to a whole, and must be thrown into a common stock, and all are available to the defence of any." And, as a full illustration of the consistency with which he carries out his principle, we need only refer to former pages of his treatise, such as 11, 29, where he holds himself bound to maintain the equal authority of the Athanasian creed and that of Pius IV., inasmuch as the latter rests upon just as good evidence as the former. Or, in the enumeration of the doctrines which he regards as one whole, of which no single doctrine can be received without acknowledging them all—viz., the incarnation of Christ, the mediation, the atonement, the mass, the merits of martyrs and saints, the invocation and cultus of them: the centre of ecclesiastical unity in the holy see, the authority of councils, the sanctity of rites, the veneration of holy places, shrines, images, vessels, furniture, and vestments; penance, purgatory, indulgences; the real or material presence in the eucharist, adoration of the Host, the virtue of relics, original sin, and the merit of celibacy :-"Those who will not view the beginning in the light of the result are equally unwilling to let the whole elucidate the parts. The Catholic doctrines are members of one family; and suggestive or correlative, or confirmative or illustrative, of each other: in other words, one furnishes evidence to another, and all to each of them" (154).

Since becoming a Romanist, however, Mr. Newman would forbid enquiry altogether:-" When a “When a man has become a Catholic, were he to set about following out a doubt which has occurred to him, he has already disbelieved. I have not to warn him against losing his faith: he has lost it-from the nature of the case he has already lost it: he fell from grace at the moment when he deliberately resolved to pursue his doubt. No one can determine to doubt what he is sure of; but, if he is not aware that the Church is from God, he does 'not believe it." As writing on the supremacy of faith he had said "This principle, when brought out into words, is as follows that belief is in itself better than unbelief; that it is safer to believe; that we must begin with believing and that conviction will follow; that, as for the reasons for believing, they are for the most part implicit, and but slightly recognised by the mind that is under their influence; that they consist, moreover, rather of presumptions and guesses, ventures after the truth, than of accurate proofs; and that probable arguments are sufficient for conclusions, which we even embrace as most certain and turn to most important uses. On the other hand, it has always been the heretical principle

to prefer reason to faith, and to hold that things must be considered true only so far as they are proved" (328),

In the Bishop of Exeter's "Letter" we perceive too near an approach to the edge of that precipice down which Mr. Newman has fallen; as when in pressing "CATHOLIC TRUTHS upon his clergy it is said:

"In order that you may discharge this your prime duty faithfully, it is necessary that you note well the spirit of the times, and guard your precious deposit with especial vigilance on that side from which the danger is most imminent: in other words, in this our generation, from ultra-Protestantism-a system which in its full grown strength is far more pernicious than Romanism itself; for Romanism, while it corrupts and mars the truth by accretions of error more or less destructive according to the varying conditions of the hearts on which they fall, does yet retain the whole body of faith itself, which the other (accompanied though it often be by much of piety) maims and truncates at the bidding of man's wisdom, squaring the revelations of God to its own presumptuous measure of what is reasonable, good, and edifying" (41).

Two points are to be considered here-has Rome retained "the whole body of faith" itself?-and does the Protestantism spoken of square the "revelations of God" to its own liking? And, in discussing the first point, we necessarily enquire what the bishop means by the whole body of the faith: in discussing the second, we must enquire what is meant by the revelations of God?

We had supposed it to be conceded on all hands, by every one who is not a professed Romanist, that there is scarcely one of the Roman errors which is not a denial of some fundamental article of the Christian faith. The worship of images is so notorious a breach of the second commandment that before the Reformation that commandment was struck out of the decalogue; and to the present day it is merged in the first in all Roman Catholic books, the tenth being divided into two. The looking to the intercession of saints makes void the mediation of Christ, as works of supererogation make void the one sacrifice for sin, Human traditions, in a word, have made yoid the whole body of faith in the Roman Church more fatally even than the Pharisees had made void the law of Moses by their traditions.

But we see in this charge sufficient cause to moderate our supposition, and to feel that we were too sanguine in our expectation; for, touching "the mediation of the saints," the Bishop of Exeter says:

I must frankly own that I see nothing whatever in any degree

objectionable in setting forth such an opinion: as an opinion, we must beware of even seeming to condemn a statement which recognises the dead as still exercising the communion of saints-as still interceding with God for the members of his Church militant upon earth" (52).

But whether such a person is qualified to express an opinion on the body of faith" is another question; and in enquiring what is meant by the revelations of God, we are in like manner "taken aback" by a paragraph which we find in this episcopal charge:

"Now, of the pure word of God the eighth article tells you where it is to be found, even in the three creeds, which ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture. The articles of these creeds, therefore, are to be preached by us, if we are faithful ministers of the Gospel, in their purity and integrity and as the word of God-as articles of the Christian faith-which, except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved" (67).

To talk of formularies of faith, which are capable of being proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture, as becoming thereby the pure word of God, evinces such want of precision both in thought and expression as leads us to question the right which such a person has to be listened to on any subjects that so greatly require accuracy of both kinds as the great doctrines of the Gospel. If a man confound things so palpably distinct as a statement of truth and the proof of that statement a statement avowedly of human composition, with holy Scripture which is confessedly divine, and call both alike the pure word of God-how can we expect clear ideas or correct definitions in the more difficult questions of doctrine?

