The Way Which Some Call Heresy

8/6/2019 The Way Which Some Call Heresy

1/27

THE WAY

WHICH SOME CALL HERESYA LETTER

TO THE CLERGY AND LAITY OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,

ON CLERICAL SUBSCRIPTIONBY

ANDREW JUKESFORMERLY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; AND LATE CURATE

OF ST. JOHN'S, HULL

"But this I confess unto thee, that afterTHE WAY WHICH THEY CALL HERESY, so worship I the God

of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and the prophets: and herein do I

exercise myself to have A CONSCIENCE VOID OF OFFENCE toward God and toward man." Acts24:14, 16.

Second Edition

London:

James Nisbet & Co., 21, Berners Street

1862

PREFACETO THE SECOND EDITION.

NINETEEN years, very nearly, have elapsed since the publication of the first edition of this

Letter,since, unable any longer to make the subscription required of the clergy, the writer ofthese pages went forth not knowing whither he went. Often since then has the question been

reviewed: many a theory during these years has been roughly tested by experience: views thenheld on some points have been corrected or enlarged, for the same object necessarily appears

differently from different stand-points: but on the question discussed in these pages, of the exanimo subscription required from the clergy to the XXXVIth Canon, all fresh light and all

experience have but added other and stronger reasons to the pleadings put forth in this Letter,shewing past all question that subscription as it is at present practised is useless for the purpose

alleged, viz., for the avoiding of all ambiguities or difference of doctrine among the clergy, whileit is most oppressive to thoughtful and conscientious men, who cannot subscribe as a mere form

distinct statements, which, in their ordinary sense at least, appear directly opposed to fact,

reason, and Scripture.

But the Letter when first published met with little welcome. The Bishop of Exeter, indeed,

reprinted some eight or nine pages of it, in his Charge delivered to the clergy of his diocese at theTriennial Visitation, in June, July, and August, 1848; probably as an argumentum ad hominem to

the Evangelical clergy of his diocese, who, disbelieving baptismal regeneration, still gave their"unfeigned assent and consent" to the whole Prayer-book. "One living clergyman," he wrote,

"the Rev. Andrew Jukes, has acted as the Puritans did in 1662. He has given up his former


2/27

position in the Church, and has made public the grounds of his separation, one principal groundbeing his disbelief in the Church's doctrine of spiritual regeneration in baptism. In his statement,

which is marked by much of candour and charity as well as talent, he takes occasion to recordthe various expedients, by which clergymen, who, like himself, deny that doctrine, do yet, unlike

him, endeavour to reconcile their denial with the words of the Baptismal Service." And then

come pages 26 and 27, and from page 30 to 38, of this Letter, reprinted by the Bishop for hisclergy. But though this notice helped to circulate the Tract, the question of subscription at thattime seemed uninteresting to reviewers, and even to the public generally.

Then came the famous Gorham case, the decision of which by the Privy Council gave the

Evangelical clergy legal authority, or at least permission, to hold their livings though they deniedbaptismal regeneration. But though this case settled a point of civil law, it proved nothing in foro

conscientiae. For the question in the matter of subscription is, not what the civil law of Englandallows, but rather what truth and conscience require respecting certain solemn declarations. As

far as I know, a man may tell lies, and yet most legally retain possession of his house and landsand property. But would a Christian say, that because no civil penalty attaches to the offence, a

falsehood is or can be justifiable? So as to subscription. The question is not, whether, afterhaving declared our "assent and consent" to the Prayer-book, we may hold our livings, while yet

we disbelieve certain things we have subscribed to; but whether, disbelieving or at least doubtingcertain portions of the Prayer-book, we are honest and true in subscribing to "all and everything

in the said book," that "there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God."

TheEssays and Reviews have again practically revived this question, and convinced some thatthis matter of subscription is of vital moment to the Church generally. Clergymen, it is now

currently said, give their assent and consent to the whole Prayer-book, and yet deny andcontradict the plainest assertions and doctrine which they have so solemnly subscribed to. Men

say that whatever else the clergy hold, it is quite certain they will hold their livings. TheAthenaeum for last February, (and surely it is a sign that such a Review should write on this

question,) in a notice of theEssays and Reviews, which is chiefly occupied with this one questionof subscription, after comparing the actual subscription with the explanations generally given by

the clergy in justification of it, goes on to speak as follows:"If this interpretation be the realhonesty of subscription, what is its common honesty? It will not do to appeal to the consent of

divines about points of latitude. The laymen declare that divines have, from the commencementof subscription downward, fallen into very loose notions about subscription and its meaning. It is

no answer to say that liberty of interpretation has been advocated by prelates. We know it has,and we say that those prelates had no right to such liberty. ... The clerical mind is dull and dim

upon these points by long use of opiates. ... But there is a universal belief among the laity that theclergy do not accept in the mass the whole of the Articles and Prayer-book, in the unqualifiedmanner which they declare for. The best friends of the existing Establishment are those who urge

upon the higher clergy the necessity of bringing the state of subscription and of belief intoaccordance. Anything rather than a world of evasions and subterfuges. Whatever may be right,

this is wrong."

In the same tone, theEdinburgh Review for last month, (April, 1862,) in an article on clericalsubscription, after adverting to the effect of this subscription on men, who cannot in conscience

make it, thus speaks of its effect on members of the Church:"It is within the Church itself that


3/27

this restriction exercises the most baneful influence; deterring (and that in an increasing degree)the nobler hearts and loftier minds among the youth of England from the service of the

sanctuary; discrediting the clergy in the eyes of thoughtful laymen; and inflicting on clergymenthemselves a lifelong injury, not the less mischievous because it is so commonly denied and so

often unsuspected. For is it not a sore injury done to men of such high qualities and endowments

as the English clergy generally, that there is one set of subjects on which they are forbiddenliberty, not of speech only, or of action, but of thought; one circle of subjects within which theyare afraid even to think with fairness,the charmed circle guarded by the ex animo subscription,

by the plenary 'assent and consent,'in approaching which, truth must no longer be the firstobject sought, nor light the one thing most desired?"

Surely words like these from such quarters evince that it is time the clergy should do something

to set themselves right with the mass of thoughtful and educated laymen. At all events, thequestion is again raised, and an answer must be given to it,Does clerical subscription really

mean anything? The present year too brings with it memories which cannot sleep, of those TwoThousand, who, under pressure of this same subscription, became strangers to their brethren and

aliens to their mother's children. What drove them forth? Calamy, the younger, in hisLife andTimes of Baxter, (pp. 502-5,) has recorded the grounds of their nonconformity. "They were," he

says, and he was himself one of them, "required to declare their unfeigned assent and consent toall and everything contained and prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, &c. ... In this book

they met with several things, which, after the strictest search they could make, appeared to themnot agreeable to the Word of God. ... They observed that there must be not 'consent,' but 'assent'

too; and that 'to everything' in particular contained in this book. Words could scarcely be devisedmore full and significant to testify their highest commendation."

"To this book," he proceeds, "they found several exceptions, which appeared to them of great

consequence. First, that it teaches the doctrine ofreal baptismal regeneration;'We yield Theehearty thanks that it hath pleased Thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit.' The sense

of the Church too as to the efficacy of baptism is clear from the Office for Confirmation:'Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy

Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins, &c.' This was a thing that appearedto our ministers of such dangerous consequence, that they durst not concur in it, or any way

approve it. For them, under their apprehension, to have gone to declare that there was nothing inthe Prayer-book but what they could 'assent' and 'consent' to, and to have subscribed this with

their hands, had been doing violence to their consciences, and attempting at once to impose uponGod and man."

These points, which Calamy states were "first and chiefest" with the Two Thousand ejectedministers, were those, as the following pages will shew, which forced the writer of this Letter

into the same path of Nonconformity. And though the days are changed, and there is now noFive-mile Act, forcing non-conforming clergymen to a distance from those to whom they have

ministered in spiritual things,though the cross is lighter, yet a cross it is to leave old ties andloved associations, to go forth, not knowing whither one goes, or where to find an earthly

resting-place. Little do those who judge such a step think what it costs. Suffering always lookssomewhat contemptible. Even some of the most famous martyrdoms, it has been said, looked

very meanly when they were suffered. It may therefore seem to some a small sacrifice for a man,


4/27

all whose habits, affections, and worldly interests bind him to the Church, after years ofpreparation for its ministry, to be thrown adrift, with no other door open for him to enter, an

unknown stranger, among persons with other modes of thought, and other habits andassociations. Those who have done it, know what it costs. But they have or will have their

reward.

