BV'L

1 h ii

C~ '"!

A LETTER

TO THE RIGHT KEV,

JOHN-BIRD. LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER

REMARKS ON HIS LATE CHARGE,

MOKE KSPECIALLY

AS RELATES TO THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION;

WITH A REFERENCE TO

THE STATE OF THINGS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

BY THE
HON. & EEV. A. P. PEEOEVAL, B.C.L.
CHAPLAIN IN ORDINARY TO THE QOEKN,
AND LATE FELLOW OF ALL SOULS' COLLEGE, OXFORD.

' Oh pray for the peace of Jerusalem : they shall prosper that love thee,"
Psalm cxxii, 6.

FOURTH EDITION.

LONDON:
PRINTED EOR J. G. F. & J. RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL',^. ^rfURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE, PALL klALL J
& I. II. PARKER, OXFORD.
1842.

LONDON :
GILBERT & RIVINGTON, PEINTEUS,
ST. John's square.

ADVERTISEMENT.

If additional ground, beyond that which the matter
of the following Letter furnishes, were wanting to
warrant its publication, it would be found in a
report, circulated apparently on good foundation,
that there is an intention on the part of some
persons in Oxford, to urge upon the Convocation
of that University strong measures of condemna
tion against certain Presbyters of the Church, who
are understood to have made light of the guilt
of schism, in the case of a class of separatists from
the Church of England, within the British dioceses,
maintaining opinions on divers matters contrary to
those which the Church of England has sanctioned.
For before the University commits itself to any pub
lic condemnation of this principle, it is well for them
to know that the Presbyters alluded to have found
countenance in the highest ranks of the hierarchy.
One of the Bishops of the English Church, speaking
eon cathedra in his Charge to the Clergy of his
diocese, openly says, "Perhaps it is too much to
expect that there, should be no schisms among Chris-
a2

tians ;" and considers schisms justifiable when occa
sioned by differences of opinion " upon such subjects
as diocesan episcopacy, infant baptism, liturgical
forms, church-membership, and a national establish
ment." The Presbyters in question would, perhaps,
substitute for these, such subjects as the supremacy of
the Bishop of Rome, the use of images, the service in
Latin, the withholding of the cup, and others. But
the principle maintained by both is one and the
same. Again, the Bishop says : " We love and
revere our Church ; for we believe, nay know her to
be founded upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. . . There'
are other congregations of Christians which profess
the same truths ; we honour them also with brotherly
feelings, and gladly say, ' Grace be with all them that
love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.' " Here, if
possible, still more forcibly does he make common
cause with the Presbyters whom it is proposed to
censure : for none can deny that the Romanists,
whose regard to our Lord leads them to deify every
thing belonging to Him — e.g. His mother; the ele
ments by which He communicates to us His body
and His blood ; the cross on which He suffered — have
greater love to Christ than the English dissenters,
among whom the chief thing generally remarkable is
their disposition to join in sacred rites with those
who blaspheme the Lord of Glory. Nor, if we look
abroad can any deny that the Rationalists of Ger-
riiany, and the Socinians of Switzerland, are farther
7

removed from the truth of the Gospel, than even the
Spanish or Italian papists. The Bishop, therefore,
being implicated in the same principle as the Pres
byters, it is clear that the Convocation of Oxford, if
they 'would act as honest men, must either censure
the Bishop, or leave the Presbyters uncensured. For
as every man's oflfence is increased by the eminence
of his station, all must allow, that if blame is due
in this matter, the Bishop, who has flung abroad this
banner of indifference to schism, is far more deserving
of blame, than the Presbyters who are found ranged
under him. Unless, therefore, the University is pre
pared to condemn the Bishop, they will do well to
count as unworthy their notice those who, as long as
they abide by the said principle, may be justly re
garded merely as his followers.
The following sentence of a late member of the
University, the Rev. R. H. Froude, will fitly accom
pany this notice, and is specially commended to the
consideration and remembrance of those who enter
tain or profess attachment to his memory :
"If I was to assign any reason for belonging to
the Church of England, in preference to any other
religious community, it would be simply this, that
she has retained an Apostolical Clergy, and exacts
no sinful terms of communion ; whereas, on the one
hand, the Romanists, though retaining an Apo
stolical Clergy, do exact sinful terms of commu
nion ; and, on the other, no other religious commu
nity has retained such a Clergy."

6

I will only add my impression, that the whole
confusion at Oxford arises from a dispute about the
disposal of second votes. All are agreed to give their
first votes to the Church of England ; but as to their
second votes, some would give to Rome, others to
Geneva. For myself, I should greatly prefer, in this
matter, the system of single voting ; but if second
votes are to be required or allowed, and some may
give theirs to Geneva, it seems only reasonable to
allow others to give theirs, if they prefer it, to
Rome.

