Examination before admission to a benefice by the Bishop of Exeter : followed by refusal to institute, on the allegation of unsound doctrine respecting the efficacy of baptism

Introduction

The very serious matter to which this Volume relates, has already been placed before the public, in a general way. Attention was first called to it in the House of Commons, on the 3d of April in the present year, by a Question which was put to the Attorney-General, respecting the fact of the Bishop of Exeter having refused to institute me to a Vicarage, on the presentation of the Crown ;— but, both that Question, and the official Answer which it called forth, must have been obscm-e to all except a few private friends, to whom these extraordinary proceedings had been more freely communicated.

After such a public announcement of a fact calculated to alarm every member of the Chm-ch of England, it was clearly inexpedient for me to remain silent, any longer, on a subject involving public interests of a magnitude which cannot easily be exaggerated. Accordingly^ I could not hesitate to comply with the wishes of an old and dear friend in the ministry, that I would furnish him with a dispassionate account of an affair wliich, however it may terminate, must inevitably lead to results affecting in no small degree the prosperity of the Church. I did this, by a 2

IV

INTRODUCTION.

addressing to my friend a Letter,* on the 12th of April, 1848, with liberty to make it public. My fellow-Presbyters, and my fellow-countrymen, had a right to know from myself, generally, what had taken place ; and to have an assurance from me that they should, at my earliest convenience, be put in possession of more full details of transactions in which their civil and spiritual liberties were directly implicated. I now redeem my pledge, by laying before my readers the Correspondence and Documents relating to this matter : but I most especially invite their attention to the Examination Questions and Answers, as the material and most important part of this Volume.

I deem it expedient to give a brief preliminary naixative, for the purpose of rendering the course of events more easily intelligible.

In January, 1846, the Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst presented me (after thirty -five years' service as an unbeneficed clergyman) to the Vicarage of St. Just-in-Penwith, the most western parish (except one) in Cornwall, with a population of between 7,000 and 8,000 miners. When the Bishop of Exeter instituted me, he not only expressed his great satisfaction that the Chancellor had listened to his request, that he would not present a young or an inexperienced man, but he suggested and assisted me (No. I., p. 3) in an application to the Crown, that Her Majesty would condescend to nominate a District Minister, of my own choice, in the north of my Parish ; on the ground that similarity of views was of great importance for effectual ministerial co-operation. Sir Robert Peel at once acceded to my recommendation, so strengthened by the Bishop.

In a few months, however, the Bishop suddenly altered

• This Letter was subsequently printed in the " Christian Obser^-er " for May, 1848, No. 125, New Series, pp. 353—357.

INTRODUCTION.

V his tone. In the summer he rebuked me (No. II., p. 4) for having used the words,* " The National Establishment" (instead of "THE Church"), in a Circular for building a District Chapel. Soon after, he stated (p. 7) his " high disapprobation " that I had advertised for a Curate "free from Tractarian error ; " he hinted, in a manner not to be misunderstood, that I belonged to " a most dangerous set of men ; " and he plainly told me (p. 16) that he " no longer trusted me," and would narrowly watch any one who applied for my Curacy. This determination occasioned me much embarrassment. At length, however, I nominated a Curate, who had been long in Orders ; the Bishop summoned him for an Examination, " especially on Baptism, the foundation of all " Christian doctrine, and intimated to him, that his acceptance of a Cui-acy from me, was unfavourable to him : he was, however, ultimately licensed.

This matter gave rise to a letter from myself (No. X., p. 9) ; in which (while I did not controvert the Bishop's title to examine a Curate, even though in Priest's Orders)

* I have given several examples, below (p. 21, note §), of the use of this phi-aseology, without suspicion, by Churchmen whose orthodoxy the Bishop of Exeter will not question. But, when I wrote that note, it had not occurred to me that the Bishop himself, before his advancement to the Episcopate, had used similar terms without scruple. In 1827, Dr. Phillpotts thus wrote, in his celebrated Letter to the Right Hon. G. Canning : — ■" Most of the Iloman Catholics of Ireland do look to the destruction of the Pkotestant Establishment, and the exaltation of their own Church." (Page 154.) Again: the Iloman Catholic Bishop, Dr. Doyle, having observed, that " the Church Establishment must fall, sooner or later," Dr. Phillpotts rejoins, that this is, "in other words, putting down the Protestant Establishment." (Page 56.) Thus, in 1827, Dr. Phillpotts selected a mode of expression identical in character with that which he 7iow so severely condemns ; while he left with his Roman Catholic opponent the very term which he now considers as the only phraseology becoming a true Churchman.

vi

INTRODUCTION.

