265,1 H396£ CHILD, '• jBOOMKSBIULSR. I GGJhgh SP A WORCtSTER > f £> f 1 ^ & 0a^'}'^.43.. */£ £ Zi e, ^IZU j < (j?' y? v THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY Prom the collection of Julius Doerner, Chicago Purchased, 1918. JiCiULSiACi:. A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF EXETER, ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCH. By HENRY, LORD BISHOP OF EXETER. / Y/- SECOND EDITION. LONDON: JOHN MUKRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 1851. Publications of the Bishop of Exeter. Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the Theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church ; with Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some parts of the Evidence of Dr, Doyle. Second Edition . 8vo. 16s. Charges delivered at the Triennial Visitations in 1836, 1845, and 1848. 8vo. 2s. each. A Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter on the Observance of the Rubric in the Book of Common Prayer. 12mo. Gd. An Ordination Sermon, preached in the Cathedral Church of Exeter. 12mo. Is. A Sermon preached in behalf of the National Society ; with a Pastoral Letter to the Inhabitants of Plymouth. 12mo. 6d. A Letter on the Missionary Exertions of the Church. 8vo. 6d. A Reply to Lord John Russell’s Letter to the Remonstrance of* the Bishops against the Appointment of Dr. Hampden. 8vo. Is. A Letter to the Archdeacons of the Diocese of Exeter, on the proposed Office of Scripture Readers. 8vo. Is. Gd. A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Case of the Rev. James Shore. 8vo. Is. A Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Gorham Case. 8vo. 3s. 6& A Letter to the Churchwardens of the Parish of Brampford Speke. 8vo. Is. A Speech on the Second Reading of a Bill to make lawful Marriages within certain of the prohibited Degrees of Affinity. 8vo. Is. Gd. A Pastoral Letter to the Clergy of the Diocese of Exeter on the Present State of the Church. 8vo. Sermons preached at the Visitation of the Bishop of Exeter in 1845. 12mo. 6s. Gd. CONTENTS. Page 1. Judgment in Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter 2 2. Doctrinal Statements of Archbishop of Canterbury . . 14 3. Doctrinal Matters in other Dioceses .... 45 4. Statements in Bishop of London’s Charge, 1850 (as re- marked upon by Lord John Russell) . . . .51 5. Catholic Doctrine : Sacramental System .... 64 6. Catechising ......... 82 7. Address of Twenty-four Archbishops and Bishops on Ritual Matters ........ 83 8. Royal Supremacy ........ 93 9. Diocesan Synod . . . . . . . .108 APPENDIX. No. I. — Address from Clergy in Prussia . . . .115 II. — Sir G. Grey’s Letter to Archbishop of Canterbury, &c. 117 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/pastorallettertoOOhenr A PASTORAL LETTER. Reverend and Dear Brethren, It has pleased God to continue to me the power of meeting you once more in my triennial Visitation of the Diocese, over which He has been pleased to place me. Permit me, however, so far to consult for my own ease and relief, at the age of three years beyond the ordinary length of man’s life, as to substitute a written Address for the Charge which it is usual for a Bishop to deliver to his clergy on every recurrence of these stated seasons. In truth, I am willing to hope, that by this change I am doing what is likely to make our meeting in Visitation less burthensome to you as well as to myself ; and also, in one most important particular, more edifying, more according with the feelings which ought to animate a Bishop and his Clergy, on the rare occasions of their being brought together in that their sacred relation ; for, instead of my detaining you with the delivery of a long Charge, I shall be enabled (with the blessing of God) to partake with you of that blessed Sacra- ment which is the crown and completion of the Communion of Saints upon earth, and which, as such, is regarded by the Apostle as the especial end and purpose of the “ coming together” of Christians. I request, therefore, that the Ministers of the several churches, in which our Visitation shall be holden, will make the necessary preparation for our receiving together the Lord’s Supper. ( 2 ) In looking back to the matters which have most interested us in the interval since our last triennial meeting, there is one particular, which stands forth in glaring and disastrous pro- minence — I mean, the blow which has been dealt (unknowingly, I doubt not, and unintentionally) by the Judicial Committee of her Majesty’s Privy Council against the Catholicity, and therefore the essential character, of our Church, as a sound branch of the Church of Christ, by deciding that it does not hold, as of Faith, one of the articles of the creed of Christendom. I need not go into particulars. Suffice it to say here, as I have before said in my formal Protest against the judgment which is registered in the Court of Arches, — that that judg- ment proceeded, 1st, on a statement of the doctrines objected to, which was notoriously at variance with the real facts of the case ; 2ndly, on an utter disregard of some of the canons of the Church, which ought to have been especially observed and enforced in deciding on such a case. In short, we have been made to feel, that the law of the land has, by a most unhappy mistake, intrusted to a body of men of high character and attainments, but wholly deficient in that knowledge — the know- ledge of the laws and doctrines of the Church — which alone could make any persons competent to the discharge of the judi- cial duties in such a cause — the decision of a question purely spiritual, nay, strictly and undeniably doctrinal. In truth, as the consigning of those duties to this tribunal was admitted to have been an oversight by the Noble and Learned Lord who originated the Act which gave the jurisdiction ; so was it a direct violation of the principle of the great constitu- tional statute, the 24 Hen. VIII. c. 12, the Statute of Appeals. That statute states in its memorable preamble, that “ by sundry old and authentic histories and chronicles, it is mani- festly declared and expressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and King, having the dignity and royal ( 3 ) estate of the imperial Crown of the same ; unto whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees of people, divided in terms, and by names of spirituality and temporality [have] been bounden to bear, next to God, a natural and humble obedience.” The same statute proceeds to assert the power of the King “ to render and yield justice, and final determination, in all causes happening to occur within the limits of his realm, without restraint or provocation to any foreign princes or po- tentates ; the body spiritual whereof having power, when any cause of the law divine happened to come in question, or of spiritual learning, then it was declared, interpreted, and shewed by that part of the said body politick, called the Spiritualty, now being usually called the English Church, which always hath been reputed, and also found, of that sort, that both by knowledge, integrity, and sufficiency of number, hath been always found, and is also at this hour, sufficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior person or persons, to declare and determine all such doubts, and to ad- minister all such offices and duties as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain.” The statute next declares that “ the laws temporal for trial of property of lands and goods, and for the conservation of the people of this realm in unity and peace, was administered, ad- judged, and executed by sundry judges, and ministers of the other part of the said body politick, called the temporality ; and both their authorities and jurisdictions do conjoin together, in the due administration of justice, the one to help the other.” Such is the ancient constitution of England ; and if a still more particular declaration were needed, of the matters in which the spiritual judge hath, according to that constitution, sole cognizance and jurisdiction, such declaration is given, to- gether with the reason for excluding the temporal judge, by Bracton , the highest ancient authority on our constitutional law : “ Sunt enim causae spirituales, in quibus judex saecularis b 2 ( 4 ) non habet cognitionem nec executionem, cum non habet coerci - onemP The secular judge has not the cognizance of such causes, both for the reasons stated in the statute which we have now recited, and also because he cannot give effect to any judgment which he might pronounce, by the only coercion which can be applied in such causes, the coercion of spiritual censures. Bracton proceeds to deny in like manner the right of the spiritual judge to intermeddle with causes secular ; for, says he, their rights or jurisdictions are limited and separate — after such sort, however, that the spiritual and civil sword ought to aid each other.