LETTER,
8;c.

My Lord,
My present address to your lordship is occasioned
by some passages in your late Charge to the Clergy
of the Diocese of Chester, which has since been pub
lished to the whole Church, and for noticing which,
therefore, so long as the notice be respectful, no
apology need be offered by one of its members.
The passages of which I speak treat of the doctrine
of justification by faith, and are these following:

" And here it is impossible not to remark upon the ,
wiles of that adversary, against whom the Church of Christ
is set up, and whose power it is destined to overthrow. His
activity is in exact proportion to the activity which is used
against him ; his vigilance never fails to seize the oppor
tunities which the weakness of man too frequently supplies.
No sooner is good seed sown in the field, than tares are
found springing up amidst the wheat. Such has been the
case throughout the whole history of the Church; and

8

it has been signally and unexpectedly exemplified in the
present day, by the favour shown to notions which might
seem inconsistent with the advancement of reason, [and] by
the revival of errors which might have been supposed to be
buried for ever.
" To enter upon this subject generally or fully, would be
quite incompatible with the limits of a Charge ; and to treat
it cursorily, would not be respectful to my brethren. I
shall confine myself to a brief review of two points, in which
the interests committed to us are specially concerned.
"I. The principle by which, in all ages and countries, the
power of Satan has been most successfully assailed, and the
human heart most strongly actuated, is that of simple reliance
on Christ Jesus : simple acceptance of the truth, that He
is ' made unto us of God, wisdom, and righteousness, and
sanctification, and redemption.' Accordingly, this doctrine,
that, lying under God's wrath and condemnation, we are
justified by faith in Jesus Christ : this plain and simple
truth has uniformly been assailed by every instrument which
the enemy could bring to bear against it. From the time
when certain men went down from Jerusalem, and troubled
the Church at Antioch (Acts xv. 1 — 25) ; from the time
when Paul had to grieve over the disciples in Galatia, that
they were ' removed from the grace of Christ into another
gospel (Gal. i. 6) ; which was not another,' for it was no
gospel at all ; from the earliest days until now, this has
been the point of attack, because on this all depends. We
are still experiencing the same, and from the same cause.
Through the merciful providence of God, the true principles
of the Gospel were prevailing through the length and breadth
of the land, and effects were following which they alone are
capable of producing. Meanwhile the enemy is on the
watch ; knows well where his danger lies ; and contrives

9

to cast reproach upon the doctrine which is the hinge of
Christian truth and Christian practice ; to confound things
which ought to be kept distinct, things inherent in man
with things extraneous to man, individual duties with
vicarious merits ; and so to reduce religion to that doubt
and uncertainty which never has led, and never will lead to
a consistent course of action. It is notorious that this
attempt, frequently made, and too often successful, has
been renewed in the present day  They have now risen
up ... . part of [whose] system [it is] to involve the article
of justification in obscurity ; wliat has been done for us, and
what is to be wrought in us, are confused together ; and,
practically, man is induced to look to himself, and not to
his Eedeemer, for acceptance with God.
" In all this there is nothing that was unforeseen. The
Apostle has plainly warned us to ' beware of philosophy and
vain deceit,' lest they turn us aside from the simplicity of
the Gospel ; that very simplicity, which fits it for the recep
tion and benefit of all, but of which some men profess to be
afraid, lest mercy should be too free, and the way of return
to God too open. It is, in truth, the offence of the cross
renewed under a fresh disguise ; the objection which corrupt
nature has always opposed, under various forms, to the apo
stolical doctrine, ' By grace are ye saved, through faith ; not
of works, that any man should boast.' The Scriptural Truth
is as clear as it is simple. ' When all were dead, Christ died
for all ;' so that 'he that hath the Son hath life, and he that
hath not the Son, hath not life.' By one way alone can
man possess the Son ; that is, by believing in Him ; and
therefore, faith alone can justify ; faith alone can appro
priate to us that remedy which God has appointed for the
healing of our plague : faith alone can give us an interest in
that sacrifice, which God has accepted as the satisfaction