I remonstrated with his Lordship on his "assumed power," to require a declaration of conformity to his " private Test " of doctrine, in addition to subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles as the recognized " Standard " of the Church. The Bishop was offended. In his reply, [No. XII., p. 15,] he repeated his distrust of me ; charged me with a violation of my Ordination Vows ; and misrepresented * me as denying his right to examine a Curate agreeably to the provisions of Canon XLVIIL I replied to these severe reproaches in a long letter [No. XIII., p. 18], on the 28th of January, 1847. To that letter (to which the Bishop never gave any reply) I earnestly request my reader's particular attention, as containing my sentiments, deliberately weighed, firmly declared, and, I trust, becomingly expressed : it is, in fact, the document upon which liinge the extraordinary proceedings which commenced seven months after.

In August, 1847, the present Lord Chancellor, having understood that I wished to exchange my Vicarage of St. Just, (which, besides being inconveniently remote from my connexions, devolved upon me too heavy a charge,) signified his willingness to present me to the Vicarage of

* The Bishop has repeated this charge, for the fourth time, in his Letter to his Clergy, dated the 26th of April, 1848 (inserted in the " Guardian" newspaper) ; where he has not thought it unbecoming to say, that I am " a person who indulges in a peculiar license of language." His Lordship has attempted to sustain the truth of his accusation, by citing a very short sentence (see below, p. 11, lines 18, 19, 21,) from my letter; though he had under his eye long paragraphs (pp. 10, 11, 12,) preceding and succeeding that sentence, irhich expressly guard against such a possible misrepresentation, — and a passage (see p. 27, sect. IIL) tchich distinctly declares that I had "not" made the assertion imputed to me! My readers have now those letters before them in extenso : they will decide whether, as the Bishop affirms, I denied his right to " examine ;" or whether, as I maintain, I only denied his " assumed power" to set up " a private Standard of doctrine."

INTRODUCTION.

vii

Brampford Speke, near Exeter, a small agricultural parish, ■with a population of only 400, the income being 300/. a-year less than that of St. Just. The Bishop took the opportunity, when countersigning my Testimonials for the Lord Chancellor, to inscribe on that Paper an injurious attack on my ministerial character. I remonstrated ; — in vain. Very inconvenient delay vras thus occasioned : but on my explaining the matter fully to my Patron, he was satisfied, and issued his Fiat for the Presentation. Thereupon, on the 8th of last November, I requested Institution from the Bishop ; but, as an appointment on that or the following day was not convenient to him, I postponed my Admission, with his concurrence, till I should have removed my family from Cornwall; I adopted this plan without hesitation, since he had not given me the remotest hint of his real intentions. But, (my suspicions having been awakened by more than one person, more conversant than myself with the Bishop's proceedings,) I judged it prudent to make an application to him on the subject ; in answer to which I received, two days after my arrival at my distant home, an intimation from his Secretary [No. XXIV.] that the Bishop would not institute me until he had "Examined" me, to satisfy himself "whether I was sound in doctrine." I instantly returned into Devonshire, and I earnestly entreated that the Examination might take place without delay. The Bishop declined to examine, being about to proceed to Parliament. I offered to follow his Lordship to town ; the proposal was absolutely refused.* I then

* In his Cii-cular Letter, April 26th, his Lordship points out this statement as an index of my want of "candour;" and quotes a complimentary expression in my own note (No. XXXI., p. 56), as an absolute admission, on my part, that his Lordship could not avoid this vexatious postponement. I refer the reader to that note, and to via

INTKODUCTION.

stated my determination to wait in the neighbourhood of Bishopstowe till he should return, and appoint a day for that purpose ; and I did wait, at Torquay, for a whole month longer, namely, till the 17th of December, on which day he summoned me for Examination.

