•■•^^ ^XiL"^:. 
 
 
 <:<<^ «s.-,.. ^^^'Q 
 J< ' <; < "St * ^ . ^ 
 
 _c<rc <s <3s: :<: <«: < 
 
 ^^ _^^ ^^ c<R.c •«,< «cx: oat <: 
 
 'tii'Mi. ■-... 
 
 ' '• "-^ ^^ i < ' 
 
 
 
 << <£l ' <\ 
 
 <:c<?? _ ^ 
 
 ^< ^V,^^< i*r <^lc>:c' 
 
 <'a<sre 
 
 
 < ^< Jr 
 
 <Z; *-<^c 
 
 
 <'<• cccc ■■^*^ «:'((-■'. 
 
 
 
 <: C d c«C< C<C <5r CKI: 
 
 CC cc c<r 
 

 
 imniR^i^ -€;>£« 
 
 ^
 
 4 4^ r/.C- /i^yi-^ 
 
 
 /r. /<^^^- 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 ARCHDEACON HARE.
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 ARCHDEACON HARE, 
 
 OX 
 
 THE JUDGMENT IN THE GORHAM CASE, 
 
 FROM THE 
 
 HON^^^ EICHARD CAVENDISH, 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 JOHN OLLIVIER, 59, PALL MALL. 
 
 1850.
 
 A LETTER. 
 
 My dear Archdeacon, 
 
 Among the many trials incident to a time of 
 controversy like the present, one not the least 
 distressing is that we are often compelled to differ 
 from those whom we love and honor. Still more 
 painful is it to be forced not only to differ, but 
 publicly to declare that difference. Such, however, 
 is the "position in which I most reluctantly find 
 myself placed by the letter which you have lately 
 addressed to me. I need scarcely say that I have 
 been much consoled and gratified by the kind and 
 affectionate tone in which you have spoken of 
 myself in that letter. Indeed, the motives which 
 impelled you to write it are evidently such that I 
 cannot but feel that you have established a fresh 
 claim on the gratitude, the respect, and the affec- 
 tion with which I have for so many years regarded 
 you. If I could think that by oi)cnly avowing 
 the great and serious differences which exist be- 
 tween us, I should run any risk of forfeiting your 
 friendship, my reluctance to discharge what seems
 
 to me a plain duty would be much increased. But 
 as I know you too well to entertain any fears of 
 the kind, I shall not scruple to set forth the full 
 extent of our disagreement on a subject which 
 threatens to bring upon the Church of England 
 consequences so disastrous that I would most 
 gladly abstain even from contemplating them as 
 possibilities. 
 
 It is far from being my purpose to defend either 
 the substance or the wording of the resolutions 
 which called forth your letter from the strictures 
 which you have passed upon them. I have no 
 wish to make any presumptuous attempt to do that 
 feebly which I have no doubt will be vigourously 
 performed by some one of those among the signers 
 who, as you truly say, stand in the foremost rank 
 of our contemporary divines, if he shall deem it 
 necessary to reply to your observations. Still farther 
 is it from my intention to go through the judgment 
 and give my reasons for dissenting from it in toto. 
 Any such proceeding has been rendered wholly 
 superfluous by the unanswerable letter of the Bishop 
 of Exeter, and the equally unanswerable preface to 
 Mr. Badeley's corrected impression of his speech. 
 The object at which I shall aim is of a much 
 humbler character. It will be simply to state the 
 grounds on which I felt it to be my duty not to 
 neglect the opportunity which presented itself of 
 signing those resolutions, and on which I should be 
 prepared to sign them at this moment, had T not ^^ 
 already done so. ^ uiuc
 
 In the first place then, I must express to you the 
 great satisfaction which it has afforded me to be 
 told by you that on the general points at issue you 
 did not differ from us. You say that when you put 
 together ^^the various passages in our symbolical 
 books bearing on the question, you cannot come to 
 any other conclusion than that our Church does 
 plainly assert the regeneration of every infant. 
 Nor, in your opinion, is this truth a mere abstract 
 proposition. You believe it to be of great practical 
 moment for our christian teaching and education. 
 When, therefore, notwithstanding this your belief, 
 you proceed to say that you are most thankful to 
 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for 
 their wise decision, I really expected that you were 
 about to maintain that the whole effect of that 
 decision would be (as some by a strange effort of the 
 imagination have endeavoured to pursuade them- 
 selves) to put Mr. Gorham into the possession of 
 certain civil rights. But no, you go on to admit 
 that by this sentence the Church of England (not 
 of course in her spiritual capacity, but so long as 
 she shall remain in connexion with tlie State) will 
 eventually be bound, and this, too, precisely in the 
 manner and to the extent which I contemplated 
 when signing the resolutions, namely, "In the same 
 way as the law on other matters is held to be 
 defined by the judgment of the courts, at least 
 until some opposite or different judgment be 
 obtained in a similar case, or unless steps be taken
 
 8 
 
 to procure an alteration or amendment of the 
 law by proper authority*." It is only when you 
 state the grounds on wliich, notwithstanding the 
 important points of agreement between us, you see 
 a cause of thankfulness and rejoicing in the same 
 event which to us is a cause of the deepest sorrow 
 and anxiety, that the very serious differences, which 
 exist between yourself and those who signed the 
 resolutions, start forward in a prominent and 
 unmistakeable manner. 
 
