^Tfc c c<:<«^ 
 
 c <:i-. 
 
 ^^^.. 
 
 
 
 ^'f 
 
 
 
 ■«:_c<^*i' «^<?t 
 
 ' I' (tec 
 <(- t<ij( 
 
 <' CCCC 
 
 < f< c<fc« 
 <'< CCCC 
 
 firt <<< 
 
 <■< curt. 
 f CC43C ■■ ^ 
 C CCCC < 
 -< < < <c< 
 
 <ccccc c 
 
 
 *£ -^C <i c<<( ,«5 
 
 A«fS' 
 
A FIRST LETTER 
 
 ON THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE 
 HIGH CHURCH PARTY IN THE 
 
 BY THE REV. WILLIAM MASKELL, 
 
 VICAR OF S. MARY CHURCH. 
 
 THE ROYAL SUPREMACY, AND THE AUTHORITY 
 OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF 
 THE PRIVY COUNCIL. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 WILLIAM PICKERING. 
 
 1850. 
 
v./ 
 
February ^thy 1850. 
 
 My dear friend, 
 
 I AM about to write to you, in one or more letters, 
 on a subject most important, whether we consider 
 its intimate relation to ourselves, or its bearing upon 
 the practice, and duties, and future life of those with 
 whom we are connected. I mean, the present posi- 
 tion of (what is commonly termed) the High-church 
 party in the church of England. 
 
 From the date of this you will observe, that I am 
 writino- before the decision of the Judicial Committee 
 of the Privy Council has been pronounced in the case 
 of Mr. Gorham against the bishop of Exeter. And 
 so far as this first letter is concerned, I shall not care 
 to suppose what the decision will be : whether in 
 favour of Mr. Gorham ; or, in favour of the bishop : 
 that is, as distinctly, as firmly, and as unequivocally 
 as was the judgment in the Court below, by Sir 
 Herbert Jenner Fust. 
 
 These letters are intended to be as short as may 
 be : both because many will read pamphlets who will 
 not read a book, and because (it is hoped) a few 
 pages will be quite sufficient for my purpose : which 
 is not so much to argue, as to state some difficul- 
 ties and leave them for your consideration. 
 
 It may be objected that to write in this way, at 
 such a time, is sure to unsettle the minds of others : 
 
whereas, on the contrary, the duty of a person in 
 my position and office, as a minister of the church 
 of England, is to keep all, so far as one may, in 
 quiet submission and obedience to old rules, and 
 practices, and faith. But, in days like our own, it 
 is hard to determine what is right in all cases. They 
 are days of doubt and peculiar trial, unlike any 
 which our fathers have known for several genera- 
 tions : and we must not lay down principles, applica- 
 ble enough under common circumstances, by which 
 men are now to be judged. 
 
 The hearts of thousands are being moved and 
 stirred in a very deep and mysterious way ; not by 
 any one or two great occurrences, so much as by 
 the distant sounds of an unwonted voice, speaking 
 with a power which we almost fear to recognize, 
 and leading us, amidst the gloom of present trou- 
 bles and anxiety, to the hope of a calmer and a 
 better future. We must be prepared to meet with 
 reproach, and misunderstanding, and contempt. 
 Some, who have been old friends, will turn away, 
 in bitterness and anger, as if they had been deserted 
 and betrayed : others, not willing to be disturbed, 
 will condemn the attempt even at the enquiry which 
 I propose to bring before you : others, again, will 
 look on us with a careless wonder, unable to discover 
 any reasonable cause for making such an enquiry 
 at all. 
 
 And I would further add this only, truly and 
 solemnly: that no words can tell the pain with 
 which very much of the following pages must be 
 written. If they shall seem to be cold and (some 
 may say) disloyal and unfeeling in their tone, it will 
 
be because I would endeavour to write as dispas- 
 sionately as I can. 
 
 You know that whilst the case of Mr. Gorham 
 was before the court of Arches, I abstained from 
 any publication on the subject. Far be it from mc 
 to find fault with those upon either side who may 
 have acted differently in this respect ; but I was 
 peculiarly situated. For other persons, it is not 
 easy to say why it was not a proper and natural 
 course publicly to declare and to argue the truth of 
 their particular opinions, during the time that the 
 case was being also argued. But when the argu- 
 ments of counsel were concluded, it appeared to be 
 a somewhat unseemly thing to interfere with the 
 deliberations of the judge and to attempt to in- 
 fluence his decision. An unseemliness which w^ould 
 be undoubtedly increased, according to the probable 
 or anticipated weight, — whether real or fictitious, 
 whether personal or from the accident of position, 
 — of such an interference; it would be increased 
 also in proportion to the deficiency of learning, 
 and facts, and argument, by which, if ventured 
 upon, it ought to have been supported ; an un- 
 seemliness, again, which could be exceeded only 
 by the indecency — if we can suppose it — of per- 
 sons sitting, officially, as hearers of a cause, upon 
 which beforehand they had in some formal way 
 declared their opinions, and, so far, taken their side 
 as partizans. 
 
 I shall avoid, therefore, of course in this letter, all 
 that might seem to bear upon the merits of the parti- 
 cular matter still before the court. 
 
 In now entering on the question of our present 
 
6 
 
 position, my wish is, first, to bring before you two 
 facts, as being chiefly important in their relation to 
 our immediate duties. And, secondly, I would sug- 
 gest some further matter for your consideration. The 
 two facts of which I am about to speak are, one, 
 the royal supremacy ; and, the other, the want of 
 necessary dogmatic teaching in the reformed church 
 of England. 
 
 It has been repeatedly said, during the progress 
 of the case of Mr. Gorham, and by some whose 
 authority we justly esteem, that, whatever the de- 
 cision of the judge of the court of Arches might 
 be, it would be merely the judgement of one man, 
 a layman, and not the expression of the voice of 
 the church of England. And, latterly, with regard 
 to the judicial committee of the Privy Council, 
 much the same lang^uao^e has been used : denvino^ 
 its right to deliberate on such a matter, and con- 
 sequently the value of its decision. Hence, it was 
 urged that we, who have been accustomed to teach 
 the true Catholic doctrine of baptismal regenera- 
 tion, would be at liberty to disregard the judgements 
 of both the lower and the higher courts, and that 
 our position as churchmen would be unchanged. 
 
 This from the beofinninfr seemed to me to be a 
 false view of the matter : and, on the contrary, that 
 we are bound to regard the judgement of either 
 court, and therefore, more especially, that of the 
 court of Appeal, as involving the most weighty 
 consequences. I have always looked upon the judge- 
 ment when finally given in this case, as likely, in 
 its results, vitally and essentially to affbct the claim 
 of the church of England to be a portion of the 
 
Church Catholic ; in short, as being probably a 
 voice of " life or death," and, if so, sufficient in the 
 event to determine her existence as a Church. 
 
 Surely, the court of Arches is the proper court, 
 and the judge of that court is the proper judge, 
 before whom the especial question involved in Mr. 
 Gorham's case ought to have been brought. And 
 we must further remember that this is equally true 
 of times previous to the incidents of the sixteenth 
 century as well as since. 
 
 The question was one, simply, of interpretation of 
 the law of the church of England. That law was 
 to be found in her published documents. It was not 
 a question of what is, in itself, true or untrue, agree- 
 able or not agreeable to the Holy Scriptures, but, 
 solely, whether a certain doctrine has or has not 
 been clearly defined, to the exclusion of some other 
 statement about the same doctrine which would 
 seem to deny or to explain it away. The church 
 of England in her provincial synods and convo- 
 cations, has, for centuries, put forth — sometimes in 
 canons ; sometimes in rituals and liturgies and 
 rubrics ; sometimes in articles about religion — state- 
 ments of what she accepts and holds to be Christian 
 Truth. These statements, so put forth, have been 
 left to be interpreted and enforced by her own 
 judges in her own courts. 
 
 For more than one thousand years the voice of 
 the church of England spoke one constant uniform 
 language, upon all the doctrines of the Faith : the 
 language of the Catholic Church, with which, from 
 her first foundation, she had been in perfect and 
 visible communion. Whether for good or evil, 
 
8 
 
 various changes and alterations upon many doc- 
 trines, — very holy and mysterious doctrines, — were 
 made during the reigns of Henry the eighth, and 
 Edward the sixth, and queen Elizabeth. These 
 w.erc chiefly embodied and declared in a new Form 
 of Common Prayer and administration of the Sacra- 
 ments, and in the Articles of Religion of 1552 and 
 1562. Other alterations were subsequently made in 
 the reigns of James the first and of Charles the 
 second. The duty of the court was to decide upon 
 the eff*ect of these alterations and changes as to one 
 doctrine, namely, the doctrine of baptismal regene- 
 ration. No one disputes that in the year (say) 1548, 
 the doctrine of the church of England was clear and 
 decisive upon this matter : and that she would then 
 have condemned as heresy the denial of the uncon- 
 ditional and saving efficacy of baptism conferred on 
 infants. The doubt arose upon the meaning of 
 certain statements made by the church of England 
 since that year; and whether, by the necessary 
 cff'ect of those statements, she has permitted her 
 clergy to teach, and to her people to believe, that 
 the saving grace of regeneration is not always given 
 to all infants in the sacrament of baptism. In other 
 words ; whether the reformed church of England 
 has allowed this mysterious doctrine to be, what it 
 had never been before, an open question. 
 
 Why then should we suppose that the case of Mr. 
 Gorham was not within the customary and proper 
 jurisdiction of the court of Arches ? It turned upon 
 the right construction to be given to parts of the 
 ritual and catechism, compared with the 39 ar- 
 ticles. And if the ancient practice has been to 
 
9 
 
 » 
 
 suffer an appeal from a diocesan to the metropolitan, 
 in causes such as this, it is not easy to discover 
 in what other spiritual court or before what other 
 judge it could have been argued. 
 
 Nor does it seem (however we might wish the 
 contrary) that a reasonable and valid objection can 
 be brought against the court of Appeal. It is really 
 trifling to pretend that because in former times 
 ecclesiastical matters were always decided, at any 
 rate finally, before an ecclesiastical tribunal, that 
 therefore, upon that account only, the modern 
 church of England is not bound by the decisions 
 of a court which, apparently, has no ecclesiastical 
 element in it whatsoever, of which all the judges 
 are lay, and which represents, in fact, the Queen. 
 The same age which introduced the numerous 
 changes, from whence spring all our present dis- 
 putes, changed also the constitution of the ecclesi- 
 astical courts. 
 
 It will not be necessary for us to enter at full 
 length into the statutes upon which the exercise of 
 the royal supremacy is founded, whatsoever it may 
 be. And I must disclaim all pretence of laying 
 the case before you, as a lawyer would. On the 
 other hand, we are not only entitled but bound to 
 enquire into the subject, and we may be, at least, 
 excused for venturing to speak what seems to be 
 the truth regarding it. This is all which I would 
 attempt to do : asking indulgence for technical 
 errors, and desiring to be corrected in mis-state- 
 ments and omissions. Let us, then, refer to some, 
 and those the chief, Acts of Parliament which 
 passed during the reigns of Henry, Edward, and 
 
10 
 
 « 
 
 Elizabeth, relating to this matter. If the documents 
 brought before you are not sufficient to establish 
 the point which I would insist on in the present let- 
 ter, — namely, the extent of the supremacy, — it will 
 not, I suppose, be difficult for others to show how 
 far and in what way they fail. 
 
 For, if it be allow^ed that in the year (say) 1 520, 
 the royal supremacy was, in some degree, different 
 from the power exercised under the same name in 
 1550 ; and, if in the year 1532 the church of Eng- 
 land granted some new authority, or restored some 
 old authority, to the crown ; it will remain for those 
 who dispute the construction which I am about to 
 put upon these statutes, to show other limits within 
 w hich the supremacy was confined, and the different 
 nature of the authority which was granted or re- 
 stored. And the same remark is equally applicable 
 to those, who are disposed to assert that the supre- 
 macy under queen Elizabeth, and since her days, 
 is not the same as that which was claimed b} her 
 predecessors, Henry the eighth and Edward the 
 sixth. 
 
 At the beginning of the reign of Henry the eighth, 
 the highest and final authority in all matters of faith, 
 and in all ecclesiastical " causes," resided in the 
 Church Catholic : appeals ran from archdeacon to 
 bishop, from bishop to archbishop, from the arch- 
 bishop to the supreme pontiff, in their regular and 
 appointed courts. I am now- speaking of fact only : 
 not at all discussing the further question of its pro- 
 priety, or agreement with the doctrine and disci- 
 pline of the primitive Church. Nor is it worth 
 while enquiring whether from time to time men ob- 
 
11 
 
 jected against or resisted this authority ; more espe- 
 cially when its decisions happened to be against them. 
 It was a method of proceeding which rested on men's 
 common faith as Christians, and on a practice be- 
 yond all memory, up to the earliest ages of the 
 whole Western Church. There are texts of Holy 
 Scripture which speak of the powers and preroga- 
 tive given to S. Peter, and to the successors of the 
 apostolate : the people of the Church purchased by 
 His Blood, Who gave the promise, gladly paid a 
 due obedience, believing it to be among the best 
 and highest of their privileges. 
 