Believing that the time is come when this question of clerical subscription must be re-considered,not only for the clergy's sake, but for the Church generally, the writer again commends the facts

and reasons of the following Letter to the candid consideration of his brethren still serving in theChurch of England. If he speaks evil, let them bear witness of the evil: if truth, let it have its due

authority.

HULL, 14th May, 1862.

A LETTER,&c.

DEARBRETHREN,

The following pages, containing a statement of some of the reasons which led to a suspension of

my ministry in the Church of England, have for some time been lying by me. The only questionin my mind has been whether I ought to publish them. During the period which has elapsed since

my suspension, it has been my endeavour by earnest prayer and self-examination to learn themind of our God and Father, as to the conduct He would have me pursue in this particular. At

first I was disposed to leave the whole matter in His hands alone who is the Searcher of hearts,

and to suffer it, as far as I was concerned, to pass over in silence. I wished not to distress yourconsciences, and I felt a shrinking from that controversy and reproach, which I foresaw might beelicited by any statement from me.

I therefore allowed week after week to pass without any public declaration from me as to the

facts and grounds of my separation from St. John's. But I can do this no longer. In the first place,I feel that I am not justified through any false love of quietness in withholding from my brethren

the facts and reasons which led to my suspension; and in the next place, whatever might be mywishes, the attempt at quietness has utterly failed. On the one hand I find that there are not a few

among you, who are so far interested in me as to press me for an explanation of my conduct andmy principles, and that explanation I feel is your right, while on the other hand there are others,

who, ignorantly and unwittingly perhaps, yet not less certainly, are circulating misrepresentationsof my motives and of my views, which seem to me to call for, if not a defence, at least a

disclaimer on my part. Misconceptions may remain after all, and probably will in some quarters,yet I feel that it is due, not only to you, but also to the truth, to do what in me lies to remove from

your minds any unnecessary misunderstanding.

I know indeed by sad experience how difficult it is to speak on a subject like this without either

injuring oneself or wounding dear brethren. I know how in writing about error there is constant


5/27

need of watching our own treacherous hearts, lest we rejoice in iniquity because it proves us inthe right; for I feel that we are not fit to speak of evil in the Church unless we can share the

burden in humiliation before the Lord. But the Lord knows that in thus coming forward in acourse which I foresee will expose me to certain reproach, I do it not for my own, but for the

Church's sake. The things which I write, I write "not that we should be approved, but that ye

should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates; for we are glad when we are weakand ye are strong, and this also we wish, even your perfection." I am therefore willing, inobedience to God's Word, to "give a reason of the hope that is in me." May He help me to do it

"with meekness and fear."

To do this clearly I must go back a little. In the September before last, Mr. Wanton, of Drypool,having left the town for his usual summer holiday, it was arranged that I should take part of his

duty for him, especially the surplice duty, that is the baptisms, marriages, and funerals, until hisreturn. I think it was one of the first baptisms I had at his church which led me seriously to

review the question of subscription to the Prayer-book, which is required of all the clergy, andwhich more than once had somewhat troubled me. If I remember right, there were no sponsors

for the child, but some one who happened to be in the church at the time was pressed into theservice by the parents, to stand for the child and make the required promises. This case led me to

serious reflection. The service for baptism had always to my mind presented certain difficulties;but clergymen whom I had known from childhood told me that they had once felt very much as I

did on the subject, but that the difficulty of the language of the service was to be met by takingthe statements hypothetically, that is, on the supposition that all is rightly done on the part of

those who present the child for baptism. But in the case before me I found, that, let things berightly done or not, the same service had to be read, and none other; for every clergyman is

bound by his ordination vow "to use the form prescribed by the Prayer-book in public prayer andin the administration of the sacraments, and none other."

I therefore determined at once to open my difficulty to my revered friend and rector, Mr. Dykes,

whose truth and kindness I had so often proved, and than whom I knew no one more likely togive me good counsel. It was with hesitation, (for I feared in any way to pain him,) that I told

him what was my difficulty, viz., that holding my position as a clergyman in virtue of mysubscription to the Thirty-sixth Canon,"that there is nothing in the Prayer-book contrary to the

Word of God, and that I will always use it, and none other, in public prayer and in theadministration of the sacraments,"I now found that there were several things in that Prayer-

book, which seemed to me at least questionable. Mr. Dykes received this communication mostkindly, telling me that many others of the Evangelical clergy had felt more or less the same

difficulty; but that there were evils and difficulties everywhere, and less in the Church ofEngland than perhaps in any other communion; that my conscience was probably morbidrespecting trifles, the great duty of the clergy being to preach and live Christ, and not to trouble

themselves or others with questions of words or outward forms and ceremonies.

Of course I give only the general sense of his remarks, for during many weeks I had several longconversations with him on this subject; but as I made notes at the time of these conversations, I

can speak with certainty of the general tenor of the advice which was so kindly given me.Among the points which Mr. Dykes impressed most strongly on me was the fact that providence

had placed me where I was, and that I ought seriously to pause before I gave up a post to which


6/27

the Lord had called me. If His providence should remove me, well and good, but being in asphere of usefulness, I clearly should not leave it; the rather as I had the example of so many of

the best men in England, who did not hesitate at the subscription which I now questioned andobjected to.

With this advice from one whom I regarded so highly, I endeavoured for several weeks andmonths to satisfy my conscience, all the while praying to God, that, if I were wrong, He wouldinstruct me, or providentially lay me aside from work by sickness or otherwise, and so deliver

me from what appeared to me to be a false position. For I was greatly perplexed, and uncertain asto what might or might not be God's will; on the one hand seeing the evil of causing doubts, and

perhaps division, among Christians; on the other, feeling that I held a false position, myconscience by no means approving the subscription to the Prayer-book, in virtue of which I held

my office, by license from the Archbishop, as curate in this diocese. As probably the greatmajority of the members of the Church of England are wholly in ignorance of what a clergyman

has to declare before he can be licensed by the bishop to any church or curacy, I will here quotethe declaration in full, and then briefly state how it now presses on my conscience.

The Church of England requires from every clergyman that he shall subscribe the three following

articles of the Thirty-sixth Canon. The Canon runs as follows:

"No person shall hereafter be received into the Ministry, nor either by institution or collation

admitted to any Ecclesiastical Living, nor suffered to preach, to catechise, or to be a Lecturer orReader of Divinity in either University, or in any Cathedral or Collegiate Church, City, or

Market-town, Parish-church, Chapel, or in any other place within this realm; except he belicensed either by the Archbishop, or by the Bishop of the Diocese, where he is to be placed,

under their hands and seals, or by one of the two Universities, under their seal likewise; andexcept he shall first subscribe to these Three Articles following, in such manner and sort as we

have here appointed.

"I. That the King's Majesty, (now the Queen's,) under God, is the only supreme Governor of this

realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all Spiritual or

Ecclesiastical things or causes, as Temporal; and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state,or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or

authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within her Majesty's said realms, dominions, and countries.

"II. That the Book of Common Prayer, and of ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons,containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used: and

that he himself will use the form in the said Book prescribed, in public prayer, and inadministration of the Sacraments, and none other.

"III. That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Archbishops andBishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the

year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred sixty and two; and that he acknowledgeth alland every the Articles therein contained, being in number nine-and-thirty, besides the

Ratification, to be agreeable to the Word of God.


7/27

"To these three Articles whosoever shall subscribe, he shall, for the avoiding of all ambiguities,subscribe in this order and form of words, setting down both his Christian and Sur-name, viz., I,

N. N. do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three Articles above mentioned, and to allthings that are contained in them. And if any Bishop shall ordain, admit, or license any, as is

aforesaid, except he first have subscribed in the manner and form as here we have appointed, he

shall be suspended from giving of orders and licenses to preach, for the space of twelve months.But if either of the Universities shall offend therein, we leave them to the danger of the law andhis Majesty's censure."

Such is the subscription absolutely required from all clergymen, and only in virtue of this

subscription can we be admitted to officiate as priests or deacons of the Church of England. Andin addition to this, every incumbent has to make the following declaration:"I, A. B., do here

declare my unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in andby the book intituled, The Book of Common Prayer." (Note: "With regard to this last expression,

of 'assent and consent,' it is often said that nothing more is intended by the formula than assentand consent to the use of all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the Book of

Common Prayer. But we cannot forget that the same House of Commons which passed this Actrefused to modify the required declaration so as to suit the meaning thus attached to it. Nor can

we forget that the words are to this day understood, and must needs be understood, in their plaingrammatical sense by the congregations before whom they are uttered, and by the laity in

general; and are even so appealed to not unfrequently by the authorities of the Churchthemselves."Edinburgh Review, on Clerical Subscription, April,1862.)