 You are thankful to the Judicial Committee for 
 their wise decision, " because they have done what 
 in them lay to preserve the peace and unity of 
 the Church, and to keep that large body of our 
 so-called Evangelical Clergy within it, who might 
 otherwise have deemed themselves compelled to 
 retire, at least from its ministry." In assigning 
 such reasons for your thankfulness, you are but 
 acting in accordance with the instincts of a w^arm 
 and generous heart, but you avowedly rest your 
 satisfaction, simply and solely, on a ground of 
 expediency. No one, I think, could be found so 
 imbued with party spirit, as not to find matter of 
 rejoicing in the preservation of the peace and unity 
 of the Church, and in the fact, that sincere and 
 devoted servants of their Lord and Master, should 
 not feel tliem selves compelled to withdraw from 
 
 * I cordially concur, too, with you in wishing that some measure 
 could be adopted wliich would remove the misconception respecting the 
 meaning of the word, regeneration, which deters some from accepting 
 the Church's doctrine touching Holy Baptism .
 
 the sphere of their labours, provided only that so 
 desirable an object were not to be attained by the 
 sacrifice of that which they must value- above 
 peace, and without which, all peace and unity 
 would be but empty names, I mean, by the sacrifice 
 of any portion of revealed truth. On what grounds 
 we believe that an acquiescence in the late judg- 
 ment would involve so fatal a compromise, on a 
 subject which admits of no compromise whatever, 
 is a point which I shall touch upon shortly. At 
 present I only insist upon the fact, that for persons 
 who appreciate the gravity and importance of this 
 judgment, to be deterred from the course which 
 they feel it to be their duty to pursue by any 
 such considerations as induce you to rejoice in it, 
 would be, in very truth, the grossest breach of 
 charity which they could commit. For what, if in 
 their tenderness towards clergymen who have 
 sought Holy Orders in the English Church, and 
 continue to hold their preferments, although they 
 cannot use the baptismal services except in a non- 
 natural sense, they should altogether overlook the 
 effect of the necessary teaching of such pastors on 
 their flocks ? If it be true that there is such a thing 
 as one Faith once delivered to the Saints, as we 
 believe, and that the Church of England would be 
 giving up part of that Faith if she should submit to 
 the recent judgment, how can we be indifferent 
 whether or not that Faith be taught " whole and 
 " undefiled" to the poor of Christ's Cluuch ?
 
 10 
 
 Surely if there be any one plain cliristian duty 
 more binding than another on the rulers of the 
 Cliurch, it is to take jealous care that persons, the 
 character of whose faith must so materially depend 
 on the oral teaching of the Church, should not be 
 robbed of any portion of their christian privileges. 
 To overlook their eternal interests out of regard to 
 the comfort and happiness of any number of clergy- 
 men, however excellent and devoted to their duties, 
 would be morbid sentimentality. 
 
 Now it is under this feeling that I am wholly 
 unable to regard the question, as though its object 
 were merely whether certain opinions of Mr. Gor- 
 ham's ought to be visited with civil penalties. 
 You speak of the possible case of a Bishop who 
 should desire to check the spread of Mr. Gorham's 
 opinions, supposing they should spread : and again 
 you say, that, so long as Mr. Gorham declares that 
 he believes the Article " one Baptism for the re- 
 mission of sins," he cannot legally be condemned, 
 because he does not accept our interpretation of it. 
 Ours may be the legitimate interpretation, his an 
 erroneous one ; but this, you say, is a matter for theo- 
 logical discussion, not for the interference of the law. 
 You speak, too, of the maxim of our jurisprudence, 
 that the accused is to have the benefit of every 
 doubt, of the patience and forbearance manifested 
 by our judges at the trial of even notorious crimi- 
 nals; of the principle, that it is better that ten 
 guilty persons should be acquitted, than a single
 
 11 
 
 innocent one condemned. You remind us that 
 even Rush had every possible indulgence granted 
 to him by the exemplary judge, who yet shewed, 
 when passing sentence, that he had the fullest con- 
 viction and a righteous horror of his crimes. Now, 
 not to revert to the important consideration which 
 I have akeady advanced, that such a way of argu- 
 ing leaves out of view the most sacred interests of 
 the congregations entrusted to the care of Mr. 
 Gorham and those who agree with him, I assure 
 you that I know of no persons who would not 
 deprecate the infliction of civil penalties, in the 
 cause of religion, as earnestly as yourself. 
 
 But the question is not as to the moral guilt or 
 innocence of Mr. Gorham, nor whether he inten- 
 tionally denies the doctrine of our Church and an 
 article of the Creed. If it were, God forbid that 
 we should any of us forget that in such matters as 
 these, it is not the province of any human being 
 to set himself up as a judge over his brother. Had 
 the parallel between Mr. Gorham and Mr. Rush 
 been more complete, and had the judges been called 
 upon to decide a case of moral delinquency, I for 
 one, should have had no desire that Mr. Gorham 
 should have met with less indulgence than was 
 granted even to that great criminal. 
 
 Not only am I unconscious of any wish to injure 
 Mr. Gorham, but I sincerely wish him every possible 
 good. Although every one who is acquainted with 
 the circumstances of the case, must admit that the
 
 12 
 
 examination was forced on the Bisho^^ of Exeter, who 
 could not have failed to institute it without failing 
 at the same time in his bounden duty as the chief 
 pastor over Christ's flock in his diocese : yet if it be 
 true that Mr. Gorham be, as you describe him, a 
 man of high-minded integrity as well as of remark- 
 able ability, who for nine and thirty years has 
 been serving faitlifully and laboriously in the 
 ministry ; let him receive any compensation which 
 the government or his partisans may think fit to 
 bestow, let those secular honours and emoluments 
 be conferred upon him, which Her Majesty has 
 authority to dispense. But let not the character of 
 the Church of England as a teaching body be en- 
 tirely changed because Mr. Gorham is worthy of 
 commiseration. Supposing a penniless scholar were 
 possessed of the highest attainments in literature 
 and science, but laboured under the very unfortu- 
 nate delusion that to break one of the command- 
 ments was not only not blameworthy, but highly 
 conducive to virtue, should we not think it rather 
 too bad if in compassion to his penury, the Lord 
 Chancellor were to impose him as tutor on some 
 defenceless ward of Chancery ] And this may 
 suggest to you why I cannot sympathize in the 
 satisfaction which you express, because the Court 
 of Appeal plainly admitted that Baptismal Regene- 
 ration was the doctrine which was favoured by the 
 formularies of the Church. I have heard men say, 
 is it not enough that the Court of Appeal itself im-
 