 But in the year 1532, the stat. 24 Hen. VHI., c. 
 12, established the commencement of another order 
 of things. Appeals to the see of Rome were pro- 
 hibited in one class of spiritual causes, and in one 
 class only : namely, in " all causes testamentary, 
 causes of matrimony and divorces, rights of tithes, 
 oblations, and obventions : " and the section of this 
 act which I am about to quote, explains the new 
 arrangement which, so far as these causes w^ere 
 concerned, was to be the course adopted in future 
 by the English church. The fourth section having 
 declared that whosoever should procure from or to 
 the see of Rome, or, from or to any other foreign 
 court or courts out of this realm, any appeals, &c. 
 for any of the causes aforesaid, shall incur the pains 
 and penalties of j)rcp))iumref the sixth provides that 
 the appeal from the bishop diocesan, or his com- 
 missary, should be " within fifteen days next ensuing 
 the judgment or sentence thereof there given, to the 
 archbishop of the province of Canterbury, if it be 
 within his province ; and if it be within the pro- 
 
12 
 
 vince of York, then to the archbishop of York ; — 
 and there to be definitively and finally ordered, 
 decreed, and adjudged, according to justice, with- 
 out any other appellation or provocation to any 
 other person or persons, court or courts." The act 
 further provides that in any case touching the king, 
 the appeal should be to the upper house of convoca- 
 tion. 
 
 There are two things to be observed here, upon 
 the provisions of this statute. First, not only did 
 it then make the upper house of convocation a 
 final court for the decision of some certain causes 
 in which the crown was a party, but it is also 
 probable that, at least as regards those same causes, 
 the upper house of convocation is the court before 
 which they still legally must and ought to be 
 decided. Hence, as a fact (if this view be not in- 
 correct) the upper house of convocation is a court 
 existing at the present moment, having power and 
 authority by the statute law to exercise its jurisdic- 
 tion within appointed limits. I have said, " at least 
 as regards those causes," because it is open perhaps 
 to doubt whether the terms of the act 25 Hen. VIII. 
 c. 19, (to which we shall come next) placed all 
 causes, touching the king, under the same rule. 
 The words on which this depends are, I suppose, tlie 
 following ; and it must be left for lawyers to deter- 
 mine their force : " all manner of appeals, of what 
 nature or condition soever they be of, or what cause 
 or matter soever they concern, shall be made and 
 had by the parties aggrieved, or having cause of 
 appeal, after such manner, form, and condition, as 
 is limited for appeals," by stat. 24 Hen. VHI. c. 12. 
 
13 
 
 And further, upon the whole matter, it is to be 
 carefully considered, how far it is affected by the 
 act of Will. IV. which repealed part of the 25th 
 of Hen. VIII. c. 19. 
 
 The second thing to be observed is more im- 
 portant ; namely, that the act of 24th Hen. VIII. 
 c. 12, left all other causes except those particularly 
 specified therein, to be carried on, if appealed, 
 according to the ancient practice.* Nor does it 
 appear that at any time whatsoever, or under any 
 statutes, or canons of the Church, either the arch- 
 bishops or the upper house of convocation were 
 supposed to be a final court of appeal in causes 
 involving doctrine. And it is moreover to be re- 
 membered that it is the same statute of 24 Henry 
 VIll. c. 12, which referred, for ultimate decision, 
 some named spiritual causes to the archbishops, and 
 to the upper house of convocation if any of those 
 named causes touched the king, which also spoke of 
 the sufficiency and meetness of the body spiritual, 
 when any cause of the law divine happened to 
 come in question, to declare and determine all 
 such doubts, and to administer all such offices and 
 duties, as to their rooms spiritual doth appertain. 
 We do not find any such assertion made afterwards, 
 in any statute of which the subject matter was more 
 wide and different, nor (which is to be well thought 
 of) is the like power claimed by any later canon 
 
 * Hence, this statute was not an example — as at first sight it 
 might seem — of the exercise of the power of committing causes to 
 inferior judges, " appellatione remota," which power alone belongs 
 to those who are supreme, whether in things spiritual or temporal. 
 
14 
 
 or article of the church of England. I do not mean 
 to say — far from it — that the commencement of this 
 famous statute is not of importance in the discussion 
 of the question with which we are now concerned, 
 but I do say that it has been, somewhat hastily, 
 snatched at (if we may use the word) to prove what 
 it will not prove, the acknowledged sufficiency and 
 meetness of the church of England to determine, 
 by its inherent power and acting on its own divine 
 authority, all spiritual causes whatsoever. For, as 
 a fact, this very statute did not give, nor did it 
 pretend to give, its consent to so high a claim : in- 
 deed it was not claimed by the Church upon the 
 one hand, nor was the civil power concerned with 
 the consideration of it upon the other. And whilst 
 the act itself remained in force, the body spiritual, 
 " usually called the English church," had no power 
 to decide finally all causes involving doctrine. Ap- 
 peals to Rome still were permitted, and the day 
 which saw those appeals utterly and entirely for- 
 bidden, saw them transferred to a new supreme 
 court, which no longer derived its authority from, 
 and exercised its jurisdiction in the name of, the 
 Church Catholic but the crown * 
 
 • The first section of this statute, although well known to most 
 of us, ought to be placed here. " Where by divers sundry old au- 
 thentic histories and chronicles, it is manifestly declared and ex- 
 pressed, that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been 
 accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, 
 having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the 
 same ; un^o whom a body politic, compact of all sorts and degrees 
 of people, divided in terras, and by names of spirituality and tem- 
 
15 
 
 The statute however, of which I have now been 
 speaking, lasted for a few months only : in the next 
 
 porality, been bounden and owen to bear, next to God, a natural 
 and humble obedience ; he being also institute and furnished, by 
 the goodness and sufferance of Almighty God, with plenary, 
 whole, and entire, power, pre-eminence, authority, prerogative, and 
 jurisdiction, to render and yield justics, and final determination to 
 all manner of folk, resiant, or subjects within this his realm, in all 
 causes, matters, debates, and contentions, happening to occur, in- 
 surge, or begin within the limits thereof, without restraint, or pro- 
 vocation to any foreign princes or potentates of the world ; the 
 body spiritual whereof having power, when any cause of the law 
 divine happened to come in question, or of spiritual learning, then 
 it was declared, interpreted, and shewed by that part of the said 
 body politick, called the spirituality, now being usually called the 
 English Church, which always hath been reputed, and also found 
 of that sort, that both for knowledge, integrity, and sufficiency of 
 number, it hath been always thought, and is also at this hour, suf- 
 ficient and meet of itself, without the intermeddling of any exterior 
 person or persons, to declare and determine all such doubts, as to 
 their rooms spiritual doth appertain, for the due administration 
 whereof, and to keep them from corruption and sinister affection, 
 the king's most noble progenitors, and the antecessors of the nobles 
 of this realm, have sufficiently endowed the said church, both with 
 honour and possessions ; and the laws temporal, for trial of pro- 
 perty of lands and goods, and for the conservation of the people of 
 this realm in unity and peace, without rapine or spoil, was and yet 
 is administered, adjudged, and executed by sundry judges and mi- 
 nisters of the other part of the said body politick, called the tem- 
 porality ; and both their authorities and jurisdictions do conjoin 
 together in the due administration of justice, the one to help the 
 other." 
 
 I do not pretend exactly to understand or to explain this long 
 and involved sentence. Neither am I prepared to accept as true 
 any words of it except the last ; that " both authorities and juris- 
 dictions," the spiritual and the temporal, in every well regulated 
 Christian state, " do conjoin together in the due administration of 
 justice, the one to help the other." 
 
10 
 
 year another statute passed, which remained in force 
 for nearly three centuries. This act extended the 
 prohibition against appeals to Rome to all causes, 
 and removed them also from the archbishops of 
 each province. And I would again remind you, 
 that the final decision of any causes, except those 
 specified in stat. 24 Henry VIII. c. 12, w^as never 
 placed within the jurisdiction either of the arch- 
 bishops, or of the upper house of convocation. 
 The third section of this act, stat. 25 Hen. VIII. 
 c. 19, provides that " no manner of appeals shall 
 be had, provoked, or made out of this realm — of 
 what nature, condition, or quality soever they be 
 of: but that all manner of appeals, of what nature 
 or condition soever they be of, or what cause or 
 matter soever they concern, shall be made and had 
 — after such manner, form, and condition, as is 
 limited for appeals to be had and prosecuted within 
 this realm in causes of matrimony, tithes, oblations, 
 and obventions." The fourth section proceeds to 
 the constitution of the new court of appeal : and 
 our particular attention is due to it, inasmuch as the 
 ecclesiastical causes of the church and realm of 
 England were governed and decided by it, from the 
 days of king Henry to our own. " IV. And for 
 lack of justice at or in any of the courts of the arch- 
 bishops of this realm, or in any of the king s domi- 
 nions, it shall be lawful to the parties grieved to 
 appeal to the king s majesty in the king's court of 
 Chancery ; and that upon every such appeal, a 
 commisfsion shall be directed under the great seal 
 to such persons as shall be named by the king's 
 hitrhness, his heirs or successors, like as in case of 
 
17 
 
 appeal from the Admiral's court,* to hear and de- 
 finitively determine such appeals, and the causes 
 concerning the same. Which commissioners, so by 
 the king's highness, his heirs or successors, to be 
 named or appointed, shall have full power and au- 
 thority to hear and definitively determine every 
 such appeal, with the causes and all circumstances 
 concerning the same ; and that such judgment or 
 sentence, as the said commissioners shall make and 
 decree, in and upon any such appeal, shall be good 
 and effectual, and also definitive ; and no further 
 appeals to be had or made from the said commis- 
 sioners for the same." These commissioners were 
 called Delegates. 
 
 In the year 1554, the above act was repealed by 
 stat. 1 and 2 Philip and Mary, c. 8, and revived 
 (together with several other acts of the reigns of 
 Henry the eighth and Edward the sixth, relating 
 to spiritual matters,) by stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1. This last 
 requires one or two remarks : as it bears much upon 
 the question of the extent, and meaning, and autho- 
 rity of the royal supremacy. Great importance be- 
 longs also to the statutes of queen Elizabeth, from 
 another consideration ; namely, that during her 
 reign the ecclesiastical principles and future policy 
 of the modern church of England were rapidly de- 
 veloped. 
 
 This statute is entitled " An act to restore to the 
 
 * Considering the nature of the subject, this business-like, com- 
 monplace, manner of disposing of the little details of the new ar- 
 rangements, is really deserving of our admiration : " like as in case 
 of appeal from the AdmiraVs Court:" — could any thing be better ? 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state eccle- 
 siastical and spiritual, and abolishing all foreign 
 powers repugnant to the same." It is not unusual 
 for persons of the high- church party to rely on 
 the words occurring both in the title of the act 
 and in the act itself, "the ancient jurisdiction :"' 
 and they argue that as it is quite certain that " the 
 ancient jurisdiction" of the crown never reached, 
 or was asserted to have reached, so far as to the 
 decision of doctrine, so this act, in like manner, by 
 the use of that vague term, limits the queen's supre- 
 macy. Lawyers can best decide how far such an 
 argument is good : we w ill proceed to the act itself, 
 and perhaps its express language, together with the 
 experience of three centuries, will incline us rather 
 to question the value of it. 
 
 Yet, in passing, it may be w'ell for us to "enquire 
 what a very great authority has said, as to the ex- 
 tent and nature of this "ancient jurisdiction" in his 
 own day. 
 
 Bracton, in the fifth tract of his fifth book De 
 legihus et consuetudinibus AngUce, having first de- 
 fined jurisdiction to be " nihil aliud quam habere 
 auctoritatem judicandi sive jus dicendi inter partes 
 de actionibus personarum et rerum," proceeds in 
 the next chapter to distinguish between spiritual 
 and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. *' Est etiam juris- 
 dictio qua^dam ordinaria, queedam delegata, qua? 
 pertinet ad sacerdotium et forum ecclesiasticum, 
 sicut in causis spiritualibus ct spiritualitati annexis. 
 Est etiam alia jurisdictio ordinaria vel delegata 
 qua? pertinet ad coronam et dignitatem regis ad 
 regnum in causis et placitis rerum tomporalium in 
 
19 
 
 foro seculari. — Clericus in nullo conveiiiendus est 
 coram judice seculari quod pertineat ad forum ec- 
 clesiasticum, sicut in causis spiritualibus vel spiritua- 
 litati annexis." In the third chapter, where the 
 author begins to speak of prohibitions, he treats of 
 them as directed against ecclesiastical courts exer- 
 cising either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction : 
 and there is no doubt that he considers the highest 
 source from whence any delegated jurisdiction can 
 be derived to be the pope, and that it is rightly so 
 derived. All this is made clear by what is stated 
 in the 15th chapter. " In fine notandum de juris- 
 dictione majorum et minorum, et imprimis sicut 
 dominus papa in spiritualibus super omnibus habeat 
 ordinariam jurisdictionem, ita habet rex in regno 
 suo ordinariam in temporalibus, et pares non habet, 
 neque superiores, et sunt qui sub eis ordinariam 
 babet in multis, sed non ita meram sicut papa vel 
 rex. Et pares esse poterunt illi qui inferiores sunt 
 in jurisdictione sua multis rationibus, sed par in 
 parem non habebit jurisdictionem non magis quam^ 
 imperium, et multo fortius nee in superiorem." * 
 
 * The distinction being laid down by Bracton of the two juris- 
 dictions, ecclesiastical and temporal, he speaks in strong terms in 
 other parts of his work, of the just authority which the king pos- 
 sesses in all temporal matters. Thus in the first part of the 3rd 
 book, eh. 9. we read, " Cum autem de regimine sacerdotii nihil 
 pertineat ad tractatum istum, ideo videndum erit de iis quEC perti- 
 nent ad regem, quis primo et principaliter possit et debeat judicire. 
 Et sciendum quod ipse rex et non alius, si solus ad hoc sufficere 
 possit, cum ad hoc per virtutem sacramenti teneatur astrictus. — 
 Separare autem debet rex (cum sit Dei vicarius in terra) jus ab 
 injuria, etc. — Nihil enim aliud potest rex in terris, cum sit Dei 
 minister et vicarius, nisi id solum quod de jure potest. — Igitur dum 
 
20 
 
 Returning to the stat. 1 Eliz. c. 1, the IGth 
 section enacts, that all foreign power and au- 
 thority spiritual and temporal should "be clearly 
 extinguished ; " and the 17th thus continues : 
 " XVII. And that also it may likewise please 
 your highness, that it may be established and 
 
 facit justitiam, vicarius est regis aetemi, minister autem diaboli, 
 dum declinet ad injuriam." Again, in his first book, ch. 8. " Ipse 
 autem rex, non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et sub lege, 
 quia lex facit regem. Attribuat igitur rex legi quod lex attribuit 
 ei, videlicet dominationem et potestatem, non est enim rex ubi do- 
 minatur voluntas, et non lex." But all is prefaced, in the same 
 chapter, by this statement : " Apud homines est differentia perso- 
 narum, quia hominum quidam sunt praecellentes et proelati, et aliis 
 principantur. Dominus papa videlicet in rebus spiritualibus, quae 
 pertinent ad sacerdotium : — item in temporalibus sunt imperatores, 
 reges, etc." 
 
