. *Jt.'' »-'- • '•• " \\t.t.

^..;.:;&.>:4'

MVmMKM* 1

sr*"

':•*,

:'.^sgi

j^r,,

¦¦^«'j

•^>

^ - «?.,*»-

•** ' •¦*?

rt-^s

' Jn^J

;-i^*h«

!*'«>2t;

f>''ft«i*.-

-1*'"..
*?. >¦ - .

«f'

HlJSg

.i?.

'.-.rtifi

-.^^0^^^^^^^^

/&37

REMAINS
LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL

CONNOP THIRLWALL
LATE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S

c^

REMAINS
LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL
OF
CONNOP THIRLWALL

LATE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID S

EDITED
By j. j. STEWART PEROWNE, D.D.
HONORARY CHAPLAIN TO THE QUEEN; CANON OF LLANDAFF; AND HULSEAN
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE

VOL. IL— CHARGES
Diil-IVERED BETWEEN THE YEARS 1863 .\Nn 1872

LONDON
DALDY, ISBISTER & CO.
56, LUDGATE HILL
1877

LONDON :
PRINTRD BY VIRTIIP: AND CO., LIMITED
CITY ROAD.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

VOL. II.

Eighth Charge, 18G3. Ess.ays and Reviews. — Writings of the Bishop
OF Natal . .... .... .1
Ninth Charge, 1866. State of the Diocese.— National Edvcation,
The Revised Code. — Diocesan Synods. — Final Court op Appeal. —
Ritualism ...  .91
Tenth Charge, 1869. Disestablishment op the Irish Church. — Ritu
alism. — The Eucharistic Controversy. — The Vatican Council . . 203
Eleventh Charge, 1872. The Vatican Council. — Dissensions in the
Church op England. — The Athanasian Creed. — The Education
Act of 1870 ...  .290

VIII.
A CHARGE
Delivered Octobbk, 1863.
essays and revievs^s.  writings of the bishop of natal.

My Reverend Brethren,
In what might once be considered as ordinary times,
passing events, of local or temporary interest, afforded but rare
and scanty topics for a Bishop's charge : and it might often
happen that it was entirely occupied with some general observa
tions on the duties of the clergy, and with exhortations, which
might be always edifying, but not more so at one time or place
than another. The condition of the Church on the whole was
apparently stationary ; its movement, if any, too slow to be
perceived by contemporary spectators. It was much if the
universal stillness was now and then broken by an Act of Parlia
ment, affecting some ecclesiastical interest, which might need
explanation, or invite discussion, or by some abuse hurtful to the
Church which appeared to call for the interposition of the Legis
lature. Very different has been the state of things since I was
charged with the administration of this diocese. During the
whole of this period the Church has been more or less threatened
from without, and agitated within. I need hardly remind you of
the controversies which arose in the last generation, and have been
carried on uninterruptedly to the present day, with regard to the
Sacraments, and the whole range of theological questions con
nected with them. The gravity and practical importance of theso
VOL. II. B

2 BISHOP THIRLWALL' S
disputes may be estimated, not only from the extent of the litera
ture which has grown out of them, or from the heat with which
opposite views have been maintained, but, partly, from the number
of secessions from the Church, which have taken place in opposite
directions, of persons who carried their views on either side to an
extreme inconsistent with her formularies, and partly from the
various efforts which have been made to obtain such a modification
of those formularies, as may enable such of her ministers as are
dissatisfied with them to feel themselves more at their ease within
her pale.
Fitness of It always seemed to me that such questions claimed a
lorSSi™ prominent, indeed the foremost, place among those
prominent iti • j.i
questions, which might be fitly treated on such an occasion as the
solemn periodical meeting between a Bishop and his clergy ; and
that a survey of them taken from the point of view best suited to
the character of the episcopal office, and in a spirit befitting the
occasion, might serve a practical purpose ; one, perhaps, more
important than any which only concerns the temporal prospects
of the Church. If, as was pretty sure to be the case, the result of
a calm examination, conducted with a single eye to truth and
charity, was to show that the theological differences which parted
the contending schools had been greatly exaggerated by party
zeal, and that there was ample room for both within the common
pale, it might tend to allay some bitter feelings, to revive mutual
confidence and good will, and to combine energies which would
have wasted themselves in barren strife, for united efforts in the
cause of Christ. And this is an object which, however far beyond
the power of any one man to attain, is certainly worthy of all the
pains that can be spent upon it.
anestions ^^ ^^^^ J'^^^^ ^^^ positiou of the Church, as an insti-
thr*ciiurch tution connected with the State, has undergone a change
externally, .^^j^j^^j^ -g certainly of no light significance, though its ulti
mate consequences lie beyond the range of our view. The ago-ression
of the party which aims at dissolving that connexion has been more
systematically organized, and carried on with more concert and
vigour than in former times. A society has been formed for the

CHARGES. 3
purpose of urging and guiding its movements, on every point
where the Church seems most open to attack. By way of prepara
tion for greater things, this society has been striving more
especially to effect the abolition of church-rates, and in the mean
while, as far as possible, to prevent them from being levied, even
where they have been willingly granted ; and to deprive the
Church of her hold even on schools endowed by members of her
own communion, and most clearly designed by them to enjoy the
benefit of her teaching. In these and other enterprises directed
to the same object, the society has achieved but a very moderate
degree of success, and has rather thwarted its own aims by a
premature disclosure of its ulterior views. But this aggressive
organization has called forth a counteractive movement of defence
on the part of the Church, set on foot and conducted chiefly by
laymen, which has already exerted a very wholesome influence,
and promises to serve, not only for the protection of her legiti
mate interests, but for the extension and increased efiiciency of her
work. But while on this side, though there are motives enough for con
stant watchfulness and redoubled activity, there has been
no ground for alarm, it has befallen us to witness the
upgrowth of questions within the Church, not only of a different
kind, but of a different order, from those to which I was just now
pointing, questions stretching very far toward the foundations of
the Christian faith. How widely they are parted from those
which had previous^ occupied the minds of churchmen may be
gathered from several signs. While the interest roused bj' the
previous controversies was confined to a comparatively narrow
circle, and the points on which they turned were regarded by the
bulk even of our own people rather as matters of ecclesiastical
learning than of common practical concern, — except when they
happened to be forced on public attention by some ill-judged
introduction of ritual innovations, — the recently promulged
opinions have found their way among all classes of the community,
and have been felt by all to involve very grave consequences;
and, within the circle in which the earlier controversies were
B 2

4 BISHOP THIRLWALL' S
waged, the contending parties have suspended the old conflict to
unite their forces against a movement which seems to threaten all
that eaeh holds most dear. Nor can any of those who stand out
side the Church, and are even most hostile to many of her
distinguishing doctrines and institutions, if they only hold her
fundamental creed, look on this new struggle as unconcerned
spectators. They are aware that they are no less interested in the
issue. , . . , When men have been startled by a new phenomenon.
Inquiry mto -' ^
the "neofo^ i* ^^ natural that they should inquire after its cause, and so
'^^' attemptshavenotbeen wanting to trace the neology of our
day to its source. Nor is this to be regarded as a question which
can serve only to satisfy a vain curiosity. It has its practical use.
For the nature of a thing can hardly be fully understood without
some insight into its origin ; and there can be no right judgment
on its quality which is not grounded on a clear view of its nature.
But the subject opens large room for conjectures, which it is
equally hard to prove and to refute. One readily presented itself
with much show of likelihood. It was natural to suppose that
there was some connexion between the present and the immediate
past ; between the new opinions and the two great parties which
had been so long striving for ascendancy in the Church.
And to some it appeared that the newly raised sceptical spirit was
no more than the inevitable effect of a recoil which was sure to
come, sooner or later, from the excess to which one of them had
pushed its distinguishing tenets. When the claims of human
authority have been advanced beyond their due limits, it would
not be surprising that they should provoke a reaction, which is
carried over bounds on the opposite side. This explanation might
not be altogether groundless, and yet quite inadequate ; and there
may be as good reason for ascribing the result to a sequence
rather than to a reaction, and for regarding the New as the
offspring of the Old. For where the witness, either of the Church
or of the individual consciousness, has been allowed practically
to supersede that of Holy Writ, and has been treated as the
supreme authority, the value of the historical record must more or

CHARGES. 5
less sink in comparison with both, and so may easily come to be
positively disparaged. We know, in fact, that such was the effect
of the opposite exaggerations of the Church of Home on the ono
hand, and of the Beformation movement on the other. The
Church of the Papacy has uniformly either forbidden or dis
couraged the reading of Scripture, as not only needless and
useless, but dangerous for the mass of the laity.' The place wliich
she assigns to the Bible is subordinate to the living oracle of her
visible Head. In her view the written Word borrows its whole
title to belief from her sanction ; and she would eagerly endorse
the sentiment which has lately been expressed by a Bishop of our
Church, that " if the whole Bible was removed," the Christian
faith would still stand fast ; that is, on that Rock on which she
conceives it to have been founded by the Lord Himself, and which
she sees in the succession of His earthly Vicegerents. Among the
sects which sprang out of the Reformation, and marred and dis
honoured it by their narrow and fierce fanaticism, there were
several which, both in theory and practice, adopted the same
sentiment, only in a widely different sense, subordinating the
Record of Revelation to the manifestation of the light which
shines in every man's breast, and bidding each seek truth from
the dictates of his own inward oracle. Such a view is evidently
no less adverse to the supremacy of Scripture than to the authority
of the Church.
But yet, indisputable and worthy of note as is this ideal affinity
between modes of thinking, which outwardly have so little in
common, it would be unsafe to treat it as sufficient proof of a
historical connexion ; and I am unable to find any other. I am
not aware of any more special grounds of a personal kind, which
warrant such a supposition ; and I do not beKeve that any dis
covery that could be made in this direction would repay the
trouble of the search. The real state of the case seems to be
disclosed plainly enough by the writings Avhich have suggested
the question. They exhibit opinions which had been long ..Essays and
floating in the public mind ; some as old as the earliest
attacks on the Christian faith, revived in the last century by our

6 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
own deistical writers, since then reproduced in various forms ; in
a few points perhaps of foreign origin, but on the whole of native
growth. No one who has reflected on the character and ten
dencies of modern European society, especiaUy of our own, can
be at any loss to account for the fact that such opinions should
find easy, ready, even eager acceptance among many in our day.
It is a natural consequence of the increased stimulus which has
been given to physical studies, not only by the progress of dis
covery, and the craving for knowledge thus continually sharpened
by that which feeds it, but by the wants and desires of our
animal nature, to which it ministers, and which in our fast-
growing population are constantly multiplying their demands
with more clamorous importunity. I am only pointing to an
unquestionable fact, without the remotest intention of disparag
ing the value and dignity of physical science, or the slightest
wish that it should be less actively cultivated, or that its well-
ascertained results should be less widely diffused, least of aU in
the belief that they are or can be in themselves adverse to
rehgions truth ; they may, nevertheless, by the excitement of too
absorbing an interest, tend to create a disposition of mind gene
rally unfavourable to its influence.*
* Some remarkable words connected with this subject occur in a letter of Prince
Mettemich to A. v. Humboldt, which is printed in Humboldt's " Briefe an Varnhagen
von Ense," p. 219 ; "Le faux mtoe au faux, comme le vrai conduit au vrai. Aussi
longtemps que 1' esprit s'est maintenu dans le faux, dans la sphfere la plus 4levee que
1' esprit de I'homme puisse atteindre, les consequences de ce triate etat ont du reagir
dans toutes les directions morales, intellectuelles, et sociales, et opposer a leur
developpement dans la droite voie, un obstacle insurmontable. La bonne nouvelle une
fois aunoneee, la position a du changer. Ce n'est pas en divinisant les ejjfets, que ceux-
ci ont pu etre suivis dans les voies de la v&ite ; leur recherche est restee circonscrite
dans la speculation abstraite des philosophes et dans la verve dea poetes. La cause
une fois mise a convert, lea cceura ae sont mis en repos et lea esprits se sont ouverta.
Ceux-ci sont longtemps encore restes enveloppes dans lea brouillards de la sceptique
paienne, quand enfin la philosophie scolastique a ete debord^e par la science
axp^rimentale. Tronvez-vous mon raisonnemeut juate ? Si voua letrouvez,jenesuia
pas en doute que vous ne partagiez ma crainte, que lea progrSs acientifiquea veritables
courent le risque d'etre arretes par des esprits trop ambitieux, qui veulent remonter
dea effets a la cause, et qui trouvant la route coupee par les limitea iutranchissables que
Dieu a poseea a I'inteUigence humaine, ne pouvant avancer, se replient sur eux-memes
et retournent a la stupidite du paganisme en cherchant la cause dana lea eflfets." The
italics are Mctternich's. Humboldt describes it as " einen sehr merkwiirdigen Brief,"
" der halb theologisch endigt, vol! Geist und Schwung der Rede, mit ein wenig Furcht

CHARGES. 7
One thing is certain. It was not either the novelty of the opinions
themselves, or the originality of the arguments by which p„^,i„
they were maintained, that attracted public attention attraS™.
to the writings of which I am about to speak. The writings,
11 J} • 1 1 • 1 but by the
reaiiy new feature m the aspect which they were pre- "haiacter of
sented, was the character of the authors. It was just '"!"'<'"•
because the opinions were for the most part by no means new, but
familiar to persons conversant with such subjects in the works of
writers who, as holding such opinions, had deemed themselves,
and been regarded by others, as hostile to Christianity, that they
produced so startling an effect when they were announced by
ministers of Christ. For the writers did not belong to a religious
body which, while claiming the name of Christian, repudiates all
theological formularies, and imposes no restriction on its ministers,
unless it be that they must not preach any very positive doctrine.
They were ministers of a Church which aims at a definite teaching,
and exacts conformity to that teaching from those whom she admits
into her ministry. Nor were they among the obscure members of
their order, whose personal character could add no weight to their
opinions. They were all men of literary eminence, some filling
very important places in the rearing of the rising generation.
And if it might be supposed that scholastic pursuits, however
favourable to deep research and comprehensive views, might deaden
their sympathy with the feelings and needs of ordinary Christians,
and might thus lead them to overlook some very important
elements even of their own learned speculations, yet this could only
be the case with some. There were others of the number who were
engaged in pastoral duties, which brought them into daily contact
with the practical problems of the Christian life. Such a combina
tion of talents and opportunities might have been expected to jieli
two great advantages. On the one hand, a very clear consciousness,
not only of the precise import of their statements, but of the per
haps remote, yet logically inevitable consequences which flow from

vor dem Pantheismus." More exactly, it was a relapse into Paganism which
Metternich thought he saw reason to apprehend, from a certain direction of ecien'tifio
pursuits.

8 BISHOP THIRLW all's
them, so that, when such consequences were not designed, the
utmost care should be taken to guard the premisses from the
appearance of involving them. And on the other hand, it was to
have been hoped that there would have been shown, in the hand
ling of religious subjects, however free, a certain tenderness for
beliefs which, in the miads of common Christians, are inteiwined
with the holiest feeHngs of their hearts, and that, if it was neces
sary for the object ia view to make a separation between them, it
should be done so as to inflict the smallest possible amount of
pain. One thing at least might have been thought to have been
effectually secured, that no one in whom the characters of the
academic teacher and the pastor of souls happened to meet,
would, when treating such subjects, express himself so that an
educated layman, called upon to give the closest attention
to his words, should find it a difficult task to ascertain their
meaning, and should be forced to " doubt whether, if the author
had studied to express his sentiments with ambiguity, he could
have been more successful : " * but above all, that no one,
occupying that twofold position, would so far forget what was
due to both, as to indulge in a tone of scornful bitterness
against those of his brethren in the ministry who held a belief
common to the vast majority of their own flocks, as well as
of all Christians throughout the world, and in all ages of the
Church.t Form and But cvcn if thcsc expectations had been fulfilled,
conditions of
publication, there would have remained the very great fact, that
opinions generally thought contradictory to the principles of the
Christian faith, were proclaimed in a work proceeding from
eminent divines, ministers of the Church of England. Here,
however, we cannot avoid noticing the peculiar form of the
* Dr. Lushington's Judgment in the case of the Bishop of Salisbury ti. "Williams,
p. 18.
t On this point the judgment of the Edinburgh Reviewer (No. CCXXX., p. 479)
win not be suspected of partiality : "The flippant and contemptuous tone ofthe
reviewer often amounts to a direct breach of the compact with which the volume opens,
that the subjects therein touched should be handled 'in a becoming spirit.' Anj-
thing more ' unbecoming ' than some of Dr. "Williams's remarka we never have read
in writings professing to be written seriously."

CHARGES. 9
publication, as a coUection of the independent contributions of
different authors, writing whoUy without concert with one another.
It would indeed be unjust and absurd to represent them as having
consciously co-operated with one another for any definite object,
or as in any way antecedently pledged to one another's "views ;
and the most entire credit was due to them, when they disclaimed
such a joint responsibility and concert.* But at least this dis
claimer, whether it was from the hand of one of their number, or
from one who was authorised to speak in their name, must be con
sidered as common to all. And what it clearly implied was, that,
however each might reserve his private judgment as to any
doctrine advanced by any of the rest, there was nothing in the
whole that appeared to any of them inconsistent with that which,
as clergymen of the Church of England, they were bound to
maintain.t If the fact had been otherwise, there would have
been a breach of " compact," of which those who dissented would
have had a right to complain. Not only was no such complaint
heard at the proper time, immediately after the publication, when
it could not have been liable to misconstruction, but as far as
silence was broken by any of them, it was in language signifying
a more than contented acquiescence in every part of the whole
teaching. And this was really the only point with which the
Church had an"v concern. If the opinions, however How far the
'' Church waa
questionable, did not go beyond the latitude allowed by implicated.
her to her ministers, then their truth or falsehood was of little
* This, however, may depend on the precise meaning of the word " concert." Mr.
Kenuard, who, writing the hiatory of the book as a warm admirer aud thorough-goiug
advocate, is likely to have been well informed, states (" Essays and Reviews, their
Origin, History, &c., " p. 26) : " They determined to vindicate for the clergy practi
cally the right of treating openly, in language addressed to the people generally,
questions concerning prophecy, miracles, &c. They associated at the same time a
layman with them in the undertaking." It is so far from unusual to apeak of persons
who are " associated in an undertaking " as acting in " concert," that if, while con
scious of the " association," they were to deny the " concert," they would hardly be
thought to be making a perfectly fair use of language. But whether such a concert
may be properly termed a " conspiracy " must depend on the nature of the object.
t Here the authority of the Edin'burgh Reviewer cannot be disputed : " Every
one of them by lending hia name to the book does beyond doubt assert that, however
much he may differ from the views contained in any other Essay than his own, he yet
vindicates the lawfulness of holding those views within the EnglishChurch." P. 489.

10 BISHOP THIRL"WALL's
importance, except as it might affect the reputation of the authors.
But the question, whether these opinions were or were not con
sistent with her doctrines, was one on wliich depended something
far more important than the reputation of any individual, how
ever eminent in station, learning, and ability ; that is, the
character and position of the Church itself, as a branch of the
imlversal Church of Christ. This was a question which inte
rested every one of her members, the more deeply in propor
tion to the breadth of the doctrines propounded, and the close
ness of their connexion with the foundations of the Christian
faith. And to this extent it does appear to me that each of the
clerical contributors did incur a responsibility, which he could
not shift from himself, for opinions which he did not expressly
disavow. There was yet another point of view in which, not-
General *' ^
Sn^^e "withstanding the divided authorship, the book might
writers. ^^ ^^^ improperly treated as if it had been the produc
tion of a single mind. Though consisting of a number of distinct
essays on various subjects, it might exhibit a close affinity of
thought and feeling, and strong Indications of general unanimity
among the writers. The different parts might appear to fit into
one another, as if they had come from the same hand. There
might be everywhere signs of a common drift and tendency, just
as if all had been arranged with a view to one object : and a
total absence, not only of any express contradiction, but of any
thing to suggest the suspicion of a divergency of views, among the
contributors. How far It presents the appearance of such har
mony, must depend on the judgment we may form of Its contents.*
But before I proceed to consider what appears to me most impor
tant and characteristic in them, I think it may not be useless
to make a few remarks on the public history of the book. Its
private history wiU probably long remain a secret confined to a few.
PubUo his- It was not until the work had passed through several
tory of the ^ o
book. editions, and had attained a celebrity which far exceeded
* If indeed Mr. Kennard's statement, cited in a previous note, is well founded, there
would be no need ot an appeal to internal evidence on thia head.

CHARGES. 11
the hopes of the authors, and perhaps even the wishes of some
among them, and not until it had experienced a great amount of
adverse criticism, which called forth neither defence nor explana
tion, that the attention of the episcopate was formally drawn to it
by a memorial signed by a large body of the clergy. This step
has been treated as a pitiable mistake on the part of the memo
rialists. But the conduct of the Bishops, who concurred . ^
i. ' Action of
in a general censure of the work, was visited with still pate^^'n-""
severer condemnation. They were charged with abusing '^^™"^-
their position, to encourage a foolish and groundless outcry, and
aggravate a senseless panic, and with attempting to stifle inquiry,
and to restrain the rightful freedom of the clergy.* It was thought
by some that they were not at liberty to express an opinion on the
work, unless they at the same time entered into a discussion of Its
contents, and distinguished the various degrees in which their
censure applied to the several contributors, t To some it appeared
deplorable that they should censure the opinions of otheis, without
at the same time avowing their own continued adherence to the
doctrines of the Church. + But perhaps no complaint was more
popular and oftener repeated, than that they had not refuted before
they condemned.
It is evident that the justice of all these complaints must
depend on the character of the work, and that each contains a
tacit assumption which may be weU or iU founded. Defence of
It is on this account only that I now advert to them.
If the questions raised in the work were of trifling moment,
though through some unfortunate accident they had produced
much temporary excitement, then it would have been the duty of
the chief pastors of the Church to exert their influence for the
purpose of aUaying that excitement, and to enlighten those who
had been blindly agitated by an imaginary danger. If again the
opinions expressed in the work kept within the latitude which
might be rightfully claimed by ministers of our Church, then,
* Edinburgh Review u. o. and Mr. Kennard passim.
t Edinburgh Review, p. 469.
I Tracts for Prieats and people. " Religio Laici," p. 9.

12 BISHOP thirl"wall's
however they might be opposed to those both of a great majority
of the clergy, and of the whole episcopate, it would have been
unfair to condemn them as repugnant to the doctrines of the
Church, or inconsistent with the obligations of her ministers. But
if such a repugnance did exist, then to require that, before any
censure was pronounced, the opinions condemned should be dis
proved, would clearly involve consequences which can hardly have
been generally contemplated by those who caUed for a previous
refutation. By refutation they must have meant something more
than an argument which, however strong in the judgment of the
party which employs it, leaves the opponent unconvinced : and,
if he is to be the judge of its cogency, it would follow that any
minister of the Church may deny every one of her doctrines, and
yet be allowed to remain In her ministry until he admits his error.
It seems indeed as If there were persons who saw no absurdity In
this extent of licence, or would only restrict it in the actual per
formance of sacred functions. But unless this be aUowed, it is
evident that in the case we are now considering, the question
whether the doctrine propounded is true or false, though
undoubtedly first in importance, is not that which has to be first
discussed with a "view to any practical result. For in general
such a discussion would be only a renewal of an old and endless
controversy. In the order of time the first question must be,
whether the doctrine is in harmony with the teaching of the
Church. This, which Is the point of immediately practical
concern, is also that which may in general be most easUy ascer
tained.
Complaints '^^^^ ^^^ *^® ^^^ ^^^ substancc of the censure pro-
Sps*''" nounced on the book. It was a declaration that, in the
censure. opinion of the Bishops, its contents toere repugnant to
the doctrine of the Church. It has been made matter of com
plaint that this censure was expressed In terms which were likely
to inflict needless pain on the authors ; and It has been Invidiously
described as demanding the removal of five of the number from
their positions in the Church.* It was even thought that, if the
' Edinburgh Ke\iew u. s., p. 460. Farther ou, in the warmth of his peroration,

CHARGES. 13
work had been less severely condemned, some of them might
have felt themselves at liberty to declare their dissent from the
extreme opinions avowed by others ; but that, after so many
voices had been raised against them, especially from the high
places of the Church, a sense of honour prevented them from
entering into any explanations, that might indicate a disapproval
of any portion of the book. I have already pointed out, that
there was an earlier occasion, when this might have been done
without any risk of misconstruction. And highly as we may
respect such a point of honour, we may doubt whether in this
case it was consistent with a higher law of duty, and the dictates
of Christian charity ; and whether the more sacred obUgation was
that which they owed to a few persons with whom they had
become accidentally associated in a literary undertaking, or that
under which they lay toward the great body of their brethren
and the Church at large. But as to the language of the censure,
whatever pains might have been taken to soften it, it could not
without dissimulation have left any uncertainty on the main
point : that clergymen had published doctrines opposed to those
of their Church, and this not on any nice and doubtful questions,
in which much subtlety was needed to discern the line which
separates orthodoxy from error,* but on such as lay at the root of
aU revealed religion.
the Reviewer does not scruple to charge the Bishops with the " design of terrifying
or driving out of the Church those whom they themselves confess to be among its
chief ornaments."
* The main drift of the apology in the Edinburgh Review is to show that the
public had been entirely mistaken in ita notion of the work, and that, with a possible
immaterial exception or two, it had only freely handled questions on which a great
latitude of opinion had always been allowed, and exercised by many eminent divines
of our Church. This afforded the Reviewer the additional advantage of enabling him,
while defending his friends, to retaliate on some of those who had joined in the
censure, as having " published opiniona exactly coinciding with those which they
condemned;" aud aa thus aggravating the offence of an unjust persecution by a
shameful inconsistency. The justice of this charge depended on the assumption, that
the censure which they had pronounced on the book was levelled at those opinions.
This however was a mere surmise, which would have been purely arbitrary, even if
it had happened not to be, as it was, certainly unfounded ; audit is not easy to recon
cile it with the Reviewer's own complaint, that the censure "abstained from all
distinct specifications of offence." He himself owns that, according to the sense in
which it haa been almost universally understood, one of the Essays appears to him

14 BISHOP thirl"wall's
It is worthy of note, that the call for refutation was raised by
those who also most strongly deprecated any resort to judicial
Refutation proceedings against the persons who were charged "with
byTtose^ unsound doctrine. In this I think they were quite
adverse to consistent. If a minister of the Church has a moral
judicial pro
ceedings, right, while he continues to exercise his ministry, to
impugn her most fundamental doctrines, untU he has been
convinced of their truth, it would be unjust to invoke the aid of
the law to convict him of that which would then be a mere
technical offence. But it seems to me not quite so consistent,
that the persons who called for refutation, should also have
condemned the proceedings which were Instituted in Convocation
for the purpose of determining the theological character of the
book. But those who were most strongly convinced that this
character was essentially at variance with the fundamental teach
ing of the Church, might be most inclined to doubt whether that
question could be fairly tried in a Court of Justice. And
experience has shown how IU the forms of penal judicature are
adapted to that end, and this just on account of what constitutes
their highest exceUence. In a criminal prosecution, it is the duty
of the judge to require the most rigorous proof of the charge : to
interpret ambiguous language in the sense most favourable to the
writer : to refuse to Usten to any accusation of merely constructive
to have transcended the limits of devout belief." He does not indeed say, but much
less does he deny, that what transcends those limits must also, overstep the range of
legitimate freedom within the pale of the English Church. Yet, on his own con
struction of the joint disclaimer, all the other Essayists meant to " vindicate the
lawfulness of holding those views within the English Church;" or at least have
contentedly allowed the world to believe that they do ao. The other admitted
exceptions are represented as trifling, because contained iu " a few words." Yet four
monosyllables have sufficed for an important proposition, which it would be difficult
to bring within the limits of devout belief (Ps. liii. 1). In substance, the Reviewer
perfectly agrees with the " Episcopal Manifesto," which he brands as " the counter
part of the Papal excommunication levelled against Italian freedom." The chief
difference ia, that the admiasions of an advocate are the most conclusive evidence, and
the censure of a friend the most likely to be fully deserved, though as mild in form
as the nature of the case will permit.
It is only a noble and generous spirit that will ever make too great a sacrifice to
friendship ; yet that is too great which is made at the cost of justice. A moralist
who enjoyed a high reputation even before he was thought to be inspired, laid down
the rule : nulla est exciisatio peccn/i, si amici causa peecaveris.

CHARGES. 15
heresy : to shut his eyes to the spirit and tendency of a work,
however apparent, unless they are embodied in some distinct and
tangible proposition. I can never lament that rules based on the
first principles of right should have been strictly observed, though
the effect might seem in some instances a failure of substantial
justice. I cannot regard it as an unmitigated evil, that the
decision of questions involving abstruse points of Divinity, should
be committed to a layman, "with no guide but his natural good
sense for the interpretation of language, the full import and
bearing of which could be correctly appreciated by none but an
expert theologian. When civil rights are at stake, there can
hardly be too great a jealousy of professional bias or learned
refinements. It may happen that one man suffers a severe
penalty through his incapacity clearly to express a right mean
ing, whUe another escapes through the studied ambiguity with
which he insinuates a wrong one. The former may be the
greater e-vU of the two ; but neither could lead me to desire a
change by which the trial of a criminal prosecution for matters of
religious opinion, should be taken out of lay hands.
Happily, just on this account, the character of the Church as
a religious communion can never be compromised by ^j^g cUtro-
such a decision, and it is only through a vulgar error, church ran-
or a disingenuous polemical artifice, that it can be promised by
^ , judicial deci-
treated as ha"ving that effect. No judgment pronounced ^i™^-
under such circumstances can afford a measure of the quality of a
theological work, so as either to preclude the right, or to dispense
with the need of examining it from a different point of view for
the purpose of estimating its orthodoxy. The distinction between
a judgment pronounced on a work in its purely theological aspect,
and one delivered by a judge before whom the author is prose
cuted for heresy, may appear somewhat subtle and difficult to
grasp. But unless it be admitted, and in the sense, that the
same person might consistently, when exercising the functions of
a Judge, acquit that which he had condemned as a Divine, we
should be driven to a conclusion revolting to common sense. For
It would follow that, on the appearance of a work in which a

16 BISHOP THIRL"VVALL's
clergyman broached unsound doctrine which might expose him to
legal penalties, a Bishop, who lies under a special obligation to
guard the purity of the Church's doctrine, would be the one
person in his diocese who would have no right, even when con
sulted by those who are entitled tp his advice and guidance, to
express an unfavourable opinion of the work, because he might
afterwards be caUed upon to sit in judgment on the author.
Writings of ^6 may venture to believe that no very strong
dS^me^'^ sensation would have been excited in the pubUc mind
productive bv a lavman who in our dav should have revived the
of different -' -l •'
effects. speculations of Spinoza and Hume on the absolute
impossibility, or the incredibility of miracles. They would have
been felt to belong to a metaphysical system, so wholly foreign to
the principles of the Church, as to render It needless for Church
men to protest against it, and quite aUowable for them to decline
a controversy where the disputants had scarcely any common
ground to stand on. But just for this reason the reproduction of
these opinions in the work of a clergyman, could hardly fail to
excite general surprise ; and it is only a little less surprising that
the fact should appear to any one so natural, and so manifestly
consistent with the author's profession, as to make it absurd to
attach any importance to it, and wrong to treat it as, with respect
to his ecclesiastical position, worthy of censure. When we think
for a moment of the Evangelical History, and of the Creeds, to
say nothing of the Liturgy, we rather find it difficult to argue
the incongruity of such views with the teaching of our Church,
for the opposite reason : because the proving of a point so e"vident,
would be a waste of words. And this difficulty is increased when
we find that the writer, in whose view the study of the " e"VT[dences
of Christianity " must lead every duly cultivated mind to reject
the beUef in supernatural interposition, appears altogether to
ignore the existence of any but secondary, or — as they are some
times termed by an unfair assumption, — natural causes in the
world. He admits indeed that the " broader views of physical
truth, and universal order in nature," which are now increasingly
prevalent, " point to the acknowledgment of an overruling and

CHARGES. 17
all-pervading supreme inteUigence." * But this language would
at least as aptly express the fundamental doctrine of Spinoza, as
that of any theist ; especiaUy when coupled with the statements,
that " creation is only another name for our ignorance of the
means of production," t and that " the Divine Omnipotence is
entirely an inference from the language of the Bible : " J and the
argument employed to prove the impossibility of miraculous inter
position moves wholly within the circle of a purely materialistic
philosophy. It would however be unfair to overlook, that the
author sometimes expresses himself as if his standing-place was
stiU in some sense Christian ground, and as if in his o"wn judg
ment he was only doing his best to carry out the common object
of the Yolume, by rescuing the subject which he handles from the
danger of " suffering by the repetition of conventional language,
and by traditional methods of treatment." He distinguishes
between the provinces of reason or science and of faith, as if both
had a real existence, though governed by different laws, and might
flourish peacefuUy side by side, if only their respective limits had
not been confounded by ill-judged attempts at mutual encroach
ment. It may thus have appeared to him, that he was filling the
part of a peacemaker, and laying down the conditions of a lasting
reconcUiation, between parties which had been separated through
an unhappy misunderstanding. We would fain believe that such
was the aim "with which he undertook his last work, and may
hope that he himself derived comfort from the faith which he still
recognized as sur"viving the evidences which it was the object of
his argument to overthrow.
But our wishes and hopes cannot alter the nature of things, and
charity does not require or even permit us to shut our Dominion of
eyes to the truth. The distinction between the dominion science dis-
'' ^ ^ ^ tinct from
of physical science and of faith, which qualifies the that of faith.
merely negative and destructive character of the general con
clusion, is indeed a question of the gravest moment, and of an
interest quite independent of any temporary controversy. If it
be true that faith may find all that she needs, to satisfy her
* P. 126. t P- 139- + P' 113.
VOL. II. C

18 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
highest aspirations, within her own sphere, and that she is there
secure and Inaccessible to the inroads of physical science, which
neither seeks nor is able to invade her sanctuary, why should she
not be content with the undisturbed enjoyment of her proper and
undisputed domain ? That is the position on which the author
takes his stand, and in which he may have won the sympathy of
many who totally dissent from the negative side of his doctrine.
That there is such a life of faith, conversant with purely spiritual
truths, abstracted from aU conditions of time and sense, could not
be denied without rejecting the experience of the holiest men in
all ages. We must go farther and sa_y, that it Is only with such
truths that faith is ever properly conversant. Historical facts are
the object of a historical belief, which Scripture itself teaches us
to distinguish from that faith which It describes as the indispens
able condition of salvation.* I am sure that there is no error
against which you, my Reverend Brethren, would more earnestly
warn your hearers, than the confounding of this distinction. And
certainly such a faith has no injury to dread from the progress
of physical science. The region in which it Uves and moves is
wholly spiritual and supramundane : one in which a science,
which deals only with the laws of matter, can find no footing, and
therefore must needs leave it in peace.
The condi- But then we must consider what is the price which,
tion on 11,
which^faith on the author s terms, has to be paid for this security ;
molested. the Condition on which faith is permitted to remain thus
unmolested. It is that she shaU not attempt to cross the border
of her own province, and claim a standing-ground In the world of
nature; in other words, that she shaU hold no doctrine which
involves the supposition of a supernatural interruption in the pre
determined sequence of physical phenomena. She must not only
forego, but renounce the beUef in any such event. " Miraculous
narratives " may "become invested with the character of articles
of faith ; " but it is on condition that they be " accepted," not as
records of historical facts, but " in a less positive and certain Ught,
or perhaps as involving more or less of the parabolic or mythic
* James ii. 19.

CHARGES. 19
character."* This restriction excludes, not only outward super
natural events, but also every fact of inward experience which
cannot be explained, on psychological grounds, as a phase of a
merely human development. A direct communication of Divine
grace would be as much a breach of continuity in the order of
causation as any visible miracle, and might as weU be described
as only " another name for our ignorance of the mode of produc
tion." It is indeed "confessed" "that, beyond the domain of
physical causation and the possible conceptions of inteUect or
knowledge, there lies open the boundless region of spiritual things
which is the sole dominion of faith." t But this description seems
to show that there are two insurmountable obstacles to any com
munication between this region and the material universe in which
we Uve. The things which belong to this spiritual region "lie
beyond the possible conceptions of inteUect or knowledge," and
even if they could be grasped by our faculties in our present state
of being, as they are extrinsic to the domain of physical causa
tion, there is no mode by which they could be conveyed to our
minds, but a supernatural intervention, which is rejected by
" inteUect and philosophy," as " inconsistent "with the universal
order and indissoluble unity of physical causes." It would be at
once a miraculous enlargement of human capacity, and the intro
duction of a new element into the series of historical events, not
linked by a natural dependence with those which preceded it.
We readUy admit, or rather, as Christians, we earnestly maintain
the possibility of a direct communication between the Father of
spirits and the soul of man. But whatever is so imparted to man
is an object, not of simple faith, but of knowledge ; and since the
recipient of such a communication is not a disembodied spirit, but
one dwelUng in a human frame, and so united with it, that every
successive idea and emotion involves a corresponding change in
the bodily organization, it is clear that a Divine inward revelation
is as much a miracle, and therefore, according to the Essayist's
view, as truly impossible as any related in the Bible.
And so it appears in what sense we are to understand the admis-
* P. 142. t P. 127.
c2

20 BISHOP thirl"wall's
sion, which is held out as a compensation for so much that is
The domi- denied. The " dominion " assigned to faith may be filled
Smed^to wit^ *li^ ™ost sublime and satisfying spiritual realities.
But since for man in his present state there is no
avenue through which he can receive any certain information
concerning it. It must for him remain, as long as that state lasts,
a region unknown and unknowable. Its realities are not such to
him. To him it is either a mere void, or peopled only with
phantoms, the creatures of his Imagination, the reflex it may be
of hie earthly experience, indefinitely enlarged and beautified. It
may be the object of a deep yearning, as a better country, a future
home ; but in no other sense can it properly be called the
" dominion " of faith.
The writer's There may, however, be danger of misunderstanding
positions In the use of such figurative expressions. And it is to

more am

biguous, be regretted that the language employed by the author
in his positive statements is much less clear and precise than that
of his negative propositions. His reasoning against the possibUity
of miracles, if indeed it consists of any thing more than naked
assertions, will be more or less convincing according to the state
of mind to which it is addressed ; but it leaves no room for doubt
as to its meaning.* On the other hand, his description of the
proper province and objects of faith is so vague and ambiguous,
that it is hard to believe he can himself have formed any distinct
notion of the sense in which It is to be understood. " An aUeged
miracle can only be regarded in one of two ways : either
abstractedly, as a physical event, — and therefore to be investi
gated by reason and physical evidence, and referred to physical
causes, — or as connected with religious doctrine, regarded in a
sacred light, asserted on the authority of inspiration." In the
latter case, " it ceases to be capable of investigation by reason, or
to 0"wn its dominion. It is accepted on religious grounds, and can
appeal only to the principle and influence of faith." f "The
* As this has been questioned, and the question involves some points of great
importance, I have considered it in a note, which will be found at the end of the
Charge. t P. 142.

CHARGES. 21
miracles are merged in the doctrines with which they are connected,
and associated with the declarations of spiritual things, which are,
as such, exempt from those criticisms to which physical statements
would be necessarily amenable." * But an " alleged miracle " is
not the less a physical event because connected with religious
doctrine. It caimot on that account be less capable of investiga
tion by reason. If it is " accepted on religious grounds," it is
accepted as a physical event, and only by those who do not admit
that as such it is incredible. It is not the more exempt from the
criticisms of those who have adopted that principle, though it may
have a stronger claim on their forbearance. So long, indeed, as
we confine ourselves to abstractions, such language may not
appear to involve any contradiction or absurdity. It assumes that
there is no real, but only an imaginary connection, between the
miracle and the doctrine ; so that the doctrine may be retained,
while the miracle is rejected. But the reUgion to which the
whole argument is meant to apply, is one in which the funda
mental article of faith, according to the belief of the Church of
England, is itself a physical event, a historical fact, and, if true,
is supernatural. The fact and the doctrine are inseparably
blended together. To deny the fact is to reject the doctrine. It
is indeed possible to make away with the doctrine, and in its room
to substitute one which should not involve a departure from the
order of nature. What that doctrine should be, would indeed
have to be left to every one's private judgment. It might be
some moral truth ; it might be some phUosophical speculation.
It might be " exempt from the criticisms to which physical state
ments are amenable." But it would not be a mystery ; it would
not be a point of faith ; it would have no need to be held " sacred
from examination," and " shielded within the pale of the sanc
tuary." Making no pretension to sanctity, it would claim neither
reverence nor indulgence, but would simply assert its right as a
matter of private opinion.
A different question arises as to the miracles which were simply
manifestations of the divine character of the Founder of our
* P. 143.

22 BISHOP thirl"wall's
reUgion. They are not indeed, when considered each by itself, so
intimately connected with its fundamental truths ; there
hfe mira- is no One of them, except the Resurrection, so identified
culous. ^ ^ ^
with any article of faith, that if it had never been
wrought, or had never been recorded, it would have made any
difference in our creed. But it could only be through a strange
thoughtlessness that any one could maintain, that the Christian
faith would be no way affected, though all should be rejected as
matters of fact, and received only as " parables or myths."
When the miraculous portions of the Grospel history are expunged,
there "will remain only a meagre outUne of our Lord's life, ending
with His death. Discourses indeed, attributed to Him, wiU be
left, fuU of wisdom and holiness. But of the speaker Himself,
His character and work, it will be impossible, from sources so
utterly corrupt as, on this supposition, those to which alone we
have access, would be, to gain any distinct image. AU that would
be known of Him with any approach to certainty, would be, that
having appeared as a teacher, and gathered disciples around Him,
He had provoked the enmity of the Jewish rulers, and been put
to death. AU beyond this would be involved in obscurity, and
would only afford occasion for doubtful conjectures. When the most
origmal and trustworthy accounts of His life had been so disfigured
by fiction, no reliance could be placed on reports contained in
them, of any declarations which He had made concerning Himself.
Consequence But the loss of all Information which would enable us
which would . TT ¦ T- i»
follow the to set Him before our eyes, not as a mere abstraction,
rejection of .J ' '
the miracles, but as a real living person, would be far from the most
painful consequence which would flow from this rejection of all
that purports to be miraculous in the history of His life. For even
as fiction. It must have had some adequate cause or occasion ; and
it would be hard to believe, that such a mass of miraculous
legends should have gathered round one who had never made
any pretence to supernatural powers ; and that works which He
never attempted or professed to perform, should have been repre
sented as one main part of the business of His ministry, and as
that to which He constantly appealed as evidence of His divine

CHARGES. 23
mission.* I need not observe how dark a shade the alternative
supposition must cast even on the purity of His human character,
to which, nevertheless, those who would divest Him of aU titles
to any higher ground of reverence, are used to point, as a com
pensation for the divine attributes which they withhold from
Him.t But here I feel myself bound to observe, — and it is a point
which in the heat of controversy we are aU too apt to These infe-
overlook, — that although these inferences appear to me absolutely
antagonistic
to follow unavoidably from the author's premisses ; though *» 'l'o pos-
•, JT ' o session of
in my judgment he has entirely failed to reconcUe his *'°'=f'"*'^-
scientific theory with the elementary truths of the Christian faith ;
stiU, that which has been pointed out is no more than an infe
rence : one which the author himself has not expressly drawn, but
on the contrary has earnestly striven to avoid : one therefore
with which personally he could not be fairly charged. We may
not only fain hope, but reasonably beUeve, that many at this day
who are perplexed with Uke inteUectual difficulties, are neverthe
less enabled to hold fast the foundation of a true and living faith,
perhaps more firmly than some who have never undergone the
like trial. However unintelligible to us may be the process by
which they are enabled to combine views, which we can only
regard as radicaUy inconsistent "with one another, this is no reason
for denying its existence, as a fact of the individual's conscious
ness, which may be to him not the less satisfactory because he is
unable to explain It clearly to others, or even, it may be, dis
tinctly to understand it himself. The student of nature, who,
without surrendering one particle of physical truth, or admitting
any restriction on the freedom of scientific investigation, is yet
able to withstand the most dangerous temptation which besets
his favourite pursuits — the tendency to a mechanical philosophy,
or the resting in second causes — and who, resigning himself to
* Matt. xi. 4 foil, and 20 foil. John xiv. 11. This is of course quite independent
of the question as to the value of the element of power in the miracles.
t As even M. Renan has not beeu prevented by his admiration for his " noble
iiiitiateur," fmm reviving Woolaton'a worst outrage, aud representing our Lord as
abetting Lazarus and his family in a deliberate imposture.

r

24 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
the consciousness of his limited faculties and imperfect knowledge,
clings to the centre of his spiritual being, and finds a secure
anchorage in the love of his heavenly Father, as revealed in the
Gospel of Jesus Christ, — such a one exhibits one of the noblest
examples of Christian humiUty, vrisdom, and self-control, that in
these days it is possible to witness.
But useful as these considerations may be to guard us against
rash judgments with regard to persons, they cannot alter the plain
sense of words, or the character of propositions, or empty them of
the inferences logicaUy involved in them. Every one is at Uberty
to disown conclusions which flow unavoidably from his premisses ;
and we may often rejoice in this inconsistency, where we believe
it to be sincere ; but it can neither break the tie which knits the
premisses to the conclusion, nor prevent others from perceiving
that connexion, and so feeling themselves constrained either to
adopt or to reject both. What must become of Christianity after
its supernatural groundwork has been withdrawn from under it, I
do not now inquire. But to maintain that the fundamental
doctrines of the Church of England can survive that displacement,
is a paradox which no ingenuity can reconcile "with common sense.
objectofthe It has been said,* and, as I am quite wiUing to beUeve,
writers of ^ _ _
the Essays, with justlcc, that "the object of the writers was not to
create, but to remove difficulties in the way of the reception of the
truth as it is In Jesus ; " " to place Christianity beyond the reach
of accidents whether of science or criticism." But the exceUence
of the end could not reUeve them from aU responsibility in the
choice of means ; and the whole question is whether the means
adopted are such as can be reconciled with their relations to the
Church. No doubt, "when the supernatural origin of Christianity
is abandoned, it will be effectuaUy secured from many assaults ;
for as agauist the larger part of its adversaries there wiU remain
nothing to defend. When that point Is once conceded to them,
they in their turn wiU be Uberal enough on every other. As they
do not deny the existence of the Christian reUgion, or of a body
calling itself the Church of Christ, they will mostly be very
* By Mr. Kennard, u. s. p. 134.

CHARGES. 25
tolerant of any other mode of accounting for the historical fact.
They wiU not be averse from the theory, that it entered into the
designs of Providence, as an instrument for the education of the
world. Viewing it in that light, they may not even scruple to
speak of it as divine ; for they will admit that it has as much
right to that epithet as any other event in the history of mankind.
They wUl not begrudge the praise due to its beneficent influence
on the progress of civilisation ; and there are hardly any terms
which some of them would find too strong to express their respect
and admiration for the character, whether real or ideal, of its
Founder. Rousseau and Strauss have been eloquent on this theme.
But, on the other hand, they whose " difficulties " are to be
" removed " by this concession, will be satisfied with nothing short
of it. Of aU the other questions discussed in this volume, there is
not one in which they would feel the slightest interest, unless so
far as the way in which it is treated may seem to lead to that
conclusion. Any rejection of particular miracles, any depreciation
of the authority of Scripture, any attempt to do away with all
specific difference between Christianity and other religions, or to
reduce it to the smaUest amount, they would welcome, as a
promising indication, as a step in the right direction, as an instal
ment of the fuU truth. But they would remain parted as much
as ever by an impassable gulf from every view of Christianity
which included a supernatural element. And so it has happened
that those of the Essayists who have most startled ordinary
readers by the boldness of their language, have in some quarters
incurred the reproach of timidity, of a want of openness and
sincerity. When so much was said, and by persons in their
positions, it seemed incredible that more should not be meant.
Where there was so near an approach, it was thought that only
outward and temporary causes could have prevented a complete
concurrence. Such censure might indeed have been regarded as
a proof that those on whom it fell had observed the right mean,
but only on condition that they had taken some pains to guard
themselves against misapprehension by positive statements.
I have not thought myself precluded from bringing out the

26 BISHOP THIRL"WALL's
real character of the Essay which strikes most directly at the
Reasons for ^°°^ 0^ revealed reUgion, by the author's removal out of
the true ^ the sphere of personal controversy. He indeed has
the Essay on passed beyond the reach, not only of ecclesiastical censure,
but of literary criticism. But this is by no means the
case with his writings ; though to some it has appeared a reason
for refraining from pronouncing a decided judgment on his Essay.
It can never cease to occupy the foremost place in every general
survey of the volume. And he himself would probably have
strongly deprecated such forbearance. As a sincere lover of
truth, a clear-headed thinker, and a practised writer, he would
hardly have been thankful for an indulgence which assumes that
his writings were not able to answer for themselves.
It might, however, well have been, — all things considered it
was, perhaps, rather to have been expected than otherwise, — that
among the other contributions to the volume, there should have
been some one which might have served to counteract the impres
sion Ukely to be made by his Essay, and that this might have
induced the Editor to admit one which, if left to stand by itself,
neither refuted nor balanced by an opposite view, seemed to be
fraught with such alarming consequences. If such a corrective
was to be found, there is perhaps none of the Essays in which it
Essay on the would morc naturally have been sought than the open-
Education of •' & r
the World, ing one on the Education of the World. But the
relation in which this stands to the other is one, I wUI not say of
an opposite, but certainly of a very different kind. This Indeed
is no fault of the author, who only happened not to have provided
for a want which he could not foresee ; but it Is a fact worthy of
remark, as illustrating the general character of the volume. His
Essay stands apart from the rest, as weU in its subject as in the occa
sion which gave rise to It, having been originaUy deUvered as a
Sermon before the University of Oxford. It is in fact a Lecture on
the Philosophy of History from the Christian point of view, and
Scheme of ^i^h special reference to Christianity. It was perhaps
the writer. ^^^ altogether a happy thought to ground a theory on
the analogy,- — due it may be to Pascal, who, however, employed

CHARGES. 27
it simply to iUustrate the progress of knowledge,* — between
the development of the race and that of the individual. But the
scheme is that the period preceding the coming of Christ answers
to chUdhood, the age of law ; the " whole period from the closing
of the Old Testament to the close of the New," or that of the
Early Church, to youth, the age of example. The latest, when
ever it may have begun, is that of manhood. In its mature, still
unabated vigour ; and this it Is in which we of this day have
the happiness, a privilege indeed coupled with grave responsibiUty,
to Uve. The distinctive character of the present period is, that
the restraint of a merely outward law, and the influence of
example, have been superseded by the supremacy of the " spirit,"
which is identifled with the " conscience," and which has now
" come to fuU strength, and assumed the throne intended for him
in the soul," where he is " invested " with plenary and absolute
judicial and legislative "powers."t This scheme includes a
¦vindication or elucidation of the Divine wisdom in the arrange
ment by which the appearance of the great Example, In which
character alone our Lord is viewed, was ordained to coincide with
the world's youth. The peculiar fitness of this economy Is thus
explained : — " Had His revelation been delayed tiU now, assuredly
it would have been hard for us to recognize His Divinity : for
the faculty of faith has turned inwards, and cannot now accept
any outer manifestations of the truth of God. Our vision of the
Son of God is now aided by the eyes of the Apostles, and by that
aid we can recognize the express image of the Father." " Had
* " Pensees, Fragments et Lettrea, ed. Prosper Faugere. Preface sur le Traite
du Vide," p. 98. After having pointed out the advantage derived by each successive
generation from the accumulation of knowledge previously acquired, he proceeds :
" De sorte que toute la suite des hommes, pendant le cours de tant de siecles, doit etre
conaid^ree comme un meme homme qui subsiate toujours et qui apprend continuelle-
ment ; d'oii Ton voit avec combien d'injustice nous respectons I'antiquite daus ses
philosophes ; car comme la vieillesae est I'Sge le plus distant de I'enfance, qui ne voit
que la -vieillesae dans cet homme universel ne doit pas etre cherchSe dans les temps
proches de sa naissance, mais dans ceux qui en sont les plus eloignes ? Ceux qui nous
appelons anciens etaient veritablement nouveaux en toutes choses, et formaient
I'enfance des hommes proprement : et commes nous avons joint a leurs connoisaances
1' experience dea siecles qui lea ont suivis, c'est en nous que Ton pent trouver cette
antiquity que nous revcrons dans lea autres."
t P- 31.

28He come later, the truth of His Divine Nature would not have
been recognized."*
„. AU this was no doubt written with a view to edlfica-
His argu-
Sted^to^iJ^- tion ; ^^^ language more directly suggestive of the most
thmremove perplexing doubts, could hardly have been employed.
It is not easy to understand on what ground a man of
mature intellect can be required or expected to view an object in
the same light in which It appeared to him in his youth ; or why
he should be better satisfied, if he was reminded that youth is the
age most susceptible of Uvely Impressions. That, to his riper
judgment, might be exactly the reason why he should be no
longer governed by them. And so those who have been taught
that the age in which they live is one of Independent thought,
In which conscience is invested with supreme authority, and which
is distinguished from former periods in the history of the world,
not only by larger knowledge, but by superior clearness of view,
must find it hard to reconcile this advantage with the require
ment that they should look at a phenomenon of the past with the
eyes of its contemporaries, whose " vision " had not attained to
the same degree of keenness as their own. They must think it
strange that they should be asked to recognize our Lord's
How our Divinity, not upon any evidence directly offered to
nity'^istob^ themsclvos, but on the ground of an impression made
recognize . -^^ jj^^ example on witnesses who, through the general
imperfection of their development, were much less capable of
accurately discerning the things presented to them, and above all
of drawing correct inferences from the seen to the unseen. And
this would appear to them the more unreasonable when they
found it laid down that, whenever "conscience and the Bible
appear to differ," the inference is, not that conscience is not suffi
ciently enlightened, but that " the Bible, if rightly understood,
would be found to confirm that which It seems to contradict." t —
" Conscience is the supreme Interpreter ; " J — and its system of
interpretation is grounded on the postulate, that the true sense of
Scripture is always conformable to Its decisions. These at aU
* Pp. 24, 25. t P. 44. j p. 45.

CHARGES. 29
events are to be obeyed, and the sanction of the Bible, when not
e"vident, is to be presumed. And yet one and not the least
authentic or important part of the Bible consists of the record
left by the Apostles of that ""vision," by which they were led to
recognize their Lord's Divinitj'. But conscience would be abdi
cating its prerogative, if it accepted tbe " aid of eyes," which were
illumined with a light so much less fuU than Its own. This
would be a retrograde step, an example of that " tendency to go
back to the childhood and youth of the world," which " has
retarded the acquisition of that toleration which is the chief
phUosophical and moral lesson of modern days." This lesson has
not yet been perfectly learnt ; though " we are now men," we
have stiU to grow riper in knowledge, and steadier in practice.
We shaU not have reached absolute maturity, until we have
entirely ceased to rely on " the impulses of youth or the disci-
pUne of childhood," and submit to no government but that of our
own principles. Those whose education has been so completed,
will of course cast aside the aids which they no longer need to
sustain their weakness. They will put away the childish and youth
ful things which they will have then outgrown. These general
propositions are safe, but barren. The interesting question is.
What are the things which fall under this description ? Do they
include that belief which it Is the object of the third Essay to root
up ? On this the author is sUent, nor, under the circumstances
in which he first produced his discourse, could he have been
expected to speak. But he has reason to complain of a juxtaposi
tion, by which a question which he had innocently suggested, las
been brought into outward connection with an answer which he
would no doubt earnestly repudiate.
If of this Essay nothing more can be fairly said, than that it
opens the broadest room for an assault on the foundations of
historical Christianity, without setting up any defence against it,
this would not be enough to describe the bearing of some of the
others on the same question. A much more positive character of
impression on the same side is left by the second Essay, ^^^^y-
though it is on other accounts that it has given more general offence

30 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
than any other in the volume, and not least to those who most
revere the honoured name which it bears on its title. It purports,
indeed, to be only a sketch of the most important results of the
researches of another author, which therefore could throw no direct
light on the opinions of the re"vlewer. The difficulty of collecting
these with certainty is much increased by the writer's character
istic manner ; and might well seem almost Insurmountable to one
who was caUed upon, under judicial responsibility, to extract any
definite propositions from such a series of epigrams and enigmas.
But to any one who only desires to form a judgment on their main
drift for his own satisfaction, there can be no doubt as to their
general tendency, though it may not be quite clear to what extent
they follow it out. It Is manifest that the review is designed, not
simply as a report, but as a vindication of the views described.
There is an occasional expression of dissent, but mostly on points
in which the author, in the opinion of his critic, has erred on the
side of credulity, and so in contradiction to the spirit of his own
system. That any difference exists between them on any funda
mental principles, which was not thought worthy of the sUghtest
notice, would be hardly credible, as it would imply a want of
candour and openness, where reserve would have been alike im
proper and unnatural.
The uestion '^^® Opening remarks, at least, are entirely the
natarar Essaylst's owu, and they bear mainly on the question of
agency. supernatural agency. Even here, indeed, the ambiguity
which marks his style in the treatment of theological subjects, and
which may perhaps be traced as much to the vagueness of his
views as to the character of his mind, obUges us to be very
cautious when we undertake to interpret his language, and some
what distrustful of the result. But the passages which are most
saUent and pregnant, and which seem least likely altogether to
conceal the thought which they may faU distinctly to express, all
point unmistakably in the same general direction. It is only just
to admit that they contain no express denial of the possibUity of
miraculous interference. They merely indicate the various grounds
on which it has been questioned. It may even seem as if Its

CHARGES. 31
reality was recognized ; for it is said that there are " cases in
which we accept the miracle for the sake of the moral lesson." *
But as it is certain that in fact no one ever believed in a miracle
for the sake of a moral lesson, which indeed the miracle, as such,
could not convey ; so the context indicates the meaning to be,
that we accept the miracle for the sake of the moral lesson, only as
we accept a fruit for the sake of the kernel, in Its shell, which
we break and throw away : and this Is in perfect conformity with
the sense in which we have already heard from another of tho
authors, that " an alleged miracle is accepted on religious grounds."
The "writer is strongly impressed "with the importance of the
question ; only, according to his wont, he states it in such a
manner as to exclude the possibility of more than one answer ;
for when our choice is limited between the alternatives, " whether
God's Holy Spirit has acted through the channels which His
Providence ordained, or whether It has departed from these so
signally, that comparative mistrust of them ever after becomes a
duty," there can be no room for rational hesitation : and he
himself anticipates an approaching unanimity on this head, among
all whose minds are not either narrowed by priestcraft and for
malism, or darkened by moral corruption, t Whether the
question, thus stated, can be correctly termed a question at all,
and is not simply a form of controversial argument which begs
the real question, I need not ask. But certainly there is a far
greater question, one on which minds are at this day divided, and
on which, as we have seen, one of the contributors to this volume
has pronounced a very decided opinion ; namely, the
question whether there has ever been in the history of everbeen^
mankind any interposition of a supernatural agency, or J^\^oBi.
simply a course of events, ordained indeed by Divine
Providence, but linked together in an unbroken sequence of
purely natural causes and effects. This is indeed a great question,
one of momentous bearing on the truth of Christianity ; and it is
also a real question, not involving the only possible answer, but
one on which men may and do take opposite sides. This writer
*P. 51. fP- 52.

32 BISHOP THIRL"WALL's
not only substitutes a fictitious and misleading question for the
real issue, but passes over the single important point in a silence
which, considering the occasion for speech, we can hardly help
regarding as emphatic. It Is not he who will pronounce super
natural interference impossible ; all that he maintains is, that If
possible, it would be useless, and that the whole result of the most
mature observation on the education of the world is in favour of
the opposite alternative. Yet his language might lead an in
cautious reader to believe that he had Incidentally conceded the
whole matter In dispute ; for in a note he speaks of an " irrational
supernaturaUsm." It may seem to follow that he admits a super-
naturalism which he regards as rational. And so indeed he does ;
but no one who studies the context can fail to see what kind of
supernaturaUsm this Is.* It is simply the order of Divine Pro
vidence, which so far may be said to be above nature, though
strictly limited to natural "channels." The actings of the Holy
Ghost through these channels are supernatural, inasmuch as they
are in their origin Divine, though not at all confined to the
Christian revelation. That is a revelation, but only in the same
sense, in which every religion which contains any " elements of
good " Is a Divine, and therefore supernatural revelation also.
The Essayist, whose opinions in this volume it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish from those of the author whom he reviews,
had previously written much on kindred topics. And the con
clusion to which I was led, as to the impression Ukely to be made
by a work in which he spoke throughout in his own person, was
that " its ultimate tendency was to efface the distinction between
*M. E. Renan, in hia "Etudes d'histoire religieuse," p. 137, has a note onthe
use ofthe term surnaturel, which may help to throw light on the sense in which it is
employed by the Essayist. Having observed in the text, " 1' essence de la critique est
la negation du surnaturel," he subjoina in the note: "Une explication eat devenue
neceasaire sur ce mot, depuis que des ecrivains ont pris I'hahitude de designer par le
mot surnaturel I'element ideaUste et moral de la vie, en opposition avec I'element
materialiste et positif. Eu ce sens, on ne pourrait nier le aurnaturel sans tomber dans
un grossier senaualiame qui est aussi loin que possible de ma pensee ; car je crois au
contraireque seule la -vie intellectueUe et morale aquelque prix, et une pleine realite.
J'entends ici par surnaturel lumiracle, c'est-a-dire, un acte particulier de la Divinite,
venant s'ins&er dana la aerie des evenementa du monde physique et psycholoo-ique et
derangeant le cours des faits en vue d'un gouvemement special de I'humanite."

CHARGES. 33
natural and revealed religion." His reply to that remark was in
the form of a question, raising a doubt as "to the reality of
the distinction between Natural and Revealed, and Diatmetion
whether it does not diminish, if not vanish, upon a NataSand
view of the comprehensiveness of the Divine dealings," BeUgion.
or " upon examination of St. Paul's argument to the Romans and
Galatians." In perfect accordance with this intimation, he
observes in the Essay : " It is not a fatal objection (to what he
thinks the ' reasonable ' interpretation of St. Paul's words) to say
that St. Paul would thus teach Natural Religion, unless we were
sure that he was bound to contradict it ; " and that it would be a
great "relief to some minds, to find the antagonism between
Nature and Revelation vanishing in a wider grasp and deeper
perception of the one, or in a better balanced statement of the
other." * I need hardly observe that there never has been, or
could be, a question as to a contradiction or antagonism between
Natural and Revealed Religion — truth can never contradict truth
— and therefore the supposed objection which is brought forward
to be so refuted is purely imaginary ; but it diverts the reader's
attention from the real point at issue, which Is not, whether there
is " antagonism " between Natural and Revealed ReUgion, but
whether there is any essential distinction between them, or they
are only different names for the same thing. This question must
hinge on that of supernatural agency ; on which, as I have said,
I am quite aware that men may and do take opposite sides. But
that a clergyman of the Church of England is at liberty to
take which he will, I cannot so easily understand or so readUy
admit. The Essayist adverts to a doubt which some may feel as to his
author's claim to the name of Christian, notwithstand- pmosophy
ing the orthodoxy of his language : for he exposes °**^^^^^y-
himself, it is said, to the charge of " using Evangelical language in
a phUosophical sense." But in the critic's own opinion, the
phUosophical sense is simply the " reasonable " sense. He himself
thinks it "possible to defend our traditional theology, if stated
• P. 81.
VOL. II. D

34 reasonably." That his author was an adherent of any more
special phUosophy than that of reason or good sense, the reader
would never, by any word of his, be led to suspect. Indeed, if it
were not almost incredible, it might be supposed that he was not
aware of it himself. For when he has occasion to aUude to the
sources from which his author's speculations on the Trinity may
seem to have been drawn, he admits that they have a SabeUian or
almost a Brahmanical sound (and again, p. 90, a Brahmanlcal
rather than a Christian sound). That they have any affinity to
those of a School of much more recent date, and much nearer
home, — not of Ptolemais or Benares, but of Berlin, — he entirely
ignores. He is Indeed partly aware of one wide difference between
his author's position and his o"wn. His author was " a phUosopher
sitting loose to our Articles," in plainer words, bound by no
obligations, save that of his difiusive Christian charity, to the
Church of England : in that respect at full liberty, either abso
lutely to reject any of her doctrines, or to adopt them in any
sense or with any modification he might prefer. But how far
such liberty may be rightfully claimed, or such laxity as to the
Articles consistently exercised, by a Clergyman of the Church of
England, is certainly a different question ; one in which the
example of the illustrious foreigner can afford no guidance to persons
placed in entirely different relations. That which was possible
for him " without any paltering with his conscience," may not be
so for them. He indeed could reconcile his philosophical system
with a faith which in him yielded the richest fruits of the
Christian Ufe. But in the judgment of his critic, this was rather
an amiable wealaiess, than a model for Imitation, for, as he thinks,
"the philosopher's theology could hardly bear to be prayed."*
It was better adapted to the School, than to the Church or the
closet. The prayers of the Christian were "not brought into
entire harmony " with the " criticisms " of the phUosophical
(Hegelian) theologian. This discordance is represented as indi
cating an imperfection, not in the quaUty of the theology, but in
that of the reUgious consciousness. " It may be," it is said,
* P. 91.

CHARGES. 35
" that a discrepancy is likely to remain between our feeUngs and
our logical necessities:" but it is one "which we should con
stantly diminish ; " not of course by a vain attempt to elude a
logical necessity, but by reconciUng our feeUngs, as weU as we
may, to a theology which wUl not bear to be prayed.
The most remarkable Essay in the volume is one which might
have been entitled "a plea for National Churches jir.-wa-
established on comprehensive principles." We must aU ^™ ^ ^^^o-r-
sympathize with the writer's object, so far as it is to vindicate the
national character of our own Church, among others, againat those
who deny the lawfulness of any established Church, and we may
fuUy assent to his general position, that the Apostolical Churches,
though differing from it as to their relation to the State, were not
more exclusive in principle, and were constantly tending toward
that outward form into which they were finally brought by the
recognition which they received from the Civil Power : though
we may hesitate to adopt his opinion as to the extent to which the
Apostles tolerated both the rejection of fundamental truths, and
"viciousness of Ufe, among those who caUed themselves by the
name of Christ. It seems to rest on a doubtful interpretation of
some obscure texts, and on an assumption as to the nature of the
Apostolical discipUne, not warranted by our very scanty know
ledge of the internal condition of the primitive Churches in the
earUest stage of their history. But the question with which we
are now concerned is not one of antiquarian erudition. It is one
of the highest practical moment, which may and must be decided
on general principles ; and the Essay is chiefly occupied with a
statement — which indeed includes a discussion of a great variety
of very important though subordinate questions — of the conditions
on which a National Church, such as our own, may condition of
hope to endure and prosper. It cannot do so unless it perity of
^ . . -^ . National
realizes, if not in its absolute fulness, yet in a sufficient churches.
measure, the idea impUed in the title which it bears, unless it is,
as nearly as possible, not merely in name but in deed, the Church
of the whole nation. But this, according to the author's view, it
can never be, unless it be freed " from dogmatical tests and other
D 2

36 BISHOP THIRLM'ALL's
intellectual bondage." It was, he thinks, the unhappy, though
perhaps unavoidable mistake of Constantine, that together with
his " inauguration of multitudinlsm," (that is, of a system
including members in various stages of spiritual Ufe, and not
limited by Calvinistic terms of communion,) " by the sanction
which he gives to the decisions of NIcea," he inaugurated the
essentially Incongruous " principle of doctrinal limitation."
"Sufficiently Uberated from the traditional symbols," a National
Church Uke our own might comprehend all but Calvinistic Non
conformists (an exception indeed which would probably exclude
four-fifths of our Dissenters). It will be untrue to Its essential
character, and wiU provoke separation, " if It submits to define
Itself other"wIse than by its own nationality," or if it lays any
restraint on freedom of thought and speech among Its ministers,
from which other classes are exempt.*
Such being the general object in view, the question
tonewcoif-^ arises, how is it to be attained ; or " what is the best
1 ions. method of adjusting old things to new conditions ; " in
other words, what changes are needed in the existing state of
things ? The result of this Inquiry Is, in the author's view,
cheering and hopeful, to a degree which must startle many, who
suppose the actual obstacles greater than they are. It turns out
that they are more apparent than real, and that even now there Is
in fact next to no doctrinal limitation at all. In the first place It
is observed, that " as far as opinion privately entertained is con
cerned, the liberty of the English clergyman appears already to
Liberty of ^^ complete."t Many persons have been startled by
ergymen. ^j^^^ observation, just On account of its unquestionable
truth. For a man hardly likes to be reminded that, as a free
citizen, he is at liberty to harbour the foulest thoughts, and the
most nefarious intentions, as long as he does not let them appear
in word or deed ; and the suggestion would certainly sound hke
the most shameless Jesuitical sophistry, if an EngUsh clergyman
was really bound to any opinions, either by virtue of his office, or
by subscription, or the use of certain formularies. But the writer
* Pp. 173, 174. t p. 180.

CHARGES. 37
proceeds to show that this is not really the case ; that subscription
to the Articles may mean any thing, and therefore means nothing ;
that to allow signifies only an acquiescence, totally distinct from
approval, and consistent with the deepest abhorrence of the thing
allowed; that nothing more definite is implied in the acknowledg
ment of them " to be agreeable to the Word of God ; " partly
because acknowledge may mean simply not to gainsay, and partly
because it is impossible to fix the import of that to which the
Articles are declared to be agreeable. For " when once the freedom
of interpretation of Scripture is admitted," it wUl be "happily
found" that "the Articles make no effectual provision for an
absolute uniformity." The only question indeed wUl be, whether,
with that freedom of interpretation which is advocated and Ulus
trated in the Essay itself, they make any provision for any kind
or degree of uniformity.
But since it turns out that a clergyman of the Church of
England, if he only knew his own happiness, already enjoys
almost absolute freedom, not only of thought, but of speech,
unfettered by Bible, Articles, or Liturgy, what more can be
needed to fulfil the idea of a National Church exempt from
doctrinal limitation ? All that remains to be done is to remove
the appearance of a restraint by which some are perplexed and
deterred either from the communion or the ministry of the
Church ; and for this purpose in the first place to abolish the
bugbear of an unmeaning subscription, and let the subaonp-
. . . T . . tion to the
Articles remain as a regulative symbol, not to be Articiea.
impugned. So treated, they will, it is supposed, be at once safe
and harmless; secured from contradiction by the protecting
statute, and incapable of provoking separation, because they "wiU
have only a negative value ; a venerable relic, kept out of the
reach, both of rude desecration, and of superstitious use. The
only remaining obstacle would arise from the Liturgical Liturgical
formularies, which " present a fair and substantial repre
sentation of the Biblical records, incorporating their letter and
presupposing their historical element." " If they embodied only
an ethical result, addressed to the individual and to society, the

38 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
speculative difficulty would not arise." But unhappily they seem,
and are commonly thought, to do something more ; and hence
arises a fresh problem. But with this the author does not deal
quite so satisfactorily as with that of the Articles. He does not
propose to empty the Liturgy of doctrine, but merely points out
that it can have no more definite meaning than the Biblical
records themselves. But as it was not the real, but the apparent
stringency of subscription that calls for Its abolition, and for con
signing the Articles to an honourable seclusion, so it would seem
that the Uke appearance of a doctrinal character of the Liturgy
requires a similar treatment, and that it cannot be safe to leave it
in its present form, without any guai'antee that it shaU be
effectually explained away, so as to evacuate it of all doctrinal
substance. That which is so Uable, so Ukely, if not certain, to
create misunderstanding which may provoke separation, ought
clearly, on the author's principles, to be either entirely abolished,
or reduced to a form, in which it could not be suspected of
embodying more than ethical results.
This however leads us to observe another defect in the scheme,
which the author seems to have overlooked. Even after all doctrinal
limitation, hitherto either really or apparently presented by Bible,
Articles, and Liturgy, shaU have been cleared away, whether by
Noprovision legislative enactment or by an enlightened interpretation,
^^^ still there is the clergyman himself who may provoke
separation by his doctrine. He will indeed have been
released from aU restraints which were intended to secure what
was called the soundness of his teaching ; but no security Is sug
gested to guard society and the Church against the mischief which
he may cause if he should happen to have doctrinal opinions of
his own ; if, for Instance, he should beUeve that the Articles are
agreeable to the Word of God, in a certain definite sense, and that
the Liturgy embodies something more than ethical results.
Surely the National Church would have a right to be protected
against the danger of schism, which would arise from the indis
creet disclosure of such views. It is not enough that a clergyman
should be forbidden to impugn the Articles for the sake of those

CHARGES. 39
who assent to them. It would be equally necessary that he
should also be restrained from giving offence to those who reject
them, by preaching in accordance with his own view of their
import. The proper use of the Articles and other doctrinal for
mularies, on the author's principles, would seem to be that they
should serve as a table of subjects, from which the clergyman
should be strictly enjoined to abstain in the pulpit. This, of
course, would only affect the freedom of his public ministrations,
and he would have no right to complain ; for, " as far as opinion
privately entertained is concerned," he would stUl be at liberty to
hold what are now caUed orthodox views.
But after the obUgations of a minister of the National Church
have been thus determined on the negative side, it is still The poBitivo
functions of
necessary that some functions of a positive kind should clergymen.
be assigned to him, and he cannot be entirely divested of the
character of a teacher. It is true this description does not exhaust
aU that may be properly considered as belonging to his office.
His position may afford pecuUar opportunities for beneficent action,
which it will be a part of his duty to turn to the best account.
But still the functions of a public teacher are at least among those
which must always be most characteristic of his ministerial caUing,
and, indeed, wUl be rather likely to supersede every other. We
must therefore see how these wiU have to be performed In that
Church of the future which is foreshadowed in this Essay. If its
language is to be understood in its most obvious sense, there can
be no doubt as to the author's views on this head. It is clearly
laid do"wn * that " the ser "vice of the National Church is as pro
perly an organ of the national life as a magistracy, or a legislative
estate ; " and that " to set barriers before the entrance upon its
functions, by Umitations not absolutely required by public poUcy,
is to infringe upon the birthright of the citizens." If we wish to
know what these needless limitations are, we find that they are
the doctrinal limitations which have been before described as the
bane of all Multitudinist Churches, and at variance with their
essential character. "When the office of the Church is properly
- P. 190.

40 BISHOP THIRL"WALL'S
understood,"* It wIU be found that its objects nearly coincide
with those of the State. In fact. Church and State are only the
Nation considered under different aspects. The immediate object
of the State is the maintenance of public security and order. But
the Nation, if it is conscious of its highest objects, " wUl not con
tent itself with the rough adjustments and rude lessons of law and
poUce." The State itself vnU desire that aU its people should be
brought under a moral influence, which will supply motives of
conduct, operating toward the same end, but at once nobler,
stronger, and purer than those which only impose an outward
restraint. For the fulfilment of this desire, the nation "wUl
throw the best of its elements into another mould," and out of
them "constitute a spiritual society," to exercise that " improving
infiuence," under which the State would have " aU its people to
be brought." This society is the Church. But the purposes
both of Church and State would be defeated aUke by " errors and
mistakes In defining Church membership, and by a repulsive mode
of Church teaching." The preservative against this danger, even
if it was not distinctly pointed out, would be obvious enough from
the nature of the case. It is to confine the Church's teaching to
., . ., ^ matters in which Church and State have a common inte-
Limitation Church's i"®st. But the State can have no " concern in a system of
teachmg. relations founded on the possession of speculative truth."
And therefore this is and should be treated as alien to the object of
the Church. " Speculative doctrines should be left to philosophical
schools. A National Church must be concerned with the ethical
development of its members, and the wrong of supposing it to be
otherwise, is participated by those of the clericalty who consider the
Church to be founded, as a society, on the possession of an abstract
edly true and supernaturaUy communicated speculation conceming
God, rather than upon the manifestation of a divine life in man."
It is impossible to listen to such a reflection without asking
how far it is weU founded. And this concerns us the more
nearly, the more fully we assent to the author's general view
of the proper object of a National Church. That this is to act
' Pp. 194 foil.

CHARGES. 41
on the spiritual nature of its members, with a view to their
ethical development, we shaU all, I trust, readily admit, how
ever conscious we may be of our individual shortcomings, in
our several contributions toward the progress of the work. But
while we may be surprised to hear any one — above aU, one of our
brethren in the ministry — speak of any thing which we regard as
supernaturaUy communicated truth, as a speculation, so long as we
believe ourselves to be in possession of such truth, we could not
without both great dishonour to it, and I hope no little injustice
to ourselves, as a body, admit that absence of all real connexion
between such truth and the manifestation of a divine life in man,
as both this reproach of " the clericalty," and the whole tenor of
the author's statements, assumes. We cannot be more thoroughly
convinced of the truth itself, than we are that, if supernaturaUy
communicated at aU, it was so with a "view to that manifestation.
We may indeed have reason to reproach ourselves "with the imper
fection of our mode of teaching in this respect, however we may
question the right of any one of our number to rebuke the rest on
this score : but we are very sure that, if our best endeavours are
inadequate to the object, it is not because we are mistaken in
supposing a connexion between the truth and the life, but because
we are not ourselves sufficiently impressed, and therefore faU to
impress others, "with its reality.
It is not essential to my immediate object to inquire how far
the proposed solution of the problem, " the best method Praotica-
. . „ . . bihtyofthe
of adjusting old things to new conditions, is practicable, scheme.
We are now concerned rather with the principles on which it is
founded, than "with the measure of success which may be likely to
attend it. But yet the practical inquiry is not only interesting in
itself, but may help to throw Ught on the theory. The author
himself indeed warns us against extravagant expectations. " It is
not to be expected," he says, " that terms of communion could be
made so large as by any possibUity to comprehend in the National
Church the whole of such a free nation as our own. There wUl
always be those who from a conscientious scruple, or from a desire
to define, or from peculiarities of temper, will hold aloof from the

42 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
religion and the worship of the majority." It is not easy to
understand how either conscientious scruples or peculiarities of
temper should keep any aloof from a religion and worship, which
had been duly weeded of aU " speculative doctrines : " but " a
desire to define " would no doubt be in direct contradiction to the
whole spirit of a scheme, which aims at the utmost possible level
ling of all doctrinal barriers. It is only a little surprising, that
the author should pass so Ughtly over this obstruction, and should
appear to be so Uttle aware of the extent to which it is Ukely to
interfere with the comprehensiveness of a National Church, such
as would reaUze his idea. He considers Calvinistic opinions as
Calvinistic fundameutaUy adverse to the very notion of a Multitu-
opinions ad-
j^rsetoa dlulst or National Church. How widely such opinions
Church. prevaU among our Nonconformists, he seems hardly to
have taken into account. StiU less does he notice the great
number of persons who — however inconsistently, according to his
¦view — do in fact reconcile Calvinistic tenets with membership in
the EstabUshed Church, and with the functions of its ministry.
But those who do not hold these tenets may hold others to which
they are not less decidedly attached, and if so, "the desire to
define " will in them be very Ukely to take the shape of a strong
repugnance to terms of communion, which In their judgment are
not sufficiently definite. The one class would say : " If we
tolerate a National Church, which we admit is not quite in har
mony with our principles, it is only on condition that it teaches
sound doctrine." The others would say: "Much as we value a
National Church, we must abandon it, if it renounces its office of
teaching that which we believe to be the truth." Even in point
of numbers, those who would " hold aloof" or separate themselves
from the new National Church, just on account of its breadth and
freedom, would constitute a very formidable secession. But, what
is a stUl graver consideration, these dissenters would include
almost all the earnest reUgious feeling of the nation. The author
aUudes to the masses both of the educated and the uneducated
class, who — as appeared from the census of 1851 — neglect to
attend any means of public worship. He supposes these persons

CHARGES. 43
to be "alienated from the Christianity which is ordinarily pre
sented in our churches and chapels," solely " because
. "Why the
either their reason or their common sense is shocked masses are
alienated
by what they hear there." This is indeed a somewhat earaches
bold assumption, and it might have seemed possible ^q ^ " '^ -
assign a different cause for the absence of some at least of them from
all public worship. But if we give aU of them credit for higher
intelligence and a finer moral sense than belong to the rest of
their countrymen, we can hardly beUeve their religious cravings
to be very strong. IJnhappUy, it is a notorious fact with regard
to very many of them, that they have been aUenated from all
Christian communion, not by "conscientious scruples," nor by
" pecuUarities of temper," least of all by " the desire to define,"
but by the total absence of any kind of religious belief which
could express itself in worship. They are practical, if not specu
lative, atheists, not acknowledging a God in the world, and Uving
as if there was none. Beside those who have reached this
extreme, there are, it is to be feared, many, both educated and
uneducated, who are not less opposed to every form of revealed
religion. It may seem that this is the class most likely to be won to a
National Church in which they would not be offended by any
speculative doctrines, and the only business of the minister would
be to promote their ethical development. The author deals in
some detaU with the case of persons, who hold aloof from the
Church of England, because they are unable to reconcile its real
or supposed dogmatism with the advanced state of their scientific
or literary knowledge. For their benefit, or that of his brethren
who may be caUed upon to recover them to the Church, he
expounds the principle of " ideology." Even though for some
time to come the formularies of the Church should con- .,, ,
Ideology
tinue to " present a fair and substantial representation ^^v°^^^^
of the BibUcal records," their effect may be neutraUzed by the
application of this principle. As the ancient phUosophers could
extract metaphysical or moral truth from the fables of the heathen
mythology, without either pledging themselves, or requiring the

44 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
assent of their hearers, to a single point of the mythical narrative
as matter of fact, the like treatment may be applied to the
BibUcal records ; and, however they may be emptied of the
historical element. Its place wiU be abundantly supplied by the
" ideas " which they will not cease to " awaken." The author
thinks, indeed, that this method of interpretation has been
" carried to excess" by Strauss,* whom he represents with some
exaggeration as "resolving into an ideal the whole of the historical
and doctrinal person of Jesus." But not only has he omitted to
draw any line which might have precluded this excess, but he
seems not to be aware that on Strauss' s principle no such line can
be drawn, and that Strauss has only foUowed out his principle
to its legitimate conclusion. The fundamental assumption, the
groundwork of the whole system, is the absolute rejection of
supernatural interference. When that principle is once laid do"wn,
there can be no exception or selection among miraculous narra
tives. AU must pass out of the domain of history into that of
fiction. When, therefore, the author says that " liberty must be
left to all as to the extent in which they apply the principle,"
this does not correctly express the state of the case. On the one
hand there Is, instead of liberty, a logical necessity, by which the
application must be carried to the denial of every supernatural fact
of revealed religion. On the other hand it may be thought that
the Church, when she teaches truths involving such facts, does fix
certain " Umits," beyond which such " Uberty " cannot be
" exercised," whether " reasonably " or not, consistently with the
confession of her fundamental doctrines. But, at all events,
nothing short of the extent which the principle requires wiU
satisfy the scientific and literary sceptics, whose views are repre
sented in the third Essay, and whom the author of the fourth
wishes to conciUate by the substitution of the ideal for the real
" in the scriptural person of Jesus."
It only remains to consider what will be gained when this has
been done, and what is the prospect of winning the irreligious class
for whose sake we are to run so great a risk of losing all who
? r. 200.

CHARGES. 45
sincerely profess the faith of Christ. They wiU not be offended
by the announcement of any " supernaturaUy communi- _
*' J r J Prospect of
cated truth." In the teaching of the National Church, S^S^f^'i'"
when its office is properly understood, theology wIU
make way for " ethical results." It is assumed — with what
seems to me a strange neglect of patent facts — that as to ethical
results no speculative difficulty would arise ; as if a perfect
unanimity prevailed among the professors of moral philosophy, or
their various systems all led to the same practical results. But
since the National Church Is still to be, in name at least, a
Christian Church, its ministers wiU probably teach Christian
ethics. But can they, indeed, reckon on a general acceptance of
this system among those who reject the supernatural origin of
Christianity ? Will it not be necessary that they should allow
equal latitude in ethical as in theological speculation ? If not, on
what ground can they claim a hearing from those who take an
entirely different view of the nature of happiness, of the obliga
tions of duty, of the value and purpose of Ufe ? If they preach
active, self-denying charity and heavenly-mindedness to men
whose maxim — the common, if not inevitable result of a mate
rialistic philosophy — is, " Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we
die," what authority can they plead for their message ? In what
character are they to present themselves, that can give any weight
to their exhortations ? They may indeed say, " We do not pre
tend to guide your speculative opinions. You are at perfect
liberty to think as you wiU as to the origin and the doctrines of
Christianity. We do not even absolutely require you to admit
the historical existence of its Founder." And so far they may
find willing listeners. But if they proceed to say, " All we ask
is, that you should adopt the moral principles which Christ is
supposed to have taught, and should regulate your conduct in
conformity to them," — the answer which they would have reason
to expect would be, " We think ourselves the best judges of that
which concerns our manner of Ufe ; and it is quite consistent with
the religious opinions which you allow us to retain. We can
understand those who, themselves believing in the divine authority

46 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
of Jesus, come to us in His name. Though we cannot share their
faith, we respect their sincerity and earnestness ; we admit that
they are acting In accordance with their own professions. But
we do not know what right you have to call upon us to regulate
our lives by your opinions, rather than by our own inclinations."
And if such minds are prevented by unbelief from receiving moral
instruction. It can hardly be expected that they should be brought
to join in public worship, for which some common basis of beUef
Attit d f ^® ^^^^ more requisite.* The more highly educated may,
MgUy"^ indeed, be able to apply the ideological principle, so as to
e ucafs . reduce the formularies, which appear to involve dogmas
which they reject, to a mere embodiment of ethical results. But
they might justly complain of being required to go through such
a process, for the sake of a result which they might attain as well
without it. They may think that the parables and myths, which
might once have been useful vehicles of truth, are no longer
suited to that maturity of intellect and conscience, which dis
tinguishes the present period in the education of the world. They
may say, "For theologians these exegetical feats maybe a pleasant
exercise ; for us they are neither needful nor profitable ; and we
cannot repress a misgiving that this tampering with the natural
meaning of words is something worse than laborious trifling. It
seems to us hard to reconcile with perfect openness and truthful
ness ; and we cannot help fearing that, however it may sharpen
the InteUect, it is not likely to produce a wholesome effect on the
ethical development of those who practise it."
The drift of the whole scheme is to bring the Church do"wn to
* M. Jules Simon, in the concluding part of his work, "La Religion Naturelle,"
diacuases the question : " Si Ton peut et ai I'ou doit se meler aux exercices d'un
culte positif, quand on n'a pas d' autre croyanoe que la religion naturelle ?" He
feels a difficulty (un embarraa) which he states thus : " D'un cote, la religion natu
relle nous enaeigne I'utilite et la necessite d'un culte ext^rieur; de 1' autre, il est
evident qu'elle nous laiaae bien peu de moyens de rendre temoignage de notre foi,
et qu'elle nous met dans une impossiUlite presque absolut de nous associer pour prier."
Nevertheless, he answers the question, though with evident reluctance, in the
negative. This is very noteworthy, because his system of natural religion is reaUy
nothing more or less than a philosophical abstraction from the positive doctrines of
Christianity, and appears to correspond as cloaely as possible to that which would
be left in the National Church, when freed, according to Mr. Wilson's scheme,
from "doctrinal limitations."