The mode of conducting this Examination was as follows.—On the first day, Friday, December 17th, Questions I. to IV. were, successively, proposed to me in a written form ; I was allowed to prepare my written Answers, in an adjoining room; and I brought a copy of each to the Bishop as it was completed. Questions (V., VI., VII.), which I treated in combination, were proposed to me, also, in a written form ; the combined Answers (5, 6, 7), were given in a similar manner, but were not finished * till the next morning, when I resumed the preparation of them at Bishopstowe. On the second, and remaining days, (December 18th, 20th, 21st, 22d), a diflferent plan was followed. The Examination took place in the Bishop's study, in the presence of himself, and of his Chaplain. The Bishop read each question (from No. VIII. inclusive),

the Bishop's to ^vhich it was a reply, in proof that I merely re-echoed with courtesy his own declaration; not deeming it reverential to dispute, at that moment, the afhi-mcd impracfU-uhiUt,/ of his Lordship examining me in London. That I really considered the refusal as indefensible, is manifest from my instant decision not to leave Devonshire till his Lordship should have granted me an inter\-ie\v.

* The Bishop incorrectly states (Letter to his Clergv) that I asked permission to take, and did take, Questions V., \1I.,'to my lodgings, that I mi;iM prepare my Ansiccrs there. I was anxiously engaged "in' replymg to them, at Bishopstowe, till half-past six in the evening, when his Lordship permitted me to close the day's work. I then took my Answers (not fully com])k.ted) to my dwelling, m order to have a dupheate transcrihed by another hand : but I was too fatigued, had I been inclined, to continue the preparation of my Answers, which I reserved till my return to Bishopstowe the next mornin<r.

INTRODUCTION,

IX wliich I transferred to my Note-Book : T prepared each Answer, by a pencil memorandum before delivering it orally. The Chaplain then recorded it from my dictation, and read it aloud for my final assent.

The series of Answers was perplexingly interrupted, in the early part of the Examination. The combined Answers (5, 6, 7), forming as they do a platform for the subsequent argument, occupied, as may be well imagined, a considerable time — the latter part of Friday, December 17, and the early part of Saturday, December 18. The .Bishop was impatient to controvert my earliest Answers, 1, 2, 3, 4 ; — he, therefore, proposed the Questions VIII. to XIII., and received from me the Answers 8 to 12, while I was still anxiously engaged in framing my Answer (5, 6, 7,) as a combined reply to the three similar and corresponding Questions. On Qviestion XIII. being proposed, I requested that I might reserve my Answer 13, and that I might not be interrupted in my train of thought on the previously-proposed but unanswered Questions. From that point, the continuity of the series of Answers was uninterrupted.

The Examination was most searching, subtle, and severe ; and it very soon assumed the character of a theological Disputation, in which I was required (not merely to state my views, but) to HKiintain vii) propositions, while the Bishop was my perpetual Opponent. The first part of it, comprehending LXXVI. Questions, was continued during five successive days, (Sunday intervening,) for eight hours, eleven and a-half hours, (to within a quarter of an hour of Sunday morning — ) seven and a-half hours, five hours, and six hours ; in all, thirty-eight hours, during a period of considerable ill-health, which on the first day of my attendance had been certified to the Bishop by my physician, who stated in vrriting that I was

X

INTRODUCTION.

in too weak a condition to resume my parochial duties. I repeatedly expostulated on its unreasonable protraction ; and especially on the unjust motive assigned by his Lordship, at the conclusion of the third day, for its continuance ; viz., his impression that I intended to lay it before the world, and my silence when questioned on that assumed intention. On being summoned for the sixth day, I suspended the Examination, that I might seek advice or redress. It was virtually, however, continued for six days longer at my lodging ; the Bishop having sent me a Volume, for comparison with many additional Questions ; and having intimated that still more would follow.

Wearied with fruitless endeavours to induce the Bishop to desist from such an extraordinary and unreasonable course, I thought it necessary to leave Torquay, and to proceed to London for advice, on the 10th of January of this year. On the 10th of February, being then in London, I renewed my application for Institution. On the 14th, his Lordship required a resumed Examination. To this demand, acting under legal advice, I acceded, though under Protest. His Lordship postponed it, at first by reason of the demands on his time in London ; and, on his return into Devonshire on the 25th, by an intimation that he had a charge to prefer against me which must be previously inquired into, and that he had felt it his dut}' to direct that a Commission should issue under 3 and 4 Vict. cap. 86. The notice of this Commission * was

* Of this Commission I shall say as little as possible ; as I do not ■wish the reader's attention to be diverted from the far more important matter to which this volume calls public attention. No one can fail to observe how seasonably this Notice was timed, for my possible embarrassment in the greater Question. The charges, which related to Rubrical inexactitude, were finally reduced to the allegation of one specific instance ; namely, the omission of the Lord's Prayer and preceding

INTRODUCTION.