 Lvndwood lived several generations after Bracton, and it may 
 be objected that in his days " the ancient jurisdiction" was changed 
 from its original state. Therefore, without quoting him at length, 
 I would refer the reader to the second book of the Provinciale, 
 tit. 1. Quidam ruralium, verb. Ante citationem factam. One 
 chapter, however, of this title is the famous writ or statute Circum- 
 specte agatis : of which the beginning runs ; " De negotio tangente 
 Norwicensem episcopum, et ejus clerum, non puniendo eos, si pla- 
 citum tenuerint de his quae sunt mere spiritualia, videlicet de cor- 
 rectionibus quas prcelati faciunt, utputa, pro fornicatione, adulterio, 
 et hujusmodi, etc." On which last word the gloss is, " Verbi gra- 
 tia stupro, incestu, et aliis quae sub peccato luxuriae continentur : 
 hie potes addere alia crimina, quae etiam sunt tractanda et punienda 
 in foro ecclesiastico ; viz. sacrilegium, haeresis, etc." Also to the 
 fifth book, tit. 5. Item quia, verh. ordinarii : where it is laid down, 
 — " Est enim causa hseresis una de majoribus causis quae pertinent 
 ad solos episcopos." And to the third book, tit. 28. Saeculi prin- 
 cipes. verh. custodia carcerali. 
 
 I would also refer the reader to Thomassin, Vetus et nova eccle- 
 sice disciplina, pars 2. lib. iij. cap. 101 — 114. And to the 
 Prompta Bibliotheca of Ferraris, verb. Appellatio. 
 
21 
 
 enacted by the authority aforesaid, that such ju- 
 risdictions, privileges, superiorities, and pre-emi- 
 nences spiritual and ecclesiastical, as by any spiri- 
 tual or ecclesiastical power or authority hath here- 
 tofore been, or may lawfully be exercised or used 
 for the visitation of the ecclesiastical state and 
 persons, and for reformation, order, and correction 
 of the same, and of all manner of errors, heresies, 
 schisms, abuses, offences, contempts, and enormities, 
 shall for ever by authority of this present parlia- 
 ment be united and annexed to the imperial crown 
 of this realm." The 18th section created the high 
 commission court to execute under the queen 
 "the said spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction."* 
 This court was abolished by stat. 16 Car. I. c. 11. 
 The 19th section contained the form of the oath of 
 supremacy, which was changed into the form in 
 which we now take the same oath, by stat. 1 . Wil- 
 liam and Mary, c. 8. We pass on to section 36, 
 which is highly deserving of our especial considera- 
 tion.! *' XXXVI. Provided always, and be it 
 
 * Coke's fifth report, de jure regis ecclesiastico, Caudrey's 
 case, bears upon the subject of this section : in which it was 
 endeavoured to be shown, and so it was said that the judges 
 resolved, that the act 1. Ehz. c. 1. was not introductory of a new 
 law, but declaratory of the old; and that the king by the ancient 
 law could make such an ecclesiastical commission. The examples 
 which Lord Coke has produced in support of this, are proved by 
 Stillingfleet to fall " very far short of being demonstrative proofs, 
 as he calls them." Ecclesiastical cases, cap. 2. The question, 
 however, before both writers, is not exactly the same with that into 
 which we are now enquiring. 
 
 f It has been said that this section together with the 18th is 
 repealed by stat. 18. Car. I. c. 11. but I believe that the point has 
 
22 
 
 enacted by the authority aforesaid, that such person 
 or persons to whom your highness, your heirs or 
 successors, shall hereafter give authority to have or 
 execute any jurisdiction, power, or authority spirit- 
 ual, or to visit, reform, order, or correct any errors, 
 heresies, schisms, abuses, or enormities, by virtue of 
 this act, shall not in any wise have authority or 
 power to order, determine, or adjudge any matter 
 or cause to be heresy, but only such as heretofore 
 have been determined, ordered, or adjudged to be 
 heresy, by the authority of the canonical scriptures, 
 or by the first four general councils, or any of them, 
 or by any other council whereby the same was de- 
 clared heresy by the express and plain words of the 
 said canonical scriptures, or such as hereafter shall 
 be ordered, judged, or determined to be heresy by 
 the high court of parliament of this realm, with the 
 assent of the clergy in their convocation ; anything 
 in this act contained to the contrary notwithstand- 
 ing." I am not well acquainted with acts of par- 
 liament, and must speak doubtfully : but so far as 
 I am aware, there is no other act, and no other 
 clause of an act, which recos^nises convocation as 'a 
 spiritual body entitled to give or to withhold assent 
 in any instance whatsoever of ecclesiastical legisla- 
 tion. 
 
 It is further to be observed that the same section 
 — on which, as sufficiently limiting and duly re- 
 stricting the power of the State, much reliance has 
 
 not been brought before niiy court of law : and, besides, it is well 
 tor us to see whether il really does limit, to the extent which some 
 affirm, the power of the supremacy in matters of doctrine. 
 
23 
 
 been placed — is open to two very serious objections 
 to such an interpretation. First ; it declares the 
 hig'h court of parliament to be the first mover in 
 ordering, judging, and determining any matter to 
 be heresy, and therefore suffers the convocation to 
 come in only as it were secondarily, and certainly 
 only as a party assenting, or having a veto : se- 
 condly ; it places no limit, and does not pretend to 
 place a limit, on the civil power in deciding any 
 doctrine, cause, or matter not to be heresy. 
 
 In the year 1562 another statute [5 Eliz. c. 1.] 
 passed, " For the assurance of the Queen's royal 
 power over all estates and subjects within her do- 
 minions." This should be noticed, because it refers 
 to and — if it may be called a definition — it defines 
 the meaning of the oath of supremacy. " XIV. Pro- 
 vided also, that the oath expressed in the said act 
 made in the said first year, shall be taken and ex- 
 pounded in such form as is set forth in an admoni- 
 tion annexed to the queen's majesty's injunctions, 
 published in the first year of her majesty's reign ; 
 that is to say, to confess and acknowledge in her 
 majesty, her heirs and successors, none other autho- 
 rity than that was challenged and lately used by the 
 noble king Henry the eighth and king Edward the 
 sixth ; as in the said admonition more plainly may 
 appear." The admonition so referred to in like 
 manner declares that the oath of supremacy, en- 
 forced by queen Elizabeth, was to be accepted as 
 intending no other duty, allegiance, or bond, — 
 neither more nor less — than was acknowledfjed to 
 be due to Henry the Sth and Edward the 6th. The 
 old oath of supremacy, however, and its exact mean- 
 
24 
 
 ing, are not the subject with which we have now to 
 deal. What we are considcrinor is not an oath im- 
 posed upon some persons holding certain offices 
 ecclesiastical and lay, as a kind of qualification, but 
 the nature and extent of the royal supremacy itself. 
 
 For nearly 300 years, the method of finally de- 
 ciding all ecclesiastical causes by a court of Dele- 
 gates was continued. Within our memory how- 
 ever, nay, within the last twenty years, a complete 
 change was made in the constitution of the court of 
 Appeal : and it was thought right by " the king's 
 majesty," as " the only and undoubted supreme 
 head of the church of England," in future " to 
 hear and determine all manner of causes ecclesias- 
 tical," in another way, and according to a new 
 fashion. 
 
 By the statutes 2 and 3 Will. IV. c. 92, and 3 and 
 4 Will. IV. c. 41, all the power and jurisdiction of 
 appeal was transferred from the court of delegates 
 to a judicial committee of the Privy Council. The 
 first of these statutes abolished the old court, and 
 placed the appellate jurisdiction in " the king in 
 council;" whose judgment, order, and decree should 
 have " the like force and effect in all respects what- 
 soever, as the same respectively would have had if 
 made and pronounced by the high court of dele- 
 gates ; and that every such judgment, order, and 
 decree shall be final and definitive, and that no com- 
 mission shall hereafter be granted or authorized to 
 review any judgment or decree to be made by virtue 
 of this act." * 
 
 * I quote the statutes from Mr. Stephens' edition of the Ecclo- 
 
25 
 
 The second of these statutes of Will. IV, restricted 
 the hearing of appeals to a " Judicial Committee of 
 the Privy Council ;" which committee is to be com- 
 posed of an uncertain number of e.v officio members, 
 together with two other persons appointed by the 
 crown from time to time, being privy councillors. 
 All these persons are, without exception, laymen ; 
 and, I believe, one only of the number must neces- 
 sarily be a member of the established church. The 
 lord chancellor is not to be in the communion of 
 the church of Rome, but he may be of any kind or 
 denomination of dissent. The others may be of 
 whatever religious belief they choose ; presbyterian, 
 socinian, independent, or quaker ; or of no reli- 
 gious belief at all. 
 
 Under the previous regulation, the decision of 
 the court of delegates was final and definitive ; but 
 not so the judgment of the judicial committee : or, 
 rather, not necessarily definitive. Their judgment 
 is to be in the shape of " a report, or recommenda- 
 tion to her majesty in council for her decision there- 
 on." And so far as I can discover from the words 
 of the statute, there is nothing whatever, — except, 
 
 siastical and Eleemosynary Laws of England : and the following is 
 one of the editor's notes on the stat. 25 Henry VIII., c. 19. The 
 last clause is important. Referring to the definitive sentence of 
 the court of Delegates, Mr. Stephens says ; " The crown, after 
 such sentence, was not precluded from granting a commission of 
 review ; first, because it was not restrained by the statute ; second- 
 ly, that, after a definitive sentence, the pope, as supreme head by 
 the canon law, used to grant a commission ad revidendnm ; and 
 such authority as the pope had, claiming as supreme head, doth of 
 right belong to the crown, and is annexed thereunto." — Goodman's 
 case, Dyer, 273. Haver v. Thorof, Lit. 232. 
 
2() 
 
 perhaps, custom and })recedcnt, — to prevent " her 
 majesty in council " from cither rejecting the report, 
 or modifying and changing the terms and language 
 in which it may he drawn up. 
 
 We know what is meant now-a-days by " her ma- 
 jesty in council." Perhaps people may think it of 
 little consequence that the affairs of the established 
 Church are at least Udble to be finally decided by 
 an irresponsible cabinet, which the English consti- 
 tution has never recognized, and whose existence is 
 an anomaly. But they may care to recollect that 
 not only " appeals from her majesty's courts of ad- 
 miralty in causes of prize," but appeals also from the 
 courts of judicature in our Indian empire, and from 
 all our colonies, and other dominions of her majesty 
 abroad, are, in like manner and to no less extent, 
 subject to the revision and approval of " her majesty 
 in council :" who is not bound nor required by the 
 statute to accept and ratify the Report of the judi- 
 cial committee.* 
 
 But it may be objected, that the royal suprema- 
 cy, — whether exercised, as of old, by a court of De- 
 legates, or, as now, by a judicial committee of the 
 Privy Council, — does not reach to the decision of 
 doctrine, or to interference with any matter of Faith. 
 The statutes, however, will give us some informa- 
 tion on this point : and two or three extracts from 
 them will be sufficient, probably, to show you that 
 they do not leave the question in much doubt. 
 
 * This liberty of the crown carries with it a power, as the reader 
 will perceive, altogether dit^'erent from the old " commission of 
 review." 
 