CHARGES. 47
the reUgious level of those who hold least of Christian doctrine ;
or — as this class is assumed to include the most en- Driitoftha
Ughtened minds in the nation — to lift the Church up '"''"""¦
to their intellectual level. And, unless the clergy are to lose aU
influence over this class, this is the level on which they must take
their stand. The opponents of National Churches, who object to
them on reUgious grounds, would think their cause gained, when
it is admitted that a National Church can subsist only on such
conditions. But the graver question is, how far such a society
has any right to the name of a Church. It is not generaUy
understood that this name would be properly appUed to an
association formed for the purpose of mutual "improvement,"
among persons of the most discordant views on aU religious
matters, even if it was possible that such persons might be
unanimous as to the nature of the " improvement " which is the
common object. A Church, without any basis of a common faith,
is not only an experiment new in practice and of doubtful success,
but an idea new in theory, and not easy to conceive. And when
we remember the quarter from which this proposal comes, it may
well seem hardly credible that it can have been designed "with so
great a latitude. I have had this difficulty fully in "view through
out my examination of this Essay ; but, after not only the most
attentive observation but the most careful search in my power, I
have been unable to discover so much as a hint to qualify the
apparently indefinite terms of the proposal. We have seen that
no such limitation is implied in the admission, that there will
after aU remain some who cannot be gathered into the bosom of
the National Church. For they wUl be excluded mainly, not by
the nuUity or vagueness, but by the definiteness of their beUef .
And then it must be owned that there is some force in the remark,
— WTien a clergyman puts forth opinions, which he is aware must
startle and offend great numbers both of the clerical and lay
members of his own communion, it may be expected that, as well
for their sake as his own, he will not express himself in language
stronger or broader than is required for the full exposition of his
views ; that charity, no less than prudence, will lead him care-

48 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
fully to guard his statements from the risk of being misunderstood
in a sense which would be commonly thought inconsistent with
his profession. Otherwise he must be prepared to find that he is
generaUy suspected of meaning, not less but rather more than he
says ; and that the ambiguity, which in a layman might be
attributed to indistinctness of ideas, will in him be imputed to a
calculated reserve.
The relation '^^is Essay Is the practical complement of that which,
toth^^one^'m ^y the absolutc rejection of all supernatural interposi-
"^ ''^^ tion, subverts the historical basis of Christianity. The
one prepares us for a loss which it represents as ine-vitable, the
other offers the compensation of an ideal to be substituted for the
historical reality. That It retains any thing which would be
inconsistent with the principle by which all that, in our tradi
tional belief, is derived from such interposition, is referred to the
evolution of merely natural causes, is nowhere intimated by a
single word, and is a supposition at variance with the whole tenor
of the Essay. It begins and ends with a speculation on the future
state. The mystery of God's dealings with that large part of
mankind which has not yet received the Gospel, is represented as
one chief cause of modern scepticism ; and it must have surprised
some readers to hear, that it is only through an enlargement of
geographical knowledge which has taken place " since our own
boyhood," that we have become aware of the existence of populous
empires in the far East, pagan, or even atheistic, which flourished
Scepticism many ages before the Christian era. Within the sphere
attributed to /..-i iji • ....
recent geo- 01 tue author s observation, it is this recent discovery
graphical ^ ^ -^
discoveries, -^vrblch has given the chief impulse to the sceptical move
ments of our generation ; and, at aU events he himself uses it to
show that, " "without a denial of the broad and equal justice of the
Supreme Being," we cannot hold that " to know and believe in
Jesus Christ is in any sense necessary to salvation," though such
knowledge and beUef may confer an advantage on its possessors,
involving an "unequal distribution of the divine benefits," of
which "no account can be given." The solution of the difficulty
is found in the uselessness of creeds ; and the Essay, as we have

CHARGES. 49
seen, is chiefly occupied with the exposure of their worthlessness
and noxiousness, and with practical suggestions for getting rid of
them. It turns out, indeed, that even within the pale of Chris
tianity the like difficulty arises as "with regard to the unconverted
heathen, and that we cannot be content "with believing that the
Judge of all the earth will do right, unless we determine —
whether In contradiction or not to our Lord's words — what It Is
right for Him to do. I am here only concerned to point out how
perfectly aU this agrees with that appreciation of the author's
views, to which I have been led from every other point in the
Essay. It seems needless for my present purpose to enter into any
farther details on the contents of this volume. Of the three
remaining Essays one is the work of a layman, and therefore,
even if it had been distinguished from the rest by the boldness of
its speculations, it would not have been Uable to the censure
which they have incurred. It might. Indeed, have helped to
mark more distinctly the character of the miscellany. But in
fact it does not even so much as this. The author has used his
privilege with great moderation. If he had been a clergyman,
he would have had the same right to criticize the speculations
of other authors, on what he caUs the Mosaic Cosmogony ;
and the conclusion to which he is led does not differ Essay on the
Mosaic
essentially from one which has been since proposed by cosmogony.
a clergyman of unimpeached orthodoxy.* Still less would any
one question the right of a clergyman to take a survey of the
"tendencies of religious thought in England" in the last century,
or, as the writer of the Essay on this subject likewise describes
his work, of the Theory of BeUef in the Church of Essayonthe
England. It may be his own misfortune, as weU as the BeMefinthe
° •' . Church of
reader's, that his researches should have led him to no England.
more positive result than a suggestion, that it is very difficult to
" make out on what basis Revelation is supposed, by the religious
literature ofthe present day, to rest," while the general tendency
of the investigation is to raise a doubt whether any of those on
* " Replies to Essays and Reviews. The Creative Week,"
VOI. TT

50 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
which it has been supposed to rest is sufficiently firm ; and any
one who should look for a hint to supply the defect would be
utterly disappointed. This indeed is quite in accordance with
the principles laid down in the pre"vious Essays, but is not suffi
cient to charge the author with the responsibility of maintaining
them. The same remark wiU apply to the last Essay in the volume. The
Essa onth ^'^^^^j^^^ ^^ which It treats, " the Interpretation of Scrip-
tfon rf'^*^' ture," is indeed of vast range, and in itself of aU but the
°"^ ¦ very highest importance : but, by the side of those which
are discussed in other parts of the volume, it sinks into compara
tive insignificance. There may be, and are, "wide differences of
opinion as to the inspiration of Scripture, among those who believe
in a supernatural revelation : but for those who reject the possi
bility of such a revelation, an inquiry as to the nature of inspiration
can have neither interest nor meaning. The view of the question
taken in the Essay may be that which those who reject super
natural revelation are forced to take : but it does not foUow that
the author is by his theory of inspiration at all committed to their
denial of revelation. I have the less occasion to enter into this
question, as I could add nothing to what I stated in a former
Charge, as to its ecclesiastical aspect, and I have seen no reason to
alter any opinion which I there expressed on the subject. We
may well beUeve that the truth Ues somewhere between the
position of those who either altogether reject the existence of a
human element in the Bible, or seek to reduce it to a minimum,
and that of those who deal in the same way with the divine
element. Whether indeed it is possible to draw a line between
these extremes. In which the truth may be found, will depend on
the farther question, whether the two elements are not so inex
tricably blended together as to forbid the attempt. But so much
is certain, that there is no visible organ of our Church competent
to define that which hitherto has been left undetermined on this
point. I cannot profess to desire that such an organ should be
caUed into action for such a purpose, or that a new article should
be framed to bind the opinions of the Clergy on this subject, even

CHARGES. 51
if it should only serve — as we have seen proposed with regard to
the rest — to mark a Umit which must be kept sacred from direct
impugnment. But I earnestly deprecate aU attempts to effect the
same object by means of any authority, legislative or judicial, short
ofthat which would be universaUy recognized as rightfuUy supreme,
because fully representing the mind and will of the whole Church.
Looking at the volume as a whole, I do not understand how
any one reading it with common attention can fail to observe,
notwithstanding the variety of topics and of treatment, that all is
the product of one school. I am not aware, indeed, that this has
ever been disputed, and it would probably be admitted with com
placency by aU the contributors. The only question is
as to the character of the school to which it belongs ; ^^^"'^ *''*
and that this, so far as it may be inferred from the '^'°°'''-
work, is mainly negative, is acknowledged by its warmest and
ablest apologist.* All that can seem doubtful is, how far the
negation extends ; whether that which is rejected is any thing
essential to the Christian faith, or only some things which have
been erroneously deemed such, but are reaUy no more than
excrescences, once perhaps harmless, but now burdensome and
hurtful. Such, no doubt, is the light in which it is -viewed by
the authors themselves. I have already stated the grounds on
which I have been led to a very different conclusion ; that the
negation does reach to the very essence and foundation of
Christian faith ; that after the principles laid down in this work
have been carried to their logical result, that which is left wiU be
something to which the name of Christianity cannot be appUed
without a straining and abuse of language. It wiU be no longer
a religion, and will not yet have become a philosophy. No longer
a religion, because it wiU contain nothing which is not supposed
to have been originally derived from the processes of unassisted
human reason. Not yet a philosophy, because it wUl retain
many traditional elements, and will still appeal to authority in
matters on which reason claims a supremacy, which, at the
present stage of the education of the world, can no longer be
* Edinburgh Review, p. 472.
TT 9,

52 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
questioned. It will have no right to exist, and will only be
enabled to drag on a precarious, feeble, and barren existence by
the force of custom and other external aids. How long it may
so linger It is Impossible to say ; but Its final doom, as that of all
that belongs to a mere state of transition, wiU have been irrevoc
ably fixed by the nature of things.
„,. , ^ The character of a Church must depend on the view
The relation ¦*¦
chun;h to "whlch It takes of its Founder. But the very name of a
oun er. Qj^^rch, In its received acceptation, impUes that it
regards its Founder as distinguished from the rest of mankind in
some pecuUar way, by His connexion "with the Deity ; as having
in some special sense come forth from God. Otherwise there
would be no distinction between a Church and a School of philo
sophy. No amount of admiration and reverence which the
disciples of a phUosophical school may feel for their Master, not
even If exhibited in periodical commemorative meetings, could
entitle it to the name of a Church, so long as they acknowledge
him to have been nothing more than an extraordinary man. This
being distinctly understood, the case would not be altered, though
In the fervour of their affectionate veneration they should some
times style him divine. It might well be that in the National
Church of the future foreshadowed in this volume, Jesus might
continue to receive Uke homage from those who reject the pos-
siblUty of a supernatural revelation, or admit it only in a sense in
which the term would be equally appUcable to any doctrine taught
in a philosophical school. His human person might be invested with
Ideal attributes, independent of Its historical reality, but equaUy
suited to the purpose of an example ; if indeed a mode of influence
which was adapted to the nonage of the world, was any longer
needed or useful in the present period of its education. But that
which, in such a system. He cannot be, is a Teacher of superhuman
authority. His sayings may retain their value, so far as they
commend themselves to the reason and conscience of the readers ;
but that they are His, cannot exempt them from contradiction, or
give them any decisive weight In controversy. Least of aU could
He be an object of personal faith. A man of strong though coarse

CHARGES. 53
and narrow mind, an avowed unbeliever, whose only pretence to
the name of Christian, which it was convenient to him not to
renounce, was, as his biographer states, an impertinent assent to
some of Christ's moral precepts,* writing to one who sought his
guidance in his religious inquiries, said, " If you find reason to
beUeve that Jesus was a God, you wiU be comforted with the
beUef of His aid and His love." t Such comfort of course can
never be enjoyed by those who reject the possibility of super
natural revelation. Nor can they consistently join In the worship
of one who differs from themselves only as a rare sample of their
common nature. The language in which He is addressed by our
Church would be rank idolatry. In a word their Christology is
one which, to borrow a significant phrase of one of our authors,
will not hear to be prayed.
But though I cannot but regard this book as the production of
a school to which all the contributors belong, I would not .^^^ ^^^ ^^
be understood to mean that aU of them have followed out J^ed^r
its principles to that degree of development which is cipiesof"
disclosed in two or three of the Essays. I have endea
voured to mark as clearly as I could the position in which each
appears to me to stand with regard to it. Most of them probably
woidd recoil from this extreme as utterly repugnant to their
feelings and convictions. It is possible that hardly one of them
has placed it distinctly before his mind, even while making state
ments which involve it by the most direct and necessary impUca-
tion. These, however, are merely personal considerations, with
which I am not concerned, and to which I advert only to guard
against misunderstanding. The unity of the general tendency is,
I think, too manifest to be fairly denied ; and in two, at least, of
the Essays this tendency has been carried very near indeed to its
* Thomas Jefferson : par Cornelis de Witt, p. 347. " Son pretendu Christianisme
n'allait pas au dela d'une adhesion impertineute a quelquea-uns des preceptea
moraux du Christ." At p. 4 he quotes from Jefferson's Works a passage which
illustrates the looseness of this adhesion : " It is not to be underatood that I am
with Him (Christ) in all Hia doctrines. I am a Materialist ; He takes the side of
spiritualism." t Jefferson's Memoirs and Correspondence, by Thomas Jefferaon Randolph.
Tol. ii. p. 217. Letter to Peter Carr.

54 BISHOP THIRLWALL S
ultimate point both in theory and practice. The theory is perfectly
inteUigible in itseU", and only not familiar to us in the quarter from
which it has been recently announced. But its practical appUca
tion, in the proposed "adjustment of old things to new conditions,"
is not oidy startling from its novelty, but one of which happily It
is not easy for us at present to form a clear conception. This,
however, does not prevent it from being highly worthy of our
most serious attention. And we may be in some danger of under
valuing its significance.
The ideal The ideal sketched in this volume of a National Church,
National ... ¦.
Church. without a theology, without a confession, without a creed,
¦with no other basis of united worship than a system of universal
equivocation, has probably struck many with surprise at its
extravagance. The scheme by which it is to be reaUzed seems to
exhibit an incongruity, almost amounting to direct opposition,
between the means and the end. It aims at the cementing of
reUgious unity, by a process apparently tending to the most
complete disintegration of all religious communion. It proposes
to attract larger congregations to our ser-vices, by extinguishing as
much as possible the devotional element in them, and turning our
churches into lecture-rooms, for the inculcation of ethical common
place, as to which there is supposed to be no room for any
difference of opinion in the audience. To many it must be a
satisfaction to feel sure that if, in some paroxysm of pubUc deUrlum,
such a thing was to be set up imder the name of a National Church,
it would, even without any outward shock, through its intrinsic
incoherence, very speedUy crumble into dust. And so it may be
thought almost a waste of time to dweU upon it. But whatever
may be the merits of the scheme, here is the fact, that it has been
put forth by a clergyman of no mean abiUty and of considerable
Academical reputation. And then, though among ourselves it is
stUl only in the state of a crude project, it is not a mere dream.
It has been reaUzed elsewhere. There are Protestant Churches on
the Continent, in which the preachers are not prevented by their
open rejection of the supernatural basis of Christianity, from
solemnizing the Christian festivals by discourses, in which the

CHARGES. 55
ideaUzing principle fills the place of the historical reality.* It
would, perhaps, be not impossible that a briUiant eloquence might
render such rhetorical exercises attractive to some hearers among
ourselves. For a time, at least, the contrast between the tradi
tional occasion and the views of the preacher might give a certain
zest to the entertainment ; though few can imagine that, on the
whole and in the long run, such a substitute for the Gospel of
Christ would be found to satisfy either the educated or the
uneducated classes in this country ; stiU less that it could ever
exert any beneficial influence on their minds and hearts. But we
are not yet generally prepared to entertain such a question. Most
of us think it rather too much, that such a scheme should have
appeared in print under a respectable name. Any proceeding
which looked like the beginning of a movement for carrying it
into effect, would be regarded by the great body of EngUsh
Churchmen "with suspicion and alarm.
I am therefore not surprised that a proposed amendment of the
Act of Uniformity which, though I believe framed with proposed
T rn • "11 -11 f> amendment
a very different view, might be considered as a first of the Act
step in this direction, was rejected last session in the fonnity.
House of Lords by a great majority. I am not aware that any
argument was adduced in behalf of the declaration which it sought
to aboUsh, considered in itself. Those who wished to preserve it,
did not profess that it was one which they would have adopted, if
it had been then for the first time submitted to deUberation.
• " Predigten aus der Gegenwart." Von D. Carl Schwarz. It is however due
to the author to obaerve, that the anti-supematuralistic views, which are so
distinctly avowed in the Preface, are so little obtruded on the hearer in the sermons
themselves, that several of them might easily he mistaken for an expression of the
ordinary Christian belief. In an excellent Essay by Dr. J. J. Prins of Leiden, on
" The Reality of Our Lord's Resurrection from the Dead," I find the interesting
statement (p. 3), that in the General Synod of the Reformed Church of the
Netherlands in I860, the question was raised, " whether a candidate who denies the
resurrection of Jesus Christ as a historical fact, is admissible into the ministry."
To thia question no answer was given by the Synod as a body ; but those of its
members who were charged with the consideration of the question did not hesitate
to declare, each for himself, " that they should not deem themselves competent or
able (dat zij zich nict bevoegd noch in staat zonden achten) to exercise the ministry
of the Gospel iu the Reformed Church if they did not believe with all their heart,
that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day."

56 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Probably every one felt that it was indefensible on its own merits.
It was too notoriously a characteristic monument of evil days, on
which Churchmen can look back only with sorrow ; the offspring
of a vindictive spirit, which so far overshot its mark, as to ensure
the defeat of Its own object. For, interpreted UteraUy, it would
bind every one who makes It to the opinion that the Prayer Book
is, what no uninspired composition can be, absolutely faultless ;
and in the construction of such a document, the passions of those
who framed It, however notorious, caimot be allowed to determine
its meaning, which, as the mind of the Legislature, must be sup
posed to be reasonable and just, at least not to involve any thing
manifestly absurd and impracticable. And therefore, though I
should be glad to see it abolished, I believe that the mischief it
has caused, apart from the discredit it has cast on the Church,
has been greatly exaggerated. But, viewed in the light reflected
on it by the proposal we have been considering, it not unnaturally
lost its true colours, and instead of an odious display of sectarian
animosity, and a dark blot on our ecclesiastical legislation, pre
sented the aspect of a precious safeguard against a danger which
threatens the life of the Church. I can fuUy understand this
illusion, though I should be loth to share it. For I can never
beUeve in a necessary connexion between that which is bad and
wrong in itself, and any thing reaUy valuable or sacred, however
long they may have stood side by side. The parasitical bygrowth
does not really support, but, on the contrary, compresses and
weakens the stem to which it clings. In the present case — as was
observed in the debate — there is the less need to retain an inde
fensible form, as its place might be suppUed by another, which
would answer every useful purpose, while free from all reasonable
objection. The faUure of this attempt may serve as a sample of the dif
ficulty which may be expected to attend the Introduction of any
larger measure of a Uke nature. Those indeed who are most fuUy
convinced of the importance and necessity of subscription as a
condition of office in the Church, might, notwithstanding, if not
on that very account, most earnestly desire the abolition of a

CHARGES. 57
particular form which seems to them useless and mischievous.
And therefore the proposal which has been recently ^
¦*¦¦'¦ *' Proposal to
made, * to remedy the evils which are supposed to arise e™8 of the
from the present state of subscription, by doing away mole'ofsub-
with aU subscription to the Articles and Prayer Book,
and substituting a general declaration and promise of approbation
and conformity, with regard to doctrine, worship, and government,
or discipline of the Church of England, — is not merely one of much
broader scope, but of an essentially different kind, resting upon
altogether distinct grounds. But if it was to be presented for
legislative action, it would most probably have to encounter a stUl
more determined and general opposition. This however is no
reason why it should not be carefuUy weighed and calmly dis
cussed ; though even this is rendered difficult by its apparent
affinity to the suggestions ofthe writer whose views on this subject
I have set before you. It must, I think, be admitted that sub
scription to formularies, if it does not answer the purpose for which
it is exacted, is likely to be worse than useless. It is in that case
an unjustifiable restriction of personal freedom, which cannot faU
to be attended with pernicious consequences. It may be discovered
that it never did answer Its purpose, or that it does so no longer.
In either case, when the fact is well ascertained, the requirement
ought to cease. Perhaps it may be added, that, in a country
where institutions of every kind are open to unUmited freedom of
discussion, it "wiU inevitably do so sooner or later. The argument
which has been urged in behaU of the declaration which many
wish to see expunged from the Statute Book, that, although it
would have been better if it had never been imposed, yet, ha-ving
once been enacted, it must be retained, because its aboUtion might
be misconstrued into a legislative sanction of unconscientious con
formity, is one which at the utmost can only have weight so far
as to suggest some easy precaution against such misapprehension.
But, on the other hand, the right and fitness of caUing upon those
* " A Letter to the Lord Bishop of London on the State of Subscription in the
Church of England, and in the University of Oxford." By Arthur Penrhyn
Stanley, D.D.

58 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
who are to minister in the Church, to express in some form or
other their assent to the doctrine which is to be the matter of their
teaching, can hardly be denied ; and even the largest measure of
relaxation which has yet been proposed, does not dispense with the
obUgation altogether, but only imposes it in a more simple or less
definite form. This very much narrows the question,, but not I
think in favour of the proposed innovation. At present I do not
beUeve that we are sufficiently in possession of the most material
Is the exist- facts of the case. It seems to me open to great doubt,
subscription whether the existing state of subscription is fairly
efacacious ! chargeable with the e-vils which have been imputed to it,
and whether its alleged " inefficacy " has been clearly proved.
As to the first of these points I wiU only remark that it must
always be extremely difficult, without an intimate acquaintance
with the persons concerned, to ascertain whether those who are
said to have been repelled from Holy Orders by the terms of sub
scription, would have been able to undertake or to retain the
ministerial office, if no subscription had been required. And with
regard to the second point, it must be observed that although sub
scription has faUed, and must always fail to secure complete
unanimity in all particulars, it does not follow that it has been
inefficacious toward maintaining a general substantial agreement
in matters of doctrine among the clergy. It also deserves to be
considered whether that which it has been proposed to substitute
for the present form of subscription is not liable to the same
objection. It is assumed that persons, who would scruple to sub
scribe or declare their assent to the Articles and Prayer Book,
would be wiUing to declare their approbation of the doctrine of the
Church. But surely this can only be if they forget to inquire
where that doctrine Is to be found. Unless they are satisfied that
it is not either in the Articles or the Prayer Book, the omission
of these names from the form of subscription wUl afford no relief
to their scruples, as they would impUcitly bind themselves to the
Practice of contcnts of those formularies just as much as if they were
Noncon- i j • i -r» /.
formists. exprcssly designated. Reference has been made, as to
an example in point, to some Nonconformist bodies in which,

CHARGES. 59
though no subscription is required, there is said to be " a marked
unformity of opinion on all important points, though with some
diversity in minor matters." No doubt, a congregation which can
any moment at its pleasure dissolve its connexion with its minister,
can care Uttle about his previous professions of orthodoxy ; as all
know that his teaching wUl be sure to conform to their opinions,
not only "on all important points," but even in " minor matters"
which happen to interest them. I hardly need observe how
inappUcable this is to the case of a clergyman who has no motive,
but either a sense of duty, or a wish to avoid giving offence, for
adapting his teaching to the sentiments of his hearers. To them,
in proportion to the soundness of their own churchmanship, it
must be a matter of no little interest to know that their pastor
acknowledges a rule of faith in accordance with their own belief.
If we were to look abroad to the condition of the Churches in
which subscription has been either aboUshed, or retained in a
merely nugatory form, which leaves a boundless latitude of opinion
to the subscriber, we shaU not, I beUeve, if we set any value on
Christianity, be much tempted to imitate their example. If there
are some from which we might gain a lesson, there are far more
which can only serve as a warning. It is true, where the licence
has been carried to the utmost excess, the relaxation of subscription
has been not so much the cause as the sign or the effect. But the
farther we are actually removed from such a state of things, the
more loth should we be either to hasten its approach, or to anti
cipate any of its results.
I am aware that I have already trenched on the ordinary
Umits of a Charge ; and yet I have not touched on p^,,^^^^^^
the subject which has occupied the attention of the Bj^opof
Church during the last twelve months more than any ^^'
other : the pubUcations of the Bishop of Natal. In the absence
of any special motive for addressing you earUer on this subject, I
thought it best to wait for the present opportunity ; and I now
gladly avail myself of it to state the reasons which, on more than
one occasion, prevented me from concurring in the course which
the greater part of my Right Reverend brethren thought fit to

60 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
adopt in this matter. On one of these occasions, the ground of
difference was a question, not of principle, but of personal feeling,
which may therefore be dismissed In a very few words. It was
thought that, In the first Part of his work, the author had made
admissions, showing that he was conscious of an inconsistency
between his avowed opinions, and his office in the Church, which
warranted an appeal to his sense of duty, as requiring him to
resign his functions. I was myself under the same Impression as
to the meaning of his language. But just on this account I could
not reconcile it with my sense of fitness to join in a remonstrance,
which seemed to imply, that the person to whom it was addressed
was deficient either in intelligence or in moral feeling, and which
otherwise must, as it appeared to me, be either superfluous or
unavaUIng. AU the facts of the case were before him, more fuUy
indeed than they could be before any one else. It was also evident
that the practical question arising out of them was distinctly
present to his mind, and had occupied his most serious attention.
Under such circumstances, I thought that the decision might be
more properly left entirely to himself. It turned out, however,
that the ground on which the appeal was made, was an erroneous
interpretation of his words. He does not admit the aUeged incon
sistency, but regards his position as both legaUy and morally
tenable. I cannot reconcUe this with his previous language : but
as to the fact, that Is, the view he takes of his own case, there can
be no farther dispute. Whether that view is the right one, is of
course a totally different question, but one which no private judg
ment is competent to determine. And although the legal aspect
of the case is distinct from its moral aspect, there is so close a
connexion between them, that the legal right, i£ ascertained,
would involve a moral right. Only that right might or might
not be exercised rightly. And in this respect, whUe I cannot but
lament the tone of bitterness In which some have expressed their
disapprobation of the author, if on no other account, because I
believe it can only tend to strengthen his influence among a large
class of readers, I must say that, after every aUowance for the
pecuUar circumstances of the case, and with all the respect due to

CHARGES. 61
his sincerity and earnestness, he appears to me to have laid him
self open to just censure.
It is true the Church of England not only permits but enjoins
her ministers to search the Scriptures. It is not merely Ereeinqmry
... . . in the study
their right, but a duty, to which each of them is bound by of scripture.
his Ordination vows. The purpose indeed for which they are
exhorted to the assiduous cultivation of this study, Is entirely
practical. It is partly their own growth in godUness, and partly
the enlargement of their capacity for the discharge of their
pastoral duties ; " that by daUy reading and weighing of the
Scriptures, they may wax riper and stronger in their ministry."
A searching of the Scriptures, undertaken with any other ultimate
aim, would be one of those " worldly cares and studies," which
they are charged "as much as they may, to forsake and set aside."
But, apart from the general spirit of this admonition, the Church
has not attempted to fence the study of Scripture, either for
Clergy or laity, -with any restrictions as to the subjects of inquiry,
but has rather taught them to consider every kind of information
which throws light on any part of the Sacred volume, as precious,
either for present or possible use. It was therefore in perfect
harmony with the mind of the Church, that the Committee of the
Lower House of Convocation appointed to examine the Bishop of
Natal's book, " desired not to be understood as expressing any
opinion opposed to the free exercise of patient thought and reve
rent inquiry in the study of the Word of God." But If the
inquiry is to be free, it is impossible consistently to prescribe its
results : especiaUy -with regard to matters which in themselves
have no more immediate connexion with Christian doctrine, than
any contents of what is commonly caUed profane history. It is
indeed possible that the investigation of such matters may be
found to have a bearing on very important points of doctrine, and
may lead the inquirer to conclusions apparently at variance with j
the position of a minister of the Church, That may be his^
misfortune, but, if truth was his only object, would not be his
fault. Nor, considering the endless variety of minds, can ^e be
sure that wherever this is the case, it proves that the inquiry

62 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Was begun with a wrong aim, or conducted in an irreverent
spirit. But after these admissions have been carried to the utmost ex
tent, there remain grounds on which, as it seems to me, the
Church has reason to complain of the course taken by
The . .
Church's ^'^xq Blshop of Natal in the publication of his researches.
grounds of -^
compi^t^ He was himself fuUy aware that it could not faU to be
Bishop. attended -with consequences which he deplored. Perhaps
he hardly appreciated the fuU extent of the e"vU, as weU as enor
mously overrated the benefit which he expected to arise from it.
But imdoubtedly that which, above all things beside, gave
currency to the work, was the apparent contrast between its
contents and the author's official position. From the nature of
the subject, not one reader in a hundred could be qualified to form
a reaUy independent conclusion on the reasoning itself. But
there was one palpable fact manifest to all : that a Bishop was
announcing opinions contrary to those which were generaUy
received in the Church, and Ukely to subject him to much obloquy
and iU--wIU. It would therefore be taken for granted by many
who had no other means of judging, that he had not only been
urged by the love of truth, but that opinions which nothing but a
love of truth could have led him to promulge, must be well
founded. This was in some degree an unavoidable e-ril. He
could not limit the circulation of his work to those who were able
to appreciate the force of his arguments, and not in danger of
being misled by his authority. In his own judgment, indeed, this
inevitable mischief -wUl be more than counterbalanced by the
benefit which he anticipates from the publication, and when he
assures us that his own reverence for Holy Writ is not abated by
the discovery that it is full of pious frauds and forgeries, we are
bound to believe an assertion relating to something which can be
kno-wn only to himself. But when he would persuade us that
Scripture wiU gain in general estimation, in proportion as such a
view of it is commonly received,* this is a paradox as to which
* Part I., p. xxxiv. The object of the book is " to secure for the Bible it^ due
honour and authority ;" and Part IL, p. 381.

CHARGES. 63
we may well remain incredulous. But at least this conviction
could not exempt him from the duty of doing aU in his power to
lessen the evil which he foresaw, and of guarding, as far as he
could, against hasty judgments, which with many might shake
the foundation of their faith, and of their whole moral being. The
course which he has actuaUy taken seems to me that which tended
most to aggravate this danger.
There may be cases in which it is not only perfectly allowable,
but expedient to pubUsh the results of a literary or scientific
investigation in successive parts. The criticism which they
undergo in the intervals of the publication may modify the author's
views and contribute to the improvement of the work. But in
the present case such a mode of proceeding could only Effects ofMs
lessen its value, and increase the mischief it might cause. pubUcation.
One effect was to bring it into the hands of a larger number of
such readers as were most Ukely to suffer injury from it. Another
was to deprive it of the advantage it might have derived from a
more mature study of the whole subject. This the author himself
perceived ; but unhappUy was so feebly impressed by this con
sideration, that he allowed it to be outweighed by a motive of
temporary convenience, which, in a matter of such Importance,
was hardly worth a serious thought.* Another effect stiU more
to be deplored was that the premature pubUcation of his first
-views entirely altered and almost reversed his own position with
regard to them. The controversy which it could not faU to stir,
as it imposed on him the part of a disputant, rendered it hardly
possible for him to retain the character of a perfectly impartial
and disinterested inquirer after truth. If he had committed him
self to statements which maturer reflection might have induced
him to modify, he could no longer do so -without a sacrifice of
self-love, of which few men are capable, and was thus exposed to
a temptation, which those who have the best reason to trust them
selves would perhaps most anxiously avoid. Still more The tone of
. . . _ his bin-
open to censure is, as I think, the tone in which e^s^-
he bas announced his conclusions ; one which could hardly
* Part I. Preface, p. xxxii.

64 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
have been more confident if he had been favoured with a Divine
revelation,* and which too often seems to indicate a mind so
pre-occupled with a foregone conclusion, as to be incapable of
viewing the subject from more than one side, and that unhappily
the side directly opposed to his earlier and more natural prepos
sessions. The impression left on the unlearned or half-learned
reader is, that these conclusions not only express the decided con-
"viction of one whose station lends extraordinary weight to such
opinions, but that they do not admit of fair or reasonable doubt,
and may safely be taken for granted as " self-evident truth," t
which can only be questioned through ignorance or bad faith.
UnhappUy a very large class of his readers were sure to be
satisfied with this result, and would not care, even if they had the
means, to know what might be said on the other side, and whether
aUeged " absolute Impossibilities " might not turn out to be
merely very difficult historical problems, capable of diverse con
jectural solutions, though, for want of sufficient data, of none
which leave no room for doubt. The author had been reminded
by a judicious frlend,+ that " we should be very scrupulous about
assuming that it is Impossible to explain satisfactorily this or that
apparent inconsistency, contradiction, or other anomaly." But he
has neither been himself sufficiently on his guard against this
error, nor taken due care to Inculcate the requisite caution on
those of his readers who most needed it. They are not warned of
the obscurity of the subject, of the relative scantiness of the
historical data, of the constant danger of confounding the accuracy
of arithmetical calculations with that of the premisses on which
they are based. Difficulties are magnified into "plain impossi
bilities ; ' ' seeming discrepancies into direct contradictions. What
ever Is narrated so as to raise such difficulties, is pronounced
" unhlstorlcal." This term, indeed, Is explained so as not to
involve a charge of " conscious dishonesty " against the writer,
* Part IL, p. 371. "It is not I who require you to abandon the ordinary
notion of the Mosaic authorship and antiquity of the Pentateuch. It is the Tkuth
itself which does so." And again p. 380, "Whatever is done, it is not I, but the
Tbuth itself, which does it."
t Part I., p. xxxiii. + Part I., p. xvii.

CHARGES. 65
but the qualification loses much of its value, when it turns out that
the absence of " conscious dishonesty " only means the obtuseness
of his moral sense, which prevented him from feeling that there
was any thing dishonest in a pious fraud.*
These, however, are questions which only affect the responsi
biUty of an indi"vidual ; and whatever harm may have been done
by his indiscretion, if there was nothing more in the case, it could
not be a subject of permanent pubUc interest. That which alone
concerns the Church in this matter is the character of that which
has been published by one of her chief pastors, in its ^he
relation to her doctrine. Whether, and in what wStmgsin
degree or proportion, the book contains truth or error, thedoc-
... trines of the
is, except so far as her doctrine is involved, a purely church.
Uterary question, which may and must be left to the tribunal of
literary criticism. The author regards his own ecclesiastical
position as impregnable. That is a point on which I am quite
incompetent to pronounce, and am not caUed upon to express an
opinion. But his position might be legaUy secure, and yet be one
which subjected him to the charge of inconsistency and unfaith
fulness. And this is a question so intimately connected with the
character of the Church itself, as fully to deserve aU the attention
that has been paid to it. Perhaps I might have said that it
deserves a great deal more. For when I compare the amount of
discussion which has been bestowed on the book in the historical
or critical point of -view, with that which has been applied to its
theological quality, without saying that there has been too much
* Part I., p. x-vii. The comparison with Homer and the " early Roman
annalists" misaea just the moat material point of the case. If the poet or the
annalists had invented a story with the deliberate intention of introducing or
recommending a religious innovation, however the end may be thought to sanctify
the means, they could not be acquitted of an " intention to deceive." But with
regard to them there is no reason to believe that they " practised " such a " decep
tion ;" while the Bishop's hypothesis distinctly attributes it to Samuel (IL, p. 263).
His act would be none the belter though a heathen had done the Uke. It might be
very much the worae, inasmuch as it was not a heathen who did it. But it ia
difficult to believe that, if the Bishop's work had not been published in succeaaive
parts, we could have read in Part I., p. xvii, that, "the writer ofthe story did not
mean it to be received as historically true," and afterwards (XL, p. 263) that he
wrote "the account of the revelation to Moses in E. iii.," "with the view of
accounting for the origin of the Name."
VOL. II. F

66 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
of the one, I must think that there has been far too little of the
other. Strictly speaking I can hardly say that, of the theological
kind, there has been any at all. Its place has been filled, as far
as I am aware, by nothing but unverified statements and arbitrary
assumptions. It was expected that Convocation, which met when
the excitement caused by the pubUcation of the first part of the
work was at its height, would address itself to this subject, and in
both Houses it was generaUy regarded as the most important to
which their attention could be called. It was thought, indeed, by
some that the reason which had led the Upper House to suspend
its proceedings in the case of the Essays and Reviews, appUed to
this, and that it was not desirable to forestaU the decision of a
question in which personal interests were involved, when it was
likely to be brought ere long before another tribunal. It was,
however, decided that a Committee of the Lower House should be
appointed to examine and report on the contents of the work ;
and thus Its theological character was submitted to the scrutiny
of a select number of eminent Divines.
„^ ,. ^ This Is the second occasion, since the revival of Con-
The action of '
onThTsn™ vocation, on which it has undertaken to express an
^''°'' opinion on books. It is an exercise of its functions
which had probably not entered into any one's mind at the time
of that revival, and was certainly never expressly included among
the objects for the sake of which the revival was sought, stUl less
contemplated by those from whom, not-withstanding much oppo
sition, it was obtained. There were strong reasons, suggested
partly by the past history of Convocation, partly by the spirit of
modern times, which rendered it more than ever desirable that
the newly-recovered liberty should be both sparingly and cau
tiously used ; never without urgent occasion, and always within
the measure marked by the nature of the end proposed. The
urgency of the occasion must depend, partly on the character
of the book, and partly on the special circumstances of the case.
It will probably be generaUy admitted, that Convocation would be
lowering its dignity, if it were to assume the office of a literary
critic, and to pronounce censure on defects of taste, or judgment.

CHARGES. 67
or reasoning, or of any thing extrinsic to the proper domain of
theology. But, even within that domain, there is much that does
not properly come within the province of Convocation. There
may be a great deal of very bad, unsound divinity, crude theories,
rash speculations, erroneous opinions, such as, if developed into
their ultimate issues, might even be found at variance with
fundamental truths, which, nevertheless. Convocation neither need
nor ought to notice. It appears to me that whatever error it
does undertake to deal with, should be such as at once touches the
foundation, and lies very near to the surface ; in other words,
that its action in the censure of books should be confined to cases
in which clergymen have either directly, or by plain impUcation,
impugned the doctrine of the Church as universaUy admitted to
be laid down in her Formularies. No mistake which Convocation
could commit, could be more disastrous to its credit and usefulness,
or more imperil its very existence, than if it should attempt to
circumscribe the freedom of opinion sanctioned by the Church by
any new determination of its own, or should identify itself with
any religious party, and endeavour to make its views the standard
of orthodoxy. On the other hand it may seem superfluous to
observe, that the judgments of such a body should be delivered in
precise and unequivocal terms.
The Judgment of Convocation, founded on the Report of the
Committee of the Lower House, is memorable as the first rirst judg
ment since
which it has pronounced since its revival. The doubt it* revival
which was felt whether it was advisable to take any action at all
in the matter, though it was not allowed to prevent the passing of
a censure, was permitted to determine the form in which the
censure was expressed. I rejoice that it did so. Though I think
that, if, nothing more was to be said, it would have been better to
have been silent, I am thankful that nothing more was said. But
the form of the censure seems to betray the influence of a persua
sion, which I fear has but very slight foundation in fact. It Is
natural that the members of Convocation, who take a lively interest
and an active part in its proceedings, should be apt to overrate
the importance attached to them out of doors, and the impression
F 2

68 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
which they make on public opinion.- There may have been a
time when its authority in religious controversies was generally
acknowledged, and the simple declaration of its judgment, unac
companied by any statement of the grounds on which it rested,
was sufficient to ensure universal acquiescence. But such a state
of things. If It ever existed, belongs to the remote past. We live
in a generation which has but lately become familiar with the
name of Convocation, and in which it is not always associated -with
feelings of submissive veneration and unquestioning confidence.
There are some who regard it with distrust and aversion. Others
watch It as an institution on its trial. Many, no doubt, look to
it with respect, sympathy, and hope. But I believe that its
warmest friends are aware that its credit and influence must
depend, not on a time-honoured name, or conventional epithet.?,
but on the character of its proceedings, and that these -will be sub
mitted to the same free examination, to which among us all
matters of public Interest are subject. Nor would they wish it to
be otherwise. The Resolution by which the Bishop of Natal's
book was condemned, assumes a paternal authority which rather
suits an earlier period in the education of the world ; and it pre
supposes a childlike docility and obedience in those over whom It
Is exercised, which are now very rarely to be found. It also
suggests the question, what practical purpose it was designed to
answer. Two were Indicated in the Committee's Report, — " the
effectual vindication of the truth of God's Word before men," and
" the warning and comfort of Christ's people."* But it is not
clear how either of these objects could be attained by a declaration,
that the book " Involves errors of the gravest and most dangerous
character." Both seem to require that the censure should have
pointed out the errors Involved, or have stated the doctrines which
the book had at least indirectly impugned, so as to make it clear
* How widely different an impression it has made on some minds, may be
gathered from a paper in MacmiUan's Magazine for July, 1863, where the writer,
who describes himself as a " Lay Churchman," speaking of the Report of the Lower
House, observes : " No friend of the Church of England can read it without shame
and sorrow :" not without assigning reasons for his assertion. "What is saddest in
this ia : " talia nobis et dici potuiase, et non potuisse refelli."

CHARGES. ; 69
that the aUeged errors affected, not merely prevalent opinions, but
truths universally recognized as part of the Church's creed.
To me, indeed, it appears that whenever Convocation undertakes
to pronounce on a theological work, its judgment should
be dogmatical, containing some definite theological pro- ™™t °f
position. Other-wise, it may convey an expression of ™g|^°'
feeling which is not required, and perhaps in such STonidbe
a case would better be suppressed, while it withholds
the one thing reaUy wanted, a declaration of distinct opinion on
the teaching which it condemns. In the present case the vague
ness of the judgment was the more remarkable, because the
attention of Convocation had been specially drawn to certain pro
positions, extracted from the substance of the book, which appeared
to the Committee to "involve errors of the gravest and most
dangerous character ; " and the Judgment, taking no notice of
these propositions, appUes the same description to the whole book,
and was thus the more Ukely to disappoint and perplex those who
might look to it for some kind of guidance, or means of discrimi
nating between truth and error. I caimot consider this as an
auspicious inauguration of the revived judicial action of Convoca
tion. But still, as I have said, it seems to me to afford matter
for deep thankfulness, so far as the Upper House abstained from
pronouncing on the propositions to which its attention had been
dra-wn. It was infinitely better that it should confine itself to
generaUties, of doubtful meaning and Uttle practical worth, than
that it should have undertaken to dogmatize on those propositions.
According to the view which I have ventured to take of thiH
proper limits of synodical action in the cognizance of books, the
Committee overstept those limits. They were appointed to
examine the parts which had then appeared of the Bishop's work,
and to report " whether any, and, if any, what opinions heretical
or erroneous in doctrine were contained in it." They extracted
three propositions which they characterized as we have seen. AU
that they say beside might, indeed, have entered into a contro
versial discussion of the work. But this was something foreign
to the business with which they were charged. It was, not to

70
refute any errors which they might find in the book — a task which
probably no one would have thought of assigning to such a
number of persons, however well qualified each of them might be
for it individually — ^but to mark the character of the opinions
contained in it with reference to the standards of the Church's
doctrine. To inquire whether they were tenable or not in them
selves, was here wholly beside the purpose. Yet this is reaUy all
that is done in the Report.
It may seem indeed as if the Committee, in their mode
How the ¦'
CoKunittee of dealing with the first of the propositions which they
tet^rop?-'^ cite or extract for censure, had shown that they were
aware of the precise nature of the function they had to
perform, and meant to confine themselves to it. That proposition
is—" the Bible is not itself God's Word." The author himself
immediately adds, " But assuredly ' God's Word ' wUl be heard in
the Bible, by aU who -wUl humbly and devoutly Usten for it." Of
this qualification the Committee, in their remarks on the propo
sition, take no notice whatever. But they first observe that the
proposition, as they cite it, "is contrary to the faith of the universal
Church, which has always taught that Holy Scripture is given by
inspiration of the Holy Ghost." They seem to have overlooked
that this statement, however true, was irrelevant ; but they then
proceed to refer to the Articles and Formularies of our own
Church, which are, indeed, the only authority binding on her
ministers. But unfortunately not one of the passages to which
they refer applies to the proposition condemned. Many, Indeed,
among them do clearly describe the Bible as the Word of God.
But not one affirms that "the Bible is itself God's Word."
Before the negative of this statement could be shown to be con
trary to the language of our Articles and Formularies, it was
necessary either to prove or take for granted that the addition
itself in no way affected the sense of the proposition. This,
however, being a matter depending entirely on the author's
intention, did not admit of proof. But, for the same reason, it
could not safely or justly (for the purpose of a solemn censure) be
taken for granted. No doubt the expression indicated that the

CHARGES. 71
author made a distinction between the Bible and the Word of
God, and considered the two terms as not precisely equivalent
or absolutely interchangeable. But if he affixed a meaning to
the term Word of God, according to which it might be truly said,
that the Bible was not itself that Word, this — even if the propo
sition had stood by itself without any quaUfication — would not
imply a denial, that there may be another sense in which the
Bible is truly described as the Word of God. And there is
certainly high authority for the distinction. Among the numerous
passages of the New Testament in which the phrase, the j^^^^^ ^^
Word of God, occurs, there is not one in which it signi- "^the word
fies the Bible, or in which that word could be substituted
for it without manifest absurdity. But even in our Articles and
Formularies there are several in which the two terms do not
appear to be treated as synonymous. The expressions, " God's
Word written" (Art. XX.), "ministering God's Word" (Art.
XXXYII.), "dispenser of God's Word" (Ordmal for Priests),
"hinderer or slanderer of God's Word" (Office of Holy Com
munion), seem to point to the New Testament use rather than to
the BibUcal record ; and, at least, there can be no doubt as to the
meaning in the CoUect for St. Bartholomew's Day, where the
prayer is, that God, who " gave the Apostle grace truly to beUeve
and preach his Word," " would grant unto His Church to love
that Word which he beUeved, and both to preach and receive the
same." When you, my brethren, preach the Word of God, it
may happen that your text is the only portion of the Bible which
you quote : and though even your text should not be taken from
one of the Gospels, you might not feel the less sure that it is the
Gospel which you preach. That which you preach would not,
indeed, be the Gospel or the Word of God, unless it was agreeable
to God's Word written. But there may be substantial agreement
without Uteral identity, which would confound the offices of lead-
ing and of preaching. If the Word of God is to be found
nowhere but in Holy Writ, not only coiUd no other Christian
literature be properly caUed sacred, but the Bible itself would bo
degraded to a dead and barren letter, and would not be a living

72 BISHOP thirl"wall's
spring of Divine truth. On the whole, the Report first attaches
an arbitrary meaning to an ambiguous expression, and then
charges it with contradicting authorities, which are either wholly
silent upon It, or seem to countenance and warrant it. The appeal
to the faith and constant teaching of the universal Church is not
only, as I observed. Irrelevant to a question of AngUcan ortho
doxy, but introduces a topic which is by no means necessarUy
involved in the proposition — the inspiration of Holy Scripture ;
and a reader who did not verify the references, might easUy be
led to imagine that they contain some declaration of our own
Church on that subject. Yet all they do contain that bears upon
it, is the frequent application of the description Word of God to
the Bible. Our Church has never attempted to determine the
nature of the inspiration of Holy Scripture ; and whether such a
determination is desirable or not, no friend to Convocation would
wish to see it undertake a task of such perilous moment, and so
far beyond Its legitimate province.
Treatm nt ^^^ ™ their treatment of the next proposition, the
second pro- Committee seem almost entirely to have lost sight of the
posi on. principle which, although misappUed, appeared to guide
them in their examination of the first. For, -with a single in
significant exception, they confront it, not with our Articles and
Formularies, but with passages of Scripture. Quotations from
Scripture may add great weight to a theological argument ; they
are essential for the establishment of any doctrine of a Church
which professes to ground its teaching on Scripture ; but they are
entirely out of place where the question is, not whether a doctrine
Is true or false, but whether it is the doctrine of the Church of
England. Some years ago the Yenerable Person who was Chair
man of this Committee, and is beUeved to have had the chief
share in the framing of its Report, was charged with the pubUca-
Aiguments *^°^ °^ unsouud doctrinc with regard to the Sacrament
^romdedon ^f the Lord's Supper. In those proceedings, though
Sm&^ they affected his civil rights, and but for a technical
defect might have subjected him to penal consequences,
the Court refused to listen to a plea set up in his defence.

CHARGES. 73
grounded on texts of Scripture. The principle of that refusal has
since been repeatedly affirmed by the highest judicial authority.
It was briefly, but clearly, laid down by the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council in the foUowing terms : — " In investigating
the justice of such a charge we are bound to look solely to the
Statute and the Articles. It would be a departure from our duty
if we were to admit any discussion as to the conformity or non
conformity of the Articles of Religion, or any of them, with the
Holy Scriptures." And in the more recent case of the " Essays
and Re-views," the Judge, commenting on that opinion, observed,
" Were I once to be tempted from the Articles and other parts of
the FormtUaries, the Court could assign no limit to its investiga
tions; it would inevitably be compeUed to consider theological
questions, not for the purpose of deciding whether they were
conformable to a prescribed standard, but whether the positions
maintained were reconcUable with Scripture or not. Against
pursuing such a course as this, the reasons are many, and in my
judgment overwhelmingly strong." And after stating them he
says, " I wUl not be tempted, in the trial of any accusation against
a clergyman, to resort to Scripture as the standard by which the
doctrine shall be measured." This is no legal refine- g^^^g^j^gg
ment, but a plain dictate of common sense ; and it does "ftiiemie.
not at all depend on the composition of the tribunal before which
such questions are tried ; so as to be less appUcable If the Court
consisted entirely of ecclesiastics. On one supposition only would
such a plea be admissible, that is, if the Judge was acknowledged
to possess the authority of an infallible oracle in the interpretation
of Scripture. Otherwise there could be no security, that an argu
ment from Scripture which to some minds appeared perfectly
con-vincing, might not seem to others miserably weak, or utterly
worthless. I shoiUd think it a great misfortune to the Church if
Convocation, sitting in judgment on the orthodoxy of a theological
work, though -without any view to proceedings against the author,
should ignore and practicaUy reject that principle. And If In
this respect the Report betrays the influence of a personal pre
possession, which, however natural, ought not to be aUowed to

74 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
sway the decisions of a grave assembly, above all, so as to bring
them Into conflict with the highest legal authorities of the realm,
we have the more reason to rejoice, that it did not obtain the
sanction of the Upper House.
When I look at the Scriptural arguments adduced in the Report
against the second proposition extracted for condemnation, they
do not seem to me of such a quaUty as to deserve to form an
exception. If any could be admitted, to the rule which would
The author- excludo them from such an investigation. The proposi-
shipofthe _ , ° r r
Pentateuch, tion Is, " that not Moses but Samuel, and other persons
of a later age, composed the Pentateuch." It would perhaps have
been better not to have brought the negative and positive substance
of the book thus together, as the hypothesis about Samuel is, for
the purpose of the Inquiry, quite immaterial, except as denying
the Mosaic authorship ; and the argument of the Report is
entirely confined to that denial. But upon this the Committee
observe, "that Moses is spoken of, by our Blessed Lord In the
Gospel, as the writer of the Pentateuch." I suspect that even a
layman, little acquainted with the manifold aspects of the ques
tion, and the almost infinite number of surmises which have been
or may be formed concerning It, would be somewhat disappointed,
when he found that the proof of this statement consists of three
passages, in which our Lord speaks of Moses and the prophets, of
the Law of Moses, and of writings of Moses. It is true that it
would not be a fatal objection to the argument, that the word
Pentateuch does not occur in the Bible. It might have been so
described as to connect every part of Its contents with the hand of
Moses, as distinctly as if the observation of the Committee had
been UteraUy true. But in fact this is not the case ; and stUl
less is any such distinct appropriation to be found in any of the
passages cited by the Committee in support of their assertion, that
"Moses is recognized as the writer of the Pentateuch in other
passages of Holy Scripture," They are neither more nor less
conclusive than the language of the seventh Article, to which the
Committee confine all the reference they have made to the judg
ment of the Church on this question, though this was the only

CHARGES. 75
matter into which it was their proper business to inquire. The
Article aUudes to " the law given from God by Moses ; " a slender
foundation for any inference as to the record of that law, much
more as to the authorship of other parts of the Pentateuch ;
especiaUy as the name of Moses does not occur in the enumeration
of the Canonical Books in the sixth Article. If the question had
been as to the authorship of the book of Psalms, few persons
probably would think that it had been dogmaticaUy decided by
the Church, because in the Prayer Book the Psalter is described
as "the Psalms of David." Similarly and equally inconclusive
appear to me the passages cited in proof of the observation, " that
there are portions of the Pentateuch to which our Blessed Lord
refers as being parts of the books of Moses, the Mosaic authorship
of which is expressly denied in the Bishop's book."
The third proposition, "variously stated in the book," relates to
the historical truth of the Pentateuch, which the author _, . ,
' Third pro-
denies ; not in the sense that every thing in it is pure l^ehM^-'^
fiction, but that all is not historically true.* Of the fact Sftte Pen-
with which he is charged there can be no doubt ; and
it was superfluous to give instances of that which he has expressly
stated in general terms. But it is to be regretted that the Com
mittee should again have lost sight of the object for which they
were appointed, and have omitted to refer to any doctrine of the
Church which the author has contradicted. This was the more
incumbent on them, since a recent Judgment has formaUy sanc
tioned a very wide latitude in this respect. It is clear that in
such things there cannot be two weights and two measures for
different persons, and also that it does not belong to any but legal
authority to draw the Une by which the freedom, absolutely
granted in theory, is to be limited in practice. The author's
scepticism appears to me, as to many others, very rash and wUd.
But that was not the question before Convocation. It was
• Part IL, p. 372. The value, however, of the admission is not very great, since
it is supposed that Samuel's materials consisted entirely of " legendary recoUec
tions," which were so dim and vague as to leave even the existence of Moses open
to doubt. P. 376 (where Ewald's creduloua dogmatism is gently rebuked by a note
of interrogation) and p. 186.

76 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
whether, or how far, such scepticism had been forbidden by the
Church. And on this, the only point which required their atten
tion, the Committee are totally sUent.
These are the propositions which they extract as " the main
propositions of the book," which, though not pretending to " pro
nounce definitively whether they are or are not heretical," they
denounce as " involving errors of the gravest and most dangerous
Fourth pro- character." But they proceed to cite a further proposi-
posi on. iiojj^^ which the author states in the form of a question,
to meet an objection which had been raised against his main
conclusion, as -virtually rejecting our Lord's authority, by which,
as the Committee state, " the genuineness a,nd the authenticity of
the Pentateuch have been guaranteed to aU men." Whether the
passages in which our Lord quotes or alludes to the Pentateuch,
amount to such a guarantee, is a point which they do not discuss.
They only observe that the proposition " questions our Blessed
Lord's Divine Knowledge," and with that remark they drop the
subject. Considering that this proposition Is incomparably the most
important of all that they cite, and that whatever importance the
Its relation othcrs posscss dcpcuds ultimately on the connexion
to the _ \ '¦ ¦' _ _
others. fj^to whIch they may be brought with it, one is sur
prised that it should have been dismissed with so very cursory
and Imperfect a notice. For It Is not even clear that it correctly
expresses the author's meaning. The question which he raises
does not properly concern our Lord's Divine Knowledge, that is.
Definition *^® knowledge belonging to His Divine nature. It is,
of tbfc^es- whether His human knowledge was co-extensive -with
on raise . ^^^ Dlvino OmnlscIence. It is obvious at the first glance,
what a vast field of speculation, theological and metaphysical, is
opened by this suggestion. And perhaps a little refiection would
satisfy every one capable of appreciating the difficulties which beset
the inquiry, that the subject is not only one of the most abstruse
with which the human mind can be engaged, but that it Ues beyond
the reach of our faculties, and is one of those mysteries which are
to be embraced by faith, not to be investigated by reason. If any

CHARGES. 77
one thinks that he is able to explain the mode in which the opera
tions of our Lord's human nature were affected by His Godhead, or
to distinguish between that which belonged to the Integrity of His
manhood, to the extraordinary gifts with which He was furnished
for His work, and again to the proper attributes of Deity, he Is of
course at liberty to make the experiment, but should not be
surprised If his solution satisfies none but himself. Bishop Jeremy
Taylor observes : " They that love to serve God in hard questions,
use to dispute whether Christ did truly or in appearance only
increase in wisdom. For being personaUy united to the Word,
and being the eternal wisdom of the Father, it seemed to them
that a plenitude of -wisdom was as natural to the whole person as
to the Dl-vine nature. But others, fixing their beUef upon the
words of the story, which equally affirms Christ as properly to
have increased in favour with God as -with man, in wisdom as In
stature, they apprehend no inconvenience in affirming it to belong
to the verity of human nature, to have degrees of understanding
as well as of other perfections : and although the humanity of
Christ made up the same person with the Divinity, yet they
think the Divinity still to be free, even in those communications,
which were Imparted to his inferior nature ; and the Godhead
might as well suspend the emanation of all the treasures of wisdom
upon the humanity for a time, as he did the beatific vision, which
most certainly was not imparted in the interval of his sad and
dolorous passion."* It Is clear to which side Ta3dor Inclines.
But I must own that I should be sorry to see these " hard
questions " revived, as I am persuaded that there could not be a
less acceptable " service to God," or a less profitable exercise of
learning and acuteness. Still more should I deprecate any
attempt of the Church of England to promulge a new dogma for
the settlement of this controversy. And I lament that the
Committee of the Lower House should have expressed themselves
as If either there was no " dispute " on the subject, or it belonged
to them to end it by a word. But at least, as their remark
indicated, that the Bishop had, in their judgment, faUen into
• Life of Christ. AVorks, ed. Heber, ii. p. 142.

78 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
some grave error, it was due, not only to him, but to the readers
of their Report, and to the Church at large, that they should have
pointed out what the error was, by a comparison with the doctrine
of the Church which it was supposed to contradict.
Omissions Little as I am satisfied with the contents of the
ofthe
Eeport. Report, I think there is no less ground for surprise at
its omissions. Since the Committee felt themselves at liberty to
animadvert, not only on the propositions extracted from the book,
but on its general spirit and tendency, it might have been ex
pected that they would omit nothing worthy of special notice, as
serving to mark its peculiar character. Yet, while they hold up
to reprobation the results of purely historical investigations,
because in their opinion at variance with doctrines of the Church,
which however It is left to the reader's sagacity to discover, they
pass over in silence passages which, however they may admit of a
different explanation, appear in their most obvious sense irre
concilable with the admission of a supernatural revelation. An
eminent writer of the last century, who may be caUed the father
of German rationalism, startled his contemporaries by the asser
tion, that as reUgion was before the Bible, so It might continue to
subsist though the Bible should be lost. * It has been questioned
whether in this proposition the religion meant was Christianity or
Natural ReUgion. In the former sense the proposition was an
idle surmise, which it was impossible to verify. But in the latter
sense. It was admitted that it could be only understood as treating
Christianity as no more than a form of natural reUgion. t The
* So the proposition is stated by Gurlitt in the Theologische Studien und
Kritiken, 1863, p. 763. Mr. Farrar, in his Bampton Lectures on the History of
Free Thought, p. 319, states a different proposition to the like effect: "that, as
Christianity existed before the New Testament, so it could exist after it." There
may be here, either a misprint, of after instead of without, or an omission of the
words was lost at the end. Each of these statements no doubt expresaea Lessing's
meaning, though neither accurately reports hia words. Hia fifth axiom is : " Re
ligion existed before the Bible." The sixth: " Christianity existed before Evan
gelists and Apoatlca had written.'* The eighth : " If there waa a period in which
the Christian religion was widely apread, though not a letter of all that haa come
down to ua on the subject had yet beeu written, it must be poasible that all the
writinga of the Evangelists and Apostles should be lost, and the religion which they
taught still subsist."
t Gurlitt, u. s.

CHARGIIS. 79
Bishop of Natal consoles himself for the " serious consequences "
which he "painfully forebodes" as likely to ensue In many cases
from the publication of his book, by this reflection : — " Our belief
in the Uving God remains as sure as ever, though not the Penta
teuch only, but the whole Bible, were removed." " The Ught of
God's love did not shine less truly on pious minds, when Enoch
walked with God of old, though there was then no Bible in
existence, than it does now." * What kind of religion it is that
would thus survive the loss of the Bible, seems, as far as Eeiigion
. without the
the words go, hardly to admit of a doubt. It may be Bibie.
called Christianity ; but hardly in any other sense than that in
which a deistical writer of the last century entitled one of his
works, " Christianity as old as the Creation."
It is indeed, In the author's view, a revealed religion ; but so
was that which he finds expounded in a passage of in what
, , sense re-
Clcero, in the confession of the Sikh-Gooroos, and in the veaied.
ejaculations of an Indian mystic. Their pure deism was, he doubts
not, " revealed to them by the same Divine Teacher," who spake
by prophets and apostles, t If there was no special revelation in
Christianity, such statements would be not only conformable to
the Apostle's teaching, that " every good gift comes down from
the Father of lights," but also relevant to the case, and of great
practical importance, as either showing the needlessness of Chris
tian missions, or at least preventing them from assuming a
character to which they are not entitled. But if there was such
a special Christian revelation, it Is difficult to see either the
appropriateness or the practical use of the remark. The author
indeed intimates his " entire and sincere beUef in our Lord's
divinity ;" + and this must silence all doubt as to his orthodoxy on
that head ; but as he does not profess to view any of the founders
of other religions in the same light, it might have been expected
that he would have explained how that belief is to be reconcUed
with language which seems to place all religions, which acknow
ledge the being and unity of God, -with regard to their divine
origin, on the same level. The apparent sense of that language Is
• Part I., p. 12. t Part I., p. 155. J: Part I., p. xxxi.

80also the only one that is clearly consistent with his anticipations
of a coming happier time, when " missionaries of the Je-wish
race," as soon as they have " given up the story of the Pentateuch
as a record of historical fact," shaU go forth, to co-operate with
our own as "heralds of salvation, proclaiming with free utterance
the name of the living God." * It is in perfect harmony with
this sense, but not with any other which the words readily
suggest, that he looks forward to changes at home, by which " the
system of our Church is to be reformed," and her boundaries at
the same time enlarged, so as '' to make her what a National
Church should be, the mother of spiritual life to all within the
realm, embracing, as far as possible, all the piety, and learning,
and earnestness, and goodness, of the nation." t This hint indeed
Is so vague, that It would have been difficult to gather Its precise
import, if the Essay, of which I have already spoken. In which a
like view of the National Church Is more fully developed, and the
conditions of the proposed reform more distinctly explained, did
not furnish a commentary, and reUeve me from the necessity of
making any further observation upon it.
Remarks on I do not kuow how many of you, my brethren, may
the study of . J J ' J .
the work. have found leisure for the study or even for the reading
of the work I have been considering. Possibly if you happened
to have learnt that its results are almost entirely negative, and
that as to those of a more positive kind the author appears to have
convinced no one but himself, not even foreign critics who
willingly accept his arguments on the destructive side ; + some of
you might think, not unreasonably, that their time might be more
profitably spent than In foUo-wing the course of such a barren
inquiry, and that it was better to wait untU it should have yielded
some amount of generally-recognized positive truth. If, however,
you chose to judge of the book for yourselves, and did not aUow
yourselves to be deterred from the examination of Its contents by
the opinion that the Church had forbidden an investigation which
presupposed that there was room for doubt on the subject, though
* Part IL, p. 384. f Part I., p. xxxv.
+ Among the latest see Kamphausen in Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1863, p. 795.

CHARGES. 81
I
you might soon see ground to suspect that the author must, from
the peculiar turn of his mind, be a very unsafe guide wherever
there was need of the higher faculties required for the study of
obscure periods of ancient history, you would nevertheless find
proofs of no mean sceptical acuteness, and much specious reasoning,
to which you might not be able readily to devise even a possible
answer. This -with you might not be enough to extort an absolute
assent to that which you felt yourselves unable to refute ; but It
would probably induce you to read some of the repUes, in which,
as is stated in the Report of the Committee of the Lower House
of Convocation, " the difficulties propounded by the author have
been fairly discussed." From several of these repUes you could
not faU to gain much valuable Information. You would find
many things placed in an entirely different light from that in
which they had been first set before you. In most cases the con
ditions on which the author's objections are founded, would appear
to be by no means so simple or so clear as he had represented
them. Relatively to his position of absolute assurance, you might
think the replies on the whole perfectly successful. But if you
had expected that they would remove aU difficulty, and satisfy
every doubt, you would find yourselves disappointed, as in fact
you would have looked for more than, according to the present
state of our knowledge, any amount of learning and ability can
achieve. But, should this be so, what foUows ? There wiU be
nothing in such a discovery, by which any one need be saddened
or perplexed ; but It may suggest some reflections which it will
be weU for every one to lay to heart.
There are many things in which our highest wisdom is to
resign ourselves to the consciousness of our ignorance. Limitationofonrknow-
and to the certainty that, on this side the grave, we shaU i«*g«-
never know more of them than we do. This is the case with many
subjects of abstract speculation ; and perhaps even more so with
the history of the remote past, where our knowledge entirely
depends on evidence which, however scanty and imperfect, admits
of no enlargement or further corroboration. So it is with regard
to the two ancient nations which, next to the chosen people of
VOL. II. G

82
God, haye left the deepest traces of their presence in the existing
state of the world, and continue to exercise the most powerful
influence on modern society. The longest period in the aimals of
each is shrouded in darkness, which Is broken only at intervals by
some faint gleams of Ught, not sufficient to afford a distinct view
of the few objects on which they fall. And even in later ages a
Uke bar is frequently opposed to our curiosity. We reconcUe
ourselves to this insurmountable limitation of our knowledge
because, after all, that which we possess Is sufficient for the most
important purpose of our inquiries, as It enables us to understand
the character and general progress of each people, and Its place in
the history of the world. If the same thing has occurred in the
early history of the chosen race, have we any reason to be surprised,
or any right to complain ? It is true the particulars of this
history are more interesting to us than those of any other, just as
the geography of the Holy Land is more interesting to a Christian
pUgrIm than that of Italy or Greece. But our wishes, however
natural and reasonable, cannot prescribe or control the course of
the Divine government ; and we may be sure that whatever
knowledge God's Providence has thought fit to withhold from us,
cannot be necessary with regard to any of the higher interests of
our being. If the process by which the Pentateuch was brought
into its present state has not been revealed to us, but affords room
for manifold conjecture and endless controversy, however we may
-wish it had been otherwise, our part Is humbly to submit to the
Divine wiU. We see that, in fact, aU the information that has
been vouchsafed to us as to the earlier period of the Sacred History
Is very scanty and fragmentary. A few pages, sometimes a few
Unes, are the only remaining record of the lapse of centuries. In
the Pentateuch Itself, as In other parts of the Old Testament, we
meet with frequent reference to works, which would probably
have shed much light on persons and events, now but dimly per
ceptible, and presenting an ambiguous aspect ; but It was not the
Divine pleasure that they should be preserved to us. But that
which we have Is not only sufficient, but more than sufficient, for
the main end, the exhibition of the Divinely appointed preparation

CHARGES. 83
for the coming of Christ. Every Une of this record is precious to
us ; but there is much as to which it seems to us that our view of
the whole would have been no more affected by Its absence, than
it has been by the loss of those works to which the Sacred Writers
refer for information which we can no longer find In them.
Another thought which may well be brought home to our minds
by the controversies of the day, is that we have greater Need of dis-
tinguishing
need than ever to distinguish between things which ^^™
do and things which do not concern our Christian ^°?Mngs
faith and hope. A great part of the events related In not,°conoem
the Old Testament has no more apparent connexion and hope.
with our religion than those of Greek or Roman history. It is
true that even the minutest and seemingly most insignificant facts
may have entered into the scheme of Divine Providence, as part
of the process through which a way was prefiared for the introduc
tion of the Gospel. But this is no more than may be said of every
thing that has happened every where upon earth from the begin
ning of the world. The adaptation of the means to the end is one
of the secrets of the Divine counsels ; and we caimot presume to
say that the same end might not have been attained by some
other means. This therefore is not sufficient to invest the means
with any share in the sanctity of the end. The history, so far as
It Is a narrative of civil and poUtical transactions, has no essential
connexion with any reUgious truth, and, if it had been lost,
though we should have been left In ignorance of much that we
should have desired to know, our treasure of Christian doctrine
would have remained whole and unimpaired. The numbers,
migrations, wars, battles, conquests, and reverses of Israel, have
nothing in common with the teaching of Christ, with the way of
salvation, with the fruits of the Spirit. They belong to a totally
different order of subjects. They are not to be confounded with
the spiritual revelation contained in the Old Testament, much less
-with that fulness of grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ.
Whatever knowledge we may obtain of them is, in a reUgious
point of -view, a matter of absolute indifference to us ; and if they
were placed on a level with the saving truths of the Gospel, they
a 2

84 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
would gain nothing in intrinsic dignity, but would only degrade
that with which they are thus associated. Such an association
may indeed exist in the minds of pious and even learned men ; but
it is only by means of an artificial chain of reasoning, which does
not carry conviction to aU beside. Such questions must be left to
every one's private judgment and feeling, which have the fullest
right to decide for each, but not to Impose their decisions, as the
dictate of an infaUIble authority, on the consciences of others.
Any attempt to erect such facts into articles of faith, would be
fraught with danger of Irreparable evil to the Church, as weU as
with immediate hurt to numberless souls.
Concluding -^ single word more. That which now unhappily
remar . digqulets many will turn to your profit, if it shoidd lead
you to take a firmer hold on the centre of your faith and hope ; to
draw closer to Christ Himself, and to seek in a more intimate and
practical communion with Him, that light and life, which He
alone can impart. If the historical and critical questions which
have lately been brought anew under discussion, were capable of a
solution which should leave no room for doubt, it would not bring
you one step the nearer, or at aU help you to find your way to
Him. At the best it could yield only an inteUectual satisfaction,
perhaps at the risk of diverting your attention from that which Is
alone needful. But if you take your stand, and make good your
footing, on that Rock which is the sole foundation that is laid for
the Church, and therefore the only one on which any of us can
find a sure resting-place, you will enjoy more than one great
advantage in looking abroad on the field of controversy which Is
spread before you. One wUl be the sense of a happy security,
not to be shaken by any fluctuations of pubUc opinion, or any
strife of doubtful disputations. And in proportion to the calm
ness of that assurance which you derive from your personal
experience, wUl be your attainment of the stUl greater blessing
of a meek, charitable, and peaceable spirit, which wiU guard you
from harsh judgments and Inward bitterness toward those from
whom you may differ, while it leads you forward in the way of
truth. And then — though your aim is not the knowledge which

CHARGES. 85
puffeth up, but the charity which edifieth — this shall be added
unto you, that you wIU also see farther and more clearly than
those who are standing and strl-ving on the lower and debatable
ground. It is not that you are to expect any supernatural Ulumi-
natlon which will supply the place of patient study, and enable
you to solve questions which have eluded the grasp of the most
learned and sagacious inquirers. But you wiU gain something
which is far better ; a faculty of spiritual discernment, which wiU
guide you safely where others, with perhaps superior natural
advantages and ampler opportunities of knowledge, may have
gone astray. In the ripening of your Inner Ufe, and, above aU,
in the assiduous discharge of your pastoral duties, you will be
constantly acquiring a deeper insight into the nature of the things
which belong to your own peace, and to that of those who are
committed to your care ; and you will thus possess an unfailing
test by which you may try the character, and measure the worth,
of whatever is proposed for your assent : and, having learned
more and more clearly to distinguish between that which rests on
the sure Word of God, and that which floats on the shifting
current of human speciUatlon, you wUl so " prove all things " as
to " hold fast that which is good."

APPENDIX.

NOTE ON PAGE 20.
"Whether all but two or three readers have misunderstood the main drift
of Professor Powell's Essay, is a question which does not much concern
those, who, sharing the general opinion, expressed themselves in accord
ance with it, unless they themselves had felt a doubt on the subject ;
and, for my own part, I can say that none has ever for an instant crossed
my mind. But it does very deeply concern the character of Professor
Powell ; and in my opinion no greater wrong could have been done to
his memory, than the attempt to vindicate him from the charge of " deny
ing miracles." "Unless he meant to do that, he would have been guilty
of an ambiguity of language, which, in one so capable of expressing him
self clearly, could hardly be unintentional, though its motive would be
difficult to explain. "What ground the Edinburgh Keviewer saw for the
doubt which he intimates, p. 475, he has not stated. Mr. Maurice
(Tracts for Priests and People, p. 13), though anxiously seeking for
points in which he could agree with the writer, could not shut his eyea
to so glaring a fact. " Mr. Baden Powell," he says, "was an English
man of science. The miracles, regarded as departures from order, con
tradicted, in his judgment, the very idea of physical science ; he could
not reconcile them. He beheved that no one could." Mr. Kennard
alone, as far as I know, has ventured positively to assert that Professor
Powell " does not deny miracles ; " but he has fairly stated bis ground
for that assertion (p. 76). He first quotes some words of Professor
Powell — " The question, then, of miracles stands quite apart from any
consideration of testimony ; the question would remain the same if we
had the evidence of our own senses to an alleged miracle, that is, to an
extraordinary or inexplicable fact. It is not the mere fact, but the cause
or explanation of it, which is the point at issue." On this Mr. Kennard
remarks: "He does not, the reader will be careful to observe, 'deny
miracles,' but, feeling the increasing difficulty which scientific and his
torical criticism places in the way of the old unreasoning reception of
them as mere wonders, he seeks to explain and account for them consis
tently with the requirements of science, and the demands of an enHght
ened Christian faith."

APPENDIX. 87
What Professor Powell admitted, and what he denied, in this matter,
is perfectly clear. He fully admitted that, among " alleged miracles,"
many have been real facts ; what he denied was, that any of these facts
were real miracles. He believed that they only appeared to be such to
persons ignorant of the laws of nature. On the other hand, he never
meant to deny that many alleged miracles, if they had taken place, would
have been works of superhuman power ; what he denied as to these was,
that they were real facts. "An alleged miracle," he concludes, "can
only be regarded in one of two ways : — either (1) abstractedly, as a
physical event, and therefore to be investigated by reason and physical
e-ndence, and referred to physical causes, possibly to known causes, but
at all events to some higher cause or law, if at present unknown ; it then
ceases to be supernatural, yet still might be appealed to in support of
religious truth, especially as referring to the state of knowledge and
apprehensions of the parties addressed in past ages ; or (2) as connected
with religious doctrine, regarded in a sacred light, asserted on the
authority of inspiration. In this case it ceases to be capable of investi
gation by reason, or to own its dominion ; it is accepted on religious
grounds, and can appeal only to the principle and influence of faith.''
In the Charge I have pointed out the fallacy of this alternative. Here I
have only to observe that nothing can be plainer than the negative pro
position. Unless the " alleged miracle " may be " referred to physical
causes, known or imknown," and so " ceases to be supernatural," and
to have a right to the name of miracle, it was not a " physical event," or
real fact. According to Mr. Kennard's representation, Professor Powell
would have admitted the reality of the facts related in the Gospels, which
are commonly regarded as miraculous, and only denied that they were
supernatural. Mr. Kennard would vindicate the Professor from the
charge of excessive scepticism, by convicting him of the most extravagant
credulity ; which, -without raising his character as a divine, would have
ruined his reputation, not only as a man of science, but of common sense.
It would indeed be too much to affirm that a time may not come, when
acts such as the most marvellous of those attributed to our Lord, shall
have been brought -within the orduiary operations of the human will, even
acting directly, without the intervention of the bodily organs. But this
hypothesis would not in the least affect the character of our Lord's
miracles, unless it could be shown that, when they were wrought, the
human will possessed such a direct power over outward nature. Pro
bably no supposition could be more foreign to Professor Powell's habits
of thought.
Mr. Wilson, in his Speech before the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council (p. 47), gives an extract from Professor Babbage's Ninth Bridg
water Treatise, containing "a solution which," he saya, "to a great
extent, is satisfactory to many minds." It is headed, " Argument from

88 APPENDIX.
Laios intermitting on the Nature of Miracles." "The object," as the
author states, is to show that miracles are not deviations from the laws
assigned by the Almighty for the govemment of matter and of mind ;
but that they are the exact fulfilment of much more extensive laws than
those we suppose to exist." The argument is ingeniously illustrated by
the analogy of the calculating engine. But there is an unfortunate
ambiguity in the statement of the object, which might well withhold
Mr. Wilson from " adopting it as an undoubted or complete solution
of all questions connected with the subject of the miraculous." For
it may mean either that all " alleged miracles " fulfil the conditions
described, or that no events which do not fulfil those conditions are
real miracles. The former would be a bold assumption, if the universe
is to be considered as a " mechanism," fike the calculating engine, and
it is one not to be hastily ascribed to Professor Babbage. In the
second sense the proposition seems to leave "the subject of the mira
culous " just where it was. For all theologians would agree in referring
miracles, no less than all other events, to the Divine WUl. None
would consider them as exceptions to the universality of the Divine
foreknowledge, or as thoughts which had suddenly entered the Di-vine
mind. But it would not follow that they should be regarded as parts
of a system of machinery, aet in motion once for all, and working by a
bfind necessity.
Much as there is that is both true and valuable in Mr. Llewelyn
Davies's Essay on this subject (Tracts for Priests and People, The Signs
of the Kingdom of Heaven), I fear that there are parts of it which are
likely to leave a misleading impression on the minds of many readers.
In his anxiety to correct the error of those who, as he thinks, lay undue
stress on the element of power in our Lord's miracles, he reasons so as
to suggest a grave doubt, whether whatever benefit resulted from them
was not much more than counterbalanced by the apparent countenance
which they gave, both at the time and in all succeeding ages, to what he
calls " wonder " or " mii-acle worship." For, apart from the effect on the
persons on whom the miracles were wrought, which cannot be properly
taken into the account, the benefit, according to the author, consisted in
the illustration of certain spiritual truths. That they were suited to that
purpose none -will deny. But those truths did not, as Mr. Davies would
probably be the first to admit, absolutely need such illustration ; and a
mode of Ulustration which tended to divert attention from the thing
illustrated, and to fix it on something quite foreign to our Lord's inten
tion, might seem hardly worthy of His -wisdom; and Mr. Davies
acknowledges that such an effect was in general inevitable. He says
very truly (p. 40), "It is difficult to imagine the mind upon which the
element of power would not tell with some force." I cannot so fully
assent to the exception which he subjoins : " but we are at liberty, I

APPENDIX. 89
think, to assume that the cultivated mind might be impervious to such
an argument." It is easy for a man of science at his desk to say :
" Even if I was to witness any of the ' miracles ' related in the New
Testament, I would not believe that they were the effect of any super
human power possessed by the person who appeared to perform them."
When I know an instance of such incredulity, I shall believe it possible.
At present I suspect that the sight would make a deeper impression on
a cultivated, than on an uncultivated mind. Bnt Mr. Davies seems
to overlook the distinction between that part of our Lord's teaching
which would have been equally true and impressive in the mouth
of a merely human teacher, and that which related to His own super
human character. His ethical teaching could neither need nor admit
of confirmation from miracles, as acts of power. But, as such, they
were eminently fitted to gain credence for His declarations -with regard
to His own person in His relation to the Father. Indeed, for those
who did not enjoy the privilege of His intimate society, or a special
gift of the Holy Spirit, they might be absolutely indispensable, though
not in all cases sufficient. The comparison (p. 41) with missionaries,
who would, no less earnestly than the Apostles at Lystra, deprecate
the being " taken for superhuman personages," seems to me to miss
the point.
I cannot help thinking that the general tendency of the Essay is to
depreciate the importance of the question as to the reality of our Lord's
mu'acles. It is therefore the more satisfactory to observe, that Mr.
Davies is aware that " they are so bound up with all else that is told us
regarding Him, that the history must be torn in fragments, if we attempt
to sever the signs and wonders from the other acts and discourses of
Jesus " (p. 35), and that "an attempt to cut out from the Gospel narra
tives the ' supernatural element,' would make such havoc in them, that
we should no longer know what to make of them, or how to trust
them" (p. 37): that "we cannot shut our eyes to the fundamental
nature of modern unbelief or doubt " (p. 30) : that he does not share
Mr. Kennard's mistake as to the purport of Professor Powell's Essay
(p. 31), and sees that "the sanguine divines who wish to make the
acquiescent phfiosophy (that which would dispense -with ' the thought
of God as really present in nature and society') compatible with
something of the old religion, by keeping the actual course of things
in one sphere, and ' faith ' in another, wUl satisfy neither the cravings
of the believing soul, nor the rational instincts of the phUosopher "
(p. 44).
The differences of opinion as to the proper significance of miracles,
which exist among those who admit their reality, may be very wide and
important : but they are quite insignificant in comparison with the gulf
which separates Christian faith from the views of Jefferson, or Comte,

90 APPENDIX.
or Strauss, or E. Eenan. On whichever side the Church of England is
to stand in future, it is at least desirable that her position should be
clearly understood. That she should have to contend against Deism and
Pantheism, may be unavoidable ; but she has reason to complain when
attempts are made to palm either system upon her, as her genuine
doctrine.

IX.
A CHARGE
Delivered October, 1866.
state of the diocese.  national education, the revised code.
 diocesan s-i'nods.  final court of appeal. — ritualism.

My Reverend Brethren,
On this occasion of my ninth Visitation my thoughts are
almost necessarily carried back to the beginning of the period,
now more than a quarter of a century, during which I have been
permitted to fill this chair, and to the view which I then took of
the state of things around me, and the feeUngs with which I
looked forward to the future which now lies behind us. In this
retrospect I find one ground of satisfaction, on which I may dwell
without the slightest temptation to self-complacency. Though I
am sure that the estimate I then formed, and which I indicated
in my first Charge, of the difficulties which beset the Church's
work in the Diocese, was not at aU exaggerated, it was certainly
far from cheering ; and the very moderate expectations which it
seemed to warrant, were hardly liable to much disappointment.
Much brighter hopes might, as the event has sho-wn, have been
safely indulged by one of more sanguine temperament or larger
foresight. I was able, indeed, to point to many gladdening signs
of gro-wing vigour and expansive energy in the Church at large ;
but I could not discover any clear e-vidence that this spirit had
penetrated into our comer of the field, or any sure ground of con
fidence as to the degree in which it would overcome the manifold
obstacles it had to encounter there. I should be stUl more loth

92 BISHOP THIRLyVALL's
to faU under any iUusIon of an opposite kind, however agreeable ;
but I do find much cause for thankfulness when I compare the
present state of the Diocese, In many important aspects, with my
recoUections of the past. I need not scruple to express this feel
ing, whether the progress which has been made be great or small,
because In the efforts by which it has been brought about, I can
claim no share but that of a sympathizing and encouraging
spectator. It Is, under Pro-vidence, to the clergy and the faithful
laity, though not without large help from without, that the whole
is due.
I look In the first place to the condition of our sacred buildings,
as the most Important of all outward aids to reUgion, and the
Condition surest sIgn of the interest it excites. The records of the
rf churches Cji^rch Building Society furnish a measure of the
activity with which the work of church restoration has
been carried on among us within the last half century. Between
1818 and 1865 it has made grants to this Diocese in 183 cases.
Of this number two-thirds belong to the latter half of the period.
This Ust, indeed. Is far from representing aU that has been done
in our time. It omits many of the undertakings which have been
accomplished by private, unaided, unostentatious munificence, to
which we owe some of the goodUest of our churches, among them
seven due to the munificence of the late and the present Earl
Cawdor. And, I may add, that there are at this moment more
than thirty parishes in which new or restored churches, are in
various stages of progress, from the first step, to immediate
readiness for consecration or re-opening. I do not expect to see
aU of them completed. They must more or less Interfere with one
another. But this simultaneous movement In all quarters of the
Diocese is a gratifying sign of healthy life.* I may also observe,
that this Increase in the number of our churches has been accom
panied by a great improvement in their architectural character.
The contrast between the earlier and the later buildings In their
style, would in general be sufficient to mark the date to which
thay belong. This indeed Is a benefit which. In common with the
• Ses Appendix A.

CHARGES. 93
whole Church, we derive from the awakening of a better feeling,
and the diffusion of more accurate knowledge and more enUghtened
taste in these matters. And much as we have reason to congra
tulate ourselves on this happy change with regard to our new
churches, it is stiU more important with regard to some of
those which had faUen into decay. A new church in the style
which would have satisfied those who saw It fifty years ago,
would now offend aU who try It by a higher and more correct
standard. But this evU is very slight, when compared with that
which we have to deplore, when a venerable monument is
irreparably defaced by a misnamed restoration. It must therefore
be deemed a happy coincidence, that in the case of some ofthe most
precious remains of ecclesiastical architecture which have been
handed down to us, the work has been reserved for our day, and for
skUful and tender hands, by which they -wiU be not only preserved
from further decay, but renewed In their original freshness.
Among these our Cathedral unquestionably occupies the fore
most place, as weU for its historical associations, as for its
architectural beauties, still survl-ving aU the injury it Restoration
has undergone through the violence and neglect of ages. Cathedral.
I cannot lament that the imminent and growing danger of total
ruin -with which it was threatened, rendered it absolutely necessary
to devote a large sum to tbe single purpose of warding off that
disaster, without any change in the outward appearance of the
building. For It followed, almost of course, that this occasion
should not be aUowed to pass by, without an effort, both to pre
serve whatever else was ready to perish, and to restore the
mutUated features of the original design. I was aware, indeed,
in common with aU who engaged in this undertaking, that the
peculiar disadvantages -with which it had to contend in the raising
of the requisite funds, precluded aU hope that It would be brought
to an early completion. The obscurity of its position — known by
actual inspection only to a few occasional visitors, while out of
Wales its very existence, as any thing more than a mere ruin, is
by no means generally received as an unquestionable fact — not
only debars it from the sympathy which it seldom fails to excite

94 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
In those who see it, but with some passes for an argument against
the undertaking itself. We have, therefore, cause to be thankful,
that, by an extraordinary exertion of mechanical skiU and
ingenuity, which has reflected some additional lustre on the name
of Mr. Gilbert Scott, the most important and difficult part of the
work, that by which the stabUIty of the fabric was to be secured,
has been achieved.
Tardy ^tlU, after ovcry allowance for unfavourable clrcum-
thfappeai" stauccs, I must o-wu that I have been somewhat surprised
ance. and disappointed by the tardiness of the response which
has been made to the appeal of the Dean and Chapter. I had
hoped — not I think unreasonably — that the object would have
roused a more general and lively interest throughout the Princi
pality, as weU as among lovers of art and students of archaeology
elsewhere. At a time when archeeology Is so zealously cultivated
— in Wales by a special Association — it might have been fairly
expected that, even If the Cathedral had no claim on the public
but as an ancient monument, this would have sufficed to secure a
much larger amount of support to the undertaking. On church
men it has the further claim of being at once the Cathedral of the
Diocese, and the only church of the large parish in which it
stands. I have therefore been grieved to hear murmurs, caUing
-in question the usefulness of the undertaking ; suggest-
takiSg*^^'' i^g ^ doubt, whether it would not have been better to
questione . j^^^ ^j^^ building sInk into utter ruin, and to make some
less costly provision for the spiritual wants of the congregation.
I cannot deny that there is a disproportion between the scale of
the building, and the want which it actually supplies. It Is a
disproportion of superfluity, not of deficiency, and may. It Is to be
hoped, hereafter become less sensible, while the room remains the
same. But is any one prepared, either In theory or in practice,
to accept the principle, of exactly adapting the provision for the
worship of God to the need of the worshippers, and to condemn all
further outlay as waste ? I will not ask whether the earliest
example of such parsimony among Christ's disciples is one which
we should wish to follow. But If the principle was consistently

CHARGES. 95
applied, how many of us must stand convicted of waste, like that
which excited the indignation of Judas? How many costly
churches have we built, when four waUs, roofed over, with a few
holes to let in the Ught, would have served the purpose of pubUc
worship? Even if, in ordinary cases, we had acted on such a
principle, there would have been one which would have had a
right to be treated as an exception — the Cathedral of the Diocese.
Surely this ought not to be the exception, where the cheerful
sacrifice of worldly things for God's honour is the rule. I rejoice
that it is no longer a question, whether we shaU abandon or pre
serve a sacred and precious deposit, bequeathed to us by the pious
munificence of former ages, and that I may before long be per
mitted to see the work carried to within a few stages of its
final completion. For this happy change in its prospects we are
indebted to the arrangement into which the Dean and Chapter
have just entered with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. I must,
however, observe, that their grant, together with the fund pre
viously raised, -wiU not cover more than about two-thirds of the
estimated cost, and that it will stiU be to private liberaUty that we
must look for the remainder. Let me add that, even if we should
descend to lower ground than I think we are at Uberty to take, I
am persuaded that the outlay is likely to yield a large return, in
the impulse which this great work may be expected to give to
the progress of church restoration throughout the Diocese.
To return for a few moments to the general subject. By far
the larger part of the funds with which the work of chmoh
church buUding has been carried on in the Diocese mainiy
... . , , Till carried on
Withm my o-wn experience, has been supplied by volun- by voinn-
tary contributions. In one point of-view this is a cheering ^^^°^^-
fact, as it shows that the movement has not been checked by the
difficulty which besets the collecting of Church Rates, and there
fore Is Ukely to advance, even if they should be entirely aboUshed.
But I am far from thinking that therefore we can be Indifferent
to the state of the law on the subject, either as regards others or
ourselves. It is true that, even where the rate appears to be
hopelessly lost, active exertions on the part of the clergyman have

96 BISHOP THIRL-VyALL'S
almost invariably succeeded in accomplishing the restoration of
his church. But In many of these cases a light rate, made in time,
would have prevented the building from faUing to decay, and
have spared the congregation the inconvenience of assembUng in
it, while in a condition painful to devout feeling, if not perilous to
health, or of transferring their attendance to some private room,
of scanty dimensions, rudely fitted up for the temporary purpose.
No doubt the privation often purchases a much greater benefit :
the exchange of a very unsightly buUding for a new one of more
becoming character. But frequently the only difference is, that
what has been done at last with great difficulty, cost, and
inconvenience, would have been done earlier, more easily, and
cheaply. The Church Rate question has been left on its old footing.
The clergy were almost universaUy opposed to the measure by
state of the whIch an attempt was made in the last Session of
Church Rate
question. Parliament to provide a substitute for the compulsory
Rate. It appeared, I believe, to most of them, that. If they were
to be thro-wn entirely on the voluntary principle, they might as
weU, if not much better, act upon their own judgment as to the
mode in which they availed themselves of It, without any legis
lative regulations, which might as often fetter and weaken, as
promote Its operation. The loss to the Church was clear and
certain : the gain confined to one class of society, which has no
more right to it than any other. And If there were any who had
•ever Imagined that the loss would be compensated by the removal
of a constant cause of strife and bitterness, these had been long
undeceived by the candid avowal of the Liberation Society, that
they set no value on the aboUtion, except as a step which would
give them vantage ground or leverage for further assaults on the
Established Church. The general object of the BUl was one
which most Churchmen would have agreed in regarding as highly
desirable. They were quite -willing that Nonconformists should
be exempted from the Rate. It was by the Dissenters themselves
that Mr. Hubbard's BUl, brought in for that purpose, was rejected,
on the singular ground, — which throws a very instructive light on

CHARGES. 97
the character of their conscientious scruples, — that they did not
Uke to be ticketed, or recognized as Dissenters, though on other
occasions they glory In the profession of their principles, and of
their hostility to the Established Church. It almost looked as if
they did not Uke to part with a grievance which they had found
to be not only harmless, but useful. The Government Bill of last
Session met this objection, so as to satisfy the representatives of
the Dissenting body, who required nothing more than the aboli
tion of the compulsory Rate. But as the compulsion of which
they complained was that which was exercised on themselves,
whUe Churchmen, as far as they themselves were concerned, did
not object to it, but desired Its continuance, it would have seemed
enough if those who complained of It had been relieved from It, all
things in other respects remaining as they were.
But the BUl went much further than this. It swept away the
whole system, both with regard to Dissenters and to Aboutionot
Churchmen, and only permitted voluntary contributions
to be levied in the form of a Rate, but without any power of enforc
ing payment. It might be open to question, whether such a
power should exist : but the right of entering Into a voluntary
engagement, with the liberty of eluding it, could hardly be
considered as a very valuable boon by those for whose benefit
it was designed.
I wiU take this occasion to remark, that a wish has been
expressed in some quarters for the establishment of a Desire for a
33iocGSfl.u
Diocesan Church Building Society. There are, no doubt, church
. . . . " Building
Dioceses in which this Institution has produced very bene- society.
ficial results. My only objection to trying the experiment in ours,
is my fear that the only certain appreciable effect would be to
add to the burdens of the clergy. It can hardly be expected that
the laity would take even so lively an interest in the promotion of
church building as in the diEEusIon of education ; and the state of
the funds which they contribute to that object does not encourage
reUance on their aid toward one In which they would not feel
themselves so nearly concerned. Still, if It should appear that the
clergy are generally desirous of making such an effort I should be
vol,. II. H

98 quite ready to comply with their wishes, and to second it to the
best of my ability.
The Aug- Before I pass to a different subject, I must say a word
mentation^'I'J- on another point of purely Diocesan interest. The
Augmentation Fund, which I founded In 1851, has now yielded
24,000/., of which very nearly 17,000/. has been already expended,
almost entirely in the buUding of parsonage houses. As no part
of this sum has been granted uncondltionaUy, and the larger part
has been met with grants of equal amount by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners, It may be considered as representing a sum ex
ceeding 30,000/. already applied to this object, which, when the
remainder of the 24,000/. shaU have been dispensed In like manner,
will be increased to upwards of 40,000/. The number of the
Uvlngs which have hitherto shared the benefit of the Fund is
thirty-four. I still Intend to apply the remainder now at my
disposal and whatever may hereafter accrue to the Fund, in the
same way. But though It will be equally beneficial to the livings
augmented, I am sorry to have to inform you that it will not be
so to the present incumbents who receive the benefaction ; for the
Ecclesiastical Commissioners have found themselves compeUed, in
order to provide for the still more important object of putting an
end to the renewal of leases on payment of fines, to substitute
permanent annuities for capital sums ; and the only way in which
their grants can be made available for the purpose of buUding Is
by loan from Queen Anne's Bounty, entailing a charge of interest
on the living. Future appUcants must bear this In mind. I hope
indeed, though with no great confidence, that means may be found
to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to revert to their
original practice. But I must also express an earnest "wish that
they would modify their requirements as to the scale of buUding,
which Is too often In excess, not only of the wants, but of the
means of the clergy In this Diocese, and would, if it had been
lower, have rendered my Fund somewhat less Inadequate to the
object ; and there are stiU more than two hundred benefices desti
tute of glebe houses.
I am sure that I shall be borne out by the experience and obser-

CHARGES. 99
vation of my reverend brethren in this and in every Archdeaconry
of the Diocese, when I say that the progress made in Progress of
education in
the work of popular education has been not less steady ^^^ Diocese.
than that of church building and church restoration during the
same period. Many of you can witness to that which Is mainly
your own work, — the fruit of heavy pecuniary sacrifices, as well
as of much labour and anxiety, — the founding of new schools, the
erection of new school-buildings, or the adaptation of the old to the
requirements of a higher standard. I may also point to the
foundation of our Training CoUege, as having marked a great -
epoch in the history of education in the Diocese, and as the
origin of an impulse which has never slackened, but has been
strengthened by the institution of our Archldlaconal Boards,
which has, I hope, ensured its permanently progressive action.
But we must not disguise from ourselves, that this progress is
apparent only in places which may be considered as centres of a
more or less considerable population. The Returns which I have
received from you continue to exhibit a sad blank with regard to
day schools In the more thinly Inhabited rural districts. I find no
less than 120 parishes in which it does not appear that any pro
vision has yet been made, through the instrumentaUty of the
Church, for the education of the poor. I cannot, of course, under
take to pronounce with regard to all these cases, that more might
not have been done to cover this grievous blot. But knowing
what I do of the general character of these rural districts, on the
one hand, and, on the other hand, of the difficulties which beset
the founding and support of schools, even in more favoured neigh
bourhoods, I may venture to say that the fact of the absence of a
day school is by no means In itself conclusive proof of culpable
remissness. Indifference, or want of energy in the clergyman, and
also to express my conviction that, under the present system, and
without more effectual puljllc aid, there Is no prospect that this
state of things will ever be materially amended.
Sharing, as we have done, in the benefits derived from the dis
tribution of the Parliamentary Grant for Education, wo have also
suffered, in common -with others, from the changes which have taken
H 2

100 BISHOP THIRLyVALL's
place in the principles or maxims on which It has been adminis-
Eflects of tered, and which, however reasonable they may have been
itevised in themselves, have certainly been far from purely bene-
° ^' ficial in their consequences. We have no right Indeed
to complain, because the dispensation of the grant Is regulated by
a more rigid economy than when it was comparatively small.
The more firmly we are convinced that there Is no worthier
object to which the wealth of the country can be applied than the
intellectual and moral training of the great mass of the people, the
more we must desire that no part of the funds destined to this
purpose should be wasted, and that, if there had been any super
fluous, though It may be not absolutely useless expenditure, this
should be retrenched, and the saving reserved for the supply of
real needs. Such retrenchment was one object of the Re-vised
Code. But it is much to be feared that It has been carried too
near to the quick, has increased the difficulties of the promoters of
schools, and has tended to discourage all who have engaged or
were ready to engage In the work of education. Such a result,
though no doubt wholly undesigned and unforeseen, must be
deeply deplored by all who believe that the present system. In
which private undertakings are seconded by the State, and
animated by the prospect of that assistance, is on the whole best
suited to the circumstances of our mixed society ; because in the
same degree in which It Impairs the efficacy and shakes the credit
of that system, it favours the views of those who wish to see that
system superseded by one more comprehensive and more nearly
adequate to the wants of the nation : though with the Inevitable,
at least partial, sacrifice of much which the promoters of schools
mostly consider as of supreme importance. It cannot be denied
that the present system needs, not contraction, but expansion ;
that It does not reach aU for whom It was designed ; that this
country is still, -with regard to the diffusion of elementary educa
tion, in a position of humiliating Inferiority to other States, to
which it Is far superior in wealth. The Revised Code has
certainly gained no step in this direction. It has not only been
attended with serious losses to the managers of schools through

CHARGES. 101
causes beyond their control, for which, therefore, they could not
justly be made answerable ; but It has driven some, and those
among the ablest teachers, from their profession Into other walks
of Ufe, and It has so reduced the average amount of reward for
their services, and rendered it so precarious and uncertain, as to
lower the value and credit of the profession, and to deter the
rising generation from entering it. We have thus the prospect
that many schools depending on the ParUamentary Grant wIU be
closed, and that in those which are able to maintain a struggling
existence, at the cost of hard sacrifices and painful anxiety to
their managers, the work will be continually passing Into less and
less competent hands. * Thus one of the most precious fruits of
the old system — the training a great body of well-educated
teachers — will have been lost. And I cannot help thinking that
this unhappy result Is due, not only to an excessive and mis-directed
parsimony, but in part to a mistake, which can never be gva of
quite harmless, and may become a serIous..©vil — I mean theadmSf-
the committing the administration of a system to persons system to
persons
who are notoriously and avowedly hostile to It, as was ^'ost'i^ to it.
very conspicuously the case with one at least who for five years
held a high office in the Committee of Council on Educa
tion, t To the same cause may be stIU more distinctly traced
the offensive and no less absurd and unjust imputation oh
school managers, with which the Revised Code was introduced.
Men who had made the greatest personal sacrifices for the pro
motion of education, found themselves charged with selfish
motives, because they opposed a change, which in their view
threatened the very existence of their schools, and which has
been attended -with effects which few who do not desire the aboli-
* See an article on the Revised Code in the Fortnightly Review, May 15, 1 866,
p. 75. The last Report of the Committee of Council on Education states (p. xiii.) ;
" The introduction of the Re-vised Code has been followed by a great diminution in
the number of pupil-teaohers, especially of male pupil-teachers ; the total number of
pupU-teachers ia 1862 (December 31) was 15,752, against 11,221 in 1865, showing a
diminution of 28.7 per cent."
t See the e-vidence of Mr. Lowe before the Select Committee on Education, pp.
38, 39, and Professor Plumptre ou the Conscience Clause, in the Contemporary
Review, April, 1866, p. 580.

