as 
 limited to worthy recipients — namely, in an hypothetical, 
 charitable, and conditional sense : see especially my An- 
 swers 71, and 74 (the concluding paragraph). I think it, 
 however, important to make a remark on this Certifi- 
 cation by the Minister ; since your Lordship has thrice 
 quoted it (Questions LXXI., LXXIV., Observation 2, 
 and in the present Question LXXVIIL), with consider- 
 able stress on this particular word, as conclusively deter- 
 mining that what is certified cannot be less than 
 unconditionally sure. I could not admit this conclusion ; 
 even were the premises correct, which they are not. 
 Your Lordship has no authority for the parenthetical 
 remark in the following extract (Question LXXIV., 
 Obs. 3) :— 
 
 " ' This infant .... being born again, and 
 made an heir of everlasting salvation ' (as had been 
 certified by the Minister before) : " 
 nor for the affirmation, in the present Question, 
 LXXVIIL; 
 
 " The Minister .... thus certifies, ' I 
 certify you that, &c., this child, being born in 
 
138 
 
 original sin, &c., is now, by the laver of regene- 
 ration, &c.' " 
 
 More is claimed for this Certificate than it actually 
 contains. The Rubric requires that the congregation shall 
 " be CERTIFIED of the true form of Baptism having been 
 used," — and of nothing more than this. Accordingly, if 
 the Minister had himself privately baptized the child, ht 
 says, 
 
 " 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 were baptized by any other lawful 
 Minister, then the Minister of the parish asks certain 
 questions relating to the person, time, witnesses, matter, 
 and words ; and then he says, 
 
 " I CERTIFY you, that in this case all is well 
 done, and according unto due order, concerning 
 the Baptism of this child : " 
 with which words the Certification (exactly conform- 
 able to the other, mutatis mutandis), ends. Then follow 
 the words, to be used in either case, — 
 
 " who, being born in original sin, and in the 
 wrath of God, is now, by the laver of regenera- 
 tion in Baptism, received into the number of the 
 children of God, &c. ; " 
 which form no part of the Certifica TiON, but are a 
 simple declaration of faith, hope, a7id charity, — the spirit 
 which breathes through the whole of these Services — 
 beautifully harmonizing with the more severely precise 
 teaching of Article XXV., but expressed with 
 less caution (perhaps with less theological exactness,) in 
 the glowing anticipations of devotional prayer and fervid 
 praise. 
 
MEMORANDUM. 
 
 Torquay, Friday, Christmas Eve, 1847. 
 
 At the close of the proceedings on Wednesday evening, 
 December 22, at half-past five, the Bishop having pro- 
 posed that Mr. Gorham should take certain Questions (of 
 which the Bishop read the first, namely, LXXVII.,) to 
 his private residence, and bring his written Answers the 
 following morning ; Mr. Gorham stated his readiness to do 
 so, provided he were assured that those Questions with 
 their Answers would terminate the Examination. The 
 Bishop, however, declared his wish that Mr. Gorham 
 should present himself at Bishopstowe for Examination 
 the next (that is, the sixth) day, Thursday, December 23. 
 Mr. Gorham then stated, that, having on three successive 
 days* remonstrated against the unreasonable length to 
 which this inquiry had been extended; and having, on 
 the fourth and fifth days of this proceeding, more 
 pointedly recorded f his request, that the Bishop would 
 seriously consider whether the time had not now come 
 when (with such ample materials for a judgment on this 
 inquiry, touching his being " worthy of his ministry ") 
 " this Examination ought, in justice and prudence, to be 
 terminated," he was now, on his own risk, compelled to 
 suspend his attendance, until he could liave the benefit of 
 professional advice, or could have the opportunity of 
 appealing (if necessary) to a Higher Authority, to 
 ascertain whether further attendance were compulsory. 
 He promised to transmit to the Bishop, in writing, a 
 Paper, stating more deliberately his reasons for having 
 taken this step. 
 
 • [See pp. 98, 113, 126.] 
 t [See pp. 113, 126.] 
 
140 
 
 That Paper is now transmitted to the Bishop ; and 
 Mr. Gorham respectfully claims that it may form a part 
 of the Records of these proceedings. 
 
 Mr. Gorham also requests that the Bishop will have 
 the goodness to transmit to him the single Question 
 [LXXVII.] which the Bishop read to him on Wednesday 
 evening, with the proposal that he should take it home 
 (with others), for the purpose of receiving an Answer ; 
 which Mr. Gorham will immediately transmit, as he 
 deems it of importance, on the suspension of the 
 Examination, that he shoiild not even appear to have 
 shrunk from explaining to the Bishop his views on any 
 ONE Question actually proposed to him. The 
 Question related to the words in the Baptismal Service, — 
 " / demand therefore" &c. 
 
 Mr. Gorham further asks leave (on his suspending this 
 Examination, and before he does absolutely suspend it,) to 
 make some additions to his Answers to Questions 57*, 
 61, 71*, 76; which, if so permitted, he will also inune- 
 diately transmit to the Bishop. 
 
 * [I did not, ultimately, avail myself of the permission requested 
 and granted, to make additions to Questions LVII. and LXXI. ; the 
 former relates to the " apologetic " character of the Preface to the 
 Book of Common Prayer as corrected 1662 ; the latter, to the relative 
 " such infants." I was discouraged by the Bishop's intimation that 
 the more explicit I rendered my Answers by additions, the more 
 might he extend his Questions. See his Letter, December 27, below.] 
 
REMONSTRANCE. 
 
 On suspending my attendance at Bishopstowe for 
 further Examination, I feel it my duty to declare my 
 reasons for so doing : — 
 
 1. When I first appeared, on Friday, the 17th Decem- 
 ber, before the Bishop, agreeably to his sununons, in the 
 presence of Rev. W. .Maskell (his Chaplain), and Mr. 
 Barnes (his Secretary), I called his attention to *Canon 
 XCV., as, in my judgment, excluding him from a title 
 even to commence an Examination beyond the twenty- 
 eighth day after the Presentation had been tendered. 
 On the Bishop's saying that he had a right to examine 
 at any time before Institution, I replied, — and in a tone 
 of consternation and alarm, — " What! my Lord, for 
 years?" The Bishop said to the effect that in such a 
 case I could seek my remedy in the meantime. I con- 
 sider, therefore, that I had pointedly called his attention, 
 at the very earliest opportunity, to my objections to 
 unreasonable protraction of Examination. 
 
 2. When I submitted, under f Protest, to this Exami- 
 nation, I did so " with reasonable limitations " to its 
 continuance. It has now been carried on thirty-six % hours, 
 for five successive days, during which seventy-six Ques- 
 tions have been proposed on a single, and that one of the 
 most diflficult, points in Theology. The Bishop admitted 
 that my Answers were given with an unreserve for which 
 he " honoured me," with a respect which left " no room for 
 complaint," and with (as he condescended to express it) 
 an " ardour of mind " which had altered considerably his 
 impressions of me. An inquiry so protracted, and so 
 
 * [See Canon XCV., in the Appendix (D).] f [See p. 96.] 
 
 X [It is understated : it lasted thirty-eight hours.] 
 
142 
 
 responded to, has afforded the Bishop ample materials 
 for satisfying himself on my beijjg, or not being, " worthy 
 of my ministry ;" — the only ground on which * Canon 
 XXXIX, has given him authority to examine at all. 
 
 3. The extreme, and apparently endless, protraction 
 of this Examination, is, virtually, a severe punishment 
 under the plea of an inquiry. The Examination should, 
 according to Canon XCV., have terminated within twenty- 
 eight days from that of " the tender of the Presentation to 
 the Bishop; " whereas it was not commenced till the thirty- 
 ninth, and had been extended to the forty-fifth day, when 
 I suspended its further protraction, in order to seek 
 advice or redress. During that period I have suffered 
 immense inconvenience, and have been subjected to great 
 personal trial. 
 
 4. The Bishop's avowed reason for having continued 
 this Examination on the fourth and fifth days, with a 
 desire still to continue it on the sixth ( — namely, his 
 mere impression f that I might possibly be disposed to lay 
 these materials before the world — ) I remonstrate against, 
 as manifestly unjust; the suspected (but never by me 
 avowed) contingency of such publicity having no relation 
 whatever to the purity of my doctrine. 
 
 5. I remonstrate, further, against this unreasonable 
 proceeding; because, whatever I might be content to suffer 
 personally, I have no right, (by submitting to a proceed- 
 ing, which, however technically legal, is, virtually, oppres- 
 sive, when continued so far beyond the bounds of modera- 
 tion and justice,) to compromise, by a dangerous precedent, 
 the privileges of other clergymen who may hereafter be 
 presented to Benefices : — for no parocliial minister can be 
 
 • [See Canon XXXIX., in the Appendix (D).] 
 t [See supra., p. 113.] 
 
143 
 
 safe, if such partial and arbitrarily-conducted Examina- 
 tions are permitted without appeal. 
 
 6. I remonstrate against such an unprecedented pro- 
 ceeding, as being one which unbecomingly interferes with 
 the privileges of the Crown, by slighting the appointment 
 by Her Majesty (as supreme Governor of the Church), 
 through the selection of Her Chancellor, of a Clerk to fill 
 a Benefice in Her Royal patronage, such Clerk having 
 been for thirty-seven years, and still being, up to the very 
 commencement of this indefinite and interminable Ex- 
 amination, without reproach, — and, moreover, filling at 
 this moment one of Her Majesty's livings, to which he 
 was admitted recently by the very Bishop who now 
 scruples to institute him to another vicarage in the same 
 diocese, subjecting him to the unmerited indignity of an 
 inquiry not grounded on any Canonical offence, 
 
 7. I remonstrate, lastly, against the imprudence of this 
 proceeding, as fearfully risking the peace of the Church : — 
 
 1st. By injudiciously reviving (after the lapse of nearly 
 two centuries and a-half, from the early part of the reign 
 of King James I., and in the case of a clergyman of 
 unsullied reputation for nearly forty years), a Canon 
 fairly applicable only to cases of immorality, incompe- 
 tency, or scandalous heresy ; — 
 
 2dly. By exercising the authority given in that Canon, 
 with "partiality" (1 Tim. v. 21), because without that 
 general application of it to all clergymen beneficed in this 
 diocese, concurrently with a similar practice adopted in 
 all the other dioceses in England, which could alone 
 justify any individual Bishop in having recourse to its 
 provisions ; — 
 
 3dly. By oppressively using the right of inquiry before 
 Institution, for other purposes than the simple one to 
 which that Canon directs, and by which it limits, the 
 authority which it confers. 
 
144 
 
 4thly. By vexatiously protracting the Examination, 
 
 AFTER THE DOCTRINAL TENETS OF THE MINISTER SUB- 
 JECTED TO IT HAVE BEEN FULLY ASCERTAINED ; without 
 
 regard to the mental suffering, or personal trials, which 
 such a harsh proceeding implies. 
 
 Finally. On these several grounds, I remonstrate against 
 your Lordship's desire to further extend this Examina- 
 tion ; and I hereby respectfully demand that your Lord- 
 ship will Institute me to my Benefice, or expressly state 
 your refusal to do so. 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 Torquay, Christmas Eve, 1847. 
 
 Bishopstoive, December 27, 1847. 
 
 The Bishop encloses the Question (marked LXXVII.), 
 which Mr. Gorham requests. 
 
 He adds others on parts of the Book of Common Prayer, 
 LXXVIII. to LXXXV., which he offers to Mr. Gorham 
 to answer at his own house. 
 
 He, at the same time, sends to him CardwelVs Con- 
 ferences,* to which book references are made in the 
 Questions. 
 
 The Bishop requests Mr. Gorham to return these 
 Questions, (taking a copy of them if he thinks fit,) with 
 their Answers. 
 
 * [" A History of Conferences and other Proceedings connected with 
 the Book of Common Prayer, from the Year 1558 to the Year 1690." 
 By Edward Cardwell, D.D., Principal of St. Alban's Hall, 1840, 
 pp. 464.] 
 
145 
 
 Bishopstowe, December 27, 1847. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — Your packet not having been sent to me 
 until the evening of Christmas-day, and yesterday having 
 been Sunday, you will not be surprised by my not having 
 opened it till this morning. 
 
 I now acknowledge the receipt of a paper, entitled, 
 " Memorandum. Torquay, Friday, Christvias Eve, 
 1847." 
 
 To the request that I will give you leave to make 
 additions to certain of your Answers there specified, I 
 fully assent ; but you must bear in mind that, in making 
 those additions, you may thereby call forth other 
 Questions. 
 
 To what you say of my avowed reason for continuing 
 the Examination on the fourth and subsequent days, 
 namely, that I had the impression of your intention to 
 publish what had passed, or might pass, I answer ; — That 
 I hoped to bring the Examination to a close, in a manner 
 favourable to you, on your making (as I expected that 
 you would make,) some general qualification of your 
 statements ; but that I felt it to be inqjossible to take 
 this course, on your declining to disclaim the purpose 
 of publication. 
 
 To the demand, made in the conclusion of your paper, 
 (whether consistently with what had preceded I do not 
 now inquire,) " that I will institute you to your Benefice, 
 or declare my refusal to do so," — I answer, that I think it 
 right, in continuance of your Examination, to propose 
 other Questions to you, relating both to the Book of 
 Common Prayer, and to the Articles ; which Questions 
 arise out of, and are, in my judgment, rendered necessary 
 by, the Answers which you have given to Questions 
 already proposed. 
 
 As you intimate that I ground my claim of a right to 
 examine you on the Canon of 1603, I think it proper 
 to remind you, that I claimed that right, not merely in 
 
 L 
 
146 
 
 virtue of the Canon, but on the notorious law of the 
 Church in all ages, and especially on the Statute, 
 " Articuli Cleri."* 
 
 In answer to your observation, that Examination in 
 such case is unprecedented, during " nearly two 
 centuries and a-half," I state, that I have myself been in 
 the habit of exercising the right, whenever I deemed it 
 necessary, both before giving Institution and before 
 granting License ; and that I deemed it necessary to 
 examine you, by reason of your having characterized my 
 purpose of examining your assistant, from the Diocese of 
 Carlisle, as an " assumed power," and even as an attempt 
 to set up " a private standard of doctrine." 
 
 I am. Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Hev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 Torqumj, Dec. 29, 1847. 
 
 My Lord, — I received, late in the evening before yes- 
 terday. Question LXXVIL, to which (as having been 
 actually read to me), I thought it desirable that I should 
 return an Answer ; with that you have transmitted, with- 
 out my request, Question LXXVIII., which, as being 
 closely connected with the former, I have no scruple in 
 accepting, nothwithstanding my having resolved to sus- 
 pend this Examination for the reasons stated in my 
 Remonstrance. f I wdll return my Answers to both in 
 my next communication. 
 
 May I be permitted to state, very respectfully, my 
 amazement at your Lordship's having, notwithstanding 
 
 • [It is presumed that the Bishop refers to the Statute, 9 Edw. II., 
 cap. xiii. ; which is given in the Appendix (A).] 
 t [See p. 141.] 
 
147 
 
 my decision and Remonstrance, "offered" me seven 
 Questions more, namely, from LXXIX. to LXXXV., of 
 very great length, and (".r/ra-Liturgical ; with the 
 astounding information, that you will " think it right, 
 " in continuance of my Examination, to propose other 
 " Questions to me, relating both to the Book of Common 
 " Prayer, and to the Articles ; " and, possibly, others still 
 beyond these, which my Answers may " call forth." My 
 Lord, I see here an infinite and unconverging series of 
 theological disputations. If, under the plea of Examina- 
 tion, such a proceeding is to go on, I know not where it is 
 to terminate : while diocesan and parochial work may be 
 neglected, the valuable hours of life (already so far 
 advanced in each of us), may roll away in unprofitable 
 discussion — unless, indeed, it be cut short by some 
 peremptory decision, to be followed by consequences 
 inevitably destructive of the peace of the Church. If 
 any thing were wanting to justify the halt, and the 
 Remonstrance which I have made, it would be these inti- 
 mations which your letter contains. As it is, however, my 
 humble desire to yield reverend obedience to my Ordinaiy, 
 even far beyond the limit of Canonical requirements, and 
 as I am unwilling even to appear to neglect giving due 
 attention to the additional considerations now placed before 
 me, I will carefully look through Dr.Cardwell's " Conferences 
 on the Book of Comiiion Prayer," which you have sent with 
 Questions LXXIX. to LXXXV. ; and, as soon as I have 
 had leisure to do so, I will inform your Lordship what is 
 my decision as to my acceptance of these seven additional 
 interrogations, as to the Conference between the twelve 
 Bishops and the twelve Nonconforming Divines. 
 
 So far from my having intimated that you confine your 
 claim of Examination to the Canon of 1603, 1 acknowledged 
 in my Protest * that you had made (what I disallowed) a 
 general claim. Your Lordship now extends your title, as 
 being derived from " the notorious law of the Church in 
 * [See page 96.] 
 L 2 
 
148 
 
 all ages" — including the medieeval, and the dark — the ages 
 of Ecclesiastical despotism, — the ages from the oppres- 
 sion of which we were delivered by ( — my heart beats 
 with emotions which my pen cannot express, while I WTite 
 the words — ) the Protestant Reformation. I hasten 
 to record my rejection of a claim so fearfully unlimited — 
 a claim more congenial (not in intention, but in fact,) with 
 the autocratical spirit of Popish domination, than -nith the 
 responsible exercise of Protestant Episcopal authority, as 
 mildly and wisely defined by the law of the Church of 
 England. 
 
 I have affirmed, in my Remonstrance,* that, from the 
 reign of James I., Examination of Beneficed Clerks par- 
 tially exercised, without just suspicion of morals, capacit}", 
 or doctrine, is " unprecedented." To my mind, I confess, 
 the reply is unsatisfactory ; that precedents exist in your 
 Lordship's oivn rule of your oivri Diocese, and in your own 
 " exercise of the right whenever you deemed it necessary." 
 That you have ever exercised it in the way against which 
 I have remonstrated, or in any case in the slightest degree 
 resembling mine, does not yet appear. I am aware, indeed, 
 of one case of incapacity which (being an instance of dis- 
 creet and wise applicaion of the Canon,) confirms my 
 statement : — I know of no instance which weakens it. 
 The Examination and exclusion of Stipendiary or even 
 Perpetual Curates in this diocese, " on the subject of 
 Baptism, is lamentably notorious ; but it is a precedent 
 not to the point. The Examination of Beneficed Clergy- 
 men, and especially of Ministers of long experience, and 
 established reputation ( — except as above excepted — ) I hope 
 is rare ; and such an unreasonable one as mine, is, I still 
 affirm, without parallel in the annals of our Protestant 
 Church, and will never, I venture to predict, be repeated. 
 
 It would be very unjust to myself, were I to leave un- 
 noticed your Lordship's avowal, that you examined me 
 " by reason of my having characterized your purpose of 
 • [See page 141.] 
 
149 
 
 examining my Curate as an assumed power." My Lord, 
 how is it possible for you to repeat this assertion, in the 
 view of my written and oral disavowal of its correctness ? 
 On the 28th of January of this year, I wrote * to you as 
 follows : — " I had not forgotten, nor do I think lightly of 
 that (the Forty-eighth) Canon: my Protest was, woi^ against 
 such a reasonable Examination as that Canon directs, 
 . . . . but against the erection of A PECULIAR STANDARD 
 OF DOCTRINE, and the imposition of a private test, as 
 an essential supplement to subscription to the Thirty-nine 
 Articles." When, at the beginning of my Examination, 
 on the 17th inst., and as the ground of its taking place, 
 you repeated the same charge in the presence of your 
 Chaplain and Secretary, — I unhesitatingly, firmly, but 
 respectfully, denied its accuracy ; and I cited, in proof of 
 my denial, the very letter which I have just quoted. I 
 am utterly unable to account satisfactorily for your repe- 
 tition of that charge, now, for the third time. A third 
 denial would place me in a position from which I shrink. 
 I take refuge in the belief that your Lordship's memory, 
 in this instance, has failed you. As to an Examination 
 of myself, indecorous and vexatious though it be, your 
 Lordship is well aware that I have freely admitted the 
 technical right, within the limit of circumstance, character, 
 and period, as defined in the Thirty-ninth and Ninety-fifth 
 Canons.-j- Those limits, in my poor judgment, you have 
 transgressed : nevertheless, I have deemed it becoming 
 the Christian character to submit (under Protest) to the 
 harassment and the indignity, almost beyond the bounds 
 of mental and bodily endurance ; and I have not suspended 
 submission to it, till an imperative conviction became 
 settled in my mind, that if my Bishop's sense of "justice 
 and prudence," % did not induce him to desist ; regard to 
 my own health, to the privileges of my brother Presby- 
 * [See page 27.] 
 
 t [See Canons XXXIX. and XCV. in the Appendix (D).] 
 I [Sec my expostulations with the Bishop, pp. IH, 127.] 
 
