The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1850-11-05 00:00:00

TAE LINERPOOL STANDARD.

TO ARCHDEACON WILBERFORCE.

VENERABLE SIR,--The numerous misrepresentations
contained in your last letter compel me to write again.
I admire the skill of your attempt, by the introduction of
new and irrelevant matter, to put me on self-defence,
and under cover of this to withdraw attention from your
own equivocal position. But skilful though it be, it shall
not be successful. If I give a spe,imen of your misre-
presentations, it is not to defend myself, but that our
readers may have an opportunity to judge of your fairness
and candour.

First, you say that I have " engaged" you in this cor-
respondence, and in your note to the editor of the Times
you call my letter an "attack."
Your agitating circular, which provoked the correspon-
dence, preceded my first letter by several weeks. That
letter of mine was one of many elicited by your
circular. You allowed all the others to pass unnoticed,
and selected mine for a reply. Of course you must have
expected a rejoinder, and now you call that rejoinder an
attack! Instead of reiterating your assertion without
proof, be so good as to attend to these facts.
Second, you say, " Let me add, in relation to your last
letter, (I suppress the obvious sarcasm which suggests
itself.) that I did not, as you suppose, confound you with
Dr. Chalmers." I never supposed or intimated that you
confounded me with that distinguished man; but willing
to suggest some possible apology for your unfounded
assertion concerning a volume of mine, I supposed that
you had confounded it with a volume of his on the same
subject. I still think so. You do not deny it. My
words were, "I think you must have confounded mu
volume with one by Dr. Chalmers on the same subject!'
In this way alone could I account for your misrepresenta-
tion of my sentiments as contained in that volume—a
misrepresentation as flagrant as I ever met with in the
most unscrupulous controversialist of any school—a mis-
representation which I fully exposed by reference to my
volume in my last letter—a misrepresentation, let me add,
which you have neither retracted nor explained, nor justi-
fied in the slightest degree. Be so kind (to yourself) as
to write your next letter in a practical remembrance of
the ninth commandment.

You may perhaps consider this " acrimony such as it
has been your hope and effort not to retaliate ;" but
honesty is earnest, and the common refuge of evasion is
to affect forbearance, and charge honest earnestness with
acrimonious severity. You should rather call this kind
consideration on my part; seeing that it affords you a
golden opportunity to prove your real meekness by a can-
did acknowledgement of your fault.

Third, you now, for the first time, introduce a distinc-
tion which you adroitly intimate has been already before
us, and against which ycu suppose me to argue. You say
you " affirmed only that the Queen's supremacy was legal,
not absolute."
Had that been your affirmation, it would never have
provoked a denial from me ; but I look for i` in vain in
your circular, or your declaration, or your former letters.
In your declaration you say that " you acknowledge
the supremacy of the crown in ecclesiastical matters to be
a supreme civil power over all persons and causes in tem-
poral things, and over the temporal accidents of spiritual
things."
Here is a pointed rejection of " spiritual things" them-
selves; although they are included in the words of the
canon, as expressly as temporal things ; but you give no
intimation of a distinction between a legal and an abso-
lute supremacy.
In your first letter you say, " The royal supremacy
may mean two things—the ancient authority which was
restored to the crown, or the modern authority conferred
upon it." Neither of these was absolute. The distinc-
tion between them, if any, is between law and law ; and
therefore there is no intimation here of the distinction to

which you now have recourse, between legal and aosolute.
In my last letter I said, " You assert a distinction be-
tween the `ancient supremacy which was restored by the
crown, and the supremacy which has been created by the
recent statutes ;' but you make no attempt to point out
wherein the distinction lies, or to show that it affects the
essence of the authority, or extends to anything more than
the manner of its administration."
A difference there is indeed between the constitution of
the judicial com mittee, as now existing, and the constitution

of the court of delegates; but there IS no difference in the
legality of the supremacy administered by them

My ar-

gument on this Point had reference to our different inter-
pretations of what is legal, and not at all to the difference
between what is legal and what is absolute. What I said
was in exposition of our thirty-sixth canon, which asserts
the legal authority of our Sovereign, an authority ad-
mitted on all hands to be administrative of the " existing•

state of the law," and not till now, in this discussion, con.
trasted with an absolute authority.
It is happy for us in this age and realm, that the ques-
tion between the abso!ute and the legal need not be dis-
cussed. It has been long since settled here in England.