27 
 
 The 25th of Henry the eighth, by which the Dele- 
 gates were appointed, begins with the recital of the 
 submission of the clergy. The effect of this Submis- 
 sion, as expressed in the statute, is thus explained " 
 by a late writer, whose words I quote. " By this 
 act of submission a meaning and force are given to 
 the royal title [Supreme Head] which otherwise it 
 need not have had. With the title the king obtains 
 corresponding powers ; the clergy give him autho- 
 rity over their deliberations ; a negative voice in all 
 their proceedings, and power to review and suspend 
 the past. All laws and constitutions of the English 
 church then in force were liable to abrogation by 
 the king's supreme authority, and the obsolete legis- 
 lation of the past liable at the same bidding to be 
 quickened into life. [?] The church of England, 
 convocation represented, surrendered deliberately 
 her jurisdiction into secular hands : depriving herself 
 of the power to make canons for her own guidance, 
 and of accepting the sentence of even an oecuinenical 
 council, unless with the consent of the supreme civil 
 authority." * 
 
 It will be well to bring before you the whole of 
 one statute, a short one, and much to the purpose. 
 I mean the 2Gth Hen. 8. c. 1. Premising, how- 
 ever, that I do not quote it as being now in the 
 statute book, inasmuch as it was repealed in the 
 reign of queen Mary, and not revived by the stat. 
 1 Eliz. c. 1. But it is, as I have said, greatly to 
 the purpose, because the authority and power 
 
 * Lewis on the nature and extent of the Royal Supremacy, p. 
 12, 8vo. 1847. 
 
28 
 
 claimed by Elizabeth and her successors, and ac- 
 kno\vled<j^ed by the Church, is " none other than was 
 used" by Henry and Edward. The title of this act 
 is, " Tlie king's grace to be authorized Supreme 
 Heady Undoubtedly the titles are not parts of 
 statutes, and therefore not law : but, more especially 
 in ancient statutes, they are not to be altogether (I 
 suppose) disregarded in the interpretation of them. 
 " Albeit the king's majesty justly and rightfully is 
 and ought to be the supreme head of the church of 
 England, and so is recognized by the clergy of this 
 realm in their convocations, yet nevertheless, for 
 corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for in- 
 crease of virtue in Christ's religion within this 
 realm of England, and to repress and extirp all 
 errors, heresies, and other enormities and abuses 
 heretofore used in the same : be it enacted by autho- 
 rity of this present parliament, that the king our 
 sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, kings of 
 this realm, shall be taken, accepted, and reputed 
 the only supreme head in earth of the church of 
 England, called Anglicana Ecclesia ; and shall 
 have and enjoy, annexed and united to the imperial 
 crown of this realm, as well the title and style 
 thereof, as all honours, dignities, pre-eminences, ju- 
 risdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, pro- 
 fits, and commodities to the said dignity of supreme 
 head of the same church belonging and appertain- 
 ing ; and that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and 
 successors, kings of this realm, shall have full power 
 and authority from time to time to visit, repress, 
 redress, reform, order, correct, restrain, and amend 
 all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts. 
 
29 
 
 and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any 
 manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or 
 may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, re- 
 dressed, corrected, restrained, or amended, most to 
 the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of vir- 
 tue in Christ's religion, and for the conservation of 
 the peace, unity, and tranquillity of this realm ; any 
 usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, pre- 
 scription, or any other thing or things to the con- 
 trary hereof notwithstanding." * 
 
 Rather more than ten years afterwards, a like 
 explanation of the power of the crown was repeated, 
 in more distinct terms (if possible) by stat. 3?. 
 Hen. 8. c. 17 : which statute is now in force. 
 Herein it was declared that the king's majesty 
 " is and hath always justly been, by the word 
 of God, supreme head in earth of the church 
 of England, and hath full power and authority to 
 correct, punish, and repress all manner of heresies, 
 errors, vices, sins, abuses, idolatries, hypocrisies, 
 and superstitions, sprung and growing within the 
 same, and to exercise all other manner of jurisdic- 
 tions, commonly called ecclesiastical jurisdiction ;" 
 and that " the archbishops, bishops, archdeacons 
 and other ecclesiastical persons, have no manner of 
 jurisdiction ecclesiastical, but by, under, and from 
 the royal majesty;" and, that the king's majesty 
 " is the only and undoubted supreme head of the 
 church of England, and also of Ireland, to whom 
 
 * Compare stat. 28, Hen. 8. c. 5. [Ir.] " authorizing tlie Jang, 
 his heirs and successors, to be supreme head of the church of 
 Ireland." This act, I believe, has never been repealed. 
 
30 
 
 by Holy Scripture all authority and power is wholly 
 ijiven to hear and determine all manner causes 
 ecclesiastical." 
 
 A single extract from the statutes of king Edward 
 the sixth will suffice : namely, stat. I . Edw. 6. c. 2, 
 to the following effect. " Authority of jurisdiction, 
 spiritual and temporal, is derived and deducted from 
 the king's majesty, as supreme head of these churches 
 and realms of England and Ireland, and so justly 
 acknowledged by the clergy of the said realms, that 
 all courts ecclesiastical within the said two realms 
 be kept by no other power or authority, either 
 foreign or within this realm, but by the authority of 
 his most excellent majesty." 
 
 The first act of the reign of queen Elizabeth, re- 
 viving the statutes in which the royal supremacy is 
 declared, and which had been repealed during the 
 reign of queen Mary, has been already remarked 
 upon ; and also the modern statutes of king Wil- 
 liam 4th; and you will observe that in none of 
 these is there the slightest appearance of any limi- 
 tation upon the power granted to and to be exercised 
 by Henry 8th and Edward 6th. 
 
 Can it then be said that the royal supremacy 
 does not extend to the determination of questions in 
 which doctrine and matters of the Christian Faith 
 are concerned ? for example, that the Crown, in 
 virtue of it, is exceeding its just prerogative in 
 claiming finally to decide the case of Mr. Gorham 
 against the bishop of Exeter, involving, as such a 
 cause necessarily does, the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration ? If so, what can be the meaning of 
 the words of the statutes which have been quoted. 
 
31 
 
 giving to tlie king's majesty authority to correct, 
 &c. all manner of heresies ; and to exercise all 
 manner of jurisdictions, commonly called ecclesias- 
 tical jurisdiction ; and that whatsoever spiritual or 
 ecclesiastical power or authority hath heretofore 
 been, for the reformation and correction of all man- 
 ner of errors, heresies, and schisms, shall for ever 
 be united and annexed to the imperial crown of this 
 realm ? 
 
 Still, it may be further objected, that all the fore- 
 going statutes and decrees are merely acts of Par- 
 liament, or encroachments of the State, or submitted 
 to by the Church as to a kind of persecution, and 
 the like. It would be something strange to hear of 
 a supposed endurance of a fictitious "persecution" 
 for two or three hundred years ; but let that pass. 
 There is absolutely no ground or reason whatever 
 for such a pretence. If language means any thing, 
 the modern church of England is a willing and con- 
 senting party to the declarations of the civil statutes 
 of the realm : and not only has she allowed this by 
 a continued and contented acquiescence for the en- 
 tire period, but the whole arrangement seems to be 
 both in complete accordance with her positive asser- 
 tions of what is right and good, and in truest har- 
 mony with her own spirit. 
 
 It may be, perhaps, a question whether the form 
 of submission of the clergy can be referred to as 
 furnishing any conclusive evidence on the particular 
 point now before us. It may very fairly be said 
 that by this submission the clergy of England pro- 
 mised, in verbo sacerdofii, never to allege or put in 
 ure, or to enact any canons and constitutions, unless 
 
32 
 
 with the consent previously obtained of the kings 
 highness ; but that, as regarded the final determina- 
 tion of causes ecclesiastical, it declared nothing 
 either the one way or the other. We will not, there- 
 fore, at present delay upon this, or enquire how far 
 in its sure consequences it involved such a result. 
 
 It has been said also, that the authority of a 
 final court of Appeal in ecclesiastical causes is dis- 
 tinct from the supremacy, does not rest upon the 
 same foundation, and may be treated of, objected 
 against, and restrained, without injury to the royal 
 prerogative. Certainly, it may be true, that the 
 court of Delegates, and the judicial committee of 
 the Privy Council, were both established by acts 
 of parliament : and not, expressly in words, by vir- 
 tue of the royal supremacy ; nor, as it were, giving 
 a required sanction of the legislature to its exercise. 
 Whether therefore, if we look only to statutes, the 
 " Supremacy" can be shown to be, after all, a 
 shadow and a bugbear, I cannot tell : but a final 
 court of Appeal, somewhere, and appointed by 
 some sufficient authority, there must be. And it 
 would be a new thing to learn that there is any 
 court in this realm, which is not understood to 
 derive its power and jurisdiction, mediately or im- 
 mediately, from the crown : the civil courts from 
 time immemorial, and the spiritual courts since the 
 reformation. Until, however, the distinction which 
 has been mentioned can be shewn, so as to relieve 
 our consciences from the real, practical, grievance 
 under which they lie, we cannot be wrong, I think, 
 in speaking of the power of final appeal in ecclesi- 
 astical causes as based upon or springing from the 
 
33 
 
 royal supremacy : and, in that case, the question of 
 the supremacy is left to be considered as anxiously 
 as if no such distinction could be drawn. 
 
 The title of supreme head arrogated to himself 
 by Henry the eighth, and allowed and confirmed 
 by repeated statutes during his reign, was altered 
 into the somewhat less objectionable title " supreme 
 governor" in the time of queen Elizabeth. It is 
 positively incredible that Henry should have de- 
 sired the title of supreme head to have been given 
 to him, in the strict sense in which it belongs to our 
 Blessed Lord : and, it is clear that he did not him- 
 self so understand the words, because he added to 
 them continually, '' in earth." Thus plainly distin- 
 guishing his own rights and authority — whatsoever 
 it might be — as supreme head in earth, from the 
 power and authority of Him Who is the Supreme 
 Head in heaven of His Body, the Church. Still, 
 the title, used in any way, was objectionable, and 
 likely to be misunderstood : and the convocation 
 would not suffer it to pass (in their grant of money 
 for release of the prcemunire) without a qualifica- 
 tion. The acknowledgment of the supremacy was 
 first proposed in this form; "Ecclesise et cleri An- 
 glicani cujus protector et suprcmum caput is solus 
 est :" i. e. the king.* But it passed as follows ; — 
 " Ecclesiae et cleri Anglican! (cujus singularem 
 protectorem unicum et supremum dominum et 
 quantum per Christi legem licet etiam supremum 
 caput ipsius majestatcm recognoscimus,) 6^/c."f 
 Much stress has been laid upon the qualifying words 
 
 * Collier, vol. 2. p. 62. f Wilkins. torn. 3. ji. 7A'2. 
 
 C 
 
34 
 
 "quantum, etc.^' which, after all, are loose and indefi- 
 nite enough: but, in truth — and I would direct your 
 especial attention to the point — they do not touch or 
 bear upon the matter really before us, namely, the 
 authority and power of the king's majesty as supreme 
 governor in earth of the church of England. It is 
 a clause explaining in what sense the title " supreme 
 head" is to be taken and allowed, and explaining 
 nothing but with respect to that : " quantum per 
 Christi legem licet." And the fact remains of the 
 submission of the clergy to the king, as " the sole 
 protector, the only and supreme governor and lord, 
 of the church and clero^v of Enofland/' * 
 
 It is unnecessary to remind you of the many 
 things, deeds and circumstances, which followed, 
 during the next hundred years, upon this concession 
 by the church of England : such as the acceptance 
 by bishops of commissions to execute their office and 
 ministry ; the appointment of a vicar-general ; and 
 of a high-commission; the issuing of injunctions, 
 or articles, or admonitions : these may well be left 
 for some future opportunity, if it should be required. 
 Such acts are of most material importance in a dis- 
 cussion like the present : for it is from them that w^e 
 can best learn what was understood by contempo- 
 
 * A few j-ears after, (in 1534) the clergy in convocation sent a 
 petition to the king, about suspected books, addressed to him as 
 " fidei defensorem, ecclesiaeque Anglicanae (sub Deo) caput supre- 
 mura." And the proclamation which followed spoke of his high- 
 ness, as " immediately under God, justlv and lawfully sovereign, 
 chief, and supreme head, immediately under Christ." Ibid. p. 
 776. 
 
35 
 
 i*aries to be, practically, the meaning and extent of 
 the royal supremacy. Nor is it to be said that these 
 things were done against the will and consent of the 
 English chm'ch. During the whole period, con- 
 vocation was continually sitting, deliberating, pass- 
 ing articles, and canons, and forms of prayer. 
 Where is the proof of (at least) her protest against 
 such an improper — if it be improper — exercise of 
 the supremacy ? where is there any declaration on 
 her part that the acts of Henry, or Edward, or 
 Elizabeth, were not in accordance with her own 
 desire and intention as a body spiritual, and a legi- 
 timate consequence of her course of reformation ? 
 
 Rather, alas ! upon the contrary, let us listen to 
 her own words, as spoken in her convocations. The 
 inscription of the Institution of a Ckristian mem is 
 to " Henry the eighth — supreme head in earth im- 
 mediately under Christ of the church of England ;" 
 and the book is offered to the king, by his supreme 
 power to be set forth, " without the which power 
 and license of your majesty" the preface states "we 
 knowledge and confess that we have none authority, 
 either to assemble ourselves together for any pre- 
 tence or purpose, or to publish any thing that might 
 be by us agreed on and compiled." 
 