 13 
 
 plied that belief in baptismal grace was the Church's 
 rule and unbelief its exception'? This might do 
 well enough, if it was proposed to impose penalties 
 on those who thought amiss : it would be a natural 
 argument for toleration. But how can this prin- 
 ciple be applied, when the question is whether the 
 Church of England shall be compelled to give 
 spiritual mission to one who teaches error? In 
 the case which I just supposed, would it be any 
 alleviation of the evil, that while assigning a vicious 
 tutor, the Lord Chancellor professed himself fully 
 alive to the importance of appointing one who was 
 virtuous ? 
 
 The question then, which really arises, is whether 
 if there be such a thing as the Catholic Faith and 
 the Church of England really hold it as she pro- 
 fesses, Mr. Gorham and those who agree with him 
 are henceforth to be at liberty to teach opinions of 
 their own contrary to that Faith, and that too on a 
 point which you yourself admit to be of great 
 practical moment. The passages which I have 
 quoted from your letter would be overwhelmingly 
 convincing if we could bring ourselves to admit one 
 assumption, which I am sure you would be the first 
 to disclaim, viz., that the Faith is a matter of 
 opinion, — my opinion, — your opinion, — Mr. Gor- 
 ham's opinion, — and that to decide which it is, is 
 merely matter of intellectual discussion, just like 
 any question of politics or science. 
 
 It would be in perfect consistency with such an
 
 u 
 
 assumption that we ought to beware of using those 
 " ominous terrible words," heresy and heretic; 
 words, by the way, not to be found in the resolu- 
 tions which you censure. Why, if there be no 
 such thing as the Catholic Faith, should we venture 
 to call any opinion heresy ? for, in that case, it 
 would be only that the opinion of another does not 
 agree with our own. And why should not others 
 have as much right to their opinions as we have to 
 ours? If there be no such thing as the Catholic 
 Faith, why is any opinion on any subject to be 
 called heresy] 
 
 And on such an assumption, the late judgment 
 must be admitted to be a most fair and wise one. 
 To declare a particular statement to be heresy 
 would be wrong, if there be, and can be indeed, 
 no such thing as heresy. No one would require 
 evidence to induce him to believe that a jury had 
 done right in acquitting an old woman of witch- 
 craft, if he believed the crime itself to be impossible. 
 
 And this leads me back to youi' statement, 
 that the purpose of this suit has been merely to 
 visit Mr. Gorham with a civil penalty. No one 
 would consider it a civil penalty to refuse the 
 office of cook to an estimable and skilfiil person, 
 whom, from some inexplicable idiosyncrasy, he 
 knew to hold and act upon the opinion, that 
 arsenic is a most agreeable and wholesome condi- 
 ment. And how can the present case be regarded 
 merely as the imposition of civil disabilit}% unless
 
 15 
 
 the Church's office, as a witness to the truth, be 
 forgotten, and a heretic have as good a right as any 
 one else to claim mission in her name ^ 
 
 One effect of this way of looking at the Faith 
 as a matter of opinion is, that it ascribes to the 
 clergy so exaggerated an authority, as I am sure 
 that you yourself would be the last to claim. But 
 you must have observed that some who rail at the 
 priestly office in general are the first to claim its 
 privileges for themselves. For what is more com- 
 mon than to hear from the pulpit solemn warnings 
 and admonitions to which we are adjured to take 
 heed as we value our immortal souls 1 Now, on 
 what principle are we laymen called on to listen to 
 such addresses to our consciences ^ We cannot, 
 however highly we may esteem the preacher's of- 
 fice, bring ourselves to look upon every one who 
 fills it as specially inspired with a wisdom and a 
 learning, which no layman can claim. You are 
 possessed of great learning and ability, as well as 
 piety, and therefore to whatever falls from you as 
 an expression of your personal opinion we can listen 
 with the deference justly due to it. But however 
 gladly we would recognize the same qualifications 
 in all other clergymen, we cannot shut our eyes to 
 the fact that they are not of every-day occurrence. 
 I have indeed heard persons gravely argue on 
 the supposition that those who value the aposto- 
 lical succession, intended to maintain that every 
 priest was instantly transformed into an infal- 
 lible oracle of truth. Such a notion has probably
 
 16 
 
 not found its way into so many minds as to make 
 it important to dispel it. But really, if we discard 
 it, unless there be some definite standard of doc- 
 trine, in accordance with which we must suppose 
 that the clergy are boun<l to teach their congre- 
 gations, I know not on what principle we are 
 called upon to submit ourselves under such terrible 
 penalties to the instructions which we receive in 
 our churches. The authority to which you of the 
 clergy youi'selves submit, must be the basis on 
 which you claim deference from your congregations. 
 Now w^hat right has the Church to impose such a 
 standard of doctrine'? You yourself tell us that 
 it is the right of authority. But how does the 
 Church possess this authority ? If she be nothing 
 more than a mere human institution, it would be 
 impossible to perceive how she can lay claim to any 
 authority whatsoever as binding on the consciences 
 of her members. If she have nothing to refer to but 
 human logic, she must maintain herself as she can 
 against other disputants. But if, as we believe, she 
 be in very truth the Body mystical of our Lord and 
 Saviour, then we can understand how it is that, by 
 reason of the indwelling of God's Spirit, she has, 
 as our Articles express it, authority in controversies 
 of faith. It is on this principle of authority, pos- 
 sessed in its proper measure by the Church of Eng- 
 land as a particular Church, that her ministers 
 possess the right of teaching and warning us of 
 the laity. We conclude that they only tell us that
 