* Need I cite the well-known saying of Lord Coke, not wont to regard too favourably the rights and jurisdiction of the Spiritualty ? “ Certain it is, that this kingdom hath been best governed, and peace and quiet preserved, when both parties, that is, when the justices of the temporal courts, and the eccle- siastical judges, have kept themselves within their proper juris- diction, without encroaching or usurping upon one another.” 4 Inst. 321. The Statute which has here been cited, as declaring the true constitution of the English Monarchy, gives the ultimate appeal in causes spiritual there enumerated to the Archbishop of the province in which they arise. But an Act of the follow- ing year, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, entitled “The Submission of the Clergy and Restraint of Appeals,” having first enacted, “ ac- cording to the said submission and petition of the said clergy,” that “ thirty-two persons, sixteen to be of the Clergy, and sixteen to be of the Upper and Nether House of Parliament,” should “ examine the canons and constitutions, provincial and synodal, theretofore made, and such of them as the King and the said thirty-two, or the more part of them, should deem and adjudge worthy to he continued, kept, and obeyed, should * Cum eorum jura, sive jurisdictiones, limitatae sunt et separatee, nisi ita sit, qu5d gladius juvare debeat gladium. — Bracton , 107. ( 5 ) be from thenceforth kept, obeyed, and executed within this realm,” provided, meanwhile , that ^s there should be no appeals made out of this realm, so in all matters, whether those enu- merated in the Statute of the preceding year or other, for lack of justice at or in any of the Courts of the Archbishops of this realm, or in any of the King’s dominions, the parties grieved might appeal to the King’s Majesty in his High Court of Chancery, and that upon every such appeal a Commission should be directed to such persons as should be there named by the Crown. Now this, I apprehend, was clearly a provision ad interim . The Court to which the ultimate appeal had, during several generations, whether abusively or not, been in fact carried, the Pope’s Court at Rome, having been formally repudiated and deprived of all jurisdiction, a necessity arose for the creation of some other Court to exercise appellate jurisdiction, until a per- manent provision should be made on the report of the thirty- two Commissioners empowered for that purpose by the very Statute which meanwhile gave the appeal to the King in his Court of Chancery. That Commission not having completed its report during the reign of Henry, another similar Com- mission was appointed under the authority of 3 & 4 Edw. VI. c, 11, and this latter Commission did, in fact, complete its report in the form in which it has come down to us, under the title of “ Reformatio Legum.” On reference to this important document, a document which failed of becoming the Law of the Land only through the death of King Edward before the royal confirmation was given to it, the following was the prescribed course of proceed- ing in cases of appeal. In Tit. “ De Appellationihus ,” c. 11, it is directed, that the order in which appeals be made shall be the same as is prescribed in 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, s. 3, in the statute of the submission of the clergy, under which the original Commis- sion for reviewing the canons was constituted, and by which the ( 6 ) ultimate appeal, which had hitherto, during several generations, been to Rome, was given to the King in Chancery, to be executed by Delegates. That order is from Archdeacons, and others below the rank of Bishop having jurisdiction, to the Bishop, from Bishops to the Archbishop, from the Archbishop to our Majesty. “ Quo cum fuerit causa devoluta, earn vel concilio provinciali definire volumus, si gravis sit causa, vel a tribus quatuorve Episcopis, a nobis ad id constituendis.” It needs hardly be said that any cause involving doctrine, or a part of Faith, is gravis causa , and that, consequently, it was intended by the framers of this document, that every appeal in- volving doctrine should be referred to a Provincial Council. Lesser causes, such as those specified in 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, might be sent to three or four Bishops. Now considering the whole history of this Commission, espe- cially its original formation under the same statute which gave to the King, for the first time since the foundation of the monarchy, the ultimate appellate jurisdiction in causes spiritual, then looking to the recommendation of the Commissioners as to the fittest way in which the King should exercise the juris- diction so conferred upon him ; and, finally, comparing that re- commendation with the provision of the Statute passed to meet the sudden emergency caused by the renunciation of the autho- rity of the Pope, it is difficult to conceive a doubt, that the great lawyers, temporal and ecclesiastical, of that age, the very age of the Reformation, concurred in the decision, after grave and repeated consideration, that the only proper tribunal of ultimate appeal in all causes strictly spiritual, was that of the Provincial Council. Guided by this high authority, and acting on the manifestly sound principle — a principle in accordance alike with the laws of the Church, and with the spirit of the English Constitution — that the spiritualty are to decide when any cause of the law divine shall come in question — the Bishops, last year, introduced ( 7 ) a Bill into Parliament, the object of which was to give effect to the recommendation of the thirty-two Commissioners empow- ered by the statutes of King Henry VIII. and King Edward VI. How was this Bill received ? With the most vehement, and, I must add, the most impassioned, opposition by the Ministers of the Crown. The President of her Majesty’s Council, in a tone which cannot be forgotten by any who heard him — a tone more imperious even than his dictum was arbitrary and uncon- stitutional — declared, that the Queen hath by her Prerogative a right to decide ultimately all questions merely and purely spiritual — even questions of faith. But this was not the worst. This dictum was supported, not indeed in a tone of similar violence, but calmly, deliberately, solemnly, as might be ex- pected from one who sate that night on the woolsack presiding over the deliberations of the House— by the Lord Chief Justice of England himself — who confidently, and with all the authority of his high place, declared that the Constitutions of Clarendon recognised and established that Prerogative which had just before been so peremptorily asserted by the minister of the Queen. Now that no such Prerogative did in fact exist — that, in di- rect contradiction to the assertion both of the President of the Council and of the Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench, the Constitutions of Clarendon recognised and established the prin- ciple which is the very opposite to that which was ascribed to them, the principle that spiritual causes ought