 The Reformatio legiun declares as follows, under 
 the head " Jurisdictio regis :" and I cite this only as 
 an illustration. '' Eex tam in archiepiscopos, epis- 
 copos, clericos, et alios ministros, quam in laicos in- 
 fra sua regna et dominia, plenissimam jurisdictio- 
 nem, tam civilem quam ecclesiasticam, habet, et 
 exercere potest, cum om.nis jurisdictio, et ecclesiastica 
 
36 
 
 et secularis, ab eo tanquam ex uiio ct codem fontc 
 derivatur." * 
 
 Far more weighty are the canons of 1G04, and 
 the 39 articles of the reformed church of England ; 
 and with these we will conclude. Take the canons 
 to begin with. The 55th requires all preachers be- 
 fore their sermons to use a form of prayer, or one 
 to the same effect, in which the sovereign is spoken 
 of as " supreme governor in these his realms, and 
 all other his dominions and countries, over all per- 
 sons, in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as tem- 
 poral." The first of these same canons is more 
 remarkable. " We first decree and ordain that — 
 all ecclesiastical persons having cure of souls, and 
 all other preachers, shall, to the uttermost of their 
 wit, knowledge, and learning, purely and sincerely, 
 (without any colour or dissimulation,) teach, mani- 
 fest, open, and declare, four times every year (at 
 the least) in their sermons — that the king's power 
 within his realms is the highest power under God." 
 And the title of this canon is, " Tlie king's supre- 
 macy over the church of England, in causes eccle- 
 siastical, to he maintained.'" f As to the articles, 
 
 * De officio et jurisdictione omnium judicum. cap. ij. 
 
 f The canons also of 1640, which were drawn up under arch- 
 bishop Laud, accepted by the convocations of both provinces, and 
 ratified by the king, might also have been referred to. The first 
 of these speaks of the supreme power given to the most high and 
 sacred order of kings ; and orders the explanation of this supre- 
 macy, as laid down in the canon, to be preached and taught once, 
 every quarter of the year. But this canon is chiefly remarkable, 
 because it allows the right of excommunication to the royal supre- 
 macy : declaring that " if any ecclesiastical person whatsoever, pub- 
 licly maintains any position, in impeachment of the aforesaid cxpli- 
 
37 
 
 the 37th affirms, that " the queen's majesty hath 
 the chief power in this realm of England, and other 
 her dominions, unto whom the chief government of 
 all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesi- 
 astical or civil, in all causes doth appertain." 
 
 It is said that the article proceeds to limit this 
 " chief power." I am quite ready to allow it : and 
 the very limitations themselves rather serve to the 
 establishment and acknowledgment of whatsoever 
 power and authority they do not restrict. The ar- 
 ticle denies to our princes the ministering of God's 
 word, or of sacraments : but this is all which it de- 
 nies. And by the term " ministerinfj of God's 
 word," surely we cannot understand the power of 
 deciding spiritual causes, in which doctrine is in- 
 volved, to be denied to the crown, but only the 
 office of public preaching. As it is expressed in 
 the twenty -third article, in a parallel passage; 
 " the office of public preaching, and of ministering 
 the sacraments ; " the same two spiritual functions 
 which " the civil magistrate" may not exercise. 
 But we must have some evidence to shew that " the 
 ministering of God's word" was ever supposed to 
 refer in any way to the decision of causes involving 
 doctrine. Having, however, laid down these li- 
 
 cations, he shall forthwith, h) the poiver of his Majesty s commis- 
 sioners for causes ecclesiastical, be excommunicated till he repent." 
 Indeed, a like or equal power belongs to the judicial committee 
 of the Privy Council : because excommunication being a process of 
 courts, and the final appeal resting in that committee, it is easy 
 to conceive how it might order a person excommunicated by the 
 spiritual judge — whether bishop or archbishop — to be restored to 
 communion and to the sacraments of the Church. 
 
38 
 
 mils, the article declares the royal prerogative to 
 be, that our princes should rule all estates and de- 
 grees committed to their charge by God, whether 
 they be ecclesiastical or temporal. Nor can I help 
 addinii' that when the authority of the Church is 
 spoken of, it is in very much more moderate lan- 
 guage ; as an authority, which need not be more 
 than that right of assenting allowed by the statute of 
 Elizabeth, already quoted. " The Church hath — 
 authority in controversies of faith." Art. xx. And 
 having said this much, we have two long sentences 
 warning us against the possibility, and repudiating 
 the right, of " the Church " ordaining any thing 
 contrary to God's word written, or, besides the same, 
 enforcing any thing to be believed for necessity of 
 salvation. 
 
 We have not ended yet : there is one thing more 
 to be remembered, and this the nearest to our own 
 consciences : upon whose voice, after all, in the 
 case of every one of us, this whole matter must very 
 greatly depend. I mean the oath of supremacy 
 taken at our ordination, our promise at the same 
 time, and our subscription to the first article of the 
 3Cth canon. ^^ ell known and remembered as these 
 may be, it will be desirable to place them before 
 you : and, remembering the terms and words used 
 in the documents which have been already cited, 
 let me ask you to give them your anxious and careful 
 consideration. 
 
 " The oath of the queen's supremacy. I. A. B. 
 do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, 
 and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable 
 doctrine and position, That princes excommunicated 
 
39 
 
 or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the 
 see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their 
 subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do de- 
 clare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, 
 or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdic- 
 tion, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, 
 ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So 
 help me God." 
 
 Next, the promise. " TJie bishop. Will you 
 then give your faithful diligence always so to 
 minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the dis- 
 cipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, 
 and as this Church and Realm hath received the 
 same, according to the commandments of God ; 
 etc. f Ansicer. I will so do, by the help of the 
 Lord." If the words " and realm" mean nothing, 
 why are they inserted ? mere surplusage, at such a 
 time and in so solemn an office, would be singularly 
 out of place. More remarkable, perhaps, is the 
 corresponding place in the form of consecrating a 
 bishop. " — such as be unquiet, disobedient, and 
 criminous, within your diocese, will you correct 
 and punish, according to such authority as you 
 have by God's Word, and as to you shall be com- 
 mitted by the ordinance of this Realm ? Ans. 1 
 will so do, by the help of God." 
 
 And, lastly, the first of the three articles of the 
 36th canon. 
 
 " 1. That the queen's majesty, 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. 
 
40 
 
 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." 
 
 Now, certainly, I am not about to enquire whether 
 it be, or be not, according* to the Word of God that 
 the queen is supreme governor in earth of the church 
 of England ; nor, whether all manner of jurisdiction 
 ecclesiastical exercised by archbishops and bishops 
 does, or does not, flow from her royal majesty ; nor, 
 whether it be right that very difficult and deep 
 questions of the Christian Faith should be, or should 
 not be, referred from bishops and spiritual courts to 
 laymen, and, at last, finally determined by a court 
 of Appeal, whose members may possibly be heretics 
 or unbelievers : but I do say that the principle of such 
 a system has been deliberately approved, accepted, 
 and for three hundred years insisted on, as ac- 
 cordant with the true spirit of the Gospel, by the 
 church of England. It may be that during that pe- 
 riod the chief cases appealed from in the ecclesias- 
 tical courts, have been concerned with matters tem- 
 poral rather than spiritual ; such as disputed wills, 
 and the like. But we do not accurately know, nor 
 shall we ever perhaps learn, how great the real, 
 practical, influence of the royal supremacy has been, 
 over the established church, since the time of it^ 
 first founder, in its modern shape, king Henry the 
 eighth : more especially, during the reigns of Eli- 
 zabeth and James the first. Whatever it may 
 have been, good or bad, right or wrong, the supre- 
 macy is part and parcel of that pure and apostolical 
 
41 
 
 branch, the reformed church of England ; and as 
 she has made her bed, so must she lie on it. 
 
 It is hard, therefore, to see upon what grounds, 
 which shall satisfy our consciences, we may refuse 
 to listen to the decision of the court of Appeal, in 
 disputed questions of doctrine : more especially in 
 such a case as Mr. Gorham's, which is, as I have said, 
 of the interpretation of existing documents and not 
 of the truth of any doctrine. It is, of course, im- 
 possible to draw an exact line where interpretation 
 of doubtful documents, by a supreme and final au- 
 thority, is to be distinguished and separated from 
 the power of declaring the truth or falseness of a 
 doctrine. However this may be, to reject the de- 
 cision of a court, upon any matter really within its 
 jurisdiction, before which we have consented to 
 plead, and against whose creation we did not pro- 
 test, because it happens to be against us, is the act 
 of children and not of men. 
 
 There is more force, perhaps, in the suggestion, 
 that if at any time a decision should be given by 
 the court of Appeal, which the church of England, 
 as a body spiritual, should believe to be in contra- 
 diction to Catholic Truth, it would be necessary 
 for her, and not only necessary but sufficient, plainly 
 to correct the error without delay, and reassert 
 the doctrine which had been mistaken by the court. 
 Yet this would be scarcely in agreement with her 
 own positive assertions about the supreme headship 
 of the sovereign ; rather, it would be something 
 like rebellion against a person, who " by the word of 
 God has full power and authority to correct all 
 
42 
 
 manner of lieresies and to exercise all ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction." It is, however, so visionary a things 
 to contemplate the possibility of an English convo- 
 cation, assembled not merely without the permission 
 but against the will of the queen, that one would 
 not stop to speak of it. And it might not, more- 
 over, be difficult to show that a convocation, now- 
 a-days, would be likely to set at rest the claim of 
 the reformed church of England to be a portion of 
 the church Catholic, in a way not exactly calculated 
 to satisfy the consciences of many people, Avho are 
 anxious so to regard and believe her."* 
 
 * The above sentence is written with reference chiefly to the 
 present constitution of convocation. Most men have long ago 
 agreed that, as at present formed, its members do not represent 
 the established Church. It is monstrous that the cathedral chap- 
 tei's should be represented in a degree so far exceeding the paro- 
 chial clergy. Besides, if it should happen that the convocation, 
 whether with leave or without it, should meet really "for business," 
 it will be necessary that the elections should take place subject to 
 the knowledge of that fact. It is quite one thing to elect common- 
 place and respectable men to perform their parts in a farce ; and 
 another to send them to the solemn discussion of weighty ques- 
 tions of the Faith. Nor is it to be supposed that any man, elected 
 for the one purpose, would venture, without a previous appeal to 
 his constituents, to intrude upon another, so great an office. I 
 am aware that it might be answered, the convocation mnst con- 
 sist of those members already returned : they must serve, and the 
 clergy may not now elect others in their place. But I am speaking 
 of a convocation resolved to act according to its own judgment of 
 what is right, and what is wrong ; and not according to the opinion 
 and policy of the State : of a convocation which will not submit to 
 be tied down and fettered by royal writs, and summonses, and the 
 like. The first duty of such a convocation would be, 1 repeat, to 
 meet the altered circumstances of the time, and to reform itself. 
 
 Since the above was written, a friend has directed my attention 
 to an able article on the Convocation, printed in the Quarterly 
 
43 
 
 One brief word more on the question of the pro- 
 bability of an Enghsh convocation meeting to de- 
 
 Review for March, 1845. The followhig extracts deserve consi- 
 deration. " Were a convocation suddenly called again into action, 
 it would, somewhat like the etats generaux of France in 1789, 
 constitute the most mischievous of all legislatures, — an ancient le- 
 gislature, bearing an historical name, possessing or claiming great 
 legal powers, unhappily revived after generations of desuetude, not 
 by the renovation of its pristine spirit, but as an expedient at a 
 period of popular excitement, and under the pinch of necessity : a 
 Synod containing within it individuals who, from character and 
 station, would deserve and command the highest respect, and yet 
 composed of members wholly unused to act together in their 
 canonical capacity — unaccustomed to render due submission or to 
 enforce due obedience — untried to speech, excepting in voluntary 
 societies, whose ethos is totally adverse to the constitution of an 
 ecclesiastical assembly — taught, in these anomalous associations, 
 to beg for external aid, instead of depending upon their own inhe- 
 rent powers — trained upon the platform to address themselves to 
 the passions and imaginations of a mixed multitude rather than to 
 appeal to the conscience and the reason of responsible teachers and 
 chosen guides — having all to unlearn as to their habits of trans- 
 acting public affairs, and all to learn as to the mode of exercising 
 their resuscitated duties — cut off, as a deliberative Synod, from all 
 traditions of the past, and ignorant of their true position in the 
 present time, destitute of collective experience, and therefore of 
 collective foresight. Such a body, stimulated into morbid activity, 
 would combine all the inconveniences of an obsolete institution 
 with the rashness of a new experiment ; and under existing circum- 
 stances, involve the Church in inextricable confusion." — "What 
 would be the result if, amidst the strife of theology and politics, 
 the sources of bitterness in the Synod should be suddenly opened ? 
 Are the parties who advocate the expediency of calling their ideal 
 ecclesiastical Parliament, 'Convocation,' into activity, aware of the 
 process by which the Proctors are elected ? Unequal, indirect, 
 complicated, partial, and subject in many dioceses to direct episco- 
 pal nomination and control, would such a process of composing 
 the lower house satisfy the ' rate payers,' if brought out upon them 
 by surprise ? Are people aware how the diocesan proctors are 
 outnumbered in Canterbury by the dignitaries and cathedral clergy 
 
44 
 
 cide doctrines, and to put forth fresh canons or arti- 
 cles of faith, without the consent and authority of 
 the crown. Is it quite certain that the 21st article 
 does not bear upon the matter ? Is it altogether to 
 be overlooked in discussinof the extent to which the 
 English church has recognized the royal supre- 
 macy ? What does the article say ? " General 
 councils may not be gathered together without 
 the commandment and will of princes." Here is 
 a complete sentence, affirming one, distinct, propo- 
 sition ; unconnected in any way with the rest of the 
 article, which proceeds to limit the power of a gene- 
 ral council when it does meet. We are all aware 
 that a common explanation of this assertion is, that 
 when princes — whether Christian or heathen — re- 
 fuse, for any cause whatsoever, to suffer the assem- 
 
 — there being but fifty-four proctors for the parochial clergy, 
 amidst the twenty-two deans, the fifty-three archdeacons, the dozen 
 sub-deans, chancellors and treasurers, and the one precentor, and 
 the twenty-four capitular proctors, who would be the mere nomi- 
 nees of the bishops, archdeacons, and deans ? Could such an 
 assembly, at present, possess any influence upon the uninformed 
 and undisciplined public mind ? Will the parochial clergy be con- 
 tented to be thus swamped ? Above all, what will be the efi'ect of 
 the comparison between the constitutions of Canterbury and of 
 York ? In York they have no distinction of houses, and no indi- 
 rect elections. The archidiaconal proctors sit as such, and all the 
 clergy, high and low, archbishop, bishops, deans, archdeacons, and 
 proctors, sit in one assembly. Would not the meeting of Convocation 
 be an immediate signal for demanding the extension of the suffrage 
 of the parochial clergy — the abolition of the capitular Old Sarums 
 — the union of Canterbury, York, and Ireland into one Synod — 
 radical Convocation lleform, and this the certain prelude to radical 
 Church Reform?" 
 