I now proceed to shew how this subscription pressed me. One after another, the more I weighed

and examined them, these three articles, in virtue of subscription to which I was licensed to mycuracy, seemed either contrary to fact, to reason, or to Scripture. The point which first pressed

my conscience was the declaration that "the Book of Common Prayer containeth in it nothingcontrary to the Word of God;" but the other questions stated in the Canon, as to the Queen's

supremacy in things spiritual, and as to the Thirty-nine Articles, seemed the more I weighedthem to be more and more objectionable. I need not enter on them all. I say nothing therefore

here of the question of the Queen's supremacy "in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causesas in temporal," further than that this statement now appears to me, to use the mildest language,

very questionable. For is it true that "the Queen's majesty under God is the only supremegovernor of this realm as well in all spiritual things and causes as in temporal"? Is it true de jure?

(Note: De Lolme, in his famous work, "On the Constitution of England," says,"The King is thesupreme head of the Church. In this capacity he appoints the Bishops and the two Archbishops,

and he alone can convene the assembly of the clergy. The assembly is formed on the model ofthe Parliament; the bishops form the upper house; deputies from the dioceses, and from theseveral chapters, the lower house: the assent of the King is likewise necessary to the validity of

their acts and canons, and the King can prorogue or dissolve the convocation."p. 70.) Is it truede facto? Is the Queen really by rightabove the bishops of Christ's Church in spiritual things? Is

she in factsupreme in all things ecclesiastical? Look for instance at the bishops of the Church ofRome, with the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster at their head, now settled in this country,

whose sees are "things and causes ecclesiastical," but who are, and boast they are, in all spiritualthings absolutely independent of the Queen, and wholly beyond her jurisdiction in things

ecclesiastical. Is it not simply a fact, directly in opposition to the statement of the Canon, that a


8/27

foreign prince, person, and prelate, hath power ecclesiastical and spiritual within her Majesty'srealms and dominions? How then can we affirm that it is not so? And even respecting the Church

of England as by law established, is the Queen in fact supreme in it. Is it she, or even her PrivyCouncil, who determines what shall or shall not be done in any matter, as for instance touching

any revision of the Liturgy? Is it not rather the party which happens to be in power in Parliament

that in the present day really settles everything respecting the Church of England and itstemporalities?

The following passage from Dr. Barrow, directed by him against the headship of the Pope, if trueat all must in some degree be applicable to the temporal headship of the Church of England,

respecting which we have to make subscription. "This pretence," he says, "doth thwart the HolyScripture, by assigning to another the prerogatives and peculiar titles appropriated therein to our

Lord. The Scripture asserteth Him to be our only Sovereign, Lord, and King,speaketh of oneArchpastor and Great Shepherd of the sheep, exclusively to any other,telleth us that we have

one High-priest of our profession,informeth us that there is but one Supreme Doctor, Guide,and Father of Christians. It seemeth therefore a sacrilegious arrogance derogatory from our

Lord's honour, forany man to assume or admit those titles of 'Sovereign of the Church,' 'Head ofthe Church,' &c., upon what pretence orunder what distinction soever. ... To decline these

allegations of Scripture they have forged distinctions of several kinds of Churches and severalsorts of heads; but no such distinctions have any place or ground in Scripture, nor can well

consist with it, which simply doth represent the Church as one kingdom, 'a kingdom of heaven,''a kingdom not of this world;' all the subjects of which have their citizenship in heaven, or are

considered as members of a city there, so that it is vain to seek a sovereign thereof in this world;... especially considering that our Lord, according to His promise, is ever present with the Church

here, governing it by the efficacy of His Spirit and grace, so that no corporeal or visible head ofthis spiritual body is needful." (Note: Barrow, On the Pope's Supremacy, pp. 118-120.)

But I need not enter on all this. (Note: Those who care to know the views of some of our

Reformers on this subject may consult theZurich Letters, I. and XIV.) The point which firstexercised my own mind will be quite sufficient to shew on what grounds I am unable to make the

subscription which is required from all clergymen; for if it can be shewn that any of the articlesto which subscription is required by the Canon involve doctrines or practices opposed to Christ's

gospel, this of itself will sufficiently justify my nonconformity. To one article therefore I alonehere confine my remarks.

Observe then what it is that each minister is required to subscribe in the Second Article of theCanon alluded to. Nothing less than this,that he "willingly and ex animo subscribes that the

Book of Common Prayer containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God." Now thequestion is, can it be proved that what this article declares is agreeable to truth, or can the

contrary be shewn?

Let us take a single service in that book, beginning, where we should naturally begin, with theinitiatory rite of our most holy faith, I mean Baptism. Is it true that the Baptismal Service

"containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God"?


9/27

What do we find in this Service? In the first place the officiating minister, in the midst of asolemn ordinance, and as a test of the candidate's fitness to receive holy baptism, has to put

questions respecting faith and obedience to an unconscious and perhaps a sleeping babe. Forthat the child is the person addressed is plain from the question, "WiltTHOUbe baptized in this

faith?" for the sponsors have been baptized before; and the Service distinctly states, "THIS

INFANTmust also faithfullyFOR HIS PART PROMISE, &c." Of this question to an unconscious babeevery clergyman must say, that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God. Our Reformerssurely did not think this, nor did they require the subscription which since 1662 has been

imperative. On the contrary Bishops Grindal and Horne, writing to their brethren respectingthese very questions, say,"We receive it is true, or rather tolerate, until the Lord shall give us

better times, the interrogations to infants, and the sign of the cross in baptism, and kneeling atthe Lord's Supper. We publicly profess, and diligently teach, that questions of this kind are not

very suitable to be proposed to infants, notwithstanding they seem to be borrowed fromAugustine." (Note:Zurich Letters, p. 179. See Note at the end of this Letter.) But suitable or not,

the questions must be put by every clergyman, and further he must, if he will now keep his place,say of them "that there is nothing in them contrary to the Word of God."

And as to the system of sponsorship, is it quite clear that there is nothing in it contrary to the

Word of God? The Prayer-book distinctly says, "Faith and repentance are required of persons tobe baptized." If this be so, can one man promise either faith or repentance for another,for

another whose mind cannot be known, and all this as a test of the fitness of that other to receiveone of Christ's sacraments?

What are the reasons assigned for this system? The common answer is, that these questions are

justified by, what is called, "the analogy of circumcision;"that as circumcision was the sign ofa spiritual blessing, and yet was administered to children, therefore baptism may be the sign of a

spiritual blessing, and yet be administered to children. Suppose I grant this, what does it prove?Simply this, that children may be baptized: but this is not the question. The question here is, not

whether the circumcision of infants justifies the baptism of infants, but whether the circumcisionof infants justifies us in putting questions respecting faith to infants, and in making one person

promise faith for another. Let us suppose it proved, that the circumcision of the male infants ofAbraham's family justifies the baptism of all the infants born of professedly Christian parents,

how does it follow that therefore we may ask those infants questions, require from them answers,and make one person promise for another what can never be known; and all this in the midst of a

solemn ordinance, which, according to the Church of England, (Note: Quest. "What is requiredof persons to be baptized?Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin, and faith whereby they

steadfastly believe the promises of God, made to them in this sacrament.") requires faith andrepentance in the candidate as a pre-requisite for the rite? The very statement of the argument issufficient to expose it. If stated, it would run thus:Birth in Abraham's family entitled the male

children of that family to receive a carnal ordinance, in which no questions were put to the child,and no answers required; therefore birth in a professedly Christian land is to entitle all children,

both males and females, to receive a spiritual ordinance, in which questions are put, and answersare required: an ordinance, moreover, be it remembered, the right to participate in which

depends, according to the Prayer-book, on the possession and profession of faith and repentance.