 17 
 
 which is in accordance with the doctrines of the 
 Church to which they belong. The same principle 
 of authority existing in the universal Church, has 
 led to the formation of those catholic creeds to 
 which our Church requires all her members to 
 assent. On what other principle can she demand, 
 not only from every one of her ministers, but from 
 every one of her members on his admission into 
 the Church by baptism, and during his whole 
 future existence in this mortal life, a profession of 
 faith in those creeds 1 Now, if we believe that there 
 is such a thing as the Catholic Faith as expressed in 
 the catholic creeds, we must also believe that there 
 is such a thing as heresy. We believe that heresy 
 is the denial of the faith; and that the faith is 
 not the mere letter of the Holy Scriptures or of 
 the creeds, but the meaning of those creeds held in 
 the consciousness of the Catholic Church, more or 
 less explicitly, from the beginning of her existence, 
 implied in the Holy Scriptures themselves, and 
 shaped and moulded into an explicit form as the 
 Church has gone on her way, by the action of the 
 minds of holy men directed and enlightened by the 
 indwelling Spirit — the Pentecostal gift. To deny any 
 part of this faith implies that the Catholic Church 
 — the habitation of the Holy Spirit — has erred in 
 bearing witness respecting some vital point con- 
 cerning the faith. But if she has erred in her tes- 
 timony on one such point, she may have erred in 
 her testimony on any and every such point. Thus
 
 18 
 
 the Faith is one, because it is a consistent body of 
 belief, drawn out into form indeed by human intel- 
 lect and expressed in human words, but exliibiting 
 the meaning and intention, not of man, but of 
 Holy Scripture, the work of God the Holy Ghost. 
 
 This is " the principle of authority on which the 
 Faith rests ; " and as to deny or abandon one 
 article of the creed would deny either the authority 
 of the Divine Spirit, or the fact of His indwelling, 
 such denial does destroy that " divine foundation." 
 To him who denies one article, that foundation no 
 longer exists, however firm it is in itself. Such 
 denial is heresy. We should indeed beware of 
 using such a word falsely in proportion as the 
 charge is grave. Not to use it at all would be most 
 reasonable if we thought it imaginary ; for why 
 should we condemn a man who, after all, only in- 
 tei'prets Scripture differently from ourselves ? We 
 ought indeed to be slow to say that a man is a inur- 
 derer, but that is no proof that the ivord, murder, is 
 the real evil, and that we must above all things 
 avoid charging a man with that crime whether truly 
 or falsely. 
 
 To ascribe such authority to the Church is by no 
 means derogatory to Holy Scripture. On the con- 
 trary, it is part of faith in our Divine Saviour him- 
 self, grounded on his 0"wn repeated word and pro- 
 mise, to believe that there is a body or society mth 
 which His truth is unfailing and perpetual to the 
 world's end. All the prophetical Scriptures are
 
 19 
 
 full of the representation of such a society. This 
 truth is recognised by our greatest divines. Bishop 
 Beveridge says, " The Eternal Son of God having 
 with his own blood purchased to himself an Uni- 
 versal Church, we cannot doubt but that He takes 
 sure care of it, that, according to His promise, ' the 
 gates of hell shall never prevail ' against it.' For 
 which end, He, the head of this mystical body, 
 doth not only defend and protect it by His Almighty 
 power, but He so acts, guides, directs, and governs 
 it by His Holy Spirit, that though errors and here- 
 sies may sometimes disease and trouble some parts 
 of it, yet they can never infect the whole ; but that 
 is still kept sound and entire, notwithstanding all 
 the mahce and power of men and devils against it. 
 So that, if we consider the Universal Church, or 
 congregation of faithful people, as in all ages dis- 
 persed over the whole world, we may easily conclude 
 that the greatest part, from which the whole must 
 be denominated, was always in the right ; which 
 the ancient Fathers were so fully persuaded of, that 
 although the word KaOoXiK-os properly signifies uni- 
 versal, yet they commonly used it in the same sense 
 as we do the word orthodox, as opposed to an 
 heretic ; calling an orthodox man a Catholic, that 
 is, a son of the Catholic Church : as taking it for 
 granted that they, and only they, which constantly 
 adhere to the doctrine of the Catholic or Universal 
 Church, are truly orthodox ; which they could not
 
 20 
 
 do, unless they had believed the Catholic Church 
 to be so. And besides that, it is part of our very 
 creed that the Catholic Church is holy, which she 
 could not be, except free from heresy, as directly 
 opposed to true holiness." (Sermons on the Church. 
 No. 6.) So, too, Bishop Pearson says, " To beHeve, 
 therefore, as the vs^ord stands in the front of the 
 Creed, and not only so, but is diffused through 
 every article and proposition of it, is to assent to 
 the whole and every part of it, as to a certain 
 and infallible truth revealed by God." (Exp. of 
 the Creed. Art. 1—12.; 
 
 Such, then, being the reasons why the creeds are 
 binding on the Church and all her members, we 
 cannot choose but tliink that for any Church to 
 abandon the principle of authority on which she 
 demands belief in them, must be an act of unfaith- 
 fulness to her Divine Head. You say that you are 
 astoimded at the conduct of those who have taken 
 on themselves to assert, upon the strength of their 
 own private judgments, that a certain proposition 
 concerning original sin is an " essential part " of 
 the article in the creed. You say, too, that it is 
 plain that there is no manifest essential repugnance 
 in Mr. Gorham's doctrine to this article in our 
 creed, because, so far as you recollect, it was not 
 even pleaded by the counsel against him. You 
 must of coui'se have read a very inaccurate report 
 of that admii'able speech of Mr. Badeley, of which
 