150 
 
 ters, and to the peace of the Church, required me to de- 
 cline to proceed, until I had had leisure to seek advice, or 
 to implore protection. I have no fear that your Lordship 
 will suspect, or that others will conclude, that I have dis- 
 continued this Examination from disinclination, or from a 
 consciousness of inability, to respond to an inquiry of so 
 subtle and searching a character : my recorded papers exist 
 to clear away any doubts. 
 
 I cannot but notice your Lordship's recurrence to your 
 impression, several times declared to me during the Exa- 
 mination, that it might possibly be my intention to send 
 it forth to the world. As I have never breathed a hint 
 about publication, even when pressed by your Lordship 
 to declare or disavow such intention, I may without dis- 
 respect say, that the apprehension must have taken its 
 lodgment in the Bishop's mind, from a comciousness that 
 this transaction was one which deeply involved, not only 
 the privileges of an injured clergyman, but the interests 
 of the afflicted Church. Your Lordship has given 
 expression to that consciousness, in the remark * in your 
 letter of the 27 th inst., that " some general qualifications 
 of my statements " might have tended to "bring the Exa- 
 mination to a close favourable to me," provided I would 
 have consented " to disclaim the purpose of publication." 
 You declared your feelings still more pointedly, by word 
 of mouth, when, at the close of the third day's Exami- 
 nation, you laid before me a similar suggestion — (guarded, 
 I freely confess, against misconception of the proposal, as 
 if it were a sort of compromise unbecoming the Bishop, 
 and unworthy of the Clerk,) — with a remark to this effect ; 
 that, if this Examination were of necessity continued 
 by reason of my withholding my disclaimer of an inten- 
 tion to publish it, and were to lead to a result unfavour- 
 able to me, your Lordship would be the applauded 
 triumpher ( — which you did not desire — ) that I should 
 be the honoured martyr, and that perhaps a large defec- 
 * [See page 145.] 
 
151 
 
 tion from the Church might follow. I beg to recall to 
 your recollection, that, with some emotion, I said, I could 
 not contemplate the possibility of such events without 
 pain ; but that the contingency of publication was a 
 point which I never hinted ; which had no necessary 
 connexion with my Examination ; and which I therefore 
 declined to discuss. My submission (which I trust has 
 been meek, — I am sure it has been respectful — ) to this 
 weai-isome and still continued Examination, was by no 
 means calculated to excite or fix that suspicion in your 
 mind ; except through the consciousness, in your own 
 breast, of the injustice of the whole proceeding. How easy 
 would it have been for me, ( — had I wished, under a 
 keen sense of wrong, to have rushed before the world, 
 while a solemn inquiry was going on, — ) to have thrown 
 myself on the sympathy of the public mind ( — already, 
 aiid contemporaneousli/ , excited by your Lordship, in no 
 dissimilar matter, — ) by a smart letter in the newspapers, 
 or by an effective pamphlet. I abstained, while I was 
 yet imder a strict inspection by my Spiritual Overseer, 
 from such weapons, and even from sympathetic connnu- 
 nications with my brethren in the ministry : — that I might 
 give an undeniable proof of the reverence I feel for 
 Episcopal Authority, and a demonstration of the fact 
 (which your Lordship has more* than doubted,) that 
 I can and do keep my Ordination Vow. I would not 
 have dwelt on this subject so long, had not your 
 Lordship, even after my " Remonstrance," persisted 
 in your intention to continue your Questions ; avowing 
 that my mere silence [as to publication] was your reason for 
 such continuance [of my Examination]. I dismiss it with 
 the remark that the continuance of the claim to examine, 
 grounded on such a reason, is both a private and a public 
 wrong ; for which I may, if I think proper, seek redi-ess, 
 without irreverence towards my Bishop. 
 
 * [Letter from the Bishop to myself, Dec. 5, 1846. See page 17, 
 above.] 
 
152 
 
 My respectful request that Her Majesty's command for 
 my Institution, (conditional, I allow, on my " worthiness,") 
 may be complied with, has been made quite "consist- 
 ently" (though your Lordship seems* to doubt it), with 
 my having submitted to Examination under both Protest 
 and Remonstrance. I might take a higher ground, 
 (could I admit that the Examination has been canonically 
 made,) and I might claim Institution on the evidence of 
 my " sufficiency and qualities " (Canon XCV.) which the 
 Examination Papers afford. Wliile Admission to my 
 Benefice is practically refused, and while your intention 
 to continue, under the name of Examination, a virtually 
 penal Inquisition, is absolutely declared, — I am con- 
 strained to close with words which cannot but be respectful 
 to my Ecclesiastical Superior, because they are your Lord- 
 ship's ownj- words, addressed to the representative, and 
 intended for the ear, of that distinguished Person who is 
 Ecclesiastically Supreme ; — 
 
 " Again, I implore you to forbear, while you yet have 
 " time. Retrace your steps — and be assured every honest 
 " and good man, every prudent and sound adviser, — above 
 " all, your own conscience, though not, it may be, your 
 " present transient feeling — will applaud youi- forbear- 
 " ance." 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 Your Lordship's 
 
 obedient and dutiful servant, 
 George Cornelius Gorham. 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, 
 Bishopstowe. 
 
 * [See above, p. 145.] 
 
 t [A Reply (Dec. 13, 1847,) to Lord John Russell's Letter to the 
 Remonstrance of the Bishops against the appointment of Rev. Dr. 
 Hampden to the See of Hereford. By the Right Rev. Henry, Lord 
 Bishop of Exeter, p. 23.] 
 
MEMORANDUM. 
 
 Torquay, January 1, 1848. 
 
 I have been unable to fulfil my promise of returning 
 immediate Answers to Questions LXXVII. and 
 LXXVIII. ; partly, by reason of my health, which had 
 been much impaired by long Examinations for five suc- 
 cessive days, supervening on previous indisposition ; and 
 partly, by pressing occupations, which had accumulated, 
 and which required instant attention. I now transmit 
 those Answers to the Bishop. I also transmit some addi- 
 tions to my Answers to Questions LXI. and LXXVI. 
 
 The same causes have prevented me from giving full 
 attention to the seven Questions, LXXIX. to LXXXV., 
 which the Bishop offered me, accompanied by a volume 
 by Dr. Cardwell (" Conferences on the Book of Common 
 Prayer"). I was unable to direct my mind to these 
 matters till the last evening of the year. 
 
 The result of much deliberation has been, — that I 
 respectfully withhold my assent from placing on the 
 Minutes of Examination those seven Questions ; and, 
 consequently, I decline giving an Answer, specifically, to 
 any one of them. My reason for declining will be stated, 
 more formally, below. 
 
 While I repudiate these seven Questions, as being such 
 as your Lordship has no authority to propose to me, con- 
 ditionally to admission to my Benefice, I am nevertheless 
 desirous, in courtesy, to make a few general remarks on the 
 subject to which you have (however extra-officially) directed 
 my attention. With this view I have very carefully studied 
 the volume which your Lordship transmitted to me, for 
 comparison with the Questions, though I was by no means 
 
154 
 
 unacquainted with the matters to- wliich that volume 
 relates. 
 
 I observe that these seven Questions (LXXIX. to 
 LXXXV.) consist of long extracts from the Exceptions 
 by the twelve Nonconforming Divines, to certain passages 
 in the Services for Baptism, and the Catechism ; and from 
 the Answers of the twelve Bishops who were commissioned 
 to hold the Conference at the Savoy, in 1662, for the 
 Review of the Book of Common Prayer, corrected by the 
 Convocation, and afterwards set forth by the Act of 
 Uniformity in that year : these extracts are taken from 
 Cardwell ; pp. 324, 325, 326, 328, 356, 357, 358. 
 
 Now had I been content to answer each of these Ques- 
 tions ( — as your Lordship seemed to expect that I should 
 have answered former Questions, — ) categorically, my 
 replies must simply have been to the effect that. The 
 extracts ivkic/i these Questions embody are correctly trans- 
 cribed from Dr. CardwelVs Volume; and the facts (as to 
 the present Book of Common Prayer ) are correctly stated. 
 Your Lordship would, possibly, have followed up these 
 mere matter of fact Questions and Answers, with other 
 Questions bearing on unconditional Sacramental efficacy 
 (in Infant Baptism) as the doctrine of the Chmch of 
 England assumed to be declared in 1 662 by the opinions of 
 the Savoy Commissioners ; and, on these new Questions, a 
 fresh discussion, of interminable length, might have been 
 opened. Even though the Bishop might not have put 
 such additional Questions, it would have been impos- 
 sible for me to have allowed the insinuated inference to 
 remain on the minutes — namely, that the doctrine which 
 I hold, with regard to Sacramental efficacy in Baptism, is, 
 indeed, the doctrine which was maintained by the Noncon- 
 forming Divines, — but is not the doctrine of the Church 
 of England as set forth by the (supposed) authority of the 
 
155 
 
 twelve Bishops in this Conference. I must, therefore, have 
 followed out the plan, which I have rigorously pursued in 
 responding to this Examination ; — I must have avoided 
 simple affirmations, or negations, and have entered upon a 
 large discussion. I have declined that course ; as not 
 being bound, by any laio of the Church, to follow your 
 Lordship in such a branch of inquiry. 
 
 My Examiner might well, I think (though he has 
 judged otherwise), have "forborne to place before me 
 considerations" of this indirect character, " to be weighed 
 and answered by me," as considerations which might lead 
 to " some general qualification of my statements," which 
 he " expected I should make." (I refer here to your 
 Lordship's remarks* previous to my examination, on 
 Tuesday, 21st December, and to your letter f to me 
 dated 27th December last.) My habits of thought, from 
 my youth through advancing years, are not of a character 
 to be suddenly changed — or changed at all — by anything 
 short of solid argument presented to my mind. I have 
 always had a dislike of viewing merely the " outsides of 
 Questions ; " as they used to be expressively called by the 
 venerable Head of my College, then Dean of Carlisle. 
 Unstable, indeed, would be the equilibrium of my Theo- 
 logy if it were based on so narrow a platform, as to be 
 shaken by the light breath of merely verbal criticisms 
 (see Questions LXXIV., LXXVII., LXXVIII.), or to 
 be in any degree displaced by the ruder blasts of religious 
 and political animosity ; such, for instance, as those which 
 agitated the respective parties who met in the Conference at 
 the Savoy ; or those which divide the Church in the present 
 day. I have not so learned Christ, as to embrace funda- 
 mental truths wdthout serious deliberation ; nor have I so 
 studied the History of the Church of England, as to 
 abandon doctrines for which the Fathers of the Reform- 
 
 * [Sec ]). 114, supra.] 
 t [See p. 146, supra.] 
 
156 
 
 ation suffered, merely because some powerful party may, 
 in the time of Charles II., or at other periods, be found 
 to have retrograded towards Romish tenets. 
 
 I have declined, in vindication of my privileges, answer- 
 ing these seven Questions, seriatim ; but I wish briefly to 
 advert to one or two considerations, which may serve to 
 show what little reason I might have had to shrink from 
 the argument which would attempt to fix upon the Church 
 the dogma of unconditional Sacramental efficacy, by the 
 allegation of the private opinions of certain Bishops at 
 the Savoy Conference- 
 
 I. Firstly. The Warrant (20 March, 13 Charles II.), 
 for the Savoy Conference, expressly prohibited the 
 Bishops from making " unnecessary alterations." The 
 passages, therefore, in the Baptismal Services, which were 
 excepted against, but remain unaltered ( — whatever 
 might be the scruples of the Nonconformists, or the 
 opinions of the Bishops — ), cannot fairly be urged as 
 evidences that the doctrine which the Prelates may be 
 thought to have individually favoured, was undoubtedly 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF THE ChURCH. The Bishops Were NOT 
 
 authorized expounders of her doctrine, but simply Com- 
 missioners to suggest to Convocation, for the consideration 
 of Parliament, " reasonable and necessary alterations, 
 corrections, and amendments, for the giving satisfaction to 
 tender consciences, and the restoring and the continuance 
 of peace and unity." The XXXIX. Articles, happily, or 
 rather providentially, were not submitted to their judg- 
 ment: by this severely -precise STANDARD, as the bul- 
 wark of the doctrines of the Church, the twelve Episcopal 
 Commissioners were rigidly restricted ; whatever proposed 
 alterations, therefore, were adopted or declined by them, 
 the Book of Common Prayer remains in the same condition 
 of amenability to the Articles (its STANDARD of 
 interpretation in all cases of ambiguous expressions), as it 
 
157 
 
 was when they were framed, precisely one centuiy before 
 this review of the Service-Book, in the year 1562. The 
 argument, therefore, deduced from individual opinions at 
 the Savoy Conference, has no greater weight than a 
 similar argument from individual opinions may have at 
 the present day : it must be recalled to the principle on 
 which I have throughout maintained my doctrine to be 
 the teaching of the Church, namely, — that, whatever 
 THE Church has dogmatically decided by her Arch- 
 bishops, Bishops, and Clergy, solemnly convoked in 
 Synod, is not to be contravened even by the more 
 
 POPULAR (and, possibly, LESS THEOLOGICALLY-EXACT) 
 
 language of HER SERVICES, — much less by fluctuating 
 individual opinion. 
 
 II. Secondly. As a matter of fact, however, the Non- 
 conforming Divines seem to have had a sti'onger impres- 
 sion (from tenderness of conscience and scruples which 
 deserved respect), that the Services favoured the notion of 
 unconditional Sacramental Eflicacy, than was entertained 
 by the Prelates themselves. In evidence of this, I quote 
 the following passage from their exceptions : — 
 
 " Throughout the several Offices, the phrase is 
 such as presumes all persons within the Com- 
 munion of the Church to be regenerated, con- 
 verted, and in an actual state of grace, which can- 
 not be rationally admitted in the utmost latitude 
 of charity." — (Cardwell's Conferences, p. 308.) 
 To which the Bishops made the following Answer, — a 
 remarkable concession (considering their individual views, 
 as probably to be gathered from other Answers) : — 
 
 *' The Church in her prayers useth no more 
 offensive phrase than St. Paul uses, when he writes 
 to the Corinthians, Galatians, and others, calling 
 them in general the Churches of God, sanctified in 
 Christ Jesus, by vocation Saints ; amongst whom, 
 notwithstanding, there were many who, by their 
 
158 
 
 known sins, were not properly such, — yet he gives 
 the denomination to the whole from the greater 
 part, to whom in charity it was due, and puts the 
 rest in mind what they have by their BAPTISM 
 UNDERTAKEN to he, and what they profess them- 
 selves to he; and our prayers, and the phrase of 
 them, surely supposed no more than that they are 
 Saints by calling, sanctified in Christ Jesus, hy 
 ^Aeir BAPTISM admitted into Christ's congregation, 
 and so to be reckoned members of that society," 
 &c.— (Cardwell's Conferences, pp. 342, 343.) 
 The principle of charitable assumption, which I have 
 laid down (in my Answers 5, 6, 7), as the basis of inter- 
 pretation of the Baptismal Services, does not (I think) 
 differ materially from this statement. 
 
 III. Thirdly. On a careful consideration of the Savoy 
 Discussions, it must surely be admitted that, if the twelve 
 Divines had too great a desire to innovate, — the twelve 
 Bishops had no sympathy with the Nonconformists, even 
 in their most reasonable scruples. It seems scarcely 
 doubtful that they refused to simplify some few ambi- 
 guous expressions, from an unworthy desire to exclude a 
 party whom they disliked (p. 343), and that they retained 
 a phraseology [in the Services] which has been the occa- 
 sion of perpetual controversy, in order to give apparent 
 countenance to a doctrine on the Sacrament of Baptism, 
 for which they could find no support in the XXXIX. 
 Articles, and which is also inconsistent wdth the Liturgy 
 when " justly construed." They appear to have been 
 men whose opinions had received a tinge from the semi- 
 Papistical Theology of Laud ; they refused to act in the 
 spirit suggested by the Declaration of their Royal master 
 (in 1660) ; they manifested a disposition the very opposite 
 to that of peace-makers inculcated by their Divine Master ; 
 they opened their Answers with the harshest language 
 (p. 335) ; they even occasionally insulted, in the grossest 
 
159 
 
 terms, the over-scrupulous but pious and venerable Divines 
 who met them in conference (p. 361); and under the 
 influence of intemperate zeal for an unattainable Uni- 
 formity, they neglected the golden opportunity of pro- 
 moting Unity, by those moderate concessions of a few 
 words, without compromise of any doctrines, which might 
 have retained in the bosom of the Church many good, 
 holy, and learned men, and have prevented large seces- 
 sions from her Communion during the two centuries which 
 have since elapsed ! Are these the men who were qualified 
 to take a calm view of the doctrine of the Church on the 
 Sacrament ? — or whose criticisms on the Baptismal Service, 
 when presented by your Lordship to "my consideration," 
 can be rationally " expected " to have the slightest weight 
 in leading me to " some general qualifications of my 
 statements"* made from a deliberate study of the 
 XXXIX. Articles? — the noble inheritance left to the 
 Church by our blessed Reformers — an inheritance never, 
 I trust, to be alienated or impaired ! Your Lordship 
 cannot wonder that I decline to be examined on Questions 
 which travel so far from the track which Canonical 
 requirements mark out as that to which the examining 
 Bishop must confine his inquiry. I conclude, therefore, 
 with a formal and — 
 
 Ultimate Remonstrance. 
 I remonstrate once more against the prolongation of 
 this Examination, on the further ground, that your Lord- 
 ship has now assumed a right which I cannot concede, — 
 that of extending your inquiry into matters of Liturgical 
 Bibliography. Were I to admit that the Bishop is entitled 
 to ascertain my doctrine, before he institutes me to my 
 Benefice, from any other sources of investigation than its 
 conformity to the XXXIX. Articles, and the Book of 
 
 * [See the Bishop's remark, during my Examination, p. 114; — and 
 his Letter, December 27, 1847, p. 146.] 
 
160 
 
 Common Prayer as interpreted in connexion with those 
 Articles, it is impossible to foretel into what subjects the 
 inquiry might diverge ; — an EXAMINATION would 
 become an INQUISITION, fatal to the principles of the 
 Clergy, the rights of the patron, and the peace of the Church. 
 I therefore, respectfully, but firmly, decline to permit 
 such a precedent to be established, through my compliance 
 with an unauthorized requirement. 
 
 George Cornelius Gorham. 
 Torquay, January 7, 1848. 
 
 [With the preceding paper, I transmitted to the Bishop 
 the following letter.] 
 
 Torquay, January 7, 1848. 
 
 My Lord, — I once more respectfully require Institu- 
 tion to the Vicarage of Brampford Speke, on the presen- 
 tation by the Queen through the Chancellor; which 
 Presentation I tendered to your Lordship on the 8th day 
 of November last. 
 
 Since I tendered it, sixty days have already elapsed. 
 I have waited for your Lordship's convenience fifty-one 
 days in this place ; where I remained a whole month before 
 you would even name a day for the Examination which 
 you required. I can no longer allow my family and my 
 parish to be thus deprived of my superintendence ; not to 
 insisf on the serious pecuniary loss I have sustained, by a 
 proceeding which has been most vexatious, and which I 
 believe to be illegal. 
 
 I will remain here, however, till the third day from the 
 date of this note, if your Lordship will assiu"e me, to-night 
 or to-morrow morning, unconditionally, that you will 
 admit me on Monday next; but if your Lordship still 
 
161 
 
 keeps me in suspense, or should refuse to institute me, 
 it is my decision to leave Torquay without further loss of 
 time. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Your Lordship's obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Exeter, 
 Bishojjstoive. 
 
 Bishopstowe, January 8, 1848. 
 
 Rev. Sir, — In answer to your letter of the 7th inst,, 
 I refer you to my communication of the 27th December, 
 adding, that I shall be ready to receive you at any hour 
 on Monday morning next, the 10th inst., for the purpose 
 of continuing your Examination, with an earnest wish 
 and hope, that it will be brought to a conclusion on that 
 day. But that conclusion must necessarily depend mainly 
 on yourself, and on your willingness to answer plain* 
 Questions categorically or briefly. 
 