102 BISHOP thirlvtall's
tion of the Denominational System, can -view without sorrow
and uneasiness.
The Revised It was to be expectcd that the Training CoUeges should
relatim to feel the effccts of the revised system, and that to many of
Training i i ¦! i
CoUeges. them It should have proved fatal, whUe as to the
remainder, It Is impossible to foresee how long they may survive.
Our own has hitherto endured the crisis, but has not passed
through it. Perhaps we have more reason to be surprised that
any of them should have been allowed to subsist. I always indeed
thought that there was an enormous and almost absurd dispropor
tion between the variety and difficulty of the branches of knowledge
cultivated in these establishments, and the extent of proficiency
required, on the one hand ; and, on the other hand, the character
of the schools and the capacity of the scholars for whose instruction
this multifarious and profound learning was supposed to be
acquired. While complaints were heard on every side of the
early age at which most of the children were taken away from
school, and which rendered it almost hopeless that they should
retain even the first rudiments of knowledge, the training of their
teachers was carried nearer and nearer to a point not far below
the average conditions of a University degree. Still, under the
previous system there were opportunities, though comparatively
rare, of imparting this knowledge to some of the elder scholars.
It was found, indeed, In many cases, that an undue share of the
master's time and attention was bestowed on the favoured few,
while the many were abandoned to the care of his young assistants,
without any effectual security for their Instruction in the first
rudiments of the most necessary knowledge. That was the ground
alleged, I cannot help suspecting with some exaggeration, for the
revolution effected by the Re-vised Code. But now that aU motive
suppUed by the dispensation of the Parliamentary grant for any
instruction beyond the arts of reading and writing and a few rules
of arithmetic has been -withdrawn, * it seems clear that such
* " The Re-vised Code has tended, at least temporarily, to discourage attention to
the higher branches of elementary instruction — geography, grammar, and history."
(Report u. s.) This is the concurrent testimony of thirteen School Inspectors. On
the authority of three others it is added: ''There are however signs of recovery;

CHARGES. 103
elaborate culture of minds to be employed in this very simple task,
is altogether superfluous and out of place. The Training Colleges
do not really belong to the system of the Revised Code, and if it
was to be considered as the final phase In the history of the sub
ject, might almost as weU cease to exist.
But It appears to me that such a state of things would be a very
lamentable and humiliating issue of all the thought ^.^^ opera-
and work that have been spent on the subject. I think fahoiSng^
there ought to be, in schools for the labouring classes,
a large demand for that higher training which the Normal
CoUeges were intended to give, though perhaps with some modifi
cations, calculated to increase their practical usefulness. To
the principle, indeed, on which the Revised Code was based, we
cannot but give a most hearty assent. No one can deny the
right and duty of the State to demand results, where they may be
obtained, as the only sure test of real and honest service, and the
Indispensable condition of remuneration granted out of a public
fund. Nor can it be doubted that the elementary knowledge
required by the present regulations Is equally needful and profit
able for all, and for a very large, perhaps the largest part, of the
labouring class, both sufficient for their wants, and as much as,
under the narrow limitation of their school years, they are capable
of receiving. But there remain In the upper and more Important
division of the labouring class, a very great number whose
existence is ignored in the Revised Code, which makes no pro
vision for their wants, but leaves and almost forces them to seek
the education which they need to fit them for their probable future
occupations, from private adventurers, utterly destitute of all real
quaUficatlons for the duty they undertake, and who look to It only
as a gainful speculation by which they exchange empty profes
sions for solid If not perfectly clean lucre. The question has been
asked, "Do our National Schools provide education for aU whom
they ought to train ?" * and It has been proved beyond a doubt,
and those schools do best in the elementary subjects where the higher are not
neglected." * By the Rev. Robert Gregory, in a pamphlet with this title, addressed to the
Ai'chbishop of Canterbury.

104 BISHOP THIRLyi^ all's
both that they do not make such provision, and that the tendency
of the Re-vised Code is to prevent them from so doing. The
National Society has shown itself awake to the Importance of
the question, and has announced its Intention of the taking steps
with a view to the supply of this great deficiency. I can only
commend the subject to the attention of those of my reverend
brethren whose position may afford them the opportunity of prac
tically dealing with It. On the whole, I can only consider both
systems, the present and the past, as experiments, each of which
has been but partially successful, though neither has entirely
failed. It is to be hoped that the experience which has been
gained through both, at no light cost, both to Individuals and to
the public, may serve to prepare the way for a happier state of
things. In the meanwhile, the attention of the Church has been much
occupied by another question connected with this subject, which
has been discussed with great warmth, and has caused an Inter
ruption in the relations which had for many years happily
subsisted between the National Society and the Committee of
Council on Education. It is most earnestly to be desired that
those friendly relations and that harmonious co-operation should
be restored, and I observe signs which lead me to hope that this
event Is not very far distant, and that a change has already taken
place in many minds favourable to the prospect of a better under
standing between the parties. You will readUy perceive that I
The Con- am speaking of the Conscience Clause, which the Com-
ciause. mittee of Council have felt it their dy.ty in certain cases
to require to be Inserted In the trust deeds of Church schools, as
the condition of aid from the Parliamentary grant. I feel it
incumbent on me to say a few words in explanation of my present
views of the subject, because they may appear not quite in accord
ance -with those which I expressed, not indeed on this precise
question, but on one connected -with it, some years ago. It may
be in your recollection that I had then occasion to contend against
a proposal which had been made to supersede Church schools in
Wales by others on the model of the British and Foreign Schools.

CHARGES. 105
I opposed this innovation, as proceeding on a partial and erro
neous view of the facts of the case, as needless for its avowed
purpose, and as tending to substitute a worse for a better kind of
school. That opinion I retain entirely unaltered, or rather
strengthened by subsequent inquiry. But It might seem as If in
that controversy I was taking common ground with those who
resisted the imposition of a Conscience Clause. The agreement,
however, was merely apparent and accidental. My own opportu
nities of observation led me to believe that the clause was
unnecessary, and ought not to be imposed until its necessity was
proved. It also appeared questionable whether the Committee of
Council were not exceeding the limits of their lawful authority,
when they introduced such an Innovation -without the express
sanction of ParUament. This last objection has been continuaUy
urged by the opponents of the Clause, though it is evidently quite
foreign to the merits of the Clause itself. But It seems now very
doubtful whether this is an argument which can be used without
taking an ungenerous advantage of a forbearance for which the
Church has cause to be thankful; It is now certain that the
motive which withheld the Committee of CouncU from applying
to Parliament for Its express , approval of the Conscience Clause,
was the very reverse of an apprehension lest it should not obtain
the assent of the House of Commons. It was a fear lest they
should be thought not to have gone far enough and should be
forced to take steps which would drive many of the clergy to fore
go all benefit from the ParUamentary grant. * This, however, as I
have said, is a formal and technical rather than a substantial and
practical objection. It may not be an unfit argument for a
political debate, but it is not one which much concerns or raises a
scruple in the minds of the clergy or the managers of Church
schools. If they decline to accept a grant on the condition of a
Conscience Clause it Is because they dislike the clause in vehement
.1/1 1 T - ^ ^ 1 1 • denuncia-
itself, on grounds which would be just as strong if It tion of it.
had been imposed by the Legislature. It has indeed been so vehe-
* See the evidence of Earl Granville before the Select Committee on Education,
p. 109.

106 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
mently denounced by persons who exercise no inconsiderable
influence on public opinion In Church questions, that It is not easy
for it to gain a calm and fair hearing. It requires a certain
amount of moral courage In a clergyman, whatever may be his
private opinion, to take a step which he has been told by persons
whom he highly respects Is inconsistent -with his duty to the
Church, and tends to the most dangerous consequences ; above aU,
when he finds this proposition affirmed by a vote of the Lower
House of Convocation.
Nature of I vcnturo to Say with the deepest conviction, that
sions on it. ncver has the truth on any subject been more obscured
by passionate declamation, sophistical reasoning, high-sounding
but utterly hoUow phrases, and by violent distortion of notorious
facts, than on this : all, no doubt, completely unintentional on the
part of the exceUent persons who were betrayed into these errors,
who were the first dupes of their own fallacies, and are perhaps of
all men Uving the least capable of anything bordering on disin
genuous artifice or wilful misrepresentation. It was the natural
effect of the panic into which they were thro-wn by the suggestion
of a danger threatening Interests most justly dear and sacred to
them, which prevented them from exercising a right judgment on
this question, or seeing any object connected with It in Its true
Ught. But this deep earnestness, while It does honour to their
feelings, renders their aberrations the more deplorable and mis
chievous. I have good hope, however, that the mist which they
have raised is beginning to break and clear away. I am glad to
see that the weakness of their " reasons," and the groundlessness of
their position, have been exposed, both in and outside of Convoca
tion, by clergymen at least their equals in abiUty and attachment
to the Church, though lower in official station. * I feel too much
* Though the argumentative force of Archdeacon Denison's " Seventeen Reasons"
has evaporated under Mr. Oakley's analyis (" The Conscience Clause, a Reply to
Archdeacon Denison, by John Oakley, M.A.") they will always retain a certain
value, as examples of a great variety of fallacies, which once actually deceived
well-educated men. Perhaps I might have been content vrith referring to
Professor Plumptre's very able article onthe subject in the Contemporary Review, if
readers were more in the habit of consulting books to which they are referred. But I
strongly recommend it to the perusal of every one who takes an interest in the question.

CHARGES. 107
confidence in the moderation and practical good sense of the great
body of the clergy, to beUeve that they wUl be long misled by any
authority which will not bear the test of sober judgment, and I
am sure that they wUl sooner or later be found on the side of truth
and justice.
The general ground of the opposition which has been made to
the Conscience Clause cannot be more strongly expressed Ground of
than when it Is said to "undermine the foundation of to it.
religion." But If there Is any force at all in the arguments which
have been brought against it, the expression is not too strong, for
in whatever terms they may have been couched this Is what they
reaUy amount to and imply, though the vagueness of the phrase
Is better fitted to excite a bUnd bewildering alarm than to raise any
clear and definite issue. In fact, until It has been explained and
limited it can only act upon the feelings and the imagination, and
presents no hold for any rational opinion. But when it is trans
lated Into plainer language, it appears that the mode in which the
foundation of reUgion is thought to be undermined by the Con
science Clause, consists in the interference which through it the
State is aUeged to exercise in the reUgious teaching of Church
schools. This is an allegation which we can immediately compare
with the Clause itself, so as to ascertain in what sense it is to be
understood, and how far it is warranted by the meaning of the
Clause. Here, however, I must remark a pecuUar and very significant
feature in this controversy: that, though it relates to itsoppo-
a practical subject, those who describe the Clause as never ap-
¦^ •" pealed to
fraught with such dreadful consequences, have never experience.
appealed to experience, but rely entirely on their own sagacity for
discerning the effects of a contingency which it is their object to
avert. * And they do so, not because the question is beyond the
range of experience, and confined to the region of theological
speculation. There is experience to consult, and such as would, I
• E-vidence of Archdeacon Denison before the Select Committee on Education,
3727 : " It is then an opinion unsupported by any actual experience f — Yes, I can
not say that I have had any actual experience of the adoption of the Clause."

108 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
believe, in most cases be considered a sufficient guide. In the
present case it has been rejected or Ignored by those who condemn
the Clause, but only for a reason which does not in the least lessen
its Intrinsic value, namely, that so far as It goes, it happens to run
counter to their views. The Conscience Clause is not an experi
ment which has yet to be made : it has been already tried in a
great number of schools. First, in aU those In which the prin
ciple was voluntarily adopted by the managers of Church schools.
I have yet to learn that this has ever been attended with the
slightest perceptible ill-effect. It may however be said, that
this Is immaterial, and that the relaxation of the principle — the
right and duty of the Church to inculcate every article of her
doctrine on all children who are admitted into her schools — is,
independently of consequences, the worst of evils, a virtual "under
mining of the foundation of religion." I do not expect that the
exceUent persons who hold this opinion, would ever consent to
submit It to the test of experience. It is for them one of those
transcendental verities, belonging to a higher sphere, which are
degraded and profaned when they are brought down to earth, and
tried by their application to the actual condition of things, and
the real affairs of human life. I am quite content that they
should be spared such contact with the world of reaUty. All that
I wish is, that the world of reality should not be subjected to
their Influence, but should be regulated by the results of practical
experience. But it has been contended, that the experience gained
commttel ^^ ^^'^^ Voluntary trials of the principle of the Con-
tfoSd SOTi- science Clause, Is not a satisfactory test : that the school
* ^' which has flourished while governed by the principle,
would begin to go to ruin, as soon as It became a matter of legal
right. That Is the ground taken by the Committee of the
National Society in their last Report. And the way In which the
subject Is there treated, seems to me highly worthy of note in
more respects than one. They state that they have always felt it
their duty to object to the Conscience Clause as a condition of
assistance from the Parliamentary grant. The fact Indeed is

CHARGES. 109
unquestionable. And when we consider that this opposition,
carried on to a rupture between the National Society and the
Committee of Council, has actually — which ever party may be
responsible for it — caused a great amount of serious incon
venience, not to say positive evil; perplexity in the minds of
school managers, and obstruction to the work of education ; It was
certainly to be expected that the Committee, when they stated the
fact, would assign a reason sufficient to show that the course they
had pursued had indeed been prescribed to them by an inflexible
law of duty.
But the ground which they assign Is one which, to those who
take the higher -view of the inaUenable prerogative weakness of
and indispensable duty of the Church, must appear ment.
pitiably weak, and, when put forward alone, and therefore as the
strongest, as amounting to little less than a treacherous abandon
ment of the cause, at least to a pusIUanlmons suppression of the
truth. They say, " No such provision is practically required for
the protection of Nonconformists, for Nonconformist parents and
guardians scarcely ever object to the religious Instruction given in
National Schools ; and when they do, the clergy and school
managers almost invariably consent to some arrangement by
which the objection is removed" (In other words they act on the
principle of the Conscience Clause). "If, however," the Report
proceeds, " an arrangement of this kind were made a matter of
legal right, it may be feared that the peace and harmony which
now prevaU In parishes with regard to education would be broken
— that parents and guardians might frequently be influenced to
demand as a right what they seldom care to ask for as a favour."
No doubt, the Committee had very good reason for taking this
low ground, however it might dissatisfy and displease one section
of their friends, who were most strenuous in opposition to the
Clause. They were no doubt aware that the transcendental argu
ment might do good service in its proper place ; that it was well
adapted for rhetorical effect, and when wielded by an able speaker,
might kindle a useful enthusiasm in a mixed assembly. But they
probably felt that It was one which would not bear to be produced

110
in a Report dealing with real facts, and could not be supposed to
have influenced the minds of a Committee, composed in a great
part of laymen, who, while warm friends of the Church, were also
clear-headed men of business. The reason assigned therefore was
such as they need not be ashamed to avow. But it laboured
under the disadvantage and defect of being drawn, not from
experience, but from conjecture : and experience, as far as It has
gone, has proved the conjecture to be mistaken. The Clause has
been accepted without the consequences which it was feared would
ensue, when that which was conceded as an Indulgence should
become a matter of legal right. I have been assured by a clergy
man who has had practical experience of the working of the
The Clause ^^^^^ i° large schools in the neighbourhood of London, *
praotSS""* t^at there are "no practical difficulties whatever in
carrying It out." And one weU authenticated case in
which the Clause has not only been accepted, but acted upon, and
the right which it gives has been actually claimed on behalf of
some of the children, seems decisive. But even without such
testimony, I own that I should think meanly of the administrative
ability of a clergyman who, having the wUl, was unequal to the
task of overcoming such a difficulty. For it must be remembered
that the question can only arise in parishes where Dissenters are
in a minority, and commonly a small one. But I readUy admit
that the more or less of difficulty that may be found in adjusting
the work of a Church school to the operation of the Conscience
Clause, is quite a secondary consideration, and that what has the
foremost claim on our attention are the principles which are said
to be at stake In this dispute.
Principles There are two which lie at the root of the Conscience
at stake m
the dispute. Clause. One Is, that every child in a parish has an
equal right to a share in the benefits of education, for which a
provision Is made out of public money. The other Is, that every
parent — not labouring under legal disability — has a right to
regulate the reUgious education of his children according to his
own views. I am not aware that either of these propositions has
* The Rev. T. W. Fowle. See Mr. Oakley's pamphlet, p. 33.

CHARGES. Ill
been disputed, as a general principle, even by the most thorough
going opponents of the Conscience Clause ; but it has been denied
that they can be properly brought to bear upon It. It is contended
that there are other principles, irreconcUable with the Clause,
which have a prior claim to rule the decision of the question, and
so prevent the first from ever coming Into play. The right of the
child, we are told, cannot justly be allowed to override one
previously acquired by the Church ; especiaUy as it Is always in
the power of the State to make a separate provision for the
Dissenting minority, however small. Even if there be only half
a dozen, a school may be built, and a master paid for their
instruction. The opponents of the Clause are liberal of the
pubUc money, and would not grudge an expense which it Is to
defray. But as outside of their circle it would be universaUy
regarded as a scandalous waste, it Is moraUy and practicaUy
impossible. This therefore is not a real alternative. The choice
Ues between the exclusion of some children from all the benefits
of the school, and their admission, on terms which are said to be
a violation of compact between Church and State ; to interfere with
the religious instruction of Church schools, to introduce a system of
secular education, and thus to undermine the foundation of religion.
How far the Clause is open to these charges, is the point on
which, in the eyes of clergymen, and of all faithful Churchmen,
the question must ultimately turn, and on which it must depend
whether they can justly or safely accept the Clause.
It is to me satisfactory to find that little more is needed for the
refutation of these statements, than to translate them into more
exact terms, and to supply that which is wanted to make them
fuUy intelUglble. As soon as the Ught of truth and common
sense Is turned upon them, they seem to melt Into air. The
question as to breach of compact. Is, as I observed, ¦^^.^^¦^,,,1
irrelevant to the merits of the clause. But yet the ™°*''*°*-
complaint suggests the Idea of a wrong done to the clergyman,
whose application for aid is refused, because he wIU not admit
children of Dissenters into his school without teaching them every
doctrine of the Church. But it has not, I think, ever been

112
asserted, that there was ever any compact which bound the Com
mittee of Council to forego the exercise of their own discretion in
giving or withholding their aid. It may be a question whether
they have exercised It rightly or not, but this must depend, not
on the supposed compact, but on the circumstances of the case.
We may Imagine a correspondence running in some such form as
this. The clergyman writes : "I ask for a grant toward the
education of the poor of my parish. It contains a few Dissenters,
Baptists, and others, who probably will not send their children to
school, because my conscience does not permit me to receive any
children whom I am not to instruct In all the doctrines of the
Church." The answer might be, " We are sorry that such
should be the dictate of your conscience ; but, as stewards of the
pubUc purse, we have a conscience too. And we should think It
a misapplication of the fund committed to our disposal. If we were
to build either two schools for so smaU a population, or one school
only, from which a part of the population was to be excluded.
We offer no violence to your conscientious scruples ; we trust that
you will respect ours. If you are resolved to admit Dissenting
children on no other terms, we must reserve our grant until you
shall have brought over aU your parishioners to your own way of
thinking." I must own that I do not see how this can be
properly described as a compulsory Imposition of the Conscience
Clause ; language which suggests an idea of -violence which has
not and could not be used. It would be quite as correct to say,
that the clergyman compeUed the Committee of Council to -with
hold the grant, as that, in the opposite event, they compelled him
to accept it on their conditions. But all that Is Important is,
that it should be distinctly understood in what sense the terms are
used, and that, as between the clergyman and the Committee of
Council, there Is no breach of compact whatever. It Is true that
many suffer from the disagreement. The children of the parish
may lose the benefit of education. But it cannot be fairly assumed
that the fault lies on one side more than on the other. The
principle on which the grant was refused, may have been quite
as sincerely held, as that on which it was declined. In every

CHARGES. 113
point of view it is entitled to equal respect. Which of the two
is the most just and reasonable, is a question on which every one
must be left to form his own opinion.
So again, if we inquire in what sense it Is asserted that the
Clause interferes with the religious instruction of Church Interference
schools, it turns out that it is a sense so remote from with reli
gious m-
that which the expression naturally suggests, and which church" ""
it has probably conveyed to most minds, that any argu
ment founded on its apparent meaning must be utterly delusive.
It is not denied, that a clergyman who has accepted the Clause, not
only remains at perfect liberty, but is as much as ever required
to instruct all the children of his own communion in aU the
doctrines of his Church. So far the Clause does not In the
slightest degree interfere with this branch of his pastoral office.
But there is a sense in which It certainly may be said to interfere
with his teaching. It Interferes to prevent him from forcing that
teaching on children whose parents wish that they should not
receive it. This may be right or wrong; but certainly it Is
something of a very different kind ; something to which the term
interference Is not usually applied. We do not commonly speak of
interference as an intermeddling, when any one Is prevented from
doing a wrong to his neighbour. The clergy are used to such
interference In other parts of their office, and never complain of
it. It is both their right and their duty to instruct their
parishioners In the doctrines of the Church. But in the exercise
of this right, and the discharge of this duty, they are subject to a
Conscience Clause, which does not even depend on their accept
ance of it, but is enforced by the law. They may teach all who
are willing to learn from them ; but they are not allowed to force
themselves into the pulpit of the Dissenting minister, for the
purpose of instructing his congregation, nor to drag that congre
gation Into the parish church. They submit most cheerfully
to this interference. I should be surprised if there was one
who desired more liberty In this respect, or did not abhor the
thouffht of the dragonades of Louis XIV. Where then lies the
hardship of a like interference — if it is to be so called — -ivhen
VOL. II. I

&

114
it limits their right of teaching the children of their schools,
who. In case of danger, have stUl greater need of protection ?
Some distinction must be drawn, to show that what is so
imperatively demanded by justice In the one case, becomes a
wrong in the other. The distinction which has been drawn for
this purpose rests on the assertion, that, although the religious
Instruction of the school may be precisely what It would have
been, if there had been none but children of Churchmen In it, the
presence of one who is withdrawn from this instruction, as the
child of a Dissenter, vitiates and counteracts the effects of the
whole. The Church children are deprived of aU the benefit they
would otherwise have gained from their religious teaching, while
the knowledge imparted to the Dissenting child, being, as It Is
assumed, divorced from religion, is worse than useless.
Groundless I say, ag it IS assumcd, because the argument rests on
aasump- ^ ^
tions. the wholly arbitrary and groundless assumption, that
unless the child receives religious instruction in the school, he
will receive none at all ; whereas the far more probable presump
tion is, that the parent who -withdraws his child from the religious
teaching of the school on conscientious grounds, will be the least
likely to neglect his religious education. The supreme Impor
tance of moral and religious training, as distinguished from mere
intellectual cultivation, may be fully admitted, but must be laid
aside as a truth wholly foreign to this question ; while the general
proposition, that it Is better for a child to receive no Instruction
of any kind than to attend a school in which it learns nothing but
reading, writing, and arithmetic,* and that the moral discipline of ~
the school, however exceUent in itself, Is utterly worthless, Is one
of that class which it is sufficient to state. For those who are
capable of maintaining It, It admits of no refutation ; for the rest
of mankind It "needs none. No doubt most Churchmen, and
probably every clergyman, would greatly prefer a school, however
inferior In other fespects, in which reUgious instruction according
* " As to reading, writing, and arithmetic, I think that without religion (subaudi,
such aa I would teach them) they are better without it." Archdeacon Denison's
evidence Iwfore the Select Committee on Education, 3764.

CHARGES. 115
to the doctrine of the Church occupies the foremost place, to the
public schools of the United States. But that these are worse
than useless, nurseries of diabolical wickedness, armed with
inteUectual power, and that it would have been better for those
who have been trained In them If they had grown up in utter
Ignorance of all that they learned there, is an opinion held pro
bably by few. I do not attempt to refute it. I only wish to
observe that It is an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning
by which the Conscience Clause is made out to be an interference
with the religious Instruction of Church schools. But when we
hear that the benefit of this instruction Is neutralized by the
presence of a child who has been withdrawn from it at the desire
of his parents, and so the religion of the place damaged, we
cannot help asking. If the religious principles of the Church
chUdren are " poisoned " when they find that some of their
schoolfellows belong to the meeting-house, how are those prin
ciples to survive the Inevitable discovery that this is the case with
some of their young neighbours, though not admitted into the
school ? And as this would imply incredible ignorance and more
than childish simplicity, so, when it is intimated that they wiU
infer from the fact that their own teachers are indifferent to
reUgion,* this is really to charge them with an excess of intel
lectual perversity, and of calumnious misconstruction, of which
chUdhood is happily Incapable, and which is reserved for riper
years, and for minds that have undergone the baneful influence of
long habits of political or religious controversy.
After this, we shall not find it difficult to do justice to the asser
tion, that the Conscience Clause virtually insinuates the insinuation
poisonous and deadly pt'inciple of secular education into the educationinto the
heart of the Denominational System. We must observe Denomi-
•^ -^ national
that. Independently of any Conscience Clause, this evU ^y^*^™-
principle must be found in every Church school. In all, the
education consists of three parts : the moral discipUne — which
the Clause does not in any way affect — the secular instruction,
and the religious instruction. All the children may be said to be
• See "reason " four of Archdeacon Denison's seventeen.
1 2

116 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
receiving secular education during one, and that the longest period
of their school work. The effect of the Conscience Clause Is, that
some receive In the school secular Instruction only. But the
character of a school must depend on that which It professes and
offers to give, not on the number of those who receive aU that it
offers. A grammar school does not lose Its character as such
because all the scholars do not learn Latin and Greek, but at the
wish of their parents are aUowed to devote their time to a
different course of study. But I am aware how this view of the
case has been met by the opponents of the Conscience Clause ; and
it appears to me that a simple statement of their argument is
sufficient to establish the truth of that which they controvert. It
is argued that there ought to be no such thing as purely secular
Purely Instruction In a Church school ; that all manner of
secular in
struction, knowledge should be "Interpenetrated with a definite
objective and dogmatic faith ; " and that " the thread of religion
should run through the whole, from one end to the other."* It
may appear, at first sight, as If these phrases were utterly
unmeaning, and could only have been used by persons who had
never reflected whether they are capable of any application to the
real work of a school. How, it may be asked, Is a sum in the
Rule of Three to be " interpenetrated " with a definite, objective
and dogmatic faith ? That may seem hard ; but I am afraid that
it has been thought possible, and that exceUent persons have
believed they had accompUshed It, by selecting examples of the
rules of arithmetic out of Scripture. I leave It to others to judge
how far this Is Ukely to cherish reverence for Holy Scripture, or
to Imbue young minds with dogmatic faith. I only say this Is
the nearest approach I have yet heard of toward reducing the
maxim Into practice. I am not aware whether there are yet
Church schools where all the copies in the writing-books are
enunciations of dogma, and all the reading lessons extracted from
treatises on dogmatic theology. But this appears to be absolutely
necessary for the completeness of the system, as the completeness
* Archdeacon Denison's speech in Convocation on the Conscience Clause, pp. 16,
23.

CHARGES. 117
of the system Is essential to the force of the argument. It must be
presumed that the persons who insist on this argument enjoy a
privilege which faUs to the lot of very few clergymen, that of
leisure, enabling them constantly to superintend the whole course
of Instruction In their parish schools, so as to make sure that every
part, however nomlnaUy secular, is thoroughly "Interpenetrated
-with a definite, objective and dogmatic faith." It cannot be sup
posed that they would feel themselves at liberty to commit so very
difficult and delicate an operation to the schoolmaster, who can
hardly ever be capable of conducting it. Even In their own hands,
it must always require infinite caution, and be attended -with
extreme danger of a most fearful evil. The practice of improving,
as it is called, aU subjects of study by the Importation of improve-
rellglous, particularly dogmatic, reflections, apparently studies by
quite Irrelevant to their nature, seems much less Ukely fleoKons.
to form habits of genuine piety than either to corrupt the
simplicity of the child's character, or to disgust him with that
which is so obtruded on his thoughts, and to lead him to suspect
the earnestness and sincerity of his teachers. And one can hardly
help indulging a hope that, if we were admitted to see the
ordinary work of the schools, which must be supposed to exhibit
the most perfect models of such reUgious education, we should
find that they do not materially differ in this respect from others
of humbler pretensions, and that the practice faUs very far short
of the theory ; each being. In fact, applied to a distinct use ; the
one serving as an instrument of rational and wholesome instruc
tion, the other as a weapon for battling against the Conscience
Clause. There Is another aspect of the subject, which I cannot pass by in
silence, because it is perhaps the most important of all, ^he admis-
though I advert to it with some hesitation and reluctance. cMidr°en to
Unhappily there can be no doubt that a clergyman may schools who
be convinced that it is his duty to close the doors of iustrnoted
*, in her doc-
his parish school against every child whom he is *^"'^^-
not at liberty to instruct In all the doctrines of the Church. He
may firmly believe that, apart from this instruction, every thing

118 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
else that Is taught In the school is not only worthless, but posi
tively pernicious, " not a blessing, but a curse," * and therefore
that kindness toward the child — If there were no other motive —
demands that it should be guarded from this evil. To others,
who quite as fully admit the supreme importance of religious
education, it may appear that this Is straining the principle to a
length which shocks the common sense of mankind. That, how
ever. Is no reason whatever for questioning the perfect sincerity
of those by whom the opinion is professed. But It Is not credible
that any clergyman should not be aware that this Is not the view
commonly taken of the subject by fathers of famiUes in the
labouring classes. He cannot help knowing that, probably with
out exception, they regard the secular instruction — whether
accompanied -with religious teaching or not — as a great benefit to
their children, one on which their prospects in life mainly
depend, one therefore for which an inteUIgent and affectionate
parent is wiUing to make great sacrifices. A Dissenter who knows
that he can obtain these advantages at the parish school, together
-with a superintendence which may be urgently needed for the
child's safety, though clogged with the condition of Its being
brought up with the view of making it a proselyte to the Church,
and severed from the reUgious connection In which he wishes It to
remain, wIU be strongly tempted to purchase an advantage which
he believes to be great, at a risk which he may hope -wiU prove to
be smaU. He may know that the religious Impressions which are
commonly left on the mind of the child by the school teaching —
especiaUy that which relates to abstruse theological dogmas — are
seldom very deep, and that unless they are renewed after it has left
school, they -wiU vanish of themselves, and will be easUy counter
acted by parental authority. He may therefore consent to expose
his chUd to the danger, though it will be with reluctance. In pro
portion to the sincerity of his own con-victlons. Few, I think,
wIU be disposed to condemn him very severely, if he yields to such
a temptation. But in the eyes of a clergyman, who attaches
supreme value to a "definite, objective, and dogmatic faith," he
* Archdeacon Denison, u. a.

CHARGES. 119
must appear to be guilty of a breach of a most sacred duty ; to be
bartering his child's eternal welfare for temporal benefits ; to be
acting a double part, allowing his child to be taught that which
he Intends it to unlearn, and to profess that which he hopes It
will never believe. Can it be right for a clergyman holding such
views, to take advantage of the poor man's necessity and weakness,
for the sake of making a proselyte of the child ? Is he not really
bribing the father to do wrong, and holding out a strong tempta
tion to duplicity and hypocrisy, when he admits the chUd into his
school on such terms ? And when he enforces them by instruc
tion which is intended to alienate the child from the father in
their religious belief. Is he not oppressing the poor and needy ?
I can understand, though I cannot sympathise with It, the rigidity
of conscience which closes the school against Dissenters : but I
cannot reconcile It with the laxity of conscience which admits
them on such terms.
I must own that I have been sorry to observe the frequent re
ference which has been made, in the discussion of this Missionary
question, to what Is called, "the missionary office of g^^^?"''®
the Church in educating the chUdren of the sects."* ^t,t^£'
I do not much like to see the word missionary used -with
reference to the " sects." I do not think it will tend to produce
a happier state of feeling between the Church and the Dissenters,
If they find that we speak of them as if they were heathen. It
has Indeed always been the policy of the Church of Rome to deny
the right of all Protestants, Anglicans among the rest, to the
name of Christians, t But this Is one of the points in which I do
not desire to see a nearer approximation to the Romish spirit or
practice. But if the Church Is to discharge her "missionary
office In educating the children of the sects," this can only be
* Archdeacon Denison, u. s.
t " The Catholics," writes the Spanish ambassador, " your Highness is aware, are
also against her marriage -with the Duke of Norfolk, not being assured that he is a
Christian. The Earl of Arundel and Lord Lumley undertake however that the
Duke will submit to the Holy See." (Froude, Elizabeth, iv. p. 105.) Most
persons who know something of Roman Catholic countries, would probably testify,
from their own experience, that thia is still the language which expresses at least
the popular view of the subject.

120 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
done by placing them under the Instruction of missionaries, who
wiU bring them over to the belief, that the religion of their
parents — whether better than heathenism or not — is a false
religion. * To do this against the wUl of the parents — and as
long as they remain Dissenters it must be against their will,
though they may have been Induced by worldly motives to suffer
the experiment to be made — appears to me a shameful abuse of an
opportunity, which It was wrong to give, but far more culpable
to take.
Comparison ' We havc been seasonably reminded t of an occurrence
between it,,.^.,._-, .. ^ -
and the With which EuTope was ringing a lew years ago — the
case. foul deed by which, under colour of a sacrilegious abuse
of the Sacrament of Baptism, a Jewish child was torn from its
parents, to be brought up in the tenets of the Church of Rome.
This outrage was sanctioned by the highest authorities of that
Church. Much as it shocks our moral sense, we have no reason to
doubt, that all who were parties to It acted according to the
dictates of their conscience, and from motives of kindness toward
the child. As much may be said for those who entice Dissenters
into their schools, by opening the door to them, and then exercise
the missionary office of the Church upon them. + There is Indeed
a difference between the two cases, but I am not sure that it Is In
favour of the AngUcan mode of proceeding. The Mortara case
was one of sheer brute violence. There was no attempt to corrupt
or tamper with the conscience of the parents. They protested
against the abduction with all the energy of grief. It would
have been far worse for them. If their consent had been bought :
and the transaction, on the part of the purchaser, would have
been not less unjust, but more dishonourable. We are indignant,
but not surprised, when we hear of such acts in the Church of
Rome. We are too familiar with numberless examples In which
* "No religionis true, except the religion ofthe Church of England." Arch
deacon Denison, e-vidence, 3881. It is the old maxim, which had not been thought
over-lax, with a special restriction : Nulla salus extra Ecclesiam — Anglicanam.
t Professor Plumptre, u. s. p. 693.
J So Archdeacon Denison, u. s. 3823. " We may be obliged to do things some
times which may appear to trench upon other people's rights, but I do not think
that there is necessarily unkindness connected with it."

CHARGES. 121
she appears to have acted on the maxim, " Let us do evil, that
good may come." But, that conduct which can only be justified
by that maxim, should be avowed by clergymen of high position
In our Church at this day, is both humiUating and alarming.
There ought to be no need of such a pro-vision as a Conscience
Clause in this country. I at one time believed that it was not,
and never would be needed. But when I find that some of the
most honourable and high minded men among the clergy, may be
betrayed by their professional studies and associations into a
breach of morality, from which, if It had not seemed to them to be
sanctified by the end, they would have instinctively recoiled, I
am forced to the conclusion, that the protection afforded by the
Conscience Clause can not be either justly or safely withheld.
Even if it was not needed as a safeguard against a practical
wrong, it would be valuable as a protest against a false principle.
I do not myself think that the language of the Clause can be
fairly taxed with ambiguity ; though both it and some explana
tions which have been given of It by the highest authority, have
been strangely misunderstood. If, however, it be possible to make
it less liable to unintentional misconstruction, it would no doubt
be most desirable that this should be done. But that, as long as
tbe circumstances of the parish remain the same, that on the per
is, such that no second school can be founded there, the clause.
succeeding managers should be enabled to release themselves from
the clause, on refunding the Building Grant, and renouncing the
aid of the State for the future, is a proposal to which the State
could not consent, without giving up the whole matter in dispute,
and admitting that It had no right to fetter the discretion of the
managers. This indeed has been treated as a distinct grievance.
Even, it is said, If a clergyman may accept such a restraint for
himself, he can have no right to impose it on his successors. But
those who most strenuously protest against such a right of per
petuating the Conscience Clause, are the very persons who, a few
years ago, applauded the Committee of the National Society when
it deliberately sanctioned a clause in a trust deed, which enforced
the teaching of the Catechism to every child in a school, though

122 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
In patent contradiction to its own repeated professions, of giving
the largest liberty to the clergyman In deaUng with exceptional
cases of Dissenting children. * I now pass to another subject.
Decision of Not long after our last meeting an event occurred
Committee whIch causcd Very deep and wide spread agitation In the
on two son- j x j. cj
"E^Ti^d Church, an agitation which has by no means yet sub-
Eeviews." gj^ed, and of which perhaps the final consequences still
remain to be seen. I allude to the decision of the Judicial Com
mittee of the Privy Council in the case of two of the contributors
to the volume of " Essays and Reviews." The Judgment given
in their favour was thought to sanction a new and excessive
latitude of opinion with regard to the inspiration of Holy Scrip
ture, and the awful mystery of future retribution. To counteract
this effect some clergymen of high reputation and Influence framed
Declaration a Declaration, expressing the belief that the doctrines
Clergy. whIch the Judgment seemed to leave open to question
were doctrines maintained by the Church of England, and for this
document they procured the signatures of a majority of the whole
body of the EngUsh clergy. The value of this Declaration was
indeed very much impaired by the ambiguity of Its language, and
it appeared to me consistent with the utmost respect for aU who
had signed it, to doubt whether it could serve any useful purpose,
and was not more likely to create misunderstanding and confusion.
It might be considered as a statement of the private belief of each
of the subscribers In the doctrines which were supposed to have
been unsettled. In this point of view it was indeed perfectly
harmless, but as it was then only the exercise of a right which had
never been disputed, It was not easy to see Its practical drift. On
the other hand, if It was taken as affecting to decide what was the
doctrine of the Church on certain controverted points, and in
opposition to the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal, it
seemed to Invest a fortuitous, self-constituted aggregate of persons
possessing no legislative or judicial authority, with functions for
which, apart from aU regard to their personal qualifications, they
were manifestly utterly incompetent.
* See the evidence of the Rev. J. Q. Lonsdale before the Select Committee on
Education, 15.53 aud 1844.

CHARGES. 123
If the promoters of this movement had any ground for con
gratulating themselves on Its success, as Indicated by the j^^ ^^^^^Q^
number of signatures attached to the Declaration, it could " ¦''"' '
only be with a view to some ulterior object for which it might
prepare the way, and though no such aim was openly avowed,
subsequent proceedings appeared to show that it either was or
might have been. Such was the chief, if not the sole motive, of
the wish which was expressed in both Houses of Convocation and
elsewhere, for the renewal of Diocesan Synods. It was hoped
that these assemblies might be made avaUable for the promulga
tion of " some declaration of faith as to matters which were
thought then to be in danger." * They might serve other
purposes, but this was evidently that which was foremost in the
minds of those who conceived the project, and I think I shall not
be wasting your time If I make a few remarks on this subject.
There seems to be no room to doubt that the convening of such
Synods Is perfectly within the power of the Bishop, The revival
1 1 • n 1 ' J • 1-1 1°^ Diocesan
and not subject to any ot the restrictions which make Synods.
the assembling and the action of Provincial Synods to depend
on the authority of the Crown. No Royal Ucence is needed
for it, any more than for our present gathering. And it has
been observed by a writer of high authority in these matters,
that " Diocesan Synods are represented among us at this day by
episcopal -visitations." t There is certainly some degree of resem
blance between the two institutions. But there is also one
material difEerence : that, with one or two exceptions, there Is
no Diocese in which the whole body of the clergy are assembled
at the same place to meet the Bishop on his Visitation, and the
assembly which Is held on that occasion in each Archdeaconry
could not easily be converted into a Diocesan Synod. The proper
character and special value of this Synod depend on the attendance
of the clergy from all parts of the Diocese. In early times, when
every part of the Diocese was commonly within an easy Practice in
primitivo
distance from the chief town where the Bishop resided, t™i!s.
there would be no difficulty in the bringing of all the presbyters
* See Chronicle of Convocation, April, 1864, pp. 1467, 1486.
t Joyce, "England's Sacred Synods," p. 30.

124 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
together, and they would seldom form a very numerous assem
blage. In the present state of things the difficulty or Incon
venience would In most Dioceses be considerable, and the numbers
assembled, even of the clergy alone, would be so large as to be ill
fitted to the purpose of united deliberation. Such, at least, was
the opinion of some who advocated the measure. It was therefore
proposed to guard against this Inconvenience, as in our Provincial
Synods, by a system of representation, which, however, has yet
not only to be tried In practice but to be constructed in theory.
Whether any such existed In the primitive Churches, though it
has been asserted,* seems very doubtful, and hardly capable of
proof. t In the Reformatio Legum the attendance of all the clergy
is most strictly enjoined. + With regard to the clergy, indeed, it
would no doubt be easy enough to devise a mode by which as
many of them as chose to forego the right or the privUege of
personal attendance might be fairly represented. If there is to
be a restoration of Diocesan Synods, that right could not well be
taken away from any of the presbyters, and the exercise of it,
though it might be onerous to those who Uved far away from the
place of meeting, might not be disagreeable to those who lived
near at hand. In either case the whole proceeding would be
purely voluntary. No part of it could be enforced by any legal
authority. But another new and prominent feature in the constitution of the
Admission restored Synod, and that to which the highest value was
of laymen to .
them. justly attached, was the admission ofthe laity to a share in
its functions. To awaken In lay Churchmen a Uveller interest in
the affairs of the Church, to bring them into regular and friendly
intercourse with the clergy, to draw forth the expression of their
views on Church questions, was described as the chief permanent
advantage contemplated in the proposal ; one which would give
these assemblies an Importance superior to that of the Provincial
Convocations themselves, from which the laity are excluded, as
¦* Kennett on Synods, p. 198. Lathbury, History of Convocation, p. 6.
t Joyce, p. 44.
j Cap. 20. " A Synodo nulli ex clericis abesse licebit, nisi ejus excusationem
episcopus ipse approbaveril."

CHARGES. 125
more faithfully or more surely representing the mind of the Church.
This, though as it seems an innovation on ancient usage,* Is quite
in accordance with the directions ofthe Reformatio Legum, by which
laymen selected by the Bishop are allowed to be present at his private
conference with the clergy, though whether in any other capacity
than that of listeners does not appear, t This is no doubt the
most attractive side of the scheme. We all set the highest value
on the presence and counsel of our lay brethren on every occasion
which brings us together for the carrying on of our common
work. We are glad to learn their opinions, feeUngs, and wishes
on aU questions concerning the welfare of our common Church.
An excellent person very lately taken from us (Mr. Henry Hoare)
earned a title to the gratitude of the Church, which has been
publicly acknowledged in Convocation, by the efforts which he
made to promote such Intercourse between the clergy and laltj-.
The course prescribed in the Reformatio Legum would perhaps
have been sufficient for this purpose. But that which Is contem
plated In the proposed revival of the Diocesan Synod is much
more than this, and something very different. It Is a system of
representation similar to that which is proposed for the clergy.
I believe that to organize such a system would In every Diocese
be found very difficult, in most quite impracticable. It has been
suggested that the election of the lay members might be entrusted
to the churchwardens. I will only say that, until the church
wardens themselves are elected with a view to the discharge of
this function, I can hardly conceive that such a representation
would either be satisfactory to the whole body of the laity, or be
regarded as an adequate exponent of their mind and will. These,
however, are only practical difficulties which may be found
capable of some solution which I do not now perceive. The more
important question Is that of the functions to be assigned Functions of
to the new Synod. It seeems to be admitted that the synod.
deliberations of the old Diocesan Synods were confined — as indeed
* See Chronicle of Convocation, April 20, 1864, p. 1505.
t The impression it leaves is decidedly for the negative. Cap. 22 : " Ibi de
quasstionibus rerum controversarum interrogabuntur singuli presbyteri. Episcopus
vero doctiorum sententias patienter coUiget."

126 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
might have been expected — to the affairs of the Diocese. And in
the Reformatio Legum there is not only no Intimation that they
were Intended to be occupied by any other kind of business, but
the enumeration there given of the subjects of discussion seems
clearly to Imply the same limitation. They relate Indeed mainly
to the state of religion, with respect to soundness of doctrine and
legal uniformity of ritual, but to both evidently no farther than
as they came under observation within the Diocese. But the con
sultations of the Synod now proposed are intended to take a far
wider range ; one, in fact, co-extensive with those of the Provin
cial Synods, and, like them, embracing every kind of question
affecting the Interest of the Church at large. This is obviously
implied in the pecuUar advantage which is expected to arise from
the presence of the laity, whose views, transmitted to Convocation,
are to inform its mind, to guide its judgment, and, where action
has to be taken, to strengthen its hands.
I must own that I could not look forward without alarm to
such a multiplication of Synods, If one Is to be held every year in
every Diocese. And, on the other hand. If only two or three
Bishops were to adopt the plan, I should not feel a perfect con
fidence that the conclusions arrived at might not rather represent
their private opinions than the general sense of the whole body.
Eeiationof The prcsencc of the presiding Bishop Is, on every
to i'- supposition, a most important element in the calculation
of consequences. His official station must always give great
weight to his opinion, which, even if not expressed, is sure to be
known. It may happen that his Influence is so strengthened by
his personal qualities as to be practicaUy irresistible, and that
every measure which he recommends Is sure to be carried with
blind confidence, or with silent though reluctant acquiescence.
But the opposite case Is also conceivable. It may happen that
questions arise, on which the opinion and convictions of the
Bishop are opposed to those of the majority of his clergy. I am
afraid I may speak of this from my own experience. Such
opposition is no doubt always to be lamented ; but where It
exists, It neither can nor ought to be kept secret. A frank

CHARGES. 127
avowal of opinion on both sides Is most desirable for the interests
of truth. But It would not, as I think, be desirable, but, on the
contrary, a serious misfortune, if this divergency of views was to
manifest itself In the vote of a Diocesan Synod on a practical
question, so that either the opinion of the majority must overrule
that of the Bishop, or the action of the Bishop contradict the
express wish of the majority.
I may Illustrate this possibility by reference to a contro
versy which has been recently stirred. There Is a party illustration
in the Church which holds that a Bishop Is bound, gencyofviews be-
morally if not legally, to confirm every child who is ^^^o^^^
brought to him at the earliest age consistent with the "^^ ciergy.
direction at the end of the Office for Baptism of Infants, and
without reference to that which Is implied in the language of the
Preface to the Confirmation Office, which supposes the candidates
to have " come to years of discretion." On the other hand, there
are Bishops who — having respect to the terms of the Baptismal
Office itself, which requires Instruction In the Catechism as a
previous condition, to the highly mysterious nature of the
doctrines set forth in the Catechism, more particularly in the
concluding part, to the ordinary development of our moral and
intellectual nature, and to the testimony of their own experience
and observation, — I say there are Bishops who, considering these
things, have felt themselves bound to lay down a general rule,
limiting the admission of candidates to a later period, when the
rite may be expected to leave a deeper Impression, and who believe
that to rely on the grace which may no doubt attend the ministra
tion at every age, to make up for the deficiency of ordinary
capacity, is no proof of faith, but a presumptuous and profane
abuse of the rite. By acting on this -view of the subject, they
have incurred much acrimonious censure, which however has not
in the least shaken their conviction. But If the party to which I
aUuded was to gain the ascendancy In a Diocesan Synod, where
the presiding Bishop took that view of his duty, and the question
was raised, it would be decided in a way which, though the
language used might be milder and more decorous, must In

128 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
substance amount to a vote of censure on him, which the dictates
of his conscience would compel him to disregard. I do not see
how such an exhibition of discordant views would be likely to
serve any useful purpose, or could be attended with any but very
injurious consequences.
Euridecanai For all puTcly Dloccsan purposes, the conferences
Co nf 6 fghc G 8
superior to whIch I havo always desired to see established In every
DiocesanSynods. Rural Deanery, appear to me to possess a great advan
tage over the Diocesan Synod, however constituted. They afford
the means of a freer, more Intimate, and confidential intercourse
and Interchange of Ideas, than is possible In a large assembly of
persons who are mostly strangers to one another. The benefit
which they yield is unaUoyed, and free from aU danger ; and I
must take this occasion to observe, that they seem peculiarly well
adapted for the discussion of some of the questions which have
recently occupied a large share of the attention of the Church,
relating as they do to matters of practice with which the clergy
have constantly to deal, and in which they are to a very great
extent at liberty to act on their own judgment. Let me assure
my reverend brethren — though many of them, no doubt, are fully
aware of the fact — that many of these questions, though of great
practical importance, are by no means so simple as they may
appear to any one who has looked at them only from one side, or
under the influence of traditional associations. But, apart from
any such special object. It Is certain that a clergyman who lives
In constant spiritual isolation from his brethren, meeting them
only on secular or merely formal occasions, but. In the things
which most deeply concern the work of his calUng, stands whoUy
aloof from them, shut up within the narrow round of his own
thoughts, reading, and experience, must lose what might be a
most precious aid, both to his personal edification and his minis
terial usefulness. If he was imprisoned in this soUtude, as may
happen to a missionary at a lonely station, by causes beyond his
control, he- would be worthy of pity. If the seclusion is voluntary
and self-imposed, when the benefits of intellectual and spiritual
communion with his brethren are within his reach, it can hardly

CHARGES. 129
be reconciled with a right sense of duty, or a real Interest in his
Master's service.
For such purposes no Diocesan Synod can supersede the Ruri-
decanal Meeting, while, for the purpose of ascertain- TheChmch
ing the mind of the laity on Church questions, and
bringing it to bear both on Convocation and the Legislature,
another kind of machinery has been not only devised, but actually
framed and set in motion, which, though its organization may be
susceptible of great Improvement, seems to me In its general idea
far more appropriate, as well as much more easily applicable to
the object, than a multitude of Diocesan Synods, subject to per
petual variation in their number, and depending on contingencies
which cannot be foreseen, for their very existence, and still more
for their capacity of furnishing an adequate or faithful representa
tion of the whole body of lay Churchmen ; I allude to the asso
ciation founded by the late Mr. Hoare under the name of the
Church Institution. It is now six years since I drew your atten
tion to this subject in a Charge, expressing my sympathy with
the general aim and spirit of the association, but at the same time
stating some objections which had been made to its organization,
as laying it open to the suspicion of reflecting a particular shade
of opinion rather than the common feeling of the Church. Three
years ago the subject was brought before the Upper House of
Convocation, when the usefulness of the Church Institution was
fully recognized, and its fundamental principle unanimously
admitted, but with the same qualification as to the precise form of
its organization, which however has not, as far as I am aware,
been yet altered ; perhaps because experience has shown that the
danger apprehended from it is not very serious, and does not
practically affect the working of the Institution.
But there is a purpose for which the Diocesan Synod, In Its
primitive form, as a full assembly of aU the clergy of the purpose f^T
Diocese, with the addition of as many of the lay mem- ^esau
bers of the Church as may be willing to meet them, is adapted.
eminently well fitted, and just in the same degree as it Is IU fitted
for any decision which requires calm discussion and orderly
VOL. II. K

130 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
deliberation. This is the purpose of proclaiming any foregone
conclusion, and of passing resolutions by acclamation, -without a
dissentient voice. This function of the Diocesan Synod is recog
nized by a highly esteemed writer on the subject, whose work
appeared when the Church was deeply agitated by the Judgment
of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council In the Gorham
Case, as one main ground for recommending the revival of these
Synods, with a " close adherence to the primitive model."* It
would serve " for the plain assertion of any article of the faith
which may have been notoriously Impugned." And in the
Diocese in which an article of faith was supposed to have been
impugned by the decision of the Judicial Committee In the
Gorham Case, such a Diocesan Synod was assembled, and did
make " a plain assertion " of the article. This example has not
been forgotten. Soon after the pubUcation of the Judgment In
the more recent trials for false doctrine, by which other articles of
faith were supposed to be impugned, a resolution was passed at a
meeting of Rural Deans and Archdeacons In the Diocese of Oxford,
declaring "that the meeting would rejoice to see the action of
Diocesan Synods restored Ih the Church of England," and " that
the circumstances of the present times peculiarly call for such a
gathering for the guardianship of the falth."t Such language
Inevitably raises the question, What is the precise object contem-
^.^. , plated by those who desire to see Diocesan Synods
Objects con- x J », ^
byTheir'"^ restorcd for this purpose ? We see at once that it Is
res ora ion. gQj^g^,]j^jjjg j^iore than the personal satisfaction which
each member of the Synod might derive from the expression of an
opinion which he holds In common with a large body of his
brethren. The avowed object Is far more practical and more
important. It is nothing less than " the guardianship of the
faith ; " which, if " the circumstances of the present times pecu
liarly call for such a gathering" for that end, must be supposed
to be In danger. And the nature of the danger thus signified Is
too clear to be mistaken : It is that now again, as In the Gorham
* Joyce, England's Sacred Synods, p. 36,
t Chronicle of Convocation, April 19, 1864.

CHARGES. 131
Judgment, articles of the faith are believed by many to have been
" impugned ; " and hence " the plain assertion " of them is again
considered as the most pressing business of a Diocesan Synod.
Now let us remember how the doctrines which are alleged to be
articles of the faith have been impugned. They have been
impugned in two ways : first, by the writers who disputed or
questioned them, and who on that account were brought to trial ;
and, secondly, by the solemn Judgment of the highest Court of
Appeal, which, after the amplest discussion and the maturest
deliberation, decided that those writers had not, in the matters
alleged against them, impugned any article of the faith, and were
not liable to the penalties which they would have incurred if they
had done so.
It would have been possible, and quite as easy, to have taken
the step now proposed when the writings in which the ^j^^^^
doctrines in question were assailed first appeared. ence^on^Se
Diocesan Synods might have been assembled, and have ^Essaysand
" plainly asserted " that the propositions which the
authors impugned were not only true, but articles of the faith.
None can say what might not have been the effect of such a pro
ceeding. It is not impossible that the writers might have yielded
to such a weight of authority, and have retracted and abandoned
opinions which they found to be opposed to those of an over
whelming majority of their brethren. On the other hand, as they
have the reputation, and perhaps would not disclaim the name of
rationalists. It is equally possible, and on the whole perhaps rather
more probable, that they would have pleaded at the outset to the
jurisdiction ; would have denied that the question ought or could
be decided by a show of hands ; and that even the assertions of
thirty Synods would have been as powerless as thirty legions, to
produce the slightest change in their convictions. The question
would then have remained exactly where it was before the Synods
met. And not only would their decrees have made no change
whatever in the ecclesiastical position of the writers whom they
condemned ; but It is clear that they would not have been
admitted as evidence In any Court which had to try the question.
k2

132 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
They could add nothing to the force of any proof which might be
required to invest the controverted doctrines with the character of
articles of faith ; much less could they cause any thing which
would not otherwise have been an article of faith to become such.
Their effi- ^^* ^^ ^^^^ would havc been their impotence before
Sw^o^dto the Judgment of the supreme tribunal had been pro-
¦committee. nounced, and therefore while It was possible that it
might confirm their assertions, what efficacy can the decrees of
such Synods, whether few or many, possess, when they contradict
that Judgment ? How are they to " guard the faith " against any
danger with which It Is threatened by the Judgment ? The danger
is supposed to arise from the latitude of opinion allowed to the
clergy on certain points. But as long as the law under which we
live remains unchanged, no number of voices, either of Individuals or
of clerical assemblies, can contract that latitude by a hair's breadth.
All this is too evident not to be thoroughly understood by the
highly intelligent, sagacious, and well-informed persons who are
promoting the restoration of Diocesan Synods. It cannot be
supposed that they deceive themselves as to the Intrinsic value or
the immediate practical effect, either of Declarations endorsed by
any number of signatures, or of Synodical resolutions proclaimed
by any number of voices. If they attach any importance to such
documents and proceedings, it must be with a view to some
ulterior object. And I think there can be Uttle doubt what that
object is. It is, I believe, the same which has been only a little
more fully disclosed by the efforts which have been made to bring
Constitution about a radical change In the constitution of the Court
of the Court „. ,.., . _
of Appeal, ot Appeal in ecclesiastical questions. It would probably
be generally admitted that this Court is capable of some improve
ments, both in Its composition and In the form of Its proceedings.
But those who are dissatisfied with the Judgment which gave
occasion to this movement, would certainly care little about any
change which did not hold out a prospect of reversing that
Judgment, and of guarding against any like occurrence for the
future. Various plans have been proposed for this purpose ; but
it will be sufficient to notice two of them, which may be con-

CHARGES. 133
sidered as including all the rest, inasmuch as the others differ
from them rather in details than In principle. One is, to abolish
the present Court of Appeal, and to transfer its jurisdiction to
Convocation, or to some purely ecclesiastical body ; the other would
retain the present Court, bnt without any ecclesiastical assessors,
and would require it, whenever the case before it involved any
question of faith and doctrine, to send an issue on these matters to
the spiritual body, which should be constituted for that purpose,
and to let Its Judgment be governed by the answer It receives.
There is one advantage which the first of these proposals must
be admitted to possess over the second : that It more distinctly
and completely embodies a principle which lies at the j.^ , g- ^ f
root of both ; the exclusion of the laity from aU share ^^^^^
in the decision of questions touching the doctrines of
the Church. There are not a few estimable persons — perhaps I
might say a not inconsiderable party In the Church — who hold
that the present constitution of the highest Court of Appeal is
utterly vitiated by the admixture of the lay element : that this Is
In itself, irrespectively of its practical consequences, an intolerable
grievance, a badge of an " ignominious bondage." It has been
represented as a violation of the law of Christ, and as " a breach
of compact between Church and State," by which functions, now
exercised by laymen, were reserved to the Clergy.* The di-vine
origin of the prerogative thus claimed for the Spiritualty, depends
on an interpretation of a few passages of Scripture, which to
many appear no more conclusive -than that which is aUeged in
proof of the Papal supremacy. The history of the ages and
countries in which the claim was most generaUy and submissively
accepted by the laity, would hardly recommend it to any one who
does not regard the Reformation as at best a lamentable error ;
but it sufficiently explains the language which continued to be
used after our separation from Rome, while the Spiritualty was
stUl identified with the Church, f and the tenacity with which the
* Joyce, Ecclesia Vindicata, pp. 11, 13.
t 24 Hen. VIII. 12, Preamble: "The Spiritualty, now being commonly called
the English Church."

134 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
tradition kept its hold on men's minds. And, Independently of
the notion of a Divine right, and of the peculiar illumination
which may be supposed to wait upon its exercise, there is a very
soUd and palpable ground of fact, which may at first sight appear
to furnish an irresistible argument for assigning this function to
the clergy. It is one for which they may seem to be pre-emi
nently. If not exclusively, fitted, though not by their calUng itself,
yet at least by the studies and habits of their caUIng. When
ever a question arises in any branch of human knowledge, those
who are usuaUy consulted upon it are the masters and professors of
the art or science to which It relates. When a point is In dispute in
the Interpretation or application of the law, the only opinion which
is ever thought to have any weight, is that of experienced jurists.
Why should the maxim, "culque in sua arte credendum," be less ap
pUcable to theology, or render It less fitting and necessary to submit
spiritual questions to the exclusive cognizance of learned divines ?
Difference T^^is question Is treated by many as unanswerable.
and^theo^'' Yet there is in one respect a -wide difference between the
°^' two cases, which at first sight appear most exactly
simUar, and it deeply affects the validity of the practical con
clusion. We know of no such thing as schools of law, by which
lawyers are di-vlded into parties, holding the most widely diverg
ing views on many of the most important principles of legal
learning, and thus led to directly opposite conclusions in aU
causes in which these principles are involved. When we consult
our legal advisers, we feel perfect confidence, that they wUl
approach the subject without the slightest bias from preconceived
notions, and that, if they do not agree in their opinion, the dis
agreement -wiU be the result, not of any conflicting doctrines, to
which on one side or other they were previously pledged, but
simply to a natural, unavoidable disparity In the capacity or con
formation of their minds. I hardly need observe how far other
wise the case stands with regard to theology and its teachers;
how exceedingly rare and difficult It is for any of them to keep
aloof from the schools and parties into which the Church Is par
celled, and not to be, whether consciously or unconsciously, swayed

CHARGES. 135
by their influence in his views of Church questions, and the more
in proportion to his earnestness and his sense of the sacredness of
the subject. Probably there were few clergymen whose opinion
on the Gorham Case might not have been safely predicted by any
one who knew the school to which he belonged ; and the bishops
who sat on the appeal, were certainly not an exception to this
remark. The importance and interest of the case turned upon
the fact, that the Individual defendant was the representative
of a strong party, whose position In the Church would have
been shaken and imperilled, if his doctrine had been condemned.
Hence the composition of a purely ecclesiastical tribu- DifEcuities
nal, to be substituted for the present Court of Appeal in the esta-
¦^ ^^ blishmentof
causes of heresy. Is a problem beset with such compli- '^ v:^''?\. ,
.J * X X ecclesiastical
cated difficulties, as to render it almost hopeless that '"i'™^-
any scheme will ever be devised for its solution, which would
give general satisfaction ; even if there were not so many who
would reject it for the very reason, that it appears to recognise
a principle — the mystical prerogative of the clergy — which
they reject as groundless and mischievous. If the Spiritualty
is to have the final and exclusive cognizance of such causes, it
becomes necessary to inquire. Who are the Spiritualty ? And
the answer to this question will be found to involve most per
plexing difficulties both in theory and practice. By the proper
meaning of the word, the Spiritualty would include all spiritual
persons of every Holy Order. But as, according to the high
sacerdotal view, the laity is for all purposes concerning the
declaration of doctrine merged in the Spiritualty, so by some
who most zealously maintain that view, the lower orders of the
Spiritualty are for the like purposes held to be merged in the
Episcopate, as Invested with the fulness of Apostolical authority.
It cannot be denied that this opinion may claim the sanction of
antiquity, and of the whole history of Councils from the earUest
to the latest times. But our own Church presents an exception
ft)«the general rule In the constitution of Its Synods, in which the
clergy of the second Order form an essential element. They,
however, arc only elect representatives of the body to which they

136 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
belong, and by a fiction, which, however convenient, seems to be
purely arbitrary, the third Order of the Ministry is for this pur
pose regarded as merged in the second. But though our two
Convocations do legaUy, however imperfectly, represent our own
branch of the Church, It does not appear on what principle either
the Irish or any other branches of the Church can be rightly
excluded from a share in deUberations which affect the common
faith. At present there are no means of assembUng even a
National Synod. A Synod of the whole English Communion,
which has been recently proposed, would require machinery
which it would be still more difficult to frame and to work, and
It would be stUl more doubtful whether, as long as the relations
of our Church to the State subsist, such a Synod could answer
the purpose for which it appears to be designed.
„ , But in this matter we are forced at every turn to
Synods un- -^
discussions choose between equal and irreconcilable difficulties.
on doctrine, rpj^^ larger and more comprehensive the Synod which
may be brought together, at whatever cost, the more adequately
will It represent, If not the Church, at least the Spiritualty. But
in proportion as Its numbers adapt it to this object, and so give
the greater weight to its decisions, do they tend to unfit It for the
discussion of controverted points of doctrine, and so detract from
its authority. On the other hand, the smaller the body which
meets for deUberation, so much the better, no doubt, will It be
suited for the fuU ventUatlon of the matters In dispute ; but in the
same degree it wUl be liable to suspicions of partizanship and pre
possession, and -will appear incapable of becoming the organ of
the whole Church for the declaration of Its faith. Even so small
a body as the whole English Episcopate, has been thought too
un-wieldy for a theological discussion, whUe every selection from
It has been generally condemned, as Inconsistent with pubUc confi
dence in its impartiality. It wiU also have to be considered
whether, when the faith of the Church is at stake. It is possible to
dispense with absolute unanimity among those by whom it Is to
be determined; or, if the vote of the majority is to prevail,
whether the minority must not be held to stand self-con-victed of

CHARGES, 137
heresy, and if they refuse to recant, be excommunicated. This indeed
would raise no difficulty in a Church unconnected with the State ;
but under the present mutual relations of Church and State, such a
proceeding would be as ineffectual, as for one Bishop to excommuni
cate another of a different school, and, as a means of checking the
growth of heresy, would be merely futUe, and expose itself to derision.
These objections are equally applicable to the second of the two
proposals we are considering, that of retaining the present ^
Court of Appeal, under the condition of referring aU tJ^Pques-
questions of doctrine which come before it, to an eccle- ecdesiast^
siastical councU, which remains to be constituted. For
the issue sent by the Judicial Committee would be just as
grave, as if the cause had been originally brought under the
cognizance of the Spiritualty. Yet It seems pretty clear that of
the two this is the plan which has most voices on Its side, and is
commonly thought to look most Uke a practicable measure. But
if I am not mistaken, there is another difficulty on which this
project also must split. Either the lay judges must be governed
by the decision of their spiritual referees, or, after receiving the
answer to their question, they ivill be still at liberty to exercise
their own judgment on the whole case. That the members of the
Judicial Committee would ever consent, or be permitted, to
renounce their supreme jurisdiction, and exchange their judicial
functions In this behalf for a purely ministerial agency, by which
they will have passively to accept, and simply to carry Into effect,
the decisions of a Clerical Council — this is something which I
believe Is no longer imagined to be possible, even by the most
ardent and sanguine advocate of what he caUs the inalienable
rights of the clergy, so long as the Church remains in union with
the State on the present terms of the aUiance. But if they do not
take up this subordinate position, the principle of the ecclesiastical
prerogative in matters of doctrine, which to those who maintain it
is probably more precious than any particular application of it, is
abandoned and lost. The Church wUl, in their language, continue
to groan in "galUng fetters," and "an ignominious bondage."*
* Joyce, u. 0. p. 220.

138 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
On the other hand, if the Judicial Committee retains its indepen
dence, and is not bound to adopt the opinion of its clerical
advisers, It Is quite certain that it will continue to act on the same
principles and maxims of interpretation by which It has been
hitherto guided, and wiU In every case test the answer it receives
by these principles, and not the principles by the answer.
The Court of For my OWU part, I heartily rej olco that this Is SO. I
Hesstag to consider It as a ground for the deepest thankfulness, as
"" ¦ one of the most precious privileges of the Church of
England, that principles which I believe to be grounded in
justice, equity, and common sense, are stUl the rule of judgment
in ecclesiastical causes. I earnestly hope that she may not be
deprived of this blessing by the misguided zeal of some of her
friends, from whom, I believe, she has at present more to fear than
from the bitterest of her enemies. The present constitution of the
Court of Appeal Is essentially conservative In its operation. Every
radical change, such as those we have been considering, would be
revolutionary and disruptive in its tendency, if not In Its Imme
diate result. A wrong decision of the Court, as It Is now con
stituted, can only affect the positions of Indi-viduals in the Church,
but leaves the doctrine of the Church just where it was ; for it
only determines that certain writings which have been impeached
for heresy are or are not consistent with that doctrine, as laid
down in the standards of the Church. But the very object of the
proposed reconstruction or reform of the Court, is to enable an
ecclesiastical council to pronounce a Declaration of faith, which, if
it Is to be of any use toward deciding the question in dispute,
must be something more than a mere repetition of the formularies
aUeged to have been impugned, and will therefore be a new, more
or less authoritative, definition of doctrine ; in other words, a new
article of faith. It wUl be this really, though, of course, its
framers wUl disclaim all intention of innovation, and -wiU assert
that the doctrine which they declare is that which the Church has
held from the beginning : just as the Pope maintains that his
dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a part of the original
Christian revelation, though its definition, as an article of faith.

CHARGES. 139
was reserved for the nineteenth century. I observe that the
definition of doctrine which might be put forth by our divines
would be more or less authoritative, and in this respect it differs
widely from that of the Papal dogma. No member of the Roman
Communion is at liberty to question either the truth or the
antiquity of the newly-defined article of faith. But an Anglican
definition could not pretend to any such authority, grounded on
the attribute of infalUbility. Its authority would entirely depend
on the reputation of its authors for learning, ability, and impar-
tiaUty, and according to the degree In which they might be
beUeved to possess these quaUties, might be great, Uttle, or null.
Another subject closely connected with the foregoing, Eeformof
and which on that account claims a brief notice, Is the tion.
reform of Convocation, which has been lately proposed and
advocated with much earnestness. No doubt, in one point of view,
this Is a question of the gravest importance. If the Convocation
of the Pro-vlnce of Canterbury Is, either by itself, or in conjunc
tion with other bodies, to be invested with that judicial and legis
lative authority in matters of doctrine which some contend for as
the inherent, inalienable, and exclusive right of the Spiritualty,
it is most important that it should be so organized as to afford
as fuU and fair a representation of the clergy as possible, and the
remedying of any defect in its constitution would be an object
on which no amount of thought or pains would be ill-bestowed.
But for any purposes which lie within the present range of Its
powers and duties, it appears to be perfectly adequate, and not
to need any change. It is now, I believe, as much as it could be
made by any new arrangement, a trustworthy organ for giving
utterance to the views of the clergy of the pro-vince on Church
questions. There Is, probably, no shade of opinion among them
which it does not reflect. And I think no one would say that,
if it were differently constituted. It would be likely to contain
a greater proportion of learned and able men, the ornaments
and strength of our Church. And I must take this vindication
J.1J.T ij_n "1 of its pro-
occasion to own tnat i cannot at ali concur with ceedings.
those who, either with friendly or unfriendly motives, speak

140 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
of Convocation, some with bitter sarcasm, others in a milder
tone of contempt, because its proceedings are almost entirely con
fined to discussion, and so rarely terminate in any kind of action.
I am not at all sure that this is an evil or a loss. It does not in
the least prove that the discussion is useless ; and if it Is in any
way profitable, the profit is clear, and not counterbalanced by any
disadvantage. Not only have both the Debates, and many of the
Reports of Committees appointed from time to time on questions
generally interesting to Churchmen, a permanent value as expo
nents of opinion and results of laborious inquiry, but I cannot
doubt that they exert a powerful and generaUy beneficial influence
on the mind ofthe Church. And this Is a purely spiritual influence,
without the slightest intermixture of physical force or secular
authority, working solely in the way of argument and persuasion
on free judgments. It Is, therefore, that which eminently befits
a spiritual body, and it seems strange to hear this very spirituaUty
of Its operations treated as a mark of impotence, which deprives it
of all title to respect even in the eyes of spiritual persons. WhUe,
therefore, I can easily understand that an extension of the
ecclesiastical franchise may be desired by many, simply on account
ofthe value they set on It, -without any ulterior object, and can so
far sympathize with their wishes, I cannot regard this as an object
In which the Church has any practical interest, and am quite
content with the existing state of the representation. But so far
as the demand for a reform of Convocation proceeds upon the
supposition that, by some change In its constitution, it may be
fitted for some enlargement of its powers, and for some kind of
work, which it Is not now permitted to undertake, I consider the
efforts made for this object as futUe and mischievous : futile,
because they can only issue In disappointment; mischievous,
because, however undesignedly on the part of those who are en
gaged In them, they contribute to spread and to heighten an
agitation which seems to me fraught -with serious and growing
danger. I feel myself bound to speak out plainly on this subject,
though I know that the warning, in proportion as It is needed, is
the more likely to be neglected.

CHARGES. 141
The various projects we have been reviewing — Diocesan
Synods, General Councils, change in the Court of

Appeal, Reform of Convocation — however independent projIcS"™

Object of
the variouf
projects
of one another they may appear In their origin, are '^^^'^^ •
really parts of one movement, and are directed toward a common
object ; and, when we bring them together, so that they may
throw light on each other. It seems impossible to doubt what that
object is. It is evidently to recover the position in which the
Church, as identified with the Spiritualty, stood before the
Reformation, in the period to which so many of our clergy are
looking back with fond regret, as to a golden age which, if it
were permitted to man to roll back the stream of time, and to
reverse the course of nature and the order of Providence, they
would gladly restore. It matters nothing how many or how few
of those who are furthering this movement are conscious of its
tendency ; if wholly unsuspicious, they would not be the less effi
cient Instruments In the hands of those who see further, and with
a more definite purpose. But the present union between Church
and State, a union in which, happily, the Church Is not Identified
with the Spiritualty, opposes an Insurmountable obstacle to the
attainment of this object. Few, probably, even among the leaders
of this movement, desire to see this obstacle removed by a rupture
and separation between the two parties. But there may be some who
indulge a hope that, by continued agitation, they wiU be able to
bring about a modification of the terms of the union according to
their wishes, so as to free the clergy from the control of the State
in ecclesiastical matters, while they retain aU the advantages
which they derive from Its protection and support. Buoyed up
with this hope, they may use very strong language, and urge their
followers into very rash counsels, in the belief that, even if they
fail in their attempt something may be gained, and no harm be
done. But, as I just now observed, such agitation Is not Effects of
harmless because it is impotent and useless. It is not a a^tatioL
light evil that men should be taught to consider themselves as
li-ving in " galling fetters " and an " ignominious bondage," if
this is not a true description of their real condition. But those

142 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
who have been so taught, if they are conscientious and honourable
men, will not be content to sit down and weep, but will strive with
aU their might to break their fetters and to regain their freedom.
And It will be Impossible for them, even with the example of their
guides before them, long to forget that, after all, these fetters are
self-imposed, and this bondage a state of their own choice : that
they have only to will, and their chains will drop off, and their
prison doors fly open. And while their old friends and fellow-
sufferers are painting the misery and degradation of their house
of bondage, and urging them to efforts for deliverance which
experience proves to be utterly hopeless, there are voices enough
on the outside, appealing to their sense of duty and of honour,
bidding them to come forth, and In-vatlng them to take refuge in
that happy country where, among other blessings, the Church is
not confounded with the people, and her freedom Is well under
stood to mean the rule of the clergy, culminating in the absolute
power of the Pope. This, however, is not the only alternative.
If old associations, or strong con"victions should prevent them from
going forth in that direction, they may find room nearer at hand
for a new Church, in which they may enjoy the shelter without
the control of the State, and may both prescribe any terms of
communion they may think fit, and enforce the observance of
them by any course of proceeding which may seem best suited to
the purpose of suppressing all variations of private opinion as to
the sense In which they are to be interpreted.
There are persons who may be attracted by the spectacle now
exhibited by one of our Colonial Churches, which has found itself
Example of °^ ^ suddcu, wlthout any effort of its own, severed from
indepm^' ^^^ State, and in full enjoyment of that Independence
which Is so much coveted by some among ourselves. I
think that Its example holds out a very precious and seasonable
warning. The unexpected release from the "galling fetters," and
"ignominious bondage " of the Royal Supremacy, was unhappUy
accompanied by a no less complete emancipation from the rules
and principles of English law and justice. The result showed
how dangerous it would be to entrust a purely ecclesiastical

CHARGES. l-iS
tribunal with the administration of justice in ecclesiastical causes :
how surely the divine would get the better of the judge : how
easily the most upright and conscientious men might be betrayed
by their zeal for truth, into the most violent and arbitrary pro
ceedings ; exercising an usurped jurisdiction by the mockery of a
trial. In which the party accused was assumed to acknowledge
the jurisdiction* against which he protested, and was condemned
in his absence, not for contumacy, but upon charges and speeches
which had the advantage of being heard without a reply, though
it was admitted by the presiding judge that they referred to
passages which "he had often felt to be obscure," and which
exposed him to the "risk of misunderstanding, and consequently
misrepresenting the defendant's -views." f This, though Instruc
tive, is melancholy enough : but it is still more saddening to
• Trial of the Bishop of Natal for erroneous teaching, p. 340. The Bishop of
Capetown founds his claim to spiritual jurisdiction on the alleged fact, of which he
thinks " there can be no doubt," that " the Church, after long and careful delibera
tion, resolved upon the appointment of Metropolitans over Colonial Churches, and
Bent him out in that capacity:" the body dignified with the name of the Church
being a private company of Bishops, who recommended the appointment to the
ministers of the Crown.
t P. 343: "A letter -written two years ago, and the preface to which he refers me,
very inadequately represent the kind of reply which doubtless he would have made
to the charges which have been brought against him, and to the speeches of the pre
senting clergy." One of these, the Dean of Capetown, had observed, that the
letter read had been put in by the Bishop of Natal, " in some degree as his defence."
And it was the whole that accompanied the protest. The real nature of the pro
ceeding is candidly slated in the Guardian of July 4, 1866 : " If the resolution (of
the "Upper House of Convocation) were to be construed as declaring that Bishop
Colenso has been regularly deposed or deprived by any tribunal or proceeding
known to Church law, it would assert more probably than could be proved — more
certainly than has been proved, either in Convocation or out of it. But that
Bishop Colenso's teaching is, as a matter of fact, dangerous and unsound to the
extent of heresy — that he is a person clearly unfit to have the spiritual oversight of
Churchmen in Natal, and that some one else ought to have that oversight ; that the
South African Church, there being apparently no regular juri,sdiction anywhere
competent to try and to depose him, has, regularly or irregularly, condemned and
rejected him in such a way as it could ; and that we ought for the sake of the faith •¦
to stand by the South African Church in this matter, though we may not approve
all the grounds of the decision — these are propositions in which the great mass of
English Churchmen would certainly agree." These last words may be too true.
But such a view of duty involves the principle that the end sanctifies tho means,
and may be pleaded for every coup d'etat. Violence openly avowed is less
pernicious than when it puts on the mask of justice, and claims the sanction of
religion.

144think that such proceedings should have been defended by some
among ourselves as a fair trial : though I am persuaded that this
could not have happened, if the party in whose case justice was so
outraged, had been less generally obnoxious, and I have no doubt
that If the offence with which he was charged, had been one of
a different kind — such, for instance, as the holding aU Roman
doctrine — the same proceedings would have appeared to the same
persons in their true light, as an Intolerable wrong. But I
believe there are many who wIU learn from this example of the
fruits of sacerdotal independence, among which might be numbered
the danger of a permanent schism, better to appreciate the
blessings we enjoy In the institutions under which we live, not
withstanding the opprobrious names cast upon them by some who
rest and ruminate under their shade. One thing at least appears
to me absolutely certain : that, if there had been previously any
prospect of obtaining such a reconstruction of the Court of Appeal
as would, either formally or virtually, transfer Its jurisdiction to
the clergy, that prospect would now be closed for ever.
There is Indeed an unmistakable indication that the general
tendency of our time does not set in that direction, but In quite
Clerical another, in the Clerical Subscription Act of last year.
Subscrip- -^ *'
tion Act. That the Report on which that measure was founded,
should have obtained the unanimous concurrence of so large a
number of persons as composed the Royal Commission, represent
ing every party in the Church, is one of the most remarkable and
the most auspicious events of our day. It marks the crowning
result of a reaction, that of Christian wisdom and charity against
the spirit and the policy which dictated the Act of Uniformity,
passed amidst the narrow views and evil passions of the Restora
tion. The declared object of the new Act was to relieve
Its object. tender consciences, by the alteration of forms which
were designed to be as exclusive as possible, and which have no
doubt excluded many from the ministry of the Church, and have
perplexed and distressed many more within it. The principle of
subscription is preserved, but Its terms are so modified as to aUow
a much larger range to the freedom of private opinion. This

CHARGES. 145
range Indeed, Is not, and, consistently with the general intention
of the Act, could not be exactly defined. The stress is laid not so
much on the subscription itself, as on the character of the formu
laries, to which the subscription is required, and which the
subscriber is to use in his public ministrations. It was thought
that, from conscientious men, this was sufficient security ; while
-with others more explicit language would be of no avail. I con
sider this as not only a generous, but a just and wise confidence,
and one certainly not more likely to be abused than the old
jealousy to defeat Its own purpose. But I think that it does tend
to increase the difficulty of prosecutions for heresy, and to lessen
their chances of success. Whether this is a consequence to be
dreaded, or may not be the happiest settlement of the question about
the Court of Appeal, I will not now stay to Inquire. But I believe
that, whether good or evil. It was not unforeseen or undesigned.*
It now only remains for me to state my views on the subject
which for the last twelve months has occupied more of the ^he nituai
attention of the Church than any other, and has been ''^^^
discussed with an earnestness and warmth which, whUe they show
the deep interest it has excited in many minds, and so at least Its
relative Importance, should admonish all who have to deal with it,
of the great need of approaching it calmly and soberly, and as
much as possible free from prejudice and passion. And to this
end It Is not enough that we should weigh arguments which may
be opposed to our own preconceived opinions, with an even mind,
unless we also try to place ourselves as far as we can in the point
of view from which they proceed, and in some measure to enter
into the feelings with which they are urged. You will have
understood me to be speaking of that which for shortness I may
call the Ritual question : and I trust that in the observations I
am about to make on It, I shall not lose sight of the rule I have
just laid down, and that whatever I shaU say may tend to promote
the common interests of truth, peace, and charity. And first a
word as to the importance of the question. A relative importance,
* See the debate in the House of Commons on June 9, 1863, upon Clerical \|
Subscription. VOL. II. L

146 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
as I have observed, cannot be denied to a controversy by which
the minds of Churchmen have been largely and deeply stirred.
But I entirely differ from those who regard the dispute as in itself
of Uttle moment, and unworthy of serious attention, because it
relates Immediately to things so trifling as the form and colour of
garments to be worn, and ceremonies to be observed. In Di-vine
ser-vice. No doubt these are things Indifferent In themselves,
always subject to the authority of the Church, and dermng all
their importance from the degree in which they minister to the
use of edifying. But they would not be decreed by the Church,
if they were supposed to be utterly unmeaning : and the meaning
which they are intended to convey may be of the gravest moment.
And whether they do or do not serve the end of edification. Is
surely a question in which the well being, not to say the Ufe of the
Church, is deeply concerned. At the very lowest estimate, no
man of practical sense can deem It a light matter, If a change Is
made In the externals of public worship, such as to give a new
aspect to the whole. Such a transformation must needs be the
effect of some powerful cause, and the cause of some important
effect. Nothing less than the future character and destiny of the
Church of England may be involved In the issue of the movement
now in progress.
jtg p^t I must also say a word on its past history, as this has
^°^' been strangely misunderstood. It has been suggested,
in the way of apology for those who might be thought to be
advancing too far In this direction, that the recent development of
Ritualism is Intended as a pious protest against recent innovations
in doctrine, which are injurious to our Lord's Divine dignity.
But this explanation, while It impUes an unmerited imputation on
the orthodoxy of the great body of the clergy who have declined
to take part In th^s jn-otest, also Involves a very gross anachronism.
Nearly five and twenty years ago, Mr. Robertson opened his very
useful treatise, " How shall we conform to the Liturgy ? " -with
these words : " Among the consequences of the late theological
movement (meaning that which had been some years before
inaugurated at Oxfoi d, and was then in full swing) has been the

CHARGES. 147
manifestation of a feeling more energetic at least, if not stronger,
than any that had before been general, as to the obligations
of the clergy in matters of ritual observance. We hear daUy of
the re-vival of practices, which from long disuse have come now to
be regarded as novelties." This revival continued to make Its
way ; and in 1851 had gone so far that twenty-four Archbishops
and Bishops of the two Provinces concurred In an Address to the
clergy of their respective Dioceses, which began with the state
ment : — " We have viewed with the deepest anxiety the troubles,
suspicions, and discontents which have of late In some parishes
accompanied the introduction of ritual observances exceeding those
in common use amongst us." Whether this Address produced
any effect on those whom it was Intended to restrain, I am not
able to say. There were causes enough In the troubles and discon
tents of which it speaks, though not to stop, to retard the progress
of the movement, and keep it -within bounds : and It Is not at aU
surprising that it should not sooner have reached the point at
which it has now arrived. Its present phase does not in the least
require or justify the conjecture of any new motives peculiar to
our day ; nor is that conjecture warranted by the professions of the
Ritualists themselves, who are too conscious of their own history to
advance such a plea, and too well satisfied with the grounds which
they have alleged for their proceedings to feel that they need It.
Among these grounds that which used to be most strongly
Insisted on, was the lawfulness of the observances Intro- „,, , _^ ,
' The lawrul-
duced. It was contended that though, ia consequence EituaLtic
of their long disuse, they presented the appearance of ''^^^"'""='^^-
novelty, they were reaUy part and parcel of the law of the land
and of the Church, which had never been repealed, though, either
through the fault of men or the misfortune of evil times, it had
been neglected and disobeyed. It foUowed that those who
revived these confessedly obsolete observances show themselves to
be the true, loyal, and dutiful sons of the Church, and that those
of their brethren who adhere to the long prevaiUng usage, though
their conduct may admit of some charitable excuse, cannot be
altogether free from blame. This is a position in which the
I. 2

148great body of the clergy can hardly be prepared contentedly to
acquiesce, and so the legal side of the question interests the
character and the conscience of every parish priest in the country.
It cannot be sufficient for him to be treated with indulgence by
those who regard him as really guilty of a breach of duty. But
though I do not expect that those who have taken this high
ground will ever retract their language, I do not think It wiU
continue to be repeated with the same inward confidence ; as It
must be felt that, to say the least, the assumption on which It
rests has within the last half year suffered a somewhat rude shock
and lost much of its credit. Several of the Bishops, a majority of
Legal the English Bench, thought that the state of things
opinion on ^ ^ ^
them. rendered It desirable to obtain a legal opinion on the
lawfulness of some of the restored observances, and by their
direction a Case very carefully prepared was submitted to four
lawyers of the highest reputation, including one who was then
Attorney-General. The joint Opinion of these eminent persons
pronounced the practices in question to be unlawful.
How re- It was to havo been expected that those who would
ceived by ^ ^ ^
Eituaiists. havo rejolced if the answer had been in the opposite
sense, should have been displeased and dissatlfied -with this result.
But I was not prepared to find that any one not pledged to their
views would permit himself to decry the value of the opinion, on
the ground that the Case was " of an ex-parte character," and that
the counsel consulted fell into a " trap " which had been laid for
them.* I refrain from all comment on the good taste of this
language and on the reflection it Implies on the character of the
consulting Bishops, and on the learning and ability of their legal
advisers. I will only observe that the Infatuation thus Indirectly
but unmistakably imputed to the Bishops, is even greater than the
disingenuousness with which they are charged. For if any one
had a deep personal interest in ascertaining the real state of the
law on the subject, it must have been those who might find
themselves compelled to bring the question Into Court at their
* See the speech of the Dean of Ely, in the debate on Ritual, in the Lower House
of Convocation.