10/27

But does not St. Paul affirm of circumcision that it was "a seal of the righteousness of faith," anddoes not this teach us that as faith was in some way imputed to children of old, so we too now

may suppose faith in our children, and in this way defend the service? Now I simply ask does St.Paul affirm this? What are his words? They may be found [sic] Rom. 4:11, and they form part of

the Apostle's argument to shew that Abraham was justified before circumcision. He says,"And

he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which hehad yet being uncircumcised." The Apostle's object is to shew that men may be justified orrighteous without circumcision, and to prove this he cites the case of Abraham, to whom

circumcision was only a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he already possessed; "hereceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness ofthe faith which he had:" but I

read not that circumcision was any such thing to his children, nor will this Scripture prove it. Fortake a similar case to illustrate the passage: what should we think of the man, who, having read

that the Author of Waverley received the rank of baronet, as a mark or seal of the talents whichhe had before receiving the title, should thence conclude that therefore Sir Walter Scott's children

also, to whom the title descended, received it in like manner as a seal oftheirtalents? Yet this isexactly analogous.

Do I then deny that the faith of one person can obtain spiritual blessings for another? God forbid.

The Gospels clearly shew how the faith of friends and parents can bring blessings upon those forwhom they make intercession. The faith of the Canaanitish woman saved her child. The faith of

those who let down the palsied man at the feet of Christ brought perfect healing to him. Blessedbe God, it is so yet. The faith of parents can still obtain most precious blessings for their

unconscious children. But the question here is, not whether Christ accepts the faith of parents,who bring their children to baptism, but whether the practice of putting questions to unconscious

babes is or is not according to the Word of God. According to the Church of England, the child isnot baptized on the ground here assumed, namely that its friends or parents have faith, but

because it professes faith through its sponsors,a profession made indeed through others, butyet the child's own profession in the eye of the Church. This as I have said before is clear

enough, for in answer to the question, "Why are infants baptized?" the Church tells us, it is, notbecause of the faith of parents or sponsors, but "because they (the infants) promise them both,

(i.e. both faith and repentance,) by their sureties." I at least can no longer say of all thesequestions, that "there is nothing in them contrary to the Word of God;" for I read that our

Christian service is "reasonable," and this questioning of unconscious infants to me is notreasonable. I think if reason might be heard, she would speak somewhat as follows:The child,

to whom you put the question "Wilt thou be baptized?" either has the power of assenting anddissenting to the question, or it has not the power. On the one hand, if it has not the power, why

put any question to it at all? On the other hand, if it has the power, how can you tell which way itmay use it, and whether it may assent or dissent to what you ask it?

But there is more in the same Baptismal Service to which I can no longer "willingly subscribe,"

that "there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God." I am required to affirm, and that in an

address to God, that every childImay baptize is then and there regenerate with the Holy Ghost;and further I must say of this statement, that "there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God."

Now I am willing to declare that baptism is the sign and seal of the regeneration of man in Christ


11/27

Jesus,that man in Him is born again, and in Him has received a new life and the divine nature;but I cannot positively affirm of every individual child, who is brought by others to be baptized,

that it is then and there regenerate with the Holy Spirit. It may be want of faith, as some tell me;or it may be that I am too scrupulous as to subscription to words which seem to me at least very

equivocal. But I cannot go beyond my faith, "for whatsoever is not of faith is sin;" and to me the

statements respecting the regeneration of every child seem far too strong and sweeping. But if Ido not make these statements "willingly," I cannot be a minister of the Church of England.

Nor do the explanations which are offered of this part of the service, (for it is confessed byEvangelical men that it requires explanation,) satisfy me that it is right to use it. Perhaps it may

not be unprofitable to detail these various explanations. The following skeleton of the opinionsstated at a clerical meeting held last year, may do this as well or better than anything I can say. It

will also be valuable in another light, as exhibiting the not trifling difference of opinion whichexists upon the subject of baptism among the clergy of the Church of England.

At the Annual Clerical Meeting, held at the Rev. D. Wilson's, Islington, January 5th, 1842,

Archdeacon Hoare in the Chair, and nearly a hundred clergymen present, the subject fordiscussion being the Baptismal Service, and the doctrine of Regeneration as connected with that

rite, the following speakers stated their opinions in effect as follows:

Mr. Cunningham (of Harrow) said, his opinion was, that in baptism some positive, clear, distinct,

intelligible blessing and benefit, called by the name of "regeneration," was conveyed to theinfant. This benefit is reconciliation to God: a change ofstate, but not necessarily a change of

nature. Not an alteration of the moral condition of the child, but simply a change by which thechild is brought into the outward communion of the Church: and this is the state which in the

Service is called "regeneration." This view is very nearly that of Bishop Hopkins, of Derry.

Mr. Burgess spoke next. He said he could not agree to this view. His opinion was, that in baptismthe infant receives the remission of original sin, and a principle of Divine life imparted by the

Holy Ghost; a seed given to fructify or die, but always given. He considered that a repenting,believing, converted adult was not pardoned, nor received regeneration until baptism.

Mr. C. Bridges differed from each of the preceding speakers. His view of the question was, that

in baptism, where the prayers are offered in faith, as contemplated by the framers of ourServices, those prayers which we put up for the child's regeneration are heard and answered, and

the gift of regeneration is granted to prayer. But in other cases, i.e., where there is no reallyfaithful prayer, there is no work of the Holy Ghost, who works not without exerting an energetic

power, producing visible effects.

Mr. Venn could not agree with any of these interpretations. He said he believed that in the

Baptismal Service regeneration is said to be bestowed conditionally or hypothetically, on thehypothesis that the infant really professes faith. For it is on this ground only,that is on the

sponsors answering for this faith in the infant,that the ordinance is administered.

Such is a brief but exact sketch of the views advocated at this meeting. I have copied it fromnotes taken at the time.


12/27

Let us take these different theories in detail. First there are those, who, like Mr. Burgess, affirmthat a principle of divine life is always imparted, wherever baptism is rightly received and duly

administered. To this statement little could be objected, if the candidates for baptism had thefaith and repentance which are required in the Catechism; for "whosoever believeth that Jesus is

the Christ is born of God," and baptism, if it be anything, is surely the sacrament of regeneration.

Baptism is our initiation into Christ's Church, and an unregenerate Church of Christ seems to mea contradiction. The only question is, whether the profession of sponsors, who are oftenunconverted, is really accepted by God instead of the faith of the infant who is brought to

baptism. To me baptism appears exactly like the ring which is given and received in marriage,the reception of which, under certain circumstances and with a certain profession, puts the

recipient at once into a wholly different relationship, of which it is also the outward seal andtoken. But does a ring make a marriage in every case? May not a common harlot steal and wear

one? Are we justified therefore, when no profession is made, or when the profession is only bysponsors, whose promises of faith and repentance are confessedly without New Testament

sanction, in declaring that every infant so baptized, with no faith but that of the sponsors, andsometimes without this, is then and there truly regenerate? I at least do not feel free to do so, and

simply because I see no warrant for it, either in Apostolic precept or example.

To me the case is encompassed with greater difficulties, when I hear the published avowal ofboth parties in the Church of England, that the practice of infant baptism rests wholly on

tradition. High Church and Low Church both declare this. Hear first the Evangelical party. TheRecordnewspaper of October 20, 1842, (I unhesitatingly refer to it as the well-known and well-

written organ of the anti-Oxford school,) in an elaborate article on the Bishop of London'scharge, which the editor and his friends thought of sufficient value to reprint as a tract for general

circulation, makes the following confession upon the subject:"The practice of infant baptismdoes rest exclusively on tradition; and it is a safe and legitimate use of tradition to bear witness to

the fact that the practice came down from the apostolic age, and is therefore rightly maintainedby the Church." Again, in the same article;"Far from the doctrine being contained in Scripture

of baptism invariably communicating to infants the new birth, there is no instance of baptismbeing imparted to infants, there is no clear direction to baptize infants, and of necessity and in

fact there is no statement that they are made partakers of the new birth in baptism." And what saythe Oxford school? Hear how they plead the case in the Tracts for the Times:"There is not a

single text in the Scriptures enjoining infant baptism. How is it that St. Paul does not in hisepistles remind parents of so great a duty, if it is a duty?" (Note: Tracts for the Times, No. 85.)

Now though this admission of High Church and Low Church writers does not disprove the

existence of infant baptism in apostolic ages, it shews how we may err if we apply to infantsexpressions respecting baptism in the New Testament epistles, which clearly speak of the resultsof its reception by believers. And feeling this, I cannot say of every child brought to the

baptismal font that it is then and there "regenerate with the Holy Spirit."