 You say, that yesterday was the sixtieth day since you 
 tendered your Presentation, and that you waited in Tor- 
 quay fifty-one days for my convenience. It would have 
 been well if you had also said, as is the truth, that I offered 
 to receive you on the first Friday after your Presentation 
 
 * [In order to induce me to give categorical Answers, the Bishop, 
 early in my Examination, more than once assured me, that the Ques- 
 tions, instancing V., VI., VII., were " very simple" — " venj easy." I was 
 acquainted with the fate of more than one clergyman, resulting from 
 categorical replies to these identical Questions, on the character of 
 which, in the view with which (as I teas tvell atoare) they were proposed 
 to me, I greatly differed from the Bishop ; and I told his Lord- 
 ship that they involved difficult matters of controversy.] 
 M 
 
162 
 
 was tendered to me : — that you declined this offer for 
 your own convenience, till you should have gone into 
 Cornwall, and settled your various concerns there, which 
 you expected to occupy two or three weeks : — that 
 shortly afterwards, without giving to me any notice, you 
 suddenly arrived at Exeter on the eve of my departure 
 for London, to attend my duties in Parliament: — that 
 you were informed by me, that my stay in London must 
 be uncertain, and that I could not say exactly when I 
 should return : — that you thanked me for my prompt 
 reply, saying, that you perceived I could not make any 
 appointment to receive you in London, and that you would 
 wait patiently either at Exeter or Torquay, till I should 
 name a day for your Examination : — that I appointed the 
 second day after my return for receiving you : — that you 
 then came to me : — that I proposed to conclude * the Exa- 
 mination on that day : — that you refused to answer the 
 Questions proposed to you categorically: — that the 
 Examination was protracted by this cause, to the fifth 
 day : — and that the period since that day has elapsed, 
 because of your suspending the Examination on the de- 
 clared ground of your intention to take legal advice, 
 whether you were bound to submit to any further Exa- 
 mination or not. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham. 
 
 Torquay, January 10, 1848. 
 My Lord, — From your letter, which I received late 
 on Saturday evening, I learn that you refuse to institute 
 me to Brampford Speke to-day, agreeably to my require- 
 
 • [No such proposal is on record, nor have I the faintest recollection 
 of any such intimation.] 
 
163 
 
 ment; this being the sixty -third day from my liaving 
 tendered to you my Presentation by the Crown. 
 
 It is in vain, my Lord, that you strive to represent this 
 delay, as occasioned by my voluntary acts. You have 
 endeavoured to make me the quasi utterer of that mis- 
 representation ; but it would not " have been well if I 
 had said " what you have WTitten, — suppressing every fact 
 which bears upon the injustice of these proceedings. 
 
 The very first statement is a gloss, on the facts, which it 
 pains me to observe. When I tendered my Presentation, 
 I stated, that, if you could not name an early day, I 
 should prefer going into Cornwall to remove my family 
 and furniture : you named a late day, and you instructed 
 your Secretary to say that, consequently, you supposed 
 that I should pursue the plan I had mentioned; sup- 
 pressing even a hint that you should examine me, which 
 would instantly have reversed my plans (as it did the 
 moment it was disclosed), as involving serious risk ; and 
 this your Lordship represents as an " offer to receive me, 
 declined for my convenience." In my recent Protest, I 
 especially called your attention to these material facts ; so 
 that you cannot have forgotten them ; except, indeed, you 
 have never read that Protest, which you avowed you had 
 not done on the fourth or fifth day of my Examination, 
 accompanying the avowal with a smile not far removed 
 from a slight. 
 
 Yovu: duties in " Parliament" are again stated as 
 having been the impediment to your attending to my 
 matter, and as a reason why you could not examine me 
 (as I wished) in London. How can I any longer refrain 
 from reminding your Lordship, that the real hindrance 
 was of a different kind ; and that you lingered in town 
 after other Bishops " had returned to their several 
 Dioceses," to give your time to a business connected with 
 another Diocese, while you neglected this very important 
 matter (as it proves to be) in your own. While so 
 engaged, you let me remain a whole month longer here, 
 without either Institution or Examination (by what right 
 M 2 
 
164 
 
 I know not), though earnestly entreated to relieve me 
 from anxiety, expense, and inconvenience. 
 
 My promptitude in coming to Exeter, the first moment 
 Examination was mentioned, is represented as an im- 
 prudence ! Submissiveness in " patiently waiting " for 
 your return here, is misconstrued into a voluntary act ! 
 
 The time that has elapsed since I suspended attendance 
 for personal Examination, is represented as my delay : 
 though the first part of that period was consumed hy 
 ill health and necessary business ; and the last five [six] 
 days were devoted to the volume and papers wliich you 
 sent to me in continuance of your Examination of me at 
 my own lodging. Is this a just statement ? 
 
 And now, your Lordship, instead of instituting, or 
 stating the result of your Examination of the pile of 
 papers which have long been in your hands, invites me to 
 appear again at Bishopstowe for a renewed inquiry. I 
 might, perhaps, have once more complied with the 
 unreasonable request, had you not rendered the proposal 
 nugatory, by intimating further protraction, unless I will 
 " answer categorically or briefly." Your Lordship knows 
 that I have uniformly resisted that demand, as one which 
 I never can comply with. 
 
 It may seem superfluous to say, that, consequently, I 
 abide by my decision to quit Torquay this morning, — the 
 fifty-fourth day of my detention here; but I should be 
 sorry to appear to be wanting in courtesy, or to leave you 
 in needless expectation that I shall attend at Bishopstowe 
 for Examination this day. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Youi- Lordsliip's obedient servant, 
 
 G. C. GORHAM. 
 
 The Right Rev. the Lord JBishoj} of Exeter, 
 Bishopstowe. 
 
165 
 
 RESUMED EXAMINATION. 
 
 [On the lOth of February, 1848, being then in London, 
 I renewed my application for Institution to the Bishop, who 
 was also in town. On the 14th, his Lordship informed 
 me, through his Secretary, that he would " be ready to 
 resume my Examination as soon as he could, after his 
 return into Devonshire." To this demand, acting under 
 legal advice, I acceded, ex ahundanti cautela, though 
 under protest. 
 
 [The Bishop returned to his diocese on the 25th ; 
 on which day his Secretary informed me, that, his 
 Lordship had resolved to "defer proceeding with my 
 Examination" until he should have disposed of a com- 
 plaint against me, ( — it was one relating to rubrical exact- 
 ness — ) made to him in a general way before the 14th of 
 February, but renewed since that date in so particular a 
 manner, that he had felt it his "imperative duty" to 
 direct that a Commission should issue under 3 and 4 Vic, 
 cap. 86, to inquii-e into the case. Without wishing to 
 occasion the least delay in the prosecution of that inquiry, 
 which the Bishop engaged to institute forthwith ; — yet, 
 this being the first intimation of such a complaint, — I 
 protested, " in the most solemn manner, against the 
 Commission being interposed" between the two parts 
 of my Examination ; which I desired should take place 
 immediately, " in order that I might put an end to his 
 suspicion of the purity of my doctrine — the gravest as 
 it was the earliest imputation on my character." The 
 Bishop having assented to this desire, I waited upon him 
 at Bishopstowe on March the 8th.] 
 
166 
 
 SIXTH DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Wednesday, March 8, 1848. 
 \_From Two, a.m., to Half-past Five, p.m.] 
 
 Question LXXXVI. 
 In the addition made by you to your Answer 61, you 
 say of Gal. iii. 27, — 
 
 " I do not perceive that this verse is, in the 
 slightest degree, at variance with the view which I 
 have taken of the preceding verse (Answer 59), as 
 representing 'faith' to be a pre-requisite to bene- 
 ficial Baptism." 
 Now refer to your Answer 59 : — 
 
 *' As the stipulation of 'Faith'' goes before 
 Baptism, and as the condition of being ' the child of 
 God' is a blessing conferred by ' Faith' (John i. 
 12, 13 ; Gal. iii. 26), — hence the blessing of 
 ' adoption,' also, precedes Baptism, in its essence ; 
 but it is declared, attested, and manifested by that 
 Sacrament, as a Seal or Sign of the gift." 
 Say whether you did not here cite verse 26, to prove that 
 faith conferred the state of being sons of God before 
 Baptism ; which, when it supervenes, only declares, 
 attests, and manifests it, as a Sign and Seal of the gift of 
 sonship of God already conferred. 
 
 Answer 86. 
 
 My Answer 59 seems to me sufficiently explicit. Your 
 Lordship here puts a Question which virtually asks me to 
 remodel a part of that Answer, in a form, and in words, 
 which I did not originally adopt. I do not say that the 
 purport of those words may not be much the same as 
 
167 
 
 mine ; but, as I do not clearly see the ultimate drift of 
 your Lordship's Question, I prefer leaving my Answer 
 precisely * as it stands, without additional explanation ; 
 and I am content that my doctrine should be judged of 
 without entering into any further discussion ; as your 
 Lordship has warned me that my Answers, if argumenta- 
 tive, may lead to further Questions, and therefore to an 
 inconvenient prolongation of this Examination. 
 
 Question LXXXVIL 
 I have no wish for you to remodel this part of your 
 Answer 59 ; but as you have stated in your addition to 
 Answer 61, that you had cited Gal. iii. 26 as representing 
 
 * [The reader will observe that, throughout this Examination, 
 I have been exceedingly careful to avoid adopting any words suggested 
 to me by the Bishop, as explanatory of my meaning. My jealousy, 
 ever wakeful in this subtle disputation, was particularly alive as to the 
 invitation given, at the close of Question LXXXVI., to remodel a 
 portion of my Answer 59 ; for the Bishop had introduced the word 
 " ONLY,"- — limiting (in this proposed equivalent to my original Answer) 
 the character of Baptism more strictly than I myself had done, or than 
 Article XXV. appears to me to do. On hearing that Question I had 
 vividly present to my mind a letter addressed by the Bishop to an 
 excellent Cornish ClergjTnan, (dated August 27, 1845,) in which he 
 visited with Episcopal censure, this very same word occurring in the 
 following sentence :■ — " The Sacraments are only the Word of God 
 preached and exhibited in a symbolical form;" ( — the Italics are the 
 Bishop's — ) ; and though he would have admitted the truth of that decla- 
 ration, provided it had excluded the unhappily restrictive dissyllable 
 " ONLY," he " found it his painful duty to direct that a Commission under 
 the statute" (3 and 4 Vic., cap. 86), " should issue" against the unsound 
 Perpetual Curate of Lanhydrock ; which Commission was superseded 
 by nothing short of the withdrawment of the passage. (See " Cor- 
 respondence between the Bishop of Exeter and the Eev. C. Grylls, 
 published with the sanction of the Bishop," pp. 7 — 10: Bodmin, 
 1845.) — I shall not, after this statement, be thought to have been too 
 cautious, in refusing to assent to the " form and words " proposed to 
 me by the Bishop, which invited me to introduce the dangerous word 
 "only" as expressive of my view of the character and effect of the 
 Sacrament of Baptism, in the matter of Adoption, given in Answer 59.] 
 
168 
 
 faith to be a pre-requisite to beneficial Baptism, I have 
 thought it necessary to ask you, and I again ask you, 
 Whether that part of your Answer 59 which I have 
 cited be not, in its plain purport, that which I have stated 
 in my last Question ? 
 
 Answer 87. 
 
 I adhere to the Answer which I have just given ; not 
 with the intention of disavowing the plain purport of 
 Answer 59 (of which your Lordship must be the judge) ; 
 but because I wish to avoid bringing on a further argu- 
 ment on the efficacy of Baptism (on which my doctrine 
 has been most distinctly avowed), and thus making myself 
 apparently a party to a needless prolongation of an 
 Examination already extended far beyond reasonable 
 bounds. In adhering to this course, I have in view your 
 Lordsliip's declaration* (on Wednesday, December 22), 
 that I myself occasioned the extension of this Examina- 
 tion, and gave it the character of a Theological Act, " by 
 the course I took in answering your Lordship's Questions." 
 
 Question LXXXVIII. 
 Now read Gal. iii. 36, " For ye are all the children of 
 God by faitli in Christ Jesus." Read next, verse 27, 
 " For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, 
 have put on Christ." Does not the apostle here give a 
 reason, — for his sajang of them, that they were the children 
 of God, — that it is because, by being baptized into Christ, 
 they had put on Christ ; and so having put him on 
 in Baptism, they were sons of God in him ? 
 
 Answer 88. 
 
 The apostle does not say, " For as many of you as have 
 been baptized, have put on Christ ; " but, " For as many 
 of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on 
 Christ." I have, in my Answer 61, noticed this remark- 
 able distinction, as clearly implying that the apostle had a 
 charitable hope, that " they had ' beliered with all their 
 
 * See p. 127. 
 
169 
 
 heart,' and thus had come to Baptism with that lively 
 'faitli in Him,' which made them ' the children of God.' " 
 
 His affirmation, therefore, is, that they had " put on 
 Christ" — not in Baptism, but "by that faith in him" 
 which made them " the children of Grod," and of which 
 they had given a public attestation by the Sign or Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism. 
 
 The expression, to " put on Christ," is applied here to 
 the act of justifying faith ; in Romans xiii. 14, it is 
 applied to the work of sanctification ; but in neither 
 passage to Baptism. 
 
 Question LXXXIX. 
 Is it not the doctrine of the Holy Scriptures, and of 
 the Church, that we are the sons of God by being in 
 Christ the Son of God ? 
 
 Answer 89. 
 
 I think that our adoption may be scrip turally expressed 
 in tliat way ; and that language to this effect is used in 
 the Homilies. 
 
 Question XC. 
 Read now [Gal. iii.] verse 28, "Ye are all one in 
 Christ." Does not this illustrate the same truth ; that all 
 the sons of God, are such, by being in Christ the Son of 
 God? 
 
 Answer 90. 
 
 I think it does : though, I conceive, by " one," the 
 apostle means, strictly, " owe " /«;«%, or "owe" body; in 
 short, united members of Christ. 
 
 Question XCI. 
 Are not all, who are in the one body of Chi-ist, sons 
 of God ? 
 
 Answer 91. 
 
 Undoubtedly ; if that expression be limited to the 
 invisible Church ; but, — if it be taken, as it often is by 
 
170 
 
 theologians, as referring to the visible and merely pro- 
 fessing Church, — I could not assent to this proposition. 
 
 A remark of Bishop Nicolson * occurs to me, as illus- 
 trating my meaning. In commenting on the Answer in 
 the Catechism, " Wherein I was made a member ofChrint,'" 
 &c., he has an observation to the effect, that a member 
 may be such "equivocally;" as, for instance, he con- 
 tinues, " a glass eye, or a wooden leg," may be said to be 
 a member of the body. 
 
 * [" The seal of those promises made over unto man by this second 
 covenant, is Baptism : to which those have right and title, who are 
 born within the pale of the Church, and at the setting of the seal they 
 
 have these three privileges, to become [I.] A member of Cheist. 
 
 1. Either equivocal parts, so taken and reputed by us, such as are a 
 glass eye, or a wooden leg, to a man ; which are so called, but truly 
 are not such : and whosoever profess the supernatural verities revealed 
 by Christ, and make use of the holy Sacraments, may in this SEXSE 
 be called the members of Christ, because they are reckoned for 
 parts of His visible Body. 2. Or unifocal parts, that in name and 
 nature are true believers, which are indeed the true Members of 
 Christ ; and do belong unto His mystical Body, and receive from 
 Him, as from their Head, life, sense and motion. They are united to 
 Him, live in Him, and are informed by His Spirit. They are washed 
 and regenerated by His blood, and they have His righteousness 
 imputed unto them, by which they are freed from the guilt and 
 punishment of sin. This the apostle teacheth, 1 Cor. i. 30 : ' But of 
 Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us, wisdom, 
 righteousness, sanctification and redemption.' And to these last ONLY 
 
 the two next privileges belong — to be, [II.] A CHILD OF GoD 
 
 [III.] An inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." (A plain but 
 full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England . . . collected 
 out of the best Chatechists, by the Right Reverend Father in God, 
 William Lord Bishop of Glocester, p. 15, Edit. 1678.) If 7i)y doctrine 
 be " unsound," what was the character of that of Bishop Nicolson ? 
 who (on the 20th June, 1661) dedicated the Second Edition of his 
 work to the Bishop of London, then sitting both in the Savoy Con- 
 ference and in Convocation on the special business of the Review 
 of the Prayer Book ; by whose influence, only six months before, 
 Nicolson had been " advanced to a place of honour and dignity in the 
 Church." (Epist. Dedicatory.) He was said to be, — " a right learned 
 divine, well seen and read in the Fathers and Schoolmen." (Wood's 
 Athena;, III. 950, Edit. Oxford, 1817.) 
 
171 
 
 Question XCII. 
 By the invisible Church, do you mean the body of 
 Christ which comprises only faithful believers — not mere 
 professors ? 
 
 Answer 92. 
 
 I mean such ; but I use this particular expression as 
 implying that God only can discern them with certainty. 
 
 Question XCIII. 
 Is Baptism the instrument by which we are made by 
 God members of this body ? 
 
 Answer 93. 
 
 I have already so fully discussed, in Answers to 
 repeated Questions on this subject, in what sense 
 Baptism is the " Instrument" of grafting into the Church, 
 that I beg to refer to my former Answers, especially 26 to 
 30, as my reply to this Question. 
 
 Question XCIV. 
 Read 1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. 
 
 Answer 94. 
 
 " As the body is one, and hath many members, and all 
 the members of that one body, being many, are one body ; 
 so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized 
 into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether 
 we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into 
 one Spirit." 
 
 Question XCV. 
 Have the goodness to read the other text which you 
 cited in your Answer 59, to show that the condition of 
 being a child of God is a blessing conferred by faith. — 
 John i. 12, 13. 
 
 Answer 95. 
 
 " As many as received him, to them gave he power to 
 become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his 
 name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of 
 the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
 
172 
 
 Question XCVL 
 Do you perceive that it is not said here, simply, that 
 they " that believe on his name " become, by believing, 
 sons of God ; but that, " to them hath he given power" — 
 (e^ova-iav, " right or privilege") — " to become the sons of 
 God." 
 
 Answer 96. 
 
 It appears to me, that to have " (he right 07- privilege" * 
 to become the sons of God, in consequence of " believ- 
 ing on the name" of Christ, is the same thing in effect, 
 though not in precise phraseology, as to become his sons 
 
 " bl/ BELIEVING." 
 
 I should not have hesitated to adopt this view from this 
 text alone ; but when this passage is compared with 
 Gal. iii. 26, where we are said to become "the children of 
 God bg FAITH," this conclusion seems inevitable. 
 
 "Faith" is the si?ie-qud-non ; and, when it exists, 
 ADOPTION commences. 
 
 Question XCVII. 
 
 Would not " the right or privilege " of becoming sons 
 of God, stated in John i. 12, be satisfied by Christ's 
 giving them " right or privilege" to have recourse to an 
 Ordinance, instituted by Him, as a means or instrument, 
 in or by wliich the state of sons of God shall be given 
 " to them that believe ?" 
 
 Answer 97. 
 
 That privilege would not be so satisfied ; for the fol- 
 lowing reasons : — 
 
 1. If adoption were, not co-existent with, or instantly 
 consequent on, faith, — but were relegated to the period 
 of Baptism, — then the believer would be " born of the 
 will of the flesh," and " of the will of man ;" since man 
 can will to select the time. 
 
 2. The other text, also, Gal, iii. 26, expressly ties 
 adoption to faith, and makes no mention of the supposed 
 jjostponement of this [e^ova-ia] " privilege," till an oppor- 
 tunity for Baptism may be found. Thus the believer is 
 
 • [This is the marginal reading of the Autliorized Version.] 
 
173 
 
 " born, not of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, 
 . but of God; " — for " faith is the gift of God.''' Eph. ii. 8. 
 
 Question XCVIII. 
 Have the goodness to turn to John i. 13, in the Greek. 
 Oi, OVK al/xaTQ)v, ovSe eK 6e\riixaT0<; aapKo^, ovSe e/c 
 deX.rjfjbaros av8po<;, aXV e/t Oeov, eyevvrjOrjo-av. Does it 
 not necessarily follow, — from the word avSpos being used, 
 not avOpayirov, — that the inspired writer is speaking, not 
 of man as the general human subject, but, of the male 
 parent ; and thus, ck deXrffiaTO'; aapKO<;, and e/c OeXrj- 
 /iaro? avSpot, must refer to carnal procreation ; just as, in 
 chap. iii. 6. of this Gospel, to jeyevvrj/xevov €K tt;? (Tapico<; 
 <rap^ ecrrt, has similar reference ? 
 
 Answer 98. 
 
 I think it probable that this figurative allusion is as 
 stated by your Lordship. 
 
 * But, whatever be the precise character of the figure, 
 THE DOCTRINE, which Stands forth clearly, is this : — that, 
 the being born into the family of God as " his sons," is 
 a work effected ( — not in any way by human agency, 
 but — ) exclusively by " God." To connect this incon- 
 trovertible truth immediately with " faith," is to proceed 
 by " most certain warrants of Holy Scripture : " [Article 
 VIII.] To affirm that it is directly connected with 
 Baptism, is ( — I do not mean to speak disrespectfully of 
 this contrary opinion — ) a mere AvTO'i ecprj, — -a taking for 
 granted the great point discussed in this Examination. 
 
 That this is the doctrine of the Church, may be con- 
 firmed by the distinct opinion of Cranmer in his Answer 
 to Gardiner : " livery and seisin " (of that inheritance f 
 
 * [This addition, to the end of the Answer, was made, by permission, 
 the next day.] 
 
 f The exact expression of Cranmer (which did not occur to me at 
 the moment) is — not inheritance, but — " the lohole Christ ;" i.e., Christ 
 by the influence of his Spirit imparted to us, and Christ by the merit 
 of his Body given for us. The sense is the same as in my reference, 
 though the funn of expression is difi'erent. 
 
