mm! PASTORAL LETTER CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF EXETER, ON THE PRESENT STATE OF THE CHURCH. By henry, lord BISHOP OF EXETER. LONDON: JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 185L 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. IGs. 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. 6J. An Ordinaticin 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. 6c?. A Letter on the Missionary Exertions of the Church. 8vo, Qd. A Reply to Lord John Russell's Letter to the Remonstrance of the Bisliops 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. Qd. 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. 6d 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. 6(f. 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. Gti. CONTENTS. Page 1. Judgment in Gorham v. Bishop of Exeter ... 2 2. Doctrinal Statements of Archbishop of Canterbury . . 14 3. Doctrinal Matters in otiier 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 iuid 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 e U»UC Z 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 liave 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 powen 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 wliereof 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 tlie 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 b2 ( 4 ) non habet cognitionem nee exeeutionem, eura non habet coerci- onemr 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 be continued, kept, and obeyed, should * Ciim eorum jura, sive jurisdictiones, limitatae sunt et separata;, nisi ita sit, quod gladius juvare debeat gladium. — Bracton, 107. ( 5 ) be from thenceforth kept, obeyed, and executed within this reahn," provided, meanwhile, that as 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 Appellationibus,^' 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 ( c^ ) 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, " Qu5 cum fuerit causa devoluta, cam 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 contradictic»n 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 : — " 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 Ehz., 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 aflfirmed 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 which 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 he'ing 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 1 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. I 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 sufl5cient 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 ( H ) me for rejecting him ; that, in consequence, my jurisdiction ■pro hdc 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 suflficient 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 kno^Ti to him. It was a duty, I repeat, unalienable — one from which he could not, if he wished, escdipe— 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 hahet. W^ill 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 such 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. 34 1 a, and 1 liolle, 191) as saying the same. He cites, too, the authority of our Reformers, in JReformatio Leguni (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 eiiim hoc tinimi est exomnibus swninum et maximum, in quo status Ecclesiae 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, " IVie 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 Jiot in Baptism." ( 14 ) judicially, he must have mformed 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- ( 15 ) (lemns, 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 Rome^ '•^ 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 imder God's wi'ath 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 hy Faith that Justification^ the gift of God, conferred in and by his own appointed instrument, is received hy 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 rQvaS&^ioxi of original sin, and repentance and conversion, as the condition of the remission of actual sin committed after Baptism ;" that is, of ( 17 ) Jhe 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 Ciirist 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 express, 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 strike 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 be given in and by Baptism, God's instrument. The believer c ( 18 ) " arises and is baptised, and washes aicay his sins, calling upon the name of the Lord " (Acts xxii. 16). And the Homily " of Common Prayer and Sacrament " says, " God emhraceth us in the Sacraments, and giveth Himself to be embraced ofusf 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 quahfication 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 Justifier, Jesus Christ," as is expressed in the second part of the same Homily. III. The ybrwa/ 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 hira 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" (I John ii. 28). c2 ( 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 P 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 " 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 " newness of life justifies," or '' we are justified by newness of life," as to say " Faith justifies," or " we are justified by faith." In truth, it is obvious to remark, that the Apostle James says that " Abraham was justified by woi'ks ; that faith wrought with his works, and by works, in his instance, faith was made perfect. Ye see, then," he proceeds, " how that by works a man is justified, and not hy faith only. Likewise, also, was not Rahab 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 dififerent 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) " P'aith alone can justify ;" " Faith alone can appropriate," &c. ; " 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 oi our he'ing justified by faith, but never by faith only, much less by faith alone ; in other words, they were not soUfidians. One of them says, " 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 aloneJ' True it is, that the Church does say, in its 11th Article, "That we are justified by Faith on/?/" (with the qualification which has been cited from the Homily) ; but never does the Church say, as the Archbishop says, " Faith alone justifies," or " we are justified by faith alone.^' For Faith alone means Faith luithout 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 owti hearty assent to it, or from briefly stating, why I think it demands the assent of every Christian. If Baptism does not concur toivards our Justification, 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 its 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 hy 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, JjxajwQfvTty r-Vi Ixsi'voy %'ipirt, while in Rom. v. he says, ^maio/QavTES- oZv ex. Tiia-reus. Hooker (Sermon on Justification) says, " T\\q justification which St. Paul discourseth of, seemeth, in his meaning, only, or especially, to be that act of grace which is dispensed to persons ( 24 ) at their baptism, or at their entrance into the Church, when they, openly professing their faith, and undertaking their Christian duty, God most solemnly and formally doth absolve them from all guilt, and accepteth them to a state of favour with him." B. Jewell (Def. of Apol, p. ii, c. 11, s. 3), says, "We confess, and have evermore taught, that in the sacrament of baptism, by the death and blood of Christ, is given remission of all manner of si?i, and that not in half, in part, or by way of imagination, or by fancy ; but whole, full, and perfect, of all together ; so that now, as St. Paul saith, ' there is no condem- nation to them that be in Christ Jesus.' " It cannot be neces- sary to multiply quotations, yet, I will add, from Mason (Vind. of the English ministry, p. 169), " Holy Orders is a sacrament, that is to say, in a larger sense ; because, it is a sign, to which there is annexed a promise of grace, though not of Justifying grace, as in baptism and the Lord's Supper." S. Chrys., in Rom. viii. 30, a^iKdiuae ^ja ti^s tov Xovr^ov '7r«Xiyysv£