Let us now look at the three interpretations by which the Evangelical party endeavour toreconcile themselves to the statements of the Service, and to their declaration, that, in saying of

every baptized child that it is regenerate, there is nothing contrary to the Word of God.


13/27

1. The first method is that, which, at the clerical meeting I have spoken of, was urged by Mr.Bridges as the true key to the interpretation of the service, viz., that in baptism, when the prayers

are offered in faith, as contemplated by the framers of our services, those prayers which are putup for the child's regeneration are heard and answered, and the gift of regeneration is granted to

prayer. A supporter of this system of interpretation would answer thus:"You ask in what way I

explain this statement of our Church, and how I reconcile myself to say of every child I baptize,that it is then and there 'regenerate with the Holy Ghost.' I do so on these grounds:Our Savioursays, 'Ask and it shall be given to you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened to

you. ... If ye being evil know how to give good gifts to your children, much more shall yourheavenly Father give His Holy Spirit to them that ask him.' In the belief of this, I ask for the

regeneration of the child, and I conclude that according to Christ's words I have that which I askfor. The matter is simply a matter of prayer. I pray for regeneration by the Spirit, and I believe I

obtain it, because God has said, 'Ask and ye shall have.'"

Now I ask, is this a satisfactory explanation, and does this passage of Scripture, on which itprofesses to rest, justify the conclusion which is drawn from it? Let us look at the verse more

closely, and I think that we shall see that the promise of the Spirit is very obviously limited to theperson who asks:"Much more will your heavenly Father give His Holy Spirit to them that ask

Him." But the children in the Service do notask Him: how then does this Scripture apply?

"But," says the advocate of this system, "another Scripture is still stronger in support of myviews:'This is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His

will, He heareth us; and if He hear us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitionswhich we desired of Him.'"

Now here again I answer the promise is limited; "If we askanything according to His willHeheareth us:" but where are we told that it is according to God's will that every infant who is

brought to the baptismal font should be then and there immediately regenerate. Take a parallelcase. Suppose that on the strength of this Scripture, taken in connexion with others, such as,

"God will have all men to be saved," and "The earth shall be filled with the knowledge of theLord as the waters cover the sea," a body of Christians were to meet together to ask God to

regenerate the world, and then, having asked, should within ten minutes, thank Him for havingdone so, and speak of the world as already regenerate, and of the Millennium as being already

come; should we call such conduct credulity or faith? (Note: The following language is takenfrom an article in the Christian Observerfor 1836. It there occurs in reference to the writers of

the Oxford Tracts: how far it applies in the question we are considering let the reader judge:"The absurdity, the irrational fanaticism, the intellectual drivelling under the abused name of

FAITH, which dictates such sentiments ... must disgust every intelligent man, and make him aninfidel, if he is really led to believe that Christianity is a system so utterly opposed to common

sense." I quote this also in the hope that Evangelical Churchmen, when they see how theythemselves have written of others, will excuse any unbecoming warmth of expression into which

I may have fallen against my will.) Yet as far as this promise to prayer is concerned, the onewould be just as Scriptural as the other.

And in point of fact one simple question is all that is needed to expose this system as insufficient

and untenable. For instance, I would ask the supporters of it to answer me one question:Do


14/27

you believe that every child you pray for is then and there regenerate? Yes or no? If you do notbelieve it, why do you say it, as in the Service? On the contrary, if you do believe it, why do you

not regenerate every town at once? Souls are perishing; judgment is coming; your prayers, yousay, can regenerate all you pray for; you are bound then to do it: why have you not caused the

regeneration of all in your family and in your land?

But this system of explanation labours under still another difficulty, the difficulty namely ofbeing in open opposition to the declarations of the Service. The Service says:"Seeing now,

dearly beloved brethren, that this child isBY BAPTISMregenerate," and, "is nowBY THE LAVEROF REGENERATION IN BAPTISMreceived into the number of the children of God, and heirs of

everlasting life," &c. Now I simply ask, does the Church when she says "by baptism" mean byprayer? Again, does she when she says "by the laver of regeneration in baptism" mean by

prayer? A writer upon this subject fairly confesses, that, "if we give this sentence its full force,"it is beyond the power of "explanation." (Note: The Baptism of Jesus Christ, p. 38.) Surely if in

selecting these expressions the Church does not mean to teach us that children are, what she saysthey are, "regenerate BY BAPTISM," there is an end of all certainty in the meaning and use of

words; for with equal ease and in like manner may it be proved that transubstantiation meansnothing but the truth of Scripture, and that purgatory is in accordance with the Word of God. I

cannot, therefore, shelter myself under a system of interpretation which does such violence toplain language, and consequently cannot upon this ground consent to say of every child I baptize,

that it is "then and there regenerate," and further, that in saying this "there is nothing contrary tothe Word of God."

2. The second method, now almost generally exploded as untenable, which however was

advocated by Mr. Cunningham at the meeting alluded to, by which the Evangelical clergy haveattempted to escape the plain letter of the Service, and have endeavoured to prove that "there is

nothing in it contrary to the Word of God," is stated as follows:"The office for baptismdeclares of every infant who is baptized in the Church of England, that it is then and there

'regenerate;' and we allow that every infant who thus partakes of that ordinance is at onceregenerate; but thenwhat do we mean by the word 'regenerate'? Simply a change ofstate, not a

change ofnature. In applying this word therefore to infants, we do not mean that there is anyalteration in the moral condition of the child, but simply that insome way, which we cannot very

definitely explain, the child is brought into the outward communion of the Church."

Now what does this explanation amount to? Is it not, when reduced to plain English, simply

this,that when wesay "regenerate with the Holy Spirit," we do not mean "regenerate with theHoly Spirit," but something else which cannot exactly be defined, of which the only certain point

is that it is notthat which is commonly called "regeneration."

But neither does this explanation meet the case: for observe, the Church does not simply say thatthe child is "regenerate;" she clearly shews that when shesays "regenerate," she means really

"regenerate," by expressly declaring that the infant is "regenerate WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT."Besides, the child is required, and promises, to "renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil," "to

believe in God," and "to walk in His ways,"things which cannot be done without "a change ofnature," as well as "a change ofstate." For "he that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of

God" (1 John 5:1). If however a doubt remain with any as to the meaning which the Church


15/27

attaches to the word "regenerate," I refer them to the three following passages from the Prayer-book, which seem quite conclusive upon the subject.

First, in the Baptismal Service, we find the congregation saying,"We yield thee hearty thanks,

most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to REGENERATEthis infantWITH THY HOLY SPIRIT,

and to receive him for thine own child by adoption:" Again, in the Confirmation Service, we findthe Bishop praying thus,"Almighty God, who hast vouchsafed to REGENERATEthese thyservantsBY WATER AND THE HOLY GHOST, and hast given them forgiveness of all their sins,

strengthen them," &c.: and lastly, in the Catechism, we find the child instructed to say, "Mybaptism wherein Iwas madeA MEMBER OF CHRIST, THE [sic] CHILD OF GOD, AND AN INHERITOR

OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN."

But according to the method of interpretation which we are now examining, all these expressionsdo not describe "a change of nature." According to this view of the Service, a person may be

"regenerate with the Holy Spirit," without discerning or possessing that Spirit, and "God's ownchild by adoption," a "member of Christ," and an "inheritor of the kingdom of heaven," without

holiness, without love, without understanding; in a word, without a single grace whichcharacterizes and accompanies salvation.

Such is the principle of interpretation by which many of the clergy satisfy their consciences.Well if they can be thus satisfied, let them remain: I hinder them not. I only say, I cannot be thus

satisfied, and consequently I cannot say of the Service that "there is nothing in it contrary to theWord of God."

