^^ 
 
 ^k^m^ 

 
 LIBRA RY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 or ILLI NOIS
 
 EEMAEKS ON 
 
 SOME PARTS OF THE 
 
 KEPOET OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE 
 
 IN THE CASE OF 
 
 "ELPHINSTONE against PUKCHAS,' 
 
 AND ON THE COURSE PROPER TO BE PURSUED BY THE CLERGY 
 IN REGARD TO IT. 
 
 A LETTER TO THE 
 
 Rev. canon LIDDON, M.A., D.C.L., 
 
 FROM Tnr: 
 
 Right Hon. SIR J. T. COLERIDGE. 
 
 LONDON; 
 JOHN MUREAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 187L
 
 LONDOX: 
 
 rKINTF.D BY WILLIAJt CLOWES AKD SONS, STAMFORD STREET, 
 AND CHAEING CROSS
 
 THE 'PURCHAS' JUDGMENT. 
 
 We have received the following letter from Canon Liddou 
 
 on the ' Purchas ' Judgment : — 
 
 •' Guardian Newspaper, March 1. 
 
 " Sir — The late Mr. Keble said to me, not many months before 
 his death, ' Depend upon it, we shall never have God's blessing on 
 our work in the Church of England while we continue quietly to 
 acquiesce in the present constitution of the Court of Final Appeal.' 
 Mr. Keble had been dwelling on the contradiction which he held 
 to exist between our Lord's own provisions for the maintenance of 
 His truth and authority in His kingdom, and the purely human 
 device for dealing with these solenm interests which we have in 
 the Final Appeal Court. He had also insisted on the further 
 contradiction which is observable between the Court as recently 
 constituted, and the original terms of the Reformation settlement. 
 
 " Surely his words are being verified. The judgment which has 
 been recently delivered in the case of Mr. Purchas would have 
 condemned Mr. Keble's own practice had he been still among us. 
 It does condemn, not merely those clergymen who are known as 
 ' extreme ritualists,' but the High Church school as a whole. It 
 condemns a practice — that of consecrating in front of the altar- 
 table — cherished by the old-fashioned [and learned churchmen of 
 generations which preceded the Oxford movement. We shall, of 
 course, be told that it simply declares the law with rigid imparti- 
 ality. But to receive this statement with implicit faith, it would 
 be necessary to shut one's eyes to the actual substance of the 
 judgments which the Com-t delivers. I have, it is needless to say, 
 not the slightest sympathy with any of the opinions of Mr. Voysey ; 
 they appear to me to be strictly incompatible with belief in the 
 truth of anything that I can call Christianity. But, as a matter of 
 justice, I cannot but think Mr. Voysey a hardly used man; he 
 ought to have been protected against so very severe a sentence as 
 that under which ho lies, by the judgment of the Court of Final 
 Appeal in the case of the Essays and liericws. \ can only accoimt 
 for the different verdicts of the Court in the two cases, by sup- 
 posing that, for the moment, the Court adopts a popular as distinct 
 
 i; 2
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 from an accurate and theological estimate of the language before 
 it ; and that it thus acquits the refined but far-reaching infidelity 
 of the Essayists, in which the j)opular mind sees only a legitimate 
 effort to assert speculative liberty, while it condemns the coarser 
 infidelity of The Sling and the Stone ; the popular voice having 
 loudly, and I am far from saying untruly, denounced that work as 
 antichristian. In the same manner, to an ordinary understanding 
 it would seem that the ' Westerton ' judgment ought to have 
 rendered that recently delivered in Mr. Purchas's case impossible. 
 It is. Sir, 7iot easy to believe that the Court is quite incapable of 
 interpreting the documents before it by real or supposed conside- 
 rations of policy ! that, in short, it never regards these documents 
 in the light of a plastic material which may be made to support 
 conclusions held to be advisable at the moment, and on independent 
 grounds. 
 
 " The more thoughtful and earnest members of the party which 
 urges on these prosecutions through the Church Association must, 
 surely, at times doubt whether they are really doing God's work. 
 Infidelity menaces us with intellectual forces greater than at any 
 previous period in the history of the Christian Church, and here 
 we Christians are waging a war of mutual extermination about 
 questions of ceremonial. Far less important than this considera- 
 tion is the bearing of these struggles on the security of the 
 Establishment. But if the High Church party is desired to take 
 its choice between submission to a tribunal which proscribes its 
 historical traditions, and a separation from the English Episcopate, 
 which it shrinks from as from schism (and therefore as sin in the 
 sight of God), the result is not difficult to foresee. Churchmen 
 will, to a very great extent indeed, find relief from the dilemma in 
 a third course — ^viz., co-operation with the political forces which, 
 year by year, more and more steadily, are working towards dis- 
 establishment. This is not a menace ; it is the statement of a 
 simple fact. It will, I trust, suggest to many others than those 
 who are directly interested in the particulars of this judgment, that 
 if the historical basis of the Church of England is to be narrowed 
 down to the proportions of a Puritanical sect, or something very 
 like it, it will not by any means be certain that the expulsion of 
 the representatives of Andrewes and Keble from the ranks of the 
 Church's ministry will be the only consequence of the proceeding. 
 
