‘Having thus, I hope, justified myself from any accusation of want of candour, I proceed to answer your questions as briefly as I can.
‘If you understand by the opus operatum “efficacy” of Baptism,—that all who are baptized are therefore saved (a doctrine which Mr. Shepheard assured me was held by some), I explicitly state that I do not hold that doctrine. I believe Baptism to be “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us” (Catechism); to be the appointed means for admitting members into the Church of Christ, according to St. Paul’s teaching that “Christ gave Himself for the Church that He might save it and cleanse it by the washing of water by the word” (Eph. v. 26); that “according to His mercy we are saved by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit. iii. 5); that we are therein made “members of Christ” and adopted “children of God”; but when I use the word “regeneration” I do not understand that spoken of by St. John when he says, “he that is born of God cannot sin,” but that gift of life without which we are unable even to think any good thing; a gift which the Bishop solemnly declares to have been already received by those who come to be confirmed (Confirmation Service), but which requires daily renewal, a gift which we may lose by grieving God’s Holy Spirit by neglecting the means of grace, by hiding our Lord’s treasure. And this teaching I hold because I find it in the Bible, which I acknowledge with the sixth article to be our only rule of faith—because it seems to me the basis of St. Paul’s teaching (1 Cor. iii.; 2 Cor. vi. 10)—and it makes our responsibilities higher and deeper if we acknowledge with the Apostle in the language which he used to the whole of the Corinthian Church, that we are “the temples of the Holy Ghost.” I feel that any partial views which tell us of God’s grace being given to some and not to others are contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture. Your second question again cannot be categorically answered, since it has never been defined what are the opinions of the High Church party; I would say that I differ from some who assume that title....[37] I think no one could entertain a greater dread than I of those Romish opinions entertained by some “who went out from us, but were not of us”; indeed during the last six months I have been engaged in preparing an English History for the use of schools, because Ince’s Outlines (a book used in your College) inculcates Romish doctrines.
‘In conclusion, I must apologize for the unmethodical way in which I have expressed myself, as I am writing in great haste to catch the next post, and I have thought it right to reply to you without consulting any person or book, except the Bible and Prayer Book. I have endeavoured to be perfectly candid;—should the Council decide that my views are so unsound that I am unfit to occupy the position to which I have been appointed, I shall trust that they will allow me to make as public a statement of my opinions as they are obliged to make of my dismissal, for I shall feel that after this no person of moderate views will trust me, and my own conscience would not allow me to work with the extreme party in either high or low church.’
The diary of these two days gives a hint of the anxiety Miss Beale underwent when the attack was made upon her, and before she could receive answers to her own letters:—
‘July 12.—Mr. B(ell)’s letter about H(igh) Church from Cheltenham, and my answer. Some vanity. (Prayer) for resignation.
‘July 13.—Sent proofs to Cheltenham. Dined at the Curlings. Dr. Clarke very agreeable. Felt angry with Mr. Shepheard.’
Mr. Bell’s reply to Miss Beale’s letter suggests that the difficulty before the Council was less directly one of religious principle than that of working a school where certain precise opinions were not professed.
‘July 13, 1858.
‘My dear Miss Beale,—I have to-day laid your reply before Mr. Hartland and Dr. Comyn, the only two of my colleagues now here, and we have no fault to find with its tenor, which is explicit enough. Whether or not the fact of your holding the opinions thus avowed will lead to difficulties hereafter, we cannot say. If you feel conscientiously bound in and out of class to make known and inculcate your distinctive views of doctrine according to your interpretation of scripture and of our Liturgy and Articles, then it is easy to foresee the result. If, however (as I hope), you regard it of primary importance in the instruction of the children to inculcate love to God and His Son, and charity (in its manifold phases and with its relative duties), towards our fellows—treating as of far minor importance the doctrinal points about which good men differ so widely,—then I should not anticipate any active opposition from those to whom your peculiar opinions may be known.
‘The gentleman (a resident clergyman of some influence) to whom the two quoted letters were addressed, is now absent for a few days; and it remains to be seen whether his scruples and objections are, if not removed, at least rendered quiescent by your reply. If he should withdraw his children, and make known the grounds of doing so, the effect would undoubtedly be prejudicial to the College, and the experiment of conducting it under your auspices might be futile. Much may depend on what answer you can conscientiously make to this question:—