XI signed by the Bishop on the 28th of February. This being the first intimation of such a complaint, — I protested against the Commission being interposed between the two parts of my Examination. The Bishop then agreed to resume the Examination, which took place on the 8th, 9th, and 10th of March, and lasted fourteen hours. It was brought to a conclusion only by my ultimately giving my Answers (with a few exceptions) in the words prescribed by the Act of Uniformity, 14 Car. IT. cap. 34, and by the 36th Canon, — the former requiring " consent " to the Book of Common Prayer, — the latter exacting subscription to " the use" of that Book as containing "nothing contrary to the "Word of God," and to the XXXIX. Articles as " agreeable to the "Word of God."

This extraordinary Examination occupied, therefore, in the whole, fifty-two hours, during eight days, besides six days of full employment at my lodgings in Torquay. In the course of it, 149 Questions were proposed to me, on the single subject of Baptismal Efficacy. I shall make a few remarks, below, on the character of this Examination. It will be sufficient, here, to state the result. On the 11th of March, his Lordship signified his decision to

versicles, in the Churching of a woman, nearly two years ago, in July, 1846. I proved an alihi on the Sunday on which that Churching actually took place, the 19th of July ; and also on the preceding and succeeding Sundays, the 12th and 26th; leaving the witness (—the husband of the party Churched — ) no possibility of escape from the disgrace of having made a doubly false deposition, since he maintained that the Service was performed on the 26th, and that I myself officiated. After the Commissioners had (though not unanimously) reported on the 2d of May a prima facie case, the Bishop decided, on the 6th, not to proceed further. The case affords a lamentable (and yet valuable) instance of the practical oppression of which the Cliuich Discipline Act may be made the instrument. Should it help to bring about a revision of that law, I shall not regret the inconvenience and expense which I sustained.

Xll

INTRODUCTION.

refuse me Institution; and, on the 21st of March, sent THE Patron and myself formal notices of that

REFUSAL on THE ALLEGATION OF MY "UNSOUNDNESS

IN doctrine:" — notwithstanding my solemnly declared adoption of the doctrines of the Church, as deliberately set forth in her XXXIX. Articles ; and in the face of my repeated compliances, and readiness for the eleventh time to comply, with all the requirements of the Canons of 1603-4 and the Act of Uniformity of 1662.

Such is the extraordinary and alarming FACT. Let it be most seriously considered whether I give it too great prominence when I state it as a fact which involves a VITAL question in the government of the Church of England.

While I earnestly entreat the attention of my readers to the Correspondence and Documents now laid before them, in connexion with this matter, I beg clearly to state that it is by no means my leading object to claim public sympathy for the private wrong which I have suffered. I forbear, therefore, to dwell on my personal trials, on my family troubles, or on the indignity to which I am subjected as a Clergyman advanced in life, who graduated in no obscure rank thirty-nine years since. My sense of personal injury is far less keen than is my conviction, that the proceedings, of which I complain, involve the liberties of the whole body of the Clergy and the Laity ; —

" Nam tua res agitur paries cum proximus ai-det." Every Clergyman, who duly reflects upon these transactions, must perceive that his own comfort and his own privileges are in imminent peril, — whatever be his sentiments on the point of doctrine discussed in this Examination, — if the arbitrary decision of an individual Bishop is to be put in the place of the accredited determinations of the Church.

INTRODUCTION.

Xlll

I am anxious, therefore, that the transactions contained in this Volume should be considered in their true character ; as comprehending A matter of the deepest PUBLIC INTEREST, involving the rights of Patrons ( especially of the Crown ), the privileges of the Clergy, and the welfare of our Protestant Church.

With a view of impressing the Church at large with a sense of the immense importance of the matters to which these proceedings call their attention, I will add a few observations on the subject. ,

I

The general right of Episcopal Examination of a Clerk, previously to Institution to a Benefice, is maintained by the Bishop (p. 146), " on the notorious law of the Church in all ages, and especially on the statute Articuli Cleri" a.d. 1315. (See App. A.) By that Statute, or Order in Council, it was declared, that " if the Bishop refuse to admit " a Clerk presented to a Benefice by the Crown, " an Examination of his fitness " shall not be made by "lay persons," but by "an Ecclesiastical Judge," to whom he must repair "for a remedy." The Statute does not confer any power to examine on the Bishop ; it simply sets forth the nature of the Court by which an Examination must be made of the fitness of the person whom the Bishop has rejected. Moreover, as Lord Coke * has observed upon this Statute, the decision of the Bishop "concludes not the plaintiff."