 " H. P. LroDON. 
 " Christ Church" 
 
 UIUC'
 
 LETTER, cW 
 
 Heath Court, Ottery St. ]\Iary, 
 My dear Mr. LiDDON, March 21, 1871. 
 
 I trust you will forgive me for addressing you in print, 
 
 and without your leave first asked, in respect of your letter 
 
 in the Guardian of March 1st. The subject of that letter 
 
 is one of great interest, agitating many excellent persons ; and 
 
 some of your remarks go beyond your subject, and touch on 
 
 matters of vital interest to us all. If I shall be found to 
 
 differ from you, and perhaps to express myself warmly, you 
 
 may be sure I shall do so with diffidence and sincere respect 
 
 on my part ; certainly, I know I address a candid reader, one 
 
 disposed to give to what I say perhaps more than all the 
 
 consideration it may be entitled to. 
 
 You will understand, of course, that I write in respect 
 of the Report recently made by the Judicial Committee in 
 the "Purchas" Case. I am not about to defend it. No one, 
 however, ought to pronounce a condemnation of the solemn 
 judgment of such a tribunal without much consideration ; 
 and this remark applies with special force to myself, well 
 knowing as I do those from whom it proceeded, and having 
 withdrawn from sharing in the labours of the Committee 
 only because age had impaired with the strength of my body 
 the faculties also of my mind ; and so disabled me from the 
 proper discharge of any judicial duties. . 
 
 With this admission on my part, I yet venture to say tiiat 
 I think Mr. Purchas has not had justice done to him in 
 two main points of the late appeal : I mean the use of the
 
 ( 6 ) 
 
 vestments complained of and the side of the communion 
 table which he faced when consecrating the elements for the 
 Holy Communion. Before I state my reasons, let me 
 premise that I am no Ritualist, in the now conventional use 
 of the term. I do not presume to judge of the motives of 
 those to whom that name is applied. From the information 
 of common, but undisputed, report as to some of the most 
 conspicuous, I believe them entitled to all praise for their 
 pastoral devotedness and their laborious, self-denying lives ; 
 still, I do not shrink from saying that I think them mis- 
 guided, and the cause of mischief in the Church. So much 
 for my feeling in regard to the vestments. I prefer the 
 surplice at all times, and in all ministrations. As to the 
 ])lace of standing at the consecration, my feeling is with 
 them. It seems to me not desirable to make it essential 
 or even important that the people should see the breaking of 
 the bread, or the taking the cup into the hands of the priest, 
 and positively mischievous to encourage them in gazing on 
 him, or watching him with critical eyes while so employed. 
 I much prefer the spirit of the Rubric of 1549 — 1st Book of 
 Edward VI. — which says — "These words before rehearsed 
 are to be said turning still to the altar, without any eleva- 
 tion, or shewing the sacraments to the People." The use 
 now enforced, I think, tends to deprive the most solemn rite 
 of our religion of one of its most solemn particulars. Surely, 
 whatever school we belong to, and even if we consider the 
 whole rite merely commemorative, it is a very solemn idea 
 to conceive the priest at the head of his flock, and, as it were, 
 a shepherd leading them on in heart and spirit, imploring 
 for them, and with them, the greatest blessing which man is 
 capable of receiving on earth ; he alone uttering the prayer 
 — they meanwhile kneeling all, and in deep silence listening, 
 not gazing, rather with closed eyes, — and with their whole 
 undistracted attention, joining in the prayer with one heart,
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 and without sound until the united "Amen" breaks from 
 them at the close, and seals their union and assent. 
 
 This is my feeling — and I see no word in the sober language 
 of our Eubric which interferes with it — but my feeling is of 
 no importance in the argument, and I mention it only in 
 candour, to show in what spirit I approach the argument. 
 
 Now Mr. Purchas has been tried before the Committee 
 for offences alleged to have been committed against the pro- 
 visions of the "Act of Uniformity" : of this Act the Common 
 Prayer Book is part and parcel. As to the vestments, his 
 conduct was alleged to be in derogation of the Rubric as to 
 the ornaments of the Church and the Ministers thereof, which 
 ordains that such shall be retained and be in use as were in 
 this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in 
 the second year of the reign of King Edward VI. 
 