to receive their final decision from spiritual authority — will be apparent from a simple inspection of the Constitutions. The 8th chapter, which alone specially relates to this subject, is as follows : — 44 De appellationibus, si emerserint, ab Archidiacono debebit procedi ad Episcopum ; ab Episcopo ad Archiepiscopum ; et si Archie- piscopus defuerit in justitia exhibenda, ad Dominum Regem perveniendum est postremo, ut, prsecepto ipsius, in curia ( 8 ) Archiepiscopi controversia terminetur, ita quod non debeat ultra procedi absque assensu Domini Regis.” * Even this is not all ; it is not necessary to look back for the assertion of this sound constitutional and Christian principle to the early laws of England. It is virtually affirmed in a statute much more recent, in the 13th of Queen Eliz., c. 12, “ An Act for the Ministers of the Church to be of sound Religion ” — a statute declared to be fundamental in the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland. The 20th of the Thirty-nine Articles therein established declares that “ the Church hath authority in controversies of faith.” A retrospect of this recent passage in our constitutional his- tory — joined to experience, scarcely less recent, of denial to the Church of that justice which would have been granted as a simple matter of course to a railway company or a turnpike trust — (I refer to the well-known refusal in the Hampden case of a rule to bring to adjudication a question on which half of the judges who sate on the bench, and that half which was not least entitled to respect for the confidence reposed in their wisdom, learning, and integrity by the whole people of England) — a retrospect, I say, of these matters (and others less flagrant might be made to swell the account) has not failed to fill the Churchman’s mind with strange forebodings — to excite appre- hensions respecting a much longer continuance on the part of the State of a recognition of those rights and duties of the Church, which will not, cannot, be abandoned by her, be the cost of adhering to them what it may ; for, on them her faithful- ness to a higher Power than any which human laws can affect to give or claim — nay, her very being, as “ the Church of the * Matth. Paris, in An. 1164. Lord Lyttleton (Hist. Hen. II., notes, vol. iv. p. 142) thus remarks on this constitution: “ It manifestly asserted the Royal Supremacy by subjecting the power of appealing to Rome in Ecclesiastical Causes to the will and pleasure of the King, whereas the Pope claimed the right of receiving such appeals as inherent in his See.” ( 9 ) living God, the Pillar and Ground of the Truth,” — manifestly depends. The statement of these lamentable and ill-omened occur- rences has drawn me from the consideration of the case itself, which was made to lead to them. To that case I now return — a case involving no lighter interests than the doctrine of the essential grace of Baptism, hitherto maintained by every branch of the Catholic Church from the earliest period — implied in the Sacrament itself, as it is a Sacrament — and expressly affirmed in the most comprehensive of the Church’s creeds. The Article of “ One Baptism for the remission of sins,” was repudiated by the Judicial Committee, under circumstances which aggravated the blow to a degree wbicb previously would have seemed absolutely incredible. The Archbishops of Canter- bury and York were consentient and even eager parties to the decision. They had been summoned, as you know, together with the Bishop of London, to attend the hearing of the cause, in order to advise. Yet both of them were disqualified from being judges — both, therefore, open to just recusation as assessors — one as having already pronounced judgment by his official, the Dean of the Court of Arches — the other, as having virtually pleaded the cause of Mr. Gorham in a Charge delivered to his clergy, while the suit was yet pending in the court below. That I did not take objection to the presence of such assessors, is a matter on which I may perhaps be open to reasonable blame. The question was brought to my consideration by my very learned and faithful counsel, and was decided by me con- trary to what was, I believe, the inclination of their opinion. But I frankly avow, that, whatever might have been the indica- tions of the leaning of the two Archbishops (and I was not blind to them), I yet could not bring myself to think it possible, that they would declare their deliberate judgment in direct con- tradiction to the doctrine of the Church, on a question on which ( 10 ) that doctrine was pronounced in terms so plain and conclusive, that, if it were contradicted, there seemed no possibility of ascribing to any portion of the language of our Formularies any definite meaning whatsoever. T also avow that I shrank from the painful, as well as invidious, office of proclaiming my entire want of confidence in the soundness of Christian belief of the two highest functionaries in our Church ; nor was I without hope, that, even if they should prove themselves unworthy of all trust in such a cause, yet the plain and unquestionable meaning of the Church’s words, set forth, as I was sure it would be — and as we doubt not that it was — faithfully, zealously, and ably, by the third episcopal adviser, would be sufficient to satisfy the minds of the judges that the mind of the Church was in full accordance with its plain dicta. True, I could not be insensible to the notorious fact that more than one of the judges were not Churchmen. Yet were they all men of high estimation, of great intellectual qualifica- tions, and of much experience in dealing with documents of all kinds, whether previously acquainted with their general nature or not. I therefore did not resist (as I was advised that I might successfully resist) the appointment of such assessors to such judges. The consequence has been most disastrous. Would that it affected me only ! I should then be free from that self- reproach which I cannot altogether succeed in attempting to silence, that I rashly sacrificed the highest and most sacred interests of Catholic Faith to feelings too much akin to courtesy and delicacy to individuals. The decision was pronounced : but yet let me do justice to the Judges, in saying that that decision did not go the length, which has been commonly supposed, of pronouncing the clerk whom I had rejected, fit and worthy to be instituted to the cure of souls to which the Crown had presented him. They merely adjudged, that sufficient ground had not been laid by ( 1 ! ) me for rejecting him ; that, in consequence, my jurisdiction pro hac vice was null, and had passed to the Archbishop as superior ordinary. Thus it became the duty, no less than the right, of the Archbishop to decide on the fitness of the party : a duty and a right unalienable — judicial — spiritual : a right intrusted to him for the good of the Church by the Church’s Divine Head — a duty inseparable from that right, and binding on him, as having voluntarily accepted the high responsibility of Chief and Metropolitan Bishop in this great section of the Lord’s vineyard. Regarding the matter thus in its true and manifest aspect, and according to the express order of Her Majesty in Council, on the Report of the Judicial Committee, “ That the sentence of the Court below ought to be reversed, and that it ought to be declared that the Lord Bishop of Exeter has not shown sufficient cause why he did not institute Mr. Gorham to the said vicarage ; and that, with this declaration, the cause be re- mitted to the Arches Court of Canterbury, to the end that right and justice be done in this matter pursuant to the said Declaration it is plain that the Archbishop’s judicial duty began, when the judgment of the Queen in Council was made known to him. It was a duty, I repeat, unalienable — one from which he could not, if he wished, escape— judicial, for it in- volved his sentence of the fitness or unfitness of the presentee to be intrusted with mission to discharge the office and work of a priest in a particular portion of the Lord’s vineyard — spiritual , for the whole power exercised in giving the mission — the power conferred — the power received — had direct, mere, reference to the souls of men — “ the cure and government of the souls of the parishioners.” Need I cite authority in so plain a matter ? And yet I grieved to read the statement of the Archbishop in answer to an address from a portion of you, my clergy, in which he declared that, in issuing the fiat for institution in Mr. Gorham’s case, he had acted not judicially, but ministerially . ( 12 ) Ministerially ! Why, the ministry which he had to exercise was a judicial ministry ; it could not be exercised except judi- cially. It might be exercised carelessly, thoughtlessly, faith- lessly, at the bidding, or the supposed bidding, of another. Still, it was, in itself, essentially judicial. Institution is an act of jurisdiction — of spiritual, divinely constituted jurisdiction. Ministerially ! Whose minister could he deem himself to be in giving the rule and government of souls, but the minister of his Divine Lord ?