CHARGES. 149
own charge and risk. They are supposed to have craftily con
trived the defeat of their own object, by laying a " trap " into
¦which their guides, whom they had carefully blinded. Innocently
but inevitably feU. In the meanwhile, however successful one who
is not a member of the legal profession, may beUeve himself to
have been, in con-vlcting four lawyers of the first eminence, and
acting under the gravest responsibiUty, of ignorance or carelessr
ness, without the possibiUty of knowing the steps by which
they were brought to their conclusion. It Is satisfactory to reflect
that, as far as I am aware, no one has ventured to throw out a
suspicion that they were under the influence of any bias arising
from personal feelings ; as it is notorious that if any such had
existed it would have been likely to operate rather against their
conclusion than in its favour ; nor do I know that any one has yet
attempted to show that the case submitted to them either omitted
or misstated any material fact or element of a judicial decision.
It has indeed been suggested that the persons whom it would
have been proper to consult were those who are pro- j^^j^oyg^
foundly versed in what is called the science of LIturgI- Bishops-''^
ology. This would no doubt have been the right course ^™''^^ ^"'
if the object had been that which has been attributed to the
Bishops, to procure a sanction for foregone conclusions. But If It
was to obtain a thoroughly unprejudiced as weU as enlightened
opinion, no course could have been less judicious. Some of the most
distinguished professors of the new science have made It clear that,
even if they possessed the requisite impartiaUty In which they are
so glaringly deficient, they would be very unsafe guides, not only
in questions of law, but even in such as are Immediately connected
with their own special study, the tendency of which appears to be
to develop the imagination at the expense of the judgment.*
One advantage, not as it appears to me inconsiderable, wiU
* On Dr. Littledale's notable discovery, unhappily endorsed by Archdeacon
Freeman, ahout the north side of the altar, see a pamphlet, "The North Side ofthe
Table," by Henry Richmond Droop, M.A., Barrister, and one with the same title
by the Rev. Charles John Elliott. On Archdeacon Freeman's own not less notable
discovery as to weekly celebrations, see a Letter to the Archdeacon by the Rev. R.
H. Fortescue. The extravagant licence of arbitrary conjecture and assumption in
which Ritualist writers indulge whea they have a point to make out, is a very evil

150 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
bave been gained by the Opinion, whatever else may be its
Advantage result. Until It shall have been overruled by the Judg-
from the ment of a competent tribunal. It may be hoped that no
opinion. RituaUst wIU again reproach any of his brethren with
unfaithfulness or wilfulness, because they abstain from observances
which eminent lawyers believe to be unlawful. But I am quite
aware that the opinion by no means sets the question at rest, and
though I should be surprised if it was to be judlcIaUy contra
dicted, I am fully sensible of the possibUity that the more
thorough sifting of a trial may lead to an opposite conclusion.
That the question in Its legal aspect Is one of very great difficulty
will not be denied by any one who is at all acquainted with the
voluminous discussion it has undergone. I wIU only venture
to make one observation, which seems to lie fairly within my
province, on the peculiar character of the difficulty. It is one of
a kind which we have constantly to encounter in the highest
regions of theology, when we find two truths — such as God's
sovereignty and man's free agency — both undeniable, yet appa
rently irreconcilable with one another. In the present case we
sign, whether as indicating weakness of judgment or violence of party spirit : or,
as is most probable, both at once. With its help, St. Paul's (piXovri (2 Tim. iv. 13)
becomes a " sacrificial vestment." The lights in the upper chamber (Acts xx. 8)
which were burning while he preached, were manifestly designed to pay honour to
the Holy Eucharist. The direction ascribed to St. James, in the forged Apostolical
Constitution (-viii. 12), for the dpxtEpeuc to officiate \afnrpdv laBrJTa fitnvSvc, is
deemed conclusive as to the sacerdotal character of the vestment ; though the real
Apostle speaks (ii. 2) of a rich man coming into the Christian assembly ev ia6fiTt
Xaii-rrp^, apparently not for the purpose of "celebrating." Still more seriously
shocking is the abuse made of the Old Testament and of the Book of Revelation.
Cardinal Baronius was not guilty of a worse outrage on truth and common sense,
when he pretended to discover that our Lord robed Himself for the celebration ot
the Last Supper (Annales, tom, i. p. 154). Casaubon's rebuke (Exercitationes, p. 439)
is, as to the abuse of Scripture, equally applicable to the Cardinal's modem
imitators : ' ' Quis ferat Baronii licentiam, hie quoque fingentis Dominum nostrum ad
instituendam Sacrosanctam Eucharistiam pretiosam aliam vestem induisse, et pro
actionibus vestimenta subiude mutasse I Hoccine est divina oracula cum timore et
tremore tractare, humana figmenta sacris narrationibus ex suo semper immiscere ? "
The next remark shows that Baronius was more excusable than those who tread in
his steps : " Enimvero non poterat continere se Cardinalis Baronius, vel CardinaUtios
certe jam tum animos gerens, aulse EomauEe splendori et regia? Pontificum pompae
asBuetus, quin aliquid de moribus hodiemis Domino affingeret." — To the above cited
pamphlets may now be added an excellent article on the Korth Side of the Lord's
¦Table, in tho Contemporary Review, Oct. 1866.

CHARGES. 151

have, on the one side, a Rubric stIU in force, which prescribes
the use of certain ornaments In the Church by the autho- Eeconciiia-

tion of

rity of ParUament. On the other side, we have %e Eubricswith
. f. . . Church
uniform practice of three centuries, during -r;-hich these pi-ititice.
ornaments have never been in use. Both facts are unquestion
able, the difficulty is to find an explanation by which they may
be reconciled. Such an explanation has been thought to be
fumished by subsequent acts of Royal authGrji.y which, if valid,
would quaUfy the Rubric, and even, IT not, would sufficiently
account for the practice. But why the Rubric wp& aUowed to
remain at the last revision of the Prayer Book In 1662, without
either modification or explanation. Is another difficulty which has
been bequeathed to us by the Bishops of that day. i am afraid
that It admits of a but too easy solution. When at the Savoy
Conference the Ministers excepted to the Pi.ubric on the ground
that " it seemed to bring back " the vestments forbidden by the
Second Prayer Book of Edward VL, the Bishops might either
have admitted that they desired to see these ornaments lestored, or
have shown that the Rubric under the law as it then stood would
not have that effect. They did neither the one nor the other, but
simply declared that they " thought it fit that the Rubric continue
as it is," for reasons which they had already given in answer to
a more general remonstrance of the ministers on the subject of
ceremonies. But when we refer to these reasons, we find that
they relate to no other kind of vestment than the surplice.
The Bishops of the Restoration may deserve censure for some
parts of their conduct in that controversy. Not that Conduct of
they were more intolerant than their adversaries, but B'^'^^pI"^
•' ' the Eesto-
it was their misfortune to have gained the power, where sp^o°hig'
the others only retained the will to persecute. But ™^'™™ '¦
without wishing at all to extenuate their faults, I think we have
no right, morally or historically, to put the worst construction on
their words or actions, when they may be at least equally well
explained on a milder supposition. If, when they gave that
answer to the exception of the ministers, they believed that the
Rubric did really authorize the use of the vestments which "it

152 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
seemed to bring back," they would have been guilty of the most
odious duplicity. But If, knowing or beUeving that it had been
so limited as onlv to cover the use of the surplice, they neverthe
less retained It unaltered, just because their opponents " desired
that It might be wholly left out," this I am afraid would be too
much in keeping with the general course and spirit of their
proceedings to be thought at all improbable. It must, however,
be observed that though on this supposition they were witnessing,
as some of them did still more plainly by their subsequent acts, to
the general understanding as to the state of the law on this head,
it would not foUow with absolute certainty that they were not
under a mistake, and that the apprehension professed by the
Puritans was not better grounded than they themselves believed.
Independently of whatever weight may be due to the recent
Opinion, I think there was at least enough of obscurity and
Necessity of perplexity in the question, to restrain a cautious and
caution in .^ iii tt-i*
forming an modost man who had studied its history, even from
opinion on -^
the subject, making up his mind upon It with absolute confidence,*
much more from acting upon his private opinion by the re-vival of
obsolete observances. The use of three centuries may not be
sufficient to prove the state of the law, but It can hardly be
denied that it affords a strong Indication of the mind of the
Church, which It seems hardly consistent with either humUity or
charity for any of her ministers openly to disregard. But
maxims of conduct which would govern ordinary cases may not
be appUcable to this. We are bound to judge men by the view
they take of their o-wn position and duties, however erroneous it
may appear to us. And it is clear that the clergymen who are
engaged in the RItuaUstIc movement do not consider themselves
* I venture to express this opinion, notwithstanding the high authority cited by
Mr. Stephens (Book of Common Prayer with Notes, vol. i. p. 378), because I find that
in that quotation a most material part of the history of the question was entirely
ignored ; as it is, most surprisingly, by Archdeacon Law, iu his lecture on Extreme
Ritualism, where, through this singular oversight, he finds himself driven (p. 124) to
a conclusion most repugnant to his wishes. Mr. Stephens himself seems to me to beg
the whole question, in his answer to the observations which he quotes from Bishop
Mant, on the Umitation effected in the Rubric of Elizabeth by the Advertisements and
Articles of 1571 (p. 368).

CHARGES. 153
simply as ministers of the Church of England, but as providen
tially charged with a missionary work of restoration and Missionary
a^ect of
renewal, which they conceive to be urgently needed for Ritualism.
her welfare.* The changes which have been introduced into the
forms of pubUc worship are a part only, though the most con
spicuous, and perhaps the most important part of that work. In
their eyes that usage of three centuries, to which they are caUed
upon to conform, whether legal or not, has no claim to respect, but,
on the contrary, is a corruption and an abuse. When they look back
to its origin, they can feel no sympathy with the spirit from -which
it sprang. When they foUow the stream of its history, they
observe signs of progressive deterioration. And when they test
it by its final results, they find on the whole failure and not
success. The present state of things appears to them such as to
warrant all lawful endeavours to try the effect of a different
system. If the tendency of that which they advocate is to lessen
the amount of difference In externals, which separates the English
Church from the greater part of Christendom, they do not regard
that as a ground of objection, but as an argument in its favour ;
and more especially with respect to our Missions to the heathen,
as an incalculable advantage, supplying a defect which would be
alone sufficient to account for their comparative barrenness.
Whatever we may think of the past, I am afraid that no one
who does not shut his eyes to facts of the most glaring present
notoriety, can deny that this view of the present is but chm-oh's in-
fluence over
too weU founded, and that the state of the Church with t^e people.
regard to the influence which she exercises on the people of this
country is far from satisfactory. This indeed would be abun
dantly e-vident if it were only from the proposals and attempts
which have been so rife of late years for supplying the acknow
ledged want. They show indeed that the Church is awake to the
consciousness of her need, and bestirring herself to provide for it ;
but also that the means of so doing have not yet been found, at
least in any degree adequate to the end. And I think this ought
* See Dr. Littledale on " The Missionary Aspect of Ritualism," in " The Church
and the World."

154
to make us very cautious about rejecting any help which may be
offered to us for this object, unless it be quite clear that it is
offered on terms which we cannot h'wfuUy accept. I do not
mean now to speak of the difficulty of reaching vast masses of our
population on whom the Church has at present no hold at all, and
who have to be recovered from a state often much worse than
most forms of heathenism. That would only divert our attention
from the subject immediately before us. Those who never enter
our churches because they are strangers to all religion, can have
no concern In a question about modes of worship. But confining
ourselves to this point, we can hardly fail to see clear signs of a
Ordinary wldc-sprcad feeling that something is wanting In the
services not Ordinary services of the Church to make them generally
eufhciently . . r\ t •
attractive, attractive or impressive. Otherwise we should not hear
so many complaints of their length and tediousness. And we
cannot overlook the fact, that the outward posture and most
probably the inward frame of perhaps the great bulk of our
congregations. Is not that of worshippers who are joining in
common prayer, but that of persons listening, respectfully or
otherwise, to some devotional utterances which pass between the
minister and the clerk, while waiting for the sermon, as the only
part of the service from which they expect any benefit. It is
natural that many should wish to have this time of waiting
abridged. But, on the other hand, we hear not less loud com
plaints of the length and tediousness of sermons, and wishes that
they should be either reserved for special occasions, or kept
within a much narrower compass.
It is not enough, by way of answer, to point to the crowds
which frequent the special service of our cathedrals, as a proof
that we may weU be content with the present attractiveness of
our form of worship. No doubt as often as it combines the attrac
tions of a majestic building, a weU-tralned choir, and an eloquent
Eemedies preacher, it will never lack the attendance of large con-
Buggested. gregatlous. But It is very rarely that any of these are
to be found, much more rarely that all are to be found together,
in our parish churches. The example, however, shows what are the

CHARGES. 155
elements which contribute to the result : and experience appears
to prove that they may be sufficiently efficacious even when
present in only a moderate degree. The character and internal
arrangements of the buUding, though of subordinate moment, are
by no means unimportant ; and every indication of ¦wilful, irre
verent neglect, in things appropriated to the most sacred uses, can
hardly fail to injure those whom it does not offend. But this at
least it Is always possible to avoid. A high strain of eloquence
can never be common ; nor perhaps Is It suited to most of our
congregations. But earnestness and thoughtfulness, -with the
skill gained by experience In adapting the discourse to the capacity
and circumstances of the hearers, will always enable the preacher
to awaken their interest, and command their attention. And so, if
our ordinary Services are found wearisome by those who do not bring
with them a lively spirit of devotion, this cannot be fairly laid to
the charge ofthe Prayer Book, where its directions are disregarded,
and the services are conducted in a manner wholly at variance
with the intention of its framers, and deprived of aU their proper
charm of variety and solemnity, by the practice which excludes
aU musical expression, and makes the effect to depend on the
always uncertain, and often painfuUy defective taste and judg
ment of the reader.
While therefore I would readily admit that which is often urged
in defence of the RItuaUstIc movement, that in many of our
churches there is large room for Improvement in the prevaiUng
practice of our pubUc worship, I cannot find in this fact any thing
to justify, or indeed to account for the recent innovations. In the
first place the resources of the Prayer Book were very Eesources of
far from exhausted. Experience, as far as it went, Book.
tended to show that a closer observance of Its directions, and a
fuller use of the means it places at our disposal, without the
smaUest excess over that which is perfectly legitimate and un
questionably authorized, would commonly suffice to relieve our ser
vices from that monotony which has been the subject of complaint ;
and which, allow me to remind you, my reverend brethren, may
be felt by many of our hearers as very irksome and depressing,

156 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
while we who officiate are wholly unconscious of the effect we
produce. And it must be added that, If there are congregations
to whom even such an amount of variation from the established
usage would be unwelcome, and even offensive, that Is certainly a
reason not for, but against, the Introduction of other changes,
which are generally obnoxious, not only from their novelty, but
their character. And in the next place It must be observed, that
these startling changes have been made, not at a time when the
Church had to be roused from a state of apathy and torpor, but,
on the contrary, while she was exerting herself with unprecedented
activity for the removal of impediments, and the strengthening
of aids to the public devotion of her children. I have already, at
the beginning of my Charge, touched on the evidence visible in
this Diocese, and stiU more in many others, of the growing atten
tion paid to the structure and comeliness of her sacred buildings :
and this care has been very largely extended to the details of her
Formation worshlp. If any proof of this statement were needed as
of choral -^ .
associations, to ourselvcs. It would be found in the gratifying fact,
that choral associations have been lately formed in three of our
Archdeaconries, whose example wUl no doubt ere long be foUowed
by the fourth. We have thus ground to hope, that the voice of
melody wIU be more frequently heard in our churches, to inspirit
the strains of praise and thanksgiving, and that the " psalms and
hymns, and spiritual songs," which were meant to be the expres
sion of pious feelings, will not always be made to serve merely as
additional lessons. In the meanwhile it is by no means certain
that the success, measured by increased attendance, of the new
observances, has been greater than that of services which have
been conducted strictly within the commonly recognised limits of
the Prayer Book, and with an intelligent and judicious application
of its rules. I have no statistics which would enable me to speak
with confidence on this subject. But I believe that in most
neighbourhoods the number of those who are attracted by the
revived ritual bears a small proportion to that of those who dislike
and disapprove of it, even if they are not shocked and disgusted by
it. And I strongly suspect that those who take pleasure In it, do

CHARGES. 157
SO mainly not on account of its superior sensuous attractions, but
because it represents a peculiar system of opinions.
Hence it is clear that a comparison between the two forms of
worship, with respect to their effectiveness or popularity, could
lead to no trustworthy result, and, even If it did, could afford no
safe ground for any practical decision. It is absolutely necessary
to consider the movement in itself, apart from all calculations or
conjectures as to its prospects of success or faUure. Much also has
been said which appears to me quite irrelevant, as to the personal
character of those who take the lead in it. They are character of
-' theEitual-
descrlbed, I have no doubt most truly, as men of ex- istic leaders.
emplary lives, and extraordinary devotedness to their pastoral
duties.* These certainly are qualities which entitle them to
respect ; and that devotedness may not be the less meritorious
because they are avowedly engaged in a missionary and pro
selytizing work. But they themselves would probably be the
last to question that many, if not most, Roman Catholic priests
lead holy, self-denying lives, and give themselves unspar
ingly to the work of their calling, even when it is not of a
missionary kind. It seems to me more to the purpose to observe,
that they are apparently persons of great energy and no incon
siderable ability, thoroughly in earnest, believing In themselves
and their mission, of resolute ¦will and sanguine hopes ; and that
the strength of the party behind their backs Is not to be measured
by the numbers of those who happen to belong to their congrega
tions. The adherents probably form a much larger body. It may
not be too much to say, looking at their connections and aUIances,
that they are already a power in the Church : one strong enough
at least to make it worth our whUe to gain as clear an idea as we
can of their principles and aims.
The fact which presents itself most ob-viously on the surface
* So the Report of the Committee of the Lower House of Convocation on Ritual.
" None are more earnest and unwearied in delivering the truth of Christ's Gospel,
none more self-denying in ministering to the wants and distresses of the poor, than
very many of those who have put in use these observances." As the Committee
throughout ignore the Romanizing character of the movement, it is not surprising
that they should not have perceived the irrelevancy of this remark.

158 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
of the whole matter, is the cbange which has been made in
Change in the Administration of the Lord's Supper. The Com-
istration of muulon Ser-vIcc of the Prayer Book Is set, as it were, in
the Lord's /-. -i ,. • i • i n i
Supper. the frame of the Roman Catholic ceremonial, with all the
accompaniments of the high or chanted Mass, vestments, lights,
incense, postures and gestures of the officiating clergy. It is
interpolated with corresponding hymns, and supplemented by
private prayers, translated from the Roman Missal. To make the
resemblance more complete, several of the clearest directions of
our own Rubric are disobeyed, and the Roman observance sub
stituted for that appointed by our Church. * To the eye, hardly
any thing appears to be wanting for an exact Identity between the
two Liturgies : and It is but rarely that any difference can be
detected by the ear. I cannot help thinking that this unquestion
able fact deserved some notice in the Report of the Committee of
the Lower House of Convocation on Ritual, where It Is passed over
in silence, and could not be gathered by any one from the remarks
which are there made on the particulars of the new practice. And
it is not unworthy of note, as indicating the spirit of the move
ment, that according to an interpretation of the Rubric referring
to the second year of Edward VI. , which was for some time treated
as indisputable, every ornament and rite of the unreformed
Church, which has not been either expressly forbidden or tacitly
excluded by the estabUshed order of our Service, is still authorized
by the Statute law, and may and ought to be used. This doctrine
mi. ..r^.- was made the foundation of a remarkable work, which
The " Direo- '
SgiS purports to direct the AngUcan clergy in their Uturgical
canum. ministrations, with a view to the restoration of the old
practice, and treats the subject with a Rabbinical minuteness,
quite worthy of the end proposed, t This Interpretation, indeed, '
has since been discovered to be hardly tenable, though it -will
probably not the less continue to be acted upon. But It marks
the precise character of the Ideal which the Ritualists have set
* This is most amply shown in a pamphlet entitled " Utrum Horum," by " Pres
byter Anglicanus," where the directions of the Prayer Book are compared with those
ofthe " Directorium Anglicanum."
t "Directorium Anglicanum."

CHARGES. 159
before themselves, as the object of their aspirations : the mediaeval
type of Ritual In its most florid development, and in the most
glaring possible contrast to the simplicity of our present use.
This, I say, is a fact which, in my opinion, ought not to be kept
out of sight in any statement which professes to give a clear and
fair view of the subject, especially If It is meant to be a guide to
practical conclusions. And it enables us the better to value of
judge of the argumentative value of some topics which insupportof
J o o -r _ the move-
are often urged on behalf of the movement, and which ™«nt.
have even been deemed worthy of a place In the Report I was just
now speaking of. We cannot but sympathize with persons who
are governed by "no other motive than a desire to do honour to
the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity, and to render the services
of the English Church more becoming In themselves and more
attractive to the people." But Ii is not easy to perceive how these
motives are speciaUy connected with the practices in defence of
which they are alleged ; and I think it would startle and alarm
most Churchmen to hear that. In the judgment of either House of
Convocation, v/herever these motives exist, they v/IU of themselves,
without any other kind of impulse, naturaUy lead to the closest
possible assimilation of our Liturgy to the Roman Mass. In this
case the ruling motives can be only matter of conjecture ; all that
is certain Is the visible result. And this rather suggests a strong
suspicion, that the motives assigned would not have taken this
direction If It had not been determined by a prepossession in
favour of distinctive Roman usages. It has also been laid down
as a principle bearing upon the present question, that the use of
pecuUar vestments for the celebration of Divine Service, and
especially of its most solemn act, the Holy Communion, is a
dictate of instinctive piety. * Yet it may now be considered as
well ascertained that for several centuries the piety of the early
Christians did not lead them to make any change in their ordinary
apparel, even for the celebration of their holiest mysteries, and
that the liturgical vestments of later ages may all be traced to the
* See "A Sermon for Easter Day," by the Rev. Edward Stuart, Appendix,
p. 45.

160original dress of common secular life.* But even if the principle
could claim that sanction of Christian antiquity which it wants,
and which seems rather to belong, In respect both of shape and
colour, to the much-despised surplice, t still, it would not either
warrant or explain the partiality shown in the adoption, not only
of the late mediaeval forms, but of the precise variations of colour
prescribed by the Roman Ritual.
These examples, however, convey a very imperfect idea of the
extent to which that partiality is carried, and of the manifold
ways In which it is displayed. The Debate on Ritual in the
Lower House of Convocation drew forth some remarkable dis
closures, + which leave no room for doubt on this head. I confine
myself, however, to that which is apparent in the mode of con
ducting pubUc worship. Where we find such a close and studied
Affinity to approximation to the Roman Catholic system in externals,
CathoUcism. It Is Certainly not uncharitable to suspect that there may
be a corresponding affinity in matters of faith and doctrine. This
becomes still more probable when we place two facts side by side.
On the one hand, the Reformers, who desired to abolish the orna
ments and ceremonies now restored, had no aversion to them in
themselves, were not only fully aware that in themselves they are
things indifferent, but probably would have been ready to admit
that they are graceful, picturesque, attractive to the senses and
the imagination. But they dIsUked them the more on that very
account, because, in their minds, they were things inseparably
associated with doctrines which they abhorred, and against which
they contended even to the death. On the other hand, those who
* Professor Ilefele's Essay on this subject in the second volume of his " Beitrage
zur Kirchengeschichte, Archaologie, und Liturgik " — the more valuable as the work
of a zealous as well as a very learned Roman Catholic — has been made the foundation
of a very useful paper by the Rev. Professor Cheetham, in the " Contemporary
Review," August, 1866.
t " The clergy," observes Mr. Hemans, in a paper on the Church in the Catacombs,
"Contemporary Review," October, 1866, "till the end of this primitive period,
continued to officiate attired in the classic white vestments common to Roman citizens,
but distinguished by the long hair and beard of phUosophers ; and not tiU the
Constantinian period did the bishops begin to wear purple ; not till the ninth century
was that primitive white costume (which was sometimes slightly adorned in purple or
gold) laid aside by the priesthood generally,"
J In a letter or paper read by Archdeacon Wordsworth.

CHARGES. 161
are labouring for the restoration of the pre-Reformatlon Ritual
though they do not neglect to avail themselves of such general
pleas as I was just now noticing, grounded on the common instincts
and cravings of human nature, when they come distinctly to
enumerate " the ends to which Ritual and Ceremonial „ , ,.
Symbohsm
minister," specify as one end, that " they are the ^a j^.
expressions of doctrine, and witnesses to the Sacramental """^ '
system of the Catholic religion."* It is of course on this account
above aU that these things are valued by those who adopt them.
These earnest men would indignantly reject the supposition thai
they are agitating the Church for any thing which serves merely
to gratify a refined taste, and has not in their eyes a very deep
doctrinal significance. The question, therefore, is forced upon us ;
Is the doctrine thus symbolized the doctrine of the Reformed
Church of England, which has dropped these symbols, or that of
the Church of Rome, which retains them ?
There may be persons to whom It may appear that this ques
tion admits but of one answer, that of the latter is this doc-
alternative. This, however, evidently depends on the the church
. '' . of England
further inquiry. Whether the doctrine is one of those on «' <>' K"™<> '
which the two Churches are at variance, or of those on which they
agree with one another. Now, however It may be as to doctrine
in the proper sense, I think it can hardly be denied that there is
a very wide and Important difference between the general view
which our Church takes of her Liturgy, and the Roman view of
the Mass. The difference is marked by their several names and
descriptions. The one Is an Office for the Administration of the
Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion ; the other, for the celebration
of a sacrifice. The difference indicated by the titles is equaUy
conspicuous In the contents of the two Liturgies. In the Anglican,
the idea which Is almost exclusively predominant is that of Com
munion. There is, indeed, an Offertory, and an oblation of
common things for sacred and charitable uses. There is mention
of a sacrifice of praise and thanksgi-ving,t which appears to include
* " Directorium Anglicanum," Preface, p. xiv.
t "This our sacrifice of praise aud thanksgiving.''
VOL. II. M

162 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
the whole rite ; and the communicants " offer and present them
selves, their souls and bodies, as a living sacrifice." But of any
other kind of sacrifice, and particularly of any sacrificial oblation
of the consecrated elements, there is not a word. The Consecra
tion Is immediately followed by the Communion, which is the
great business of the whole. On the other hand, the Council of
Trent pronounces an anathema on those who say that there is not
offered to God In the Mass a true and proper sacrifice, or that the
offering consists only In Christ's being given to us for manduca-
tlon ; or that the sacrifice of the Mass Is only one of praise and
thanksgi-ving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice performed
on the Cross, and not propitiatory. A more direct conflict of
-views, if they are supposed to relate to the same subject, or to two
subjects not essentiaUy different from one another, it would be
difficult to conceive ; for that which the Council so emphaticaUy
denies to be the sacrifice of the Mass, Is the only thing to which
our Church gives the name of her sacrifice. That which the
Council declares to be the true and proper sacrifice of the Mass, is
an offering as to which our Church Is absolutely silent.
Harmony It might havc Seemed to any one who read our Com-
between . .-^ /v.
Eituaiists munion Office, a straiiere and hopeless undertaking to
and Eoman ox o
the c'omm™ ^^Ing It luto harmony with the Mass ; and I think that
mon Office, .(.j^g Ritualists who have made the attempt, have failed to
produce any thing more than a deceptive show of resemblance ;
but of the harmony between their own views and those of the
Church of Rome in this respect, they have given the most
unequivocal signs. The rite which they celebrate they describe
as the Sacrifice of the Altar, or the Mass. The splendour with
which they Invest it Is certainly more appropriate to the oblation
of a sacrifice than to the reception and participation of a gift.
And, feeUng that this would stIU be Insufficient for the purpose,
they interpolate our Office with large extracts from the Canon of
the Mass, in which the sacrifice Is expUcitly announced, and which
the " celebrant " is directed to use as private prayers.* I must own
• See " Suggestions for the Due and Reverent Celebration of the Holy Eucharist,"
printed for the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament.

CHARGES. 163
that there is something in this adulteration, — as I think I may not
improperly term it, — of the Prayer Book out of the Missal, which
to my sense has an unpleasant savour of artifice and disingenuous
ness. It is a proceeding of which I think both Churches have
reason to complain : the one, that her mind is not only disregarded,
but misrepresented ; the other, that her treasures are rifled to
set off her adversary with a false semblance of likeness to herself.
But stIU aU this does not amount to a proof that there has been
any departure from the express teaching of our Church ^
with regard to the Sacrament. And in one important doSrfne^by
particular there can be no doubt that those who carry ' ^
the assimilation of ritual to the greatest length, most decidedly
and sincerely repudiate the Romish doctrine. With our twenty-
eighth Article, — whether for the reasons there assigned or not, — ¦
they reject the dogma of Transubstantiation. So indeed they
might do, -with perfect consistency, even if they used the Roman
Liturgy without curtailment or alteration ; for to those who have
studied the subject. It is well known that the Canon of the Mass
is so far from teaching that dogma, that It positively witnesses
against it, and can only be reconciled with it by the most -violent
artifices of Interpretation.* The Canon had been fixed many
centuries before the dogma was defined. And here I cannot
refrain from pausing for a moment to remark, that there is perhaps
no head of theological controversy in which our Church stands in
more advantageous contrast -with Rome, or In which we have more
reason thankfuUy to recognize her characteristic moderation, than
this. The tenet of Transubstantiation, decreed as an „^
' Transub-
artlcle of faith, combines in itself the two extremes of ^*»"i'iation.
Irreverent rationalism and presumptuous dogmatism. As a specu
lation of the Schools, It Is essentially rationalistic ; a bold and vain
attempt to pry into mysteries of faith Impenetrable to human
reason. As a dogma, it exhibits the spectacle of a Church so
• The consecration is followed by the prayer : " Supra quaa propitio et sereno vultu
respicere digneris, et accepta habere sicuti acoepta habere dignatus es munera pueri
tui justi Abel, et sacrifioium Patriarchse nostri Abrahaa, et quod tibi obtulit Sammus
Sacerdos tuns Melchidezech sanctum Sacrificium, immaculatam Hostiam." What a
comparison, when Jesus Christ Himself is supposed to be on the altar !
M 2

164 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
forgetful of her proper functions, as to undertake to give a Divine
sanction to a purely metaphysical theory, the offspring of a system
of profane philosophy. This ratlonaUstIc dogmatism gives an
imposing air of soUdlty and compactness to much In the Roman
theology which, on closer Inspection, proves to be utterly hoUow
and baseless. A conclusion is reached through a process of vicious
ratiocination, composed of ambiguous terms and arbitrary assump
tions. In itself it Is " a fond thing vainly invented." But It is
withdrawn from aU inquiry, and stamped with the character of a
Divine revelation, by means of the dogma of Papal or Conciliar
infallibility. This however, when examined, turns out to be
itself the product of a like abuse of reason. We are reminded of
the Indian cosmology, in which the earth rests on the elephant,
the elephant on the tortoise, and the tortoise — on empty space.
In what The Church of England, on the contrary, has dealt with
garded^by thls sublect In a Spirit of true reverence as well as of
theChmch n.m
of England, prudencc and charity.* She asserts the mystery inherent
in the Institution of the Sacrament, but abstains from all attempts
to investigate or define It, and leaves the widest range open to the
devotional feelings and the private meditations of her chUdren
with regard to it. And this Uberty is so large, and has been so
freely used, that, apart from the express admission of Transub
stantiation, or of the grossly carnal notions to which it gave rise,
and which, in the minds of the common people, are probably
Inseparable from It, I think there can hardly be any description
of the Real Presence, which, in some sense or other, is universaUy
aUowed, that would not be found to be authorized by the language
of eminent divines of our Church ; and I am not aware, and do
not beUeve, that our most advanced RituaUsts have In fact over
stepped those very ample bounds.
Eucharistic ^^^ ^ ^™ ^*^t ^° sure that It is possible to reconcile
Sacrifice. ^j^gjj, ^£g^ Q^ ^jjg Eucharistic Sacrifice with that of the
Church of England, or to distinguish it from that of the Church
of Rome. The subject is one which requires the utmost precision
of thought and language, to avoid either faUing into or giving
* See however Appendix D.

CHARGES. 165
occasion for misconception. At every step we are in danger of
being misled by ambiguous terms, and of reasoning upon them
in a sense different from that In which they are used by those
with whom we contend. I wish very much to keep this present
to my own mind and to yours in that which I am about to say.
The CouncU of Trent anathematizes those who affirm _ .„ ,.
Propitiation
that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not propitiatory, or that ^e'Sthe""
It benefits only the receiver, or communicant ; or that it
ought not to be offered for quick and dead, to have remission of
pain and guilt. The word propitiatory is one of those which
admit of two senses : the one, strict and proper ; the other, loose
and inexact. It might be understood to mean nothing more than
acceptable to God, as that " li-ving sacrifice " of our bodies, spoken
of by St. Paul, or as our common prayers made in the name of
Christ. In this sense it might not unfitly, though imprudently,
because in a way so very liable to misapprehension and abuse, be
applied to that memorial of the one only real propitiation, which
the Church makes in her Eucharist. This, however. Is most
certainly not the sense in which the Church of Rome asserts that
the Sacrifice of the Mass Is propitiatory ; for she regards It, not
indeed as a repetition of the offering made on the Cross, but neither
as a simple commemoration of that. It Is, in her view, a repeti
tion of the Sacrifice which she holds to have been actuaUy made,
not merely signified as a thing to come, at the Last Supper, for
the remission of the sins of the Apostles and of many.* There
can therefore be no doubt in what sense she directs the priest, at
* Bellarmin, " De Missa," i. c. xii. : " Christus in ultima Coena seipse sub specie
panis et vini Deo Patri obtulit, et idipsum jussit fieri ab Apostslis et eorum suoces-
soribus usque ad mundi consummationem. Sed hoc est sacrificium vere ac proprie
dictum obtulisse, et offerendum instituisse." So, in nearly the same words, Bona,
" Rerum Liturgicarum," i. c. 4. Melchior Canus, " De Locis Theologicis," xii. c. 12,
draws a distinction between the efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Gross and that of the
Last Supper: "Alia efficientia hostite illius est, quam Christus palam mactavit in
cruce : alia illius est quam sub speciebus definitis mystice prasblrit in ccena. Ilia
generalis est, nee per sacrificium modo, sed per omnia sigillatim sacramenta ad efi-ecta
longe diversa applicatur. Hfec peculiaris efficientia est, et sub speciebus certis ad
peculiaria qusedam effecta concluditur. Obtulit ergo Christus in coena tum pro culpa
veniali, tum pro poena qu£e pro culpa etiam mortali deberetur." The Bishop of
Brechin (Primary Charge, 2nd edit. p. 52) goes no farther than to saj-, "At that first
Eucharist that Sacrifice was presented to the Father before it was made."

166 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
the close of the Mass, to pray that the sacrifice which he has
offered " may be acceptable unto God, and propitiatory for himself
and all for whom he has offered it." What, then, must we infer
Identity of ^^ovd the fact that this very prayer is one of those which
do'ctol*''' are recommended for the use of our clergy in the admin
istration of the Lord's Supper at the corresponding part
of the Office ? * Must we not conclude that it is in the very same
sense that, in a manual of devotion accredited by the same
authority, the celebration of our Liturgy is described as a " Sacri
fice of praise and propitiation," in which our Lord, "through
His own presence communicates the virtues of His most precious
death and passion to aU His faithful, living and departed?"!
I do not see how this language is to be reconciled with the
Contrary to doctrlno of our Church, even as expounded by divines of
of EngLind. that school whIch takes the highest view of the Eucha
ristic Sacrifice. But if we suppose that it Is meant to express
sound Anglican doctrine In Roman phraseology, how strong must
be the leaning towards Rome which prompts the use of her
language, where it is apparently most at variance with the sense
which the authors Intend to convey ! The words which I was
just now reading may have reminded you that the strongest con
demnatory language to be foimd In our Articles Is that of the
Thirty-first, where " the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was
commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for the qiuck and
the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt," are branded with
the name of " blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." In the
celebrated Tract xc. it was contended, that the censure of the
Article was aimed, not at the creed of the Roman Church, but at
certain opinions which were no essential parts of her system ; and
that it " neither speaks against the Mass in itself, nor against its
being an offering for the quick and the dead for the remission of
ein, but against its being viewed as independent of or distinct from
the Sacrifice of the Cross."J I am not just now concerned to
inquire whether this opinion is weU founded or not, or how far
* Suggestions, &c.
t The Manual of the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, p. 29.
X See Appendix C.

CHARGES. 167
the Church of Rome is irrevocably pledged to that exposition of
the decrees of Trent which was given by her great apologists, and
which is now generally received by all members of her commu
nion. I would only observe that the doubt itself Implies that the
language of the decrees Is in perfect harmony with that exposition,
even If it admits of an explanation which would bring it nearer to
doctrine which may be held in the Church of England. When
therefore that language is used, as it is, in forms of devotion
which are recommended as private accompaniments of the ritual
which is studiously assimUated to that of Rome, without any
quaUfying explanation. It can only be understood in the sense
generally received, — a sense in which even the author of Tract xc.
did not profess to believe that it could be reconcUed with the
teaching of our Church, or with what he then held to be the
truth. And again, I desire you to observe, if the language is
supposed to be borrowed In a different and sounder sense, how
strong must be the predUectlon which it indicates for every thing
that has the Roman stamp upon It.
This close approximation to Roman views and practice, in con
nection with the predominance assigned to that sacrificial aspect
of the Lord's Supper, which it is so difficult even to detect in the
EngUsh Service Book, over that of the Sacrament, which there
alone meets the eye, is especially conspicuous in the kind of
encouragement given by clergymen of the Ritualistic Attendance
school to the attendance of non-communicants during municants.
the celebration.* Services exactly corresponding to the Low
Masses of the Church of Rome, are multiplied in their churches,
without any design of affording additional opportunities of com
municating, for congregations in which few are expected or
desired to be more than listeners ; most indeed not so much : for
as they are provided with " manuals of devotion to be used at the
celebration of the Holy Eucharist by such as do not communi
cate," they may be as little aware of what Is said and done at the
Holy Table, as if they were outside the door, and only apprised
of the moment of consecration by the tinkling of a bell. The
See Appendix D.

168 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
practical question is one of some little difficulty. I should think
It a most unwarrantable encroachment on the rights of conscience
to compel any of the congregation to withdraw, if they -wish to
remain, though without any intention of communicating. This
of course must needs be left to every one's discretion. But I
should also consider It as an intrusion into the sanctuary of
private devotion, absolutely and indiscriminately to condemn or
discourage such attendance. I fully admit that there may be
many cases in which it may tend to edification, without the
slightest tinge of superstition. I expressed the same opinion in
a Charge several years ago, and I see no reason for changing it
now. But attendance simply with a view to edification, is one
thing : attendance in the belief that the proper benefit of the
ordinance may be enjoyed without reception, seems to me another
and quite a different thing. This, if I am not mistaken, and not,
as has been argued, a vulgar error, by which It was supposed
that the Sacrifice of the Cross Itself is repeated in every Mass,
was the doctrine which lay at the root of the practice condemned
by the Thirty-first Article,* From this doctrine naturally sprang
Origin of the Indefinite multiplication of solitary Masses, each of
sohtaryMasses. whlch was held to possess a certain Inherent value,
quite distinct from that of the Sacrifice of the Cross, though not
Independent of It, and which might be applied, according to the
intention of the priest, either to the Uving, or, which was the
more frequent occasion of that multiplication, to the departed, for
the purpose of obtaining their release from Purgatory. The
abuses reproved by the CouncU of Trent were only casual Inci
dents of the practice, and in no way necessary consequences of
the doctrine, which the CouncU distinctly asserted, expressly
" approving of those Masses in which the priest alone communi
cates sacramentally," and on the ground, that " they are celebrated
by the public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but
for all the faithful who belong to the Body of Christ " — In other
words, as our Article has it, " for the quick and the dead."
When the doctrine is received among ourselves, it will be only
* See Appendix C.

CHARGES. 169
the effect of outward temporary restraints, if It Is not accompanied
by the practice which the Article condemned, not indeed simply
by itself, but along with, though not solely or mainly on account
of, its incidental gross and shameless abuses, the recurrence of
which, it may be hoped, we have no reason to fear.
But this ritual movement has by no means reached Its term.
It is stUl in the full vigour of its early years. It gpreadof
appears to be advancing both extensively, in the work of
proselytism, and Intensively, in doctrinal innovation, not always
distinctly enunciated but clearly Intimated. Its partizans seem
to vie with one another in the introduction of more and more
startUng novelties, both of theory and practice. The adoration of
the consecrated Wafer, reserved for that purpose, which Is one of
the most characteristic Romish rites, and a legitimate consequence
of the Romish Eucharistic doctrine. Is contemplated, if it has not
been already adopted, in some of our churches, and the Romish
Festival of the Corpus Christi instituted for the more conspicuous
exercise of that adoration, has, it appears, actually begun to be
observed by clergymen of our Church. Already pubUc honours
are paid to the Virgin Mary, and language applied to her, which
can only be considered as marking the first stage of a develop
ment, to which no limit, short of the fuU Romish worship, can be
probably assigned.
In the presence of these facts, the statement of the Committee
of the Lower House of Convocation, that — " in the ^, „
Its Rome-
larger number of the practices which were brought ™n^y*ae-
under their notice, they could trace no proper connexion ^''^'
with the distinctive teaching of the Church of Rome," — seems
much better fitted to excite surprise, than to administer conso
lation, or inspire confidence. But it was to me still more
surprising to hear from one speaking in another place, -with the
weight of high authority, and under very grave responsibUity* — a
most deUberate and solemn declaration of his belief, " that this
present movement is not a movement towards Rome." And yet,
paradoxical as it may seem, I wiU own that there is a sense in
* Chronicle of Convocation, Feb. 9, 1866, p. 165.

170 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
which I can myself believe that this movement is not a movement
towards Rome. Not certainly In the sense that it has any other
direction. Not in the sense that its " ultimate end and aim " —
as has been said by one who appears to have had means of under
standing it thoroughly — is any thing less than " to make the
doctrine, practice, and worship of the Anglican Church as nearly
as possible identical with the Roman."* In that sense I cannot
doubt that it Is a very decided and rapid movement towards
In what Rome. But in another sense I might say, though I
sense this . . O J ' o
may be true, should not think It a happy way of expressing my
meaning, that this present movement — and I should lay great
stress on the word present — Is not a movement toward Rome. I
beUeve that many at least of those who are most actively engaged
in it are not at present contemplating secession from the Church
of England, and do not even desire that It should be Immediately
absorbed in the Church of Rome. I may say indeed that, with
regard to a considerable number of them, there are clear proofs
that this Is not their present bent or aim. That which they have
in view Is quite another thing : something Indeed which I can
only regard as a dream and a delusion, but which as long as they
cherish this delusion, wIU keep them in their present position.
Their real object has been lately brought somewhat prominently
under public notice, by some very remarkable documents, which
at the same time afford the best means of forming a judgment on
its prospects of success.
fofthe'pr™ From them we learn that a Society has been founded
the'uSit^of under the name of an " Association for the Promotion of
dom.^ ™" the Unity of Christendom," whose common bond of
union Is an earnest desire for the visible reunion of all Chris
tendom, especiaUy of the three chief communions, the Roman
Catholic, the Eastern, and the Anglican: the agency to be
employed for compassing the end, being for the present simply
intercessory prayer. The Society was composed chiefly of English
Churchmen, clergy and laity ; but as some Roman CathoUcs had
been induced to join it, it attracted the attention of their Bishops,
* See Archdeacon Wordsworth's speech in the debate on Ritual.

CHARGES. 171
who referred the matter to the supreme authority at Rome (the
Congregation of the Holy Office of the Inquisition), which issued
a rescript condemning the Association, and enjoining the faithful
to beware of uniting themselves with it under peril of condemned
heresy. This document drew forth a letter addressed to '' °™°'
its author. Cardinal Patrizi, Prefect of the Holy Office, and
signed by 198 clergymen of the Church of England, including
some of its dignitaries, in which they more distinctly explain the
precise nature of their object, which they thought the Cardinal
had misunderstood.* They disclaim the intention which had
been imputed to them, of seeking " that the three communions In
their integrity, and each persisting in its persuasion, might
simultaneously combine Into one ; " which they admit to be " a
scheme, from which no ecclesiastical unity could be hoped for."
They explain that their object is confined to an inter- object of
communion between the three Churches as distinct, ^ °°'^ ^'
Independent bodies, Uke that which existed between East and
West before the separation. They state that they have worked
many years to hasten this result : that they have effected improve
ments beyond their hopes, where there was any thing Imperfect in
the faith of the flock, in divine worship, and clerical discipUne,
and that they have shown an amount of good will toward the
venerable Church of Rome, which has " rendered them suspected
in the eyes of some." This last statement wIU, I think, both
receive and reflect light, if it Is compared with the fact which we
had just now before us.
It seems surprising that any one moderately acquainted
with the history and character of the Papacy, should Hopeiess-
•' sr J' ness ofthe
have thought it possible that such a proposal should Boheme.
ever be entertained at Rome. And perhaps, but for the inter
ference of the Roman Catholic Bishops, it might have been long
before the desires of the Association were embodied in one, so as
to call forth the judgment of Rome upon It. The reply of
Cardinal Patrizi, energeticaUy enforced by the highest Roman
* The whole correspondence may be fouud at the end of Archbishop Manning's
"Reunion of Christendom, a Pastoral Letter to Clergy," &c.

172
Catholic authority in this country, must, I think, have convinced
the most sanguine of the utter hopelessness of the attempt under
present circumstances, or indeed without such a change in the
spirit and the principles of the Church of Rome as would almost
supersede the necessity of any formal reconcUiation.* But
whether those who have been thus rejected and rebuked wUl
patiently acquiesce in their faUure and disappointment — whether,
when they find that all their advances towards Rome in a growing
conformity of faith, worship, and discipline have not brought
them one step nearer to the attainment of their object ; when
they observe that the differences which separate them from the
great mass of the members of their own communion are enormously
greater than those which Ue between them and Rome, and which
are constantly decreasing, — while they know and are frequently
reminded that an act of dutiful submission to that " venerable
Church " will at once place them not in a mere Intercommunion
but In the enjoyment of full communion with her — whether, I
say, under such circumstances it will be possible for them long to
maintain their present ambiguous, intermediate position, and not,
however reluctantly, to be carried down, as by an eddy : this it
remains for the future to disclose. If we were to Usten to the
experience of the past, we could hardly feel a doubt as to the
final result.
Views of But I find that In other quarters among us persons
another sec- ii-i p .it
Hon of the entitled to the highest respect, and of unquestionable
""ty- attachment to our Church, are strongly persuaded that
the signs of our times are pecuUarly favourable to the prospect of
a restoration of unity In Christendom, though there appears to be
a very wide difference among them as to the means by which the
end is to be compassed. Some ground their hopes on the fact
that, as in Italy poUtical unity has been accompanied by religious
liberty, a door has been thrown open for the doctrines of the
Reformation, which perhaps were never entirely stamped out
* It does not, however, prevent the English Church Union from regarding
" Ritualism as a means of promoting ultimately the intercommunion of the whole
CathoUc Church." Report of the President and Council of the English Church Union
on the Report of the Lower House of Convocation on Ritual.

CHARGES. 173
there, to be re-admitted and have free course. The general
alienation of the people from the Court of Rome and the temporal
claims of the Papacy, has been thought Ukely to win favour for
the foundation of an independent national Church on the platform
of primitive doctrine, worship, and government, not unUke, and
in full communion with, our own. That such a prospect should
attract and should awaken a Uvely interest in the minds of earnest
and pious EngUsh Churchmen is perfectly natural, and we cannot
but sympathize warmly with their motives and general aims.
How far the means hitherto adopted are suited to the moral and
religious condition of the country, now in the throes of a great
poUtical crisis, it is very difficult for a foreigner to judge. But
one thing Is clear. The immediate tendency of such a movement
wiU not be to restore unity, but to multiply divisions and to
foment religious discord. That may, under the gracious over
ruling of Divine Pro-vidence, be only a transition to a state of
unity and concord. But it is certainly possible, and to human
eyes quite as probable, that those who think they are laying the
foundation of a national reformed Church, may find that they
have only been planting a hotbed of sects, which as they spring
up wIU kUl one another, and leave the Church of Rome more
powerful than before.*
Here, however, aU is inteUigible and consistent. I cannot
say so much with regard to the hopes which I see are unity with
still cherished by some eminent persons of a reconcilia- basis of a
f> T> 1 1 • f common
tion with the Church of Rome on the basis of a common doctrine.
doctrine ; stiU less with regard to their opinion that the present
juncture affords pecuUar encouragement to such hopes. That the
spread of unbelief should have suggested, or rather have strength
ened, the wish for such re-union, I can readily understand.
But how it has removed or lessened the obstacles which before
stood In the way, I am at a loss to comprehend. The scheme is
in the main a renewal of that which was the subject of much
* This was written before I had seen " a Memorandum on Church Reformation in
Italy, drawn up and issued with the joint sanction of the Bishops of Gibraltar and
Pennsylvania." But the perusal of it has rather confirmed than altered my opinion.

174
discussion and negotiation toward the end of the seventeenth
century. It was then proposed under most singularly propitious
political auspices, such as have never been seen since, and are not
likely to recur. The Pope of that day gave it the utmost
encouragement possible in his position. It was not in Italy but
in France, not from an Ultramontane doctor or prelate, but from
Bossuet, the champion of the Galilean liberties, that it received
its death-blow, in the declaration that his Church would never
recede from a single point of her doctrine, and particularly from
that laid do-wn by the Council of Trent.*
Difficulties How Immensely the difficulties, which then were felt
in the way . , i i • •
of it- to be insurmountable, have since increased, has by no
one been sho-wn with more luminous demonstration than by the
eminent theologian, who is at once the warmest supporter and the
most authoritative expositor of the re-vlved scheme of pacification
and reunion. From his "Eirenicon" we learn, on the one hand,
the extravagant extent to which the worship of the Virgin Mary
has been already carried in the Church of Rome, and how very
nearly It has superseded reliance on the mediation of Christ, who
is generaUy regarded as the terrible Judge, whose severity can
only be softened by the all-availing intercession of His more com
passionate mother : and further, that this kind of devotion did not
even reach its culminating point in the additional honour paid to
her In the new dogma of her Immaculate Conception, but Is sup
posed to be yet far from the last stage of its development, and is
expected to yield a larger harvest of dogmatic novelties. And
while we are thus led to see how deeply the Church of Rome is
pledged to a doctrine and practice from which most of us recoil,
as one of the grossest corruptions of Christ's religion, we learn on
the other hand that, during the same period, especiaUy during the
reign of the present Pope, the claims of the Papacy have been
* See Lettres xxi. xxii. xxviii. in the Correspondence between Leibnitz and
Bossuet (CEuvres de Bossuet, Tome xi.) Bossuet observes (Lettre xi.) that nothing
would be gained on the Protestant side, even if the Council of Trent was deprived
of all authority : " puisqu'il ne faudrait pas moins croire la Transubstantiation, le
Sacrifice, la primaute du Pape de droit divin, la priere des Saints, et celles pour les
morts, qui ont ete definies dans les Conciles precedents." The difficulty as to the
Papacy was recognized by the author of Tract xc. in his letter to Dr. Jelf.

CHARGES. 175
making continual progress, and have now reached the length of
despotic authority in the Church, and of a perpetual divine inspi
ration, ensuring his infallibility far beyond the Umits of faith and
morals assigned to it by the most strenuous asserters of the Papal
supremacy in former ages.
To these facts I must add another, which appears to me of no
sllffht significance in the present question — that the increasedby
° ° r . . *^« attitude
highest authority among the Romanists in this country °i^^ ^^-
has been recently committed to one who, some fourteen ^Engilnd
years ago, seceded from the Church of England. That chSoh! °"'
he should take the most unfavourable -view of the communion
which he left, and should be inclined to exaggerate the doctrinal
differences which separate it from that of his adoption, was almost
a necessity of his position, to guard himself against the Imputation
of rashness, in quitting his old home on light grounds, and a little
detracts from the weight of his new opinions among his old. If
not among his new friends. But that which appears to me most
significant in that selection is, that the same person is the most
strenuous among the advocates of Ultramontane views of Papal
authority, and would be the last to accept any overtures for
reconciliation on any other terms than those of unconditional
submission. On this point his published declarations have been
most explicit and distinct, and it is not his fault if any person or
body outside the Church of Rome expects to be received Into it
otherwise than as a pardoned penitent.
With this history in his mind, and this state of things before
his eyes, and recorded and described by himself for the g^^^^j^^j,^^ ^f
instruction of others, the author of the " Eirenicon" says, ^^^ '"'^"°'^-
as the sum of the whole matter, and speaking, no doubt. In the
name of many foUowers : " On the terms which Bossuet we hope
would have sanctioned, we long to see the Church united ; "* and
beUe-ving that there are individuals in the Roman Communion,
who, in their hearts share that longing, he says : " To such we
stretch forth our hands : " t of course, for such help as individuals
can give ; not, it would seem, in this case, a very solid ground of
* Page 336. t Page 334.

176
hope. I do not, however, presume to say that the course of events
may not be shaped by Divine Providence to such a result. But
I think I may venture to believe that, before this comes to pass, a
revolution must have taken place In the Church of Rome, by
which the Pope has been made not only to abdicate his usurped
authority, but to declare many acts of his own and of his prede
cessors, done in the exercise of that authority, nuU and void.
God grant that such a day may come. But even then I should not
have expected that the compromise would have been quite satis
factory to divines of that school which Insists on the most rigorous
preclseness of dogmatical definition, but should have thought it
likely to be rather more congenial to some who are reproached
with the breadth of their "views. And I am not sure that there
would not stiU be danger of confusion and misunder-
If practic- °
TOSd*iead standing. What seems to be contemplated as the basis
to confusion. ^^ ^^^ agreement is, that the Decrees of Trent should be
read by Anglicans in the Anglican sense, the Thirty-nine Articles
by Roman Catholics In the Roman sense. The case would be
something like that of a system of imitative signs, such as are
used in some parts of the East, common to several nations speak
ing wholly different languages. The same document, written in
these characters, might be read by two persons, to whom it con
veyed the same ideas, but who expressed them by sounds which
made the readers mutuaUy unintelUgible, each, as the Apostle
terms it, " a barbarian " unto the other. Only a bystander of
superior information could know that they meant the same thing.
I must not, however, omit to express my o-wn conviction that the
Articles are, not In sound only but In sense, at Irreconcilable
variance with the Decrees of the Council. So It has appeared
both to Anglican and to Roman CathoUc writers, on a careful
comparison of their statements on controverted points.* And
* Bishop Mant, who in his day passed for a High Churchman, published a little
tract (" The Churches of Rome and England compared, 1836 ") suggested by an asser
tion of the late Lord Melbourne, who concurred with Dr. Pusey in thinking that
" Roman Catholics in all the fundamentals of Christianity agree with Protestants," for
the purpose of showing, " that as to numerous fundamental doctrines and ordinances
the Roman and the Anglican Churches are so far from being in agreement -with each
other, that they are as diametrically opposed to each other as the east and the west;"

CHARGES. 177
though the authority of the Pope, if It was brought to bear on
the Roman CathoUc, would no doubt overrule his opinion, and
oblige him to renounce it, it could not have the same effect on the
Anglican, unless he had first admitted the Pope's infalllbUIty, and
so had vIrtuaUy become a Roman Catholic.
These remarks, though they may here and there have taken a
somewhat wider range than was absolutely necessary ^
o J J Eeasons for
for the discussion of the Ritual question, will not, I gofng'ampie
trust, appear to any one irrelevant to it. I wished to set
it before you in its principal bearings, and to place it in its true
light. I beUeve, indeed, that on the main point I have said
nothing but what is universally known ; and I should not be sur
prised if there were many who will smile at the pains I have been
taking to Ught a candle in the broad noonday to help them to see
that which is so patent to all. I should myself have thought it a
superfluous labour, if I had not observed in some quarters an
appearance of a tacit agreement to treat the fact as a kind of
sacred mystery, famUiar Indeed to the initiated but not to be
divulged to the profane. I can be no party to a system of con
cealment which appears to me neither manly nor perfectly
consistent with good faith or with a plain duty to the Church ;
and I regard the prevalence of such a system as one of the least
honourable, and the most ominous signs of our time.
Nothing, in my judgment, can be more mischievous, as well as
in more direct contradiction to notorious facts, than to deny or
ignore the Romeward tendency of the movement. Its effects,
indeed, on those who are not engaged in it would be the same if
by them it was universally, though erroneously, viewed In that
light. But it might, in that case, call for a different treatment.
and this he endeavours to do by an arrangement in which passages from the Articles
and from the Decrees and Canons of Trent are confronted with each other in parallel
columns. By a like method the Rev. Mr. Estcourt, a Roman Catholic clergyman, in
a Letter published by Mr. Oakeley in the Appendix to his pamphlet on the Hirenicon,
is brought to the like conclusion ; that " No one who accepts that Council as the voice
of the Church and the guide of his faith could with a safe conscience subscribe to
the Thirty-nine Articles :'¦ and that "it is difficult to see any other basis for the
reconciliation of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, than their renouncing the Prayer
Book and Articles, and receiving the Council of Trent."
VOL. II. N

178 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
For practical purposes it is also very Important that, without
Probabi pretending to foresee the actual result, we should consider
quencesof ^^^ natural and probable consequences. I hope that my
°™' forebodings may be too gloomy ; but I think I see several
serious dangers looming not very far ahead. One or two of them
have been, I cannot say pointed out, but hinted at In the Report
of the Committee of Convocation, with a delicacy which was no
doubt thought to befit such a document, but which is not always
favourable to perspicuity. The greater part and the gravest
appear altogether to have escaped the Committee's observation,
unless they were meant to be concealed under the statement that
" in the larger number of the practices which had been brought
under their notice — they do not say in all of them — they can
trace no proper connexion with the distinctive teaching of tho
Church of Rome." As to any danger threatening the Church of
England from such connexion as they were able to trace, or danger
of any kind on the side of Rome, the Report Is entirely silent. I
wish to say a few words on this subject, and to speak a little more
plainly and fully than the Coramittee felt it their duty to do.
Though, as I have said, it appears to me highly probable that the
Its effect on ^^^^^ers of the movement themselves have no present
Churchmen, ^fiought of quitting the AngUcan communion, I think It
almost Inevitable that they should be giving occasion to more or
less numerous secessions to the Church of Rome, both by fostering
that general predilection for all that belongs to her, which they
themselves betray, or rather exhibit, and by stimulating a craving
for a gorgeous ritual, which, remaining where they are, they can
never fully satisfy : even if it be possible for thoughtful and
ingenuous minds long to feel quite at their ease in a form of
worship which strives to engraft, not only the outward ceremonial,
but the essential idea of the Roman Mass on the AngUcan Com
munion Office, and where the officiating priest uses language in
his private devotions quite Incongruous with that which the
Church puts into his mouth. Some I think can hardly fail to
find this hybrid kind of devotion Intolerable, and to be driven to
exchange it for something more real and genuine, more consistent

CHARGES. 179
and complete. That might be found either in the Church of
England or in the Church of Rome. It is unhappUy too clear in
which they have been trained to seek it. This is one form of the
danger In its Romeward aspect. There are others still greater,
though probably more remote. I have already endeavoured to
point out the process by which the movement may reach Its
termination in the secession, not of Individuals, but of a whole
party. Another form which the evil might take under different
circumstances, would be an open rent in the Church, which how
ever might in the end lead to the same result.
But there is no less danger on the side opposed to Rome. And
this has been in some degree recognised by the Com- ^^^ ^^
mittee, in a passage of their Report, where they remind °'^^°*^"-
us, " that the National Church of England has a holy work to
perform toward the Nonconformists of this country : and that
every instance, not oiUy of exceeding the law, but of a want of
prudence and tenderness in respect of usages within the law, can
hardly fail to create fresh difficulties in the way of winning back
to our Church those who have become estranged from her commu
nion." This is indeed an allusion to a very grave and unquestion
able fact, but couched in terms which seem to me singularly
Inappropriate, and tending to conceal both the real nature and the
extent of the danger. It might lead any one to imagine that the
Nonconformists with whom we have to deal, are, Uke the dissenters
from the Russian Church, such sticklers for rigid rubrical unifor
mity, that they are likely to be scared away from us by any
de-vlatlon from the letter of the Prayer Book. I need not observe
how directly this would reverse the real state of the case, or that,
if the Innovations which offend many, I believe I may stiU say
most Churchmen, are pecuUarly obnoxious to the Nonconformists
of this country, it is not simply as innovations, but because they
present the appearance of the closest possible approximation to the
Church of Rome. And the danger on this side is far greater than
that which is suggested by the language of the Report. It is not
merely that we may make fewer converts from the ranks of Dissent,
but that we may strengthen them by large secessions, perhaps of
n2

180 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
whole congregations, from our o-wn. And the danger — if I ought
not rather to say the certain and present evil — does not end there.
These proceedings both tend to widen the breach between us and
Dissenters, and to stimulate them to more active opposition, and
furnish their leaders with an Instrument which they will not fail
to use for the purpose of exciting general Ul wUl toward the
Church, and weakening her position in the country.
Bothinflu- -^^^ ^^ must be remembered that these injuries which
woAstoui- she may suffer on opposite sides may be going on
^""^ ^' together simultaneously. There is nothing in the one
to lessen, nothing that must not aggravate the other. For every
proselyte who is drawn from us to Rome, we may reckon on others
who wiU leave us for Geneva. That this damage wiU be compen
sated by any accession of numbers from either quarter Is, with
regard to Dissent, in the highest degree improbable : as to Rome,
it is neither pretended nor desired.
Object of The object for which the Committee was appointed,
the Com- , ..,.,. . .
mittee of was entirely practical. It was " to inquire as to such
Convocation ., x x ^
onEituai. measurcs as might seem to them fit for clearing the
doubts and aUaying the anxieties " which the Lower House had
represented as existing upon the subject of Ritual, and as calUng
for consideration. It was highly proper that, before they pro
ceeded to perform this task, they should take a -view of the state
of the case on which they were to advise : and it Is only to be
regretted that this view was somewhat oblique and one-sided.
Their practical proposals, however, though in them must be sup
posed to lie the whole fruit of their deliberations, and the pith and
essence of the Report, whUe all the rest, however valuable, was
only preparatory and incidental, are, -with one notable exception.
How they purcly negative, and inform the House what in their
opinion ought not to be done. But even this rather
scanty amount of information Is very imperfectly and ambiguously
conveyed. They deprecate a resort to judicial proceedings, as
tending to promote, rather than to aUay dissension. But in the
sentence immediately preceding, they had expressed an earnest
wish, that such a course might not be found necessary ; clearly

CHARGES. 181
implying that it might be found necessary ; but leaving the reader
to guess both what kind or case of necessity they had in their
minds, and whether in that event it would stUl in their opinion
have the same e-vil tendency. It would, I think, have been
desirable that they should have stated whether in their opinion it
was to be -wished, that the present obscurity and uncertainty in
the state of the law should be removed, and whether they knew
of any way by which this could be effected without a resort to
judicial proceedings. We know from an eminent member of their
own body how utterly inadequate any opinion of counsel is for
such a purpose. Though deprived of the benefit of their '^J?"?'? ,.
guidance on this important point, I venture to think Sj'woSd^'
there are two conditions on which a moral necessity for sary!^"^^'
resort to judicial proceedings would arise.* The one would be. If
any clergyman should attempt to introduce the Ritual innovations
in his parish church against the wiU of any considerable part of
his congregation : and the other, if he should persist in so doing
after having been admonished and dissuaded by his Bishop. I
consider every such attempt as an audacious and culpable aggres
sion on the rights of the parishioners, which I should wish to
see repressed, either by judicial or even, if necessary, though
I should exceedingly deplore the necessity, by legislative inter
ference. But I am not for the present prepared to lay down any more
absolute and comprehensive rule of action, though many persons
— some of them worthy of aU respect — caU loudly for General rule
the interposition of authority in every case, to put do-wn
the excess of RituaUsm, wherever it shows Itself : and therefore
* I am here assuming that the Ritual innovations are introduced by Incumbents,
and not by Stipendiary Curates ; a thing of which I happen never to have heard,
though Sir H. Thompson, in a Speech delivered in the debate in Convocation, which
he has published in a pamphlet entitled, "Ritualism, a plea for the Surplice," seema
to suppose that it is a very common, if not the most common case, and on this fact
grounds a charge of want of " vigour " against the bishops, on whom it is always
easy and pleasant to lay the blame of every thing amiss in the Church. It would
of course be easy to revoke the Licence of a " contumacious stipendiary Curate,"
but it does not seem to me at all clear that " such a step," by " provoking an
appeal to the Primate," from whose decision there would be no further appeal,
would " secure a speedy and satisfactory settlement of the question."

182 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
even where the whole of the bulk of the congregation earnestly
desire it, and none take offence at it. On the same principle on
which I would interfere for the protection of parishioners, on
whom their minister attempts to force a novelty which they dis
Uke, I should scruple to deprive a congregation of a form of
worship which has become dear to them, though it is one of
which I disapprove. And here we must be on our guard against
exaggerating the importance of outward forms, and supposing
that some great thing has been gained when they have been sup
pressed, though the opinions of which they are the visible
exponents remain unchanged. Here I agree with the Committee,
when they deprecate any attempt to establish a rule appUcable to
aU places and congregations alike. I consider a uniformity which
does not represent, but is the substitute for unanimity, as a very
questionable blessing. I adopt the maxim of the Committee on a
much higher authority. It was not In the spirit of our last Act
of Uniformity, but under the guidance of one as opposite to that
as light to darkness, that St. Paul wrote those ever memorable
words for the perpetual rebuke of aU narrow-mindedness and
tyrannical encroachments on the rights of conscience and Christian
liberty : " One man esteemeth one day above another : another
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be persuaded in his own
mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord ;
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not
regard It. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God
thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and
giveth God thanks."
The only I observc that there was one notable exception to the
remedy n -
suggested. generaUy negative character of the practical measures
suggested by the Committee, and therefore I am perhaps bound
to notice it. It seems that some of them shared the opinion of
those who consider the paucity of Bishops as the chief root of
evil In the Church ; and applying this principle to the present
case, they remark that " both excesses and defects in ritual obser
vance are symptoms of a deep-seated evU, namely, the want of a
more effective working of the Diocesan system." This is the

CHARGES. 183
gloomiest view that has yet been taken of the subject. It shows
that, except for the sake of this particular disclosure, the appoint
ment of the Committee was totally useless ; and that, as the
remedy of the evil depends on a contingency Indefinitely remote,
namely, an adequate multiplication of Bishops, the case is prac
tically hopeless. It is therefore to myself a comfort to believe,
that the remark is simply the offspring of some fervid imagination,
without any foundation in fact. *
The Report concludes with a general observation, which, as
such, may be true, whether applicable or not to the The con-
subject ofthe inquiry — "Excess of Ritualism is, in fact, arrived at
by the Com-
the natural reaction from unseemly neglect of solemn mittee.
order." But it is clearly Implied, that in the opinion of the Com
mittee, the latest development of Ritualism is an instance of such
reaction. This, as I have already intimated, I believe to be a
mistake. That the movement in Its origin some thirty years ago
was partly the effect of a reaction, I think highly probable ; but
that it Is so in its present phase, I find no reason whatever to sup
pose. And I am sorry that the Committee appear to lend their
countenance to a kind of recrimination, which I often hear, but
which does not seem to me either quite logical, or very becoming.
When a Ritualist is reproached for his innovations by a clergyrnan
of the opposite school, he has a favourite retort always at hand :
"If you take liberties with the Prayer Book, ' by neglect,' as the
Committee expresses it, ' of Its plain rules and curtailment of its
Offices,' have I not a right to make the Liturgy as exact a copy
as I can of the Mass ? " I do not say that this argument Is more
unsound than it would be to reply on the other side — though I
am not aware that this has ever been done — " If you turn the
Communion Office into a Mass, have I not a right to neglect plain
rules of the Prayer Book, and to curtail its Offices ? " It would be
hard to say, on which side there Is the more grievous lack both of
sound reason and sense of duty.
* Tho Report has so much the look of a mosaic of compromises, cemented by a
general disiposition in favour of Ritualism, that it would be hardly fair to impute
this particular fancy to the -n-hole Committee.

184 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
But though the Committee's observation is so questionable as to
its historical correctness, and must tend to divert attention from
the real state of the case and gist of the controversy, It may very
profitably remind us of another grave danger with which we are
threatened by the Ritual movement ; the danger, I mean, of its
Danger of producing an "unseemly neglect of solemn order,"
neglect." whlch Is "the natural reaction from excess of RituaUsm,"
even when it has no special significance, much more from that which
we are now witnessing. The jealousy and suspicion which it
unavoidably awakens in Churchmen of a different school, must
disturb the harmony which was beginning to prevaU, notwith
standing the provocations to discord and lU-wUl, ministered by
some of the Journals on both sides, and thus check a healthy and
uniform progress in the Church at large. The evil spirit of party
wiU be ever at work to magnify trifles into tests of faith, and
grounds of division, and to blind men, as weU to the good which
is associated with that which they dislike, as to the e-vU which
mars things which are justly dear to them. Allow me, my rever
end brethren, to warn those of you who are most adverse to the
Ritual movement, against this temptation, and to remind you that
defect is not the proper cure of excess, and that opposite exag
gerations do not counteract, but only inflame and aggravate one
another. Suffer me to suggest to you, that some wholesome and
precious uses may be extracted from that of which, as a whole, you
may strongly disapprove. It appears to me that you may weU
take occasion from it to consider, both severaUy, and In common,
whether there Is anything amiss In your practice, anything which
might be justly described as " neglect of plain rules of the Prayer
Book, and curtaUment of Its Offices," and this, not merely to
guard against the censure of an adversary, but to avoid giving
offence to those whom you may look upon as the weaker brethren.
But further, I think there is a loud call upon you, not to rest
satisfied with a mere conformity to the letter of the ordinances of
our Church, but to endeavour more and more to learn her mind
and Imbibe her spirit. You are not reaUy faithful to her, if
you neglect to avail yourselves of all the means of grace which

CHARGES. 185
she commits to your stewardship, but having received two talents
— the Word and the Sacraments — make gain of the one, but hide
the other in the earth.
I would also express a hope that my younger brethren, whose
opinions on many points have stUl to be matured and fixed, but who
are open to conviction and earnestly seek the truth, may importance
be led by our present controversies to cultivate a closer study of the
. . primitive
acquaintance -with primitive Christian antiquity than may chnroh.
hitherto have entered into the course of their studies, and if pos
sible not to rest content with the information which they may
draw from secondary sources, but to go to the fountain-head, that
they may in a manner listen to the voice and gaze upon the Uving
features of the ancient Church. I venture to assure them that
the pleasure which they wUl derive from that intercourse -wiU
more than repay any labour which It may cost them. But I
recommend the study, because I am convinced that, rightly
pursued and regulated, it will both enlighten and strengthen their
attachment to the Church In which they have been caUed to
minister. But for this purpose some cautions may be „ ^ ^
XX J Cautious to
needed in our day, which in other times might have ''e o^'served.
been superfluous. One is, that the student should not look at the
primitive Church through a glass tinged with Romish or indeed
any other prejudices, and that his view should be taken down
ward, from the standing point of antiquity to the modern Church
of Rome, not upward, from her standing point to antiquity.
Another, perhaps stUl more needful caution is, that he should
approach the subject in a spirit of Christian freedom, which is
perfectly consistent tvith the love and reverence which the image
of the ancient Church is fitted to awaken in Christian minds. He
will have to remember that he is not bound to adopt or to imitate
every thing that was said or done by his fathers in the faith, and
that when he perceives a difference of opinion or practice between
the early Church and his own, it does not necessarily follow that
his o-wn Church is in the wrong ; as on the other hand he may
believe that she has judged and acted wisely, without absolutely
condemning the maxims and usages of a former age. If, however.

186 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
we were to apply these general remarks to the subject which has
just been occupying our attention, we should find but little
occasion for such distinctions.
We cannot read the detaUed description given by Justin
Justin Martyr of the order of administering the Eucharist in
account of hIs day, without joyfully recognising the closest possible
the*Eucha- resemblance, in every material point, between it and our
™'' o-wn. We observe that there is not the sUghtest hint
that It was regarded as a Sacrifice, other than of prayer and
praise, or the presiding minister as a sacrificing priest, and not
simply as the dispenser of a holy communion. The spiritual
food was received by aU present, and was sent to those who were
unavoidably absent, but not offered for them. But along with
this general resemblance, we perceive some points of
Minor dif-:; _ ° . .
ferences be- difference between ancient and modern practice. Those
tween x
mSem™^ Weekly assemblies of Justin's time were never held
usage. -v^rithout the celebration of the Lord's Supper. That was
the one object for which the people came together every Lord's
Day. In that respect there is indeed a very wide difference
between their usage and ours. Here I think few 'snll say that the
advantage is on our side, though probably as few wIU adopt the
opinion of a learned theologian who has endeavoured to prove, by
arguments which it seems to be the peculiar privilege of Ritualists
to understand, that weekly communion Is "matter of Divine
obUgation," alone fulfilling the commandment of Christ, and that
the clergy who omit it, " If judged by the rule of the Apostles,
are false to their Lord's dying command in a particular from
which He left no dispensation." * Without falling into this
exaggeration we may lament the modern departure from primitive
practice in that mutilation of the Communion Office which prevails
in most of our churches. But we also know that this departure
had Its origin in an abuse which has been carried to its greatest
height by the Church of Rome, in the encouragement given to
the attendance of non-communicants, which some among us are
so eager to restore. And their attempt is probably, through a
* Archdeacon Freeman in " Rites and Ritual," p. 13.

CHARGES. 187
natural though deplorable reaction, one main obstacle to the
general revival of the weekly Communion.
The study of primitive Christianity will also lead the thoughtful
inquirer to see and feel the contrast between the Church of the
Catacombs and the Church of the Vatican. In the marvellous
development by which the one passed into the other, he church
will above all admire the mysterious deaUngs of Divine combsand"
Providence, which, without annulling the freedom of ofthe ™"
the human wUl, can make even the worst of evils
minister to good. He wiU not deny whatever may be fairly
implied in the identity of the two, and therefore entitled to
respect ; but he wiU not the less clearly see the accompanying
growth of corruption and error. He will be enabled justly to
appreciate the value of the claims set up for the modem Papacy,
as the living oracle of God, the subject of a constant Divine inspi
ration, which constitutes every Pope the supreme and unerring
arbiter in all disputes which can arise -within the ever widening
sphere of opinion, as distinguished from that of exact science : eo
that, though a Uke inspiration must have been vouchsafed to Linus
and Cletus, it was in a degree immeasurably lower than that
enjoyed by Pius IX., whose Allocutions and Encyclicals would
probably to them have been simply unintelligible. Historically,
the student wUl know how strangely such a claim would have
sounded in the ears of those venerable men and of the Apostolic
Fathers. And when he inquires into the ground on which this
amazing pretension is based, he finds only a fresh Ulustration of
that reasoning in a vicious circle which I have already noted as
characteristic of the Romish theology. A perfectly arbitrary and
precarious meaning is attached to a few texts of Scripture, to
prove the aUeged infallibiUty ; and then the infallibiUty is used to
estabUsh the certainty of the interpretation. The supercilious
arrogance which, as well as a relentless fanaticism, is naturaUy
engendered by this delusion, should move our deepest pity ; a
feeling Uke that -with which we witness the serene self-complacency
visible in the features of a maniac who, confined in a narrow cell,
believes himself to be the emperor of the world.

188 BISHOP THIRLWALL's CHARGES.
We have lately received a very solemn admonition from a
person who has since been placed at the head of the English
The Church Romanlsts, OU " the danger and the chastisement of those
and the who," like the Church of England, " would instruct the
Church of _ °
Eome. Church of Jesus Christ."* I do not know whether any
consciences have been disturbed by the sound of these words, which
contain the whole pith of the writer's argument. It seems enough
to observe, that the Church of England has never pretended to
instruct the Church of Jesus Christ, but has always desired to
receive and transmit Its teaching. But certainly we do not regard
It as a very rash or culpable presumption, to beUeve that the
Church of Alexander VL, of Julius II., and Leo X., might have
something to learn, and still more to unlearn. And when we are
called upon to accept these new doctrines on the ground of our
Lord's promise, of the abiding presence of the Spirit of, Truth in
His Church, we may not only rightly refuse to appropriate to a
part that which was intended for the whole, but we may reason
ably doubt, whether that which was secured by the promise was a
perpetual preservation from error, and not rather a preservation
from perpetual error, in other words, the final prevalence of truth.
That we know is great and will prevail. With this belief let us
comfort our hearts. To this let us firmly cling amidst the surg-
ings of doubt and controversy, while we lift up our eyes to the
Father of Lights, "with Whom" alone "is no variableness,
neither shadow of turning," beseeching Him to enUghten us with
His truth, according to the measure of our need, but above all to
grant to us the higher grace of walking faithfuUy by the light we
have received.
* " The Cro-wn in Council on the Essays and Reviews. A Letter to an Anglican
Friend, by Henry Edward Manning, D.D.," p. 21.

APPENDIX.

(A.)
I SUBJOIN a list of the places referred to at p. 92, in which a work of
ohurch building or restoration has been set on foot.
Brecknockshire.
1. Brecon Priory Church.
2. Brynmawr.
8. Cantreff.
4. Cathedine.
5. Coelbren.
6. Llanelly.
7. Llywell.
8. Vaynor.
9. Llanfihangel Abergwessin (restoration).
10. ,, ,, (new church).
11. Llanfechan.
12. Llanfihangel Brjm Pabuan.
Radnorshire.
13. Ehayader.
14. Abbeycwmhir. Cardiganshire.
15. Aberystwyth.
16. Llanbadarnfa-wr.
17. Llangunllo. Glamorganshire.
18. Swansea.

190 APPENDIX.
Carmarthenshin' .
19. Carmarthen St. David's.
20. ,, (new church).
21. Llanelly.
22. Llandefeilog parish church.
23. ,, St. Anne's (new chapel).
24. Mydrim.
25. Henllan Amgoed. Pembrokeshire.
26. Prendergast, Haverfordwest.
27. Mathry.
28. Amblestono.
29. Burton.
30. St. Bride's.
81. Pennar, Pembroke Dock.
32. Walwyn Castle.
33. St. Catherine's, Milford.
84. Llysyfran.
35. Manerbier.
I believe that some others might be added as in contemplation.

(B.)
It must be admitted that, in the Declaration or Protestation at the end
of the Communion Office, the Church of England has deviated from her
principles, has come down from her own vantage ground to that of her
adversary, and has stated the question in the way most favourable to the
doctrine of the Church of Rome; for it is made to turn on a purely meta
physical proposition as to the nature of body ; "it being against the truth
of Christ's natural body to be at one time in more places than one."
This is virtually to fall into the Romish error, and to stake the truth of
her doctrine on the soundness of a scholastic speculation, which, ae a
Church, she has no more right to deny, than the Church of Rome to
affirm. The real objection to Transubstantiation is, not that it is bad
philosophy, but that it is philosophy : not that it is impossible, but that
it is destitute and incapable of proof. How dangerous it would be to
rely on the proposition assumed in the Declaration as a ground for reject
ing the dogma of Transubstantiation, may appear from the defence of it

APPENDIX. 191
which Leibnitz sets up on the basis of his own metaphysical system.
In the posthumous " Systema Theologium" (ed. Dr. Carl Haas) he writes :
" Equidem si demonstrari posset invictis argumentis metaphysicas neces
sitatis omnem corporis essentiam in extensione sive spatii determinati
implemento consistere, utique cum verum vero pugnare non possit,
fatendum esset unum corpus non posse esse in pluribus locis, ne per
divinam quidem potentiam, non magis quam fieri potest ut diagonalis sit
lateri quadrati commensurabilis. Eoque posito utique recurrendum
esset ad allegorioam divini verbi sive soripti sive traditi interpretationem.
Sed tantum abest ut quisquam philosophorum jactatam illam demonstra-
tionem absolverit, ut contra potius solide ostendi posse videatur exigere
quidem naturam corporis ut extensum sit, pisi a Deo obex ponatur ;
essentiam tamen corporis consistere in materia et forma substantiali : hoc
est, in principio passionia et actionis, substantife enim est agere et pati
posse." He then makes a few remarks on some expressions of ecclesiastical
writers apparently adverse to the doctrine, among them that of Pope
Gelasius : " Gelasius Pontifex Eomanus innuit panem transire in Corpus
Christi, manente natura panis, hoc est qualitatibus ejus sive accidentibus
(a most arbitrary and unwarranted interpretation) : neque enim tunc ad
metaphysicas notiones formulce cxigebantur." He then proceeds to expound
his theory of matter, by which be is brought to the conclusion, " exis-
tentia pariter atque unio substantiEe et accidentium realium in Dei arbitrio
est. Et cum natura rerum nihil aliud sit quam consuetudo Dei, ordinario
aut extraordinarie agere asque facile ipsi est, prout sapientia ejus exigit."
This great genius does not seem to have perceived that the further he
dived into the depths of metaphysical speculation, the more certain it
must be that what he would draw out would not be a legitimate theo
logical dogma. It was a case for the application of his own wise remark
in his answer to Pirot on the authority of tbe Council of Trent (CEuvres
de Bossuet, XI. Lettre xxi. p. 105, ed 1778) : "Nous n'avons peutfitre
que trop de pretendues definitions en matiere de Foi."
Lacordaire (Lettres a des jeunes gens : ed. Perreyve, p. 106) writes
to a young friend who was perplexed by the metaphysical difficulty : —
" Si vous me demandez maintenant comment uh corps est present dans
un si petit espace et en tous les lieux a la fois, je vous repondrais que
nous n'avons pas la premiere idee de I'essence des corps, et qu'il n'est
pas le moins du monde certain que I'etendue di-visible soit essentielle aux
corps. Les plus grands philosophes ont pense le contrarie, et ont cru
que les corps n'etaient qu'un compose d'atomes indivisibles uni par
I'affinite qui les attire reciproquement, et devenant etendus par I'espace qui
se glisse entr'eux, et y cause des interstices, de sorte que plus on con
dense un corps, c'est a dire plus on ote I'espace qu'il renferme en rappro-
chant les atomes, moins il tient de place. Voila pour la presence dans

192 APPENDIX.
un petit espace. Quant a la presence en tous lieux, considerez que la
lumiere est un corps, et qu'elle parcourt en une seconde soi.rante qidnze
mille lieues ; considerez que I'electricite est un corps, et qu'elle parcourt
en une seconde cent quinze mille lieues. Qui empeche done qu'un corps
uni a la Divinite n'ait une agilite un milliard de fois plus grande, de
mani^re a toucher tous les points du globe au meme instant ? " (I must
own that I do not see the force of this illustration, as there must always
be an interval between the departure and the arrival ; but what follows
is more to the purpose.) " En outre des quele corps peut etre inetendu,
il n'est plus assujetti a la loi de la localite, et il peut etre present en tous
lieux, comme votre ame est presente a tous les points de votre corps,
comme Dieu est indivisiblement present a tous les points de I'univers."
All excellent reasons for abstaining from such speculations in theology.

(C.)
Mr. Newman (in Tract xc.) and Dr Pusey {Eirenicon) agree in think
ing that Article XXXI. was intended to condemn, not any doctrine which
is and must be held by all members of the Church of Rome who acknow
ledge the authority of the Council of Trent, but only a popular error or
abuse which every intelligent member of the Roman Communion would
repudiate. They do not however exactly coincide with one another in
their view of the error whicb was condemned. In the Tract, which
I quote from Dr. Pusey's reprint, the argument is thus summed up : —
" On the whole, it is conceived that the Article before us neither
speaks against the Mass in itself nor against its being [an offering,
though commemorative,] for the quick and the dead for the remission of
sin, [(especially since tbe decree of Trent says, that ' the fruits of the
Bloody Oblation are through this most abundantly obtained : so far is the
latter from detracting in any way from the former) ; '] but against its
being viewed, on the one hand, as independent of or distinct from the
Sacrifice on the Cross, which is blasphemy ; and, on the other, its being
directed to the emolument of those to whom it pertains to celebrate it,
wbich is imposture in addition." (The words in brackets were added in
the second edition.)
Dr. Pusey writes {Eirenicon, p. 25) : —
",The very strength of the expressions used ' of the sacrifices of
Masses,' that they ' were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits,' the
use of the plural, and the clause, ' in the which it was commonly said '
show that what the Article speaks of is, not ' the Sacrifice of tbe Mass,'

APPENDIX. 193
but the habit (which, as one hears from time to time, still remains) of
trusting to tbe purchase of Masses when dying, to the neglect of a holy
life, or repentance, and the grace of God and His mercy in Christ Jesus,
while in health."
Tbe view taken of the Article in Tract xo. is adopted by Mr. Medd in
bis essay on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, in " The Church and the World,"
in a few passing words, p. 343, where, after quoting the words of tbe
Article, " Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly said that
the priest did offer Christ," he adds the interpretation (i. e. by way of
re-enacting the Sacrifice of Calvary by an actual mactation afresh) ; and
by Mr. Stuart, in his " Plea for Low Masses," in an elaborate argument,
in the course of wbich he saya, p. 85 : "In order to understand rightly
the meaning of the Thirty-first Article, we must remember that this
Article is not directed against the Eucharist Sacrifice or the Sacrifice of
the Mass, nor indeed against any formal authoritative doctrine on this
subject whatever, but against a certain popular misapprehension of this
doctrine wbich had prevailed, and which manifestly impugned the sole
sufficiency of tbe Sacrifice of the death of Christ." The nature of this
misapprehension he had just before explained in the words : "To think
of the offering of Christ in tbe Holy Eucharist as an offering made inde
pendently of Hia death, — to suppoae that such an offering could have
been made, for inatance, if He had never died," &c. And p. 37 : "As
there is but one real Sacrifice, which is Christ, once only sacrificed, i. e.
upon the Crosa, it would be blasphemy to speak of sacrifices in the
plural, — the Sacrifices of Masses, for instance, — since in all the Masses
or Eucharists ever yet celebrated there haa been but one real Sacrifice,
which is Christ Himself."
There is a general objection, which seems to me to stand in the way
of both these modes of interpretation. It appears to me very improbable
that the framers of the Ai'ticle should have levelled it, not against any
doctrine held by the Church of Rome, but against either an error or an
abuse which had crept in among the people. Thia might bave been
ground for charging tbe rulera of the Church of Rome with culpable
neglect or connivance, but would have been out of place in an Article.
If this had been the meaning, I can hardly conceive that it would have
been so expressed. For then the only hint of that which waa the object
of such very severe condemnation, would be contained in the single letter
s, the sign of tbe plural number. From this the reader would be
expected to infer that what the authors really bad in their minds was
this : " The Sacrifice of the Mass, in whicb the priest offers Christ for the
quick and the dead to have remission of pain or guilt ; this we admit to
be consistent with aound doctrine, but this doctrine haa been corrupted
and perverted to bad ends, through a popular misapprehension as to the
nature of the offering, which is irreconcilable with the fulness and suffi-
VOL. II. 0

194

APPENDIX.

ciency of the Sacrifice of the Cross. Such Masses we atigmatize as
blasphemoua fables and dangerous deceits." But how does this para
phrase, when we bave it, either explain or juatify the language of the
Article ? The Mass itaelf remauied the aame rite, however multiplied.
It could not be affected by any erroneous view that might be entertained
of it, still less by any unholy purpose to which it might be abused. How
then could it be consistent either with justice or common aenae to speak
of the Masses themselves in terms which were only applicable, and only
meant to be applied, to the error and the abuse ? It might aa well be
said that tbe administration of the Holy Communion becomes a blasphe
mous fable and a dangerous deceit as often as it is received by an
unworthy communicant. The abstinence from any further allusion to
tbe real scope of the Article would be the more singular, becauae the
writer, if he had had the thought now attributed to him in his mind,
would ao naturally and almoat unavoidably have said, instead of " the
prieat did offer Christ," " the prieat did sacrifice Christ afresh." On Dr.
Pusey's supposition that tbe thing condemned was " the habit of trusting
to the purchase of Masaea ; " beside that this would be so clearly matter of
diacipline, not of doctrine, the obscurity and impropriety of the language
would be still greater, and as it appears to me, absolutely incredible.
On the other hand, if the writer of the Article believed that the Sacri
fice of the Maaa was in itaelf inconsiatent with the doctrine of " the
one oblation of Christ finished upon the Croas," I see no difficulty in the
form of expresaion. He would naturally be thinking, not only of the
doctrinal error, but of the enormous practical abuaea which had sprung
from it : and this would, I think, sufficiently account both for the use of
the plural, the reference to the common way of speaking, and the extreme
severity of the censure.
The Rev. Mr. Estcourt (quoted by Mr. Oakeley in hia pamphlet on the
" Eirenicon," p. 78) utterly rejeeta Dr. Pusey's construction of the Article.
His own comment on it is : —
" False and impious : nor can it be defended on the ground of the
phrase ' Sacrificea of Maases,' being in the plural number, because the
term ' Sacrificia Missarum ' is equally correct, and has tbe same meaning
with ' Sacrificium Misase.' Thus, in the Missa pro Defunctis, ' anima
famuli tui his sacrificus purgata, et a peccatia expedita.' Thia Article is,
therefore, nothing else than a charge of blasphemy and impoature on the
moat holy Sacrifice of the Euchariat." Some persona may attaph the
greater weight to tbis judgment aa coming from a Roman Catholic priest.
Candour, however, obligea me to own that I do not set any higher value
on it on that account, and that I think Dr. Pusey's explanation of the
plural number more probable than Mr. Estcourt's. But it certainly shows
how little it was to be expected that the Article ahould be understood in
the sense assigned to it by Dr. Pusey. In support of his opinion. Dr.