 The Act of Uniformity is to be construed by the same 
 rules exactly as any Act passed in the last Session of Parlia- 
 ment. The clause iu question (by which I mean the Eubric 
 in question) is perfectly unambiguous in language, free from 
 all difficulty as to construction ; it therefore lets in no argu- 
 ment as to intention other than that which the words them- 
 selves import. There might be a seeming difficulty m fact, 
 because it might not be known what vestments were in use 
 by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign 
 of King Edward YI. ; but this difficulty has been removed. 
 It is conceded in the Eeport that the vestments, the use 
 of which is now condemned, were in use by authority of Par- 
 liament in that year. Having that fact, you are bound to 
 construe the Eubric as if those vestments were specifically 
 named in it, instead of being only referred to. If an Act 
 should be passed to-morrow that the uniform of the Guards 
 should henceforth be such as was ordered for them by 
 authority, and used by them in the 1st Geo. I., you would 
 first ascertain what that uniform was ; and, having ascertained
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 it, you would not enquire into the changes which may have 
 been made, many or few, with or without lawful authority, 
 between the 1st Geo. I, and the passing of the new Act? All 
 these, that Act, specifying the earlier date, would have made 
 wholly immaterial. It would have seemed strange, I sup- 
 pose, if a commanding officer, disobeying the statute, had said 
 in his defence — " There have been many changes since the 
 the reign of Geo. I. ; and as to * retaining,' we put a gloss 
 on that, and thought it might mean only retaining to the 
 Queen's use ; so we have put the uniforms safely in store." 
 But, I think, it would have seemed more strange to punish 
 and mulct him severely if he had obeyed the law and put 
 no gloss on plain words. 
 
 This case tands on the same principle. The Kubric indeed 
 seems to me to imply with some clearness that in the long 
 interval between Ed. VI. and the 14th Ch. II. there had been 
 many changes ; but it does not stay to specify them, or dis- 
 tinguish between what was mere evasion and what was lawful : 
 it quietly passes them all by, and goes back to the legalised 
 usage of the 2nd year of Ed. VI. What had prevailed since, 
 whether by an Archbishop's gloss, by Commissions or even 
 Statutes, whether, in short, legal or illegal, it makes quite 
 immaterial. 
 
 I forbear to go through the long enquiry which these last 
 words remind one of — not, I am sure, out of any disrespectful 
 feeling to the learned and reverend authors of the Keport, 
 but because it seems to me wholly irrelevant to the point for 
 decision. This alone I must add, that even were the enquiry 
 relevant, the authorities on which they rely do not appear to 
 me so clear or cogent, nor the analogies relied on so just, as 
 to warrant the conclusion arrived at. For it should never be 
 forgotten that the defendant in a criminal case, acquitted as 
 to this charge by the learned Judge below, was entitled to 
 every presumption in his favour, and could not properly be
 
 I J^ ) 
 
 condemned but by a judgment free from all reasonable doubt. 
 And this remark acquires additional strength, because the 
 judgment w ill be final not only on him but the whole Church 
 for all time, unless reversed by the Legislature. 
 
 Upon the second point I have less to say, though it 
 is to me much the most important. The Eeport, I think, 
 cannot be shown conclusively to be wrong here, as it 
 may be on the other; still it does not seem to me to be 
 shown conclusively to be right. You have yourself given us 
 reason in your second letter of the 8th ]\Iarch for doubting 
 at least. 
 
 Let me add that, in my opinion, on such a question as this, 
 where a conclusion is to be arrived, at upon the true meaning 
 of Rubrics framed more than two centuries since, and cer- 
 tainly not with a view to any such minute criticism as on 
 these occasions is and must be applied to them, and where 
 the evidence of facts is by no means clear, none probably can 
 be arrived at free from reasonable objection. AVhat is the 
 consequence? It will be asked, Is the question to receive no 
 judicial solution ? I am not afraid to answer, Better far that 
 it should receive none than that injustice should be done. 
 The principles of English law furnish the practical solution : 
 dismiss the party charged, unless his conviction can be based 
 on grounds on which reasonable and competent minds can 
 rest satisfied, and without scruple. And what mighty mis- 
 chief will result to countervail the application of this rule of 
 justice ? For two centuries our Church has subsisted with- 
 out an answer to the question which alone gives importance 
 to this enquiry ; and surely has not been without God's bless- 
 ing for that time, in spite of all much more serious short- 
 comings. Let us remember that Charity, or, to use, j-jcrhaps, 
 abetter word. Love, is the greatest of all; if that prevnil. 
 there need be little fear for our Faith or our Hope. 
 
 These last words, my dear I\lr. Liddon, I mennt to address 
 
 r, o
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 to both parties in this controversy, venturing to think the 
 caution not out of season to both ; and by Love I do not mean 
 between themselves only, but to the flocks whose shepherds 
 they are. But now let me add a word to those from whom 
 the appellants come. They reject the vestments. Are they 
 quite sure on what ground the surplice at the Holy Com- 
 munion is to be rested safely. The judgment may be said 
 to have wholly annulled the Eubric in respect to the vest- 
 ments ; but if the use of the surplice were to be subjected to 
 the same sort of enquiry which has been applied to the vest- 
 ments, is it certain what the result would be ? You, perhaps, 
 are not old enough to remember, what I do perfectly, the 
 surplice riots, when a very few clergymen began first to 
 preach surpliced, and in a city not far from where I am now 
 writing, at the hazard of injury to their persons. We can 
 afford, we think, to smile at such things now ; but the 
 example should not be lost on us. On both sides we should 
 consider what manner of spirit it is that guides us in these 
 conflicts, and to what results they may lead. 
 