It is necessary to note this, for it is not a casual oversight, but a deliberate assertion; and on this paltry equivocation an argument is grounded, intended to impugn the decision of the Privy Council in the Gorham case. If the argument were legitimate, and did really show that the decision was not in accordance with primitive doctrine, it would be irrelevant; for the judges in that case disclaimed repeatedly and expressly all intention of pronouncing any judgment whatever on the doctrine, conceiving that their functions were limited to the question of what had been the law and the practice of the Church of England since the Reformation; and, even if the doctrine of baptismal regeneration had come within their scope, the article in the creed referred to has nothing whateyer to do with the question.

The judges, technically speaking, had no case brought before them. The bishop neither made them acquainted with his own doctrine, nor with the doctrines held by Mr. Gorham and objected to by him as heretical. The judges had to infer these from the questions and answers in the very lengthy and rambling examination to which the latter had been subjected. The judges very naturally complain of the burdensome and most invidious office thrown upon them by the bishop; and now he reviles them for not having done to his satisfaction a duty which properly belonged to himself. They did the best they could with a case thus bunglingly and inadequately tossed down before them, and strove to find wherein lay the point of difference between the Bishop and Mr. Gorham, in order to ascertain whether the opinions held by the latter were such as the Church of England had declared to be heretical, and would therefore justify the bishop in refusing to admit a person holding such opinions to minister therein:

"These (say they) being, as we collect them, the opinions of Mr. Gorham, the question which we have to decide is, not whether they are theologically sound or unsound-not whether upon some of the doctrines comprised in the opinions other opinions opposite to them may or may not be held with equal or even greater reason by other learned and pious ministers of the Church-but whether these opinions now under consideration are contrary or repugnant to the doctrines which the Church of England, by its articles, formularies, and rubrics, requires to be held by its ministers; so that upon the ground of those opinions the appellant can lawfully be excluded from the benefice to which he has been presented........And it must be carefully borne in mind that the question, and the only question, for us to decide is, whether Mr. Gorham's doctrine is contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England as by law established. Mr. Gorham's doctrine may be contrary to the opinion entertained by many learned and pious persons-contrary to the opinions which some persons have, by their own particular studies, deduced from holy Scripture-contrary to the opinion which they have deduced from the usages and doctrines of the primitive Church-or contrary to the opinion which they have deduced from uncertain and ambiguous expressions in the formularies: still, if the doctrine of Mr. Gorham is not contrary or repugnant to the doctrine of the Church of England as by law established, it cannot afford a legal ground for refusing him institution to the living to which he has been lawfully presented."

Thus careful has the Privy Council been in explaining the nature of that invidious duty which was laid so unnecessarily upon them, and in showing that the judgment they were pronouncing was no intrusion of themselves into matters which belong properly to ecclesiastics and theologians; but

that they were limiting themselves to the legal bearings of the case-on which we venture to affirm that laymen are always more competent to form a correct opinion than ecclesiastics as being less shackled by contracted habits and class prejudices; and, in the case before us, they were laymen who had devoted their whole lives to the study of the law and stood at the very head of that honourable profession, and were, therefore, of all men in the kingdom, best qualified to form a correct judgment on a strictly legal question. And we assert that those who speak disparagingly of this judgment, be- ❤ cause it was pronounced by laymen, are either ignorant of the question, and the only question, which these judges undertook to decide, and so unconsciously slander them; or if, having read the judgment, they still persevere in disparaging it on that account, they must be held guilty of deliberate falsehood.

But now, dismissing altogether the judgment of the Privy Council as not properly before us, because they studiously avoided entering upon the question of doctrine, let us enquire what it is that the Bishop of Exeter means by the Catholic doctrine which he so vauntingly affects to promulgate, and into accommodation with which, as a higher standard of truth, he would force the doctrines of the Church of England: and first of the doctrine of baptism.

It is not the doctrine of one baptism that is in question, nor yet the doctrine of regeneration, as a doctrine; but how regeneration is connected with baptism? The Bishop of Exeter maintains that regeneration invariably accompanies the for. mal administration of the sacrament of baptism, and grounds his assertion on the article of the Nicene creed-"I acknow→ ledge one baptism for the remission of sins." And, to give greater force to his appeal, the bishop further maintains that the creeds are to be received "as the pure word of God." This last assertion is a simple absurdity, and we will not insult the common sense of our readers by supposing it worth a refutation. But it is necessary to bear in mind the purpose for which this article was inserted in the creed; for it was not contained in the Nicene, as it originally stood, but was introduced by the Council of Constantinople, A.D. 380; and that, not in order to define the nature of baptism, but to prevent its repetition.

Mr. Gorham would hold as strenuously as the bishop that there is but one baptism, and that on no account ought baptism to be repeated; and he would also grant, we presume, that, wherever baptism is rightly administered, it is for the