174 
 
 which belongs only to " the sons of God ") " is given 
 when we first believe, whether in Baptism, or at any 
 OTHER TIME." [Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner, Book I., 
 p. 35, edit. Parker Society, 1844.] 
 
 SEVENTH DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 Thursday, March 9, 1848. 
 [jProm Half-past Ten, a.m., to Five, p.m.] 
 
 Question XCIX. 
 I WISH the words of Cranmer to be cited more fully ; 
 beginning at " another untruth also," &c. Jenkyns' edit.. 
 Vol. II., p. 80. 
 
 Answer 99. 
 
 " Another untruth also followeth incontinently ; that 
 when Christ said, ' The bread which I will give you is my 
 flesh, which I will give for the life of the world ; ' in these 
 words, say you, Christ maketh mention of two gifts. But 
 what be those two gifts, I pray you, and by what words is 
 the diversity of those two gifts expressed ? If the giving, 
 as Smith saith, be giving to death, then those two gifts 
 declare that Clirist died for us tvdce. And, if one of 
 Christ's gifts have livery and seisin, why hath not the other 
 likewise ? And when was, then, that hvery and seisin 
 given ? And if eating of Christ be believing, as you said 
 even now, then livery and seisin is given when we first 
 believe, whether it he in Baptism, or at any other 
 
 TIME." * 
 
 • [I cannot perceive for what purpose the Bishop desired that I should 
 cite the long, and not very perspicuous, passage which comes before 
 
175 
 
 Question C. 
 
 I find, a few pages further, in this work of Cranmer's, 
 the following passage, beginning, — 
 
 " Thus you have laboured sore in this matter, and have 
 
 my quotation : its effect is, to raise dust around the subject, and I am 
 confident that it must be exceedingly obscure to any one who has not 
 fully acquainted himself with the whole of Gardiner's objections, and 
 Cranmer's reply, contained in many preceding pages. But lest its 
 very obscurity, as an insulated passage, should create a wrong impres- 
 sion on the mind of my reader, that the words which I quoted do not 
 clearly bear the sense in which I adduced them, it seems to me 
 important to state, concisely, the whole argument, although only a part 
 of it is strictly connected with my quotation. — Gardiner had main- 
 tained the old Popish dogma, that the Sacrament of Baptism only 
 gives us the Spu-it of Chi-ist, and that the Sacrament of the Altar 
 alone gives us the Body of Christ. He further maintained, that the 
 material Body of Christ was given twice; first, in the Lord's Supper; 
 secondly, on the cross, citing John vi. 51, in which latter gift we have 
 livery and seisin (full possession) of Christ. To establish his position, 
 that the material Body of Christ is given to the faithful in the Holy 
 Supper, Gardiner asserts that we eat the very flesh of Christ, when we 
 BELIEVE. — To all this Cranmer answers : If John vi. 51, could imply 
 two gifts, it would imply two deaths. Further ; if one of those gifts 
 (that on the cross) had " livery and seisin" (full possession), then the 
 other gift (that in the Supper) had also the same. But the gift of 
 Christ in the Supper is, by Gardiner's acknowledgment, conveyed to 
 us by " BELIEVING : " on this admission Cranmer dexterously seizes, 
 as containing " one true sentence" (p. 35), and as supplying him 
 with an irrefragable argumentum ad hominem : — " BELIEVING," (it is 
 allowed,) gives us possession of the whole Christ ; — then that " livery 
 and seisin" of Christ to the faithful is not confined to the Sacrament 
 of the Supper ; — it extends to the Sacrament of " Baptism," in which 
 FAITH is required and pre-supposed ; and it extends also to the act 
 of BELIEF, " AT ANY OTHER TIME" when that grace is exercised. 
 " Livery and seisin is given when we first believe, whether it be in 
 Baptism, or AT any other time." — Is it possible to doubt that, in 
 this passage, Cranmer had a clear insight into the scriptural truth, 
 that faith, whenever implanted in the heart, puts us essentially into 
 possession of Christ ; and that the Sacraments, when rightly and duly 
 received, are visible signs of the inward grace already existing, which 
 it is, moreover, their blessed efl'ect to confirm and strengthen ?] 
 
170 
 
 spun a fair thread, and brought this your first book to a 
 goodly conclusion. For you conclude your book with 
 blasphemous words against both the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism and the Lord's Supper; niggardly pinching God's 
 gifts, and diminishing his liberal promises made to us in 
 them. For where Christ hath promised in both the Sacra- 
 ments to be assistant with us, whole, both in Body and 
 Spirit (in the one to be our spiritual regeneration and 
 apparel, and in the other to be our spiritual meat and 
 drink), you clip his liberal benefits in such sort, that, in 
 the one, you make him to give but only his Spirit, and in 
 the other, but only his Body. And yet you call your 
 book an explication and assertion of the true Catholic 
 faith." * 
 
 Do you wish to make any remark upon it ; it being cited 
 by me to show, that, in the judgment of Cranmer, in this 
 very work which you have quoted, the Sacrament of Bap- 
 tism is a Sacrament in which Christ hath promised to be 
 assistant with us whole both in Body and Spirit, therein 
 " to be our spiritual regeneration and apparel," — apparel 
 especially referring to Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 Answkr 100. 
 
 I refrain from entering into anj^ discussion f of this pas- 
 
 • [Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner, Book I., Works, vol. i., p. 45. 
 Parker Soc. Edit. 1844.] 
 
 I [Although I declined further discussion, in this Examination, 
 (for the reason assigned by me in Answer 87, and more fully in 
 Answer 131.) yet I think it exceedingly desirable, in laying these 
 papers before the world, to point out a common fallacy in statements 
 (like that of the Bishop of Exeter in Question C.) made without due 
 consideration of the different senses in which certain terms were used, 
 on different occasions, in the writings of our early Reformers, and 
 especially of Cranmer. Among these terms, the word Sacrament 
 is by far the most important. It literally means an oath or pledge. 
 It is a term altogether of human application to the subject of the two 
 great Ordinances of Chiist ; but is a convenient expression, when its 
 meaning is clearly defined.^ — It is used in two ways. 
 
 (1.) In its most simple and definite theological sense, it is used for 
 
 AN OUTWAED, VISIBLE, AND DIVINELY ORDAINED SiGN of grace, 
 
177 
 
 sage ; but I remark, that I am well aware that Cranmer is 
 an authority to be cited with caution, since his opinions 
 
 assuredly promised by God, and professedly accepted by man. On 
 the part of God, it is a Seal to His promise of a new nature (imparted 
 "by His Spirit working in due season"), with the consequent bless- 
 ings of adoption, justification, holiness, and eternal life. On the part 
 of man, it is a Token of the profession of repentance and faith (aheady 
 existing, if the profession be sincere), and a public Pledge of conti- 
 nued trust and obedience. 
 
 (2.) In a more enlarged sense, the word Sacrament is used, meto- 
 nymically, for the inward and spiuitual geace signified; or, more 
 frequently, for THE Sign wokthily received, .\nd therefore 
 ACCOMPANIED BY THE THING SIGNIFIED. This is what Cranmer 
 calls, " the whole mil list ration and receivinij of the Sacraments." 
 
 Many apparently conflicting statements, in the writings of our 
 Reformers, and in the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies of the Church 
 of England, can be reconciled only by carefully ascertaining which of 
 these two senses of the word Sacrament is that which was intended to 
 attach to any particular passage. If this precaution be not observed, 
 we shall fall into the error of imagining that to be predicated indis- 
 criminately of THE Sign rightly' administered, which is affirmed 
 only of the Sign worthily received, and of course con- 
 joined with the inward grace previously existing, and increased by it. 
 Cranmer himself was so well aware of the possibility of his being 
 misunderstood in this matter, that he penned the following Caveat in 
 the commencement of the Preface to his Answer to Gardiner, in 1551 : — 
 
 " I think it good, gentle reader, to admonish thee of certain imi-ds 
 and kinds of speeches, which I do use sometimes .... lest, in mis- 
 taking, thou do, as it were, stumble at them. First, this word 
 ' Sacrament,' I do sometimes use (as it is many times taken among 
 writers and holy doctors) for the sacramental bread, water, or wine ; 
 as when they say, that Sacramentum est sacrce Eei Signum, ' a Sacra- 
 ment is the Sign of an holy Thing.' .... And sometime by this word 
 ' Sacrament' I mean the whole ministration and receiving of the 
 Sacraments, either of Baptism, or of the Lord's Supper ; and so the 
 old writers many times do say, that Christ and the Holy Ghost be 
 present in the Sacraments ; not meaning, by that manner of speech, 
 that Christ and the Holy Ghost be present in the water, bread, or 
 ■wine, {which be only the outward, visible Sacrajiexts,) but 
 that, in due ministration of the Sacraments, according to Clirist's 
 ordinance and institution, Christ and his Holy Spirit be truly and indeed 
 present by their mighty and sanctifying power, vii-tue, and grace, in all 
 N 
 
178 
 
 varied materially in the period from the first dawning of 
 Protestant light into his mind, to the close of his life ; 
 
 them, that worthily eeceive the same My meaning is, that 
 
 the force, the grace, the vu-tue, and benefit of Christ's body that was 
 crucified for us, and of his blood that was shed for us, be really and 
 effectually present with all them that DULY KECEIVE the Sacraments; 
 but all this I understand of his spiritual presence." 
 
 The Treatise of Cranmer, to which this Caution is prefixed, may 
 suitably furnish an illustration of its importance. In the Jirst sense 
 of the word Sacrament, he says : — " In Baptism, those that come feign- 
 edly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the 
 Sacramental water, but both be NOT washed with the Holy Ghost, and 
 clothed with Cltrist." (Answer to Gardiner, p. 221, edit. Parker Soc.) 
 In the second sense, he wi'ites, in the passage cited by the Bishop of 
 Exeter : — " Christ hath promised, in both the Sacraments, to be 
 assistant with us, whole, in Body and Spirit ; in the one TO BE our 
 spiritual rer/eneration ayid apparel^' &c. It is manifest that the very 
 things which were, in the first sense, denied of the outward Sign, how- 
 ever rightly administered to the feigned partaker, — are, in the second 
 sense, affirmed of the same visible Sign, when worthily received by 
 the faithful applicant. But, even in the latter case, Cranmer does not 
 mean to assert ( — however unguarded his language may appear — ) 
 that worthy recipients of the Sacrament are regenerated, and put on 
 Christ as their apparel necessarily and essentially, ex opere operato, in 
 and by the act of Baptism, and not before ; for he himself had previ- 
 ously affirmed, that we have complete possession — " livery and 
 seisin " — of Christ essentially, " ichen we first believe : " and Bap- 
 tism follows as the Sign of our new birth and spiritual clothing, — an 
 effectual Sign to the " worthy receiver," because accompanied with its 
 rich blessings of " faith confirmed " and of " grace increased." Such 
 was the doctrine of this great and pious Reformer in 1551 — not altcat/s 
 expressed, indeed, in language so unambiguous as might be desired, 
 for light was yet struggling in his mind with receding shadows ; and 
 fear of the subtlety of his opponents seems to have somewhat restrained 
 the fi'ee expression of his convictions. 
 
 The Catechism afibrds another illustration of the importance of 
 Cranmer's distinction between the two uses of the word Sacrament ; 
 but this will be more conveniently stated in a note to that part of my 
 Examination in which the Catechism again is brought under discus- 
 sion. (See Answer 130.) 
 
 It is deeply to be regretted that the first, and most simple, use of the 
 word Sacrament, has not been invariably adhered to ; the introduction 
 
179 
 
 and that, even in tlie same treatise, his sentiments are not 
 invariably clear, and fully consistent with themselves. As 
 far, however, as his remarks on the word " apparel," 
 referring* to Gal. iii. 27, may be thought to have any 
 weight, that weight is more than counterbalanced by the 
 opinion of Bishop Jewel, after the Articles had been 
 framed, who observes, with reference f to this very passage 
 
 of the second, and more complicated, sense of that term, has led to 
 much confusion and endless controversy. By the Fathers, the most 
 extravagant expressions were connected with the metonymical use 
 of the word. Jewel candidly, and forcibly says : — ■ " Such words, 
 in their own rigour, without some gentle consti'uction, seem very 
 hard." " The sound of the letter cannot be true." Again, he says, "The 
 Fathers have been fain to expound and mollify such violent and exces- 
 sive kinds of speech," which are " very vehement," and which we must 
 " qualify with a courteous and gentle interpretation." " If we follow 
 the rigour of the words, there appeareth then a manifest contradic- 
 tion." " These sayings, and other like, are vehement, and may not be 
 taken as they lie, but must be mollified with a gentle construction." 
 (Answer to Harding, Works, vol. i., pp. 476, 488, edit. Parker Soc.) 
 " The ancient and learned Fathers have often used vehement and 
 great words." (Defence of Apology, ch. x., div. i., p. 206, edit 1611.) 
 "What Jewel admits respecting the Fathers, is, in some measui-e, 
 applicable to several of the Reformers, especially to Cranmer, and, 
 occasionally, even to Jewel himself.] 
 
 * [Cranmer himself does not, (as Question C. might seem to inti- 
 mate that he does,') in this passage, refer the word " aiiparel" to Gal. 
 iii. 27, but it may be admitted that he had that text in view. On a 
 careful consideration, however, of the passage ( — at which I had only 
 the opportunity of a momentary glance while I was under Examina- 
 tion — ), I see no reason to object to it when construed with his 
 own Caveat, cited in my preceding Note, or to oppose to it (as I have 
 done in Answer 100) the opinion of Jewel, with which {when so 
 explained) it is consentaneous, though more obscurely stated. This 
 mode of speaking of Baptism, so familiar to the Fathers and to the 
 early Reformers, gave rise to the superfluous ceremony of the Romish 
 Ritual (retained in the earliest Protestant English Service Book of 
 Edward VI., 1549), of investing the baptized person with a white robe; 
 — a ceremony wisely abolished under the influence of Cranmer, in 
 1552, as adding an unauthorized Symbol to the Scripturally- 
 ordained Sign or Sacrament of Baptism.] 
 
 t [I admit, without hesitation, that my citation of Jewel's opinion 
 N 2 
 
180 
 
 of Scripture, that "faith" is implied here, or to that 
 effect. Works, vol. i., p. 473. Edit. Parker, 1844. 
 
 Question CI. 
 
 You will perceive that the reason for which I made my 
 quotation from Cranmer, is not affected, by supposing 
 him, as well as Jewel, to have understood that faith on 
 our part is necessary in Baptism, in order to our having 
 Christ to become our apparel therein ; in other words, to 
 our putting on Christ in Baptism. 
 
 Answer 101. 
 
 I freely allow this ; but my citation from Jewel is in- 
 tended to show that he understood that we essentially 
 " put on Christ " by " faith," not by Baptism. 
 
 is not strictly correct as to the form in which I have exhibited it : my 
 apology is, that I referred to him memoriter, from the recollection of 
 a brief and imperfect note, without the opportunity of again consulting 
 his work till some days after the close of my Examination. But, 
 though not precisely correct in form, it is quite to the point m 
 substance. Jewel (like Cranmer, but more emphatically,) maintains 
 that " FAITH " puts us into possession of Christ essentially, while 
 Baptism, though it be a putting on Christ visibly, and by open pro- 
 fession, only "augments faith," and "increases the conjunction" 
 previously subsisting " between Christ and us : " and this is the very 
 doctrine for which I contend in my Examination. The words of Jewel 
 (written in 1565, only three years after the present Articles were 
 adopted,) are these: "Touching faith, St. Paul saith, Christus 
 habitat in cordibus nostris per FIDEM : ' Christ by FAITH dwelleth in 
 our hearts.' And St. Peter saith, 'Hereby we are made partakers 
 
 of the Divine nature' Notwithstanding <7jese wea/is Christ 
 
 BE IX us, and we in him, yet forasmuch as both our life and faith are 
 unperfect, as we daily desire God to amend our Ufe, and to augment 
 our faith, even so we daily pray that this conjunction between Christ 
 and us may be increased, that Christ may come nearer and nearer into 
 us, and that we may grow into a perfect man in him. And to this end 
 God hath specially appointed unto us his holy Sacraments. And 
 therefore St. Paul saith, concerning the Sacrament of Baptism, ' They 
 that are baptized are planted into Christ ;' 'they have put Christ upon 
 them;' by one Spirit they are baptized into one body." (Jewel's 
 Answer to Harding. Works, vol. i., p. 473. Parker Soc. edit., 
 1845.) ] 
 
181 
 
 Question CII. 
 
 Why was your remark, in disparagement of Cranmer's 
 authority, not made by you when you cited him as an 
 authority against my view ? 
 
 Answer 102. 
 
 In my Answers, 5, 6, 7, to Questions V., VI., VII., at the 
 close, I expressly stated,* when citing the opinions of the 
 early Reformers, that none of them are my " standard." 
 I therefore quoted Cranmer, as illustrating my view of 
 Adoption, in the passage above cited, as one in which I 
 conceived he had expressed that doctrine clearly ; but I 
 did not feel myself bound to state my opinion that he is 
 sometimes obscure. Had I been writing a Treatise on 
 this subject, it might only have been fair to do so ; but in 
 giving Answers, which your Lordship has requested that 
 I wiU make as brief as I can, there is no want of candour 
 in not stating all that might be said to the purpose. 
 
 Question CIII. 
 With reference to the opinion of Cranmer, you are 
 aware that the " Institntion of a Christian Man" was drawn 
 up by him ? 
 
 Answer 103. 
 I have so understood. f 
 
 Question CIV. 
 I cite the chapter in that Book on the Sacrament of 
 Baptism, merely to show what the sentiments of Cranmer 
 were, without wishing you to give any greater authority 
 to those sentiments than you may think fit. 
 
 * [See above, p. 79.] 
 
 t [Dr. Lloyd, the Editor of the modern reprint of the " Institu- 
 tion " in 1825, says that it was " composed and published under the 
 immediate siipcri/i/endetice of" Cranmer. To what extent he was the 
 actual aiifJior, is, I believe, a matter of conjecture. It was called the 
 Bishoj>'s Biiok, being set forth by the Archbishops, Bishops, Prelates, 
 and Archdeacons of the realm, by authority of Henry VIII.] 
 
182 
 
 N.B. The chapter in the " Institution," headed the 
 Sacrament of Baptism,* was read. 
 
 Answer 104. 
 
 I have studied with care the " Institution of a Christian 
 Man," the " Articles," which preceded it in 1536, and the 
 Treatise [" The Necessary Doctrine," &c.] which followed 
 in 1543. I consider the " Institution," published in 1537, 
 as a work containing many Popish doctrinal f errors, as 
 yet unhappily retained by Cranmer ; and some views of 
 the Church and its discipline,! variance with Protestant 
 
 * [Formularies of Faith, put forth by authority during the reign of 
 Henry VIH. The Institution, &c., pp. 92—94. Oxford, 1825.] 
 
 t [It treats on the seven Sacraments, and insists on Transubstantia- 
 tion in the broadest terms ; and on the absolute necessity and uncon- 
 ditional efficacy of Baptism. It inculcates, among other Popish tenets, 
 exclusive salvation in the Catholic Chm-ch ; the setting up, kneeling 
 before, kissing, and " censing " images of saints ; the concurrence of 
 contrition, charity, hope, &c., in our justification ; and prayer for souls 
 departed "in masses and exequies." This is the book -which John, 
 Bishop of Exeter, " in the month of May, 1538," enjoined, under severe 
 penalties, all Parsons, Vicars, &c.," to accept as their model for the 
 instruction of "unlearned people in his Diocese." (Wilkins' Concil., 
 III., 844.) And this is the book which the Bishop of Exeter, in 
 the month of March, 1848, cites, in a doctrinal disputation with one of 
 the Vicars of liis Diocese, " to show what the sentiments of Cranmer 
 icere " ( — his Lordship might have added of Latimer — ) ; as if any well- 
 educated Clergyman could be ignorant of that fact, or needed the Bishop's 
 dispensation in not "thinking fit" to attach the slightest " authority " to 
 unsound " sentiments " adopted, by those eminent prelates, probably 
 under constraint, certainly under a cloud of Popish error not i/ef 
 dissipated.] 
 