10
for sin. Thus ' being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through Jesus Christ.'" pp. 19 — 23.
From these it appears that your lordship thinks
yourself at liberty and under obligation to proclaim
to your diocese, and to the English Church, that
all teaching, on the subject of justification, different
from the " clear and simple " view of the " scriptural
truth " which you have been pleased to place before
us, is to be ascribed to the agency of Satan. All
who teach otherwise than your lordship on this point
are, according to this statement, agents of " Satan,"
and instruments of " the enemy " of mankind.
The severity of this sentence is made the more
conspicuous, from the contrast afforded to it by the
extreme toleration which you have expressed for
difference of opinion on almost all other matters :
" Perhaps it is too much to expect, what nevertheless we
earnestly desire, that there should he no schisms or divisions
among Christians ; that the Church of Christ should ever
be a seamless coat ; that all the congregations of faithful
men should ever be so strictly one as to think alike, and
agree unanimously upon all subjects ; upon such subjects,
for instance, as diocesan episcopacy, or infant baptism,
or liturgical forms, or church-membership, or a national
establishment. There may be always some minds which on
questions such as these may differ from the conclusions
which we believe to be justly deduced from Scripture and
experience. So that the unity which the Scriptures demand
may be understood to be the unity of those who hold alike
the great doctrines of the Christian truth, but consent to

11

differ on matters concerning which Scripture does not
carry determinate conviction to every honest mind.'
p. 15.
" We love and reverg our Church ; for we believe, nay
know her to be founded upon the apostles and prophets,
' Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone.' We
believe that God has appointed her to great and peculiar
distinction. There are other congregations of Christians which
profess the same truths : we honour them also with brotherly
feelings, and gladly say, ' Grace be with all them that love
the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.' "
Thus while your lordship on the one hand palliates
the guilt of schism, so repeatedly denounced in the
apostolic writings, and against which the Church of
England has taught her congregations to pray, making
as though it were no offence at all, " too much to ex
pect that there should be no schisms," and justifiable
(contrary to v,'hat seem to be the dictates of true rea
son) in proportion to the slightness of the ground or
occasion of it ; and while you proffer brotherly feel
ings and apostolic benediction to those whom the
discipline ' of the Church, which you are set to ad-
' One of the vows required at ordination to the priesthood is
as follows : " Will you then give your faithful diligence alrvays so
to minister the doctrine and sacraments and the discipline of
Christ as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church and
realm hath received the same, according to the commandments of
God ; so that you may teach the people committed to your care
and charge with all diligence to keep and ohserve the same ?"
Jnsrver. " I will so do, by the help of the Lord." One of the
vows required at consecration to the episcopate is as follows :

12
minister, declares to be worthy of excommunication,
ipso facto, you at the same time denounce those who
are members of the Church, but differ from you in
" Will you maintain and set forward, as much as shall lie in you,
quietness, love, and peace among all men ; and such as be un
quiet, dis.obedient, and criminous within your diocese, correct and
punish, according to such authority as you have by God's word,
and as to you shall be committed by the ordinances of this
realm ?" Answer. " I will so do by the help of God." Now who
they are who especially are counted disobedient according to the
discipline of Christ which our Church has received, and which all
who have been admitted to the priesthood are under vow to ad
minister, may be gathered (without citing more) from the follow
ing canon : concerning which canons, whatever their legal obliga
tion on the laity may be, which has been disputed, all the judges
of the ecclesiastical and of the temporal courts are agreed that
they are binding upon the clergy. " Canon 9. Whosoever shall
hereafter separate themselves from the communion of saints, as it
is approved by the Apostles' rules in the Church of England, and
combine themselves together in a new brotherhood, accounting
the Christians who are conformable to the doctrine, government,
rites, and ceremonies of the Church of England, to be profane,
and unmeet for them to join with in Christian profession, let them
be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored but by the Arch
bishop, after their repentance, and public revocation of such their
wicked errors." Unless I am mistaken, if the persons whom your
lordship, in your Charge, speaks of as worthy to be honoured as
brethren, and whom you accordingly honour with apostolic be
nediction, were to be presented in your lordship's courts, you
would be bound, ex officio, to declare them excommunicate. If
this is so, then, surely, every member of the Church is warranted
in asking how the language of your lordship's Charge can be
reconciled with the Canons and Ordinal of the Church of Eng
land?