3. The third system by which the Evangelical clergy explain what is called "the difficulty" of the

Service, is that which was advocated by Mr. Venn at the Clerical Meeting I have already alludedto. This is commonly called "the hypotheticalsystem;" and could the assumptions which it

involves be proved agreeable to Scripture, (viz., could it be proved that children really possessedfaith, and that it was right for their sponsors to promise it for them,) would perhaps be tolerably

satisfactory. It may be stated as follows:

"The Church declares that faith and repentance are pre-requisites for Baptism; agreeably to thisshe expects the profession of these from every candidate for the ordinance. Now the adult, or the

child, who is baptized, does make this profession; the adult for himself, the child by the lips ofothers; and it is upon this profession of faith that the Church pronounces him 'regenerate,'

grounding her declaration on those Scriptures which declare, that, 'Whosoever believeth thatJesus is the Christ is born of God,' and, 'No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy

Ghost.' Now the child professes that Jesus is the Christ; and the Church, hearing this professionof faith, says of all who make it that they too are 'born of God,' 'regenerate with the Spirit.' To

this exactly agrees the XXVIIth Article, which runs thus'Baptism is not only a sign ofprofession, ... but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, theythat receive baptism rightly,' (that is, they who receive it possessing the requisites of faith and

repentance,) 'are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoptionto be sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, (not

given; its prior existence is assumed;) and grace is increased, (not bestowed,) by virtue of prayerto God.'" Such is the hypothetical system, a system from first to last proceeding upon the


16/27


17/27

would have kept me. But I can do so no longer: my way therefore is clear; henceforth I must takeup my cross, and go forth not knowing whither I go, but only that by God's grace I have the

witness of a good conscience.

While however I thus express my dissatisfaction with the systems of interpretation by which so

many of my brethren yet justify their subscription to the whole Prayer-book, far be it from me tojudge individuals. Yet this I may say, for it is confessedly the case, that in order to find a sensefor the expressions we have been examining, which will be in accordance with the truth of

Scripture, we must descend to such a mode of interpreting plain words, we must make suchadmissions, have such reservations, and use such special pleading, as would never for a moment

be tolerated in the ordinary intercourse between man and man. "Never," says Mr. Riland, himselfa clergyman, "have the arts of evasion, sophistry, palliation, and management, been more

notoriously developed than in attempts to explain away the strictness of subscription to theLiturgy, Articles, and Homilies." (Note: Church Reform, p. 226.) Nor is this all; those who deny

baptismal regeneration must say one thing at the font, another in the pulpit. At the one they mustdeclare that every child who is baptized in infancy is then and there regenerate. From the other I

know they often declare that many of the baptized yet need regeneration. How often have I heardthe words, "Ye must be born again," pressed on the consciences of those for whose regeneration

the very same preacher had already thanked God publicly.

And allowing that the matter could be got over by the learned with the help of assumptions,reservations, and special pleadings, what, I ask, must be the effects of such dangerous sophistry

upon the ignorant?what must be the impression which the statements of the Church, if notexplained away, are calculated to produce? Take the case of our Archdeacon Wilberforce, who is

judged by many of the clergy of this town to be a misguided, perhaps an unenlightened man,because he fully believes baptismal regeneration. But who has misguided him? The late Mr.

Wilberforce was of the school of Venn, and Scott, and Simeon. Of all these famous ministersthere was not one who hesitated to subscribe his "unfeigned assent and consent to all and

everything in the Prayer-book." All declared "there was nothing in it contrary to the Word ofGod." What is the result? The pupil believes what he is taught. He takes for his guide this book,

of which Evangelical men certify him that "there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God."There he finds thanks given for the spiritual regeneration of every baptized child; there he finds

children taught to say that they have "in baptism been made members of Christ;" there he findsthe bishop declaring that all such baptized children have "forgiveness of all their sins." And he

believes what he is taught. Who is to blame here? Let us assume it to be true, as some of ourclergy say, that the Arch-deacon is all wrong, because he believes that all baptized children are

regenerate. Who taught him to believe this? Has the Book, of which Evangelical men have said,that "there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God," had no effect to make him what he is?

Hear what Mr. Melvill says upon this point. "That the Church of England does hold and teachbaptismal regeneration, would never, we must venture to think, have been disputed, had not men

been anxious to remain in her communion, and yet to make her formularies square with theirown private notions. We really think that no fair, no straightforward dealing, can get rid of the

conclusion that the Church holds what is called baptismal regeneration. You may dislike thedoctrine, you may wish it expunged from the Prayer-book; but so long as I subscribe to that

Prayer-book, and so long as I officiate according to the forms of the Prayer-book, I do not see


18/27

how I can be commonly honest, and yet deny that every baptized person is on that accountregenerate." (Note:Melvill's Sermons, Vol. II., Sermon 8.)

On these grounds then, dear brethren, were there no others, I cannot say of the Prayer-book that

"there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God," and thus I cannot fulfil the test which the

Church of England requires of all her ministers. If I remain in her communion, I must say, that,in putting questions respecting faith and repentance to an unconscious and perhaps sleepingbabe, and this in the midst of a solemn religious ordinance, and as a test of the infant's fitness to

receive the rite,there is "nothing contrary to the Word of God": this I cannot say. Again, if Iserve in her communion, I must say, that, in making one person promise faith for another,

another, too, whose mind cannot be known,there is, "nothing contrary to the Word of God":this I cannot say. Again, if I remain a minister in the Church of England, I must say ofevery

infantIbaptize, that it is then and there "regenerate with the Holy Ghost;" and of all this, thatthere is "nothing in it contrary to the Word of God": I cannot say it, for I do not believe it. But

unless I declare this, the Church will not have me for her minister. I cannot therefore any longerhold my place as a clergyman in the Church of England.

And here let me not be misunderstood. I resign my post, not so much because, as here in theBaptismal Service, the Church of England has what seems to me evil connected with her, but

because she will not allow me to minister in her communion, unless I profess of all this evil "thatthere is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God." I repeat it, I do not give up my place simply

because the Church or the Prayer-book contains evil; but because the Church absolutely requiresof me, as long as I am connected with her, to recognize this evil to be good, and will not permit

me to be her minister but on these conditions.

Let this be clearly understood, for it is the turning-point of the question. God knows I seek notseparation from any Christian, or any body of Christians, simply because they err;this shall not

divide me from my brethren;but if they oblige me either by words or conduct, directly orindirectly, to declare that their error is no error; or if my uniting with them, through some

requirement on their part, necessarily involves my virtual assent to their error; then I am forcedto give up their communion. "If," as Chillingworth argues, "there were any society of Christians

that held there were no antipodes, notwithstanding this error I might communicate with them: butif I could not do so without professing myself of their belief in this matter, then I suppose I

should be excused from schism, if I should forsake their communion rather than profess myselfto believe that which I do not believe." (Note: Chillingworth,Religion of Protestants, chap. v.,

sec. 59.) So here: if a Christian or a body of Christians say they can use the Baptismal Service ofthe Church of England with a good conscience, then let them; I hinder them not, nor will I

separate from them for using it: but if they further require of me assent to that Service as theabsolute test of my communion with them, and will only receive me on these grounds, they

virtually drive me from their communion and force me to secede. And who is answerable, andwho is to blame for this scandal and schism?

My reader, I desire not to justify myself before man, for God is my judge, and to me it is a verysmall thing to be judged of you, or of man's judgment, yet, for the sake of those who have not


19/27

considered this point, let me press home this question, Who is to blame here? Who is to blamefor this scandal and schism? Let those who wish to have the true answer to this question weigh

well the decision of one usually quoted as a model of reasoning and of Scriptural truth, I meanChillingworth. He says,"If a Church, supposed to want nothing necessary, require me to

profess against my conscience that I believe some error, though never so small and innocent,

which I do not believe, and will not allow me communion but upon this condition, in this casethe Church for requiring this condition is schismatical, and notI for separating from theChurch." (Note: Chillingworth'sReligion of Protestants. Preface, sec. 44.) Again, "If you require

the belief ofany error among the conditions of your communion, our obligation to communicatewith you ceaseth, and so the imputation of schism to us vanisheth into nothing, but lies heavily

upon you for making our separation from you just and necessary, by requiring unnecessary andunlawful conditions of your communion." (Note: Answer to Preface, sec. 22.)

I allow indeed with the author from whom I have just quoted, that "neither for sin nor errors

ought a church to be forsaken, if she does not impose them or enjoin them: but if she do, then wemust forsake men rather than God, leave the church's communion rather than commit sin, or

profess known errors to be divine truths: for the prophet Ezekiel hath assured us that to say 'theLord hath said so, when the Lord hath not said so,' is a great sin, and a high presumption, be the

matter never so small."