Our Christian doctrines are not now to be defined, or our
ecclesiastical laws to be framed. The questions under
discussion are matters not of legislation, but of interpre-
tation, and the decision to be made by royal authority, in
any extreme case, is, whether the doctrines, or opinions,
or practices objected to, be in agreement or disagreement
with the existing state of the law. If our essential Chris-
tian doctrines required alterations, or emendations, or ad-

ditions, as our secular laws do, reason would that we
should have a spiritual legislature : but as, thanks to
God, this is not the case ; as our doctrines are settled, and
repudiate ail pretence at development or improvement;
all we require is a competent administrative judge.
I gratefully avail myself of the words of the Archbishop
of Canterbury, where his grace save, " Our doctrines and
our formularies were settled at the Reformation, and the
agreement or disagreement of these with any opinior

.eu may Jecome matter of inquiry is a question well
suited to the habits of the Judicial Committee, as now
existing."

Fourthly, you say that I " did not at that time" (im-
plying. of course, that now I do) " suppose that to inter-
pret Scripture differently from the chief member of the
church was refractory and rebellious."
I did not indeed, at any time, suppose or assert it.
What I said was, that I looked upon any one who denied
or disputed the supreme authority of the sovereign as re-
fractory and rebellious. What supreme authority ? I
was expounding the 36th canon at the time, and obviously
referring to the authority therein defined. It is that au-
thority which, in my opinion, you are disputing. How
you "interpret Scripture" I do not know.
Such are some of the misrepresentations contained in
your last letter.

To justify yourself in issuing and abiding by your de-
claration, you should rather have addressed yourself to
the task of proving your alleged distinction between the
" ancient supremacy restored to the crown," to which
you are bound by oath and subscription, and " the supre-
macy created by recent statutes," against which you are
endeavouring to excite an extensive agitation. For the
reconciliation of your conduct with your oath, that dis-
tinction ought to be made clearly manifest. It is not
enough that you assert its existence, you ought to point
out wherein it consists. You cannot with truth say that
the one is legal and the other absolute, for both are legal,
defined by statute. The question of absolute irresponsible
authority is not involved at all in this discussion, but only
the interpretation of what is legal.
Till you have defined this more closely, and established
such a distinction between the ancient and modern laws
as will justify subscription on oath to the one, and active
agitation against the other, you must be content to rest
under the public imputation of a painfully suspicious in-
consistency an imputation grievously strengthened by
your well-known accordance with a party in our Church
who have been, one after another passing over to Rome;
and on the strength of whose supposed influence in this
country, it seems, the Pope of Rome has been ep.couraged
to parcel out the kingdom of England amongst his schis-
matical bishops. The divisions which have recently taken
place in that party, and the revelations made by seceders
from it, concerning the secret teaching and clandestine
practices of some of its leaders, have gone far to present
it in its true light before the nation. And whatever fa-
vour might attend a calm proposal for some moderate and
discriminating change in the constitution of the Judicial
Committee ; however reasonable men and sound Church-
men might desire some such modification as would re-
quire all members of the court of appeal to be c embers
of the Church,•there is, I think, no national favour, but,
on the contrary, a rapidly extending disgust, towards an
agitation which, under pretence of the independence of
the Church, aims at placing the priesthood in a position
to mar the simplicity of our national ritual, to constitute
themselves the judges of who should and who should not
be excommunicated, and thereby to wield coercive tyranny
over their conscientious lay brethren. It won't do. The
days of prostration under priestcraft are ended.
I appreciate the depth and sincerity of your concern for
my moderation and consistency. Had I disturbed the-
peace of the Church, and attempted an agitation by a cir-
cular like your's, I would have left wyaelf fairly open,
and could not ha.o rcabonably complained against any re-
coil. As it is, all you say on this point is nothing to the
purpose. I scorned an anonymous reply to your circular,
and your recoil on me personally can in no wise strengthen
or justify yourself.
Against " Jezebel," of whom you kindly remind me, I
am consistent, though not what you deem moderate ; be-
cause the Word of God is not moderate. It dzseribes her
as an idolatrous woman allied to the people of God, and
availing herself of the influence of that alliance to perse-
cute to death the true prophets of the Lord, a woman
calling herself a prophetess and teaching and seducing the
people of God to practise idolatry. Less than this I can-
not say of her, because I have a commission to " preach
the word."