13

their interpretation of the terra " justification by
faith," to be men raised up or moved by Satan for
the injury of the salvation of the human race.
Our comfort in this matter must be, that as your
lordship has as little warrant from the Church for
your denunciation of your brethren, as you have for
your benediction of the separatists, your sentence
cannot be regarded as the voice of the Church, but
only as the expression of your own individual opi
nion ; entitled indeed to the respectful consideration
of all, but binding or obligatory upon none.
From your lordship's language we should conclude,
that the view of the doctrine of justification by faith
which your lordship has promulgated, must be more
clearly and plainly revealed in Holy Scripture than
almost any other doctrine ; otherwise, your lordship,
who has declared your belief that Scripture intended
to sanction actual schisms " on matters concerning
which Scripture does not carry determinate convic
tion to every honest mind," would never have uttered
against those who differ from you on the point of
justification, denunciations so fearfully painful as
those to which I have called your attention ; and, in
deed, your lordship expresses yourself to this effect,
as follows :
" The Scriptural truth is as clear as it is simple. ' When
all were dead, Christ died for all ;' so that 'he that hath the
Son hath life, and he that hath not the Son, hath not life.'
By one way alone can man possess the Son ; that is, by
believing in Him ; and therefore, faith alone can justify ;

14

faith alone can appropriate to us that remedy, which God
has appointed for the healing of our plague ; faith alone can
give us an interest in that sacrifice, which God has accepted
as the satisfaction for sin. ' Thus, being justified by faith,
we have peace with God through Jesus Christ.' "
I. In the first place, I would entreat your lordship to
explain how, if the doctrine of justification be so very
simple and so very clear, as you have here stated it
to be, it has come to pass that for so many hundred
years disputes have been had between divines con
cerning it ? Your lordship, in a passage already cited
from you, has hinted at a summary method of an
swering this question ; namely, by imputing want of
honesty to all to whose minds the scriptural evidence
does not carry determinate conviction in favour of
your lordship's view. Considering the numbers and
characters of those who differ from you on this point,
I can hardly bring myself to believe, that, upon
reflection, you will desire to avail yourself of such a
method. But if not, then it will seem to follow,
that the Scriptural truth is not so very clear, nor so
very simple, as your lordship has supposed it to be.
And such, I conceive, to be the fact, seeing that we
meet in the sacred Scriptures with statements upon
the subject apparently in diametrical opposition to
one another ; e. g. we have, on the one side, the
saying of St. Paul, which your lordship has quoted :
" By grace ye are saved through faith . . . not of works."
Ephes. ii, 5, 8,

15

On the other, we have the saying of St. James,
which you have not quoted :
" A man is justified hy works, and not by faith only."
•James ii. 24.
That both propositions are perfectly true, is cer
tain ; for they proceed alike from the Spirit of Truth ;
but few, I think, will agree with your lordship
in thinking, that the truth they convey is very
clear or very simple. We may, indeed, put St.
Paul out of sight, and then St. James's meaning
will be clear; or we may forget St. James, and
then find no difficulty in St. Paul. But are either
of these courses such as should be approved of by
the preachers of the Gospel ? Those against whom
you write seem to you to have taken the first, and
you have denounced them as instruments of Satan.
Your lordship (pardon me) appears to have taken
the second, and it remains for yourself to say how
you will escape your own sentence. For myself, I
do not believe that the difficulty is to be solved,
but by such a process of explanation, as it is the
fashion of the day to brand as dishonest, when ap
plied to the Articles of the Church of England.
II. The next thing I would point out as observ
able in your lordship's exposition of justification, is
the total absence of all mention of " repentance"
as necessary in order thereto, and one of the means
of obtaining it.
I am at a total loss to conjecture, whether this

16

silence is to be accounted for, because repentance is
excluded from your scheme, or because you con
sider it sufficiently included in the term " faith ;"
and therefore will merely ask, if repentance is ex
cluded from your scheme as unnecessary in order to
justification, how can it be denied that you have
violated the charter of Christianity, seeing that the
message proclaimed throughout the world as the
foundation of the gospel scheme of salvation was
" repentance and remission of sins ^?" If, on the
contrary, " repentance," though not expressed in
your scheme of justification, is to be understood as
implied in the term "faith," then how can it be
consistent with charity to denounce men as agents
of Satan for expressing what you yourself imply ?
III. Your lordship's omission of all mention of
baptism in your scheme of justification, is no less
remarkable than your omission of repentance. Un
happily in the case of baptism, you do not leave us
room for entertaining a charitable hope, that though
not expressed, it is intended to be implied ; for at
p. 79, you declare that you think it worthy of re
proof for a clergyman " to speak of justification by
faith, as if haftism and newness of heart concurred
towards our justification, or as if a number of
means go to effect it." But how will this assertion
agree with the address of Ananias to St. Paul,
" Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins,
^ Luke xxiv. 47.

