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

ter ofimportance sboiild be contented to

ment in questions of faith to ten

m's opinions are tru

doubtful that he teac

s them a 5 a clergyman of a

English Church, because her Majesty
examining them, has pronounced in his favour

Council, afte

he would-not be able thus to t

authority had pronounced against him. And if our Lord'
Divinity, or any other article of the Creed, were brough
into question, we see by this decision that it would res

with the Priry Council to hear, examine

whether it shoUld or should not be taught by ministers
of the Church of England. Now this was not the rule of
the holy apostles, nor of Him who taught us to " render
to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the
things which are God's." Yet your letter calls upon all,
whose conscience rejects such a claim, to leave the Church
of England. For this is not a question which affects the
clergy alone, since to accept the true doctrines of the
royal supremacy is as necessary to communion as it is to
office (Canon 17).
Those Rho contradict the plain words of the baptismal
service, and even propose that the Prayer Book should be
bracketed for the convenience of parties who are conscious
they disbelieve it, are not very consistent surely when they
would exclude all who cannot acquiesce in this novel claim.
But I will abstain from recriminations on this subject, for
it is not in anger, but in sorrow, that I engage in the pain-
ful task of personal controversy. And if I refer at all to
your own opinions, it is only because I cannot vindicate
myself without noticing the difference of our principles ;
for if I looked upon the Church of England as you do,
should feel no more difficulty than you seem to contem-
plate in renouncing her. If I supposed her to be only
one among the sects, distinguished from the rest by the
circumstance that she was favoured by government, I rea-
dily allow that I ought to leave her the moment the royal
authority imposed any rule against which my conscience
witnessed. But my different estimate of the Church in-

volves different consequences. I believe her to be a spi-
ritual body—a body which is in this world but not of it;
responsible only to its Divine Head, and ANIMATED BY
THAT SACRED SPIRIT which is the sole guide to truth.
This is my notion of the Church universal ; and the claim
of the Church of England has ever been that she is the
same Church sojourning in this land. To your first ques-
tion, then, how I can deny the fitness of a claim which is
sanctioned by the laws of the land ? I answer, that I owe
a previous obedience to the law of Christ. I might, in-
deed, refer to the example of yourself and many others,
who have never thought yourselves precluded from de-
manding the alteration of laws which you disapproved.
But it is plain that no hrrnan law can oblige either a mem-
ber or minister of the Church to violate God's command-
ment. Otherwise St. Paul should have renounced his
faith, or at atl events his office as an apostle.
You ask, secondly, How I can continue then in a Church
which requires me to acknowledge the royal supremacy ?
I answer, that the royal supremacy may mean two things
—the ancient authority, which was restored to the crown,
or the modern authority conferred upon it. The very
purpose of my declaration was that I admitted the first,
but denied the lawfulness of the second. Were I called
upon to take the oath of supremacy afresh, I should assert
that this was the only sense in which I could accept it;
and on this assertion it remains for my ecclesiastical su-
periors to pronounce. For the oath of supremacy is not
left to the guardianship only of private conscience ; it is
secured by penalties, which those in authority are bound
by oath and promise to enforce. The canon expressly
requires that "all bishops shall cause to be observed and
kept of all others all and singular laws and statutes made
for restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction."
From the force of this law I have not attempted to shield
myself, for the first person to whom I sent the declara-
tion was the Archbishop of York. As a matter of con-
science I am persuaded that I only vindicate the Church's
true position, and the ancient political constitution of this
land, when I deny that her Majesty possesses that right
of deciding in matters of faith which she has lately exer-
cised. _

as
eneldmcwothrnoe
II
mfilnasagi tiohe
lyai
tonuciaru
citsehhri
trhadienquestion
at
ismhdeeo
swp
el
willroanstghe
o?Iws
yht
oahluel
contend for this right on behalf of the Church of England,
ChFch of England to acquiesce in that new position
which is assigned to her by recent statutes, and will thus
demonstrate
,that she is what you have yourself always
asserted her to be—only a well-endowed sect. I answer
that this is a point on which I altogether refuse to enter;
because to forecast the disgrace of my Church seems to me
as undutiful as to anticipate the crimes of a parent. In
saying this, I seem to you to be actuated only by those
mercenary motives with which you taunt me. But those
who look upon this great nation, and think how fearful
would be the evil if it should lose that tie which binds it
to the Church Universal—those who love the memory of
the great men who have flourished among us in times
past, and appreciate the blessings which they have con-
ferred upon their country, will form a more favourable
and more just estimate of my conduct. —Your obedient
servant, ROBERT J. WILBERFORCE.