Against will worship, purgatory, pardons, adoration as
well of images as of reliques, and also invocation of saints ;
against public prayer in an unknown tongue; against
transubstantiation, which overthroweth the nature of a
sacrament ; against adoration of the sacramental bread
and wine, an idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Chris-
tians ; against the withholding of the cup in the Lord's
supper from the laity; against the compulsory celibacy
of the clergy; against the jurisdiction, of any sort of de-
gree, of the Bishop of Rome in this realm of England ;
against all these, and falsehoods kindred to these, taught
systematically in Maynooth College ; also against the use
of rosaries and crucifixes, special devotions to the five
wounds of our Saviour, auricular confession, monastic
life, and all the other Romish practices which Mr. Dods-
worth compliments Dr. Pusey on having secretly taught
his disciples and friends, I am consistent, and hope, by
God's help, to remain so, because I have, ex animo, with-
out equivocation or mental reservation, or non-natural
interpretation, subscribed our Thirty-nine Articles.
Against Roman Catholic emancipation, which you have
deemed it relevant to introduce, I am consistent, believ-
ing, as I did at the time, that it was a betrayal of the
best interests of our Christian Church, and by inevitable
consequence, sooner or later, of the highest prosperity of
this state and kingdom ; and believing, as I do now, that
it opened the door for those machinations of the society
of Jesuits, under various disguises, lay ond clerical, male
and female, which are shaking the foutzdations of our
social edifice. With dutiful respect, and conscientious
fidelity, I would address to our most gracious Queen th

language of John Picus, Earl of Mirandula, to the Em.
peror Maximilian, in A.D. 1500. Complaining of the
state of the Church in his days, he said, "It is shaken by
outward enemies, rent in pieces by inward ; and this
sheepfold, enclosed about, and consecrated by the blood
of Jesus Christ. hath suffered, and doth daily suffer, much
more from wolves in sheep's clothing, than from the
wolves which assail it in their own skin. Set, therefore,
your hand to it, most excellent Emperor"—his appeal for
Church reform was to the imperial supremacy—" show
thyself a faithful servant to Christ, the King of kings,
who will presently deliver his sheep, both from enemies
and from perfidious pastors."
One word more. You are agitating against the exist.
ing state of the law, under pretence that it is not what it
was, or what you understood it to be. " For," you say,
" the ultimate decision in points of doctrine was neither
exercised nor possessed by our sovereign till it was given
to the crown by act of parliament seventeen years ago."
Now, without opening the discussion again, and show-
ing that the spiritual supremacy of our sovereign has
respect to our fixed doctrines, as her temporal. supremacy
has to existing acts of parliament, I wish to ask you how
it has happened that, during the seventeen years to wnich
you refer, you have never objected to the existing state
of the law until now ? Nay, that within the last few
months you acquiesced in the principle of the appeal,
published no pro'est against the constitution of the Judi-
cial Committee, observed a respectful and deferential
silence during the protracted pleadings, and the removal
of the cause from court to court, and that not until the
decision was final and adverse did we hear a word of
objection from you ?
Is your objection to the court or to the verdict ? If to
the court, you canoot be complimented on your faithful
consistency for seventeen years : if to the verdict, you
occupy the common place, and are certainly entitled to
the common sympathy, of defeated and mortified clients.
—I am, venerable sir, your obedient servant,

Liverpool, 28th October, 1850.

HUGH M`NEILE

DR. WISEMAN'S APPOINTMENT,

The Bishop of London has replied in vigorous terms to
the address presented to him by the clergy of Westmin-
ster, on the recent appointment by the Pope of an Arch-
bishop of Westminster. Since that address was presented,
above twenty additional signatures have been received.
The following is the Bishop's reply :

" Fulham, October 26, 1850.
" Reverend and Dear Brethren,—The sentiments expressed
in the address which you have presented to me are in entire
accordance with mine, and I am persuaded that they will be
responded to by the unanimous feeling of Protestant England.
"The recent assumption of authority by the Bishop of Rome,
in pretending to parcel out this country into new dioceses, and
to appoint Archbishops and Bishops to preside over them,
without the consent of the Sovere►gn, is a schismatical act
without p►ecedent, and one which would not be tolerated by
the Government of any Roman Catholic kingdom. I trust
that it will not be quietly submitted to by our own.