APPENDIX. 195
Pusey reproduces a paasage cited by Gieseler from a work of an Ultra-
montanist Bishop of the fourteenth century, in which the multiplication
of Maaaes for unholy ends is deplored and condemned. Dr. Pusey's
object seems to be to show that tbe abuse to which alone he supposes
the Article to refer was, so far from being a doctrine of the Church of
Rome, that long before tbe Reformation it had been censured in the
strongeat terma by one who was an Ultramontanist Bishop, and even a
Penitentiary of Pope John XXII. But to me this fact appears not at all
to strengthen Dr. Pusey's argument, but to lead to the opposite conclu
sion, as it makes it the more improbable that the Article was meant
simply to condemn an abuse wbich was acknowledged, lamented, and
reprobated within the Church of Rome itaelf. But I muat further
observe that this extract foom Alvarua Pelagius, de Planctu Ecclesice, has
another bearing on the meaning of our Article, which Dr. Pusey seems
to have overlooked, at all events has not noticed. It containa an alluaion
to a remarkable fact, which the writer explaina ao as to auit bis purpose.
"Whence alao St. Francia willed that the brothers everywhere should be
content -with one Maas, foreseeing that the brothers would wish to
justify themselves by Maaaes, and reduce them to a matter of gain, as we
see done at this day." Tbe words of St. Francia himself deaerve to be
quoted, both on their own account, and that their import may be better >
understood. They occur in Epistola XII. (Francisci Aaaiaiatis opera
omnia : ed. von der Burg).
" Moneo prseterea et exhortor in Domino, ut in locis in quibis moran-
tur fratres, una tantum celebretur Missa in die secundum formam sanctcB
EomansB Eccleaise. Si vero in loco plures fuerint sacerdotes, sic ait per
amorem charitatis alter contentus audita celebratione sacerdotis alterius,
quia abaentes et pra3sentes replet, qui eo digni sunt, Dominus Noster
Jesus Christus. Qui licet in pluribus locis reperiatur, tamen indivisibilis
manet et aliqua detrimenta non novit, sed unus verus, sicut ei placet,
operatur, cum Domino Deo Patre et Spiritu Paracleto in saecula ssecu-
lorum." On the ground of this paasage, as we learn from Cardinal Bona (Rer.
Lit. i. c. 14, p. 887), the authority of St. Francis was pleaded against the
private Mass : " En, inquiunt (Sectarii), -vir Dei unam duntaxat in die
Missam admittit, idque secundum formam Romanse Eccleaise. Porro
Catholici vim hujus objectionis varus modis declinare nituntur." He
then enumerates several of these methods, all more or less strained and
improbable. Others had, on this ground alone, pronounced the letter a
forgery. Bona himself is quite satisfied as to its genuineness, and offers
his own solution of the difficulty. " Ego admissa epistola tanquam vera
et legitima, sumptam ex ea objectionem nuUo negotio dilui poaae exia-
timo, si dixerimus Seraphicum Patrem, qua humilitate a Sacerdolii
ausceptione ipse abstinuit, eadem hortari suos ne quotidie celebrent."
0 2

196 APPENDIX.
And aa to tbe words " secundum formam Romanee Ecclesise," which had
been misunderatood to apply to the single daily celebration, he observes :
" Optime noverat plures iu die fieri celebrationes : sed sicut in regula
preecepit, ut fratrea officium recitarent aecundum morem Romanffi
Ecclesiae, ita hie monet ut secundum formam ejusdem Ecclesiae agantur
Mias£e : tum humilitatis causa, et ne Sacerdotes ex frequent! celebratione
tepidiorea fierent hortatur ut unica celebratione, cui omnes interesaent,
content!, reliquis abstinerent."
Bona, we see, entirely differs from Alvarua Pelagius, and does not
suppose that St. Francis either saw or foresaw any abuse of tbe private
Mass. The private Maas itaelf was never admitted by any Roman
authority to be an abuse, and it received the express approbation of the
CouncU of Trent. " Nee Miasaa illaa in quibus solua Sacerdoa aacramen-
taliter communicat, ut privataa et illicitas damnat, sed probat atque adeo
commendat " [here the plural Missm is certainly equivalent to the sin
gular]. If, therefore, the Thirty-first Article only condemns flagrant
abuses, and is supposed to allow that which it does not condemn, we are
brought to the rather startling conclusion that it tacitly sanctions, not
only the sacrifice of tbe Mass, but private Masses, which, by the Rubric
at the end of the Communion Office, the Church of England (as Mr.
Stuart reluctantly admits, " Thoughta on Low Maases," p. 46) has
expressly forbidden.
Turning from this to tbe explanation of the Article given in Tract xc,
and lately repeated by Mr. Medd and Mr. Stuart, by the former in some
what different terms, according to which the Article was pointed at a
popular misapprehension as to tbe nature of the Sacrifice, I think that
the common prevalence of such an error, especially as it is described by
Mr. Medd, has been too hastily assumed without proof, which perhaps
it would be difficult to produce. But it ia more important to observe
that Mr. Newman, when he bad spoken of the Mass " being viewed as
independent of or distinct from the Sacrifice on the Cross," appears to
treat theae two expressions, " independent of" and " distinct from," as
synonymous, and aa conveying a meaning which he calla " blasphemy."
But there ia a very wide difference between the two thinga. To view
the Mass as independent of the Sacrifice on the Crosa, would indeed be
a very gross error ; but until I see some proof, I shall continue utterly
to disbelieve that it is one into which any worshipper at the Mass, even
in tbe darkest ages, ever fell. But though not independent of, it might
be viewed ae distinct from, the Sacrifice on the Cross ; and so it is
viewed, not by the ignorant and vulgar only, but by tbe Church of Rome.
The distinction between the two things, which the language of Tract
xc. appears to confound with one another, maj' be illuatrated by refe
rence to another point of doctrine. Roman Catholic Apologists defend
the use of direct prayer to the Virgin Mary, by the explanation that

APPENDIX. 197
nothing more is meant than the effect of ber all-powerful intercession.
I may observe, by tbe way, that thia aaaumption is altogether arbitrary,
and that it is not very eaay to reconcile it with language auch aa I find
in a Sequence in the Arbuthnott Missal, p. 439.
" Supplicamus, nos emenda.
Emendates nos commenda
Tuo Nato, ad hahenda
Sempitema gaudia."
Hitherto, however, the Virgin Mary has not been elevated by any
formal definition above the rank of a creature. And so Mr. Oakeley
(" Leading Topics of Dr. Pusey's recent work ") can atHl say (p. 35),
" Every well-instructed Catholic (alas ! if they do not form the majority !)
knows that the Bleased Virgin possesses no power to grant petitions,
except such aa she derivea from God ; but be alao knowa that her influ
ence with her Di-vine Son, in virtue of her maternal relation (!) and of
ber transcendent sanctity, must needs be such, that ber will to grant ia
tantamount to the fact of granting, aince ber will ia so entirely in harmony
with the will of God, that her petitions are all in the order of His Provi
dence. If we knew that an earthly aovereign had an almoner, to whom
he had given the office of diatributing hia bounty, we ahould addreas
ouraelves to that almoner aa tbe aouroe from which the bounty emanates,
though conscious all the while that he was merely the instrument of its
bestowal." Such a view of the case no doubt excludea the notion that the Bleaaed
Virgin possesses any power of granting petitions independent of God.
But it as clearly invests ber with a power " distinct from " Hia, and must
alwaya tend to make her in practice the object of exclusive refiance and
supreme devotion. Even if the " almoner " is supposed to have no
discretion in the distribution of the Royal bounty ; the " influence of the
mother " is something perfectly distinct from the power of the Son.
And so tbe Sacrifice of tbe Mass might not the leaa practically supersede
that of tbe Cross, if conceived as " distinct from," though not
"independent of" this. And it ia ao conceived, not by the -vulgar
only, but by the Church of Rome, speaking through her most accre
dited doctora, and in ber most aacred formulariea. Let us hear the
prayer in the Mass wbich accompanies the offering of the bread : —
" Suscipe, Sancte Pater Omnipotena, aeterne Deus, hanc immaculatam
hostiam (strange language before the Consecration, but explained by
reference to that whicb the bread was to become), quam ego indignus
famulus tuus offero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, pro innumerabilibus peccatis
et offensionibus et negligentiis meia, et pro omnibus circumstantibus ;
sed et pro omnibus fidelibus Christianis vivis atque defunctis, ut
mihi et illis proficiat ad salutem in vitam Eeternam." Our Reformers,

198 APPENDIX.
from their point of -view, might well consider such an oblation as incon
sistent with the oneneaa of that " finished upon the Crosa ; " and as, like
the Invocation of the Virgin, on the one band, a mere buman invention,
the fruit of bold, unlicensed speculation and unbridled fancy, and, on the
other hand, the parent of manifold mischievous superatitions ; and loath
ing it under both aspecta alike might describe it in terms which we would
not willingly now use, while we fully adhere to the view which suggested
them, aa a " blasphemous fable " and a " dangerous deceit."
This subject is so closely connected with that of Mr. Stuart's " Thoughts
on Low Masses," that I am induced to add a few remarks on the pro
posal contained in that pamphlet. Mr. Stuart laments that at the
Reformation, the Low Masses, which had drawn crowds of worshippers
to our churches, on week-days as well as. Sundays, were swept away,
and an order for daUy Morning Prayer, which experience haa proved to
be far leaa attractive, indeed to offer no attraction at all, substituted for
them. He has observed the crowds wbich attend the early Masaea in
the Continental churches, and he thinks that ours might be aa weU filled
by an adaptation of our Liturgy to the fike purpose. He would have it
curtailed, and the Rubrics, which say that there shall be no celebration
of the Sacrament unless there be a certain number of communicants,
removed, so that there may be nothing to prevent the congregation from
consisting, as in the Continental churches, of spectators only, who come
to join with the priest in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.
Notwithstanding the title of the pamphlet, by which some may have
been alarmed and offended, it aeems clear that, aa to the positive doctrine
of the Thirty-first Article, Mr. Stuart's orthodoxy is irreproachable. He
takes great pains to explain that " there is but one real victim, which is
Christ, and but one real act of Sacrifice, which waa finiahed upon the
Cross, and therefore to speak of Sacrifices, ' Sacrificia Missarum,' in the
plural number would be a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit "
(p. 38). He then proceeda to expound hia theory of the Euchariatic
Sacrifice : "In the Eucharistic Sacrifice, or the Sacrifice of the Mass
(for they are but different names for the aame thing), Chriat ia offered,
but not aacrificed — offered in memory of His deatb, not put to death
again. There is a real and propitiatory sacrifice, i. e. victim, in the
Eucharist, but there is no real act of propitiation ; the priest's offering
of Christ in the Euchariat ia not an act of propitiation or atonement, but
only a memorial made before God of that propitiation and atonement
whicb was effected upon the Croas ; — by continually offering the very
victim Himself who was slain, we continually plead before God the
merits of His death " (p. 89). I must observe that however correct Mr.
Stuart may be in his view of what the Euchariatic Sacrifice ahould be,
to avoid direct coUiaion with the Thirty-firat Article, he ia certainly mis
taken if, when he says "there ia a real and propitiatory aacrifice, i. e.

APPENDIX. 199
victim, in the Eucharist, but there is no real act of propitiation," he con
ceives himself (as tbe whole context appears to show) to be expounding
and not directly contradicting the Roman doctrine of the Mass. For
when, in Canon I. De Sacrificio Missse, the Council of Trent declares,
" Si quis dixerit in Missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium,
aut quod offerri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum
dari : anathema sit," it ia certain that sacrificium doea not mean the
victim, but the act — the same act which in Canon III. ia declared to be
an " aet of propitiation." " Si quis dixerit, Missas Sacrificium tantum
esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii
in Cruce peracti (only a memorial) non autem propitiatorium, anathema
sit." Can Mr. Stuart have a right to say that the Eucharistic Sacrifice
and the Sacrifice of tbe Mass " are but different names for tbe same
thing," when there is such a radical disagreement between his descrip
tion of the one and tbe Council's description of the other ? But putting
the Mass out of the question and confining myself to Mr. Stuart's view
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, I must observe that it ia open to one capital
objection. It is indeed only the One Sacrifice which is to be pleaded,
but it is to be pleaded in a special manner : namely, by the offering of the
consecrated Bread and Wine in tbe Lord'a Supper. And the queation is
— firat, whether auch a mode of pleading does not require the sanction
of a Divine appointment, and, if it was a mere human iuvention, would
not be presumptuous and profane — the more so for being engrafted on
Christ's most solemn ordinance — and next, whether any auch aanction is
to be found in the records of tbe original institution unless what bas been
imported into them by most violent and arbitrary interpretation. Mr.
Stuart would probably answer the fitrst part of this question in the aflSr-
mative. But as to the other, he may be one of those who are easily satisfied
with proofs of that wbich it seems to them desirable to have proved, and
he may be content to interpret the words, " Do this in remembrance of
me," as at once the institution of a Sacrifice and the ordination of the
Apostles to the Sacerdotal Office. He has the fullest right to this opinion
if be is able to bold it. Only he should not assume that it is commonly
received among Churchmen and scholars, on whom it has not been
forced by tbe anathema of an infallible Council. Even, however, if it
were aUowable to waive this grave objection to the theory in considera
tion of tbe general desirableness of the object, as to which I give Mr.
Stuart full credit for the very best intentions, there would remain another
which seems to me very serious, with regard to practice. Before be
could reasonably expect that worshippers -wiU be attracted to his Low
Masses, as in the churches of France or Belgium, two things appear to
be needed, neither of which can be admitted to be clearly practicable or
desirable. One is, that the EngUsh congregation should come with the
same notions of the nature and efficacy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice which

200 APPENDIX.
Roman Catholica bring to the Mass. The other is, that the AngUcan
Office should be adapted to these notions. Otherwise, even if all Mr.
Stuart's auggeationa were carried into effect by the abridgment of the
Liturgy and the omiaaion of the " obstructive " rubrics, tbe result would
be a most unsatisfactory atate of things. The congregation would be
thinking of one thing, the minister would be speaking to them of another.
Tbey come to be spectators of a Sacrifice, he tells them of nothing but a
Communion, of which be invites them to partake, though he neither
expects nor seriously desirea that any of them ahould do so. So far
would it be from an advantage to " those who are near to the altar "
(p. 49), to " hear the words themselves which accompany that offering "
(an offering which is not expressed by a single word in the service) that
the best thing possible for all present would be that the whole should
pass off — aa is indeed ao very nearly the case in most Low Masses — in
perfectly dumb show, ao that the people, with the aid of appropriate
manuala of devotion, might follow their train of thought, the priest hia form
of words, in parallel linea, without connexion or convergency indeed, but
also without conflict or disturbance.
Apart from all theological objectiona, I cannot think this a happy plan,
though I fully admit the want wbich it is intended to supply, and that
our Order of Morning Prayer ia not in ita preaent state adapted to the
purpose of an early sei-vice which common people, even of devout habits,
could be expected to attend. It labours under the twofold disadvantage
of inconvenient length, especially in the Lessons and Psalms, and of
monotony in the recitation. Its failure does not prove that a shorter
service, interspersed with melody, might not succeed, at least as well as
Mr. Stuart's experiment, and might not be at least as easily introduced.

(D.)
A few passages in the Consultation of Archbishop Herman of Cologne
may be read with interest, aa bearing on some of the queationa diacussed
in the Charge. I extract them from the EngUah translation of 1548, but
have modernized the spelling.
" Before aU thinga the paators muat labour to take out of men's minds
that false and wicked opinion whereby men think commonly that the
priest in masaea offereth up Chriat our Lord to God the Father, after that
sort, that -with his intention and prayer he cauaeth Chriat to become a
new and acceptable aacrifice to the Father for the salvation of men,
applieth and communicateth the merit of the passion of Christ and of the

APPENDIX.

201

saving sacrifice, whereby the Lord Himself offered Himself to the Father,
a sacrifice on the Crosa, to them that receive the same with their own
faith." " For to make men partakers in the Supper of the Lord of the sacrifice
and merits of our Lord Jesus Chriat, the minister can help no more than
that firat he exhibit and minister the Holy Supper, aa the Lord instituted,
and then faithfully declare and celebrate religiously the mystery of it ;
namely, the redemption and cominution {sic) of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and furthermore diapenae the sacraments (the Bread and Wine) whereby
he may stir up and confirm in them that be present true faith in Christ,
by which faith every man may himself apprehend and receive the merit
and sacrifice of Christ as given unto bim."
" But it ia plain that men are everywhere in this error, that they
believe if they be present when the priest sayeth maas and take part of
the maas only with their presence, that this very work and sacrifice of
the priest, whereby he offereth the Son to the Father for their sins, that
is to say, aetteth Him before the Father with his intention and prayer, is
of auch efficacy that it turneth all evU from them and bringeth them all
felicity of body and soul, though they continue in all manner of sins
against God and their conscience, and neither perceive nor receive the
sacraments out of the mass, but only behold the outward action as a
spectacle, and honour it with bowing of knees and other gestures and
signs of veneration."
" And whereas tbe holy fathers call the ministration of this sacrament
a sacrifice and oblation, and -write sometimes that the priest in the admin
istering the Supper offereth Chriat, let the preachers know and teach
other, when need shall be, that the holy fathers by the name of a aacri
fice understood not application, which waa deviaed a great while after
the fathers, and prevailed with other abuses, but a solemn remembrance
of the sacrifice of Christ, as Augustine expoundeth it. For while the
Supper of the Lord is administered aa tbe Lord instituted it, the sacrifice
of Christ is celebrated and exhibited therein through the preaching of His
death and distribution of the sacraments, that all they which rightly use
tbe Holy Supper may receive the fruit of this sacrifice."
" As the pastors must diligently teach and dissuade them which with
the rest of the congregation cannot communicate because they stick in
open sins, that they be not present at the Holy Supper, and testify unto
them that if they stand at the Supper with such a mind they do spite
unto Christ, and that it shall be damnation unto tbem. So they must
also diligently warn and exhort them which -with a good conscience be
present at the Supper, that is to say which truly beUeve in Christ the
Lord, that they receive the sacraments with other members of Christ."
" But forasmuch as this institution of the Lord that all they which be
present at the same Supper of the Lord should communicate of one

202

APPENDIX.

bread and cup. His Body and Blood, is too much out of use, and covered
a great while since through common ignorance, it shall be needful to call
men back again treatably and gently to the observation of this tradition
of the Lord, and the preachers must beware that the minds of the simple,
which nevertheless be the true disciples of the Lord, and are entangled
in no mischievous and wicked acts, for the which they should be
restrained from the Lord's Board, be not stricken and troubled with sore
rebukes or untimely thrusting unto the receiving of the sacrament. For
there be not a few which, though they cannot thoroughly understand
this mystery and the perfect use of sacraments, yet have such faith in
Christ, that they can pray with the congregation and be somewhat edified
in faith through holy doctrine and exhortations that be wont to be used
about the Holy Supper and the ministration thereof, yea and they may
be taught and moved by little and little to a perfecter knowledge of this
mystery, and an oftener uae of the sacraments, even by thia that they
be preaent at the Holy Supper, which abstain not from the Lord'a Supper
of any contempt of the aacramenta which they acknowledge in themaelves,
but of a certain weakness of men and preposterous reverence of the
sacrament." It -wiU be aeen that the first paragraph in these extracts speaks of " a
false opinion "as to what ia done by the prieat in masses, and therefore
according to the principle of interpretation which bas been applied to our
Thirty-firat Article, might be thought not to be directed against the mass
itaelf. But in the margin we read, "The false opinion concerning the
oblation of tbe priest in the mass must be taken away." And the state
ments which follow leave no doubt as to the Archbishop's meaning.
The work appeara to have been a joint production of Bucer, Melancthon,
and other Reformers (Gieseler, Lehrbuch der K. G. 111. 1. p. 322).
Luther, as appeara from a letter in De Wette's Collection, v. p. 708, was
diasatisfied -with the chapter on the Lord's Supper, as not sufficiently
explicit -with regard to the " substance." And Gieseler obaerves that it
pasaea over the real presence of the Body. Yet the paatora are enjoiued
to " warn the people that they doubt nothing but the Lord Himaelf is
present in the midst of them, and giveth them His very Body and Blood,
that they ever may more fully live in Him, and He in them."

X.
A CHARGE
Delivered October and November, 1869.
disestablishment of the irish church.  ritualism.  the
eucharistic controversy.  thb vatican council.

My Reverend Brethren,
If it had been customary to prefix a text of Scripture to a
Visitation Charge, that which would most readily have occurred
to me, as appropriate to the circumstances in which we now meet,
would have been the words of the Psalmist : " If the foundations
be destroyed, what can the righteous (the righteous man) do ? " *
Not, thank God, that the period in which we are living is one of
revolutionary convulsion, in which the institutions on which social
order reposes have been violently upturned. But it may be said,
without exaggeration, that It is one In which change follows
change -with unexampled rapidity, each apparently fraught with
more and more momentous consequences, reaching down to
fundamental principles of thought, belief, and action, laying them
bare to the most searching investigation, and threatening what
ever they are found too weak to sustain, however hallowed and
endeared by traditional associations, -with coUapse or overthrow.
It is therefore a time for the question, " If the foundations be
destroyed, what can the righteous man do ? " or, what ought he
to do ? What is the frame of mind and the course of action
which befits one who desires to live as in the Divine presence, and
to shape his conduct by the rule of duty toward God and his

neighbour ?

Ps. xi. 3.

204 Such a one wIU surely not forget, but rather will be led to bear
The course In mind moro earnestly than ever, that the changes
guideaby whlch startlc us by their apparent suddenness, are
God's
Providence, indeed but thc outcome of a long, silent, and unseen
preparation, working through a variety of unsuspected agencies
toward an ine-vitable result. One advantage of this view is, that
it lifts the mind out of the turbid atmosphere of personal prejudice
and passion, as It shows how Uttle Indi-viduals or parties really
have to do -with either the good or the evil of which they are the
Instruments. It Ufts the mind, I say, out of this unwholesome
atmosphere into a region of serene contemplation, in which it may
find calmness, consolation, and assurance. For we firmly believe
that the course of events Is guided, not by a blind chance or a
mechanical necessity, but by the mind and -will of a wise and
Fatherly Pro-vidence, Whose designs are never fuUy known to
man, are often wrapt in utter darkness, or present an aspect
which we are unable to reconcile with supreme wisdom and
goodness ; but which wiU, we doubt not, be fully justified by the
final issue, and which even now become more and more discernible
as we extend our survey over a larger field of history, and observe
the working of the Divine Government on a greater scale, so as In
some measure to see how abiding and general good is evolved out
of apparent partial and temporary evil.
Such a habit of thought wUl best secure the peace of our souls
when the foundations seem to rock under our feet. But for the
Aim o£ the rlghteous man peace and comfort are not the only or the
ng eons- highest aim. He would not consent, even if It was ia
his power, to remain an Inactive and unconcerned spectator of
events which deeply afi'ect the weal or woe of his feUow-men.
And the Psalmist's question is not, how may he be free from
care and trouble, how may he enjoy uninterrupted ease and quiet?
The time of ^^^> °^ ^^^ Contrary, "What can he do?" And this
^^^fyl must mean, not for himself only, but for others. The
peculiar character of an extraordinary time is not only
a trial of faith, but a call to action, for every one, according to his
sphere and capacity. It is true, opportunities of action, which can.

CHARGES. 205
in any sensible degree, affect the course of events, must be very
rare and confined to a few. But the conduct of aU is swayed by
their opinions and beliefs, and may exercise a powerful influence
on others. And thus the formation of a right judgment may
become an important part of practical duty. Such a judgment Is
Indeed a gift, for which the Church teaches us to pray, as not to
be obtained without the operation of the Holy Spirit ; and this
Implies that it will not be vouchsafed to minds clouded by wilful
prejudice, or selfish aims, or e-vil passions. But neither is it to be
looked for in such as remain in a state of sluggish passlveness ;
which shrink from the labour of obeying the ApostoUc precept :
" Prove all things : hold fast that which is good ; " which are
content with simply echoing the dictates of some human authority,
are too careless about truth to take the trouble of thinking for
themselves, and of making the opinion, on which nevertheless they
do not scruple to act on very Important occasions, a personal con
viction of their own breasts. But in persons who have dedicated
themselves to the ofiice of spiritual Teachers and Guides, such
inertness and Indifierence, manifesting Itself in a thoughtless
repetition of the utterances of other minds, amounts to nothing
less than an abdication of their most sacred function, at the very
season when its exercise is most urgently required.
And no one may claim exemption from this duty on the plea
that as a minister of religion he ought, or is at liberty. Ministers
to keep aloof from political contention. That would be not exempt
^ ^ ^ from this
perfectly true, if It is meant to apply to contests which '^"ty-
concern only personal or temporary interests. But It would be a
lamentable error if It was extended to questions which involve the
welfare of the State. Undoubtedly the Church of Christ has the
first claim on our affections and our energies. But they would be
misplaced and misdirected, if we were to regard the State as a
region foreign to our sympathies ; one in which we have no
proper home, to which we are bound by no tie but such as springs
out of the wants of our lower nature, and which therefore. In
proportion as we are devoted to the work of our sacred calling,
ought to occupy a narrower and lower place in our thoughts.

206 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
This is indeed. If we trace It to its root, an upgrowth of the old
Manlchsean error, which leavened the early Church, and was
never entirely purged out ; which wasted so many Uves In a
selfish barren asceticism ; treating the body as essentially unholy
because the creature of a Being opposed to the Father of Spirits,
and as Incapable of administering to the good of the soul, other
wise than by Its own sufl'ering and degradation. Such a view,
though once extensively prevalent, now shocks us as a wUd and
monstrous delusion. But it Is closely akin to that which regards
the State as simply secular and profane, as a necessity to which
we reluctantly submit, whUe we strive as much as possible to
avoid aU active contact with It. It was of a Pagan and a perse
cuting State that the Apostle declared, " The powers that be are
ordained of God." This would suffice to show that the end of the
State, or civU society, in itself is holy and just and good, though
it is only through the Church that this end is ever fuUy attained,
or rather the nearest practicable approach made towards the
attainment of it.
Relations '^^^ questlous whIch arlsc out of the relations between
ChmXaud Church and State, are among the most difiicult with
which the human mind has to deal. And the difficulty
is greatly increased by the imperfection and ambiguity of
language ; which so easily leads us to forget that Church and
State are both abstract terms; that the concrete reality which
underlies each, Is an aggregate of persons knit together by an
ideal bond ; that in the happiest state of things, that In which
each best fulfils the purpose of Its institution, the very same
persons who, in one "view, constitute the State, in another view,
constitute the Church ; and that, as the head is not the body, so
the ruler, or governing power. Is not the State, but the repre
sentative and organ of its mind and will ; and the Clergy, or
ministering agency, is not the Church. These questions are
forced upon us with peculiar urgency by the events of our o-wn
day ; and it Is on them above aU that it behoves us to endeavour
to stay our minds on clear notions and soUd principles.
You are all aware of the subject — long uppermost In the

CHARGES. 207
thoughts of all of us — which has suggested these reflections.
Even if I had no special reasons for desiring to draw your
attention to this subject, its intrinsic importance would have
entitled it to the foremost place in this address. It is true it has
been the occasion of an excitement often quite alien to the tone of
feeling befitting the place In which we are now assembled. But
this appears to me a reason, not for avoiding the subject, but on
the contrary for dwelling upon it in a different spirit, and
weighing it, not in the scales of selfish interests and party
passions, but, as far as we can. In the balance of the Sanctuary.
Here, as usual, it is only by the light of the past that i^tro^eot
we can hope to gain any clear view of the present, or wstory.
any true insight into the future. The retrospect is indeed one of
the most saddening to be found In the annals of history ; but we
may not shrink from pondering its lessons and its warnings. It
presents a Land abounding in the sources of national wealth, In
aU that can stimulate and reward industry, and by Its natural
features exercising a peculiar charm on the affections of its
inhabitants ; a People richly gifted with many noble qualities of
mind and heart ; singularly deficient indeed In the faculty and
the spirit of political and ecclesiastical organization, neither
comprehending its conditions, nor appreciating its advantages,
but naturally disposed to yield to the guidance of a friendly and
beneficent authority, and for many centuries closely connected
with a more powerful nation, endowed In an eminent degree with
the quaUtles which the weaker most lacked. Here, then. It
might have been thought, were the elements of prosperity and
happiness for both. And yet In the whole course of Irish history
there is not one bright spot ; not a single period on which
memory can dweU without finding matter chiefly for shame,
sorrow, and regret. I cannot even except that to which many
look back as to a golden age, the time when Ireland won the
name of the Isle of Saints. That description does not prove It to
have been a land of holiness. The seventh century, an age In
which the Church was sunk in the grossest darkness and
corruption, was called the Age of Saints ; and we cannot doubt

208 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
that, while the Irish monasteries were seats of piety and learning,
and sent forth many Illustrious missionaries to spread the Gospel
in foreign lands, their own country was In the same state of
anarchy and barbarism In which we find it as soon as we become
acquainted with its internal condition.
I am not going to relate its history ; but there are In that history
some prominent epochs to which I must Invite your attention, because
they have a most Important bearing on the subject now before us.
Union with The most momontous epoch in the history of both
howeffec'ted. countrlcs was that which first yoked them together
under a common rule. This event, big with such a vast train of
consequences, was ominously marked with the character of
unprovoked aggression and violent conquest. It is true this
wrong was sanctioned by the Papal oracle, then generally
acknowledged throughout Western Christendom as supreme in
aU questions of faith and morals. In perfect accordance with the
ancient maxims of the See of Rome, always ready — as in the
cases of Phocas, of Clovls, and of Pepin — to countenance any
injustice which tended to promote its own aggrandizement. And
if the end could have sanctified the means, the invasion might
have been justified by the prospect of the advantages which might
have been expected to ensue from the comprehension of the two
Islands under one sceptre. But the effect was only to divide the
less powerful Into two hostUe camps, and to make It a theatre of
incessant, wasting, and demoraUsIng warfare. The policy of the
EngUsh Government was one of physical force, rendered the more
Insupportable to the native population by the studied display of
hatred and contempt on the part of the conquerors. It may be
said that this was the poUcy of a rude, wild, lawless age. But
its effect was not the less irritating, and did not the less call for
reparation and atonement which were never made. Tbe Influence
of the Roman Catholic religion did not restrain the most
outrageous excesses of this unchristian spirit. The power of the
Pope, who claimed to be sovereign lord, was uniformly exerted
on the side of the strongest. The victims of English tyranny
appealed to him In vain.

CHARGES. 209
But the stroke of retribution fell when England received the
greatest of all blessings, that to which she owes her place among
the nations. It then appeared that she had deprived
herself of the power of Imparting this blessing to the
people whom she had treated as a race of abject serfs, below
the level, and outside the pale of humanity, who might be killed
with Impunity, and without remorse, as beasts of the field.* She
had associated it in their minds with the idea of violence and
oppression, of insolence and cruelty. She made it the object of
their bitterest hatred. She united them in the closest alliance
¦with the Continental Powers who were leagued together for the
destruction of the Reformed faith, especiaUy In this land. So the
breach was widened by that which should have healed It. The
animosity of race was envenomed by religious rancour, and the
Influence of a purer creed failed to inspire the dominant nation
with milder sentiments towards its subjects. It would indeed be
unfair to overlook the provocations which roused its resentment,
and the peril which compelled it to resort to rigorous measures
in self-defence. But neither may we forget that this necessity
was the effect of centuries of misrule. And if it be admitted
that the penal legislation was excusable in the heat of a great
crisis, can this plea avaU for the tenacious maintenance of that
atrocious code, when it could serve no purpose but that of
nourishing the evil passions of those who regarded the affliction
and degradation of their countrymen as the only sound basis of
Protestant ascendancy ?
It was not until a very late period that better thoughts, if not
more humane and Christian sentiments, began to stir In improve-
the minds of EngUsh statesmen, roused indeed it is to be English ad-
, ministra-
feared by a sense of the foUy rather than of the wickedness *i<»i.
of the system by which the country had been so long misgoverned,
to the detriment alike of the sufferer and the oppressor. This
apathy -with regard to the first principles of justice and humanity
admits indeed of one most unhappy paUiatlon. Even in those
whose sacred caUing should have quickened their pferceptlons of
* Words-worth's "History ofthe Churoli of Ireland," p. 152.
A'OL. II. P

210 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
right and wrong, we not only miss any protest against the iniquity
of the penal legislation, any attempt to assume the part of media
tors and Intercessors, but we find the most strenuous resistance to
every proposal made to mitigate Its rigour. It may be said that
the clergy could not reasonably be expected to be in advance of
their age ; that it was natural their attention and sympathy
should be absorbed by the Interests of their own Church. That
may be true, and certainly none would have been selected for high
office In the Church who were suspected of any sj'-mpathy with
Irish wrongs. But we have here nothing to do with the aUot-
ment of individual responsibiUty, but only with the impression
left on the mind of the people. The introduction of the Reforma
tion into Ireland was an object in which the power and safety of
the kingdom was deeply concerned, and all the authority of the
State was exerted to bring It about. But when it appeared that
the only benefit to be derived from It was the spiritual welfare of
the Roman CathoUc population, it ceased to occupy the thoughts
either of statesmen or of Churchmen, and a proselytizing move
ment would have been -riewed In high quarters with displeasure.
The Union Finally, the union of the two countries, indispensably
effected , pi . n -n • • i
against the neccssary as it was for the security of the British
majority. Empire, was notoriously brought about against the wiU
of the great majority of the Irish people, by means moraUy
indefensible, and alike discreditable to both parties, the bribers
and the bribed.* It might, nevertheless, have opened a new
era of peace and concord, if it had been accompanied by the
measures which entered into the original design of Its author,
followed up by others conceived in the same spirit of conciliation.
But as, unhappily, this was prevented by causes too weU known to
need mention. It not only contributed nothing to cement a real
union of minds and hearts, but rather embittered the pre-vious
animosity of those who saw their national existence merged In that
of a foreign power, and their country, according to the Roman
phrase, reduced Into the form of a province, without any compen
sation to console them for the loss of an, at least nominal and
* See note C, in the Appendix.

CHARGES. 211
formal, independence. The Union had aU the legal force of an Act
of ParUament, and even of a solemn treaty. But morally it was
a mere name, a fiction, a piece of parchment, utterly inoperative
for Its professed purpose. It neither expressed a fact, nor tended
to realize the supposition which It assumed. The cry for its repeal
never ceased to awaken an echo in the Irish bosom ; and the most
important boons lost aU their concIUatory value, because they
appeared to be not free offerings of our good-wiU or of our justice,
but concessions wrung from our fears.
So the great problem has been handed down to us, still awaiting
a solution, which has become more and more necessary, but more
and more difficult. The only cheering and hopeful sign Eeveiuai of
England's
IS that now, for the first time in the course of that oidpouoy.
doleful history which we have been reviewing, it has been taken
up with a sincere desire and firm intention to redress every real
wrong, and remove every reasonable ground of complaint. Let it
not be supposed that, when I say this, I am thinking of Individuals
or of parties. That which appears to me hopeful In the present
aspect of things, is entirely Independent of all particular views and
feelings. It is that the general voice of the country has declared
its resolution to reverse the old blind and iniquitous policy, to
abolish the anomalies and wrongs to which it gave birth ; and, if
possible, to establish a rule of righteousness and peace.
But the difficulty of carrying this intention into effect is greatly
increased by the variety of objects which demand attention and
contend for precedence. Whether that which has been selected
as the first subject of legislation might have been safely n-ish church
and advantageously postponed, is a question which, from °»™'-
the moment that the selection was actuaUy made, ceased to be of
any practical importance, and is totaUy unfit for discussion in this
place. But undoubtedly, if there was in the Irish Church
Establishment no offensive anomaly which required correction, no
sensible grievance which caUed for redress, no palpable contrast
between that which had been imposed upon Ireland, and that
which, if it had been an independent nation, Ireland would have
chosen for itself, then it must be admitted that the abolition of the
p 2

212 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Irish Establishment was a wanton innovation, for which hardly
any of the terms of reprobation which have been applied to It
were too strong. But it is on that supposition that they have
been applied to It. They have assumed that this view of the case
is so e-ridently the right one, as not to admit of any candid doubt ;
and yet nothing is more certain as a matter of fact, than that,
whether rightly or wrongly, the opposite opinion has been very
generally held, both at home and abroad ; and in particular that
among InteUIgent foreigners, even the most friendly, and the
warmest admirers of our institutions, the Irish Church Establish
ment has been universaUy regarded as the most glaring of all
anomalies, the grossest of all abuses, that which, above aU others,
tests the sincerity of those who profess to aim at a just poUcy in
, the government of Ireland. It has been said that the
Opinion of ^
on ItfXu- opinion of foreigners on our domestic concerns is entitled
*'™' to no weight. That is not quite in accordance with a
famiUar proverb on the advantage of a bystander's position. But
however worthless such an opinion may be In Itself, it seems hard
to believe that what to strangers appears an Intolerable wrong,
should be "viewed in a totally different light by those who are sub
ject to It, even when they assure us of the contrary ; and it would
seem as If the prevalence of the opinion, whether weU founded
or not, must itself tend to engender and nourish the feeUng.
The religious theory of the Irish Church Establishment rests
Theo of upon the assumption, that It is a right and a duty of a
Est^h?h- Christian State to exert aU its power and Influence for
^^'^ ' the maintenance and propagation of true religion. This,
of course, Involves the farther assumption that the State, as repre
sented by Its rulers. Is capable of ascertaining which Is the true
reUgion, and this not only as between Christians and adherents of
other creeds, but as between various forms of Christian faith. As
long however as the society. In Its religious aspect, is homogeneous,
this question will not arise, unless as matter of otiose speculation
for thinkers in their closets. But the case Is manifestly changed,
when the unity of Christian belief has been broken up Into a
number of conflicting sects. The appUcation of the general

CHARGES. 213
principle to such a state of things is beset with very grave diffi
culties, both of theory and practice. If we attempt to -vindicate
the Irish Church Establishment on the ground of that principle,
it seems as if our argument must take some such form as this : —
" Three centuries ago we renounced the old errors to „,
o The argu-
which you stUl blindly cling. We offered you the pure "'^^t^t^^'^-
doctrine of our Reformed Church. It was your fault if you
rejected it with abhorrence. But we do not force you to profess
what you do not believe. We even permit you openly to cele
brate the rites of your religion, much as they shock our feelings,
and to support its ministers, strongly as we disUke them. It is
true we reserve all the provision made for reUgious instruction,
and aU the privileges and distinctions annexed to the pastoral
office, to the clergy of a smaU minority, whom you regard as
teachers of deadly heresy. But if from your point of view this
appears to you unjust, because you think that a large portion, at
least, of the funds so employed rightfully belongs to you, and
because you consider your o-wn clergy as, at least, equaUy entitled
to public acknowledgment, you must remember that, by virtue of
the Union — which, though It was forced upon you by the right of
the strongest, is still legaUy vaUd — you were fused into one nation
with us : and thus, what had been a minority became a majority,
entitled to all the advantage of superior members."
Whether this is in itself sound reasoning or not, I think that,
if we place ourselves for a moment in the position of its tendency
an Irish Roman Catholic, and imagine his feelings, we en repug
nance to the
should see that the effect on his mind could be only to umon.
strengthen his repugnance to the Union, and to inflame his
hatred of those who use it for such a purpose. For the argument
implies a claim to a kind of superiority, which is just the last that
men can be brought to admit. It assumes that those whom we so
address have no right to judge for themselves in matters which Ue
between God and their conscience. We know to what Church
these maxims and pretensions properly belong. They spring
naturally out of the doctrine of inf alUbUIty. But they are out of
place in a Church which exists only by the right of protest against

214 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
a usurped authority ; one in which conscience Is supreme, and
cannot suffer Its decisions to be overruled by any judgment which
it does not freely adopt as its o-wn.
„ Religious Establishments have been both defended
No express o
Icr^toe'" ^^^ Impugned by good and pious men, who have natu-
E°tabiish- rally been anxious to claim the authority of Scripture In
favour of their views. But when we find the same texts
adduced in support of contradictory propositions,* we are forced to
despair of obtaining any direct Scriptural guidance In the contro
versy, and to resign ourselves to the conviction, that the utmost
we can expect to find Is some broad general statement of principles
which we are left to apply by the Ught of our own reason and
conscience. And it Is observable that those who maintain the
duty of providing for a public profession of religion to be incum
bent on the Christian magistrate, commonly build their theory on
the hypothesis of an ideal ruler In an ideal State : a ruler invested
with absolute power, and governing a people united by the same
religious profession. In such a case it is not difficult to show that
it Is the duty of the ruler to exert his power for the protection of
the Interests of that religion which he and his subjects profess.
Despotic It is on this account that the Church of Rome has always
favouiedby favourcd dcspotlc forms of ffovernment when admlnls-
the Church -^ °
of Eome. tcrcd by adherents of her own faith. The sovereigns
who, like Philip II. and Louis XIV., wielded their absolute power
for the extirpation of heresy, realized her Ideal of the perfect
State, t And this, I think, may serve to allay any regret which
we might otherwise feel, when we reflect that such a state of
* As John XTiii. 36, by Archbishop -Whately (" The Kingdom of Christ,"
Essay i. J 9) on the one hand, and hyMr. Birks ("Church and State," chap, iii.) on
the other.
t " The modern civil constitutions, and the efforts for self-government, and the
limitation of arbitrary royal power, are in the strongest contradiction to XTltra-
montanism, the very kernel and ruling principle of which is the consolidation of
absolutism in the Church. But State and Church are intimately connected : they
act and react on one another, and it is inevitable that the political views and
tendencies of a nation should sooner or later influence it in Church matters also.
Hence the profound hatred, at the bottom of the soul of every genuine Ultra
montane, of free institutions and the whole constitutional system." — " The Pope
and the Council," by Janus, p. 21. An excellent translation of a most valuable
¦work.

CHARGES. 215
things is visibly and rapidly passing away ; that It only lingers
in the imperfectly civilized parts .of Europe, while In those which
represent its highest Intelligence and culture it belongs to the
irrevocable past. Both as men and as Christians, we have reason
to rejoice In this change. But it has evidently Intro- its decline
duced new conditions into the question of Church cated the
question of
Establishments, which render it much more compUcated ^^^^Jj^jj.
and difficult, and deprive much of the reasoning which '^™*^-
was grounded on that Imaginary basis of all force and relevancy.
And it may be safely said that there is no country In the world
where the difficulty is so great, the problem so complicated, as It
is in our own : the seat of a vast empire, extended over a great
variety of races and religions, and Itself Inhabited by a population
di-vided by endless diversities of opinion and belief, and subject to
a monarchy so tempered by constitutional restraints, that no small
sagacity Is required to determine where the centre of power Is to
be found, and It Is only certain that it depends on the concurrence
of many subordinate agencies. It is clear that rules of action
which under a system of personal government might be binding
on the conscience of the ruler, would become utterly Inapplicable
to a Legislative Body, representing widely divergent reUgious
sentiments, and of masses too large and powerful to be Ignored or
neglected. The practical neutraUty or Impartiality which in the
one case would have been a fault or a sin, becomes, under altered
circumstances, a necessity and an obligation. The zeal which was
a duty, becomes an error and a weakness.
And here I would interpose a more general reflection. That many
good and thinking men should be distressed and alarmed by the
changes which are passing on the condition of society,
and which make It Impossible for the State to maintain ™t*^^ °™"
the profession of a national reUgion in the same sense as °''^^-
whUe the Church and the nation were numerically identical ; that
they should regard -with anxious forebodings the preponderance
recently acquired by the democratlcal element in the Constitution ;
— this Is a feeUng which we can well understand, and with which
we must all sympathize. But I must return once more to the

216 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Psalmist's question ; and remind you that it Is not, " How will
the righteous man feel ? " but " What can he do ? " and the first
thing, as It seems to me, which he has to do, and which is quite in
his power, is to satisfy himself whether this change is a mere
momentary fluctuation, which may be expected soon to subside, or
is a mighty stream of tendency, which no human power can arrest
or control. If it is unmistakably marked with the character of a
natural, social development, then, however much we may see in it
to deplore and to dread, still, as believers In a superintending
Providence, we cannot look upon it as merely evil ; and instead of
mourning over it, and keeping aloof from It in a gloomy passlve
ness, or wasting our strength in a vain attempt to stem the tide
which is carrying aU before it upon earth, and can only be over
ruled by Him Who " sitteth above the waterflood," we shall hold
it our duty to deal with it in a loving and hopeful spirit, to recog
nize all that is good or capable of good in it ; and, approaching it
in such a spirit, we shall probably find much more than we looked
for ; and to apply aU our diligence to mitigate the evil, and to
foster the good.
state coun- The adversaries of reUgious Establishments often
reHgious appeal to the history of the Church in the first three
Establish- .
ments. Ccnturles, as a proof that Christianity flourished most
when It was not only unestablished, but persecuted by the State,
and that its alliance with the Empire was attended by a sensible
decline In its purity and fervour. They are met by the reply, that
religion did not, and could not, fully manifest Its power of leaven
ing the whole mass of society, and of hallowing aU social relations,
until it had entered Into union with the State, and that its corrup
tion was owing to causes Independent of that union, which in Itself
was highly beneficial. It may, however, be imagined as a possible
case, that, after the conversion of Constantine, the countenance of
the State might have been withdrawn from Paganism, but not
transferred to Christianity, and that the Christian faith might not
have been pubUcly recognized by any official authority. Its
Influence on aU classes would have continued the same ; only the
Law would have remained neutral, and would not have dispensed

CHARGES. 21 7
either rewards or punishments in its favour. But when we consider
how utterly foreign such motives are to religion. It seems difficult
to contend that it would have suffered any loss from their absence.
Rather we may clearly trace some of the worst evils which
afflicted the Church to the Imperial patronage. The head of a
family, the citizen, the magistrate, may also be a member of a
religious society, and If he Is earnest and sincere, his conduct In
his private and civil capacity wiU be shaped by his religious con-
¦victlons ; but the two characters are not the less distinct from one
another. And so the Christian State may regulate Its acts by
Christian principles, though it Is wholly severed from the Church.
The State does not necessarily become heathen or infidel, because
it confines itself to its o-wn sphere, and does not Intermeddle with
that of the Church. And It seems hardly to be questioned that
the reign of Christ upon earth was more fully, more heartily, and
more practically recognized by the primitive Church, In her
poverty, her weakness, her political nullity, than In the subse
quent period, when kings became her nursing fathers, and their
queens her nursing mothers, shielding her indeed from outward
violence, but often Injuring her by mistaken kindness.
The conclusion which seems to me to follow from these premisses,
is one, I am aware, alike unacceptable to both parties : ^g^J^"^*"'
to that which condemns religious Establishments as un- absolutely
lawful, because injurious to the sovereignty of Christ, and bad. """^
to that which holds them to be essential to the fuU assertion of that
sovereignty. I regard both these extremes of opinion as untenable.
The very fact of their conflict, and that they are espoused by
persons equally entitled to respect, appears to me a sure Indication
that the truth Ues somewhere between them, that neither is the
one constitution forbidden, nor the other prescribed by any Divine
authority ; that neither is absolutely good or bad ; that it must
always depend on the circumstances of each case which Is prefer
able to the other ; and that the decision must ultimately rest with
the supreme power In every State, not as exempt from error, but
because there is under heaven no other of higher jurisdiction, or
of fuller competency ; none that possesses any better right to

218 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
decree, or any clearer light to guide its judgment. This is, of
course, only a Protestant view of the question. But those who
insist on the necessity of choosing between the two extremes, are
really, though unconsciously, taking ground which can be consis
tently maintained only by those who acknowledge an infallible
earthly oracle, which is empowered to speak In the name of
Christ, and entitled to claim implicit submission to its responses.
_ ,,. If, however, the State is, and In a Protestant com-
Power ofthe ' ' '
server its muulty must be, at liberty to exercise its discretion on
vrith the™ the question of contracting an alliance -with the Church,
Church. , /» n 1 • • i
it seems to lollow that it may exercise the same discre
tion on the question of dissolving an aUIance contracted in time past ;
as no one doubts that the Church may sever the ties which connect
it -with the State, if they seem inconsistent with the end of Its
institution. But though in the abstract the one liberty may seem
to carry the other, there is an immense difference between the
two things. In the difficulty, the danger, and the responsibUity
Incurred. It is as the difference between the omitting to
plant a tree, and the uprooting of one which has weathered the
storms of centuries, and has afforded shelter and nourishment to
many generations. And this image does but very imperfectly
illustrate the magnitude and peril of such an undertaking.
For the soil In which a long established Church has struck Its
roots, is no other than that of man's higher nature, the seat of
his loftiest aspirations, his deepest cra-vlngs, his hoUest affections ;
aU liable to suffer grievous hurt In their most delicate fibres from
the operation. And this is no doubt a motive for entering upon
it, if It is believed to be necessary, with the utmost caution, and
for conducting It with the greatest possible tenderness. But it Is
another question, whether we can say that it Is in itself absolutely
unjustifiable, and a breach of the Divine Law. And here I think
it is not irrelevant to recoUect the testimony of one who lately
passed from us amidst the highest tributes of affectionate venera
tion from the Church which he had adorned by his Ufe as well as
by his writings, — the Author of the " Christian Year." It was on
the disestablishment of the Irish Church that he expressed his

CHARGES. 219
opinion by the question, "Is it not just ?"* Whether we consider
his scrupulous conscientiousness, his piety, or his ecclesiastical
prepossessions, it does not seem to be laying undue weight on his
authority, to say that it is not inferior to that of any who have
condemned the measure as a repudiation of Christianity.
But the question becomes much more complicated and difficult,
when the separation is accompanied by the aUenatlon Alienation
of property which the Church had enjoyed during the property.
union, either as a gift of the State or under the sanction of its
laws, giving to the will of private donors a validity which of Itself
it could not have claimed. By some every such alienation is
regarded as sacrilegious, on the ground that whatever has been so
dedicated to a sacred use has become " the property of God." To
you, my Reverend Brethren, I need only remark In a single word
that whenever we speak of the sacredness of any material offering
made to the Most High, it must always be with the reservation —
tacit, If not express — of the fundamental truth, that such an offer
ing can never be acceptable to God in Itself, or as supplying any
want of the Di-vine nature ; but only as a sign of that devotion of
the heart, which he has declared to be pleasing to Him, and by
virtue of which it is at the same time in the highest degree bene
ficial to the offerer : so that the benefit to man is a measure of the
degree in which it is acceptable to God. But when the offering is
of a permanent kind, as an ecclesiastical endowment, a large
experience has abundantly shown that the sign may remain after
the thing signified has passed away ; that it may become a form
-without the substance, a letter without the spirit : unmeaning as a
sign ; powerless as an instrument ; worthless aUke to God and
man. In such a case, unless the sacredness of the original des
tination is held to impress it with an indeUble character,
independent of all vicissitudes of public affairs, and aU changes In
social relations, the State would be not only exercising a right,
but discharging a duty. In applying it to other uses. This may be
admitted or denied. Here are two opinions between which we are
at liberty to choose, but we must make our choice between the
• Memoir of Keble, by Sir John Coleridge, p. fil 8.

220 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
two. We are not at liberty to adopt both, and to use this for one
purpose, and that for another. We may lay down the principle
that every alienation — or, as it is called, secularization — of
j.j^ , , Church property is sacrilege, and, as such, absolutely
lomls'sac?!- forblddeu by God's Law ; that whatever has been once
^^^' so consecrated to a pious use, has become In such a sense
the property of God, as to be for ever withdrawn from the disposal
of the State ; that no failure of the original intention, no abuse or
perversion, however gross, of the Instrument designed to promote
the glory of God and the welfare of man, to purposes most directly
adverse to both, can divest It of its sacred character. That is a
proposition which, if we follow it out into its consequences, it may
seem to need some hardihood to maintain, when we think of the
enormous wealth which flowed into the Church in the tenth cen
tury, through the prevailing expectation that the end of the world
was at hand ; and of the way in which those endo-tvments were
employed before the Reformation in our own and other lands. It
would even raise the question, whether, according to this descrip
tion, sacrilege must not be oftener a duty than a sin. But stfll
the position is Intelligible and self-consistent. It Is held by the
Church of Rome, which, identifying the Church with the clergy,
and the interests of the clergy with the interests of God, regards
every aUenation of ecclesiastical property, though acquired through
ignorant creduUty, or, as so large a part of her temporal dominion,
by fraud and forgery, as a robbery of God. But if we commit
ourselves to this position, we must abide by it. We may not say
of the same act, it is one which cannot be justified by any reasons,
because it is sacrilege ; and it is sacrilege because no sufficient
reason can be assigned for It. The charge of sacrUege must occupy
the foremost place, to the exclusion of every other argument, or
there is no room for it at aU. If we once let in the consideration
of reasons, which may or may not justify the act, the charge can
serve no purpose but that of fastening an ugly name on an opinion
from which we dissent. But unless the view I have taken of
the history and pecuUar features of the Irish Church question is
altogether erroneous, it is hard to conceive one which can present

CHARGES. 221
greater difficulties, both of theory and of practice, or in which
more room is open for honest difference of opinion, and in which,
therefore, an imputation of evil motives, or of moral bUndness, Is
less justified by the state of the case.
But though I cannot share the opinion of those who consider
the subject as by Its very nature withdrawn from the proposition
!•* p 1TT1 ¦Til intheHouso
legitimate range of statesmanly deliberation, 1 deeply of Lords
lament the way in which it has appeared necessary to deal Sjf^^^^'' '
with it. I beUeve that the modification proposed in ^™p1'^-
the Upper House of Parliament in the disposal of the surplus,
would have been more generally beneficial, more in accordance
-with the professed object of the measure, more concIUatory to Irish
feelings. It would have spared that which might have been
usefully retained, while it gave that which, so given, would have
witnessed, more clearly than in any other form, to the sincerity of
our good- will. I can see no force in any of the objections which
have been made to it, on the ground of principle. I think it Is
through misapprehension, or by a rhetorical artifice, that it has been
represented as an endowment of error, in the only sense in which
the phrase expresses something Inconsistent and reprehensible. It
could be only by a most violent and arbitrary misconstruction that
a slight addition to the comfort of the Roman Catholic clergy, and
a relative elevation in their social position, could be Interpreted as
indicating any acknowledgment of the truth of their distinguishing
tenets. I had occasion to express my views on this point In a
Charge delivered nearly twenty-five years ago, with reference to
the Grant to the College of Maynooth. That opinion remains
unaltered ; but in the present case it would not be necessary to
take such broad ground ; and one who disapproved of the Grant to
Maynooth, might consistently consent to such an appropriation of
Irish funds as was proposed.
At the same time I am bound to admit, that what seemed to
me most desirable appears to have been for the present im- PubUc opin
ion on the
practicable, and so opposed to the general mind and will subject.
of the country, that it would have been beyond the power of any
government to have carried It into effect. This of course does not

222 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
In the least affect the merits of the view which the voice of the
country has condemned, but it Is decisive on the practical con
clusion. PubUc opinion, as well as that of each Individual who
helps to compose it, may be unenlightened and misguided, but
when It has been freely formed and lawfully expressed, there Is no
higher tribunal on earth that can overrule Its decisions. Language
has been used of late tending to depreciate the significance of
majorities In the determination of political questions. * Certainly
they can have no weight whatever as a measure of truth ; other
wise all the Churches of the Reformation must give way to Rome,
and Christianity to Buddhism. But untU some one shaU have
devised a more satisfactory mode of deciding the course of political
action, it seems useless to murmur against that which has been
sanctioned by the universal experience of mankind In aU countries
and in all ages. It may be a very clumsy expedient, but the only
alternative hitherto discovered is either anarchy, or stagnation of
public affairs.
The claims of Justice are absolute and Inflexible. She cannot
Justice of waive them. They are entitled to precedence over all
the Irish i i • -i- n i i i •
Church dis- calculations of expediency, and no such calculations can
°i™'- lead to any result more certain than the maxim that, in
the affairs of nations as of individuals, justice is in the long run
the best policy. It is indeed perplexing to find that a measure
which to such a mind as Keble's appeared so manifestly just, is
denounced by other exceUent men as a monstrous wrong, and we
can only suppose that those who judge of it so oppositely, consider
It from widely different points of view : the one party perhaps
from the English the other from the Irish side. But this is a case
in which the consideration of consequences cannot be wholly ex
cluded from the -view of justice itself : as it is impossible to
separate the question of right and wrong from that of good and
evU. Speculation on the political effects of this great change
would here be out of place. I will only remark that its most
sanguine advocates have never represented it as a panacea for the
evils of Ireland, or denied that its success, as a measure of paci-
* Birks u. s. chap. -vii. On Parliamentary and Local Majorities.

CHARGES. 223
ficatlon, -wUl turn upon that of other remedies which remain to be
tried. The final result must depend on the combination of a
general diffusion of material weU-being, with a general sense of
just government. As long as either of these is wanting, there
must be discontent and disaffection. When we look back at the
past, we may easily be inclined to despair of ever undoing the
work of so many centuries, during which there has been a constant
accumulation of the elements of discord and hatred. But a
government can have no right to despair, until it has exhausted
aU the resources at Its command for the attainment of an object
so essential to the welfare and safety of the empire. But our
interest in this matter is, if not whoUy absorbed, at least for the
present chiefly occupied by the consequences which it seems to
portend to the Church in Ireland and at home. And on these
you may naturaUy expect that I should say a few words.
It is not surprising that the suddenness of the blow which has
fallen on the Irish Church, should have Inclined those EScctsofthodisesta-
who feel the deepest interest in her cause, to take a biishment.
gloomy view of her prospects, to exaggerate the difficulties and
dangers of her future career, and to overlook the more cheering
aspects of the case. No doubt there Is cause sufficient for painful
anxiety ; but I firmly believe that there are still stronger grounds
for hope and confidence. The new Church will remain united as
closely as ever to the Church of England by a spiritual bond,
which will not be the less strong, rather aU the more so, because it
is perfectly free. Subject to this voluntary union, it will enjoy
the fullest liberty of self-government. There are, as we aU know,
not a few among our own brethren who consider this Uberty as so
desirable, that in their opinion it outweighs aU the advantages of
an EstabUshment, which without it are in their eyes but gilded
fetters, the price of a degrading bondage. I entirely dissent from
this opinion. I have no sympathy with the motives of those who
hold It. I believe that the kind of liberty which they desire would
be a grinding tyranny, and the worst calamity that could befall
the Church. But I do not on that account doubt that the liberty
which the unestablished Irish Church wiU enjoy, subject as it will

224 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
be to that condition of union with the Church of England, and
regulated, as I trust It will be, by a prudent caution, wUl be a very
great advantage. Henceforward the Church will possess synodical
assemblies, constituted, it may be confidently hoped, on a much
broader and firmer basis than our own. And these assemblies will
meet, not merely for discussion, but for deliberation. They will
need no precarious licence, either to enter upon their conferences
or to carry their resolutions Into effect. They will even lend a
new value and importance to the debates of the EngUsh Convoca
tions. We shall no longer be saddened by the thought, that so
much learning and eloquence, so much laborious research, so many
instructive Reports, so many valuable suggestions as are stored In
their records, are condemned to lie barren, for want of power to
turn them to a practical account. There will be, on the other
side of the Channel, a Body able to profit by whatever it may
find useful In them.
Capacity of -^^^ most Certainly the witness which this Church will
Ctarch\o continue to bear to the truth will be at least as earnest,
maintain its . , , n i x . i . i
ground as Weighty, as powerlul as ever, is there tfien reason
againstRomanism, to fear, that It will notwithstanding be so crippled by
the failure of material resources, as to be unable to hold Its
ground against Romanism ? That superior organization of the
Romish hierarchy, on which so much stress has been laid, as
rendering the contest hopelessly unequal, little as It is to be
en-vied by any Christian Church, and fearful as is the price paid
for It, may be a very formidable engine, but It is not one -with
which the Irish Reformed Church wiU have to cope for the first
time ; and Its own organization most probably wIU, and certainly
may be, better fitted for the contest than it ever was before.
Then, when I consider the wealth of its members, and that their
liberality wUl be stimulated by the share they will have In the
management of Its affairs, and when I remember the munificence
lately displayed by one of them In a great work of piety, I think
I see reasonable ground of hope, though I am fully aware that
the financial prosperity of an unestablished Church depends much
more on the contributions of the many than of the few. Again,

CHARGES. 225
when I think of the outburst of Protestant zeal which was evoked
by the recent measure, it seems to me that I am hardly at liberty
to Imagine that It will evaporate in clamour and invective, and
leave the cause for which it professes such ardent devotion, with
out substantial support. Least of all do I think It likely that
there wIU be any abatement of the Church's missionary activity,
which some years ago was attended with remarkable success,
among the Roman Catholics. There appears to be rather more
ground for the apprehension which has been expressed, that the
proselytizing movement may be carried on with Increased energy,
but with some lack of discretion. On the whole, the future of
the Irish Church Is, under Providence, in her own hands. There
appears to be nothing In the nature of things to prevent her from
enjoying a degree of prosperity, at least as great as In any former
period of her history.
Our sympathy with the fortunes of the Irish Church cannot be
whoUy disinterested, or unaccompanied by grave reflec- ^^^ ajg^sta-
tions on the mode in which our own Church may be ^^S™'
affected by that which has come to pass. I cannot agree our omi
with those who consider It as paving the way for the
destruction of our own Establishment, and I am surprised that
friends of our Church should have taken pains to show that the
event which they anticipate, is a natural and logical sequel of
that which they deplore. Candour does not seem to me to require
that, in estimating our own position, we should dweU exclusively
on the points most favourable to our adversaries, and overlook
those which make for our own interests. Those who have been so
anxious to show an analogy between the cases of the two Churches
seem to have forgotten that If they succeeded In their attempt,
the result would be, not In the least to strengthen the security of
the Church which they wished to defend, but only to Involve the
other in its ruin, by supplying Its assailants with the most power
ful engines for Its overthrow. The whole argument proceeds on
an erroneous assumption. It supposes that a certain abstract
principle, previously laid down, had been applied to the Irish
Church, and that this principle, being also in some degree appllc-
VOL. II. Q

226 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
able to the Church of England, would therefore be sure to be
applied to it. This supposition is quite unwarranted by the facts
of the case, and at variance with the whole tenour of our expe
rience. The truth is, that the pecuUar features of the Irish
Establishment had presented to the minds of statesmen what,
whether rightly or wrongly, was commonly regarded as a mon
strous anomaly and a great practical evil. In the reformation of
this abuse, the principle of religious equaUty was called iuto
action in a somewhat rough, unscientific way Indeed, and, as I
think, In an unhappy form of common destitution. But, as has
often been remarked, especially by foreigners, nothing is more
alien from the character of the English mind, than a consistent
embodying of general principles in poUtical institutions, or ia
legislation. There is nothing which, as a people, we value less,
or rather which we regard -with more of positive suspicion and
dislike, than that carrying out of a precedent Into its logical
consequences, on which some other nations pride themselves.
We rather glory in the absence of theoretical symmetry, as a sign
of the historical growth, and as a cause of the happy working, of
our Constitution.
Noresem- ^^ ^^^ ^^ o^ty whou aU the Special features of the
t4™nthe' c^se are overlooked or ignored, that a comparison
irifh Est™- between the English and the Irish EstabUshments can
lishments. seem to show resemblance, and not an almost complete
contrast. And this Is true, not only In general, but with regard
to that part of the Church In which our own lot has been cast,
though it has sometimes been represented as exhibiting a close
parallel. To make one, it would be necessary in the first place
to create or re-vive — and only for the purpose of immediately
destroying it — an institution entirely unknown to our law, a
Church of Wales, having, like that of Ireland, a history distinct
from that of the Church of England. It would further be neces
sary to separate the Principality from England by a physical
partition Uke the Irish Channel, and also to Increase its population
sevenfold. And the analogy In this respect would still not be
complete, unless there existed in the Principality a wide-spread

CHARGES. 227
desire for a poUtical severance from England. But above all it
would be necessary that there should be an Inward spiritual
partition, separating one sect of the population from the rest ; as
in Ireland, above aU other countries, Protestants are separated
from Roman Catholics. I need hardly remind you, my Reverend
Brethren, how -wide is the difference between the two cases in this
last particular, which Is the most important of aU. You are
aware of the comparatively recent origin of Welsh Origin of
•'¦_•' ° . _ Welsh Non-
Nonconformity, that It arose for the most part within conformity.
the Church itself, through the exertions of clergymen, intended
by them not to create a schism, but to Infuse new life Into the
ministrations of the Church, and thus to increase its usefulness
and to strengthen its foundations ; and at how late a period the
separatist congregations which they founded, felt themselves at
liberty to receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion from any
other hands than those of episcopaUy ordained ministers. I need
not dweU on the painful recoUection of the fatal blindness through
which the breach was widened and became seemingly irreparable.
But still, after aU, what even now is that breach. Relation
compared with that which parts Protestant from Roman ^^^^ ^^
CathoUc Ireland? It is as a crevice caused by the cathSo
summer heat, to a chasm opened into the depths of the
rocks by an earthquake. It has been urged as an argument, and
I believe it to be perfectly true as a fact, that the Irish Protestant
clergy enjoy the respect and goodwUl of their Roman CathoUc
neighbours, especiaUy of the poorer class, who willingly avail
themselves of their kindness, and entrust them with the manage
ment of their temporal concerns. But it is equally certain that,
notwithstanding this confidence and esteem, there is not one of
those who gladly receive these benefits, who would not deem It a
mortal sin to accept the ghostly counsel, and still more to attend
the pubUc ministrations, of their legal pastors. I need ^^^j-^^^..
not say how Impossible it would be for a Romish priest ^'ctac'h^^
to join in the devotions of a Protestant place of worship. ™™'
How does that correspond with the state of things which we
have before our eyes ? to the crowds of Nonconformists who flock
Q 2

228
to our churches when the pulpit Is to be fiUed by a popular
preacher ? to that which Is in the experience of several now
present ? I have ordained not a few Nonconformist ministers,
who, sometimes at a considerable sacrifice of emoluments, sought
admission Into the ministry of our Church. But In no instance
have I found that they regarded themselves as having renounced
religious convictions which had before satisfied their own souls,
and had been the ground of their teaching. It was not another
Gospel which they meant to preach in the new pulpit, or which
their new congregation desired to hear. It was just on this
account that they felt at liberty, and even bound in conscience, to
lay aside a show of dissent -nlilch betokened no substantial differ
ence, and to become Churchmen in profession, as they had long
been at heart. Let It not be thought that I regard the questions
on which those who are caUed orthodox Nonconformists, are
really at variance with us as unimportant. But their importance
is of a quite secondary order, and they mostly excite much greater
Interest In the clergy tban In the laity ; and whatever their
importance may be, it vanishes in comparison not only with those
which are at issue between the Churches of England and of Rome,
but with those which separate members of the Church of England
who regard the Reformation as a blessing, from those who speak
of It as " an act of Divine vengeance."*
Tendency of But though I Cannot view the disestablishment of the
ion towards Irlsh Church In the light of a cause operating to subvert
our own
Church. that of our own country, I do think that as a sign of the
times, as an indication of the direction in which public opinion Is
mo-ving, it m.aj well Inspire the friends of our Church with uneasy
forebodings. The facts which I have stated do Indeed in my
opinion sufficiently account for the strength of tbe adverse senti
ment to which the Irish EstabUshment succumbed. But the
* As the Rev. Dr. Littledale, Priest of the Church of England. There is too
much reason to fear, that in this view he may not stand alone ; but it may be hoped
that the amenities which accompanied the expression of this opinion, which, though
not new to those who ever heard an Italian Capuchin raU against Luther and
Calvin, sounded a little strange in the mouth of an English clergyman and
gentleman, are peculiar to the Rev. Dr. Littledale, Priest of the Church of
England.

CHARGES, 229
manner in which its abolition was effected, the rejection of every
proposal which, however consistent with the principle of religious
equality, seemed to preserve a remnant or shadow of EstabUsh
ment, attest the prevalence of a feeling, which was not confined
to the one object assailed, and which will not be content with the
victory it has won. It shows that we must not only be prepared
for a like assault, but that we must make up our minds to expect
an equaUy rigorous appUcation of the principle which governed
the treatment of the Irish Church, to our own. I might point to
some other omens of less moment, but not devoid of grave signi
ficance, which look the same way. Until very lately it ^dvccates
was new to us to see the views of the Liberation Society ushmlnt^ "
adopted b-y clerg-ymen who stIU minister In our Church, clergy of
•^ *'. °'' _ different
We know indeed for what ends they advocate separation schools.
between Church and State ; why it Is they are Impatient of their
present position, and desire to exchange it for a congregational
independence which will enable them to advance as far as they
-wiU toward the goal which they have In view. This may deprive
their opinion of all weight with any but those who concur in their
alms ; but it deserves nevertheless to be taken Into account as one
of the corrosive and disintegrating elements which threaten the
stability of the edifice.
And as a sign of the times It does not stand alone. Voices are
heard, proceeding from an entirely different. If not directly
opposite school, not Indeed caUing so loudly for a dissolution
of the union between Church and State, but not less clearly
showing that it Is a contingency to which the speakers look
forward, not only without fear, but with complacency and hope
fulness. And to these must be added a third and very con
siderable party of persons, clergy and laymen, who, while profess
ing their desire for the continuance of the Establishment, are
constantly expressing. In the strongest language, their vehement
dissatisfaction with Its present condition ; though they hardly
affect to believe that, as long as the Union lasts, the changes
which they represent as essential to the welfare of the Church, if
not to thc legitimacy of its title to that name, though by others

230 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
they are deprecated as fraught with mischief, wUl ever be brought
about. These things are signs and symptoms ; but they are more than
that : they tend to produce the effect to which they point. I
Cause of the havc no commlssIon to prophesy, nor any desire to speak
danger. smooth things. But as far as I can see by such Ught as
has been given me. It does not appear to me that our Church is
actually In danger from without, certainly not as the effect of
that which has befallen the Irish Church. But I think that she
Is threatened with very serious danger from within. The safety
of her temporal state must, so far as earthly agencies are con
cerned, depend ultimately on public opinion ; and it seems to me
beyond a doubt, that what has been going on within our pale,
especially during the last ten years, has acted with great force on
public opinion, and has tended more and more to turn It against
her. And the danger Is not confined to the loss of her temporal
position. If that was all, though I should think It an evil not
likely to be counterbalanced by any advantage which it is reason
able to expect, still I should not contemplate it -with despondency.
I should be ready to hope that It may be overruled, so as in the
end to work for our good. But I cannot look forward with the
same equanimity to the ulterior consequences of the event, which
present themselves to my mind as inevitable. For it seems to me
hardly possible to doubt that the final result would be the dis-
itsdisestab- ruptlon of the Church Into two or three sects, one of
lishment , -. . t
would in- which would probably, sooner or later, be merged in the
ruption. ChuTch of Romc. There would be diverse AngUcan
Churches, but no longer a Church of England. Who could
pretend to forecast the effects of such a dismemberment on the
Colonial Churches, or our foreign missions ? It Is enough to say
that it is the state to which our chief adversary, whom nothing
can satisfy but our destruction, most eagerly desires, and is most
actively labouring to see us reduced.
A Church may perish through decay of its vital forces, may
shrivel up into a mere form, from which the spirit has fled, and
for which nothing can be more desirable than that It should be

CHARGES. 231
swept away to make room for a living reality. But the spectacle
of a Church going to wreck through the opposite cause, through
an exuberance of -vigour wasted In Internal conflicts, is even more
painful to contemplate. But as long as it is not a mere ^^^^^^i^^^,.
possibility, but a real and actually imminent danger, it l^^^^^
Is right that we should keep it steadily in -view, because ™^'
it has a most important bearing on practical questions, which are
constantly coming before us, and calling for decision. I trust I
hardly need say that I do not mean to suggest any unmanly sup
pression of opinion, still less any compromise of truth. But I
think there is a special call upon us, " seriously to lay to heart
the great dangers we are in by our unhappy dmslons ; " not to
do any thing which it would not be our duty to do at all times ;
but to do It under a more solemn sense of personal, individual
responsibiUty ; to be, more than ever careful that we do not In our
several spheres of action needlessly increase those dangers by the
manner in which we give effect or expression to our opinions ;
that we do not set stumbling-blocks In the way of our brethren ;
that we abstain from all that can only serve to provoke passion
and kindle strife ; that we take pains to discriminate between
things essential and things indifferent, and make sure never to
sacrifice peace to any thing less sacred than Divine truth.
The length at which I have been led to dwell on these topics
-will not, I hope, have appeared disproportion ed to their interest
and importance. But the remark I have just made, naturaUy
turns our thoughts to the causes of that inward ferment and
distraction which has assumed so threatening an aspect. I dealt
with this subject so largely In my last Charge, that It Recent
/v. . , . phaaesof
Will be sufficient for me now to touch briefly on some of Kituaiism.
the recent phases through which it has passed. So much has
been said and written of late, which tends to a confusion of ideas
on the state of the question, that it may be useful to recall it dis
tinctly to our minds.
It has been observed with much truth, though with little rele
vancy, that the Ritualistic movement corresponds to a general
tendency of the age in which we live, toward a larger application

232of the Fine Arts to public and private purposes.* It was impos
sible, it Is said, that the effect of this newly-awakened craving
Eituaiism for the Satisfaction of a more refined and Intelligent taste,
the applica
tion of the gbould not manifest Itself In all material objects connected
Erne Arts to •'
religion. .^-^^^ ^he public cxercIse of religion. May it not be
considered as a duty virtually Implied in the precept, " Let aU
things be done decently and in order ? "f So the condition, out
ward and Inward, of our sacred buildings, and even of our school
rooms, which satisfied former generations, is in our day felt to be
no longer tolerable. Why then, it Is asked, should It be thought
less natural and fitting that the influence of this feeling should be
extended to the public services of the Church ? that a craving
should arise for a larger amount of ornament In the furniture of
the sanctuary and In the vesture of the clergy ? And If outward
splendour was divinely enjoined in the Temple worship, must it
not be at least permitted In that of the Christian Church ?+
* ¦' A Plain View of Ritualism." By Francis T. Palgrave, late Fellow of Exeter
College, Oxford, in " Macmillan's Magazine," September, 1867.
t " Let all Things be Done Decently and in Order :" a Homily by the Kev. J.
M. Rodwell, M.A.
j " The Law of Ritual." By the late Bishop Hopkins, of Vermont. This work
has been warmly greeted by persons with whom, as to the root of the matter, the
author certainly felt any thing rather than sympathy, and who, on that very
account, have actively circulated the book, as if it had beeu the admission of a
reluctant witness in favour of their -views. The Bishop's position is, that the
Ceremonial Law was not abrogated, but continues in force, except as to the
Gentiles, and as to the Jews in points — such as the limitation of the priesthood and
animal sacrifices —in which it would have been inconsistent with the Christian
Revelation. He grounds this opinion partly on the absence of a formal express
abrogation, partly on the fact that the Apostles taught daily in the Temple, and
used the symgogues for the like purpose ; but mainly on the two concessions made
by St. Paul to Jewish feelings, in the circumcising of Timothy (Acts x-vi. 3), and in
his own association with the persons under a vow (Acts xxi. 26). As to the last, it
may be observed that it was a voluntary act, not involving any doctrinal principle.
As to the former, the narrative itself shows that St. Paul did not take the step
because it was prescribed in the Law, but " because of the Jews." If a clergyman
who had made a disciple of a Quaker, was to baptize him, because of his brother
clergy or of parishioners, he could not believe Baptism to be a Sacrament of Christ.
But it must also be remembered that though we may hardly possess sufficient data
for judging St. Paul's conduct, we have no surer guarantee of his infallibility in a
matter of discipline than he himself had of St. Peter's (Gal. ii. H). By this process
Bishop Hopkins is led to a somewhat startUng conclusion. " If," he says, p. 30,
"in the Providence of God, a Church should again arise, consisting of converted
Jews, or if individual Jews should be added from time to time, as members of a

CHARGES.

233

The justice of these remarks is unquestionable, as long as they
are confined to the abstract, and kept clear of all direct bearing
on the practical question. We thankfully rejoice in the How far the
craving for
happy change which has renovated the face of the church or-
X X J D nament is
Church with goodly buildings, and has In many respects tenefldai.
brought the mode of conducting Divine Service to a closer observ
ance of the Apostolic precept. No greater injury can be done to
the cause of Protestant truth, than to represent It as inconsistent
with either cheerfulness or solemnity In public worship, and as
compelling those who desire to worship In the beauty of hoUness,
to seek it elsewhere than In the Church of England. We may go
farther, and concede that the gorgeousness of the Temple worship
is not In itself absolutely unlawful, or excluded by any Divine
command from the Christian sanctuary, however questionable
may be the propriety of introducing It with regard to the use of
edifying ; though we cannot admit that the pattern of the Temple
ought to regulate the worship of the Church. The idea of such
an Imitation arose after the love of the Church had begun to wax
cold, and it was more and more developed as the primitive purity
of faith and practice declined. But it is Idle to discuss these
points when the real question Is, Whether our Commu- rphe real
nion Office is to be transformed Into the closest possible "^^^ '""'
resemblance to the Romish Mass ? We shall uot find our way
the more easily to any conclusion on that question, by means of
Church which belongs to Gentiles, I do not see by what warrant we could forbid those
.Tews to imitate tbe course of the Apostles, or count it an error in them to circumcise
their children, and 'walk orderly, and keep the Law.'" Circumcision would not
indeed, in those cases, be more generally necessary to salvation than Baptism ; but,
according to this theory, it would be no less so ; and a clergyman who admitted a
Jewish convert into the Church, would not only have no right to " count it an error
in him to circumcise his children," but be bound to exhort him to do so. As the
exceUent author himself is no longer able to develop his theory into the necessary
practical details, it remains for the admirers of his work to solve a number of
curious questions as to the two ordinances, when cumulative ; as whether the elder
is equally a means of grace with the other, and consequently confers a benefit of
which the children of Gentiles are deprived ; and, then, why they should be de
prived of it P One corollary of this theory is, that the whole Christian world has,
from the beginning, been guilty of a gross breach of the Divine Law in omitting
the observance of the seventh day, which was never expressly abrogated. There is
nothing else in tho Bishop's work sufficiently new or important to call for notice.

234 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
any general statements either on the employment of the Fine
Arts for religious purposes, or on the propriety of grafting the
Jewish ritual on the New Dispensation. The most strenuous
advocates of the movement themselves indignantly repudiate the
supposition, that their object Is simply to make the service more
attractive. In their eyes the whole value of ceremonial consists
in Its significance as a -visible symbol of doctrine ;* and the ques
tion is as to the right of indmdual clergymen to introduce innova
tions of such a character. This right was claimed on the ground
of the language of the Church in the Rubrics of the Prayer Book.
But this language was so far from clear, that lawyers of the
highest eminence took opposite views of its meaning.
StIU there can be no doubt that every clergyman, however
The right of Wanting In familiarity with legal reasoning, however
individual destitute of learning, and of all qualifications that could
opinion on
the Eubrios. g^ye the slightest weight to his opinion. Is at fuU liberty
to form one for himself, and to hold It with the firmest convic
tion. But if, not content with this, he attempts to impose his
private judgment upon the Church, and makes his public minis
trations a vehicle for publishing them in her name, and as with
her authority, he Is abusing the privilege of his position, and
usurping a licence IrreconcUable with law and order. And the
door thus thro-wn open for the -wUdest play of individual caprice,
is indefinitely widened when each clergyman takes upon him to
Interpret the Rubric according to his private idea of something
which he calls Catholic usage. And from this we may see the
futility of the plea which is often urged In defence of these pro
ceedings, that they are at least more harmless than unsound doc
trine, which clergymen sometimes utter -with Impunity through
the press and the pulpit. This would be something to the point.
If those clergymen altered the language of the Prayer Book, to
make it express their opinions. That is an abuse of which I have
* See the evidence of Mr. Bennett before the Ritual Commission : " 2606. Is any
doctrine involved in your using the chasuble P I think there is. — 2607. What is
that doctrine? The doctrine of the sacrifice. — 2608. Do you consider yourself a
sacrificing priest? Distinctly so. — 2611. Then you think you offer a propitiatory
sacrifice ? Yes, I think I do offer a propitiatory sacrifice.

CHARGES. 235
not yet heard ; but for which, if it occurred, a legal remedy is
provided. It seems clear that a law so ambiguous and obscure as to lend
itself to the most widely divergent Interpretations, ^jj^j^,,;.
cannot serve the purpose of a rule to guide any one's |?a°ctic^uy
conduct. PracticaUy, It is no more a law than if it ™^^^^-
were written in an unknown tongue. One who professes to be
governed by it, in the sense which he chooses to adopt, is reaUy
making a law for himself ; and when he does so in contravention
of the general long-received usage of the Church, he is sacrificing
peace and charity to a selfish spirit and a lawless wiU. Even a
judicial decision can never Impart more than a temporary and
insecure authority to any one of the conflicting Interpretations.
It can only indicate that, to the mind of the Court, the weight of
argument appeared to turn the scale on this side. It is no doubt
binding In practice, as long as it remains unreversed, on aU aUke,
whether they assent to it or not. But It can have no greater
Intrinsic value than that of the arguments on which it rests. Yet
the Rubric commonly caUed the Ornaments Rubric — Er^^^tii*^
on which so many volumes have been written, proving ^r™of
nothing more clearly than the hopelessness of arriving praJaces.'°
at any satisfactory conclusion on Its legal force — has been taken
as the groufidwork of the Ritualistic practices, with a confidence
as strong as if it left no room for the slightest doubt. It appeared
to sorae — and among others to our late lamented Primate* — that
this was a case for which provision had been made in the Preface
of the Prayer Book, where it is directed that, " for the resolution
of all doubts concerning the manner how to understand, do, and
execute the things contained In this Book, the parties that so
doubt or diversely take any thing, shall alway resort to the Bishop
of the Diocese, who by his discretion shall take order for the
quieting and appeasing of the same, so that the same order be
not contrary to any thing contained in this Book." It has, how
ever, been ruled by the highest authority, the Supreme Court of
Appeal, that the Bishop can have no jurisdiction to modify or
* In his posthumous Charge, p. 16.

236 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
dispense with any thing expressly ordered or prohibited In a
Bishops Rubric ; and it appears to be now weU understood, that
have no
modifr*or ^^^ direction In the Preface applies only to cases where,
wiufany through the absence of such express order or prohibition,
Eubric. latitude is given for diversity of opinion, and for the
exercise of discretion ; but that it was not intended to give the
Bishop jurisdiction In his domestic forum, to decide whether a
thing Is ordered or prohibited by a Rubric. But If this Is beyond
tbe power of a Bishop, can it be within the discretion of a
Presbyter ? Can he be allowed to plead the steadfastness of his
reliance on his own private judgment, as a proof that no " doubt
has arisen " In the matter ? The direction In the Preface does
not empower the Bishop to solve the legal doubt. But the
spirit of the direction, taken as a rule of charity, of humility, of
modesty, seems eminently applicable to this case. It is hard to
conceive one in which It would more become a clergyman to con
sult his Bishop, before he took a step which, whether legaUy
justifiable or not, was so sure to give offence to many, and to open
a fresh breach In the Church ; and this is equally true whether
the matter In dispute be accounted of great or of little Importance.
To most persons this whole question of vestments appears to be In
Itself something exceedingly small and petty. And one of the
leading Ritualists admits, that " in tri-vlal and immaterial things
It would be natural to follow the Bishop's advice." But in his
eyes the vestments are " Important things," and therefore as to
them " the Bishop has no authority." They are too Important to
be submitted to the judgment of the Bishop, but not too Important
to be determined by that of any clergyman In his diocese, and
that not even professedly according to the directions of the Prayer
Book, but according to the " rules of the Catholic Church," of
which he claims to be a fully competent interpreter.*
It was generaUy felt that the peace and the honour of the
Church required that an end should be put to this state of confusion
and anarchy ; and a Royal Commission was appointed with that
* See Mr. Bennett's examination before the Ritual Commission, p. 83, 3024. 3030.
3031. 3033.

CHARGES. 237
view. But, In the meanwhile, proceedings were Instituted to try
the legality of the recent practices ; and the result has Appoint-
been that, on every point hitherto contested in the Eoyai Com-
, , , . mission on
Ecclesiastical Courts — ^points, It must be remembered, on EituaUsm.
which the innovators assumed the law to be so clearly on their side,
as not even to admit of any doubt or diversity of opinion — on every
one of these points their departure from the long-received usage,
has, by the Supreme Court of Appeal, been pronounced Illegal.
The questions mooted were the elevation of the paten and cup
during the Prayer of Consecration, kneeling and prostra- Questions
tion before the consecrated elements, the Ughting of theiegai
proceed-
candles on the Communion Table during the celebration, ™ss.
the using of incense, and the mixing of water with the wine used in
the administration of the Holy Communion. There was no doubt
as to the antiquity of all these ceremonies, nor that some were
things Indifferent, and not at variance with any principle of the
Reformed Church. And in favour of the use of lights it was
urged — and successfully before the learned Judge of the Court of
Arches — that they symboUzed Christ as the light of the World.*
It seems to have been overlooked that, when placed on the Com
munion Table during the celebration of the Holy Communion,
though not on the pulpit at the Sermon, they must be supposed
to have some more pecuUar significance, and that this could be no
other than that to which the Incense, the Elevation, the KneeUng
and Prostration also pointed. But the ground on which they were
condemned was not their significance, but simply that they had
not been adopted by the Church of England. And after having
laid down the broad principle of their decision, the Court makes a
remark which seems to me pregnant -with larger conclusions : —
" Their Lordships have not referred to the usage as to opinion of
lights during the last 300 years ; but they are of opinion uponMghts.
that the very general disuse of lights after the Reformation
* Mr. Rodwell, in the above-cited Homily, p. 16, gives a different interpretation,
founded on the number of the Ughts, and treats it as a well-known fact : " Of
course, you know that the candles lighted on the altar signify the light of faith
revealed to Jews and Gentiles — the two natures of Christ, the Di-vine and human,
united in His sacred person." Why not the two sacraments ?

238 (whatever exceptional cases to the contrary might be produced)
contrasted with their normal and prescribed use previously, affords
a very strong contemporaneous and continuous exposition of the
law upon the subject."
I need hardly point out the bearing of this remark on the
Construe- questlou of the Vestments. But I must observe that
Eubric be^- there is a passage In the Judgment which has been
Prayer of diversely Interpreted, and which threatens to disturb
Consecra- "; ^
tion- that uniformity of practice which it was its general
object to promote. Speaking of the Rubric before the Prayer of
Consecration, the Committee say, " Their Lordships entertain no
doubt on the construction of this Rubric, that the priest Is
intended to continue in one posture during the prayer, and not to
change from standing to kneeling, or vice versd ; and it appears to
them equally certain that the priest is intended to stand, and not
to kneel. They think that the words ' standing before the Table '
apply to the whole sentence ; and they think that this is made
more apparent by the consideration that acts are to be done by the
priest before the people as the prayer proceeds (such as the taking
the paten and chalice Into his hands, breaking the bread, and
laying his hands on the various vessels) which could only be
done in the attitude of standing." This has been construed as
ruling that the priest Is to remain standing In front of the Table
throughout the Prayer of Consecration. But It must be observed
that the Court was not called upon to decide any question as to
the position of the minister, but only as to his posture ; and that
the context seems clearly to show that It was this alone they had
in view. The whole relates to the alternative of standing or
kneeling ; and the reason assigned for the attitude of standing
applies equaUy, if not with greater force, in favour of the usual
position. I think, therefore, that a clergyman would be Ul-
advlsed who, untUthis question shall have been judicially decided,
should turn his back to the people during the Prayer of Consecra
tion. No doubt, if it was clear that this was the meaning of the
Judgment, it ought to be obeyed. But I think that the best way
of so doing would be for the minister to stand before the table

CHARGES. 239
with his face to the congregation, which I beUeve to have been
the primitive usage, as weU as the only one which fuUy carries
out the direction of breaking bread before the people.
It was to be expected that a judgment which not only forbade
practices to which the Ritualists were strongly attached. The judg-
but convicted them of rash presumption in acting -with tasteful to
. . . theEitua-
such confidence on a private opinion which turned out to ^^«-
be erroneous, should provoke loud complaints and be vehemently
assailed. I may be aUowed to believe that, in a question of law,
the learned persons who delivered that judgment under such grave
responsibUity were, at least, as competent to form a sound opinion
as any of the theologians by whom It has been Impugned. Still
every one is, of course, at Uberty to think as he will for himself,
and to beUeve that he Is in possession of the truth which had
eluded their Investigation. But it could hardly have been
expected that clergymen should have been found to set the judg
ment at defiance, and to persist in the practices which It has
unequivocaUy condemned. Some however, it seems, have done so
in professed obedience to a higher law of the CathoUc Church,
which overrules the decisions of every secular tribunal. And it
must be observed that when they appeal to that higher law, what
they really mean Is nothing more than their own Interpretation of
it. In other words, it is their own private judgment which they
set up as the Supreme Court of Appeal and measure of truth.
The Vestment question still awaits a judicial decision, which
may or may not be conformable to the general principle Further
laid down In the passage I have cited from the Judg- on the
Vestment
ment of the Judicial Committee. In the meanwhile the question.
discussion it has undergone has, I think, placed it in so clear a
light as to leave no room for doubt in any impartial mind on the
most important practical points. That the Church, which has the
right to restore purity of doctrine, has fuU authority to regulate
the official dress of her ministers, can hardly be denied, except by
those who woiUd exalt the outward above the inward. But it is
our happiness also to know that the almost universal feeUng which
discarded the gaudy pre-Reformation vestments, and retained the

240 surpUce as the most fitting garb for the celebration of the Lord's
Supper, as well as of every other part of Divine service, is In
perfect accordance with that of primitive Christianity, which sub
sisted until the Church, through the sinister influence of Rome,
began to be corrupted and disfigured by an Imitation of the
Temple worship.
Vestments of In the earlier ages a Christian who read In the
the Primi- . i i t • • n i i .
tive Church. Apocalypsc the description of the woman "arrayed m
purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold, and precious
stones, and pearls," could not recognize an Image of the Church
of Christ : he coiUd only view her apparel as proper to the
"mother of abominations."* It was not through poverty that the
Church abstained from such ornaments. We have the fullest
evidence that vestments of briUiant colours were regarded by
Christians as heathenish, unmanly, and meretricious, fit only for
the stage, or for the rites of Pagan superstition, in which they
were worn by the sacrificing priests. On the other hand, white
raiment satisfied all their wants of appropriate symbolism, and
appeared to them most truly beautiful. The thing which would
probably have amazed them most of all would have been to hear
that the ornaments which In their minds were associated with all
that was most profane, effeminate, and impure, were the best
fitted for the celebration of their hoUest mysteries. Yet these
ornaments are often described as essential parts of " Catholic "
Ritual, as if during the first four centuries the Church was not
CathoUc. Their absence is said to make our worship cold, bare,
and naked. Let us console ourselves with the reflection that, if It
Is less fervent than that of the Church of the Martyrs, it is not
because either our sacred buildings, or the persons of our ministers,
are less richly adorned ; and that the outward splendour was
never In any age a help toward reviving declining fervour of
devotion, but only a very poor substitute for it. We may also
Infer -with great confidence from all we know, that the need or
propriety of a peculiar vestment for solemnizing the Lord's
Supper — which is now insisted on almost as an axiom — never
* Rev. xvii. 4, 5.