 21 
 
 any one may now happily procure a corrected im- 
 pression. For, as you will see if you will refer to 
 page 205 of that book, he not only did plead the 
 point, but he actually reserved it as the very strong- 
 est of all till the conclusion of his argument. He 
 said, " If Mr. Gorham holds, as I contend he does, 
 doctrine which derogates from the effect of Bap- 
 tism, — if he does not allow that Baptism of itself, 
 and as Baptism, confers all these benefits which 
 the Church has imiformly and universally attri- 
 buted to it, — he is contradicting, not merely the 
 Articles of our Church, not merely our services 
 and the Catechism, but something more sacred 
 even than they ; he is contradicting the Nicene 
 Creed, and annulling one of its articles." The 
 judges of the Court of Appeal, indeed, took no 
 notice of this argument, but neither did they take 
 notice of any other argument of the Bishop's coun- 
 sel. As Mr. Badeley most justly says, " For any 
 thing that appears in this judgment, it might 
 have been written just as well before the case 
 was argued, or by some person who was uncon- 
 scious of any thing that had been urged." 
 
 In addition to the passages from Bishop Bull and 
 Bishop Pearson, adduced by Mr. Badeley on this 
 point of the Nicene Creed, I will refer you to 
 Hooker, (Eccl. Pol. v. 64,) who caUs Baptism " the 
 well-spring of New Birth, wherein original sin is 
 purged." I may also call your attention to the 
 quotations from ancient writers and councils to be
 
 22 
 
 found in Bishop Beveridge's Discourse on the 
 Articles, art xxvii. After citing Origen, who says, 
 " Young children are baptized with the remission of 
 sins," and St. Augustine*, who, he says, spends a 
 whole chapter in proving, " That by the price of 
 the blood of Christ in baptism, children are 
 washed, freed, and saved from original sin pro- 
 pagated from the first parents," he proceeds to 
 refer to the second council of Milevi. It is well 
 known that baptismal grace was never denied in 
 primitive times except by the Pelagians. The 
 second council of Milevi was held in order to con- 
 demn the new opinions concerning original sin, 
 then recently broached by Pelagius, and among 
 the Bishops present at it, was that great father of 
 the Church, St. Augustine, to whom are generally 
 attributed the important declarations contained in 
 its decrees. I will give the whole of that from 
 wliich Bishop Beveridge has drawn the extract 
 which he cites : " Whosoever denies that infants 
 newly come from their mother's wombs are to be 
 
 * A recent german writer has remarked that St. Augustine does 
 not so much deduce the necessity of infant baptism from the truth of 
 the doctrine of original sin, as the truth of this doctrine from the 
 universally acknowledged necessity and practice of infant baptism. 
 He quotes a number of passages to this effect ; for instance, " The very 
 sacraments of Holy Church shew sufficiently that even new-born 
 infants are freed by the grace of Christ from the ser\-ice of the devil." 
 (de pecc. orig. 45.) Notliing can more clearly shew that if " the 
 remission of sins" had not been held to apply to the remission of 
 original sin in tlie case of infants, the practice of infant baptism would 
 never have been adopted. See ILfimg. Das Sacrament der Taufe, 
 v. i. p. 121.
 
 23 
 
 baptized, or says, that although they are baptized 
 for the remission of sins, still they derive from Adam 
 nothing of original sin which is to be expiated by 
 the laver of regeneration ; whence it must follow 
 that in their case the form of baptism for the re- 
 mission of sins must be understood, not truly but 
 falsely, let him be accursed. For the Apostle's 
 words ' By one man sin entered into the world, and 
 death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, 
 for that all have sinned,' are not to be understood 
 otherwise than as the Catholic Church everywhere 
 diffused has always understood them. For on 
 account of this rule of Faith, even infants, who 
 cannot themselves have as yet committed any sin, 
 are therefore truly baptized for the remission of 
 their sins, in order that what they have derived 
 by generation, may be cleansed by regeneration*." 
 
 Indeed so clearly does Mr. Gorham deny the 
 article in the Nicene Creed, even in the opinion of 
 his defenders, that one, certainly not the least able 
 among them, has recently written a letter in a 
 
 * Item placuit, ut quicumque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum 
 baptizaados negat, aut (licit, in remissionem quidem peccatorum cos 
 baptizari scd nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati, quod regene- 
 rationis lavacro expietur : unde sit consequens, ut in eis forma baptis- 
 matis, in remissionem peccatorum, non vere sed false intelligaturj 
 anathema sit. Quoniam non aliter intclligendum est, quod ait apostolus: 
 " Per unura hominem peccatum intraiit in raundum, et per peccatum 
 mors, et ita in omnes homines pertransiit, in quo omnes peccaverunt," 
 nisi quemadmodum ecclesia catholica ubique diffusa semper intellexit. 
 Propter banc enim regulam fidei, etiam parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in 
 semetipsis adhuc comraittere potuerunt ; ideo in peccatorum remissionem 
 veraciter baptizantur ut in eis regeneratione mundetur, quod gene- 
 ratione traxerunt.—iJfawsi Co7icil. Florent. 17G0. T. iv., p. 327.
 
 24 
 
 newspaper*, in which he says " I am free to confess 
 that as tliis article of the Creed is usually read, I 
 do not see how the Bishop of Exeter's argument 
 is to be answered." He therefore gravely pro- 
 poses that the words of the original should be 
 newly translated, so as to give them a sense con- 
 trary to that in which they have always been held 
 throughout Christendom. 
 