17

calling on the name of the Lord '?" Before this
Saul had already believed in Christ, had acknow
ledged Him with his lips, and obeyed Him in his
conduct ; yet still he was in his sins, and therefore, I
suppose, unjustified, when Ananias bade him "be
baptized, and wash away his sins," which 1 suppose
is equivalent to "be justified." Again, if baptism
does not concur towards our justification, what are
we to make of St. Peter's address to the Jewish mul
titude, when they' asked of him the terms of the
gospel salvation, " Repent, and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the re
mission of sins *?" It is very possible that your lord
ship may consider that something more than remis
sion of sins is intended by justification ; but not
surely anything less. No man, surely, will contend,
that they can be justified, whose sins are not re
mitted ; and if not, if remission of sins be necessary
to justification, and baptism, ordinarily, necessary to
remission of sins, then how can it be consistent with
the truth of the Gospel to declare, as your lordship
has done, that baptism does not concur to our justi
fication ? Had the Jewish multitude asked the same
question of your lordship that they did of St. Peter,
we have reason to believe that they would have re
ceived a very different answer. Your lordship ap
parently would not have said, " Repent, and be
baptized," but " believe only." You will say, per-
" Acts xxii. 15. '' Ibid. ii. 38.
B

18
haps, that in so answering you would have had St.
Paul for your warrant, whose answer to the gaoler
at Philippi, who asked the same question, was, " Be
lieve in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved ^" It is very true ; and if in his answer to the
gaoler, St. Paul had been as silent upon the subject
of baptism as your lordship has been, or denied, as
your lordship has done, its concurrence to justifica
tion, the case apparently might have served your
turn. But what was the fact? Simply, that though
St. Paul's discourse could, from the nature of the
case, have occupied a very short time ; not, ap
parently, longer than the time of your lordship's
charge, if so long ; so much and so earnestly did he
insist in the course of it on the necessity of baptism,
in order to salvation (concerning which your lord
ship is wholly silent), that the effect was, that the
gaoler " the same hour of the night," " was baptized
he and all his straightway." The same may be ob
served of the transaction between Philip and the
Ethiopian eunuch, namely, that though the eunuch
had never heard of Christ before his meeting with
Philip, and though the latter's discourse could not
apparently have occupied above half an hour, or an
hour, yet so prominent a place did baptism, and the
necessity of it in order to salvation, occupy, that at
the end of the discourse, the eunuch's immediate
question was, " See, here is water ; what doth hinder
' Acts xvi. 31.

w

me to be baptized"?" Had your lordship been the
instructor, either of the gaoler or of the eunuch, we
have no reason, from your Charge, to suppose that
any such effect would have followed. But rather the
men would have been left to suppose, that by be
lieving in Christ they had sufficiently ministered
justification to themselves. Whereas the Scripture
informs us, that they sought that gift, where they,
whom your lordship denounces as agents of Satan,
would have taught them to seek it, at the hands of
those to whom God had committed the ministry of
reconciliation. Hitherto, indeed, I have only shown
from the Scriptures that baptism concurs to remis
sion of sins and to salvation. But, to come more
strictly to the term "justification ;" I will cite the
saying of St. Paul, that Christ " sanctifies" and
" cleanses" his Church or people " with the washing
of water by the Word ' ;" and next cite his address
to the Church or people of Christ, " Ye are
washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, in the
Natne of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the Spirit of
our God'." None, I presume, will deny that the
Apostle is treating of one and the self-same thing in
both these passages. What, then, is that which in
one place he calls "the Word," and in the other
" the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ ;" and connects,
in the first instance, with the washing of water, in
the second, with the operation of the Holy Ghost, as
^ Acts viii. 36. ' Ephes. v. 26. ' 1 Cor. vi. II.
b2

•20

instrumental to cleansing, sanctification, and justifi
cation ? I ask, as Chrysostom ^ and others have
asked before me, and I answer as they answered;
The Name of the Father, and of the vSon, and of the
Holy Ghost, in which baptism by water and the
Holy Spirit has ever been administered in the Chris
tian Church, according to the commandment of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ : for he having been
the first to reveal and bring from Heaven this thrice
holy Name, it was spoken of in Holy Writ as the
name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus St. Peter, in
the address already cited from him, " Repent, and be
baptized every one of you, in the Name of the Lord
Jesus Christ '." The Samaritans " were baptized in
the Name of the Lord Jesus ^" The Ephesians
"were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus ^"
Not, I suppose, that in any of these cases baptism
was administered otherwise than according to our
Lord's institution ; but that the " new Name" of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which in fulfilment of
the prophecy of Isaiah ¦*, " the mouth of our Lord"
had " named," was known in the Church by the
name of Him who named it. Thus, not to dwell
upon other proofs, it appears that the Scriptures ex
pressly affirm that which your lordship thinks fit to
censure the clergy for affirming, namely, that baptism
concurs to our justification. Nor is the (apparent)
" See Chrysostom and Theophylact on Ephes. v.
' Acts ii. " Acts viii.
^ Acts xix. * Isaiah Ixii. 2.