CHARGES. 241
entered the minds of those early Christians ; though, if It had, the
vestments adopted by the Ritualists after the Romish fashion, are
the last they would have chosen for the purpose. If these are
expressive of any doctrine. It must be one which either was not
held by the early Church, and therefore Is not Catholic, or which
the Church did not think it right so to express.*
The doctrine which Is now propounded under the name of the
Real Objective Presence is, as I believe, no less foreign The real
to the faith of the primitive Church than the modern Presence.
symbolism to Its practice. In the sense — If it may be so called —
attached to it by its leading advocates. It appears to me to have
no warrant either in Scripture or in genuine ancient tradition.
Nevertheless, I think It much to be lamented that any statement
of this doctrine, purporting to be in accordance with the mind of
the Church of England, should be made the subject of penal pro
secution. It still appears to me — as I expressed myself on a
simUar occasion in my Charge of 1857 — that, "to sustain a charge
of unsound doctrine, involving penal consequences, nothing ought
to suffice but the most direct unequivocal statements, asserting
that which the Church denies, or denying thatwhich she asserts."
Since I last addressed you, the question has been publicly raised
by a Memorial on the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which „
'' ^ Memonal on
was presented to our late Primate. It was signed by 'f tJ*""*™^
twenty-one clergymen, all more or less distinguished ™ ""^ '
members of the Ritualistic party, though not all adopting the
Ritualistic practices, and Including one eminently learned theo
logian. But its importance does not depend upon these signatures;
for it is clearly to be considered as the manifesto of a great party
in the Church ; and, -viewing it in that light, I think I am hardly
at liberty to pass It over In silence.
It divides Itself into three heads: the Doctrine of the Real
Objective Presence, of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and of the Adora
tion of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament ; and under each, states
first the opinion which the memorialists repudiate, and then the
doctrine which they hold. Under the first head they repudiate
* See Marriott, " Vestiai-ium Chrislianum,'' chaps, iii. iv.
VOL. II. K

242 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
the opinion of a " Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh
and Blood ;" that is to say, of the Presence of His Body
Its language ' ./ ' j
c^iTord ^^^ Blood as They " are in heaven ; " and the conception
resence. ^£ ^j^^ Mode of HIs Presence, which implies the physical
change of the natural substances of the Bread and Wine, com
monly called "Transubstantiation." They believe that in the
Holy Eucharist, by virtue of the Consecration, through the power
of the Holy Ghost, the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, "the
inward part or Thing signified," are Present, really and truly, but
spIrltuaUy and Ineffably, under "the outward visible part or sign,"
or "form of Bread and Wine."
It must be observed that, although at the outset one of tbe
Doctrines to be maintained is described as that of the Real
Exclusion of Objective Presence, the word objective does not appear In
"objective." any of the subsequent statements ; so that It would seem
as if — In the opinion of those who framed the document — It would
have added nothing to that which Is signified by the adverbs really
and truly. But we are thus led to ask, whether these terms
themselves add any thing to that which is signified by the word
present ? For whatever Is present any where at aU, must be really
and truly present. But the sense which would most readfly
suggest Itself, when these words are used with reference to the
Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ, is that they are present
as they reaUy and truly are, that is, as real Flesh and Blood.
But as this sense is expressly repudiated, unless they are merely
superfluous adjuncts, they must have some other meaning which is
not explained In the context, and Is not very easy to find. There
are two senses in which we may speak intelligibly of the presence
of a material object : the one Uteral, the other figurative.
LlteraUy, a body Is present in the space which it fills ; figura
tively. It may be present as a thought to the mind. And in this
last sense it might be properly said to be spiritually present to the
thinking subject. But that could not be the meaning of those
who describe that which they speak of as an Objective Presence.
They seem to have used the word " spiritually " as opposed to
corporally or physically. We are therefore left to search for some

CHARGES. 243
kind of Presence which is neither literal nor figurative. But in
what region of nature or of thought is such a Presence to be found ?
If our absolute incapacity to conceive It Is not a proof that it has
no existence, at least it makes it impossible to frame any proposi
tion concerning it, of which we could say that it is either true or
false. The only term reaUy appropriate by which it is described in
the Memorial, is ineffable. And thus it turns out that the statement
which purports to be positive, is, in fact, merely negative, j^
It denies that the Presence is one of which any thing can ^f p ™
be predicated. The addition of ,the words, under "the posMve%ut
outward visible part or sign," or " form of Bread and
Wine," as it only expresses what is literally present, can throw no
light on a Presence of a totaUy different kind. This negative
truth may be of no great value, but It Is at least inoffensive. It
might even afford a basis of general agreement, if it had not been
so worded as to hold out the appearance of an affirmation which,
on closer inspection, proves fallacious. The Objective character
of the Presence was probably supposed to be marked by the
description given of It, as affected by virtue of the Consecration,
through the power of the Holy Ghost. But if the change
wrought in the elements by Consecration was purely relative, and
if we hold with Hooker that " the Real Presence of Christ's most
blessed Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament,
but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament," still the Presence
would not be the less Objective. It would not be the work of the
receiver, but would be brought about " through the power of the
Holy Ghost," imparting to believing souls the benefits signified by
the communion of Christ's Body and Blood.
The next thing repudiated is the notion of any fresh sacrifice,
or any view of the Eucharistic sacrificial offering, as of Eepudiation
something apart from the One All-sufficient Sacrifice tions on the
^ ^ Eucharistic
and Oblation on the Cross, which alone is that perfect Saci-iflce.
Redemption, Propitiation, and Satisfaction for all the sins of the
whole world, both original and actual, and which alone is " meri
torious." To this is opposed the belief that, "as In heaven
Christ our great High Priest ever offers Himself before the
R 2

244 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Eternal Father, pleading by His Presence His sacrifice of Him
self once offered on the Cross, so on earth in the Holy Eucharist,
that same Body, once for aU sacrificed foi* us, and that same
Blood once for all shed for us, Sacramentally present, are offered
and pleaded before the Father by the Priest, as our Lord ordained
to be done In remembrance of Himself, when He instituted the
Blessed Sacrament of His Body and Blood."
In this last statement there is a remarkable omission.
DifferencesrfJefe""'^'^ doubtless not unintentional, and a little perplexing.
Eucharist^ WhUe It speaks of the Holy Eucharist, it takes no notice
of any difference between one mode of celebrating the
.Eucharist and another. The whole description is perfectly
appUcable to the Roman Mass. But it seems rather too much to
assume that whatever is true of the Mass, also holds with respect
to our " Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or
Holy Communion." Yet the motive assigned for pubUshing tbe
Memorial was the desire to repel Imputations of disloyalty to the
Church of England, which are said to be current, to the discredit
of those who inculcate and defend the doctrines set forth ia It.
For this purpose an expression of beUef In the doctrine of the
Mass would seem, to say the least, irrelevant, and some farther
definition of the Eucharist, as administered in the Liturgy of the
Church of England, almost indispensable. We must at least
assume that our Liturgy was not meant to be excluded from the
scope of the statement, and It is with this alone that we, as
ministers or members of the Church of England, have any concern.
The comparison Itself seems to lie open to the objection, that it
„ . inverts the rule dictated by common sense, and instead
Comparison J '
u^slni^" of lUustratlng that which Is obscure by that which Is
munion clcar, affects to Illustrate that which Is clear by that
ScrvicGi which Is most profoundly and Impenetrably obscure.
The nature of the heavenly intercession is a mystery transcending
aU our powers of thought and imagination, and which human
speech Is utterly Incompetent to express. How then can It shed
any light. If that were needed, on the work of the priest in the
celebration of the Eucharist ? And If it was intended as an

CHARGES. 245
argument to the effect that, because Christ offers Himself in
heaven, therefore It is the object of the Eucharist to make the
same offering on earth, the argument would be as illogical as the
comparison is misapplied. But when, waiving this objection, we
proceed to test the justice of the comparison by reference to our
Eucharist, as administered in our own Communion Office, we find
that there is not a word to suggest It to any mind not previously
imbued with the opinion, and which did not import it Into the
words against their plain and natural meaning. It Is not to any
transaction which Is taking place In the heavenly sanctuary
that the Church turns our thoughts In the Prayer of Consecra
tion, but to that which took place in the guest-chamber at Jeru
salem at the institution of the Lord's Supper. By what Interpre
tation she is made to speak a different language, we shall see
presently. But the faultiness of a comparison need not affect the truth of
the proposition which it is designed to Ulustrate or confirm. If
in this case there had been no comparison, it would have been
equally true, or equaUy false, that " on earth in the Holy
Eucharist that same Body once for aU sacrificed for us, and that
same Blood once for all shed for us, Sacramentally Present, are
offered and pleaded before the Father by the priest." Is -^^ethe
X J r statements
then this statement true or false ? or rather. Is it, or is th^EuJha-
it not, consistent with the doctrine of our Church ? I tent^thtiie
1 11X11 1 doctrine of
can only say that when 1 analyze the statement, and our church
examine the several propositions involved in It, I can find none
that any Churchman, however he might prefer to express himself
in different terms. Is bound to reject. None, I think, would deny
that the Sacrifice pleaded by the Church, as well in her Com
munion Office as whenever she prays through, or in the name, or
for the sake of Jesus Christ, is the Sacrifice of the same Body
which suffered on the Cross. And as to the Presence, the expres
sion " sacramentally present " appears to be most happily adapted
to comprehend every possible shade of opinion, as some kind of
Presence is admitted by aU, and none question that it Is one
according, and not contrary, to the nature of a Sacrament. An

246 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
agreement depending on the ambiguity of language cannot Indeed
be perfectly satisfactory ; but It may be the best that the nature
of the question permits.
As the statement begins with a comparison which was not
essential, so it ends with a remark which may be separated from
it without altering its character. It Is, " as our Lord ordained,
to be done in remembrance of Himself, when He instituted the
Words of Blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood." That what
is done In our Order of the Administration of the Lord's
Supper Is done according to His holy Institution, is of course the
belief of our whole Church : so that to a person not conversant
with the controversies of the day, the remark might have seemed
superfluous. But, In fact, it is so far from expressing any thing
on which aU are agreed, that I believe the opinion to which it
alludes is that of a very small minority. It is that the words of
Institution, recorded by St. Luke, and recited in our Prayer of
Consecration, have been mistranslated and generally misunder
stood ; that the Greek word rendered do properly means sacrifice,
and that the word rendered remembrance also signifies a sacrificial
memorial.* I believe this to be altogether a mistake, and that
the argument as to the word rendered do moves in a vicious circle,
and assumes the thing to be proved. It Is true that the Greek
verb In the Septuagint often has the sense of sacrifice or offer ; but
only when the noun which it governs signifies that which Is a
victim or offering, and thus determines the sense of the verb. But
in the words of Institution, that which we render this has no such
sense, except on the hypothesis which is to be demonstrated.
EquaUy arbitrary is the sense attached to the word remembrance
as implying sacrifice ; which must always depend on the context.
The view which our Church takes of this point, seems sufficiently
evident from the words which she uses in the deUvery of the
consecrated elements. She nowhere indicates any other. But I
need hardly say that no clergyman is bound to acknowledge the
correctness of the authorized version of Scripture, even in passages
where important doctrines are supposed to depend upon it.
* See the late Bishop Hamilton's Charge of 1867, p. 52.

CHARGES. 247
Under the third head, in the statement of that which is repu
diated, the Memorial follows the Declaration on Kneeling at the
end of the Communion Office. " We repudiate, " say the Adorationof
signers, " aU ' adoration ' of ' the Sacramental Bread and mental
^ Bread and
Wine,' which would be ' idolatry ; ' regarding them "w^»-
with the reverence due to them because of their sacramental re
lation to the Body and Blood of our Lord. We repudiate also aU
adoration of ' a corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and
Blood,' that is to say, of the Presence of His Body and Blood as
they are in heaven." The doctrine asserted Is thus expressed :
" We believe that Christ Himself, really and truly, but spiritually
and ineffably, present in the Sacrament, is therein to be adored."
Here are two points : the Presence of Christ in the ^.^ „.
¦*¦ Difficulties
Sacrament, and the adoration due to It. Enough has thrtems^of
been said already as to the effect of the words really, "^^i""^*'™-
truly, spiritually, and ineffably, in explaining or qualifying the
nature of the Presence. Perhaps it would have been better if the
writer had substituted for them the single word saaramentally,
which covers every thing ; not indeed conveying any distinct
thought to the mind, but leaving unbounded room for every
devout feeling of the heart. But a difficulty arises -with regard
to the description of the Presence, as " in the Sacrament, " and
" therein to be adored. " Taken in their common sense, these
expressions would suggest the idea of a Presence circumscribed by
the dimensions of the visible elements, and thus would seem to
assert what is most offensive in the Roman view ofthe Sacrament.
But from other statements, proceeding partly from the same quarter,
and which must be regarded as equaUy authentic expositions of
the doctrine, it seems that we are not to consider the words in and
therein as signifying a local Inwardness, which is indignantly re
pudiated as equivalent to a material or natural Presence.* On the
* See "The Real Presence; the Worship due." Correspondence between the
Archdeacon of Taunton and the Archdeacon of Exeter.
Archdeacon Denison (p. 14) says, "I contend for the Real Presence of the Body
and the Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist : for the Real Presencp, uot for the
local presence." I share Archdeacon Freeman's perplexity about his correspondent's
meaning, and am sorry that Archdeacon Denison insisted on his right of withholding
any further explanation, though he may have had good reason for despaiiing of

248 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
other hand I find expressions which I can only understand as im-
LooaiPre P^J^'^S ^^^^ *^® Inwardness is local ; for what else can be
sence. meant when it is said, " The true oblation in the Eu
charist is not the Bread and Wine — that is only as the vessel
which contains, or the garment which veils it ; "* local therefore,
but yet not after the manner in which a body fiUs space; not
material nor natural, but incorporeal and supernatural ? Still such
an inwardness may not the less properly be termed local, because
divested of aU the grossness of a material presence. The com
parison of the vessel and the garment Is equally familiar to us when
applied to the body as the receptacle or clothing of the soul.
And I doubt much that any one who Is offended by the expression
would be reconciled to it by this explanation. On the whole, we
cannot lay too much stress on the qualification ineffably, as extend
ing to the locality, and taking it altogether out of the reach of
language and thought.
Then there remains only the question of adoration, disentangled
from that of local or extra-local Inwardness, on which there is
nothing to be said. And this question at once reduces itself to
the single point, whether there is any real and substantial differ
ence between that which is here said to be due to Christ, and that
wbich is claimed for Him by the Church in the Declaration on
Deriaration Kneeling. The Kneeling of tbe Communicants, when
g ^j^gy. j.gQgj.^,g ^jjg Lord's Supper, which Is ordained by
our Office, is there explained and defended as " a signification of
our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ
therein given to all worthy Receivers." But this acknowledg-
making himself intelligible. He complains (p. 3) of having been charged with holding
the tenet, that one purpose of the Holy Eucharist is to provide the Church with an
object of Dii'ine Worship actually enshrined in the elements, namely, our Lord Jesus Christ.
Of course he is not answerable for the language or the doctrine of Mr. Keble. But
still, it is puzzling to find such an apparent contradiction between two such
eminent doctors of the same school, that, while the one does not scruple to speak of
the Bread and Wine as "the vessel which contains, or the garment which veils, the
true oblation in the Eucharist," the other rejects the expression, " enshrined in the
elements," as a calumnious imputation. Bishop Hamilton also (Charge, p. 50) says
of the Bread and Wine, that " by consecration it has been made the veil and channel
of an ineffable mystery."
* Keble, " Eucharistic Adoration," p. 70.

CHARGES. 249
ment must be made to the Divine Author of these benefits, and
then how can we distinguish such humble and grateful acknow
ledgment from adoration ? Who among us would not be wiUing
to adopt the language of Keble ?* " Religious adoration is of the
heart, and not of the lips only ; it is practised in praise and thanks
giving, as well as in prayer ; we adore as often as we approach
God in any act of Divine faith, hope, or love, with or without any
verbal or bodily expression." I cannot indeed agree with that
excellent person In his opinion, that there is a little uncertainty
as to the meaning of the Declaration, when it speaks of the
benefits of Christ therein given to aU worthy Receivers, f I
conceive that the use of the plural, benefits, precludes the construc
tion that not they, but Christ Himself, is said to be given. But
it is not the less true that the result of a worthy reception Is de
scribed in our Office Itself to be, that " then we dwell in Christ,
and Christ In us." Surely adoration is not too strong a word to
express the feeling suited to such an occasion. And but for the
unhappy dispute about the Real Presence, it would probably never
have appeared so to any one.
I am conscious, my Reverend Brethren, that I may seem to owe
you an apology for having detained you so long with a discussion
which to many of you may have appeared to turn on subtle and
unprofitable points of metaphysical theology. But there are
others who speak of this Real Presence as a " great funda- importance
mental matter," and a "vital doctrine of the Gospel."+ the doctiine
oftheEeal
Such an estimate of its importance will no doubt seem Presence.
strangely exaggerated to those who have been used to take a dif
ferent view of the foundation truths of Christianity, and who have
sought in vain for any allusion to this doctrine in Holy Writ.
But every one knows best what belief is vital to himself, that is,
necessary for the support of his own spiritual life. And this
is a subject In which, above aU others, I should wish the largest
room to be left for private feeling and speculation. If any one,
having been assured by the Church that the consecrated Bread
* Keble, " Eucharistic Adoration," p. 117. t IWd. p. 129.
X Ibid. pp. 96, 128, 161.

250 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
and Wine become In a certain sense the Body and Blood of Christ,
finds comfort and edification in the thought, that along with the
Sacramental Body and Blood, he In a certain sense receives the
whole Person of Christ, God and man, I think he has full right
to such edification and comfort. It is a region of mystical con
templation and feeling, an Inner chamber of the heart, into which
no stranger may intrude. I go farther. If he cannot resist the
temptation of speculating on this subject ; if he tries to conceive
and to reason upon the mode of this Presence, I should think that
he was acting unwisely, that he was overstepping the legitimate
bounds of human thought, indulging a vain and hardly reverent
curiosity ; but I could not deny that he was exercising an un
questionable right, qualified only by his moral responsibUity. If
he should argue In this way : Inasmuch as the natural Body and
Blood are Inseparable from the whole Divine Person of Christ, so
that wherever they are that is, therefore the same holds -with regard
to the Sacramental Body and Blood, so that It also, by virtue of
the Hypostatic Union, is Christ himself ; * — this to me appears a
sad abuse of words, a playing with the forms of reasoning by the
arbitrary substitution of a totaUy different sense in the terms of
the same proposition. Nor to my view does this doctrine in the
least exalt the dignity, or enhance the value of the Sacrament as a
means of grace, but, on the contrary, tends to degrade it into the
semblance of a magical rite, and to divert the attention of the
communicant from the main ends of Holy Communion, to be
wildering and unprofitable questions.
But I do not pretend to set up my judgment or feeling as a
Liberty of standard to which others are bound to conform. If they
thought and
speech. beUeve that they see a logical connexion which is entirely
hidden from me, I may wish that they should explain It, and may
think that, if that Is impossible. It would have been better that
they should have kept it to themselves. But I have no right —
unless perhaps in the name of charity — to call for such expla-
* Such is Bishop Hamilton's statement. Charge, p. 50 : " The inward part of the
Sacrament of the Lord's Sapper is Christ's precious Body and Blood, and so, by
virtue of the Hypostatic Union, Christ Himself."

CHARGES. 251
nation ; and probably no two among those who hold the opinion
would agree in giving account of it. But while I would earnestly
maintain their Uberty of thought and speech on this point, I
would most strenuously resist every attempt to Impose their
private sentiment or speculation on the Church, as her doctrine.
I could not consent to make our Church answerable for a „ „, ,
The Church
dogma, differing from Transubstantiation by a hardly abiVforliri-
perceptlble shade of meaning or phraseology,* and ment^o" '
equaUy committing those who hold It to the beUef that,
in the institution of the Supper, that which our Lord held in His
hand and gave to His disciples, was nothing less than His own
Person, Body, Soul, and Godhead. There was a time when to
show of any proposition that it involved such a consequence,
would among us have been accounted a sufficient reductio ad
absurdum. Now I am afraid a spirit is abroad, to which Doctrine
there can be no greater recommendation of any doctrine common
^ ^ sense readily
than that it shocks the common sense of mankind. This received.
creates a strong prepossession in its favour, and affords an oppor
tunity, which Is eagerly seized, of eliciting the power of language
to conceal the absence of thought, from the speaker or writer, no
less than from the hearer or reader. It may be said that this
doctrine of the Real Presence is not more inscrutable than many
mysteries of our faith, or indeed many things which are not
mysteries of faith. But it must be remembered that in the present
case the objection to the alleged mystery is, not that it is inscrut
able, but that it is factitious, a creature of human speculation, the
* It is however high time for every one to ask himself what he means by Tran
substantiation. According to the view maintained with great ability by Mr. Cobb,
in the " Kiss of Peace," and "Sequel," " the common notions of Roman doctrine "
on this head are " utterly false," though not confined to the vulgar, but shared by
" many in positions of authority and influence. Archbishops and Bishops, Deans and
Archdeacons," who, " sad to think," "now, when at last our Church is beginning
to teach her members the doctrine of the Real Objective Presence" (I suppose
through divines of the school to which Mr. Cobb belongs, though I did not know
that they already constitute the Church), are "hindering the advance of truth," by
a " cruel " and " unjust " misrepresentation of the teaching of the Church of Rome,
which, as Mr. Cobb contends, is on this Article absolutely identical with that of the
Church of England. I believe that it is Mr. Cobb himself who is under a mistake
wilh regard to the doctrine of Transubstantiation taught by the Church of Rome,
and I shall endeavour to show this iu a note, which I must reserve for the Apptndii.

\ \

252 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
product of an arbitrary and fanciful exegesis, disguised by an
accumulation of unmeaning or mutually contradictory terms. To
accept such a doctrine. Is not humility, but self-wUl.
Nature of Although the occasion for the appointment of the
inquiries of ^ _
Con?°''-^ Royal Commission on Ritual, arose out of a few ques-
Eituai! tions connected with the administration of the Holy
Communion, which created an extraordinary agitation In the
Church, and possibly, but for that temporary excitement, or if the
judicial decision on the greater part of those questions had been
previously given, the Commission might not have been deemed
necessary, the range of Inquiry assigned to it comprehended a very
much larger field, including the whole of the Rubrics and the
Lectlonary. Few, I believe, who have applied any serious atten
tion to the subject, and know how many important and difficult
questions it Involves, in matters which have been the subject of
long and earnest controversy, will be surprised that the labours of
the Commission, though now In the third year of its sittings, have
not yet been brought to a close. It Is not to be expected that the
final result should give universal satisfaction, even If there were
not persons who are opposed to all change In the matter, as hardly
any can be made which does not touch some debatable point.
Nevertheless I hope that the greater part -will be generally
accepted as desirable.
„ , The ffreat question of Popular Education still awaits a
Popular O u Jr
Education, goi^tlon, whIch aU admit to be beset with difficulties,
and which some do not believe to be necessary, thinking that
nothing more is required than a development of the present
system, and that it could not be advantageously exchanged for
any other. Little fault indeed appears to be found with the
present system, except that there are large masses of our popula
tion which it does not reach. The complaint that It forces the
poor man to accept as a succour of private charity, that which he
might rightfully claim as his due from the State, expresses what
I beUeve to be perfectly true In the abstract, but not, I think, any
thing that is commonly felt as a grievance by the poor. It
remains however to be seen, whether the object can be attained

CHARGES. 253
without powers of compulsion, which, however justifiable in theory,
are foreign to our national habits and modes of thinking, and can
at present only be regarded as a doubtful and hazardous experi
ment. A well-considered scheme for supplying the inevitable
shortcomings of the present system, while leaving It in the main
untouched, would probably be generaUy haUed as a boon. But a
revolutionary measure, which would sacrifice what is by most
persons accounted most important in the quaUty of education, to
the extension of Its area, would, I beUeve, be fraught with mani
fold danger. And it Is to be feared that it would not even be
attended with the advantage of that tranquillity which results from
uniformity, but that It would have the effect of di-viding the
education of the country between Church Schools and State
Schools, and thus opening a perennial spring of discord and
strife. But while I should deprecate any such sweeping change, I
think that the friends of Education ought not to rest
satisfied, as long as a large part of the children of the
State are left destitute of the elements of useful knowledge. The
truth on this head appears to me to have suffered from various
fallacies and exaggerations, which in the end must damage the
cause they are intended to serve.
None would deny that moral and religious training — where it
Is successful — Is Infinitely more valuable than the mere ^
•^ Importance
development of the InteUect, and that the Intellectual ^fii^o'Ss""'^
development affords no guarantee whatever for the forma- '^''"™^'
tion of moral or religious habits. But it is no less certain that
intellectual vacuity. Ignorance and stolidity, are no safeguard
against vice or crirae. Unless they are so, every child has, as It
seems to me, as much right to such instruction as lifts him above
this brutish condition, and enables him to cultivate his natural
faculties, as he has to his daily bread. Nor do I find any reason
for believing that this instruction, though quite powerless to lay
any effectual restraint on the impulses of the animal Instincts, or
to counteract the influence of bad example. Is ever in itself other
than wholesorae, if it be only as filling time which would be

254
wasted in baneful idleness, and occupying the mind during a part
of the day, with thoughts which afford It at least harmless
exercise. And I have yet to learn that this Instruction Is answer
able for any of the offences which are rife among the lower classes.
The crimes which could not be perpetrated without the abuse of
some advantages of education, are those of persons mo-ving on a
higher social level, raost of whom have enjoyed not only Intellec
tual, but moral and religious training. It is not by the know
ledge of reading, writing, or arithmetic, that the boy who falls
into bad company is enabled to become an expert thief, though
without that knowledge a clerk In a banking-house could not
commit a forgery.
Does merely I SCO a question askcd. In a way which seems to Imply
secular -, . . .
education that it IS Considered as a powerful argument, bearing on
cnme ! Qur O-WU cducational controversies : " Does the Common
School System prevent crime ? " * The Common Schools to
which it refers are those of the United States. Statistics and
authorities are produced to show that the working of the Common
Schools in America is very unsatisfactory, in fact, " a disastrous
failure," and that pious and good Americans are painfully sensible
of the evils which arise from the neglect of religious teaching.
But if we are to apply these facts to our own case. It would seem
that we ought also to ask. Does the Denominational System
prevent crime ? Or, if the question In this form should seem too
exacting, it might be : Does It prevent the increase of crime, or
sensibly lessen the number of youthful criminals ? A judicious
friend of the system would probably say that this was more than
could be reasonably expected; that it is enough if its general
tendency is favourable to morality. But perhaps the same may
be true of the American Coramon School systera ; and it remains
to be proved that it Is responsible for the absence of religious
instruction, or that this raight not be associated with it ; and that
the fault, if there is one, rests with the State, which offers the
benefit of secular instruction to all, and not with parents and
pastors who neglect the religious training of the young.
* Title of a pamphlet reprinted and published by the National Society.

CHARGES. 255
I also venture to think that the Une commonly drawn between
secular and religious instruction Is too sharp and tren- secular and
¦"¦ rehgions
chant. I do not think that a school in which Instruction instruction.
is confined to secular subjects Is therefore necessarily IrreUglous.
I believe that it may be a school of morals as weU as of learning,
acting upon the habits and character, by discipline, precept, and
exaraple, and thus opening the way, and disposing the heart, for
an intelUgent reception of reUgious truth. I attach much greater
importance to the tone, to the moral atmosphere of a school, than
to the nature of the things taught in it.* I also beUeve that
enormous exaggeration prevaUs as to the capacity of children,
especially of the poor, for the reception of theology ; and that
clergymen are very apt to deceive themselves as to the Impression
made on the mind of a child, by Incidental aUusions to points of
doctrine, which they may find opportunity of dropping in the
course of lessons not expressly doctrinal or religious. It is only,
as far as I know, in schools for the poor, that this was ever con
sidered as an important part of reUgious education. It seems to
imply a catechetical talent which probably few clergymen possess,
and fewer still have leisure to cultivate and exercise. Much less,
of course, is it to be expected In the schoolmaster, so that the
cases in which a school suffers any loss from the absence of such
opportunities, must be exceedingly rare and exceptional. As a
ground for any general school regulations, this consideration raay
safely be left out of the account, and it is to be hoped will not
continue rauch longer to be urged as an objection to the Con
science Clause, which, at least in its principle and spirit, may now
be considered as universally received.
I find ray -view of this subject confirmed by the experience
of her Majesty's Inspector of Schools in Mid Wales, in his Report
• Canon Norris ("The Education of the People") observes (p. 187), "Know
ledge, even of the most sacred subjects, may be given to a child without any real
training of that child's chararter. The eflect — religious or irreligious — of the
school lessons on a child's character, depends far more on the spirit in which they
are given than on the quantity of the directly religious instruction included in
them. I have been sometimes pained and shocked to find a school passing a really
admirable examination in what we call religious knowledge, when morally and
religiously the school was in an unsatisfactory state."

256 BISHOP THIRLWALL' 3
for 1868, which deserves very serious attention. His opinion
Indeed Is grounded on a state of things peculiar to Wales, but It
Eeport of In volvcs principles of much larger appUcation. In my
Mid Wales, last Charge I had occasion to observe, that I found no less
than 120 parishes in which It did not appear that any provision
had been made for the education of the poor through the Instru-
Provisionfor mentaUty of the Church. Mr. Pryce reports 92 parishes
education in .-iit-»iii
Wales. {jx the counties of Cardigan, Carmarthen, Pembroke, and
Radnor, -with a population over 400, "containing no schools of
any description recognized by Government." He remarks that
very many of these are In remote and inaccessible places ; and
thinks It most desirable that proper Government schools should be
established in some of the most central of these neglected parishes.
But this could only be effected by a union which at present is
prevented by religious rivalry. Nothing indeed can be more
saddening than this rivalry,* whether we consider the waste of
means, the continual jealousy and heart-burning provoked by the
competition, or its effect on the Instruction and discipUne of the
contending schools. Yet so far as the scholars are concerned,
they are founded for precisely the same objects. The theological
differences which are the pretext for the separation, in themselves
little more than technical and professional, are to them absolutely
uninteUigible. The chief outcome of the religious teaching
appears to be the fuel it ministers to self-conceit and evil tempers.
* The whole passage is worth transcribing. Speaking of two parishes in Car
diganshire (p. 16), he says, " No sooner did one party determine upon having a
school, than the other party felt bound to start an opposition one ; and thus, while
many parishes in my district are without a school of any description, there are in
these villages too many schools. The natural consequence is, that such schools are
small and inferior. The two schools, the National and the British, work against
each other, and not against ignorance and indifference. In towns and parishes
where there is a fair population, this opposition and rivalry work beneficially, for
there is always plenty of raw m.%terial to act upon ; but in villages and parishes,
where the number of children who can possibly attend school within a radius of
three miles does not exceed 60 or 80, an increase in one school merely means a de
crease in the other, one can only flourish at the expense of the other ; the object in
such places is not to get half a dozen poor children from the streets to attend some
school, but to entice half a dozen children from the National to the British School,
and vice versd. I need not point out what a bad effect all this has upon the discipline
and instruction in both schools."

CHARGES. 257
Casting about for a reraedy to this state of things, Mr. Pryce is
led to the conclusion, that It is only to be found in the BstabHsh-
establishment of secular schools in the strictest sense of secular schools
the word for these small parishes. He believes that aU proposed.
cause of religious jealousy having thus been removed, the clergy
man would be aUowed to retain the government of the school and
the appointraent of the Master. He has no fear that " the cause
of religion or of the Established Church wUl suffer frora " that
coraplete severance which he proposes to make between secular
and religious Instruction. Indeed, under the circumstances which
he describes, it is scarcely possible that it should. For In his
district, the clergy, as he believes, have universaUy adopted tbe
principles of the Conscience Clause, so far even as often to exclude
doctrinal teaching from their schools altogether. But this
doctrinal teaching is apparently that which he elsewhere terms
distinctive religious teaching, relating to controverted points of
doctrine. He questions much — I think with good reason — that
the children derive much spiritual profit from the religious
instruction which they receive as part of the school work from
the acting teacher, an apprentice, or a monitor, even when the
character of the Instruction reaches up to " good " and " fairly
good." If the purpose of such teaching Is to make them better
Christians or better Churchmen, he thinks that it utterly faUs ;
while there is reason to fear that it leads the clergyman to neglect
his own share In the work, which, but for this false semblance, he
would have felt it his duty to take entirely upon himself.
Whether this suggestion -will be adopted by those who have
the power of carrying It into effect, I have no means of
knowing. But the practical result which concerns S^S"™
ourselves, and depends entirely on our own wiU, seems
very clear. Whether it be desirable or not that religious instruc
tion should cease to form part even nominally of the prescribed
business of the day school, I think there can be no doubt that
you, my Reverend Brethren, are bound to act as if no such in
struction was given ; as If It still rested whoUy with yourselves,
whether the children of your parishes shall or shaU not receive a
VOL. 11. s

258 teaching, which with God's blessing will not fail to turn to their
spiritual profit, and to make them better Churchmen, but, above
all, better Christians. With regard to every one of them who is
committed to your care, from the moraent that he is of age to
receive a lesson. If you take an interest in his welfare, you wiU
have a definite and simple object In view, towards which you -vriU
direct all your efforts ; that is, to prepare him for admission into
the full privileges of the Church through the rite of Confirmation.
This preparation comprehends the whole body of Christian doc
trine, so far as It is within the grasp of the child, the boy, the
youth. In the successive stages of his mental growth. This Is a
part — It should be not the least Interesting part — of your pastoral
work, with which no one has a right to Interfere, and which you
should jealously reserve to yourselves, as you are alone responsible
for It. And where it happens that raany of the lambs of your
flock have been drawn into other folds, as the labour of feeding
those which remain Is proportionably Ughtened, the stronger is
their claim to the fuUest measure of your care and dUigence.
chur h ¦'¦ ^^^^ t3,he thls occaslon to say a word on another
S^the'nio" subject of special interest to the Diocese. I am glad to
be able to report that the work of Church Restoration is
proceeding with unabated activity. In the Appendix to my last
Charge I enumerated thirty-five Churches which were In various
stages of progress. Of these twenty-three have since then been
completed, and fifteen have been added to tbe list ; raost of them
very nearly ready for consecration or opening. Among those
which have been partially completed, three are objects of peciUiar
interest : the Priory Church, Brecon ; the venerable Parish
Church of Llanbadarn Fawr (Aberystwyth), and the Cathedral of
The Cathe- ^^^ DIocese. It Is to the Cathedral that I would now
draw your special attention. When we raet last I was
able to congratulate you on the corapletion of the raost important
— that Is, immediately necessary — part of the work, the restora
tion of the Tower. Since then, the most beautiful and archi-
tecturaUy Interesting portion of the building, the eastern arm
with Its aisles and other adjuncts, and a part of the nave, has been

CHARGES. 259
very nearly flnished. But the work which remains to be done
includes by far the greater part of the nave and its aisles ; that is,
the part designed for the great mass of the congregation, which,
until this has been repaired, can derive no benefit from that
which has been already done. And we must reraeraber that the
Cathedral Is both the parish church and the only place of worship
for members of the Church of England within the parish. Con
sidered in this Ught It has at least as strong a claim as any other
parish church. But it is also pronounced by Mr. Scott " the
most historical, the most nationally typical, the most beautiful,
and In every way the raost valuable (of course in the architectural
point of view) ecclesiastical building In the Principality." And,
in fact, it has on this ground received contributions from
strangers, not aU even raembers of our Church.
I am not surprised that Its unfinished condition should appear
to Mr. Scott " a discredit to the Diocese and to Wales." its condition
I am well aware Indeed of the circumstances, connected the Diocese
and to
with the absolutely unique peculiarity of its position, Wales.
which renders the fact far less surprising than it Is deplorable, and
which, as they have not arisen from any fault of ours, enable
us to witness the magnificent restoration of Llandaff Cathedral
-with a pleasure, I wiU not say quite free from envy of advan
tages which we do not possess, but unalloyed by any feeling
of shame or self-reproach for the past. On the other hand,
the present state of the work Is, I think, in every point of
view, a motive which should urge us to a fresh and raore vigorous
effort for the completion of the undertaking.
I may here add that after careful inquiry and consultation
with the Archdeacons, I found that the scheme of a Diocesan
Church Building Society did not commend ItseU to the judgment
of the great body of the clergy.
The raeeting of Bishops of the Anglican Communion frora all
parts of the world, asserabled by our late Primate at The Pan-
Lambeth, ought not perhaps to be allowed to pass syuod.
wholly unnoticed. It left many agreeable recollections, but
uot any monument of Its presence which can be viewed with un-
s 2

260 BISHOP thirl-w^all's
mixed satisfaction, or, I think, any general wish for its return.
The best effect it produced, was perhaps the strengthening of a
brotherly feeUng between the Churches of England and America.
Even if the assembled Bishops had really represented their several
Dioceses, so as to be able to express more than their individual
views and wishes, the wide differences In their conditions, with
regard to their relations to the State, would, I believe, have pre
vented the possibility of any practical result. Sorae, however, of
the Resolutions adopted by the Committees appointed by the
Meeting, may possibly germinate in measures useful to the
Proposition Colonial Churches. But they included a scheme for
for a volun- . . „ , ......
tary spiri- " the constitutiou 01 a Voluntary spiritual tribunal, to
bunai. which questlous of doctrine may be carried by appeal
frora each province of the Colonial Church,'' whicb, if not Impor
tant, is at least significant. It lays down the principle that, " as
it is a Tribunal for decisions In matters of faith, Archbishops and
Bishops only should be judges." This tacit condemnation of our
present Court of Appeal, no doubt expresses the views of an active
party In the Church. But unless those views should become
predominant, the principle would not, I believe, be generaUy
accepted under any circumstances in which our Church wUl ever
be placed.
I pass to another topic, and one of immeasurably great im
portance. The convocation of a Council of the whole Roman Catholic
episcopate, and styled (Ecumenical, to be held at Rome under the
Convocation presidency of the Pope himself, is an event which we
ofaso-caUed , ., ., . . . ,.«
CEcumenicai could hardly under any circurastances view with mdii-
Council at j j
Eome. ference, or with no feeling stronger than mere curiosity,
as wholly foreign to our own concerns. A movement which affects
the condition of the largest part of Christendom, can never be
absolutely without Influence on our own. But the present state
of our Church affords some special motives, which oblige us to
watch the progress and results of this movement with lively interest
and earnest attention. It Is not onlj'- the manifestation of a
leaning to Romanism, which we have been witnessing of late years

CHARGES. 261
araong members of our own communion, nor even the desire of
reunion with Rome, which has been expressed by some whom we
cannot doubt to be still sincerely attached to the principles of the
Reformation ; but It Is that voices have been heard among us,
claiming our sympathy for the coming Council, and treating it as
matter of surprise and regret, that no overtures have been made
on the part of the Anglican episcopate, for some kind of participa
tion in its proceedings. *
No doubt the most rigid severity of Protestant principles would
not prevent us frora earnestly desiring that the deliberations of the
Council raay be overruled for a good end. And until lately It was
possible for an eager partisan of reunion to maintain that we had
been churUshly disregarding a kind and courteous invitation.
That delusion has been dispeUed by the highest authority, f The
Church of Rome has never recognised the existence of a The Angii-
X • i'lAi- y~<ii IIP ^^^ Episco-
true episcopate m the AngUcan Church, and thereiore pate not
recognised
the Pope could not include its Bishops In his general ty Eome.
invitation, and could only comprehend them under the description
of Protestants. + And all that he addressed to thera in that
* "A Few -Words on Reunion and the Coming Council at Rome." By Gerard
F. Cobb, M.A., Fellow of Trinity CoUege, Cambridge. Au antidote to this pam
phlet, sufficient, I beUeve, for every mind still open to conviction, and not incapable
of discerning truth, will be found in Janus.
t Though the Pope's letter to Archbishop Manning, the original of which is to
be found in the Times of October 6, was designed as a reply to Dr. Cumming's
inquiry, it could not have been more to the purpose, if it had been written to
undeceive Mr. Cobb and his readers. Mr. Cobb assured them (p. 25), as of some
thing "quite certain," that " the Roman authorities are ready to make very large
concessions tb the separated bodies." The Pope — who should, at least, bo one of
those authorities — thinks that a little consideration would have enabled Dr.
Cumming at once to " perceive that no room can be given at the Council for the
defence of errors which have already been condemned, and that we could not have
invited non-Catholics to a discussion, but have only urged them to avail themselves
of the opportunity afforded by this Council," — for what ? for " returning to the
Father, from whom they have long unhappily gone astray." This is perfectly
candid and outspoken, but it is not Mr. Cobb's programme.
X " The Apostolic See charges those who call themselves the Archbishops and
Bishops of the Church eatablished in England and Ireland with being intruders, by
favour of the ci-^dl power, into the Sees of these realms : inasmuch as they and
their predecessors took possession thereof in spite and to the detriment of the patri
archal rights of that See, which from the canons and immemorial usage had been
exercised in the nomination or approbation of all Metropolitans and Bishops." Dr.
Wiseman (afterwards Cardinal) in Palmer's " Jurisdiction of the British Epis-

262 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
character, was an exhortation to submission. I am not saying
this in the way of coraplaint or reproach. We have rather reason
to be thankful that he acknowledges our right to the name of
Christians, which is so often denied us In Roman CathoUc
countries by persons not whoUy uneducated. * But it is desirable
that every one should clearly understand the terms on which alone
any overture on our part could be received. And the language of
the exhortation itself shows that we are considered at Rome, not
only as heretics, but as very obstinate and perverse heretics, sln-
Eegarded as T^^^g against light and knowledge, denying truths which
heretics. ^^ ^^^ ^^^^.^ ^j dispute, such as the Pope's Divine right
to the governraent of the Universal Church, t It -was not to be
expected that the Pope should be conversant with the writings of
our Divines. But how broad an intellectual gulf Is disclosed by
this language, between a person capable of making such a mistake,
and those who know the real state of the case. But at the same
time the Pope very clearly stated the point which he most truly
calls the hinge + upon which the whole question between Roman
Catholics and aU who dissent from them turns. It Is that "the
The primacy primacy, both of honour and jurisdiction, conferred upon
of St. Peter, pg^gj, ^^^ ^i^ succcssors by the Founder of the Church,
is placed beyond the hazard of disputation. "§ This indeed makes
it very difficult to understand the position of persons, who, still
copacy Vindicated." Mr. Cobb indeed (p. 21) has a correspondent, whom he
describes as " an eminent Roman Catholic theologian," who wrote to him, " If
your Bishops believe themselves to be Bishops, they ought to go to the Council ; if
they do not go, it will be tantamount to an implicit acknowledgment on their part
that they are not Bishops at all." If this is a fair sample of the intelligence or
the candour of Mr. Cobb's Roman Catholic friends, we cannot receive their state
ments with too much mistrust.
* I speak in part from personal recollection. (See my Charge of 1866, p. 39,
note.) In the Report of the Anglo-Continental Society for 1866, p. 8, a clergyman
writes from Boulogne : " Not so very long ago, while some children were playing
close by one of our churches here, one asked the other what building it was.
Imagine the reply, ' C'est le temple des paiens.' " The spring of this general
ignorance (iUustrated by Mr. Cobb, p. 67) is wilful misrepresentation.
t " Diximus extra disputationis aleam constitutum esse primatum, non honoris tan
tum sed et jurisdictionis, Petro ejusque successoribus ab Ecclesiaj institutore coUatum.
X " In hoc nimirum cardine tota qusestio versatur inter Catholicos et dissentientes
quoscunque." ^ Compare Acts xix. 35, 36.

CHARGES. 263
remaining in the visible communion of our Church, nevertheless
not only avowedly hold all Roman doctrine, but acknowledge the
InfaUibillty of the Church which one of our Articles declares to
have " erred In matters of faith," while others expose the par
ticular errors Into which she has fallen. They profess to beUeve
that the two Churches are kept apart, not by any essential differ
ences, but only by a misunderstanding, which might be cleared
up by friendly explanations. * Those who use such language seera
to overlook both their own position and that of the person with
whom they would have to deal in any attempt at reunion. The
difficulty is not only that the party or school to which they
belong, neither has nor Is likely ever to have authority to
represent the Church of England ; but it is that the Pope
cannot admit that there has ever been any error or misunder
standing on his part, either as to his own doctrine or ours,
though he may readily admit that there has been such on our part
as to both.
An opinion has been expressed by a dignitary of our Church,
that in this question of reunion a great deal depends Eeunionnot
upon the personal character and IncUnatlon of the Pope.f onthe incu-
, ^ ^ nation of the
This appears to me a sheer mistake. It is true that pop«-
in the administration of the laws of his Church, In the exercise of
his prerogative of dispensation, in the enforcing or relaxation of
discipUne, his power Is almost unlimited, and In the course of this
century has been carried to a length beyond aU previous pre
cedent, t But with regard to doctrine, he is not so rauch a person
as an Institution and a system. His personal character and ability
may enable him to carry out the system with which he is iden
tified Into fresh developments. But he is utterly powerless to
introduce any change which would involve an admission of the
smaUest dogmatical error ; though indeed where infallibility is
* Mr. Cobb, p. 6, and passim.
t A letter to his Holiness Pius IX. from William Selwjm, Canon of Ely Cathe
dral. At p. 16 we read, " Holy Father, . . . upon you, more than on any other
human being, rests at this moment tho hope of peace and unity for the family of
Christ on earth."
X I allude to the dealing of Pius VIL with the Galilean Episcopate.

264 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
concerned, there can be no distinction between great and small. *
The smallest Is just as fatal to the claim as the greatest.
What strikes me as most surprising is, that the assembling of
the Council should have appeared to any one in the light of an
opportunity for an approach toward reconciliation. The Pope
Indeed Is consistent enough from his own point of view. He
considers the great nuraber of Bishops whom he is able to bring
Vitality of toffethcr, as a proof of the "close unity and invincible
the Papal & ' r J
Church. vitality " of his Church, which be hopes -will make a
deep Impression on Protestant minds, t And undoubtedly it does
prove the compact organization of the Papal Church, though it is
not so evident that such unity is a surer sign of vitality in a
religious body than In a Byzantine despotism. But, at least, tbe
action of the Council will be a more convincing sign of vitality
than its mere coming together. But for all friends of union who
have not raade up their minds beforehand to accept whatever the
Council may decree. It would seem that the plainest dictates of
common prudence require that they should defer their adhesion,
until It Is known how Its proceedings affect the condition of the
Roman CathoUc Church, and consequently our position with
regard to It.
But though I do not look on the convocation of the Roman
Council as an opportunity of action for those who are outside the
Church of Rome, I think It Is an occasion which may most fitly
be aUowed to lead our thoughts to dwell on the history of that
* Nor, it may be added (with reference to language of Canon Selwyn, reported
by Mr. Cobb, p. 42), between far and near in an approach to unity which fails to
reach it.
t So the CouncQ of Trent (Sessio xii. caput v.) assigns, as one of the reasons for
the celebration of the Festival of Corpus Christi, the effect it must produce on the
minds of heretics : " Sic quidem oportuit victricem veritatem de mendacio et h^resi
triumphum agere; ut ejus adversarii in conspectu tanti splendoris (of so many
lights and of so much brocade) et in tanta universas Ecclesiae laetitia pobiti, vel
debilitati et fracti tabescant, vel pudore affecti et confusi aliqnando resipiscant." It
was thought that, however they might be proof against all the arguments of the
theologians, the spectacle of a magnificent procession must be irresistible. The
avowal is one of singular naivete, but the calculation is weU grounded in the
weak side of human nature. The attraction of a sensuous worship is always
strong in proportion to the decay of spiritual life and the absence of rational
conviction.

CHARGES.

265

Church in the period subsequent to the Reformation, and espe
ciaUy on the transactions of Its last general Council. It was the
CouncU of Trent that made the Church of Rome what it is.
Such as it then became. It has reraained ever since ; with great
changes indeed in Its outward condition, but with few , ^
° ' The Council
affecting its inward character. I know of no subject of ^i^^^^l^
study which I would more earnestly recommend to all to^olthe
who wish to form a weU grounded opinion on those pros- church.
pects of union which are now held out to us, than the acts and the
history of the Council of Trent. Not the acts alone ; though I
venture to think there are few minds In which a comparison of
the Canons of Trent with our Articles, could leave a doubt as to
the futility of every attempt to reconcile them with one another ;
not the acts alone, but also the history, which shows how they
were brought about, — by what worldly intrigues and Lessons
unholy motives. This study would enable every one to from it.
judge of Its claim, I wUl not say to infaUibillty, but to confi
dence and respect ; * to satisfy himself whether there is any appear-
* The history of the Council of Trent is, in one sense, very weU known, in
another very little known. There is no portion of modern history for the study of
which there is a greater abundance of trustworthy evidence ; but it is very little
studied and actuaUy known. In our language I am not aware that there is any
good or tolerably readable History of the Council. It is much to be desired that
some one would translate Bungener's "Histoire du Conoile de Trenle," 2me ed.
1854. The nimbus which, in the course of three centuries, with the help of
Jesuitical manipulation of history, has gathered round the Council, would have
surprised contemporaries who saw behind the scenes. It was a Cardinal (Gieseler,
Lehrbuch der neueren K. G. p. 605) who wrote of it —
" Namque inter istos ut fatear patres
"Unum notari posse vel alterum
Quem conferas Ulis beati
Tempera quos aluere secli,
Totius at pars concilii quota est,
QuEB recta speotet."
Nargas (a member of the Imperial Embassy at the Council) wrote, "Les paroles
et les remontrances sont fort inulfles ici. Je crois qu'elles ne le sont pas moins a
Rome. Ce sont des aveugles. lis ont pris une ferme resolution de ne penser qu'aux
interets de la chair et du monde. Le Concile ne peut rien faire de lui-meme. Le
Legat est le maitre, il tient tout dans sa main. Apres cela on ne doit plus s'etonner
de rien." Ibid. p. 522. " Isidore Chiari, Bishop of Foligno, who had opportunities
at Trent of becoming thoroughly acquainted with his Episcopal colleagues, says, that
in Italy, among 250 Bishops, one could scarcely find four who even deserved the
name of spiritual shepherds, and really exercised their pastoral ofiice." Janus, p, 356.

266 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
ance to render it credible, that the spirit bj' which its counsels
were guided, was one of truth, or of holiness, or of charity, and
not one of an opposite nature. By this we should learn rightly
to appreciate the raerit and the value of the reforms which are
represented by Roman CathoUc writers, and now by some of our
own, * as having removed aU reasonable ground of offence, and as
having deprived us of the right of claiming the title of a Re
formed Church, In contradistinction to the Church of Rome. We
should see how many of those which were extorted from the Court
of Rome by the cry of the nations still acknowledging its rule,
were reforms only on paper ; how far any of them was from touch
ing any profitable abuse or superstition ; how many served only to
extend the Papal prerogative, by opening a new field for the
exercise of the dispensing power. It would not be necessary for
the purpose of this inquiry to enter Into the labyrinth of disputed
details. The broad facts which stand out in the clearest light,
furnish sufficient ground for a certain conclusion. And there are
Two promi- ^^° whlcb are patent and conspicuous above all others ;
on the one hand, the steady resistance to every demand
which tended either to Umit the plenitude of Papal authority, or
to close any source of revenue to the Court of Rome ; on the other
hand, the consistent endeavour to widen the doctrinal breach
between Rome and the Gerraan Protestants, and to engage the
Roman Catholic princes in a crusade against them. This is not
indeed an excuse for Its doctrinal innovations ; but It Is the only
explanation by which raany of thera can be defended from the
charge of being merely wanton and capricious. In no part of its
proceedings Is this more clearly apparent than in its treatment of
Holy Scripture ; not merely in the disciplinary regulations which
were intended to keep It a sealed book, but in the parity of rank
assigned to tradition, and in the assertion of the Canonicity of the
Apocryphal books, and of the authenticity of the Vulgate. I
advert to these examples for the sake of a raore general remark.
I observed that in matters of doctrine the Head of the Roman
Church Is not a free agent. Nothing depends on his individual
* Mr. Cobb, u. s. p. 68.

CHARGES. 267
¦will and pleasure. He cannot make the smallest concession. He
cannot reopen the discussion of a question which has been deter
mined by the vote of the majority in a General CouncU. That is
the fatal unhappiness of his position. But there is on the other
side a counter -impossibiUty with regard to matters of fact. In
such questions nothing depends upon the wUl. Men ^^ ^^
cannot change their con-victions in these matters, unless pendent on
constrained by the force of evidence, and it raust be ° '
remembered that facts of history and of gramraar are susceptible
of as complete certainty as facts of astronomy or arithmetic. No
effort of GalUeo's wiU could have enabled him to disbelieve the
motion of the earth. The power of the Inquisition raight have
prevented him from learning the truth ; It did force him to deny
it ; but it could not alter his Inward conviction of the fact. As
little could the authority of a Council, though composed not
merely, as at Trent, of two or three score, * but of a thousand
bishops, enable a scholar to accept that which he knows to be a
mistranslation as a true rendering. Yet this is what is required of
him, when he is called upon to recognise the Vulgate as authentic
Scripture, t Still less can it do that which exceeds the power of
* Lainez, the General of the Jesuits, urged the fact, that under Paul IIL, articles
of the first importance (principalissimi articoU) concerning the Canonical Books,
interpretation of Scripture, parity of Tradition and Scripture, had been defined by
less than fifty voices — as a proof that the authority of these decrees was derived
entirely from the Pope, as a Council is General only because the Pope gives it that
title, which he may do, however small its number. (Siccome un numero di Prelati
dal Pontefice congregati per far Concilio Generale sia quauto picciolo si vuole,
non d' altronde ha il nome e I'efficazia d' esser generale, se non perohl il Papa
gliela da, cosi anche non ha d' altrove I'authorita.) Sarpi, vii. 20.
t Some later apologists of the CouncU have endeavoured to restrict the sense of
the word " authentic," so as only to exclude any error affecting faith or morals.
But this is an interpretation not warranted either by the terms of the Decree, or by
the discussion of it in the Council. The most liberal construction there put upou
the word (that of Vega, Sarpi, ii. 51) only admitted the possibiUty of such de
parture from the sense of the original, as is inevitable in a translation. PaUavicino
himself (vi. 17) knows only of two discordant opinions on the subject: one, that of
the theologians who maintained the perfect exactness of the Vulgate ; the other,
that of those who interpret the Decree less rigidly, but hold that the translation is
free, not only from errors pertaining to faith and morals, but also from even the
slightest patent unconformity -with the original text (aperta difformita ne pur
minima dal teste). One of the more sensible speakers thought that the translation
should have been examined before its correctness was guaranteed. Others argued
that, although the translator was not inspired, since the Council was, its approval

268
Omnipotence itself; aboUsh a historical fact, undo the past, make
it not to have been. Yet this Is what was attempted by the
Council of Trent, when It decreed the canonicity of the Apocrypha,
not merely Inserting them for the first time in the canon — which
would only have been a scandalous abuse — but declaring that they
had always forraed part of it, which was notoriously untrue.
When raen not ignorant of history are Invited to believe this as a
fact of the past, they too must plead, non possH7nus. It is In vain
for them that a Council stakes its Infallibility on a proposition
which they know to be false, with as full assurance as they have
of their own existence. A thousand echoes cannot change false
hood Into truth. When two such imposslbllltles corae into conflict
with one another, corapromise and conciliation may well seem
hopeless. There is however this difference between the two cases.
The one impossibility is a fact in the divinely ordered constitution
of the human mind ; the other has no basis In the real nature of
things, and is Indeed nothing more than an arbitrary Inference
from most doubtful premisses, grasped with a tenacity propor
tioned to Its Intrinsic weakness. This last is indeed the only part
of the case which seems to rae to open a door for a single ray of
rational hope.
How far the ^^^ discouragIng, with regard to the prospect of
Church has reuulon, as is the aspect presented by the Papal Church,
since the when It emerffes from the Council of Trent, with its new
Council of °
Trent. Canous, Creed, and Catechism, and Its old maxims of
exterminating persecution sharpened for new excesses, we must
not forget that three centuries have elapsed since the close of that
Council, and that in the course of this period some of the most
momentous changes recorded In the history of mankind have
passed on the face of European society, and on the Inner current
of thought and feeling. It was probable, a priori, that the Church
and anathema against aU who do not receive the translation, would have the effect of
making it free from error (quando sara approvata la volgata edizione, e fulminato
1' anathema contra chi non la riceve, quella sara senza errori, non per spirito di chi la
scrisse, ma dello Sinodo che per tale 1' ha ricevuta. Sarpi, u. s.). This to us sounds
ludicrous, but does not seem to have beeu thought absurd in the Council. It is
perhaps only a somewhat strong example of that disregard of historical truth which
pervades Romish controversial theology.

CHARGES. 269
of Rome should feel the influence of these changes. It was
impossible that It should not be more or less beneficiaUy affected
by the vicinity of Protestant populations, wherever the two com
munions were found side by side. Let us not deny that, through
the concurrence of these causes, considerable improvements have
taken place in the state of the Church of Rome. There has been
a notable amendment in the sreneral character of the .
^ Amendment
persons who have filled the Papal Chair. The last who character of
created any very grave scandal, was the Pope who °^^^'
assembled the Council, and directed its earUer proceedings !*
Since then their lives have mostly been at least decorous and
respectable. In France, and In the parts of Europe which were
swept by the torrent of the French Revolution, the clergy was to
sorae extent purified and strengthened by suffering. The post-
Tridentlne monastic Institutions were distinguished from those of
the Middle Ages by a character of practical usefulness, and by
works of mercy, with which Protestants can fully sympathize,
and which should inspire them with a holy emulation ; though
they raay well be content to do the same things In a more simple
and unostentatious way.
But the question which we have now before us is, whether
whatever movement has been called forth during this period
in the Church of Rome, bas tended to narrow or to „ „
' Has the
widen the breach between us, to make reunion more or rJSon*be-'
less hopeful ? It might have happened that, without SrTe^ss™""
any formal abandonment of its outward position, a new
spirit raight have begun to breathe through the Church of Rorae,
affording some encouragement to those who yearn for the restora
tion of unity. Unhappily it Is impossible to mistake the direction
which the raoveraent has really taken, the spirit by which It has
been impelled, and not to see that It has parted the two commu
nions raore widely than ever asunder. The reign of the Pope
* Paul IIL, while professing his desire for the reformation of the Church, raised
two boys, one of 16, the other of 14, ohildren of his Ulegitimate offspring, to the
dignity of Cardinals. Sarpi observes (1. c. 52) that this immediately dispeUed
the fear wliich some of the Cardinals had conceived, of a reform in their own
body.

270 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
who Is now exhorting us to throw ourselves at his feet, has been
raarked by a series of measures, perhaps more repugnant to our
deepest convictions than those of any of his predecessors since the
Reformation. He appears to have kept three objects steadily in
view : the exaltation of the Papal supremacy, and more complete
concentration of the Church in his own person ;* the accumulation
of new honours, as they are supposed to be, on the Virgin Mary ;
and lastly, the subjugation of the whole domain of human thought
under his control, and the establishment of a theocracy, in which
the most extravagant pretensions of Boniface VIII. should pass
Into a Law of the Church and an Article of Faith. In the
D finif f memorable Definition of the Immaculate Conception, he
cuiat™Con- ''^^7 ^^ Said -virtually to have combined all these objects.
cep on. rj,j^^ utterly unpractical, frivolous character of the scho
lastic subtlety thus exalted into a dogma, has very generaUy
diverted attention from much that It Involves, besides its unsound,
anti-scriptural theology. It Is also perhaps the most violent
strain of papal prerogative, and the most audacious perversion of
historical truth, to be found In history. For the Church of
Rome disclaims the power of decreeing any new Article of Faith,
and thus Is compeUed to assert that whatever it defines was from
the beginning the doctrine of the Church.f But this assertion
subjects the dogma to the test, not only of reason or of Scripture,
but of history. It thus becomes one of those questions of fact, in
which, when the evidence is sufficiently clear, men have not the
power of rejecting it. For all who have any sense of historical
truth, this dogma alone would constitute an insurmountable
barrier, which, as long as it lasts — and it cannot be removed
without an admission of error — raust prevent them frora acknow
ledging an authority which lays such a burden on their con
sciences. It would perhaps be unjust to charge the present Pope with
a raore determined hostUity to reUgious liberty, toleration,
* It is the application of the famous word of Louis XIV. to the Church—
L'EgUse, c'est moi.
t Bishop Dupanloup, "Lettre sur le Futur ConcUe CEcumenique," p. 12. "On
ne fait pas le dogme dans les Conciles, mais on le constate."

CHARGES. 271
freedom of conscience in thought and speech, in a word, to all the
principles and institutions which are regarded, not by ^o^^jjity of
Protestants only, but by sorae of the most devout members 'eu^oul '°
of his own comraunion and even of his clergy, as Miration,
the raost precious fruits of social progress, than has
been uniformly manifested by his predecessors. But it is certain
that none of them ever gave more decided and eraphatic utterance
to those views. And it was therefore not unreasonably beUeved
by those who are most deeply concerned in the event, that he
would not be satisfied with having stamped them with the sanction
of his personal authority, but that one of the main ends for which
he convoked the Council was to transform his political doctrines
into religious dogmas and terms of salvation, so as to place some
of the noblest spirits of the age, who are at the same time araong
the most faithful adherents of his Church, under the cruel neces
sity of choosing between their spiritual allegiance and principles
dearer to them than their lives. It is while raen like Montalem-
bert are looking forward to the Council with grief and dismay,
that we are exhorted by members and ministers of our own
Church, to hail it with joy and hope.
I can find but one excuse for this, as it seems to me, prodigious
obliquity of spiritual vision. The Pope has described Q^jg^t of
the suprerae object of the Council as twofold : to remedy *^^ councu.
evils and avert dangers which threaten the foundations of religion
on the one hand, and of civil society on the other. We cannot
deny the existence of such evils and dangers; and at such a
juncture we would not raise the question how far the Papal
Church is answerable for them.* The object is one -with which,
as Christians and as men, we must heartily sympathize. But our
approval of the end cannot make us indifferent to the means by
* Father Hyacinthe however does not hesitate to express " his most profound
conviction, that if France in particular, and the Latin races in general, are giveu up
to social, moral, and religious anarchy, the chief cause lies, not indeed in CathoUc
ism itself, but in the manner in which CathoUcism has been long understood and
practised." " Ma conviction la plus profonde est que, si la France en particuUer et
les races latines en general sont Uvrees a I'anarchie sociale, morale et reUgieuse, la
cause principale en est, non pas, sans doute, dans le Catholicisme lui-meme,
mais dans la maniere dontle Catholicisme est depuis longtemps compris et pratique."

272
which It is to be reached. It cannot relieve us from the duty of
inquiring whether they are legitimate In themselves, and whether
they are weU adapted to the attainment of the object. I waive
the preliminary doubt, whether the persons to be assembled at
Rome — however otherwise respectable — are likely to be the best
qualified, by their education and habits of thought, for the treat
ment either of philosophical questions, or of subjects which faU
within the province of a Congress of Social Science. But we are
How far it able to judge whether any of the measures hitherto
WiU be .
carried out. announced as designed to occupy their deUberations,
warrant an expectation that they will lead to the desired result,
and not much more probably to one of an exactly opposite kind.
That a time so pregnant. In the view of the Pope hiraself, with
changes affecting the very basis of religion and society, when
social problems of the raost awful moment are weighing upon all
earnest minds, should have been selected as the right season for
pledging the Church to a fable extracted frora the legendary his
tory of the Virgin Mary, raight have seemed incredible, if it had
not been in sad accordance with the past, and especially with the
history and character of the present Pope. It wIU probably
disgust not a few Intelligent Roman Catholics, as weU as Protes
tants who are not pledged to accept all the decrees of the Council.
Feelings of still deeper Indignation have been excited by the
pretensions which, if admitted, would establish a theocracy in
every Roman Catholic State. The Governments whose rights
are threatened, look on, sorae with anxiety, others with contempt,
all with the firm resolution to resist this invasion. It remains to
be seen whether the influence of reUgion or the security of social
order wUl be promoted by the struggle which It will provoke, or
by the new element of chronic discord which It will Introduce
into every European State.
Verily the Seven HIUs are not those to which we can lift up our
eyes in the belief that from thera cometh our help.
The proceedings of the unhappy Council of Trent were fitly closed
by a series of acclamations, which have been duly recorded for
perpetual memory with the rest of Its acts. The last, pronounced

CHARGES. 273
by the sanguinary Cardinal of Lorraine, was " Anathema to aU
heretics ; " and the final response of the assembled prelates echoed
and re-echoed the word, "Anathema, Anathema." Its „,,, ,. ,
' ' Thepohoyof
meaniag was expounded a few years later by the Massacres ctaSruS
of St. Bartholoraew, hailed at Rorae with transports of the^councS^
joy and soleran thanksgi-ving to the Alraighty. * To
renew such scenes is no doubt out of the power, and, I would fain
hope, not even in the wiU of Pope or Council, however they may
anathematize toleration in theory. But that there has been any
abandonment of the principle of persecution, as a religious duty,
wherever It appears to be expedient, or the slightest mitigation of
the feeling which it has been the poUcy, as well as the Instinct of
Rome, to associate with the name of heretic, we have no reason to
suppose. On the contrary, one of the doctrines proclairaed
indirectly in the Syllabus, by the condemnation of the opposite
opinion, and which is expected to be defined by the Council, is the
external coercive jurisdiction of the Church to inflict temporal
penalties on dissentients. And these penalties have been authori
tatively explained as including fines, iraprisonraent, and scoui ging,
without prejudice to the Church's right to take stronger measures
if they should appear necessary, f
* In the interval, S. Pius V.' — the only Pope hitherto canonized since the
Reformation — had enjoined his general to give no quarter to heretics (an order not
issued against the Turks at Lepanto). It may be asked, why revive these painful
memories ? It is because they are only to a very small extent things of the past.
The form only is changed, the spirit remains the same. In the words of the
Genevese pastors, speaking of the Pope's address to Protestants, "La forme de cet
ecrit, moderee, charitable, ne rappelle pas les anathemes dont Rome nous a tant de
fois charges. Malheureusement, les anathemes subsistent. lis n'ont jamais ete
revoques. lis servent de texte a ce qu'on enseigne aux populations CathoUques sur
les Reformateurs, la Reforme et les Reform^s : ils inspirent les lois et les mesures
dont nos freres sont I'objet partout oil I'Eglise Romaine impose aux gouvemementa
ses volontes." And therefore the truth is needed as a balance to misrepresentations
now industriously circulated among us in the interest of Rome.
t " They are greatly mistaken who suppose that the BibUcal and old Christian
spirit has prevailed in the Church over the mediaeval notion of her being an
institution with coercive power to imprison, hang, and burn. On the contrary,
these doctrines are to receive fresh sanction from a General CouncU, and that pet
theory of the Popes — that they could force kings and magistrates, by excommunica
tion and its consequences, to carry out their sentences of confiscation, imprisonment,
and death — is now to become an infallible dogma. It foUows that not only is the
old institution of the Inquisition justified, but it is recommended as an urgent
VOL. 11. T

274 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Under that anathema we must be content to live, until it is
moved by an authority equal to that which laid It on us. Our
Onrconsoia- consolatlon Is that we can say, " Though they curse, yet
tion under
Anathema, bless Thou ; " and with the fullest conviction that the
Divine Blessing on the cause of Truth and Righteousness will not
be Intercepted by the fiercest cursings of fallible, presumptuous,
unrighteous judges.
I have dwelt on this topic longer than I had Intended, but not,
I venture to think, without a cause. I hasten to conclude ; and
I am reminded of the question with which I began : " What can
the righteous man do ? " None of us, my brethren. It is to be
hoped, could hear these words with any such thought as that of
applying them to himself as a description of his own character, and
nothing could be more foreign to my purpose In all that I have
been just now saying, than that our Church should take up an
attitude of Pharisaical self-complacency over against the
ThespuStin i •/ i i i
which we Church of Romc. The deepest humility and the largest
should con- x ¦ .j cj
Papal***' *''° charity are perfectly consistent with the clearest percep-
church. ^^^^ ^j ^^g breadth and depth of the gulf which separates
the two Churches from one another. We ought not to think that
the errors into which the Papal Church has faUen, entirely
neutralize the benefit of the truths which it has preserved. The
latter half of the creed of Pius IV. contains a series of erroneous
novelties, which it Is impossible for us to accept, even without the
monstrous addition since made to thera. But it also Includes the
Nicene Creed ; and this is not the less a bond of spiritual union,
because the new articles appended to it are a bar to visible unity.
The Church of Rorae ministers the bread of Ufe, adulterated indeed
by many heterogeneous and unwholesome Ingredients ; but they
are not sufficient to deprive It of all Its nutritive virtue. StUl the
fuUest acknowledgment of this truth, to the utmost extent of Its
appUcation, need not and ought not in the slightest degree to
weaken our assurance of the strength of our position, in aU the
necessity of the present age. The Civiltd has long since described it as ' a
sublime spectacle of social perfection ;' and the two recent canonizations and
beatifications of inquisitors, following in rapid succession, gain in this connexion a
new and remarkable significance." Janus, p. 12.

CHARGES. 275
points on which we are at variance with Rome, or our conviction
that so far our cause is the cause of truth and righteousness.
The question then recurs : having this consciousness. What
can we do ? I quite agree with those who hold, though The duty of
. _ Churchmen
from a different point of view, that we have a duty respecting
^ ' •'the Coun-
to discharge toward the approaching council. It would ''^-
clearly be wrong to look on it with contemptuous iadlfference. It
is indeed the height of rashness and presumption to interpret any
proraise made by our Lord to His Church, as a guarantee which
excludes the temporary prevalence either of error In doctrine or of
viciousness in life.* But there is nothing In the experience which
refutes that Interpretation, to forbid the hope or the prayer, that
the Church of Rome may yet come to her right mind, or that
the proceedings which betoken a disposition to perpetuate and
aggravate the evil, may be overriUed Into an Instrument which
* Mr. Cobb (p. 54) reproduces the old Romish sophism, apparently without any
misgiving. He thinks that " no more terrible defe-it from the gates of hell could bo
imagined than is involved" in the failure of our Lord's proraise (Matt. xvi. IS)
interpreted in the Romish sense. "Conceive," he saj's, " the total shipwreck of all
faith among the one hundred and sixty millions in coramunion with the Holy See
which would ensue, were a Council of Reunited Christendom to decree that even
one single doctrine which they and their forefathers for thirteen generations of men
have (on the strength of Roman Decrees) held to be part of the infallible -\Vord of
God, was after all a mere human invention." It must be observed, that the
promise could not, by the mere force of the word jirevnil, preclude a temporary
prevalence of the Gates of Hell, as Amalek prcruikd a,g'd,\nst Israel, though finally
discomfited. Again, the Gates of Hell were certainly prorailiiig against the Church,
when the Papal Chair was filled by men of evil and scandalous lives. They were
prevailing in the enormities of the Avignon Papacy, and in the Greiit Schisra. And
the moral damage they then inflicted was irreparable, whereas an error in doctrine
may be corrected, and may do little harm to any one while it lasts. If the Decree
of the Immaculate Conception was to be rescinded by a Council of Reunited
Christendom, the "milUons in communion with Rome" would, it is to be hoped, be
brought into the state of those who now both reject that Decree, and believe that
the mooting of such a question, no more concerning the Church than a theory of
the moon, was a sin which proved the ascendancy of the Power of Darkness. But
it is rather too much to expect those who take this view of the subject, to admit that
it involves a " total shipwreck of aU faith." On the contrary, they believe that its
universal reception would be an nospeakable blessing to the Church. The handling
ofthe text adopted by Mr. Cobb, is characteristic of the Ucense with which Romiah
theologians, but especially the Popes, as if it was a privilege of their office,
habitually wrest Scripture to their own purposes. The interpretation is so purely
arbitrary and subjective, that, to serve as an argument, it needs the assumption of
the thing it is designed to prove. Belief in the infallibility of the Pope, w ill always
turn out to be at bottom nothing but the believer's faith in his own.
T 2

276 BISHOP thirl-wall's
may hasten its removal. I will not say whether our Church, so far
as It was represented at the Lambeth conference, has sufficiently
discharged Its duty in this respect, by the clause in Its " Address
to the faithful In Christ Jesus," which refers to " the pretension
to universal sovereignty over God's heritage asserted for the See
of Rome." It may be that the occasion may caU for some more
distinct protest against the Papal usurpation, and the authority of
the Council which Is to give it further sanction and larger extent.
But the greatest breach of charity which either the
Eecognition ^ -^
aut'hority^*' Church Or any of its members could commit, would be
deprecated. ^^^ kind of ovcrture which might be construed Into
acquiescence In that usurpation, and recognition of that authority.
It would, I believe, so far make us accomplices in a conspiracy
against the most sacred rights of mankind.* And we shall but
very Imperfectly appreciate the importance of the Issue, and the
fearfulness of the danger with which Christendom Is threatened,
unless we bear in mind that the question is not simply, where this
power, so little short of omnipotence, is to be lodged, but by whom
it Is to be wielded. Nominally it will be by the Pope, but really
by those who have his ear. And whd will they be but the here
ditary sworn ministers and advisers of tbe Holy See ? The
Eeai mean- InfalllbUIty of the Pope raeans the sovereignty of the
ing of Papal -^ ^ ...
infaiuhuity. JesuIts. Thc Popc — howevcr ignorant and imbecile —
will reign ; the Jesuits will govern. And the question, most
deeply Interesting indeed to every sincere Roman Catholic, but
very far from a matter of indifference to us. Is whether for the
future the Jesuits are to be absolute lords of the Church of Rome,
and to have all Its machinery and resources at their disposal. But
among those who are engaged In this undertaking, there is no one
who seems to me entitled to larger allowance, than the personage
* I might use much stronger language without coming up to the force of Father
Hyacinthe's protest: "Centre ces doctrines, et ces pratiques qui se nomment
romaines, mais ne sont pas chretiennes, et qui dans leurs envahissements toujours
plus audacieuxet plus funestes, tendenta changer la constitution de I'Eglise — centre
le divorce impie autant qu'insense, qu'on s'efforce d'accomplir entre I'Eglise et la
sot'iele du dix-neuvieme siecle — centre cette opposition plus radicale et plus
effrayante encore avec la nature humaine atteinte et revoltee par ces faux dooteurs
dans ses aspirations les plus indestructibles et les plus saintes.' '

CHARGES. 277
In whose name It is carried on. When we consider the claims
which he Inherits frora his predecessors — aU, In his eyes, " beyond
the hazard of disputation" — the collision into which he has been
brought, as a temporal prince, with the spirit of the age, and the
counsellors by whom he is surrounded,* we may well trust that
he has been governed by better motives than vanity or ambition,
and that he sincerely believes his universal sovereignty to be the
condition of aU hope for the future of mankind. And this belief
is, no doubt, very generally shared by his clergy, most of whom
have been led by the insecurity of their relations to the State, to
look to him as their only permanent support. A far graver
responsibility seems to me to rest on the allies whom he has found
within our own pale. There may however be a certain kind of
consistency In the conduct of those who being avowedly at one -with
him In mind, heart, and soul, only stand aloof in visible profession,
on some nice point of honour or etiquette, t The cry for reunion
* It seems to be universally admitted as a notorious fact, that the Pope is in the
hands of a party. Father Hyacinthe, in his celebrated letter to his Superior, speaks
of " the intrigues of a party all-powerful at Rome." But it is questioned who they
are. They are commonly supposed to be the Jesuits. What is certain is, that the
Jesuits, from the first institution of their order, have been distinguished by their
zeal in the prosecution of the two objects which Pius IX. seems to ha^'e most at
heart : the extension of Mariolatry, and the absolute monarchy of the Pope. As to
the first, they did all in their power to popularize the doctrine of the Immaculate
Conception (see in Gieseler, iii. c. iii. sec. 60, note 19, the persecution which they
kindled against the Dominicans) ; as to the second object, we have seen in a
pre-vious note the doctrine of Lainez. It was that of the Society.
" We owe it to BelLirmine and other Jesuits, that in some documents the Pope is
expressly designated Vice-God." — Janus, p. 39.
Mr. Cobb (p. 27) thinks " that if the Pope be in the hands of the Jesuits it is a very
good thing for us ; ho might be in plenty worse." Perhaps he should know. But
the reason he assigns is not very reassuring ; for it amounts only to that which no
one who knows their history can doubt : that their conduct will be governed by their
view of expediency. The sons of Loyola were never supposed to be deficient in the
wisdom of the serpent. One ofthe worst features in Mr. Cobb's pamphlet is his
attempt to gain credit to the Jesuits for moderation, as if an object was the better for
the craft and dissimulation with which it is attained. The Pope would, no doubt, be
deUglited to see the Inquisition, described by his organ, "La Civiltd" (see Janus,
p. 12), as " a subUme spectacle of social perfection," planted in England ; but it is not
a Jesuit who would advise him immediately to issue a Bull for that purpose.
t This appears to be the most appropriate description for the " grievances of the
most advanced among us," enumerated by Mr. Cobb (p. 36). Coinpared'with the
importance of the subject, and the danger to which the Pope alludes in his letter to
Archbishop Manning, they seem indeed very paltry and pitiful.

278 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
with Rome comes naturally frora those who are doing all in their
power to break up the unity of the Church of England. But for
all others I can conceive no line of conduct at once more inconsis
tent and more cruel, than to offer demonstrations of sympathy
which can only serve to foster what, as merabers of a Reformed
Church, we believe to be a spirit of error, and a calamitous
delusion. I am well aware, my Reverend Brethren, how far you are from
Incentive to the sliffhtest tendency toward this kind of unfaithfulness
loyalty to ° •'
the Church, to the principles of your own Church, and that to many
of you it may seera something strange and almost incredible. Let
me then remind you that its existence Is an additional reason why
you should not be content with a merely negative loyalty. At
such a juncture as the present, whether we look abroad or at home,
we must feel that our Church has a right to some positive proofs
of our allegiance and affection. You repudiate the jurisdiction
claimed b}' the Bishop of Rome, not only because the claim rests
on no more solid ground than a fanciful Interpretation of Scripture
and a corruption of primitive tradition, but because you believe
him to be in spiritual things, not merely a falUble, but a blind and
actually erring guide. I rejoice to know that such Is your convic
tion, and I am sure that the farther you inquire Into the position
of our Church In this controversy, the more fully you wIU be
iissured of Its essential agreement with primitive faith and order.
Certainly you cannot prize this privilege too highly, or watch over
it too jealously. But that wbich concerns us most Is, not that we
go to no other, but that we do go to Him Who alone hath the
words of eternal life. It is that we strive to live and labour, as under
His immediate eye ; that we search the Scriptures more and more
diligently, not for that which ministers to doubtful disputations,
but for that which will nourish our own souls and those committed
to our charge. It Is that, while we neglect no light which the
Church supplies, or to which she directs us for our guidance, we
endeavour to lay open our hearts and minds to that heavenly
teaching, which is at the same time the unfailing source of all holy
comfort. Whether our appointed sphere of duty be large or

CHARGES. 279
narrow, conspicuous or obscure, each may try to fiU it, as if the
welfare of the whole body depended on his individual exertions,
and as If the -view taken of the Church frora without, would be
entirely governed by the character of his life and ministry. More
than this cannot be required by the Church, or by her Di-vine
Head. Does he require less ? I leave the answer to your private
meditations.

APPENDIX.

(A.)
List of Churches newly built or under restoration since the last Visita
tion. Archdeaconry of Carmarthen.
Merthyr (entirely rebuilt).
Pendine. Llangain.
Llanllwch. Loughor. Archdeaconry of St. David's.
The Cathedral (balf finished).
Lambston.Lampbey.Khoscrowther. St. Florence. Archdeaconry of Cardigan.
Elerch (new).
Lampeter (new). Archdeaconry of Brecon.
Llandrindod (new).
Vaynor (new).
Crickhowell. Gladestry. Nantmel (Parish Church and new School Chapel).
Taffechan.

APPENDIX. 281

(B.)
'What is Transubstantiation ?
Mr. Cobb ("Kiss of Peace," p. 100 foil.) has endeavoured to show that
it is only through a vulgar error, that persons unacquainted with scho
lastic language, have supposed that tbe Eoman doctrine of Transubstan
tiation is at variance with that of the Church of England. The same
opinion is intimated in the Declaration, commonly known as Archdeacon
Denison's, on the Eeal Objective Presence, by the words commonly called
" Transubstantiation." Tbe mistake, Mr. Cobb thinks, has been, that
Transubstantiation, properly so called, tbat is, tbe conversion of the sub
stance of the consecrated elements, has been confused with what be has
happily termed Transaccidentation, that is, a change in their sensible
properties, or accidents, which both Churches deny, while the Transub
stantiation which is really taught by tbe Church of Eome, is not denied,
but virtually held by the Ohurch of England. Tbe Twenty-eighth
Article Mr. Cobb supposes to have been aimed, not at the Eoman doctrine,
but at tbat which had been mistaken for it. It may seem surprising tbat
there should be any room for doubt as to the meaning of Transubstantiation
in the Eoman sense, when it has been defined by the Council of Trent,
in a Chapter (Sess. xiii. cap. iv.) headed De Transubstantiatione. We
there read, " Sancta base Synodus declarat per consecrationem panis et
vini, conversionem fieri totius substantise panis in substantiam Corporis
Christi Domini nostri, et totius substantite vini in substantiam Sanguinis
ejus. Quffi conversio convenienter et proprie a sancta Catholica Ecclesia
Transubstantiatio est appellata." But as substance is tbe name given to
a thing utterly unknown, and to our present faculties absolutely incon
ceivable, tbis definition is in fact merely verbal, and tells us no more tban
that X takes tbe place of y. We must look elsewhere for some explana
tion of the nature of the change, which may enable us to form a judgment
on Mr. Cobb's proposition. He himself relies on chap. i. and chap. ui.
In chap, i., on the words, " Nee enim hac inter se pugnant, ut ipse
Salvator noster semper ad dexteram Patris in coelis assideat, juxta modum
existendi naturalem, et ut multis nihilominus aliis in locis sacramentaliter
praesens sua substantia nobis adsit, ea existendi ratione quam, etsi ver
bis exprimere vix possumus, possibUem tamen esse Deo, cogitatione per
fidem Ulustrata, assequi possumus, et constantissime credere debemus."
Iiaving cited this passage, Mr. Cobb asks, " Can any thing be plainer
than that the Church of Eome here distinguishes between the ' natural '
and the ' spiritual,' or, as she calls it, the ' sacramental ' mode of Christ's
presence, and maintains with us that Christ's natural Body is in Heaven,

282 APPENDIX.
and not here " (this is an interpolation of Mr. Cobb's), " it being against
the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than
one, whereas she holds that tbis is possible with the ' spiritual ' body,
although we cannot express the mode of its existence, that is, the laws
to which it conforms ? "
What to me is made plain by this remark, is that Mr. Cobb is not a
competent expounder of Eoman doctrine. It is clear that he has con
founded two things, between which Eoman Divines most carefully distin
guish, -viz. the natural body and the natural mode of its existence. The
Council does not deny the presence of tbe natural body 'in the Sacrament,
but only that it is there according to its natural mode of existence. In
tbis very chapter it repeatedly urges the literal interpretation of our
Lord's words, in proof of the reality of His Flesh and Blood in the
Sacrament, without any qualifying expression (" post panis vinique bene-
dictionem se suum ipsius Corpus Olis prasbere, ac suum Sanguinem,
disertis ac perspicuis verbis testatus est "), and it inveighs against those
wbo distort them " ad fictitios et imaginarios tropos, quibus Veritas " —
not substantia — " Carnis et Sanguinis Christi negatur." Mr. Cobb also
asserts, that the Church of Eome maintains with us (in the Declaration
on Kneeling) that " Christ's natural Body is in Heaven, and not here, it
being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be in more places than
one ; " but he offers no proof of this assertion, and if he bad sought
would have been unable to find one. In the Appendix to my last Charge
I cited two passages, one from the posthumous Systema Theologicum of
Leibnitz, the other from Lacordaire, both assuming that, according to
the doctrine of tbe Church of Eome, Christ's natural Body is in many
places at once, and endeavouring to show that it is possible. The dispute
between tbe Franciscans and the Dominicans at the Council of Trent —
one party contending that the Body of Christ was translated from Heaven
into the Sacrament ; the other, that it was created by each consecration
— proceeded on this assumption. Nor without this would there have
been any such stupendous miracle as to render it necessary to insist upon
the text (Luke i. 37), With God nothing shall be impossible (Catechismus
Eomanus, Pars ii. cap. iv. Qusest. xxxv).
Mr. Cobb also cites chapter iii. of the same Session, where the
Council teaches as " the faith ever held in the Church of God, that
instantly after consecration, the true Body of our Lord and His true
Blood are there (existere), together with His Soul and Godhead, under
the form of Bread and Wine ; but with the distinction, that the presence
of the Body under the form of bread, and of the Blood under tbe form of
wine, is due to the words of consecration (ex vi verborum) ; while, by
virtue of the natural connexion and concomitance, whereby the parts of
the risen Lord are knit together, the Body is there under the form of
wine, and the Blood under the form of bread, and the Soul under both.

APPENDIX. 283
Moreover, tbe Godhead is there, in consequence of tbe admirable hypo
static union between it and the Body and Soul. Wherefore it is most
true tbat as much (tantumdem) is contained under either form as under
both ; for Christ whole and entire is there under the form of bread, and
under every part of that form ; also whole Christ under the form of wine,
and under its parts." (" Ipsum Corpus sub specie vini, et Sanguinem
sub specie panis, animamque sub utraque, vi naturalis ilUus connexionis
et concomitantise, qua partes Christi Domini, qui jam ex mortuis resur-
rexit non amplius moriturus, inter se copulantur, Divinitatem porro
propter admirabilem illam ejus cum corpore et anima hypostaticam
unionem. Quapropter verissimum est tantumdem sub alterutra specie
atque sub utraque contineri. Totus enim et integer Christus sub panis
specie et sub quavis ipsius specie! parte, totus item sub vini specie, et
sub ejus partibus existit.")
Upon this, Mr. Cobb exclaims, " Now bave we, I ask, in the whole
range of our Liturgy, Articles, and Catechism, any more emphatic decla
ration of a wholly supernatural, transcendental, celestial Presence, or any
more emphatic disclaimer of a natural sensible corporeal Presence, than
this ? " And he then breaks out into a strain of rapturous admiration on
this " exalted, majestic, glorious belief," and of indignation at the "per
sons of authority and influence in our Church, wbo have imputed the
teaching of a ' carnal' view to the Church of Eome." But there is a
question whicb must be allowed to take precedence of Mr. Cobb's ; and
it is, whether in this quotation there is any such " declaration," or any
such " disclaimer," as be describes ; and whether that which he finds in
it has not been imported into it by himself, without any warrant or any
attempt at proof, through the confusion already noticed in his ideas,
between a presence and tbe mode of a presence. That tbis is really the
case, I believe I can prove beyond a doubt, by the evidence of the
Eoman Catechism, the most authentic exposition of the doctrine of the
Council, and of Bellarmine, whose authority on such a point wdl not be
questioned. In the Catechism (P. ii. cap. iv. Quaest. xvu.) it is stated, " Since we
observe that bread and wine are every day changed by tbe force of
nature into buman flesh and blood, we may be the more easily led, by
tbis similitude, to believe tbat the substance of bread and wine are con
verted into the true Flesh of Christ and His true Blood, by heavenly
benediction." (" Cum panem et vinum in humanam carnem et san
guinem quotidie vi naturse immutari animadvertimus, facifius adduci
possumus hac simOitudine, ut credamus, panis et vini substantiam in
veram Christi Carnem, verumque ejus Sanguinem, ccelesti benedictione
convcrti.") Under the twenty second Quasstio, we find an enumeration
of three "moat admirable efl'ects wrought by consecration in the Sacra
ment." Tho first is, " tbat thc true Body of tbe Lord Christ, that same

284 APPENDIX.
whicb, born of the Virgin, is seated in heaven at the right hand of tbe
Father, is contained in this Sacrament." ("Primum est, verum Christi
Domini Corpus, illud idem, quod, natum ex Virgine, in coelis sedat ad
dexteram Patris, hoc Sacramento contineri.") And this is still more dis
tinctly explained in Qiimstio xxxiv., " Tbe Body is truly conjoined with
the Godhead : the Body born of the holy Virgin ; not that tbe very Body
whicb was taken up, comes down from heaven (the opinion of tbe Fran
ciscans), but that the bread itself and tbe wine are transmuted into the
Body and Blood of Christ." (" Corpus secundum veritatem conjunctum
est Divinitati : corpus ex sancta Virgine ; non quod ipsum corpus assump-
tum de ccelo descendat, sed quod ipse panis et vinum in Corpus et
Sanguinem Christi transmutentur.") I may observe, by the way, that
in the title of this Quastio, the Catechism has, by anticipation, refuted
Mr. Cobb's remark (" Kiss of Peace," p. 112) on the use of the plural
substances in tbe "Declaration on Itneeling," which — though with a
creditable misgiving — he considers as an indication of inaccuracy. For
the title runs, " Quomodo fit tam admiranda substantiarum conversio,"
viz. " ut tota panis substantia divina virtute in totam Corporis Christi
substantiam, totaque vini substantia in totam sanguinis Christi sub
stantiam, sine uUa Domini nostri mutatione convertatur." Mr. Cobb
bas no less reason for misgiving about his criticism on the words " very "
and "natural," as epithets of "substances." It is grounded on his
purely arbitrary assertion (p. Ill) that " substance " is not " natural,"
but " supernatural," for which be has no reason to give, but that its
nature is not known to us. He may be at Uberty to define what he
means by " nature," so as to confine it to that whicb is known to man ;
but he can have no right to make this private definition the ground of an
argument which is to convince others.
If the extracts already given do not speak plainly enough, all reason
able doubt must, I think, be removed by the twenty-seventh Quastio,
which is entitled, "An ossa, nervi, etquEecunque ad hominis perfectionem
pertinent, una cum Divinitate, hie vere adsint ?" " Are bones, nerves,
and whatsoever things pertain to the perfection of man, really present
here together with the Godhead ? " The answer is meant to show that
this not only is, but must be so. " Here, too, it must be explained that
not only the true Body of Christ, and wliatsoever pertains to the true nature
of a body, as bones and nerves, but also whole Christ is contained in this
Sacrament. For the pastor must teach that Christ is the name of God
and man, that is, of one person, in whom the Dirine and human nature
are united together ; wherefore it includes each substance, and the things
ichich belong to each substance, the Godhead and the whole human nature,
which consists of the soul and of all parts of the body, and also the blood,
all which must be believed to be in the Sacrament. For since in heaven
the whole manhood is united to the Godhead in one person and hypo-

APPENDIX. 285
stasis, it may not be suspected tbat tbe body, which is in the Sacrament,
is separated from the same Godhead." (" Hoc loco etiam explicandum
est, non solum verum Christi Corpus, et quicquid ad veram corporis
rationem pertinet, veluti ossa et n&rvos, sed etiam totum Christum in hoc
Sacramento contineri. Docere autem oportet, Christum, nomen esse
Dei et hominis, unius scilicet personae, in qua divina et humana natura
conjuncta sit : quare utramque substantiam, et quee utrique substanti/E con-
sequentia simt, Divinitatem et totam humanam naturam, quae ex anima et
omnibus corporis partibus, et sanguine etiam constat, complectitur, qua3
omnia in Sacramento esse credendum est. Nam cum in ccelo tota
humanitas Divinitati in una persona et hypostasi conjuncta sit, nefas est
suspicari. Corpus, quod in Sacramento inest, ab eadem Divinitate sejunc-
tum esse.") It seems impossible to state more clearly that tbe substance
which after consecration takes tbe place of tbe substances of tbe bread
and wine, does not, and cannot exist apart from its consequentia, which
include all things pertaining to tbe completeness of buman nature, as
bones and nerves ; in other words, the natural body in its full integrity.
But for a fuller explanation of the mode of the Presence, and of the
language in which it may be correctly described, we must turn to Bellar
mine. In the second chapter of the first book of bis treatise, " De
Sacramento Eucharistias," he first comments at length on the terms, nre,
realiter, and substantialiter, in whicb the mode of the Presence is de
scribed at the beginning of cap. i., sess. 18, of the Council of Trent, and
then proceeds to lay down certain rules for speaking correctly on the
subject. We must bear in mind that Mr. Cobb believes that " nothing
can be plainer " tban that in tbis very chapter the Church of Eome dis
tinguishes between the " natural " and the spiritual, or, as she calls it,
the Sacramental mode of Christ's Presence, and maintains with us that
"Christ's natural Body is in Heaven, and not here: " while in cap. in. of
the same Session he finds " a most emphatic declaration of a wholly
supernatural, transcendental, celestial Presence," and " a most emphatic
disclaimer of a natural, sensible, corporeal Presence." Bellarmine, in bis
second rule, contradicts these assertions almost as if be had foreseen
them. He says, " Dicemus quidem Corpus Christi, ut est in Eucbaristia,
esse verum, reale, naturale, animatum, quantum, coloratum, &c., et Car
nem illam dicemus esse corporalem non sjnritucdem, nisi nomen spirituale
sumatur sicut 1 Cor. xv., Seminatur corpus animale, surget spirituale, id
est obediens spiritui in omnibus. At non dicemus Corpus Christi in
Eucbaristia esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, extensum, licet tale sit in
ccelo." In his third rule about adverbs, he observes, " Dicemus Chris
tum esse in Eucbaristia vere, realiter, substantialiter, ut Concilium recte
loquitur, sed non dicemus corporafiter, id est eo modo quo suapte natura
existunt corpora, nee sensibiliter, mobiliter," &c., and he would recom
mend great caution in the use of such language as St. Bernard's, who

286 APPENDIX.
affirmed, " In Sacramento exhiberi nobis veram carnis substantiam, sed
spiritualiter non carnaliter." The negative he thinks would be
dangerous: "Periculum esset, ne traheretur ab adversariis non tam ad
modum quam ad ipsam naturam significandam." The reader will observe
that tbe misconstruction wbich Bellarmine apprehends from adversaries,
is tbe very misconception into which Mr. Cobb, though so far from an
adversary, has actually fallen. He bas confounded the natura with the
modus existendi, and, with the most friendly intentions, has misrepre
sented the doctrine of the Church of Eome, making ber deny what she
asserts, and assert what she denies. Bellarmine will call the Body in
the Eucharist, not only true and real, but natural. He will attribute to
it Ufe, bulk, colour, &c., i. e. all things belonging to the perfection of the
natural body, and he will call tbe Flesh corporeal, not spiritual, unless the
word spiritual be taken in a sense consistent with the nature of body.
But he -wfll not call the Body sensible, as if that epithet was equivalent,
as Mr. Cobb supposes it to be, to natural and corporeal.
Mr. Cobb's mistake is not surprising, nor, I think, discreditable to him.
Independently of his affection for the Church of Eome, he might well be
loth to attribute to her such a doctrine as that which Bellarmine expounds.
It supposes a twofold miracle : one, by which the Presence is produced ;
the other, still more stupendous, by which the first is concealed ; and
both depend upon a third, of perhaps a still higher order. For whereas
it has not been questioned that the two former are possible to God, this
appears to belong to a class wbich is generally admitted to exceed the
power of Omnipotence itself. If a substance and its accidents are corre
latives, it can be no more possible for the accidents to exist without their
substance than the parts without their whole.
This doctrine of Transubstantiation is clearly not that which excites
Mr. Cobb's enthusiastic admiration, but it is, I believe, that of the Church
of Eome, and nothing short of this would satisfy a devout Eoman
CathoKc. When in a Eoman Catholic city, the Host is brought forth in
a gorgeous procession, surrounded by all that splendour to which the
Council of Trent (Sess. xiii. cap. v.) attributes so much eflScacy — amidst
a blaze of lights, clouds of incense, showers of roses — what do the people
understand to be the object of their adoration ? Certainly not a meta
physical entity, an incorporeal substance ; but Christ Himself, perfect
God and perfect man : in the full integrity of His manhood, not a bone,
not a nerve, not a hair wanting ; in His full, proper, natural dimensions,
— but all unseen, hidden under a veil. " The faithful," says the Cate
chism (u. s. Quffist. xxvi.), " can never sufficiently admire the perfection
of Holy Church and her height of glory, seeing that between that and
the heavenly blessedness there is only one degree of difference. For
this we have in common with the dwellers in heaven, that both have
Christ, God and man, present. The only difference is, that they enjoy

APPENDIX. 287
the beatific vision of His presence, we adore Him, present, but withdrawn
from the sense of the eyes, concealing Himself under the admirable covering
of the sacred mysteries, by a firm and steadfast faith." ("Ac profecto
satis mirari fideles nunquam poterunt sanctae Ecclesiae perfectionem,
ejusque gioriae altitudinem ; cum inter eam et coelestem beatitudinem,
unus tantum gradus interesse videatur. Hoc enim nobis cum coelitibus
commune est, ut utrique Christum, Deum et hominem, praesenteni
habeamus : sed (quo uno gradu ab iis distamus) illi prfesentis beata
visione perfruuntur ; nos praesentem et tamen ai oculorum sensu remotum,
sacrorum mysteriorum admirabili integumento se occultantem, firma et con
stant! fide veneramur.") It would, to say the least, be a very singular
way of speaking, to say tbat a thing, in-visible in itself, like substance, is
hidden by a covering, and withdrawn from the sense of the eyes, to whicb it
never was, or could be subject. But according to my view of tbe doc
trine, all is clear and consistent.
I do not wonder indeed that such a belief should appear too extrava
gant to have been ever admitted into a sane mind. But according to the
view of the Church of Eome, this apparent extravagance is the very thing
which constitutes the merit of the belief. " Credo quia impossible est."
Tbis is one of tbe reasons assigned by tbe Eoman Catechism (Quasst.
xxxviii.) for whicb it was Christ's pleasure to give His Body and Blood
under the form of bread and wine. " It would have been shocking to
human nature to feed on buman flesh, and to drink buman blood." It
would also have exposed Christians to calumny from unbelievers, if they
bad been seen to eat the Lord under His own form. Another advantage
is, that when we receive tbe Lord's Body and Blood, in such a way, that
what is really done cannot be perceived by the senses, this serves much
to increase faith in our minds, faith being considered as a grace which is
strengthened by exercise (" dum Corpus et Sanguinem Domini ita sumi-
mus ut tamen quod vere fit, sensibus percipi non possit, hoc ad fidem in
animis nostris augendam plurimum valet, qua3 quidem ibi non habet
meritum, ubi humana ratio praebet experimentum "). That whicb is
received is tbe very natural Body and Blood, but bidden from sense by
the elements. I cannot see how the language and the whole argument
of tbe passage admit of any other interpretation. And I have no doubt
that it was in the literal sense that Aquinas meant to be understood,
when be sang, " Verhum Caro panem verum
Verho carnem eflEicit ; —
Fitque Sanguis Christi merum ;
Et, si sensus deficit.
Ad firmandum cor sincerum
Sola fides suffieit."
Thc translation in " Hj'mns Ancient and Modern," "which whoso

288 APPENDIX.
taketh, must from carnal thoughts be free," gives a turn to the thought
which I believe to be quite foreign to the author's meaning.
I will only add one remark. Whether it is Mr. Cobb or myself that
is in error on this question, what are we to think of the teaching of a
Church which expresses herself on such an article of faith so as to leave
room for such a difference of opinion as to her meaning ? one, it must be
observed, not at all arising out of the obscurity of the subject itself, but
entirely out of the manner in which she has treated it. It was not with
out good cause that Pius IV., in the Bull of Confirmation ofthe Council,
forbade tbe publishing of any commentaries, or any kind of interpretation
of its decrees, without his authority (" ne quis sine auctoritate nostra
audeat uUos commentarios, glossas, annotationes, scholia, uUnmve omnino
interpretationis genus super ipsius Concilii decretis quocunque modo
edere "). Should any one find any thing obscure in them, and needing
interpretation or decision, let him go up to the Apostolical See (" ci cui
vero in eis aliquid obscurius dictum et statutum fuisse, eamque ob causam
interpretatione aut decisione ahqua egere, -visum fuerit, ascendat ad
locum quem Dominus elegit, ad Sedem videlicet Apostolicam. Deut.
xvii. 8 ").
It would have been better if the Council bad spared him and the faith
ful this trouble, by a little greater perspicuity.

