The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-10-01 00:00:00

It is difficult to determine v

): our words, as a w

do not apply to either

But to come to the matter practically in point: you

to our cot

cannot con

to le-avo

the settlement in matters of faith to
and claim it for the Church herself.
May I ask what Church you mean ? The visible Eng-
lish branch of the Church Universal consists of a large
oroportion of the population of England, lay and clerical.
the appeal lie of right to them collectively ? This
What then ? Who shall select a court
uding some members of the Church ? And
In a court 50 selected be called the Church?
elsewhere, have recourse to the princi-

is not pretended

a what s

pie of representation? Then the question at issue de-
scends from the high ground of abstract principle, t
limited to what is the best manner of choosing the repre-
sentative body, and of whom should it consist ?

This has icing since been determined here in England.
Our Sovereign is not a heathen, or an infidel, or anti-
Christian Ctesar ; but the chief member of de English
Church, as well as of the English State. And if an appeal.
lie to the Church, not collective but represented, of whom.
can the representative body more properly consist, than
the Sovereign, aided by the two Archbishops ?
Our 36th canon is decisive—

" The King's Majesty, under God, is the only supreme g,ol
vernor of this realm, and of all other his highness's dominions
and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things

Observe, in all spiritual things or causes, and in all
ecclesiastical things or causes, as well as in all temporal
things or causes. Here are not only temporal things, and
the temporal accidents, whatever they may be, of spiritual
things, but spiritual things themselves ! I pray you
mark this.

I observe that the Bishop of Exeter has given an inter-
pretation of this, and exhorted his clergy to understand
it as

" So expressed chiefly for the purpose of excluding every
claimant of the supreme government in such things or causes
within this realm, except the lawful Sovereign thereof."

I accept his Lordship's version, and exclude every
claimant of the supreme government in spiritual things
or causes within this realm, except the lawful Sovereign
thereof. This excludes the claim of every other member
of the Church except the Sovereign, to exercise that high
function of supreme government—to wit, final judgment

,n appeal

u*Ch is the existing state of our law, and to this you
are bound by oath and subscription. The parallel there-
fore fails, which you attempt to draw between your posi-
tion while seeking to have this state of the law altered,
and mine while seeking the alteration of laws which I dis-
approve. You _ _

- . -
"To your first question, then. bow I can deny the fitness of
a claim which is sanctioned by the laws of the Oland, I answer
that I owe a previous obedience to the laws of Christ. 1 might,
indeed, refer to the example of yourself and many others who
have never thought yourselves precluded from demanding the
alteration of laws which you disapproved."

My question was not how you can deny the fitness of a
claim which is sanctioned by the laws of the land, but of
a claim which is sanctioned by a law to which you are
bound by oath and subscription. And the justice of your
parallel fails because I am not bound by oath and sub-
scription to any law which I wish to see altered. The
Legislature have, indeed, passed laws which I fear are
detrimental to the best interests of the Church and the
country,—such, for example, as.the national endowment
of Alaynooth College—but I am nor bound by oath or
subscription to this law, in any sense or interpretation of
it. I could not be so. Nothing earthly could induce me.
If entering into, or maintaining, communion with the
Church of England required this, I could do neither. I
rejoice in the improving privilege of free-born Britons, to
petition for, the
ao
lbtjeercatt,i
nann
nd f da insyc ul
as sw, ag
which itate, and
elainevde to be at variance
with the word of God, or the real good of their count,-
but not after they have voluntarily bound themselve
that law by oath and subscription.
It would not become me to go in any way between you
and your Diocesan, or to comment on the manner in.
which you dare his Grace to the strife. But I may be
permitted to say, that the forbearance of the Archbishop
of York is doubtless of a catholic impartiality. You have
experienced it; and I think it probable that had Air.
Gorham been appointed to a parish in Yorkshire, the
Church would have been spared the present scandal.
To conclude : I asked how long your attempt to have
the law altered was to last, and to keep your conscience
at rest, supposing it to fail through successive sessions
and successive parliaments.

You answer, that this is a point on which you altoge-
ther refuse to enter, _

" Because to forecast the disgrace of my Church seems to,
be as undutiful as to anticipate the crimes of a parent•"
You will please to observe that this is a complete beg-
ging of the whole question. Instead of forecasting our
Church's disgrace, I was forecasting her honour, in such
a stedfast adherence to the existing state of the law as
shall compel all those who repudiate it, after having
sworn to it, either to retire from her pale, or to remain.
in it under circumstances of such painful suspicion as it
grieves me• to my heart to see attaching to your father's
son.

Your obedient servant,
lIUGH ZsI`NEILE.

Liverpool, 27th Sept., 1650.