 I am sensible that you may ask me, having so far ex- 
 pressed so much concurrence with you, why I have thought 
 it necessary to write to you at all, much more why I com- 
 menced my letter as I have done. 1 did not think I should 
 be so long in this preliminary matter, and I will now proceed 
 to answer the question, to which 1 feel I am open. Your letter 
 speaks of the Final Court of Appeal in terms, and with a 
 conclusion in view, to neither of which I can agree; and 
 further, you speak of the disestablishment of the Church in 
 a way which I hope I may misunderstand, and, if I do not, 
 I would implore your reconsideration of. 
 
 The first of these was a subject, almost the only one, on 
 which I had the misfortune to differ from my most dear and 
 venerated friend, John Keble. You have read my memoir 
 of him, and, I doubt not, two letters from him to myself
 
 ( 11 ) 
 
 upon the subject, I believe, certainly, he retained his 
 opinion to the hist. He objected first (I use his own words) 
 that "the Judicial Power in re^^ard of alleged offences 
 against the Faith (the italics are my own) had been entrusted 
 by the Founder of the Society (the Christian Eeligion) to 
 persons nominated by Him for the purpose," meaning, no 
 doubt, the Apostles and their successors, the Bishops. To 
 make this applicable to the present argument, it must be 
 understood of an authority conferred to endure for all time, 
 and not to be modified by any change of circumstances in 
 the Church, or, at all events, not in fact modified by any 
 change existing in our branch of the Church. I feel that I 
 may be exposing my own ignorance (for he was not a man to 
 lay down his position without consideration, and his know- 
 ledge of Scripthre, as you know better than I do, being a 
 more competent judge, was most intimate and accurate), 
 still I cannot avoid asking, On what Scriptural authority is 
 this founded ? I know of the power given to loose and retain 
 all sins to St. Peter. I know the promise of ratification in 
 Heaven of the Apostolic Sentence on earth. I must admit, 
 what may be relied on, the reprehension by St. Paul of 
 the Corinthian converts, who, in the case of civil ctn- 
 troversies, sued brother converts in the heathen courts <jf 
 law. I know, too, the course which Our Blessed Lord 
 directs to be pursued, where one brother sins against an<jther 
 — ending in the last stage in a reference to the Churt h. 
 But for different reasons in the different instances, all seem 
 to me to fail in supporting the position now under exami- 
 nation. 
 
 But I have an excusable reluctance to pursue this enquiry 
 further ; it is painful to me to argne against his autiiority, 
 and unfeignedly I feel that, because I am deficient in 
 respect of Scriptural knowledge, I think he may have had 
 more authority than I suppose. You may inform me better, 
 
 B 4
 
 ( 12 ) 
 
 and, if you do, you may rely on it I shall withdraw from my 
 position. Waiving for the present this point I shall, by and bye, 
 say a few words more on the expediency of referring the 
 trial of ecclesiastical offences on final appeal to a Court of 
 Ecclesiastics only, which is, after all, the matter practically 
 in dispute. 
 
 I now return to your letter. You proceed to attempt to 
 show that the words of Keble to yourself, which you cite, are 
 justified, by remarks on this Report and some previous judg- 
 ments of the same tribunal, which appear to you so incon- 
 sistent with each other as to make it difficult to believe 
 that the Court was impartial, or " incapable of regarding 
 the documents before it in the light of a plastic material, 
 which might be made to support conclusions held to be ad- 
 visable at the moment, and on independent grounds." 
 
 I wish these words had never been written. They will, I 
 fear, be understood as conveying your formed opinions ; and 
 coming from you, and addressed to minds already excited 
 and embittered, they will be readily accepted, though they 
 import the heaviest charges against judges — some of them 
 bishops — all of high and hitherto unim peached character. 
 A very long experience of judicial life makes me know that 
 judges will often provoke and bitterly disappoint both the 
 sm'tors before them and the public, when discharging their 
 duty honestly and carefully, and a man is scarcely fit for the 
 station unless he can sit tolerably easy under censures which 
 even these may pass upon him. Yet, imputations of partiality 
 or corruption are somewhat hard to bear when they are 
 made by persons of your station and character. When the 
 Judicial Committee sits on appeals from the Spiritual Courts, 
 it fnay certainly be under God's displeasure, the members 
 may be visited with judicial blindness, and deprived of the 
 integrity which in other times and cases they manifest. 
 Against such a supposition there is no direct argument, and
 
 ( 13 ) 
 
 I will not enter into such a disputation. I have so much 
 confidence in your generosity and candour, on reflection, as to 
 believe you would not desire I should. 
 
 In the individual case, I simply protest against the insinua- 
 tion. I add a word or two by way of general observation. 
 