(C.)
After the Charge had been delivered at three out of the four places of
my Visitation, I learnt, by a private letter from a gentleman who had
seen some account of it in a London paper, that the statement, that
" the Union was brought about against the will of the great majority of
tbe Irish people," is disputed : and I was courteously invited to refer my
correspondent to " the sources from which I had drawn this conclusion."
I am aware that the subject is one on whicb it is impossible, especially
after an interval of seventy years, to speak wilh certainty, and that no
authority can be absolutely conclusive. But I think that so strong a
presumption is raised in favour of the statement, by the whole course of
previous and subsequent history, as to throw tbe burden of proof on
those who deny it, and that this presumption is confirmed by tbe nature
of the means which the Government bad to employ to carry the measure
through the Irish Parfiament. I will, however, refer the reader to
Massey's " History of England,'' and to Goldwin Smith's " Irish History
and Irish Character." Mr. Massey writes (Vol. iv. p. 334), " However

APPENDIX. 289
conclusive the argument in favour of Union may appear to Englishmen,
it was difficult for an Irishman to regard the Union in any other view
than as a measure to deprive his country of her independent constitution,
and to extinguish her national existence." It seems to me clear, that
when this was the general feeling, real consent to tbe Union must bave
been the exception, hostility the rule. So Mr. Massey observes (p.
347), " There was one mode of carrying tbe Union, and one mode only.
Bribery of every kind must be employed, without hesitation and without
stint." I cannot take into the account on the side of the Union, either
votes so purchased, or support obtained by delusive promises. " The
consent of the CathoUc clergy," observes Mr. Gold-win Smith (p. 178),
" so far as that body did consent, must be held to have been vitiated,
since hopes of an arrangement in their favour were held out to tbem, and
not fulfilled." And as he says, p. 186, " Of the absurdity and iniquity
of a Union, whicb excluded three-fourths of the people of one nation, on
the ground of their refigion, from the common legislature, there is now
no need to dwell." Were these " three-fourths," " the great majo
rity of the Irish people," absolutely insensible to this " absurdity and
iniquity ? "
Mr. Massey is impartial, and all Mr. Goldwin Smith's leaning is in
favour of tbe Union. I know how cautiously the views and judgments
of such a violent partisan as Mr. Mitchel are to be received. Yet I do
not believe tbat he wilfully misstates facts, and therefore I think I may
refer to his " History of Ireland," vol. ii. chap. iii. and foil., in confirma
tion of my conclusion.

VOL. II.

XI.
A CHAEGE
Deli-veebd October and November, 1872.
the vatican council.  dissensions in the chukch of england.
 the athanasian creed. — the education act of 1870.

My Reverend Brethren,
I CANNOT meet you on this occasion without a personal
reflection, which, if I was able, I should not think it right to
suppress. The temporary disability by which I was compelled,
two years ago, to seek assistance for my last Confirmation, called
forth marks of syrapathy and kindness which I can never forget.
But it also admonished me that the time could not be very far
distant when my strength would no longer suffice even for the
ordinary work of the Diocese, to say nothing of new calls which
might be expected to arise out of the shifting circumstances of the
Church. And I now address you with the solemnity of a deep
conviction that this is the last time my voice will be heard from
this chair. But speaking under this feeling, I do not know how
I could better avail myself of the present opportunity than
according to my practice in past years, when I have been used to
take a broad survey of our condition and prospects, and to express
my opinion on the main topics which bad arisen in the intervals
of successive Visitations to occupy the minds of Churchmen, and
affect the Interests of the Church. In the course of an episcopate
protracted far beyond the average length, these topics have been
constantly growing In number and magnitude, and have often
rendered it difficult to avoid exceeding the ordinary raeasure of a

BISHOP THIRLWALL's CHARGES. 291
Visitation Charge. On the present occasion I believe I shall be
in least danger of trespassing unduly on your patience. If I first
look out on that which lies farthest on our horizon, and then pass
to raatters In which we are, If not raore deeply, yet, as It may
seem, more immediately concerned.
The most Important event that has taken place since our last
meeting — one, I venture to say, far more Important than the
great change in the balance of power which we have witnessed
during the same Interval- — ^Is the promulgation of the new dogma
decreed by the Council of the Vatican, on the 18th of ^ , „.^,,.,
•^ ' Infalhbihty
July, 1870, by which the decisions of the Pope in all ""'^^ ^°'^'-
questions of faith and morals were declared to be irreformable,
that is, absolutely exempt from possibility of error, as Divine
Revelation, irrespectively of any previous or subsequent assent of
the Church, whether diffused throughout Christendom, or repre
sented In a General Council. I cannot expect that all my hearers
should fuUy appreciate the Importance of this event. Many may
have wanted leisure or means of studying Its character and
bearings, and may see In It nothing more than a fresh display of
arrogant pretensions, which Illustrate the character of the Papacy,
but make no alteration in the state of things, so far, at least, as
we are concerned. I am very sure that it can be so regarded
only by those who do not comprehend Its nature ; and I believe
there Is no subject of deeper practical Interest to every one of us,
or on which a portion of our time can be more profitably
employed. Though the number of Bishops brought together in the
< Vatican Council appears to have exceeded that of every .
previous Synod, its right to the title of an Ecumenical Sc,^e^°*
or General Council has been questioned. And, no '^
doubt, if It Is tried by the standard of Anglican orthodoxy. It
wUl be found wanting In one particular. It Is laid down in our
Twenty-first Article that " General Councils may not be gathered
together without the commandment and will of Princes." But
tbe Vatican Council was convoked by the mere will and pleasure
of the Pope, not only without regard to any secular authority.

292 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
but SO as expressly to exclude all reference to any such authority,*
and with a studied display of independence, which was treated by
the advocates of the Papacy as matter of boastful exultation. It
was, no doubt, a very significant innovation on the practice of
former ages. But I do not find that any scruple was felt by
Roman CathoUcs of any school with regard to the fficumenlclty
of the CouncU on this account ; and considering the circumstances
of the time, I cannot attribute much weight to this objection. It
is at least conceivable that such a gathering might be urgently
needed for the Interests of the Church, and yet that the state of
public afiairs raight make it impossible to obtain the express
concurrence of the Powers whose consent was required. In such
a case their passive acquiescence might perhaps be deemed
equivalent to an expression of their will. Very remarkable, no
Convoked doubt, Is the coutrast between the circumstances under
ferent oir- whIch the CouucU of the Vatican was convoked, and
cumstances , pt/-^ 'ipm i* - i -i -
fromthe thoso of the Couucil of Trent, In this, as indeed m
Council of
Trent. almost every other respect. The Council of tbe
sixteenth century was forced by the Emperor on a reluctant
Pope, who dreaded nothing so much as that Reformation of the
Church in Head and Members which it was the Emperor's main
object to bring about; t and the place at which It was held was
selected for the convenience of access to the Princes who appeared
by their envoys at the Council. J That of the Vatican was
viewed with apprehension and distrust by all the Roman Catholic
Sovereigns, who knew that they had nothing but evil to expect
from it, and the more because it was to be held at Rome, where
it would be completely subject to the power and influence of the
Pope. This contrast may suggest some Instructive reflections on
the course of that development which has reached its culminating
point in the new dogma. But it seems to rae that it would be
» For the negotiation on tUs subject see Quirinus, " Romisohe Briefe vom ConcU,"
p. 24.
t Paleotto, "Acta Concilii Tridentini," ed. Mendham, p. 10, admits the prevailing
belief, though holding it to he sufficiently refuted hy the conYocation of the Council.
X Paleotto, u. s., p. il, " ut facilius Christiani principes possent convenire." Cf.
Quirinus, u. s., p. 11.

CHARGES. 293
going too far to say that no change of circumstances could justify
such a variation in the raode of proceeding.
There is another point of view in which the Council of the
Vatican fails altogether to satisfy our notion of a General Council,
inasrauch as it is not, and does not even claim to be, ^ , , ,
' Excluded a
commensurate with the whole extent of the Christian ^Schru-"^
World. It confessedly excluded a very large part of ''™™'^'''^-
Christendom ; only, however, it must be observed, those who,
according to the Roman view, were disqualified from taking
part in Its deliberations by heresy or schism, and who rejected
the Invitations by which they were summoned to entitle them
selves to Its privileges by repentance and subraission. To the
Churches of the East, proud of their antiquity and their iraraa-
culate orthodoxy, and to the Churches of the Reformation,
united in opposition to the corruptions of Rome, such invita
tions could hardly sound otherwise than as an Insult unworthy
of serious notice. But we cannot be surprised that frora the
Roman point of view they should seera to justify the assurap
tion of a title which else would have stood In glaring contrast
to the real character of the asserably. So far therefore the
question of (Ecuraenlcity is only a branch of the general con
troversy between Rorae and the Churches which reject her
authority. Neither of these objections appears to rae to touch the raain
point. According to Ideas which are not peculiar to the Church
of Rome, a purely clerical assembly, in which no layman had
either vote or consultative voice, might be fully competent to deal
with questions of doctrine which afiected nothing but reUgious
convictions, especially if, like the dogma of the Immaculate Con
ception, they were totally destitute of practical Interest, and
utterly unworthy of notice, except for the audacity of their inven
tion. But that which the CouncU of the Vatican „, . , ,
Object of its
undertook to decide, was not only the fundamental <""^'^°'^*ion.
doctrine of the Christian faith, that on which all others must
ultimately rest, but a question raost deeply affecting the whole
framework and the very foundation of cIvU society, the institu-

294 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
tions of every State,* the peace of every household. The work
for which It was assembled was not simply a new ecclesiastical
constitution, but, through and under cover of this, a complete
poUtical and social revolution. It Is only when this Is clearly
understood, that we can duly appreciate the audacity by which
the laity were excluded from all share In deliberation on matters
so nearly concerning all that was most precious to them, and were
expected to receive the decrees of their spiritual guides with
passive submission. And fully to estimate the boldness of this
attempt, we must recollect the vast strides which the human mind
has taken in the last three centuries, and the consequent growing
impatience of clerical dominion and dictation.
To members of the Roman communion who admit the Pope's
authority to convoke a General Council, and the forraal Ecume
nicity of the Vatican Synod, there remain only two questions of
any moment ; one, whether the Council was free, the other,
whether the dogma it decreed Is a truth of Divine Revelation.
Indeed, since every Roman Catholic Is bound to admit the
infallibility of a General Council, the two questions resolve them-
needomia- selves Into one, and the whole turns on the single issue
to deiibera- of freedom, which is agreed on all hands to be indls-
tive assem
blies, pensable to the validity of the proceedings of every
deliberative assembly, and above all of a General Council, f The
truth of the dogma Indeed cannot depend on the freedom of the
Council. If true. It would have been equaUy so though the
Council had never met : as the Council itself does not profess to
make, but only to find and declare, the truth. + But the obliga
tion of the faithful to accept its decrees, depends not on their
truth, but on its authority, of which freedom is an essential con
dition. And when we are considering how the issue Is likely to
* On the political aspect and consequences of the Dogma, see the petition drawn
up by Cardinal Ruuscher in Friedrich's " Dooumenta " ii., p. 388.
t " Libertas ilia, quam oportuit esse in omnibus consultationibus, maxime vero
de rebus sacris." (Je-well, Epist. De Concilio Tridentine.) But I do not see that
the Bishops of the Vatican Council were bound by their oath of obedience to the
Pope, to accept any definition proposed to them, even with his express sanction.
X " Ecclesia in suis definitioiiibus semper eat Testis, et judicium iionnisi teslando
effoimat." (Archbishop Kem ick in Iriediich, "Documenta" i., p. 210.)

CHARGES. 295
afi'ect the interests of the Church and of society, this becoraes the
most important point in the whole inquiry.
The facts which bear upon it lie within a comparatively narrow
compass. The most notorious of all Is that down to the eve of
the day on which the dogma was proclaimed, the want ^.j^^ council
of necessary freedora was the subject of Incessant, '">**'^'=-
though unheeded, complaint, petition, and remonstrance, on the
part of the Minority In the Council Itself.* The defect was
radically Inherent in its coraposition. Virtually and practicaUy it
was an Italian Council : Italy alone having more voices than all
the Roman Catholic countries of Europe together. This prepon
derance of the Italian vote was further strengthened by a host of
titular prelates, raany of thera created for the occasion, without
churches or flocks, absolutely depending on the Pope for their
daily bread, and by chiefs of the monastic Orders entirely devoted
to hira. On the other side was a Minority representing a popula
tion of ninety raiUions, and of the most civilized nations of the
world. But the vote of each titular prelate counted for as much
as that of the occupant of the greatest see, and his testimony to
the tradition of the Church was received as of equal value.
The order of proceeding was so regulated as to make the result
depend on the will of the Pope, just as if the question ^^^^^^^
of his plenary authority had been already decided. The P"'™^'ii°s-
pubUc deliberations were so mere a mockery, that they were
carried on in a room where no speaker could be heard by more
than two-thirds of those present ; and none were allowed to print
their speeches, even for the sole use of their coUeagues.f Neither
within nor without the Council Hall was there the possibility
* " Notre faiblesse vient de notre defaut de liberte, qui eat radical. Lamajorile
n'est pas libre. A notre arrivee tout etait fait sans nous. Mais voici ce qui acheve
d'opprimer notre liberte ; elle est ecras^e de tout le poids du respect que nous portons
a notre chef. Nona avons trouve une majorite toute faite, tres-compacte," &o.
(Quirinus, Anhang, p. 656 ff. Cf. Friedrich, "Doc." i., pp. 138, 168. "Pie IX.
prejuge solennellement la question soumise au ConcUe." Ibid., p. 183.)
t "In prima congregatione generali, inter oratores, quorum aliqui fortissima
pollebant voce, ne anus quidem erat, quem omnes exaudire possent Pntres, et etiaui
postquam aula in arctius reducta est, mugna congregatorum para cunctis, quas dicta
sunt, pei-cipiendia impar est." (Friedrich i., p. 247. V. Schulte, "Das Dnfehi-
barkeits-Decrct.," p. 11.)

296 of a free interchange of Ideas among the members.* The Council
was practically represented by a select committee nominated by
the Pope, either directly or through the Majority, coraposed, as
we have seen, so as to consist entirely of devoted partisans.
Pressure But the gravcst of aU obstacles to the freedom of dls-
thePope. cusslon, was the pressure exercised by the Pope, who
neglected no opportunity, public or private, of making kno-wn that
the question was one In which he took the deepest personal
interest, and of denouncing the opponents of the dogma as
a faction hostile to hiraself and to the Church. It is difficult
for us adequately to conceive, but irapossible to exaggerate, the
weight thus thrown into the scale among persons used to receive
every expression of the Papal raind and -wiU with religious vene
ration and awe.
Precipita- Thls scrlcs of opprcssIve Interferences with the liberty
Decree. of the CouncU was fitly crowned by the scandalous
precipitation with which the raeasure, taken out of Its place In the
prescribed order of the proceedings, was finally hurried through :
haste, which would have been indecent, even if the matter had
been one of sUght moment, or which called for Uttle study and
research, instead of being, as It was, the gravest of all questions
that could occupy the attention of the Christian world, reaching
more nearly to the foundation of the faith, and Involving a wider
range of inquiry than any other. The Decree was ultimately
carried by a numerical majority, against aU precedent, which In
such a case, above all, required moral unanimity ; in the absence
indeed of the dissentients, but after they had declared to the last
that their opinion remained unchanged.
Protest of A minority of more than a hundred protested. In the
minority. strongest torms consistent with respect for the Pope,
against the restraints imposed on the freedom of discussion, and
against the dogma itself. These protests they never withdrew,
and the facts on which their remonstrances were grounded could
not be changed by their subsequent submission, however It might
affect their character for courage or sincerity. Thoughtful lay-
t Friedrich, " Tagebuch," pp. 33 and 47.

CHARGES. 297
men of their own communion, who had watched their proceedings
with deep sympathy, and had been convinced by their arguraents,
could not abandon their convictions, because their teachers had
become silent. It was not enough, as one of them remarked, for
such things to be retracted, unless they were also refuted. It had
gone forth to the world that the Vatican CouncU was one ^,, , ,
Character of
long intrigue, carried through by fraud and violence.* *'"' Council.
No subsequent act of theirs could alter its character, or do more
than contribute a little to the temporary success of triumphant
iniquity. It remained not the less true that, since the Robber
Synod of Ephesus, no asserably claiming the title of a General
Council had been disgraced by more shameless breaches of freedora
and justice. If at Ephesus there was raore of brutal violence,
there was at Rorae an equally unscrupulous exertion of arbitrary
power, and a far greater depth of cunning.
To us however the raost important question, indeed the only
one in which we can feel any iraraediate Interest, Is the Truth of in-
truth of the dograa. And in this case truth raeans — at considered.
least had until now been believed to raean — antiquity. We
must remember that the Council did not affect to proclaim any
new doctrine, or to Invest the Papacy with any new dignity or
jurisdiction. The only purpose for which the Bishops were
supposed to be brought together was to attest the doctrine handed
down by tradition in their respective dioceses. How the titular
prelates who had no diocese could be qualified to bear such
witness, we are happily not concerned to explain. But the
proposition which the Council raakes binding on the conscience
of everyone who acknowledges its authority, under penalty of
eternal perdition, is that the personal Infallibility of the Pope was
revealed frora the beginning, and has been held ever since by the
Church. With our recoUections of the New Testament, we find
it difficult to conceive how so astounding a paradox could have
been seriously asserted. Independently however of scriptural
testimony. It was thought, not unreasonably, that a doctrine of
such a nature, of such constant application to cases which mu.st
* Lord Acton, " Sendschreiben an einen Deutschen Bischof," p. 18.

298 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
have been continually arising, could never have been forgotten or
questioned in the Church ; and therefore that it Is disproved by
the very fact that It has been found necessary, at the end of
eighteen centuries, to affirm it for the first time in a General
Council. And, waiving this objection, we may remark that if
Ecclesiastical History can show a single well-attested Instance in
which a Pope has fallen Into heresy, that would confessedly be
fatal to the dogma. No less conclusive to the same effect would
be a case In which a Pope had retracted a solemn judgment on an
article of faith. We are familiar with the error of Pope Honorlus,
venial indeed in Itself, but one which was accounted deadly heresy,
and repeatedly condemned both by Councils and his successors.
Attempts have been made to clear him from this charge, but it
appears to have been overlooked, that on the theory of personal
InfalUbility the charge could never have been brought against
him. The same remark applies to the waverings and retractations
of LIberlus and VIgilius. On the modern theory, they were not
only Impossible, but could never have been imputed to a Pope.
As little could cases have occurred In which the most solemn
dogmatical decrees of an Infallible Pope were subjected to
examination and revision before they were adopted by a Council.
Yet this was not only a common case, but the constant rule of
proceeding.
Illustration One Illustration of the novelty and strangeness of the
dogma. dogma is so remarkable In Itself, and so nearly concerns
us, as to deserve special notice. The belief which prevailed
among Protestants In this country, that the dogma which has
been now proclaimed was Indeed an article of faith In the Church
of Rome, was the main obstacle to the admission of Roman
Catholics to an equal share of civil rights. This obstacle was
only removed lij' the solemn assurances given by Roman Catholic
Bishops and eminent theologians that this doctrine formed no part
of the Roman Catholic faith.* The Irish members of the Vatican
Council, who retained a lively recollection of these events, found
* See the Speech of Arch'oishop Kenrick in Friedrich, " Doc." i., p. 213, and
Appendix.

• CHARGES. 299
themselves called upon to take part in a proceeding hardly con
sistent, as far as they were concerned, with common honesty.
That which, when a political object was to be gained, they had
represented as a calumnious Invention, they were now required to
affirm to be, and to have ever been, the simple truth. " Who,"
one of thera asked, " shall persuade Protestants that Catholics are
not acting contrary to honour and good faith. If, when civil rights
were in question, they professed that the Pope's Infallibility did
not form a part of the Catholic faith, but when they had
obtained their end, retract this public profession, and affirm the
contrary ? " *
We had been used to suppose that the question belonged
to the domain of Ecclesiastical History, and that persons viewed in
were competent to forra a judgment upon it in proper- Ecciesias-
tion to their familiarity with that field of literature. History.
The value of the Italian vote In the Council was thought to be
greatly Impaired by the notorious fact that the Italian Bishops
were on this point alraost universally the dupes of the forgeries
which had Imposed on Thomas Aquinas. Hundreds of such votes
would be outweighed by that of a single theologian who could
speak with the authority of a Hefele or a Dolllnger. But since
the raeeting of the Council It has been discovered that all this is a
mistake, that Ecclesiastical History has nothing to do with the
matter, that learning is quite superfluous for the solution of this
question, and that the very object of the Council is to dispense
with the need of scientific historical research. According to the
view of the raost ardent advocate of tbe dogma, the history of the
Church can only be learnt from the witness she bears to herself, t
• Bishop Clifford, in Friedrich, ib. ii., p. 258.
t Friedrich, "Tagebuch," p. 85, gives an extract from an Italian pamphlet of
Archbishop Manning, published at Naples, 1869 : — " E ormai tempo che le preten
sion! della ' scienza istorica' e di certi ' scienziati storici,' riducansi ai limiti delta
propria sfera. E cio fara il Concilio, non con dispute ed altercazioni, ma con le sole
parole, ' E piacuto alio Spirito Santo ed a noi." — " La chiesa e la prova di ae stessa,
anteriore alia sua istoria, e independente da essa. La sua istoria non puo che da e.ssa
impararsi." (It is no-w time that the pretensions of " historical science " and of
certain " scientific historians " should be reduced to the limits of their proper sphere.
And this the Council will do, not by disputes and altercations, but by the simple
words, " It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us." The Church is the proof

300 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
which is now gathered up in the single oracle of the Infallible
Pope, whose assertion of his own infallibility needs no corrobo-
The histo ration from any other testimony ; and according to the
ajmish same authority, this Infallibility Is a personal charisma,
Churcli only i i_ • i - x xl 1. "L
to be learnt known by inward experience to the person wbo has
been favoured with it, and to him alone. With him
alone rests the exercise which he may think fit to make of his
gift. It can never be subject to any external liraitation. That
which he declares to have taken place in the past, In aU matters
affecting religion — such as the Assumption of the Virgin Mary —
becoraes historical fact. That which he teaches on points touch
ing faith and morals becomes theological truth. No one has a
right to try either the fact or the truth by any other standard.
It is to be accepted as the voice of the Holy Ghost, just as if he
was incarnate In the person of the Pope.
Bearings of Bearing tbIs In mind, we raay see how vast Is the
P-apal infal- . I'li i • /»i.t
libiuty on Change which the promulffation oi this doeraa has made
tbe world at . ° . r o &
large. in the position of every Roman Catholic throughout the
world, and In the relation of every civil society to the Church of
Rorae. As there can be no political question of the slightest
moment that does not bear upon faith or morals, or both, the
Papal InfalllbUIty Implies a claim of absolute sovereignty over the
whole range of human thought and action. As that which is
true with regard to It now was equally true in all tirae past, the
most extravagant pretensions, as they appear to us, of the mediaeval
popes, are now revived, re-affirmed, invested for ever with a di-vine
authority. The one thing which is beyond the power of the Pope
himself Is to renounce or limit them. We raay be quite sure that
the authors of this ecclesiastical revolution -wUl never cease to
keep two objects steadily in -view ; on the one hand, to conceal its
real nature and scope, so as to quiet the alarms of those who are
not prepared to surrender the rights of the state to the priest
hood ; * on the other hand, to put the dograa In use ; to make the
of herself, anterior to her history and independent of it. Her history can only be
learnt from herself.)
* The state of the case is explained by Cardinal Antonelli in a despatch to the
Nuncio at Paris (inserted in an English translation in Archbishop Manning's

CHARGES. 301
Papal sovereignty felt In every relation of public and private life.
It is true, that whatever comfort we can derive frora the assurance,
that the Pope wUl not again assume the title of King or Lord of
England, or claim the right of repeaUng Acts of ParUament, that
we raay securely enjoy. In general we raay be sure that as long
as he can obtain the substance of power, he wiU be well content
to dispense with the form. But his agency wIU not be the less
real or effectual, because it Is carried on underground and in the
dark. And It would be a great mistake to Imagine that this
danger has been rendered less formidable by the recent course of
political events. The loss of the Pope's temporal dominion is
likely to give a stronger impulse to the zeal of his partisans, in
their endeavours to propagate his spiritual empire; and the
unscrupulous arts which were employed to bring about the pro-
Appendix to his Pastoral Letter, ' The Vatican Council and its Definitions '), with a
clearness and openness which leaves nothing to desire :—
" The Church has never intended, nor now intends, to exercise auy direct and
absolute power over the political rights of the State. Having received from God the
lofty mission of guiding men, whether indi^-idually or as congregated in society, to a
supernatural end, she has by that very fact the authority and the duty to judge
conceming the morality and justice of all acts, internal and external, in relation to
their conformity with the natural and divine law. And as no action, whether it be
ordained by a supreme power, or be freely elicited by an individual, can be exempt
from this character of morality and justice, so it happens that the judgment of
the Church, though falling directly on the morality of the acts, indirectly reaches
over everything with which that morality is conjoined. But this is not the same
thing as to interfere directly in political affairs." One who cannot see the meaning of
this, must be wilfully blind. But by way of illustration I subjoin an extract from
the " Revua des Deux Mondes," December 1, 1871, p. 540 : — " Le Pape se considfere
en BaviSre comme un prince souverain ; il y puhlie ses propres decrets en depit des
lois positives du pays. Varohcveqiw de Bamberg lui-meme a publiguement avoue, le 24
mai dernier, que' V episcopal bavarois ne pretait serment que sous la reserve mentale de
toutes les lois de Viglise. Quand les eveques cherchent a nier I'hostilite du Catholicisme
Romain a I'egard de la societe civile, le ' Syllabus' leur donne un dementi. Rome
se considers comme en guerre ouverte avec les gouvernements europeeus. Comme
preuve ^ I'appui, lesjoumaux aUemands ont reproduit le texte des instructions
secretes du Pape aux oonfesseurs du royaume d'ltalie puhlie par 1' JJnita Cattolica au
mois d'avril, 1871 ; on yvoit que la cour du 'Vatican ordonnait aux oonfesseurs d'imposer
comme wn devoir de conscience aux soldats italiens de deserter des qu'ils le pourraient faire
sans peril de la vie."
Friedrich, " Tagebuch," p. 243, relates : " Manning now makes it his business to
demonstrate to every one who wUl give him a hearing, that the infallibility relates
only to matters of dogma, not to the State. But even Count Trautmannsdorff
observed to him that the words were not simply quoad fidtm but also quoad

302 BISHOP thirl-^vall's
mulgatlon of the dograa, will not be spared iu the application of
Its logical consequences to all huraan concerns.
Roman It has UOW bccomo impossible for a Roman Catholic,
Catholicloyalty. Consistently with the first principles of his religion, to
be a loj^al subject of any government which Is not Itself subject to
the will of the Pope. Heretofore he might conscientiously profess
that his submission to the decrees of his Church was consistent
with his duty as a citizen. If he was pressed with the claims put
forward by such Popes as Innocent IIL, or Boniface VIII., to
temporal supremacy, he could argue with some degree of plausi
bility, that they only asserted an authority which was conceded
to them by the consent of the age in which they lived. He could
repudiate the charge of a divided aUegiance, as a calumny forged
for a pretext to cover the withholding of a right. But there is no
longer room for such a protest. His allegiance indeed can no
longer be truly said to be divided, but only because it Is now
exclusively due to his spiritual sovereign, whose side he Is bound
to take whenever the Interests or the will of that sovereign come
Into collision with the institutions of his earthly country. No
statesman can be worthy of the name, who overlooks or ignores
the gra-rity of the change which has been effected by the new
dogma, when he has to deal with proposals for a further develop
ment of Roman CathoUc influence, especially ia the control of
education. We have received ample warning, that the adherents
of the Papacy will never be satisfied untU the present barriers of
the constitution have been swept away, and the throne has been
made accessible to a sovereign pledged far more deeply than
James II. to obedience to the Pope.*
Probable Of the conscquences which may be expected to result
quencesof Irom this cvcnt, either abroad or at home, it would be
P.apat infal- '
libiiity. premature to speak. If In Germany It should lead to a
permanent schism, this will probably be due rather to the political
* Mr. Gladstone is reported to have said, in a speech delivered at King's College,
on the 14th May last : — " I must own that, admitting the incapacity of my under
standing to grasp fully what has occurred, the aspect of the recent decrees at Rome
appeara to me top much to resemble the proclamation of a perpetual war against the
progress and the movement of the human mind."

CHARGES. 303
than to the religious aspect of the question, though the one may
react upon the other. We watch the progress of the so-caUed
Old Catholic raoveraent with friendly interest. The dignitaries
of our own Church who attended the Congress of Cologne, though
they did not appear in an official character as representatives of
the Anglican Church, probably expressed a very general feeling.
All our sympathy is with DoUInger and his friends, as against
the revolutionary party to which they are opposed: but we cannot
make their present position our own. The Council of Trent
indeed becomes coraparatively respectable by the side of that of
the Vatican, and its proceedings a model of freedom and equity.
But we are not prepared to adopt its decrees ; and our rejection
of the new dogma does not reconcile us to the Creed' of Pius IV.
As members of the Church of England, we must continue to
protest not only against the Pope's personal infallibility, but
against what we may caU the Infallibility of the Pope in
Council. Whether in our own country any such gain will accrue to
the Church of Rome from the dogma by an Increase iis influence
on our
of proselytes, as the Pope was led to expect by his Cbuicii.
English counseUors, still remains to be seen. I am far from
confident that it will not be attended with any such result. I
beUeve there are minds so constituted or trained that they not
only readily adopt the Jesuit maxim of the merit earned by the
sacrifice of the intellect, but find It a relief to transfer the whole
labour and responsibility of thought and conscience. In matters of
religion, to another, and so are prepared to welcome the doctrine
of an infallible teacher. But I own I should be painfully sur
prised and disappointed if, on the whole, the effect of this innova
tion among ourselves was not to widen and fix the gulph which
separates us from the Church of Rome, and to unite aU raembers
of our own Communion, who have ever indeed been of us, in more
decided opposition to her claims, both new and old. I am far
from saying that this is a result desirable in Itself, or one which
any Christian mind can contemplate with unmixed complacency.
But it may be the least of two evils. Speaking In the abstract.

304 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
we cannot but sympathise -with every " Association forraed for the
Unity of promotion of the Unity of Christendom." But we must
Cbi'isten- _ . . p , _ i i •
dom may be not disguise irom oursclves, that even so great a blessina:
purchased ° ' & h
too dearly, would be purchased too dearly, or rather, that It would
be completely neutraUzed by a compromise of truth. And if,
even before the proclaraation of the new dogma, it was difficult to
conceive how such a reunion could be brought about otherwise
than on terms of absolute submission to Rorae, — such therefore
as we have no right to believe that any Church will ever accept, —
I need hardly observe how completely such a prospect has been
shut out by the position now taken up by the Church of Rome.
The hopelessness of the event indeed is no reason why it should
cease to be the object of our wishes and of our prayers. But it
raay well be questioned, whether persons who, without any Divine
coraraission, undertake to co-operate in the working of such a
stupendous miracle, must not either be labouring under some
strange delusion as to the relation of raeans to the end they have
in -view, or be using language which does not exactly convey their
real meaniag and Intention.
I now pass to subjects more speciaUy affecting the Church at
horae. state and When we met last, the prospects of the Church, as to
prospects of ^
thecimroh. Jts temporal position, were regarded by many of its
friends with rauch anxiety. Its adversaries were assalUng it -with
growing confidence, and with the machinery of a more compact
organization. The recent example of Ireland had awakened
hopes on the one side and fears on the other, which experience
alone could prove to be groundless. A sensible change has passed
upon this state of things. It is not that the uneasiness has been
succeeded by a sense of absolute security. Never was there a
time when it was less possible to count upon the duration of any
human institution, or to be sure that the forces which not Ions
ago astonished Europe by the outbreak of their destructive energy,
and by the fuU revelation of their direct antagonism to the first
principles of religion, morality, and social order, may not regain
their ascendancy, or at least be enabled to renew the struggle in

CHARGES. 305
which their wildest excessess found apologists and advocates in
educated men araong ourselves. But as to any danger specially
threatening the Church, her position appears to have become
relatively stronger, by the more decided failure of every fresh
assault. It is at least evident that for the present our chief, if
not our only, danger Is that which threatens us from within. It
is not DisestabUshment or Disendowment, but Disruption, Dis
organization, and Disintegration, that we have imraediately to
dread ; with the certainty that the evil which Is Incomparably
the greater In Itself, would, if unchecked, sooner or later draw the
other after it. It is fit that we should look It calmly In the face,
that we may neither underrate nor unduly magnify its importance.
But no one who Is not blind to the signs of the times can question
that it affords matter for serious apprehension.
If we would trace It to Its origin, we see at once that it Is not
the effect of any alteration in the doctrinal formularies Originoftha
T_"liii 1 'T rf, Disorgani-
which had long been received as a sufficient bond of nation.
union. Nor Is it that now, for the first time In our history, the
Church has been divided into parties or schools, which have taken
different -views of those forraularles. There had never been a
period when one party, whose leaning was toward the Church of
Rome, and which held that the Reforraation had been carried too
far, was not confronted by another which inclined towards the
views of the Continental Reforraers, and thought that our Refor
mation had not been carried far enough. But the great sacrifice
raade to uniformity two centuries ago, though It did not efface
the old division of parties, was followed by a long period of tran-
quiUIty — the tranquIUIty indeed of stagnation, which we have
little reason to look back upon with regret — Interrupted only by
occasional controversies of no general or permanent Interest ;
useful perhaps, as preventing the diffusion of a deeper lethargy.
It has been within a very recent period that the breach between
the two parties has been so -widened as to make it The breach
doubtful whether they can continue to find room within ^'^™^'^-
the same Church. It Is a mistake, we have been Informed, to
regard thera as " merely differing aspects of the sarae religion,"
-\'0L. II. X

306 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
and not as logicaUy " two distinct reUgions — two great camps,
Catholic and Protestant — quite as diverse frora each other as
Judaisra from Islam."* And we learn frora another high
authority of the sarae school, that "the vast majority of our
countrymen belong exclusively to no party, but are simply Protes
tant, with no other bond of union than a common dislike of
Popery."t This hostility might have been the result of a development by
which either party had brought out its latent tendencies, so as to
„ , provoke raore active antaeronlsra ; but in fact I do not find
The result of r" o '
^ti^?^^ojj that there has been any such development on more than
one side. ^^^ ^-^^^ q^ ^I^^^ ^^ ^-^^ Protcstant or Evangelical party
there has been, so far as I am aware, no deliberate systematic inno
vation, either in doctrine or practice, on the usage of centuries ;
rather perhaps signs of a growing disposition to make concessions
in things indifferent. But on the other side the development which
has been proceeding before our eyes during the last ten years, has
culminated in an approximation to Romish doctrine and ritual so
close as to render the remaining Interval hardly perceptible to
common observers. Whether those who lead the van In this
movement regard the position which they have taken up as one
In which they could finally rest, or as a step toward an ulterior
object, it would be useless to Inquire. But they do not profess to
be satisfied with the present araount of Inno-^'atlon, or to regard It
as anything more than a beginning and an Instalment. They
make no secret of their desire and intention, so far as lies In their
power, to bring about a complete transformation of the Church of
England Into the likeness of the Church of Rome in every par
ticular short of immediate subraission to the Pope.J
Designs of ^^ ^^ necessary to bear this In mind, that we may form
a correct estimate of the course taken by the opposite
parties. We cannot but respect the courage and openness -srith
which the leaders of the Ritualist movement avow their designs,
» " The Two Religions : a Lecture by Richard F. Littledale, LL.D.," p. 2.
t " Secular Judgments in Spiritual Matters." By Rev. Orby Shipley, M.A., p. 9.
X See Mr. Orby Shipley, " Cardinal Yirtues," p. 247.

CHARGES. 307
and disclose their plan of operation. They inform us that their
party is engaged in a " crusade against Protestantism,"* and aims
at nothing less than " re-Catholicizing the Church of England ;t
and that with a view to this ultimate object, they are agitating
for DIsestabUshment."+ After this it must be our own fault If
we are not on our guard. But when the same persons put in " a
plea for Toleration," I do not know how to iUustrate the character
of such a proposal raore aptly than by the iraage suggested by
one of themselves, in the words I was just now quoting, of " two
great camps." It Is as If one of these camps should send to the
other some such message as this : " We are on our march to take
possession of your carap, and to raake you our prisoners : but all
we desire is that you should let us alone, and should not attempt
to put any hindrance in our way."
It could hardly be supposed that such a transformation could
be accomplished In the name of the law without raising Litigation a
necessary
legal questions which must lead to litigation ; and the result.
result has been that extraordinary frequency of judicial proceed
ings In cases of doctrine and ritual which we have recently
witnessed. AU such litigation Is to be most deeply deplored, as it
issues from a root of bitterness and Inevitably aggravates the
bitterness from which it springs. But without assuraing the
truth to lie exclusively on either side, and only giving both
parties equal credit for sincerity and earnestness, we raust see that
the persons who Instituted these proceedings, though to their
adversaries they might appear as persecutors, could not but look
upon theraselves as simply acting on the defensive, in resistance
to an unprovoked and unlawful aggression, and for the purpose of
averting what to them seeraed a tremendous e-vil. They could
uot attach less importance to that which they regarded as error,
than their adversaries, who held It to be the truth. If the raatter
* See Mr. Orby Shipley, "Cardinal Virtues," p. 174.
t Ibid., p. 220 : " Consider how much has to be done ere we stabilitate our con
quests over Protestantism, or still more, ere we re-Catholicize the Church of
England." X Ibid., p. 194 : " The Catholic party in the Church are now agitating for dis
establishment." V 9,

308 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
was too slight to justify the resort to prosecution, it could hardly
be weighty enough to be worth the risk of such consequences.
Claim of The RltuaUsts claim to be spiritually the lineal de-
be deseen- scendants and consistent foUowers of those who in the
dants of
Tractarians. j^st generation set on foot the Oxford moveraent. But
the old Tractarians confined themselves to the Inculcation of their
doctrines through the pulpit and the press, and attempted no
Innovation in the forms of worship. When Ritualism first made
its appearance, the old Tractarians did not view it with favour.
They thought it premature, unseasonable, inexpedient, more likely
to check than to forward the progress of their movement. The
Ritualist thinks he has reason to complain of the neglect and
discouragement with which he has been treated by his spiritual
parents and national allies.* But there was a very plain and
broad line of separation between the Old and the New
Difterence x
oidlndNew Tractarlans. The authors of the Oxford moveraent said
nans, ^^^j^y ^jji^gg -^^Hch at that time were thought strange
and startling. But they were content to bear the responsibility
of their own opinions, and did not attempt to Impose them upon
the Church. The later Ritual innovations made the clergyman's
public ministrations an Instrument for investing his private
opinion with the sanction and authority of the Church. It was,
as I think, raost justly observed by the final Court of Appeal in a
recent case : " If the minister be allowed to Introduce at his own
will variations in the rites and ceremonies that seem to him to
interpret the doctrine of the service in a particular direction, the
ser-vice ceases to be what it was meant to be, comraon ground on
which aU Church people raay raeet, though they differ about some
doctrInes."t This was the abuse which the law was Invoked to
* " The summons to make a stand against secular judgments in spiritual matters
at last has been sounded by the remains of the old Oxford Tractarian party,
which had refused, oftentimes bitterly refused, to be associated with, to support, or
even to follow, and stUl less to be enlisted into the ranks of the Ritual forces in the
Catholic Re-vival. Verily, we have had a sweet and ample revenge!" — Rev. Orby
Shipley, u. s., p. 12.
t Judgment in Shepherd v. Bennett. The Court had just before laid do-wn the
principle : " In the public or common prayers and devotional ofBces of the Church
all her members are expected and entitled to join ; it is necessary, therefore, that
such forms of worship as are prescribed by authority for general use should embody

CHARGES. 309
repress. Viewing it In this light, I cannot assent to the claim
which has been laid on behalf of the Ritualists to superior for
bearance and moderation, on the ground that they have Instituted
no prosecutions for the numberless offences against obsolete
Canons and Rubrics, which raight have afforded opportunity of
retaliating on their opponents.* This claim could only be
admitted if it could be shown that in the prosecutions instituted
against them no principle was involved, and no end sought but
the infliction of personal annoyance. It can hardly be considered
sound reasoning to argue that if one clergyman is left at liberty
to neglect an old Rubric, another must have an equal right to
introduce a new doctrine as the mind of the Church.f
The successive judgments ofthe final Court of Appeal which have
decided aU the main questions that had arisen with regard Effects of
to public worship, appear to rae to have been on the whole ments ofthe
strictly conservative, and, while repressing Innovations Appeal.
which had given general offence, as violating the principle to which
I was just now referring, to have left as large a liberty of teaching
and practice as could be reasonably desired. But it cannot be
denied that thc Immediate effect has been to heighten and extend the
dissatisfaction which had been long felt by many with the constitu
tion of the Court, and thus to create a common ground on which
the most advanced Ritualist may join hands with the most moderate
of the old Tractarian School, and even with many who belong to
neither. For few probably would be found prepared to contend
that this constitution Is perfect and not liable to sorae grave
objections. It raight seera as If such unanimity opened a prospect
those beliefs only which are assumed to be generally held by members of the
Church." * In a Memorial to Convocation on the present aspect of the Ritual question, it is
observed : " The so-caUed RituaUsta have never moved in the prosecution of any
nonconforming clergyman ; they do not consider uniformity in strict accordance
with the very letter of the law, after long disuse and neglect, either practicable or
expedient ; rather they believe that any attempt to enforce it would inevitably
involve a destruction of the peace of the Church — perhapa even a disruption of the
Church itself ; they only ask for Justice, and that a small portion of the liberty so
largely extended to others may, more especially in consideration of the recent
judgnjents given in the cases above alluded to, be allowed to themselves.''
t Tho fallacy is ably and fully expi.'scd in Mr. Shaw's Essay, " Ritualism and
Uniformity," in " Principles at Stake."

310 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
of speedy and peaceful solution of the difficulty. In a reconstruc
tion of the tribunal, which should remedy all acknowledged
impracti- defects. Unhappily we know that a great, perhaps the
^ry '^ greater, part of those who caU raost loudly for such a
Court. change, would be content with none but a purely
clerical tribunal, possibly including a civilian or two as assessors,
to aid the Court with their ad-vlce on any raerely legal questions
that might incIdentaUy arise.* All their arguments would be
just as conclusive against the adraission of a single lay raeraber,
as against a Court coraposed entirely of lajTuen. A Court so con
stituted might perhaps work well enough In a very small narrow
sect. In a Church established in this country It would be utterly
impracticable. And seeing this, those who are most eager for
the change look forward with hope to an approaching
usi^ntby Disestablishment, which, as they believe, will restore
the Uberty and privileges of the clergy, and replace
them in their proper position of Independence and authority over
the laity. Whether the general tendency of the main current of
public opinion in this country, or In any part of the cIviUzed
world, warrants such a hope, and does not rather Insure bitter
disappointment to those who cherish It, I need not stop to Inquire.
But it is saddening to think that such a feeling should have
sprung up among members of our Church, especially among the
clergy, and that not a few should have transferred their affection
and allegiance from the Church to which they still professedly
belong, to an Ideal body, which never existed In tirae or space, which
they call the Catholic Church, and which, as It Is purely a creature
of their own imagination, they can securely Invoke, to sanction any
doctrine or practice which they may desire to introduce, t And it
it Is stUl more painful to hear from one of eminent reputation and
great Influence, that Churchmen, who think with him, " wiU to a
very great extent indeed find relief in co-operating with the political
forces which year by year more and more steadily are working
* See Rev. Orby Shipley : "Secular Judgments," and Preface to his Sermons on
the Four Cardinal Virtues.
t See the Rev. Orby Shipley, " Secular Judgments iu Secular Matters," for " the
ten points in the Charter of Anglo-Gatholic Ritual," p. 64.

CHARGES. 311
toward Disestablishment ; "* though, as we have been assured,
this was not meant for a menace, but for the statement of a simple
fact, it was a stateraent manifestly Implying approbation of the
course of proceeding which it foretold. I should be very loth to
censure persons who so express theraselves, and whose judgraent
may be clearer and their sense of duty keener than my own.
But I find it difficult to enter into their feeUngs. If any one is
convinced that it would be an advantage to the cause of reUgion,
if our Church was broken up Into two or three sects, he has no
doubt a right to his opinion. But If not, when he deliberately
co-operates to bring about such a result, I do not unrlerstand how
he can be acquitted of a breach of charity, or of that self-will
which Is the essence of heresy and schism. StiU less can I
sympathize with those who, by word or example, instigate their
brethren to set the law at open defiance, and declare their own
intention of maintaining an attitude, not only of passive resistance
but of " active disobedience." t
Still we may find some corafort in the not unreasonable hope,
that the leaders of the so-called Catholic Revival, who ^.
' Disap-
are chiefly responsible for aU the evil and danger of the™^k rf
our present position, may have been deceived by the '^"^''^•
eagerness of their desires, and have mistaken their wishes for
realities. It Is natural that they should wish to share so grave a
responsibility with as many as they can induce to take part in It.
But until experience shaU have proved the contrary, I shall
continue to believe that the great body of the clergy of every
school may be credited with a sufficient measure of charity and
good sense, to prevent them frora foUo-wing such guidance. It
* Canon Liddon's Letter to the " Guardian," March 1, 1871.
t "In the place of passive obedience under useless and feeble protest, the party
as a party, it is not too early to affirm, with au unanimity hitherto unknown, is
prepared for active disobedience, animated by a spirit nearly akin to defiance." — ¦
" Secular Judgments," p. 14.
Mr. Orby Shipley himself, however, is under no Ulusion aa to the prospects of
the Disestablished Church. " I disbelieve," he says, " in anything but a change
iu the contest of the Church MUitant, a change from a contest against the State
without to a contest within, against Puritanism, against Latitudinarianism, against
InfideUty, and against what may be termed Lay-elementarianism in the Church." —
Sec. Judg., p. 16S.

312 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
was the observation of a Churchman who was eminently quaUfied
by station and character to speak with peculiar authority on such
a subject, and the raore as his general syrapathies were on the
side of those frora whora he differed on this point : " For the
clergy to join In a political crusade to accelerate their DIs-
establlshraent, would seera to rae to argue such a dementatlon
both as to the act and the object, as would Indeed almost cause
the most confident to despair. Hoc Lthacus velit, et magna
mercenttcr Atridce." *
Judgment The most rccent Judgment of the Court of Final
ofAppeaion Appeal, wMch has declared the legal construction of our
theEucba- r-jr ' o ^
rist. Formularies -with regard to the Eucharist, has certainly
erred, if at all, on the side of freedom, In the exercise of that
indulgence which, according to the maxim of EngUsh law, is due
to the defendant — especiaUy when he is unrepresented — in a
penal case. It has been generally felt that in this instance the
application of the maxim had been carried to Its utmost length.
Perhaps the strongest recomraendatlon of the Judgment to aU
unprejudiced rainds is the dissatisfaction with which it has been
received by some extreme partisans on both sides. It was
quite to be expected that the person whose language had given
occasion to the proceedings should scornfully repudiate the
authority of a Tribunal constituted only according to the law
of the land, and not acccording to his own opinions and wishes.
And we cannot be surprised that there should be found here
and there on the other side some who regard the lenity with
which he has been treated as connivance at error, or that It
should have been used as a handle for attack on the Church as
tolerating a plain avowal of distinctively Romish doctrine. I am
thankful both for what was said and for what was left unsaid :
* Sir John Coleridge, Letter to Canon Liddon, p. 22. He adds— expressing I
hope the sentiment of the great majority of Churchmen — " good and wise Christians
have thought, that considering how far we agree, and the mysterious nature of
those points as to which we differ, our unhappy differences are not such as to
prevent both parties from being united in one Church." Undoubtedly the differences
are not such in themselves ; as is proved by the experience of centuries ; but what
they may be made to do by the spirit of partizanship, is unfortunately quite a
different question.

CHARGES. 313
for what was done, and for what was left undone. We may
indeed think it raatter of regret, that it should have been deemed
necessary to declare that Hooker's doctrine on the Eucharist is
admissible in the Church of England. But as the language of
the Judge in the Court below intimated that this was a question
able point. It was highly desirable that aU doubt shoiUd be
removed by the distinct statement that the Church " does not by
her Articles and Formularies affirra or require her rainisters to
accept any presence of Christ in that ordinance which is not a
presence to the soul of the faithful receiver." On the other hand,
it was no less desirable to show that this stateraent is not to be
considered as so exhaustive that no other forra of expression can
be allowed rightly to describe the raystery, or that anyone is
forbidden to speak of it in different terras, not Inconsistent with
the truth which he Is required to affirra. No doubt this latitude,
like aU liberty, raay be abused. And it wiU never be possible
to prevent anyone from availing himself of the ambiguity of
language, and of the mysteriousness of the subject, to come
indefinitely near to the distinct avowal of Romish doctrine. But
I hardly think that the success of the attempt in this case has
been such as to Invite anyone to repeat the experiment.
In one or two points Indeed the maxim by which the defendant
in a penal case Is entitled to the benefit of a doubt, „.
'^ ' Views of the
may seem to have been strained somewhat beyond Its on*the™*i-
reasonable limits. The defendant's original statement ^'^p''''"™'^^-
affirraed a " visible presence of our Lord upon the altars of our
churches." It seems that a more judicious friend led him to
observe that this language went too far, even beyond the Romish
doctrine of the Real Presence, and he was thus Induced to
substitute a different expression. But he took care to explain
that he meant precisely the same thing by both statements. It
might therefore have seemed that he wished to be understood as
continuing to maintain that complete Identification of our Lord's
Body and Blood with the Bread and Wine which Is ImpUed in the
phrase "visible presence." The Judge in the Court of Arches
had no hesitation In pronouncing that the expression " visible

314 BISHOP thirlavall's
presence of our Lord upon the alcars of our churches," is in its
plain raeaning at variance with all the Forraularles of our Church
upon the subject, at variance with the language of the Service of
the Holy Communion, of the Twenty-eighth Article, and of the
Catechism ; and that the doctrine which it expresses overthroweth
the nature of a Sacrament even more than Transubstantiation." *
But the Defendant never explained how the sense in which he
used the original words differed from that which the Judge
considered as their plain meaning ; or, if his language was suscep
tible of more than one construction, which it was that " passed
through his mind In writing." And ha-ving expressed the same
thought in two different forms of words, the one perfectly plain
and simple, the other in the highest degree obscure and ambiguous,
he was allowed the privilege of expounding that which was unmis
takably erroneous by that which raight mean anything or nothing.
tabi -"-^ ^^® perhaps a stUl more arduous achievement of
ttons^o'f the charitable Interpretation, and one which was not accom
plished without doubts and division of opinion in the
Court, to suppose that one who " adored Christ present in the
Sacrament under the form of bread and wine, believing that
under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ,"
raight raean something essentially differing from the statement,
that he " adored the consecrated elements believing Christ to be
in them, and that His Body and Blood are under their veU ; "
and this notwithstanding His own assurance that the two expres
sions were Intended by Him to convey precisely the same
meaning. It is at least a distinction which It requires a very
high degree of legal acumen to perceive. But I am glad that a
raajority of the Judicial Coramittee found It impossible to come to
this conclusion, and were thus enabled to avoid the necessity of
Investing the Defendant with the halo of martyrdom. The legal
condemnation could only have weakened the force of the raoral
* Probably however it is uo more than was meant by Mr. Orby Shipley, when he
speaks of " God's Presence now shortly to he manifested on His Altar." " Card.
Virtues," p. 71. It is perhaps to be taken aa one of the points in which " Catholic "
doctrine doea not yet exactly coincide with that of Rome. An old Latin Hymn on
the Sacrament began : Adoro te devote latens Deitas, Qua: sub hisfiguris vere latitas.

CHARGES. 315
sentence in which both Courts entirely concurred. The one
thought that " if a private clergyraan steps out of the ordinary
course of parochial duty, to discharge the office of a pubUc writer
upon the raost awful mystery of our holy reUgion, the least that
our Church has a right to expect from him, is the knowledge and
erudition of a theologian, and the use of the most careful and
well-considered language." The other was of opinion, "that
there might have been expected frora a theologian deaUng with
this subject. If not a charitable regard for the feelings of others,
at least a careful preparation and an exactness in the use of
terms." No doubt in itself a very reasonable expectation ; but
one which has been so often disappointed, that it can hardly be
Indulged without sorae degree of presumption.
It was while the questions which have since been decided by
successive judgments were still agitating the public mind,
that the Royal Commission was Issued for "inquiring onpi^uo""
into the differences of practice in Public Worship, -with ''^°^^P'
a view to secure general uniformity In such raatters as raight be
deemed essential," by raeans of peaceful conference. This however
was done only after a suit had already been coramenced in one case,
and the issuing of the Coraraission was not allowed to suspend the
course of the legal proceedings. It was clearly desirable that the
authority of Parliaraent should not be invoked for the settlement
of any question which was within the jurisdiction of a legal
tribunal ; and so there is no reason to regret that the Ornaments
Rubric, though it had been the chief occasion of the Its results.
whole agitation which it was the object of the Commis
sion to quiet, was left untouched. The fact Itself seems to show that
It would have been hardly possible, even if the Coraraissioners could
have corae to an agreeraent on this point, to bring any action of
the Legislature to bear upon it without risk of very Inconvenient
consequences. But notwithstanding Its failure in this respect — one
which raight have been anticipated from the manner in which the
Commission was composed — It cannot be said to have proved abor
tive. It was indeed always viewed with dislike and suspicion by
that section of Churchmen which Is jealous of all Intervention of

316 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
the Laity In ecclesiastical matters, except as ministering to the
Clergy ; and it was to be expected that its work would be severely
criticised. But I hope It will be found not to have laboured in
vain, and that its recommendations, both as to the Rubrics and the
Lectlonary, when carried into effect, will prove a great gain to the
Church. I have Uttle doubt that the new Table of Lessons will
make its way to almost universal acceptance long before the term
allowed for retaining the old one has expired.
A still greater benefit will, I believe, have accrued to
Committee o '
sion'of tte' ^^^ Church, whcnevcr the Committee appointed by the
^^^^' Southern Convocation for the re-vision of the Authorized
Version of the Bible shall have completed its task. The preli
minary objections raised to the undertaking had been met by
anticipation, when a Uke work was undertaken by St. Jerome.*
In a time when minds were less heated by controversy. It would
have been hardly possible to question the desirableness of en
abling the English reader to reap the benefit of the progress
which has been made In the course of the last two centuries In the
interpretation of Scripture. The most Important step for ensuring
the ultimate success of the work was taken when It was placed on
a broad Catholic basis, by the resolution, " that the members of
the Comraittee of Revision should be at liberty to invite the co
operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or
reUgious body they may belong ; " and by a subsequent declaration
unanimously adopted by the Upper House, that " this House does
Its guiding i^ot Intend to give the slightest sanction or countenance
prmcip e. ^^ ^-j^^ opinion, that the members of the Revision Com
panies ought to be guided by any other principle than the desire to
bring the translation as near as they can to the sense of the original
texts ; but, on the contrary, regards It as their duty to keep
theraselves as rauch as possible on their guard against any bias of
preconceived opinions, or theological tenets. In the work of revision."
That both Companies will faithfully adhere to this principle, I feel
fuUy assured by the opportunities I have enjoyed of obser-ving the
spirit In which they have addressed themselves to their work. I
» See Professor Lightfoot, " On a fresh Revision of the English New.Teatament.''

CHARGES. 317
am also able to testify, so far as ray o-wn experience has reached,
to the groundlessness of the apprehensions which have been
expressed, either of needless alteration, or of the introduction of
modern phraseology, not in harmony with the style of the Author
ized Version. If in this respect there be any room for question,
it Is whether the Revisers may not soraetimes have carried their
scruples on the conservative side to an excess. It is no doubt fo
be lamented that they have been deprived of the aid of some
eminent scholars, through causes which would have rendered such
an undertaking impossible at any time. But I do not believe that
the Revised Version will be found behind its age, or that anyone
-will seek in it in vain for the ripest fruit of modern Biblical
scholarship. The Revisers would not be worthy of their office if
they did not court the utmost severity of candid criticism, and
their work will have to make Its way by its own merits. There
Is no fear of its being imposed by authority, any more than this
was the case with the preceding revisions of St. Jerorae and the
Authorized Version Itself. Whenever it takes the place of that
now in use it will be simply on tho ground of Its Intrinsic
superiority. The work of the Ritual Commissioners unavoidably drew their
attention to the Rubric of the Athanasian Creed, and TheAthana-
various opinions were expressed, and proposals discussed, ^'™'^'^^«*-
with regard to it. It is Important to keep this fact in mind,
because it has apparently been forgotten or ignored by some who
have spoken as If they believed that the attempts which have been
made to procure some alteration In the manner of deaUng with It
had been prompted by a desire to banish its doctrine from the faith
of the Church.* How such a design could have entered any sane
* Archdeacon Denison, in a letter to " The Times " of August 28th, has unveUed a
" plot, in which Broad Church and Low Church — the last in its despair — have joined
hands to fight against the Creeds." He has discovered that "the astute contrivers
of the plot," as " it would not have answered their purpose to go straight to their
-work," " thought they savf a convenient by--way through the Fourth Report of the
Royal Commission." The superiority of the clerical over the lay inteUect in the
detection of deep-laid plots, is placed in strong relief by a letter to the aame journal
of Sept. 18, from Lord Redesdale, in which his Iiordship, speaking of the secesaiona
which have been threatened in the event of the use of the Athanasian Creed being
declared optional, is simple enough to say, that " so long as the first four sentences of

318 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
raind as long as the Nicene Creed, the Te Deum, and suffrages of
the Litany, forra part of our weekly service, and the collect for
Trinity Sunday retains its place. It is not easy to conceive. But
it is at least certain that the character of the persons who have
expressed a desire for the alteration ought to have secured them
from suspicion of such a design. The dispute was not between
advocates and Impugners of the doctrine, but between those who
did and those who did not think the Creed suited for recitation In
public worship. To fasten on an opponent an opinion which he
disavows, in order to turn It into an argument against him, is a
controversial artifice which In ray judgraent no eminence of station,
no depth of learning, no power of eloquence, can make allowable.
In the present case It has been freely practised, and I believe with
the effect of misleading or intimidating many of the Clergy, who
have been led to fear either that they might be unwittingly con
tributing to the success of an attempt most repugnant to their
deepest convictions, or might Incur the suspicion and obloquy of
favouring It in their hearts.
The prac- The practical question was entirely Independent of the
tical (jues- ^
tion- age and authorship of the Creed, and of the soundness of
its doctrine. That could no more prove Its suitableness for reci
tation in public worship, than that of the Thirty-nine Articles.*
But questions have arisen out of the discussion far raore Important
than that out of which they arose, because deeply affecting the
rights of Churches, the liberty of individual consciences, and
fundamental truths of raorality. It Is on this account that I feel
myself constrained to dweU upon It at somewhat greater length
than I should otherwise have thought necessary.
I hold that every National Church has a right to regulate
Its forms of public worship, and to make any change which It
may deem expedient even in its most ancient usages. Whether
the Litany are used aa at preaent in every Church on every Sunday, it ia absurd to
consider that doctrine would be abandoned by such permission, aud -svrong to act in
a manner which may induce others to believe that it would do so." It must he
presumed that his Lordship had uot seen the Archdeacon's revelation.
* This waa written before I had seen Canon Perowne's Sermon on the Athanasian
Creed, in which (p. 27) he makes the aame remark.

CHARGES. 319
a document which has been variously described as a Creed, as
an Exposition, as a Hymn, as a Homily,* and as a Pandect, f
shall be publicly recited, and how often In the year. Is Eight of
. , 1 • 1 V 1 y-n 1 -I Churches to
a point on which the Ohurch must be as competent to regulatetheir forms
judge as on any of her Rubrics. Assertions, however of worship.
peremptory, that Its oraission frora public worship irapUes rejec
tion of any truth contained In It, as they are Incapable of proof,
are sufficiently refuted by a simple contradiction. The Article
which affirms that it " may be proved by most certain warrant of
Holy Scripture," leaves the use which may be raade of It perfectly
open to the decision of the Church. It Is a simple question of
Christian prudence and charity. Nor can the Article be fairly
held to preclude any Interpretation which may commend itself to
anyone's mind, either on historical or on internal evidence, such
as the opinion held by several eminent persons, that the damnator}'
clauses are the setting of the exposition, and no part of the exposi
tion itself. The Article Is unfairly treated when It Is construed as
If it was a trap laid for tender and timorous consciences, excluding
all discrirainatlen between different portions of the Creed In their
relation to Scripture. + It cannot pledge anyone who subscribes It
to any higher estimate of the Creed than was formed by Jeremy
Taylor. Views widely differing frora one another in this respect
raay be held with perfect consistency by persons who, with him,
accept its contents as consonant with Scripture, that Is, as capable
* " The Admonitory Clauses of the Church's Homiletical Creed." A letter to the
Rev. 0. J. Vaughan by Archdeacon Freeman.
t Bishop EUicott's New Translation of the Athanasian Creed. By Rev. R. C.
Malan. X Dr. Pusey, in a letter to "The Times," dated Mayence, Aug. 10, has promulged
a new Canon of discipUne for the Clergy. He -writes : " Clergymen have no plea to
demand a change, for of their own free wUl and choice they received Holy Orders
in a Church which recites the Athanasian Creed in her ser-vice." According to Dr.
Pusey therefore no one haa a right to enter into Holy Ordera in the Church of
England if he believes that any Rubric of the Prayer-Book is capable of improvement,
stiU less to join in any attempt to bring about such improvement. It is a comfort to
be sure that there is no immediate danger of such a degrading and pernicious yoke
of bondage being laid upon the Clergj'. But it is instructive to leam that there is a
party which wants, not the wiU, bnt only the power to impose it, and that it is the
same which in the meanwhile is putting forth " Pleas for Toleration." This is one of
the glories reserved for the Disestablished Church of the Future, as it is pictirred by
some imaginations.

320 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
of being proved, or at least incapable of being disproved by
Scriptural testimony.
History of Evcry genuine feeling of attachraent to the Creed,
the Creed. grounded on habit and early associations, is entitled to
our sympathy and respect, but it cannot require that we should
shut our eyes to historical facts. The veneration with which we
might naturally regard a docuraent which has come down to us
frora a very reraote antiquity must be a little tempered by the
reflection that, according to the earliest date that can with any
probability be assigned to Its authorship, it was the product of a
very evil and unhappy tirae. The Interval between the first and
the fourth General Council — especially as it drew near to Its close
— was a period to which It is Impossible for any thoughtful
Christian to look back without sorrow and shame. It was no doubt
a period of great intellectual activity, and adorned by several
illustrious names. But it was also marked by a rapid decline of
spiritual Ufe4n the Church. The leading minds of the age were
absorbed in barren speculation on Inscrutable mysteries, unre
strained by any misgivings as to the capacity of the human
understanding. The misguided policy of the Imperial government,
swayed by motives partly secular, partly religious, was bent on
fixing a hard fast line of orthodoxy, as well in the Interest of
public tranquillity, as for the satisfaction of personal prejudices
cherished by the rulers. Thus all the power of the State was
exerted to fan the flame of theological controversy, to exasperate
and envenom the spirit of discord by the distribution of temporal
rewards and penalties, and to aniraate the corabatants by the hope
of Iraperial favour, and the dread of Iraperlal displeasure, when
that favour meant wealth, dignity, and power ; that displeasure,
degradation, exile, iraprisonraent, and Ungering death. An iU-
chosen phrase in a serraon, interpreted by an unscrupulous adver
sary, was enough to convulse society. The most solemn assemblies
of the Church were desecrated by scenes of disgraceful tumult and
brutal violence. It was then possible for such a man as Cyril of
Alexandria, the type of a thoroughly worldly, ambitious, remorse
less, unprincipled Churchman, to earn the title of a Saint. This

CHARGES. 321
was the period In which the invention of the unfortunate ex
pression GeoTo/co? gave the strongest impulse to that Mariolatry
which has culminated in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
To this period belongs the upgrowth of that monastic system which
disfigured the Eastern Church with the wildest fanaticism, and the
most degrading superstition. This was the age In which what little
more than half a century before was the Church of the Martyrs,
began to shed the blood of heretics. From It we have Inherited much
of that phraseology which has ever since inflamed the fierceness of
theological hatred, by the confusion of error with moral dcllnquencj'.
I cannot but consider that freer use of unscriptural metaphysical
terms, which distinguishes the Athanasian from the Cfiusesofita
^ ^ ^ ^ deteriora-
earUer Creeds, as another sign of progressive deterioration, tion.
" The Nicene Creed Itself," observes a very learned ecclesiastical
historian,* " had many opponents in the East, partly because some
believed that they found Sabelllanism in the expression ofioohtno^,
partly because it was thought wrong to lay do-wn as Church doc
trine such more precise definitions of that which until then had
been undefined." Athanasius endeavoured to meet the objections
which had been raised to the Nicene Creed on this ground by an
elaborate apology, but only on the plea of absolute necessity, t The
introduction of such terms was evidently In his view a blemish,
though as he thought inevitable. Such was the feeUng of the Nicene
Fathers themselves. " It Is evident," writes another historian who
had devoted special study to this period, " how unwillingly tbey
had recourse to the decreeing of a formula which was not contained
UteraUy in Scripture, and that It was only under the constraint of
the extremest necessity that they set forth a formula at all." +
But the sufficiency of the Nicene Creed was frequently and
strenuously asserted by Athanasius,§ to whom, nevertheless, it
would appear that sorae persons still ascribe the authorship of that
which bears his name.
Until the liberties of the Clergy have been straitened in a way
which I hope I may not Uve to witness, no clergyman need scruple
¦* Gieseler, i., p. 373. t See Appendix, nnto .V.
X Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse, p. 210. J See note B, in the AppendLx.
VOL. II. V

322 to adopt the language In which Jeremy Tajdor pithily stated
itsobjec- what so manv feel as the twofold objection to the
tionable *' ""
clauses. public use of the Creed, the rigour of the damnatory
clauses, and the metaphysical character of Its distinguishing pro
positions.* But every one has an equal right to take a different
view of the subject, and it would not be surprising If some new
light had been thrown on each branch of the question by the
active discussion it has lately undergone. The desire which has
been shown to veil or mitigate the harshness of the Damnatory
Clauses, and to exchange that epithet for one less jarring on the
ear, would have been hailed with greater satisfaction by those who
dislike thera. If It had not turned out that the thing was to be
retained in its utmost rigour under a milder name, or with some
explanation which would leave It just as It was. What is gained
by the substitution of the terra monitory, or warning, I have never
been able to understand. It seems to me only to perplex the
question, without affording the slightest relief to those who are
offended by the thing. None, I beUeve, ever doubted that the
condemnation Is general, and not applied to any particular case.
The question has not been who are the offenders, but what is the
offence which Incurs the sentence of everlasting perdition. These
clauses have been defended on various grounds, which seem to
imply a wide divergency of views araong those who raaintain
One view of thcra. By some they are simply taken In their natural
and obvious sense, and are thought to be sufficiently
justified by our Lord's words at the close of S. Mark's Gospel :
the difference of the conditions recorded by the Evangelist from
those under which the threat is denounced in the Creed — the
miraculous confirmation of the Apostolical message, and the Divine
co-operation, "the Lord working with them," being overlooked
or ignored, as if they were of no Importance, and did not at all
affect the responsibility of the hearers.
According to another -view, the everlasting perdition is simply
* Lib. of Proph., vol. vii., p. 491, ed. Heber: "Nothing there but damnation
and perishing everlastingly, unless the article of the Trinity be beUeved, aa it is there
with curiosity and minute particularities explained."

CHARGES. 323
the inevitable consequence of the abuse of human free-will.
We are Informed Indeed that the damnatory clauses " can- .Mother
not possibly apply to any but such as -wUfuUy deprave
the Faith, since the conscious consent of the will Is essential to
any act of sin." * But, together -with this most certain and
precious truth, t "we are required to accept the paradox, that " It
Is as reprehensible to reject any part of the contents of Revela
tion as it is to break any part of the raoral law." + No doubt
the reception of spiritual truth Is often impeded by prejudices
arising out of the perverse bias of a depraved wUl. But to main
tain that this is always the case, that there is no such thing as
honest, disinterested unbelief. Is an arbitrary assumption, incap
able of proof, and apparently contradicted by large experience.
Yet It is only on this assuraption that it seeras possible to justify
the assertion which has been advanced by sorae eminent Divines
in the course of the present controversy, without any qualification,
that unbelief is in itself sin. To me this doctrine appears consideredin relation
to be subversive of the first principles of religion and tonnbeuef.
morality. I can conceive no greater dishonour cast on the Divine
character than is iraplied in the supposition that any one is
responsible In the sight of God for intellectual any more than for
physical infirmity. And I can hardly doubt that the persons
who, in the heat of controversy, have been led to affirm this
revolting paradox, unconsciously qualified it by a tacit reservation
which iraplied sorae act of the will as the cause of the unbelief. §
* The "Damnatory Clauses" of the Athanasian Creed rationally explained in a
letter to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., by the Rev. Malcolm MacCoU,
p. 80. Some statements of thia work will be found examined in the Appendix, notes
B and 0.
+ It was more briefly, and not leas forcibly expressed by Jeremy Taylor, sup.
p. 466 : " No man is a heretic against his will."
X Ibid., p. 88, and p. 163 : " I shaU continue, till better informed, to believe that
he who deUberately rejects an article of faith, transgresses God's commandments as
really, and opposes His will as effectually, as the man -who breaks the moral law."
The quiet assumption, necessary to reconcile thia aasertion with morality and common
sense, as well as -with the writer's previous statement at p. 80, that the person who
rejects the article of faith, does so, knowing or believing it to be divinely revealed,
wiU not escape the attention of the inteUigent reader.
§ Our Lord's complaint against the Jews waa, " Ye will not come to me, that ye
might have life."— John v. 40. oi OiiXtri iXeilv.
y2

324 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
The exception which has been made to the operation of the
Damnatory Clauses by sorae other learned persons,* In favour of
And to in "those who by involuntary Ignorance or invincible pre-
IgiOT^S judice are hindered from accepting the faith declared in
cibie™u- the Creed," does not seem to differ essentiaUy from that
which was proposed by the Ritual Commission: "that
the condemnations are to be understood as a solemn warning of
the peril of those who -wilfully reject the Catholic Faith." In
what sense anyone can be properly said wilfully to reject the
truth is hard to understand. He may wilfuUy refuse to acknow
ledge what he beUeves to be true, but be cannot Inwardly reject
it. He may be unfaithful to his convictions, but he cannot alter
them at his pleasure. The exception manifestly proceeds on the
arbitrary assumption that the fault rests not in the intellect but in
the will. And it does not seem to help us much If the proposition
Is modified by the statement, that men " are responsible for not
believing wherever sufficient evidence of Divine Truth Is furnished
to them." t If the sufficiency relates to anyone else than the
person to whom the e-vidence Is offered, since that which Is suf
ficient for one may not be sufficient for another, the statement Is
clearly irrelevant. But if that which Is furnished is sufficient for
the person himself, then It Is out of his power Inwardly to reject
it. The Inward acceptance Is the test and the only possible test
of the sufficiency. There can be neither sin nor merit In the
withholding our assent frora that which we do not believe to be
true, as it is Impossible for anyone to act otherwise. Whether
* The Oxford Professors of Divinity.
t Dean Goulbum's Second Discoirrse on the Athanasian Creed. The whole passage ,
p. 32, runs : " Like the clauses in the Creed, the warnings of these two passages
(John viii. 24, and iii. 36) are directed, not against wrong conduct, but against unbelief,
sho-sving clearly that unbeUef is a sin, and that men are responsible for not believing,
wherever sufficient e-vidence of Divine Truth is furnished to them." It is to be
regretted that the Dean did not explain how the sin for -which men are responsible can
be committed without wrong conduct. To me the passages which he cites from
S. John seem quite irrelevant. In John viii. 24, the a/iapriai are evidently quite
distinct from the dniaTia, the effect of which is only that the sinnc.r will be left to
die in his unrepented sins. In the other passage, as Meyer observes, the fihu implies
that the -wrath of God was uot the consequence of the unbeUef, but had been previously
incurred. A moat lucid exposure of the fallacj- will be found in the Charge of the
Bishop of Peterborough, pp. 59—6.3

CHARGES. 325
unbelief is sinful raust depend, not on the nature or Iraportance
of the doctrine propounded, but on the state of the un- .^ ,
¦^ ¦¦- ' What con-
believing soul. That state Is only transitory. All Chris- sl^Mueas of
tians would agree that eyes which are closed against the ™^'''^"''-
truth by an honest doubt will be opened to it in the light of the
last Judgment. The only difference is, that some find It agreeable
to their conceptions of the Divine Justice to believe that this final
disclosure -wiU be accompanied with a sentence of eternal perdi
tion, while others shrink with horror from the thought of such a
decree. But the more obscure, speculative, and mysterious the
doctrine, and the less Immediately It is connected -with practice,
the less reason Is there for imputing the rejection of it to any
sinful motive. Strangely as It may sound to those who have been
used to hear heresy described as the most atrocious of crimes,
there is no fair pretence for doubting that the errors of Arms and
ApolUnarls, of Nestorius and Eutyches, whatever raay have been
the weakness and faultiness of their characters in other respects,
were purely intellectual, and that they were only misled by their
zeal for the glory of God and the honour of Christ into taking one
part or side of the truth for the whole.
The Athanasian Creed has the advantage of embodying the sub
stance of the earlier Creeds ; and the Nicene, which had characteris
tics of tho
so long appeared a sufficient exposition of the Christian Creed.
faith, must be considered as the most valuable part of the later one.
That which Is most peculiar to it is described by Jeremy Taylor
as " explaining the Article of the Trinity with curiosity and
minute particularities." And it had been generally thought that
its metaphysical terminology was iU-adapted to the InteUectual
capacity of the great bulk of our ordinary congregations. I can
not help retaining that opinion. We have been informed Indeed
from the highest authority, that the savages of New Zealand — an
intelligent race, though still in a low stage of civUization — find
little or no difficulty In those clauses of the Creed which, to the
minds of many among ourselves, including some eminent Divines,
appear very abstruse and obscure.* I do not question the fact,
* Speech of the Bishop of Lichfield, reported in the " Guardian " of Sth May.

326 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
even If it ultimately rests on the testimony of the New Zealanders
themselves ; for I think I have observed that the persons who are
Variousesti- ^^ast apt to stumble at any passage of a difficult work
mates of it. ^^^ ^^^ always those who are most capable of understand
ing It. But among those who are not satisfied with Jeremy Taylor's
description, there Is a notable variety of language. Some are con
tent to regard the things which he caUs " minute particularities "
as a safeguard, a fence, and a bulwark, of the raain doctrine, while
others speak of them as " the most central truths of the Faith." *
I wUl only observe that, i£ they are indeed such, the great body
of the Clergy must have grievously neglected a most Important
part of their duty as preachers of the Gospel. For they have
acted almost universally — If Indeed there be any exception— as
If they thought that the subject belonged more properly to the
lecture rooms of Professors of Ecclesiastical History than to the
pulpit. I more than suspect that this has been the case with those
whom I am now addressing. But If it be so, I am not prepared
to say that they have withheld from their hearers any saving
truth ; and I doubt whether, if they were to dweU more frequently
on the errors of the old hereslarchs, whose names have probably
hitherto been heard by few In their congregations, and to show
how the statements of the Athanasian Creed were pointed against
them, this revival of long defunct controversies, however it might
raise their reputation for learning, would be Ukely to Interest or
ediiy their people more than the topics on which they are now
used to enlarge. How far It raight usefuUy find a place In
missionary work among sopie heathen races is another matter, but
whoUy irrelevant to the present question.!
* See a Memorial to Convocation of the English Church Union.
t A passage from a Charge of the lamented Bishop Cotton has become almost
classical, as an argument in favour of the continued public recitation of the Athana
sian Creed. It was cited at leng-th in the Debate in the Upper House of Convocation
on the 3rd of May, and is inserted by Mr. MacCoU in his Appendix. Yet it could
never have been quoted as in the remotest degree hearing upon the queation, if it
had not been arbitrarily assumed that the transfer of the Creed to a different part of
the Prayer-Book — though much leas than that would satisfy most objectors — waa
the same thing as " expunging it from the records of our Church." Equally irrele
vant is the story of missionary experience related by Bishop Macdougal. Whether
the missionary teaching of a Protestant Church is best drawn from any other source

CHARGES. 327
Other advocates of the Damnatory Clauses have taken a line of
apology different from that which we were just now con- TheDamna-
siderlng, contending, though not all from the same point ^SiS^"!"^
of view, that they have been entirely misunderstood. °*°°^'
One thinks that the case to which they refer is not that of unbe
lievers, but of persons who have accepted the orthodox faith, and
are charitably exhorted to hold it fast, and warned against the
danger of apostasy.* Whether this is really consistent -with the
language of the Creed, may be questioned ; but It clearly proceeds
on the same supposition, that dissent frora the doctrine can only
be the effect of moral depravity. Another learned and able
writer, t whose moral sense was shocked by the supposition that
" assent to a speculative doctrine could be raade the indispensable
pre-requislte of eternal happiness," persuaded himself that the
words only raeant, " the Catholic Faith is a necessary preUminary
for a saving communion with the Church, and the keeping that
faith to the end in a corresponding life Is the necessary condition
of everlasting salvation." + The proposition so worded would
probably have given no offence to any. But it is now ^^
many years since this discovery was pubUshed, and we ge^iSuy
are -witnessing how Uttle it has been generally accepted ^'"'^*^^-
as a solution of the difficulty ; and I see no sign that any of the
than Scripture, is another question. But the use of the Creed for elucidation of
doctrine, would be exactly the same in whatever part of the Prayer-Book it is found.
* See Mr. Vegan in the " Guardian," of 22nd May, and compare, " Canones ConcU.
Toletani," iv., 1.
t Dr. Donaldson, "Christian Orthodoxy," p. 473.
+ Dr. Donaldson (u. s., p. 466) observes that HUary of Aries, having before his eyes
the contrast lamented by Salvian, between the licentiousness of the Catholics and
the pure Uves of the Arian Visigoths, " could not but feel that Christianity required
something more than a precise form of sound doctrine ; and he has left to the Church
a Symbol or Creed, not less distinguished from other documents of the same class by
the logical acctiracy of its theological statements than by the earnestness with which
it insists on the necessity of a sober, righteous, and godly Ufe." I very much doubt
that the clauses to which he refers had any such origin. I strongly suapect that they
had a more specific dogmatical application. They seem to have been pointed against
an antinomian heresy, of which S. Augustine speaks in a passage quoted by Gieseler
(L, p. 437, n.) from ep. 214. Some, he says, "sic gratiam prtedicant, ut negent
hominis esse Uberum arbitrium, et quod est gravius, dicant, quod in die judicii non sit
redditurus Deus unicuique secundum opera ejus." In contradiction to this doctrine, the
Creed affirms that, at Christ's coming, all men reddituri sunt de factis propriis
rationem.

328others have made a deeper Impression upon pubUc opinion in the
way of reconciling It with the obnoxious clauses, even If they
have not rather provoked some degree of resentment, as sophistical
glosses, reflecting on the understanding of those to whora they
are addressed. I cannot anticipate any happier result from the
researches which have been instituted with a view to emendation
in the text of the Creed. However interesting they may be to
the learned, I do not expect that they will be commonly believed
to have made any material change in the state of the question.
No Issue could be less satisfactory than an appeal to a
Compromise -^ ^
suggested, numerical majority, especially as it would probably be
found that the opinion prevailing among the Clergy is opposed to
the general wishes of the Laity. The case is one in which, as no
principle Is Involved unless It be one which has been fabricated
for the occasion, a compromise seeras eminently desirable, and for
men of good wiU, of no Insurmountable difficulty. It has indeed
been caUed for by the admissions of most of those who, though
strenuous advocates of the Creed, have acknowledged the need of
some kind of qualifying explanation. But the temper which has
been dlsplaj^ed In the menaces of secession which some have
thought It not unbecoming to brandish, and which have supplied
others with their strongest argument, must prevent us from
cherishing any very sanguine hope of this kind. The reasonable
ness and decency of such a menace can only be fully appreciated
when we remember that for eight or nine centuries, the Creed was
never heard In the services of the Church, and was first introduced
as a part of monastic devotion in the thickest darkness of the
Middle Ages. That it should have been possible for persons to
whom aU look up with respect, to hold out such a threat, is
both a calamity in Itself and one of the most saddening signs of
the times.
The Laity ^® ^^^® howcver bccn seasonably reminded by an
™ ttf df "^ eminent lay churchman,* that it Is not the Clergy who
nunciations. ^^,^ affoctcd by the recitation ofthe Damnatory Clauses ;
but the Laity, who have the remedy in their o-wn hands, since,
* Lord Redesdale, in the aboTe-citcd letter to " The Times."

CHARGES. 329
If they disapprove of the responses assigned to thera they can
not be corapeUed to utter them. And, in fact, I believe It would
be found on inquiry, that In the great majority of our parish
churches, the entire responsibility of these tremendous denuncia
tions devolves upon the Clerk, whose voice alone breaks the
sUence which follows the Minister's declarations of orthodox
doctrine. Under these circurastances, that the difference of
opinion on this question should be allowed to make a breach in
the Church whatever might be its extent, would be something
worse than a calamity ; — It would be a perpetual shame and re
proach. If this evil can only be averted by a concession on one
side or the other, I raust say that I should be very rauch more
loth to accept a concession extorted by menaces such as we have
heard, than to raake It. When one of two fellow-travellers
threatens to part corapany if his wishes are not complied with on
a point which to an inteUigent bystander appears absurdly trifling,
it seeras to me that the raore dignified course is to let hira, for
once at least, have his way. We must lament that persons of
high position In the Church, and of eminent ablUty and The mode of
character, should have been betrayed by the heat of thecontro-
. p . versy dcpre-
controversy into a course of proceeding, for which we <»t«<i-
can hardly find a fitter epithet than childish; but to imitate it
would certainly not be more manly. If we think that they have
shown a deplorable readiness to sacrifice the general weUare to an
arbitrary caprice, it would be the less excusable in us to foUow
their exaraple. I do not say that this would be a perfectly
satisfactory termination of the dispute. I do not think it would
be a termination at all ; but it may well be preferable to any
immediate settleraent in which both parties did not acquiesce. If
the forbearance caimot be mutual, let us be found on the side of
those who exercise, and not of those who -withhold it. Only let
It be clearly understood that this Is a sacrifice to peace, and not
a surrender of principle, or a pledge to bind anyone for the
future. A much larger question than any of those I have been discuss
ing, one involving the highest interests of the future, both in

330 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Church and State — I raean the question of eleraentary education
— still reraains unsettled, and cannot be viewed without
Elementary '
education, painful anxiety by anyone who has the welfare either of
the Church or of the country at heart. It Is the question whether
the training of the rising generation is or is not to be divorced
from religious instruction : whether those who, when they have
reached raanhood, will find themselves entrusted with a large share
of political privUeges, constituting their possessors a predominant
power In the State, are to grow up in the fear of God and in the
faith of Christ, or to be a law to themselves. We may lament
that such a question should ever have arisen, and as ChurchiOen
we raight have preferred a different solution of the problem which
forced itself upon the Legislature, from that which was adopted
by the Government. But we can neither deny the urgency of the
need which The Elementary Education Act was fraraed to supply,
though we may believe it to have been often grossly exaggerated ;
nor can we undertake to affirm that under the conditions of the
case, it would have been possible to provide for It by a siraple
extension of the denominational systera, however we may wish
that the experiraent had been fairly tried. A measure which is
fiercely assaUed by the most violent partisans of opposite extremes
has a strong presumption in its favour. It raay not be absolutely
perfect, but there Is high probabiUty that it comes nearer than
any other to the best that could have been devised.
Education The Act of 1870 is stUl on its trial. Its success in
the carrying out of a compulsory systera against the wIU
of parents who are indifferent to the advantage of an education
which they theraselves never enjoyed, and who grudge the
cost because they prefer their own pleasure to their children's
welfare, stiU remains to be ascertained. Should It prove more
complete than either the character of our own people, or the ex
perience of foreign countries, would lead us to expect, there would
still be room for doubt, whether the benefit of the new system
will compensate for aU that it has taken away; and we may
question the expediency and the justice of sacrificing the highest
interests of the many, who have hitherto enjoyed a fuUer measure

CHARGES. 331
of religious education, to those of the few who had been left
entirely destitute. I say this irrespectively of abuses, through
which the intention of the Legislature has been partiaUy frus
trated, by the erection of new schools where ample provision had
already been made for the wants of the neighbourhood. But on
the supposition of the happiest result, the value of instruction
which Is confined to the simplest rudiments of secular knowledge,
may easily be overrated. I could not indeed admit that even
such instruction is not an immense gain in coraparison with the
utter neglect to which so many thousands of children of the poor
have hitherto been abandoned. Churchmen, but especially clergy
men, who den-v this, and denounce secular education as ^ . .
' '' In]unou8
If it was a positive evU, and ignore the moral influence 3^^°^°;^^"'
of school discipline In contrast with habits of vagrancy ureduca™'
and lawlessness, are I believe doing more daraage to the
cause of religious education than its avowed enemies. But they
would be still farther from the truth, and in greater danger of
showing theraselves unfaithful toward their most sacred duty. If
they treated such instruction as sufficient, or as constituting any
thing that deserves the name of education, and did not feel that it
only adds a new motive for the discharge of that part of their
office which relates to the feeding of Christ's lambs. And if their
opportunities are restricted by the conditions Imposed by the new
law, it must be remerabered, on the other hand, that those who
are brought within the reach of their ministry, come with a better
inteUectual, and even moral preparation, than they might other
wise have received.
Hitherto the working of the Act has been generaUy favourable
to the cause of reUgious education. We are not grieved ...,.,
o _ " Operation of
to hear, though It is a complaint of our adversaries reb^ous""
against the Act, that in the six months' grace which ^'^''°^**°°-
It aUowed, grants were asked for 2,852 Church Schools, and that
these appUcations were met in the most generous and even lavish
spirit. * Nor is It painful to us to learn from the sarae authority
that " there are now thousands of parishes amply provided with
* General Conference of Nonconformists held in Manchester, January, 1872, p. 185.

332 BISHOP thirl-wall's
school accommodation entirely In the bands of the Church." * We
do not consider it either as a calamity or as a reproach to the Act,
that it " has enabled the denomlnatlonallsts to cover districts with
schools which will render School Boards unnecessary, except for
the exercise of the compulsory power to fill those denominational
schools." t We are glad to receive such witness to the fact that
the Church has not been insensible to the gravity of the crisis, or
unmindful of the duty which it laid upon her ; and we rejoice
that the public mind is not yet prepared to accept the secularist
Noncon- Ideal. It might indeed have been expected that on the
port of general question ministers of religion of all denomina-
secular edu- , . . , _ .
cation. tlous would havc been agreed : and it Is saddening to
find that so many have been induced by their hostility to the
Church to enter into an unnatural alUance with persons from
whose principles they must recoil with abhorrence, and to join
the secularist party in Its endeavours to exclude all religious
teaching from schools aided by the State. I do not question their
sincerity, when they declare that " It is the Intense earnestness of
their piety which makes them secularists in this matter of State
education." + But they seem to me to be playing with words
when they cast all the care of religious education on an abstrac
tion which they call voluntary effort,\ as if this phrase represented
anything which was known to exist, and not soraething which
has hitherto been wanting and has stIU to be evoked. One of
them who holds that " there can be no perfect education without
religion," and that " education properly considered must Include
religious teaching," Is at the same time " bold to say that the
Nonconformist Churches have not done their part sufficiently In
the past In reference to this great raatter." || Happily, it would
require something more than boldness for any one to say this of
the Church of England, as compared with any other reUgious
body. The so-caUed religious difficulty, which never existed
outside the minds of persons whom It furnished with the only
» General Conference of Nonconformists held in Manchester, January, 1872,
p. 186.
t Ibid., p. 195. X Itid., p. 152. § Ibid., p. 256. || Ibid., p. 258.