" Hitherto, from the time of the Refoi:mation, the Pope has
been contented with providing for the spiritual superintend-
ence of his adherents in this country, by the appointment of
Vicars Apostolic—Bishops who took their titles as such, not
from any real or pretended sees in England, but from some
imaginary dioceses in partibus infideliuni. In this there was
no assumption of spiritual authority over any other of the
subjects of the English Crown than those of his own commu-
nion. But the appointment of Bishops to preside over new
dioceses in England, constituted by a papal brief, is virtually a
denial of the legitimate authority .of the British sovereign and
of the English Episcopate; a dental also of the validity of our
orders, and an assertion of spiritual jurisdiction over the whole
Christian people of the realm.
. .

`` That it is.regarded in this light by the Pope's adherents in

this couty ry is apparent from the language in which they feli-
citate themselves upon this arrogant attempt to stretch his
authority beyond its proper limits: A journal, which is gene-
rally believed to express the sentiments of a large purtion of
them at least (not, I believe, of all), points out, in the follow-
ing words, the difference between the Vicars Apostolic and the
pretended diocesan Bishops. Alluding to certain members of
our Church, who are accused of a lerning towards Rome, it
says:—' In this act of Pius IX. they have that open declaration
for which they have been, so long professing to look. Rome,
said they, has never yet formally spoken against us. Her
Bishops, indeed, are tent here. not as havinv nnv Inrni nnthn_

rity, but as pastors without flocks; Bishops of Tadmor in the
Desert, or of the ruins of Babylon, intruding into territories
w:lich they cannot formally claim as their own. This specious
argument is once for all silenced. Rome has more than spo.
ken—she has spoken and acted. She has Lgain divided our
land into dioceses, and has placed over each a pastor, to whom
all baptised persons, without exception, within that district,
are openly commanded to submit themselves in all ecclesiasti-
cal matters under pain of damnation; and the Anglican Sees,
thnaP ohnßl,2 nf .........

" The advisers of the Pope have skilfully contrived so to
shape this encroachment upon the rights and honour of the
Crown and Church of England, that his nominees to imaginary
dioceses will not actually offend against the letter of the law
by assuming the titles which he has pretended to confer upon

velem ; out treat it is contrary to the spirit of the law there can
be no doubt. As little doubt can there he that it is intended
as an insult to the Sovereign and the Church of this country.
" With respect to the conduct proper to be pursued by you
on this occasion, it ought, in my opinion, to be temperate and
charitable, but firm and uncompromising.
" You will do well to call the attention of your people to the
real purport of this open assault upon our Reformed Church ;
and to take measures for petitioning the Legislature to carry
out the principle of the statute which forbids all persons, other
than the perse

,„..uns -,lsed by law, to assume or use the name,
style, or title of an Archbishop of any province, Bishop of any
bishopric, or Dean of any deanery in England or Ireland, by
extending the prohibition to any pretended diocese or deane-
ries in these realms.

" It is possible that such prohibitions might not have the
effect of preventing tl'e assumption of titles by the Papal
Bishops when dealing with their own adherents ; but it would
make the assumption unlawful, and it would mark the deter-
mination of the people of this country not to permit any fo-
reign Prelate to exercise spiritual jurisdiction over them.

a But there are other duties besides those of protesting and
petitioning, the performance of which seems to be specially
required of us by the present emergency. Unwilling as lam
to encourage controversial preaching, I must say that we are
driven to base recourae to it by this attempted usurpation of
authority on the put of the Bishbp of Rome, and by the acti-
vity and subtlety of his emissaries in all parts of the kingdom.
We are surely called upon for a more than ordinary measure
of watchfulness and diligence in fulfilling the promise which
we gave when we were admitted to the priesthood, to banish
and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary
to God's word.'

" Let us he careful, as well in our public ministrations as in
our private monitions and exhortations, to refrain from doing
or saying anything which may seem to indicate a wish to make
the slightest approach to a Church which, far from manifesting
a desire to lay aside any of the errors and superstitions which
compelled us to separate from it, is now reasserting them with
a degree of boldness unknown since the Reformation ; is add-
ing new credenda to its articles of faith, and is undisguisedly
teaching its members the duty of worshipping the creature
with the worship due only to the Creator.
" After all, I am much inclined to believe that in having
recourse to the extreme measure which has called forth your
address, the Court of Rome has been ill-advised as regards the
extension of its influence in this country, and that it has taken
a false step. That step will, I am convinced, tend to strengthen
the Protestant feeling of the people at large, and will cause
some persons to hesitate and draw back who are disposed to
make concessions to Rome, under a mistaken impression that
she has abated somewhat of her ancient pretensions, and that
a union of the two Churches might possibly be effected without
the sacrifice of any fundamental principle. Hardly anything
could more effectually dispel that illusion than the recent pro-
ceeding of the Roman Pontiff. He virtually condemns and
excommunicates the whole English Church, Sovereign, Bi-
shops, clergy, and laity, and shuts the door against every
scheme of comprehension save that which should take for its
basis an entire and unconditional submission to the spiritual
authority of the Bishop of Rome.
" That it may please the Divine Head of the Church, who is
the true centre of unity and the only infallible judge, to guide
and strengthen us in these days of rebuke and trial, to open
our eyes to the dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions,
and to unite us in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith
and charity, is the earnest prayer, reverend and dear brethren,
of your affectionate friend and bishop, _ _