21

contradiction which your lordship has given to the
formularies of the Church less striking than that (ap
parently) bestowed upon the sacred writings. I will
not dwell upon the Homilies, in which the terms
" baptized" and "justified" are used synonymously,
as in the following instance : " Our office is not to
pass the time of this present life idly, after that we
are baptized or justified \" I will not insist on the
Articles, the twenty-seventh of which says, that by
baptism, " as by an instrument" " they who receive
baptism rightly, are grafted into the Church," which
your lordship must admit to be conclusive of its
concurrence to our justification, unless you will con
tend, either that a man may be truly justified in
Christ without being a member of his Church, or be
a real member of his Church without being justified.
I appeal rather to the Liturgy, in all of which,
especially in the offices of baptism and confirma^
tion, baptism is uniformly spoken of as the occasion
in which, and means by which, God is pleased to
convey to men the gifts of remission or cleansing
from sins, sanctification, adoption, and spiritual re
generation, and therefore, I suppose, unless words are
to go for nothing, justification. Especially, I would
refer to the tenth Article of the Creed, and entreat
your lordship to explain how a denial that baptism
concurs to our justification is reconcileable with the
acknowledgment of " one baptism for the remis
sion of sins !" '' Homily of Salvation, Part iii.

22

IV. The next thing I would point out in your
lordship's exposition of justification, is the follow
ing : — " Faith alone can give us an interest in that
sacrifice, which God has accepted." Here again, as
it seems to me, your lordship is at open variance with
the Scriptures and the Church ; for if faith alone
can give us an interest in that sacrifice, then infants,
who are incapable of faith, can receive no interest
therein, and must perish everlastingly. Whereas the
Church of England affirms it to be " certain by
God's word, that children which are baptized, dying
before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved."
The Church is so far from agreeing with your lord
ship, that she affirms that an interest in that sacrifice
which God has accepted is given by baptism to those
who, from their tender years, are incapable of faith.
Indeed it may be questioned whether the whole
phrase be not objectionable, for, in strictness of
speech, faith gives us not an interest in that sacri
fice ; God, and God only, gives us that interest — in
bajjtism, I conceive, and by the hands of his minis
ters, not without faith in them who by age are
capable thereof.
V. Another saying of your lordship's in your
exposition of justification, requires notice : " By one
way alone can man possess the Son ; that is, by be
lieving in Him ;" at least, if by "possessing the Son,"
your lordship means (as by your reference to 1 John
V. 12, we must suppose you to mean,) the gift of the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereby Christ mani-

23

fests Himself to his people. He has Himself given a
very different account : " If any man love me, he will
keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we
will come unto him, and make our abode with him V
Our Saviour says that men possess Him by love (which
comprises faith) and by obedience : your lordship by
faith alone. If by faith alone your lordship meant to
include love and obedience, then it is to be regretted,
first, that writing in controversy, which requires strict
ness of speech, you should have used a term so cal
culated to mislead : secondly, it is to be regretted,
that you should so severely have censured others,
for expressing your own thoughts. If by faith alone
your lordship did not intend to include love and obe
dience, then it is to be regretted that you should
have proclaimed, from the chair of the Apostles, doc
trine apparently so different from that of Him who
appointed them. Nor is this the whole : but as you
have expressly denied baptism to be concurring to
wards our justification, so here you seem to have ex
cluded imposition of hands from concurring towards
the gift of the Holy Spirit ; whereas from the day of
Pentecost, with the single exception of Cornelius
and his friends, it does not appear from the Scrip
tures, that that gift was ever bestowed except by
prayer and imposition of hands ; nor am I aware that
it has ever since been sought in the Church, except
by the same means, or chrism, which in some places
" John xiv. 23.

24

has been substituted for that rite. The doctrine of
" laying on of hands " seems as much excluded from
the first principles of Christianity, according to your
lordship's statement, as the doctrines of repentance
and of baptism have appeared to be. Your lordship
ascribes all to faith only; but the holy Apostle,
when writing to the Hebrews, and specifying the
" foundation " of the Christian religion, the first
" principles of the doctrine of Christ," sets them forth
in order thus : — " the doctrine of repentance from
dead works," " of faith towards God," " of baptisms "
and " of laying on qf hands ' ;" and represents the
fruit of them to be that which your lordship, appa
rently, would teach men to gather from faith only ;
namely, " enlightening," " tasting of the heavenly
gift," "being made partakers of the Holy Ghost"."
Here again we may ask, how shall we reconcile your
lordship's teaching to that ofthe Apostle?
My lord, it is a painful and unwelcome task to ad
dress such a letter to one whom from his station in
the Church of Christ I am bound to reverence, and
for his many labours in his Master's cause, I am
bound to love.
But when, not content with publishing these
views of Christian doctrine to the world as the
sole truth, you couple tliis with fearful expressions
against those who differ from you, and at the same
time cast their silence and forbearance in their
teeth as a reproach to them, the very peace of the
' Ikb, vi. 1, 2. ' Ibid. 1.