 X [The discipline of the Church, with regard to admission to Bene- 
 fices, as laid down in "tJie Bishop's Book," or "the Institution &c.," is 
 admirably consonant to the wishes of the Bishop of Exeter. In a 
 Debate in the House of Lords, February the 15th of the present year, 
 his Lordship is reported to have cited the following passage from 
 " The Institution," to confii-m the supposed right of Bishops to reject a 
 presentee fi'om a Benefice, on their own ^rirafe judgment of the Clerk's 
 unworthiness, as ascertained by their private interpretation of the 
 Standard of the doctrines of the Church : — (the reader will particularly 
 
188 
 
 sentiments, as better understood, and more fully adopted, 
 by Cranmer himself, at a later period. 
 
 observe the sentences distinguished by an index, for a reason 
 which will be stated below) : — 
 
 " The second point, wherein consisteth the jurisdiction committed 
 unto priests and bishops, by tlie authority of God's law, is to approve 
 and admit such persons as (being nominated, elected, and presented 
 unto them, to exercise the office and room of preaching the Gospel, 
 and of ministering the sacraments, and to have the cure of jurisdiction 
 over these certain people within this parish, or within this diocese) 
 shall be thought unto them meet and worthy to exercise the same ; and 
 to reject and repel from the said room such as they shall judge to be 
 unmeet therefore. And in this part we must know and understand, that 
 the said presentation and nomination is of man's ordinance,* and 
 appertaincth unto the founders and patrons, or other persons, accord- 
 ing to the laws and ordinances of men provided for the same. As for 
 an example, within this realm the presentation and nomination of the 
 bishoprics appertaineth unto the Kings of this realm ; and of other 
 lesser cures and personages, some unto the King's highness, some unto 
 other noble men, some unto bishops, and some unto other persons, 
 whom we call the patrons of the benefices, according as it is provided by 
 the order of the laws and ordinances of this realm. And unto the priests 
 or bishops belongeth, rr^ by the authority of the Gospel,* to approve 
 and confirm the person which sliall be, by the King's highness, or the 
 other patrons, so nominated, elected, and presented unto them to have 
 the cure of these certain peoj)le, within tliis certain parish or diocese, 
 or else to reject liini, as was said before, from the same, for his deme- 
 rits or unworthiness. For surely the office of preaching is the chief 
 and most principal office whereunto priests or bishops be called by 
 the authority of the Gospel, and they be also called bishops or arch- 
 bishops, that is to say, siiperattendants or overseers, specially to signify 
 that it is their office to oversee, to watch, and to look diligently upon 
 then- flock, and to cause that Christ's doctrine and his rehgion may be 
 truly and sincerely conserved, taught, and set forth among Christian 
 people, according to the mere and pure truth of Scripture; and that 
 all erroneous and corrupt doctrine, and the teachers thereof, may be 
 rejected and corrected accordingly." (Institution of a Christian Man, 
 Chap, on the Sacrament of Orders, pp. 109, 110.) 
 
 The noble audience in whose presence this passage was cited fi-om 
 the " Institution," and other persons interested in this matter, will for- 
 give me for earnestly inviting their attention to some remarkable facts, 
 which have a material bearing on the unlimited claim set forth by the 
 
184 
 
 Question CV, 
 You are aware that the "Institution of a Christian Man" 
 
 Bishops in that treatise, in 1537, and apparently revived by the Bishop 
 of Exeter in 1848. The matter is so important, that I shall make no 
 apology for a very long note. An uncontrolled Episcopal Veto on 
 presentations to benefices, has, from a very early period in the history 
 of Papal power, been asserted and resisted. Thus, I. In the Council 
 of London, held in Westminster Abbey, Sept. 9, 1126, attended by the 
 Pope's Legate, by William, Archbishop of Canterburj', and by the 
 whole Clergy, it was decreed, that " no Clerk should take a Benefice 
 WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE BiSHOP." (Spelman's ConcU., vol. ii., p. 34.) — 
 
 II. At the Lambeth Council, May 13, 1261, it was decreed, that "awy 
 one taking a Benefice without leave of THE Bishop, shoxild be 
 excommunicated, and lose his Benefice, z)wo faeto ; " and that " IF THE 
 King intruded snch a Clerk, all the royal lands in that Diocese should 
 he placed under an interdict." (Spelman's Concil., vol. ii., p. 216.) — 
 
 III. In 1315, the Clergy obtained from King Edward II. the "Articuli 
 Cleri," conceding that " the Examination of a person presented to a 
 Benefice by the King, if the Bishop mil not admit him, belongeth to 
 a spii-itual judge," (see App. A. below,) in which it appears that the 
 claim of exclusion set up in the earlier periods had now become some- 
 what restricted. (See Lord Coke's Commentary on these Articles, 
 Instit. P. ii. 631.) — IV. In 1537, the Prelates advanced their pretensions 
 to a practical Veto on Benefices, in " the Bishop's Book," viz., " 27ie Insti- 
 tution," as quoted by the Bishop of Exeter in Parliament : nevertheless, 
 they did " most humbly submit it to the most excellent wisdom and 
 exact judgment of his Majesty, to be recognised, overseen, and cor- 
 rected, if his Grace should find any word or sentence in it meet to be 
 changed, qualified, or further expounded, for the plain setting forth of 
 his Highness' most viiluous desire and purpose in that behalf."' 
 (Address to the King, by the Prelates, on presenting the " Institution," 
 in Formularies of Faith, &c., p. 26.) The result was remarkable. 
 The King (on a review of " The Institution " after its puhlicalion) 
 testified his disapprobation of the whole of the Article on " The 
 Sacrament of Orders," by writing "Nihil" in the margin in many 
 jilaces ; and it was entirely recast in the new exhibition of the work, 
 with the title, " The Necessary Doctrine," &c., in 1543. More- 
 over, the whole clause (so boldly adduced in the recent debate by the 
 Bishop of Exeter), on the claim of the Prelates lo reject presentees 
 from Benefices, was expunged ; the King's having underlined the two 
 sentences which I have distinguished, in my esti-act, by including each 
 between an index (3:^?") and an asterisk (*), to signify the special 
 
185 
 
 was set out by authority of the King, and all the Bishops, 
 and the Church, at that time. 
 
 attention which he had bestowed on those passages, — one of which 
 affirms the merely hitman title of patrons to nominate, — while the 
 other asserts the Divine right of Bishops to reject presentees ! (See 
 the King's own copy of the Institution, with his MSS. corrections, and 
 particularly this Chapter, in llawlinson's MSS., 4to. 225, ff. 43b— 44a, 
 Bodleian Library.) — V. In the Canons of 1584, another attempt was 
 made to establish this claim ; the following- clause having been intro- 
 duced into the first of those Canons : — " Quodsi Patronus quisquiam 
 Clericum aliquem ad Beneficium aliquod pricsentaverit, qui preedictis 
 qualitatibus non fuerit imbutus, licebit etiam Episcopo ejusmodi praesen- 
 tationem rejicere, nec Brevi illo de 'Quare impcdit' nee ulla alia ratione 
 cogetur eundem instituere, aut ea de causa ullum legis periculum 
 subire." The MS. copy of these Canons, among Lord Burghley's 
 papers, was seen by Strype, who says that a X v^as placed ayainst 
 this clause, in token of the Queen's disapproval, and the dangerous 
 passage never saw the light! It is true that this Canon still 
 retained a clause bearing in some degree on the same matter: — 
 " Quodsi Curia de Arcubus, aut Audientiis, per viam Duplicis Querela;, 
 seu alio quovis modo contra Episcopum hac in parte agat, quia homines 
 minime idoneos ac habiles admittere renuit ; tunc Hcebit Archiepiscopo, 
 vel auctoritate propria, vel gratia speciali a Regia Majestate impetrata, 
 ejusmodi processus amputare, quo laudabilis Episcopi industria debitum 
 ea ratione sortiatur effectum." But the power to quash proceedings 
 against a non-instituting Bishop in the Ecclesiastical Court, was lodged 
 in the hands of the Primate, with a broad hint that the Queen's per- 
 mission should be first obtained. — VI. There appears to have been a 
 violent struggle at this period, on the part of the Bishops, to revive 
 the expiring Veto on patronage ; for only two years after this attempt 
 to get rid of the wholesome check of a Qtiare Imjiedit, the Bishop of 
 Exeter, in 1586, rejected the presentee to the Rectory of Tetcott, 
 Devon, on a general allegation of heresy, without a specific charge ; 
 he was condemned in costs in the Common Pleas, and this judgment 
 was affirmed, on a writ of error, in the Queen's Bench. (Specot v. 
 Bishop of Exeter, Hil. 32 Eliz. Coke, Ft. v. f 57a.)— VII. This dangerous 
 power was further restricted by the present Canons of 1603, which 
 wisely limit the character and duration of a Bishop's Examination of 
 a presentee to a benefice, while they suggest an ecclesiastical remedy 
 for the protection of the unlawfully rejected clerk. (See Canons 
 XXXIX. and XCV., in App. D.) If, in the face of those Canons, a 
 Bishop really possesses the power to subject a clergyman to rejection 
 
186 
 
 Answer 105. 
 
 I am aware of this. 
 
 Question CVI. 
 You will probably admit, — that all authoritative state- 
 ments of doctrine by the Church, continue to be authorita- 
 tive, so long as they continue, in toto, or in part, unwith- 
 drawn, and so far as they are unwithdrawn, by subsequent 
 equally authoritative expositions ; such expositions with- 
 di-awing it, either in express terms, or by plain impli- 
 cation. 
 
 Answer 106. 
 
 In declining to enter at all upon a discussion altogether 
 new, and in refraining to make either admissions or 
 denials, abstractedly, on this subject, — I wish, in limijie, 
 to express my objection in the most respectful way. 
 
 Such a matter appears to me not to fall within the 
 limits of that " due Examination " of a beneficed Clerk, 
 which is prescribed by Canon XXXIX., but rather to 
 belong to the decision of an Ecclesiastical Court. 
 
 Question CVII. 
 You have spoken of the " Necessary Doctrine," set forth 
 in 1543. You are aware that that work had the authority 
 of Cranmer. 
 
 Answer 107. 
 
 I believe it had.* 
 
 who honestly adopts the Thirtj--nine Articles as the Standard of his 
 doctrine, — both patrons and the Clergy have great cause for alarm, 
 and should petition the Legislature to impose limits to such an 
 arbitrary claim.] 
 
 * [The King submitted his own corrections of The Institutiotx to 
 Cranmer, who thereupon wrote his Annotations. (The Corrections 
 and Annotations are printed in connexion with each other, in Cran- 
 mer's Misc. Writings, pp. 83—114, edit. Parker Soc. 1846.) The 
 result was, a re-cast of Tlie Institution, with material alterations, 
 additions, and omissions, under the title, The Necessary Doctrine, Szc, 
 generally called The King's Book. That it had the official sanction of 
 Cranmer is undoubted; but Dr. Lloyd is of opinion, " that -Gardiner 
 had greater influence in the preparation of this work than in either" the 
 
187 
 
 Question CVIII. 
 
 In that work is contained the Article of Justification, 
 in which Article is the following passage : — * 
 
 "And for a further declaration how, and by what 
 means, we be made partakers of this benefit of justifica- 
 tion, it is to be noted, that this word justification, as it is 
 taken in Scripture, signifieth, the making of us righteous 
 afore God, where before we were unrighteous, as when by 
 his grace we convert unto him, and be reconciled into his 
 favour, and of the children of ire and damnation we be 
 made the chilcken of God, and inheritors of everlasting 
 life, that by his grace we may walk so in his ways, that 
 finally we may be reputed and taken as just and righteous 
 in the day of judgment, and so receive the everlasting 
 possession of the kingdom of heaven." 
 
 " Yet for all this benignity and grace, showed uni- 
 versally to the whole world, none shall have the effect of 
 this benefit of our Saviour Christ, and enjoy everlasting 
 salvation by him, but they that take such ways to attain 
 the same as he hath taught and appointed by his holy 
 Word, in such order, manner, and form, as here foUoweth ; 
 that is to say, first, as touching all them which be of age, 
 and have the use of natural reason afore they be christened, 
 the will of God is, that all such (if they will be saved) 
 shall, at the hearing of his blessed Word, give stedfast 
 faith and assent thereunto, as St. Paul saith, ' He that 
 Cometh to God must believe ; ' and by that faith, grounded 
 on the trutli of the Word of God, being taught both of 
 the threatenings of God against sinners, and also of the 
 great goodness and mercy of God offered to mankind in 
 our Saviour and Redeemer, Christ Jesu, they must con- 
 ceive an hearty sorrow and repentance for their sins, with a 
 
 Articles (1536), or the Institution (1537): a cii-cumstance which maj' 
 account for more Popery being allowed to remain in it, than Cranmer 
 might otherwise have tolerated.] 
 
 * [Formularies of Faith, &c. ; the Necessary Doctrine and Erudition 
 for any Christian Man, pp. 364, 365.] 
 
188 
 
 sure trust to have forgiveness of them by the merits and 
 passion of our Saviour Christ. And joining thereunto a 
 full purpose to amend their life, and to commit sin no 
 more, but to serve God all their life after, they must then 
 receive the Sacrament of Baptism. And this is the very 
 plain ordinary way, by the whijh God hath determined 
 that man, being of age, and coming to Christendom, 
 should be justified. For as for infants, it is to be believed 
 that their justification is wrought by the secret operation 
 of the Holy Ghost in their baptism, they being offered in 
 the faith of the Church." 
 
 Were you previously aware of this passage ? 
 Answer 108. 
 
 Yes ; for I have recently extracted it. 
 
 Question CIX. 
 Does this passage appear to you greatly to coincide * 
 
 * [Most alarming is this endeavour of the Bishop of Exeter to 
 establish a " great coincidence " between the semi-Popish formiilaries 
 of the reign of Henry VIII., and the Protestant Homilies and Articles 
 of our Reformed Church. I earnestly entreat the reader's attention to 
 the mode in which this is here attempted. Firstly, the chapter 
 on Justification in The Necessary Doctrine of 1543, is evidentlj' 
 assumed to have had the weight of Cranmer's judgment, as well as of 
 his official authority (Qu. C\1I.), and to be "greatly coincident" 
 (Qu. CIX.) with his Homily on Salcation, of 1547 : secondly, the 
 doctrine of the Homily as regards justification, is afiirmed (Qu. 
 CXIV.) to be adopted by Article XI., of 1562. The inference, from 
 these concessions, would be, that Article XI. of the Reformed Church 
 gives its authority to the Popish dogma of King Henry "STLI.'s 
 Necessary Doctrine on the identity of Justification and Baptism ! 
 Every step in this reasoning is defective. Fii-stly, there is good reason 
 for concluding that the statement of the doctrine of Justification in 
 the King's Book represents the sentiments rather of Gardiner than of 
 Cranmer ; for (not to insist on the probability of Gardiner's paramount 
 influence In the compilation of that work), Cranmer drew up a beau- 
 tifully correct exjjosition of that doctrine in his Annotations on The 
 Institution, and on the King's corrections (Cranmer's Misc. Writings, 
 pp. 113, 114, edit. Parker Soc), in which there is not even the 
 slightest aUusion to Bajitism. Secondly, there is not only no " great 
 
189 
 
 with the doctrine contained in the Homily of Salvation, 
 cited in Article XI., as the Homily of Justification ? 
 
 Answer 109. 
 Your Lordship will, I trust, have the goodness to con- 
 sider whether, under my natural and earnest anxiety that 
 my long Examination should be brought to a close, I may 
 not fairly decline to enter on a comparison of documents, 
 di-awn up when Popish darkness was yet too successfully 
 struggling against Protestant light — with the authorized 
 
 FORMULARIES OF THE ClIURCH OF ENGLAND, by which 
 
 the clergy are at present bound. 
 
 This appears to me to be something more than a " due 
 Examination." 
 
 Question CX. 
 You are aware that the Homily of Salvation was drawn 
 up by Cranmer ? 
 
 Answer 110. 
 It is so stated ; and I do not doubt it, though I am not 
 aware that this statement rests on absolute authority. 
 
 Question CXI. 
 Are you aware that this Homily on Salvation is included 
 in Cranmer's Works, published by Jenkyns, vol. ii., p. 138 ? 
 Answer 111. 
 I am. [It is also included in the Parker Society's 
 edition of Cramner's Miscell. Writings, pp. 128 — 134.] 
 
 coincidence," but an immense discrepancy between the confused state- 
 ment of Justification in the " King's Book," and the clear enunciation 
 of it in the Homily. On this large and very interesting subject I 
 cannot now enter ; but the distance between the one and the other, 
 (taking a general view of each, without regard to a very few incidental 
 expressions, not so perspicuous as might be desired, in tlie Homily,) is 
 as great as between Popish error and Scriptural truth. Thirdly, 
 Article XI. does not delegate its authority, for severe doctrinal preci- 
 sion, even to this Homily, excellent as it is — much less, through the 
 Homily, to its (assumed) " greatly coincident " predecessor. The Neces- 
 sary Doctrine. See more on this subject, in the note on Answer 114.] 
 
190 
 
 Question CXII. 
 
 Read Article XI. 
 
 Answer 112. 
 XI. " Of the Justification of Man. 
 " "We are accounted righteous before God, only for the 
 merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and 
 not for our own works or deservings. 
 
 " Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a 
 most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as 
 more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification." 
 
 Question CXIII. 
 Do you recognise the " Homily of Justification'' here 
 mentioned, as that which is entitled, in the Book of 
 Homilies, " Of Salvation ? " 
 
 Answer 113. 
 
 I do not doubt it. 
 
 Question CXIV. 
 Do you not consider Article XI. as adopting the doc- 
 trine set forth in that Homily, so far at least as concerns 
 Justification ? 
 
 Answer 114. 
 
 Article XI. refers to the Homily as " more largely ex- 
 pressing" the " wholesomeness " and the "comfort" of 
 the doctrine of Justification. But that Article reserves to 
 itself the prerogative* of being the dogmatical standard 
 
 * [The doctrinal independence of this Article is clear, from the 
 general character of all Aiticles of Faith, as the normal expositions of 
 the Church. But it is remarkable that Article XI., as drawn up hij 
 Cranmer himself m. 1552, does adopt (as was natural) his own Homil)-, 
 as an exact exhibition of the doctrine which the Article sets forth : — 
 " XI. Of the Justificatiox of Man. Justification b)' only faith 
 in Jesus Christ,' vs that sense as it is declared in the Homily of Jus- 
 t.ification, is a most certain and wholesome doctrine for Christian men." 
 But when the new Elizabethan Articles were framed in 1562, the 
 phraseology of Article XI. w'as entirely changed in this respect. The 
 same doctrine was indeed asserted by the Article, but hy its own dog- 
 
191 
 
 of that doctrine; and any particular expressions which occur 
 in that Homily, must themselves, therefore, be tested 
 by the severe precision of the Article. I have repeatedly 
 insisted upon this principle, as a Church principle of great 
 importance. 
 
 Question CXV. 
 
 Without saying anything of particular expressions in 
 that Homily, I ask, whether the leading and general doc- 
 trine of that Homily be not adopted by the Ai'ticle ? 
 Answer 115. 
 
 I answer in the words of Article XXXV. (which the 
 Church herself puts into my mouth), as most befitting such 
 an inquiry, that " the former Book of Homilies " (in 
 which this Homily occurs,) " doth contain a godly and 
 wholesome doctrine." 
 
 Question CXVI. 
 Do you decline giving a more precise Answer to the 
 Question ? 
 
 Answer 116. 
 
 Your Lordship puts a word before me, which I did not 
 select, nor do I adopt ; because it seems to me to imply a 
 form of Answer, — less precisely embodying my real 
 meaning, — less respectful to the examining Bishop, — and 
 
 matic authority ; and the Homily is refen-ed to, only generally, for the 
 " wholesomeness and comfort " of this truth : the precise Theological 
 definition of the doctrine, and the more diffuse HomQetic exposition of 
 its character being expressed, in Article XI., not only in sepai-ate sen- 
 tences, but in distinct paragraphs, as they are printed in my Answer 
 114. Is it possible for any candid mind to doubt that the Xlth 
 Article of 1552, was so remodelled in 1562, for the express pm-pose of 
 maintaining its dignity as a Staxdakd, instead of remitting the 
 Church to a subordinate authority for the evolution of its " sense." 
 My own conviction goes still further : — I do not hesitate to conclude 
 that the compilers of the Xlth Elizabethan Article, did not think it 
 wise to- adopt every expression of Cranmer's Homily (however 
 " wholesome " in its general tenor), in their exact definition of a 
 
192 
 
 less becoming me as desirous of following the guidance of 
 the Church.* 
 
 Question CXVII. 
 For whatever reason, you give no other Answer than 
 you have given to the Question ? 
 
 Answer 117. 
 I again answer in the words of my Answer 115; but, 
 circumstanced as I am, I cannot consent to detach that 
 Answer from the reason which I have given in Answer 116. 
 
 Question CXVIII. 
 
 Read from the Homily of Salvation the follo\\ang 
 opening passage, — " Because all men," &c., down to 
 " faith in Jesus Christ." 
 
 Answer 118. 
 
 " Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, 
 and breakers of his law and commandments, therefore can 
 no man by his own acts, works, and deeds (seem they 
 never so good), be justified and made righteous before 
 God ; but every man of necessity is constrained to seek 
 for another righteousness, or justification, to be received 
 at God's own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his 
 sins and trespasses in such things as he hath offended. 
 And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive 
 of God's mercy and Christ's merits, embraced by faith, is 
 taken, accepted, and allowed of God for our perfect and 
 full justification." 
 
 doctrine of such immense importance as that of Justification, — 
 the " Articulus stantis vel eadentis Ecclesimr It must not be for- 
 gotten that " the Homily of Justification," or " Salvation," was 
 written in 1547, two years earlier than the first Protestant Service 
 Book, and five years before the first Protestant Articles. In the 
 fifteen years which elapsed between the compilation of Cranmer's 
 Homily, and the setting forth of the Eleventh Elizabethan Article, Pro- 
 testantism had made great advances, and its phraseology had become 
 more distinct.] 
 
 * [As intimated by Article XXXV., cited in my Answer 115.] 
 
193 
 
 " For the more full understanding hereof, it is our parts 
 and duty ever to remember the great mercy of God, how 
 that (all the world being wrapped in sin, by breaking of 
 the law) God sent his only Son our Saviour Christ into 
 this world, to fulfil the law for us ; and by shedding of his 
 most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, 
 or (as it may be called) amends, to his Father for our sins, 
 to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us 
 for the same. Insomuch that infants, being baptized, and 
 dying in their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from 
 their sins, brought to God's favour, and made his children, 
 and inheritors of his kingdom of heaven. And they 
 which actually do sin after their baptism, when they con- 
 vert and turn again to God unfeignedly, they are likewise 
 washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in such sort, that 
 there remaineth not any spot of sin that shall be imputed 
 to their damnation. This is that justification, or righte- 
 ousness, which St. Paul speaketh of, when he saith, ' No 
 man is justified by the works of the law, but freely by 
 faith in Jesus Christ.' " 
 
 Question CXIX. 
 
 Now tui-n to the second part of the Homily. Read 
 from " The true understanding," down to " un- 
 feignedly to him again." 
 
 Answer 119. 
 
 " The true understanding of this doctrine, we be 
 justified freely by faith without works, or that we be 
 justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own 
 act to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ, which 
 is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification 
 unto us (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by 
 some act or virtue that is within ourselves) : but the true 
 understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we 
 hear God's Word, and believe it ; although we have faith, 
 hope, charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within 
 us, and do never so many good works thereunto ; yet we 
 o 
 
194 
 
 must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, 
 hope, charity, and all our other virtues and good deeds, 
 which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things 
 that be far too weak and insufficient and unperfect, to 
 deserve remission of our sins, and our justification ; and 
 therefore we must trust only in God's mercy, and in that 
 sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, 
 the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross, to 
 obtain thereby God's grace and remission, as well of our 
 original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sin committed by 
 us after our Baptism, if we truly repent, and turn un- 
 feignedly to him again." 
 
 Question CXX. 
 
 Now turn to the third part of the Homily, — " Now you 
 shall hear the office," .... down to *' and not God." 
 Answer 120. 
 
 " Now you shall hear the office and duty of a Christian 
 man unto God, what we ought on our part to render unto 
 God again for his great mercy and goodness. Our office 
 is, not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully 
 and idly, after that we are baptized or justified, not caring 
 how few good works we do, to the glory of God, and 
 profit of our neighbours ; much less it is our office, after 
 that we be once made Chi-ist's members, to live contrary 
 to the same ; making ourselves members of the devil, 
 walking after his enticements, and after the suggestions of 
 the world and the flesh, whereby we know that we do 
 serve the world and the devil, and not God." 
 
 Question CXXI. 
 Refer to the first passage read. In it are these words — 
 " Insomuch that infants, being baptized, and dying in 
 their infancy, are by this sacrifice washed from their sins, 
 brought to God's favour, and made his childi'en, and 
 inheritors of his kingdom of heaven." 
 
 Do those words appear to you to coincide with what 
 
195 
 
 the Catechism says of Baptism, — Wherein I was made 
 a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor 
 of the kingdom of heaven ?" 
 
 Answer 121. 
 
 I cannot say they " coincide ; " but tliey mutually 
 illustrate each other, and express, connectedly, " a whole- 
 some doctrine," 
 
 The Homily sets forth "this sacrifice" of Christ, as 
 the only method by which " infants baptized, and dying in 
 their infancy," can be " washed from their sins," be "made 
 his children," and receive " the inheritance of his kingdom 
 of heaven." 
 
 The Catechism sets forth Baptism as manifesting, and 
 attesting, these same blessings ; as the appointed Seal and 
 pledge that God will indeed bestow them. 
 
 Question CXXII. 
 Is not — the " being baptized,"— the condition stated, in 
 this passage of the Homily, of infants being washed from 
 their sins by the sacrifice of the blood of Christ ? 
 
 Answer 122. 
 
 The Homily does not state so rigid a condition. It 
 simply declares the fact, that infants so circumstanced 
 shall be saved : it observes a merciful and charitable 
 silence as to infants dying without Baptism. 
 
 That this silence was advised, and adopted from a grave 
 consideration of that difficult point, appears,- — firstly, from 
 the compiler of this Homily having, in his earlier days, in 
 1537, added to a somewhat similar passage (in his work, 
 " The Institution,"* read by your Lordship this morning), 
 the incautious and uncharitable words, " or else not ; " 
 which words were omitted in his later work, 1543, (" The 
 Necessary Doctrine of a Christian Man,"f) which treats 
 
 ' [Institution, &c., p. 93.] 
 
 t [Necessary Doctrine, &c., p. 254. — The Bishop seemed surprised 
 at my statement of the omission, in 1543, of these remarkable words, 
 o 2 
 
196 
 
 on the same subject: — secondly, from the Rubric* at 
 the end of the service for the Public Baptism of Infants, 
 " It is certain by God's word that children which are 
 baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are 
 undoubtedly saved." 
 
 Question CXXIII. 
 Entirely agreeing with you in the intention and wisdom 
 of the Church, in abstaining from saying anything con- 
 cerning the state of Infants who die unbaptized ; I ask. 
 Whether their " being baptized" is not, in the passage 
 which has been read, the condition of infants when they 
 are " washed by this sacrifice from their sins," &c. 
 Answer 123. 
 
 In the sense of state and circumstance, it is the con- 
 dition-f in which infants are here assumed to be. 
 
 Question CXXIV. 
 In the second quoted passage from the Homily, do you 
 
 which had been adopted in 1537 ( — a rapid step out of Popery — ) ; 
 and his Lordship even doubted my accuracy, until, some time after, he 
 had turned to the passage, and verified the fact.] 
 
 * [In the haste of my Examination, I inadvertently cited the Rubric 
 of 1662, at the close of the Service for Infant Baptism ; whereas it 
 would have been more precisely correct to have quoted Cranmer's own 
 Rubric (to the same purport, though not exactly in the same words), 
 in Edward VI.'s Liturgy, 1549, prefixed to the Confirmation Service, 
 as follows : — " Jf is certain, hy God's word, that children heing baptized 
 (if they depart of this life in their infancy) are midoubtedly saved." 
 This Rubric was retained, in the same place, with a slight variation, 
 in the Liturgies of 1552 and of 1559.] 
 
 t [The reader cannot fail to observe, that, in Question CXXII., the 
 Bishop urged on my attention " the condition of infants being washed 
 from their sins ; " and that, after my Answer 1 22 was given, his Lord- 
 ship changed the form of inquiry, in the following Question CXXUl., 
 to, "the condition of infants when they ake washed from their sins." 
 The word " condition " is in the fii-st instance placed before me in the 
 sense of a sine qua non ; — in the second, simply as sj-nonymous with 
 a state. His Lordship must have been well aware that these are two 
 very distinct propositions.] 
 
197 
 
 not find tliese words : " "We must trust only in God's 
 mercy, and in that sacrifice which our High Priest and 
 Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once ofFei-ed for us 
 upon the cross, to obtain thereby God's grace, and remis- 
 sion of our original sin in Baptism ?" 
 
 Answer 124. 
 
 I do find them. 
 
 Question CXXV. 
 In the third passage quoted does not the phrase, 
 " baptized or jiistificd," imply that these words, " baptized 
 — -justified," are there equivalent? 
 
 Answer 125. 
 
 They are not equivalents ; for, by such a supposition : — 
 Istly. Article XI. would be contradicted, which declares 
 that " we are justified by Faith only." Now as Faith 
 must precede beneficial Baptism, and as Justification is 
 invariably consequent on Faith, therefore Justification 
 s\so precedes bseficial Baptism, and cannot be equivalent 
 to it. 
 
 2dly.* This Homily itself would be contradicted. In 
 the 1st Part, as quoted by your Lordship, it is said: — 
 "And they, which in act or deed, do sin after their 
 Baptism, when they turn again to God unfeignedly, they 
 are likewise washed by this sacrifice from their sins, in 
 such sort, that there remaineth not any spot of sin, that 
 shall be imputed to their damnation. Tins is that justi- 
 fication, or righteousness, which St. Paul speaketh of, 
 when he saith, 'No man is justified by the works of the 
 law, but freely by faith in Jesus Christ. (Gal. ii.)'" It is 
 here admitted that Justification may succeed formal Bap- 
 tism ; it cannot therefore be equivalent to Baptism. 
 
 The conclusion seems to me inevitable ; that Justifica- 
 tion, like Faith, and Adoption, (three graces which always 
 are co-existent, or at least immediately consequent to 
 
 * [This addition was made by the Bishop's leave, on March 10.] 
 
198 
 
 each other,) is so far* from being equivalent to Baptism, 
 that it may take place before, in, or after that Sacra- 
 ment. 
 
 • [Bishop Marsh, in 1813, (Letter to Simeon on the Sacrament of 
 Baptism,) insisted, as the Bishop of Exeter seems to do, on the particle 
 " OR," as shewing the absolute equivalency of the two terms, " baptized 
 or justified." The futility of such a conclusion may appear from the 
 following expressions in the first Homily : " God or themselves ; " 
 " comfort or exhort;" " gold or precious stones." The real key to the 
 metonymical interchange (in the Homily on Salvation) of the words, — 
 " baptized or justified," — is that afforded by the author of this Homily 
 himself, in his declaration of the way in which he sometimes uses the 
 word Sacrament (• — and, of course, the equipollent tenn Baptism — ) 
 cited in my note (f), p. 176, above: " Baptized" is here used by him 
 in the sense of " the whole administration of the Sacea- 
 ment" to the "WOETHY EECEIVEE;" and, — in <^a< sense, — includes 
 the grace which preceded it, faith, and, consequently, "justification." 
 It must, nevertheless, be admitted, that such language is incautious, 
 and tends to misconception.] 
 
 [" The doctrine of Saceamental Justification," says Bishop 
 Burnet, " is justly to be reckoned among the most mischievous of all 
 those practical errors that are in the Church of Rome. Since the 
 natural consequence of this doctrine is, to make men rest contented in 
 low, imperfect acts, when they can be so easily made up hy a Sacra- 
 ment, we have just reason to detest it as one of the depths of Satan." — 
 (Burnet, on Article XI., p. 161, edit. London, 1746.) 
 
 [Luther ( — a name to be the more honovu-ed, on account of the sneer 
 with which it is received by Tractarians — ) thus beautifully and 
 accurately discriminates between "Baptism" and "Justification," 
 the " Sign " and the " Thing ;" writing in the year 1520. I give his 
 words in plain English, for the general reader, and refer nicer critics 
 to his works. " Baptism justifies no one, nor profits any one, but 
 Faith in the word of promise, to which Baptism is added; for this" 
 (—faith—) "justifies, and fulfils ( — implet— ) that which Baptism 
 
 signifies Sacraments are not fulfilled ( — implentur — ) while they 
 
 are performed, but while they are believed. So it cannot be true 
 that the efficacious force of Justification is in the Sacraments, or that 
 they are efficacious Signs of grace (for all these things are said to the 
 damage of faith, through ignorance of the Divine promise) ; except 
 it be meant that they are efficacious in this way, namely, that if 
 undoubted faith be present, they most certainly and most efficaciously 
 confer grace So clearly do you see that Sacraments are not at 
 
199 
 
 Question CXXVI. 
 Do you see tliat the language of the Homily includes 
 Baptism, in saying that " we are justified by faith only: " 
 whether you assent to the doctrine or not ? 
 
 Answer 126. 
 
 It does not seem to me that the writer intended to 
 include * Baptism ; though I think that the phraseology of 
 this Homily is not always very perspicuous. 
 
 Question CXXVII. 
 
 In a former Answer, 43, you have said [of the Cate- 
 chism] : — 
 
 " I fully admit that the doctrines of the Church, 
 as far as they are expressly stated in it, are ' to be 
 learned from it, when this popular form of " Instruc- 
 tion" has been fairly brought into connexion with 
 
 all understood by sententionary t Theologians, .... -who cling to the 
 Sign, and the use of the Sign ; and who snatch us away from Faith 
 to the woKK, and from the Word to the Sign ; by doing which they 
 have not only brought the Sacraments into captivity, but, as far as 
 
 they could, have abolished them You may further perceive, 
 
 that the Sacrament of Baptism, even as regards the Sign, is not a 
 momentary but a perpetual affair ; for though its administration 
 suddenly passes away, yet the thing signified remains till death, 
 yea, even till the resurrection in the last day." Luther on the Baby- 
 lonish Captivity : on the Sacrament of Baptism. (Opera, Vol. ii, pp. 
 272 b, 273 a, edit. Jena?, 1600.) ] 
 
 * [The word " ONLY " would appear to a simple-minded reader, to 
 be as clearly E\-c!usive of every thing but faith, as any term that 
 could have been selected. But, if the theory of the Bishop of Exeter 
 can be even plausibly maintained, that in the Homily of Justification, 
 "by faith only," means "by faith only //(-eluding Baptism ;" — then 
 we may see the wisdom of the compilers of the Elizabethan Articles, 
 who rejected, from Article XL, the expression ( — " hi/ only faith, in 
 THAT SENSE, as it ts declared in the Homily of Justification," — ) and 
 who adopted, as the Standard of this doctrine, an independent defini- 
 tion, clear of this gloss, introduced from the assumed sense of the 
 Homily. See above, p. 190, note (*). ] 
 
 [t He evidently alludes to the Master of the Sentences, and other School- 
 men, who mystified the Sacraments by their unscriptural Theological 
 definitions.] 
 
200 
 
 the Thirty-nine Articles, which I still hold to 
 be, in the stricter sense of the term, THE 
 STANDARD of the doctrines of the 
 Church.' " 
 
 Now, the Catechism makes every Catechumen expressly 
 state of Baptism, — " Wherein I was made a member of 
 Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom 
 of heaven," And again : that " the inward and spiritual 
 grace," of Baptism, is " a death unto sin, and a new birth 
 unto righteousness ; for being by nature born in sin, and 
 the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of 
 grace." 
 
 Does any, or if any, which, of the Articles, either 
 expressly or by necessary implication, deny these express 
 statements of the Catechism ? 
 
 Answer 127. 
 
 I have never advanced the proposition, that the 
 Articles "deny any express statements of the Catechism." 
 I have simply maintained that a "just and favourable 
 construction" must be applied to some passages in the 
 less theologically exact Formularies, in order to show their 
 conformity with the precise STANDARD of the Articles. 
 In other words : that the Formularies are not to 
 
 GOVERN the construction OF THE ARTICLES ; but that 
 
 THE Articles must decide the construction of the 
 Formularies. 
 
 Question CXXVIII. 
 Do you deny that the Catechism does expressly state 
 the propositions just stated by me from it ? 
 
 Answer 128. 
 
 If your Lordship means, by " propositions," the pas- 
 sages QUOTED, how can it be inquired whether I "deny" 
 what I admit to be correctly cited ? But if you mean by 
 " propositions," the sense to be attached to those pas- 
 sages, I have already so fully stated my opinion of them, 
 and the ready acceptance which I yield to them, that I 
 
201 
 
 cannot but express my surprise, that I should be asked, 
 whether I "deny" them, or that I should be required to 
 give any further explanation of my views respecting 
 them. 
 
 Question CXXIX. 
 Are doctrines of the Church expressly stated in those 
 passages of the Catechism which I have cited ? 
 
 Answer 129. 
 
 I can give no clearer Answer than I have already given 
 in Answer 43, and in my addition to it. 
 
 Question CXXX. 
 
 My Question is a very simple one : it is not answered 
 by your Answer 43. The Question is, "Are doctrines of 
 the Church expressly stated in those passages of the 
 Catechism which I have cited ? " 
 
 Answer 130. 
 
 I humbly conceive that, in my Answer 43, and the addi- 
 tion to it, I have stated, fairly and most explicitly, what 
 are my views with regard to the substantial matter of this 
 Question, CXXX. 
 
 By continual variation of form, there has been a mani- 
 fest endeavour to induce me to give Answers less carefully 
 weighed than those which I have deliberately adopted, and 
 by which I am content that the soundness of my doctrine 
 should be estimated. I must be permitted to hold, that 
 this is to exceed *' due examination," and that I may 
 justly decline to follow in such a course. To obviate, 
 however, once more the suspicion of evasion or ambiguity, 
 I answer * that the doctrines of the Church are not 
 so expressly, dogmatically, rigidly, and conclusively 
 
 * [ The word " categorically " stands in the recorded Answer. I 
 requested, the next day, to be allowed to expunge it as inapplicable — 
 under the circumstance of my desiring to make an addition to my 
 Answer; but the Bishop (having withdrawn his permission for the 
 annexation of the supplementary paragraph), would not consent.] 
 
202 
 
 stated in these passages of the Catechism as they are in 
 the precise Standard of the Articles. 
 
 * The Catechism was drawn up in a popular phraseology, 
 " thought to be fittest for children and common people," f 
 hence the bare ipsissima verba of this compendious 
 " Instruction," must not be assumed to contain severely 
 absolute, and nicely definite conclusions, which admit of 
 no explanation. As I suggested in Answer 128, " the 
 SENSE " X of these propositions ought to be fairly elicited 
 
 * [This paragraph was constructed, in pursuance of the Bishop's 
 unasked and general permission, at the close of this day's Examina- 
 tion, as an addition to Answer 130 : but, on the following day, his 
 Lordship ruled that it should be recorded as " a separate statement." 
 While I feel it right to state that fact, I cannot hesitate to present it 
 to the eye of my reader, in connexion loith the Answer which it was 
 designed to complete.'] 
 
 t [Answer of the Bishops to the Exceptions of the Ministers at 
 the Savoy Conference, 1661. CardweU's Conf, p. 358. See the 
 passage extracted, above, p. 101, note (*).] 
 
 X [After the discussion of one hundred and thirty Questions, occu- 
 pying more than Jifty hours, and an anxious suspense of four months, 
 it was so manifest that the Bishop would be satisfied with nothing 
 short of my acceptance of his sense of these two propositions, urged 
 on me in his Questions CXXVII. to CXXXI., — that it would have 
 been utterly fruitless to give further explanations to my Examiner : 
 but I am desirous of adding a few words on this point, for my reader. 
 
 [The sense in which the fii-st of these propositions ( — in Baptism 
 " I was ynade a member of Christ, &c." — ) must be understood as 
 ruled by the Articles, has been amply discussed by me, in my Answers 
 5, p. 70; 59, p. Ill; 60, p. 112; 61, p. 114; and Answers 86 to 101, 
 pp. 166 to 180. 
 
 [The sense in which, according to the same Standard of doctrine, 
 we must understand the second of these propositions, ( — namely, that 
 the inward and spiritual grace of Baptism is " a death unto sin, and 
 a new birth unto righteousness," &c., — ) requires a pre\ious consideration 
 of the manner in which the term Sackament is used in the Catechism. 
 I beg the reader, who wishes to have a clear conception of this matter, 
 to refer in the first instance to the note (f), p. 176 ; and especially to 
 the citation there made of Cranmer's Caveat, recorded by him for the 
 express purpose of preventing the inconsiderate from " stumbling at 
 these kinds of speeches." 
 