45 
 
 bllng of a general council, and have power by im- 
 prisonment (for example) to prevent the bishops of 
 the Church from so meeting, then, the general 
 council may not, because it can not, " be gathered 
 together." If this really be the true interpretation 
 to be given to the clause, one can only remark that 
 the framers of our articles need not have troubled 
 themselves to express so very obvious a truism : and, 
 at any rate, they hardly ought to have said '• may," 
 where the proper word would have been *' can not." 
 However, as an historical fact, the bishops of the 
 ancient Church knew nothing about " may not," 
 and " can not " in any case where their duty both 
 to herself and to her Divine Lord and Head called 
 them " to be gathered together." In some way or 
 other, tlieij always did meet in council whensoever 
 necessity obliged. 
 
 Undoubtedly, the present emergency may not 
 seem to be a case of necessity, in the judgment of 
 our bishops. That is another question. But to 
 talk of imprisonments and violent persecution in 
 these days, as a possible consequence, is almost ab- 
 surd. Will any one pretend that the English con- 
 vocation could not, as a matter of possibilitv, meet 
 together, and settle disputed doctrines and pass 
 new canons and articles, even if the crown refused 
 its consent ? Is it literally true that its members 
 would be forcibly prevented, and that there is no 
 place to be named where they could assemble ? 
 And would their deliberations be treated with con- 
 tempt and opposition by the Church and people of 
 the land ? — One trembles to entertain the sugges- 
 
40 
 
 tion which some have made, that the restraint upon 
 the conscience of our convocation, is the restraint 
 of Endowments. 
 
 The actual exercise of the royal supremacy, 
 now (as some have said) for the first time brought 
 in operation before us all in a matter which touches 
 upon doctrine, is a very startling fact. Grant, for 
 a moment, that it is the first time : still, in theory 
 it has existed, and has been known to be a distinc- 
 tive principle and part of the system of the church 
 of England, for the last three hundred years. We 
 may have managed to forget it ; but it has all along 
 been a living, real, power ; waiting its time, if we 
 may so say ; ready to interfere, or, rather, ready to 
 exercise the authority which the English Church 
 declares to be inherent in the sovereign. It is mere 
 accident that the same or some similar matter did 
 not come before the ecclesiastical court, and, in ap- 
 peal, before the supreme governor of the Church, 
 ten years ago, or in the last century, or in the reign 
 of queen Elizabeth herself. 
 
 It is rash to attempt to conjecture why, in the 
 dispensations of the Divine Providence, it seemed 
 good that so long a series of years should elapse, 
 and that this authority, as regards the settlement of 
 doctrine or anything like doctrine, should remain 
 as it were dormant ; yet we may discover in the 
 spiritual apathy and ignorance of the last century, 
 and in the increased learning, zeal, and piety of 
 both clergy and laity of the present generation, 
 some reasons why all this should not have happened 
 tJien, but should happen noir. Even such a doc- 
 trine as the unconditional efficacy of infant baptism. 
 
47 
 
 so vital, so evidently ut the root and foundation of 
 all Catholic teaching, might have been determined 
 a hundred years ago, as not held exclusively by the 
 English church ; and the determination might have 
 been acquiesced in as a thing indifferent, or, at 
 least, of inferior importance. 
 
 It has been said that the evidences of life and 
 energy and holier practice, so remarkably shewn 
 by the church of England during the last twenty 
 years, are evidences also that she undeniably is, as 
 she claims to be, a true portion of the One, Holy, 
 Catholic, Church. We may not rest on this argument, 
 in any sort, as conclusive. Evidences they may in- 
 deed be, as I believe they are, of the working of 
 the Divine Spirit among the people of the land, 
 and of an awakeninof of the mind both of the 
 Church and nation, to the reality of their position in 
 the sight of God. They are indeed tokens supplying 
 hope and comfort in times of trial and difficulty and 
 doubt, but they are not sure proofs of the Church's 
 catholicity. Whatever we may be now, few will 
 care to dispute the apathy and almost lifelessness of 
 the English church during the last century : and, 
 as in the natural body there can be no feeling in a 
 senseless state, or in a mortified limb, so is it also 
 in a spiritual body. Breath and circulation are 
 required in the one, as they are in the other : and 
 you must rouse, in like manner, a sleeping person, 
 before you can make him understand. 
 
 But the cause between Mr. Gorham and the bi- 
 shop of Exeter is not the first which, involving very 
 important doctrine, has been decided by the judi- 
 cial committee of the Privy Council, in appeal from 
 
48 
 
 the court of Arches. In the year 1842, Lord 
 Brougham gave judgment in the case of Escott 
 against Mastin : and by that judgment it was finally 
 determined that the reformed church of England 
 recognizes and allows the validity of lay-baptism. 
 No one will deny that this was a deep and intricate 
 enquiry : one, which had been controverted during 
 the last two hundred years by learned divines on both 
 sides : one, which, no less than the doctrine of rege- 
 neration, was mixed up with and depended upon very 
 subtle questions and principles of theology. It mat- 
 ters not whether it w^as decided by the judicial com- 
 mittee rightly or wrongly : the point is, that it was 
 so decided : and there neither has been nor could 
 be any appeal whatsoever from that decision. It 
 would be ridiculous, moreover, to pretend that the 
 question is any longer really open to dispute, whe- 
 ther the church of England recognizes or disallows 
 the validity of lay-baptism. 
 
 And it is no slight matter that the present case of 
 Mr. Gorham is not the first cause which has come 
 in appeal before the judicial committee, involving- 
 doctrine. We cannot, if we would, urge now, " the 
 first time," as an argument, whatever its value, 
 against submitting to the jurisdiction of the court. 
 Nor is this (to my own mind) altogether to be set 
 aside as simply accidental : it may have been thus 
 ordered by Him, Who, ruling over all things, espe- 
 cially directs every matter tending towards the ac- 
 knowledging and strengthening of His Church. 
 
 The terms of the judgment of the supreme court, 
 in the case of Escott v. Mastin, need not be examined 
 now. It is only right to remind you that the " in- 
 
49 
 
 consistency or even absurdity " of some supposed 
 consequences following from a refusal to admit lay- 
 baptism to be valid, — which consequences could not 
 possibly have had any weight whatever in the de- 
 termination of such a question before a spiritual 
 court, that is, before a court composed of theologians, 
 — was advanced as a supplementary reason for the 
 decision. And, more than this, an argument was 
 based upon expediency : it being said by the court 
 that if lay-baptism should be held to be invalid, all 
 dissenters would be excluded from the pale of the 
 Church, and all foreigners who have been baptized 
 otherwise than by ministers of episcopal ordination. 
 These particulars are worth stating, because they 
 are tokens of the kind of foundation on which the 
 judgments in modern times of our highest court, — 
 judgments be it remembered from which there is no 
 appeal — will probably be based. 
 
 But it may be further asked. How is it,galthough 
 this case may not be the first of its kind, yet that 
 the supremacy should now be made so great a diffi- 
 culty ? Are not the statutes, and the articles, and 
 the oath, exactly as they have been for many years ? 
 Perhaps the following suggestion will account for 
 this : namely, that it is a characteristic of the peo- 
 ple of England to put off difficulties and doubts as 
 long as they can : nor will they entertain them, 
 upon matters carrying also probably a change of prac- 
 tice, whether secular or spiritual, whilst they can be 
 avoided. Hence it may be that the supremacy has 
 been regarded as a theory, and a thing to be talked 
 about, rather than as a reality, which was likely at 
 any time to be called into energy and life and 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 power, in deciding doctrines of the Christian Faith. 
 For myself, I am ready to acknowledge — and others 
 have already owned the same — that the royal supre- 
 macy, whatever it seemed a j^ear ago, has proved to 
 be, in its actual exercise, something very different 
 from old notions and anticipations : raising unfore- 
 seen scruples of conscience, and giving additional 
 weight to other doubts which had been growing and 
 accumulating. The supremacy, looked at from a dis- 
 tance, and through the obscurity of improbable con- 
 tingencies, was scarcely more than an empty name. 
 True, if one had but considered, there were already 
 frequent acts of the State, prominent enough, — in- 
 terference by the parliament, suppression of sees, and 
 the like, — which ought to have been fairly dealt 
 with. But it was not so : and we required the vi- 
 sible fact of six lawyers — not all believed to be in 
 communion with us, — sitting round a table, lis- 
 tening to arguments founded upon intricate ques- 
 tions of theology, and commissioned to declare 
 whether it be necessary for a part of Christ's Holy 
 Church to condemn, as heresy, the denial of the 
 truth of baptismal regeneration. 
 
 I wish now to return to a point already briefly 
 noticed : namely, the importance of the particular 
 case of Mr. Gorham. This has always seemed to 
 me to be much underrated by many who are of our 
 party, the high-church. Many would not acknow- 
 ledge — probably many still do not acknowledge — 
 that, if the case should be determined in his favour, we 
 should literally and undeniably have no dogmatic 
 teaching left at all upon the sacraments ; and, 
 indeed, little else, except perhaps, to some extent, 
 
51 
 
 upon the very deep and solemn Mystery of the 
 Ever-blessed Trinity.* If there is any doctrine, 
 we were accustomed to say, which is clearly and po- 
 sitively taught in our formularies, it is the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration : and a judgement in fa- 
 vour of Mr. Gorham would tell us that even that 
 doctrine is not so certain, but that it may be denied 
 and disbelieved. Together with it, by a necessary 
 consequence, the Catholic doctrine of sacramental 
 grace would be also rejected, as not to be thought 
 exclusively the truth. 
 
 That which I have just said — and to this point 
 let me request your especial attention — was readily 
 enough consented to and indeed loudly insisted on 
 by the high-church party in former years. Who is 
 there that does not remember how frequent the 
 complaints were against our bishops, for not pro- 
 ceeding against clergymen who denied regeneration 
 in holy baptism : how confident the expectation was 
 that the result must be in our favour : how bold 
 
 * In the words here, " the mystery of the Ever-blessed Trinity," 
 let me be understood as including other doctrines strictly and ne- 
 cessarily following upon the acceptance of that truth, as it is de- 
 clared in the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian creeds. 
 Such for example as the doctrine of the Incarnation ; whilst, upon 
 the other hand, one would scarcely go on to say, the doctrine of 
 the Atonement. Indeed, remembering some books by very learned 
 prelates of our own days, we hesitate almost to assert that Sabel- 
 lianism and Socinianism are of necessity excluded by the mere 
 acceptance, in words, of the three creeds. And if the Catholic 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not to be proved by the 
 clause of the Nicene creed, " One baptism for the remission of 
 sins," together with the ritual, I know not whether the doctrine of 
 the Ever-blessed Trinity would be more likely to b(i proved by the 
 creeds, together with the articles. 
 
52 
 
 were the assurances that our ministrations and office 
 themselves depended upon a right decision of the 
 question ? We are now about to listen to the long- 
 expected, long-wished for, judgement. Let us not 
 presuppose what course any man may take, who, 
 years ago, did not hesitate to speak after that man- 
 ner. Only this must be said : that although disap- 
 pointed men are justly entitled to reconsider the 
 whole matter, yet, in cases of conscience, the 
 course of conduct which, beforehand, seemed to be 
 the right one, is more likely to be correct and 
 according to sound religious principle, than another 
 decided on, when the pressure of the actual diffi- 
 culties is upon us, and the temptations of the world, 
 of position, of influence, and the like. 
 