 No doubt you have read the judgments in all the cases you 
 allude to carefully ; but have you read the pleadings and the 
 arguments of the counsel, so as to know accurately the points 
 raised i'or the consideration of those who were to decide ? 
 To know the offence charged and the judgment pronounced 
 may suffice in some cases for an opinion by a competent 
 person, whether the one warranted the other ; but more is 
 required to warrant the imputation of inconsistency, par- 
 tiality, or indirect motives. He who takes this on himself 
 should know further how the pleadings and the arguments 
 presented the case for judgment, and made this or that 
 particular relevant in the discussion. Every one at all 
 familiar with this matter knows that a judgment not uncom- 
 monly fails to reflect the private opinion of the judge on the 
 whole of a great point ; because the issues of law or fact 
 actually brought before him, and which alone he was bound to 
 decide, did not bring this before him. And this rule, always 
 binding, is, of course, never more so than in regard to a Court 
 of Final Appeal, which should be careful not to conclude more 
 than is regularly before it. Let me add that a just and con- 
 siderate person will wholly disregard the gossip which flies 
 about in regard to cases exciting much interest; passing 
 words in the course of an argument, forgotten when the 
 judgment comes to be considered, are too often caught up, 
 as having guided the linal determination. 
 
 And now, trusting you will see in what I have said no 
 mark of want of respect, but rather proof how much con- 
 fidence I have in your candour, I pass to a few remarks on 
 the first of the two great points which your letter [jresents
 
 ( 1^ ) 
 
 for discussion : the necessity, namely, for a repeal of the law 
 by which jurisdiction in the case of alleged religious oftences 
 s given t o tlie Judicial Committee. That is, undoubtedly, the 
 true point for those to aim at who agree with you generally. 
 I am told, indeed, tliat many good men are united in a deter- 
 mination to resist the law while it remains unrepealed. I 
 venture to think that they can hardly have considered calmly 
 the character or the consequences of that course, nor how 
 mischievous an example they will be setting to their flocks. 
 
 You will understand that I must now assume, and with 
 what guards I assume, that the present jurisdiction may in 
 the sight of God lawfully exist — and I suppose I may assume 
 absolutely that you contemplate the creation of some other 
 court for the trial of these offences, witli power to punish 
 offenders, and give effect to sentences, which may suspend 
 them from the enjoyment of their property, or even deprive 
 them of it. Of course, this must be in the first place the act of 
 the Temporal Power : you can scarcely suppose that there is 
 now subsisting in the Church alone, or that the Church of her 
 own power could create, any such jurisdiction — for you cannot 
 forget the difference between an Established Church as it 
 now exists with us, and the Church of the Apostolic times. 
 Now let us suppose the accomplishment of your first step 
 complete — demolition — and that of your second — creation 
 — hopeful ; may I ask what is the new court in contemplation ? 
 You will answer, I presume, that there is no difficulty. You 
 have it ready in the body of the successors of the Apostles. 
 Will you then divide them according to Provinces, and have 
 two Supreme Couris, and so run the risk of conflicting de- 
 cisions in Canterbury and York ; or will you unite the Pro- 
 vinces for this purpose, by the help again of the Temporal 
 Po\\er? Without it the United Body, you will see, would 
 have no jurisdiction binding on the Clergy of either Pro- 
 vince. Every step so far must be entirtly the work of the
 
 ( 15 ) 
 
 Temporal Power ; but let me suppose you have overcome 
 your scruples of leaning on it, and that you have found a 
 willing Parliament sweeping away these and many more 
 such difficulties for you, and giving you all tilings according 
 to your mind ; and even further let me suppose that the 
 great body of the Clergy, for once forgetting all their differ- 
 ences, and breaking up all their party divisions, are heartily 
 well disposed to your scheme, I come still to a question, 
 important, and which I am sure I do not intend to put dis- 
 respectfully — Do you seriously expect to find in the Bishops 
 sitting in one body, or two, or in any rotation, however 
 impartially framed, a satisfactory and competent court for the 
 final decision of the cases which a Church, unhappily divided 
 on many points, would in due course bring before them ? — do 
 you expect to have no wrong judgments, none such as to 
 raise suspicions of partiality and prejudice ? 
 
 I wish to speak of the Bishops with the respect due to 
 their high office, and with the love and honour with which 1 
 regard some of their Lordships whom I have the honour to 
 know personally ; but I must confess still, I could not answer 
 these questions in the affirmative; and then I remember 
 that unsatisfactory judgments from such a court as you 
 contemplate would be far more injurious to the faith, far 
 more painful to the conscience, than the same judgments pro- 
 ceeding from the present authority. Whatever ignorant 
 people may suppose, there goes more to the making of a good 
 judge than ability, knowledge, and honesty all united. There 
 may be now and then remarkable exceptions, as some men 
 are said to be born orators, or generals, so now and then a 
 man may be a born judge ; but as a rule applicable to a 
 body, judging is a craft, and he who would be a good crafts- 
 man must be trained to it. 
 