* He could not exercise this, or any other power ministerially, except as the minister of one who has the power in himself — Nihil dat , quod non habet. Will he say, that the temporal sovereign has this power ? To affect to act minis- terially in such a case, to give mission and authority over souls, as the minister of man, is to renounce the Divine authority of the office in which the power of mission is lodged — to fling the com- mission of Christ under the footstool of an earthly throne ! And this, too, when the Crown itself had too just and true a sense of its own duty, as well as of the duty of the Archbishop, to re- quire, to accept, or even to be prepared for sucb a surrender ! That surrender can be regarded only as the voluntary betraying of a high and most sacred trust. “ Traditor potestatis, quam Sancta Mater Ecclesia a Sponso suo acceperat.” May it be a solitary instance ! May the remembrance of it be accompanied with those compunctuous feelings, which, if it be remembered as an error, it cannot fail to carry with it ! May it thus, with * Is not the very nature of the Act a sufficient authority for saying as I have here said of it ? But, if more be needed, I refer to the highest authorities, both ecclesiastical and civil. Bishop Gibson (Cod., p. 806) says distinctly, “ In- stitution is a spiritual act.” And he cites Lord Coke ( 1 Inst. 344 a , and 1 Rolle , 191) as saying the same. He cites, too, the authority of our Reformers, in Reformatio Legum (Tit. de admittendis ad Ecclesiast. Beneficia, c. vii. p. 78), expressed in the following strong terms (after speaking of the Cognitores or Examiners to be appointed by the Bishop, before the Clerk is admitted) : “ Et etiam EpiScopum in primis optabile est ipsum (si fieri potest), in hoc cogni- tionis negotio versari. Munus enim hoc nnum est exomnibus summum et maximum , in quo status Ecclesise prsecipue fundatus est.” — Such is the language of Cranmer and his colleagues. ( 13 ) God’s blessing, secure both the Archbishop and the Church in which he fills the highest place, from all danger of his again forgetting the responsibilities of his sacred office ! That his Grace did not deem it his duty to act judicially in this case, is the more to be deplored, by reason of the very inadequate view which he states himself to have actually taken of the import of Mr. Gorham’s doctrine. In a published answer of his (dated August 8, 1850), to an address from the “Metropolitan Church Union,” is the following remarkable sentence, “ No- thing which I find in the law of God gives me reason to believe, that I should be acting in conformity with His will if I refused Mr. Gorham admission to the cure of souls, on the ground of his hesitating* to affirm the spiritual regeneration of every bap- tized child.” From this statement it is quite clear that the Archbishop, sitting merely to advise, when called upon, the judicial com- mittee, had not given attention to this matter, nor had been asked his opinion upon it : — else it is impossible that he should have thus represented Mr. G. as only “ hesitating to affirm ” what it is certain that he expressly, repeatedly, peremptorily denied. But if his Grace had dealt with the question of institution * That his Grace should have written thus, is very surprising, when we look at the words of Mr. Gorham himself, which the Archbishop characterises, as “ hesitating to affirm .” Ans . 15. — “As infants are by nature unworthy 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.” This statement, when his attention was specially called to it, in order that, if he thought fit, he might correct it, he solemnly re-affirmed. — Ans. 70. Again (Ans. 19), of “baptised infants, who, dying before they commit actual Sin,” are pronounced by the Church to “be undoubtedly saved,” he said, “ 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.” In Ans. 27, he said, “ The new nature must have been possessed by those who receive Baptism rightly ; and therefore possessed before the seal was affixed.” In Ans. 60, “ That filial state ” (meaning the adoption to be the Sons of God), “ though clearly to be ascribed to God, was given to the worthy recipient before Baptism, and not in Baptism .” ( 14 ) judicially , he must have informed himself of the words really spoken by Mr. G. and must have weighed well their actual import. In that case we can hardly doubt what his judgment must have been, when given, on full information and delibera- tion, publicly and solemnly, in the face of all Christendom. You, my Reverend Brethren, know the painful step which that institution compelled me to take — no less, than to declare that I could no longer hold communion with my metropolitan. That I made this declaration under an awful sense of the re- sponsibility involved in it, I need not say. It could not but be manifest to me, that if I was wrong — if the Archbishop had not, by instituting Mr. Gorham, become a fautor of the heretical tenets held by him — and if he had not, as such, forfeited his right to Catholic Communion, any one of his comprovincial Bishops, who thereupon renounced communion with him, would himself, by so doing, have deserved to be put out of the pale of the Church. I wish, that subsequent consideration and experience had weakened my confidence in the fitness and necessity of the step taken by me. But it has been far otherwise. The Archbishop has recently revived and renewed doctrinal statements of his own, which it would have been more satisfactory to hope were, if not forgotten by others, silently withdrawn by himself. Yet within these few weeks, in answer to an address from the Archdeacons and Clergy of the diocese of Canterbury, he has recurred to what he claims to have been a prophetic warning of his own on the Romish character and tendency of principles then denounced. “ Ten years have elapsed,” said he, “ since I thought it necessary to warn the clergy of another diocese against the danger of adopting principles, which, when carried out, tend naturally to those Romish errors, against which our fathers pro- tested, and which were renounced by the Anglican Church.” Now, what were those principles which he thus gravely con- ( 13 ) demns, and which, in addressing the clergy of the diocese of Chester in 1841, he scrupled not again and again to ascribe to the agency of Satan — “ the subtle wiles of that adversary against whom the Church is set up, and whose power it is des- tined to overthrow ?” p. 19. We will see ; but, first, we must remark, that the part here assigned to the Church is far more exalted, than any which the writers against whom the wrath of the charge is so furiously directed, ever ventured to claim for it. That she is “ destined to overthrow the power of Satan,” is indeed to give “ to the body a power which really belongs to the Head alone,” p. 33. “ The seed of the woman,” one who is incarnate, without