25
Church, to say nothing of the integrity of Christian
doctrine, seemed peremptorily to demand that the
matter should be brought before the consideration
of others, as well as the reconsideration of your
lordship. This I have designed to do in the fore
going page.s, wherein I have shown your lordship's
statements to be apparently at open variance from
the Canons, Homilies, Articles, Liturgy, and Creeds,
of the Church of England, and also from the Sacred
Scriptures. If your lordship can show that the dis
crepancy is only apparent and not real, that course is
open to you. But by the time you shall have finished
your explanations, I shall be much surprised, if you
do not find the difference between your own views
and those which you have condemned, to be far less
than you had at first imagined. For my own part,
I believe the truth to be, that from our infirmities of
mind and speech, it is next to impossible for us to
express ourselves on such points as these so as to be
wholly free from ground, or apparent ground, of excep
tion ; and therefore I consider, that both your lord
ship, in your (ap])arently defective) exhibition of the
Gospel, and they whom you have condemned, if they
have erred, in theirs, are both labouring under the
same common infirmity, an infirmity incidental to
human nature, and from which, as it should seem,
even the inspired Apostles were not wholly exempt.
Hence I conclude that we shall do well upon this
subject to exercise, towards ourselves, restraint from
over peremptoriness in dogmatizing : towards others.

26
gentleness in bearing with their infirmities of speech
or of apprehension. I have the honour to be, my Lord,
Your Lordship's
very obedient humble servant,
ARTHUR PERCEVAL.
East Horsley, Advent, 1841,

P. S. As it seems to me that I may reasonably
be expected briefly to state my views on the sub
ject, I would say, that I believe —
1st. That the gift of justification originally be
stowed upon any man is an act of the free and
spontaneous grace and mercy of God, which no
men can merit or purchase either by good works
done beforehand, or good works afterwards ; but
which has been purchased for them by the blood of
the eternal Son of God, and is freely bestowed, for
His sake, upon all whom God has called to receive it ;
that is, upon all whose penitent, affectionate, and
dutiful faith (which itself is the gift of God,) leads
them to seek the gift in holy baptism. Nothing
therefore being required of men in order to receiving
the gift in baptism but such a faith, I see no dif
ficulty in understanding St. Paul's words, " a man
is justified by faith, without the deeds qf the law^"
as sjjoken not only of the ceremonial, but also of the
moral law. ° Rom. iii. 28.

27

2nd. That continuance in this state of justification,
into which men are admitted by the free gift of God,
is contingent (under the grace of God, and through
the mediation of our Lord,) upon their own watchful
ness, self-restraint, prayers, and endeavours (both the
disposition to undertake and the power to fulfil the
endeavour being from the Holy Spirit,) to walk
worthy of their high calling, and to bring thoughts,
words, and deeds under the control of the law of
God, and not upon their faith only ; and of this con
tinuance in justification I understand St. James to
speak, when he says, "Ye see how that by works a
man isjmtifed, and not by faith only '."
3rd. That when men have fallen by their own sins
from this state of justification, to which they were
admitted freely by the grace of God in Jesus Christ,
and in which they might have continued, under God's
grace and Christ's mediation, by their faithful endea
vours to serve and please God ; their restoration to
it is a fresh act of grace and favour, which no man
can deserve or claim of his own merits ; but that for
those who have been admitted to the covenant,
fastings, amendment of life, prayers, and almsgivings,
and other acts of charity, and not faith only, do avail,
through Christ's mediation and for His sake, to plead
with God for their restoration to it ; but whether
further than as indicative of the sincerity of their
faith and repentance, which disposes them anew to
seek and to receive the grace of God, I am not
' James ii. 28.