 You know well that some, I believe not a few, of the
 
 ( 1<! ) 
 
 Founders of our Colleges, without having this particular 
 emergency in view, did in some sort, and partially, provide 
 for it, by requiring that all or a portion of their Fellows 
 should legularly proceed in the Canon and Civil Law ; and 
 you know that in substance this provision has become 
 wholly inoperative. But had it not, and had this sort of 
 education proceeded farther, it would but have done half 
 the work required : the attendance in courts, and the taking 
 part in legal arguments, are equally essential parts of the 
 training for the office of a judge. You will deceive your- 
 self if you suppose that the proceedings in a trial before 
 the court you devise would differ materially or favourably 
 from those before that which you condemn. The advocates, 
 I suppose, must still be laymen ; and they (or if you substi- 
 tute 1 clerks, these) would not be less ingenious, discursive, 
 or, it may be, misleading. Then the eminent laymen who 
 now practise before the Committee would not be likely to 
 show more deference towards your tribunal than they mani- 
 fest towards the present. JS'or do I think your judges, how- 
 ever high in rank, would be less influenced by their argu- 
 ments, or feel less difficulty in directing the course and 
 enforcing observance either by them or by themselves 
 of the true limits of the argument — their want of experi- 
 ence might often make them feel more. You must re- 
 member they would be sitting to try a cause, not to frame 
 a decree; and I do not know whether, if they were, the 
 debates in either House of Convocation have tended to 
 increase your confidence. 
 
 If these remarks be true generally, see with what peculiar 
 force they apply to Bishops, all whose antecedents, especially 
 of those who have best prepared themselves for their high 
 and holy calling, have tended rather to unfit than to fit 
 them for this particular duty. And is it desirable that.
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 while incumbents and charged with the care of parishes, 
 they should be diverted from that care by preparing them- 
 selves for this ? and when they are raised to the Bench, do 
 you think that — worn down, as even the strong ones among 
 them are at present, with labours which they can neither 
 put aside nor yet master without loss of health and strength 
 — it is desirable to add this additional duty to their 
 present burdens ? could they, in fact, undertake it, without 
 giving up part of that which must be done, and another 
 cannot do for them ? Let it not be supposed it will be a 
 light matter they will undertake, if they should do it as 
 Avell as you expect they would, and I should rejoice if they 
 were found able to do. 
 
 And now, before I part from this subject, let me give you 
 the benefit of every supposition in your favour. You have 
 abolished the Committee, so far as regards the trial of 
 religious offences, and the new tribunal is in full work ; still 
 you must not suppose that you have put an end to the juris- 
 diction of purely Temporal Courts in such cases. It is a 
 maxim daily acted on, and indeed essential to the complete 
 administration of justice, that where a court has jurisdiction 
 to try the principal issue in a cause, it has incidentally juris- 
 diction to try also all collateral matters which are essential 
 to the conclusion on that issue. It would still, therefore, be 
 easy in an action for libel to raise any of these questions 
 before a Judge of Assize and a Jury; from the direction of 
 the Judge to the Jury, the case might go to the Court of 
 Exchequer chamber, and thence for a final decision to the 
 House of Lords. Practically, I do not suppose that this 
 would often occur; yet as in this matter there would pro- 
 bably be temper on both sides, and certainly ingenuity and 
 perseverance, it might, and it is right, to mention the pos- 
 sibility; that your case may be considered on all] sides* 
 Indeed without temper, or the exercise of misplaced in-
 
 ( 18 ) 
 
 genuity, you must know that in the Court of Chancery a 
 question of trust might, and not very uncommonly does, 
 raise for decision important points of doctrine. 
 
 Now what are the weapons with which the warfare is to be 
 carried on, and the present system assailed ? 1 suppose it is 
 admitted that no attempt to procure a statutory destruction 
 of it is at all likely to succeed at present ; but, as I under- 
 stand, passive resistance to this particular decree will be 
 resorted to by a considerable number of the clergy ; in other 
 words, they will not obey the Law, and will set an example, 
 which their congregations maybe too ready to follow in other 
 matters, of disobedience to the Law. I by no means deny 
 that there are supposable cases, in which this might be a 
 duty ; but it is a very grave responsibility for any man to 
 determine for himself that a particular case is one of these — 
 prima facie it must be admitted to be a duty to obey the 
 laws of one's country — a duty whic^h no one, and least of all 
 the constituted teachers of the people, can lightly absolve 
 himself from performing. The objection here must be 
 either to the jurisdiction of the court generally ; and then it 
 would apply to every decree which it has made, or shall 
 make ; or it is limited to this particular decree. I have 
 said what occurs to me on the first supposition, and I will 
 not repeat it ; but, as to the second, it may wound our feelings, 
 it may deny the use of what to us is a help to devotional 
 feeling, it may mar, if I may so say, the beauty of holiness ; 
 but does it touch the doctrine of the ^Sacrament ? — are the 
 vestments or the position at consecration any part of that ? — 
 is the US3 of the former, or the selection of the latter, essen- 
 tial to a perfect consecration or an effectual reception of the 
 Holy Elements ? Nothing of this sort can, I am persuaded, 
 be affirmed ; and, if it cannot, I do not see how conscience 
 can require disobedience to the Law. Be it always remem- 
 bered that nothing touches the liberty of the clergy to
 
 ( ly ) 
 
 believe and to teach as the true doctrine what they believed 
 and taught before. 
 