 The arguments by which the refusal to acknow- 
 ledge the importance of the case have lately been sup- 
 ported, are sufficiently different ; some will place it 
 on this ground, some upon that ; these being unlike 
 and even contradictory in principle. Two alone among 
 them, as it yet appears, required to be discussed. One, 
 which refused to recognize the right of the crown 
 to interfere at 'all in such a question, and therefore 
 the right also of the judicial committee to decide 
 it. This has been already considered. The other 
 demands a few words, when I remember that it has 
 been urged upon me most forcibly by one — not a 
 clergyman — whose opinion is of great authority, 
 and to whom few among us would not readily, if 
 possible, defer. 
 
 It is said ; whatever the judgement of the court 
 of Appeal may be, — whether to the effect that bap- 
 tismal regeneration is hekl and taught exclusively 
 
53 
 
 by the church of England, or that it is not held 
 exclusively, — that the Church's doctrine remains 
 exactly what it was before ; and that every clergy- 
 man will be entitled and authorized to teach, and 
 every layman will be equally called upon to believe, 
 that the established church both teaches, as of old, 
 the doctrine of baptismal regeneration to be cer- 
 tainly true, and asserts the denial of it to be un- 
 doubted heresy. In support of this it is argued 
 that the decision of a court in a single litigated 
 case cannot alter the doctrine of the Church: and 
 that her formularies and canons remain precisely 
 what they were before, in their strict and positive 
 meaning. And, further, that nothing less than a 
 new canon or article, put forth by the Church her- 
 self, would be sufficient to change her previous 
 teaching upon this or any other matter. So that 
 as long as a clergyman can say, " Do not trouble 
 me with your decisions of a court, but shew me a 
 new canon or article," he is entitled to continue 
 both to hold and to teach precisely what he did 
 before. 
 
 But, surely, the case of Mr. Gorham being simply 
 of construction, and of the right interpretation to 
 be put upon certain documents already existing, is 
 one which ought to be brought before a judicial, 
 and not a legislative, body. The documents them- 
 selves, to all outward and visible appearance, will 
 remain exactly w^hat they were: there will be no 
 words added, and none removed : "but they will have 
 had a meaning put upon them by an authority to 
 which reference, on a material and disputed point, 
 has been solemnly made. 
 
54 
 
 In times past — say, a year ago — it might have 
 been answered to a person enquiring the meaning of 
 our formularies, on the subject of holy baptism, " It 
 is certain that they exclude the denial of the uncon- 
 ditional efficacy, in all cases, of infant baptism." 
 Can it be so said hereafter, if the judicial committee 
 decide that they do not exclude it ? Documents 
 and formularies of any kind whatsoever are but so 
 many words, unless their meaning is to be ascer- 
 tained by some acknowledged rule, or determined 
 from time to time by a sufficient authority. 
 
 In short, shall we not find that this argument re- 
 solves itself, after all, into the original question of 
 the authority of the court itself, and of the obedi- 
 ence which the clergy, especially, are bound to pay 
 to it? It is confessed that although the decision 
 in this matter — one litigated case — need not, nay 
 ought not, to influence the future teaching of any 
 one of us, yet that a canon of the Church would be 
 imperative and binding : even, I suppose, if the 
 canon merely said, that a clergyman denying the 
 unconditional efiicacy of infant baptism is not an un- 
 fit person to be instituted to a benefice. Therefore, 
 that weight and authority which are allowed to a 
 canon, are to be refused to the decision of a court. 
 No doubt this court, nor any other court, cannot 
 make canons : but, as has been before said, this is a 
 question not of new canons and formularies, but of 
 the right construction of old ones. Now, in such a 
 cause, either the court of the judicial committee 
 has authority or it has not : we will not speak of 
 lower courts — that may be a different question — 
 but we will speak of that court only with which our 
 
DO 
 
 present business is concerned ; the highest and su- 
 preme, from which there is no appeal. If then the 
 decision of the court is to be listened to at all, it is 
 not easy to discover how one will be able to draw 
 distinctions, and place limitations upon the extent 
 to which it reaches. There seems to be no middle 
 way between accepting and acting upon it, and re- 
 pudiating it altogether as if it had never existed. 
 I mean, repudiating it in every other respect than 
 in the one point, comparatively unimportant and 
 trivial, of the institution of a certain person to a 
 certain benefice. 
 
 Now, in the first place, it is quite evident that 
 any one who shall determine to despise and make 
 nothing of such a decision, as regards his future 
 faith, teaching, and practice, will have to bear 
 the responsibility — to my mind, a very aweful re- 
 sponsibility — of setting up his own individual opinion 
 against the judgrement of a lawful court, to which 
 the church of Eng-land, throucrh the sovereigTi, has 
 committed the final decision in all causes ecclesi- 
 astical, and to which decision by a silent acquies- 
 cence she shews herself willing to consent. It is 
 true that he may find many who will agree with 
 himself in taking such a course : but this will not, 
 and cannot, remove his personal responsibility. 
 
 Possibly, more than this. Even supposing that 
 the present supreme court has no authority, derived 
 from our Church, strictly binding on conscience, — 
 in other words, that there are methods and subtle- 
 ties by which we may perhaps escape from obepng 
 or consenting to its decisions, — yet, the judgment of 
 six such eminent persons, so learned, patient, im- 
 
5(3 
 
 partial, and desirous to be just, in a matter of inter- 
 pretation and construction of certain documents, 
 laid before them and diligently examined according 
 to the separate views of the two litigant parties, 
 must be a fact which we are imperatively called 
 upon not to set aside or treat lightly, even as regards 
 the merits of the subject itself, without the very 
 gravest and careful deliberation. 
 
 And, secondly, let us think upon the practical 
 consequences. If the decision of the court should 
 be distinctly in confirmation of the judgement of 
 Sir H. Jenner Fust, then, on the supposition of the 
 argument against which I am objecting, Mr. Gor- 
 ham would be himself fully and entirely justified in 
 continuing to teach, in his present parish, the un- 
 sound doctrine for which his bishop and the two 
 courts to which he has appealed have condemned 
 him. He will be justified in saying, " This is a 
 decision aff'ecting only the one litigated point of 
 institution to a particular benefice ; I think the de- 
 cision was a wrong one ; and, at any rate, the for 
 mularies remain exactly what they were before. A 
 single decision in a litigated case, cannot aff^ect 
 their former meaning : and I am as convinced as I 
 was before, that, rightly interpreted, they do not 
 exclude the view which I take of the doctrine of 
 baptismal regeneration." Again ; in like manner, 
 the bishops would be left at the same liberty as be- 
 fore to exercise their private opinions on this matter : 
 and if so, with a decision of the supreme court ex- 
 isting, it would in fact be placing in their hands a 
 new and strange power. For example, a patron 
 who should desire to nominate an evangelical cler- 
 
57 
 
 gyman to a vacant benefice, would be restricted to 
 those dioceses in which the bishops refuse to act 
 upon, and make light of, the authority of the court. 
 Once more : let us suppose that the decision will 
 be in favour of Mr. Gorham : how would it aifect 
 ourselves, who have been accustomed to teach the 
 Catholic doctrine as not only true, but exclusively 
 the doctrine taught by the church of England ? 
 should we be justified in saying, as we now say ; 
 " The church of England holds the doctrine of the 
 unconditional efficacy of infant baptism to be cer- 
 tainly and exclusively the truth ; and the denial of 
 it to be a pernicious and deadly heresy?" I own 
 that as I look upon the matter now, it would be dif- 
 ficult indeed to say such words as those. To say 
 less would be to give up an essential doctrine of the 
 Christian Faith, and to acknowledge the fact, about 
 which we are enquiring, namely, that the decision 
 of the court of Appeal does, to some extent, and 
 in some way, alter the teaching of the reformed 
 church of England. 
 
 Here, I conclude. Yet, taking this — the earliest 
 — opportunity of protesting against the new final 
 court of Appeal which has been lately proposed in 
 a bill now before the House of Lords. Perhaps in 
 my next letter, I may feel at liberty to state briefly 
 one or two reasons for objecting against it. At pre- 
 sent I would say, it is strange that people have not 
 yet discovered that so far as consciences are grieved 
 by it, it is not only, — no, nor chiefly — the character, 
 the qualifications, or the position, of the individuals 
 who may compose the supreme court, w^hich make 
 us to be anxious, but the source from whence the 
 
58 
 
 court derives its jurisdiction. The one is matter 
 of detail, the other touches the foundation of the 
 whole. Nor can this be remedied, if the church of 
 England consents still to be in bondage to the State, 
 and fears to claim again the right which belongs to 
 every part of the One Catholic Church, of deciding 
 all spiritual causes involving doctrine, before her own 
 tribunals from the lowest to the highest, acting in her 
 name, and by her appointment. The real question, 
 let me repeat it, turns upon the source from whence 
 the jurisdiction and power of the supreme court are 
 derived. For fifteen hundred years, the Catholic 
 Church owned no courts, before which spiritual 
 causes involving doctrine could be brought, whose 
 judges had not received their authority to decide 
 such matters, by immediate delegation from herself. 
 But the practice of the church of England for the 
 last three centuries has been to demand of us sub- 
 mission to the jurisdiction of courts deriving their 
 authority from the State, and to acknowledge the 
 Queen's majesty to be supreme in all causes as well 
 ecclesiastical as temporal. And no arrangements 
 whatsoever, however specious and fair looking, can 
 be satisfactory, or may avail to relieve us of the bur- 
 then under which we lie, so long as the present oath 
 of supremacy remains a part of our Ordinal, and we 
 are called upon to subscribe the 37th article, and 
 the first of the three articles of the 36th canon. 
 
 I have desired to lay before you a fair and plain 
 statement of what seems to me to be the nature and 
 extent of the Royal Supremacy, and of the authority 
 of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, 
 together with reasons and evidence which may 
 
59 
 
 enable you, perhaps, to form some judgment upon 
 this solemn question : a question in which all, clergy 
 and laity, are interested, and which no one who is 
 bound to enquire into it may seek to avoid. Much 
 that I have said will probably offend many : much, 
 also, may be wrong either in argument or fact. I 
 ask to be corrected : I seek, only, that others to 
 whom we look, because of their office or their learn- 
 ing or their piety, should come forward and give us 
 help and guidance in this time of doubt, and anxie- 
 ties, and fear. And to myself it will be but little, 
 as one among the trials which are pressing heavier 
 and more heavy day by day, to be complained of 
 for having done harm instead of good by endeavour- 
 ing to speak the truth ; provided only that it be the 
 truth; and if it be not so, again I say, let it be 
 shewn. 
 
 Even a more painful subject still remains ; and I 
 propose to enter upon it in another letter, which 
 will be published as soon as the judgment of the 
 court of Appeal has been delivered. 
 
 Meanwhile, let us pray to Him, Who rules and 
 governs and disposes all things, that He will bring 
 us to Himself. 
 
 Ever, your sincere friend, 
 
 W. M. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 SINCE this letter was begun, there have been three 
 pamphlets published, on the same matter; namely 
 the supremacy and the power of the judicial committee to 
 decide ecclesiastical causes. It seems unnecessary to make 
 the writers any apology for venturing to offer, in an ap- 
 pendix, a few remarks on some portions of these pamphlets, 
 because the enquiry in which we are all engaged is far too 
 great to admit of any personal considerations; and our 
 aim is not to win a victory, or to prove that we are our- 
 selves in the right, but to discover the truth, and to point 
 it out to others. 
 
 But, before I direct the reader's attention to these pam- 
 phlets, there is a fourth also, which I would mention, and 
 recommend to be read ; a sermon by Mr. Dodsworth ; 
 " The things of Csesar and the things of God." Proceed- 
 ing upon similar principles to those advanced in the fore- 
 going pages, it states the question in a solemn, earnest, 
 manner, with no shrinking from the consequences to which, 
 possibly, we are exposed, and without an attempt to evade 
 the matter in debate. And nothing can be more practical 
 than the recommendation at the end, that we should en- 
 deavour to " make ourselves acquainted with the real facts 
 of the case." 
 
 Turning to the others, let us take, first, two sermons by 
 Mr. Bennett, " The Church, the Crown, and the State." 
 These sermons seem to come to much the same conclusion 
 as the preceding Letter : and it is clearly set forth as fol- 
 lows. " By the oath of supremacy, there is no question 
 but that we are bound to obey and abide by the decision 
 of the crown, as pronounced legally in its highest court of 
 appeal, on the great question now before it. Whatever 
 doctrine this highest court of appeal may pronounce and 
 declare to be the doctrine of the English Church, either 
 involved in the fact of compelling a bishop of the Church 
 to institute to a cure of souls one whom the Church, in her 
 
G2 
 
 spiritual court of Arches, has pronounced unfit, or in a 
 more direct manner, as saying what the doctrine of the 
 Church is — or what the doctrine of the Church is not — in 
 whatever way the sentence may be promulgated, that sen- 
 tence we are bound legally and conscientiously to accept 
 as the Church's doctrine; for this simple reason — that 
 there is no higher court to say it is otherwise. It is childish 
 as well as dishonest, to try to escape out of this conclusion 
 by saying. We will not heed what the judgment says : 
 childish, because our saying so will not alter the fact ; dis- 
 honest, because we have sworn before God, that the 
 Queen's majesty is the supreme governor in these realms, 
 and holds, as such supreme governor, this highest court of 
 appeal, for the purpose of expressing her final will. We 
 ktiotc that she does hold this court. We knoio that there 
 is no other court. We know that (in the present state of 
 the law) the decision of such court is irrevocable. There- 
 fore, to that court, as long as it remains, we owe obedience, 
 — merely on this simple ground, that such is the law." p. 30. 
 It would be quite out of place to enter into the reasons 
 on which Mr. Bennett founds this opinion ; they are well 
 deserving of the reader's careful consideration. I would 
 merely desire to correct one or two statements which appear 
 to be erroneous. The writer has told us; " 1. That, in the 
 outset of the Reformation, the final court of appeal was 
 not the crown, but the Church, in the person of the arch- 
 bishop, each in their several provinces." p. 22. Again : 
 " That at the first transfer of the court of appeal from the 
 bishop of Rome — it was the archbishop, in his court of 
 Arches, that was made the final court of all appellate juris- 
 diction." And it is further said, that such was accordino- 
 to the first principles of the Reformation. On this I would 
 observe, that there is no evidence of the alleged fact, except 
 in certain stated causes ; [see above />. 11] and probably 
 hence has arisen Mr. Bennett's misapprehension. Rather, 
 on the contrary, all the evidence which we have runs the 
 other way, unless some canons or statutes still remain to be 
 produced. 
 