28

prepared to say. It is of this that I understand
the passages in which such expressions as these
occur : " Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven '." " Give
alms of such things as ye have, and behold all things
are clean unto you ^." " Charity shall cover the mul
titude of sins^." " Love covereth sins'^ ." " He which
converteth a sinner from the error of his way
shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude
of sins ^." "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven
for she loved much^." And these in the Apocrypha,
read in the church, by your lordship's authority',
every 30th September, and 3rd and 24th of October,
"Alms do deliver from death V "Alms do deliver
from death, and purge away all sin^" "Alms
maketh an atonement for sins '"." That absolution,
expressed by those to whom " God has committed
the ministry of reconciliation''" does avail (the public
as much or more so than the private), to the restora
tion of those who, having fallen from grace, do with
' Luke vi. 37. ' Luke xi. 41. M Peter iv. 8.
* Prov, x. 12. ' James v. 20.
' Luke vii. 47.
' I say by your lordship's authority, because of every man
whom you admit to holy orders, or to officiate in your diocese,
you exact, as a condition of that admission, a solemn promise that
he shall read these passages to the people. If they contain,
as, from your lordship's charge, we must suppose you to believe
them to contain, Satanic doctrine, on whom does the respon
sibility of the promulgation of such doctrine throughout your
diocese rest, but upon your lordship ?
" Tobit iv. 10. ' Tobit xii. 9. '» Ecclus. iii. 30. " I Cor. v. 9.

29

penitent hearts and lively faith seek reconciliation
with God in Christ, I must needs believe. But to
what extent and how far necessary, I would not ven
ture to affirm, further than that he who neglects this
means, neglects a means both of comfort and of safety
apparently ordained of God. And with respect to
the Lord's Supper, it may suffice to say this, namely,
that as we are not warranted in affirming any man to
have been justified who refuses to be baptized, so nei
ther can we affirm any man to be in a state of justi
fication who refuses to receive the holy communion.
4th. That final acceptance with God is contingent,
under the grace of God, and through the mediation of
our Lord, upon the faithful endeavours of those who
have received the gift of justification, to walk worthy
of their Christian calling, and to fulfil the will of
God, and not upon their faith only. It is of this
that I understand, among other passages too nu
merous to insert, these following : " Make to your
selves friends of the Mammon of unrighteousness,
that when ye fail they may receive you into everlast
ing habitations '." " Work out your own salvation
with fear and trembling ^" " Charge them that are
rich in this world, . . that they be rich in good
works . . . laying up for themselves a good founda
tion against the time to come, that they may lay
hold on eternal life ^" " Give diligence to make
your calling and election sure*." " So run that ye
• Luke xvi. 9. ' Phil. ii. 12.
'' I Tim. vi. * 2 Peter i. 10.

30

may obtain^" And, to name no others, St. Paul's
statement concerning his prospects, expressed in
these words, " I have fought a good fight, I have
finished my course, I have kept the faith ; hence
forth there is laid up for me a crown of righteous
ness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give
me at that day^"
5th. That justification (though it can neither be
given nor continued without the operation of the
Holy Spirit,) does not consist in the gift of his
indwelling presence. For I cannot but suppose
that the Apostles, to whom our Lord said, after that
He had washed their feet with " water''," " Now ye
are clean through the word that I have spoken unto
you^" were "justified," before the day of Pentecost.
Nor can I find otherwise, either from the Scriptures
or from the records of the Church, than that the
gift of the Holy Spirit has ever been sought by a
rite (prayers and imposition of hands, or chrism,)
distinct from that (baptism,) in which the gift of jus
tification has been sought ; though for the first twelve
hundred years, as is the custom to this day in the
Eastern Churches, it seems that the administration
of the one followed as closely upon the other as the
descent of the Holy Spirit did upon our blessed
Lord's baptism in the river Jordan : the administra
tion of Chrism, or imposition of hands, forming part
= 1 Cor. ix. 24. « 2Tim. iv. 7,8.
' John xiii. 5. ° John xv. 3. comp. xiii. 10.

31
and parcel of the office of Baptism : from whence it
followed, that under one name (Baptism), both rites.
were signified ; and, in a loose way of speech, effects
ascribed to Baptism, which, strictly speaking, can
only be affirmed of it, when viewed in conjunction
with the imposition of hands.

THE END.

Gilbert & Rivinoton, Printers, St, John's Square, London.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

A LETTER TO
THE REV. THOMAS ARNOLD, D.D.
HEAD MASTER OF KUGBY SCHOOL,
(ON HIS DENIAL OF THE CHRISTIAN PRIESTHOOD,)
To which is added,
A REPRINT OF ONE WHICH APPEARED IN THE IRISH
ECCLESIASTICAL JOURNAL,
CONTAINING
AN ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN OF THE OXFORD MOVEMENT,
AND OF THE TRACTS FOR THE TIMES,

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03720 5649