 I need not point out that in these matters there are two 
 sides — there are, it is well known, many congregations to 
 whom that is shocking which to others is delightful. If we 
 mean to deal charitably, or justly, or even sensibly, in any 
 such controversy, we must look at things for a while from 
 our adversary's point of view, not only and always from oui- 
 own — and this not the less because we fail to meet with 
 similar forbearance — we must take account of his feelings, 
 however unreasonable they may seem to us, as well as of 
 our own ; and, if we do, we may find ground for excusing 
 his bitterness and moderating our own heat. Eemaining 
 firm in our own convictions, we may yet find that the 
 present is exactly a case in which Charity may require 
 condescension to what we think ignorance, even per- 
 verseness, in others, but which, after all, may be only a 
 weakness as conscientious as our own happy freedom from 
 doubt. There is, moreover, a consideration which circum- 
 stances cause to press on me with much force. It has been 
 my duty for years, more often than commonly falls to the lot 
 of laymen, to receive the Holy Communion in the room of a 
 sick friend : now who would dream of vestments tliere ? who 
 would think even a surplice, however desirable, which I 
 quite think it is, absolutely necessary there? Who would 
 cavil at the place in which the Priest stood when conse- 
 crating there ? Let us be very careful not so to exaggerate 
 this matter as to suggest the shadow of a doubt to the 
 weakened mind of any scrupulous sick person that for want 
 of these the Cup of blessing is less rich or precious in the 
 least imaginable degree. 
 
 It would be presumptuous in me to do more than point 
 out in passing the inevitable mischief attendant on com- 
 binations such as the one now spoken of — they are begun
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 with the purest motives, the strongest and sincerest pro- 
 testations of peaceful intentions; all ostentation is to be 
 avoided, all that Charity requires is to be observed — these 
 are the comely beginnings, and they attract zealous men — 
 how often do they end in the ugliness of party ? 
 
 I hasten to my conclusion too long delayed, but a word 
 must still be added on a subject of not less consequence than 
 any I have yet touched on. You say, " Churchmen will to 
 a very great extent indeed find relief from the dilemma in a 
 third course, viz. co-o]oeration with the political forces, which, 
 year by year, more and more steadily, are working towards 
 disestablishment. This is not a menace : it is the statement 
 of a simple fact." 
 
 I am bound to believe, and I do believe, you do not intend 
 this as a menace ; but such a statement of a future course to 
 depend on a contingency cannot but read very much like 
 one — and against your intention it may well be understood 
 as such. You do not say that you are one who will co-operate 
 with the political party which now seeks to disestablish 
 the Church, in accomplishing its purpose, and I do not 
 suppose you ever will. But on behalf, not so much of the 
 clergy, as of the laity — on behalf of the worshippers in our 
 churches, of the sick to be visited at home — of the poor in 
 their cottages, of our children in their schools — of our Society 
 in general, I entreat those of the clergy who are now feeling 
 the most acutely in this matter not to suifer their minds to 
 be so absorbed by the present grievance as to take no thought 
 of the evils of disestablishment. I am not foolishly blind to 
 faults in the clergy — indeed I fear lam sometimes even cen- 
 sorious in regard to them — and some of their faults I do think 
 may be referable to Establishment ; the possession of house 
 and land, and a sort of independence of their parishioners, in 
 some cases seems to tend to secularity. I regret sometimes 
 their partisanship at elections, their speeches at public
 
 ( 21 ) 
 
 dinners. But what good gift of God is not liable to abuse 
 from men ? Taken as a whole, we have owed, and we do owe, 
 under Him, to our Established Clergy more than we can ever 
 repay, much of it rendered possible by their Establishment. 
 I may refer, and now with especial force, to Education — 
 their services in this respect no one denies — and but for 
 Establishment these, I think, could not have been so effec- 
 tively and systematically rendered. We are now in a great 
 crisis as to this all-important matter. Concurring, as I do 
 heartily, in the praise which has been bestowed on Mr. 
 Forster, and expecting that his great and arduous ofSce will 
 be discharged with perfect impartiality by him, and with a 
 just sense how much is due to the clergy in this respect, still 
 it cannot be denied that the powers conferred by the Legis- 
 lature on the holder of it are alarmingly great, even if neces- 
 sary; and who shall say in what a spirit they may be 
 exercised by his successor ? For the general upholding of 
 religious education, in emergencies not improbable, to whom 
 can we look in general so confidently as to the Parochial 
 Clergy ? I speak now specially in regard to parishes such as 
 I am most familiar with, in agricultural districts, small, 
 not largely endowed, sometimes without resident gentry, 
 and with the land occupied by rack-renting farmers, indif- 
 ferent or hostile to education. 
 