63 
 
 Ao-ain ; " That the clergy in their submission of convo- 
 cation to the claims of Henry the eighth,— still such sub- 
 mission and resignation was coupled (and it must be ever 
 remembered, for it is the turning feature of all that now 
 awaits us) was coupled with this most solemn and express 
 reservation, quantum per Christi legem licet, that is, as far 
 as it is permitted by the law of Christ." The correctness 
 of such an assertion must depend upon the question, whe- 
 ther the limiting clause does really refer to the authority of 
 the crown, or merely to the acknowledgment of the title 
 "supreme head." This has been remarked on already in my 
 Letter ; and I would add, that in a matter of such great 
 moment — for I entirely agree with Mr. Bennett in the im- 
 portance which he attributes to it — contemporary interpre- 
 tation of the meaning of the whole passage, as shewn by 
 contemporary words and acts and deeds, is the best and 
 truest evidence to which we can refer. Looking at it now, 
 amidst the doubts and the anxieties which surround us, we 
 shall be inclined perhaps to understand it as only intending 
 what we loish to be true, rather than what is true. 
 
 The second pamphlet is a sermon by Mr. Sewell, called 
 *' Suggestions to minds perplexed by the Gorham case." 
 In the " advertisement" which precedes it, the author says, 
 that " had there been time he would have wished to append 
 to it such a review of the history of the Royal Supremacy, 
 and of the existing state of the law, and such a catena of 
 authorities, as would justify his assertions. But," he con- 
 tinues, " these are not necessary for the acceptance of the 
 principles suggested." With submission, I must say, that 
 they are very necessary: and, more than this: I know no 
 man among us who is entitled to put forth his own views 
 and opinions of this weighty matter— a matter upon which 
 consciences are grieved — unless he explains to us his reasons 
 also, and gives us some argument, founded upon fact, by 
 which we may be convinced that he is not speaking hastily 
 and unadvised. For myself, I must say, I would not dare 
 to do so. To make mistakes in arguing such a question, 
 if one's reasons are laid before the world, is one thing, for 
 
64 
 
 the mistakes are easily corrected : but to jMess untrue con- 
 clusions, without attempt at reasons, either misleads the 
 unlearned without warning, or seems to demand assent 
 upon the self-satisfied authority of a name. 
 
 What I mean may be shewn from the following sen- 
 tences, which appear to contain the marrow of the whole 
 sermon. " Fifthly, let us never be tempted by hasty alarm, 
 or injustice, or even persecution, lightly to abandon that 
 salutary and Christian doctrine, that ' the sovereign hath 
 the chief power in this realm, and other his dominions,' 
 and that ' to him the chief government of all estates of this 
 realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes 
 doth appertain ;' in all causes, ecclesiastical or civil. In 
 each the final reference may well be made to him, so long 
 at least as he is a member of the Church. And yet this 
 reference no more implies that he can sit in person, decide 
 by his own will, choose his own arbiters, or refer the de- 
 cision to any but fixed and constitutional and rightful 
 tribunals, in ecclesiastical than in civil cases." And, im- 
 mediately afterwards, it is further said, " that the fact of 
 an ultimate appeal to the civil Power, so long as it is a 
 member of the Church, even in questions of doctrine, is no 
 badge of servitude, or dangerous submission, if the pro- 
 ceeding of the crown in spiritual matters is bounded as it 
 is in temporal matters, to seeing that the question is 
 decided by a proper ecclesiastical tribunal." p. 18. Upon 
 this, we are bound to make two enquiries : where is the 
 proof, in the history of the Church Catholic, of the right- 
 ness of such a principle as is here advanced ? and, where is 
 the proof that the supremacy of the crown is limited by 
 the reformed church of England " to seeing questions of 
 doctrine decided by a proper ecclesiastical tribunal?" 
 
 Somewhat similar is the following : that " the church of 
 Christ in this land is a Polity, or Body Corporate; a 
 State ; a Kingdom ; independent in itself, separate from 
 the world, charged by God with its own peculiar functions^ 
 armed with all essential authority to fulfil those functions." 
 p. 1 4. It will be answered, all this is true of the church of 
 
65 
 
 Christ : but, we must reply, we are enquiring about the 
 estabhshed church of England. And again we ask for 
 proofs that our church is "independent in itself, &c." ? 
 But, probably, much of this arises, after all, from a con- 
 founding (with what purpose I do not see) the church of 
 Enoland with the Church Catholic ; and from attributino- 
 to both the powers and promises given to one alone. 
 Thus, in the next page, we read : " Thirdly, these spiritual 
 functions, powers, and privileges of the Church, with all 
 the independent rights, liberties, and distinct operations 
 essential to their due exercise, are of such a nature — they 
 are such a trust committed to us from God, — that they 
 are absolutely inalienable and indefeasible. No lapse can 
 extinguish, no laches forfeit, no prescription bar them. Irid- 
 ium tempus occurrit ecclesicB,\sa. fundamental maxim of our 
 English laws. [?] No ecclesiastical authority however ex- 
 alted, no prelates, or synods, or convocations, or bodies of 
 clergy,in one age or generation, or succession of generations, 
 through any length of usurpation, could sign them away, 
 cancel them, surrender them, bind posterity to their sur- 
 render, detract from them, destroy them. There are rights 
 which man cannot part with, because they are not his own. 
 And such are the spiritual rights and independence of the 
 Church of Christ." Were there ever such empty, sound- 
 ing, words? Where, we ask in wonder and amazement, 
 where are the promises made to the particular church of 
 England, which were not made to the seven churches of 
 Asia, or to the churches of Jerusalem, or Alexandria, or 
 Carthage ? where, as a separate communion, do we find the 
 record of an assurance of gifts bestowed on us, which were 
 the mysterious and unearthly privilege given, and given 
 only, to that One, Holy, Catholic Church, founded on the 
 Rock, so that we know well that the gates of hell shall 
 never prevail against her ? 
 
 Similar, once more, is the assertion — I mean, similarly 
 put forth without evidence or proof, — that the judicial 
 committee of the Privy Council is " a tribunal, which is a 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 pure creation of the civil power, and which has no place or 
 office in the [English] Church." p. 24. And, again con- 
 founding the Church Catholic with the reformed church of 
 England, we are bid to be full of hope and confidence in 
 language such as this. " Lastly, let us join cheerfully to 
 enter a public, a wide-spread protest, not so much against 
 the existing tribunal itself, but against the fears and alarms 
 of our brethren. — What can be the meaning of such fears ? 
 If to determine questions of spiritual doctrine is the inalien- 
 able, indefeasible privilege of the CImrch acting through 
 its own spiritual tribunals, a privilege conferred on it by 
 God Himself, and of which no earthly power can deprive 
 it, then the decree of any external tribunal can be no more 
 binding on its conscience than a breath of empty air." p. 
 27. Would that we could indeed echo the writer's words, 
 What mean these fears ? I, for one, cannot make so light 
 of them, nor do I hesitate to confess it. And this is most 
 certain : that no man, who will give himself time for con- 
 sideration, as he will answer to God and to his conscience, 
 will find his anxieties and doubts removed by weak evasions 
 of the true question at issue ; or by attempts to bury them 
 beneath a confused heap of words, not supported by argu- 
 ment, and unsustained by facts. 
 
 I come unwillingly to the third pamphlet of which men- 
 tion has been made: the first number of a series on "Church 
 Matters in 1850," by the Rev. John Keble. I say, unwil- 
 linoly : both because of the unfeigned regard and respect 
 which we must all owe to him, and because something of 
 the same kind of objection appears to lie against this pub- 
 lication as against the sermon of Mr. Sewell : that is, it 
 contains statements requiring proof, for which little proof is 
 ofiered. Thus, we are told that " the authority which really 
 appoints the [supreme] court, is in principle alien to the 
 [English] Church ;" and " that the serious question of 
 baptismal regeneration, is on the point of being finally de- 
 cided, not by any Church [of England] authority, but by 
 six laymen." Tiiis, it is further said, " is peculiarly hard 
 in our case, because of the peculiar sacredness, in our view, 
 
67 
 
 of the prerogative on which the judicial committee intrudes." 
 Here the reader will observe that the question in debate is 
 taken for granted : and the privileges and powers of the 
 reformed church of England are presumed to be necessarily 
 identical with those of the Church Catholic. 
 
 So again, in answering a supposed objection, namely, 
 that the existing court of Appeal has been recognized by 
 the English church, Mr. Keble replies : " thirdly and 
 chiefly, I say that we, the clergy of the church of England, 
 never assented to the powers, claimed for this court, of de- 
 ciding doubtful points of doctrine : it is no part of the 
 system to which we are pledged by our engagements ; we 
 have not, even ignorantly, committed ourselves to it in any 
 manner." p. 10. These are strong assurances ; and tend- 
 ing far, if correct, to satisfy the scruples of tender con- 
 sciences. I can find no reasons in the tract, which seem 
 to be sufficient. 
 
 There is one argument to which I would venture to draw 
 Mr. Keble's particular attention. We are told that we 
 never assented to the present supreme court of Appeal, be- 
 cause when the powers of the court of Delegates were 
 transferred to it, the Church was never consulted at all 
 upon the subject. Here I would remark that there is no 
 evidence that the Church was " consulted " at the estab- 
 lishment of the court of Delegates : and there was no 
 necessity of" consulting " the reformed church of England 
 at all, when the change took place some twenty years ago. 
 It was the duty of the Church to reclaim, and to refuse 
 obedience, at the time, if she were not satisfied. To pro- 
 ceed. " Convocation, silenced for a hundred and twenty 
 years, had no power to breathe a thought on the matter. — 
 Nor do we at all know whether the majority of the bishops 
 of that day assented to the arrangement." But do we not 
 know that there is no evidence of any objections made by 
 even so few as two or three bishops ? do we not know that 
 not a word was uttered by the clergy of any single diocese, 
 from one end of England to the other ? 
 
 In^. 20, we read : " I may just repeat in three words 
 
68 
 
 what has been above argued at length. If it be said, This 
 court is the same with the court of Delegates, which the 
 church and realm did receive, I ask, how is it the same ? — 
 if you mean substantially and really, I say it is not the 
 same, for it is neither accompanied with the same safe- 
 guards, nor appointed by the same authority." What the 
 safeguards were which fenced the court of Delegates, so as 
 to remove from it its objectionable nature, I cannot dis- 
 cover: whether the two courts derived their jurisdiction 
 and authority from different sources, is a question which 
 has been fully discussed, and some evidence offered for de- 
 ciding it in the negative, in the preceding Letter. 
 
 Once more ; " the 20th article says, the Church hath 
 authority in controversies of faith : from which it would 
 immediately follow, that a decision in a controversy of 
 faith by a court having no authority from the church should 
 be to us no decision at all." Perhaps it may be so: but 
 we have first to settle the enquiry, whether this present 
 court of Appeal has or has not received our acknowledg- 
 ment of its jurisdiction in the determination of causes in- 
 volving doctrine, inasmuch as the church of England has, 
 as some of us believe, acknowledged the authority by which 
 it has been appointed. 
 
 I gladly pass over one or two other places, (which appear 
 to be beyond the conclusions which, at any rate as yet, the 
 writer can safely arrive at) in order to express how fully we 
 must all agree with some parts of the tract. Especially, 
 where the author speaks of the fearful confusion whicii 
 must necessarily follow from an adverse decision in the case 
 now pending. And we cannot consider too carefully this 
 weighty sentence : with which we will now end. "If the 
 decision be adverse, it needs to be distinctly proved, that a 
 bishop or archbishop, acting on that decision, would not 
 involve in direct heresy both himself and all in communion 
 with him." p. 26. 
 
 Printed by C. Whitlingliam, Cbiswick. 
 
«^^^> 
 
 
 
 
 JBl* £» >>^ >^> 
 
 IS"- 
 
 ■^ ""^S 
 
 I".- 
 in 
 
 
 >> 
 
 
 ^» >-■> J- 
 
 "-^S 
 
 f- 'V3 
 
 s». 
 
 > -.^^ ■ 
 
 .>9>>J^ 
 
 -- >->3'-:)>.:'N 
 
 
 ^^?' 
 
 
 ^^>:»2^ >v 
 
 
 
 > > > 
 
 
 7^~>/>^ :S 
 
 
 
 ► :> > » >