Jeremy Taylor speaks precisely in the same strain. "Few churches," he says, "that have framedbodies of confession and articles will endure any person that is not of the same confession; which

is a plain demonstration that such bodies of confession and articles do much hurt, by becominginstruments of separating and dividing communions, and making unnecessary or uncertain

propositions a certain means of schism and disunion. But then men would do well to considerwhether or no such proceedings do not derive the guilt of schism upon them who least think it;

and whether of the two is the schismatic, he that makes unnecessary and(supposing the state ofthings) inconvenient impositions, orhe that disobeys them, because he cannot, without doing

violence to his conscience, believe them: he that parts communion because without sin he couldnot entertain it, orthey that have made it necessary for him to separate by requiring such

conditions, which to no man are simply necessary, and to him in particular are either sinful orimpossible." (Note:Liberty of Prophesying, sec. xxii. 1. In like manner Chillingworth, arguing

against the Church of Rome, says, in words equally applicable to the Church of England,"Thetrue reason (for separation) is not so much because you mention errors and corruptions, as

because you impose them, ... and have so ordered your communion that either we mustcommunicate with you in these things or nothing."Relig. of Prot., chap. v., sec. 40, p. 357.)

It is in this way that the Church of England forces me to secede from her ministry. Vain is it forme to say,Propose any test you will out of the Scriptures, or demand from me what assent you

will, which can be proved by the Scriptures, and I will at once subscribe it with heart andhand.No: this is not enough. The Church requires from me, beside this, subscription to a book,

whose language (by the confession of some of the best of her sons,) is "to be regretted," (Note:Fawcett, "Baptism considered in connexion with Regeneration," p. 29.) and is "inconsistent,"

(Note: Scott'sEssay on Regeneration.) and "exceptionably expressed;" (Note: Scott'sLetters,&c., p. 219.) and of this I must declare from first to last that "there is nothing in it contrary to the

Word of God." Men of pleasure and men of the world may "willingly" do this, and doing it be


20/27

esteemed true ministers of the Church: but zeal, and knowledge, and love, all these are useless,all are in vain, as far as ministry in the Church of England is concerned, without an

accompanying subscription to the Prayer-book. It is, perhaps, a startling assertion, but no lesstrue, that could Paul return to earth, nay, more, could it be that Paul's Master might return in the

flesh again to preach and labour among men, He could not teach or minister in the Church of

England unless He would subscribe to the Queen's supremacy in spiritual things, and say of theBaptismal Service, "that there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God."

And the avowals of not a few of the clergy show how ill at ease their consciences are on this

subject. For why, if the Prayer-book really be according to God's Word, should good men

discover so much uneasiness as to the required subscription. Why, to take but a single example,did one of the Church's very brightest ornaments say of the Baptismal Service that it was

"exceptionably expressed"? (Note: Scott'sLetters and Papers. Ed. 1826, p. 219.)Why did hesay of the 'assent and consent' to the Prayer-book,"I can only be reconciled to itby the

consideration that it by no means is supposed to imply putting the Prayer-book on the footing ofthe Bible: and by reflecting that many things are wrong everywhere; butIwish it were done

with"? Why again, while referring to his apology for the Burial Service, does the same writersay, "I am not prepared to say so much of the objections to some expressions in the Baptismal

Service or in the Office for Confirmation;" (Note: Scott'sLetters and Papers, Edit. 1826, pp.265, 268.)meaning that such expressions were less defensible? How after his subscription

could he say, "Our pious Reformers, from an undue regard to the Fathers and to thecircumstances of the times, have retained a few expressions in the Liturgy, which not only are

inconsistent with their other doctrine, but tend also to confuse men's minds, and mislead theirjudgments on this important subject"? (Note: Scott'sEssay on Regeneration.) Do not these hints

and avowals of dissatisfaction respecting the Burial, Baptismal, and Confirmation offices betraya state of conscience somewhat at variance with "unfeigned assent and consent to all and every

thing contained in and prescribed by the Prayer-book"? (Note: The Bishop of Exeter, in hisCharge to the clergy, June, 1848, gives still stronger examples of the language used by some of

the Evangelical clergy, respecting the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. He says,"Aftersuch plain testimony of the Church herself, what shall we say of those of her clergy, who not

only pertinaciously but contemptuously decry her doctrine. One of them, who is now gone to hisaccount, declared, 'that the doctrine ofbaptismal regeneration has destroyed more souls than any

one single error which has been branded on the black list of heresy.' Another, who still lives,states in a sermon, which only last year was largely circulated in some of your own parishes, that

'baptismal regeneration is aPopish figment, flatly contradicts the Word of God, ... is at issue withuniversal experience, and in the highest degree unmerciful, immoral, and delusive.' A thirdminister of our Church, bound by his office to preach in the very highest place,he is chaplain

in ordinary to her Majesty,has put forth a tract, entitled, The First Five Centuries of theChurch; or, The Early Fathers no Safe Guides, in which, after exulting in the great advance of

religious knowledge made by the present very enlightened age, he states, as a signal instance ofthis improvement, that 'few serious persons now believe in baptismal regeneration.'" p. 47. Yet

all these men had repeatedly subscribed the Prayer-book, with its express statements respectingthe regeneration of every baptized infant.)


21/27

Hear how Mr. Riland, himself a clergyman, comments on these avowals of Mr. Scott's. "It willnot," he says, "I trust be considered as an unfair attempt to sustain my own cause by the

concessions of a man whose memory we all venerate, and whose writings and life it becomes usexceedingly to value, when I add that the circumstance of equalizing the claims of the Bible and

Liturgy is very far from being the actual question at issue; and that the wish that subscription to

the Prayer-book were abolished, is an evident and formal expression of dissatisfaction, painfuldoubt, and earnest desire to be released from a cause of great disquietude. The question stillreturns, How would all this hesitation, reserve, variableness of assent and consent, equivocal

phraseology, and half-told diversity of opinion, be borne in the common transactions betweenman and man? If for example, to recur to a former illustration, the managers of a Friendly

Society were to admit members as subscribers, what would be said if one of the subscribingmembers were to urge, 'My written assent to the rules by no means implies that they are to be put

on the footing of the provisions by which the Bank of England is governed; andIwish mysubscription were done with?'Would the managers felicitate themselves on the subscriber's

faithfulness and power of analogy?" (Note: Riland's Church Reform, pp. 270, 271.)

The fact is, if we wish for Truth, we may never argue that an error is not an error, or acontradiction not a contradiction, simply because this man or that, this body of men or that, have

not seen, or have submitted to it. In this way any error may be canonized. As Chillingworthforcibly remarks,in words strikingly applicable to the supporters of the various systems which

are now current in defence of the Baptismal Service,"Though perhaps it may be very difficultfor a man in his right wits to believe a contradiction expressed in terms, especially if he believe it

to be a contradiction; yet for men being cowed and awed by superstition, (or by any othercircumstances,) to persuade themselves upon slight and trivial grounds that these or these,

though they seem contradictions, yet indeed are not so, and so to believe them; or if the plainrepugnance of them be veiled or disguised a little with some empty, unintelligible, nonsensical

distinction, or if it be not expressed but implied, not direct but by consequence, so that the partiesto whose faith the propositions are offered are either innocently, or perhaps affectedly ignorant

of the contrariety of them; for men in such cases easily to swallow and digest contradictions, hethat denies it possible must be a mere stranger in the world." (Note: Chillingworth'sReligion of

Protestants, vol. i., chap. iv., sec. 47.) Most true. The fact is that the Church of England holds outso many advantages and allurements to the flesh that if "the plain repugnance" of her

contradictions and errors can be veiled or disguised a little with what Chillingworth calls, "someempty, unintelligible, nonsensical distinction," it is hard, oh! how hard, to escape the snare. For

surely it does not help impartial judgment to have everything in the world to lose, and nothingbut reproaches to gain. In cases like this a man's impartial examination is the impartiality of a

man, who, according as his examination turns out, must eat or starve, be respected or reviled, beloved or hated. I do not say that these considerations ought to influence the children of God. I do

not even say they do so. I only say that if they do not, my brethren have hearts far firmer andbetter than mine is.

Such then, dear brethren, are some of the grounds on which the subscription required by the

Prayer-book seemed to my mind to pledge me to a falsehood. And feeling that the points referred

to, if not directly unscriptural, were to say the least very questionable, I felt I could no longer


22/27

"willingly" subscribe, that "there is nothing in them contrary to the Word of God;" and thereforeI could no longer honestly occupy a post, which is only held in virtue of this subscription.

I therefore determined to see the Archbishop, and to lay before him fully all my difficulty.