(Signed)
" To the Rev. the Clergy of the City and
Liberties of Westminster."

" C. J. LONDON

It is with feelings of pleasure that we publish the fol-
lowing official letter, with reference to the supposed sanc-
tion of the government to the steps recently taken by the
Pope. It was addressed to a gentleman in Exeter :

" Downing-street, Oct. 28. 1850.

" Sir,-

—I am directed by Lord John Russell to inform you,
in answer to your question whether a list of Roman Catholic
prelates contained in a newspaper is correct, that he has no
other means of judging than you have yourself—namely, by
reading the bull of the Pope in the newspapers.
" o the second question, whether the creation of the above
Popish bishoprics, or the appointments thereto, have received
the sanction and approbation of her Majesty's ministers ? ' I
am directed to answer that they Wive not received such sanc-
tion and approbation.
" I am directed further to state that Lord Minto, when in
Rome. was not consulted on this measure, and never gave any
countenance to it.

" I have the honour to he, Sir,
" Your obedient servant,
" R, W. GREY.'

The following protest against the insult recently offered
by the Bishop of Rome to the Sovereign and Church of
England is in course of signature by the clergy of the
archdeaconry of Middlesex. The names, already nume-
rous, will be published in a few days :

" We, the archdeacon and undersigned clergy of the arch-
deaconry of Middlesex, consider it our duty to make a public
declaration of our sentiments in an emergency without a pre-.
cedent in the annals of this Reformed Church. .

" The Bishop of Rome, in pursuance of an aggressive policy
not attempted in this country since the Reformation by the
boldest of his predecessors, has presumed to nominate a Ro-
mish ecclesiastical Archbishop of Westminster, and to desig-
nate other English cities or towns as episcopal sees of other
Romish ecclesiastics ; thus giving a complete provincial and
diocesan organisation to the Papal hierarchy in England and
Wales. _ .

" We, therefore, the undersigned ministers of Christ's Holy
Catholic and Apostolic Church, having been duly called ac-
cording to the laws of this Church and realm to discharge
spiritual functions ; being also bound by our ordination vows
' to minister the discipline of Christ as this Church and realm
have received the same;' and to banish and drive away all
erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's Word';—
and having solemnly declared our assent to the principle em-
bodied in the ordinal, articles, and canons of our Church, that
' the Queen's. Majesty, under God, is the only supreme gover-
nor of this realm, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical causes
as in temporal' ' • and that no foreign prince or prelate bath, or
ought to have, here, any power, superiority, pre-eminence, or
authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, and that' the Bishop of
Rome bath no jurisdiction in this realm of England' ;—feel it
our bounden duty,• at this unprecedented crisis, to protest
against this usurpation of authority by a foreign prelate, and
to invite the co-operation of our lay brethren in prevailing
upon her Majesty's government, and if necessary on the legis•
lature, to adopt such measures as shall cause this schismatical
and intrusive step to be retraced, and prevent those evil con-
sequences to our national institutions which it must otherwise
produce."
- - -

The Rev. the vicar of Leeds has just issued the following
notice :

"I give notice, that after the Becalm' Chapter on Monday, a
meeting of the clergy of the deanery of Leeds will be held in the
vestry of the parish church, to take into consideration the pro-
priety of addressing the Lord Bishop of the diwese, upon the
insult offered to the Church and State of England, by the into-
lerable pride and tyranny of a foreign prince and potentate, who
neither bath nor ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superi-
ority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual,
within this realm, but who has lately established, so far as in
him lies, an heretical and schismatical hierarchy among us ;
and also, in the event of the clergy deciding upon an address to
his lordship, to draw up, or to appo int a committee to draw up,
such ah address as shall express tde sentiments of the meeting.
W. F. 11430 K, D.D., Rural Dean.
Vicarage, ,Leeds, 31e1 October,lBso.