 Independently, however, of such evidence, there 
 is one consideration sufficient to assure me, that, as 
 a member of the English Church, I have not been 
 guilty of any very outrageous or extravagant abuse 
 of the rights of private judgment, in maintaining 
 that the remission of original sin to all baptized 
 infants, is an essential part of the Article in ques- 
 tion. It is this. In our Baptismal Service, remission 
 of original sin to infants is unmistakeably spoken of as 
 one of the special benefits conferred in and by that 
 Sacrament. In the first prayer, the congregation 
 prays, " Avash and sanctify this child with the Holy 
 Ghost, that he, being delivered from thy wrath, 
 may be received into the ark of Christ's Church, 
 &c." In the next prayer occur these words, 
 " We call upon thee for this infant, that he, coming 
 to thy Holy Baptism, may receive remission of 
 his sins by spiritual regeneration." Now the 
 concluding part of the service plainly affirms that 
 the blessings prayed for are granted by Almighty 
 God. Again in the catechism, in answer to the 
 
 • See letter in Record of April 22, signed M. IIobart Seymour.
 
 25 
 
 question, " What is the inward and spiritual grace 
 of Baptism?" it is said, " A death unto sin, and a 
 new birth unto righteousness: for behic/ by nature 
 horn in sin, and the children of wrath, we are 
 hereby made the children of grace." Thus we 
 were perfectly warranted in asserting, not on the 
 strength of our own private judgment, but on the 
 strength of the judgment of the Church of Eng- 
 land, that the remission of original sin to all bap- 
 tized infants is a benefit conferred in and by bap- 
 tism ; and to that, therefore, according to the 
 Church of England, the Article in the Creed must 
 have had reference. In truth, the weight of your 
 censure ought to fall on such persons as, on the 
 strength of their own private judgments, have taken 
 on themselves to dispute the meaning of the Article 
 which our Church evidently recognises as true, 
 catholic, and essential. You say, indeed, that, " if 
 Mr. Gorham actually denied the ' one Baptism for 
 the remission of sins,' the casewould be decided 
 ipso facto. But so long as he declares that he does 
 believe in that Article, he cannot be condemned 
 legally, because he does not accept our interpreta- 
 tion of it." Now, on this prmciple, how can you 
 object to call Socinians orthodox Cliristians? Many 
 of them do not, I believe, object to use the Apostles 
 Creed. Noue of them object to the use of the 
 words " Son of God" in reference to our Lord, but 
 they do not accept our interpretation of theso 
 words. They only attribute to them a meaning
 
 26 
 
 which is at variance with that which has ever been 
 held by the Catholic Church to be their essential 
 meaning. 
 
 But, you tell us, the proposition which is selected 
 as the heresy sanctioned by the sentence of the 
 Judicial Committee, is not even mentioned in it. 
 Now, in the first place, I have heard laAA7ers 
 assert that the efifect of the judgment is, that 
 every opinion contained in Mr. Gorham's book may 
 be henceforth maintained with impunity by every 
 clergyman of the Church of England. The state- 
 ment of his opinions in the judgment would, in 
 that case, be merely part of the argument by which 
 it was sustained. Mr. Gorham was pronounced by 
 his bishop unfit for the cure of souls, because he 
 claimed to hold and teach the opinions contained 
 in it ; and he was pronounced by the judges fit for 
 the cure of souls, though he did make such a claim. 
 But even if this be not so, it would seem impossible 
 to deny that tliis very proposition is virtually in- 
 cluded in the statement of the judgment. For if 
 " in no case is regeneration in baptism uncon- 
 ditional," how can there be any certain benefit at 
 all in the case of infants 1 Now you admit that 
 " our Church does plainly assert the regeneration 
 of every baptized infant," and we have seen that in 
 our Church Scr\ices and Catechism, the " remission 
 of sins" to infants is insepai'ably connected with 
 " spiritual regeneration ; " but, according to Mr. 
 Gorham, the reception of any benefit in the case of
 
 27 
 
 infants depends on certain qualifications already 
 existing in them, respecting which we are utterly 
 at a loss to know whether they exist or not. 
 Therefore, if we admit his premises, we can have 
 no reason whatever for thinking, with respect to any 
 baptized infant, that he is delivered from the wrath 
 of God, and that he has received remission of 
 his sins. 
 
 We have been frequently accused of want of 
 charity, of bigotry, and I know not what other 
 qualities of the like nature, because we are not 
 content that clergymen holding such opinions as 
 Mr. Gorham holds should be allowed to teach in 
 the name and with the authority of the Church 
 of England, although they have been tolerated in 
 the same Church for the last three hundred years. 
 Now, in the first place, the fact on which these 
 accusations are built, is mis-stated. Whatever may 
 have been the case before the Savoy conference, 
 (and certainly the misquoted citations from our 
 divines, which were adduced in the judgment, will 
 not have convinced many persons that it was such 
 as the judges represented it to be,) there can be no 
 question that on that occasion the doctrine of the 
 Church of England on the subject of Baptism was 
 fully declared. Persons holding opinions of the 
 same class as Mr. Gorham's sought at that time for 
 an alteration in the baptismal services, expressly on 
 the ground that they could not minister in the 
 Church of England if compelled to use them.
 
 28 
 
 Their petition was refused, and they eventually 
 retired from the Church. The judges found it 
 convenient to pass over this argument, but, never- 
 theless, the fact remains as it was before their 
 judgment was given. Therefore, as a fact, these 
 peculiar opinions have not been tolerated in the 
 Church of England for the last three hundred 
 years. In the middle of last century, the Church, 
 (oAving mainly to the shameless system of prosti- 
 tuting ecclesiastical patronage for political pur- 
 poses, which was adopted after the accession of 
 the House of Hanover,) was sunk in sloth and 
 apathy. A revival of religious zeal took place, 
 which, because it was not directed, as it should 
 have been, by the responsible rulers of the Church, 
 was all but compelled to assume a schismatical 
 character. Then again started forth the wild and 
 mischievous theories which must always spring 
 from a denial of the regenerating grace of Baptism, 
 when that denial is held in conjunction with zeal 
 and earnestness. These notions were insisted upon 
 with a fervour and a perseverance which, however 
 mistaken, must always command respect. Some 
 ministers of the Church, while they caught the 
 fervour, became imbued with the error. So lax 
 and imperfect has been the discipline of the Chui'ch 
 of England, as administered by her bishops for the 
 last fifty years, that they have for the most part 
 been content to look on, without an attempt at 
 discouraging the error as they might have dis-
 
 29 
 
 couraged it, while, at the same time, they need not 
 have interfered with the zeal manifested by its 
 propagators further than to have directed it into 
 safer channels. The dangerous condition of the 
 Church at this moment forms the best commentary 
 as to the consequences which must ever arise from 
 such episcopal quietism. 
 