But, however undefined might be the power of Exa-

* Coke's Instit. part ii. 631 ; where may be seen some valuable observations on the remedy which the laws of England afford, in cases of unjust refusal to institute to a Benefice. — See some curious matter on the claim of Bishops to exercise a Veto on Admissions, in p. 182, note Xt to which I particularly invite attention.

XIV

INTRODUCTION.

mination possessed by a Bishop, or by a superior authority on appeal from a Bishop, in early and mediaeval ages, the legitimate subject of investigation now is, — what is the extent of that power, as defined by the law or practice of the Church since the Reformation.

At that period a Standard of sound doctrine was established, for the very purpose of controlling arbitrary decisions on doctrinal fitness. The Church and her Supreme Governor in 1562, and Parliament in 1571, declared, with a distinct and united voice, that the Thirty-nine Articles were framed " for the avoiding of diversities of opinions," * "for the establishing of consent concerning true religion," * and for " the confession of the true Christian Faith, and the doctrine of the Sacraments " \ to which " every Priest or Minister of God's Holy Word," should, "in the presence of the Bishop of some one Diocese where he hath, or sliall have. Ecclesiastical Living, declare his assent and subscribe." f Contemporaneous Canons, put forth with the sanction of the Royal Authority in 1571, decree, that all licensed preachers shall " subscribe " to those Articles, and " defend that doctrine which is contained in them." % In the Canons of 1575, of 1585, and of 1597, the following regulation was made with regard to the Episcopal Examination of a person applying for Institution ; that he " shall then be able to render to the Bishop an account of his faith in Latin, agreeable and consonant to the Articles, and shall first subscribe to the said Articles." §

This direction, for an Examination on the Articles, which was necessary in the earlier period of the Reforma-

* Title of the Articles.

t Stat. 13 Eliz. cap. 12, sec. 1.

X Card well's S)Tiodalia, vol. i. p. 112.

INTRODUCTION,

XV tion, by reason of the notorious ignorance of many of the Romish Priests who had conformed,) was discontinued in the Canons of 1603-4, in the case of Ministers applying for Institution. A better educated race of Clergymen had sprung up, by the improvement of the Public Schools and of the Universities. It was, therefore, now judged inexpedient to subject the beneficed Clerk to the same ordeal as the candidate for Ordination, and the Bishop was only required (Canon XXXIX.) to ascertain " on due examination" that he is ''worthy of his ministry." A further relaxation of the practice of more ancient times, is distinctly recognised in Canon XCVI., in which the Convocation thus declares its mind: "Albeit, by former Constitutions of the Church of England, every Bishop hath had two montlis space to inquire and inform himself of the sufficiency and qualities of every Minister, after he has been presented unto him to be instituted into any Benefice ,- yet, for the avoiding of some inconveniences, we do now abridge and reduce the said two months unto eight and twenty days only." Thus mildly and %visely, as regards this matter, did the Canons, which constitute the existing law of the Church, suggest (if they do not absolutely limit and define) the character and extent of the Examination of beneficed Clergymen. Should the Diocesan think it proper to examine at all, he is to bear in mind what is "due" to his Presbyter: he is not at liberty to indulge a love of controversy and disputation, nor to make that minute inquiry in the case of a well-reputed and experienced scholar, which may be justifiable when applied to a totally unknown, and therefore possibly illiterate person. He is not, for reasons however plausible, to extend the inquiry to an indefinite period; harassing, perplexing, or ruinous to the Presentee. The mild intentions of these two Canons, and the practical

XVI

INTRODUCTION.

wisdom of the Church of England in the administration of her laws, in this respect, are both well illustrated by the desuetude into which an Examination on Institution has fallen. The frequent exercise of that discretionary power, would manifestly give opportunities for oppression, by the indulgence of party feeling, of religious prejudice, or of personal animosity : it has been, therefore, so rare an occurrence to examine a Presentee, and so extravagant to do so when the Clergyman is already beneficed, that, in by-gone times, no instances can be adduced except in cases of notorious immorality, incompetency, or heresy.

