A Second Letter to the Rev. William Maskell, M.A. / Some thoughts on the position of the Church of England, as to her dogmatic teaching

by Mayow Wynell Mayow

[60a] Chambers’ Review, pp. 23, 24. Lord Coke, 2 Ins. 30; 3 Rep. 31, per Dwarris, 564.

[60b] Chambers, p. 34. Dwarris, 605.

[61a] Chambers, p. 44. Sandeman v. Breach, 7 B. and C. 96.

[61b] Ibid. Stanton v. University of Oxford, 1 Jon. 26.

[61c] Ibid. p. 45. Gregory’s Ca. 6 Rep. 196; Dwarris, 514.

[63] Speech of Edward Badeley, Esq. pp. 95–97.

[64] Badeley, p. 99.

[66a] Badeley’s Speech, pp. 101, 102.

[66b] Ibid. p. 102.

[69] The objection to be drawn from the sentence of the court in the case in question, with reference to Mr. Badeley’s argument from antiquity, and the teaching of the Church previous to the reformation, is even of less real weight than I have here implied; because that court does not appear at all to have applied itself to the principle for which Mr. Badeley contended. It seems rather to have forgotten its existence, than seriously to have examined and condemned it; and though it may be said, perhaps, that such passing it over affords a presumption of its unsoundness, yet this, I think, is all that can be made out of its treatment by that tribunal. Whatever, therefore, be the presumption, it is certainly no proof and no sentence as to the unsoundness of the position taken up by Mr. Badeley even for the purpose of the particular case, much less of its unsoundness generally. So many other causes may be conceived to have operated upon the Judges’ minds in coming to the conclusion they did; for instance, they may have admitted Mr. Badeley’s principle, but thought the doctrine in question, as maintained by the Bishop of Exeter, was not sufficiently identified with the universal teaching of the Church; or that that very teaching was itself vague; or that posterior documents of the English Church absolutely contradicted the earlier doctrine; (however improbable, such reasons are conceivable as influencing the actual decision;) and thus we are not warranted in supposing there is any sentence unfavourable to the soundness of Mr. Badeley’s principle of catholic tradition, by the proceedings of this court of appeal in reference to it.