CHARGES. 333
plausible basis for their argument, may continue to serve as a
convenient topic for platform declamation. But when we re
member on the one hand the extreme slightness of the doctrinal
differences which separate the great mass of Nonconformists from
the Church, and on the other hand the difficulty with which the
simplest spiritual truths are Instilled Into the minds of children,
at the age at which they commonly leave school, the fear lest
they should be imbued with a prejudice In favour of some par
ticular shade of theological opinion, extrinsic to that which the
Church holds In coramon with almost all Christian societies, can
hardly be considered as serious.
I feel that I should be offering soraething like an Indignity
to my reverend brethren, If I was to exhort them care- Proselytis
ing Dissent-
fully to avoid even the faintest appearance of exercising ingcbiidreu.
a proselytising influence on the Dissenting children who attend
their schools. I am very sure that any such exhortation would
be totally superfluous. I read with pleasure, as an Illustration of
what I believe to be a notorious fact, the testimony of Mr. Pryce,
Her Majesty's Inspector of Church of England Schools for Mid
Wales, who in his Report for 1870 observes : " I feel bound
to say that, though I have made careful inquiries, I know of no
single instance, under the present system, in my extensive dis
trict, where the National School children are compelled to attend
church, or to learn any creed or formulary to which their parents
object, or where any undue Influence is brought to bear upon the
parents or children for this purpose." Mr. Pryce proceeds to
show that the real danger lies entirely in an opposite direction :
of neglected, or Imperfect, and superficial religious instruction.
It is however satisfactory to know that there are some in whom
the Christian has been too strong for the Nonconformist. Last
May several of the most eminent Nonconformist Jllnlsters and
Laymen subscribed a Protest * against " the exclusion of the
* PubUshed in " The Times " of Blay 7. It runs : " As strennoua efforts are being
made to exclude the Bible by Law from Public Elementary Schools, we the under
signed (not connected with any established Church ) believing that such exclusion
would be a great national evil, feel it to be our duly publicly to record our dis
approval thereof."

331 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
Bible by Law from PubUc Elementary Schools " as "a great
national evil." We s-ympathize with the feeling wbich
Nonconfor- J r o ^
™aLst the'' prompted this Declaration, and honour the courage which
the Bible °^ It manifested in Its opposition to a strong current of
mentary Opinion among their co-religionists. But we raust re
raeraber that the important question is not as to the
admission or exclusion of the Bible, but as to the use which is to
be made of It. I would not deny that the simple reading of
carefully- selected passages may be very useful for the raore
advanced scholars. But to employ It indiscriminately for a mere
reading exercise must In general be something much worse than
useless. There wUl be great danger of its being degraded in
the eyes of the child, and associated with disagreeable recollections
of a mechanical drudgery. But, on the other hand, where It Is
allowed to be not only read but freely explained, it may afford a
sufficient basis for all that religious instruction which it faUs
within the province of the schoolmaster to give. It must be
remembered that the Bible contains two parts of the Catechism,
the Ten Comraandments and the Lord's Prayer, on which the
chief truths of Christian Faith and practice raay be easily grafted.
Distinction Let US be carcful to bear in raind the important distlnc-
Sehooi- tion between the proper function of the Schoolmaster
master and
Clergyman, and the Clergyman In this respect, and to beware of
confounding them under the comraon description of religious
teaching. A weU -trained schoolraaster may be fully competent
to supply all that religious instruction which stores the child's
memory with historical or even doctrinal truths. He may often
be better qualified for such teaching by his special training than
the clergyman. But the duty of bringing those truths home, not
only to the understanding, but to the heart and conscience of the
young. Is one which no pastor has a right to delegate to any one
to whose office it does not properly belong. This Is the proper
work of your Confirmation classes. I hardly need observe that the
present circumstances of the Church add in an incalculable degree
to the Importance of those classes, and to that of the work of our
Sunday schools. But I hope that none will be Induced by this

CHARGES. 335
consideration to raake that work laborious and irksome, by a too
severe and prolonged strain upon the child's faculties and atten
tion. Unless It be made not only easy, but Interesting and
attractive, it -wiU be likely to end in something worse than failure.
In proportion to the importance of educatiag the child importance
¦^ ^ _ _ '^ ° _ of Training
Is that of training the master. It is no exaggeration to coUeges.
say that the whole success of the work depends upon the character
of our Training Colleges. Our own has had to contend with
great financial difficulties, through the exhaustion of the funds of
the Welsh Education Committee, from which, down to last year,
it had received a considerable part of its income. The deficiency
has been but partially supplied by an appeal to Churchmen of the
two South Wales Dioceses ; and our future is not yet so secure as
to relieve us from all anxiety on this head. But it concerns us stIU
more nearly to preserve the religious character of the CoUege, and
to prevent it frora lapsing Into a school of raere secular instruc
tion. On secularist principles the teacher best qualified for the
work of education in a secular school is one who, being hiraself
destitute of religious knowledge and belief, is imable to irapart
any to his scholars.* Merabership of any religious body. If not
an absolute disqualification. Is at least a disadvantage, and one wbo
is free from all sectarian tendencies would be clearly entitled to
preference. Hence a secular system will not be complete without
the exclusion of all reUgious instruction from Training Colleges.
Even this might not suffice to counteract the prejudices of a
religious education in the students. The only perfectly effectual
security would be a systematic infusion of anti-religious principles.
This has not yet been proposed, and may have been seen to be a
consequence which will foUow of Itself when the systera shall have
been fully carried out. Let It not be thought that I mean to
impute any such design to Nonconformists who are contending for
* I find myself repeating a remark which I made in my Charge of 1848, p. 122.
" It during the whole of the time for which the school is left under the care of the
ordinary teacher, aU reference to religious subjects was to be rigidly excluded, it
would become a question, whether a teacher who should be himself utterly destitute
of reUgious principles, and so incapable of communicating them, would not be best
fitted for the office."

336 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
secular education. I bave no doubt It is one from which all would
shrink with horror. I only wish to point out that It is the
logical result of secularist principles fully developed. To avert so
frightful a national calamity as the upgrowth of such a race of
teachers, is surely an object which deserves our raost earnest
efforts. But it would iraply strange Ignorance and inexperience to
suppose that aU who enter our Training Colleges are animated by
purely disinterested motives, and would be ready to devote a
portion of their time to work which does not form a part of their
engagement, and for which they expect no remuneration. Hence
the necessity of supplying the place of that Inspection
Sfocesan whlch has becu withdrawn by the Education Act, and
Inspector. ^^ substituting Other Inducements in the room of those
which have now ceased to operate. With the aid of the Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge we bave been enabled to
provide for tbe payment of a Diocesan Inspector for one year.
But that Society does not renew Its grant; and the National
Society has been prevented by the extraordinary pressure of other
calls on its funds from Immediately taking Its place. Neverthe
less, through the liberality of our Inspector, to whom his work
has been a labour of love, and who consented to accept a salary
reduced by the amount of the Society's grant, his Inspection will
be continued for another year, and, it is to be hoped, until the
National Society finds Itself again In a condition to relieve us from
a part of our burden. In this Diocese I believe no other kind of
Inspection will be generally and permanently efficient.
I may safely assume that there is a perfect general unanimity
among us as to the main end which we have to keep in view in
this matter. In conformity with the spirit of the Education Act,
School ^® ^^^"'^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ possible to supersede the need of
Boards. School Boards by voluntary exertion. Both Clergy and
Laity have proved the earnestness of their desire by costly sacri
fices. We must however be prepared for a perhaps growing
frequency of cases, In which we may be unable, and can hardly
even wish, to prevent the appointment of School Boards. It
appears from Mr. Pryce's Report that In his district " the

CHARGES. 337
managers of sorae Church of England voluntary schools are so
convinced of the necessity of compulsory attendance that it Is
likely that a School Board wUl be formed In not a few parishes in
order to secure this power." We may lament the fact, but aU we
can do is to make the best of it. It would be quite a mistake to
Imagine that a School Board Is necessarily hostile to religious
education. That raust depend on the way In which it Is com
posed. And it is therefore of the utmost Iraportance that
Churchmen, and especially the Clergy, should not be induced by
their dislike of School Boards to stand aloof from thera, but
should endeavour to gain a place in thera, and to avail themselves
as far as possible of their position in behalf of the Interests of
religion. An opponent who expects that School Boards will soon
be spread universally over the land, believes that the majority
wIU chiefly consist of representatives of Church of England
principles. Let us be doing everything in our power to realize
his anticipations.*
The Returns which I have received in answer to ray visitation
queries show that out of 426 parishes 54 have School _.
^ x^ Diocesan
Boards. But of these there are at present only 7 in which ^et^ctSig
there is a Board School. On the other hand, I find *""¦
that there are only 14 out of the 54 In which the Incumbent Is a
member of the Board. I hope, and have no doubt, that this has
been chiefly the result of causes over which the Clergy have had
no control.
We have had reason to be thankful both for some very useful
recent legislation in Church matters, and also that we have been
spared from sorae of an opposite character with which we had
been threatened.
None of us I suppose would grudge a Dissenting parishioner
a place of Interment in the parish churchyard, though Burials
we do not see how it could be reasonably claimed as ''^'
a matter of right by one who had been exempt from all share in
the burden of maintaining the inclosure. Nor shoiUd we wish to
make that privilege depend on the condition that the Burial
* Manchester Conference, p. 162.
VOL. II. Z

338 BISHOP thirlavall's
Service should be read over his grave, against the will of the
mourners. But the Burials BUl of last Session would have
established the right of all Nonconformists to this privilege,
without providing any sufficient safeguard against the danger
which there was cause to apprehend In many neighbourhoods,
that It might be made an occasion for the exhibition of political
or religious animosity, wantonly offensive to the feelings of
Churchmen, and tending to the desecration of the place by scenes
of tumult and disorder. We have reason therefore to rejoice
In the defeat of a raeasure so one-sided and unjust ; and the
more because the alleged hardship which it purported to redress
is one which would be less correctly described as either real
or sentimental, than as symbolical ; that is to say, it consisted
simply In the fact that the churchyard at present belongs to the
Established Church, and is thus an incident of an institution
which the supporters of the Burials Bill desire to abolish.
Viewed In this Ught, the attempt was very generally regarded by
Impartial observers as at once premature and Imperfect. It was
thought that If It might not have been more fitly postponed until
the accomplishment ofthe general object which it was Intended to
forestall, it should have gone a step further, and have thrown our
churches equally open to the like promiscuous use.
inconsis- No doubt thIs Inconsistency was not overlooked by
tency of its "^
supporters, the proraoters of the measure. They had previously
put forward a claira to " equal rights for all citizens both to the
burial-grounds and to the churches." * But It seeras to have
been deemed politic to begin with one of these objects, that which
furnished the most plausible pretext, and the right to the church
-wUl probably not be claimed untU the use of the churchyard has
been won.
The mismanagement of Church property — not always arising
Ecclesias- from wUful Unfaithfulness in those to whom it was
tical Dilapi
dations Act. entrusted, oftener perhaps due to Improvidence, thought
lessness, or the pressure of adverse circumstances, but always
giving occasion to deplorable waste, and sometimes to the infllc-
* Manchester Conferencn, p. 11.

CHARGES. 339
tion of grievous wrong on the families of deceased incumbents,
and on their successors — had long been seen urgently to demand a
remedy. This has at length been pro-vided by the Ecclesiastical
Dilapidations Act of 1871. I have no doubt that when this Act
shall have come Into fuU operation, it will be universally adraitted
to have been highly beneficial to the Church. But it is not
surprising that the present burden which it unavoidably Imposes
should be more sensible than the future benefit. And this raay
account for the long delay which has taken place in the Introduc
tion of a raeasure so urgently needed. It wUl tend to prevent
the recurrence of abuses so gross as have heretofore been
witnessed, and it raay be hoped will quicken in the Clergy the
sense of a sacred stewardship In the administration of the terapo-
ralltles of the Church, which. If It had been sufficiently Uvely,
would have superseded the need of corapulsory legislation. But
I am afraid that the object will not be fully attained without
some better provision for a periodical — say quinquennial —
renewal of inspection. Without this I do not see how there
can be any security for the raain object, the keeping of ecclesi
astical buildings in repair by means of a small occasional outlay.
And I do not think it wise to cast the responsibUity of this
inspection on the Archdeacons and Rural Deans, at the Imminent
risk of disturbing their friendly relations to their clerical
brethren, which It Is so desirable to maintain unirapaired.
The intervention of the Patron for this purpose, which seems
also to be conteraplated by the Act, will I fear only take place In
very rare and exceptional cases. But It is easier to point out a
defect than to suggest a reraedy.
The Act of 1871 has been supplemented in the last Session by
one which enlarges the powers of the Governors of Queen
Queen Anne's Bounty for the benefit of mortgagors, and Bounty.
will also put an end to raany irritating disputes which have arisen
on the subject of fees and charges, by the substitution of a uniform
table, to be binding (subject to amendraent or alteration by the
sarae authority by which it is ordained) throughout the whole of
England and Wales.

340 BISHOP THIRL AV all's
A Still greater benefit, and one of a higher order, has been con-
Act of Uni- f ^^^6<i vi]>oii the Church by the Act of Uniformity Araend-
A™ntment T^^^^ Act of last ScssIon, whlch has reraoved the restric
tions which had been imposed upon her in the adminis
tration of her spiritual patrimony, the Scripture and Prayer-Book.
A shortened Order for Morning or Evening Prayer may now be
used on any day except Sunday, Christmas Day, Ash Wednesday,
Good Frldaj', and Ascension Day. With the approbation of the
Ordinary, there may be used a form of service drawn from
Scripture and the Prayer-Book, appropriate to special occasions,
such as a harvest gathering. On Sundays and Holyday s, a form
of service varying from any prescribed by the Book of Comraon
Prayer, may be used at any hour. In addition to the ordinary
services. The doubts which had been felt as to the lawfulness of
using the Morning Prayer, Litany, and Communion Office, as
separate services, have been removed by an express declaration,
and the liberty of preaching a sermon preceded only by a Collect,
is no longer questionable. The benefit of these enactments will
be more generally felt in Dioceses containing a greater number of
populous parishes than In ours. But we do not the less rejoice in
the gain which they will yield to the Church.
Betirem nt "^ ^^^^ remark would apply to the very useful Act of
teted''^'''"' l^st year, enabling Clergymen, permanently incapacitated
eigymen. -^^ iHness, to rcslgu their benefices with provision of
pensions. It is to be lamented that in this Diocese, very few
clergymen are enabled by the value of their benefices to avail
themselves of this exceUent Act.
Eestoration ThIs remark suggests another which concerns the con-
of the Cathe- _ _ "°
¦^rai. dition of our o-wn Diocese. I had hoped that by now I
should bave been able to announce the completion of the work
which has been for so many years In progress at the Cathedral.
But It has been delayed through an unforeseen additional outlay
-which was required to preserve the fideUty of the restoration. I
will not deny that I have felt some disappointment at the tardiness
of Its advance ; as I had hoped that a monument of which the
Principality has so much reason to be proud, would have roused a

charges. 341
larger and warmer sympathy, independently of Its ecclesiastical
character and uses. But when I consider the peculiarities of its
secluded position, and the consequent wide-spread ignorance of its
very existence, and the vast number of concurrent claims of like
nature, both within and without the Diocese, I ara led to think that
I have far stronger raotives for thankfulness than for coraplaint.
It is a matter of great satisfaction to me to know that among those
who have visited the place, there Is only one opinion and feeling,
of the highest adrairation at the beauty of the work. During the
same period a Uke work has been going on throughout the parish
churches of the Diocese. I can address no body of the And of
Parish
Clergy of any Archdeaconry, who are not able to testify churches.
this fact from their own observation. Considered with reference
to statements which are frequently heard in quarters where there
is great danger of mistaking wishes for proofs, as to the alleged
exhaustion of vital energy in the Church In Wales, it Is indeed a
remarkable fact that such magnificent and costly restorations
should have been proceeding simultaneously in the four Welsh
Dioceses. Never certainly was such an allegation more flagrantly
ill-timed than at the present moment. Regard being had to the
relative tenuity of our resources, I do not hesitate to say that there
are few Dioceses with which this will not bear a not unfavourable
comparison, in respect to the exertions and sacrifices both of Clergy
and Laity for such purposes. But the same consideration has
made me loth to multiply calls for contributions toward Diocesan
objects, for the support of societies whose income must have arisen
mainly out of subscriptions of the Clergy. Though In this matter
I have not acted on my o-wn judgment, without consulting that of
others, it is possible that some of my reverend brethren may be of
a different opinion. But they wUl at least I hope appreciate the
motive which deterrained my course.
The state of the Church in Wales has of late attracted friendh'
attention outside its borders. It has been the subiect of state of the
•' Church in
a Report and a Debate in the Lower House of Convoca- Waies.
tion, and raore recently of papers and a conversation at the Congress
at Leeds. We must all feel grateful for these marks of interest in

342 its welfare, and It would be hardly courteous to pass them over
whoUy unnoticed. But I do not think I should be warranted in
occupying your time -with a discussion of the opinions which have
been expressed as to the causes of our weakness, or of the remedies
which have been proposed for it. The subject is very large and
compUcated, and one of which it seeras peculiarly difficult, even
for persons who have had sorae opportunities of observation, to
take a view at once comprehensive and correct. And when I
find very grave mistakes committed in matters which lie — on some
points exclusively — within my own experience, I cannot help
feeling a little distrust as to others with which I raay be less
familiar, and suspecting that what for the present is most needed,
is a solid basis of well-ascertained fact.
I turn once more for a few moments to the consideration of our
general prospects.
While the constant renewal of a direct assault on the Established
Church, carried on year after year in Parliament, excited appre
hensions which the event showed to be premature, It was thought
advisable to organize a system of defence, to be carried on by an
Church Association founded for this special purpose, under the
Defence In- , -r\ p t - • tiiii.
stitution. name of the Church Defence Institution. I should be
sorry to say a word that raight sound like disparageraent of an
institution formed -with such an object. Nor have I any doubt
that it may do good service in keeping watch over the adversary's
moveraents, and bringing them under timely notice. In helping to
counteract the effect of misrepresentations Injurious to the cause of
the Church, and In stimulating and combining the exertions of her
friends. But I could not honestly say that I believe much will
depend upon any such movement, or that It has had any appreciable
share in bringing about that favourable change In the general
aspect of our affairs which we have recently -witnessed. The
stability of the Church, so far as It rests on its connection with the
State, must mainly depend on the general sense prevailing
throughout the country, of the work it does, and the benefit it
yields. Platform addresses, and articles In periodicals circulating
almost exclusively among friends of the cause, will hardly do more

charges. 343
than confirm opinions already formed. That they should effect
any change of conviction on either side can scarcely be expected.
The question is one in which abstract reasoning, however specious,
wiU have little weight to counterbalance the force of usage,
association, and personal experience. Few things I believe have
contributed more to strengthen the Church than the use which has
been made of our Cathedrals since they began to gather within
their once empty spaces immense congregations, for whom the
simple Services of the Church and the power of the Word were
found to be a sufficient attraction. I am sure that the clergyman
who Is labouring most dUigently in his appointed sphere, Is the
most efficient meraber of the Church of England Defence Institution,
whether his name appear in the roU of Its associates or not. I am
equally sure that no one Is doing the work of the Liberation Society
more effectually than one who neglects his duties, lowers his
ministerial character, and forfeits the affection and respect of his
people. If we might assume the continuance of the ordinary course of
events, -without any revolutionary Interruptions, we have reason to
believe that the uprooting of the Established Church wUl prove a
much more difficult undertaking than has been supposed by the
more ardent spirits of the Liberation Society. But It would not
follow that It may be safely left to defy aU the forces arrayed
against it by its native strength. I am however Inclined to think
that some of our friends have overlooked the difference Difference
between our position, which is simply defensive, and that churchmen
r ' r J and their
of our adversaries, which is wholly aggressive. The adversaries.
tactics which are suited to one of the parties so situated may not
be the best fitted for the other. I see no ground for the complaint
which has been made as to the " apathy " of Churchmen in this
matter. I believe there are few indeed who would be content to
know that the EstabUshed Church wUl last their time, and would
not be anxious to hand It down unimpaired to future generations.
But I see tokens of a deepening impression in the public mind
that, if this is to be, it must be the result of some new conditions
of the Church's existence. I myself feel this necessity very strongly.

344 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
These knockings at our gates from without and from within, this
co-operation of parties most hostUe to one another for the common
end of our destruction, may not threaten us with iramediate danger.
But at least they are warnings which we ought not to neglect,
that it Is time to think of setting our house in order, before It Is
left unto us desolate.
Church Church reformers have of late become a very numerous
re orm. body. Comprising perhaps very nearly all who take an
earnest and inteUigent interest in the permanence and welfare
of the Church : though with a great variety of views as to
tbat which is practicable or desirable. I should be loth to
let this occasion — which I have so much reason to expect will
be the last of its kind — pass by without plainly and unre
servedly, though very briefly, expressing my opinion on this
subject.
Subdivision Among the points on which a very general agreement
appears to prevaU, one is that the Church stands in
urgent need of a further subdi-vislon of Dioceses. That there are
some in which this would be highly desirable, perhaps we may
say absolutely necessary for full efficiency of administration, can
hardly be denied ; and for the extent to which it is really required
the practical difficulty might not be very great.* But there are
some who would carry the subdivision to a length at which the
difficulty would be extreme and the advantage very questionable, t
It would Involve changes which experience forbids us to expect,
and would accoraplish no Important object which might not be
much more easily obtained In a different way which has already
been partially tried with success. The main end is of course to
multiply, not sees, but bishops ; and we have seen that this may
be effected by the appointment of suffragans, without subdivision
of the existing sees. A time perhaps will corae when It will be
thought to deserve serious consideration whether episcopal powers
may not be delegated for purposes which have hitherto been
* See Visitation Charge ofthe Bishop of Norwich, 1872, p. 40.
t See an Essay ou the Increase of the Episcopate by the present Bishop of Bath
and Wells, in " Principles at Stake."

CHARGES. 345
commonly supposed to require the presence of a Bishop, and
particularly whether Confirmation is not of that number.*
A joint Committee of the Southern Convocation on appoint
ments to Bishoprics, appointed In 1870, recoramended a Appoint
ments to
partial repeal of the Statute of Praemunire, with a view Bishoprics.
to giving the Chapter a right in the event of their objecting to a
recommendation from the Crown, to make a representation of the
grounds of their objection. I think that a revision of the present
process of appointment would be very desirable, to remove a cause
of just offence. But my wish would be that the forra of the
election should be adapted to the reality, and not the reaUty to
the form. The present raode of exercising the power of the
Crown, the forra being araended, appears to rae far preferable to
either capitular election or episcopal co-optation. The coraraittee
conclude their Report with the expression of an earnest desire,
" that all recoraraendations of persons for promotion to the Epis
copate may be made In a solemn sense of the responsibUity of
such an act." In this desire all would concur. But In the very
rare cases in which appointraents to the Episcopate have within
our memory been made the subject of complaint, there has been,
as far as I am aware, no reason to suppose that, whether judicious
or not, they were made without mature deliberation and a full
sense of responsibility, or without a clear view of the objections
which were or might be raised against them.
The benefit which may be expected to result from the revival of
Diocesan Synods, or of periodical Conferences between Diocesan
T . • , Synods,
Clergy and Laity, must depend m a great raeasure on Conferences
the circumstances of each Diocese. It is possible that "nd Laity.
my successor wIU be able greatly to extend the application of the
machinery which he -will find ready to his hand In our annual
meetings of Clergy and Laity. Hitherto they have been held for
* Among the offices entrusted to Presbyters in the Primitive Church, Bingham
(II., ui. § 5) enumerates "confirmation of neophytes" and "consecration of
churches." Even in Jerome's time, the power of ordioation alone was reserved to
Bishops in person. The additional solemnity and impressiveness imparted to the
rite by the Chief Pastor of the Diocese is no doubt a consideration never to be
overlooked, but which need not always be aUowed to outweigh every other.

34G BISHOP THIRLWALL's
the transaction of business, in which all take a raore or less lively
interest, and I raust own that I have always been disposed to
grudge the tirae devoted at such meetings to the discussion of
speculative questions not involving any immediately practical
issue. Perhaps I might also have shrunk from the difficulty of
organizing an assembly suited to such a purpose. But I am quite
aware that in other more favoured Dioceses the case may be
widely different. And the Diocesan Synod has the advantage of
being an Instrument which the Bishop has entirely at his own
disposal, while other Innovations on the existing order of thlng.s
mostly require a sanction of the Crown or the Legislature, which
cannot always be safely reckoned on. But in Its bearing on the
general interests of the Church, Its highest value can hardly be
anything more than that of a preparation for larger measures,
without which it may effect some local improvements, but will
not materially tend to ensure the stability of the Church. I
hardly need say that I lay no claim to any peculiar insight into
the future. I do not pretend to know better than anyone else
how long the Church, as by Law established, will continue suc
cessfully to resist every assault that may be made on her from
-without and from within, without any change In her institutions,
or any reform of the most generally acknowledged abuses which
check her progress and impair her usefulness by the mere vis
inertias or balance of parties in tbe State. But as far as I can
see, it does not lie In the nature of things, that her present state
should last for an Indefinite period without some organic change,
and therefore I think It Is the part of wisdom to keep this con
tingency in view, however remote the need may appear. The
question which seems to me to over-ride all others, and which, as
I think, must occupy more and more of the attention of those who
Eeconstmc- wIsh to See the Church placed on a firm basis. Is the
tion of the
churchre-^^ retoi'm. Or rather the reconstruction of her representa-
system. tlve System. Since the Canon of 1603 forbade anyone,
under penalty of excommunication, to deny that " the Sacred
Synod of the Nation In the name of Christ and the Kind's
authority assembled, is the true Church of England by represen-

CHARGES. 347
tation," changes have taken place which compel us to regard this
declaration as true only with respect to the tirae at which It was
made, or only in the sense that there Is no other assembly which
has a better claim to the title. It is indeed entirely foreign to
the question which we have now before us ; for that question Is
not whether the existing representation is in accordance with
either ecclesiastical or cIvU law, but whether It Is adequate and
efficient, or, on the contrary. Imperfect and Incompetent for the
work It has to do.
I can speak on this subject without any prejudice against
Convocation as it is. I am not one of those who dispa- convoca-
rage either its character or Its work. I believe that it
represents a fair proportion of the learning and ability of the
Clergy. It has shown itself well fitted for the task of collecting
materials on points requiring elaborate research, and of submit
ting the Information It received to intelligent and often instructive
discussion. I cannot agree with those who make light of these
inquiries and debates, because they have not been attended with
any immediate practical results. I do not consider It either as a
misfortune or a reproach to Convocation that, being what It is, it
should have done no raore than it has. Nothing, I conceive,
could have been less desirable, or indeed a greater calamity, than
that it should have been entrusted with any larger power of carry
ing its views into action. For it is a partial and Insufficient
representation even of the Clergy ; the Laity are not represented
in it at all ; and thus it Is every way disqualified for expressing
the mind and will of the Church. If anyone thinks that a Church
— at least that the Church of England — has no need of such an
organ, he must consider the revival of Convocation as a mistake,
and all atterapts at reforming and remodelling it as a waste of
labour. I cannot beUeve that many earnest rainds will be found to
take this -view of the object, though, in presence of the difficulties
which beset its attainment, some may too hastily resign them
selves to the conviction of Its hopelessness. The experience of the
Interval which has elapsed since the revival of Convocation seems
to me sufficient to show that no higher benefit than it has hitherto

348 BISHOP THIRLWALL's
yielded is to be expected from it under its present conditions ; but
not at all adverse to the hope that a change may yet be brought
about in its constitution, which will open a new and brighter era
In its history.
Union be- The great advantage which may be reasonably looked
and Laity, for from the restoration of the Laity to their rightful
and between
hoth and position, In whlch they would have a direct voice in the
pate. governraent of their Church, would be a strengthening
of the bond of union, now In general so slightly felt, so lightly
broken, between the Clergy and the Laitj', and between both and
the Episcopate. Let rae say a word to explain ray meaning on
this last point. I cannot help observing that there probably
never was a time when the Bishops were more frequently the
subjects of harsh judgments and bitter invectives. It may be
thought that If I lament this fact. It is from a personal feeling,
because It touches the honour of the order to which I belong.
But on the contrary, so far as that Is concerned, I have reason to
be perfectly content. When I see that the gravest Imputation
with which Bishops, as a body, are now assailed, Is not any
breach or neglect of the ordinary duties of their office, but the
attitude they take up in the controversies of the day, and when I
observe that, as a body, they are censured with equal severity by
the extreme partisans on each side, I think I have a right to con
clude that the blame they Incur Is indeed the highest praise they
could receive, and that their conduct as a body, and on the whole,
has In this respect been just what it ought to have been. But
with a view to the general Interests of the Church, the existence
of such a feeling Is much to be deplored. I think the Bishops
ought to be relieved from the undivided responsibiUty which
subjects thera to so rauch unjust obloquy while it so greatly
lessens the moral weight of their decisions. This, I believe,
would be one of the many good fruits which might be expected
from such a reform. Without It, I do not think it possible for
the Church ever to put forth her full strength, either for thc
purpose of self-defence or for the carrying on of her work.
No thoughtful observer can doubt that the time which lies before

CHARGES. 349
us wIU be one of extraordinary trial to the Church, and espe
cially to her ministers. It is not given to any of us to prospects of
foresee the issue. Nor Is It desirable that we should ^i^^ Church.
attempt to anticipate It either by anxious or hopeful forebodings,
which must depend more on each raan's Individual temperament
than on any substantial ground. I am not now speaking of a
trial In the sense of suffering ; but It Is certain that the coming
days will test the sincerity and earnestness of everyone's attach
ment to his Church, if not to the eyes of men, yet in the sight of
God. He will have raore power over It, both for good and evil,
than in ordinary times, though it is painful to reflect that the
power of evil may be exercised by simple indolence and negligence,
while the good can only be accomplished by some amount of
exertion and sacrifice. This however is a thought which will
rather aniraate than deter all loyal and generous spirits, who
would not wish, If they could, to offer unto God of that which
costs them nothing. There Is a call for a more than ordinary
degree of devotedness. Everyone has soraething to Necessity of
offer, and the question wiU not be whether It is much
or little, but whether it is his best, and offered -with a willing
mind. There are among us diversities of gifts and of administra
tions, but all subservient to the same Lord, aU capable of being
sanctified by the same spirit. One occupies a position of authority,
from which his Influence commands a wide range. Another is
gifted with the power of enriching the Church with the fruit of
his studies and meditations ; of pleading her cause against her
adversaries ; and of winning wanderers into her fold. The higher
station and the rarer gifts may Involve a more perilous responsi
bility ; but none who have received this rainistry have been left
destitute of ample means and opportunities for making fuU proof
of it In the service of God through the Church. However
narrow and obscure may be the sphere of their labour, it is the
same work in which they have to take part, the same faithfulness
which is to be shown in that which is least as In much. Beneficial influence of
the same blessing which all are invited to share. In the unity of aim.
sense of this unity of aim and effort, which is independent of aU

350 BISHOP THIRL AVALL's CHARGES.
fluctuations of human affairs, each will find comfort and strength,
stedfastness and peace. While his zeal Is quickened in the care
of that which is specially committed to his stewardship, his
sympathy wIU be drawn out to all that affects the welfare of the
Church at large. He will be Uving not In and to himself, a life
which Is not merely his own, but is the life of the Church in
Christ, or Christ's life In the Church which is His body. We
shall then Indeed aU the more lament the controversies which
disturb the peace, and waste the strength of the Church. But we
may find consolation as weU as warning in the fact that our con
dition In this respect is not worse than the strife and divisions
which prevailed in a primitive Church immediately subject to
Apostolical guidance. We may even view It with thankfulness,
as a sign of a love of truth, which, if often passionate and one
sided, is always infinitely preferable to the quiet of apathy and
indifference, and to the hoUow uniformity Imposed by a pretended
infallible authority. But we shall not the less be striving to walk
by the Apostolical rule, which. If fuUy observed, would be a
reraedy for aU our evils, and a safeguard against all our dangers.
"FoUowing after the things which make for peace, and things
wherewith one may edify another." * " Doing nothing through
strife or vain-glory; but in lowUness of mind, esteeming each
better than ourselves." "Looking not every raan on his own
things, but every man also on the things of others." In one
word, " having this mind In us which was also in Christ
Jesus." t • Rom. xiv. 19. f Pbil. n. 3, 4, 5.

APPENDIX. Note A.
Athanasius on the Unscriptural Phraseology of the Nicene Creed.
In reply to tbe objection : ISet 57-epi tov Kvplov /cat Sw-r^pos rifi.wv
Irjaov XptcrToS €K twv ypat^ojv to, rrepl avTov ye-ypafifjiiva XiyecrOai. p.rj
aypat^ovs iireia-dyea-dai Xiiei's, be sayS : vol I'Sci cjiairjv av Koi eyoiye,
aKpL/3ea-T€pa yap ck twv yparjjSiv /laXkov -^ ef iriputv ccrrt to, r^s aXrjOeM's
yvoipia-fiara, aX\ rj KaKoriOua Kal /u.€Ta iravovpyta^ iraXiix/SoXo^ dcreySeia
TiDv TTepb 'Evcre/BLOV rjvayKaae tous Ima-Kdirovi XiVKorepov iKOiaOai. to. Trjv
auipaav auTw avarpiirovTa p-qfjiaTa. (Syn. Nlcsenas contra H89r. Arian.
Decreta i., p. 282.)
Note B.
Athanasius on the Sufficiency of the Nicene Creed.
¦Vj^iwaav TtV€s cos cvSeSs ep^ono-Tjs Tijs Kara NtKat'as crui'dSou, ypaxpai Trepl
7rioT€cos, (cat iTre)(eipr)(Ta.v ye wpoTrerSs' rj Se dyt'a o-woSos j; ev ^apSiKv
(Tvva^Bilcra yjyavaKrrjart Kal wpicri, fxyfih/ ert Trept Tria-Teur; ypdcfteaOai, aXX'
apKeladai ry iv NtKa/a irap' avTov iraTtptm/ (I. irapa Tcov Trarepwy) ofioXoyrj-
udcrri TridTU, Sta to /Jirj^ev avr-rj Xdireiv, dAAa TrXTJprj euo-eySeias etvat, /cat on
fxT) Set iKTiOicrBaL Seurepaj/ ttio-tlv, tva i^rj rj iv NtKai'a ypa<f>ucra <us dre'Av/s
ouira vop.ia-6y, Kal vrpocjiaaL'; So6rj Tots iOiXovai iroAXd/cis ypdtjuLv Kal optfetv
irept Tr/o-Tew.s. (Epistola ad Antiocbenses i., p. 576.)
It appears to me that tbis passage, where the meaning of SeuTepa ffto-Tts
admits of no doubt, ought to govern the interpretation of the ambiguous
expression tTepa Trto-rts in the decree of tbe Council of Ephesus, which
is explained by Mr. MacColl (p. 10) and others, to mean " another/a»i^,"
tbat is, doctrine repugnant to that of tbe Nicene Creed. That prohibition
sounds superfluous. But the Fathers at Ephesus had as good right, and
as much reason, to forbid that whicb tbe Fathers at Sardica had declared
ought not to be done, as those of Sardica to express such a judgment ;

352 APPENDIX.
in which Athanasius fully concurred. The fact seema to me clearly to
disprove Mr. MacColl's arbitrary assertion, that the Fathers of Ephesus
and Chalcedon " had as little authority as inclination to forbid the impo
sition of a new Creed if circumstances required it." If that bad been
true with regard to them, it must have been equally true with regard to
those of Sardica, in whose case it is palpably false.

Note C-
Bishop Jeremy Taylor and Mr. MacColl.
As I am not acquainted -with Mr. MacColl's previous writings, I do
not know how far be may have earned a right to look down with con
tempt on the intellectual side of Jeremy Taylor's character, and to restrict
his merits to " charm of diction, affluence of imagination, and devotional
fervour." Perhaps I may provoke an expression of still loftier disdain,
if I refer to a widely different judgment of Bishop Eeginald Heber (whom
Mr. MacColl would probably let down as an amiable enthusiast), who,
speaking of the Liberty of Prophesying (" Life of Jeremy Taylor," p.
ccx.), observes, " On a work so rich in intellect, so renowned for charity,
which contending sects have rivalled eaeh other in approving, and which
was the first, perhaps, since the earliest days of Christianity, to teach
those among whom differences were inevitable, the art of diflering harm
lessly, it would be almost impertinent to enlarge in commendation."
But it suited Mr. MacColl's purpose to decry the intellectual powers of
a writer, whose views differed in many points from bis own ; and perhaps
he could bar(Hy help feehng some degree of antipathy toward one who
was distinguished by strong sense, earnest love of truth, charity, and
freedom from prejudice, quite as much as by the quafities conceded to
bim by Mr. MacColl.
Mr. MacColl could not resist the temptation of citing a passage from
a work erroneously attributed to Jeremy Taylor by Mr. Lecky (see a
letter of Archdeacon Churton in the " Guardian " of July 24), though,
but for the purpose of damaging Jeremy Taylor's reputation, the quota
tion, even if it had not been a forgery, would have been utterly irrele
vant : since if Taylor's fancy had been impressed with such a picture of
the futm-e state, it must have strengthened his repugnance to the damna
tory clauses, which, so far from being, as Mr. MacColl represents,
" milder," involved these dreadful consequences as the penalty of error.
This however is a matter in whicb Mr. MacColl bas a right to bis own
opinion or taste, and with which I have nothing to do. But in tbe
charges which he bas brought against Jeremy Taylor's theology, I am
so implicated as to be constrained to take tbis occasion of noticing them.

APPENDIX. 353
1 am not indeed directly concerned in the first charge, which in sub
stance involves an accusation of gross ignorance and offensive levity.
But I cannot pass it over in silence, lest I should appear tacitly to admit
its justice. Mr. MacColl (p. 32) describes Jeremy Taylor as " a writer
who could characterize tbe Arian controversy contemptuously as a dis
pute about a vowel, and who held himself at liberty to accept or reject
the Nicene Creed," and as " saying that it makes no difference whether
we consider the Son as op.oovcno's or o;uotoucrtos with tbe Father " (which
indeed would be quite true as to the grammatical, though not as to the
conventional value of the terms). But though, when be inserted the
damaging forgery from Mr. Lecky's work, he gave the volume and page
in which it was to be found, he has given no reference, nor any kind of
clue to the passage on whicb he grounds this charge of bad taste and
unsound theology. He seems to have thought that his readers were
likely to be more familiar with the writings of Jeremy Taylor tban with
Mr. Lecky's. No doubt he also presumed tbat all would give himself
credit for a correct report of Taylor's statements, though he does not
pretend to cite a single word. I am sorry that I have not been able to
discover the passage. I am thus placed in a difficult and disagreeable
position. Mr. MacColl does not scruple to tax Jeremy Taylor, who is
unable to defend himself, with being " as a controversialist not always
very scrupulous." But I might be thought uncourteous, if I was to say
that this is exactly the impression which his own work bas made upon
myself, and that candour is among the last qualities for which I can give
bim credit. It appears to me not inconceivable, that he may have
trusted too much to bis memory, or have misunderstood the drift of
Jeremy Taylor's argument. This is a point on which I must suspend my
judgment untU I see Jeremy Taylor's own words.
I have however a like complaint to make on my own behalf, which
heightens my distrust of Mr. MacColl's accuracy. Mr. MacColl fancied
that he bad convicted me of something whicb be calls Pyrrhonism : and
be takes occasion to remark (p. 18), "I cannot help expressing my regret
that tbe Bishop of St. David's should have been a party to the hounding
of Dr. Newman out of the Church of England a quarter of a century
ago." I do not know tbat I was ever much more astonished tban by this
remark. Mr. MacColl gives no reference to any publication of mine to
which he aUudes : and I know of two only in which I could bave done
what be imputes to me. They are the Charges I delivered at my first
and my second Visitation. The second of these was delivered in the
autumn of the same year, 1845, in whicb Mr. Newman went over to
Eome. This therefore could bave no share in urging his departure ; and
the only allusion to him contained in it is in a note, speaking of him in
terms of the highest respect. There remains then the Primary Charge
of 1842. Few no doubt recollect anything of its contents. But every-
VOL. II. A A.

354 APPENDIX.
one who does, or has the means of referring to it, is aware not only that
there is nothing in it to warrant Mr. MacCoU's observation, but tbat its
whole tendency is as directly as possible the reverse of that which be
attributes to me ; and I think I have a right to call upon him to substan
tiate his accusation, under a penalty to whicb no man of honour can be
indifferent. But when he represents Jeremy Taylor as one " wbo held himself at
liberty to accept or reject tbe Nicene Creed," and " claimed tbe right of
sitting in judgment on the Nicene Council," and thus "repudiated the
authority of tbe Church from which he received his commission," I am
obliged to say that Mr. MacColl has entirely missed the point of the
question, and has misstated Jeremy Taylor's position. It is not true
that Jeremy Taylor held himself at liberty to accept or reject tbe Nicene
Creed. As far as we can judge from his words, he appears to have
believed it quite as firmly as Mr. MacColl himself. It is not true that
Jeremj' Taylor " claimed the right of sitting in judgment on the Nicene
Council." The point on whicb he exercised his judgment, and on which
tbe same right is claimed by the Bishop who " backed him up," is of a
totally different nature, and seems to have been entirely misunderstood
by Mr. MacColl. From bis remarks on tbis subject, and from other
passages in his work, I should gather that like many clever persons, he
is subject to fits of absence, in which he is apt to forget to what Church
he belongs. The Nicene Fathers were responsible for the profession of
faith which they promulged : and this Jeremy Taylor heartily accepts.
But for the Convocation of tbe Council, which is the thing that he held
to be questionable in point of discretion, they were in no way responsible.
The responsibility of that measure rested entirely with Constantine and
bis ecclesiastical Privy Councillor, Hosius of Cordova. Constantine, in
bis simplicity, believed the dispute which had arisen at Alexandria to be
no more than a trifling squabble about words, which might be soon com
posed by a friendly conference. His ignorance was certainly excusable,
since Hosius did not undeceive him. But it was morally impossible for
the Bishops to disobey bis summons, and equaUy so, when they had met,
to refuse to declare what they held to be sound doctrine. That which
Jeremy Taylor considered as open to doubt, was the wisdom of the whole
proceeding, whicb is a concern of Constantine and Hosius.
It is true, Jeremy Taylor also thought tbat it would have been better
to have kept the very words of Scripture, and not to have introduced
such a term as o/xoouo-tos. In so thinking be shared an opinion held by
many at the time of the CouncU, and, as I bave shown, by Athanasius
himself, who defended it only as a necessary evU. UntU it is proved
that every word of the Nicene Creed was dictated by Divine inspiration,
everyone now must be at liberty to share that opinion, which does not in
the least affect the truth of any article of tbe Creed. When Mr. MacCoU

APPENDIX. 355
(p. 34) pronounces it " subversive of the dogmatic position of the Church
of England," he certainly earns tbe distinction of having carried intole
rance to its utmost possible length, and on bis own private authority
introduced a new limitation in her terms of communion, whicb no lover
of truth could accept.
Mr. MacCoU bas bad the kindness to instruct me with regard to the
conditions required for the validity of a General CouncU. But bis
remarks are almost as irrelevant to Jeremy Taylor's position and to mine,
as the bulk of his work is to the question of tbe Athanasian Creed. Nor
do they appear to me of any great value in themselves, but rather likely
to mislead his readers. It is true, as he says, that a Council may fully
satisfy every other condition of a General Council, and yet not be entitled
to that designation, unless it be received by the Church at large. The
CouncU of Nicaea is acknowledged by the Church of England as having
been stamped with the seal of tbat reception. But that is not the ground
on which she requires her ministers to accept the Nicene Creed. The
sole ground is that stated in the eighth Article. It is because it may be
proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture, and, as is clear from
the two preceding Articles, for no other reason. (See Donaldson,
' Christian Orthodoxy,' p. 419.) It is indeed most happy for us that she
bas laid this sure foundation, and has not left the faith of ber children to
depend upon tbe fact of reception, which it is impossible for anyone to
ascertain. The theory is that the decrees of a Council claiming CEcume-
nicity are examined by particular assemblies convened for that purpose
in all other parts of the Christian world, and if universally adopted,
become henceforth part of the faith of tbe Church. This sounds quite
satisfactory as long as no question is asked as to the meaning of the term
reception, or as to the conditions of a valid reception. It may be that
something short of express assent might be held suflicient. But at least
it cannot be a submission extorted by fear. It must be assumed that the
Synods or Churches, by which the decrees are ratified, were at liberty to
accept or reject. But how precarious, to say the least, is this assumption
with regard to tbe Byzantine Councils ! At Nicaea, Arius, and the
Bishops Secundus and Theonas, who with him refused to subscribe the
Creed, were immediately punished with banishment, before any inquiry
bad been made to ascertain whether the CouncU really represented the
mind of the Church, and was justly entitled to the name of CEcumenicai.
Bishops, wbo had the fate of Nestorius before their eyes, and were
informed by the Imperial Magistrates that tbey must either accept the
decrees of the Council of Ephesus, or avow themselves Nestorians, were
hardly in a position to exercise an impartial judgment. Tbe prospect of
ending tbeir days in an Egyptian mine, like the Bishop Alexander of
Hierapolis, could be regarded by few with perfect indifference. The
reception of the formulary decreed by the Council of Chalcedon, under

356 APPENDIX.
the pressure of the Imperial Commissioners, appears to have been simply
tacit acquiescence, enforced on all : on ecclesiastics under penalty of
degradation. The object of the Imperial poHcy for centuries was to stifle
controversy by a compulsory uniformity. And it is evident tbat it never
occurred to Constantine to imagine that the decrees of Nicaea needed
confirmation. "O to ts Tpta/coo-iots r)pe.tT(.v eirto-KOTrots ovSev eo-Tiv erepov rj tov
®eov yvwix-q, was his language in his letter to tbe Church of Alexandria.
(Socrat. 1, c. ix.) And as little did the Emperor Marcian intend that
any of bis subjects should have a voice on the formulary of Chalcedon.
The theory of this period appears to have been, that for the decrees of a
CouncU duly constituted, when confirmed by the Emperor, silence on the
part ofthe Church was a suflicient reception.
The minority at the Vatican Council justly complained of tbe want of
freedom which vitiated all its proceedings. But what was tbe moral
influence of the Pope, however grossly abused, compared to tbe power of
the Byzantine despots ? Besting as we do on Scriptural authority for
all the Articles of our belief, we can contentedly resign ourselves to this
uncertainty as to the fact of reception, which might otherwise be perplex
ing. It is enough for us to know that the majority in the Council came
to a right decision, and therefore that, whether it was freely received or
not, we are safe in adopting it.
Mr. MacColl belongs to tbat class of persons whom prudence would
dissuade from living in glass houses. He begins bis Letter to Mr. Glad
stone -with the remark : " Tbe real points at issue in the controversy on
the Athanasian Creed have been so overlaid with irrelevant matter that
it is not easy for tbe public at large to understand the exact position of
the question." He is apparently unconscious that his own book furnishes
tbe most signal example of the fact hitherto witnessed, having aU the
look of being largely made up of extracts from a commonplace book,
which, as be might well think them too good to be lost, he has taken
this occasion to publish.
He charges Jeremy Taylor with a breach of allegiance to the Church,
" from which he received bis commission," but leaves it doubtful to what
Church he himself belongs. In the course of his rambles be lights upon
the doctrine of tbe Fall, and elucidates it by the observation (p. 130) :
" It is the teaching of the Church that, in addition to that aggregate of
natural endowments which we possess in common with him (Adam), and
which constitute tbe integrity of human nature, our Fhst Parents pos
sessed a gift of Supernatural Grace, sufficiently powerful to sway the
wiU in the right direction, but not strong enough to interfere with its
essential freedom." I do not dispute Mr. MacCoU's right to adopt this
scholastic figment, of whicb Bishop Heber (" Life of Jeremy Taylor,"
p. ccxxvi.) observes, that " it can hardly stand tbe test of Scripture." But
to whatever Church it may belong, it is no doctrine of the Church of

APPENDIX. 357
England, but, as far as appears, only of the Church — whatever that may
be— of Mr. MacCoU.
He reproves Jeremy Taylor for " flippancy," on account of bis express
ing the opinion we bave been considering on tbe proceedings of the
Council of Nicaea. But be does not scruple himself to make merry with
some of the most solemn passages in the Prayer-Book. He has intro
duced a discussion on " imperfect views of the Incarnation," and observes
(p. 153) that according to the view whicb he condemns, "in tbe Holy
Communion no positive gift is supposed to be imparted. The Sacrament
is only a symbolical picture of the deatb of Christ, well calculated to
bring that event vividly before us, and to stir up grateful emotions in our
hearts in consequence. But the God-Man is absent — far airay beyond
Sirius and the Ulitky Way — and we are to ascend where He is in imagina
tion and feeling. And this is what is called the ' spiritual presence ' of
Christ in tiie Holy Commmiion, or rather in the heart of the worthy com
municant." I say nothing of Mr. MacCoU's perversions of the doctrine which he
assails, and wbich I have no doubt he is sincerely unable to understand,
nor of the incapacity which he betrays to conceive spiritual distance or
nearness, or any tbat is not measured by mUes or inches. But a clergy
man of tbe Church of England might have been expected to show a little
more reverence for the language of the Collect for Ascension Day, in
which the Church prays for tbat very "ascent in heart and mind"
which he represents as an idle dream, and for the Sursum, corda of
the Communion Offiee, which comes equally within the scope of his
ridicule. I do not think that Mr. MacColl has succeeded in demolishing Jeremy
Taylor, or that be will escape the Nemesis which awaits those who
wantonly assail the iUustrious dead. But I bave no doubt that bis argu
ments will satisfy all who were previously of bis opinion, and especially
where he wanders farthest from his subject.

INDEX.

A.
Act of Suhmiasion, i. 214; obscurity of,
215 ; character of, ib. ; principle of, 216.
Age, spirit of the, i. 60.
Anglo-Saxon Church, i. 203, &c.
Apostolical succession, different views of,
i. 38 ; relation to the doctrine of the
Sacraments, ib. ; opinion of Dr. Arnold,
of Rugby, 39 ; doubtfal use of, in con
troversy, 40.
Aquinas, doctrine of transubstantiation, i.
241, 249, 250.
Archdeacons, visitations of, i. 147.
Arnold, Dr., of Rugby, quoted, i. 39, 49.
Article, the Eleventh, i. 32 ; the T-weuty-
second, 44.
Articles, the Thirty-nine, a standard of
orthodoxy, i. 240 ; their literal and
grammatical sense, i. 42 ; framed to
admit different views, 43 ; Dr. New
man's application of the principle, ib. ;
their relation to the Prayer Book, i.
113.
Athanasius, on the Nicene Creed, ii. 351.
Athanasian Creed, the, i. 394, 395 ; ii. 317 ;
the practical question, ii. 3 1 8 ; the Church
has power to regulate the use of it, 319;
history of, 320 ; characteristics of the,
326 ; damnatory clauses of the, dif
ferently explained, 322, 323 ; said to
be misunderstood, 327 ; explanations of
them not generally accepted, ib. ; com
promise suggested, 328 ; only affect the
laity, ib. ; mode of conducting the con
troversy deprecated, 329.
B.
Babbage, Prof., on Miracles, ii. 88.
Baptism, sacrament of, i. 114, &c. ; bene
fit conveyed by, 116 ; tendency of oppo
site views concerning, 116; teaching of
St. Augustine, and of the Church of
Rome, 158.
Baptism, infant, i. 165, &c. ; the case of
baptised infants dying in infancy, 158 ;
remission of original sin in, 168 ; pre-
venient grace, i. 156, 167.

Baptism, Cal-vin's doctrine of, i. 157 ; sin
gularity of Mr. Gorham's tenet respect
ing, 158 ; objection to the doctrine of
baptismal grace, 169 ; conditional or
unconditional efiScacy of, i. 160 ; bearing
of the view taken of it upon the work of
Christian education, ib. ; Hammond's
view of, 161, 166, 169; dodrine of the
Church catechism, 162; statements of
Bishop Blomfield and Bishop Bethell,
ib.; notion of a covenant essential to,
maintained by Hooker and Hammond,
166 ; Bishop Wilson and Thorndike,
167.
Bellarmine, Le Eucharistia, i. 260.
Bellarmine, doctrine of transubstantiation,
ii. 285, 286.
Bennett case, the, ii. 312; charitable
interpretations ofthe Court, 314.
Berengarius, i. 331, 341.
Bevan Charity, the, i. 313.
Bible, relation of religion to the, ii. 79 ;
history of the, 82 ; what is essential in,
83.
Bilingual difficulty, the, in -Wales, i. 8.
Birmingham, King Edward's School at, i.
364.
Bishops, being Privy Councillors, should
be members of the Court of Appeal, i.
172; but should not be the only judges
of doctrine, 173.
Bishops, conduct of, -with regard to Ritual
ism, ii. 148, 149 ; at the time of the
Restoration, 151.
Bishops, address of, to the clergy of both
provinces, ii. 147.
Bishoprics, appointments to, ii. 345.
Bowstead, Mr., his Report on the Schools
in the Principality, i. 366, &c.
Bull. Bishop, his doctrine of justification,
i. 33.
Burials BiU, the, ii. 337 ; inconsistency of
its supporters, 338.
Burial office, memorial on the, i. 391 ;
conscientious difficulties of the clergy,
393.
Butler's, Rev. W. Archer, Letters on
Development, i. 186.

INDEX.

359

0.
Canon, the twenty-ninth, i. 399.
Casaubon, his rebuke of Cardinal Baronius,
ii. 150.
Catechism, the, i. 112.
Catechism, Church, how regarded by Dis
senters, i. 373; proper use of, 374.
Cathedral of St. Da-vid's, restoration of
the, ii. 93, 94 ; 258, 269 ; 340.
Catholic Church, appeal to the, irrelevant
to a question of AigKcan orthodoxy, ii.
72.
Catholic teaching, that which is so called
is at variance with the mind of the
Church of England, i. 266.
Choral associations, formation of, ii. 166.
Christ, character of, ii. 25 ; divinity of,
28 ; human aud divine knowledge of,
76 ; difficulty of the question, 77 ;
attempt of Lower House of Convocation
to settle it, ib.
Church, a free, ii. 142.
Church and State, relations between, ii.
206 ; union of, ii. 141.
Church, aspect of, externally, ii. 2 ; inter
nally, 3 ; e-vils in the, i. 4 ; hopes of im
provement, i. 6 ; evils not inherent in her
system, i. 7 ; dastinction between, and a
school of philosophy, ii. 52 ; ideal of a
national, 64 ; divisions in the, i. 87 ;
influence of the, ii. 153 ; services of the,
not sufficiently attractive, 154 ; reme
dies suggested, ib. ; importance of a
study of the Primitive, ii. 185 ; Church
of the Catacombs and the Church of the
Vatican, 187 ; of England and of Rome,
188 ; work of the, i. 190 ; spirit in
which it should be done, 192 ; power of
the State to sever its connection with
the, ii. 218; prospects of the, i. 2;i9,
247.
Church Defence Institution, ii. 342.
Church doctrine, popular expositions of, i.
13.
Churches built and restored, i. 143 ; im
proved architecture of, 144 ; condition
of, in the diocese, i. 195, 196 ; restoration
of, ii. 341 ; repair of, i. 9, ii. 258.
Churches and chapels, alienation of the
masses from, ii. 43 ; prospect of winning
the irreligious class, 46.
Churches and schools, building of, in the
diocese, i. 309.
Church establishments, no express guid
ance in Scripture on, ii. 214 ; complica
tion of the question, 216 ; movements
affecting, 216 ; State countenance of, ib. ;
neither absolutely good nor bad, 217.
Church Institution, the, ii. 129.
Church in Wales, the, ii. 34.
Church of England, aspect of, i. 349 ;
contentions in the, i. 262 ; preaent con

dition of the, i. 151, 152 ; prospects of,
ii. 304 ; fear of disorganization in, 305 ;
Romanizing tendencies iu, i. 183 ; com
pared with Church of Rome, i. 106 ; the
true life of, 108.
Church of Rome, secessions to, i. 184 ;
groundless nature of them, ib. ; her
special advantages, i. 106, 107 ; has
forbidden or discouraged the reading of
Scripture, ii. 6 ; language used in the
Oxford Tracts respecting, i. 46 ; change
of feeling towards, 47 ; charged with
idolatry, i. 77, 78 ; controversy with,
reduced to a single point, 104 ; vitality
of the, ii. 264; character of, 266, 266;
improvement in, since the Council of
Trent, 269 ; her policy changed since
the Council of Trent, ii. 273 ; spirit in
which she should be regarded, 274.
Church order, value of, i. 18, 19.
Church principles, danger of neglecting, i.
16.
Church property, alienation of, ii. 219.
Church rates, i. 349 ; Report of Committee
of the House of Lords on, 350 ; Aboli
tion Bill passed in the Commons, 351 ;
defeated in the Lords, 352 ; fallacy of
conscientious objection to, 353 ; abolition
of, ii. 97 ; state of the question, ii. 96 ;
Braintree case, i. 231; motives for
resisting, 233 ; objection to compulsion,
234 ; mode of levying, ib. ; argument
drawn from contests about, i. 355 ;
concessions on this head wUl not satisfy
Nonconformists, 356 ; amount levied by,
ib. ; effects of the cessation of, ib. ;
Report of the Select Committee on, 358;
a commutation recommended, ib. ; pro
posal for exemption, ib. ; its probable
effects, 359 ; agitation on the subject
due to the Liberation Society, 360 ;
ulterior ends in view, 361.
Church reform, ii. 344, &a. ; an organic
change probable, 346 ; reconstruction of
the representative system most impor
tant, ib.
Church societies, support of, i. 315; with
drawal of Queen's Letters, i. 316 ; origin
of it, ib., false pretences of the Declara
tion by which it was obained, 317-319.
Clergy, conduct of the, i. 1 09 ; deficient
supply of, i. 146 ; deficiency of, i. 7 ;
importance of frequent intercourse and
concert, i. 11 ; relation of, to the Crown,
i. 211 ; report on discipline ofthe, 221 ;
supply of, i. 225 ; the parochial, ought to
be adequately provided for, i. 84.
Clergy DiscipUne Bill, i. 109, &c.
Clergymen, liberty of, in matters of
opinion, ii. 36 ; resignation of, ii. 340.
Clerical court, impracticability of, ii.
310.
Clerical meetings, i. 13, i. 230; peculiarity

360

INDEX.

of, in Wales, i. 14; borrowed from Dis
sent, 16.
Cobb, Mr., on Reunion, &o., ii. 261; Romish
doctrine, 275 ; the Jesuits, 277 ; tran
substantiation, 281, &c.
Colenso, Bishop, publications of, ii. 69 ;
committee of Lower House of Convoca
tion, 61 ; his official position gave cur
rency to his work, 62 ; effects of his mode
of publication, 63 ; tone of his language,
ib. ; its assumption, 64 ; relation of his
book to the doctrines of the Church of
England, 65 ; action of Convocation, 66 ;
mode of dealing with propositions ex
tracted from the book, 70-80 ; remarks
on the study of the work, 80-81 ; trial of,
a mockery, ii. 143.
Collections, weekly, i. 320.
Communion office, the English, and the
fiomish mass, ii. 233 ; compared, 244 ;
English and Scotch compared, i. 278 ;
principal difference between, 279 ; Bi
shop Horsley's opinion, 280 ; omission of
prayer of invocation in the English
office, 281 ; language of the Scotch
office not free from ambiguity, 282 ;
Romish and English contrasted, ii. 161.
Communion Service, in second book of
Edward "VL, i. 243 ; ante-communion
office, 244.
Confirmation, age at which the rite should
be administered, ii. 127 ; instruction
¦with a view to, i. 23 ; opposition to, i.
236; connection of theCatechismand,ib. ;
title of the office of, in Edward VI.'s
Prayer Book, ib. ; the office may be
revised -with advantage, 237 ; early pre
paration for, 238.
Conscience Clause, the, ii. 104 ; vehement
denunciation of, 106 ; nature of discus
sions on, 106 ; Prof. Plumptre on, ib. ;
ground of opposition to, 107 ; view taken
of it by the committee of the National
Society, 108 ; weakness of their argu
ment, 109 ; principles at stake in the
dispute, 110 ; alleged violation of com
pact, 111, and interference with religious
instruction in Church schools, 113 ;
charged with insinuating principles of
secular education into denominational
schools, 116; is a necessary safeguard,
121 ; perpetuation of, 121.
Convocation, revival of, i. 174, 198; has
not been either national or representa
tive, 175; dangers besetting the re-vival,
ib. ; objects contemplated by it secured
already, 177 ; further powers aimed at,
179; not properly representative, 199;
the work of, 202 ; history of, i. 203, &c. ;
first session of, 209 ; twofold aspect of,
ib. ; original character of, 212 ; exten
sion of, the term, 213; parliamentary,
ib. ; Act of Submission, 214 ; facilities

afforded to, 216 ; right of clergy to re
tum members to, 217 ; rights of the
Lower House of, ib. ; why it meets si
multaneously -with parliament, 218 ;
suspension of its deliberations, ib. ; in
action of, 219 ; duties of a revived, 220 ;
advantages to be derived from, ib.;
character of proceedings, 221 ; com
mittee on the constitution of, 222 ; joint
deliberation of the two provinces, 223 ;
representation of the laity, ib. ; limits
within which its functions can be exer
cised, 224; jealousy of, on the part of
the State, 226 ; present state and pros
pects of, ib. ; capacities of, for good,
228 ; change of opinion respecting, 286 ;
unable to effect needful changes, 288 ;
expression of opinion on books, ii. 66 ;
first judgment of, since its revival, 67 ;
its effects, 68 ; its judgment on theolo
gical works should be dogmatical, 69 ;
dealing of the committee with the first
projjosition in Bishop Colenso's work,
70 ; with the second, 72 ; report of
Lower House on the work not sanctioned
by the "Upper House, 74; its dealing
with the third proposition of the Bi
shop's book, 75 ; fails to touch the real
point at issue, ib. ; dealing with the
fourth proposition concerning our Lord's
divine knowledge, 76, 77 ; serious omis
sions in the report, 78 ; reform of, 139 ;
¦vindication of, 140 ; does not adequately
express the mind of the Church, 347.
Cosin, Bishop, "History ot Transubstantia
tion," i. 332.
Council of Trent, i. 44, 45 ; the history of
the, ii. 265.
Councils, general, ii. 141.
Court of Appeal, constitution of, i. 172, 173 ;
ii. 132; substitution of a purely ecclesias
tical tribunal for, 136 ; excellence ofthe
present, 138 ; proposed to refer doctrinal
questions to an ecclesiastical council
137 ; effects of the judgments, ii. 309
judgment of, on tlie Eucharist, 312
judgment of the, upon Ritual, ii. 237;
&c. ; distasteful to the Ritualists, 239
i. 246, 247. D.
Da-vies, Rev. Llewelyn, on Miracles, ii. 88.
Declaration of the clergy on the judgment
in "Essays and Reviews," ii. 122; its
ulterior object, 123.
Denison, Archdeacon, his doctrine of the
Eucharist considered, i. 267, &o. ; erro
neous interpretation of the Catechism,
271; his propositions irreconcilable with
one another, 272 ; uses language which
is the technical expression of a Romish
error, 273 ; his vie ws of education ex
amined, ii. 114-120.

INDEX.

361

Development, doetrine of, i, 59, 60 ; how
applied to establish the tenets of the
Church of Rome, ib. ; Dr. Newman's
essay on, i. 102, &o.
Diocesan Church Union Society, i. 10 ;
Church Building Society, ii. 97.
Diocesan Inspector, appointment of, ii.
, 336.
Diocese of St. David's, condition of, i. 2,
4, 86, 86 ; neglect of Church order in
the, i. 67 ; condition of churches in the,
ii. 92 ; church building in, mainly
carried on by voluntary contributions,
95 ; improvement in the, i. 142; poverty
of livings in, 146.
Dioceses, subdivision of, ii. 344.
" Directorium Anglicanum," the, ii. 158.
Disestablishment of the Church of Eng
land, ii. 228 ; how -viewed by the clergy
of different schools, 229 ; sources of
danger, 230 ; would involve disruption,
ib. ; advocacy of, by the Ritualists, ii.
310 ; disapproved by the bulk of the
clergy, 311. (See Irish Church. )
Divorce, law of, i. 289, 290.
Doctrine, definition of, i. 171 ; questions
of, in a court of law, ii. 134.
E.
Ecclesiastical Commission, aid to be ex
pected from, i. 8.
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, i. 180, 181.
Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act, ii. 338.
Education, elementary, i. 310 ; committee
of -Welsh, ib. ; religious instruction in
the Principalitj', 311 ; absence of a uni
form system, 312; suggested action of
the "Welsh bishops in order to secure
uniformity, 312 ; insufficient and ineffi
cient schools, 313 ; remedies proposed,
ib. ; personal superintendence of the
clergy, 315 ; management clauses, 126 ;
misunderstanding respecting them, 127 ;
ii. 330 ; Act of 1870, ib. ; injurious effect
of denunciation of secular, 331 ; opera
tion ofthe Act on religious, ib. ; Noncon
formist support of secular, 332 ; Noncon
formist protest against the exclusion of
the Bible, 334.
Education in the diocese, i. 128, &c. ;
reports of Commissioners, 129 ; effort for
the promotion of, 136 ; special fund
towards, 136 ; progress of, ii. 9P.
Education of the poor, i. 19-24, 89, 235
efforts of the Church, 90 ; encourage'
ments to the discharge of this duty, 91
necessity of personal exertion, 92 ; re
ligious instruction, 93.
Education, national, i. 117 ; govemment
control in, 118; separation of secular
and religious instruction, 119, 120 ;
importance of religious teaching, 121 ;
misunderstanding between the advocates

of the two systems, 122 ; action of the
government, 124 ; requires higher quali
fications in the schoolmasters, 125 ; op
position to the government scheme haa
arisen entirely without the Church, 126,
336, &c. ; proceedings of Committee of
Council, 369 ; parliamentary grant, 370 ;
received by Dissenters in Church schools,
372, ii. 252 ; low state of, 253 ; moral
and religious training, ib. ; value of
secular, in checking crime, 254 ; Une
drawn between secular and religious,
255 ; provision for, in "Wales, 256 ;
establishment of secular schools, 267 ;
duties of clergymen towards schools, ib.
Education, secular and religious, ii. il4-
116 ; ofthe ohildren of Dissenters, 118,
119.
Education of the World, Essay on the, ii.
126.
Edward I. summons a Convocation of the
Clergy, i. 208.
Endowments, poverty of, in Wales, i. 7.
Endowed Schools Bill, i. 363 ; legislative
interference unnecessary, ib. ; operation
of, on national schools, 366.
EngUsh, teaching of, in Welsh schools, i.
133.
English Church "Dnion, report of, on Ri
tual, ii. 172.
Error, not a crime, i. 74 ; distinction be
tween teaching it and aUowing it to be
taught, 76.
Essays and Reviews, u. 5 ; the work of
one school, ii. 51 ; general tendency of,
63 ; attention attracted to, by the cha
racter of the authors, 7 ; obscurity in,
8 ; form and conditions of publication,
ib. ; relation of opinions expressed in, to
the doctrines of the Church, 9 ; unity of
the publication, 10 ; public history of
the book, ib. ; attitude of the Church
towards, 11 ; the Bishops' censure of, 12-
13; apology for, in the Edinburgh Me-
view, 13 ; refutation demanded, 14 ;
clerical contributors to, 16 ;'object ofthe
writers, 24 ; decision ofthe Judicial Com
mittee on two ofthe contributors, ii. 122.
Establishments — see Church.
Eucharist, doctrine of the, in the Church
of England, i. 262 ; in primitive times,
263 ; language of the Reformers respect
ing, ib. ; aUeged want of explicitness in
the language of our Church, 264 ; mys
tical and spiritual tendencies concern
ing, 265 ; importance of the questions
raised, ib. ; alleged Catholic doctrine of,
266 ; ambiguity of terms use^, 267 ;
declaration of the Court at Bath, ib. ;
beginning of the controversies concern
ing, i. 329 ; frequency of celebrating, i.
242 ; non-communicating attendance,
243, ii. 167; receiving of, by the priest

362

INDEX.

alone, 244 ; opinions of Bishop Cosin
and Bishop Overall respecting, ib. ; re
lation of the controversy to that on Bap
tism, 283 ; spiritual presence of Christ
in, admitted by Bellarmine, i. 332 ;
Justin Martyr's account of the, ii.
186 ; minor differences between ancient
and modern usage, ib. ; memorial on
the, ii. 241 ; repudiates a corporal pre
sence, 242, and transubstantiation, ib. ;
and innovations on the Eucharistic Sa
crifice, 243 ; ignores different modes of
celebrating the Eucharist, 244 ; consis
tency of its statements with the doctrine
of the Church, 245 ; words of institu
tion in the, i. 246 ; adoration of the
elements in the, ii. 247.
Evangelical party, i. 30.
Evangelical party have introduced no
innovations, ii. 306. F.
Figure, meaning of, i. 340.
Figiirn, opposed to Veritas, i. 336, 340.
Freeman, Archdeacon, his " Principles of
Di-vine Service " re-viewed, i. 329, &c. ;
his doctrine of the Eucharist, 345.
G.
Gorham v. the Bishop of Exeter, case of,
i. 153 ; two questions involved, that of
doctrine, and that of jurisdiction, ib.
Gorham, Mr., his view of baptism, i.
166, 168 ; states what baptism does not
give, rather than what it does, 164;
contends against the unconditional effi
cacy of baptism, 165.
Gorham case, interest of, ii. 135.
H.
Habits, formation of, the chief thing in
education, i. 23, 123.
Haimo, i. 345.
Hammond, remarks on Preaching, i. 15.
Havelock, Su' Henry, his opinion of the
Church Service, i. 354.
Heresy, clause concerning, in Clergy Dis
cipline BiU, i. 110.
Herman, Archbishop of Cologne, doctrine
ofthe Lord's Supper, ii. 200-202.
Hincmar supports Paschasius' view of the
Eucharist, i. 346.
Holy Communion, the doctrine of the,
contrasted with the Romish mass, ii. 161.
Home missions, i. 225.
Hook, Dr., Letter to the Bishop of St.
David's, i. 120.
Hooker quoted, i. 47.
Horsley, Bishop, quoted, i. 33.
Hyacinthe, Father, language respecting
the Papacy, ii. 276, 277.
I.
Idiology expounded, ii. 43.

Idolatry, meaning of, i. 78, 79.
Immaculate Conception, doctrine of, i.
254, &c ; progress of belief in, 258 ;
effects of its promidgation, 259 ; his
tory of the, i. 322, &c. ; the Pope's Cir
cular, 323 ; popular ignorance abused,
325 ; various opinions as to the antiquity
of the festival, 326 ; various modes of
encouraging the beUef in, 327 ; conclu
sions of Archbishop Sibour respecting,
ib. ; definition of, ii. 270.
InfalUbUity of the Pope, i. 256 ; beUef in,
u. 275 ; real meaning of, 276 ; promul
gation of, 291 ; precipitately decreed,
296 ; protest against, ib. ; truth of the
dogma, 297 ; novelty of the dogma, 298 ;
assurance given that it was no part of
the Catholic faith, ib. ; viewed in rela
tion to ecclesiastical history, 299 ; bear
ing on the world at large, 300 ; protest
against, in the Church of England, 303 ;
makes loyalty impossible to Roman
CathoUcs for the future, 302 ; Ukely to
widen the breach between us and Rome,
303.
Inspiration, not defined by the Chui-ch, i.
294.
Inspiration, different views of, ii. 50.
Intolerance, prevalence of, i. 252, 263.
Ireland, union of, -with England, ii, 208 ;
effected agauist the wish ol the majority,
210, 288 ; position of, at the Reforma
tion, 209.
Irish Church estabUshment, ii. 211;
opinion of foreigners on its aboUtion,
212 ; theory of, ib. ; attempt to vindi
cate, 213 ; effects of, on the union, ib. ;
method of dealing with the surplus of
the property, 221 ; justice of disestab
lishment, 222 ; effects of the disestablish
ment, 223.
Irish Church, capacity of the, to maintain
its groimd when disestablished, ii. 224 ;
ita disestablishment viewed in relation
to the EngUsh Church, 225 ; essential
differences between the two, 226, 227.
Irish history, retrospect of, ii. 207.
J.
Jesuits, influence of the, ii. 277.
Judicial Committee of Privy Council, sen
tence of, not opposed to the Nicene
Creed,_ i. 168 ; decision in the Gorham
case, i. 170 ; does not sanction heresy,
ib. ; wisdom of the decision, 171 ; its
rule for deaUng with charges of heresy,
ii. 73.
Judicial decisions, bearing of, on theologi
cal works, ii. 16 ; on the character of
the Church, ib.
Justification, doctrine of, i. 32, 34.
K.
Kneeling, the declaration on, ii. 248, 284.,

INDEX.

36^

Laborde, L'Abbe, his work on the Immacu
late Conception, i. 256.
Laity, co-operation of, to be secured by
the clergy, i. 10 ; regarded the Oxford
movement with alarm, i. 61 ; admission
of, to Synods, ii. 124 ; recognised in
the Reformatio Legum, 125 ; difficulty of
securing a representation of, ib. ; exclu
sion of, from doctrinal decisions, 133.
Lanfranc, Lie Corpore et Sanguine Domini,
i. 338.
Lay co-operation, i. 225.
Lessing on the Relation of the Bible to
Religion, ii. 78.
Liberation Society, the, i. 360 ; its objects,
361 ; its mode of operation, 362.
Libraries and reading societies, i. 13.
Liturgy, importance of, i. 16 ; revision of
the, i. 65 ; rendered necessary by lapse
of time, 66 ; proposed, 374 ; rejection of
motion for a Royal Commission, 375 ;
causes of the rejection, 376 ; the question
at issue, 377 ; alteration made on the
second motion, 378; attempt to ascertain
whether the clergy desired a renewal of
the motion, 379 ; declaration against
revision signed by 10,000 of tho clergy,
S79, 389; opinion of Convocation, 381;
statement respecting it (erroneous, ih. ;
Convocation not inconsistent, 382 ; nor
the Bishop, 384, 386 ; how far desirable,
ib. ; provision for special services, i. 383 ;
shortening ofthe Morning Service, 386,
390 ; circumstances to be taken into
account, ib.; retrenchment of repetition,
387 ; administration of Holy Com
munion, 389 ; occasional services, 390 ;
memorial on the Burial Office, 391 ;
Ordination of Priests, 393 ; Visitation of
the Sick, 394 ; Athanasian Creed, ib. ;
real aim of proposed re-vision, 396 ; argu
ments for, 397 ; proposal for State inter
ference, 398, and for superseding Con
vocation, ib.,' deprecation of such
measures, 399 ; the 29th Canon, ib. ;
proposed " purification " of, i. 283 ; pre
text for, 284 ; if attempted, would pre
vent beneficial changes, 286 ; attempt
to conform it to the Romish mass, u.
159.
Liturgy, need of a, felt by Nonconformists,
i. 242 ; and by German Protestants, ib.
Livings, augmentation of small, by the
Bishop, i. 160.
Lord's Supper, change in the administra
tion of the, ii. 158. (See also Eucharist.)
M.
MacColl, Mr., his reckless charges against
Bishop Jeremy Taylor, and Bishop
ThirlwaU, ii. 352, 363.

Mass, Sacrifice of the, i. 245, ii. 193, &c.,
199 ; service of the, i. 78 ; the doc
trine of the, ii. 168. (See also Tran
substantiation, Real Presence, Eucha
rist.)
Masses, origin of solitary, ii. 168.
Mariolatry, impulse given to, by the title
etoroKog, ii. 32.
Majrnooth Grant, i. 69, &c. ; inconsistency
of opposition to it, i. 73, 74; an act
of justice, 80 ; likely to do not harm,
but good, ib. ; a reversal of a mischievous
poUc}', 81 ; its probable results, ib.
Medd, Mr., on the Eucharistic Sacrifice, ii.
193.
Ministry, practical hints for the, i. 50, 51.
Miracles, denial of, ii. 16 ; bearing of upon
our Lord's person, 22 ; accepted for the
sake of the moral lesson, 31 ; argument
from, ii. 86, &c.
Missionary work, i. 96.
Morley, Mr. S., on Church Rates, i. 360,
361.
Mortara case, the, ii. 120.
Mosaic Cosmogony, essay on the, ii. 49.
Music, vocal, importance of, in education,
i. 21. N.
Natal, Bishop of, see Colenso.
National church, theory of, in Essays and
Reviews, ii. 37-40 ; Calvinistic opinions
adverse to, 42 ; drift of the theory, 47.
National schools in Wales, improvement
in, i. 139. (See Education.)
Neology of the day, inquiry into, ii. 4.
Newman, Dr. J. H., i. 32.
Nicene Creed, objections to the, met by
Athanasius, ii. 321.
Non-communicating attendance, ii. 167.
Nonconformists, relation of, to National
schools, ii. 109 ; protest of, against the
exclusion of the Bible from elementary
schools, ii. 333, 334 ; practice of, -with
regard to subscription to formularies, ii.
59 ; recognition by, of the need of a
Liturgy, i. 242.
Nonconformity, changed aspect of, i. 5 ;
its hostiUty to the Church, ib. ; pre
valence of, i. 2 ; how to be accounted
for, i. 3 ; in many respects salutary, ib.
Norris, Canon, on ReHgious Education, ii.
266.
North side of the table, argument on the,
ii. 149, 160. 0.
Objective, meaning of the word, ii. 242.
Offertory, i. 68.
Old Catholics, relation of, to our own
Church, ii. 303.
Opinion, freedom of, in the Church, i. 49.
Ordination of Priests, i. 393.
Ornaments Rubric, ii. 158, 235.

364

INDEX.

Oxford movement, the, its alleged tendency
to Romanism, i. 5Q.
Oxford Tracts, i. 24.

Papacy, position of the, i. 348.
Papal prerogative, the, ii. 266, 276.
Parishes, wide extent of, i. 8.
Parsonage houses, the Bishop's fund for the
building of, ii. 98.
Pascal, remarks on the Unity of Mankind,
u. 27.
Paschasius Radbertus, quoted, i. 250 ;
teaches transubstantiation, i. 329, &c.
Pastoral ministrations, i. 17, 18.
Pentateuch, the Mosaic authorship of the,
u. 74 ; historical truth of, 76.
Physical science, ii. 6 ; Prince Mettemich
on the study of, ib. ; relation to faith,
17.
Pope, the, styled Vice-God, ii. 277.
Popes, amendment in the cliaracter of the,
ii. 269 ; hostility of, to reUgious Uberty,
271.
PoweU, Prof. Baden, Essay on Miracles,
u. 16, 26 ; his view of miracles, ii. 86.
Prayer for the dead, i. 45.
Prayer Book, assent to, i. 113, 114; re
sources of the, ii. 155 ; free use of, i.
224 ; importance of adhering to the, i.
18.
Prayer meetings, i. 17.
Prsemunientes, clause of, i. 210, 213.
Presence, meaning of, ii. 242, 243.
Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, ii.
247 ; a local, 248.
Presence, spiritual, u. 357.
Propitiatory, meaning ofthe term, ii, 165.
Protestantism, misuse of the word, i.
48.
Pusey, Dr., promulges a new canon of
discipUne for the clergy, ii. 319 ; his
interpretation of the phrase " sacrifices
of masses," ii. 192; his "Eirenicon,"
175, 192 ; " The Presence of Christ in
the Holy Eucharist," i. 266.
Public worship. Royal Commission on,
ii. 315 ; changes introduced in, i. 62 ;
revival of obsolete rites in, 63 ; import
ance of avoiding offence in, 64.
Q.
Queen Anne's Bounty, ii. 339.
R.
Ratherius of Verona supports Paschasius'
view of the Eucharist, i. 345.
Ratraninus, i. 329, &c., 339, 342, 343 ; his
doctrine of the Eucharist, the same as
that of the Church of England, 344.
Real objective presence, the, U. 241 ;

the visible presence, 313. (See Pre
sence.)
Real presence, meaning of the term, i.
240; Capernaite notion of, 241 ; Hooker's
¦view of, 246, 248 ; local Umitation of,
270 ; the phrase foreign to the Church
of England, i. 276 ; real distinguished
from natural, ib., 276 ; importance of
acknowledging, 277; importance at
tached to the doctrines of the, ii.
249.
Reformation, attempts to undo the work of
the, i. 57 ; Romish views of, 284,
286.
Reformers, the, language used respecting
them, i, 46, 48.
Regeneration, whether distinct from con
version, i. i63 ; Hammond's use of the
terms, ib. ; meaning of, i. 117, 155, 160,
163. (See Baptism.)
Religion, distinction between natural and
revealed, ii. 33 ; in what sense revealed,
u. 79.
Renan, estimate of our Lord's character,
ii. 23.
Reserve in communicating religious know
ledge, i. 40, 41.
Resurrection of Christ, its place in Chris
tianity, ii. 65.
Revised Code, effects of the, ii. 100 ; on
training coUeges, 102 ; on the labouring
classes, 103.
Revision of the Bible, ii. 316.
Ritual, the question of, ii. 145 ; its past
histoiy, 146 ; lawfulness of ritualistic
observances, 147; legal opinion on, 148;
how received by Ritualists, ib. ; advan
tage accruing from, 150; debate on, in
the Lower House of Convocation, 160 ;
Committee of Convocation on, ii. 180 ;
cases in which judicial proceedings would
be necessary, 181 ; the only remedy
suggested, 182 ; conclusion arrived at,
1S3 ; jealousy awakened in Churchmen
of an opposite school, 184 ; Royal Com
mission on, 252.
Ritualism, missionary aspect of, ii. 153 ;
aigumeutsiu support of, 169 ; symbolism
of, 161 ; spread of, 169; Romeward tend
ency of, denied, 169 ; recent phases of,
ii. 231 ; application of the Fine Arts to
reUgion, 232 ; how far beneficial, 233 ;
the real question at issue, ib. ; appoint
ment of a Royal Commission, 237 ;
Romeward tendency of , ii. 177; probable
consequences of, in its effect ou Church
men, 178 ; onDissenters, 179; a reaction,
183.
RituaUsts, extravagant Ucence of, ii. 149 ;
glaringly deficient in impartiality, ib. ;
character of the leaders, 157 ; Romaniz
ing tendencies of, 161 ; repudiation of
Romish doctrine by, 163; vestments, use

INDEX.

365

of, ii. 151, 152, 159 ; designs of, ii. 306 ;
tend necessarily to litigation, 307 ;
claims of, to be the followers of the old
Tractarians, 308 ; difference between the
two, ib.
Roman CathoUc clergy, education of, i.
76.
Romanizing tendencies, i. 188 ; ii. 160.
Romanism, conversions to, i. 57, 68.
Rome, Church of, has no security against
change, i. 185 ; policy of, 189 ; secessions
to, i. 101 ; influences at work, i. 106,
107.
Romish aggression, i. 180 ; controversy,
work on, recommended to the Clergy, i.
189.
Romish doctrine, meaning of the term, i.
44 ; claim to teach, by ministers of the
Church of England, i. 67 ; approxima
tion to, i. 269.
Royal prerogative, exercise of, i. 210.
Rubric, the, i. 64 ; obedience to, 62, 63 ;
observance of the, i. 67 ; departures
from, i. 16, 17 ; right of forming an in
dividual opinion upon, ii. 234 ; bishops
cannot modify or dispense with, 236 ;
reconciUatiou of, with Church practice,
U. 161.
Rural Deans, i. 12 ; i. 149.
Ruridecanal Conferences, i. 12 ; possess an
advantage over Diocesan Synods, ii.
128. S.
Sacrament, definition of the word, i. 271
difference between the sacramental sym
bol, and the sacramental rite, ib.
objective reality in, 277 ; may be robbed
of its specific character, 277 ; Court at
Bath, its exposition of the, [28th and
29th Articles not binding upon the
Church, i. 274.
Sacraments, efficacy of, i. 39 ; doctrine of,
in the Catechism, i. 112.
Sacrifice, the propitiatory, of the mass, ii.
165 ; identical with the doctrine of the
Ritualists, 166 ; contrary to the Church
of England, ib.
Sacrifices of masses, and the Sacrifice of
the mass, attempt to distinguish between,
ii. 192, &c.
Sacrilege, what constitutes, ii. 220.
Sancta Clara, Franciscus a, his interpreta
tion ofthe 28th Article, i. 241.
Scepticism and credulity, combination of,
i. 105.
Scepticism traced to an enlargement of
geographical knowledge, ii. 48.
Schism, danger of, i. 6 ; schools, circulat
ing, i. 20.
School Boards, ii. 336 : diocesan return
respecting. 337.
Scotch Communion office, i. 280, 281.

Schoolmaster, proper functions of the, ii.
334.
Schools, building of, i. 146 ; schools, na
tional, how affected by Endowed Schools
BOI, i. 365; Mr. Bowstead's report on,
366, &c. ; schools, estabUshment of, i.
314.
Schwarz, Dr. Carl, " Predigten aus der
Gegenwart," ii. 66.
Services, provision for special, i. 286, 383 ;
revision of occasional, 390.
Scripture and tradition, i. 103 ; Scripture,
supremacy of, i. 295 ; infallibiUty of, 296 ;
relation of, to the Church, 302 ; grounds
of its claim to reverence, 304.
Scripture, divine and human element in,
ii. 60 ; free inquiry in the study of, 61 ;
its relation to tradition, i. 34 ; how to
be interpreted, 35 ; the principle of the
Anglican Church, 36 ; appeal to antiquity
for its interpretation, how to be under
stood, 36, 37 ; the sole authoritative
source of the faith, 37 ; language of the
Church of England respecting, ii. 70 ;
arguments grounded on, inadmissible iu
law, 72, 73.
Simon, M. Jules, on Natural ReUgion, ii.
46.
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel,
i. 96, 97, 319.
Spiritual wants of the people, report of
Committee of Convocation on, i. 224,
226.
Spirituality, identified with the Church,
ii. 133, 141.
St. David's college, Lampeter, i. 10, 94.
St. Francis of Assisi, his authority pleaded
against the private mass, ii. 196.
St. Peter, primacy of, ii. 262.
Stanley, A. P., letter on Subscription, ii.
57.
State, relation of, to the Church, ii. 40 ;
duty of the, towards different religious
bodies, i. 71 ; duty of the, in questions of
religion, i. 71 ; may be compeUed to sup
port error, 72.
Strauss, view of the person of Christ, ii.
44.
Stuart, Mr., "Thoughts on Low Masses,"
ii. 196, 198.
Subscription, Clerical, ii. 144 ; object of
the Act, ib. ; subscription to the Articles,
ii. 37 ; subscription to formularies, ii.
57 ; efficacy of, 58 ; practice among
Nonconformists, ib. ; in foreign Churches,
59.
Supernatural agency, possibility of, ii. 3 1 ;
Renan on the meaning of the term,
32.
SurpUce, use ofthe, i. 68.
Syllabus, doctrines of the, ii. 273.
Synod, no means of assembUng a national,
ii. 136; unfitted for discussing questions

366

INDEX.

of doctrine, ib. ; synods, Gregory Nazi-
anzenon, i. 176; summoned by bishops,
178 ; synod, the Pan-Anglican, ii. 259,
260 ; synods, diocesan, ii. 345 ; revival
of, ii. 123, &c. ; admission of laymen to,
125 ; functions of, ib. ; relation of a
bishop to, 126, 127 ; purpose for which
they are adapted, 129 ; objects contem
plated by their restoration, 130 ; pro
bable influence on the case of " Essays
and Reviews," 131 ; inefficacy if opposed
to the Judicial Committee, 132.
T.
Taylor, Bishop Jeremy, objects to the
damnatory clauses ofthe Quicunqiic vult,
ii. 322 ; on our Lord's human nature, ii.
77 ; assailed by Mr. MacCoU, u. 352,
&c.
Temple, Dr., essay on the Education of
the World, ii. 26.
Temporal power of the Pope, probable
effect of its loss, ii. 30.
Tendencies of Religious Thought in Eng
land, essaj' on, ii. 49.
Theology and law, ii, 134.
Tradition, its relation to Scripture, i.
34.
Training colleges, bearing of the revised
code on, ii. 102 ; importance of, ii.
335.
Training College, the, at Carmarthen, i.
137.
Transubstantiation, i. 240, 241 ; two defi
nitions of, by the Council of 'Trent, 249 ;
affirmed by Paschasius Radbertus, i.
336, &c. ; transubstantiation, ii. 242, 281 ;
distinction between the natural body of
Christ, and the natural mode of its exist
ence, 282 ; Council of Trent on, ib., 283 ;
what is the exact doctrine of the Church
of Rome, 283 ; extravagance of, 287, ii.
163 ; in what light regarded by the
Church of England, 164 ; metaphysical
difficulty involved in, ii. 190-192.
Tract XC, i. 42 ; its interpretation of the
Thirty-first Article, ii. 192.
Tractarian controversy, i. 24 ; not a sub
ject of universal regret, 25 ; has called
forth valuable literature, ib. ; led to a
wider study of theology, 26 ; awakened
an earnest practical spirit, ib. ; fears
entertained respecting it, 27 ; the con
troversy not really new, ib. ; origin of
the Oxford movement, 28 ; a reac
tion, 29 ; system to which it is opposed,
29, 30 ; differences among those who
have engaged in the movement, 31 ;
amount of departure from the doctrines
of the Church, 32.
Truth, different aspects of, i. 47.

U.
Unbelief, in what sense sinful, ii. 323-325.
Uniformity, proposed amendment of th©
Act, ii. 55, 66 ; Uniformity, Act of.
Amendment of the, ii. 340.
Union, necessity of, i. 400 ; between clergy
and laity, ii. 348.
Unity, importance of, i. 100.
Unity of Christendom may be purchased
too dearly, ii. 304,
Unity of aim, ii. 349.
Unity of Christendom, Association for the
Promotion of the, u. 170 ; object of, 171 ;
condemned at Rome, ib. ; hopelessness
of the scheme, ib.
Unity -with Rome, on the basis of common
doctrine, ii. 173 ; difficulties in the way,
174-176 ; unity of Christendom, u. 172.

Vatican Council, the, not CEcumenicai, ii.
291 ; convoked under different circum
stances from the Council of Trent, 292 ;
excludes a large part of the Christian
world, 293 ; object in convoking, ib. ;
not free, 294 ; order of proceeding, 295 ;
pressure exercised by the Pope, 296 ;
character of the Council, -297, U. 260 ;
not an opportunity for reconciliation
with Rome, 264 ; object of the, 271, 272 ;
Rome, reunion with, ii. 261; not de
pendent on the Pope, 263 ; prospect of,
269 ; duty of English churchmen with
regard to the, ii. 275.
Vestments, discussion upon, ii. 239 ; of
the Primitive Church, 240.
Virgin Mary, worship of the, i. 78 ;
prayer to the, U. 197. (See Immaculate
Conception.)
Visitation of the sick, absolution in the
office for, i. 394.
Voluntary principle, the, i. 354.
Vulgate, the, imposed by the Church of
Rome as authentic scripture, ii. 267.
W.
Wales, moral condition of, i. 132, 133.
Welsh sees, proposal to unite the sees of
Bangor and St. Asaph, i. 82, 83.
Welsh language, instruction in, i. 21.
Welsh nonconformity, origin of, ii. 227.
Wilberforce, Archdeacon, on the Eucharist,
i. 239 ; object of the treatise, 242.
WilUam the Conqueror, his ecclesiastical
policy, i. 206.
Williams, Rev. Rowland, memorial charg
ing him with false doctrine, i. 291 ;
reasons for not acceding to it, ib. ; diffi
culties involved in the case, 292 ; dis
tinctions to be kept in view, 293 ; expla
nation given by the author, 297 ; his
definition of revelation, 299 ; doctrine of

INDEX.

367

inspiration, 300 ; claims the authority of
the Church in his favour, 301 ; ¦view of
the relation of Scripture to the Church,
303, 304 ; of Judaism to Christianity,
306 ; of the work of the Holy Spirit,
306 ; its relation to the incarnation, 307 ;
essay on Bunsen, ii. 30, &c. ; philosophy
of, 34.

Wilson, Rev. H., essay on National
Churches, ii. 35, &c. ; relation of the
essay to that on Miracles, 48 ; speech
before the Judicial Committee of the
Privy Council, ii. 87.
Word of God, meaning of the phrase, ii.
71.

END OP VOL. TT.

PRINTED BT VIRTUK AND CO., LIJIITED, OITT BOAIl,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01340 6799