 I have but glanced at a very few of the benefits we owe to 
 our Establishment ; this is not the place for a full discussion 
 of the whole great question — and if it were, I am not com- 
 petent to the task — 
 
 " Nequoo monstrare, et sentio tantum." 
 
 If the evil, be it our trial or our chastisement, is to fall on 
 us, I should not despair — I should still believe tliat the 
 Church was under God's protection, and stripped as we might
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 seem to be of this or that help or safeguard, I should still 
 rely on His blessing our honest endeavours to perform the 
 duties imposed on us. It will not be the first time that 
 the Ark of the Church has seemed to be overwhelmed in 
 the waves, and again has righted : if we are to go through 
 the same trial with the same issue, only let us make a better 
 use of our restoration than our forefathers did of the mercy 
 vouchsafed to them. 
 
 For the clergy to join in a political crusade to accelerate 
 their disestablishment would seem to me to argue such a 
 dementation both as to the act and the object as would 
 indeed almost cause the most confident to despair. 
 
 " Hoc Ithacus velit, et magno mercentur AtridcP." 
 
 My letter has been almost entirely addressed in eifect 
 to those with whom you feel united, but I cannot close it 
 thus. Disguise it as we may, ours is, in one sense, a divided 
 Church. Within our pale are two great parties at issue on 
 more than formal matters — on points no less important 
 than the two Sacraments " generally necessary to salvation." 
 This is a fact never enough to be lamented, yet which it is 
 idle to attempt to conceal ; but good and wise Christians 
 have thought — and happily teach us — that, considering how 
 far we agree, and the mysterious nature of those points as to 
 which we differ — our unhappy differences are not such as 
 to prevent both parties from being united in one Church. 
 Those have thought this who cannot justly be called Lati- 
 tudinarians, or charged with indifference as to Christian 
 doctrine. 
 
 May we not stand on that platform ? — we are, in fact, 
 standing on it, and have been so at least from the date of 
 the Gorham decision. Some may smile at us, some may 
 scorn us. Be it so ; but let us look around at home and in
 
 ( 23 ) 
 
 every quarter of the globe, and say, Have we been, in spite 
 of trials and difficulties which must have destroyed a house 
 built on sand, Mien, or been deprived of God's blessing on 
 us ? If we may so stand, may we not stand in peace with 
 each other as to all things not essential to the Faith, and 
 in Charity even as to them ? May we not cease to waste 
 our energies in conflicts, such as have occasioned the 
 Purchas litigation? I do not forget what is behind and 
 thiidy covered by it, — the fear of Kome — a fear, as I 
 think, ^yonderfully excessive — but, if there be ground for 
 it, even against that danger we shall be more safe if, 
 first, we be united among ourselves, and, secondly, if we will, 
 with one heart, direct all our energies against a worse enemy 
 than Eonie, and now, I believe, a more powerful one — I 
 mean Infidelity. That contest is enough for our day. You 
 know as well as — perhaps better than — any man how it 
 presses, where it touches us, whom amongst us it assails, 
 under what colours it fights, and with what various weapons. 
 You know how it troubles, where it does not overthrow ; 
 how it weakens, where it does not destroy ; and every thinking- 
 man, I suppose, knows what misery, what destruction, ensues 
 where it conquers. Surely here are sick to be healed, 
 wounded to be tended, poor distressed souls to be soothed 
 and set at rest, young to be guided and guarded, weak minds 
 to be strengthened, strong ones to be reasoned down. 
 
 And may not High and Low meet in the discharge of 
 their common duty ? I believe that if the good men of both 
 parties laboured together, shoulder to shoulder, in such 
 works as these, they would come to know and to love each 
 other better; they would see the good more clearly, they 
 would judge the evil in each other more charitably, and have 
 not merely a truce but a permanent peace, without unworthy 
 concession on either side.
 
 ( 24 ) 
 
 By the sincere desire of such a communion I have been 
 tempted to write to you this long letter, and to venture out 
 of my depth in troubled waters. If I have sometimes seemed 
 to you over-vehement in thought, or strong in expression, I 
 entreat your forgiveness and your belief that I am, with 
 sincere respect and much-deserved gratitude. 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 J. T. COLERIDGE. 
 
 LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, 8TAMF0RD STBICKT 
 AKD CHARING CBOSS.
 
 ^^:^: 
 
 ii:-iP« 
 
 :il^<c^-'>^y^^'^" 
 
 WmihM 
 
 Hte^^ 'r 
 
 M'^%''^ 
 
 1^%^^=^-:-^: .i 
 
 m'm0» 
 
 C-2 P-a, 
 
 «*l