taint of Adam’s corrupted nature, was to bruise the serpent’s head. The author of the charge adopts the reading of Home , “ she shall bruise thy head.” But to proceed : In the body of his Charge, in that year, he professed to “ confine himself to a brief review of two points, in which the interests committed to us are essentially con- cerned.” The first is, the “ doctrine, that, lying under God’s wrath and condemnation, we are justified by Faith in Jesus Christ : this plain and simple truth,” he added, “ has uniformly been assailed by every instrument which the enemy [the devil] could bring to bear against it.” In dealing with this particular, having first censured, by the way, the recommendation of reserve in bringing forward the doctrine of our atonement by Christ’s death — a censure, in which I gladly concurred with him, but in respect to which it has since been stated by the writer of the tract that his meaning was misunderstood — the Archbishop thus proceeded : — “ It has been another part of the same system to involve the article of our Justification in obscurity ; what has been done for us, and what is to be wrought in us, are confused together ; and, practically, man is induced to look to himself, and not to his Redeemer, for acceptance with God.” This is, I need not say, a very grave charge — it is no less ( 16 ) than ascribing to certain writers a doctrine which strikes at the very foundation of our Christian Hope. Grave, however, as the accusation is, I should not think it necessary to say any- thing, if the charge itself were not founded on a statement directly contrary to the real doctrine of our Church, and of the Catholic Church of all ages. “ By one way alone,” says he (p. 23), “ can man possess the Son ; that is, by believing in Him. And, therefore, Faith alone can justify ; Faith alone can appropriate to us that remedy which God has appointed for the healing of our plague ; Faith alone can give us an interest in that sacrifice which God has accepted as the satis- faction for sin. Thus, ‘ being justified by Faith, we have peace with God through Jesus Christ.’ ” Now, if by this no more were intended, than that it is by Faith that Justification , the gift of God, conferred in and by his own appointed instrument, is received by us , it would be impossible to find fault with it. We should only have to la- ment, that words are used which, in their obvious meaning, go much further — because they are not accompanied by those reservations which our Church teaches us to use, when we say, “ that we are justified by Faith only.” In short, to say, “ Faith alone can justify ,” — “ Faith alone can appropriate to us that remedy,” — “ Faith alone can give us an interest in that sacrifice,” — taken in the plain and obvious sense of the words, is simply to contradict the 11th Article of our Church, inter- preted by the authority to which itself refers for its interpreta- tion — “ the Homily of Justification,” i. e. “ of salvation of mankind, by only Christ our Saviour, from sin and death everlasting.” That homily distinctly, and in terms, declares, that " the Faith, by which we are justified, has, in part, for its object Baptism, as God's instrument in conferring remission of original sin, and repentance and conversion , as the condition of the remission of actual sin committed after Baptism ;” that is, of ( 17 ) the continuance of Justification. The words of the Homily are as follows : — “ The true understanding of this doctrine, We be justified freely 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, doth justify 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 have faith , hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear of God within us, and do never so many works thereunto ; yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues — as things that be far too weak, and insuf- ficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and justification ; and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and the 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 Baptism , if we truly repent and turn unfeignedly to Him again.” Such is the plain and express language of our Church, so plain and^xpress, that “the Assembly of Divines at Westminster” being called on, in the year 1643, to advise Parliament in the alteration of Religion , and being ordered to review the 39 Articles (for the purpose of making them more Calvinistic ), found it necessary to strihe out of the 11th all reference to the Homily , and left it thus, “ That we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort,” omitting the words, “ as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification ,” and substituting, “ Notwithstanding, God doth not forgive them that are impenitent, and go on still in their trespasses” (Neale, H. P., App. No. 1, p. 816). “ Justification is the office of God only,” and He has ap- pointed for His justification of us, not one condition only, Faith, but two, Faith and Baptism — which are indeed one ; for, Baptism is the Sacrament of Faith, Sacramentum Fidei , as it is called by the ancients. Faith uses Baptism, as the divinely appointed act and deed of conveyance of the righteousness of God. If we speak of “ Faith appropriating ” the gift, this must first he given in and by Baptism, God’s instrument. The believer c ( 18 ) “ arises and is baptised , and washes away his sins , calling upon the name of the Lord ” (Acts xxii. 16). And the Homily “ of Common Prayer and Sacrament ” says, “ God embraceth us in the Sacraments , and giveth Himself to be embraced of us and in the Homily on the Resurrection, the Christian is charged to bring Faith to a Sacrament, in the same way as to the word of Christ, “Bring, then, Faith to Christ’s Holy Word and Sacra- ment.” To believe, without accepting the proffered gift, in the way which Christ instituted, without thus proclaiming our belief, without openly enlisting ourselves in His service, without taking up our Cross, and declaring ourselves before the world ready to fight under it as Christ’s banner against sin, the world, and the devil — all which is done by our being baptized with the Baptism which Christ ordained — to believe, I repeat, without adding to belief this blessed qualification of Christian Baptism, where it can be had, is, in effect, not to believe — it is to reject our Lord’s own word, “ He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.” In saying this, do I charge the Archbishop with teach- ing that Baptism is unnecessary ? Far from it. I say only that he declines to give to Baptism its proper place in God’s gracious dispensation for the salvation of men ; and this charge is strengthened by what immediately follows ; for his Grace continues, “It is true, that, being thus accepted with God, and endued with His Spirit, man becomes a new creature.” But when, and how, does the word of God tell us that man is “ accepted with God, and endued with His Spirit ? ” In and by Baptism. To become a new creature, he must be “ born again of water and of the Spirit.” Why is not this stated ? Apparently, for no other reason than because his Grace is unwilling to acknowledge that Baptism is the appointed channel of that grace which makes us new creatures. It seems to be for a similar reason that his Grace is next ( 19 ) pleased to say, “ But he is not accepted with God because he is a new creature, but because Christ has made atonement for the wrath which in his old nature he had incurred.” Now, in this sentence, the word “ because ” is used in one sense only, as if it were univocal, as if there were only one sense in which it could be used : whereas, it bears several senses. There are, in short, several particulars, every one of which may be stated as a cause of our justification : in other words, there are several sorts of causes. I. The efficient cause is God himself. So the third part of the Homily tells us, “ God of his mercy , through the only merits and deservings of His Son Jesus Christ, doth justify us.” II. The