 Even if the fact were as it is attempted to repre- 
 sent it, the inference sought to be drawn from it 
 would not bear examination. Imagine the case of a 
 Bishop refusing institution on the ground of drunk- 
 enness and immorahty, and the highest Court of 
 Appeal deciding, " It has been proved that Mr. A. 
 is an habitual drunkard and an open profligate. 
 We are far from defending such habits, but we are 
 not here to decide what is right and what is wrong, 
 but what the Church of England has declared to 
 be ground for objection. Now most passages which 
 denounce these practices are devotional or exhorta- 
 tions, not laws. On the other hand, we can produce 
 a catena to shew that there have been always 
 drunken and profligate incumbents, and the rubric 
 requii-es the Burial service to be read over all such, 
 if not formally excommunicated. On the whole, 
 without inquiring what learned men may deduce 
 jfrom Holy Scripture and the practice of the Primi- 
 tive Church, we think that no principle of the 
 established Church justifies Mr. A.'s rejection." 
 How after such a judgment could the discipline of 
 the English Church as regards drunkenness and
 
 30 
 
 immorality be administered in the same way as 
 formerly 1 So, too, it is in vain that we attempt to 
 disguise from oui'selves that the Chm*ch of England, 
 so long as she remains in connexion with the State, 
 must be affected by this judgment, unless it can be 
 counteracted by a new decision. " The effect of the 
 decision in Mr. Gorham's case," says Mr. Badeley, 
 " is that every Bishop is now liable to have forced 
 upon his diocese as many clergymen, holding the 
 same opinions, as may happen to be presented 
 to benefices ; whatever his conscientious scruples 
 may be, and however firmly he may believe that 
 such opinions ' are erroneous and contrary to God's 
 word.' " Henceforth, then, the discipline of the 
 Church of England, as by law established, must, 
 unless the mischief caused by the judgment can be 
 undone, be administered on the understanding that 
 a denial of an article of the Nicene Creed, an use of 
 the most solemn services and addresses to Almighty 
 God in a non-natural sense, and a system of teaching 
 in accordance with such proceedings, that all these 
 things on the part of her clergy are la^vful, and 
 may therefore be committed with impunity. How 
 then, if she shall submit to this judgment, can the 
 Church fulfil her office as a teacher and witness of 
 the Catholic Faith? 
 
 I cannot but deeply regret that you should have, 
 I will not say insinuated, because insinuation is a 
 thing altogether foreign from your nature, but used 
 expressions which may have suggested to your
 
 31 
 
 readers that you thought the resolutions would be 
 taken as a call to quit the Church of England and 
 take refuge in the Church of Rome. I will only 
 remind you that during the time that the resolu- 
 tions were under discussion, one of the most eminent 
 among their authors, one who has deservedly ac- 
 quired a reputation as a worthy successor of the 
 Hookers and Pearsons of former ages, took occasion 
 in a noble sermon*, preached before the University 
 of Cambridge, on the subject of the Judgment, to 
 address a forcible and touching appeal to his hearers 
 not " to abandon at this crisis the mother who had 
 borne them and nourished them with the sacra- 
 ments of Jesus Christ." Those who signed the 
 resolutions were not called on to take into conside- 
 ration the Church of Rome, but the state of the 
 Church of England, such as it would become if she 
 should not resist the late judgment. If, as we 
 believe, the Church of England, by acquiescing in 
 it, would be abandoning an article of the Creed, 
 they who warn her of the danger of submission are 
 not certainly to be accounted untrue to their duty as 
 members of her body. For if there is any thing 
 which is likely to deter men from joining the Church 
 of Rome, it must be that they perceive the danger 
 of heresy to be appreciated among ourselves. 
 
 That such an abandonment of the article, " One 
 Baptism for the remission of sins," would be at- 
 
 * Humau Policy and Divine Truth, a Sermon by W. H. Mill, D.D.
 
 32 
 
 tended by such consequences as arc pointed out 
 in the resolutions, must result from the very nature 
 of the case; and that the authors of them acted 
 with no extravagant exercise of their own private 
 judgments in drawing this conclusion, will appear 
 from a statement which I am about to cite from 
 a learned writer, whose competence to speak on 
 the subject will not be disputed. I have specially 
 selected his testimony, because it is well known 
 that he wrote not only not with a roman bias, 
 but with a very strong anti-roman bias. " If it be 
 now inquired," says Bingham, (Antiquities h. xvi. 
 ch. i.) " what articles of faith, and what points of 
 practice were reckoned thus fundamental or essen- 
 tial to the very being of a Christian, and the 
 union of many Christians into one body or Church, 
 the ancients are very plain in resolving this. For 
 as to fundamental articles of faith, the Church had 
 them always collected or summed up out of Scrip- 
 ture, in her creeds, the profession of which was 
 ever esteemed both necessary on the one hand, 
 and sufficient on the other, in order to the admis- 
 sion of members into the Church by baptism ; and, 
 consequently, both necessary and sufficient to keep 
 men in the unity of the Church, so far as concerns 
 the unity of faith generally required of all Christ- 
 ians, to make them one body and one Church of 
 believers. Upon this account, the creed was com- 
 monly called by the ancients, the "avcjv and Regula 
 Fidei, because it was the kno\vn ' standard or rule
 