@03 
 
 by that "just and favourable construction" which the 
 Church claims for her Formularies ; above all, these Cate- 
 
 [It is obvious that, in the Catechism, the exact definition of a Sacra- 
 ment, and the subsequent analytical description of it, are, apparently, 
 inconsistent with each other : — so inconsistent, that it is rare to meet 
 with a child who is not confused even in the recital. A Sacrament is 
 there properly said to be, " an outward and visible Sign OF an inward 
 and spiritual Grace : " but it is immediately after explained, as con- 
 sisting of two parts, " the outward visible Sign AND the inward 
 spiritual Grace." These expositions can be fairly reconciled in no 
 other way, than by admitting that the term Sacrament is used, in one 
 explanation in a restricted, in the other in a comprehensive sense. 
 The first sense, is that adopted in the definition ; where the Sacra- 
 ment is correctly set forth, under the theologically restricted and 
 simple idea of, " The Sign of an holy Thing," as Cranmer expresses it. 
 The second sense, is that adopted in the larger description, where 
 the word Sacrament is propounded under the complex notion of what 
 Cranmer calls, its " whole ministration and receiving;" embracing the 
 Sign, and the Thing signified, as united in the case of every wortiiy 
 partaker. In THAT FULL sense, the second proposition of the Cate- 
 chism, (of which the Bishop insinuated my denial,) is in exact accord- 
 ance with the Twenty-fifth Article :— for the Catechism declares, that 
 " the inward and spiritual grace," of Baptism, when that rite is applied 
 to any worthy partaker, is—" a death unto sin, a new birth unto 
 righteousness ; for, being by nature" ( — by natural birth — ) " born in 
 sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby" ( — by the new birth — •) 
 " made the children of grace :" while the Article affirms, that " in such 
 only as worthily receive the same" this Sacrament has "a wholesome 
 effect." 
 
 [Before I dismiss this subject, of the sense in which the word 
 Sacrament, and propositions connected with it, are to be understood, — 
 I cannot refrain from quoting a passage from Bishop Hooper, in which 
 he says of the Fathers, what may with greater truth be stated of our 
 Reformers, and of the compilers of our Liturgical Services : " They 
 thought it best to name the Sacraments, by the name of the Thing 
 which was represented by the Sacraments. Yet, in many places of 
 their writings, Iheij so interpret themselves, that no man, except he 
 will be wilfully blind, can say but they understood the Sacrament to 
 SIGNIFY, and not to he the thing signified ; to confirm, and not to 
 exhibit grace ; to HELP, and not to give faith ; to SEAL, and not to 
 umi the promise of God, Rom. iv. ; to SHEW what we be hefore the use 
 of them, and not to make us the thing w^e declare to be after them ; 
 
20i 
 
 chetical expositions must be brought into comparison vnth 
 those Articles which expressly set forth and limit the 
 efficacy of Baptism by exact theological determinations, 
 as being the Umpire accredited " by the archbishops and 
 bishops of both provinces and the whole clergy " of our 
 Protestant Church, " for the avoiding of diversities of 
 opinions." This is the basis on which my doctrine is 
 grounded: this position I never can abandon ; convinced, 
 as I am, that it is a Church principle of incalculable 
 importance, to which, as maintaining my personal rights, 
 and the rights of the Clergy at large, I am bound to adhere, 
 and I do adhere with unshaken decision. 
 
 Question CXXXI. 
 
 The Bishop feeling it to be his duty to protest indig- 
 nantly against the imputation of an unfair endeavour, on 
 his part, expressed in the last Answer, now asks : — 
 
 Whether in any, and if in any, in which, of the Articles, 
 the doctrines expressly stated in the passages of the 
 Catechism cited by him, are also expressly stated, with 
 whatever explanation or modification accompanying such 
 expression ? 
 
 Answer 131. 
 
 I have gone over the discussion of the express doctrine 
 of the Articles, with regard to the Sacrament of Baptism, 
 with such wearisome repetition and with, such exhaustion of 
 mind and body, during this unprecedented Examination, — 
 that I consider the time now to have come when I may 
 decline entering again upon argument in detail. 
 
 I refer to my 130 Answers, as leaving the Bishop no 
 plea for imagining that he had not been furnished with 
 ample materials for a " due examination " of mj doctrine. 
 
 to SHEW we are Christ's; to shew we be in grace ; and not by them 
 to be received into grace; to shew we be saved, and yet not to he 
 saved by them ; TO shew we be kegexekated, and not to be 
 KEGENERATED BY THEM. Thus the old Doctors meant." "Works, 
 pp. 523, 524, edit. Parker Soe. 1843.] 
 
205 
 
 If he still can doubt, or thinks it his duty to ask me 
 further Questions, on passages in the Formularies, or on 
 statements in the Articles, I now claim the privilege of 
 solemnly assuring my Diocesan : that, — 
 
 Istly. I "assent and consent to all, and everything, 
 contained in the Book of Common Prayer ; " agreeably 
 to the requirement in the Act of Uniformity. * 
 
 2ndly. That I am ready to " subscribe the three Articles 
 contained in the 36th Canon," and especially those which 
 concern " the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty- 
 nine Articles of Religion." 
 
 Upon that " assent," and those " subscriptions," which 
 I have so often made before, and am now ready ex anirno 
 to renew ; and upon my candid explanation of my doctrine 
 already given in the great mass of my Examination 
 papers ; I now rest my appeal for a decision. Whether I am 
 or am not "worthy of my ministry," (Canon XXXIX.); 
 and, Wliether I do or do not possess that " sufficiency," 
 and those " qualities " (Canon XCV.), which give me a 
 title for Institution to the Benefice of which the Crown 
 judged me deserving, and of which I tendered my Pre- 
 sentation to the Bishop, on the 8th November in last 
 year. 
 
 [At the conclusion of this day's Examination, the 
 Bishop said: that, if Mr. Gorham wished to make any 
 corrections or additions, he was at liberty to do so ; but 
 that the Bishop would prefer his preparing them at his 
 lodgings, to save time. 
 
 [Mr. Gorham replied : that it was not probable he should 
 wish to make corrections or additions ; but that, after the 
 close attention he had given to these matters during the 
 day, he would, in the evening, be more disposed to rest, 
 than to employ his mind.] 
 
 • [14 Charles II. Cap. 34.] 
 
206 
 
 EIGHTH DAY'S EXAMINATION. 
 
 Friday, March 10, 1848. 
 
 \_From Eleven, a.m., to Three, p.m.] 
 
 [Mr. Gorham requested that the chaplain might record 
 one correction, and two additions, which he wished to 
 make to his Answers of yesterday, in pursuance of the 
 Bishop's permission to do so : — The Bishop assented. 
 A slight correction was then recorded of the citation from 
 Jewel at the end of Answer 100. Mr. Gorham was 
 about to read an addition to Answer 130, when some 
 discussion ensued. The Bishop refused to permit any 
 addition to be made to that Answer : Mr. Gorham re- 
 minded his Lordship that he had pre\'iously given him 
 permission to prepare any additions. The Bishop, then, 
 " insisted " on the Record which follows ; Mr. Gorham 
 protesting against its correctness.] 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 Mr. Goi'ham having said that the Bishop had requested 
 him to make any corrections in any of the Answers that 
 he had made ; the Bishop said that he had not requested, 
 but that he had told Mr. Gorham that he might make any 
 corrections of his Answers. Mr. Gorham ha^dng this 
 day desired to make an addition to his Answer 130 of 
 yesterday, the Bishop desired that the next following 
 Question, CXXXL, and Answer 131, be read: which 
 having been done, the Bishop said ; that, from the special 
 character of those Answers, he objected to receive any 
 observation as an addition to Answer 130 ; that he is 
 now perfectly ready to receive from Mr. Gorham any 
 
207 
 
 separate statement, even with reference to that Answer, 
 which he may be desirous of giving. 
 
 Mr. Gorham. 
 
 I complain, that your Lordship arbitrarily insisted, 
 ( — with much vehemence,- — and in the face of my earnest 
 and repeated objections to such a course as oppressive, — ) 
 in directing your Chaplain to record my requests in your 
 Lordship's own words, instead of taking them down from 
 my own lips. My own statement is as follows : — 
 
 When I entered your study this morning, I said ; That 
 — your Lordship having yesterday given me permission, 
 (which I had not asked, but had even stated that it was 
 improbable that I should avail myself of,) to make any 
 additions or corrections to my Answers of that day ; and 
 having requested that if I had any such to make, I would 
 prepare them at my own residence to save time ; — I had 
 prepared one correction, (viz., to Answer 100,) and one 
 addition (viz., to Answer 130) ; that, in consequence of 
 fatigue, I had not been able to prepare the third addition 
 (namely, to Answer 125), but that its preparation would 
 not occupy me many minutes. 
 
 Your Lordship, then, not only allowed me to record 
 these, but your Chaplain immediately proceeded to make, 
 and did make, my trivial correction to Answer 100, con- 
 sisting chiefly in stating the page cited from Jewel. 
 
 I was then about to read my addition to Answer 130; 
 when your Lordship desired that that Answer and the 
 following Question CXXXL, and Answer 131, should 
 be read ; and, without waiting to hear the proposed addi- 
 tion, peremptorily decided that it should not be made. 
 I now respectfully request that I may be permitted to 
 read that addition, and also to annex it to that An- 
 swer 130, as important to a clear exposition of my views 
 on Question CXXX., ivhich your Lordship declared I 
 had not answered distinctly. 
 
208 
 
 The Bishop. 
 
 I am quite content that it should be read \yith special 
 reference to that Answer, 130. 
 
 Mr. Gorham wished " Categorically " to be struck out 
 in Answer 130, (which his Lordship declined,) and then 
 read as follows : " The Catechism wa§ drawn up," &c.* 
 
 The Bishop said; he was ready to receive any other 
 statement with special reference to any other Answer. 
 
 Mr. Gorham then read the following Addition to 
 Answer 125, — " This Homily itself would be contra- 
 dicted, &c." f 
 
 The Bishop consents to receive this as an Addition. 
 
 Question CXXXII. 
 Looking to what you have this day said in your state- 
 ment, having reference to Answer 130, in which you 
 speak of — 
 
 " Popular phraseology, ' thought to be fittest for 
 children and common people ; ' " and that, " hence 
 the bare ipsissima verba of this compendious 
 instruction, must not be assumed to contain severely 
 absolute, and nicely definite conclusions, which 
 admit of no explanation : " 
 I ask : Is it not specially necessary, and the pecuHar duty 
 of those who draw up a Catechism for the instruction of 
 children, and the common people, to take care to say 
 therein nothing which is not true according to the obvious 
 and ordinary meaning of the words used ? 
 
 Answer 132. 
 I have stated my opinion on the character of the Church 
 Catechism, as taken in connexion with the Thirty-nine 
 Articles. I decline (as I stated yesterday that it was my 
 
 • [See this statement annexed to Answer 130, p. 202.] 
 t [See this addition annexed to Answer 125, p. 197.] 
 
209 
 
 intention to do) entering further into argument in detail ; 
 and tlierefore I refrain from saying what might occur to 
 me on the duty of compilers of Church Formularies in 
 general, or the manner in which that duty was fulfilled 
 with regard to the Formularies of the Church of England. 
 It is my duty to " assent and consent " to them as they 
 actually exist. 
 
 Question CXXXIII. 
 You say that the Thirty-nine Articles are — 
 
 " The Umpire acci-edited by the Archbishops 
 and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole 
 clergy" of our Protestant Church, "for the 
 avoiding of diversities of opinions." 
 Where is it stated that the Articles are " the accredited 
 Umpire ; " in exclusion of other dogmatical teaching of 
 the Church, or truths expressed in its Book of Common 
 Prayer, and administration of the Sacraments ? 
 
 Answer 133. 
 The very title which I have quoted, represents them as 
 the " Umpire : " because it declares they were framed 
 " for the avoiding diversities of opinions, and for estab- 
 lishing of consent touching true religion ; " which cannot 
 be effected when co-ordinate, independent, and less dog- 
 matically conclusive authorities, are adduced with a claim 
 to give their insulated decisions. 
 
 They ai'e the "accredited Umpire:" because, with 
 that title,* they were accepted, in 1562, in " Convocation ; " 
 received the authority of the supreme Governor of the 
 Church at that period; and were confirmed by Parliament 
 in 1571, in an Actf (13 Eliz. cap. 12), which gave them 
 the same character. They were once more " accredited" 
 in the same character, by the Royal Declaration prefixed 
 to them, in or about 1628. 
 
 * [The Title prefixed to the Articles, — " For the avoiding of diver- 
 sities of opinions, &c."] 
 + [See Appendix, B.] 
 
 P 
 
210 
 
 The latter clause, in your Lordship's Question, does not 
 exactly cite any words of mine : I therefore decline making 
 any further statement. 
 
 Question CXXXIV. 
 Was not that particular portion of the Catechism which 
 relates to the Sacraments, for the first time authorized by 
 " the two Houses of Convocation, and by Parliament," in 
 the year 1662 ? (Stat. 13 and 14, Charles II. cap. 34.) 
 Answer 134. 
 I decline further statement or argument on this subject. 
 
 Question CXXXV. 
 
 Did not the Catechism in its present form receive the 
 authority of Convocation, consisting wholly of persons 
 who had subscribed the Ai'ticles ? 
 
 Answer 135. 
 
 I fully admit that " it containeth in it nothing contrarj- 
 to the Word of God" (Canon XXXVI.): but, — simply 
 with a view not any longer to allow myself to be drawn into 
 new arguments, and thus to be detained by an Examina- 
 tion of a character to which I am not bound by any law of 
 the Church, — I refrain from giving any other Answer. 
 
 Question CXXXVI. 
 
 Notwithstanding the Answer just given, I hold the 
 Question to which it was an Answer to have arisen 
 necessarily from the new Statement made by Mx. Gorham 
 this day. I therefore ask another Question, also arising 
 out of Mr. Gorham's new Statement, to which he will 
 give such Answer as he sees fit. 
 
 My Question is : — If the Catechism in its present form 
 received the authority of Convocation, in 1662, must not 
 that Convocation have been satisfied that the Catechism, so 
 authorized by them, contains nothing which is not in 
 accordance with the Thirty-nine Articles understood in 
 their true sense ? 
 
211 
 
 Answer 136. 
 I not only " see fit," but I feel it to be my bounden 
 duty, to give every Answer with due respect. But pro- 
 tracted as this Examination has been beyond the bounds, 
 as I humbly think, of Episcopal privilege, and in a manner 
 most dangerous to the well-being and peace of the Church, 
 — by many Questions, which, like the present, are altogether 
 unnecessary for ascertaining the soundness of my doctrine ; 
 — I am, at length, most reluctantly compelled to refrain 
 from saying anything which might lead to inconvenient 
 discussion. Were I not under this restraint, I could have 
 no difficulty in giving a most satisfactory Answer to this 
 Question, and of obviating the imputation * which it seems 
 to me to contain. 
 
 Question CXXXVII. 
 Disclaiming all intention of making any imputation on 
 Mr. Gorham, I yet feel it necessary to ask some further 
 Questions. 
 
 Mr. Gorham fully admits that the Catechism contains 
 " nothing contrary to the Word of God." Does he also 
 admit that he has solemnly in his Church, before the con- 
 gregation, declared his unfeigned "assent and consent" to 
 all and everything contained in it ? 
 
 Answer 137. 
 
 I have answered this Question in my Answer to 
 Question 131.f 
 
 Question CXXXVIII. 
 Mr. Gorham has this day said, that the Catechism must 
 
 • [Question CXXXVI. insinuates, either that I give a dishonest 
 assent to the Catechism; — or that I do not subscribe the Articles in 
 their true sense ; — or both.] 
 
 t [I cannot bring these papers before the public eye, without some 
 further notice of this extraordinary Question CXXXVII. The Bishop 
 could not have doubted the fact; — his insinuation as to the sincerity 
 of my "solemn declaration," was a personal indignity; the more 
 marked, because following his declaration, that he "disclaimed all 
 intention of making any imputation."] 
 P 2 
 
212 
 
 be " brought into comparison with those Articles which 
 expressly set forth, and limit, the efficacy of Baptism, by 
 exact Theological Determinations." 
 
 Which Article or Articles limit the efficacy of Baptism, 
 so as to exclude the Statements made in the passages of 
 the Catechism which have been cited : namely, 1st, that 
 the child baptized is made a " member of Christ, the 
 child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven ; " 
 and 2nd, that the "inward and spiritual grace" of Baptism 
 is " a death unto sin, a new birth unto righteousness, &c.?" 
 
 Answer 138. 
 I have made no such averment with regard to the 
 Articles. 
 
 I answer, generally, as before, in the end of my Answer 
 131, beginning with the words, " I now claim the privi- 
 lege of solemnly assuring my Diocesan, &c." 
 
 Question CXXXIX. 
 Read Article XVI. 
 
 Answer 139. 
 " XVI. Of sin after Baptism." 
 " Not every deadly sin, willingly committed after Bap- 
 tism, is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable. 
 Wherefore, the grant of repentance is not to be denied to 
 such as fall into sin after Baptism. After we have 
 received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, 
 and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may arise 
 again, and amend our lives. And therefore they are to be 
 condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as 
 they live here, or deny the place of forgiveness to such as 
 truly repent." 
 
 Question CXL. 
 Does not this Article imply, that, in Baptism, the bap- 
 tized is placed in a state of grace, and receives the Holy 
 Ghost ? 
 
213 
 
 Answer 140. 
 " I do willingly and ex animo " allow this Article " to 
 be agreeable to the Word of God." (Canon XXXVI. 3.) 
 
 Question CXLI. 
 Do you decline saying anything further ? 
 
 Answer 141. 
 I answer in the words of my whole Answer 131. 
 
 Question CXLII. 
 
 Look at the same Article in the Latin. You will see 
 that, "such as fall into sin after Baptism," is expressed 
 in the Latin by " Lapsis a Baptismo," Does not this 
 confirm the statement, that in and by the means of 
 Baptism we are placed in a state of grace ? 
 
 Answer 142. 
 
 I made an admission, in an earlier part of this Examina- 
 tion (Answer 25), that the Latin Articles have the same 
 authority as the English. On further consideration, I am 
 not confident that such is the case ; but I wish merely to 
 be understood as now suspending my opinion on that 
 point. I find that this authority was not universally con- 
 ceded to the Latin Articles in the reign of Elizabeth ; and 
 Bishop Bilson,* in 1599, expressly denies it. 
 
 * [" We have public assurance and allowance that their words " 
 ( — the words of the framers of the XXXIX. Articles — ) " were and 
 are, ' It is to he believed that Christ went down into Hell.' Their words, 
 in LATIN, were, you will say, ' Credendus est ad inferos descendisse.' 
 But the same Bishops, the same Clergy, that were at the first Synod 
 in the 5 of Her Majesty, assembling again in the 13 year of Her 
 Highness' reign, did themselves English it as I repeat it, and offered 
 it to the Prince and Parliament in those words to be confirmed, which 
 accordingly, that High Court did. So that now, not these words, 
 Christ descended into Hades, though they be true as being the original 
 words ( — much less yours, Christ toent to the dead, — ) but precisely 
 these, ' Christ went down into Hell,' are the faith and docteine 
 which the Church and realm of England professeth, or which the 
 
214 
 
 But waiving this possible objection, I remark : that I 
 consider the implied sense, in the Latin, to be, " lapsis a" 
 professione in " Baptismo," * conformable to a similarly 
 implied sense in the English, " after " their profession in 
 " Baptism." 
 
 This view is confirmed by the Exhortation in the Visi- 
 tation of the Sick : where the patient is reminded of " the 
 profession which he made unto God in his Baptism ; " and 
 is required to rehearse the very same stipulated Articles 
 of faith which he made in Baptism. 
 
 On this ground I think the statement in your Lordship's 
 Question is not confirmed by the Latin Article. 
 
 Question CXLIII. 
 Look at Article XV. " Of Christ alone without 
 SIN." Read the last sentence. 
 
 Answer 143. 
 
 " XV. . . . But all we the rest (although baptized 
 and born again in Christ) yet offend in many things ; and 
 if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the 
 truth is not in us." 
 
 LAW ESTABLISHETH ; and, what they mean, were it not for your addle 
 quirks, is soon perceived even of the simplest." — Bihon's Full Redemp- 
 tion, 4to. London, 1599, p. 420.] 
 
 * [So Cranmer renders St. Augustine's phrase for Baptism, — " Sacra- 
 mentum fdei" — by its clear meaning, " Tlie Sacrament of the pro- 
 fession of our faith." (Works, vol. i. p. 124. edit. Parker Soc.)— Intwo 
 out of the three places in this Article, in which, " after Bap- 
 tism," occurs in the English, we find "^wsi Baptismum " in the 
 Latin ; a circumstance which shows what little plausibOity there is for 
 an argument derived from the varied phrase, " a Baptismo in the 
 third passage. In the Article of 1562, we have in the title, "De lapsis 
 post Baptismum," corresponding to the phrase of precisely similar 
 construction in the body, " lapsis a Baptismo." It is humiliating to 
 have to notice these trivial arguments, in so grave a matter, derived 
 from the varied use of a preposition in an elliptical construction.] 
 
215 
 
 Question CXLIV. 
 Does not this show that those who are " baptized " are, 
 according to the Article, " horn again in Christ ?" 
 Answer 144. 
 I answer* as in my Answer 131. 
 
 Question CXLV. 
 Look at Article IX. " Of Original sin." Read 
 " This infection," &c. 
 
 Answer 145. 
 
 " IX. . . . This infection of nature doth remain, yea, 
 in them that are regenerated . . . and although there 
 is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized, 
 yet the apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust 
 hath of itself the nature of sin." 
 