Accordingly last April I went up to town, and, a day or two after, on Saturday the 29th, I called

on the Archbishop. He was engaged when I sent in my card; but I was desired to wait, and aftersome minutes he came into the room which I had been shewn into. As soon as he was seated, Isaid, that "I had called to speak with him on a subject which was very painful to me." Before I

could say another word, the Archbishop to my surprise replied, "Yes, I know, it is indeed apainful subject, and it has reached me from another quarter." I was astonished at this

interruption, for I felt sure that Mr. Dykes had not in any way communicated to the Archbishopmy difficulties respecting subscription. But the Archbishop, not noticing my surprise, went on to

say, that on the preceding Thursday he had received a letter from the East Riding, complaining ofcertain statements of mine in a sermon I had preached five months before on Christian union,

which seemed to the Archbishop's informant so unsound, that he, the Archbishop, was requestedto look into it. The Archbishop said, that in consequence of this charge it would be his duty to

require from me some explanation of the passages in my sermon which were so much objectedto,that he would desire his chaplain to send some questions on the subject,that meanwhile,

until this was settled, I had better not preach at St. John's, nor should he allow me to preach thenext ordination sermon at Bishopthorpe, as had been arranged, if my views were such as they

were represented.

The result was, that, though I called on the Archbishop to speak with him on the question ofsubscription, I left his house without a word upon the subject; for I thought under the

circumstances, and being charged with heresy, it would be well to wait till the question ofdoctrine should be first disposed of.

Accordingly I returned to Hull, and told Mr. Dykes what I had done, and of the charge which hadbeen brought against me. He also had heard from the Archbishop on the subject. And on the

Tuesday after this, the 2nd of May, the four following questions on the subject of my sermonwere submitted to me by the Archbishop's chaplain, and answered by me in writing as follows. I

print them here without comment.

Q. 1.Do you really think that the several points in dispute between the members of theEstablished Church and the various denominations of Dissenters are "non-essentials," and not

worth contending for?

A. 1.To this I answer that I do not regard the several points in dispute between the members of

the Established Church and the various denominations of Dissenters as non-essentials. The

points of difference between Socinians, Quakers, &c., and the Church of England are not non-essentials. But when I speak in my sermon of the points in dispute among Christians, I distinctlylimit it to points in dispute between "those who are united in Christ;" (p. 17.) by which I mean

those who by faith are truly made members of His mystical body. Of these there are some inevery sect. I need hardly say, therefore, that I do not refer to the points in dispute between

Dissenters generally and the Church, but between those Dissenters who are really Christians, and


23/27

those Churchmen who are really Christians; and I hold that the several points of differencebetween these are not of such a nature as to justify disunion of heart.

Q. 2.Do you see no reason why we should not communicate with them, and they with us?

A. 2.I see no reason why we should not. I would lay stress on the word reason. There is muchauthority in the example of good men, which might perhaps influence me in some degree; but Icannot say that I see any reason for this. As far as I am concerned individually, I should be

willing to communicate with any true Christians who meet in the name and spirit of their Lord.

Q. 3.What is the meaning you would assign to your own expression, "Being born into Christ's

family"?

A. 3.By this expression I mean that which in Scripture is called "being born again," "beingborn of God," "being born of the Spirit;" in a word that new and spiritual life in which we

partake through union with Christ.

Q. 4.What importance do you attach to Episcopal Ordination as to the efficacy of theadministration of the Holy Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper?

A. 4.I believe that the sacraments are just as truly given and received at the hands of Christiansnot episcopally ordained, as at the hands of ministers of the Church of England; and that it is the

faith of the recipient, and not the succession of the minister, which makes them efficacious.

The Answers to the first three of the above Questions not being considered sufficiently explicit,the Archbishop's chaplain, Mr. Creyke, then added the following supplementary queries, which I

answered as follows:

Q. 1.As to the first question Iwould particularize belief of our Articles, obedience to theCanons, conformity to the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, use of the Liturgy, maintenance

of the three Orders of Ministers,

A. 1.I answer, my belief is that there are no points in dispute between those who are "united in

Christ," which are so essential as to justify disunion; not even episcopacy, or ceremonies, orrites; for love is before knowledge. Those whom Christ has received as sons of God, and made

one with Him, (and there are such in almost every sect,) those I must also receive as brothers andsisters in Christ. Of such Christians, wherever they are, and by whatever name they are called, I

would say what St. Peter said of those, whom some in his day wished to exclude,"God who

knoweth the hearts hath borne them witness, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, even as to us, andhath put no difference between them and us, purifying their hearts by faith; and we believe thatthrough the grace of the Lord Jesus, we shall be saved even as they."

Q. 2.On the second point, by "communicating with them,"Imeant rather the receiving the

Communion at their hands, and in their places of worship, and uniting in the service of theirmode of worship?


24/27

A. 2.With regard to this question I may say, that as far as I am concerned individually, I wouldbe willing to receive the Sacrament both with and from non-episcopally ordained Christians.

Q. 3.Upon the third point, I looked for some expression of the time and manner in which we

may be said to be "born into Christ's family," or, as you justly explain it, "being born again,"

"born of the Spirit," &c.

A. 3I answer, with regard to the time, it may be any time between our birth and our death that

the Lord chooses. With regard to the manner, it is various, but generally and usually by the Wordof God; as St. James says, (James 1:18,) "Of His own will begat He us by the Word of truth;"

and as St. Peter says, (1 Peter 1:23,) "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but ofincorruptible, by the Word of God."

For these answers I was suspended from my curacy; and thus by the hands of others was

unexpectedly assisted into the place of at least temporary cessation from ministry in the Churchof England, which under God I had determined to take, even had I not been suspended by theArchbishop. But the providential interference of others struck me very much. Since then I have

calmly reviewed again the grounds on which I feel the required subscription to be intolerable.And now after some months I publish these reasons in submission to the wish of those who ask

an explanation. Here are the facts of my suspension. Here are the grounds on which I cannothonestly make the subscription which is required of all clergymen. As to the suspension, it might

easily be met, for there are dioceses which I have reason to know would still be open to me. Butthe subscription I cannot make. I therefore must give up my place at the altar of the Church of

England; not because she contains error, but because she will not let me minister within her paleunless I assent to that error, and unless moreover I say of it, that "there is nothing in it contrary to

the Word of God." As a minister therefore I have no choice left me: either I must resign a postwhich requires these tests, or suffer the burden of a bad conscience. I choose a good conscience

at all cost; for if I neglect conscience, I may also perhaps of faith make shipwreck (1 Tim. 1:9).

Why, then, say some, should you minister at all? Let me ask, Do you not think that I am called tominister? I at least have strong convictions on this point. At my ordination when I professed

before the Church, that I believed I was inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon me theministration of the Word, (Note: See the Ordination Service.) I professed that to the truth of

which my inmost soul bore heartfelt testimony. I did feel, and still feel the same, that I had amessage committed to me for the Church and for the world, a message which was given me by

God; and I see nothing in the circumstances which have happened to me to cancel that call. Onthe contrary, I feel that what the Lord has shewn me of his will, and what He has so graciously

wrought on my behalf, only demands from me more diligence and devotedness in preaching anddeclaring His truth. But this I am necessarily shut out from as a layman in the Church ofEngland.

And here may I say one word as to a mode of answering me, which, by pretending to charity, has

been much more availing to blind the eyes of some to the true state of the case, than the reproachand misrepresentation I have above alluded to,I refer to the way in which some who cannot


25/27

answer my reasons, are pleased to speak of and to write to me as their "poor deluded brother,"their "infatuated brother." Now to this sympathy I have only this to say, that when these brethren

will be kind enough to exchange their pathetic lamentations over my "sad delusion," forscriptural and rational conclusions against the foregoing arguments;when, instead of pitying

me generally for my errors they will point out wherein lies the actual error of refusing to say of

the Prayer-book as a whole that "there is nothing in it contrary to the Word of God;"when theywill not only negatively shew the mistakes in my conclusions, but positively also the truecatholicity of the Church of England in proposing as terms of ministerial conformity such

declarations as are required by the XXXVIth Canon;when they will give up refuting what Ihave never advanced, and, instead of with goodnatured pity prejudging the whole question, come

to it openly and fairly on the ground of the Bible;then, I shall have greater reason to thankthem for their sincerity, whatever I may think of the wisdom of the attempt.

But this will hardly be the case. Affected pity is much easier. To call me an "erring brother," to

sigh over my "sad delusion," costs but little, and has this great advantage that not coming as anargument it escapes the answer which readily might be made, while the apparent charity wins

sympathy from all. In saying this I doubt not some may really think me in error. To such I say,point out by the standard of Scripture in what the error lies of refusing

Documents

The Way Which Some Call Heresy