Nevertheless, after the lapse of two centuries and a-half from the early part of the reign of King James I., the Bishop of Exeter has thought fit to revive that power. In my own case, no fewer than 149 Questions,* of a subtle character, were proposed to me ; on a doctrine on which the most eminent Prelates and distinguished Clergymen take difiereiit views. The limitation of twenty-eight days from exhibiting the Presentation, prescribed by the Canon, was disregarded : the Examination was not

* The Bishop has stated emphaticall)- (Letter to his Clergy, April 24th, in Answer to my Circular, April 12th), that he had no intention to propose more than Jive [corresponding to my numeration of the first «e('en] Questions, provided that I had answered them categorically. His Lordship's memory is inaccurate. I have mentioned above, page ix., that thirteen Questions were proposed to me, ai.d that No. L to No. IV. and also No. VIII. to No. XII. were answered by me hcfore I had even finished the preparation of the Answers 5, 6, 7,) and of course before those Answers were seen by the Bishop. And yet his Lordship intimates that the elaborate and argumentative character of that comhined Answer (5, 6, 7), compelled him to proceed ! I have judged it necessary to mention these details, in proof that it was NOT especially my " combined Answers," (as the Bishop alleges.) which occasioned a prolongation of the Examination ; but that there was an animus for disputation, on his part, from the very commencement. "That Answer," (5, 6, 7,) so distinctly and honestly declared my views, that the Examination might well have closed with it.

INTRODUCTION.

xvii commenced till the 39th day, — it was continued to the 45th, — it was resumed on the 121st, — and it was concluded on the 123d!

Such an innovation on the discipline of our Church, by the Examination of Clergymen, however long they may have been in orders, or whatever may be their reputation, without any offence being specially charged, or any particular heresy alleged, — is not only a proceeding dangerous to the liberties, and destructive of the comfort of the Clergy, but is also an invasion of the rights of Patrons. The endeavour to extract, if possible, by a long Inquisition, and a subtle Disputation, some expressions by which the Bishop may seem to be justified in his refusal to admit to a Benefice, will, unless opposed, become an Episcopal Veto on all the patronage in the kingdom.

II

The second point to which I think it most important that public attention should be directed, is, — the principle on which the Bishop of Exeter assumes the power to conduct his Examinations ; I mean, his requirement of submission to his own private test of sound doctrine, in the place of subscription to the accredited Standard of the Church, her XXXIX. Articles, as " agreeable to the Word of God," and a declaration of assent to the use of the Book of Common Prayer, as *' containing nothing contrary to " that Word.

The mode by which the Bishop examines into the doctrinal views of any Clergyman whose sentiments he suspects, is to propose certain Questions, generally four or five, on the single subject of Baptismal Efficacy, — (his Lordship's mono-dogmatical test,) and to demand " categorical" Answers, with little or no liberty of explanation. 6

XVIU

INTRODUCTION.

His Lordship has affirmed, indeed, that he does not propose any doctrine stated in his own words; that " the Questions " (I. to VII. of my numeration) " were taken from the Catechism, and from the Offices of Baptism."* Had they been so extracted, with exactness, and with completeness of signification, I could have had no scruple to return a categorical " Answer, in the precise words prescribed by the Act of Uniformity, or of Canon XXXVI. : a mode of response wliich would have virtually reduced the Examination to the usual form of Declaration of consent to the Liturgy. But, in truth, his Lordship's affirmation, that his Questions are " taken from" the Formularies, requires considerable qualification. For instance, in Question V., the declaration in the Catechism, — " wherein I was made a member of Christ," is proposed with the very important variation, — " wherein I was made by God a member of Christ." That the Bishop did not insert those words as unimportant to the establishment of his private view of the doctrine of Baptism, is demonstrated by his own admission in Question LX. ; where he insists on those very words as giving to his proposition in tvhich they occur, a sense perfectly distinct from that which they might bear in a proposition in which they are omitted. Other connecting words will be noticed by every discriminating jjerson. I adduce only one other instance. In Question XIII. ( — which is a second version of Question V., and which I was requested to answer before I had given my Answer 5, — ) the italic words, " receive the benefit of Baptism," are obtruded upon the Catechism ; which simply states, what is the inward and spiritual grace, without declaring that that benefit is actually received by every baptized person.