 Question CXLVI. 
 Now look at the Latin Article. You see that the word 
 rendered in the English " regenerated," is in the Latin, 
 "renatis;" and that the word rendered in the English 
 " baptized," is also in the Latin " renatis," Does not this 
 prove that "regenerated" and "baptized" are in this 
 Article used as equivalent terms ? 
 
 Answer 146. 
 
 Your Lordship is aware that there is a remarkable 
 difference in the Latin Article IX., from a strictly literal 
 correspondence, not only in the choice of the terms, but 
 in the inversion of them: the terms, in the English, 
 " believe and are baptized," being in the Latin, " renatis 
 et credentibus." It is, not, therefore, to my mind, 
 
 * [The afiii'mation, in Article XV., that even the holiest of men are 
 not ■without sin, implies of necessity that the "baptized" persons of 
 whom it speaks had received the inward grace of the Sacrament, and 
 ■were " horn again ; " these terms are, therefore, in the particular case 
 supposed, essentially connected. To argue from this special con- 
 nexion, that these expressions are equivalent, and are interchange- 
 ably predicable of the whole body of the " baptized," is a remarkable 
 instance of illogical generalization — it is an absolute Petitio Principii.'] 
 
216 
 
 absolutely certain that the word " renatis " was intended 
 to answer with strictness to " baptized." But admitting 
 that it were so, a long discussion would probably ensue 
 were I to state my view of this passage.* • 
 
 I therefore reply in the words of the first part of my 
 Answer 142, as regards the argument from the Latin ; — 
 and in the words of the whole of my Answer 131, as 
 regards the general argument. 
 
 Question CXLVII. 
 Here is the English Article, 1562. You there see that, 
 instead of the words, " in them that are regenerated," (as 
 in the IXth Article of 1571,) it is, in the English Article 
 of 15G2, " in them that are baptized;" though in the Latin 
 of 1562, the word translated "baptized," both here, and 
 in the other instance in the same Article [" believe and 
 
 * [The character of the Bishop's argument will be seen more 
 clearly, by bringing the Latin and the English of Article IX., into 
 immediate comparison : — 
 
 Latin, 1571. 
 
 [" Manet etiam in renatis kcec naturee depravatio. . . Et quanquam 
 " renatis ei credentibus, nulla 2}ropter Christum est condemnatio, ^-c." 
 
 English, 1571. 
 
 [" This infection of nature doth remain, yea, in them that are 
 " regenerated. . . And although there is no condemnation for them 
 " that believe and are baptized, &c." 
 
 [Now the Bishop's position is, that, because each of the English 
 words, " regenerated," and " baptized," ( — the latter occurring in a 
 special connexion — ) is adopted as sufficiently correspondent to the 
 same Latin word " renatis,"— these English words are absolutely 
 EQUIVALENTS, whenever, and however generally they may happen to 
 be used. This is evidently a non-scquitur ; for the conclusion is 
 larger than the premises. The words " them that are baptized," being 
 here definitely linked with " them that believe," the sense of this term, 
 " baptized," necessarily includes the inward grace of the Sacrament ; it 
 was therefore safely adopted as virtually correspondent to " renatis," 
 in this particular case of presupposed due reception of the outward 
 sign. The argument is afiected with the very same error, as that 
 which vitiates the reasoning from Article XV., see note (*), p. 215.] 
 
217 
 
 are baptized"] is " renatis." Does not this show that 
 "regenerated''' and ^'baptized" are there used as equi- 
 valent ? 
 
 Answer 147. 
 
 I answer* as in the first part of my Answer 142, and 
 the whole of my Answer 131. 
 
 Question CXLVIII. 
 Look at the Articles of 1552, at pp. 21, 5 and 6 [of 
 Cardwell's Synodalia]. Do you see "baptized" in both 
 
 • [The Latin, and the Enghsh, Article of 1552, 1562, and 1571, 
 must be brought into juxta-position, to exhibit the respective values 
 of this argument, and of the reply which I shall here give to it. 
 1552, 1562, LATIN. 1571, latin. 
 
 " Manet etiam in renatis hac " Manet ctiani in renatis h(cc , 
 naturce depravatio. naturcc depravatio." 
 
 1552, 1562, ENGLISH. 1571, English. 
 
 " This infection of nature doth " This infection of nature doth 
 remain, yea in them that are hap- remain, yea in them that are rege- 
 tized." ncrated." 
 
 [Instead of concluding, from the change of the word " baptized" 
 (1552, 1562,) into "regenerated," (1571,) that these words, — when 
 standing alone, as they do, — are "EQUIVALENT;" I conclude that the 
 alteration was made, from a conviction in the mind of the selecter, 
 that the former word was too indefinite to express, dogmatically and 
 with precision, the doctrine of this Article. That doctrine is — that 
 the infection of Adam's nature remains even in those who are partakers 
 of the grace of God. The Latin fully exhibits this : but the English 
 Ai-ticle, as di-awn in 1552 by Cranmer ( — see the Bishop's admission in 
 his final Question — ), had expressed this humbling truth too faintly, 
 and with faltering words, by stating that the taint adheres to " them 
 that are baptized ;" the more correct hand of Jewel (as is supposed) 
 gave the last touch of Scriptural truth to the English Article, by 
 declaring (in conformity with the Latin—" renatis" — ) "this infection 
 doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated." This correction was 
 important in another view : this (as it stood till 1571), was the 
 insulated passage in the Thirty-nine Articles, where the word " bap- 
 tized" had been incautiously used, alone and without qualification, as 
 apparently implying the necessary bestowment of spuitual grace, and 
 
 THE UNCONDITIONAL EFFICACY OF THE SaCEAMENT.1 
 
218 
 
 cases in the English, "renatis" in both cases in the 
 Latin ? 
 
 Answer 148. 
 I perceive this to be so. 
 
 Question CXLIX. 
 Are you aware that these Articles of 1552, being in the 
 reign of King Edward VI., are stated to have been chiefly 
 compiled byCranmer ? 
 
 Answer 149. 
 
 It is, I believe, notorious, and I do not see reason to 
 doubt it. 
 
 [The Bishop then said, that the Examination might be 
 considered as terminated.] 
 
219 
 
 Vicarage, S. Mary Church, March 11, 1848. 
 
 Rev, Sir, — The Bishop desires me to inform you (as 
 he understood you yesterday to be desirous of being 
 speedily informed) of the result of his Lordship's con- 
 sideration of your case. 
 
 He feels himself bound to decline instituting you to the 
 Vicarage of Brampford Speke, by reason of the unsound- 
 ness of the doctrines stated by you in your Examination. 
 
 The Bishop, in a matter of this importance, deems it 
 necessary to be advised by his Counsel, in what form he 
 shall give, to you and to the Patron, the legal notice of 
 his decision. But he thinks it proper to relieve you, 
 without any delay, from all doubt as to what that decision 
 will be. 
 
 I am, Rev. Sir, your faithful servant, 
 
 W. Maskell. 
 
 Rev. G. C. Gorham, Torquay. 
 
 To THE Reverend GEORGE CORNELIUS 
 GORHAM, Clerk, Bachelor in Divinity. 
 
 "Whereas we have examined you as to your ability 
 and fitness to fill the Vicarage of Brampford Speke, in 
 the County of Devon, and in our Diocese, now legally 
 void by the death of the last Incumbent thereof : 
 
 And, Whereas, we have upon the said Examination 
 found you unfit to fill the said Vicarage, by reason of 
 your holding doctrines contrary to the true Christian 
 Faith, and the doctrines contained in the Articles and 
 Formularies of the United Church of England and Ire- 
 land, and especially in the Book of Common Prayer and 
 Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and 
 
220 
 
 Ceremonies of the Church, according to the use of the 
 United Church of England and Ireland : 
 
 Now, therefore, We hereby notify to you, that, be- 
 cause of such your unfitness as aforesaid, we do refuse 
 to admit you to the said Vicarage, and you there to 
 institute, induct, and invest with all or any of the rights, 
 members, and appurtenances thereof. 
 
 Given under our hand, this twenty-first day of March, 
 in the year of our Lord, One thousand eight hundi-ed and 
 forty-eight. 
 
 H. Exeter. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 (A.) 
 
 ARTICULI CLERI. 
 
 Stat. 9 Edw. II. Cap. xiu., a.d. 1315. 
 
 See StaftUes of the Realm, Vol 11., p. 173, edit. 1810, Record 
 Commissioners, Spelman's Concilia, Vol. II. p. 485. 
 
 The King to all to whom, &c., sendeth greeting. 
 
 Understand ye, that, whereas of late times, of our Pro- 
 genitors sometimes Icings of England, in divers their Parlia- 
 ments, and hkewise after that we had undertaken the Govern- 
 ance of the Realm iu our Parliaments, many Ai-ticles containing 
 divers gi-ievances (committed, as therein was said, against the 
 Church of England, the Prelates, and Clergy), were propounded 
 by the Prelates and Clerks of our Realm ; and further, great 
 instance was made that convenient remedy might be provided 
 therein : And of late, in our ParUament holden at Lincoln, the 
 ninth year of our reign, we caused the Articles underwritten, 
 with certain Answers made to some of them, lieretofore to be 
 rehearsed before oui- Council, and made certain Answers to be 
 corrected ; and to the residue of the Aiticles underwritten. 
 Answers were made by Us and our Council ; of which said 
 Articles, -with the Answers of the same, the tenors here ensue. 
 
 XIII. The Examination of a Person, presented to a Benefice, 
 belonging to a Spiritual Judge : — 
 
 Item petitur, quod Personae Also, it is desired, that Spi- 
 
 EcclesiasticsB, quas Dominus ritual Persons, whom our Lord 
 
 Rex ad Beneficia presentat the King doth present unto 
 
 Ecclesiastica (si Episcopus eas Benefices of the Church (if the 
 
 non admittat, ut puta propter Bishop will not admit them, as. 
 
224 
 
 APPENDIX, 
 
 defectum scientite, vel aliam 
 causam rationabilem,) non su- 
 beant Examinationem laicarum 
 personarum in casibus ante 
 dictis ; prout hiis temporibus 
 attemptatur, de facto, contra 
 Canonicas Sanctiones ; sed 
 adeant Judicem Ecclesiasticum, 
 ad quern de jure pertinet pro 
 remedio, prout justum fuerit, 
 consequendo. 
 
 Responsio. — " De idoneitate 
 Personae presentatte ad Benefi- 
 cium Ecclesiasticum, pertinet 
 Examinatio ad Judicem Eccle- 
 siasticum ; et ita est hactenus 
 usitatum, et fiet in futurum." 
 
 for instance, for lack of learn- 
 ing, or for other cause reason- 
 able), may not be under the 
 Examination of Lay Persons in 
 the cases aforesaid ; as it is 
 now attempted, contrary to the 
 Decrees Canonical ; but that 
 they may sue unto a Spiritual 
 Judge, to whom it properly 
 belongeth, for remedy, as right 
 shall require. 
 
 The Answer. — " Of the 
 ability of a Person presented 
 unto an Ecclesiastical Benefice, 
 the Examination belongeth to 
 a Spiritual Judge ; and so it 
 hath been used heretofore, and 
 shall be done hereafter." 
 
 (B.) 
 AN ACT 
 
 TO REFORM CERTAIN DISORDERS TOUCHING MINISTERS OF THE 
 CHURCH. * 
 
 Stat. 13 Elizab. Cap. xn. — a.d. 1571. 
 
 See Statutes of the Realm, Vol. TV., p. 546. 
 
 I. That the Churches of the Queen's Majesty's Dominions 
 may be served with Pastors of sound Religion, Be it enacted, 
 by the Authority of this present Parliament, That every person 
 under the Degree of a Bishop, which doth or shall pretend to 
 be a Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word and Sacrament, 
 by reason of any other form of Institution, Consecration, or 
 
 * Such is the Title on the Enrolment. The Title as given in the 
 " Statutes at Large," is, " An Act for the Ministers of the Church to be of 
 sound Religion." 
 
 Certain passages of this Act are printed, in Appendix B, above, in 
 Capitals or Italics, to direct the reader's particular attention to them. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 225 
 
 Ordering tlian the Form set Fortli by Parliament in the time 
 of the late King of most worthy memory, King Edward the Sixth, 
 or now used in the Reign of our most gracious Sovereign Lady, 
 before the Feast of the Nativity of Christ next following shaU, 
 in the presence of the Bishop or Guardian of the Spiritualities 
 of some one Diocese where he hath or shall have Ecclesiastical 
 Li\ iiiu', declare his Assent and subscribe to all the Articles of 
 IxEHGioN which only concern the confession of the true Christian 
 
 faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments, comprised in a Book 
 imprinted, intituled, Articles rvhereupon it was agreed by the 
 Archbishop and Bishops of both Procinces, and the whole Clergy 
 in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God, 
 1562, according to the Computation of the Church of England, 
 
 for the avoiding of the Diversities of Opinions, and for the 
 
 ^establishing of Consent touching true Religion, put forth by the 
 Queen's Authority ; " and shall bring from such Bishop or 
 Guardian of Spiritualities, in writing, under liis seal authentick, 
 a testimonial of such assent and subscription, and openly on 
 some Sunday in the time of the public service, afore noon, in 
 every church where by reason of any Ecclesiastical living he 
 ought to attend, read both the said testimonial and the said 
 Articles, upon pain that every such person which shall not, 
 before the said feast, do as is above appointed, shall be ipso 
 
 facto deprived, and all his Ecclesiastical promotions shall be 
 void, as if he then were naturally dead. 
 
 II. And that if any person Ecclesiastical, or which shall 
 have Ecclesiastical living, shall advisedly maintain or afiu-m 
 any doctrine directly contrary or repugnant to any of the said 
 Articles, and being convented before the Bishop of the diocese, 
 or the Ordinary, or before the Queen's Highness' Commissioners 
 in causes Ecclesiastical, shall persist therein or not revoke his 
 error ; or after such revocation eftsoon affirm such untrue 
 doctrine, such maintaining or afhi-ming and persisting, or sucli 
 eftsoon affirming, shall be just cause to deprive such person of 
 his Ecclesiastical promotions ; and it shall be lawful to the 
 Bishop of the Diocese or the Ordinary, or the said Commissioners, 
 to deprive such person so persisting, or lawfully convicted of 
 such eftsoons affirming, and upon such sentence of depriva- 
 tion pronounced, he shall be in deed deprived. 
 
 III. And that no person shall hereafter be admitted to any 
 
 Q 
 
226 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Benefice with Cure, except he then be of the age of three-and- 
 twenty years at the least, and a Deacon, and shall have first 
 subscribed the said Articles in presence of the Ordinary, and 
 publicly read the same in the Parish Church of that Benefice, 
 with declaration of his unfeigned assent to the same ; and that 
 every person after the end of this Session of Parliament to be 
 admitted to a Benefice with Cure, except that within two 
 months after his induction, he do publicklyread the said Articles 
 in the same Church whereof he shall have Cure, in the time of 
 Common Prayer there, with declaration of his unfeigned assent 
 thereunto, and be admitted to minister the Sacraments within 
 one year after his induction, if he be not so admitted before, 
 shall be upon every such default ipso facto immediately 
 deprived. 
 
 rV. And that no person now permitted by any Dispensation, 
 or otherwise, shall retain any Benefice ^"ith Cure, being under 
 the age of one-and-twenty years, or not being a Deacon at the 
 least, or which shall not be admitted as is aforesaid, within one 
 year next after the making of this Act, or vdthin six months 
 after he shall accomplish the age of four-and-twenty years, on 
 pain that such his Dispensation shall be merely void. 
 
 V. And that none shall be made IMinister or admitted to 
 preach or administer the Sacraments, being under the age of 
 four-and-twenty j^ears, nor unless he first bring to the Bishop 
 of that Diocese, from men known to the Bishop to be of sound 
 religion, a Testimonial both of his honest life and of his pro- 
 fessing the doctrine expressed in the said Articles ; nor 
 unless he be able to answer and render to the Ordinary an 
 account of his faith in Latin, according to the said Articles, 
 or have special gift of ability to be a preacher ; nor shall be 
 admitted to the order of Deacon or JVIinistry, unless he shall 
 first subscribe to the said Articles. 
 
 VI. And that none hereafter shall be admitted to any 
 Benefice with Cure, of or above the value of thirty pounds 
 yearly in the Queen's Books, unless he shall then be a 
 Batchelour of Divinity, or a preacher lawfully allowed by some 
 Bishop within this realm, or by one of the Universities of 
 Cambridge or Oxford. 
 
 VII. And that all Admissions to Benefices, Institutions, and 
 Inductions, to be made of any person contrary to the form or 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 227 
 
 any provision of this Act, and all Tolerations, Dispensations, 
 Qualifications, and Licenses whatsoever, to be made to the 
 contrary hereof, shall be utterly void in law as if they never 
 were. 
 
 Vin. Provided alway, that no title to confer or present by 
 lapse shall accrue, upon any deprivation, ipso facto, but after 
 six months after notice of such deprivation given by the 
 Ordinary to the Patron. 
 
 (C.) 
 
 ARTICLES, 1571, RELATING TOTHE SACRAMENTS. 
 
 XXV. Of the Sacraments. 
 
 Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens 
 of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure 
 witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will 
 toward us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and 
 doth 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. 
 
 Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, 
 Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme 
 Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, 
 being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of 
 the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures ; 
 but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and 
 the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or 
 ceremony ordained of God. 
 
 The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed 
 upon, or to be cari-ied about, but that we should duly use them. 
 And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a 
 wholesome effect or operation : but they that receive them 
 unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul 
 saith. 
 
 Q 2 
 
228 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders 
 not the effect of the Sacrament. 
 
 Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled 
 with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in 
 the Ministration of tlie Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch 
 as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and 
 do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their 
 Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving of 
 the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance 
 taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts 
 diminished from such as by faith and rightly do receive the 
 Sacraments ministered unto them ; which be effectual, because 
 of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered 
 by evil men. 
 
 Nevertheless, it appertaineth to the discipline of the Church, 
 that enquiry be made of evil Minister.-;, and that they be 
 accused by those that have knowledge of their offences ; and 
 finally being found guilty, by just judgment be deposed. 
 
 XXVII. Of Baptism. 
 
 Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of differ- 
 ence, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be 
 not christened ; but it is also 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 forgive- 
 ness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the 
 Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; Faith is confirmed, 
 and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Bap- 
 -tism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the 
 Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Chi'ist. 
 
 XXVIU. Of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that 
 Christians ought to liave among tliemselves one to another ; but 
 rather is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death : 
 insomuch that to such as rightly, woi-thily, and with faith, 
 receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 229 
 
 the Body of Christ ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a par- 
 taking of the Blood of Christ. 
 
 Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread 
 and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by 
 holy Writ ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, 
 overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occa- 
 sion to many superstitions. 
 
 The Body of Christ is^given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, 
 only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean 
 whereby the Body of Clu-ist is received and eaten in the Supper 
 is Faith. 
 
 The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Chi-ist's 
 ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. 
 
 XXIX. Of the nicked which eat not the bodrj of Christ in 
 the use of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 The Wicked, and such as be void of a lively faith, although 
 they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (as Saint 
 Augustine saitli) the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of 
 Christ, yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ : but rather, 
 to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament 
 of so great a thing. 
 
 (D.) 
 
 THE CANONS OF 1603-4, RELATING TO 
 INSTITUTION TO BENEFICES. 
 
 XXXIX. Caution for Institution of Ministers into Benefices. 
 
 No Bishop shall institute any to a Benefice, who hath been 
 ordained by any other Bishop, except he first show unto him 
 his Letters of Orders, and bring him a sufficient testimony of 
 his former good life and behaviour, if the Bishop shall require 
 it ; and lastly, shall appear, upon due examination, to be worthy 
 of his ministry. 
 
230 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 XCV. The Restraint of Double Quarrels. 
 
 Albeit, by former Constitutions of the Church of England, 
 every Bishop hath had two months' space to inquire and inform 
 himself of the sufficiency and qualities of every Minister, after 
 he hath been presented nnto him to be instituted into any 
 benefice : yet, for the avoiding of some inconveniences, <\ve do 
 now abridge and reduce the said two months unto eight-and- 
 twenty days only. In respect of which abridgment we do 
 ordain and appoint, that no double quarrel shall hereafter be 
 granted 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 eiglit-aud- twenty 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 sufficient sureties to prove the same to be true ; 
 under pain of suspension of the granter thereof from the exe- 
 cution of his office for half a year toties quoties, to be denounced 
 by the said Archbishop, and nullity of the double quarrel afore- 
 said, so unduly procured, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. 
 Always provided that, within the said eight-and-twenty days, 
 the Bishop shall not institute any other to the prejudice of the 
 said party before presented, — sub pceiia nullitatis. 
 
 Macintosl), Printer, Great New-street, London. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 HIGHSMITH #45230