A Letter to the Rev. William Maskell, A.M.: How far the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council commits the Church of England by its decision, even allowing it to have jurisdiction in points of doctrineMayow, Mayow Wynell
Religion
A Letter to the Rev. William Maskell, A.M.: How far the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council commits the Church of England by its decision, even allowing it to have jurisdiction in points of doctrine
Mayow, Mayow Wynell
Baptism -- Church of England; Church and state -- Church of England; Church and state -- Great Britain; Ecclesiastical law -- England -- History -- 19th century; Gorham, George Cornelius; Great Britain. Privy Council. Judicial Committee
Let me come at once to this point: and to do so I cannot,
perhaps, proceed more conveniently than by making a quotation
from your letter. At page 54, you say:—“No
doubt this court,” (The Judicial Committee of Privy
Council,) “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: . . . If then the decision of
the court is to be listened to p. 5at 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
repudiating 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.”
You say, it is not easy to discover a middle way. I
would hope, though not easy, it may be not
impossible.
Let me however here, and in the first place, clear myself from
any suspicion, if you should be inclined to attach it to me, that
I am about to seek a middle course by softening the amount of
error contained in a denial of the exclusive doctrine of
regeneration in baptism. Let me not be deemed guilty, even
in thought, of doubting that such denial is a denial of the
“one baptism for the remission of sins,” and is
absolute unmitigated heresy; being such as would have shut out
any Church permitting its profession, from the communion of
Christendom in the primitive ages; such as no Church can
maintain, and remain a living branch of the one Body of
Christ. I cast to the winds and repudiate with all my soul,
that spurious charity of our day, which would seek to
“please men” at the expense of God’s truth;
which would recommend the Gospel by denying the Faith; which
would render it more popular or palatable, by explaining away the
Creeds; and all, to be able to include the more within the
Church’s pale, under the plea of an extended
usefulness. Such liberality (with what is not our own to
give,) is, in my estimation, a giving away God’s honour,
and so, mere and absolute treason against p. 6Him: therefore is a giving away our place in
His Church, and a blotting out it’s name from the book of
life.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account