meritorious cause is, “ His most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifer, Jesus Christ,” as is expressed in the second part of the same Homily. III. The formal cause is, as the same Homily states in its very outset, “ the forgiveness of man’s sins and trespasses.” IV. The instrument by which God is pleased to convey it, is “ Baptism ” in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as we have just seen in the passage cited from the same Homily. V. The instrument by which man receives it, is faith in the merits of Christ, and in the promises of God made to us in and by that Baptism. VI. The continuing or 'preserving cause is “ walking in new- ness of life.” The same Sacrament, which gives him Justifica- tion, makes him a new creature. “ If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature” (2 Cor. v. 17) ; and “as many as are baptized into Christ have put on Christ ” (Gal. iii. 27), they are “ in Christ ” most strictly. And if he abide in Christ, continuing justification is caused. “ Abide in Him, that when He shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before Him at His coming ” (1 John ii. 28). c 2 ( 20 ) Now, from this statement it is apparent, that to say, as the Archbishop says, “ Man is not accepted with God (or justified) because he is a new creature, but because Christ has made atonement for the wrath which in his old nature he had in- curred,” is simply to confound the use of language : it is to say, what is true in one sense, and untrue in another ; for it is true, that “ man is not justified by his being a new creature,” as the meritorious cause ; but it is not true, if it be meant of the continuing , preserving , conditional cause. In like manner, if the sentence were reversed, and if it were said, ‘‘ Man is not accepted with God because Christ has made atonement for him, but because he perseveres in newness of life,” this would be true in one sense of the word “ be- cause,” and untrue in another. It would be true, if it were understood, that man is not accepted with God because of the atonement of Christ, if he observe not the condition, if he walk not in that newness of life, of which baptism, the sacrament of justification, is also the sacrament and exponent. In other words, he is accepted with God because , that atonement having been made, he walks in newness of life. It would be untrue, if it were meant that, without regard to the merits of Christ's atonement , man is accepted of God because he walks in newness of life. Again, the Archbishop himself says, “ Faith alone can justify.” If any one else were to say, faith alone cannot justify, for a man is not justified because he has faith, this would be just as true, and just as untrue, as the Archbishop’s statement. In other words, it would be either true or untrue according to the meaning put on the word “ because .” If it should mean the meritorious cause, then it would be true that “ faith alone can- not justify,” for a man is not justified by faith as deserving justification ; but if it should mean the instrumental receiving cause, then it would not be true. In like manner, the Arch- bishop’s assertion would be true or untrue, according to the ( 21 ) sense in which he should ascribe justification to faith ; if as to the meritorious cause, it would be manifestly untrue ; if as to the instrumental receiving cause, then it would be undeniably true. But is this to be said of faith only ? May it not also be said of 44 newness of life ? ” Assuredly it may. Newness of life is not, either less or more than faith, the meritorious cause of our justification. But it is as much a cause of justification, as faith is, though a cause of not the same kind. It is a con- ditional, continuing, preserving cause ; therefore it would be quite as true to say 44 newness of life justifies,” or <4 we are justified by newness of life,” as to say 44 Faith justifies,” or 44 we are justified by faith.” In truth, it is obvious to remark, that the Apostle James says that 44 Abraham was justified by works ; that faith wrought with his works, and by works, in his instance, faith was made perfect. Ye see, then,” he proceeds, 44 how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise, also, was not Bahab the harlot justified by works ? For, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” In these instances, works and faith were alike causes, though different causes, of justification : neither of them the meritorious cause, but both, in their several ways, causes, con- current causes. Before I leave this part of my subject, I cannot but remark on a most unhappy inaccuracy of language in all the Arch- bishop’s statements upon it. He says (as we have already seen) 44 Faith alone can justify ;” 44 Faith alone can appropriate,” &c. ; 44 Faith alone can give us an interest,” &c. Now, this is a formula not only not accordant, but absolutely inconsistent, with the words of the Apostles and of the Church. The Apostles often speak of our bein ^justified by faith , but never by faith only , much less by faith alone ; in other words, they were not solfidians. One of them says, 44 Ye see that a ( 22 ) man is justified by works, and not by faith only :” the same Apostle, as we have seen, says, that “ Faith is dead, being alone.” True it is, that the Church does say, in its 11th Article, “ That we are justified by Faith only ” (with the qualification which has been cited from the Homily) ; but never does tfie Church say, as the Archbishop says, “ Faith alone justifies,” or “ we are justified by faith alone.” For Faith alone means Faith without good works of any kind, either internal or external. “ Faith alone,” therefore, is considered by the Church, no less than by the Apostle, “ as dead” — in no sense does it, or can it, justify. On the other hand, to be justi- fied by Faith only , means, in the language of the Church, to be justified by Faith not alone , but by true living faith — Faith accompanied by other Christian graces — hope, charity, repent- ance, fear of God, with their proper works, yet renouncing the merit of all such graces, and trusting only in God’s mercy for the merits of the sacrifice of our blessed Lord. This is not a mere logomachy ; if it were, I should be ashamed to have recourse to it. On the contrary, I believe that the abuse of language, here noticed, has misled the Archbishop, as well as many of those who may speak and think with him, into very grave errors of belief and doctrine. It has a manifest tendency to exaggerate the efficacy of mere faith — to make those who adopt it more ready, than they otherwise could be, to assign to such mere faith an undue importance in the Christian system — to make it all in all ; and so to reduce practically to nothing, or almost nothing, the other not less necessary ingre- dients in the Christian life. This is seen in most of the ignorant schisms of the day — schisms, unhappily, still more mischievous than they are ignorant, for they delude the sinner into blindness to his sins. Especially, I believe it to have largely contributed to a most extraordinary and most unsound statement, to which I am about to invite your attention. ( 23 ) In an Appendix (p. 78) to which his Grace refers for a more particular explanation of his views, he says, — “ Lest silence should be misconstrued, I think it needful to say, that in my judgment a clergyman would be departing from the sense of the Articles if he were [among many other particulars] to speak of Justification by Faith, as if Baptism and newness of heart concurred towards our justification ; or as if ‘ a number of means go to effect it.’ Tract 90, p. 13.” I shall not be deterred by the unhappy notoriety of the quarter in which the Archbishop has found this statement, from expressing my own hearty assent to it, or from briefly stating, why I think it demands the assent of every Christian. If Baptism does not concur towards our J ratification, what is the meaning of the Article in the Nicene Creed — “ I ac- knowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins”? Is not “ remission of sins ” our being “ accounted righteous,” that is, justification ? And is not Baptism here expressly declared to “ concur towards ” “ remission of sins,” therefore “ towards justification ” ? Again, what is the meaning of the Church, in ij;s homily of salvation (p. 3), “ Our office is, not to pass the time of this present life unfruitfully and idly, after that we are baptized or justified ? ” If “ baptism does not concur towards justification,” what is the meaning of St. Paul himself — (Tit. iii. 7) — “ Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of re- generation , and renewing of the Holy Ghost, that, being justi- fied by his grace , we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life ? It is plain, on comparing this text with Rom. v. 1, that St. Paul, under the phrase “justified by faith,” includes baptism , for in Tit. iii. he says, rfi ekeivov 'Xj'zpn'i, while in Rom. v. he says, chxaitat&><7E rris tov \out%ov TrothiyysvEulaS. Will it be said, that his Grace meant no more than to de- nounce the assertion, that Baptism concurs towards justification, as its meritorious cause ? That would be a very convenient way of escaping from the position : but it is inadmissible, for more than one reason : — 1st, because his Grace must equally denounce the assertion (if any should dare to make it) of Justi- fication by Faith as the meritorious cause. But, 2ndly, there is a still stronger reason. The very passage referred to by him, as containing the doctrine which he condemns, distinctly disclaims the assertion that Baptism does in any sense concur as the meritorious cause ; for it declares that u our Lord is the meritorious cause of our justification” — that Faith is the internal instrument, and Baptism the out- ward instrument. Baptism may be the hand of the giver, and Faith the hand of the receiver. As we have seen in the homily of “ Common Prayer and Sacraments,” “ In Sacraments God embraceth us, and God offereth Himself to be embraced by us.” ( 25 ) Will his Grace ascribe to Faith more, or to Baptism less, than this ? I do not wish to bind him down to terms or illustra- tions ; but the Church has a right to ask, whether he holds, that grace is conferred through Baptism ? If he does, he con- tradicts himself. If he does not, how can he defend himself from the charge of denying an Article of the Creed, when he denies that Baptism — “ one Baptism for the remission of sins ” — “ concurs towards our justification ” ? in other words, how can he acquit himself of having put forth a palpable heresy ? But he further condemns the assertion that “ a number of means go to effect justification.” Now, does not his Grace mean the very same thing when he says that we are “justified by Faith alone ” ? He will not, he cannot say, that we are justified by Faith, as the meritorious cause. What more, then, can it be, than one of the instru- mental causes, “ the means to effect justification ” ? — the instru- ment by which we receive it ? just as Baptism has been seen, on the plainest construction of the 11th Article interpreted by the Homily, to be the instrument by which God confers it. But let us look to the very words of the passage which his Grace condemns : — “ A number of means go to effect our Justification. We are justified by Christ alone, in that He has purchased the gift; by Faith alone, in that Faith asks for it ; by Baptism alone, for Baptism conveys it; and by new- ness of heart alone, for newness of heart is the life of it.” Now, this statement I accept, though I dislike its phraseo- logy ; I prefer the clearer, and more symmetrical, language of Dr. Waterland, who thus sums up the fourth division of his masterly treatise on Justification : — “ The sum of what has been offered under the present head is, that we are justified by God the Father, considered as 'principal and first mover ; and by God the Son, as meritorious Purchaser ; and by God the Holy Ghost, as immediate efiicient ; and by Baptism, as the ordinary instrument of conveyance ; and by faith of such a kind, as the ordinary instrument of reception ; and lastly, b y faith and holiness , as the necessary qualifications ( 26 ) and conditions in adults, both for the first receiving and for the perpetual preserving it. “ Such and so many are the concurring causes , operating in their order and degree, towards man’s first, or final, justification. It would be alto- gether wrong to separate them, or to set them one against another, or to advance any one or more, to the exclusion of the rest.” * Thus, the shaft aimed at the Tractarians does in truth strike no less a name than Waterland. But is Waterland the only great divine whom his Grace assailed? No! a greater than Waterland is the next object of his attack. “ To speak of forgiveness, or works of mercy,” as “ availing to obtain remission of sins from God,” is also, in the Arch- bishop’s judgment, “ to depart from the sense of the Articles,” and therefore one of the suggestions of the great adversary of souls. But this is the express language of Bishop Bull, as it is given in his Harmonia Apostolica : — “ How much they [forgiveness of things which our neighbours have committed against us — and works of mercy] avail to obtain remission of sins from God, is sufficiently clear from that well-known passage, Dan. iv. 27, where the holy Prophet suggests this wholesome counsel to King Nebuchadnezzar, as yet sticking fast in his sins: — ‘ Redeem thy sins by almsgiving, and thine iniquities by showing mercy to the poor.’ Herewith agreeth in the New Testament what St. James teacheth in this same second chapter, v. 13: ‘Judgment without mercy to him who hath showed no mercy.’ ” I have cited this passage from one of the very places to which his Grace refers us. It appears, therefore, that he knew whom he here charged with departing from the sense of the Articles which he had repeatedly subscribed. But had he not a right to attack Bishop Bull, if he thought he was in error, and was doing, however unconsciously, the work of the Devil ? Most certainly : but then I think it was his duty to tell his clergy, that it was Bishop Bull, rather than the Tractarians, whose false teaching he thus denounced. * Waterland on Doctrine of Justification, vol. ix. pp. 461, 462. ( 27 ) I shall not enter into any argument to prove the soundness of the position, which his Grace condemns. In truth, I cannot deal with it as a matter of discussion ; as the tenet of men, — no ! not of the most learned, or greatest of men. For, is it not also the tenet of Him who is God as well as man ? Read His parable of the cruel creditor, and then where is the man who will dare to say, that “ to speak of forgiveness or works of mercy as availing to obtain remission of sins before God ” is “ to depart from the sense of the Articles of religion to which we all subscribe ” ? If it were, never more would I permit a clergyman to subscribe those Articles before me — never more would I permit myself, by the grace of God, to act as Bishop, in a Church which so contradicts the plain teaching of our Lord. Did the writer, who ventured thus to brand this sentiment with his anathema, ever seriously ponder — did he ever cursorily notice — the force of that petition, which is often on his lips, and always, I doubt not, in his heart — that petition, which is at once the source of all our consolation, and the simplest and plainest warning of our duty — “ forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us ” — “for, if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you ; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses ” ? This is the comment of our Lord himself on His own heavenly lesson of mercy : yet this we have seen con- demned by the highest officer in our Church, as heterodox, as Popish, ay, and — by implication — I tremble while I write the word — as devilish ! I turn to “ the other error, to which his Grace alludes as no less injurious to the Saviour’s