 33 
 
 of faith,' by which orthodoxy and heresy were 
 judged and examined. If a man adhered to this 
 rule, he was deemed an orthodox Christian, and in 
 the union of the Catholic faith ; but if he deviated 
 from it in any point, he was esteemed as one that 
 had cut himself off, and separated from the com- 
 munion of the Church, by entertaining heretical 
 opinions, and deserting the common faith." The 
 same principle that applies to particular persons 
 must, of course, apply equally to particular Churches; 
 and if any one were to maintain that the Church 
 of England might deviate from the Catholic faith 
 in any one point, and yet not cut herself off 
 from the Catholic Church, he would certainly be 
 guilty of the most extravagant exercise of private 
 judgment of which the world has yet heard. 
 
 Such, then, being our convictions, no one has 
 a right to brand us as seditious or peace-breakers, 
 because we desire to ward off the fearful danger 
 which is threatening us. You remind us that our 
 Church declares that particular Churches may err 
 in matters of faith. You agree, therefore, mth 
 us in thinking, that it is possible that the 
 Church of England may err in a matter of faith. 
 Would to God that it were possible to feel that 
 there could be no danger, that the sins of our 
 nation and of our Church, had not been so great 
 as to render such a judgment undeserved ! But 
 never, till sad experience shall have convinced us, 
 
 will we believe that, in this perilous crisis, the 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 Church of our fathers will be untrue to herself. 
 We all remember that some twenty years ago, 
 the Church was threatened with a confiscation of 
 her property by the democratic party in the state. 
 Our bishops, on that occasion, were not slow to 
 stand up in manful defence of the Church's rights 
 to the possession of property bequeathed to her 
 by the piety of former ages. They did no more than 
 their duty. Can it be possible that they will now 
 present to astonished Christendom, the incredible 
 spectacle of a hierarchy contending for the secular 
 rights of the body over which they are rulers, but 
 sunk in apathy, and keeping an ominous silence, 
 when its faith is endangered ? We will not believe 
 it ; we will not believe that the rulers over God's 
 heritage, who have deliberately vowed, at the most 
 awful moment of their lives, " with all faithful 
 diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous 
 and strange doctrine contrary to God's word," 
 shall now, unmindful of the strict and solemn 
 account they must one day give of their steward- 
 ship, not count all other considerations as dross 
 in comparison w^ith the one great duty which they 
 are so plainly called to fulfil. If the State shall 
 threaten them with the loss of their revenues 
 and endowments, as consequent on the performance 
 of that duty, we are confident that they will not 
 be slow to fling back the implied insult, and say 
 to the Church's oppressor, " Thy money perish 
 >vith thee." Our hearts have already bounded
 
 35 
 
 with joy and thankfulness as week after week, 
 and day after day, has brought us tidmgs of the 
 courage of our priesthood in protesting against 
 the usurpations of the State, and repelling the 
 slander which has been cast upon their beloved 
 Chuixh. We feel sure that they, remembering 
 the saying, " He that loveth houses and lands more 
 than me is not worthy of me," are prepared to 
 give up all earthly possessions and comforts in 
 defence of God's truth, are prepared, as one of 
 them has nobly said, " to give up every thing but 
 principle, to sell every thing but truth." 
 
 Still, we may well be awed and saddened at the 
 prospect before us. A time of conflict such as that 
 before us, must needs be a time of painful and se- 
 vere trial. Many ties will have to be broken ; many 
 hearts torn asunder; works of piety and charity 
 must sufl'er, nay they are sufl"ering, a grievous inter- 
 ruption and hindrance until the victory shall be won. 
 One benefit, however, we may all derive from such 
 a state of things, if we will. When we are called 
 to battle for God's truth, we shall be more than 
 ever constrained to feel that we are but mere out- 
 posts, few in number it may be, and despicable 
 in the eyes of the world, but bold beyond our 
 numbers, because supported by chariots of fire 
 and horses of fire round about the mountain of 
 the Lord of Hosts, under which we stand. We 
 shall call to mind more than ever that the visible 
 Church depends on the invisible ; not on civil
 
 36 
 
 power, not on princes, or any child of man, not 
 on endowments, not on its numbers, not on any 
 thing that is seen. What we see is but the *' out- 
 ward shell of an eternal kingdom;" and on that 
 kingdom we shall now be impelled more intently 
 than ever to fix the eyes of our faith. The time 
 of dai'kness, of disputing, and of anxiety, must 
 soon cease to be to all of us now on earth. Mean- 
 while we may every one of us take comfort if 
 only, amidst the clouds and the gloom which are 
 daily thickening around us, we can learn to say 
 from our hearts, " Thou art my lamp, O Lord, 
 and the Lord -will lighten my darkness." 
 
 BeHeve me, my dear Archdeacon, 
 
 Ever your grateful and affectionate friend, 
 
 RICHARD CAVENDISH. 
 
 Belgrave Square, 
 April 30, 1850. 
 
 P.S. — Since writing the above, I have received the first 
 part of Dr. Pusey's work on the Royal Supremacy, in an 
 appendix to which are some observations on your letter. 
 You will, I am sure, do justice to the true spirit of 
 christian charity and meekness which breathes through 
 them, and join with me in the earnest hope that the efforts 
 of the learned and pious author to dispel misunder- 
 standings, and to promote peace in our Church, may be 
 crowned with success. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 •1
 
 J J>KX> 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 • o» >>* 
 
 >■ >T»I» > 
 
 
 > > > > 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^^^^F^^^'.^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 > > >.■>