glory,” than what we have already considered, the supposed contradiction to the doctrine of Justification by Faith. This second error is treated with still more severity than the former. ( 28 ) “ Practically, our Saviour is treated with dishonour, when the Church, which He has established, is made to usurp his place, to perform his acts, to receive his homage; is so represented as to be, virtually, the author of Salvation , instead of the channel through which salvation flows. This is, in truth, to depose Him from his Throne, and to invest his subjects with the authority which belongs to Himself alone.” — p. 30. Again — “The members of the Church are branches of the Vine ; but the Church is not the Vine : that name belongs to Christ alone. The Church is ‘ the pillar and ground of the Truth but the Church is not the Truth, neither has it life in itself : Christ alone is the way, the truth, and the life, through which every individual member of the Church must seek access to God. “ Yet all this, undeniable in itself, is practically contradicted, whenever the services, and the ordinances, and the ministerial office, are magnified beyond their due proportions, or placed before the people with a prominence to which they have no claim.” — p. 34. All this, and a great deal more which it would be tedious to recite, is stated in the Charge, without mention of any particu- lar writer, or writing, to whom, or which, these remarks apply. But reference is made to Appendix III., the history of which is, I believe, without example in literary, theological, or contro- versial history. In the Charge, as delivered to his Grace’s Clergy in 1841, and as first published, this Appendix, p. 80, lays the wdiole load of invective on a work entitled 4 Church Principles ’ — divers passages of which were adduced, with whatever success, to illustrate and justify the reproaches heaped upon it. I am not about to enter on a defence of that work (which, however, I am proud to avow that I estimate most highly) — for, the task of defending it has been superseded by the accuser himself, who, in a second edition of his Charge — not acknowledging that his censure of the work had been unfounded or excessive — silently, and without the slightest remark, struck out all men- tion of it, and all the various passages which had been cited from it. In lieu of the matter thus carefully removed, other words of the writer himself were introduced, heaping fresh contumely on some one or other, so as exactly to supply the ( 29 ) chasms, and to leave the bulk of letterpress and number of pages the very same as before. Strange as this proceeding must appear, I should not think it necessary to remark upon it, were it not to exhibit one specimen of what I cannot but regard as the very lamentable rashness, with which the grave accusations contained in that document have been hazarded. “ How can we venture,” said the then Bishop of Chester, “ with such plain declarations [of Scripture] on the one hand, and with nothing, literally nothing, except a vague inference, on the other — how can we venture to interpose the Church instead of Christ , as the mediator between God and man ? to re- present the Church as the ground of our Christian privileges,”* or affirm, that “ it is simply as members of the body that we have any rights at all ? ” f So stood the passage in the original publication. In the second edition all reference to ‘ Church Principles ’ was struck out, as well as the words cited from that work. Instead of them was inserted what follows : “ Or affirm that Christ has appointed the Church as the only way to eternal life ” (referring to Tract 48, p. 12). I have looked at that Tract — but in vain ; — the words are not there. I have looked also into another work, where I have found them — Bishop Pearson s Exposition of the Creed , Art. ix. p. 383. Bishop Pearson, whom we, in common with the whole Church of England, have been wont to revere as one of the most sound — few, I believe, would contradict me if I said the most sound — and judicious, as well as most learned and able, of all the divines of our Church in the palmy days of its theology ; Bishop Pearson places this at the head of his enumeration of the reasons for the necessity of believing the 9th Article of the Creed “ the Holy Catholic Church.” I will give the words as they there occur, and will add so much of “Church Principles, 150. 5 f “ Ibid. 137.” ( 30 ) what immediately follows as is necessary to do full justice to the passage cited : — • “ The necessity of believing the Holy Catholic Church appeareth first in this, that Christ hath appointed it as the only way unto eternal life. We read at the first, that ‘ the Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved ’ (Acts ii. 17). And what was then daily done, hath been done since continually. Christ never appointed two ways to Heaven ; nor did He build a Church to save some, and make another institution for other men's salvation. ‘ There is none other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved ’ (Acts iv. 12) but the name of Jesus; and that name is no otherwise given under Heaven than in the Church. As none were saved from the deluge but such as were within the ark of Noah, framed for their reception by the command of God ; as none of the first- born of Egypt lived, but such as were within those habitations whose door- posts were sprinkled with blood for their preservation ; as none of the inhabitants of Jericho could escape the fire or sword, but such as were within the house of Rahab, for whose protection a covenant was made ; so none shall escape the eternal wrath of God which belong not to the Church of God.” — Art. IX. 525. This statement of Bishop Pearson is thus made, by a succes- sor of his in the see which he once adorned, to bear all * the contumely which could be heaped on all imaginable extrava- gancies of doctrine on the Article of the “ Church especially, it is said in express terms, “ to interpose the Church instead of Christ, as the mediator between God and man.” Nay, it is exhibited as the last and crowning instance of “ the subtle wiles of that adversary, against whom the Church of Christ is set up, and whose power it is destined to overthrow.” But, again I may be asked, is not Bishop Pearson, how great soever his authority in general may be, amenable like other men to just censure ? Undoubtedly he is : but let the words of Bishop Pearson, with their context, be duly weighed ; and then, if any, except him who pronounced the censure, really think it to be just, I will not enter on the very idle task of seeking to undeceive them. * There is a reference to British Critic , lix., as calling the Church “ a Sacrament.” It is often so called by S. Cyprian, Ep. ad Cornel., 45 (Fell) and 59 ; ad Anton., 55; ad Magnum, 69 ; ad Jubaian, 73; and in “De Unit. Ecc.” ( 31 ) It is enough for me to have illustrated the soberness, the truth, and justice of that charge, which denounced the prin- ciples of Waterland, Bull, and Pearson, as leading “ from one Romish tenet to another, till in some congregations all that is distinctive in Protestant doctrine has disappeared .’ 7 The most unpleasant part of our duty, in respect to the Charge, still remains — to exhibit a few of the statements of the author himself : — “ It is convenient, no doubt, in language, to embody the multitude who believe in Christ under one comprehensive term : and our Lord has himself taught us by example that we may do this safely and legitimately.* But language may mislead. We may personify a body, for the convenience of discourse, and by degrees forget that a community is not a person.” — Charge , p. 30. Now, whatever be the danger or the blame of using such language, let it be laid on the proper subject, which, in the present instance, is the word of God ; that very word, which our Church, in its form of ordering Priests, has set forth as the most effectual of all its warnings to the candidates for the holy office which it is about to confer.